report documentation page - environmental ...yosemite.epa.gov/oa/eab_web_docket.nsf/filings by...
TRANSCRIPT
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEForm Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188Public reporting burden for this collection of intormation is estimated to average 1 hour per response. including the time for reviewing instructions. searching
existing data SOurces.
gathering and maintaining the data needed. and completing and reviewing the cOI
lection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of thiscollectIon of ,nformation . inCluding suggestIons for reducing this burden
. to Washington Headquarters Services. Dorectorate for Information OperatIons and Reports. 1215 Jefferson
DavIs Highwav. SUIte 1204. Arlington . VA. 22202-4302. and to the Office of Management and
Budget. Paperwork ReductIon PrOject 10704-01881. WashIngton. DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 1 REPORT DATE
. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVEREDFebruarv 200 1
Planin,g Assistance to States Pro,gram4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. FUNDING NUMBERSTurner Reservoir Study
East Providence , Rhode Island
6. AUTHOR/S)
S. Army Corps of EngineersNew England District
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME/S) AND ADDRESSfES)
B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONS. Army Corps of Engineers
REPORT NUMBERNew England District696 Virginia RoadConcord , MA 01742
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAMEfS) ANDADDRESSfES)
10. SPONSORING/MONITORINGS. Army Corps of Engineers
AGENCY REPORT NUMBERNew England District696 Virginia RoadConcord , MA 01742
11 . SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
12a. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
12b. DISTRIBUTION CODEApproved for public releasedistribution unlimited
13. ABSTRACT /Maximum 200 words)The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted an investigation of Turner Reservoir in East Providence
, Rhode Island inorder to determine its potential as a recreational area and a back-up water supply for the City of East Providence.addition, the Corps of Engineers
penonn a prelim grwnwater investigatIDn to deter the feasibilty of potentiallyusing the now abandoned Central Pond
we11 field as a back-up water supply. Our preliminary investigation found that theTn'"'' Reservoir and Central Pond Well fields may be SUitable for a back-np water
supply; bowever , both Water supplyH,;' iiJa(jves will require thorough treatment of the water.
Based on the Corps preliminary findings, treatment of water for the
Turner Reservoir or Central Pond We11 Fields could be an expensive procedure.
Comprehensive treatment of the TurnerReservoir wil be required for the following reasons: the presence of heavy aquatic plant growth
, potential for coliformbacteria and elevated levels of Contamnants
, particularly cadmium in sediments.Similarly, to improve the esthetic qualitiesof the groundwater from the
Central Pond we11 fields wil require the use of water treatment methods. In particular , besides
improving the taste and odor, treatment wil remove the high levels of iron and manganese present in the water.
Althoughthe water s appearance is not attractive
, the Corps of Engineers ' investigation did not find any water quality problems thatwonld pmbibit nsing the Tnrner Reservoir tor recreation use, such
as sWimng. Turer Reservoir appear to support a goodlargemouth bass population , which could provide a recreational warmwater fishery.
14. SUBJECT TERMS
15. NUMBER OF PAGESreservoir , water supply, wells , Rhode Island , East Providence
16016. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION1B. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORTOF THIS PAGE
OF ABSTRACTU ncIassi fied
UnclassifiedUnclassified
'Sandard Form 2 8 (Rev. 2-89) rEG)Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239.Designed using Perform Pro. WHS/DIOR. Oct 94
Executive Summary
The U.S. Any Corps of Engineer conducted an investigalion of Turner Reseroir in
East Providence, Rhode Island in order to deterine its potential as a recreational ara and a
back-up water supply for the City of
East Providence. In addition, the Corps of Engineerspeormed a preliminar
groundwater investigation 10 deterine Ibe feasibility ofpotentiallyusing the now abandoned Central Pond well field as a back-up Water supply.
Pror to 1969 EastProvidence obtaned ils municipal water supply fiom the
Turer Reservoir and frm fourgrundwater wells located in the Ten Mile River Aquifer.
In 1982 , a proposal to utilize IbeTurer Reservoir as a water supply was rejected because Turner Reseroir was considered an
unafe water supply due to upstream discharges into the Ten Mile River that flow into TurnerReservoir. The present investigation focuses on providing a
prelimina deterination of the
suitability of Turner Reseroir and Ibe Centr Pond Well Fields based on the following criteria:Water Quality, Fisheries and Fish Tissue Analyses, Sediment Analyses and Groundwateranalyses for the Central Pond Well Fields.
Based on Ibe above criteria, the Corps of Engiee recommends Ibal if the
City seeks topurue the potential use of Ibe Turer Reseroir or
the Central Pond Well Field as a backup
water supply, fuer studies should be underten. Our preliminar investigation found that theTurer Reservoir and Central Pond Well fields may be suitable for a back-up water supply;
however, both water
supply alternatives will reuir thorough tratment of the water. The City
of Eat Providence will nee to gather additional sampling data and conduct further investigationto delermine the level of required treatment and Ibe resulting costs. Based on the Corpspreliminary findings, treatmenl of water for the
Turer Reservoir or Central Pond Well Fieldscould be an expensive procedure. Comprehensive treatment of Ibe
Turer Reservoir will berequire for the followig reasons; the presence of heavy aquatic
plant growt, potential forcoliform bactera and elevated levels of contaminants
, Parcularly cadium in sediments.Similarly, to improve the eslbetic qualities of the groundwater
frm Ibe Central Pond well fieldswill require the use of water treatment
methods. In paricular, besides improving the taste andodor, treatment wil reove the high levels of iron and manganese present in the water.
Although the water s appearance is not attctive, Ibe Corps of Engineer ' invesJigation
did nol find any water quality problems Ibat would prohibit using the
Tuer Reseroir forrecrealion use, such as swimming. Turner Reservoir appears to support a good largemouth basspopulation, which will provide a recreational
war water fishery. The Corps of Engineers found
concentrations of methyl mercury in largemouth bass tissue composites that were below Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) action levels, but above some
of the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (EP A) health risk levels for consumption.
Consequently, ilbehooves Ibe City of East Providence to have the
resulls of the fish tissue dala reviewed by IbeState Deparenl of Health in order
to determine if fuer slud y and! or health advisories shouldbe initiated. The Corps of Engineers also found concentrations of most metals fiom sedimentsamples exceeded state cleanup levels. The City
ofEasl Providence should forward the metal
concentration data to the Rhode Island
Deparent ofEnvironmenlal Management (RIDEM) forfurther evaluation.
II.
III.
Turner Reservoir Study
Table of Contents
Introduction
BackgroundAuthorityProject Study AreaStudy Objectives
Methodology
Findings
Water Quality Analysis1. Summary of Findings for Water Quality Analysis
2. Background3. Reservoir DescriPtion4. Reservoir Use5. Land Use6. Reservoir Yield
7. Water Quality Classification(a) General Criteria(b) Specific Criteria for Class B Waters(c) Specific Criteria for Class A Waters
8. Rhode Island Public Health Requirements
9. Historical Water Quality Infonnation(a) Rumford River Laboratories Study(b) USGS Study(c) RIDEM Monitoring
10. COrDS Site VisitII. Corps Water Quality Data
(a) DO and pH(b) Nutrients(c) Phosphorous(d) VOCs. SVOCs. and Metals(e) Colifonn Bacteria(f) Comparison with State Standards
12. Treatment of Water Supply(a) Required Treatment
(b) Additional Treatment13. Recreation Water Quality14. Conclusions
(a) Maior Problems(b) Dredging Benefits(c) Watershed Controls
1 I
(d) Additional Sam lin
Fisheries and Sediment Investigation1. Summa of Findin s for Fisheries Investi ation
2. Summa of Findin s for Fish Tissue Anal sis
3. Summ of Findin s for Sediment Anal sis 14
4. Investi ation5. Co s Site Visit and Methods
(a) Fish Sam lin
(b) Condition Factors
(c) Fisheries
(d) Contaminant Levels in Fish
(e) Sediment Chemistr
. 6. ConclusionsWetlands and Habitat1. Habitat Descri tion2. Wetlands
Suitability of Central Pond Well Field1. Summar of Findin s for Groundwater
ualit
2. Back round and Pu ose
3. Investi ation(a) Monitorin Point TR-(b) Monitorin Point TR-(c) Monitorin Point TR-
4. Field Readin5. Anal ical Results
(a) Monitorin Point TR-(b) Monitorin Point TR-(c) Monitorin Point TR-
6. Conclusions
IV. Conclusions
Detennination of the Suitability for Back-Up Water Supply
Detennination of the Suitability for Recreational Puroses
Recommendations
VI. References/Literature Cited
FIGURE I
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 4
FIGUR 5
FIGURE 6
FIGUR 7
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 9
TABLE I
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
LIST OF FIGURES
VICINITY MAP
PHOTOGRAPHS
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FISH AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
PERCENTAGES OF SPECIES COLLECTED AT
THE SOUTH PONDOF TURER RESER VOIR DURING THE SUMMER OF 1999
PERCENTAGES OF SPECIES COLLECTED AT
CENTRALINORTHPOND OF TURER RESERVOIR DURG THE SUMMER OF 1999
PERCENTAGE OF SPECIES COLLECTED FROM ALL
LOCATIONSIN TURR RESERVOIR AND CENTRAL POND.
LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF LARGEMOUTH BASSIN TURNER RESERVOIR AND
CENTRALINORTH POND.
GROUNWATER MONITORING LOCATIONS
LIST OF TABLES
FIELD DATA, TURNER RESERVOIR COLLECTED9 SEPTEMBER 1999
NUTRIENT DATA , TURNER RESERVOIR COLLECTED3 SEPTEMBER 1999
METALS DATA AT CENTRAL POND, TURER RESER VOIRCOLLECTED 9 SEPTEMBER 1999
COLIFORM DATA, TURER RESER VOIR COLLECTED3 SEPTEMBER 1999
LISTING OF ALL FISH SPECIES CAPTURD AT TURNERRESERVOIR (INCLUDING CENTRAL AND NORTH PONDS)
DURING THE SUMMER OF 1999 (BY ELECTROFISHING)I
METAL CONCENTRA nONS IN FISH TISSUE COLLECTED FROMTURER RESERVOIRCENTRAL POND
, EAST PROVIDENCERHODE ISLAND
III
TABLE 7
TABLE 8
TABLE 9
TABLE 10
TABLE
TABLE 12
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
PCB AND PESTICIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN FISH TISSUETURNER RESERVOIR. CENTRALfNORTH POND EASTPROVIDENCE RHODE ISLAND
CONCENTRATIONS OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATICHYDROCARONS IN FISH TISSUE TURR RESERVOIR, EAST
PROVIDENCE RHODE ISLAND
CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN SEDIMENTS, TURR
RESERVOIR, EAST PROVIDENCE RHODE ISLAND
CONCENTRATIONS OF PCB' S AND PESTICIDES IN SEDIMENT,
TURNER RESERVOIR, EAST PROVIDENCE RHODE ISLA
CONCENTRATIONS OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATICHYDROCARONS IN SEDIMENT ,TURR RESERVOIR, EAST
PROVIDENCE RHODE ISLAND
FINAL FIELD READINGS FOR GROUNWATER MONITORING
POINTS
APPENDICES
FINAL DATA REPORT FOR LABORATORY TESTING FORFISH TISSUE AND SEDIMENTS SAMPLES AT
TURER
RESERVOIR, EAST PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND BYBATTELLE
LABORATORY REPORT FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
CHECKWELL INSTALLATION LOGS
GROUNDW A TER FIELD INVESTIGATION
Planning Assistance to States
Turner Reservoir StudyEast Providence, Rhode Island
Introduction
A. Background
Pror to 1969, the city of East Providence obtained its municipal water supply/Tm the Turner Reseroir and /Tm four grundwater wells
located in the vicinity ofCentrl Pond on the Ten Mile
River. In order to protect this water supply, the Cityacquired approximately 270 acres of/and in the SUITunding watershed. The City'landholdings are located within East Providence, and also in the city of PaWtucket
, RhodeIsland and the town ofSeekonk
, Massachusetts. The surface area of the Turner Reservoircomprises approximately 225 acres. The City CUltIy purchases Water from theProvidence Water supply
Boar; however, the City's Water
Supply Management Planindicated the City's cOmmitment to looking at the economic feasibility
of using theTurner Reservoir and the
Centrl Pond wellfield as alterntive sources of water supply.The Turer Reservoir/Central Pond complex has been identified as a critical
araof concern and is addressed in the Cily
s 1992 Comprehensive Plan. The City s plan
out/ines conservation strategies to presere open space adjacent to the water bndies and tnopen Ihe area to passive recreation through the development of the Ten Mile Rive,
Greenway. The plan alsn identifies strtegies to minimize the
environmental impact ofnon-residential development and redevelopment
within the area.
The purpose nfthis Planning Assistance 10
States study is to provide an analysiswhich will assist in the evaluation of Turer Reseroir and the Centrl Pond
well fields as
the Cily s long term back-up water supply. The study will also discuss the suitability ofpennitting recreation use at Turner
Reservoir.
B. Authority
The study was conducted by the New England Distrct (NAE), U.S. Any Corps
of Engineers, Engineeng/Planning Division, Planning Branch, Special Studies Seclion
fnr the cily of East Providence, Rhode Island. The study was funded under the authnrityprovided by the Corps of Engineers
Planing Assistance to States (PAS) program(Seclion 22 , WRD A 1974, Public Law 93-251). Under the PAS program , the study is
cost share 50/50 belween the local sponsor, the city of East Providence
, and the Federalgnvernment , the U.S. Army Cnrps of Engineers.
A cnst sharng agreemenl was execuled
on April , 1999.
C. Project Study Area and History
The study area is located in the city of East Providence on the Massachusetts-Rhode Island border with pars of the reservoir area extending into Seekonk,
Massachusetts (see Figure 1). The James V. Turner Reservoir consists of a series of three(3) ponds with a combined surface area of 225 acres and is located at the end of thefreshwater section of the Ten Mile River.
The three ponds are individually named North,
Central, and South Pond, but collectively known as Turner Reservoir. Below TurnerDam, at the south end of South Pond, the Ten Mile River flows about two miles to theProvidence River. Total drainage area at the dam
is 52. 1 square miles.
Between 50 years and 100 years ago, a dam was constructed on the Ten-Mile
River approximately 100 feet upstream from what is now Route 152 presumably toprovide waterpower for a local mil.
The resulting one-mile long impoundment is the
area now known as Central and North Ponds, and consisted of approximately 100 acres ofarificial lake. In 1930, another dam was constructed approximately 0.
75 miles
downstream from the original mildam as a water supply for the city of East Providence.
The weir elevation of this new dam (Turner Reservoir Dam) was approximately 5 feethigher than that of the mildam upstream.
The resulting impoundment was known as
Turner Reservoir, and consisted primarly of the flooded pasture/wetland immediately
downstream from the mildam (i.e. Route 152). It also included the upstream areas of
Central and North Ponds, due to the higher weir elevation of the new dam, which raisedthe impoundment surface elevation above the previo
level of Central/orth Pond (i.e.
overtopping the mildam). This formed the existing Turner Reservoir Centralorth Pond
complex. The remains of the mil dam (i.e. the water control structures) can be seen
upstream from Route 152, and the weir stil stands approximately 5 feet below theexisting water surface.
During the period following the construction of the dam to 1969, TurnerReservoir was used as a water supply for the City of East Providence. It was discontinueddue to odor and other aesthetic water quality problems. It is currently used forrecreational fishing and boating.
D. Study Objectives
This study investivat'., ;, potential of Turner Reservoir to serve as a future back
up water supply for the (
. .
:l.i;t Providence, Rhode Island. Turner Reservoir was
used as a water supply up hr,..a 1969. In 1982, Turner Reservoir was identified as a
proposed water supply; however, the proposal was rejected because Turner Reservoir wasconsidered unsafe due to upstream industrial
discharges into the Ten Mile River that
flow into the Turner Reservoir. This study provides a preliminar investigation into the
suitability of Turner Reservoir and the Central Pond Well field as a back-up water supply.In addition, this study discusses the suitability of Turner Reservoir for recreationalpurposes.
---
1m VICINITY /v
corp E=toSof Englnli8rs Ea I
'''''''''
Nrm England Distrct 201
II. Methodology
The Corps of Engineers and city of East Providence agreed at the beginning of theinvestigation that evaluating the suitability of Turner Reservoir and the Central PondWell field as a water supply source would require a phased approach. The presentinvestigation focuses on the preliminar phase of determining the suitability of TurnerReservoir, using the following information:
. Determine the water quality of Turner Reservoir.
. Perform a fisheries investigation of the Turner Reservoir, which consists ofcollecting fish samples and analyzing a representative sampling of fish tissue.
. Collect and analyze sediment samples for Turner Reservoir.
. Collect groundwater data for Central Pond Well field.
. Discuss the suitability for recreational purposes.
The study wil recommend any further testing that may be needed. The City wiluse the information and recommendations developed in their subsequent evaluation ofthese sites as back-up water supplies.
III. Findings
A. Water Quality Analysis
1. Summar of Findings for Water Ouality Analysis . Although the waterappearance is not attractive, with large amounts of aquatic weeds and a number ofwaterfowl present at the site, Corps investigations did not find any water quality problemsthat would prohibit using Turner Reservoir for recreation, including swimming, or forpublic water supply. Before being used for water supply; however, the water would haveto be thoroughly treated, and this could be expensive.
2. Background. Prior to 1969, the city of East Providence obtained its municipalwater supply from Turner Reservoir and four groundwater wells in the vicinity of CentralPond on the Ten Mile River. Although East Providence currently gets its water fromScituate Reservoir, the city s Water Supply Management Plan includes investigating theeconomic feasibility of using Turner Reservoir and the Central Pond well field asalternative water supply sources. The purpose of this Planning Assistance to States studywas to provide analysis that wil assist in the evaluation of Turner Reservoir and theCentral Pond well field for use as long-term backup water supply. The study also lookedat the suitability of recreation at Turner Reservoir.
3. Reservoir Description. James V. Turner Reservoir is located in EastProvidence on the Massachusetts-Rhode Island line, with pars of the reservoir extendinginto Seekonk, Massachusetts (See Figure 1). It consists of a series of 3 ponds with acombined surface area of 225 acres, located at the end of the freshwater section of theTen Mile River. The route 152 causeway separates North and Central Ponds from SouthPond. On some maps, North and Central Ponds are collectively labeled "Central Pond,and South Pond is labeled "Turner Reservoir." To avoid confusion
, "
Turner Reservoiris used in this report to refer to all three ponds , which are individually referred to asNorth
" "
Central " and "South" Ponds.
4. Reservoir Use. East Providence used Turner Reservoir as a public watersupply source until 1969, when treatment with sand fitration followed by chlorinationwas no longer able to keep coliforms out of the treated water. The source of thesebacteria was probably upstream wastewater discharges. Turner Reservoir is currentlyused for limited recreation , mainly fishing and non-motorized boating.
5. Land . Sections of the Ten Mile River watershed are heavily urbanizedincluding pars of f.:
;:.
t Providence, Pawtucket, Attleboro, and all of the urbanized area ofNorth Attleboro. Otl';;,:! sections are stil undeveloped, and much of this land is coveredwith wetlands inciudjng swamps, marshes, and open bodies of water. In additional tomunicipal wastewater treatment plants discharges, the Ten Mile River receives runofffrom golf courses, including Slater Park, which is just upstream from Turner ReservoirNorth Pond. In the past, the river also received industrial discharges including metalwastes from jewelry manufacturing. The main effects of municipal wastewaterdischarges and runoff from urban areas and golf courses would be to add nutrients to theriver, leading to eutrophication in downstream impoundments. Urban runoff, and to alesser extent municipal discharges, wil also add coliform bacteria, metals, and organicchemicals to the river. The extensive areas of wetlands in the watershed wil not removethese contaminants because the wetlands are upstream of the sources. The main effect ofthe wetlands in the upper watershed is to moderate flows in the river by storing andreleasing runoff.
6. Reservoir Yield . Only a cursory analysis of potential water supply yield forTurner Reservoir is included in this study. The reservoir volume is not known, becausesiltation has undoubtedly reduced it since it was last used for water supply. However, thereservoir has a surface area of 225 acres , and very rough measurements during waterquality sampling indicate it may have an average depth of 4 to 5 feet, which would give itan estimated volume of around 350 milion gallons. Average daily flow can be calculatedfrom the record at the USGS gage about 1.2 miles downstream from the dam. Using theII-year record at the gage , from 1986 through 1997, and adjusting flows by drainage areathe average daily flow at the dam is 103 cfs (66 milion gallons per day). Using a spread-sheet analysis of flow for each day of the eleven-year period of record at the gage, storageof 350 milion gallons would have provided a safe yield of 16 milion gallons per day. used as a backup water supply, the reservoir could provide greater yields for shorterperiods of time; however, during a serious drought the yield could be less.
7. Water Qualitv Classification. The Rhode Island Deparment of EnvironmentalManagement (RIDEM), Division of Water Resources, has assigned the waters of the TenMile River from the Newman Avenue Dam, including Turner Reservoir, to theconfluence with the Seekonk River below Omega Pond to Class B. Such waters aredesignated for fish and wildlife habitat and primar and secondar contact recreationalactivities. They should be suitable for certain industrial processes and cooling,hydropower, aquaculture, navigation, irrigation, and other agricultural uses. These watersshould have good aesthetic value. Should the reservoir be used for public water supply, itwould become designated as Class A. Whether designated Class A or B , a water qualityclassification is a goal and not necessarily a description of actual conditions.
(a) General Criteria. Water quality criteria are set to protect the most sensitivedesignated water use in each class. Surface waters may be suitable for other beneficialuses , but wil be regulated to protect and enhance the designated uses. The followingminimum criteria are applicable to all waters of the State, unless criteria specified forindividual classes are more stringent. All waters should be free of pollutants in concen-trations or combinations or from anthropogenic activities subject to these regulations thatadversely affect fish and wildlife or human health. There should be no pollutants in con-centrations or combinations that fonn unsightly deposits, or change the color or physicalchemical or biological conditions to such a degree as to create a nuisance or interfere withthe existing or designated uses.
