[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Department of Natural Resources MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Emery T. Cleaves, Director COASTAL AND ESTUARINE GEOLOGY OPEN FILE REPORT NO. 15 Geochemistry and geophysical framework of the shallow 0 V% sediments of Assawoman Bay and Isle of Wight Bay in Maryland by Darlene V. Wells, Robert D. Conkwright, and June Park NT I S 0 0 z 1632 Submitted to U.S.Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service Continental Margins Program and Bureau of Economic Geology The University of Texas at Austin in fulfillment of Contract #14-35-0001-30534 QE 121 W45 1994 1994 Department of Natural Resources MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Emery T. Cleaves, Director COASTAL AND ESTUARINE GEOLOGY OPEN FILE REPORT NO. 15 Geochemistry and geophysical framework of the shallow sediments of Assawoman Bay and Isle of Wight Bay in Maryland by Darlene V. Wells, Robert D. Conkwright, and June Park 0 4@ 163 Submitted to U.S.Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service Continental Margins Program and Bureau of Economic Geology The University of Texas at Austin in fulfillment of Contract #14-35-0001-30534 1994 COMMISSION OF THE MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY M. GORDON WOLMAN, CHAIRMAN JOHN E. CAREY F. PIERCE LINAWEAVER THOMAS 0. NUTTLE ROBERT W. RIDKY ii CONTENTS Page Abstract .................................................... I Introduction ................................................. 3 Objectives ............................................... 3 Acknowledgements ........................................ 4 Previous Studies .......................................... 4 Study Area ................................................... 5 Geologic Setting .......................................... 5 Physical Characteristics ................................ I .... 8 Summary and Conclusions ................ ............ I .......... 10 Results and Discussion ........................................... 12 Seismic Profiles .................................... I ...... 12 Sediment Texture .......................................... 16 Water Content ............................................ 18 Geochemistry ............................................ 19 Nitrogen Content ..................................... 19 Carbon Content ...................................... 20 Sulfur Content ....................................... 21 Metals .............................................. 22 Enrichment Factors ...... ........................ 23 Variation from Historical Norms ..................... 26 Methods .................................................... 28 Seismic Profiling .......................................... 28 Coring Techniques ......................................... 28 Laboratory Analyses ....................................... 29 Xeroradiography and Initial Core Processing ................. 29 Textural Analyses .................................... 29 Chemical Analyses .................................... 31 Nitrogen, Carbon, and Sulfur Analyses ................. 31 Monosulfide Analyses ............................. 32 Metal Analyses ................................. 33 References Cited .............................................. 35 CONTENTS (continued) Page Appendix I Location data for coring sites and selected seismic surveys ............. 42 Appendix II Lithologic logs and xeroradiographs for sediment cores collected in Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays .................................. 45 Appendix III Textural and geochernical data for core sediment samples .............. 69 Appendix IV Microwave digestion technique ................................ 125 FIGURES Figure 1. A) Generalized geologic map of central Delmarva Peninsula .......................................... 6 B) Cross-section (with key) showing stratigraphic relationship of formations (from Owens and Denny, 1979) ............................................. 7 Figure 2. A) West end of record for seismic line 3 which crosses the widest part of, Isle of Wight Bay. B) Interpreted section showing prominent reflector defining paleochannel and pre-transgression surface ................. 13 Figure 3. A) Record for seismic line 8, crossing north Assawoman Bay. B) Interpreted section featuring cross- section of a dredged hole adjacent to Montego Bay Trailer Park located on bay side of North Ocean City, Maryland ......................................... 14 Figure 4. Contour of surface defined by the prominent reflector seen in seismic profiles ............................... 15 Figure 5. Map of the track lines for seismic profile surveys with locations of core and surficial sediment stations . ............. 30 iv TABLES Page Table 1. Morphological parameters of Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays .................................... 8, Table II. Correlation matrix for nitrogen, carbon, sulfur contents and sediment textural data based on all core samples except station 14 .................................... 18 Table 111. Correlation matrix for trace metal concentrations and sediment textural data based on all core samples except station 14 ......................................... 22 Table IV. Comparisons of average enrichment factors in various East and Gulf Coast estuaries (modified from Sinex and Helz, 1981) .................................... 25 Table V. Least squares coefficients for trace metal data ............... 26 Table VI. Results of nitrogen, carbon, and sulfur analyses of NIST-SRM #1646 (Estuarine Sediment) material compared to the certified or known values .................. 32 Table VII. Results of the metal analyses of reference materials compared to the certified values ......................... 34 Table VIII. Coordinates (latitude and longitude) of time fixes for seismic surveys conducted in May, 1992 ................... 43 Table IX Geographical coordinates and general information for sampling stations .................................... 44 Table X. Textural data for sediment samples taken from cores .......... 70 Table XI. Chemical data for sediment samples ...................... 73 Table XII. Enrichment factors for metals analyzed in core sediments ........................................ 104 v TABLES (continued) Page Table XIII. Mean and sigma levels of variation values calculated from me tal concentrations of sediments below 30 cm in the sediment column .............................. 120 Table XIV. Variation values for metal concentrations relative to background levels .................................. 121 EQUATIONS Equation 1. Calculation of the enrichment factor for a particular metal in sediment samples ............................. 23 Equation 2. Calculation of background metal concentration using grain size composition of the sediment .................... 26 Equation 3. Determination of variation of measured metal concentrations relative to background metal concentration ...................................... 27 Equation 4. Determination of water content as percent, wet weight ........................................... 29 vi Geochemistry and geophysical framework of the shallow sediments of Assawoman Bay and Isle of Wight Bay in Maryland by Darlene V. Wells, Robert D. Conkwright, and June Park ABSTRACT For the 8th year of the Mineral Management Service's Continental Margins Program, the Maryland Geological Survey conducted a sedimentological and geochernical study of the sediments of Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays. The objectives of the study were to delineate the shallow stratigraphic sequence of the coastal bays, relating the stratigraphy to late Quaternary sea level fluctuations, and to document the geochernical character of the shallow sediments, providing preliminary base-line data for comparison for future studies. Thirty-three kilometers of 7 kHz seismic profile surveys and eleven sediment cores were collected. Surficial sediments grab samples were collected at three other stations. The cores were X-rayed, described and sampled at various intervals. A total of 96 sediment samples were analyzed for texture (SAND, SILT, CLAY contents), water content, total nitrogen, carbon, and sulfur concentrations, and six metals: Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni and Zn. Seismic records feature several shallow paleochannels defined by a very strong reflector. Depths to the reflector were mapped, allowing the structure of a pre- transgression surface beneath the bays to be contoured. The surface reveals a simple paleodrainage system which is traceable to the present tributaries. Maximum depths of the paleochannels are approximately 8 meters below MSL. Thalweg depths, particularly for the St. Martin paleochannel, are much shallower than previously projected based on well log and bridge boring data. The coastal bay sediments are predominately SILTY. SILT contents averaged 44% for all samples. Averages for SAND and CLAY contents are 31% and 25%, respectively. SAND contents generally are higher for those samples collected along the eastern margin of the bays. CLAY becomes an important component in cores collected in the tributaries. Concentrations for nitrogen, carbon and sulfur for most of the sediments are within ranges expected for marine sediments and are comparable with those found in the Chesapeake Bay and other Atlantic coast estuaries. Nitrogen contents range from 0 to 1.39%, averaging 0.22%; carbon contents range from 0.02 to 30%, averaging 2.8%; and I sulfur contents range from 0 to 5.28%, averaging 1.05%. Nitrogen, carbon and sulfur contents are strongly related to the texture of the coastalbay sediments, with higher values associated with finer-grained sediments. Metal concentrations are within the ranges of other coastal bays not subject to heavy industry. The behavior of the metals were determined by two methods. The first method utilized enrichment factors referenced to average continental crust (Taylor, 1964). Enrichment factor values for Cu, Mn and Ni are less than one for most of the sediments suggesting that the reference material used may not represent the coastal bay sediments. Nevertheless, enrichment factors indicate that the upper 20 to 30 cm of sediment column are enriched with Cr, Cu, Ni and Zn compared to sediments deeper than 30 cm. The metal concentrations in the deeper sediments are interpreted to represent historical or background levels. The second technique employed to assess metal concentrations in the sediments correlated metal content with the grain size composition. Sediment deeper than 30 cm were used to obtain the relationship between texture and metal contents to determine background metal concentrations. Background levels were calculated for all samples and compared to measured levels, obtaining variation factors. Variation factors showed the same trends in the behavior of Cu and Zn as did the enrichment factors. 2 INTRODUCTION During the past seven years of the Mineral Management Service-Association of American State Geologist Continental Margins Program, the Maryland Geological Survey has mapped the surficial sediments and defined the shallow geological framework of the inner continental shelf of Maryland (Kerhin and Williams, 1987; Toscano et aL, 1989). These continental shelf studies consisted of sedimentological, paleontological, stratigraphical and geophysical investigations. Stratigraphic horizons, identified in seismic records, were correlated to onshore stratigraphy based on data from existing well logs. Paleochannels were also mapped, reconstructing the early Holocene inner-shelf paleodrainage system. The area of focus for the previous studies have been limited to the inner continental shelf of Maryland, and did not include the adjacent coastal bay systems. These coastal bays consist of four bays: Assawoman Bay, Isle of Wight Bay, Sinepuxent Bay and Chincoteague Bay. These coastal bays mark the leading edge boundary of the present transgression and overlie sedimentary sequences that link the onshore and offshore stratigraphy. Therefore, studies of the geologic framework of these bays would contribute to the understanding of the relationship between offshore and onshore stratigraphy and the history of the holocene transgression. However, there have been few studies investigating the shallow stratigraphy or geologic history of Maryland's coastal bays, The coastal bays are considered very valuable resources not only from a geological viewpoint, but from an environmental perspective. During the last two decades, development pressures along the shoreline around the bays have caused concern about the "health" of the bays. Yet, there is a paucity of environmental data available to adequately assess and monitor the bays. Little is understood about the hydrodynamics and sedimentation processes. An understanding of the hydrodynamics of the bays is critical in dealing with dredging and disposal of polluted sediments. Because the bays are very shallow, bottom sediments are often resuspended, mixing with the overlying water column. Therefore, the bottom sediments play an important role in bay water quality. Sedimentological studies are important to the understanding of the relationship between bottom sediments and bay hydrodynamics as well as to the general health of the bays. OBJECTIVES The Maryland Geological Survey initiated this study to define the shallow geological framework and near surface geochemical character of the sediments of Maryland's two northern-most coastal bays: Assawoman Bay and Isle of Wight Bay. The 3 objectives of this study were: 1) To delineate the shallow stratigraphic sequence beneath the coastal bays and relate the stratigraphy to late Quaternary sea level fluctuations; 2) To map the geochernical character of the near surface sediments of the bays, providing preliminary base-line data for future studies of these back-bay areas. Presented in this report are the results of the first year study. Results include geophysical data from shallow seismic surveys, and textural and chemical data from analyses of sediments taken from a series of shallow cores. