OCS Study MMS 95-0009 

CURRENT WA TER QUALITY 


IN COOK INLET, ALASKA, STUDY 


A Report by 

EI\J\vIRONIVIENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE 


UI\IIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE 


707 A Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 


for 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 


MINERALS MAI\IAGEMENT SERVICE 


Alaska OCS Region 


949 East 36th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4302 


Cooperative Agreement Nd. 14-35-0001-30704 

March 1995 
CURRENT WA TER QUALITY 


IN COOK INLET, ALASKA, STUDY 


A Report by 

ENVIROI\IMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE 

I UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE 

707 A Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 

I 

This study was funded in part by the U.S. Department of the Interior 

(USOOI), Minerals Management Service (MMS), through Cooperative 

Agreement No. 14-35-0001-30704 with the University of Alaska 

Anchorage, as part of the MMS Alaska Environmental Studies Program. 

The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in 

this report or product are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

reflect the views of IVIMS, nor does mention of trade names or 

commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for 

use by the Federal Government. 

March 1995' 
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR 

Dr. Douglas A. Segar, ENRI 

ENRI CHIEF SCIENTISTS 

Sal V. Cuccarese 

Michael D. Kelly 

Elaine B. Major 

Dr. Dwight D. Pollard 

JEAL SCIENTIST 

Dr. Alan L. Love 

BATTELLE CHIEF SCIENTISTS 

William W. Gardiner 

Heather L. Mayhew 

Dr. Jack Q. Word 

EDITOR 

Patricia Kalina McMillan, ENRI 

• 
4 

CONTENTS 


ACKNOWLEDJEMENTS ••..........•••••.....•••...•••.••••.••••.••••..•• xi 


EXECUTIVE SUM MARY ........•........................................ xiii 


1 INTROJUCTION .... "............................................. . 


I" . 

2 BACKqROUND .........•........•.•.............................. 3 


i Historical Hydrocarbon Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 


Historical Trace Metal Data ..................................... 7 


3 METHODS ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 


I FIELD SAMPLING ............................................ 9 


Water ............................................... 9 


Sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 


Hydrography ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 


Biota ..•.........•............•.................... 19 


Bioassay . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 


Field Data Management and Sample Handling .................. 19 


LABORATORY ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 


Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 


Sediment .....•..................................... 32 


Hydrography ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 


Biota .............................................. 40 


Bioassay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 


RESUUTS ..............•....................................... 47 


WATER .................................................. 47 


Method Blanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 01 


Surrogate Compounds .................................. 101 


Hydrocarbons ........................................ 47 


Metals ............................................. 54 


SEDIMENT ................". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54 


Suspended Solids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54 


Grain Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62 


CHN ............................................... 62 


Hydrocarbons ....•................................... 68 


Metals ...............................•............• 75 


HYDROGRAPHY . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .• 80 


BIOTA ................................................... 80 


Tissues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80 


BIOASSA YS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92 


Microtox® . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92 


Toxic Bioassays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92 


QC RESULTS •. "............................................ 101 


Standard Reference Materials ...•......................... 101 


MOL ............................................... 101 


Trip Blanks .......................................... 101 


12)2BBOB3fTOC v
5 DlSCUYION ................................................... 113 


6 ABBREVIATIONS, SIGNS, AND SYMBOLS ............................... 119 


7 REFER+CES ................................................... 121 


APPENDIX A: VERTICAL HYDROGRAPHIC PROFILES 

vi
 12)2BBOB3fTOC 
FIGURES 


1 Propos~d project sampling stations ..................................... 2 


2 Water dhemistry sampling stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 


3 Suspended sediment sampling stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 


4 Bottom Isediment sampling stations .................................... 18 


5 Hydrography sampling stations ....................................... 22 


6 Biota sampling stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 


7 Water ~ioassay sampling stations ..................................... 26 


8 Sedimeht bioassay sampling stations ................................... 28 


9 Microtdx® sampling stations ......................................... 30 


10 Simplifibd thorium-232 decay ........................................ 42 


11 Simplifi1ed radium-226 decay ........................................ , 42 


12 Grain-size composition by station in Cook Inlet ............................ 65 


13 Cruise r temperature (0 C) at 10m depth ................................ 81 


14 Cruise ~ salinity (PSU) at 10m depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82 


15 Cruise ~ transmissivity (%) at 10m depth ............................... 83 


16 Cruise 12 temperature (OC) at 10m depth ................•............... 84 


17 Cruise esalinity (PSU) at 10m depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85 


18 Cruise etransmissivity (%) at 10m depth ............................... 86 


I 


(2)2SS0SSrroc vii 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

TABLES 


1 Cruise water chemistry sampling stations ............................... 9 


2 Cruise water chemistry samples by station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 


3 Cruise water chemistry sampling stations .............................. 11 


4 Cruise water chemistry samples by station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 


Cruise suspended sediment sampling stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 


6 Cruise suspended sediment samples by station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 


7 Cruise sediment sampling stations ................................... 16 


8 Cruise sediment samples by station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 


9 Cruise sediment sampling stations ................................... 17 


Cruise sediment samples by station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 


11 Cruise hydrography sampling stations ................................. 20 


12 Cruise i2 hydrography sampling stations ................................. 21 
 I 


13 Cruise ¥biota sampling stations ...................................... 23 


14 Cruise 2. water bioassay sampling stations ............................... 25 


Cruise 2sediment bioassay sampling stations ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 


16 Cruise 2 MicrotoX® sampling stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 


17 Semivdlatile organic compounds in waters, sediments, and tissues .............. 33 


18 Selecte1d ions for quantitation in water, sediment, and tissue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38 


19 Cruise 1water chemistry VOA results .................................. 47 


Cruise e water chemistry VOA results .................................. 48 


21 EPA m1rine water quality criteria for VOAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. 48 


22 Cruise hwater chemistry PAH results .................................. 49 


23 Cruise [!2 water chemistry PAH results .................................. 50 


24 Cruise 1 saturated hydrocarbon concentrations for water ..................... 51 


Cruise saturated hydrocarbon concentrations for water ..................... 53 


26 Saturated hydrocarbon quantitative parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55 


27 Saturated hydrocarbon source ratios ................................... 55 


28 Cruise 11 total metal concentrations for water ............................. 56 


29 Cruise 2 total metal concentrations for water ............................. 57 


Mean total metal concentrations in marine waters .......................... 58 


31 EPA mbrine water quality criteria for metals .............................. 58 


32 TSS inl Cook Inlet water samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59 


33 Summ~ry of total metals in suspended solids ............................. 60 


34 Concehtration of total metals in suspended solids .........................• 61 


Comp~risons of total metals in suspended solids for ENRI station F and 


OCSEAP station 69 ...........................................'.... 62 


36 Results of grain-size analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63 


37 cruisel1 CHN analysis .........................................•... 66 


38 Cruise 2 CHN analysis on dried basis .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67 


39 PAH q1uantitative parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69 


PAH ratios and diagnostic source parameters ..........•.................. 69 


41 Summbry of saturated hydrocarbon concentrations for sediment replicates ......... 70 


42 CompJrisons of mean saturated hydrocarbon concentrations for sediment 


in Cooik Inlet . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72 


43 Summary of PAH concentrations for sediment replicates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73 


44 Chemibal and statistical results for sediment replicate samples ................. 76 


Summiary of total metals in sediments .................................. 77 


(2)288083fTOC viii 
46 M i, I ... d' 78
 ean tota meta concentrations In manne se Iments ....................... . 


47 ER-L and ER-M values for metals in sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79 


48 Summaty of PAH concentrations and diagnostic ratios for tissues ............... 87 


49 Summaty of saturated hydrocarbon concentrations for mussel tissues .. ;......... 88 


50 Summa~y of saturated hydrocarbon parameters and diagnostic ratios 
 , I
 for tissues .....'................................................ 89 


51 Summa~y of metal concentrations for mussel tissues ........................ 90 


52 Compa~ison of mean concentrations of trace metals in bivalve tissues 


from Cqok Inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . .. 91 


53 Radioadtive activity of mussel shell samples .............................. 91 


54 Microto~® summary data ........................................... 93 


55 Summary of 10-day solid-phase static test with R. abronius ................... 94 


56 SUmmary of pore-water sperm-cell test with D. excentricus ' 


(includes unadjusted and Abbott's adjusted datal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96 


57 Summa~y of receiving water sperm-cell test with D. excentricus 


(includes unadjusted and Abbott's adjusted datal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 98 
 I 


58 T-test determinations for the pore-water sperm-cell test with 

D. exc~ntricus ................................................... 100 


59 T-test determinations for the receiving water sperm-cell test with 


D. excdntricus ................................................... 100 


60 Summ~ry of receiving water larval test with D. excentricus .................... 102 


61 T -test ~eterminations of percent survival for the 48-h receiving water 


larval t~st with D. excentricus ........................................ 104 
 I 


62 T -test (j:Ieterminations of percent normal for the 48-h receiving water 


larval t~st with D. excentricus ........................................ 104 


63 SemivQlatile organic compound MOL report summary ......................•. 105 


64 Method blanks for alkanes .......................................... 106 


65 Method blanks for PAH ............................................ 107 


66 Surrog~te recoveries from seawater samples .............................. 109 


67 Surrogate recoveries from sediment samples ................... , .......... 110 


68 Surrog~te recoveries from tissue samples ................................ 111 


69 Summ~ry of physical, chemical, and bioassay results ........................ 114 


70 ChemiJal and physical results for sediment replicate samples .................. 11 5 


71 Correldtion and regression results for sediment samples ...................... 116 


72 Range lof hydrocal'bon concentrations in Alaska coastal sediments ............... 11 7 


73 Comparisons of Cook Inlet sediment PAH concentrations to 


publisHed ER-Ls .................................................. 118 


(212BBOB3fTOC ix 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 


The University df Alaska Anchorage's Environment and Natural Resources Institute (ENRI) prepared this 

report with finahcial assistance from the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS). Sponsorship of 

this effort by MMS is greatly appreciated, as are contributions made by Dr. Richard Prentki, MMS 

oceanographer land the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative. We also thank MMS for 

supplying the lilesearch vessel; conductivity, temperature, and depth meter; and transmissometer 

sampling gear. Special appreciation is extended to Mr. Pat Harman and Mr. Fred Dyson for their skillful 

piloting in Cook Inlet's often treacherous waters. We also thank Mr. Todd Eubanks and 

Mr. Dave Hannkman of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for participating in our 

fieldwork. Thb efforts of ENRI's Mr. Ray Norman for graphics and mapping assistance, and 

Ms. Jayne Joh~son for word processing and editorial assistance are greatly appreciated. 

(2)288083/8 xi 

• 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 


I 

The University 6f Alaska Anchorage's Environment and Natural Resources Institute conducted a 1993 

field investigatic!m to establish a baseline of information on the occurrence of petroleum hydrocarbons, 

naturally occur~ing radioactive materials, and trace metals in Cook Inlet, Alaska. The sampling and 

analysiS prograrinl

included collection of seawater, sediments, and biota for detailed chemical analyses 

and bioassays. Analyses included trace metals and hydrocarbons in water, biota, and sediments; 

sediment grain ize; carbon-hydrogen-nitrogen in sediments; naturally occurring radioactive materials 

in mollusc shell~; total suspended solids and suspended sediment trace metals in water; hydrography; 

and water and ~ediment bioassays. 

Sampling sites Lere chosen in a variety of Cook Inlet environments. Some were located in bays where I 

fine-grained se,diments indicated a depositional environment, some were in the vicinity of inlet 

petroleum production platforms, and others were near petroleum and natural gas processing and 

transportation facilities in northern lower Cook Inlet. Many of the sediment sites had been sampled 

during the Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program between 1976 and 1979. 

These sites we~e generally chosen to determine whether or not hydrocarbons and trace metals have 

been accumulJting in the sediments. Water sampling sites were selected to investigate possible 

near-field cont~mination in current oil and gas development areas and possible far-field effects near 

Kachemak andjKamishak bays. 

Two research ruises were conducted in 1993. The first took place 20 June through 28 June, and 

the second 16 1

August through 4 September. The principal goal of these cruises was to occupy six 

to eight water chemistry stations and take multiple samples at depths of 1 meter at both high and low 

tides. Susperlded sediments were collected at these stations via filtration of seawater as well. 

Sediment sambles were taken by bottom grab at these stations and at several other stations 

throughout th~ inlet. Hydrographic casts were made for each station and, when possible, for points 

in between. \\fater samples were taken for bioassay at the eight water chemistry stations. Sediment 

samples were Itaken for bioassay at these sites plus six others throughout the inlet. Biota samples 

were cOllectedj from six sites in the middle to lower inlet. 

Less than metllod detection limits of volatile organic analytes and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

were found in lall water chemistry samples from the eight Cook Inlet stations, but minute traces of 

several alkanes were detected. Total saturated hydrocarbons in water ranged from less than method 

detection limit~ to 4.14 micrograms per liter. Iron was by far the metal with the highest concentration 

in water; the h~ghest concentrations were found in the northern sampling stations. Overall, the metal 

concentration~ found were similar to those reported in global marine waters, but mercury appeared to 

be somewhat righer. 

The suspended sediment input from the head of Cook Inlet is very high; it is principally comprised of 

very fine-grain~d glacial till. Samples from the eight water sampling stations were analyzed for total 

suspended sol,ds; measured concentrations ranged from 3 to 440 milligrams per liter. As expected 

due to dynamic mixing in the northern inlet and the predominance of river inputs of suspended 

sediments int~ the upper inlet, stations in the upper inlet had the highest total suspended solids 

concentration~. Those in the middle to lower inlet had the lowest. 

Metals within ~he water column are strongly partitioned onto the suspended sediment. In Cook Inlet 

this latter maWrial is overwhelmingly inorganic (glacially ground rock flour). A comparison between 

data on metal content of suspended sediment extracts taken in lower Cook Inlet during the Outer 

Continental s~elf Environmental Assessment Program showed concentrations for cadmium, copper, 

nickel, zinc, alild iron to be lower than those found during this study. Lower values are not surprising 

!21288083/7 xiii 
for the environ rental assessment program samples, because a weak acid leach was used for the 

metals extracti t 

Of the 46 sedinrent samples analyzed for grain size from 16 stations, most were primarily sand. The 

prepo.nderance fOf sand in the samples is in agreement with past studies. The total organic carbon 

content of sedi ents from this study ranged from 0.05% to 4.09%. With the exception of the value 

of 4.09% obser~ed at station Alt 30, the range was 0.05% to 1.59%, which is almost identical to that 

previously described for Cook Inlet. 

Hydrographic dta for both Cruise 1 and Cruise 2 are in reasonable agreement at depths of 10 meters. 

Cruise 1 tempetatures north of the forelands were 11 0 C to 1 2 0 C and decreased to 9 0 C to 100 C near 

Ninilchik. Cruise 2 temperatures were 2 0 C to 3 0 C warmer than Cruise 1 temperatures north of the 

forelands, and they were about 1 °C warmer south of the forelands. Cruise 2 temperatures ranged 

from 14°C ne~r Tyonek in the north to 9°C near Port Graham in the south. Cruise 1 salinities 

increased from ~ 7 near Tyonek, to 25 near the forelands, to 31 near Ninilchik. North of the forelands, 

Cruise 2 saliniti~s were lower than those from Cruise 1. South of the forelands, salinities from the two 

cruises were ~imilar, and they increased to 31 near Port Graham. Cruise 1 and Cruise 2 

transmissivitiesl were also similar; they increased from 0% near Tyonek, to 90% near Ninilchik, to 98% 

near Port Graham. 

Hydrocarbon ahalyses performed on sediment yielded concentrations of individual saturated and 

aromatic hydro:carbons. Total alkanes with chain lengths of 1 2 through 33 carbon atoms ranged 

from 62 nanograms per gram to 5388 nanograms per gram for sediment replicates throughout the 

area. Low molbcular weight alkanes with chain lengths of 12 through 20 carbon atoms ranged from 

less than method detection limits to 674 nanograms per gram. The saturated hydrocarbons were 

dominated by nLalkanes with a strong odd-even preference. N-alkanes ranging in length from 21 to 29 I 

carbon atoms dominated, especially those with 27 and 29. This is consistent with a prevalent biogenic 

input of hydtocarbons from terrigenous plant material, likely resulting from transport of 

riverine-suspen1ded particulate matter. In general, the highest saturated hydrocarbon concentrations 

were associater with sediments taken from nearshore stations in the middle inlet. 

Mean polycycli. aromatic hydrocarbons concentrations in sediments were very low and followed trends 

similar tothosS of saturated hydrocarbons. Highest polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons concentrations 

were found in ~ediments in the lower inlet and nearshore in the middle inlet. Total polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons doncentrations from the ten stations where detectable concentrations were found ranged 

from 2 to 958inanograms per gram. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons detected were found in very 

low concentrations that probably represent baseline conditions and background hydrocarbon inputs. 

Concentration~ of individual polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons rarely exceeded 10 nanograms per gram, 

and values we~e often near method detection limits. Dominance of the phenanthrene series indicates 

most polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons detected were of petrogenic origin. 

Universally high levels of both aluminum and iron were found in sediments throughout the inlet. This 

would be expedted, as the majority of suspended material in Cook Inlet is aluminosilicate minerals. The 

concentration bf metals in Cook Inlet sediment is similar to that found elsewhere in Alaska and 

throughout thel world. No geographic area contained significantly lower or higher metal concentrations 

than other areck 

Detectable bJ very low concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were found in four of the 

six mussel tis~ue samples. These contained few individual target polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

at concentrati~ns ranging from near method detection limits (less than 10 to 230 nanograms per gram). 

Unlike the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, mussels showed higher concentrations and a more diverse 

array of saturated hydrocarbons in the tissues. Samples were generally dominated by higher molecular 

weight alkane$, which are indicative of sediment-associated hydrocarbons. 

Metal concent~ations found in mussel tissues from six Cook Inlet locations are comparable with those 

obtained in past Cook Inlet, Gulf of Alaska, and Beaufort Sea studies; no anomalous trends are evident. 

Concentration~ of heavy metals cadmium, copper, and zinc found in mussel tissues at Kasitsna and 

1212BBOB311 xiv 

l 

Kachemak bays in 1977 and those found in this study are almost identical. Concentrations of barium, 

cadmium, copper, and zinc found in Beaufort Sea bivalve tissues and those from this study are also 

very similar. Cdncentrations of naturally occurring radioactive material were extremely low in all shells 

analyzed. Radiium-226, radium-228, and bismuth-214 were not detectable; and lead-214 was 

extremely low.I 

For the solid-p lase Microtox® bioassay, median effective concentration values below 2% can be 

considered to indicate possibly contaminated sediment in Cook Inlet. Results showed six stations with 

no toxicity and five with possible toxicity using the 2 % median effective concentration level. With the 

exception of s~ation 227 in Kachemak Bay, all locations that exhibited possible sediment toxicity I 

through the Microtox® bioassay ware located on the west side of the middle inlet. 

Of the 1 2 statibns assayed by the solid-phase static amphipod ~ublethal bioassay, only two (Alt C 

and 227) had statistically significant lower survivals than the controls. Survival rates differing by more 

than 20% fromi controls are often considered to be of concern. Amphipod survival in sediment from 

station 227 in kachemak Bay was 21 % lower than observed from the control. Sediments from this 

area could be ¢onsidered toxic based on this difference. Sediment pore water from four stations 

showed statistfrcal differences for percent fertilization when compared to the control. One of these 

stations (233) tNas actually higher than the control, while the other three (F, 16B, and Alt 22) were 

lower. Station Alt 22, which is near Kalgin Island, had the lowest fertilization rate of only 18%.. 

~tation ~ had .alfertilization rate of 3~.4% and 16B had. a fertilization rate of 47.2%; b?t.h. are lo~a~ed 

In the middle Inlet. These three stations could be conSidered to have pore waters exhibiting tOXICity. 

Five stations s~owed statistically significant reduction of fertilization rates for receiving water samples. 

However, threJ of these (A, C, and F) have mean percent fertilization values over 90% with a control 

of 96%. Thisl difference of less than 6% should not be considered an indication that the water 

samples were toxic. Stations E and B exhibited fertilization rates of 55%. This is 15% lower than 

their control and could be considered an indication that the water exhibits toxicity. Stations E and B 

were the two ~ost northern stations in the inlet; they have extremely high suspended particulate loads 

that may contribute to toxicity. Percent survival and percent normal development for urchin larvae in 

receiving water from the eight stations sampled were high. With the exception of survival at 

station 211, there were no statistically significant differences between sample and control survivals 

or normal devd'opment numbers. Although there was a statistically significant difference in survival 

between the s~mple and controls, larvae exposed to water from station 211 showed a survival rate 

of 87%, which is only 9% below the control. 

The physical, chemical, and bioassay results of this study show that Cook Inlet has very low 

environmental concentrations of hydrocarbons and that sediments and water are generally free from 

toxicity. Resu ts also show no immediate evidence of heavy metal pollution in Cook Inlet. 

{2l288083fl xv 

1 

INTRODUCTION 1 

The University of Alaska Anchorage's Environment and Natural Resources Institute (ENRI) conducted 

a field study inl1993 for the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) to establish a baseline of 

information on the occurrence of petroleum hydrocarbons, trace metals, and naturally occurring 

radioactive materials (NORM) in Cook Inlet, Alaska. This work was done under Cooperative Agreement 

No. 14-35-000~ -30704. ENRI collected seawater, sediments, and biota for detailed chemical analyses 

and bioassays ircluding trace metals and hydrocarbons in water, biota, and sediments; sediment grain 

size; carbon-hy~rogen-nitrogen (CHN) in sediments; NORM in mollusc shells; total suspended solids 

(TSS) and suspended sediment trace metals in water; hydrography; and water and sediment bioassays. 

Samples were I analyzed by the project team that included ENRI, the Alaska Department of 

Environmental ~onservation's Juneau Environmental Analysis Laboratory (JEAL), Battelle Memorial 

Institute's Paci~ic Northwest Division's Marine Sciences Laboratory (MSL), and Huffman Laboratories. 

ENRI was respdnsible for sediment grain size, hydrography, and some bioassays; JEAL for water and 

sediment chemistry; MSL for NORM and some bioassays; and Huffman Laboratories for CHN. 

I 

Sampling stations for this study were chosen in a variety of Cook Inlet environments. Some were 

contiguous to *nown point discharge sources and others were not. A number were located in bays 

where fine-grained sediments indicated a depositional environment. Others were near production 

platforms in upper Cook Inlet and processing and transportation facilities in the northern part of lower 

Cook Inlet. Many of the proposed sediment sampling stations were previously sampled for the Alaska 

Outer Contine~tal Shelf (OCS) Environmental Assessment Program (OCSEAP) between 1976 

and 1979. Sediment sampling stations were generally chosen to determine whether or not 

hydrocarbons dnd trace metals were accumulating in the sediments. Water sampling locations were 

selected to in\jestigate the possibility of near-field contamination in the area of current oil and gas 

development and far-field effects near Kachemak and Kamishak bays. 

I 

MMS proposed that samples be collected at or in the vicinity of 27 stations in lower and upper Cook 

Inlet (Figure l)t To achieve this goal, ENRI conducted two research cruises in 1993. The first took 

place 20 June ~hrough 28 June, and the second 16 August through 4 September. The principal goal 

of Cruise 1 was to occupy six middle to upper inlet water chemistry stations and take multiple samples 

at depths of 1f.1eter (m) at both high and low tides. Sediment samples were to be collected at all six 

stations by a s ainless steel, Teflon-coated bottom grab. Suspended sediments were to be taken via 

filtration of se .water at two stations. Hydrographic casts were planned for each station and, when 

possible, for points in between. 

The principal g6al of Cruise 2 was to occupy eight water chemistry stations and take multiple samples 

at depths of 11 m at both high and low tides. Suspended sediments were to be collected at these 

stations via filtration of seawater. Sediment samples were to be taken at these eight stations by 

bottom grab, jS well as at 20 other stations throughout the inlet (provided they had not been sampled 

during Cruise ). Hydrographic casts were planned for each station and, when possible, for points in 

between. Wa er samples were to be collected for bioassay at the eight water chemistry stations. 

Sediment samples were to be taken for bioassay at these stations plus six others throughout the inlet. 

Biota samples [were to be collected from five stations in the middle to lower inlet. 

This document adopts as a convention the practice of reporting analyte concentrations in solution as 

mass per vOlure in micrograms per liter (pg/L). Analyte concentrations in sediments are reported as 

mass per mass in either nanograms per gram (ng/g) or micrograms per gram (pg/g). Concentration 

values in pglL and ng/g can be read directly as parts per billion (ppb), while those in pg/g can be read 

directly as parts per million (ppm). A list of these and the other abbreviations used in this document 

is provided on page 119. 

{2128808311 1 
:::::::::::A' pO:O ""00 0" """"" " " .If-A it v'11l] 61 0 

L1Ff\. I ,Sf' .'" 11 30' 

t gv~IO";'£\X 1600 

N 

PROPOSED PROJECT 

SAMPLING STATIONS I I 159" 

o Water/Sediment 

D Sediment . "I IW I ,00 .;~ I ~ :::::,,:r I -~ I -;-;-; ,,:. '00 --: 3.

Figure 1. Proposed project sampling stations. 
BACKGROUND 2 

The history of the petroleum. industry in Cook Inlet can be traced to 1892, when a wildcat well was 

sunk at Oil Bayl in the Iniskin area of lower Cook Inlet (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 1992). 

However, it wa~ not until 1957 that commercial quantities of recoverable oil were discovered in the 

Cook Inlet area'i when a successful well was sunk on the Kenai Peninsula. Three production wells were 

operating in the area by 1959, and there were five fields producing oil and nine producing natural gas 

by the late 1960s.The first offshore exploration took place in 1959, and some offshore fields were 

producing by 1968. Twelve oil and gas production platforms are presently operating in upper Cook 

Inlet. I 

Under terms of their original permits, oil and gas production platforms were allowed to discharge 

drilling muds, c~ttings, and produced water directly into the inlet. Discharged materials such as these 

can contain si~nificantquantities of hydrocarbons and trace metals. Discharge of bilge, ballast, and 

cleaning waters from vessels, as well as discharges of industrial and municipal effluents, river flow 

~~';;,;~~and solces. and natural oil seeps also contribute hydrocarbons and trace metals to Cook Inlet 

MMS and the LJ.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) funded numerous investigations in Alaska during 

OCSEAP to characterize heavy metal and hydrocarbon inventories of water, sediment, and biota. 

Areas investig~ted included the Beaufort Sea, Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, northwest Gulf of Alaska, and I 

Cook Inlet. Mlost of the existing water and sediment chemistry data for Cook Inlet were gathered 

during these stiudies in the mid-1970s to early 1980s. 

I 

Cook Inlet is a large tidal estuary in southcentral Alaska (see Figure 1). It lies on a northeast-southeast 

axis and is abo~t 150 nautical miles (nmi) long and 50 nmi wide at its mouth. The inlet is divided into 

three physiographic sections. At its head it splits into Knik Arm (which is 45 nmi long) and Turnagain 

Arm (which isl43 nmi long). Near its middle, upper Cook Inlet is constricted by two geographic 

features knowr as the East Foreland and West Foreland (Feely and Massoth 1982). 

The inlet receives fresh water from four major rivers. These include the Matanuska and Knik rivers at 

the head of K~ik Arm and the Susitna and Beluga rivers to the northwest. They supply about 70% 

to 80% of thel freshwater input (Feely et al. 1980). In addition, numerous streams containing large 

concentrations of glacial flour drain into the lower inlet from both sides. Included in this category are 

the Kenai, Kasilof, Ninilchik, and Anchor rivers on the east and the McArthur, Big, Drift, and Tuxedni 

rivers on the test (Feely et al. 1 980). 

Cook Inlet is ah almost textbook example of a well-mixed estuary with mixing dominated by an intense I 

tidal regime. The tidal range is second only to that of the Bay of Fundy and very strong currents are 

generated, especially between the forelands. Consequently, the central portion of Cook Inlet tends to 

be swept cle.br of fine-grained sediment, and benthic biota show patchy distribution patterns 

(Burrell 1979)1 

Muench, MOfj~ld, and Charne" (1978) provide a complete description of water circulation in lower 

Cook Inlet. It ,S characterized by a net inward movement of oceanic water along the eastern shore and 

a net outward movement of a mixture of oceanic water and runoff water along the western shore. 

In much of th~ inlet, the water masses are vertically mixed due to the turbulent action of tidal currents. 

However, lat~ral separation of the water masses is apparent, resulting in a shear zone between the 

incoming saline water on the east and the outgoing less saline water on the west. Coastal upwelling 

occurs in the vicinity of the Chugach Islands from the region west of Elizabeth Island to Cape 

Starichkof. 

12)28808311 3 
Bottom sedimeJts in lower Cook Inlet are prima,;ly composed of medium- to fine-grained sands; silt 

and clay-sized sediments have been observed occasionally. Deposits in the northern part of the inlet 

are winnowed R1'leistocene to early Holocene gravels, with many of the sand-sized and smaller particles 

being removed rnd redeposited to the south. In addition to relict sands and gravels, sediments also 

contain a very thin cover of modern fine-grained silts and clays (Sharma and Burrell 1970, Bouma and 

Hampton 1976J Hein et al. 1979). Hein et al. (1979) state the clay-mineral deposits in lower Cook 

Inlet are domina~ed by clay-mineral suites from two distinct sources. A chlorite-rich material dominates 

the clay-mineral fraction in deposits from the region around the Barren Islands to Kachemak Bay. The 

Copper River, ~hiCh drains into the Gulf of Alaska about 250 miles (mi) to the east of Cook Inlet, 

appears to be t~e major source of this material. It discharges chlorite-rich, fine-grained material into 

the northeast gulf, which is diverted to the west and southwest by the coastal longshore currents 

(Feely et al. 1980). Apparently, some of this material reaches Kennedy Entrance and is transported 

into lower coot Inlet with inflowing Gulf of Alaska water. 

The region to tfe west and north of Kachemak Bay is dominated by an illite-rich suite, which has the 

Susitna River in upper Cook Inlet as its major source. Feely and Massoth (1982) state the distribution 

of clay minerals' in the bottom sediments in lower Cook Inlet reflects the dispersal routes for suspended 

material in the Jverlying water. Thus, fine-grained particles from these two sources follow the general 

pattern of wat~r circulation in the inlet and form the bulk of mud deposits in Quiet embayments along 

the coast and tihroughout Shelikof Strait. ' 

Suspended mJter distributions appear to follow the general pattern of circulation in lower Cook Inlet 

and Shelikof Strait. The inflowing, relatively clear Gulf of Alaska water, which contains significant 

amounts of bibgenic particles as well as aluminosilicate material from the Copper River, flows 

northward alon1g the eastern coast until it reaches Cape Ninilchik, where it mixes with the outflowing 

turbid, brackis~ water. The outflowing turbid water moves along the western side of the inlet past 

Augustine Isla~d and Cape Douglas into Shelikof Strait, where it mixes with the oceanic water and is 

dispersed. Comparison of suspended matter and sediment characteristics, as well as regional 

sedimentation ~ates, indicates that net sedimentation of suspended matter in the central basin of lower 

Cook Inlet is mlinimal. However, net sedimentation does occur in embayments along the coast (Feely 

and MaSsoth 1982). According to Atlas et al. (1983)' most fine-grained sediment entering Cook Inlet 

is transported out of the inlet into Shelikof Strait, although sediment accumulation does occur within I 

Kamishak and Kachemak bayS. 

Chemical analJses of suspended material from lower Cook Inlet reveal aluminosilicate minerals from 

the coastal rivJrs comprise about 80% to 95% of suspended matter, with biogenic matter making up 

the rest. Analrsis of seasonal and regional variations of carbon to nitrogen ratios indicates organic 

matter of mari1ne origin predominates in the eastern part of lower Cook Inlet throughout the year, 

whereas organic matter of terrestrial origin predominates in the western part of the inlet during winter 

and early spring, when primary production is at a minimum (Feely and Massoth 1982). 

Due to turbidit~ associated with high suspended matter concentrations, biological activity near Kalgin 

Island is low, resulting in organic matter comprising only 2 % of the total weight of suspended material. 

Organic mattet has a carbon to nitrogen ratio of 11 :3, which is indicative of terrestrial origin. Unlike 

upper Cook Inl~t, the suspended matter concentration in Kachemak Bay shows smaller fluctuations and 

little differenc~ with depth. Surface suspended material consists of 35% organic matter and has a 

carbon to nitrdgen ratio of 7:6, which is characteristic of marine origin (Feely et al. 1980). 

According to ~aPlan and Venkatesan (1985)' total organic carbon contents of Cook Inlet sediments 

vary from 0.06% to 1.57% and are characteristic of unpolluted, relatively coarse marine sediments. 