(b) Specific Criteria for Class B Waters . Dissolved oxygen (DO) should not less than 60 percent of saturation, based on a daily average, and an instantaneousminimum DO concentration of 5.0 mgl should be maintained. The 7-day mean watercolumn DO concentration should not be less than 6
mgl. There should be no color orturbidity in such concentrations that would impair any usage specifically assigned to thisclass. Turbidity levels should not exceed 10 NTU over natural background conditions.Total colifonn bacteria should not exceed a geometric mean value of 1 00 and not morethan 20 percent of the samples should exceed a value of 2 400 per 100m!. Fecal colifonnbacteria should not exceed a geometric mean value of 200 and not more than 20 percentof the samples should exceed a value of 500 per 100 ml. The pH should be in the range of
5 - 0 or as naturally occurs. Concentrations of algal nutrients should not cause unde-sirable or nuisance aquatic species associated with cultural eutrophication to develop,impair any usage assigned to a class, or cause exceedance of criteria in a downstream lakeor pond. Average total phosphorus should not exceed 0.025 mgl in any lake or pond , butmore stringent site-specific limits may be necessar to prevent or minimize accelerated orcultural eutrophication. Ambient concentrations of pollutants should not exceed theRIDEM Ambient Water Quality Criteria and Guidelines , for the protection of aquaticorganisms from acute or chronic effects. These criteria may be modified based on resultsof approved bioassay tests.
(c) Specific Criteria for Class A Waters. Criteria for class A waters are mostlythe same as those for Class B except for colifonn bacteria. Total colifonn bacteria inClass A waters should not exceed a geometric mean of 100 and not more than 10 percent
of the samples should exceed 500 per 100 ml. Fecal coliform bacteria waters should notexceed a geometric mean of 20 and not more than 10 percent of the samples shouldexceed 200 per 100 ml. The drinking water standard is less than 1 total colifonns per 100ml, but that applies to treated waters.
8. Rhode Island Public Health Requirements. The Rhode Island Deparment ofHealth approves water supplies for public consumption. Discussions with them indicatedthat there are no water quality conditions that would automatically prevent a raw watersource from being used for public water supply. However, treatment to deal withwhatever was found would have to be designed before the Deparment of Health wouldissue a pennit.
9. Historical Water Quality Infonnation. Only a limited amount of historicalwater quality infonnation was found for the Ten Mile River in Rhode Island. Thesestudies have shown a general improvement in the river s water quality as municipal andindustrial discharges have been cleaned up; however, they also found the river stil hadproblems, especially with elevated levels of nutrients and metals.
(a) Rumford River Laboratories Study Toward a Cleaner Ten Mile Riverreport prepared by Rumford River Laboratories in September 1985 discusses a 1984 riversurvey. It found that
, '
'The overall condition of the river had improved markedly in thelast decade due to better treatment of industrial and municipal wastewaters. Howeverproblems remained with two major aspects: metal contamnation by copper, lead andnickel , and over-fertilzation of aquatic vegetation by phosphate nutrients. There wereabnonnally high concentrations of metals in the river and large residuals of metals in thesediments of the impoundments, eliminating nonnal bottom organisms. The adverseimpacts of these metals were seen at all levels in the aquatic food chain in 1984 , limitingthe numbers and species of algae, small aquatic organisms and fish. Copper and nickel inthe river system came from industrial discharges , while lead came from industries, road-ways and other sources. There were also problems with ammonia, excess chlorine, andother chemicals lethal to aquatic life, from some of the wastewater treatment plants.
(b) USGS Study. The USGS did a trophic evaluation of Turner Reservoir in 1988and found high nutrients and physical habitat impainnent, according to RIDEM. How-ever, little other infonnation is available on that study.
(c) RIDET\U .)I) :mng. RIDEM has collected very limited infonnation on waterquality at Turner Re:sel"/Oll. About every two years, RIDEM takes a single grab samplefrom the Ten Mile River near Turner Reservoir during the September low-flow period.Data from these grab samples have shown that Turner Reservoir has high ammoniaBOD, chloride , turbidity, nutrients, colifonn bacteria, and possibly lead. RIDEMsuspects high colifonn counts may come from waterfowl. Dissolved copper and lead stilexceed chronic aquatic life criteria. There are high metals in the sediment, but that is aproblem of uncertain dimensions.
10. Corps Site Visit. On June 24, 1999 , the Corps visited the site. The general impression was that Turner Reservoir did not look very appealing as a public watersupply (see Figure 2). There were thick mats of aquatic weeds and algae lining most ofthe shoreline and extending out for a dozen yards or more in many places. There werealso a lot of waterfowl , especially Canada geese, and their droppings were heavy alongpars of the shoreline.
Figure 2. - Photographs ilustrating the presence of duckweed at Turner Reservoirin the vicinity of the small beach area and adjacent to Route 152.
11. Corps Water Quality Data . The Corps sampled water quality parameters at 4stations at Turner Reservoir on September 3 , 1999. The station locations were in the Ten
Mile River at the railroad crossing just upstream of where it enters North Pond, at the
Route 152 culvert between Central and South Ponds , in the approximate center of SouthPond , and in the discharge immediately below the James V. Turner Reservoir dam (seeFigure 3). Parameters measured at these stations included temperature, DO , pH , nitrogen
phosphorus , and total and fecal coliform bacteria. The sample from the central SouthPond station was also analyzed for VOCs , SVOCs , and heavy metals. In addition, at the
South Pond station, two locations in Central Pond, and one in North Pond, profiles of
temperature , DO , and pH were collected. Tables 1 through 4 show the collected data.
(a) DO and pH. DO and pH levels showed the effects of the heavy aquatic plant
growth. DO levels were high, generally supersaturated at the surface and with good levelsextending down towards the bottom of the reservoir. Samples taken 1 to 2 feet below the
surface had 8. 9 to 11 mg/l of DO, and DO saturation levels ranging from 100 to 126 percent. At a depth of 9 feet, in an area where the water was 10 feet deep, the DO was 5.mg/l and equal to 56 percent of saturation. The pH levels also showed the effects ofaquatic plant activity. At the surface, pH levels ranged from 8. 8 to 9.3 SU , which is
consistent with photosynthetic activity which raises the pH by using up dissolved carbondioxide. The pH levels decreased with depth, but even at a depth of 9 feet the pH was
2; well into the alkaline range. There were no significant differences in DO or pHamong the three ponds.
TABLE FIELD DATA AT TURNER RESERVOIRCOLLECTED ON 9 SEPTEMBER 1999
Station Depth* Temp. Condo
(feet) (mg/l) % Sat (SU) (uS/em)
Ten Mile River Inlet 19. 6.1 865
North Pond 21.2 100 683
21.0 673
Central Pond 1 22. 10. 125 674
21.9 11.6 127 680
Central Pond 2 22. 110 659
21.8 672
Route 152 22. 10. 121 636
South Pond 22. 11.0 126 609
22. 9.4 108 603
21.8 633
Reservoir Discharge 21. 10. 117 553
*Depth below water surface
(b) Nutrients . Analyses of nutrients showed a sharp decrease in nitrogen fromthe Ten Mile River through the reservoir and a gradual increase in phosphorus. Total
nitrogen , consisting mostly of nitrate , was 6.9 mg/l in the Ten Mile River where it entersNorth Pond. This decreased to 0.97 mg/l at Route 152 between Central Pond and SouthPond, to 0.52 mg/l in the middle of South Pond, and to 0.49 mg/l in the reservoir dis-
WAlEQU ' iSlNGLOC ON "8" Se 22 Plrg Asis 10 SI.. USArmCorp T.._rStof Engineers. Ea PI Rh IsII-, m.- i m' , """ J
charge. Total phosphorus levels gradually increased from 0. 16 mg/I where Ten MileRiver enters North Pond to 0.34 mg/I where it leaves South Pond.
TABLE 2NUTRIENT DATA , TURNER RESERVOIR
COLLECTED 3 SEPTEMBER 1999
Station NH3- N02- N03- Total N Total P
(mg/l) (mg/I) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)
Ten Mile River Inlet 0.29Route 152 0.28Central South Pond -c0.075 3 I
Reservoir Discharge 0.49 0.34
(c) Phosphorus. One set of samples canot define conditions , but these measure-ments indicate there may be an excess of phosphorus in the sediments in Turner Reser-voir. Phosphorus behaved quite differently from nitrogen: high levels of nitrogen enter-ing from the Ten Mile River were quickly taken up by aquatic plants, causing nitrogenlevels to drop across the two ponds. When the Ten Mile River enters North Pond it hadenough phosphorus to stimulate nuisance aquatic plant growth, but phosphorus levels stillrose between inflow and outflow. A possible explanation for this rise is that there is somuch phosphorus in the sediments that sediment releases to the overlying water exceedplant uptake. At all stations , phosphorus concentrations were many times higher than the
025 mg/llevel set by Rhode Island Water Quality Standards.
(d) VOCs, SVOCs, and Metals. A single sample from the central part of SouthPond was analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides and PCBs. All contaminant levels werebelow method detection limits. This sample was also analyzed for a number of heavymetals. All except barium were below method detection limits, and the barium level of2 mg/I was well below drinking water standard of2 mg/I. Method detection limits for
the other metals were all below applicable drinking water criteria except for lead. Themaximum contaminant level goal for lead is 0 ppm. There is no acceptable level ofleadin drinking water, and systems should be operated to minimize lead levels, but the actionlimit of 0.015 mg/I is a default standard of sorts. If the lead level is below the action limitof 0.015 ppm , it is assumed the system is operated well. The detection limit for the anal-ytical method used to analyze lead at Turner Reservoir was 0.05 mg/l , which is greaterthan the 0.015 mg/I action limit. Consequently, it cannot be shown that the lead level isnot a concern. However, because of the low solubility oflead in natural waters and that itis no longer entering the environment from gasoline, it is unlikely that lead in TurnerReservoir would exceed the 0.015 mg/I action limit. Furthermore, the action limit ofo. 015 mg/I applies to treated waters. Even if the lead level in Turner Reservoir exceeded
0 15 mg/I , it would mean the water would have to be treated to remove lead; not that thewater couldn t be safely used for water supply.
TABLE 3METALS DATA AT CENTRAL POND, TURNER RESERVOIR
COLLECTED 9 SEPTEMBER 1999
Freshwater FreshwaterMetal Measurement MCLG MCL SCL Acute Criteria Chronic Criteria
(mgll) (mg/l) (mgll) (mgll) (mg/l) (mgll)
Arsenic -c0.005 0.34BariumCadmium -c0.005 005 005 003 0022Chromium -c0. 0.57 074Lead -c0. 015* 065 0025Mercurv -c0.005 002 002 0014 0077Selenium -c0. 005Silver -c0. 0034
*Action level- not an actual MCL.
(e) Colifonn Bacteria. Total and fecal colifonn bacteria showed dramatic dropsfrom the inflow through the reservoir discharge. Total colifonn levels were 400 per 100ml in the Ten Mile River before it entered North Pond, 130 at Route 152 between Centraland South Ponds , 55 in the center of South Pond, and 8 per 100 ml in the discharge fromTurner Reservoir. Fecal colifonns went from 220 at the inlet to 9 per 100 ml in the dis-charge. Total colifonn bl\c.teria include organisms th t originate in animal intestines butalso bacteria that natu,' " u cur in the ground. Fecal colifonns originate only in theintestines of wan-blouti.::j animals, making them a more certain sign of contamination.Because of the large numbers of waterfowl , especially Canada geese, that use the reser-voir, it is surprising that colifonn levels decreased in this manner.
TABLE 4COLIFORM DATA, TURER RESERVOIR
COLLECTED 3 SEPTEMBER 1999Station Total Colifonns Fecal Colifonns
(per 100 ml) (per 100 ml)
Ten Mile River Inlet 400 220
Route 152 130 110
Central South Pond
Reservoir Discharge
Geometric Mean
(f) Comparison with State Standards. The measured DO levels generally metClass A and B criteria for concentrations and percent saturation. The pH was alsogenerally within the 6.5 to 9.0 range, although this was exceeded by readings of 9. 1 and
9.3 SUo However, it is likely that diurnal analyses would show greater exceedences ofstandards , with the DO and pH peaking in the afternoon, and then dropping to low levelsby early morning, due to aquatic plant activity. Rhode Island Water Quality Standardscall for average total phosphorus not to exceed 0.025 mg/l; a level exceeded at all stations
generally by at least an order of magnitude. With a geometric mean of 69 and a maximumof 400 per 100 ml , the total colifonn samples meet Class A and B criteria. However, thefecal colifonn counts had a geometric mean of 32 and a maximum of 220 per 100 mlwhich meets Class B criteria but exceeds those for Class A waters. High levels of coli-fonn bacteria do not in themselves make a water unacceptable as a raw water supply, butdo mean that higher levels of treatment wil be necessar before the water can be usedand that there is a greater risk of potential problems to humans.
12. Treatment for Water Supply. Before Turner Reservoir could be used forpublic water supply, the water would have to be thoroughly treated. Although not nearlyenough data have been collected to design a treatment system, there is suffcientinfonnation to discuss the types of treatment that would likely be required. The majorconcerns in designing this system would be the bacteria load to the watershed from urbanrunoff and wastewater treatment plant discharges, and the effects of algal blooms.
(a) Required Treatment. Filtration would be required to remove turbidity and sus-pended solids. Algal blooms could complicate this filtration by producing large amountsof material that could clog the fiters, and by producing a fluctuating load that could bemore diffcult to deal with than even a constant heavy load. Because of the developednature of the watershed, fitration would also be required to remove organisms such asGiardia that are not reliably killed by chlorination. A two-stage fitration system mightbe required with a coarser fiter to remove the total solids load caused by algal bloomsand a finer fiter to remove Giardia. Disinfection would be required, and because of theurban runoff and municipal wastewater discharges in the watershed, the disinfectionsystem would have to be extensive. Chlorination, ozonation, or ultra-violet lighttreatment are systems that might be used, singularly or in combination. The addition ofalum as a method of reducing the phosphorus has been used in other reservoirs; howeverthe use of alum may not be acceptable here because it changes the chemicalcharacteristics of the water.
(b) Additional Treatment. Metals removal, probably through flocculation and pre-cipitation , might be required. Although the Corps data showed only low levels of bariumpast studies found high levels of metals in the sediments, and additional sampling mayshow higher concentrations requiring removal. Algal blooms and the resultingfluctuations in pH and DO could complicate metals removal processes. Activated carbontreatment wil likely be required to remove taste and odor producing compoundsintroduced by algal blooms and' urban runoff. Although the disinfection system wil alsodestroy, or at least greatly reduce, tastes and odors, using chlorination or ozonation forsuch purposes can leave undesirable byproducts in the water.
13. Recreation Water Quality. Results from Corps sampling indicate that most ofthe reservoir meets water quality standards for recreation , including swimming. Thebiggest identified problem is the excessive aquatic plant growth that reduces the lakeaesthetic appeal and physically obstructs boats and swimmers. It is very likely that runofffrom urban areas causes high coliform levels after rainstonns , which would require
temporary closing of beaches for health and safety reasons; however, in most cases thatwould not last more than a day or two.
14. Conclusions. Although the water s appearance is not attractive, with largeamounts of aquatic weeds and a number of waterfowl present at the site, Corpsinvestigations did not find any water quality problems that would prohibit using TurnerReservoir for recreation, including swimming, or for public water supply. Before beingused for water supply; however, the water would have to be thoroughly treated; i.e.fitration , disinfection, etc. and this could be expensive.
(a) Maior Problems . Excessive nutrient enrichment leading to heavy aquatic plantgrowth is the biggest identified problem. In addition to makng the water unappealing formost uses, it complicates and increases the costs of treatment for water supply, andphysically interferes with recreation uses. Coliform bacteria are the next most seriousconcern. Although the few samples taken by the Corps did not find very high levels, it islikely that counts increase dramatically following rainstorms. Counts also increase, atleast in sections of the reservoir, after visits by large numbers of waterfowl , especiallyCanada geese. If the ponds were opened to swimming, a program of regular and possiblyintensive bacteria monitoring would be important.
(b) Dredging Benefits. Selective dredging would likely improve the reservoir byremoving contaminated sediments and increasing the water s depth. The sedimentscontain high levels of algal nutrients, and Corps sampling indicates they may be a sourceof phosphorus to the overlying waters and therefore contribute to the algae problem.Removing these sediments may reduce the level of aquatic weed and algae growth;however, there are stil enough nutrients in the Ten Mile River to cause eutrophicationproblems. Dredging would also remove accumulated heavy metals that mightbioaccumulate in fish; although, Corps sampling found no evidence that heavy metalswere a problem for use of the reservoir for water supply or recreation, includingswimming. Finally, dredging would increase the volume available for water supplystorage and an increased depth might benefit potential boaters and swimmers.
(c) Watershed Controls. Ultimately, controllng the reservoir s eutrophicationproblem wil require controls on upstream sources. This could include upgrading waste-water treatment plants to include nutrent and phosphorus removal, and wil require bestmanagement practices in the watershed to control runoff quality, especially from urbanareas and golf courses.
(d) Additional Sampling. Additional sampling is required to confirm the Corpsfindings. Sampling following rainstorms is paricularly important because pollutant loadsgenerally increase at such times , often dramatically.
B. Fisheries and Sediment Investigation
1. Summar of Findings for Fisheries Investigation. Turner Reservoir supports awan water fish assemblage consisting of bluegil , pumpkinseed, yellow perch , whiteperch , white sucker, yellow bullhead, largemouth bass , and black crappie (one specimencollected). In addition , representatives of the catadromous American eel were collected.South Pond yielded a more diverse distribution of species and sizes of individual fishthan CentrallNorth Pond. This is most likely a function of habitat, since the southernpond had more diverse aquatic habitat.
Lagemouth bass were the most abundant species collected from the entire studyarea; comprising approximately 41 % of the species collected. The largemouth basslength frequency distribution indicates the presence of a good population, with severalage classes represented, including fish that could be up to 7 -10 years old. The mostabundant year class represented was Year Class 1 + (i.e. fish that were approximately oneyear-old). This is unusual , since length frequency distributions generally show that ageclass 0+ (young of year) as the most abundant. The fact that one year old fish were themost abundant, and not young of year, indicates that habitat conditions in the lake aresuitable for good over-winter survival for young of year largemouth bass. It could also beparly due to sampling bias, since the extremely shallow near shore areas (nursery areas),were not easily accessed by the sampling boat , due to the overabundance of duckweed.
Mean Condition Factors (K values) of largemouth bass , a measure ofweightlength relationship and a general indicator of environmental conditions, wereslightly lower than those calculated for largemouth bass from other lakes in NewEngland. However, this could be due to the low values of a few of the smallerindividuals sampled. Generally, the abundance and size distribution indicate a goodlargemouth bass fishery with habitat/food requirements being met.
Primar forage species (prey species) for the largemouth bass in Turner Reservoirappear to be bluegil and pumpkinseed sunfish as well as the young of year of otherspecies (white sucker). Golden shiner, a common forage species in many lakes , andhistorically present in Turner Reservoir, were not collected in the 1999 sampling.
2. Summar of Findings for Fish Tissue Analvsis. Concentrations of methylmercury in largemouth bass (0. 146 ppm) were approximately two times higher than thosefound in white sucker and yellow bullhead. This is expected since these are a predatorspecies at the top of the food chain. Although these concentrations of methyl mercury arebelow the action level of I ppm established by the FDA, they are above some risk criteriaestablished by the EP A for consumption. EP A risk criteria are not enforceable , but doprovide approximate health risks for specific populations and levels of consumption. Theconcentrations of methyl mercury found in the largemouth bass are above the risk levelsfor children (0. 1 ppm) consuming these fish.
Concentrations of PCBs were detected for all three composite fish samples. Thehighest concentration of 0. 12 ppm was found in the white sucker composite (from CentralPond). White sucker is a bottom dwelling fish exposed to the sediment. Theseconcentrations are below the FDA action level of 2 ppm, but they are above the levelswhere specific health risks could occur from consumption (0.016 ppm). It should benoted that concentrations in largemouth bass and yellow bullhead (0.02 ppm) exceededthis threshold as well.
Concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected fromall three composite fish tissue samples. These were highest in the yellow bullheadcomposite sample (0.023 ppm) from South Pond. These levels of P AHs are above theEP A risk levels established for 17 target P AHs of most concern to human health.Therefore, there may be health risks associated with consumption of yellow bullheadfrom Turner Reservoir, based upon these levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Concentrations of the pesticide, DOT and its degradation products (DOE andODD), as well as total Chlordane, Dieldren, Endrin , Heptachlor Epoxide,Hexachlorobenzene, and Mirex , from the composite fish tissue samples were below EP risk levels presented in the publication "Guidance for Assessing Chemical ContaminantData for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume II. Risk Assessment and Fish ConsumptionLimits. Second Edition. 1997
3. Summar of Findings for Sediment Analysis. High concentrations of metalswere detected in the sediments of Turner Reservoir. Concentrations of all metalsanalyzed, with the exception of arsenic were above the Long and Morgan Biologicaleffects levels (ER-L and ER-M), where effects upon sensitive aquatic life can beexpected. Concentrations of all metals (including arsenic) were also above the OntarioMinistry of the Environment (OME) guidelines Low Effects Levels (LEL) where effectsupon aquatic life can be expected. Concentrations of zinc, arsenic, lead, and mercury insome samples did not exceed the OME' s Severe Effects Levels (SEL). Metals in thehighest concentrations were copper, nickel and zinc. In addition , levels of cadmium (157ppm from site TR#2)(see Figure 3) were not only above the biological effect levels, butalso above the cleanup levels established by some states (i.e. the State of Washington).
