2015 TOXICITY TESTING OF BALTIMORE HARBOR SEDIMENTS

Transcription

1 2015 TOXICITY TESTING OF BALTIMORE HARBOR SEDIMENTS Prepared for: Paul Smail & Dr. Beth McGee Chesapeake Bay Foundation 6 Herndon Avenue Annapolis, MD Phone Prepared by: Lance Yonkos and Sharon Hartzell University of Maryland College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Environmental Science & Technology College Park, MD November 30,

2 Executive Summary In satisfaction of a request from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), the Aquatic Toxicology Facility (ATF) of the Environmental Science & Technology Department (ENST) at the University of Maryland, College Park, MD performed sediment toxicity tests on twenty-two surface-sediment samples collected from locations in Bear Creek proximate to Sparrows Point, Baltimore Harbor (Figure 1). Sediment toxicity was investigated using the estuarine amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus 10-day sediment toxicity assay [ASTM, 1992]. Sediments and surface water samples were also collected for analysis of metal and organic contaminants. Analysis of metals within sediments was performed at the University of Maryland - Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (CBL), Solomons, MD by Dr. Andrew Heyes. A sub-set of ten sediment samples was analyzed for PAHs, PCBs, total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH), and dioxins/furans by Dr. Terry Wade at the Texas A&M Geochemical & Environmental Research Group (GERG), College Station, TX. Porewater from sediments was also analyzed for PAHs at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), Gloucester Point, VA by Dr. Michael Unger. Sediment collections occurred June 3 11, 2015 and bioassays were performed June 9 July 3, Sediment samples were homogenized, then split with one portion retained for toxicity testing and a second sent for chemical analysis. Twenty-one of twenty-two sample sites demonstrated statistically significant toxicity with six producing 90% to 100% mortality in test organisms compared to a control sediment which had 98% and 99% survival. Toxicity of surface-sediments increased with proximity to the Sparrows Point industrial site and particularly the region of discharge of Tin Mill Canal. Sediments from this region produced 99% 100% lethality during 10-d sediment assays. Moving from this region toxicity generally diminished with distance to the north, west and south. The northern margin of statistically significant surface-sediment toxicity appears to be at or above Grey s Landfill. The southern margin remains undefined but is certainly beyond the shipyard. While toxicity generally decreased along east-to-west transects, all transects below the Interstate 695 Bridge remained significantly impacted across the width of the depositional zone. It is important to remember that sediment assays were performed on surface sediments collected to a depth of approximately 2 cm. Therefore results provide no information on legacy contaminant concentrations and associated toxicity within sediments at greater depths. 1

3 Sediments from all twenty-two stations exceeded probable effects concentrations (PECs; i.e., above which harmful effects are likely to be observed [MacDonald et al. 2000]) and effect range median (ER M; i.e., environmental level associated with 50% occurrence of measurable effect) concentrations for chromium (Cr) and nickel (Ni), by as much as 28-fold and 5-fold, respectively. Most stations also exceeded PEC/ER M levels for zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), arsenic (As), and lead (Pb) as well. Of the ten stations analyzed for organic contaminants only C1, C3 and D1 (among the most toxic and closest to Tin Mill Canal) exceeded PEC and/or ER-M levels for total PAHs. All stations, however, exceeded individual PEC/ER M levels for anthracene and naphthalene (by as much as 12-fold) and most exceeded PEC/ER M levels for chrysene, fluorene, and pyrene as well. Sediments from all stations also had TPH in excess of the proposed 3,600 μg/g screeninglevel sediment quality standard (SL-SQS) for protection of benthic organisms (C1, closest to the discharge of Tin Mill Canal exceeded the TPH SL-SQS by more than 15-fold) [Inouye 2014] Likewise, sediments from most stations exceeded PEC and/or ER M for total PCBs as well. As with toxicity, concentrations of all organic contaminants and several metals (Cr and Ni) were highest in close proximity to the discharge of Tin Mill Canal and diminished as distance increased from this region. Toxicity showed statistically significant positive correlations with all three categories of organic contaminants, PAHs, PCBs, and TPH. Similarly, concentrations of the three categories of organic contaminants correlated with one-another, and with Cr, Cu, and Ni. Not surprisingly, toxicity largely correlated with measured concentrations of various metal and organic contaminants generally accepted as originating from Sparrows Point-related industrial activities [Ashley and Baker, 1999; EA Engineering, 2011]. 2