The Kachema~ Bay and Shelikof Strait regions contain relatively fine-grained sediments and higher 

organic carbo~ content (> 1 %) than the sandy gravel or gravel found in the northern and central 

regions of Cook Inlet and Kamishak Bay. This might indicate enhanced hydrocarbon accumulation in 

the two form~r regions. The higher values observed in Kachemak Bay are also due to the very high 

primary productivity that persists over several months in this area. 

(2)288083/1 4 
Part of the orgaL matter produced in the Kachemak Bay region probably settles to the sea floor and 

gets buried within the sediments. However, the remaining fraction of organic matter produced in 

Kachemak Bay Jnay eventually be deposited in Shelikof Strait via the net water circulation to the north 

along the east~rn shore and to the southwest along the western shore (Muench, Mofjeld, and 

Charnell 1978; iHein et al. 1979). This would contribute to the higher organic carbon content in the 

Shelikof Strait Jrea. The organic carbon content in Alaska sediment is related to its distance from the 

terrigenous sou~ce of detrital minerals, and it is higher with increasing distance from shore (Kaplan and I 

Venkatesan 1985). 

! 

HISTORICAL HrDROCARBON DATA 

High molecular Iweight hydrocarbon data gathered during OCSEAP for surface sediments from different 

~egions ~f the tlaska OCS indicate the entire area is uniformly fre~ of petroleum co~taminants ~xcePt 

In a few Isolate([l cases (Kaplan and Venkatesan 1985). The organic carbon content In these sediments I 

is ;s;; 1.5%, which is characteristic of pristine environments. Unresolved complex mixture is present 

in very few sfmples, and the total hydrocarbon content in the sediments varies from 0.9 pg/g 

to 50 pg/g. T~ese values are low; petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in uncontaminated coastal 

sediments elsewhere are usually below 70 pg/g (Kaplan and Venkatesan 1985). However, there are 

differences in the sediment hydrocarbon concentrations in various areas of the Alaska OCS. Beaufort 

Sea sedimentsjhave the highest hydrocarbon content, while Kodiak area sediments have the lowest. 

Resolved n-alk nes follow the same trend, but polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds do 

not exhibit theIsame pattern, and the Gulf of Alaska and Kodiak area sediments are rich in PAH that 

is biologically ~roduced as well as in those produced by pyrolytic combustion. Even though the PAH 

content in the'iabove two areas is as high as that observed in Beaufort Sea sediments, the pyrolytic 

and biogenic irhprint predominates in the former areas, while a mixed pyrolytic and fossil PAH profile 

is reflected in the latter (Kaplan and Venkatesan 1985). 

! . Terrigenous influx is indicated by the maxima observed at chain lengths of 27 or 29 carbon atoms in 

sediments. TMe odd-even ratios demonstrate that terrestrial input varies from region to region of the I 

Alaska OCS. COf the areas investigated, Norton Sound and Cook Inlet receive the maximum plant wax 

contribution, vYhereas the Gulf of Alaska and Kodiak area receive the least. The Beaufort Sea, Navarin 

Basin, and southeastern Bering Sea are second in order of Alaska OCS areas of plant wax content. 

According to !kaplan and Venkatesan (1985), allochthonous hydrocarbons are to be expected in the 

Beaufort Sea, Cook Inlet, Norton Sound, and Bering Sea. 

The lipid, hydirocarbon, and organic carbon contents in lower Cook Inlet are generally high in and 

around Kachemak Bay. Stations in Shelikof Strait are next in order of abundance of organic matter. 

The middle and upper parts of the inlet have the lowest concentrations (Kaplan and Venkatesan 1985). 

It appears ordanic matter produced in Kachemak and Kamishak bays may be deposited in Shelikof 

Strait, a hYPo~heSis that is consistent with the postulated net circulation pattern of the water and 

suspended matter (Muench, Mofjeld, and Charnell 1978; Feely et al. 1980). 

The lipid, total hydrocarbon, alkane, and resolved n-alkane contents in Cook Inlet sediment follow the 

same trend aJ organic carbon. They are generally high in and around Kachemak Bay and low in the 

middle and udper parts of lower Cook Inlet. Stations near Shelikof Strait are next to Kachemak Bay 

in order of abilindance of lipids and alkanes, whereas Kamishak Bay is moderately enriched with lipids 

(Kaplan et al.11 980). 

The n-alkanes in Cook Inlet sediments generally show a bimodal distribution of biogenic origin, which 

is typical of rhixed marine and terrestrial hydrocarbons. An odd-carbon predominance of n-alkanes 

characteristic! of terrigenous plants is evident in most areas, suggesting the influence of major rivers 

in the area. The n-fatty acids (unbound) present in these samples are also typical of a mixed marin,e 

and terrestria input (Kaplan and Venkatesan 1985). 

Molecular markers such as diterpenoids, 17P(H), 21,B(H), olefinic triterpenoids, and extended 17,B(H), 

21,B(H)-hopa es also reflect biogenic origin of the lipids in most of the Cook Inlet sediment samples 

(21288083/1 5 
(Kaplan et a!. 1980). Stations north of Kalgin Island are the exception. They show a typical weathered 

petroleum distri~ution of n-alkanes and triterpenoids that can be characteristic of oil pollution (Kaplan , 

and Venkatesanl 1985). The triterpenoidal residue consists predominantly of 17a-hopanes and Rand S 

diastereomers bt position 22 in nearly 1: 1 abundance, which is characteristic of petroleum 

contamination. I Oil production activities in upper Cook Inlet may be the contaminating source in 

stations near Kalgin Island. However, the possibility of a local seep around the island with similar 

triterpenoidal distribution cannot be ruled out (Kaplan and Venkatesan 1985). 

A complex mixLre of PAH compounds was identified by gas chromatograph (GC)/mass spectrometer 

(MS) in all Cook Inlet sediments (Kaplan and Venkatesan (1985). The relative distribution of parent I 

homo logs and their alkylated derivatives is characteristic of pyrolytic (natural and/or anthropogenic) 

sources (KaPlaJ and Venkatesan 1985). Trace amounts to 50 ng/g of perylene were found in samples. 

Like any other aliphatic or aromatic compound, perylene is also found at higher concentrations in 

Kachemak BaY.and I Shelikof Strait than it is in Kamishak Bay or in the central part of Cook Inlet. Origin 

of perylene in lhese sediments is probably terrestrial (Kaplan and Venkatesan 1985). 

, 1 r. 

Extensive OCSEAP investigations indicate sediment in the study area is generallyunpolluted with very 

few exceptionk. Characteristics of the aliphatic hydrocarbons are typical of a mixture of marine 

autochthonou~ and terrestrial allochthonous components. Norton Sound and Cook Inlet sediments 

contain the highest levels of terrigenous input and Kodiak area the lowest, while other areas show 

intermediate dmcentrations. Distribution of PAHs is complex and shows a pyrolytic source in all study 

areas. Bioacc~mulation of PAHs is probably prevalent in the Gulf of Alaska and Kodiak area (Kaplan 

and Venkates~n 1985). 

Few studies hJve been conducted on the distributions and concentrations of hydrocarbons in the water 

column of Ala~ka/s coastal waters. Most have examined sediment or tissues, and they have been 

limited in sco~e. More than 3000 water samples were collected throughout Prince William Sound 

following the wreck of the Exxon Valdez. These samples revealed consistently low concentrations of 

total petroleu~ hydrocarbons (TPH). More than 89% ofthe samples analyzed contained nondetectable 

concentrations of <50 pg/L (Neff 1991).

I 

Due to extrerryely low concentrations of hydrocarbons existing in Prince William Sound and the Gulf 

of Alaska, th~ITPH method is not sensitive enough for monitoring (Neff 1991). Concentrations of PAH 

are the best indicator of the distribution of spilled crude oil in the water column. 'A total of 1683 water 

samples werel analyzed for PAH in Prince William Sound. Only 27 of these (1.6%) contained more 

than 1 pg/L ~AH, and most (16) were collected nearshore (Neff 1991). Samples of subsurface 

seawater within Prince William Sound collected 1 to 5 weeks following the spill showed summed PAH 

concentration~ ranged from 1.92 pg/L to 5.23 pg/L at sampling stations near heavily oiled beaches and 

from 0.4 pg/Ll to 1.5 pg/L at stations distant from the path of the spilled oil (Short and Rounds 1993). 

In an upper C~Ok Inlet study done for Marathon Oil Company, only 1 of 26 water samples in the mixing 

zone contain~d a volatile organic analyte (VOA) compound at a concentration greater than method I 

detection limits (MDL) (2.9 pg/L toluene), and this was taken 50 m south of the Trading Bay treated 

water outfalll(l\leff and Douglas 1994). . 

In June 197J, Shaw (1977) collected 20 unfiltered water samples in lower Cook Inlet from Kennedy 

Entrance to dape Ninilchik, including both Kachemak and Kamishak bays. Observed concentrations 

of total hydro~carbons ranged from 0.2 micrograms per kilogram (pg/kg) to 1.5 pg/kg (or about 0.2 pg/L 

to 1.5 pg/L};lthis is indicative of biogenic rather than petroleum origin (Shaw 1985). Twenty-nine 

filtered water samples were taken in May and August 1978 (Shaw et a!. 1979), Twenty showed no 

detectable hydrocarbons «0.01 pg/L). Hydrocarbon concentrations in the other nine were low 

enough to suggest they were probably bacterial in origin. Results indicate intensive tidal mixing of 

upper and mijddle Cook Inlet rapidly disperses any petrogenic hydrocarbons (Shaw 1985). 

I 

Shaw (1 980) determined hydrocarbon composition over a three-year period (1978 to 1 980) for 41 

specimens o~ attached plants and 51 specimens of benthic animals from lower Cook Inlet. Specimens 

of Macoma ( Ilam) and Mytilus (mussel) from northern Kachemak Bay showed an array of hydrocarbons 

(21266063/1 6 
associated with detrital coal. Whether or not these hydrocarbons were assimilated or were part of gut 

contents was urknown. All mussel specimens contained pristane, suggesting planktonic material in 

food. They al~o contained small concentrations (0.02 pg/g to 0.05 pg/g) of other alkanes (chain 

lengths from 14 to 21 carbon atoms) naturally common in tissues (Shaw 1980). 

HISTORICAL T~ACE METAL DATA 

Studies of tracI metal associations with particulate matter reveal that manganese, copper, and zinc 

are enriched in the organic phase of suspended matter in surface waters of Kachemak Bay; and the 

weak-acid solu Ie phase contains about 46% to 99% of the total copper, nickel, and zinc in samples 

from the Kalgirl Island region. These differences are attributed to differences in the sources for the 

particles, with Iprimary production of biogenic particles predominant in Kachemak Bay and river 

discharge of terrestrial rock debris predominant in the Kalgin Island region (Feely and Massoth 1982). 

Studies of sedIment accumulation rates in lower Cook Inlet have indicated most of the suspended 

material disch+ged from local rivers is deposited in Shelikof Strait, not in Cook Inlet. This finding is 

important for ~nderstanding and predicting the long-term fates of contaminants associated with 

suspended matter (Feely and Massoth 1982). 

Analyses of sJmPles from lower Cook Inlet by Burrell (1978, 1979) and Robertson and Abel (1979) 

indicate sedim~nts, water, and biota of the Alaska OCS and coastal waters have heavy metal contents 

that are as 10~ as or lower than those recorded elsewhere for similar unpolluted oceanographic 

environments in more temperate regions. 

Because of thj dynamic nature of the hydrographic regime in Cook Inlet, the average surficial sediment 

in the area is 1elativelY coarse, and concentrations of extractable ("available") heavy metals released 

(per unit of dry weight) (Burrell et al. 1977) are generally lower than in other Alaska coastal areas that 

have been stu ied. 

(2)288083/1 7 

METHODS 3 

FIELD SAMPLING 

Sampling was conducted from the MMS~supplied RV 1273, a 37~foot (ft) all~aluminum vessel with a 

Global Position1ing System (GPS), radar, fathometer, radios, power winches, and a crane. Three 

scientists plus avessel captain were aboard ship during all sampling periods, and an onshore logistics 

person was st~tioned either in Homer or Kenai to ensure timely sample delivery. While on the boat, 

samples were lither stored in a small refrigerator or in coolers with dry ice or frozen (blue) ice packs. 

WATER 

The sampling ~Ian called for eight water and suspended sediment sampling stations in Cook Inlet, six 

of which werej to be sampled during Cruise 1. Table 1 lists the Cruise 1 water chemistry sampling 

stations and locations. Table 2 provides the number and type of samples to be taken. During 

Cruise 1, triplitate samples were to be collected for VOAs, single samples for PAHs, and duplicate 

samples for m~tals on the ebb and flow at five of the stations. (Six VOA, two PAH, and four metals 

samples were fOllected at each of the five stations.) The same sampling routine was to be followed 

at the sixth station, but all samples were to be collected in triplicate (18 for VOA, 6 for PAH, and 12 I 

for metals). This sampling plan was adhered to during Cruise 1. 

Table 1. Cruise 1 water chemistry sampling stations. 

1 R = rising, F = falling. 

(2)288083/2 9 
Table 2. 1 water chemistry samples by station. 

1002 3 3 2 

1003 B 3 2 

2 

3 2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 1 2 

1 2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

During cruisel2, triplicate samples were to be collected for VOAs, single samples for PAHs, and 

duplicate sam les for metals on the ebb and flow at seven of the stations. (Six VOA, two PAH, and 

four metals samples were collected at each of the seven stations.) The same sampling routine was 

to be followed at the eighth station, but all samples were to be collected in triplicate (18 for VOA, 6 

for PAH, and 112 for metals). With the exception of station 211, where samples were only collected 

on the ebb tide, the sampling plan was adhered to during Cruise 2. Table 3 lists the water chemistry I 

sampling statiions and locations. Table 4 provides the number and type of sampl.es to be taken. 

Figure 2 shoJ.,s the locations of water sampling stations for both cruises. 

All water che~istry samples were collected with a5-liter IL) Go-Flo bottle from 1 m below the surface. 

Samples for V,iOA analysis were decanted directly into glass vials spiked with 0.1 milliliter (mL) of nitric 

acid and the refrigerated. Four liters of water were drawn from the same sample bottle for PAH 

analysis into a 4.5 L amber-glass bottle to which 100 mL of methylene chloride were added. The 

sample was spiked with 1 mL of an internal standard, and the bottle was then shaken vigorously and 

placed aside., As soon as time and safety allowed, the bottle was agitated on a shaker for 10 minutes 

(mirl). The water layer was decanted into a second 4.5 L bottle, while the methylene chloride layer 

was collecteq in a 1 L amber-glass sample bottle; 100 mL of methylene chloride were again added and 

the bottle agitated on a shaker table for 10 min. The water and methylene chloride were separated 

as before, arid the process was repeated one more time. All sequential methylene chloride extracts 

for a sample [ere combined. 

A second Go-Flo sample was taken for the metals analysis. Collected water was decanted into 1 L 

high-density polyethylene plastic bottles spiked with 2 mL of hydrochloric acid and stored in a cooler. 

Upon returni~g to port in either Homer or Kenai, all water chemistry samples were shipped via Alaska 

Airlines' Gol~streak (first flight delivery) to JEAL in Juneau, AK. 

(212BBOB3/2 10 

J 

2 water chemistry sampling stations. 

R 

R 

2004 F 

2005 R 

2006 

2007B 

150° 50.79' 

E 61°4.15' 150° 50.79' 

B 0° 59.85' 

2010 B 60° 54.19' 150° 59.85' 

2011 ° 55.50' 151 ° 23.50' 

2012 ° 47.19' 151 ° 39.20' 

R A 60° 55.38' 151°23.84' 

60° 47.1 

F F 60° 7.81' 152° 19.94' 

60° 7.81' 152° 1 .94' 

8/25/93 0:01 211 59° 26.10' 153° 37.50' 

1 R = rising, :::;: falling. 

(3128808312 11 
r 

Table 4. Cruis~ 2 water chemistry samples by station. 

----­

2001 30 3 1 2 

2002 I 30 3 1 2 

I 

2003 3 3 1 2 

2004 3 3 1 2 

2005 ! 

,­ 3 3 1 2

2006 3 3 1 2 

2007B I 3 3 1 2 

2008B 3 3 1 2 

2007 I E 3 1 2 

2008 E 3 1 2 

2009 B 3 1 2 

2010 B 3 1 2 

2011 A 3 1 2 

2012 C 3 1 2 

2013 I A 3 1 2 

2014 C 3 1 2 

2015 F 3 1 2 

2016 I F 3 1 2 

2017 211 3 1 2 

t2128808312 12 
.

"/f~.L 

···..·····1 ..................~ -v fJJ···rt ~ Il( 

J9?~/n~r ~to7f_ i 

30·tRd.JI7~~ Q'; rt:+··'·:V?,Yj:;:,v I 411 t' ~ 

~ 

C 

61 0 

n30' 

600 

-" 

w 

30' 

a I~~r WATER CHEMISTRY

U 9, c;, lJDa,.,hl~L __ r SAMPLING STATIONS 90 I \ 

CJ Cruise 1 

• Cruise 2 

I I 100 Miles

~Shuyakl -:;o~ I I~ ............... I.land
 30' -..:.:.:.:.:.:: 25 0 50 '00 Kilometers I J30' 

Figure 2. Water chemistry sampling stations. 
Suspended s I nt samples were collected during Cruise 2 by filtration of seawater at seven of the 

eight water che istry stations. Table 5 lists the suspended sediment sampling stations and locations. 

Table 6 provid the number of samples taken for each type of analysis. Figure 3 shows the location 

of sediment sa piing stations. 

2 suspended sediment sampling stations. 

2003 8/20/93 

F 3 600 5.80' 1510 50.95' 

2005 8/21/93 20:40 R E 610 4.15' 1500 50.79' 

2006 8/22/93 2:00 F E 610 4.15' 

2 12:36 F B 

2008 8/22/93 R B 

R 

F 

2011 8/23/93 5:00 F 

2012 8/23/93 7:00 R C 60 0 47.16' 151 0 39.23' 

2013 4:53 R F 60 0 7.81' 152 0 19.94' 

2014 8/24/93 13:00 F F 60 0 7.81' 1520 19.94' 

'R = rising, . = falling. 

e 2 suspended sediment samples by station. 

2001 

2 

2003 

2004 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

30 

30 

3 

3 

E 

E 

B 

B 

A 

A 

C 

F 

F 

3 

3 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

121288083/2 14 
I•••••••••·••.••• ·· ••·••••••·,•••••••••••••.•.•••••••••••• ?~ 1 • E 7.4=\ 1U,nq+::;§·ck ....................... \ ...................·..·...·......~'1'............~~ifil•••§~#11-61-0·1~ 

.. .•••••. ..····1>10--,., @jb::~ n30' 30' ...··f-· ••..- .••••.<.:,:., .. zVi. i.... ~\. 

(J"I -····.........·...·~.·.· ..···· .....·.·..·-;l ,~ I -. Afi~q~•••• •••••••-••••••• ••••••l••••••••••••--~.·..................... ••••••••·•••••··1••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••(1.....rl[..........-_··.·.........~it ~).~f£ i600 


SUSPENDEDSErnMENT 

SAMPLING STATIONS 

• Cruise 2 

30' tg £fiP .~_..w I 25 0 I 50 100 Klk",...ters I 1 

Figure 3. Suspended sediment sampling stations. 
SEDIMENTS 

A 0.1 m2 Tefl n-coated Van Veen grab was used to collect bottom sediments. During Cruise 1, 

sediments werJ collected at two of the planned stations, at an alternate station proximate to a planned 

station, and at alternate stations located some distance from the MMS-designated locations. At 

times, the colon of bottom sediments was hindered by swift bottom currents, rough seas, 

inclement , and large cobble or boulder bottoms. As a contingency, ENRI sampled a range of 

sediment stations. Triplicate grabs were made at each station where sediments were 

h\,.rirn,,.,, ••hn,n analysis samples were placed on dry ice immediately after collection and 

. Table 7 lists the Cruise 1 bottom sediment sampling stations and locations. 

the number of samples taken for each type of analysis. 

1 sediment sampling stations. 

Alt C 60° 54.13' 

27 ° 42.32' 

022 6/26/93 17:40 54.0 F 60° 8.28'

168 60° 13.01' 

1 sediment samples by station. 

151°37.72' 

152° 44.33' 

1014 AltA 3 3 

A 3 

1022 F 3 3 3 3 

1023 168 3 3 

During Cru 2, sediments were collected at six of the planned stations, at six alternate stations 

proximate to a planned station, and at four new stations located some distance from the 

MMS-design locations. Triplicate grabs were made at each station where sediments were found. 

All samples analysis were collected from approximately the top 1 centimeter (cm) of the grabs. 

Samples for analysis were taken with a plastic spoon, and all others were collected with a 

stainless scoop. Hydrocarbon analysis samples were placed in U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency vel-2 cleaned glass bottles, placed on dry ice immediately after collection, and stored 

in coolers. mples were placed in EPA-level-2 cleaned high-density polyethylene jars for metal 

analyses, in uble-bagged whirl packs for grain-size analyses, and in 25-gram (g) disposable vials for 

CHN a they were then stored in coolers. Table 9 lists the Cruise 2 bottom sediment sampling 

stations and ,ocations. Table 10 provides the number of samples taken for each type of analysis. 

Figure 4 shows the location of sediment sampling stations for both cruises. 

Upon returni~g to port in Homer or Kenai, all sediment samples for hydrocarbon and metal analyses 

were shiPpedlvia Goldstreak to JEAL in Juneau. Grain-size and CHN samples were transported to ENRI 

in Anchorage. Grain-size samples were stored for later analyses, and CHN samples were shipped to 

Huffman Lab, ratories, Inc., in Golden, CO, for analyses. 

12)288083/2 16 
Table 9. Cruise 2 sediment sampling stations. 

I 


2 sediment samples by station. 

2006 

2 

2012 

2013 

14 

2015 

201 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

21 

131288083/2 

C 

Alt A 

1 

New E5 

233 

N 

Alt 30 

227 

New E7 

New E8 

Alt 22 

AI 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

17 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 
co 

30' ~·•••••••·.·.' •• F !K.chsma~". B_I••••• /~ 

~ 

a 

a 

lJ 

Alt30~;;;'._,""'l ... 

.....C: J;,j(t'i>"W] 61° 

~_0::':0 .~ .:"V ar~ , \1 30' .. I:< 

i;{ Wqald 13 160• tv , ....<, (:..-: :.:.:.'-',' 

Sediment Chemistry 

SAMPLING STATIONS 1-1 159• 

[J Cruise 1 

30' rEF %1< ,--,,- I 25 0 I 50 100 Kilometers I 

Figure 4. Bottom sediment sampling stations. 
HYDROGRAPH 

Hydrographic a d transmissivity data were obtained using an MMS-provided Applied IVlicrosystems Ltd. 

internal recordihg Model STD-12 salinity, temperature, and depth profiler fitted with a SeaTech 10 cm 

transmissomet~r. Thirty-eight casts were made at 16 stations during Cruises 1 and 2 at all water 

chemistry statibns and at a number of sediment stations. Cast numbers, station locations, and water 

depths at the time of cast are presented in Tables 11 and 12. Figure 5 presents the areal distribution 

of the hYdrogrtPhic stations within Cook Inlet. 

Standard hydrographic procedures were followed. After each cast, data were downloaded to the hard 

disk of one Of!ENRI'S laptop computers. Backup copies of the data were made on floppy disks to 

preclude data loss. Parameters recorded in the STD-12 included probe number, time code, raw 

pressure, raw temperature, raw conductivity ratio, and raw transmissivity values. 

BIOTA 

Biota samples rrere only collected during Cruise 2. Composite samples of approximately 30 mussels 

(Mytilus edulis) were removed at low tide from rocks on both the eastern and western sides of lower 

Cook Inlet. M~ssels were washed, and then the tissue samples taken. These samples were put in 

whirl-pak bags and stored in coolers. Shells were placed in separate packs and stored on deck in 

lockers. Tabl~ 13 lists the benthic sampling stations and purpose of each. Figure 6 shows the 

locations of bibta sampling stations. Mussel tissue samples were shipped via Goldstreak from Homer 

to JEAL in Jun1eau, and shells were included in the final Goldstreak shipment of bioassay materials to 

MSL in Sequi~, WA. 

BIOASSAY 

Bioassay sam les were only collected during Cruise 2. Bioassay water samples were taken with a 5 L 

Go-Flo bottle f om 1 m below the surface. They were decanted directly into 1-gallon (gal) amber-glass 

bottles and Plrced in coolers. Table 14 lists the water bioassay sampling stations and locations. 

Figure 7 shows their locations. 

Bioassay sedi~ent samples were collected with the 0.1 m2 grab sampler. They were taken from the 

top 2 cm to 4 cm of sediment with a stainless steel scoop, placed in a 1 gal wide-mouthed glass 

container, andlplaced in coolers. Table 15 lists the sediment bioassay sampling stations and locations. 

Figure 8 shols their locations. 

Sediment sambles were collected at the same time for Microtox®. They were taken from the top 1 cm 

to 2 cm of sediment from the grab sample using the stainless steel scoop, placed in a 250 mL 

EPA-level-2 cI~aned wide-mouthed jar, and placed in a cooler. Table 16 lists the Microtox® sampling 

stations and I~cations. Figure 9 shows their locations. 

All water and Ibediment bioassay samples were returned to either Homer or Kenai within 1 2 hours (h) 

of being collected and were subsequently shipped via Goldstreak to MSL in Sequim. They were kept 

at temperatur~s below 4°C at all times before reaching the laboratory. In order to beconsidered for 

analyses, all tl mples had to reach MSL within 48 h of collection. With the exception of the first set 

of samples shipped, all were received within 24 h in good condition and processing began immediately. 

The first set as delayed in shipping and was subsequently discarded. All IVlicrotox® samples were 

also kept at te~peratures below 4°C; they were shipped via Goldstreak to ENRI facilities in Anchorage 

for processind. 

FIELD DATA I ANAGEMENT AND SAMPLE HANDLING 

Field operatior. and sample collection, preservation, and transfer procedures were recorded on various 

forms. These included trip logs, survey forms (containing information on casts and on sediment, 

water, and bibta samples), sample custody and identification forms, and sample transmittal forms. 

Each time the sampling equipment was lowered it was recorded by station, date, and time. Then, an 

(21288083/2 19 

• 
v 


Table 11. Cru se 1 hydrography sampling stations. 

·....... 9~.~!.·..W~.;·.·.·,. ..·.'g~·~~·.·...·.·....... _I..·.·..mj.~~~••••••••• _ 001 6/21/93 16:59 R 3 43.3 600 8.51' 151 44.13' 

002 

1>1221931 16:3~ F 3 42.1 600 5.30' 151 0 50.40' 

003 R 8 24.4 60 0 54.76' 1500 58.42' 

004 [6/22/93 22:25 F 8 24.4 60 0 54.65' 1500 59.60' 

005 3:45 R E 26.2 61 0 5.02' 1500 51.34' 

006 I 6/23/93 8:45 F E 26.2 61 0 4.99' 1500 48.88' 

007 6/24/93 10:00 R C 26.8 600 45.65' 151 0 39.24' 

008 16/24/93 15:39 F C 30.5 10 39.15' 

009 16/24/93 23:50 R A 59.1 600 55.60' 151 0 22.51' 

010 16/25/93 6:10 F A 60.4 600 55.35' 151 0 23.29' 

011 16/25/93 27 17.1 600 42.00' 151 0 46.84' 

012 6/25/93 11 :50 27 21.6 600 38.82' 151 0 48.92' 

013 16/26/93 13:47 R 2 29.0 600 24.58' 151 0 32.37' 

014 6/26/93 14:51 255 30.2 60 0 17.23' 151 0 37.82' 

015 16/26/93 17:30 F F 54.0 60 0 8.09' 152 0 19.93' 

016 16/26/93 21 :30 168 7.9 600 13.01' 1520 44.33' 

017 6/27/93 0:35 R F 56.7 600 7.79' 152 0 19.90' 

1 R = risin 9 , F' = fallin9 

(3}28808312 20 

• 
Table 12. Cru se 2 hydrography sampling stations. 

\ 

1••••••••g.~~t.·.N~·;..····.. __ mldg11B___ 

2001 :8/19/93 19:17 F 30 63.7 59°18.69' 152°4.80' 

2002 18/19/93 3:00 R 30 64.0 59° 29.80' 152° 2.87' 

2003 18/20/93 19:55 R 3 41.5 60° 4.51' 151°50.96' 

2004 8/21/93 2:10 F 3 38.7 60° 6.07' 151 ° 52.53' 

2005 ~/21 /93 20:40 R E 27.1 61°4.15' 150° 50.79' 

2006 ~/22/93 2:00 F E 37.2 61°4.15' 150° 50.79' 

2007 ~/22/93 3:54 F 8 19.8 60° 54.50' 150° 59.39' 

2008 ~/22/93 12:36 F 8 24.4 60° 54.19' 150° 59.85' 

2009 ~8/22/93 17:00 R 8 24.4 60° 54.19' 150° 59.85' 

2010 8/22/93 21 :05 R A 62.2 60° 55.50' 151°23.50' 

2011 ,8/22/93 23:59 F C 29.3 60° 47.19' 151 ° 39.20' 

2012 8/23/93 5:00 F A 63.1 60° 55.38' 151 ° 23.84' 

2013 18/23/93 7:00 R C 25.6 60° 47.16' 151 ° 39.23' 

2014 8/23/93 13:10 27 4.6 60° 42.39' 151 ° 45.92' 

2015 ~/24/93 4:53 R F 54.0 60° 7.81' 152° 19.94' 

2016 ~/24/93 9:00 R 168 5.5 60° 13.00' 152° 45.00' 

2017 ~/24/93 13:00 F F 54.0 60° 7.81' 152° 19.94' 

2018 18/24/93 14:45 New E5 59° 57.79' 152° 39.52' 

2019 18/24/93 17:05 233 18.3 59° 48.50' 152° 55.73' 

2020 '8/24/93 21 :00 New E6 16.2 59° 37.06' 153° 15.38' 

2021 8/25/93 0:01 211 59° 26.10' 153° 37.50' 

1 R = rising, F = falling. 

131288083/2 21 
:;;J. ,60" N 

N 

130 ,r;,6Yt;!V' I f 0/ r ' ".".'" h "," .. i 

Hydrography 

SAMPLING STATIONS -1 590 I I 

'iH±---I~~ ~~f'-- -­ ~- -t---c--'d:uise t ----,--­ -I--I-~ - -1---1­

• Cruise 2 

t:;y ~~ "-- 2=~-, 1_ 100 1'00.", 50 KUomelll", 30'

Figure 5. Hydrography sampling stations. 
Table 13. 2 biota sampling stations. 

2001 Tuxedni Bay 

2002 

2003 

2004 

Fossil Point 

Chinitna Ba

Jakolof Bay 

y 

2005 

2006 

Kasitsna Ba

Homer 

y 

1 

1 

1 

1 1 

Note: All collected for both tissue and shell analyses were M. edulis. 

(2)288083/2 23 
30' 

F Jakoltr:~~~~!'4r~ I . ~ \F rr - 1 

30 

' 

BIOTA 

SAMPLING STATIONS 

• , -"I ! ­ I '00 ... 1 ,.1,,::;;',1:=_ _".~ - ,~~ - ~ '00 ~-. : 30' 

"d" 

N 

Figure 6. Biota sampling stations. 
Table 14. Cru' e 2 water bioassay sampling stations. 

2001 8/19/93 

2002 8/21/93 

2003 8/21/93 

2004 8/22/93 

2005 8/22/93 

2006 8/23/93 

2007 8/23/93 

2008 8/24/93 

2009 8/25/93 

2010 8/29/93 

19:17 R 30 59° 29.80' 152° 2.87' 

3:30 F 3 60° 5.80' 151° 50.95' 

3:30 F 3 60° 5.80' 151 ° 50.95' 

2:00 F E 61 ° 4.15' 150° 50.79' 

3:54 F B 60° 54.50' 150° 59.39' 

5:00 F A 60° 55.38' 151 ° 23.84' 

7:00 R C 60° 47.16' 151 ° 39.23' 

4:53 R F 60° 7.81' 152°19.94' 

0:01 211 59° 26.10' 153° 37.50' 

' 13:00 30 59° 22.07' 152 ° 2.50' 

1 R = rising, F = falling. 

13128808312 25 
• 

160°1 <0N 

t ":: d@J4 ~1r:Jl/}-1 •• "': ••'.}~ •••~~ I

~.P g ~~r7 * <7T C::·· 7;3:=::;>:',', 

I' _" I ,f 

WATER BIOASSAY 

SAMPLING STATIONS 

• Cruise 2 

_ 100 MillIS 

30' ••••••••••••••••••••••• '••••••••• ,>uu< •• ji " 

30,li:: :""""w:: ¥#f'''''' I _ -?~ y I ~ I '00 -\ ~'"

Figure 7. Water bioassay sampling stations. 
Table 15 Cru.,se 2 sed·Iment b·loassay samp rmg stations. 

