Sediment Quality in Puget Sound Year 2 - Center for Coastal ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Stratum, Sample. Location Number of ERLs exceeded Mean ERM Quotient Compounds exceeding ERMs Compounds exceeding SQSs Compounds exceeding CSLs Aiiipliipod Survival as %of Control Significance Mean Urchin Fertilization in 100"'., ">ore water ;is %of C'omroI Sigiificance (Significance ytodirome P-450 RGS as (Swartz's Dominance Index Molluscs Abundance Ecliinoder~ii Abundance VIisc. Abundance Dominant Species
Page 3 13
Page 1 and 2:
National Status and Trends Program
Page 3 and 4:
Sediment Quality in Puget Sound Yea
Page 5 and 6:
Human Reporter Gene System (Cytochr
Page 7 and 8:
List of Appendices Appendix A . Det
Page 9 and 10:
Figure 10. Results of 1998 Microtox
Page 11 and 12:
Figure 38. Central Puget Sound stat
Page 13 and 14:
Table 14. Number of 1998 central Pu
Page 15 and 16:
Table 34. Triad results for 1998 ce
Page 17 and 18:
Abstract As a component of a three-
Page 19 and 20:
tests; and 3% of the area in the cy
Page 21 and 22:
Data from this central Puget Sound
Page 23 and 24:
Project Background Introduction hi
Page 25 and 26:
Considerable research has been cond
Page 27 and 28:
toxicants in regions of Puget Sound
Page 29 and 30:
This report includes a summary of t
Page 31 and 32:
stations within each stratum were c
Page 33 and 34:
jugs which had been washed, acid-st
Page 35 and 36:
clean, filtered (0.45 um), Port Ara
Page 37 and 38:
have been exposed to one or more of
Page 39 and 40:
enforcement studies. Seven addition
Page 41 and 42:
analyses will be reported elsewhere
Page 43 and 44:
100 samples were compared to the up
Page 45 and 46:
Correlations were determined for al
Page 47 and 48:
Results A record of all field notes
Page 49 and 50:
As a corollary to and verification
Page 51 and 52:
to station 15 1, then decreased ste
Page 53 and 54:
variance of the other tests with re
Page 55 and 56:
espectively, and each station had 1
Page 57 and 58:
exceeded state criteria and nationa
Page 59 and 60:
assays, enzyme induction was very h
Page 61 and 62:
Isomers of DDT and most PCB congene
Page 63 and 64:
Total abundance of miscellaneous ta
Page 65 and 66:
(i.e., increasing toxicity), there
Page 67 and 68:
Triad Synthesis: A Comparison of Ch
Page 69 and 70:
Stratum 6, in Puget Sound's central
Page 71 and 72:
grain size, rather than the toxicit
Page 73 and 74:
Eight samples collected along the s
Page 75 and 76:
Inlet), 170- 17 1 (Dyes Inlet), 1 1
Page 77 and 78:
The results in the amphipod tests p
Page 79 and 80:
Human Reporter Gene System (Cytochr
Page 81 and 82:
The highest concentrations of mixtu
Page 83 and 84:
and Conner, 1980; Gray, 1982: Becke
Page 85 and 86:
However, benthic data have been gen
Page 87 and 88:
data for benzoic acid, 44 samples h
Page 89 and 90:
Literature Cited Adams, D.A., J.S.
