DSHW-2006-001471 - 0901a0688013855f

For Official Use Only
HAND DELIVERED
JUN 01 2005
UTAH DIVISION OF
SOLID & HAZARDOUS WASTE
U.S. Army
Chemical Materials Agency
Program Manager for the Elimination
of Chemical Weapons
2005 Environmental Monitoring
Follow-on Study Report
# Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility
Tooele, Utah
Final
May 2006
For Official Use Only
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of the fourth (2005) Environmental Monitoring Follow-on
Study (EMFS) for the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (TOCDF) located at the
Deseret Chemical Depot (DCD) in north-central Utah, approximately 20 miles south of
the city of Tooele. Incineration of chemical warfare materiel began at TOCDF in
August 1996. The EMFS is an evaluation of changes to the environment sun-ounding
TOCDF since chemical agent destruction was initiated.
During the 2005 EMFS. samples of surface soil, vegetation (shmb and herbaceous),
were collected from the permanent sampling locations established by the
1996 Environmental Monitoring Baseline Study (EMBS) and subsequent EMFSs (1998,
1999, and 2002). Fifteen new soil and vegetation sampling locations were added for
the 2005 EMFS. Surface water and sediment samples were also collected from
Rainbow Reservoir and Ophir Creek. All samples were submitted to environmental
testing laboratories for chemical analysis.
A statistical evaluation ofthe EMFS chemical data for surface soil, water, sediment, and
vegetation samples was perfonned to determine If the mean concentration of any
chemical of potential concem (COPC) has shown a statistically significant increase
relative to the baseline data. The maximum concentrations for COPCs Identified above
detection limits in the 2005 EMFS were first compared to EMBS screening criteria
comprised of the baseline 99 percent upper tolerance level (UTL) or the baseline
maximum value (If no UTL was calculated). Those analytes where the 2005 value
exceeded the EMBS screening level were retained for further statistical analysis.
Common laboratory contaminants (acetone, methylene chloride, 2-butanone, and
various phthalates) were excluded from statistical analysis. The concentrations of
COPCs that Indicated statistically significant increases or were of general environmental
interest were evaluated temporally and spatially. Commonly abundant metals
(aluminum, boron, calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, sodium.
and zinc) found In the soil and vegetation of the geographic region were typically
excluded from further evaluation.
COPCs that were below reporting limits In the EMBS but were Identified above the
detection limits in the 2005 EMFS were designated as statistically indeterminate.
Statistically indeterminate COPCs were evaluated relative to their detection frequency,
the baseline and 2005 EMFS reporting limits, the baseline maximum concentrations,
and environmental relevance. Those Indeterminate COPCs exhibiting relatively high
detection frequencies at similar or higher reporting limits, coupled with mean and/or
maximum concentrations above the EMBS reporting limit or of particular environmental
Interest, were retained for temporal and spatial evaluation.
Spatial distribution was evaluated by mapping COPC concentrations recorded for each
site and comparing any apparent trends to the particulate deposition pattem predicted
by the EMBS air dispersion model. Historic data from the EMBS and each EMFS were
evaluated by analyzing trends In group mean values and discrete concentrations at
individual sample sites. Table ES-1, located at the end of this section, Is a summary of
the 2005 EMFS results for COPCs In soil, shrub, and heriDaceous samples that were
evaluated statistically, spatially, and temporally. None of the COPCs In water or
sediment samples met the criteria for spatial or temporal evaluation.
Surface Soil Resuits
Forty-eight analytes were detected in 2005 EMFS soil samples, 22 of which had also
been detected in the 1996 EMBS. There were 3 analytes detected In the EMBS that
were not detected In the 2005 EMFS. Considering the 22 analytes detected in both the
2005 EMFS and the EMBS, 13 (all metals) showed a statistically significant or
apparently higher concentration in 2005 versus 1996. The remainder of the analytes
showed a statistically or apparent decrease in concentration. Further evaluation
resulted In 7 metals (arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobatt, and
vanadium) being retained for spatial and temporal evaluation.
II
Ofthe 26 analytes detected in the 2005 EMFS but not in the 1996 EMBS, there was
sufficient information to evaluate 18 by nonparametric and graphical methods. All 18 of
these analytes showed an appareht decrease in concentration relative to the EMBS
reporting limits. From this group of analytes, mercury was retained for spatial and
temporal evaluation because of special interest in this chemical by the State of Utah.
Spatial and temporal evaluation of surface soil data concluded that none of the COPCs
displayed a trend Indicative of a relationship to the location of the TOCDF common
stack or the time line of TOCDF incineration operations.
Shrub Sample Results
Thirty-eight analytes were detected In shrub samples in the 2005 EMFS, of which
16 had also been detected in the 1996 EMBS. There were 3 analytes detected In the
EMBS that were not detected In the 2005 EMFS. Considering the 16 analytes detected
in both the 2005 EMFS and 1996 EMBS, 14 (13 metals and one dioxin) showed a
statistically significant or apparent Increase In concentration relative to baseline levels.
The other 2 analytes exhibited an apparent decrease in concentration In the
2005 EMFS. Upon further evaluation, 3 metals (barium, mercury, and tin) and the
dioxin, OCDD, were retained for spatial and temporal evaluation.
Ofthe 22 analytes detected in shrub samples In the 2005 EMFS but not detected in the
EMBS, 21 were evaluated by nonparametric and graphical methods (the common
laboratory contaminant di-n-butyl phthalate was not evaluated). Ofthe 21 analytes
evaluated, 13 analytes (2 metals, 7 dioxins/furans, and 4 explosive compounds) showed
apparent or possible increased concentrations versus baseline reporting limits. The
other 8 analytes exhibited apparent decreases in concentration or a concentration that
had not changed. After further evaluation. 5 analytes (chromium, molybdenum,
2,4,6-trinitrotoluene [TNT|, cyclonite [RDX], and total dioxins/furans) were retained for
spatial and temporal evaluation and 2 analytes (2,4-dinitrotoluene[2,4-DNT] and high
melting explosive [HMX]) were retained for temporal evaluation only.
Ill
Spatial and temporal evaluation of shrub data concluded that none of the COPCs
displayed a trend Indicative of a relationship to the location of the TOCDF common
stack or the time line of TOCDF incineration operations.
Herbaceous Sample Results
Thirty-nine analytes were detected In herbaceous samples during the 2005 EMFS, of
which 20 had also been detected in the 1996 EMBS. There were 3 analytes detected in
EMBS herbaceous samples that were not detected in the 2005 EMFS. Of the
20 analytes detected In the EMBS and the 2005 EMFS, 19 were statistically evaluated
(the common laboratory contaminant bis-2-(ethylhexyl)-phthalate was not evaluated).
Nine of these analytes (6 metals, one dioxin, and 2 explosives compounds) showed a
statistically significant, apparent, or possible increase In concentration. The other
10 analytes exhibited a statistically significant or apparent decrease in concentration.
Upon further evaluation, two analytes (molybdenum and total dioxin/furan) were
retained for spatial and temporal evaluation, in addition, 3 explosives compounds
(2,4-DNT, nitroglycerin, and HMX) were retained for temporal evaluation only.
The 19 analytes detected In heribaceous samples during the 2005 EMFS but not
detected In the EMBS. were compared to the EMBS laboratory reporting limits. An
apparent or possible increase in concentration was seen in 13 of the analytes (3 metals,
7 dioxins/furans, and 3 explosives compounds) and an apparent decrease was seen in
6 analytes. Three analytes (cadmium, mercury, and total dioxin/furan) were retained for
spatial and temporal analysis. Three other compounds (TNT, RDX, and tetryl) were
retained for temporal evaluation only.
Spatial and temporal evaluation of herbaceous vegetation data lead to the conclusion
that none ofthe COPCs displayed a trend Indicative of a relationship to the location of
the TOCDF common stack or the time line of TOCDF incineration operations.
IV
Surface Water and Sediment
Two surface water and collocated sediment samples were collected from Rainbow
Reservoir and 1 surface water and collocated sediment sample was collected from
Ophir Creek near the entrance to the diversion pipe that carries water from the creek to
the reservoir. Because ofthe history of Rainbow Reservoir and the fact that Ophir
Creek was not sampled during the EMBS, all comparisons between baseline and
follow-on data were qualitative; therefore, no statistical evaluation was performed.
Considering only the water samples, there was only one analyte (calcium) In the
Rainbow Reservoir that had a 2005 EMFS concentration that exceeded the EMBS
maximum detected concentration or 99 percent UTL. In the Ophir Creek water sample,
4 analytes (aluminum, calcium, iron, and magnesium) had concentrations greater than
the levels found in Rainbow Reservoir during the EMBS.
In the sediment samples, calcium in Rainbow Reservoir and chromium In Ophir Creek
were the only analytes In the 2005 EMFS where the concentrations exceeded the
maximum detected value or 99 percent UTL for Rainbow Reservoir In the EMFS.
None of the analytes from the water and sediment samples were retained for spatial or
temporal evaluation.
Conclusions
Based on data evaluated during the 2005 EMFS, it is concluded that variations in shrub
and herb: frequency, cover, density, diversity, forage value, and decreaser/lncreaser
Index, are not associated with emissions from the TCODF common stack. Furthermore,
it Is concluded that variations in the concentration of chemicals of potential concem in
soil, vegetation, water, and sediment are not associated with emissions from the
TOCDF common stack in either spatial or temporal distribution. No evidence was found
that operation ofthe TOCDF incinerator has had an effect on the surrounding
environment.
Table ES-1. Summary of 2005 EMFS Chemical Results
Analytical
Parameter
Detected in Both
1996 EMBS and 2005 EMFS
Analytes
Detected
Exceeded
EMBS
Screening
Criteria
Statistically
Significant or
/Apparent
Increase
Retained
for Spatial
Evaluation
Detected Only in
2005 EMFS
Analytes
Detected
Retained
for Spatial
Evaluation
Spatial or
Temporal
Trend
/^sociated
with TOCDF
Common
Stack
Soil Samples
Anions
Dioxin/
Furan
Explosives
Metals
PCB
SVOC
VOC
N/A
0
0
22
0
0
N/A
N/A
0
0
19
0
0
N/A
N/A
0
0
13
0
0
N/A
N/A
0
0
7
0
0
N/A
N/A
10
4
4
0
1
7
N/A
0
0
1
0
0
0
N/A
No
No
No
No
No
No
Shrub Samples
Anions
Dioxin/
Furan
Explosives
Metals
PCB
SVOC
VOC
N/A
1
2
13
0
0
N/A
N/A
1
0
11
0
0
N/A
N/A
1
0
13
0
0
N/A
N/A
0
0
3
0
0
N/A
N/A
7
4
9
0
2
N/A
N/A
Total dioxins
& furans
2
2
0
0
N/A
N/A
No
No
No
No
No
N/A
Herbaceous Samples
Anions
Dioxin/
Furan
Explosives
Metals
PCB
SVOC
VOC
Notes:
EMBS =
EMFS =
N/A
PCB
SVOC =
TOCDF =
VOC
N/A
1
2
15
0
2
N/A
N/A
1
2
10
0
1
N/A
N/A
1
2
6
0
0
N/A
N/A
1
0
1
0
0
N/A
Environmental Monitoring Baseline Study
Environmental Monitoring Follow-on Study
not applicable
polychlorinated biphenyl
semivolatile organic compound
Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility
volatile organic compound
N/A
7
3
8
0
1
N/A
N/A
Total dioxins
& furans
0
2
0
0
N/A
N/A
No
No
No
No
No
N/A
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section/Paragraph Title Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Project Background 1-1
1.1.1 TOCDF 1-1
1.1.2 Environmental Monitoring Studies 1-2
1.2 Purpose and Scope 1-2
1.3 Document Organization 1-3
2 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES 2-1
2.1 1996 EMBS 2-1
2.1.1 Summary of Field Effort 2-1
2.1.2 Evaluation of Chemical Data 2-3
2.1.3 Statistical Analysis of Analytical Data 2-3
2.2 1998 EMFS 2-4
2.3 1999 EMFS 2-6
2.4 2002 EMFS 2-7
3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3-1
3.1 Air Quality 3-1
3.2 Precipitation 3-2
3.3 Population 3-3
3.4 Local Fire History 3-3
4 STUDY METHODOLOGY 4-1
4.1 Sample Locations 4-1
4.1.1 Sample Locations Retained from Previous Studies 4-1
4.1.2 Sample Locations Added forthe 2005 EMFS 4-1
4.1.3 Sample Location Deviations 4-2
4.1.4 Sample Collection Schedule 4-3
4.2 Sample Media 4-4
4.2.1 Soil 4-4
4.2.2 Vegetation 4-4
4.2.3 Surface Water and Sediment 4-4
4.3 Numbers of Samples 4-5
4.4 Sampling and Analytical Parameters 4-5
4.5 Statistical Analysis 4-6
4.5.1 Vegetative Characterization 4-7
4.5.2 Shmb Layer 4-7
4.5.3 Comparison to Previous Studies 4-9
VII
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section/Paragraph Title Page
5 STUDY COMPARABILITY ASSESSMENT 5-1
5.1 Chemical Analysis Data 5-1
5.1.1 Laboratory Comparability 5-2
5.1.2 Analytical Limitations 5-4
5.2 Seasonal Variability 5-6
5.3 Data Evaluation Criteria 5-7
6 CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS - PLANT COMMUNITIES
AND SOIL 6-1
6.1 Physical Characterization of Sample Locations 6-1
6.2 Characterization of Vegetation Composition and Structure 6-2
6.2.1 Shmb Layer Characterization 6-4
6.2.2 Herbaceous Layer Characterization 6-6
6.3 Vegetation Summary and Comparison to Previous Studies 6-7
6.3.1 Shmb Data Comparison to Previous Studies 6-8
6.3.2 Herbaceous Data Comparisons 6-9
7 CHEMICAL RESULTS - GENERAL 7-1
7.1 Chernical Data Assessment 7-1
7.1.1 Chemical Data Validation Results 7-2
7.2 Statistical Approach 7-3
8 CHEMICAL RESULTS - SOIL 8-1
8.1 Surface Soil COPCs Detected (Step 1) 8-1
8.2 Surface Soil COPC Distributions (Step 2) 8-3
8.3 Surface Soil Summary Statistics (Step 3) 8-3
8.4 Surface Soil Comparison to Screening Levels (Step 4) 8-4
8.5 Surface Soil Statistical Evaluation (Step 5) 8-5
8.5.1 Central Tendency Tests 8-5
8.5.2 Statistically Indetemnlnate COPC 8-7
8.6 Spatial Distribution and Temporal Trends In Surface Soil (Step 6) 8-11
9 CHEMICAL RESULTS - WATER AND SEDIMENT 9-1
9.1 Surface Water Sample Results 9-1
9.2 Sediment Sample Results 9-4
10 CHEMICAL RESULTS - SHRUB VEGETATION 10-1
10.1 Shmb COPCs Detected (Step 1) 10-1
10.2 Shmb COPC Distributions (Step 2) 10-2
10.3 Shmb COPC Summary Statistics (Step 3) 10-3
10.4 Shmb COPC Comparison to Screening Levels (Step 4) 10-3
Vlll
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section/Paragraph Title Page
10.5 Shmb COPC Statistical Evaluation (Step 5) 10-4
10.5.1 Central Tendency Tests 10-4
10.5.2 Statistically Indetemiinate COPCs 10-6
10.6 Spatial Distribution and Temporal Trends in Shmbs (Step 6) 10-12
11 CHEMICAL RESULTS - HERBACEOUS VEGETATION 11-1
11.1 HeriDaceous COPCs Detected (Step 1) 11-1
11.2 HeriDaceous COPC Distributions (Step 2) 11-2
11.3 Herbaceous Summary Statistics (Step 3) 11-2
11.4 Herbaceous COPC Comparison to Screening Levels (Step 4) 11-3
11.5 HeriDaceous COPC Statistical Evaluation (Step 5) 11-4
11.5.1 Central Tendency Tests 11-4
11.5.2 Statistically Indeterminate or Inconclusive COPCs 11-5
11.6 Spatial Distribution and Temporal Trends in Herbaceous
Samples (Step 6) 11-11
12 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 12-1
12.1 Statistical Approach for Chemical Data 12-1
12.2 Physical Characterization 12-2
12.2.1 Shmb Species 12-3
12.2.2 Hertjaceous Species 12-4
12.3 Chemical Data Assessment 12-5
12.3.1 Surface Soil 12-6
12.3.2 Vegetation 12-6
12.3.3 Surface Water and Sediment 12-8
12.4 Conclusions 12-9
13 RECOMMENDATIONS 13-1
ANNEX A ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ANNEX B REFERENCES
ANNEX C FIELD DATA AND LABORATORY RESULTS
IX
(This page Intentionally left blank.)