Concentrations of Total PCBs were highest in the sediments from site TR#3(321. 19 ppb), the most downstream site of Turner Reservoir. This is below the Long andMorgan Biological effects level where biological effects would be expected to occur inmost fonns of aquatic life (ER-M), but above the level where they would be likely toeffect sensitive aquatic life fonns (ER-L).
Concentrations of pesticides were detected in the sediments from all threestations. Concentrations of 4'4' DOE were 11.94 ppb at site TR#2 , 25.89 ppb at siteCP#I , and 60.50 ppb at site TR#3 , the most downstream site. All of these samples(except the TR#2 site) exceeded the Long and Morgan biological effects levels for both
the ER-L (2 ppb) and the ER-M (15 ppb). Therefore , these concentrations are at levelswhere biological effects would be expected to occur in most organisms.
Concentrations of 23 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons were detected in thesediments from Turner Reservoir, and were highest at site TR#3 (the most downstreamsite in South Pond). The compounds detected in the highest concentrations wereFluoranthene and Pyrene, which were above the ER-L levels , but below the ER-M levelsindicating that biological effects may be predicted to begin among sensitive life statesand/or species of aquatic organisms.
4. Investigation . Although there is no fonnal boat access , small non-motorizedwatercraft are launched from the shore adjacent to Route 152 on both the upstream anddownstream sides. The area is also fished from the extensive shoreline well as from theRoute 152 causeway. The Rhode Island Deparment of Environmental Management(RIEM) conducted fisheries sampling in 1965; however, minimal fisheries data hasbeen collected since that time. This has parly been due to the reservoir s inaccessibilityto larger motorized watercraft (from the lack of a definite boat launch) which arenecessary for effective fish sampling by RIEM.
A fisheries investigation was conducted at Turner Reservoir during September1999. This study included sampling of the fish population to detennine speciescomposition and population structures , as well as analysis of fish tissue for the presenceof contaminants (from selected target species) in order to detennine possible ecologicaland/or human health risks. In addition to the fish tissue analysis , sediments from selectedlocations in the reservoir were collected and analyzed for contaminants.
5. Corps Site Visit and Methods
(a) Fish Sampling. On September 9 , and 24, 1999 , representatives from theNew England District sampled selected locations of Turner Reservoir for resident fishspecies. A map ofthe locations ofthese sampling areas is presented in Figure 4. Withthe exception of the deployment of one gillnet for a short period, sampling wasaccomplished by boat electroshocking using a Coffelt Industries, Mark 22 Electrofishingunit with Pulsed Direct Current, mounted on a 14 foot aluminum Jon-boat. Selectedsections of the near shore area on both the East Providence and Seekonk sides (from bothTurner Reservoir and Central Pond) were sampled during the daylight hours, by eitherslow ly navigating the boat parallel to the shore (approximately 20 to 50 feet off shore)and intennittently energizing the electrodes of the sampler; or by systematically passingfrom approximately forty feet offshore shoreward (ending at the shore itself). Generally,the abundance of floating duckweed along much of the shoreline precluded the use ofsuccessive passes (the latter method) in much of the reservoir. In addition to the boatshocking, a 5-foot wide x 125-foot long variable mesh experimental gillnet was set for 2hours approximately parallel to shore (Site GN1) extending from a small island adjacentto Route 152. This sampling was primarily designed to capture target species (i.bullhead and/or sucker) for tissue analysis.
Upon collection (by electrofishing), fish were placed into an aerated live-wellweighed to the nearest gram (or 0.25 ounce for fish weighing greater than 200 gramsrequiring a larger scale), measured to the nearest 0.25 centimeter and, with the exceptionof those taken for tissue analysis, released. Fish collected from the gillnet were identifiedand counted. Target species that were retained for tisssue analysis were also weighed andmeasured. Non-target species surviving gilnet deployment were released back into thereservoir, and non-surviving fish were removed and disposed off site.
(b) Condition Factors . Condition factors (K) (a measure of robustness) ofselected sport fish was calculated using total length according to the formula K= W x
where
K = condition factorW = weight (grams)L = length (mm)
Selected fish specimens (from both sampling methods) taken for tissueanalysis were prepared according to the methods outlined in the EPA documentGuidance For Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories,
Volume 1; Fish Sampling and Analysis, Offce of Science and Technology, Office ofWater, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1993. where each fishwas individually wrapped in foil, immediately frozen on dry ice, and stored frozen untildelivery to the laboratory (approximately six weeks later) for processing and analysis.
In addition to the fisheries sampling noted above, sediment samples werecollected on November 10 1999 , from station CP #1 in Central Pond , and stations TR#2and TR#3 in South Pond (see Figure 4). Sediment was collected using a Petite Ponar
grab sampler, pre-rinsed with reagent grade isopropanol and deionized water. Approximately three grabs were collected from each site and composited. Compositesamples from each site were placed on ice, and stored frozen or at 4 C (depending upontype of analysis), until they were analyzed for bulk chemistry, metals , total organiccarbon , and grain size.
(c) Fisheries
Species Distribution - Data collected during this 1999 fisheries sampling,indicated that Turner Reservoir supports a freshwater fish assemblage consisting ofbluegill , pumpkinseed , yellow perch , white perch , white sucker, yellow bullhead , andlargemouth bass. In addition, two individual specimens of American eel (Anguilarostrata) were collected as wel1 as one specimen of black crappie. These data aregenerally in agreement with historical data, which were collected from the TurnerReservoir complex by RIDEM in 1965. Exceptions were Black Crappie and Americaneel which were not found in 1965 but were collected during 1999; and Golden shiner andchain pickerel which were found in 1965 , but were not found in 1999. A listing of all
...
LEGEND
------- -'- _... ---_._ _._'-- --- '----
I RSH & SEDIMONT II SAING LQCTIONSe22 Aarg.. 10 Stasus Arm Corps TLr Rer Slu: of Engln8srs3 Ea Pr, Rh Isl;n
New England District 201 R . 1
FISH AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Seirr Sarre Ponts Rsh Sae Loion
---- ----. ...--- - ...--- - .- - -- ..--- ----------. -- ...--- ._- ---- - - --. -- --------------- -..- ..._ ...- --'--- ----
species collected from the Turner Reservoir complex with their relative percentages(percent capture) by number and by weight is presented in Table 5.
TABLE 5LISTING OF ALL FISH SPECIES CAPURED AT TURR RESERVOIR (INCLUDING CENTRA
AN NORTH PONDS) DURG THE SUMMER OF 1999 (BY ELECTROFISffG)
Soecies Scientiic Name Total Collected Percent Catch Percent Weiaht
Blueaill LeDomis maeroehirus 14.Eel Anauila rostrataLaraemouth Bass MieroDterus salmoides 118 41.40 52.Pumpkinseed Leoomis aibbosus 18. 10.White Perch Morone americana 2.46White Sucker Catostomus eommersoni 1.40 12.Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalisYellow Perch Perea fIaveseens 20.Black Crappie Pomoxis niaromaeulatus
\ An additional 46 white perch were also collected by gilnet, not included in above table.
Although the primar sampling method utilzed in this study was electrofishing, asingle gilnet was deployed for a short period of time. Ths gilnet captured an additional46 adult white perch (ranging between 12 and 24 centimeters) as well as a singlepumpkinseed and a single yellow bullhead. Since these fish were generally notindividually weighed and measured; they were not incorporated into the speiespercentages calculated for the fish sampled by electrofishing. Therefore, the totalpercentage of white perch noted in the following figues are slightly higher, due to theadditional fish captured in the gilnet.
The 1999 fisheries survey indicated differences in species distrbution and fishsizes (i.e. ages) between specimens collected from South Pond and those collected fromCentraVorth Pond. South Pond contained a greater number of species than CentralNorth Pond; although the mean lengths of the individual fishes were generally less. total of eight fish species were collected from South Pond (American eel , bluegil, blackcrappie, largemouth bass, pumpkinseed, white perch, and yellow bullhead), whereas onlyfour species (bluegil, largemouth bass, white sucker, and yellow perch) were collected inCentraVorth pond. In addition, the largemouth bass collected from the South Pond weregenerally smaller in both size and weight than those collected from CentraVorth Pond.Respective lengths and weights of South Pond fish averaged 12.9 cm and 51.7 gramscompared to those from Centralorth Pond which averaged 15.01 centimeters and 130.
grams (length and weight respectively). Also, yellow bullhead and American eel werecollected in South Pond, but not in Centralort Pond, while white sucker werecollected in CentraVorth Pond and not in South Pond.
These differences in species composition and size are most likely related todifferences in habitat between the two areas. Generally, South Pond contained morediverse aquatic habitat than Central/orth Pond. Consequently, it produced greater
species and/or size diversity. Much ofCentrallorthern Pond was characterized by steep
bank topography, leading to a shar drop off to deeper water, whereas South Pond
included areas of shallower water with emergent vegetation and cover, as well as deeper
areas with submerged cover. Generally, deeper water containing submerged cover
(characteristic of the habitat of Centrallorth Pond) is preferred by larger fish (i.e. adults
and/or larger predator fish) that rest and/or feed in covered areas of deeper water. Smaller
fish species, including ft and juveniles of predator species, are generally found in
shallower areas where there is a greater percentage of rooted submerged and emergentaquatic vegetation and quieter water. This is characteristic of some of the areas of SouthPond. Therefore, it would be expected that the deeper areas of Centrallorth Pond that
were sampled would yield a greater percentage of adults and larger fish species thanwould areas of South Pond that contained shallower habitat. Although most ofCentrallorth Pond was characterized by steeply sloping shoreline (as noted above), theupstream portion of the Ten Mile River contained an extensive area of wetlands, withpresumably shallower habitat which may provide additional spawnng and nursery area
for the resident fish species. However, this area was not sampled, due to its extreme
location upstream, and the fact that the primary focus of the study was the moredownstream area of Turner Reservoir.
While most of the habitat in Centrallorth Pond was unfonnly characterized by
the steep sides and deeper water near shore, at least two locations in South Pond wereshallow and could be considered as nursery areas for ft and juvenile fish species. These
included a small inlet (cove) on the Seekonk side of the reservoir (Site 7) as well as thenear shore area along the East Providence side (Site 6) (see Figue 4). Fish collected
from Site 7 had the smallest mean lengths in the entire reservoir complex for all speciesfound in that location with the exception of white perch, indicating that this area is
preferred habitat for many of these smaller individuals. Many small fish were alsocollected at Sites I and 6 , which are both located on the East Providence side of thereservoir. Generally, these areas were also characterized by more gradually sloping
shorelines, with emergent vegetation, similar to that in the cove of Site 7.
In addition to differences in habitat between Centrallorth Pond and South Pond,
which appears to detennine the species and size distrbutions of the two areas, it is
possible that the remaining strcture of the fonner Central Pond Dam acts as a physical
barer between the two areas. Although the crest ofthe dam is submerged several feetbelow the surface of the water, allowing the movement of pelagic (water colum)
dwellng species over it, the existing structure may limit the movement of bottomdwelling (demersal) species between Centrallorth pond and South Pond. The presence
of the strcture could explain why yellow bullhead and white sucker (two bottom
dwelling species) were not collected in both places (i.e. white sucker were found only in
Central/North Pond, and yellow bullhead were found only in South Pond).
Dominant Species - A listing of all species collected in Turer Reservoir is
presented in Table 5. In addition, these data are displayed graphically in Figues 5 , and
7. It can be seen that largemouth bass was the most abundant species collected in Turner
Reservoir, both numerically and by weight. They comprised approximately 30 percent ofthe total fish collected in South Pond and 78 percent of the total fish collected inCentral/North Pond. For the combined area of both South Pond and North/Central Pondlargemouth bass were also the most abundant species , comprising approximately 41percent of the total number of fish collected (Figure 7).
Percentage of Species Collected at Turner s Reservoir
II Bluegil
.Eel!J Largemouth Bass
. Pumpkinseed
II White Perch
. Yellow Perch
. Yellow Bullhead
!J Black Crappie
15-
a. 10
Species
Figure 5. Percentages of Species collected at South Pond of Turner Reservoirduring the summer of 1999.
Percentage of Species Collected at Central and North Pondsof Turner s Reservoir
I!Bluegili
o Largemouth Bass
. White Sucker
. Yellow Perch
f: 40-
20-
Species
Figure 6. Percentages of Species collected at Central/North Pond of TurnerReservoir during the summer of 1999.
Percentage of All Fish Species Collected atTurner s ReservoirComplex Including Central/North Pond
Species
I) Bluegil
.Eelo Largemouth Bass
. Pumpkinseed
II White Perch
. White Sucker
I! Yellow Bullhead
. Yellow Perch
o Black Crappie
40 .
'E 30'
Ci 20
Figure 7. Percentage of Species Collected from all Locations in TurnerReservoir.
Large Mouth Bass Length Frequency Distribution - A length frequencydistribution of all of the largemouth bass collected in the Turner Reservoir was calculatedand is presented below in Figure 8. As noted previously, although the former mill dam inCentral Pond may be acting as a barier to the movement of bottom dwellng fish, water
column dwellng fish such as largemouth bass would stil be allowed to move freelybetween the two areas. Since there is less largemouth bass spawning habitat available inthe Central/North Pond area than in South Pond , Central Pond fish may spawn in theshallow areas of South Pond. Therefore, fish collected from the entire reservoir wereused in compilng the length frequency distribution for largemouth bass.
Based upon this length frequency distribution , there appears to be a wellrepresented largemouth bass population present in Turner Reservoir. These include fishthat were hatched in 1999 from that year s spawning (i.e. young of year, represented as
0+) as well as fish that had resulted from the previous year s spawning (i.e. age class 1+
1998). The largest fish collected (49 centimeters) is within the size class offish thatcould range from approximately 7 to 10 years old in temperate climates (Carlander1977). Referring to this distribution , ages of fish can be approximated based uponpublished age and size data, although precise determnation of age classes generallyrequires the use of other methods in addition to length frequency determnation (such as
scale and/or otolith examination). However, the distribution of Turner Reservoirlargemouth bass population presented below does show that several year classes oflargemouth bass are present in the reservoir, paricularly young fish, ranging from one to
three years old as well as older fish. This indicates that a reproducing population ispresent in the reservoir.
Largemouth Bas Length Frequency DistributionTurner Resrvir, East Providnce Rhode Island
B 15
z 10
13 17 25 29 33 37 41 45 Cetimeters
Figure 8. Length Frequency Distribution of Largemouth Bass in TurnerReservoir.
Ths largemouth bass length frequency distrbution from Turner Reservoir isunusual when compared to other New England lakes, because it shows a continuous
grouping of smaller fish ranging from approximately 7 centimeters to 16 centimeterswith the most abundant size class collected being approximately 12 centimeters.Largemouth bass length frequency data collected from many other New England lakes(including many man made lakes similar to Turner Reservoir) indicate that this size rangegenerally corresponds to two age classes; young of year, and 1+. Generally in these lakesthe most abundant fish are the young of year (age class 0+) with lengths ranging from 3 to8 centimeters, with a mean of approximately 5-6 centimeters. However, at TurnerReservoir the most abundant largemouth bass size class was 12 centimeters, which whencompared to other similar New England locations corresponds to fish at least one yearold. Although fish corresponding to the sizes of young of year were collected, they wereat the upper size ranges, with the smallest fish being 6.5 centimeters (as noted earlieryoung of year generally range between 3 - 8 centimeters). fu addition, there were fewerof these fish than the older age 1 + fish.
It is likely that this unique size djstrbution of largemouth bass at TurnerReservoir is the result of sampling bias. Much of the shallow nearshore area of the southpond (where most of the young of year are found) was inaccessible to the sampling boatby excessive growth of duckweed. Consequently, the deeper sections, which providehabitat for older fish were sampled more intensely than the shallower areas. The result isthe disproportionate collection of fish larger than young of year. The fact that young ofyear were collected; however, indicates the presence of a reproducing largemouth basspopulation in the reservoir. fu addition, the large number of year old fish (age 1+)indicates that not only was there successful largemouth bass spawning in the previousyear (1998), but that these fish were able to successfully overwinter and survived in large
numbers. Therefore, this indicates the presence of not only largemouth bass spawninghabitat, but nursery, and overwintering habitat as well.
Condition Factors of Largemouth Bass - Condition factor (K value) is acoefficient that measures the general "plumpness" or "robustness" of a fish by
calculating the relationship between weight and length (see methods section above).Generally, this K value can be an indicator of overall environmental conditions, in thatthe greater the amount of body weight of a fish relative to its length, the better the foodsupply and habitat requisites for growth and survival. This coefficient was calculated foreach of the largemouth bass collected. The mean (K) of all largemouth bass collectedfrom Turner Reservoir was approximately 1.32. Condition factors of largemouth basscollected from other man made reservoirs similar to Turner Reservoir in New England(including Corps of Engineers Flood Control Projects) have ranged from 1.39 for ElmBrook Pool in New Hampshire, to 1.55 from Hancock Brook Lae in Plymouth
Connecticut. Of these two locations, Elm Brook Pool generally had the better (moreevenly distributed) largemouth bass population; however, the overall condition factorswere lower than the one in Connecticut.
Although the overall condition factor for all of the largemouth bass collected fromTurner Reservoir appears slightly lower that from largemouth bass collected from someother New England locations , it may be due to relatively low values of some individualyear classes. It appears that the largemouth bass from Turner Reservoir from the younger
age classes, (0+ and 1+) have lower values than those fish older than age class 1+. The
mean K value calculated from fish less than 18.5 centimeters in length from TurnerReservoir was approximately 1.29, whereas the mean K value from fish that were greaterthan age 1+ is approximately 1.47. Therefore, although the younger age classes appear tohave lower K values than those calculated for largemouth bass from varous other manmade lakes in New England, the K values of the older fish are within the middle of therange of those collected from other areas. Therefore, it could be assumed that there isadequate food and water quality (i.e. habitat requisites) present in Turer Reservoir for
largemouth bass survival and reproduction (at least for the older fish). Although the Kvalues from the younger age classes are slightly lower than some other New Englandlocations, the fact that so many of these fish were collected (paricularly age class 1 +)
suggests that favorable nursery conditions exist to allow growth and winter survival.Therefore, based on the higher condition factors of the older largemouth bass, and the fact
that so many younger largemouth bass were collected (although their condition factorswere slightly lower than those from other New England locations), Turer Reservoir
appears to have suitable food availability (forage) as well as other habitat requisites (i.suitable water quality and basin morphology) to sustain a self reproducing largemouthbass population.
In many lakes, largemouth bass (as well as other predator species) feed (forage)upon smaller and/or non-predatory species such as golden shiner and young of whitesucker, as well as young of year of other predatory and non-predatory (i.e. bluegil andpumpkinseed sunfish). White sucker were found in Central and North ponds but they
--- ,---
---- ---
. ----
_u-L
T
able
6. M
etal
Con
cent
r atio
ns in
Fis
h T
issu
e C
olle
cted
from
Tur
ner
Res
eroi
r/C
entr
al P
ond,
Eas
t Pr o
vide
nce
Rho
de I
sla n
d1I- .--
-- '-
-- .
- - T
-- i
Tur
ner
Res
ervo
ir F
ish
Tis
sue
Res
ults
1--
-oo
.---
- .-"-
._-
---
(ppm
)
--
---
uala
Drv
wt
Met
als
1-"--
---.-
----. --
----
--. ----
--_.
.j-
- 0
_-
- -
---
f---
1-
I 1
34.
- 0.
-- m
---
; ---
-
--oo ---
---
=1
lIo
Bul
lhad --
---
!._
93
L__u
".
O-
..... u
::::- -
:: r
---'
---
--. -
-
Sam
Dle
Cr --
Cu
Zn
As
. - .--
-- ._
---
----
. ---
.. -.
--..
-'
r-- -.----
. _
r---
- -
-r
2?_
. 0.
229
229
983
0.11
5
!J"
---
175+
0. 1
81 I 2.98
0 17
5t=
ite
Suc ker --
248-
::355
! 14.
062-1
0.12
4 0.
025
248
- -.--.---.
. ---
- -+
-- -.
--- ---
-t-..-
---
-t --
--
'on
ldj
J)e
lIec
tion an
cfan
alY
Sler
ecee
aoi
and Methyl Hg,
how
E!
, cj
cuss
!on
with
rep
rese
ntat
ies
from
Bat
elle
indi
cate
d th
at d
ata
wou
ld s
til b
e re
liabl
e.P
leas
e no
te th
at a
lthou
gh th
e co
nce
ntra
tion
of m
ethy
l mer
cury
is g
reat
er th
an to
tal m
erc
ury,
thes
ere
sults
are
with
lth
emar
of error. ;
----
- -
----
._--
---
125
---"
-- .
023
i 0.
229
. "--
Pb
MeH
a
567
635
0.40
3 : 0.
386
---
179
r 0.
196
L__
__M
eHa
130
146
068
044
049
1---
T-. - J- 1_- .
. := ... .
9 Pe tlcld\I CC?n ntratlonS ln Flsh Tissue
rru/'n,! Releiv ijr:JitI/'IIJlN!? h poncd . L!Ea..tPr9Ylde - R "Ian
- - . .- - - j- - -- ---
- n
---
T8* 7-
- - .----
Lar mouth Bass Yellow Bullhead
..J E:.
. .-
Compound -- Reau" -- - un TOIaIPC TOlalPCEl'a ---
--
---- iolliPC'. To18IPC.- ---
-- -
--- un .!I-'
- .
..o!!! 'l!' ". wolwL II -
- . -
"glV. dry
:) ---- ::-- -
u- --. -
-- - -- --- .: =
-==3:
:: =:: ----- ---- :: --- -- - :: - ----- -- ::- -- --- ---
il - LC=:c .
121 0.80 0.11 .----.- 1.3J 0.30 ---
-- _
1. 1.138 7.55 1.81 11.3 2.31 , 85.77 1..153
- - ..