Page 91 and 92:
California Department of Fish and G
Page 93 and 94:
and vicinity. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS
Page 95 and 96:
Strait of Juan De Fuca Figure 1. Ma
Page 97 and 98:
Figure 3a. Central Puget Sound samp
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 3c. Central Puget Sound samp
Page 101 and 102:
Figure 3e. Central Puget Sound samp
Page 103 and 104:
I / Amphipod survival 0 not toxic s
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 6. Summary of 1998 amphipod
Page 107 and 108:
Amphipod survival 0 not toxic 0 sig
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Whidbey Rlsland Figure 14. Results
Page 115 and 116:
Figure 16. Results of 1998 cytochro
Page 117 and 118:
Seattle Figure 18. Results of 1998
Page 119 and 120:
Figure 20. Sampling stations in Por
Page 121 and 122:
1 6 0 Sinclair 1 9 Inlet ]\ 0 No Cr
Page 123 and 124:
0 Rho = 0.928 o p < 0.0001 Sample 1
Page 125 and 126:
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 600
Page 127 and 128:
Rho = -0.584 p < 0.0001 0 20 40 60
Page 129 and 130:
Rho = 0.875 p < 0.0001 0 500 1000 1
Page 131 and 132:
I 0 1 Stations lacking any signific
Page 133 and 134:
0 Stations lacking any significant
Page 135 and 136:
Table 1. Central Puget Sound sampli
Page 137 and 138:
Table 2. Continued. Oxychlordane To
Page 139 and 140:
Table 3. Chemistry Parameters: Labo
Page 141 and 142:
Table 5. Benthic infaunal indices c
Page 143 and 144:
Table 6. Continued. Stratum Locatio
Page 145 and 146:
Table 6. Continued. Stratum Locatio
Page 147 and 148:
Table 7. Continued. 100% pore water
Page 149 and 150:
Table 7. Continued. 100% pore water
Page 151 and 152:
Table 8. Results of MicrotoxTM test
Page 153 and 154:
Table 8. Continued. ~icrotox~~ EC50
Page 155 and 156:
Table 8. Continued. Microtox"" EC50
Page 157 and 158:
Table 10. Spearman-rank correlation
Page 159 and 160:
Table 12. Samples from 1998 central
Page 161 and 162:
Table 13. Samples from 1998 central
Page 163 and 164:
Table 13. Continued. Stratum, Sampl
Page 165 and 166:
Table 14. Number of 1998 central Pu
Page 167 and 168:
Table 14. Continued. - > ERMa > sQs
Page 169 and 170:
Table 14. Continued. > E RM~ - > SQ
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Table 22. Total abundance, major ta
Page 179 and 180:
Table 22. Continued. Annelida Arthr
Page 181 and 182:
Table 22. Continued. Annelida Arthr
Page 183 and 184:
Table 23. Continued. Central Basin
Page 185 and 186:
Table 23. Continued. Stratum Sample
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
if; c if; c Page 167
Page 191 and 192:
Page 169
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 176
Page 200 and 201:
Page 178
Page 202 and 203:
Page 180
Page 204 and 205:
Page 182
Page 206 and 207:
Page 184
Page 208 and 209:
is-
Page 211 and 212:
Page 189
Page 213 and 214:
Page 191
Page 215 and 216:
Table 35. Distribution of results i
Page 217 and 218:
Table 37. Spatial extent of toxicit
Page 219 and 220:
Table 39. Spatial extent of toxicit
Page 221:
Appendix A Detected chemicals from
Page 224 and 225:
Appendix A. Continued. SQS Chemical
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 206
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 2 10
Page 234 and 235:
Page 2 12
Page 236 and 237:
Page 2 14
Page 238 and 239:
Page 216
Page 240 and 241:
Appendix B. Continued. Stratum Samp
Page 242 and 243:
Page 220
Page 244 and 245:
Page 222
Page 246 and 247:
Page 224
Page 248 and 249:
Page 226
Page 250 and 251:
Appendix C. Continued. Tenip- Salin
Page 252 and 253:
Page 230
Page 254 and 255:
Page 232
Page 256 and 257:
Appendix D. Table 1. Continued. % %
Page 258 and 259:
Appendix D. Table 1. Continued. 22
Page 260 and 261:
Appendix D. Table 2. Total organic
Page 262 and 263:
Appendix D. Table 2. Continued. Str
Page 264 and 265:
Page 242
Page 266 and 267:
Page 244
Page 268 and 269:
Page 246
Page 270 and 271:
Page 248
Page 272 and 273:
Appendix D, Figure 1. continued. St
Page 274 and 275:
Appendix D, Figure 1. continued. St
Page 276 and 277:
Page 254
Page 279 and 280:
Appendix E. 1998 Central Puget Soun
Page 281 and 282:
Appendix E. Continued. Phylum Class
Page 283 and 284: Appendix E. Continued. Phylum Class
Page 297 and 298: Appendix F Percent taxa abundance f
Page 299 and 300: Appendix F. Percent taxa abundance
Page 301 and 302: Page 279
Page 303 and 304: 2 Â¥^ 2 ca so a * .0 cn 00 a 5 I
Page 305 and 306: Appendix G Infaunal taxa eliminated
Page 307 and 308: Aooendix R. Infaunal taxa eliminate
Page 309: Appendix H Triad data - Results of
Page 314 and 315: Page 292 nine
Page 324 and 325: nine OJllIO,) JO % Sl! [L'A!AJIls p
Page 328 and 329: atuni. Sample, Location umber of ER
Page 332 and 333: Page 3 10
Page 336 and 337: a~i11*31~!~3! [OJ1UO,) JO % Sl! J31
Page 343 and 344: Appendix I. Ranges in detected chem
Page 345 and 346: Appendix I. Continued. 9(H)Carbazol
Page 347 and 348: Appendix I. Continued. Mercury Nick
Page 351: Appendix J SEDQUAL surveys for the
Page 354 and 355: Appendix J. Continued. Agency Name
Page 364 and 365: Appendix K. Continued. Chrysene Dib
show all

Sediment Quality in Puget Sound Year 2 - Center for Coastal ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?