NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OR&R 5

 

LCP Chemical Site Monitoring Study

Data Report

Seattle, Washington

August 1998

noaa NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

National Ocean Service
Office of Response and Restoration

National Ocean Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

NOAA is responsible for protecting and restoring marine and coastal environments

impacted by spills and hazardous substance releases. The Office of Response and

Restoration (OR&R) is the focal point for NOAA’s spill preparedness, emergency response,

and restoration programs. OR&R’s Hazardous Materials Response Division and its

contingent of on-scene Scientific Support Coordinators have earned a wide reputation for

delivering scientifically valid solutions to the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (the U.S. Coast

Guard in the coastal zone, or EPA in inland areas).

OR&R’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Division and Damage Assessment Center are

critic al components of NOAA's natural resource trusteeship responsibilities. The CPR

Division works closely with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to redress the

environmental effects of hazardous waste sites across the United States. Coastal Resource

Coordinators provide site-specific technical expertise in ecological risk assessment and

coastal remediation issues. This expertise ranges from physical science to ecology, marine

biology, and oceanography. In their NOAA trusteeship role, CRCs assess the longer-term

risks to coastal resources (including threatened and endangered species) from Superfundsite contamination, support decision-making for site remedies and habitat restoration, and

negotiate protective remedies with the responsible parties to ensure that cleanup,

restoration, and recovery are appropriate and fully monitored.

While theHAZMAT and CPR divisions work to prevent and minimize injury to natural

resources during spill response and waste site remediation activities, the Damage

Assessment Center focuses on addressing the injury that remains after the cleanup or

response. DAC’s Rapid Assessment Program goes on-scene at oil or hazardous materials

releases to assess damages to NOAA trust resources, including National Marine Sanctuaries

and National Estuarine Research Reserves. DAC works with other trustees and NOAA’s

Office of General Counsel in pursuing compensation from responsible parties to restore

injured resources. The compensation DAC receives is designed to benefit the natural

resources injured by the release.

The Regional Programs section actively engages local and regional communities in

integrating sound coastal resource management, oil spill prevention and response, and safe

and efficient marine transportation. Administered collaboratively with the NOS Coastal

Services Center, Regional Projects serves as liaison between NOS scientific and technical

expertise and the needs of the maritime industry, port authorities, coastal resource

managers, and other NOAA clients in the coastal zone. Regional Programs matches specific

coastal-zone conditions and needs with tailored services, tools, and products from across

NOS, including physical oceanographic real-time systems, electronic chart systems, coastal

geographic information systems frameworks, photogrammetry, and digital hydrographic

surveys.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OR&R 5

LCP Chemical Site Monitoring Study

Data Report

Mary Baker Mattaa Garrett Grayc Leo Francendeseb

Sandra Salazarc Jo Linse′

c

Lisa Millc Paul Peronardb

aNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

Office of Response and Restoration

Coastal Protection and Restoration Division

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98155

bEPA Region IV

Waste Management Division

Emergency Response and Removal Branch

61 Forsyth St

Atlanta, GA 30303

cEVS Environment Consultants, Inc.

200 West Mercer Street, Suite 403

Seattle, WA 98119

M

A

O

N

NAL OCE I A C AND AT OSPHERIC ADMINISTR T OI N

I TA NU.S. DEPA EN T T M R

OF COM MERCE

Seattle, Washington

Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary, D. James Baker, Ph.D. Margaret A. Davidson

U.S. Department of Commerce Under Secretary for Acting Assistant

Oceans and Atmosphere Administrator for Ocean

and Administrater, National Services and Coastal Zone

Oceanic and Atmospheric Management, NOAA

Administration National Ocean Service
Office of Response and Restoration

National Ocean Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

Silver Spring, Maryland

NOTICE

This report has been reviewed by the National Ocean Service of the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and approved for publication. Such approval does not signify

that the contents of this report necessarily represent the official position of NOAA or of the

Government of the United States, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products

constitute endorsement or recommendation for their use.
2

Executive Summary

A monitoring study was conducted at the LCP Chemical site in Brunswick, Georgia with

the following objectives:

1) Examine the bioavailability of mercury, methylmercury, lead, and PCBs in

transplanted oysters and in three resident species located near the LCP site relative to

uptake at a reference location. Relationships among concentrations in sediment,

surface water, and tissues will be examined to assess correlations among the matrices.

Bioaccumulation in deployed and resident oysters will be compared to verify that

deployed oysters are appropriate surrogates to evaluate bioavailability at the site.

2) Provide a characterization in order to assess the success of the upcoming removal

action to be taken in the marsh. A trend analysis will likely need to be conducted to

determine if tissue concentrations are decreasing over time to acceptable concentrations.

3) Determine the extent and magnitude of contamination remaining in the marsh after

completion of removal actions in the upland portions of the site. Contamination

gradients from the area previously identified as a major source of contamination will be

examined.

The sampling in this study included the collection of sediment, water, fish (Fundulus

heteroclitus), fiddler crabs (Uca spp.), resident oysters (Crassostrea virginica), and

deployment of caged oysters for chemical analysis at the same stations along a gradient

away from the area of known contamination at the site, and at three stations in tributaries in

the marsh, and at two reference stations for comparison purposes.
3

Conclusions include:

1) Mercury and Aroclor 1268 are bioavailable throughout the site and are present at

elevated concentrations (relative to the reference area) in water, sediment and all three

species of biota tested in this study. Biota concentrations correlate well with water and

sediment concentrations indicating that water and suspended sediments may be a significant

pathway for spreading mercury contamination throughout the site. Caged oysters appear to

be reasonable surrogates for resident oysters.

2) The analysis of contamination in sediment, water, Fundulus, fiddler crab, and oysters

are effective measurements for monitoring contamination at the LCP site. These

measurements should be repeated to document the success of removal actions at reducing

exposure of contaminants to site biota.

3) Considering the former outfall ditch as the primary source of contamination to water,

sediment, and biota can adequately explain the observed patterns of contamination. Based

on differences between creek bottom and creek bank sediment, it appears that methylation

may be occurring at a greater rate on the marsh surface than in creek sediments.
4

Acknowledgements

Assistance in reviewing, preparing, and revising the workplan for this effort was provided

by:

John Brandes

Harvey Hill

Gregory Hogue

Mark Kamilow

Denise Klimas

Greg Masson

Bill Mundy

Steve Newell

Jerry Palmer

Duane Roberson

Curt Rose

Mark Sprenger

Rod Stafford

Lynn Wellman

Alan Yarborough

The assistance of the following people in sampling is gratefully acknowledged:

Jerry Boatright

Tom Dillon

Lisa DiPinto

Katie Gardner

Richard Gregory

Sam Palmer

Gary Rosenthal

Al Taylor

Dean Ullock

Melissa Waters

Access to the reference site was provided with the assistance of Charlie Hunt

Other assistance was provided by:

Rick Dailey

Paula MacLaren

Debi Mason

Sharon Pittman

Curt Rose

Kimberly Stewart

Julie Viveiros

Funding was provided by EPA Region IV and NOAA
5

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION and OBJECTIVES

2.0 METHODS

2.1 Overview

2.2 Sampling Methods

2.2.1 Water Collection

2.2.2 Sediment Collection

2.2.3 Fundulus Collection

2.2.4 Fiddler Crab Collection

2.2.5 Resident Oyster Collection

2.2.6 Caged Oysters

2.3 Chemical Analysis and Quality Assurance

2.4 Data Analysis

2.4.1 Patterns in Contaminant Concentrations

2.4.2 Oyster Survival and Growth

2.4.3 Correlations

2.4.4 Temperature

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Data Quality Review

3.2 Water

3.2.1 Mercury

3.2.2 Aroclor 1268

3.2.3 Lead

3.3 Sediment

3.3.1 Mercury

3.3.2 Aroclor 1268

3.3.3 Lead

3.4 Fish

3.4.1 Mercury

3.4.2 Aroclor 1268

3.4.3 Lead

3.5 Fiddler Crab

3.5.1 Mercury

3.5.2 Aroclor 1268

3.5.3 Lead

3.6 Resident Oysters

3.6.1 Mercury

3.6.2 Aroclor 1268

3.6.3 Lead

3.7 Transplanted Oysters

3.7.1 Mercury

3.7.2 Aroclor 1268

3.7.3 Lead

3.7.4 Comparison with resident oysters
6

4.0 DISCUSSION

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.0 REFERENCES

Appendix A Statistical Comparisons and Correlations

A.1 Statistical Comparisons between Site Stations

A.1.1 Sediment Statistical Comparisons

A.1.1.1 Mercury

A.1.1.2 Aroclor 1268

A.1.1.3 Lead

A.1.2 Fish

A.1.2.1 Mercury

A.1.2.2 Aroclor 1268

A.1.2.3 Lead

A.1.3 Crabs

A.1.3.1 Mercury

A.1.3.2 Aroclor 1268

A.1.3.3 Lead

A.1.4 Transplanted Oysters

A.1.4.1 Mercury

A.1.4.2 Aroclor 1268

A.1.4.3 Lead

A.2 Correlations between Parameters

A.2.1 Sediment

A.2.2 Fish

A.2.3 Crabs

A.2.4 Resident Oysters

A.2.5 Transplanted Oysters

Appendix B

B.1 Survival

B.2 Wet Animal Whole Weight

B.3 End of Test Tissue Weight

B.4 Lipids

B.5 Water Content

B.6 Temperature

B.6.1 Differences in Average Daily Temperatures

B.6.1Weekly Temperature Ranges
7

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Station locations.

Table 2.2 Samples collected for this study.

Table 2.3 Sample parameters Fundulus heteroclitus

Table 2.4 Numbers and types of samples analyzed for each parameter.

Table 2.5 Chemical analysis methods and detection limits for water samples.

Table 2.6 Chemical analysis methods and detection limits for sediment samples.

Table 2.7 Chemical analysis methods and detection limits for tissue samples.

Table 2.8 Estimated Distance from the Head of the LCP ditch (by water).

Table 3.1a High water chemistry unfiltered

Table 3.1b High water chemistry filtered

Table 3.1c Low water chemistry unfiltered

Table 3.1d Low water chemistry filtered

Table 3.2 Bank sediment chemistry

Table 3.3 Creek sediment chemistry

Table 3.4 Fish tissue chemistry

Table 3.5 Fiddler crab tissue chemistry

Table 3.6 Oyster tissue chemistry data-concentrations

Table 3.7 Transplanted oyster tissue chemistry data-content

Table B-1. End-of-test percent survival for oysters

Table B-2 LCP Oyster Study: Descriptive statistics for growth metrics

Table B-3. Results of statistical analyses comparing growth metrics and survival of

average Reference Stations to each other station.

Table B-4. LCP temperature comparisons across stations

Table B-5. Average weekly temperatures by station.
8

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Sampling locations

Figure 2.2 Reference stations on the Crescent River

Figure 2.3 Sampling scheme for fish, crabs, sediment, water, deployed and resident

oysters.

Figure 3.1 Mercury concentrations in unfiltered water

Figure 3.2 Total Mercury in low tide unfiltered water with distance from the head of the

LCP ditch

Figure 3.3 Total Mercury in high tide unfiltered water with distance from the head of the

LCP ditch

Figure 3.4 Mean bank and creek total mercury in sediment

Figure 3.5 Mean bank and creek Aroclor 1268 in sediment

Figure 3.6 Mean bank and creek lead in sediment

Figure 3.7 Total Mercury in bank sediment with distance from the head of the LCP ditch

Figure 3.8 Total Mercury in creek sediment with distance from the head of the LCP ditch

Figure 3.9 Aroclor 1268 concentrations in bank sediment with distance from the head of

the LCP ditch

Figure 3.10 Aroclor 1268 concentrations in creek sediment with distance from the head of

the LCP ditch

Figure 3.11 Lead in bank sediment with distance from the head of the LCP ditch

Figure 3.12 Lead in creek sediment with distance from the head of the LCP ditch

Figure 3.13 Mean total Hg in fish

Figure 3.14 Methylmercury in fish

Figure 3.15 Mean Aroclor 1268 in fish

Figure 3.16 Mean lead in fish

Figure 3.17 Total mercury in fish with distance from the head of the LCP ditch

Figure 3.18 Aroclor 1268 in fish with distance from the head of the LCP ditch

Figure 3.19 Lead concentrations in fish with distance from the head of the LCP ditch

Figure 3.20 Mean total mercury in fiddler crabs

Figure 3.21 Methylmercury in fiddler crabs

Figure 3.22 Mean Aroclor 1268 in fiddler crabs

Figure 3.23 Mean lead in fiddler crabs

Figure 3.24 Total mercury in fiddler crabs with distance from the head of the LCP ditch

Figure 3.25 Methylmercury in fiddler crabs with distance from the head of the LCP ditch

Figure 3.26 Mean total mercury in caged and resident oysters

Figure 3.27 Methylmercury in caged and resident oysters

Figure 3.28 Aroclor 1268 in caged and resident oysters

Figure 3.29 Lead in caged and resident oysters

Figure 3.30 Total Hg content in transplanted oysters with distance from the head of the

LCP ditch

Figure 3.31 Methylmercury content in transplanted oysters with distance from the head of

the LCP ditch

Figure 3.32 Aroclor 1268 content in transplanted oysters with distance from the head of

the LCP ditch

Figure B-1 Percent Survival of Oysters

Figure B-2 End of test whole animal wet weight

Figure B-3 Oyster growth throughout deployment

Figure B-4 End of test oyster tissue weights

Figure B-5 Percent lipids in caged oysters at end of test

Figure B-6 Percent water in caged oysters at end of test

Figure B-7 Temperature profiles

Figure B-8 Daily average temperatures
9

1 Introduction and Objectives

The LCP Chemical site is adjacent to the Turtle River in Brunswick, Georgia. The

property covers about 220 hectares, about 190 hectares of which are unmanaged tidal

wetlands. The LCP site includes much of Purvis Creek and numerous small tributaries

discharging to this creek. The tidal range in the area is approximately 2 meters.

Salinity in the area ranges from 0 to 32 ppt. The site was used by Atlantic Richfield

Company as a petroleum refinery from 1919-1930, and was purchased by Georgia

Power in the mid-1930's. Operation of a chlor-alkali operation run by Allied Signal

Corp (then Linden Chemical and Plastic Corp.) between 1955 to 1994 is also a source

of contamination at the site. The primary contaminants of concern at the site are

mercury, PCBs (particularly Aroclor 1268), and lead.

Previous sampling of biota at the site documented elevated concentrations of mercury

and PCBs in Fundulus heteroclitus and fiddler crabs (Uca spp.). Maximum

concentrations of total mercury and Aroclor 1268 in Fundulus were as high as 5.5 and

320 mg/kg (dry weight) respectively. Maximum concentrations of mercury and

Aroclor 1268 in fiddler crabs were 4.1 and 78 mg/kg (dry weight). These

concentrations indicate that a risk may be posed to aquatic organisms and higher level

consumers such as birds (Sprenger et al., 1997). These results warrant the evaluation

of sediment, surface water, and biota at the site to establish a basis for measuring the

extent that risk from exposure to mercury, PCBs, and lead has been reduced following

recently undertaken and planned removal actions.

This monitoring study included an in situ Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)

transplant study, in addition to collection and analysis of resident Eastern oysters,

Fundulus heteroclitus, fiddler crabs (Uca spp.), sediment, and surface water.
10

Sampling was conducted during the summer of 1997 after upland removal actions were

completed but prior to the start of a new phase of planned removal actions for the marsh

areas. Removal of sediment is currently being undertaken in the LCP ditch, tributary,

and marsh area indicated on Figure 2.1. This study provides data to determine the

extent of bioavailability of mercury, PCBs, and lead in the LCP Ditch, Purvis Creek,

and in the marsh bordered by Purvis Creek and the LCP facility (south of the

causeway) by measuring uptake in deployed and resident organisms.

The goal of this monitoring is to provide information useful to document the success of

removal actions at reducing imminent and substantial threats to the environment and to

determine whether further unscheduled removal actions may be warranted. A

secondary goal of this monitoring is to provide a basis of information that will be

consistent with future needs. It is anticipated that the data collected through this effort

will be consistent with subsequent efforts directed by EPA Region IV's Remedial

Program. The monitoring study was designed to meet the following specific

objectives:

1) Examine the bioavailability of mercury, methylmercury, lead, and PCBs in

transplanted oysters and in three resident species located near the LCP site relative to

uptake at a reference location. Relationships among concentrations in sediment,

surface water, and tissues will be examined to assess correlations among the matrices.

Bioaccumulation in deployed and resident oysters will be compared to verify that

deployed oysters are appropriate surrogates to evaluate bioavailability at the site.

2) Provide a characterization in order to assess the success of the upcoming removal

action to be taken in the marsh. A trend analysis will likely need to be conducted to

determine if tissue concentrations are decreasing over time to acceptable concentrations.
11

3) Determine the extent and magnitude of contamination remaining in the marsh after

completion of removal actions in the upland portions of the site. Contamination

gradients from the area previously identified as a major source of contamination will be

identified.
12

2 Methods

2.1. Overview

The sampling in this study included the collection of sediment, water, fish (Fundulus

heteroclitus), fiddler crabs (Uca spp.), resident oysters (Crassostrea virginica), and

deployment of caged oysters for chemical analysis at the same stations along a gradient

away from the area of known contamination at the site, at three stations in tributaries in

the marsh, and at two reference stations for comparison purposes. Sampling was

conducted between July 29, 1997 and August 26, 1997. Sediment, water, resident

oysters, fiddler crabs, and most of the fish were collected between July 29 and August

2, 1997. Additional fish were collected on August 25 and 26, 1997. Caged oysters

were deployed on August 1, 1997 and retrieved on October 1 and 2, 1997.

Eight site-related stations were sampled in the Purvis Creek system (Figure 2.1): one in

the creek undergoing removal actions, one in the LCP Ditch, one at the mouth of the

LCP ditch where it joins Purvis Creek, one in each of three tributaries that drain the

wetlands to the south of Purvis Creek, one at the mouth of these tributaries where they

join Purvis Creek, and one near where Purvis Creek joins the Turtle River. In

addition, two reference stations were sampled (Figure 2.2). These were located in the

Crescent River near Crescent, GA, 2.6 km south of the Sapelo River and were selected

to be similar to site stations based on marsh vegetation and physical parameters of

tributary size, approximate salinity, tidal flow, water depth, and sediment grain size.

The first reference station, Station 1, serves as a reference area for upstream stations at

the site that are exposed during low tide or are under shallow water (stations 3, 4, 6, 7,

and 8). The second, Station 2, is a reference for the areas in Purvis Creek that are not

exposed to air during low tide conditions or are under deeper water (stations 5, 9 and
13

10). These two reference stations should also control for the temperature conditions

present in the different areas.

Table 2.1 summarizes sample station locations. Table 2.2 lists samples collected for

this study. At each station three replicate oyster cages were deployed. Three sediment

samples were collected from the creek bottom at each cage location to represent

sediment to which oysters are exposed, for a total of nine sediment samples per station.

Only three of the sediment samples were immediately analyzed. The remaining six

sediment samples were archived. Two surface water grab samples, one each at high

and low tide, were collected at the center of each oyster deployment station for analysis

to represent surface water to which oysters are exposed (Figure 2.3). Both filtered and

unfiltered water samples were analyzed. During low tide the caged oysters at stations

in the LCP Ditch and the tributaries discharging to Purvis Creek were exposed to air.

Resident oysters were collected at three site-related creek stations: one station in the

LCP ditch (station 4), one station where the LCP ditch joins Purvis Creek (station 5),

and one station near where Purvis Creek joins the Turtle River (station 10).

Resident fish (Fundulus) were collected at each station. Three replicate composite

samples were analyzed at stations where sufficient fish were collected. Additional

tissue samples were collected when available and archived. Fiddler crabs (Uca spp.)

were collected from the creek banks adjacent to oyster deployment and fish collection

stations. At each of the fiddler crab sampling stations, fiddler crabs were collected and

composited to yield three composite samples where sufficient crabs were collected. At

each crab collection station, three creek bank sediment grab samples were collected and

composited to represent sediment to which crab are exposed, for a total of nine creek
14

bank sediment samples per station. Only three of these samples were immediately

analyzed, the remainder were archived.