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was supported by the U.S. Mineral Management Service and the Association of American State Geologist Continental Margin Program, and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. David Blough, and Margarite Carruthers assisted in the collection and initial processing of the sediment cores, and with the textural and chemical analyses of the samples. The authors extend their appreciation to the Fisheries Division of the Department of Natural Resources Tidewater Administration for the use of their boat and equipment. The authors express special thanks to Al Wesche for his assistance in the collection of the cores and seismic data. His intimate knowledge of the back bays proved to be invaluable. The authors extend their appreciation to Dr. James Hill for his assistance with the interpretation of the metals and carbon, sulfur and nitrogen data and for his review of the manuscript. The authors also thank Randall Kerhin and Dr. Emery Cleaves for their suggestions and comments. PREVIOUS STUDIES The general stratigraphy of the eastern Delmarva Peninsula has been described by Owens and Denny (1976), Mixon (1985), and Sheridan et aL (1974) (Delaware). Chrzastowski (1986) investigated the stratigraphy and geologic history of Rehoboth and Indian River Bays in Delaware. Halsey (1978) described the shallow stratigraphy beneath Maryland's coastal bays including Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays. More recent work relating onshore stratigraphy to offshore stratigraphy include Kerhin and William (1987), Toscano (1992), Toscano el aL (1989), and Toscano and 4 York (1992). Toscano el aL (1989) also mapped a network of paleochannels on Maryland's inner continental shelf. These paleochannels are interpreted to be part of the ancestral St. Martin River System. Offshore seismic records show the main stem of the channel cutting into the top of the Beaverdam sand (Tertiary). Based on thalweg depths, widths and orientations, the main channel stem follows a depression in the top of the Beaverdam Formation. This depression extends under Fenwick Island and Isle of Wight Bay. Very few studies have investigated the geochemical characteristics of sediments in Maryland's coastal bays. Most previous environmental studies focused on biological aspects (UM and CESI, 1993). Some studies looked at the chemistry of the water column in the bays. Early studies primarily focused on water quality monitoring in the bays (Sieling 1958, 1959, 1960; Cerco el aL, 1978; and Allison 1975). Water column studies conducted by Allison (1975) measured pH, salinity, water temperature, dissolved oxygen (D.O.), nutrients, chlorophyll-a, total iron, heavy metal and pesticide concentrations, turbidity, and fecal coliform bacteria. At twelve (12) sites within Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays, Allison analyzed bottom sediments for six metals: Cu, Cr, Pb, Zn, Cd, and Hg. Allison concluded that the metals concentrations in the sediments were not s gni icantly high. STUDY AREA GEOLOGIC SETTING The study area is located on the Atlantic coast of the Delmarva Peninsula (Figure la). Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays are the two northern-most coastal bays in Maryland. Fenwick Island, part of the barrier Island/southern spit unit of the Delmarva coastal compartment (Fisher, 1967), separates the coastal bays from the Atlantic Ocean. The bays are underlain by unconsolidated Coastal Plain sediments, the upper-most 60 m of which are Cenozoic in age. Sediments of the Sinepuxent Formation are exposed along much of Maryland's coastal area from Bethany Beach, Delaware, southward to the Mary land-V irgin la border and directly underlie the study area (Figure I b). The Sinepuxent Formation was described by Owens and Denny (1979) based on information from drill holes along Sinepuxent Neck, the designated type locality for the Formation. The Sinepuxent Formation is composed of dark colored, poorly sorted, silty fine to medium sand with thin beds- of peaty sand and black clay. Heavy minerals are abundant and consist of both amphlbole and pyroxene minerals. All of the major clay 'mineral groups: kaolinite, montmorillonite, illite and chlorite, are represented. The sand consists of quartz, 5 7r 75* 0 Brkkjmn Orton JERSEY Point Dover MARYLAM DELAVA4RE% BAY 4:@ A:: C.P, My Kent Islan .......... ................ ... .......... C) Cri. STUDY AREA x ...... ...... ...... ......... city . ... .......... . Bluff ............. PU Wailes Bluff p 3r VIRGM VIRGINLA. 0 10 M M 0 W KUMEnM 0 10 20 30 MLES 0 &MqMn NEW Figure 1. A) Generalized geologic map of central Delmarva Peninsula (from Owens and Denny, 1979). See Figure Ib for pattern key. 6 N METERS 30- Greenwood, s Delaware 20- ,j:j;:X:: j@i@: is:*:::@:_ 10- .... IRONSHIRE Assateague Island, SFA E Maryland .... ......... .. LEVEL IN 10- So-called '*YORKTOWNP) and COHANSEY(?)" 20- ? 30 ? EXPLANATION MARINE-MARGINAL MARINE ESTUARINE-FLUVIA71LE .......... .......... Sinepuxent Formation .......... .......... .......... X. Kent Islarx! Formation fronshire Formation Omar Formation Walston Sdt Beavada Sand Yorktown Formation (not shown on mapl "Yorktown and Cohansey(?)" Pensauken (not shown on map) Formation Chrisapealut Group, undivided St Mary's Formation Choptank Famiation Caknat Formation Figure 1. B) Cross-section showing stratigraphic relationship of formations shown in Figure la (from Owens and Denny, 1979), with pattern key. 7 feldspar and abundance of mica (muscovite, biotite, and chlorite). The preponderance of mica make the Sinepuxent Formation lithologically distinct from underlying older units (Owens and Denny, 1979). The Sinepuxent Formation is interpreted to be a marginal marine deposit. The Sinepuxent Formation has been correlated to the offshore Q2 deposits which were determined to be of oxygen-isotope Stage 5 age (between 80 to 120 ka) based on amino- acid racemization (Toscano, 1992; Toscano et aL, 1989; Toscano and York, 1992). Within the study area, the Sinepuxent is underlain by the Beaverdam Sand Formation which is Pliocene in age (Figure lb). The western edge of the Sinepuxent formation lies against the Ironshire Formation which consists of pale yellow to white sand and gravelly sand. Although the Ironshire Formation sits unconformably on top of the Beaverdam, at no point does it underlie the Sinepuxent Formation (Owens and Denny, 1979). PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Assawoman Bay and Isle of Wight Bay are microtidal (<2 m tidal range) coastal lagoons and are contiguous with each other. For this discussion, the boundary between Assawoman Bay and Isle of Wight Bay is the Rt. 90 bridge which spans Fenwick Island (Ocean City at 60th Street) and Isle of Wight. Table I lists the basic morphometric data for both bays. Table 1. Morphometric data for Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays; area data compiled from Bartberger and Biggs (1970) and UM and CESI (1993). Assawoman Bay Isle of Wight Bay Two Bay System Surface area 20.0 kM2 33.4 kM2 5 3.4 kM2 Maximum length 7.9 km 6.7 km 14.5 km Maximum width 3.3 km 4.3 km Drainage area 18.4 kM2 152.7 kin2 171.1 km 8 Assawoman Bay, the northem-most bay, has a water surface area of 20.0 kM2 (4952 acres) (UM and CESI, 1993) and is elongated in north-south direction. The length of Assawoman Bay, measured from the mouth of Roy Creek to Rt. 90 bridge, is 7.9 km. Maximum width of Assawoman Bay is 3.3 km. Isle of Wight Bay has a surface area of 33.4 kM2 (8257 acres) (UM and CESI, 1993). The length of this bay, from Rt. 90 Bridge to west end of north jetty at the inlet, is 6.7 km. Maximum width is 4.3 krn, at the mouth of St. Martin River. The two bays are connected to the Atlantic Ocean through a single outlet, Ocean City Inlet, located at the extreme south end of Isle of Wight Bay. Ocean City Inlet formed during a hurricane in 1933 and was immediately stabilized by jetties to keep it opened. . Historically, several other inlets have been documented along Fenwick Island (Truitt, 1968). These inlets also formed during storms as did the Ocean City inlet, but were eventually filled in as a result of natural processes. During the March, 1962, storm, also known as the Ash Wednesday Storm, Fenwick Island was breached at approximately 71st street. A channel approximately 50 ft wide was cut through to the bay (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1962). The Army Corps of Engineers immediately filled in the inlet with sand dredged from Assawoman Bay. Several streams are tributaries to the two bays. Roy Creek and Greys Creek drain into Assawoman Bay. St.'Martin River, Manklin Creek and Tumille Creek drain into Isle of Wight Bay. St. Martin River is the major tributary, accounting for 62% of the total drainage area for the bays (Bartberger and Biggs, 1970; UM and CESI, 1993). Drainage area for Isle of Wight Bay is about 4.5 times the area of the bay itself (Table 1). On the other hand, the surface area of Assawoman Bay is slightly larger (1.1 times) than its drainage area. In all, the drainage area for both bays is about 3 times as large as their open water areas. For comparison, the watershed basin for the Chesapeake Bay is 28 times its open water area. As a result of the relatively small drainage area combined with flat topography, fresh water input into the two coastal bays is small. The limited fresh water input and restricted access to open ocean contribute to poor flushing of the bays (Bartberger and Biggs, 1970: UM and CESI, 1993). The bays are very shallow, the average depth less than 2 m. Generally, areas with greater depths (i.e. > 3 m) are a result of dredging. Some of the deepest areas are within the Federal Navigation Channel that is maintained at -10 m. These deep areas are located in the southern end of Isle of Wight Bay. Other artificially deep areas include numerous dredge holes in Assawoman Bay and along the east side of Isle of Wight Bay. The material dredged from these holes were used to fill in low-lying areas on Fenwick Island for development, or used as beach fill to replenish the beach in Ocean City after the 9 March 1962 storm. These holes vary in depth from 4.9 to 9.8 m. Another artificially deep area is along a canal known as "The Ditch", the depths of which average 4.5 m. This canal connects Assawoman Bay to Little Assawoman Bay (in Delaware). Circulation patterns and tidal ranges in the two bays are dependent on proximity to the inlet and wind conditions. Near the inlet, currents are primarily an effect of tidal cycles. Currents over 200 cm/sec are common near the inlet and within the Federal Navigation channel. Tidal amplitudes, based on data from NOS tide stations located in southern Isle of Wight Bay, range from 0.78 to 0.55 m. Tidal influence diminishes rapidly with increasing distance from the inlet. Along the western and northern margins of the bays, wind conditions have a greater effect on water levels and current velocities. Casey and Wesche (1981) measured tidal amplitudes and current velocities at several locations in Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays. Nominal tidal amplitudes ranged from 0.25 m on a spring tide to 0. 16 in during a neap tide at the northern most station, located at Drum Pt. north of Rt. 90 Bridge. Peak ebb and flood velocities were measured between 14 cm/sec and 26 cm/sec at this station. The canal allows some water exchange between Assawoman Bay and Little Assawoman Bay in Delaware. Tidar amplitudes in the canal range from 0.6 to 0.9 m (Allison, 1975). Salinity in the two bays decreases slightly with increasing distance from Ocean City Inlet. Maximum salinity measured during the summer (Casey and Wesche, 1981) ranged from 30 ppt near the inlet to 26 ppt in Assawoman Bay just north of the Rt. 90 bridge. Salinity tends to be higher in the summer due to limited freshwater input and high evaporation. Bordering the bays are wetlands and marshes, found mainly along the western margin. Much of the bay side of Fenwick has been developed, at the expense of wetlands (Dolan el aL, 1980). Large areas have been filled in and built up, and much of natural shoreline has been armored by bulkheads or rip-rap. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Based on seismic data, a pre-transgressive surface has been mapped, revealing paleodrainage network traceable to existing tidal creeks. Thalweg depths, particularly for the St. Martin paleochannel, are much shallower than the previously projected depths based on well log and bridge boring data. The nature and age of the surface defined by the reflector and the associated fill sequences seen in the seismic records remains to be resolved. Additional cores penetrating the reflector need to be collected to define and 10 date these sediment sequences. Overall, the shallow bay sediments are very silty. Although no textural trends are apparent in vertical sequence of the sediments, the sediments generally- become coarser in an easterly direction across the bays. This trend is a result of SAND being transported into the bays from the ocean side of Fenwick Island. Values for nitrogen, carbon and sulfur contents for most of the bay sediments are within the range expected for marine sediments. Nitrogen, carbon and sulfur contents are strongly related to the texture of the sediments, with higher values associated with finer- grained sediments. Extreme values were obtained from peat and peaty sediments which yielded carbon and sulfur contents up to 30% and 5.3%, respectively. Generally, carbon contents decrease with depth as sulfur contents increase, the relationship predicted by sulfate reduction processes that occur naturally in the sediments under anoxic conditions. Results of metal analyses yield no excessively high metal concentrations. Enrichment factor (EF) values relative to average crustal rock were calculated to be greater than one for Zn and Cr and less than one for Cu, Mn and Ni. The low values, particularly for Mn, suggest that the reference material used to calculate the EF values probably does not adequately represent the sediments found in the study area. Although the reference material used is questionable, the calculated enrichment factors for Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays are similar to enrichment factors for other Atlantic coast bays in non-industrial regions (Sinex and Helz, 1981). Enrichment factor values reveal some significant trends in metal behavior within the sediment column. Plots of EF values versus depth in core reveal that the surficial sediments compared to deeper sediments are slightly enriched with all metals except Mn which showed no change in enrichment. The greatest increase in EF values are for Zn and Cu which show 2-fold increases. EF values decrease downcore, generally leveling off between 20 to 30 cm. The EF values for sediment below 20 to 30 cm are *interpreted to represent historical or background levels before anthropogenic influence. A second technique to assess and compare metal levels correlates metal concentrations to textural composition. The results of this second technique generally corroborate the observations based on enrichment factors. The second technique indicates that Zn and Cu levels in surficial and near surface sediments are twice that of background levels. On the other hand, Cr and Ni levels in the upper sediment column (< -30 cm depth) are within background levels, suggesting that there is little or no anthropogenic input of Cr and Ni in the study area. Because this second technique is based on correlation of metal concentrations with the textural composition of sediments, the results characterize the study area more realistically than enrichment factor values. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, SEISMIC PROFILES Maximum penetration of the 7.0 kHz signal was between 6 to 7.5 in (-20 to 25 ft). The penetration was less in shoaling areas where bottom sediments were predominately SAND. Shallow water depths combined with hard (sandy) bay bottom resulted in strong multiples obscuring the detail in the seismic records. The better seismic records were collected in the western and central portions of the bays where finer-grained sediments predominate. Extensive sand deposits representing washover fans or tidal deltas cover a large portion of the eastern and southern margin of the two bays. The seismic records collected in these areas show little or no subsurface detail (structure). Shallow paleochannels are seen in many of the seismic profiles. Maximum depths of the channels range from -7 to -8 in MSL. Paleochannel floors and walls are very hummocky in areas as illustrated in Line 3 (Figure 2). Paleochannel walls extend up to the sediment surface converging with the present bay bottom. The reflector defining the geometry of the paleochannels is very prominent, marking the maximum penetration of the acoustical signal. The surface defined by this reflector is interpreted to represent a pre-transgression surface, portions of which formed directly on Pleistocene deposits (Sinepuxent Formation). The reflector is intercepted by several dredged areas on the eastern side of Assateague Bay (Figure 3). These deep areas are results of dredging for backfill to build up areas in Ocean City for development. Peat had been recovered from the bottom of these dredged holes during past benthic studies (Al Wesche, pers. comm.). The contours which show the structure of this pre-transgression surface are presented in Figure 4. The structure details a portion of an earlier drainage system, age of which is unknown. The paleodrainage represents ancestral extensions of Greys and Roy Creeks and St. Martin River. Based on the trend of the deeper contours (-5 and -7 in), the paleochannel traced to Roy Creek extends laterally across Assawoman Bay, passing beneath Fenwick Island just south of Montego Bay. Greys Creek paleochannel extends down Assawoman Bay and into Isle of Wight Bay converging with the St. Martin River paleochannel. The St. Martin/Greys Creek paleochannel appears to extend under Fenwick Island between 50th and 55th Streets Oust south of Rt. 90 bridge). 