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Title Page
1.1-1 Regional Aerial Photograph 1-5
3.1-1 Common Stack Air Dispersion Model 3-11
3.4-1 Range/Forest Fire 3-12
4.1-1 Sample Location Map 4-13
4.1-2 Rainbow Reservoir Sample Location 4-14
6.2-1 Dominant Shmb Species 6-49
6.2-2 Percent Shmb Coverage Map and Relative Dominance Distribution 6-50
6.2-3 Dominant Herb Species 6-51
6.2-4 Percent Herbaceous Coverage Map and Relative Dominance
Distribution 6-52
6.3-1 Clumps Per Hectare Histogram Chart (Shmbs) 6-53
6.3-2 Average Height Classification Histogram Chart (Shmbs) 6-54
6.3-3 Areal Coverage Per Hectare Histogram Chart (Shmbs) 6-55
6.3-4 Percent Total Vegetation Coverage Map 6-56
8.6-1 Spatial Distribution of Arsenic Concentration in Soil 8-34
8-6.2 Arsenic Soil Concentrations Temporal Trends 8-35
8.6-3 Spatial Distribution of Barium Concentration in Soil 8-36
8.6-4 Barium Soil Concentrations Temporal Trends 8-37
8.6-5 Spatial Distribution of Beryllium Concentration in Soil 8-38
8.6-6 Beryllium Soil Concentrations Temporal Trends 8-39
8.6-7 Spatial Distribution of Cadmium Concentration In Soil 8-40
8.6-8 Cadmium Soil Concentrations Historic Trends 8-41
8.6-9 Spatial Distribution of Chromium Concentration in Soil 8-42
8.6-10 Chromium Soil Concentrations Temporal Trends 8-43
8.6-11 Spatial Distribution of Cobalt Concentration in Soil 8-44
8.6-12 Cobalt Soil Concentrations Historic Trends 8-45
8.6-13 Spatial Distribution of Mercury Concentration in Soil 8-46
8.6-14 Mercury Soil Concentrations Temporal Trends 8-47
8.6-15 Spatial Distribution of Vanadium Concentration In Soil 8-48
8.6-16 Vanadium Soil Concentrations Temporal Trends 8-49
10.6-1 Spatial Distribution of Barium Concentration In Shmbs 10-32
10.6-2 Barium Shmb Concentrations Temporal Trends 10-33
10.6-3 Spatial Distribution of Chromium Concentration in Shmbs 10-34
10.6-4 Chromium Shmb Concentrations Historic Trends 10-35
10.6-5 Spatial Distribution of Mercury Concentration In Shmbs 10-36
10.6-6 Mercury Shmb Concentrations Temporal Trends 10-37
10.6-7 Spatial Distribution of Molybdenum Concentration In Shmbs 10-38
XI
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
Figure Title Page
10.6-8 Molybdenum Shmb Concentrations Historic Trends 10-39
10.6-9 Spatial Distribution of Tin Concentration in Shmbs 10-40
10.6-10 Tin Shmb Concentrations Temporal Trends 10-41
10.6-11 Spatial Distribution of Dioxin/Furan Concentration in Shmbs 10-42
10.6-12 Dioxin/Furan Shmb Concentrations Temporal Trends 10-43
10.6-13 Spatial Distribution of RDX Concentration In Shmbs 10-44
10.6-14 RDX Shmb Concentrations Temporal Trends 10-45
10.6-15 Spatial Distribution of TNT Concentration in Shmbs 10-46
10.6-16 TNT Shmb Concentrations Temporal Trends 10-47
11.6-1 Spatial Distribution of Cadmium Concentration In Herbs 11-28
11.6-2 Cadmium Herbs Concentrations Temporal Trends 11-29
11.6-3 Spatial Distribution of Mercury Concentration in Herbs 11-30
11.6-4 Mercury Herb Concentrations Temporal Trends 11-31
11.6-5 Spatial Distribution of Molyt>denum Concentration in Herbs 11-32
11.6-6 Molybdenum Herb Concentrations Temporal Trends 11-33
11.6-7 Spatial Distribution of Dioxins/Furans Concentration in Herbs 11-34
11.6-8 Dioxins/Furans Herb Concentrations Temporal Trends 11-35
XII
LIST OF TABLES
Table Titie Page
2.1.3-1 Summary of Mean Surface Soil Results 2-10
2.1.3-2 Summary of Mean Sediment Data 2-12
2.1.3-3 Summary of Mean Water Data 2-14
2.1.3-4 Summary of Mean Shmb Data 2-16
2.1.3-5 Summary of Mean HeriDaceous Data 2-18
3.4-1 Range Fires in Rush Valley 1996 through 2004 3-6
4.4-1 Analytical Parameters for Soil, Vegetation, Surface Water,
and Sediment 4-11
4.5.2.1-1 Ranking Scale for Forage Value 4-12
6.1-1 Sample Location Physical Variables 6-14
6.1-2 Soil Samples Collected forthe 2005 EMFS 6-16
6.2-1 Plant Species List 6-35
6.2-2 Shmb Community Composition 6-39
6.2-3 Herbaceous Community Composition 6-42
6.3-1 Summary of 2005 Vegetation Characteristics 6-46
6.3.2.1-1 HeriDaceous Vegetation Comparison 1996 ThnDugh 2005 6-48
8.1-1 Detection Frequency - Surface Soil 8-20
8.2-1 Distribution Test Results - Surface Soil 8-23
8.2-2 Summary Statistics - Surface Soil 8-26
8.4-1 Means Testing - Surface Soil 8-29
9.1-1 Comparison to 1996 Screening Criteria - Surface Water Samples 9-6
9.2-1 Comparison to 1996 Screening Criteria — Sediment Samples 9-13
10.1-1 Detection Frequency - Shmb Data 10-19
10.2-1 Distribution Test Results - Shmb Vegetation 10-22
10.3-1 Summary Statistics - Shmb Vegetation 10-25
10.4-1 Means Testing - Shmb Vegetation 10-28
11.1-1 Detection Frequency - Herbaceous Vegetation 11-15
11.2-1 Distribution Test Results - Herbaceous Vegetation 11-18
11.3-1 Summary Statistics - Herbaceous Vegetation 11-21
11.4-1 Means Testing - Herbaceous Vegetation 11-24
XIII
(This page intentionally left blank.)
XIV
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the field and laboratory results obtained during the
2005 Environmental Monitoring Follow-on Study (EMFS) at Tooele Chemical Agent
Disposal Facility (TOCDF), evaluation ofthe data, conclusions reached, and
recommendations for future studies to be conducted for TOCDF.
1.1 Project Background
The TOCDF is located near the center of Deseret Chemical Depot (DCD) In
north-central Utah, approximately 20 miles south ofthe city of Tooele.
Figure 1.1-1 shows the location of DCD and TOCDF In relation to surrounding
communities and landmarks In Rush Valley. The mission of DCD Is the storage and
disposal of a wide an'ay of chemical munitions. At its peak, DCD stored approximately
40 percent (by weight) ofthe total U.S. stockpile of chemical agents.
1.1.1 TOCDF. The TOCDF site covers 11 hectares (27 acres) of relatively level
ground, which slopes gently to the northwest. No pennanent surface streams are
present on or nearthe disposal facility.
The TOCDF incineration system Is designed to perfonn themnal destmction of chemical
agents and decontaminate the munitions or bulk containers that contain the chemical
agent. The overall process consists of draining the liquid chemical agent from the
storage container/munition, followed by destmction ofthe agent, deactivation of
explosives, and thermal decontamination of the drained parts.
Demilitarization is accomplished using three Incinerator systems that share a common
42.7-meter (140-foot) stack. Each Incinerator is equipped with a dedicated pollution
abatement system and the common stack is continuously monitored for chemical agent
emissions.
1-1
1.1.2 Environmental Monitoring Studies. In order to evaluate the potential
environmental impact of incinerator emissions on the sun-ounding area, an
environmental monitoring study was begun in 1996 before incinerator operations began.
The initial round of environmental sampling (referred to as the Environmental Monitoring
Baseline Study [EMBS]) was conducted in May 1996. TOCDF began chemical agent
operations in August ofthe same year. Follow-on studies have been performed in
October 1998, May 1999, and May 2002. The current EMFS sampling round was
performed In May 2005.
To obtain comparable data, 1998.1999. 2002, and 2005 EMFS samples were collected
from permanent sampling locations established by the 1996 EMBS and follow-on
EMFSs In accordance with program procedures. Fifteen new locations were added In
2005 to Improve confidence in decisions made based on mapping of data. Sampled
media Included surface soil, surface water, sediment, and two types of vegetative
growth (shmbs and grasses). Subsurface soil was not included in the 2005 study. The
analytical suite of parameters and methodologies selected for the 2005 follow-on study
were consistent with the EMBS; however, anions and nutrients were eliminated during
the 2005 study, since these parameters have shown no statistically significant changes.
In 2005, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were only analyzed in the soil samples
from the 15 new sample sites. These changes were made In coordination with the
TOCDF Field Office, DCD, and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
1.2 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of the follow-on study is to collect information on sample site
characteristics and concentrations of chemicals present in the environment sun-ounding
TOCDF following full-scale chemical agent destmction operations, and to compare the
data collected to that collected during the EMBS and each subsequent EMFS. The
baseline data, collected in May 1996, serve as a benchmark against which subsequent
EMFSs are compared to identify and evaluate any environmental changes over time.
1-2
This 2005 EMFS report provides a review ofthe environmental monitoring data from the
EMBS and the four subsequent EMFSs at TOCDF, identifies any problems or issues
associated with data comparison, and makes recommendations for future sampling
events. This data review Includes results from the 1996 EMBS, 1998 EMFS,
1999 EMFS, 2002 EMFS, and 2005 EMFS. Literature searches were also used in the
preparation of this report. The primary objective of the report is to evaluate the data
generated under the environmental monitoring program and to make recommendations
for Implementing changes In sampling and analysis methodologies to maximize the
technical quality of the project. Previous studies are discussed with general summaries
and conclusions to establish a basis for recommended changes. Detailed results of the
previous studies can be obtained in the referenced supporting documents.