4 Introduction Chemical Analysis and Toxicity Testing in Bear Creek Baltimore and vicinity has, for most of the past two centuries, been intensely industrialized such that Baltimore Harbor and the Patapsco River remain among the most contaminated areas of the Chesapeake Bay and of the United States [Hartwell and Hameedi, 2007]. Numerous studies have investigated metal and/or organic contaminants within regional sediments, porewater and surface water with results consistently indicating Bear Creek to be among the most contaminated and toxic in the Patapsco River / Baltimore Harbor system [Ashley and Baker 1999; Mason et al 2004; Hartwell and Hameedi 2007; Graham et al 2009; Shen et al 2012]. Likewise, intermittent investigations have been performed over the past several decades into sediment toxicity in industrial regions of Baltimore Harbor [McGee et al 1999; Fisher et al 2004; Yonkos et al 2012]. Most of these studies examined only one or several locations in proximity to Sparrows Point within Bear Creek with subsequent studies often returning to previously sampled stations to investigate changes in toxicity over time [Klosterhaus and Baker 2006; Fisher et al 2004]. While these studies collectively suggest some improvement in the toxicity of surface sediments (i.e., depth 2 cm) at locations reasonably distant from Sparrows Point, no significant improvements to the most toxic locations nearer to industrial outfalls (e.g., Tin Mill Canal and the Shipyard) are indicated. It is therefore difficult to make any conclusive statement concerning improvements in sediment toxicity within Bear Creek especially given that so few sample locations have actually been investigated over time. Moreover, no systematic investigations have been performed into the persistence of legacy contaminants at depth below the surface sediments. Improvements (assuming they have occurred) may only reflect a modest deposition of comparatively clean sediments above recalcitrant contaminants below. More recently, EA Engineering, Inc performed initial (2014) and follow-up (2015) investigations of contaminants in Bear Creek sediments in proximity to the Sparrows Point industrial site [EA Engineering 2015]. During the first round of the investigation near-surface sediments (depth 15 cm) were collected from 20 locations along eight transects oriented perpendicular to the shoreline. Locations were chosen to provide spatial coverage of near-shore areas from Grey s Landfill to the discharge of Tin Mill Canal (Figure 2). All sample locations were 250 meters from shore and approximately half were from shallow, sandy, non-depositional areas (Figure 2 - region east of the yellow line). A subset of ten of these samples were split for sediment toxicity testing by the ATF 3

5 in complement to chemical analysis. Results from this study demonstrated that toxicity and contaminant burdens were highest at locations with fine rather than course sediments (Figure 3). Consequently, for most transects, toxicity and contaminant concentrations were actually higher at locations further from shore compared to near-shore sandy counterparts, not surprising given that fine sediments tend to have higher contaminant concentrations than coarse sediments. Objective The current study was designed to help address existing knowledge gaps concerning sediment contamination within Bear Creek by investigating the spatial extent of toxicity proximate to the Sparrows Point industrial site. Sample locations were arrayed in approximately perpendicular transects across the width of the depositional regions of Bear Creek from the Shipyard at the south to Grey s Landfill at the north (Figure 4). Several sample locations were situated within western shore inlets near residential and recreational areas. Sampling was intentionally limited to fine-grained depositional areas as these are well understood to be the primary regions of contaminant sorption, persistence and accumulation [Hartwell and Hameedi, 2007; Yonkos et al 2012]. 4

6 Figure 1. Bear Creek situated between the residential neighborhood of Dundalk and the Sparrows Point Industrial site; red box indicates area of investigation; green star indicates in-system reference site. 5

7 Figure 2. Locations sampled within Bear Creek, October 13 14, 2014 for chemical analysis as part of the the EA Engineering, Inc. Round 1 investigation of near-shore sediment contaminantion [EA Engineering 2014]. 6

8 Figure 3. Split-samples collected October 13 14, 2014 by EA Engineering, Inc., and tested by the University of Maryland Aquatic Toxicology Facility (ATF) for sediment toxicity. Percent survival of amphipods (Leptocheirus plumulosus) at the end of the 10-day sediment test are included. The yellow line indicates the approximate transition from course sandy sediment to the depositional region comprised of fine-grained silt. Within sandy sediments only minimal toxicity was indicated while the depositional region (west of the yellow line) revealed a north south toxicity gradient. 7

9 Methods Sample Collection and Handling Sediments were collected for toxicity testing and chemical analysis from twenty-two sample stations with the Bear Creek area of investigation (Figure 1 red rectangle) proximate to Sparrows Point on June 3 11, An in-system reference sample was also collected on June 4, 2015 at a site within Bear Creek but several kilometers distant from Sparrows Point and historically nontoxic (Figure 1 green star). A negative control sediment (out-of-system) was collected from Bigwood Cove, a small tributary to the Wye River, MD by Ponar grab sampler on May 26, Locations from which sediments were obtained for toxicity testing and chemical analysis were designated: A1, A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, C3, C4, D1, D2, D3, E1, E2, E3, F1, F2, G1, G2, G3, H1, and H2 (Figure 4). Sediments were collected and stored for toxicity tests and chemical analysis following ASTM and USEPA protocols (ASTM, 1994; USEPA, 1995). Briefly, sediment samples were collected by boat using a full-size Ponar grab sampler and boat-mounted davit (Figure 5). The top 2 cm of multiple grab samples were homogenized to generate sufficient material for toxicity testing and for chemical analysis. Sub-samples for sediment toxicity testing were apportioned from each composite sample directly into pre-cleaned 2.5 L HDPE containers, held on ice while in the field, and subsequently refrigerated at 4 C until processed for sediment tests. Sub-samples of each sediment were apportioned on site into one 250-mL certified-clean amber glass jar for metals analysis (all locations), one 250-mL certified-clean amber glass jars for analysis of organic contaminants (10 of 22 locations), and one 1.0 L pre-cleaned mason-type jars for porewater analysis (all locations). All samples were maintained on ice immediately following field collection and during transport. On return to ATF, amber jars for analysis of organic contaminants were frozen and shipped priority overnight on dry ice to GERG, and amber jars for analysis of metal contaminants were refrigerated at 4 C and delivered on ice to CBL. Sediments from mason jars were centrifuged (15,000g 20 min), porewater decanted and frozen in certified-clean 125 ml amber glass jars and delivered to VIMS for PAH analysis. Sediment Toxicity Bioassays Toxicity of collected sediments was investigated using methods described in the Standard Guide for Conducting 10-day Static Sediment Toxicity Tests with Marine and Estuarine Amphipods 8