82 1.10 -- _no_no 1.15 1.81
------ -----
32. 33 __.n--170 08 0.2. ______ " 0.
__- -=--- - -.-=-- -
--- 5.03 1.5
--.--
WI80 ..52 1.01 7.1 "'1 35.10 1.. Cl11 1.80 0.01 -_H. --"" 0.71 n ----- 12.15 2.77
----
115 0-2 U 0.00 _d. - - -- 0.73 U 0.00 - ---- n- .n._-
-- ..
38 1.00
---
20 1.73 0.38 33 - 0.
" -----
..2 - 0.--- cn 20 -. 0.10 0.2 om---- --__Un. 2.12 0..1 02---- ----- 1.10 O.Q 12..05 CI(17)C1(15 0_26 U 0.06 ---- - - =- 0-66 U - O-
-- -
u.- -- 0_24 LJ- O_OS
-- --- ---
CI 24 CI 27 0_44 U 0_10 1.. U 0-22 0_41 U 0_CU( --- ===:0_73 - 16 - =-- - O-M U 0-16 --
----- --
n- ------ 10_77 2_45
==-- -~~~ --= _- -- --- -- -- --- -- --=: :-:..- --
l!-
-- ---
CI5 110 50 0.57 -
--- .- ---'
n ---- 1-30U 0-25 ---- ----- O_46U 0_11 -'_nCl5(128) -- 0.37 U 0-08 - 0-95 U 0-19 _._ 34 U 0_CI 129 0_32 U 0_07 0.82 U 0-18 1.3 0-CI 189 0.27 U 0_06 -- -- 0.70 U 0_14 - ----- 0_25 U 0_CI(I83 _- 0_98 0_22 --- 1_83 0_38 -.---. 4_87 1.1CI7 184 0_40 U 0.09 + 1_04 U 0.20 0_37 U 0_06 201
? ----
=- 0.18 U- O
___+-=--- -
- 0.47 U 0_09
- - - . ------
--- 0_ 17 U - 0_04
=- --=-=- -- .. --
- rE '_n
--- - --- - ----
E -SHe 0.28 U 0-06 0_88 U 0_13 0.66 0-a Chlordon 2_07 0_46
-- -----
- 3-82 0_74
---
31.99 7-29 -
- ---
Iordana 0_80 0_13
--- -
1.83 0_38 -- -
--- ..-- .
- 0-2B U 0_06
.--
4DDE
--_
----- 0_70U 0_18 -
- :
-- I_BI U 0_35
--- - ----- --
- 0-85U 0_15 --
-.---- ----- :: -- -
---- u__
--- ------ - --
':7 -- =1-
----..- .. -
'= u_
" '.
00 -
..,- - .. ---
1-"-
Fiel
d Sa
mpl
e D
ata
:....
oi..-
-_
"'':,
;'';-
:: I
LI I n
Tur
ner
rvol
r , E
st P
rov
denc
e R
l!od
e Is
la
__-
- --
----
I I
t .
-=L
irgen
Bas
com
+- . .
Yel
low
Bul
lhea
d C
omlls
lt W
hit S
ucke
r C
omlla
I I I
Tum
er a
nd C
entr
al P
onT
umer
Central P
ond!
----
- :=
:- . -
_- .
Filletl
Fille
t Fi
lletl
-- --
I' I
b- -
-m-
'_n_
___
--
i '
~~~~
: --
----
Mat
rix
. --
---
- --
---
-
Tis
sc-
- Tissue
Tis
sue
=t
I!!.c
lion
Dat
e- - 09.:
Sep-
and
2;1
Sep-99
1 I 09-
Sep-
99 a
nd 2
4-Se
p-99
23
-Se
- --
tra.
c:te
: - ---
---
----
- 27-
De.
c-99
I -
I
---
- 27-De.-99 27-
De.
-99
Ana
lysi
s D
ate:
12-
Jan-
Q1 -- 12-Ja
n-Q
12-
Jan-
00 .
'!i:P
leW
(9):
-
-- --
nn -=: --- 15_
11f
:---
- 6_74
n__- 16-
161 ,_u - . -
'!!"-
"
WI. (gt ---
- 3-
391
, 1-31 3.
68: ,
lSII
!("
0
- --
---_
n- 77571
- 80.50
77221 ,
-- --
--
%L
ipid
(wet
)
__-
.---
-. -
-- -
----
_n__
_- 0.68
I,
!,
- - --
0 __on --
_n
uglg, dry
wI!
ug
lg,
we wt ' --
--_
n_-
g, d
ry w
i ugl
g, we wt
g, d
wi
we
wt
On
----
- --
--
(ppb
) (p
pb)
, : (ppb)
1---
-
Ben
zofb
)tlli
OP
':- .
::::'-
.---
. --
- .
93!U 0_
!,ap
hlha
lene
.-- 0
0___- -
-- -
. -- 6_
73 1
-M
elhy
lna J'
thal
ene
3.00
0-
Mel
hyfn
apht
hale
nen-
.---.- 1-
73 0
-
;!,
Din
iaP
httia
lI1
L0.40 U
Trim
elhy
lnap
htha
le 0
- 66 U 0_
_._
: _
n -.
- . -
==
:=
-- 0-
26 U
0.
A.c
enph
IhY
.!.-
--
.. O.
32'U 10-
A.c
enap
hthe
ne 0
- 20 U
0. 0
5 be
nzof
ura,;'
--. ----
-._-- -----
- 0-
30 U
0. 07 ---
Fluo
rene
---
-
--- --
---
.- 1-
45 0
-he
miii
ihre
ne
-: -
--- -- 3.
38' 0_
Anl
h,!c
;_
..--
- O.
35'U
0-
"'el
hylp
hen
anth
e!1
, .---
--- 0_
47 U
0.
Dib
enzo
lhio
phe.
!!!
---
-_on
0.6
8 U
'0. 1
5 --
---
Flu
oran
then
e 0-
46 U
0.
Pyre
n
::_
::n
: _-
_~~
~
==
- 1-
51 U
0.
?en
o(a),!r
a.ce
ne -
-- -- 0.
31 U
0-
s!,!
e .
---.
... -
- "
---
.._----
-_
BenzO(b)fluoranthene , 0.
33 U :0-
enzO
(k)f
luo
rani
tel1
- e-
-
--
---- 0.
24IU
'0-
~~~~
f-:
:-:-
: -~~
~~--
--
F---
h '--
. !-_
. ---
--n
~~~~
~
:2; 3
-.c,
d)ey
ie:
::.:
. -~~
~
:::;U
D
iben
z(a,
h)an
lt".'
.cne
h__
- --
---.-
- --
72, U
10- 16
nz
O(g
,i)
!1ry
len
----
----
IUJ33
r.- -.- _n
---
--
- ---- - ---
-.-
--
Su"ogate Recveries:
Nap
htha
lene
-
. -
hena
nthr
e ne:cf ci' -_.
. .--
--
ry_
-:-
-- -
- -:
--
41'U
0.
11. 6
1 2-
29 0
-46
0.
04 U
0.
69 U
0.
68 U
0.
82 U
0.
53 U
0.
78 U ,
1.5 U 10.
29 11.
91 U
'0-
21 U
0.
76 U
0.
05 0
.89
U 0
.81 U 0_
87 U 0_
86 U
0.
61 U
0.
54 U
0.
28 U
0.
71 U
0.
43 U
0.4
785
U 0
.83
1U 0
-
---
.._--
---
---
-.-
.---
---
-.j-
---
---
--.
.--
-.--
-
-
: I
--.- ,
61. I
---
--.
"-.-
fME
Esi
irla
teSi
!ln
can
t mai
rix T
.ierf
ere
n.ce
-_.
---
.--
26: '
22.31 1 !
431 ; - -
17' . 2-
--_.
f- -
-47
:- 0-
60:U
' 0.
._-
2.52
-'--
20, ' 0-
4.-;
. --
48'
1.25
6.0
---
r?1 82
0.
81: I 1.
7fr .n
Q.-
1.2 0-
31 U
0-
22 U I 00
0.05
19 U
' 0-
46 U' -----
32IU
87jU
!
jl.L
___
!!- __
----
58'
----
- --
-
were not found in South Pond. Golden shiner, although historically found in TurnerReservoir, were not collected in the 1999 sampling, Therefore , it appears that thelargemouth bass in Turner Reservoir are feeding primarily on other species such as theabundant young of pumpkinseed and bluegil , rather than on white sucker (for the fish inthe southern pond) or golden shiner.
It is possible that the absence of golden shiner in the sampling from TurnerReservoir could be parially due to sampling bias. Electrofishing, which was the primarmethod of sampling conducted in Turner Reservoir generally collects fish from the nearshore areas, and the deeper areas adjacent to shore, Golden shiners are a pelaegicschooling species found more in open water areas than in close near shore areas,Therefore, electrofishing of the nearer shore areas is less likely to collect golden shinerthan sampling of the open water areas. However, it should be mentioned that the singlegil net which was set in the deeper area of South Pond did not collect golden shiner, butdid collect white perch, which are another schooling fish species, Generally, in lakeswhere golden shiner are extremely abundant, at least some are collected in gilnets. Thefact that none were collected at all by either gilnetting or electrofishing suggests thatthese are not abundant in Turner Reservoir. Therefore, it would appear that these speciesare not the primar forage species for the largemouth bass in Turner Reservoir, but otherspecies (i,e. bluegil , pumpkinseed) are.
(d) Contaminant Levels in Fish. In order to determne if chemical contamnantswere present in fish from Turner Reservoir, three samples each of largemouth bass , whitesucker, and yellow bullhead were collected/analyzed. Tissue from these species wascomposited to create three composites , one for each target species, These compositesamples were analyzed for metals , polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (P AH), PCBs andPesticides. Largemouth bass were selected because they are considered populargamefish , as well as predators, susceptible to bio-accumulation and concentration ofmetals and other contaminants, Yellow bullhead was selected as it is a popular bottomdwelling gamefish and because it is exposed to bottom sediments. White sucker, whilenot necessarily a popular gamefish, are also bottom dwellng species, exposed to thesediment, feeding along the bottom and ingesting detritus and other material.
Attempts were made to use individual fish specimens from varoussampling locations within the Turner Reservoir complex in order to determine an overallvalue for the entire area (i,e, presence or absence), However, largemouth bass were theonly species that were found throughout Turner Reservoir. White sucker was found onlyin Central Pond , and Yellow bullhead was found only in South Pond. Therefore , thecomposites of white sucker and yellow bullhead are representative of Central/North Pondand South Pond respectively, rather than the entire complex as are for largemouth bass,
Results of the tissue analysis are summarized below in Tables 6 , 7 and8 showing the metals , PCB/Pesticide, and PAH data respectively. A detailed report on thefish tissue sampling can be found in Appendix A. Detectable levels of, Copper (Cu),Zinc (Zn),) Cadmium (Cd), Mercury (Hg) and Methyl-mercury (MeHg) were recovered
from at least one of the three composite tissue samples (of each of the three species),Although these tissue samples were also tested for chromium, arsenic , nickel , and leadthese metals were not detected at the method detection levels used. High concentrationsof some of these metals in fish tissue can adversely affect the health of individualsconsuming these fish. Of these metals, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have established health criteria for levelsin fish tissue for only mercury and cadmium, respectively. The FDA establishes actionlevels for certain contaminants, which are considered to be the maximum concentrationsof that contaminant in fish before issuing specific health advisories, while the EP A usesrisk analysis. Risk analyses determines the percentage of risk associated with fishconsumption based upon the amount of fish consumed and the concentration of the targetcontaminant. These risk analyses have been published in the EP A publication "Guidancefor Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume II. RiskAssessment and Fish Consumption Limits. Second Edition. 1997 . The FDA hasestablished an action level of 1 ppm (wet weight) for methyl mercury in fish tissue, andthe EP A, has calculated risks associated with consumption of fish with cadmiumconcentrations exceeding excess of 0,06 ppm.
Mercury levels (both of total and of methyl-mercury) found from all threespecies composites were considerably less than the FDA action level of 1 ppm. Totalmercury concentrations in Turner Reservoir fish were 0.04 ppm , 0.071 ppm and 0. 130ppm for the white sucker, yellow bullhead and largemouth bass composites respectively.It should be mentioned that these are levels of total mercury, which would includemethyl-mercury as well, Most mercury found in tissue is in the form of methyl mercury,which is highly toxic (Le, much more than elemental mercury). These fish from TurnerReservoir were also tested for methyl mercury. As would be expected, the concentrationsof methyl-mercury were very close to the concentrations of total mercury, indicating thatmost of the total mercury found was in the form of methyl mercury. The methyl-mercuryconcentrations for the above fish tissue composite samples were 0.049 ppm, 0,068 ppmand 0. 146 ppm for white sucker, yellow bullhead and largemouth bass respectively. TheEP A risk assessments consider 0. 1 ppm in fish tissue as the highest concentrationallowable for children before there is considerable risk of health effects. The above dataindicate that the largemouth bass collected from Turner Reservoir exceed that level.Therefore, according to the EP A risk assessment, levels of methylmercury in largemouthbass may pose a health risk to children consuming these fish. It should also be noted thatlargemouth bass (a predator) had the highest mercury concentrations compared to theyellow bullhead and white sucker. This is expected, due to the bio-accumulation/concentration that occurs up the food chain, since these appear to be the toppredators in the reservoir.
Although FDA action limits have not been established for the othermetalsdetected in the fish tissue , the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculatedrisk analyses for some of them, Risk analyses have been calculated for cadmium, as wellas some of the other organic contaminants that were analyzed in the fish at TurnerReservoir. For cadmium, risk associated with consumption of fish containing this metal
(for the general public) begins at fish tissue concentrations in excess of 0.3 mglg (orppm). For children it begins at concentrations greater than 0,06 mglg. Based upon thesedata, the levels of cadmium found in the fish samples from Turner Reservoir, (all ofwhich were below 0.03 mgI (or ppm) ) are not high enough to present a risk to humanhealth,
Other metals that can have adverse health effects to humans includearsenic (As), lead (Pb), and chromium, however, concentrations of these three metals inthe fish tissue analyzed (for all three species) were below the detection limits of 0, , 1.0and 1,0 ppm for arsenic , lead and chromium respectively. Although FDA action levelsfor these metals in fish tissue have not been established, comparson can be made withother countries, that have established legal limits, Legal limits for arsenic in fish tissuevar from 0. 1 to 10 ppm (NED 1995) and for lead, the legal limits var from 0.5 ppm to10 ppm. It should be noted that the lowest level in some of these ranges is actually belowthe detection limits used in this study, Therefore, hanfullevels of these metals could stilexist in the fish tissue from Turner Reservoir, but were not detected by the method usedin this study. Only one foreign country had an established legal limit for chromiumwhich was 1 ppm. However, all of the fish tissue samples analyzed from the TurnerReservoir had concentrations below ppm,
Results of the PCB analysis are presented in Table 7, Levels of totalPCB' s recovered from all of the tissue composite samples ranged from 0.02 ppm (wetweight) for largemouth bass and yellow bullhead , to 0, 12 ppm for white sucker. Theseare below the FDA action level of 2 ppm (wet weight) for PCB' s. However, EPA hasestablished monthly fish consumption limits for PCB' (EP A. Fact Sheet. September1999. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Update: Impact on Fish Advisories), which aremuch more conservative. These limit the consumption of fish with concentrations greaterthan 0,016 ppm to only two meals a month (for cancer health endpoints), and for levelsgreater than 0.097 ppm (which would apply to white sucker) no consumption isrecommended at all. Therefore although the PCB levels in fish tissue from TurnerReservoir are lower than the FDA action levels, health risks may stil exist, paricularlyfor white sucker consumption.
Pesticide results from the three tissue composite samples are presented in Table 7,Specific EPA risk assessment concentrations have been calculated for the DOT and itsdegradation products (DOE and ODD), as well as total Chlordane, Dieldrin, EndrinHeptachlor Epoxide , Hexachlorobenzene and Mirex. For the tissue samples analyzed , theconcentrations of these contaminants were all below the EP A risk published in the 1997publication noted above.
Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (P AH) from thethree composite fish tissue samples from Turner Reservoir are presented in Table 8.Total PAH concentrations ranged from 0,005 ppm (wet weight) for the largemouth basscomposite , to 0,008 ppm for the Yellow Bullhead composite , and 0,023 ppm for thewhite sucker composite, These concentrations are for the 27 P AHs listed in Table 8.
these 27 P AHs listed , the EP A has identified 17 target P AHs as being of the greatestconcern to human health, Risks are associated with consumption of fish containing totalconcentrations of these 17 target P AHs greater 0.00 1 ppm. It is obvious that theconcentrations of these target P AHs in fish tissue from Turner Reservoir exceed this,paricularly, those from the white sucker collected from Central Pond. It should be notedthat the PAHs that were highest in all three species were Napthalene, 2-Methylnapthalene, and Phenanthrene. Phenanthrene is the only target analyte of mostconcern to human health.
Recommendations for health advisories are generally determined by thestate deparments of health, and depend upon a varety of factors, primarly how the fishis prepared, as well as numbers of meals consumed. Therefore, it is not in the scope ofthis study to determne whether or not health advisories should be established, but ratherto indicate the potential of a health problem based upon the presence of varouscontaminants in fish tissue. Therefore, it is recommended that these results be sent to theRhode Island Deparment of Health for further evaluation , to determine if any type of fishconsumption advisories should be implemented.
(e) Sediment Chemistry, Sediment samples were collected from two locations inSouth Pond (TR#2 and TR#3) and one location in Central Pond (CP#l). These wereanalyzed for the same compounds as the tissue samples, with the addition of total organiccarbon and grain size. Generally, all of the sediments had detectable levels of the metalstested for, with the sample from TR#2 , the center of South Pond having the highestconcentrations Detectable levels of PCBs, Pesticides, and P AHs were also recoveredfrom each of the sediment samples, with site TR#3 (the most downstream) having thehighest concentrations of all of these.
Concentrations of metals in the Turner Reservoir/Central Pond Sediments arepresented in Table 9. Metals in the highest concentrations were copper, nickel and zinc.All concentrations of each metal analyzed with the exception of arsenic, were above theLong and Morgan Biological effects levels (1990, from NED, 1994) for both Low levels(ER-L) and Median levels (ER-M) as well as the Ontaro Ministry ofthe EnvironmentLow Effects Levels (LEL). Concentrations of zinc, arsenic, lead and mercury in somesamples did not exceed the Ontaro Ministry s Severe Effects Levels (SEL). The Longand Morgan Biological effects levels are statistically derived measures of sedimentpollutant concentrations having effects on sensitive aquatic life. The ER-L is aconcentration at the low end of the range in which effects were observed; the ER-M is aconcentration approximately midway in the range of reported values associated withbiological effects. Accordingly, the ER-L value indicates the low end of the range ofconcentrations in which effects were observed or predicted, They were considered (in thepublished document) as the concentrations above where adverse affects may begin or arepredicted among sensitive life states and/or species as determined in sublethal tests, TheER-M values were considered the concentrations above where effects were frequentlyalways observed or predicted among most species,
----
---
----
-_-
-- --
Con
cent
ratio
ns o
f M
etal
s in
Sed
imen
tsT
urne
r R
ese r
voir
, Eas
t Pro
vide
nce
Rho
de I
s lan
d
----
---
--
pm)
I
- --
Tb!
!i
.---
-
f---
--
----
--.-
Mat
ixm
ple
Dry
Wl(
a)
---
-.-
I Clie
nt
----
-SlI
eD
escr
iptio
nm
ple
Wet
Wl(
a)
--.-
---
PLE
RE
'!- -
CPI
1
TR
.3
---
---
94_
12_
704
!.05
( 28.26
9 88
.6
12. 3
95
---
Cen
tron
der
Res
ervo
ir S
it
Tur
ner
Res
ervo
ir S
ite 2
Sedi
men
t
Sed
imen
t I
Sedi
men
t
---
...-
----
--.
-..
Lon
g an
d!!lan - - -
Io!
cal E
ffec
Lev
e.
---
.-- ---
- -
--- -
rT
ER
-
---
---
-,
'(()
E)
--
-=-
=t=
=t-
--+
---
---
-- -
-- On ----
---
l =-
r -
-+
T--
----
- -
=-T
-- -
=-
==
. App
roxi
mat
ely
0.25
- g a
liquo
ts o
f hom
ogen
ous
sam
ple
wer
e di
gest
ed a
nd a
naly
zed-
- --
----
---
- --
- -
--+
---
Moi
stur
e
(%)
86.
73.
85.
t---
-
Btii
n__
---'-
_n-
I I
'CP-
ICP-
MS
HE
.C
YA
A'
407
350
897
-----
-
262 . 1-
55,
176
i.--
401'
: 3-
33'
-t-
_n. -
-.--
---.
-._
---
-
351
'. 110'
. 1.
-.
: i : i
-. i :! I
_._.
_--
-+-
820.
' 33.01
'. 33.
10. 01 i 250.
0;_
=ti :-t-.
.
80.
145.
26.
110.
16.
75.
16.
110.
---
--.-
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OME) Sediment QualityGuidelines have also been developed to protect aquatic life, The OME Severe EffectsLevels are applied to sediment containing concentrations of contaminants where apronounced disturbance of the sediment-dwelling community can be expected. This isconsidered the concentration of a compound in the sediment that would be detrimental tothe majority of benthic species, and the sediment would be classified as heavily polluted.While the Long and Morgan Biological Effects levels have been derived largely from adatabase of primarly marine and estuarine studies , the OME values were derived largelyusing data from the Great Lakes and other freshwater bodies, and are therefore moreapplicable to freshwater aquatic life, However, the Long and Morgan Biological EffectsLevels are also recognized as applicable for evaluating effects for freshwater aquatic lifein lieu of other criteria, (NED, 2(0), As noted, most of the concentrations of the abovemetals in Turner Reservoir sediment exceeded the concentrations where biological effectswould be expected to occur in aquatic life, according to both the Long and MorganBiological Effects Levels, and the OME Sediment Quality Guidelines.