1.3 Document Organization
This document is divided Into the following sections:
Section 1 presents the general project description, history, and document
organization.
Section 2 provides a review and synopsis of the 1996 EMBS and
subsequent EMFSs perfonned in 1998, 1999, and 2002.
Section 3 provides background information on the study area,
environmental setting, and known environmental issues in the vicinity.
Section 4 Identifies issues associated with EMBS/EMFS sampling plan
design, deviations from the established protocol, and concems with
previous study results.
Section 5 provides an assessment of the comparability of data derived
from the 2005 EMFS with data from the previous studies.
1-3
Section 6 presents site characterization data that describe the soil, terrain,
and vegetation at the sample locations.
Section 7 presents general information pertaining to chemical analytical
samples and statistical treatment of that data.
Section 8 presents results from chemical analysis of soil samples and the
comparison of that data to baseline.
Section 9 presents results from chemical analysis of water and sediment
samples and the comparison of that data to baseline.
Section 10 presents results from chemical analysis of shmb vegetation
samples and the comparison of that data to baseline.
Section 11 presents results from chemical analysis of herbaceous
vegetation samples and the comparison of that data to baseline.
Section 12 presents the conclusions and a discussion of the comparison
results.
Section 13 provides a series of recommendations designed to maximize
data comparability and usability.
Throughout this report, figures and tables have been grouped at the end of their
associated section. Individual figures and tables are an-anged in numerical order within
each section. Table and figure numbering designations are based on the paragraph in
which each is first cited, along with a sequential number. For example, figure 4.1-1 Is
the first figure cited In paragraph 4.1 and figure 4.1-2 would be the second figure cited in
that paragraph.
1-4
SECTION 2
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES
This section summarizes the results obtained in the baseline study (1996 EMBS) and
subsequent follow-on studies (1998 EMFS, 1999 EMFS, and 2002 EMFS).
2.1 1996 EMBS
The EMBS was perfonned in May 1996 to assess the chemical concentrations for
various environmental media and to characterize the vegetation In the vicinity of TOCDF
before full-scale incineration of chemical agents was begun.
2.1.1 Summary of Field Effort. To establish a baseline, surface soil, subsurface soil,
shmb vegetation, herbaceous vegetation, surface water, and sediment were collected
and analyzed for VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs). polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxIns (PCDDs), polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (PCDFs), explosives, metals, and anions. Physical characteristics of the
shmb and herbaceous vegetation also were catalogued in the report titled. Final
Technical Report, Environmental Monitoring Baseline Study. Deseret Chemical Depot
(Dames & Moore, 1997a).
A symmetric grid coordinate system was established anDund TOCDF and the grid nodes
were evaluated as potential sample locations. The sample locations were distributed in
a wide area around TOCDF (see figure 3.1-1). Air dispersion modeling, aerial
photographs, and property records were used to aid in selecting soil and vegetation
baseline sampling locations. (Dames & Moore, 1996). Air dispersion modeling was
performed using the Industrial Source Complex, Version 3 (ISC3) air dispersion model
developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (USEPA, 1995), to
designate areas with greater, lesser, and negligible potential for deposition of particulate
matter emanating from the TOCDF common stack. In order to Identify the appropriate
locations for long-tenn sampling, each node was evaluated for proximity to other
2-1
anthropogenic sources, the presence of appropriate plant species, and accessibility
(land ownership and right-of-entry). Land usages that were less dismptive to soil and
vegetation were given preferential consideration. Sample sites were placed in low use
areas to minimize the impacts on sample site Integrity from anthropogenic and animal
activities. The most suitable sampling locations were deemed to be open range with
average shmb density and low grazing intensity.
Sampling locations were selected to include points with different potential for deposition
of particulate matter from TOCDF. Surface water and sediment samples were collected
from Rainbow Reservoir.
Vegetation samples were selected for analysis to yield a total concentration of analytes
both In and on plant tissue. To minimize variability associated with various species,
shmb and herbaceous vegetation samples were selected from similar species. The
dominant shmb at most locations was big sagebmsh {Artemisia tridentata) and the
herbaceous layer at most locations was dominated by cheatgrass {Bromus tectorum),
longspine sandbur {Cenchrus longispinus), and Indian rice grass {Achnatherum
(Oryzopsis) hymenoides). Shmb sampling Involved the collection of shoots from the big
sagebmsh, or the Utah juniper {Juniperus osteosperma) if there was not a suitable
specimen of sagebmsh. Shmb samples were collected by clipping leafy branches from
different parts ofthe shmb to create a composite sample (Dames & Moore, 1997a).
Herbaceous samples were collected by clipping the aboveground parts of one or more
plants to obtain the required amount of material. All sampling locations were found to
be highly disturbed low-quality rangeland. Shmb and herbaceous samples were
collected at each of 25 sample locations, with the exception of location 0707 where no
shmbs were available and one location where the herbaceous sample was inadvertently
omitted.
Surface soil was sampled to capture the most recently deposited material. One surface
soil sample was collected from each of 21 sample locations. Five surface soil samples
were collected at each of 5 additional locations to provide data for statistical
calculations. Three subsurface soil samples were collected from each of 5 soil borings
2-2
to establish a soil profile representing the herbaceous root zone, the shmb root zone,
and deeper soil.
Five surface water and five sediment samples were collected from Rainbow Reservoir.
2.1.2 Evaluation of Chemical Data. Metals and anions were generally detected at
expected natural levels. Sporadic detections of VOCs and SVOCs were evaluated
based on the likelihood that they may have resulted from contamination during sample
handling or were artifacts of the analytical procedure. Acetone, methylene chloride, and
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate were detected in some samples, but were determined to be
laboratory contaminants and not related to TOCDF operations. Low levels of
explosives, PCBs, PCDDs, and PCDFs were detected primarily In the vegetation
samples rather than in soil, surface water, or sediment. Due to the extremely complex
nature of vegetative matrices, the identification of these analytes was deemed suspect
and no further significance was attached to their presence. The results were, however,
included In the statistical calculations even though they may have been laboratory
artifacts or false positives (Dames & Moore, 1997a).
2.1.3 Statistical Analysis of Analytical Data. EMBS data were used to establish
comparison criteria for future sampling rounds. For analytes with sufficient data, the
99 percent upper tolerance limit (UTL) was calculated. The 99 percent UTL Is the
concentration (within a stated confidence level) below which 99 percent of a population
exists and is often used as a screening criterion in environmental sampling projects.
For analytes where there were not a sufficiently large number of detections to calculate
a UTL. then the maximum detected concentration was designated the comparison
value. Outliers were excluded from the calculations in order to develop a set of
comparison criteria sensitive to very small changes In chemical concentrations.
Nondetects were handled as prescribed in USEPA guidance by replacing nondetects
with values equal to one-half the detection limit
Using the Shaplro-Wllks method, the data were tested for a normal distribution. If the
data did not fit a normal distribution, they were tested for a lognomnal distribution.
2-3
Tables 2.1.3-1 through 2.1.3-5 summarize the comparison criteria and mean
concentrations of analytes detected In each matrix for the baseline study (Dames &
Moore, 1997a) and the 1998 and 1999 (HydroGeoLogic, 2002). and 2002 (PMCD 2003)
follow-on reports.
2.2 1998 EMFS
The first EMFS (1998 EMFS) was conducted in October 1998. Sample locations were
placed as close as possible to those locations sampled during the EMBS. Shmb and
herbaceous vegetation, surface and subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment
samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs,
explosives, metals, and anions. Physical characteristics of the shmb and herbaceous
vegetation were also catalogued (HydroGeoLogic, 2002). The analytical results from
the 1998 EMFS were evaluated statistically and compared to the comparison criteria
developed in the EMBS. The mean analyte concentration for each analyte detected In
each medium was compared to the 99 percent UTL developed under the EMBS. If an
analyte detected In the 1998 EMFS had not been detected in the EMBS, then the EMBS
reporting limit was used for comparison. For any parameter with a mean above the
UTL, a point-by-point comparison was perfonned to determine whether the observed
increase was consistent with what would be expected from the Incinerator stack source.
A comparison of group means was made to determine how the differences in means
compared with expected sample variability. Due to contamination in the associated
laboratory method blanks, the PCDD and PCDF data were considered to be suspect
and were not included In the comparison (HydroGeoLogic. 2002).
In general, the surface soil results did not show a significant change from the EMBS.
Cadmium was detected at levels higher than the established comparison criterion in
several locations. The mean cadmium value was 2.2 micrograms per gram (pg/g),
which exceeded the baseline comparison value of 1.7 pg/g. The exceedance Is suspect
because the comparison criterion value was very close to the detection limit. In
addition, increased cadmium concentrations were observed across the entire study
area, and were not localized in areas of potential deposition. Deviations from the
2-4
baseline concentrations in soil are probably the result of laboratory variability and soil
heterogeneity (HydroGeoLogic, 2002).
Significant differences were observed for the sediment results. The mean calcium
concentration increased by more than 50 percent, from the baseline value of
64,720 pg/g to 97,920 pg/g. The mean calcium concentration did not, however, exceed
the comparison criterion of 145,251 pg/g. The mean sodium concentration decreased
from the baseline value of 2,036 pg/g to 253 pg/g. The mean concentrations for other
analytes were similar to the mean baseline concentrations (HydroGeoLogic, 2002).
Significant differences also were observed in surface water sample results from
Rainbow Reservoir. The mean sulfate concentration was 11,800 micrograms per liter
(pg/L); no comparison criterion had been established in the baseline study. The mean
concentration of nitrate-nitrite was 692 pg/L, which exceeded the comparison criterion of
545 pg/L. In addition, the mean magnesium concentration was 15,180 pg/L; no
comparison criterion had been established in the baseline study (HydroGeoLogic,
2002).
Rainbow Reservoir had been drained and refilled between the EMBS and the
1998 EMFS. Although it is not possible to quantify what effect this might have had, It is
reasonable to expect that this activity significantly impacted the comparability ofthe
sediment and surface water results. Consequently, changes in the results for these
media cannot reliably be attributed to impact from operations at TOCDF
(HydroGeoLogic, 2002).
The largest variances were observed for the vegetation results. The shmb vegetation
mean concentrations for barium, boron, calcium, copper, magnesium, manganese,
potassium, sodium, zinc, and sulfate all exceeded the con-esponding baseline
comparison criteria. The herbaceous vegetation mean concentrations for boron,
copper, nickel, sodium, and zinc all exceeded the respective baseline comparison
criteria (HydroGeoLogic. 2002).
2-5
The significant differences observed in vegetation results were attributed to seasonal
variability between sampling events; the EMBS was conducted during the month of
May, whereas the 1998 EMFS was completed in October. Vegetation takes up and
stores nutrients in a variable manner on a seasonal basis. The differences in results for
this matrix are not believed to be attributable to activities at TOCDF, especially
considering that soil concentrations (the principal source of plant nutrients) had not
changed significantly (HydroGeoLogic. 2002).
2.3 1999 EMFS
The second EMFS (1999 EMFS) was performed In May 1999. Sample locations were
as close as possible to those forthe EMBS and the 1998 EMFS. Shmb vegetation,
herbaceous vegetation, surface soil, subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment
samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs. PCDDs, PCDFs,
explosives, metals, and anions. Physical characteristics of the shmb and heriDaceous
vegetation also were catalogued (HydroGeoLogic, 2002).
The surface soil results for metals analyses were slightly higher than those obtained for
the EMBS; however, the differences are probably the result of nonnal variability in soil
composition and laboratory variability. None of the mean surface soil results exceeded
the comparison criteria. Several PCDDs and PCDFs were detected at low levels In the
soil samples. The mean concentrations of the detected compounds ranged from
5.70 nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg) to 21.5 ng/kg. These compounds could also have
been derived from frequent range fires in the area (HydroGeoLogic. 2002).
Sediment and surface water results from Rainbow Reservoir were highly variable when
compared to previous sampling events. Rainbow Reservoir Is fed by mn-off from Ophir
Canyon and consequently Is in a constant state of flux. The periodic draining, refilling,
and stocking of the lake with fish has contributed to this flux. Due to the constant
change of conditions, comparisons of sample results for the sediment and surface water
matrices were detennined to be unreliable (HydroGeoLogic, 2002).
2-6
Mean concentrations for calcium, copper, and lead In sediment samples all exceeded
the comparison criteria. PCDDs and PCDFs were detected In the sediment samples at
levels similar to those found In the surface soil samples. One PCDD was detected in
the surface water samples at a mean concentration of 0.00015 pg/L. The mean
nitrate-nitrite concentration of 547 pg/L slightly exceeded the comparison criterion of
545 pg/L (HydroGeoLogic, 2002).
There were several changes noted In the composition of vegetation during the
1999 EMFS. These changes appeared to be the result of Invasion by other species, as
well as fire, grazing, and human activities. One site had changed from a sagebmsh
prairie to a saline meadow as the result of a berm that had been constmcted. None of
the observed changes appeared to be associated with activities at TOCDF
(HydroGeoLogic, 2002).
The mean concentrations of barium, boron, calcium, copper, magnesium, manganese,
potassium, and zinc exceeded comparison criteria forthe shmb vegetation. PCDDs
and PCDFs were detected In the shmb vegetation. The PCDDs and PCDFs that had
been detected In the EMBS and assigned comparison criteria were detected at levels
below the respecfive criteria. Some PCDDs and PCDFs were detected for the first fime
(HydroGeoLogic, 2002).