10 [ASTM, 1992]. The test species was the estuarine amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus. Organisms were purchased from Chesapeake Cultures, Hayes, VA and shipped priority overnight for use in assays on arrival. Two rounds of toxicity bioassays were performed. The first 10-day exposure started on June 9, 2015, and the second started on June 23, Both tests used L. plumulosus that were 2 4 mm in length (i.e., passed through a 710 μm screen but retained on a 500 μm screen). Prior to introducing organisms, Bear Creek and reference sediments were sieved through a 500 m mesh screen to remove debris, resident amphipods, competitors, and predators. For each sediment sample five replicate 1 L glass beakers were loaded with 175 ml aliquots of sieved sediment using a stainless steel spoon. Dechlorinated aerated temperature (24 C) and salinity (15 ) adjusted municipal water was added to test chambers bringing the final volume to 1 L. Overlying water was introduced by pouring slowly over a baffle to minimize sediment suspension. Immediately prior to test initiation overlying water was siphoned from chambers and renewed. Test chambers were maintained static with gentle aeration using 1 ml glass pipettes at a rate of approximately 5 bubbles/second. Tests were conducted in a temperature-controlled water bath maintained at 23 ± 1 C and under 24 hr fluorescent lighting. General water chemistry (DO, ph, and temperature) was performed on all replicate chambers prior to introducing organisms (Day-0) and prior to test conclusion (Day-9), with ammonia and salinity measured on one replicate per site. On all other test days water chemistry analysis (DO, ph, temperature, ammonia and salinity) was performed on one replicate per sediment site. Porewater ammonia was also measured prior to beginning the tests. Porewater was extracted from sediment samples by placing bulk sediments into duplicate 50 ml conical-bottom HDPE tubes and centrifuging at 3,500 rpm for 15 minutes. Separated porewater was decanted from compacted sediment into glass beakers and NH3 analyzed immediately using a Smart3 Colorimeter (LaMotte Company, Chestertown, MD). Toxicity tests were initiated by loading 20 L. plumulosus into each test chamber on Day-0. Amphipods were unfed for the duration of the exposure. Observations of test chambers were made daily. At the conclusion of the 10-day exposure overlying water and sediments from test beakers was rinsed through a 500 μm sieve to collect and count surviving organisms. Test acceptability criteria for the 10-day Static Sediment Toxicity Tests required 90% survival of organisms in the control treatment. 9

11 Chemical Analyses Mechanisms of transport of persistent contaminants to adjacent sediments via groundwater migration, surface runoff, and atmospheric deposition are well described [Ashley and Baker, 1999; EA Engineering, 2011]. Therefore, sediments and surface waters were analyzed for a suite of contaminants previously associated with steel manufacturing, ship building and related industrial activities on the Sparrows Point Peninsula [Ashley and Baker, 1999; EA Engineering, 2011]. Toxic metals (particularly Zn, Cr, Ni, and Cu) are common environmental contaminants of steel manufacture either released as fine particles during smelting or leached from slags discarded on site [Harber and Forth, 2001]. Formation and release of PAHs result from the pyrolysis of coal during steel production as well as leaching from coal piles near the shoreline [Ashley and Baker, 1999]. Steel manufacturing on Sparrows Point has long been recognized as a discharge source of oil & grease and other industrial lubricants to surrounding waters and sediments [Wheeler, 1991]. Concentrations of metals including zinc (Zn), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), and lead (Pb) were determined by ICP-MS for all twenty-two Bear Creek sediment samples. Metals analyses were performed at the University of Maryland - Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (CBL) under the supervisor of Dr. Andrew Hayes (sample preparation and analytical methods available on request). Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH), as well as suites of total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were determined by GC-MS in a subset of ten sediment samples (C1, C3, D1, D2, E1, E2, F1, G1, G2, and H1). Analyses of organic contaminants in sediment and surface water samples were conducted by the Texas A&M Geochemical & Environmental Research Group (GERG), College Station, TX under the supervision of Dr. Terry Wade and using appropriate handling and chain of custody procedures (sample preparation and analytical methods available on request). Concentrations of PAHs were also determined in sediment porewater using a novel antibody-based biosensor. Whole sediments were centrifuged (15,000g 20 min) and porewater collected, frozen and transported to the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) for PAH analysis under the supervisor of Dr. Michael Unger (sample preparation and analytical methods available on request). The antibody based PAH biosensor cross-reacts with all 3 5 ring PAH species (unsubstituted as well as alkylated homologs) so creates a combined concentration estimate of bioavailable PAHs 10

12 [Spier et al 2011]. Therefore, results of the biosensor reflect a much larger variety of PAHs than the conventional suite typically measured by GC-MS and summed in calculation of total PAHs. Statistical Analysis The only toxicological endpoint for the L plumulosus sediment test was survival. Statistical analysis of proportional survival data was performed following arcsine square root transformation by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Holm-Sidak multiple-comparison of treatment means with the control mean. ANOVA comparisons and basic statistics were performed using StatPLUS software ( Post-hoc analyses and tests of normality and homogeneity of variance were performed using SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Significance was set at probability level of P Strength of linear correlations between observed toxicity and various measured contaminant concentrations was investigated by Pearson Product Moment Correlation (PPMC) analysis using SigmaPlot Version 12.0 (Systat Software, Inc., San Jose CA). Variable pairs with positive correlation coefficients and P values 0.05 tend to increase together. Results and Discussion Sediment Toxicity Tests Water quality parameters measured in test beakers were within acceptable limits during both 10-d static exposure intervals (water quality data available on request). Survival of L. plumulosus was 98% in the Wye River control treatment for the first test series and 99% for the second, easily satisfying the minimum test acceptability criteria of 90%. The in-system reference site (BC34) had survival of 90% for the first test series and 98% for the second. Survival after 10 days in twenty-one of twenty-two Bear Creek samples was significantly reduced compared to the control (Tables 1 & 2). Survival in sediments from six of the sample locations closest to the discharge from Tin Mill Canal (C1, C2, D1, D2, D3, and E1) was < 10%, considered extremely toxic. Survival in sediments from eight of the remaining sixteen sites (A1, A1, B1, B2, C3, C4, E2, and F1) was between 10% and 50%, considered highly toxic. Of the remaining eight stations, one of 11