2.2 Sampling Methods

Decontamination of all sampling equipment was conducted between sampling at each

sampling station. All equipment was rinsed with tap water, washed vigorously with a

brush and alconox, rinsed with tap water, then rinsed with deionized water, and

wrapped in aluminum foil.

2.2.1 Water Collection

Between July 29 and July 31, 1997, water samples were collected from all stations.

Water samples were collected within one hour of both high and low tide over the central

oyster deployment location at each station. One water sample was collected at each tidal

stage at each station. Water was collected directly into pre-cleaned and pre-labeled jars

provided by the chemical analysis laboratory. Each jar was submerged approximately

30 cm below the surface of the water, the cap was removed, the jar was filled, the cap

replaced underwater, and the jar was placed in a cooler and chilled until it was shipped

by overnight courier to the chemical analysis lab. Water was filtered at the chemical

analysis laboratory. All unfiltered water samples were analyzed for total mercury, lead,

PCBs, iron, manganese, ammonia nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, total

suspended solids. Filtered water samples were analyzed for total mercury, lead, iron,

manganese, and dissolved organic carbon. Filtered and un-filtered water samples taken

at low tide from stations 5, 9, and 10 were also analyzed for methylmercury.

2.2.2 Sediment Collection

Between July 29 and July 31, 1997, sediment was collected from eight stations in the

marsh and both reference stations. Both creek bottom and creek bank sediment

samples were collected using a decontaminated 0.1 m3 petite ponar grab. At each
15

station, three creek bottom sediment stations were located 5 m apart at the locations

where oyster cages would later be deployed. Three creek bank stations were located

over the area where fiddler crab samples were taken, on one bank, adjacent to creek

bottom sampling stations. At each sampling location, the top 10 cm of sediment was

collected using the grab, the grab was checked to make sure it had deployed properly

(jaws closed, no debris protruding from jaws), the grab was then emptied into a

decontaminated stainless steel bowl. Between one and three grabs were required to fill

a bowl. Sediment was thoroughly mixed using a decontaminated stainless steel spoon.

Pre-labeled glass jars provided by the chemical analysis laboratory were filled using the

same spoon. A total of nine creek bottom and nine creek bank sediment samples were

collected at each station. All samples were chilled in ice-filled coolers until they were

shipped by overnight courier to the chemical analysis lab or to the EPA Region IV

Environmental Services Division facility in Athens, GA for archival. Three creek

bottom samples and three creek bank samples per station were analyzed for total

mercury, lead, Aroclor 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260, and 1268,

sulfides, grain size, total organic carbon, and moisture content. One creek bottom and

one creek bank sediment sample from the center of each station were analyzed for

methylmercury.

2.2.3 Fundulus Collection

Between July 29 and August 2, 1997 Fundulus were collected at seven of the eight

stations in the marsh (all stations except station 9) and at both reference stations. Only

one fish was collected at station 10 during this period. On August 25 and 26, 1997

additional fish were collected at stations 9 and 10.

At each station, a one-inch diameter PVC pole was driven into the sediment to mark the

center of the station and attach minnow traps. Three decontaminated minnow traps
16

were baited with hot dogs and tied to the pole with a nylon line. Traps were placed so

that they would remain submerged at low tide. Traps were checked between tidal

cycles. Fish were placed in decontaminated plastic buckets containing 10 L of site

water. Fish were held in buckets of aerated site water overnight to allow them to

depurate sediment and gut contents. The next day, fish were removed from the buckets

using a small decontaminated dip-net, placed on decontaminated foil and randomly

sorted into at least three composite samples per station.

Only fish between 300 and 1500 mm in length were retained for analysis. The range of

fish lengths in each composite sample was estimated during sorting (Table 2.3). Each

composite contained both male and female fish. Each composite of fish was wrapped

in aluminum foil (shiny side down), placed in plastic bags, labeled, and frozen until

shipping to the laboratory for analysis of total mercury, lead, Aroclor 1016, 1221,

1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260, and 1268, and lipid and moisture content. One

replicate per station was analyzed for methylmercury. At some stations, more than

three replicates were collected. The first three replicates were shipped to the laboratory

for chemical analysis. The remaining replicates were shipped to EPA Region IV's

Environmental Services Division in Athens, GA for archival.

2.2.4 Fiddler Crab Collection

Fiddler crabs were collected from creek banks at all stations between July 29 and

August 2, 1997. Sampling locations were adjacent to oyster deployment and fish

collection locations along one side of tidal creek banks. Fiddler crabs were collected by

hand using trowels to trap fiddler crabs in their burrows from intertidal creek banks.

They were then placed into decontaminated plastic buckets. At least 25 mature crabs

between 1 and 3 cm long were collected from each station to achieve a target weight of

35 g (wet weight) per sample for analysis. Crabs were rinsed in site water and were
17

held overnight in the plastic buckets with approximately 5 L of site water and a wire

mesh structure (half of a minnow trap) to allow depuration of sediment from the guts of

the animals. The next day, crabs from each station were randomly divided into three

composite replicate samples. Crabs were wrapped in aluminum foil (shiny side down),

placed in plastic zip-lock bags, labeled, and frozen prior to shipment. Samples were

shipped to the laboratory by overnight courier for analysis of total mercury, lead,

Aroclor 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260, and 1268, and lipid and moisture

content. One replicate per station was analyzed for methylmercury.

2.2.5 Resident Oyster Collection

Stations 4 and 5 in the LCP ditch and Station 10 in Purvis Creek were selected for

resident oyster collection. Oysters were collected at station 2, but the sample was lost

prior to analysis. Resident oysters at Station 10 were much smaller than those found at

Stations 4 and 5. The oyster beds at Stations 4 and 5 were much denser, but also

contained a high number of empty shells.

Between July 29 and July 31, 1997, resident oysters were collected from within 10 m

of the locations selected for deployment of caged oysters. Prior to collecting resident

oysters, the size of the specimens was evaluated to determine approximately how many

would be required to fulfill the biomass requirements for chemical analysis. All

practical efforts were made to collect at least the minimum number of specimens from

each location. Only oysters on top of the sediment, not buried under sediment were

collected. The resident oysters were collected by hand during low tide from creek

banks. A decontaminated pry bar was used to separate the oysters from their substrates

if firmly attached. All oysters from a station were held in plastic buckets full of site

water for overnight depuration. The next day, oysters from each station were wrapped

in aluminum foil, placed in plastic bags, labeled, frozen, and shipped by overnight
18

courier to the laboratory for analysis of total mercury, lead, Aroclor 1016, 1221, 1232,

1242, 1248, 1254, 1260, and 1268, and lipid and moisture content. One composite

from each station was shipped to the laboratory. The chemical analysis lab shucked the

oysters and then divided them into composite samples per station for analysis. One

replicate per station was analyzed for methylmercury.

2.2.6 Caged Oysters

2.2.6.1 Oyster Collection and Shipment

Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) for transplant were provided by Hooper Family

Seafood, Smyrna, North Carolina. Seed oysters are obtained from Bear Creek

Shellfish, Swansborough, NC, and are raised in Smyrna in a controlled flow-through

system. The water used in the flow-through system originates approximately 10 km

from Cape Lookout.

The oysters were shipped via overnight courier to the Skidaway Institute of

Oceanography in Savannah, GA where they were removed from their packing material

and placed into tanks under flow-through conditions with nearby seawater. The

oysters appeared to be in excellent health, with less than 0.5 percent mortality due to

shipment. They were held at the Skidaway facility for approximately two weeks

before deployment at the LCP and reference stations. This two-week holding period

allowed the oysters to acclimate to temperature and salinity conditions characteristic of

the area.

2.2.6.2 Sorting and Distribution

Whole-animal wet-weight was the criterion used to select oysters to be deployed for

this study. Detailed attention was given to the care and handling of the oysters
19

throughout the process to minimize stress to the animals and to ensure that all test

animals were of high quality. Only live oysters that were fully closed, or those that

closed immediately upon light physical stimulation were used. Following an initial

assessment of the available size range, the oysters were distributed to the mesh tubes

on July 28, 1997. The unsorted oysters were held in the flow-through system until

needed for distribution. During the distribution process, the oysters were maintained

within their acclimated temperature range by placing them in tubs of water; the water

was taken directly from the flow-through tanks and changed frequently to maintain

oxygen levels and eliminate the potential for the buildup of waste products. Based on

the distribution of sizes, and the amount of tissue required for chemical analyses,

oysters greater than 15.0 g ww were selected for use in this study.

Just prior to placement in the mesh tube, each individual oyster was measured for its

whole-animal wet-weight to the nearest 0.01 g with an electronic balance. The oyster

was then placed into a pre-labeled mesh tube (approximately 10 cm in diameter and 2

m long; 2 cm mesh size). Nylon cable ties were used to separate individual oysters

within the mesh tube. Each tube contained 10 oysters; five tubes of 10 oysters were

prepared for each cage, for a total of 50 oysters per cage. After all oysters were

distributed to the mesh tubes, they were returned to the flow-though holding tanks at

Skidaway until deployment on August 1, 1997.

2.2.6.3 Deployment

On August 1, 1997, all the oysters were taken from their holding facility at the

Skidaway Oceanographic Institute, placed into ice chests, and transported to the

staging area between Reference Stations 1 and 2. At this time, the oysters to be

deployed at Reference Stations 1 and 2 were removed from the ice chest and affixed to

cages approximately 0.5-m wide by 1-meter high constructed of 2.5-cm diameter
20

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe material. Three cages were prepared for each station.

For each cage, the five mesh tubes containing oysters labeled as Bag-1, Bag-2, Bag-3,

Bag-4, and Bag-5 for that cage were secured to the PVC frame with large nylon cable

ties. The cages were then wrapped with the heavy-duty plastic screen (approximately

2.5-cm mesh size) to discourage predators. The remaining oysters were transported to

the LCP facility where they were prepared for deployment at Stations 3 through 10.

All cages were deployed on August 1, 1997.

One continuously recording temperature monitoring device was attached to one of the

three cages prepared for each station and set to collect temperature data at 12-minute

intervals over the deployment period.

During the project design stage, a random numbers table was used to assign cages to

stations. The cages, numbered from 1 to 33 were assigned station numbers by using

the first two digits of the five-digit random numbers. If the two-digit number was

between 01 and 11, it was used as the station number for Cage 1. The next two-digit

number between 01 and 11 was identified and used as the station number for Cage 2.

This process was continued until all cages were assigned a station number from 1

through 11, with three occurrences of each station number. Oysters designated for

station 11 were used for beginning-of-test weight measurements and then sacrificed

for chemical analysis of tissues.

An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to confirm statistically similar sizes

among cages and stations (α = 0.05). At the beginning of the test, the mean oyster

weight was statistically similar among all cages, except for oysters to be used for the

beginning-of-test weights and chemical analyses; these oysters had slightly lower

mean weights .
21

The cages containing oysters were deployed at all reference and test stations in a linear

fashion. The three oyster cages assigned to a particular station were placed

approximately 5 m apart along a transect at the center of each station (Figure 2.3).

Cement blocks were used to secure the cages and prevent movement over the tidal

cycle. Stakes, surface markers, and flags were used to mark each station. A warning

sign to discourage vandalism or removal by trespassers was attached to each station

marker. Station position coordinates were obtained using a global positioning system

(GPS). Latitude and longitude coordinates for the stations are provided in Table 2.1

2.2.6.4 Beginning-of-test Tissue Preparation

An additional 150 oysters (i.e., three groups of 50 oysters each) were used for initial

tissue weight determinations and chemical analyses to obtain background concentrations

of contaminants. The average whole-animal wet-weights by replicate for these 150

oysters were slightly less than the average weights for field-deployed oysters even

though the size range was the same. Slightly smaller individuals were selected for the

initial chemical analyses to ensure sufficient numbers of larger individuals for

deployment.

All equipment (i.e., shucking knives and the aluminum foil covering the cutting boards)

used during tissue extraction was thoroughly cleaned before processing a new batch

(i.e., replicate) according to the following process: wash with Liquinox, rinse with hot

tap water, rinse with deionized water. Prior to tissue removal, all staff thoroughly

washed their hands with Liquinox. Gloves were worn during the shucking process to

reduce the potential for contamination. The shucking process began by separating, or

popping, the oyster shells with a special shucking tool. Once separated, a thin-bladed

stainless steel knife was used to separate the oyster soft tissues from the shell. The
22

severed tissue was held in such a position that the excess liquid was allowed to drain.

The soft tissues were kept on the shell during extraction and after complete separation.

The shell was used as a “holding dish” until tissue weights were made. A weigh pan

was made from decontaminated aluminum foil. The soft tissues were placed on the

weigh pan using the original shucking knife.

When all tissues of a “replicate” were weighed, the tissues were transferred from the

weigh pan to certified clean sample jars provided by the analytical laboratory. The

sample jar was tightly capped, affixed with a prepared label, and placed in the freezer.

The aluminum foil weigh boat and cutting board cover were discarded after all tissues of

a given replicate were shucked and weighed. All shucking equipment was

decontaminated before proceeding to the next sample.

2.2.6.5 End-of-Test Measurements and Tissue Preparation

All oyster cages were successfully located and retrieved after the 62-day exposure

period. Oysters at Stations 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 were retrieved on October 1, 1997;

oysters at Stations 2, 7, 9 and 10 were retrieved the following day. After removal from

the field stations, the caged oysters were transported to Station 2 (the deeper water

reference site) for an overnight depuration period. This provided the oysters an

opportunity to purge contaminated sediment, if present, from their guts.

The end-of-test measurements involved determining whole-animal wet-weights and soft

tissue weights for each live individual. The oysters were processed one cage at a time.

Prior to making these measurements, the oysters were assessed for overall condition,

and the number of dead and/or missing animals was recorded for each station. Oysters

that were gapping or did not close upon light physical stimulation were considered dead.

The oysters were removed from the mesh tubes and placed in sequence starting with the
23

first oyster in Bag 1, into compartmentalized holding trays. If a dead oyster was

encountered, the empty shells were placed into the compartmentalized holding tray as a

marker. These holding trays were then placed into tubs containing site water from

where Purvis Creek joins the Turtle River to eliminate air bubbles between the oyster

shells. Starting with the first oyster, each oyster was taken from the holding tray,

blotted dry, and the whole-animal wet-weight measurement was made using an

electronic balance. The weighed oyster was then put into a second compartmentalized

tray to maintain proper sequence. The weight data were recorded manually on

laboratory data sheets and electronically to a computer file. The process was repeated

until all individuals of a given cage were measured.

For each cage, tissues from all live oysters were removed from the shells as described

above and composited for chemical analysis. The sample jar was tightly capped, affixed

with a prepared label, and placed in the freezer. The frozen oyster tissue samples were

hand carried to Seattle, Washington and then shipped in an ice chest packed with ice to

Columbia Analytical Services, Inc., of Kelso, Washington, for homogenization, lipid

analysis, percent water determination, and chemical analysis of total mercury,

methylmercury, lead, and Aroclor 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260, and

1268.

2.3 Chemical Analyses and Quality Assurance Procedures

All samples were received, stored, prepared, and analyzed according to the quality

assurance program of Columbia Analytical Services (CAS), Inc. Analytical results

were provided as Tier II data deliverables. Upon receipt, the samples were assigned an

internal tracking number. The samples were preserved by freezing and stored until

further processing.
24

For each chemical replicate, all tissues comprising that replicate were homogenized

using stainless steel homogenization equipment. All equipment was cleaned with

Alconox and thoroughly rinsed with deionized water. All samples were homogenized

prior to weighing aliquots for the various analytical parameters.

Method blank analyses were conducted with each analytical test. Surrogate recoveries

were conducted for all applicable organic analyses. Additional quality control analyses

included analysis of laboratory duplicates, matrix spike, and matrix/duplicate matrix

spike samples.

All tissue, sediment, and surface water samples were analyzed for total mercury, lead,

and Aroclor 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260, and 1268. A subset of

samples was analyzed for methylmercury. Additional analytical parameters included

lipids and moisture content for tissues, and grain size, total organic carbon, total

sulfides, and moisture content for sediment. Table 2.4 presents a summary of the

number of sample types for each analytical parameter for the monitoring program.

Surface water samples were analyzed for nutrients such as dissolved organic carbon,

nitrogen, iron, and manganese to aid in data interpretation.

One cross contamination blank, consisting of ashless filter paper, was submitted for

analysis with each tissue sample. One additional sample of sediment and tissue was

submitted to the laboratory for quality assurance purposes. Extra volumes from all

water samples were used for QA purposes.

Methylmercury analyses were conducted by Brooks Rand in accordance with Standard

Operating Procedure #BR-0011. Prior to analysis, the tissue samples were digested in

25 percent KOH in methanol (w/v) in Teflon vials for four hours at 65oC. Samples
25

were then analyzed by aqueous phase ethylation, Tenax trap collection, GC separation,

isothermal decomposition, and atomic fluorescence detection (CVAFS).

Dry weight determinations were made by weighing out tissues on pre-weighed weigh

boats, and placing them in a drying oven (105oC). After 16 to 24 hours, the samples

were removed and reweighed. One duplicate dry weight was measured for each batch

of samples.

Percent lipid determinations were made by the Bligh and Dyer method. Weighed tissue

sample aliquots were placed in a glass tissue grinder with chloroform and methanol and

ground for at least 2 minutes. More chloroform was added and the sample ground for

30 seconds. Deionized water was added and the sample was ground again for

approximately 30 seconds. In the resulting biphase system, the chloroform layer

contains the lipids and the methanol-water layer the other fraction. A purified lipid

extract is obtained when the chloroform layer is isolated. Samples were then allowed to

dry at 55oC for at least 30 minutes. After drying, total lipids were determined by

weight and converted to percent lipids based on the original aliquot weight, according

to the following equation:

Total lipid = ( weight of lipid in aliquot)*(volume of chloroform layer )

Volume of aliquot

Upon receipt, the chemistry data were subjected to a quality assurance/quality control

(QA/QC) review. In addition to checking the data against the project-specific data

quality objectives, the data were evaluated for holding times, initial calibrations and

continuing calibration verifications, blanks, laboratory control sample or certified

reference material, duplicate sample analyses, matrix spike analyses, sample result

verification, and overall assessment.
26

To evaluate precision and accuracy in oyster measurements, the following procedures

were used. At the beginning and the end of the deployment period, for every 50 oysters

measured for weight, five oysters were remeasured. The remeasuring of oyster weight

occurred throughout the measurement process as each group of 100 individuals was

processed to ensure that all measurements were within the acceptable limits. A 10

percent (± 5 percent) variance in weight was the acceptable limit. If the results of the

remeasurements fell outside of these limits, the previous batch of 100 individuals were

remeasured.

The accuracy of the measuring devices was determined according to the standard

operating procedures for each measuring device. For the balance, this involves

calibrating the instrument with a standard weight (200 g). After every 100

measurements made on the balance, the standard weight was applied to the balance. If

the balance was off by more than 1 percent (2 g), the balance was recalibrated and the

previous batch of 100 individuals reweighed.

2.4 Data Analysis

2.4.1 Patterns in Contaminant Concentrations

All data were statistically analyzed to test for significant differences in total mercury,

Aroclor 1268, and lead when compared to the reference areas. Since only one sample

from each station was analyzed for methylmercury, these data are only presented

graphically. Prior to hypothesis testing, the data were first evaluated to ensure that they

met the assumptions of the statistical tests (i.e., approximate normality and

homogeneity of variances). This evaluation was performed using boxplots, normal

probability plots, and other graphical diagnostic procedures. For those data that

appeared to violate the assumptions of the statistical tests transformations were used,
27

including logarithms or normalized rank scores (rankits). A parametric ANOVA

performed on the rankits is analogous to performing a Kruskal-Wallis test, the nonparametric equivalent of an ANOVA. Differences in either direction were of interest.