§~m~- _Ti.~~ ____ 2001 8/20/93 3:00 227 92.1 59° 33.60' 151 ° 36.37' 

2002 8/21/93 0:00 Alt E 61 ° 6.44' 151° 5.46' 

2003 8/22/93 12:36 B 24.4 60° 54.19' 150° 59.85' 

2004 I 8/23/93 7:00 Alt C 25.6 60° 50.37' 151°43.35' 

2005 I 8/23/93 AltA 8.2 60° 57.49' 151 ° 31.87' 

2006 8/23/93 13:10 27 4.6 60° 42.39' 151 ° 45.92' 

2007 8/24/93 4:53 F 54.0 60° 7.81' 152° 19.94' 

2008 8/24/93 9:00 16B 5.5 60° 13.00' 152° 45.00' 

2009 8/24/93 17:05 233 18.3 59° 48.50' 152° 55.73' 

2010 8/29/93 17:00 227 95.1 59° 33.05' 151 ° 35.94' 

2011 8/30/93 10:08 New E7 28.4 59° 49.42' 151°56.46' 

2012 I 8/30/93 12:25 New E8 33.5 60° 2.24' 151 ° 53.58' 

2013 8/31/93 10:00 Alt 265 19.2 60° 34.67' 151 ° 49.58' 

2014 8/31/93 15:45 Alt 22 24.1 60° 23.31' 152° 5.46' 

(3)288083/2 27 

30' 

3O'~ .•...•.••..•... un@n. :\··:;swiF I Kac~ -aT • 8"'T ~r<l·········<·······?I:,·liW N l _ I ~ I f 4( r .. ­ 1

59" ••••..n......L 

SEDIMENT BIOASSAY 

SAMPLING STATIONS L I -1 590 

30't.EI# $ - =.-= " "I ,­ , '00 .~ ~ JJ .•,a"w 25 0 50 100 

Figure 8. Sediment bioassay sampling stations. 

co 

N 

30 

' 

Kllometel$ \ 30' 
Table 16. C I 2 MicrotoX® sampling stations. 

0:00 Alt E 610 6.44' 151 0 2002 8/21/93 5.46'

AltA 8.2 60 0 57.49' 151 0 2004 8/23/93 31.87'

13:10 27 4.6 60 0 2005 8/23/93 42.39' 1510 45.92'

4:53 F 54.0 600 7.81' 1520 2006 8/24/93 19.94'

9:00 16B 600 13.00' 1520 2007 8/24/93 45.00'

17:05 1520 2008 8/24/93 55.73'

151 0 2009 56.46'

151 0 2010 8/30/9 53.58'

2011 1510 49.58'

Alt 22 152 0 2012 8/31/93 15:45 5.46'

(3)26606312 29 
.g ~~tJiIT---Z: .. l " .. .... t.·.· .•. } 

I 4 I f 1" P-- \ 1

30' 

MICROTOX® 

SAMPLING STATIONS L I 

~ r , 1- I'~ ... j 

.................r....WI ~'SOVN~~ 30' 

1600 I 
 0("") 

3o'~alF JKaC~7. 8~1~~ 

590 
 159" 

,"I
 30' J::~ @f I.~nd - =--= 25 0 50 100 Kilomet&rs 30' 


Figure 9. Microtox® sampling stations. 
identification", mber was assigned. Station coordinates were recorded for each sample collected. 

Sampling succtss and other comments were noted. 

Sample identifibation tags and survey logs provided primary documentation for identification of field 

samples. Samples were assigned four-digit numeric identification numbers that were logged on the 

forms. Sampl~ types and replicates were also recorded. Each sample collected was confirmed and 

recorded on a t~ansmittal form that accompanied samples in transit from the Kenai Peninsula to MSL, 

JEAL, or ENRd Upon arrival, all samples were checked against the appropriate forms to validate 

transfer; they Jvere then immediately transported to appropriate storage. 

LABORATORY ANALYSES 

WATER 

VOA • 

Seawater samples were collected in 40 mL EPA-level-2 cleaned glass VOA vials with Teflon-lined 

septa. Five milliliter aliquots of collected samples were analyzed using both a Tekmar autosampler and 

purge-and-traploutfitted with a No.3 trap (Tekmar, Cincinnati, OH), followed by a Varian 3400 GC 

with a D8-624 column (75 m x 0.53 millimeter [mm], 3 p film thickness) (J&W, Folsom, CAl and 

Tracor model No. 703 Photo Ionization Detector. Results were quantitated using a data station 

outfitted with ~axima software (Waters' Dynamic Solutions, Millipore, Ventura, CAl. Samples were 

analyzed according to EPA method 602 (40 Code of Federal Regulations, part 49:209) with the 

following modifications: the reagent water specified in the method was replaced with Copenhagen 

Water (Kahl Instruments, EI Cajon, CAl, a standard seawater, for matrix matching. All calibration 

standards, lab6ratory control standards, and quality control (QC) standards were prepared using I 

Copenhagen V\jater as the solvent of choice. Linear calibration was performed using five points ranging 

in concentration from 2 pg/L to 40 pg/L for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, the m,p-xylenes, and 

o-xylene (Supe~co 8020 mix, Supelco, 8ellafonte, PAl. 

Calibration wab verified using Accustandard M-8020 mix (Accustandard, New Haven, CTI at a 

midrange conc~ntration. All standards were prepared in 40 mL VOA vials using Hamilton gas-tight 

syringes (Hamillton, Sparks, NVI. When necessary, intermediate dilutions were made using Class A 

volumetric flasks with residue grade methanol as solvent. All standards were prepared immediately 

before first usJ and stored at -20°C (zero headspace) in GC autosampler vials with Teflon-lined septa 

and screw cap~ for no more than 6 months from the date of initial preparation. MDLs were established 

for each analy~ using signal-to-noise ratio and were all 1 pg/L or less for each calibrated component. 

Travel blanks, Which accompanied the collection of the field samples, were also analyzed using this 

protocol. 

Semivolatile O~ganic Compounds 

Four-liter vOlurhes of collected seawater were extracted aboard ship using residue grade methylene 

chloride (JT 8~ker Resi Analyzed or Fisher Optima Residual Analyzed Reagent grade). Combined 

methylene chl6ride extracts were received at JEAL in EPA-level-2 cleaned amber-glass bottles with 

Teflon-lined IidF' and they were stored at 4°C until final preparation before analysis. Extracts were 

then dried over methylene chloride washed anhydrous sodium sulfate and concentrated to 1 mL final 

volume by Kuderna-Danish concentration and nitrogen evaporation. Concentrated extracts were stored 

in GC autosambler vials at -20°C until analysis. Samples were analyzed using a Hewlett Packard 5890 

series II GC Ilvith a Hewlett Packard 7673 autosampler. The GC was coupled to a Hewlett 

Packard 5971 Imass selective detector. The MS was tuned to manufacturer's specifications and 

configured to Jcan from mass 35 to mass 500. 

Data were acduired and analyzed using a Hewlett Packard 486/33 Vectra personal computer with 

Hewlett pack~d G1034C ChemStation software. The chromatography column used was a J&W 

Scientific DB- 10.25 mm 10,30 m length, and 0.25 mm film thickness (J&W Scientific, Folsom, CAl. 

Helium was ued as a carrier gas. A split/splitless injection technique was used, with the split vent 

being opened ~fter 0.8 min. The GC injector temperature was maintained at 290°C, and the MS 

(21288083/2 31 
transfer line Js maintained at 2BO·C. The GC oven was initially started at 50·C, holding for 2 min, 

ramping to 31 b, °C at 8°C/min, and holding for 10.5 min for a total instrument analytical time 

of 45 min. 

The instrument was calibrated for alkane hydrocarbons with a seven-point calibration curve where 

possible. Alkaine calibration standard concentrations were 0.0005 pg/L, 0.001 pg/L, 0.005 pg/L, 

0.02 pg/L, 0.05 pg/L, 0.1 pg/L, and 0.2 pg/L. PAHs were calibrated with a six-point calibration curve 

where possible] with PAH standard concentrations of 0.0005 pg/L, 0.001 pg/L, 0.005 pg/L, 0.02 pg/L, 

0.05 pg/L, and 0.1 pg/L. Alkane standards were prepared by weighing neat compounds with an 

analytical bala~ce into benzene (JT Baker "Baker Analyzed"), pentane (B&J High Purity Solvent), and 

methylene chlo~ide and diluting it volumetrically with methylene chloride to the needed concentrations. 

PAH standards1were similarly prepared by weighing to prepare stock standards and volumetric dilution 

to working con entrations. 

The MDL, bas ,d on 2-methylnaphthalene, was determined using signal-to-noise ratio as specified in 

EPA manual SW846 and was less than 0.01 pg/L (EPA 1992). Table 17 lists the quantitated analytes, 

surrogates, and internal standards. 

Trace Metals ~nalYSiS Mercury analy$is was performed as follows. A sample of 100 mL of seawater was placed in a 

biochemical oxrgen demand bottle. Five milliliters of sulfuric acid and 2.5 mL of concentrated nitric 

acid were added and mixed after each addition. Then 125 mL of potassium permanganate were 

added. The sa~ple was shaken and additional potassium permanganate added, if necessary, until a 

purple color w~s maintained. Eight milliliters of potassium persulfate solution were added, and the 

sample was heated for 2 h in a water bath at 95°C. The solution was cooled, and 6 mL of sodium 

chloride-hydro~Ylamine sulfate were added to reduce the excess permanganate. After at least 30 

seconds (s), t!'le sample bottle was attached to the aeration apparatus of a cold vapor atomic 

absorption (C\AAA) mercury analyzer. The water sample was mixed in line with a stannous chloride 

solution. Multiple aliquots of sample were reduced and purged until the mercury from 10 mL had been 

collected on the gauze of the mercury analyzer. The gauze was then heated and the released mercury 

swept with ardon into a flameless cell Perkin-Elmer 2500 CVAA spectrophotometer for analysis. 

Iron analysis las performed by flame atomic absorption (FAA) of a diluted seawater sample, and 

arsenic analysi~ was performed as follows. Fifty milliliters of seawater were placed in a 100 mL 

beaker. Five rhilliliters of concentrated nitric acid and 6 mL of 18 normal sulfuric acid were added. 

The sample was evaporated on a hot plate until white sulfur trioxide fumes were observed. Additional 

nitric acid was ladded, if necessary, until the sample remained colorless or straw-yellow colored during 

the evolution o~ sulfur trioxide fumes. The sample was cooled and transferred to a 100 mL volumetric 

flask. Twenty milliliters of concentrated hydrochloric acid were added, and the volume was made up 

with water. A 25 mL aliquot of this sample was taken, and 5 mL of nitric acid and 6 mL of sulfuric 

acid were added. The volume was reduced to 10 mL by heating on a hot plate at 95°C. Two aliquots 

of 1.5 mL of nhric acid were added, and the sample was heated until white fumes began to form after 

the secOnd addition of nitric acid. Arsenic and antimony were then determined by hydride generation 

and atomic ab~orption. 

SEDIMENT I 

Suspended Solids 

Several metho~ologies were used to determine trace metals in suspended sediments. These included 

CVAA for mJrcury; graphite flame atomic absorption (GFAA) for arsenic; FAA for iron; and 

inductively coJpled plasma (ICP)/MS for barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, 

thallium, vana~ium, and zinc. For all analyses except mercury, the filter containing the suspended I 

solids was wei'ghed and transferred to a conical beaker. Ten milliliters of 1:1 nitric acid were added, 

and the sample! was mixed and covered by a watch glass. It was heated to 95°C and refluxed for 10 

to 15 min witHout boiling. After cooling, 5 mL of concentrated nitric acid were added and the watch 

glass replaced] The sample was heated and refluxed for 30 min. This last step was repeated one I 

more time, and then the sample was allowed to evaporate to 5 mL without boiling. The sample was 

12128808312 32 
-

Table 17. Serr livolatile organic compounds in waters, sediments, and tissues. 

-

Alkanes 

Internal Stan, Aards 

n-Pentadecar: le-d32 C15-d32 Cambridge Isotooe Lab 

n-Nonadecan ~e-d40 Cambridge Isotope Lab 

Surrogates 

n-n"rlo""'ne 

C19-d40 

C12-d26 Cambridae Isotooe Lab 

n-Eicosane-d',2 

126 

C20-d42 Isotech 


n-Triaco lLi:llItl-d62 
 C33-d62 Isotech 


Target Com PiIJunds 


n-Octane 
 Altech 


n-Nonane 


C8 

Aldrich 


n-Decane 


C9 

Aldrich 


n-Undecane 


C10 

Aldrich 


n-Dodecane 


C11 

Aldrich 


n-Tridecane 


C12 

Aldrich 


n-Tetradecan b 


I C13

C14 Altech 


n-Per+'"\decarIe 
 Aldrich 


n-Hexadecan ~ 

C15 

C16 Aldrich

I Aldrich 


Pristane 


n-HeptadecarIe C17 

Altech 

I C18 Aldrich 


Phytane 


n-OctadecanE

Altech 


n-Nonadecar 
 C19 Aldrich

Aldrich 


n-Heneicosar 


n-Eicosan~ C20

e C21 Aldrich 


n-Docosane 
 C22 Aldrich 


n-Tricosane 
 C23 Aldrich 


n-Tetracosan~ 

I 

C24 Aldrich 


n-Pentacosarle 
 C25 Aldrich 


n-Hexacosan e 
 C26 Aldrich 

I C27 Aldrich 


n-O" '1nE 


n-Heptacosar, e 

C28 Aldrich 


n-Nonacosanb 
 C29 Aldrich 


n-T riacontanl 
 C30 Aldrich

12)288083/2 33 
.._,

Table 17. Sem~volatile organic compounds in waters, sediments, and tissues (continued) 

n-Dotric,\..ul I.... 

I 

-


n-T ritriacontahe 

n-Tt: ,l(l\..\.mtane 

n-Hexatri(l,",u. ' .....0 

Internal Stan I lards 

Naphthalene-d8 

Phena,lthrent•,-U.... 10 

Surrogates 

Acenaphthenle-d10 

Chrysene-d 1 

.... 1") Pef'\IWl 

Target Con .... )unds 

-MethY'lnapl Ithlene 

Biphenyl 

l-Ethylnaphtl~alene 

3-Methyl-1,1 .-biphenyl 

4-Ethylbiphenyl 

9-Ethylfluorelr

e 

1-Methylfluo Irene 

:h .L' I Dluc",uUIIUI-'!.I:l, e 


2-Methylphenanthrene 


9-Methylanth:racene 


C32 

C33 

C34 

C36 

PAHs 

Supelco 

Aldrich 

Altech 

SUDeico 

Cambridge Isotope lab 

Cambridge Isotope lab 

Supelco 

Supelco 

SUDeico 

Supelco 

Supelco 

Aldrich 

Aldrich 

Aldrich 

Aldrich 

Aldrich 

Aldrich 

Aldrich 

Aldrich 

2-Ethylcu lUll ",,,,ne Aldrich 

2-Tertbutylar 

~ 

thracene Aldrich 

Perylene Supelco 

Naphthalene Supelco TCl PAH mix 

Acenapthene Supelco TCl PAH mix 

Phena I tho ",•• Supelco TCl PAH mix 

(2)28808312 34 
121288083/2 35 

atile organic compounds in waters, sediments, and tissues (continued). 

TCl PAH mix 

TCl PAH mix 
cooled, and 2 ~L of distilled water and 3 mL of 30% hydrogen peroxide were added. The beaker was 

covered by a w~tch glass and returned to the hot plate. It was warmed to start the peroxide reaction. 

The sample was heated until the effervescence subsided and then cooled. Thirty percent hydrogen 

peroxide was added in 1 mL increments with warming until the effervescence was minimal. Five mL 

of concentrateb hydrochloric acid and 10 mL of distilled water were added, and the sample was 

refluxed withOft boiling for 30 min. The sample was allowed to evaporate without boiling until the 

volume was re~uced to about 5 mL. After cooling, the sample was diluted to 100 mL with distilled 

water. The sample was filtered or centrifuged to remove particulates. 

Arsenic was determined by injection into a stabilized temperature platform GFAA spectrophotometer 

(Perkin-Elmer 31300). Iron was determined by FAA, and the other metals (barium, cadmium, chromium, 

copper, lead, ~ickel, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc) were determined by ICP-MS using a VG 

Plasma Quad ICP-MS, pulse counting, 320 ps, 25 channels per atomic mass units, 1.5 min sample 

uptake, 1 min I~ample read time, and 10 min rinse time. Three replicate injections were made. A 

method blank J.Jas made by performing a mock digestion. Reagents were added to a beaker containing 

no sample and. 1put through the same procedure as beakers containing a sample. 

Mercury analySis was performed as follows. The dried filter containing the suspended solids was 

weighed and dlaced in a biochemical oxygen demand bottle. Five milliliters of distilled water were 

added followed by 5 mL of Aqua Regia. The bottle was heated for 30 min in a water bath at 95°C. 

The sample wJs allowed to cool. Fifty milliliters of distilled water were added, followed by 15 mL of 

potassium perrhanganate solution and 8 mL of potassium persulfate solution. The bottle was returned 

to the water bath for 90 min. The bottle was cooled, and 6 mL of sodium hydroxylamine sulfate 

solution were ~dded to reduce the excess permanganate. Fifty-five milliliters of distilled water were 

added, follow~d by 5 mL of stannous sulfate solution. 

The bottle waJ immediately attached to the aeration apparatus of a CVAA mercury analyzer. Mercury 

was collected ~n the gauze of the mercury analyzer. The gauze was heated and the released mercury 

swept with ardon into a flameless cell Perkin-Elmer 2500 CVAA spectrophotometer for analysis. The 

sample was ~lIowed to stand without agitation, and the circulating pump was allowed to run 

continuously ~t 1.8 L per min. The absorbance maximum was observed on the CVAA mercury 

analyzer withi~ 30 s. 

Grain Size 

All sediment samples were weighed to determine a wet weight and then air-dried. Distribution of I 

particle sizes larger than 4 phi (CP) (0.0625 mm) was determined by sieving, while distribution of 

particle sizes smaller than 4cp was determined by pipetting. Any sample containing significant fractions 

of clay and sahd particles was analyzed by decantation and sieving methods (Folk 1968). 

Samples consisting primarily of sand were weighed to determine dry weight. The sample was split to 

analyze a portion of approximately 100 g. It was placed on the top screen of a series of nested 

screens in 0.51 {IJ increments from> -1 cp to 4.5cp and shaken on a Ro-Tap Sieve Shaker for 30 min 

(American So~iety for Testing and Materials [ASTM] 1963, Padell and Hillman 1993). Sediments 

retained by eabh cp size sieve were weighed on an electronic balance, accurate to 0.0001 g, and the 

weights were recorded. 

Samples consisting primarily of silt and clay were analyzed using the pipetting method. A sample of 

approximately 15 g was taken from the total air-dried sample for analysis. This portion of the sample 

was rehYdratl with distilled water in a 1000 mL graduated cylinder column and mixed thoroughly to 

distribute the particles uniformly. AliQuots of 20 mL were withdrawn by pipette at specific time 

intervals and epths: 20 cm at 58 s; 10 cm at 1 min, 56 s; 10 cm at 7 min, 44 s; 10 cm at 31 min; 

10 cm at 2 hl 3 min; 10 cm at 8 h, 10 min; and 10 cm at 16 h, 21 min. These samples were 

oven-dried and weighed on an electronic balance. 

Samples comdosed of a mixture of sand and silt were analyzed by ~~'e decantation method, and this 

was followed by sieving the larger particle sizes of the sample. The decantation process washed the 

finer sediment particles into suspension with distilled water and allowed the coarse particles to settle 

121288083/2 36 

J 

The 

out. 

process 

suspenJ 

was repeated 

~as ~r:wn until off 

the 

after 

water 

sufficient 

washing 

time 

the 

was 

sediment 

allowed 

was 

for 

clear. 

the coarse 

Fine sediments, 

panicles to 

removed 

sewe~ by decantation, l.,..ere air-dried and weighed. Coarse particle sediments were air-dried, weighed, sieved, 

and weighed aglain by </J size and reported in percent gravel, sand, silt, and clay. 

CHN 

Total CHN in Sediments were determined instrumentally with two analyzers. Total carbon and 

hydrogen were Idetermined on a Coulometrics Modified Model 50-20 analyzer, and nitrogen was 

determined on ~ Carlo Erba NA 1500 analyzer. The standard reporting limit for both instruments 

is 0.01 % by wE4ight. Approximately 10 mg per sample were analyzed for both instruments. In some 

cases, nitrogenisample sizes were slightly larger to maximize response on the machines. All samples 

were analyzed on a dried-sample basis. To improve resolution, coarser samples were ground after loss 

on drying was ~etermined and prior to any other analyses. Loss on drying was determined under 

vacuum at ambient temperature to a constant weight and reported on an as-received sample basis. 

Semivolatile Organic Compounds 

Sediment samples in amber-glass jars with Teflon-lined screw caps were thawed to 4°C. Thirty-gram 

aliQuots of ho;rlogenized sediment were removed from each of the samples provided. Each aliquot I 

was spiked with 1 mL of surrogate solution containing n-Oodecane-d26, n-Eicosane-d42, 

n-Triacontane-d62, Acenaphthalene-d 10, Chrysene-d12, and Perylene-d 12, each at a concentration 

of 100 pg/mL. Samples were then Soxhlet extracted with residue-grade methylene chloride 

overnight (12-r 6 hI. Extracts were then dried over methylene chloride washed anhydrous sodium 

sulfate and co1ncentrated to 1 mL final volumes by Kuderna-Oanish concentration and nitrogen 

evaporation. Tihe concentrated extracts were stored in GC autosampler vials at -20°C until analysis. 

Samples were analyzed using the same protocol and equipment that was previously described for the 

water chemistll analyses. Ions selected for Quantitation are listed in Table 18. 

Trace Metals nalysis 

Three differentl analytical methods were used for trace metal identification. FAA methodology was 

used to determ1ine aluminum, iron, and zinc. A wet sample containing 1 g of dry solid was tared into 

a Teflon beaket. Ory weight was calculated based on percent moisture data. Using a bottle-mounted 

dispenser, 10 fnL of concentrated nitric acid were added to the beaker. The beaker was swirled to 

suspend the p~rticles and break up clumps. It was heated on a hot plate at 40°C until a brown gas I 

was emitted. When brown gas was no longer visible, or when approximately % of the sample were 

evaporated, 10 mL of hydrofluoric acid were pipetted into the beaker with a repeating pipetter. The 

beaker was plJced back onto the hot plate. 

After approxiJatelY % of the acid were evaporated, 4 mL of perchloric acid were pipetted into the 

beaker with a repeating pipetter. The beaker was then placed back on the hot plate. After 

approximately /% of the acid were again evaporated, hot plate temperature was increased to 100°C. 

The beaker was covered with a Teflon disc to allow reflux. The sequential addition of nitric 

hydrofluoric a~d perchloric acid was repeated two more times, but with the hot plate temperature 

maintained at 11000C. The beaker was covered with the Teflon disc for 15 min after the addition of 

each acid. 

The sample was watched closely to prevent it from evaporating to dryness. The Teflon disc was 

removed, and ihe sample/acid mixture was allowed to evaporate to near dryness. The digested sample 

was resuspended in 20 mL of 2% nitric acid, and the beaker was swirled to mix it. Once the digested 

sample was diissolved, it was poured into a 125 mL Nalgene filtering apparatus. The residual sample 

was rinsed fr6m the beaker into the filter using another 10 mL of 2% nitric acid. The sample was 

vacuum filtere~. The filtrate was transferred to a pretared sample bottle (60 mL Nalgene LOPE). The 

residual filtrate was rinsed into the bottle with a small amount of 2% nitric acid .. 

Additional 2% nitric acid was added to each bottle until the final sample weight was 50 g. A portion 

of the sample was diluted to 1:50 with 2% nitric acid, and the diluted sample was analyzed by FAA. 

Teflon beakers were scrubbed between uses with Micro detergent, rinsed in Quartz double-distilled 

water, and stJred in an acid bath. A method blank was made by performing a mock digestion. The 

(2)28808312 37 
Table 18. ,",ollor"tol'l ions for Quantitation in water, sediment, and tissue. 

142· 226 C3 Dibenzothio-phenes 

156 I 2 Naphthalenes 57 C,o - C36 

I 

, 170 

184 

152 

154 

166 

180 

194 

208 

178 nth rene, Anthracene 

192 

206 Phenanthrenes 

220 Phenanthrenes 

234 Phenanthrenes 

202 

I Fluoranthenes, Methyl 216 

228 	 Chrysene, Senzo-(a) anthracene 

242 	 !MethylChrYSene 

256 	 C2 Chrysene 

Senzo(a) & (e) Pyrenes, 252 Senzofluoranthene, Perylene 

184 	 Dibenzothiophene 

198 	 Methyldibenzo-thiophenes 

(2)288083/2 	 38 
reagents were added to a beaker containing no sample and put through the same procedure as beakers 

containing a sa!nple. FAA was performed with a Perkin-Elmer 3300 FAA spectrophotometer using 

air/acetylene g~S for zinc and iron and nitrous oxidelacetylene for aluminum. 

CVAA methodOI~Ogy was used to determine mercury. Dry sediments of 0.2 g were weighed and placed 

in a biochemical oxygen demand bottle. Five mL of distilled water were added followed by 5 mL of 

Aqua Regia. The bottle was heated for 30 min in a water bath at 95°C. The sample was allowed to 

cool, and 50 mil. of distilled water were added followed by 15 mL of potassium permanganate solution 

and 8 mL of po~assium persulfate solution. The bottle was returned to the water bath for 90 min. The 

bottle was the" cooled, and 6 mL of sodium hydroxylamine sulfate solution were added to reduce 

I

excess permanganate. 

Fifty-five milliliJers of distilled water were added followed by 5 mL of stannous sulfate solution. The 

bottle was imm~diately attached to the aeration apparatus of a CVAA mercury analyzer. Mercury was 

collected on tM gauze of the mercury analyzer. The gauze was then heated and the released mercury 

swept with argbn into a flameless cell Perkin-Elmer 2500 CVAA spectrophotometer for analysis. To 

do this, the sa~ple was allowed to stand without agitation and the circulating pump was allowed to 

run continuously at 1.8 L per min. The absorbance maximum was observed on the CV AA mercury 

analyzer within! 30 s. 

GFAA methodology was used to determine arsenic and antimony. Dry sediments of 1 g to 2 g were 

weighed and ~ransferred to a conical beaker. Ten milliliters of 1:1 nitric acid were added, and 

the sample wa~ mixed and covered by a watch glass. It was then heated to 95°C and refluxed for 10 

to 15 min without boiling. After cooling, 5 mL of concentrated nitric acid were added. The watch 

glass was repl~ced, and the sample was heated and refluxed for 30 min. This last step was repeated 

one more time) and the sample was allowed to evaporate to 5 mL without boiling. 

The sample was cooled, and 2 mL of distilled water and 3 mL of 30% hydrogen peroxide were added. 

The beaker wak covered by a watch glass, returned to the hot plate, and warmed to start the peroxide 

reaction. The tample was heated until the effervescence subsided and the sample was cooled. Thirty 

percent hydroden peroxide was added in 1 mL increments with warming until the effervescence was 

minimal. The Isample was allowed to evaporate without boiling until the volume was reduced to 

about 5 mL. After cooling, the sample was diluted to 100 mL with distilled water. The sample was 

filtered or cent~ifuged to remove particulates, and antimony and arsenic were determined by injection 

into a stabilize~ temperature platform GFAA spectrophotometer (Perkin-Elmer 3300). I 

The geochemistry OC measures followed during these analyses were part of the formal laboratory 

quality assura?ce program instituted at ..lEAL. This program requires a demonstration of laboratory 

capability through participation in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Intercomparison Exercise Program. Specific measures taken before and during the course of this study 

included a rigo~ous training program using analysis of triplicate samples and blanks, adherence to strict 

sample transfdr and custody procedures, laboratory audits, documented calibration of the GC/flame 

ionization deteptor (FlO) and GC/MS instruments, and an ongoing analytical OC program. This ongoing 

program includes analysis of method blanks with every batch of sediment or water examined, analysis 

of spiked bla~ks for the determination of recoveries of selected compounds, and matrix spikes or 

re-extraction df samples to monitor the efficiency of extraction. 

HYDROGRAP~Y 

Hydrographic ~ield data were processed at ENRI to provide temperature in degrees Celsius, salinity in 

Practical Salinity Units (PSU) after the method of Perkin and Lewis (1980), transmissivity in percent, 

and saltwater depth in meters. These data are presented as a series of plots in Appendix A. 

12'288083/2 39 
BIOTA 

Tissues 

Semivolatile Organic Compounds. Tissue samples in plastic bottles were thawed to 4°C. The 

composite of tissues contained in each bottle was homogenized to ensure the subsample taken for 

hydrocarbon a.1alysis was representative of the entire sample. About 7 g to 10 g of homogenized 

tissue were tra~sferred to a 400 mL beaker, and 1 mL of surrogate solution (see semivolatile sediment 

analysis) was added to the tissue. Seventy grams of sodium sulfate and 50 mL of hexane were added 

to each beaker ~ and the composite was ground for 1 min with a Polytron tissue grinder. The extract 

was then decanted through glass wool into a Kuderna·Danish concentration apparatus. The tissue 

sample was extracted with two more 50 mL portions of hexane by the same method. The hexane 

extract was sJbsequently concentrated to about 1 mL by Kuderna·Danish concentration. Polar 

compounds and debris were removed from the concentrated extract using a silica gel column and 

hexane as eluent. The cleaned hexane extracts were then concentrated to 1 mL by Kuderna-Danish 

and nitrogen eJaporation. Concentrated final extracts were stored in GC autosampler vials at -20°C 

until they wer~ analyzed using the same protocol and equipment previously described for the water 

chemistry analhes. 

I 

Trace Metals Analysis. The filter containing suspended solids was weighed and transferred to a conical 

beaker. Ten ml of 1:1 nitric acid were added. The sample was mixed and covered by a watch glass, 

heated to 95°cC, and refluxed for 10 to 15 min without boiling. After cooling, 5 mL of concentrated 

nitric acid were added. The watch glass was then replaced, and the sample was heated and refluxed I 

for 30 min. This last step was repeated one more time, and then the sample was allowed to evaporate 

to 5 mL withoJt boiling. The sample was subsequently cooled and 2 mL of distilled water and 3 mL 

of 30% hydrogen peroxide were added. The beaker was covered by a watch glass, returned to the 

hot plate, and ,armed to start the peroxide reaction. 

The sample w~s heated until the effervescence subsided and then cooled. Thirty percent hydrogen 

peroxide was added in 1 mL increments, with warming until the effervescence was minimal. Five mL 

of concentrat~d hydrochloric acid and 10 mL of distilled water were added, and the sample was 

refluxed witho~t boiling for 30 min. The sample was allowed to evaporate without boiling until the 

volume was reduced to about 5 mL. After cooling, the sample was diluted to 100 mL with distilled 

water. It wa~filtered or centrifuged to remove particulates. 

Antimony and arsenic were determined by injection into a stabilized temperature platform GFAA 

spectrophoto I eter (Perkin-Elmer 3300). Aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, 

manganese, nickel, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc were determined by ICP-MS. ICP-MS was 

performed usihg a VG Plasma Quad ICP-MS, pulse counting, 320 ps, 25 channels/atomic mass 

units, 1.5 mi.1 sample uptake, 1 min sample read time, and 10 min rinse time. Three replicate 

injections were made. ICP-MS was used for barium, vanadium, chromium, manganese, nickel, copper, 

silver, cadmiUl]n, tin, barium, thallium, and lead. FAA was performed with a GFAA spectrophotometer 

(Perkin-Elmer 3300) using air/acetylene gas for zinc and iron and nitrous oxide/acetylene for beryllium 

and aluminuml In each case, three replicate instrumental analyses were done. A method blank was 

made by perfdrming a mock digestion. Reagents were added to a beaker containing no sample, and 

they were pu~ through the same procedure as a beaker containing a sample. 

Mercury analJsis was performed as follows. A sample of dry tissue weighing 0.2 g was placed in a 

biochemical o~ygen demand bottle. Five milliliters of distilled water were added followed by 5 mL of 

Aqua Regia. the bottle was heated for 30 min in a water bath at 95°C. The sample was allowed to 

cool, and 50 rhL of distilled water were added followed by 15 mL of potassium permanganate solution 

and 8 mL of pptassium persulfate solution. The bottle was returned to the water bath for 90 min. The 

bottle was cdoled, and 6 mL of sodium hydroxylamine sulfate solution were added to reduce the 

excess permahganate. Fifty-five milliliters of distilled water were added followed by 5 mL of stannous 

sulfate sOluti6n. The bottle was immediately attached to the aeration apparatus of a CVAA mercury 

analyzer. The sample was allowed to stand without agitation, and the circulating pump was allowed 

to run continJously at 1.8 L per min. The absorbance maximum was observed on the CVAA mercury 

analyzer within 30 s. 