13 the most distant from the Tin Mill Canal discharge (G3 with 91% survival) was the only station not found to be statistically significantly reduced compared to the control. Survival for the others seven ranged from 83% down to 49%, considered moderate to marked toxicity (see APPENDIX A for ANOVA and Holm-Sidak multiple-comparison results). Toxicity of surface-sediments corresponded with proximity to the Sparrows Point industrial site and particularly the region of discharge of Tin Mill Canal (Figure 4). Sediments immediately adjacent to the canal discharge (i.e., C1 and D1) produced 99% 100% lethality during 10-d sediment assays. From this region toxicity generally diminished with distance to the north, west and south. The northern margin of statistically significant surface-sediment toxicity appears to be at or above Grey s Landfill. The southern margin remains undefined but is certainly beyond the shipyard. While toxicity generally decreased along east-to-west transects, all transects below the Interstate 695 Bridge remained significantly impacted across the width of the depositional zone (Figure 4). It is important to remember that sediment assays were performed on surface sediments collected to a depth of approximately 2 cm. Therefore results provide no information on concentrations of legacy contaminant and associated toxicity of sediments at greater depths. This also limits comparison to previous data sets like the split samples from the EA Engineering Round 1 study that homogenized near-surface sediments collected to a depth of 15 cm [EA Engineering 2015]. Relation of Contaminant Concentrations to Observed Toxicity Metals Sediments from all twenty-two stations exceeded probable effects concentration (PECs; i.e., above which harmful effects are likely to be observed [MacDonald et al. 2000]) and effect range-median (ER-M; i.e., environmental level associated with 50% occurrence of measurable effect) concentrations for Cr and Ni, by as much as 28-fold and 5-fold, respectively (Table 3; Figure 6.1). Most stations also exceeded PEC / ER-M levels for Zn, Cu, As, and Pb as well. Concentrations of Zn, Cr, Cu, and Ni tended to co-vary in Bear Creek surface sediments, showing statistically significant positive correlations (Table 4). Concentrations of Pb and Cd co-varied with Zn and Cu but not with Cr or Ni, and not with one-another. Arsenic did not generally co-vary with other metals. Of the six metals investigated, only Ni and Cr correlated positively with observed mortality (Table 4). 12

14 Organic Contaminants Of the ten stations analyzed for organic contaminants only C1, C3 and D1 (among the most toxic stations) exceeded the PEC and/or ER-M for total PAH (Table 5; Figure 6B). All stations, however, exceeded individual PEC/ER-M levels for anthracene and naphthalene (by as much as 12-fold) and most exceeded PEC/ER-M levels for chrysene, fluorene, and pyrene as well (Table 6). Sediments from all stations also had TPH in excess of the proposed 3,600 μg/g screening-level sediment quality standard (SL-SQS) for protection of benthic organisms [Inouye 2014]. The station closest to the discharge of Tin Mill Canal (C1) exceeded the TPH SL-SQS by more than 15-fold (Table 5; Figure 6C). Likewise, sediments from most stations exceeded PEC and/or ER M levels for total PCBs as well (Table 6; Figure 6D). As with observed toxicity, organic contaminant concentrations were generally highest in close proximity to the discharge of Tin Mill Canal and diminished as distance increased from this region (Figure 6). Toxicity showed statistically significant positive correlations with all three categories of organic contaminants, PAHs, PCBs, and TPH (Table 7). Similarly, concentrations of the three categories of organic contaminants correlated with one-another, and with Cr, Cu, and Ni. Collectively study results suggest that surface sediments within the depositional regions of Bear Creek south of the Interstate 695 Bridge are significantly impaired, causing profound mortality in sediment toxicity tests and exceeding sediment quality guidelines for a variety of metal and organic contaminants. Gradations of toxicity and of contaminant loads (at least for organic contaminants and several metals) indicate the point of origin being in proximity to the discharge of Tin Mill Canal. Again, results only reflect analyses and toxicity assays using surface sediments so provide no information on legacy contaminants in more deeply bedded material. 13

15 H2 17% H1 24% G3 9% G2 33% G1 31% F2-46% F1-72% E2-58% E1-92% C4-55% D3-95% E3-33% D2-98% D1-100% C1-99% C2-91% C3-71% B2-51% B1-87% A2-39% A1-70% A1-58% Figure 4. Stations sampled within Bear Creek, June 3-4 and 11, 2015 and percent amphipod mortality of at the end of the 10-day Leptocheirus plumulosus sediment tests. 14

16 Figure 5. Full size Ponar grab sampler and boat-mounted davit. 15

17 Table 1. Survival of Leptocheirus plumulosus in the first set of 10-day sediment toxicity tests (June 9 July 20, 2015) and statistical significance of results. Station Replicate Statistical Total A B C D E results CONTROL NO A * <0.001 E <0.001 E <0.001 E <0.001 F <0.001 F <0.001 G <0.001 G <0.001 G NO H H *One of five replicates was lost during take-down of the toxicity test Table 2. Survival of Leptocheirus plumulosus in the second set of 10-day sediment toxicity tests (June 23 July 3, 2015) and statistical significance of results. Station Replicate Statistical Total A B C D E results CONTROL NO B <0.001 B <0.001 C <0.001 C <0.001 C <0.001 C <0.001 D <0.001 D <0.001 D <0.001 A <0.001 A <