12 i @Aldloi W -d 11; JU 1"T n@ At FT EAST TIME FIX WEST 0- 312 313 @4 315 316 317 319 E1 0 SEDIMENT SURFACE (BAY BOTTOM) 3- MODERN LAGOONAL MUDS 0 W W 6-- BASAL FILL w W LL 45 - z z PLEISTOCENE DEPOSITS IL a- W W 500 METERS 0 12.- 15-- LINE .3 50 Figure 2. A) West end of record for seismic line 3 which crosses the widest part of Isle of Wight Bay. B) Interpreted section showing prominent reflector defining paleochannel and pre-transgression surface. Time of day and latitude and longitude coordinates for time fixes are listed in Appendix 1. :3 6' WH 14'.1v 4 L t: WEST TIME FIX EAST 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 B 0- 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 EDIMENT SURFACE 3v. - DREDGED HOLE W F_ W PLEISTOCENE DEPOSITS LU W LL z z __30 W W 12-- 430 METERS 15-- LINE 8 so Figure 3. A) Record for seismic line 8 crossing north Assawoman Bay. B) Interpreted section featuring cross-section of a dredged hole adjacent to Montego Bay Trailer Park located on the bay side of North Ocean City, Maryland. Note that the dredged hole cuts below the reflector. CONTOUR INTERVAL 1 METER (DEPTH BELOW MSL) 54 4 D C) 5 38* 26- 5 4 5 6 6 6 5 7 4 5 '6 5 38* 22'- 0050 0 2 3 4 KILOMETERS 75* 08' 75* 04' Figure 4. Contour of surface defined by the prominent reflector seen in seismic profiles. The reflector is identified in Figures 2 and 3. 15 Measured thalweg depths of the St. Martin paleochannel are 7.5 to 8 rn below MSL, much shallower than the +30 m depth projected by Halsey (1978) and Toscano el aL (1989). Assuming that the base of the paleochannel is deeper, then this reflector marks the lower boundary of some intermediate Holocene channel-fill sequence. A second very faint, planar, reflector is visible within most of the paleochannels (Figures 2 and 3). This reflector marks the boundary between a lower fill sequence (tidal creek or palustrine deposits) and the overlying modem lagoonal sediments. Modem Holocene deposits (lagoonal muds) are thin over much of the western portion of the bays. Thicknesses range from 0 to 6 m, with maximum thicknesses corresponding to the central axes of the underlying paleochannels. Recent washover and deltaic deposits are restricted to the eastern and southern end of the study area. The thickness of these deposits could not be determined from the seismic data. SEDIMENT TEXTURE Sediment textures are discussed in terms of the lithosomes outlined by Chrzastowski (1986) for sediments in Rehoboth and Indian River Bays, Delaware. Chrzastowski divided the Holocene deposits into four major lithosomes: 1) flood-tidal delta/barrier sand; 2) lagoonal mud; 3) marsh mud; and 4) tidal stream mud. Most sediment samples contained a significant percentage of SILT, averaging 44% for all samples. This reflects the silty character of the Sinepuxent Formation, a major source of sediment to the bays. Averages for SAND and CLAY contents were 3 1 % and 25% respectively. CLAY contents were higher for the cores collected in the tributaries (Stations 7 and 12- refer to Figure 5 for core locations). SAND contents were higher in cores collected toward the eastern side of the bays. Sediments with higher SAND components are expected along the southern and eastern margins of the bays. SAND is transported into the bay either by eolian and washover processes from the ocean side of Fenwick Island or through the inlet by tidal processes. The amount of SAND transported and deposited by these processes diminishes significantly as distance from the source areas increases. Cores collected at stations 1, 4, 6, 9 and 10 consisted entirely of modem lagoonal sediments. These cores were very similar in appearance and texture, containing dark olive grey to greenish black SAND-SILT-CLAYS and CLAYEY SILTS. SAND contents range from less than 5 to 30% SAND fractions are well to very well sorted, very fine SAND. 16 Xeroradiographs of the cores reveal varying levels of bioturbation (i.e. sediment mixing by biogenic activity). Burrows of bivalves and polychaetes are common. Mercenaria mercenaria, Crassostrea virginica, and Nassarius sp. were found in many the cores with Nassarius s being the most common shell encountered. Distinct laminae are P_ evident in radiographs for station I (mouth of Greys Creek) and station 10 (bayward of St. Martin River) (Appendix H). Visually, the laminae were not apparent. The laminae indicate that sediment have not been disturbed or mixed by biogenic activity. Based on the low bioturbation levels, core 1 was selected for analysis of 21OPb activity to determine sedimentation rate. The analysis was done by the University of Maryland Horn Point Environmental Laboratory. Based on 21OPb activity, sedimentation rate for core I was estimated to be 0.3 to 0.4 cm/yr (Jeffrey Cornwell, unpubl. data). This sedimentation rate is within the range determined by Chrzastowski (1986) for mid- bay, mud dominated area in Rehoboth Bay and Indian River Bay in Delaware. Based on 21OPb and 117CS activity analyses, sedimentation rates were 0.26 cm/yr for Rehoboth Bay and 0.57 cm/yr for Indian River Bay. These rates agreed with those determined by bathymetric comparisons of the Delaware bays. The 0.3 to 0.4 cm/yr sedimentation rate for Isle of Wight Bay is typical of rates for eastern U.S. coastal bays. Atlantic and Gulf coast bays usually have sediment accumulation rates ranging from 0.4 to 0.5 cm/yr (Rusnak, 1967). These sedimentation rates also match the present rate of sea level rise which is 0.33 to 0.39 cm/yr (Belknap and Kraft, 1977). The core collected at station 2 may have penetrated the pre-transgression surface. The location of station 2 corresponds to time-fix 1036 on Seismic Line 6. The seismic record shows the pre-transgression surface to be very shallow, at -2.5 m MSL, at this location. The bottom of this core (-2.8 m MSL) contained peaty mud. A wood fragment, identified possibly as Oak (Quercus) rootwood (Center for Wood Anatomy Research, U.S. Forest Products Lab., written comm.) was recovered at -2.9 m. Cores I I and 13 were collected along the eastern edge to the bays. Core I I contained greenish black to dark olive grey, organic SILTY SAND, representing tidal flat sediments. Core 13 was collected in a shallow shoaling area and consisted of light tan to medium olive grey, medium to fine SAND. Cores 7 and 12 were collected in St. Martin River and Turville Creek, respectively. These cores consisted of dark grey CLAYEY SILT and SILTY CLAY. The sediments from these cores contained the least amount of SAND compared to other cores collected for this study. Based on lower SAND content and higher CLAY contents, the sediments are classified as tidal stream deposits. 17 Core 14 was collected in a marshy area near Horn Island located in southern Isle of Wight Bay. The sediments contained in this core consisted of interbedded layers of dark olive grey to brownish black SAND-SILT-CLAY, SILTY CLAY, and CLAYEY SILT. Peaty material was abundant, increasing with depth. Several sediment samples taken from this core consisted entirely of peat material and were not analyzed for SAND- SILT-CLAY components. WATER CONTENT Correlation analyses of water contents as well as SAND, SILT, CLAY, carbon, nitrogen and sulfur contents for all sediment samples were performed to detect any significant associations between variables. The correlations were done using Pearson product-moment technique (STSC, Inc., 1986). The resulting correlation matrix is presented in Table II. Samples from core 14 were not included in the correlation analysis since many of the samples contained high amount of peat and plant debris and very little inorganic material (sediment). These samples are not considered to be representative of bay sediments. Table H. Correlation matrix for nitrogen, carbon, sulfur contents and sediment textural data based on all core samples except station 14. Values-are Pearson correlation coefficients (r). Significant levels for all values are less than 0.01 (critical value of r at 99% = 0.479). %Carbon %Nitrogen %Sulfur %Carbon 1.000 - O/oNitrogen 0.852 1.000 - %Sulfur 0.677 0.629 1.000 .%H20 0.770 0.772 0.834 %SAND -0.611 -0.653 -0.803 %SILT 0.536 0.583 0.669 %CLAY 0.609 0.638 0.857 Water contents of the core sediments ranged from 7.98% wet weight for SAND (100% SAND) to 80.9% for SILTY-CLAY (54% CLAY). Water contents are strongly associated with the CLAY component of the sediment as reflected by the high correlation. 18 coefficient between percent water and CLAY content (r = 0.92). Associations between water content and SAND (r = -0.84) and SILT content (r = 0.66) are weaker. Since the amount of water a sediment holds is strongly influenced by grain size, downcore variations in water content track variations in CLAY contents (refer to plots in Appendix III). Any downcore decrease in water contents due to compaction is not readily apparent. GEOCHEMISTRY Results of the chemical analyses are listed in Appendix III. The results versus depth in core were also plotted and are presented along with plots of the other variables (water content, SAND, SILT, CLAY components, and carbon, sulfur and nitrogen concentrations) inAppendix III. All measured parameters were included in correlation analysis. Two correlation matrices were generated. The first matrix, correlations between sediment textural components and nitrogen, carbon and sulfur (NCS) contents, has been presented in Table II. The second matrix, correlations between m etal concentrations and textural components, is presented in Table III. The correlations between carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur contents and metal contents were moderate to weak (r < 0.7). The poor correlations reflect the different geochemical processes that control the behavior of these chemical components. These correlation coefficients are not presented in this report. Nitrogen Content Nitrogen contents in sediments range from 0 to 1.39% and averaged 0.22%. The highest nitrogen values were found in sediment containing peat material (Core 14). Correlation analysis of nitrogen, carbon and sulfur contents with textural data show that nitrogen content of sediments is strongly correlated with carbon content (correlation coefficient (r) = 0.852, Table II). The correlation coefficient is higher if correlation analysis include core 14 samples (r = 0.97). The strong relationship between nitrogen and carbon reflects the fact that nitrogen comes primarily from organic geopolymers found in the sediment (Hill el aL, 1992). Therefore, nitrogen is expected to maintain a constant proportionality with carbon content. Ratios of nitrogen to carbon range from 0.05 to 0.23 with a mean value of 0. 10 � 0.05 which is slightly lower than the ratio of 0. 113 obtained from sediment cores collected in the Chesapeake Bay (Hill et aL, 1992). The lower ratio 19 is attributed to the fact that sediments having extremely low or no nitrogen contents were included in the calculation of the mean ratio. Carbon Content The carbon found in sediments consists of both inorganic and organic components. Studies of the Chesapeake Bay sediments have shown that inorganic carbon component is minor, contributing less that 18% to the total carbon content (Hennessee et aL, 1986; Hobbs, 1983). Shell fragments accounted for the bulk of inorganic carbon measured in Chesapeake Bay sediments. However, shell fragments were not as abundant in the coastal bay sediments compared to Chesapeake Bay sediments. Therefore, it is assumed that inorganic carbon contributes little to the total carbon measured in the coastal bay sediments Total carbon contents measured in the core sediments range from 0.02 to 30.0% with a mean value of 2.8%. The highest carbon values were obtained from peaty sediments sampled from core 14. Values for the peaty samples range from 8.5 to 30.0% carbon. Carbon contents for surficial sediments range from 0.25 to 3.65% about a mean value of 1.83% which are within the range of those values reported for the Chesapeake Bay (range = 0 to 10.5%; mean = 2.1%; Hennessee el aL, 1986) and for other pristine estuaries (Folger, 1972). Folger observed that organic carbon contents for fine-grained sediments from estuaries not subjected to high pollution seldom exceeded 5% and were often less than 3%. He attributed anomalously high values for carbon to plant debris. For example, peat deposits from Albemarle Sound yielded carbon content values as high as 20 to 30%. Correlation analysis reveals a moderately strong association between carbon content and % water (r = 0.73) (Table II). Correlation coefficients between carbon content and SAND, SILT, CLAY contents are moderately small (r = -0.61, 0.54 and 0.61, respectively), indicating that carbon is not associated with any particular size fraction. The poor correlations may be related to the nature of the carbon. For example, in northern Chesapeake Bay, carbon is most strongly associated with SILT, reflecting the terrigenous nature of the carbon, composed of coal particles and plant detritus (Hennessee et A, 1986). In the middle Chesapeake Bay where the main source of carbon is planktonic detritus, the strongest, correlation is between carbon and CLAY content (r = 0.91). The poor correlation between carbon content and size fraction in the coastal bays suggests a more complex relationship. The carbon content reflects a combination of both terrigenous and planktonic sources. 