121288083/2 40 
NORM. Mussl shells from s;x locations were analyzed for NORM testing of radium-226 and 

radium-228. The six samples were counted for 19.2 h to 44.9 h on a 36% intrinsic germanium 

detector. The ~nalysis of radium-228 was based on the assumption that the observed gamma rays 

of actinium-22~ (half-life of 6.1 h) were in equilibrium with the parent radium-228 (half-life 

of 5.75 year), ~s shown in Figure 10. The analysis of radium-226 was based on the assumption 

that the daugMers were in equilibrium and that there was no loss of radon-222. This is shown in 

Figure 11. I 

Mussel shells were broken into small pieces, put into glass specimen jars, and sent to MSL in Sequim 

for analysis. AFsuming the samples were sealed in jars for 4 days, the samples were at equilibrium 

with respect to. measurement of radium-228, since at least 15 half-lives had passed when counting 

started. Howeyer, assuming radon-222 (3.8 day half-life) is the limiting isotope that has to grow back 

for the radium-226 measurement, samples were counted with partial equilibrium achieved. 

Samples were Lunted by placing the jar on the face of an upward-looking germanium detector (active 

volume of 162 cm3 , 36% efficient, and 2.0 kilo-electron volt [keY] full-width half maximum for I 

the 1332 keY line of cobalt-60). Counts were recorded by a multichannel analyzer, and data were 

l transferred to a computer for storage and analysis. Geometry was calibrated by spiking 75 ml of water 

with 0.100 mil of a mixed multielement radionuclide liquid standard supplied by Amersham (NIST 

traceable) in a SPEX jar like those holding the samples. The 75 ml water geometry was chosen to 

represent an ayerage sample in the jar. This standard was counted, and an efficiency curve was 

generated that, allowed calculation of activity in disintegrations per minute when the data were 

analyzed by th~ RAYGUN analysis code. 

The analysis ofl radium-226 involved analyzing the gamma-ray peaks of lead-214 (main peak, 352 keY) 

and bismuth-2~ 4 (main peak, 609.3 keY), which are daughters of radium-226. It was assumed the 

daughters wer~ in equilibrium with the parent to calculate the activity and that there was no loss of 

radon (radon-222). In addition, a gamma-ray of radium-226 (186 keY) was also measured. Although I 

it suffers from interference from uranium-235, it was felt it would lend credence to any positive values 

reported from using thelead-214 and bismuth-214 peaks. 

The analysisJOf radium-228 involved analyzing the gamma-ray peaks of actinium-228 (main 

peak, 911 ke I), which is a daughter of radium-228. It was assumed the daughter was in equilibrium 

with the paredt. 

BIOASSAY j 

Microtox® 

Microtox® bio ssay techniques use lysed cells of a luminescent marine bacteria as an indicator of 

sediment toxidity. They depend upon the metabolic activity of the lysed cells of the reagent organism 

Photobacteriu'r phosphoreum. Exposure to substances in the sediment that are toxic to biotic 

organisms causes a reduction in the luminescence of the bacteria proportional to the degree of toxicity. 

The reductionlin metabolic luminescence is reported as a median effective concentration (EC50) for 

each sample. Microtox® bacterial bioassay is becoming accepted as a cost-effective and sensitive 

method to ev~luate possible sediment contamination as evidenced by protocols developed for Puget 

s~und (Tetra rech, Inc. 1986, E~A .19~7). .. . 

Mlcrotox® results are used as an indication of overall tOXICity. A comparison between fresh bactena 

and bacteria r~hydrated from freeze-dried cultures does not show any significant loss in light intensity 

(Ribo 1984)'l Microtox® is especially useful for indicating toxicity of neutral, nonianic arganic 

compounds s ch as aromatic and chlarinated hydracarbons (Tetra Tech, Inc. 1986). It is also. useful 

far indicatian pf taxicity caused by same heavy metals, but it is sametimes difficult to. extract metals 

and highly acidic and basic campounds from the sediment particles (Tetra Tech, Inc. 1986). The 

Micratox® tes~ has been compared favarably with ather biaassays in terms af sensitivity, accuracy, 

precisian, and evaluatian af results abtained (Riba and Kaiser 1987). 

121288083/2 41 
Figure 10. Simplified thorium-232 decay. 

a:/o6.1 h 

,II 

228Ra 

6.7y 

Figure 11. Simplified radium-226 decay. 

1622 Y 

3.8 days 

218pO 

1 214Si 

a: {19.7min 

214Pb / B 

26.8 min 

42 

Effects of anox.[ are not relevant to the Microtox® bioassay, as the sample is well oxygenated from 

normal pipettin procedures during the bioassay. Optimal living conditions and, therefore, light 

emission for P. hosphoreum are between pH values of 5 and 9 (Ribo 1984). Ammonia levels have 

no particular effect on the Microtox® bioassay as long as the pH range is maintained at these optimum 

conditions. I 

The bioassay u~es freeze-dried luminescent bacteria as the test organism. P. phosphoreum cells are 

harvested, centrifuged, and lyophilized. The bacteria's light-producing mechanism is tied to the 

metabolic procJsses of the cell. If these processes are inhibited or damaged by the presence of a toxic 

substance, a re1duction in light output results. The bioassay is based on detecting these changes in 

light output. The solid-phase test measures light output after a 20 min exposure of the bacteria to the 

sediment. A bl~nk ratio serves as the control against which the resulting measurements are compared 

to calculate an EC50 value. The gamma function is used to determine the EC50 value: 

amount of light lost during test Gamma = 


light remaining at end of test 


light emission of blank at end of test Siank ratio == 

initial emission of blank at start of test 

A log-log gra h of gamma versus concentration is plotted and an EC50 value determined by 

interpolation w~ing a data-reduction program provided by Microtox®. The technique measures the rate 

of biological activity rather than a count of the organisms affected as in more conventional bioassays. 

Three sedimen~ samples were collected from each of the 11 stations and run with the Microtox® 

solid-phase bio~ssay to determine any potential toxicity in Cook Inlet sediments. Samples were stored 

at 2°C to 8°C and tested within 48 h. Excess water was extracted by filtration from the homogenized 

sample, and 0.3 g were removed for analysis. Solid-phase diluent was added in a 2: 1 dilution scheme 

from an initial sbmple concentration of 10%. After temperature equilibration of the sample and diluent, 

the reagent was reconstituted and 20 L of reagent were added to each solid-phase test tube. Samples 

were mixed wJII and allowed to incubate for 20 min. The filtrate was then extracted and transferred 

to Microtox® c~vettes in the Microtox® incubation block. The control sample was used to calibrate the 

light readings a~ter a 5 min temperature equilibration period. Sample light readings were then recorded 

and EC50s caltulated. 

Toxicity Tests I 

Four toxicity tests with two marine species were used to evaluate the toxicity of sediment and water 

samples from Cook Inlet. Sediment and water samples were collected and shipped to MSL in Sequim 

via Goldstreakl All samples tested arrived within 24 h of collection. Upon receipt, samples were 

placed in a 4 0 (: cold room until needed for testing. Sediments were tested for benthic effects using 

the acute 10-day static amphipod test with the phoxocephalid amphipod Rhepoxynius abronius. 

Sediment poretwater toxicity was evaluated using the sublethal sperm-cell test with the echinoderm 

Dendraster exaentricus. Water-column toxicity was assessed using the acute 48 h developmental test I 

and the sublethal sperm-cell test, both with the echinoderm D. excentricus. Standard EPA protocols 

were used to cpnduct standard 1 O-day R. abronius and 48 h D. excentricus tests to assess the toxicity 

of the sedime~ts, pore-water, and effluent samples. 

Standard EPA brotocolS are used to ensure consistent water Quality standards in which the toxicity of 

sediments canl be assessed using sample protocols. Reference toxicant tests are used to assess the 

sensitivity of different populations or seasonal variation in sensitivity of a field-collected population. 

Protocols esta~lished by EPA and ASTM recommend using cadmium chloride as a reference toxicant 

for amphipod Itests. There is a historical database at MSL and around the country for reference 

toxicant test results using cadmium for amphipod tests and copper for larval tests. 

Solid-phase Static Test. The 1 a-day solid-phase static test with the R. abronius followed the 

procedures our I lined in ASTM 1990. The amphipod R. abronius and control sediment were collected 

(2)28808312 43 

l 

by MSL staff rom West Beach, Whidbey Island, WA, using a specially designed anchor dredge 

deployed from a 17 ft Boston Whaler. The dredge collected sediment to a depth of about 4 cm. 

Sediment was sieved through a 2 mm mesh screen to remove large debris and predatory organisms. 

Amphipods were kept in coolers partially filled with native sediment and seawater until they were 

delivered to a holding tank at MSL. The R. abronius were acclimated in large holding tanks containing 

their native sediment and supplied with continuously flowing 15°C Sequim Bay seawater. Organisms 

were not fed during the holding period. 

The amphipod test was performed in 1 L glass static mason jars that were filled to a depth of 2 cm 

with test sediment and then brought to a total volume of 750 mL with 0.45 pm filtered Sequim Bay I 

seawater. Test chambers were placed in randomly assigned positions on a 15°C (± 2°C) water table. 

Gentle aeration was done through glass pipettes. After an overnight acclimation period, initial water 

quality param,~ers were measured for each test chamber and recorded on water quality forms. 

To initiate the ~est, the R. abronius were gently sieved from the holding tank, counted, and then placed 

in small transfdr containers. The number of organisms was checked by a second observer prior to their 

placement into. the test chamber. A total of 20 organisms were added to each chamber. Initiation date 

and time were recorded on the jar lids and data forms. The R. abronius were observed daily. The l number of orglanisms floating on the surface, swimming in the jar, and lying on the sediment was 

tabulated. Fld1ating amphipods were gently pushed below the water surface with a pipette tip, and 

their ability to rebury was recorded. 

Water temperJture, salinity, pH, and dissolved oxygen were recorded for all test chambers at initiation 

and terminatioh. Daily water quality was performed on one replicate of each treatment throughout the I 

test. Acceptable water quality parameters during the experiment were as follows: 

I 

Dissolved Oxygen ;:::5.0 mg/L 


pH • 7.8 ± 0.5 units 


Salinitt (PSU) 30 ± 2 


Tempe1rature 15°C ± 2°C 


Water quality [data indicate that all parameters were within range of the acceptable water quality 

control limits for both the 1 O-day static, solid-phase test, and 4-day water only reference toxicant test 

with the R. abronius. At the end of the 1O-day test period, the R. abronius were collected by sieving 

test sediments through 0.5 mm Nytex screens. The organisms were placed in clean seawater and the 

number of livd and dead counted using a dissecting microscope. At least 10% of the counts were 

checked by a second observer. Test organism sensitivity was measured by conducting a 4-day, 

water-only rei erence toxicant test with cadmium chloride (0.25 mg/L, 0.5 mg/L, 1.0 mg/L, 

and 2.0 mg/L pf cadmium!. 

Sperm-Cell TeJt. The sublethal sperm-cell toxicity test with the D. excentricus followed the procedures 

outlined in Dinhel et al. (1987). Sand dollars were collected at Travis Spit, WA, and held in tanks with 

flowing, unfilt~red, Sequim Bay seawater. The D. excentricus were allowed to feed in Sequim Bay 

sediments during the holding period. 

Pore-water salples were prepared by a centrifugation method. Approximately 300 mL of sediment 

were placed inl a 500 mL Teflon jar with a stainless steel spoon. The jar was then sealed with a Teflon 

lid and centrifuged at 1750 revolutions per minute for approximately 15 min. The supernatant was 

poured off intb a glass jar and held at 4°C until needed for testing. 

Test containe~s (16 x 100 mm borosilicate glass test tubes) were filled with 10 mL of pore water or 

receiving wat+ (depending on the test) and placed into randomly assigned positions in a test tube rack. 

They were then placed on a 1 4 ° C (± 2 ° C) water table. Adult sand dollars were spawned by 

injecting 0.5 ~olar (M) potassium chloride into the oral cavity. Reddish eggs were collected from at 

least two femlales by inverting the sand dollar over a 100 mL beaker filled with control seawater. 

White sperm were collected dry with a glass pasteur pipette and stored in a sealed vial. Sperm from 

at least two males were combined in dilution water to create a stock solution. The concentration of 

{2l288083/2 44 
! 

viable sperm Jthe stock solution was determined by testing the efficiency of fertilization success 

using various jperm-to-egg ratios (700: 1, 1200:1; and 1500:1). 

The appropriate stocking density was the sperm-to-egg ratio that yielded a fertilization rate within the 

target range o~ fertilization (70% to 90%). To initiate the test, 0.1 mL of adjusted sperm-stock 

solution was ~Iaced in the test tubes, and the sperm solution was exposed for 1 h. After 1 h, 1 mL 

of egg solutio~ {2000 eggs/mU was introduced into each test tube. Fertilization was allowed to take 

place for 20 min, at which time each vial was fixed with 5 drops of Lugol's iodine solution. Percent 

fertilization w~s then determined by counting 100 embryos and noting the presence or absence of a 

fertilization membrane. Damaged eggs or eggs with a partial fertilization membrane were not included 

in the results .• 

A reference tokicant test was also conducted to establish the health and sensitivity of each batch of 

gametes. The[D. excentricus sperm were exposed to a seawater control plus three concentrations of 

copper sulfate (2.9 pg/L, 9 pg/L, 30 pg/L, and 100 pg/L of copper), using three replicates of each 

treatment. 

Receiving Wat. r Larval Test. The 48 h larval test with the D. excentricus followed a modified protocol 

in Oshida and Goochey (1981). Sand dollars were collected at Travis Spit, WA, and held in tanks with 

flowing, unfiltered, Sequim Bay seawater. The D. excentricus were allowed to feed in Sequim Bay 

sediments during the holding period. 

I 

Control seaw*er was collected from the Strait of Juan de Fuca, WA, by MSL. A seawater-cured 

polypropylene Icarboy was submerged approximately 152 mm below the surface, unsealed, allowed 

to fill with subsurface seawater, then resealed. Control seawater was filtered with a 20 pm Nytex 

screen to remfve plankton and detritus, then stored in a 4°C cold room until needed for testing. 

Immediately p ior to testing, control seawater was filtered with a 0.45 pm cartridge filter. 

Receiving wat r samples from Cook Inlet ranged in salinity from 13 to 30. Salinity was adjusted to 30 

using a seaw~ter brine stock. The brine stock was prepared by thawing 0.45 pm filtered control 

seawater; pou~ing off the hypersaline liquid, filtering the resulting brine through a 2 pm paper filter, and 

storing it in a ~Iass jar at 4°C. To detect any brine effect, brine controls were run concurrently with 

each water te~t. 

Test chamber~ for the echinoderm larval test were 500 mL glass jars labeled with water treatment 

code, position Inumber, and replicate number. Test chambers were placed in random positions on a 

water table ~nd provided with gentle aeration. After the test chambers reached testing 

temperatures h4°C ± 2°C)' initial water quality was measured in all replicates. Because all 

treatments coLld not be tested concurrently, a separate reference toxicant test was performed with 

each set of te~ts to compare gamete sensitivity to a known toxicant. 

Adult sand dollars were spawned by injecting 0.5 M potassium chloride into the oral cavity. Reddish 

eggs were cOlliected from at least two females by inverting the sand dollar over a 100 mL beaker filled 

with control seawater. White sperm were collected dry with a glass pasteur pipette and stored in a 

sealed vial. Sperm from at least three males were pooled, and 3 drops of concentrated sperm were 

added to 45 mL of control seawater. Approximately 3 mL of this sperm stock were then added to the 

egg stocks. Egg-sperm solutions were mixed every 10 min with a perforated plunger. Fertilization 

proceeded forl30 min, and then the fertilization rate (percent fertilized) was determined by removing 

a subsample ~nd observing the number of multicell stage embryos. 

Fertilization wbs considered successful if greater than 90% of the eggs were in the multicell stage. 

Embryo stock ~ensity was estimated by removing a 0.1 mL subsample, counting all multicell embryos, 

and then multiplying by 10 to yield embryo density (embryos/mL). Stock solution was diluted or 

concentrated to yield 7500 to 9000 embryos/mL. The test was initiated by introducing 1 mL of stock 

solutiOn into each test chamber to produce embryo densities of 25 to 30 embryos/mL Test initiation 

date and time lere recorded on data sheets. Following initiation, 10 mL stocking density subsamples 

121288083/2 45 
were removed from each container and preserved in 10% formaldehyde to determine actual stocking 

density. 

Water quality arameters were measured in one replicate per treatment daily throughout the test. The 

following were acceptable ranges for water quality parameters: 

DissolJed Oxygen ;:::: 4.0 mg/L 


pH I ambient ± 0.5 units 


Salinity (PSU) ambient ± 2 


Tempe~ature 14°C ± 2°C 


Water quality Jdata indicate that all parameters were within range of the acceptable water quality 

control limits or the 48 h echinoderm larval test and the reference toxicant test. The echinoderm 

larval test waslterminated after 48 h if greater than 80% of the larvae in the controls had reached the 

pluteus stage. 1 Final water quality parameters were recorded for all replicates. The contents of each 

chamber were then homogenized with a perforated plunger. A 10 mL subsample was subsequently 

removed and placed in a 20 mL scintillation vial, which was then fixed with 1 mL of 50% formalin in 

seawater. Sat;nples were scored for the appearance of normal pluteus larvae, abnormal and blastula 

larvae, and total number of larvae. At least 10% of the counts were confirmed by a second observer. 

I 

A 48 h reference toxicant test was conducted with each batch of test larvae to establish the health 

and expected response of the test organisms. The reference toxicant test was set up and conducted 

in the same rrianner as the liquid-phase tests. The D. excentricus larvae were exposed to a filtered 

Sequim Bay s~awater control plus four concentrations of copper sulfate (2.9 pg/L, 9 pg/L, 30 pg/L, 

and 100 pg/L 6f copper), with three replicates per test. 

1212BBOB3/2 46 
RESULTS 4 

1 
 WATER 


HVOROCARB NS 

All 35 samPIJs analyzed from the eight water chemistry stations during this study had < MOL 

« 1 pg/L) of YOA (Tables 19 and 20). Eight VOA compounds were targeted by these analyses: 

benzene, tolu~ne, ethylbenzene, p,m-xylenes, o-xylene, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1 A-dichlorobenzene, 

and 1,2-dichldrobenzene. The lowest observed effect levels for acute toxicity from VOAs were 400 

to 6000 times higher than the MDL used in this study (Table 21). Acute toxicity is defined as effects 

occurring in a short time period (exposures of 24 to 96 h), often ending in death (EPA 1986). ENRI 

found < MDL (0.01 pg/U of PAH in all water samples from the eight stations in Cook Inlet (Tables 22 

and 23). The lowest observed effect levels for acute toxicity were 2350 pg/L for naphthalene . I 

and 980 pg/L for acenaphthalene (EPA 1991 b). Traces of several alkanes were detected in the water 

samples (Tabl~s 24 and 25). 

I 

Table 19. cJse 1 water chemistry VOA results. 

R <M 

F <MDL 

R <MDL 

F <MDL 

R <MDL 

<M 

<MDL 

<MDL 

<M 

F <M 

R A <MDL 

A < 

F F <MDL 

R F <MDL 

= falling. 

VOAs: 	Ben e, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, p,m-Xylenes, o-Xylene, 1,3-Dichlorobenzene, 

1 A-Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-0ichlorobenzene. 

MDL -	 1 pg/U. 

I 

(2)288083/3 	 47 
6,300 5,000 

430 

1970 

12126606313 48 

Table 20. Cruise 2 water chemistry VOA results. 

- ij;--' 2001 1 F 30 <MOL 

2002 R 30 <MOL 

2003 R 3 <MOL 

2004 R 3 <MOL 

2005 R 3 <MOL 

2006 F 3 <MOL 

20078 F 3 <MOL 

?OORB! F 3 <MOL 

20071 R E <MOL 

2008 F E <MOL 

2009 F B <MOL 

2010 R I B <MOL 

2011 R A <MOL 

2012 F C <MOL 

2013 F A <MOL i 

2014 R C <MOL 

2015 R F <MOL 

2016 F F <MOL 

2017 211 <MOL 

1 R = rising, I! = falling. 

VOAs: Benzel Ie, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, p,m-Xylenes, o-Xylene, 1,3-0ichlorobenzene, 

1A-Oiphlorobenzene, 1,2-0ichlorobenzene. 

MOL - 1 pg/lf. 

Table 21. EP marine water quality criteria for VOAs. 
Table 22. Cr~ise 1 water chemistry PAH results. 

1001 3 R <MOL 

1002 3 F <MOL 

1003 B R <MOL 

1004 B F <MOL 

1005 E OL 

1006 E OL 

1007 C R <MOL 

1008 C R <MOL 

1009 C OL 

1010 C <MOL 

1011 <MOL 

1012 C F <MOL 

1013 A R <MOL 

1014 A F <MOL 

1015 F F <MOL 

1016 F R <MOL 

1 R = rising, F = falling. , 	 . 

PAHs: 	 Naphthalene, (Methyl, Ethyl, Biphenyll, Acenaphthylene, Fluorene (Methyl, Ethyl), 

Acena~hthene, Oibenzothiophene, Phenanthrene (Methyl), Anthracene (Methyl, Ethyl, 

Tertbuhyl, Benzo, Oibenz), Fluoranthene (Benzo), Pyrene (Benzo, Indeno), Chrysene, I Benzoperylene. 

MOL -	 0.01 pg/L. 

13)288083/3 	 49 
Table 23. Cruise 2 water chemistry PAH results. 

2002 30 R <MOL 

2003 3 R 

2004 3 R 

2005 3 R 

2006 3 F 

2007B 3 F <MOL 

2008B 3 F <MOL 

2007 E R <MOL 

2008 F 

2009 F 

2010 B R <MOL 

2011 A R <MOL 

2012 C F <MOL 

2013 A F <MOL 

2016 F F OL 

2017 211 OL 

1 R ::: rising, 

PAHs: 	 Naph alene, (Methyl, Ethyl, Biphenyl), Acenaphthylene, Fluorene (Methyl, Ethyl), 

Acen ne, Oibenzothiophene, Phenanthrene (Methyl), Anthracene (Methyl, Ethyl, 

Tertbuhyl, Benzo, Oibenz), Fluoranthene (Benzo), Pyrene (Benzo, Indeno), Chrysene, 

Benzo~erylene. 

MOL -	 0.01 19/L. 

13128808313 50 
Table 24. Cruise 1 saturated hydrocarbon concentrations for water. 

3 R <MOL <MOL <MOL 0.06 0.12 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 0.08 <MOL 0.02 

0.03 <MOL 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 

<MOL 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 

<MOL 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

<MOL 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 <MOL 0.01 0.01 0.01 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 0.01 0.02 0.02 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 0.01 

0.01 0.04 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 0.01 0.01 

0.03 0.06 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 0.02 0.02 

<MOL 0.04 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 0.02 

<MOL 0.03 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL 0.03 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL ... 

LO <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

1002 . 3 F 

1003 B R 

1004 B F

1005 E R 

1006 E F

1007 C R 

1008 C R

1009 C R 

1010 C F

1011 C F

1012 C F 

1013 A R

1014 A F 

1015 F F

1016 F R 

R =rising, F =falling. 

MOL - 0.002 IJg/L 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.04 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.03 

<MOL 

0.04 

0.04 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.09 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.06 

0.02 

0.03 

0.06 

0.03 

0.02 

0.03 

0.02 

0.03 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.10 

0.06 

0.06 

0.07 

0.07 

0.05 

0.09 

0.11 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.04 

<MOL 

<MOL 
----------

Table 24. 

. 1001 

1002 

1003 

1004 

1005 

1006 

1007 

1008 

1009 

1010 

1011 

(J'1 1012 

N 1013 

1014 

1015 

1016 

Cruise 1 saturated hydrocarbon concentrations for water (continued) . 

3 R 

3 F 

B R 

B F 

E R 

E F 

C R 

C R 

C R 

C F 

C F 

C F 

A R 

A F 

F F 

F R 

l~:#~~ 

<MOL <MOL 

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.02

0.01 0.01 

0.01 0.01 

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01 

0.01 0.01

0.03 0.02

0.01 0.01 

<MOL 0.02 

<MOL 0.01 

<MOL <MOL 

0.02 0.03 

<MOL <MOL

<MOL <MOL 

~0241! ,~.0""''4"-..B;.. _ -' 1t~~",€?1 ~1t~,~ 

<MOL <MOL <MOL 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.88 

<MOL 0.02 0:04 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.91 

<MOL 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 <MOL 0.61 

0.09 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0;04 0.04 0.02 0.02 <MOL 0.60 

0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 <MOL <MOL <MOL 0.46 

0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 <MOL <MOL 9·51 

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 <MOL <MOL 0.33 

<MOL 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 <MOL <MOL <MOL 0.35 

0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 <MOL <MOL 0.66 

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 0.33 

0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 0.21 

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 0.20 

0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 0.19 

0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03' 0.05 0.04 0.03 <MOL <MOL <MOL 0.51 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 0,00 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 0.00 

R =rising, F =falling. 

MOL - 0.002 jJg/L 
Table 25. Cruise 2 saturated hydrocarbon concentrations for water. 

<MOL <MDL 0.15 0.18 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.10 0.07 <MOL <MOL 1.79 

2002 


2003 


2004 


2005 


2006 


20078 


200B8 


2007 


200B 

2009 


2010 


2011 


2012
 "~1\ II 


2013 


2016 


2017 


30 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


E 


E 


8 


8 


A 


C 


A 


F 


211 


R 

R 

R 

R 

F 

F 

F 

R 

F 

F 

R 

R 

F 

F 

F 

1.4B 

2.23 

1.37 

1.43 

1.24 

3.01 

2.15 

1.11 

2.07 

2.B2 

0.27 

1.04 

0.95 

0.70 

0.77 

2.5B 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

.<MOL 

.<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.22 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.22 

<MOL 

0.20 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.19 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.75 

0.10 

<MOL 

0.30 

<MOL 

0.21 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.14 

<MOL 

0.13 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.3B 

<MOL 

0.20 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.25 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.42 

<MOL 

0.23 

<MOL 

0.16 

0.21 

<MOL 

0.22 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.14 

O.OB 

<MOL 

0.33 

<MOL 

0.21 

<MOL 

O.OB 

0.10 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.07 

<MOL 

0.24 

<MOL 

0.21 

<MOL 

0.09 

0.11 

<MOL 

0.13 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.24 

<MOL 

0.1B 

<MOL 

0.09 

0.17 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.45 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.15 

<MOL 

0.17 

<MOL 

O.OB 

0.04 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.12 

<MOL 

0.12 

<MOL 

0.06 

0.05 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.11 

<MOL 

O.OB 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

0.06 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL . 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

1.73 

2.23 

3.94 

1.43 

3.05 

3.01 

2.71 

2.1B 

2.07 

3.49 

0.27 

1.04 

0.95 

0.70 

0.77 

4.14 

M 

L.O 

R =rising, F =falling. 

MOL - 0.002 1J9/L 
Total saturate hydrocarbons in water ranged from < MDL (0.002 pg/L) to 4.14 pg/L (Tables 24 

and 25). Key efinitions and terms used in saturated hydrocarbon analysis are provided in Tables 26 

and 27. The n-alkanes ranged in chain lengths from 10 to 36 carbon atoms. The presence of 

n-decane at a relatively consistent concentration in every Cruise 2 sample is puzzling. Since no 

hydrocarbons rere detected from the trip blanks and it occurred only during Cruise 2, it could reflect 

undetected contamination of the water samples during collection. Although there is no certainty, one 

possible scena1rio is that an undetected fuel leak from the sampling vessel contaminated the surface 

waters during collection. In the Marathon Oil study in upper Cook Inlet, no saturated hydrocarbons 

and only trace PAHs were detected from seawater samples (Neff and Douglas 1994). 

METALS 

Total (dissolve1d plus weak-acid dissolvable particulate) metals concentrations for water taken during 

Cruises 1 and Q are given in Tables 28 and 29. These data are as yet incomplete; further metals data 

will be added ~s an appendix to this document when they become available. Iron is by far the metal 

of highest conbentration, and it shows a definite geographic distribution pattern. Stations F, 3, 30, 

and 211, whi~h are in the middle inlet and further south, have much lower iron concentrations. No 

geographic di*ribution patterns are noticeable for other metals. Metal concentrations are similar to 

those reported in global marine waters (Table 30), but mercury appears to be somewhat high. 

Substantial prJPortions of these metals may be present on suspended particles and may be dissolved 

upon acidifica ion of the sample. 

According to PA water quality criteria for metals (Table 31), a few samples are above the designated 

chronic criteri~ for mercury. The word criteria should not be used interchangeably with or as a 

synonym for standard. Criteria represents a constituent concentration or level associated with a degree 

of environmental effect upon which scientific judgment may be based (EPA 1986). It has come to 

mean that a designated concentration, when not exceeded, will protect an organism. Toxicity is 

generally expressed in terms of acute (short-term) or chronic (long-term) effects. Acute toxicity refers 

to effects occurring in a short time period (24 h to 96 hI, with death often being the end point 

(EPA 1986). cthronic toxicity refers to effects through an extended time period. It may be expressed 

in terms of a I period equal to the lifetime of an organism or to the time span of more than one 

generation. Some chronic effects may be reversible, but most are not (EPA 1986). 

Although weUlbelow the reported acute level, some Cook Inlet water samples are above the chronic 

level (0.025 pb/L) for mercury. The majority of these (13 of 16) are from the upper inlet, and they 

were all taken Iduring Cruise 1. This indicates the mercury is from terrestrial sources, as it is more 

prevalent during higher freshwater runoff. The highest mean levels were recorded at stations E and B, 

the stations fa~thest north in the inlet. 

SEDIMENT 

SUSPENDED SOLIDS 

TSS 

As indicated e~rlier in this document, suspended sediment input from the head of Cook Inlet is very 

high; and it is! overwhelmingly comprised of very fine-grained glacial till. Samples from the eight 

water samplin~ stations were analyzed for TSS, and measured concentrations ranged from 3 mg/L 

to 440 mg/L (table 32). Due to dynamic mixing in the northern inlet and the heavy sediment loads 

of rivers that flow into it, stations in the upper inlet have the highest sediment concentrations 

(440 mg/L for station E). Stations in the middle to lower inlet had far lower readings (3 mg/L 

to 19 mg/L for stations 3, 30, and F). 

Metals 

Metals within the water column are strongly partitioned onto the suspended sediment. In Cook Inlet, 

this latter matJrial is overwhelmingly inorganic (glacially ground rock flour). Tables 33 and 34 give a 

summary of th1e metal concentrations found in suspended solids from seven stations in the inlet; no 

12128808313 54 

• 
n-alkane 

CPI 

Relative abundance of branched isoprenoid alkanes to straight chain 

alkanes; useful indicator of biodegradation. 

Diagnostic alkane compositional ratio used to determine the relative 

abundance of n-C1 0 to n-C20 alkanes (characteristic of light crude and 

refined oils) to total alkanes, which includes those of biogenic 

(background) origin. 

Source of phytane is mainly petroleum while pristane is derived from both 

biological matter and oil. This ratio is high in clean samples and decreases 

as oil is added. 

Ratio of saturated hydrocarbons to total organic carbon; used to monitor 

oil inputs. 

Odd-even carbon preference index; describes the relative amounts of odd 

and even chain alkanes. As oil additions increase, the CPI is lowered. 

Table 26. Saturated hydrocarbon Quantitative parameters. 

TALK Quantifies the total n-alkanes (n-C10 to n-C34). 

LALK Low molecular weight n-alkanes (n-C10 to n-C20); crude petroleum is high in 

these alkanes. 

PRIS Isoprenoid 1708 (Pristane); an abundance of pristane in sediments is 

indicative of recent biogenic inputs. 

PHY Isoprenoid 1810 (Phytane); uncontaminated sediments are low in phytane but 

crude oil has significant amounts of this isoprenoid. 

TOT Total saturated hydrocarbons. 

Table 27. rated hydrocarbon source ratios. 

12)28808313 55 
Table 28. 1 total metal concentrations for water. 

