Sediment Quality in Puget SoundYear 2 - Central Puget Sound

December 2000

Bellingham

Blaine

MountVernon

PortTownsend

Sa

rat o

ga

P

a s s age

Pu

ge

tS

ou

nd

OrcasIsland

LopezIsland

San JuanIsland

OlympicPeninsula

Whidbey Island

S t ra i t o fJuan De Fuca S k a g i t

B ay

S t ra i t o fG e o r g i a

N0 10 20

kilometers

PointRoberts

Po s s e s s i o nS o u n d

Nisqually River

Puyallup River

Green River

Cedar RiverDuwamishWaterway

Olympia

Tacoma

Seattle

Everett

Anacortes

Bremerton

Lake Washington

Hood Canal

SnoqualmieRiver

SkykomishRiver

SnohomishRiver

Skagit River

Stillaguamish River

NooksackRiver

U.S. Department of CommerceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm.

National Ocean ServiceNational Centers for Coastal Ocean ScienceCtr. for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment

Silver Spring, Maryland

NOS NCCOS CCMATechnical Memo No. 147

Washington State Department of EcologyEnvironmental Assessment Program

Environmental Monitoring andTrends Section

Olympia, Washington

Publication No. 00-03-055

National Status andNational Status andNational Status andNational Status andTrends ProgramTrends ProgramTrends ProgramTrends Program

For additional copies of this publication,please contact:

Department of EcologyPublications Distributions Office

P. O. Box 47600Olympia, Washington 98504-7600

Phone (360) 407-7472

Refer to Publication Number 00-03-055

General information and all data generated during this survey can be accessed fromEcology’s Marine Sediment Monitoring website:

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/psamp/index.htm

and the Sediment Quality Information System (SEDQUAL) website:http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sedqualfirst.html

The Department of Ecology is an equal opportunity agency and does not discriminate onthe basis of race, creed, color, disability, age, religion, national origin, sex, marital status,disabled veteran's status, Vietnam Era veteran's status, or sexual orientation.

If you have special accommodation needs or require this document in alternative format,please contact the Environmental Assessment Program, Michelle Ideker at(360)-407-6677 (voice). Ecology's telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD)number at Ecology Headquarters is (360) 407-6006.

Sediment Quality in Puget SoundYear 2 - Central Puget Sound

December 2000

by

Edward R. Long, Jawed Hameedi, and Andrew RobertsonNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Margaret Dutch, Sandra Aasen, and Kathy WelchWashington State Department of Ecology

Stuart MagoonManchester Environmental Laboratory

Washington State Department of Ecology

R. Scott Carr, Tom Johnson, and James BiedenbachU.S. Geological Service

Dr. K. John Scott and Cornelia MuellerScience Applications International Corporation

Jack W. AndersonColumbia Analytical Services

Waterbody Numbers

WA-09-0010WA-15-0010WA-15-0020WA-15-0030WA-15-0040WA-15-0050WA-17-0020

WA-17-0030WA-PS-0040WA-PS-0220WA-PS-0230WA-PS-0240WA-PS-0270

This page is purposely blank for duplex printing

Page i

Table of Contents

List of Appendices.......................................................................................................................... ivList of Figures ................................................................................................................................. vList of Tables.................................................................................................................................. ixAcronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................................xiiiAbstract ........................................................................................................................................ xivExecutive Summary ...................................................................................................................... xvAcknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xixIntroduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Project Background ................................................................................................................... 1Site Description ......................................................................................................................... 1Toxicant-Related Research in Central Puget Sound ................................................................. 2

The Sediment Quality Information System (SEDQUAL) Database ....................................... 5Goals and Objectives................................................................................................................. 6

Methods........................................................................................................................................... 8Sampling Design ....................................................................................................................... 8Sample Collection ..................................................................................................................... 9Laboratory Analyses................................................................................................................ 10

Toxicity Testing .................................................................................................................... 10Amphipod Survival - Solid Phase ..................................................................................... 10Sea Urchin Fertilization - Pore Water .............................................................................. 12Microbial Bioluminescence (Microtox ) - Organic Solvent Extract .............................. 13Human Reporter Gene System (Cytochrome P450) Response- Organic Solvent Extract .................................................................................................. 14

Chemical Analyses ................................................................................................................ 16Grain Size.......................................................................................................................... 17Total Organic Carbon (TOC) ............................................................................................ 17Metals ................................................................................................................................ 17Mercury ............................................................................................................................. 17Butyl Tins .......................................................................................................................... 18Base/Neutral/Acid (BNA) Organic Compounds ............................................................... 18Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) (extended list)............................................. 18Chlorinated Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Aroclors ............................ 18PCB Congeners ................................................................................................................. 18

Benthic Community Analyses............................................................................................... 18Sample Processing and Sorting ......................................................................................... 18Taxonomic Identification .................................................................................................. 19

Data Summary, Display, and Statistical Analysis ................................................................... 19Toxicity Testing .................................................................................................................... 19

Amphipod Survival – Solid Phase .................................................................................... 19Sea Urchin Fertilization - Pore Water .............................................................................. 19Microbial Bioluminescence (Microtox ) - Organic Solvent Extract .............................. 20

Page ii

Human Reporter Gene System (Cytochrome P450) Response- Organic Solvent Extract .................................................................................................. 20Incidence and Severity, Spatial Patterns and Gradients,and Spatial Extent of Sediment Toxicity........................................................................... 21Concordance Among Toxicity Tests ................................................................................. 21

Chemical Analyses ................................................................................................................ 21Spatial Patterns and Spatial Extent of Sediment Contamination ...................................... 21

Chemistry/Toxicity Relationships......................................................................................... 22Benthic Community Analyses............................................................................................... 23Benthic Community/Chemistry and Benthic Community/Toxicity Analyses ...................... 23Sediment Quality Triad Analyses.......................................................................................... 23

Results ........................................................................................................................................... 25Toxicity Testing ...................................................................................................................... 25

Incidence and Severity of Toxicity........................................................................................ 25Amphipod Survival - Solid Phase ..................................................................................... 25Sea Urchin Fertilization – Pore Water .............................................................................. 25Microbial Bioluminescence (Microtox™) and Human Reporter Gene System(Cytochrome P450) Response - Organic Solvent Extract ................................................. 26

Spatial Patterns and Gradients in Toxicity............................................................................ 27Amphipod Survival and Sea Urchin Fertilization ............................................................. 28Microbial Bioluminescence (Microtox™) ........................................................................ 28Human Reporter Gene System (Cytochrome P450).......................................................... 29Summary ........................................................................................................................... 29

Spatial Extent of Toxicity ..................................................................................................... 30Concordance among Toxicity Tests ...................................................................................... 30

Chemical Analyses .................................................................................................................. 31Grain Size.............................................................................................................................. 31Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Temperature, and Salinity..................................................... 31Metals and Organics.............................................................................................................. 31Spatial Patterns in Chemical Contamination......................................................................... 32

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 34Spatial Extent of Chemical Contamination........................................................................... 34

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 36Relationships between Measures of Toxicity and Chemical Concentrations ....................... 36

Toxicity vs. Classes of Chemical Compounds.................................................................. 36Toxicity vs. Individual Chemicals..................................................................................... 37Summary ........................................................................................................................... 39

Benthic Community Analyses................................................................................................. 39Community Composition and Benthic Indices ..................................................................... 39

Total Abundance ............................................................................................................... 39Major Taxa Abundance..................................................................................................... 40Taxa Richness ................................................................................................................... 41Evenness............................................................................................................................ 41Swartz’s Dominance Index (SDI) ..................................................................................... 41Summary ........................................................................................................................... 41

Page iii

Relationships between Benthic Infaunal Indices andSediment Characteristics, Toxicity, and Chemical Concentrations ...................................... 42

Benthic Infauna Indices vs. Grain Size and Total Organic Carbon................................... 42Benthic Infauna Indices vs. Toxicity................................................................................. 42Benthic Infauna Indices vs. Classes of Chemical Compounds ......................................... 43Benthic Infauna Indices vs. Individual Chemical Compounds ......................................... 43Summary ........................................................................................................................... 44

Triad Synthesis: A Comparison of Chemistry, Toxicity, and Infaunal Parameters .............. 45Summary ........................................................................................................................... 52

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 54Spatial Extent of Toxicity ....................................................................................................... 54

Amphipod Survival – Solid Phase ........................................................................................ 54Sea Urchin Fertilization - Pore Water ................................................................................... 55Microbial Bioluminescence (Microtox™) - Organic Solvent Extract .................................. 56Human Reporter Gene System (Cytochrome P450) Response -Organic Solvent Extract ........................................................................................................ 57

Levels of Chemical Contamination......................................................................................... 58Toxicity/Chemistry Relationships......................................................................................... 59

Benthic Community Structure, the “Triad” Synthesis, andthe Weight-of-Evidence Approach.......................................................................................... 60

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 64Literature Cited.............................................................................................................................. 67

Page iv

List of AppendicesAppendix A. Detected chemicals from central Puget Sound sediment samples in the

SEDQUAL database exceeding Washington State Sediment Quality Standards(SQS) and Puget Sound Marine Sediment Cleanup Screening Levels (CSL). ................... 201

Appendix B. Navigation report for the 1998 central Puget Sound sampling stations................ 213

Appendix C. Field notes for the 1998 central Puget Sound sampling stations. ......................... 227

Appendix D. Table 1. Grain size distribution for the 1998 central Puget Sound samplingstations................................................................................................................................. 233

Appendix D. Table 2. Total organic carbon, temperature, and salinity measurementsfor the 1998 central Puget Sound sampling stations. .......................................................... 238

Appendix D. Table 3. Summary statistics for metal and organic chemicals for the 1998central Puget Sound sampling stations. ............................................................................... 242

Appendix D. Figure 1. Grain size distribution for the 1998 central Puget Soundsampling stations.................................................................................................................. 249

Appendix E. 1998 Central Puget Sound benthic infaunal species list. ...................................... 257

Appendix F. Percent taxa abundance for the 1998 central Puget Sound sampling stations....... 277

Appendix G. Infaunal taxa eliminated from the 1998 central Puget Sound benthicinfaunal database. ................................................................................................................ 285

Appendix H. Triad data - Results of selected toxicity, chemistry, and infaunal analysisfor all 1998 central Puget Sound stations. ........................................................................... 289

Appendix I. Ranges in detected chemical concentrations and numbers of samplesfor national, SEDQUAL, and 1998 PSAMP/NOAA central Puget Sound data. ................ 321

Appendix J. SEDQUAL surveys for the 1998 central Puget Sound sampling area. .................. 331

Appendix K. National and Washington State Sediment Guidelines. ......................................... 341

Page v

List of FiguresFigure 1. Map of the central Puget Sound study area for the NOAA/PSAMP Cooperative

Agreement. ............................................................................................................................ 73

Figure 2. Map of central Puget Sound SEDQUAL stations where chemical contaminantsin sediment samples exceeded Washington State Sediment Quality Standards(SQS) and Puget Sound Marine Sediment Cleanup Screening Levels (CSL). ..................... 74

Figure 3a. Central Puget Sound sampling strata for the PSAMP/NOAA Bioeffects Survey,all strata. ................................................................................................................................ 75

Figure 3b. Central Puget Sound sampling stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA BioeffectsSurvey, Port Townsend to Possession Sound (strata 1 through 5).. ...................................... 76

Figure 3c. Central Puget Sound sampling stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA BioeffectsSurvey, Port Madison and central basin (strata 6 through 8) and Liberty Bay toBainbridge Island (13 through 15)......................................................................................... 77

Figure 3d. Central Puget Sound sampling stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA BioeffectsSurvey, Eagle Harbor, central basin, and East Passage, (strata 9 through 12). ..................... 78

Figure 3e. Central Puget Sound sampling stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA BioeffectsSurvey, Bremerton to Port Orchard (strata 16 through 22). .................................................. 79

Figure 3f. Central Puget Sound sampling stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA BioeffectsSurvey, Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River (strata 23 through 32).......................... 80

Figure 4. Summary of 1998 amphipod survival tests and sea urchin fertilization tests forstations in Port Townsend to Possession Sound (strata 1 through 5).................................... 81

Figure 5. Summary of 1998 amphipod survival tests and sea urchin fertilization tests forstations in Port Madison and central basin (strata 6 through 8) and Liberty Bay toBainbridge Island (13 through 15)......................................................................................... 82

Figure 6. Summary of 1998 amphipod survival tests and sea urchin fertilization tests forstations in Eagle Harbor, central basin, and East Passage (strata 9 through 12). .................. 83

Figure 7. Summary of 1998 amphipod survival tests and sea urchin fertilization tests forstations in Bremerton to Port Orchard (strata 16 through 22). .............................................. 84

Figure 8. Summary of 1998 amphipod survival tests and sea urchin fertilization tests forstations in Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River (strata 23 through 32)...................... 85

Figure 9. Results of 1998 Microtox bioluminescence tests for stations in Port Townsendto Possession Sound (strata 1 through 5)............................................................................... 86

Page vi

Figure 10. Results of 1998 Microtox bioluminescence tests for stations in Port Madisonand central basin (strata 6 through 8) and Liberty Bay to Bainbridge Island(13 through 15). ..................................................................................................................... 87

Figure 11. Results of 1998 Microtox bioluminescence tests for stations in Bremerton toPort Orchard (strata 16 through 22)....................................................................................... 88

Figure 12. Results of 1998 Microtox bioluminescence for stations in Eagle Harbor, centralbasin, and East Passage (strata 9 through 12)........................................................................ 89

Figure 13. Results of 1998 Microtox bioluminescence tests for stations in Elliott Bay and thelower Duwamish River (strata 23 through 32). ..................................................................... 90

Figure 14. Results of 1998 cytochrome P450 HRGS assays for stations in Port Townsendto Possession Sound (strata 1 through 5)............................................................................... 91

Figure 15. Results of 1998 cytochrome P450 HRGS assays for stations in Port Madisonand central basin (strata 6 through 8) and Liberty Bay to Bainbridge Island(13 through 15). ..................................................................................................................... 92

Figure 16. Results of 1998 cytochrome P450 HRGS assays for stations in Bremerton toPort Orchard (strata 16 through 22)....................................................................................... 93

Figure 17. Results of 1998 cytochrome P450 HRGS assays for stations in Eagle Harbor,central basin, and East Passage (strata 9 through 12)............................................................ 94

Figure 18. Results of 1998 cytochrome P450 HRGS assays for stations in Elliott Bay andthe lower Duwamish River (strata 23 through 32). ............................................................... 95

Figure 19. Sampling stations in Port Townsend to Possession Sound (strata 1 through 5)with sediment chemical concentrations exceeding numerical guidelines andWashington State criteria. ..................................................................................................... 96

Figure 20. Sampling stations in Port Madison and central basin (strata 6 through 8) andLiberty Bay to Bainbridge Island (13 through 15) with sediment chemicalconcentrations exceeding numerical guidelines and Washington State criteria.................... 97

Figure 21. Sampling stations in Eagle Harbor, central basin, and East Passage (strata 9through 12) with sediment chemical concentrations exceeding numerical guidelinesand Washington State criteria................................................................................................ 98

Figure 22. Sampling stations in Bremerton to Port Orchard (strata 16 through 22) withsediment chemical concentrations exceeding numerical guidelines and WashingtonState criteria........................................................................................................................... 99

Page vii

Figure 23. Sampling stations in Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River (strata 23through 32) with sediment chemical concentrations exceeding numerical guidelinesand Washington State criteria.............................................................................................. 100

Figure 24. Relationship between cytochrome P450 HRGS and the mean ERM quotientsfor 13 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments........... 101

Figure 25. Relationship between sea urchin fertilization in pore water and concentrationsof lead (partial digestion) in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments. .................................... 101

Figure 26. Relationship between microbial bioluminescence and concentrations ofcadmium (partial digestion) in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments. ................................ 102

Figure 27. Relationship between sea urchin fertilization in pore water and concentrationsof tin (total digestion) in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments........................................... 102

Figure 28. Relationship between sea urchin fertilization in pore water and the sum of 13polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments. .................... 103

Figure 29. Relationship between sea urchin fertilization in pore water and the sum of 15polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments. .................... 103

Figure 30. Relationship between cytochrome P450 HRGS and the sum of 13 polynucleararomatic hydrocarbons in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments. ........................................ 104

Figure 31. Relationship between cytochrome P450 HRGS and the sum of 15 polynucleararomatic hydrocarbons in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments. ........................................ 104

Figure 32. Relationship between urchin fertilization and concentrations of dibutyltin in 1998central Puget Sound sediments............................................................................................ 105

Figure 33. Relationship between urchin fertilization and concentrations of tributyltin in 1998central Puget Sound sediments............................................................................................ 105

Figure 34. Relationship between microbial bioluminescence and concentrations of benzoicacid in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments. ...................................................................... 106

Figure 35. Relationship between cytochrome P450 HRGS and concentrations of dibutyltinin 1998 central Puget Sound sediments............................................................................... 106

Figure 36. Relationship between cytochrome P450 HRGS and concentrations of tributyltinin 1998 central Puget Sound sediments............................................................................... 107

Figure 37. Relationship between cytochrome P450 HRGS and concentrations ofdibenzofuran in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments......................................................... 107

Page viii

Figure 38. Central Puget Sound stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA Bioeffects Surveywith significant results and stations with non-significant results for chemistry andtoxicity tests, Port Townsend to Possession Sound (strata 1 through 5). ............................ 108

Figure 39. Central Puget Sound stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA Bioeffects Surveywith significant results and stations with non-significant results for chemistry andtoxicity tests, Port Madison and central basin (strata 6 through 8) and Liberty Bay toBainbridge Island (13 through 15)....................................................................................... 109

Figure 40. Central Puget Sound stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA Bioeffects Surveywith significant results and stations with non-significant results for chemistry andtoxicity tests, Eagle Harbor, central basin, and East Passage(strata 9 through 12). ............ 110

Figure 41. Central Puget Sound stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA Bioeffects Surveywith significant results and stations with non-significant results for chemistry andtoxicity tests, Bremerton to Port Orchard (strata 16 through 22). ....................................... 111

Figure 42. Central Puget Sound stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA Bioeffects Surveywith significant results and stations with non-significant results for chemistry andtoxicity tests, Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River (strata 23 through 32). ............ 112

Page ix

List of TablesTable 1. Central Puget Sound sampling strata for the PSAMP/NOAA Bioeffects Survey........ 113

Table 2. Chemical and physical analyses conducted on sediments collected from centralPuget Sound......................................................................................................................... 114

Table 3. Chemistry Parameters: Laboratory analytical methods and reporting limits. .............. 117

Table 4. Chemistry parameters: Field analytical methods and resolution.................................. 118

Table 5. Benthic infaunal indices calculated to characterize the infaunal invertebrateassemblages identified from each central Puget Sound monitoring station. ....................... 119

Table 6. Results of amphipod survival tests for 100 sediment samples from central PugetSound. Tests performed with Ampelisca abdita................................................................. 120

Table 7. Results of sea urchin fertilization tests on pore waters from 100 sediment samplesfrom central Puget Sound. Tests performed with Strongylocentrotus purpuratus............. 124

Table 8. Results of Microtox tests and cytochrome P450 HRGS bioassays of 100sediment samples from central Puget Sound....................................................................... 129

Table 9. Estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity in four independent tests performed on100 sediment samples from central Puget. .......................................................................... 134

Table 10. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients for combinations of different toxicitytests performed with 100 sediment samples from central Puget Sound. .......................... 1365

Table 11. Sediment types characterizing the 100 samples collected in 1998 from centralPuget Sound......................................................................................................................... 136

Table 12. Samples from 1998 central Puget Sound survey in which individual numericalguidelines were exceeded (excluding Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River). .................... 137

Table 13. Samples from 1998 central Puget Sound survey in which individual numericalguidelines were exceeded in Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River..................................... 139

Page x

Table 14. Number of 1998 central Puget Sound samples exceeding individual numericalguidelines and estimated spatial extent of chemical contamination relative to eachguideline.. ............................................................................................................................ 143

Table 15. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients and significance levels for results offour toxicity tests and concentrations of trace metals, chlorinated organic hydrocarbons,and total PAHs, normalized to their respective ERM, SQS, CSL values for all 1998central Puget Sound sites..................................................................................................... 148

Table 16. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients and significance levels for results of fourtoxicity tests and concentrations of partial digestion metals in sediments for all 1998central Puget Sound sites..................................................................................................... 149

Table 17. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients and significance levels for results offour toxicity tests and concentrations of total digestion metals in sediments for all1998 central Puget Sound sites............................................................................................ 150

Table 18. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients and significance levels for results offour toxicity tests and concentrations of Low Molecular Weight Polynuclear AromaticHydrocarbons (LPAH) in sediments for all 1998 central Puget Sound sites. ..................... 151

Table 19. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients and significance levels for results offour toxicity tests and concentrations of High Molecular Weight Polynuclear AromaticHydrocarbons (HPAH) in sediments for all 1998 central Puget Sound sites. ..................... 152

Table 20. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients and significance levels for results of fourtoxicity tests and concentrations of organotins and organic compounds in sedimentsfor all 1998 central Puget Sound sites. ................................................................................ 153

Table 21. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients and significance levels for results of fourtoxicity tests and concentrations of DDT and PCB compounds in sediments for all1998 central Puget Sound sites............................................................................................ 154

Table 22. Total abundance, major taxa abundance, and major taxa percent abundance forthe 1998 central Puget Sound sampling stations. ................................................................ 155

Table 23. Total abundance, taxa richness, Pielou's evenness, and Swartz's DominanceIndex for the 1998 central Puget Sound sampling stations. ................................................ 160

Page xi

Table 24. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients and significance levels between benthicinfaunal indices and measures of grain size and % TOC for all 1998 central PugetSound sites........................................................................................................................... 164

Table 25. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients and significance levels for nine indicesof benthic infaunal structure and results of four toxicity tests for all 1998 central PugetSound sites........................................................................................................................... 165

Table 26. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients and significance levels for nine indices ofbenthic infaunal structure and concentrations of trace metals, chlorinated organichydrocarbons, and total PAHs, normalized to their respective ERM, SQS, and CSLvalues for all 1998 central Puget Sound sites...................................................................... 166

Table 27. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients and significance levels for nine indicesof benthic infaunal structure and concentrations of partial digestion metals in sedimentsfor all 1998 central Puget Sound sites ................................................................................. 168

Table 28. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients and significance levels for nine indicesof benthic infaunal structure and concentrations of total digestion metals in sedimentsfor all 1998 central Puget Sound sites ................................................................................. 169

Table 29. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients and significance levels for nine indicesof benthic infaunal structure and concentrations of Low Molecular Weight PolynuclearAromatic Hydrocarbons (LPAH) in sediments for all 1998 central Puget Sound sites ...... 170

Table 30. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients and significance levels for nineindices of benthic infaunal structure and concentrations of High Molecular WeightPolynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (HPAH) in sediments for all 1998 central PugetSound sites........................................................................................................................... 171

Table 31. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients and significance levels for nine indicesof benthic infaunal structure and concentrations of DDT and PCB compounds insediments for all 1998 central Puget Sound sites ................................................................ 172

Table 32. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients and significance levels for nine indicesof benthic infaunal structure and concentrations of organotins and organic compoundsin sediments for all 1998 central Puget Sound sites............................................................ 173

Table 33. Triad results for 1998 central Puget Sound stations with significant results forboth chemistry and toxicity parameters............................................................................... 174

Page xii

Table 34. Triad results for 1998 central Puget Sound stations with no significant resultsfor both chemistry and toxicity parameters. ........................................................................ 186

Table 35. Distribution of results in amphipod survival tests (with A. abdita only) innorthern Puget Sound, central Puget Sound, and in the NOAA/EMAP "national"database. .............................................................................................................................. 193

Table 36. Spatial extent of toxicity in amphipod survival tests performed with solid-phasesediments from 26 U.S. bays and estuaries. Unless specified differently, test animalswere Ampelisca abdita. ....................................................................................................... 194

Table 37. Spatial extent of toxicity in sea urchin fertilization tests performed with 100%sediment pore waters from 23 U. S. bays and estuaries. Unless specified differently,tests performed with Arbacia punctulata. ........................................................................... 195

Table 38. Spatial extent of toxicity in microbial bioluminescence tests performed withsolvent extracts of sediments from 19 U. S. bays and estuaries.......................................... 196

Table 39. Spatial extent of toxicity in cytochrome P450 HRGS tests performed withsolvent extracts of sediments from 8 U. S. bays and estuaries............................................ 197

Table 40. Percentages of two Puget Sound study areas with indices of degraded sedimentsbased upon the sediment quality triad of data. .................................................................... 198

Page xiii

Acronyms and AbbreviationsAVS/SEM – acid volatile sulfides/ simultaneously-extracted metalsAED – atomic emission detectorB[a]P – benzo[a]pyreneBNA – base/neutral/acid organic compound analysisCAS – Columbia Analytical ServicesCLIS – Central Long Island SoundCOH – chlorinated organic hydrocarbonsCSL – cleanup screening level (Washington State Sediment Management Standards – chapter

173-204 WAC)CV – coefficient of variationDCM – dichloromethaneDMSO – dimethylsulfoxideEAP – Environmental Assessment ProgramEC50 – 50% effective concentration; concentrations of the extract that inhibited luminescence by

50% after a 5-minute exposure period (Microtox analysis)ERL – effects range low (Long et al., 1995)ERM – effects range median (Long et al., 1995)LC50 – lethal concentration for 50% of test animalsLOEC – lowest observable effects concentrationLPL – lower prediction limitMEL – Manchester Environmental LaboratoryMSD minimum significant differenceMSMT – Marine Sediment Monitoring TeamNaCl sodium chlorideNOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNOEC – no observable effects concentrationNS&T – National Status and Trends ProgramPAH – polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonPCB – polychlorinated biphenylPSAMP – Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring ProgramQL – quantitation limit reported by Manchester Environmental Laboratory for chemistry dataRGS – reporter gene systemRLU – relative light unitSDI – Swartz’s Dominance IndexSDS – sodium dodecyl sulfateSMS – Sediment Management StandardsSQS – sediment quality standard (Washington State Sediment Management Standards – chapter

173-204 WAC)TAN – total ammonia nitrogenTCDD – tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxinTEQ – total equivalency quotientsTOC – total organic carbonUAN – un-ionized ammoniaUPL – upper prediction limit

Page xiv

AbstractAs a component of a three-year cooperative effort of the Washington State Department ofEcology and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, surficial sediments from100 locations in central Puget Sound were tested in 1998 to determine their relative quality. Thepurpose of this survey was to determine the quality of sediments in terms of the severity, spatialpatterns, and spatial extent of chemical contamination, toxicity, and adverse alterations to benthicinfauna. The survey encompassed an area of approximately 732 km2, ranging from PortTownsend south to Des Moines in the central region of Puget Sound. Data from the chemicalanalyses indicated that toxicologically significant contamination was restricted in scope to arelatively minor portion of the region. However, sediments from several sampling locationswithin Elliott Bay and other locations had relatively high chemical concentrations. Data fromtoxicity tests indicated that many of the samples from inner Elliott Bay, including the lowerDuwamish River, and Sinclair Inlet were relatively toxic. Toxicity also was observed inadditional samples from locations scattered throughout the region. Wide ranges in severalnumerical indices of benthic infaunal structure were observed, but the majority of samples haddiverse and abundant populations of benthos representative of conditions typical of the area.Eighteen samples in which chemical concentrations were relatively high, toxicity was apparent,and benthic communities appeared to be affected represented 1.1% of the study area. Samples inwhich chemical contamination and toxicity were observed, but the benthos was relativelyabundant and diverse, represented 12.5% of the study area. Samples that were not contaminated,not toxic, and had abundant benthic communities represented 49.1% of the survey area, whilesamples which displayed either toxicity or chemical contamination (but not both) and abundantbenthic communities represented 37.3% of the survey area. Generally, upon comparison, thenumber of stations displaying degraded sediments based upon the sediment quality triad of datawas slightly greater in the central Puget Sound than in the northern Puget Sound study, althoughthe percent of the total study area degraded in each region was similar (1.3 and 1.1%,respectively). In comparison, the Puget Sound sediments were considerably less degraded thanthose from other NOAA sediment surveys conducted nationwide.

Page xv

Executive SummaryNumerous studies of Puget Sound have documented the degree of chemical contamination andassociated adverse biological effects within many different urbanized bays and harbors. Datafrom previous research has shown that contamination occurred in sediments, water, sea surfacemicrolayers, fishes, benthic invertebrates, sea birds, and marine mammals in parts of PugetSound. Additionally, the occurrence of severe toxicity of sediments in laboratory tests,significant alterations to resident benthic populations, severe histopathological conditions in theorgans of demersal fishes, reduced reproductive success of demersal fishes and marine mammals,acute toxicity of sea surface microlayers, uptake and bioaccumulation of toxicants in sea birdsand marine mammals suggested that chemical contamination was toxicologically significant inPuget Sound. However, none of the previous surveys attempted to quantify the areal or spatialextent of contamination or toxicant-related effects. Therefore, although numerous reports fromprevious studies indicated the severity or degree of contamination and adverse effects, nonereported the spatial scales of the problems.

The overall goal of the cooperative program initiated by the Washington State Department ofEcology (Ecology) as a part of its Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP) and theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as a part of its National Status andTrends Program (NS&TP) was to quantify the percentage of Puget Sound in which sedimentquality was significantly degraded. The approach selected to accomplish this goal was tomeasure the components of the sediment quality triad at sampling locations chosen with astratified-random design. One hundred sediment samples were collected during June/July, 1998,at locations selected randomly within 32 geographic strata that covered the area from PortGardner Bay near Everett and Port Townsend south to Des Moines. Strata were selected torepresent conditions near major urban centers (e.g., Seattle, Bremerton) and marine areasadjacent to less developed areas. The 32 strata encompassed an area of approximately 732 km2.

Chemical analyses were performed on all samples to quantify the concentrations of trace metals,petroleum constituents, chlorinated pesticides, other organic compounds, and thephysical/sedimentological characteristics of the sediments. Chemical concentrations werecompared to applicable numerical guidelines from NOAA and state criteria for Washington todetermine which samples were contaminated. A battery of four toxicity tests was performed onall samples to provide information from a variety of toxicological endpoints. Results wereobtained with an acute test of survival among marine amphipods exposed to solid phasesediments. The toxicity of sediment pore waters was determined with a test of fertilizationsuccess among sea urchin gametes. A microbial bioluminescence test of metabolic activity wasperformed in exposures to organic solvent extracts along with a cytochrome P450 HRGS activitytest in exposures to portions of the same solvent extracts. Resident benthic infauna werecollected to determine the relative abundance, species richness, species composition, and othercharacteristics of animals living in the sediments at each site.

The area in which highly significant toxicity occurred totaled approximately 0.1% of the totalarea in the amphipod survival tests; 0.7%, 0.2%, and 0.6% of the area in urchin fertilization testsof 100%, 50%, and 25% pore waters, respectively; 0% of the area in microbial bioluminescence

Page xvi

tests; and 3% of the area in the cytochrome P450 HRGS assays. The estimates of the spatialextent of toxicity measured in three of the four tests in central Puget Sound were considerablylower than the “national average” estimates compiled from many other surveys previouslyconducted by NOAA. Generally, they were comparable to the estimates for northern PugetSound. However, in the cytochrome P450 HRGS assays, a relatively high proportion of samplescaused moderate responses. Collectively, these data suggest that central Puget Sound sedimentswere not unusually toxic relative to sediments from other areas. The large majority of the areasurveyed was classified as non-toxic in these tests. However, the data from the RGS assaysindicated a slight to moderate response among many samples.

The laboratory tests indicated overlapping, but different patterns in toxicity. Several spatialpatterns identified with results of all the tests were apparent in this survey. First, highly toxicresponses in the sea urchin, Microtox, and P-450 tests were observed in many samples from innerreaches of Elliott Bay. Toxicity in these tests decreased considerably westward into the outer anddeeper regions of the bay. Second, many of the samples from the Liberty Bay and Bainbridgebasin area were toxic in the Microtox and P-450 assays. The degree of toxicity decreasedsteadily southward down the Bainbridge basin to Rich Passage, where the sediments were amongthe least toxic. Third, samples from two stations located in a small inlet off Port WashingtonNarrows were among the most toxic in two or more tests. Fourth, several samples from stationsscattered within Sinclair Inlet indicated moderately toxic conditions; toxicity diminished steadilyeastward into Rich Passage. Finally, samples from the Admiralty Inlet/Port Townsend area andmuch of the central main basin were among the least toxic.

The surficial area in which chemical concentrations exceeded effects-based sediment guidelineswas highly dependent upon the set of critical values that were used. There were 25 samples inwhich one or more Effects Range-Median (ERM) values were exceeded. They represented anarea of about 21 km2, or about 3% of the total survey area. In contrast, there were 94 samples inwhich at least one Washington State Sediment Quality Standard (SQS) or Cleanup ScreeningLevel (CSL) value was exceeded, representing about 99% of the survey area. Without the datafor benzoic acid, only 44 samples had at least one chemical concentration greater than a SQS(representing 25.2% of the area) and 36 samples had at least one concentration greater than aCSL (21% of the area).

The highest chemical concentrations invariably were observed in samples collected in theurbanized bays, namely parts of Elliott Bay and Sinclair Inlet. Often, these samples containedchemicals at concentrations that equaled or exceeded numerical guidelines or state standards.Concentrations generally decreased steadily away from these two bays and were lowest inAdmiralty Inlet, Possession Sound, Rich Passage, Bainbridge Basin, and most of the centralbasin.

Although the study was not intended to determine the causes of toxicity in the tests, a number ofstatistical analyses were conducted to estimate which chemicals, if any, may have contributed totoxicity. As expected, strong statistical associations between measures of toxicity and complexmixtures of PAHs, pesticides, phenols, other organic compounds, and several trace metals wereobserved. However, there was significant variability in some of the apparent correlations,including samples in which chemical concentrations were elevated and no toxicity was observed.

Page xvii

Therefore, it is most likely that the chemical mixtures causing toxicity differed among thedifferent toxicity tests and among the regions of the survey area.

Several indices of the relative abundance and diversity of the benthic infauna indicated very wideranges in results among sampling stations. Much of this variability could be attributed to largedifferences in depth, sediment texture, organic carbon content, proximity to rivers, and othernatural habitat-related factors.

Statistical analyses of the toxicity data and benthic data revealed few consistent relationships.Some indices of benthic community diversity and abundance decreased with increasing toxicityand others increased. Also, the relationships between measures of benthic structure and chemicalconcentrations showed mixed results.

Data from the chemical analyses, toxicity tests, and benthic community analyses, together,indicated that, of the 100 stations sampled, 36 had sediments with significant toxicity andelevated chemical contamination. Of these, 18 appeared to have benthic communities that werepossibly affected by chemical contaminants in the sediments. They included stations in SinclairInlet, Dyes Inlet, Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River. These stations typically had moderate tovery high total abundance, including high numbers of Aphelochaeta species N1 and otherpollution-tolerant species, moderate to high taxa richness, low evenness, and low Swartz’sDominance Index values, and often, pollution-sensitive species such as arthropods andechinoderms were low in abundance or absent from these stations. These 18 stations representedan area of 8.1 km2, or about 1.1% of the total survey area, while the remaining other 18 stationsrepresented 12.5% of the area. Twenty-five stations located in Port Townsend, Admiralty Inlet,Possession Sound, the central basin, Port Madison, Liberty Bay, the Bainbridge Basin, RichPassage, Dyes Inlet, and outer Elliott Bay, were identified with no indications of significantsediment toxicity or chemical contamination, and with abundant and diverse populations ofbenthic infauna. These stations represented an area of 359.3 km2, equivalent to 49% of the totalsurvey area. The remaining thirty-nine stations, located in Port Townsend, Possession Sound, thecentral basin, Eagle Harbor, Liberty Bay, the Bainbridge Basin, and Elliott Bay and theDuwamish River, displayed either signs of significant chemical contamination but no toxicity, orsignificant toxicity, but no chemical contamination, and for the majority, the benthic populationswere abundant and diverse. Together, these stations represented an area of 272.6 km2, equivalentto 37% of the total central Puget Sound study area.

The distribution of the “triad” results was somewhat different from that determined for 100northern Puget Sound samples (Long et al., 1999a). There were 18 samples from central PugetSound (1.1% of the study area) and 10 samples from northern Puget Sound (1.3% of the studyarea) in which all three components of the triad indicated degraded conditions. Sixteen and 18(10.6 and 12.5% of the study areas) samples from north and central Puget Sound, respectively,displayed both toxicity and chemical contamination, but diverse benthos. Twenty-five (49.1%)of the central Puget Sound and 21 (19.6%) of the samples from northern Puget Sound indicatednon-degraded conditions. Finally, there were 53 samples collected from northern Puget Sound(68.5% of the study area) that displayed either significant chemistry or toxicity results (but notboth), and whose infaunal assemblages were varied, while only 39 stations (37.3% of the studyarea) showed these characteristics in central Puget Sound.

Page xviii

Data from this central Puget Sound study will, in the future, be merged with those from northern(sampled in 1997) and southern (sampled in 1999) Puget Sound to provide an area-wideassessment of the quality of sediments in the entire Puget Sound Basin. These data also providethe basis for comparison of Puget Sound sediment data with sediment data collected nationwideduring other NOAA surveys.

Page xix

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the following for their generous and capable assistance, provided in a timelyand gracious manner. A large-scale project such as this could not be conducted and reportedwithout the contributions and assistance of all of these individuals.

• The U. S. Geological Survey performed the sea urchin tests (Dr. R. Scott Carr, CorpusChristi, TX) and the Microtox tests (Dr. Tom Johnson, Columbia, MO).

• Science Applications International Corporation in Narragansett, RI (Dr. K. John Scott, Ms.Cornelia Mueller, P.I.s) completed the amphipod survival tests.

• Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. in Vista, CA, performed the cytochrome P450 HRGSassays (Dr. Jack Anderson, P.I.).

• EVS Environment Consultants, Ltd. in Seattle, WA, provided assistance in data basemanagement, preparation of base maps, and identification of station coordinates (Ms.Corinne Severn, P.I.).

• Taxonomic services were provided by Eugene Ruff (polychaetes), Susan Weeks (molluscs),Ron Shimek (molluscs and miscellaneous taxa), Steve Hulsman (miscellaneous taxa),John Chapman (arthropods), and Jeff Cordell (arthropods).

• Scott Redman, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, provided early project planningassistance.

• During field operations, Mr. Charles Eaton, Bio-Marine Enterprises, captained the R/VKittiwake and assisted with field logistics and itinerary preparation, and Mr. Sam Eatonoperated the winch and provided sampling assistance.

• The following Washington State Department of Ecology personnel provided assistance:◊ Dr. William Ehinger, Environmental Assessment Program (EAP), provided assistance

with the correlation analyses.◊ Brendon MacFarland, Sediment Management Unit, and Dale Norton, EAP, provided

assistance during the stratification process.◊ Steve Barrett, EAP, assisted with data base preparation and handling.◊ Manchester Environmental Laboratory provided laboratory analyses, sampling handling

and tracking services, and data quality assurance and quality control, including StuartMagoon, Catherine Bickle, Bob Carrell, Pam Covey, Sally Cull, Karin Feddersen,Kamilee Ginder, Dickey Huntamer, Randy Knox, Debbie LaCroix, Myrna Mandjikov,Cherlyn Milne, Norman Olson, Greg Perez, Jim Ross, and Will White.

◊ Christina Ricci, EAP, participated in field sampling and infaunal sample sorting.◊ Joan LeTourneau and Michelle Ideker, EAP, formatted the final report.◊ Bernard Strong, EAP, assisted with equipment preparation and repair and field logistics.

Page 1

IntroductionProject BackgroundIn 1996 the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA) entered into a three-year Cooperative Agreement toquantify the magnitude and extent of toxicity and chemical contamination of sediments in PugetSound. This agreement combined the sediment monitoring and assessment programs of the twoagencies into one large survey of Puget Sound.

Ecology’s Marine Sediment Monitoring Team has conducted the Sediment MonitoringComponent of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP) since 1989. Thisprogram used the sediment quality triad approach of Long and Chapman (1985) to determinerelative sediment quality in Puget Sound. Preceding the joint surveys with NOAA, Ecologyestablished baseline data for toxicity and chemical contamination of Puget Sound sediments(Llansó et al., 1998a) and characterized infaunal invertebrate assemblages (Llansó et al., 1998b)at 76 selected monitoring stations throughout Puget Sound. A portion of this baseline work iscontinuing as a subset of ten stations at the present time.

The National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program of NOAA has conducted bioeffects assessmentstudies in more than 30 embayments and estuaries nationwide since 1990 (Long et al., 1996).These studies followed a random-stratified sampling design and the triad approach to estimatethe spatial extent, magnitude, and spatial patterns in relative sediment quality and to determinethe relationships among measures of toxicity, chemical contamination, and benthic infaunalstructure within the study areas. NOAA chose to continue these studies in Puget Sound becauseof the presence of toxicants in sufficiently high concentrations to cause adverse biologicaleffects, the lack of quantitative data on the spatial extent of toxicity in the area, and the presenceand experience of a state agency partner (Ecology) in performing the study.

The current joint project of Ecology and NOAA utilizes NOAA’s random-stratified samplingdesign and the sediment quality triad approach for the collection and analyses of sediment andinfauna in northern Puget Sound sampled in 1997 (Long et al., 1999a), central Puget Soundsampled in 1998 (described in this report), and southern Puget Sound sampled in 1999.

Site DescriptionThe three-year study area encompassed the basins and channels from the U.S./Canada border tothe southern-most bays and inlets near Olympia and Shelton and included the waters ofAdmiralty Inlet and Hood Canal (Figure 1). This region, located in northwestern Washington, iscomposed of a variety of interconnected shallow estuaries and bays, deep fjords, broad channelsand river mouths. It is bounded by three major mountain ranges; the Olympics to the west, themountains of Vancouver Island to the north, and the Cascade Range to the east. The northernend of Puget Sound is open to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia, connecting itto the Pacific Ocean. The estuary extends for about 130 km from Admiralty Inlet at the northern

Page 2

end of the main basin to Olympia at the southern end, and ranges in width from 10 to 40 km(Kennish, 1998).

The main basin of Puget Sound was glacially scoured with depths up to 300 m, has an area of2600 km2 and a volume of 169 km3 (Kennish, 1998). Circulation in Puget Sound is driven bycomplex forces of freshwater inputs, tides, and winds. Puget Sound is characterized as a two-layered estuarine system, with marine waters entering the Sound at the sill in Admiralty Inletfrom the Strait of Juan de Fuca at depths of 100 to 200 m, and freshwater entering from a numberof large streams and rivers. Major rivers entering Puget Sound include the Skagit, Snohomish,Cedar, Duwamish, Puyallup, Stillaguamish, and Nisqually (Figure 1). The Skagit, Stillaguamish,and Snohomish rivers account for more than 75% of the freshwater input into the Sound(Kennish, 1998). The mean residence time for water in the central basin is approximately 120-140 days, but is much longer in the isolated inlets and restricted deep basins in southern PugetSound.

The bottom sediments of Puget Sound are composed primarily of compact, glacially-formed, claylayers and relict glacial tills (Crandell et al., 1965). Major sources of recent sediments arederived from shoreline erosion and riverine discharges.

Puget Sound is a highly complex, biologically important ecosystem that supports majorpopulations of benthic invertebrates, estuarine plants, resident and migratory fish, marine birds,and marine mammals. All of these resources depend upon uncontaminated habitats to sustaintheir population levels. The Sound is bordered by both relatively undeveloped lands and highlyurbanized and industrialized areas. Major urban centers include the cities of Seattle, Tacoma,Olympia, Everett, Bremerton, and Bellingham.

The portion of the Puget Sound study conducted in 1998 focused upon the central region of thestudy area, from Admiralty Inlet and the southern boundary of the 1997 study area (i.e.,Mukilteo) to Maury Island (Figure 1). The 1998 study area, therefore, included portions of PortTownsend Bay, Admiralty Inlet, southern Possession Sound, the main (or central) basin of PugetSound, Port Madison, Eagle Harbor, Liberty Bay, Dyes Inlet, Port Washington Narrows, SinclairInlet, Rich Passage, Elliott Bay, the lower Duwamish River, East Passage, and the areasurrounding Blake Island.

Toxicant-Related Research in Central Puget SoundPuget Sound waters support an extremely diverse spectrum of economically important biologicalresources. In addition to extensive stocks of salmon, a variety of other species (e.g. cod,rockfish, clams, oysters, and crabs) support major commercial and recreational fisheries. Studieshave shown that high concentrations of toxic chemicals in sediments are adversely affecting thebiota of Puget Sound via detritus-based food webs. Studies of histopathological, toxicological,and ecological impacts of contaminants have focused primarily on biota collected in areaspotentially influenced by port activities and municipal or industrial discharges (Ginn and Barrick,1988). Therefore, the majority of effects studies have focused on both Elliott andCommencement Bay in central Puget Sound.

Page 3

Considerable research has been conducted on the presence, concentrations, and biologicalsignificance of toxicants in the central region of Puget Sound. Much of this research wasconducted to quantify chemical concentrations in sediments, animal tissues, water, marinemammals, marine birds, and sea surface microlayers. Some studies also were conducted todetermine the history of chemical contamination using analyses of age-dated sediment cores.The objectives of these studies often included analyses of the biological significance of thechemical mixtures. Biological studies have been conducted to determine the frequency of lesionsand other disorders in demersal fishes; the toxicity of sediments; the toxicity of water and seasurface microlayers; reproductive dysfunction in fishes, birds, and mammals; and the degree ofeffects upon resident benthic populations.

Much of the previous research on toxicant effects in central Puget Sound focused upon areas ofElliott Bay, the lower Duwamish River, Sinclair Inlet, and Eagle Harbor as well as the centralbasin in the vicinity of the West Point wastewater discharge. Port Madison often was used as areference area for studies of toxicant effects elsewhere. NOAA, the U. S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, and Seattle METRO funded much of the work.

Studies performed by NOAA through the MESA (Marine Ecosystems Analysis) Puget SoundProject determined the concentrations of toxic substances and toxicity in sediments with a batteryof acute and chronic tests performed on samples collected throughout most of the Puget Soundregion. The sediment toxicity surveys were conducted in a sequence of four phases in the early1980’s. In the first phase (Chapman et al., 1982), samples collected from 97 locations weretested with several bioassays. Samples were collected mainly at selected locations within ElliottBay, Commencement Bay, and Sinclair Inlet. Tests were performed to determine survival ofoligochaetes, amphipods, and fish; respiration measurements of oligochaetes; and chromosomaldamage in cultured fish cells. The results of multiple tests indicated that some portions of ElliottBay near the Denny Way CSO and several of the industrialized waterways of CommencementBay were highly toxic and samples from Port Madison were among the least toxic.

In the second phase of the Puget Sound sediment toxicity surveys, tests were performed toidentify diminished reproductive success among test animals exposed to sediments (Chapman etal., 1983). These tests involved oyster embryo development, surf smelt development, and apolychaete worm life cycle bioassay. Samples from the lower Duwamish River and theCommencement Bay waterways were the most toxic. In the third phase, 22 samples werecollected in Everett Harbor, Bellingham Bay, and Samish Bay in northern Puget Sound andtested with the same battery of tests used in the first phase of the studies (Chapman et al., 1984a).Toxicity was less severe in these 22 samples than in comparable samples from Elliott andCommencement bays. However, the sediments from Everett Harbor demonstrated greatertoxicity than those from Bellingham Bay and samples from Samish Bay were the least toxic.

In the fourth and final phase, sediment quality was determined with the introduction of thesediment quality triad approach (Chapman et al., 1984b; Long and Chapman, 1985). Matchingchemical, toxicity, and benthic data were compiled to provide a weight of evidence to ranksampling sites. Data from several locations in Elliott and Commencement bays and Sinclair Inletwere compared with data from Case Inlet and Samish Bay. As observed in the previous phases,

Page 4

the data clearly showed a pattern of low sediment quality in samples from the urbanized areasrelative to those from the more rural areas.

Histopathology studies that included central Puget Sound indicated that biological impacts suchas hepatic neoplasms, intracellular storage disorders, and lesions in fish were pollution-related.These disorders were found most frequently near industrial urban areas, including portions ofElliott Bay, Sinclair Inlet, and Eagle Harbor (Malins et al., 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984; U.S. EPA,Region X, 1986). Fish with such disorders often had the highest concentrations of organiccompounds and trace metals in their tissues.

Studies in which toxicity tests were performed confirmed histopathological findings thatpollution-induced biotic impacts are more likely to occur near industrial urban areas (Chapman etal., 1982; Malins, et al., 1982; Malins, 1985; Clark, 1986; Malins et al. 1985; Llansó et al.,1998a). Numerous analyses of contaminant exposures and adverse effects in resident demersalfishes were conducted in most of the urbanized bays and harbors (Malins et al. 1980, 1982a,1984). Data from these studies demonstrated that toxicant-induced, adverse effects wereapparent in fish collected in urban harbors of Puget Sound and the prevalence of these effectswas highest in areas with highest chemical concentrations in the sediments to which these fishwere exposed. The incidence of neoplastic lesions was highest among fish from Eagle Harbor.Similar kinds of analyses were performed on resident marine birds and marine mammals,demonstrating that chemical levels in these animals were elevated in regions of Elliott andCommencement bays relative to animals from the Strait of Juan de Fuca and elsewhere(Calambokidis et al., 1984).

A summary of available data from sediment toxicity tests performed in Puget Sound through1984 (Long, 1984) indicated that sediments from the waterways of Commencement Bay, ElliottBay off the Denny Way CSO, inner Sinclair Inlet, lower Duwamish Waterway, Quilcene Bay,Bellingham Bay, and inner Everett Harbor were among the most toxic in the entire area.Significant results were reported in acute survival tests with amphipods, sublethal assays ofrespiration rate changes, tests of mutagenic effects in fish cells, and oyster embryo developmenttests.

Studies of invertebrate communities conducted in central Puget Sound have indicated significantlosses of benthic resources in some areas with high chemical concentrations (Malins, et al., 1982;Kisker, 1986; Chapman et al., 1984a,b; Broad et al., 1984; Llansó et al., 1998b). The longestterm and most extensive sampling of infaunal invertebrate communities was conducted by thePuget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program, established in 1989. The program sampled 28 sitesin northern Puget Sound, 13 of which were sampled yearly from 1989-95 and 15 that weresampled once in 1992 and once again in 1995.

The colonization rates and species diversity of epifaunal communities that attached to verticaltest surfaces were lowest at locations in the lower Duwamish River as compared to siteselsewhere in Puget Sound (Schoener, 1983). Samples of sea surface microlayers from Elliott Baywere determined to be contaminated and toxic in acute tests done with planktonic life stages ofmarine fish (Hardy and Word, 1986; Hardy et al., 1987a,b). Historical trends in chemicalcontamination were reviewed and the physical processes that influence the fate and transport of

Page 5

toxicants in regions of Puget Sound were summarized in a variety of reports (Brown et al., 1981;Dexter et al., 1981; Barrick, 1982; Konasewich et al., 1982; Long 1982; Crecelius et al., 1985;Quinlan et. al, 1985).

Following the work by NOAA, additional studies of chemical contamination were supported bythe Puget Sound National Estuary Program (PSEP). The PSEP studies further identified spatialpatterns in sediment contamination, toxicity, and benthic effects in selected urban embaymentsand reference areas throughout Puget Sound (PTI, 1988; Tetra Tech, 1988). The PSEP alsoformulated tentative plans for cleaning up some of the more contaminated sites. Althoughextensive deep portions of Puget Sound and most rural bays were relatively contaminant-free,parts of the bays bordering urban, industrialized centers contained high concentrations of toxicchemicals (Long and Chapman, 1985; Llansó et al., 1998a). Other programs and studies,including the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis Program (PTI, 1989) and the Puget SoundAmbient Monitoring Program (Llansó et al., 1998a,b), characterized baseline sediment qualityconditions and trends throughout Puget Sound.

In addition to these large-scale studies, federal, state and local government, as well as privateindustry, have conducted a vast number of smaller, localized studies on Puget Sound sediments,primarily for regulatory purposes. These studies have focused on the level of chemicalconcentrations in sediments, the incidence of abnormalities and diseases in fish and benthicinvertebrates, the level and degree of sediment toxicity to various bioassay organisms, therelationship between sediment contamination and the composition of benthic invertebratecommunities, and to a lesser extent, the associations between sediment contamination, toxicity,and resident marine bird and mammal populations.

Information gathered from the surveys of toxicity in sediment, water, and microlayer, and thestudies of adverse effects in resident benthos, fish, birds and mammals confirmed that conditionswere most degraded in urbanized embayments of Puget Sound, including Elliott Bay (Long,1987). All of the data from the historical research, collectively, served to identify those regionsof Puget Sound in which the problems of chemical contamination were the worst and in whichmanagement actions of some kind were most needed (NOAA, 1987). However, although theseprevious studies provided information on the degree and spatial patterns in chemicalcontamination and effects, none attempted to quantify the spatial extent of either contaminationor measures of adverse effects.

The Sediment Quality Information System (SEDQUAL) Database

Ecology's Sediment Management Unit has compiled a database that includes sediment data fromover 400 Puget Sound sediment surveys of various size and scope. The Sediment QualityInformation System (SEDQUAL) database includes approximately 658,000 chemical, 138,000benthic infaunal, and 36,000 bioassay analysis records from over 12,000 sample collectionstations throughout Puget Sound. For the central Puget Sound study area defined in this report,the SEDQUAL database currently contains sediment data from 2063 samples (148 surveys)collected from 1950-1999. Using the analytical tools available in SEDQUAL, these data can becompared to chemical contaminant guidelines, the Sediment Quality Standards (SQS) and PugetSound Marine Sediment Cleanup Screening Levels (CSL), set forth in the Washington State

Page 6

Sediment Management Standards (SMS), Chapter 173-204 WAC. Of the 2063 SEDQUALsamples from central Puget Sound, 1034 have chemical contaminant levels that exceeded at leastone SQS or CSL value. The majority of these stations are located near population centers, urbanand industrial areas, and ports, including Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River, Sinclair Inlet,Dyes Inlet, Liberty Bay, and Eagle Harbor (Figure 2). A summary of the chemicals found inthese central Puget Sound SEDQUAL samples which exceeded SMS values, including theirsample location and total number of samples, is given in Appendix A. In central Puget Sound,all 47 chemicals with SMS values were exceeded on at least one occasion.

Goals and ObjectivesThe shared goal of this study for both the PSAMP Sediment Monitoring Component andNOAA’s nationwide bioeffects assessment program was to characterize the ecotoxicologicalcondition of sediments, as well as benthic infaunal assemblage structure, as a measure of adversebiological effects of toxic chemicals in central Puget Sound. Based upon chemical analyses ofsediments reported in previous studies, it appeared that there were relatively high probabilitiesthat concentrations were sufficiently high in some regions of the study area to cause acutetoxicity and infaunal assemblage alterations. Data from toxicity tests were intended to provide ameans of determining whether toxic conditions, associated with high concentrations of chemicalpollutants, actually occurred throughout any of the area. Examination of infaunal assemblageswas intended to determine whether sediment chemistry and toxicity conditions are correlatedwith patterns in infaunal community structure. Underlying these goals was the intent to use astratified-random sampling design that would allow the quantification of the spatial extent ofdegraded sediment quality.

Based on the nature of sediment contamination issues in Puget Sound, and the respectivemandates of NOAA and the state of Washington to address sediment contamination andassociated effects in coastal waters, the objectives of the cooperative assessment of bioeffects inPuget Sound were to:

1. Determine the incidence and severity of sediment toxicity;

2. Identify spatial patterns and gradients in sediment toxicity and chemical concentrations;

3. Estimate the spatial extent of toxicity and chemical contamination in surficial sediments aspercentages of the total survey area;

4. Describe the composition, abundance and diversity of benthic infaunal assemblages at eachsampling location;

5. Estimate the apparent relationships between measures of sediment toxicity, toxicantconcentrations, and benthic infaunal assemblage indices; and

6. Compare the quality of sediment from northern, central, and southern Puget Sound measuredin the three phases of this study.

Page 7

This report includes a summary of the data collected in 1998 and correlation analyses to examinetoxicity, chemistry, and infaunal relationships. Results of further analyses relating toxicity,chemistry, and infaunal structure throughout the entire survey area will be reported in asubsequent document.

Page 8

MethodsStandardized methods described in the Puget Sound Estuary Program protocols (PSEP, 1996a),previously used in the 1997 survey of northern Puget Sound (Long et al., 1999a), and previouslyfollowed in surveys of sediment quality conducted elsewhere in the U.S. by NOAA (Long et al.,1996) were followed in this survey. Any deviations from these protocols are described below.

Sampling DesignBy mutual agreement between Ecology and NOAA, the study area was established as the areaextending from Point Wilson near Port Townsend to Maury Island (Figures 1 and 3a). Regionsand basins that were included in the survey area included the central basin of Puget Sound;Admiralty Inlet; Port Madison; Liberty Bay, Dyes Inlet, Sinclair Inlet, and inter-connectingwaterways west of Bainbridge Island; Eagle Harbor; and Elliott Bay and the adjoining lowerDuwamish River. All samples were collected in depths of 6 ft or more (mean lower low water),the operating limit of the sampling vessel.

A stratified-random sampling design similar to those used in previous surveys conductednationwide by NOAA (Long et al., 1996) and in the first year of this study in northern PugetSound (Long et al., 1999a), was applied in central Puget Sound. This approach combines thestrengths of a stratified design with the random-probabilistic selection of sampling locationswithin the boundaries of each stratum. Data generated within each stratum can be attributed tothe dimensions of the stratum. Therefore, these data can be used to estimate the spatial extent oftoxicity with a quantifiable degree of confidence (Heimbuch, et al., 1995). Strata boundarieswere established to coincide with the dimensions of major basins, bays, inlets, waterways, etc. inwhich hydrographic, bathymetric and sedimentological conditions were expected to be relativelyhomogeneous (Figure 3a). Data from Ecology's SEDQUAL database were reviewed to assist inestablishing strata boundaries.

The study area was subdivided into 32 irregular-shaped strata (Figure 3a-f). Large strata wereestablished in the open waters of the area where toxicant concentrations were expected to beuniformly low (e.g., Admiralty Inlet, Puget Sound central basin). This approach provided theleast intense sampling effort in areas known or suspected to be relatively homogeneous insediment type and water depth, and relatively distant from contaminant sources. In contrast,relatively small strata were established in urban and industrial harbors nearer suspected sourcesin which conditions were expected to be heterogeneous or transitional (e.g., Elliott Bay, EagleHarbor, Sinclair Inlet, and other basins west of Bainbridge Island). As a result, sampling effortwas spatially more intense in the small strata than in the large strata. The large strata wereroughly equivalent in size to each other as were the small strata to one another (Table 1). Areaswith known topographic features which cannot be sampled with our methods (i.e., vanVeen grabsampler) were excluded from the strata design (e.g., the area between Useless Bay andPossession Sound (south of Whidbey Island), which was known to have rocky substrate).

Within the boundaries of each stratum, all possible latitude/longitude intersections had equalprobabilities of being selected as a sampling location. The locations of individual sampling

Page 9

stations within each stratum were chosen randomly using GINPRO software developed byNOAA applied to digitized navigation charts. In most cases three samples were collected withineach stratum; however, four stations were sampled in several strata expected to be heterogeneousin sediment quality. Four alternate locations were provided for each station in a numberedsequence. The coordinates for each alternate were provided in tables and were plotted on theappropriate navigation chart. In a few cases, the coordinates provided were inaccessible or onlyrocks and cobble were present at the location. In these cases, the first set of station coordinateswas rejected and the vessel was moved to the next alternate. In the majority of the 100 stations,the first alternate location was sampled. Stratum 3 in Admiralty Inlet was abandoned when onlyrocks and cobble were encountered at all locations (Figure 3b). Final station coordinates aresummarized in the navigation report (Appendix B).

Sample CollectionSediments from 100 stations were collected during June 1998 with the 42’ research vesselKittiwake. Each station was sampled only once. Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS)with an accuracy of better than 5 meters was used to position the vessel at the station coordinates.The grab sampler was deployed and retrieved with a hydraulic winch.

Prior to sampling each station, all equipment used for toxicity testing and chemical analyses waswashed with seawater, Alconox soap, acetone, and rinsed with seawater. Sediment samples werecollected with a double 0.1 m2, stainless steel, modified van Veen grab sampler. Sediment fortoxicity testing and chemical analyses was collected simultaneously with sediment collected forthe benthic community analyses to ensure synopticity of the data. Upon retrieval of the sampler,the contents were visually inspected to determine if the sample was acceptable (jaws closed, nowashout, clear overlying water, sufficient depth of penetration). If the sample was unacceptable,it was dumped overboard at a location away from the station. If the sample was acceptable,information was recorded on station coordinates and the sediment color, odor, and type in fieldlogs.

One 0.1 m2 grab sample from one side of the sampler was collected for the benthic infaunalanalyses. All infaunal samples were rinsed gently through nested 1.0 and 0.5 mm screens and theorganisms retained on each screen were kept separate. Organisms were preserved in the fieldwith a 10% aqueous solution of borax-buffered formalin.

From the other side of the sampler, sediment was removed for chemical and toxicity tests using adisposable, 2 mm deep, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) scoop. The top two to three cm ofsediment was removed with the scoop and accumulated in a HDPE bucket. The sampler wasdeployed and retrieved from three to six times at each station, until a sufficient amount (about 7l) of sediment was collected in the bucket. Between deployments of the grab, a teflon plate wasplaced upon the surface of the sample, and the bucket was covered with a plastic lid and to avoidcontamination, oxidation, and photo-activation. After 7 l of sediment were collected, the samplewas stirred with a stainless steel spoon to homogenize the sediments and then transferred toindividual jars for the various toxicity tests and chemical analyses.

Page 10

Precautions described above were taken to avoid contamination of the samples from engineexhaust, atmospheric particulates, and rain. A double volume sample was collected at fivestations for duplicate chemical analyses. All samples were labeled and double-checked forstation, stratum, and sample codes; sampling date; sampling time; and type of analysis to beperformed.

Samples for chemical and toxicity tests were stored on deck in sealed containers placed ininsulated coolers filled with ice. These samples were off-loaded from the research vessel every1-3 days, and transported to the walk-in refrigerator at Ecology HQ building in Olympia. Theywere held there at 4°C until shipped on ice to either the NOAA contractors for toxicity tests orthe Manchester Environmental Laboratory for chemical analyses by overnight courier. Chain ofcustody forms accompanied all sample shipments. After a minimum of 24 hours followingcollection and fixation, the benthic samples were rescreened (i.e., removed from formalin) andexchanged into 70% ethanol.

Laboratory AnalysesToxicity Testing

Multiple toxicity tests were performed on aliquots of each sample to provide a weight ofevidence. Tests were selected for which there were widely accepted protocols that wouldrepresent the toxicological conditions within different phases (partitions) of the sediments. Thetests included those for amphipod survival in solid-phase (bulk) sediments, sea urchinfertilization success in pore waters, and microbial bioluminescence activity and cytochrome P450HRGS induction in an organic solvent extract. Test endpoints, therefore, ranged from survival tolevel of physiological activity.

Amphipod Survival - Solid Phase

The amphipod tests are the most widely and frequently used assays in sediment evaluationsperformed in North America. They are performed with adult crustaceans exposed to relativelyunaltered bulk sediments. Ampelisca abdita has shown relatively little sensitivity to nuisancefactors such as grain size, ammonia, and organic carbon in previous surveys. In surveysperformed by the NS&T Program (Long et al., 1996), this test has provided wide ranges inresponses among samples, strong statistical associations with elevated toxicant levels, and smallwithin-sample variability.

Ampelisca abdita is a euryhaline benthic amphipod that ranges from Newfoundland to south-central Florida, and along the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Also, it is abundant in San Francisco Bayalong the Pacific coast. The amphipod test with A. abdita has been routinely used for sedimenttoxicity tests in support of numerous EPA programs, including the Environmental Monitoringand Assessment Program (EMAP) in the Virginian, Louisianian, Californian, and Carolinianprovinces (Schimmel et al., 1994).

Amphipod survival tests were conducted by Science Applications International Corporation(SAIC), in Narragansett, R.I. All tests were initiated within 10 days of the date samples werecollected. Samples were shipped by overnight courier in one-gallon high-density polyethylene

Page 11

jugs which had been washed, acid-stripped, and rinsed with de-ionized water. Sample jugs werepacked in shipping coolers with blue ice. Each was inspected to ensure they were withinacceptable temperature limits upon arrival and stored at 4°C until testing was initiated. Prior totesting, sediments were mixed with a stainless steel paddle and press-sieved through a 1.0 mmmesh sieve to remove debris, stones, resident biota, etc.

Amphipods were collected by SAIC from tidal flats in the Pettaquamscutt (Narrow) River, asmall estuary flowing into Narragansett Bay, RI. Animals were held in the laboratory in pre-sieved uncontaminated (“home”) sediments under static conditions. Fifty percent of the water inthe holding containers was replaced every second day when the amphipods were fed. Duringholding, A. abdita were fed laboratory-cultured diatoms (Phaeodactylum tricornutum). Negativecontrol sediments were collected by SAIC from the Central Long Island Sound (CLIS) referencestation of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. These sediments have beentested repeatedly with the amphipod survival test and other assays and found to be non-toxic(amphipod survival has exceeded 90% in 85% of the tests) and un-contaminated (Long et al.,1996). Sub-samples of the CLIS sediments were tested along with each series of samples fromnorthern Puget Sound.

Amphipod testing followed the procedures detailed in the Standard Guide for conducting 10 dayStatic Sediment Toxicity Tests with Marine and Estuarine Amphipods (ASTM, 1993). Briefly,amphipods were exposed to test and negative control sediments for 10 days with 5 replicates of20 animals each under static conditions using filtered seawater. Aliquots of 200 ml of test orcontrol sediments were placed in the bottom of the one-liter test chambers, and covered withapproximately 600 ml of filtered seawater (28-30 ppt). Air was provided by air pumps anddelivered into the water column through a pipette to ensure acceptable oxygen concentrations,but suspended in a manner to ensure that the sediments would not be disturbed.

Temperature was maintained at ~20°C by a temperature-controlled water bath. Lighting wascontinuous during the 10-day exposure period to inhibit the swimming behavior of theamphipods. Constant light inhibits emergence of the organisms from the sediment, therebymaximizing the amphipod’s exposure to the test sediments. Information on temperature, salinity,dissolved oxygen, pH and ammonia in test chambers was obtained during tests of each batch ofsamples to ensure compliance within acceptable ranges. Ammonia concentrations weredetermined in both pore waters (day 0 of the tests) and overlying waters (days 2 and 8 of thetests). Concentrations of the un-ionized form of ammonia were calculated, based upon measuresof total ammonia, and concurrent measures of pH, salinity and temperature.

Twenty healthy, active animals were placed into each test chamber, and monitored to ensure theyburrowed into sediments. Non-burrowing animals were replaced, and the test initiated. The jarswere checked daily, and records were kept of animals that had died, were on the water surface,had emerged on the sediment surface, or were in the water column. Animals on the water surfacewere gently freed from the surface film to enable them to burrow, and dead amphipods wereremoved.

Tests were terminated after ten days. Contents of each of the test chambers were sieved througha 0.5 mm mesh screen. The animals and any other material retained on the screen were

Page 12

examined under a stereomicroscope for the presence of amphipods. Total amphipod mortalitywas recorded for each test replicate.

A positive control (reference toxicant) test was used to document the sensitivity of each batch oftest organisms. The positive control consisted of 96 hr water-only exposures to sodium dodecylsulfate (SDS). The LC50 (lethal concentration for 50% of the test animals) values werecalculated for each test run with results from tests of five SDS concentrations.

Sea Urchin Fertilization - Pore Water

Tests of sea urchin fertilization have been used in assessments of ambient water and effluentsand in previous NS&T Program surveys of sediment toxicity (Long et al., 1996). Test resultshave shown wide ranges in responses among test samples, excellent within-sample homogeneity,and strong associations with the concentrations of toxicants in the sediments. This test combinesthe features of testing sediment pore waters (the phase of sediments in which dissolved toxicantsare highly bioavailable) and exposures to early life stages of invertebrates (sperm cells) whichoften are more sensitive than adult forms. Tests of sediment pore water toxicity were conductedwith the Pacific coast purple urchin Strongylcentrotus purpuratus by the U.S. Geological Surveylaboratory in Corpus Christi, Texas.

Sediments from each sampling location were shipped by overnight courier in one-gallon high-density polyethylene jugs chilled in insulated coolers packed with blue ice. Upon arrival at thelaboratory, samples were either refrigerated at 4°C or processed immediately. All samples wereprocessed (i.e., pore waters extracted) within 10 days of the sampling date.

Pore waters were extracted within ten days of the date of collection, usually within 2-4 days.Pore water was extracted from sediments with a pressurized squeeze extraction device (Carr andChapman, 1995). After extraction, pore water samples were centrifuged in polycarbonate bottles(at 1200 G for 20 minutes) to remove any particulate matter. The supernatant was then frozen at-20°C. Two days before the start of a toxicity test, samples were moved from a freezer to arefrigerator at 4°C, and one day prior to testing, thawed in a tepid (20°C) water bath.Experiments performed by USGS have demonstrated no effects upon toxicity attributable tofreezing and thawing of the pore water samples (Carr and Chapma, 1995).

Tests followed the methods of Carr and Chapman (1995); Carr et al. (1996a,b); Carr (1998) andUSGS SOP F10.6, developed initially for Arbacia punctulata, but adapted for use with S.purpuratus. Unlike A. punctulata, adult S. purpuratus cannot be induced to spawn with electricstimulus. Therefore, spawning was induced by injecting 1-3 ml of 0.5 M potassium chloride intothe coelomic cavity. Tests with S. purpuratus were conducted at 15°C; test temperatures weremaintained by incubation of the pore waters, the dilution waters and the tests themselves in anenvironmental chamber. Adult S. purpuratus were obtained from Marinus Corporation, LongBeach, CA. Pore water from sediments collected in Redfish Bay, Texas, an area located near thetesting facility, were used as negative controls. Sediment pore waters from this location havebeen determined repeatedly to be non-toxic in this test in many trials (Long et al., 1996). Each ofthe pore water samples was tested in a dilution series of 100%, 50%, and 25% of the waterquality (salinity)-adjusted sample with 5 replicates per treatment. Dilutions were made with

Page 13

clean, filtered (0.45 um), Port Aransas laboratory seawater, which has been shown in manyprevious trials to be non-toxic. A dilution series test with SDS was included as a positive control.

Sample temperatures were maintained at 20±1°C. Sample salinity was measured and adjusted to30±1 ppt, if necessary, using purified deionized water or concentrated brine. Other water qualitymeasurements were made for dissolved oxygen, pH, sulfide and total ammonia. Temperatureand dissolved oxygen were measured with YSI meters; salinity was measured with Reichert orAmerican Optical refractometers; pH, sulfide and total ammonia (expressed as total ammonianitrogen, TAN) were measured with Orion meters and their respective probes. Theconcentrations of un-ionized ammonia (UAN) were calculated using respective TAN, salinity,temperature, and pH values.

For the sea urchin fertilization test, the samples were cooled to 15±1°C. Fifty µl of appropriatelydiluted sperm were added to each vial, and incubated at 15±1°C for 30 minutes. One ml of awell-mixed dilute egg suspension was added to each vial, and incubated an additional 30 minutesat 15± 2°C. Two ml of a 10% solution of buffered formalin was added to stop the test.Fertilization membranes were counted, and fertilization percentages calculated for each replicatetest.

The relative sensitivities of S. purpuratus and A. punctulata were determined as a part of the1997 northern Puget Sound survey (Long et al., 1999a). A series of five reference toxicant testswere performed with both species. Tests were conducted with copper sulfate, PCB aroclor 1254,o,p’-DDD, phenanthrene, and naphthalene in seawater. The data indicated that the two speciesgenerally were similar in their sensitivities to the five selected chemicals.

Microbial Bioluminescence (Microtox ) - Organic Solvent Extract

This is a test of the relative toxicity of extracts of the sediments prepared with an organic solvent,and, therefore, it is unaffected by the effects of environmental factors, such as grain size,ammonia and organic carbon. Organic toxicants, and to a lesser degree trace metals, that may ormay not be readily bioavailable are extracted with the organic solvent. Therefore, this test can beconsidered as indicative of the potential toxicity of mixtures of substances bound to the sedimentmatrices. In previous NS&T Program surveys, the results of MicrotoxTM tests have shownextremely high correlations with the concentrations of mixtures of organic compounds.MicrotoxTM tests were run by the U. S. Geological Survey Laboratory in Columbia, MO, onextracts prepared by Columbia Analytical Services (CAS) in Kelso, WA.

The MicrotoxTM assay was performed with dichloromethane (DCM) extracts of sedimentsfollowing the basic procedures used in testing Puget Sound sediments (PSEP, 1995) andPensacola Bay sediments (Johnson and Long, 1998). All sediment samples were stored in thedark at 4°C for 5-10 days before processing was initiated. A 3-4 g sediment sample from eachstation was weighed, recorded, and placed into a DCM-rinsed 50 ml centrifuge tube. A 15 gportion of sodium sulfate was added to each sample and mixed. Pesticide grade DCM (30 ml)was added and mixed. The mixture was shaken for 10 seconds, vented and tumbled overnight.

Sediment samples were allowed to warm to room temperature and the overlying water discarded.Samples were then homogenized with a stainless steel spatula, and 15-25 g of sediment were

Page 14

transferred to a centrifuge tube. The tubes were spun at 1000 G for 5 minutes and the pore waterwas removed using a Pasteur pipette. Three replicate 3-4 g sediment subsamples from eachstation were placed in mortars containing a 15g portion of sodium sulfate and mixed. After 30minutes, subsamples were ground with a pestle until dry. Subsamples were added to 50 mlcentrifuge tubes and 30 ml of DCM were added to each tube and shaken to dislodge sediments.Tubes were shaken overnight on an orbital shaker at a moderate speed and then centrifuged at500 G for 5 min and the sediment extracts transferred to TurbovapTM tubes. Then, 20 ml ofDCM was added to sediment, shaken by hand for 10 seconds and spun at 500 g for 5 minutes.The previous step was repeated once more and all three extracts were combined in theTurbovapTM tube. Sample extracts were then placed in the TurbovapTM and reduced to a volumeof 0.5 ml. The sides of the TurbovapTM tubes were rinsed down with methylene chloride andagain reduced to 0.5 ml. Then, 2.5 ml of dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) were added to the tubesthat were returned to the TurbovapTM for an additional 15 minutes. Sample extracts were placedin clean vials and 2.5 ml of DMSO were added to obtain a final volume of 5 ml DMSO. Becauseorganic sediment extracts were obtained with DCM, a strong non-polar solvent, the final extractwas evaporated and redissolved in DMSO. The DMSO was compatible with the MicrotoxTM

system because of its low test toxicity and good solubility with a broad spectrum of apolarchemicals (Johnson and Long, 1998).

A suspension of luminescent bacteria, Vibrio fischeri (Azur Environmental, Inc.), was thawedand hydrated with toxicant-free distilled water, covered and stored in a 4°C well on theMicrotoxTM analyzer. An aliquot of 10 µl of the bacterial suspension was transferred to a testvial containing the standard diluent (2% sodium chloride (NaCl)) and equilibrated to 15°C usinga temperature-controlled photometer. The amount of light lost per sample was assumed to beproportional to the toxicity of that test sample. To determine toxicity, each sample was dilutedinto four test concentrations. Percent decrease in luminescence of each cuvette relative to thereagent blank was calculated. Light loss was expressed as a gamma value and defined as theratio of light lost to light remaining. The log of gamma values from these four dilutions wasplotted and compared with the log of the samples’ concentrations. The concentrations of theextract that inhibited luminescence by 50% after a 5-min exposure period, the EC50 value, wasdetermined and expressed as mg equivalent sediment wet weight. Data were reduced using theMicrotoxTM Data Reduction software package. All EC50 values were average 5 minutesreadings with 95% confidence intervals for three replicates.

A negative control (extraction blank) was prepared using DMSO, the test carrier solvent. Aphenol standard (45mg/l phenol) was run after re-constitution of each vial of freeze-dried V.fischeri. Tests of extracts of sediments from the Redfish Bay, TX site used in the urchin testsalso were used as negative controls in the MicrotoxTM tests.

Human Reporter Gene System (Cytochrome P450) Response - Organic SolventExtract

Sediment samples were also analyzed with the Human Reporter Gene System (cytochrome P450)response assay (P450 HRGS). This test is used to determine the presence of organic compoundsthat bind to the Ah (aryl hydrocarbon) receptor and induce the CYP1A locus on the vertebratechromosome. Under appropriate test conditions, induction of CYP1A is evidence that the cells

Page 15

have been exposed to one or more of these xenobiotic organic compounds, including dioxins,furans, planar PCBs, and several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Jones and Anderson, 1999).Differences in the ability of the P450 enzyme to metabolize chlorinated and non-chlorinatedcompounds allow for differentiation between these classes of compounds in environmentalsamples. Since most PAHs are rapidly metabolized, they exhibit a maximum response in 6hours, at which point the response begins to fade. Chlorinated hydrocarbons (dioxins, furans,and certain PCBs), on the other hand, do not show a maximum response until 16 hours afterexposure (Jones and Anderson, 2000). The P450 HRGS assay provides an estimate of thepresence of contaminants bound to sediment that could produce chronic and/or carcinogeniceffects in benthic biota and/or demersal fishes that feed in sediments. These tests were run by theColumbia Analytical Services, Inc. in Vista, CA with solvent extracts prepared by theirlaboratory in Kelso, WA.

The details of this test are provided as U.S. EPA Method 4425 (EPA, 1999), Standard Method8070 by the American Public Health Association (APHA, 1998), and ASTM method E 1853M-98 by the American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM, 1999). The test uses a transgeniccell line (101L), derived from the human hepatoma cell line (HepG2), in which the flankingsequences of the CYP1A gene, containing the xenobiotic response elements (XREs), have beenstably linked to the firefly luciferase gene (Anderson et al. 1995, 1996). As a result, the enzymeluciferase is produced in the presence of compounds that bind the XREs.

After removal of debris and pebbles, the sediment sample was homogenized, dried withanhydrous sodium sulfate, and 20 g of sediment was extracted by sonication withdichloromethane (DCM), also known as methylene chloride. The extract was carefullyevaporated and concentration under a flow of nitrogen, and exchanged into mixture ofdimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), toluene and isopropyl alcohol (2:1:1) to achieve a final volume of 2mL. The 2 mL extracts were split into two 1 mL vials for testing with the Microtox and P450HRGS assays. The extraction procedure is well suited for extraction of neutral, non-ionicorganic compounds, such as aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons. Extraction of other classesof toxicants, such as metals and polar organic compounds, is not efficient. DMSO is compatiblewith these tests because of its low toxicity and high solubility with a broad spectrum of non-polarchemicals.

Briefly, a small amount of organic extract of sediment (up to 20 µL), was applied toapproximately one million cells in each well of a 6-well plate with 2 mL of medium. Detectionof enzyme induction in this assay is relatively rapid and simple to measure since binding of axenobiotic with the Ah receptor results in the production of luciferase.

After 16 hours of incubation with the extract, the cells are washed and lysed. Cell lysates arecentrifuged, and the supernatant is mixed with buffering chemicals. Enzyme reaction is initiatedby injection of luciferin. The resulting luminescence is measured with a luminometer and isexpressed in relative light units (RLUs). A solvent blank (using a volume of solvent equal to thesample’s volume being tested) and reference toxicants (TCDD, dioxin/furan mixture, B[a]P) areused with each batch of samples.

Page 16

Mean RLU, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation of replicate analyses of each testsolution are recorded. Enzyme fold induction (times background) is calculated as the mean RLUof the test solution divided by the mean RLU of the solvent blank. From the standardconcentration-response curve for benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P), the HRGS response to 1 µg/mL isapproximately 60. Data are converted to µg of B[a]P equivalents per g of sediment byconsidering the dry weight of the samples, the volume of solvent, the amount added to the well,and the factor of 60 for B[a]P. If 20 µL of the 2 mL extracts are used, then fold induction ismultiplied by the volume factor of 100 and divided by 60 times the dry weight. Since testing atonly one time interval (16 h) will not allow discrimination between PAHs and chlorinatedhydrocarbons, the data are also expressed as Toxic Equivalents (TEQs). Based on a standardcurve with a dioxin/furan mixture, fold induction is equal to the TEQ (in pg/mL). Therefore,fold induction is multiplied by the volume factor (e.g., 100), and divided by the dry weight times1000 to convert pg to the TEQ in ng/g.

Quality control tests are run with clean extracts spiked with tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)and B[a]P to ensure compliance with results of previous tests. From a long-term control chart,the running average fold induction for 1 ng/mL of dioxin is approximately 105, and foldinduction for 1 µg/mL of B[a]P is 60. Tests are rerun if the coefficient of variation for replicatesis greater than 20%, and if fold induction is over the linear range (100 fold). HRGS testsperformed on extracts from Redfish Bay, Texas, are used as a negative control.

For a given study area, the B[a]P equivalent data are used to calculate the mean, standarddeviation and 99% confidence interval for all samples (Anderson et al., 1999a). Samples abovethe 99% confidence interval are generally considered to pose some chronic threat to benthicorganisms. The values from one investigation are compared to the overall database to evaluatethe magnitude of observed concentration. From analysis of the database, values less than 11 µg/gB[a]P equivalents (B[a]PEq) are not likely to produce adverse effects, while impacts areuncertain between 11 and 37 µg B[a]PEq/g. Moderate effects are expected at 37 µg/g, andsediment with over 60 µg B[a]PEq/g have been shown to be highly correlated with degradedbenthic communities (Fairey, et al., 1996). Previous studies have shown a high correlation of theHRGS responses to extracts of sediments and tissues to the content of PAHs in the samples(Anderson et al. 1999a, 1999b).

In a few samples from Elliott Bay in which enzyme induction responses were relatively high,analyses were conducted after both 6 and 16 hours of exposure. Because PAHs produce peakresponses at 6 hours, while chlorinated compounds produce a maximum response at 16 hours,the ratio of the two responses allows a quick estimation of the primary contaminant type in thesamples. Five of these samples were analyzed, in addition, for PCB congeners by EPA method8082 and for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds by GC/MS SIM method.

Chemical Analyses

Laboratory analyses were performed for 157 parameters and chemical compounds (Table 2),including 133 trace metals, pesticides, hydrocarbons and selected normalizers (i.e., grain size,total organic carbon) that are routinely quantified by the NS&T Program. An additional 20compounds were required by Ecology to ensure comparability with previous PSAMP and

Page 17

enforcement studies. Seven additional compounds were automatically quantified by ManchesterEnvironmental Laboratory during analysis for the required compounds. Analytical proceduresprovided performance equivalent to those of the NS&T Program and the PSEP Protocols,including those for analyses of blanks and standard reference materials. Information wasreported on recovery of spiked blanks, analytical precision with standard reference materials, andduplicate analyses of every 20th sample.

The laboratory analytical methods and reporting limits for quantitation of the 157 chemistryparameters analyzed for are summarized in Table 3 and described in detail below. Methods andresolution levels for field collection of temperature and salinity are included in Table 4.

Grain Size

Analysis for grain size was performed according to the PSEP Protocols (PSEP, 1986). The PSEPgrain size method is a sieve-pipette method. In this method, the sample is passed through aseries of progressively smaller sieves, with each fraction being weighed. After this separation,the very fine material remaining is placed into a column of water, and allowed to settle. Aliquotsare removed at measured intervals, and the amount of material in each settling fraction ismeasured. This parameter was contracted by Manchester to Hart Crowser, Seattle, Washington.

Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

Total organic carbon analysis was performed according to PSEP Protocols (PSEP, 1986). Themethod involves drying sediment material, pretreatment and subsequent oxidation of the driedsediment, and determination of CO2 by infra-red spectroscopy.

Metals

To maintain compatibility with previous PSAMP metals data, EPA Methods 3050/6010 wereused for the determination of metals in sediment. Method 3050 is a strong acid (aqua regia)digest that has been used for the last several years by Ecology for the characterization ofsediments for trace metal contamination. Method 3050 is also the recommended digestiontechnique for digestion of sediments in the recently revised PSEP protocols (PSEP, 1996c). Thisdigestion does not yield geologic (total) recoveries for most analytes including silicon, iron,aluminum and manganese. It does, however, recover quantitatively most anthropogenic metalscontamination and deposition.

For comparison with NOAA’s national bioeffects survey’s existing database, Manchestersimultaneously performed a total (hydrofluoric acid-based) digestion (EPA method 3052) onportions of the same samples. Determination of metals values for both sets of extracts weremade via ICP, ICP-MS, or GFAA, using a variety of EPA methods (Table 3) depending upon theappropriateness of the technique for each analyte.

Mercury

Mercury was determined by USEPA Method 245.5, mercury in sediment by cold vapor atomicabsorption (CVAA). The method consists of a strong acid sediment digestion, followed byreduction of ionic mercury to Hg0, and analysis of mercury by cold vapor atomic absorption.

Page 18

This method is recommended by the PSEP Protocols (PSEP, 1996c) for the determination ofmercury in Puget Sound sediment.

Butyl Tins

Butyl tins in sediments were analyzed by the Manchester method (Manchester EnvironmentalLaboratory, 1997). This method consists of solvent extraction of sediment, derivitization of theextract with the Grignard reagent hexylmagnesium bromide, cleanup with silica and alumina, andanalysis by Atomic Emission Detector (AED).

Base/Neutral/Acid (BNA) Organic Compounds

USEPA Method 846 8270, a recommended PSEP method (PSEP, 1996d), was used for semi-volatile analysis. This is a capillary column, GC/MS method.

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) (extended list)

At NOAA's request, the extended analyte list was modified by the inclusion of additional PAHcompounds. The PAH analytes were extracted separately using the EPA method SW846 3545.This method uses a capillary column GC/MS system set up in selective ion monitoring (SIM)mode to quantify PAHs. Quantitation is performed using an isotopic dilution method modeledafter USEPA Method SW 846 8270, referenced in PSEP, 1996d.

Chlorinated Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Aroclors

EPA Method 8081 for chlorinated pesticides and PCB was used for the analysis of thesecompounds. This method is a GC method with dual dissimilar column confirmation. Electroncapture detectors were used.

PCB Congeners

PCB methodology was based on the NOAA congener methods detailed in Volume IV of theNS&T Sampling and Analytical Methods documents (Lauenstein and Cantillo, 1993). Theconcentrations of the standard NOAA list of 20 congeners were determined.

Benthic Community AnalysesSample Processing and Sorting

All methods, procedures, and documentation (chain-of-custody forms, tracking logs, and datasheets) were similar to those described for the PSEP (1987) and in the PSAMP Marine SedimentMonitoring Component – Final Quality Assurance Project and Implementation Plan (Dutch et al.,1998).

Upon completion of field collection, benthic infaunal samples were checked into the benthiclaboratory at Ecology’s headquarters building. After a minimum fixation period of 24 hours (andmaximum of 7-10 days), the samples were washed on sieves to remove the formalin (1.0 mmfraction on a 0.5 mm sieve, 0.5 mm fraction on a 0.25 mm sieve) and transferred to 70% ethanol.Sorting and taxonomic identification of the 0.5 mm fraction will be completed separately by aNOAA contractor outside of the scope of work of this effort. The results of these separate

Page 19

analyses will be reported elsewhere by NOAA. After staining with rose bengal, the 1.0 mmsample fractions were examined under dissection microscopes, and all macroinfaunalinvertebrates and fragments were removed and sorted into the following major taxonomicgroups: Annelida, Arthropoda, Mollusca, Echinodermata, and miscellaneous taxa. Meiofaunalorganisms such as nematodes and foraminiferans were not removed from samples, although theirpresence and relative abundance were recorded. Representative samples of colonial organismssuch as hydrozoans, sponges, and bryozoans were collected, and their relative abundance noted.Sorting QA/QC procedures consisted of resorting 25% of each sample by a second sorter todetermine whether a sample sorting efficiency of 95% removal was met. If the 95% removalcriterion was not met, the entire sample was resorted.

Taxonomic Identification

Upon completion of sorting and sorting QA/QC, the majority of the taxonomic work wascontracted to recognized regional taxonomic specialists. Organisms were enumerated andidentified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, generally to species. In general, anterior endsof organisms were counted, except for bivalves (hinges), gastropods (opercula), and ophiuroids(oral disks). When possible, at least two pieces of literature (preferably including originaldescriptions) were used for each species identification. A maximum of three representativeorganisms of each species or taxon was removed from the samples and placed in a vouchercollection. Taxonomic identification quality control for all taxonomists included re-identification of 5% of all samples identified by the primary taxonomist and verification ofvoucher specimens generated by another qualified taxonomist.

Data Summary, Display, and Statistical AnalysisToxicity TestingAmphipod Survival – Solid Phase

Data from each station in which mean percent survival was less than that of the control werecompared to the CLIS control using a one-way, unpaired t-test (alpha < 0.05) assuming unequalvariance. Results were not transformed because examination of data from previous tests hasshown that results of tests performed with A. abdita met the requirements for normality.

"Significant toxicity" for A. abdita is defined here as survival statistically less than that in theperformance control (alpha < 0.05). In addition, samples in which survival was significantly lessthan controls and less than 80% of CLIS control values were regarded as “highly toxic”. The80% criterion is based upon statistical power curves created from SAIC's extensive testingdatabase with A. abdita (Thursby et al., 1997). Their analyses showed that the power to detect a20% difference from the control is approximately 90%. The minimum significant difference(i.e., “MSD” of <80% of control response) was used as the critical value in calculations of thespatial extent of toxicity (Long et al., 1996, 1999a).

Sea Urchin Fertilization - Pore Water

For the sea urchin fertilization tests, statistical comparisons among treatments were made usingANOVA and Dunnett's one-tailed t-test (which controls the experiment-wise error rate) on the

Page 20

arcsine square root transformed data with the aid of SAS (SAS, 1989). The trimmed Spearman-Karber method (Hamilton et al., 1977) with Abbott's correction (Morgan, 1992) was used tocalculate EC50 (50% effective concentration) values for dilution series tests. Prior to statisticalanalyses, the transformed data sets were screened for outliers (Moser and Stevens, 1992).Outliers were detected by comparing the studentized residuals to a critical value from a t-distribution chosen using a Bonferroni-type adjustment. The adjustment is based on the numberof observations (n) so that the overall probability of a type 1 error is at most 5%. The criticalvalue (CV) is given by the following equation: cv= t(dfError, .05/[2 x n]). After omitting outliersbut prior to further analyses, the transformed data sets were tested for normality and forhomogeneity of variance using SAS/LAB Software (SAS, 1992). Statistical comparisons weremade with mean results from the Redfish Bay controls. Reference toxicant concentration resultswere compared to filtered seawater controls and each other using both Dunnett’s t-test andDuncan’s multiple range test to determine lowest observable effects concentrations (LOECs) andno observable effects concentrations (NOECs).

In addition to the Dunnett’s one-tailed t-tests, data from field-collected samples were treated withan analysis similar to the MSD analysis used in the amphipod tests. Power analyses of the seaurchin fertilization data have shown MSDs of 15.5% for alpha <0.05 and 19% for alpha <0.01.However, to be consistent with the statistical methods used in previous surveys (Long et al.,1996, 1999a), estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity were based upon the same critical valueused in the amphipod tests (i.e., <80% of control response).

Microbial Bioluminescence (Microtox ) - Organic Solvent Extract

MicrotoxTM data were analyzed using the computer software package developed by MicrobicsCorporation to determine concentrations of the extract that inhibit luminescence by 50% (EC50).This value was then converted to mg dry weight using the calculated dry weight of sedimentpresent in the original extract. To determine significant differences of samples from each station,pair-wise comparisons were made between survey samples and results from Redfish Bay controlsediments using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Concentrations tested were expressed as mg dryweight based on the percentage extract in the 1 ml exposure volume and the calculated dryweight of the extracted sediment. Statistical comparisons among treatments were made usingANOVA and Dunnett’s one-tailed t-tests on the log transformed data with the aid of SAS (SAS,1989).

Three critical values were used to estimate the spatial extent of toxicity in these tests. First, avalue of <80% of Redfish Bay controls (equal to 8.5 mg/ml) was used; i.e., equivalent to thevalues used with the amphipod and urchin tests. Second and third, values of <0.51 mg/ml and<0.06 mg/ml calculated in the 1997 northern Puget Sound study were used, based upon thefrequency distribution of MicrotoxTM data from NOAA’s surveys nationwide (as per Long et al.,1999a).

Human Reporter Gene System (Cytochrome P450) Response - Organic SolventExtract

Microsoft Excel 5.0 was used to determine the mean RGS response and the 99% confidenceinterval of the B[a]P equivalent values for all 100 samples. Mean responses determined for all

Page 21

100 samples were compared to the upper prediction limits calculated in the 1997 northern PugetSound study (Long et al., 1999a): >11.1 µg/g and >37.1 µg/g.

Incidence and Severity, Spatial Patterns and Gradients, and Spatial Extent ofSediment Toxicity

The incidence of toxicity was determined by dividing the numbers of samples identified as eithersignificantly different from controls (i.e., "significantly toxic") or significantly different fromcontrols and <80% of control response (i.e., “highly toxic”) by the total number of samples tested(i.e., 100). Severity of the responses was determined by examining the range in responses foreach of the tests and identifying those samples with the highest and lowest responses. Spatialpatterns in toxicity were illustrated by plotting the results for each sampling station as symbols orhistograms on base maps of each major region.

Estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity were determined with cumulative distribution functionsin which the toxicity results from each station were weighted to the dimensions (km2) of thesampling stratum in which the samples were collected (Schimmel et al., 1994). The size of eachstratum (km2) was determined by use of an electronic planimeter applied to navigation charts,upon which the boundaries of each stratum were outlined (Table 1). Stratum sizes werecalculated as the averages of three trial planimeter measurements that were all within 10% ofeach other. A critical value of less than 80% of control response was used in the calculations ofthe spatial extent of toxicity for all tests except the cytochrome P450 HRGS assay. That is, thesample-weighted sizes of each stratum in which toxicity test results were less than 80% ofcontrol responses were summed to estimate the spatial extent of toxicity. Additional criticalvalues described above were applied to the MicrotoxTM and cytochrome P450 HRGS results.

Concordance Among Toxicity Tests

Non-parametric, Spearman-rank correlations were determined for combinations of toxicity testresults to quantify the degree to which these tests showed correspondence in spatial patterns intoxicity. None of the data from the four toxicity tests were normally distributed, therefore, non-parametric tests were used on raw (i.e., nontransformed) data. Both the correlation coefficients(rho) and the probability (p) values were calculated.

Chemical AnalysesSpatial Patterns and Spatial Extent of Sediment Contamination

Chemical data from the sample analyses were plotted on base maps to identify spatial patterns, ifany, in concentrations. The results were shown with symbols indicative of samples in whicheffects-based numerical guideline concentrations were exceeded. The spatial extent ofcontamination was determined with cumulative distribution functions in which the sizes of stratain which samples exceeded effects-based, numerical guidelines were summed.

Three sets of chemical concentrations were used as critical values: the SQS and CSL valuescontained in the Washington State Sediment Management Standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC)and the Effects Range-Median (ERM) values developed by Long et al. (1995) from NOAA’snational sediment data base. Two additional measures of chemical contamination also examined

Page 22

and considered for each sample were the Effects Range-Low (ERL) values developed for NOAA(Long et al., 1995), and the mean ERM quotient (Long and MacDonald, 1998). Samples withchemical concentrations greater than ERLs were viewed as slightly contaminated as opposed tothose with concentrations less than or equal to the ERLs, which were viewed as uncontaminated.Mean ERM quotients were calculated as the mean of the quotients derived by dividing thechemical concentrations in the samples by their respective ERM values. The greater the meanERM quotient, the greater the overall contamination of the sample as determined by theconcentration of 25 substances. Mean ERM quotient values of 1.0 or greater, equivalent to ERMunity, were independently determined to be highly predictive of acute toxicity in amphipodsurvival tests (Long and MacDonald, 1998). Mean SQS and CSL quotients were determinedusing the same procedure.

Chemistry/Toxicity Relationships

Chemistry/toxicity relationships were determined in a multi-step sequence. First, theconcentrations of different groups of chemicals were normalized to their respective ERM values(Long et al., 1995) and to their Washington State SQS and CSL values (Washington StateSediment Management Standards – Ch. 173-204 WAC), generating mean ERM, SQS, and CSLquotients. Non-parametric, Spearman-rank correlations were then used to determine if there wererelationships between the four measures of toxicity and these normalized mean values generatedfor the different groups of chemical compounds.

Second, Spearman-rank correlations were also used to determine relationships between eachtoxicity test and each physical/chemical variable. The correlation coefficients and their statisticalsignificance (p values) were recorded and compared among chemicals to identify whichchemicals co-varied with toxicity and which did not. For many of the different semivolatileorganic substances in the sediments, correlations were conducted for all 100 samples, using thelimits of quantitation for values reported as undetected. If the majority of concentrations werequalified as either estimates or below quantitation limits, the correlations were run again aftereliminating those samples. No analyses were performed for the numerous chemicals whoseconcentrations were below the limits of quantitation in all samples.

Third, for those chemicals in which a significant correlation was observed, the data wereexamined in scatterplots to determine whether there was a reasonable pattern of increasingtoxicity with increasing chemical concentration. Also, chemical concentrations in thescatterplots were compared with the SQS, CSL, and ERM values to determine which samples, ifany, were both toxic and had elevated chemical concentrations. The concentrations of un-ionizedammonia were compared to lowest observable effects concentrations (LOEC) determined for thesea urchin tests by the USGS (Carr et al., 1995) and no observable effects concentrations(NOEC) determined for amphipod survival tests (Kohn et al., 1994).

The objectives of this study did not include a determination of the cause(s) of toxicity or benthicalterations. Such determinations would require the performance of toxicity identificationevaluations and other similar research. The purpose of the multi-step approach used in the studywas to identify which chemicals, if any, showed the strongest concordance with the measures oftoxicity and benthic infaunal structure.

Page 23

Correlations were determined for all the substances that were quantified, including trace metals(both total and partial digestion), metalloids, un-ionized ammonia (UAN), percent fines, totalorganic carbon (TOC), chlorinated organic hydrocarbons (COHs), and polynuclear aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs). Concentrations were normalized to TOC where required for SQS andCSL values.

Those substances that showed significant correlations were indicated with asterisks (*= p<0.05,** = p<0.01, ***= p<0.001, and ****= p<0.0001) depending upon the level of probability. ABonferroni's adjustment was performed to account for the large number of independent variables(157 chemical compounds). This adjustment is required to eliminate the possibility of somecorrelations appearing to be significant by random chance alone.

Benthic Community Analyses

All benthic infaunal data were reviewed and standardized for any taxonomic nomenclaturalinconsistencies by Ecology personnel using an internally developed standardization process.With assistance from the taxonomists, the final species list was also reexamined for identificationand removal of taxa that were non-countable infauna. This included (1) organisms recorded withpresence/absence data, such as colonial species, (2) meiofaunal organisms, and (3) incidentaltaxa that were caught by the grab, but are not a part of the infauna (e.g., planktonic forms).

A series of benthic infaunal indices were then calculated to summarize the raw data andcharacterize the infaunal invertebrate assemblages identified from each station. Indices werebased upon all countable taxa, excluding colonial forms. Five indices were calculated, includingtotal abundance, major taxa abundance, taxa richness, Pielou’s evenness (J’), and Swartz’sDominance Index (SDI). These indices are defined in Table 5.

Benthic Community/Chemistry and Benthic Community/Toxicity Analyses

Nonparametric Spearman-rank correlation analyses were conducted among all benthic indices,chemistry, and toxicity data. The correlation coefficients (rho values) and their statisticalsignificance (p values) were recorded and examined to identify which benthic indices co-variedwith toxicity results and chemistry concentrations. Comparisons were made to determinesimilarities between these correlation results and those generated for the chemistry/toxicitycorrelation analyses.

Sediment Quality Triad Analyses

Following the suggestions of Chapman (1996), summarized data from the chemical analyses,toxicity tests, and benthic analyses were compiled to identify the sampling locations with thehighest and lowest overall sediment quality and samples with mixed or intermediate results. Thepercent spatial extent of sediment quality was computed for stations with four combinations ofchemical/toxicity/benthic results. Highest quality sediments were those in which no chemicalconcentrations exceeded numerical guidelines, toxicity was not apparent in any of the tests, andthe benthos included relatively large numbers of organisms and species, and pollution-sensitivespecies were present. Lowest quality sediments were those with chemical concentrations greaterthan the guidelines, toxicity in at least one of the tests, and a relatively depauperate benthos.

Page 24

The benthic data analyses and interpretations presented in this report are intended to bepreliminary and general. Estimates of the spatial extent of benthic alterations are not made dueto absence of a widely accepted critical value at this time. A more thorough examination of thebenthic infauna communities in central Puget Sound and their relationship to sedimentcharacteristics, toxicity, and chemistry will be presented in future reports.

Page 25

ResultsA record of all field notes and observations made for each sediment sample collected is presentedin Appendix C. The results of the toxicity testing, chemical analyses, and benthic infaunalabundance determination are reported in various summarized tables in this section of the reportand in the appendices. Due to the large volume of data generated, not all raw data has beenincluded in this report. All raw data can be obtained from Ecology’s Sediment Monitoring Teamdatabase or Ecology’s Sediment Management Unit SEDQUAL database. The web site addresseslinking to both these databases are located on the inside cover of this report.

Toxicity TestingIncidence and Severity of ToxicityAmphipod Survival - Solid Phase

Tests were performed in 13 batches that coincided with shipments from the field crew. Tests onall samples were initiated within 10 days of the date they were collected. Amphipods ranged insize from 0.5 to 1.0 mm, test temperatures ranged from 19°C to 20.2°C, and mean percentsurvival in CLIS controls ranged from 88% to 99%. The LC50 values determined for 96-hrwater-only exposures to SDS ranged from 5.3 mg/l to 9.8 mg/l. All conditions were withinacceptable limits. Control charts provided by SAIC showed consistent results in tests of both thepositive and negative controls.

Results of the amphipod survival tests for the 100 central Puget Sound sediments are reported inTable 6. Mean percent survival was significantly lower than in controls in seven of the 100samples (i.e., 7% incidence of “significant” toxicity), and also less than 80% of controls in one ofthese seven samples (i.e., 1% incidence of “high” toxicity) (station 167, Port WashingtonNarrows). As a measure of the severity of toxicity, mean survival for the test sediments,expressed as percent of control survival, ranged from 47% (station 167, Port WashingtonNarrows) to 109% (station 189, Mid Elliott Bay), with results >100% for 44 samples.

Sea Urchin Fertilization – Pore Water

Tests were run in three batches. Only 5 samples required adjustments of salinity to 29-31 ppt.Sulfide concentrations were less than the detection limit of 0.01 mg/l in all samples. Dissolvedoxygen concentrations in pore water ranged from 6.91 to 8.87 mg/l. Values for pH ranged from6.77 to 7.57. Total ammonia concentrations in pore waters ranged from 1.27 to 6.49 mg/l andun-ionized ammonia concentrations ranged from 3.8 to 62.8 µg/l. The EC50 values for tests ofSDS were 2.32 mg/l, 5.36 mg/l, and 4.03 mg/l, respectively, for the three test series (equivalentresults in 1997 were 2.41, 3.23, and 3.51 mg/l in three tests). All conditions were withinacceptable limits.

Mean responses for each sample and each porewater concentration are shown in Table 7, alongwith mean responses normalized to control responses. Four measures of statistical significanceare indicated. If percent fertilization was significantly reduced relative to controls (Dunnett’s t-test), but fertilization was less than the minimum significant difference (MSD) calculated for A.

Page 26

punctulata, significance is shown as + for alpha <0.05 and shown as ++ for alpha <0.01. Ifpercent fertilization was significantly reduced relative to controls (Dunnett’s t-test) and percentfertilization exceeded the minimum significant difference (i.e., <80% of control response),significance is shown as * for alpha <0.05 and ** for alpha <0.01. The MSD value for A.punctulata was used, because none is available thus far for S. purpuratus.

Results of the urchin fertilization tests for the 100%, 50%, and 25% porewater concentrationsfrom the central Puget Sound sediments indicate that mean percent fertilization was significantlylower than in controls in 16, 14, and 12 of the 100 samples (i.e., 16%, 14%, and 12% incidenceof “significant” toxicity) for 100, 50, and 25% pore water, respectively. Percent fertilizationsuccess was also both significantly lower and less than 80% of controls in 15, 5, and 9 of the 100samples (i.e., 15, 5, and 9% incidence of “high” toxicity) for 100, 50, and 25% pore water,respectively. “High” toxicity occurred for all three porewater fractions at stations 115 and 182(Elliott Bay) and 160 (Sinclair Inlet). Twelve other samples displayed “high” toxicity for 100%porewater, including stations 165 (Sinclair Inlet); 167 and 168 (Port Washington Narrows); 176,177, 179, 180, 184, and 197 (Elliott Bay); and 199-201 (near Harbor Island). The sample fromstation 172 (Elliott Bay) also displayed “high” toxicity for both 50 and 25% porewater. Severityof toxicity, based on mean percent fertilization (as % of control), ranged from 2% and 6% in themost toxic samples (station 160, Sinclair Inlet; 115, Elliott Bay; respectively) to 120% (station185, Elliott Bay), with results > 100% for 202 of the 300 tests (all porewater concentrations).

Microbial Bioluminescence (Microtox™) and Human Reporter Gene System(Cytochrome P450) Response - Organic Solvent Extract

The Microtox mean EC50 and cytochrome P450 HRGS results are displayed in Table 8. In theMicrotox tests the mean EC50 value calculated for the Redfish Bay control was 10.57 mg/l.Results for 57 of the Puget Sound stations scattered throughout the study area were statisticallysignificantly reduced relative to the controls and also less than 80% of controls (i.e., a 57%incidence of “high” toxicity). However, none of the Microtox tests produced results less than0.51 mg/l or 0.06 mg/l, the critical lower prediction limit (LPL) values derived for this test duringthe 1997 survey of northern Puget Sound sediments (Long et al., 1999a). As a measure of theseverity of toxicity, EC50 values (as % of control) ranged from 6% (station 168, PortWashington Narrows) to 1697% (station 191, Elliott Bay), with results > 100% for 35 of the 100stations.

The cytochrome P450 HRGS toxicity tests of the 100 sediment samples produced a meanresponse in the Redfish Bay controls of 0.2 B[a]PEq (µg/g). Results from tests of the centralPuget Sound samples ranged from 0.4 (station 116, Admiralty Inlet) to 223 B[a]PEq (µg/g)(station 184, Elliott Bay). Statistical significance of these data compared to the controls was notdetermined. However, there were 62 and 27 samples in which the responses exceeded,respectively, the 11.1 and 37.1 B[a]PEq (µg/g) upper prediction limit (UPL) critical thresholdsderived for the 1997 northern Puget Sound study (Long et al., 1999a). The 27 samples werelocated primarily in the areas of West Point, Eagle Harbor, Sinclair Inlet, Elliott Bay, and theDuwamish.

Page 27

As a corollary to and verification of the cytochrome P450 HRGS toxicity tests results, ColumbiaAnalytical Services performed further chemical testing on a select number of the central PugetSound samples (Jack Anderson, CAS, personal communication). Ten of the samples wereselected for cytochrome P450 HRGS analyses at two time periods, exposures of 6 hours and 16hours. Experimentation with this assay has revealed that the RGS response is optimal at 6 hoursof exposure when tests are done with PAHs, whereas the response is optimal at 16 hours whentests are done with dioxins. All ten samples selected for these two time series tests (stations 182,184, 193, 198-204) were collected in Elliott Bay or the lower Duwamish River. In all thesamples except 184, the response was stronger at 6 hours than at 16 hours, indicating thepresence of PAHs in the extracts. In most cases, the ratios between the two responses werefactors of about five-fold.

Five of the samples (from stations 184, 193, 199, 200, and 204) were selected for chemicalanalyses for PAHs and PCBs. The correlation between total PAH concentrations in the extractsof five samples and RGS responses was significant (R2 = 0.75). Total PAH concentrations (sumsof 27 parent compounds) equaled 240 to 5975 ppb.

In the sample from station 184, the responses at the two time periods were equivalent, suggestingthat both chlorinated organics and PAHs were present. However, chemical analyses of theextracts for the five samples indicated that the sums of PCB congeners were very low: 0 to 14ppb. The highest concentration of PAHs (5975 ppb) was found in sample 184 and the total PCBconcentration was 0, contradictory to what was expected. The data suggest that chlorinatedorganics other than planar PCB congeners may have occurred in sample 184.

Spatial Patterns and Gradients in Toxicity

Spatial patterns (or gradients) in toxicity were illustrated in three sets of figures, including mapsfor the amphipod and urchin test results (Figures 4-8), Microtox results (Figures 9-13), andcytochrome P450 HRGS test results (Figures 14-18). Amphipod and urchin test results aredisplayed as symbols keyed to the statistical significance of the responses. Stations are shown inwhich amphipod survival was not significantly different from CLIS controls (p>0.05, (i.e.,non-toxic)), was significantly different from controls (p<0.05, (i.e., significantly toxic)), or wassignificantly different from controls (p<0.05), and less than 80% of control survival, (i.e., highlytoxic). Also, stations are shown on the same figures in which urchin fertilization in 100% porewater was not significantly different from Redfish Bay controls (p>0.05, (i.e., non-toxic)), or wassignificantly different from controls (p<0.05) and less than 80% of controls (i.e., highly toxic) in100% pore water only, in 100% + 50% pore water concentrations, and in 100% + 50% + 25%porewater concentrations. Samples in which significant results were observed in all threeporewater concentrations were considered the most toxic.

Microtox and cytochrome P450 HRGS data are shown as histograms for each station.Microtox results are expressed as the mean EC50 (mg/ml), therefore, as in the report for the1997 survey, the height of the bar decreases with increasing toxicity. Dark bars indicatenonsignificant results (i.e., not significantly different from Redfish Bay controls (p>0.05, (i.e.,non-toxic)), while light bars indicate results were significantly different from controls (p<0.05)and less than 80% of controls (i.e., toxic response). In the cytochrome P450 HRGS assays, data

Page 28

are expressed as benzo[a]pyrene equivalents (µg/g) of sediment. For these results, high valuesindicate the presence of toxic chemicals (i.e., the height of the bar increases with increasingtoxicity).

Amphipod Survival and Sea Urchin Fertilization

Among the samples collected in Port Townsend, Admiralty Inlet, lower Possession Sound, andthe central basin (strata 1-12), there was a general trend of non-toxic conditions, with only threesignificantly toxic responses in the test for amphipod survival, and no significant responses in theurchin fertilization tests (Figures 4-6). Amphipod survival was significantly reduced in thesamples from station 106 (South Port Townsend), station 123 (Central Basin), and station 134(near Blake Island).

None of the results were statistically significant (i.e., all samples were non-toxic) in either ofthese two tests for samples from Liberty Bay (stratum 13), Keyport (stratum 14), the Bainbridgebasin (strata 15, 16), Rich Passage (stratum 17), and Dyes Inlet (stratum 22) (Figures 5 and 7).Amphipod survival, however, was significantly toxic in one sample from stratum 18 (station 158,Port Orchard) and highly toxic (the only sample in the survey with this result) in one samplefrom stratum 21 (station 167, Port Washington Narrows). Urchin fertilization also displayedsignificant toxicity in 100% pore water at stations 165 (Sinclair Inlet), and 167 and 168 (PortWashington Narrows), and was highly toxic in all porewater concentrations in the sample fromstation 160 (Sinclair Inlet) (Figure 7).

There were only two significantly toxic responses in the test for amphipod survival in Elliott Bay,at stations 181 (shoreline) and 202 (east Harbor Island) (Figure 8). Toxicity in the sea urchintests was much more apparent among the samples collected in Elliott Bay. Samples from strata24-26 along the Seattle shoreline and strata 30 and 31 (east and west Harbor Island) displayedvarying degrees of toxicity to the sea urchin fertilization tests.

Microbial Bioluminescence (Microtox™)

With a few exceptions, samples from the northern region of the study area (strata 1,2,4, and 5)demonstrated minimal responses (i.e., high bars) in the Microtox tests (Figure 9). Fourstations, 106 and 107 (south Port Townsend), station 112 (south Admiralty Inlet), and station 118(Possession Sound) all displayed highly significant levels of toxicity in response to the test formicrobial bioluminescence.

Continuing farther south in Puget Sound, samples from strata 6-12 displayed both significant andnonsignificant Microtox results (Figures 10 and 12). There was no clear spatial pattern in theseresults from the central basin area, with the exception of stratum 9 (Eagle Harbor), in whichsamples from all three stations displayed significant Microtox results.

Samples from strata 13-16 and 18-22 in the Bainbridge Basin all displayed significant responsesto the Microtox tests with the exception of station 165 in Sinclair Inlet (Figures 10 and 11).None of the stations from stratum 17 (Rich Passage) displayed significant responses. Therelatively high toxicity levels in samples from stations 148-150 (Figure 10) continued southward

Page 29

to station 151, then decreased steadily southward through stations 153, 152 and 156 (Figure 11).Toxicity then again increased toward and into Sinclair Inlet.

In Elliott Bay, significant results of the Microtox tests were seen in stratum 23 (outer ElliottBay) and at nearby station 190 (mid Elliott Bay); at shoreline stations 176, 177, 115, and 183; atstations 114 and 197 (west Harbor Island) and station 201 (east Harbor Island); and at stations203-205 (Duwamish River). Five of these stations also displayed toxicity with the sea urchintests. As stated earlier, none of the Microtox test results indicated significant toxicity whencompared to the 80 and 90% Lower Prediction Limit (LPL) critical values generated for the 1997data set (Long, et al., 1999a).

Human Reporter Gene System (Cytochrome P450)

Results of this test are illustrated as histograms for each station (Figures 14-18). High values areindicative of a response to the presence of organic compounds, such as dioxins, furans, andPAHs in the sediment extracts. Data are shown as benzo[a]pyrene equivalents (µg/g). Using thenationwide NOAA database and the 1997 PSAMP/NOAA Northern Puget Sound SedimentQuality study, critical values of >11.1 and >37.1 µg/g benzo(a)pyrene equivalents/g sedimentwere calculated as the 80% and 90% upper prediction limit critical values for this toxicityparameter (Long, et al., 1999a).

Minimal responses were observed in all samples from strata 1,2,4, and 5 in the northern region ofthe study area (Figure 14), and strata 6-7 (Figure 15). With the exception of the sample taken atstation 141 (East Passage), stations in stratum 9 (Eagle Harbor); strata 8, 11, and 12 (CentralBasin); and station 135 in stratum 10 all displayed a response above the > 80% upper predictionlimit critical value. Results from three of these 14 stations also exceeded the 90% upperprediction limit critical values (Figures 15, 17).

Slightly elevated responses (between the 80 and 90% upper prediction limits) were apparent insamples from Liberty Bay (stations 143, 144, 146) and stations 148, 151, and 153 (Figures 15-16). The cytochrome P450 HRGS responses in samples from stratum 16 diminished southwardinto stratum 17 (no elevated results) and then increased again in strata 18-22 (Dyes and SinclairInlets, and Port Washington Narrows) (Figure 16). Samples from 11 of the 15 stations in thesestrata displayed cytochrome P450 HRGS responses above either the 80 or 90% upper predictionlimits.

Minimal cytochrome P450 HRGS responses were displayed in outer Elliott Bay (strata 23 and24) (Figure 18). In contrast, samples from inner Elliott Bay and the Duwamish (strata 25-32)gave the highest P-450 responses among all study samples. Cytochrome P450 HRGS assayresults exceeded either the 80 or 90% criteria values, with the exception of the sample fromstation 190.

Summary

Several spatial patterns identified with results of all the tests were apparent in this survey. First,samples from the Admiralty Inlet/Port Townsend area and much of the central main basin wereamong the least toxic. Second, many of the samples from the Liberty Bay and Bainbridge basin

Page 30

area were toxic in the Microtox and cytochrome P450 HRGS assays. The degree of toxicitydecreased steadily southward down the Bainbridge basin to Rich Passage, where the sedimentswere among the least toxic. Third, samples from two stations (167 and 168) located in a smallinlet off Port Washington Narrows were among the most toxic in two or more tests. Fourth,several samples from stations scattered within Sinclair Inlet indicated moderately toxicconditions; toxicity diminished steadily eastward into Rich Passage. Finally, and perhaps,foremost, were the highly toxic responses in the sea urchin, Microtox, and cytochrome P450HRGS tests observed in the strata of inner Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River. Toxicityin these tests generally decreased considerably westward into the outer and deeper regions of thebay.

Spatial Extent of Toxicity

The spatial extent of toxicity was estimated for each of the four tests performed in central PugetSound with the same methods used in the 1997 northern Puget Sound study (Long et al., 1999a),and reported in Table 9. The critical values used in 1997 were also applied to the 1998 data. The33 strata were estimated to cover a total of about 732 km2 in the central basin and adjoining bays.

In the amphipod survival tests, control-normalized survival was below 80% in only one sample(station 167 Port Washington Narrows), which represented about 1.0 km2, or about 0.1% of thetotal area. In the sea urchin fertilization tests of 100%, 50%, and 25% pore waters, the spatialextent of toxicity (average fertilization success <80% of controls; i.e., highly toxic) was 5.1, 1.5,and 4.2 km2, respectively, or 0.7%, 0.2%, and 0.6% of the total area. Usually, in these tests thepercentages of samples in which toxic responses are observed decrease steadily as the porewaters are diluted. However, in this case the incidence of toxicity and, therefore, the spatialextent of toxicity, was higher in tests of 25% pore waters than in the tests of 50% pore waters.There is no apparent explanation for this discrepancy from past performance.

The spatial extent of toxicity relative to controls in the Microtox tests was 349 km2,representing about 48% of the total area. However, there were no samples in which meanEC50’s were less than 0.51 mg/L or 0.06 mg/L, the statistically-derived 80% and 90% lowerprediction limits of the existing Microtox database. In the cytochrome P450 HRGS assays,samples in which the responses exceeded 11.1 µg/g and 37.1 µg/g (the 80% and 90% upperprediction limits of the existing database) represented about 237 km2 and 24 km2, respectively.These areas were equivalent to 32% and 3%, respectively, of the total survey area.

Concordance among Toxicity Tests

Non-parametric Spearman-rank correlations were determined for combinations of the fourdifferent toxicity tests to determine the degree to which the results co-varied and, therefore,showed the same patterns. It is critical with these correlation analyses to identify whether thecoefficients are positive or negative. Amphipod survival, urchin fertilization success andmicrobial bioluminescence improve as sediment quality improves. However, cytochrome P450HRGS responses increase as sediment quality deteriorates. Therefore, in the former three tests,positive correlation coefficients suggest the tests co-varied with each other. In contrast, co-

Page 31

variance of the other tests with results of the cytochrome P450 HRGS assays would be indicatedwith negative signs.

The data in Table 10 indicate that the majority of the correlations between toxicity tests were notsignificant, indicating poor concordance among tests. However, cytochrome P450 HRGSresponses increased as percent urchin fertilization decreased and this relationship was highlysignificant (p<0.0001). In both of these tests, samples from many of the stations in the northernreaches of the study area and the central basin of the Sound were least toxic, whereas many of thesamples collected around the perimeter of Elliott Bay and a few in Sinclair Inlet were highlytoxic.

Chemical AnalysesGrain Size

The grain size data are reported in Appendix D, Table 1, and frequency distributions of the fourparticle size classes, % gravel, % sand, % silt, and % clay, are depicted for all stations inAppendix D, Figure 1. From these data, sediment from the 100 stations were characterized intofour groups (sand, silty sand, mixed sediments, and silt-clay) based on their relative proportion of% sand to % fines (silt + clay)(Table 11). Among the 100 samples from central Puget Sound, 30were composed primarily of sand, 15 of silty sand, 23 had mixed sediments, and 32 were madeup primarily of silt-clay particles.

Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Temperature, and Salinity

Total organic carbon (TOC) and temperature measurements taken from the sediment samples,and salinity measurements collected from water in the grab, are displayed in Appendix D, Table2. Values for TOC ranged between 0.1 and 4.2%, with a mean of 1.4%. Eight of the 100stations had TOC values lower than 0.2% which should be considered when comparing TOCnormalized data from these stations to Washington State sediment criteria (Michelsen, 1992).Temperature ranged between 11.0 and 14.5 °C, with a mean of 12.4 °C. Salinity values rangedbetween 25-34 ppt, with a mean of 30.5 ppt.

Metals and Organics

Appendix D, Table 3 summarizes metal and organic compound data, including mean, median,minimum, maximum, range, total number of values, number of undetected values, and thenumber of missing values. Values for tin (partial digestion) and monobutyl tin were not obtaineddue to contamination of samples during the digestion and analysis processes at the lab. Themajority of compounds quantified were reported as undetected at method quantitation limits inone or more samples. These compounds included 6 of 24 metals (strong acid digestion), 23 of 23metals (hydrofluoric acid digestion method), 1 of 1 miscellaneous elements, 2 of 2 organotins, 23of 23 organic compounds quantified through BNA analyses, 33 of 46 low and high molecularweight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and all 56 chlorinated pesticides and polychlorinatedbiphenyl (PCB) compounds.

Page 32

Spatial Patterns in Chemical Contamination

The spatial (geographic) patterns in chemical contamination were determined by identifying onmaps the locations of sampling stations in which numerical sediment quality guidelines (ERM,SQS, and CSL values) were exceeded (Figures 19-23). Tables 12 and 13 provide detail regardingthe specific chemical compounds that exceeded these guideline values at each station. Thenumber of compounds exceeding the ERL values and the mean ERM quotient calculated for eachstation, are also provided in Tables 12 and 13, and discussed below.

Spatial patterns in chemical contamination in strata 1,2,4, and 5 near Port Townsend, southernAdmiralty Inlet, and in Possession Sound, are displayed in Figure 19 and summarized in Table12. None of the ERM values were exceeded in these 12 sediment samples. The ERM quotientsfor all samples except those from stations 107 and 118 were less than 0.1, suggesting that verylittle contamination occurred in this area. For samples 107 and 118, three chemicals exceededthe ERL values, and mean ERM quotients were 0.24 and 0.13, respectively, suggesting a slightdegree of contamination. One chemical, 4-methylphenol, exceeded state SQS and CSL values atsix stations within strata 1,2,4, and 5. Five of these samples were collected in Port Townsend(stations 106-109, 111) and the other near Mukilteo (station 118) in Possession Sound.

None of the chemical concentrations in samples from strata 6-8 in the central basin and PortMadison, and in strata 13-15 (Liberty Bay/Keyport/Bainbridge Island) exceeded ERM values(Figure 20, Table 12). Mean ERM quotients in these samples were low (0.04 to 0.26). Sampleswith chemical concentrations exceeding ERL values included those from stations 128 (16compounds); 142-144, 146 (4 each); 148 (3); 129 (2); and 122, 123(1 each). As in strata 1,2,4,and 5, the SQS and CSL values for 4-methylphenol were exceeded in samples 113, 122, 123, and148, again suggesting these samples were only slightly contaminated.

In the samples collected in the southern reaches of the central basin and Eagle Harbor, allchemical concentrations were below the ERM values (Figure 21, Table 12). However, insamples 130 and 131 from Eagle Harbor, mean ERM quotients were 0.33 and 0.36 and 17 and 19ERLs were exceeded, respectively, in these samples, suggesting a slight degree of contamination.The CSL concentration for 4-methylphenol was again exceeded in the sample from station 140.No other samples from strata 9-12 had chemical concentrations exceeding Washington Statesediment standards.

Figure 22 and Table 12 summarize spatial patterns for chemical contamination in the sedimentscollected near Bainbridge Island, Port Orchard, and Bremerton (strata 16-22). Contaminantlevels in the samples collected from strata 16 through 18, 21, and station 169 (Dyes Inlet) wereall measured below ERM values, with low mean ERM quotients (0.04 - 0.19). The ERL valueswere exceeded at stations 151 and 153 (SW Bainbridge Island), and 168 (Port WashingtonNarrows), while the CSL values for benzyl alcohol was exceeded only at station 151.

Samples from stations 170 and 171 in Dyes Inlet also displayed no contaminant levels aboveERM values, with the exception of nickel at station 170. Long et al. (1995), however, suggestedthat there was a limited degree of reliability in the ERM value for nickel, and that nickel does notplay a major role in causing toxicity. The mean ERM quotient values were higher, 0.25 and 0.26,

Page 33

respectively, and each station had 10 compounds exceeding ERL values. Again, the SQS valuefor benzyl alcohol was exceeded at both stations, while both SQS and CSL values for mercurywere exceeded at station 171. With the exception of station 161, all six samples collected fromSinclair Inlet exceeded the ERM value for mercury. Mean ERM quotients at these stations werehigh, ranging from 0.27 to 0.55, and ERL values were exceeded for 7 to 11 compounds in eachsample. All six samples exceeded the SQS and CSL values for mercury.

Spatial patterns in chemical contamination in the sediments collected in Elliott Bay and theDuwamish River are summarized in Figure 23 and Table 13. The degree of chemicalcontamination increased steadily and considerably from the outer to the inner reaches of the bay.Sediment samples collected from the outer bay (strata 23, 24, and 28) had no chemicalconcentrations exceeding ERM values, mean ERM quotients ranging between 0.06 and 0.45, andERL values were exceeded for 0 to 16 compounds. Sediments from stations 174, 176, and 190did, however, have concentrations of butylbenzylphthalate (stations 174, 176), di-n-butylphthalate (station 190), and mercury, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, and phenanthrene (station 176)above the SQS levels.

Samples collected along the Seattle shoreline and inner bay (strata 25-27,29) and in the lowerDuwamish River (strata 30-32) were the most contaminated among the 100 tested in centralPuget Sound. In the samples from these seven strata, many chemical compounds (up to 25 perstation) had concentrations exceeding ERL levels, and mean ERM quotients ranged from 0.37 to3.93. Notable among these 25 samples were those from 11 stations (i.e., 181, 182, 184, 188, 194,198, 114, 200, 201, 202, and 205) in which chemical concentrations exceeded 20 to 25 ERLvalues, and mean ERM quotients exceeded 1.0 (1.05-3.93).

Within these seven strata, a variety of compounds (up to 10 per station) had concentrationsexceeding ERM, SQS, and CSL values. Some unique patterns were discerned with regard to thechemical compounds that exceeded national guidelines and state criteria. Mercury valuesexceeded only the state criteria, and only at some of the shoreline and mid-Elliott Bay stations,while other metals were detected above state criteria (arsenic) and national guidelines (arsenicand zinc) near West Harbor Island only (station 197). The majority of the samples exceedingHPAH national guidelines and state criteria were collected from shoreline and mid-Elliott Baystations. With one exception (station 198), total LPAH values exceeded only national guidelines.However, one LPAH compound (phenanthrene) exceeded both state criteria and nationalguidelines at some shoreline and mid-Elliott Bay stations, while four other LPAH compounds (2-methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, fluorene, and naphthalene) exceeded both sets of values at thethree West Harbor Island stations (stratum 30). Total PCBs exceeded ERM values only. Theydid not exceed SQS and CSL values. Phenol concentrations (primarily 4-methylphenol),however, exceeded only state criteria, and were found primarily in the Harbor Island andDuwamish River samples. The phthalate esters bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate andbutylbenzylphthalate were found only in the East Harbor Island and Duwamish River samples.Four other compounds which exceeded state criteria only included dibenzofuran (station 183 and198), benzyl alcohol (station 188), 1,4-dichlorobenzene (station 200), and pentachlorophenol(station 205).

Page 34

Summary

The majority of compounds for which chemical analyses were conducted on the 100 sedimentsamples from central Puget Sound were measured at levels below state criteria and nationalguidelines (i.e., ERM, SQS, and CSL values). Eleven stations, located in Port Townsend,Possession Sound, the central basin, the Bainbridge basin, and East Passage, all exceededWashington State SQS and CSL levels for the compound 4-methylphenol. Three stations, onewest of Bainbridge Island and two in Dyes Inlet, exceeded state criteria for benzyl alcohol. Oneof these, in Dyes Inlet, also exceeded state criteria for mercury. The six stations in Sinclair Inletalso exceeded SQS and CSL levels for mercury, while five of the six also exceeded the ERMlevel for mercury. Sediment samples collected at stations located in Elliott Bay and theDuwamish River clearly showed an increase in the number of compounds exceeding state criteriaand national guidelines from outer to inner Elliott Bay, and into the Duwamish River. The suitesof compounds exceeding criteria differed between the shoreline/mid-Elliott Bay samples andthose collected around Harbor Island and further up the Duwamish River, reflecting differingsources of contamination. In general, spatial patterns of chemical contamination indicated thatthe highest chemical concentrations invariably occurred in samples collected inurban/industrialized embayments, including Elliott Bay, Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet, and PortTownsend. Often, these samples contained chemicals at concentrations previously observed tobe associated with acute toxicity and other biological effects. Concentrations generally decreasedsteadily away from these embayments and were lowest in Admiralty Inlet, Possession Sound,Rich Passage, Bainbridge Basin, and most of the central basin.

Spatial Extent of Chemical Contamination

Table 14 summarizes the numbers of samples in which ERM, SQS, and CSL concentrations wereexceeded and an estimate of the spatial extent of chemical contamination (expressed as thepercentage of the total survey area these samples represent) for all compounds with chemicalguidelines. For some compounds, the data were qualified as “undetected” at method quantitationlimits that exceeded the chemical guideline values. In these cases, the spatial extent of chemicalcontamination was recalculated after omitting the data that were so qualified (shown as “>QLonly” on Table 14).

Among the trace metals, the concentration of arsenic exceeded ERM, SQS, and CSL values atstation 197, West Harbor Island (0.04% of the study area). The level of zinc also exceeded theERM value at this station. Mercury exceeded all three sets of criteria in sediment collected from9 to 14 stations in Sinclair and Dyes Inlets, and in Elliott Bay, representing 1.1 (ERM), 2.0(SQS), and 1.9% (CSL) of the study area. The ERM value for nickel was exceeded in foursamples. As stated earlier, however, Long et al. (1995) suggested that there was a limited degreeof reliability in this value. For all trace metals (excluding nickel), there are a total of 10 (ERM),15 (SQS), and 13 (CSL) samples exceeding guidelines or criteria levels, encompassing a total of2.5, 2.0, and 1.9%, respectively, of the total study area.

Many of the low and high molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (LPAH andHPAH) were found at concentrations that exceeded the guidelines in samples from Elliott Bay,West Harbor Island, and the Duwamish River. As noted earlier, different suites of PAHs

Page 35

exceeded state criteria and national guidelines at different locations, with the majority of theLPAH compounds detected above these values in the West Harbor Island samples, and themajority of the HPAH compounds found in the Elliott Bay and Duwamish River samples. Therewere 6, 15, and 3 samples in which the concentration of at least one PAH compound exceededthe ERM, SQS, or CSL values, respectively, representing areas equivalent to 0.4%, 0.7%, and0.07% of the total survey area.

The concentrations of phenols were low in the central Puget Sound stations, with the exceptionof 4-methylphenol, which was elevated above the SQS and CSL values in 22 samples scatteredthroughout the study area (23% of the total area). The concentration of the compound 2,4-dimethylphenol was elevated above SQS and CSL levels at station 188 in Elliott Bay (0.14% ofthe study area), while the concentration of pentachlorophenol was elevated above the SQS valueat station 205 in the Duwamish River (0.03% of the study area).

Phthalate ester concentrations, including bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, butylbenzlphthalate, and di-n-butylphthalate, were detected above state criteria levels only in the stations from Elliott Bay,East Harbor Island, and the Duwamish River. There were a total of 7 samples with phthalateester concentrations exceeding SQS criteria (0.76 % of study area), and 1 sample exceeding theCSL criteria (0.03% of the study area).

The concentrations of chlorinated pesticides for which national guidelines exist were found to bebelow ERM levels for both 4,4’-DDE and total DDT. Total PCB congeners (>QL data)exceeded the ERM value in 12 samples, located in Elliott Bay, East and West Harbor Island, andthe Duwamish River, and covered 0.55% of the total study area. In contrast, total PCB Aroclorconcentrations exceeded the SQS value in 36 samples and the CSL in one sample, but all of theseconcentrations were measured at or below the method quantitation limits reported by MEL, andthese limits exceeded the guideline values.

Five of the nine compounds in the remaining suite of miscellaneous compounds were not foundabove guideline levels in any samples, or were measured at or below method quantitation limitsthat exceeded the guideline values. The compound 1,4-dichlorobenzene was measured above itsSQS value at station 200 (0.02% of the study area), collected east of Harbor Island. Benzylalcohol was measured above its SQS value at stations collected near Bainbridge Island, in DyesInlet, and Elliott Bay (1.7% of the study area), and above its CSL concentration at the BainbridgeIsland station (0.5% of the study area). Dibenzofuran was measured above its SQS value at onestation in Elliott Bay and three stations collected west of Harbor Island (0.13% of the study area),and above its CSL value at one of the West Harbor Island stations (0.04% of the study area).High concentrations of benzoic acid were found almost ubiquitously throughout the central PugetSound study area, exceeding the SQS and CSL concentrations in 89 samples. These samplesrepresented about 81% of the total study area.

When all the chemical concentrations for which ERM values were derived (excluding nickel)were compared to their respective guidelines, 21 samples had at least one reliable chemicalconcentration greater than an ERM value. These 21 samples represented about 1.6% of the totalsurvey area. In contrast, there were 95 and 94 samples in which at least one SQS or CSL value(respectively) was exceeded, representing about 99% of the survey area. Excluding the data for

Page 36

both nickel and benzoic acid, 44 samples had at least one chemical concentration greater than anSQS value (25.2% of the area) and 36 samples had at least one concentration greater than a CSLvalue (21.1% of the area).

Summary

The spatial extent of chemical contamination, expressed as the percent of the total study area,was determined for the 54 compounds for which chemical guidelines or criteria exist. Twenty ofthese compounds were measured at levels that were below the SQS and CSL guidelines, andwere at or below the ERM guidelines, for all 100 stations sampled in central Puget Sound.Thirty-four (33 excluding nickel) were measured at or above at least one of the guideline valuesin at least one station. For 29 of these 34 compounds (including arsenic, zinc, LPAHs, HPAHs,phthalate esters, PCB congeners, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and dibenzofuran), the spatial extent ofchemical contamination represented less than 1% of the total study area and was confined to thestations sampled in the urban/industrialized areas of Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River. Fourof the five remaining compounds were measured above guideline levels in greater than 1% of thestudy area, including mercury (1.11-1.98%, Dyes and Sinclair Inlets, Elliott Bay), nickel (1.31%,Liberty Bay, Bainbridge Island, Dyes Inlet), 4-methylphenol (23%, Port Townsend, PossessionSound, Central Basin, East Passage, Bainbridge Island, Elliott Bay, and the Duwamish River),and benzyl alcohol (0.47-1.67%, Bainbridge Island, Elliott Bay, and the Duwamish River).Again, the majority of these compounds exceeding criteria values were located in samplescollected from urban/industrialized locations. High concentrations of benzoic acid were found inabout 81%, located around the central Puget Sound study area.

Relationships between Measures of Toxicity and Chemical Concentrations

The associations between the results of the toxicity tests and the concentrations of potentiallytoxic substances in the samples were determined in several steps, beginning with simple,non-parametric Spearman-rank correlation analyses. This step provided a quantitative method toidentify which chemicals or chemical groups, if any, showed the strongest statistical relationshipswith the different measures of toxicity.

Toxicity vs. Classes of Chemical Compounds

Spearman-rank correlation coefficients (rho) and probability (p) values for the four toxicity testsversus the concentrations of four different groups of chemicals, normalized to the respectiveERM, SQS, and CSL values, are listed in Table 15. None of the correlations were significant fortests of amphipod survival. In this study, significant statistical correlations between amphipodsurvival and chemical concentrations would not be expected because percent survival was verysimilar among most samples. Results of the Microtox tests were correlated (Rho = 0.37, p<0.01)only with summed concentrations of low molecular weight PAHs normalized to the SQS andCSL guidelines.

In contrast, percent urchin fertilization and cytochrome P450 HRGS induction were highlycorrelated with many of the chemical groups when normalized to all three sets of guidelines.Percent urchin fertilization was significantly correlated with all but the trace metals groups atprobability levels <0.0001. Correlations with the concentrations of PAHs were consistent andhighly significant. Correlations with trace metals were weaker. In the cytochrome P450 HRGS

Page 37

assays, enzyme induction was very highly correlated with trace metals, chlorinated organics,PAH concentrations, and mean ERM quotients for all 25 substances.

Among all the possible toxicity/chemistry correlations, the strongest statistical association wasbetween the cytochrome P450 HRGS responses and the concentrations of 13 PAHs normalizedto their respective ERM values (Rho = 0.928, p<0.0001) as shown in Table 15. These data areshown in a scatterplot (Figure 24) to illustrate the relationship. In general, cytochrome P450HRGS responses increased as PAH concentrations increased. Induction was greatest in thesample from station 184 which also had the highest concentrations of PAHs; thereby,contributing to the highly significant statistical correlation.

Toxicity vs. Individual Chemicals

Correlations between measures of toxicity and concentrations of individual trace metalsdetermined with partial digestions are summarized in Table 16. Most metal concentrations werehighly significantly correlated (p<0.0001) with cytochrome P450 HRGS induction, while a fewwere correlated to a lesser extent with percent urchin fertilization and microbialbioluminescence. None were correlated with amphipod survival. Urchin fertilization was mostsignificantly correlated with lead, suggesting that fertilization success diminished as the leadconcentration increased. However, the scatter plot of this data (Figures 25), indicated that therewas not a clear pattern of decreasing percent fertilization corresponding with increasing leadconcentrations. Furthermore, none of the samples had lead concentrations above the statestandards. Better correspondence was seen in the scatter plot of microbial bioluminescenceEC50s and cadmium concentration, with EC50 values decreased to their lowest level at cadmiumconcentrations greater than 0.5ppm (Figure 26).

Because the microbial bioluminescence and cytochrome P450 HRGS tests are performed withorganic solvent extracts, trace metals are not expected to contribute significantly to the biologicalresponses in these tests. The correlations between results of these two tests and concentrations oftrace metals (Table 16) that appeared to be highly significant may reflect the co-variance inconcentrations of metals and the organic toxicants that were eluted with the solvents.

Correlations between measures of toxicity and concentrations of individual trace metalsdetermined with total digestions are summarized in Table 17. Again, no significant correlationsare seen with Amphipod survival. Similar to the results observed for the partial digestions,percent fertilization and microbial bioluminescence were correlated with the concentrations ofjust a few metals determined with total digestions, while cytochrome P450 HRGS induction washighly correlated with most of the metals. The urchin tests were performed with pore waters,instead of organic solvent extracts. Also, these animals are known to be sensitive to trace metals.Therefore, if the presence of trace metals in the samples contributed to toxicity observed in thesetests, the correlation coefficients between urchin fertilization and metals concentrations might beexpected to increase with the data for total digestions relative to those for partial digestions,because the concentrations would be higher in the total digestions. However, the correlations inTables 16 and 17 showed only slight differences, and the examination of the scatter plot of therelationship between urchin fertilization results and tin concentrations showed that the highlysignificant negative correlation was driven by the results from just a few samples (Figure 27).

Page 38

Both percent urchin fertilization and cytochrome P450 HRGS induction were significantlycorrelated with the concentrations of most individual low molecular weight PAHs (LPAH) andthe sums of these compounds (Table 18). The correlations with cytochrome P450 HRGSinduction were very similar among the LPAHs, suggesting these compounds co-varied with eachother to a large degree. The highest correlation of any toxicity test with any chemical parameterwas between the cytochrome P450 HRGS and the HPAHs (rho = 0.718-0.946, p<0.0001)(Table19). The cytochrome P450 HRGS assay is known to be sensitive to, and was designed to detect,the presence of HPAH. Correlation coefficients, while also highly significant, were lower withurchin fertilization (rho = -0.413- -0.623, p<0.0001). Microbial bioluminescence generally wasnot highly correlated with the concentrations of these compounds, and amphipod survival, aswith the metals, was not correlated with either LPAH or HPAH results (Table 19).

The concentrations of the sums of 13 dry-weight normalized PAHs (national guidelines; Long etal., 1995) and 15 TOC-normalized concentrations (Washington State Sediment ManagementStandards; Chapter173-204 WAC, 1995) were highly correlated with percent urchin fertilizationand cytochrome P450 HRGS results. Fertilization success was highest among samples with thelowest concentrations (Figures 28, 29). However, fertilization success did not decrease steadilywith increasing concentrations and the only sample in which the total PAH concentrationexceeded the ERM was not toxic; thereby suggesting that fertilization success was not controlledby these substances.

In contrast to the data from the urchin tests, enzyme induction in the cytochrome P450 HRGStests was consistently lowest in samples with lowest total PAH concentrations, increased steadilyas concentrations increased above the ERL levels, and generally was highest in samples in whichthe ERM was exceeded (Figure 30). Normalization of the PAH concentrations to TOC contentdecreased the correlation (Figure 31) due to increased variability in the association.

Results of the four toxicity tests were also examined for relationship with the concentrations ofvarious butyltins, phenols, and miscellaneous organic compounds (Table 20). No significantcorrelations were seen between amphipod survival and these compounds. Fertilization successwas highly significantly correlated with the two butyltin compounds, and began to diminish asthe concentrations of dibutyltin exceeded 60 ppb and as tributyltin concentrations exceeded 200ppb (Figures 32, 33). Percent fertilization, however, was very high in the sample from station187 in which the tributyltin concentration was highest. Fertilization success was alsosignificantly correlated with dibenzofuran. In the microbial bioluminescence tests,bioluminescence activity was highly correlated to, and decreased steadily with, increasingconcentrations of benzoic acid (Figure 34). Similar to results in the urchin tests, cytochromeP450 HRGS induction showed a strong degree of correspondence with concentrations of bothdibuyltin and tributyltin, and dibenzofuran. Cytochrome P450 HRGS induction seemed toincrease when dibutyltin concentrations exceeded about 80 ppb, and tributyltin and dibenzofuranconcentrations exceeded about 100 ppb (Figures 35-37).

Cytochrome P450 HRGS induction was significantly correlated with the concentrations of 4-4’DDE and total DDT. Both percent urchin fertilization and cytochrome P450 HRGS inductionwere significantly correlated (cytochrome P450 HRGS to a greater degree) with theconcentrations of individual PCB compounds, and the sums of these concentrations (Table 21).

Page 39

Isomers of DDT and most PCB congeners are not known to induce the cytochrome P450 HRGSenzyme response, therefore, it is likely that these compounds co-varied with the PAHs and otherorganic substances that more likely induced the response.

Summary

The toxicity bioassays performed for urchin fertilization, microbial bioluminescence, andcytochrome P450 HRGS enzyme induction indicated correspondence with complex mixtures ofpotentially toxic chemicals in the sediments. Often, the results of the urchin and cytochromeP450 HRGS tests showed the strongest correlations with chemical concentrations. As expected,given the nature of the tests, results of the cytochrome P450 HRGS assay were highly correlatedwith concentrations of high molecular weight PAHs and other organic compounds known toinduce this enzymatic response. In some cases, samples that were highly toxic in the urchin orcytochrome P450 HRGS tests had chemical concentrations that exceeded numerical, effects-based, sediment quality guidelines or the state criteria, further suggesting that these chemicalscould have caused or contributed to the observed biological response. However, there wassignificant variability in some of the apparent correlations, including samples in which chemicalconcentrations were elevated and no toxicity was observed. Therefore, it is most likely that thechemical mixtures causing toxicity differed among the different toxicity tests and among theregions of the survey area. These chemical mixtures may have included substances not targetedin the chemical analyses.

Benthic Community AnalysesCommunity Composition and Benthic Indices

A total of 700 benthic infauna taxa were identified in the 100 samples collected in central PugetSound (Appendix E). Of the 700 taxa identified, 517 (74%) were identified to the species level.Among the 517 species identified, 243 (47%) were polychaete species, 147 (28%) werearthropods, 78 (15%) were molluscs, and 49 (10%) were miscellaneous taxa (i.e., Cnidaria,Platyhelminthes, Nemertina, Sipuncula, Phoronidae, Enteropneusta, and Ascidiacea) andechinoderms. Several of the species encountered in this survey may be new to science.

As described in the Methods section, five benthic infaunal indices were calculated to aid in theexamination of the community structure at each station. These indices included total abundance,major taxa abundance (calculated for Annelida, Arthropoda, Mollusca, Echinodermata, andmiscellaneous taxa), taxa richness, Pielou’s evenness (J’), and Swartz’s Dominance Index (SDI),and were calculated based on the abundance data collected for the 700 taxa found (Tables 22 and23). Total abundance is displayed in both tables to facilitate comparisons among indices. Alldata were based on analysis of a single sample collected at each station.

Total Abundance

Total abundance (number of individuals per 0.1 m2) of benthic invertebrates at each station(Tables 22 and 23) ranged from 3,764 organisms at station 203 (Duwamish) to 110 organisms atstation 118 (Possession Sound). In approximately half (15 of 32) of the strata, total abundancewas relatively consistent among the samples collected within each stratum. However, among

Page 40

samples within several strata there were differences in total abundance up to an order ofmagnitude of ten. These strata included South Admiralty Inlet (stratum 4), Central Basin(stratum 6), Sinclair Inlet (stratum 19), Elliott Bay (strata 24, 25, 28, and 29), and the Duwamish(stratum 32). In most of these cases, high numbers of a single polychaete species (Aphelochaetaspecies N1) accounted for the inflated abundance in one of the samples within the stratum.

Major Taxa Abundance

Total abundance and percent total abundance of five major taxonomic groups (Annelida,Arthropoda, Echinodermata, Mollusca, and miscellaneous taxa) are shown in Table 22. Resultsalso are compared among stations in stacked histograms (Appendix F).

The total abundance of annelids ranged from 2,970 animals (station 203, Duwamish) to 30animals (station 123, Central Basin). Annelid abundance calculated as the percentage of totalabundance ranged from 94% (station 115, Shoreline Elliot Bay) to 6% (station 177, ShorelineElliot Bay). In 36% of the 100 stations sampled, fifty percent or more of the total benthicinfaunal animals were annelids. In 67% of the samples, one-third or more of the animals in thebenthic communities were annelids.

Total abundance of arthropods ranged from 1,349 animals (station 112, South Admiralty Inlet) to3 (station 160, Sinclair Inlet). Percent total abundance of arthropods ranged from 58% in SouthAdmiralty Inlet (station 112) to 1% in Elliott Bay (station 115), the Duwamish (station 205), andEast Harbor Island (station 202). Arthropods made up 50% or more of the total benthic infaunalassemblage in only 5% of the 100 stations sampled (stations 134 and 121, Central Basin; 171,Dyes Inlet; 190, Mid Elliott Bay; and 112, South Admiralty Inlet), and 33% of the totalabundance in only 20% of the samples.

Total abundance of molluscs ranged from 822 animals at station 177 (Shoreline Elliott Bay) to 4at station 142 (Liberty Bay). Percent total abundance of molluscs ranged from 75% (station 155,Rich Passage) to 1% at station 142 (Liberty Bay). Molluscs were numerically dominant (i.e.,made up 50% or more of the total assemblage) in 13% of the samples, including those fromstations in Port Townsend (110), Port Orchard (157), west of Bainbridge Island (149, 152),Shoreline (177) and Mid Elliott Bay (186-188, 193-194, 196), and Rich Passage (154-155).Thirty-eight percent of the samples had a 33% or greater portion of their infaunal assemblagecomposed of molluscs.

Total abundance of echinoderms ranged from 421 at station 108 (South Port Townsend) to 0 at20 stations, sampled primarily in the central basin (strata 6, 8, and 11) and Elliott Bay (strata 23,25, and 28-32). These stations also represented the highest and lowest percent total echinodermabundance, ranging from 60% (South Port Townsend, station 108) to 0% at the suite of 20stations in the central basin and Elliott Bay. There were no echinoderms in 20% of the samples,and five or fewer individuals in 60% of the samples. Echinoderms made up greater than 50% ofthe total benthic infaunal assemblage in only 2 of the 100 stations sampled, stations 146(Keyport) and 108 (South Port Townsend), and 33% of the total abundance in only 5 of thestations (stations 146, 108, and stations 148, 150, and 151 (northwest of Bainbridge Island).

Page 41

Total abundance of miscellaneous taxa (i.e., Cnidaria, Platyhelminthes, Nemertina, Sipuncula,Phoronidae, Enteropneusta, and Ascidiacea) ranged from 59 organisms at station 112 (SouthAdmiralty Inlet)) to none at five stations (station 120, Possession Sound; station 143, LibertyBay; station 146, Keyport; and stations 115 and 196, Elliott Bay. Percent total abundance ofmiscellaneous taxa ranged from 6% to 0%.

Taxa Richness

Taxa richness (total number of recognizable species in each sample, Table 23) ranged from 176taxa in South Admiralty Inlet (station 112) to 21 taxa in Sinclair Inlet (station 160). Stations withhighest taxa richness (>100 taxa) included stations at Port Townsend (stations 109 and 111),Rich Passage (station 156), Port Orchard (station 158), and Elliott Bay (stations 174, 175, 183,and 189). Stations with lowest taxa richness (<30 taxa) included Liberty Bay (stations 142-144),Keyport (station 146), and Sinclair Inlet (station 160).

Evenness

Pielou’s index of evenness (Table 23) ranged from 0.910 (high homogeneity or good evenness)in Possession Sound (station 118) to 0.255 (low homogeneity or poor evenness) in Elliott Bay(station 115). Relatively high evenness values (J’>0.800) were calculated from samplescollected in Port Townsend (stations 106, 107, and 109); South Admiralty Inlet (station 117);Possession Sound (station 118), the central basin (stations 122, 135-138), and East Passage(stations 140-141); the waterways west of Bainbridge Island (stations 145, 153, 156, 159); andouter and shoreline Elliott Bay (stations 172, 174, 175, 181). Low evenness values (J’<0.400)occurred in samples from inner Elliott Bay (station115); the Duwamish (114, 201, and 204), andSinclair and Dyes Inlets (161 and 168).

Swartz’s Dominance Index (SDI)

Swartz’s Dominance Index (SDI) values (Table 23) ranged from 48 taxa making up 75% of thetotal abundance in outer Elliott Bay (station 175) to 1 dominant taxon at inner Elliott Bay(stations 115) and Dyes Inlet (station 168). Approximately one-half of the stations sampled(52%) had a SDI value of 10 or less. Some of these stations were distributed throughout thesampling area, but most were concentrated in Liberty Bay, Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet, inner ElliottBay, and the Duwamish. Nineteen percent of the samples had SDI values of 20 or greater, andwere collected in Port Townsend Bay (stations 106, 107, 109, 111); the central basin and EastPassage (stations 135, 141); Rich Passage and Port Orchard (station 154, 156, 158, 159); DyesInlet (station 166), and portions of outer and inner Elliott Bay (stations 174-176, 178, 181-184).SDI values generally followed the same pattern as Pielou’s Evenness values, with low evennessvalues co-occurring with low SDI values.

Summary

Generally, the samples collected in central Puget Sound exhibited moderately high totalabundance accompanied by relatively high taxa richness, evenness, and SDI. However, stationswith the highest total abundance often had low taxa richness, evenness, and SDI values. In mostcases, this was due to high numbers of the cirratulid polychaete, Aphelochaeta species N1. These

Page 42

samples were collected primarily in Sinclair and Dyes Inlets, inner Elliott Bay, and theDuwamish.

Relationships between Benthic Infaunal Indices and SedimentCharacteristics, Toxicity, and Chemical Concentrations

The statistical relationships between indices of benthic community structure and selectedsediment characteristics were calculated using Spearman rank correlations. These correlationswere used to determine if any of the measures of benthic community structure co-varied with anyof the sediment characteristics quantified in this study. Measures of naturally occurring sedimentvariables such as grain size and total organic carbon (Table 24), toxicity (Table 25), andconcentrations of chemical contaminants (Table 26-32) were included in the correlations withbenthic infauna indices.

Benthic Infauna Indices vs. Grain Size and Total Organic Carbon

Typically, concentrations of trace metals tend to increase with increased percent fines, and highconcentrations of organic compounds are related to higher total organic carbon (TOC)concentrations. Since higher concentrations of toxic compounds such as trace metals and organiccompounds are generally expected to be related to decreased benthic community abundance andvariability, higher concentrations of fines and organic carbon are also expected to be related todecreased abundance and diversity. Most of the indices of benthic infauna abundance anddiversity followed the expected pattern, with statistically significant decreases correlated withincreasing percent fine-grained particles and TOC content (Table 24). Taxa richness, Swartz’sDominance Index, mollusc abundance, and miscellaneous taxa abundance displayed the highestsignificant negative correlations with both percent fines and TOC (rho=-0.358 to -0.374, p<0.001and rho=-0.41 to -0.66, p<0.0001). Inverse correlations were also apparent between totalabundance vs. percent fines, evenness vs. TOC, and arthropod abundance vs. both percent finesand TOC, but at a lower level of significance (rho=-0.219, p<0.05 and –0.26 to –0.316, p<0.01).Relationships between total abundance vs. TOC, Pielou’s evenness vs. percent fines, and annelidand echinoderm abundance vs. both percent fines and TOC were not significant.

Benthic Infauna Indices vs. Toxicity

Examination of Table 25 indicated the following relationships between benthic infauna indicesand toxicity. None of the indices of benthic structure were significantly correlated with percentamphipod survival. Percent urchin fertilization showed a highly significant negative correlationwith annelid abundance (rho=-0.391, p<0.0001) and to a lesser extent with total abundance(rho=-0.29, p<0.01). That is, as percent fertilization decreased in laboratory tests (i.e., increasingtoxicity), the abundance of annelids and all organisms in the benthic samples increased. Thesenegative correlations were counter to what would be expected, and may be related to very highnumbers of toxicant-tolerant species of annelids, such as Aphelochaeta, in some of the samples.

Results of the microbial bioluminescence tests were positively correlated with taxa richness(rho=0.306, p<0.01), Swartz’s Dominance Index (rho=0.257, p<0.01), and the abundance ofmolluscs (rho=0.286, p<0.01), but negatively correlated with the abundance of echinoderms(rho=-0.285, p<0.01). These correlations indicated that as Microtox EC50 values decreased

Page 43

(i.e., increasing toxicity), there were decreases in taxa richness, the numbers of species that weredominant, and the abundance of molluscs. Echinoderm abundance, however, decreased astoxicity decreased.

Benthic indices would be expected to decrease as cytochrome P450 HRGS induction increased(i.e., toxicity increased). Significant negative correlations were apparent for Pielou’s EvennessIndex (rho=-0.38, p<0.0001), Swartz’s Dominance Index (rho=-0.351, p<0.001), and theabundance of arthropods (rho=-0.241, p<0.05) and miscellaneous taxa (rho=-0.319, p<0.01).However, as with the urchin fertilization results and counter to what would be expected, theabundance of annelids (rho=0.427, p<0.0001) and all organisms (rho=0.263, p<0.01) in thebenthic samples increased significantly with increasing toxic responses. Again, these results maybe related to very high numbers of toxicant-tolerant species of annelids, such as Aphelochaeta, insome of the samples.

Benthic Infauna Indices vs. Classes of Chemical Compounds

Spearman-rank correlations were calculated for benthic indices vs. concentrations of chemicalgroups normalized to their respective sediment guidelines (Table 26) to determine if theycorresponded with each other. The data indicated that there was considerable correspondencebetween benthic measures and several groups of chemicals in the sediments. The chemicalclasses that were correlated with the benthic indices differed among the benthic endpoints andsome correlations were positive while others were negative.

Total abundance, taxa richness, annelid abundance, and mollusca abundance all were positivelycorrelated (to varying degrees) with mean SQS and CSL quotients for LPAH, HPAH, and totalPAHs. Annelid abundance was also positively correlated with mean ERM quotients forchlorinated organic hydrocarbons, PAHs, and 25 compounds. Taxa richness, Pielou’s evenness,Swartz’s Dominance, and miscellaneous taxa abundance were significantly negatively correlatedwith mean ERM, SQS, and CSL quotients for metals. Pielou’s evenness and Swartz’sDominance were also significantly negatively correlated with mean ERM quotients forchlorinated organic hydrocarbons, PAHs, and 25 compounds.

Benthic Infauna Indices vs. Individual Chemical Compounds

Measures of taxa richness were highly negatively correlated (p<0.0001) with many individualtrace metals quantified with partial digestions (Table 27), decreasing with increasingconcentrations of many metals, including those that are essential elements (e.g., calcium, iron,and sodium) and those that are potential toxins (e.g., cadmium, silver, and zinc). The correlationbetween taxa richness and selenium was the highest one observed (rho = -0.721, p<0.0001). Allother indices showed primarily weaker and non-significant negative correlations with theconcentrations of various partial digestion metals.

The correlations between benthic measures and concentrations of trace metals determined withtotal digestions often were weaker than those observed with partial digestions (Table 28). Taxarichness and Swartz’s Dominance Index displayed the largest number of significant negativecorrelations with many of the same elements determined with partial digestions, includingarsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, vanadium, and zinc. The majority of

Page 44

correlation results for the other indices showed weaker and non-significant negative correlationswith the concentrations of various total digestion metals, including both essential and potentiallytoxic metals.

Table 29 summarizes the results of correlations between benthic indices and concentrations ofindividual and sums of LPAH compounds. While the majority of correlation results werenonsignificant, a few positive and negative significant correlation results were seen for thedifferent indices. Annelid abundance displayed the greatest number of positive correlationswhen compared with these LPAH values.

Table 30 summarizes the results of correlations between benthic indices and concentrations ofindividual HPAH compounds. As with LPAH compounds, the majority of the correlation resultswere nonsignificant, although Peilou’s evenness values were significantly negatively correlated,while annelid abundance values were strongly positively correlated with HPAH concentrations.

Correlations between benthic indices and concentrations of DDT isomers, PCB congeners andaroclors, organotins, phenols, and miscellaneous compounds showed few significant results(Tables 31 and 32). Pielou’s evenness and Swartz’s dominance displayed the majority ofsignificant negative correlations with various PCBs, while taxa richness was strongly correlatedwith phenol (rho=-0.728, p<0.0001), and miscellaneous taxa abundance was strongly correlatedwith 4-methylphenol (rho=-0.503, p<0.0001).

Summary

The majority of benthic infaunal indices displayed a statistically significant inverse relationshipwith the percent of fine-grained particles and TOC content of the sediments, while a few (annelidand echinoderm abundance) showed non-significant relationships with these two sedimentcharacteristics. Relationships between benthic indices and toxicity test results varied from onetest to another. Benthic indices were not significantly correlated with percent amphipod survival.Abundance of annelids was strongly correlated with urchin fertilization success and the responseof the cytochrome P450 HRGS bioassay, possibly in response to the presence of high numbers oftoxicant-tolerant species of annelids, such as Aphelochaeta. Pielou’s evenness was also stronglycorrelated with the cytochrome P450 HRGS bioassay. Correlations between benthic measuresand groups of chemicals in the sediments indicated that differing suites of indices were correlated(to varying degrees) with mean ERM, SQS, and CSL quotients for metals, chlorinated organichydrocarbons, and PAHs. Annelid abundance was strongly positively correlated with all but themetals quotients, while taxa richness and Swartz’s Dominance were strongly negativelycorrelated with metals values. Correlations of benthic indices with individual chemicalcompound values again indicated that taxa richness was strongly correlated with metals values,while annelid abundance was again strongly correlated with HPAH values. No single chemicalor chemical class was uniquely correlated with the measures of benthic structure. Rather, manydifferent chemicals and chemical classes, obviously co-varying with each other, indicated strongassociations with many of the benthic measures of abundance and diversity. This observationwas similar to that for the data from the toxicity tests, that is, indicative of the presence ofcomplex mixtures correlated with toxicity.

Page 45

Triad Synthesis: A Comparison of Chemistry, Toxicity, and InfaunalParameters

To generate a more comprehensive picture of the quality of the sediments throughout the studyarea, a weight-of-evidence approach was used to simultaneously examine all three sediment“triad” parameters measured. Data from the toxicity testing, chemical analyses, and benthiccommunity analyses from all stations were combined into one table (Appendix H) for review.

From this data compilation, thirty-six stations were identified in which at least one chemicalconcentration exceeded an ERM, SQS, or CSL value and at least one of the toxicity testsindicated statistically significant results relative to controls (Table 33). These stations werelocated in Port Townsend (1), the central basin (3), the Bainbridge Basin (2), Dyes Inlet (2),Sinclair Inlet (6), and Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River (22). Together, these stationsrepresented an area of 99.73 km2 or about 14% of the total survey area.

Twenty-five stations showed no indications of significant sediment toxicity or chemicalcontamination (Table 34). These stations were located in Port Townsend (1), Admiralty Inlet (3),Possession Sound (2), the central basin (3), Port Madison (3), Liberty Bay (3), the BainbridgeBasin (4), Rich Passage (3), Dyes Inlet (1), and outer Elliott Bay (2). These 25 stationsrepresented an area of 359.31 km2, equivalent to 49% of the total survey area. Both sets ofstations are highlighted in Figures 38-42.

The remaining thirty-nine stations displayed either signs of significant chemical contaminationbut no toxicity, or significant toxicity, but no chemical contamination. These stations werelocated in Port Townsend (4), Possession Sound (1), the central basin (10), Eagle Harbor (3),Liberty Bay (3), the Bainbridge Basin (6), and Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River (12).Together, these stations represented an area of 272.62 km2, equivalent to 37% of the total centralPuget Sound study area.

The complete suite of triad parameters for all stations was examined to determine whether theinfaunal assemblages, as characterized by benthic indices, appeared to be impacted by thepresence or absence of toxic compounds. Details regarding the “triad” relationship for all 100stations are summarized below.

Examination of the six stations from the two strata in Port Townsend indicated that one station,106, had both significant toxicity results and elevated chemical contamination, and one station,110, had no significant results. Sediments from stations 106-108 (stratum 1) and stations 109-111 (stratum 2), situated in southern and northern Port Townsend respectively (Figure 38), werecollected from depths ranging from 13-34m, with sediment types ranging from primarily sand toprimarily silt-clay particles. All (with the exception of station 110) had levels of 4-methylphenolabove state SQS and CSL criteria. No toxicity was displayed at these stations, with the exceptionof significantly reduced amphipod survival at station 106. Measures of infaunal diversity at these6 stations were, in most cases, high and similar between stations, with little similarity in thedominant species list from station to station. Station 106, which displayed both impactedtoxicity and chemical measures, also displayed the lowest total abundance (302 individuals), butexhibited a relatively high SDI (20). Several of the 10 numerically dominant species were those

Page 46

known to be pollution tolerant, including Paraprionospio pinnnata, Scoletoma luti, andPrionospio steenstrupi, but the overall numbers of these organisms were low. Examination ofthe triad of data for station 106 does not strongly suggest pollution impact at this station.

In the six large strata (strata 4-6, 8,11,12) located in southern Admiralty Inlet through the centralbasin to the southern-most end of the study area, three of the 19 stations displayed bothsignificant toxicity results and elevated chemical contamination (stations 123, 113, 140), while 7stations had no significant results (stations 112, 116, 117, 119-121, 141) (Tables 33-34, Figures38-40). Samples collected from stations 112, 116, and 117 (stratum 4) in south Admiralty Inlet(Figure 38), displayed no significant toxicity results or elevated chemical concentrations. Theinfaunal communities from these samples varied in composition, with the community sampledfrom station 112 (Oak Bay) differing from the communities sampled from stations 116 and 117(Useless Bay), which were very similar to one another. Community differences are probablyassociated with differing natural conditions including station depths (station 112-25m; station116, 117-64 and 45m, respectively), grain size (station 112-28 % fines; station 116,117- 5% and4% fines, respectively), and station proximity to one another. Most of the infaunal indices aresimilar for stations 116 and 117, and they share six of their 10 dominant species, while theindices are quite different at station 112, and no dominant species are shared with stations 116and 117.

Similar to stratum 4, two of the samples (stations 119 and 120) collected from stratum 5,Possession Sound (Figure 38), which were in close proximity to one another, displayed nosignificant toxicity results or elevated chemical concentrations, and had similar infaunal indexvalues. The sediments at both stations were sandy (6% and 5% fines, respectively), had similarhighly diverse benthic indices, and shared 6 of 10 dominant species. The infaunal communityfrom station 118 in stratum 5, geographically distant from stations 119 and 120, displayed adiffering range of infaunal indices and shared no dominant species with the other two stations.Sediments from this station did have levels of 4-methylphenol exceeding both state criteria, butthe difference in infaunal assemblage structure could be attributed to the differing sediment typeat station 118 (92% fines), rather than chemical contamination. All three stations were at similardepth ranges (190-211m).

In general, examination of the infaunal community structure in sediments collected from PortTownsend through Admiralty Inlet and Possession Sound revealed no clear patterns related tochemistry and or toxicity data. Instead, similarities of infaunal indices and species compositionbetween stations appeared to be related to similarity in station depth, grain size, and geographicproximity of stations.

The next four strata results presented (6, 8, 11, and 12), include 13 stations that were located inPuget Sound’s central basin (Figures 39 and 40). While the majority of these stations werelocated in deep water (190-250m) and were composed of primarily silt-clay sediment particles(81-98% fines), a few were shallower and/or had more mixed sediments. Three stations (123,113, and 140) in these central basin strata had sediments with some degree of both chemicalcontamination and toxicity.

Page 47

Stratum 6, in Puget Sound’s central basin (Figure 39), included stations 121-123, with levels of4-methylphenol exceeding both state criteria at stations 122 and 123, and significant reduction inamphipod survival at station 123. Comparison of infaunal assemblages between stationsindicated similarities in species composition at stations 122 and 123, collected from 200-220 mdepth. Sediments from both of these deep stations were composed of 86% fines. Assemblagesfrom these two stations shared 6 of 10 dominant species and had relatively similar infaunalindices. The infaunal indices generated for station 121, located in 10 m of water, with sedimentscomposed of 5% fines, differed from the other two stations. Station 121 had a higher totalabundance of 1272 (verses 240 and 314 for stations 122 and 123, respectively), higher abundanceof arthropods (677) and molluscs (475) (verses 53/92 and 127/147 for stations 122 and 123,respectively), and no dominant species shared with stations 122 and 123 in this stratum. Therewas no clear association between triad parameters at station 123, rather, it appeared that theinfaunal assemblage at this station was structured by depth and grain size.

Four samples were collected in stratum 8, near West Point (Figure 39), in depths ranging from168m to 239m. Sediment from these stations ranged from a mixed grain-size composition (42%and 72% silt-clay – stations 129 and 128, respectively) to silt-clay (85% and 90% silt-clay –stations 113 and 127, respectively). Infaunal composition was more similar between stations127-129 than in station 113, which had the lowest total, annelid, arthropod, and molluscabundance. Station 113 did have levels of 4-methylphenol exceeding both state criteria, anddisplayed significant cytochrome P450 HRGS toxicity response.

The three stations (136-138) collected from 213-250m in Puget Sound’s central basin (stratum11) (Figure 40) were homogeneous in sediment composition (81-94% fines), toxicity (alldisplayed significant cytochrome P450 HRGS toxicity response), chemistry (no chemicalconcentrations in the sediments exceeded state or national guidelines), and infaunal indices,displaying moderate total abundance and taxa richness values and sharing 6 out of 10 dominantspecies. There was no clear association among triad parameters at these stations.

The final three stations (139, 140, and 141) collected from Puget Sound’s central basin (stratum12) (Figure 40) were quite dissimilar from one another, being collected at differing depths(235m, 190m, and 97m, respectively) and possessing differing grain sizes (54%, 98%, and 12%fines, respectively). Station 139 and 140 displayed significant cytochrome P450 HRGS toxicityresponse and shared 7 of their 10 dominant species, although infaunal indices between the twostations differed. Station 140 also displayed chemical contamination (4-methylphenolconcentration measured above both state and national guidelines). Station 141, located thefarthest south of the three stations, displayed very different infaunal indices and speciescomposition, and had no significant toxicity results or elevated chemical concentrations. Noclear relationships could be seen among the three triad parameters at station 140.

As with the more northern stations in this study area, examination of the benthic infaunalcommunity structure in sediments collected from Puget Sound’s central basin stations revealedno clear patterns related to chemistry or toxicity data. Instead, similarities of infaunal indices andspecies composition among stations appeared to be correlated with similarity in station depth,grain size, and distance between stations.

Page 48

Examination of the next three strata (7, 9, and 10) including three smaller, shallow embaymentsadjacent to the central basin (Figures 39 and 40), revealed no stations in which all three triadparameters appeared to be impacted. None of the three stations (124-126) located in PortMadison (stratum 7) (Figure 39) displayed any toxicity or chemical contamination. Thesestations were located at 28-45m depth, and were comprised of silty-sand (14-26% fines).Infaunal communities were both abundant (637-852 individuals) and taxa rich (73-93 total taxa),and shared 9 of their 10 dominant species.

Sediments from stations 130-132, located in stratum 9, Eagle Harbor (Figure 40), were collectedfrom 11-14m depths, and ranged in composition from silty sand (station 132, 20% fines) tomixed sediments (stations 130 and 131, 44% and 80% fines, respectively). All three stationsdisplayed significant toxicity with the cytochrome P450 HRGS assay, but no chemicals exceededstate or national guidelines. Sediment from these stations however, did exhibit strong petroleum(from all 3 stations) and sulfur (from stations 131-132, only) odors, and were olive gray in color,indicating possible chemical contamination and/or anoxic conditions. Infaunal indices showedfew consistencies among the three stations, although the benthic infaunal assemblages did share3 of their 10 dominant species, including the pollution-tolerant polychaete, Aphelochaeta sp. N1.Although it is possible that the infaunal communities were responding to some type ofunmeasured chemical contaminant or adverse natural condition (e.g., low dissolved oxygen) inthe sediments, and/or were associated with the significant toxicity displayed, the triad ofevidence pointing to pollution-impacted stations was not complete at these three stations.

The three shallow stations (stations 133-135; 27 – 47 m depth) in stratum 10, to the south andwest of Blake Island (Figure 40), were composed of predominantly silt and clay particles (81-94% fines). None of the three stations had chemical concentrations in the sediments exceedingstate or national guidelines, although station 134 displayed significantly reduced amphipodsurvival, and station 135 displayed significant cytochrome P450 HRGS toxicity response. Noclear pattern of correspondence could be seen between these parameters and the infaunalassemblage composition, with all three stations possessing relatively abundant and taxa richassemblages, and sharing 4 of their dominant species.

Examination of the thirty stations from the 10 strata west of Bainbridge Island, including LibertyBay, and Dyes and Sinclair Inlets, indicated that ten stations (stations 148, 151, 160-165, 170,171) had both significant toxicity results and elevated chemical contamination. Eight of these tenstations were located in Dyes and Sinclair Inlets. Eleven of these thirty stations (stations 142,145, 147, 149, 150, 152, 154-156, 166, 169) had no significant results; none were located inSinclair Inlet, and only one in Dyes Inlet (Figures 39, 41).

Examination of stations in strata 15 and 16 (west of Bainbridge Island) (Figures 39 and 41)indicated high levels of 4-methylphenol and benzyl alcohol at stations 148 and 151, respectively.Both stations also displayed significant toxicity with the cytochrome P450 HRGS assay. Depthsof the 6 stations in these two strata were shallow, ranging from 6 to 35m. Sediment types forthese stations included silt-clay at stations 148, 151, and 153 (90%, 95%, and 87% fines,respectively), mixed at station 150 (51% fines), silty sand at station 152 (22 % fines), and sand atstation 149 (6% fines). Infaunal indices and dominant species composition (i.e., 5 shareddominant species) were similar among the three stations with silt-clay sediments, suggesting that

Page 49

grain size, rather than the toxicity and chemical composition of the sediments, had a largeinfluence on community structure at these stations. In addition, station 148 (90% fines,significant chemistry and toxicity) displayed infaunal indices and species composition (i.e.,sharing 8 of 10 dominant species) similar to station 150 (51% fines), which had no significanttoxicity results or elevated chemical concentrations. Stations 149 (6% fines) and 152 (22 % fines)displayed no significant toxicity results or elevated chemical concentrations, and little similarityto any of these 6 stations in their community composition and infaunal indices, probably due totheir sediment grain size composition.

The sediments from all six stations (160-165) in strata 19 and 20 (Sinclair Inlet) were composedprimarily of silt-clay (87-96% fines), and were collected from 8.6 to 13.5m depths. Thesesediments also had a strong sulfur smell, and were gray to black in color, possibly indicatinganoxic conditions. All stations exhibited mercury concentrations exceeding state and, with theexception of station 161, national standards, accompanied by significant toxicity with thecytochrome P450 HRGS assay at all stations, and significantly reduced urchin fertilization atstations 160 and 165. All of the stations had relatively high benthic infaunal abundance (exceptfor station 160, which also had the highest toxicity level based on percent urchin fertilization)and relatively high taxa richness, but low Swartz’s Dominance Index (2-7 taxa). The benthiccommunities at stations 160, 161, 163, and 164 were dominated by Aphelochaeta species N1. Atstation 160, however, total abundance and abundance of all taxa groups was significantlyreduced. Stations 162 and 165 were dominated by Eudorella pacifica and Amphiodia species.These 3 taxa, along with the decapod crustacean Pinnixa schmitti, were present in 5 of the 6stations in Sinclair Inlet. It is possible that the composition of the infaunal communities at these6 stations, dominated by these 4 taxa, was a result of adverse chemical and toxicological impactfrom the sediments at these stations, indicating triad support for classification of these stations asimpacted by pollution. It is also possible, however, that the infaunal composition at these stationswas the result of other environmental factors that have not been measured, such as naturallyoccurring anoxic conditions in the sediments. In comparison, station 131, in Eagle Harbor,possessed many characteristics similar to the stations in Sinclair Inlet, including olive graysediments with a strong sulfur odor, shallow depth (11m), high percent fines (80%), significanttoxicity with the cytochrome P450 HRGS assay, and relatively high benthic infaunal abundanceand taxa richness but low Swartz’s Dominance Index (8 taxa). The dominant species listincluded both Aphelochaeta sp. N1 and Eudorella pacifica. No chemistry concentrationsexceeded state or national standards, however, unlike the stations in Sinclair Inlet, which mightindicate that the possible anoxic conditions at these stations were a naturally occurring factorinfluencing community structure.

Stratum 21, located in the Port Washington Narrows (Figure 41), contained three stations (166-168) in 18m, 8.2m, and 26m of water, respectively. Sediments at stations 166 and 167 consistedprimarily of sand (7% and 8% fines, respectively), while station 168 consisted of silty sand (35%fines) and had a strong sulfur smell. Station 166 displayed no significant toxicity results orelevated chemical concentrations, while station 167 had highly significant amphipod mortalityand urchin fertilization was significantly reduced. Station 168 displayed both significant urchinand cytochrome P450 HRGS toxicity results. Stations 166 and 167 shared similar infaunalindices, possibly due to their similar sediment grain size composition. All three stations sharedtwo dominant taxa, the mollusc Alvania compacta and the polychaete Aphelochaeta sp. N1. In

Page 50

station 168, as with two of the stations in Sinclair Inlet, Aphelochaeta sp. N1 was found in highnumbers (1023) in a shallow station with a strong sulfur odor, although this station had lowerpercent fines (35%) than those in Sinclair Inlet (93% and 87%). Aphelochaeta sp. N1 was alsofound in sandy stations 166 and 167, but in much lower densities (29 and 100 individuals,respectively). Conversely, Alvania compacta was found in higher densities at the two sandystations (79 and 193, respectively), and in lower numbers (35 individuals) at the silty sandstation. Although there are similarities in the significant toxicity measures and infaunal indicesand species composition among station 168 and stations 161 and 164 in Sinclair Inlet, the lack ofsignificant chemistry results does not provide a clear association among triad parameters at thesestations. However, as was speculated for the data from Sinclair Inlet, it is possible that otherenvironmental measures such as dissolved oxygen concentrations in the sediment pore water andoverlying waters may play a role in influencing infaunal community composition at this station.

The three stations in stratum 22, Dyes Inlet (169-171) (Figure 41), consisted of one station (169)with no significant toxicity results or elevated chemical concentrations, and two stations withboth significant levels of chemical contamination and toxicity results. The sample from station169, collected from 7m, was primarily sandy (8% fines), had no significant toxicity results orelevated chemical concentrations, and displayed extremely high total abundance and speciesrichness. The high total abundance (1123 individuals) was due primarily to a large abundance ofthe polychaetes Phyllochaetopterus prolifica (455 individuals), Circeis sp. (240 individuals), anda small number of Aphelochaeta sp. N1 (137 individuals).

Stations 170 and 171, located in approximately 13.5m depths, both were composed of a highpercent silt clay (93 and 88% fines, respectively), and both had dark olive gray or brownsediments with a strong sulfur smell. Both stations had significant levels of chemical compounds(benzyl alcohol and either nickel or mercury), and displayed significant cytochrome P450 HRGStoxicity results. These two stations shared 8 of 10 dominant species, including the same fourspecies that dominated the stations in Sinclair Inlet, the crustaceans Pinnixa schmitti andEudorella pacifica, the brittle star Amphiodia urtica/periercta complex, and the polychaeteAphelochaeta sp. N1. Similar to station 165 in Sinclair Inlet, the crustacea and brittle starsdominated the two contaminated and toxic stations in Dyes Inlet, with a much-reduced number ofAphelochaeta sp. N1 present. As with station 165, it is possible that the composition of theinfaunal communities at these two stations, dominated by these four taxa, is a result of therelatively high contamination and toxicity in the sediments at these stations, indicating triadsupport for classification of these stations as affected by pollution. It is also possible, however,that the infaunal composition at these stations may be the result of other environmental factorsexisting at these stations that have not been measured, such as naturally occurring anoxicconditions in the sediments. Alternatively, benthic community effects may also be due to anunmeasured chemical, or a combination of chemicals that were measured at lower levels.

Examination of the thirty-six stations from the 10 strata in Elliott Bay and the Duwamishindicated that 22 stations, located primarily along the bay’s northeastern shoreline, in both theeast and west waterways around Harbor Island, and in the Duwamish Waterway, had bothsignificant toxicity results and elevated chemical contamination. Only two of these thirty-sixstations (stations 175 and 178, both in outer Elliott Bay) had no significant toxicity results and noelevated chemical contamination (Figure 42).

Page 51

Eight samples collected along the shoreline of Elliott Bay (115, 176, 179-184) had highlycontaminated and relatively toxic sediments. Sediment guidelines for mercury, several PAHs,butyl benzyl phthalate and 4-methylphenol were exceeded in one or more of these stations. Themost extreme case was the sediment from station 184, which exceeded seven ERM and sevenSQS values. At all eight stations, significant toxicity was observed in at least two of the tests.Cytochrome P450 HRGS enzyme induction was very high (>107µg/g) at stations 115 and 182-184, and the urchin fertilization tests were significant at all stations except 181. Despite thepresence of relatively high chemical concentrations and the occurrence of toxicity in thelaboratory tests, the benthic indices suggested an abundant and diverse benthic community atseven of these eight stations (i.e., all except station 115). Total abundance at these seven stationsranged from 457 to 876; taxa richness ranged from 69 to 113. Evenness values were between0.731 to 0.833, while the Swartz’s Dominance Index (SDI) values ranged from 12 to 27. Manyof the dominant species, however, were organisms known for their tolerance to pollution,including Parvilucina tenuisculpta, Euphilomedes producta, Scoletoma luti, Axinopsidaserricata, Prionospio steenstrupi, and Aphelochaeta species N1. The infaunal community atstation 115 had both significant chemistry and toxicity results, and an infaunal communitycomposition which suggested triad support for classification of this station as impacted bypollution. Total abundance at this station was higher than at the other shoreline stations (1161individuals), but taxa richness was depressed (43 taxa), and evenness and SDI values wereextremely low (0.255, 1 taxon). The infaunal community was dominated by the pollution-tolerant polychaete Aphelochaeta sp. N1, had no echinoderms or miscellaneous taxa, and veryfew arthropods.

Relatively high chemical concentrations occurred in five of the twelve stations in the middle ofElliott Bay (185, 186, 188, 194, and 196). Up to five sediment guidelines were exceeded at eachof these stations, and mean ERM quotients ranged from 0.4 to 1.5. Among these five stations,the sediments at station 188 were most contaminated, primarily with several PAHs. The meanERM quotient in this sample was 1.5. Cytochrome P450 HRGS enzyme induction wassignificantly high (20 to 153 µg/g) in all five samples, but none of the other toxicity tests hadsignificant results. Total abundance, taxa richness, evenness, and SDI values for two of thesestations (stations 185 and 186) were relatively high, indicating moderately abundant and diversecommunities, with 3 species shared between the stations’ top 10 dominant species, includingAxinopsida serricata, Euphilomedes producta, and Levinsenia gracilis. These two stationsdisplayed infaunal community structure that appeared to be only modestly influenced by thechemical and/or toxicological contamination of the sediments. The other 3 stations in mid-ElliottBay, however, displayed infaunal indices that are more strongly suggestive of possible triadcorrespondence with the chemistry and toxicity results. The infaunal indices at stations 188, 194,and 196 displayed high total abundance and taxa richness values (456-825, and 42-67,respectively), but lowered evenness and SDI values (0.451-0.539, and 2-5), and supportedcommunities with 4 shared dominant species, including Axinopside serricata, Levinseniagracilis, Aricidea lopezi, and Scoletoma luti. There also were few arthropods and echinoderms(i.e., the typically more pollution-sensitive taxa) in these samples.

All seven stations sampled in the vicinity of Harbor Island (114, 197-202) had elevatedconcentrations of trace metals and/or a number of organic compounds and other toxicants.Toxicity was significant in the amphipod survival at station 202 (90.11% of controls), in the

Page 52

urchin fertilization test for stations 197 and 199-201(62-73% of controls), and in the cytochromeP450 HRGS assays for all seven stations (96.6 – 153.5 µg/g). The cluster of three stations at themouth of the western fork of the Duwamish River (stations 197-199) were similar in theirinfaunal community composition, with high abundance and taxa richness values (806-1391, and71-90, respectively), and moderately high evenness and SDI values (0.633-0.679, and 9-12,respectively. Infaunal assemblages at these stations shared only two species from the dominantspecies, including Euphilomedes carcharodonta and Parvilucina tenuisculpta. The more diverseand abundant infaunal assemblages at these three stations do not strongly support the triad ofsediment parameters suggesting pollution-induced degradation at these stations. The benthiccommunities at station 114 and at the three East Harbor Island stations (200-203), however, allprovide better support for the triad weight-of-evidence suggestion of pollution-induceddegradation at these stations. Benthic assemblages at these four stations supported highabundance and richness values (980-1572, and 42-57 taxa, respectively), but low evenness andSDI values (0.386-0.598, and 2-5, respectively). Numbers of pollution-sensitive taxa, includingarthropods and echinoderms were low (21-37 arthropod taxa) or absent (0 echinoderms) in thesesamples. Infauna abundance was high in all four samples due primarily to very high numbers ofpollution-tolerant species including Aphelochaeta species N1, Heteromastus filobranchus,Scoletoma luti, and Axinopsida serricata.

In the Duwamish, two of the three stations (204 and 205) had significant levels of chemicalcontamination and toxicity. These stations had high concentrations of up to 7 toxicants,including PCBs, HPAHs, 4-methylphenol, pentachlorophenol, and butylbenzylphthalate.Cytochrome RGS values were significantly elevated (47 – 77) at these two stations. As with the4 stations around Harbor Island, these two stations had abundant benthic infauna (1155-1561)and high taxa richness values (52-65), but lowered evenness (0.373-0.454) and SDI (2-3) values.The infaunal communities at these stations were composed of high numbers of the pollution-tolerant species Aphelochaeta species N1, Scoletoma luti, and Nutricola lordi. Again, the triadweight-of-evidence appears to support the identification of pollution induced degradation at thesetwo stations.

In total, it appeared that 18 of the 36 stations in which both chemistry and toxicity measures weresignificantly elevated also possessed benthic infaunal assemblage structure that may have beeninfluenced by the chemical and toxicological parameters measured at each station. These 18stations were located in Sinclair Inlet (6), Dyes Inlet (2), Elliott Bay (4), in the waterways west(1) and east (3) of Harbor Island, and in the lower Duwamish River (2). These 18 stationsrepresented an area 8.1 km2, or about 1.1% of the total survey area.

Summary

A review of the compiled set of triad data of toxicity, chemistry, and benthic infauna indicatedthat of the 100 stations sampled, 36 had sediments with significant toxicity and elevatedchemical contamination. These stations were located in Port Townsend (1), the central basin (3),the Bainbridge Basin (2), Dyes Inlet (2), Sinclair Inlet (6), and Elliott Bay and the DuwamishRiver (22). Together, these stations represented an area of 99.73 km2 or about 14% of the totalsurvey area. Of these 36 stations, 18 appeared to have benthic communities that were possiblyaffected by chemical contaminants in the sediments. They included stations 160-165 (Sinclair

Page 53

Inlet), 170-171 (Dyes Inlet), 115 (Shoreline Elliott Bay), 188, 194, and 196 (Mid-Elliott Bay),114 (West Harbor Island), 200-202 (East Harbor Island), and 204 and 205 (Duwamish River).These stations typically had moderate to very high total abundance, including high numbers ofAphelochaeta species N1 and other pollution-tolerant species, moderate to high taxa richness,low evenness, and low Swartz’s Dominance Index values. Often, pollution-sensitive speciessuch as arthropods and echinoderms were low in abundance or absent from these stations. These18 stations represented an area of 8.1 km2, or about 1.1% of the total survey area. Twenty-fivestations were identified with no indications of significant sediment toxicity or chemicalcontamination (Table 34). All of the benthic indices at these stations indicated abundant anddiverse populations of most or all taxonomic groups. Arthropods were abundant in all samples;however, echinoderms were not found in a few of these samples. These stations were located inPort Townsend (1), Admiralty Inlet (3), Possession Sound (2), the central basin (3), Port Madison(3), Liberty Bay (3), the Bainbridge Basin (4), Rich Passage (3), Dyes Inlet (1), and outer ElliottBay (2). These 25 stations represented an area of 359.3 km2, equivalent to approximately 49% ofthe total survey area. The remaining thirty-nine stations displayed either signs of significantchemical contamination but no toxicity, or significant toxicity, but no chemical contamination. Inthe majority of these samples, the benthic populations were abundant and diverse, andrepresented the types of biota expected in the habitats that were sampled. These stations werelocated in Port Townsend (4), Possession Sound (1), the central basin (10), Eagle Harbor (3),Liberty Bay (3), the Bainbridge Basin (6), and Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River (12).Together, these stations represented an area of 272.6 km2, equivalent to approximately 37% ofthe total central Puget Sound study area.