Three composited samples were prepared for each station (except for water samples),

therefore, the level of replication for the bioaccumulation data is three. The following

basic null hypotheses were tested:

• H0: There are no significant differences in the amount (concentrations or content)

of mercury, lead, or Aroclor 1268 in tissues or sediment between site stations and

reference stations (α = 0.05).

• H0': There are no significant differences in the amount (concentrations or content)

of mercury, lead, or Aroclor 1268 in tissues or sediment among site stations (α =

0.05).

The replicate chemistry samples (which included both concentration and content data in

oysters for each contaminant of concern), were analyzed using a one-way Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni multiple contrasts of the average of the two

references to site station means. The Bonferroni multiple contrast was chosen because

of its ability to account for the number of means being tested against the references.

The experiment-wise error rate was set at 0.05. Differences between the amount of

contaminants in oyster tissues at the beginning and end of the study were tested for

using Dunnett’s test for a control against station means. A Newman-Keuls test was

used to test for any significant differences among site stations. Differences in either

direction (either greater or less than reference sites) were of interest.

A primary concern underpinning this study design was to evaluate potential sources and

pathways for contamination to reach biota. Factors potentially controlling mercury

methylation are also of interest. With these concerns in mind, graphical methods were
28

used to evaluate relationships between contaminant concentrations and distance from

the head of the LCP ditch (the location of the former plant outfall) by water (since the

site is tidal and contaminated water and suspended sediment could flow upstream

during incoming tides- Table 2.8). The head of the LCP ditch was the location of the

outfall from the former plant. If the head of the ditch is the source of contamination

throughout the site, we would expect to see concentrations decrease with distance from

the head of the ditch.

2.4.2 Oyster Survival and Growth

The survival and growth data (i.e., survival, whole-animal wet-weight, and tissue

weight data) from the oyster transplant study were also statistically analyzed.

Descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation were calculated for these

parameters. For whole-animal wet-weight and end-of-test tissue weight, each

individual oyster was considered a replicate. Therefore, for these measurements the

level of replication at each station is 150 (if all oysters survived).

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni’s multiple contrast

test were used to test the following general null hypotheses:

• There is no significant difference in oyster whole-animal wet-weights between site

stations and reference stations (α = 0.05).

• There is no significant difference in oyster soft tissue weights between site stations

and reference stations (α = 0.05).

A one-way ANOVA partitions the variability into two components: the variability

within and the variability between stations. If the ratio of these two variances (the

between-group variance over the within-group variance) is large enough, observed
29

differences between means are likely due to true differences between the groups and

not just random variation.

If the primary factor of the ANOVA is rejected indicating that differences among all

stations were detected, pairwise contrasts were performed using Bonferroni’s multiple

contrasts test to determine which stations differed from the coupled reference stations.

Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test was employed to determine differences between

end-of-test results and initial conditions. Because two reference stations were used in

this study, the hypothesis comparing each site station to “reference” is represented by

the following equation:

μsite1 = 1/2(μref1 + μref2)

This type of equation was constructed and tested for each of five Purvis Creek stations

and three LCP Ditch stations. An experiment-wide 95 percent confidence level (α =

0.05) was used for these analyses.

Survival rates for the in situ study were based on the number of live oysters found at

the end of the test relative to the total number of individuals (both dead and alive)

found at the end of the test. Oyster tissues were considered “missing” if there was an

empty space between two nylon cable ties. Survival rates among stations were

compared using a chi-squared contingency analysis (α = 0.05). A chi-square test

compares the observed and expected frequencies of animals alive or dead at the end of

the test, with the null hypothesis stating that the probability of survival is the same at

all stations. If rejected, the contingency table was partitioned to compare each station

with a mean survival less than the mean of the reference stations to expected values to

determine where differences occurred. ‘Expected’ frequencies were based on the

mean of the percent survival for Reference stations 1 and 2 combined.
30

2.4.3 Data Correlations

Relationships between the amount of lead, total mercury, and Aroclor 1268 in oyster

tissues and the concentrations of these contaminants in water and sediment samples were

analyzed using Spearman’s non-parametric correlation tests. A non-parametric test was

chosen for these analyses because of high variability in some of the data sets and low

sample numbers for some of the parameters being tested (for example, only one water

sample was taken at each station).

All replicates of tissue chemistry results were compared to replicate samples of bank and

creek sediments. However, the tissue chemistry results had to be averaged for each station

to compare to single-sample water chemistry data. Because the sample size is so small for

these comparisons, the correlation is not very powerful and it is much less likely that

correlations between the data will be detected.

Resident oysters were statistically compared to bank and creek sediments and caged oysters

using the Spearman correlation for the stations where resident oysters were collected.

These results also lack statistical power because of the small sample size taken of the

resident animals. No statistical comparisons could be made between resident oysters and

water because of limited sample sizes.

Correlations were run to get a sense for relationships between contaminant concentrations

in water, sediment, and animals at the LCP site. However, given the limited statistical

power, these statistical results should only be used as a rough guideline. The power of the

statistical test to detect or reject differences greatly decreases with smaller sample sizes and

with multiple usage of the test.
31

2.4.4 Temperature

Temperature data were downloaded from the logging devices using the instruments' data

recovery software. Minimum, maximum, and mean temperatures were calculated for each

station. Temperature profiles were generated for each station and used to identify overall

temperature trends.

There were two primary hypotheses to be tested:

• Average daily temperatures are not different between sites and reference

stations, and

• Weekly ranges of temperatures are not different between sites and reference

stations

Prior to testing these hypotheses, temperature profiles were made for each station using the

entire set of data collected during the deployment period.

2.4.4.1 Testing for Differences in Mean Daily Temperature

The data files were modified so that the start and end times of the temperature series were

similar for all stations; this ensured that the temperature series were of equal length and

covered the same time period. These modifications involved dropping some of the

temperature data at the very beginning and very end of the data files. Each temperature

series displayed trend and cyclical autocorrelation, requiring a non-standard analysis of

mean differences.

In order to reduce variability and autocorrelation, each temperature series was reduced to

daily mean temperatures using all the data. A pairwise station analysis was then performed

on the differences between the daily means at each site. The daily average temperatures

were also autocorrelated. To derive an independent data set, the mean differences were
32

then regularly subsampled at a frequency determined by the autocorrelation function.

Because the extent of the autocorrelation in the mean difference series varied from

comparison to comparison, the maximum significant autocorrelation measured was used to

subsample all sites to provided data sets that were equal in sample sizes. These reduced

data sets were tested for differences from zero using one-sample t-tests, with two-tailed

alpha-levels of 0.05.

2.4.4.2 Testing for Differences in Temperature Range

Differences in the weekly range of temperatures across stations were also examined. First,

the minimum weekly temperature was subtracted from the maximum weekly temperature at

each station, resulting in 9 observations of temperature range per station. These series

were not significantly autocorrelated, and the variances were approximately equal across

stations. Normality was assessed by plotting a histogram and quantile plot for residuals

from an initial ANOVA fit. The data were approximately normal, so a one-way ANOVA

was performed to test for differences between the weekly ranges.
33

Table 2.1. Station Locations.

Station Latitude Longitude

1 (Crescent, GA,

similar to sta 3, 4, 6,

7, 8)

31 o 31'8.9" 81 o 21'23.2"

2 (Crescent, GA,

similar to sta 5, 9,

10)

31 o 30'59.3" 81 o 21'24.5"

3 (tributary to LCP

ditch)

31 o 11'10.72" 81 o 30'48.66"

4 (in the LCP ditch) 31 o 11'12.81" 81 o 30'46.31"

5 (at the confluence

of the LCP ditch at

Purvis Creek)

31 o 11'15.03" 81 o 30'55.59"

6 (in a tributary to

Purvis Creek)

31 o 11'4.42" 81 o 30'56.55"

7 (in a tributary to

Purvis Creek)

31 o 11'6.86" 81 o 31'00.30"

8 (in a tributary to

Purvis Creek)

31 o 11'7.73" 81 o 31'1.81"

9 (in Purvis Creek) 31 o 11'8.67" 81 o 30'59.39"

10 (near the

confluence of

Purvis Creek and

the Turtle River)

31 o 10'55.42" 81 o 31'14.31"
34

Table 2.2 Numbers of samples collected at each of the LCP monitoring

stations

Station

Creek

Sediment

Surface

watera

Deployed

oysters

Resident

oysters

Fish Crabs Bank

Sediment

1 (Reference) 9 2 3 5 3 9

2 (Reference) 9 2 3 3 3 9

3 923 639

4 9233939

5 9232339

6 923 939

7 923 949

8 923 939

9 923 139

10 9 2 3 1 3 3 9

Total 90 20 30 6 59 31 90

a: Surface water samples were collected at both high and low tide at all sampling stations.
35

Table 2.3 Sample parameters Fundulus heteroclitus

Station/

composite

Number of

Fish

Approximate

Size range

Packaging

Date

1-1 10 4-9 cm 8/1/97

1-2 7 5-15 cm 8/1/97

1-3 10 3-10 cm 8/1/97

2-1 16 3-6 cm 8/3/97

2-2 16 3-6 cm 8/3/97

2-3 16 3-6 cm 8/3/97

3-1 6 5-15 cm 8/1/97

3-2 5 5-15 cm 8/1/97

3-3 8 3-12 cm 8/3/97

4-1 9 5-10 cm 7/31/97

4-2 7 7-10 cm 7/31/97

4-3 7 5-10 cm 7/31/97

5-1 8 3-5 cm 8/3/97

5-2 13 3-10 cm 8/3/97

5-3 10 3-10 cm 8/3/97

6-1 43 5-8 cm 7/31/97

6-2 40 5-8 cm 7/31/97

6-3 44 5-8 cm 7/31/97

7-1 17 4-7 cm 7/31/97

7-2 16 4-7 cm 7/31/97

7-3 18 4-7 cm 7/31/97

8-1 17 3-9 cm 7/31/97

8-2 17 3-9 cm 7/31/97

8-3 17 3-9 cm 7/31/97

9-1 16 3-7 cm 8/26/97

10-1 15 3-7 cm 8/26/97

10-2 15 3-7 cm 8/26/97

10-3 16 3-7 cm 8/26/97
36

Table 2.4 Numbers and types of samples analyzed for each parametera.

Analyte Sediment Surface Water Fish Tissue Oyster Tissue Crab Tissue

Total Dissolved

Lead 60 20 20 28 36 25

Total Mercury 60 20 20 28 37 31

Methylmercury 20b 3c 3c 10b 14b 10b

PCBs 60 20 28 36 22

Percent Moisture 60 28 37 31

Total Organic Carbon 60

Total Sulfides 60

Grain Size 60

Nutrients 20 20

Suspended Solids 20

Percent lipids 28 36 22

a: Numbers do not include field replicates taken for QA purposes.

b: One replicate per station was analyzed for methylmercury.

 One T0 oyster sample was analyzed for methylmercury.

c: Methylmercury was analyzed in water samples taken at low tide only at only 3 stations.
37

Table 2.5 Chemical analysis methods and detection limits for water

samples.

Analytes Laboratory Method

Reporting

Limits (units)

EPA Method

Number or

Reference

Total Hg CAS 5 ng/L 1631 M

Pb CAS 2 μg/L 7421

PCBs CAS 0.2 μg/L 3510B/8080A

MeHg Brooks Rand, Ltd. 0.025 ng/L BR-0011 (CVAFS)

Iron CAS 20 μg/L 6010A

Manganese CAS 5 μg/L 6010A

Ammonia

Nitrogen

CAS 50 μg/L 350.1

Nitrate Nitrogen CAS 200 μg/L 300.0

Nitrite Nitrogen CAS 200 μg/L 300.0

Total Suspended

Solids

CAS 5 mg/L 160.2

Dissolved Organic

Carbon

CAS 500 μg/L 415.1
38

Table 2.6 Chemical analysis methods and detection limits for sediment

samples

Analytes Laboratory Method

Reporting

Limits (units)

EPA Method

Number or

Reference

Total Hg CAS 10 μg/Kg dry 7471A

Pb CAS 2 mg/Kg dry 7420

PCBs CAS 28 μg/Kg dry 3540B/8080A

MeHg Brooks Rand, Ltd. 0.002 μg/Kg wet

Grain Size CAS ASTM D422

Modified

Total Sulfide CAS 1 mg/Kg dry 9030M

Total Organic

Carbon

CAS 0.05% dry ASTM D4129-82M

Table 2.7 Chemical analysis methods and detection limits for tissue

samples

Analytes Laboratory Method

Reporting

Limits (units)

EPA Method

Number or

Reference

Total Hg CAS 10 μg/Kg dry 7471A

Pb CAS 20 μg/Kg dry 200.8

PCBs CAS 19 μg/Kg wet 3540B/8080A

MeHg Brooks Rand, Ltd. 1 μg/Kg wet BR-0011 (CVAFS)
39

Table 2.8 Estimated Distance from the Head of the LCP ditch (by water)

Station Number Estimated Distance (m)

3 462

4 246

5 477

6 885

7 939

8 962

9 700

10 1577
0 100 200

 meters

N

Figure 2.1. Sampling locations

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3 9

6

5

Purv si Creek LCP Ditch

Sediment, surface water, fish, crabs, and deployed oysterstation

Resident oysterstation

Removalarea

Boat launch
Ref 1

Ref 2

Sapelo River

July Cut

Back

River

Crescent River

Ce dar Creek

0 250 500

 meters

N

99

Reference station

Wetlands

Georgia

Figure 2.2. Reference stations on the Crescent River

Crescent
▲

▲

▲

▲

Tidal Creek Stations

▲

▲

▲

Purvis Creek Stations

bank

sediment 

collection

area

fish trap, deployed 

oysters, and creek

sediment sample

resident 

oyster bed

composite 

fiddler crab 

Figure 2.3. Sampling scheme for fish, crabs, sediments, water, deployed and

resident oysters

5 m

5 m

5 m

5 m 5 m 5 m

water sample
43

 3.0 Results

Statistical comparisons and results of correlation analyses are presented in Appendix

A.

3.1 Data Quality

All data were considered usable for the purposes of this report. Data qualified J are

considered usable as estimates. A summary of the data review is provided in this

section. Chemicals reported as undetected were included in statistical calculations

using a value of one-half of the reported detection limit.

Metals (lead and total mercury) - A method blank was digested and analyzed with each

batch of samples. There were no target analytes present. A matrix spike was analyzed

with each batch and all results were within the laboratory specified control limits of 60-

130 percent. A sample duplicate was analyzed with each batch and the results met the

RPD limit of ±35 percent, with the exception of one crab sample, which was qualified

as an estimate.

Methylmercury - A method blank was digested and analyzed with each batch of

samples. Methylmercury was detected in method blanks for some of the sediment

analyses and some of the fish analyses. As part of the laboratory’s standard operating

procedures, blank correction was performed and all sample results are usable as

reported. A matrix spike was analyzed and the percent recoveries were within the

specified limits of 60-130 percent. In addition, a certified reference material was

analyzed with each batch and the results were within the specified control limits of 75-

125 percent. A sample duplicate was analyzed with each batch and the results met the

RPD limit of ±35 percent.
44

Polychlorinated biphenyls - A method blank was extracted and analyzed for samples

submitted for PCB analyses and there were no target compounds present. All

surrogate recoveries were within the laboratory established quality control limits of 20-

140 percent, with the exception of some sediment and crab samples which are

qualified as estimates. Matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate samples (utilizing

Aroclor 1268) were analyzed and all percent recoveries were within the established

quality control limits of 46-148 percent. In addition, the RPDs derived from the

matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate analyses were within the limit of ±35 percent.

A blank spike sample was analyzed with the oyster tissue and the percent recoveries

were within the specified quality control limits of 46-148 percent.

Other measurements- Analysis of sulfides in sediments for 12 samples were conducted

past recommended holding times. All oyster growth and bioaccumulation data are

considered usable for the purpose of this report. The remeasurement process indicated

that field staff were consistent in the measurement technique and that the error

associated with those measurements was well within the 5 percent allowable

deviation.

3.2. Water

Statistical comparisons were not performed since only one replicate was taken at each

station. Water data is presented in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1. Due to interference by

chloride ions, nitrate and nitrite nitrogen were not detected in any samples at detection limits

of 100 mg/L (nitrite) and 5 mg/L (nitrate).

3.2.1 Mercury

Highest concentrations were detected in low tide unfiltered water samples. Highest

concentrations (341 and 398 ng/L) were detected at stations 3 and 4, lowest concentrations
45

at stations 9 and 10 (43 and 46 ng/L). Moderate concentrations were found at stations 5, 6,

7, and 8. Chronic ambient water quality criteria for freshwater (12 ng/L) and marine water

(25 ng/L) were exceeded at all stations at low tide. Total mercury was not detected in low

tide water samples at the reference stations (<5 ng/L). A similar pattern was observed in

dissolved mercury concentrations at low tide, with highest concentrations at stations 3, 4,

and 5, and lowest concentrations at stations 9 and 10.

There appears to be a pattern between total mercury in low tide unfiltered water and

distance from the head of the LCP ditch, with stations 6, 7, and 8 being somewhat elevated

over what would be expected if the head of the ditch were the only source of mercury in

water at low tide (Figure 3.2).

At high tide, the pattern is less distinct (Figure 3.3). The highest concentration of total

mercury was detected at station 4 (136 ng/L), and the lowest concentration found at station

10 (26 ng/L), where concentrations were similar to those at the reference stations (23-26

ng/L). Dissolved mercury in high tide samples was highest at station 9 (30 ng/L). Chronic

AWQC values were exceeded by all unfiltered samples at high tide, but only at station 9 in

filtered samples.

The three low tide samples analyzed for methylmercury indicate that methylmercury at

station 5 is higher than that at stations 9 and 10. Between 5 and 12% of particulate mercury

(the proportion of total mercury in unfiltered water) is methylated. Unfiltered water

samples contained 14.4 ng/L of methylmercury at station 5, while unfiltered water samples

contained 2.4 ng/L. Approximately 5% of dissolved mercury is in the methylated form.

The concentration of total suspended solids in unfiltered water at low tide is not sufficient

to explain differences between stations in total mercury concentrations, although unfiltered
46

water concentrations are always higher than filtered water concentrations. At high tide,

suspended solid concentrations are fairly uniform across the site, while total mercury

concentrations are highest at station 4. At low tide, total suspended solid concentrations are

much higher at station 5 (1350 mg/L) than at other stations (where concentrations are below

100 mg/L), but total mercury concentrations are still highest at station 4.

3.2.2 Aroclor 1268

Filtered water samples were not analyzed for PCBs. Aroclor 1268 was only detected in

low tide unfiltered water samples and was not detected at high tide (with a detection limit of

0.2 μg/L). Stations 3, 4, 5, and 7 had detectable Aroclor 1268 concentrations, with the

highest concentration at station 5 (5.5 μg/L) and the lowest concentration at station 7 (0.3

μg/L). Aroclor 1268 was not detected in water samples from the reference sites. Other

Aroclors were not detected in any samples with detection limits of 0.2 μg/L. The detection

limits exceed both the chronic ambient water quality criteria for freshwater (0.014 μg/L)

and for marine water (0.03 μg/L).

3.2.3 Lead

Lead was detected only in unfiltered water samples at only three stations (with a detection

limit of 2 μg/L). Reference station 2 contained 11 g/L in the high tide sample, but lead was

not detectable at low tide. At stations 5 and 7 lead was detected at low tide (20 μg/L and

5μg/L, respectively). The chronic ambient water quality criteria for lead is 3.2 μg/L for

freshwater and 8.5 μg/L for marine water.

3.3 Sediment

Results of sediment analysis are presented in Figures 3.4-3.6 and Tables 3.3 and 3.4.