.74 10 

10018 

1002A 

10028 

1003A 

10038 

1004A 

10048 

1005A 

10058 

1006A 

10068 

1007A 

10078 

1008A 

R 

F 

F 

R 

R 

F 

F 

R 

R 

F 

F 

R 

R 

R 

2.52 

2.09 

3.30 

2.25 

4.31 

2.34 

4.18 

5.74 

6.29 

2.23 

2.47 

1.98 

1.92 

2.90 

1137.8 

563.7 

313.1 

10960.1 

7452.9 

6377.7 

6367.3 

9216.9 

9436.1 

6054.2 

5908.0 

3924.8 

3726.4 

3058.4 

0.0021 

0.0621 

0.0208 

0.0410 

0.0418 

0.0209 

0.3528 

0.1660 

0.0625 

0.0939 

0.0208 

0.0208 

0.0208 

0.0624 

10088 C 

1009A 

10098 

1010A 

10108 

1011A 

10118 

1012A 

10128 

1013A 

10138 

1014A 

10148 

1015A F 

10158 F 

1016A F 

10168 F 

AVG j..Ig/L 

R = rising, I= 

R 

R 

R 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

R 

R 

F 

F 

F 

F 

R 

R 

1.99 

1.84 

2.12 

0.17 

2.23 

2.19 

2.23 

2.15 

2.23 

1.84 

1.92 

2.03 

2.03 

1.50 

1.48 

1.50 

1.50 

3089.7 

3413.3 

3444.6 

5500.9 

5605.3 

5490.5 

5563.6 

5563.6 

5793.2 

3288.0 

3298.5 

4311.0 

4290.1 

344.5 

198.3 

354.9 

459.3 

0.0208 

0.0208 

0.0208 

0.0416 

0.0209 

0.0209 

0.0208 

0.1660 

0.0209 

0.0623 

0.0415 

0.0209 

0.0209 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

2.51 4249.7 0.048 

falling. 

56 

Table 29. 2·total metal concentrations for water. 

20018 F 

2002A R 

20028 R 

2003A R 

20038 R 1.294 250.5 0.0042 

2004A R 1.273 271.4 0.0062 

20048 R 1.367 219.2 0.0042 

2005A R 1.566 187.9 0.0092 

20058 R 1.367 187.9 0.0042 

2006A F 1.566 1430.0 0.0042 

20068 F 1.555 0.0042 

2007bA F 1.472 10125.1 0.0021 

2007b8 F 

2008bA F 2.380 19415.1 0.0021 

2008b8 F 4.175 1492.7 0.0021 

2007A R 4.134 7244.1 0.0030 

20078 R 2.860 8841.2 0.0122 

2008A F 4.468 15761.7 0.0151 

20088 F 5.271 19728.2 0.0193 

2009A F 5.125 25051.7 0.0230 

20098 F 4.718 32776.0 0.0331 

2010A R 2.964 14404.7 0.0061 

20108 R 3.612 11273.3 0.0060 

2011A R 2.004 4446.7 0.0060 

20118 R 2.077 4864.2 0.0196 

2012A F 1.112 2233.8 0.0323 

2013A F 3.090 8204.4 0.0333 

20138 F 2.672 7515.5 0.0230 

2014A F 6262.9 0.0240 

20148 F 7108.4 0.0122 

2015A R 1.712 605.4 0.0065 

20158 R 1.399 782.9 0.0061 

2016A F 1.305 281.8 0.0030 

20168 F 1.482 240.1 0.0030 

2017A 2 1 1.357 198.3 0.0031 

20178 2 1 1.347 271.4 0.0030 

AVG J.l9/L 2.368 6624.025 0.0104 

R = rising, F falling. 

57 

Table 30. Mean total metal concentrations in marine waters. 

2.4·2.5 

100.0 

Cd 0.03 7 

Cr 

0.2 0.25 

42 24 2.0 

Pb 

0.01 ·0.05 0.03 0.005 

O. 

0.04 

V 1 2.5 

Zn 0.3 4.9 6.0 

1 Mean range i Cruises 1 and 2. 

Table 31. EP marine water quality criteria for metals. 

43 

11 

2.9 

2.1 0.025 

7 8.3 

721 

13 

95 86 

1 pending. 

(3128808313 58 
2003 

Table 32. TS~ in Cook Inlet water samples. 

..

200 : 

~~.iI_ F 30 6 

200 1 

;) R 30 5

R 3 4

200,1I~ 

1 F 3 19

1 20051 E 144 1

1, R 

2005~ R E 187

2005~ R E 115

2006,~ F E 290

2006B F E 440

1 

20061~ F E 352

2007~ F B 285

2008b R B 290

2009~ R A 89 

2009 1

S R A 102 I 

2009C R A 92 

2010)!\ F C 65 

2011 '\ F A 186 

2011~ F A 139

2011 ~ F A 159

2012~ R C 124

201~ R F 17

2011~ F F 3 

1 •• FI R = riSing, = falling. 

12'288083/3 59 

• 
Table 33. Summary of total metals in suspended solids. 

<'I 

2001 30 F 0.23 2.25 26.3 8.32 50.8 173.0 1780 162.0 0.11 20.8 

, 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005A 

20058 

2005C 

2006A 

20068 

2006C 

2007A 

20078 

2007C 

O'l 12008A 

0 20088 

2008C 

2009A 

2009C 

2010A 

20108 

2010C 

2011A 

20118 

2011C 

2012A 

20128 

2012C 

2013 

30 

3 

3 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

E 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

A 

A 

C 

C 

C 

A 

A 

A 

C 

C 

C 

F 

3.35 

10.00 

5.67 

1.08 

5.78 

7.86 

1.34 

1.62 

1.45 

8.52 

1.33 

6.13 

7.24 

1.17 

7.06 

1.50 

9.29 

4.71 

41.2 

239.0 

464.0 

478.0 

423.0 

724.0 

637.0 

665.0 

698.0 

476 

714 

650 

463 

598 

650 

669 

766 

535 

61.30 

9.40 

1.12 

0.27 

0.44 

0.71 

1.37 

0.17 

0.45 

0.84 

0.19 

0.41 

0.74 

0.18 

0.31 

0.21 

0.37 

0.64 

83.7 

66.8 

90.0 

73.8 

70.2 

104.0 

108.0 

86.8 

90.3 

100 

80.1 

47.2 

78.5 

70.7 

51.7 

91.1 

84 

28.7 

50.5 

230.0 

81.5 

88.8 

93.7 

74.6 

70.7 

64.7 

60.9 

90.9 

64.8 

81.5 

63.4 

46.8 

56.3 

60.7 

65.4 

40.1 

2220 

15300 

29400 

25200 

25800 

36200 

30700 

38400 

41500 

37200 

39600 

35400 

32500 

30700 

30200 

49600 

50100 

27800 

388.0 

109.0 

40.6 

24.3 

50.3 

62.1 

87.9 

27.2 

25.9 

108 

30.1 

21.2 

42.4 

15.1 

16.7 

29.7 

43 

17 

0.11 

0.12 

0.20 

0.13 

0.08 

<MOL 

<MOLl 

<MOL 

0.11 

0.061 

0.05 

0.06 1 

0.07 

0.07 

0.11 

0.21 

0.24 

0.27 1 

0.29 

0.421 

R 


R 


F 


R 


R 


R 


F 


F 


F 


F 


F 


F 


R 


R 


R 


R 


R 


F 


F 


F 


F 


F 


F 


R 


R 


1.19 

<MOL 

0.36 

0.73 

0.68 

1.23 

1.25 

0.76 

0.94 

1.55 

1.17 

0.96 

1.19 

8.22 

1.14 

1.17 

1.21 

0.99 

36.2 

32.4 

47.9 

41.8 

39.2 

56.1 

55.8 

44.7 

48.5 

49.41 

42.31 

35.71 

39.3 

35.4 

38.4 

45.1 

45.61 

26.81 

"<MOL 0.31 8.9 1220.0 

0.10 0.93 52.4 248.0 

0.24 0.68 111.0 152.0 

0.16 0.50 118.0 148.0 

0.17 0.51 117.0 199.0 

0.28 0.60 142.0 238.0

0.23 0.55 136.0 219.0

0.22 0.47 132.0 150.0 

0.25 0.52 143.0 165.0 

0.211 0.691 1311 290.0 

0.171 0.631 1281 176.0 

0. 15 1 0.57 1 1221 128.0 

0.24 0.52 128 160.0 

0.14 0.42 117 111.0 

0.13 0.50 112 129.0 

0.23 0.49 140 168.0 

0. 16 1 0.601 1371 204.0 

0.131 0.371 85.31 132.0 

AVG 1.31 4.60 521.9 4.60 76.7 82.0 30505 68.4 0.13 41.1 0.17 0.54 110.2 238.6 


MOL I-Ig/g 0.002 0.1 1.1 0.4 2.9 0.8 0.02 3.7 0.03 2.1 0.07 0.02 2.4 4.1 


R =rising, F =falling. 
Table 34. Concentration of total metals in suspended solids. 

0.1 

2002 30 R 0.01 0.02 0.2 0.31 0.4 0.3 11.1 1.9 0.001 0.2 <MDL 0.002 0.0 6.1 

2003 3 R <MDL 0.04 1.0 0.04 0.3 0.9 61.2 0.4 0.000 0.1 0.000 0.004 0.2 1.0 

2004 3 F 0.01 0.11 8.8 0.02 1.7 1.5 558.6 0.8 0.004 0.9 0.005 0.013 2.1 2.9 

2005A E R 0.11 0.16 68.8 0.04 10.6 12.8 3628.8 3.5 0.018 6.0 0.022 0.072 17.0 21.3 


20058 E R 0.13 1.08 79.1 0.08 13.1 17.5 4824.6 9.4 0.000 7.3 0.031 0.096 21.9 37.2 


2005C E R 0.14 0.90 83.3 0.08 12.0 8.6 4163.0 7.1 0.000 6.5 0.032 0.069 16.3 27.4 


2006A E F 0.36 0.39 184.7 0.40 31.3 20.5 8903.0 25.5 0.022 16.2 0.068 0.158 39.4 63.5 


20068 E F 0.34 0.71 292.6 0.08 38.2 28.5 16896.0 12.0 0.000 19.7 0.098 0.208 58.1 66.0 


2006C E F 0.33 0.51 245.7 0.16 31.8 21.4 14608.0 9.1 0.000 17.1 0.089 0.183 50.3 58.1 


2007A 8 F <MDL 


20078 8 F 0.44 2.43 135.7 0.24 28.5 25.9 10602.0 30.8 <MDL 14.1 0.059 0.196 37.3 82.7 


2007C 8 F <MDL 
 .... I \ ~ 200BA 8 R <.0 

" 1 20088 8 R 0.34 0.39 207.1 0.05 23.2 18.8 11484.0 8.7 0.016 12.3 0.050 0.181 37.1 51.0 

2008C 8 R 

2009A A R 0.09 0.55 57.9 0.04 4.2 7.3 3150.6 1.9 0.0051 0.013 1 0.051 3.21 1 10.91 11.4

2009C A R 0.11 0.67 42.6 0.07 7.2 5.8 2990.0 3.9 0.000 3.6 0.022 0.048 11.8 .14.7 


2010A C F 0.005 


20108 C F 


2010C C F 


2011A A F 1.53 . 0.22 111.2 0.03 13.2 8.7 5710.2 2.8 0.039 6.6 0.025 0.078 21.8 20.6 


20118 A F 0.16 0.98 90.4 0.04 7.2 7.8 4197.8 2.3 0.000 5.3 0.017 0.070 15.6 17.9 


2011C A F 0.19 0.24 106.4 0.03 14.5 9.7 7886.4 4.7 0.000 7.2 0.037 0.078 22.3 26.7 


2012A C 


20128 C R 0.15 1.15 95.0 0.05 10.4 8.11 6212.41 5.31 0.0341 5.71 0.0201 0.0751 17.01 25.3 


2012C C 


2013 F R 0.02 0.08 9.1 0.01 0.5 0.71 472.61 0.31 0.0071 0.51 0.0021 0.0061 1.51 2.2 

AVG 0;23 0.56 95.8 0.10 13.1 10.8 5598.5 6.9 0.007 7.0 0.031 0.084 20.0 28.3 

R = rising, F = falling. 
anomalous trelds are evident. Very little metal chemistry data on suspended sediment are available 

for compariso~. Data on metal content of sediment extracts taken in lower Cook Inlet during the 

OCSEAP program (Burrell 1978) showed lower concentrations for cadmium, copper, nickel, zinc, and 

iron than thos~ found in this study. A comparison between station 69 from the OCSEAP study and 

station F from ithis study is given in Table 35. Station 69 was the northernmost sampling location for 

the OCSEAP study, and it is in the same area as this study's station F. Lower values for the OCSEAP 

samples are ndt surprising, because a weak acid leach was used for the metals extraction. It was less 

efficient than the total dissolution method used in this study. 

Table 35. 	coLarison of total metals in suspended solids for ENRI station F and OCSEAP 

staiion 69. 

69 <0.25 11.9 2.9 10.0 1240 62 

As expected, station 30 from the lower inlet showed a much lower concentration of iron than was 

found from thJ more northern stations. Station 30 did have somewhat higher concentrations of zinc, 

cadmium, and lead in the suspended particles when compared to other stations. This station is 

probably morel influenced by material coming in from the Gulf of Alaska than from upper Cook Inlet. 

Also, lower inlet stations have a much lower TSS value, and the mass dry weight available for metals 

analysis is so small that it makes the accuracy of the determinations less reliable than those from the 

upper inlet. 

GRAIN SIZE 

Results of this study's sediment grain-size analysis are reported as average percent weight 

gravel « -1l/}) sand (-0.5 to 4.0 l/}), silt (4.5 to 8l/}), and clay (9 to 10l/}) in Table 36. Of the 46 

sediment sam~les analyzed from 16 stations, most were composed primarily of sand (Figure 12). The 

preponderanc~ of sand is in agreement with past studies. Although not discernable in Figure 1 2, much 

of the sand component was fine sand. Two stations (Alt E and Alt 30) exhibited a large fraction of 

gravel. Alt E ik the farthest north of any of the stations sampled, and Alt 30 is the farthest south. It 

should be nottd sediment from Alt 30 contained a large amount of broken shell material that sieved 

out in the gravel fraction. Three stations (Alt E, 227, and E8) had samples with over 10% silt in the 

sediment. (Stbtions 227 and E8 both had samples with over 20% silt.) Station 227 is in Kachemak 

Bay, and statibn E8 is offshore from Ninilchik. 

CHN 

Total organic Icarbon (TOC) content of sediments from this study ranged from 0.05% to 4.09% 

(Tables 37 anCl 38). With the exception of the value of 4.09% observed at station Alt 30, the range 

was 0.05% t9 1.59%, which is almost identical to that described for Cook Inlet by Kaplan and 

Venkatesan (1985). This is characteristic of unpolluted marine sediments. The station with the 

highest carbon (Alt 30) was the most southerly station sampled in Cook Inlet. This might indicate a 

tendency for !organic matter to be transported in from the Gulf of Alaska to the south and to 

accumulate inl this area. The higher value may also be due to high primary productivity. Organic 

carbon contents are commonly higher in Kachemak Bay and Shelikof Strait than in the upper inlet 

(Kaplan and V~nkatesan 1985). However, it is most likely that this high sample (4.09%) is an outlier, 

as the high cohcentration was only found in one of three samples and probably represents a piece of 

vegetation (wbod or coal) in the sample. 

I 

(2128808313 62 
C 2005A 0.0 97.0 3.0 0.0 

20058 0.0 98.0 2.0 0.0 

2005C 0.0 98.0 2.0 0.0 

0.0 97.7 2.3 0.0 

AltA 2006A 3.0 92.0 2.0 2.0 

20068 0.1 93.0 6.0 0.3 

2006C 2.0 94.0 4.0 0.0 

1.7 93.0 4.0 0.8 

27 2007A 0.3 95.0 5.0 0.0 

20078 1.0 95.0 5.0 0.0 

2007C 0.3 94.0 5.0 0.0 

0.5 94.7 5.0 0.0 

F 2009A 0.0 99.0 1.0 0.0 

20098 0.0 97.0 2.0 0.3 

2009C 0.0 98.0 2.0 0.0 

0.0 98.0 1.7 0.1 

168 2010A 0.0 99.0 1.0 0.0 

20108 0.0 98.0 2.0 0.0 

2010C 0.0 97.5 2.0 0.1 

0.0 98.0 1.7 0.0 

E5 2012A 1.0 97.0 1.0 0.0 

20128 5.0 90.0 5.0 0.0 

2012C 2.0 83.0 5.0 10.0 

2.7 90.0 3.7 3.3 

233 2013A 0.0 99.0 0.5 0.0 

20138 0.0 99.0 1.0 0.0 

2013C 0.0 99.0 1.0 0.0 

0.0 99.0 1.0 0.0 

E6 2014A 7.0 83.0 7.0 3.0 

20148 2.0 88.0 7.0 2.0 

2014C 2.0 84.0 8.0 6.0 

3.0 85.0 7.3 3.7 

Alt 30 2015A 16.0 83.0 0.2 0.0 

20158 13.0 86.0 0.1 0.0 

2015C 45.0 56.0 0.1 0.0 

24.7 75.0 0.1 0.0 

(2)2880 83/3.~. 63 


• 
Its of grain-size analysis (continued). 

0.0 9.7 8.0 2.0 

E7 

E8 

2019A 

2019B 

2019C 

2020A 

2020B 

2020C 

2021A 

2021B 

2021C 

2.0 


8.0 


7.0 


5.7 


2.0 


0.3 


0.1 


0.2 


0.1 


0.2 


0.1 


0.1 


0.0 


0.0 


0.0 


0.0 


0.0 


1.0 


0.4 


0.4 


98.0 


92.0 


93.0 


94.3 


96.0 


79.0 


84.0 


86.3 


99.5 


99.0 


99.0 


99.0 


99.0 


98.0 


99.0 


98.7 


100.0 


99.0 


99.0 


99.3 


0.1 0.0 


0.0 0.0 


0.1 0.0 


0.1 0.0 


2.0 0.0 


21.0 0.0 


16.0 0.0 


13.0 0.0 


0.1 0.0 


0.1 0.0 


0.1 0.0 


0.1 0.0 


1.0 0.1 


2.0 0.1 


1.0 0.0 


1.3 0.1 


0.0 0.0 


1.0 0.0 


0.1 0.0 


0.4 0.0 


12126606313'" 64 '­
0) 

trI 

100 

80 

+'" 60 

c 

a> 

o 

La> 

c.. 40 

20 

o 

«, . v ~ rV ~ to<Q «,~ nt?>t?> «,to t?>t::) nrV ~ «,<0 ntO~ ~~ ~t?> ~ ~ ~·v ~·v ~v ~ ~ 

Gravel II Sand Silt Clay 

Figure 12. Grain-size composition by station in Cook Inlet. 
( 

Table 37. CrUise 1 CHN analysis. 

1013 Alt C 0.62 1.47 0.04 

1014 Alt A 0.44 1.88 0.03 

1019 27 0.12 0.58 <0.01 

1022 F 0.81 1.22 0.04 

1023 168 0.29 0.17 0.02 

1014 34.52 0.74 0.22 0.02 

1019 27 15.56 0.21 <0.05 <0.01 

1022 F 35.94 0.64 0.31 0.04 

1023 168 24.04 0.08 0.16 <0.01 

Note: 	 The es were first analyzed for CHN on an as-received sample basis. They were also 

ana after drying, and sample 1019 was ground. 

12128808313 66 
2005 43.79 0.61 0.37 0.03 

2006' 16.87 0.12 0.17 <0.01 

2007' 19.60 0.05 0.11 <0.01 

2009 

2010' 

2012' 

2013 

Alt 30 21.13 

227 54.20 

2017' New E-7 15.60 

2018' E-8 25.92 

2019' 265 15.88 

2020 22 30.33 

2021' Alt 23 16.91 

F 39.06 


168 36.47 


New E-5 24.90 


233 30.29 


New E-6 22.97 


, These sam were ground after loss on drying was determined and prior to all other analysis. 

12128808313 67 

Table 38. 2 CHN analysis on dried basis. 

0.58 0.31 0.02

0.17 0.29 <0.01

0.10 0.24 <0.01 

0.58 0.. 38 0.01 

0.19 0.23 <0.01 

4.09 0.24 0.02 

1.43 0.58 0.10 

1.59 0.14 0.01 

0.69 0.18 0.01 

0.08 0.10 <0.01 

0.37 0.24 0.02 

0.13 0.14 0.01 
Little nitrogen was detected in sediments from any of the stations (Table 38). The organic matter in 

these sedimenlts had moderate-to-high carbon to nitrogen ratios, which are indicative of either 

allo.chthonous !(terrestrial origin) or autochthonous (marine origin) matter. Generally, allochthonous 

organic matter has an expected carbon to nitrogen ratio of about 50: 1, while autochthonous material 

has an expected ratio of about 12:1. Station 227 near Homer in Kachemak Bay was the station with 

the highest nit~ogen concentration, but it had a moderate carbon to nitrogen ratio of 15: 1, which is 

indicative of ~arine origin. Primary productivity is higher in this part of the inlet, and the area is 

somewhat isolated in circulation and, thus, from deposition of particulate matter from strong incoming 

currents out of the Gulf of Alaska as well as outgoing waters laden with terrestrial sediment from 

Upper Cook Inlet. 

HYDROCARBdNS 

Hydrocarbon ahalyses performed on sediments as part of this study yielded concentrations of individual 

saturated (norJnal and isoprenoid alkanes) and aromatic hydrocarbons. Key source diagnostic ratios 

were calculatJd to provide information on probable sources of the hydrocarbons found in the 

sediments. K~ydefinitions and terms used in the hydrocarbon analyses are provided in Tables 26 and 

27 on page 55 and in Tables 39 and 40. 

Saturated HyJocarbons 

Table 41 presdnts the saturated hydrocarbon concentrations for all sediment replicates. Total alkanes 

(TALK), with dhain lengths from 12 through 33 carbon atoms, ranged from 62 ng/g to 5388 ng/g 

throughout th~ study area. The low molecular weight alkanes (LALK), with chain lengths from 12 

through 20 catbon atoms, ranged from < MOL (1.3 ng/g) to 674 ng/g. The sediment concentrations I 

of pristane and phytane were low, and both were detectable together in only eight locations. 

Saturated hyJocarbons were dominated by n-alkanes with a strong odd-even preference and low 

LALK/T ALK ratios (Table 41 ). The n-alkanes with chain lengths from 21 through 29 carbon atoms, 

especially 27 ~nd 29, dominated. This distribution is consistent with a prevalent biogenic input of 

~ydr?carbons I from te.rrigenous plant material, and it ~ost likely results fr.om ~ra~sp~rt of 

nvenne-suspe~ded particulate matter. A carbon preference Index (CPI) close to 1 IS an indication of 

petroleum, and higher values indicate biogenic input (Kinnetic Laboratories Incorporated 1993). The 

generally high FPI values and low LALK/TALK ratios are indicative of clean environments. Six stations 

showed low pristane to phytane ratios. The source of phytane is mainly petroleum, while pristane is 

derived from ~oth petroleum and biological matter. Low ratios could indicate some petroleum input 

in the area; ho~ever, this is speculative as the number and concentrations of isoprenoid alkanes were 

so low that it is impossible to make a clear diagnosis (10 of 39 samples at 9 ng/g to 120 ng/g). 

In general, thJ highest saturated hydrocarbons concentrations are associated with sediments taken 

from nearsho~e stations in the middle inlet. Station E-7, near Anchor Point, had the highest 

concentration of saturated hydrocarbons. Concentrations of hydrocarbons detected in sediments from 

this study are)1 similar to those found by Kaplan and Venkatesan (1985) in Cook Inlet (10 ng/g 

to 3666 ng/g) lower than those found by Boehm et al. (1987) in the Beaufort Sea (700 ng/g 

to 19,000 ng/O), and about the same as those found by Kinnetic Laboratories Incorporated (1993) in 

areas of Prinde William Sound unaffected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill (157 ng/g to 961 ng/g). 

Comparisons df saturated hydrocarbon concentrations for similar stations in Cook Inlet between this 

study and the bCSEAP study are given in Table 42. 1\10 anomalous trends are evident. The mean high 

CPI for stationl 233 is due to one particularly high sample (2013C), and this could be due to a piece 

of vegetation (rood or coal) being in that sample. All saturated hydrocarbon concentrations indicated 