Page 54

DiscussionSpatial Extent of ToxicityThe survey of sediment toxicity in central Puget Sound was similar in intent and design to thoseperformed elsewhere by NOAA in many different bays and estuaries in the U. S. usingcomparable methods and to the survey conducted in northern Puget Sound (Long et al., 1999a).Data have been generated for areas along the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific coasts todetermine the presence, severity, regional patterns and spatial scales of toxicity (Long et al.,1996). Spatial extent of toxicity in other regions ranged from 0.0% of the area to 100% of thearea, depending upon the toxicity test.

The intent of this survey of central Puget Sound was to provide information on toxicitythroughout all regions of the study area, including a number of urbanized/industrialized areas.The survey area, therefore, was very large and complex. This survey was not intended to focusupon any potential discharger or other source of toxicants. The data from the laboratory bioassayswere intended to represent the toxicological condition of the survey area, using a battery ofcomplimentary tests. The primary objectives were to estimate the severity, spatial patterns, andspatial extent of toxicity, chemical contamination, and to characterize the benthic communitystructure. A stratified-random design was followed to ensure that unbiased sampling wasconducted and, therefore, the data could be attributed to the strata within which samples werecollected.

Four different toxicity tests were performed on all the sediment samples. All tests showed somedegree of differences in results among the test samples and negative controls. All showed spatialpatterns in toxicity that were unique to each test, but also overlapped to varying degrees withresults of other tests. There were no two tests that showed redundant results.

Amphipod Survival – Solid Phase

These tests of relatively unaltered, bulk sediments were performed with juvenile crustaceansexposed to the sediments for 10 days. The endpoint was survival. Data from several fieldsurveys conducted along portions of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts have shownthat significantly diminished survival of these animals often is coincident with decreases in totalabundance of benthos, abundance of crustaceans including amphipods, total species richness, andother metrics of benthic community structure (Long et al., 1996). Therefore, this test often isviewed as having relatively high ecological relevance. In addition, it is the most frequently usedtest nationwide in assessments of dredging material and hazardous waste sites.

The amphipod tests proved to be the least sensitive of the tests performed in central Puget Sound.Of the 100 samples tested, survival was significantly different from controls in 7 samples.Samples in which test results were significant were collected at stations widely scatteredthroughout the study area. The data showed no consistent spatial pattern or gradient in responseamong contiguous stations or strata. There was one sample in which survival was statisticallysignificant and mean survival was less than 80% of controls; the response level was determinedempirically to be highly significant (Thursby et al., 1997).

Page 55

The results in the amphipod tests performed in central and northern Puget Sound differed fromthose developed in studies with A. abdita conducted elsewhere in the U.S. The frequencydistributions of the data from both areas are compared to that for data compiled in theNOAA/EMAP national database (Table 35). Whereas amphipod survival was less than 80% ofcontrols in 12.4% of samples from studies performed elsewhere, only one of the samples fromcentral Puget Sound showed survival that low. None of the northern Puget Sound samplesindicated survival of less than 80%. In the national database 47% of samples indicated survivalof 90-99.9%. Similarly, in central Puget Sound 48% of samples had survival within the range of90-99.9%. In northern Puget Sound, 76% of samples showed comparable survival. In bothPuget Sound areas, the lower “tail” of the distribution (i.e., samples in which survival was verylow) was absent.

With the results of the amphipod tests weighted to the sizes of the sampling strata within whichsamples were collected, the spatial scales of toxicity could be estimated. A critical value of<80% of control response was used to estimate the spatial extent of toxicity in this test.However, because only one of the test samples indicated less than 80% survival relative tocontrols, the spatial extent of toxicity was estimated as 0.1% of the central Puget Sound surveyarea.

To add perspective to these data, the results from central and northern Puget Sound werecompared to those from other estuaries and marine bays surveyed by NOAA in the U.S. Themethods for collecting and testing the samples for toxicity were comparable to those used in thePuget Sound surveys (Long et al., 1996). In surveys of 26 U. S. regions, estimates of the spatialextent of toxicity ranged from 0.0% in many areas to 85% in Newark Bay, NJ (Table 36). Thecentral and northern Puget Sound areas were among the many regions in which the spatial extentof toxicity in the amphipod tests was estimated to be 0% to 0.1%. With the data compiled fromstudies conducted through 1997, the samples that were classified as toxic represented about 5.9%of the combined area surveyed. The data for both regions of Puget Sound fell well below thenational average. These data suggest that acute toxicity as measured in the amphipod survivaltests was neither severe nor widespread in in sediments from the northern and central PugetSound study areas.

Sea Urchin Fertilization - Pore Water

Several features of the sea urchin fertilization test combined to make it a relatively sensitive test(Long et al., 1996). In these tests, early life stages of the animals were used. Early life stages ofinvertebrates often are more sensitive to toxicants than adult forms, mainly because fewerdefense mechanisms are developed in the gametes than in the adults. The test endpoint -fertilization success - is a sublethal response expected to be more sensitive than an acutemortality response. The gametes were exposed to the pore waters extracted from the samples;the phase of the sediments in which toxicants were expected to be highly bioavailable. This testwas adapted from protocols for bioassays originally performed to test wastewater effluents andhas had wide application throughout North America in tests of both effluents and sediment porewaters. The combined effects of these features was to develop a relatively sensitive test - muchmore sensitive than that performed with the amphipods exposed to solid phase sediments.

Page 56

In central Puget Sound, the strata in which toxicity was highly significant (i.e., <80% of controls)totaled about 0.7%, 0.2%, and 0.6% of the total area in tests of 100%, 50%, and 25% porewaterconcentrations, respectively. These estimates are slightly lower than those calculated for thenorthern Puget Sound area where the estimated areas were 5.2%, 1.5% and 0.8% of the total,respectively.

NOAA estimated the spatial extent of toxicity in urchin fertilization or equivalent testsperformed with pore water in many other regions of the U. S. (Long et al., 1996). Theseestimates ranged from 98% in San Pedro Bay (CA) to 0.0% in Leadenwah Creek (SC) (Table37). As in the amphipod tests, northern Puget Sound ranked near the bottom of this range, wellbelow the “national average” of 25% calculated with data accumulated through 1997. Equivalentresults in this test were reported in areas such as St. Simons Sound (GA), St. Andrew Bay inwestern Florida, and Leadenwah Creek (SC), in which urbanization and industrialization wererestricted to relatively small portions of the estuaries. Therefore, as with the amphipod tests,these tests indicated that acute toxicity was neither widespread nor severe in sediments from thenorthern and central Puget Sound study areas.

Microbial Bioluminescence (Microtox™) - Organic Solvent Extract

The Microtox tests were performed with organic solvent extracts of the sediments. Theseextracts were intended to elute all potentially toxic organic substances from the sedimentsregardless of their bioavailability. The tests, therefore, provide an estimate of the potential fortoxicity attributable to complex mixtures of toxicants associated with the sediment particles,which normally may not be available to benthic infauna. This test is not sensitive to the presenceof ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, fine-grained particles or other features of sediments that mayconfound results of other tests. The test endpoint is a measure of metabolic activity, not acutemortality. These features combined to provide a relatively sensitive test - usually the mostsensitive test performed nationwide in the NOAA surveys (Long et al., 1996).

In northern Puget Sound, the data were difficult to interpret because of the unusual result in thenegative control sample from Redfish Bay (TX). Test results for the control showed the sampleto be considerably less toxic relative to previous tests of sediments from that site and to tests ofnegative control sediments from other sites used in previous surveys. Therefore, new analyticaltools were generated with the compiled NOAA data to provide a meaningful critical value forevaluating the northern Puget Sound data (Long et al., 1999a).

Using a critical value of <0.51 mg/ml, it was estimated that the spatial extent of toxicity in thecentral Puget Sound represented 0% of the survey area. This estimate ranked central PugetSound at the bottom of the distribution for data generated from 18 bays and estuaries surveyed byNOAA (Table 38). This estimate for central Puget Sound (0%) was less than the estimate fornorthern Puget Sound (1.2% of the study area). Also, it was considerably less than the estimatefor the combined national estuarine average of 39% calculated with data compiled through 1997.

Page 57

Human Reporter Gene System (Cytochrome P450) Response - OrganicSolvent Extract

This test is intended to identify samples in which there are elevated concentrations of mixed-function oxygenase-inducing organic compounds, notably the dioxins and higher molecularweight PAHs. It is performed with a cultured cell line that provides very reliable and consistentresults. Tests are conducted with an organic solvent extract to ensure that potentially toxicorganic compounds are eluted. High cytochrome P450 HRGS induction may signify thepresence of substances that could cause or contribute to the induction of mutagenic and/orcarcinogenic responses in local resident biota (Anderson et al., 1995, 1996).

In central Puget Sound, the cytochrome P450 HRGS assay indicated that samples in whichresults exceeded 11.1 and 37.1 µg/g B(a)P equivalents represented approximately 32.3% and3.2%, respectively, of the total survey area. In contrast, the equivalent estimates for northernPuget Sound were 2.6% and 0.03% of the study area (Long et al., 1999a). Relatively highresponses were recorded in many samples from large strata sampled in central Puget Sound,thereby resulting in larger estimated areas. In northern Puget Sound the samples with elevatedresponses were collected primarily in the small strata in Everett Harbor.

These tests were performed in NOAA surveys in 8 estuaries where estimates of spatial extentcould be made: northern and central Puget Sound (WA), northern Chesapeake Bay (MD), SabineLake (TX), Biscayne Bay (FL), Delaware Bay (DE), Galveston Bay (TX), and a collection ofSouthern California coastal estuaries (CA). Based upon the critical values of 11.1 and 37.1µg/g,the samples from central Puget Sound ranked third highest among the 8 study areas for whichthere are equivalent data (Table 39). Toxic responses greater than 11.1 µg/g were mostwidespread in samples from northern Chesapeake Bay and Southern California estuaries. Toxicresponses greater than 37.1 µg/g were most widespread in northern Chesapeake Bay followed byDelaware Bay and central Puget Sound. In the central Puget Sound area, RGS responses greaterthan 11.1 µg/g were more widespread than in the combined national average (20%), whereasresponses greater than 37.1 µg/g were less widespread than the national average of 9.2%.

In central Puget Sound, RGS assay responses ranged from 0.4 µg/g to 223 µg/g and there were 27samples in which the responses exceeded 37.1 µg/g. In northern Puget Sound, responses rangedfrom 0.3 µg/g to 104.6 µg/g and only four samples had responses greater than 37.1 µg/g. Inanalyses of 30 samples from Charleston Harbor and vicinity, results ranged from 1.8 µg/g to 86.3µg/g and there were nine samples with results greater than 37.1 µg/g. In the 121 samples fromBiscayne Bay, results ranged from 0.4 to 37.0 µg/g B[a]P equivalents. Induction responses in 30samples from San Diego Bay were considerably higher than those from all other areas. Assayresults ranged from 5 µg/g to 110 µg/g B[a]P equivalents and results from 18 samples exceeded37.1 µg/g in San Diego Bay. Responses in eight samples exceeded 80 µg/g.

The percentages of samples from different survey areas with cytochrome P450 HRGS responsesgreater than 37.1 µg/g were: 60% in San Diego Bay, 30% in Charleston Harbor, 27% in centralPuget Sound, 23% in Delaware Bay, 11% in Sabine Lake, 4% in northern Puget Sound, 1% inGalveston Bay, and 0% in both Biscayne Bay and Southern California estuaries. Based upon

Page 58

data from all NOAA surveys (n=693, including central and northern Puget Sound), the averageand median RGS assay responses were 23.3 µg/g and 6.7 µg/g, somewhat lower than observed incentral Puget Sound - average of 37.6 µg/g and median of 17.8 µg/g.

The data from these comparisons suggest that the severity and spatial extent of enzyme inductiondetermined in the RGS test were roughly equivalent to those determined as the national average.There were several survey areas in which toxicity was more severe and widespread and severalareas in which it was less so. The responses were clearly more elevated than those in samplesfrom northern Puget Sound.

Levels of Chemical ContaminationIn central Puget Sound, there were 11 samples in which the mean ERM quotients exceeded 1.0.These samples represented an area of 3.6 km2, or about 0.5% of the total survey area. In thenorthern Puget Sound study, none of the mean ERM quotients for 100 samples exceeded 1.0. Incomparison, 6 of 226 samples (3%) from Biscayne Bay, FL, had mean ERM quotients of 1.0 orgreater (Long et al., 1999b). Among 1068 samples collected by NOAA and EPA in manyestuaries nationwide, 51 (5%) had mean ERM quotients of 1.0 or greater (Long et al., 1998).

In central Puget Sound, there were 21 samples in which one or more ERM values were exceeded.These samples represented an area of about 11.4 km2 or 1.6% of the total area. In northern PugetSound, there were 8 samples (8%) representing about 9.5 km2 (or 1.2% of the total area) in whichone or more ERMs were exceeded. In Biscayne Bay, 33 of 226 samples (15%) representingabout 0.7% of the study area had equivalent chemical concentrations (Long et al., 1996b). Inselected small estuaries and lagoons of Southern California, 18 of 30 randomly chosen stations,representing 67% of the study area, had chemical concentrations that exceeded one or moreProbable Effects Level (PEL) guidelines (Anderson et al., 1997). In the combined NOAA/EPAdatabase, 27% of samples had at least one chemical concentration greater than the ERM (Long etal., 1998). In the Carolinian estuarine province, Hyland et al. (1996) estimated that the surficialextent of chemical contamination in sediments was about 16% relative to the ERMs. In datacompiled from three years of study in the Carolinian province, however, the estimate of the areawith elevated chemical contamination decreased to about 5% (Dr. Jeff Hyland, NOAA). In datacompiled by Dr. Hyland from stratified-random sampling in the Carolinian province, Virginianprovince, Louisianian province, northern Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay, and DelMarVaestuaries, the estimates of the spatial extent of contamination in which one or more ERM valueswere exceeded ranged from about 2% to about 8%.

Collectively, the chemical data indicated that most of the central Puget Sound sediment sampleswere not highly contaminated. Relative to effects-based guidelines or standards, relative toprevious Puget Sound studies, and relative to data from other areas in the U.S., theconcentrations of most trace metals, most PAHs, total PCBs, and most chlorinated pesticideswere not very high in the majority of the samples. However, the concentrations of nickel,mercury, 4-methyl phenol, benzoic acid, some PAHs, and PCBs were relatively high in somesamples.

Page 59

The highest concentrations of mixtures of potentially toxic chemicals primarily occurred insamples from Elliott Bay and Sinclair Inlet, the two most highly urbanized and industrializedbays within the 1998 study area. Similarly, the sediments analyzed during the 1997 survey ofnorthern Puget Sound indicated that chemical concentrations were highest in Everett Harbor,which was one of the most urbanized bays in that survey.

Toxicity/Chemistry Relationships

It was not possible to identify and confirm which chemicals caused toxic responses in the urchinfertilization, Microtox, and RGS tests in the samples from either central or northern PugetSound. Determinations of causality would require extensive toxicity identification evaluationsand spiked sediment bioassays. However, the chemical data were analyzed to determine whichchemicals may have contributed to toxicity.

Typically in surveys of sediment quality nationwide, NOAA has determined that complexmixtures of trace metals, organic compounds, and occasionally ammonia showed strongstatistical associations with one or more measures of toxicity (Long et al., 1996). Frequently, asa result of the toxicity/chemistry correlation analyses, some number of chemicals will show thestrongest associations leading to the conclusion that these chemicals may have caused orcontributed to the toxicity that was observed. However, the strength of these correlations canvary considerably among study areas and among the toxicity tests performed.

In both central and northern Puget Sound, the data were similar to those collected in several otherregions (e.g., the western Florida Panhandle, Boston Harbor, and South Carolina/Georgiaestuaries). Severe toxicity in the amphipod tests was either not observed in any samples or wasvery rare, and, therefore, correlations with toxicity were not significant or were weak. However,correlations with chemical concentrations were more readily apparent in the results of thesublethal tests, notably tests of urchin fertilization and microbial bioluminescence, as conductedin Puget Sound.

The sea urchin tests performed on pore waters extracted from the sediments and the Microtoxand RGS tests performed on solvent extracts showed overlapping, but different, spatial patternsin toxicity in central Puget Sound. Because of the nature of these tests, it is reasonable to assumethat they responded to different substances in the sediments. The strong statistical associationsbetween the results of the sea urchin and RGS tests and the mean ERM quotients for 25substances provides evidence that mixtures of contaminants co-varying in concentrations couldhave contributed to these measures of toxicity. Percent sea urchin fertilization was statisticallycorrelated with the guideline-normalized concentrations of all chemical classes of contaminants.Furthermore, the highly significant correlations between enzyme induction in the RGS assays andthe concentrations of PAHs normalized to effects-based guidelines or criteria suggest that thesesubstances occurred at sufficiently high concentrations to contribute to the responses.

The data showed that urchin fertilization was statistically associated with several trace metals(notably arsenic, lead, mercury, tin and zinc) some of which occurred at concentrations abovetheir respective ERL and SQS levels. The data from the northern Puget Sound study indicatedvery similar results, i.e., urchin fertilization was highly correlated with the concentrations of

Page 60

many trace metals either analyzed with partial or total digestions. Similarly, fertilization successwas strongly correlated with the concentrations of PCBs in both central and northern PugetSound. However, urchin fertilization was highly correlated with the concentrations of both highand low molecular weight PAHs in central Puget Sound, but not in northern Puget Sound.

Because the solvent extracts would not be expected to elute trace metals, Microtox and RGSresults were expected to show strong associations with concentrations of PAHs and other organiccompounds. The data indicated that microbial bioluminescence decreased with increasingconcentrations of most individual PAHs and most PCB congeners in the northern samples, butnot in the central samples. Microtox results were correlated with benzoic acid in both areas. Inboth survey areas, RGS enzyme induction increased with increases in the concentrations of mostof the organic compounds, notably including all of the individual PAHs, all classes of PAHs, andmany of the PCBs, some pesticides, and dibenzofuran.

There were a few similarities between the two study areas in the relationships between benthicindices and chemical concentrations, but there were more differences. For example, the dataindicated highly significant correlations between the guideline-normalized concentrations oftrace metals and taxa richness in both areas. Also, Swartz’s Dominance Index was highlycorrelated with trace metals and mean ERM quotients for 25 substances in both surveys.However, total abundance was correlated with PAHs in central Sound, but not in northern Soundsediments. The very high correlations observed between mollusc abundance and many chemicalclasses in northern Sound were not apparent in central Sound. In contrast, annelid abundancewas correlated with many chemical classes in central Sound, but not in northern Sound.

There were almost no similarities between the two studies in the correlations between benthicindices and toxicity results. The highly significant correlation between echinoderm abundanceand urchin fertilization in northern Puget Sound was not observed in central Sound. Thesignificant correlation between cytochrome P450 HRGS induction and Pielou’s Evenness Indexwas positive in northern sediments and negative in central sediments. Annelid abundanceincreased significantly with increasing cytochrome P450 HRGS induction and decreasing urchinfertilization in central Sound, but not in northern Sound samples.

Although the chemicals for which analyses were performed may have caused or contributed tothe measures of toxicity and/or benthic alterations, other substances for which no analyses wereconducted also may have contributed. Definitive determinations of the actual causes of toxicityin each test would require further experimentation. Similarly, the inconsistent relationshipsbetween measures of toxicity and indices of benthic structure suggest that the ecologicalrelevance of the toxicity tests differed between the two regions of Puget Sound.

Benthic Community Structure, the “Triad” Synthesis, andthe Weight-of-Evidence ApproachThe abundance, diversity, and species composition of marine infaunal communities varyconsiderably from place to place and over both short and long time scales as a result of manynatural and anthropogenic factors (Reish, 1955; Nichols, 1970; McCauley et al., 1976; Pearsonand Rosenberg, 1978; Dauer et al., 1979; James and Gibson, 1979; Bellan-Santini, 1980; Dauer

Page 61

and Conner, 1980; Gray, 1982: Becker et al., 1990; Ferraro et al., 1991; Llansó et al.,1998b).Major differences in benthic communities can result from wide ranges in water depths, oxygenconcentrations at the sediment-water interface, the texture (grain size) and geochemicalcomposition of the sediment particles, porewater salinity as a function of proximity to a river orstream, bottom water current velocity or physical disturbance as a result of natural scouring ormaritime traffic, and the effects of large predators. In addition, the composition of benthiccommunities at any single location can be a function of seasonal or inter-annual changes in larvalrecruitment, availability of food, proximity to adult brood stock, predation, and seasonaldifferences in temperature, freshwater runoff, current velocity and physical disturbances.

In this survey of central Puget Sound, samples were collected in the deep waters of the centralbasin, in protected waters of shallow embayments and coves, in scoured channels with strongtidal currents, and in the lower reaches of a highly industrialized river. As a result of these majordifferences in habitat, the abundance, diversity, and composition of benthic communities wouldbe expected to differ considerably from place to place.

Analyses of the benthic macroinfauna in the central Puget Sound survey indicated that the vastmajority of samples were populated by abundant and diverse infaunal assemblages. The numbersof species and organisms varied considerably among sampling locations, indicative of the naturaldegree of variability in abundance, community structure, and diversity among benthic samples inPuget Sound. Calculated indices of evenness and dominance showed variability equal to that forspecies counts and abundance.

With huge ranges in abundance, species composition, and diversity as a result of naturalenvironmental factors, it is difficult to discern the differences between degraded and un-degraded(or “healthy”) benthic assemblages. Some benthic assemblages may have relatively low speciesrichness and total abundance as a result of the effects of natural environmental factors. Therewere a number of stations in which the benthos was very abundant and diverse despite thepresence of high chemical concentrations and high toxicity.

Both Long (1989) and Chapman (1996) provided recommendations for graphical and tabularpresentations of data from the Sediment Quality Triad (i.e., measures of chemical contamination,toxicity, and benthic community structure). The triad of measures was offered as an approach fordeveloping a weight-of-evidence to classify the relative quality of sediments (Long, 1989).Chapman (1996) later suggested that locations with chemical concentrations greater than effects-based guidelines or criteria, and evidence of acute toxicity in laboratory tests (such as with theamphipod survival bioassays), and alterations to resident infaunal communities constituted“strong evidence of pollution-induced degradation”. In contrast, he suggested that there was“strong evidence against pollution-induced degradation” at sites lacking contamination, toxicity,and benthic alterations. Several other permutations were described in which mixed or conflictingresults were obtained. In some cases, sediments could appear to be contaminated, but not toxic,either with or without alterations to the benthos, or sediments were not contaminated withmeasured substances, but, nevertheless, were toxic, either with or without benthic alterations.Plausible explanations were offered for benthic “alterations” at non-contaminated and/or non-toxic locations possibly attributable to natural factors, such as those identified above.

Page 62

In this survey of central Puget Sound, 36 of the 100 stations sampled had sediments withsignificant toxicity and elevated chemical contamination, while 18 appeared to have benthiccommunities that were possibly affected by chemical contaminants in the sediments, includingstations in Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet, Elliott Bay, and the Duwamish River. These stationstypically had moderate to very high total abundance, including high numbers of Aphelochaetaspecies N1 and other pollution-tolerant species, moderate to high taxa richness, low evenness,and low Swartz’s Dominance Index values. Often, pollution-sensitive species such as arthropodsand echinoderms were low in abundance or absent from these stations. These 18 stationsrepresented an area of 8.1 km2, or about 1.1% of the total survey area. These 18 stations, alllocated in urban/industrial areas, provide possible “evidence of pollution-induced degradation” asdefined by Chapman, 1996.

In contrast, 25 stations were identified with no indications of significant sediment toxicity orchemical contamination. All of the benthic indices indicated abundant and diverse populationsof most or all taxonomic groups. These stations, located in Port Townsend, Admiralty Inlet,Possession Sound, the central basin, Port Madison, Liberty Bay, the Bainbridge Basin, RichPassage, Dyes Inlet, and outer Elliott Bay, represented an area of 359.3 km2, equivalent toapproximately 49% of the total survey area, and provide “strong evidence against pollution-induced degradation” as defined by Chapman, 1996.

The remaining thirty-nine stations, with either significant chemical contamination but no toxicity,or significant toxicity but no chemical contamination, were located in Port Townsend, PossessionSound, the central basin, Eagle Harbor, Liberty Bay, the Bainbridge Basin, and Elliott Bay andthe Duwamish River, and represented an area of 272.6 km2, equivalent to about 37% of the totalcentral Puget Sound study area. Benthic assemblages varied considerably in structure at thesestations, presumably as a result of many factors, including natural environmental variables.Additional statistical analyses are required to fully describe the multivariate relationships amongthe sediment quality triad data, and other variable data collected at all 100 stations.

Comparison of the results of the sediment quality triad analyses for this survey was made withthe 1997 survey of northern Puget Sound (Table 40). In both surveys, the percent of the totalstudy areas displaying toxicity, chemical contamination and altered benthos was similar (1.3 and1.1% area, respectively). Of the area surveyed in 1997 (773.9 km2), ten stations representing10.34 km2 (1.3% of the area) could be considered as having pollution-induced degradation. Nineof these samples were collected in Everett Harbor and one from Port Gardner. The estimate of1.3% area was similar to the estimate of 1.1% for the 18 "degraded" stations identified in thecentral Puget Sound study area. In addition, 10.6% of the 1997 northern area had both highchemical contamination and high toxicity, but, was accompanied by high benthic abundance anddiversity. For central Puget Sound, this estimate was similar (12.5%). In contrast, the sampleswith no contamination and no toxicity represented 19.6% of the northern area and 49% of thecentral area. Conversely, the balance of samples in which results were mixed (i.e., eitherchemistry or toxicity was significant, benthos was abundant and diverse) was almost twice ashigh in the northern study area (68.5%) than in the central study area (37%).

Because of the natural differences in benthic communities among different estuaries, it isdifficult to compare the communities from Puget Sound with those from other regions in the U.S.

Page 63

However, benthic data have been generated by the Estuaries component of the EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) using internally consistent methods. A summary(Long, 2000) of the data from three estuarine provinces (Virginian, Louisianian, Carolinian)showed ranges in results for measures of species richness, total abundance, and a multi-parameterbenthic index. The samples with relatively low species richness represented 5%, 4%, and 10% ofthe survey areas, respectively. Those with relatively low infaunal abundance represented 7%,19%, and 22% of the areas, respectively. Samples with low benthic index scores represented23%, 31%, and 20% of the areas. In the Regional EMAP survey of the New York/New Jerseyharbor area, samples classified as having degraded benthos represented 53% of the survey area(Adams et al., 1998). In contrast, it appears that benthic conditions that might be considereddegraded in central Puget Sound occurred much less frequently than in all of these other areas.

Page 64

ConclusionsThe conclusions drawn from the analysis of 100 sediment samples collected from central PugetSound during June 1998 for toxicity, chemical concentrations, and benthic infaunal compositionstudy, included the following:

• A battery of laboratory toxicity tests, used to provide a comprehensive assessment of thetoxicological condition of the sediments, indicated overlapping, but different, patterns intoxicity. Several spatial patterns identified with results of all the tests were apparent in thissurvey. First, highly toxic responses in the sea urchin, Microtox, and cytochrome P450HRGS tests were observed in the inner strata of Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River.Toxicity in these tests decreased considerably westward into the outer and deeper regions ofthe bay. Second, many of the samples from the Liberty Bay and Bainbridge basin area weretoxic in the Microtox and cytochrome P450 HRGS assays. The degree of toxicitydecreased steadily southward down the Bainbridge basin to Rich Passage, where thesediments were among the least toxic. Third, samples from two stations (167 and 168)located in a small inlet off Port Washington Narrows were among the most toxic in two ormore tests. Fourth, several samples from stations scattered within Sinclair Inlet indicatedmoderately toxic conditions; toxicity diminished steadily eastward into Rich Passage. Finally,samples from Port Townsend, southern Admiralty Inlet, and much of the central main basinwere among the least toxic.

• The spatial extent of toxicity was estimated by weighting the results of each test to the sizesof the sampling strata. The total study area was estimated to represent about 732 kilometer2.The area in which highly significant toxicity occurred totaled approximately 0.1% of the totalarea in the amphipod survival tests; 0.7%, 0.2%, and 0.6% of the area in urchin fertilizationtests of 100%, 50%, and 25% pore waters, respectively; 0% of the area in microbialbioluminescence tests; and 3% of the area in the cytochrome P450 HRGS assays. Theestimates of the spatial extent of toxicity measured in three of the four tests in central PugetSound were considerably lower than the “national average” estimates compiled from manyother surveys previously conducted by NOAA. Generally, they were comparable to theestimates for northern Puget Sound. However, in the cytochrome P450 HRGS assays, arelatively high proportion of samples caused moderate responses. Overall, the data fromthese four tests suggest that central Puget Sound sediments were not as toxic relative tosediments from many other areas nationwide. The large majority of the area surveyed wasclassified as non-toxic in these tests. However, the data from the RGS assays indicated aslight to moderate response among many samples.

• Chemical analyses, performed for a wide variety of trace metals, aromotic hydrocarbons,chlorinated organic hydrocarbons, and other ancillary measures, indicated that the surficialarea in which chemical concentrations exceeded effects-based sediment guidelines washighly dependent upon the set of critical values that was used. There were 21 samples inwhich one or more ERM values were exceeded. They represented an area of about 21 km2,or about 3% of the total survey area. In contrast, there were 94 samples in which at least oneSQS or CSL value was exceeded, representing about 99% of the survey area. Without the

Page 65

data for benzoic acid, 44 samples had at least one chemical concentration greater than a SQS(25.2% of the area) and 36 samples had at least one concentration greater than a CSL (21% ofthe area).

• The highest chemical concentrations invariably were observed in samples collected in theurbanized bays, namely Elliott Bay and Sinclair Inlet. Often, these samples containedchemicals at concentrations previously observed to be associated with acute toxicity andother biological effects. Concentrations generally decreased steadily away from these twobays and were lowest in Admiralty Inlet, Possession Sound, Rich Passage, Bainbridge Basin,and most of the central basin.

• Toxicity tests performed for urchin fertilization, microbial bioluminescence, and cytochromeP450 HRGS enzyme induction indicated correspondence with complex mixtures ofpotentially toxic chemicals in the sediments. Often, the results of the urchin and cytochromeP450 HRGS tests showed the strongest correlations with chemical concentrations. Asexpected, given the nature of the tests, results of the cytochrome P450 HRGS assay werehighly correlated with concentrations of high molecular weight PAHs and other organiccompounds known to induce this enzymatic response. In some cases, samples that werehighly toxic in the urchin or cytochrome P450 HRGS tests had chemical concentrations thatexceeded numerical, effects-based, sediment quality guidelines, further suggesting that thesechemicals could have caused or contributed to the observed biological response. However,there was significant variability in some of the apparent correlations, including samples inwhich chemical concentrations were elevated and no toxicity was observed. Therefore, it ismost likely that the chemical mixtures causing toxicity differed among the different toxicitytests and among the regions of the survey area.

• Several indices of the relative abundance and diversity of the benthic infauna indicated verywide ranges in results among sampling stations. Often, the samples collected in portions ofthe central basin, Port Townsend Bay, Rich Passage, and outer reaches of Elliott Bay had thehighest abundance and diversity of infauna. Often, annelids dominated the infauna, especiallyin samples with unusually high total abundance. Arthropods often were low in abundance insamples with low overall abundance and diversity. Samples in which the indices ofabundance and diversity were lowest were collected in the lower Duwamish River, innerElliott Bay, and Sinclair Inlet.

• Statistical analyses of the toxicity data and benthic data revealed few consistent patterns.Some indices of benthic community diversity and abundance decreased with increasingtoxicity and others increased. Also, the relationships between measures of benthic structureand chemical concentrations showed mixed results. Total abundance and annelid abundanceoften increased significantly in association with increasing chemical concentrations. Incontrast, indices of evenness, dominance, diversity, and abundance of several of the majortaxonomic groups decreased with increasing concentrations of most individual chemicals andchemical classes. No single chemical or chemical class was uniquely correlated with themeasures of benthic structure.

Page 66

• Data from the chemical analyses, toxicity tests, and benthic community analyses, together,indicated that of the 100 stations sampled, 36 had sediments with significant toxicity andelevated chemical contamination. Of these, 18 appeared to have benthic communities thatwere possibly affected by chemical contaminants in the sediments. They included stations inSinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet, Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River. These stations typically hadmoderate to very high total abundance, including high numbers of Aphelochaeta species N1and other pollution-tolerant species, moderate to high taxa richness, low evenness, and lowSwartz’s Dominance Index values. Often, pollution-sensitive species such as arthropods andechinoderms were low in abundance or absent from these stations. These 18 stationsrepresented an area of 8.1 km2, or about 1.1% of the total survey area, while the remainingother 18 stations represented an area of 91.6 km2, or about 12.5% of the total survey area.Twenty-five stations located in Port Townsend, Admiralty Inlet, Possession Sound, thecentral basin, Port Madison, Liberty Bay, the Bainbridge Basin, Rich Passage, Dyes Inlet, andouter Elliott Bay, were identified with no indications of significant sediment toxicity orchemical contamination, and with abundant and diverse populations of benthic infauna.These stations represented an area of 359.31 km2, equivalent to 49% of the total survey area.The remaining thirty-nine stations, located in Port Townsend, Possession Sound, the centralbasin, Eagle Harbor, Liberty Bay, the Bainbridge Basin, and Elliott Bay and the DuwamishRiver, displayed either signs of significant chemical contamination but no toxicity, orsignificant toxicity, but no chemical contamination, and for the majority, the benthicpopulations were abundant and diverse. Together, these stations represented an area of 272.6km2, equivalent to 37% of the total central Puget Sound study area.

• A comparison of the "triad" results from both the northern and central Puget Sound studyareas showed some similarities and some differences. Although the spatial extent of toxicityin the urchin fertilization tests and microbial bioluminescence tests was greater in thenorthern area, the cytochrome P450 HRGS tests indicated degraded conditions were morewidespread in the central area. In both surveys, the percent of the total study areas displayingtoxicity, chemical contamination and altered benthos was similar (1.3 and 1.1% area,respectively). Of the area surveyed in 1997 (773.9 km2), ten stations representing 10.34 km2

(1.3% of the area) could be considered as having pollution-induced degradation. Theestimate of 1.3% area was similar to the estimate of 1.1% for the 18 "degraded" stationsidentified in the central Puget Sound study area. In addition, 10.6% of the 1997 northern areahad both high chemical contamination and high toxicity, but, was accompanied by highbenthic abundance and diversity. For central Puget Sound, this estimate was similar (12.5%).In contrast, the samples with no contamination and no toxicity represented 19.6% of thenorthern area and 49% of the central area. Conversely, the balance of samples in whichresults were mixed (i.e., either chemistry or toxicity was significant, benthos was abundantand diverse) was almost twice as high in the northern study area (68.5%) than in the centralstudy area (37%).

Page 67

Literature CitedAdams, D.A., J.S. O’Connor, and S.B. Weisberg. 1998. Final Report: Sediment quality of the

NY/NJ Harbor system. U. S. EPA 902-R-98-001. Region 2, U. S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency. New York, NY.

Anderson, J.W., S.S. Rossi, R.H. Tukey, Tien Vu, and L.C. Quattrochi. 1995. A Biomarker, 450RGS, for assessing the potential toxicity of organic compounds in environmentalsamples. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (7) 14:1159-1169.

------, Bothner, K., Vu, T. and R.H. Tukey. 1996. Using a Biomarker (P450 RGS) Test Methodon Environmental Samples, pp. 277-286, Chapter 15, In: Techniques in AquaticToxicology, Ed. by G.K. Ostrander, Lewis Publishers, Bocha Raton, FL.

------, J.M. Jones, J. Hameedi, E. Long, and R. Tukey. 1999a. Comparative analysis of sedimentextracts from NOAA’s Bioeffects studies by the biomarker, P450 RGS. Mar. Environ.Res. 48:407-425.

------, J.M. Jones, S. Steinert, B. Sanders, J. Means, D. McMillin, T. Vu, and R. Tukey. 1999b.Correlation of CYP1A1 induction, as measured by the P450 RGS biomarker assay, withhigh molecular weight PAHs in mussels deployed at various sites in San Diego Bay in1993 and 1995. Mar. Environ. Res. 48:389-405.

APHA. 1998. P450 Reporter Gene Response to Dioxin-like Organic Compounds. Method 8070,pp. 8-36 –37 In: 20th Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWastewater, American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.

ASTM. 1993. Standard guide for conducting solid phase, 10-day, static sediment toxicity testswith marine and estuarine infaunal amphipods. ASTM E 1367-92. American Society forTesting Materials. Philadelphia, PA. 24 pp.

------. 1999. Standard Guide E 1853M-98 for Measuring the Presence of Planar OrganicCompounds which Induce CYP1A, Reporter Gene Test Systems, In: Vol. 11.05:Biological Effects; Environmental Fate; Biotechnology; Pesticides, Section 11: Waterand Environmental Technology, 1999 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.

Carr, R.S. 1998. Sediment porewater testing. In: Standard methods for the examination ofwater and wastewater, section 8080, 20th edition, Clesceri, L.S., A. E. Greenberg, andA.D. Eaton (eds.), American public Health Association, Washington, D.C.

------ and D.C. Chapman. 1995. Comparison of methods for conducting marine and estuarinesediment porewater toxicity tests – Extraction, storage, and handling techniques. Arch.Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28:69-77.

Page 68

------ and D. C. Chapman, C.L. Howard, and J. Biedenbach. 1996a. Sediment Quality Triadassessment survey in the Galveston Bay Texas system. Ecotoxicology 5:341-361

------, E.R. Long, D.C. Chapman, G. Thursby, J.M. Biedenbach, H. Windom, G. Sloane, andD.A. Wolfe. 1996b. Toxicity assessment studies of contaminated sediments in TampaBay, Florida. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15:1218-1231.

Chapman, P.M. 1996. Presentation and interpretation of Sediment Quality Triad data.Ecotoxicology 5:327-339.

------, G.A. Vigers, M.A. Farrell, R.N. Dexter, E.A. Quinlan, R.M. Kocan, and M. Landolt.1982. Survey of biological effects of toxicants upon Puget Sound biota. I. Broad-scaletoxicity survey. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-25. National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration. Boulder, CO.

------, D.R. Munday, J. Morgan, R. Fink, R.M. Kocan, M.L. Landolt, and R.N. Dexter. 1983.Survey of biological effects of toxicants upon Puget Sound biota. II. Tests ofreproductive impairment. NOAA Technical Report NOS 102 OMS 1. National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration. Rockville, MD.

------, R.N. Dexter, J. Morgan, R. Fink, D. Mitchell, R. M. Kocan, and M.L. Landolt. 1984a.Survey of biological effects of toxicants upon Puget Sound biota. III. Tests in EverettHarbor, Samish and Bellingham Bays. NOAA Technical Report NOS OMS 2. NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Rockville, MD.

------, R.N. Dexter, R.D. Kathman, and G.A. Erickson. 1984b. Survey of biological effects oftoxicants upon Puget Sound biota. IV. Interrelationships of infauna, sediment bioassayand sediment chemistry data. NOAA Technical Report NOS OMA 9. National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration. Rockville, MD.

Crandell, D.R., D.R. Mullieneaux, and H.H. Waldorn. 1965. Age and origin of the Puget SoundTrough in western Washington. U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper. 525 pp.

Dutch, M., E. Long, W. Kammin, and S. Redman. 1998. Puget Sound Ambient MonitoringProgram Marine Sediment Monitoring Component – Final Quality Assurance Project andImplementation Plan. Measures of bioeffects associated with toxicants in Puget Sound:Survey of sediment contamination, toxicity, and benthic macroinfaunal communitystructure. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 31 pp.

EPA. 1999. Method 4425: Screening Extracts Of Environmental Samples For Planar OrganicCompounds (PAHs, PCBs, PCDDs/PCDFs) By A Reporter Gene On A Human Cell Line.EPA Office of Solid Waste, SW 846 Methods, Update IVB.

Fairey, R., C. Bretz, S. Lamerdin, J. Hunt, B. Anderson, S. Tudor, C.J. Wilson, F. LaCaro, M.Stephenson, M. Puckett, E.R. Long. 1996. Chemistry, toxicity, and benthic communityconditions in sediments of the San Diego Bay Region, Final Report. Report by StateWater Resources Control Board, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Page 69

California Department of Fish and Game- Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory, MossLanding Marine Laboratories; 169 pp. + appendices.

Hamilton, M.A., R.C. Russo, and R.V. Thurston. 1977. Trimmed Spearman-Karber method forestimating median lethal concentrations in toxicity bioassays. Environ. Sci. Technol. 11:714-719.

Hardy, J. and J. Word. 1986. Contamination of the water surface of Puget Sound. Puget SoundNotes. November, 1986. U. S. EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA.

------, E. A. Crecelius, L.D. Antrim, V.L. Broadhurst, C.W. Apts, J.M. Gurtisen, and T.J.Fortman. 1987a. The sea-surface microlayer of Puget Sound: Part II. Concentrations ofcontaminants and relation to toxicity. Marine Environmental Research 23: 251-271.

------, S. Kiesser, L. Antrim, A. Stubin, R. Kocan, and J. Strand. 1987b. The sea-surfacemicrolayer of Puget Sound: Part I. Toxic effects on fish eggs and larvae. MarineEnvironmental Research 23: 227-249.

Heimbuch, D., H. Wilson, J. Seibel, and S. Weisberg. 1995. R-emap data analysis approach forestimating the proportion of area that is subnominal. Prepared for U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC. 22 pp.

Hyland, J., Herrlinger, T., Snoots, T., Ringwood, A., VanDolah, R., Hackney, C.,Nelson, G.,Rosen, J., and Kokkinakis, S. 1996. Environmental quality of estuaries of the CarolinianProvince: 1994. NOAA Technical Memorandum 97. National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, Charleston, SC.

Johnson, B.T. and Long, E.R. 1998. Rapid toxicity assessment of sediments from estuarineecosystems: A new tandem in vitro testing approach. Environmental Toxicology andChemistry 17, 1099-1106.

Jones, JM and JW Anderson. 1999. Relative potencies of PAHs and PCBs based on theresponse of human cells. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 7:19-26.

------. 2000. Using the metabolism of PAHs in a human cell line to characterize environmentalsamples. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 8:119-126.

Kennish, J. 1998. Pollution Impacts on Marine Biotic Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton,FL. 310 pp.

Kohn, N. P., J.Q. Word, D. K. Niyogi. 1994. Acute Toxicity of ammonia to four species ofmarine amphipod. Mar. Env. Res. 38 (1994) 1-15.

Lauenstein, G. G. and A. Y. Cantillo, editors. 1993. Sampling and analytical methods of theNational Status and Trends Program National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watchprojects. 1984-1992. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS ORCA 71. National Oceanic andAtmopheric Administration. Silver Spring, MD.

Page 70

Llansó, Roberto J., Sandra Aasen, Kathy Welch. 1998a. Marine Sediment Monitoring ProgramI. Chemistry and Toxicity Testing 1989-1995. Washington State Department of Ecology,Environmental Investigations and Laboratory services Program, Olympia, Washington.

------. 1998b. Marine Sediment Monitoring Program II. Distribution and Structure of BenthicCommunities in Puget Sound 1989-1995. Washington State Department of Ecology,Environmental Investigations and Laboratory services Program, Olympia, Washington.

Long, E.R. 1984. Sediment Bioassays: A summary of their use in Puget Sound. NOAA OceanAssessments Division. Seattle, WA.

------. 1987. Biological indicators of pollution in Puget Sound. pg. 29-48, In: Puget Sound:Issue, resources, status, and management. NOAA Estuary-of-the-Month Seminar SeriesNo. 8. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington, DC.

------. 1989. Use of the sediment quality triad in classification of sediment contamination. In:Contaminated Marine Sediments- Assessment and Remediation. pg. 78-99. Marine Board,National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

------. 2000. Degraded sediment quality in U.S. estuaries: A review of magnitude and ecologicalimplications. Ecological Applications 10(2): 338-349.

------ and P. M. Chapman. 1985. A sediment quality triad: Measures of sediment contamination,toxicity and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound. Marine Pollution Bulletin16(10): 405-415.

------, Donald D. Mac Donald, Sherri L. Smith, Fred D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adversebiological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarinesediments. Environmental management 19(1):81-97.

------, A. Robertson, D. A. Wolfe, J. Hameedi, and G. M. Sloane. 1996. Estimates of the spatialextent of sediment toxicity in major U.S. estuaries. Environmental Science andTechnology 30(12):3585-3592.

------ and D. D. MacDonald. 1998. Recommended uses of empirically-derived, sediment qualityguidelines for marine and estuarine ecosystems. Journal of Human and Ecological RiskAssessment 4(5): 1019-1039.

------, Jawed Hameedi, Andrew Robertson, Margaret Dutch, Sandra Aasen, Christina Ricci,Kathy Welch, William Kammin, R. Scott Carr, Tom Johnson, James Biedenbach, K.John Scott, Cornelia Mueller and Jack W. Anderson. 1999a. Sediment Quality in PugetSound Year 1 - Northern Puget Sound. Washington State Department of Ecology,Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services Program, Olympia, Washington.

------, G. M. Sloane, G.I. Scott, B. Thompson, R.S. Carr, J. Biedenbach, T.L. Wade, B.J. Presley,K.J. Scott, C. Mueller, G. Brecken-Fols, B. Albrecht, J.W. Anderson, and G.T. Chandler.1999b. Magnitude and extent of sediment contamination and toxicity in Biscayne Bay

Page 71

and vicinity. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS NCCOS CCMA 141. National Oceanic &Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.

Manchester Environmental Laboratory. 1997. Standard Operating Procedure for the Analysis ofButyltins. Washington State Department of Ecology, Manchester, Washington.

Michelsen, Teresa. 1992. Organic Carbon Normalization of Sediment Data. WashingtonDepartment of Ecology, Sediment Managemant Unit, Olympia, Washington. 10 pp.

Morgan, B.J.T. 1992. Analysis of quantal response data. Chapman and Hall. London, UK.

Moser, B.K. and G. R. Stevens. 1992. Homogeneity of variance in the two-sample means tests.American Statistician 46: 19-21.

NOAA. 1987. Puget Sound: Issue, resources, status, and management. NOAA Estuary-of-the-Month Seminar Series No. 8. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Washington, DC.

Puget Sound Estuary Program. 1986. Recommended Protocols for Measuring ConventionalSediment Variables in Puget Sound. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 10, Office of Puget Sound, Seattle, WA and Puget Sound Water QualityAuthority, Olympia, WA by Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. 25 pp.

------. 1987. Recommended Protocols for Sampling and Analyzing Subtidal BenthicMacroinvertebrate Assemblages in Puget Sound. Prepared for U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency Region 10, Office of Puget Sound, Seattle, WA and Puget SoundWater Quality Authority, Olympia, WA by Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. 32 pp.

------. 1995. Recommended Guidelines for Conducting Laboratory Bioassays on Puget SoundSediments. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle, WAand Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA by King County EnvironmentalLab, Seattle, WA. 30 pp. + appendices.

------. 1996a. Recommended Protocols for Measuring Selected Environmental Variables inPuget Sound, Introduction. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region10, Seattle, WA and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA by KingCounty Environmental Lab, Seattle, WA. 5 pp.

------. 1996b. Recommended Guidelines for Sampling Marine Sediment, Water Column, andTissue in Puget Sound. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10,Seattle, WA and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA by King CountyEnvironmental Lab, Seattle, WA. 51 pp.

------. 1996c. Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Metals in Puget Sound Marine Water,Sediment and Tissue Samples. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 10, Seattle, WA and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA byKing County Environmental Lab, Seattle, WA. 43 pp. + appendices.

Page 72

------. 1996d. Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Organic Compounds in Puget SoundWater, Sediment and Tissue Samples. Prepared for U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Region 10, Seattle, WA and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia,WA by King County Environmental Lab, Seattle, WA. 30 pp. + appendices.

SAS Institute, Inc. 1989. SAS/LAB Software: User’s Guide, Version 6, First Edition. Cary, NC:SAS Institute, Inc. 291 pp.

------. 1992. SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Version 6, Fourth Edition, vol. 2. Cary, NC: SASInstitute, Inc. 846 pp.

Schimmel, S.C., B.D. Melzian, D.E. Campbell, C.J. Strobel, S.J. Benyi, T.S. Rosen and H.W.Buffum. 1994 Statistical Summary: EMAP Estuaries - Virginian Province-1991. U. S.Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, EnvironmentalResearch laboratory, Narragansett, RI. 77 pp.

Schoener, A. 1983. Colonization rates and processes as an index of pollution severity. NOAATechnical memorandum OMPA 27. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Rockville, MD.

Thursby, G., J. Heltshe, and K.J. Scott. 1997. Revised approach to toxicity test acceptabilitycriteria using a statistical performance assessment. Environmental Toxicology andChemistry, 16(6): 1322-1329.

U.S. EPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofRegulations and Standards, Washington D.C.

------. 1996. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes Physical /Chemical Methods. SW-846,IIIA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, office of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse, Washington, DC.

Page 73

Bellingham

Blaine

MountVernon

PortTownsend

Sa

rat o

ga

P

a s s age

Pu

ge

tS

ou

nd

OrcasIsland

LopezIsland

San JuanIsland

OlympicPeninsula

Whidbey Island

S t ra i t o fJuan De Fuca S k a g i t

B ay

S t ra i t o fGeo rg i a

N0 10 20

kilometers

PointRoberts

Possess i onSound

Nisqually River

Puyallup River

Green River

Cedar RiverDuwamishWaterway

Olympia

Tacoma

Seattle

Everett

Anacortes

Bremerton

Lake Washington

Hood Canal

SnoqualmieRiver

SkykomishRiver

SnohomishRiver

Skagit River

Stillaguamish River

NooksackRiver

Figure 1. Map of the central Puget Sound study area for the NOAA/PSAMP CooperativeAgreement. The areas sampled during 1998 are outlined.

Page 74

#####

#

###

#########

##

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

##

#########

#

#

###

#

#

####################################

#

###

###

#

##

#

#

#

####

# #

#

#

#

####

####

#

###

#######

#####

##

#

####

#

##

###

#

######

########

#

################

##########

###

#

########## #

###

#####

###########

#######

############

#

##

#############

###

#######

######

########

#

#

###### #

###########

#

###

#

#

##

#

#######################

#############

#

#######################

##

#

######

######### ###############

##########################################

#

##################

#

##

##

#

##

#

####

######

#

###

######

#

#######

######

#

#

#

###

#

#

##

###########################

#############

#########

##

#

############

#########

#

##

#

##

#

#########

#

##

#

#

###

#

##

##

####

###

###

##

#

##

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

##

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

####

#

##########

######################

###########################

####

#########

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## ##

#####

###

##

# #

#

##

#

################

########

##########

########

##

##

####

####################

##########

##

###

#

#

####

#############

########

##############

Everett

Seattle

Strait of Juan De

Fuca

Olympic

Peninsula

Kitsap

Peninsula

Duwamish

Waterway

Vashon

Island

Bremerton

N

Figure 2. Map of central Puget Sound SEDQUAL stations where chemical contaminants insediment samples exceeded Washington State Sediment Quality Standards (SQS) andPuget Sound Marine Sediment Cleanup Screening Levels (CSL).

Page 75

0 2 4 kilometers

N

Washington

Puget Sound

0 5 10 15 20

kilometers

Seattle

Edmonds

Everett

Bremerton

Port Townsend

Pu

ge

tS

ou

nd

Ad

mi r a

l t yI n

let

Sa

r at o

ga

p a s s a g

OlympicPeninsula

KitsapPeninsula

BainbridgeIsland

VashonIsland

MauryIsland

Whidbey Island

CamanoIslandS t ra i t o f

Juan De Fuca

Hood

Cana l

DuwamishWa te rway

5

6

8

924

25

26

31

3230

2327

28 29

11

10

17

18

21

22

19

20

16

12

7

15

14

13

4

3

2

1

Figure 3a. Central Puget Sound sampling strata for the PSAMP/NOAA Bioeffects Survey,all strata.

Page 76

0 2 4 kilometers

N

Edmonds

Port Townsend

Port Townsend

OakBay

UselessBay

Ad

mi ra

l t yI n

l et

Sa ra t oga

Passage

P

oss

ess

i on

So

un

d

OlympicPeninsula

PointWilson

Point NoPoint

AdmiraltyHead

KitsapPeninsula

Whidbey Island

CamanoIsland

S t ra i t o fJuan De Fuca

Hood

Cana l

107

108

116

118

[not sampled]

5

4

3

2

1106

109110

111

112

117

119

120

Figure 3b. Central Puget Sound sampling stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA BioeffectsSurvey, Port Townsend to Possession Sound (strata 1 through 5). (Strata numbers areshown in bold. Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 77

0 2 4 kilometers

Edmonds

KitsapPeninsula

WestPoint

BainbridgeIsland

Puge tSound

Po r tMad i son

A g a tePa ssa g e

L i b e r t yB ay

N 121

123

122

124

125

126

127128

129

113

142

143

144146

147

148149

150

6

8

7

15

1413 145

Figure 3c. Central Puget Sound sampling stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA BioeffectsSurvey, Port Madison and central basin (strata 6 through 8) and Liberty Bay to BainbridgeIsland (13 through 15). (Strata numbers are shown in bold. Stations are identified assample number).

Page 78

0 1 2 kilometers

Seattle

BainbridgeIsland

VashonIsland

BlakeIsland

Alki Point

MauryIsland

DuwamishWa t e rway

N

PugetSound

ElliottBay

East Passage

RichPassage

Eagle Harbor

Blakely Harbor

ColvosPassage

130

131

132

133

134

135138

136

137

139

140

141

9

11

10

12

Figure 3d. Central Puget Sound sampling stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA BioeffectsSurvey, Eagle Harbor, central basin, and East Passage, (strata 9 through 12). (Stratanumbers are shown in bold. Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 79

0 1 2 kilometers

Bremerton

BainbridgeIslandN

OstrichBay

DyesInlet

SinclairInlet

PortOrchard

Port-Washington Narrows

R ich Passage151

152

153

154155

156

159

160

161162163

166

167

165164

20

19

18

17

22

16

157

158

168

169

170

171

21

Figure 3e. Central Puget Sound sampling stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA BioeffectsSurvey, Bremerton to Port Orchard (strata 16 through 22). (Strata numbers are shown inbold. Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 80

0 2 4 kilometers

Seattle

N

Alki Point

DuwamishHead

DuwamishWa te rway

ElliottBay

LakeUnion

173

174

175

176

179180

181

115

182

183184

185

187

188

189

190191

192

193194

195

196

197

198199

114

200201

202

203204

205

24

25

26

3130

23

27

28 29

32

172

177

178

186

Harbor Island

Figure 3f. Central Puget Sound sampling stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA BioeffectsSurvey, Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River (strata 23 through 32). (Strata numbersare shown in bold. Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 81

0 2 4 kilometers

N

Edmonds

Port Townsend

Port Townsend

OakBay

UselessBay

Ad

mi ra

l t yI n

l et

Sa ra t oga

Passage

P

oss

ess

i on

So

un

d

OlympicPeninsula

PointWilson

Point NoPoint

AdmiraltyHead

KitsapPeninsula

Whidbey Island

CamanoIsland

S t ra i t o fJuan De Fuca

Hood

Cana l

107

108

116

118

[not sampled]

5

4

3

2

1

106

109110

111

112

117

119

120

Urchinfertilization

not toxic in 100% pw

toxic in only 100% pw

toxic in 100% + 50% pw

toxic in 100% + 50% + 25% pw

Amphipodsurvival

not toxic

significantly toxic

highly toxic

Figure 4. Summary of 1998 amphipod survival tests (top symbols) and sea urchinfertilization tests (in three porewater concentrations, bottom symbols) for stations in PortTownsend to Possession Sound (strata 1 through 5). (Strata numbers are shown in bold.Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 82

0 2 4 kilometers

Edmonds

KitsapPeninsula

WestPoint

BainbridgeIsland

P u g e tS o u n d

Po r tMad i son

A g a t ePa s s a g e

L i b e r t yB ay

N 121

123

122

124

125

126

127128

129

113

142

143

144146

147

148 149

150

Amphipodsurvival

not toxic

significantly toxic

highly toxic

6

8

7

15

1413 145

Urchinfertilization

not toxic in 100% pw

toxic in only 100% pw

toxic in 100% + 50% pw

toxic in 100% + 50% + 25% pw

Figure 5. Summary of 1998 amphipod survival tests (top symbols) and sea urchinfertilization tests (in three porewater concentrations, bottom symbols) for stations in PortMadison and central basin (strata 6 through 8) and Liberty Bay to Bainbridge Island (13through 15). (Strata numbers are shown in bold. Stations are identified as samplenumber).

Page 83

0 1 2 kilometers

Seattle

BainbridgeIsland

VashonIsland

BlakeIsland

Alki Point

MauryIsland

DuwamishWa te rway

N

PugetSound

ElliottBay

East Passage

RichPassage

Eagle Harbor

Blakely Harbor

ColvosPassage

130

131

132

133

134

135138

136

137

139

140

141

9

11

10

12

Urchinfertilization

not toxic in 100% pw

toxic in only 100% pw

toxic in 100% + 50% pw

toxic in 100% + 50% + 25% pw

Amphipodsurvival

not toxic

significantly toxic

highly toxic

Figure 6. Summary of 1998 amphipod survival tests (top symbols) and sea urchinfertilization tests (in three porewater concentrations, bottom symbols) for stations in EagleHarbor, central basin, and East Passage (strata 9 through 12). (Strata numbers are shownin bold. Stations are identified as sample number)

Page 84

0 1 2 kilometers

Bremerton

BainbridgeIsland

N

OstrichBay

DyesInlet

SinclairInlet

PortOrchard

Port-Washington Narrows

R ich Passage

151

152

153

154

155

156

159

160161

162

163

166

167

165164

2019

18

17

22

16

157

158

168

169

170

171

21

Urchinfertilization

not toxic in 100% pw

toxic in only 100% pw

toxic in 100% + 50% pw

toxic in 100% + 50% + 25% pw

Amphipodsurvival

not toxic

significantly toxic

highly toxic

Figure 7. Summary of 1998 amphipod survival tests (top symbols) and sea urchinfertilization tests (in three porewater concentrations, bottom symbols) for stations inBremerton to Port Orchard (strata 16 through 22). (Strata numbers are shown in bold.Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 85

0 2 4 kilometers

Seattle

N

Alki Point

DuwamishHead

DuwamishWa te rway

ElliottBay

LakeUnion

173

174

175

176 179180

181

115

182183

184185

187

188

189

190

191192

193

194195 196

197

198

199

114

200 201

202

203204

205

24

25

26

31

30

2327

2829

32

172

177

178

186

Urchinfertilization

not toxic in 100% pw

toxic in only 100% pw

toxic in 100% + 50% pw

toxic in 100% + 50% + 25% pw

Amphipodsurvival

not toxic

significantly toxic

highly toxic

25

Harbor Island

Figure 8. Summary of 1998 amphipod survival tests (top symbols) and sea urchinfertilization tests (in three porewater concentrations, bottom symbols) for stations in ElliottBay and the lower Duwamish River (strata 23 through 32). (Strata numbers are shown inbold. Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 86

0 2 4 kilometers

N

Edmonds

Port Townsend

Port Townsend

OakBay

UselessBay

Ad

mi ra

l t yI n

l et

Sa ra t oga

Passage

P

oss

ess

i on

So

un

d

OlympicPeninsula

PointWilson

Point NoPoint

AdmiraltyHead

KitsapPeninsula

Whidbey RIsland

CamanoIsland

S t ra i t o fJuan De Fuca

Hood

Cana l

107

108

116

118

[not sampled]

5

4

3

2

1

106

109110

111

112

117

119 120

0

5

10

15

20

Signi-ficant

NotSigni-ficant

mea

n E

C50

(m

g/m

L)

Figure 9. Results of 1998 Microtox bioluminescence tests for stations in Port Townsendto Possession Sound (strata 1 through 5). (Strata numbers are shown in bold. Stations areidentified as sample number).

Page 87

0 2 4 kilometers

Edmonds

KitsapPeninsula

WestPoint

BainbridgeIsland

P u g e tS o u n d

Po r tM a d i s o n

A g a t ePa s s a g e

L i b e r t yB ay

N

121123

122

124

125

126

127 128129113

142

143

144

146

147148 149

150

6

8

7

15

14

13145

0

5

10

15

20

Signi-ficant

NotSigni-ficant

mea

n E

C50

(m

g/m

L)

Figure 10. Results of 1998 Microtox bioluminescence tests for stations in Port Madisonand central basin (strata 6 through 8) and Liberty Bay to Bainbridge Island (13 through15). (Strata numbers are shown in bold. Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 88

0 1 2 kilometers

Bremerton

BainbridgeIsland

N

OstrichBay

DyesInlet

SinclairInlet

PortOrchard

Port-Washington Narrows

R ich Passage

151

152

153

154

155

156

159

160

161

162

163

166

167

165164

2019

18

17

22

16

157

158

168

169

170

171

21

0

5

10

15

20

mea

n E

C50

(m

g/m

L)

Signi-ficant

NotSigni-ficant

Figure 11. Results of 1998 Microtox bioluminescence tests for stations in Bremerton toPort Orchard (strata 16 through 22). (Strata numbers are shown in bold. Stations areidentified as sample number).

Page 89

0 1 2 kilometers

Seattle

BainbridgeIsland

VashonIsland

BlakeIsland

Alki Point

MauryIsland

DuwamishWa te rway

N

PugetSound

ElliottBay

East Passage

RichPassage

Eagle Harbor

Blakely Harbor

ColvosPassage

130131

132

133

134

135138

136

137

139

140

141

9

11

10

12

(64.1)

0

5

10

15

20

Signi-ficant

NotSigni-ficant

mea

n E

C50

(m

g/m

L)

Figure 12. Results of 1998 Microtox bioluminescence for stations in Eagle Harbor,central basin, and East Passage (strata 9 through 12). (Strata numbers are shown in bold.Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 90

0 2 4 kilometers

Seattle

N

Alki Point

DuwamishHead

DuwamishWa te rway

ElliottBay

LakeUnion

173

174

175

176 179180

181

115

182183

184185

187188

189

190191

192

193

194195196

197

198

199

114

200

201

202203

204

205

(86.8)

(67.2)

(179)

(60)

(65)

(51)(62)(62)

(56)

24

26

31

30

2327

2829

32

172

177

178

18625

0

5

10

15

20

Signi-ficant

NotSigni-ficant

mea

n E

C50

(m

g/m

L)

Harbor Island

Figure 13. Results of 1998 Microtox bioluminescence tests for stations in Elliott Bay andthe lower Duwamish River (strata 23 through 32). (Strata numbers are shown in bold.Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 91

0 2 4 kilometers

N

Edmonds

Port Townsend

Port Townsend

OakBay

UselessBay

Ad

mi ra

l t yI n

l et

Sa ra t oga

Passage

P

oss

ess

i on

So

un

d

OlympicPeninsula

PointWilson

Point NoPoint

AdmiraltyHead

KitsapPeninsula

Whidbey RIsland

CamanoIsland

S t ra i t o fJuan De Fuca

Hood

Cana l

107

108

116

118

[not sampled]

0

50

100

150

200

ug/g

5

4

3

2

1

106

109110

111

112

117

119

120

Figure 14. Results of 1998 cytochrome P450 HRGS assays (as B[a]P equivalents (µµµµg/g)) forstations in Port Townsend to Possession Sound (strata 1 through 5). (Strata numbers areshown in bold. Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 92

0 2 4 kilometers

Edmonds

KitsapPeninsula

WestPoint

BainbridgeIsland

P u g e tS o u n d

Po r tM a d i s o n

A g a t ePa s s a g e

L i b e r t yB ay

N

121123

122124

125

126

127 128

129113

142

143

144146

147

148 149

150

6

8

7

15

14

13145

0

50

100

150

200

ug/g

Figure 15. Results of 1998 cytochrome P450 HRGS assays (as B[a]P equivalents (µµµµg/g)) forstations in Port Madison and central basin (strata 6 through 8) and Liberty Bay toBainbridge Island (13 through 15). (Strata numbers are shown in bold. Stations areidentified as sample number).

Page 93

0 1 2 kilometers

Bremerton

BainbridgeIsland

N

OstrichBay

DyesInlet

SinclairInlet

PortOrchard

Port-Washington Narrows

R ich Passage

151

152

153

154

155

156

159

160

161

162

163

166

167

165164

2019

18

17

22

16

157

158

168

169

170

171

21

0

50

100100

150150

200200

ug/g

Figure 16. Results of 1998 cytochrome P450 HRGS assays (as B[a]P equivalents (µµµµg/g)) forstations in Bremerton to Port Orchard (strata 16 through 22). (Strata numbers are shownin bold. Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 94

0 1 2 kilometers

Seattle

BainbridgeIsland

VashonIsland

BlakeIsland

Alki Point

MauryIsland

DuwamishWa te rway

N

PugetSound

ElliottBay

East Passage

RichPassage

Eagle Harbor

Blakely Harbor

ColvosPassage

130

131

132

133

134

135138

136

137

139

140

141

9

11

10

12

0

50

100

150

200

ug/g

Figure 17. Results of 1998 cytochrome P450 HRGS assays (as B[a]P equivalents (µµµµg/g)) forstations in Eagle Harbor, central basin, and East Passage (strata 9 through 12). (Stratanumbers are shown in bold. Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 95

0 2 4 kilometers

Seattle

N

Alki Point

DuwamishHead

DuwamishWa te rway

ElliottBay

LakeUnion

173

174

175

176 179180

181

115

182183

184185187 188

189

190

191192

193194

195196

197

198

199

114

200 201

202

203204

205

Harbor Island

24

26

31

30

2327

28

29

32

172

177

178

186

25

0

50

100

150

200

ug/g

Figure 18. Results of 1998 cytochrome P450 HRGS assays (as B[a]P equivalents (µµµµg/g)) forstations in Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River (strata 23 through 32). (Stratanumbers are shown in bold. Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 96

0 2 4 kilometers

N

Edmonds

Port Townsend

Port Townsend

OakBay

UselessBay

Ad

mi ra

l t yI n

l et

Sa ra t oga

Passage

P

oss

ess

i on

So

un

d

OlympicPeninsula

PointWilson

Point NoPoint

AdmiraltyHead

KitsapPeninsula

Whidbey Island

CamanoIsland

S t ra i t o fJuan De Fuca

Hood

Cana l

107

108

116

118

[not sampled]

5

4

3

2

1106

109110

111

112

117

119

120

No Criteria Exceeded

> SQS

>SQS/CSL and ≥ERM> SQS and ≥ ERM≥ ERM

> SQS/CSL

Figure 19. Sampling stations in Port Townsend to Possession Sound (strata 1 through 5)with sediment chemical concentrations exceeding numerical guidelines and WashingtonState criteria. (Strata numbers are shown in bold. Stations are identified as samplenumber).

Page 97

0 2 4 kilometers

Edmonds

KitsapPeninsula

WestPoint

BainbridgeIsland

Puge tSound

Po r tMad i son

Ag a tePa ssa g e

L ib e r t yBay

N 121

123

122

124

125

126

127128

129

113

142

143

144146

147

148149

150

6

8

7

15

1413 145

No Criteria Exceeded

> SQS

>SQS/CSL and ≥ERM> SQS and ≥ ERM≥ ERM

> SQS/CSL

Figure 20. Sampling stations in Port Madison and central basin (strata 6 through 8) andLiberty Bay to Bainbridge Island (13 through 15) with sediment chemical concentrationsexceeding numerical guidelines and Washington State criteria. (Strata numbers are shownin bold. Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 98

0 1 2 kilometers

Seattle

BainbridgeIsland

VashonIsland

BlakeIsland

Alki Point

MauryIsland

DuwamishWa te rway

N

PugetSound

ElliottBay

East Passage

RichPassage

Eagle Harbor

Blakely Harbor

ColvosPassage

130

131

132

133

134

135138

136

137

139

140

141

9

11

10

12

No Criteria Exceeded

> SQS

>SQS/CSL and ≥ERM> SQS and ≥ ERM≥ ERM

> SQS/CSL

Figure 21. Sampling stations in Eagle Harbor, central basin, and East Passage (strata 9through 12) with sediment chemical concentrations exceeding numerical guidelines andWashington State criteria. (Strata numbers are shown in bold. Stations are identified assample number).

Page 99

0 1 2 kilometers

Bremerton

BainbridgeIslandN

OstrichBay

DyesInlet

SinclairInlet

PortOrchard

Port-Washington Narrows

R ich Passage151

152

153

154155

156

159

160

161162163

166

167

165164

20

19

18

17

22

16

157

158

168

169

170

171

21

No Criteria Exceeded

> SQS

>SQS/CSL and ≥ERM> SQS and ≥ ERM≥ ERM

> SQS/CSL

Figure 22. Sampling stations in Bremerton to Port Orchard (strata 16 through 22) withsediment chemical concentrations exceeding numerical guidelines and Washington Statecriteria. (Strata numbers are shown in bold. Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 100

0 2 4 kilometers

Seattle

N

Alki Point

DuwamishHead

DuwamishWa te rway

ElliottBay

LakeUnion

173

174

175

176

179180

181

115

182

183184

185

187

188

189

190191

192

193194

195

196

197

198199

114

200201

202

203204

205

24

25

26

3130

23

27

28 29

32

172

177

178

186

No Criteria Exceeded

> SQS

>SQS/CSL and ≥ERM> SQS and ≥ ERM≥ ERM

> SQS/CSL

Harbor Island

Figure 23. Sampling stations in Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River (strata 23through 32) with sediment chemical concentrations exceeding numerical guidelines andWashington State criteria. (Strata numbers are shown in bold. Stations are identified assample number).

Page 101

Figure 24. Relationship between cytochrome P450 HRGS and the mean ERM quotients for13 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments.

Figure 25. Relationship between sea urchin fertilization in pore water and concentrationsof lead (partial digestion) in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments.

-100

10203040

506070

8090

100110

120130

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Lead, ppm

Perc

ent s

ea u

rchi

n fe

rtiliz

atio

n @

100

%

pore

wat

er

Rho = -0.45p < 0.001

SQS = 450

Sample 197

-20.00.0

20.040.060.080.0

100.0120.0140.0160.0180.0200.0220.0240.0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Mean ERM quotients for 13 PAHs

Cyto

chro

me

P450

HRG

S (B

[a]P

Eq ( µµ µµ

g/g)

) Rho = 0.928p < 0.0001 Sample 184

Page 102

Figure 26. Relationship between microbial bioluminescence and concentrations ofcadmium (partial digestion) in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments.

Figure 27. Relationship between sea urchin fertilization in pore water and concentrationsof tin (total digestion) in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments.

-10.00

190.00

390.00

590.00

790.00

990.00

1190.00

1390.00

1590.00

1790.00

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Cadmium, ppm

Mic

roto

x EC

50s

as p

erce

nt o

f con

trol

Rho = -0.593p < 0.0001

Sample 191

-100

10203040

506070

8090

100110

120130

0 50 100 150 200

Tin, ppm

Perc

ent s

ea u

rchi

n fe

rtiliz

atio

n @

100

%

pore

wat

er

Rho = -0.476p < 0.001

Sample 184

Page 103

Figure 28. Relationship between sea urchin fertilization in pore water and the sum of 13polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments.

Figure 29. Relationship between sea urchin fertilization in pore water and the sum of 15polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments.

-10

010

20

3040

5060

70

8090

100

110120

130

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000

Sum of 13 PAH, ppb

Perc

ent s

ea u

rchi

n fe

rtiliz

atio

n @

100

%

pore

wat

erRho = -0.498p < 0.0001

ERL = 4000ERM = 44792

Sample 184

-10

010

20

30

4050

60

7080

90

100

110120

130

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Sum of 15 PAH, mg/kg TOC

Perc

ent s

ea u

rchi

n fe

rtiliz

atio

n @

100

%

pore

wat

er

Rho = -0.632p < 0.0001

Sample 184

Page 104

Figure 30. Relationship between cytochrome P450 HRGS and the sum of 13 polynucleararomatic hydrocarbons in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments.

Figure 31. Relationship between cytochrome P450 HRGS and the sum of 15 polynucleararomatic hydrocarbons in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments.

-20.00.0

20.040.060.080.0

100.0120.0140.0160.0180.0200.0220.0240.0

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000

Sum of 13 PAHs, ppb

Cyto

chro

me

P450

HRG

S (B

[a]P

Eq (

µµ µµg/

g))

Rho = 0.93p < 0.0001

Sample 184ERL = 1700

ERM = 9600

-20.00.0

20.040.060.080.0

100.0120.0140.0160.0180.0200.0220.0240.0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Sum of 15 PAHs, mg/kg TOC

Cyto

chro

me

P450

HRG

S (B

[a]P

Eq (

µµ µµg/

g))

Rho = 0.718p < 0.0001

Sample 184

Page 105

Figure 32. Relationship between urchin fertilization and concentrations of dibutyltin in1998 central Puget Sound sediments.

Figure 33. Relationship between urchin fertilization and concentrations of tributyltin in1998 central Puget Sound sediments.

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Tributyltin chloride, ppb

Perc

ent s

ea u

rchi

n fe

rtiliz

atio

n @

100

%

pore

wat

er

Rho = -0.617p < 0.0001 Sample 187

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Dibutyltin dichloride, ppb

Perc

ent s

ea u

rchi

n fe

rtili

zatio

n @

100

%

pore

wat

er

Rho = -0.584p < 0.0001

Page 106

Figure 34. Relationship between microbial bioluminescence and concentrations of benzoicacid in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments.

Figure 35. Relationship between cytochrome P450 HRGS and concentrations of dibutyltinin 1998 central Puget Sound sediments.

-200.00

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

1800.00

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Benzoic Acid, ppb

Mic

roto

x EC

50s

as p

erce

nt o

f con

trol Rho = -0.572

p < 0.0001

-20.00.0

20.040.060.080.0

100.0120.0140.0160.0180.0200.0220.0240.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120Dibutyltin dichloride, ppb

Cyto

chro

me

P450

HRG

S (B

[a]P

Eq ( µµ µµ

g/g)

) Rho = 0.764p < 0.0001

Page 107

Figure 36. Relationship between cytochrome P450 HRGS and concentrations of tributyltinin 1998 central Puget Sound sediments.

Figure 37. Relationship between cytochrome P450 HRGS and concentrations ofdibenzofuran in 1998 central Puget Sound sediments.

-20.00.0

20.040.060.080.0

100.0120.0140.0160.0180.0200.0220.0240.0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Tributylin chloride, ppb

Cyto

chro

me

P450

HRG

S (B

[a]P

Eq (

µµ µµg/

g))

Rho = 0.875p < 0.0001

Sample 187

-20.00.0

20.040.060.080.0

100.0120.0140.0160.0180.0200.0220.0240.0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Dibenzofuran, ppb

Cyto

chro

me

P450

HRG

S (B

[a]P

Eq (

µµ µµg/

g))

Rho = 0.867p < 0.0001

Sample 198

Page 108

0 2 4 kilometers

N

Edmonds

Port Townsend

Port Townsend

OakBay

UselessBay

Ad

mi ra

l t yI n

l et

Sa ra t oga

Passage

P

oss

ess

i on

So

un

d

OlympicPeninsula

PointWilson

Point NoPoint

AdmiraltyHead

KitsapPeninsula

Whidbey Island

CamanoIsland

S t ra i t o fJuan De Fuca

Hood

Cana l

107

108

116

118

[not sampled]

Stations with at least one significant chemistry and toxicity parameter

Stations lacking any significant chemistry and toxicity parameterStations with one significant chemistry or toxicity parameter

5

4

3

2

1106

109110

111

112

117

119

120

Figure 38. Central Puget Sound stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA Bioeffects Surveywith significant results and stations with non-significant results for chemistry and toxicitytests, Port Townsend to Possession Sound (strata 1 through 5). (Strata numbers are shownin bold. Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 109

0 2 4 kilometers

Edmonds

KitsapPeninsula

WestPoint

BainbridgeIsland

Puge tSound

Po r tMad i son

A g a tePa ssa g e

L i b e r t yB ay

N 121

123

122

124

125

126

127128

129

113

142

143

144146

147

148149

150

6

8

7

15

1413 145

Stations with at least one significant chemistry and toxicity parameter

Stations lacking any significant chemistry and toxicity parameterStations with one significant chemistry or toxicity parameter

Figure 39. Central Puget Sound stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA Bioeffects Surveywith significant results and stations with non-significant results for chemistry and toxicitytests, Port Madison and central basin (strata 6 through 8) and Liberty Bay to BainbridgeIsland (13 through 15). (Strata numbers are shown in bold. Stations are identified assample number).

Page 110

0 1 2 kilometers

Seattle

BainbridgeIsland

VashonIsland

BlakeIsland

Alki Point

MauryIsland

DuwamishWa te rway

N

PugetSound

ElliottBay

East Passage

RichPassage

Eagle Harbor

Blakely Harbor

ColvosPassage

130

131

132

133

134

135138

136

137

139

140

141

9

11

10

12

Stations with at least one significant chemistry and toxicity parameter

Stations lacking any significant chemistry and toxicity parameterStations with one significant chemistry or toxicity parameter

Figure 40. Central Puget Sound stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA Bioeffects Surveywith significant results and stations with non-significant results for chemistry and toxicitytests, Eagle Harbor, central basin, and East Passage (strata 9 through 12). (Strata numbersare shown in bold. Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 111

0 1 2 kilometers

Bremerton

BainbridgeIslandN

OstrichBay

DyesInlet

SinclairInlet

PortOrchard

Port-Washington Narrows

R ich Passage151

152

153

154155

156

159

160

161162163

166

167

165164

20

19

18

17

22

16

157

158

168

169

170

171

21

Stations with at least one significant chemistry and toxicity parameter

Stations lacking any significant chemistry and toxicity parameterStations with one significant chemistry or toxicity parameter

Figure 41. Central Puget Sound stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA Bioeffects Surveywith significant results and stations with non-significant results for chemistry and toxicitytests, Bremerton to Port Orchard (strata 16 through 22). (Strata numbers are shown inbold. Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 112

0 2 4 kilometers

Seattle

N

Alki Point

DuwamishHead

DuwamishWa te rway

ElliottBay

LakeUnion

173

174

175

176

179180

181

115

182

183184

185

187

188

189

190191

192

193194

195

196

197

198199

114

200201

202

203204

205

24

25

26

3130

23

27

28 29

32

172

177

178

186

Stations with at least one significant chemistry and toxicity parameter

Stations lacking any significant chemistry and toxicity parameterStations with one significant chemistry or toxicity parameter

Harbor Island

Figure 42. Central Puget Sound stations for the 1998 PSAMP/NOAA Bioeffects Surveywith significant results and stations with non-significant results for chemistry and toxicitytests, Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River (strata 23 through 32). (Strata numbersare shown in bold. Stations are identified as sample number).

Page 113

Table 1. Central Puget Sound sampling strata for the PSAMP/NOAA Bioeffects Survey.

StratumNumber

Stratum Name Area (km2)(731.66 km2)

% of TotalArea

1 South Port Townsend 8.02 1.102 Port Townsend 19.52 2.673 North Admiralty Inlet*4 South Admiralty Inlet 158.83 21.715 Possession Sound 120.45 16.466 Central Basin 87.79 12.007 Port Madison 16.43 2.258 West Point 45.72 6.259 Eagle Harbor 1.21 0.1710 Central Basin 27.90 3.8111 Central Basin 77.14 10.5412 East Passage 77.35 10.5713 Liberty Bay 1.95 0.2714 Keyport 2.82 0.3915 North West Bainbridge Island 13.26 1.8116 South West Bainbridge Island 10.26 1.4017 Rich Passage 10.02 1.3718 Port Orchard 5.82 0.8019 Sinclair Inlet 3.09 0.4220 Sinclair Inlet 3.12 0.4321 Port Washington Narrows 3.00 0.4122 Dyes Inlet 11.64 1.5923 Outer Elliott Bay 11.16 1.5324 Shoreline Elliott Bay 1.26 0.1725 Shoreline Elliott Bay 1.32 0.1826 Shoreline Elliott Bay 0.33 0.0527 Mid Elliott Bay 4.16 0.5728 Mid Elliott Bay 2.80 0.3829 Mid Elliott Bay 2.92 0.4030 West Harbor Island 1.08 0.1531 East Harbor Island 0.54 0.0732 Duwamish 0.75 0.10

*This stratum was eliminated during the course of sampling due to the rocky nature of thesubstratum.

Page 114

Table 2. Chemical and physical analyses conducted on sediments collected from centralPuget Sound.Related ParametersGrain SizeTotal organic carbon

MetalsAncillary MetalsAluminumBariumBoronCalciumCobaltIronMagnesiumManganesePotassiumSodiumStrontiumTitaniumVanadium

Priority Pollutant MetalsAntimonyArsenicBerylliumCadmiumChromiumCopperLeadMercuryNickelSeleniumSilverThalliumZinc

Major ElementsSilicon

Trace ElementsTin

OrganicsChlorinated AlkanesHexachlorobutadiene

Chlorinated and Nitro-SubstitutedPhenolsPentachlorophenol

Chlorinated Aromatic Compounds1,2,4-trichlorobenzene1,2-dichlorobenzene1,3-dichlorobenzene1,4-dichlorobenzene2-chloronaphthaleneHexachlorobenzene

Chlorinated Pesticides2,4'-DDD2,4'-DDE2,4'-DDT4,4'-DDD4,4'-DDE4-4'DDTAldrinAlpha-chlordaneAlpha-HCHBeta-HCHChlorpyrifosCis-nonachlorDelta-HCHDieldrinEndosulfan I (Alpha-endosulfan)Endosulfan II (Beta-endosulfan)Endosulfan sulfateEndrinEndrin ketoneEndrin aldehydeGamma-chlordaneGamma-HCHHeptachlorHeptachlor epoxideMethoxychlorMirex

Page 115

OxychlordaneToxapheneTrans-nonachlor

Polynuclear Aromatic HydrocarbonsLPAHs1,6,7-Trimethylnaphthalene1-Methylnaphthalene1-Methylphenanthrene2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene2-methylnapthalene2-methylphenanthreneAcenaphtheneAcenaphthyleneAnthraceneBiphenylC1 - C3 FluorenesC1 - C3 DibenzothiophenesC1 - C4 NaphthalenesC1 - C4 PhenanthrenesDibenzothiopheneFluoreneNaphthalenePhenanthreneRetenecalculated value:LPAHHPAHsBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(e)pyreneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneBenzo(k)fluorantheneC1 - C4 ChryseneC1- FluorantheneChryseneDibenzo(a,h)anthraceneFluorantheneIndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrenePerylenePyrenecalculated values:total BenzofluoranthenesHPAH

Miscellaneous Extractable CompoundsBenzoic acidBenzyl alcoholDibenzofuran

Organonitrogen CompoundsN-nitrosodiphenylamine

OrganotinsButyl tins: Di-, Tri-butyltin

Phenols2,4-dimethylphenol2-methylphenol4-methylphenolPhenolP-nonylphenol

Phthalate EstersBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateButyl benzyl phthalateDiethyl phthalateDimethyl phthalateDi-n-butyl phthalateDi-n-octyl phthalate

Polychlorinated BiphenylsPCB Congeners:8182844526677101105118126128138153170180187

Table 2. Continued.

Page 116

PCB Congeners, continued:195206209

PCB Aroclors:1016122112321242124812541260

Table 2. Continued.

Page 117

Table 3. Chemistry Parameters: Laboratory analytical methods and reporting limits.

Parameter Method Reference ReportingLimit

Grain Size Sieve-pipette method PSEP, 1986 >2000 to<3.9 microns

Total OrganicCarbon

Conversion to CO2measured bynondispersive infra-redspectroscopy

PSEP, 1986 1 mg/L

Metals(Partial digestion)

Strong acid (aqua regia)digestion and analyzed viaICP, ICP-MS, or GFAA,depending upon theanalyte

- digestion - PSEP, 1996cEPA 3050- analysis - PSEP, 1996c(EPA 200.7, 200.8, 206.2,270.2), (SW6010)

1-10 ppm

Metals(Total digestion)

Hydrofluoric acid-baseddigestion and analyzed viaICP or GFAA, dependingupon the analyte

- digestion - PSEP, 1996cEPA 3052- analysis - PSEP, 1996c(EPA 200.7, 200.8, 206.2,270.2), (SW6010)

1-10 ppm

Mercury Cold Vapor AtomicAbsorption

PSEP, 1996cEPA 245.5

1-10 ppm

Butyl Tins Solvent Extraction,Derivitization, AtomicEmission Detector

Manchester Method(Manchester EnvironmentalLaboratory, 1997)

40 µg/kg

Base/Neutral/AcidOrganicCompounds

Capillary column GasChromatography/ MassSpectrometry

PSEP 1996d, EPA 8270 &8081

100-200 ppb

PolynuclearAromaticHydrocarbons(PAH)

Capillary column GasChromatography/ MassSpectrometry

PSEP 1996d, extractionfollowing Manchestermodification of EPA 8270

100-200 ppb

ChlorinatedPesticides andPCB (Aroclors)

Gas ChromatographyElectron CaptureDetection

PSEP 1996d, EPA 8081 1-5 ppb

PCB Congeners NOAA, 1993a, EPA 8081 1-5 ppb

Page 118

Table 4. Chemistry parameters: Field analytical methods and resolution.

Parameter Method Resolution

Temperature Mercury Thermometer 1.0 °C

Surface salinity Refractometer 1.0 ppt

Page 119

Table 5. Benthic infaunal indices calculated to characterize the infaunal invertebrateassemblages identified from each central Puget Sound monitoring station.

Infaunal index Definition CalculationTotal Abundance A measure of density equal to the

total number of organisms persample area

Sum of all organisms counted ineach sample

Major TaxaAbundance

A measure of density equal to thetotal number of organisms in eachmajor taxon group (Annelida,Mollusca, Echinodermata,Arthropoda, miscellaneous taxa) persample area

Sum of all organisms counted ineach major taxon group persample

Taxa Richness Total number of taxa (taxa = lowestlevel of identification for eachorganism) per sample area

Sum of all taxa identified in eachsample

Pielou’s Evenness(J’) (Pielou, 1966,1974)

Relates the observed diversity inbenthic assemblages as a proportionof the maximum possible diversityfor the data set (the equitability(evenness) of the distribution ofindividuals among species)

J’ = H’/log sWhere: sH’ = - Σ pi log pi

i =1where pi = the proportion of theassemblage that belongs to theith species (p=ni/N, where nI=thenumber of individuals in the ispecies and N= total number ofindividuals), and where s = thetotal number of species

Swartz’sDominance Index(SDI)(Swartz et al.,1985)

The minimum number of taxa whosecombined abundance accounts for 75percent of the total abundance ineach sample

Sum of the minimum number oftaxa whose combined abundanceaccounts for 75 percent of thetotal abundance in each sample

Page 120

Table 6. Results of amphipod survival tests for 100 sediment samples from central PugetSound. Tests performed with Ampelisca abdita.

Stratum Location Sample Mean amphipodsurvival (%)

Mean amphipodsurvival as % of

control

Statisticalsignificance

1 South Port Townsend 106 92 94 *107 98 100108 98 100

2 Port Townsend 109 92 94110 96 98111 88 90

4 South Admiralty Inlet 112 95 97116 99 101117 94 96

5 Possession Sound 118 85 93119 94 98120 98 102

6 Central Basin 121 81 89122 90 99123 78 86 *

7 Port Madison 124 93 106125 89 101126 87 99

8 West Point 127 91 103128 84 95129 84 95113 94 96

9 Eagle Harbor 130 85 97131 91 103132 88 100

10 Central Basin 133 89 98134 90 95 *

Page 121

Stratum Location Sample Mean amphipodsurvival (%)

Mean amphipodsurvival as % of

control

Statisticalsignificance

135 90 95

11 Central Basin 136 87 94137 94 101138 99 106

12 East Passage 139 85 94140 88 98141 72 80

13 Liberty Bay 142 83 94143 85 97144 81 92

14 Keyport 145 93 106146 91 103147 87 99

15 North WestBainbridge

148 87 99

149 84 95150 82 93

16 South WestBainbridge

151 94 99

152 94 99153 95 100

17 Rich Passage 154 93 98155 94 99156 93 98

18 Port Orchard 157 93 102158 77 85 *159 87 92

19 Sinclair Inlet 160 90 99161 95 104162 79 87

Table 6. Continued.

Page 122

Stratum Location Sample Mean amphipodsurvival (%)

Mean amphipodsurvival as % of

control

Statisticalsignificance

20 Sinclair Inlet 163 85 93164 92 101165 91 100

21 Port WashingtonNarrows

166 94 104

167 42 47 **168 87 97

22 Dyes Inlet 169 91 101170 90 100171 91 101

23 Outer Elliott Bay 172 92 102173 96 107174 87 97175 88 98

24 Shoreline Elliott Bay 176 83 92177 91 101178 91 101

25 Shoreline Elliott Bay 179 86 96180 91 98181 79 88 *115 96 97

26 Shoreline Elliott Bay 182 91 98183 93 100184 96 103

27 Mid Elliott Bay 185 97 104186 94 101187 98 108188 96 105

28 Mid Elliott Bay 189 99 109190 97 107

Table 6. Continued.

Page 123

Stratum Location Sample Mean amphipodsurvival (%)

Mean amphipodsurvival as % of

control

Statisticalsignificance

191 94 103192 94 103

29 Mid Elliott Bay 193 92 101194 95 102195 98 105196 93 100

30 West Harbor Island 197 80 88198 92 101199 82 90114 94 95

31 East Harbor Island 200 93 100201 84 92202 82 90 *

32 Duwamish 203 94 103204 84 92205 94 101

*Mean percent survival significantly less than CLIS controls (p < 0.05)**Mean percent survival significantly less than CLIS controls (p < 0.05) and less than 80% ofCLIS controls

Table 6. Continued.

Page 124

Table 7. Results of sea urchin fertilization tests on pore waters from 100 sediment samplesfrom central Puget Sound. Tests performed with Strongylocentrotus purpuratus.

100% pore water 50% pore water 25% pore water

Stratum andLocation

Sample Mean%

fertili-zation

% ofcontrol

Stati-stical

signifi-cance

Mean%

fertili-zation

% ofcontrol

Stati-stical

signifi-cance

Mean %fertili-zation

% ofcontrol

Stati-stical

signifi-cance

1 106 99.8 119 98.8 100 99.6 101South PortTownsend

107 98.4 117 99 100 99.4 101

108 99.4 118 98.4 99 99.6 101

2 109 98.2 117 100 101 99 100Port Townsend 110 98.2 117 99.4 100 99.4 101

111 97 115 98.4 99 97.8 99

4 116 99.6 118 99.2 100 99 100South AdmiraltyInlet

117 99.2 118 99.8 101 98.6 100

112 94.2 112 96.4 97 99.2 101

5 118 98.4 117 98.6 99 98.4 100PossessionSound

119 99 118 98.6 99 98.8 100

120 99.2 118 98.2 99 98.4 100

6 121 97.2 116 97.6 98 99.6 101Central Basin 122 99 118 99 100 97 98

123 99.2 118 98.8 100 99.6 101

7 124 98.8 117 99.2 100 98.4 100Port Madison 125 98.4 117 98.6 99 98 99

126 98.4 117 99 100 99.2 101

8 127 99.8 119 99.6 101 99 100

Page 125

100% pore water 50% pore water 25% pore water

Stratum andLocation

Sample Mean%

fertili-zation

% ofcontrol

Stati-stical

signifi-cance

Mean%

fertili-zation

% ofcontrol

Stati-stical

signifi-cance

Mean %fertili-zation

% ofcontrol

Stati-stical

signifi-cance

West Point 128 99 118 99.4 100 99.6 101129 99.8 119 99.4 100 99.2 101113 99.4 118 99 100 98.4 100

9 130 99.2 118 98.8 100 99 100Eagle Harbor 131 100 119 98.6 99 99 100

132 99.6 118 98.8 100 98.4 100

10 133 98.8 105 99.6 101 98.8 101Central Basin 134 99.0 106 99.2 100 99.6 101

135 99.4 106 99.6 101 99.4 101

11 136 100 107 99.6 101 99.6 101Central Basin 137 98.8 105 99.4 101 99.6 101

138 98.4 105 99 100 98.6 100

12 139 99.8 107 99.8 101 99.8 102East Passage 140 98.8 105 99.6 101 99.8 102

141 96 102 97.8 99 98.6 100

13 142 98.8 105 99 100 99 101Liberty Bay 143 99.2 106 98.6 100 99 101

144 99.6 106 98.8 100 99.2 101

14 145 99.4 106 99.4 101 99 101Keyport 146 98 105 99.4 101 98.2 100

147 99 106 99.2 100 99.4 101

15 148 99 106 99 100 99.2 101

Table 7. Continued.

Page 126

100% pore water 50% pore water 25% pore water

Stratum andLocation

Sample Mean%

fertili-zation

% ofcontrol

Stati-stical

signifi-cance

Mean%

fertili-zation

% ofcontrol

Stati-stical

signifi-cance

Mean %fertili-zation

% ofcontrol

Stati-stical

signifi-cance

North WestBainbridge

149 97.4 104 99.2 100 99.4 101

150 99.2 106 98.6 100 99.2 101

16 151 99.6 106 99.6 101 99.6 101South WestBainbridge

152 98.8 105 97.8 99 99 101

153 97.8 104 98.4 100 99.4 101

17 154 98.2 105 98 99 98.4 100Rich Passage 155 99 106 98.6 100 99.6 101

156 98.4 105 99.8 101 98.6 100

18 157 90.6 113 89.4 101 92 105Port Orchard 158 90.6 113 94.4 106 92.6 106

159 78 97 88.2 99 91 104

19 160 2 2 ** 4.8 5 ** 56.6 65 **Sinclair Inlet 161 83 103 88.6 100 87.4 100

162 90.8 113 89.4 101 87.6 100

20 163 90.8 113 88 99 88.5 101Sinclair Inlet 164 90.2 112 91.2 103 88.6 101

165 65 81 ** 84 95 89.2 102

21 166 89.4 111 89.2 101 91.6 104Port WashingtonNarrows

167 66.2 82 * 87.2 98 91 104

168 55.6 69 ** 81.4 92 83 95

22 169 75.8 94 82.2 93 82.8 94

Table 7. Continued.