18 Table 3. Concentrations of select metals measured by ICP-MS in Bear Creek sediments along with sediment quality guidelines; ERL: effect range-low; ERM: effect range-median; PEC: consensus-based probable effect concentration above which harmful effects are likely to be observed [MacDonald et al. 2000]. All values exceed ER-L; bold values exceed PEC; italicized values exceed ER-M. Station Metal conc. (μg/g) Mortality Zn Cr Cu Ni Pb As Cd (%) H H G G G F F E E E D D D C C C C B B A A A ER L ER M PEC

19 Table 4. Pearson Product Moment Correlation analysis between mortality and concentrations of metals measured in whole sediment by ICP-MS. Bold values indicate a statistically significant positive correlation between contaminant concentration and mortality (arcsine square root transformed proportional data). Italicized values indicate a statistically significant positive correlation between concentrations of pairs of metals. Zn Cr Cu Ni Pb As Cd Mortality Zn Cr Cu Ni Pb As Cell contents: Correlation Coefficient (top) and P Value (bottom); pair(s) of variables with positive correlation coefficients and P values below tend to increase together; for pairs with negative correlation coefficients and P values below 0.050, one variable tends to decrease while the other increases; for pairs with P values greater than 0.050, there is no significant relationship between the two variables. 18

20 Figure 6.1. Measured concentrations of zinc (Zn) and chromium (Cr) in surface sediments tested for sediment toxicity. Concentrations of these metals exceeded predicted effect concentration (PEC) levels (second to smallest dot) at all stwenty-two sample stations. Figure 6.2. Measured concentrations copper (Cu) and nickel (Ni) in surface sediments tested for sediment toxicity. Concentrations of these metals often exceeded predicted effect concentration (PEC) levels (second to smallest dot). 19

21 PEC: 33.0 μg/g PEC: 5.0 μg/g Figure 6.3. Measured concentrations of arsenic (As) and cadmium (Cd) in surface sediments tested for sediment toxicity. Concentrations of these metals often exceeded predicted effect concentration (PEC) levels (second to smallest dot). 20

22 Table 5. Concentrations (μg/g) of total PAHs (ΣPAH), total PCBs (ΣPCB) and total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) in Bear Creek sediments along with sediment quality guidelines (SQG; where available); ERL: effect range-low; ERM: effect range-median; PEC: consensus-based probable effect concentration above which harmful effects are likely to be observed [MacDonald et al. 2000]; SL-SQS: proposed screening level sediment quality standard for the protection of benthic organisms [Inouye 2014]; Bold values exceed ΣPAH and ΣPCB PEC and/or ER-M levels; italicized values exceed the proposed SL-SQS for TPH. Station ΣPAH ΣPCB TPH H G G F E E D D C C SQG ER L ER M PEC SL-SQS

23 Table 6. Concentrations (ng/g) of PAH analytes in Bear Creek sediments along with sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) for individual analytes (where available) and total PAHs (ΣPAH); ERL: effect range-low; ERM: effect range-median; PEC: consensusbased probable effect concentration above which harmful effects are likely to be observed [MacDonald et al. 2000]. All values exceed ER-L; bold values exceed PEC; italicized values exceed ER-M. PAH Compound H1 G1 G2 F1 E1 E2 D1 D2 C1 C3 ER-L ER-M PEC Naphthalene* Biphenyl Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene Fluorene* Phenanthrene Anthracene* Dibenzothiophene* Fluoranthene Pyrene* Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene* Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(e)pyrene Benzo(a)pyrene Perylene Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ΣPAH * Value represents the sum of unsubstituted compounds and alkylated homologs (see APPENDIX D for complete PAH analytical results from GERG). SQG 22

24 Table 7. Pearson Product Moment Correlation between mortality and concentrations of organic contaminants measured in whole sediments by GC-MS. Bold values indicate statistically significant positive correlations between contaminant concentrations and mortality (arcsine square root transformed proportional data). Italicized values indicate statistically significant positive correlations between concentrations of various contaminant categories. ΣPAH ΣPCB TPH Zn Cr Cu Ni Mortality ΣPAH ΣPCB TPH Zn Cr Cu Cell contents: Correlation Coefficient (top) and P Value (bottom); pair(s) of variables with positive correlation coefficients and P values below tend to increase together; for pairs with negative correlation coefficients and P values below 0.050, one variable tends to decrease while the other increases; for pairs with P values greater than 0.050, there is no significant relationship between the two variables. 23

25 A B PEC: 22.8 μg/g C D SL-SQS: 3600 μg/g PEC: 0.68 μg/g Figure 6. Measured concentrations of total PAHs in sediment porewater (A), and total PAHs (B), total petroleum hydrocarbons - TPH (C), and total PCBs (D) in a subset of ten sediment samples; PEC (consensus-based probable effect concentration above which harmful effects are likely to be observed [MacDonald et al. 2000]) and SL-SQS(proposed screening level sediment quality standard for the protection of benthic organisms [Inouye 2014]) provided for reference. 24