Methylmercury was detected in some of the method blanks for sediment analyses (at a

concentration of 0.003 μg/Kg wet weight). Data was blank corrected by the laboratory,
47

which adjusts dry weight concentrations by 0.004 to 0.045 μg/Kg. Comparisons between

concentrations of contaminants in sediment and other sediment parameters, and between

contaminants in bank and creek sediment are provided in Appendix A.2.

3.3.1 Mercury

Bank sediment total mercury concentrations were log transformed before statistical

comparison. All stations at the site were statistically elevated in total mercury concentration

when compared to the two reference sites (p<0.05).

The two reference stations are not different from each other in bank total mercury

concentration. Stations 3, 4, 5 are similar in concentration to each other, but significantly

higher than all other stations sampled (Appendix A).

There appears to be a general relationship between total mercury in bank sediment total

mercury concentrations nearest the site and distance from the head of the LCP ditch, with

station 3 being somewhat elevated over what would be expected if the head of the ditch

were the only source of mercury to bank sediment (Figure 3.7). Stations farther away

from the ditch head (Stations 9, 6, 7, 8, and 10) appear to be uniformly contaminated with

lower levels of total mercury. The pattern is similar in grain-size normalized and nonnormalized data. The same pattern is seen in methylmercury concentrations in bank

sediment. Bank sediment contains low percentages of methylmercury: from 0.07% at

station 5 to 1.5% at station 9.

Creek bottom sediment total mercury concentrations were rank-it transformed before

statistical comparison. All stations at the site were statistically elevated in total mercury

concentration when compared to reference sites (p<0.05). The two reference stations are
48

not different from each other in bank total mercury concentration. Station 4 is more highly

contaminated than all other stations sampled (Appendix A).

There is a good relationship between total mercury in creek sediment total mercury

concentrations and distance from the head of the LCP ditch (Figure 3.8). The pattern was

similar in grain size normalized and non-normalized results. The pattern is similar for

methylmercury concentrations in creek sediment. Creek sediment contains low percentages

of methylmercury: from 0.006% at station 5 to 0.5% at station 9.

3.3.2 Aroclor 1268

Bank sediment Aroclor 1268 concentrations were log transformed before statistical

comparison. All stations at the site were statistically elevated in Aroclor 1268 concentration

when compared to the two reference stations (p<0.05).

The two reference stations are not different from each other in Aroclor 1268 concentration.

Stations 3, 4, 5 are similar in concentration to each other, but higher than all other stations

sampled. Stations 7, 8, 9, and 10 are similar to each other in concentration. Station 6 is

different from all other stations (Appendix A).

Stations closest to the site have highest PCB concentrations, but except for stations 3, 4,

and 5 concentrations are uniform (Figure 3.9). Differences between sites are minimized

when concentrations are normalized to grain size and TOC, but Station 5 has higher

Aroclor 1268 concentrations in bank sediment than what would be expected if the head of

the ditch were the only source of Aroclor 1268 to bank sediments.

Other Aroclors were not detected in any samples of creek or bank sediment with detection

limits that vary between 0.028 mg/Kg and 2.8 mg/Kg (due to the requirements to dilute

highly contaminated sample extracts to quantify Aroclor 1268).
49

Creek bottom sediment Aroclor 1268 concentrations were rank-it transformed before

statistical comparison. All stations at the site were statistically elevated in Aroclor 1268

content when compared to the two reference stations (p<0.05).

The two reference stations are not different from each other in Aroclor 1268 concentration.

Stations closest to the site have highest PCB concentrations, but except for stations 3, 4,

and 5 concentrations are fairly uniform (Figure 3.10). The pattern is similar in normalized

and non-normalized sediment (Appendix A).

3.3.3 Lead

Bank sediment lead concentrations were log transformed before statistical comparison. All

stations at the site were statistically elevated in lead content when compared to the two

reference stations (p<0.05). The two reference stations are not different from each other in

lead concentration. Stations 4 and 5 are different from each other and more highly

contaminated than all other stations (Appendix A).

Non-normalized bank sediment generally declines in lead concentration away from the head

of the ditch, except that lead at station 5 is elevated above what would be expected if the

head of the ditch were the source of all contamination (Figure 3.11). 

Creek bottom sediment samples were statistically significantly higher in lead concentration

than bank samples at station 4 (p=0.046). At station 1, bank sediment contained higher

concentrations of lead than creek bottom sediment (p=0.034). At all other stations, there

was no difference between bank and creek bottom sediment lead concentrations (p>0.05).
50

Creek bottom sediment lead concentrations were log transformed before statistical

comparison. All stations at the site were statistically elevated in lead content when

compared to the two reference stations (p<0.05). The two reference stations are different

from each other in lead concentration, with station 2 having higher lead concentrations in

creek bottom sediment (p=0.0015). Stations 4 and 5 are similar to each other in lead

concentration, but higher than all other stations (Appendix A).

Creek sediment generally declines in lead concentration away from the head of the ditch,

except that lead at station 5 is higher than what would be expected if the head of the ditch

were the source of all contamination. Grain size normalized and non-normalized data have

a similar pattern.

3.4 Fish

Results of fish sampling are presented in Figures 3.13-3.16 and Table 3.4. Methylmercury

was detected in some of the method blanks for fish analyses (at a concentration of 0.004

μg/g dry weight). Data was blank corrected by the laboratory. Correlations between

parameters are presented in Appendix A.2.

3.4.1 Mercury

Fish mercury concentrations were not transformed before statistical comparisons. All

stations at the site were statistically elevated in total mercury concentration when compared

to the two reference stations (p<0.05).

Fish at the two reference stations are not different from each other in total mercury

concentration. Stations 3 and 4 are similar in concentration to each other, but higher than

all other stations sampled. Station 5 is different from all other stations (Appendix A).
51

Concentrations of total mercury in fish decline steadily away from the head of the LCP

ditch (Figure 3.17). Methylmercury in fish follows the same pattern as total mercury. The

percentage of methylmercury in fish ranges from 66.5% at one of the reference stations

(station 1) to 90-100% at site stations.

3.4.2 Aroclor 1268

Fish Aroclor 1268 concentrations were rank-it transformed before statistical comparison.

All stations at the site were statistically elevated in Aroclor 1268 concentration when

compared to the two reference stations (p<0.05). Other Aroclors were not detected in any

fish samples with detection limits that vary between 0.08 μg/g and 1 μg/g dry weight (due

to the requirements to dilute highly contaminated sample extracts to quantify Aroclor 1268).

The two reference stations are not different from each other in Aroclor 1268 concentration.

The fish concentration at station 4 is higher than all other stations sampled. Stations 3 and

5 are similar in concentration to each other, but different from all other stations sampled

(Appendix A).

Stations closest to the site have highest fish PCB concentrations, but except for stations 3,

4, and 5, concentrations are fairly uniform (Figure 3.18). Normalizing concentrations to

lipid content results in a uniform pattern, with the exception of fish at station 4.

3.4.3 Lead

Fish lead concentrations were rank-it transformed before statistical comparison. All

stations at the site were statistically similar in lead concentration when compared to the two

reference stations except for station 10, which had a significantly lower lead concentration

than the mean of the reference sites (p<0.05).
52

The two reference stations are not different from each other in lead concentration. Station 8

has significantly higher lead concentrations in fish than stations 9 and 10 (Appendix A).

There is no obvious pattern in lead concentrations in fish with distance from the head of the

ditch (Figure 3.19).

3.5 Fiddler crab

Results of analysis of fiddler crabs is presented in Figures 3.20-3.23 and Table 3.5.

Correlations between parameters are presented in Appendix A.2.

3.5.1 Mercury

Fiddler crab mercury concentrations were log transformed before statistical comparisons.

All stations at the site were statistically elevated in total mercury concentration when

compared to the two reference stations (p<0.05-Appendix A). Fiddler crabs at the two

reference stations are not different from each other in total mercury concentration.

Total mercury in crab declines with distance from the head of the LCP ditch (Figure 3.24).

Concentrations of total mercury in crab are slightly elevated at stations 6, 7, and 8

compared to what might be expected in the head of the ditch were the only source of

mercury to crabs. The pattern of methylmercury in crabs is similar, but with lower

concentrations at station 4 than might be expected based on total mercury concentrations

(Figure 3.25). The percentage of methylmercury in crabs ranges from 38.2% at station 4

to 100% at reference station 1.

3.5.2 Aroclor 1268

Fiddler crab Aroclor 1268 concentrations were not transformed before statistical

comparison. Fiddler crabs from stations 3, 4, and 9 were not analyzed for Aroclor 1268

due to limited tissue volume. Other Aroclors were not detected in any crab samples with
53

detection limits that vary between 0.08 μg/g and 0.5 μg/g dw (due to the requirements to

dilute highly contaminated sample extracts to quantify Aroclor 1268), except at station 1,

where one replicate of crabs contained 0.520 μg/g dw Aroclor 1254. All stations at the site

were statistically elevated in Aroclor 1268 concentration when compared to the two

reference stations (p<0.05), except for station 6.

The two reference stations are not different from each other in Aroclor 1268 concentration.

The concentration at station 5 was higher than all other stations sampled (Appendix A).

3.5.3 Lead

Fiddler crab lead concentrations were not transformed before statistical comparison.

Fiddler crabs from stations 3 and 4 were not analyzed for lead due to limited tissue volume

available. All stations at the site were statistically different in lead concentration when

compared to the two reference stations except for station 10 (p<0.05).

The two reference stations are not different from each other in lead concentration. Station

10 has lower fiddler crab lead concentrations than all other site stations (Appendix A).

No strong relationship between lead concentrations in crabs and distance from the head of

the ditch is apparent, except that concentrations at station 10 are the lowest among those at

the site.

3.6 Resident Oysters

Results of sampling for resident oysters are presented in Figures 3.26-3.29 and Table 3.6.

Correlations between parameters are presented in Appendix A.2.
54

3.6.1 Mercury

Statistical comparisons of resident oyster data were not possible due to limited replication

(only one sample was analyzed at station 10). Based on the three stations analyzed, no

pattern is apparent over the site in total mercury concentrations. Methylmercury

concentrations in resident oysters may be lower at station 10 (1.67 μg/g dw) than at

stations 4 and 5 (1.75-1.76 μg/g dw). The percentage of methylmercury in resident oyster

tissues ranged from 62.6% at station 4 to 70.59% at station 10.

3.6.2 Aroclor 1268

Aroclor 1268 concentrations in resident oysters may be lower at station 5 (0.2 μg/g dw)

than at stations 4 and 10 (0.4 μg/g dw). A similar pattern is seen in lipid normalized

concentrations. However, Aroclor 1268 was only detected above 0.18 μg/g in four of the

six samples, where concentrations ranged from 0.34-0.64 μg/g dw.

3.6.3 Lead

Lead in resident oysters ranged from a mean of 0.53 μg/g dry weight at station 5 to 1.16

μg/g at station 10.

3.7 Transplanted Oysters

Oysters were retrieved from all field stations on October 1 and 2, 1997. Length of

deployment was 62 days. Upon retrieval, all cages were in excellent condition. There

were no signs of predation or vandalism. In general, the oysters were in very good

condition, except for oysters in one cage from Station 4 and one cage from Station 5. All

oysters in both of these cages were dead. Ancillary data on caged oysters is presented in

Appendix B.
55

Concentrations in caged oysters may not accurately reflect bioavailability of contaminants if

oysters are not actively growing, or if growth rates vary across the site. Therefore, both

concentration and content (the mass of contaminant in the animal) are presented and

analyzed in this section. Results of chemical analysis of caged oysters are presented in

Figures 3.26-3.29 and in Tables 3.6 and 3.7. Correlations between parameters are

presented in Appendix A.2.

3.7.1 Mercury

Total mercury concentration at the start of the test by station was estimated at 0.16 μg/g

dw. This estimate was based on the total mercury concentration measured for the 150

animals used for time zero, test initiation (T0) tissue chemistry analyses. Mean total

mercury concentrations by station ranged from 0.1 to 3.86 μg/g-dry at the end of the test.

The highest concentrations were measured in oysters deployed at Station 3. The

concentration of total mercury was lower in oysters deployed at both reference stations after

the 62-day deployment period than at the start. Oysters at all other stations accumulated

mercury during the deployment period.

The mercury data were suitable for parametric analyses without transformation. The results

of the ANOVA indicated significant differences between stations (p =0.0002); the

Bonferroni test indicated that total mercury was significantly higher at all sites stations

except 9 and 10 when compared to the two reference stations. The site stations were

compared to each other with the Newman-Keuls test (Appendix A).

Total mercury content per individual at the start of the test was 0.06 μg. The total mercury

content increased in oysters at all stations except those at the reference stations during the

62-day deployment period. The lowest total mercury content was found in oysters at the

reference stations; the highest content was found in oysters at Station 3.
56

The total mercury content data were suitable for parametric analyses with log

transformation. The results of the ANOVA indicated significant differences between

stations (p =0.000001). The Bonferroni multiple contrast analysis indicated that the total

mercury content at all site stations were significantly higher than at the reference stations.

In addition to differences between reference stations and stations near the LCP facility,

significant differences were found among the LCP stations themselves (Appendix A).

Total mercury concentrations and content in caged oysters generally decline with distance

from the head of the LCP ditch, except that stations 6, 7, and 8 have higher total mercury

concentrations and content than would be expected if the head of the ditch were the source

of all mercury to caged oysters (Figure 3.30).

Methylmercury concentration at the start of the test by station was estimated at 0.18 μg/g

dw. This estimate was based on the methylmercury concentration measured for the 150

animals used for time zero, test initiation (T0) tissue chemistry analyses. Methylmercury

concentrations by station ranged from 0.07 to 2.86 μg/g dw. The lowest methylmercury

concentrations were measured in oysters deployed at the reference stations; the highest

concentrations were measured in oysters deployed at Station 3. The concentration of

methylmercury was lower in oysters deployed at both reference stations after the 62-day

deployment period than at the start. Oysters at all other stations accumulated

methylmercury during the deployment period. No statistical analyses could be done on the

methylmercury data due to lack of replication. The proportion of mercury in the methylated

form in terms of concentration ranged from 38.8% at station 8 to 100% at stations 2 and 9.

Methylmercury content per individual at the start of the test was 0.07 μg. The

methylmercury content increased in oysters at all stations except those at the reference
57

stations during the 62-day deployment period. The lowest methylmercury content was

found in oysters at the reference stations; the highest content was found in oysters at

Station 3. No statistical analysis could be done on the methylmercury content data due to

the lack of replication. The proportion of mercury in the methylated form in terms of

content ranged from 42.61% at station 6 to 100% at station 9. Methylmercury content

generally declines with distance from the head of the LCP ditch, except that the

methylmercury content at station 3 is higher than would be expected if the ditch were the

source of all methylmercury to oysters (Figure 3.31).

3.7.2 Aroclor 1268

Aroclor 1268 was not detected in tissues analyzed at the start of the test at a method

detection limit of 0.18 μg/g dw. 150 animals in three replicates of 50 each were analyzed to

provide an estimate of concentrations at the start of the test. Other Aroclors were not

detected in any caged oyster, except in initally deployed oysters, which contained 0.5 μg/g

dw Aroclor 1254. For purposes of graphical and statistical analyses, a value of one-half

the method detection limit, 0.05 μg/g, was used for non-detects. Mean Aroclor 1268

concentrations at the end of the test ranged from less than 0.18 μg/g dw to 1.58 μg/g dw.

However, individual replicates of oysters (with the exception of one replicate at station 4

that accumulated 2.73 μg/g) either contained less than 0.18 μg/g or 0.13-0.46 μg/g Aroclor

1268).

Oysters at the reference stations did not contain detectable concentrations of Aroclor 1268

after the 62-day deployment period. The highest concentrations were measured in oysters

deployed at Station 4. Oysters at all site stations except stations 6, 7, and 9 accumulated

Aroclor 1268 during the deployment period.
58

The PCB data were suitable for parametric analyses after rankit transformation. The results

of the ANOVA indicated significant differences between stations (p = 0.0008); the

Bonferroni test indicated that Aroclor 1268 was significantly higher at test Stations 3, 4 and

5 when compared to the two reference stations. The site stations were compared to each

other with the Newman-Keuls test (Appendix A).

The Aroclor 1268 content increased in oysters only at Stations 3, 4, 5, 8 and 10 during the

62-day deployment period. The lowest Aroclor 1268 content was found in oysters at the

reference stations; the highest content was found in oysters at Station 4.

The Aroclor 1268 content data was suitable for parametric analyses with rankit

transformation. The results of the ANOVA indicated significant differences between

stations (p =0.02326). The Bonferroni multiple contrast analysis indicated no significant

differences between reference stations and stations near the LCP facility. However, the

Newman-Keuls multiple range test indicates that Aroclor 1268 content at Stations 6 and 9

were significantly lower than at Station 4 (Appendix A).

Aroclor 1268 concentrations and content in caged oysters generally decline with distance

from the head of the LCP ditch (Figure 3.32). Normalizing concentrations and content to

lipid content reduces differences between sites except at station 4, where concentrations and

content are still elevated.

3.7.3 Lead

Total lead concentration at the start of the test by station was estimated at 0.5 μg/g dw.

This estimate was based on the total lead concentration measured for the 150 animals used

for time zero, test initiation (T0) tissue chemistry analyses. Mean total lead concentrations

by station ranged from 0.8 to 1.40 μg/g dw at the end of the test. The lowest total lead
59

concentrations were measured in oysters deployed at Station 9; the highest concentrations

were measured in oysters deployed at Station 3. Lead was accumulated by oysters

deployed at both reference stations; the concentrations measured in reference oysters at the

end of the test were among the highest measured during the caged oyster study.

The total lead concentration data were suitable for parametric analyses without

transformation. No significant differences were found between stations in lead

concentrations (p>0.05).

Total lead content per individual at the start of the test was 0.20 mg. The lead content

increased in oysters at all stations during the 62-day deployment period. The lowest lead

content was found in oysters at the reference stations and Station 6; the highest content was

found in oysters at Station 3.

The total lead content data were suitable for parametric analyses with log transformation.

The results of the ANOVA indicated significant differences between stations

(p=0.011048). The Bonferroni multiple contrast analysis indicated no significant

differences between reference stations and stations near the LCP facility. However, the

Newman-Keuls multiple range test indicates that lead content at Stations 3 and 4 were

significantly higher than at Station 9.

No relationship is apparent between oyster concentrations or content and distance from the

head of the LCP ditch.

3.7.4 Comparison with Resident Oysters

Tissues of resident oysters collected from Stations 4, 5, and 10 were analyzed for total

lead, total mercury, methylmercury, and Aroclor 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254,

1260, and 1268. The concentration of each chemical measured in resident oyster tissues
60

are provided in Table 3.10. In nearly all cases the resident oysters were found to have

lower concentrations of total mercury, lead, and Aroclor 1268 than the caged oysters.