The mean concentrations of boron, chromium, copper, nickel, sodium, zinc, chloride,
and benzyl alcohol exceeded comparison criteria forthe herbaceous vegetation, and
PCDDs and PCDFs were detected. The PCDDs and PCDFs that had been detected In
the EMBS and assigned comparison criteria were detected at levels below the
respective criteria. Some PCDDs and PCDFs were detected for the first time
(HydroGeoLogic, 2002).
2.4 2002 EMFS
The third EMFS (2002 EMFS) was perfonmed in May and June of 2002. Two new
soil/vegetation sample locafions were added to the 26 locations camed over from
2-7
previous studies. Two new surface water/sediment locations were added as well. In a
departure from previous studies, fish specimens were collected during the 2002 EMFS.
Shmb and herbaceous vegetation, surface soil, subsurface soil, surface water,
sediment samples, and fish specimens were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs,
PCDDs, PCDFs, explosives, metals, and anions. Physical characteristics of shmb and
herbaceous vegetation also were catalogued.
Surface soil results for metals were slightiy higher for some compounds and slightiy
lower for others when compared with the values obtained for the EMBS; however, the
differences are probably the result of normal variability in soil analyses or nonnal
laboratory variability. The mean surface soil results for antimony and chloride exceeded
the comparison criteria. Several PCDDs and PCDFs were detected at low levels in the
soil samples. The mean concentrations of the detected compounds ranged from
0.15 ng/kg to 41.1 ng/kg. These compounds could also have been derived from
frequent range fires in the area.
As In 1999, sediment and water results from Rainbow Reservoir were highly variable
and again it was concluded that due to the constant change of conditions, comparisons
of sample results for the sediment and surface water matrices were unreliable.
Mean concentrations for antimony, calcium, lead, chloride, nitrate, and phosphoms In
sediment samples all exceeded the comparison criteria. PCDDs and PCDFs were
detected in the sediment samples at levels similar to those found in the surface soil
samples. Several PCDDs and PCDFs were detected in the surface water samples
ranging from 0.28 picograms per liter (pg/L) to 7.57 pg/L.
There were several changes noted In the composition of vegetation during the interval
between tiie 1999 EMFS and the 2002 EMFS. These changes appeared to be the
result of an extreme drought, which began in 1999 and became most pronounced
during 2002. The 2002 study identified a decrease In the total number of herbaceous
species. This change does not appear to be associated with activities at TOCDF.
2-8
The mean concentrations of aluminum, barium, boron, calcium, iron, magnesium,
manganese, potassium, sodium, sulfate, and octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD)
exceeded comparison criteria for the shmb vegetation. PCDDs and PCDFs were
detected In the shmb vegetation In the 2002 study that were not detected In previous
studies. The PCDDs and PCDFs detections and concentrations appear to be
Increasing In the shmb vegetation.
The mean concentrations of boron, potassium, benzyl alcohol, OCDD, and
octachlorodibenzofijran (OCDF) exceeded comparison criteria for the herbaceous
vegetation. PCDDs and PCDFs were detected at increasing levels In the herbaceous
vegetation. The PCDDs and PCDFs that had been detected In the EMBS and assigned
comparison criteria were detected at levels above the respective criteria.
2-9
Table 2.1.3-1. Summary of Mean Surface Soil Results
Analyte Units
Comparison
Criterion^
1996
EMBS
1998
EMFS
1999
EMFS
2002
EMFS
Detected in EMBS
Aluminum
/Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium, Total
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Chloride (as Cl)
Fluoride
Nitrogen, Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus, Total (as P)
Sulfate (as SO4)
Phenol
Nitroglycerin
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
pg/kg
Mg/kg
18,646
1.40"
12.50
294
1.10
61.3
1.70
169,508
18.4
8.2
66.9
18,821
99.0
19.937
1,027
5.00
33.1
7.795
869
3.00
29.5
108.0
61.3"
6.6"
12.00"
2.064
44.5
2,000
8.200
10.880
N/A
5.80
173
0.65
19.3
0.85
64,020
11.4
4.3
21.1
11,200
31.2
10.877
500
N/A
10.4
3,998
563
N/A
17.3
58.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,049
N/A
N/A
N/A
12.250
*0.87
7.80
166
0.63
18.8
2.20
61.326
13.5
5.8
22.2
12,875
29.3
10.563
503
N/A
11.1
5,421
483
0.32
18.4
63.1
67.3
1.8
M.23
R
3.0
NL
NL
11,022
1.3
7.99
145
0.56
16.0
1.03
75,596
11.2
3.0
20.2
10,672
28.2
10,126
458
*0.64
9.3
4,617
241
0.42
19.9
55.7
30.2
1.7
4.05
594
10.8
NL
NL
10,400
2.58
7.22
168
0.61
15.2
*0.57
53,500
11.1
4.3
19.6
18,800
29.9
10,100
503
0.26
8.5
4.080
285
*1.63
13.2
58.3
78.2
1.6
6.01
981
10.9
NC
NC
2-10
Table 2.1.3-1. Summary of Mean Surface Soil Results (Continued)
Analyte 1 Units
Comparison
Criterion'
1996
EMBS
1998
EMFS
1999
EMFS
2002
EMFS
Not Detected In EMBS
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
1,1-dichloroethene
Benzene
Toluene
HPCDF (Total)
HPCDD (Total)
HXCDF (Total)
HXCDD (Total)
OCDF
OCDD
PECDF (Total)
PECDD (Total)
Tetrachlorinated
dibenzofurans, (Total)
Tetrachlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Mg/kg
pg/kg
Mg/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
0.04
2.60
•0.35
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
0.11
• 5.77
NL
NL
NL
7.0
NL
8.22
NL
NL
21.5
18.4
NL
NL
5.7
NL
0.02
ND
ND
0.99
1.07
*3.95
*3.05
8.72
•1.56
•1.20
5.35
41.1
•0.49
0.17
•0.29
0.15
Notes:
° The comparison criterion is the EMBS 99 percent upper tolerance limit (UTL) unless otherwise
specified.
" This comparison value is the EMBS maximum detected value because there was insufTicient data to
calculate a UTL.
EMBS = Environmental Monitoring Baseline Study
EMFS = Environmental Monitoring Follow-on Study
pg/kg = microgram per kilogram
mg/kg = milligram per kilogram
N/A = not applicable
NC = not calculable
ND = not detected
NE = not established
ng/kg = nanogram per kilogram
NL = not listed in reports
R = results rejected during data validation
• = adjusted mean
2-11
Table 2.1.3-2. Summary of Mean Sediment Data
Analyte Units
Comparison
Criterion"
1996
EMBS
1998
EMFS
1999
EMFS
2002
EMFS
Detected in EK/IBS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Calcium
Chromium, Total
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Chloride (as Cl)
Fluoride
Nitrogen. Nitrate (as N)
Phosphonjs, Total (as P)
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
22,228
0.49"
22.2
289
1.40
33.6
145.251
23.0
5.3
24.0
27,661
18.6
30,006
785
2.0"
27.2
7,103
8.443
47.10
95.6
7.20"
5.6O"
2.4
1,605
9.260
N/A
8.0
172
1.00
20.0
64,720
8.0
4.0
8.0
9,404
10.0
10.946
299
N/A
9.0
2,560
2.036
17.00
37.0
N/A
N/A
1.0
393
8.436
0.62
6.6
134
0.58
11.2
97.920
9.0
4.4
11.2
9.406
11.2
10.446
347
NL
9.1
3.272
253
15.00
37.8
9.40
•3.05
2.3
R
8,682
•1.20
6.5
103
0.47
10.0
153,920
10.1
2.3
24.5
8.084
46.8
9,476
175
NL
9.1
2,782
239
•15.04
77.5
31.50
3.49
N/A
298
7.750
3.67
•6.2
142
•0.86
14.8
200.150
10.3
3.1
14.4
7,758
•21.4
8,897
190
0.4
7.8
1,849
•240
11.49
51.9
•18.99
2.89
3.6
1,622
Not Detected in EIUBS
Cadmium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Sulfate (as SO4)
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
1.60
1.00
1.4
NL
77.20
1.33
•0.62
NL
NL
16.22
0.41
ND
1.3
0.98
4,372
2-12
Table 2.1.3-2. Summary of Mean Sediment Data (Continued)
Analyte
4-Methylphenol (p-cresol)
Benzoic Acid
Total HPCDD
Total HPCDF
Total HXCDD
Total HXCDF
OCDD
OCDF
Total PECDD
Total PECDF
Total TCDF
Units
pg/kg
pg/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
Comparison
Criterion'
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1996
EMBS
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
1998
EMFS
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
1999
EMFS
350
NL
71.0
NL
NL
NL
15.6
NL
NL
NL
NL
2002
EMFS
324
261
5.3
3.0
0.39
0.33
20.0
8.03
0.24
0.18
0.14
Notes:
° The comparison criterion is the EMBS 99 percent upper tolerance limit (UTL) unless otherwise
specified.
" This comparison value is the EMBS maximum detected value as there was insufficient data to
calculate a UTL.
EMBS = Environmental Monitoring Baseline Study
EMFS = Environmental Monitoring Follow-on Study
pg/kg = microgram per kilogram
mg/kg = milligram per kilogram
N/A = Not applicable
ND = Not detected
NE = Not established
ng/kg = nanogram per kilogram
NL = Not listed in reports
R = Results rejected during data validation
* = Adjusted mean
2-13
Table 2.1.3-3. Summary of Mean Water Data
Analyte Units
Comparison
Criterion^
1996
EMBS
1998
EMFS
1999
EMFS
2002
EMFS
Not Detected in EIMBS
/Muminum
Boron
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Sodium
Chloride (as Cl)
Nitrogen, Nitrate (as N)
Sulfate (as SO4)
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
670
181.0
65.137
373
12,400"
6,051
6.207
545
11,000"
132
70.0
60.320
92
N/A
5,328
5,800
494
N/A
NL
ND
57,520
NL
15,180
5,914
5.800
692
11,800
166
33.8
54,280
157
10.378
4,788
4,758
547
9,452
155
11.3
47,517
•109
10.317
5,285
4,745
NL
10,447
Not Detected in EMBS
Antimony
Barium
Chromium, Total
Copper
Manganese
Molybdenum
Potassium
Selenium
Thallium
Tin
Zinc
Fluoride
Phosphorus, Total (as P)
Chlorofonn
HPCDF (Total)
HXCDD (Total)
OCDD
PCDF (Total)
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
21.0
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
8.3
NL
18.9
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
18.4
4.11
NL
6.23
NL
430
5.4
NL
NL
13.4
107
19.4
NL
NL
NL
150
NL
0.78
20.2
ND
1.14
•4.24
1.89
529
ND
ND
1.16
4.7
NL
•23.4
239
0.31
0.28
7.57
0.42
2-14
Table 2.1.3-3. Summary of Mean Water Data (Continued)
Analyte
Tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans,
(Total)
Units
ng/L
Comparison
Criterion*
NE
1996
EMBS
NL
1998
EMFS
NL
1999
EMFS
NL
2002
EMFS
0.44
Notes:
* The comparison criterion is the EMBS 99 percent upper tolerance limit (UTL) unless otherwise
specified.
" This comparison value is the maximum detected limit because there was insufficient data to calculate
a UTL.
EMBS = Environmental Monitoring Baseline Study
EMFS = Environmental Monitoring Follow-on Study
pg/L = microgram per liter
N/A = not applicable
ND = not detected
NE = not established
ng/L = nanogram per liter
NL = not listed in reports
• = adjusted mean
2-15
Table 2.1.3-4. Summary of Mean Shmb Data
/Analyte Units
Comparison
Criterion*
1996
EMBS
1998
EMFS
1999
EMFS
2002
EMFS
Detected in EMBS
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Sodium
Tin
Zinc
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
Chloride (as Cl)
Sulfate (as SO4)
Nitroglycerin
Tetryl
Octachlorodibenzofuran
Octachlorod ibenzo-p-d ioxin
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
pg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
269
10.7
23.8
4,168
13.8
228
1,017
38.0
2.50
10,408
323
20.0
22.6
360
3,495
2,430
43,700.000
7,000
6.0
7.0
101
6
14.0
2,625
6.0
92
673
24.0
N/A
7,313
126
N/A
10.0
N/A
1,827
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
•135
14.4
47.5
5,278
16.7
139
1.463
52.2
0.06
13,510
922
3.4
37.0
NL
2,121
3,326
NL
2.1
R
R
189
12.7
31.5
6,832
15.6
222
1.450
52.5
N/A
14.478
158
3.4
27.7
N/A
3.423
1.224
20.7
6.2
1.38
2.7
393
16.8
26.9
7.200
12.8
425
1.860
56.7
•0.03
15,800
1,330
•1.3
21.2
NC
3,260
16,700
24,600
NC
•5.35
70.3
Not Detected in EMBS
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, total
Cobalt
Lead
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
0.61
0.97
NL
NL
1.00
3.20
NL
•0.46
NL
0.46
0.27
2.9
NL
1.25
•1.24
2.31
2.49
•0.88
NC
0.26
1.68
0.054
1.16
1.25
0.59
0.67
2-16
Table 2.1.3-4. Summary of Mean Shmb Data (Continued)
Analyte
Thallium
Vanadium
Nitrogen, Nitrate (as N)
Benzyl alcohol
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Hexahydro-1,3.5-trinitro-1.3,5-
triazine
HPCDF (Total)
HPCDD (Total)
HXCDF (Total)
Tetrachlorinated
dibenzofurans, (Total)
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
Comparison
Criterion*
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1996
EMBS
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
1998
EMFS
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
3,100
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
1999
EMFS
NL
0.39
32.55
•8,710
8.050
5,300
NL
1.45
NL
NL
3.3
2002
EMFS
0.73
0.96
ND
* 5.980
385
ND
889
5.14
10.8
2.17
ND
Notes:
* The comparison criterion is the EMBS 99 percent upper tolerance limit (UTL) unless otherwise
specified.