Page 127

100% pore water 50% pore water 25% pore water

Stratum andLocation

Sample Mean%

fertili-zation

% ofcontrol

Stati-stical

signifi-cance

Mean%

fertili-zation

% ofcontrol

Stati-stical

signifi-cance

Mean %fertili-zation

% ofcontrol

Stati-stical

signifi-cance

Dyes Inlet 170 81.2 101 77.6 87 ++ 72 82 *171 74 92 79.2 89 + 74.4 85 ++

23 172 75.2 94 73.8 83 * 69 79 **Outer Elliott Bay 173 82 102 75.4 85 ++ 73.6 84 *

174 74.8 93 87.4 99 89.4 102175 77 96 86.4 97 87.6 100

24 176 66 82 * 85.2 96 85 97Shoreline ElliottBay

177 60.6 75 ** 77.8 88 ++ 85.2 97

178 85 106 89.6 101 87 99

25 179 65.4 81 * 77.8 88 ++ 73.8 84 *Shoreline ElliottBay

180 54.4 68 ** 73.4 83 * 79.4 91 +

181 77.4 96 81.4 92 85.8 98115 4.6 6 ** 40.8 46 ** 64.8 74 **

26 182 66.6 83 * 69.2 78 ** 73.4 84 *Shoreline ElliottBay

183 70.8 88 77.8 88 ++ 72.4 83 *

184 67.8 84 * 78 88 ++ 73.4 84 *

27 185 96.6 120 93.4 105 94 107Mid Elliott Bay 186 93 116 94.6 107 92.8 106

187 92.6 115 94.6 107 92.8 106188 92.6 115 93.6 106 96.2 110

28 189 87.8 109 90.4 102 88.4 101Mid Elliott Bay 190 93.8 117 91.2 103 95.8 109

Table 7. Continued.

Page 128

100% pore water 50% pore water 25% pore water

Stratum andLocation

Sample Mean%

fertili-zation

% ofcontrol

Stati-stical

signifi-cance

Mean%

fertili-zation

% ofcontrol

Stati-stical

signifi-cance

Mean %fertili-zation

% ofcontrol

Stati-stical

signifi-cance

191 90.6 113 88.2 99 92 105192 85.8 107 89.2 101 94.5 108

29 193 73.6 92 91 103 92.2 105Mid Elliott Bay 194 85.4 106 90.4 102 90.4 103

195 72.6 90 88 99 90.2 103196 86.6 108 91.2 103 91.2 104

30 197 50 62 ** 78.4 88 ++ 84 96West HarborIsland

198 80.8 100 85 96 87.8 100

199 59 73 ** 79 89 ++ 88 100114 69.2 86 + 80.4 91 83.4 95

31 200 54.8 68 ** 85.2 96 90.6 103East HarborIsland

201 53.4 66 ** 82.6 93 77 88 ++

202 80.6 100 82 92 92 105

32 203 78.4 98 87 98 92.6 106Duwamish 204 82.8 103 86.6 98 89 101

205 75.2 94 88 99 86.6 99

Mean response significantly different from controls (Dunnett's t-test: +=alpha<0.05 or++=alpha<0.01)Mean response significantly different from controls (Dunnett's t-test) and exceeds minimumsignificant difference (*=alpha<0.05 or **=alpha<0.01)

Table 7. Continued.

Page 129

Table 8. Results of Microtox tests (as mean mg/ml and percent of Redfish Bay control)and cytochrome P450 HRGS bioassays (as benzo[a]pyrene equivalents) of 100 sedimentsamples from central Puget Sound.

MicrotoxTM EC50 P450 HRGS

Stratum Location Sample mean(mg/L)

Statisticalsignifi-cance

% ofcontrol

Statisticalsignifi-cance

B[a]PEq(µg/g)

Statisticalsignifi-cance

1 South PortTownsend

106 1.37 12.93 ** 7.1

107 3.07 29.02 ** 5.7108 13.30 125.87 4.9

2 Port Townsend 109 10.67 100.95 1.2110 44.67 422.71 1.2111 17.07 161.51 4.3

4 SouthAdmiralty Inlet

112 3.13 29.65 ** 4.3

116 23.57 223.03 0.4117 18.60 176.03 0.6

5 PossessionSound

118 4.87 46.06 ** 9.3

119 30.80 291.48 0.7120 23.27 220.19 0.5

6 Central Basin 121 8.67 82.02 2.1122 2.97 28.08 ** 9.0123 5.37 50.79 ** 6.1

7 Port Madison 124 2.80 26.50 ** 3.2125 2.97 28.08 ** 4.7126 48.70 460.88 2.4

8 West Point 127 3.73 35.33 ** 17.0 ++128 24.67 233.44 71.1 +++129 10.37 98.11 19.1 ++113 2.90 27.44 ** 11.7 ++

Page 130

MicrotoxTM EC50 P450 HRGS

Stratum Location Sample mean(mg/L)

Statisticalsignifi-cance

% ofcontrol

Statisticalsignifi-cance

B[a]PEq(µg/g)

Statisticalsignifi-cance

9 Eagle Harbor 130 1.97 18.61 ** 48.3 +++131 0.87 8.20 ** 96.5 +++132 1.77 16.72 ** 14.7 ++

10 Central Basin 133 12.13 114.83 8.7134 4.60 43.53 ** 7.5135 28.63 270.98 13.5 ++

11 Central Basin 136 6.30 59.62 ** 13.7 ++137 9.93 94.01 15.7 ++138 2.43 23.03 ** 17.1 ++

12 East Passage 139 21.13 200.00 17.8 ++140 3.63 34.38 ** 23.8 ++141 64.10 606.62 5.8

13 Liberty Bay 142 5.27 49.84 ** 16.7143 1.47 13.88 ** 24.8 ++144 1.17 11.04 ** 27.7 ++

14 Keyport 145 2.83 26.81 ** 2.5146 1.10 10.41 ** 32.0 ++147 5.63 53.31 ** 5.6

15 North WestBainbridge

148 0.94 8.90 ** 26.4 ++

149 1.09 10.28 ** 6.6150 1.23 11.67 ** 9.3

16 South WestBainbridge

151 0.82 7.76 ** 31.6 ++

152 4.60 43.53 ** 7.6153 1.97 18.61 ** 27.9 ++

Table 8. Continued.

Page 131

MicrotoxTM EC50 P450 HRGS

Stratum Location Sample mean(mg/L)

Statisticalsignifi-cance

% ofcontrol

Statisticalsignifi-cance

B[a]PEq(µg/g)

Statisticalsignifi-cance

17 Rich Passage 154 7.80 73.82 1.9155 20.27 191.80 1.6156 30.17 285.49 10.0

18 Port Orchard 157 3.20 30.28 ** 14.1 ++158 4.70 44.48 ** 7.6159 2.27 21.45 ** 12.4 ++

19 Sinclair Inlet 160 0.81 7.70 ** 29.4 ++161 0.82 7.79 ** 44.5 +++162 1.63 15.46 ** 35.5 ++

20 Sinclair Inlet 163 1.02 9.68 ** 27.7 ++164 1.50 14.20 ** 64.9 +++165 6.83 64.67 39.4 +++

21 PortWashingtonNarrows

166 3.40 32.18 ** 6.5

167 3.30 31.23 ** 9.9168 0.65 6.12 ** 32.3 ++

22 Dyes Inlet 169 4.10 38.80 ** 3.6170 1.04 9.81 ** 27.6 ++171 2.03 19.24 ** 30.4 ++

23 Outer ElliottBay

172 2.13 20.19 ** 17.8 ++

173 4.97 47.00 ** 19.8 ++174 35.97 340.38 10.5175 5.23 49.53 ** 3.3

24 ShorelineElliott Bay

176 2.27 21.45 ** 12.5 ++

177 2.57 24.29 ** 3.4178 86.83 821.77 10.7

Table 8. Continued.

Page 132

MicrotoxTM EC50 P450 HRGS

Stratum Location Sample mean(mg/L)

Statisticalsignifi-cance

% ofcontrol

Statisticalsignifi-cance

B[a]PEq(µg/g)

Statisticalsignifi-cance

25 ShorelineElliott Bay

179 25.10 237.54 38.8 +++

180 17.50 165.62 34.4 ++181 17.20 162.78 32.8 ++115 0.79 7.48 ** 144.8 +++

26 ShorelineElliott Bay

182 26.47 250.47 216.1 +++

183 3.17 29.97 ** 107.2 +++184 7.90 74.76 223.2 +++

27 Mid Elliott Bay 185 18.20 172.24 19.7 ++186 34.00 321.77 54.9 +++187 37.73 357.10 26.5 ++188 67.17 635.65 152.9 +++

28 Mid Elliott Bay 189 9.47 89.59 139.8 +++190 5.93 56.15 ** 3.6191 179.30 1696.85 29.1 ++192 35.17 332.81 49.1 +++

29 Mid Elliott Bay 193 50.73 480.13 32.8 ++194 62.40 590.54 74.1 +++195 61.87 585.49 49.3 +++196 55.63 526.50 28.6 ++

30 West HarborIsland

197 2.23 21.14 ** 96.6 +++

198 59.93 567.19 132.2 +++199 64.80 613.25 148.1 +++114 0.79 7.48 ** 111.4 +++

31 East HarborIsland

200 25.40 240.38 153.5 +++

201 3.13 29.65 ** 135.3 +++

Table 8. Continued.

Page 133

MicrotoxTM EC50 P450 HRGS

Stratum Location Sample mean(mg/L)

Statisticalsignifi-cance

% ofcontrol

Statisticalsignifi-cance

B[a]PEq(µg/g)

Statisticalsignifi-cance

202 7.67 72.56 133.2 +++

32 Duwamish 203 3.20 30.28 ** 96.9 +++204 3.33 31.55 ** 77.0 +++205 3.57 33.75 ** 46.9 +++

Microtox™ EC50 (mg/ml): ^ = mean EC50<0.51 mg/ml determined as the 80% lower predictionlimit (LPL) with the lowest (i.e., most toxic) samples removed, but >0.06 mg/ml determined asthe 90% lower prediction limit (LPL) earlier in this report.Microtox™ % of control: * = significantly different from control, ** = significantly differentfrom control (p <0.05) and < 80% of controlCytochrome P450 HRGS as µg B[a]PEq/g: ++ = value >11.1 benzo[a]pyrene equivalents (µg/gsediment) determined as the 80% upper prediction limit (UPL); +++ = value >37.1benzo[a]pyrene equivalents (ug/g sediment) determined as the 90% upper prediction limit (UPL)

Table 8. Continued.

Page 134

Table 9. Estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity in four independent tests performed on100 sediment samples from central Puget Sound. Total study area 731.66 km2.

Toxicity test/ critical value “Toxic” area (km2) Percent of total area

Amphipod survival• Mean survival < 80% of controls 1.0 0.1

Urchin fertilization (mean fertilization< 80% of controls)

• 100% porewater 5.1 0.7• 50% porewater 1.5 0.2• 25% porewater 4.2 0.6

Microbial bioluminescence• mean EC50 < 80% of controls 348.9 47.7• < 0.51 mg/mlA 0.0 0.0• <0.06 mg/mlB 0.0 0.0

Cytochrome P450 HRGS• > 11.1 µg/gC 237.1 32.3• > 37.1 µg/gD 23.7 3.2

A Critical value: mean EC50 < 0.51 mg/ml (80% lower prediction limit (LPL) with lowest, i.e.most toxic, samples removed)

B Critical value: mean EC50 <0.06 mg/ml (90% LPL of the entire data set - NOAA surveys andnorthern Puget Sound data, n=1013).

C Critical value: > 11.1 µg/g benzo[a]pyrene equivalents/g sediment determined as the 80%upper prediction limit (UPL) following removal of 10% of the most toxic (highest) values froma database composed of NOAA data from many surveys nationwide (n=530).

D Critical value: >37.1 µg/g benzo[a]pyrene equivalents/g sediment determined as the 90% UPLof the entire NOAA data set (n=530).

Page 135

Table 10. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients for combinations of different toxicity testsperformed with 100 sediment samples from central Puget Sound.

Amphipodsurvival

Signifi-cance

(p)

Microbialbioluminescence

Signifi-cance

(p)

CytochromeP450 HRGS

assay

Signifi-cance (p)

Amphipod survival*Microbialbioluminescence *

0.095 ns

Cytochrome P450HRGS

0.099 ns -0.066 ns

Urchin fertilization* 0.105 ns 0.116 ns -0.445 <0.0001

ns = not significant (p>0.05)* analyses performed with control-normalized data

Page 136

Table 11. Sediment types characterizing the 100 samples collected in 1998 from centralPuget Sound.

Sediment type % Sand % Silt-clay % Gravel (range ofdata for each station

type)

No. of stationswith this

sediment type

Sand > 80 < 20 0.0 – 5.1 30Silty sand 60-80 20 - <40 0.0 – 18.6 15Mixed 20 -< 60 40 – 80 0.0 – 59.2 23Silt clay < 20 > 80 0.0 – 1.3 32

Page 137

Table 12. Samples from 1998 central Puget Sound survey in which individual numericalguidelines were exceeded (excluding Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River).

Stratum, Sample,Location

Numberof ERLs

exce-eded

MeanERM

Quotient

Numberof

ERMsexce-eded

Com-pounds

exceedingERMs

Numberof SQSs

exce-eded

Compoundsexceeding SQSs

Numberof CSLs

exce-eded

Compoundsexcceding CSLs

1, 106, South PortTownsend

0.07 1 4-Methylphenol 1 4-Methylphenol

1, 107, South PortTownsend

3 0.24 1 4-Methylphenol 1 4-Methylphenol

1, 108, South PortTownsend

0.09 1 4-Methylphenol 1 4-Methylphenol

2, 109, Port Townsend 1 0.08 1 4-Methylphenol 1 4-Methylphenol2, 110, Port Townsend 0.062, 111, Port Townsend 0.07 1 4-Methylhenol 1 4-Methylphenol4, 112, SouthAdmiralty Inlet

0.08

4, 116, SouthAdmiralty Inlet

0.06

4, 117, SouthAdmiralty Inlet

1 0.06

5, 118, PossessionSound

3 0.13 1 4-Methylphenol 1 4-Methylphenol

5, 119, PossessionSound

0.06

5, 120, PossessionSound

1 0.07

6, 121, Central Basin 0.066, 122, Central Basin 1 0.11 1 4-Methylphenol 1 4-Methylphenol6, 123, Central Basin 1 0.10 1 4-Methylphenol 1 4-Methylphenol7, 124, Port Madison 0.077, 125, Port Madison 0.087, 126, Port Madison 0.058, 113, West Point 0.09 1 4-Methylphenol 1 4-Methylphenol8, 127, West Point 0.148, 128, West Point 16 0.268, 129, West Point 2 0.149, 130, Eagle Harbor 17 0.339, 131, Eagle Harbor 19 0.369, 132, Eagle Harbor 5 0.1410, 133, Central Sound 0.0710, 134, Central Sound 0.0610, 135, Central Sound 0.0611, 136, Central Sound 3 0.1811, 137, Central Sound 5 0.2011, 138, Central Sound 4 0.1512, 139, East Passage 2 0.1012, 140, East Passage 4 0.13 1 4-Methylphenol 1 4-Methylphenol12, 141, East Passage 0.0613, 142, Liberty Bay 4 0.1313, 143, Liberty Bay 4 0.16

Page 138

Stratum, Sample,Location

Numberof ERLs

exce-eded

MeanERM

Quotient

Numberof

ERMsexce-eded

Com-pounds

exceedingERMs

Numberof SQSs

exce-eded

Compoundsexceeding SQSs

Numberof CSLs

exce-eded

Compoundsexcceding CSLs

13, 144, Liberty Bay 4 0.1614, 145, Keyport 0.0414, 146, Keyport 4 0.1214, 147, Keyport 0.0715, 148, NWBainbridge Island

3 0.12 1 4-Methylphenol 1 4-Methylphenol

15, 149, NWBainbridge Island

0.04

15, 150, NWBainbridge Island

0.07

16, 151, SWBainbridge Island

5 0.18 1 Benzyl Alcohol 1 Benzyl Alcohol

16, 152, SWBainbridge Island

0.08

16, 153, SWBainbridge Island

4 0.19

17, 154, Rich Passage 0.0417, 155, Rich Passage 0.0417, 156, Rich Passage 0.0718, 157, Port Orchard 0.0718, 158, Port Orchard 0.0518, 159, Port Orchard 0.0619, 160, Sinclair Inlet 9 0.35 1 Mercury 1 Mercury 1 Mercury19, 161, Sinclair Inlet 7 0.27 1 Mercury 1 Mercury19, 162, Sinclair Inlet 8 0.30 1 Mercury 1 Mercury 1 Mercury20, 163, Sinclair Inlet 8 0.44 1 Mercury 1 Mercury 1 Mercury20, 164, Sinclair Inlet 9 0.42 1 Mercury 1 Mercury 1 Mercury20, 165, Sinclair Inlet 11 0.55 1 Mercury 1 Mercury 1 Mercury21, 166, PortWashington Narrows

0.06

21, 167, PortWashington Narrows

0.08

21, 168, PortWashington Narrows

7 0.17

22, 169, Dyes Inlet 0.0522, 170, Dyes Inlet 10 0.26 1 Benzyl Alcohol22, 171, Dyes Inlet 10 0.26 2 Mercury, Benzyl

Alcohol1 Mercury

Table 12. Continued.

Page 139

Table 13. Samples from 1998 central Puget Sound survey in which individual numericalguidelines were exceeded in Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River.Stratum, Sample,

LocationNumberof ERLs

exce-eded

MeanERM

Quotient

Numberof

ERMsexce-eded

Compoundsexceeding

ERMs

Numberof SQSs

exce-eded

Compoundsexceeding SQSs

Numberof CSLs

exce-eded

Compoundsexceeding

CSLs

23, 172, OuterElliott Bay

5 0.20

23, 173, OuterElliott Bay

7 0.28

23, 174, OuterElliott Bay

0.09 1 Other: Butylbenzyl-phthalate

23, 175, OuterElliott Bay

0.07

24, 176, ShorelineElliott Bay

5 0.31 4 Metals: Mercury;HPAH:Benzo(g,h,i)perylene;LPAH:Phenanthrene;Other:Butylbenzyl-phthalate

24, 177, ShorelineElliott Bay

2 0.08

24, 178, ShorelineElliott Bay

0.14

25, 115, ShorelineElliott Bay

24 0.83 2 HPAH: Benzo(g,h,i)perylene;Other: 4-Methylphenol

1 Other: 4-Methylphenol

25, 179, ShorelineElliott Bay

13 0.52 1 HPAH: Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

25, 180, ShorelineElliott Bay

15 0.57 2 HPAH:Benzo(g,h,i)perylene,Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene

25, 181, ShorelineElliott Bay

24 1.59 4 HPAH:Benzo(g,h,i)perylene,Total HPAHs,Total PAH;Other: TotalPCBs

1 Metals: Mercury

26, 182, ShorelineElliott Bay

24 1.36 5 Metals:Mercury;LPAH: TotalLPAHs;HPAH:

4 Metals: Mercury;HPAH: Benzo(g,h,i)perylene,Fluoranthene,Indeno(1,2,3-

1 Metals: Mercury

Page 140

Stratum, Sample,Location

Numberof ERLs

exce-eded

MeanERM

Quotient

Numberof

ERMsexce-eded

Compoundsexceeding

ERMs

Numberof SQSs

exce-eded

Compoundsexceeding SQSs

Numberof CSLs

exce-eded

Compoundsexceeding

CSLs

Pyrene, TotalHPAH;Other: TotalPCBs

c,d)pyrene

26, 183, ShorelineElliott Bay

20 0.52 10 HPAH: Benzo(a)anthracene,Benzo(a)pyrene,Benzo(g,h,i)perylene,Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene,Fluoranthene; Totalfluoranthene, TotalHPAHs;LPAH: Fluorene,Phenanthrene;Other: Dibenzofuran

1 HPAH:Benzo(a)pyrene

26, 184, ShorelineElliott Bay

22 1.31 9 HPAH:Benzo(a)anthracene,Benzo(a)pyrene,fluoranthene,Pyrene, TotalHPAHs;LPAH:Anthracene,Phenanthrene,Total LPAHs,Total PAHs

7 HPAH:Benzo(a)pyrene,Benzo(g,h,i)perylene,Fluoranthene,Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, TotalHPAHs, Totalfluoranthene;LPAH:Phenanthrene,

4 HPAH: TotalBenzofluoranthenes,Fluoranthene,Total HPAHs,Total PAHs

27, 185, MidElliott Bay

7 0.39 1 Other: Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate

27, 186, MidElliott Bay

13 0.57 1 Metals:Mercury

1 Metals: Mercury 1 Metals: Mercury

27, 187, MidElliott Bay

12 0.55

27, 188, MidElliott Bay

23 1.47 6 HPAH:Benzo(a)pyrene, Pyrene,TotalHPAHs;LPAH:PhenanthreneTotal LPAHs;Other: TotalPCBs

6 Metals: Mercury;HPAH: Benzo(g,h,i)perylene,Fluoranthene,Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene;Other: BenzylAlcohol, 2,4-Dimethylphenol

2 Metals:Mercury;Other: 2,4-Dimethylphenol

28, 189, MidElliott Bay

16 0.43

28, 190, Mid 0.06 1 Other: Di-N-

Table 13. Continued.

Page 141

Stratum, Sample,Location

Numberof ERLs

exce-eded

MeanERM

Quotient

Numberof

ERMsexce-eded

Compoundsexceeding

ERMs

Numberof SQSs

exce-eded

Compoundsexceeding SQSs

Numberof CSLs

exce-eded

Compoundsexceeding

CSLs

Elliott Bay Butylphthalate28, 191, MidElliott Bay

13 0.45

28, 192, MidElliott Bay

9 0.36

29, 193, MidElliott Bay

9 0.37

29, 194, MidElliott Bay

23 1.05 1 HPAH:Dibenzo(a,h,)anthracene;Other: TotalPCBs

3 Metals: Mercury;HPAH: Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene; Other: 4-Methylphenol

2 Metals:Mercury;Other: 4-Methylphenol

29, 195, MidElliott Bay

12 0.54

29, 196, MidElliott Bay

13 0.54 1 Metals:Mercury

1 Metals: Mercury 1 Metals: Mercury

30, 114, WestHarbor Island

21 1.34 2 HPAH:Benzo(a)pyrene; Other:Total PCBs

2 HPAH: Benzo(g,h,i)perylene; Other: 4-Methylphenol

1 Other: 4-Methylphenol

30, 197, WestHarbor Island

18 0.60 2 Metals:Arsenic, Zinc

4 Metals: Arsenic;LPAH:Acenaphthene;Other: Dibenzofuran,4-Methylphenol

2 Metals: Arsenic;Other: 4-Methylphenol

30, 198, WestHarbor Island

22 1.26 6 LPAH: 2-Methylnaphthalene,Acenaphthene, Fluorene,Naphthalene,Total LPAHs;Other: TotalPCBs

6 LPAH:Acenaphthene,Fluorene,Naphthalene, TotalLPAHs;Other: Dibenzofuran,4-Methylphenol

4 LPAH:Acenaphthene,Naphthalene;Other:Dibenzofuran, 4-Methylphenol

30, 199, WestHarbor Island

22 0.96 2 LPAH: TotalLPAHs;Other: TotalPCBs

3 LPAH:Acenaphthene,Dibenzofuran;Other: 4-Methylphenol

1 Other: 4-Methylphenol

31, 200, EastHarbor Island

22 3.93 1 Other: TotalPCBs

2 Other: 1,4-Dichlorobenzene, 4-Methylphenol

1 Other: 4-Methylphenol

31, 201, EastHarbor Island

23 1.60 1 Other: TotalPCBs

2 Other: Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate, 4-Methylphenol

1 Other: 4-Methylphenol

31, 202, EastHarbor Island

25 2.16 1 Other: TotalPCBs

1 Other: 4-Methylphenol

1 Other: 4-Methylphenol

32, 203, 13 0.67 Other: 4-

Table 13. Continued.

Page 142

Stratum, Sample,Location

Numberof ERLs

exce-eded

MeanERM

Quotient

Numberof

ERMsexce-eded

Compoundsexceeding

ERMs

Numberof SQSs

exce-eded

Compoundsexceeding SQSs

Numberof CSLs

exce-eded

Compoundsexceeding

CSLs

Duwamish Methylphenol32, 204,Duwamish

8 0.72 1 Other: TotalPCBs

2 Other: Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate, 4-Methylphenol

1 Other: 4-Methylphenol

32, 205,Duwamish

20 2.01 1 Other: TotalPCBs

5 HPAH: Benzo(g,h,i)perylene,Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene;Other: Butylbenzyl-phthalate, 4-Methylphenol,Pentachlorophenol

1 Other: 4-Methylphenol

Table 13. Continued.

Page 143

Table 14. Number of 1998 central Puget Sound samples exceeding individual numericalguidelines and estimated spatial extent of chemical contamination (expressed as percentageof total area) relative to each guideline. Total sampling area = 731.66 km2.

> ERMa > SQSb > CSLb

Compound No. % ofTotalArea

SampleNumber and

Location

No. % ofTotalArea

SampleNumber and

Location

No. % ofTotalArea

SampleNumber and

Location

Trace metalsc

Arsenic 1 0.04 W. Harbor Isl.: 197 1 0.04 W. Harbor Isl.:197

1 0.04 W. Harbor Isl.:197

Cadmium 0 0 0 0 0 0Chromium 0 0 0 0 0 0Copper 0 0 0 0 0 0Lead 0 0 0 0 0 0Mercury 9 1.11 Sinclair Inlet: 160,

162, 163, 164, 165;Elliott Bay: 182, 186,188, 196

14 1.98 Sinclair Inlet:160, 161, 162,163, 164, 165;Dyes Inlet: 171;Elliott Bay: 176,181, 182, 186,188, 194, 196

12 1.88 Sinclair Inlet :160, 161, 162,163, 164, 165;Dyes Inlet: 171;Elliott Bay: 182,186, 188, 194,196

Nickel 4 1.31 Liberty Bay: 142,144; BainbridgeIsl.: 148; DyesInlet: 170

NA NA NA NA

Silver 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc 1 0.04 W. Harbor Isl.: 197 0 0 0 0

Total for anyindividual tracemetals (excludingNickel)

10 2.46 Sinclair Inlet: 160,162, 163, 164, 165;Elliott Bay: 182, 186,188, 196; W. HarborIsl.: 197

15 2.02 Sinclair Inlet:160, 161, 162,163, 164, 165;Dyes Inlet: 171;Elliott Bay: 176,181, 182, 186,188, 194, 196;W. Harbor Isl.:197

13 1.91 Sinclair Inlet:160, 161, 162,163, 164, 165;Dyes Inlet: 171;Elliott Bay: 182,186, 188, 194,196; W. HarborIsl.: 197

OrganicCompoundsLPAH2-Methylnaphthalene

1 0.04 W. Harbor Isl.: 198 1 0.04 W. Harbor Isl.:198

1 0.04 W. Harbor Isl.:198

Acenaphthene 1 0.04 W. Harbor Isl.: 198 3 0.11 W. HarborIsl.:197, 198,199

1 0.04 W. Harbor Isl.:198

Acenaphthylene 0 0 0 0 0 0Anthracene 1 0.02 Elliott Bay: 184 0 0 0 0Fluorene 1 0.04 W. Harbor Isl.: 198 2 0.05 Elliott Bay: 183;

W. Harbor Isl.:198

0 0

Naphthalene 1 0.04 W. Harbor Isl.: 198 1 0.04 W. Harbor Isl.:198

1 0.04 W. Harbor Isl.:198

Page 144

> ERMa > SQSb > CSLb

Compound No. % ofTotalArea

SampleNumber and

Location

No. % ofTotalArea

SampleNumber and

Location

No. % ofTotalArea

SampleNumber and

Location

Phenanthrene 2 0.16 Elliott Bay: 184, 188 3 0.09 Elliott Bay: 176,183, 184,

0 0

Total for anyindividual LPAH

3 0.19 Elliott Bay: 184, 188;W. Harbor Isl.: 198

6 0.2 Elliott Bay: 176,183, 184; W.Harbor Isl.: 197,198, 199

1 0.04 W. Harbor Isl.:198

Sum of LPAHs:Sum of 6 LPAHd

(WA Ch. 173-204RCW)

NA NA 1 0.36 W. Harbor Isl.:198

0 0

Sum of 7 LPAH(Long et al., 1995)

5 0.25 Elliott Bay: 182, 184,188; W. Harbor Isl.:198, 199

NA NA NA NA

HPAHBenzo(a)anthracene 1 0.02 Elliott Bay: 184 1 0.02 Elliott Bay: 183 0 0Benzo(a)pyrene 3 0.19 W. Harbor Isl.: 114;

Elliott Bay: 184, 1883 0.08 Elliott Bay: 115,

183, 1841 0.02 Elliott Bay: 183

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene NA NA 11 0.50 W. Harbor Isl.:114; Elliott Bay:115, 176, 179,180, 181, 182,183, 184, 188;Duwamish: 205

0 0

Chrysene 0 0 0 0 0 0Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

1 0.1 Elliott Bay: 194 1 0.1 Elliott Bay: 194 0 0

Fluoranthene 1 0.02 Elliott Bay: 184 4 0.19 Elliott Bay: 182,183, 184, 188

1 0.02 Elliott Bay: 184

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene

NA NA Elliott Bay: 182, 184,188

5 0.12 Elliott Bay: 180,182, 183, 184;Duwamish: 205

0 0

Pyrene 3 0.17 Elliott Bay: 182,184, 188

0 0 0 0

TotalBenzofluoranthenes

NA NA 2 0.03 Elliott Bay: 183,184

1 0.02 Elliott Bay: 184

Total for anyindividual HPAH

5 0.31 W. Harbor Isl.: 114;Elliott Bay: 182, 184,188, 194

12 0.60 W. Harbor Isl.:114; Elliott Bay:115, 176, 179,180, 181, 182,183, 184, 188,194; Duwamish:205

2 0.03 Elliott Bay: 183,184

Table 14. Continued.

Page 145

> ERMa > SQSb > CSLb

Compound No. % ofTotalArea

SampleNumber and

Location

No. % ofTotalArea

SampleNumber and

Location

No. % ofTotalArea

SampleNumber and

Location

Sum of HPAHs:Sum of 9 HPAH(WA Ch. 173-204RCW)

NA NA 2 0.73 Elliott Bay: 183,184

0 0

Sum of 6 HPAH(Long et al., 1995)

3 0.17 Elliott Bay: 182,184, 188

NA NA NA NA

Total for anyindividual PAH

6 0.35 W. Harbor Isl.: 114,198; Elliott Bay: 182,184, 188, 194

15 0.71 Elliott Bay: 115,176, 179, 180,181, 182, 183,184, 188, 194;W. Harbor Isl.:114, 197, 198,199; Duwamish:205

3 0.07 Elliott Bay: 183,184; W. HarborIsl.: 198

Sum of 13 PAHs(Long et al., 1995)

1 0.02 Elliott Bay: 184 NA NA NA NA

Phenols2,4-Dimethylphenol NA NA 1 0.14 Elliott Bay: 188 1 0.14 Elliott Bay: 1882-Methylphenol NA NA 0 0 0 04-Methylphenol NA NA 22 23 22 23Pentachlorophenol NA NA 1 0.03 Duwamish: 205 0 0Phenol NA NA 0 0 0 0Total for anyindividual phenols:

NA NA 23 23.2 23 23.2

Phthalate EstersBis (2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate

NA NA 4 0.24 Elliott Bay: 185;E. Harbor Isl.:201; Duwamish:204, 205

1 0.03 Duwamish: 205

>QL only 3 0.2 Elliott Bay: 185;E. Harbor Isl.:201; Duwamish:204

0 0

Butylbenzylphthalate NA NA 3 0.47 Elliott Bay: 174,176; Duwamish:205

0 0

Diethylphthalate NA NA 0 0 0 0Dimethylphthalate NA NA 0 0 0 0Di-N-Butyl Phthalate NA NA 1 0.1 Elliott Bay: 190 0 0Di-N-Octyl Phthalate NA NA 0 0 0 0Total for anyindividualphthalate esters

NA NA 7 0.76 Elliott Bay: 174,176, 185, 190; E.Harbor Isl.: 201;Duwamish: 204,205

1 0.03 Duwamish: 205

Table 14. Continued.

Page 146

> ERMa > SQSb > CSLb

Compound No. % ofTotalArea

SampleNumber and

Location

No. % ofTotalArea

SampleNumber and

Location

No. % ofTotalArea

SampleNumber and

Location

Chlorinated Pesticide and PCBs4,4'-DDE 0 0 NA NA NA NATotal DDT 0 0 NA NA NA NATotal PCB:Total Aroclors (WA Ch.173-204 RCW)

NA NA 36 38.2 1 0.02 E. HarborIsl.: 200

>QL only 0 0 0 0Total congeners (Long etal., 1995):

13 0.59 Elliott Bay: 181,182, 188, 194;W. Harbor Isl.:114,198, 199; E.Harbor Isl.: 200,201, 202;Duwamish: 203,204, 205

NA NA NA NA

>QL only 12 0.55 Elliott Bay: 181,182, 188, 194;W. Harbor Isl.:114,198, 199;E. Harbor Isl.:200, 201, 202;Duwamish: 204,205

Miscellaneous Compounds1,2-Dichlorobenzene NA NA 10 21.1 Pt. Townsend:

110; S. AdmiraltyInlet: 116, 117;Central Basin:121; RichPassage: 154,155, 174; ElliottBay: 177,178,190

10 21.1 Pt. Townsend:110; S.Admiralty Inlet:116, 117;Central Basin:121; RichPassage: 154,155, 174; ElliottBay: 177,178,190

>QL only 0 0 0 01,2,4-Trichlorobenzene NA NA 42 49.8 15 36.4 >QL only 0 0 0 01,4-Dichlorobenzene NA NA 4 1.35 Pt. Townsend:

110; Elliott Bay:174, 177; E.Harbor Isl.: 200

0 0

>QL only 1 0.02 E. Harbor Isl.:200

0 0

Benzoic Acid NA NA 97 83.5 97 83.5

>QL only 89 81.5 89 81.5

Table 14. Continued.

Page 147

> ERMa > SQSb > CSLb

Compound No. % ofTotalArea

SampleNumber and

Location

No. % ofTotalArea

SampleNumber and

Location

No. % ofTotalArea

SampleNumber and

Location

Benzyl Alcohol NA NA 5 1.76 Liberty Bay: 144;Bainbridge Isl.:151; Dyes Inlet:170, 171; ElliottBay: 188

1 0.47 BainbridgeIsl.:151

>QL only 4 1.67 Bainbridge Isl.:151; Dyes Inlet:170, 171; ElliottBay: 188

1 0.47 BainbridgeIsl.:151

Dibenzofuran NA NA 4 0.13 Elliott Bay: 183;W. Harbor Isl.:197, 198, 199

1 0.04 W. Harbor Isl.:198

Hexachlorobenzene NA NA 6 7.82 Pt. Townsend:110; CentralBasin: 121; Pt.Madison: 126;Central Sound:134; RichPassage: 154,155

0 0

>QL only 0 0 0 0Hexachlorobutadiene NA NA 1 0.89 Pt. Townsend:

1100 0

>QL only 0 0 0 0N-Nitrosodiphenylamine NA NA 0 0 0 0*Total for all individualcompounds (excludingNickel)

22 1.6 99 99.9 99 99.9

>QL only 21 1.6 95 99.6 94 99.4*Total for all individualcompounds (excludingNickel and BenzoicAcid)

79 77.2 50 60.9

>QL only 44 26.1 36 24.8

a ERM = effects range median (Long et al., 1995)b SQS = sediment quality standard, CSL = cleanup screening levels (Washington State Sediment ManagementStandards - Ch. 173-204 WAC)c Trace metal data derived with strong acid digestion were used for comparison to ERM values while those derivedwith hydrofluoric acid digestion were used for comparison to SQS and CSL valuesdThe LPAH criterion represents the sum of the Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, Acenaphthene, Fluorene,Phenanthrene, and Anthracene values * = calculation includes all values which exceed guidelines or standards, including those that were at or below thequantitation limits reported by Manchester Environmental Lab>QL only = calculation includes all values which exceed guidelines or standards, excluding those that were at orbelow the quantitation limits reported by Manchester Environmental LabNA = no guideline or standard available

Table 14. Continued.

Page 148

Table 15. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients (rho, corrected for ties) and significancelevels (p) for results of four toxicity tests and concentrations of trace metals, chlorinatedorganic hydrocarbons, and total PAHs, normalized to their respective ERM, SQS, CSLvalues for all 1998 central Puget Sound sites (n=100).

Chemical Amph-ipod

survival

(p) Urchinfertiliz-ation

(p) Microbialbiolumin-escence

(p) Cyto-chromeP-450

(p)

ERM valuesmean ERM quotients for 9 trace metals 0.068 ns -0.267 ns -0.165 ns 0.726 ****mean ERM quotients for 3 chlorinated

organic hydrocarbons0.172 ns -0.576 **** 0.09 ns 0.844 ****

mean ERM quotients for 13 polynucleararomatic hydrocarbons

0.092 ns -0.5 **** -0.01 ns 0.928 ****

mean ERM quotients for 25 substances 0.12 ns -0.518 **** 0.03 ns 0.901 ****

SQS valuesmean SQS quotients for 8 trace metals 0.056 ns -0.319 * -0.221 ns 0.8 ****mean SQS quotients for 6 low molecular

weight polynuclear aromatichydrocarbons

0.087 ns -0.559 **** 0.37 ** 0.573 ****

mean SQS quotients for 9 high molecularweight polynuclear aromatichydrocarbons

0.089 ns -0.656 **** 0.138 ns 0.735 ****

mean SQS quotients for 15 polynucleararomatic hydrocarbons

0.089 ns -0.656 **** 0.194 ns 0.719 ****

CSL valuesmean CSL quotients for 8 trace metals 0.058 ns -0.316 * -0.225 ns 0.798 ****mean CSL quotients for 6 low molecular

weight polynuclear aromatichydrocarbons

0.09 ns -0.539 **** 0.371 ** 0.575 ****

mean CSL quotients for 9 high molecularweight polynuclear aromatichydrocarbons

0.087 ns -0.662 **** 0.129 ns 0.737 ****

mean CSL quotients for 15 polynucleararomatic hydrocarbons

0.091 ns -0.656 **** 0.193 ns 0.724 ****

ns = p > 0.05* = p < 0.05** = p < 0.01*** = p < 0.001**** = p < 0.0001

Page 149

Table 16. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients (rho, corrected for ties) and significancelevels (p) for results of four toxicity tests and concentrations of partial digestion metals insediments for all 1998 central Puget Sound sites (n=100).

Chemical Amphipodsurvival

(p) Urchinfertilization

(p) Microbialbioluminescence

(p) CytochromeP450

HRGS

(p)

Aluminum 0.055 ns 0.101 ns -0.267 ns 0.522 ****Antimony -0.346 ns 0.113 ns -0.103 ns 0.158 nsArsenic 0.072 ns -0.297 ns -0.135 ns 0.792 ****Barium 0.087 ns -0.207 ns 0.005 ns 0.719 ****Beryllium -0.059 ns 0.072 ns -0.104 ns 0.502 ****Cadmium 0.023 ns 0.017 ns -0.593 **** 0.279 nsCalcium -0.134 ns 0.131 ns -0.39 * 0.276 nsChromium -0.037 ns 0.117 ns -0.338 ns 0.453 ***Cobalt -0.04 ns 0.151 ns 0.016 ns 0.372 *Copper 0.044 ns -0.317 ns -0.251 ns 0.828 ****Iron 0.004 ns 0.098 ns -0.174 ns 0.475 ****Lead 0.082 ns -0.45 *** -0.147 ns 0.883 ****Magnesium 0.025 ns 0.314 ns -0.292 ns 0.256 nsManganese -0.06 ns 0.192 ns 0.142 ns 0.249 nsMercury 0.125 ns -0.383 * -0.175 ns 0.794 ****Nickel -0.023 ns 0.365 * -0.283 ns 0.12 nsPotassium 0.021 ns 0.15 ns -0.262 ns 0.456 ***Selenium -0.045 ns 0.192 ns -0.527 * -0.2 nsSilver 0.04 ns -0.21 ns -0.115 ns 0.651 ****Sodium 0.029 ns 0.116 ns -0.332 ns 0.473 ***Thallium -0.091 ns -0.206 ns -0.16 ns -0.086 nsTitanium 0.013 ns 0.081 ns -0.341 ns 0.504 ****Vanadium 0.03 ns -0.019 ns -0.149 ns 0.59 ****Zinc 0.001 ns -0.226 ns -0.27 ns 0.744 ****

ns = p > 0.05* = p < 0.05** = p < 0.01*** = p < 0.001**** = p < 0.0001

Page 150

Table 17. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients (rho, corrected for ties) and significancelevels (p) for results of four toxicity tests and concentrations of total digestion metals insediments for all 1998 central Puget Sound sites (n=100).

Chemical Amphipodsurvival

(p) Urchinfertilization

(p) Microbialbioluminescence

(p) CytochromeP450

HRGS

(p)

Aluminum 0.115 ns -0.144 ns 0.248 ns 0.438 ***Antimony 0.109 ns -0.337 ns 0.084 ns 0.618 ****Arsenic 0.076 ns -0.344 ns -0.089 ns 0.807 ****Barium 0.032 ns 0.055 ns 0.37 * 0.03 nsBeryllium 0.056 ns -0.201 ns 0.322 ns 0.407 **Cadmium 0.03 ns -0.272 ns -0.055 ns 0.431 *Calcium 0.024 ns -0.279 ns 0.219 ns 0.36 *Chromium -0.087 ns 0.068 ns -0.284 ns 0.234 nsCobalt -0.028 ns -0.142 ns 0.139 ns 0.526 ****Copper 0.056 ns -0.332 ns -0.185 ns 0.792 ****Iron 0.008 ns -0.229 ns 0.029 ns 0.605 ****Lead 0.024 ns -0.414 ** -0.191 ns 0.837 ****Magnesium 0.055 ns 0.013 ns -0.03 ns 0.468 ***Manganese -0.119 ns -0.172 ns 0.388 * 0.238 nsNickel 0.019 ns 0.192 ns -0.242 ns 0.282 nsPotassium -0.013 ns 0.013 ns 0.075 ns 0.411 **Selenium 0.052 ns -0.075 ns -0.279 ns 0.287 nsSilver 0.5 ns 0.5 ns -0.5 ns 0.5 nsSodium 0.075 ns 0.12 ns -0.193 ns 0.356 *Thallium 0.114 ns -0.203 ns -0.101 ns 0.068 nsTitanium 0.006 ns -0.298 ns -0.004 ns 0.59 ****Vanadium 0.024 ns -0.168 ns -0.046 ns 0.498 ****Zinc 0.051 ns -0.324 ns -0.162 ns 0.757 ****Silicon -0.041 ns -0.077 ns 0.344 ns -0.464 ***Tin 0.097 ns -0.476 *** -0.08 ns 0.858 ****

ns = p > 0.05* = p < 0.05** = p < 0.01*** = p < 0.001**** = p < 0.0001

Page 151

Table 18. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients (rho, corrected for ties) and significancelevels (p) for results of four toxicity tests and concentrations of Low Molecular WeightPolynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (LPAH) in sediments for all 1998 central PugetSound sites (n=100).

Chemical Amphipodsurvival

(p) Urchinfertilization

(p) Microbialbioluminescence

(p) CytochromeP450 HRGS

(p)

1,6,7-Trimethylnaphthalene

0.124 ns -0.383 * 0.043 ns 0.769 ****

1-Methylnaphthalene 0.103 ns -0.329 ns 0.078 ns 0.761 ****1-Methylphenanthrene 0.031 ns -0.45 *** 0.015 ns 0.879 ****2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 0.03 ns -0.166 ns -0.372 * 0.642 ****2-Methylnaphthalene 0.113 ns -0.346 ns 0.115 ns 0.792 ****2-Methylphenanthrene 0.042 ns -0.386 * 0.002 ns 0.845 ****Acenaphthene 0.129 ns -0.52 **** 0.06 ns 0.883 ****Acenaphthylene 0.102 ns -0.48 **** 0.01 ns 0.897 ****Anthracene 0.107 ns -0.508 **** -0.016 ns 0.904 ****Biphenyl 0.167 ns -0.436 ** 0.084 ns 0.783 ****Dibenzothiophene 0.165 ns -0.488 *** 0.143 ns 0.876 ****Fluorene 0.124 ns -0.45 *** 0.072 ns 0.879 ****Naphthalene 0.183 ns -0.366 ns 0.2 ns 0.799 ****Phenanthrene 0.077 ns -0.468 *** 0.025 ns 0.863 ****Retene 0.106 ns -0.426 ** -0.014 ns 0.812 ****

Sum of 6 LPAH^ 0.08 ns -0.555 **** 0.352 ns 0.579 ****Sum of 7 LPAH^^ 0.101 ns -0.466 *** 0.046 ns 0.897 ****Total LPAH 0.106 ns -0.465 *** 0.017 ns 0.909 ****

^6 LPAH = defined by WA Ch. 173-204 RCW; Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Anthracene,Fluorene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, carbon normalized.^^7LPAH = defined by Long et al., 1995; Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Fluorene,2-Methylnaphthalene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrenens = p > 0.05* = p < 0.05** = p < 0.01*** = p < 0.001**** = p < 0.0001

Page 152

Table 19. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients (rho, corrected for ties) and significancelevels (p) for results of four toxicity tests and concentrations of High Molecular WeightPolynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (HPAH) in sediments for all 1998 central PugetSound sites (n=100).

Chemical Amphipodsurvival

(p) Urchinfertilization

(p) Microbialbioluminescence

(p) CytochromeP450 HRGS

(p)

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.078 ns -0.499 **** -0.074 ns 0.934 ****Benzo(a)pyrene 0.081 ns -0.529 **** -0.089 ns 0.926 ****Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.084 ns -0.51 **** -0.083 ns 0.944 ****Benzo(e)pyrene 0.099 ns -0.512 **** -0.114 ns 0.941 ****Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.087 ns -0.53 **** -0.091 ns 0.936 ****Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.091 ns -0.503 **** -0.104 ns 0.946 ****Chrysene 0.069 ns -0.502 **** -0.085 ns 0.931 ****Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.112 ns -0.504 **** -0.031 ns 0.932 ****Fluoranthene 0.072 ns -0.479 **** -0.071 ns 0.917 ****Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 0.09 ns -0.523 **** -0.098 ns 0.939 ****Perylene 0.089 ns -0.413 ** -0.033 ns 0.863 ****Pyrene 0.108 ns -0.472 *** -0.014 ns 0.902 ****

sum of 6 HPAH^ 0.086 ns -0.501 **** -0.067 ns 0.932 ****sum of 9 HPAH^^ 0.082 ns -0.632 **** 0.148 ns 0.728 ****Total HPAH 0.079 ns -0.506 **** -0.075 ns 0.938 ****

sum of 13 PAH^^^ 0.098 ns -0.498 **** -0.028 ns 0.93 ****Sum of 15 PAH^^^^ 0.085 ns -0.632 **** 0.188 ns 0.718 ****Total all PAH 0.09 ns -0.503 **** -0.045 ns 0.935 ****

^6HPAH = defined by Long et al., 1995; Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene,Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene, Pyrene^^9HPAH = defined by WA Ch. 173-204 RCW; Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene,Benzo(1,2,3,-c,d)pyrene, Benzo(g,h,I)perylene, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene,Pyrene, Total Benzofluranthenes, carbon normalized^^^13PAH = 7LPAH and 6HPAH^^^^15PAH= 6LPAH and A11HPAHns = p > 0.05* = p < 0.05** = p < 0.01*** = p < 0.001**** = p < 0.0001

Page 153

Table 20. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients (rho, corrected for ties) and significancelevels (p) for results of four toxicity tests and concentrations of organotins and organiccompounds in sediments for all 1998 central Puget Sound sites (n=100).

Chemical Amphipodsurvival

(p) Urchinfertilization

(p) Microbialbioluminescence

(p) CytochromeP450 HRGS

(p)

OrganotinsDibutyltin Dichloride -0.058 ns -0.584 **** 0.117 ns 0.764 ****Tributyltin Chloride 0.055 ns -0.617 **** 0.159 ns 0.875 ****

Phenols2,4-Dimethylphenol 0.36 ns 0.049 ns 0.279 ns 0.676 ns2-Methylphenol -0.023 ns -0.006 ns -0.392 ns 0.433 ns4-Methylphenol -0.049 ns -0.033 ns -0.036 ns 0.32 nsPentachlorophenol 0.339 ns 0.009 ns -0.193 ns 0.293 nsPhenol 0.15 ns 0.404 ns -0.264 ns 0.314 ns

Miscellaneous1,2-Dichlorobenzene -0.8 ns -0.2 ns 0.8 ns -0.6 ns1,4-Dichlorobenzene -0.186 ns -0.363 ns -0.018 ns 0.502 nsBenzoic Acid 0.067 ns 0.179 ns -0.572 **** 0.238 nsBenzyl Alcohol 0.365 ns 0.178 ns -0.097 ns 0.476 nsBis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate

-0.215 ns 0.196 ns -0.334 ns 0.177 ns

Butylbenzylphthalate -0.214 ns -0.313 ns -0.296 ns 0.596 nsDibenzofuran 0.196 ns -0.417 ** 0.066 ns 0.867 ****Diethylphthalate 0.433 ns 0.046 ns 0.07 ns 0.212 nsDimethylphthalate 0.112 ns 0.399 ns 0.14 ns -0.587 nsDi-N-Butylphthalate 0.509 ns 0.102 ns 0.138 ns 0.172 nsHexachlorobenzene -0.031 ns 0.162 ns -0.323 ns 0.038 nsN-Nitrosodiphenylamine 0 ns 0.211 ns 0.4 ns 0.4 ns

ns = p > 0.05* = p < 0.05** = p < 0.01*** = p < 0.001**** = p < 0.0001

Page 154

Table 21. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients (rho, corrected for ties) and significancelevels (p) for results of four toxicity tests and concentrations of DDT and PCB compoundsin sediments for all 1998 central Puget Sound sites (n=100).

Chemical Amphipodsurvival

(p) Urchinfertilization

(p) Microbialbioluminescence

(p) CytochromeP450 HRGS

(p)

4,4'-DDD -0.332 ns -0.421 ns -0.067 ns 0.552 ns4,4'-DDE -0.298 ns -0.357 ns 0.075 ns 0.643 **Total DDT -0.214 ns -0.484 ns 0.122 ns 0.697 ****

PCB Aroclor 1242 -0.18 ns -0.286 ns -0.464 ns -0.036 nsPCB Aroclor 1254 -0.126 ns -0.625 *** 0.24 ns 0.784 ***PCB Aroclor 1260 0.042 ns -0.544 ** 0.207 ns 0.743 ****Total PCB Aroclor -0.049 ns -0.606 **** 0.459 * 0.639 ****

PCB Congener 8 -0.314 ns 0.086 ns -0.6 ns 0.143 nsPCB Congener 18 -0.216 ns -0.357 ns 0.072 ns 0.624 *PCB Congener 28 -0.155 ns -0.532 * 0.246 ns 0.737 ****PCB Congener 44 -0.118 ns -0.422 ns 0.301 ns 0.648 ***PCB Congener 52 -0.073 ns -0.539 ** 0.273 ns 0.71 ****PCB Congener 66 0.015 ns -0.516 ** 0.199 ns 0.701 ****PCB Congener 101 0.08 ns -0.514 ** 0.183 ns 0.833 ****PCB Congener 105 0.091 ns -0.488 * 0.355 ns 0.712 ****PCB Congener 118 0.02 ns -0.468 ** 0.141 ns 0.726 ****PCB Congener 128 -0.129 ns -0.519 ** 0.099 ns 0.702 ****PCB Congener 138 0.082 ns -0.484 * 0.351 ns 0.748 ****PCB Congener 153 0.098 ns -0.449 * 0.195 ns 0.828 ****PCB Congener 170 -0.053 ns -0.512 ** 0.203 ns 0.75 ****PCB Congener 180 -0.01 ns -0.488 * 0.275 * 0.752 ****PCB Congener 187 -0.217 ns -0.39 ns 0.066 ns 0.619 ***PCB Congener 195 -0.195 ns -0.31 ns -0.06 ns 0.562 nsPCB Congener 206 -0.173 ns -0.293 ns -0.167 ns 0.618 ***Total PCBCongeners

0.029 ns -0.43 * 0.193 ns 0.828 ****

ns = p > 0.05* = p < 0.05** = p < 0.01*** = p < 0.001**** = p < 0.0001

Stra

tum

Sa

mpl

eTo

tal

Abu

ndan

ceA

nnel

ida

Ann

elid

a %

of t

otal

ab

unda

nce

Arth

ropo

da

Arth

ropo

da

% o

f tot

al

abun

danc

eM

ollu

sca

Mol

lusc

a %

of t

otal

ab

unda

nce

Echi

no-

derm

ata

Echi

node

rmat

a %

of t

otal

ab

unda

nce

Mis

c.

Taxa

Mis

c. T

axa

% o

f tot

al

abun

danc

e

110

630

214

949

%47

16%

9531

%8

3%3

1%10

758

029

250

%66

11%

218

38%

31%

10%

108

707

9914

%73

10%

106

15%

421

60%

81%

210

970

233

347

%18

126

%16

123

%3

0%24

3%11

041

096

23%

6716

%22

455

%17

4%6

1%11

180

747

959

%42

5%26

833

%7

1%11

1%

411

223

2575

833

%13

4958

%13

36%

261%

593%

116

554

9517

%19

736

%25

446

%3

1%5

1%11

722

778

34%

6026

%84

37%

00%

52%

511

811

067

61%

1413

%19

17%

44%

65%

119

197

8644

%85

43%

179%

11%

84%

120

201

9246

%80

40%

2914

%0

0%0

0%

612

112

7210

78%

677

53%

475

37%

00%

131%

122

240

8234

%53

22%

9238

%1

0%12

5%12

331

430

10%

127

40%

147

47%

31%

72%

712

472

918

225

%21

229

%13

819

%19

026

%7

1%12

585

228

033

%31

937

%13

516

%10

312

%15

2%12

663

721

934

%17

628

%13

020

%10

116

%11

2%

811

323

185

37%

5022

%91

39%

21%

31%

127

447

149

33%

156

35%

137

31%

00%

51%

128

568

201

35%

139

24%

222

39%

10%

51%

Sout

h Po

rt To

wns

end

Port

Tow

nsen

d

Sout

h A

dmira

lt y

Tab

le 2

2. T

otal

abu

ndan

ce, m

ajor

taxa

abu

ndan

ce, a

nd m

ajor

taxa

per

cent

abu

ndan

ce fo

r th

e 19

98 c

entr

al P

uget

Sou

nd sa

mpl

ing

stat

ions

.

Poss

essi

on

Soun

d

Cen

tral

Bas

in

Port

Mad

iso n

Wes

t Poi

nt

Page 155

Stra

tum

Sa

mpl

eTo

tal

Abu

ndan

ceA

nnel

ida

Ann

elid

a %

of t

otal

ab

unda

nce

Arth

ropo

da

Arth

ropo

da

% o

f tot

al

abun

danc

eM

ollu

sca

Mol

lusc

a %

of t

otal

ab

unda

nce

Echi

no-

derm

ata

Echi

node

rmat

a %

of t

otal

ab

unda

nce

Mis

c.

Taxa

Mis

c. T

axa

% o

f tot

al

abun

danc

e

129

424

154

36%

118

28%

136

32%

10%

154%

913

086

354

163

%93

11%

218

25%

40%

71%

131

762

339

44%

244

32%

172

23%

30%

41%

132

1455

1143

79%

201

14%

105

7%2

0%4

0%

1013

353

112

423

%17

834

%17

934

%32

6%18

3%13

436

376

21%

184

51%

8724

%5

1%11

3%13

530

418

059

%43

14%

7023

%3

1%8

3%

1113

619

863

32%

7136

%53

27%

00%

116%

137

230

8537

%67

29%

6629

%0

0%12

5%13

816

850

30%

7947

%28

17%

21%

95%

1213

933

781

24%

9428

%15

145

%2

1%9

3%14

014

463

44%

4632

%29

20%

21%

43%

141

265

177

67%

3814

%33

12%

31%

145%

1314

232

510

934

%10

231

%4

1%10

733

%3

1%14

330

917

155

%75

24%

3210

%31

10%

00%

144

293

5619

%10

536

%40

14%

9031

%2

1%

1414

535

417

951

%61

17%

107

30%

31%

41%

146

650

6310

%20

031

%34

5%35

354

%0

0%14

754

335

465

%25

5%14

927

%4

1%11

2%

1514

834

911

232

%31

9%69

20%

135

39%

21%

149

810

204

25%

112

14%

466

58%

132%

152%

150

435

136

31%

174%

127

29%

148

34%

72%

Eagl

e H

arbo

r

Cen

tral

Bas

in

Cen

tral

Bas

in

East

Pa

ssa g

e

Libe

rty

Ba y

Key

port

Nor

th

Wes

t

Tab

le 2

2. C

ontin

ued.

Page 156

Stra

tum

Sa

mpl

eTo

tal

Abu

ndan

ceA

nnel

ida

Ann

elid

a %

of t

otal

ab

unda

nce

Arth

ropo

da

Arth

ropo

da

% o

f tot

al

abun

danc

eM

ollu

sca

Mol

lusc

a %

of t

otal

ab

unda

nce

Echi

no-

derm

ata

Echi

node

rmat

a %

of t

otal

ab

unda

nce

Mis

c.

Taxa

Mis

c. T

axa

% o

f tot

al

abun

danc

e

1615

133

799

29%

144%

7021

%14

443

%10

3%15

285

916

519

%12

214

%47

555

%86

10%

111%

153

243

8334

%8

3%87

36%

5824

%7

3%

1715

465

919

930

%41

6%39

560

%5

1%19

3%15

595

193

10%

138

15%

709

75%

00%

111%

156

573

234

41%

189

33%

105

18%

193%

265%

1815

780

816

320

%15

920

%44

355

%37

5%6

1%15

863

124

138

%84

13%

265

42%

264%

152%

159

563

137

24%

122

22%

241

43%

468%

173%

1916

014

913

289

%3

2%9

6%0

0%5

3%16

112

8311

6591

%52

4%41

3%24

2%1

0%16

255

922

039

%16

630

%64

11%

105

19%

41%

2016

356

532

658

%11

320

%33

6%86

15%

71%

164

1336

1067

80%

132

10%

108

8%21

2%8

1%16

566

326

941

%27

742

%34

5%73

11%

102%

2116

665

119

630

%16

225

%27

041

%5

1%18

3%16

782

641

250

%15

619

%22

127

%22

3%15

2%16

812

3211

0390

%30

2%93

8%2

0%4

0%

2216

915

7411

2371

%24

816

%17

911

%17

1%7

0%17

089

426

630

%36

441

%57

6%20

022

%7

1%17

111

1326

023

%57

452

%48

4%22

420

%7

1%

Sout

h W

est

Ric

h Pa

ssa g

e

Port

Orc

har d

Sinc

lair

Inle

t

Sinc

lair

Inle

t

Dye

s Inl

et

Dye

s Inl

et

Tab

le 2

2. C

ontin

ued.

Page 157

Stra

tum

Sa

mpl

eTo

tal

Abu

ndan

ceA

nnel

ida

Ann

elid

a %

of t

otal

ab

unda

nce

Arth

ropo

da

Arth

ropo

da

% o

f tot

al

abun

danc

eM

ollu

sca

Mol

lusc

a %

of t

otal

ab

unda

nce

Echi

no-

derm

ata

Echi

node

rmat

a %

of t

otal

ab

unda

nce

Mis

c.

Taxa

Mis

c. T

axa

% o

f tot

al

abun

danc

e

2317

218

869

37%

4826

%60

32%

00%

116%

173

470

174

37%

5612

%23

049

%5

1%5

1%17

449

430

862

%83

17%

6413

%30

6%9

2%17

563

135

256

%11

418

%11

418

%28

4%23

4%

2417

687

650

157

%97

11%

255

29%

121%

111%

177

1378

786%

475

34%

822

60%

10%

20%

178

343

179

52%

104

30%

5616

%1

0%3

1%

2511

511

6110

9294

%9

1%60

5%0

0%0

0%17

947

825

453

%83

17%

137

29%

00%

41%

180

639

350

55%

6610

%21

534

%3

0%5

1%18

145

721

246

%88

19%

142

31%

20%

133%

2618

257

130

954

%37

6%18

833

%21

4%16

3%18

374

043

559

%13

318

%15

921

%3

0%10

1%18

473

148

867

%57

8%17

724

%2

0%7

1%

2718

526

910

639

%57

21%

101

38%

10%

41%

186

655

169

26%

8413

%39

260

%3

0%7

1%18

733

469

21%

309%

227

68%

10%

72%

188

825

166

20%

729%

563

68%

81%

162%

2818

992

836

139

%31

234

%21

924

%28

3%8

1%19

017

1711

47%

909

53%

688

40%

00%

60%

191

328

155

47%

3611

%13

240

%1

0%4

1%19

288

360

869

%11

213

%15

117

%7

1%5

1%

2919

384

821

926

%21

2%60

371

%0

0%5

1%

Out

er

Ellio

tt B

ay

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Ba y

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

Mid

Elli

ott

Bay

Mid

Elli

ott

Bay

Tab

le 2

2. C

ontin

ued.

Page 158

Stra

tum

Sa

mpl

eTo

tal

Abu

ndan

ceA

nnel

ida

Ann

elid

a %

of t

otal

ab

unda

nce

Arth

ropo

da

Arth

ropo

da

% o

f tot

al

abun

danc

eM

ollu

sca

Mol

lusc

a %

of t

otal

ab

unda

nce

Echi

no-

derm

ata

Echi

node

rmat

a %

of t

otal

ab

unda

nce

Mis

c.

Taxa

Mis

c. T

axa

% o

f tot

al

abun

danc

e

194

456

184

40%

102%

261

57%

00%

10%

195

365

271

74%

4613

%44

12%

10%

31%

196

471

131

28%

184%

320

68%

20%

00%

3011

410

7798

291

%21

2%73

7%0

0%1

0%19

780

639

449

%10

313

%30

438

%1

0%4

0%19

811

2825

923

%34

731

%51

145

%0

0%11

1%19

913

9147

334

%40

629

%49

536

%11

1%6

0%

3120

098

080

282

%27

3%14

915

%0

0%2

0%20

114

1512

8191

%37

3%95

7%0

0%2

0%20

215

7289

157

%23

1%65

742

%0

0%1

0%

3220

337

6429

7079

%94

2%68

818

%0

0%12

0%20

411

5510

0287

%31

3%11

710

%1

0%4

0%20

515

6113

1484

%17

1%22

614

%1

0%3

0%D

uwam

ish

Mid

Elli

ott

Bay

Wes

t H

arbo

r Is

lan d

East

H

arbo

r

Tab

le 2

2. C

ontin

ued.

Page 159

Page 160

Table 23. Total abundance, taxa richness, Pielou's evenness, and Swartz's DominanceIndex for the 1998 central Puget Sound sampling stations.

Stratum Sample TotalAbundance

TaxaRichness

Pielou'sEvenness (J')

Swartz'sDominance

Index

1 106 302 62 0.849 20South Port Townsend 107 580 81 0.822 24

108 707 47 0.596 6

2 109 702 131 0.835 34Port Townsend 110 410 68 0.794 18

111 807 111 0.768 23

4 112 2325 176 0.540 17South Admiralty Inlet 116 554 53 0.705 8

117 227 50 0.807 15

5 118 110 46 0.910 19Possession Sound 119 197 35 0.727 8

120 201 33 0.727 6

6 121 1272 60 0.577 5Central Basin 122 240 46 0.841 14

123 314 31 0.696 5

7 124 729 73 0.732 12Port Madison 125 852 87 0.758 14

126 637 93 0.777 18

8 113 231 37 0.782 9West Point 127 447 51 0.789 11

128 568 68 0.642 7129 424 62 0.766 13

9 130 863 95 0.732 17Eagle Harbor 131 762 56 0.671 8

132 1455 82 0.490 5

10 133 531 77 0.734 16Central Basin 134 363 54 0.679 9

135 304 73 0.855 22

11 136 198 38 0.809 11

Page 161

Stratum Sample TotalAbundance

TaxaRichness

Pielou'sEvenness (J')

Swartz'sDominance

Index

Central Basin 137 230 40 0.820 10138 168 40 0.821 13

12 139 337 55 0.719 10East Passage 140 144 35 0.832 11

141 265 79 0.909 33

13 142 325 26 0.702 6Liberty Bay 143 309 28 0.740 7

144 293 28 0.693 7

14 145 354 48 0.869 16Keyport 146 650 28 0.560 3

147 543 85 0.748 17

15 148 349 33 0.763 8North West Bainbridge 149 810 73 0.665 13

150 435 44 0.702 7

16 151 337 37 0.716 6South West Bainbridge 152 859 87 0.690 15

153 243 40 0.837 14

17 154 659 99 0.772 23Rich Passage 155 951 68 0.606 6

156 573 102 0.815 24

18 157 808 90 0.673 12Port Orchard 158 631 113 0.763 27

159 563 99 0.819 28

19 160 149 21 0.633 4Sinclair Inlet 161 1283 32 0.387 2

162 559 44 0.706 7

20 163 565 32 0.686 6Sinclair Inlet 164 1336 53 0.498 5

165 663 36 0.689 6

21 166 651 85 0.789 20Port Washington 167 826 79 0.691 10

Table 23. Continued.

Page 162

Stratum Sample TotalAbundance

TaxaRichness

Pielou'sEvenness (J')

Swartz'sDominance

Index

Narrows168 1232 48 0.261 1

22 169 1574 74 0.650 9Dyes Inlet 170 894 33 0.583 4

171 1113 39 0.552 4

23 172 188 43 0.809 13Outer Elliott Bay 173 470 56 0.591 6

174 494 127 0.834 38175 631 137 0.894 48

24 176 876 113 0.771 22Shoreline Elliott Bay 177 1378 61 0.515 4

178 343 80 0.783 21

25 115 1161 43 0.255 1Shoreline Elliott Bay 179 478 69 0.731 12

180 639 77 0.793 19181 457 85 0.833 27

26 182 571 88 0.792 23Shoreline Elliott Bay 183 740 105 0.795 23

184 731 89 0.791 21

27 185 269 32 0.739 9Mid Elliott Bay 186 655 70 0.613 9

187 334 46 0.473 5188 825 67 0.507 5

28 189 928 102 0.705 17Mid Elliott Bay 190 1717 71 0.445 3

191 328 57 0.694 12192 883 91 0.706 14

29 193 848 56 0.413 3Mid Elliott Bay 194 456 46 0.539 4

195 365 67 0.789 16196 471 42 0.451 3

30 114 1077 47 0.386 2

Table 23. Continued.

Page 163

Stratum Sample TotalAbundance

TaxaRichness

Pielou'sEvenness (J')

Swartz'sDominance

Index

West Harbor Island 197 806 71 0.679 12198 1128 90 0.633 9199 1391 84 0.653 10

31 200 980 56 0.598 5East Harbor Island 201 1415 57 0.386 2

202 1572 42 0.446 3

32 203 3764 94 0.426 3Duwamish 204 1155 52 0.373 2

205 1561 65 0.454 3

Table 23. Continued.

Page 164

Table 24. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients (rho, corrected for ties) and significancelevels (p) between benthic infaunal indices and measures of grain size (% fines) and %TOC for all 1998 central Puget Sound sites (n=100).

Benthic index % Fines (p) % TOC (p)

Total Abundance -0.26 ** -0.132 nsTaxa Richness -0.66 **** -0.601 ****Pielou's Evenness (J') -0.164 ns -0.219 *Swartz's Dominance Index -0.422 **** -0.428 ****Annelid Abundance -0.16 ns -0.016 nsArthropod Abundance -0.316 ** -0.306 **Mollusca Abundance -0.431 **** -0.374 ***Echinoderm Abundance 0.087 ns 0.149 nsMiscellaneous Taxa Abundance -0.358 *** -0.41 ****

ns = p > 0.05* = p < 0.05** = p < 0.01*** = p < 0.001**** = p < 0.0001

Page 165

Table 25. Spearman-rank correlations coefficients (rho, corrected for ties) and significancelevels (p) for nine indices of benthic infaunal structure and results of four toxicity tests forall 1998 central Puget Sound sites (n=100).

Benthic index Amphipodsurvival

(p) Urchinfertilization

(p) Microbialbioluminescence

(p) CytochromeP450 HRGS

(p)

Total Abundance 0.079 ns -0.29 ** -0.137 ns 0.263 **Taxa Richness -0.06 ns -0.08 ns 0.306 ** -0.122 nsPielou's Evenness (J') -0.16 ns 0.177 ns 0.149 ns -0.38 ****Swartz's DominanceIndex

-0.176 ns 0.106 ns 0.257 ** -0.351 ***

Annelid Abundance -0.052 ns -0.391 **** -0.113 ns 0.427 ****Arthropod Abundance 0.082 ns 0.186 ns -0.014 ns -0.241 *Mollusca Abundance 0.076 ns -0.008 ns 0.286 ** 0.019 nsEchinodermAbundance

-0.077 ns 0.072 ns -0.285 ** -0.161 ns

Miscellaneous TaxaAbundance

-0.152 ns 0.036 ns 0.172 ns -0.319 **

ns = p > 0.05* = p < 0.05** = p < 0.01*** = p < 0.001**** = p < 0.0001

Che

mic

al

Tota

l A

bund

-an

ce(p

)Ta

xa

Ric

hnes

s(p

)

Piel

ou's

Even

ness

(J

')(p

)

Swar

tz's

Dom

i-na

nce

(p)

Ann

elid

a A

bund

ance

(p)

Arth

ropo

da

Abu

ndan

ce(p

)M

ollu

sca

Abu

ndan

ce(p

)

Echi

no-

derm

ata

Abu

nd-

ance

(p)

Mis

c.

Taxa

A

bun-

danc

e(p

)

ER

M v

alue

sm

ean

ERM

quo

tient

s fo

r 9 tr

ace

met

als

-0.0

25ns

-0.5

****

-0.3

24*

-0.4

55**

**0.

062

ns-0

.225

ns-0

.218

ns-0

.097

ns-0

.378

**

mea

n ER

M q

uotie

nts

for 3

chl

orin

ated

or

gani

c hy

droc

arbo

ns0.

258

ns-0

.031

ns-0

.327

*-0

.288

*0.

454

****

-0.2

81ns

0.12

2ns

-0.3

15*

-0.2

66ns

mea

n ER

M q

uotie

nts

for 1

3 po

lynu

clea

r ar

omat

ic

hydr

ocar

bons

0.26

2ns

-0.0

8ns

-0.3

54**

-0.3

15*

0.44

****

-0.2

49ns

0.07

9ns

-0.2

39ns

-0.3

08*

mea

n ER

M q

uotie

nts

for 2

5 su

bsta

nces

0.21

8ns

-0.1

5ns

-0.3

55**

-0.3

52**

0.40

3**

*-0

.298

*0.

03ns

-0.2

83ns

-0.3

58**

SQS

valu

esm

ean

SQS

quot

ient

s fo

r 8 tr

ace

met

als

0.00

5ns

-0.4

66**

**-0

.331

**-0

.443

****

0.13

5ns

-0.2

8ns

-0.1

97ns

-0.0

06ns

-0.3

69**

mea

n SQ

S qu

otie

nts

for 6

low

mol

ecul

ar

wei

ght p

olyn

ucle

ar

arom

atic

hy

droc

arbo

ns0.

352

**0.

411

***

-0.1

86ns

0.02

8ns

0.43

8**

**-0

.091

ns0.

418

***

-0.4

19**

*-0

.025

ns

mea

n SQ

S qu

otie

nts

for 9

hig

h m

olec

ular

w

eigh

t pol

ynuc

lear

ar

omat

ic

hydr

ocar

bons

0.41

***

0.30

1*

-0.2

78ns

-0.0

8ns

0.55

4**

**-0

.094

ns0.

302

*-0

.254

ns-0

.084

ns

Tab

le 2

6. S

pear

man

-ran

k co

rrel

atio

n co

effic

ient

s (rh

o, c

orre

cted

for

ties)

and

sign

ifica

nce

leve

ls (p

) for

nin

e in

dice

s of b

enth

ic in

faun

al

stru

ctur

e an

d co

ncen

trat

ions

of t

race

met

als,

chlo

rina

ted

orga

nic

hydr

ocar

bons

, and

tota

l PA

Hs,

norm

aliz

ed to

thei

r re

spec

tive

ER

M,

S QS,

and

CSL

val

ues f

or a

ll 19

98 c

entr

al P

uget

Sou

nd si

tes (

n=10

0).

Page 166

Che

mic

al

Tota

l A

bund

-an

ce(p

)Ta

xa

Ric

hnes

s(p

)

Piel

ou's

Even

ness

(J

')(p

)

Swar

tz's

Dom

i-na

nce

(p)

Ann

elid

a A

bund

ance

(p)

Arth

ropo

da

Abu

ndan

ce(p

)M

ollu

sca

Abu

ndan

ce(p

)

Echi

no-

derm

ata

Abu

nd-

ance

(p)

Mis

c.

Taxa

A

bun-

danc

e(p

)

mea

n SQ

S qu

otie

nts

for 1

5 po

lynu

clea

r ar

omat

ic

hydr

ocar

bons

0.41

6**

*0.

33**

-0.2

68ns

-0.0

66ns

0.54

5**

**-0

.086

ns0.

333

**-0

.29

*-0

.075

ns

CSL

val

ues

mea

n C

SL q

uotie

nts

for 8

trac

e m

etal

s0.

003

ns-0

.47

****

-0.3

32**

-0.4

45**

**0.

132

ns-0

.282

ns-0

.197

ns-0

.002

ns-0

.373

**

mea

n C

SL q

uotie

nts

for 6

low

mol

ecul

ar

wei

ght p

olyn

ucle

ar

arom

atic

hy

droc

arbo

ns0.

312

*0.

388

***

-0.1

61ns

0.03

8ns

0.42

***

-0.1

05ns

0.38

1**

-0.4

18**

*-0

.037

ns

mea

n C

SL q

uotie

nts

for 9

hig

h m

olec

ular

w

eigh

t pol

ynuc

lear

ar

omat

ic

hydr

ocar

bons

0.41

3**

*0.

293

*-0

.283

ns-0

.089

ns0.

553

****

-0.0

92ns

0.3

*-0

.249

ns-0

.085

ns

mea

n C

SL q

uotie

nts

for 1

5 po

lynu

clea

r ar

omat

ic

hydr

ocar

bons

0.41

4**

*0.

325

*-0

.271

ns-0

.068

ns0.

543

****

-0.0

84ns

0.32

8*

-0.2

81ns

-0.0

75ns

ns =

p >

0.0

5*

= p

< 0.

05**

= p

< 0

.01

***

= p

< 0.

001

****

= p

< 0

.000

1

Tab

le 2

6. C

ontin

ued.

Page 167

Che

mic

al

Tota

l A

bund

-an

ce(p

)Ta

xa

Ric

hnes

s(p

)

Piel

ou's

Even

ness

(J

')(p

)

Swar

tz's

Dom

i-na

nce

(p)

Ann

elid

a A

bund

ance

(p)

Arth

ro-

poda

A

bund

-an

ce(p

)M

ollu

sca

Abu

ndan

ce(p

)

Echi

no-

derm

ata

Abu

nd-

ance

(p)

Mis

c.

Taxa

A

bun-

danc

e(p

)

Alu

min

um-0

.263

ns-0

.648

****

-0.1

56ns

-0.4

32**

-0.1

65ns

-0.3

63*

-0.3

87*

-0.0

27ns

-0.3

96**

Ant

imon

y0.

299

ns-0

.096

ns-0

.131

ns-0

.075

ns0.

133

ns0.

389

ns0.

11ns

0.06

8ns

0.00

1ns

Ars

enic

-0.0

15ns

-0.4

53**

*-0

.307

ns-0

.438

***

0.14

6ns

-0.3

19ns

-0.2

46ns

-0.1

56ns

-0.3

75*

Bar

ium

-0.0

74ns

-0.3

95**

-0.2

32ns

-0.3

82*

0.05

7ns

-0.3

72*

-0.1

15ns

-0.2

89ns

-0.3

32ns

Ber

ylliu

m-0

.271

ns-0

.522

****

-0.1

25ns

-0.3

65*

-0.1

83ns

-0.4

06**

-0.2

49ns

-0.1

75ns

-0.2

49ns

Cad

miu

m-0

.016

ns-0

.621

****

-0.2

45ns

-0.5

13**

**-0

.012

ns-0

.124

ns-0

.383

*0.

183

ns-0

.418

**C

alci

um-0

.097

ns-0

.443

***

-0.1

05ns

-0.2

56ns

-0.0

28ns

-0.1

8ns

-0.3

11ns

0.18

9ns

-0.1

8ns

Chr

omiu

m-0

.267

ns-0

.699

****

-0.1

74ns

-0.4

3**

-0.1

91ns

-0.2

54ns

-0.4

3**

0.07

ns-0

.404

**C

obal

t-0

.414

**-0

.49

****

-0ns

-0.2

31ns

-0.3

05ns

-0.3

37ns

-0.3

19ns

-0.2

27ns

-0.2

1ns

Cop

per

0.05

6ns

-0.4

54**

*-0

.36

*-0

.475

***

0.20

1ns

-0.2

76ns

-0.2

22ns

-0.0

49ns

-0.3

76*

Iron

-0.3

03ns

-0.6

08**

**-0

.095

ns-0

.371

*-0

.194

ns-0

.38

*-0

.368

*-0

.169

ns-0

.352

nsLe

ad0.

095

ns-0

.365

*-0

.362

*-0

.428

**0.

233

ns-0

.299

ns-0

.134

ns-0

.069

ns-0

.335

nsM

agne

sium

-0.4

4**

*-0

.697

****

0.00

9ns

-0.3

05ns

-0.3

57*

-0.2

71ns

-0.5

12**

**0.

078

ns-0

.328

nsM

anga

nese

-0.4

99**

**-0

.416

**0.

112

ns-0

.11

ns-0

.393

**-0

.336

ns-0

.345

ns-0

.207

ns-0

.086

nsM

ercu

ry0.

035

ns-0

.403

**-0

.323

ns-0

.403

**0.

148

ns-0

.265

ns-0

.137

ns0.

024

ns-0

.333

nsN

icke

l-0

.432

**-0

.655

****

0.04

7ns

-0.2

49ns

-0.3

78*

-0.1

79ns

-0.4

89**

**0.

141

ns-0

.314

nsPo

tass

ium

-0.3

51ns

-0.6

71**

**-0

.092

ns-0

.378

*-0

.261

ns-0

.334

ns-0

.473

***

0.01

2ns

-0.3

31ns

Sele

nium

-0.1

83ns

-0.7

21**

**0.

055

ns-0

.126

ns-0

.268

ns0.

213

ns-0

.569

**0.

478

ns-0

.108

nsSi

lver

-0.1

02ns

-0.6

2**

**-0

.311

ns-0

.527

****

-0.0

49ns

-0.3

37ns

-0.2

69ns

-0.1

16ns

-0.3

62ns

Sodi

um-0

.304

ns-0

.683

****

-0.1

23ns

-0.3

97**

-0.2

06ns

-0.3

01ns

-0.4

74**

*0.

111

ns-0

.336

nsTh

alliu

m0.

096

ns-0

.003

ns0.

024

ns0.

013

ns0.

145

ns-0

.065

ns-0

.036

ns0.

195

ns-0

.097

nsTi

tani

um-0

.105

ns-0

.598

****

-0.2

45ns

-0.4

99**

**-0

.074

ns-0

.256

ns-0

.28

ns0.

025

ns-0

.41

**V

anad

ium

-0.1

83ns

-0.5

6**

**-0

.199

ns-0

.443

***

-0.1

ns-0

.4**

-0.2

61ns

-0.1

7ns

-0.3

71*

Zinc

-0.0

19ns

-0.5

44**

**-0

.319

ns-0

.493

****

0.10

1ns

-0.3

06ns

-0.2

93ns

-0.0

71ns

-0.3

87*

ns =

p >

0.0

5*

= p

< 0.

05**

= p

< 0

.01

***

= p

< 0.

001

****

= p

< 0

.000

1

Tab

le 2

7. S

pear

man

-ran

k co

rrel

atio

n co

effic

ient

s (rh

o, c

orre

cted

for

ties)

and

sign

ifica

nce

leve

ls (p

) for

nin

e in

dice

s of b

enth

ic

infa

unal

stru

ctur

e an

d co

ncen

trat

ions

of p

artia

l dig

estio

n m

etal

s in

sedi

men

ts fo

r al

l 199

8 ce

ntra

l Pug

et S

ound

site

s (n=

100)

.

Page 168

Che

mic

al

Tota

l A

bund

-an

ce(p

)

Taxa

R

ich-

ness

(p)

Piel

ou's

Even

ness

(J

')(p

)

Swar

tz's

Dom

i-na

nce

(p)

Ann

elid

a A

bund

-an

ce(p

)

Arth

ro-

poda

A

bund

-an

ce(p

)M

ollu

sca

Abu

ndan

ce(p

)

Echi

no-

derm

ata

Abu

nd-

ance

(p)

Mis

c.

Taxa

A

bun-

danc

e(p

)

Alu

min

um

-0.0

4ns

-0.0

5ns

-0.0

59ns

-0.1

2ns

0.03

2ns

-0.2

29ns

0.07

8ns

-0.2

73ns

-0.0

5ns

Ant

imon

y 0.

077

ns-0

.264

ns-0

.322

ns-0

.347

ns0.

114

ns-0

.148

ns-0

.006

ns-0

.168

ns-0

.2ns

Ars

enic

-0

.009

ns-0

.383

*-0

.291

ns-0

.408

**0.

132

ns-0

.343

ns-0

.167

ns-0

.203

ns-0

.31

nsB

ariu

m

-0.0

32ns

0.24

6ns

0.11

4ns

0.14

8ns

-0.0

52ns

-0.0

22ns

0.25

4ns

-0.2

69ns

0.14

9ns

Ber

ylliu

m

-0.0

2ns

-0.1

1ns

-0.1

25ns

-0.1

8ns

-0.0

06ns

-0.2

21ns

0.15

5ns

-0.5

47**

**-0

.19

nsC

adm

ium

0.

033

ns-0

.403

ns-0

.279

ns-0

.431

*-0

.019

ns-0

.339

ns-0

.094

ns-0

.39

ns-0

.404

nsC

alci

um

0.21

1ns

0.19

8ns

-0.1

05ns

-0.0

24ns

0.28

3ns

-0.1

16ns

0.18

1ns

-0.1

07ns

-0.0

92ns

Chr

omiu

m

-0.2

88ns

-0.5

65**

**-0

.029

ns-0

.245

ns-0

.27

ns-0

.024

ns-0

.39

*0.

103

ns-0

.267

nsC

obal

t -0

.211

ns-0

.266

ns-0

.053

ns-0

.198

ns-0

.088

ns-0

.205

ns-0

.16

ns-0

.32

ns-0

.134

nsC

oppe

r 0.

056

ns-0

.409

**-0

.319

ns-0

.418

**0.

192

ns-0

.222

ns-0

.197

ns-0

.04

ns-0

.287

nsIr

on

-0.0

69ns

-0.3

61*

-0.2

06ns

-0.3

5ns

0.01

ns-0

.321

ns-0

.12

ns-0

.398

**-0

.261

nsLe

ad

0.07

7ns

-0.3

63*

-0.3

38ns

-0.4

07**

0.22

1ns

-0.2

69ns

-0.1

79ns

-0.0

35ns

-0.3

06ns

Mag

nesi

um

-0.2

47ns

-0.4

29**

-0.0

94ns

-0.2

85ns

-0.1

6ns

-0.3

25ns

-0.2

12ns

-0.2

02ns

-0.2

27ns

Man

gane

se

-0.1

94ns

-0.0

06ns

0.07

4ns

0.01

7ns

-0.1

66ns

-0.1

93ns

0.03

3ns

-0.4

88**

**-0

.004

nsN

icke

l -0

.343

ns-0

.655

****

-0.0

86ns

-0.3

41ns

-0.3

09ns

-0.1

5ns

-0.4

32**

0.07

3ns

-0.3

14ns

Pota

ssiu

m

-0.1

38ns

-0.2

87ns

-0.1

02ns

-0.2

53ns

-0.1

12ns

-0.2

39ns

-0.0

86ns

-0.3

32ns

-0.0

92ns

Sele

nium

-0

.247

ns-0

.638

****

-0.1

45ns

-0.3

65ns

-0.2

38ns

-0.0

77ns

-0.3

97ns

0.07

9ns

-0.1

46ns

Sodi

um

-0.1

97ns

-0.5

3**

**-0

.149

ns-0

.341

ns-0

.202

ns-0

.113

ns-0

.315

ns0.

103

ns-0

.193

nsTh

alliu

m

0.07

2ns

-0.1

11ns

-0.0

85ns

-0.1

13ns

0.04

6ns

0.15

5ns

0.01

2ns

-0.0

94ns

-0.1

95ns

Tita

nium

0.

072

ns-0

.321

ns-0

.296

ns-0

.407

**0.

065

ns-0

.223

ns-0

.021

ns-0

.355

ns-0

.269

nsV

anad

ium

-0

.1ns

-0.4

38**

*-0

.208

ns-0

.392

*-0

.096

ns-0

.281

ns-0

.142

ns-0

.329

ns-0

.254

nsZi

nc

0.04

6ns

-0.4

5**

*-0

.337

ns-0

.461

***

0.14

5ns

-0.2

41ns

-0.2

11ns

-0.1

01ns

-0.3

11ns

Silic

on

0.24

7ns

0.67

8**

**0.

189

ns0.

441

***

0.17

6ns

0.27

3ns

0.40

1**

-0.0

69ns

0.32

8ns

Tin

0.15

1ns

-0.2

32ns

-0.3

46ns

-0.3

59*

0.30

1ns

-0.2

76ns

-0.0

34ns

-0.1

69ns

-0.3

51ns

ns =

p >

0.0

5*

= p

< 0.

05**

= p

< 0

.01

***

= p

< 0.

001

****

= p

< 0

.000

1

Tab

le 2

8. S

pear

man

-ran

k co

rrel

atio

n co

effic

ient

s (rh

o, c

orre

cted

for

ties)

and

sign

ifica

nce

leve

ls (p

) for

nin

e in

dice

s of b

enth

ic

infa

unal

stru

ctur

e an

d co

ncen

trat

ions

of t

otal

di g

estio

n m

etal

s in

sedi

men

ts fo

r al

l 199

8 ce

ntra

l Pug

et S

ound

site

s (n=

100)

.

Page 169

Che

mic

al

Tota

l A

bund

-an

ce(p

)Ta

xa

Ric

hnes

s(p

)

Piel

ou's

Even

ness

(J

')(p

)

Swar

tz's

Dom

i-na

nce

(p)

Ann

elid

a A

bund

-an

ce(p

)

Arth

ro-

poda

A

bund

-an

ce(p

)M

ollu

sca

Abu

ndan

ce(p

)

Echi

no-

derm

ata

Abu

nd-

ance

(p)

Mis

c.

Taxa

A

bun-

danc

e(p

)

1,6,

7-Tr

imet

hyln

apht

hale

ne0.

057

ns-0

.211

ns-0

.196

ns-0

.258

ns0.

158

ns-0

.32

ns0.

008

ns-0

.239

ns-0

.229

ns1-

Met

hyln

apht

hale

ne0.

133

ns-0

.113

ns-0

.215

ns-0

.224

ns0.

194

ns-0

.293

ns0.

142

ns-0

.375

*-0

.254

ns1-

Met

hylp

hena

nthr

ene

0.21

8ns

-0.1

96ns

-0.3

77*

-0.3

81*

0.28

7ns

-0.2

11ns

0.04

6ns

-0.2

74ns

-0.3

1ns

2,6-

Dim

ethy

lnap

htha

lene

0.08

7ns

-0.4

74**

*-0

.296

ns-0

.452

***

0.10

9ns

-0.2

02ns

-0.2

38ns

0.02

8ns

-0.3

53ns

2-M

ethy

lnap

htha

lene

0.17

6ns

-0.0

76ns

-0.2

59ns

-0.2

43ns

0.23

9ns

-0.2

99ns

0.19

7ns

-0.4

04**

-0.2

74ns

2-M

ethy

lphe

nant

hren

e0.

15ns

-0.1

72ns

-0.2

78ns

-0.2

98ns

0.25

3ns

-0.2

38ns

0.06

ns-0

.309

ns-0

.289

nsA

cena

phth

ene

0.33

7ns

-0.0

26ns

-0.3

89*

-0.3

13ns

0.43

6**

-0.2

25ns

0.19

7ns

-0.3

5ns

-0.3

02ns

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

0.24

7ns

-0.0

94ns

-0.3

41ns

-0.3

07ns

0.39

*-0

.207

ns0.

084

ns-0

.249

ns-0

.285

nsA

nthr

acen

e0.

307

ns-0

.039

ns-0

.387

*-0

.321

ns0.

457

***

-0.2

3ns

0.12

4ns

-0.2

35ns

-0.3

13ns

Bip

heny

l0.

176

ns0.

018

ns-0

.2ns

-0.1

48ns

0.29

1ns

-0.2

61ns

0.26

7ns

-0.3

47ns

-0.2

19ns

Dib

enzo

thio

phen

e0.

312

ns-0

.066

ns-0

.376

ns-0

.353

ns0.

423

**-0

.199

ns0.

21ns

-0.5

02**

*-0

.411

*Fl

uore

ne0.

237

ns-0

.093

ns-0

.352

ns-0

.329

ns0.

36*

-0.2

54ns

0.12

3ns

-0.3

61*

-0.3

31ns

Nap

htha

lene

0.19

1ns

-0.0

1ns

-0.2

59ns

-0.2

05ns

0.34

1ns

-0.2

88ns

0.18

5ns

-0.4

03*

-0.2

54ns

Phen

anth

rene

0.24

2ns

-0.1

08ns

-0.3

42ns

-0.3

23ns

0.36

9*

-0.2

53ns

0.10

6ns

-0.3

21ns

-0.3

23ns

Ret

ene

0.15

2ns

-0.1

81ns

-0.2

91ns

-0.2

98ns

0.25

6ns

-0.1

89ns

-0.0

4ns

-0.0

41ns

-0.1

64ns

Sum

of 6

LPA

H^

0.37

2*

0.42

4**

-0.1

92ns

0.03

ns0.

456

***

-0.0

76ns

0.42

6**

-0.3

98**

-0.0

18ns

Sum

of 7

LPA

H^^

0.23

6ns

-0.0

54ns

-0.3

23ns

-0.2

79ns

0.40

8**

-0.2

57ns

0.1

ns-0

.282

ns-0

.299

nsTo

tal L

PAH

0.22

9ns

-0.0

88ns

-0.3

28ns

-0.2

93ns

0.40

4**

-0.2

58ns

0.06

6ns

-0.2

34ns

-0.3

11ns

ns =

p >

0.0

5*

= p

< 0.

05**

= p

< 0

.01

***

= p

< 0.

001

****

= p

< 0

.000

1

Tab

le 2

9. S

pear

man

-ran

k co

rrel

atio

n co

effic

ient

s (rh

o, c

orre

cted

for

ties)

and

sign

ifica

nce

leve

ls (p

) for

nin

e in

dice

s of b

enth

ic

infa

unal

stru

ctur

e an

d co

ncen

trat

ions

of L

ow M

olec

ular

Wei

ght P

olyn

ucle

ar A

rom

atic

Hyd

roca

rbon

s (L

PAH

) in

sedi

men

ts fo

r al

l 19

98 c

entr

al P

u get

Sou

nd si

tes (

n=10

0).

^6 L

PAH

= d

efin

ed b

y W

A C

h. 1

73-2

04 R

CW

; Ace

naph

then

e, A

cena

phth

ylen

e, A

nthr

acen

e, F

luor

ene,

Nap

htha

lene

, Phe

nant

hren

e, c

arbo

n no

rmal

ized

.^^

7LPA

H =

def

ined

by

Long

et.

Al.,

199

5; A

cena

phth

ene,

Ace

naph

thyl

ene,

Ant

hrac

ene,

Flu

oren

e, 2

-Met

hyln

apht

hale

ne, N

apht

hale

ne, P

hena

nthr

ene

Page 170

Che

mic

al

Tota

l A

bund

-an

ce(p

)Ta

xa

Ric

hnes

s(p

)Pi

elou

's Ev

enne

ss (J

')(p

)

Swar

tz's

Dom

i-na

nce

(p)

Ann

elid

a A

bund

ance

(p)

Arth

ropo

da

Abu

ndan

ce(p

)M

ollu

sca

Abu

ndan

ce(p

)

Echi

no-

derm

ata

Abu

nd-

ance

(p)

Mis

c.