Exceptions were seen at Station 10 where resident oysters had slightly higher

concentrations of total mercury and Aroclor 1268 (Figures 3.12-3.15). Methylmercury

concentrations were very similar between caged oysters and resident oysters. Other

Aroclors were not detected in resident oysters with detection limits that ranged from 0.18 to

0.3 μg/g dw.
Table 3.1.a. High Water Chemistry - Unfiltered

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TotalSuspendedSolids 200 234 34 38 18 47 56 42 58 50

(mg/L)

Ammonia

(mg/L) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDND = < 0.05 mg/L

Total Lead

(ug/L) ND 1 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDND = < 2 ug/L

Total Mercury 26 23 71 136 32 45 63 56 53 26

(ng/L)

TotalManganese 8 2 3 5 8 9 0 8 6 5 9 8 7 NA 9 7 1 1 1 1 1 0

(ug/L)NA = not analyzed

TotalIron 4280 11000 7 9 5 1000 5 7 3 8 6 8 NA 1150 1270 1260

(ug/L)NA = not analyzed

PCBAroclor 1268

(ug/L) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDND = < 0.2 ug/L
Table 3.1.b. High Water Chemistry - Filtered

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

DissolvedOrganic Carbon 5.0 4.7 4.5 4.7 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.3 3.9

(mg/L)

DissolvedLead ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

(ug/L)ND = < 2 ug/L

Dissolved Mercury ND ND 8 ND 5 6 7 1 0 3 0 7

(ng/L)ND =< 5 ng/L

Dissolved Manganese 28 70 42 9 16 9 13 11 7 7

(ug/L)

Dissolved Iron 75 151 225 112 144 103 156 132 104 104

(ug/L)
Table 3.1.c. Low Water Chemistry - Unfiltered

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TotalSuspendedSolids 65 49 25 46 1350 84 90 97 58 7

(mg/L)

Ammonia

(mg/L) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDND = < 0.05 mg/L

Total Lead

(ug/L) ND ND ND ND 2 0 ND 5 ND ND NDND = < 2 ug/L

Total Mercury

(ng/L) ND ND 3 4 1 3 9 8 1 1 4 1 5 9 2 0 3 9 5 4 6 4 3ND = < 5 ng/L

MonomethylMercury 14.4 3.94 2.31

(ng/L)

PercentMonomethylMercury 12.63 8.57 5.37TotalManganese 428 498 1150 1020 1400 1530 1080 916 399 78

(ug/L)
Table 3.1.c. Low Water Chemistry - Unfiltered (cont.)

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TotalIron 1560 1210 600 1140 11200 2680 4440 1760 905 529

(ug/L)

PCBAroclor 1268

(ug/L) ND ND 0.7 1.0 5.5 ND 0.3 ND ND NDND = < 0.2 ug/L
Table 3.1.d. Low Water Chemistry - Filtered

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

DissolvedOrganic Carbon 5.1 5.4 20.5 9.9 8.7 10.2 9.5 10 6.4 5.3

(mg/L)

DissolvedLead

(ug/L) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDND = < 2 ug/L

Dissolved Mercury

(ng/L) ND ND 8 2 1 3 5 9 4 2 0 3 4 3 3 1 2 7ND = < 5 ng/L

Dissolved MonomethylMercury 4.29 0.671 0.414

(ng/L)

PercentDissolved Monomethyl 4.56 5.59 5.91MercuryDissolved Manganese 363 391 1080 874 1000 1280 982 873 316 29

(ug/L)

Dissolved Iron 489 197 366 322 154 435 204 314 150 126

(ug/L)
Table 3.2. Bank Sediment Chemistry

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PercentTotal Rep 1 3.67 4.26 7.00 5.36 3.49 5.64 5.21 5.45 3.71 2.84Organic Rep 4 3.73 5.50 8.43 5.51 2.51 5.44 5.26 5.44 4.69 4.65Carbon Rep 7 3.56 4.85 5.65 5.59 4.14 5.83 5.31 5.32 4.76 4.52

Mean 3.65 4.87 7.03 5.49 3.38 5.64 5.26 5.40 4.39 4.00Std. Dev 0.09 0.62 1.39 0.12 0.82 0.20 0.05 0.07 0.59 1.01

Total Rep 1 3 3 J 4 0 J 720 J 7 8 660 9 0 220 140 470 4 1Sulfides Rep 4 1 4 J 410 J 230 J 760 440 190 100 100 9 8 110

(mg/kg) Rep 7 200 J 9 7 J 1400 J 1100 250 69 100 39 140 44

Mean 8 2 182 783 646 450 116 140 9 3 236 6 5Std. Dev 102 199 588 520 205 6 5 6 9 5 1 204 3 9

Percent Rep 1 84.3 86.2 96.1 96.3 53.4 94.7 99.3 96.6 78.8 59.8Fines Rep 4 88.5 81.9 98.9 99.1 42.4 98.3 101.7 97.1 112.2 92.6

Rep 7 90.4 86.7 92.7 101.6 62.4 94.0 95.1 92.6 97.1 88.3Mean 87.7 84.9 95.9 99.0 52.7 95.7 98.7 95.4 96.0 80.2Std. Dev 3.1 2.6 3.1 2.7 10.0 2.3 3.3 2.5 16.7 17.8

Total Rep 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 9 5 8 2 3 1 9 2 0 1 6 1 3Lead Rep 4 1 1 9 2 2 3 3 5 3 2 2 1 8 2 0 2 0 1 7

(mg/kg-dry) Rep 7 1 1 1 1 2 8 3 5 3 4 2 5 2 0 2 0 1 8 1 8

Mean 1 1 1 0 2 3 3 2 4 8 2 3 1 9 2 0 1 8 1 6Std. Dev 0 1 4 3 1 3 21023

Total Rep 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 3 0 109 2 4 1 9 2 1 2 0 2 2Lead (mg/kg-dry) Rep 4 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 125 2 2 1 8 2 1 1 8 1 8(norm. to % fines) Rep 7 1 2 1 3 3 0 3 4 5 4 2 7 2 1 2 2 1 9 2 0

Mean 1 3 1 2 2 4 3 3 9 6 2 4 1 9 2 1 1 9 2 0Std. Dev 0 1 5 2 3 7 22112
Table 3.2. Bank Sediment Chemistry (cont.) (note altered units for methyl mercury)

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Total Rep 1 0.050 0.040 16.40 8.17 8.02 1.93 1.26 1.08 1.64 0.42Mercury Rep 4 0.050 0.050 8.89 10.20 7.52 1.36 1.10 0.86 1.35 0.94(mg/kg-dry) Rep 7 0.050 0.050 12.70 7.32 20.40 1.95 1.16 0.97 1.34 0.90

Mean 0.050 0.047 12.66 8.56 11.98 1.75 1.17 0.97 1.44 0.75Std. Dev 0.000 0.006 3.76 1.48 7.30 0.34 0.08 0.11 0.17 0.29

Total Rep 1 0.059 0.046 17.07 8.48 15.02 2.04 1.27 1.12 2.08 0.70Mercury Rep 4 0.056 0.061 8.99 10.29 17.74 1.38 1.08 0.89 1.20 1.02(mg/kg dry) Rep 7 0.055 0.058 13.70 7.20 32.69 2.07 1.22 1.05 1.38 1.02(norm. to % fines) Mean 0.057 0.055 13.25 8.66 21.82 1.83 1.19 1.02 1.55 0.91

Std. Dev 0.002 0.008 4.06 1.55 9.52 0.39 0.10 0.12 0.46 0.18

MethylMercury Rep 4 0.486* 0.608* 57.400* 32.700* 4.950* 13.100* 9.930* 11.600* 20.100* 8.370*(ug/kg-dry)PercentMethyl Rep 4 0.970 1.220 0.650 0.320 0.070 0.960 0.900 1.350 1.490 0.890MercuryPCB Rep 1 ND ND 57.0 J 18.0 89.0 6.3 3.1 2.4 3.6 2.2Aroclor 1268 Rep 4 ND ND 25.0 27.0 17.0 5.3 2.5 1.8 1.5 4.4

(mg/kg-dry) Rep 7 ND ND 35.0 J 20.0 43.0 6.8 2.9 3.0 1.6 2.1

ND = < 0.028 mg/kg Mean 0.014** 0.014** 39.0 21.7 49.7 6.1 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.9

Std. Dev 0.0 0.0 16.4 4.7 36.5 0.8 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.3

PCB Rep 1 ND ND 847.3 348.7 4775.5 118.0 59.9 45.6 123.1 129.5Aroclor 1268 Rep 4 ND ND 299.9 494.5 1597.4 99.1 46.9 34.1 28.5 102.2(normalized to %fines Rep 7 ND ND 668.3 352.1 1664.5 124.1 57.4 60.9 34.6 52.6and TOC) Mean 0.437** 0.342** 605.1 398.4 2679.1 113.7 54.8 46.9 62.1 94.8

Std. Dev 0.015 0.036 279.1 83.2 1815.9 13.0 6.9 13.5 53.0 39.0

*All samples blank corrected by 0.004 - 0.045 ug/kg** Mean values calculated using 1/2 detection limit 
Table 3.3. Creek Sediment Chemistry (cont.) (note altered units for methyl mercury)

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

Total Rep 1 0.010 0.030 16.80 60.50 9.19 2.16 3.45 2.50 1.50 1.36Mercury Rep 4 0.005 0.020 11.70 61.80 50.10 1.84 2.30 1.73 2.13 1.33(mg/kg-dry) Rep 7 0.010 0.030 0.10 72.80 12.60 1.70 2.17 2.23 1.90 2.61

Mean 0.008 0.027 9.53 65.03 23.96 1.90 2.64 2.15 1.84 1.77

Std. Dev 0.003 0.006 8.56 6.76 22.70 0.24 0.70 0.39 0.32 0.73

Total Rep 1 0.063 0.066 20.44 74.69 11.29 2.20 3.43 2.53 2.26 1.46Mercury Rep 4 0.049 0.088 12.77 70.23 52.46 1.82 2.46 1.86 2.14 1.72

(mg/kg dry) Rep 7 0.071 0.055 0.10 90.43 16.89 1.82 2.28 2.39 1.96 2.73

(norm. to % fines) Mean 0.061 0.070 11.10 78.45 26.88 1.94 2.72 2.26 2.12 1.97

Std. Dev 0.011 0.017 10.27 10.62 22.33 0.22 0.62 0.36 0.15 0.67

MethylMercury Rep 4 0.052* 0.105* 5.950* 18.500* 2.940* 0.825* 5.570* 1.080* 10.000* 2.990*(ug/kg-dry)PercentMethyl Rep 4 1.040 0.525 0.051 0.030 0.006 0.045 0.242 0.062 0.469 0.225MercuryPCB Rep 1 ND ND 78.0 190.0 J 49.0 3.0 4.1 5.4 4.2 2.2Aroclor 1268 Rep 4 ND ND 110.0 J 110.0 J 96.0 1.8 6.8 J 5.5 J 2.5 9.4(mg/kg-dry) Rep 7 ND ND 0.295 99.0 J 62.0 5.4 J 5.2 J 4.4 7.3 22.0

ND = < 0.028 mg/kg Mean 0.014** 0.014** 62.8 133.0 69.0 3.4 5.4 5.1 4.7 11.2

Std. Dev 0.0 0.0 56.4 49.7 24.3 1.8 1.4 0.6 2.4 10.0

PCB Rep 1 ND ND 1506.2 4319.9 1286.3 50.8 76.0 105.5 190.8 53.5Aroclor 1268 Rep 4 ND ND 2261.5 1935.0 1798.3 35.4 122.6 108.5 54.1 350.4

(normalized to % fines Rep 7 ND ND 7.08 2364.5 1699.6 111.6 86.5 80.7 165.4 512.0

and TOC) Mean 20.5** 1.8** 1258.3 2873.1 1594.7 65.9 95.0 98.2 136.8 305.3

Std. Dev 7.6 0.7 1147.5 1271.2 271.6 40.3 24.5 15.3 72.7 232.5

*All samples blank corrected by 0.004 - 0.045 ug/kg

** Mean values calculated using 1/2 detection limit
Table 3.3. Creek Sediment Chemistry (cont.) (note altered units for methyl mercury)

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

Total Rep 1 0.010 0.030 16.80 60.50 9.19 2.16 3.45 2.50 1.50 1.36Mercury Rep 4 0.005 0.020 11.70 61.80 50.10 1.84 2.30 1.73 2.13 1.33(mg/kg-dry) Rep 7 0.010 0.030 0.10 72.80 12.60 1.70 2.17 2.23 1.90 2.61

Mean 0.008 0.027 9.53 65.03 23.96 1.90 2.64 2.15 1.84 1.77

Std. Dev 0.003 0.006 8.56 6.76 22.70 0.24 0.70 0.39 0.32 0.73

Total Rep 1 0.063 0.066 20.44 74.69 11.29 2.20 3.43 2.53 2.26 1.46Mercury Rep 4 0.049 0.088 12.77 70.23 52.46 1.82 2.46 1.86 2.14 1.72

(mg/kg dry) Rep 7 0.071 0.055 0.10 90.43 16.89 1.82 2.28 2.39 1.96 2.73

(norm. to % fines) Mean 0.061 0.070 11.10 78.45 26.88 1.94 2.72 2.26 2.12 1.97

Std. Dev 0.011 0.017 10.27 10.62 22.33 0.22 0.62 0.36 0.15 0.67

MethylMercury Rep 4 0.052* 0.105* 5.950* 18.500* 2.940* 0.825* 5.570* 1.080* 10.000* 2.990*(ug/kg-dry)PercentMethyl Rep 4 1.040 0.525 0.051 0.030 0.006 0.045 0.242 0.062 0.469 0.225MercuryPCB Rep 1 ND ND 78.0 190.0 J 49.0 3.0 4.1 5.4 4.2 2.2Aroclor 1268 Rep 4 ND ND 110.0 J 110.0 J 96.0 1.8 6.8 J 5.5 J 2.5 9.4(mg/kg-dry) Rep 7 ND ND 0.295 99.0 J 62.0 5.4 J 5.2 J 4.4 7.3 22.0

ND = < 0.028 mg/kg Mean 0.014** 0.014** 62.8 133.0 69.0 3.4 5.4 5.1 4.7 11.2

Std. Dev 0.0 0.0 56.4 49.7 24.3 1.8 1.4 0.6 2.4 10.0

PCB Rep 1 ND ND 1506.2 4319.9 1286.3 50.8 76.0 105.5 190.8 53.5Aroclor 1268 Rep 4 ND ND 2261.5 1935.0 1798.3 35.4 122.6 108.5 54.1 350.4

(normalized to % fines Rep 7 ND ND 7.08 2364.5 1699.6 111.6 86.5 80.7 165.4 512.0

and TOC) Mean 20.5** 1.8** 1258.3 2873.1 1594.7 65.9 95.0 98.2 136.8 305.3

Std. Dev 7.6 0.7 1147.5 1271.2 271.6 40.3 24.5 15.3 72.7 232.5

*All samples blank corrected by 0.004 - 0.045 ug/kg

** Mean values calculated using 1/2 detection limit
Table 3.4. Fish Tissue Chemistry

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Total Rep 1 0.17 0.26 0.27 0.19 0.19 0.26 0.13 0.27 0.10 0.10Lead Rep 2 0.14 0.24 0.19 0.14 0.30 0.19 0.18 0.64 0.12

(μg/g-dry) Rep 3 0.87 0.29 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.17 0.15 0.25 0.10

Mean 0.39 0.26 0.22 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.39 0.10 0.11Std. Dev. 0.41 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.01

Total Rep 1 0.04 0.02 1.36 1.30 1.05 0.40 0.49 0.38 0.55 0.20Mercury Rep 2 0.04 0.01 1.10 1.20 0.79 0.34 0.42 0.37 0.20

(μg/g-dry) Rep 3 0.04 0.02 1.07 1.16 1.01 0.42 0.37 0.39 0.25

Mean 0.04 0.02 1.18 1.22 0.95 0.39 0.43 0.38 0.55 0.22Std. Dev. 0.00 0.01 0.16 0.07 0.14 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.03

Methyl Rep 1 0.0266* 0.0183* 1.411* 1.259* 0.943* 0.423* 0.441* 0.388* 0.582* 0.244*Mercury Rep 2 0.286*(μg/g-dry) Rep 3 0.426*

Mean 0.319Std. Dev. 0.095

Percent Rep 1 66.50 91.50 103.75 96.85 89.81 105.75 90.00 102.11 105.82 123.23Methyl Rep 2 156.88Mercury Rep 3 169.65

Mean 149.92Std. Dev. 23.98

PCB Rep 1 ND ND 15.75 85.71 14.96 3.83 2.44 1.57 1.55 0.65Aroclor 1268 Rep 2 ND ND 11.59 25.00 9.96 2.68 3.31 2.22 0.83(μg/g-dry) Rep 3 ND ND 21.84 34.87 11.20 2.92 2.46 1.67 0.51

ND=<0.08 μg/g Mean 0.04** 0.04** 16.39 48.53 12.04 3.14 2.74 1.82 1.55 0.66

Std. Dev. 0.00 0.00 5.16 32.58 2.60 0.61 0.50 0.35 0.00 0.16

*All samples blank corrected by 4 ug/kg

**Mean values calculated using 1/2 detection limit 
Table 3.4. Fish Tissue Chemistry (cont.)

Station: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PCB Rep 1 ND ND 173.84 1166.12 * * * 40.66 153.46 16.42 19.16 6.56Aroclor 1268 Rep 2 ND ND 179.97 1838.24 240.00 29.94 39.03 100.91 9.42Lipid Normalized Rep 3 ND ND 518.76 505.36 100.00 23.27 23.61 21.01 4.91(μg/g lipid) Mean 0.66** 0.63** 290.86 1169.91 170.00 31.29 72.03 46.11 19.16 6.96

Std. Dev. 0.01 0.09 197.39 666.45 98.99 8.77 70.94 47.51 0.00 2.28

Percent Rep 1 6.1 7.2 9.1 7.4 0.0 9.4 1.6 9.6 8.1 9.9Lipids Rep 2 6.7 5.5 6.4 1.4 4.2 9.0 8.5 2.2 8.8(dry) Rep 3 6.0 6.6 4.2 6.9 11.2 12.6 10.4 8.0 10.4

Mean 6.3 6.4 6.6 5.2 5.1 10.3 6.8 6.6 8.1 9.7Std. Dev. 0.4 0.9 2.4 3.3 5.7 2.0 4.6 3.9 0.0 0.8

Percent Rep 1 26.1 23.5 25.4 24.5 25.4 22.3 25.1 25.1 23.5 22.2Solids Rep 2 25.3 23.5 23.3 22.0 24.1 25.7 22.4 22.7 22.7

Rep 3 26.7 25.9 26.1 26.1 25.0 26.3 24.0 23.9 23.1Mean 26.0 24.3 24.9 24.2 24.8 24.8 23.8 23.9 23.5 22.7Std. Dev. 0.7 1.4 1.5 2.1 0.7 2.2 1.4 1.2 0.0 0.5

*** Value not included since sample contained no detectable lipid**Mean values calculated using 1/2 detection limit 
Table 3.5. Fiddler Crab Tissue Chemistry

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Total Rep 1 0.30 0.42 2.71 1.85 1.84 2.07 1.17 0.33 J

Lead Rep 2 0.34 0.42 1.97 2.11 1.28 1.58 1.06 0.41

(μg/g-dry) Rep 3 0.44 0.40 1.84 2.67 1.69 0.86 0.79 0.53

Rep 4 1.08Mean 0.36 0.41 2.17 2.21 1.47 1.50 1.01 0.42Std. Dev. 0.07 0.01 0.47 0.42 0.35 0.61 0.20 0.10

Total Rep 1 0.01 0.02 0.47 0.50 0.27 0.24 0.32 0.25 0.16 0.10Mercury Rep 2 0.02 0.02 0.43 0.32 0.23 0.26 0.30 0.32 0.14 0.13

(μg/g-dry) Rep 3 0.01 0.01 0.46 0.58 0.20 0.24 0.30 0.28 0.11 0.10

Rep 4 0.29Mean 0.01 0.02 0.45 0.47 0.23 0.25 0.30 0.28 0.14 0.11Std. Dev. 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.02

MethylMercury Rep 1 0.0116 0.0131 0.366 0.191 0.237 0.114 0.193 0.165 0.141 0.077

(μg/g-dry)

PercentMethyl Rep 1 116.00 65.50 77.87 38.20 87.78 47.50 60.31 66.00 88.12 77.00MercuryPCB Rep 1 0.07 ND 5.41 0.25 J 0.59 2.10 1.68 JAroclor 1268 Rep 2 ND ND 4.81 0.66 0.34 1.45 1.12 J

(μg/g-dry) Rep 3 ND ND 5.04 0.55 0.66 2.08 1.29 J

ND=<0.06 μg/g Rep 4 0.92

Mean 0.04* 0.03* 5.09 0.59 0.53 1.88 1.36Std. Dev. 0.02 0.00 0.30 0.28 0.17 0.37 0.29

*Mean values calculated using 1/2 detection limits
Table 3.5. Fiddler Crab Tissue Chemistry (cont.)