EMBS = Environmental Monitoring Baseline Study
EMFS = Environmental Monitoring Follow-on Study
pg/kg = microgram per kilogram
mg/kg = milligram per kilogram
N/A = not applicable
NC = not calculable
ND = not detected
NE = not established
ng/kg = nanogram per kilogram
NL = not listed in reports
R = results rejected during data validation
• = adjusted mean
2-17
Table 2.1.3-5. Summary of Mean Herbaceous Data
/\nalyte Units
Comparison
Criterion*
1996
EMBS
1998
EMFS
1999
EMFS
2002
EMFS
Not Detected in EMBS
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Chromium, Total
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
Chloride (as Cl)
Sulfate (as SO4)
Benzyl alcohol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Nitroglycerin
Octahydro-1,3.5,7-tetranitro-
1,3,5,7-tetrazocine
OctachlorcxJibenzofuran
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
pg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
4,278
67.1
8.5
16.866
5.8
12.3
3,307
3.261
198
7.50
3.90
9,710
345
6.3
30.0
800
4.654
30,000
3.400
7.000
438,000
3,700
6.50
18.60
1,360
28.0
7.0
5,973
2.0
5.0
1.118
1.302
84
N/A
N/A
3.872
119
2.0
15.0
N/A
1.857
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.840
59.7
20.0
9,461
•1.3
14.2
1,773
2,301
179
3.80
4.90
7,907
1.812
5.5
71.0
NL
2,240
3,334
500
NL
NL
NL
R
R
1,403
43.3
19.6
9,940
12.0
10.3
1.464
2.167
131
1.93
7.36
6.774
1.339
2.8
30.6
NL
5.427
1.068
5,430
NL
6.260
NL
•1.09
3.87
660
28.0
13.7
5.740
2.1
8.7
699
1.460
77
1.70
0.69
13.700
•203
6.3
23.4
NC
2.850
347
•3,440
NC
NC
•206
•7.56
81.90
Not Detected in EMBS
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Thallium
Tin
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
1.7
NL
1.5
NL
6.4
0.127
2.30
NL
2.0
0.91
•1.0
•0.064
0.4
0.73
5.7
NL
3.34
NL
2.8
•0.84
0.2
0.036
•0.1
0.11
2.3
0.029
0.75
0.51
1.4
2-18
Table 2.1.3-5. Summary of Mean Herbaceous Data (Continued)
Analyte
Bromide
Nitrogen, Nitrate (as N)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Nitrophenol
Acenaphthene
Benzoic acid
N-Nitroscxli-n-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Pyrene
Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-
triazine
Tetryl
HPCDF (total)
HPCDD (total)
PECDF (total)
Tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans,
(Total)
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
Comparison
Criterion*
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1996
EMBS
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
1998
EMFS
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
1999
EMFS
161
24.9
20,800
20,600
28.800
32,400
37,000
21,300
34,600
26,700
43,000
31,600
14,000
1.000
1,450
NL
•1.09
NL
0.42
•"•- • - -
2002
EMFS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
• 7,920
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.35
9.17
0.43
ND
—
Notes:
* The comparison criterion Is the EMBS 99 percent upper tolerance limit (UTL) unless otherwise
specified.
EMBS = Environmental Monitoring Baseline Study
EMFS = Environmental Monitoring Follow-on Study
pg/kg = microgram per kilogram
mg/kg = milligram per kilogram
N/A = not applicable
NC = not calculable
ND = not detected
NE = not established
ng/kg = nanogram per kilogram
NL = not listed in reports
R = results rejected during data validation
• = adjusted mean
2-19
(This page intentionally left blank.)
2-20
SECTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Tooele County covers 17,930 square kilometers (km) (6,923 square miles), and the
Tooele-Rush Valley sub-basin is approximately 3,112 square km (1,202 square miles).
DCD covers 78.4 square km (19,364 acres) and Is located approximately 88 km
(55 miles) southwest of Salt Lake City in the southem (Rush Valley) portion of the
sut)-basin.
The 2002 EMFS report (PMCD, 2003) contains an extensive literature review pertaining
to the TOCDF environmental setting including: geology, topography, seismic activity,
hydrology, soil, vegetation, air quality, meteorology, land use, and fire history. The
following paragraphs provide only updated information relevant to interpretation of the
2005 EMFS data and TOCDF environmental data as a whole.
3.1 Air Quality
In 1996, air dispersion modeling was used to designate areas of potential high, medium,
and low deposition for emissions from the TOCDF stack. The air dispersion mcxjel for
particulate stack emissions from TOCDF is shown in figure 3.1-1. Based on a
recommendation of the 2002 EMFS report, new air modeling was performed in 2004 to
incorporate advances In air modeling techniques and differences between the 1996 air
model and modeling perfonned by the State of Utah as part of the Health Risk
Assessment. The 2004 model results (contained in appendix B to the Field Sampling
Plan [FSP]) agreed with the eariier results. For this 2005 EMFS Report, the air
modeling map from 1996 is retained to ensure comparability with eariier efforts and to
maintain the prior zone classification for all sites.
3-1
3.2 Precipitation
Nonnal annual precipitation at DCD is about 28 centimeters (cm) (11.02 inches), which
includes about 100 cm (39.3 inches) of snow, and is distributed fairiy evenly throughout
the year. More precipitation falls on the mountainous regions, especially as snow.
Snow is extremely important to the Rush Valley water supply because it functions as a
storage reservoir, releasing water into streams and aquifers as temperatures rise.
The nearest National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reporting site Is
in Tooele, Utah. The average annual precipitation atT(X)ele, Utah, is 17.57 inches,
slightiy higher than at DCD. Annual precipitation at Tooele, Utah, for years 1995
through present Is shown in the following list based on data from the NOAA Westem
Regional Climate Center at the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nevada:
1995-24.34 inches
1996-21.44 inches
1997-26.74 inches
1998-26.69 Inches
1999-15.95 inches
2000-18.46 inches
2001 -17.35 Inches
2002-13.60 Inches
2003-15.49 Inches
3-2
2004-17.77 inches
2005 - 18.75 Inches through 22 July.
Tooele, like most of Utah, experienced drought conditions from 1999 though 2004. The
year 2002 was considered an "extreme drought" on the Palmer Drought Severity Index.
The 2004-2005 water year (which mns from October 1 to September 30) was the first
water year to be above normal in the last 6 years (National Weather Service. Salt Lake
City, Utah).
3.3 Population
In the year 2000, the population of Tooele County was 40,735 according to the United
States census, and is projected to be 45,864 In 2005 according to the Tooele County
Chamber of Commerce internet Web page, Demographics (TCCC, 2005).
In the region near TOCDF, 70 percent ofthe population lives in either Tooele, a city of
25,225 people, or Grantsville, a village of 6,772. Both 2005 population estimates are
according to the Tooele County Chamber of Commerce internet Web page,
Demographics (TCCC, 2005). The remaining 30 percent live in the small towns, of
which Stockton, Rush Valley, and Ophir are the closest to DCD. These towns are within
a 15-mile radius of TOCDF. The population of Rush Valley increased from 400 in
1990 to 1.893 in 2000.
3.4 Local Fire History
Fire has a profound effect on the environment, both directiy through destmction of
vegetation and Indirectiy through the release of chemical substances such as dioxins,
furans, SVOCs, VOCs, carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen, and
phosphoms Into the soil and air. Range fires are frequent In Rush Valley as planned,
accidental, or naturally ocjcuning fires. The products of combustion from these fires,
3-3
and their distribution over the area, are of interest because of the potential impacts to
soil and human and ecological receptors. The locations of soil sampling points,
prevailing wind conditions associated with these fire locations, and times are relevant
parameters for evaluating the impacts of these fires on the local environment.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (USBLM) and DCD maintain fire occun-ence
records and have provided data for fires occurring between May 1996 and
December 2004. During that period, a total of 204 fires were observed In the
TOCDF-Rush Valley area. A summary ofthe USBLM fire data is provided in
table 3.4-1. A map showing the distributions of fires reported in the Rush Valley area
between 1996 and 2001 is provided in figure 3.4-1. Because the degree of effect on the
environment is directiy related to the size of the fire, it is useful to quantify the temporal
and spatial distributions of fires In this area. A total of 185 ofthe 204 fires
(90.6 percent) covered areas less than 100 acres. Ofthe remaining 19 fires. 6 covered
areas from 100 to 300 acres, 6 covered 301 to 999 acres, 3 covered 1,000 to
2,999 acres, 1 covered 3,000 to 4,999 acres, 2 covered 5,000 to 9,999 acres, and
1 exceeded 10,000 acres (USBLM, 2004). The locations of Individual fires are shown
as points, keyed to the legend acxxDrding to acreage Involved In the fire.
The 4 largest fires are summarized as follows:
Topliff 20 July 1998 13,926 acres (21.76 square miles)
Faust 03 July 1998 6,550 acres (10.23 square miles)
Camp Floyd 01 August 1996 5,542 acres (8.66 square miles)
Rush 02 July 1999 4,101 acres (6.41 square miles).
The distribution of fires of various size-range classes, combined with prevailing wind
data, provides a qualitative depiction of potential impacts of post-1996 fires on the local
3-4
environment Prevailing winds at DCD are from the south-southeast, with occasional
winds from the north-northwest. Wind direction follows the long axis of Rush Valley and
Is controlled by the surrounding mountains. Note that the three largest fires occurred in
1996 and 1998 and were located southeast of DCD, upwind ofthe TOCDF stack.
Additional fires exceeding 100 acres in size occurred nearthe DCD boundary during the
years 1997 through 1999. These fires were in close proximity to sampling locations and
may have influenced sample site soil and vegetation. No significant fires have occun-ed
near any of the sampling points since 2001.