terrigenous material. 

~~~ concentrlons for stat;on repl;cates are presented;n Table 43. Overall, mean PAH concentrat;ons 

were very 10J and followed trends similar to those of saturated hydrocarbons. The highest PAH 

concentration~ were found in sediments in the lower inlet and nearshore in the middle inlet. Total PAH 

(TPAH) concehtrations from the ten stations where detectable concentrations were found ranged 

from 2 ng/g td 958 ng/g (Table 43). This is similar to the concentrations found in the past in Cook 

(21288083/3 68 
quantitative parameters. 

hthalene series (CON + C1 N + C2N + C3N + C4N). 

Fluorene series (COF + C1 F + C2F + C3F). 

Phenanthrene/Anthracene series (COP/A + C1 PIA + C2P/A + C3P/A + 

C4P/A). 

D 

P 

Dibenzothiophene series (COD + C1 D + C2D + C3D). 


C 
 Chrysene series (COC + C1 C + C2C + C3C + C4C). 


TPAH 
 Sum of 2- to 6-ring polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. 


4-, 5-, and 6-ring polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; origin is usually 
 4,5,6-PA pyrogenic. 

ratios and diagnostic source parameters. 

AHD Alkyl Homologue Distribution; used to show the relative importance of 

pyrogenic and petrogenic PAH sources. Combustion sources are generally 

characterized by a greater relative abundance of parent compounds while 

petroleum contains greater relative quantities of the alky homologues. 

FFPI Fossil Fuel Pollution Index; ratio of fossil fuel-derived PAH to total PAH. 

(N + F+ P+ D)/TPAH x 100. FFPI is near 100 for petrogenic and near 0 for 

pyrogenic. 

PAH ratios P/D indicator of petrogenic input. 

NIP particularly diagnostic for inputs of fresh petroleum. 

C2D/C2P vs. C3D/C3P a double ratio which is useful in source determination 

of hydrocarbons. 

(2)288083/3" 69 
Talle 41. SUmmary of saturated IT1drocart:on concentrations for sedment repicates. 

2006 AltA <MOL 

2007 27 <MOL 

2009 F <MOL 

2009 F <MOL <MOl <MOL <MOl 37 <MOl <MOL <MOL <MOL < 

201M 166 <MOL <MDt <MOL <MOL <MOL <MDt <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MO < 

20100 166 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MDt 92 120 

2010C 166 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MDt 84 150 

2012A NewE5 50 71 96 110 150 160 

20126 NewE5 12 17 15 <MDt 7 120 

2012C NewE5 53.98 62.63 75.7 75 56.96 70.2 

201M 233 <MOL 13.55 14.95 23 <MOL 25.33 

20136 233 <MOL <MOt <MOL <MDt 110 110 

201~ 233 <MOL 14.22 17.74 19 <MOL 39.79 

2014A NewE6 <MOL <MDt <MOL <MDt <MOL 170 

20146 NewE6 <MOL <MDt <MOL <MDt 16.3 23.72 

-.,J 2014C NewE6 <MOL <MDt <MOL <MOL 84 1 

0 -"II· 201&\ Alt 30 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

20156 Alt 30 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 44 

201fC Alt 30 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MO 

2016/\ 227 39 <MDt 25 64 67 150 

201613 227 <MOL <MDt <MOL <MDt <MOL. 39 

201SC 227 <MOL <MDt <MOL <MOL <MOL 29.43 

2011A NewE7 <MOL <MDt <MOL <MDt . 44 45 

20176 NewE7 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MDt 74 94 

20170 NewE7 24.19 6.54 12.23 24 49.15 130 

201M NewE6 <MOL <MDt <MOL 16 6.25 23.62 

201Ba NewE6 <MOL <MDt <MOL <MDt <MOL 32 

201£ NewE6 <MOL <MOl <MOL 16 71 100 

2P19A.. Alt265 . <MOL <MDt <MOL <MDt 16.62 25.55 

20196 Alt265 <MOL <MDt <MOL 10 56 67 

2010C Alt265 <MOL <MDt <MOL <MDt <MOL 90 

202M Alt 22 <MOL <MOl <MOL <MDt 100 120 

20200 Alt 22 <MOL <MOl <MOL <MDt <MOL 130 

2020C Alt 22 <MOL <MDt <MOL 13 31 37 

2021A Alt 23 <MOL <MOl <MOL <MOL 6 6 

II 20216 Alt 23 <MOL <MDt . <MOL <MOL 15 21 

2021C Alt~ <MOL <MOl <MOL <MOL 6 <MDI . <MOL <MOL 

MOL .... 1.3 nglg 

s:lR =Insuffident compound detection to detennine ratio. 

32 


<MOL 


<MOL 


26 


65 


<MOL 

34 


<MOL 


<MOL 


<MOL 


<MOL 


<MOL 


<MOL 


<MOL 


48 


<MOL 


<MOL 


<MOL 


16 


21.95 

15.12 


<MOL 


29 


<MOL 


23 


<MOL 


31 


<MOL 


<MOL 


<MOL 


<MOL 


79 


21 


150 


33 


66.92 

20.99 

93 


<MOL 


26 


<MOL 


54 


17 


23 


<MDt 


120 


33 


27.76 

32 


70 


35.4 

20.76 


25 


80 


11.07 


54 


21 


62 


29 


23 


9 


16 


47 


12 


110 


<MOL. 


54 


9 . 


54 


<MOL 


15 


<MOL 


26 


<MOL 

<MOL 

<MOL 

93 


<MOL 

23.65 

<MOL 


41 


16.41 

12.61 

<MOL 

53 


<MOL 

32 


<MOL 


40 


<MOL 


11 


<MOL 


10 


125 


38 


150 


40 


39.94 

<MDt 

120 


<MOL 


34 


<MDt 


66 


56 


26 


<MDt 


100 


31 


<MOL 


26 


65 


21.01 

13.02 

<MOL 


130 


6.16 

65 


27 


100 


36 


25 


4 


13 


100 


<MOL 


120 


<MOL 


<MOL 


<MOL 


110 


<MOL 


<MOL 


<MOL 


62 


47 


<MOL 


<MOL 


74 


<MOL 


<MOL 


<MOL 


74 


<MOL 


<MOL 


<MOL 


110 


<MOL 


62 


<MOL 

65 


<MOL 

16 


<MOL 


<MOL 


130 


180 


160 


120 


69.64 

16.66 

1 

55 


32.53 


130 


50 


26.14 

49 


120 


97.74 

22.25 

52 


120 


36.69 


100 


110 


100 


140 


49 


6 


27 

. : .. J~. 

TatJe 41. Summary of saturated hydrocarbon concentrations for sedment repicates (continued). 

2003 Alt E 57 <MOL 36 490 180 <MOL <MO 140 1615 5.78 

2005 C n 120 38 260 26 <MOL <MO <MO 876 2.71 0.00 

2006 AltA 32 <OL 19 66 <MO <MOL <MO <MO 240 5.41 0.00 

2007 27. <MO <MOL <MOL 42 <MO <MOL <MO <MO 62 ffiR 0.00 

2009 F 123 25 <MOL <MO <MO <MOL <MO <MO 608 2.02 0.11 

2009 F 18.44 <MOL <MOL 110 20 <MOL <MO <MO 306 4.34 0.12 

201M 168 <MO <MOL <MOL 140 <MO <MOL <MO <MO 217 ffiR 0.00 

20108 168 120 24 50 200 <MD· <MOL <MO <MO 1534 2.06 0.43 

2010C 168 150 25 <MOL 100 <MO <MOL <MO <MO 817 1.46 0.19 

2012A NewE5 120 18 70 130 57 50 <MO <MO 2217 1.48 0.57 

20128 NewE5 120 21 70 70 70 70 70 70 1085 1.07 0.14 

2012C NewE5 83.74 <MOL <MO 220 <MO <MO <MO <MO 1057 1.78 0.58 

20131\ 233 27.83 <MOL <MO 230 <MO <MO <MO <MO 608 16.80 0.16 

20138 233 140 23 44 76 49 <MO <MO <:MO 1517 1.60 0.48 

2013C 233 310 <MOL <MO 1300 <MO <MO <MO <MO 2715 55.87 0.03 

2014A NewE6 180 23 <MO <MO <MO <MO <MO <MO 742 1.83 0.10 

20148 NewE6 21.81 <MOL 14.93 80.44 <MO 30.81 <MO <MO 284 2.22 0.12 

. : .< II 2014C NewE6 160 22 <MO <MO 47 <MO <MO <MO 1135 1.67 0.38, . r-. 

:V 2015A Alt 3) 100 23 64 84 68 <MO <MO <MO 793 1.51 0.29 

20158 Alt 3) 53 21 40 <MO <MO <MO <MO <MO 296 1.08 0.17 

2015C Alt 3) 36.98 <MOL <MOL 67.1 14.94 11.26 <MO <MO 284 3.84 0.00 

201M 227 170 18 95 580 100 74 <MO <MO 26n 2.51 0.24 

20168 227 41 30 67 160 110 <MOL <MO <MO 728 1.53 0.09 

2016C 227 49.57 <MOL 21.59 240 32.63 20.6 <MO <MO 702 5.71 0.07 

2017A NewE7 110 22 45 180 74 <MOL <MO <MO 1137 3.37 0.09 

20178 NewE7 110 20 46 200 76 50 <MO 170 1472 1.78 0.25 

2017C NewE7 280 160 200 1600 200 110 <MO 280 5388 4.99 0.06 

2018«\ NewE8 45.16 73.87 25.51 270 32.19 17.82 <MO <MO 952 3.51 . 0.12 

20188 NewE8 55 23 <MOL 61 <MOL <MOL <MO <MO 269 2.59 0.09 

2018C NewE8 • 140 21 58 220 84 58 <MO 190 1912 2.06 0.35 

2019A Alt265 43.09 <MOL 15.58 <MO <MOL <MOL <MO <MO 169 1.18 0.28 

20198 Alt265 96 20 48 <MO <MOL <MOL <MO <MO 800 1.26 0.38 

2019C Alt265 100 20 50 <MO <MOL <MOL <MO <MO 482 1.33 0.10 

202M Alt 22 88 20 39 78 51 <MOL <MO <MO 1288 1.64 0.47 _,.,_O~_ _ O_~" 

MOL .... 1.3 nglg 

ffiR =Insuffident compound detection to determine ratio. 
risons of mean saturated hydrocarbon concentrations for sediment in Cook Inlet. 

168 5179 460 5.9 168 8/93 856 2.1 

19 5179 220 4.9 E8 8/93 1044 2.8 

22 5179 10 NO 22 8/93 859 2.6 

23 5179 10 NO 23 8/93 186 2.4 

27 5179 10 1.2 27 8/93 62 NO 

30 5179 90 3.2 30 8/93 458 2.1 

212 4178 210 3.7 E6 8/93 720 2.0 

212 8178 360 4.6 E6 8/93 

227 11/77 1680 3.1 227 8/93 1369 3.5 

233 4178 480 3.9 233 8/93 1613 38.4 

245 4178 120 4.0 F 8/93 457 7.3 

265 4/78 540 1.1 265 8/93 484 1.4 

NO = In t compound detection to determine ratio. 

(3)288083/3 72 
Table 43. Summary of PAH concentrations for sediment replicates. 

2003 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2009 

2009 

2010A 

20106 

2010C 

2012A 

20126 

2012C 

2013A 

20136 

2013C 

2014A 

20146 

2014C 

2015A 

20156 

2015C 

2016A 

20166 

2016C 

2017A 

20176 

2017C 

2018A 

20186 

201BC 

2019A 

20196 

2019C 

NewE5 

NewE5 

NewE5 

233 

233 

233 

NewE6 

NewE6 

NewE6 

Alt30 

Alt30 

AltSO 

227 

227 

227 

NewE7 

NewE7 

NewE7 

NewE6 

.~MDll ~MDll ~MD~ ~MDll ~MDll <MOJ ~MDll ~MDiJ ~MDll ~MD~I C") 

" 

MOl.. ..... 0.9 nglg 
Table 43. Summary of PAH concenlrations for sediment replicates (continued), 

'< 

<. 

-...J 

.j:l. 

2003 AltE <MD 0.0 

2005 0 <MD 0.0 

2006 AltA <MD 

0.011 

1 2007 27 <MD 0.0 

~009 F <MD 0.0 

II 2009 F <MD 0.0 

201M 168 <MD 0.0 

20108 168 <MD 5.9 

20100 16~ <MD 0.0 

2012A NewE5 <MD 20.0 

20128 NewE5 <MD 10.9 

II 20120 NewE5 <MD 17.0 

2013A 233 <MD 5.0 

20138 233 <MD 7.3 

20130 233 <MD 5.2 

2014A NewE6 <MD 3.3 

20148 NewE6 <MD 0.0 

20140 NewE6 <MD 4.1 

2015A Alt30 34.0 957.9 

20158 Alt30 <MD 28.4 

20150 Alt30 <MD 0.0 

2016A 227 <MD 266.6 

20168 227 <MD 25.5 

20160 227 <MD 8.6 

2017A NewE7 <MD 0.0 

20178 NewE7 <MD 15.9 

20170 NewE7 <MD 49.0 

201M NewE6 <MD 4.1 

20188 NewE6 <MD 0.0 

20180 NewE6 <MD 5.6 

201M Alt265 <MD 0.0 

20198 Alt265 <MD 2.9 

20190 A1t265 <MD 0.0 

2020A A1t22 <MD 4.7 

20208 Alt22 <MD 0.0 

20200 Alt2~ <MD 0.0 

2021A Alt23 <MD 0.0 

20218 Alt23 <MD 0.0 

20210 Ait 0.0 

MOL '" 0.9 nglg 
Inlet (10 ng/gJlto 300 ng/g) (Kaplan and Venkatesan 1985) and to those found recently in Prince 

William Sound (7 nglg to 93 nglgl (Kinnetic Laboratories Incorporated 19931 and in Cook Inlet (10 nglg 

to 116 nglgl ( rYland et al. 19931. The major difference between data from the present study and that 

from earlier on s is that fewer compounds were detected in the present study. PAHs detected were 

found in very low concentrations that probably represent baseline conditions and background 

hydrocarbon inputs. 

concentration! of individual PAHs rarely exceeded 10 nglg, and values were often near 

MDL (0.9 ng/d,. The exception to this was at stations Alt 30 and 227, which were the most southerly 

locations sampled as well as the most biologically active. The dominance of the phenanthrene series 

in these samplbs indicates most PAHs detected were of petrogenic origin. 

One sample eabh from stations Alt 30 (2015A) and 227 (2016AI showed much higher PAH totals than 

any other sam~le. If these two samples were discarded, the overall mean TPAH concentrations would 

be lower than those shown in the previously mentioned studies. The within-station variance for station 

Alt 30 is, in fab, greater than the variance across Cook Inlet (Table 441. Sample 2015A is also from 

the station wi~h organic C levels that are tenfold higher than at other locations, therefore, increasing 

the likelihood 6f naturally occurring PAHs. Sample 2016A from station 227 had the second highest 

TPAH conceniration and the highest levels of naphthalene compounds (it was one of only three 

samples found to contain detectable naphthalene). The more volatile naphthalene compounds are 

indicative of rJlatively recent petroleum inputs, and this could be a sign of petroleum pollution in the 

vicinity of Ho~er. Since these levels occurred in only one of the three samples, much more extensive 

sampling woulCl be required to address this possibility. 

The appearanJe of perylene at stations 227 and E-7 may indicate a diagenetic PAH input in these 

sediments. ftJlthough found in crude oil at very low concentrations, perylene is also a naturally 

occurring PM-I that is formed by the chemical transformation of certain biological precursors in I 

sediments during early diagenesis (LaFlamme and Hites 1978). High concentrations of perylene seem 

to require a vety common and abundant precursor with low oxygen concentrations providing the right I 

condition for diagenetic formation. Station E-7 is also the station having the highest concentration of 

saturated hyd~ocarbons. 

Because of thJ limited number of compounds detected and the very low concentrations (approaching 

MDLsl, determination of diagnostic ratios is not warranted due to low precision of concentrations 

determined near the MDLs and the consequent potential for drastically biased ratios. Due to high 

variability bot~ within and between stations, many samples would be needed to provide statistically 

significant data and results. A study in Prince William Sound indicated at least six replicates would be 

needed per sdtion to determine index values (Kinnetic Laboratories Incorporated 1993). In this study, 

only three sarples (one each from stations Alt 30, 227, and E7) showed more than two PAH 

compounds. These are also the stations with the highest TOC. 

METALS I 

Table 45 pres~nts the metals concentrations for all sediment replicates. The analyses are as yet 

incomplete, and several more metals are expected to be run. When the results become available, they 

will be added ~s an appendix to this document. No geographic area contained significantly lower or 

higher metals boncentrations than other areas. Universally high levels of both aluminum and iron were 

found through1out the inlet. This would be expected, as past analyses describe 80% to 95% of 

suspended m~terial in Cook Inlet to be aluminosilicate minerals (Feely and Massoth 1982). The 

concentration of metals found in Cook Inlet are within the range found elsewhere in Alaska and 

throughout the world (Table 46). 

The mean con~entrations of metals throughout the inlet are all lower than the Effects Range Low (ER-L) 

values of Lon~ and Morgan (19901 (Table 471. ER-L values represent the lowest concentrations of 

contaminants that adversely affect some marine organisms. Four stations (Alt A, 27, Alt 30, and 227) 

had higher me~cury levels (ER-L 0.15), and one station (C) had higher zinc levels (ER-L 120) than the 

reported ER-LS. Alt 30 had the highest mercury levels with a mean of 0.21 pg/g; this is above the ER-L 

(2128808313 75 

J 
Table 44. Chemical and statistical results for sediment replicate samples. 

I 

2003 


2005 


2006 


2007 


2009 


2009 


2010A 


20108 


2010C 


2012A 


20128 


2012C 


2013A 


20138 


2013C 


2014A 


20148 


2014C 


2015A 


20158 


2015C 


2016A 


20168 


2016C 


2017A 


20178 


2017C 


2018A 


20188 


2018C 


2019A 


20198 


2019C 


2020A 


20208 


2020C 


2021 A 


20218 


i 


TOTAL 


C 


AltA 


27 


F 


F 


168 


168 


168 


NewE5 


NewE5 


I
lewE5
 233 


233 


• 233 


NewE6 


NewE6 


NewE6 


Alt30 


Alt30 


Alt30 


227 


227 


227 


ewE7 

ewE7 

ewE7 

E8 

ewE8 

ewE8 

Alt265 

Alt265 

Alt265 

Alt22 

Alt22 

Alt22 

Alt23 

Alt23 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

5.9 

0.0 

20.0 

6.7 

17.0 

5.0 

7.3 

5.2 

3.3 

0.0 

4.1 

956.0 

28.4 

0.0 

226.6 

25.5 

8.6 

0.0 

15.9 

49.0 

4.1 

0.0 

5.6 

0.0 

2.9 

0,0 

4.7 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1615 


876 


240 


62 


608 457 151 


306 


217 856 538 


1534 


817 


2217 1453 540 


1085 


1057 


608 1613 863 


1517 


2715 


742 720 348 


284 


1135 


793 458 237 


296 


284 


2677 1369 925 


728 


702 


1137 2666 1930 


1472 


5388 


952 1044 674 


269 


1912 


169 484 258 


800 


482 


1288 859 305 


605 


683 


99 186 


279 


2.0 

14.6 

5.8 

2.5 

328.1 

86.9 

21.6 

3.2 

1.0 

1.6 

0.0 

2.8 

5.7 

1.0 

1.8 

444.1 

99.0 

20.4 

2.4 

1.4 

2.2 

0.0 

Alt23 0.0 180 


1401.8 35.9 153.6 38830 996 975 


, 76 


74 
I 


Table 45. sulmary of total metals in sediments. 


2003 27000 < 16200 41.9 

2005A 63700 0.098 17.6 50600 163.0 

20058 27300 <MOL 10.8 37300 133.0 

2005C 26400 0.213 6.0 34700 103.0 

2006A 40600 0.036 2.0 16200 0.060 92.2 

20068 74300 <MOL 8.9 50500 0.206 162.0 

2006C 72500 ,0.081 2.7 40100 0.242 88.8 

2007A 26300 <MOL 4.0 25500 0.266 80.6 

20078 51600 0.058 5.3 22500 0.191 60.2 

2007C 64200 <MOL 2.8 34100 0.126 74.8 

2009A 0.026 19.3 55900 0.092 139.0 

20098 0.095 10.0 38200 0.110 114.0 

2009C <MOL 6.2 34600 0.078 104.0 

2010A 0.067 4.3 54300 0.113 110.0 

20108 <MOL 6.2 43800 0.116 87.8 

2010C <MOL 7.5 44500 0.194 115.0 

2012A 0.045 7.2 62300 0.110 82.7 

20128 0.040 7.3 46100 0.060 --89.3 

2012C 0.165 10.1 42500 0.105 95.8 

2013A <MOL 10.2 38300 0.111 129.0 

20138 <MOL 9.2 36500 0.118 97.1 

2013C 0.026 10.2 34700 0.148 107.0 

2014A 0.055 4.7 39200 0.107 82.1 

20148 0.631 8.8 42000 0.060 127.0 

2014C 0.133 7.7 46100 0.050 73.0 

2015A 40700 <MOL <MOL 23400 0.176 42.3 

20158 47000 <MOL 5.0 26400 0.266 51.8 

2015C 31900 <MOL 2.2 26400 0.186 40.7 

2016A 46100 <MOL 2.9 27700 0.338 74.3 

20168 68600 0.081 6.6 40200 0.066 110.0 

2016C 70000 0.037 6.5 40800 0.111 103.0 

2017A 49800 <MOL 7.8 25200 0.075 50.9 

20178 55400 <MOL 6.6 20200 0.050 43.5 

2017C 44500 0.063 11.9 20300 <MOL 54.0 

2018A 63000 0.048 6.4 26600 <MOL 58.3 

20188 63900 0.021 3.4 28600 0.073 77.9 

2018C 51900 0.094 4.3 24900 0.037 71.3 

2019A 66200 0.102 <MOL 27200 0.044 66.8 

20198 57200 0.010 3.1 24100 0.042 56.6 

2019C 67800 <MOL 1.8 22700 0.061 58.9 

2020A 60000 0.026 6.8 35400 0.111 80.0, 

20208 73300 <MOL 7.9 33400 0.074 86.8 

2020C 33800 0.029 7.2 63800 0.116 81.2 

2021A 57900 0.065 <MOL 25200 0.158 55.6 

20218 39000 0.051 5.2 26100 ' 0.088 66.8 

C O. 4.9 61.3 

AVG 51548 0.053 6.4 34661 0.111 85.7 


77 

Table 46. Me n total metal concentrations in marine sediments. 

As 

Ba 348 

Cd 0.14 <0.08 

Cr 49 45 

Cu 16 17 

Fe 20,000 

Pb 

Mn 260 203 

Hg 

Ni 23 

Ag 

V 80 70 

Zn 62 75 31 

1 Mean 

24 


,000 


15 


6.4 

34,661 

0.11 

86 


7.7 


460 


0.17 


72 


33 


41,000 


19 


770 


0.19 


52 


0,06 


105 


95 


(3128808313 78 

Table 47. and ER-M values for metals in sediments (Long and Morgan 1990), 

Sb 2.0 25.0 

As 33.0 85.0 

Cd 5.0 9.0 

Cr 80.0 145.0 

Cu 70.0 390.0 

Pb 35.0 110.0 

Hg 0.15 1.3 

Ni I 30.0 50.0 

Ag 1.0 2.2 

Zi 120.0 270.0 

(3)26606313 79 
of 0.15 but far below the Effects Range Medium (ER-M) of 1.3. It should be noted the average global 

marine sedimeht level reported for mercury by Bowen (1979) is 0.19 pg/g, which is also above the 

reported ER-L. The few higher values found were dispersed throughout the inlet; no patterns are 

discernable. 

HYDROGRAPHY 

Vertical profiles of all hydrographic data are presented in Appendix A. Cruise 1 data at depths of 10m 

showed water1temperatures of 11°C to 12°C north of the forelands and 9°C to 10°C south of the 

forelands (Figdre 13). In general, salinity increased north to south from a low of 17 in the upper inlet 

(station El, tol25 in the vicinity of the forelands, to 31 in the vicinity of Ninilchik (Figure 14). 

Transmissivity increased from 0% in the northern inlet to 10% at the forelands. It remained less 

than 20% south to the Clam Gulch area but increased to 70% or more in the Ninilchik area (Figure 15). 

Cruise 2 temp~rature data (Figure 16) at depths of 10m showed an increase in temperatures at all 

stations over ICruise 1 data. Temperature decreased from highs of 14°C to 15°C in the upper 

inlet, 13 ° C to 14°C at the forelands, 11 ° C to 12°C at Ninilchik, and 9°C at English Bay in the lower 

inlet. Salinity data (Figure 17) show some lower values in the region north of the forelands. Those 

for the region South of the forelands are in reasonable agreement with Cruise 1 data. Transmissivity 

data from Cruise 2 (Figure 18) are in reasonable agreement with Cruise 1 data. They increase from 0% 

near Tyonek in the north to 98% near English Bay in the south. 

BIOTA 

TISSUES I 

Hydrocarbons 1 

Species collected for tissue analysis represented the basic feeding type that filter seawater and 

potentially acduire anthropogenic chemical contaminants from the water column. Mussels and other 

aquatic organi!sms bioaccumulate pollutants from water, suspended particles, and food. Although 

mussels do ndt readily metabolize pollutants such as PAHs, they can depurate pollutants from their 

body tissues 6ver time in clean water. As a reSUlt, any accumulation from an acute (short-term) 

exposure may ~e eliminated with time, although repeated chronic exposure may introduce sources that 

build up as ne~ accumulation. 

Detectable bJ very low concentrations of PAH were found in four of the six mussel tissue samples 

(Table 48). These tissues contained few individual target PAHs at concentrations ranging from near 

MOL (3.8 ng/d) to 230 ng/g. These levels were equal to or lower than those found in caged mussels 

in Cook Inlet. (Hyland et al. 1993). Mussels with the detectable concentrations of naphthalene 

compounds dme from the western side of the inlet. However, concentrations were so low that this 

cannot be corlsidered a clear pattern depicting hydrocarbon loading in tissues from any point source 

of hydrocarboh input. 

The saturated IhYdrOCarbon characteristics of the tissues examined are presented in Tables 49 and 50. 

Unlike PAHs, mussels from the eastern side of the inlet showed higher concentrations and a more 

diverse array of hydrocarbons. The samples were generally dominated by higher molecular weight 

alkanes, Whict are indicative of sediment-associated hydrocarbons. 

~::::sconcenJrations found in mussel tissues from six locations in COOk Inlet are given in Table 51. 

Data are comdarable with those obtained in past studies from Cook Inlet, Gulf of Alaska, and Beaufort 

Sea (Burrell 1 ~b8, Boehm et al. 1987); no anomalous trends are evident. However, different bivalve 

species were ~sed in the two studies (Mytilus in Cook Inlet and Cyrtodaria and Astarte in the Beaufort 

Sea), and this h,akes comparisons less definitive. Mussel tissues from Chinitna Bay show a somewhat 

elevated concbntration of barium and iron. This might be due to these mussels being taken from the 

I 

(2)26606313 ! 80 

1 

30' 

30' 30' 

~ 

C 

C SKA l> OF 59° 

50 

100 IKilomet.>rs 

30' 30' 

~~====~~~~----~------~--~ 150· 

Figure 13. Cruise 1 temperature (CO) at 10 m depth. 

81 

30' 30' 

~ 

a 

a 

59° U AL of 59° 

Figure 14. 1 salinity (PSU) at 10m depth. 

82 

30' 30' 

~ 

C 

C 

l> OF 59° 

Figure 15. Cruise 1 transmissivity (%) at 10m depth. 

83 

Figure 16. ruise 2 temperature (CO) at 10m depth. 

84 

61° 

30' 

60° 

30' 30' 

~ 

a 

a 

L> of 59° 

50 100 

50 

30' 30' 

~=±====~~~~----~------~--~ 
30' 30' 

~ 

C 

C 

U 59· 

Figure 17. 2 salinity(PSU) at 10m depth.

85 

30' 

30' 30' 

~ 

C 

C 

l> Of 59° 

50 

50 100 IKllo,met!~rs 

30' 

~===:::d~ 

30' 

Figure 18. 2 transmissivity(%) at 10m depth. 

86 

Table 48. Summary of PAH concentrations and diagnostic ratios for tissues. 

2002 I Fossil 
 120 


Point 


2003 IChinitna 
 230 


Bay 


2004 
 Jakolof 16 


Bay 


2005 
 Kasitsna <MOL 

65 


<MOL 


<MOL 


<MOL 


48 


170 


5 


<MOL 


<MOL 


<MOL 


23 


<MOL 


<MOL 


<MOL 


42 


<MOL 


<MOL 0 

<MOL 0 

26 
 0 

<MOL 0 

2006 I Homer <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 0
 I I I I I I I 


MOL - 3.8 ng/g. 


NR = Insufficient compound detection to determine ratios. 


233 


400 


112 


0 


0 


NR 

NR 

0.23 

NR I ,...... 

OJ NR I 


(2)28808313 
Table 49. Summary of saturated hydrocarbon concentrations for mussel tissues. 

2002 Fossil Point <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL

2003 Chinitna Bay <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL

2004 I Jakolof Bay <MOL 18 20 41 130

Kasitsna 2005 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 310 78 130 <MOL 53 <MOL <MOL Bay 


2006 Homer <MOL <MOL <MOL 
 <MOL 340 64 230 170 90 160 <MOL I' I I I I I I I 

00 

00 

2002 Fossil Point <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

2003 Chinitna Bav <MOL <MOL 

2004 I Jakolof Bay 150 340 590 870 850 

2005 Kasitsna <MOL 320 650 950 1500 1300 1300 1400 1300 1400 1100 Bay 

2006 Homer 170 410 870 1600 2300 2100 2100 2100 1900 1900 1500 

II I I I I I I 

MOL - 5.4 ng/9. 

(3)288083(3 
Table 50. su~mary of saturated hydrocarbon parameters and diagnostic ratios for tissues. 

I 


2002 Fossil Point 

2003 Chinitna Bay 

2004 Jakolof Bay 

2005 Kasitsna Bay 

2006 Homer 

0 0 NR NR 

0 0 NR NR 

10378 412 0.04 0.90 


11791 518 0.04 0.92 


18004 634 0.04 0.93 


NR = I 
 ent compound detection to determine ratios. 

(2)288083/3,,," 89 

Table 51. Summary of metal concentrations for mussel tissues. 

2002 I Fossil Point I 456 I 0.02 I 0.54 I 29.1 I <MOL 4.98 19.3 11.4 298 48.7 

2003 I Chinitna Bay 2030 0.01 0.57 215.0 0.2 6.67 192.0 22.9 1440 68.6 255.0 0.11 

2004 I Jakolof Bay 101 0.06 0.59 3.0 <MOL 4.13 9.3 7.7 42 29.7 7.4 0.11 

2005 I Kasitsna Bay 78 0.03 0.50 26.5 <MOL 2.62 13.3 10.8 59 48.3 8.8 0.14 

2006 I Homer 254 <MOL 0.50 15.3 <MOL 1.76 14.6 11.4 182 70.4 28.8 0.09 

MOL I 22.8 I 0.0002 I 0.09 , 0.08 0.009 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.08 I 0.03 

I' , , , 

co 

0 

2001 
 Tuxedni Bay I 33.7 I 0.07 I 0.04 I <MOL I 57.4 


2002 
 Fossil Point 35.2 0.01 0.02 I <MOL I 85.3 


2003 
 Chinitna Bay 133.0 0.32 0.09 I <MOL I 148.0 


2004 
 Jakolof Bay 33.7 0.05 <MOL I <MOL I 98.4 


2005 
 Kasitsna Bay 6.8 0.04 0.01 I <MOL I 138.0 


2006 
 Homer I 11.8 I 0.05 I 0.02 I < MOL I 171.0 

MOL I 0.3 I 0.01 I 0.003 I 0.2 I 11.9 

(2)288083/3.'4:' 
most exposed station on the west side of Cook Inlet, where they would filter more water containing 

suspended Concentrations of heavy metals cadmium, copper, and zinc were determined 

in mussel at Kasitsna and Kachemak bays in 1977 (Burrell 1978). They are almost identical 

to those in this study (Table 52). Concentrations of barium, cadmium, copper, and zinc found 

from the Beaufort Sea (Boehm et a!. 1987) and those from this study are also very 

2). 

Table 52. n of mean concentrations of trace metals in bivalve tissues from Cook Inlet. 

Cd 2.6 1.8 7.3 

Cu 4.0 10.8 11.4 18.7 

NORM I 

Concentration~ of NORM were extremely low in all shell samples analyzed. Radium-226, radium-228, 

and bismuth-214 were not detectable; and lead-214 was found at extremely low concentrations 

(Table 53). . nder the assumption that the daughters were in equilibrium, data for radium-226, 

lead-214, I bismuth-214 in Table 53 a" measure the concentration of radium-226. 

ve activity of mussel shell samples. 

Zn 113.0 68.0 138.0 171.0 71.1

2-002 Fossil Point 36 0.15 ± 0.10 <0.47 <1.6 <0.36 

2-003 Chinitna Bay 30 0.147 ± 0.108 <2.3 <4.2 <1.8 

<0.14 

2-005B Kasitsna Bay 103 0.0369 ± 0.027 <0.51 <0.46 <0.34 

2-006 Homer 70 0.070 ± 0.052 < 1.1 <1.0 <0.85 

Jakolof Bay 104 0.067 ± 0.048 <0.12 <0.49 

Detection ts were calculated as if the isotope was present at a level 2.5 times the square root 

of twice average backgrounds. 

12128808313 91 

I 
BIOASSAYS 

MICROTOX· I 

The Microtox~ bioassay using lysed luminescent bacteria cells has gained widespread validation and 

usage in a variety of applications. Primary advantages of this toxicity bioassay are its speed, 

simplicity, andi relatively low cost. The bioassay's strongest attribute lies in its usefulness as a primary 

screening testland its monitoring capability over time; however, it should be viewed as only one step 

in a number o~ assays to assess overall toxicity levels. For the solid-phase Microtox® bioassay, EC50 

values below % can be considered to indicate possibly contaminated sediment in Cook Inlet. As 

shown on Table 54, there is a clear delineation between stations that indicate possible toxicity «2%) 

and those that indicate no toxicity. 

I 

Results from Cook Inlet sediment showed six stations with no toxicity and five stations with possible 

toxicity using the 2% EC50 level. With the exception of station 227 in Kachemak Bay, all stations that 

exhibit possible sediment toxicity through the Microtox® bioassay are located on the western side of 

the middle inl~t. Station 227 showed the lowest EC50 and, on this basis, is the station most likely 

to have toxic ~ediments. There appears to be a possible relationship between Microtox® toxicity and 

sediments that are composed primarily of fine sands. All stations with possible Microtox® toxicity were 

composed of nearly 100% grain sizes approximating 4 f/>. A substantial variation exists for EC50 

values above 12% that does not relate directly to the level of cleanliness. EC50 values should be 

compared to a known clean station with similar sediments in the same general study area to verify the 

toxicity resultt In general, Microtox® bioassays indicated none of the sampled Cook Inlet sediments 

exhibited hi9hl toxicity. 

TOXIC BIOASfAYS 

Solid-Phase Static Amphipod Sublethal Bioassay 

The R. abroni&s test results (Table 55) were statistically analyzed using both the Dunnett's test (which I 

compares each sediment treatment to the R. abronius controll and Tukey-Kramer Honestly Significant 

Difference te~t (which compares all the sediment treatments to each other). Of the 12 stations 

assayed usind both tests, only 2 (Alt C and 227) had statistically significant lower survivals than the 

controls. Survival rates that differ by more than 20% from controls are often considered to be of 

concern. Amphipod survival in sediment from station 227 in Kachemak Bay was 21 % lower than that 

observed frorlt the control. Sediments from this station could be considered toxic based on this I 

difference. The R. abronius is known to be sensitive to a high proportion of fine-grained sediments, 

which could confound the interpretation of results (Carr and Chapman 1992). It should be noted the 

control had a Ivery high survival rate (99%), and the survival rate in the sample (78%) was relatively 

high. This rate was as high or higher than any of those obtained with sediments from seven stations 

in Port Valdez/ that ranged from 49% to 78% (Karle et al. 1994) and five stations in lower Cook Inlet 

that ranged frm 61 % to 73% mean survival (Hyland et al. 1993). 

liquid-Phase Sperm-Cell Sublethal Bioassay 

Sperm-cell to~,dcity test results are presented as adjusted and unadjusted values for both pore water 

and receiving [water in Tables 56 and 57. Percent fertilization was adjusted for the control responses 

using Abbottjs formula as stated in Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and 

Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms (EPA 1991 a). These results were statistically 

analyzed usinb the very sensitive two-tailed t-test with an arc sine-square root transformation of the 

data (Tables 58 and 59). 

I 

Sediment pore water from four stations showed statistical differences for percent fertilization when 

compared to ,the control. Pore-water toxicity tests are considered more sensitive than the whole 

sediment amphipod test (Carr and Chapman 1992). One of these samples (233) actually showed 

higher fertiliz~tion rates than the control, while the other three (F, 16B, and Alt 22) were lower. 

Station Alt 221, near Kalgin Island, had the lowest fertilization rate of only 18%. Station F had a 38.4% 

fertilization ra~e, and 16B had a 47.2% fertilization rate. Both are located in the middle inlet. These 