20 Sulfur Content Sulfur in sediments is found primarily as inorganic metal sulfide s and elemental sulfur. These sulfur species form as a result of a bacterially mediated reaction during which organic carbon is oxidized using dissolved sulfate (S04-) from seawater as an oxidant (Berner, 1967, 1972; 6oldhaber and Kaplan, 1974). During the process that occurs under anaerobic conditions, sulfate is reduced to sulfide. The sulfide reacts with ferrous iron (Fe@2) forming an iron monosulfide precipitant which further reacts with elemental sulfur to form FeS2 (pyrite and its polymorph, marcasite) (Berner, 1970). As a result of this process, sulfur is enriched and preserved in the sediments as the amount of organic carbon is depleted. Total sulfur contents of coastal bay sediments range from 0 to 5.28% about a mean of 1.05%. Sulfur contents of surficial sediments range from 0.04 to 1.48%, averaging 0.58%. The range and mean for surficial samples are similar to those values reported for the Chesapeake Bay (Hennessee et aL, 1986; Hobbs, 1983). As with nitrogen and carbon contents, core 14 samples containing peat yielded the highest sulfur contents, ranging from 1.43 to 5.28%. The ratio of carbon to sulfur (C/S) decreases with depth in most of the cores. This decrease is expected as sediments tend to become enriched with sulfur over time (i.e. increased depth of burial) while carbon is metabolized. The C/S ratios average 2.8 for all samples. This value is identical to the C/S ratio for modem marine sediments, 2.8 � 1.5 (Bemer and Raiswell, 1984). The C/S ratios for the peaty sediment are much higher indicating that a relatively small proportion of carbon has been metabolized to produce sulfide. Most carbon in peat is plant detritus which is less susceptible to bacterial decay compared to algal debris (Goldhaber and Kaplan, 1975). Results of correlation analysis show a strong association between sulfur and CLAY content (r 0.86) and water content (r = 0.83). Correlation between sulfur and SILT is weaker (r 0.67). The.strong correlation between sulfur and CLAY content suggests that sulfur is best preserved in clayey sediments as opposed to silty sediments. The more reactive carbon, planktonic detritus, is also associated with CLAY. Clayey sediments typically have high water contents which accounts for the strong correlation between sulfur and water content. These results are consistent with those of the Chesapeake Bay (Hennessee et aL, 1986). Monosulfides, measured in cores I and 10, decrease sharply between 15 to 20 cm below the sediment surface. This sharp decline in monosulfide indicates a change in the sedimentation rate. 21 Metals Sediment samples have metal concentrations (refer to Appendix III, Table XI) of the same order of magnitude as those reported from a previous study (Allison, 1975). However, since Allison did not analyze sediments for Fe, Al or textural parameters (SAND-SILT-CLAY content), his results are difficult to interpret. Also, quantitative comparison of Allison's data to other data sets can not be done. Generally, Zn and Cu concentrations from this study are within the range of those reported by Allison. Cr concentration are overall higher than Allison's values. The differences in Cr levels between the two studies are due to the different analytical methods used. Correlation analysis reveals that all elements are significantly correlated with one another (Table III). The highest correlations are between Fe and Cr (r = 0.99), Fe and Ni (r = 0.976) and Fe and Mn (r = 0.941), Cr and Ni (r = 0.985), and Cu and Zn (r = 0.936). There are also high correlations between CLAY content and Cr, Fe, and N1. These metals typically are associated with clay minerals (Cantillo, 1982). These metals are either components of the mineral lattice structure or absorbed onto clay surfaces. Clay minerals comprise a significantly large portion of the fine (CLAY size) sediment fraction. In general, metal concentrations show a strong inverse relationship with SAND contents indicating that the trace metals are contained in the mud fraction (SILT and CLAY). Table 111. Correlation matrix for trace metal concentrations and sediment textural data based on all core samples except station 14. Values are Pearson correlation coefficients (r).. Significant levels for all values are less than 0.01 (critical value of r at 99% 0.479). Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Zn Cr 1.000 - Cu 0.689 1.000 - Fe 0.993 0.639 1.000 - Mn 0.943 0.550 0.941 1.000 - Ni 0.985 0.712 0.976 0.932 1.000 - Zn 0.807 0.936 0.76@ 0.704 0.817 1.000 % SAND -0.915 -0.728 -0.908 -0.837 -0.907 -0.790 % SILT 0.785 0.701 0.772 0.717 0.790 0.732 % CLAY 0.944 0.630 0.945 0.864 0.915 0.729 22 Enrichment Factors In order to reduce the effect of grain size, metal concentrations are discussed in terms of enrichment factors (EF). The use of enrichment factors also allows for comparisons of sediments from different environments and the comparisons of sediments whose trace metal contents were obtained by different analytical techniques (Cantillo, 1982; Hill el aL, 1990; Sinex and Helz, 1981). Enrichment factor is defined as: EF(x) (XIFe),.,k (X1Fe),.ef,,nc, where: EF(, is the enrichment factor for the metal X; X1Fe(,,..,k) is the ratio of the concentrations of metal X to Fe in the sample; and XlFe (ref-) is the ratio of the concentrations of metal X to Fe in a reference material, such as an average crustal rock. Fe is chosen as the element for normalizing because anthropogenic sources for Fe are small compared to natural sources (Helz, 1976). Taylor's (1964) average continental crust is used as the reference -material. Average crustal abundance data may not be representative of the coastal bay sediments because there is a higher proportion of SAND in the bay sediments compared to the average crustal rock. However, abundance data is useful as a relative indicator. Enrichment factors for the five metals in the core sediments are listed in Appendix III (Table XIII). The bay sediments are enriched in Cr and Zn with respect to crustal rock. For surficial sediments, the average enrichment factor values for Cr and Zn are 1.5 and 2.6. respectively. Sediments generally are not enriched in Cu, Mn, and Ni relative to average crustal rock. EF values for these three metals are less than one. These low values do not necessarily signify the area is depleted in these metals, but instead reflect the unsuitability of the reference material. 23 EF values for Cr, Mn and Ni in surficial samples increas6 very slightly toward the eastern side of the bays. Additional sampling stations are needed to determine the significance of this trend. Most cores show a downcore decrease in EF values for all metals except Mn (refer to plots in Appendix III). EF values are highest in the upper 20 cm of sediment column and level off downcore. This decrease in the enrichment factors suggests that metal contents in the upper sediment column reflect anthropogenic input above a background level. Metal contents in sediments deeper than 20 to 30 cm represent pristine, natural levels before human influence. The 20 to 30 cm depth represents approximately 60 to 100 years assuming that the sedimentation rate of 0.3 to 0.4 cm/yr (based on 21OPb activity) represents the sediment accumulation rate in the two bays. Relative decrease in EF values varies for the different metals. Cu and Zn show the largest downcore decrease in enrichment, with surficial sediments having twice the enrichment factor of the deeper sediments. Ni and Cr factors decrease 10% to 30%. downcore. EF values for Mn, on the other hand, do not vary with depth suggesting that measured'Ievels come entirely from natural sources with very little anthropogenic input. Enrichment factors referenced to/ Tayl&s average crust have been used by Sinex and Helz (1981) to compare Chesapeake Bay sediments to various east and gulf coast estuaries. The comparisons are listed in Table IV and include the average enrichment factors for surficial sediments analyzed in this study. The coastal bay sediments yielded EF values similar to other estuaries not subjected to heavy industrial activities. Enrichment factors of Cr, Cu, Mn, and Ni are near unity for these estuaries. Assawornan and Isle of Wight Bays are enriched in Zn, although not as high as some other estuaries. Sinex and Helz (1981) suggested that the large enrichment factors for Zn could be attributed to one of two possibilities. 1) Zn values for Taylor's average crustal rock are too small to be representative of eastern United States sediments. 2) Anthropogenic contamination of Zn is ubiquitous. In Maryland's coastal bays, it is likely that Zn enrichment comes from anthropogenic contamination. Zn is widely used as a sacrificial anodizing metal on boat hulls and metal crab traps (Al Wesche, pers. comm.). Similarly, Cu is also ubiquitous but not at the same level as Zn. Sources of Cu include marine paints widely used until recently, and chemical compounds used to impregnate wood for marine use. 24 Table IV. Comparisons of average enrichment factors in various East and Gulf Coast estuaries. Enrichment factors are relative to the average earth's crust (Taylor, 1964). N is the number of samples used to obtain the average factors. The table was modified from Sinex and Helz, 1981. Cr Cu Mn Ni Zn Narragansett Bay 3 6 1 1 6 (1) (Goldberg et aL, 1977) Hudson Estuary - 2 2 - 4 (37) (Williams et aL, 1978) 1 Delaware Bay 3 2 - 13 10 (124) (Bopp and Biggs, 1973) Chesapeake Bay 1 1 2 1 5 (177) (Sinex and Helz, 1981) Baltimore Harbor 7 10 1 1 20 (194) (Villa and Johnson, 1974) Isle of Wight/Assawoman I I 1 1 3 (14) Bays (this study*) Savannah River I I I F 1 (5) (Goldberg et aL, 1978) Mobile Bay - 1 1 - 4 (8) (Brannon et al., 1977) Mississippi Delta - I 1 1 3 (72) (Trefry and Presley, 1976) Galveston Bay 4 2 3 2 6 (44) (Hann and Slower, 1972) San Antonio Bay 1 3 (51) (Trefry and Presley,, 1976) Averages based on surface samples (top of cores) only. 25 Variation from Historical Norms The "degree" of metal enrichment in sediments relative to a regional norm or historical levels can be assessed by correlating trace metal concentrations with grain size composition (Hennessee et al, 1990; Hill et aL, 1990). Based on the downcore decrease in enrichment factor values, metal concentrations of sediments below 30 cm in the sediment column are interpreted to represent the historical norm for the coastal bays. Metal concentration values for these sediments (i.e. sediments below -30 cm) were fitted to the following equation: X = a (SAND) + b (SIL7) + e (CLA 1) (2) where: X is the metal of interest; a, b, and h are the proportionality coefficients determined for the SAND, SILT and CLAY components, respectively; and SAND, SILT, and CLAY are grain size fractions of the sediment sample. Using an algorithm developed by Marquardt (1963), least square coefficients were estimated. The results are presented in Table V. The correlations are excellent for all of the metals. The values for the coefficients indicate that CLAY fractions account for a significant amount of the metal concentrations. Table V. Least squares coefficients for metal data. Metal concentration values for sediments sampled below 30 cm in cores were fitted to Equation 2. Core 14 data were not included in the data set. Estimates of coefficients Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Zn SAND 5.4905 0.97712 0.12284 37.682 3.43225 5.158017 SILT 32.8062 5.83 1.24878 166.7049 13.37438 25.15979 173.0266 14.374 7.8523 691.4095 50.4597 127.3579 R2 0.9505 0.9042 0.9536 0.823282 0.9006 0.92221 26 By substituting the least squares coefficients from Table V in equation 2, "predicted" metal concentrations were calculated for all of the sediments. These predicted metal concentration values represent the expected historical or background levels of metals based on grain size composition of the sediment. To determine variations from historical norms, the predicted metal concentrations were compared to the measured values using the following equation. Vailationx Measuredx - Predicted, (3) Predictedx N egative values indicate depletion and positive values indicate enrichment relative to background. levels. Variation values calculated for sediments below 30 cm in the sediment column were analyzed according to Gaussian statistics. Variation values for all metals exhibit' near-normal distributions with mean values close to zero. Mean variation values and standard deviations for each metal are presented in Appendix III (Table XIV). The standard deviation (cr), a measure of dispersion of values, provides a convenient means to identify significantly high or low variation values. For example, in a normal distribution, 68% of the values fall within I a of the mean; 95.5% of the values fall within 2a of the mean. Values greater than 3a are considered significant beyond the natural population dispersion. The variation values for each metal were calculated for. all core sediments and are presented in Appendix III (Table XV). Variation values exceeding 3a are highlighted in the table. Compared to enrichment factors, variation values reveal similar trends in Cu and Zn behavior. Variation values for Cu and Zn for surficial and near surface sediments (sample depths < 20 cm) for all cores except core 13 exceed 3a levels. Surficial sediments contain twice the amount of Cu and Zn over background levels (historical levels). Cr, Fe, Mn and Ni do not vary appreciably from background levels in the sediment column. With the exception of core 14, variation values for Cr, Fe, Mn, and N1 for surficial sediments at all stations fall within 2a levels. The Fe and Mn contained in the sediment are attributed almost entirely to natural sources and, therefore, are not expected to show any increase (or decrease) over historical or background levels. On the other hand, based on the results of enrichment factor analysis, higher variation values were expected for Cr and N1. However, the calculated variation values for Cr and Ni fall within 2a levels, suggesting that these two metals also come from natural sources and not from anthropogenic contamination. 27 METHODS SEISMIC PROFILING Shallow seismic surveys were conducted in April, 1992. Approximately 33 kilometers of seismic profile surveys were collected. Track lines for the seismic surveys are shown in Figure 5. Seismic profiles were collected using a Raytheon subbottom profiler, -Model DE 719 Survey Fathometer, with a PTR 106 C-1 Transceiver, set at a frequency of 7 kHz. A Loran-C System was used for navigation. Loran time difference pairs (TD's) were recorded every two minute and referenced to time fix marks on the seismic record. Loran TD's were converted to geographic coordinates using a conversion program developed for the Chesapeake Bay (Halka, 1987). The corrected geographic coordinates were further ad usted for the study area by adding correction factors of -5.26" latitude and +1.70" longitude. CORING TECHNIQUES Cores and surficial sediments were collected during July, 1991. Location of the fourteen (14) sampling stations are shown in Figure 5. Positions of these stations were determined by a Loran-C Navigational System. Most cores were collected within the central portions of the bay to insure vertical sampling of fine-grained sediments representative of modem lagoonal muds. However, other depositional environments such as fringing marsh, tidal stream and tidal shoal areas were also sampled to compare physical and chemical characteristics of sediments from the different depositional environments. In water depths greater than L5 in (5 ft) sediment cores we re collected using a Benthos Gravity corer, Model 92171, fitted with clear cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB) liner tubes, 6.7 cm in diameter. At three stations (93, 5, and 8), the bottom was too hard (san dy) for the corer to penetrate. As a result, only surficial sediment samples were collected at these stations. In waters depths shallower than 1.5 m cores were collected using a portable vibraconing unit similar to the unit described in Finklestein and Prins (1981). CAB tubes were used as core liners. As soon as the cores were collected, they were cut at the sediment-water interface and capped. Once in the laboratory, the cores were refrigerated at 4*C until analyses. 