The ER-L and ER-M concentrations for each of the metals tested for are presentedin Table 9. The concentrations of metals in Turner Reservoir sediments ranged from over30 times the ER-M for nickel from site TR#2 (1750 ppm) to approximately 3 times theER-M level for Lead (Pb), Therefore, based upon these criteria, biological effects fromthese elevated metals concentrations could be expected or observed among most speciesin Turner Reservoir exposed to Turner Reservoir sediment. In addition, some of thesemetals were in concentrations above some state clean-up standards and/or above levels insediments from other locations considered to be highly polluted, For cadmium, thesediment clean-up standard for the State of Washington is 6,7 ppm , and the concentrationof cadmium detected in the sediment from site TR #2 was 157 ppm, with levels from theother two locations averaging approximately 75 ppm. Also for Zinc , the level of 1500ppm detected in the sediment from site TR#2, exceeds the State of Washington SedimentCleanup Standard of 960 ppm , as well as the Great Lakes Sediment Guideline of greaterthan 200 ppm for heavily polluted sediment. Also, although concentrations of arsenic(which ranged from 6.54 to 13,5) were less than the ER-L and ER-M levels , theyexceeded the OME Low Effects Level (LEL) level of 6 ppm as well as the Great LakesSediment Guidelines of greater than 8 ppm for heavily polluted sediment. It should benoted that although these elevated concentrations of metals are present in the sedimentsof Turner Reservoir, they may not be bound-up in the sediments, In order to detenninebioavailabilty, Acid Volatile Sulfides - Simultaneously Extracted Metals Analysis wouldbe required, which was not par of the scope of this study. Therefore, it is recommendedthat the metals data be forwarded to the State of Rhode Island DEM for further evaluationin order to detennine if any clean-up actions need to be implemented.
Total PCB' s were calculated as the sum of the 18 NS&T congeners , assigning avalue of 0 to the non-detected ones , with the total multiplied by 2, Concentrations of totalPCB detected from the sediment are presented in Table 10, These ranged from 121.08ppb from site TR#2 (the center of South Pond), to 321. 19 ppb from site TR#3 (the mostdownstream site in Turner Reservoir). While all of these concentrations are below the
ER-M level of 400 ppb, (i,e, the concentration above where effects were frequentlyalways observed or predicted among most species), they were above the ER-L level of 50ppb (i.e.the concentrations above where adverse affects may begin or are predicted amongsensitive life states and/or species as determined in sublethal tests),
Sediment concentrations of pesticides determined from the three sites in TurnerReservoir/Central Pond are presented in Table 10, Generally, these were highest at siteTR#3, (the most downstream site in Turner Reservoir). Out of a total of 23 differentpesticides that were analyzed, detectable levels of total chlordane, total DDT, DieldrenEndosulfan II, were recovered from all three locations; and detectable levels ofmethoxychlor were recovered from the Central Pond site (CP-#l), Concentrations ofsome of these pesticides exceeded the biological effect levels. Highest pesticideconcentrations were those of 4' 4 DDE, which was 11.94 ppb at site TR#2, (the center ofSouth Pond), 25,89 ppb at site CP#1 (Central Pond) and 60.50 ppb at site TR#3, the mostdownstream site. All of these concentrations exceeded both the ER-L (2 ppb) and theER-M level (15 ppb), with the exception of site TR#2 which exceeded only the ER-L. Inaddition , other DDT related compounds, (4' 4' DDT and 4' 4' DDD) were found inconcentrations higher than ER- s but lower than the ER- s at each of the three TurnerReservoir sites. The other pesticides noted, were recovered from the sediments in lowerconcentrations, and therefore wil not be discussed. However, this does not mean thatthey are at concentrations that do not effect sensitive aquatic life, but rather that it isbeyond the scope of this study to investigate each one individually.
Detectable levels of 23 P AHs were recovered from all three of the TurnerReservoir sampling sites. Theses results are presented in Table 11. Highestconcentrations (calculated by summing the total from each location) were found in siteTR#3, (the most downstream site), The individual compounds recovered in the highestconcentrations were fluoranthene and pyrene. Auoranthene had a maximumconcentration of 662.24 ppb at site TR#3, and Pyene, which had a maximumconcentration of 632.73 ppb at the same site, The concentrations of fluoranthene were allbelow the ER-M of 3,6 ppm (360 ppb) however slightly above the ER-L level of 0.ppm (600 ppb). Concentrations ofpyrene were also above the ER-L level of 0.35 ppm,(350 ppb) but below the ER-M level of 2.2 ppm (2200 ppb). Other compounds that wererecovered in high concentrations were benzo(b )fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthenebenzo(e)pyrene and benzo(a) pyrene. Levels of benzo(a)pyrene from all the collecti0l1sites were at or below the ER-L level of 0.4 ppm, and all below the ER-M level of 2.ppm, ER-L and ER-M levels were not applicable to the total concentration of bothbenzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene; however, the highest total concentrationof these two compounds of 1073,3 ppb (1.073 ppm) from site TR#3 was below varousother sediment criteria.
The U.S. EPA has proposed some sediment criteria to various PAHs (USEP A, 1993) to protect benthic organisms, For fluoranthene, the level is 600 ppmnormalized to total organic carbon (TOC), It should be noted, that the totalconcentrations of all of the P AHs summed together (at each site) are below this value for
Field Sample Data
~~~~~
Oi CBe andPe8!lddee _ 1 , J :.r :v' nC8 leland' i - 1
- -
Collection Date: - I -
--- -
.!O t!ov-
- ---- -
Extraction Date: 06-Dec-
- -- -----.-
Analysis Da - 06an-O
--
WetWt
- __
J!'e D WI. .!,Moistur % 66_U,! , d wt.
- -
r::-
- -
CI5(112)__
- -
JME Estimate, sig nt mairixinterfe ence.
- -
- Anal
,,-
aetectedat XteMDl I
- .
- TO :Not iaITPiis '"il DLrepOrte(i - 'alue OUISide Ihe accuracyor preciSiOn CriterjaJJoaJ-
. J - Detecled , bu' the s !"pI.! "'i' MDL :
-- - , - - , - - - - -- --
.J-- f.1\!)&TCongener -
should be included in summalion 'orlolal PC , where Total PCB = (Sumol del""ted/oS&T congeners) x 2
- -
- In caseorND usea valueo'o. sum tion i
! - - : ..- .--
J . ,. I -
- .- j - .-- -! - ' -
-=--r --L-=
- -
.. CI1 209
---------- -
- 2.17 2.17 4.40 4.40 ---
-.--
85 2.CI208 CI2.o5
---
-- 1. .0.00 9U .0.00 _____ 89U O. CI3 18 2-74 2_74 5.40 5_40 1-04 1_. CI3 28
-- --
01 7_ 23 11.23 3-26 3-. CI4 44 5-72 5.72 10-34 -- 10.34 --- - -. u_- 3-07 3_.. CI4 52 7.54 7.54 ----_u...
._-
. 14.14 1i14
""--
- 2.92 2.. CI4 66 6.77 6.77 12.51 12.51 ----- 2.84 -.-- 2.. CI5 101 11_55 11.55 20-57 20-57 --
--------
4'3 4-CI5(105) - 2.92 2-92
-- ---
--- 5_77 5_77 _ =-1-51 1.51. CI5 118 7-39 7-39 12-99 12.99 3_01 3-
---
- . CI6(g___-- 1-68 1_68 ----- 3-28 3_28 0-89 0_. CI6 138 8-46 - -- 14_91 14.91 5_07 5-07!. C1 - .._n
-- -----
10.82 10.82
----
--.-. 19 1-5
- --- --- ----
2.. -- 5.sif. CI7 170 8-05 8_05 11,29 11_29 15_75 15_. CI7180 --- 41 2:"4 .-. --------- 4.61 4.61 - 2.10 2.. CI7 187 3-53 3-53' 5. 38 5-38 3-56 - 3_. CI8 195 0_ 13 U 0-00 0-20 U 0-00 0-21 U 0-. CI9 206 1_98 1-98 181.6 4-63 32!,19 2-59 2_59 121.084 DDD 1-08 2_81 0_
- --'-'-- .----
2.4DDE ---- ---- - 2.08 4_
. -----_____
105 --4 DDT 0_64 U 0.98 U 1-03 U4.4DDD 5_76 - '3-30 ---
----
--.- 4, 25.89 60.50
--
-- _u.- -- 11.94 -
-- ----
4.4DDT -- - 3_19 __n_- __ 85 !
---- -__
61
--------- .
--n il
. --- ------- -- -- ------
-- 7-88
-- - .
no -_
___
189 - - -
::--
1- . I -J-:-
l!-
;--- === - =--
Ji 1-------._-- 6_
_- -- -- ---- !!.
7744 77 70dW.
-- - --- =------
Total PCB' Total PCB'Total PCB'
- ---------...---
t ----
i _
Field Sample Data
I __: 1Tabi
- _ _-- -- -
I -
~~~
n t
-- - - -- - ---- ---
H -
j --.. .... =- '--
Unlls: I ualkg, drvwt. Total r'--- uglg, drvwt. Total uglg, drywt. TolIl
-----
(ppb)
---- - ---
(ppb) (ppb)Naphthalene -- - --- 41.99
--- -
------ 24.90
---- -----
2-Mthylnaphthalene ------ 24-10 - 28.53 ------ 12.72 ---1-Mthylnaphthalene 13-54 -
t---15.
=:..
-t-
-=- == .__
naphthene --I---- Q4 27_ 01 --- -------- 11_47
----- ------
Fluorene
------------ '---
- 36.26 64.60
------
I 24.96 ----
- -- -----
Phenanthrene 237_46 325.33
---
176.
---
Anthracene 68.85 89.06 44.15 --
----'_"' .. ". -..
- 52.30 '''S
_.- ..-
Fluoranthne - 662-24 u- -- -
- ------ - --- ----
- u
- - --
Pyrene _____-- --- 576-03 -- 632_73 466.05 -
---- -------
Benz(a)anthracene ---- 267.29
---- -
---- 278. __- 211.26 --
-----
Chrysene u_--
----
---------- 479.30 54.59 -- 350-99 ---- --
---- ----
Benzo(b)fluoranthene - 527_
--
------ 569-07 ------J-- 360-17 --
--
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
--- ---
- -----1-- - 504_10 --_u ----- 325.69 i---
- --------=- ~~~
r=---
:::: . --- ---
deno(1
~~~ - - -- ------
425.
_--
1---
-- - _
56 --
- --- ..
286 j-- - 1
=;. - . :_. : j -- .
t-m
:.
i _ i-H_- J J - i t
_-- - --- -- - -
t-- i --
=- -- -
one individual compound (paricularly when normalized to Total Organic Carbon).Therefore, it appears that although some individual P AHs may be above the biologicaleffect levels for sensitive organisms, generally, the concentrations of P AHs in the TurnerReservoir sediment are below the levels where biological effects would be expected in allorganisms exposed to the sediment.
6. Conclusions, Turner Reservoir appears to support a good largemouth basspopulation , which wil provide a good recreational war water fishery. Other speciespresent include white sucker, yellow bullhead, perch , yellow perch , bluegil andpumpkinseed. Although the concentrations of methyl mercury in the largemouth basstissue composite were below the FDA action level, they were above some of theconcentrations calculated by the EP A for consumption. Therefore, it is recommendedthat the results of the fish tissue data be reviewed by the State DOH in order to determineif further study and/or health advisories should be initiated,
If it is determined that the existing health risk for consumption of largemouth bassis not acceptable, a catch and release recreational fishery could be established. Theabundance of larger/older largemouth bass present in this reservoir would be a strongattraction to sportfishermen,
Concentrations of PCB' s were below the FDA action level (2 ppm) for all threecomposite fish tissue samples. The white sucker composite sample had the highestconcentration of PCB' s (0, 12 ppm). Although this is below the FDA action level , it isabove the EPA risk criteria of 0.016 ppm for (cancer health endpoints) whereconsumption would be limited, Concentrations (0,02 ppm) for largemouth bass andyellow bullhead exceeded this threshold as well. Although white sucker is not necessarlya popular gamefish, it is often caught as food supplement by subsistence fishermen.Therefore, it is recommended that the Rhode Island DOH review these data in order todetermine if further study and/or health advisories should be initiated.
Concentrations of P AHs in the fish tissue were also above some EP A health riskcriteria for some of the compounds detected, These data should also be reviewed by theState DOH in order to determine if fish health advisories should be implemented,
Trace metals , total PCB' , pesticides, and P AHs were all detected in the sedimentfrom Turner Reservoir. Many of these compounds were detected in concentrations abovecriteria where adverse effects could be expected to occur in aquatic life forms exposed tothis sediment. Sediment concentrations of some metals (i.e. cadmium) were not onlyabove biological effect levels, but also above clean-up standards established by somestates (i, Washington). Rain events, resulting high flows in the Ten Mile Riverseasonal turnover and mixing by wind can stir up and re-suspend sediments in TurnerReservoir, Therefore, it is not recommended that Turner Reservoir be used as a watersupply, given the elevated concentrations of various contaminants in the sediment , andthe potential for sediment re-suspension , unless a fitration system could be implementedthat would adequately remove them,
General observations indicate a nutrient enriched water body, Large amounts offloating duckweed covered much of the shoreline during the summer months, makingsampling diffcult. In addition , large populations of ducks, domestic/wild geese, andswans inhabit the reservoir. Resulting fecal contamination of the shoreline was notedfrom these waterfowl, and it is very likely that this contributes to much of the nutrientenrichment in the Reservoir,
C. Wetlands and Habitat
1, Habitat Description . The Turner Reservoir Complex is approximately twomiles long as measured from the dam at the outlet to the inflow of the Ten Mile River onits north end. It consists of a series of three ponds with a combined surface area of 225acres. Route 152 crosses the reservoir approximately 0.75 miles upstream from the outletdam, and separates the southern pond, referred to as Turner Reservoir from Central Pondimmediately upstream. Central Pond is long and narow, and extends upstream (from theRoute 152) causeway an approximate distance of 0.7 miles, to a wider area near theinflow which on some maps is referred to as North Pond, although it is often notdistinguished from Central Pond. North Pond continues for approximately 0.5 miles tothe inflow of the Ten-Mile River. As noted previously, in this study the entire complexwas considered as Turner Reservoir. Widths of the varous ponds in the reservoircomplex var, ranging from approximately 200 feet maximum in the southern section(Turner Reservoir Proper) downstream from Route 152, narowing to approximately 500feet in Central Pond, and widening again in the Northern section (North Pond) toapproximately 200 feet. Maximum depths range from 9- 11 feet in the centers of bothTurner Reservoir and Central Pond.
Generally, the banks are steeply sloped throughout most of the entire complexdropping off rapidly from the shoreline to depths of approximately two feet close to thewater s edge. Exceptions to this are found in the northern upstream sections ofCentrallorth Pond, pars of the western shore of the southern pond (Turner Reservoir)and a small cove on the eastern side of Turner Reservoir. Most of the perimeter of thereservoir is well vegetated and/or wooded residential property, although a small woodedpark is located along the eastern shore (Seekonk side) of the southern pond (TurnerReservoir) abutting the dam at the outflow, In some areas of Central Pond, on the easternside, overhanging trees have fallen into the water, creating cover for resident fishes. Theshoreline immediately upstream from the dam itself is rock rip-rapped on both sides.
2. Wetlands . The relatively- steep topography of the shoreline perimeter of theTurner Reservoir complex precludes the existence of extensive wetlands (i,e, other thanopen water) within its immediate boundaries. In Turner Reservoir proper (i,e. thesouthern pond) wetland habitat other than open water is limited primarily to the marginsof the impoundment along the western shore (East Providence side), as well as the edgesof a shallow cove on the eastern shore (Seekonk side). In addition , a large area ofwetland exists near the inflow of the Ten-Mile River at North/Central Pond, The small
cove in the southern pond located on the Seekonk side of Turner Reservoir ischaracterized by a wide area of emergent and floating aquatic vegetation along the nearshore area, while the area of the northern pond contained a combination of scrub shrub,floating and emergent aquatic vegetation.
Classification of these two wetland habitats according to Cowardin et al, (1988)would be Lacustrine Aquatic Bed, and Lacustrine Emergent for the area in the southernpond , and Palustrine Scrub Shrb (primarily) for the areas near the inflow of the Ten MileRiver. In addition, most of the shore on the East Providence side of the southern sectionof Turner Reservoir contains rooted floating aquatic bed vegetation (water liy) as well asemergent aquatic vegetation (pickerel weed), During the time of sampling, extensivemats of duckweed covered the shore along most of the perimeter of the entire TurnerReservoir CentrallNorth Pond complex. This duckweed produced a foul septic odorwhich permeated the air in the immediate vicinity of the shoreline.
D. Suitability of Central Pond Well field
1. Summar of Findings for Groundwater Qualitv. The Corps of Engineers wastasked by the City of East Providence to perform an investigation of the currentgroundwater quality conditions for consideration of the ground water as a potential long-term , back-up water supply for the City. Groundwater samples collected from threelocations indicate that high levels of iron and manganese are stil a problem as well as thepresence of low levels of volatile organic contamination. Further groundwaterinvestigation to determine the nature and extent of the volatile organic contaminationwould have to be undertaken prior to the development of the groundwater as a drinkingwater source. The treatment of the groundwater for volatile organic contamination, ironand manganese prior to distribution to the community could have the potential to be anexpensive procedure for the City,
2. Background and Purpose, Prior to 1969 , East Providence obtained itsmunicipal water supply from the Turner Reservoir and from four groundwater wellslocated in the Ten Mile River Aquifer. The high levels of dissolved iron and manganesein the groundwater ultimately caused the City to abandon the wellfield around 1970 andseek water from an alternative source. The City currently obtains its water from the Cityof Providence. This preliminar groundwater investigation examines the feasibility ofpotentially using the now abandoned Central Pond well field as a back-up water supplyand examines the groundwater quality at three locations within the Turner Reservoir area.
3. Investigation. On November 10 , 1999 , three groundwater monitoring pointswere installed at three locations in the Turner Reservoir and Central Pond areas (seeFigure 9). One monitoring point was located within the abandoned wellfield and theother two monitoring points were located near the Bridgham Farm area and the dam. Thelocations were selected primarily based on access for the drill rig and were spaced aroundTurner Reservoir and Central Pond so as to give a cursory representation of the current
groundwater quality conditions in the area. These monitoring points consisted of threeone- inch diameter wells , two of which are flush mounted with the ground surface andone where the casing sticks up above the ground surface. The monitoring points areoutfitted with a 10 foot slotted well screen. One groundwater sample from eachmonitoring point plus a quality control sample were collected to evaluate the subsurfacewater quality. No soil samples were collected.
In addition to the collection of groundwater samples, real-time field data wascollected as the groundwater was withdrawn from the ground. The field data consisted oftemperature Celsius). pH. Oxidation/Reduction Potential (ORP). and the percentage ofDissolved Oxygen/Dissolved Oxygen. Ferrous iron concentrations were determined inthe field using a field test kit. See Appendix B for analytical data, Appendix C for welllogs for TR- , TR- , and TR- , and Appendix D for additional site investigationinformation and field data for Monitoring Points TR- , TR- , and TR-
(a) Monitoring Point TR- Monitoring point TR- I is located in the area of theabandoned wellfield near former water supply well #76 (see Figure 9). The monitoringpoint was advanced without problem to a depth of 73.2 feet below ground surface (bgs),Groundwater sample TR- I was collected from a screened interval of 62. 7 feet to 72,7 feetbgs. A quality control duplicate sample (TR- ID) was also collected from this location,
(b) Monitoring Point TR- Monitoring point TR-2 was installed between therip-rap and gate to the Bridgham Far Conservation Area on the west side of the dam atthe southern end of Turner Reservoir. The monitoring point was relocated three timesdue to refusal at depths that ranged from 9 feet to IS feet bgs, At the fourth location , themonitoring point was advanced to a refusal depth of 17 feet bgs. Groundwater sampleTR-2 was collected from a well screen interval of6, 5 feet to 16,5 feet bgs.
(c) Monitoring Point TR- Monitoring point TR-3 was installed on the east sideof the dam located at the southern end of Turner Reservoir. The monitoring point wasadvanced to a refusal depth of 27,8 feet. Sample TR-3 was collected from a well screeninterval of 17.3 feet to 27.3 feet bgs.
4. Field Readings. Table 12 presents the final field readings for the parametersshown. The ORP (Oxidation Reduction Potential) values in the high, negative range, andthe DO (Dissolved Oxygen) with values less than I mg/L, indicate that conditions arefavorable for an anaerobic and reducing environment. The groundwater qualityconditions are ideal for the dissolution of iron (as shown by the high ferrous ironreadings) and manganese from the groundwater. The ferrous iron field readings are realtime data collected as soon as the water is removed from the ground with minimal contactwith the air and indicate that high levels of dissolved iron are present in the groundwater.The manganese levels were analyzed by the analytical laboratory and indicate highdissolved levels of manganese. When the groundwater is exposed to oxygen, as it iswhen removed from the ground to the pumping station and distributed to the community,the iron and manganese will precipitate out of solution , thereby causing taste, odor, and
,..
LEGEND
groundter ITnitoring pointsGRN:A1E M:TORNG
LOCTICN
US Arm Corpof EnglneersNew England Distrid
5e 22 P! As 10 StIBT..Ro' SYLd Ea Pr Rh IsI
201 FIGURE 1)
staining on clothing and ceramic materials. This has been an historical problem with thegroundwater. A complete set of field readings for all three monitoring points can befound in Appendix D.
Mon. Point Temp ORP DO(mgI) Ferrous Iron
Loc, /00% (mg/L)
TR- 12. -471.3 17/1.6 13,
TR- 15, 371.4 08/0,
TR- 15.52 267, 08/0.