Station: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PCB Rep 1 ND ND 158.19 4.84 17.05 37.17 19.77

Aroclor 1268 Rep 2 ND ND 174.91 12.20 17.17 39.51 56.57Lipid Normalized Rep 3 ND ND 169.70 12.88 15.28 45.02 ***(μg/g lipid) Rep 4 32.18

Mean 1.33** 0.99** 167.60 9.97 20.42 40.57 38.17Std. Dev. 0.87 0.11 8.56 4.46 7.88 4.03 26.03

Percent Rep 1 3.10 2.86 3.42 5.16 3.46 5.65 0.85Lipids Rep 2 3.38 2.83 2.75 5.41 1.98 3.67 1.98

(dry) Rep 3 3.93 3.45 2.97 4.27 4.32 4.62 0.00

Rep 4 2.85Mean 3.47 3.05 3.05 4.95 3.15 4.65 0.94Std. Dev. 0.42 0.35 0.34 0.60 0.99 0.99 0.99

Percent Rep 1 32.30 31.50 31.90 19.20 29.20 34.90 37.60 33.60 35.10 35.50Solids Rep 2 32.50 31.80 32.10 27.00 29.10 29.60 35.30 30.00 34.30 35.30

Rep 3 33.10 29.00 37.40 31.10 33.70 32.80 32.40 30.30 33.40 34.80Mean 32.63 30.77 33.80 25.77 30.67 32.43 35.10 31.30 34.27 35.20Std. Dev. 0.42 1.54 3.12 6.05 2.63 2.67 2.61 2.00 0.85 0.36

*** Value not included since sample contained no detectable lipid*Mean values calculated using 1/2 detection limits
Table 3.6 Oyster Tissue Chemistry - Concentration

 Caged Oysters Resident Oysters

Station: Initial 1-Ref 2-Ref 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4 5 10

Total Rep 1 0.44 0.67 0.75 1.35 1.39 1.28 0.87 0.86 1.09 0.84 1.14 0.80 0.81 1.16

Lead Rep 2 0.55 0.85 0.79 1.17 1.41 1.29 0.87 1.17 0.92 0.81 1.08 1.41 0.35

(μg/g-dry) Rep 3 0.98 1.34 1.20 0.98 0.94 1.12 0.75 0.93 0.60 0.43

Mean 0.50 0.83 0.96 1.24 1.40 1.28 0.91 0.99 1.04 0.80 1.05 0.94 0.53 1.16Std. Dev. 0.08 0.16 0.33 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.16 0.11 0.04 0.11 0.42 0.25 0.00

Total Rep 1 0.16 0.13 0.12 4.12 3.20 2.41 6.19 2.43 2.41 1.27 1.12 2.81 2.28 2.36Mercury Rep 2 0.16 0.10 0.10 3.54 4.51 2.60 2.07 2.30 2.13 0.97 1.23 1.80 0.50

(μg/g-dry) Rep 3 0.16 0.11 0.09 3.61 2.82 1.77 2.45 0.87 1.19 2.33 0.47

Mean 0.16 0.11 0.10 3.76 3.86 2.50 3.69 2.17 2.33 1.04 1.18 2.31 1.08 2.36Std. Dev. 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.32 0.93 0.13 2.19 0.35 0.17 0.21 0.06 0.50 1.04 0.00

MethylMercury Rep 1 0.18 0.07 0.10 2.86 2.74 2.11 1.29 1.09 0.95 0.96 1.10 1.76 1.75 1.67

(μg/g-dry)

PercentMethyl Rep 1 112.50 53.85 83.33 69.42 85.62 87.55 20.84 44.86 39.42 75.59 98.21 62.63 76.84 70.76MercuryPCB Rep 1 ND ND ND 0.39 0.42 0.34 ND ND ND ND ND 0.47 0.34 0.41Aroclor 1268 Rep 2 ND ND ND 0.30 2.73 0.36 ND ND 0.46 ND 0.14 ND ND(μg/g-dry) Rep 3 ND ND ND 0.32 ND ND ND 0.13 0.64 ND

ND=<0.18 μg/g Mean 0.05* 0.05* 0.05* 0.34 1.58 0.35 0.06* 0.06* 0.2* 0.06* 0.12* 0.4* 0.2* 0.41

Std. Dev. 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 1.63 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.04 0.28 0.12 0.00

PCB Rep 1 ND ND ND 5.68 ** 5.63 ND ND ND ND ND 4.31 4.66 5.16Aroclor 1268 Rep 2 ND ND ND 4.42 45.96 6.00 ND ND 6.99 ND 2.35 ND NDLipid Norm Rep 3 ND ND ND 4.51 ND ND ND 1.89 7.04 ND

(μg/g lipid) Mean 0.05* 0.05* 0.05* 0.34 1.58 0.35 0.06* 0.06* 0.2* 0.06* 0.12* 0.4* 0.2* 0.41

Std. Dev. 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 1.63 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.04 0.28 0.12 0.00

* - Mean value calculated using 1/2 detection limit.** Value not included since sample contained no detectable lipids.
Table 3.6 Oyster Tissue Chemistry - Concentration (cont.)

 Caged Oysters Resident Oysters

Station: Initial 1-Ref 2-Ref 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4 5 10

Percent Rep 1 5.81 8.45 6.46 6.87 0 6.04 6.23 7.13 7.19 6.67 7.74 10.91 7.29 7.95

Lipids Rep 2 5.26 6.48 7.14 6.79 5.94 6.00 6.08 6.67 6.58 5.78 5.96 1.80 5.56

(dry) Rep 3 5.71 7.96 7.45 7.09 6.20 7.96 6.18 6.87 9.09 4.03

Mean 5.59 7.63 7.02 6.92 2.97 6.02 6.17 7.25 6.65 6.22 6.86 7.27 5.63 7.92Std. Dev. 0.29 1.03 0.51 0.16 4.20 0.03 0.08 0.65 0.51 0.63 0.89 4.82 1.63 0.00

Percent Rep 1 17.20 18.10 16.40 15.00 14.00 14.40 16.70 15.70 13.90 14.70 15.90 11.00 8.23 8.84Solids Rep 2 19.00 17.60 18.50 16.20 13.80 14.00 15.30 15.60 14.90 13.50 15.10 11.10 7.19

Rep 3 17.50 18.60 18.80 17.20 13.70 16.20 13.60 14.20 16.30 8.84 7.45Mean 17.90 18.10 17.90 16.10 13.90 14.20 15.23 15.83 14.13 14.13 15.77 10.30 7.62 8.80Std. Dev. 1.00 0.50 1.30 1.10 0.14 0.28 1.50 0.32 0.68 0.60 0.61 1.30 0.54 0.00
Table 3.7 Oyster Tissue Chemistry - Content (note altered units for Hg and PCBs)

Station: Initial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Total Rep 1 0.17 0.37 0.33 0.51 0.42 0.40 0.33 0.37 0.40 0.34 0.36

Lead Rep 2 0.23 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.53 0.39 0.27 0.40 0.34 0.20 0.39

(mg/oyster) Rep 3 0.60 0.86 0.52 0.32 0.31 0.37 0.20 0.36

Mean 0.20 0.49 0.55 0.50 0.48 0.39 0.31 0.36 0.37 0.25 0.37Std. Dev. 0.04 0.12 0.28 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.02

Total Rep 1 0.06 0.07 0.05 1.57 0.96 0.75 2.32 1.04 0.90 0.51 0.36Mercury Rep 2 0.07 0.06 0.06 1.43 1.71 0.78 0.65 0.78 0.79 0.24 0.44

(μg/oyster) Rep 3 0.06 0.07 0.06 1.55 0.93 0.59 0.80 0.24 0.46

Mean 0.06 0.07 0.06 1.52 1.34 0.77 1.30 0.81 0.83 0.33 0.42Std. Dev. 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.53 0.02 0.89 0.23 0.06 0.16 0.06

MethylMercury Rep 1 0.07 0.04 0.05 1.25 0.81 0.64 0.39 0.48 0.34 0.37 0.36

(μg/oyster)

PercentMethyl Rep 1 111.56 56.31 95.53 79.61 84.38 85.29 17.03 46.13 38.51 72.85 100.52MercuryPCB Rep 1 ND ND ND 0.15 0.13 0.11 ND ND ND ND NDAroclor 1268 Rep 2 ND ND ND 0.12 1.04 0.11 ND ND 0.17 ND 0.05

(μg/oyster) Rep 3 ND ND ND 0.14 ND ND ND 0.05ND=<0.03 μg Mean 0.02* 0.03* 0.03* 0.14 0.58 0.11 0.02* 0.02* 0.07* 0.02* 0.04*

Std. Dev. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.02

*Mean values calculated using 1/2 detection limits
Figure 3.1. Mercury concentrations in unfiltered water (ng/L) n=1

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3

9

6

5

LCP Ditch

Boat launch

Purvis

Cree

k

32

53 46 71

45

159 203

63 56

26 43

95

341

114

Ref 2

Crescent R vi er

Georgia

Reference stationWetlands

Sediment, surface water, fish, crabs, and deployed oysterstation

Resident oysterstation

0 100 200 meters

N

High

tide

Low

tide

32

114

136

398

23 <5

26 <5

Ref 1
78

Figure 3.2 Total mercury in low tide unfiltered water (ng/L) with distance

from the head of the LCP ditch (station numbers indicated)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

200 600 1000 1400 1800

Distance from ditch head (m)

Hg

ng/L

4

3

5

9

6

7

8

10

Figure 3.3 Total mercury in high tide unfiltered water (ng/L) with distance

from the head of the LCP ditch (station numbers indicated)

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

200 600 1000 1400 1800

Distance from ditch head (m)

Hg

ng/L

4

3

5

9

6

7

8

10
Figure 3.4. Mean bank and creek total Hg in sediment (mg/kg dry) n=3

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3

9

6

5

LCP Ditch

Boat launch

Purvis

Cre

e

k

1.90 1.75

1.17

0.97

0.75 1.77

2.15

2.64

Ref 2

Crescent R vi er

Georgia

Reference stationWetlands

Sediment, surface water, fish, crabs, and deployed oysterstation

Resident oysterstation

0 100 200 meters

N

Bank Creek

32

11.98

1.44 1.84

8.56

12.66 9.53

65.03

23.96

114

0.050 0.008

0.047 0.027

Ref 1
Figure 3.5. Mean bank and creek Aroclor 1268 in sediment (mg/kg dry) n=3

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3

9

6

5 LCP Ditch

Boat launch

Purvis

Cree

k

2.911.2

2.4

2.8

6.1

2.2 4.7

39.0

21.7

49.7

69

133

62.8

3.4

5.4

5.1

Ref 1

Ref 2

Crescent R vi er

Georgia

Reference stationWetlands

< 0.028 < 0.028

< 0.028 < 0.028

0 100 200 meters

N

Sediment, surface water, fish, crabs, and deployed oysterstation

Resident oysterstation

Bank Creek

32

114
Figure 3.6. Mean bank and creek lead in sediment (mg/kg dry) n=3

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3

9

6

5

LCP Ditch

Boat launch

Purvis

Cre

e

k

20

20 22

16

Ref 2

Crescent R vi er

Georgia

Reference stationWetlands

0 100 200 meters

N

Sediment, surface water, fish, crabs, and deployed oysterstation

Resident oysterstation

20 18

23 23

23

32

42

17

19

10 6.3

11

1.7

21

48

60

Ref 1

Bank Creek

32

114
82

Figure 3.7 Total mercury in bank sediment (mg/kg dry weight) with

distance from the head of the LCP ditch (station numbers indicated)

0

2.5

5

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

200 600 1000 1400 1800

Distance from ditch head (m)

Hg

mg/kg

4

10 9 6,7,8

3

5

Figure 3.8 Total mercury in creek sediment (mg/kg dry weight) with

distance from the head of the LCP ditch (station numbers indicated)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

200 600 1000 1400 1800

Distance from ditch head (m)

Hg

mg/kg

4

3

5

9 6,7,8 10
83

Figure 3.9 Aroclor 1268 in bank sediment (mg/kg dry weight) with distance

from the head of the LCP ditch (station numbers indicated)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

200 600 1000 1400 1800

Distance from ditch head (m)

PCB 

mg/kg

4

5

3

9 6,7,8 10

Figure 3.10 Aroclor 1268 in creek sediment (mg/kg dry weight) with

distance from the head of the LCP ditch (station numbers indicated)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

200 600 1000 1400 1800

Distance from ditch head (m)

PCB

mg/kg

4

3,5

9 6,7,8 10
84

Figure 3.11 Lead in bank sediment (mg/kg dry weight) with distance from

the head of the LCP ditch (station numbers indicated)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

200 600 1000 1400 1800

Distance from ditch head (m)

Pb 

mg/kg 4

5

3

9

6

7,8

10

Figure 3.12 Lead in creek sediment (mg/kg dry weight) with distance from

the head of the LCP ditch (station numbers indicated)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

200 600 1000 1400 1800

Distance from ditch head (m)

Pb

mg/kg

4

5

3

9 6,7,8

10
Figure 3.13. Mean total Hg in fish ( g/g dry) n=3

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3 9

6

5

LCP Ditch

Boat launch

Purvis Creek

0.39

0.55

1.18

1.22 0.95

0.22

0.43

0.38

Ref 1

Ref 2

Crescent R vi er

Georgia

Reference stationWetlands

0.04

0.02

0 100 200 meters

N

Sediment, surface water, fish, crabs, and deployed oysterstation

Resident oysterstation
Figure 3.14. Methylmercury in fish ( g/g dry) n=1

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3 9

6

5

LCP Ditch

Boat launch

Purvis Creek

Ref 2

Crescent R vi er

Georgia

Reference stationWetlands

0 100 200 meters

N

Sediment, surface water, fish, crabs, and deployed oysterstation

Resident oysterstation

0.943

0.423

0.027

0.018

0.441

0.388

1.259

1.411

0.582

0.244

Ref 1
Figure 3.15. Mean Aroclor 1268 in fish ( g/g dry) n=3

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3 9

6

5

LCP Ditch

Boat launch

Purvis Creek

Ref 2

Crescent R vi er

Georgia

Reference stationWetlands

0.08

0 100 200 meters

N

Sediment, surface water, fish, crabs, and deployed oysterstation

Resident oysterstation

Ref 1

0.08

16.39

12.04

48.53

3.14

2.74

1.55

1.82

0.66
Figure 3.16. Mean lead in fish ( g/g dry) n=3

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3 9

6

5

LCP Ditch

Boat launch

Purvis Creek

Ref 1

Ref 2

Crescent R vi er

Georgia

Reference stationWetlands

0 100 200 meters

N

Sediment, surface water, fish, crabs, and deployed oysterstation

Resident oysterstation

0.39

0.11

0.15

0.39

0.26

0.21

0.10

0.21

0.18

0.22
89

Figure 3.17 Total mercury in fish (μg/g dry weight) with distance from

the head of the LCP ditch (station numbers indicated)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

200 600 1000 1400 1800

Distance from ditch head (m)

Hg

μg/g

4 3

5

9

6,7,8 10

Figure 3.18 Aroclor 1268 in fish (μg/g dry weight) with distance from the

head of the LCP ditch (station numbers indicated)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

200 600 1000 1400 1800

Distance from ditch head (m)

PCBs

μg/g 4

3

5 9 6,7,8 10
90

Figure 3.19 Lead in fish (μg/g dry weight) with distance from the head of

the LCP ditch (station numbers indicated)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

200 600 1000 1400 1800

Distance from ditch head (m)

Pb

μg/g

4

3,5

9

6

7

8

10
Figure 3.20. Mean total Hg in fiddler crab ( g/g dry) n=3 

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3

9

6

5

LCP Ditch

Boat launch

Purvis

Creek

Crescent R vi er

Georgia

Reference stationWetlands

0 100 200 meters

N

Sediment, surface water, fish, crabs, and deployed oysterstation

Resident oysterstation

0.11

0.28 0.30

0.02

0.25

0.14

0.45

0.47

0.01

0.23

Ref 1

Ref 2
Figure 3.21. Methylmercury in fiddler crab ( g/g dry) n=1

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3

9

6

5

LCP Ditch

Boat launch

Pu

rvis

Creek

Ref 1

Ref 2

Crescent R vi er

Georgia

Reference stationWetlands

0 100 200 meters

N

Sediment, surface water, fish, crabs, and deployed oysterstation

Resident oysterstation

0.077

0.165 0.193

0.141 0.366

0.191

0.237

0.0116

0.0131

0.114
Figure 3.22. Mean Aroclor 1268 in fiddler crab ( g/g dry) n=3

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3

9

6

5

LCP Ditch

Boat launch

Purvis

Cre

ek

Ref 1

Ref 2

Crescent R vi er

Georgia

Reference stationWetlands

0 100 200 meters

N

Sediment, surface water, fish, crabs, and deployed oysterstation

Resident oysterstation

1.36

1.88

0.53

0.04

0.06

5.09

0.59
Figure 3.23. Mean lead in fiddler crab ( g/kg dry) n=3

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3

9

6

5

LCP Ditch

Boat launch

Purvis

Cre

ek

Ref 1

Ref 2

Crescent R vi er

Georgia

Reference stationWetlands

0 100 200 meters

N

Sediment, surface water, fish, crabs, and deployed oysterstation

Resident oysterstation

0.42

1.01

1.50

1.47

2.21

2.17

0.41

0.36
95

Figure 3.24 Total mercury in fiddler crab (μg/g dry weight) with distance

from the head of the LCP ditch (station numbers indicated)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

200 600 1000 1400 1800

Distance from ditch head (m)

Hg

μg/g

4

5

3

9

6

7

8

10

Figure 3.25 Methylmercury in fiddler crab (μg/g dry weight) with

distance from the head of the LCP ditch (station numbers indicated)

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

200 600 1000 1400 1800

Distance From Ditch Head (m)

meHg

μg/g 4

3

5

9

10

6

7

8
Figure 3.26. Mean total Hg in caged and resident oyster ( g/g dry)

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3

9

6

5

LCP Ditch

Boat launch

Purvis

Cre

ek

3.69

2.50

1.08

1.04

2.33

Crescent R vi er

Georgia

Reference stationWetlands

Ref 1

Ref 2 0.10

0 100 200 meters

N

Sediment, surface water,fish, crabs, and deployedoyster station

Resident oysterstation

3.86

2.31

0.11

3.76

2.17

1.18

2.36

32

114

Caged

oyster

Resident

oyster
Figure 3.27. Methylmercury in caged and resident oyster ( g/g dry)

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3

9

6

5

LCP Ditch

Boat launch

Purvis

Cre

e

k 0.96

2.86

1.09

0.95

Ref 1

Ref 2

Crescent R vi er

Georgia

Reference stationWetlands

0 100 200 meters

N

Sediment, surface water,fish, crabs, and deployedoyster station

Resident oysterstation

1.29

1.10

1.67

2.11

1.75 2.74

1.76

0.07

0.10

32

114

Caged

oyster

Resident

oyster
Figure 3.28. Aroclor 1268 in caged and resident oysters ( g/g dry)

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3

9

6

5

LCP Ditch

Boat launch

Purvis

Cre

ek

Ref 1

Ref 2

Crescent R vi er

Georgia

Reference stationWetlands

0 100 200 meters

N

Sediment, surface water,fish, crabs, and deployedoyster station

Resident oysterstation

0.20

0.12

0.41

32

114

Caged

oyster

Resident

oyster

0.06

0.06

< 0.18

< 0.18

0.06 0.34

0.35 0.20

1.58

0.40
Figure 3.29. Lead in caged and resident oyster ( g/g dry)

Turtle River

LCP Causeway

8

10

7

4

3

9

6

5

LCP Ditch

Boat launch

Purvis

Cre

ek

Ref 1

Ref 2

Crescent R vi er

Georgia

Reference stationWetlands

0 100 200 meters

N

Sediment, surface water,fish, crabs, and deployedoyster station

Resident oysterstation

32

114

Caged

oyster

Resident

oyster

1.04

1.05 1.16

0.99 0.91

0.80 1.24

0.83

0.96

1.40

0.94

1.28

0.53
100

Figure 3.30 Total mercury content in transplanted oysters (μg/oyster) with

distance from the head of the LCP ditch (station numbers indicated)

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

200 600 1000 1400 1800

Distance from ditch head (m)

Hg

μg 4

5

3

9

7,8

10

6

Figure 3.31 Methylmercury content in transplanted oysters (μg/oyster)

with distance from the head of the LCP ditch (station numbers indicated)

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

200 600 1000 1400 1800

Distance From Ditch Head (m)

MeHg

μg

4

3

5

9 6

7

8 10
101

Figure 3.32 Aroclor 1268 content in transplanted oysters (μg/oyster) with

distance from the head of the LCP ditch (station numbers indicated)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

200 600 1000 1400 1800

Distance from ditch head (m)

PCB

μg 4

3,5

9 6

7

8 10
102

4.0 Discussion

The quality of data collected in this study was judged to be acceptable for meeting the

objectives. Detection limits and the level of replication were adequate to distinguish

between concentrations at the site and at reference areas and between stations at the site.