28 LABORATORY ANALYSES Xeroradiography and Initial Core Processing Prior to analyses, the cores were X-rayed using a TORR-MED medical X-ray unit. Instrument settings varied depending on the composition of the cores. The most frequently used settings ranged between 80 to 90 kV at 5 mA for 30 to 50 seconds. Latent X-ray images of the cores were developed using a dry processing technique (xeroradiography) invented by the Xerox Corporation. For the developing process, the negative mode setting was used, producing a radiograph in which denser material such as sand or shells show up as white images. Composites of the xeroradiographs are presented in Appendix H. After X-raying was completed, each core was extruded from the plastic liner, split, photographed and visually described noting any sedimentological structures and lithological changes. Core logs are presents in Appendix H. Sediment samples were taken at specific locations in the cores based on the visual and radiographic observations. Textural Analyses Sediment samples were analyzed for water content and grain size (SAND, SILT, CLAY content). Water content was calculated as the percentage of water weight to the weight of the, wet sediment using equation 4. W % Water ' * 100 (4) Wt where: W,, is the weight of water; and W, is the weight of wet sediment. Water content was determined by weighing 30 to 50 grams of sediment, drying the sediment at 65'C, and then reweighing the dried sediment. Dried sediments were saved for chemical analyses (see Chemical Analyses section). 29 1@01 - -- - - - - DE MD A4 q...... R. V, 38* 2V A,_ 2. ... ...... Ito ASSAWOMA BAY 0 :6 6@: A 4, PT. 5 8A A7 ISLE 0 .90 WGHT Rt vo@ 0 : all A@ ........: ............. .IVA ................. 38* 22'- ISLE OF y W1 H 14 A 0 2 3 4 KILOMETERS OCEAN CITY 750108' 75* 04' Figure 5. Map of the track lines for seismic profile surveys with locations of core and surficial sediment stations. 30 SAND, SILT and CLAY contents were determined using the textural analysis detailed in Kerhin et al. (1988). Sediment samples were first treated with 10% solution of hydrochloric acid (HCI) to remove carbonate material such as shells and then treated with a 6 to 15% solution of hydrogen peroxide (H202) to remove organic material. The sediments were then passed through a 62 micron mesh sieve separating SAND from the mud fraction. Mud fractions were analyzed using a pipette technique to determine SILT and CLAY contents. Weights of the SAND, SILT and CLAY fractions were converted to relative proportions (weight percentages). The sediments were categorized according to Shepard's (1954) classification based on percent SAND, SILT and CLAY components. SAND fractions were analyzed using a rapid sediment analyzer (RSA) (Halka et aL, 1980), obtaining graphic mean, inclusive graphic standard deviation (sorting) and inclusive graphic skewness. The results of the textural analyses are listed in Appendix III. Chemical Analyses Sediments dried for water content determination were analyzed for total elemental nitrogen, carbon and sulfur (NCS) contents and six metals. The dried sediments were pulverized in tungsten-carbide vials using a ball mill, then placed in Whirl-PakTm bags and stored in a desiccator. Nitrogen, Carbon, and Sulfur Analyses The sediments were analyzed for total nitrogen, carbon and sulfur (NCS) content using a Carlo Erba NA1500 analyzer. Approximately 10 to 15 ing of dried sediment was weighed into a tin capsule. The exact weight (to the nearest gg) of the sample was recorded. To enhance complete combustion during the analysis, 15 to 20 ing of vanadium pentoxide MOO was added to the sediment. For estuarine and marine sediments, the optimum ratio of vanadium to sediment is 1. 5: 1. The tin capsule containing the sediment and vanadium pentoxide mixture was then crimped to seal and stored until analysis. The sediment sample, contained in a tin capsule, was dropped into a combustion chamber where the sample was oxidized in an atmosphere of pure oxygen. The resulting combustion gasbs, along with pure helium used as a carrier gas, were passed through a 31 reduction furnace to remove free oxygen and then through a sorption trap to remove water. Separation of the gas components was achieved by passing the gas mixture through a chromatographic column. A thermal conductivity detector was used to measure the relative concentrations of the gases. The NA 1500 Analyzer was configured for NCS analysis using the manufacturer's recommended settings. As a primary standard, 5-chloro- 4-hydroxy- 3-methoxy- benzylisothiourea phosphate was used. Blanks (tin capsules containing only vanadium pentoxide) were run every 12 samples and standards. Replicates of every fifth sample were run. As a secondary standard, a NIST reference material (NIST SRM 41646 - Estuarine Sediment) was run every 6 to 7 samples. Table VI presents the comparisons of the MGS results and the certified values for total carbon, nitrogen and sulfur contents for the NIST standard. There is excellent agreement between the NIST values and MGS's results. Table VI. Results of nitrogen, carbon, and sulfur analyses of NIST-SRM 91646 (Estuarine Sediment) compared to the certified or known values. MGS values were obtained by averaging the results of all SRM analyses run during this study. Element Analyzed Certified Values* MGS Results (% by weight) (this study) Nitrogen 0.211 0.21 �0.01 Carbon 1.72 1.71 �0.12 Sulfur 0.96 0.99 �0.08 The value for carbon is certified by NIST. sulfur value is the non-certified value reported by NIST. 'Me value of nitrogen was obtained from repeated analyses inhouse and by other laboratories (Haake Buchler Labs and U.S. Dept of Agriculture). Monosulfide Analyses Monosulfides (acid volatile sulfides) were determined using a method adapted from Berner (1964, 1970). Wet sediment samples were acidified to produce hydrogen sulfide (H2S), purged with oxygen-free nitrogen gas (N2), and trapped in a solution of zinc sulfate-ammonium hydroxide which converted the H2S to zinc sulfide (ZnS). The ZnS was then re-acidified, producing 112S, the amount of which was determined by iodometric titration. 32 Metal Analyses Sediments were analyzed for six metals: chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), and zinc (Zn). These metals were selected for several reasons. 1) These metals are non-volatile. As opposed to volatile metals, these metals are less likely to be lost during analytical procedures used in this study. 2) Studies have shown that these metals can be used as environmental indicators (Hennessee et aL, 1990; Hill, 1984; Cantillo, 1982; Sinex and Helz, 1981). 3) Comparable data for these metals are available for the Chesapeake Bay (Cantillo, 1982; Helz el aL, 1982; Hill et aL, 1985; and Sommer and Pyzik, 1974) and for other estuaries (Sinex and Helz, 1981). Concentrations for the six metals were determined using a microwave digestion technique, followed by analyses of the digestate on an Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma unit (ICAP). The microwave digestion technique is detailed in Appendix IV. A Thermo Jarrel-Ash Atom Scan 25 sequential ICAP was used for the metal analysis. The wavelengths and conditions selected for the metals of interest were determined using digested bottom sediments from the selected sites in the Chesapeake Bay and reference materials from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST SRM #1646 - Estuarine Sediment; NIST SRM #2704 - Buffalo River Sediment) and the National Research Council of Canada (PACS-1 - Marine Sediment). The wavelengths and conditions were optimized for the expected metal levels and the sample matrix. Quality control was maintained using the method of bracketing standards (Van Loon, 1980). Blanks were run every 12 samples. Replicates of every tenth sample were run. A set of reference materials (NIST 91646, NIST #2704, and PACS-1) was analyzed every ten to fifteen samples. Results of the analysis of the three standard reference materials are compared to the certified values in Table VII. The MGS's results indicate better than 90% recovery for all of the metals except Mn. The lower recovery values for Mn (for NIST SRM #1646 and PACS-1) may be due to incomplete digestion during sample preparation. 33 Table V11. Results of metal analyses of standard reference materials compared to the certified values. Certified Values MGS Results BR* ES* PAC* BR* % ES* % PAC* % I recovery recovery I recovery Cr 135 76 113 128 94.6 77 94.5 107 94.5 (gg/g) �5 �3 �8 �2.21 �234 �2.83 Cu 98.6 IS 452 94 95.3 16 91.2 431 95.3 (gg/g) �5 �3 �16 �1.11 �1.00 �18.87 Fe 4.11 3*35 4.87 4.00 97.3 3.12 93.1 4.67 96.0 �0. 1 �0. 1 �0.12 �0.12 �0.11 �0.15 Mn 555 375 470 550 99.1 287 76.5 348 74.0 (99/9) �19 �20 �12 �15.38 �17.90 �15.17 Ni 44.1 32 44.1 40 90.3 29 91.6 39 89.3 (gg/g) �3 �3 �2 1 �1.05 1 �1.38 1 �1.24 Zn 438 138 824 416 1 94.9 116 84.2 796 06.6 (gg/g) 11 �12 _I �6 �22 1 �3.08 �1.40 �9.68 *BR NIST-SRM #2704 - Buffalo River Sediment *ES NIST SRM #1646 - Estuarine Sediment *PAC= National Research Council of Canada PACS-1 - Marine Sediment 34 Fffabe the er Metals REFERENCES CITED Allison, J.T., 1974 (revised March, 1975), Maryland Coastal Basin (02-13-01) existing water quality conditions: Water Resources Administration, Draft Report, Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD. Bartberger, C.E., and Biggs, R.B., 1970, Sedimentation in Chincoteague Bay, in Natural Resources Institute, University of Maryland, Oct. 1970, Assateague ecological studies, Part II: Environmental threats, Contribution 9446, Chesapeake Biological Lab, Solomons, Md. Belknap, D.F., and Kraft, J.C., 1977, Holocene relative sea-level changes and coastal stratigraphic units on the northwest flank of the Baltimore Canyon trough geosyncline: Jour. Sed. Pet, v. 47, p. 610-629. Berner, R.A., 1964, Distribution and diagenesis of sulfur in some sediments from the Gulf of California: Marine Geology, vol. 1, p. 117-140. -, 1967, Diagenesis of iron sulfide in recent marine sediments, in Lauff, G., ed., Estuaries: Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Special Pub. 83, Washington, D.C., p. 268-272. 1970, Sedimentary pyrite formation: Amer. Jour. Sci., vol. 268, p. I- 23. Berner, R.A., and Raiswell, R., 1984, C/S method for distinguishing freshwater from marine sedimentary rocks: Geology, vol. 12, p. 365-368. Bopp, F., III, and Biggs, R.B., 1973, Trace metal environments near shell banks in Delaware Bay, in Trace metal geochemistry of estuarine sediments: Delaware Bay Report Series, vol. 3, Univ. of Del., Newark, Del. Brannon, J.M., Rose, J.R., Engler, R.M., and Smith, 1., 1977, The distribution of heavy metals in sediment fractions from Mobile Bay, Alabama, in Yen, T.F., ed., Chemistry of marine sediments: Ann Arbor Science Publ., Ann Arbor, Mich., p. 125-149. Casey, J., and Wesche, A., 1981, Marine benthic survey of Maryland's coastal bays: Part I. spring and summer periods, 1981: Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Md. 35 Cantillo, A.Y., 1982, Trace elements deposition histories in the Chesapeake Bay: Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, Chemistry Dept., Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD, 298 p. Cerco, C.F., Fang, C.S., and Rosenbaum, A., 1978, Intensive hydrographical and water quality survey of the Chincoteague/Sinepuxent/Assawoman Bay systems: Vol. III. Non-point source pollution studies in the Chincoteague Bay system, Special Sci. Report 986, Virginia Institute of Marine Sci., Gloucester Pt., Va. Chrzastowski, M.J., 1986, Stratigraphy and geologic history of a Holocene lagoon: Rehoboth Bay and Indian River Bay, Delaware: Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Delaware,, Wilmington, Delaware, June, 1986, pp. 337. Dean, R.G., Perlin, M., and Daly, B., 1978, A coastal engineering study of shoaling in Ocean City Inlet: Report by Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Delaware for Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, March 1978, 135 pp. Dolan, R., Lins, H., and Stewart, J., 1980, Geographical analysis of Fenwick Island, Maryland, a Middle Atlantic coast barrier island: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1177-A, 24 pp. Finkelstein, K., and Prins, D., 1981, An inexpensive, portable vibracoring system for shallow-water and land application: Technical Aid 81-1, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Ft. Belvoir, Va. Fisher, J.J., 1967, Origin of barrier island chain shoreline, Middle Atlantic states: Geol. Soc. Amer. Special Paper 115, p. 66-67. Folger, D.W., 1972, Characteristics of estuarine sediments of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Prof Paper 742, 94 p p. Goddard, E.N., Trask, P.D., De Ford, R.K., Rove, O.N., Singewald, J.T., and Overbeck, R.M., 1948, Rock-Color Chart: distributed by Geol. Soc. Amer., Boulder, CO. Goldberg, E.D., Gamble, E., Griffin, J.J., and Koide, M., 1977, Pollution history of Narragansett Bay as recorded in its sediments: Est. Coastal Marine Sci., vol. 5, p. 549-561. Goldberg, E.D., Hodge, V., Koide, M., Griffin, J., Gamble, E., Bricker, O.P., Matisoff, G., Holdren, G.R., Jr., and Braum, R., 1978, A pollution history of 36 Chesapeake Bay: Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, vol. 8, p. 1413-1425. Goldhaber, M.B., and Kaplan, I.R., 1974, The sulfur cycle, in Goldberg, E.D., ed., The Sea, vol.5, Marine Chemistry: Wiley-Interscience, New York, p. 569-655. Halka, J.P., 1987, LORAN-C calibration in Chesapeake Bay: Maryland Geological Survey Report of Investigation 47, 34 pp. Halka, J.P., Conkwright, R.D., Kerhin, R.T., and Wells, D.V., 1980, The design and calibration of a rapid sediment analyzer and techniques for interfacing to a dedicated computer system: Maryland Geological Survey Information Circular no. 32, 32 pp. Hann, R.W., and Slower, J.F., 1972, Sediment analysis- Galveston Bay: Marine Systems Project Tech. Report No. 24, Texas A&M, College Station, Texas. Helz, G.R., 1976, Trace element inventory for the northern Chesapeake Bay with emphasis on the influence of man: Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, vol. 40, p. 573- 580. Helz, G.R., Sinex, S.A., Serlock, G.H., and Cantillo, A.Y., 1982, Chesapeake Bay sediment trace elements: Final Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Grant No. R805954, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md., 202 pp. Hennessee, E.L., Blakeslee, P.J., and Hill, J.M.9 1986, The distributions of organic carbon and sulfur in surficial sediments of the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay: Jour. Sed. Petrol., vol. 56, p. 674-683. Hennessee,- E.L., Cuthbertson, R.H., and Hill, J.M.9 1990, Sedimentary environment, in Assessment of the Environmental Impacts of the Hart and Miller Islands Containment Facility: 8th Annual Interpretive Report Aug. 1988 - Aug. 1989: Annapolis, MD, Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, Tidewater Admin., p. 20-94. Hillq J.M.9 1984, Identification of sedimentary blogeochemical reservoirs in Chesapeake Bay: Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, Ill., 354 pp. Hillq J.M., Conkwright, R.D., Blakeslee, P.J., and McKeon, G., 1985, Interstitial water chemistry of Chesapeake Bay sediments: methods and data (1978-1981): Maryland Geological Survey, open-file report 8, 161 pp. Hillq J.M., Halka, J.P., Conkwright, R., Koczot, K., and Coleman, S., 1992, 37 Distribution and effects of shallow gas on bulk estuarine sediment properties: Continental Shelf Research, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 1219-1229. Hill, J.M., Hennessee, E.L., Park, M.J., and Wells, D.V., 1990, Interpretive techniques for assessing temporal variability of trace metal levels in estuarine sediments (Abst): Goldschmidt Conf., Hunt Valley, Md. Hobbs, C.H., 1983, Organic carbon and sulfur in the sediments of Virginia Chesapeake Bay: Jour. Sed. Petrology, vol. 53, p. 383-393. Kerhin, R.T., Halka, J.P., Wells, D.V., Hennessee, E.L., Blakeslee, P.J., Zoltan, N., and Cuthbertson, R.H., 1988, The surficial sediments of Chesapeake Bay, Maryland: physical characteristics and sediment budget: Maryland Geological Survey Report of Investigation 48, 82 p., 8 plates. Kerhin, R.T. and Williams, S.J.,, 1987, Surficial sediments and later Quaternary sedimentary framework of the Maryland inner continental shelf. Proceedings, Coastal Sediments '87, Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, New Orleans, LA, vol. II, p. 2126-2140. Marquardt, D.W., 1963, An algorithm for least squares estimation of nonlinear parameters: Jour. Soc. Industrial and Applied Mathematics, vol. 11,' p. 431-44 1. Mixon, R. B., 1985, Stratigraphic and geomorphic framework of uppermost Cenozoic deposits in the southern Delmarva Peninsula, Virginia and Maryland: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 1067-G, 53 pp- Owens, J.P., and Denny, C.S., 1979, Upper Cenozoic deposits of the Central Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware: U.S. Geol. Survey. Prof. Paper 1067- A, 28 p. Rusnak, G.A., 1967, Rates of sediment accumulation in modem estuaries, in Lauff, G.H. (ed.) Estuaries: Amer. Assoc. Adv. Science, Pub. 83, p. 180-184. Shepard, F.P., 1954, Nomenclature based on sand-silt-clay ratios: Jour. Sed. Petrology, vol. 24, p. 151-158. Sheridan, R.E., Dill, C.E., Jr., and Kraft, J.C., 1974, Holocene sedimentary environment of the Atlantic Inner Shelf off Delaware: GSA Bull., vol. 85, p. 1319- 1328. 