Taxa

A

bun-

danc

e(p

)

Ben

zo(a

)ant

hrac

ene

0.29

1ns

-0.0

96ns

-0.3

88*

-0.3

5ns

0.45

1**

*-0

.24

ns0.

076

ns-0

.21

ns-0

.321

nsB

enzo

(a)p

yren

e0.

291

ns-0

.107

ns-0

.383

*-0

.344

ns0.

456

***

-0.2

23ns

0.05

8ns

-0.1

7ns

-0.2

94ns

Ben

zo(b

)flu

oran

then

e0.

266

ns-0

.118

ns-0

.37

*-0

.341

ns0.

451

***

-0.2

51ns

0.03

8ns

-0.1

86ns

-0.3

22ns

Ben

zo(e

)pyr

ene

0.28

9ns

-0.1

43ns

-0.4

15**

-0.3

94**

0.45

3**

*-0

.235

ns0.

034

ns-0

.208

ns-0

.35

nsB

enzo

(g,h

,i)pe

ryle

ne0.

245

ns-0

.163

ns-0

.368

*-0

.363

*0.

423

**-0

.265

ns0.

012

ns-0

.176

ns-0

.301

nsB

enzo

(k)f

luor

anth

ene

0.26

2ns

-0.1

34ns

-0.3

72*

-0.3

48ns

0.44

1**

*-0

.264

ns0.

028

ns-0

.173

ns-0

.352

nsC

hrys

ene

0.30

8ns

-0.0

96ns

-0.4

06**

-0.3

59*

0.47

7**

**-0

.237

ns0.

074

ns-0

.202

ns-0

.325

nsD

iben

zo(a

,h)a

nthr

acen

e0.

275

ns-0

.105

ns-0

.373

*-0

.343

ns0.

419

**-0

.253

ns0.

115

ns-0

.206

ns-0

.299

nsFl

uora

nthe

ne0.

269

ns-0

.084

ns-0

.356

*-0

.319

ns0.

458

***

-0.2

55ns

0.06

3ns

-0.2

ns-0

.321

nsIn

deno

(1,2

,3-c

,d)p

yren

e0.

256

ns-0

.151

ns-0

.372

*-0

.361

*0.

436

***

-0.2

59ns

0.02

5ns

-0.1

78ns

-0.3

07ns

Pery

lene

0.13

6ns

-0.2

25ns

-0.3

07ns

-0.3

54ns

0.31

ns-0

.35

ns-0

.041

ns-0

.303

ns-0

.346

nsPy

rene

0.24

1ns

-0.0

77ns

-0.3

28ns

-0.2

91ns

0.41

6**

-0.1

99ns

0.08

7ns

-0.1

61ns

-0.2

73ns

sum

of 6

HPA

H^

0.28

1ns

-0.0

92ns

-0.3

73*

-0.3

35ns

0.45

3**

*-0

.238

ns0.

073

ns-0

.201

ns-0

.312

nssu

m o

f 9 H

PAH

^^0.

407

**0.

315

ns-0

.27

ns-0

.07

ns0.

552

****

-0.0

89ns

0.30

6ns

-0.2

51ns

-0.0

78ns

Tota

l HPA

H0.

275

ns-0

.107

ns-0

.372

*-0

.34

ns0.

453

***

-0.2

47ns

0.05

3ns

-0.2

01ns

-0.3

17ns

sum

of 1

3 PA

H^^

^0.

275

ns-0

.073

ns-0

.362

*-0

.319

ns0.

447

***

-0.2

38ns

0.08

5ns

-0.2

3ns

-0.3

03ns

Sum

of 1

5 PA

H^^

^^0.

421

**0.

338

ns-0

.272

ns-0

.066

ns0.

544

****

-0.0

76ns

0.34

1ns

-0.2

81ns

-0.0

62ns

Tota

l all

PAH

0.26

5ns

-0.0

99ns

-0.3

65*

-0.3

31ns

0.44

***

-0.2

51ns

0.06

6ns

-0.2

19ns

-0.3

12ns

ns =

p >

0.0

5*

= p

< 0.

05**

= p

< 0

.01

***

= p

< 0.

001

****

= p

< 0

.000

1

^^^^

15PA

H=

6LPA

H a

nd A

11H

PAH

Tab

le 3

0. S

pear

man

-ran

k co

rrel

atio

n co

effic

ient

s (rh

o, c

orre

cted

for

ties)

and

sign

ifica

nce

leve

ls (p

) for

nin

e in

dice

s of b

enth

ic

infa

unal

stru

ctur

e an

d co

ncen

trat

ions

of H

igh

Mol

ecul

ar W

eigh

t Pol

ynuc

lear

Aro

mat

ic H

ydro

carb

ons (

HPA

H) i

n se

dim

ents

for

all

1998

cen

tral

Pu g

et S

ound

site

s (n=

100)

.

^6H

PAH

= d

efin

ed b

y Lo

ng e

t. A

l., 1

995;

Ben

zo(a

)ant

hrac

ene,

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene,

Chr

ysen

e, D

iben

zo(a

,h)a

nthr

acen

e, F

luor

anth

ene,

Pyr

ene

^^9H

PAH

= d

efin

ed b

y W

A C

h. 1

73-2

04 R

CW

; B

enzo

(a)a

nthr

acen

e, B

enzo

(a)p

yren

e, B

enzo

(1,2

,3,-c

,d)p

yren

e, B

enzo

(g,h

,i)pe

ryle

ne, C

hrys

ene,

Dib

enzo

(a,h

)ant

hrac

ene,

Fl

uora

nthe

ne, P

yren

e, T

otal

Ben

zoflu

rant

hene

s, ca

rbon

nor

mal

ized

^^^1

3PA

H =

7LP

AH

and

6H

PAH

Page 171

Che

mic

al

Tota

l A

bund

-an

ce(p

)Ta

xa

Ric

hnes

s(p

)

Piel

ou's

Even

ness

(J

')(p

)

Swar

tz's

Dom

i-na

nce

(p)

Ann

elid

a A

bund

-an

ce(p

)A

rthro

poda

A

bund

ance

(p)

Mol

lusc

a A

bund

ance

(p)

Echi

node

rmat

a A

bund

ance

(p)

Mis

c. T

axa

Abu

ndan

ce(p

)

4,4'

-DD

D0.

415

ns0.

066

ns-0

.056

ns-0

.059

ns0.

373

ns-0

.267

ns0.

058

ns-0

.056

ns0.

128

ns4,

4'-D

DE

0.57

8*

-0.0

83ns

-0.6

04**

-0.5

29ns

0.46

5ns

-0.3

87ns

0.35

5ns

-0.2

89ns

-0.3

15ns

Tot

al D

DT

0.57

3*

-0.0

08ns

-0.5

24ns

-0.4

06ns

0.46

7ns

-0.3

2ns

0.32

ns-0

.162

ns-0

.18

ns

PCB

Aro

clor

124

20.

786

ns0.

536

ns-0

.75

ns-0

.764

ns0.

857

ns-0

.393

ns0.

393

ns0.

06ns

0.05

5ns

PCB

Aro

clor

125

40.

454

ns-0

.009

ns-0

.543

**-0

.407

ns0.

399

ns-0

.275

ns0.

48ns

-0.3

59ns

-0.2

88ns

PCB

Aro

clor

126

00.

408

ns0.

006

ns-0

.509

**-0

.392

ns0.

397

ns-0

.263

ns0.

3ns

-0.2

54ns

-0.2

99ns

Tot

al P

CB

Aro

clor

0.

407

ns0.

399

ns-0

.298

ns-0

.065

ns0.

439

ns-0

.162

ns0.

451

*-0

.383

ns-0

.154

ns

PCB

Con

gene

r 80.

543

ns0.

086

ns-0

.143

ns0

ns0.

771

ns-0

.657

ns-0

.2ns

0.14

5ns

0ns

PCB

Con

gene

r 18

0.38

ns-0

.323

ns-0

.429

ns-0

.49

ns0.

381

ns-0

.356

ns0.

012

ns-0

.469

ns-0

.45

nsPC

B C

onge

ner 2

80.

408

ns0.

107

ns-0

.431

ns-0

.343

ns0.

411

ns-0

.398

ns0.

448

ns-0

.41

ns-0

.315

nsPC

B C

onge

ner 4

40.

345

ns0.

047

ns-0

.348

ns-0

.311

ns0.

35ns

-0.3

2ns

0.26

2ns

-0.4

81ns

-0.2

06ns

PCB

Con

gene

r 52

0.38

1ns

0.13

ns-0

.403

ns-0

.278

ns0.

391

ns-0

.305

ns0.

451

ns-0

.38

ns-0

.231

nsPC

B C

onge

ner 6

60.

359

ns-0

.03

ns-0

.517

**-0

.435

ns0.

348

ns-0

.36

ns0.

377

ns-0

.397

ns-0

.276

nsPC

B C

onge

ner 1

010.

364

ns-0

.122

ns-0

.541

***

-0.4

75**

0.37

1ns

-0.3

15ns

0.18

7ns

-0.3

89ns

-0.3

86ns

PCB

Con

gene

r 105

0.38

7ns

0.16

1ns

-0.4

01ns

-0.2

81ns

0.36

2ns

-0.2

76ns

0.38

6ns

-0.4

98*

-0.2

45ns

PCB

Con

gene

r 118

0.24

7ns

-0.1

85ns

-0.4

39*

-0.4

05ns

0.30

6ns

-0.3

57ns

0.10

7ns

-0.4

04ns

-0.3

43ns

PCB

Con

gene

r 128

0.36

5ns

-0.0

55ns

-0.4

39ns

-0.3

9ns

0.34

7ns

-0.2

62ns

0.23

7ns

-0.2

37ns

-0.2

26ns

PCB

Con

gene

r 138

0.30

8ns

-0.0

36ns

-0.4

27ns

-0.3

34ns

0.35

4ns

-0.3

36ns

0.25

3ns

-0.3

81ns

-0.3

15ns

PCB

Con

gene

r 153

0.23

9ns

-0.2

15ns

-0.4

65**

-0.4

48*

0.35

1ns

-0.3

76ns

0.04

9ns

-0.3

8ns

-0.3

68ns

PCB

Con

gene

r 170

0.34

2ns

-0.1

56ns

-0.5

44**

-0.4

83*

0.33

2ns

-0.3

51ns

0.29

ns-0

.408

ns-0

.306

nsPC

B C

onge

ner 1

800.

328

ns-0

.074

ns-0

.455

*-0

.382

ns0.

382

ns-0

.29

ns0.

255

ns-0

.37

ns-0

.184

nsPC

B C

onge

ner 1

870.

42ns

-0.1

84ns

-0.5

45*

-0.5

34*

0.40

6ns

-0.3

67ns

0.14

2ns

-0.3

26ns

-0.1

76ns

PCB

Con

gene

r 195

0.38

3ns

-0.3

71ns

-0.4

53ns

-0.5

4ns

0.30

9ns

-0.3

34ns

0.01

7ns

-0.3

54ns

-0.2

58ns

PCB

Con

gene

r 206

0.27

ns-0

.406

ns-0

.52

*-0

.549

**0.

235

ns-0

.323

ns0.

039

ns-0

.184

ns-0

.36

nsT

otal

PC

B C

onge

ners

0.21

3ns

-0.1

75ns

-0.4

15*

-0.3

89ns

0.39

3ns

-0.3

85ns

0.06

3ns

-0.3

56ns

-0.3

64ns

ns =

p >

0.0

5*

= p

< 0.

05**

= p

< 0

.01

***

= p

< 0.

001

****

= p

< 0

.000

1

Tab

le 3

1. S

pear

man

-ran

k co

rrel

atio

n co

effic

ient

s (rh

o, c

orre

cted

for

ties)

and

sign

ifica

nce

leve

ls (p

) for

nin

e in

dice

s of b

enth

ic in

faun

al

stru

ctur

e an

d co

ncen

trat

ions

of D

DT

and

PC

B c

ompo

unds

in se

dim

ents

for

all 1

998

cent

ral P

uget

Sou

nd si

tes (

n=10

0).

Page 172

Che

mic

al

Tota

l A

bund

-an

ce(p

)Ta

xa

Ric

hnes

s(p

)

Piel

ou's

Even

ness

(J

')(p

)

Swar

tz's

Dom

i-na

nce

(p)

An-

nelid

a A

bund

-an

ce(p

)

Arth

rop-

oda

Abu

nd-

ance

(p)

Mol

lusc

a A

bund

-an

ce(p

)

Echi

no-

derm

ata

Abu

nd-

ance

(p)

Mis

c.

Taxa

A

bun-

danc

e(p

)

Org

anot

ins

Dib

utyl

tin D

ichl

orid

e0.

48*

0.06

6ns

-0.5

18**

-0.3

53ns

0.50

2**

-0.1

81ns

0.23

4ns

-0.1

35ns

-0.2

07ns

Trib

utyl

tin C

hlor

ide

0.24

1ns

-0.1

04ns

-0.4

27*

-0.3

72ns

0.40

2*

-0.3

41ns

0.13

1ns

-0.3

12ns

-0.2

83ns

Phen

ols

2,4-

Dim

ethy

lphe

nol

-0.0

17ns

0.17

5ns

0.00

9ns

0.05

6ns

0.08

6ns

-0.0

79ns

0.09

ns-0

.215

ns0.

213

ns2-

Met

hylp

heno

l0.

098

ns-0

.409

ns-0

.327

ns-0

.47

*-0

.038

ns-0

.069

ns-0

.184

ns0.

223

ns-0

.258

ns4-

Met

hylp

heno

l-0

.003

ns-0

.389

*-0

.217

ns-0

.378

*0.

045

ns-0

.348

ns-0

.133

ns-0

.339

ns-0

.503

****

Pent

achl

orop

heno

l-0

.087

ns-0

.012

ns0.

211

ns0.

058

ns0.

191

ns-0

.168

ns-0

.22

ns0.

429

ns-0

.107

nsPh

enol

-0.3

57ns

-0.7

28**

**-0

.039

ns-0

.47

ns-0

.245

ns-0

.14

ns-0

.652

**0.

174

ns-0

.422

ns

Mis

cella

neou

s1,

2-D

ichl

orob

enze

ne0.

6ns

-0.4

ns-0

.8ns

-0.8

ns0.

8ns

-0.8

ns-0

.4ns

-0.8

94ns

-0.3

16ns

1,4-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

0.24

8ns

0.01

6ns

-0.1

78ns

-0.1

92ns

0.37

8ns

-0.3

1ns

-0.0

12ns

-0.2

83ns

-0.0

29ns

Ben

zoic

Aci

d0.

025

ns-0

.452

**-0

.225

ns-0

.414

**-0

.025

ns-0

.137

ns-0

.231

ns0.

296

ns-0

.137

nsB

enzy

l Alc

ohol

-0.0

34ns

-0.5

28ns

-0.1

88ns

-0.4

12ns

-0.1

58ns

0.04

4ns

-0.1

12ns

0.42

5ns

-0.2

03ns

Bis

(2-E

thyl

hexy

l) Ph

thal

ate

0.47

1ns

-0.7

02ns

-0.6

62ns

-0.6

89ns

0.36

5ns

-0.4

16ns

-0.1

52ns

-0.5

11ns

-0.5

52ns

But

ylbe

nzyl

phth

alat

e0.

594

ns-0

.156

ns-0

.442

ns-0

.506

ns0.

597

ns-0

.084

ns0.

106

ns-0

.194

ns-0

.442

nsD

iben

zofu

ran

0.24

8ns

-0.1

08ns

-0.3

52ns

-0.3

43ns

0.31

9ns

-0.2

66ns

0.17

8ns

-0.3

67*

-0.3

69*

Die

thyl

phth

alat

e-0

.197

ns-0

.086

ns-0

.018

ns-0

.032

ns-0

.12

ns-0

.146

ns0.

231

ns0.

217

ns-0

.033

nsD

imet

hylp

htha

late

0.29

4ns

0.41

3ns

0.17

5ns

0.10

9ns

0.28

ns-0

.182

ns0.

483

ns0.

026

ns0.

385

nsD

i-N-B

utyl

phth

alat

e0.

226

ns0.

013

ns-0

.178

ns-0

.086

ns-0

.021

ns0.

183

ns0.

081

ns0.

298

ns0.

246

nsH

exac

hlor

oben

zene

0.43

7ns

-0.0

42ns

-0.4

56ns

-0.5

07ns

0.44

2ns

-0.1

49ns

0.04

4ns

-0.1

85ns

-0.1

79ns

ns =

p >

0.0

5*

= p

< 0.

05**

= p

< 0

.01

***

= p

< 0.

001

****

= p

< 0

.000

1

Tab

le 3

2. S

pear

man

-ran

k co

rrel

atio

n co

effic

ient

s (rh

o, c

orre

cted

for

ties)

and

sign

ifica

nce

leve

ls (p

) for

nin

e in

dice

s of b

enth

ic in

faun

al

stru

ctur

e an

d co

ncen

trat

ions

of o

r gan

otin

s and

org

anic

com

poun

ds in

sedi

men

ts fo

r al

l 199

8 ce

ntra

l Pug

et S

ound

site

s (n=

100)

.

Page 173

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

SignificanceMean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Aci

la c

astre

nsis

37Pa

rapr

iono

spio

pin

nata

36

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca20

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta17

Scol

etom

a lu

ti13

Lum

brin

eris

cal

iforn

iens

is12

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

11N

utric

ola

lord

i11

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

10H

eter

opho

xus a

ffin

is7

Mac

oma

carlo

ttens

i s80

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a55

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

c a54

Mac

oma

sp.

42Li

robi

ttium

sp.

8Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

7A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

7N

epht

ys c

ornu

ta6

Para

nem

erte

s cal

iforn

ica

5D

yope

dos a

rctic

us5

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a56

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a28

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis20

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti18

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta14

Mac

oma

carlo

ttens

is13

Am

phar

ete

cf. c

rass

iset

a9

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

9N

epht

ys fe

rrug

inea

7C

ossu

ra p

ygod

acty

lata

6

149

895

3

314

712

7

477.

120

1.37

93.8

8*

118.

6330

262

0.85

314

310.

70

0.07

785

.71

*11

7.92

0.10

1

1, 1

06, S

outh

Po

rt To

wn-

send

14-

Met

hylp

heno

l1

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

6, 1

23,

Cen

tral

Bas

in

15

0.09

1

305.

374-

Met

hylp

heno

l1

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

6.1

8, 1

13, W

est

Poin

t4-

Met

hylp

heno

l1

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

95.9

211

8.16

2.90

11.7

++23

137

0.77

913

1385

502

Tab

le 3

3. T

riad

res

ults

for

1998

cen

tral

Pug

et S

ound

stat

ions

with

sign

ifica

nt r

esul

ts fo

r bo

th c

hem

istr

y an

d to

xici

ty p

aram

eter

s.

Page 174

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

SignificanceMean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a22

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis20

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

c a17

Cos

sura

ban

sei

12Sp

ioph

anes

ber

kele

yoru

m9

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a8

Eudo

rello

psis

inte

gra

7Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

5M

acom

a ca

rlotte

nsis

4Pa

rapr

iono

spio

pin

nata

3

Am

phio

dia

sp.

82A

cteo

cina

cul

cite

lla48

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta

com

plex

44

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

c a24

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

21Lu

mbr

iner

is c

ruze

nsis

16Te

rebe

llide

s cal

iforn

ica

14Ph

oloe

sp. N

113

Het

erom

astu

s filo

bran

chus

12A

cila

cas

trens

is9

Am

phio

dia

sp.

69A

mph

iodi

a ur

tica/

perie

rcta

co

mpl

e x64

Phol

oe sp

. N1

36A

cila

cas

trens

is35

Tere

belli

des c

alifo

rnic

a34

Act

eoci

na c

ulci

tella

17A

mph

iurid

ae11

Pinn

ixa

occi

dent

alis

9O

dost

omia

sp.

8C

ossu

ra p

ygod

acty

lata

6

0.13

14-

Met

hylp

heno

l12

, 140

, Eas

t Pa

s-sa

ge4

14-

Met

hylp

heno

l97

.78

105.

443.

6323

.8++

144

350.

8311

463

462

29

0.12

14-

Met

hylp

heno

l15

, 148

, NW

B

ain-

brid

ge

Isla

nd

31

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

98.8

610

5.66

0.94

26.4

++34

933

0.76

82

112

3113

569

0.18

1B

enzy

l Alc

ohol

116

, 151

, SW

B

ain-

brid

ge

Isla

nd

5B

enzy

l Alc

ohol

98.9

510

6.30

0.82

31.6

++33

737

0.72

699

1414

470

10

Tab

le 3

3. C

ontin

ued.

Page 175

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

SignificanceMean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

73Pa

rapr

iono

spio

pin

nata

23Te

rebe

llide

s cal

iforn

ica

11N

epht

ys c

ornu

ta9

Mic

rura

sp.

5C

haet

ozon

e nr

. set

osa

4Po

dark

e pu

gette

nsis

3O

dost

omia

sp.

3C

rang

on a

lask

ensi

s2

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

2

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

856

Nep

htys

cor

nuta

209

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca34

Lum

brin

eris

cru

zens

is33

Tere

belli

des c

alifo

rnic

a23

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta

com

ple x

18A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

15Pi

nnix

a sc

hmitt

i15

Odo

stom

ia sp

.12

Para

prio

nosp

io p

inna

ta8

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca10

2A

mph

iodi

a ur

tica/

perie

rcta

co

mpl

e x96

Aph

eloc

haet

a m

onila

ris90

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

44A

cila

cas

trens

is42

Phyl

loch

aeto

pter

us p

rolif

ica

38Lu

mbr

iner

is c

ruze

nsis

21Ph

oloe

sp. N

114

Tere

belli

des c

alifo

rnic

a13

Am

phio

dia

sp.

9

0.35

1M

ercu

ry19

, 160

, Si

ncla

ir In

let

91

Mer

cury

1M

ercu

ry99

.00

2.00

**0.

8129

.4++

30

914

921

0.63

45

19, 1

61,

Sinc

lair

Inle

t7

0.27

1M

ercu

ry1

132

Mer

cury

104.

4010

3.00

0.82

44.5

+++

1283

320.

392

1165

5224

411

0.30

1M

ercu

ry19

, 162

, Si

ncla

ir In

let

81

1M

ercu

ry86

.81

113.

001.

6335

.5++

166

105

6455

944

0.71

74

220

Mer

cury

Tab

le 3

3. C

ontin

ued.

Page 176

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

SignificanceMean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

186

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta

com

ple x

83

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca74

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

35Lu

mbr

iner

is c

ruze

nsis

29Te

rebe

llide

s cal

iforn

ica

26Ph

oloe

sp. N

125

Aph

eloc

haet

a m

onila

ris17

Cos

sura

pyg

odac

tyla

ta11

Odo

stom

ia sp

.9

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

782

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca82

Scol

etom

a lu

ti80

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti42

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

41O

dost

omia

sp.

32N

utric

ola

lord

i26

Aph

eloc

haet

a m

onila

ris25

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

23A

mph

iodi

a ur

tica/

perie

rcta

co

mpl

ex20

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca19

9A

mph

iodi

a ur

tica/

perie

rcta

co

mpl

e x73

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

73Lu

mbr

iner

is c

ruze

nsis

70Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

57A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

136

Aci

la c

astre

nsis

21Ph

oloe

sp. N

119

Aph

eloc

haet

a m

onila

ris14

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

14

20, 1

63,

Sinc

lair

Inle

t8

10.

441

Mer

cury

1M

ercu

ry93

.41

113.

001.

0227

.7++

565

320.

696

326

113

8633

7

0.42

1M

ercu

ry20

, 164

, Si

ncla

ir In

let

91

1M

ercu

ry10

1.10

112.

001.

5064

.9++

+13

221

108

1336

530.

505

8

20, 1

65,

Sinc

lair

Inle

t11

10.

551

Mer

cury

1

1067

Mer

cury

100.

0081

.00

**6.

8339

.4++

+66

336

0.69

626

927

773

3410

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

Tab

le 3

3. C

ontin

ued.

Page 177

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

SignificanceMean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

271

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta

com

ple x

196

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

181

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca92

Aci

la c

astre

nsis

32Ph

oloe

sp. N

124

Tere

belli

des c

alifo

rnic

a11

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

10Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

8A

phel

ocha

eta

mon

ilaris

8

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

440

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta

com

plex

220

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

c a13

0Te

rebe

llide

s cal

iforn

ica

62Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

57A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

149

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

37Ph

oloe

sp. N

137

Nep

htys

cor

nuta

18Lu

mbr

iner

is c

ruze

nsis

7

Alv

ania

com

pact

a13

2Sp

ioch

aeto

pter

us c

osta

rum

98Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

72D

ipol

ydor

a ca

rdal

ia43

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

36

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta32

Lum

brin

eris

cal

iforn

iens

is31

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

27Eu

mid

a lo

ngic

ornu

ta22

Cau

llerie

lla p

acifi

ca19

0.26

1B

enzy

l Alc

ohol

22, 1

70,

Dye

s Inl

et10

100.

0010

1.00

1.04

27.6

++36

420

057

894

330.

584

7

22, 1

71,

Dye

s Inl

et10

0.26

2M

ercu

ry, B

enzy

l A

lcoh

ol1

266

Mer

cury

101.

1192

.00

2.03

30.4

++11

1339

0.55

426

057

422

448

7

0.31

4M

ercu

ry,

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pe

ryle

ne,

Phen

anth

rene

, B

utyl

benz

yl-

phth

alat

e

24, 1

76,

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

592

.22

82.0

0*

2.27

12.5

++87

611

30.

7722

1150

197

1225

5

Tab

le 3

3. C

ontin

ued.

Page 178

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

SignificanceMean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis70

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

64A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

62

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta52

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta43

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a22

Scol

etom

a lu

ti9

Aric

idea

(Acm

ira) l

opez

i9

Nep

htys

ferr

ugin

ea9

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

8

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta82

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

79A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

73Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

39A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

123

Scol

etom

a lu

ti23

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis19

Not

omas

tus t

enui

s18

Sola

men

col

umbi

ana

16Pi

nnix

a sc

hmitt

i15

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a69

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a55

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis19

Cha

etoz

one

nr. s

etos

a17

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

17Sc

olet

oma

luti

15M

acom

a ca

rlotte

nsis

12Eu

clym

enin

ae12

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

t a11

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

10

0.52

1B

enzo

(g,h

,i)

pery

lene

25, 1

79,

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

1395

.56

81.0

0*

25.1

038

.8++

+47

869

0.73

1225

483

013

74

0.57

2B

enzo

(g,h

,i)

pery

lene

, In

deno

(1,2

,3-

c,d)

pyre

ne

25, 1

80,

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

1597

.85

68.0

0**

17.5

034

.4++

663

215

639

770.

7919

5

25, 1

81,

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

241

1.59

4M

ercu

ry,

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pe

ryle

ne, T

otal

H

PAH

s, To

tal

PAH

s

350

87.7

8*

96.0

017

.20

32.8

++45

785

0.83

2721

288

214

213

Tota

l PC

Bs

Tab

le 3

3. C

ontin

ued.

Page 179

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

SignificanceMean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

962

Lum

brin

eris

cal

iforn

iens

is43

Turb

onill

a sp

.35

Scol

etom

a lu

ti12

Spio

chae

topt

erus

cos

taru

m12

Alv

ania

com

pact

a10

Arm

andi

a br

evis

9N

otom

astu

s ten

uis

9Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

7Pr

iono

spio

sp.

6

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a11

5Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

73A

ricid

ea (A

cmira

) lop

ezi

22Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

18Sc

olet

oma

luti

16Sp

ioph

anes

ber

kele

yoru

m15

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

14A

mph

iodi

a ur

tica/

perie

rcta

co

mpl

ex14

Nem

ocar

dium

cen

tifilo

sum

14C

haet

ozon

e nr

. set

osa

14

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

79

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

t a65

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta61

Lum

brin

eris

cal

iforn

iens

is59

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a53

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

27Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o)

mul

tibra

nchi

ata

25A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

125

Spio

chae

topt

erus

cos

taru

m18

Scol

etom

a lu

ti16

0.83

2B

enzo

(g,h

,i)

pery

lene

, 4-

Met

hylp

heno

l

25, 1

15,

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

241

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

96.9

76.

00**

0.79

144.

8++

+9

060

1161

430.

261

0

26, 1

82,

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

244

1.36

4M

ercu

ry,

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pe

ryle

ne,

Fluo

rant

hene

, In

deno

(1,2

,3-

c,d)

pyre

ne

1

1092

Mer

cury

97.8

583

.00

*26

.47

216.

1++

+57

188

0.79

2330

937

2118

816

0.52

10B

enzo

(a)

anth

race

ne,

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene,

B

enzo

(g,h

,i)

pery

lene

, Fl

uora

nthe

ne,

Fluo

rene

, In

deno

(1,2

,3-

c,d)

pyre

ne,

Phen

anth

rene

, To

tal f

luor

anth

ene,

26, 1

83,

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

201

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

100.

0088

.00

3.17

107.

2++

+13

33

159

740

105

0.80

2310

435

Mer

cury

, Pyr

ene,

To

tal L

PAH

s, To

tal H

PAH

s, To

tal P

CB

s

Tab

le 3

3. C

ontin

ued.

Page 180

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

SignificanceMean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Lum

brin

eris

cal

iforn

iens

is97

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

82Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

77A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

139

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a33

Alv

ania

com

pact

a33

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

t a23

Nep

htys

cor

nuta

19Sp

ioch

aeto

pter

us c

osta

rum

17Lu

mbr

iner

is sp

.15

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a98

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti23

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis17

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

15Eu

dore

llops

is in

tegr

a14

Ano

nyx

cf. l

illje

borg

i12

Cos

sura

ban

sei

10Eu

dore

llops

is lo

ngiro

stris

10A

mph

aret

e cf

. cra

ssis

eta

8Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

8

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a29

4Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

56Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

26

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

t a26

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis22

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

22N

emoc

ardi

um c

entif

ilosu

m18

Proc

lea

graf

fii17

Mac

oma

carlo

ttens

is14

Aric

idea

(Acm

ira) l

opez

i13

26, 1

84,

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

229

1.31

7B

enzo

(a)p

yren

e,

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pe

ryle

ne,

Fluo

rant

hene

, In

deno

(1,2

,3-

c,d)

pyre

ne,

Phen

anth

rene

, To

tal H

PAH

s, To

tal f

luor

anth

ene

4Fl

uora

nthe

ne, T

otal

Ben

zo-

fluor

anth

ene,

Tot

al

HPA

Hs,

Tota

l PA

Hs

103.

2384

.00

*7.

9022

3.2

+++

731

890.

7921

488

572

177

7

0.39

1B

is(2

-Eth

ylhe

xyl)

Phth

alat

e27

, 185

, Mid

El

liott

Bay

710

4.30

120.

0018

.20

19.7

++57

110

126

932

0.74

94

27, 1

86, M

id

Ellio

tt B

ay13

10.

571

Mer

cury

1

106

Mer

cury

101.

0811

6.00

34.0

054

.9++

+65

570

0.61

916

984

339

27

Ant

hrac

ene,

Tot

al

LPA

Hs,

Ben

zo(a

) an

thra

cene

, B

enzo

(a) p

yren

e,

Fluo

rant

hene

, Ph

enan

thre

ne,

Pyre

ne, T

otal

H

PAH

s, To

tal

PAH

s

Mer

cury

Tab

le 3

3. C

ontin

ued.

Page 181

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

SignificanceMean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a47

1Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

51Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

40Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

37N

emoc

ardi

um c

entif

ilosu

m22

Aric

idea

(Acm

ira) l

opez

i18

Proc

lea

graf

fii17

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

t a13

Scol

etom

a lu

ti12

Cha

etoz

one

nr. s

etos

a9

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a24

7A

ricid

ea (A

cmira

) lop

ezi

38Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

30Sp

ioph

anes

ber

kele

yoru

m28

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti16

Scol

etom

a lu

ti13

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

6M

icro

clym

ene

caud

ata

6M

acom

a ca

rlotte

nsis

5C

ossu

ra p

ygod

acty

lata

5

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a31

0A

ricid

ea (A

cmira

) lop

ezi

29Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

27Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

12Sc

olet

oma

luti

11Sp

ioph

anes

ber

kele

yoru

m8

Het

erop

hoxu

s aff

inis

7C

ossu

ra b

anse

i5

Nep

htys

ferr

ugin

ea4

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

4

1.47

6M

ercu

ry,

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pe

ryle

ne,

Fluo

rant

hene

, In

deno

(1,2

,3-

c,d)

pyre

ne, B

enzy

l A

lcoh

ol, 2

,4-

Dim

ethy

lphe

nol

227

, 188

, Mid

El

liott

Bay

236

Mer

cury

, 2,4

-D

imet

hylp

heno

l10

5.49

115.

0067

.17

152.

9++

+82

567

0.51

516

672

856

316

1.05

3M

ercu

ry,

Dib

enzo

(a,h

) an

thra

cene

, 4-

Met

hylp

heno

l

229

, 194

, Mid

El

liott

Bay

231

Mer

cury

, 4-

Met

hylp

heno

l10

2.15

106.

0074

.1++

+45

662

.40

100

261

146

0.54

418

4

Mer

cury

100.

0029

, 196

, Mid

El

liott

Bay

131

0.54

1M

ercu

ry10

8.00

155

.63

28.6

++47

142

0.45

313

118

232

00

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene,

Ph

enan

thre

ne,

Pyre

ne, T

otal

LP

AH

s, To

tal

HPA

Hs,

Tota

l PC

Bs

Dib

enzo

(a,h

,) an

thra

cene

, Tot

al

PCB

s

Mer

cury

Tab

le 3

3. C

ontin

ued.

Page 182

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

SignificanceMean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta26

1

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

t a89

Lum

brin

eris

cal

iforn

iens

is64

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

47Sp

ioch

aeto

pter

us c

osta

rum

31A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

126

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

26M

agel

ona

long

icor

nis

15H

eter

omas

tus f

ilobr

anch

us15

Asa

belli

des l

inea

ta14

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a35

8

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta14

2Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

141

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta59

Rut

ider

ma

lom

ae41

Myr

ioch

ele

heer

i40

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

34N

emoc

ardi

um c

entif

ilosu

m26

Mac

oma

carlo

ttens

is14

Exog

one

(E.)

lour

ei14

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta35

7A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

212

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta15

4A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

113

0Sp

ioch

aeto

pter

us c

osta

rum

43Sc

olet

oma

luti

43A

styr

is g

ausa

pata

35M

agel

ona

long

icor

nis

35A

pist

obra

nchu

s orn

atus

34Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

33

0.60

4A

rsen

ic,

Ace

naph

then

e,

Dib

enzo

fura

n, 4

-M

ethy

lphe

nol

**2.

2396

.630

, 197

, W

est H

arbo

r Is

land

182

2A

rsen

ic, 4

-M

ethy

lphe

nol

87.9

162

.00

+++

806

710.

6812

394

103

130

44

1128

900.

639

259

347

051

111

59.9

313

2.2

+++

100.

004

Ace

naph

then

e,

Nap

thal

ene,

D

iben

zofu

ran,

4-

Met

hylp

heno

l

101.

101.

262-

Met

hyln

apht

hale

ne,

Ace

napt

hthe

ne,

Fluo

rene

, N

apth

alen

e, T

otal

LP

AH

s, To

tal

PCB

s

6A

cena

phth

ene,

Fl

uore

ne,

Nap

thal

ene,

Tot

al

LPA

Hs,

Dib

enzo

fura

n, 4

-M

ethy

lphe

nol

30, 1

98,

Wes

t Har

bor

Isla

nd

226

30, 1

99,

Wes

t Har

bor

Isla

nd

222

0.96

Tota

l LPA

Hs,

Tota

l PC

Bs

3A

cena

phth

ene,

D

iben

zofu

ran,

4-

Met

hylp

heno

l

14-

Met

hylp

heno

l90

.11

73.0

0**

64.8

014

8.1

+++

1391

840.

6510

473

406

1149

56

Ars

enic

, Zin

c

Tab

le 3

3. C

ontin

ued.

Page 183

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

SignificanceMean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

763

Het

erom

astu

s filo

bran

chus

60Sc

olet

oma

luti

35C

ossu

ra p

ygod

acty

lata

35A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

23C

haet

ozon

e nr

. set

osa

18Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

14A

phel

ocha

eta

mon

ilaris

13A

lvan

ia c

ompa

cta

13

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta11

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

352

Cha

etoz

one

nr. s

etos

a16

8A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

95Sc

olet

oma

luti

86Sp

ioch

aeto

pter

us c

osta

rum

36Pr

iono

spio

stee

nstru

pi29

Het

erom

astu

s filo

bran

chus

21Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

19

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

t a15

Lum

brin

eris

cal

iforn

iens

is14

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

955

Scol

etom

a lu

ti14

0A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

60A

phel

ocha

eta

mon

ilaris

44Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

18Sp

ioch

aeto

pter

us c

osta

rum

15Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

13B

occa

rdie

lla h

amat

a12

Exog

one

(E.)

lour

ei12

Het

erom

astu

s filo

bran

chus

10

30, 1

14,

Wes

t Har

bor

Isla

nd

212

1.34

Ben

zo(a

) pyr

ene,

To

tal P

CB

s2

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pe

ryle

ne, 4

-M

ethy

lphe

nol

14-

Met

hylp

heno

l94

.95

86.0

00.

7911

1.4

+++

1077

470.

392

982

210

731

31, 2

00, E

ast

Har

bor

Isla

nd

221

3.93

Tota

l PC

Bs

21,

4-D

ichl

oro-

benz

ene,

4-

Met

hylp

heno

l

14-

Met

hylp

heno

l10

0.00

68.0

0**

25.4

015

3.5

+++

980

560.

605

802

270

149

2

31, 2

01, E

ast

Har

bor

Isla

nd

231

1.60

Tota

l PC

Bs

2B

is(2

-Eth

ylhe

xyl)

Phth

alat

e, 4

-M

ethy

lphe

nol

14-

Met

hylp

heno

l92

.31

66.0

0**

3.13

135.

3++

+14

1557

0.39

212

8137

095

2

Tab

le 3

3. C

ontin

ued.

Page 184

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

SignificanceMean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a58

9A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

151

4Sc

olet

oma

luti

282

Aph

eloc

haet

a m

onila

ris22

Mac

oma

sp.

18A

lvan

ia c

ompa

cta

17H

eter

omas

tus f

ilobr

anch

us13

Mac

oma

carlo

ttens

is13

Cha

etoz

one

nr. s

etos

a11

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

10

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

814

Scol

etom

a lu

ti58

Mac

oma

sp.

47N

utric

ola

lord

i35

Cap

itella

cap

itata

hyp

ersp

ecie

s33

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

t a27

Arm

andi

a br

evis

23Eu

chon

e lim

nico

la14

Het

erom

astu

s filo

bran

chus

13A

lvan

ia c

ompa

cta

11

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

660

Scol

etom

a lu

ti45

5N

utric

ola

lord

i98

Cos

sura

pyg

odac

tyla

ta90

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a77

Mac

oma

sp.

12M

acom

a ca

rlotte

nsis

10La

nass

a ve

nust

a9

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

.8

Het

erom

astu

s filo

bran

chus

8

Cyt

ochr

ome

P 45

0 H

RG

S as

µgB

[a]P

/g:

++ =

val

ue >

11.1

ben

zo[a

]pyr

ene

equi

vale

nts (

ug/g

sedi

men

t) de

term

ined

as t

he 8

0% u

pper

pre

dict

ion

limit

(UPL

); ++

+ =

valu

e >3

7.1

benz

o[a]

pyre

ne

equi

vale

nts (

µg/g

sedi

men

t) de

term

ined

as t

he 9

0% u

pper

pre

dict

ion

limit

(UPL

)

Mic

roto

x EC

50: ^

= m

ean

EC50

<0.5

1 m

g/m

l det

erm

ined

as t

he 8

0% lo

wer

pre

dict

ion

limit

(LPL

) with

the

low

est (

i.e.,

mos

t tox

ic) s

ampl

es re

mov

ed, b

ut >

0.06

mg/

ml d

eter

min

ed a

s the

90%

low

er

pred

ictio

n lim

it (L

PL) e

arlie

r in

this

repo

rt.

Urc

hin

ferti

lizat

ion:

* m

ean

% fe

rtiliz

atio

n si

gnifi

cant

ly d

iffer

ent f

rom

con

trols

and

exc

eeds

min

imum

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

(Dun

nett'

s t-te

st: *

=α

< 0.

05, M

SD =

15.

5%; o

r **

= α

< 0.

01, M

SD =

19

.0%

)

Am

phip

od: *

mea

n %

surv

ival

sign

ifica

ntly

less

than

CLI

S co

ntro

ls (p

<0.0

5); *

* m

ean

% su

rviv

al si

gnifi

cant

ly le

ss th

an C

LIS

cont

rols

(p<0

.05)

and

less

than

80%

of C

LIS

cont

rols

31, 2

02, E

ast

Har

bor

Isla

nd

251

2.16

Tota

l PC

Bs

14-

Met

hylp

heno

l1

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

90.1

1*

100.

007.

6713

3.2

+++

1572

420.

453

891

230

657

1

32, 2

04, D

u-w

amis

h8

10.

72To

tal P

CB

s2

Bis

(2-E

thyl

hexy

l) Ph

thal

ate,

4-

Met

hylp

heno

l

14-

Met

hylp

heno

l92

.31

103.

003.

3377

+++

1155

520.

372

1002

311

117

4

32, 2

05, D

u-w

amis

h20

12.

01To

tal P

CB

s5

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pe

ryle

ne,

Inde

no(1

,2,3

-c,

d)py

rene

, B

utyl

benz

yl-

phth

alat

e, 4

-M

ethy

lphe

nol,

Pent

a-ch

loro

phen

ol

14-

Met

hylp

heno

l10

0.81

94.0

03.

5746

.9++

+15

6165

0.45

313

1417

122

63

Tab

le 3

3. C

ontin

ued.

Page 185

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

97R

oche

forti

a tu

mid

a26

Telli

na m

odes

ta22

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta19

Cha

etoz

one

nr. s

etos

a18

Gam

mar

opsi

s tho

mps

oni

17Sc

olop

los a

rmig

er16

Telli

na n

ucul

oide

s14

Den

dras

ter e

xcen

tricu

s14

Gal

atho

wen

ia o

cula

ta9

Eric

htho

nius

rubr

icor

nis

1198

Mic

rocl

ymen

e ca

udat

a13

5O

ligoc

haet

a57

Phol

oide

s asp

era

40M

edio

mas

tus s

p.39

Mal

dani

dae

sp.

31Ex

ogon

e (E

.) lo

urei

31A

mpe

lisca

sp. A

28C

repi

pate

lla d

orsa

ta28

Cirr

atul

us sp

ecta

bilis

24

Rhe

poxy

nius

dab

oius

94Pi

nnix

a sc

hmitt

i85

Telli

na m

odes

ta82

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a49

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

36N

utric

ola

lord

i34

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta28

Scol

oplo

s arm

iger

24Le

itosc

olop

los p

uget

tens

is16

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

10

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

53Ph

otis

bifu

rcat

a22

Orc

hom

ene

cf. p

ingu

is14

Scol

oplo

s arm

iger

12Le

itosc

olop

los p

uget

tens

is10

Dip

olyd

ora

soci

alis

10Pi

nnix

a sc

hmitt

i9

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta9

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

7R

hepo

xyni

us a

bron

ius

6

Tab

le 3

4. T

riad

res

ults

for

1998

cen

tral

Pug

et S

ound

stat

ions

with

no

sign

ifica

nt r

esul

ts fo

r bo

th c

hem

istr

y an

d to

xici

ty p

aram

eter

s.

5

254

53 0

844,

117

, So

uth

Adm

iralty

In

let

10.

06

59

4, 1

16,

Sout

h A

dmira

lty

Inle

t

0.06

4, 1

12,

Sout

h A

dmira

lty

Inle

t

0.08

6

29.6

5**

1349

2623

2517

6

2, 1

10, P

ort

Tow

nsen

d0.

06

176.

0318

.60

0.6

7860

227

500.

8115

95.9

2

118.

40

117.

92

223.

038

23.5

70.

455

453

0.71

9519

710

1.02

758

3.13

4.3

111.

980.

5417

133

96.9

4

9667

1741

068

0.79

1822

444

.67

1.2

116.

7342

2.71

97.9

6

Page 186

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Rhe

poxy

nius

dab

oius

60Sp

ioph

anes

bom

byx

32Sc

olop

los a

rmig

er18

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

16Pr

iono

spio

stee

nstru

pi9

Telli

na m

odes

ta6

Car

inom

a m

utab

ilis

5Ph

oloe

sp. N

15

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

5N

epht

ys fe

rrug

inea

4

Spio

phan

es b

omby

x49

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

44R

hepo

xyni

us d

aboi

us25

Telli

na m

odes

ta13

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

12O

rcho

men

e pa

cific

us8

Leito

scol

oplo

s pug

ette

nsis

5N

epht

ys fe

rrug

inea

4Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

3C

heiri

med

eia

zote

a3

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta51

7So

lam

en c

olum

bian

a19

4Li

robi

ttium

sp.

101

Che

irim

edei

a cf

. mac

roca

rpa

89Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

71N

utric

ola

lord

i41

Spio

phan

es b

omby

x24

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

17O

rcho

men

e cf

. pin

guis

15R

hepo

xyni

us a

bron

ius

15

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

t a11

7A

mph

iodi

a sp

.10

6

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

ex78

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

59Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

49A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

34M

edio

mas

tus s

p.24

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a20

Poly

cirr

us c

alifo

rnic

us19

Rhe

poxy

nius

bor

eova

riatu

s16

77,

124

, Por

t M

adis

on0.

07

475

182

212

26.5

0

130

6, 1

21,

Cen

tral

Bas

in

0.06

8

5, 1

20,

Poss

es-s

ion

Soun

d

10.

0729

5, 1

19,

Poss

es-s

ion

Soun

d

0.06

12**

2.80

3.2

117.

4419

072

973

0.73

138

105.

68

510

767

78.

672.

111

5.54

012

7260

0.58

82.0

289

.01

220.

196

23.2

70.

5

97.9

2

020

133

0.73

117.

9292

8010

2.08

291.

4811

7.68

119

735

0.73

8685

817

30.8

00.

7

Tab

le 3

4. C

ontin

ued.

Page 187

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta12

3Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

89

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x74

Poly

cirr

us c

alifo

rnic

us64

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

46R

hepo

xyni

us b

oreo

varia

tus

43M

edio

mas

tus s

p.41

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a28

Am

phio

dia

sp.

25Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

25

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

ex83

Rhe

poxy

nius

bor

eova

riatu

s69

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta46

Poly

cirr

us c

alifo

rnic

us45

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a38

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a35

Poly

cirr

us sp

.31

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta31

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

16A

mph

iodi

a sp

.15

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a11

6Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

67Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

63Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

37

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

ex23

Pinn

ixa

occi

dent

alis

17M

edio

mas

tus s

p.12

Rhe

poxy

nius

bic

uspi

datu

s10

Aric

idea

(Alli

a) ra

mos

a9

Am

phio

dia

sp.

8

179

1810

, 133

, C

entra

l So

und

0.07

130

11

135

15

124

178

3253

177

7, 1

26, P

ort

Mad

ison

0.05

7, 1

25, P

ort

Mad

ison

0.08

0.73

1612

.13

8.7

105.

4411

4.83

97.8

0

219

176

101

637

930.

7818

48.7

02.

411

6.97

460.

8898

.86

1428

031

910

385

287

0.76

**2.

974.

711

6.97

28.0

810

1.14

Tab

le 3

4. C

ontin

ued.

Page 188

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Pion

osyl

lis u

raga

23Lu

mbr

iner

is c

alifo

rnie

nsis

19N

icom

ache

lum

bric

alis

11Ph

oloi

des a

sper

a9

Dem

onax

rugo

sus

9A

ricid

ea (A

cmira

) lop

ezi

8Tr

itella

pili

man

a7

Pist

a el

onga

ta7

Sylli

s (Eh

lers

ia) h

eter

ocha

eta

7N

emoc

ardi

um c

entif

ilosu

m6

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

ex96

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

79A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

125

Nep

htys

cor

nuta

22Eu

dore

lla (T

riden

tata

) pac

ifica

16Ph

oloe

sp. N

115

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

15A

mph

iodi

a sp

.11

Tere

belli

des c

alifo

rnic

a7

Het

erom

astu

s filo

bran

chus

5

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

34N

utric

ola

lord

i31

Leito

scol

oplo

s pug

ette

nsis

24Sc

olop

los a

cmec

eps

22A

mph

aret

e la

brop

s21

Alv

ania

com

pact

a19

Scol

etom

a lu

ti16

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

16Pr

otom

edei

a gr

andi

man

a14

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

13

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

124

Am

phar

ete

labr

ops

58A

lvan

ia c

ompa

cta

36N

utric

ola

lord

i30

Scol

oplo

s acm

ecep

s28

Leito

scol

oplo

s pug

ette

nsis

28M

edio

mas

tus s

p.15

Gly

cind

e po

lygn

atha

13O

dost

omia

sp.

12A

styr

is g

ausa

pata

12

254

149

5.6

543

53.3

111

850.

7517

354

**5.

6398

.86

105.

6614

, 147

, K

eypo

rt0.

07

613

107

2.5

354

26.8

14

480.

8716

179

**2.

8310

5.68

106.

0814

, 145

, K

eypo

rt0.

04

310

910

210

74

325

260.

706

5.27

16.7

105.

4449

.84

**94

.32

0.13

13, 1

42,

Libe

rty B

ay4

383

3314

790.

9133

177

5.8

265

606.

6264

.10

80.0

010

2.45

12, 1

41,

East

Pa

ssag

e

0.06

Tab

le 3

4. C

ontin

ued.

Page 189

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Alv

ania

com

pact

a29

0R

oche

forti

a tu

mid

a93

Phyl

loch

aeto

pter

us p

rolif

ica

61H

epta

carp

us st

imps

oni

52M

acom

a yo

ldifo

rmis

23A

oroi

des i

nter

med

ius

20D

ipol

ydor

a so

cial

is14

Cau

llerie

lla p

acifi

ca11

Telli

na m

odes

ta11

Scol

oplo

s sp.

11

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x89

Act

eoci

na c

ulci

tella

84A

mph

iodi

a sp

.55

Phol

oe sp

. N1

55A

cila

cas

trens

is24

Lum

brin

eris

cru

zens

is14

Pinn

ixa

occi

dent

alis

12H

eter

omas

tus f

ilobr

anch

us12

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

9C

ossu

ra p

ygod

acty

lata

6

Aci

la c

astre

nsi s

289

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta70

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x50

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a33

Ennu

cula

tenu

is27

Mac

oma

sp.

26A

mph

iodi

a sp

.23

Odo

stom

ia sp

.23

Alv

ania

com

pact

a18

Ast

yris

gau

sapa

ta18

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

138

Alv

ania

com

pact

a75

Telli

na m

odes

ta44

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta24

Mac

oma

yold

iform

is22

Liru

laria

liru

lata

22Sp

ioch

aeto

pter

us c

osta

rum

20Lu

mbr

iner

is c

alifo

rnie

nsis

14R

oche

forti

a tu

mid

a14

Prot

odor

ville

a gr

acili

s12

1919

941

539

565

999

0.08

237.

801.

910

4.80

73.8

297

.89

0.04

17, 1

54,

Ric

h Pa

ssag

e

1116

512

286

475

859

870.

6915

4.60

7.6

105.

4443

.53

**98

.95

0.08

16, 1

52, S

W

Bai

n-br

idge

Is

land

713

617

148

127

435

440.

707

1.23

9.3

105.

8711

.67

**93

.18

0.07

15, 1

50,

NW

Bai

n-br

idge

Is

land

112

1346

615

730.

6713

204

6.6

810

10.2

8**

1.09

95.4

510

3.95

15, 1

49,

NW

Bai

n-br

idge

Is

land

0.04

Tab

le 3

4. C

ontin

ued.

Page 190

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

290

Telli

na m

odes

ta22

0Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

79R

oche

forti

a tu

mid

a57

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta57

Prot

omed

eia

gran

dim

ana

23Eu

clym

enin

ae18

Liro

bitti

um sp

.15

Turb

onill

a sp

.13

Ast

yris

gau

sapa

ta12

Pinn

ixa

occi

dent

alis

64Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

62R

oche

forti

a tu

mid

a37

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

29A

styr

is g

ausa

pata

23Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

22R

hepo

xyni

us d

aboi

us21

Sylli

s (Eh

lers

ia) h

yper

ioni

20D

ipol

ydor

a so

cial

is17

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

ex15

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta92

Alv

ania

com

pact

a79

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

58A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

129

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

28Ph

yllo

chae

topt

erus

pro

lific

a28

Lum

brin

eris

cal

iforn

iens

is24

Ast

yris

gau

sapa

ta24

Nas

sariu

s men

dicu

s19

Wes

twoo

dilla

cae

cula

15

Phyl

loch

aeto

pter

us p

rolif

ica

455

Circ

eis s

p.24

0A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

113

7C

apre

lla m

enda

x12

2R

oche

forti

a tu

mid

a74

Scol

etom

a lu

ti53

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

45Lu

mbr

iner

is c

alifo

rnie

nsis

39A

styr

is g

ausa

pata

31Eu

clym

ene

cf. z

onal

is27

248

1717

93.

615

7438

.80

774

0.65

911

23**

4.10

101.

1194

.00

22, 1

69,

Dye

s Inl

et0.

05

1819

616

25

270

651

850.

7920

3.40

6.5

111.

0032

.18

**10

4.44

0.06

21, 1

66,

Port

Was

hing

-ton

Nar

row

s

2623

418

919

105

573

102

0.82

2430

.17

1010

5.02

285.

4997

.89

0.07

17, 1

56,

Ric

h Pa

ssag

e

138

070

911

680.

616

931.

695

119

1.80

20.2

798

.95

105.

6617

, 155

, R

ich

Pass

age

0.04

Tab

le 3

4. C

ontin

ued.

Page 191

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Number of ERMs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Number of SQSs exceeded

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Number of CSLs exceeded

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta36

Dip

olyd

ora

soci

alis

27Pr

iono

spio

stee

nstru

pi24

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

21Ph

oloi

des a

sper

a18

Lum

brin

eris

cal

iforn

iens

is17

Nem

ocar

dium

cen

tifilo

sum

16A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

15Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

14Pi

nnix

a sc

hmitt

i14

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta70

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

38M

agel

ona

long

icor

nis

27Pi

nnix

a sc

hmitt

i19

Exog

one

(E.)

lour

ei14

Spio

chae

topt

erus

cos

taru

m13

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta11

Sola

men

col

umbi

ana

10Ly

onsi

a ca

lifor

nica

6N

epht

ys fe

rrug

inea

6

Am

phip

od: *

mea

n %

surv

ival

sign

ifica

ntly

less

than

CLI

S co

ntro

ls (p

<0.0

5); *

* m

ean

% su

rviv

al si

gnifi

cant

ly le

ss th

an C

LIS

cont

rols

(p<0

.05)

and

less

than

80%

of C

LIS

cont

rols

Urc

hin

ferti

lizat

ion:

* m

ean

% fe

rtiliz

atio

n si

gnifi

cant

ly d

iffer

ent f

rom

con

trols

and

exc

eeds

min

imum

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

(Dun

nett'

s t-te

st: *

=α

< 0.

05, M

SD =

15.

5%; o

r **

= α

< 0.

01, M

SD =

19

.0%

)

86.8

310

.710

6.00

343

800.

7821

317

910

41

5682

1.77

101.

110.

1424

, 178

, Sh

orel

ine

Ellio

tt B

ay

114

2811

423

137

0.89

4835

23.

363

149

.53

**5.

2397

.78

96.0

023

, 175

, O

uter

Elli

ott

Bay

0.07

Mic

roto

x EC

50: ^

= m

ean

EC50

<0.5

1 m

g/m

l det

erm

ined

as t

he 8

0% lo

wer

pre

dict

ion

limit

(LPL

) with

the

low

est (

i.e.,

mos

t tox

ic) s

ampl

es re

mov

ed, b

ut >

0.06

mg/

ml d

eter

min

ed a

s the

90%

low

er

pred

ictio

n lim

it (L

PL) e

arlie

r in

this

repo

rt.C

ytoc

hrom

e P4

50 H

RG

S as

µgB

[a]P

/g:

++ =

val

ue >

11.1

ben

zo[a

]pyr

ene

equi

vale

nts (

ug/g

sedi

men

t) de

term

ined

as t

he 8

0% u

pper

pre

dict

ion

limit

(UPL

); ++

+ =

valu

e >3

7.1

benz

o[a]

pyre

ne

equi

vale

nts (

µg/g

sedi

men

t) de

term

ined

as t

he 9

0% u

pper

pre

dict

ion

limit

(UPL

)

Tab

le 3

4. C

ontin

ued.

Page 192

Page 193

Table 35. Distribution of results in amphipod survival tests (with A. abdita only) innorthern Puget Sound, central Puget Sound, and in the NOAA/EMAP "national"database.

National data base(n=2630)

Northern PugetSound (n=100)

Central PugetSound (n=100)

Percent control adjustedamphipod survival

Number ofsamples

Percent oftotal

Percent of total Percent of total

> 100 734 28 21 4490-99.9 1237 47 76 4880-89.9 330 13 3 770-79.9 112 4 0 060-69.9 55 2 0 050-59.9 30 1 0 040-49.9 24 1 0 130-39.9 27 1 0 020-29.9 19 1 0 010-19.9 25 1 0 00.0-9.9 35 1 0 0

Page 194

Table 36. Spatial extent of toxicity (km2 and percentages of total area) in amphipodsurvival tests performed with solid-phase sediments from 26 U.S. bays and estuaries.Unless specified differently, test animals were Ampelisca abdita.

Amphipod survivalSurvey Areas Year

sampledNo. of

sedimentsamples

Total areaof survey

(km2)

Toxic area(km2)

Pct. of areatoxic

Newark Bay 1993 57 13 10.8 85.0% San Diego Bay* 1993 117 40.2 26.3 65.8% California coastal lagoons 1994 30 5 2.9 57.9% Tijuana River* 1993 6 0.3 0.2 56.2% Long Island Sound 1991 60 71.9 36.3 50.5% Hudson-Raritan Estuary 1991 117 350 133.3 38.1% San Pedro Bay* 1992 105 53.8 7.8 14.5% Biscayne Bay 1995/1996 226 484.2 62.3 12.9% Boston Harbor 1993 55 56.1 5.7 10.0% Delaware Bay 1997 73 2346.8 145.4 6.2% Savannah River 1994 60 13.1 0.2 1.2% St. Simons Sound 1994 20 24.6 0.1 0.4% Tampa Bay 1992/1993 165 550 0.5 0.1% central Puget Sound 1998 100 731.7 1.0 0.1% Pensacola Bay 1993 40 273 0.04 0.0% Galveston Bay 1996 75 1351.1 0 0.0% northern Puget Sound 1997 100 773.9 0 0.0% Choctawhatchee Bay 1994 37 254.5 0 0.0% Sabine Lake 1995 66 245.9 0 0.0% Apalachicola Bay 1994 9 187.6 0 0.0% St. Andrew Bay 1993 31 127.2 0 0.0% Charleston Harbor 1993 63 41.1 0 0.0% Winyah Bay 1993 9 7.3 0 0.0% Mission Bay* 1993 11 6.1 0 0.0% Leadenwah Creek 1993 9 1.7 0 0.0% San Diego River* 1993 2 0.5 0 0.0%

Cumulative National estuarine average based upon data collected through: •1997 1543 7278.8 431.8 5.9%

* tests performed with Rhepoxynius abronius

Page 195

Table 37. Spatial extent of toxicity (km2 and percentages of total area) in sea urchinfertilization tests performed with 100% sediment pore waters from 23 U. S. bays andestuaries. Unless specified differently, tests performed with Arbacia punctulata.

Urchin fertilization in100% pore waters

Survey areas Yearsampled

No. ofsedimentsamples

Total area ofsurvey (km2)

Toxic area(km2)

Pct. of areatoxic

San Pedro Baya 1992 105 53.8 52.6 97.7% Tampa Bay 1992/1993 165 550 463.6 84.3% San Diego Bayb 1993 117 40.2 25.6 76.0% Mission Bayb 1993 11 6.1 4 65.9% Tijuana Riverb 1993 6 0.3 0.2 56.2% San Diego Riverb 1993 2 0.5 0.3 52.0% Biscayne Bay 1995/1996 226 484.2 229.5 47.4% Choctawhatchee Bay 1994 37 254.5 113.1 44.4% California coastallagoons

1994 30 5 2.1 42.7%

Winyah Bay 1993 9 7.3 3.1 42.2% Apalachicola Bay 1994 9 187.6 63.6 33.9% Galveston Bay 1996 75 1351.1 432 32.0% Charleston Harbor 1993 63 41.1 12.5 30.4% Savannah River 1994 60 13.1 2.42 18.4% Delaware Bay 1997 73 2346.8 247.5 10.5% Boston Harbor 1993 55 56.1 3.8 6.6% Sabine Lake 1995 66 245.9 14 5.7% Pensacola Bay 1993 40 273 14.4 5.3% northern PugetSoundc

1997 100 773.9 40.6 5.2%

St. Simons Sound 1994 20 24.6 0.7 2.6% St. Andrew Bay 1993 31 127.2 2.3 1.8% central Puget SoundC 1998 100 731.7 5.1 0.7% Leadenwah Creek 1993 9 1.7 0 0.0%

Cumulative National estuarine average based upon data collected through: •1997 1309 6837.8 1728 25.3%

a Tests performed for embryological development of Haliotis rufescensb Tests performed for embryological development of Strongylocentrotus purpuratusc Tests performed for fertilization success of S. purpuratus

Page 196

Table 38. Spatial extent of toxicity (km2 and percentages of total area) in microbialbioluminescence tests performed with solvent extracts of sediments from 19 U. S. bays andestuaries.

Microbialbioluminescence

Survey areas Yearsampled

No. ofsedimentsamples

Total areaof survey

(km2)

Toxic area(km2)

Pct. of areatoxic

Choctawhatchee Bay 1994 37 254.47 254.5 100.0% St. Andrew Bay 1993 31 127.2 127 100.0% Apalachicola Bay 1994 9 187.6 186.8 99.6% Pensacola Bay 1993 40 273 262.8 96.4% Galveston Bay 1996 75 1351.1 1143.7 84.6% Sabine Lake 1995 66 245.9 194.2 79.0% Winyah Bay 1993 9 7.3 5.13 70.0% Long Island Sound 1991 60 71.86 48.8 67.9% Savannah River 1994 60 13.12 7.49 57.1% Biscayne Bay 1995/1996 226 484.2 248.4 51.3% St. Simons Sound 1994 20 24.6 11.4 46.4% Boston Harbor 1993 55 56.1 25.8 44.9% Charleston Harbor 1993 63 41.1 17.6 42.9% Hudson-Raritan Estuary 1991 117 350 136.1 38.9% Leadenwah Creek 1993 9 1.69 0.34 20.1% Delaware BayA 1997 73 2346.8 114 4.9% northern Puget Sound A 1997 100 773.9 9.1 1.2% Tampa Bay 1992/1993 165 550 0.6 0.1% central Puget Sound A 1998 100 731.7 0 0.0%

Cumulative National estuarine average based upon data collected through: •1997 1215 7160 2802.4 39.1%

A Critical value of <0.51 mg/mL

Page 197

Table 39. Spatial extent of toxicity (km2 and percentages of total area) in cytochrome P450HRGS tests performed with solvent extracts of sediments from 8 U. S. bays and estuaries.

Cytochrome P450HRGS (>11.1

µg/g)

CytochromeP450 HRGS(>37.1 µg/g)

Survey areas Yearsampled

No. ofsedimentsamples

Totalarea ofsurvey(km2)

Toxicarea

(km2)

PCT. ofareatoxic

Toxicarea

(km2)

PCT. ofareatoxic

northern Chesapeake Bay 1998 63 2265.0 1127.3 49.8 633.9 28.0Delaware Bay 1997 73 2346.8 145.2 6.2 80.5 3.4central Puget Sound 1998 100 731.7 237.1 32.3 23.7 3.2Sabine Lake 1995 65 245.9 6.7 2.7 1.7 0.7northern Puget Sound 1997 100 773.9 20.1 2.6 0.2 0.03Southern Cal. Estuaries 1994 30 5.0 2.3 46.8 0.0 0.0Biscayne Bay, 1996 1996 121 271.4 8.8 3.3 0.0 0.0Galveston Bay 1996 75 1351.5 56.7 4.2 0.0 0.0

Cumulative national estuarine averages based upon data collected through: •1997 627 8023.5 1604.2 20.0 740 9.2

Page 198

Table 40. Percentages of two Puget Sound study areas with indices of degraded sedimentsbased upon the sediment quality triad of data.Indices of sediment quality 1997 Northern Puget

Sound (total area:773.9km2)

1998 Central Puget Sound(total area: 731.7km2)

toxicity, chemical contamination, altered benthosNumber of stations: 10 18area (km2): 10.3 8.1% of total study area: 1.3 1.1

toxicity, chemical contamination, diverse benthosNumber of stations: 16 18area (km2): 81.7 91.6% of total study area: 10.6 12.5

mixed toxicity and chemical results, diverse benthosNumber of stations: 53 39area (km2): 530.2 272.6% of total study area: 68.5 37.3

no toxicity or chemical contamination, diverse benthosNumber of stations: 21 25area (km2): 151.7 359.3% of total study area: 19.6 49.1

Page 199

Appendix ADetected chemicals from central Puget Sound sediment samples in the SEDQUAL databaseexceeding Washington State Sediment Quality Standards (SQS) and Puget Sound Marine

Sediment Cleanup Screening Levels(CSL).

Page 200

Che

mic

al C

onta

min

ant

SQS

Sam

ple

loca

tion

(No.

of s

ampl

es)

SQS

valu

eC

SL S

ampl

e lo

catio

n (N

o. o

f sam

ples

)C

SL

valu

e

1,2,

4-Tr

ichl

orob

enze

neC

entra

l Bas

in (2

), D

ogfis

h B

ay (1

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er

(3),

East

Wat

erw

ay (2

), El

liott

Bay

(1),

Libe

rty B

ay (1

)0.

81C

entra

l Bas

in (1

), D

ogfis

h B

ay (1

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er

(3),

East

Wat

erw

ay (1

), El

liott

Bay

(1),

Libe

rty B

ay

(1)

1.8

1,2-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(3),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (2)

, Nor

th H

arbo

r Is

land

(1)

2.3

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(3),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (2)

, Nor

th H

arbo

r Is

land

(1)

2.3

1,4-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

Dog

fish

Bay

(2),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(29)

, Dye

s Inl

et (1

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(6),

Ellio

tt B

ay (9

), Li

berty

Bay

(1),

Poin

t Pul

ly (1

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

4),

Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (2

)

3.1

Dog

fish

Bay

(2),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(18)

, Dye

s Inl

et (1

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(6),

Ellio

tt B

ay (4

), Li

berty

Bay

(1),

Poin

t Pul

ly (1

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

4),

Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (2

)

9

2,4-

Dim

ethy

lphe

nol

Bai

nbrid

ge Is

land

(5),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(1),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (6)

, Elli

ott B

ay (3

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (6

),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (1)

, Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (4

)

29B

ainb

ridge

Isla

nd (5

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (1

), Ea

gle

Har

bor (

6), E

lliot

t Bay

(3),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(6),

Si

ncla

ir In

let (

1), W

est W

ater

way

(4)

29

2-M

ethy

lnap

htha

lene

Alk

i Bea

ch (1

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (3

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er

(7),

Dye

s Inl

et (6

), Ea

gle

Har

bor (

6), E

lliot

t Bay

(12)

, K

ello

gg Is

land

(1),

Libe

rty B

ay (1

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(3),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(6),

Poin

t Pul

ley

(5),

Shils

hole

Bay

(2

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

4), P

ort T

owns

end

(3)

38C

entra

l Sou

nd (3

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (6

), D

yes I

nlet

(6

), Ea

gle

Har

bor (

6), E

lliot

t Bay

(8),

Kel

logg

Isla

nd

(1),

Libe

rty B

ay (1

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(1),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Is

land

(4),

Poin

t Pul

ley

(5),

Shils

hole

Bay

(2),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (4)

, Por

t Tow

nsen

d (3

)

64

2-M

ethy

lphe

nol

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(1),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(1),

Ellio

tt B

a y (1

), W

est P

oint

(6)

63D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (1

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (1

), El

liott

Ba y

(1),

Wes

t Poi

nt (6

)63

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

Dog

fish

Bay

(1),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(5),

Dye

s Inl

et (1

), El

liott

Bay

(4),

Kel

logg

Isla

nd (1

), K

ey P

ort (

1), N

orth

H

arbo

r Isl

and

(1),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (1)

, Wes

t Poi

nt (2

), W

est W

ater

way

(2)

670

Dog

fish

Bay

(1),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(5),

Dye

s Inl

et (1

), El

liott

Bay

(4),

Kel

logg

Isla

nd (1

), K

ey P

ort (

1), N

orth

H

arbo

r Isl

and

(1),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (1)

, Wes

t Poi

nt (2

), W

est W

ater

wa y

(2)

670

..

App

endi

x A

. D

etec

ted

chem

ical

s fro

m c

entr

al P

uget

Sou

nd se

dim

ent s

ampl

es in

the

SED

QU

AL

dat

abas

e ex

ceed

ing

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e Se

dim

ent Q

ualit

y St

anda

rds (

SQS)

and

Pug

et S

ound

Mar

ine

Sedi

men

t Cle

anup

Scr

eeni

ng L

evel

s (C

SL).

Page 201

Che

mic

al C

onta

min

ant

SQS

Sam

ple

loca

tion

(No.

of s

ampl

es)

SQS

valu

eC

SL S

ampl

e lo

catio

n (N

o. o

f sam

ples

)C

SL

valu

e

Ace

naph

then

eA

lki b

each

(1),

Bra

ce P

oint

(1),

Cen

tral S

ound

(1),

Dog

fish

Bay

(1),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(14)

, Dye

s Inl

et (5

), Ea

gle

Har

bor (

14),

East

Wat

erw

ay (4

), El

liott

Bay

(51)

, M

agno

lia B

luff

(2),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(17)

, Poi

nt

Pulle

y (2

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (2

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

4), W

est

Poin

t (6)

, Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (5

)

16A

lki b

each

(1),

Bra

ce P

oint

(1),

Dog

fish

Bay

(1),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(7),

Dye

s Inl

et (5

), Ea

gle

Har

bor

(11)

, Eas

t Wat

erw

ay (1

), El

liott

Bay

(51)

, Mag

nolia

B

luff

(2),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(8),

Poin

t Pul

ley

(2),

Shils

hole

Bay

(1),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (4)

, Wes

t Poi

nt (2

), W

est W

ater

wa y

(1)

57

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(7),

Dye

s Inl

et (7

), Ea

gle

Har

bor (

7),

Ellio

tt B

ay (1

0), M

agno

lia B

luff

(4),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Is

land

(2),

Poin

t Pul

ley

(5),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (1

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (1

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

5), W

est P

oint

(2)

66D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (7

), D

yes I

nlet

(7),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (7)

, El

liott

Bay

(10)

, Mag

nolia

Blu

ff (4

), N

orth

Har

bor

Isla

nd (2

), Po

int P

ulle

y (5

), Po

rt To

wns

end

(1),

Shils

hole

Bay

(1),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (5)

, Wes

t Poi

nt (2

)

66

Ant

hrac

ene

Bra

ce P

oint

(2),

Cen

tral S

ound

(4),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(7

), D

yes I

nlet

(7),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (11

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(2

), El

liott

Bay

(23)

, Lib

erty

Bay

(1),

Mag

nolia

Blu

ff

(7),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(5),

Poin

t Pul

ley

(7),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (5

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (3

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

7),

Vas

hon

Isla

nd (1

), W

est P

oint

(3)

220

Bra

ce P

oint

(2),

Cen

tral S

ound

(4),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(7

), D

yes I

nlet

(7),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (9)

, Elli

ott B

ay (4

), Li

berty

Bay

(1),

Mag

nolia

Blu

ff (7

), N

orth

Har

bor

Isla

nd (5

), Po

int P

ulle

y (7

), Po

rt M

adis

on (2

), Po

rt To

wns

end

(5),

Shils

hole

Bay

(3),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (7)

, V

asho

n Is

land

(1),

Wes

t Poi

nt (3

)

1200

Ars

enic

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(4),

East

Wat

erw

ay (1

), El

liott

Bay

(1

5), K

ello

gg Is

land

(2),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(8),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (7)

, Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (1

1)

57D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (3

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(1),

Ellio

tt B

ay

(15)

, Kel

logg

Isla

nd (2

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (8

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

7), W

est W

ater

way

(11)

93

Ben

zo(a

)ant

hrac

ene

Alk

i Bea

ch (1

), B

race

Poi

nt (2

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (5

), D

ogfis

h B

ay (1

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (1

0), D

yes I

nlet

(7),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (16

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(3),

Ellio

tt B

ay (6

2),

Jeff

erso

n H

ead

(1),

Libe

rty B

ay (2

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(9

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (1

4), P

oint

Pul

ley

(7),

Port

Mad

ison

(4),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (6

), R

ichm

ond

Bea

ch (2

), Se

ahur

st P

assa

ge (1

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (6

), Si

ncla

ir In

let

(8),

Vas

hon

Isla

nd (2

), W

est P

oint

(14)

, Wes

t W

ater

way

(10)

110

Bra

ce P

oint

(2),

Cen

tral S

ound

(5),

Dog

fish

Bay

(1),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(9),

Dye

s Inl

et (7

), Ea

gle

Har

bor

(12)

, Elli

ott B

ay (3

4), J

effe

rson

Hea

d (1

), Li

berty

Bay

(2

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(7),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(5),

Poin

t Pu

lley

(7),

Port

Mad

ison

(4),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (6

), R

ichm

ond

Bea

ch (2

), Se

ahur

st P

assa

ge (1

), Sh

ilsho

le

Bay

(6),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (7)

, Vas

hon

Isla

nd (2

), W

est

Poin

t (7)

, Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (1

)

270

App

endi

x A

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 202

Che

mic

al C

onta

min

ant

SQS

Sam

ple

loca

tion

(No.

of s

ampl

es)

SQS

valu

eC

SL S

ampl

e lo

catio

n (N

o. o

f sam

ples

)C

SL

valu

e

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

Alk

i Bea

ch (1

), B

race

Poi

nt (2

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (5

), D

ogfis

h B

ay (1

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (1

2), D

yes I

nlet

(8),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (16

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(2),

Ellio

tt B

ay (6

6),

Libe

rty B

ay (2

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(9),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Is

land

(14)

, Poi

nt P

ulle

y (7

), Po

rt M

adis

on (4

), Po

rt To

wns

end

(6),

Ric

hmon

d B

each

(2),

Seah

urst

Pas

sage

(1

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (6

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

7), V

asho

n Is

land

(1

), W

est P

oint

(19)

, Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (6

)

99B

race

Poi

nt (2

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (5

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er

(8),

Dye

s Inl

et (8

), Ea

gle

Har

bor (

9), E

lliot

t Bay

(66)

, Li

berty

Bay

(2),

Mag

nolia

Blu

ff (7

), N

orth

Har

bor

Isla

nd (5

), Po

int P

ulle

y (7

), Po

rt M

adis

on (4

), Po

rt To

wns

end

(6),

Ric

hmon

d B

each

(2),

Seah

urst

Pas

sage

(1

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (6

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

7), V

asho

n Is

land

(1),

Wes

t Poi

nt (1

2), W

est W

ater

way

(1)

210

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pery

lene

Alk

i Bea

ch (2

), B

race

Poi

nt (2

), C

entra

l Bas

in (5

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (1

7), D

yes I

nlet

(8),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (1

6), E

ast W

ater

way

(4),

Ellio

tt B

ay (7

0), L

iber

ty B

ay

(2),

Mag

nolia

Blu

ff (9

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (1

5), P

oint

Pu

lley

(6),

Port

Mad

ison

(2),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (5

), R

ichm

ond

Bea

ch (1

), Se

ahur

st P

assa

ge (1

), Sh

ilsho

le

Bay

(3),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (6)

, Vas

hon

Isla

nd (1

), W

est

Poin

t(18

),W

estW

ater

way

(17)

31A

lki B

each

(1),

Bra

ce P

oint

(2),

Cen

tral B

asin

(3),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(10)

, Dye

s Inl

et (7

), Ea

gle

Har

bor

(8),

East

Wat

erw

ay (4

), El

liott

Bay

(42)

, Lib

erty

Bay

(2

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(6),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(7),

Poin

t Pu

lley

(6),

Port

Mad

ison

(2),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (3

), R

ichm

ond

Bea

ch (1

), Se

ahur

st P

assa

ge (1

), Sh

ilsho

le

Bay

(3),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (5)

, Vas

hon

Isla

nd (1

), W

est

Poin

t(15

),W

estW

ater

way

(3)

78

Ben

zoic

aci

dA

lki P

oint

(1),

Dog

fish

Bay

(1),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(8),

Ellio

tt B

ay (1

3), K

ello

gg Is

land

(1),

Libe

rty B

ay (2

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

2), W

est P

oint

(22)

650

Alk

i Poi

nt (1

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (8

), El

liott

Bay

(13)

, K

ello

gg Is

land

(1),

Libe

rty B

ay (2

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

2),

Wes

t Poi

nt (2

2)

650

Ben

zyl a

lcoh

olD

uwam

ish

Riv

er (1

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(1),

Ellio

tt B

ay

(2),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (1)

, Wes

t Poi

nt (5

), W

est W

ater

way

(2

)

57D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (1

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(1),

Ellio

tt B

ay

(2),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (1)

, Wes

t Poi

nt (5

), W

est W

ater

way

(2

)

73

App

endi

x A

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 203

Che

mic

al C

onta

min

ant

SQS

Sam

ple

loca

tion

(No.

of s

ampl

es)

SQS

valu

eC

SL S

ampl

e lo

catio

n (N

o. o

f sam

ples

)C

SL

valu

e

Bis

(2-e

thyl

hexy

l) ph

thal

ate

Bra

ce P

oint

(2),

Cen

tral S

ound

(3),

Dog

fish

Bay

(4),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(86)

, Dye

s Inl

et (1

0), E

agle

Har

bor

(4),

East

Pas

sage

(1),

East

Wat

erw

ay (5

), El

liott

Bay

(4

3), K

ello

gg Is

land

(1),

Key

Por

t (11

), Li

berty

Bay

(1

2), M

agno

lia B

luff

(4),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(7),

Poin

t Pu

lley

(5),

Port

Mad

ison

(3),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (3

), R

ich

Pass

age

(1),

Ric

hmon

d B

each

(1),

Seah

urst

Pas

sage

(1),

Shils

hole

Bay

(4),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (19

), U

sele

ss B

ay (1

), V

asho

n Is

land

(1),

Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (1

1)

47B

race

Poi

nt (2

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (3

), D

ogfis

h B

ay (3

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (5

8), D

yes I

nlet

(7),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (4

), Ea

st P

assa

ge (1

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(3),

Ellio

tt B

ay

(22)

, Key

Por

t (8)

, Lib

erty

Bay

(11)

, Mag

nolia

Blu

ff

(4),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(6),

Poin

t Pul

ley

(5),

Port

Mad

ison

(3),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (3

), R

ich

Pass

age

(1),

Ric

hmon

d B

each

(1),

Seah

urst

Pas

sage

(1),

Shils

hole

B

ay (4

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

19),

Vas

hon

Isla

nd (1

), W

est

Wat

erw

ay (6

)

78

But

yl b

enzy

l pht

hala

teA

lki P

oint

(2),

Bla

kely

Har

bor (

2), C

entra

l Sou

nd (1

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (5

8), D

yes I

nlet

(7),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (6)

, Ea

st W

ater

way

(9),

Ellio

tt B

ay (3

4), K

ello

gg Is

land

(1),

Mag

nolia

Blu

ff (6

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (1

0), P

oint

Pu

lley

(2),

Bai

nbrid

ge Is

land

(1),

Shils

hole

Bay

(1),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (14

), W

est P

oint

(9),

Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (9

), W

illia

msP

oint

(2)

4.9

Cen

tral S

ound

(1),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(4),

Dye

s Inl

et

(5),

East

Wat

erw

ay (3

), El

liott

Bay

(5),

Mag

nolia

B

luff

(2),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(10)

, Poi

nt P

ulle

y (2

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (1

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

5), W

est P

oint

(1)

64

Cad

miu

mD

uwam

ish

Riv

er (1

3), E

ast W

ater

way

(14)

, Elli

ott B

ay

(18)

, Kel

logg

Isla

nd (1

5), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (1

7),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (8)

, Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (4

3)

5.1

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(10)

, Eas

t Wat

erw

ay (1

2), E

lliot

t B

ay (1

1), K

ello

gg Is

land

(11)

, Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(7),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (1)

, Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (3

1)

6.7

Chr

omiu

mD

uwam

ish

Riv

er (3

), El

liott

Bay

(5),

Wes

t Wat

erw

ay

(2)

260

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(3),

Ellio

tt B

ay (4

), W

est W

ater

way

(2

)27

0

App

endi

x A

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 204

Che

mic

al C

onta

min

ant

SQS

Sam

ple

loca

tion

(No.

of s

ampl

es)

SQS

valu

eC

SL S

ampl

e lo

catio

n (N

o. o

f sam

ples

)C

SL

valu

e

Chr

ysen

eA

lki B

each

(1),

Bra

ce P

oint

(3),

Cen

tral S

ound

(5),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(13)

, Dye

s Inl

et (7

), Ea

gle

Har

bor

(19)

, Eas

t Wat

erw

ay (7

), El

liott

Bay

(80)

, Jef

fers

on

Hea

d (1

), Li

berty

Bay

(2),

Mag

nolia

Blu

ff (1

0), N

orth

H

arbo

r Isl

and

(19)

, Poi

nt P

ulle

y (7

), Po

rt M

adis

on (4

), Po

rt To

wns

end

(8),

Ric

hmon

d B

each

(2),

Seah

urst

Pa

ssag

e (2

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (6

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

9),

Vas

hon

Isla

nd (2

), W

est P

oint

(22)

, Wes

t Wat

erw

ay

(22)

110

Bra

ce P

oint

(3),

Cen

tral S

ound

(4),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(7

), D

yes I

nlet

(7),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (12

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(1

), El

liott

Bay

(26)

, Jef

fers

on H

ead

(1),

Libe

rty B

ay

(2),

Mag

nolia

Blu

ff (7

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (3

), Po

int

Pulle

y (7

), Po

rt M

adis

on (4

), Po

rt To

wns

end

(6),

Ric

hmon

d B

each

(2),

Seah

urst

Pas

sage

(2),

Shils

hole

B

ay (6

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

7), V

asho

n Is

land

(2),

Wes

t W

ater

way

(8)

460

Cop

per

Alk

i Bea

ch (1

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (1

), D

yes I

nlet

(1),

East

Wat

erw

ay (1

), El

liott

Bay

(18)

, Nor

th H

arbo

r Is

land

(16)

, Sin

clai

r Inl

et (1

3), W

est W

ater

way

(8)

390

Alk

i Bea

ch (1

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (1

), D

yes I

nlet

(1),

East

Wat

erw

ay (1

), El

liott

Bay

(18)

, Nor

th H

arbo

r Is

land

(16)

, Sin

clai

r Inl

et (1

3), W

est W

ater

way

(8)

390

Dib

enz(

a,h)

anth

race

neA

lki B

each

(1),

Bra

ce P

oint

(1),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(14)

, D

yes I

nlet

(7),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (18

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(3),

Ellio

tt B

ay (7

4), M

agno

lia B

luff

(9),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Is

land

(9),

Poin

t Pul

ley

(5),

Por

t Mad

ison

(1),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (5

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (4

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

6),

Wes

t Poi

nt (6

), W

est W

ater

way

(9)

12A

lki B

each

(1),

Bra

ce P

oint

(1),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(7),

Dye

s Inl

et (7

), Ea

gle

Har

bor (

11),

Ellio

tt B

ay (4

4),

Mag

nolia

Blu

ff (7

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (7

), Po

int

Pulle

y (5

), P

ort M

adis

on (1

), Po

rt To

wns

end

(5),

Shils

hole

Bay

(4),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (6)

, Wes

t Poi

nt (6

), W

est W

ater

wa y

(2)

33

Dib

enzo

fura

nA

lki b

each

(1),

Bra

ce P

oint

(1),

Cen

tral S

ound

(2),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(11)

, Dye

s Inl

et (5

), Ea

gle

Har

bor (

7),

East

Wat

erw

ay (1

), El

liott

Bay

(42)

, Kel

logg

Isla

nd (2

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(3),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(15)

, Poi

nt

Pulle

y (4

), Po

rt To

wns

end

(1),

Shils

hole

Bay

(2),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (3)

, Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (5

)

15B

race

Poi

nt (1

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (2

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er

(7),

Dye

s Inl

et (5

), Ea

gle

Har

bor (

7), E

ast W

ater

way

(1

), El

liott

Bay

(20)

, Mag

nolia

Blu

ff (2

), N

orth

H

arbo

r Isl

and

(8),

Poin

t Pul

ley

(4),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (1

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (1

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

3), W

est

Wat

erw

a y (2

)

58

Die

thyl

pht

hala

teD

yes I

nlet

(3),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (2)

, Elli

ott B

ay (1

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(1),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(2),

Port

Mad

ison

(1),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (1

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (2

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

2), W

est P

oint

(1),

Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (1

)

61D

yes I

nlet

(3),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (1)

, Elli

ott B

ay (1

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(1),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(2),

Port

Mad

ison

(1),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (1

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (2

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

2), W

est W

ater

way

(1)

App

endi

x A

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 205

Che

mic

al C

onta

min

ant

SQS

Sam

ple

loca

tion

(No.

of s

ampl

es)

SQS

valu

eC

SL S

ampl

e lo

catio

n (N

o. o

f sam

ples

)C

SL

valu

e

Dim

ethy

l pht

hala

teEa

gle

Har

bor (

3), E

lliot

t Bay

(4),

Kel

logg

Isla

nd (1

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (1

) Ea

gle

Har

bor (

3), E

lliot

t Bay

(4),

Kel

logg

Isla

nd (1

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (1

) 53

Di-n

-but

yl p

htha

late

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(2),

Dye

s Inl

et (3

), El

liott

Bay

(5),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(1),

Poin

t Pul

ley

(1),

Port

Mad

ison

(1

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

3), W

est P

oint

(6)

220

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(2),

Dye

s Inl

et (3

), Po

int P

ulle

y (1

), Po

rt M

adis

on (1

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

3), W

est P

oint

(1)

1700

Di-n

-oct

yl p

htha

late

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(1),

Dye

s Inl

et (1

), El

liott

Bay

(15)

, Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (1

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

1), W

est P

oint

(20)

58El

liott

Bay

(2),

Wes

t Poi

nt (1

)45

00

Fluo

rant

hene

Alk

i Bea

ch (1

), B

race

Poi

nt (3

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (6

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (2

0), D

yes I

nlet

(8),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (1

5), E

ast W

ater

way

(5),

Ellio

tt B

ay (8

5), J

effe

rson

H

ead

(1),

Libe

rty B

ay (2

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(10)

, Nor

th

Har

bor I

slan

d (1

8), P

oint

Pul

ley

(7),

Port

Mad

ison

(4),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (8

), R

ichm

ond

Bea

ch (3

), Se

ahur

st

Pass

age

(2),

Shils

hole

Bay

(6),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (8)

, U

sele

ss B

ay (1

), V

asho

n Is

land

(2),

Wes

t Poi

nt (2

0),

Wes

tWat

erw

ay(1

8)

160

Bra

ce P

oint

(3),

Cen

tral S

ound

(5),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(7

), D

yes I

nlet

(7),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (9)

, Eas

t Wat

erw

ay

(1),

Ellio

tt B

ay (8

5), J

effe

rson

Hea

d (1

), Li

berty

Bay

(2

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(7),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(1),

Poin

t Pu

lley

(7),

Port

Mad

ison

(4),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (6

), R

ichm

ond

Bea

ch (3

), Se

ahur

st P

assa

ge (2

), Sh

ilsho

le

Bay

(5),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (7)

, Use

less

Bay

(1),

Vas

hon

Isla

nd (2

), W

est P

oint

(3),

Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (2

)

1200

Fluo

rene

Alk

i Bea

ch (1

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (3

), D

ogfis

h B

ay (1

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (1

2), D

yes I

nlet

(6),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (1

4), E

ast W

ater

way

(3),

Ellio

tt B

ay (6

5), L

iber

ty B

ay

(1),

Mag

nolia

Blu

ff (6

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (1

3), P

oint

Pu

lley

(5),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (2

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (4

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

6), W

est P

oint

(10)

, Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (8

)

23C

entra

l Sou

nd (2

), D

ogfis

h B

ay (1

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er

(8),

Dye

s Inl

et (6

), Ea

gle

Har

bor (

11),

East

Wat

erw

ay

(1),

Ellio

tt B

ay (2

6), M

agno

lia B

luff

(4),

Nor

th

Har

bor I

slan

d (5

), Po

int P

ulle

y (5

), Po

rt To

wns

end

(2),

Shils

hole

Bay

(3),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (5)

, Wes

t Poi

nt

(3),

Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (1

)

79

Hex

achl

orob

enze

neD

uwam

ish

Riv

er (3

), D

yes I

nlet

(1),

Ellio

tt B

ay (3

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(1),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(3),

Wes

t Po

int (

1), W

est W

ater

way

(1)

0.38

Dye

s Inl

et (1

), El

liott

Bay

(1),

Mag

nolia

Blu

ff (1

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (3

), W

est P

oint

(1),

Wes

t W

ater

way

(1)

2.3

Hex

achl

orob

utad

iene

Ellio

tt B

ay (3

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (2

), W

est P

oint

(2)

3.9

Ellio

tt B

ay (1

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (2

), W

est P

oint

(2

)6.