Detection limits for PCBs in water were not sufficiently low to determine whether chronic

ambient water quality criteria were exceeded.

4.1 Mercury

Mercury concentrations in surface water are highest at stations 3 and 4, especially at low

tide. The higher concentrations at low tide seem to indicate that there is an ongoing source

of mercury to surface water at the site, which could include releases from previously

deposited contaminated sediment. The presence of mercury in both filtered and unfiltered

samples indicates that it is not just suspended sediment that is responsible for water

contamination. This is also indicated by the fact that although suspended solids

concentrations are uniform at the site at high tide, highest mercury concentrations were

detected at station 4. At low tide, although suspended solids concentrations were very high

at station 5, mercury concentrations in water were higher at station 4. Total mercury in

unfiltered water at low tide is higher at stations 6 and 7 than might be expected if the head

of the LCP ditch is the only source of mercury to surface water. These observations may

indicate that creek sediment may be leaching mercury to surface water.

Chronic AWQCs for mercury are exceeded at all stations at high and low tide.

Total mercury concentrations in bank sediment were highest at stations 3, 4, and 5. Total

mercury concentrations in creek sediment were highest at station 4 and 5. Mercury

concentrations in sediment at station 3 were variable. A good relationship is found between

concentrations in creek sediment and distance from the head of the LCP ditch, suggesting
103

that this has been a source area for suspended sediment to be transported and deposit on the

bottom of the creek beds. For both total and methylmercury, either creek sediment

concentrations are higher than bank sediment concentrations (at stations 4, 7, and 8) or

there is no difference, suggesting that transport of suspended sediment, and not erosion of

bank sediment, may be the most important mechanism for spreading particulate mercury to

sediment throughout the site (Appendix A.2). Although statistical comparisons cannot be

made between methylmercury concentrations in creek and bank sediment because of the

lack of replication, it appears that methylmercury concentrations in bank sediment are

always higher than that in creek bottom sediment, and the percentage of methylmercury

compared to total mercury is higher in bank sediment than in creek sediment, suggesting

that methylation may be occurring at a greater rate on the marsh surface.

Mercury concentrations in fish are highest at stations 3, 4, and 5, showing the same pattern

as seen in bank sediments. There is a good relationship betweeen mercury in fish and

distance from the head of the ditch. Mercury concentrations in fish correlate with sediment

and water concentrations.

The pattern of mercury in fiddler crabs is less distinct than in fish, but stations 3 and 4 have

highest concentrations. Mercury in fiddler crabs from station 5 are lower than might be

expected given patterns in sediment concentrations. Crab concentrations generally decline

away from the head of the ditch, but are higher at stations 6, 7, and 8 than might be

expected if the ditch is the only source of mercury to crabs at the site. Crab concentrations

correlate with water and sediment concentrations.

The content of total mercury in caged oysters is similar to the pattern seen in bank

sediment, with stations 3 and 4 having highest content. Concentrations of total mercury in

caged oysters at stations 6, 7, and 8 are higher than would be predicted if the head of the
104

LCP ditch were the only source of mercury to oysters at the site. Concentrations and

content of total mercury correlate with sediment and water concentrations. Methylmercury

concentrations in caged oysters correlate significantly only with creek bottom sediment

concentrations.

Of the three species sampled for total mercury, caged oysters accumulated higher

concentrations than fish and fiddler crabs. Patterns in fish and oysters appeared to match

patterns in sediment concentrations better than those in fiddler crabs.

4.2 Aroclor 1268

Aroclor 1268 was only detected in low tide unfiltered water samples at stations 3, 4, 5, and

7. These results indicate that Aroclor 1268 is associated with particulates and that water

brought in at high tide dilutes Aroclor 1268 concentrations to below detection limits.

Concentrations at stations 3, 4, 5, and 7 exceed ambient water quality criteria at low tide.

Aroclor 1268 concentrations in bank sediment were highest at stations 3, 4, and 5. Creek

sediment concentrations were highest at stations 4 and 5. Aroclor 1268 concentrations at

station 3 were variable. A good relationship is seen with distance from the ditch head,

suggesting that this is a source area for suspended sediment to deposit on the bottom of the

creek beds. As with mercury concentrations, either creek sediment concentrations are

higher than bank sediment concentrations (stations 4, 7, and 8) or there is no significant

difference between them, suggesting that transport of suspended sediment, and not erosion

of bank sediment, may be a mechanism for spreading Aroclor 1268 throughout the site

(Appendix A.2).

Aroclor 1268 concentrations in fish are highest at stations 3, 4, and 5, showing the same

pattern as seen in bank sediments, and the same pattern seen in mercury concentrations.
105

There is a good relationship betweeen Aroclor 1268 concentrations in fish and distance

from the head of the ditch. Aroclor 1268 concentrations in fish correlate with both

sediment and water concentrations.

Since Aroclor 1268 was not analyzed in fiddler crabs from stations 3, 4, and 9,

distinguishing a pattern is more difficult. Highest concentrations were detected at station 5.

Aroclor 1268 concentrations in crabs correlate significantly with concentrations in sediment

but not water concentrations.

The content of Aroclor 1268 in caged oysters is similar to the pattern seen in bank

sediment, with stations 3, 4 and 5 having highest content. Concentrations and content of

Aroclor 1268 correlate with water and sediment concentrations.

Of the three species evaluated in this study, fish accumulated highest concentrations of

Aroclor 1268. Oysters accumulated lowest concentrations. Concentrations in fiddler crabs

fell in between, although they were not analyzed for Aroclor 1268 at all stations. All three

species seemed to track patterns in sediments.

The limited uptake of PCBs by the oysters is surprising. Oysters, as well as many other

bivalves, have been shown to be good accumulators of PCBs and other organic

contaminants. Limited accumulation may be associated with low lipid concentration,

inadequate exposure period, or pathway of exposure. Oysters used in this study had very

low lipid concentrations, usually less than 1.5 percent. Lipid concentrations vary during

the year depending on location, but can be has high as 8 to 10 percent during the summer

months. Local oyster fishermen contacted during the planning stages of this study said that

oyster condition in southeastern Georgia was quite poor during the summer months. They

called the oysters “bladder oysters” because of their high water content. This condition has
106

been associated with heavy spawning during the summer months (Amy Ringwood,

personal communication, 1997). Although the oysters for this study were cultured in

North Carolina, they may have also experienced active spawning before use in this study.

It is very likely that the low lipid content of these oysters influences their ability to

accumulate PCBs.

4.3 Lead

The source of the elevated lead concentration in surface water (11 μg/L) at high tide at

station 2 is not known, but since lead was not detectable at low tide and since sediment

concentrations are not elevated at this station, it appears that overall, station 2 was an

acceptable reference station for lead concentrations at the site. At the LCP site stations, lead

was detected in surface water only at stations 4 and 7 at low tide. Lead concentrations in

bank and creek sediment were highest at stations 4 and 5. The pattern of lead

contamination at the site is very different from that of mercury and Aroclor 1268.

Lead concentrations in fish do not follow a pattern similar to that seen in sediments, and are

not significantly elevated above those found at the reference sites. Concentrations of lead

in fish do not correlate with concentrations in sediment or water at the site. Although

concentrations in crab were elevated above those at reference sites, there is no correlation

between lead in crabs and lead in sediment or water concentrations. The highest lead

content in caged oysters was seen at stations 3 and 4, although they were not elevated

above those at reference sites. No significant correlations were seen between oyster

concentrations and sediment or water concentrations.

Of the three species evaluated in this study, fiddler crabs accumulated highest

concentrations of lead. Caged oysters accumulated similar concentrations as fiddler crabs
107

and fish accumulated lowest concentrations of lead. No patterns in biota were seen that

matched patterns in sediment.
108

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions of the study are presented by objective.

Objective 1) Examine the bioavailability of mercury, methylmercury, lead, and PCBs in

transplanted oysters and in three resident species located near the LCP site relative to uptake

at a reference location.

• Mercury and Aroclor 1268 are accumulating in biota at the LCP site in excess of

the reference locations. Lead concentrations in fiddler crabs were elevated over

those at reference stations.

• Concentrations of mercury and PCBs in biota are correlated to concentrations in

both water and sediment, indicating that both water and sediment act as a source

pathway to biota.

Objective 2) Provide a characterization in order to assess the success of the upcoming

removal action to be taken in the marsh.

• This study provides a basis for later comparisons to determine success of removal

and remedial actions at the site.

• Although analysis of surface water often yields highly variable results, in this

study, analysis of water sampled at low tide was a useful monitoring tool to

indicate potential source areas and determine whether water quality criteria are

exceeded.

• Fundulus are useful as monitoring organisms for the site because they

accumulated both mercury and Aroclor 1268 in excess of concentrations at the

reference sites and are consumed by higher level biota.
109

• Fiddler crabs are useful as monitoring organisms because they are closely

associated with sediments and accumulated both mercury and Aroclor 1268 in

excess of those at the reference sites. Fiddler crabs are also consumed by higher

level biota.

• Resident oysters may be difficult to monitor in the future because they are not

widely distributed over the site and most existing oysters on the site will be

destroyed by removal operations. Benefits of using caged oysters include that

they do not move, they can be placed in an area of interest where resident oysters

are not found, and accumulations in caged oysters represent recently available

contamination, and not that accumulated over the lifetime of the resident animal.

Disadvantages of caged oysters are that they did not accumulate high

concentrations of Aroclor 1268.

Each of the three species used in this study have their advantages. Together, in

combination with analysis of water and sediment they provide a more complete picture of

bioavailability of contaminants at the site and transfer through the aquatic food chain.

Objective 3) Determine the extent and magnitude of contamination remaining in the marsh

after completion of removal actions in the upland portions of the site.

• For many parameters (mercury in sediment, fish, crabs, and oysters and Aroclor

1268 in sediment and fish), there is a good relationship between concentration

and distance from the head of the LCP ditch (the location of the former plant

outfall), confirming that this has been a major source area for contamination at

the site.
110

• Concentrations of mercury and Aroclor 1268 in water at low tide were higher

than those at high tide indicating that mercury is being transported away from the

site.

• Creek bottom sediment concentrations of mercury and Aroclor 1268 are higher

than or equivalent to those in bank sediments; and the percentage of methyl

mercury is higher in bank sediment than in creek bottom sediment, indicating that

methylation may be occurring at a greater rate on the marsh surface than in creek

bottom sediments.

• This study provides additional information that can be used in the food web

model for ecological risk assessment at the site.
111

6.0 References

Sprenger, M.D., N. J.Finley, and M. Huston. 1997. Final report ecological assessment:

ecological risk evaluation of the salt marsh and adjacent areas at the LCP Superfund site,

Brunswick, Georgia. April, 1997. EPA.
112

Appendix A Statistical Comparisons and Correlations

A.1 Statistical Comparisons between Site Stations

A.1.1 Sediment

A.1.1.1 Mercury

10 8 7 9 6 5 4 3 .

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in bank total mercury

concentration (p<0.000001).

6 9 10 8 7 3 5 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in creek total mercury

concentration (p=0.000001).

A.1.1.2 Aroclor 1268

9 8 7 10 6 4 3 5 Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in bank Aroclor 1268

concentration (p<0.000001).

6 9 8 7 10 3 5 4 .

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in creek bottom Aroclor

1268 concentration (p=0.000021).

A.1.1.3 Lead

10 9 7 8 6 3 4 5 .

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in bank lead concentration

(p<0.000001).
113

3 9 10 7 8 6 4 5 . 

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in creek bottom lead

concentrations (p<0.000001).

A.1.2 Fish

A.1.2.1 Mercury

10 8 6 7 9 5 3 4 .

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in fish total mercury

concentration (p<0.000001).

A.1.2.2 Aroclor 1268

10 9 8 7 6 5 3 4 .

 .

 .

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in fish Aroclor 1268

concentration (p<0.000001).

A.1.2.3 Lead

9 10 7 4 6 5 3 8 .

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in fish lead concentration

(p=0.010).
114

A.1.3 Fiddler crab

A.1.3.1 Mercury

10 9 5 6 8 7 4 3 .

 .

 .

 .

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in fiddler crab total mercury

concentration (p<0.000001).

A.1.3.2 Aroclor 1268

6 7 10 8 5

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in fiddler crab Aroclor 1268

concentration (p<0.000001)

A.1.3.3 Lead

10 9 8 7 5 6 .

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in fiddler crab lead

concentration (p=0.000009).
115

A.1.4 Caged oysters

A.1.4.1 Mercury

9 10 8 7 5 4 6 3 . 

 .

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in caged oyster total

mercury concentration (p=0.0002).

9 10 7 8 5 6 4 3 . 

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in caged oyster total

mercury content (p<0.000001).

A.1.4.2 Aroclor 1268

9 7 6 10 8 5 3 4 . 

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in caged oyster Aroclor

1268 concentration (p<0.000001).

9 6 7 10 8 5 3 4 .

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in caged oyster Aroclor

1268 content (p<0.000001).

A.1.4.3 Lead

9 6 7 10 8 5 4 3 .

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in lead content.
116

A.2 Correlations Between Parameters

A.2.1 Sediment

Correlations between total mercury in bank sediment and sulfides, %fines, and total

organic carbon were evaluated. Correlations were significant between total mercury and

sulfides (p=0.0007) and between total mercury and TOC (p=0.028). Correlations between

methylmercury in bank sediment and sulfides, % fines, and TOC were evaluated.

Correlations were signficant between methylmercury and total mercury (p=0.024) and

methylmercury and % fines (p=0.023).

Creek bottom sediment samples were statistically significantly higher in total mercury

concentration than bank samples at stations 4, 7, and 8 (p<0.05). At station 2, the bank

sediment concentration of total mercury was higher than the creek bottom concentration

(p=0.043). At all other stations, there was no difference between bank and creek bottom

sediment mercury concentrations (p>0.05). Although statistical comparisons cannot be

made between methylmercury concentrations in creek and bank sediment because of the

lack of replication, it appears that methylmercury concentrations in bank sediment are

always higher than those in creek bottom sediment.

Creek bottom sediment samples were statistically signficantly higher in Aroclor 1268

concentration than bank samples at stations 4, 7, and 8 (p<0.05). At all other stations,

there was no difference between bank and creek bottom sediment Aroclor 1268

concentrations (p>0.05).

A.2.2. Fish

Spearman rank order correlations were examined to compare fish concentrations to those in

low tide filtered water, bank sediment, and creek bottom sediment. For total mercury,

correlations were significant between fish concentrations and water concentrations
117

(p=0.0032); fish concentrations and bank sediment concentrations (p<0.000001); and fish

concentrations and creek sediment concentrations (p<0.000001). For methylmercury,

correlations were examined between fish concentrations and bank or creek bottom

sediment. Correlations were significant between fish and both sediment types (p=0.037

for bank sediment and p=0.00086 for creek bottom sediment).

For Aroclor 1268 concentrations, correlations were significant between fish concentrations

and water concentrations (p=0.0053); fish and bank sediment concentrations

(p<0.000001); and fish and creek sediment concentrations (p=0.00002).

There were no significant correlations between lead concentrations in fish and water or

sediment lead concentrations.

A.2.3 Crabs

Spearman rank order correlations were examined to compare fiddler crab concentrations to

those in low tide unfiltered water, bank sediment, and creek sediment. For total mercury,

correlations were signficant between crab concentrations and water concentrations

(p=0.00013); crab and bank sediment concentrations (p=0.000033); and crab and creek

sediment concentrations (p=0.000054). For methylmercury, correlations were not

significant between fiddler crabs and bank or creek bottom sediment (p>0.10).

For Aroclor 1268 concentrations, correlations were significant between crab concentrations

and bank sediment concentrations (p=0.00056); and between crab and creek sediment

concentrations (p=0.00004).

For lead concentrations in fiddler crab, there were no significant correlations with water or

sediment lead concentrations.
118

A.2.4 Resident Oysters

Spearman rank order correlations were examined to compare concentrations of total

mercury, Aroclor 1268, and lead in resident oysters to those in low tide filtered water, bank

sediment, and creek sediment. None of the correlations were significant (p>0.07).

A.2.5 Caged oysters

Spearman rank order correlations were examined to compare caged oyster concentrations to

those in low tide unfiltered water, bank sediment, and creek sediment. For total mercury

concentrations, correlations were significant between oyster concentrations and bank

sediment concentrations (p<0.00001); oysters and creek sediment concentrations

(p=0.00009); and oysters and low tide unfiltered water concentrations (p=0.00237). For

methylmercury, correlations were significant only between oyster concentrations and creek

sediment concentrations (p=0.024).

Correlations were significant between Aroclor 1268 oyster concentrations and bank

sediment concentrations (p=0.00065); between oysters and creek sediment concentrations

(p=0.00039); and between oysters and low tide unfiltered water concentrations (p=0.014).

No significant correlations were found between lead concentrations in caged oysters and

those in water or sediment.
119

Appendix B Ancillary Parameters- Transplanted Oysters

Two metrics were used to assess growth for the purposes of calculating contaminant uptake

in terms of content: whole-animal wet-weight and end-of-test tissue weight. Only wholeanimal wet-weight was measured for each individual at the start of the test. Therefore, the

change (i.e., increase or decrease) could only be determined for this metric. Because of the

closeness in size distribution among stations at the start of the test, it was assumed that the

average tissue weight was also similar among stations. Based on this assumption, the endof-test tissue weights were evaluated for statistical differences; any differences observed

were assumed to have occurred during the test period.

B.1 Survival

Survival was variable across the stations with averages ranging from 47 to 98 percent

(Figure B-1; Table B-1). Survival among replicates varied from 0 to 100 percent. Two

cages, one at Station 4 and the other at Station 5, contained no living animals when they

were retrieved, though the other two cages at each of these stations had moderately high

survival rates (84 to 94 percent and 70 to 72 percent, respectively). It is possible that silt

could have covered these cages, preventing the cages from rising and falling with the tide.

Excessive silt may have smothered the oysters in these cages.

The survival data were analyzed for differences among stations using a contingency table.

Based on this, the null hypothesis of equal survival rates among all stations was rejected.

Using a series of 1x2 contingency tables partitioned from the entire data set, the mean

percentage survival at Stations 4, 5 and 9 was found to be significantly lower than the

expected survival rate based on the mean of the reference stations. This analysis also

indicated that survival at Stations 3, 7, and 8 was significantly higher than at the reference

stations (Figure B-1).
120

B.2 Whole-Animal Wet-Weight

At the start of the test, actual whole-animal wet-weight for individual oysters ranged from

11.9 to 46.2 g. The mean whole-animal wet-weight at each station was about 22.5 g

(Table B-2). Whole-animal wet-weight increased at all stations during the 62-day

exposure. Mean end-of-test (EOT) whole-animal weights by station ranged from 24.6 to

30.0 g (Figure B-2; Table B-2); the overall range for individuals was from 14.7 to 52.6 g.