38 Sieling, F.W., 1958, Low salinity and unusual biological conditions noted in Chincoteague Bay: Maryland Tidewater News, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 15-16. __ , 1959, Chemical and physical data, Chincoteague Bay area, June 1953- December, 1956: Maryland Dept. of Research and Education, Univ. of Md. Chesapeake Biological Lab., Solomons, Md., reference 57-25, p. 93. 1960,, The resources of Worcester County coastal waters: Maryland Dept. of Research and Education, 'Univ. of Md. Chesapeake Biological Lab., Solomons, Md., reference 60-27. Sinex, S.A., and Helz, G.R., 1981, Regional geochernistry of trace elements in Chesapeake Bay sediments: Environ. Geol., vol.3, p. 315-323. Slaughter, T. H., 1973, Regulatory aspects relative to coastal management problems, Ocean City, Maryland's Atlantic coast beach: Shore and Beach, vol. 41, p. 5-11. Sommer, S.E., and Pyzik, A.J., 1974, Geochemistry of middle Chesapeake Bay sediments from Upper Cretaceous to present: Chesapeake Sel., vol. 15, p. 39-44. STSC, Inc., 1989, STATGRAPHICS, Version 4.0: Users Manual. Taylor, S.&, 1964, The abundance of chemical elements in the continental crusts- a new table: Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, vol. 28, p..283-294. Toscano, M.A., 1992, Record of Oxygen Isotope Stage 5 on the Maryland inner shelf Atlantic Coastal Plain- A post-transgressive-highstand regime, in Wehmiller, J.F. and Fletcher, C.H. (eds.), Quaternary Coasts of the United States: Lacustrine and Marine Systems: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists (SEPM) Special Publication No. 48, p. 89-99. Toscano, M.A., Kerhin, R.T., York, L. L., Cronin, T. M., and Williams, S. J., 1989, Quaternary stratigraphy of the inner continental shelf of Maryland: Maryland Geological Survey Report of Investigation 50, 117 pp. Toscano, M.A. and York, L. L., 1992, Quaternary stratigraphy and sea-level history of the U.S. middle Atlantic Coastal Plain: Quaternary Sci. Rev., vol. 11, p. 301- 328. Trefry, J.H., and Presley, B.J., 1976, Heavy metals in sediments from San Antonio Bay and the northwest Gulf of Mexico: Environ. Geol. vol. 1, p. 283-294. Truitt, R.V., 1968, High winds--high tides: a chronicle of Maryland's coastal hurricanes: Univ. of Maryland, Nat. Res. Inst., Ed. Ser. No. 77, 35 pp. University of Md. (UM), and Coastal Environmental Services, Inc. (CESI), 1993, Maryland's coastal bays: an assessment of aquatic ecosystems, pollutant loadings, and management options: submitted to Maryland Dept. of - the Environment, Chesapeake Bay and Special Projects Branch, Baltimore, Md. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1962, The March 1962 storm along the coast of Maryland: Report of District activities during and immediately following the storm, Baltimore District, Baltimore, Maryland, 21 pp. Williams, S.C., Simpson, H.J., Olsen, C.R., and Bopp, R.F., 1978, Sources of heavy metals in sediments of the Hudson River estuary: Marine Chem., vol. 6, p. 195- 213. Van Loon, J.C., 1980, Analytical Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy: Selected Methods: Academic Press, New York, 337 pp. Villa, 0., Jr., and Johnson, P.G., 1974, Distribution of metals in Baltimore Harbor sediments: Annapolis Field Office, Tech. Report 59, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-903/9-74-012). 40 41 I Appendix I Location data for coring sites and selected seismic surveys . 42 Table VM. Coordinates (latitude and longitude) of time fixes for seismic records presented in Figures 2 and 3. Coordinates are based on 1927 North American datum. TRACK' FIX DATE TIME LATITUDE LONGITUDE COMMENTS LINE DD MM SS.S DD MM SS.S RUN 3 32 May 4 1429 38 22 37.7 75 6 9.8 1992 33 1431 38 22 37.8 75 6 17.8 34 1433 38 22 38.3 75 6 27.1 35 1435 38 22 38.9 75 6 34.9 Core station 9 36 1437 38 22 38.8 75 6 44.0 37 1439 38 22 39.8 75 6 52.9 38 1441 39 22 40.2 75 7 1.1 39 1443 38 22 42.8 75 7 9.7 end 1445 38 22 39.3 75 7 18.6 EOL; Cedar Island RUN 8 1 May 5 1157 38 26 14.9 75 5 1.8 SOL; Corn 1992 Hammock 2 1119 38 26 15.6 75 4 57.7 west to east; A,. = 85- 3 1201 39 26 15.4 75 4 51.6 4 1203 38 26 15.5 75 4 51.5 5 1205 38 26 14.9 75 4 37.0 6 1207 38 26 16.2 75 4 29.2 7 1209 38 26 16.9 75 4 20.2 8 1211 38 26 17.9 75 1 4 12.8 9 1212 38 26 18.3 75 4 9.0 EOL; Montego Bay Trailer Park 43 Table IX. Geographical coordinates and general information for sampling stations. STATION LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH ATER COMMENTS (CM) TDE JH DD MM SS.S DD @M SS.S 1 38 25 23.3 75 5 41.7 -75 2.13 2 38 25 23.6 75 5 13.0 -60 2.29 3 38 25 23.6 75 4 52.5 SURF 1.98 4 38 26 28.2 75 4 33.8 -68 3.05 MONTEGO BAY 5 38 24 2.7 75 5 6.5 SURF 2.44 6 38 24 5.4 75 5 13.4 -85 2.44 7 38 23 47.3 75 7 46.5 -88.5 1.83 ST. MARTIN RIVER 8 38 23 37.7 75 8 36.6 SU RF 2.44 DEAD-END CANAL,OCEAN PINES 9 38 22 41.3 75 6 43.3 -76 1.98 10 38 22 42.4 75 5 59.2 -76 2.13 11 38 22 43.6 75 5 9.3 -41 2.13 12 38 21 34.0 75 7 43.5 -89 2.44 TURVILLE CREEK 13 38 25 26.2 75 4 19.6 -73 1.07 14 38 20 19.6 75 5 46.5 -130 1.07 44 Appendix 11 Lithologic logs and xeroradiographs for sediment cores collected in Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays. Coordinates and descriptions for the surficial samples are also included. Refer to Table IX and Figure 5 for station locations. Sediment color descriptions are referenced to the GSA Rock-Color Chart which is based on the Munsell system of color identification (Goddard et aL, 1948). 45 STATION 1 DEPTH DESCRIPTION (cm) 0-2 Greenish-black (5GY 2/1) soft, mud; slightly gritty texture. 10-14 Slightly lighter, greenish black (5GY 2/1), soft mud, no visible banding but laminae seen in xeroradiograph. 14-20 Greenish black (5GY 2/1) mud, slightly firmer and more gritty than above section; gradually lightens to greenish grey (5GY 4/1), decrease in silt downcore. 20-75 Uniform, firm cohesive, smooth mud, dark greenish grey (5GY 4/1), slight mottling, group of mud snails at 40-42 cm, few shell fragments throughout bottom. 46 Station I Greys Creek cm 0 - ------------------- --- 65 35 M WE . ...... . . . . . 5 @,M -XX* . .. ......... OEM. 70 ............ 40 M ...... i*K 10 .......... 75 4b % 5 1Q, ... .... .. 50 Rl@ 20 "X x ::.:r ->Mx@ Rik.. MR 55 iki N :`* . .......... 25 OM iKIN 60 30 N 47 STATION 2 DEPTH DESCRIPTION (cm) 0-.23 Dark greenish grey, silty cohesive mud, silt decreases slightly down core, somewhat mottled appearance with darker band at 14-16 cm; snails at surface, plant material - rhizomes - found'in upper 10 cm. 23-30 Lighter greenish grey mud, stiffer than overlaying mud, very little silt, no odor. 30-46 Greenish grey, slightly darker silty mud, silt. increases down core; mud snail at 44 cm. 46-55 Mottled mixture of silty mud and peat material, large pocket of peat at 46 to 50 cm. 55-60 Dark brown black gritty mud, peat mixed with large piece of wood. STATION 3 DEPTH DESCRIPTION Surface Bottom too hard for *gravity corer; collected a grab sample: tan to brown medium to fine sand, some silt. 48 Station 2 Assawoman Bay 0- daft, 30 5 35 10 0 15 F Tar-, 0 50 -kw 25 53 30 I'ZN; 60 49 STATION 4 DEPTH DESCRIPTION (cm) 0-17 Dark green grey (5Y 3/2), firm mud, thin I cm floe layer -oxidized to brown color, plant material - rhizomes. 17-40 Olive grey mud, becoming more firm (less water content) and siltier down core, fine mica flakes present; burrow filled with darker mud extends from 17 to 20 cm; very dense clay ball at bottom of burrow (;5 cm), very visible in xeroradiograph; layer of shells, bivalve fragments at 34 to 35 cm. 40-67 Color change to grey sediment, slightly softer, less silt, more cohesive, no mica, sediment becomes very smooth, even texture to bottom of core, occasional shell fragment; pocket of shell hash at 42 cm; several gastropods (mud snails) at 60 to 64 cm. STATION 5 DEPTH DESCRIPTION Surface Bottom too hard for corer, collected grab sample: brown muddy sand. 50 Station 4 Assawornan Bay/Montego Bay cm 3 50 5 35 55 0 40 60 15 45 65 20 0 i- ILA 25 55 'I-,o T 30 60 51 STATION 6 DEPTH DESCRIPTION (cm) 0-28 Greenish black (5GY 2/1), cohesive gritty mud, gradually lightens with depth. 28-45 Somewhat abrupt change to dark greenish grey or olive grey (5Y 4/1 or 5GY 4/1) mud. 45-62 Medium grey, sandy mud with pockets of clay, shell fragments and pockets of sandier, very firm mud. 62-80 Medium dark grey (N4) mud, little or no silt, homogeneous, very dense, smooth, firm mud, no HS odor. 52 Station 6 Assawoman Bay cm 30 5 35 65 'MOM' 10 40 70 OR - SL L'. 15 45 75 20 0 so 25 55 30 6 53 STATION 7 DEPTH DESCRIPTION (cm) 0-10 Dark olive grey (5Y 2/1), somewhat watery, slightly silty mud, slight H2S odor. 10-87 Light olive grey (5Y 4/1); very little color change down rest of core, mud becomes more firm - less water; xeroradiograph shows mud is bioturbated but distinct laminae is evident at 30, 43, & 82 cm (not seen visually), few shell fragments scattered throughout, thin shell layer at 46-48 cm. STATION 8 DEPTH DESCRIPTION Surface Bottom too hard for gravity corer, collected surficial sample: Dark brown stiff sand mud, abundant leaf and woody material. 54 Station 7 St. Martin River cm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 60 5 35 Nv 65 10 40 70 5 A 5 7 jv- 20 j.. 50 so A-E uK. 25 5 55 STATION 9 DEPTH DESCRIPTION (cm) 0-26 Very thin (2 mm) floc layer on top of olive black (5Y 2/1), silty mud, somewhat watery, silt decreases downcore, no visible structures. 26-48 Very subtle change in color to olive grey mud, becomes firmer down core. 48-76 Mottled olive grey (5Y 4/1) to dark greenish grey (5GY 4/1), cohesive mud, very firm; large relic burrows filled with less firm (more watery) mud; voids (gas pockets?) which may have been worm burrows; few shell fragments, disarticulated bivalves at 68 cm, live worms (Polychaetes) throughout core. 56 Station 9 Isle of Wight Bay cm 0 65 35 5 70 0 " En'n, , 10 EMOURN&I'l A A 75 O'M 45 15 50 20 Vp 55 %Z- 5 60 30 65 57 STATION 10 DEPTH DESCRIPTION (cm) 0-10 Thin (0.5 cm) oxidized brown mud layer on top of greyish black (N2), slightly gritty, cohesive mud, gradually lightens to greenish black (5GY 2/1) mud. 10-34 Dark greenish grey (5GY 4/1) mud, silt increase with depth; subtle mottling between 14-34 cm, abundant worm burrows which appear as voids in split core. 34-76 Dark greenish-grey, cohesive, firm mud; layer distinct in xeroradiograph but not visually visible, large watery pocket of mud at 64-66 cm; few shell fragments throughout core. 58 Station 10 Isle of Wight Bay cm 0 30 60 5 35 65 10 40 70 15 45 75 20 'wn 50 -Ap G 25 24@ 55 L---K 30 60 59 STATION 11 DEPTH DESCRIPTION (cm) 0-37 Dark greenish-grey to brownish-grey, dry, silty mud; worm burrows throughout (visible in x-ray) suggesting sediment is fairly bioturbated; live worms (polychaetes) common; very subtle (faint) laminae at 10, 18 and 36 cm. Sediments become slightly lighter and more dense down core. Mica flakes are abundant. Shell fragments at 14-15 cm. Strong H2S odor when first opened, but dissipated quickly; strongest H2S odor at 26-29 cm. Mud snail (Na@sarius) at 38 cm. 60 Station.1 1 Isle of Wight Bay/ Reedy Pt. cm ---- -- ---- .. .... Mml --- - -- -- ------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . @ OWN ...... . . . . . . . . . . . .-"-' M XX /MAz go Xx ...... .......... ............. -1 ......... -K,X, 4g 20 x;.4, ........ ....... 25-: . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .................... Om 61 ;all STATION 12 DEPTH DESCRIPTION (cm) 0-6 Mottled greyish black (N2), to olive black (5Y 2/1), somewhat watery, gritty mud. Sediments gradually lighten down core to uniform olive grey (5Y 4/1). Slight H2S odor detected when opened. 4-14 Radiograph suggested presence of gas in mud, darker sediments, and small burrows compared to what is seen between 20-30 cm. 20-25 Dryer and firmer than above intervals, no distinguishing features except for worm burrows which show up as voids. 34-36 Plant material. 62 Station 12 Turville Creek cm 0 2 5 30 60 I 35 65 10 15 40 70 4 75 20 50 80 2 A 5 85 63 STATION 13 DEPTH DESCRIPTION (cm) 0-4 Light tan sand; layer was lost during core processing. 4-13 Medium to fine sorted, light olive grey (5Y 7/1) sand (lighter than 5Y 6/1). 12-16 Mottled interface where sand becomes darker, olive grey (5Y 4/1). 16-36 Mottled light olive grey (5Y 6/1) to olive grey (5Y 4/1) fine sand. 36-42 Shell layer, pockets of olive black (5Y 2/1), muddy sand and shell fragments. 42-69 Mottled medium Nght grey (N6) to medium grey (N5) fine sand, very small inclusion of peat (approximately 1-2 mm) between 54-60 cm, below 60 cm - visible small laminae, alternating light & medium grey fine sand. 64 Station 13 Assawoman Bay/ Horse Island cm 30 60 5 iR" T md 35 65 0 0 15 5 20 50 h1F n 25 4@f@ 55 65 STATION 14 DEPTH DESCRIPTION (cm) 0-50 Mottled olive grey (5Y 4/1) and greenish black (5GY 2/1), muddy sand, very firm, compact mica flakes visible, decrease in sand down core, light layer (5Y 4/1) of muddy silt at 25 cm, darker greyish black (N2), silty mud above and below layer. 50-68 Greenish black (5G 2/1), silty mud, very compact, dry, firm, mica appears to decrease downcore. 68-75 Greenish black (5G 2/1) to olive grey (5Y 4/1).mud with pockets of peat - greyish brown (5YR 3/2) to moderate brown (5YR 3/4) in color, amount of peat gradually increases down core. 75-88 Predominately peaty material inter-bedded with thin mud, laminae at 82-84 cm. 88-103 Brownish black (5YR 2/1) mud, gradual decrease in peat. 103-120 Banded inter-bedded peat and mud alternating between brownish black to light olive grey mud. 117-120 Light olive grey (5Y 6/1) mud interlaced with vertical peat stringers which may be remnants of plant roots - rhizomes. 120-128 Predominately olive black (5Y 2/1) mud with pockets of peat. 66 Station 14 Isle of Wight Bay/ Horn Island (Top 76 cm) cm 0 50 im TV 30 5 55 ZM 35 60 10 W- 3- 40 41 15 @OW 65 "NEW _Vd M, 45 20 70 IN 50 25 75 67 Station 14 Isle of Wight Bay/ Horn Island (Boftom 60 cm) cm 110 75 95 a, ul 115 100 so @`04 105 85 @,m IN, 17 - 2 pu 1, -T 'ic, @4 40 6A@@ 12 110 90 N& aq P. -0.6 115 95 68 4 Appendix III Textural and geochemical data for core sediment samples. 69 Table X. Textural data for sediment samples taken from cores. Statistical Sample Interval Water Textural Component Shepard's Parameters Station (cm) content (percent by weight) (1954) (sand fraction only) Lower Sand Silt Clay Class.