26 References Ashley JTF and JE Baker Hydrophobic organic contaminants in surficial sediments of Baltimore Harbor: Inventories and sources. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18: ASTM Standard guide for conducting 10-day static sediment toxicity tests with marine and estuarine amphipods. ASTM Designation E ASTM Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol Amer. Soc. Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA ASTM Standard guide for collection, storage, characterization and manipulation of sediments for toxicological testing. ASTM Designation E ASTM Annual Book of Standards Vol Amer. Soc. Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA. Clarke JU Guidelines for statistical treatment of less than detection limit data in dredged sediment evaluations. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. EEDP EA Engineering Risk assessment of offshore areas adjacent to the proposed Coke Point dredged material containment facility at Sparrows Point. May 23, EA Engineering Technical Memorandum: Round 1 Sediment Investigation and Plan for Round 2 Investigation Sparrows Point Phase I area. January 14, Final%20Sparrows%20Point%20Round%201%20Sampling%20Memo.pdf Exponent Health-Based Evaluation of Environmental Data from Sparrows Point Site. [Technical Memorandum]. October, Fisher DJ, GP Ziegler and LT Yonkos Chronic Toxicity of Sediments from the Baltimore Inner Harbor and Bear Creek to Leptocheirus plumulosus. Final Report to the Maryland Department of the Environment. Rep. No. WREC University of Maryland, Wye Research and Education Center, Queenstown, MD. 13 pp. Graham AM, AR Wadhawan and EJ Bouwer Chromium Occurrence and Speciation in Baltimore Harbor Sediments and Porewater. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 28: Harber AJ and RA Forth The contamination of former iron and steel works sites Environmental Geology, 40: Hartwell SI and J Hameedi Magnitude and Extent of Contaminated Sediment and Toxicity in Chesapeake Bay. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS pp. Independent Technical Review Team Sediment in Baltimore Harbor: Quality and suitability for innovative reuse. An independent technical review. J.G. Kramer, J. Smits, and K.G. Sellner (Eds.). Maryland Sea Grant Publication UM-SG-TS CRC Publ. No

27 Inouye L Public Review Draft April 17, 2014 DMMP Issue Paper: Implementation of Revised Freshwater Sediment Screening Values. Washington Department of Ecology, for the DMMP and RSET agencies Klosterhaus S and J Baker Toxicity Identification and Long-Term Contaminant Trends in the Baltimore Harbor Final Report (DRAFT). University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Submitted to Technical & Regulatory Services, Maryland Department of the Environment. Obtained via personal correspondence with the Wye Research and Education Center. MacDonald DD, CG Ingersoll, and T Berger Development and evaluation of consensusbased sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39: Mason RP, E Kim and J Cornwell Metal Accumulation in Baltimore Harbor: current and past inputs. Applied Geochemistry, 19: McGee BL, DJ Fisher, LT Yonkos, GP Ziegler and SD Turley Assessment of sediment contamination, acute toxicity, and population viability of the estuarine amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus in Baltimore Harbor, Maryland, USA. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 18: Neff JM, AS Stout and DG Gunster Ecological Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Sediments: Identifying Sources and Ecological Hazard. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 1: Shen J, B Hong, L Schugam, Y Zhao Y and J White Modeling of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the Baltimore Harbor. Ecological Modelling 242: Spier CR, GG Vadas, SL Kaattari and MA Unger Near Real-time, On-site, Quantitative Analysis of PAHs in the Aqueous Environment Using an Antibody-based Biosensor. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 30: USEPA QA/QC guidance for sampling and analysis of sediments, water and tissues for dredged material evaluations. EPA 823-B U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. USEPA Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) estuaries, : summary report: environmental conditions in the mid-atlantic estuaries. EPA/620/R-02/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI. Wheeler T Bethlehem Steel pays $43,000 for pollution: Amount atones for discharges into bay. Baltimore Sun. March 18, Yonkos LT, GP Ziegler and EA Friedel Toxicity Testing of Baltimore Harbor Sediments. Report # WREC Final Report to Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Annapolis MD. 14 pp. 26

28 APPENDIX A: Statistical Analysis via ANOVA of Survival Data Toxicity Test 1 One Way Analysis of Variance - June 9 19, 2015 Normality Test (Shapiro-Wilk) Passed (P = ) Equal Variance Test: Passed (P = ) Group Name N Missing Mean Std Dev SEM CONTROL A E E E F F G G G H H Source of Variation DF SS MS F P Between Groups <0.001 Within Groups Total The differences in the mean values among the treatment groups are greater than would be expected by chance; there is a statistically significant difference (P = <0.001). Alpha= Multiple Comparisons versus Control Group (Holm-Sidak method): Overall significance level = 0.05 Comparisons for factor: Comparison Diff of Means t P P<0.050 CONTROL vs No CONTROL vs. A < Yes CONTROL vs. E < Yes CONTROL vs. E < Yes CONTROL vs. E < Yes CONTROL vs. F < Yes CONTROL vs. F < Yes CONTROL vs. G < Yes CONTROL vs. G < Yes CONTROL vs. G No CONTROL vs. H Yes CONTROL vs. H Yes 27

29 APPENDIX A: Statistical Analysis via ANOVA of Survival Data (cont.) Toxicity Test 2 One Way Analysis of Variance - June 23 July 3, 2015 Normality Test (Shapiro-Wilk) Failed (P<0.0001) Equal Variance Test: Not computed *Despite several transformation attempts, data failed the test for normality given its skew towards 0 values. By removing sites 34, D1, D2, D3 and C1, a normal distribution was obtained; however, the post-hoc test p values for remaining sites were not altered from the initial ANOVA test on the non-normal data. Results are reported from ANOVA on the non-normal data set. Group Name N Missing Mean Std Dev SEM CONTROL B B C C C C D D D A A Source of Variation DF SS MS F P Between Groups * <0.001 Within Groups Total *20.70 with values excluded to ensure normal distribution The differences in the mean values among the treatment groups are greater than would be expected by chance; there is a statistically significant difference (P = <0.001). Alpha= Multiple Comparisons versus Control Group (Holm-Sidak method): Overall significance level =