Table 12
Final Field Readings For GroundwaterMonitoring Points
5. Analytical Results. Samples were analyzed by Environmental HealthLaboratories of South Bend, Indiana for the following drinking water parameters:antimony, arsenic, barum, beryllum, cadmium, total chromium , manganese, mercury,nickel , selenium, thallum; Phase I, n & V Regulated and Unregulated Volatiles; Phase n& V 525; Phase n & V PCBfToxaphene/Chlordane, Complete analytical results arepresented in Appendix B. Compounds and elements detected in the groundwater samplesare shown in bold type in Appendix B,
(a) Monitoring Point TR- I: Samples TR- I and TR- ID (duplicate):
Sample TR- - Eleven volatile compounds were detected in concentrations rangingfrom 0.2 micrograms per liter (ugI) for chloroform to 2, ugI I dichloroethane,Ethylbenzene (0,2 ugl), 1 2,4-trimethylbenzene (0.3 ugl), and methyl- butyl ether(MTBE) (0,9 ugl) were detected at very low concentrations and are components ofgasoline, as are total xylenes (0,9 ugl). Trichloroethylene (0.4 ugl) and its degradationproducts cis- I , dichloroethylene (1.4 ugl), and I , I-dichloroethylene (0,8 ugl) were alsodetected, Toluene and 1 , I-trichloroethane were detected at concentrations of 0, ug/and 1,8 ugI, respectively. The above volatile organic compounds are regulated viaMaximum Contaminant Level (MCLs) with the exception of I dichloroethane, 1
trimethylbenzene , and MTBE which are unregulated, None of the regulated volatilecompounds detected exceeded their applicable MCLs, Chlorinated solvents such as 1dichloroethane , trichloroethylene , cis- I , dichloroethylene, I , I-dichloroethylene, and
, I , I-trichloroethane have many uses in chemical and manufacturing processes , some ofwhich are metal degreasers, cleaners , adhesives , insecticides , etc, Toluene andchloroform may possibly be contaminant related , but may also be laboratory generated as
they are common laboratory contaminants. The only semivolatile compound detected inthis sample was di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate at a concentration of 1.3 ug/L which is belowthe current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 6,0 ug/L. Hydrocarbon oil wastentatively identified in sample TR- I at a concentration of approximately 720 ug/L. Themetals barium, beryllum , chromium, and nickel were detected in concentrations rangingfrom 0.4 ug/L to 9,7 ug/L but were below the current MCLs for those particular elements.Manganese was detected at a concentration of 210 ug/L which exceeds the currentSecondary MCL ( MCL) of 50 ug/L. No pesticides or PCBs were detected.
Sample TR- I D - Eleven volatile organic compounds were detected atconcentrations ranging from 0.2 ug/L for chlorofonn and 2.4 ug/ of 1 dichloroethane.Ethylbenzene (0,2 ug/), 1 trimethylbenzene (0.3 ug/L), and methyl- butyl ether(MTBE) (0,9 ug/L) were detected at very low concentrations and are components ofgasoline, as are total xylenes (1,0 ug/L). Trichloroethylene (0.4 ug/L) and its degradationproducts cis- dichloroethylene (1.3 ug/L), and I dichloroethylene (0.8 ug/l) werealso detected, Toluene and 1 , I-trichloroethane were detected at concentrations of 0.ug/L and 1,8 ug/L, respectively, The above volatile organic compounds are regulated viaMCLs with the exception of 1 , I-dichloroethane, I 2,4-trmethylbenzene , and MTBEwhich are unregulated. None of the regulated volatile compounds detected exceeded theirapplicable MCLs, Chlorinated solvents such as 1 , I-dichloroethane, trichloroethylenecis- dichloroethylene, 1 , I-dichloroethylene, and 1 , I-trichloroethane have many usesin chemical and manufacturing processes, some of which are metal degreasers , cleanersadhesives , insecticides, etc. Toluene and chlorofonn may possibly be contaminantrelated , but may also be laboratory generated as they are common laboratorycontaminants. The only semivolatile compound detected in this sample was di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate at a concentration of 1. ug/ which is below the current MCL of
0 ug/L. Phthalates are found in plastic compounds, are the products of combustion , andare very common in the environment. Hydrocarbon oil was tentatively identified insample TR- I D at a concentration of approximately 420 ug/L. The metals arsenic, bariumchromium, and nickel were detected in concentrations ranging from 0,6 ug/L to 9.5 ug/Lbut were below the current MCLs for those paricular elements, Manganese was detectedat a concentration of 190 ug/ which exceeds the current Secondary MCL (SMCL) of 50ug/L. No pesticides or PCB' s were detected.
Ferrous iron concentrations which were collected via a field test kit ranged from13. 6 mg/L to 25,8 mg/L which exceed the recommended EPA maximum of 0.3 mglL
(b) Monitoring Point TR-2: Sample TR- - No semi volatile or volatile organiccompounds were detected in this sample, The metals antimony, arsenic , bariumchromium , and nickel were detected at concentrations ranging from 0,2 ug/L to 18 ug/Land are below the current MCLs for those paricular elements. Manganese was detectedat a concentration of 800 ug/L which exceeds the current SMCL of 50 ug/L. Ferrous ironconcentrations ranged from 3.0 mg/L to 5. 10 mg/L which exceed the recommended EP maximum of 0.3 mg/L. No pesticides or PCB' s were detected.
(c) Monitoring Point TR-3: Sample TR- - Methyl- butyl-ether (MTBE) (0.ug/L) and 1 trimethylbenzene (0,2 ug/L), and total xylenes (0.4 ug/L) which arecomponents of gasoline were detected. One other volatile organic compound, cis-
dichloroethylene (0.1 ug/L) was detected. Total xylenes and cis- l , dichloroethylene didnot exceed the MCLs established for those compounds. The other two compoundsMTBE and 1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene are not regulated. No semivolatile compounds weredetected in this sample. The metals antimony, arsenic , barum, chromium, and nickelwere detected at concentrations ranging from 0.2 ug/L to 26 ug/L and are below thecurrent MCLs for those paricular elements, Manganese was detected at a concentrationof 1900 ug/L which exceeds the current SMCL of 50 ug/L. Ferrous iron concentrationsranged from 2, 11 mglL to 7.6 mg/L which exceed the recommended EP A maximum of
3 mglL. No pesticides or PCB' s were detected,
6. Conclusions, Field data, specifically the negative ORP (Oxidation ReductionPotential) values and the low concentrations of dissolved oxygen (less than 1 mglL),indicate that anaerobic and reducing conditions are present in the ground water at all ofthe monitoring point sample locations. These anaerobic and reducing conditions cause
dissolution of iron and manganese in the groundwater and will precipitate out uponcontact with oxygen. Manganese levels ranged from 190 ugiL to 1 900 ugiL whichexceed the SMCL of 50 ugiL and ferrous iron levels ranged from 2, 11 mgI to 25,8 mglLwhich exceed the recommended EP A maximum of 0.3 mglL. High iron and manganeselevels in the ground water have been an historic problem in this area and based on thefield and laboratory data, still appear to be so, The ground water would be usable butwould have to be chemically treated to improve the esthetic qualities of the water (tasteodor, staining of ceramic fixtures and laundry). Water treatment methods would have tobe implemented prior to distribution of the groundwater to the community system.
Low levels (below current MCLs) of volatile organic contaminants are present insamples from monitoring point locations TR- , and TR-3. Three of these compoundsmethyl- butyl-ether, 1 2,4-trimethylbenzene, and total xylenes are found as componentsof gasoline. The other compounds are chlorinated solvents and are commonly used in thechemical and manufacturing industries. Eleven volatile organic compounds in samplesfrom these two monitoring point locations ranged in concentrations from 0. 1 ugiL to 2.ugiL Eight of these compounds fall under regulatory guidance (MCLs). The levels these compounds do not exceed any Federal and State water quality guidelines,
The source(s) of the volatile organic contaminants is not known butcontamination was found at monitoring point TR- l at a depth of 62. 7 to 72,7 feet and atmonitoring point TR-3 at a depth of 17.3 feet to 27.3 feet. This indicates that a potentialwidespread problem may exist especially since the distance between TR- l and TR-3 isapproximately 1.25 miles and the area is heavily urbanized. However, no volatile organiccontaminants were detected in the upper portion of the water table from monitoring pointTR-2, There could and may be more than one source area and the only way to determinethat is with further investigation.
Hydrocarbon oil was tentatively identified from samples TR- I and TR- ID at aconcentration of approximately 720 ug/ and 420 ug/, respectively. The source for thehydrocarbon oil is not known. No volatile organic compounds were detected in samplesfrom monitoring point location TR-2. Metals were detected in all the ground watersamples but are below the MCLs established for those elements,
Removal of the iron , manganese and volatile organic contaminant componentsfrom the ground water supply could potentially be a substantial financial burden to thecity of East Providence, Historical information for the area indicates that the groundwater in the overburden and bedrock is "generally of good quality and is soft but locallymay contain excessive iron . The USEPA recommends that the dissolved iron content ingroundwater should not be greater than O.3mg/ as iron levels above that concentrationhave a tendency to stain plumbing fixtures , stain clothes during laundering, etc., andmanganese levels should not be greater than 0.05 mg/, If the city of East Providencemoves forward with their plan to reuse the wellfield as a potential long-term back upsupply, then additional investigation is waranted to determine the nature and extent andpossible source(s) of the volatile organic contamination. The additional investigationmay include: the sampling of the groundwater at varous depths through the installation shallow , medium, and deep monitoring wells; and laboratory analysis of groundwatersamples for VOCs, SVOCs, metals (including iron and manganese), pesticides and PCBs.The costs for this type of investigation could be substantial.
IV. Conclusions
A. Determination of the Suitability for Back-Up Water Supply
The present investigation focused on providing a preliminar determination of thesuitabilty of Turner Reservoir and the Central Pond well field as back-up water suppliesbased on the following: Water Quality, Fisheries and Fish Tissue, Sediment, andGroundwater analyses. Our preliminar investigation found that the Turner Reservoirand Central Pond Well fields may be suitable for a back-up water supply; however, bothwater supply alternatives wil require thorough treatment of the water.
The Corps investigation did not find any water quality problems that wouldprohibit using the Turner Reservoir as a public water supply; however, it should be notedthat the water s appearance is not attractive. Excessive nutrient enrichment leading toheavy aquatic plant growth seems to be the major identified problem followed bycoliform bacteria.
The groundwater investigation of the Central Pond Well fields confirmed thepresence of high levels of iron and manganese identified as a historic problem, Inaddition , the groundwater investigation of the well field revealed the presence of lowlevels (below current MCLs) of volatile organic contaminants in samples from
. monitoring point TR-
B. Determination of the Suitability for Recreational Purposes
Although the water s appearance is not attractive, with large amounts of aquaticweeds and a number of waterfowl present at the site, Corps investigation did not find anywater quality problems that would prohibit using the Turner Reservoir for recreation usesuch as swimming.
Turner Reservoir area may not be ideal as a water supply; however, it stil can bemanaged as a recreation area, Turner Reservoir appears to support a good largemouthbass population, which wil provide a recreational war water fishery. Other speciespresent include white perch, yellow perch, bluegil and pumpkinseed. Although theconcentrations of methyl mercury in the largemouth bass tissue composite were below theFDA action level , they were above some of the EP A health risk levels for consumption
Recommendations
A comprehensive system for treatment of the water from Turner Reservoir and theCentral Pond Well fields would be required to remove the high nutrient content in thewater, the potential for coliform bacteria, elevated levels of contaminants, and improvethe taste and odor of the water,
The Rhode Island Deparment of Health should review the results of the fishtissue data in order to determne if further study and/or health advisories should beinitiated. If it is determined that the existing health risk for consumption of largemouthbass is not acceptable, a catch and release recreational fishery could be established.
In addition , because of a potential problem with coliform bacteria, if TurnerReservoir was open to swimming, the City of East Providence should adopt a regular andpossibly intensive bacteria monitoring program.
The Corps of Engineers also found concentrations of most metals from sedimentsamples exceeded state cleanup levels. The city of East Providence should forward themetal concentration data to RIDEM for further evaluation. The city of East Providenceshould perform additional sampling in order to determine sources of contamination anddetermne the type of water treatment system required.
If the city of East Providence moves forward with their plan to reuse the CentralPond Well Field as a potential long-term back-up supply then additional investigation iswaranted to determine the nature and extent and possible source(s) of the volatile organiccontamination. The additional investigation may include: the sampling of thegroundwater at various depths through the installation of shallow , medium , and deepmonitoring wells; and laboratory analysis of groundwater samples for VOCs , SVOCsmetals (including iron and manganese), pesticides and PCBs.
VI. ReferenceslLiterature Cited
Allen. Wiliam B. and Lawrence A. Gorman 1959. Groundwater M p of the EastProvidence Quadrangle. Massachusetts-Rhode Island.Carlander. Kenneth D. 1977, Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology. Volume Two,Iowa State University Press. Ames. Iowa.
Cowardin. L. V. Carer. F. Golet. and E, Laoe. 1979, ' Classification of Wetlands andDeepwater habitats of the United States . Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Dept. of theInterior. Dec, 1979 FWSIOBS-7913 1.
A. 1997. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for use in FishAdvisories. Volume 2: Fish Sampling and Analysis. Office of Science and Technology.Office of Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington. D.
A. 1999, Fact Sheet. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB' s) Update: Impact on FishAdvisories. Office of Water.
A. 1993. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contamnant Data for use in FishAdvisories. Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis. Offce of Science and Technology.Office of Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington. D.
A. 1993b. Sedi:llcnt Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms:Fluoranthene, Off' e 9f Science and Technology. Washington. D.C.. September 1993: ascited in New England District (NAE) U.S. Any Corps of Engineers. March 200.Hancock Brook and Black Rock Laes Priority Pollutant Scan.
Long. E.R. and L.G. Morgan. 1990. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAATechnical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration. Seattle. Washington. March 1990: as cited in New England Division(NED) U,S. Army Corps of Engineers. August 1993, Hop Brook Lake. ConnecticutPriority Pollutant Scan,
NED 200. Former Eastland Woolen Mil Site. Corinna. Maine. Draft Screening LevelHuman Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Report to U.S, Army Corps ofEngineers. New England District. Concord. Massachusetts. August 200. by Arthur D,Little. Inc, Acom Park. Cambridge. Massachusetts.
APPENDIX A
FINAL DATA REPORT FOR LABORATORY TESTING FORFISH TISSUE AND SEDIMENTS SAMPLES
AT TURNER RESERVOIR,EAST PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND BY BATTELLE
FINAL DATA REPORT
For
LABORATORY TESTING FOR FISH TISSUE ANDSEDIMENT SAMPLES AT TURNER'S RESERVOIR,
EAST PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND
Submitted to
Department of the ArmyS. Army Corps of EngineersNorth Atlantic DivisionNew England District
Contract No. DACW33-96- OOQ5
Delivery Order No. 45
August 2, 2000
Prepared by
Battelle397 Washington StreetDuxbury, MA 02332
(781) 934-0571
() Battelle
. . .
Putting Technology To Work
D045 Final Data Report, Turner s Reservoir, RI. August 2, 2000Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction............,................ ..........,.......,.........,..,..................................,.............................. 2. Methods",............,.,.........,..........,............,....,......................,..,............,.................................... 21. Grain Size Analyses .....................................................................................................................................2. Total Organic Carbon Analyses "'"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''...............................,..
2.3. Metals Analyses...... ....... ...................................... ....................................................................................... - 22.4. PCB/Pesticide Analyses.......... ................................................................................................................ _....2.5. P AH Analyses.......... .................................................................................................................................... 3
3. ResuiLs...",.............,.",........ ........,.............,...."......................................................................... 31. Grain Size Results .............................................................................................""''''''''''''''''''''''''''''-''-'''''' 32. Total Organic Carbon Results ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''..........................................3.3. Metals . Resul ts .............................................................................................................................................. 43.4. PCB/Pest Results.................................. ........................................................................................................ 53.5. P AH Results........................ .................................................... .................. .............................................. -....
4. References...,..,..,.., ........,.""..,....,..............,....,.......... .... ......,..,......,.....,...,...................,.. .......... 7
TABLES
TABLE I SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED AT TURNER S RESERVOIR , RI. .........................................--..TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF FISH SAMPLES COLLECTED AND COMPOSITNG SCHEME.........................................--.........._...TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF GRAIN SIZE RESULTS................................................................................................................TABLE 4 SUMMARY OFTOC RESULTS ............................................................................-...........-----........---..........-.--....
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1.Attachment 2.Attachment 3.Attachment 4,Attachment 5.Attachment 6.
Custody RecordsGrain Size Results and Plots
TOC ResultsMetals ResultsPCB/Pesticide ResultsPAH Results
C) Baelle
. . .
Putting Technology To \ork
0045 Final Data Report, Turner s Reservoir, RI. August 2, 2000Page 1 of7
1. IntroductionOn November 10, 1999 NAB collected sediment grab samples at three locations atTurner s Reservoir in East Providence , RI, NAE also collected fish samples at Turnerand Central Pond on September 9 23 and 24, 1999. A representative from Battelle(Karen Foster) retrieved custody of the sediment and tissue samples on November 191999. All samples , with the exception of sediment samples for grain size and TOCanalysis , were stored frozen over the weekend and logged into the laboratory onNovember 22 , 1999. Sediment samples for grain size and TOC analyses were storedrefrigerated.
Sediment samples were analyzed at the instruction of NAE for grain size and chemicalanalyses as shown in Table 1. Fish samples were processed and analyzed at theinstruction of NAE for chemical analyses as shown in Table 2, This report presents theresults of the physical and chemical analyses performed. Custody records for all samplescollected are provided in Attachment I. All final data and associated quality controlresults for grain size, TOC , Metals , PCBlPest, and P AH analyses are provided attachments to this report. Data qualifiers applied to the chemistry results are defined onthe final data tables.
Table 1 Summary of Sediment Samples Collected at Turner s Reservoir, RI.Field Samples and Laboratory ID Correlations
Sample ID Collection GrainMetals AHlestJCBDate SizeJOC
Analysis Analysis Analysis
CP#I 11/ 10/99 X3032 1427* 1 X3030TR#2 1111 0/99 X3038 1427*3 X3036TR#3 1111 0/99 X3035 1427*2 X3033
Table 2 Summary of Fish Samples Collected and Compositing Scheme.Mass (wet) Field Samples and
Composite Samples in Collection of Filet Laboratory IDTissue Used CorrelationsNo. Composite Date
to Form Metals AH/est/Composite Analysis PCB Analysis
LMB-OI-00l 9/09/99 45. 174g1 a LMB-O 1-002 9/09/99 45. 190g 1427*4 X3726
LMB-004-00 1 9/23/99 45.240 g
-- ..
YB-002-00 1 9/09/99 065 g
YB-007 -00 1 9/24/99 253 g 1427*5 X3727YB-007 -002 9/24/99 153 g
- --- -
1--
_._---... .- -
WS-004-00 I 9/23/99 38.468 g
WS-004-002 9/23/99 38. 160g 1427*6 X3728WS-004-003 9/23/99 38.664 g
Filets with skin onb Fillets with skin off
I .
o Baelle
. . .
Putrlng Technology To \rrk
D045 Final Data Report, Turner s Reservoir, RI. August 2, 2000Page 2 of7
2. Methods
1. Grain Size AnalysesWater content and grain size distributions were determined by ASTM D-422, Grain sizeanalyses were performed at Applied Marine Sciences (AMS) of League City, Texas.
2. Total Organic Carbon AnalysesTotal Organic Carbon (TOC) was analyzed according to EP A Method 9060. All sampleswere analyzed in duplicate and results are reported in % dry wt. TOC analyses wereperformed at Applied Marine Sciences.
3. Metals AnalysesSediment samples were analyzed for eight metals: arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd),chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), and zinc (Zn). Toprepare the samples for analysis , they were first freeze-dried then blended in a Spexmixer-mill. Approximately O,25-g aliquots of dried, homogeneous sediment sample weredigested using a mixture of nitric and hydrofluoric acids in a nitrogen vented system.This method was employed to allow volatilization of SiF , removing a significant amountof matrix interference from the digestate and allowing quantitative recovery of the crustalelements, The digestion method used follows a modified version of EP A Method 200.2(EP A 1991), The modification involved precluding the addition of hydrochloric acid andinclusion of the hydrofluoric acid to achieve a total digestion. Mercury was analyzedusing cold-vapor atomic absorption spectrometry (CV AA) following EPA Method 245.(EPA 1991), The remaining metals were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma massspectrometry (lCP/MS) following a modified version of EP A Method 200.8 (EP A 1991).
Tissue samples were analyzed for nine metals: As , Cd, Cr, Cu , Pb, Hg, methyl mercury(MeHg), Ni, and Zn. To prepare the samples for analysis, they were first freeze-driedthen blended in a Spex mixer-mill. Approximately 0,2- to 0. g aliquots of homogeneoussample were digested using a mixture of nitric and hydrofluoric following a modifiedversion ofEPA Method 200.2 (EPA 1991), Mercury was analyzed using CV AAfollowing EPA Method 245.5 (EPA 1991). Methyl mercury was analyzed using cold-vapor atomic fluorescence (CV AF) according to Battelle Method MSL 1-015-03. Theremaining metals were analyzed by ICP/MS following a modified version of EPAMethod 200.8 (EPA 1991).
4. PCB/Pesticide AnalysesIndividual PCB congeners and pesticides were extracted using methylene chloride.Sediment samples were extracted three times with methylene chloride using shakertechniques. Tissue samples were also extracted three times with methylene chlorideusing maceration techniques. Sample extracts were reduced in volume and cleaned usingalumina column chromatography and HPLC. A portion of the extract was exchanged intohexane and analyzed for PCBs and chlorinated pesticides using gaschromatography/electron capture detection (GC/ECD) following a modified EP A method8081. Dual column confirmation was performed for all analytes.
o Baelle
. . .
