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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

area were toxic in the MicrotoxTM and cytochrome P450 HRGS assays. The degree of toxicity decreased steadily southward down the Bainbridge basin to Rich Passage, where the sediments 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 or more tests. Fourth, several samples from stations scattered within Sinclair Inlet indicated moderately toxic conditions; toxicity diminished steadily eastward into Rich Passage. Finally, and perhaps, foremost, were the highly toxic responses in the sea urchin, MicrotoxTM, and cytochrome P450 HRGS tests observed in the strata of inner Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River. Toxicity in these tests generally decreased considerably westward into the outer and deeper regions of the bay. Spatial Extent of Toxicity The spatial extent of toxicity was estimated for each of the four tests performed in central Puget Sound 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. The 33 strata were estimated to cover a total of about 732 k m 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 km, or about 0.1 % of the total area. In the sea urchin fertilization tests of loo%, 50%, and 25% pore waters, the spatial extent of toxicity (average fertilization success 4 0% of controls; i.e., highly toxic) was 5.1, 1.5, and 4.2 km" respectively, or 0.7%, 0.2%, and 0.6% of the total area. Usually, in these tests the percentages of samples in which toxic responses are observed decrease steadily as the pore waters are diluted. However, in this case the incidence of toxicity and, therefore, the spatial extent 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 MicrotoxTM tests was 349 km2, representing about 48% of the total area. However, there were no samples in which mean EC50's were less than 0.5 1 mg1L or 0.06 mg/L, the statistically-derived 80% and 90% lower prediction limits of the existing MicrotoxTM database. In the cytochrome P450 HRGS assays, samples in which the responses exceeded 1 1.1 pglg and 37.1 pglg (the 80% and 90% upper prediction limits of the existing database) represented about 237 km%nd 24 km" 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 four different 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 the coefficients are positive or negative. Amphipod survival, urchin fertilization success and microbial bioluminescence improve as sediment quality improves. However, cytochrome P450 HRGS 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 30
variance of the other tests with results of the cytochrome P450 HRGS assays would be indicated with negative signs. The data in Table 10 indicate that the majority of the correlations between toxicity tests were not significant, indicating poor concordance among tests. However, cytochrome P450 HRGS responses increased as percent urchin fertilization decreased and this relationship was highly significant (p
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: to station 15 1, then decreased ste
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:
Figure 10. Results of 1998 Microtox
Page 111 and 112:
Figure 12. Results of 1998 Microtox
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:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
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 312 and 313:
Page 290
Page 314 and 315:
Page 292 nine
Page 316 and 317:
Page 294
Page 318 and 319:
Page 296
Page 320 and 321:
Page 298
Page 322 and 323:
Page 300
Page 324 and 325:
nine OJllIO,) JO % Sl! [L'A!AJIls p
Page 326 and 327:
Page 304
Page 328 and 329:
atuni. Sample, Location umber of ER
Page 330 and 331:
Page 308
Page 332 and 333:
Page 3 10
Page 334 and 335:
Stratum, Sample. Location Number of
Page 336 and 337:
a~i11*31~!~3! [OJ1UO,) JO % Sl! J31
Page 338 and 339:
Page 3 16
Page 340 and 341:
Page 3 18
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 349 and 350:
Page 327
Page 351:
Appendix J SEDQUAL surveys for the
Page 354 and 355:
Appendix J. Continued. Agency Name
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 338
Page 362 and 363:
Page 340
Page 364 and 365:
Appendix K. Continued. Chrysene Dib
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?