The greatest EOT weights were measured for oysters at both reference stations; oysters at

test Station 9 also had large EOT wet-weights. The lowest EOT weights were measured

for oysters at Station 5. Dunnett’s multiple comparison test indicated a significant increase

in whole-animal wet-weight at all stations when compared to the initial wet-weights.

The EOT whole-animal wet-weight data were normal and suitable for parametric analyses.

The results of the ANOVA indicated significant differences between stations (p <0.00001);

the Bonferroni test indicated that EOT whole-animal wet-weights were significantly lower

at all site stations except Station 9 when compared to the two reference stations. The site

stations were compared to each other with the Newman-Keuls test. Results of this analysis

indicated that EOT whole-animal wet-weights for oysters at Station 9 were significantly

greater than at Stations 4, 5, 6, and 8 (Figure B-2; Table B-2).

Calculated growth rates by station based on changes in whole-animal wet-weight ranged

from 296 to 938 mg/wk (FigureB-3; Table B-2). The greatest growth rates were measured

for oysters at both reference stations with oysters at Station 2 having the highest measured

growth rates. Oysters at test Station 9 also had large growth rates, but they were less than

those at the reference areas. The lowest EOT weights were measured for oysters at Station

6. The data presented in Table B-2 shows negative growth rates encountered at all

stations. It is very likely that exposure conditions, particularly temperature, were at the

limit for these oysters and caused some individuals to lose tissue weight.
121

The growth rate data were not normal and required a rankit transformation before

conducting the parametric analyses. The results of the ANOVA indicated significant

differences between stations (p <0.00001); the Bonferroni test indicated that growth rates

were significantly lower at all site stations when compared to the two reference stations.

The site stations were compared to each other with the Newman-Keuls test. Results of this

analysis indicated the following relationships in growth rates among the site stations:

6 8 4 5 7 3 10 9 .

Stations linked by lines are statistically similar in oyster growth rate

B.3 End-of-Test Tissue Weights

Mean tissue weight at the start of the test by station was estimated at 2.20 g-wet. This

estimate was based on the tissue weights measured for the 150 animals used for time zero,

test initiation (T0) tissue chemistry analyses (Table B-2). Mean EOT tissue weights by

station ranged from 2.15 to 3.20 g, the overall range for individuals was 0.60 to 7.17 g

(Figure B-4; Table B-2). The largest tissues were measured in oysters deployed at both

reference stations. Oysters at Stations 4 and 8 had the largest tissues among site oysters.

The average tissue weight at all stations except Station 5 in the LCP Ditch were higher than

the average tissue weight for T0 oysters. This suggests that oysters at all stations except

station 5 grew during the test period.

The EOT tissue data were suitable for parametric analyses without transformation. The

results of the ANOVA indicated significant differences between stations (p <0.00001); the

Bonferroni test indicated that EOT tissue weights were significantly lower at all site stations

when compared to the two reference stations (Table B-3). The site stations were compared

to each other with the Newman-Keuls test. Results of this analysis indicated that Station 5
122

was significantly lower than Stations 3, 4 and 8. EOT tissue weights were similar among

all other site stations.

B.4 Percent Lipids

Mean lipid concentration at the start of the test by station was estimated at 1.00 percent.

This estimate was based on the lipid concentration measured for the 150 animals used for

time zero, test initiation (T0) tissue chemistry analyses (Table B-2). Mean EOT lipid

concentrations by station ranged from 0.27 to 1.38 percent, the overall range for

individuals was 0.00 to 1.53 percent (Figure B-5; Table B-2). The highest lipid

concentrations were measured in oysters deployed at both reference stations; oysters at

Stations 3 and 7 had the highest lipid concentrations among site oysters. The average lipid

concentration at many of the site stations after the 62-day deployment was lower than

estimated at the start of the test.

The percent lipid data were suitable for parametric analyses without transformation. The

results of the ANOVA indicated significant differences between stations (p <0.0024); the

Bonferroni test indicated that percent lipids were significantly lower at Stations 4, 5, 6, 8

and 9 when compared to the two reference stations (Table B-3). The site stations were

compared to each other with the Newman-Keuls test. Results of this analysis indicated that

lipid concentration at Station 4 was significantly lower than at all other site stations.

B.5 Percent Water

The percentage of water in the soft tissues is related to animal health, with healthier

individuals having less water. Mean water concentration at the start of the test by station

was estimated at 82.1 percent. This estimate was based on the water concentration

measured for the 150 animals used for time zero, test initiation (T0) tissue chemistry

analyses (Table B-2). Mean EOT water concentrations by station ranged from 81.9 to 86.1
123

percent, the overall range for individuals was 81.2 to 86.4 percent (Figure B-6; Table B2). The lowest water concentrations were measured in oysters deployed at both reference

stations; oysters at Station 3 had the lowest water concentrations among site oysters.

The percent water data were suitable for parametric analyses without transformation. The

results of the ANOVA indicated significant differences between stations (p = 000061); the

Bonferroni test indicated that percent water was significantly higher at all site stations when

compared to the two reference stations (Table B-3). The site stations were compared to

each other with the Newman-Keuls test. Results of this analysis indicated no differences in

percent water among site stations.

B.6 Temperature

Prior to testing the two hypotheses for temperature, temperature profiles were made for

each station using the entire set of data collected during the deployment period (Figure B7). These profiles show that there was a high degree of temperature fluctuation at each

station over the test period with temperatures at Station 8 fluctuating the most. In fact, the

temperatures at Station 8 frequently exceeded 37oC, the limit of the recording devices. At

each station, the measured fluctuations coincide with tidal position.

B.6.1 Differences in Average Daily Temperatures

The results of the paired t-tests (Table 3.16) indicate that the mean daily temperature for

Reference Station 1 was significantly colder than all other stations. The mean daily

temperature for Reference Station 2 was significantly colder than Stations 5, 9, and 10.

Figure B-8 provides graphs of average daily temperatures by station.
124

B.6.2 Weekly Temperature Ranges

The results of the ANOVA indicated that there is a significant difference between the

average weekly temperature ranges at all stations. The results of Newman-Keuls Multiple

Range test indicated the weekly range of temperatures at reference station 1 differs

significantly from all study sites except 3 and 7. Reference station 2 has a significantly

lower weekly range than sites 7 and 8. The average of the weekly temperature ranges are

provided in Table B-5.
125

Table B-1. End-of-test percent survival for oysters

Station

1-Re f 2-Ref 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Replicate 1 88 68 96 84 0 88 72 94 88 46

Replicate 2 36 80 100 0 70 74 98 80 36 78

Replicate 3 98 98 98 94 72 86 96 76 16 94

Mean 74 82 98 59 47 83 89 83 47 73

Standard Deviation 33 15 2 52 41 8 14 9 37 24

Total number surviving 111 122 147 81 71 122 133 124 70 109
126

Table B-2 LCP Oyster Study: Descriptive statistics for growth metrics

Station

Initial 1-Ref 2-Ref 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Initial Mean 20.5 22.5 22.0 22.6 22.9 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.6

WAWW Min. 15.4 13.6 15.0 15.1 15.0 14.3 15.2 11.9 14.8 13.3 15.5

(g) Max. 34.1 37.2 42.7 34.2 38.2 34.8 36.5 36.4 46.2 39.7 42.2

Std. Dev 3.88 4.93 4.57 4.90 5.17 5.17 4.27 4.74 5.41 5.08 4.88

N 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

End-of-Test Mean 29.0 30.0 26.4 25.2 24.6 25.1 26.3 25.2 28.1 26.7

WAWW Min. 16.0 16.3 15.0 15.3 14.8 15.2 14.7 16.4 15.8 16.2

(g) Max. 51.1 47.8 15.0 42.5 37.1 38.6 45.6 52.6 51.1 47.9

Std. Dev 6.64 6.90 5.30 4.85 5.39 4.69 5.57 5.81 6.82 5.78

N 111 123 147 81 71 121 133 123 70 109

Difference

WAWW

Mean 6.16 8.31 3.77 2.62 2.90 2.33 3.69 2.51 5.45 4.53

(g) Min. -4.72 -1.50 -3.54 -7.09 -2.25 -2.94 -1.52 -0.41 -1.07 -1.67

Max. 23.0 24.0 15.4 9.3 13.2 7.1 14.6 12.8 15.5 16.3

Std. Dev 4.93 5.14 2.94 3.13 2.91 2.00 2.48 1.96 3.26 3.47

N 111 123 147 81 71 121 133 123 70 109

WAWW Mean 695 938 425 296 328 263 417 284 615 511

Growth Rate Min. -533 -169 -400 -800 -254 -332 -172 -46 -121 -188

(mg/wk) Max. 2593 2709 1740 1051 1493 802 1643 1441 1751 1840

Std. Dev 557 580 332 353 328 226 280 221 368 392

N 111 123 147 81 71 121 133 123 70 109

End-of-Test Mean 2.20 3.20 3.15 2.51 2.50 2.15 2.24 2.29 2.52 2.41 2.29

Tissue Min. 0.81 1.01 0.60 1.14 1.01 0.97 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.11 0.64

(g) Max. 4.76 7.17 6.49 4.94 5.56 3.86 4.87 4.49 5.11 4.36 4.12

Std. Dev 0.67 0.94 1.02 0.66 0.79 0.68 0.68 0.65 0.78 0.73 0.67

N 148 111 123 146 81 71 121 133 123 70 109

Percent Mean 1.00 1.38 1.26 1.12 0.27 0.57 0.94 1.15 0.94 0.59 1.08

Lipids Min. 1.00 1.14 1.06 1.03 0 0 0.85 1.04 0.84 0 0.9

Max. 1.00 1.53 1.4 1.22 0.82 0.87 1.04 1.29 1 0.98 1.23

Std. Dev 0.00 0.21 0.18 0.10 0.47 0.49 0.10 0.13 0.09 0.52 0.17

N 3 3 33 333 33 33

Percent Mean 82.1 81.9 82.1 83.9 86.1 85.8 84.8 84.2 85.9 85.9 84.2

Moisture Min. 81 81.4 81.2 82.8 86 85.6 83.3 83.8 85.1 85.3 83.7

Max. 82.8 82.4 83.6 85 86.2 86 86.3 84.4 86.4 86.5 84.9

Std. Dev 0.96 0.50 1.31 1.10 0.14 0.28 1.50 0.32 0.68 0.60 0.61

N 3 3 33 223 33 33
127

Table B-3. Results of statistical analyses comparing growth metrics and

survival of average Reference Stations to each other station.

Treatment station means significantly lower than average of Reference Stations 1 and 2:

VARIABLE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

Survival NSa * * NS NSa NSa * NS

WAWW * * * * * * NS *

WAWW Growth Rate * * * * * * * *

EOT Tissue Weight * * * * * * * *

% Moisture NSa NSa NSa NSa NSa NSa NSa NSa

% Lipids NS * * * NS * * NS

NOTE: NS - Not significant

 NSa

 - Significantly greater than mean of Reference Stations.
128

Table B-4. LCP temperature comparisons across stations

Null hypothesis: The average daily temperature is the same.

Alternative: There is a difference in average daily temperature

Stations Mean

difference

Std

Dev

t-statisti

c

df p-value

Station 1 - Station 2 -0.616 0.116 -5.309 2 0 0.0000

Station 1 - Station 3 -0.643 0.144 -4.469 20 0.0002

Station 1 - Station 4 -0.571 0.181 -3.152 20 0.0050

Station 1 - Station 5 -0.876 0.162 -5.425 20 0.0000

Station 1 - Station 6 -0.502 0.143 -3.527 20 0.0021

Station 1 - Station 7 -0.616 0.145 -4.263 20 0.0004

Station 1 - Station 8 -0.615 0.137 -4.489 20 0.0002

Station 1 - Station 9 -0.926 0.189 -4.911 20 0.0001

Station 1 - Station

10

-0.859 0.182 -4.733 20 0.0001

Station 2 - Station 3 -0.081 0.057 -1.423 20 0.1701

Station 2 - Station 4 0.045 0.102 0.445 20 0.6614

Station 2 - Station 5 -0.318 0.105 -3.017 20 0.0068

Station 2 - Station 6 0.039 0.073 0.540 20 0.5951

Station 2 - Station 7 -0.012 0.089 -0.131 20 0.8969

Station 2 - Station 8 0.001 0.141 0.007 20 0.9944

Station 2 - Station 9 -0.338 0.120 -2.809 20 0.0108

Station 2 - Station

10

-0.243 0.112 -2.180 20 0.0414

Table B-5. Average weekly temperatures by station.

Station: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean 12.89 9.02 10.63 7.28 8.73 9.42 14.69 18.96 6.79 6.77
Figure B-1. Percent Survival of Oysters

0%

80%60%40%20%

120%100%

1-Ref 2-Ref 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Station

Percent Survival

*

*

Significantly less than mean of Reference 

 Stations 1 and 2.

Significantly greater than mean of Reference 

 Stations 1 and 2. * *
Figure B-2. End-of-Test Whole-Animal Wet-Weight

5.00.0

40.035.030.025.020.015.010.0

1-Ref 2-Ref 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Station

Weight (g) (+ 2SE)

Initial Whole-Animal 

Weight of To Oysters

Significantly less than mean of 

Reference Stations 1 and 2.
Figure B-3. Oyster Growth during Deployment Period

0

800600400200

12001000

1-Ref 2-Ref 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Station

Growth (mg/wk) (+2SE)

Significantly less than mean of 

Reference Stations 1 and 2.
Page 1

Figure B-4. End-of-Test Oyster Tissue Weights

4.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.00

1-Ref 2-Ref 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Station

Tissue Weight (g) (+SE)

Initial Weight

Significantly less than mean of 

Reference Stations 1 and 2.
Figure B-5. End-of-Test Percent Lipids in Caged Oysters

1.81.61.41.21.00.80.60.40.20.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Station

Percent Lipid (+ 2SE)

Initial Lipid 

Content

Significantly less than mean of 

Reference stations 1 and 2.
Figure B-6. End-of-Test Percent Water in Caged Oysters

95908580757065605550

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Station

Percent Water (+ 2SE)

*

*

*

*

* * *

*

Significantly greater than mean of 

Reference stations 1 and 2.

*

Initial 

Percent Water 
Figure B-7.1. LCP Station 1

403530252015

8/1/97

8/3/97

8/5/97

8/7/97

8/9/97

8/11/97

8/13/97

8/15/97

8/17/97

8/20/97

8/22/97

8/24/97

8/26/97

8/28/97

8/30/97

9/1/97

9/3/97

9/5/97

9/7/97

9/9/97

9/11/97

9/14/97

9/16/97

9/18/97

9/20/97

9/22/97

9/24/97

9/26/97

9/28/97

9/30/97

10/2/97

Date

Temperature (oC)
Figure B-7.2. LCP Station 2

403530252015

8/1/97

8/3/97

8/5/97

8/7/97

8/9/97

8/11/97

8/13/97

8/15/97

8/17/97

8/20/97

8/22/97

8/24/97

8/26/97

8/28/97

8/30/97

9/1/97

9/3/97

9/5/97

9/7/97

9/9/97

9/11/97

9/14/97

9/16/97

9/18/97

9/20/97

9/22/97

9/24/97

9/26/97

9/28/97

9/30/97

10/2/97

Date

Temperature (oC)
Figure B-7.3. LCP Station 3

403530252015

8/1/97

8/3/97

8/5/97

8/7/97

8/9/97

8/11/97

8/13/97

8/15/97

8/17/97

8/20/97

8/22/97

8/24/97

8/26/97

8/28/97

8/30/97

9/1/97

9/3/97

9/5/97

9/7/97

9/9/97

9/11/97

9/14/97

9/16/97

9/18/97

9/20/97

9/22/97

9/24/97

9/26/97

9/28/97

9/30/97

Date

Temperature (oC)
Figure B-7.4. LCP Station 4

403530252015

8/1/97

8/3/97

8/5/97

8/7/97

8/9/97

8/11/97

8/13/97

8/15/97

8/17/97

8/20/97

8/22/97

8/24/97

8/26/97

8/28/97

8/30/97

9/1/97

9/3/97

9/5/97

9/7/97

9/9/97

9/11/97

9/14/97

9/16/97

9/18/97

9/20/97

9/22/97

9/24/97

9/26/97

9/28/97

9/30/97

Date

Temperature (oC)
Figure B-7.5. LCP Station 5

403530252015

8/1/97

8/3/97

8/5/97

8/7/97

8/9/97

8/11/97

8/13/97

8/15/97

8/17/97

8/20/97

8/22/97

8/24/97

8/26/97

8/28/97

8/30/97

9/1/97

9/3/97

9/5/97

9/7/97

9/9/97

9/11/97

9/14/97

9/16/97

9/18/97

9/20/97

9/22/97

9/24/97

9/26/97

9/28/97

9/30/97

10/2/97

Date

Temperature (oC)
Figure B-7.6. LCP Station 6

403530252015

8/1/97

8/3/97

8/5/97

8/7/97

8/9/97

8/11/97

8/13/97

8/15/97

8/17/97

8/20/97

8/22/97

8/24/97

8/26/97

8/28/97

8/30/97

9/1/97

9/3/97

9/5/97

9/7/97

9/9/97

9/11/97

9/14/97

9/16/97

9/18/97

9/20/97

9/22/97

9/24/97

9/26/97

9/28/97

9/30/97

Date

Temperature (oC)
Figure B-7.7. LCP Station 7

403530252015

8/1/97

8/3/97

8/5/97

8/7/97

8/9/97

8/11/97

8/13/97

8/15/97

8/17/97

8/19/97

8/22/97

8/24/97

8/26/97

8/28/97

8/30/97

9/1/97

9/3/97

9/5/97

9/7/97

9/9/97

9/11/97

9/13/97

9/16/97

9/18/97

9/20/97

9/22/97

9/24/97

9/26/97

9/28/97

9/30/97

Date

Temperature (oC)
Figure B-7.8. LCP station 8

403530252015

8/1/97

8/3/97

8/5/97

8/7/97

8/9/97

8/11/97

8/13/97

8/15/97

8/17/97

8/19/97

8/22/97

8/24/97

8/26/97

8/28/97

8/30/97

9/1/97

9/3/97

9/5/97

9/7/97

9/9/97

9/11/97

9/13/97

9/16/97

9/18/97

9/20/97

9/22/97

9/24/97

9/26/97

9/28/97

9/30/97

Date

Temperature (oC)
Figure B-7.9. LCP Station 9

403530252015

8/1/97

8/3/97

8/5/97

8/7/97

8/9/97

8/11/97

8/13/97

8/15/97

8/17/97

8/20/97

8/22/97

8/24/97

8/26/97

8/28/97

8/30/97

9/1/97

9/3/97

9/5/97

9/7/97

9/9/97

9/11/97

9/14/97

9/16/97

9/18/97

9/20/97

9/22/97

9/24/97

9/26/97

9/28/97

9/30/97

10/2/97

Date

Temperature (oC)
Figure B-7.10. LCP Station 10

403530252015

8/1/97

8/3/97

8/5/97

8/7/97

8/9/97

8/11/97

8/13/97

8/15/97

8/17/97

8/20/97

8/22/97

8/24/97

8/26/97

8/28/97

8/30/97

9/1/97

9/3/97

9/5/97

9/7/97

9/9/97

9/11/97

9/14/97

9/16/97

9/18/97

9/20/97

9/22/97

9/24/97

9/26/97

9/28/97

9/30/97

10/2/97

Date

Temperature (oC)
32.00

31.0030.0029.0028.0027.0026.0025.0024.0023.0022.00

Figure B-8. LCP Daily Averages

8/1/97

8/3/97

8/5/97

8/7/97

8/9/97

8/11/97

8/13/97

8/15/97

8/17/97

/97

Date

Temperature (C)stn1 stn2 stn3 stn4 stn5 stn6

stn7stn8stn9stn10