30 Comparisons for factor: Comparison Diff of Means t P P<0.050 CONTROL vs No CONTROL vs. B < Yes CONTROL vs. B < Yes CONTROL vs. C < Yes CONTROL vs. C < Yes CONTROL vs. C < Yes CONTROL vs. C < Yes CONTROL vs. D < Yes CONTROL vs. D < Yes CONTROL vs. D < Yes CONTROL vs. A < Yes CONTROL vs. A < Yes 29

31 APPENDIX B: Complete results of PAH analysis (reporting unit ng/g) by Texas A&M Geochemical & Environmental Research Group (GERG), College Station, TX. PAH Compounds H1 G1 G2 F1 E1 E2 D1 D2 C1 C3 Naphthalene C1-Naphthalenes C2-Naphthalenes C3-Naphthalenes C4-Naphthalenes Biphenyl Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene Fluorene C1-Fluorenes C2-Fluorenes C3-Fluorenes Phenanthrene Anthracene C1-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes Dibenzothiophene C1-Dibenzothiophenes C2-Dibenzothiophenes C3-Dibenzothiophenes Fluoranthene Pyrene C1-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes C2-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes C3-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene C1-Chrysenes C2-Chrysenes C3-Chrysenes C4-Chrysenes ND ND 43.6 ND ND Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(e)pyrene Benzo(a)pyrene Perylene Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Total PAHs

32 APPENDIX C: Complete results of PCB analysis (reporting unit ng/g) by Texas A&M Geochemical & Environmental Research Group (GERG), College Station, TX Analyte H1 G1 G2 F1 E1 E2 D1 D2 C1 C3 Chlorination 1 PCB 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Chlorination 2 PCB 4/10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 7/9 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 8 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 12 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 13 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 14 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 15 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Chlorination 3 PCB 16 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 17 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 18 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 19 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 20/33 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 21 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 22 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 23/34 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 24/27 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 25 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 26 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 28/ PCB 29 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 30 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 32 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 35 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 36 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 37 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 38 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 39 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 31

33 APPENDIX C (cont.): Complete results of PCB analysis (reporting unit ng/g) by Texas A&M Geochemical & Environmental Research Group (GERG), College Station, TX Analyte H1 G1 G2 F1 E1 E2 D1 D2 C1 C3 Chlorination 4 PCB 40 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 41/ ND PCB PCB 43/ PCB PCB 45 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 46 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 47/48/62/65/ PCB PCB 50 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 51 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 53 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 54 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 55 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 56/ ND ND ND ND 8.22 PCB 57 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 58 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB J 4.14 J 3.45 J J J J PCB 61/63 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 64/ J J ND PCB PCB 67 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB J J J ND PCB 69 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB ND ND PCB 73 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 74 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 76 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 77 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 78 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 79 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 80 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 81 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 32

34 APPENDIX C (cont.): Complete results of PCB analysis (reporting unit ng/g) by Texas A&M Geochemical & Environmental Research Group (GERG), College Station, TX Analyte H1 G1 G2 F1 E1 E2 D1 D2 C1 C3 Chlorination 5 PCB 82 ND 3.23 J ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.27 J PCB 83/109 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 84/ J 6.72 ND J ND ND 5.56 PCB J J J J ND ND PCB 86/ J J ND 5.56 ND 4.43 J PCB 87/ PCB 88/ PCB 89 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB J 1.88 J 1.68 J 2.13 J 3.60 J 1.32 J 4.14 J 1.41 J 3.92 J 1.33 J PCB J 2.77 J ND 3.86 J 4.32 J 2.36 J 5.21 ND ND 2.76 J PCB 93/98/102 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 94 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 96 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB PCB 100 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 101/ PCB 104 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB PCB 106 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 107/123 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 108/124 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB ND PCB 112/119 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 114 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB J 5.52 ND J ND ND 4.34 J PCB 116/125 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 117 ND ND ND ND ND 1.91 J ND ND ND 4.03 J PCB ND PCB 120 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 121 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 122 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 126 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 127 ND ND ## J ND ND ND ND 1.03 J ND ND 33