* Mean ing Sort 0 1 0 4 52.51 2.59 69.48 27.93 cisi 1 -10 -14 51.93 6.90 70.91 22.19 cisi 1 -20 -24 47.27 39.94 37.87 22.19 SaSiCl 2.92 0.58 1 -30 -34 41.26 22.19 51.77 26.05 cisi 3.17 0.58 1 -40 44 36.92 22.03 51.27 26.70 SaSiCl 3 .33 0.41 1 -50 -53 50.63 2.67 52.48 44.85 cisi 3.33 0.52 1 -60 -63 53.17 2.53 54.56 42.91 cisi 2.92 0.88 1 -72 -75 52.52 1.50 55.84 42.66 cisi 3.50 0.31 2 0 -2 31.21 56.96 30.42 12.62 SiSa 2.75 0.52 2 -2 4 30.52 61.99 27.17 10.84 SiSa 2.58 0.55 2 4 -6 30.85 69.85 19.85 10.29 SiSa 2.42 0.65 2 -6 -8 32.08 66.04 23.37 10.59 SiSa 2.58 0.72 2 -8 -10 31.96 62.50 25.83 11.68 SiSa .2.50 0.62 2 -18 -20 26.95 68.60 22.22 9.18 SiSa 2.42 0.65 2 -24 -26 51.39 25.84 42.45 31.72 SaSiCl 2.67 0.65 2 -32 -34 19.28 65.06 21.88 13.06 SiSa 2.50 0.72 2 -40 -42 19.77 78.86 14.78 6.37 Sa 2.42 0.78 2 -50 -52 33.98 63.30 25.09 11.61 SiSa 2.25 0.75 2 -58 -60 32.69 72.81 16.05 11.14 SiSa 2.17 -0.62 3 0 0 18.65 93.40 4.53 2.07 Sa 2.58 0.34 4 0 -4 38.65 38.30 46.58 15.11 SaSi 3.25 0.28 4 -8 -12 40.04 48.59 36.97 14.44 SiSa 3.08 0.45 4 -16 -20 39.60 26.41 57.33 16.27 SaSi 3.08 0.55 4 -24 -28 33.57 18.99 64.38 16.63 SaSi 3.33 0.34 4 -32 -36 37.73 12.98 68.09 18.93 Cisi 3.25 0.28 4 40 44 48.17 3.88 62.13 33.99 Cisi 3.25 0.32 4 -50 -54 50.09 0.95 59.90 39.15 Cisi 4 -60 -64 45.35 2.01 64.92 33.08 Cisi 5 0 0 26.02 74.58 18.10 7.32 Sisa 2.83 0.41 6 0 -2 48.86 15.08 60.80 24.13 Cisi 3.33 0.30 6 -4 -6 45.76 19.71 57.10 23.19 Cisi 3.42 0.24 6 -12 -14 44.19 21.40 57.62 20.98 SaSiCl 3.25 0.28 6 -24 -26 45.96 22.85 49.35 27.80 SaSiCl 3.25 0.35 6 -34 -36 45.13 33.51 41.78 24.71 SaSiCl 3.00 0.52 6 -46 -48 28.00 28.16 51.83 20.01 SaSicl 2.83 0.52 6 -58 -60 28.15 46.07 37.63 16.30 SiSa 3.00 0.52 6 -78 -80 46.57 8.26 50.14 1 41.60 Cisi 3.17 70 Statistical Sample Interval Water Textural Component Shepard's Parameters Station (cm) content (percent by weight) (1954) (sand fraction only) ower Sand Silt Clay Class.* Mean Sorting 105T I (t 0 7 0 -2 61.13 0.69 56.07 43.25 Clsi 7 -4 -6 58.58 1.78 59.24 38.97 Clsi 7 -8 -10 55.43 3.57 58.80. 37.62 Clsi 7 -12 -14 50.04 2.17 58.53 39.30 Clsi 7 -24 -26 46.48 1.31 58.89 39.79 clsi 7 -36 -38 48.83 1.93 63-40 34.67 Clsi 7 -48 -50 53.01 1.00 57-02 41.98 Clsi 7 -60 -62 56.58 0.57 50.15 49.28 Clsi 7 -72 -74 59.39 0.73 44.12 55.15 sicl 7 -84 -86 56.44 0.73 48.04 51.23 sicl 8 0 0 47.43 16.81 46.10 37.19 Cisi 2.67 0.65 9 0 -2 47.22 5.69 70.88 23.43 ClSi 3.50 0.24_ 9 -6 -8 46.31 5.82 69.58 24.61 ClSi 3.50 0.28 9 -14 -16 40.42 7.10 70.08 22.82 Clsi 3.50 0.28 9 -24 -26 42.40 6.88 66.83 26.29 Clsi 3.42 0.38 9 -34 -36 42.52 7.91 66.17 25.92 clsi 3.50 0.2 9 -50 -52 32.49 15.07 68.10 16.84 ClSi 3.42 0.41 9 -72 -74 39.65 2.05 72-32 25.62 Clsi 3.42 0.41 10 0 -3 44.14 14.21 60-04 25.76 Pisi 3.50 0.28 10 -5 -8 46.52 18.13 56.09 25.79 Clsi 3.33 0.34 10 -14 -17 36.40 35.60 45.97 18.43 SaSi 3.17 0.38 10 -27 -30 35.19 44.35 36-44 19.20 SiSa 3.25 0.28 10 -45 -48 35.82 38.16 44-24 17.61 SaSi 3.25 0.28- 10 -57 -60 41.12 24.19 52.31 23.49 SaSiCl 3.33 0.34 10 -72 -75 43.87 13.43 56-39 30.19 Clsi 3.42 0.41 I 1 0 -3 31.34 63.40 25-68 10.93 SiSa 3.17 0.28 11 .9 -12 27.77 60.03 26.40 13.57 SiSa 3.25 0.28 11 -17 -20 24-33 72.94 17.14 9.91 SiSa 3.17 0.29 11 -26 -29 29-20 70.24 20-31 9.45 SiSa 3.25 0.28 11 -34 -37 25.04 69.04 21-20 9.76 _SiSa 3.00 0.28 12 0 -2 Sample not analyzed for textural parameters 12 -6 -8 56-88 3.90 64.82 31.29 Clsi 12 -14 -16 56.39 5.71 67.70 26.59 Clsi 12 -24 -26 51.71 3.46 66.35 30.19 Clsi 12 -34 -36 56-35 2.55 63.07 34.39 Clsi 12 -50 -52 54-02 3.63 62.95 33.42 Clsi 3.50 0.24 12 -68 -70 52.49 0.60 62.74 36.65 Clsi 12 -84 -86 56.50 0.45 57.58 41.97 Clsi 13 -4 -6 7.98 100.00 0.00 0.000 Sa 71 Statistical Sample Interval Water Textural Component Shepard's Parameters Station (cm) content (percent by weight) (1954) (sand fraction only) Lower Sand Silt I Clay Class.* rting (b M 13 -14 -16 16.54 99-88 0.12 0.001 Sa 2.42 0.41 13 -36 -40 16.04 94.17 3.31 5.83 Sa 233 0.52 13 -48 -50 17.45 98.27 1.69 0.04 Sa 2.67 0.41 -13 -64 -66 18.09 97.07 2.93 0.001 Sa 2.75 0.28 14 0 -3 22.94 84.18 12.56 3.26 Sa 3.08 0.38 14 -22 -25 32.53 71.16 19.49 9.35 Sisa 3.08 0.18 14 -27 .-30 22.50 92.64 6.26 1.10 Sa 3.00 0.24 14 -40 -43 25.48 84.63, 11.00 4.38 Sa 3.25 0.28 14 -57 -60 41.50 20.18 50.66 29.16 Sasicl 3.2 0.28 14 -75 -78 67.88 2.49 45.63 51.88 Sict 14 -80 -83 78.93 12.43 1 38.53 1 49.05 Sicl 14 -84 -86 Sample predominately peat; not analyzed for textural parameters 14 -94 -97 74.50 0.24 38.57 61.19 Sicl 14 -101 -103 80.89 1.64 44.35 54.01 SiCl 14 -105 -106 Sample entirely peat; not analyzed for textural parameters -107 -110 79.30 0.40 49.54 50.06 Sicl 14 -117 -120 69.10 0.34 55.55 44.11 ClSi 14 -125 L_jL27 54.09 0.17 50.08 49.76 Clsi *Key for sediment classification in Table XI, based on Shepard's (1954) nomenclature: Sa = SAND Si = SILT Cl = CLAY SaSi = SANDY SILT SiSa SILTY SAND ClSa = CLAYEY SAND SaCl SANDY CLAY SICI = SILTY CLAY CISI CLAYEY SILT SaSiCl SAND-SILT-CLAY 72 F tab 1 Table X1. Chemical data for sediment samples. Swnple Interval Carbon Nitrogen Sulfur Monosulfide Station 4 (cm) . I I Upper Lower Percent by weight 1 0 -4 2.63 0.22 1.04 0.034 1 -10 -14 2.93 0.25 1.43 0.027 1 -20 -24 2.09 0.17 1.32 0.004 1 -30 -34 1.61 0.00 1.27 0.006 1 -40 -44 1.54 0.00 1.16 0.004 1 -53 1.62 0.19 1.71 0.003 1 -60 -63 1.74 0.13 1.47 0.005 1 -72 -75 2.41 0.21 1.82 0.006 2 0 -2 0.90 0.15 0.25 2 -2 -4 0.87 0.15 0.27 2 -4 -6 0.91 0.13 0.32 2 -6 -8 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -8 -10 0.97 0.12 0.35 2 -18 -20 0.81 0.11 0.28 2 -24 -26 1.69 0.18 1.20 2 -32 -34 0.45 0.04 0.26 2 -40 -42 0.44 0.10 0.26 2 -50 -52 1.38 0.14 0.69 2 -58 -60 3.96 0.17 0.92 3 0 0 1.85 0.18 0.09 4 0 -4 1.70 0.17 0.52 4 -8 -12 1.50 0.15 0.88 4 -16 -20 1.45 0.13 1.02 4 -24 -28 1.22 0.12 0.77 4 -32 -36 1.45 0.13 1.08 4 -40 -44 1.34 .0.17 1.23 4 -50 -54 1.64 0.15 1.52 -60 -64 1.71 0.18 1.65 5 0 0 0.74 0.00 0.22 73 Sample Interval Carbon Nitrogen Sulfur Monosulfide Station (cm) T I Upper Lower Percent by weight 6 0 -2 1.99 0.20 0.61 6 -4 -6 1.77 0.22 0.74 6 -12 -14 1.76 0.17 0.95 6 -24 -26 1.68 0.19 0.95 6 -34 -36 1.39 0.17 0.83 6 -46 -48 0.72 0.07 0.44 6 -58 -60 0.60 0.12 0.47 6 -78 -80 1.29 0.13 1.11 7 0 -2 3.62 0.31 1.48 7 -4 -6 3.27 0.28 1.67 7 -8 -10 2.76 0.29 1.50 7 -12 -14 1.58 0.18 1.03 7 -24 -26 1.55 0.20 1.21 7 -36 -38 0.90 0.00 0.87 7 -48 -50 1.41 0.17 1.33 7 -60 -62 1.66 0.20 1.43 7 -72 -74 2.49 0.28 1.68 7 -84 -86 2.70 0..25 2.00 8 0 0 3.15 0.24 0.89 9 0 -2 1.66 0.17 0.62 9 -6 -8 1.63 0.18 0.77 9 -14 -16 1.50 0.16 0.85 9 -24 -26 2.00 0.20 1.34 9 -34 -36 1.21 0.14 0.90 9 -50 -52 0.71 0.14 0.71 9 -72 -74 0.67 0.17 0.65 10 0 -3 2.03 0.20 0.83 0.059 10 -5 -8 2.05 0.18 1.03 0.087 10 -14 -17 1.38 0.14 0.75 0.011 10 -27 -30 1.27 0.13 1.01 0.002 10 -45 -48 1.18 0.17 0.80 0.001 10 -57 -60 1.36 0.12 1.08 0.004 10 -72 -75 1.43 0.15 1.25 0.003 11 0 -3 0.90 0.10 0.24 11 -9 -12 0.72 0.09 0.59 74 Sample Interval Carbon Nitrogen Sulfur Monosulfide Station (cm) I I Uppe-r7 Lower Percent by weight 11 -17 -20 0.90 0.08 0.36 11 -26 -29 0.96 0.11 0.44 1 1 -34 -37 0.63 0.08 0.30 12 0 1 -2 3.65 0.32 1.13 12 -6 -8 3.46 0.29 0.13 12 -14 -16 3.52 0.29 1.48 12 -24 -26 3.00 0.30 1.34 12 -34 -36 3.46 0.27 1.72 12 -50 -52 3.35 0.27 1.30 12 -68 -70 2.61 0.28 1.32 12 -84 -86 3.41 0.31 1.90 13 -4 -6 0.25 0.04 0.04 13 -14 -16 0.19 0.00 0.02 13 -36 -40 0.32 0.07 0.11 13 -48 -50 0.02 0.00 0.09 13 -64 -66 0.08 0.00 0.05 14 0 -3 0.61 0.08 0.17 14 -22 -25 1.14 0.13 0.55 14 -27 -30 0.27 0.00 0.15 14 -40 -43 0.83 0.08 0.26 14 -57 -60 2.49 0.17 1.07 14 -75 -78 9.58 0.71 1.87 14 -80 -83 16.79 0.94 2.44 14 -84 -86 15.54 0.79 2.30 14 -94 -97 11.68 0.77 3.00 14 -101 -103 20.22 1.21 3.69 14 -105 -106 30.01 1.39 5.28 14 -107 -110 17.61 1.04 2.51 14 -117 -120 8.52 0.46 1.43 @-l -4 -125 1 -127 3.91 0.28 2.82 75 Table X1 (cont.). Chemical data for sediment samples. Sample Interval Metal Concentrations (cm) Station Upper Lower Cr Cu Mri Zn ug/g) Fe Ni (119/9) ( (0/0) (ug/9) (ug/g) (ug/g) 1 0 -4 72.66 15.67 2.80 315.48 26.33 101.36 1 -10 -14 75.66 13.66 3.13 328.70 26.32 99.80 1 -20 -24 49.94 5.65 2.21 199.24 15.61 40.67 1 -30 -34 69.86 7.46 2.90 31741 22.75 50.87 1 -40 -44 67.35 7.46 2.77 303.72 22.63 50.414 1 -50 -53 94.89 9.04 3.91 430.59 28.85 70.36 1 -60 -63 95.70 9.44 4.04 468.70 29.60 71.41 1 -72 -75 89.72 10.64 3.90 382'.80 29.24 68.99 2 0 -2 29.13 6.20 1.09 116.69 10.95 37.16 2 -2 -4 31.57 5.85, 1.18 140.80 9.97 40.81 2 -4 -6 31.29 6.25 1.19 127.62 9.51 43.16 2 -6 -8 34.94 6.44 1.25 145.42 12.63 43.73 2 -8 -10 34.96 6.58 1.32 153.21 11.51 43.07 2 -18 -20 28.89 4.98 1.08 113.76 9.60 37.11 2 -24 -26 88.48 11.42 3.32 343.73 29.43 69.05 2 -32 -34 24.76 3.61 0.90 112.34 9.05 19.80 2 -40 -42 24.70 3.37 0.92 120.70 9.44 18.20 2 -50 -52 46.25 5.67 1.74 220.27 15.72 35.39 2 -58 -60 15.76 1.59 0.78 45.36 2.61 5.41 3 0 0 12.74 2.36 0.46 70.89 5.87 16.06 4 0 -4 43.41 12.37 1.64 166.41 12.93 54.68 4 -8 -12 43.33 6.06 1.70 179.90 16.00 40.76 4 -16 -20 54.70 6.35 2.38 277.82 19.54 41.45 4 -24 -28 50.30 5.77 2.12 229.65 17.39 36.88 L 4 -32 -36 62.30 7.18 2.73 282.45 23.38 47.32 4 -40 -44 86.04 8.44 3.66 419.27 28.84 65.89 4 -50 -54 87.81 8.28 3.94 428.14 27.74 66.36 4 -60 -64 80.09 8.34 3.73 383.51 26.02 59.58 0 0 30.63 6.57 1.13 149.90 10.22 33.40 A 4 76 5 Sample Interval Metal Concentrations (cm) Station Upper Lower Cr Cu Fe Nfn Ni Zn ii (ug/g) (ug/g) (%) I (ug/g) ug/g) (ug/g) 6 0 -2 64.79 11.94 2.67 249.60 22.12 83.56 6 -4 -6 65.68 12.11 2.63 261.67 21.81 80.89 6 -12 -14 60.99 8.36 2.54 263.41 18.86 .61.72 6 -24 -26 63.86 7.82 2.58 241.25 18.49 55.45 6 -34 -36 70.46 8.46 2.89 278.69 23.43 53.81 6 -46 -48 35.39 4.14 1.38 139.68 11.85 27.11 6 -58 -60 38.11 4.20 1.60 203.64 12.55 30.47 6 -78 -80 90.08 8.36 3.91 500.98 26.79 68.49 7 0 -2 90.80 18.72 3.60 313.33 28.92 128.93 7 -4 -6 87.73 15.03 3.69 294.78 26.84 105.40 7 -8 -10 85.99 12.54 3.56 288.81 26.80 86.52 7 -12 -14 63.31 8.59 2.48 277.00 18.67 61.93 7 -24 -26 88.29 8.53 3.83 300.80 25.61 65.58 7 -36 -38 85.62 8.79 3.90 339.49 26.77 63.62 7 48 -50 92.62 8.68 4.18 385.91 30.59 70.37 7 -60 -62 103.63 9.87 4.67 391.61 33.62 78.21 7 -72 -74 107.14 10.19 4.80 422.29 34.52 80.44 7 -84 -86 106.06 10.17 4.81 416.55 32.95 75.93 8 0 0 51.02 14.32 1.99 139.30 20.12 55.11 9 0 -2 62.69 12.49 2.55 242.01 20.75 84.23 9 -6 -8 66.20 13.25 2.67 250.81 22.39 89.44 9 -14 -16 59.38 10.39 2.38 211.28 20.85 64.90 9 -24 -26 84.81 9.65 3.67 305.29 26.67 67.37 9 -34 -36 64.74 7.66 2.70 274,46 20.88 50.28 9 -50 -52 51.74 6.19 2.31 234,49 17.96 41.47 9 -72 -74 64.44 6.52 2.73 309.59 23.50 46.03 10 0 -3 69.18 17.03 2.77 273,40 24.40 87.18 10 -5 -8 70.74 15.45 2.88 293.04 22.86 93.49 10 -14 -17 50.55 10.32 2.08 207.99 17.16 68.14 10 -27 -30 51.20 7.81 2.20 247.62 17.62 45.23 10 -45 -49 49.92 5.83 2.06 206.63 16.61 38.19 10 -57 -60 65.23 7.96 2.71 273.60 21.79 49.19 10 -72 -75 76.51 8.71 3.21 342.76 24.06 57.95 11 0 -3 37.16 7.59 1.32 162.93 14.38 44.40 77 Sarnple Interval Metal Concentrations (cm) Station upper Lower Cr Cu Fe 1%1n Ni Zn I I (Ug/g) (Ug/g N Ug/g) I (Ug/g) (Ug/9) 11 -9 -12 35.27 7.09 1.27 155.21 11.61 44.96 11 -17 -20 29.99 5.39 1.16 141.83 11.18 34.48 11 -26 -29 36.55 6.68 1.51 204.39 13.43' 33.49 11 -34 -37 29.39 4.19 1.20 136.75 10.68 23.48 12 0 -2 73.50 17.30 3.07 242.12 24.18 110.10 12 -6 -8 72.84 17.30 3.03 256.98 25.72 107.00 12 -14 -16 62.81 14.99 2.74 199.26 21.64 63.79 12 -24 -26 65.21 7.71 2.75 253.58 20.66 50.21 12 -34 -36 76.62 8.66 3.43 289.43 21.49 53.91 12 -50 -52 63.71 8.60 2.72 213.67 20.04 41.21 12 -68 -70 85.57 9.64 3.65 287.08 26.52 61.32 12 -84 -86 86.12 9.43 3.88 287.13 27.19 62.77 13 -4 -6 4.07 .0.74 0.15 27.18 5.15 5.58 13 -14 -16 4.61 0.96 0.19 38.55 .3.87 4.74 13 -36 -40 12.86 1.74 0.53 91.93 5.33 13.40 13 -48 -50 7.40 0.52 0.32 36.84 .3.54 7.72 13 -64 -66 8.15 0.34 0.30 39.85 8.13 5.92 14 0 -3 20.61 3.84 0.80 89.57 8.10 24.60 14 -22 -25 53.05 10.19 2.03 208.29 19.25 66.55 14 -27 -30 20.07 5.48 0.76 84.78 9.27 25.22 14 -40 -43 31.17 5.86 1.16 134.19 11.87 34.39 14 -57 -60 70.62 16.37 2.68 276.69 24.70 85.64 14 -75 -78 76.73 10.82 2.84 233.06 27.36 55.96 14 -80 -83 63.08 10.45 2.14 136.43 25.06 71.74 14 -84 -86 60.16 9.16 1.81 135.47 24.12 44.29 14 -94 -97 85.25 11.92 3.51 188.70 32.60 79.14 14 -101 -103 58.11 9.31 2.51 145.16 [email protected] 48.31 14 -105 -106 42.30 12.62 2.41 112.52 24.70 57.79 14 -107 -110 46.03 8.27 1.58 104.03 14.51 26.79 14 -117 -120 61.06 5.89 1 1.73 1 119.39 17.07 28.46 14 -125 -127 107.19 12.42 4.77 2T4.04 42.67 91.26 78 I Plots of textural and chemical parameters versus depth in core for each sediment core. 79 Station 1 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 - -50 -60 -70 -80 0 20 40 60 so 100 WATER el.) 0 -10 - -20 -30 -40 .50 -60 -70 -80 0 20 40 60 so 100 SAND SILT -, CLAY 80 Station i 0 0 -10 -10 -20 -20 -30 -30 -40 -40 -50 -50 -60 -60 -70 -70 -80 -80 0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0.005 0.015 0.025 0.035 % MONOSULFIDES (0/*) .,CARBON-, SULFUR 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 NITROGEN Station 1 0 0 0 -10 -10 -10 -20 -20 -20 .30 - -30 .30 -40 -40 .40 -50 -50 .50 -60 .40 .60 -70 .70 -70 .30 40 .80 40 50 60 70 90 90 100 110 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 CHROMIUM (p1m) COPPER (ppm) IRON (%) 0 0 0 -10 -10 -10 -20 .20 -20 .30 -30 -30 -40 -40 -40 Lu -50 -50 .50 -60 .60 -60 -70 .70 -70 .80 .80 40 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 10 15 20 25 34 35 30 40 50 60 70 90 90 100 110 MANGANESE (p1m) NICKEL (ppm) ZINC (ppm) 82 DEPTH DEPTH 0 > 00 DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) z Station 2 0 0 -10 -10 -10 -20- -20 .20 1 -30 .30 -30 0 -40 0 -40 fu 040 .50 -50 .30 -60 - -60 .701. . . . . . . . .70 -70 10 20 30 40 io 60 70 go go 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 CHROMIUM (ppm) COPPER (ppm) IRON 0 0 0 40 -10 -10 .20 .20 .20 -30 -9-30 -30 ul 0 40 0 -40 w Q -40 .50 -30 .50 -60 -60 .60 .70 .70 -70 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 MANGANESE (pprn) NICKEL (pFn) ZJNC (ppm) 84 DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (an) 00 u DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) z Station 4 0 0 -10 -10 -20 -20 E -30 E-30 -40 -40 -50 -50 -60- -60- -700 2.0 410 6.0 810 100 -70 WATER (%) 0 20 40% 60 90 100 SAND.*. SILT CLAY 0 0 -10 -10 -20 -20 E -30 E-30 -40 -40 -50 -50 -60 -60 -70 -70 0.4 0.6 0.81 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.82 0. 11 0. 12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.2 % NITROGEN (0/.) CARBON-*. SULFUR 86 DEPTH DEPTH 0 C5 C5 tj 00 DEPT14 DEPTH (cm) t9 Station 6 0 0 0 -10 -10 -10 -2D .20 .20 -30 - .30 -30 -40 -40- -40 .50 -60 -60 .60 -70 .70 .70 40 - -W- 40 -90 1 _90 _90 30 40 50 60 70 90 90 100 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 1.5 2 23 3 3.5 4 4.5 C14ROMIUM (ppm) COPPER (p1m) IRON 0 0 0 -10 -to -30 .20 .20 -20 -30 .30 -30 -40 -40 -40 -50 L9 -50 -50 -60 -60 -60 -70 -70 -70 _90 -80 -90 .90 -90 100 200 300 400 500 600 10 15 20 25 30 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 MANGANESE (ppm) NICKn (ppm) ZINC (Rm) 88 Station 7 0 0 -10 -10 -20 -20 -30 -30 -40 AO -50 w so -60 -60 -70 -70 -80 - -80 -90 -90 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 so 100 WATER % ,SAND-,lSILT -,CLAY 0 0 -10 -10 -20 -20 -30 -30 E 40 -40 -50 -50 -60 -60 -70 -70 -80 -80 - -90. -90 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 % NITROGEN (-/o) -,CARBON.6. SULFUR 89 Station 7 0 0 0 -10 -10 -10 .20 .20 -20 -30 .30 .30 -40 -41 .30 .50 -60 .60 -60 .70 .70 -70 .90 60 70 so 90 100 110 1" 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 2 2-5 3 3.3 4 4.3 5.5 CHROMIUM (ppm) COPPER (ppm) IRON 0 0 0 -10 -10 -10 -20 .20 -20 .30 .30 -30 -40 E 40 -40 Lp .50 w .50 .50 -60 -60 -60 .70 .70 -70 -90 .80 -90 -90 230 300 350 400 450 15 20 25 30 33 40 30 60 70 go 90 10,D 110 120 1" 140 MANGANESE (ftm) NICKEL (ppm) mc (mm) 90 DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) Station 9 0 0 40, -10 .10. -20 - .20 .20 - -30 .30 -30 E E -40 -40 -40 F- Q -30 .50 .30 .60 .60 40 .70 -70 .70 .40 .90 -L I L .80 43 50 55 60 65 70 75 9D 85 90 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 L2 13 14 2-5 3 3.5 4 CHROMIUM (,Wm) COPPER (ppm) IRON 0 0 0 -10 -10 -10 -20 -20 -20 -30 -30 -40 -40 @0 ul Lu w .50 .50 -60 -60 -60 .70 .70 .70 .401 . . . . . . . . . . . 