Puing Technology To \-,k
D045 Final Data Report, Turner s Reservoir, RI. August 2, 2000Page 3 of7
5. PAH AnalysesP AHs were extracted along with PCB/Pests as described above. Extracts were reducedcleaned using alumina column chromatography and HPLC, and a portion of the extractanalyzed in the selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode using gas chromatography/massspectrometry (GCIMS) following a modified EPA method 8270.
3. Results
1. Grain Size ResultsGrain size analysis results including water content and plots were furnished by AppliedMarine Sciences, Inc. from League City, Texas, and are provided in Attachment 2 alongwith quality control results. Sediments were generally characterized as black sandyorganic silt (CP#l) and black organic clay (TR#2, TR#3), Table 3 summarizes the grainsize distributions.
QC Results - Results from all QC samples (i. sample replicate) were within thecontrol limits specified by the method, For further information regarding results from theQC samples please see the QAlQC narrative provided in Attachment 2.
Table 3 Summary of Grain Size ResultsSample ID Gravel Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
(%)
Sand (%) Sand (%) Sand (%)
(%) (%)
CP#I 1.52 35. 34. 29.TR#2 1.33 23. 29.46 45.TR#3 44, 50.
2. Total Organic Carbon ResultsTOC results for sediment samples are provided in Attachment 3 and summarized in Table
QC Results - Results from all QC samples (i, e" blank , sample replicate , SRM) werewithin the control limits specified by the method. For further information regardingresults from the QC samples please see the
QAlQC narrative provided in Attachment 3.
Table 4 Summary of TOC ResultsSample ID TOC
(% Dry Wt.CP#I 6.351----TR#2TR#3 12.
I All TOe analyses were performed in duplicate and these results are provided in Attachment 3.
o Baelle
. . .
PuttIng Technology To WJrk
D045 Final Data Report, Turner s Reservoir, RI. August 2, 2000Page 4 of7
3. Metals ResultsMetals results for all field and quality control samples are provided in Attachment 4.
Sediment - Metals were detected in all of the sediment samples, Concentrations ofmetals detected in sediment collected at TR#2 were generally 2x higher thanconcentrations measured in sediment collected at CP#l and TR#3,
Fish - Copper, zinc , mercury and methyl mercury were detected in the fish samples, Thewhite sucker fish collected at Central Pond contained higher levels of Cu and Zncompared to the levels detected in the largemouth bass and yellow bullhead fish samples.The largemouth bass fish samples collected at Turners and Central Pond contained higherconcentrations of Hg and MeHg compared to the yellow bullhead and white sucker fishsamples.
QC Results - With few exceptions, results from QC samples were generally within thecontrol limits specified by the method. Exceptions included:
Zn was detected in the method blank prepared with the sediment samples atapproximately 20x the detection limit. However, concentrations of Zn in theassociated field samples were 30 to 70x blank levels. The contamination appears tobe isolated to the method blank and samples appear unaffected, Results for Zn havebeen flagged with a "B" qualifier to indicate that the blank result was greater than 5xthe detection limit.
, Cu , Ni , and Zn were under-recovered in the matrix spike sample prepared withthe sediment samples. However, native concentrations of these metals in thebackground sample (CP#I) used to prepare the matrix spike were greater than thespike level , thereby masking the recovery of these metals in the matrix spike sample.
Tissue samples were received outside the 28-day holding time for Hg and MeHg andsamples were digested 75-days past the holding time. Even so , the samples werestored frozen upon collection (Chris High , per personal communication;documentation of storage conditions at NAE not provided with samples) and the Hgand MeHg analyses should not be compromised.
Zn was under-recovered in the matrix spike sample prepared with the tissue samples.However, native concentrations of Zn in the background sample (Turners and CentralPond , Filet) used to prepare the matrix spike were greater than the spike levelthereby masking the recovery of Zn in the matrix spike sample.
For further information regarding results from the QC samples please see the QNQCnarratives provided in Attachment 4.
o Baelle
. . .
Putting Technology To \'rA:
D045 Final Data Report, Turner s Reservoir, RI. August 2, 2000Page 5 of7
3.4. PCB/Pest ResultsResults of PCB and chlorinated pesticide analyses for all field and quality controlsamples are provided in Attachment 5,
Sediment - Samples contained high levels of DDTs, chlordane and PCBs. Sedimentcollected at TR#3 contained the highest concentrations of pesticides and PCBs,
Fish - Largemouth bass and yellow bullhead fish samples contained low levels of PCBs(.: lOx laboratory MDL). The highest concentrations of pesticides and PCBs weredetected in the white sucker fish samples collected at Central Pond. DDTs were detectedin all the fish samples with 4,4' -DDE as the predominant isomer.
QC Results - With some exceptions results from QC samples were generaIIy within thecontrol limits specified by the method, Exceptions included:
Target PCB congeners and pesticides , as weB as the surrogate compounds , wereunder-recovered in the laboratory control sample (LCS) prepared with the sedimentsamples. The chromatogram and peak integrations were reviewed and it appears that60 to 75% of the LCS was lost during sample preparation. Recoveries of target PCBand pesticides were very good in the matrix spike samples , indicating that the methodis in control. Poor recovery of target PCB congeners and pesticides appears to beisolated to the LCS.
Endrin aldehyde was poorly recovered in the LCS and matrix spike/spike duplicate(MS/MSD) QC samples prepared with the sediment and tissue samples. Endrinaldehyde is a problematic compound that has irreproducible recovery from thealumina cleanup column. We suspect that the recovery of Endrin aldehyde wouldimprove if the alumina column had been eluted with a larger volume of methylenechloride. Endrin aldehyde was not detected in the sediment or fish tissue samples.
Measured concentrations of PCB congeners Cl (87), Ch( 170), Ch( 180), and CI (206)in the SRM (NIST 1941 a), prepared with the sediment samples , did not agree wellwith certified values resulting in elevated percent differences (PDs). PCB congenersCh( 170), Ch( 190), and CI (206) have historicaIIy had elevated PDs that have beenattributed to potential phthalate contamination, Recoveries of PCB congeners
(87), Ch(170), Ch(180), and (206) in the MS/MSD were within the controllimits specified by the method.
The recovery of the surrogate compound Cl (l12) was elevated in the sampleduplicate of the White Sucker (tissue fillet) from Central Pond. The chromatogramand peak integrations were reviewed and the cause of the elevated recovery was notapparent.
The relative percent difference (RPD) between concentrations of PCB congeners andpesticides in the tissue replicate samples (White Sucker from Central Pond) exceededthe upper control limit (30% RPD) for Cl (l18), CI (l38), 4,4' -DDE, 2,4' -DDD , and
o Baelle
. . .
PuttIng Technology To '.rle
D045 Final Data Report, Turner s Reservoir, RI. August 2, 2000Page 6 of7
Dieldrin. The chromatogram and peak integrations were reviewed and no apparentcause, other than sample non-homogeneity, was apparent.
it An SRM was inadvertently not prepared with the tissue samples. The SRM is used toassess data quality in terms of accuracy. Results from the LCS and MSIMSDanalyses are also used to assess data quality in terms of accuracy. Percent recoveriesof PCB congeners and pesticides in the LCS and MSIMSD prepared with the tissuesamples were within the control limits specified by the method, with the exception ofEndrin aldehyde and Methoxychlor.
For further information regarding results from the QC samples please see the QNQCnarratives provided in Attachment 5.
5. PAH ResultsResults of P AH analyses for all field and quality control samples are provided inAttachment 6.
Sediment - P AHs were detected in all of the sediment samples. Sediment samples hadsimilar PAH distribution patterns dominated by 4- 5- and 6-ring PAH compounds.Sediment collected at TR#3 contained the highest concentrations of P AHs.
Fish -Largemouth bass and yellow bullhead fish samples contained low levels of P AHs(d Ox laboratory MDL). The highest concentrations of P AHs (predominantly 2- and 3-ring P AH) were detected in the white sucker fish samples collected from Central Pond.
QC Results - With some exceptions , results from QC samples were generally within thecontrol limits specified by the method. Exceptions included:
The procedural blank prerared with the sediment samples contained several P AHs atlevels greater than 5x ti' detection limits. With the exception 2Dimethylnaphthalene. centrations of PAHs in the associated field samples weregenerally 10 to 250x k.dlk levels. Concentrations of2 Dimethylnaphthalene in theassociated sediment samples were 2 to 6x blank levels and concentrations detectedmay be somewhat attributed to blank contamination. Procedural blank results for 2Dimethylnaphthalene have been flagged with a "B" qualifier. Concentrations ofP AHs in the blank are well below the target detection limits specified by NAE (20jJg/kg dry weight).
Target PAHs, as well as the surrogate compounds , were under-recovered in the LCSprepared with the sediment samples. The chromatogram and peak integrations werereviewed and it appears that 60 to 75% of the LCS was lost during samplepreparation. Recoveries of target P AHs were very good in the matrix spike samplesindicating that the method is in control. Poor recovery of target P AH appears to beisolated to the LCS.
Measured concentrations of Fluorene and Perylene in the SRM (NIST 1941 a)prepared with the sediment samples did not agree well with certified values resultingin somewhat elevated PDs. Fluorene has historically had elevated PDs. Whereas , the
o Baelle
. . .
Pung Techno/oBY To v.rk
D045 Final Data Report, Turner s Reservoir, RI. August 2, 2000Page 7 of7
PD value for Perylene (31 %) was slightly outside the upper control limit (s30%).Recoveries of Fluorene and Perylene in the MSIMSD were within the control limitsspecified by the method.
The RPD between concentrations of Phenanthrene and Anthracene in the tissuereplicate samples exceeded the upper control limit (30% RPD). Surrogate recoveriesfor one of the replicate samples was generally 20% lower than the duplicate sampleresulting in higher variability between replicate P AH measurements.
. An SRM was inadvertently not prepared with the tissue samples. The SRM is used toassess data quality in terms of accuracy. Results from the LCS and MSIMSDanalyses are also used to assess data quality in terms of accuracy. Percent recoveriesof P AHs in the LCS and MSIMSD prepared with the tissue samples were within thecontrol limits specified by the method.
For further information regarding results from the QC samples please see the QNQCnarratives provided in Attachment 6.
4. ReferencesBattelle 1999. Draft Report for Turner s Reservoir. Compilation of sediment grain sizeand TOC results. December 10, 1999.
EP A. 1991. Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples. EP 600/4-91-010.
o Baelle
. . .
Puttng Technology To \-rk
Attachment
Custody Records
SOP No. 6-10-. Page 13 of 18
AITACH Batte Duur Operations
Sample Rept Form
Prjec Number(4?
.,
oeo ..C"Client i/ J ( b
Jj!22IqgNo. of Shiing Conex essc)SHMEMetod of Deery Commer Caer (Ai biI No.
Ha DeliUS Ma (RS No.
cae Form: Shpp wi saples No forCooler(s)\Bx(es) were seed with: Tap Cus Seal !\Ot.. r: (Other sPif)Wer the se in for ea shing contaer Yes
If se wer brken (Jist impaC saples):
. -
SAMSSample Lals: Sample lals ag wi cae fo Discpancies (se cac fo)
, Contaer Sea: Tape Cusdy Seas !\ 'CA... (Oter specif)Sea in for eah shp contaerSea brken (l impa saples),;
CDndition of Samples: Sample conter inctSample contaer brokeneakg (see cae form)
Temperatu upon recipt (oC): ",nlLilOkY,(Note: If tepe upon reeip difrs fr requi condions'li impac saples):Inti pH (wat): \\i A pH adjus:In T ta Residua Chorie (wat):
\.
Sample Con1ael':
Samples reed m PC-gre saplig jar U\tnr)l:n (YesIo). Lot No.
Fin pHAdju:
Volume HCU NaOH addeFin TRC
Al but the followig sampleS wer reed in Battlle-preed bottes:
(-;,/ Tee - V\f (c:i '( f
\"( (.
Storae Loction: ;;lJ.I ;F1t6- /\iO.\\L-nti! 1er 000 IDs
:Aed: l-i
?:
)C61
.j"
Addion Comments: S ,'t\\)\. .j r
,:-' \q
icf; \l\(dCt l:': :!;i LUJCi 12 (CJ
'-
CL L:t\; S;tLG\C\.il en Jt' rr LHll iijJZ-(CiQ
Jrh'C\ ,
Samples logged in by: : ,YUJ 0-l
) V\J LI( K G(\ a Y\I (ClPiJ.UJ
Datime: 1 1(-; I , I .,
-'i ,
,,.
; I
III /\ \U((y)(nL, in-
\ \
::\=r/\( Id \
' -
:?:f \ :-:i.Ajt QJU./V\.
tv\eiG\S
Toe' CIS
\,Jt (V,
\"e :\.-3
,, ~~~
\ S
loc GtS
f:()5 \.0
'/
3o?:;cJ'/00
'A '0 0 ?:/2-
"/003'
'Ao03
X '3 ()'
1i'
(j
b/,l\ hirr,303
re:t!1- N\CiC\
' "
y2- O.' .''l ;l
,( '- ,
-- r'
PR
OJ.
NO
.PR
OJE
CT
NA
ME
j;"
SAM
PLE
RS:
lS
i,Mru
"J
;.-
-t .
' I -
ST
A. N
O, I
DA
TE
TIM
E
I))
I:'
I -
1"-(
'
r)\
\ I';..
L' L
".C
\.:
/.
: :l . '
-
1 ''/ ;d :
Ii
U'I\
Relinquished by:
ISi"
,.ru"
J
,. ;.
. . '
. . ,t
. I',.(
(..
'I"
-..,,
Relinquishe by:
ISilf
ru"J
Relinquished by:
ISi"
,.rut
.J
CH
AIN
OF
CU
STO
DY
RE
CO
RD
; ',. ,
,I'
l. '-;
NO
.
CO
N.
T A
IME
Ra
ST
AT
ION
LO
CA
TIO
N
.._
' I j
/ I'
"'-
.. I "
I.(I
'
j ,...(
;'c
(..
,.1.'
"'
, .
, '-;
;.. '"
.Jf,
j/(
J'r,
C
: ".
i'./
Relinquished by:
ISi"
..rut
.J
"'/J
"\,
, /
('t:
s ,"
" .. J
J' L
c.
RE
MA
RK
S
j ,,", !.:J
;;
/\,.;.
,;.
I..
.;-!:
'
I....
).n,
/.-
l, ,
j. c
J J.
l,'f'
't'
li l'i.l
c ii.
CU
.H
i,:
'- /
I-i
Oltl
T
im.
Dilt
ibut
ion:
Ori
g" A
cln
Shi
pnt;
Coy
to C
odln
ltor
FI,1
d Fl
ln
l. \.
l-V
i /
\ '
L (
.'c
;;':
" II
Oltl
T
im.
Olte
T
ime
\; '
j'"":
.
L.
';t,
Io.
...
, )( I.'
, f
,:,..
j...(
'
t..
/:' ';
.J ,;
/... ;
;)'
Rtcived by:
IS/.r
u"J
Rlceived by:
ISi"
,rut
.J.
PR
OJ,
NO
.P
RO
JEC
T N
AM
E
tJ .
'\"
;0.
. '. \
.
L0!
.N
O.
4'..
( -
SAM
PLE
RS:
($;"
.rll,
.J
Ld'
\-
. f/-
RE
MA
RK
Sl -
CO
N.
TA
INE
RS
5T A
, NO
,D
AT
ET
IME
ST
AT
ION
LO
CA
TIO
N
;'(1
I ,-"
,
' (-,
.., '
:
'i .
:L--
"Yl
r"'l
r-t.
:, , i'i
. . "
;
\'1'
$.:0
.
"-.
..
, 5"
.:.:,.
.
'k .
.'" ,;
i ,-'
J"-.
,t i'
rV""
;'
; : .
".,
I r.
i'
, / -
,(,1
, "'
'I\)(
itl.t
l',t.
':';1
j"- V
;"
1.1.
...;-
y.(
JOt
Y'
it
" .
)-.
/ ;.
11:.
t, ..;
"7
,-...
.,
III
' J,-':, l,,
: ..
:it.1
-111
:C
' ,i:'
.. "'
:((
('
;;Ji:;
r:
,
/ ";.;
(/
(;:'
j.:;,
J:
.; c
'1 ..
. \..
j:"
Lj'
L;:d
,z,
i.'c
II)
o.
!
:.'
:0
) ()
: L
.' )
. (!,
,.
' I'
,/to.
:;C.'
.(".
..,(''
'
!-c.
o-r
.J "
-' ..
..i
:.,. '
;.; "
\-('
)..
j.
l\\J
( '
4.;
cC.
(:.
...,,-
;-
c:; I' ,.
:
r."
VL
"
l:"'1
')D
(.(j
j.-c
\:.
t-'
;;-
"J.-)
# I i
-j ',;. .;"
t
''
t...
j.'
L--
p'j/3
:c
""'
't:
L(.
\
.. ':j
,,'
41" _
I- ,
Io(
;...
c.-
4-';,
L.
&,,
, f .
- (.
' 7j:
"1"
0('
.. (
t c:':
:)..
-'
i \.
1/"1
.:
; '"
it..
I rt.",,-i;.
. .':
:"-.
/.\
.r"
..
:/ '
':l
j.=
i l;:'
''''
i.J/3
,,1it,
:; i S
-
i.-i;
rl'-'
J..
\..:.
.. :.
:;"'
,/..
fi",
r 1,,-
,':I-
ii.
.t o(
:j
I
(,.
J)
. \J
Rel
inqu
ishe
d by
:(S
i","
III.
JO
.tl
Tim
e'v
1dby
: (s
/",r
uRllinquishld by:
($i"
,.rll,
.JO
lt.
Tim
lR
lCiv
ld b
y;($
;,ru,
.J
)h,
j.Hoj
."r;
"''
j.
Ulli
/iN ..
fIT
:;
Relinquished by:
(Si,M
rll"
/D
.", j
"m.
\-Clived 6Y:
(Si'M
RlI
.t /
-;tr
.Rllinquished by:
(Si,n
8rul
.JD
.. j"m
oRlceived by:
(Sif
Irul
./.
\)) tL
.
Relinquished by;
(Siil
.rll"
jR
.piV
i for
ubo
reto
ry b
y:D
'''
r;m
.
H'm
!lrk
s8r
ll"J
Dill
ribu
lion:
Ori
lel A
ccln
Ship
men
t: C
oy to
Ood
lnlto
r Fi
eld
Flln
CH
AIN
Of
CU
STO
DY
RE
MR
D
BA
TT
ELL
EL
abor
ator
ySa
mpl
eL
ogin
Rep
ort
Proj
ea
# :
G33
9645
-000
1Receve Dale:
11/2
2/19
910:
00:0
0 A
M
Clie
nt
USA
CE
Log
ged
in B
y:JO
AN
NE
CoU
ecto
n D
ate
Logi
n D
ate
Lab
lDC
lient
Sam
lDT
ype M
atPr
eser
atve
Stor
age
LoC
tnL
ogin
Co_
a
11/1
0119
9 3:
00:0
0 P
11/22/1999 9:59:59 A
X30
30C
P#1
BU
LK C
HE
MSE
DN
ON
EW
ALK
IN F
RE
EZ
ER
11/1
0/19
9 3:
00:0
0 P
11/22/1999 10:08:55
X30
31C
P#1
ME
TA
LSSE
DN
ON
EW
ALK
IN F
RE
EZ
ER
11/1
0/19
9 3:
00:0
0 P
11/22/1999 10:09:29
X30
32C
P#1
TO
CIG
SSE
DN
ON
EW
AL
K I
N R
EF
11/1
0/19
99 4
:06:
00 P
11/2
2/19
9910
:10:
05X
3033
TR
#3 B
ULK
CH
EM
SED
NO
NE
WA
LK IN
FR
EE
ZE
R
11/1
0/19
9 4:
06:0
0 P
11/22/1999 10:10:54
X30
34T
R#3
ME
TA
LSSE
DN
ON
EW
ALK
IN F
RE
EZ
ER
11/1
0/19
994:
06:0
0 P
11/2
2/19
9910
:11
:21
X30
35T
R#3
TO
CIG
SSE
DN
ON
EW
ALK
IN R
EF
11/1
0/19
9 4:
35:0
0 P
11/2
2/19
9910
:12:
01X
3036
TR
#2 B
ULK
CH
EM
SED
NO
NE
WA
L I
N F
RE
EZ
ER
11/1
0/19
9 4:
35:0
0 P
11/22/199 10:12:45
X30
37T
R#2
ME
TA
LSSE
DN
ON
EW
ALK
IN F
RE
EZ
ER
11/10/19994:35:00 P
11/22/1999 10:13:15
X30
38T
R#2
GS
SED
NO
NE
WA
LK IN
RE
F
09/0
9/19
99 1
1 :5
2:00
11/22/1999 10:13:42
X30
39L
MB
-01-
O1
FISH
NO
NE
WA
LK IN
FR
EE
ZE
R
09/0
9/19
9911
:52:
0011/22/1999 10:16:06
X30
40L
MB
-01-
O2
FISH
NO
NE
WA
LK IN
FR
EE
ZE
R
09/0
9/19
99 1
1 :5
2:00
11/22/1999 10:16:30
X30
1W
P-01
-O1
FISH
NO
NE
WA
LK IN
FR
EE
ZE
R
09/0
9/19
9 11
:52:
0011/22/1999 10:16:56
X30
42W
P-00
1-O
2SA
'FI
SHN
ON
EW
ALK
IN F
RE
EZ
ER
09/0
9/19
9 6:
30:0
0 P
11/22/199 10:17:20
X30
3Y
B-0
2-oo
1FI
SHN
ON
EW
ALK
IN F
RE
EZ
ER
09/0
9/19
9912
:30:
0011/22/1999 10:18:04
X30
44L
MB
-004
-1FI
SHN
ON
EW
ALK
IN F
RE
EZ
ER
09/2
3/19
99 2
:00:
00 A
11/22/199 10:18:53
X30
5W
S-0-
001
FISH
NO
NE
WA
LK IN
FR
EE
ZE
R
09/2
3/19
99 2
:00:
00 A
11/2
2/19
9910
:41:
36X
30W
S-04
-2FI
SHN
ON
EW
ALK
IN F
RE
EZ
ER
09/23/199 2:00:00 A
11/2
2/19
9910
:42:
27X
3Q7
WS-
04-0
03FI
SHN
ON
EW
ALK
IN F
RE
EZ
ER
09/23/199 4:30:00 A
11/22/1999 10:42:53
X30
LM
B-0
s001
FISH
NO
NE
WA
LK IN
FR
EE
ZE
R
09/2
4/19
9 10
:00:
0011/22/199 10:43:15
X30
49X
B00
7-O
1FI
SHN
ON
EW
ALK
IN F
RE
EZ
ER
MomMY, Novemb
;;;;::
;:::::
::::::,
::::::
::;:::
::::::
::::::
:,:;:.