35 APPENDIX C (cont.): Complete results of PCB analysis (reporting unit ng/g) by Texas A&M Geochemical & Environmental Research Group (GERG), College Station, TX Analyte H1 G1 G2 F1 E1 E2 D1 D2 C1 C3 Chlorination 6 PCB 128/ J 4.56 J 3.34 J J ND 4.48 J PCB 129 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB J ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.81 J PCB 131/ J 1.04 J 1.23 J 1.18 J 1.59 J 0.94 J ND 1.28 J ND 1.00 J PCB 132/153/ PCB 133 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 134/143 ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.54 J ND ND ND PCB J 2.09 J 1.64 J 2.97 J 2.49 J 1.72 J 4.57 J 1.63 J 2.06 J 1.51 J PCB J 2.71 J 2.54 J 3.13 J 3.23 J 2.01 J J 2.50 J 2.18 J PCB 137 ND ND ND ND ND 1.16 J ND ND 3.39 J 0.84 J PCB 138/ PCB 139/ PCB 140 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB J 3.12 J 2.09 J 4.66 J J J ND 2.03 J PCB J 0.95 J 0.70 J 1.32 J 1.34 J 0.47 J 2.64 J 0.65 J 1.23 J 0.76 J PCB 145 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 146/ J 3.48 J 2.82 J 3.78 J 3.78 J 3.03 J J ND 2.73 J PCB J 0.90 J ND 1.09 J ND 0.70 J 2.40 J ND ND 0.83 J PCB 148 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB J ND ND 0.21 J ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB J 3.78 J 3.15 J 4.21 J 4.58 J 2.57 J J 3.80 J 3.31 J PCB 152 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB J 0.56 J 0.43 J 0.69 J 0.51 J 0.50 J 0.58 J 0.41 J ND 0.52 J PCB J 1.72 J 1.86 J 2.02 J 1.98 J 1.59 J 1.69 J 1.77 J ND 1.79 J PCB J 2.48 J 2.10 J ND 2.38 J 2.54 J J ND 3.39 J PCB 157 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 159 ND ND ND ND ND ND 3.11 J ND ND ND PCB 160/163/ J J PCB 165 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.10 J ND PCB 166 ND ND ND 1.88 J ND ND ND ND ND 1.26 J PCB 167 ND 1.86 J ND ND ND 1.96 J ND ND ND ND PCB 169 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 34

36 APPENDIX C (cont.): Complete results of PCB analysis (reporting unit ng/g) by Texas A&M Geochemical & Environmental Research Group (GERG), College Station, TX Analyte H1 G1 G2 F1 E1 E2 D1 D2 C1 C3 Chlorination 7 PCB 170/ J ND 3.98 J PCB J 2.90 J 2.82 J 4.40 J 4.56 J 2.33 J J ND 2.97 J PCB 172 ND ND ND 4.73 J ND 1.74 J ND ND ND ND PCB 173 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 174/ PCB J 1.98 J 1.55 J 2.69 J 2.68 J 1.21 J J ND 1.73 J PCB J 1.76 J 1.67 J 2.42 J 2.66 J 1.50 J 3.66 J 1.55 J ND 1.54 J PCB J J J J ND 3.48 J PCB J 2.43 J 2.61 J 2.71 J 3.24 J 1.90 J 4.82 J 2.61 J ND 1.75 J PCB J J J J 3.82 J PCB 180/ PCB 182/ PCB J J J J J PCB J 0.79 J 1.20 J 1.08 J 1.03 J 1.24 J 1.04 J 1.15 J ND 1.03 J PCB J 1.64 J 1.59 J 2.56 J 1.89 J 1.30 J 3.92 J 1.72 J ND 1.16 J PCB 186 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 188 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 189 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 191 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 192 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.60 J Chlorination 8 PCB J 3.09 J 3.47 J 2.99 J 2.96 J 2.85 J J ND 2.87 J PCB 195 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 196/ J 3.97 J 3.95 J 4.56 J 3.44 J 3.19 J J J PCB 197 ND ND 0.61 J 1.17 J 0.47 J ND ND 0.66 J ND ND PCB 199 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 200/ J 0.91 J 0.77 J 0.98 J 0.96 J 0.57 J 1.27 J 0.73 J ND 0.93 J PCB J 2.04 J 1.54 J 2.39 J 3.00 J 1.65 J 2.65 J 1.86 J 1.15 J 1.72 J PCB 204 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.19 J ND PCB 205 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 35

37 APPENDIX C (cont.): Complete results of PCB analysis (reporting unit ng/g) by Texas A&M Geochemical & Environmental Research Group (GERG), College Station, TX Analyte H1 G1 G2 F1 E1 E2 D1 D2 C1 C3 Chlorination 9 PCB J 4.32 J 3.65 J 4.73 J ND 3.07 J J ND 4.96 PCB 207 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCB 208 ND ND ND ND 1.19 J ND 1.20 J ND ND ND ND Chlorination 10 PCB J 4.16 J J 3.80 J 4.46 J 3.53 J 4.90 J 8.45 Total PCBs PCB Homologs by Chlorination Level Chlorination 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Chlorination 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Chlorination J J J J J J J ND J Chlorination Chlorination Chlorination Chlorination J J J Chlorination J J J J J 8.26 J J J 9.39 J Chlorination J 4.32 J 3.65 J 4.73 J 1.19 J 3.07 J 6.16 J 3.66 J ND 4.96 J Chlorination J 4.16 J 4.87 J 4.44 J 3.80 J 4.46 J 3.53 J 4.90 J ND 8.45 J 36

38 APPENDIX D: Comparison between porewater and sediment PAH. Table D1. Concentrations of total PAH in porewater measured at VIMS by the antibody-based PAH biosensor [Spier et al 2011] and in whole sediments measured at GERG by GC-MS. Percent mortality from Leptocheirus plumulosus 10-d sediment tests is included for comparison. Station Porewater PAH Sediment PAH Mortality (μg/l) (μg/g) (%) H H G G G F F E E E D D D C C C C B B A A A Table D2. Pearson Product Moment Correlation between mortality and concentrations of organic contaminants measured in whole sediments Sediment PAH Mortality Porewater PAH Sediment PAH Correlation Coefficient (top) and P Value (bottom); pair(s) of variables with positive correlation coefficients and P values below tend to increase together 37

39 APPENDIX E: Results of previous sediment toxicity investigations. Figure E1. Location of stations sampled within Bear Creek, December 9, 2011 and percent mortality at the end of the 10-day Leptocheirus plumulosus sediment toxicity tests [modified from Yonkos et al 2012]. 38