2

App

endi

x A

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 206

Che

mic

al C

onta

min

ant

SQS

Sam

ple

loca

tion

(No.

of s

ampl

es)

SQS

valu

eC

SL S

ampl

e lo

catio

n (N

o. o

f sam

ples

)C

SL

valu

e

Hig

h M

olec

ular

Wei

ght

PAH

Alk

i Bea

ch (2

), B

race

Poi

nt (3

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (6

), D

ogfis

h B

ay (1

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (1

7), D

yes I

nlet

(8),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (15

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(11)

, Elli

ott B

ay

(88)

, Jef

fers

on H

ead

(1),

Kel

logg

Isla

nd (4

), Li

berty

B

ay (2

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(10)

, Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(21)

, Po

int P

ulle

y (7

), Po

rt M

adis

on (4

), Po

rt To

wns

end

(6),

Ric

hmon

d B

each

(3),

Seah

urst

Pas

sage

(2),

Shils

hole

B

ay (6

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

8), U

sele

ss B

ay (2

), V

asho

n Is

land

(3),

Wes

t Poi

nt (2

1), W

est W

ater

way

(24)

960

Alk

i Bea

ch (1

), B

race

Poi

nt (3

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (5

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (7

), D

yes I

nlet

(7),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (9)

, Ea

st W

ater

way

(2),

Ellio

tt B

ay (1

8), J

effe

rson

Hea

d (1

), Li

berty

Bay

(2),

Mag

nolia

Blu

ff (7

), N

orth

Har

bor

Isla

nd (4

), Po

int P

ulle

y (7

), Po

rt M

adis

on (4

), Po

rt To

wns

end

(6),

Ric

hmon

d B

each

(3),

Seah

urst

Pas

sage

(2

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (5

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

7), U

sele

ss B

ay

(2),

Vas

hon

Isla

nd (3

), W

est P

oint

(7),

Wes

t W

ater

way

(1)

Inde

no (1

,2,3

-cd)

pyr

ene

Alk

i Bea

ch (1

), B

race

Poi

nt (2

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (3

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (1

8), D

yes I

nlet

(8),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (1

7), E

ast W

ater

way

(3),

Ellio

tt B

ay (8

8), L

iber

ty B

ay

(1),

Mag

nolia

Blu

ff (1

0), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (1

5),

Poin

t Pul

ley

(7),

Port

Mad

ison

(3),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (3

), R

ichm

ond

Bea

ch (1

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (3

), Si

ncla

ir In

let

(8),

Wes

tPoi

nt(1

7),W

estW

ater

way

(17)

34A

lki B

each

(1),

Bra

ce P

oint

(2),

Cen

tral S

ound

(3),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(9),

Dye

s Inl

et (7

), Ea

gle

Har

bor (

8),

Ellio

tt B

ay (4

2), L

iber

ty B

ay (1

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(7),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(8),

Nor

th S

hore

(10)

, Poi

nt

Pulle

y (7

), Po

rt M

adis

on (3

), Po

rt To

wns

end

(3),

Ric

hmon

d B

each

(1),

Shils

hole

Bay

(3),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (8

),W

estP

oint

(13)

,Wes

tWat

erw

ay(3

)

88

Lead

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(11)

, Elli

ott B

ay (2

5), K

ello

gg Is

land

(1

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (4

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

5), W

est

Wat

erw

ay (9

)

450

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(9),

Ellio

tt B

ay (1

6), K

ello

gg Is

land

(1

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (3

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

3), W

est

Wat

erw

ay (8

)

Low

Mol

ecul

ar W

eigh

t PA

HA

lki B

each

(1),

Bra

ce P

oint

(3),

Cen

tral S

ound

(5),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(11)

, Dog

fish

Bay

(1),

Dye

s Inl

et (7

), Ea

gle

Har

bor (

13),

East

Wat

erw

ay (3

), El

liott

Bay

(54)

, Je

ffer

son

Hea

d (1

), K

ello

gg Is

land

(1),

Libe

rty B

ay (2

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(9),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(13)

, Poi

nt

Pulle

y (7

), Po

rt M

adis

on (4

), Po

rt To

wns

end

(6),

Ric

hmon

d B

each

(3),

Seah

urst

Pas

sage

(2),

Shils

hole

B

ay (6

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

7), U

sele

ss B

ay (2

), V

asho

n Is

land

(3),

Wes

t Poi

nt (5

), W

est W

ater

way

(5)

370

Bra

ce P

oint

(3),

Cen

tral S

ound

(5),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(8

), D

ogfis

h B

ay (1

), D

yes I

nlet

(7),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (1

1), E

ast W

ater

way

(1),

Ellio

tt B

ay (3

2), J

effe

rson

H

ead

(1),

Libe

rty B

ay (2

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(7),

Nor

th

Har

bor I

slan

d (7

), Po

int P

ulle

y (7

), Po

rt M

adis

on (4

), Po

rt To

wns

end

(6),

Ric

hmon

d B

each

(3),

Seah

urst

Pa

ssag

e (2

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (6

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

7),

Use

less

Bay

(2),

Vas

hon

Isla

nd (3

), W

est P

oint

(3),

Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (1

)

780

App

endi

x A

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 207

Che

mic

al C

onta

min

ant

SQS

Sam

ple

loca

tion

(No.

of s

ampl

es)

SQS

valu

eC

SL S

ampl

e lo

catio

n (N

o. o

f sam

ples

)C

SL

valu

e

Mer

cury

Alk

i Bea

ch (1

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (1

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er

(42)

, Dye

s Inl

et (2

3), E

agle

Har

bor (

1), E

ast P

assa

ge

(2),

East

Wat

erw

ay (2

0), E

lliot

t Bay

(192

), Fo

ur-M

ile

Roc

k (1

), K

ello

gg Is

land

(4),

Mag

nolia

Blu

ff (2

), N

orth

H

arbo

r Isl

and

(30)

, Sin

clai

r Inl

et (1

44),

Wes

t Poi

nt (3

), W

est W

ater

wa y

(58)

, Will

iam

s Poi

nt (1

)

0.41

Alk

i Bea

ch (1

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (2

9), D

yes I

nlet

(9),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (1)

, Eas

t Wat

erw

ay (1

0), E

lliot

t Bay

(1

39),

Four

-Mile

Roc

k (1

), K

ello

gg Is

land

(1),

Nor

th

Har

bor I

slan

d (2

5), S

incl

air I

nlet

(133

), W

est P

oint

(1

), W

est W

ater

way

(40)

, Will

iam

s Poi

nt (1

)

0.59

Nap

htha

lene

Alk

i Bea

ch (1

), B

ainb

ridge

Isla

nd (1

), B

race

Poi

nt (1

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (3

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (7

), D

yes I

nlet

(7),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (10

), El

liott

Bay

(14)

, Mag

nolia

Blu

ff (7

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (4

), Po

int P

ulle

y (7

), Po

rt M

adis

on

(2),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (3

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (2

), Si

ncla

ir In

let

(6),

Wes

t Poi

nt (2

)

99B

race

Poi

nt (1

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (3

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er

(7),

Dye

s Inl

et (7

), Ea

gle

Har

bor (

10),

Ellio

tt B

ay (9

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(7),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(3),

Poin

t Pu

lley

(7),

Port

Mad

ison

(2),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (3

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (2

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

6), W

est P

oint

(2)

170

N-N

itros

o di

phen

ylam

ine

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(3),

Ellio

tt B

ay (6

), N

orth

Har

bor

Isla

nd (2

), W

est P

oint

(1),

Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (1

)11

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(3),

Ellio

tt B

ay (6

), N

orth

Har

bor

Isla

nd (2

), W

est P

oint

(1),

Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (1

)11

Pent

achl

orop

heno

lEa

st W

ater

way

(1),

Ellio

tt B

ay (6

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (3

), W

est W

ater

way

(1)

360

East

Wat

erw

ay (1

), El

liott

Bay

(4),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Is

land

(1)

690

Phen

anth

rene

Alk

i Bea

ch (2

), B

race

Poi

nt (2

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (4

), D

ogfis

h B

ay (1

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (1

7), D

yes I

nlet

(7),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (14

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(5),

Ellio

tt B

ay (7

9),

Jeff

erso

n H

ead

(1),

Libe

rty B

ay (2

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(9

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (1

7), P

oint

Pul

ley

(7),

Port

Mad

ison

(9),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (6

), R

ichm

ond

Bea

ch (3

), Se

ahur

st P

assa

ge (1

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (6

), Si

ncla

ir In

let

(10)

, Use

less

Bay

(1),

Vas

hon

Isla

nd (2

), W

est P

oint

(1

7), W

est W

ater

way

(12)

, Will

iam

s Poi

nt (1

)

100

Bra

ce P

oint

(2),

Cen

tral S

ound

(4),

Dog

fish

Bay

(1),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(8),

Dye

s Inl

et (7

), Ea

gle

Har

bor

(10)

, Elli

ott B

ay (2

8), J

effe

rson

Hea

d (1

), Li

berty

Bay

(2

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(7),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(6),

Poin

t Pu

lley

(7),

Port

Mad

ison

(4),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (6

), R

ichm

ond

Bea

ch (3

), Se

ahur

st P

assa

ge (1

), Sh

ilsho

le

Bay

(6),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (7)

, Use

less

Bay

(1),

Vas

hon

Isla

nd (2

), W

est P

oint

(3),

Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (1

)

480

App

endi

x A

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 208

Che

mic

al C

onta

min

ant

SQS

Sam

ple

loca

tion

(No.

of s

ampl

es)

SQS

valu

eC

SL S

ampl

e lo

catio

n (N

o. o

f sam

ples

)C

SL

valu

e

Phen

olD

ogfis

h B

ay (2

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (8

), Ea

gle

Har

bor

(5),

East

Wat

erw

ay (2

), El

liott

Bay

(15)

, Kel

logg

Isla

nd

(10)

, Lib

erty

Bay

(3),

Nor

th B

each

(1),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Is

land

(6),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (1)

, Key

port

(1),

Wes

t Poi

nt

(3),

Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (1

5)

420

Dog

fish

Bay

(2),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(2),

Ellio

tt B

ay (4

), K

ello

gg Is

land

(5),

Wes

t Poi

nt (1

), W

est W

ater

way

(4

)

1200

Pyre

neB

race

Poi

nt (3

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (4

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er

(7),

Dye

s Inl

et (7

), Ea

gle

Har

bor (

9), E

lliot

t Bay

(24)

, Je

ffer

son

Hea

d (1

), Li

berty

Bay

(2),

Mag

nolia

Blu

ff

(7),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(2),

Poin

t Pul

ley

(7),

Port

Mad

ison

(4),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (6

), R

ichm

ond

Bea

ch (3

), Se

ahru

st P

assa

ge (2

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (6

), Si

ncla

ir In

let

(7),

Use

less

Bay

(1),

Vas

hon

Isla

nd (3

), W

est P

oint

(6),

Wes

tWat

erw

ay(1

)

1000

Bra

ce P

oint

(3),

Cen

tral S

ound

(5),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(7

), D

yes I

nlet

(7),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (9)

, Elli

ott B

ay (1

2),

Jeff

erso

n H

ead

(1),

Libe

rty B

ay (2

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(7

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (1

), Po

int P

ulle

y (7

), Po

rt M

adis

on (4

), Po

rt To

wns

end

(6),

Ric

hmon

d B

each

(3

), Se

ahru

st P

assa

ge (2

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (5

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

7), U

sele

ss B

ay (1

), V

asho

n Is

land

(3),

Wes

t Po

int(

3)

1400

Silv

erD

uwam

ish

Riv

er (7

), El

liott

Bay

(18)

, Wes

t Poi

nt (5

)D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (7

), El

liott

Bay

(18)

, Wes

t Poi

nt (5

)

Tota

l ben

zoflu

oran

then

es

(b+k

(+j))

Alk

i Bea

ch (1

), B

race

Poi

nt (3

), C

entra

l Sou

nd (5

), D

ogfis

h B

ay (1

), D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (1

2), D

yes I

nlet

(8),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (16

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(2),

Ellio

tt B

ay (6

5),

Jeff

erso

n H

ead

(1),

Libe

rty B

ay (2

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(9

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (1

4), P

oint

Pul

ley

(7),

Port

Mad

ison

(4),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (6

), R

ichm

ond

Bea

ch (3

), Se

ahur

st P

assa

ge (2

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (6

), Si

ncla

ir In

let

(8),

Use

less

Bay

(1),

Vas

hon

Isla

nd (3

), W

est P

oint

(1

7),W

estW

ater

way

(7)

230

Bra

ce P

oint

(3),

Cen

tral S

ound

(5),

Dog

fish

Bay

(1),

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(9),

Dye

s Inl

et (7

), Ea

gle

Har

bor

(13)

, Elli

ott B

ay (6

5), J

effe

rson

Hea

d (1

), Li

berty

Bay

(2

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(7),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(9),

Poin

t Pu

lley

(7),

Port

Mad

ison

(4),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (6

), R

ichm

ond

Bea

ch (3

), Se

ahur

st P

assa

ge (2

), Sh

ilsho

le

Bay

(6),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (7)

, Use

less

Bay

(1),

Vas

hon

Isla

nd (3

), W

est P

oint

(8),

Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (1

)

450

Tota

l Pol

ychl

orin

ated

B

iphe

nyls

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(127

), D

yes I

nlet

(11)

, Eag

le H

arbo

r (5

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(23)

, Elli

ott B

ay (1

08),

Four

-Mile

R

ock

(2),

Kel

logg

Isla

nd (1

0), M

agno

lia B

luff

(4),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(22)

, Poi

nt P

ulle

y (4

), Po

rt M

adis

on (1

), Po

rt To

wns

end

(1),

Shils

hole

Bay

(2),

Sinc

lair

Inle

t (32

), W

est P

oint

(23)

, Wes

t Wat

erw

ay

(29)

12D

uwam

ish

Riv

er (4

1), D

yes I

nlet

(6),

Eagl

e H

arbo

r (5

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(23)

, Elli

ott B

ay (2

8), F

our-

Mile

R

ock

(2),

Kel

logg

Isla

nd (1

), M

agno

lia B

luff

(4),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(5),

Poin

t Pul

ley

(4),

Port

Mad

ison

(1),

Port

Tow

nsen

d (1

), Sh

ilsho

le B

ay (2

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

7), W

est P

oint

(6),

Wes

t Wat

erw

ay (2

)

65

App

endi

x A

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 209

Che

mic

al C

onta

min

ant

SQS

Sam

ple

loca

tion

(No.

of s

ampl

es)

SQS

valu

eC

SL S

ampl

e lo

catio

n (N

o. o

f sam

ples

)C

SL

valu

e

Zinc

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(13)

, Dye

s inl

et (2

), Ea

st W

ater

way

(3

), El

liott

Bay

(47)

, Fou

r -M

ile R

ock

(1),

Kel

logg

Is

land

(5),

Nor

th H

arbo

r Isl

and

(19)

, Sin

clai

r Inl

et (3

6),

Wes

t Wat

erw

a y (1

1)

410

Duw

amis

h R

iver

(1),

Ellio

tt B

ay (1

1), K

ello

gg Is

land

(1

), N

orth

Har

bor I

slan

d (4

), Si

ncla

ir In

let (

7), W

est

Wat

erw

ay (4

)

960

App

endi

x A

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 210

Page 211

Appendix BNavigation report for the 1998 central Puget Sound sampling stations.

Page 212

App

endi

x B

. N

avig

atio

n re

port

for

the

1998

cen

tral

Pug

et S

ound

sam

plin

g st

atio

ns.

Ster

nPr

edic

ted

Pred

icte

dG

PSTr

ansd

.Ti

de (m

.):M

udlin

ePD

OP/

Dep

thN

eare

stD

epth

, m.

Yan

kee

Zulu

HD

OP

m.

Stat

ion

(MLL

W)

=Bes

t no.

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Latit

ude

Long

itude

0110

61

130

-Jun

-98

0911

0.9/

1.2

13.3

1.5

11.8

1.0

2831

1.3

4227

3.8

48 0

2.81

5312

2 45

.827

12

0925

0.9/

1.2

13.3

1.5

11.8

0.3

2831

1.3

4227

3.8

48 0

2.81

5912

2 45

.827

43

0935

0.9/

1.2

13.3

1.5

11.8

1.3

2831

1.3

4227

3.8

48 0

2.81

5112

2 45

.827

601

107

21

30-J

un-9

810

111.

8/1.

020

.91.

519

.42.

128

303.

542

276.

848

02.

4102

122

44.6

112

210

251.

8/1.

020

.91.

419

.51.

928

303.

442

276.

848

02.

4118

122

44.6

108

310

331.

7/0.

920

.81.

419

.40.

728

303.

542

276.

848

02.

4108

122

44.6

093

0110

83

130

-Jun

-98

1829

1.9/

1.1

26.0

1.3

24.7

1.0

2832

3.8

4227

6.2

48 0

4.18

8112

2 45

.919

72

1840

1.8/

1.0

26.0

1.4

24.6

1.0

2832

3.8

4227

6.2

48 0

4.18

7912

2 45

.918

23

1849

1.8/

1.0

26.0

1.4

24.6

3.0

2832

3.8

4227

6.2

48 0

4.18

9012

2 45

.920

902

109

1.2

129

-Jun

-98

1525

4.0/

2.3

33.8

0.3

33.5

1.5

2833

7.9

4228

8.4

48 0

6.64

9312

2 43

.725

42

1538

1.8/

1.0

34.0

0.3

33.7

1.3

2833

7.9

4228

8.4

48 0

6.64

9812

2 43

.725

23

1548

1.9/

1.0

34.2

0.4

33.8

1.5

2833

7.9

4228

8.4

48 0

6.65

0412

2 43

.727

34

1600

2.0/

1.1

34.4

0.4

34.0

1.4

2833

8.0

4228

8.4

48 0

6.65

0012

2 43

.725

35

1608

2.0/

1.1

34.4

0.5

33.9

2.0

2833

7.9

4228

8.3

48 0

6.64

9712

2 43

.727

802

110

2.2

129

-Jun

-98

1339

2.3/

1.1

13.2

0.2

13.0

1.7

2833

9.1

4228

9.9

48 0

6.90

0112

2 43

.441

42

1426

2.3/

1.1

12.8

0.2

12.6

3.3

2833

9.2

4228

9.9

48 0

6.90

0612

2 43

.439

63

1437

2.3/

1.1

13.2

0.2

13.0

1.2

2833

9.2

4228

9.9

48 0

6.89

9412

2 43

.441

74

1446

2.2/

1.1

12.9

0.2

12.7

0.9

2833

9.2

4228

9.8

48 0

6.90

0512

2 43

.441

802

111

31

29-J

un-9

812

341.

7/0.

915

.30.

514

.80.

828

338.

242

283.

248

06.

1756

122

45.0

007

212

451.

7/0.

915

.30.

414

.91.

828

338.

242

283.

248

06.

1759

122

44.9

986

312

541.

7/0.

915

.20.

414

.82.

428

338.

242

283.

248

06.

1770

122

45.0

006

0411

22.

41

30-J

un-9

815

331.

8/1.

026

.00.

725

.31.

228

220.

842

316.

547

58.

8913

122

30.2

027

215

481.

8/1.

025

.00.

624

.41.

528

220.

842

316.

647

58.

8923

122

30.2

023

315

571.

9/1.

026

.00.

625

.40.

428

220.

842

316.

647

58.

8915

122

30.2

028

0411

63.

21

30-J

un-9

814

402.

2/1.

161

.00.

860

.23.

528

212.

142

313.

247

57.

8045

122

30.4

770

214

532.

1/1.

262

.00.

861

.24.

928

212.

142

313.

347

57.

8035

122

30.4

776

315

092.

1/1.

367

.00.

766

.37.

728

212.

142

313.

447

57.

8055

122

30.4

679

0411

74

130

-Jun

-98

1142

1.6/

0.9

45.0

1.4

43.6

1.7

2826

5.1

4228

4.2

47 5

9.62

4912

2 40

.687

22

1200

1.6/

1.1

46.0

1.3

44.7

2.2

2826

5.0

4228

4.2

47 5

9.62

3812

2 40

.685

33

1212

1.9/

1.1

46.0

1.3

44.7

0.9

2826

5.0

4228

4.2

47 5

9.62

4112

2 40

.686

44

1230

1.8/

1.0

45.0

1.2

43.8

1.4

2826

5.0

4228

4.2

47 5

9.62

3312

2 40

.687

8

Port

Tow

nsen

d

Sout

h A

dmira

lty In

let

Sout

h A

dmira

lty In

let

Sout

h A

dmira

lty In

let

Loca

tion

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

Stra

tum

heav

y 48

06.

1757

122

45.0

001

48 0

2.41

1012

2 44

.609

8he

avy

48 0

6.65

0012

2 43

.726

3he

avy

heav

y 12

2 43

.442

148

06.

9000

Sout

h Po

rt To

wns

end

Sout

h Po

rt To

wns

end

Sout

h Po

rt To

wns

end

Port

Tow

nsen

d

Port

Tow

nsen

d

heav

y 47

58.

8918

122

30.2

032

heav

y 47

57.

8047

122

30.4

741

heav

y 47

59.

6239

122

40.6

870

Dat

eD

eplo

y-m

ent N

o.G

PS T

ime

Dis

tanc

e to

St

atio

n (m

)D

ecim

al M

inut

esLO

RA

N-C

heav

y 48

02.

8158

122

45.8

275

NA

D 1

983

DG

PS (T

rimbl

e N

T300

D)

Stat

ion

Targ

etN

AD

198

3V

an V

een

Gra

b Ty

pe

light

48

04.

1880

122

45.9

190

Dec

imal

Min

utes

Page 213

Ster

nPr

edic

ted

Pred

icte

dG

PSTr

ansd

.Ti

de (m

.):M

udlin

ePD

OP/

Dep

thN

eare

stD

epth

, m.

Yan

kee

Zulu

HD

OP

m.

Stat

ion

(MLL

W)

=Bes

t no.

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Loca

tion

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

Stra

tum

Dat

eD

eplo

y-m

ent N

o.G

PS T

ime

Dis

tanc

e to

St

atio

n (m

)D

ecim

al M

inut

esLO

RA

N-C

NA

D 1

983

DG

PS (T

rimbl

e N

T300

D)

Stat

ion

Targ

etN

AD

198

3V

an V

een

Gra

b Ty

peD

ecim

al M

inut

es

0511

81

126

-Jun

-98

1008

1.5/

0.9

191.

01.

019

0.0

4.6

2810

1.0

4230

9.8

47 5

4.40

8712

2 20

.210

42

1034

1.8/

1.0

191.

00.

619

0.4

6.4

2814

4.1

4233

8.6

47 5

4.41

1212

2 20

.212

23

1052

1.7/

0.9

190.

00.

418

9.6

7.0

2814

4.1

4233

8.7

47 5

4.40

9012

2 20

.212

64

1114

2.3/

1.1

189.

00.

118

8.9

4.0

2814

4.1

4233

8.7

47 5

4.41

1712

2 20

.205

305

119

21

26-J

un-9

813

051.

7/0.

921

3.0

-0.6

213.

63.

728

101.

042

309.

847

52.

5708

122

28.9

305

213

282.

1/1.

121

1.0

-0.6

211.

62.

928

161.

142

307.

747

52.

5674

122

28.9

311

313

492.

5/1.

321

1.0

-0.5

211.

53.

928

161.

142

307.

647

52.

5681

122

28.9

334

414

082.

2/1.

121

1.0

-0.4

211.

43.

228

161.

042

307.

647

52.

5675

122

28.9

319

514

302.

4/1.

121

1.0

-0.2

211.

26.

428

161.

142

307.

747

52.

5662

122

28.9

340

0512

03

126

-Jun

-98

1514

2.0/

1.2

201.

00.

320

0.7

7.1

2815

9.9

4230

6.8

47 5

2.36

6312

2 29

.096

82

1532

3.9/

2.3

201.

00.

520

0.5

9.0

2810

1.0

4230

9.8

47 5

2.36

5312

2 29

.097

63

1600

1.9/

1.0

201.

00.

820

0.2

7.2

2816

0.0

4230

6.7

47 5

2.36

7612

2 29

.098

24

1615

1.9/

1.0

202.

01.

120

0.9

7.9

2816

0.0

4230

6.8

47 5

2.36

9612

2 29

.086

45

1630

1.9/

1.1

202.

01.

320

0.7

9.9

2815

9.9

4230

6.8

47 5

2.36

3212

2 29

.092

206

121

11

25-J

un-9

812

511.

7/0.

99.

4-0

.710

.12.

128

098.

042

312.

847

47.

3988

122

23.8

904

213

051.

7/0.

99.

2-0

.79.

92.

428

098.

042

312.

947

47.

3998

122

23.8

897

313

141.

7/0.

99.

8-0

.610

.40.

028

098.

142

312.

947

47.

3995

122

23.8

916

413

242.

0/1.

09.

8-0

.610

.40.

528

098.

142

312.

947

47.

3998

122

23.8

915

0612

22

125

-Jun

-98

1416

2.2/

1.1

200.

0-0

.120

0.1

3.1

2806

7.8

4229

6.4

47 4

2.58

4912

2 26

.359

22

1441

2.3/

1.1

200.

00.

219

9.8

4.2

2806

7.8

4229

6.4

47 4

2.58

3212

2 26

.358

83

1459

2.2/

1.1

201.

00.

520

0.5

3.0

2806

7.8

4229

6.4

47 4

2.58

4212

2 26

.354

706

123

31

25-J

un-9

815

531.

8/1.

021

8.0

1.3

216.

72.

628

101.

042

309.

847

47.

3109

122

24.8

648

216

151.

9/1.

022

0.0

1.7

218.

32.

828

101.

042

309.

847

47.

3112

122

24.8

648

316

432.

0/1.

122

1.0

2.0

219.

02.

028

101.

042

309.

847

47.

3097

122

24.8

671

0712

41

112

-Jun

-98

1301

2.6/

1.6

27.9

-0.5

28.4

0.4

2809

0.1

4228

0.5

47 4

2.82

8812

2 31

.639

32

1312

1.6/

0.9

28.5

-0.5

29.0

1.4

2809

0.1

4228

0.7

47 4

2.82

9712

2 31

.640

03

1324

2.0/

1.1

28.4

-0.5

28.9

1.8

2809

0.1

4228

0.6

47 4

2.82

8912

2 31

.640

907

125

21

12-J

un-9

811

271.

8/1.

039

.00.

039

.01.

228

101.

542

280.

847

43.

9833

122

32.2

353

211

421.

7/1.

038

.9-0

.239

.12.

428

101.

542

280.

947

43.

9814

122

32.2

352

311

521.

5/0.

938

.8-0

.239

.02.

528

101.

542

280.

847

43.

9818

122

32.2

352

47 4

2.82

9112

2 31

.639

4he

avy

47 4

3.98

2812

2 32

.235

4he

avy

heav

y 47

42.

5851

122

26.3

568

47 4

7.31

0712

2 24

.866

9he

avy

heav

y 47

52.

3691

122

29.0

927

heav

y 47

47.

3995

122

23.8

916

heav

y 47

54.

4102

122

20.2

072

heav

y 47

52.

5688

122

28.9

302

Port

Mad

ison

Port

Mad

ison

Cen

tral B

asin

Cen

tral B

asin

Poss

essi

on S

ound

Cen

tral B

asin

Poss

essi

on S

ound

Poss

essi

on S

ound

App

endi

x B

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 214

Ster

nPr

edic

ted

Pred

icte

dG

PSTr

ansd

.Ti

de (m

.):M

udlin

ePD

OP/

Dep

thN

eare

stD

epth

, m.

Yan

kee

Zulu

HD

OP

m.

Stat

ion

(MLL

W)

=Bes

t no.

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Loca

tion

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

Stra

tum

Dat

eD

eplo

y-m

ent N

o.G

PS T

ime

Dis

tanc

e to

St

atio

n (m

)D

ecim

al M

inut

esLO

RA

N-C

NA

D 1

983

DG

PS (T

rimbl

e N

T300

D)

Stat

ion

Targ

etN

AD

198

3V

an V

een

Gra

b Ty

peD

ecim

al M

inut

es

0712

63

112

-Jun

-98

1036

1.5/

0.9

45.4

0.5

44.9

2.2

2809

6.6

4228

1.3

47 4

3.56

2012

2 31

.830

32

1051

1.5/

0.9

45.4

0.4

45.0

3.2

2809

6.5

4228

1.3

47 4

3.56

2412

2 31

.827

03

1101

1.5/

0.9

45.3

0.3

45.0

2.3

2809

6.5

4228

1.3

47 4

3.56

0512

2 31

.827

608

127

11

11-J

un-9

812

582.

5/1.

522

7.0

-5.0

232.

01.

828

063.

042

288.

947

41.

2105

122

27.9

820

213

201.

6/0.

922

7.0

-0.4

227.

45.

028

063.

042

288.

947

41.

2092

122

27.9

784

313

361.

9/1.

122

7.0

-0.3

227.

32.

628

063.

042

288.

947

41.

2109

122

27.9

814

0812

82

111

-Jun

-98

1401

1.7/

0.9

168.

00.

016

8.0

1.0

2805

5.7

4229

2.7

47 4

0.96

5012

2 26

.600

82

1422

2.0/

1.0

168.

00.

216

7.8

1.3

2805

5.8

4229

2.6

47 4

0.96

4912

2 26

.601

03

1439

2.4/

1.2

168.

00.

416

7.6

2.0

2805

5.7

4229

2.7

47 4

0.96

4412

2 26

.600

508

129

31

12-J

un-9

814

111.

7/0.

923

9.0

-0.3

239.

33.

728

054.

442

289.

347

40.

4082

122

27.3

889

214

312.

2/1.

123

9.0

-0.1

239.

14.

228

054.

442

289.

347

40.

4084

122

27.3

895

314

481.

8/1.

123

9.0

0.0

239.

06.

128

054.

342

289.

347

40.

4082

122

27.3

894

0811

34

11-

Jul-9

812

441.

7/0.

921

7.0

2.0

215.

02.

728

064.

942

286.

847

41.

1219

122

28.6

614

213

032.

0/1.

021

7.0

2.0

215.

03.

028

064.

842

286.

647

41.

1194

122

28.6

589

313

172.

2/1.

121

7.0

1.9

215.

12.

728

064.

942

286.

747

41.

1221

122

28.6

610

0913

01

111

-Jun

-98

0937

2.6/

1.3

14.4

0.9

13.5

0.6

2804

0.5

4227

5.4

47 3

7.36

6012

2 30

.095

02

0950

2.4/

1.3

14.9

0.8

14.1

2.4

2804

0.4

4227

5.4

47 3

7.36

5212

2 30

.093

83

1000

2.2/

1.2

14.9

0.6

14.3

5.3

2804

0.5

4227

5.4

47 3

7.36

4712

2 30

.091

409

131

21

11-J

un-9

810

242.

1/1.

311

.00.

310

.71.

428

040.

542

273.

247

37.

0882

122

30.6

499

210

341.

5/0.

910

.80.

210

.61.

928

040.

542

273.

247

37.

0886

122

30.6

493

310

431.

5/0.

910

.70.

110

.61.

828

040.

642

273.

347

37.

0895

122

30.6

510

0913

23.

21

11-J

un-9

811

121.

8/1.

012

.2-0

.212

.41.

028

041.

042

274.

247

37.

2555

122

30.4

339

211

231.

8/1.

012

.1-0

.312

.40.

728

040.

942

274.

147

37.

2547

122

30.4

345

311

351.

8/1.

012

.0-0

.412

.40.

228

040.

542

273.

247

37.

2550

122

30.4

341

411

421.

8/1.

011

.9-0

.412

.31.

028

041.

042

274.

247

37.

2552

122

30.4

335

1013

31

15-

Jun-

9810

372.

0/1.

227

.10.

826

.30.

528

011.

842

261.

147

32.

6617

122

32.0

799

210

472.

1/1.

327

.10.

926

.21.

028

011.

942

261.

147

32.

6622

122

32.0

795

310

561.

5/0.

927

.60.

926

.71.

728

011.

842

261.

047

32.

6616

122

32.0

788

1013

42.

21

5-Ju

n-98

1328

2.5/

1.6

46.2

2.2

44.0

2.5

2800

3.4

4226

2.0

47 3

1.90

6112

2 31

.373

72

1340

2.0/

1.2

47.0

2.3

44.7

0.7

2800

3.4

4226

2.0

47 3

1.90

7912

2 31

.374

13

1349

2.0/

1.2

48.0

2.3

45.7

1.5

2800

3.4

4226

2.0

47 3

1.90

7012

2 31

.372

910

135

31

5-Ju

n-98

1125

2.0/

1.2

38.6

1.2

37.4

0.4

2809

0.5

4226

5.5

47 3

1.07

5712

2 29

.703

52

1136

1.8/

1.0

38.7

1.3

37.4

1.5

2809

0.5

4226

5.5

47 3

1.07

5412

2 29

.702

03

1145

1.8/

1.0

39.0

1.3

37.7

1.2

2809

0.5

4226

5.5

47 3

1.07

5112

2 29

.702

911

136

11

17-J

un-9

812

301.

6/1.

025

0.0

2.2

247.

80.

928

036.

642

282.

247

37.

8017

122

28.1

570

212

492.

0/1.

225

0.0

2.1

247.

93.

528

036.

642

282.

247

37.

8020

122

28.1

544

47 3

1.07

5712

2 29

.703

1he

avy

47 3

7.80

1412

2 28

.157

3he

avy

47 3

2.66

1912

2 32

.080

1he

avy

47 3

1.90

7512

2 31

.374

0he

avy

47 3

7.08

8512

2 30

.650

9lig

ht

heav

y 47

37.

2550

122

30.4

342

47 4

1.12

0912

2 28

.659

7lig

ht

47 3

7.36

5812

2 30

.095

5lig

ht

47 4

0.96

5612

2 26

.600

9lig

ht

47 4

0.41

1012

2 27

.386

5lig

ht

47 4

3.56

1312

2 31

.829

0he

avy

47 4

1.20

9712

2 27

.982

4lig

ht

Cen

tral B

asin

Cen

tral B

asin

Cen

tral B

asin

Cen

tral B

asin

Eagl

e H

arbo

r

Eagl

e H

arbo

r

Eagl

e H

arbo

r

Wes

t Poi

nt

Wes

t Poi

nt

Wes

t Poi

nt

Wes

t Poi

nt

Port

Mad

ison

App

endi

x B

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 215

Ster

nPr

edic

ted

Pred

icte

dG

PSTr

ansd

.Ti

de (m

.):M

udlin

ePD

OP/

Dep

thN

eare

stD

epth

, m.

Yan

kee

Zulu

HD

OP

m.

Stat

ion

(MLL

W)

=Bes

t no.

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Loca

tion

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

Stra

tum

Dat

eD

eplo

y-m

ent N

o.G

PS T

ime

Dis

tanc

e to

St

atio

n (m

)D

ecim

al M

inut

esLO

RA

N-C

NA

D 1

983

DG

PS (T

rimbl

e N

T300

D)

Stat

ion

Targ

etN

AD

198

3V

an V

een

Gra

b Ty

peD

ecim

al M

inut

es

313

061.

9/1.

124

8.0

2.0

246.

00.

228

036.

642

282.

247

37.

8014

122

28.1

574

1113

72

117

-Jun

-98

1343

1.7/

0.9

213.

01.

821

1.2

1.7

2802

6.0

4228

2.0

47 3

6.73

9712

2 27

.574

62

1401

2.1/

1.1

213.

01.

721

1.3

1.8

2802

6.1

4228

2.1

47 3

6.74

0612

2 27

.575

33

1417

2.4/

1.2

213.

01.

621

1.4

0.4

2802

6.0

4228

2.0

47 3

6.73

9612

2 27

.576

211

138

3.2

117

-Jun

-98

1027

1.5/

0.9

214.

02.

421

1.6

2.3

2797

7.1

4227

5.8

47 3

1.08

7212

2 26

.250

62

1047

1.8/

1.0

213.

02.

421

0.6

2.0

2797

7.1

4227

5.9

47 3

1.08

4912

2 26

.253

13

1101

1.8/

1.0

213.

02.

421

0.6

1.6

2797

7.1

4227

5.8

47 3

1.08

6312

2 26

.251

012

139

11

1-Ju

n-98

1103

2.1/

1.3

236.

02.

323

3.7

3.3

2794

1.2

4227

6.4

47 2

7.57

4212

2 23

.958

42

1130

1.5/

0.9

235.

02.

323

2.7

1.6

2794

1.2

4227

6.4

47 2

7.57

4512

2 23

.960

33

1134

1.5/

0.9

234.

02.

223

1.8

2.7

2794

1.2

4227

6.4

47 2

7.57

4212

2 23

.958

812

140

21

1-Ju

n-98

1310

2.2/

1.1

191.

01.

818

9.2

7.1

2792

1.8

4227

6.7

47 2

5.68

0812

2 22

.684

92

1334

1.9/

1.1

190.

01.

618

8.4

0.2

2792

1.9

4227

6.7

47 2

5.67

8912

2 22

.690

03

1350

1.6/

0.9

190.

01.

518

8.5

2.4

2792

1.8

4227

6.7

47 2

5.67

7812

2 22

.690

412

141

3.2

11-

Jun-

9815

401.

8/1.

197

.00.

796

.32.

327

900.

142

280.

547

24.

0727

122

20.3

352

215

532.

2/1.

197

.00.

796

.30.

427

900.

242

280.

647

24.

0733

122

20.3

363

316

082.

2/1.

197

.00.

696

.40.

627

900.

142

280.

547

24.

0731

122

20.3

366

416

172.

2/1.

196

.00.

695

.41.

927

900.

142

280.

647

24.

0734

122

20.3

352

1314

21

110

-Jun

-98

1314

1.6/

0.9

4.4

-0.2

4.6

0.5

2812

2.3

4225

9.3

47 4

3.38

9712

2 38

.821

22

1327

2.0/

1.0

4.5

0.0

4.5

1.0

2812

2.3

4225

9.3

47 4

3.38

9812

2 38

.822

33

1334

1.9/

1.6

4.5

0.0

4.5

1.9

2812

2.3

4225

9.3

47 4

3.39

0412

2 38

.822

94

1341

2.1/

1.1

4.6

0.1

4.5

0.7

2812

2.3

4225

9.3

47 4

3.39

0212

2 38

.821

613

143

21

10-J

un-9

814

031.

7/0.

94.

20.

43.

80.

928

121.

442

258.

747

43.

2209

122

38.9

393

214

151.

7/0.

94.

40.

53.

90.

528

121.

442

258.

747

43.

2202

122

38.9

396

314

241.

7/0.

94.

40.

63.

81.

828

121.

442

258.

747

43.

2210

122

38.9

411

414

312.

1/1.

14.

50.

73.

81.

928

121.

442

258.

747

43.

2207

122

38.9

413

1314

43

110

-Jun

-98

1501

1.8/

1.1

11.0

1.1

9.9

1.3

2812

0.6

4226

0.0

47 4

3.30

9712

2 38

.526

82

1519

2.2/

1.1

11.2

1.4

9.8

1.7

2812

0.6

4226

0.0

47 4

3.30

9112

2 38

.527

73

1530

2.3/

1.1

11.4

1.6

9.8

1.3

2812

0.6

4226

0.1

47 4

3.30

9612

2 38

.525

54

1538

2.4/

1.1

11.5

1.7

9.8

1.8

2812

0.6

4226

0.0

47 4

3.30

9512

2 38

.527

6

47 4

3.22

0512

2 38

.939

8lig

ht

47 4

3.30

9112

2 38

.526

3lig

ht

heav

y 47

24.

0734

122

20.3

366

47 4

3.38

9612

2 38

.821

6lig

ht

47 2

7.57

4712

2 23

.960

9lig

ht

47 2

5.67

9012

2 22

.690

0lig

ht

47 3

6.73

9712

2 27

.575

9he

avy

47 3

1.08

5712

2 26

.251

9he

avy

Libe

rty B

ay

Libe

rty B

ay

Libe

rty B

ay

East

Pas

sage

East

Pas

sage

East

Pas

sage

Cen

tral B

asin

Cen

tral B

asin

App

endi

x B

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 216

Ster

nPr

edic

ted

Pred

icte

dG

PSTr

ansd

.Ti

de (m

.):M

udlin

ePD

OP/

Dep

thN

eare

stD

epth

, m.

Yan

kee

Zulu

HD

OP

m.

Stat

ion

(MLL

W)

=Bes

t no.

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Loca

tion

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

Stra

tum

Dat

eD

eplo

y-m

ent N

o.G

PS T

ime

Dis

tanc

e to

St

atio

n (m

)D

ecim

al M

inut

esLO

RA

N-C

NA

D 1

983

DG

PS (T

rimbl

e N

T300

D)

Stat

ion

Targ

etN

AD

198

3V

an V

een

Gra

b Ty

peD

ecim

al M

inut

es

1414

51

110

-Jun

-98

1036

1.6/

1.0

3.7

0.0

3.7

2.4

2811

4.1

4226

1.6

47 4

2.88

0612

2 37

.759

22

1046

1.6/

1.0

3.5

-0.1

3.6

2.0

2811

4.1

4226

1.6

47 4

2.88

1612

2 37

.756

83

1053

1.6/

1.0

3.5

-0.2

3.7

0.6

2811

4.1

4226

1.6

47 4

2.88

1612

2 37

.758

84

1102

3.0/

1.9

3.3

-0.3

3.6

1.5

2811

4.1

4226

1.6

47 4

2.88

1512

2 37

.757

25

1109

1.1/

1.3

3.3

-0.3

3.6

1.6

2811

4.1

4226

1.7

47 4

2.88

1312

2 37

.759

714

146

21

10-J

un-9

811

452.

1/1.

26.

7-0

.57.

21.

928

119.

242

259.

947

43.

1631

122

38.4

778

211

552.

1/1.

26.

8-0

.57.

32.

228

119.

242

260.

047

43.

1651

122

38.4

762

312

032.

1/1.

16.

8-0

.57.

30.

828

119.

242

259.

947

43.

1640

122

38.4

777

412

101.

3/1.

96.

8-0

.57.

31.

228

119.

242

260.

047

43.

1640

122

38.4

762

1414

73

110

-Jun

-98

0946

3.2/

1.5

5.3

0.5

4.8

1.6

2811

1.6

4225

9.6

47 4

2.39

0712

2 38

.133

02

0956

2.9/

1.4

5.3

0.4

4.9

2.3

2811

1.6

4225

9.6

47 4

2.38

9812

2 38

.130

53

1004

2.6/

1.3

4.8

0.3

4.5

0.6

2811

1.6

4225

9.6

47 4

2.38

9912

2 38

.132

04

1010

2.4/

1.3

4.8

0.2

4.6

1.5

2811

1.6

4225

9.6

47 4

2.39

0712

2 38

.132

85

1017

2.2/

1.3

4.4

0.1

4.3

1.1

2811

1.6

4225

9.7

47 4

2.38

9412

2 38

.133

015

148

11

9-Ju

n-98

1645

4.0/

2.3

13.5

2.9

10.6

2.0

2809

9.0

4226

2.7

47 4

1.57

6512

2 36

.607

62

1656

1.8/

1.0

13.7

3.1

10.6

1.7

2809

9.1

4226

2.6

47 4

1.57

4812

2 36

.606

33

1705

1.8/

1.0

13.7

3.1

10.6

2.4

2809

9.1

4226

2.6

47 4

1.57

5012

2 36

.604

915

149

21

9-Ju

n-98

1437

2.1/

1.1

5.5

1.3

4.2

1.9

2809

2.1

4226

6.3

47 4

1.32

6412

2 35

.335

42

1457

2.5/

1.3

5.8

1.6

4.2

1.4

2809

2.1

4226

6.2

47 4

1.32

6312

2 35

.337

43

1505

1.8/

1.1

5.8

1.7

4.1

2.5

2809

2.2

4226

6.2

47 4

1.32

6512

2 35

.334

74

1513

2.1/

1.1

6.1

1.8

4.3

4.3

2809

2.1

4226

6.3

47 4

1.32

6612

2 35

.333

35

1524

2.2/

1.1

6.2

2.0

4.2

0.6

2809

2.2

4226

6.3

47 4

1.32

5812

2 35

.337

16

1532

2.3/

1.1

6.3

2.1

4.2

2.1

2809

2.1

4226

6.2

47 4

1.32

4612

2 35

.336

77

1537

2.3/

1.1

6.3

2.2

4.1

0.6

2809

2.2

4226

6.2

47 4

1.32

5512

2 35

.336

38

1545

2.3/

1.1

6.5

2.3

4.2

1.9

2809

2.1

4226

6.2

47 4

1.32

4712

2 35

.336

715

150

31

9-Ju

n-98

1335

1.9/

1.1

16.5

0.5

16.0

0.3

2808

7.9

4226

6.1

47 4

0.87

4012

2 35

.129

72

1352

1.8/

1.0

16.6

0.7

15.9

2.3

2808

7.8

4226

6.0

47 4

0.87

2912

2 35

.129

73

1404

1.7/

0.9

16.6

0.9

15.7

1.8

2808

7.8

4226

6.1

47 4

0.87

5112

2 35

.129

116

151

11

9-Ju

n-98

1235

2.2/

1.1

17.6

-0.1

17.7

1.0

2807

7.1

4225

9.5

47 3

8.96

5712

2 36

.209

62

1244

2.2/

1.1

17.7

-0.1

17.8

0.3

2807

7.1

4225

9.5

47 3

8.96

5612

2 36

.208

63

1254

2.0/

1.1

18.0

0.1

17.9

1.3

2807

7.1

4225

9.5

47 3

8.96

5312

2 36

.207

94

1303

2.8/

1.5

18.0

0.1

17.9

1.4

2807

7.1

4225

9.5

47 3

8.96

6512

2 36

.208

716

152

21

8-Ju

n-98

1412

1.7/

0.9

24.8

1.5

23.3

0.8

2805

1.6

4225

7.3

47 3

6.14

2312

2 35

.344

02

1425

1.7/

0.9

24.8

1.6

23.2

1.2

2805

1.6

4225

7.2

47 3

6.14

2612

2 35

.342

812

2 35

.343

7lig

ht

light

47

40.

8742

122

35.1

298

light

47

38.

9657

122

36.2

088

47 3

6.14

26

47 4

1.57

5712

2 36

.606

6lig

ht

heav

y 47

41.

3257

122

35.3

366

47 4

3.16

4012

2 38

.477

1lig

ht

47 4

2.38

9912

2 38

.132

5he

avy

heav

y 47

42.

8818

122

37.7

584

SW B

ainb

ridge

Isla

nd

SW B

ainb

ridge

Isla

nd

NW

Bai

nbrid

ge Is

land

NW

Bai

nbrid

ge Is

land

NW

Bai

nbrid

ge Is

land

Key

port

Key

port

Key

port

App

endi

x B

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 217

Ster

nPr

edic

ted

Pred

icte

dG

PSTr

ansd

.Ti

de (m

.):M

udlin

ePD

OP/

Dep

thN

eare

stD

epth

, m.

Yan

kee

Zulu

HD

OP

m.

Stat

ion

(MLL

W)

=Bes

t no.

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Loca

tion

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

Stra

tum

Dat

eD

eplo

y-m

ent N

o.G

PS T

ime

Dis

tanc

e to

St

atio

n (m

)D

ecim

al M

inut

esLO

RA

N-C

NA

D 1

983

DG

PS (T

rimbl

e N

T300

D)

Stat

ion

Targ

etN

AD

198

3V

an V

een

Gra

b Ty

peD

ecim

al M

inut

es

314

402.

1/1.

124

.91.

823

.13.

228

051.

642

257.

347

36.

1435

122

35.3

414

414

502.

2/1.

125

.02.

023

.00.

128

051.

642

257.

347

36.

1426

122

35.3

436

1615

33

18-

Jun-

9812

181.

7/1.

034

.50.

234

.35.

128

061.

042

260.

947

37.

5503

122

34.8

743

212

332.

3/1.

134

.60.

334

.32.

628

061.

042

260.

947

37.

5496

122

34.8

795

312

562.

0/1.

134

.60.

534

.12.

028

061.

042

260.

947

37.

5487

122

34.8

796

413

042.

8/1.

534

.60.

634

.01.

128

060.

942

260.

947

37.

5485

122

34.8

771

1715

41.

81

9-Ju

n-98

1031

2.1/

1.3

4.6

-0.2

4.8

0.0

2803

5.1

4226

5.4

47 3

5.60

5312

2 32

.241

747

35.

6053

122

32.2

417

heav

y 2

1054

1.5/

1.2

4.7

-0.3

5.0

1..2

2803

5.1

4226

5.4

47 3

5.60

4712

2 32

.241

33

1105

2.1/

1.2

4.6

-0.3

4.9

2.5

2803

5.1

4226

5.5

47 3

5.60

5312

2 32

.243

7M

oved

stat

ion

to sl

ight

ly d

eepe

r wat

er

411

111.

5/0.

94.

7-0

.35.

02.

428

035.

142

265.

447

35.

6061

122

32.2

400

511

181.

5/0.

94.

7-0

.35.

01.

728

035.

242

265.

447

35.

6061

122

32.2

408

1715

52.

21

8-Ju

n-98

1109

2.1/

1.2

5.0

-0.1

5.1

3.9

2804

2.2

4226

3.3

47 3

6.03

5712

2 33

.224

82

1124

1.8/

1.0

4.7

-0.1

4.8

4.0

2804

2.2

4226

3.3

47 3

6.03

7012

2 33

.229

03

1135

1.8/

1.0

5.0

-0.1

5.1

1.9

2804

2.2

4226

3.3

47 3

6.03

5412

2 33

.228

54

1142

1.8/

1.0

5.1

0.0

5.1

3.3

2806

1.0

4226

0.9

47 3

6.03

6212

2 33

.228

817

156

31

8-Ju

n-98

1528

2.3/

1.1

46.2

2.4

43.8

3.3

2803

9.7

4225

5.8

47 3

4.75

3312

2 35

.047

22

1544

2.4/

1.1

46.2

2.6

43.6

2.3

2803

9.7

4225

5.7

47 3

4.75

1512

2 35

.047

63

1559

2.3/

1.1

47.0

2.7

44.3

0.5

2803

9.7

4225

5.7

47 3

4.75

2112

2 35

.045

94

1609

2.2/

1.1

47.0

2.8

44.2

2.2

2803

9.7

4225

5.7

47 3

4.75

0812

2 35

.046

65

1621

2.1/

1.2

47.3

2.9

44.4

1.6

2803

9.7

4225

5.8

47 3

4.75

2212

2 35

.044

56

1635

2.5/

1.8

47.1

3.0

44.1

1.8

2803

9.7

4225

5.7

47 3

4.75

1012

2 35

.044

718

157

11

4-Ju

n-98

1356

2.0/

1.1

22.9

2.4

20.5

1.5

2803

9.2

4225

1.3

47 3

4.14

3212

2 36

.141

02

1414

0.9/

1.4

22.8

2.5

20.3

2.2

2803

9.2

4225

1.3

47 3

4.14

4312

2 36

.138

43

1426

0.9/

1.4

22.8

2.5

20.3

0.9

2803

9.1

4225

1.2

47 3

4.14

3512

2 36

.139

24

1437

1.7/

0.9

22.7

2.5

20.2

1.1

2803

9.2

4225

1.3

47 3

4.14

3812

2 36

.140

718

158

2.3

14-

Jun-

9815

432.

2/1.

112

.92.

510

.40.

528

036.

142

254.

147

34.

1703

122

35.2

386

215

542.

3/1.

112

.42.

410

.01.

928

036.

142

254.

047

34.

1691

122

35.2

384

316

042.

3/1.

112

.52.

410

.12.

528

036.

142

254.

047

34.

1695

122

35.2

371

416

162.

3/1.

112

.22.

39.

91.

628

036.

142

254.

147

34.

1694

122

35.2

382

Ric

h Pa

ssag

e

heav

y 47

34.

1701

122

35.2

389

heav

y 47

34.

7518

122

35.0

457

heav

y 47

34.

1436

122

36.1

399

47 3

6.03

4612

2 33

.227

6he

avy

47 3

7.54

8712

2 34

.877

9lig

ht

Port

Orc

hard

Port

Orc

hard

Ric

h Pa

ssag

e

Ric

h Pa

ssag

e

SW B

ainb

ridge

Isla

nd

App

endi

x B

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 218

Ster

nPr

edic

ted

Pred

icte

dG

PSTr

ansd

.Ti

de (m

.):M

udlin

ePD

OP/

Dep

thN

eare

stD

epth

, m.

Yan

kee

Zulu

HD

OP

m.

Stat

ion

(MLL

W)

=Bes

t no.

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Loca

tion

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

Stra

tum

Dat

eD

eplo

y-m

ent N

o.G

PS T

ime

Dis

tanc

e to

St

atio

n (m

)D

ecim

al M

inut

esLO

RA

N-C

NA

D 1

983

DG

PS (T

rimbl

e N

T300

D)

Stat

ion

Targ

etN

AD

198

3V

an V

een

Gra

b Ty

peD

ecim

al M

inut

es

1815

93.

31

5-Ju

n-98

1449

2.1/

1.1

8.0

2.6

5.4

1.6

2803

9.9

4224

9.3

47 3

3.97

1812

2 36

.653

52

1501

2.2/

1.1

7.8

2.6

5.2

3.1

2803

9.9

4224

9.3

47 3

3.97

1512

2 36

.657

43

1513

2.2/

1.1

7.9

2.7

5.2

0.1

2803

9.9

4224

9.3

47 3

3.97

2012

2 36

.654

74

1522

1.1/

1.4

8.2

2.7

5.5

4.5

2803

9.9

4224

9.3

47 3

3.96

9312

2 36

.654

219

160

11

4-Ju

n-98

1001

2.6/

1.3

7.6

1.0

6.6

0.7

2804

1.0

4223

4.6

47 3

2.05

4012

2 40

.613

02

1012

2.5/

1.3

7.7

1.1

6.6

1.7

2804

1.0

4223

4.6

47 3

2.05

4212

2 40

.614

53

1020

2.4/

1.3

7.7

1.1

6.6

0.7

2804

1.1

4223

4.6

47 3

2.05

4612

2 40

.612

819

161

21

4-Ju

n-98

1049

2.1/

1.3

11.6

1.3

10.3

2.9

2803

7.1

4224

1.8

47 3

2.62

4012

2 38

.487

52

1103

1.5/

0.9

11.7

1.4

10.3

1.6

2803

7.1

4224

1.7

47 3

2.62

3912

2 38

.488

83

1114

1.5/

0.9

11.7

1.5

10.2

1.6

2803

7.1

4224

1.7

47 3

2.62

3212

2 38

.490

519

162

31

4-Ju

n-98

1235

1.8/

1.1

13.3

2.1

11.2

0.7

2803

8.6

4224

2.0

47 3

2.83

4512

2 38

.488

82

1248

2.6/

1.5

13.5

2.1

11.4

1.8

2803

8.6

4224

2.1

47 3

2.83

5312

2 38

.488

53

1259

2.2/

1.1

13.6

2.2

11.4

2.9

2803

8.6

4224

2.1

47 3

2.83

5812

2 38

.487

620

163

11

3-Ju

n-98

1100

1.9/

1.2

12.2

1.8

10.4

2.8

2804

0.8

4223

9.7

47 3

2.74

2912

2 39

.243

62

1116

1.9/

1.2

12.2

1.9

10.3

0.7

2804

0.8

4223

9.7

47 3

2.74

1912

2 39

.245

920

164

21

3-Ju

n-98

1408

2.1/

1.1

8.6

2.3

6.3

2.2

2804

4.9

4223

8.0

47 3

2.94

0112

2 39

.923

02

1422

2.0/

1.0

8.6

2.3

6.3

2.4

2804

4.9

4223

8.0

47 3

2.94

0712

2 39

.923

83

1436

1.7/

0.9

8.6

2.3

6.3

0.8

2804

4.9

4223

8.1

47 3

2.94

0912

2 39

.921

120

165

34

1449

1.7/

0.9

8.5

2.2

6.3

1.3

2804

4.9

4223

8.1

47 3

2.93

9912

2 39

.920

71

3-Ju

n-98

1148

1.8/

1.0

10.8

2.1

8.7

1.4

2804

4.4

4223

7.7

47 3

2.83

5512

2 39

.986

02

1204

1.8/

1.0

10.9

2.2

8.7

1.7

2804

4.3

4223

7.7

47 3

2.83

3912

2 39

.986

13

1215

1.8/

1.0

10.9

2.2

8.7

1.2

2804

4.4

4223

7.8

47 3

2.83

4412

2 39

.984

821

166

11

2-Ju

n-98

1330

1.9/

1.1

18.3

2.2

16.1

2.5

2807

2.2

4224

4.3

47 3

6.53

3312

2 39

.808

02

1341

1.6/

0.9

17.7

2.2

15.5

2.1

2807

2.1

4224

4.3

47 3

6.53

2912

2 39

.805

23

1350

1.6/

0.9

18.0

2.2

15.8

0.4

2807

2.2

4224

4.2

47 3

6.53

3812

2 39

.805

921

167

21

2-Ju

n-98

1420

1.8/

1.0

8.2

2.1

6.1

1.7

2806

0.7

4224

1.9

47 3

5.08

3612

2 39

.780

82

1429

1.7/

0.9

8.2

2.0

6.2

0.8

2806

0.8

4224

1.9

47 3

5.08

3312

2 39

.782

73

1439

1.7/

0.9

8.3

2.0

6.3

1.0

2806

0.8

4224

1.9

47 3

5.08

4112

2 39

.782

74

1447

1.7/

0.9

8.3

1.9

6.4

3.0

2806

0.7

4224

1.9

47 3

5.08

2412

2 39

.780

421

168

3.2

13-

Jun-

9809

452.

2/1.

225

.81.

224

.62.

528

061.

742

242.

747

35.

3011

122

39.5

957

209

592.

5/1.

326

.21.

324

.90.

628

061.

742

242.

747

35.

3009

122

39.5

980

310

102.

6/1.

326

.11.

324

.80.

428

061.

742

242.

747

35.

3012

122

39.5

981

2216

91

12-

Jun-

9809

062.

6/1.

27.

51.

56.

01.

728

088.

442

244.

347

38.

1431

122

40.7

447

209

182.

5/1.

17.

31.

65.

70.

428

088.

442

244.

347

38.

1439

122

40.7

447

heav

y 47

35.

3011

122

39.5

977

heav

y 47

38.

1437

122

40.7

449

heav

y 12

2 39

.806

247

36.

5339

heav

y 47

35.

0836

122

39.7

822

122

38.4

893

light

light

47

32.

7421

122

39.2

456

122

39.9

214

light

47 3

3.97

1712

2 36

.654

8he

avy

light

47

32.

0543

122

40.6

131

47 3

2.83

46

light

47

32.

8347

122

39.9

857

47 3

2.62

3012

2 38

.489

3lig

ht

47 3

2.94

05

Dye

s Inl

et

Pt. W

ashi

ngto

n N

arro

ws

Pt. W

ashi

ngto

n N

arro

ws

Pt. W

ashi

ngto

n N

arro

ws

Sinc

lair

Inle

t

Sinc

lair

Inle

t

Sinc

lair

Inle

t

Sinc

lair

Inle

t

Sinc

lair

Inle

t

Sinc

lair

Inle

t

Port

Orc

hard

App

endi

x B

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 219

Ster

nPr

edic

ted

Pred

icte

dG

PSTr

ansd

.Ti

de (m

.):M

udlin

ePD

OP/

Dep

thN

eare

stD

epth

, m.

Yan

kee

Zulu

HD

OP

m.

Stat

ion

(MLL

W)

=Bes

t no.

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Loca

tion

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

Stra

tum

Dat

eD

eplo

y-m

ent N

o.G

PS T

ime

Dis

tanc

e to

St

atio

n (m

)D

ecim

al M

inut

esLO

RA

N-C

NA

D 1

983

DG

PS (T

rimbl

e N

T300

D)

Stat

ion

Targ

etN

AD

198

3V

an V

een

Gra

b Ty

peD

ecim

al M

inut

es

309

252.

6/1.

27.

31.

65.

71.

428

088.

442

244.

347

38.

1437

122

40.7

438

409

322.

6/1.

27.

31.

75.

61.

428

088.

442

244.

347

38.

1441

122

40.7

438

509

392.

6/1.

27.

31.

75.

60.

928

088.

442

244.

347

38.

1440

122

40.7

442

2217

02

12-

Jun-

9811

421.

5/0.

913

.22.

310

.91.

128

082.

842

238.

047

36.

7847

122

42.0

803

211

591.

8/1.

013

.32.

311

.01.

328

082.

842

238.

047

36.

7837

122

42.0

795

312

091.

8/1.

013

.32.

311

.01.

328

082.

842

238.

047

36.

7847

122

42.0

804

2217

13

12-

Jun-

9810

152.

6/1.

313

.31.

911

.41.

228

087.

442

241.

147

37.

6436

122

41.5

139

210

292.

3/1.

913

.52.

011

.50.

528

087.

442

241.

147

37.

6430

122

41.5

133

310

382.

2/1.

213

.52.

011

.52.

628

087.

442

241.

147

37.

6419

122

41.5

151

2317

21

115

-Jun

-98

1124

1.8/

1.0

152.

01.

715

0.3

1.0

2800

6.4

4228

8.5

47 3

5.66

4112

2 24

.760

42

1142

1.5/

0.9

152.

01.

515

0.5

0.7

2800

6.3

4228

8.4

47 3

5.66

3512

2 24

.760

13

1154

2.3/

1.1

152.

01.

415

0.6

1.8

2800

6.4

4228

8.4

47 3

5.66

2912

2 24

.759

623

173

21

15-J

un-9

813

231.

8/1.

014

2.0

0.5

141.

58.

528

007.

542

291.

647

36.

2214

122

23.9

676

213

451.

7/0.

913

1.0

0.3

130.

77.

628

007.

542

291.

647

36.

2235

122

23.9

678

313

581.

7/0.

913

4.0

1.2

132.

82.

428

007.

542

291.

747

36.

2253

122

23.9

612

2317

43

115

-Jun

-98

1436

1.8/

1.1

41.0

0.0

41.0

1.7

2801

7.5

4229

4.0

47 3

7.48

7512

2 23

.990

42

1452

2.6/

1.5

39.4

0.0

39.4

2.2

2801

7.5

4229

3.9

47 3

7.48

9112

2 23

.989

83

1500

2.3/

1.1

39.0

0.0

39.0

1.4

2801

7.5

4229

3.9

47 3

7.48

8912

2 23

.991

34

1514

3.1/

1.2

40.0

-0.1

40.1

0.6

2801

7.5

4229

3.9

47 3

7.48

8212

2 23

.990

423

175

41

15-J

un-9

810

181.

5/0.

950

.52.

348

.21.

328

002.

242

285.

747

34.

8764

122

25.2

086

210

311.

8/1.

250

.82.

248

.62.

428

002.

142

285.

647

34.

8783

122

25.2

107

310

422.

1/1.

250

.52.

148

.41.

228

002.

142

285.

747

34.

8767

122

25.2

084

410

521.

5/0.

950

.52.

048

.51.

028

002.

142

285.

647

34.

8769

122

25.2

086

2417

61

116

-Jun

-98

0948

2.0/

1.2

13.0

2.5

10.5

1.1

2801

9.4

4229

4.6

47 3

7.75

0612

2 23

.945

82

0958

2.2/

1.3

13.2

2.5

10.7

1.2

2801

9.4

4229

4.6

47 3

7.75

0012

2 23

.946

93

1008

2.1/

1.3

12.5

2.5

10.0

2.4

2801

9.4

4229

4.6

47 3

7.75

1512

2 23

.946

14

1018

1.7/

1.1

13.0

2.5

10.5

1.6

2801

9.4

4229

4.6

47 3

7.74

9712

2 23

.947

7

heav

y 47

37.

7506

122

23.9

474

heav

y 47

37.

4882

122

23.9

909

heav

y 47

34.

8770

122

25.2

094

47 3

5.66

4012

2 24

.759

7he

avy

47 3

6.22

4312

2 23

.961

9he

avy

light

47

36.

7845

122

42.0

794

heav

y 47

37.

6429

122

41.5

137

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

Out

er E

lliot

t Bay

Out

er E

lliot

t Bay

Out

er E

lliot

t Bay

Out

er E

lliot

t Bay

Dye

s Inl

et

Dye

s Inl

et

App

endi

x B

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 220

Ster

nPr

edic

ted

Pred

icte

dG

PSTr

ansd

.Ti

de (m

.):M

udlin

ePD

OP/

Dep

thN

eare

stD

epth

, m.

Yan

kee

Zulu

HD

OP

m.

Stat

ion

(MLL

W)

=Bes

t no.

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Loca

tion

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

Stra

tum

Dat

eD

eplo

y-m

ent N

o.G

PS T

ime

Dis

tanc

e to

St

atio

n (m

)D

ecim

al M

inut

esLO

RA

N-C

NA

D 1

983

DG

PS (T

rimbl

e N

T300

D)

Stat

ion

Targ

etN

AD

198

3V

an V

een

Gra

b Ty

peD

ecim

al M

inut

es

2417

72

116

-Jun

-98

1046

1.6/

1.0

5.9

2.4

3.5

2.4

2802

1.7

4229

4.2

47 3

7.94

2112

2 24

.166

72

1056

1.8/

1.0

6.1

2.3

3.8

0.8

2802

1.7

4229

4.2

47 3

7.94

0912

2 24

.165

33

1106

1.9/

1.0

6.0

2.3

3.7

2.0

2802

1.7

4229

4.2

47 3

7.94

1312

2 24

.163

54

1114

1.9/

1.0

6.0

2.2

3.8

0.2

2802

1.7

4229

4.2

47 3

7.94

1312

2 24

.165

024

178

31

16-J

un-9

811

361.

8/1.

022

.92.

120

.81.

328

016.

442

295.

147

37.

5486

122

23.6

142

211

462.

6/1.

423

.02.

021

.03.

428

016.

442

295.

147

37.

5472

122

23.6

113

311

553.

5/1.

522

.92.

020

.91.

228

016.

542

295.

147

37.

5477

122

23.6

131

2517

91

116

-Jun

-98

1314

2.9/

1.2

27.3

1.3

26.0

1..5

2801

0.8

4229

8.2

47 3

7.43

6112

2 22

.445

72

1325

3.5/

1.1

27.0

1.2

25.8

0.9

2801

0.8

4229

8.2

47 3

7.43

7012

2 22

.444

53

1334

4.1/

1.0

27.8

1.1

26.7

1.2

2801

0.8

4229

8.1

47 3

7.43

6712

2 22

.444

025

180

21

17-J

un-9

814

552.

3/1.

122

.51.

221

.30.

528

012.

442

297.

547

37.

4891

122

22.7

205

215

062.

4/1.

122

.71.

221

.51.

128

012.

442

297.

547

37.

4887

122

22.7

217

315

162.

3/1.

122

.51.

121

.41.

328

012.

342

297.

447

37.

4884

122

22.7

200

415

252.

3/1.

122

.51.

121

.42.

428

012.

442

297.

547

37.

4876

122

22.7

205

2518

13

116

-Jun

-98

1401

6.6/

1.3

36.0

0.9

35.1

0.9

2800

3.7

4229

9.3

47 3

6.90

2512

2 21

.738

12

1422

4.3/

1.6

37.0

0.7

36.3

0.6

2800

3.7

4229

9.3

47 3

6.90

2012

2 21

.737

63

1434

2.4/

1.2

37.0

0.7

36.3

3.1

2800

3.6

4229

9.2

47 3

6.90

0612

2 21

.736

825

115

41

1-Ju

l-98

1543

1.8/

1.0

12.3

1.2

11.1

0.9

2801

4.1

4229

7.7

47 3

7.68

6712

2 22

.762

52

1558

2.0/

1.1

13.0

1.1

11.9

1.6

2801

4.0

4229

7.7

47 3

7.68

5712

2 22

.763

53

1612

2.0/

1.1

12.2

1.1

11.1

0.4

2801

4.1

4229

7.8

47 3

7.68

6712

2 22

.763

14

1625

2.0/

1.1

12.2

1.1

11.1

0.9

2801

4.1

4229

7.8

47 3

7.68

6512

2 22

.763

926

182

1.2

118

-Jun

-98

1426

1.6/

0.9

37.6

2.1

35.5

2.8

2799

4.2

4230

1.2

47 3

6.25

2512

2 20

.648

02

1442

2.2/

1.1

39.0

2.1

36.9

0.9

2799

4.2

4230

1.1

47 3

6.25

1012

2 20

.649

63

1453

2.3/

1.1

38.3

2.0

36.3

1.5

2799

4.2

4230

1.2

47 3

6.25

2212

2 20

.649

726

183

21

18-J

un-9

815

312.

1/1.

113

.61.

811

.82.

027

993.

242

301.

747

36.

2393

122

20.4

248

215

462.

0/1.

213

.21.

711

.50.

627

993.

242

301.

747

36.

2395

122

20.4

234

315

562.

5/1.

813

.51.

611

.91.

927

993.

242

301.

847

36.

2404

122

20.4

247

416

074.

0/2.

312

.91.

511

.40.

827

993.

242

301.

747

36.

2395

122

20.4

235

47 3

6.23

9912

2 20

.423

4he

avy

47 3

7.68

6512

2 22

.763

2he

avy

47 3

6.25

1512

2 20

.649

7he

avy

47 3

6.90

2012

2 21

.738

1he

avy

heav

y 47

37.

4889

122

22.7

208

heav

y 47

37.

5479

122

23.6

138

47 3

7.43

6612

2 22

.445

0he

avy

heav

y 47

37.

9413

122

24.1

651

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

App

endi

x B

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 221

Ster

nPr

edic

ted

Pred

icte

dG

PSTr

ansd

.Ti

de (m

.):M

udlin

ePD

OP/

Dep

thN

eare

stD

epth

, m.

Yan

kee

Zulu

HD

OP

m.

Stat

ion

(MLL

W)

=Bes

t no.

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Loca

tion

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

Stra

tum

Dat

eD

eplo

y-m

ent N

o.G

PS T

ime

Dis

tanc

e to

St

atio

n (m

)D

ecim

al M

inut

esLO

RA

N-C

NA

D 1

983

DG

PS (T

rimbl

e N

T300

D)

Stat

ion

Targ

etN

AD

198

3V

an V

een

Gra

b Ty

peD

ecim

al M

inut

es

2618

43.

51

19-J

un-9

809

342.

2/1.

312

.50.

811

.71.

627

993.

742

301.

747

36.

2798

122

20.4

594

209

581.

5/0.

912

.21.

011

.20.

227

993.

642

301.

747

36.

2807

122

20.4

587

310

062.

5/1.

411

.81.

010

.82.

527

993.

742

301.

747

36.

2817

122

20.4

601

410

152.

1/1.

312

.31.

111

.23.

127

993.

542

301.

547

36.

2821

122

20.4

600

510

262.

0/1.

213

.81.

212

.63.

027

993.

642

301.

747

36.

2802

122

20.4

612

610

441.

8/1.

012

.51.

411

.12.

327

993.

642

301.

747

36.

2797

122

20.4

578

710

532.

1/1.

213

.01.

511

.51.

327

993.

642

301.

747

36.

2803

122

20.4

597

2718

51

118

-Jun

-98

1021

1.8/

1.2

158.

01.

915

6.1

1.4

2800

6.1

4229

5.3

47 3

6.59

8312

2 22

.921

72

1044

1.8/

1.0

158.

02.

015

6.0

1.9

2800

6.1

4229

5.3

47 3

6.59

8412

2 22

.922

43

1059

1.8/

1.0

158.

02.

115

5.9

1.9

2800

6.1

4229

5.3

47 3

6.59

8212

2 22

.920

34

1116

1.7/

1.0

158.

02.

215

5.8

4.2

2800

6.1

4229

5.3

47 3

6.60

0312

2 22

.918

427

186

21

18-J

un-9

811

341.

7/1.

037

.52.

335

.22.

528

005.

842

299.

147

37.

0919

122

21.9

206

211

562.

3/1.

139

.22.

436

.80.

828

005.

942

299.

047

37.

0905

122

21.9

212

312

082.

2/1.

139

.42.

437

.01.

628

005.

942

299.

047

37.

0899

122

21.9

221

412

192.

0/1.

138

.62.

436

.20.

528

005.

842

299.

147

37.

0904

122

21.9

215

2718

73

119

-Jun

-98

1343

2.0/

1.0

105.

02.

610

2.4

2.5

2799

9.2

4229

9.0

47 3

6.43

1312

2 21

.539

62

1405

2.2/

1.1

104.

02.

610

1.4

1.9

2799

9.3

4229

9.0

47 3

6.43

2212

2 21

.541

53

1418

2.5/

1.3

104.

02.

610

1.4

1.8

2799

9.3

4229

9.0

47 3

6.43

2112

2 21

.541

227

188

41

19-J

un-9

811

352.

3/1.

135

.21.

933

.33.

327

995.

042

301.

547

36.

3634

122

20.6

347

211

532.

3/1.

135

.92.

033

.92.

727

995.

042

301.

547

36.

3619

122

20.6

314

312

052.

1/1.

136

.22.

134

.11.

227

995.

142

301.

447

36.

3624

122

20.6

337

412

162.

0/1.

136

.22.

234

.01.

527

995.

042

301.

447

36.

3622

122

20.6

325

2818

91

122

-Jun

-98

1105

2.5/

1.3

14.4

-0.5

14.9

1.3

2799

6.6

4229

3.6

47 3

5.43

0712

2 22

.829

22

1116

2.4/

1.3

14.2

-0.4

14.6

0.4

2799

6.6

4229

3.6

47 3

5.43

0612

2 22

.830

23

1126

2.3/

1.1

14.2

-0.4

14.6

1.3

2799

6.5

4229

3.6

47 3

5.43

0312

2 22

.829

728

190

21

22-J

un-9

812

311.

6/0.

96.

50.

36.

21.

928

000.

942

293.

547

35.

8295

122

23.1

034

212

402.

0/1.

15.

90.

45.

52.

828

000.

942

293.

447

35.

8301

.12

2 23

.107

03

1247

2.0/

1.1

6.6

0.5

6.1

1.3

2800

0.9

4229

3.5

47 3

5.83

0612

2 23

.103

44

1256

2.0/

1.1

7.0

0.6

6.4

0.6

2800

0.9

4229

3.4

47 3

5.83

0312

2 23

.104

528

191

31

19-J

un-9

814

542.

3/1.

110

2.0

2.6

99.4

1.5

2799

9.1

4229

5.1

47 3

5.90

4912

2 22

.549

92

1510

2.3/

1.1

102.

02.

599

.50.

627

999.

142

295.

147

35.

9050

122

22.5

484

315

242.

2/1.

110

1.0

2.5

98.5

0.9

2799

9.1

4229

5.1

47 3

5.90

5812

2 22

.548

6

47 3

5.90

5212

2 22

.548

7lig

ht

47 3

5.43

0812

2 22

.830

3he

avy

47 3

5.83

0012

2 23

.104

8he

avy

light

47

36.

4312

122

21.5

416

light

47

36.

3618

122

20.6

336

light

47

36.

5990

122

22.9

213

47 3

7.09

0712

2 21

.921

7lig

ht

heav

y 47

36.

2806

122

20.4

588

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

189

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

App

endi

x B

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 222

Ster

nPr

edic

ted

Pred

icte

dG

PSTr

ansd

.Ti

de (m

.):M

udlin

ePD

OP/

Dep

thN

eare

stD

epth

, m.

Yan

kee

Zulu

HD

OP

m.

Stat

ion

(MLL

W)

=Bes

t no.

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Loca

tion

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

Stra

tum

Dat

eD

eplo

y-m

ent N

o.G

PS T

ime

Dis

tanc

e to

St

atio

n (m

)D

ecim

al M

inut

esLO

RA

N-C

NA

D 1

983

DG

PS (T

rimbl

e N

T300

D)

Stat

ion

Targ

etN

AD

198

3V

an V

een

Gra

b Ty

peD

ecim

al M

inut

es

2819

24

122

-Jun

-98

0955

1.5/

0.9

69.0

-0.6

69.6

3.8

2799

8.7

4229

7.3

47 3

6.13

8612

2 21

.956

82

1012

1.2/

1.7

69.0

-0.7

69.7

1.5

2799

8.6

4229

7.2

47 3

6.13

5912

2 21

.956

93

1025

1.5/

0.9

69.0

-0.7

69.7

3.0

2799

8.8

4229

7.4

47 3

6.13

7612

2 21

.955

229

193

11

23-J

un-9

809

501.

5/0.

981

.0-0

.581

.53.

127

994.

642

299.

047

35.

9990

122

21.2

517

210

041.

5/0.

980

.0-0

.680

.61.

227

994.

642

299.

047

35.

9975

122

21.2

532

310

171.

5/0.

980

.0-0

.780

.71.

727

994.

642

299.

047

35.

9976

122

21.2

552

2919

42

123

-Jun

-98

1050

1.8/

1.0

67.0

-0.8

67.8

2.6

2799

3.0

4230

0.1

47 3

6.01

4712

2 20

.840

42

1104

1.7/

0.9

66.0

-0.8

66.8

2.0

2799

3.0

4230

0.2

47 3

6.01

4412

2 20

.839

53

1114

1.7/

0.9

67.0

-0.8

67.8

1.3

2799

3.0

4230

0.2

47 3

6.01

4612

2 20

.838

429

195

31

23-J

un-9

811

392.

2/1.

177

.0-0

.777

.71.

227

996.

242

297.

847

35.

9743

122

21.6

628

211

552.

0/1.

177

.0-0

.677

.62.

727

996.

242

297.

747

35.

9740

122

21.6

604

312

072.

4/1.

577

.0-0

.677

.60.

927

996.

242

297.

947

35.

9743

122

21.6

619

2919

64

123

-Jun

-98

1325

1.7/

0.9

72.0

0.4

71.6

2.4

2799

4.0

4229

9.9

47 3

6.07

1912

2 20

.979

02

1341

2.1/

1.1

72.0

0.6

71.4

1.6

2799

4.1

4229

9.9

47 3

6.07

2912

2 20

.978

03

1352

2.4/

1.2

72.0

0.7

71.3

1.2

2799

4.1

4229

9.9

47 3

6.07

2712

2 20

.978

230

197

11

24-J

un-9

813

011.

7/1.

08.

6-0

.59.

12.

827

990.

642

295.

947

35.

1816

122

21.8

227

213

141.

9/1.

08.

6-0

.49.

00.

527

990.

642

296.

047

35.

1825

122

21.8

246

313

211.

9/1.

011

.6-0

.311

.93.

727

990.

642

295.

947

35.

1825

122

21.8

213

413

382.

1/1.

110

.1-0

.110

.23.

327

990.

642

296.

047

35.

1810

122

21.8

233

513

512.

5/1.

211

.30.

111

.25.

927

990.

642

296.

047

35.

1833

122

21.8

197

613

591.

8/1.

19.

70.

29.

53.

127

990.

642

296.

047

35.

1839

122

21.8

228

3019

82

124

-Jun

-98

1517

2.1/

1.2

49.0

1.4

47.6

1.6

2799

2.1

4229

5.6

47 3

5.29

3412

2 21

.993

82

1528

2.0/

1.2

47.0

1.6

45.4

0.6

2799

2.1

4229

5.6

47 3

5.29

2712

2 21

.993

63

1539

3.9/

2.3

48.0

1.8

46.2

3.2

2799

2.1

4229

5.6

47 3

5.29

3912

2 21

.991

74

1554

4.0/

2.3

49.0

2.0

47.0

1.5

2799

2.1

4229

5.6

47 3

5.29

1812

2 21

.992

730

199

31

24-J

un-9

814

312.

3/1.

114

.20.

713

.50.

927

991.

042

295.

847

35.

1995

122

21.9

022

214

412.

4/1.

114

.30.

813

.52.

827

991.

042

295.

847

35.

2014

122

21.9

015

314

522.

3/1.

114

.71.

013

.71.

127

991.

042

295.

847

35.

2003

122

21.9

025

3011

44

11-

Jul-9

814

442.

1/1.

220

.41.

518

.90.

027

984.

742

295.

347

34.

5267

122

21.6

423

214

552.

2/1.

420

.31.

418

.92.

127

984.

742

295.

347

34.

5271

122

21.6

439

315

084.

4/2.

320

.21.

418

.81.

727

984.

742

295.

347

34.

5259

122

21.6

424

heav

y 47

35.

1999

122

21.9

018

47 3

4.52

6712

2 21

.642

3he

avy

heav

y 47

35.

1826

122

21.8

243

heav

y 47

35.

2925

122

21.9

933

47 3

5.97

4712

2 21

.662

0lig

ht

47 3

6.07

3112

2 20

.979

2lig

ht

47 3

5.99

7912

2 21

.253

8lig

ht

47 3

6.01

5212

2 20

.838

5lig

ht

47 3

6.13

6612

2 21

.957

4lig

ht

Wes

t Har

bor I

slan

d

Wes

t Har

bor I

slan

d

Wes

t Har

bor I

slan

d

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

Wes

t Har

bor I

slan

d

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

App

endi

x B

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 223

Ster

nPr

edic

ted

Pred

icte

dG

PSTr

ansd

.Ti

de (m

.):M

udlin

ePD

OP/

Dep

thN

eare

stD

epth

, m.

Yan

kee

Zulu

HD

OP

m.

Stat

ion

(MLL

W)

=Bes

t no.

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Loca

tion

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

Stra

tum

Dat

eD

eplo

y-m

ent N

o.G

PS T

ime

Dis

tanc

e to

St

atio

n (m

)D

ecim

al M

inut

esLO

RA

N-C

NA

D 1

983

DG

PS (T

rimbl

e N

T300

D)

Stat

ion

Targ

etN

AD

198

3V

an V

een

Gra

b Ty

peD

ecim

al M

inut

es

3120

01

124

-Jun

-98

1027

2.1/

1.0

15.3

-0.4

15.7

0.1

2798

5.2

4229

8.8

47 3

5.07

8612

2 20

.747

52

1042

2.1/

1.0

15.4

-0.6

16.0

1.7

2798

5.3

4229

8.8

47 3

5.07

9012

2 20

.746

33

1053

2.0/

1.0

15.4

-0.6

16.0

1.3

2798

5.2

4229

8.8

47 3

5.07

8812

2 20

.746

531

201

2.2

124

-Jun

-98

1119

2.9/

1.2

12.4

-0.8

13.2

0.4

2798

3.7

4229

8.9

47 3

4.95

7312

2 20

.606

62

1136

2.6/

1.1

12.1

-0.8

12.9

0.4

2798

3.7

4229

9.0

47 3

4.95

7212

2 20

.606

53

1147

2.3/

1.1

12.1

-0.9

13.0

2.1

2798

3.7

4229

8.9

47 3

4.95

7412

2 20

.605

131

202

31

24-J

un-9

809

411.

6/1.

014

.80.

114

.70.

927

980.

042

297.

947

34.

4598

122

20.6

004

209

491.

6/1.

014

.80.

014

.82.

527

979.

942

298.

047

34.

4585

122

20.6

009

310

002.

0/1.

414

.5-0

.214

.71.

827

979.

942

297.

847

34.

4593

122

20.6

010

3220

31

122

-Jun

-98

1330

1.7/

0.9

5.1

1.2

3.9

2.6

2797

4.8

4229

6.0

47 3

3.68

3112

2 20

.846

62

1342

2.1/

1.1

5.4

1.4

4.0

0.6

2797

4.8

4229

6.0

47 3

3.68

4312

2 20

.845

73

1353

2.2/

1.1

5.6

1.5

4.1

1.6

2797

4.8

4229

6.0

47 3

3.68

3612

2 20

.846

632

204

21

22-J

un-9

814

172.

0/1.

16.

21.

94.

30.

727

974.

142

296.

447

33.

6556

122

20.7

059

214

272.

2/1.

16.

52.

04.

51.

927

974.

142

296.

447

33.

6546

122

20.7

062

314

382.

3/1.

15.

62.

23.

41.

627

974.

042

296.

447

33.

6546

122

20.7

047

3220

53

123

-Jun

-98

1430

2.3/

1.1

9.0

1.4

7.6

0.7

2796

4.7

4229

6.0

47 3

2.70

6312

2 20

.212

92

1443

2.4/

1.1

8.6

1.6

7.0

2.1

2796

4.7

4229

6.1

47 3

2.70

5912

2 20

.211

33

1452

2.3/

1.1

8.7

1.7

7.0

2.0

2796

4.7

4229

6.1

47 3

2.70

7012

2 20

.211

0

47 3

3.65

5412

2 20

.705

3he

avy

47 3

2.70

6612

2 20

.212

6lig

ht

47 3

4.45

9612

2 20

.599

7lig

ht

47 3

3.68

4412

2 20

.846

1he

avy

47 3

5.07

8612

2 20

.747

5he

avy

47 3

4.95

7112

2 20

.606

7he

avy

East

Har

bor I

slan

d

East

Har

bor I

slan

d

Duw

amis

h

Duw

amis

h

Duw

amis

h

East

Har

bor I

slan

d

App

endi

x B

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 224

Page 225

Appendix CField notes for the 1998 central Puget Sound sampling stations.

Page 226

App

endi

x C

. Fi

eld

note

s for

the

1998

cen

tral

Pug

et S

ound

sam

plin

g st

atio

ns.

Stra

tum

Stat

ion

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

Des

crip

tion

Salin

ity

(ppt

)

Tem

p-er

atur

e (°

c)Se

dim

ent T

ype

Sedi

men

t Col

orSe

dim

ent O

dor a

nd in

tens

ityPe

netra

tion

Dep

th (c

m)

RPD

(cm

)

11

106

subu

rban

3211

.5sa

ndy

silt

clay

woo

dgr

ayN

R16

.5>5

12

107

subu

rban

3412

silt-

clay

oliv

e gr

ayno

ne16

.04

13

108

subu

rban

3213

silt-

clay

oliv

e gr

ayN

R11

.04.

52

110

9su

burb

an33

12sa

nd sh

ell

gray

bro

wn

none

7.0

mix

ed2

211

0su

burb

an34

11sa

ndgr

ay b

row

nno

ne11

.0m

ixed

23

111

subu

rban

3212

silty

sand

gray

bro

wn

none

12.0

mix

ed4

411

2ru

ral

3213

silty

sand

gray

bro

wn

none

5.0

mix

ed4

211

6su

burb

an27

13sa

ndgr

ayno

ne13

.0m

ixed

43

117

subu

rban

3013

sand

gray

none

7.0

none

51

118

subu

rban

3012

silt-

clay

oliv

e gr

ayno

ne17

.04

52

119

subu

rban

3012

sand

gray

bro

wn

none

10.0

mix

ed5

312

0su

burb

an31

13si

lty sa

ndgr

ay b

row

nno

ne8.

0m

ixed

61

121

urba

n31

14sa

ndgr

ay b

row

nno

ne10

.0m

ixed

62

122

urba

n/su

burb

an31

12si

lt-cl

ay sh

ell

oliv

e gr

ayst

rong

sulfu

r17

.05

66

123

urba

n/su

burb

an31

12si

lt-cl

ay sh

ell

oliv

e gr

ayno

ne17

.02

71

124

subu

rban

3111

.5si

lt-cl

ayol

ive

brow

nno

ne16

.0m

ixed

72

125

subu

rban

3011

.5si

lt-cl

ayol

ive

brow

nno

ne16

.0m

ixed

73

126

subu

rban

3212

silty

sand

gray

bro

wn

none

NR

none

84

113

subu

rban

3013

silt-

clay

oliv

e gr

aysl

ight

sulfu

r15

.04

81

127

subu

rban

3411

silt-

clay

oliv

e gr

ayno

ne17

.0N

R8

212

8su

burb

an31

11.5

silt-

clay

gray

none

17.0

78

312

9su

burb

an30

11gr

avel

silt

clay

gray

bro

wn

mod

erat

e su

lfur

17.0

mix

ed9

113

0N

R33

13sa

nd si

lt-cl

aygr

ay b

row

npe

trole

um st

rong

10.0

39

213

1su

burb

an31

14si

lt-cl

ayol

ive

gray

stro

ng su

lfur a

nd p

etro

leum

16.0

49

313

2N

R31

12si

lty sa

ndgr

ay b

row

nm

oder

ate

sulfu

r and

pet

role

um10

.00

101

133

subu

rban

3211

sand

shel

lbr

own

none

12.0

none

102

134

subu

rban

3211

sand

brow

nno

ne8.

5no

ne10

313

5su

burb

an32

11sa

nd p

lant

frag

sbr

own

none

8.0

none

111

136

subu

rban

3111

silt-

clay

oliv

e gr

ayno

ne17

.04

112

137

subu

rban

3012

silt-

clay

oliv

e gr

aysl

ight

sulfu

r17

.04

113

138

subu

rban

3112

silt-

clay

oliv

e gr

ayno

ne17

.04

121

139

subu

rban

3011

silt-

clay

oliv

e gr

ayN

R15

.04

122

140

subu

rban

3111

silt-

clay

oliv

e gr

ayN

R17

.02

123

141

urba

n/re

side

ntia

l31

11co

bble

s gra

vel s

and

gray

bro

wn

stro

ng su

lfur s

ewag

e8.

03

131

142

subu

rban

3014

silt-

clay

oliv

e ov

er b

lack

stro

ng su

lfur

17.0

>3

Page 227

Stra

tum

Stat

ion

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

Des

crip

tion

Salin

ity

(ppt

)

Tem

p-er

atur

e (°

c)Se

dim

ent T

ype

Sedi

men

t Col

orSe

dim

ent O

dor a

nd in

tens

ityPe

netra

tion

Dep

th (c

m)

RPD

(cm

)

132

143

subu

rban

3114

.5si

lt-cl

ayol

ive

over

bla

ckst

rong

sulfu

r17

.02

133

144

subu

rban

3114

silt-

clay

NR

stro

ng su

lfur

17.0

214

114

5su

burb

an30

14sa

nd si

lt-cl

aygr

ay b

row

nsl

ight

sulfu

r10

.0no

ne14

214

6su

burb

an30

14si

lt-cl

ayol

ive

gray

stro

ng su

lfur

15.0

>314

314

7su

burb

an31

14sa

nd sh

ell

gray

mod

erat

e su

lfur

7.0

none

151

148

NR

3213

.5si

lt-cl

ayol

ive

gray

mod

erat

e su

lfur

16.0

215

214

9su

burb

an31

14sa

ndgr

ay b

row

nno

neN

Rno

ne15

315

0su

burb

an31

12.5

silt-

clay

gray

bro

wn

none

16.0

NR

161

151

subu

rban

3112

silt-

clay

oliv

e gr

ayno

ne16

.03

162

152

subu

rban

3113

silty

sand

oliv

e gr

ayN

R14

.03

163

153

subu

rban

3112

silt-

clay

oliv

e gr

ayN

R16

.02.

517

115

4su

burb

an31

13sa

ndgr

ayN

R6.

0no

ne17

215

5su

burb

an31

14sa

ndgr

ay b

row

nN

R10

.0no

ne17

315

6su

burb

an30

13sa

ndgr

ay b

row

nno

neN

Rno

ne18

115

7su

burb

an30

12sa

ndbr

own

none

10.0

none

182

158

subu

rban

3012

.5sa

nd p

lant

frag

sbr

own

none

8.0

none

183

159

urba

n31

13co

bble

s gra

vel s

and

shel

lbr

own

none

8.0

none

191

160

subu

rban

3112

silt-

clay

blac

k ol

ive

stro

ng su

lfur

17.0

NR

192

161

urba

n31

12si

lt-cl

ay w

ood

shel

lol

ive

over

bla

ckst

rong

sulfu

r17

.00.

219

316

2ur

ban

3012

silt-

clay

woo

dol

ive

over

bla

ckm

oder

ate

sulfu

r17

.0N

R20

116

3N

R30

13si

lt-cl

ayol

ive

gray

stro

ng su

lfur

17.0

2.5

202

164

subu

rban

3013

silt-

clay

gray

mod

erat

e su

lfur

17.0

220

316

5ur

ban

3112

.5si

lt-cl

ayol

ive

gray

stro

ng su

lfur

17.0

521

116

6su

burb

an30

14sa

ndgr

ayno

ne10

.0no

ne21

216

7su

burb

an/re

side

ntia

l31

14si

lty sa

ndgr

ayno

ne10

.0no

ne21

316

8su

burb

an31

13sa

ndy

silt

clay

NR

stro

ng su

lfur

15.0

222

216

9su

burb

an31

13sa

ndgr

ay b

row

nN

R10

.0no

ne22

217

0su

burb

an30

13si

lt-cl

ayol

ive

gray

stro

ng su

lfur

17.0

522

317

1su

burb

an30

13sa

ndy

silt

clay

oliv

e br

own

stro

ng su

lfur

17.0

323

117

2ur

ban

3011

silt-

clay

oliv

e gr

ayno

ne17

.06

232

173

urba

n30

11.5

silt-

clay

oliv

e gr

ayno

ne17

.04

233

174

urba

n30

12sl

ag p

iece

s gra

vel s

and

gray

bro

wn

none

7.0

none

234

175

urba

n31

13ve

ry c

orse

sand

gray

bro

wn

sulfu

r one

gra

b on

ly6.

0no

ne24

117

6ur

ban

3113

sand

gray

none

9.0

mix

ed24

217

7ur

ban

3014

sand

gray

none

5.0

mix

ed24

317

8ur

ban

3012

sand

gray

none

7.0

mix

ed25

411

5ur

ban

resi

dent

ial

3013

silty

sand

woo

dgr

ay b

lack

petro

leum

stro

ng10

.01

App

endi

x C

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 228

Stra

tum

Stat

ion

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

Des

crip

tion

Salin

ity

(ppt

)

Tem

p-er

atur

e (°

c)Se

dim

ent T

ype

Sedi

men

t Col

orSe

dim

ent O

dor a

nd in

tens

ityPe

netra

tion

Dep

th (c

m)

RPD

(cm

)

251

179

urba

n30

12si

lty sa

nd si

lt-cl

aygr

ay b

row

nst

rong

sulfu

r17

.01

252

180

urba

n30

14sa

nd si

lt-cl

ay w

ood

gray

none

12.0

mix

ed25

318

1ur

ban

3012

sand

y si

lt cl

aygr

ay b

row

nno

ne17

.01

261

182

urba

n30

12sa

ndy

silt

clay

woo

dgr

ay b

row

nno

ne14

.04

262

183

urba

n30

13sa

nd w

ood

plan

t fra

gsgr

ay b

lack

none

10.0

none

263

184

urba

n30

12sa

nd sh

ell p

lant

frag

sbr

own

over

gra

yno

ne8.

02

271

185

urba

n30

11si

lt cl

ayol

ive

gray

NR

17.0

427

218

6ur

ban

3012

sand

silt

clay

gray

bro

wn

none

14.0

227

318

7ur

ban

3011

silt-

clay

brow

n ov

er g

ray

none

17.0

>427

418

8ur

ban

3211

silt

clay

shel

lbr

own

over

gra

yno

ne17

.0>4

281

189

urba

n30

11sa

nd si

lt cl

aygr

ay b

row

nN

R10

.0N

R28

219

0ur

ban

3114

sand

gray

bro

wn

NR

14.0

NR

283

191

urba

n30

11.5

silt

clay

brow

n ov

er g

ray

none

17.0

>428

419

2ur

ban

3011

.5gr

avel

sand

gray

bro

wn

NR

15.0

NR

291

193

urba

n27

11sa

nd si

lt cl

aybr

own

over

dar

k ol

ive

NR

16.5

NR

292

194

urba

n30

11.5

sand

silt

clay

brow

nN

R17

.50

293

195

urba

n30

11sa

nd si

lt cl

aybr

own

NR

16.0

029

419

6ur

ban

3011

silt

clay

gray

NR

17.0

030

411

4ur

ban/

indu

stria

l26

14si

lt cl

aygr

ay b

lack

NR

10.0

130

119

7ur

ban/

indu

stria

l30

13sa

nd si

lt cl

aygr

ay b

row

nN

R6.

0N

R30

219

8ur

ban/

indu

stria

l30

13sa

nd si

lt cl

ay w

ood

brow

nN

R13

.50

303

199

urba

n/in

dust

rial

3013

sand

silt

clay

gray

bro

wn

NR

10.0

231

120

0ur

ban/

indu

stria

l30

13N

RN

RN

R13

.5N

R31

220

1ur

ban/

indu

stria

l31

12si

lt cl

aybr

own

over

bla

ckN

R14

.50.

531

320

2ur

ban/

indu

stria

l30

12si

lt cl

ayol

ive

brow

nN

R9.

00

321

203

urba

n/in

dust

rial

2713

sand

silt

clay

oliv

e gr

ayN

R16

.02

322

204

urba

n/in

dust

rial

2514

sand

silt

clay

oliv

e br

own

over

bla

ckm

oder

ate

sulfu

r and

pet

role

um12

.01

323

205

NR

2514

silt

clay

woo

dda

rk b

row

nN

R17

.00

NR

= n

ot re

cord

edR

PD =

redo

x po

tent

ial d

epth

App

endi

x C

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 229

Page 230

Page 231

Appendix DChemistry data summary.

Table 1. Grain size distribution for the 1998 central Puget Soundsampling stations (tabular form).

Table 2. Total organic carbon, temperature, and salinitymeasurements for the 1998 central Puget Sound sampling stations.

Table 3. Summary statistics for metals and organic chemicals for the1998 central Puget Sound sampling stations.