;::::;
;;;;::
::::::
;:::::
:::::;
::;::;
::::::
;;;:::
:;::::
;::::;
;:;;::
N:::
:;';::::
:':;::
::;::"
;::;::
::;::;
::;:::
:";',
::;::"
;::::;
::::"
"",::
::,:,
"",:.
",,,,
::,,,
:,,,::
;,::::
,:::::
::,:
:""'
,,::;:
,:,:;:
:,",,:
:,:,,
;""
,,.:;
,,:,:,
,";::
"',;"
":""
,,,,,,
::,,,,
,;,
":''''
''''''''
''N::;
''''''':
'''':_
''---
-''':'
':'':_
",:;:
""""
;;-"-
"'''''
'''''-'
'''':
Pag
e 1
of 1
SOP No. 6-10-. Page 13 of 18
ATlACR
Batte uhar OperatioD8Saple Rept Form
Prjec Number Client BUfitS' l
'f ORtJi6'5
No. of Shipping COD er athne Recived
reD tx Metod ofDeery Commer Caer (Ai biI No,
Had DeliUS Ma (RS No,
COC F", Sh wi S8Io
. Caea)\eo) -... wi Tap Cua Se,-
Wor the se Un fo eah shing con1aer-L y
Hse we kcm (list imP& :uples):
(Other spcif)
SAMLE
Sample Lals: -1 Sample labels ag wi cae fors Discrpancies (see cae fos). CoDter Sea: Tape Cusdy Seas (Otw specif)
eas in for eah shppin contaerea brken (li impa saples)l
ConditioD of Samples: Safjl t'ootiners.iSaml- (traier brokeeag (see cac forms)
/J Temperatu up reipt (oC): L: .(Note: If tepe upon reipt dif nom reui condions, .list impact saples):Inti pH (water): pH adjus:
--
Fin p Volume HCV NaOH added lu Tota Residaa Chorie (wat): Adju: Fin TRC--Saple ConbUen:
.',1&'", ..IS.mpleS? ed in PC-gre saplig jar (Yeso). Lo No,
Al but the followg sapleS we reed in Battlle-prepp bottes:
Storae Location: Ffl:t:1.Lf.BDOIDsAniged: X37/7- X 72f
Addional Comments:
"""
logg in by: D8im: ,zf
AMPLE CUSTODY RECORD Jlk
/;(;
Date
)jectNo, Jf1' / il/5 d /Y.J f)ject Name t.ih /l'J' hJ-tp J fL
;/ /)
c'
)je.:! Manager (t'lcit
')
y. ;;;2J. J?:"Ph::iJ t,
1(/ 2.:J
. . ,
Matnx
qI5.tI l i .J.IV YJtll
h'S
lls )J 1)"3 X(, ;)flC X.'q,g- Ilhtpi-l AI
))/
If )/1J I) ' ;( -?- I'KG 'X\flN //k
'11')1''',2 Y JY.1 )('3; 'i Y3'12.0 r:/)II( ty)-: 'I ;)'jd" f rl /'OL-O?-Ih
Y' b'5 YJ')$(J V ' iCS '1l2 //1
: /-?"
IfJ J. 5t., X QY1/ ./3.);1 //IU/;t'.JLf 'v?- )xj y )()9t)
,,_
rIJ4 h7:'f-
1C:j(v5 1' Jq" 'I37J;
1J 1-' 3/ J?J' 1/ 3t\L/ J,, 30 'I
(/
V!' llto //111/),/7* t'j Y 'JOL/( . ol/f Y.(L i/ V372 //J;,/J-)71/ (p )f' ot/c n/) dl.1
/(
IIzo/).
Lab No, Sample No. .
;/ ,
1/ 1// I.
~~~~
l: / iJo I: /W///ff/)l t;l_ut5, / f('
tDate Time
;:
MiM)mpany Company
inquished by: Received by:
. .
gneture Date Time Signature
inted Name Printed Name
)mpany Company
Pags
I' T ssting Parameters
, i
Il. t11qq /J-eAte Time
Date Time
() BaBellePacific Nortwest DivisionMarine Sciences Laoratory1529 West Sequim Bay RoadSequim, Washington 98382
II Lab
.i Addrass
Attention
Observations, Instructions
I /
I '-
/n I/I\
r;-\L 7' v
13
N f D ' \i (l t. r:S
Total No. of Containers
Shipment Method:
Special Requirements or Comments:
DISTRIBUTION:
1. Provide white and yellow copies to theLaboratory
2. Return pink copy to Project file or toproject manager-
3. Laboretory to return signed white copy toBattelle for project files
Rr_ 1Rnn1Q? In7/Q4\
BA
TT
EL
LE
Lab
orat
ory
Sam
ple
Log
in R
epor
tPr
jec
1# :
Reae Dae:
12/1
7/19
9 10
:30:
00 A
M'
Cl
BLA
CK
ST
ON
E A
ND
TU
RN
ER
SL
oged
in B
y:M
EA
RA
M
CoU
D
iILo,u Date
Lo 1D
CU
&u
Ty
MiI
Prve
S
I,.. L
OC
IlL
o,u c-
.12
/171
99
10:5
9:28
X37
1714
15"6
TIS
UE
NO
NE
WA
L I
N F
RE
ZR
x385
12/1
7/19
911:
13:4
8X
3718
1415
"5T
ISU
EN
OE
WA
L I
N F
RE
EZ
Rco
mp
of x
3,x9
412
/17/
1991
1:14
:25
X37
1914
15"6
TIS
UE
NO
NE
WA
L IN
FR
EZ
Rco
mp
of x
328,
x85,
x288
12/1
7199
11:1
5:01
X37
2014
15"6
TIS
SUE
NO
NE
WA
L I
N F
RE
EZ
Rco
mp
01 x
37.x
12/1
7/19
911:
15:3
1X
3721
1415
"8T
ISue
NO
NE
WA
L I
N F
RE
EZ
Rco
mp
01 x
3297
.x98
12/1
7/19
9 11
:16:
02X
372
1415
"6T
ISU
EN
ON
EW
AL
IN
FR
EE
ZR
com
p 01
x32
8,x8
312
/17/
199
11 :1
6:33
X37
2314
15"5
TIS
UE
NO
NE
WA
LK
IN
FR
EZ
Rco
mp
of x
3291
,x92
12/1
7199
11:1
7:06
X37
2414
15"5
TIS
UE
NO
NE
WA
L IN
FR
EZ
Rca
p of
x3.
x290
12/1
7/99
11:1
7:36
X37
2514
15"6
TIS
UE
. NO
NE
WA
L I
N F
RE
EZ
Rx3
298
12/1
7/19
911:
18:0
2X
372
1427
"4T
ISU
EN
ON
EW
ALK
IN F
RE
EZ
Rco
mp of
x3,x
,x12
/171
9911
:18:
47X
3727
1427
.T
IUE
NO
NE
WA
LK IN
FR
EE
ZE
Rca
p of
x3,x
,x12
/17/
199
11 :1
9:24
X37
2814
27*
TIS
SUE
NO
NE
WA
L I
N
com
p 0I
X3,
x,x7
,,,w
,.....
.""
' S'"'--
-x""
"''''
;''''''
''''=
-::''
''",'
''''''
'''''
,.,.
''''''''
'.'
VA
WY
'''''''
'",,'
''''''
..'
*',"
',.,.
*-.. ' .
. ..,
.. ... ..,.-
Frid
, Dec
emr
Pag
e 1
of 1
lpLeSY\ Ty(tt
\ ,
I/d-\
()
Danelle
, . ,
Putting Technology To Work
Sample Split and Transfer Log
Project Numbe tI /'73 cfq
Prject Title
6-?5'1 bLtS -
p,
tV 'P on d
G-l n S 7'
,)
Tl lID (2) (2. zI)l' plt+ cares /r)ft 7D P and SoTTM(tZ;t1S n red t'tYue:c ./O()
(include deption of amoWlt or weight of split, packagig, slorae) an 61 .$
Date '/2 fr'l'1
Date of Work
Anysis Typs)
Splitt Prur
Name
Saple II Sample II Sample il Sample il Sample il Sample il
Released Received
SigntueJate:
Storage Lotion/Conditions: Storage L,
Released Received
Signatuelate:
Storage Loction/Conditions:
2- to(..Storage L
ORIG!NAL
Attachment 2
Gra, ,ize Results and Plots
GRAIN SIZE SEDIMENT QA/QC SUMMARY
PROJECT:PARAMETER:LABORATORY:MA TRIX:
SAMPLE CUSTODY:
Turner s ReservoirGrain Size
Applied Marine Sciences, Inc,Sediment
A representative from Battelle Duxbury retrieved a total of three (3) sedimentsamples on 11/1 9/1 999 from NAE. Samples were received chilled , transportedto the laboratory, and stored in the Walk- in-Refrigerator over the weekend untilthey could be logged into the laboratory s tracking system on 11/22/1999.Samples were received chilled and in good condition. The cooler temperatureon arrival was not recorded. Samples were stored refrigerated until analysis,
Battelle shipped sediment samples to Applied Marine Sciences, Inc, (AMS) on11/23/1999. Samples were received at AMS on 11/24/1999. All samples werereceived in good condition and were stored at 4 C until analysis.
QA/QC DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES:
Grain Size
ReferenceMethod
ASTM D-422
MethodBlank
SRM% Diff,
RelativePrecision
s25%
AchievedDetection
Limit(% DW)
TargetDetection
Limit(% DW)
METHOD: Sediment samples were analyzed for water content and grain sizedistributions following ASTM D-422.
HOLDING TIMES: Samples were prepared for GS determination within holding time.
Collection DateGS Analysis Date
11/1 0/1 999
12/08/1999
DETECTIONLIMITS:
Not applicable
BLANKS: Not applicable
REPLICA TES: RPDs were within the control limits specified by the method , as follows:
% Gravel - NA% Coarse Sand - N A% Medium Sand - 3.8 %RPD% Fine Sand - 0. 85 %RPD% Silt - 1.2 %RPD% Clay - 0.22 %RPD
SRM: Nol applicable
Page 1 of I
Applied Marine Sciences, Inc.
100
% Cobble
::3"
502 N, Highway 3, Suite B . League City. TX 77573 . (281) 554-7272. Fax (281) 554-6356
Grain Size Distribution Test Report
S. Standard SieveOpening in Inches S, Standard Sieve Number Hydrmete
. ,-
5""
-..
o 0 "" 0
"" "" ""
100 001O. I
Grain Size (mm)
% Gravel
':3" - #4
% Sand
Medium
# 16-#40
1.2
Fine
#50-#200
35,
% Fines
% Silt % Clay
074- 005 mID
_-
J'_
--.-
34,17 29.25
Coarse
#6-# 10
------...- -_._ ----------
Nat. Water (%)
308.
. -" ---------------
Black Sandy Organic Silt
D85 D60 D50 D30 Dl5 DIO
--- - -- - --_._-_.- ------' ..----- ---.. -- - - ---. .- -----.- -
Material Description USCS
------
OL/OH
----------- ..-----
.n. .. n
_- .- -_.
_.- _m ____no Project DescIjE.tio!l.
----_. "-'- ---'--
US ACE-New England District, O&M Projects
Turner s Reservoir
Client PIN: G339645-0001n__- -
_.. - . "- ."' ------ ----.--.--
AMS PIN: 9903-
--_._ -- ._.._- -----
Client ID: . CP#
---.--- -- --.----....---- .--.
Battelle ID: X3032
---------. ... ------- ---_--
n --AMS ID: 5059
--..- -.. -------- -----.------
Date: 12/8/99
Applied Marine Sciences, Inc.
100
% Cobble
)oj"
---------
1'il! Water e!(
) -
627,
-.-------.---- "--- --
502 N, Highway 3. Suite B . League City, TX 77573 . (281) 554-7272 . Fax (281) 554-6356
Grain Size Distribution Test Report
S, Standard Sieve
Opening in Inches S. Standard Sieve Number Hydrmete
.. '"
o 0 -. 0.. N=1 =1
..
100 1 0,Grain Size (mm)
001
% Gravel
.:3" - #4
% Sand
Medium
#16-#01.3 4550
% FinesCoarse
#6-# 10
Fine
#50-#200
23.
% Silt
074-0,005 mm
-----,_.._-
29.
% Clay
':0, 005 mm
--------- .. ---
..u
085 060 050 030 015 010
--- ---.-- --- ---- -.-- - " ----- --..'--
Material Oescri..!i5)1..__
_---_..- ------- ------ ._- ---- - ..-----
USCS'_U" '_U'----'
---
OL/OHBlack Organic Clay with Sand
- -.. _H. ...
_-- --_._-
Project Desc.!e!! u_-----USACE-New England Distrct , O&M Projects
Turner s Reservoir
. ----- ..-..--.----.. .--
Client PIN: G339645-0001. '--_no_
.----- .. --------'-
u. - -
AMS PIN: 9903-
_._--- --- -_._-- ---_._-
Client 10: TR#2
------ ----------------
-.----_u .Battelle 10: X3038
--- _...
AMS 10: 5061
--------. ---'-- ...
12/8/99Date:
Applied Marine Sciences, Inc.
. - - _ .._.
n._. ject j)escription
US ACE-New England District, O&M Projects
Turner s Reservoir
100
% Cobble
::3"
--- .--.------
Nat. Water (%)
645.
-------
Black Organic Clay
502 N, Highway 3, Suite B . League City, TX 77573 . (281) 554-7272 . Fax (281) 554-6356
Grain Size Distribution Test Report
S, Standard Sieve
Opening in Inches u.s. Standard Sieve Number Hydrmet
- '"
o 0 - N'I 'I
"'
100 1 0,Grain Size (mm)
() 1
% Gravel-C3" - #4
% Sand
Medum#16-#40
% Clay
-cO. 005
-------.--.---- ..
50,
% FinesCoarse
#6-# 10
Fine
#50-#200% Silt
074- 005 mm
44.
D85 D60 D50 D30 Dl5 DIO
. ..._----,-
-- u_
--.- ._- -------- -- - -- .."- _..._--- . "---.- ..--,-
Material Description
. ------
USCS
OLiOH
---..---
Client PIN:
---.-----.-
G339645-000 1
- .. - .- -- .._-_.__.
AMS PIN: 9903-
--- ----- .--.- .------------ -- -- -
Client il: TR#3
---.- - -. --- ..- --.- .-.... - .------ ---
Battelle 10: X3035
--' ..-...--- .----- --"
_n. -AMS 10: 5060
--..-- .-.----.--------- --- -
Date: 12/8/99
-- -- --.------ - _...__ . -.-
Applied Marine Sciences, Inc.
100
% Cobble
.-----
502 N, Highway 3, Suite B . League City, TX 77573 . (281) 554-7272. Fax (281) 554-6356
Grain Size Distribution Test Report
S, Standard Sieve
Opening in Inches S, Standard Sieve Nwnber Hydrmet
-f"o 0
::
=I =I
'' ---
100 0011 0,Grain Size (mm)
% Gravel
":3" - #4
Coarse
#6-# 10
% Sand % Fines
Medium Fine % Silt % Clay#16-#40 #50-#200 074- 005 mm ..0,005 mm
1.28 23. 29, 45.
Nat. Water (%)
....-.----..-- ------
629.
D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 DIO Cc
- --------- -
-_..u. -
.. - -----,---
Black Organic Clay with Sand
------
Material Descrip
---- -----
USCS
OL/OH
--. -. ._
Eroj ct Descri.ptio
--- ------ --
-_u_- ..------ ---
US ACE-New England District, O&M Projects
Turner s Reservoir
Client PIN:
AMS PIN:
G339645-000 1.. .----- __.n.- -..
-----..---...- -- --....----------
9903-
---- -.--.
TR#2
..----.-- --- --
X3038
----
- -- ..._n_._
- .-------
5061-
12/8/99
Client ID:
Battelle ID:
AMS il:Date:
Attachment 3
Total ()rganic Carbon Results
.;' .
TOC - SEDIMENT QAlQC SUMMARY
PROJECT:PARAMETER:LABORATORY:MA TRIX:
SAMPLE CUSTODY:
Turner s ReservoirTotal Organic Carbon (TOC)
Applied Marine Sciences , Inc.
Sediment
A representative from Battelle Duxbury retrieved a total of three (3) sedimentsamples on 11/19/1999 from NAE. Samples were received chilled, transportedto the laboratory, and stored in the Walk- in-Refrigerator over the weekend untilthey could be logged into the laboratory s tracking system on 11122/1999,Samples were received chilled and in good condition, The cooler temperatureon arrival was not recorded, Samples were stored refrigerated until analysis.
Battelle shipped sediment samples to Applied Marine Sciences, Inc. (AMS) on11123/1999. Samples were received at AMS on 11124/1999. All samples werereceived in good condition and were stored at 4 C until analysis,
QA/QC DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES:
TOC
METHOD:
HOLDING TIMES:
DETECTIONLIMITS:
BLANKS:
REPLICA TES:
SRM:
ReferenceMethod
EP A Method9060
AchievedDetection
Limit(% DW)
MethodBlank
-:5xDL
SRM% Diff.
RelativePrecision
25%
Sediment samples were analyzed for TOC content following EPA Method9060.
Samples were prepared for TOC analysis within holding time,
Collection DateTOC Analysis Date
11110/1 999
1 2/06/1 999
Achieved detection limits met the target detection limits suggested in theproject scope of work.
A method blank was prepared with sediment samples, TOC wasundetected in the method blank.
Each sediment sample was analyzed in duplicate. RPDs were within thecontrol limits specified by the method.
An SRM was analyzed as a continuing calibration, The RPD between themeasured and true values was within the control limits specified by themethod,
Page 1 of I
TargetDetection
Limit(% DW)
Applied Marine Sciences, Inc.502 N, Highway 3 , Suite B . League City, TX 77573 . (281) 554-7272' Fax (281) 554- 6356
Project Number:
Project Title:
G3 3 9645-000 1
USACE O&M NAE
Turner s Reservoir
AMS Project Number: 9903-
Date Sampled: N/ A
Date Received: 11/24/99
Matrix: SoilClient: Battelle-Duxbwy Operations
Total Organic Carn (EPA SW9060)
Field Battelle AMS TOC-Replicate I TOC-Replicate 2 MDL Date AnalyzeSample il Sample ID Sample il
(%) (%) (%) .---
CP#I X3032 5059 12/6/99TR#3 X3035 5060 12. 12.46 12/6/99
-..
TR#2 X3038 5061 12/6/99
Quality Assurance: These analyses were performed in accordance with EPA guidelines for quality assurance,
::- -_ --_
, Inc. Project Manager
Applied Marine Sciences, Inc.502 N, Highway 3. Suite B . League City. TX 77573. (281) 554-7272. Fax (281) 554-6356
Project Number: G339645-0001
Project Title: USACE O&M NAE
Turer s Reservoir
Client: Battelle-Duxbury Oprations
Battelle Samp 10 X3032
Field Samp 10: CP#1
AMS Samp 10: 5059
AMS Project Number: 9903-
Date Sampled: N/ A
Date Received: 1l/24/99
Matrix: Soil
Total Organic Carbon (BPA SW9060)
Result Duplicate RPD MOL Unit Date Anyzed12/6/99
.-----
Quality Assurance: These analyses were perfonned in accordance with EP A guidelines for quality assurance,
I (
--.. -- """
AMS , Inc. Project Manager
Applied Marine Sciences, Inc.502 N. Highway 3 , Suite B. League City, TX 77573. (281) 554-7272. Fax (281) 554-6356
Project Number: G339645-0001
Project Title: USACE O&M NAE
Turer s Reservoir
Client: Battelle-Duxbury Oprations
Battelle Samp 10 X3035
Field Samp 10: TR#3
AMS Samp 10: 5060
AMS Project Number: 9903-
Date Sampled: N/ A
Date Received: 11/24/99
Matrix: Soil
Tota Organc Carn (EP A SW9060)Result Duplicate RPD MOL Unit Date Analyzed
12, 12.46 12/6/99
-_.
Quality Assurance: These analyses were perfonned in accordance with EPA guidelines for quality assurance.
. --
I2.AMS, Inc. Project Manager
, ""
Applied Marine Sciences, Inc.502 N, Highway 3. Suite B . League City. TX 77573 . (281) 554-7272 . Fax (281) 554-6356
Project Number: G339645-0001
Project Title: USACE O&M NAE
Turer s Reservoir
AMS Project Number: 9903-
Date Sampled: N/ A
Date Received: 11124/99
Matrix: SoilClient: Battelle-Duxbur OprationsBattelle Samp il X3038
Field Samp ID: TR#2
AMS Samp ID: 5061
Total Organc Carn (EPA SW9060)
Result Duplicate RPD MOL Unit Date Anyzed12/6/99
Quality Assurance: These analyses were perfonned in accordance with EP A guidelines for quality assurance.
Vt' 'i.
. - '- ) , , /
.--_.u
.--
AMS , Inc. Project Manager