1 200 220 240 260 290 300 320 .80 40 210 230 250 270 290 310 17 18 19 20 21 23 ' .4 25 26 27 22 30 40 30 60 70 80 90 10D MANGANESE (PIM) NICKEL CMn) 23NC ("m) 92 Station 10 0 -10 -20 -30 40 -50 -60 -70 - -90 0 20 40 60 so 100 WATER (0/*) 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -40 -70 -90 0 20 .40 60 so 100 SAND -, SILT -,CLAY 93 DEPTH CA iA DEPTH DEPTH 00 C, tri DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) rn DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) tj DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) f., ol CN DEPTH DEPTH (cm) z Station 11 0 .5 -10 -10 -10 -15 -15 -20 .20 -20 .23 -25 .30 .30 -30 .15 -35 -35 -40 . . . . . . 'n 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 .40 ppm 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 IA lj 1.6 CHROMIUM (ppm) COPPER (ppin) IRON 0 0 Station I I 0 .5 .5 -3 -10 .10 -10 -13 -15 -13 E -20 .20 .20 cl a -25 -25 .23 .30 -30 -30 -35- .35 .15 -40 -40 .40 "---j L 120 130 140 150 160 170 190 190 200 210 220 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 MANGANESE (ppm) NICKEL (pprn) ZINC (M=) 97 DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) cn 00 DEPTH DEPTH (cm) lo!@ 41 4. Z - - - - - - - - - - - - Station 12 0 0 -10. -10. -20 .20 .20 .30- -30 .30 10 0 40 LU .30 .30 .50 cl Q -60 .60 .60 .70 .70 .70 -W -W .90 -90 . . . . . . 33 60 65 70 75 20 83 90 95 7 8 9 10 It 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3A 3.6 3.3 4 4.2 CHROMWM (pin) COPPER (Ppm) [RON 0 0 0 -10 -10 -10 .20 -20 -20 -30 .30 -30 -40 -40 UJ .30 .50 .60 .60 40 -70 .70 -70 -80 - .80 -90 ,so 200 220 240 260 280 300 .90 .90 190 210 230 250 270 290 19 1.0 21 n 23 24 25 26 27 23 29 30 40 30 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 MANGANESE (ppm) NICKEL (ppm) ZINC (A=) 99 DEPTH DEPTH (cm) > tj s t9 DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) Station 13 -10 -10. -10 .20 .20 -20 .30 -30 .30 0-40 -40 0 -40 .50 .50 .50 .60 -60 -60 -70 -70 .701 3 4 3 6 7 2 9 10 It 12 13 14 0 ai 1 1.3 2 at 0.2 0.3 GA 0.5 M6 CHROMIUM (ppm) COPPER (ppm) IRON 0 0 0 -10 .10 -10 .20 .20 -20 -30 -30 -30 w Lu Lu C-40 a 40 Q 40 -50 -50 -30 .40 -60 .60 L .70 .70 70 90 90 too 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 It 12 13 14 15 MANGANESE (PPM) NICXEL Wm) ZINC (ppm) 101 DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) C@ > DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) Im It 0 a z DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) DEPTH (cm) is z 15 DEPTH (cin) DEPTH (cm) [IV Table XIL Enrichment factors for metals analyzed in core sediments. Sample interval Enrichment factor relative to average Station (cm) continental crust (Taylor, 1964) ;ff - Upper FLower Cr Cu Mn Ni Zn 1 0 -4 1.46 0.57 0.67 0.71 2.91 1 -10 -14 1.36 0.45 0.62 0.63 2.56 1 -20 -24 1.27 0.26 0.53 0.53 1.48 1 -30 -34 1.35 0.26 0.65 0.59 1.41 1 -40 -44 1.37 0.28 0.65 0.61 1.46 1 -50 -53 1.37 0.24 0.65 0.55 I.A5 1 -60 -63 1.33 0.24 0.69 0.55 1.42 1 -72 -75 1.29 0.28 0.58 0.56 1.42 2 0 -2 1.50 0.58 0.63 0.75 2.74 2 -2 -4 1.50 0.51 0.70 0.63 2.77 2 -4 -6 1.48 0.54 0.63 0.60 2.91 2 -6 -8 1.57 0.53 0.69 0.76 2.81 2 -8 -10 1.49 0.51 0.69 0.65 2.62 2 -18 -20 1.51 0.47 0.63 0.67 2.77 2 -24 -16 1.50 0.35 0.61 0.66 1.67 2 -32 -34 1.55 0.41 0.74 0.75 1.77 2 -40 -42 1.51 0.38 0.78 0.77 1.59 2 -50 -52 1.49 0.33 0.75 0.68 1.63 2 -58 -60 1.14 0.21 0.35 0.25 0.56 3 0 0 1.57 0.53 0.92 0.96 2.83 4 0 -4 1.49 0.77 0.60 0.59 2.68 4 -8 -12 1.44 0.37 0.63 0.71 1.93 4 -16 -20 1.30 0.27 0.69 0.62 1.40 104 Sample interval Enrichment factor relative to average Station (cm) continental crust (Taylor, 1964) Upper Lower Cr Cu Mn Ni Zn 4 -24 -28 1.33 0.28 0.64 0.61 1.40 4 -32 -36 1.29 0.27 0.61 0.64 1.39 4 -40 -44 1.32 0.24 0.68 0.59 1.45 4 -50 -54 1.26 0.22 0.64 0.53 1.36 4 -60 -64 1.21 0.23 0.61 0.52 1.29 -5 0 0 1.52 0.59 0.78 0.68 2.37 6 0 -2 1.36 0.46 0.55 0.62 2.51 6 -4 -6 1.40 0.47 0.59 0.62 2.47 6 -12 -14 1.35 0.34 0.61 0.56 1.95 6 -24 -26 1.39 0.31 0.55 0.54 1.73 6 -34 -36 1.37 0.30 0.57 0.61 1.50 6 -46 -48 1.44 0.31 0.60 0.64 1.57 6 -58 -60 1.34 0.27 0.75 0.59 1.53 6 -78. -80 1.30 0:22 0.76' 0.52 1.41 7 0 -2 1.42 0.53 0.52 0.60 2.88 7 -4 -6 1.34 0.42 0.47 0.55 2.30 7 -8 -10 .1.36 0.36 0.48 0.56 1.95 7 -12 -14 1.43 0.35 0.66 0.56 2.01 7 -24 -26 1.30 0,23 0.46 0.50 1.38 7 -36 -38 1.24 023 0.52 0.52 1.31 7 -48 -50 1.25 0.21 0.55, 0.55 1.35 7 -60 -62 1.25 0.22 0.50 0.54 1.35 7 -72 -74 1.26 0.22 0.52 0.54 1.35 7 -84 -86 1.24 0.22 0.51 0.51 1.27 8 0 0 1.44 0.74 0.41 0.76 2.22 9 0 -2 1.39 0.50 0.56 0.61 2.66 9 -6 -8 1.40 0.51 0.56 0.63 2.70 9 -14 -16 1.40 0.45 0.53 0.66 2.19 105 Sample interval Enrichment factor relative to average Station (cm) continental crust (Taylor, 1964) UpperTower. Cr Cu Mn Ni T Zn 9 -24 -26 1.30 0.27 0.49 0.55 1.48 9 -34 -36 1.35 0.29 0.60 0.58 1.50 9 -50 -52 1.26 0.27 0.60 0.58 1.45 9 -72 -74 1.33 0.24 0.67 0.65 1.36 10 0 -3 1.41 0.63 0.59 0.66 2.53 10 -5 -8 1.38 0.55 0.60 0.60 2.61 10 -14 -17 1.37 0.51 0.59 0.62 2.63 10 -27 -30 1.31 0.36 0.67 0.60 1.65 10 -45 -48 1.36 0.29 0.59 0.60 1.49 10 -57 -60 1.35 0.30 0.60 0.60 1.46 10 -72 -75 1.34 0.28 0.63 0.56 1.45 11 0 -3 1.58 0.59 0.73 0.82 2.70 11 -9 -12 1.56 0.57 0.72 0.69 2.85 11 -17 -20 1.46 0.48 0.73 0.73 2.40 11 -26 -29 1.36 0.45 0.80 0.67 1.78 11 -34 -37 1.38 0.36 0.68 0.67 1.57 1@ 0 .-2 1.35 0.58 0.47 0.59 2.89 12 -6 -8 1.35 0.58 0.50 0.64 2.84 12 -14 -16 1.29 0.56 0.43 0.59 1.87 12 -24 -26 1.34 0.29 0.55 0.56 1.47 12 -34 -36 1.26 0.26 0.50 0.47 1.26 12 -50 -52 1.32 0.32 0.47 0.55 1.22 12 -68 -70 1.32 0.27 0.47 0.55 1.35 12 -84 -86 1.25 0.25 0.44 0.53 1.30 13 -4 -6 1.50 0.49 1.05 2.53 2.93 13 -14 -16 1.37 0.52 1.20 1.53 2.01 13 -36 -40 1.36 0.33 1.02 0.75 2.02 13 -48 -50 1.32 0.17 0.69 0.84 1.97 106 Sample interval Enrichment factor relative to average Station (cm) continental crust (Taylor, 1964) 4 Upper Lower Cr Cu Mn Ni Zn 13 -64 -66 1.55 0.12 0.80 2.06 1.61 14 0 -3 1.45 0.49 0.67 0.76 2.48 14 -22 -25 1.47 0.51 0.61 0.71 2.63 14 -27 -30 1.49 0.74 0.66 0.92 2.67 14 -40 -43 1.51 0.52 0.69 0.77 2.39 14 -57 -60 1.48 0.63 0.61 0.69 2.57 14 -75 -78 1.52 0.39 0.49 0.72 1.58 14 -80 -83 1.66 0.50 0.38 0.88 2.69 14 -84 -86 1.87 0.52 0.44 1.00 1.97 14 -94 -97 1.37 0.35 0.32 0.70 1.81 14 -101 -103 1.31 0.38 0.34 0.70 1.55 14 -105 -106 0.99 0.54 0.28 0.77 1.93 14 -107 -110 1.64 0.54 0.39 0.69 1.36 14 -117 -120 1.98 0.35 0.41 0.74 1.32 14 -125 -127 1.26 0.27 0.37 0.67 1.54 107 I Plots of enrichment factors versus depth in cores. 108 0 Station 1 -10 - -20 /-"N-30 - -40 - -50 - -60 - -70 - -80 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Enrichment Factor Cr Cu , Mn -,,- Ni Zn 109 Station 2 0 -10 -20 -30 0-4 -50 -60 -70 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Enrichment Factor Cr Cu Mn -, Ni Zn 110 Station 4 -10 -20 - 5-30 - 0-40 -50 -60 -70 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Enrichment Factor Cr Cu Mn Ni Zn Station 6 0 -10 - -20 - -30 - 40 0--50 - -60 - -70 - -80 - -90 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Enrichment Factor Cr Cu , Mn -,,- Ni Zn 112 Station 7 0 -10 -20 - -30 - -40 0--50 -60 - 1110 -70 - -80 - -90 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Enrichment Factor Cr Cu --A-Mn Ni -.,-Zn 113 Station 9 0 -10 - -20 - -30 - -40 -50 -60 - -70 - -80 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Enrichment Factor Cr Cu -A, Mn -,- Ni Zn 114 Station 10 0 Agw -10 - -20 - -3 0 -40 -50 -60 - -70 -80 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Enrichment Factor -,Cr Cu Mn -,Ni Zn' 115 Station 11 0 -5 -10 -20 - -25 - -30 - -35 - -40 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Enrichment Factor -,Cr Cu Mn Ni Zn 116 Station 12 0 -10 - -20 - -30 - 40 - -50 - -60 -70 -80 - -90 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Enrichment Factor Cr Cu Mn Ni Zn 117 Station 13 0 -10 - -20 - -30 - 4Z 4-4 Cl, w 0-40 - -50 - -60 - -70 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Enrichment Factor Cr Cu Mn -, Ni Zn 118 Station 14 0 -50 -100 -150 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Enrichment Factor Cr Cu , Mn Ni Zn 119 Table XIII. Mean and standard deviation (cr) of the variation values calculated for sediments below 30 cin in the sediment column. The mean and RF values are used to identify significantly low or high variation values (see Table XIV). Metal Mean Cr 2cr 3a Cr 0.01 0.17 0.34 0.50 Cu -0.02 0.23 0.46 0.69 Fe 0.05 0.28 0.57 0.85 Mn 0.00 0.21 0.43 0.65 Ni 0.02 0.27 0.54 0.82 Zn 0.0 0.20 0.39 0.60 120 Table XIV. Variation values for metal concentration relative to background levels. Variation values were calculated using equations 2 and 3 (see explanation in text). Values exceeding 3a (refer to Table XM) are bolded. Sample interval Variation from background levels Station (cm) (calculated using equations 2 and 3- see text for explanation) Upper Lower Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Zn 1 0 -4 0.02 0.94 -0.09 0.02 0.12 0.91 1 -10 -14 0.22 0.85 0.19 0.20 0.26 1.15 1 -20 -24 -0.06 -0.02 -0.02 -0.14 -0.11 0.02 1 -30 -34 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.16 0.09 0.07 1 -40 .-44 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.07 0.05 1 -50 -53 0.00 -0.05 -0.06 0.08 -0.03 0.00 1 -60 -63 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.21 0.02 0.04 1 -72 -75 -0.03 0.13 -0.04 -0.01 0.01 0.01 2 0 -2 -0.17 0.50 -0.24 -0.27 -0.12 0.39 2 -2 -4 0.02 .0.56 -0.06 -0.02- -0.11 0.71 2 -4 -6 0.11 0.88 0.05 -0.02 -0.07 0.99 2 -6 -8 0.18 0.82 0.04 0.06 0.18 0.92 2 -8 -10 0.09 0.73 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.75 2 -18 -20 0.07 0.52 -0.01 -0.10 -0.04 0.78 2 -24 -26 0.26 0.57 0.09 0.15 0.30 0.32 2 -32 -34 -0.26 -0.05 -0.35 -0.26 -0.23 -0.22 2 -40 -42 0.22 0.32 0.17 0.23 0.20 0.14 2 -50 -52 0.45 0.51 0.34 0.51 0.38 0.45 2 .-58 -60 -0.45 -0.51 -0.33 -0.65 -0.75 -0.75 3 0 0 0.25 0.60 0.37 0.24 0.21 0.87 4 0 -4 0.00 1.35 -0.10 -0.15 -0.15 0.66 4 -8 -12 0.09 0.29 0.02 0.00 0.15 0.35 4 -16 -20 0.13 0.07 0.17 0.27 0.16 0.14 4 -24 -28 -0.01 -0.09 0.00 0.00 -0.02 -0.04 121 Sample interval Variation from background levels Station (cm) (calculated using equations 2 and 3- see text for 9 explanation) Upper Lower Cr Cu Fe T Mn Ni Zn 4 -32 -36 0.12 0.05 0.16 0.13 0.22 0.13 4 -40 -44 0.08 -0.01 0.06 0.23 0.13 0.11 4 -50 -54 0.00 -0.09 0.03 0.15 0.00 0.02 4 -60 -64 0.02 -0.03 0.09 0.14 0.02 0.02 5 0 0 0.35 1.32 0.27 0.38 0.18 0.88 6 0 -2 0.04 0.67 0.00 -0.09 0.06 0.79 6 -4 -6 0.10 0.77 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.80 6 -12 -14 0.08 0.27 0.06- 0.06 -0.01 0.46 6 -24 -26 -0.03 0.10 -0.09 -0.15 -0.14 0.13 6 -34 -36 0.21 0.34 0.15 0.10 0.22 0.23 6 -46 -48 -0.33 -0.33 -0.39 -0.41 -0.34 -0.32 6 -58 -60 -0.12 -0.16 -0.11 0.06 -0.15 -0.07 6 -78 -80 0.01 -0.07 0.0,0 0.34 -0.04 0.04 7 0 -2- -0.03 @0.97 -0.12 -0.20 -0.01 0.86 7 -4 -6 0.01 0.66 -0.03 -0.20 -0.03 0.63 7 -8 -10 0.02 0.41 -0.04 -0.20 .-0.01 0.38 7 -12 -14 -0.27 -0.05 -0.35 -0.25 -0.33 -0.05 7 -24 -26 0.00 -0.07 -0.01 -0.20 -0.09 0.00 7 -36 -38 0.06 0.01 0.11 -0.02 0.03 0.06 7 -48 -50 0.01 -0.07 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.04 7 -60 -62 0.02 -0.01 0.04 -0.08 0.06 0.04 7 -72 -74 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.07 0.02 -0.01 7 -84 -86 0.02 0.00 0.04 -0.04 0.02 -0.02 8 0 0 -0.37 0.75 -0.43 -0.59 -0.21 -0.08 9 0 -2 -0.02 0.65 -0.07 -0.14 -0.03 0.76 9 -6 -8 0.01 0.73 -0.05 -0.13 0.02 0.82 -14 -16 -0.06 0.40 -0.11 -0.24 -0.01 0.38 122 Sample interval Variation from background levels Station (cm) (calculated using equations 2 and 3- see text for explanation) 1 -]@7 Upper Lower Cr Cu Fe Mn 17 Zn 9 -24 -26 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.03 0.19 0.33 9 -34 -36 -0.03 0.00 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 0.00 9 -50 -52 -0.01 -0.05 0.05 0.00 -0.01 0.05 9 -72 -0,05 -0.18 -0.07 0.04 0.04 -0.10 10 0 -3 0.06 1.32 -0.01 -0.04 0.13 0.79 10- -5 -8 0.10 1.16 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.95 10 -14 -17 0.03 0.82 0.01 -0.04 0.03 0.85 10 -27 -30 0.08 0.47 0.09 0.18 0.10 0.26 10 -45 -48 0.06 0.06 0.04 -0.02 0.03 0.07 10 -57 -60 0.10 0.19 0.07 0.06 0.11 0.11 10 -72 -75 0.07 0.12 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.09 11 0 -3 0.21 1.06 0.05 0.15 0.29 0.88 11 -9 -12 0.00 0.74 -0.14 -0.03 -0.07 0.66 11 -17 -20 0.12 0.72 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.67 11 -26 -29 0.36 1.07 0.40 0.63 0.36, 0.61 11 -34 -37 0.06 0.26 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.10 12 0 -2 12 -6 -8 -0.04 1.08 -0.07 -0.21 0.05 0.90 12 -14 -16 -0.08 0.92 -0.07 -0.33 -0.05 0.25 12 -24 -26 -0.12 -0.06 -0.14 -0.21 -0.15 -0.09 12 -34 -36 -0.05 0.00 -0.02 -0.16 -0.17 -0.10 12 -50 -52 -0.19 0.01 -0.20 -0.37 -0.21 -0.30 12 -68 -70 0.02 0.08 0.00 -0.20 -0.01 -0.02 12 -84 -86 -0.06 0.00 -0.03 -0.26 -0.06 -0.08 13 -4 -6 -0.26. -0.25 0.25 -0.28 0.50 0.08 13 -14 -16 -0.17 -0.02 0.53 0.02 0.12 -0.08 -36 -40 -0.21 -0.11 -0.13 0.13 -0.19 0.02 123 13 Sample interval Variation from background levels Station (cm) (calculated using equations 2 and 3- see text for 4 explanation) 1 j@7 Upper Lower Cr L-Cu Fe T Mn 17 Zn 13 -48 -50 0.23 -0.51 1.18 -0.08. -0.02 0.39 13 -64 -66 0.30 -0.69 0.90 -0.04 1.18 0.03 14 0 -3 0.43 0.90 0.55 0.19 0.30 1.11 14 -22 -25 1.00 2.21 0.91 0.68 .0.97 2.25 14 -27 -30 1.22 2.83 1.73 0.60 1.03 2.25 14 -40 -43 0.97 1.80 0.98 0.67 0.80 1.71 14 -57 -60 0.04 1.23 -0.09 -0.06 0.11 0.68 14 -75 -78 -0.27 0.07 -0.39 -0.47 -0.15 -0.28 14 -80 -83 -0.36 0.11 -0.51 -0.67 -0.17 -0.01 14 -84 -86 14 -94 -97 -0.28 0.08 -0.34 -0.61 -0.10 -0.10 14 -101 -103 -0.46 -0.10 -0.48 -0.68 -0.29 -0.40 14 -105 -106 14 -107 -110 -0.55 -0.18 -0.65 -0.76 -0.55 -0.65 14 -117 -120 -0.35 -0.39 -0.58 -0.70 -0.43 -0.59 14 -125 -127 0.05 0.23 0.05 -0.31 0.34 0.20 124 APPENDIX IV MICROWAVE DIGESTION TECHNIQUE The steps in microwave digestion, modified from EPA Method #3051 (Soil Sample Digestion Procedure for Floyd Digestion Vessels), are as follows: 1. Approximately 0.5 g of dried, ground sediment was placed in the teflon digestion vessel. 2. 2.5 mi concentrated HN03 (trace metal grade) and 7.5 mi concentrated HCl (trace metal grade) was added to the teflon vessel. (Preparation of blanks were made by using 0.5 mi of high purity water plus the acids used in this step.) 3. Digestion vessel was capped and placed in microwave carousel. A minimum of four vessels were processed in the microwave at a time. 4. Sediment and acid mixture was digested by irradiating the vessel according to the programmed steps recommended for the number of vessels in the microwave. The sample was brought to a temperature of 175* C in 5.5 minutes, then maintained between 175-180* C for 10 minutes. (The pressure during this time peaks at approximately 6 atm. for most samples.) 5. The vessel was allowed to cool to room temperature before opening. The contents of the vessel was transferred to 50 mi volumetric flask and diluted with high purity water to 50 mi. (For Fe and Mn analyses, samples were diluted three times or to 150 mi.) 6. The dissolved samples are transferred to polyethylene bottles and stored for analysis. All surfaces that came into contact with the samples were acid washed (3 days 1:1 HN03; 3 days 1: 1 HCI), rinsed six times in high purity water (less than 5 mega-ohms), and stored in high-purity water until use. 125 i k k i 6 i I 11181111me @ ---- - 108 9369