three stations could be considered to have pore waters that exhibit toxicity. 

12)288083/3 92 
Table 54. Mil"rn.tn,('IlI summary data. 

2001/ I 

1.02 

227 0.90 Possible toxicity 

0.66 0.86 

2002/ No toxicity 

Alt-E 59.6 No toxicity 

No toxi 

1.78 

Alt-A 5.46 No toxicity 

7.65 4.96 

No toxicity 

27 No toxicity No toxicity 

No 

1.61 

F 1.55 Possible toxicity 

1.65 1.60 

1.12 

16B 1.61 Possible toxicity 

1.02 1.25 

1.49 

233 2.43 Possible toxicity 

1.80 1.91 

No toxicity 

New E-7 No toxicity No toxicity 

No toxic 

No toxicity 

New E-8 No toxicity No toxicity 

No toxic 

2011/ No toxicity 

Alt 265 No toxicity No toxicity 

79.6 

2012/ 0.92 

Alt 22 2.20 Possible toxicity 

0.83 1.32 

Note: The higher the EC50 value the less toxic. Anything less than 2 % is a possible 

concerin for toxicity. 

(2128808313 93 

Table 55. of 10-day solid-phase static test with R. abronius. 

2-002 Alt E 1.00 1.00 NS NS 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

2-004 Alt C 0.90 0.82 S S 

0.80 

0.90 

0.75 

0.75 

2-005 Alt A 0.90 0.96 NS NS 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

0.90 

2-006 27 1.00 0.99 NS NS 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

0.95 

2-007 F 0.95 0.92 S NS 

0.90 

0.90 

0.90 

0.95 

2-008 168 1.00 0.99 NS NS 

0.95 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

2-009 233 0.90 0.94 NS NS 

0.95 

0.90 

0.95 

1.00 

2-010 227 0.90 0.78 S S 

0.70 

0.85 

0.70 

0.75 

(2)288083/3.;W 94 
Table 55. Imrn::u·v of 10-day solid-phase static test with R. abronius (continued). 

2-011 New E7 0.95 0.97 NS I\JS

1.00 

1.00 

0.90 

1.00 

2-012 New E8 1.00 1.00 NS NS

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

2-013 Alt 265 1.00 0.99 NS NS

1.00 

0.95 

1.00 

1.00 

2-014 Alt 22 0.85 0.91 S NS

0.85 

1.00 

0.90 

0.95 

R. Control 0.95 0.99 NA NA 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

I 

Statisticall : significant when compared to the R. abronius control sediment using the Dunnett's 

Test at a 

2 Statistica I 0,05; h 'II d' h h ' h 

slgnl Icant w en comparing a se Iment treatments to eac ot er usmg t e 

Tukey-Kra r Honestly Significant Difference Test at a = 0.05. 

NA = Not a 

NS = Not cally significantly different. 

S = Statistica~IY significantly different. 

(2)288083/3'; 95 
Table 56. Summary of pore-water sperm-cell test with D. excentricus (includes unadjusted and 

Abbott's adjusted data). 

2-010 
 227 
 NO 98.8 2.5 NO

100 
 70 


100 
 67 


100 
 66 


95 
 62 


2-0112 E7 NA NA NA NA 

100 


100 


100 


92 


100 


2-002 
 Alt E 

2-004 
 Alt C 94 


93 


96 


100 


100 


AltA 99 


NO 


100 


100 


100 


2-005 


2-006 
 27


2-007 
 F 

2-008 
 16B

2-009 
 233


100 


100 


100 


100 


99 


52 


55 


30 


31 


39 


58 


50 


46 


49 


52 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


98.4 3.6

96.6 3.3

99.8 0.5

99.8 0.4

41.4 11.6 

51.0 4.5 

100.0 0.0 

96 


96 


94 


85 


95 


87 


86 


89 


93 


97 


92 


NO 


96 


94 


97 


96 


93 


97 


96 


92 


48 


51 


28 


29 


36 


54 


46 


43 


45 


48 


70 


72 


76 


78 


81 


93.2 

90.4 

94.8 

94.8 

38.4 

47.2 

75.4 

66.3 

NA 

4.7 

4.6 

2.2 

2.2 

10.6 

4.2 

4.4 

3.3 

NA 

12l28808SISt' 96 

1 

2 

I 

I 

Table 56. 	 sulmary of pore-water sperm-cell test with D. excentricus (includes unadjusted and 

Ab~ott's adjusted data) (continued). 

NA NA NA 

2-0132 NA NA NA NA NA 

2-014 Atl22 32 27.6 6.2 21 18.0 4.1 

35 23 

23 15 

28 18 

20 13 

NA NA NA 92 92.6 6.2 

82 

96 

97 

96 

NA NA NA 60 65.2 5.8 

58 

70 

68 

70 

Brine 99 98.7 1.5 92 92.0 2.0 

97 90 

100 94 

Values co d for control response using Abbott's formula (EPA 1991 a). 

No pore water was generated because the sediment treatments were very coarse grained. 

NA = Not apJlicable. 

ND = No datJ. 

I 

I 

121288083/3,--' 97 
Table 57. 

2-004 

2-005 

2-006 

2-007 

2-008 

2-009 

2-010 

Im"'l","" of receiving. water sperm-cell test with D. excentricus (includes unadjusted 

Abbott's adjusted data). 

94.6 

E 76 79.0 4.7 53 55.4 3.2 

74 52 

81 57 

86 60 

78 55 

B 83 78.4 6.0 58 55.0 4.2 

73 51 

84 59 

71 50 

81 57 

A 98 94.0 3.9 94 90.0 3.9 

95 91 

97 93 

89 85 

91 87 

C 93 94.2 3.3 89 90.2 3.3 

96 92 

96 92 

97 93 

89 85 

F 96 96.2 2.5 92 92.2 2.5 

98 94 

97 93 

98 94 

92 88 

I 

211 100 99.0 2.2 92 88.8 4.7 

100 94 

100 89 

95 82 

100 87 

30 73 92.6 11.8 58 79.6 15.1 

90 71 

100 88 

100 96 

100 85 

(2)28808313.'t. 98 
i 

i 

I 

Table 57. Su I mary of receiving water sperm-cell test with D. excentricus (includes unadjusted and 

A I S adjusted data) (continued). 

NA NA NA 93 95.8 1.9 

96 

98 

97 

95 

3 NA NA NA 78 86.2 4.9 

91 

88 

86 

88 

NA NA NA 76 79.0 3.5 

75 

83 

82 

79 

Brine 91 88.6 2.1 64 62.2 1.5 

88 62 

90 63 

86 60 

88 62 

Brine 2 92 93.3 2.0 88 89.4 1.9 

94 90 

96 92 

91 87 

94 90 

1 Values corr~cted for control response using Abbott's formula (EPA 1991 a). 

NA = Not apJlicable. 

121288083/3.':' 99 

• 
Table 58. T determinations for the pore-water sperm-cell test with D. excentricus. 

2-002 

2-004 

2-005 

2-006 

2-007 

2-008 

2-009 

2-010 

2-014 

1 a = 0.05 fo

d.f. = deg 

Table 59. T 

2-002 

2-004 

2-005 

2-006 

2-007 

2-008 

2-009 

2-010 

Alt E 

Alt C 

Alt A 

27 

F 

16B 

233 

227 

Alt 22 

2.306 

2.306 

2.365 

2.306 

2.306 

2.306 

2.306 

2.365 

2.306 

8 -0.0932 

8 0.7453 

7 -0.5580 

8 -0.6437 

8 9.3460 

8 10.6624 

8 -3.1594 

7 -0.3066 

8 13.9333 

No 


No 


No 


No 


Yes 


Yes 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


two sample t-test comparison. 

of freedom. 

st determinations for the receiving water sperm-cell test with D. excentricus. , 

I 

3 

E 

B 

A 

C 

F 

211 

30 

I 

2.306 

2.306 

2.306 

2.306 

2.306 

2.306 

2.306 

2.306 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

1.3444 

5.2292 

4.9714 

3.2016 

3.5413 

2.6917 

-0.9092 

-0.3310 

No 


Yes 


Yes 


Yes 


Yes 


Yes 


No 


No 


! 

1 a = 0.05 fo I 

I d.f. = deg 

. two samp e t-test comparison. 

of freedom. 

(21288083/3.' 100 
Five stations slhowed statistically significant reduction of fertilization rates for receiving water samples. 

However, three of these (A, C, and F) had mean percent fertilization values over 90% but had a control 

of 96%. This is a difference of less than 6% and should not be considered an indication water 

samples were toxic. Stations E and B exhibited fertilization rates of 55%. This is 15% lower than 

their control a~d could be considered an indication the water exhibits toxicity. Stations E and B were 

the two most horthern stations in the inlet, and they had extremely high suspended particulate loads 

that may condibute to toxicity. 

Water-Phase Urchin Larvae Development Bioassays 

The urchin larvae test results are presented as mean percent survival and mean percent normal larval 

development iljl Table 60. These results were statistically analyzed using the two-tailed Hest with an 

arc sine-squar~ root transformation of the data (Tables 61 and 62). Percent survival and percent 

normal develobment for larvae in receiving water from the eight stations were high. With the 

exception of survival at station 211 (Table 61), there were no statistically significant differences 

between sam~le and control survivals or normal development numbers. Although there was a 

statistically si~nificant difference in survival between the sample and controls, larvae exposed to water 

from station 2~ 1 had a survival rate of 87%, which is only 9% below the control. 

DC RESULTS 

STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIALS 

JEAL participa~ed in the 1994 NIST Intercomparison Exercise Program during this study. 

MDL 

MOL calculated from heptadecane and naphthalene signal-to-noise ratios are shown in Table 63. MOLs 

are given for aVerage sample volume and weight of 30 g dry weight for sediment and 7 g wet weight 

for tissue samples for comparison with survey data. MOLs determined for the above sample sizes for 

alkanes are 0.28 JIg/kg to 1.30 JIg/kg for sediment and 1.20 JIg/kg to 5.40 JIg/kg for tissues. MOLs 

for PAHs are Q.16 JIg/kg to 0.89 JIg/kg for sediment and 0.68 JIg/kg to 3.80 JIg/kg for tissues. 

METHOD BLANKS 

Method blanks analyzed by GC/MS revealed total alkane concentration ranging from < MOL 

to 200 JIg/kg f6r sediments and < MOL to 2100 JIg/kg for tissues (Table 64). Method blanks for PAHs 

ranged from J MOL to 0.34 JIg/kg for sediments and < MOL to 65 JIg/kg for tissues (Table 65). 

TRIP BLANKS 

Trip blanks are water samples (ultrapure distilled water) that accompany each shipping container from 

the field. lhey are processed with authentic samples to allow evaluation of the effects of collection, 

handling, and Ishipment on sample contamination. Presence of target analytes in the blanks is an 

indication of contamination in the field, during shipment, or in the laboratory. Three trip blanks for 

seawater sam~les were produced during the Cruise 2 field survey. These blanks were collected at the 

end of the c~uise and were handled in the same manner as water samples. Concentrations 

were < MOL in all three blank samples. 

I 

SURROGATE COMPOUNDS 

Surrogate compounds were spiked into each water, sediment, and tissue sample (including DC 

samples) prior to processing in order to monitor the efficacy and accuracy of the analytical methods. 

Acenaphthalene-d8, chrysene-d12, and perylene-d12 were the PAH surrogate compounds used for the 

GC/MS analysi~. N-dodecane-d26, n-Eicosane-d42, and n-Triacontane-d62 were the alkanes surrogate 

compounds u~ed. Surrogate recoveries for the three PAH analogues were in the range of 15.7% 

to 85.2% for all seawater samples, 45.3% to 81.6% for sediment samples, and 9.5% to 66.4% for 

(2)2880B3/3 101 
Table 60.. mary of receiving water larval test with D. excentricus. 

2-0.0.2 

2-0.0.4 

2-0.0.5 

2-0.0.6 

2-0.0.7 

2-0.0.8 

2-0.0.9 

2-0.10. 

1.0.0. 


0..83 


0..84 


0..89 


0..72 


3 

E 0..84 


0..94 


0..91 


0..97 


0..84 


B 0..93 


1.0.0. 


0..78 


1.0.0. 


0..82 


A 0..87 


0..89 


0..91 


1.0.0. 

0..80. 

C 0..91


1.0.0. 


0..97 


0..96 


0..94 


F 0..89 


1.0.0. 

1.0.0. 


0..96 


1.0.0. 

211 
 1.0.0. 


0..91 


0..82 


0..73 


0..88 


30. 1.0.0. 


0..88 


1.0.0. 


0..99 


1.0.0. 

0..97 
 82 


0..78 


0..79 


0..86 


0..68 


86 

0..73 
 79 


0..81 


0..81 


0..86 


0..75 


90. 

79 


0..87 


0..66 


0..90. 


0..70. 


91 
 0..82


89 
 0..83 
 85 


0..84 


0..87 


0..97 


0..75 


96 
 0..89
 92 


1.0.0. 


0..89 


0..90. 


0..91 


97 
 0..86 
 95 


1.0.0. 


0..98 


0..91 


0..99 


87 
 0..98 
 85 


0..91 


0..79 


0..71 


0..88 


97 
 0..95 
 92 


0..80. 


1.0.0. 


0..90. 


0..97 


1212BBOB3/3·e 10.2
Table 60. Su mary of receiving water larval test with D. excentricus (continued). 

1.00 

0.91 

0.85 

0.97 

0.93 

1.00 99 1.00 98

1.00 1.00

0.96 0.92

1.00 1.00 

1.00 1.00

3 0.93 96 0.90 93 

0.98 0.95

0.95 0.91

0.93 0.91 

0.99 0.96

4 0.93 96 0.89 94

0.87 0.84 

1.00 1.00 

1.00 0.98 

1.00 1.00 

: Control 1 1.00 94 0.96 89

1.00 0.91 

0.74 0.69 

1.00 0.99 

0.94 0.88 

Brine Control 2 1.00 98 0.98 97 

0.90 0.88 

1.00 1.00 

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 

121288083/3,) 103 
Table 61. determinations of percent survival for the 48-h receiving water larval test with 

E 2.306 8 -0.6446 No 

8 2.306 8 0.9793 No 

A 2.306 8 -0.7787 No 

2-007 C 2.306 8 -1.8828 No 

2-008 F 2.306 8 -0.4028 No 

2-0091 211 2.306 8 4.0200 Yes 

2-010 30 2.306 8 -0.4070 No 

. two sample t-test comparison. 

d.f. = of freedom.

Table 62. determinations of percent normal for the 48-h receiving water larval test with 

E 

8 

A 

C 

F 

211 

30 

2.306 

2.306 

2.306 

2.306 

2.306 

2.306 

2.306 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

2.0767 

1.5893 

-1.2833 

-1.7890 

-2.0334 

1.2626 

-0.4717 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

, a = 0.05 two sample t-test comparison. 

d.f. = degrees of freedom. 

12128808313~ 104 
Table 63. organic compound MOL report summary. 

0.0021 jlg/L 0.0095j1g/L 4L 

0.28 jlg/kg 1.30 jlg/kg 30 g 

0.0012 jlg/L 0.0067 jlg/L 4L 

0.16 jlg/kg 0.89 jlg/kg 30 g 

0.68 jlg/kg 3.80 jlg/kg 7g 

Detection Limit 

ihr'ltirln Curves used to process data: 

Curve 2 

(Set #1) Tissues 

Waters Sediments (Set #21 

Sediments (Set #31 

131288083/3.,[~ 105 
Table 64. 

n-Octane 

n-Nonane 

n-Oecane 

n-Undecane 

n-Oodecane 

n-Tridecane i 

n-He 

Pristane 

n-H 

n-Tetracosa , e 

n-Pentacosa I 

,e 

ne 

C8 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

C9 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL

C10 <MOL < IVIOL < IVIOL < IVIOL 

C11 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL

C12 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

C13 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL

C14 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL

C15 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

C16 <MOL <MOL 8.1 29


C17 <MOL 22 21 130


<MOL 12 5.4 90 


C18 <MOL 19 33 170 


<MOL 17 <MOL 220


C19 <MOL 20 66 300 


C20 <MOL 11 36 330 


C21 <MOL 14 94 630 


C22 <MOL 12 120 970 


C23 <MOL 9.6 100 1600 


C24 <MOL <MOL 18 2100 


C25 <MOL <MOL 59 1400 


C26 <MOL 32 44 800 


C27 <MOL 55 50 920 


n-O C28 <MOL 49 15 <MOL 


C29 <MOL 66 17 <MOL 


C30 <MOL 53 <MOL <MOL 

C32 <MOL 200 <MOL <MOL 

C33 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

C34 <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

C36 <MOL <MOL <MDL <MOL 

13)288083/3 106 

blanks for PAH. 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

< MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL 0.34 <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL < MOL < MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MDL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

e <MOL <MOL <MOL 31 

<MOL <MOL <MOL 65 

<MOL <MOL <MOL 56 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

<MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

Oibenz(a,h) cene <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

Benzo(Q,h,i) I

: erylene <MOL <MOL <MOL <MOL 

(3)288083/3 107 
tissue sample~ (Tables 66-681. Surrogate recoveries for the three alkane analogues were in the range I of 18.6% to 1102.6% for water samples, 32.8% to 101.3% for sediment samples, and 16.8% 

to 85.7% for Itissue samples (Tables 66-68). A few samples, especially those for tissues, were 

somewhat 10J « 20%)' but overall surrogate recovery was acceptable. 

(2)255053/3 108
Table 66. Surrogate recoveries from seawater samples. 

18.6 31.7 

2002 30 R 59.7 71.1 66.5 83.2 58.7 82.2 

2003 3 R 52.9 69.5 63.9 66.6 58.4 78.6 

2004 3 R 55.0 69.7 65.8 75.8 57.1 78.0 

3 R 55.4 70.5 64.9 78.9 60.5 82.8 

3 F 56.8 75.5 62.1 86.3 62.8 86.2 

3 F 48.6 67.9 63.9 72.7 60.4 84.6 

I 3 F 61.9 70.1 63.9 84.4 59.5 85.6 

E R_ 47.7 62.8 57.6 45.5 50.5 75.9 

E F 56.3 76.7 72.8 83.8 65.7 I 103.2 

2009 B F 68.1 79.1 73.5 102.6 70.1 97.3 

2010 B R 35.0 67.3 61.6 21.8 56.5 81.2 

2011 A R 54.8 77.2 68.9 89.2 61.6 89.6 

2012 C F 67.8 72.5 65.9 87.5 60.8 81.1 

2013 A F 67.8 70.4 63.0 81.5 60.5 I 82.1 

F 69.1 82.8 75,4 

2017 211 64.9 85.2 79.7 I 82.1 I 71.9 I 96.8 I' I I I I I 

1 R = rising, F falling. 

12128808S/S,,~1 

C') 

0 

.... 
-~---- -

Table 67. Surrogate recoveries from sediment samples. 

.... 

.... 

0 

. , 

, 

\ 

~ 

.i/i;t '!'~~~hiijij~~i!~h~;£ Im6 ....... p1hilj'?in~ IQ~g~s9~. .)-'h~~¢§~t~tj~ 

2003 Alt E 63.0 73.6 76.0 90.0 61.0 79.4 

2005 C 51.3 68.4 63.8 76.8 41.7 91.8 

2006 Alt A 63.7 77.9 74.2 98.6 35.9 94.7 

2007 27 66.2 81.6 77.3 86.1 65.9 106.5 

2009 F 61.7 78.1 78.3 75.7 63.7 89.5 

2010 168 62.9 78.7 80.9 87.7 68.6 96.8 

2012 New E5 57.7 75.5 58.8 90.9 39.9 81.0 

2013A 233 61.1 78.2 64.9 98.0 66.0 97.4 

2013C 233 60.4 71.8 61.8 84.6 55.6 81.9 

2014 New E6 60.9 81.5 80.2 78.1 64.8 93.5 

2015 Alt 30 63.8 80.6 79.9 80.8 32.8 94.3 

2016 227 45.3 61.6 53.4 67.6 42.5 70.9 

2017 New E7 68.4 72.3 65.9 92.6 65.4 77.7 

2018 New E8 66.0 78.0 73.4 86.4 64.1 87.4 

2019 Alt 265 64.4 74.0 70.9 86.9 44.2 81.8 

2020 Alt 22 69.3 81.3 68.7 101.3 45.8 93.0 

2021A Alt 23 66.7 79.4 70.4 96.1 67.3 88.5 

20218 Alt 23 65.5 77.6 68.4 85.6 . 44.9 88.2 

2021C Alt 23 60.6 70.6 62.9 89.4 59.6 83.5 

(2)2BBOB3/3,;r" 

-
Table 68. Surrogate recoveries from tissue samples. 

2001 I Tuxedni Bay 32.7 

2002 Fossil Point. 61.3 I 44.0 I 45.8 I 46.3 I 50.0 I 85.7 

2003 Chinitna Bay 66.4 I 44.8 I 46.6 I 47.4 I 50.3 I 82.7 

2004 Jakolof Bay 16.9 I 9.5 I 9.6 I 17.6 I 16.8 I 31.0 

2005 Kasitsna Bay 22.9 I 12.5 I 13.2 I 28.2 I 25.0 I 45.4 

2006 Homer 32.0 I 14.8 I 14.7 I 41.1 I 35.5 64.3 I, 

.... 

.... 

(21266063/3.' ,; 

DISCUSSION 5 

I 

Table 69 sum~1arizes the chemical, physical, and bioassay results of the 1993 ENRI Cook Inlet water 

quality study. Examination of these data shows the inlet has very low concentrations of hydrocarbons 

and that sediments and water are generally nontoxic. The few samples that did show some evidence 

of possible tOficity had low hydrocarbon concentrations; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the 

measured toxicities are related to factors other than hydrocarbon contamination. 

Table 70 sumLarizes the results of the chemical and physical analyses for sediments by station. At 

most stations, three replicate grabs were taken for sediment. A fair amount of variance occurred in I hydrocarbon c1oncentrations for the replicates at a few stations, especially at stationAlt 30 for PAH. 

One sample from this station (2015A) had a much higher concentration of PAH than the others, but 

this is not related to grain size since percentages of silts and clays in the replicate samples are similar. 

Station 227 al~o had a high variance in PAH, and sample 2016A was both relatively high in PAH and 

in silt and cla~ components. A good deal of variation in saturated hydrocarbon concentration was 

found betwee~ stations, but this is not surprising given the low concentrations encountered. Most of 

the grain-size aistribution was uniform except at stations Alt 30 and 227 in the lower inlet. 

TOC and sedilent grain size were collected as paired concomitant replicates with the sediment PAH 

and saturated I hydrocarbon samples. These data were collected as possible parameters to aid in 

accounting for some of the PAH and saturated hydrocarbon variability, as pollutant data are often 

correlated with both fine sediment and organic matter. To determine the correlation with the 

hydrocarbon d1ata, linear regression was performed on the raw data. The regression analysis compared 

the independeht variables (TOC and fines) against the possible dependant variables (TPAH and TALK) 

to determine the correlation coefficient and R2 values. The ~ value can range from 0 (no linear 

relationship) t~ 1 (perfect linear relationship) between two variables. 

I 

Pearson's cor~elation (r) analysis was also used to examine the association between the variables. 

These were run on both raw and transformed data. Raw TPAH and TALK data were subject to 

logarithmic tra1nsformation using log,o (x + 1), where x represents a parameter's value. Proportioned 

data, such as ~OC and fines, are inherently binomial in distribution and were processed using an arc 

sine transform'ation prior to data analysis (Zar 1984). The hypothesis that any two variables are not 

correlated waJ tested as a paired t-test for means. 

Correlation an~ regression analyses with the raw data for TPAH, TALK, fines, and TOC showed that 

only TPAH and TOC had any linear relationship (r == 0.92, ~ = 0.85) (Table 71). The correlations run 

on the transfotmed data showed TPAH and TOC appear to be the most linearly related parameters but 

to a lesser de~ree than shown for the raw data (Table 71). The t-test for significance of correlation 

between hydrocarbons (TPAH and TALK) showed no significance to fines or TOC (Table 71). If an 

adjusted prob~bility or less stringent P was used, a significance could be established between TPAH 

and TOC, whith was shown in the linear regression. 

I 

Sediments from two stations (C and 227) showed a statistically significant lower amphipod survival 

than controls, I but these sediments did not have elevated levels of hydrocarbons. In each case, the 

toxicity value tlerived was low. The cause of the amphipod toxicity results is unknown. There could 

be a causal rel~tionship to grain size in the case of station 227, as this station had an elevated Quantity 

of silt and clay in the sediment (Table 70). Station 227 sediment also exhibited measurable toxicity 

in the Microt~x® test (Table 69). However, the sperm-fertilization toxicity test for the pore-water 

sample from this station showed no toxicity. 

12)288083/4 113 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 69. Summary of physical, chemical, and bioassay results. 

.::. II :Z;:!;:! I 0 I 1013 10.58 I 0.0 I 99.0 I 1.0 I 0.0 I 


4.1 87 I 99.0 


1 Mean values. 

(3)288083/4 

1.0 I 96 

0.9 I 89 

97 I 96.2 

94 I 100.0 1.91 

6 1.8 97 

78 98.8 0.86 

E7 1 22 1 2666 11.59 5.7 94.3 0.1 0.0 97 >2 

0.69 0.2 86.3 13.0 0.0 100 >2 

0.08 

1 

0 

. 

37 0.0 98.7 1.3 0.1 

0.13 0.4 99.3 0.4 0.0

B 

,I 211 

3 
Table 70. Chemical and physical results for sediment replicate samples. 

2003 

2005 C 97.7 2.3 

2006 AltA 93.0 4.0 

2007 27 94.7 5.0 

2009 F 99.0 98.0 0.5 1.0 1.7 0.5 

2009 F 98.0 2.0 

2010A 16B 99.0 98.0 0.6 1.0 1.7 0.5 

2010B 16B 98.0 2.0 

2010C 16B 97.5 2.0 

2012A NewE5 97.0 90.0 5.7 1.0 3.7 1.9 

2012B NewE5 90.0 5.0 

2012C New E5 83.0 5.0 

2013A 233 99.0 99.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.2 

2013B 233 99.0 1.0 

2013C 233 99.0 1.0 

2014A NewE6 83.0 85.0 2.2 7.0 7.3 0.5 

20148 NewE6 88.0 7.0 

2014C NewE6 84.0 8.0 

2015A Alt30 83.0 75.0 13.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 

20158 Alt 30 86.0 0.1 

2015C Alt 30 56.0 0.1 

2016A 227 75.0 89.7 10.4 20.0 8.0 8.5 

20168 227 97.0 2.0 

2016C 227 97.0 2.0 

2017A NewE7 98.0 94.3 2.6. 0.1 0.1 0.0 

2017B NewE7 92.0 0.0 

2017C NewE7 93.0 0.1 

2018A NewE8 96.0 86.3 7.1 2.0 13.0 8.0 

2018B NewE8 79.0 21.0 

2018C NewE8 84.0 16.0 

2019A Alt 265 99.5 99.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 

2019B Alt 265 99.0 0.1 

2019C Alt 265 99.0 0.1 

2020A Alt22 99.0 98.7 0.5 1.0 1.3 0.5 

-98-;() ..- -2" 

2020C Alt22 99.0 1.0 

2021A Alt23 100.0 99.3 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.4 

20218 Alt23 99.0 1.0 

2021C Alt23 99.0 0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 2.0 2.8 

5.9 

0.0 

20.0 14.6 5.7 

6.7 

17.0 

5.0 5.8 1.0 

7.3 

5.2 

3.3 2.5 1.8 

0.0 

4.1 

956.0 328.1 444.1 

28.4 

0.0 

226.6 86.9 99.0 

25.5 

8.6 

0.0 21.6 20.4 

15.9 

49.0 

4.1 3.2 2.4 

0.0 

5.6 

0.0 .1.0 1.4 

2.9 

0.0 

4.7 1.6 2.2 

-0:0 

0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

876 


240 


62 

608 457 151 

306 

217 856 538 

1534 

817 

2217 1453 540 

1085 

1057 

608 1613 863 

1517 

2715 

742 720 348 

284 

1135 

793 458 237 

296 

284 

2677 1369 925 

728 

702 

1137 2666 1930 

1472 

5388 

952 1044 674 

269 

1912 

169 484 258 

800 

482 

1288 859 305 

-u05------- --­

683 

99 186 74 

279 

180 

0.0 

1.7 

0.5 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.0 2.7 1.7 

5.0 

2.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

7.0 3.0 2.4 

2.0 

2.0 

16.0 24.7 14.4 

13.0 

45.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2.0 5.7 2.6 

8.0 

7.0 

2.0 0.2 0.9 

0.3 

0.1 

0.1 0.1 0.0 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

-();(;)-------­

0.0 

0.0 0.5 0.4 

1.0 

0.4 

0.0 

0.8 

0.0 

0.0 0.1 0.2 

0.3 

0.0 0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 3.3 

0.0 

10.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

3.0 3.7 1.711 LO 

2.0 

6.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

5.0 2.0 2.1 

0.1 

1.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 0.1 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 
TPAH 

TALK 0.5529 

Fines 0.0895 0.1699 

Table 71. ation and regression results for sediment samples. 

TPAH 

TALK 0.073 

Fines 0.0153 0.1394 0.000 0.109 

Fines 0.090 0.170 7E-08 1 E-05 NS NS

TOC 0.692 0.486 0.010 0.009 NS NS

Pore-water sa I pies from three stations IF. 16B. and 221 exhibited significantly lower sperm-fertilization 

rates, and s ment samples exhibited. Microtox® toxicity (EC50 < 2%) (Table 69). Sediments from 

these stations showed no significant toxicity in the amphipod survival test. Results of bioassays for 

toxicity in the sediments could be associated with pore water. Hydrocarbon 

in both sediment and water samples from these stations were low and do not appear 

gnificantly to the measured toxicity. It is interesting to note that these stations are 

the stations 

proximate to ch other; station 22 is at the southern end of Kalgin Island, and stations F and 16B are 

due south of s location. 

Hydrocarbons I in solution or dispersion are much more bioavailable than hydrocarbons sorbed to 

sediments or Idetritus (Boehm et al. 1987). However, because sediments represent the most 

concentrated source of hydrocarbons in contaminated environments, they are a major source of chronic 

contamination Iof benthic fauna in oil-impacted areas. Since mussels are filter-feeding bivalves that 

accumulate petroleum hydrocarbons primarily from the water column, it is not surprising the 

concentrationJ found in mussel tissues during this study were low. Low concentrations of aromatic 

hydrocarbons land low molecular weight alkanes found in the mussel tissue indicates the absence of 

acute levels 6f hydrocarbons in the water column. Data obtained in this study of Cook Inlet 

demonstrate rio correlation between bioassays and hydrocarbon concentrations that would suggest 

hydrocarbons bre present in the ecosystem at concentrations sufficient to pose a concern for possible I 

toxicity to marine organisms. I 

(21288083/4 116 
I 

The hydrogra~hy and transmissivity data correspond with what is generally known about Cook Inlet. 

Temperatures in the upper inlet reflect the inflow of the relatively warm rivers that drain into the inlet. 

The river water is warmer in summer (Cruise 2) than it is in spring (Cruise 1) and varies from warmer 

in the north tOI

cooler in the south. The salinity of Cook Inlet decreases from south to north because 

of the influx of fresh water from the rivers in the north. Southern Cook Inlet is strongly influenced by 

the higher sali~e Gulf of Alaska waters. Salinity in the northern portion of the inlet is lower in summer 

(higher river flow) than in spring (lower river flow). The transmissivity of northern Cook Inlet is 

nearly 0% dU~ to the high sediment load. Transmissivity increases toward the south, which is highly 

influenced by Gulf of Alaska waters. In general, south of the forelands, the inlet widens and current 

velocities drod. The transmissivity in the southern inlet is nearly 100%. This is likely due to a I 

combination of factors ranging from sedimentation to inflow of Gulf of Alaska waters. 

Although soml data are still being processed for metals in sediment and water and are unavailable for 

analysis, prelirhinary results show no immediate evidence of heavy metal pollution in Cook Inlet. There 

is, however, spme evidence of elevated mercury levels in both water and sediment, especially in the 

upper inlet. ~his might be due to spring runoff and rel~ted instream sed~ment loa~s, which would 

transport metals from the land. Hydrocarbon concentrations are very low In the sediment and water 

samples from 111 stations and are well below those found at historic oil spill sites. They are within the 

range of concJntrations observed in unpolluted offshore and coastal environments in various parts of 

the world (Reikh 1993)' as well as those in other parts of Alaska (Table 72). I 

Table 72. 

TALK 

TPAH 

TALK 

TPAH 

of hydrocarbon concentrations in Alaska coastal sediments. 

780-19,000 5100 152-962 450 

10-640 120 14-395 173 

1100-2600 1710 62-5388 935 

18-116 52 93-116 103 0-958 36 

Conce 

I 

I 

I of individual PAH compounds and various summed PAH parameters found were one 

of magnitude lower than the ER-L values for PAH derived by Long and Morgan (1990) 

values are the lowest concentrations of contaminants at which adverse biological 

effects on marine organisms have been reported. It should be noted the highest values reported 

per station used in this comparison. Most samples had PAH levels < MDL (see Table 73). 

Concentrations are also below the considerably lower thresholds (500 nglg to 1000 ng/g) determined 

by the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service in 1994 for toxic effects of sediment-associated PAHs 

on marine biota (Lomax et al. 1994). 

(21288083/4 117 
Table 73. of Cook Inlet sediment PAH concentrations 

shed ER-Ls. 

85 20 


230 34 


400 52 


400 32 


60 190 


600 
 89 . 


35 8.6 


340 16 


225 82 


Pyrene 350 82 


TPAH 
 4000 958 


42)288083/4 118 

ABBREVIA TIONS, SIGNS, AND SYMBOLS 6 

ATOMIC SYMBOLS 


Actinium Ac Cadmium Cd Lead Pb Radon Rn 

Aluminum AI Carbon C Manganese Mn Silver Ag 

Antimony Sb Chromium Cr Mercury Hg Thallium TI 

Arsenic As Cobalt Co Nickel Ni Thorium Th 

Barium Ba Copper Cu Nitrogen N Vanadium V 

Beryllium Be Hydrogen H Polonium Po Zinc Zn 

Bismuth Bi Iron Fe Radium Ra 

CHEMISTRY 

Carbon-hydrqgen-nitrogen CHN Phi (/J I 

Carbon preference index CPI Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PAH 

Effective co~centration EC Practical salinity unit PSU 

Effective ran~e low ER-L Total alkanes TALK 

Effective range medium ER-M Total organic carbon TOC 

Low molecul1r weight alkanes LALK Total petroleum hydrocarbon TPH 

Method detehtion limit MOL Total polycyclic aromatic TPAH 

hydrocarbons 

Molar M Total suspended solids TSS 

Naturally ocdurring radioactive NORM Volatile organic analyte VOA 

materials 

INSTRUMENTATION 

Cold vapor Jomic absorption I CVAA Inductively coupled plasma ICP 

Gas chromatpgraph GC Flame atomic absorption FAA 

Global positilhning system I GPS Flame ionization detector FlO 

Graphite fla1e atomic absorption GFAA Mass spectrometer MS 

PREFIXES 

milli (10-3 ) m micro (1 0.6 ) Jl nano (1 0-9 ) n 

TIME AND TEMPERATURE 

degrees Celsius °C hour h minute min second s 

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 

centimeter cm kilo-electron volt keY mile mi 

foot ft kilogram kg nautical mile nmi 

gallon gal liter L parts per billion ppb 

gram g meter m parts per million ppm 

(2)288083/9 119 

REFERENCES 7 

American solty for Tesdng and Matedals. Standard method for grain-size analysis of soils. 

PhiladJlphia, 1963. (ASTM designation: D 422-63.) 