3-5
Table 3.4-1. Range Fires in Rush Valley 1996 through 2004
Year
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
Month
6
7
7
3
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
7
7
9
9
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
6
7
7
8
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Day
13
7
7
24
6
21
28
28
12
19
26
14
31
1
12
18
24
27
28
31
17
7
18
23
18
29
18
18
18
20
20
20
23
24
28
14
14
14
15
18
21
23
23
29
Acres
11.0
2.0
1.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
247.0
242.0
42.0
8.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1 •
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Name
SR73MM19&23
Wells Cyn
SKEET
Mercur
County Lin
BIG HOLLOW
\ND\/\N MT
RUSH
BAUER
5 Ml WASH
SR73 MM 17
South Mtn
Pass
SR 73 MM 16
MITCHELL CANYON
Sunshine
Bauer
Aqueduct
Stukey
Pole Cyn
NORTH RUSH VALLEY
Rail
Faust 1
Border
Little Mtn
Little
Faust 2
Faust 3
Faust 4
eagle
West Dip
BENNION CANYON
RockCyn
Wells Cany
Clover
Calumet
Ophir
SOLDIER
DryCrk
4SR199 818
Wellshine
Five
SMI CAR
WELCH
Latitude
40.2509
40.2588
40.2586
40.3036
40.2353
40.3500
40.3982
40.3978
40.4697
40.2404
40.2394
40.4453
40.2424
40.2499
40.3469
40.2603
40.4631
40.1717
40.2350
40.3456
40.3800
40.3153
40.2083
40.2658
40.1922
40.1664
40.1961
40.2014
40.2253
40.2992
40.3256
40.3300
40.1486
40.2658
40.3153
40.4436
40.3744
40.4300
40.4517
40.2400
40.2772
40.2281
40.2200
40.4058
Longitude
-112.1688
-112.1351
-112.1341
-112.2467
-112.1686
-112.5333
-112.5241
-112.5258
-112.3622
-112.1544
-112.1595
-112.4147
-112.1467
-112.1885
-112.2350
-112.2292
-112.3531
-112.5108
-112.4833
-112.1269
-112.5300
-112.4039
-112.5169
-112.2069
-112.5147
-112.5194
-112.4953
-112.5181
-112.5328
-112.2231
-112.2519
-112.2400
-112.5142
-112.1994
-112.5125
-112.3311
-112.2756
-112.3400
-112.2944
-112.1900
-112.2056
-112.1794 1
-112.1600
-112.5036
3-6
Table 3.4-1. Range Fires In Rush Valley 1996 through 2004 (Continued)
Year
2003
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Month
8
10
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
7
6
9
8
6
5
6
6
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
10
8
6
6
8
8
6
7
9
6
Day
29
17
4
19
19
19
19
5
7
28
26
17
22
7
24
29
24
24
28
22
28
13
26
26
26
7
7
7
7
7
23
29
2
19
20
6
15
21
7
19
18
28
1
25
Acres
0.1
7.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
720.0
183.0
15.0
10.0
1.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
2,379.0
84.0
8.3
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
Name • -v
GOVT CREEK
Segars
Five Mile
E Johnson
E South Mt
Ophir
W South Mt
Manning
Silcox
Rush Lake
Fairfield
Atheriy La
Stockton 6
7 Mile
SOUTH MOUNTAIN
Hell Hole
Mitchell
Stockton
TWO SPRINGS
TIRE FIRE
Radio Towe
SouthMt 2
Big Spring
Manning
Wells Cany
Clover
Kimball
Thorp Hill
Toplift
4 LEAF
Rocky Cyn
Highway 73
Two Spring
Mercur Cyn
5 MILE
CowHollow
StocktonPa
StJohn
Faust
Sunshine
M/\NNING 1
Union
MANNING CAMPFIRE
MANNING 11
Latitude
40.4000
40.3694
40.2272
40.3836
40.4642
40.3547
40.4678
40.2978
40.4706
40.4064
40.2669
40.1981
40.3500
40.2108
40.4700
40.2475
40.3061
40.4614
40.2300
40.1500
40.1556
40.4667
40.2742
40.2917
40.2672
40.2458
40.2244
40.1847
40.1778
40.3200
40.1556
40.3619
40.2425
40.3139
40.2300
40.3886
40.4650
40.3664
40.1864
40.2978
40.2900
40.4350
40.2800
40.3100
Longitude
-112.4700
-112.4394
-112.1778
-112.4669
-112.4325
-112.2783
-112.4567
-112.1528
-112.2972
-112.4597
-112.2214
-112.4139
-112.3017
-112.1842
-112.3900
-112.5381
-112.2283
-112.3831
-112.5000
-112.2000
-112.3681
-112.4667
-112.1500
-112.1536
-112.1719
-112.4831
-112.1458
-112.1772
-112.1628
-112.5000
-112.5431
-112.3342
-112.4778
-112.2381
-112.1600
-112.5064
-112.3442
-112.4872
-112.4883
-112.2136
-112.1400
-112.3767
-112.1600
-112.1400
3-7
Table 3.4-1. Range Fires in Rush Valley 1996 through 2004 (Continued)
Year
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
Month
8
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
7
7
7
9
7
5
7
7
7
6
7
6
. 7
7
7
8
8
9
7
7
10
Day
4
5
18
18
18
18
24
25
7
10
3
4
15
18
18
22
23
28
2
2
8
21
2
11
7
11
5
4
2
24
27
29
6
20
4
24
24
9
9
12
6
26
26 1
Acres
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
4.101.0
1.909.2
364.0
228.0
34.0
23.0
15.0
10.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
Name
Water Tank
WATER TANK
ManningCn3
FaustCreek
Manning 2
ManningCnl
DryCanyon
Manning 10
JOHNSON FIRE
Faust 2
Onaqui
Hide Seek
Mercur
Tmiillo
EAST FAUST CREEK
MitchelICa
ChurchRoad
DC
Aqueduct
SCALLYWRONGLER
PROSPECT
Silverado
Rush
HWY 36
Clover
Monument
Stockton
fiJM,
South Mtn
Pennys
Jeep Trail
Stockton P
MITCHEL CANYON
Rocket
SUNSHINE FIRE
CloverCk
Suntan
PVC FIRE
PVC
Sand Pit
MITCHELL
Ophir Cyn
RV FIRE
Latitude
40.2372
40.2200
40.2969
40.1814
40.2992
40.2969
40.3750
40.3114
40.3300
40.1692
40.2203
40.2331
40.3100
40.1956
40.2000
40.2969
40.3692
40.2769
40.1811
40.3000
40.2200
40.3547
40.4561
40.2606
40.2453
40.1833
40.4644
40.2500
40.4656
40.3778
40.1636
40.4514
40.3500
40.2067
40.3100
40.3333
40.3725
40.3300
40.3294
40.3561
40.2922
40.3517
40.3500
Longitude
-112.5114
-112.5200
-112.1647
-112.5217
-112.1481
-112.1458
-112.3261
-112.1647
-112.4600
-112.5153
-112.5033
-112.5258
-112.2619
-112.5053
-112.5000
-112.2214
-112.4672
-112.2492
-112.5053
-112.1400
-112.1400
-112.2972
-112.4194
-112.3969
-112.4383
-112.3139
-112.3397
-112.3900
-112.4122
-112.3850
-112.5325
-112.3647
-112.2600
-112.1919
-112.2000
-112.4833
-112.4222
-112.4300
-112.4581
-112.3067
-112.2594
-112.3036
-112.3700
3-8
Table 3.4-1. Range Fires in Rush Valley 1996 through 2004 (Continued)
Year
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
Month
6
3
6
6
7
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
6
8
7
7
8
9
7
7
8
8
7
6
9
7
7
10
6
6
9
7
8
7
8
7
7
8
9
6
7
8
7
Day
21
20
16
16
9
19
20
25
20
3
4
21
19
28
14
6
20
23
7
19
20
8
24
21
20
3
20
20
13
25
29
11
15
23
8
3
27
27
28
11
21
27
1
31
Acres -
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
13.926.0
6.550.0
680.0
130.0
58.6
30.0
15.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
1.337.0
696.0
600.0
300.0
60.0
15.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
Name :,;
LITTLE MTN
R.V.
E Onaqui
Faust Crk
TwoSprings
WATER TANK
GraniteWas
E Hickman
TOPLIFF
FAUST
BEACON
SO.DEPOT
DRY CANYON
5MILEPASS
GILSONITE DRAW
FAUSTCREEK
MILL CYN
STOCKTON
FAUSTCRK
JUNCTION73
ROCKY CYN
HICKMAN
RAILROAD
BALDMTN
POKERKNOLL
CLOVERSIDE
HELLHOLE
MERCUR CYN
RUSSELL
ROLLOVER
RR#1
PENNrS
SOUTH AREA
ST. JOHN
TWO SPRING
BOX CANYON
HICKMAN FIRE
E. HICKMAN
VERNON HIL
WELL
S. BARLOW
FAUST CREE
WELCH CNY
FAUST #2
Latitude
40.1411
40.2300
40.2206
40.1833
40.1869
40.1994
40.1994
40.4197
40.1817
40.2200
40.1978
40.3075
40.4078
40.2389
40.2500
40.1736
40.3339
40.4531
40.2186
40.2178
40.1667
40.4231
40.1653
40.4081
40.1864
40.3194
40.2342
40.3333
40.4364
40.3800
40.2381
40.3667
40.3353
40.3428
40.2292
40.3533
40.4200
40.4267
40.1617
40.2528
40.1983
40.2250
40.4233
40.2208
Longitude
-112.5406
-112.1600
-112.4669
-112.4833
-112.4972
-112.5039
-112.5044
-112.4914
-112.2581
-112.2481
-112.3181
-112.2783
-112.3333
-112.1681
-112.2700
-112.4775
-112.2344
-112.3483
-112.4172
-112.1897
-112.5350
-112.4694
-112.3817
-112.3436
-112.1939
-112.4069
-112.5350
-112.2833
-112.4958
-112.3100
-112.3906
-112.3533
-112.3331
-112.3542
-112.4969
-112.4117
-112.5400
-112.5433
-112.3789
-112.2308
-112.1600
-112.4867
-112.4928
-112.4858
3-9
Table 3.4-1. Range Fires in Rush Valley 1996 through 2004 (Continued)
Year
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1998
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
Month
7
6
6
6
6
7
8
8
9
8
8
9
8
8
7
8
7
6
8
7
6
7
8
8
8
6
7
8
9
Day
27
15
18
19
29
31
23
23
7
1
18
1
10
10
7
18
6
11
3
18
7
16
8
16
25
7
3
1
10
Acres
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
5.542.0
400.0
50.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Name
LEE CANYON
WEST DIP FIRE
DUMP RD FIRE
BOX ELDER WASH
BAYER DUMPFIRE
BIG CANYON
CHERRY
LITTLE MTN
HELLHOLE
CAMP FLOYD
UTS #19
TOPLIFF
Hogan Fire
UTS #17
WELLS CYN
BIG CYN
THORPEHILL
CLOUD BRST
GRAVEL PIT
FAUST CRK
UTS #2
Little Sod Fire
Merkur Canyon
Big Canyon
Stcx:kton Gravel
Sunshine Canyon
TWOSPRNGS
Single Tree Lightning
UTS #24
Latitude
40.2900
40.4100
40.2300
40.4600
40.4600
40.2606
40.2967
40.1436
40.2597
40.2167
40.3500
40.1500
40.4200
40.4000
40.2500
40.2500
40.2333
40.3333
40.2167
40.2100
40.3333
40.4400
40.3100
40.2600
40.4600
40.2600
40.2556
40.2800
40.3000
Longitude
-112.5361
-112.1400
-112.5200
-112.3900
-112.3500
-112.4942
-112.5233
-112.5431
-112.4992
-112.2500
-112.4833
-112.1667
-112.4100
-112.4333
-112.1500
-112.4833
-112.1525
-112.2500
-112.2000
-112.4867
-112.1500
-112.3700
-112.2300
-112.4800
-112.3500
-112.1800
-112.5278
-112.2200
-112.1500
3-10
SECTION 4
STUDY METHODOLOGY
This section describes deviations from the approved project plans, Issues identified in
the data from previous reports, and other pertinent evaluation procedures not cleariy
defined in the plans. Except where noted In the following paragraphs, all activities were
conducted in accordance with the approved plans. These activities include all aspects
of field sampling, laboratory analysis, data validation, data evaluation, statistical
analysis, and reporting.
4.1 Sample Locations
The FSP described 43 sample sites that were to be located and sampled. Twenty-eight
of the locations were retained from previous sampling rounds and 15 were new
locations to be sampled for the first time In 2005. A map depicting all sample locations
Is provided in figure 4.1-1. Surface water and sediment sample locations associated
with Rainbow Reservoir are shown In figure 4.1-2.
4.1.1 Sample Locations Retained from Previous Studies. All 28 surface soil and
vegetation characterization sites from the 2002 EMFS were to be Included In the
2005 EMFS. Sites were located based on previously reported latitude/longitude
coordinates and verified in the field by locating the permanent markers established
during previous sampling events. All but 2 ofthe 28 prior locations were sampled (see
paragraph 4.1.3.1). The sampling site In Ophir Canyon was also retained from the
2002 EMFS as was the sampling of Rainbow Reservoir, though the number of samples
collected from the reservoir was decreased in 2005 compared to previous sampling
rounds (see paragraph 4.1.3.2).
4.1.2 Sample Locations Added for the 2005 EMFS. Fifteen new soil/vegetation
sample locations were added to the study and the number of surface water/sediment
4-1
samples collected from Rainbow Reservoir, were reduced from five locations to two
locations.
4.1.2.1 Soil and Vegetation Sample Locations. The 15 new soil/vegetation sample
locations added forthe 2005 sampling season were distributed across the three
potential deposition zones, as defined by air modeling, both north and south of TOCDF.
Theses new sites were added to provide additional control for contaminant distribution
contouring.
The new sites were Initially located on a topographic map. Then, to establish the new
sample stations, the field team evaluated features In the vicinity of the extrapolated grid
coordinates. Consideration was given to avoiding locations for soil and vegetation
sampling sheltered by landscape or manmade features, those within 20 meters of a
roadway or railroad, those currentiy used as agricultural or grazing land, or those near
open burning/detonation areas within the boundaries of DCD. ff the pre-selected
sample location fell into one of these areas, the field team leader selected the closest
appRDpriate location for establishing a sample station. Selection ofthe replacement
sampling station was accomplished In coordination with the TOCDF Field Office and the
Utah DEQ. The coordinates for the selected sample locations are presented in
section 6 of this report.
4.1.2.2 Water/Sediment Sample Locations. The 2005 FSP called for a new sampling
location to be added where water from Ophir Canyon discharges into Rainbow
Reservoir. This sample was not collected, for reasons described In paragraph 4.1.3.2.
4.1.3 Sample Location Deviations. As situations arose that required a deviation from
the FSP, the course of action selected was coordinated between the field team, the
TOCDF Field Office, and the Utah DEQ before being implemented.
4.1.3.1 Soil/Vegetation Sample Locations. Locations 0112 and 0224, sampling sites
retained from previous sampling rounds, were not sampled in the 2005 EMFS because
access was denied by the land owners. A replacement location was selected for 0112,
4-2
one-half mile south of the original location. No replacement was made for 0224, due to
lack of public property within 3 or 4 miles of the original location. During 2005. several
sample station markers from previous rounds were not found at the designated
coordinates presented In the FSP. For these sites. If the permanent sample station
monuments were not located within a one-hundred meter search centered around the
coordinates provided, the field team concluded that the missing monuments had been
removed since the 2002 EMFS field event. Two sample locations (0400 and 1222)
were missing station monuments. The locations were re-established by positioning a
white and orange painted steel fence post at the FSP coordinates. Additionally, as with
all the other locations, 2-foot wooden stakes were placed at all soil sampling locations.
The new location established south of 0112 was sampled and characterized using
0112 as the sample nomenclature. During data evaluation, the location identification
(ID) was changed to 0111 to more accurately reflect the new location and to prevent
vegetation characterization comparisons with sample station 0112, since the vegetation
at the two sites had noticeable differences. The sample IDs for the chemical analysis
for surface soil and vegetation have retained the 0112 location designation.