Figure 1. Grain size distribution for the 1998 central Puget Soundsampling stations (histograms).

Page 232

Stra

tum

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

%

Solid

s3%

Gra

vel

% V

ery

Coa

rse

Sand

% C

oars

e Sa

nd

%

Med

ium

Sa

nd%

Fin

e Sa

nd%

Ver

y Fi

ne S

and

Tota

l %

Sand

% S

ilt%

Cla

y

% F

ines

(S

ilt-

Cla

y)>2

000

mm

2000

-100

0 m

m10

00-5

00 m

m50

0-25

0 m

m25

0-12

5 m

m12

5-62

.5 m

m20

00-6

2.5

mm

62.5

-3.9

mm

<3.9

mm

110

61

473.

00

14

2620

51.1

3610

4610

72

424.

12

35

1712

38.5

3721

5710

83

350.

41

01

13

5.9

8112

94

210

91

713.

41

116

5712

86.6

64

1011

02

750.

10

1255

272

96.5

12

311

13

620.

20

01

2043

64.9

2213

35

411

24

564.

72

25

3424

67.5

199

2811

62

740.

00

035

519

95.4

32

511

73

721.

36

819

4714

94.5

32

4

511

81

320.

00

01

34

8.1

7121

9211

92

730.

00

027

615

93.7

24

612

03

730.

00

028

635

95.3

23

5

612

11

680.

00

255

345

95.3

23

512

22

390.

00

00

212

14.3

5531

8612

33

410.

00

01

211

13.5

5729

86

712

41

680.

00

110

2440

75.3

186

2512

52

630.

00

114

4712

73.6

198

2612

63

730.

10

07

6019

86.0

104

14

App

endi

x D

, Tab

le 1

. G

rain

size

dis

trib

utio

n fo

r th

e 19

98 c

entr

al P

uget

Sou

nd sa

mpl

ing

stat

ions

(gra

in si

ze in

frac

tiona

l pe

rcen

t)1,2

Sout

h Po

rt To

wns

end

Port

Tow

nsen

d

Sout

h A

dmira

lty

Inle

t

Poss

essi

on S

ound

Cen

tral B

asin

Port

Mad

ison

Page 233

Stra

tum

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

%

Solid

s3%

Gra

vel

% V

ery

Coa

rse

Sand

% C

oars

e Sa

nd

%

Med

ium

Sa

nd%

Fin

e Sa

nd%

Ver

y Fi

ne S

and

Tota

l %

Sand

% S

ilt%

Cla

y

% F

ines

(S

ilt-

Cla

y)>2

000

mm

2000

-100

0 m

m10

00-5

00 m

m50

0-25

0 m

m25

0-12

5 m

m12

5-62

.5 m

m20

00-6

2.5

mm

62.5

-3.9

mm

<3.9

mm

811

34

380.

00

03

38

14.9

5926

8512

71

360.

00

01

17

9.8

6427

9012

82

380.

00

12

617

25.9

4826

7412

93

503.

94

612

2011

53.7

2715

42

913

01

490.

30

210

2420

55.9

3310

4413

12

400.

20

01

513

19.8

6713

8013

23

650.

30

424

3614

79.2

138

20

1013

31

630.

10

14

3144

80.7

109

1913

42

660.

00

03

4439

86.5

67

1313

53

680.

20

04

6718

89.1

46

11

1113

61

340.

30

02

13

6.2

6529

9413

72

350.

00

26

24

14.9

5926

8513

83

350.

10

03

68

19.0

5031

81

1213

91

410.

00

12

2221

45.8

2925

5414

02

260.

00

00

01

2.3

5740

9814

13

7959

.210

66

52

29.2

56

12

1314

21

270.

90

01

13

5.1

7618

9414

32

290.

01

11

26

10.5

7316

9014

43

260.

00

00

12

3.1

7126

97

1414

51

730.

44

1131

404

89.4

64

1014

62

280.

00

01

25

7.9

7418

9214

73

721.

74

1334

335

88.9

64

9

1514

92

750.

61

1146

333

93.8

33

615

03

410.

60

12

1233

48.3

4011

51

Wes

t Poi

nt

Eagl

e H

arbo

r

Cen

tral B

asin

Cen

tral B

asin

East

Pas

sage

Libe

rty B

ay

Key

port

Nor

th W

est

App

endi

x D

. T

able

1.

Con

tinue

d.

Page 234

Stra

tum

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

%

Solid

s3%

Gra

vel

% V

ery

Coa

rse

Sand

% C

oars

e Sa

nd

%

Med

ium

Sa

nd%

Fin

e Sa

nd%

Ver

y Fi

ne S

and

Tota

l %

Sand

% S

ilt%

Cla

y

% F

ines

(S

ilt-

Cla

y)>2

000

mm

2000

-100

0 m

m10

00-5

00 m

m50

0-25

0 m

m25

0-12

5 m

m12

5-62

.5 m

m20

00-6

2.5

mm

62.5

-3.9

mm

<3.9

mm

148*

128

0.0

01

22

59.

671

2090

1615

11

270.

00

01

12

4.6

7322

9515

22

622.

90

07

4325

74.9

1111

2215

33

280.

00

01

38

13.1

6621

87

1715

41

765.

15

1531

345

90.8

22

415

52

761.

13

1341

373

96.6

12

215

63

700.

00

442

415

90.7

45

9

1815

71

660.

20

05

5622

84.2

79

1615

82

730.

41

424

539

90.5

45

915

93

7318

.65

621

328

73.0

54

8

1916

01

240.

90

00

11

3.3

7719

9616

12

260.

10

00

15

6.9

8013

9316

23

300.

01

12

34

9.9

7416

90

2016

42

371.

31

00

16

8.9

7812

9016

53

351.

00

01

29

12.2

7413

8716

3*1

270.

40

00

11

3.5

8313

96

2116

61

730.

30

639

425

92.7

61

716

72

720.

00

422

4719

92.1

44

816

83

540.

51

14

2830

64.1

2412

35

Bai

nbrid

ge

Sout

h W

est

Bai

nbrid

ge

Ric

h Pa

ssag

e

Port

Orc

hard

Sinc

lair

Inle

t

Sinc

lair

Inle

t

Pt. W

ashi

ngto

n N

arro

ws

App

endi

x D

. T

able

1.

Con

tinue

d.

Page 235

Stra

tum

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

%

Solid

s3%

Gra

vel

% V

ery

Coa

rse

Sand

% C

oars

e Sa

nd

%

Med

ium

Sa

nd%

Fin

e Sa

nd%

Ver

y Fi

ne S

and

Tota

l %

Sand

% S

ilt%

Cla

y

% F

ines

(S

ilt-

Cla

y)>2

000

mm

2000

-100

0 m

m10

00-5

00 m

m50

0-25

0 m

m25

0-12

5 m

m12

5-62

.5 m

m20

00-6

2.5

mm

62.5

-3.9

mm

<3.9

mm

2216

91

750.

32

1032

426

91.4

54

817

02

300.

00

11

14

6.6

7618

9317

13

290.

01

11

45

11.7

7117

88

2317

32

400.

41

411

1210

37.5

4121

6217

43

760.

60

131

5010

91.9

44

817

54

742.

13

1122

4412

91.9

33

617

2*1

330.

00

11

15

8.1

6131

92

2417

61

690.

81

744

324

89.2

64

1017

72

730.

30

132

556

95.0

32

517

83

750.

20

242

378

89.2

64

11

2511

54

550.

90

06

2720

53.6

2817

4617

91

600.

30

15

2224

52.2

3810

4718

02

661.

70

112

3126

69.9

227

2818

13

529.

56

611

114

37.7

3814

53

2618

21

502.

32

27

86

24.6

5617

7318

32

660.

74

1745

183

87.5

75

1218

43

614.

23

732

247

72.0

1311

24

2718

51

330.

00

15

44

15.0

5728

8518

62

591.

22

317

3011

61.9

298

3718

84

451.

11

27

77

23.8

5718

7518

7*3

350.

00

03

54

13.5

5730

86

Dye

s Inl

et

Out

er E

lliot

t Bay

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Ba y

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

App

endi

x D

. T

able

1.

Con

tinue

d.

Page 236

Stra

tum

Sam

ple

Stat

ion

%

Solid

s3%

Gra

vel

% V

ery

Coa

rse

Sand

% C

oars

e Sa

nd

%

Med

ium

Sa

nd%

Fin

e Sa

nd%

Ver

y Fi

ne S

and

Tota

l %

Sand

% S

ilt%

Cla

y

% F

ines

(S

ilt-

Cla

y)>2

000

mm

2000

-100

0 m

m10

00-5

00 m

m50

0-25

0 m

m25

0-12

5 m

m12

5-62

.5 m

m20

00-6

2.5

mm

62.5

-3.9

mm

<3.9

mm

2818

91

630.

20

19

3630

76.2

194

2419

02

710.

60

127

599

96.5

11

319

13

380.

11

25

610

24.9

5223

7519

24

5710

.46

817

157

53.2

2710

36

2919

31

530.

20

111

3122

66.4

276

3319

42

380.

20

01

24

6.9

6923

9319

53

520.

00

18

2723

58.9

329

4119

64

350.

00

01

13

5.5

6826

94

3011

44

480.

00

15

89

22.8

5325

7719

71

642.

53

1030

2813

83.9

104

1419

82

642.

53

818

1621

65.6

248

3219

93

560.

00

02

1427

43.9

4313

56

3120

01

500.

10

16

2018

45.2

3618

5520

12

500.

00

15

910

25.5

5915

7420

2*3

400.

00

15

65

17.8

5824

82

3220

31

520.

10

214

137

37.0

4518

6320

42

630.

42

1435

186

75.3

177

2420

53

570.

63

1516

45

43.1

4511

56

1 O

rgan

ics i

nclu

ded.

Cor

rect

ed fo

r dis

solv

ed so

lids.

2 Par

ticle

size

inte

rval

s bas

ed o

n U

S A

rmy

Cor

ps o

f Eng

inee

rs a

nd W

entw

orth

Soi

l Cla

ssifi

catio

n Sy

stem

s.3 P

erce

nt S

olid

s mea

sure

d ac

cord

ing

to P

lum

, 198

1. E

PA/C

E-81

-1.

* M

ean

of th

ree

lab

repl

icat

es.

Wes

t Har

bor

Isla

nd

East

Har

bor I

slan

d

Duw

amis

h

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

App

endi

x D

. T

able

1.

Con

tinue

d.

Page 237

Page 238

Appendix D. Table 2. Total organic carbon, temperature, and salinity measurements forthe 1998 central Puget Sound sampling stations.

Stratum Station Sample Location Salinity(ppt)

Temperature(°c)

% TOC

1 1 106 South Port Townsend 32 11.5 2.151 2 107 34 12 2.131 3 108 32 13 2.13

2 1 109 Port Townsend 33 12 0.382 2 110 34 11 0.112 3 111 32 12 0.72

4 4 112 South Admiralty Inlet 32 13 0.754 2 116 27 13 0.174 3 117 30 13 0.21

5 1 118 Possession Sound 30 12 2.035 2 119 30 12 0.225 3 120 31 13 0.21

6 1 121 Central Basin 31 14 0.196 2 122 31 12 1.736 6 123 31 12 1.67

7 1 124 Port Madison 31 11.5 0.557 2 125 30 11.5 0.487 3 126 32 12 0.24

8 4 113 West Point 30 13 1.798 1 127 34 11 2.028 2 128 31 11.5 1.868 3 129 30 11 1.02

9 1 130 Eagle Harbor 33 13 1.749 2 131 31 14 2.419 3 132 31 12 0.65

10 1 133 Central Basin 32 11 0.5110 2 134 32 11 0.42

Page 239

Stratum Station Sample Location Salinity(ppt)

Temperature(°c)

% TOC

10 3 135 32 11 0.76

11 1 136 Central Basin 31 11 1.4911 2 137 30 12 1.5411 3 138 31 12 1.54

12 1 139 East Passage 30 11 1.3512 2 140 31 11 2.3412 3 141 31 11 0.25

13 1 142 Liberty Bay 30 14 3.2113 2 143 31 14.5 3.0313 3 144 31 14 3.56

14 1 145 Keyport 30 14 0.3914 2 146 30 14 3.1714 3 147 31 14 0.41

15 1 148 North West Bainbridge 32 13.5 3.1215 2 149 31 14 0.3215 3 150 31 12.5 1.96

16 1 151 South West Bainbridge 31 12 3.1616 2 152 31 13 0.4416 3 153 31 12 2.37

17 1 154 Rich Passage 31 13 0.1717 2 155 31 14 0.1617 3 156 30 13 0.33

18 1 157 Port Orchard 30 12 0.5218 2 158 30 12.5 0.3218 3 159 31 13 0.41

19 1 160 Sinclair Inlet 31 12 4.1619 2 161 31 12 3.2919 3 162 30 12 3.13

Appendix D. Table 2. Continued.

Page 240

Stratum Station Sample Location Salinity(ppt)

Temperature(°c)

% TOC

20 1 163 Sinclair Inlet 30 13 3.3720 2 164 30 13 2.3120 3 165 31 12.5 2.41

21 1 166 Port WashingtonNarrows

30 14 0.29

21 2 167 31 14 0.3121 3 168 31 13 1.47

22 2 169 Dyes Inlet 31 13 0.2722 2 170 30 13 3.3822 3 171 30 13 2.99

23 1 172 Outer Elliott Bay 30 11 1.6723 2 173 30 11.5 1.1523 3 174 30 12 0.1323 4 175 31 13 0.32

24 1 176 Shoreline Elliott Bay 31 13 0.3324 2 177 30 14 0.1524 3 178 30 12 0.16

25 4 115 Shoreline Elliott Bay 30 13 1.5525 1 179 30 12 0.6425 2 180 30 14 0.4825 3 181 30 12 1.13

26 1 182 Shoreline Elliott Bay 30 12 1.6326 2 183 30 13 0.7226 3 184 30 12 2.78

27 1 185 Mid Elliott Bay 30 11 1.5527 2 186 30 12 0.7127 3 187 30 11 2.0327 4 188 32 11 2.43

28 1 189 Mid Elliott Bay 30 11 0.8428 2 190 31 14 0.19

Appendix D. Table 2. Continued.

Page 241

Stratum Station Sample Location Salinity(ppt)

Temperature(°c)

% TOC

28 3 191 30 11.5 1.8328 4 192 30 11.5 1.07

29 1 193 Mid Elliott Bay 27 11 1.5529 2 194 30 11.5 2.129 3 195 30 11 1.8529 4 196 30 11 2.14

30 4 114 West Harbor Island 26 14 1.7830 1 197 30 13 0.6830 2 198 30 13 1.2630 3 199 30 13 1.7

31 1 200 East Harbor Island 30 13 1.6531 2 201 31 12 1.9931 3 202 30 12 2.54

32 1 203 Duwamish 27 13 1.532 2 204 25 14 1.1332 3 205 25 14 1.33

min 25.0 11.0 0.1max 34.0 14.5 4.2

mean 30.5 12.4 1.4median 30.0 12.0 1.4

Appendix D. Table 2. Continued.

CO

MPO

UN

D (u

nit o

f mea

sure

)M

EAN

MED

IAN

MIN

IMU

MM

AX

IMU

MR

AN

GE

N

NO

. OF

NO

N-

DET

ECTE

D

VA

LUES

NO

. OF

MIS

SIN

G

VA

LUES

ME

TA

LS

(ppm

, mg/

kg d

ry w

t)

Anc

illar

y M

etal

s A

lum

inum

*12

,452

.29

11,2

00.0

05,

280.

0021

,000

.00

15,7

20.0

010

50

0A

lum

inum

**63

,897

.12

67,4

00.0

018

,000

.00

91,6

00.0

073

,600

.00

104

10

Bar

ium

*33

.47

33.0

07.

8011

9.00

111.

2010

50

0B

ariu

m**

383.

7338

9.00

212.

0057

6.00

364.

0010

41

0C

alci

um*

5,38

9.33

5,04

0.00

2,54

0.00

15,2

00.0

012

,660

.00

105

00

Cal

cium

**19

,802

.50

19,1

00.0

07,

070.

0036

,800

.00

29,7

30.0

010

41

0C

obal

t*6.

976.

932.

8015

.40

12.6

010

50

0C

obal

t**

10.4

010

.00

4.20

24.9

020

.70

104

10

Iron

*18

,559

.43

19,6

00.0

07,

160.

0030

,400

.00

23,2

40.0

010

50

0Ir

on**

30,1

50.9

632

,350

.00

14,4

00.0

056

,400

.00

42,0

00.0

010

41

0M

agne

sium

*7,

159.

817,

020.

003,

360.

0012

,200

.00

8,84

0.00

105

00

Mag

nesi

um**

11,9

03.1

712

,700

.00

2,54

0.00

18,3

00.0

015

,760

.00

104

10

Man

gane

se*

259.

0823

7.00

107.

001,

010.

0090

3.00

105

00

Man

gane

se**

515.

2549

4.00

296.

001,

370.

001,

074.

0010

41

0Po

tass

ium

* 2,

001.

341,

690.

0063

0.00

4,00

0.00

3,37

0.00

105

00

Pota

ssiu

m**

11

,024

.90

10,9

00.0

07,

040.

0017

,100

.00

10,0

60.0

010

41

0So

dium

*11

,506

.86

9,22

0.00

3,00

0.00

30,3

00.0

027

,300

.00

105

00

Sodi

um**

30,3

69.2

329

,300

.00

21,2

00.0

045

,900

.00

24,7

00.0

010

41

0V

anad

ium

*39

.40

41.4

016

.10

63.9

047

.80

105

00

Van

adiu

m**

89

.96

93.8

550

.20

122.

0071

.80

104

10

Prio

rity

Pol

luta

nt M

etal

sA

ntim

ony*

4.47

0.37

0.20

110.

0010

9.80

3966

0A

ntim

ony*

*6.

781.

000.

3035

6.00

355.

7085

200

Ars

enic

*12

.42

6.49

1.60

500.

0049

8.40

105

00

Ars

enic

**14

.61

7.77

1.90

555.

0055

3.10

104

10

Ber

ylliu

m*

0.27

0.26

0.10

0.48

0.38

101

40

Ber

ylliu

m**

1.02

0.96

0.60

1.40

0.80

104

10

Cad

miu

m*

0.43

0.30

0.10

1.72

1.62

9411

0C

adm

ium

**0.

760.

800.

112.

001.

8975

300

Chr

omiu

m*

30.1

729

.20

11.3

079

.40

68.1

010

50

0C

hrom

ium

**72

.77

72.3

036

.70

203.

0016

6.30

104

10

Cop

per*

41.9

530

.00

4.00

330.

0032

6.00

105

00

App

endi

x D

, Tab

le 3

. 19

98 su

mm

ary

stat

istic

s for

met

al a

nd o

rgan

ic c

hem

ical

s for

the

1998

cen

tral

Pug

et S

ound

sa

mpl

ing

stat

ions

.

Page 242

CO

MPO

UN

D (u

nit o

f mea

sure

)M

EAN

MED

IAN

MIN

IMU

MM

AX

IMU

MR

AN

GE

N

NO

. OF

NO

N-

DET

ECTE

D

VA

LUES

NO

. OF

MIS

SIN

G

VA

LUES

App

endi

x D

. T

able

3.

Con

tinue

d.

Cop

per*

*43

.87

31.5

54.

9029

0.00

285.

1010

41

0Le

ad*

34.8

021

.80

2.64

500.

0049

7.36

105

00

Lead

**34

.56

21.0

06.

6038

8.00

381.

4010

41

0M

ercu

ry0.

240.

130.

011.

501.

4910

50

0N

icke

l*25

.61

27.6

011

.00

41.7

030

.70

105

00

Nic

kel*

*36

.21

37.0

017

.00

55.0

038

.00

104

10

Sele

nium

*0.

610.

580.

310.

960.

6552

530

Sele

nium

**0.

610.

560.

311.

100.

7964

410

Silv

er*

0.53

0.39

0.10

2.01

1.91

9312

0Si

lver

**

1.48

1.45

1.20

1.80

0.60

410

10

Thal

lium

* 0.

250.

200.

111.

791.

6810

05

0Th

alliu

m**

0.32

0.31

0.21

0.62

0.41

5847

0Zi

nc*

82.5

663

.90

19.1

01,

290.

001,

270.

9010

50

0Zi

nc**

108.

1191

.20

29.6

01,

450.

001,

420.

4010

41

0Ti

tani

um*

715.

3168

9.00

279.

001,

160.

0088

1.00

105

00

Tita

nium

**

3,28

6.92

3,42

0.00

1,67

0.00

5,09

0.00

3,42

0.00

104

10

Maj

or E

lem

ents

Silic

on**

276,

285.

7127

2,00

0.00

224,

000.

0033

4,00

0.00

110,

000.

0010

50

0

Tra

ce E

lem

ents

Tin*

00

105

Tin*

*8.

814.

030.

7516

6.00

165.

2510

41

0

* s

trong

aci

d di

gest

ion

** h

ydro

fluor

ic a

cid

dige

stio

nIta

lics -

com

poun

d no

t fro

m o

rigi

nal p

roje

ct li

st

Page 243

CO

MPO

UN

D (u

nit o

f mea

sure

)M

EAN

MED

IAN

MIN

IMU

MM

AX

IMU

MR

AN

GE

N

NO

. OF

NO

N-

DET

ECTE

D

VA

LUES

NO

. OF

MIS

SIN

G

VA

LUES

App

endi

x D

. T

able

3.

Con

tinue

d.

Org

anot

ins (

ug/k

g dr

y w

t)D

ibut

yltin

Dic

hlor

ide

28.4

615

.00

0.74

170.

0016

9.26

6738

0Te

trabu

tylti

n10

8.74

17.1

50.

493,

110.

003,

109.

5186

190

Mon

obut

yltin

00

105

Trib

utyl

tin C

hlor

ide

108.

7417

.15

0.49

3,11

0.00

3,10

9.51

8619

0

OR

GA

NIC

S (u

g/kg

dry

wt)

Chl

orin

ated

Aro

mat

ic C

ompo

unds

1,2,

4-tri

chlo

robe

nzen

e3.

583.

580.

776.

405.

632

103

01,

2-di

chlo

robe

nzen

e2.

111.

300.

356.

406.

055

100

01,

3-di

chlo

robe

nzen

e6.

541.

800.

8317

.00

16.1

73

102

01,

4-di

chlo

robe

nzen

e8.

623.

600.

3479

.00

78.6

640

650

2-ch

loro

naph

thal

ene

01

104

Hex

achl

orob

enze

ne0.

620.

340.

104.

504.

4029

760

Chl

orin

ated

Alk

anes

Hex

achl

orob

utad

ien

010

50

Chl

orin

ated

and

Nitr

o-Su

bstit

uted

Phe

nols

Pent

achl

orop

heno

l19

4.22

159.

0098

.00

527.

0042

9.00

2382

0

HPA

Hs

Ben

zo(a

)ant

hrac

ene

200.

6772

.00

1.50

1760

.00

1758

.50

105

00

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

298.

5699

.00

1.30

2910

.00

2908

.70

105

00

Ben

zo(b

)flu

oran

then

e45

2.08

157.

002.

6066

70.0

066

67.4

010

50

0B

enzo

(e)p

yren

e18

3.64

78.5

01.

5012

80.0

012

78.5

010

40

0B

enzo

(g,h

,i)pe

ryle

ne15

8.50

83.0

01.

4010

00.0

099

8.60

105

00

Ben

zo(k

)flu

oran

then

e18

1.15

59.0

00.

5923

60.0

023

59.4

110

40

0C

hrys

ene

260.

5311

8.00

2.60

1710

.00

1707

.40

105

00

Dib

enzo

(a,h

)ant

hrac

ene

34.4

317

.00

0.48

392.

0039

1.52

102

30

Fluo

rant

hene

868.

1318

2.00

4.90

4300

0.00

4299

5.10

105

00

Inde

no(1

,2,3

-c,d

)pyr

ene

163.

1886

.00

1.20

1220

.00

1218

.80

105

00

Pery

lene

135.

6310

4.00

4.20

949.

0094

4.80

105

00

Pyre

ne62

1.47

206.

004.

5014

400.

0014

395.

5010

50

0C

1-C

hrys

enes

43.0

816

.00

0.12

778.

0077

7.88

7530

0C

1-Fl

uora

nthe

ne/P

yren

e13

0.76

59.0

01.

3011

60.0

011

58.7

010

32

0

Page 244

CO

MPO

UN

D (u

nit o

f mea

sure

)M

EAN

MED

IAN

MIN

IMU

MM

AX

IMU

MR

AN

GE

N

NO

. OF

NO

N-

DET

ECTE

D

VA

LUES

NO

. OF

MIS

SIN

G

VA

LUES

App

endi

x D

. T

able

3.

Con

tinue

d.

C2-

Chr

ysen

es14

.37

6.95

0.27

134.

0013

3.73

2085

0C

3-C

hrys

enes

7.73

3.80

0.21

50.0

049

.79

3174

0C

4-C

hrys

enes

010

50

LPA

Hs

1,6,

7-Tr

imet

hyln

apht

hale

ne21

.72

17.0

00.

9913

6.00

135.

0110

23

01-

Met

hyln

apht

hale

ne29

.33

17.0

00.

9272

8.00

727.

0899

60

1-M

ethy

lphe

nant

hren

e35

.90

27.0

01.

2019

5.00

193.

8010

05

02,

6-D

imet

hyln

apht

hale

ne47

.80

37.0

01.

1027

2.00

270.

9010

32

02-

Met

hyln

apht

hale

ne50

.54

29.0

01.

4010

30.0

010

28.6

099

60

2-M

ethy

lphe

nant

hren

e51

.76

38.0

02.

2031

2.00

309.

8010

23

0A

cena

phth

ene

52.3

67.

300.

4816

70.0

016

69.5

293

120

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

30.9

415

.00

0.05

193.

0019

2.95

104

10

Ant

hrac

ene

131.

3332

.00

0.97

1120

.00

1119

.03

105

00

Bip

heny

l19

.85

9.00

0.44

387.

0038

6.56

9411

0D

iben

zoth

ioph

ene

23.5

89.

201.

0033

4.00

333.

0089

160

Fluo

rene

54.7

717

.00

0.76

830.

0082

9.24

102

30

Nap

htha

lene

195.

6938

.00

1.90

8370

.00

8368

.10

969

0Ph

enan

thre

ne28

0.98

93.5

03.

3038

30.0

038

26.7

010

23

0R

eten

e85

.56

46.0

01.

9013

20.0

013

18.1

010

32

0C

1-D

iben

zoth

ioph

enes

1.21

0.89

0.02

3.30

3.29

2877

0C

1-Fl

uore

nes

1.72

0.88

0.08

17.0

016

.92

5055

0C

1-N

apht

hale

nes

80.9

444

.00

1.80

1950

.00

1948

.20

101

40

C1-

Phen

anth

rene

s/A

nthr

acen

es19

4.35

126.

004.

6011

70.0

011

65.4

099

60

C2

-Nap

htha

lene

s10

1.52

86.0

02.

2010

40.0

010

37.8

010

32

0C

2-D

iben

zoth

ioph

enes

2.33

1.65

0.72

7.70

6.98

1491

0C

2-Fl

uore

nes

0.98

0.98

0.98

0.98

0.00

110

40

C2-

Phen

anth

rene

s/A

nthr

acen

es67

.12

43.5

00.

0840

6.00

405.

9244

610

C3

-Nap

htha

lene

s10

1.23

87.0

03.

4062

7.00

623.

6010

50

0C

3-D

iben

zoth

ioph

enes

6.41

4.45

0.20

44.0

043

.80

4263

0C

3-Fl

uore

nes

2.50

2.50

0.98

4.40

3.42

510

00

C3-

Phen

anth

rene

s/A

nthr

acen

es23

.31

18.0

00.

3211

4.00

113.

6810

23

0C

4 -N

apht

hale

nes

0.98

0.98

0.98

0.98

0.00

110

40

C4-

Phen

anth

rene

s/A

nthr

acen

es75

.11

45.0

01.

9070

6.00

704.

1010

32

0

Page 245

CO

MPO

UN

D (u

nit o

f mea

sure

)M

EAN

MED

IAN

MIN

IMU

MM

AX

IMU

MR

AN

GE

N

NO

. OF

NO

N-

DET

ECTE

D

VA

LUES

NO

. OF

MIS

SIN

G

VA

LUES

App

endi

x D

. T

able

3.

Con

tinue

d.

Mis

cella

neou

s Ext

ract

able

Com

poun

dsB

enzo

ic a

cid

3,15

9.32

2,29

0.00

607.

0013

,000

.00

12,3

93.0

095

100

Ben

zyl a

lcoh

ol38

.58

34.0

021

.00

75.0

054

.00

2679

0D

iben

zofu

ran

59.4

014

.00

1.10

2,01

0.00

2,00

8.90

996

0

Org

anon

itrog

en C

ompo

unds

N-n

itros

odip

heny

lam

ine

19.5

414

.00

5.70

34.0

028

.30

510

00

Phen

ols

2,4-

dim

ethy

lphe

nol

13.1

312

.00

4.30

35.0

030

.70

1986

02-

met

hylp

heno

l7.

766.

401.

2048

.00

46.8

067

380

4-m

ethy

lphe

nol

642.

5031

.00

2.20

6,25

0.00

6,24

7.80

978

0Ph

enol

201.

7310

9.00

44.0

01,

730.

001,

686.

0040

650

P-no

nylp

heno

l19

.50

19.5

018

.00

21.0

03.

002

103

0

Phth

alat

e E

ster

sB

is(2

-eth

ylhe

xyl)p

htha

late

512.

1946

0.00

139.

001,

030.

0089

1.00

1689

0B

utyl

ben

zyl p

htha

lte50

.14

47.0

07.

7092

.00

84.3

020

850

Die

thyl

pht

hala

te40

.50

25.0

03.

5015

1.00

147.

5021

840

Dim

ethy

l pht

hala

te19

.27

11.1

03.

3065

.00

61.7

012

930

Di-n

-but

yl p

htha

late

557.

3336

4.00

70.0

02,

890.

002,

820.

0030

750

Di-n

-oct

yl p

htha

late

16.0

016

.00

16.0

016

.00

0.00

110

40

Chl

orin

ated

Pes

ticid

esA

ldrin

010

50

Alp

ha-c

hlor

dane

1.00

1.00

0.59

1.40

0.81

210

30

Alp

ha-H

CH

(Alp

ha B

HC

)0

105

0B

eta-

HC

H (B

eta

BH

C)

010

50

Del

ta-H

CH

(Del

ta B

HC

)0

105

0D

ield

rin0

105

0En

do-s

ulfa

nsul

fate

010

50

Endr

in0

105

0En

drin

ket

one

010

50

Endr

in-a

ldeh

yde

010

50

Gam

ma-

chlo

rdan

e (T

rans

-Chl

orda

ne)

2.41

2.41

0.71

4.10

3.39

210

30

Page 246

CO

MPO

UN

D (u

nit o

f mea

sure

)M

EAN

MED

IAN

MIN

IMU

MM

AX

IMU

MR

AN

GE

N

NO

. OF

NO

N-

DET

ECTE

D

VA

LUES

NO

. OF

MIS

SIN

G

VA

LUES

App

endi

x D

. T

able

3.

Con

tinue

d.

Gam

ma-

HC

H (G

amm

a B

HC

) (Li

ndan

e)1.

341.

340.

572.

101.

532

103

0H

epta

chlo

r0

105

0H

epta

chlo

r epo

xide

010

50

Met

hoxy

chlo

r10

.00

10.0

010

.00

10.0

00.

001

104

02,

4'-D

DD

010

50

4,4'

-DD

D4.

073.

150.

8014

.00

13.2

036

690

2,4'

-DD

E0

105

04,

4'-D

DE

3.00

2.20

0.21

12.0

011

.79

4461

02,

4'-D

DT

010

50

4,4'

-DD

T3.

733.

453.

005.

002.

004

101

0C

is-n

onac

hlor

010

50

Tran

s-no

nach

lor

0.58

0.58

0.58

0.58

0.00

110

40

Oxy

chlo

rdan

e0

105

0M

irex

010

50

Endo

sulfa

n I (

Alp

ha-e

ndos

ulfa

n)0

105

0En

dosu

lfan

II (B

eta-

endo

sulfa

n)0

105

0C

hlor

pyrif

os0

105

0To

xaph

ene

010

50

Poly

cycl

ic C

hlor

inat

ed B

iphe

nyls

PCB

Aro

chlo

rs:

1016

010

50

1221

010

50

1232

010

50

1242

19.4

412

.00

4.20

50.0

045

.80

798

012

480

105

012

5453

.06

30.5

02.

5030

0.00

297.

5054

510

1260

108.

7739

.00

2.70

2,00

0.00

1,99

7.30

6342

012

680

230

PCB

Con

gene

rs:

80.

730.

620.

251.

701.

457

980

181.

360.

840.

216.

806.

5933

720

282.

791.

300.

0924

.00

23.9

147

580

441.

520.

980.

248.

808.

5652

530

522.

731.

500.

1222

.00

21.8

863

420

Page 247

CO

MPO

UN

D (u

nit o

f mea

sure

)M

EAN

MED

IAN

MIN

IMU

MM

AX

IMU

MR

AN

GE

N

NO

. OF

NO

N-

DET

ECTE

D

VA

LUES

NO

. OF

MIS

SIN

G

VA

LUES

App

endi

x D

. T

able

3.

Con

tinue

d.

662.

201.

200.

1024

.00

23.9

063

420

777.

507.

507.

507.

500.

001

104

010

16.

222.

400.

0776

.00

75.9

371

340

105

4.11

2.20

0.13

35.0

034

.87

5946

011

83.

942.

550.

1029

.00

28.9

072

330

126

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.40

0.00

110

40

128

2.13

1.10

0.07

14.0

013

.93

6144

013

810

.05

4.60

0.23

140.

0013

9.77

6540

015

39.

252.

900.

1121

0.00

209.

8979

260

170

5.63

1.90

0.07

110.

0010

9.93

6342

018

08.

682.

600.

1119

0.00

189.

8965

400

187

6.37

2.60

0.18

100.

0099

.82

5253

019

51.

570.

610.

1218

.00

17.8

837

680

206

1.45

0.80

0.08

8.70

8.62

5649

0

Page 248

Stat

ion

Num

ber

App

endi

x D

, Fig

ure

1. G

rain

size

dis

trib

utio

n fo

r th

e 19

98 c

entr

al P

uget

Sou

nd sa

mpl

ing

stat

ions

(gra

in si

ze in

frac

tiona

l per

cent

).

Cla

ySi

ltSa

ndG

rave

l

Stra

tum

1

Sout

h Po

rt T

owns

end

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

106

107

108

Stra

tum

4

Sout

h A

dmir

alty

Inle

t

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

112

116

117

Stra

tum

5Po

sses

sion

Sou

nd

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

118

119

120

Stra

tum

6C

entr

al B

asin

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

121

122

123

Stra

tum

7

Port

Mad

ison

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

124

125

126

Stra

tum

2

Port

Tow

nsen

d

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

109

110

111

Page 249

Stat

ion

Num

ber

App

endi

x D

, Fig

ure

1. c

ontin

ued.

Stra

tum

8W

est P

oint

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

113

127

128

129

Stra

tum

10

Cen

tral

Bas

in

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

133

134

135

Stra

tum

11

Cen

tral

Bas

in

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

136

137

138

Stra

tum

12

Eas

t Pas

sage

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

139

140

141

Stra

tum

13

Lib

erty

Bay

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

142

143

144

Stra

tum

9

Eag

le H

arbo

r

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

130

131

132

Cla

ySi

ltSa

ndG

rave

l

Page 250

Stat

ion

Num

ber

App

endi

x D

, Fig

ure

1. c

ontin

ued.

Stra

tum

14

Key

port

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

145

146

147

Stra

tum

16

Sout

h W

est B

aing

ridg

e Is

land

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

151

152

153

Stra

tum

17

Ric

h Pa

ssag

e

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

154

155

156

Stra

tum

18

Port

Orc

hard

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

157

158

159

Stra

tum

19

Sinc

lair

Inle

t

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

160

161

162

Stra

tum

15

Nor

th W

est B

ainb

ridg

e Is

land

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

149

150

148*

Cla

ySi

ltSa

ndG

rave

l

Page 251

Stat

ion

Num

ber

App

endi

x D

, Fig

ure

1. c

ontin

ued.

Stra

tum

20

Sinc

lair

Inle

t

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

164

165

163*

Stra

tum

22

Dye

s Inl

et

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

169

170

171

Stra

tum

23

Out

er E

lliot

t Bay

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

173

174

175

172*

Stra

tum

24

Shor

elin

e E

lliot

t Bay

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

176

177

178

Stra

tum

25

Shor

elin

e E

lliot

t Bay

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

115

179

180

181

Stra

tum

21

Port

Was

hing

ton

Nar

row

s

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

166

167

168

Cla

ySi

ltSa

ndG

rave

l

Page 252

Stat

ion

Num

ber

App

endi

x D

, Fig

ure

1. c

ontin

ued.

Stra

tum

26

Shor

elin

e E

lliot

t Bay

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

182

183

184

Stra

tum

28

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

189

190

191

192

Stra

tum

29

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

193

194

195

196

Stra

tum

30

Wes

t Har

bor

Isla

nd

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

114

197

198

199

Stra

tum

31

Eas

t Har

bor

Isla

nd

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200

201

202*

Stra

tum

27

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

185

186

188

187*

Cla

ySi

ltSa

ndG

rave

l

Page 253

Stat

ion

Num

ber

App

endi

x D

, Fig

ure

1. c

ontin

ued.

Stra

tum

32

Duw

amis

h

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

203

204

205

Cla

ySi

ltSa

ndG

rave

l

Page 254

Page 255

Appendix E1998 Central Puget Sound benthic infaunal species list.

Page 256

Page 257

Appendix E. 1998 Central Puget Sound benthic infaunal species list.

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Porifera Calcerea Grantiidae Leucandra sp.Demospongiae Demospongiae

Myxillidae Myxilla incrustans (Esper 1805-1814)

Cnidaria Hydrozoa Bougainvilliidae Perigonimus sp.Tubulariidae TubulariidaeCorymorphidae Euphysa sp.Eudendriidae EudendriidaePandeidae PandeidaeCampanulariidae Campanulariidae

Clytia sp.Sertulariidae Abietinaria sp.Calycellidae Calycella sp.

Anthozoa Cerianthidae CerianthidaePachycerianthus sp.Pachycerianthus fimbriatus Mcmurrich 1910

Virgulariidae Stylatula elongata (Gabb 1862)Pennatulidae Ptilosarcus gurneyi (Gray 1860)Edwardsiidae Edwardsia sipunculoides (Stimpson 1853)Halcampidae Halcampa sp.

Halcampa decemtentaculata Hand 1954Anthozoa Peachia quinquecapitata Mcmurrich, 1913

Metridiidae Metridium sp.

Platyhel-minthes

Polycladida

Turbellaria Stylochidae StylochidaeLeptoplanidae Leptoplanidae

Kalyptorhynchia

Nemertina Anopla PaleonemerteaTubulanidae Tubulanus sp.

Tubulanus capistratus (Coe 1901)Tubulanus polymorphus Renier 1804Tubulanus pellucidusTubulanus sp. ATubulanus sp. B

Carinomidae Carinoma mutabilis Griffin 1898Lineidae Lineidae

Cerebratulus sp.Lineus sp.Micrura sp.

Enopla HoplonemerteaMonostylifera

Emplectonematidae Paranemertes californica Coe 1904

Page 258

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Prosorhochmidae Oerstedia dorsalis (Abildgaard 1806)Amphiporidae Amphiporus sp.

Zygonemertes virescensTetrastemmatidae Tetrastemma sp.

Tetrastemma nigrifrons Coe 1904

Nematoda Nematoda

Annelida Polychaeta Aphroditidae Aphrodita sp.Aphrodita negligens Moore 1905

Polynoidae Polynoidae Malmgren, 1867Bylgides macrolepidusArcteobia cf. anticostiensis SCAMIT 1990 §Arctonoe vittata (Grube, 1855)Eunoe sp.Eunoe uniseriataGattyana ciliata Moore, 1902Gattyana cirrosa (Malmgren, 1865)Gattyana treadwelli Pettibone, 1949Harmothoe sp.Harmothoe extenuataHarmothoe imbricata (Linnaeus 1767)Harmothoe multisetosa (Moore 1902)Harmothoe fragilis Moore 1910HarmothoinaeLepidonotus sp.Lepidonotus spiculus (Treadwell 1906)Hesperonoe sp.Lepidasthenia sp.Lepidasthenia berkeleyae Pettibone 1948Lepidasthenia longicirrata E. Berkeley 1923Tenonia priops (Hartman 1961)Malmgreniella nigralba (E. Berkeley 1923)Malmgreniella scriptoria (Moore 1910)Malmgreniella bansei Pettibone 1993

Pholoidae Pholoides asperaPholoe minuta (Fabricius)Pholoe sp. N1

Sigalionidae Sthenelais sp.Sthenelais berkeleyi Pettibone 1971Sthenelais tertiaglabra Moore 1910Sthenelais fusca Johnson 1897

Chrysopetalidae Paleanotus bellis (Johnson 1897)Phyllodocidae Phyllodoce (Anaitides) citrina

Eteone sp.Eteone pacificaEteone spilotus

Appendix E. Continued.

Page 259

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Eteone leptotes Blake 1992Eulalia californiensis (Hartman 1936)Eumida sp.Eumida tubiformisEumida longicornuta (Moore 1906)Phyllodoce sp.Phyllodoce (Aponaitides)hartmanaePhyllodoce (Anaitides)cuspidata

Mccammon &Montagne 1979

Phyllodoce (Anaitides)groenlandicaPhyllodoce (Anaitides)longipesPhyllodoce (Anaitides)mucosaPhyllodoce (Anaitides)williamsiSige bifoliataPterocirrus macroceros

Hesionidae Microphthalmus sczelkowiiMicropodarke dubia (Hessle 1925)Heteropodarke heteromorpha Hartmann-Schröder

1962Podarke pugettensis Johnson 1901Podarkeopsis glabrus

Pilargidae Sigambra tentaculata (Treadwell 1941)Pilargis maculataParandalia fauveli (Berkeley &

Berkeley 1941)Syllidae Pionosyllis uraga Imajima 1966

Syllis spongiphilaSyllis (Ehlersia) hyperioni Dorsey & Phillips

1987Syllis (Ehlersia) heterochaeta Moore 1909Syllis (Typosyllis) hartiEusyllis blomstrandiEusyllis magnificaEusyllis habei Imajima 1966Exogone (E.) loureiExogone (Parexogone)molestaExogone dwisula Kudenov & Harris

1995Sphaerosyllis californiensis Hartman 1966Sphaerosyllis ranunculus Kudenov & Harris

1995

Appendix E. Continued.

Page 260

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Sphaerosyllis sp. N1Odontosyllis phosphorea Moore 1909Proceraea cornuta

Nereididae NereididaeNereis procera Ehlers 1868Nereis zonataPlatynereis bicanaliculata (Baird, 1863)

Nephtyidae Nephtys caeca (Fabricius)Nephtys cornuta Berkeley &

Berkeley 1945Nephtys punctata Hartman 1938Nephtys ferruginea Hartman 1940Nephtys caecoides Hartman 1938

Sphaerodoridae Sphaerodoropsis sphaerulifer (Moore 1909)Glyceridae Glycera americana Leidy 1855

Glycera nana Johnson 1901Goniadidae Glycinde armigera Moore 1911

Glycinde polygnathaGoniada sp..Goniada maculata Ørsted 1843Goniada brunnea Treadwell 1906

Onuphidae OnuphidaeOnuphis sp.Onuphis geophiliformis (Moore 1903)Onuphis iridescens (Johnson 1901)Onuphis elegans (Johnson 1901)DiopatraDiopatra ornata Moore 1911

Lumbrineridae Lumbrineris sp.Eranno bicirrata (Treadwell 1922)Lumbrineris latreilli Audouin & H.

Milne Edwards1834

Scoletoma lutiLumbrineris cruzensis Hartman 1944Lumbrineris californiensis Hartman 1944Ninoe gemmea

Oenonidae Drilonereis longa WebsterNotocirrus californiensis Hartman 1944

Dorvilleidae Dorvillea (D.) sp.Dorvillea (Schistomeringos)rudolphiDorvillea (Schistomeringos)annulata

(Moore 1906)

Protodorvillea gracilis (Hartman 1938)Parougia caeca (Webster &

Benedict 1884)

Appendix E. Continued.

Page 261

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Orbiniidae Orbiniidae Hartman, 1942Leitoscoloplos pugettensis (Pettibone 1957)Scoloplos nr. yamaguchiiNaineris quadricuspida (Fabricius)Naineris uncinata Hartman 1957Scoloplos sp.Scoloplos armiger (Muller)Scoloplos acmeceps Chamberlin 1919Phylo felix Kinberg 1866

Paraonidae Aricidea cf. pseudoarticulataAricidea sp.Aricidea (Acmira) catherinae Laubier 1967Aricidea (Acmira) lopezi Berkeley &

Berkeley 1956Aricidea (Allia) ramosaLevinsenia gracilis (Tauber 1879)Paradoneis sp.

Apistobranchidae Apistobranchus ornatus Hartman 1965Spionidae Spionidae

Laonice cirrata (M. Sars 1851)Laonice pugettensisPolydora sp.Dipolydora socialis (Schmarda 1861)Dipolydora caulleryi (Mesnil 1897)Polydora limicola Annenkova 1934Dipolydora cardaliaDipolydora quadrilobataDipolydora nr. akainaDipolydora armataPrionospio sp.Prionospio steenstrupi MalmgrenPrionospio (Minuspio) lighti Maciolek 1985Prionospio jubataPrionospio (Minuspio)multibranchiata

E. Berkeley 1927

Spio filicornis (O. F. Müller 1766)Spio cirriferaBoccardia pugettensis Blake 1979Spiophanes bombyx (Claparède 1870)Spiophanes berkeleyorum Pettibone 1962Pygospio elegansParaprionospio pinnata (Ehlers 1901)Scolelepis squamata (O. F. Müller 1806)Boccardiella hamata (Webster 1879)

Magelonidae Magelona sp.Magelona longicornis Johnson 1901Magelona sacculata Hartman 1961

Appendix E. Continued.

Page 262

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Magelona berkeleyi Jones 1971Trochochaetidae Trochochaeta multisetosa (Ørsted 1844)Chaetopteridae Chaetopterus variopedatus (Renier, 1804)

Phyllochaetopterus prolifica Potts 1914Spiochaetopterus costarum (Claparède 1870)Mesochaetopterus taylori

Cirratulidae CirratulidaeCirratulus sp.Cirratulus robustusCirratulus spectabilisCaulleriella pacificaAphelochaeta sp.Aphelochaeta monilaris (Hartman 1960)Aphelochaeta sp. 2Aphelochaeta sp. N1Chaetozone sp.Chaetozone nr. setosaChaetozone columbiana Blake 1996Chaetozone commonalisChaetozone acutaChaetozone sp. N1Tharyx sp. N1Monticellina tesselata (Hartman 1960)Monticellina sp. N1Monticellina sp.Cossura pygodactylata Jones 1956Cossura bansei

Flabelligeridae Brada villosa (Rathke 1843)Brada sachalina Annenkova,1922Flabelligera affinisPherusa plumosa

Scalibregmidae Scalibregma inflatum Rathke 1843Asclerocheilus beringianus

Opheliidae Armandia brevis (Moore 1906)Travisia brevis Moore 1923Travisia pupa Moore 1906Ophelina acuminata Ørsted 1843

Sternaspidae Sternaspis scutataCapitellidae Capitella capitata

hyperspeciesHeteromastus filobranchus Berkeley &

Berkeley 1932Notomastus sp.Notomastus tenuis Moore 1909Notomastus latericeus M. Sars 1851Mediomastus sp.Decamastus gracilis Hartman 1963

Appendix E. Continued.

Page 263

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Barantolla nr. americanaMaldanidae Maldanidae sp.

Chirimia similisMaldane sarsi Malmgren 1865Nicomache lumbricalis (Fabricius 1780)Nicomache personata Johnson 1901Notoproctus pacificus (Moore 1906)Petaloproctus borealis Arwidsson 1907Axiothella rubrocincta (Johnson 1901)Praxillella gracilis (M. Sars 1861)Praxillella pacifica E. Berkeley 1929EuclymeninaeRhodine bitorquata Moore 1923Euclymene cf. zonalisClymenura gracilis Hartman 1969Microclymene caudataNicomachinaeIsocirrus longiceps (Moore 1923)

Oweniidae Owenia fusiformis Delle Chiaje 1841Myriochele heeriGalathowenia oculata

Sabellariidae Idanthyrsus saxicavusNeosabellaria cementarium (Moore 1906)

Pectinaridae Pectinaria granulataPectinaria californiensis Hartman 1941

Ampharetidae AmpharetidaeAmage anops (Johnson 1901)Ampharete sp.Ampharete acutifrons (Grube 1860)Ampharete finmarchicaAmpharete labrops Hartman 1961Ampharete cf. crassisetaAmphicteis scaphobranchiata Moore 1906Amphicteis mucronata Moore 1923Melinna oculata Hartman 1969Anobothrus gracilis (Malmgren 1866)Asabellides sibiricaAsabellides lineata (Berkeley &

Berkeley 1943)Schistocomus hiltoni Chamberlin 1919

Terebellidae TerebellidaeAmphitrite robusta Johnson 1901Eupolymnia heterobranchia (Johnson 1901)Nicolea sp.Nicolea zostericolaPista sp.Pista elongata Moore 1909

Appendix E. Continued.

Page 264

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Pista brevibranchiataPista estevanicaPista wuiPista banseiPolycirrus sp.Polycirrus californicus Moore 1909Polycirrus sp. I (sensu Banse,1980)Thelepus sp.Thelepus setosus (Quatrefages 1865)Artacama coniferi Moore 1905Lanassa nordenskioldiLanassa venustaProclea graffiiScionella japonica Moore 1903Streblosoma bairdiAmphitrite edwardsiPolycirrinae

Trichobranchidae Terebellides sp.Terebellides stroemiTerebellides californica Williams 1984Terebellides reishi Williams 1984Terebellides nr. lineataArtacamella hancocki Hartman 1955

Sabellidae SabellidaeChone sp.Chone duneriChone magnaEuchone incolor Hartman 1965Euchone limnicola Reish 1960Eudistylia sp.Eudistylia polymorphaEudistylia vancouveri (Kinberg 1867)Eudistylia catherinaeMegalomma splendida (Moore 1905)Demonax sp.Schizobranchia insignisBispira elegansLaonome kroeyeriSabellinaeDemonax rugosus (Moore, 1904)

Saccocirridae Saccocirrus sp.Serpulidae Serpulidae

Pseudochitinopomaoccidentalis

Bush,1909

Spirorbidae Circeis sp.Oligochaeta Oligochaeta

Appendix E. Continued.

Page 265

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Mollusca Gastropoda Gastropoda Cuvier,1797Fissurellidae Puncturella cooperi Carpenter 1864Trochidae Trochidae Rafinesque, 1815

Calliostoma ligatum (Gould, 1849)Solariella sp.Lirularia lirulata

Lacunidae Lacuna vincta (Montagu, 1803)Rissoidae Alvania compacta Carpenter, 1864Cerithiidae Lirobittium sp.Eulimidae Balcis oldroydae (Bartsch 1917)Trichotropididae Trichotropis cancellata Hinds, 1843Calyptraeidae Calyptraea fastigiata Gould 1856

Crepipatella dorsata (Broderip 1834)Naticidae Euspira pallidaNucellidae (Thaisidae) Nucella lamellosa (Gmelin,1791)Columbellidae Amphissa sp.

Amphissa columbiana Dall,1916Alia carinata (Hinds 1844)Astyris gausapata

Nassariidae Nassarius mendicus (Gould 1849)Olividae Olivella baetica Carpenter 1864

Olivella pycna Berry 1935Turridae Kurtziella crebricostata

Kurtzia arteaga (Dall & Bartsch1910)

Ophiodermella cancellata (Carpenter 1864)Pyramidellidae Odostomia sp.

Turbonilla sp.Cylichnidae Acteocina culcitella (Gould 1853)

Cylichna attonsa Carpenter 1865Scaphander sp.Retusa sp.

Aglajidae Melanochlamys diomedea (Bergh 1893)Gastropteridae Gastropteron pacificum Bergh 1893

Nudibranchia Cuvier,1817Notodorididae Aegires albopunctatus Macfarland 1905Onchidorididae Onchidoris bilamellata (Linnaeus,1767)Flabellinidae Flabellina sp.

Polyplacophora PolyplacophoraIschnochitonida Ischnochiton albus

Lepidozona mertensii (Middendorff 1847)Lepidozona interstincta (Gould 1852)

Mopaliidae Mopalia lignosaAplacophora Chaetodermatidae Chaetoderma sp.Bivalvia Bivalvia Linnaeus,1758

Nuculidae Acila castrensis (Hinds 1843)

Appendix E. Continued.

Page 266

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Nuculanidae Ennucula tenuisNuculana minuta (Fabricius,1776)Nuculana cf. cellulita

Sareptidae Yoldia sp.Yoldia hyperborea Torell,1859Yoldia seminuda Dall 1871Yoldia thraciaeformis

Mytilidae MytilidaeMytilus sp.Solamen columbianaMusculus discors (Linnaeus,1767)Modiolus rectus (Conrad 1837)

Pectinidae Chlamys hastata (G. B. Sowerby Ii1843)

Anomiidae Pododesmus macroschisma (Deshayes,1839)Lucinidae Parvilucina tenuisculpta (Carpenter 1864)

Lucinoma annulatum (Reeve 1850)Thyasiridae Adontorhina cyclia Berry 1947

Axinopsida serricata (Carpenter 1864)Thyasira flexuosa (Montagu 1803)

Lasaeidae Lasaea adansoni (Gmelin 1791)Montacutidae Rochefortia tumidaLasaeidae Rochefortia cf. coaniCarditidae Cyclocardia ventricosa (Gould 1850)Cardiidae Clinocardium sp.

Clinocardium nuttallii (Conrad 1837)Nemocardium centifilosum (Carpenter 1864)

Mactridae Mactromeris polynyma (Stimpson,1860)Solenidae Solen sicarius Gould 1850Tellinidae Macoma sp.

Macoma elimata Dunnill &Coon,1968

Macoma obliqua (Sowerby,1817)Macoma moesta (Deshayes,1855)Macoma yoldiformis Carpenter 1864Macoma carlottensis Whiteaves 1880Macoma nasuta (Conrad 1837)Macoma inquinata (Deshayes,1855)Tellina sp.Tellina nuculoides (Reeve 1854)Tellina modesta (Carpenter 1864)

Semelidae Semele rubropicta Dall 1871Veneridae Saxidomus giganteus (Deshayes,1839)

Compsomyax subdiaphana (Carpenter 1864)Protothaca staminea (Conrad 1837)Nutricola lordi (Baird 1863)Nutricola tantilla (Gould 1853)

Appendix E. Continued.

Page 267

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Myidae Mya arenaria Linnaeus 1758Hiatellidae Hiatella arctica (Linnaeus 1767)

Panomya sp.Panopea abrupta (Conrad 1849)

Pandoridae Pandora filosa (Carpenter 1864)Lyonsiidae Lyonsia californica Conrad 1837Thraciidae Thracia sp.

Thracia trapezoides Conrad 1849Poromya sp.

Cuspidariidae Cardiomya pectinata (Carpenter 1864)Scaphopoda Pulsellidae Pulsellum salishorum E. Marshall,1980

Arthropoda Pycnogonida Nymphonidae Nymphon heterodenticulatum Hedgpeth 1941Phoxichilidiidae Phoxichilidium sp.

Phoxichilidium femoratumAnoplodactylusviridintestinalis

Ostracoda Cylindroleberididae Bathyleberis sp.Rutidermatidae Rutiderma lomae (Juday 1907)Philomedidae Euphilomedes carcharodonta (Smith 1952)

Euphilomedes producta Poulsen 1962Philomedida sp. A

Copepoda Calanoida Calanoida Mauchline, 1988Harpacticoida Harpacticoida

Orthopsyllus linearisAscidocolidae AscidocolidaeCaligidae Caligidae Kabata, 1988Argulidae Argulidae

Cirripedia Balanidae Balanus sp.Balanus glandulaBalanus nubilus Darwin 1854

Malacostraca Nebaliidae Nebalia pugettensisMysidacea

Mysidae Pacifacanthomysisnephrophthalma

(Banner 1948)

Heteromysis odontops Walker 1898Neomysis kadiakensis Ortmann 1908Pseudomma berkeleyi W. Tattersall 1932Pseudomma sp. AAlienacanthomysis sp.

Lampropidae Lamprops quadriplicataLamprops serrataLamprops sp. A

Leuconiidae Leucon nasicaEudorella (tridentata) pacificaEudorellopsis cf. integraEudorellopsis integra

Appendix E. Continued.

Page 268

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Eudorellopsis longirostris Given 1961Nippoleucon hinumensis

Diastylidae Diastylis paraspinulosaDiastylis santamariensis Watling & Mccann

1997Diastylopsis dawsoniLeptostylis cf. villosa

Nannastacidae Campylaspis rufa Hart 1930Campylaspis canaliculata Zimmer 1936Campylaspis hartae Lie 1969Cumella vulgaris

Paratanaidae Leptochelia savignyiAnthuridae Haliophasma geminata Menzies And

Barnard, 1959Aegidae Rocinela cf. propodialisMunnidae Munna sp.Munnopsidae Munnopsurus sp.

Baeonectes improvisus Wilson, 1982Paramunnidae Munnogonium tillerae (Menzies & J. L.

Barnard 1959)Mysidae Iphimedia cf. ridkettsiAmpeliscidae Ampelisca sp.

Ampelisca cristata Holmes, 1908Ampelisca hancocki J. L. Barnard, 1954Ampelisca pugetica Stimpson 1864Ampelisca brevisimulata J. L. Barnard 1954Ampelisca unsocalae J. L. Barnard 1960Ampelisca lobata Holmes 1908Ampelisca careyi Dickinson 1982Ampelisca sp. AByblis millsi Dickinson 1983

Ampithoidae Ampithoe lacertosa Bate, 1858Aoridae Aoroides columbiae Walker 1898

Aoroides inermis Conlan & Bousfield1982

Aoroides intermedius Conlan AndBousfield, 1982

Aoroides sp.Argissidae Argissa hamatipes (Norman 1869)Corophiidae Corophium (Monocorophium)

acherusicumCosta, 1857

Corophium salmonis Stimpson, 1857Corophium (Monocorophium)insidiosumCorophium cf. baconiCorophium (Americorophium)spinicorne

Appendix E. Continued.

Page 269

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Ischyroceridae Erichthonius rubricornisAoridae Grandidierella japonica Stephensen 1938Dexaminidae Guernea reduncans (J. L. Barnard 1958)Pontogeneiidae Accedomoera vagor J. L. Barnard, 1969Eusiridae Eusirus sp.

Eusirus columbianusPontogeneia rostrata Gurjanova 1938Rhachotropis sp.Rhachotropis barnardi

Melitidae MelitidaeAnisogammarus pugettensis Dana, 1853Desdimelita desdichada (J. L. Barnard 1962)

Isaeidae Photis sp.Photis brevipes Shoemaker 1942Photis bifurcata J. L. Barnard 1962Protomedeia sp.Protomedeia grandimana Bruggen, 1906Protomedeia prudens J. L. Barnard 1966Gammaropsis sp.Gammaropsis thompsoni (Walker 1898)Gammaropsis ellisiCheirimedeia sp.Cheirimedeia cf. macrocarpaCheirimedeia zotea

Ischyroceridae Ischyrocerus sp.Jassa marmorata Lincoln, 1979Microjassa sp.

Oedicerotidae Americhelidium sp.Americhelidium rectipalmumAmerichelidium variabilumAmerichelidium pectinatum

Lysianassidae Aruga sp. AOrchomene cf. pinguisAcidostoma sp.Anonyx cf. lilljeborgiCyphocaris challengeri Stebbing, 1888Hippomedon coecus Holmes, 1908Lepidepecreum gurjanovae Hurley 1963Opisa tridentata Hurley 1963Orchomene pacificaOrchomene decipiens (Hurley 1963)Pachynus barnardi Hurley, 1963

Melphidippidae Melphidippa cf. borealisMelphidippa sp. AMelphisana cf. bola

Oedicerotidae OedicerotidaeAceroides sp.

Appendix E. Continued.

Page 270

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Bathymedon pumilus J. L. Barnard 1962Westwoodilla caecula Bate, 1856Westwoodilla cf. caecula (Bate 1857)Westwoodilla acutifronsDeflexilodes sp.Deflexilodes similisAmerichelidium variabilum

Pardaliscidae Pardalisca sp.Pardalisca cf. tenuipesRhynohalicella halona

Phoxocephalidae Harpiniopsis fulgens J. L. Barnard 1960Heterophoxus sp.Heterophoxus oculatus (Holmes 1908)Heterophoxus ellisi Jarrett & Bousfield

1994Heterophoxus conlanaeHeterophoxus affinis (Holmes 1908)Metaphoxus frequens J. L. Barnard 1960Paraphoxus sp.Paraphoxus similisRhepoxynius sp.Rhepoxynius bicuspidatus (J. L. Barnard 1960)Rhepoxynius cf. abroniusRhepoxynius daboius (J. L. Barnard 1960)Rhepoxynius boreovariatusFoxiphalus similis (J. L. Barnard 1960)

Pleustidae Eochelidium sp. (J. L. Barnard &Given 1960)

Gnathopleustes pugettensisHardametopa sp.Incisocalliope sp. (Alderman 1936)ParapleustinaePleusymtes coquillaPleusymtes sp. APleusymtes subglaberThorlaksonius depressusTracypleustes sp.

Podoceridae Dulichia rhabdoplastis Mccloskey, 1970Podocerus cf. cristatus (Thomson 1879)Dyopedos sp.Dyopedos arcticus Murdoch, 1885

Stenothoidae Stenula modosa J. L. Barnard 1962Metopa sp.

Synopiidae Tiron biocellata J. L. Barnard 1962Hyperiidae Parathemisto pacifica

Themisto pacificaAeginellidae Deutella californica Mayer 1890

Appendix E. Continued.

Page 271

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Mayerella banksia Laubitz 1970Tritella pilimana Mayer 1890

Caprellidae Caprella sp.Caprella mendax Mayer 1903CaprellideaMetacaprella anomala

Hippolytidae Hippolytidae Bate, 1888Alpheidae Spirontocaris ochotensis (Brandt, 1851)

Eualus subtilisHeptacarpus stimpsoni Holthuis 1947

Pandalidae Pandalus sp.Cangonidae Crangon sp.Crangonidae Crangon sp.

Crangon alaskensis Lockington 1877Mesocrangon munitella (Walker 1898)

Axiidae Acanthaxius (Axiopsis)spinulicauda

Callianassidae Neotrypaea gigasNeotrypaea californiensis (Dana 1854)

Paguridae Pagurus sp.Pagurus setosus (Benedict, 1892)Discorsopagurus schmitti (Stevens, 1925)

Upogebiidae Upogebia sp.Majidae Majidae

Oregonia gracilis Dana, 1851Cancridae Cancer sp.

Cancer gracilis Dana 1852Cancer oregonensis (Dana 1852)

Xanthidae Lophopanopeus bellus (Stimpson 1860)Pinnotheridae Pinnixa sp.

Pinnixa occidentalis Rathbun 1893Pinnixa schmitti Rathbun 1918Pinnixa tubicola Holmes 1894

Insecta Collembola

Sipuncula Sipunculidea Golfingiidae Thysanocardia nigra (Ikeda 1904)Thysanoessa cf. longipesNephasoma diaphanes (Gerould 1913)

Echiura Echiurida Bonelliidae BonelliidaeThalassematidae Arhynchite pugettensisEchiridae Echiurus echiurus alaskanus

Phorona Phoronidae Phoronopsis harmeri

Bryozoa Gymnolaemata Alcyonidiidae Alcyonidium sp.Nolella sp.

Appendix E. Continued.

Page 272

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Vesiculariidae Bowerbankia gracilis Leidy 1855Alderinidae Copidozoum tenuirostreBugulidae Bugula sp.Bicellariellidae Dendrobeania lichenoidesBugulidae Caulibugula sp.Hippothoidae Hippothoa hyalina (Linnaeus, 1767)Smittinidae Smittina sp.Celleporidae Celleporina robertsoniaeChapperiellidae Chapperiella sp.

Stenolaemata Crisiidae Crisia sp.Tubuliporidae Tubulipora sp.

Entoprocta Barentsiidae Barentsia sp.Barentsia benedeni (Foettinger 1887)

Pedicellinidae Myosoma spinosa

Brachiopoda Articulata Cancellothyrididae Terebratulina sp.Laqueidae Terebratalia transversa (G. B. Sowerby I

1846)Terebratulida

Echinodermata Asteroidea AsteroideaGoniasteridae Mediaster aequalis Stimpson 1857Solasteridae Crossaster papposus (Linnaeus, 1767)

Solaster stimpsoni Verrill, 1880Ophiuroidea Ophiurida Muller & Troschel,

1940Ophiuridae Ophiura lutkeni (Lyman, 1860)

Ophiuroidea Amphiuridae Amphiuridae Ljungman, 1867Amphiodia sp.Amphiodia urtica/perierctacomplexAmphipholis squamata (Delle Chiaje 1828)

Echinoidea Strongylocentrotidae Strongylocentrotus sp.Dendrasteridae Dendraster excentricus (Eschscholtz 1831)

Holothuroidea Dendrochirotida Brandt, 1835Sclerodactylidae Eupentacta sp.Cucumariidae Cucumariidae Ludwig, 1894

Cucumaria piperata (Stimpson 1864)Phyllophoridae Pentamera sp.

Pentamera populifera (Stimpson 1857)Pentamera pseudocalcigera Deichmann 1938Pentamera pseudopopulifera Deichmann 1938

Cucumariidae Pseudocnus sp.Synaptidae Leptosynapta sp.Mopadiidae Molpadia intermedia (Ludwig 1894)

Appendix E. Continued.

Page 273

Phylum Class Family Taxon Author

Hemichordata Enteropneusta Enteropneusta

Chordata Ascidiacea Clavelinidae Distaplia sp.Phlebobranchia Lahille

Corellidae Corella willmeriana Herdman 1898Stolidobranchia Lahille

Styelidae Styela sp.Styela gibbsii (Stimpson 1864)

Pyuridae Boltenia villosa (Stimpson 1864)Molgulidae Molgula pugetiensis Herdman 1898

Eugyra arenosa Alder &Hancock,1848

Appendix E. Continued.

Page 274

Page 275

Appendix FPercent taxa abundance for the 1998 central Puget Sound sampling

stations.

Page 276

App

endi

x F.

Per

cent

taxa

abu

ndan

ce fo

r th

e 19

98 c

entr

al P

uget

Sou

nd sa

mpl

ing

stat

ions

.

Stat

ion

Num

ber

Ann

elid

aA

rthr

opod

aE

chin

oder

mat

aM

ollu

sca

Mis

c. T

axa

Stra

tum

1

Sout

h Po

rt T

owns

end

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

106

107

108

Stra

tum

4

Sout

h A

dmir

alty

Inle

t

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

112

116

117

Stra

tum

5Po

sses

sion

Sou

nd

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

118

119

120

Stra

tum

6C

entr

al B

asin

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

121

122

123

Stra

tum

7

Port

Mad

ison

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

124

125

126

Stra

tum

2

Port

Tow

nsen

d

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

109

110

111

Page 277

App

endi

x F.

con

tinue

d.

Stat

ion

Num

ber

Stra

tum

8W

est P

oint

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

113

127

128

129

Stra

tum

10

Cen

tral

Bas

in

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

133

134

135

Stra

tum

11

Cen

tral

Bas

in

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

136

137

138

Stra

tum

12

Eas

t Pas

sage

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

139

140

141

Stra

tum

13

Lib

erty

Bay

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

142

143

144

Stra

tum

9

Eag

le H

arbo

r

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

130

131

132

Ann

elid

aA

rthr

opod

aE

chin

oder

mat

aM

ollu

sca

Mis

c. T

axa

Page 278

App

endi

x F.

con

tinue

d.

Stat

ion

Num

ber

Stra

tum

14

Key

port

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

145

146

147

Stra

tum

16

Sout

h W

est B

aing

ridg

e Is

land

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

151

152

153

Stra

tum

17

Ric

h Pa

ssag

e

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

154

155

156

Stra

tum

18

Port

Orc

hard

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

157

158

159

Stra

tum

19

Sinc

lair

Inle

t

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

160

161

162

Stra

tum

15

Nor

th W

est B

ainb

ridg

e Is

land

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

148

149

150

Ann

elid

aA

rthr

opod

aE

chin

oder

mat

aM

ollu

sca

Mis

c. T

axa

Page 279

App

endi

x F.

con

tinue

d.

Stat

ion

Num

ber

Stra

tum

20

Sinc

lair

Inle

t

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

163

164

165

Stra

tum

22

Dye

s Inl

et

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

169

170

171

Stra

tum

23

Out

er E

lliot

t Bay

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

172

173

174

175

Stra

tum

24

Shor

elin

e E

lliot

t Bay

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

176

177

178

Stra

tum

25

Shor

elin

e E

lliot

t Bay

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

115

179

180

181

Stra

tum

21

Port

Was

hing

ton

Nar

row

s

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

166

167

168

Ann

elid

aA

rthr

opod

aE

chin

oder

mat

aM

ollu

sca

Mis

c. T

axa

Page 280

App

endi

x F.

con

tinue

d.

Stat

ion

Num

ber

Stra

tum

26

Shor

elin

e E

lliot

t Bay

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

182

183

184

Stra

tum

28

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

189

190

191

192

Stra

tum

29

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

193

194

195

196

Stra

tum

30

Wes

t Har

bor

Isla

nd

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

114

197

198

199

Stra

tum

31

Eas

t Har

bor

Isla

nd

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200

201

202

Stra

tum

27

Mid

Elli

ott B

ay

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

185

186

187

188

Ann

elid

aA

rthr

opod

aE

chin

oder

mat

aM

ollu

sca

Mis

c. T

axa

Page 281

App

endi

x F.

con

tinue

d.

Stat

ion

Num

ber

Stra

tum

32

Duw

amis

h

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

203

204

205

Ann

elid

aA

rthr

opod

aE

chin

oder

mat

aM

ollu

sca

Mis

c. T

axa

Page 282

Page 283

Appendix GInfaunal taxa eliminated from the final 1998 central Puget Sound

benthic infaunal database.

Page 284

App

endi

x G

. In

faun

al ta

xa e

limin

ated

from

the

1998

cen

tral

Pug

et S

ound

ben

thic

infa

unal

dat

abas

e.El

imin

atio

n C

riter

iaPh

ylum

Cla

ssFa

mily

Taxo

n

Inci

dent

al1

Arth

ropo

daA

rgul

idae

Arg

ulid

aeC

alig

idae

Cal

igid

aeC

irrip

edia

Bal

anid

aeB

alan

us g

land

ula

Bal

anus

nub

ilus

Bal

anus

sp.

Cop

epod

aA

scid

ocol

idae

Asc

idoc

olid

aeM

alac

ostra

caC

apre

llida

eC

apre

llide

a ju

v.H

yper

iidae

Para

them

isto

pac

ifica

Them

isto

pac

ifica

Pinn

othe

ridae

Pinn

othe

ridae

meg

alop

ae la

rvae

Mei

ofau

na2

Arth

ropo

daC

opep

oda

Cal

anoi

daH

arpa

ctic

oida

Orth

opsy

llus l

inea

ris (H

arpa

ctic

oida

)N

emat

oda

Nem

atod

a

Pres

ence

/Abs

ence

3B

ryoz

oaG

ymno

laem

ata

Alc

yoni

diid

aeA

lcyo

nidi

um sp

.A

lder

inid

aeC

opid

ozou

m te

nuiro

stre

Ara

chni

diid

aeN

olel

la sp

.B

icel

larie

llida

eD

endr

obea

nia

liche

noid

esB

ugul

idae

Bug

ula

sp.

Cau

libug

ula

sp.

Cel

lepo

ridae

Cel

lepo

rina

robe

rtson

iae

Cha

pper

ielli

dae

Cha

pper

iella

sp.

Hip

poth

oida

eH

ippo

thoa

hya

lina

Smitt

inid

aeSm

ittin

a sp

.V

esic

ular

iidae

Bow

erba

nkia

gra

cilis

Page 285

Elim

inat

ion

Crit

eria

Phyl

umC

lass

Fam

ilyTa

xon

Sten

olae

mat

aC

risiid

aeC

risia

sp.

Tubu

lipor

idae

Tubu

lipor

a sp

.C

hord

ata

Asc

idia

cea

Cla

velin

idae

Dis

tapl

ia sp

.C

nida

riaH

ydro

zoa

Bou

gain

villi

idae

Perig

onim

us sp

.C

alyc

ellid

aeC

alyc

ella

sp.

Cam

panu

larii

dae

Cam

panu

larii

dae

Cly

tia sp

.Eu

dend

riida

eEu

dend

riida

ePa

ndei

dae

Pand

eida

eSe

rtula

riida

eA

biet

inar

ia sp

.Tu

bula

riida

eTu

bula

riida

eEn

topr

octa

Bar

ents

iidae

Bar

ents

ia b

ened

eni

Bar

ents

ia sp

.Pe

dice

llini

dae

Myo

som

a sp

inos

aPo

rifer

aC

alce

rea

Gra

ntiid

aeLe

ucan

dra

sp.

Dem

ospo

ngia

eD

emos

pong

iae

Myx

illid

aeM

yxill

a in

crus

tans

Mei

ofau

na2 :

orga

nism

s whi

ch a

re sm

alle

r tha

n th

e in

faun

al fr

acat

ion

but a

ccid

enta

lly c

augh

t by

the

1 m

m sc

reen

.Pr

esen

ce/a

bsen

ce3 :

orga

nism

s, su

ch a

s col

onia

l spe

cies

, for

whi

ch a

cou

nt o

f ind

ivid

uals

can

not b

e m

ade.

Inci

dent

al1 :

orga

nism

s cau

ght w

hich

are

not

soft

sedi

men

t inf

auna

l inv

erte

brat

es -e

.g.,

hard

subs

trate

dw

elle

rs, l

arva

l spe

cies

, etc

.

App

endi

x G

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 286

Page 287

Appendix HTriad data - Results of selected toxicity, chemistry, and infaunal analysis for all 1998

central Puget Sound stations.

Page 288

App

endi

x H

. Tr

iad

data

- R

esul

ts o

f sel

ecte

d, to

xici

ty, c

hem

istry

, and

infa

unal

ana

lysis

for

all 1

998

cent

ral P

uget

Sou

nd st

atio

ns.

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Aci

la c

astre

nsis

37Pa

rapr

iono

spio

pin

nata

36Eu

dore

lla (T

riden

tata

) pac

ifica

20Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

17Sc

olet

oma

luti

13Lu

mbr

iner

is c

alifo

rnie

nsis

12R

oche

forti

a tu

mid

a11

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

11Pr

iono

spio

stee

nstru

pi10

Het

erop

hoxu

s aff

inis

7

Aci

la c

astre

nsi s

119

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

31Sp

ioch

aeto

pter

us c

osta

rum

25Lu

mbr

iner

is c

ruze

nsis

23M

edio

mas

tus s

p.20

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a20

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti19

Para

prio

nosp

io p

inna

ta16

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta16

Am

age

anop

s16

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

ex30

9A

mph

iodi

a sp

.10

7H

eter

opho

xus a

ffin

is41

Tere

belli

des r

eish

i37

Phol

oe sp

. N1

26En

nucu

la te

nuis

25Eu

dore

lla (T

riden

tata

) pac

ifica

20A

cila

cas

trens

is18

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

13A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

12

0.82

2

0.59

6

1 8

218

106

3 421

66 73

292

4.9

707

4799

8124 6

0.09

100.

0011

8.16

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

580

5.7

3.07

1, 1

08, S

outh

Po

rt To

wns

end

100.

0011

6.97

895

3

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

0.24

302

6214

947

200.

849

7.1

1.37

*11

8.63

1, 1

06, S

outh

Po

rt To

wns

end

1, 1

07, S

outh

Po

rt To

wns

end

3

0.07

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

93.8

84-

Met

hylp

heno

l

13.3

0

Page 289

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Mic

rocl

ymen

e ca

udat

a82

Alv

ania

com

pact

a44

Che

irim

edei

a zo

tea

34G

amm

arop

sis e

llisi

28M

agel

ona

long

icor

nis

26A

cila

cas

trens

is26

Het

erop

hoxu

s con

lana

e25

Gat

tyan

a ci

rros

a23

Cyc

loca

rdia

ven

trico

sa20

Phol

oide

s asp

era

17

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

97R

oche

forti

a tu

mid

a26

Telli

na m

odes

ta22

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta19

Cha

etoz

one

nr. s

etos

a18

Gam

mar

opsi

s tho

mps

oni

17Sc

olop

los a

rmig

er16

Telli

na n

ucul

oide

s14

Den

dras

ter e

xcen

tricu

s14

Gal

atho

wen

ia o

cula

ta9

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

121

Mic

rocl

ymen

e ca

udat

a85

Tere

belli

des r

eish

i82

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a58

Mal

dane

sars

i44

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

24M

agel

ona

long

icor

nis

22Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

20Pr

iono

spio

stee

nstru

pi19

Api

stob

ranc

hus o

rnat

us18

0.83

5

0.79

4

34 18

115.

30

2413

133

3

97.9

611

6.73

0.06

181

316

14-

Met

hylp

heno

l93

.88

116.

734-

Met

hylp

heno

l70

21.

2

4-M

ethy

lhen

ol4-

Met

hylp

heno

l0.

07

2, 1

10, P

ort

Tow

nsen

d

2, 1

09, P

ort

Tow

nsen

d1

0.08

1.2

410

6896

6717

224

6

2, 1

11, P

ort

Tow

nsen

d4.

389

.80

723

0.76

826

880

711

147

942

11

10.6

7

44.6

7

17.0

7

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 290

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Eric

htho

nius

rubr

icor

nis

1198

Mic

rocl

ymen

e ca

udat

a13

5O

ligoc

haet

a57

Phol

oide

s asp

era

40M

edio

mas

tus s

p.39

Mal

dani

dae

sp. i

ndet

.31

Exog

one

(E.)

lour

ei31

Am

pelis

ca sp

. A28

Cre

pipa

tella

dor

sata

28C

irrat

ulus

spec

tabi

lis24

Rhe

poxy

nius

dab

oiu s

94Pi

nnix

a sc

hmitt

i85

Telli

na m

odes

ta82

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a49

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

36N

utric

ola

lord

i34

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta28

Scol

oplo

s arm

iger

24Le

itosc

olop

los p

uget

tens

is16

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

10

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

53Ph

otis

bifu

rcat

a22

Orc

hom

ene

cf. p

ingu

is14

Scol

oplo

s arm

iger

12Le

itosc

olop

los p

uget

tens

is10

Dip

olyd

ora

soci

alis

10Pi

nnix

a sc

hmitt

i9

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta9

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

7R

hepo

xyni

us a

bron

ius

6

111.

9896

.94

0.06

0.08

0.06

4, 1

16, S

outh

A

dmira

lty In

let

3.13

4, 1

12, S

outh

A

dmira

lty In

let

0.54

013

34.

323

2575

813

4917

626

1759

101.

0211

8.40

0.4

554

23.5

753

9519

73

80.

705

254

5

4, 1

17, S

outh

A

dmira

lty In

let

195

.92

117.

920.

618

.60

227

5078

150.

807

600

845

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 291

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Eucl

ymen

inae

12Eu

dore

lla (T

riden

tata

) pac

ifica

7Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

7A

dont

orhi

na c

yclia

7Le

itosc

olop

los p

uget

tens

is5

Cos

sura

ban

sei

5Sp

ioph

anes

ber

kele

yoru

m5

Scol

etom

a lu

ti4

Mol

padi

a in

term

edia

4A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

4

Rhe

poxy

nius

dab

oiu s

60Sp

ioph

anes

bom

byx

32Sc

olop

los a

rmig

er18

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

16Pr

iono

spio

stee

nstru

pi9

Telli

na m

odes

ta6

Car

inom

a m

utab

ilis

5Ph

oloe

sp. N

15

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

5N

epht

ys fe

rrug

inea

4

Spio

phan

es b

omby

x49

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

44R

hepo

xyni

us d

aboi

us25

Telli

na m

odes

ta13

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

12O

rcho

men

e pa

cific

us8

Leito

scol

oplo

s pug

ette

nsis

5N

epht

ys fe

rrug

inea

4Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

3C

heiri

med

eia

zote

a3

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

t a51

7So

lam

en c

olum

bian

a19

4Li

robi

ttium

sp.

101

Che

irim

edei

a cf

. mac

roca

rpa

89Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

71N

utric

ola

lord

i41

Spio

phan

es b

omby

x24

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

17O

rcho

men

e cf

. pin

guis

15R

hepo

xyni

us a

bron

ius

15

0.07

0.06

6, 1

21, C

entra

l B

asin

15,

120

, Po

sses

sion

So

und

5, 1

19,

Poss

essi

on

Soun

d

0.06

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

5, 1

18,

Poss

essi

on

Soun

d

30.

1393

.41

116.

979.

34.

8711

046

6719

0.91

014

419

6

97.9

211

7.68

0.7

30.8

019

735

868

0.72

785

117

8

102.

0811

7.92

0.5

23.2

720

133

926

0.72

780

029

0

89.0

111

5.54

2.1

8.67

1272

6010

75

0.57

767

70

475

13

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 292

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a36

Mac

oma

carlo

ttens

is19

Mac

oma

sp.

18Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

15A

mph

aret

e ac

utifr

ons

13Eu

dore

lla (T

riden

tata

) pac

ifica

13Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

12Sp

ioph

anes

ber

kele

yoru

m12

Har

pini

opsi

s ful

gens

12Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

9

Mac

oma

carlo

ttens

i s80

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a55

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca54

Mac

oma

sp.

42Li

robi

ttium

sp.

8Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

7A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

7N

epht

ys c

ornu

ta6

Para

nem

erte

s cal

iforn

ica

5D

yope

dos a

rctic

us5

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

t a11

7A

mph

iodi

a sp

.10

6

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x78

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

59Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

49A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

34M

edio

mas

tus s

p.24

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a20

Poly

cirr

us c

alifo

rnic

us19

Rhe

poxy

nius

bor

eova

riatu

s16

7, 1

24, P

ort

Mad

ison

6, 1

22, C

entra

l B

asin

1

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

0.11

0.10

0.07

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

98.9

011

7.68

90.

841

240

2.97

4682

531

1492

12

6, 1

23, C

entra

l B

asin

14-

Met

hylp

heno

l85

.71

*11

7.92

6.1

5.37

314

3130

50.

696

127

314

77

105.

6811

7.44

3.2

2.80

729

7318

212

0.73

221

219

013

87

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 293

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta12

3Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

89

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x74

Poly

cirr

us c

alifo

rnic

us64

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

46R

hepo

xyni

us b

oreo

varia

tus

43M

edio

mas

tus s

p.41

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a28

Am

phio

dia

sp.

25Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

25

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

ex83

Rhe

poxy

nius

bor

eova

riatu

s69

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta46

Poly

cirr

us c

alifo

rnic

us45

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a38

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a35

Poly

cirr

us sp

.31

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta31

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

16A

mph

iodi

a sp

.15

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a57

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a49

Mac

oma

carlo

ttens

is40

Dyo

pedo

s sp.

39A

mph

aret

e cf

. cra

ssis

eta

33N

epht

ys c

ornu

ta31

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis23

Mac

oma

sp.

18Eu

dore

lla (T

riden

tata

) pac

ifica

18C

ossu

ra p

ygod

acty

lata

17

8, 1

27, W

est

Poin

t0.

14

7, 1

25, P

ort

Mad

ison

7, 1

26, P

ort

Mad

ison

0.08

101.

1411

6.97

4.7

2.97

852

8728

014

0.75

831

910

313

515

0.05

98.8

611

6.97

2.4

48.7

063

793

219

180.

777

176

101

130

11

103.

4111

8.63

173.

73++

447

5114

99

0.78

215

60

137

5

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 294

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a15

2Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

121

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis55

Mac

oma

carlo

ttens

is40

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

30A

mph

aret

e cf

. cra

ssis

eta

16Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

15C

ossu

ra p

ygod

acty

lata

12M

acom

a sp

.12

Cha

etoz

one

com

mon

alis

9

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a86

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a54

Am

phar

ete

cf. c

rass

iset

a37

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis27

Mac

oma

carlo

ttens

is20

Mac

oma

sp.

18Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

17N

emoc

ardi

um c

entif

ilosu

m15

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

14Le

ptop

lani

dae

9

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a56

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a28

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis20

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti18

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta14

Mac

oma

carlo

ttens

is13

Am

phar

ete

cf. c

rass

iset

a9

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

9N

epht

ys fe

rrug

inea

7C

ossu

ra p

ygod

acty

lata

6

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

202

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta11

0A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

40Sc

olet

oma

luti

36M

edio

mas

tus s

p.32

Dip

olyd

ora

soci

alis

31Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

30C

haet

ozon

e nr

. set

osa

29N

epht

ys c

ornu

ta28

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca23

9, 1

30, E

agle

H

arbo

r17

0.14

0.33

8, 1

28, W

est

Poin

t16

311

8.16

9111

.7++

231

2.90

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

0.09

95.9

24-

Met

hylp

heno

l8,

113

, Wes

t Po

int

3785

502

130.

766

0.26

95.4

511

7.68

71.1

+++

568

24.6

768

201

139

111

0.78

922

25

8, 1

29, W

est

Poin

t2

95.4

511

8.63

19.1

10.3

7++

424

6215

47

0.64

211

81

136

15

96.5

911

7.92

48.3

1.97

+++

863

9554

117

0.73

293

421

87

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 295

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca19

6A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

113

9N

utric

ola

lord

i72

Aph

eloc

haet

a m

onila

ris60

Tere

belli

des c

alifo

rnic

a38

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a35

Prot

omed

eia

gran

dim

ana

24C

haet

ozon

e nr

. set

osa

22Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

21M

acom

a sp

.18

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

798

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta17

2M

edio

mas

tus s

p.62

Scol

etom

a lu

ti43

Not

omas

tus t

enui

s32

Lum

brin

eris

cal

iforn

iens

is31

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a22

Leito

scol

oplo

s pug

ette

nsis

17M

ya a

rena

ria17

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

14

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a11

6Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

67Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

63Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

37

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x23

Pinn

ixa

occi

dent

alis

17M

edio

mas

tus s

p.12

Rhe

poxy

nius

bic

uspi

datu

s10

Aric

idea

(Alli

a) ra

mos

a9

Am

phio

dia

sp.

8

0.36

0.14

0.07

10, 1

33,

Cen

tral S

ound

5

9, 1

31, E

agle

H

arbo

r

9, 1

32, E

agle

H

arbo

r

1910

3.41

118.

8796

.50.

87++

+76

256

339

80.

671

244

317

24

100.

0011

8.40

14.7

1.77

++14

5582

1143

50.

490

201

210

54

97.8

010

5.44

8.7

12.1

353

177

124

160.

734

178

3217

918

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 296

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta11

4Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

52Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

50M

edio

mas

tus s

p.15

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a11

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

10R

hepo

xyni

us b

icus

pida

tus

10Lu

cino

ma

annu

latu

m9

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

7Pe

ctin

aria

cal

iforn

iens

is6

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trup i

32M

edio

mas

tus s

p.26

Mag

elon

a lo

ngic

orni

s24

Ast

yris

gau

sapa

ta16

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta15

Rhe

poxy

nius

dab

oius

12Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

11Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

10R

oche

forti

a tu

mid

a9

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a9

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a35

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti34

Mac

oma

carlo

ttens

is16

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a14

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis11

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca10

Mac

oma

sp.

8D

iast

ylis

sant

amar

iens

is6

Para

nem

erte

s cal

iforn

ica

5D

yope

dos s

p.5

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a29

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a28

Siga

mbr

a te

ntac

ulat

a22

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis17

Mac

oma

carlo

ttens

is17

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti14

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta13

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

12Eu

dore

lla (T

riden

tata

) pac

ifica

11Eu

dore

llops

is in

tegr

a10

511

, 137

, C

entra

l Sou

nd0.

20

11, 1

36,

Cen

tral S

ound

3

10, 1

34,

Cen

tral S

ound

0.06

94.7

4*

105.

667.

536

34.

6054

7618

45

90.

679

8711

10, 1

35,

Cen

tral S

ound

0.06

94.7

410

6.08

13.5

28.6

3++

304

7318

022

0.85

543

370

8

0.18

93.5

510

6.72

13.7

6.30

++19

838

6311

0.80

971

053

11

101.

0810

5.44

15.7

9.93

++23

040

8510

0.82

067

066

12

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 297

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca30

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a29

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti10

Mac

oma

carlo

ttens

is8

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis7

Troc

hoch

aeta

mul

tiset

osa

7Eu

dore

llops

is in

tegr

a7

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a6

Mac

oma

sp.

6G

lyce

ra n

ana

6

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a66

Mac

oma

carlo

ttens

is59

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a43

Eudo

rello

psis

inte

gra

36Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

16Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

10Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

9Pa

rapr

iono

spio

pin

nata

7D

iast

ylis

sant

amar

iens

is6

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

6

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a22

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis20

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca17

Cos

sura

ban

sei

12Sp

ioph

anes

ber

kele

yoru

m9

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a8

Eudo

rello

psis

inte

gra

7Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

5M

acom

a ca

rlotte

nsis

4Pa

rapr

iono

spio

pin

nata

3

Pion

osyl

lis u

rag a

23Lu

mbr

iner

is c

alifo

rnie

nsis

19N

icom

ache

lum

bric

alis

11Ph

oloi

des a

sper

a9

Dem

onax

rugo

sus

9A

ricid

ea (A

cmira

) lop

ezi

8Tr

itella

pili

man

a7

Pist

a el

onga

ta7

Sylli

s (Eh

lers

ia) h

eter

ocha

eta

7N

emoc

ardi

um c

entif

ilosu

m6

0.10

12, 1

40, E

ast

Pass

age

2 4

12, 1

39, E

ast

Pass

age

11, 1

38,

Cen

tral S

ound

40.

1510

6.45

105.

0217

.12.

43++

168

4050

130.

821

792

289

94.4

410

6.51

17.8

21.1

3++

337

5581

100.

719

942

151

9

0.13

97.7

810

5.44

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

23.8

++14

43.

6335

6346

211

0.83

229

4

12, 1

41, E

ast

Pass

age

0.06

80.0

010

2.45

5.8

64.1

026

579

177

330.

909

383

3314

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 298

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

ex96

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

79A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

125

Nep

htys

cor

nuta

22Eu

dore

lla (T

riden

tata

) pac

ifica

16Ph

oloe

sp. N

115

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

15A

mph

iodi

a sp

.11

Tere

belli

des c

alifo

rnic

a7

Het

erom

astu

s filo

bran

chus

5

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

84Pi

nnix

a oc

cide

ntal

is37

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca34

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x29

Nep

htys

cor

nuta

25Ph

oloe

sp. N

122

Turb

onill

a sp

.19

Para

prio

nosp

io p

inna

ta10

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

8Sp

ioph

anes

ber

kele

yoru

m8

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

90

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x79

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca14

Para

prio

nosp

io p

inna

ta13

Phol

oe sp

. N1

12A

cteo

cina

cul

cite

lla10

Am

phio

dia

sp.

10A

cila

cas

trens

is8

Siga

mbr

a te

ntac

ulat

a8

Nep

htys

cor

nuta

7

13, 1

44,

Libe

rty B

ay

4 4

13, 1

43,

Libe

rty B

ay0.

16

13, 1

42,

Libe

rty B

ay4

0.13

94.3

210

5.44

16.7

5.27

325

2610

96

0.70

210

210

74

3

96.5

910

5.87

24.8

1.47

++30

928

171

70.

740

7531

320

0.16

92.0

510

6.30

27.7

1.17

++29

328

567

0.69

310

590

402

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 299

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

34N

utric

ola

lord

i31

Leito

scol

oplo

s pug

ette

nsis

24Sc

olop

los a

cmec

eps

22A

mph

aret

e la

brop

s21

Alv

ania

com

pact

a19

Scol

etom

a lu

ti16

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

16Pr

otom

edei

a gr

andi

man

a14

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

13

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

ex25

4Pi

nnix

a sc

hmitt

i16

1A

mph

iodi

a sp

.94

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca39

Aci

la c

astre

nsis

21Ph

oloe

sp. N

119

Para

prio

nosp

io p

inna

ta9

Nep

htys

cor

nuta

9Te

rebe

llide

s cal

iforn

ica

5A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

15

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

124

Am

phar

ete

labr

ops

58A

lvan

ia c

ompa

cta

36N

utric

ola

lord

i30

Scol

oplo

s acm

ecep

s28

Leito

scol

oplo

s pug

ette

nsis

28M

edio

mas

tus s

p.15

Gly

cind

e po

lygn

atha

13O

dost

omia

sp.

12A

styr

is g

ausa

pata

12

14, 1

46,

Key

port

4

14, 1

45,

Key

port

0.04

105.

6810

6.08

2.5

2.83

354

4817

916

0.86

961

310

74

0.12

103.

4110

4.59

32++

650

1.10

2863

200

353

30.

560

340

14, 1

47,

Key

port

0.07

98.8

610

5.66

5.6

5.63

543

8535

417

0.74

825

414

911

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 300

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Am

phio

dia

sp.