StandJd guide for conducting 10-day static sediment toxicity tests with marine and estuarine 

amphi~ods. Philadelphia, 1990. (ASTM designation: E 1367-90.) 

Atlas, Ronald 1M. "and others. n Distribution of hydrocarbons and microbial populations related to 

sedimentation processes in lower Cook Inlet and Norton Sound, Alaska. Arctic, v. 36, 

1983:251-261. I 

Boehm, Paul "~md others." Final report on Beaufort Sea monitoring program: analysis of trace metals 

and h~drocarbons from outer continental shelf (OCS) activities. Vol. 1. Duxbury, MA, Ocean 

Sciencjes, Battelle, 1987. 2 v. Prepared for Minerals Management Service. (OCS Study 

MMS 87-0072.) 

Bouma, A.H., land M.A. Hampton. Preliminary report on the surface and shallow subsurface geology 

of lower Cook Inlet and Kodiak Shelf, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey, 1976. 36 p. (Open file 

report 176-695.) 

1 

Bowen, H.J.M. Environmental chemistry of the elements. New York, Academic Press, 1979. 333 p. 

I 

Burrell, David G. Natural distribution and environmental background of trace heavy metals in Alaskan 

shelf \md estuarine areas. In U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Envirohmental assessment of the Alaskan continental shelf. Annual reports of principal 

investi~ators for the year ending March 1978. Volume 8. Contaminant baselines. 1978. 

p. 199-494. 

Distri~ution and dynamics of heavy metals in Alaskan shelf environments subject to oil 

development. ill U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Environmental 

assessment of the Alaskan continental shelf. Annual reports of principal investigators for the 

year ending March 1979. Volume 5. Receptors - Microbiology. Contaminant baselines. 

1979.• p. 326-546. 

Burrell, Davidl C. "and others." Natural distribution of trace heavy metals and environmental 

backg~ound in Alaskan shelf and estuarine areas. ill U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Admin1stration. Environmental assessment of the Alaskan continental shelf. Annual reports 

of prinbipal investigators for the year ending March 1977. Volume 13. Contaminant baselines. 

1977.· p. 290-506. 

I 

Carr, Robert S., and Duane C. Chapman. Comparison of solid-phase and pore-water approaches for 

asses~ing the quality of marine and estuarine sediments. Chemistry and ecology, v. 7, 

1992: ~ 9-30. 

Dinnel, P.A. "and others." Improved methodology for a sea urchin sperm cell bioassay for marine 

water~. Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology, v. 16, 1987:23-32. 

Feely, RichardIA., and Gary J. Massoth. Sources, composition, and transport of suspended particulate 

matter' in lower Cook Inlet and northwestern Shelikof Strait, Alaska. Seattle, WA, Pacific 

(2128808316 121 
Marine Environmental Laboratory, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

1982. 29 p. (NOAA Technical report ERL 415-PMEL 34.) 

Feely, Richard ,A. "and others." Distribution and composition of suspended matter in lower Cook Inlet 

and Norton Sound, Alaska. In U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Environmental assessment of the Alaskan continental shelf. Annual reports of principal 

investihators for the year ending March 1980. Volume 3: Effects. Contaminant baselines. 

1980. p.85-191. 

Folk, Robert L. Petrology of sedimentary rocks. Austin, Hemphill's, 1968. 170 p. 

I 

Hein, J.R. "and others." Clay mineralogy, fine-grained sediment dispersal, and inferred current 

patterrls, lower Cook Inlet and Kodiak Shelf, Alaska. Sedimentary geology, v. 24, 

1979:f91-306. 

Hyland, Jeffrey l. "and others." Cook Inlet pilot monitoring study. Draft final report. Phase 1 of an 

overall program entitled, "Design and implementation of a prototype environmental sampling 

prograhl for Cook Inlet, Alaska." Cambridge, Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1993. [93 p.l Prepared 

for CO~k Inlet Regional Citizen's Advisory Council (RCAC). 

Kaplan, I.R., and M.1. Venkatesan. Characterization of organic matter in sediments from Gulf of 

Alaska~ Bering Sea, and Beaufort Sea. In U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program. Final reports of 

principal investigators, volume 33. 1985. p.101-191. 

Kaplan, I.R. "a~d others." Characterization of organic matter in sediments from Cook Inlet and Norton 

Soundl In U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Environmental assessment 

of the [Alaskan continental shelf. Annual reports of principal investigators for the year ending 

March~'1980. Volume 3: Effects. Contaminant baselines. 1980. p. 296-352. 

Karle, L.M. "and others." Toxicological evaluation of sediment samples from Port Valdez, Alaska. 

1993 ,ediment study. Richland, WA, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Battelle, 1994. [51 p.] 

Prepar~d for Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. 

Kinnetic Labo~atories Incorporated. Prince William Sound RCAC long-term environmental monitoring 

program. Power analysis report and recommendations for sampling based on subset of highly 

rePlica~1ed data from LTEMP survey number one. Anchorage, AK, 1993. 1 v. Prepared for 

Prince William Sound Regional Citizen's Advisory Council (RCAC)' 

LaFlamme, R.E., and R.A. Hites. The global distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in recent 

sedim~nts. Geochim. cosmochin. acta, v. 42, 1978:289-303. 

I 

Lomax, Daniel, P. "and others." Threshold levels for toxic effects of sediment-associated PAHs or 

marine biota from urban and nonurban embayments of the United States. Seattle, WA, 

North..{vest Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. National Oceanic and 

Atmo$pheric Administration. 

Long, E.R., a~d L.G. Morgan. The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed contaminants 

/ tested Iin the National Status and Trends Program. 1990. (NOAA Technical memorandum 

Nos. QMA 52.) 

MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. A comprehensive monitoring program for Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

Final rrport. Costa Mesa, CA, 1992. [71 p.] Prepared for Cook Inlet Regional Citizens' 

Advisory Council, Inc. 

Millero, F.J., Jnd M.L. Sohn. Chemical oceanography. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press, 1992. 531 p. I 

121266063/6 122 I 
Muench, R.D.,IH.O. Mofjeld, and R.L. Charnell. Oceanographic conditions in lower Cook Inlet: spring 

and summer 1973. Journal of geophysical research, v. 83, October 20, 1978:5090-5098. 

i 

Naidu, 	A.S. nbnd others." Aspects of size distributions, clay minerology and geochemistry of 

sedime'nts of the Beaufort Sea and adjacent deltas, north arctic Alaska. 1n U.S. National 

Oceanib and Atmospheric Administration. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment 

Progra~. Final reports of principal investigators, 1982. 121 p. 

Neff, Jerry M.1Water quality in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska. March, 1991 (an update 

of the Ja.pril, 1990 report). Cambridge, Authur D. Little, 1991. 37 p. I 

Neff, Jerry M.,I and Gregory S. Douglas. Petroleum hydrocarbons in the water and sediments of upper 

Cook Inlet, Alaska, near a produced water outfall. Duxbury, MA, Battelle Ocean Sciences 

Laboratory, 1994. [68 p.l Submitted to Marathon Oil Company. 

Oshida, P.S., lnd T.K. Goochey. A new test for measuring seawater toxicity. 1n SCCWRP. Annual I 

report,: 1980-1981 :149-159. ! 

Padell, N.A., ~nd R.E. Hillman. Sediment grain-size analysis procedures followed by Battelle Ocean 

Sciencbs, Science Applications International Corporation, and Geo Plan, Inc. 1n Lauenstein, 

G.G., ~nd A.Y. Cantillo, eds. Sampling and analytical methods of the National Status and 

Trendsl Program National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects 1984-1992. 

Volume II. Comprehensive description of complementary measurements. Silver Spring, 

Nation~1 Ocean Service, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1993. 

(Techn1ical memorandum Nos. ORCA 71.) p.. 11.15-11.22. 

Perkin, Ronald' G., and Edward Lyn Lewis. The practical salinity scale 1978: fitting the data. IEEE 

Journall of Oceanic Engineering, vol. OE-5, January 1980:9-15. 

Reish, D.J ...Jd others." Effects of pollution on saltwater organisms. Water environmental research, 

v. 65, 11993:573-585. 

Ribo, Juan M. Chlorinated aromatic compounds: Microtox® test results and structure - toxicity 

relatio~ships. Burlington, Ontario, Environmental Contaminants Division, National Water 

Researlch Institute, Environment Canada, 1984. 39 p. and tables. (NWRI report 84-3). 

Ribo, Juan M,., and Klaus L.E. Kaiser. Photobacterium phosphoreum toxicity bioassay. I. Test 

procedures and applications. Toxicity assessment: an international quarterly, v. 2, 

1987: 1305-323. 

Robertson, Dar;id E., and Keith H. Abel. Natural distribution and environmental background of trace 

heavy metals in Alaskan shelf and estuarine areas. 1n U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. Environmental assessment of the Alaskan continental shelf. Annual reports 

of p~incipal investigators for the year ending March 1979. Volume 5. 

Receptors-Microbiology. Contaminant baselines. 1979. p. 660-698. 

Sharma, G.D.J and D.C. Burrell. Sedimentary environment and sediments of Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

Americtan Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 54, 1970:647-654. 

I 

i 

Shaw, D.G. H;ydrocarbons: natural distribution and dynamics on the Alaskan outer continental shelf. 

In U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Outer continental shelf 

enviro~mental assessment program. Final reports of principal investigators. Volume 33. 

1985.1 p. 431-469. 

Hydrocarbons: natural distribution and dynamics on the Alaskan outer continental shelf. 

1n U.S! National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Environmental assessment of the 

! 

12)288083/6 	 123 
Alaskah continental shelf. Annual reports of principal investigators for the year ending March I 

1977. I Volume 13. Contaminant baselines. 1977. p. 507-727. I 

Hydrobarbons: natural distribution and dynamics on the Alaskan outer continental shelf. 

1n U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Environmental assessment of the 

Alaskafl continental shelf. Annual reports of principal investigators for the year ending March 

1980.1 Volume 3: Effects. Contaminant baselines. 1980. p. 273-295. 

Shaw, D.G. n~nd others." Hydrocarbons: natural distribution and dynamics on the Alaskan outer 

contin~ntal shelf. 1n U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Environmental 

assesshlent of the Alaskan continental shelf. Annual reports of principal investigators for the 

year eMding March 1979. Volume 5. Receptors - Microbiology. Contaminant baselines. 

1979'1 p. 547-596. 

Short, Jeffrey 'jN" and Patricia Rounds. Determination of petroleum-derived hydrocarbons in seawater 

followipg the Exxon Valdez oil spill. I: Analysis of seawater extracts. In Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 

SympQsium, February 2-5, 1993, Anchorage, AK. Abstract book. p. 57-59. 

Tetra Tech, Iinc. Recommended protocols for sampling and analyzing subtidal benthic 

macroiinvertebrate assemblages in Puget Sound. Draft report TC-3991-04.1986. 37 p. 

Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10-0ffice of Puget Sound. 

U.S. EnvironJental Protection Agency. 	 Quality criteria for water, 1986. Washington, DC, 1986. 

1 vol. I 

I 

Puget Sound protocols. January 1987. 1 vol. 

I 

Metho~s for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater and 

marin~ organisms. Cincinnati, OH, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of 

Researich and Development, 1991a. (EPA-600/4-90-027.l 

Water ~uality criteria summary. Washington, DC, 1991 b. 1 chart. 

i 

__ Test m~thods for evaluating solid waste: physical/chemical methods. Volume 1 A: Laboratory 

manual. 3d ed., rev. Washington, DC. 1992. (SW-846) 

Zar, J.H. BiJtatiStiCal analysis. 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984. 718 p. 

(2)288083/6 124 
APPENDIX A 


VERTICAL HYDROGRAPHIC PROFILES 


I 

Vertical profJ plots for temperature, salinity, and transmissivity are presented in chronological order I . 

in this appendix. The shallowest and deepest value for each parameter are identified as T, 5, and % 

for temperatur~, salinity, and transmissivity, respectively. Each plot indicates the station number, date, 

and time of the sample; data filename; and sequence number of the plot. 

Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

Temperature (deg C) 

20,0/ 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 -12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0// 20.0 0.0 

o I -I I I I ,- I


o 'S,' 

18.0 

1'-' 'if I 

d_~ '=\U "." ,~ 

) 

10­ 10 


~. 

20-, 
 ... 20 
 'II!

.. 

r 

T 

•

$ 


_ 30­ _ 30 


i 
 I!! 


l! 


II 


.s. .s. 1% s t t ~ 40­ ~ 40 


...........
 j 

~ S ~ ,t: 

cZ 50­ ~ 50 


60­ 60 


70­ 70 


u_~1 =1 80 
I_J,J ...._ L ...~L,u_l_u_I_, l __u

5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0.0 


Salinity (PSU) Salinity IPSU) 


I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I r I -I I 


0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity (%) Transmissivity (%) 

stn. 3 21 Jun 93 17:00 sm. 3 21 Iun 93 19:00 


dastlOO1.cnv I dastl002.cnv 2 

0 s. T,

Temperature (deg C) 

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 

I I I I 1 I I 


s' 1
 U 

10­

20-l<l'!.' (~ 

_ 30 


j 

! 

t 

~ 40 


j 

~ 

~ 

I/) 50 


60­

70­

80 I I I 


5.0 10.0 0.0 

I I I I 


0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 

% [1'/ -' ,~ ~ °1 

10­

rr 

20-;% T s 

s T 

_ 30­

I!! 

~ 

! 

t 

tv ~ 40l 

I/) 

~ 

.. 50­

~ 

60­

70­

I I I '1 In_m - ~130 I I I I I I' .... r 


15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

Salinity (PSUI Salinity IPSUI 

I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I
 I I I 1 1 I 1 
 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0' 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 

Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

16.0 18.0 20.0 0.0 - 2.0 4.0 

I I
 I I 


Temperature Ideg C) 

6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 

I II. I I I I 


Transmissivity 1%1 Transmissivity (%1 

stn. B 22 Jun 93 22:25 stn. B 22 Jun 93 16:30 

dastl004.cnv 4 
 dastlOO3.cnv 3 

Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

Temperature (deg C) Temperature (deg C) 

0.0 

o-t 

2.0 

I 

4.0 

I 

6.0 

I 

8.0 

I 

10.0 

I 

12.0 

I 

~ 

14.0 

I 

16.0 

I 

T 

18.0 

I 

20.0 0.0 

o II 2.0 I 

4.0 

I 

6.0 

I 

8.0 

I 

10.0 

I 

12.0

51 I T 

14.0 

I 

16.0 

I 

18.0 

I 

20.0 

~ 

10­ 10­

20-1% s T 20­

% 'E 

_ 30 

I!!

; 

.s 

-6 

a. 

~ 40 ... 

! 

~ ~ 

to 

II) 50 

_ 30-' 

I!! 

j 

-6 

a. 

a 40, 

!i 

~ 

.. I II) 50­

I 

I 

M 

~ 

60­ 60­

70­ 70­

80 I 

0.0 

I 

0.0 

I 

5.0 

I I 

10.0 20.0 

I I I r 

10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 

Salinity (PSUI 

I I I I I 

30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 

Transmissivity {%I 

sto. E 23 Jun 93 03:45 

dastlOO5.cnv 5 

I 

30.0 

I I 

80.0 90.0 

. I 

35.0 

1 

100.0 

80 I 

0.0 

I 

0.0 

5.0 

, I 

10.0 20.0 

I - I I I . I 

10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 

Salinity IPSUI 

'-1.­,- r­.--11 

30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity (%1 

stn. E 23 Jun 93 08:45 

dastl006.cnv 6 
'I 

Cook Inlet 

Temperature (deg Cl 

0.0 2

j

O 4 j

O 6 j

O 8 j

O 1~.0 11.0 1)'0 1~.0 1~.0 20.0 

(1993) - downcast 

Temperature (deg Cl 

0.0 2 O 4 O 6 O 8 O 1~.0 1 .0 1)'0 .11.0 1~.0 20.0 

j j j j 1 

0 o 'f . s T

T\ . 

1% ~,§. i Ii . , , '. 'I' .I ." f 

( 10)­

~ ~ 

~ 

~ 

20)­

'. . , " " .~ 

r

)­

t 

! 

~ 40 )­

.t:: 

Jl 50)­

601­

701­

--- ----80 -I . I 	 3~.0 . 0.0 	 5~0 10.0 1~.0 2~.0 25.0 35.0 

Salinity (PSUI 

I I I I I I I I I I I 

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity (%1 

stn. C 24 Jun 93 15:45 

dasUOaD.cnv 9 

10­ r

? 

>­ 20­ ~ 

_ 30­

I! 

~ 

! 

-6 

a. )­ ~ 

.. Iii

40­

~ ~ .t::

.. 

I/) 50­ } 

% 	 T S 

60­

70­

80 - -- -1-. I . ~I 

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 

Salinity (PSUI 

I I I I I I I I I I I 

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity (%1 

stn. A 24 Jun 93 23:50 

dastl009.cnv 10 
Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

Temperature Ideg CJ Temperature Ideg CJ 

_ 30 


l! 

c 

c 

! 


iii 


a. 


~ 40 


i 


~ .t:: 

III 


I/) 50 


60 


70 


18.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 

01 = ~ I! ?S'T I ~ o

10­

1°l 
 f \ 

20­ 201 .1' I 


I~ 

\ 

401 

% 

I I I I I I 

s 

t t 

I I I 

T 

% T 's _ 30­

l! 

c 

C 

! 

t ~ ~ ~ ;: 

.t:: 

CD 

. ~ I/) 50­

60­

70­

ao=i j.-m ____u80u I l I Ii- . I I 


0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 

Salinity (PSUI Salinity (PSUI 

I I I ,. I I I I I I I
 I I I I I I I I I I I 
 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 ao.o 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity 1%1 Transmissivity 1%1 

stn. C 24 JUll 93 10:00 stn. GJ C~41un 93 15:40 

'. qastlOB.8'lcnv 8
 dastl007.cnv 7 

Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

Temperature Ideg C) 	 Temperature Ideg C) 

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 

o I 9 • 

10 

20 

_ 30 

i 

.s 

t

t! 40 

!

.. 


== .t:!

.. 

en 50 

60 

70 

80 I 

0.0 	 5.0 10.0 15.0 


Salinity IPSUI 


20.0 25.0 

% 	 T 

12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 , 

T 0"* 

10 

% 	 T s 

20 

_ 30 

! 

I! 

G 

fWl j 

S 

.t:! 

~ 50 ~ 

60 

70 

80 I I I --a5~O-- --- --0:0- -5;0---10;0- "5;O---20,O~ --- 25.<:)---- -30.0- ----35.0 ------. Salinity IPSUI 

I I I I I -~I~I I I I I I I I I ,­ r ,- r- ,-----. 

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity ('Yo) Transmissivity ('Yo) 

stn. A 25 Jun 93 06:10 sm. 27 25 Jun 93 

dastlOlO.cnv 11 dastlOl1.cnv 12 
Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

Temperature Ideg C) 

,'T 8.0 10.0 

I ~ '" 

20.0 0.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0

I I I I I o 'S' o I k r %

80~1----~--~----~---'----'---~----; O~ 25.0 30.0 35.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 

Salinity IPSUI Salinity IPSUI 

I 

0.0 

I 

10.0 

I 

20.0 

I 

30.0 

I 

40.0 

I 

50.0 

I 

60.0 

I 

70.0 

I 

80.0 

r 

90.0 

I 

100.0 

I 

0.0 

I 

10.0 

I 

20.0 

I 

30.0 

I 

40.0 

I 

50.0 

I 

60.0 

I 

70.0 

I 

80.0 

I 

90.0 

nUl 

100.0 

Transmissivity 1%) Transmissivity 1%) 

sm. 27-a 25 lun 93 11:50 stn.2 26 lun 93 13:47 

dastl012.cnv 13 dastl013.cnv 14 

10 

20-1 ~ % IT Is 

_ 30 

e 

...

G 

G 

E 

ii 

Do 

~ 40 

B.. 

3: 

.t::

.. 

til 50 

60 

70 

10 

20 

I I 

r% T S _ 30 

e.. 

~ 

E 

! 0 40J I ~ ....

...

.. 

.t::

3: 

.. I ~ til 50 

60 

70 

-~ -------I--~ 
, 

Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

20.0 0.0 0.0

o 	I 	 > ! ! ! @1B'& o I 	 Iii I ii@i L

10
 10 


20
 20 


_ 30
 _30 % 'T 	 's I! I! G) 

~ 1i

.5
 .5 


t t .! 40
 .! 40 


B B

~ ~ of: of: to 


III 50
 III '" SO I 	 -T% s 

60
 60 


70
 70 


so Iml 80·"""lIF~~-~---.-----r---r-----r-----.----....-----l 

10.0 	 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 . 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 

Salinity (PSUI 

0.0 5.0 

Salinity (PSUI 

I I I I I I I I I I I
 I I I I I I I I I I I 
 0.0 	 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity (%) 

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 .80.0 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity (%) 

sm. F 26Jun93 17:30 sm.255 26 JlID 93 14:51 

dastlOlS.cnv 16
 dastl014.cnv )5 

! 

Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

Temperature Ideg C) 

0.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 

o I 2.0I .. 	 I

M 

o I § 1 t ~ ~ 

T % 	 s 10 
 10 


20 
 20 


_ 30 
 -; 30 
 f 

G 

ii 
 tl 

1i 1i

ii 


D­ t ~ 40 
 ~ 40


S B ~ ~ I -;r .:t:

en 

.. 50 


Ii 

en 

.. 50
 T % 	

I


S ~ 

60 	 60 


70 	 70 


80~~~~~'--=--~----~'-----~----~~==~~==~ 80 
 -'-~I--' ­

0.0 	 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0-- -3Q.O -35:0-­

Salinity IPSUI Salinity IPSU) 

I-I I I I I I I I ~I~I ,-,- I I I I I I I I I 


0.0 	 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity 1%) Transmissivity 1%1 

stn. 16B 26 lun 93 21:30 	 stn.F 27 lUll 93 00:35 

dastl016.cnv 17 	 dastlOl7.cnv 18. 
Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

0.0 

01%" 

2.0 

I 

4.0 

I 

6.0 

I 

Temperature Ideg CI 

8.0 10.0 12.0 

I I I 

"'S' 

14.0 

I 

16.0 

I -r 

18.0 

I 

20.0 

o I

0.0 2.0 

I 

4.0 

I 

6.0 

I 

Temperature Ideg CI 

8.0 10.0 12.0 

I I I 

T 

14.0 

I 

16.0 

I 

S 

18.0 

I

I I %1 

20.0 

.'~ 

10­ 10­ ..~ 

_ 

i 

G 

! 

oS 

a. 

~ 

.. 

B 

~ 

~ 

20­

30­

40­

50­

20­

_ 30­

e 

G 

'ii 

! 

11 ~ 40 l

Li 

l 

I

T 

I 

-I 

S 

/I 

II 

~ 

~ 

4" 

,~ ; 

60­ 60­

70­

T s " 70­

----so I 

0.0 

I 

0.0 

I 

5.0 

I I 

10.0 20.0 

I II I 

10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 

Salinity IPSUI 

I I I I I 

30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 

Transmissivity (%1 

stn.30 19 Aug 93 19:17 

dast2001.cnv 19 

-­ I 

30.0 

I I 

80.0 90.0 

35.0 

I--~ 0.0 

I 

100.0 

I 

0.0 

.1. -:=I L - II I 

5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25J'f'30-:-0--- 35.0--­

Salinity {PSUI 

I I I I I I I I -r- I 

10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity 1%1 

stn. 30 20 Aug 93 

dast2002.cnv 20 
Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

Temperature (deg C) 

20.0 0.0 2.0 4,0 6,0 8.0 10.0 12,0 14,0 16.0 18,0 20,0 -j wi -I -I 'j -r 'I 1 '1 

~ i . 

j 

). 

)­

T % s 

J I I 

15.0 20.0 

I 

25.0 

I 

30.0 

o 1& __ ' J 'i ~ o ,,. 

10 10­

20 I' 20­

-; _ 30­ 30

-% T S I! 

'Ii t .s .s 

I .......
 t 140J ..... ~ 40­ .. 
 ~ ! ~ 3: .t: 

.. .. I ~ en 50 en 50­

60 60­

70 70­

80 -1------ -­ so .II I _.====1 J 

25,0 30.0 35.0 0,0 5,0 -' 10,0 35,0 0.0 5.0 .10.0 15.0 20.0 

Salinity (PSU) Salinity IPSU) 

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I u, 0,0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.0 10.0 20,0 30.0 40.0 60.0 60.0 70,0 80.0 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity Transmissivity (%1 1%) 

sm. 3 20 Aug 93 19:55 sm. 3 21 Aug 93 02: 10 

dasl2003.cnv 21 dast2004.cnv 22 
Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

Temperature Ideg C) 	 Temperature Ideg C) 

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 

I I I I I I I I I 

o ~ s T

10­

20 ! J 

% 	 S T 

_ 30 

I! 

f 

! 

t 

~ 40 .. 

~ ~ 

II 

III 50 

60­

70-' 

o I 	 I I I I I I I I I I


s 	 J T t % 

10­

20­

_ 30...J 

I.e 

J!l

.. 

! % S T 

-5 

a. a 40 W 

B 

~ ~ "" II 

III 50 ~ 

60­

70­

-.-.--sc9 I I I I I 1 ----~I---·-- 1-----!---J----J.___._L__l__ '-_ _• 

0.0 5.0 10.0 	 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 ~5.0 - -'._. 

Salinity IPSUI 	 Salinity (PSUI 

I I I 1,--1 11 1 1 1 .---I---,-----.~,-I I--r I 1 I 

0.0 	 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity (%1 Transmissivity 1%) 

stu. E 21 Aug 93 20:40 stn. E 22 Aug 93 02:00 

dasl2005.cnv 23 dast2006.cnv 24 
Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

Temperature Ideg CI Temperature Ideg CI 

0.0 

o I 2.0 I 

4.0 

I 

% 

6.0 

I 

S 

S.O 

I 

, 

10.0 

I 

12.0 

I 

14.0 

I 

T \ 

16.0 

I 

1S.O 

I 

20.0 0.0 

o J% 

2.0 

I 

4.0 

I 

6.0 

I 

S.O 

I 

10.0 

I 

T 

12.0 

I 

14.0 16.0 

I I

, 

lS.0 

I 

T 

20.0 

10­ 10­

20-1% s T 

s T 

e 

30 

co

... 

co 

.§ 

t 40 0

.. 

1J 

'3 

;t: 

to 

III 50 

~ 30­

~ .§ 

t 

~ 40­

I j 50 i f\) 

" 

60-1 60­

~ 

70­ 70­

so I 

0.0 

I 

0.0 

I 

5.0 

I I 

10.0 20.0 

I I I I I 

10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 

Salinity IPSUI 

I I I I T-·---r-·~ r­ 1 

30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 SO.O 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity 1%) 

stn. B 22 Aug 93 03:54 

dast2007.cnv 25 

-so I I 

0.0 5.0 

r-~I 

0.0 10.0 20.0 

I -I I -­ . I 

10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 

Salinity (PSU) 

I I I I I 

30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 

Transmissivity 1%) 

sm. B 22 Aug 93 12:36 

dast2008.cnv 26 

I 

30.0 

I I 

80.0 90.0 

1--­

35.0 

I 

100.0 
Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

Temperature (deg C) Temperature (deg C) 

4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 

I I I I I I I I I 


o. ~ '''\ s T

10­

20­

% s T 


_ 30 


e 

to 

'i 

S 

t 

~ 40 


... 

3­

~ 

cl!! 50 


60
 60­

S T 

70
 70­

-sot 1 1 1 I. '" 1 "'I 	 80 1====11 ,.1 . ::::J 


0.0 5.0 10.0 	 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0.0 	 5.0 10.0 '15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 


Salinity (PSUI 
 Salinity (PSUI 

I 1 I I i 1 I 1 I I I 
 I I I 1 I I I 1 I 11


0.0 	 10.020.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity (%1 

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 4(1.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity (%1 

stn. B 22 Aug 93 17:00 stn. A 22 Aug 93 21:05 


dast2009.cnv 27 
 dast2010.cnv 28 


o IASdl=' 	 ' ... ' 

10 


20 


_ 30 


i 


S 

-S 

Q. 

i

r~ 50 
 f ~ 

"'­

~ 

% 
Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

Temperature Ideg C) Temperature Ideg C) 

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 1S.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 S.O 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 1S.0 20.0

o I 
 If !~! ~ i' 

10 


20 


_ 30 


~ 1i 

.5 


t 

~ 40 


: 

~ ot:: 

II 


III 50 


60 


70 


f I I 


% T S 

I I I I I I 


% 

o r sit T 1

I 


10­

,t 

~ 

20­

_ 30­

i 


f 

S IT i

!

4Oi­ "­

ii 


... ~ III 50­

60­

70­

So~~~~~~~~~~====,=~--r----r--~ --,-- SO 1,1 1-I 1-1 


35.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 o~ 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 

Salinity (PSUI Salinity IPSU) 

I I I I I I I I I 1····-1
 I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 
 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 SO.O 90.0 100.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 SO.O 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity (%) Transmissivity (%) 

stn. A 23 Aug 93 05:00 stn. C 22 Aug 93 23:59 

dasl2012.cnv 30 
 dasl2011.cnv 29 

Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

Temperature (deg CJ Temperature (deg CJ 

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 HI.O 20.0 

o L SF' c ,I, 

10 


20-t 
 I I 


% S T 

_ 30 
 II 


~ 

+a 

.§ 


.,p 


r!... 40 


l! 


~ .t:. 

to 

III 50 


60 


70 


80' I I I II I I ~ 

I I ! I I I I
 0 1% ~ ~ 't\ % S T 

10­

20­

_ 30­

l! 

! 

.. 


I 


"c.) 

401 
 ~ ~ 

" ~ III 
 50­

60­

70­

- .-80=!_ I - i -, .... --1- --1-·· .1---1 

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 

Salinity (PSUJ Salinity IPSU) 

I I 1-1-'.-'-,-r ,- '--1- I .- -I "- r---. •.--r--_'---I I 1 I 


0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity (%) Transmissivity (%) 

stn. C 23 Aug 93 07:00 stll. 27 23 Aug 93 13: 10 


dast2013.cllv 31 dasl2014.cllv 32 


-11 
Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

Temperature (deg q Temperature (deg CI 

6,0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14,0 16,0 20.0 8.0 10.0 12,0 14,0 16,0 18.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 I ! I 
 0% I ! j ~.L:::::::::: ~, I
 Oz ',1 !!!!Pi 

% T 

10
 10 


20
 20 


_ 30 
 _ 30 


I! I! .. II 
 ..

.§ 

II
 'ii 

.§ 

ii 


a. 


~ 40 


i 
 !

~ 4°1

3: .!:! .!:! 

~ 50
 II) '" 50 


% 	 T S

60
 60 


70
 70 


80 
 I-==-1 .BO~T·

30,0 35.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Salinity IPSU) 

0.0 5,0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 

Salinity IPSU) 

I I I I I I I I I I ul I I I I I. I I 


0.0 10,0 20.0 30.0 40,0 50.0 60.0 0.0 	 10.0 20,0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 BO.O 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity (%) Transmissivity (%1 

stu. 16B 24 Aug 93 stn. F 24 Aug 93 04:53 

dast2016.cllv 34 
 dast201S.cnv 33 


s 

~ 

"­

~ 

25.0 30.0 35.0 

I I I 1 


70.0 80.0 90,0 100.0 

09:00 
Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

Temperature Ideg CI Temperature (deg CI 

20.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 e.o 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 

_ 30 

I! 

B.. 


E 

-S 

a. 

~ 40 

B 

~ .t!

.. 


III 50 

6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 

10 

20 

60 

% T s

70 

eO~!------r------r-----.r-----'------'------'------; 

0 I I ! ! ! ! I I s T

I' I 1 ] 


T % S I 

10­

20­

_ 30­

I!

., 

'0 

E 

J40j ~ .t!

.. 

III 50­

60­

~ 

........ 


'\: 


70­

eo I I I I I I I ------1 

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 

Salinity (PSUI Salinity IPSUI 

I 

0.0 

I 

10.0 

I 

20.0 

I 

30.0 

I 

40.0 

I 

50.0 

I 

60.0 

I 

70.0 

I 

eo.o 

I 

90.0 

I 

100.0 

I-r--T~·---I-I-,~r-··-'-I·---~ 

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 eo.o 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity 1%1 Transmissivity (%1 

stn. F 24 Aug 93 

dast2017.cllv 35 

13:00 stu. E5 24 Aug 93 

dast2018.cnv 36 

14:45 
Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

Temperature ldeg Cl Temperature (deg q 

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 B.O 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 B.O 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 

0 % 

10-1 

L 

T s % 


20­

_ 30­

e 

3 

.s 

CI 

t 

CI 40 C 

... 

3 

~ 

.. 

(/) 

50­

60....J 

70­

BO T -, T T 1 1 

E 

.s 

~ 

t 


CI 

C 

~ 

o 

10 )-

)~ 20 

30)-

40f501-

60-

70-

I I I I I I I I I 

--1-:- -1- .1-

T " % 

T S "'% 

~i 

_L_, J 

'" 3: " .. 

(/) ~ 

,-_-80 

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 11 

Salinity (PSUI Salinity (PSUI 

I 

0.0 

I 

10.0 

I 

20.0 

I 

30.0 

I 

40.0 

1 

50.0 

I 

60.0 

1 

70.0 

1 

BO.O 

I 

90.0 

I 

100.0 

,-,"1 

0.0 10.0 20.0 

1 

30.0 

, 

40.0 

,-',-"1 

50.0 60.0 70.0 

I 

80.0 

I 

90.0 

I 

100.0 

Transmissivity 1%) Transmissivity (%1 

stn. 233 24 Aug 93 

dasl20l9.cllv 37 

17:05 stu. E6 24 Aug 93 

dast2020.cllv 38 

21:00 
I 

It 

0.0 

J20}­

_ 30 )­

i 

-6 

c. 

~ )­ 40 

a 

~ J::: 

~ 50 )­

601­

70 

80 

-

I 

0.0 

2.0 -j 4.0T 6.0 -i 

% 

T I 

5.0 10.0 

Temperature (deg C) 

8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 -i -I I l' l' 'J s ~ % 

lii' 

il 

7 

,) 

T S 

I 1 T I 

15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 

Cook Inlet (1993) - downcast 

<:':.) 

~ ,~1

V 

~ 

Salinity (PSUI 

I I I I I I I I I --'--'--1 

0.0' 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 

Transmissivity (%1 

stn. 211 25 Aug 93 00:01 


dast2021.cnv 39