4.1.3.2 Water/Sediment Sample Locations. The FSP called for a sample to be
collected where water from Ophir Canyon discharges into Rainbow Reservoir. That
sample was planned to be collected from a manhole adjacent to Rainbow Reservoir;
however, the discharge lines inside the vault were hard-piped and did not allow for
samples to be collected. This sample will be dropped from future FSPs.
4.1.4 Sample Collection Schedule. Sample collection was planned for May 2005 to
obtain data comparable to the EMBS. Samples were collected from 38 of 43 planned
sites between 10 May and 20 May 2005. Access to five locations (0112, 0308, 0623,
and 0819) was not possible in May 2005 because right-of-entry documents were not
completed in time. Soil and vegetation samples were collected at these locations
between 21 June and 23 June 2005.
4-3
4.2 Sample Media
The follow-on sampling program involved collection of surface soil, vegetation, surface
water, and sediment. Subsurface soil represents the only media not sampled that was
included as one of the originally selected media for the baseline sampling program and
continued through the previous EMFS sampling events.
4.2.1 Soil. Surface soil (to a depth of 1 cm) samples were collected in accordance
with the project plans. Samples were collected from three separate locations and
composite into one sample. Sampling was conducted in the sector designated in the
work plan, from areas not previously sampled during prior rounds. No deviations were
required and no technical issues were identified.
4.2.2 Vegetation. In accordance with the projec^t plans, two types of vegetation (shmb
and herbaceous) were sampled. Shmb sampling Involved collection of shoots from the
big sagebmsh {Artemisia tridentata). This species was selected in the EMBS because it
is widely distributed in the area and is the dominant shmb at most sites. At some sites,
the Utah juniper {Juniperus osteosperma) was sampled due to the absence of suitable
specimens of sagebmsh.
Sampling of herbaceous vegetation involved the collection of grass type plants for
analyses. During the 2005 EMFS, sufflcient herbaceous material was present to collect
sample aliquots from only one species and from the designated sector only. The
dominant species at each location was selected for sample collection. The roots were
not included in the vegetation samples; only the aboveground stalks were collected for
analysis.
4.2.3 Surface Water and Sediment. Surface water and sediment samples were
collected from Rainbow Reservoir, located northeast ofthe TOCDF common stack, and
from Ophir Creek, the water source for the reservoir (figure 4.1-2). Reservoir overflow
water currently goes to an off-depot wetlands area. The reservoir is manmade, covers
approximately 1.4 hectares (3.5 acres), and has a maximum depth of approximately
4-4
6 meters (20 feet). Water from Ophir Creek is directed via underground pipe from Ophir
Creek to supply the reservoir. Two surface water samples collocated with two sediment
samples were collected from near-shore locations of Rainbow Reservoir. The sample
sites were located around the perimeter of the reservoir, avoiding inflow and outflow
locations.
One water and collocated sediment sample was collected from Ophir Creek near where
the water enters the diversion pipe that feeds the reservoir.
4.3 Numbers of Samples
The scoped follow-on sampling program consisted of collecting 43 surface soil,
43 heriDaceous vegetation, 43 shmb vegetation, 4 surface water, and 4 sediment
samples. Due to the absence of shmb vegetation at stations 0707 and 1706 and since
location 0224 was not accessed, only 40 shmb vegetation samples were collected.
Only 42 surface soil and heriDaceous samples were collected because access was not
obtained for station 0224. As discussed previously, the planned water and sediment
samples from the discharge pipe near Rainbow Reservoir were not collected, resulting
In only 3 surface water and 3 sediment samples collected out of 4 specified in the FSP.
4.4 Sampling and Analytical Parameters
Table 4.4-1 lists the analytical parameters for soil, vegetation, surface water, and
sediment samples. A complete list of the USEPA Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste (SW-846) performed for this study is provided In the approved Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPjP). There were no deviations from the proposed laboratory analytical
plan for any media.
In addition to sampling for chemical analysis, physical characterization was conducted
at each sample station. Physical characterization such as soil texture, grazing
evidence, and vegetation will be used for Inter-sample station and inter-year
comparisons. Vegetation characterization allows for the detection of changes in
4-5
community composition, comparison with reference areas, and comparison with other
installations. Because certain species are more sensitive to the presence of increased
levels of certain analytes, physical characterization allows observation of any changes
in plant community composition, including potential Impacts from particulate deposition
effects.
4.5 Statistical Analysis
The chemical analytical results obtained for soil and vegetation were subjected to
statistical analysis in accordance with the project plans. For soil and vegetative
statistic:s, no deviations were required and no technical issues were identified in
previous studies. All chemical data for both soil and vegetative samples were
statistically evaluated In accordance with the project plans as indicated In FSP
Figures 6-1 and 6-2. Paired-sample statistical methcxJs were evaluated along with the
previously used random-sample statistical methods for the laboratory analytical results.
The use of relative percent difference (RPD) calculations to compare mean
concentrations has been used In previous studies. These RPD calculations have been
discontinued per concurrence with the Utah DEQ and will not be used In this study.
Physical characteristics of each sample station were recorded in the field as prescribed
in project plans. Physical characteristics of each site are presented in section 6 in a
manner comparable to previous studies.
Vegetation characterization data were summarized in the manner prescribed in the
FSP. It was noted in preparation of vegetation summary data that two equations were
missing from the FSP and that the equation for species diversity, while not incorrect,
was not the best method for expressing diversity. The following paragraphs describe
vegetation characterization data, including the new equations.
4-6
4.5.1 Vegetative Characterization. Details regarding sample stations, shmb plot and
herb plot setup, and sampling procedures may be found in the FSP. Vegetative
characteristics recorded in the field consisted ofthe following information:
Individual species identification
Individual clump/plant counts
Percent cover
Height (shmbs only)
Diameter (shmbs only).
4.5.2 Shrub Layer. As part of this sampling event, a designated shmb plot coinciding
with the previous EMBS and EMFSs was established at the previously established
sample stations. Sample station 0224 was not accessed during the 2005 sampling
event. Sample station 0112 was moved approximately one-half mile south and
established as new sample station 0111. New shmb plots were established at
0111 and the 15 new sample stations. The shmb plot for which the vegetative and
heriDaceous characteristics were evaluated was a 22.5° (1/16) sector ofthe sample
station, or approximately 177 square meters. During the baseline sampling event, the
dominant shmb encountered was big sagebmsh {Artemisia tridentata). This species
reproduces from the center out. leaving a ring of genetically Identical stems. Because
of its growth pattem, one clump of stems is defined as one genetic individual. For all
other species encountered, a clump was defined as one individual. These definitions
have been used for the follow-on sampling events to maintain consistency.
During preparation ofthe vegetation summary data, it was discovered that the equation
used for assessing forage value had not been recxjnded in the FSP. Therefore, the
equation for forage value Is recorded here. It was also noted that the equation for
4-7
species diversity index presented in the FSP was not the one best suited for that
statistic; therefore, that equation is also presented here.
4.5.2.1 Forage Value Index. Forage value index Is a measure of rangeland quality.
Individual species were assigned forage values (see table 4.5.2.1-1) based on
infonnation provided In Parker (1979), Vallentine (no date), Hitchcock (1950),
Stubbendieck et al. (1992), and Whitson et al. (1992). Species for which no infonnation
was found were considered to have poor forage value.
Forage value index was c:alculated by first multiplying the Importance value of each
species by its forage status. These prcxiucts were then summed and divided by the
sum of the species importance values. The higher the forage value index, the lower the
quality of the rangeland.
FVI = ^=^
where
FVI =
lys =
FVs =
forage value Index
Importance value per species
forage value per species.
4.5.2.2 Species Diversity. The equation for species diversity recorded in the FSP and
the 2002 EMFS report Is one of two equations developed by E. H. Simpson In the 1940s
(Simpson, 1949). The equation in the FSP yields the probability (Simpson called It "D")
that two randomly selected Individuals will belong to the same species. While that is a
useful concept, the result, as a measure of diversity, is counter Intuitive in that as
diversity increases, the value of D decreases. Therefore, Simpson proposed a second
equation (which is simply 1-D) which produces a value that increases as diversity
increases. The second equation (1-D) represents the probability that two randomly
4-8
selected individuals will belong to different species. It is the second equation that
follows and was used to quantify herbaceous species diversity in the EMFS.
Simpson's Index of diversity ranges from 0.0 (low diversity) to almost 1.0 (high diversity)
and Is expressed as a percent of probability.
5Z) = 1 [TFJ ^[TFj
TF^
TF
\2
where
SD
TFA. TFB. TF„
TF
species diversity
total frequency for each species identified
total frequency for all species.
4.5.3 Comparison to Previous Studies. In addition to describing plant communities
present at the time the chemical analytlc:al samples were collected, plant community
characteristics were compared to conditions observed during previous sampling rounds
to gain an understanding of community dynamics and to identify inferences those
dynamics may have on interpretation ofthe analytical data.
Herbaceous data for cxjver and frequency were compared among the EMBS and the
1999 and 2002 EMFSs to identify trends. Density data collected in 2002 and 2005 were
not used for this comparison, because density data were not collected during the EMBS
or the 1999 EMBS. Data from the 1998 EMFS were excluded from the comparison as
not comparable, because that sampling round was performed in Oc:tober while all other
sampling rounds were In the May time frame. The first killing frost occurs in late
August or eariy September. Therefore, the 1998 EMFS occunred more than a month
after the end ofthe growing season and composition ofthe plant communities can be
expected to be considerably changed over what is seen in the height of the growing
season of late May and eariy June.
4-9
A second comparison was made between vegetation data from the 2005 EMFS and the
2002 EMFS as a way of providing a more detailed description of the plant community
present in 2005 and the recent changes that have occurred. This comparison included
both shmb and herbaceous data for cover, frequency, and density.
4-10
Table 4.4-1. Analytical Parameters for Soil, Vegetation, Surface Water, and Sediment
PCDDs
TetrachlorcxJibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)^
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (PeCDD)^
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD)^
Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD) ^
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD)
PCDFs
2.3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran(TCDF)^
Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PCDF)^
Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF)°
Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF)^
Octchlorodibenzofuran (OCDF)
VOCs*'
QAPjP list (Tables 8-2 and 8-5) and library search*^
SVOCs
QAPjP list (Tables 8-2 and 8-5) and library search*^
PCBs
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
Explosives
Nitroglycerine
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
2,4.6-trinitrotoluene
RDX
HMX
Tetryl
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Notes:
m
° Total, plus the individual cx)ngeners listed in the QAPjP (tables 8-3, 8-4, and 8-6).
'' Not analyzed in vegetation samples or in rinsates associated with vegetation samples.
" Tables 8-2 and 8-5 of the QAPjP provides a complete list of 8260 VOCs and 8270 SVOCs.
HMX = high melting explosive
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
PCDD = polychlorinated dibenzodioxin
PCDF = polychlorinated dibenzofuran
QAPjP = Quality Assurance Project Plan
RDX = cyclonite
SVOC = semivolatile organic compound
VOC = volatile organic compound
4-11
Table 4.5.2.1-1. Ranking Scale for Forage Value
Scale Status Description
1 Good Palatable species that are good producers v\nth good nutrient content
2 Fair Species that may be slightly palatable, have fair nutrient content, produce
pooriy, or become less desirable with maturity
3 Poor Species that are not palatable, offer little nutrition, or flavor milk and meat;
includes species for which no information was found
4 Poisonous Species that are known to c:ause illness, loss of fetuses, or death, if consumed
4-12
SECTION 5
STUDY COMPARABILITY ASSESSMENT
The primary purpose of the EMFS is the ongoing comparison of analytical results to the
benchmark data collected in the May 1996 EMBS. Maintaining data consistency for the
comparison of data from one event to another is critical. Comparability is ensured
through the use of standard sampling and analytical methods, specified target analyte
lists, and a consistent reporting fomriat for nomenclature and measurement units. To
optimize comparability, the analytical methods and protocols employed during the
EMBS were, with a few exceptions, also specified for the 2005 EMFS. At the
conclusion ofthe 2002 EMFS study, reviewers determined that some chemic:als of
potential concem (COPCs) and sampling media were providing little value to the study.
Consequenfiy, analysis of anions and nutrients were not Included In the 2005 EMFS.
VOC analyses were also discontinued on existing sampling locations and only
performed at locations new to the 2005 EMFS. Collection of subsurface soil samples
was also discontinued for the 2005 EMFS. Additional sampling locations and media
collected In support ofthe EMFS that were not sampled as part ofthe EMBS are treated
as new infonnation and evaluated separately from the data collected from sample sites
established by the EMBS.
Many of the organic and inorganic analytes are naturally occurring in the environment.
For example, metals in soil are derived from natural geologic materials. Organic matter
in soil is derived from natural vegetation. Anthropogenic activities such as farming,
buming, and motor vehicle operation also contribute organic and inorganic chemicals to
the environment. The EMBS attempted to measure the random variability of naturally
occurring levels of components in the sampled media throughout the area of interest.
5.1 Chemical Analysis Data
Comparability, as It relates to the current study, Is the degree to which data from the
EMFS can be meaningfully compared to the EMBS and previous EMFSs.
5-1
Comparability is achieved through the use of standard techniques/methods for sample
collection and analysis. Consistent use of nomenclature and reporting units is also
important. Data comparability also depends on data quality. Data of unknown quality
cannot be compared with cxjnfidence because accuracy and precision are unknown. To
optimize comparability, the analytical methods and protocols employed during the
EMBS were, with a few exceptions (see paragraph 5.1.2.1), also employed for the
2005 EMFS.
Analytical methods stipulated for the 2005 EMFS are the same methods used by the
EMBS and previous EMFS studies. The analytical methods and procedures were taken
from USEPA SW-846, USEPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes
(USEPA 600/4-79-20), Official Methods of Analysis ofthe Association of Official
Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Intemational, and American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) published methcxJology.