82A

cteo

cina

cul

cite

lla48

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x44

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca24

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

21Lu

mbr

iner

is c

ruze

nsis

16Te

rebe

llide

s cal

iforn

ica

14Ph

oloe

sp. N

113

Het

erom

astu

s filo

bran

chus

12A

cila

cas

trens

is9

Alv

ania

com

pact

a29

0R

oche

forti

a tu

mid

a93

Phyl

loch

aeto

pter

us p

rolif

ica

61H

epta

carp

us st

imps

oni

52M

acom

a yo

ldifo

rmis

23A

oroi

des i

nter

med

ius

20D

ipol

ydor

a so

cial

is14

Cau

llerie

lla p

acifi

ca11

Telli

na m

odes

ta11

Scol

oplo

s sp.

11

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

ex89

Act

eoci

na c

ulci

tella

84A

mph

iodi

a sp

.55

Phol

oe sp

. N1

55A

cila

cas

trens

is24

Lum

brin

eris

cru

zens

is14

Pinn

ixa

occi

dent

alis

12H

eter

omas

tus f

ilobr

anch

us12

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

9C

ossu

ra p

ygod

acty

lata

6

15, 1

50, N

W

Bai

nbrid

ge

Isla

nd

15, 1

49, N

W

Bai

nbrid

ge

Isla

nd

0.04

15, 1

48, N

W

Bai

nbrid

ge

Isla

nd

30.

1298

.86

105.

664-

Met

hylp

heno

l4-

Met

hylp

heno

l26

.40.

94++

349

3311

28

0.76

331

135

692

95.4

510

3.95

6.6

1.09

810

7320

413

0.66

511

213

466

15

0.07

93.1

810

5.87

9.3

1.23

435

4413

67

0.70

217

148

127

7

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 301

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Am

phio

dia

sp.

69

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x64

Phol

oe sp

. N1

36A

cila

cas

trens

is35

Tere

belli

des c

alifo

rnic

a34

Act

eoci

na c

ulci

tella

17A

mph

iurid

ae11

Pinn

ixa

occi

dent

alis

9O

dost

omia

sp.

8C

ossu

ra p

ygod

acty

lata

6

Aci

la c

astre

nsi s

289

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta70

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x50

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a33

Ennu

cula

tenu

is27

Mac

oma

sp.

26A

mph

iodi

a sp

.23

Odo

stom

ia sp

.23

Alv

ania

com

pact

a18

Ast

yris

gau

sapa

ta18

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a40

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x35

Am

phio

dia

sp.

23Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

11Si

gam

bra

tent

acul

ata

11Ph

oloe

sp. N

110

Cos

sura

ban

sei

10Y

oldi

a hy

perb

orea

8A

cteo

cina

cul

cite

lla8

Aci

la c

astre

nsis

8

0.18

16, 1

52, S

W

Bai

nbrid

ge

Isla

nd

516

, 151

, SW

B

ainb

ridge

Is

land

98.9

510

6.30

Ben

zyl A

lcoh

olB

enzy

l Alc

ohol

31.6

0.82

++33

737

996

0.71

614

144

7010

0.08

98.9

510

5.44

7.6

859

4.60

8716

512

286

150.

690

475

11

16, 1

53, S

W

Bai

nbrid

ge

Isla

nd

40.

1910

0.00

104.

3827

.91.

97++

243

4083

140.

837

858

877

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 302

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

138

Alv

ania

com

pact

a75

Telli

na m

odes

ta44

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta24

Mac

oma

yold

iform

is22

Liru

laria

liru

lata

22Sp

ioch

aeto

pter

us c

osta

rum

20Lu

mbr

iner

is c

alifo

rnie

nsis

14R

oche

forti

a tu

mid

a14

Prot

odor

ville

a gr

acili

s12

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

290

Telli

na m

odes

ta22

0Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

79R

oche

forti

a tu

mid

a57

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta57

Prot

omed

eia

gran

dim

ana

23Eu

clym

enin

ae18

Liro

bitti

um sp

.15

Turb

onill

a sp

.13

Ast

yris

gau

sapa

ta12

Pinn

ixa

occi

dent

ali s

64Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

62R

oche

forti

a tu

mid

a37

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

29A

styr

is g

ausa

pata

23Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

22R

hepo

xyni

us d

aboi

us21

Sylli

s (Eh

lers

ia) h

yper

ioni

20D

ipol

ydor

a so

cial

is17

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x15

17, 1

56, R

ich

Pass

age

17, 1

55, R

ich

Pass

age

0.04

17, 1

54, R

ich

Pass

age

0.04

97.8

910

4.80

1.9

7.80

659

9919

923

0.07

741

539

519

98.9

510

5.66

1.6

20.2

795

168

936

0.60

613

80

709

11

0.07

97.8

910

5.02

1030

.17

573

102

234

240.

815

189

1910

526

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 303

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Aci

la c

astre

nsis

246

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta11

9N

utric

ola

lord

i42

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti30

Odo

stom

ia sp

.28

Ast

yris

gau

sapa

ta27

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a24

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x22

Mac

oma

sp.

20Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

20

Alv

ania

com

pact

a17

3Ph

yllo

chae

topt

erus

pro

lific

a39

Lum

brin

eris

cal

iforn

iens

is20

Mag

elon

a lo

ngic

orni

s19

Prot

omed

eia

gran

dim

ana

18Sp

ioch

aeto

pter

us c

osta

rum

16C

orop

hium

(Mon

ocor

ophi

um)

insi

dios

u m14

Am

phip

holis

squa

mat

a14

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

14Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

12

Alv

ania

com

pact

a78

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

64A

oroi

des c

olum

biae

45A

mph

ipho

lis sq

uam

ata

23C

repi

pate

lla d

orsa

ta16

Foxi

phal

us si

mili

s14

Liru

laria

liru

lata

14M

icro

poda

rke

dubi

a13

Har

mot

hoe

imbr

icat

a12

Het

erop

hoxu

s con

lana

e12

0.07

18, 1

58, P

ort

Orc

hard

18, 1

57, P

ort

Orc

hard

0.05

102.

2011

3.00

14.1

3.20

++80

890

163

120.

673

159

3744

36

84.6

2*

113.

007.

663

14.

7011

324

184

2627

0.76

326

515

18, 1

59, P

ort

Orc

hard

0.06

92.0

097

.00

12.4

2.27

++56

399

137

280.

819

122

4624

117

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 304

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

73Pa

rapr

iono

spio

pin

nata

23Te

rebe

llide

s cal

iforn

ica

11N

epht

ys c

ornu

ta9

Mic

rura

sp.

5C

haet

ozon

e nr

. set

osa

4Po

dark

e pu

gette

nsis

3O

dost

omia

sp.

3C

rang

on a

lask

ensi

s2

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

2

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

856

Nep

htys

cor

nuta

209

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca34

Lum

brin

eris

cru

zens

is33

Tere

belli

des c

alifo

rnic

a23

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x18

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a15

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

15O

dost

omia

sp.

12Pa

rapr

iono

spio

pin

nata

8

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

c a10

2

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x96

Aph

eloc

haet

a m

onila

ris90

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

44A

cila

cas

trens

is42

Phyl

loch

aeto

pter

us p

rolif

ica

38Lu

mbr

iner

is c

ruze

nsis

21Ph

oloe

sp. N

114

Tere

belli

des c

alifo

rnic

a13

Am

phio

dia

sp.

9

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

19, 1

62,

Sinc

lair

Inle

t8

0.30

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

19, 1

61,

Sinc

lair

Inle

t7

0.27

19, 1

60,

Sinc

lair

Inle

t9

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

0.35

99.0

02.

00**

29.4

0.81

++14

921

132

40.

633

30

95

104.

4010

3.00

44.5

0.82

+++

1283

3211

652

0.38

752

2441

1

86.8

111

3.00

35.5

1.63

++55

944

220

70.

706

166

105

644

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 305

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

186

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x83

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca74

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

35Lu

mbr

iner

is c

ruze

nsis

29Te

rebe

llide

s cal

iforn

ica

26Ph

oloe

sp. N

125

Aph

eloc

haet

a m

onila

ris17

Cos

sura

pyg

odac

tyla

ta11

Odo

stom

ia sp

.9

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

782

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

ca82

Scol

etom

a lu

ti80

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti42

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

41O

dost

omia

sp.

32N

utric

ola

lord

i26

Aph

eloc

haet

a m

onila

ris25

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

23

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x20

Eudo

rella

(Trid

enta

ta) p

acifi

c a19

9

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x73

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

73Lu

mbr

iner

is c

ruze

nsis

70Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

57A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

136

Aci

la c

astre

nsis

21Ph

oloe

sp. N

119

Aph

eloc

haet

a m

onila

ris14

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

14

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

20, 1

65,

Sinc

lair

Inle

t11

0.55

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

20, 1

64,

Sinc

lair

Inle

t9

0.42

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

20, 1

63,

Sinc

lair

Inle

t8

0.44

93.4

111

3.00

27.7

1.02

++56

532

326

60.

686

113

8633

7

101.

1011

2.00

64.9

1.50

+++

1336

5310

675

0.49

813

221

108

8

100.

0081

.00

**39

.46.

83++

+66

336

269

60.

689

277

7334

10

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 306

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta92

Alv

ania

com

pact

a79

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

58A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

129

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

28Ph

yllo

chae

topt

erus

pro

lific

a28

Lum

brin

eris

cal

iforn

iens

is24

Ast

yris

gau

sapa

ta24

Nas

sariu

s men

dicu

s19

Wes

twoo

dilla

cae

cula

15

Alv

ania

com

pact

a19

3A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

110

0Ph

yllo

chae

topt

erus

pro

lific

a88

Am

pelis

ca lo

bata

56Po

ntog

enei

a ro

stra

ta48

Circ

eis s

p.44

Scol

etom

a lu

ti31

Leito

scol

oplo

s pug

ette

nsis

28Lu

mbr

iner

is c

alifo

rnie

nsis

24D

efle

xilo

des s

imili

s19

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

1023

Alv

ania

com

pact

a35

Odo

stom

ia sp

.21

Scol

etom

a lu

ti13

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

12A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

10Lu

mbr

iner

is c

ruze

nsis

10A

mpe

lisca

uns

ocal

ae8

Para

prio

nosp

io p

inna

ta8

Het

erop

hoxu

s con

lana

e8

Phyl

loch

aeto

pter

us p

rolif

ica

455

Circ

eis s

p.24

0A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

113

7C

apre

lla m

enda

x12

2R

oche

forti

a tu

mid

a74

Scol

etom

a lu

ti53

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

45Lu

mbr

iner

is c

alifo

rnie

nsis

39A

styr

is g

ausa

pata

31Eu

clym

ene

cf. z

onal

is27

22, 1

69, D

yes

Inle

t0.

05

21, 1

68, P

ort

Was

hing

ton

Nar

row

s

70.

17

21, 1

67, P

ort

Was

hing

ton

Nar

row

s

0.08

21, 1

66, P

ort

Was

hing

ton

Nar

row

s

0.06

104.

4411

1.00

6.5

3.40

651

8519

620

0.78

916

25

270

18

46.6

7**

82.0

0*

9.9

3.30

826

7941

210

0.69

115

622

221

15

96.6

769

.00

**32

.30.

65++

1232

4811

031

0.26

130

293

4

101.

1194

.00

3.6

4.10

1574

7411

239

0.65

024

817

179

7

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 307

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

271

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x19

6A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

118

1Eu

dore

lla (T

riden

tata

) pac

ifica

92A

cila

cas

trens

is32

Phol

oe sp

. N1

24Te

rebe

llide

s cal

iforn

ica

11R

oche

forti

a tu

mid

a10

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti8

Aph

eloc

haet

a m

onila

ris8

Pinn

ixa

schm

itti

440

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x22

0Eu

dore

lla (T

riden

tata

) pac

ifica

130

Tere

belli

des c

alifo

rnic

a62

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti57

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

49R

oche

forti

a tu

mid

a37

Phol

oe sp

. N1

37N

epht

ys c

ornu

ta18

Lum

brin

eris

cru

zens

is7

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a46

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a17

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

14H

eter

opho

xus a

ffin

is10

Siga

mbr

a te

ntac

ulat

a9

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis8

Para

nem

erte

s cal

iforn

ica

7Eu

dore

llops

is in

tegr

a6

Mac

oma

sp.

6C

ossu

ra b

anse

i6

23, 1

72, O

uter

El

liott

Bay

50.

20

Mer

cury

, Ben

zyl

Alc

ohol

Mer

cury

22, 1

71, D

yes

Inle

t10

0.26

Ben

zyl A

lcoh

ol22

, 170

, Dye

s In

let

100.

2610

0.00

101.

0027

.61.

04++

894

3326

64

0.58

336

420

057

7

101.

1192

.00

30.4

2.03

++11

1339

260

40.

552

574

224

487

102.

2294

.00

17.8

2.13

++18

843

6913

0.80

948

060

11

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 308

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a21

6Sp

ioch

aeto

pter

us c

osta

rum

52Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

28Sp

ioph

anes

ber

kele

yoru

m26

Eudo

rello

psis

inte

gra

21Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

15C

ossu

ra b

anse

i12

Am

phar

ete

acut

ifron

s8

Siga

mbr

a te

ntac

ulat

a6

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti5

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trup i

73Ph

oloi

des a

sper

a29

Dip

olyd

ora

card

alia

27Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

21M

agel

ona

berk

eley

i20

Nem

ocar

dium

cen

tifilo

sum

18Pi

nnix

a sc

hmitt

i13

Cro

ssas

ter p

appo

sus

13B

yblis

mill

si11

Pent

amer

a ps

eudo

popu

lifer

a11

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

t a36

Dip

olyd

ora

soci

alis

27Pr

iono

spio

stee

nstru

pi24

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

21Ph

oloi

des a

sper

a18

Lum

brin

eris

cal

iforn

iens

is17

Nem

ocar

dium

cen

tifilo

sum

16A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

15Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

14Pi

nnix

a sc

hmitt

i14

Alv

ania

com

pact

a13

2Sp

ioch

aeto

pter

us c

osta

rum

98Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

72D

ipol

ydor

a ca

rdal

ia43

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

36Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

32Lu

mbr

iner

is c

alifo

rnie

nsis

31Pr

iono

spio

stee

nstru

pi27

Eum

ida

long

icor

nuta

22C

aulle

riella

pac

ifica

19

Mer

cury

, Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pery

lene

, Ph

enan

thre

ne,

But

ylbe

nzyl

-pht

hala

te

24, 1

76,

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

50.

31

23, 1

75, O

uter

El

liott

Bay

0.07

But

ylbe

nzyl

-pht

hala

te23

, 174

, Out

er

Ellio

tt B

ay0.

09

23, 1

73, O

uter

El

liott

Bay

70.

2810

6.67

102.

0019

.84.

97++

470

5617

46

0.59

156

523

05

96.6

793

.00

10.5

35.9

749

412

730

838

0.83

483

3064

9

97.7

896

.00

3.3

5.23

631

137

352

480.

894

114

2811

423

92.2

282

.00

*12

.52.

27++

876

113

501

220.

771

9712

255

11

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 309

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta45

6N

utric

ola

lord

i44

0Te

llina

mod

esta

100

Liru

laria

liru

lata

92A

lvan

ia c

ompa

cta

36Li

robi

ttium

sp.

33C

linoc

ardi

um n

utta

llii

29Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

21M

acom

a sp

.17

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

16

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

t a70

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

38M

agel

ona

long

icor

nis

27Pi

nnix

a sc

hmitt

i19

Exog

one

(E.)

lour

ei14

Spio

chae

topt

erus

cos

taru

m13

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta11

Sola

men

col

umbi

ana

10Ly

onsi

a ca

lifor

nica

6N

epht

ys fe

rrug

inea

6

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

li s70

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

64A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

62Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

52Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

43Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

22Sc

olet

oma

luti

9A

ricid

ea (A

cmira

) lop

ezi

9N

epht

ys fe

rrug

inea

9A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

18

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta82

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

79A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

73Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

39A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

123

Scol

etom

a lu

ti23

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis19

Not

omas

tus t

enui

s18

Sola

men

col

umbi

ana

16Pi

nnix

a sc

hmitt

i15

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

per

ylen

e,In

deno

(1,2

,3-

c,d)

pyre

ne

25, 1

80,

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

150.

57

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

per

ylen

e25

, 179

, Sh

orel

ine

Ellio

tt B

ay

130.

52

24, 1

78,

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

0.14

24, 1

77,

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

20.

0810

1.11

75.0

0**

3.4

2.57

1378

6178

40.

515

475

182

22

101.

1110

6.00

10.7

86.8

334

380

179

210.

783

104

156

3

95.5

681

.00

*38

.825

.10

+++

478

6925

412

0.73

183

013

74

97.8

568

.00

**34

.417

.50

++63

977

350

190.

793

663

215

5

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 310

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a69

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a55

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis19

Cha

etoz

one

nr. s

etos

a17

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

17Sc

olet

oma

luti

15M

acom

a ca

rlotte

nsis

12Eu

clym

enin

ae12

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta11

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

10

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

962

Lum

brin

eris

cal

iforn

iens

is43

Turb

onill

a sp

.35

Scol

etom

a lu

ti12

Spio

chae

topt

erus

cos

taru

m12

Alv

ania

com

pact

a10

Arm

andi

a br

evis

9N

otom

astu

s ten

uis

9Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

7Pr

iono

spio

sp.

6

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a11

5Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

73A

ricid

ea (A

cmira

) lop

ezi

22Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

18Sc

olet

oma

luti

16Sp

ioph

anes

ber

kele

yoru

m15

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

14

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x14

Nem

ocar

dium

cen

tifilo

sum

14C

haet

ozon

e nr

. set

osa

14

Mer

cury

, Pyr

ene,

Tot

al

LPA

Hs,

Tota

l HPA

Hs,

Tota

l PC

Bs

Mer

cury

, Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pery

lene

, Fl

uora

nthe

ne,

Inde

no(1

,2,3

-c,

d)py

rene

Mer

cury

26, 1

82,

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

241.

36

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pery

lene

, To

tal H

PAH

s, To

tal

PAH

s, To

tal P

CB

s

Mer

cury

25, 1

81,

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

241.

59

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

per

ylen

e ,4-

Met

hylp

heno

l4-

Met

hylp

heno

l25

, 115

, Sh

orel

ine

Ellio

tt B

ay

240.

8396

.97

6.00

**14

4.8

0.79

+++

1161

4310

929

10.

255

060

0

87.7

8*

96.0

032

.817

.20

++45

785

212

270.

833

882

142

13

97.8

583

.00

*21

6.1

26.4

7++

+57

188

309

230.

792

3721

188

16

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 311

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

79Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

65Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

61Lu

mbr

iner

is c

alifo

rnie

nsis

59A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

53Pi

nnix

a sc

hmitt

i27

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

mul

tibra

nchi

ata

25A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

125

Spio

chae

topt

erus

cos

taru

m18

Scol

etom

a lu

t i16

Lum

brin

eris

cal

iforn

iens

i s97

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

82Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

77A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

139

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a33

Alv

ania

com

pact

a33

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta23

Nep

htys

cor

nuta

19Sp

ioch

aeto

pter

us c

osta

rum

17Lu

mbr

iner

is sp

.15

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a98

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti23

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

lis17

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

15Eu

dore

llops

is in

tegr

a14

Ano

nyx

cf. l

illje

borg

i12

Cos

sura

ban

sei

10Eu

dore

llops

is lo

ngiro

stris

10A

mph

aret

e cf

. cra

ssis

eta

8Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

8

Bis

(2-E

thyl

hexy

l) Ph

thal

ate

27, 1

85, M

id

Ellio

tt B

ay7

0.39

Ben

zo(a

)ant

hrac

ene,

B

enzo

(a)p

yren

e,

Fluo

rant

hene

, Ph

enan

thre

ne, P

yren

e,

Tota

l LPA

Hs,

Tota

l PA

Hs

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene,

B

enzo

(g,h

,i) p

eryl

ene,

Fluo

rant

hene

, In

deno

(1,2

,3-

c,d)

pyre

ne,

Phen

anth

rene

, Tot

al

HPA

Hs,

Tota

l flu

oran

then

e

Tota

l Ben

zo-

fluor

anth

ene,

Fl

uora

nthe

ne, T

otal

H

PAH

s, To

tal P

AH

s

26, 1

84,

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

221.

31

Ben

zo(a

) ant

hrac

ene,

B

enzo

(a)p

yren

e,

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

per

ylen

e,Fl

uora

nthe

ne,

Fluo

rene

, In

deno

(1,2

,3-

c,d)

pyre

ne,

Phen

anth

rene

, Tot

al

fluor

anth

ene,

Tot

al

HPA

Hs,

Dib

enzo

fura

n

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

26, 1

83,

Shor

elin

e El

liott

Bay

200.

5210

0.00

88.0

010

7.2

3.17

+++

740

105

435

230.

795

133

315

910

103.

2384

.00

*22

3.2

7.90

+++

731

8948

821

0.79

157

217

77

104.

3012

0.00

19.7

18.2

0++

269

3210

69

0.73

957

110

14

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 312

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a29

4Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

56Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

26Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

26Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

22Pr

iono

spio

stee

nstru

pi22

Nem

ocar

dium

cen

tifilo

sum

18Pr

ocle

a gr

affii

17M

acom

a ca

rlotte

nsis

14A

ricid

ea (A

cmira

) lop

ezi

13

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a22

2Sp

ioph

anes

ber

kele

yoru

m11

Cos

sura

ban

sei

8Pr

otom

edei

a gr

andi

man

a7

Het

erop

hoxu

s aff

inis

6Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

5Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

5Eu

dore

llops

is lo

ngiro

stris

5Sc

olet

oma

luti

5A

mph

aret

e cf

. cra

ssis

eta

4

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a47

1Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

51Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

40Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

37N

emoc

ardi

um c

entif

ilosu

m22

Aric

idea

(Acm

ira) l

opez

i18

Proc

lea

graf

fii17

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta13

Scol

etom

a lu

ti12

Cha

etoz

one

nr. s

etos

a9

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene,

Ph

enan

thre

ne, P

yren

e,

Tota

l LPA

Hs,

Tota

l H

PAH

s, To

tal P

CB

s

Mer

cury

, Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pery

lene

, Fl

uora

nthe

ne,

Inde

no(1

,2,3

-c,

d)py

rene

, Ben

zyl

Alc

ohol

, 2,4

-D

imet

hylp

heno

l

Mer

cury

, 2,4

-D

imet

hylp

heno

l27

, 188

, Mid

El

liott

Bay

231.

47

27, 1

87, M

id

Ellio

tt B

ay12

0.55

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

27, 1

86, M

id

Ellio

tt B

ay13

0.57

101.

0811

6.00

54.9

34.0

0++

+65

570

169

90.

613

843

392

7

107.

6911

5.00

26.5

37.7

3++

334

4669

50.

473

301

227

7

105.

4911

5.00

152.

967

.17

+++

825

6716

65

0.50

772

856

316

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 313

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta22

2Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

148

Spio

chae

topt

erus

cos

taru

m52

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

43Pi

nnix

a sc

hmitt

i43

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

31

Am

phio

dia

urtic

a/pe

rierc

ta c

ompl

e x27

Not

omas

tus t

enui

s21

Api

stob

ranc

hus o

rnat

us18

Mag

elon

a lo

ngic

orni

s17

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

t a85

8N

utric

ola

lord

i39

2Te

llina

mod

esta

103

Ast

yris

gau

sapa

ta50

Roc

hefo

rtia

tum

ida

41Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

37C

linoc

ardi

um n

utta

llii

21C

heiri

med

eia

cf. m

acro

carp

a20

Liru

laria

liru

lata

16G

lyci

nde

arm

iger

a15

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a12

4Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

28M

alda

ne sa

rsi

20Sp

ioph

anes

ber

kele

yoru

m17

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a12

Cha

etoz

one

com

mon

alis

11Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

7C

ossu

ra b

anse

i7

Am

age

anop

s6

Onu

phis

irid

esce

ns6

28, 1

91, M

id

Ellio

tt B

ay13

0.45

Di-N

-But

ylph

thal

ate

28, 1

90, M

id

Ellio

tt B

ay0.

06

28, 1

89, M

id

Ellio

tt B

ay16

0.43

108.

7910

9.00

139.

89.

47++

+92

810

236

117

0.70

531

228

219

8

106.

5911

7.00

3.6

5.93

1717

7111

43

0.44

590

90

688

6

103.

3011

3.00

29.1

179.

30++

328

5715

512

0.69

436

113

24

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 314

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Mic

rocl

ymen

e ca

udat

a22

4A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

84Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

73Pr

ocle

a gr

affii

66M

alda

ne sa

rsi

51Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

34Th

aryx

sp. N

1 (=

nr. p

arvu

s)25

Ado

ntor

hina

cyc

lia20

Spio

phan

es b

erke

leyo

rum

17A

mph

aret

idae

15

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a57

4Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

43N

epht

ys c

ornu

ta40

Aric

idea

(Acm

ira) l

opez

i27

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta17

Cos

sura

pyg

odac

tyla

ta12

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a11

Am

phar

ete

cf. c

rass

iset

a10

Troc

hoch

aeta

mul

tiset

osa

9M

edio

mas

tus s

p.9

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a24

7A

ricid

ea (A

cmira

) lop

ezi

38Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

30Sp

ioph

anes

ber

kele

yoru

m28

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti16

Scol

etom

a lu

ti13

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

6M

icro

clym

ene

caud

ata

6M

acom

a ca

rlotte

nsis

5C

ossu

ra p

ygod

acty

lata

5

Levi

nsen

ia g

raci

li s76

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a36

Prio

nosp

io (M

inus

pio)

ligh

ti24

Nep

htys

cor

nuta

20Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

18Tr

ocho

chae

ta m

ultis

etos

a15

Aric

idea

(Acm

ira) l

opez

i12

Eucl

ymen

inae

11C

ossu

ra p

ygod

acty

lata

10Si

gam

bra

tent

acul

ata

9

29, 1

95, M

id

Ellio

tt B

ay12

0.54

Dib

enzo

(a,h

,) an

thra

cene

, Tot

al P

CB

sM

ercu

ry,

Dib

enzo

(a,h

) an

thra

cene

, 4-

Met

hylp

heno

l

Mer

cury

, 4-

Met

hylp

heno

l29

, 194

, Mid

El

liott

Bay

231.

05

29, 1

93, M

id

Ellio

tt B

ay9

0.37

28, 1

92, M

id

Ellio

tt B

ay9

0.36

103.

3010

7.00

49.1

35.1

7++

+88

391

608

140.

706

112

715

15

101.

1092

.00

32.8

50.7

3++

848

5621

93

0.41

321

060

35

102.

1510

6.00

74.1

62.4

0++

+45

646

184

40.

539

100

261

1

105.

3890

.00

49.3

61.8

7++

+36

567

271

160.

789

461

443

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 315

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a31

0A

ricid

ea (A

cmira

) lop

ezi

29Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

27Pr

iono

spio

(Min

uspi

o) li

ghti

12Sc

olet

oma

luti

11Sp

ioph

anes

ber

kele

yoru

m8

Het

erop

hoxu

s aff

inis

7C

ossu

ra b

anse

i5

Nep

htys

ferr

ugin

ea4

Med

iom

astu

s sp.

4

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta26

1Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

89Lu

mbr

iner

is c

alifo

rnie

nsis

64Pr

iono

spio

stee

nstru

pi47

Spio

chae

topt

erus

cos

taru

m31

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

26M

edio

mas

tus s

p.26

Mag

elon

a lo

ngic

orni

s15

Het

erom

astu

s filo

bran

chus

15A

sabe

llide

s lin

eata

14

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a35

8Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

142

Euph

ilom

edes

pro

duct

a14

1Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

59R

utid

erm

a lo

mae

41M

yrio

chel

e he

eri

40Pr

iono

spio

stee

nstru

pi34

Nem

ocar

dium

cen

tifilo

sum

26M

acom

a ca

rlotte

nsis

14Ex

ogon

e (E

.) lo

urei

14

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

t a35

7A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

212

Parv

iluci

na te

nuis

culp

ta15

4A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

113

0Sp

ioch

aeto

pter

us c

osta

rum

43Sc

olet

oma

luti

43A

styr

is g

ausa

pata

35M

agel

ona

long

icor

nis

35A

pist

obra

nchu

s orn

atus

34Eu

philo

med

es p

rodu

cta

33

Tota

l LPA

Hs,

Tota

l PC

Bs

Ace

naph

then

e,

Dib

enzo

fura

n, 4

-M

ethy

lphe

nol

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

30, 1

99, W

est

Har

bor I

slan

d22

0.96

2-M

ethy

lnap

htha

lene

, A

cena

ptht

hene

, Fl

uore

ne, N

apth

alen

e,

Tota

l LPA

Hs,

Tota

l PC

Bs

Ace

naph

then

e,

Fluo

rene

, Nap

thal

ene,

Tota

l LPA

Hs,

Dib

enzo

fura

n, 4

-M

ethy

lphe

nol

Ace

naph

then

e,

Nap

thal

ene,

D

iben

zofu

ran,

4-

Met

hylp

heno

l

30, 1

98, W

est

Har

bor I

slan

d22

1.26

Ars

enic

, Zin

cA

rsen

ic,

Ace

naph

then

e,

Dib

enzo

fura

n, 4

-M

ethy

lphe

nol

Ars

enic

, 4-

Met

hylp

heno

l30

, 197

, Wes

t H

arbo

r Isl

and

180.

60

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

Mer

cury

29, 1

96, M

id

Ellio

tt B

ay13

0.54

100.

0010

8.00

28.6

55.6

3++

471

4213

13

0.45

118

232

00

87.9

162

.00

**96

.62.

23++

+80

671

394

120.

679

103

130

44

101.

1010

0.00

132.

259

.93

+++

1128

9025

99

0.63

334

70

511

11

90.1

173

.00

**14

8.1

64.8

0++

+13

9184

473

100.

653

406

1149

56

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 316

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

763

Het

erom

astu

s filo

bran

chus

60Sc

olet

oma

luti

35C

ossu

ra p

ygod

acty

lata

35A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

23C

haet

ozon

e nr

. set

osa

18Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

14A

phel

ocha

eta

mon

ilaris

13A

lvan

ia c

ompa

cta

13Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

11

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

352

Cha

etoz

one

nr. s

etos

a16

8A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

95Sc

olet

oma

luti

86Sp

ioch

aeto

pter

us c

osta

rum

36Pr

iono

spio

stee

nstru

pi29

Het

erom

astu

s filo

bran

chus

21Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

19Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

15Lu

mbr

iner

is c

alifo

rnie

nsis

14

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

955

Scol

etom

a lu

ti14

0A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

60A

phel

ocha

eta

mon

ilaris

44Le

vins

enia

gra

cilis

18Sp

ioch

aeto

pter

us c

osta

rum

15Pa

rvilu

cina

tenu

iscu

lpta

13B

occa

rdie

lla h

amat

a12

Exog

one

(E.)

lour

ei12

Het

erom

astu

s filo

bran

chus

10

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a58

9A

phel

ocha

eta

sp. N

151

4Sc

olet

oma

luti

282

Aph

eloc

haet

a m

onila

ris22

Mac

oma

sp.

18A

lvan

ia c

ompa

cta

17H

eter

omas

tus f

ilobr

anch

us13

Mac

oma

carlo

ttens

is13

Cha

etoz

one

nr. s

etos

a11

Prio

nosp

io st

eens

trupi

10

Tota

l PC

Bs

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

31, 2

02, E

ast

Har

bor I

slan

d25

2.16

Tota

l PC

Bs

Bis

(2-E

thyl

hexy

l) Ph

thal

ate,

4-

Met

hylp

heno

l

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

31, 2

01, E

ast

Har

bor I

slan

d23

1.60

Tota

l PC

Bs

1,4-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

, 4-

Met

hylp

heno

l4-

Met

hylp

heno

l31

, 200

, Eas

t H

arbo

r Isl

and

223.

93

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

per

ylen

e,4-

Met

hylp

heno

lB

enzo

(a)p

yren

e, T

otal

PC

Bs

30, 1

14, W

est

Har

bor I

slan

d21

1.34

94.9

586

.00

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

111.

40.

79++

+10

7747

982

212

0.38

60

731

100.

0068

.00

**15

3.5

25.4

0++

+98

056

802

50.

598

270

149

2

92.3

166

.00

**13

5.3

3.13

+++

1415

5712

812

0.38

637

095

2

90.1

1*

100.

0013

3.2

7.67

+++

1572

4289

13

0.44

623

065

71

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 317

Stratum, Sample, Location

Number of ERLs exceeded

Mean ERM Quotient

Compounds exceeding ERMs

Compounds exceeding SQSs

Compounds excceding CSLs

Amphipod Survival as % of Control

Significance

Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100% pore water as % of Control

Significance

Microtox EC50 (mg/ml)

Significance

Cytochrome P-450 RGS as ugB[a]P/g

Significance

Total Abundance

Taxa Richness

Evenness

Swartz's Dominance Index

Annelid Abundance

Arthropod Abundance

Mollusca Abundance

Echinoderm Abundance

Misc. Abundance

Dominant Species

Count

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

2152

Nut

ricol

a lo

rdi

430

Scol

etom

a lu

ti32

0A

phel

ocha

eta

sp.

91Eu

philo

med

es c

arch

arod

onta

68A

xino

psid

a se

rric

ata

65C

apite

lla c

apita

ta h

yper

spec

ies

62M

acom

a sp

.58

Arm

andi

a br

evis

47M

edio

mas

tus s

p.41

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

814

Scol

etom

a lu

ti58

Mac

oma

sp.

47N

utric

ola

lord

i35

Cap

itella

cap

itata

hyp

ersp

ecie

s33

Euph

ilom

edes

car

char

odon

ta27

Arm

andi

a br

evis

23Eu

chon

e lim

nico

la14

Het

erom

astu

s filo

bran

chus

13A

lvan

ia c

ompa

cta

11

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

. N1

660

Scol

etom

a lu

ti45

5N

utric

ola

lord

i98

Cos

sura

pyg

odac

tyla

ta90

Axi

nops

ida

serr

icat

a77

Mac

oma

sp.

12M

acom

a ca

rlotte

nsis

10La

nass

a ve

nust

a9

Aph

eloc

haet

a sp

.8

Het

erom

astu

s filo

bran

chus

8

Tota

l PC

Bs

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

per

ylen

e,In

deno

(1,2

,3-

c,d)

pyre

ne,

But

ylbe

nzyl

-ph

thal

ate,

4-

Met

hylp

heno

l, Pe

nta-

chlo

roph

enol

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

32, 2

05,

Duw

amis

h20

2.01

Tota

l PC

Bs

Bis

(2-E

thyl

hexy

l) Ph

thal

ate,

4-

Met

hylp

heno

l

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

0.72

32, 2

04,

Duw

amis

h8

32, 2

03,

Duw

amis

h13

0.67

103.

3098

.00

96.9

3.20

+++

3764

9429

703

0.42

694

068

812

92.3

110

3.00

773.

33++

+11

5552

1002

20.

373

311

117

4

100.

8194

.00

1314

30.

454

46.9

3.57

Am

phip

od: *

mea

n %

surv

ival

sign

ifica

ntly

less

than

CLI

S co

ntro

ls (p

<0.0

5); *

* m

ean

% su

rviv

al si

gnifi

cant

ly le

ss th

an C

LIS

cont

rols

(p<0

.05)

and

less

than

80%

of C

LIS

cont

rols

Mic

roto

x EC

50: ^

= m

ean

EC50

<0.5

1 m

g/m

l det

erm

ined

as t

he 8

0% lo

wer

pre

dict

ion

limit

(LPL

) with

the

low

est (

i.e.,

mos

t tox

ic) s

ampl

es re

mov

ed, b

ut >

0.06

mg/

ml d

eter

min

ed a

s the

90%

low

er

pred

ictio

n lim

it (L

PL) e

arlie

r in

this

repo

rt.

171

226

3++

+15

6165

Urc

hin

ferti

lizat

ion:

* m

ean

% fe

rtiliz

atio

n si

gnifi

cant

ly d

iffer

ent f

rom

con

trols

and

exc

eeds

min

imum

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

(Dun

nett'

s t-te

st: *

= α

< 0.

05, M

SD =

15.

5%; o

r **

= α

< 0.

01, M

SD =

19.

0%)

Cyt

ochr

ome

P450

HR

GS

as µ

gB[a

]P/g

: ++

= v

alue

>11

.1 b

enzo

[a]p

yren

e eq

uiva

lent

s (ug

/g se

dim

ent)

dete

rmin

ed a

s the

80%

upp

er p

redi

ctio

n lim

it (U

PL);

+++

= va

lue

>37.

1 be

nzo[

a]py

rene

equ

ival

ents

(µ

g/g

sedi

men

t) de

term

ined

as t

he 9

0% u

pper

pre

dict

ion

limit

(UPL

)

App

endi

x H

. C

ontin

ued.

Page 318

Page 319

Appendix IRanges in detected chemical concentrations and numbers of samples for national,

SEDQUAL, and 1998 PSAMP/NOAA central Puget Sound data.

Page 320

Che

mic

alU

nits

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

Am

ines

and

Aro

mat

ic

amin

es1,

2-D

iphe

nylh

ydra

zine

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

20.

03.

57.

0n/

an/

an/

an/

aA

nilin

epp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

aB

enzi

dine

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

115

,000

.015

,000

.015

,000

.0n/

an/

an/

an/

aN

-nitr

osod

imet

hyla

min

epp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a1

1,00

0.0

1,00

0.0

1,00

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Pyrid

ine

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Chl

orin

ated

Alk

anes

Hex

achl

orob

utad

iene

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

410.

05.

01,

200.

00

0.0

0.0

0.0

Hex

achl

oroc

yclo

pent

adie

nepp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a4

40.0

160.

023

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hex

achl

oroe

than

epp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a4

47.0

160.

023

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Chl

orin

ated

and

Nitr

o-Su

bstit

uted

Phe

nols

2,4,

5-Tr

ichl

orop

heno

lpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a6

370.

01,

100.

06,

900.

0n/

an/

an/

an/

a2,

4,6-

Tric

hlor

ophe

nol

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

615

0.0

250.

02,

800.

0n/

an/

an/

an/

a2,

4-D

ichl

orop

heno

lpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a2

220.

022

5.0

230.

0n/

an/

an/

an/

a2,

4-D

initr

ophe

nol

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

31,

100.

05,

000.

09,

530.

0n/

an/

an/

an/

a2-

Chl

orop

heno

lpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a6

1.0

141.

054

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2-N

itrop

heno

lpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a6

3.0

98.5

230.

0n/

an/

an/

an/

a4,

6-D

initr

o-2-

Met

hylp

heno

lpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a4-

Chl

oro-

3-M

ethy

lphe

nol

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

121.

012

4.0

1,20

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

4-N

itrop

heno

lpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a2

90.0

595.

01,

100.

0n/

an/

an/

an/

aPe

ntac

hlor

ophe

nol

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

561.

097

.541

,000

.023

98.0

015

9.00

527.

00

Chl

orin

ated

Aro

mat

ic

Com

poun

ds1,

2,4-

Tric

hlor

oben

zene

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

461.

07.

030

5.0

20.

773.

586.

40

App

endi

x I.

Ran

ges i

n de

tect

ed c

hem

ical

con

cent

ratio

ns a

nd n

umbe

rs o

f sam

ples

for

natio

nal,

SED

QU

AL

and

199

8 PS

AM

P/N

OA

A

cent

ral P

uget

Sou

nd d

ata.

Ran

ge in

PSA

MP/

NO

AA

Dat

a3R

ange

in S

EDQ

UA

L D

ata2

Ran

ge in

Nat

iona

l Dat

a1

Page 321

Che

mic

alU

nits

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

Ran

ge in

PSA

MP/

NO

AA

Dat

a3R

ange

in S

EDQ

UA

L D

ata2

Ran

ge in

Nat

iona

l Dat

a1

1,2-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

760.

03.

096

3.0

50.

351.

306.

401,

3-D

ichl

orob

enze

nepp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a47

1.0

4.0

230.

03

0.83

1.80

17.0

01,

4-D

ichl

orob

enze

nepp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a21

60.

012

.031

,000

.040

0.34

3.60

79.0

02-

Chl

oron

apht

hale

nepp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a7

150.

023

0.0

2,80

0.0

00.

000.

000.

00H

exac

hlor

oben

zene

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

480.

02.

015

,000

.029

0.10

0.34

4.50

Eth

ers

4-B

rom

ophe

nyl-P

heny

l Eth

erpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a6

130.

022

5.0

15,0

00.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

4-C

hlor

ophe

nyl-P

heny

l Eth

erpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a3

3.0

220.

023

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Bis

(2-C

hlor

oeth

yl)E

ther

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

375

.022

0.0

230.

0n/

an/

an/

an/

a

Bis

(2-c

hlor

oiso

prop

yl)-

ethe

rpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a2

220.

022

5.0

230.

0n/

an/

an/

an/

a

Mix

cella

neou

s Ext

ract

able

C

ompo

unds

Ben

zoic

aci

dpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a21

45.

029

0.0

58,3

94.0

9560

7.00

2,29

0.00

13,0

00.0

0B

enzy

l alc

ohol

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

255.

014

0.0

8,80

0.0

2621

.00

34.0

075

.00

Bet

a-co

pros

tano

lpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a22

126

.049

7.0

69,8

51.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Dib

enzo

fura

npp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a62

22.

050

.019

0,00

0.0

991.

1014

.00

2,01

0.00

Isop

horo

nepp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a17

19.0

65.0

960.

0n/

an/

an/

an/

a

Org

anon

itrog

en

Com

poun

ds2,

4-D

initr

otol

uene

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

422

0.0

420.

015

,000

.0n/

an/

an/

an/

a2,

6-D

initr

otol

uene

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

522

0.0

290.

01,

900.

0n/

an/

an/

an/

a2-

Nitr

oani

line

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

690

.089

0.0

6,90

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3,3'

-Dic

hlor

oben

zidi

nepp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a5

90.0

440.

01,

900.

0n/

an/

an/

an/

a3-

Nitr

oani

line

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

490

.068

0.0

1,10

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

4-C

hlor

oani

line

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

612

5.0

225.

01,

212.

0n/

an/

an/

an/

a4-

Nitr

oani

line

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

390

.01,

100.

01,

100.

0n/

an/

an/

an/

a

App

endi

x I.

Con

tinue

d.

Page 322

Che

mic

alU

nits

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

Ran

ge in

PSA

MP/

NO

AA

Dat

a3R

ange

in S

EDQ

UA

L D

ata2

Ran

ge in

Nat

iona

l Dat

a1

9(H

)Car

bazo

lepp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a50

52.

074

.052

,000

.0n/

an/

an/

an/

aC

affe

ine

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

32.

09.

013

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Nitr

oben

zene

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

222

0.0

225.

023

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

N-N

itros

o-D

i-N-P

ropy

lam

ine

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

419

0.0

225.

028

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

N-n

itros

odip

heny

lam

ine

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

436.

013

0.0

15,0

00.0

55.

7014

.00

34.0

0

Phen

ols

2,4-

Dim

ethy

lphe

nol

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

441.

067

.56,

000.

019

4.30

12.0

035

.00

2-M

ethy

lphe

nol

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

191.

014

0.0

1,72

2.0

671.

206.

4048

.00

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

144

1.0

61.5

6,20

8.0

972.

2031

.00

6,25

0.00

Bis

(2-C

hlor

oeth

oxy)

Met

hane

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

222

0.0

225.

023

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Phen

olpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a49

00.

080

.03,

600.

040

44.0

010

9.00

1,73

0.00

P-no

nylp

heno

lpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a2

18.0

019

.50

21.0

0

Phth

alat

e E

ster

sB

is(2

-Eth

ylhe

xyl)

Phth

alat

epp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a99

30.

034

9.0

63,0

00.0

1613

9.00

460.

001,

030.

00B

utyl

benz

ylph

thal

ate

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

559

0.0

50.0

5,50

0.0

207.

7047

.00

92.0

0D

ieth

ylph

thal

ate

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

128

1.0

16.0

15,0

00.0

213.

5025

.00

151.

00D

imet

hylp

htha

late

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

197

0.0

25.0

11,0

00.0

123.

3011

.10

65.0

0D

i-N-B

utyl

phth

alat

epp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a41

80.

052

.07,

400.

030

70.0

036

4.00

2,89

0.00

Di-N

-Oct

yl P

htha

late

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

233

0.0

71.0

68,6

02.0

116

.00

16.0

016

.00

Org

anot

in, B

utyl

tin

Dib

utyl

tin C

hlor

ide

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

182

.082

.082

.067

0.74

15.0

017

0.00

Mon

obut

yltin

Chl

orid

epp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a49

0.0

10.0

1,06

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Trib

utyl

tin C

hlor

ide

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

151.

09.

019

8.0

860.

4917

.15

3,11

0.00

Anc

illar

y M

etal

s

(Par

tial D

iges

tion

Met

hod)

Alu

min

umpp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

a1,

216

0.0

18,4

50.0

48,1

00.0

105

5,28

0.00

11,2

00.0

021

,000

.00

App

endi

x I.

Con

tinue

d.

Page 323

Che

mic

alU

nits

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

Ran

ge in

PSA

MP/

NO

AA

Dat

a3R

ange

in S

EDQ

UA

L D

ata2

Ran

ge in

Nat

iona

l Dat

a1

Bar

ium

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

855

0.0

66.0

7,38

0.0

105

7.80

33.0

011

9.00

Cal

cium

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

821

1,74

0.0

6,82

0.0

347,

000.

010

52,

540.

005,

040.

0015

,200

.00

Cob

alt

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

518

2.0

10.0

119.

010

52.

806.

9315

.40

Iron

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1,27

21.

026

,250

.011

2,00

0.0

105

7,16

0.00

19,6

00.0

030

,400

.00

Mag

nesi

umpp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

a87

91,

957.

07,

950.

01,

100,

000.

010

53,

360.

007,

020.

0012

,200

.00

Man

gane

sepp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

a1,

172

0.0

308.

53,

390.

010

510

7.00

237.

001,

010.

00Po

tass

ium

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

795

380.

02,

670.

037

3,00

0.0

105

630.

001,

690.

004,

000.

00So

dium

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

784

800.

011

,100

.097

3,00

0.0

105

3,00

0.00

9,22

0.00

30,3

00.0

0V

anad

ium

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

622

11.0

58.0

146.

010

516

.10

41.4

063

.90

Anc

illar

y M

etal

s

(Tot

al D

iges

tion

Met

hod)

Alu

min

umpp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a10

418

,000

.00

67,4

00.0

091

,600

.00

Bar

ium

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

104

212.

0038

9.00

576.

00C

alci

umpp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a10

47,

070.

0019

,100

.00

36,8

00.0

0C

obal

tpp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a10

44.

2010

.00

24.9

0Ir

onpp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a10

414

,400

.00

32,3

50.0

056

,400

.00

Mag

nesi

umpp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a10

42,

540.

0012

,700

.00

18,3

00.0

0M

anga

nese

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

104

296.

0049

4.00

1,37

0.00

Pota

ssiu

mpp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a10

47,

040.

0010

,900

.00

17,1

00.0

0So

dium

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

104

21,2

00.0

029

,300

.00

45,9

00.0

0V

anad

ium

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

104

50.2

093

.85

122.

00

Prio

rity

Pol

luta

nt M

etal

s (P

artia

l Dig

estio

n M

etho

d)A

ntim

ony

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

791

0.0

2.0

1,37

0.0

390.

200.

3711

0.00

Ars

enic

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1,95

30.

011

.01,

420.

010

51.

606.

4950

0.00

Ber

ylliu

mpp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

a96

80.

00.

04.

010

10.

100.

260.

48C

adm

ium

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1,73

30.

00.

010

0.0

940.

100.

301.

72C

hrom

ium

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1,94

20.

039

.01,

093.

010

511

.30

29.2

079

.40

Cop

per

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2,28

30.

054

.02,

820.

010

54.

0030

.00

330.

00Le

adpp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

a2,

261

0.0

42.0

71,1

00.0

105

2.64

21.8

050

0.00

App

endi

x I.

Con

tinue

d.

Page 324

Che

mic

alU

nits

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

Ran

ge in

PSA

MP/

NO

AA

Dat

a3R

ange

in S

EDQ

UA

L D

ata2

Ran

ge in

Nat

iona

l Dat

a1

Mer

cury

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2,01

80.

00.

028

.010

50.

010.

131.

50N

icke

lpp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

a2,

179

1.0

29.0

366.

010

511

.00

27.6

041

.70

Sele

nium

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

536

0.0

0.0

63.0

520.

310.

580.

96Si

lver

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1,39

90.

00.

014

0.0

930.

100.

392.

01Th

alliu

mpp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

a42

80.

00.

021

.010

00.

110.

201.

79Ti

tani

umpp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

a21

400.

01,

000.

01,

200.

010

527

9.00

689.

001,

160.

00Zi

ncpp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

a2,

263

0.0

104.

07,

390.

010

519

.10

63.9

01,

290.

00

Prio

rity

Pol

luta

nt M

etal

s (T

otal

Dig

estio

n M

etho

d)A

ntim

ony

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

520.

02.

036

.085

0.30

1.00

356.

00A

rsen

icpp

m91

30.

107.

1041

.00

741.

011

.038

.010

41.

907.

7755

5.00

Ber

ylliu

mpp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

a2

0.0

0.0

0.0

104

0.60

0.96

1.40

Cad

miu

mpp

m98

70.

030.

3019

.80

590.

01.

03.

075

0.11

0.80

2.00

Chr

omiu

mpp

m1,

045

1.00

57.8

01,

220.

0037

12.0

79.0

110.

010

436

.70

72.3

020

3.00

Cop

per

ppm

1,03

10.

7020

.70

1,77

0.00

934.

078

.01,

240.

010

44.

9031

.55

290.

00Le

adpp

m1,

038

1.40

26.3

051

0.00

844.

065

.065

9.0

104

6.60

21.0

038

8.00

Mer

cury

ppm

994

0.01

0.10

15.0

026

0.0

0.0

0.0

105

0.01

0.13

1.50

Nic

kel

ppm

1,00

60.

3021

.00

136.

0054

14.0

38.0

117.

010

417

.00

37.0

055

.00

Sele

nium

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

640.

310.

561.

10Si

lver

ppm

866

0.01

0.20

10.1

070

0.0

0.0

4.0

41.

201.

451.

80Th

alliu

mpp

mn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a58

0.21

0.31

0.62

Tita

nium

ppm

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

104

1,67

0.00

3,42

0.00

5,09

0.00

Zinc

ppm

1,06

01.

0093

.30

1,88

0.00

9313

.014

1.0

654.

010

429

.60

91.2

01,

450.

00

HPA

HB

enzo

(a)a

nthr

acen

epp

b65

20.

3096

.20

59,2

98.0

01,

532

0.0

280.

091

3,50

0.0

105

1.50

72.0

01,

760.

00B

enzo

(a)p

yren

epp

b63

10.

2014

7.00

54,8

62.0

01,

628

0.0

300.

01,

035,

300.

010

51.

3099

.00

2,91

0.00

Ben

zo(b

)flu

oran

then

epp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a1,

052

0.0

510.

091

3,50

0.0

105

2.60

157.

006,

670.

00B

enzo

(e)p

yren

epp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a1

3,50

0.0

3,50

0.0

3,50

0.0

105

1.50

78.5

01,

280.

00B

enzo

(g,h

,i)pe

ryle

nepp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a1,

323

0.0

170.

047

5,07

0.0

105

1.40

83.0

01,

000.

00B

enzo

(k)f

luor

anth

ene

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

997

0.0

380.

066

9,90

0.0

105

0.59

59.0

02,

360.

00

App

endi

x I.

Con

tinue

d.

Page 325

Che

mic

alU

nits

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

Ran

ge in

PSA

MP/

NO

AA

Dat

a3R

ange

in S

EDQ

UA

L D

ata2

Ran

ge in

Nat

iona

l Dat

a1

Chr

ysen

epp

b68

80.

2011

8.00

60,3

31.0

01,

713

0.0

387.

091

3,50

0.0

105

2.60

118.

001,

710.

00D

iben

zo(a

,h)a

nthr

acen

epp

b36

30.

4045

.80

4,53

4.00

758

0.0

69.5

140,

070.

010

20.

4817

.00

392.

00Fl

uora

nthe

nepp

b75

50.

3016

0.00

108,

236.

001,

820

0.0

500.

01,

827,

000.

010

54.

9018

2.00

43,0

00.0

0In

deno

(1,2

,3-c

,d)p

yren

epp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a1,

364

0.0

180.

044

4,57

0.0

105

1.20

86.0

01,

220.

00Pe

ryle

nepp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a82

5.0

24.0

510.

010

54.

2010

4.00

949.

00Py

rene

ppb

819

0.40

136.

0014

3,13

2.00

1,81

20.

058

0.0

2,61

8,70

0.0

105

4.50

206.

0014

,400

.00

Tota

l HPA

Hpp

b92

52.

0040

5.00

461,

675.

001,

544

2.0

3,02

0.0

9,92

0,00

0.0

105

30.7

31,

239.

5075

,951

.00

Tota

l Ben

zoflu

oran

then

espp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a1,

394

1.0

740.

01,

582,

000.

010

53.

1920

1.50

9,03

0.00

LPA

H1,

6,7-

Trim

ethy

lnap

htha

lene

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

102

0.99

17.0

013

6.00

1-M

ethy

lnap

htha

lene

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

179

0.0

790.

079

0.0

990.

9217

.00

728.

001-

Met

hylp

hena

nthr

ene

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

632.

013

0.0

100,

000.

010

01.

2027

.00

195.

002,

6-D

imet

hyln

apht

hale

nepp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a1

570.

057

0.0

570.

010

31.

1037

.00

272.

002-

Met

hyln

apht

hale

nepp

b59

10.

4022

.10

15,5

57.0

052

20.

037

.020

0,00

0.0

991.

4029

.00

1,03

0.00

2-M

ethy

lphe

nant

hren

epp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a64

2.0

125.

011

0,00

0.0

102

2.20

38.0

031

2.00

Ace

naph

then

epp

b39

40.

1025

.70

56,3

38.0

088

70.

057

.028

0,14

0.0

930.

487.

301,

670.

00A

cena

phth

ylen

epp

b25

40.

4045

.40

12,9

15.0

060

30.

040

.066

,990

.010

40.

0515

.00

193.

00A

nthr

acen

epp

b52

10.

2063

.90

89,3

66.0

01,

443

0.0

130.

057

8,55

0.0

105

0.97

32.0

01,

120.

00B

iphe

nyl

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

432.

030

.01,

800.

094

0.44

9.00

387.

00D

iben

zoth

ioph

ene

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

490.

080

.029

,000

.089

1.00

9.20

334.

00Fl

uore

nepp

b53

00.

1028

.70

54,2

09.0

01,

091

0.0

66.0

230,

000.

010

20.

7617

.00

830.

00N

apht

hale

nepp

b45

60.

7039

.50

17,4

14.0

076

10.

051

.01,

100,

000.

096

1.90

38.0

08,

370.

00Ph

enan

thre

nepp

b77

90.

4075

.00

194,

343.

001,

679

0.0

260.

01,

583,

400.

010

23.

3093

.50

3,83

0.00

Ret

ene

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

183

2.0

58.0

10,0

00.0

103

1.90

46.0

01,

320.

00To

tal L

PAH

ppb

956

0.20

118.

0055

2,12

4.00

1,57

30.

046

0.0

2,81

0,00

0.0

105

19.3

946

9.80

15,0

36.0

0

Chl

orin

ated

Pes

ticid

es2,

4'-D

DD

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

115

.015

.015

.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2,4'

-DD

Epp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a1

4.0

4.0

4.0

00.

000.

000.

002,

4'-D

DT

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

16.

06.

06.

00

0.00

0.00

0.00

4,4'

-DD

Dpp

b66

60.

001.

4078

4.00

164

0.0

6.0

840.

036

0.80

3.15

14.0

0

App

endi

x I.

Con

tinue

d.

Page 326

Che

mic

alU

nits

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

Ran

ge in

PSA

MP/

NO

AA

Dat

a3R

ange

in S

EDQ

UA

L D

ata2

Ran

ge in

Nat

iona

l Dat

a1

4,4'

-DD

Epp

b74

10.

002.

002,

900.

0017

20.

03.

037

0.0

440.

212.

2012

.00

4,4'

-DD

Tpp

b54

30.

001.

003,

517.

0082

0.0

9.5

1,67

0.0

43.

003.

455.

00To

tal D

DTs

ppb

813

0.01

4.30

4,63

1.00

725

0.0

8.0

3,10

0.0

420.

214.

4520

.60

Ald

rinpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a40

0.0

2.0

90.0

00.

000.

000.

00A

lpha

-BH

Cpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a2

0.0

50.0

100.

00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Alp

ha-c

hlor

dane

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

51.

01.

026

.02

0.59

1.00

1.40

Bet

a-B

HC

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

113

.013

.013

.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Chl

orpy

ripho

spp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a0

0.00

0.00

0.00

Cis

-Non

achl

orpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a0

0.00

0.00

0.00

Del

ta-B

HC

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

00.

000.

000.

00D

ield

rinpp

b49

00.

000.

5021

.20

430.

02.

028

0.0

00.

000.

000.

00En

dosu

lfan

Ipp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a4

0.0

1.5

17.0

00.

000.

000.

00En

dosu

lfan

IIpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a2

3.0

3.5

4.0

00.

000.

000.

00En

dosu

lfan

sulfa

tepp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a0

0.00

0.00

0.00

Endr

inpp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a4

3.0

6.0

10.0

00.

000.

000.

00En

drin

Ald

ehyd

epp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a8

3.0

5.0

130.

00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Endr

in K

eton

epp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a1

42.0

42.0

42.0

00.

000.

000.

00G

amm

a-B

HC

(Lin

dane

)pp

b30

60.

010.

2015

7.00

90.

00.

08.

02

0.57

1.34

2.10

Hep

tach

lor

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

190.

02.

028

.02

0.71

2.41

4.10

Hep

tach

lor E

poxi

depp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a9

0.0

3.0

13.0

00.

000.

000.

00M

etho

xych

lor

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

32.

02.

099

.01

10.0

010

.00

10.0

0M

irex

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

00.

000.

000.

00O

xych

lord

ane

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

00.

000.

000.

00To

xaph

ene

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

00.

000.

000.

00Tr

ans-

Chl

orda

ne (G

amm

a)pp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a1

204.

020

4.0

204.

01

0.58

0.58

0.58

Tran

s-N

onac

hlor

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Poly

cycl

ic C

hlor

inat

ed

Bip

heny

lsPC

B A

roch

lor 1

016

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

710

0.0

100.

010

0.0

00.

000.

000.

00PC

B A

roch

lor 1

221

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

528

.051

.020

0.0

00.

000.

000.

00PC

B A

roch

lor 1

232

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

130

0.0

300.

030

0.0

00.

000.

000.

00

App

endi

x I.

Con

tinue

d.

Page 327

Che

mic

alU

nits

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

No.

of

Sam

ples

Min

Med

ian

Max

Ran

ge in

PSA

MP/

NO

AA

Dat

a3R

ange

in S

EDQ

UA

L D

ata2

Ran

ge in

Nat

iona

l Dat

a1

PCB

Aro

chlo

r 124

2pp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a13

61.

051

.02,

500.

07

4.20

12.0

050

.00

PCB

Aro

chlo

r 124

8pp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a23

81.

012

0.0

56,4

75.0

00.

000.

000.

00PC

B A

roch

lor 1

254

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

797

3.0

86.0

14,4

48.0

542.

5030

.50

300.

00PC

B A

roch

lor 1

260

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

756

2.0

85.0

28,4

50.0

632.

7039

.00

2,00

0.00

PCB

Con

gene

r 8pp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a7

0.25

0.62

1.70

PCB

Con

gene

r 18

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

330.

210.

846.

80PC

B C

onge

ner 2

8pp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a47

0.09

1.30

24.0

0PC

B C

onge

ner 4

4pp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a52

0.24

0.98

8.80

PCB

Con

gene

r 52

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

630.

121.

5022

.00

PCB

Con

gene

r 66

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

630.

101.

2024

.00

PCB

Con

gene

r 77

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

17.

507.

507.

50PC

B C

onge

ner 1

01pp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a20

61.

05.

031

0.0

710.

072.

4076

.00

PCB

Con

gene

r 105

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

590.

132.

2035

.00

PCB

Con

gene

r 118

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

214

1.0

5.0

280.

072

0.10

2.55

29.0

0PC

B C

onge

ner 1

26pp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a11

1.0

2.0

4.0

11.

401.

401.

40PC

B C

onge

ner 1

28pp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a13

71.

02.

071

.061

0.07

1.10

14.0

0PC

B C

onge

ner 1

38pp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

a19

42.

010

.040

0.0

650.

234.

6014

0.00

PCB

Con

gene

r 153

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

212

1.0

8.0

260.

079

0.11

2.90

210.

00PC

B C

onge

ner 1

70pp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a63

0.07

1.90

110.

00PC

B C

onge

ner 1

80pp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a65

0.11

2.60

190.

00PC

B C

onge

ner 1

87pp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a52

0.18

2.60

100.

00PC

B C

onge

ner 1

95pp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a37

0.12

0.61

18.0

0PC

B C

onge

ner 2

06pp

bn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a56

0.08

0.80

8.70

PCB

Con

gene

r 209

ppb

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

430.

200.

853.

00To

tal P

CB

'spp

b83

00.

1026

.50

16,6

75.0

098

60.

018

0.5

84,0

00.0

770.

4034

.72

1,86

6.60

1 Stud

ies p

erfo

rmed

by

the

Nat

iona

l Oce

anic

and

Atm

osph

eric

Adm

inis

tratio

n (N

OA

A) a

nd U

.S E

nviro

nmen

tal P

rote

ctio

n A

genc

y (L

ong

et. a

l., 1

998)

3 Dat

a co

llect

ed in

Cen

tral P

uget

Sou

nd b

y th

e N

atio

nal O

cean

ic a

nd A

tmos

pher

ic A

dmin

istra

tion

(NO

AA

) and

the

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e D

ept.

of E

colo

gy.

2 Stud

ies p

erfo

rmed

in W

ashi

ngto

n St

ate

and

stor

ed b

y W

ashi

ngto

n St

ate

Dep

t. of

Eco

logy

in th

e SE

DQ

UA

L da

taba

se.

App

endi

x I.

Con

tinue

d.

Page 328

Page 329

Appendix JSEDQUAL surveys for the 1998 central Puget Sound sampling area.

Page 330

Age

ncy

Nam

eSu

rvey

Nam

eB

egin

ning

dat

eEn

ding

dat

eC

hief

Sci

entis

t

Bea

k C

onsu

ltant

s, In

c.U

.S. N

avy

Pier

D L

ong-

Term

Are

a M

onito

r12

/17/

1994

03/0

7/19

95'9

8 B

rem

erto

n W

TP N

PDES

Sed

. Mon

. Rep

ort

04/2

8/19

9804

/29/

1998

Ger

ald

M. E

ricks

on

Bre

mer

ton-

Kits

ap C

o. H

ealth

Dis

trict

Sinc

lair

and

Dye

s Inl

et m

onito

ring

91-9

202

/12/

1991

06/0

4/19

92K

. Gre

llner

, R.S

.

Che

vron

Oil

USA

, Inc

.C

hevr

on U

SA E

dmon

ds D

ock

Mai

nt. D

redg

ing

01/3

1/19

9001

/31/

1990

D. K

enda

ll (C

orps

)

City

of S

eattl

e/W

A D

ept o

f Eco

logy

Sout

h La

ke U

nion

Pilo

t Pro

ject

Sed

imen

t 12

/01/

1986

12/0

1/19

86

CO

EM

orto

n M

arin

e m

aint

enan

ce d

redg

ing

09/1

5/19

9109

/18/

1991

D. K

enda

ll (C

orps

)

Cor

psM

orto

n w

harf

con

stru

ct. &

dra

ft in

crea

se12

/12/

1989

12/1

2/19

89D

. Ken

dall

(Cor

ps)

Dep

artm

ent o

f Eco

logy

/Por

t Tow

nsen

d Pa

per

Co.

Pt. T

owns

end

Pape

r Com

pany

Cla

ss 2

12/0

1/19

8712

/01/

1987

D. R

eif/D

. Kjo

snes

Dep

t of O

cean

ogra

phy,

UW

Met

als i

n Pu

get S

ound

sedi

men

ts 1

970-

7201

/01/

1972

01/0

1/19

72Er

ic A

. Cre

celiu

s

Ecol

ogy/

Envi

ron.

Inve

st. &

Lab

. Ser

vice

sB

ioac

cum

. stu

dy in

Sin

clai

r/Dye

s Inl

ets

09/0

2/19

8901

/15/

1991

Jim

Cub

bage

Salm

on B

ay P

hase

II06

/26/

1996

06/2

7/19

96D

arve

Ser

dar

ECO

CH

EMSe

attle

City

Lig

ht, 1

1/89

05/2

4/19

8905

/24/

1989

R. R

ober

t Zis

ette

EPA

Reg

ion

10/P

uget

Sou

nd E

stua

ry P

rog.

Port

Tow

nsen

d &

Cap

San

te M

arin

as S

tudy

06/1

6/19

8806

/28/

1988

E. C

rece

lius

EPA

, Dep

t. of

Soc

ial &

Hea

lth S

ervi

ces

Dep

t. of

Hea

lth sh

ellfi

sh b

ioac

cum

stud

y04

/24/

1986

08/1

1/19

87Ja

cque

s Fai

genb

lum

App

endi

x J.

SE

DQ

UA

L su

rvey

s for

the

1998

cen

tral

Pug

et S

ound

sam

plin

g ar

ea.

Page 331

Age

ncy

Nam

eSu

rvey

Nam

eB

egin

ning

dat

eEn

ding

dat

eC

hief

Sci

entis

t

Geo

Eng

inee

rs, I

nc.

U.S

. Nav

y Pi

er D

Sup

plem

enta

l Sam

plin

g08

/10/

1993

08/1

3/19

93Sa

lly F

ishe

r

Har

tCro

wse

r, In

c.So

. Lak

e U

nion

Par

k -K

urtz

er M

arin

e Pa

rk08

/26/

1990

09/0

3/19

90Jo

hn F

unde

rbur

k

Hur

len

Con

stru

ctio

n C

o., S

eattl

eH

urle

n C

onst

ruct

ion

Co.

Mai

nt. D

redg

ing.

05/1

1/19

9005

/11/

1990

D. K

enda

ll (C

orps

)

Kin

g C

ount

yR

ichm

ond

Bea

ch IT

Mon

itorin

g 19

94-9

607

/18/

1994

07/2

9/19

96Jo

hn B

lain

eLa

ke U

nion

Sed

imen

t Mon

itorin

g 81

-86.

03/1

7/19

8111

/10/

1986

Fritz

Gro

thko

ppN

PDES

Con

nect

icut

CSO

Bas

elin

e St

udy

06/0

1/19

9506

/01/

1995

Scot

t Mic

kels

onN

PDES

Han

ford

CSO

Bas

elin

e St

udy,

199

506

/01/

1995

06/0

1/19

95Sc

ott M

ikel

son

Lake

Uni

on S

edim

ent M

onito

ring

1995

07/2

6/19

9507

/27/

1995

Jeff

Dro

ker

Duw

amis

h/D

iago

nal C

lean

up P

hase

s 1 -

208

/01/

1994

07/0

1/19

96Sc

ott M

icke

lson

Pier

53

Cap

Mon

itorin

g 19

9608

/12/

1996

08/1

5/19

96B

en B

udka

Den

ny W

ay C

ap M

onito

ring

1994

-96

06/1

5/19

9409

/10/

1996

Wils

on a

nd R

ombe

rgN

PDES

Che

lan

CSO

Bas

elin

e St

udy,

199

5-96

06/0

1/19

9509

/25/

1996

Scot

t Mic

kels

onW

est P

oint

EB

O B

asel

ine

Stud

y Ph

ase

102

/01/

1996

09/2

5/19

96Sc

ott M

icke

lson

NPD

ES M

agno

lia C

SO B

asel

ine

Stud

y, 1

996

10/0

1/19

9610

/01/

1996

John

Bla

ine

Mag

nolia

, Nor

th B

each

, 53r

d St

reet

CSO

's10

/15/

1996

10/1

5/19

96Sc

ott M

icke

lson

Kin

g C

ount

y's N

PDES

CSO

Sub

tidal

Sed

10

/16/

1996

10/1

6/19

96D

uwam

ish

Riv

er W

ater

Qua

lity

Ass

essm

ent

02/0

1/19

9706

/01/

1997

Scot

t Mic

kels

onW

est P

oint

Sub

tidal

NPD

ES M

onit.

199

4-97

04/2

5/19

9407

/22/

1997

John

Bla

ine

NPD

ES 6

3rd

Ave

CSO

Bas

elin

e St

udy,

199

710

/01/

1997

10/0

1/19

97Jo

hn B

lain

eN

PDES

Bar

ton

CSO

Bas

elin

e St

udy

10/0

1/19

9710

/01/

1997

Col

in E

lliot

tU

nive

rsity

Reg

ulat

or P

ost C

SO S

epar

at'n

08/2

6/19

9610

/03/

1997

Fritz

Gro

thko

ppN

PDES

Ren

ton

Subt

idal

Mon

itorin

g 19

94-9

709

/20/

1994

10/1

3/19

97Jo

hn B

lain

eN

PDES

Ala

ska

CSO

Bas

elin

e St

udy

10/1

4/19

9710

/14/

1997

John

Bla

ine

NPD

ES C

SO S

ubtid

al se

dim

ents

, 199

710

/14/

1997

10/1

5/19

97A

mbi

ent S

ubtid

al M

onito

ring

1994

-199

709

/28/

1994

10/1

6/19

97Jo

hn B

lain

e

App

endi

x J.

C

ontin

ued.

Page 332

Age

ncy

Nam

eSu

rvey

Nam

eB

egin

ning

dat

eEn

ding

dat

eC

hief

Sci

entis

t

Lake

Uni

on D

rydo

ck C

o./ H

art-C

row

ser

Lake

Uni

on D

rydo

ck S

edim

ent M

onito

ring

05/1

9/19

9205

/19/

1992

Har

t-Cro

wsw

er

Lone

star

Nor

thW

est

Lone

star

NW

, mai

nt. d

redg

e D

uwam

ish

Riv

.09

/14/

1989

09/1

4/19

89D

. Ken

dall

(Cor

ps)

Met

ropo

litan

Sea

ttle

TPPS

Pha

se II

I A &

B03

/04/

1981

10/0

1/19

82TP

PS P

relim

inar

y su

rvey

04/2

1/19

8110

/27/

1982

1984

Duw

amis

h H

ead

Surv

ey01

/01/

1984

01/0

1/19

84G

ampo

nia

surv

ey o

f Elli

ott B

ay01

/07/

1985

02/0

4/19

85D

uwam

ish

Hea

d B

asel

ine

Surv

ey, '

85-'8

607

/24/

1985

07/1

7/19

86M

ETR

O's

Hot

Spo

t Inv

est.

Wat

erfr

ont,

'88

05/1

0/19

8805

/25/

1988

Pat R

ombe

rgPi

er 5

3/55

MET

RO

's M

onito

ring

Rep

ort,'

8805

/25/

1988

05/2

5/19

88Pa

t Rom

berg

MET

RO

's H

ot S

pot I

nves

t. D

enny

Way

, 88

06/2

9/19

8806

/29/

1988

Pat R

ombe

rgM

ETR

O's

Hot

Spo

t Inv

est.

4 M

ile R

ock,

89

06/2

0/19

8906

/20/

1989

Pat R

ombe

rgM

ETR

O's

Hot

Spo

t Inv

est.

Wat

erfr

ont,

'89

06/1

9/19

8908

/17/

1989

Pat R

ombe

rgPi

er 5

3/55

MET

RO

's M

onito

ring

Rep

ort,'

8906

/19/

1989

08/1

7/19

89Pa

t Rom

berg

Wes

tPoi

nt e

mer

genc

y by

pass

out

fall.

10/1

3/19

8910

/24/

1989

D. K

enda

ll (C

orps

)D

UW

AM

ISH

CSO

Sed

imen

t Sam

plin

g in

199

005

/23/

1990

05/2

4/19

90Pa

t Rom

berg

MET

RO

'S R

ento

n Se

d. M

onito

ring,

199

003

/29/

1990

08/0

2/19

90Pa

t Rom

berg

MET

RO

's H

ot S

pot I

nves

t. W

ater

fron

t, '9

010

/24/

1990

10/2

4/19

90Pa

t Rom

berg

MET

RO

Hot

Spo

t Inv

est.

Wes

t Sea

ttle,

'90

09/2

0/19

9010

/24/

1990

Pat R

ombe

rgM

ETR

O's

Hot

Spo

t Den

ny W

ay S

ubtid

al, '

9207

/01/

1992

07/0

1/19

92Pa

t Rom

berg

MET

RO

'S In

terti

dal S

urve

y, 1

992

08/2

4/19

9208

/26/

1992

Pat R

ombe

rgM

ETR

O'S

Pug

et S

ound

Am

bien

t Mon

itorg

,'92

09/1

5/19

9210

/12/

1992

Pat R

ombe

rgM

ETR

O'S

Ren

ton

Sedi

men

t Mon

itorin

g, '9

209

/10/

1992

10/1

2/19

92Pa

t Rom

berg

MET

RO

'S D

uwam

ish

CSO

sed.

sam

plin

g, 1

992

10/2

8/19

9210

/30/

1992

Pat R

ombe

rgPi

er 5

3-55

Sed

Cap

& E

NR

Rem

ed P

roje

ct02

/26/

1992

11/2

4/19

92Pa

t Rom

berg

Met

ro Q

A R

evie

w o

f P53

-55

Cap

ping

Dat

a05

/18/

1993

05/2

1/19

93M

etro

App

endi

x J.

C

ontin

ued.

Page 333

Age

ncy

Nam

eSu

rvey

Nam

eB

egin

ning

dat

eEn

ding

dat

eC

hief

Sci

entis

t

Nat

iona

l Oce

anic

and

Atm

osph

eric

Adm

in.

1980

NO

AA

OM

PA-1

9 su

rvey

of E

lliot

t Bay

.01

/01/

1979

09/0

1/19

80Ea

gle

Har

b. E

nglis

h so

le a

ccum

. & h

isto

.11

/29/

1983

04/0

5/19

84D

onal

d M

alin

sN

OA

A N

at'l

Stat

us &

Tre

nds m

usse

l wat

ch01

/07/

1986

03/1

7/19

86Th

omas

O'C

onno

rB

enth

ic S

urve

illan

ce 1

986

05/0

1/19

8606

/19/

1986

Bru

ce M

cCai

nN

OA

A'S

Duw

amis

h R

iver

Stu

dy05

/01/

1986

06/2

0/19

86N

OA

A N

at'l

Stat

us &

Tre

nds m

usse

l wat

ch12

/12/

1986

02/2

3/19

87Th

omas

O'C

onno

rN

OA

A N

at'l

Stat

us &

Tre

nds m

usse

l wat

ch11

/18/

1987

01/2

7/19

88Th

omas

O'C

onno

rB

enth

ic S

urve

illan

ce 1

989

05/1

6/19

8905

/18/

1989

Bru

ce M

cCai

nN

OA

A c

hino

ok sa

lmon

bio

accu

m. s

tudy

05/2

3/19

8906

/28/

1990

Ush

a V

aran

asi

Paci

fic M

arin

e C

ente

r Sed

imen

t Sur

vey

06/3

0/19

9406

/30/

1994

Port

of P

ort T

owns

end

Port

Tow

nsen

d H

arb.

Exp

. stu

dy (p

relim

).12

/20/

1989

12/2

0/19

89D

. Ken

dall

(Cor

ps)

Port

of S

eattl

ePo

rt of

Sea

ttle/

Term

inal

105

Dre

dgin

g 85

06/2

0/19

8506

/20/

1985

Dou

g H

otch

kiss

Lock

heed

Shi

pyar

d 2

Sed

Cha

r/Geo

tch

Stdy

08/2

9/19

8909

/16/

1989

Pier

64/

65 S

edim

ent Q

ualit

y A

sses

smen

t05

/09/

1990

06/0

5/19

90Te

rmin

al 5

W. W

ater

way

mai

nt. d

redg

ing

06/1

4/19

9106

/19/

1991

Dou

g H

otch

kiss

Term

inal

91,

W. s

ide

apro

n co

nstru

ctio

n11

/05/

1991

11/1

1/19

91D

oug

Hot

hcki

ssA

mer

ican

Pre

side

nt's

Line

mai

nt. d

redg

e03

/30/

1992

03/3

0/19

92D

. Ken

dall

(Cor

ps)

PTI

EPA

stud

y of

cra

b tis

sue

diox

ins/

fura

ns03

/11/

1991

03/1

1/19

91PT

I for

Was

hing

ton

Dep

artm

ent o

f Eco

logy

PSD

DA

Pha

se I

Surv

ey o

f Dis

posa

l Site

s05

/06/

1988

06/1

1/19

88Pa

ula

Ehle

rs

Puge

t Sou

nd A

mbi

ent M

onito

ring

Prog

ram

PSA

MP

traw

l dat

a fo

r 198

904

/01/

1989

04/0

1/19

89PS

AM

P tra

wl d

ata

for 1

991

05/0

1/19

9105

/01/

1991

PSA

MP

traw

l dat

a fo

r 199

205

/01/

1992

05/0

1/19

92PS

AM

P tra

wl d

ata

for 1

993

04/0

1/19

9304

/01/

1993

App

endi

x J.

C

ontin

ued.

Page 334

Age

ncy

Nam

eSu

rvey

Nam

eB

egin

ning

dat

eEn

ding

dat

eC

hief

Sci

entis

t

Roy

F. W

esto

nLo

wer

Duw

amis

h R

iver

-Site

Insp

ectio

n08

/11/

1998

09/2

3/19

98

Seat

tle M

ETR

O19

82 A

LKI S

urve

y05

/25/

1984

05/2

6/19

84

U.S

. Arm

y C

orps

of E

ngin

eers

- Se

attle

Duw

amis

h R

. mai

nten

ance

dre

dge,

Pha

se 1

08/2

8/19

9008

/28/

1990

D. F

ox (C

orps

)K

eyst

one

Har

bor S

tudy

/Mai

nt. D

redg

ing.

12/0

7/19

9012

/07/

1990

D. K

enda

ll (C

orps

)U

.S. N

avy

Bre

mer

ton

Pier

D03

/25/

1991

04/0

1/19

91Pe

ter H

aven

s (U

SN)

Lone

star

Nor

thw

est -

Wes

t Ter

min

al05

/29/

1992

06/0

3/19

92D

. Ken

dall

(Cor

ps)

U.S

. Coa

st G

uard

US

Coa

st G

uard

dre

dgin

g an

d co

nstru

ctio

n09

/19/

1989

09/1

9/19

89D

. Ken

dall

(Cor

ps)

U.S

. Cor

ps o

f Eng

inee

rsSe

attle

, Por

t of,

Term

inal

5, D

Y97

01/0

1/19

9601

/17/

1996

U.S

. EPA

Lake

Uni

on S

edim

ent I

nves

tigat

ion

03/2

0/19

8403

/21/

1984

Jam

es H

ilem

anPu

get S

ound

Sal

mon

Net

Pen

Sur

vey

03/2

7/19

9109

/09/

1991

Dr.

Chi

p H

ogue

U.S

. EPA

, Reg

ion

10, S

eattl

e, W

A19

82-8

3 EP

A su

rvey

of D

uwam

ish

Riv

er09

/01/

1982

07/2

8/19

8319

85 E

lliot

t Bay

sedi

men

t sur

vey

09/2

5/19

8510

/16/

1985

Puge

tSou

nd R

econ

nais

sanc

e; D

yes I

nlet

04/2

1/19

8804

/22/

1988

Eric

Cre

celiu

sPu

get S

ound

Rec

onna

issa

nce

Surv

ey -

Spri

04/1

9/19

8805

/28/

1988

Eric

Cre

celiu

s

U.S

. Nav

y, F

acil.

Eng

. Com

., Si

lver

dale

.U

S N

avy

Man

ches

ter F

uel P

ier R

epla

cem

ent

04/0

5/19

8904

/12/

1989

Jose

ph D

iVitt

orio

UN

IMA

R /

GEO

Eng

inee

rs In

c.U

NIM

AR

Dry

dock

(Yar

d 1)

Sam

plin

g 19

9101

/29/

1991

01/2

9/19

91Ja

mes

A. M

iller

UR

S C

onsu

ltant

s, In

c.Pu

get S

nd N

aval

Shi

pyar

d Si

te In

spec

. 90

11/2

9/19

9012

/12/

1990

Alle

n R

ose

Nav

y/K

eypo

rt Fi

nal R

I Rep

ort o

f 10/

25/9

308

/12/

1989

08/1

8/19

92Th

e N

avy'

s Key

port

RI R

epor

t08

/12/

1989

09/1

7/19

92Si

ncla

ir In

let m

onito

ring,

199

403

/16/

1994

07/1

4/19

94

App

endi

x J.

C

ontin

ued.

Page 335

Age

ncy

Nam

eSu

rvey

Nam

eB

egin

ning

dat

eEn

ding

dat

eC

hief

Sci

entis

t

US

Arm

y C

orps

of E

ngin

eers

Seat

tle, P

ort o

f, T1

8 Ph

ase

1, D

Y97

01/0

1/19

9603

/16/

1996

US

EPA

(Wes

ton

prim

e; P

TI su

b)H

arbo

r Isl

and

Phas

e II

RI

09/2

4/19

9110

/31/

1991

Chi

p H

ogue

USA

CE

(U.S

. Cor

ps o

f Eng

inee

rs)

Sinc

lair

Inle

t Mar

ina,

DY

9407

/14/

1993

07/1

4/19

93PS

DD

A R

epor

t: '9

3 D

es M

oine

s Mar

ina

09/2

8/19

9309

/29/

1993

Port

of S

eattl

e Te

rmin

al5

Pier

Ext

ensi

on06

/14/

1994

08/0

6/19

94C

row

ley

Mar

ine

Serv

ices

, DY

9607

/13/

1995

07/1

8/19

95Po

rt of

Sea

ttle,

T18

Pha

se 2

, DY

9701

/01/

1996

06/1

2/19

96

UW

Dep

artm

ent o

f Oce

anog

raph

yPu

getS

ound

& S

trait

JdF

Gra

in S

ize

06/1

9/19

5003

/01/

1973

Ric

hard

W. R

ober

ts

WA

Dep

artm

ent o

f Eco

logy

, EIL

S Pr

ogra

mSu

rvey

for C

onta

min

ants

at P

aine

Fie

ld08

/10/

1987

08/1

1/19

87A

rt Jo

hnso

nB

rem

erto

n W

TP C

lass

II In

spec

tion

01/2

5/19

8801

/25/

1988

Don

Rei

fC

entra

l Kits

ap W

TP 1

988

Cla

ss II

Insp

ec.

11/2

8/19

8811

/28/

1988

Mar

c H

effn

erPo

rt O

rcha

rd W

TP C

lass

II In

spec

tion

01/1

7/19

8901

/17/

1989

Lisa

Zin

ner

Edm

onds

WTP

Cla

ss II

Insp

ectio

n04

/17/

1989

04/1

7/19

89Je

anne

And

reas

son

Surv

ey o

f Con

tam

inan

ts in

Lak

e U

nion

06/1

8/19

9006

/20/

1990

Jam

es C

ubba

geO

lym

pus T

erra

ce W

TP C

lass

II In

spec

tion

03/1

9/19

9203

/19/

1992

Stev

en G

oldi

ng

WA

Dep

t. of

Par

ks a

nd R

ecre

atio

n.W

A st

ate

park

mai

nten

ance

dre

dgin

g.09

/07/

1988

09/0

7/19

88Jo

e G

iust

ino

Was

hing

ton

Dep

artm

ent o

f Eco

logy

Eagl

e H

arbo

r sed

imen

t che

mis

try su

rvey

06/0

1/19

8506

/01/

1985

PSA

MP

Sedi

men

t Mon

itorin

g 19

8901

/01/

1989

12/3

1/19

89PS

AM

P Se

dim

ent M

onito

ring

1990

01/0

1/19

9012

/31/

1990

PSA

MP

Sedi

men

t Mon

itorin

g 19

9101

/01/

1991

12/3

1/19

91PS

AM

P Se

dim

ent M

onito

ring

1992

01/0

1/19

9212

/31/

1992

PSA

MP

Sedi

men

t Mon

itorin

g 19

9301

/01/

1993

12/3

1/19

93

App

endi

x J.

C

ontin

ued.

Page 336

Age

ncy

Nam

eSu

rvey

Nam

eB

egin

ning

dat

eEn

ding

dat

eC

hief

Sci

entis

t

PSA

MP

Sedi

men

t Mon

itorin

g 19

9401

/01/

1994

12/3

1/19

94PS

AM

P Se

dim

ent M

onito

ring

1995

01/0

1/19

9512

/31/

1995

PSA

MP

Sedi

men

t Mon

itorin

g 19

9601

/01/

1996

12/3

1/19

96M

aggi

e D

utch

Was

hing

ton

Dep

artm

ent o

f Eco

logy

, TC

PSe

attle

Com

mon

s Sed

imen

t Sam

plin

g R

epor

t03

/04/

1994

03/0

4/19

94Te

resa

Mic

hels

en

Was

hing

ton

Dep

artm

ent o

f Eco

logy

, Wat

er

Qua

lity

Inve

st.

Port

Tow

nsen

d Pe

n-R

eare

d Sa

lmon

Mor

tal.

11/3

0/19

8711

/30/

1987

Art

John

son

Was

hing

ton

Dep

t. of

Fis

herie

sR

ockf

ish

Mon

itorin

g Su

rvey

, Fal

l 198

910

/05/

1989

11/0

2/19

89O

'Nei

ll &

Sch

mitt

Paci

fic C

od M

onito

ring

Surv

ey, W

inte

r 90

02/2

7/19

9003

/08/

1990

O'N

eill

& S

chm

ittPa

cific

Sal

mon

Mon

itor.S

urve

y, S

prin

g 90

04/2

3/19

9005

/02/

1990

O'N

eill

& S

chm

ittR

ockf

ish

Mon

itorin

g Su

rvey

, Fal

l 199

110

/30/

1991

01/0

8/19

92O

'Nei

ll &

Sch

mitt

Paci

fic C

od M

onito

ring

Surv

ey, W

inte

r 92

02/2

7/19

9103

/04/

1992

O'N

eill

& S

chm

itt

Was

hing

ton

Dep

t. of

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es19

90 P

SDD

A P

ost-D

ispo

sal S

ite M

onito

ring

05/1

5/19

9007

/19/

1990

Gen

e R

evel

asA

q. L

ands

Sed

imen

t Qua

l. R

econ

nais

sanc

e.02

/08/

1991

02/1

3/19

91B

. Stri

plin

Aq.

Lan

ds S

edim

ent Q

ual.

Rec

onna

issa

nce.

01/2

0/19

9201

/25/

1992

Phil

Her

zog

1992

PSD

DA

full

mon

itorin

g, E

lliot

t Bay

06/1

1/19

9206

/19/

1992

Gen

e R

evel

as

WW

U,N

OA

A,O

SUM

isc.

PS

Ref

eren

ce a

rea

grai

n si

ze11

/23/

1981

07/0

1/19

87D

ewitt

,Bro

ad,C

hapm

Wyc

koff

Com

pany

Wyc

koff

Eff

luen

t Inv

estig

atio

n: B

asel

ine

12/1

0/19

8912

/10/

1989

K. J

enni

ngs/

ATT

Wyc

koff

Eff

luen

t Inv

estig

atio

n: 4

th Q

tr.01

/11/

1991

01/1

1/19

91J.

Fegl

ey/A

TT

Unk

now

n19

85 P

uget

Sou

nd E

ight

-Bay

surv

ey.

08/0

6/19

8305

/29/

1984

Unk

now

nU

S N

avy

Bre

mer

ton

Pier

D, R

ound

2, D

Y94

08/0

9/19

9309

/24/

1993

App

endi

x J.

C

ontin

ued.

Page 337

Page 338

Page 339

Appendix KNational and Washington State Sediment Guidelines.

Page 340

Page 341

Appendix K. National and Washington State Sediment Guidelines.

National Guidelines1 Washington State Sediment ManagementStandards2

Compound ERL3 ERM4 Unit SQS5 CSL6 Unit

Trace metals

Arsenic 8.2 70 PPM Dry Weight 57 93 PPM Dry Weight

Cadmium 1.2 9.6 PPM Dry Weight 5.1 6.7 PPM Dry Weight

Chromium 81 370 PPM Dry Weight 260 270 PPM Dry Weight

Copper 34 270 PPM Dry Weight 390 390 PPM Dry Weight

Lead 46.7 218 PPM Dry Weight 450 530 PPM Dry Weight

Mercury 0.15 0.71 PPM Dry Weight 0.41 0.59 PPM Dry Weight

Nickel 20.9 51.6 PPM Dry Weight NA NA PPM Dry Weight

Silver 1 3.7 PPM Dry Weight 6.1 6.1 PPM Dry Weight

Zinc 150 410 PPM Dry Weight 410 960 PPM Dry Weight

Organic Compounds

LPAH

2-Methylnaphthalene 70 670 PPB Dry Weight 38 64 PPM Organic Carbon

Acenaphthene 16 500 PPB Dry Weight 16 57 PPM Organic Carbon

Acenaphthylene 44 640 PPB Dry Weight 66 66 PPM Organic Carbon

Anthracene 85.3 1100 PPB Dry Weight 220 1200 PPM Organic Carbon

Fluorene 19 540 PPB Dry Weight 23 79 PPM Organic Carbon

Naphthalene 160 2100 PPB Dry Weight 99 170 PPM Organic Carbon

Phenanthrene 240 1500 PPB Dry Weight 100 480 PPM Organic Carbon

Sum of LPAHs:

Sum of 6 LPAH (WA Ch. 173-204 RCW) NA NA 370 780 PPM Organic Carbon

Sum of 7 LPAH (Long et al., 1995) 552 3160 PPB Dry Weight NA NA

HPAH

Benzo(a)anthracene 261 1600 PPB Dry Weight 110 270 PPM Organic Carbon

Benzo(a)pyrene 430 1600 PPB Dry Weight 99 210 PPM Organic Carbon

Benzo(g,h,I)perylene NA NA 31 78 PPM Organic Carbon

Page 342

Chrysene 384 2800 PPB Dry Weight 110 460 PPM Organic Carbon

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 63.4 260 PPB Dry Weight 12 33 PPM Organic Carbon

Fluoranthene 600 5100 PPB Dry Weight 160 1200 PPM Organic Carbon

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene NA NA 34 88 PPM Organic Carbon

Pyrene 665 2600 PPB Dry Weight 1000 1400 PPM Organic Carbon

Total Benzofluoranthenes NA NA 230 450 PPM Organic Carbon

Sum of HPAHs:

Sum of 9 HPAH (WA Ch. 173-204 RCW) NA NA 960 5300 PPM Organic Carbon

Sum of 6 HPAH (Long et al., 1995) 1700 9600 PPB Dry Weight NA NA

Sum of 13 PAHs 4022 44792 PPB Dry Weight NA NA

Phenols

2,4-Dimethylphenol NA NA 29 29 PPB Dry Weight

2-Methylphenol NA NA 63 63 PPB Dry Weight

4-Methylphenol NA NA 670 670 PPB Dry Weight

Pentachlorophenol NA NA 360 690 PPB Dry Weight

Phenol NA NA 420 1200 PPB Dry Weight

Phthalate Esters

Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate NA NA 47 78 PPM Organic Carbon

Butylbenzylphthalate NA NA 4.9 64 PPM Organic Carbon

Diethylphthalate NA NA 61 110 PPM Organic Carbon

Dimethylphthalate NA NA 53 53 PPM Organic Carbon

Di-N-Butyl Phthalate NA NA 220 1700 PPM Organic Carbon

Di-N-Octyl Phthalate NA NA 58 4500 PPM Organic Carbon

Chlorinated Pesticide and PCBs

4,4'-DDE 2.2 27 PPB Dry Weight NA NA

Total DDT 1.58 46.1 PPB Dry Weight NA NA

Total PCB:

Total Aroclors (WA Ch. 173-204 RCW) NA NA 12 65 PPM Organic Carbon

Total congeners (Long et al., 1995) 22.7 180 PPB Dry Weight NA NA

Appendix K. Continued.

Page 343

Miscellaneous Compounds

1,2-Dichlorobenzene NA NA 2.3 2.3 PPM Organic Carbon

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene NA NA 0.81 1.8 PPM Organic Carbon

1,4-Dichlorobenzene NA NA 3.1 9 PPM Organic Carbon

Benzoic Acid NA NA 650 650 PPB Dry Weight

Benzyl Alcohol NA NA 57 73 PPB Dry Weight

Dibenzofuran NA NA 15 58 PPM Organic Carbon

Hexachlorobenzene NA NA 0.38 2.3 PPM Organic Carbon

Hexachlorobutadiene NA NA 3.9 6.2 PPM Organic Carbon

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine NA NA 11 11 PPM Organic Carbon

1 Long, Edward R., Donald D. Macdonald, Sherri L. Smith and Fred D. Calder. 1995. Incidenceof adverse biological effect with ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarinesediments. Environmental Management 19(1): 81-97.2 Washington State Department of Ecology. 1995. Washington State Sediment ManagementStandards, Chapter 173-204 RCW.3 ERL – Effects Range Low4 ERM – Effects Range Median5 SQS – Sediment Quality Standards6 CSL – Cleanup Screening Levels

Appendix K. Continued.