5.1.1 Laboratory Comparability. Data variability may have been Introduced by the
use of different laboratories for the EMBS and EMFSs. EMBS samples were submitted
to Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE), for analysis. Samples collected
during the three previous EMFS events were submitted to Ecology & Environment, Inc.
(E&E). while the 2005 EMFS samples were analyzed at ELAB of Tennessee (ELAB).
Standardized analytical methods do not always dictate an exact approach for analysis
and frequentiy present options that are acceptable as long as certain quality control
(QC) criteria are met. Therefore, different laboratories, even though they employ the
same standard methods, may have minor differences in how the methods are
implemented or in how instmmentation Is maintained that are all within normal operating
practice, but nonetheless may Impact results. In the same vein, even when the same
laboratory is used over and over again in a long-term study, there may be variability In
results as laboratory policies and personnel change over time.
During the course of environmental monitoring at TOCDF, Initiated In May 1996, there
have been advances In analytical Instmmentation and methodology that have resulted
In lower detection limits. One example Is the use of liquid chromatography in
5-2
conjunction with mass spectrometry (LC/MS), a combination that provides increased
resolution ofthe vegetation matrix (that Is, better separation of individual compounds)
and provides positive Identification of the detected compounds.
Where advances in instmmentation and methodology have lead to a reduction in
method detection limits (MDLs), as has been the case for PCDDs, PCDFs, and
mercury, analytes may be detected In the EMFS that were not detected in the EMBS.
This does not mean that the "newly" detected analytes were not present In the EMBS, It
just means that with the newer instmmentation or methodology, analytes can be
detected at lower levels than were previously possible.
Variation in MDLs among sampling events can produce noticeable effects on data
evaluation. This was particulariy tme when comparing means using either the t-test or
U-test. In cases where there are a large number of nondetects and where the MDLs
are different, the results of the statistical test may suggest a change in the data average
when, in fact, there was only a change In MDLs. For this reason, the comparability of
EMBS data and EMFS data must be closely scmtinized.
For some inorganic parameters, chemical analyses were perfonned using different
methods and Instmmentation. This issue Is most apparent in the varying MDLs for
metals among different sampling rounds. All analytical instmmentation experience
small fluc;tuations over time; however, long-term drift due to increased or decreased
sensitivity is of particular concem. All laboratories are required to perfonn MDL studies
for each instmment at least once a year. All nondetects obtained on that instmment are
reported using the detection limits calculated from the most recent MDL study. During a
long-term monitoring effort, there will always be some inherent variability In MDLs from
one year to another. An examination ofthe MDLs used by E&E In the 1998,1999,
and 2001 EMFSs and ELAB in the 2005 EMFS show this pattem. Many analytes had
MDL variations that were relatively minor, but several showed a two- or three-fold
Increase or decrease between the sampling rounds. The differences between the
laboratory MDLs In the EMBS and the EMFSs are greater than the differences seen
when comparing MDLs among the EMFSs. Several tests show similar MDLs, but
5-3
some, such as explosives, show differences that are greater than an order of
magnitude.
In addition to MDLs, each laboratory sets a reporting limit (RL) for each analyte,
method, and matrix combination. The RL is the concentration above which a result can
be considered to have quantitative significance. RLs are modified for sample-specific
criteria including percent moisture, subsample size, and dilufion. There were several
changes in RLs between the EMBS and the EMFSs. The RL for some analytes
increased (for example, explosives in vegetation), while others decreased (for example,
mercury in soil).
5.1.2 Analytical Limitations. The analysis of soil and vegetation samples for organic
compounds presents a challenge, because a large amount of organic matter in the
sample usually causes a high level of interference that can result in false positives or an
exaggerated detection limit (false negative).
5.1.2.1 Analysis of Dioxins/Furans in Soil. PCDDs/PCDFs are produced as a result of
Incomplete combustion or chemical reactions Involving organic matter and chlorine that
can be transported long distances on atinospheric currents and found at measurable
concentrations throughout the worid. High levels can generally be linked to specific
sources, such as incinerators or manufacturing facilities. In dry, heavily forested areas
where wildfires frequentiy occur, elevated concentrations tend to accumulate. Volcanic
activity can also deposit significant amounts of these compounds. Scientists speculate
that organic pollutants move through the atmosphere from relatively wann areas and
then condense at colder latitudes or altitudes onto vegetation, soil, and water. The main
point of accumulation of PCDDs/PCDFs In the environment is in the soil, where the
molecules tightiy bind to organic matter in the soil. The ubiquitous nature of
PCDDs/PCDFs makes It difficult to find "clean" areas in the environment, even in
laboratory blanks, due to the sensitivity of the analytical instmmentation. Even with the
best laboratory practices and attempts to be scmpulously clean with all glassware and
reagents, dioxin laboratories routinely report extremely low levels of target cxDmpounds
5-4
In their method blank and field samples. These low levels may or may not have been
actually present in the environmental samples.
The ubiquity of dioxins and furans and the sensitivity of the instmmentation are of
particular concern for analytical laboratories. For the EMBS, analyses for
PCDDs/PCDFs in soil matrices were conducted using USEPA SW-846 Method 8280,
which Is a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) method. The analysis of
soil matrices for dioxins and furans is now routinely perfonned using SW-846
Method 8290. This procedure uses gas chromatography/high resolution mass
spectrometry (GC/HRMS) methodology to reduce the amount of Interference
encountered during analysis.
5.1.2.2 Identification of Organic Compounds in Vegetation. The chemical analysis of
plant tissues for organic compounds can be challenging due to variables such as plant
age and natural variability, timing of sampling relative to the growing season,
environmental stresses such as temperature and sunlight, and incidental pollution
unrelated to the study site. The chemical composition of the plant c:an cause complex
Interferences with organic analytes. The chemical and biological complexity of
vegetation can cause Interferences in an analysis because the sample preparation
steps often Involve solvent extraction or chemical digestion that can mobilize
naturally-occurring chemical and biological constituents as well as the targeted
compounds. Biological degradation produc:ts naturally found in plants can be
chemically similar to other organic compounds, potentially giving false positive
detections. Laboratories have reported that PCDDs/PCDFs may be created during the
analysis of such highly organic material such as plant tissue. The U.S. Army
Environmental Center (USAEC) metiiod for explosives analysis has been shown to
produce false positives in plant material. USEPA SW-846 analytical methods have
been optimized for soil and aqueous media and may yield sub-optimal results when
used on other media such as plant material.
The analysis of vegetation samples for organic compounds is an atypical (nonroutine)
analysis for most environmental laboratories. As a result, the methodology is not rigidly
5-5
standardized. In many cases, these analyses are conducted using detectors that
cannot discriminate between closely related compounds. Compound identification is
based on retention time and not on a "molecular fingerprint" as in mass spectrometry
methods. Positive identification is not always possible. The non-specificity of the
detector can lead to false positives and introduces uncertainty into the results. For
example, positive results for nitroglycerine in plant samples collected for the EMBSs
have been viewed with skepticism, due to the presence of glycerine in plant tissue. The
identification of Tetryl and PCB-1254 also is suspect.
5.2 Seasonal Variability
Variations in climatic conditions between sampling events can have a negative impact
on data comparability. This can be compensated for, to some extent, by sampling at
the same time of year as the baseline sampling, ensuring that plants and soil are in
about the same stage of their annual cycle. The EMBS sample collection was
conducted In May 1996, and accordingly, subsequent sampling should be conducted
during the month of May to correspond to the baseline study. This reduces, but does
not eliminate, the potential effect of seasonal variability, allows enough time between
sampling events for any potential deposition to ocx^ur, and standardizes the periodicity
of sampling events. May is generally the time of optimum plant growth in the area.
Evenly timed sampling events facilitate the identification of trends in sample
concentrations and help to Increase comparability of Identified fioral species.
Differences in temperature, humidity, air currents, sunlight, and life cycle stage can
Influence the rates of deposition and decx)mposition/degradation of particulate and
gaseous contaminants. Although PCDDs/PCDFs do not break down easily in the
environment, decomposition can be accelerated In hot, dry locations receiving long
hours of intense sunlight
Another factor that affects data comparability is seasonal variations In the matrices.
Vegetation and surface water samples are especially prone to seasonal variation.
There can be changes In the amount and vigor of foliage, differences In the nutrients
5-6
stored inside the plant, and differences In plant appearance (for example, plant maturity
that may affect proper identification). For example, the significant differences observed
In vegetation results between the EMBS and the 1998 EMFS were attributed to the fact
that the EMBS took place during May, whereas the 1998 EMFS was completed in
October.
There were several changes noted in the composition of vegetation during the interval
between the EMBS and each subsequent sampling event. These changes are the
result of invasion by other plant species, fire, cattle grazing, and human activities such
as off-road vehicle use and recreational uses of the land. Some human activity resulted
in a change in the type of environment present at the sample location, that is, a
sagebmsh prairie becoming a saline meadow. None of the observed changes
appeared to be associated with activities at TOCDF.
Surface water samples from Rainbow Reservoir are subject to seasonal variability in the
water coming into the reservoir and seasonable variability In the flora and fauna of the
reservoir.
5.3 Data Evaluation Criteria
As noted in the Data Validation Report forthe EMBS (Dames & Moore, 1997a),
laboratories may use intemally generated acceptance criteria for ongoing QC purposes.
The data validation contractor for the EMBS evaluated data quality using the principles
and limits of the EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for
Organic and Inorganic Data Review (1994a). Analytical data collected for the
2005 EMFS were validated as described in the 2004 Final TOCDF QAPjP using the
National Functional Guidelines in order to maximize comparability of the data with the
results ofthe EMBS. In other words, the same type of observation by the validator
should result in the same type of data qualificafion and/or limitation on the use of the
data.
5-7
Data gathered In the EMBS and EMFSs underwent statistical evaluation. For the
baseline study, this included population distribution testing, calculation of the mean and
standard deviation of each detected analyte, calculation of the 99 percent UTL, and the
designation of comparison criteria. The 1998,1999, and 2002 EMFSs Included
evaluation of the means relative to the EMBS comparison criteria. However, the
concentration of contaminants observed at specific sampling locations during the EMBS
was not compared to the concentrations detected at the same location during the
1998 and 1999 EMFSs. It Is possible that such a comparison may provide useful
Information to determine whether a particular location or area within the overall study
area has experienced an increase in contaminant concentrations.
A method of evaluating analytical data for individual sites for evidence of change was
added for the 2002 EMFS and continued with the 2005 EMFS. The concentrations of
potential contaminants were examined for trends over time at each location. Evaluating
the data in this manner will facilitate eariy detection of potential contaminant deposition
at sample locations, possibly before the established comparison criteria are exceeded.
5-8
SECTION 6
CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS - PLANT COMMUNITIES AND SOIL
Site characteristics including topography, soil type, and vegetation characteristics were
recorded at each of the 42 soil and vegetation sampling sites. This section describes
results of site physical characterization, soil typing, and plant community analysis. The
terms "sample location" and "sample site" are used Interchangeably while the term
"sample plot" refers to a sub-section of the sample site. For example, data from
10 herbaceous plots were collected at each sample site.
6.1 Physical Characterization of Sample Locations
Physical characteristics observed at each sample location were recorded on field forms
by the sampling team. Field data cx)llection forms for recording physical measurements
and observations were based on the Standing Operating Procedures (SOPs) included
In the project FSP. Copies ofthe completed field fonns are pnDvided In appendix C.
The following characteristics are summarized for each sample location In table 6.1-1:
a. Elevation - reported In feet
b. Percent Slope - calculated based on contouring of elevation data
collected at center point, three surface soil sampling locations, and four
perimeter readings at points north, south, east, and west ofthe center
point
c. Aspect - general direction or azimuth of down slope based on contoured
elevation data—reported in degrees
d. Aspect Transformation - computed as one plus the cosine of the aspect
minus 45 degrees
6-1
e. Plant Community - Description relative to sun-ounding area (for example,
sagebmsh [Artemisia tridentata] area sunrounded by prairie). Other
information such as disturibances or man-made features were also
recorded.
A summary of the following additional physical variables recorded for each soil sample
location is provided in table 6.1-2.
GPS Location. The GPS location refers to the place where the three
samples were collected to fonn the composite sample for a given sample
site. Locations are given in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)
coordinates as well as latitude and longitude coordinates.
Sector and Location. As described in the FSP, each sampling site was
divided into sectors. The sector name is given (for example 8A) as well as
the location within the sector identified as a distance In feet and Inches
and an azimuth (for example 33 feet 6 Inches at 319 degrees). Location
was measured from the center ofthe sampling site.
Soil Description. This variable is a general description of soil type, cx)lor,
organic matter, and other appropriate descriptors.
6.2 Characterization of Vegetation Composition and Structure
Data were cxDilected describing the plant communities found at the sampling sites. This
report describes the plant communities encountered and identifies changes in the
makeup of the plant communifies over the course of the study.
Shmb and herbaceous layers are described separately In this report. The following
definitions from Parker 1979 were used throughout this report.
6-2
a. Grass - grasses have round or slightiy flattened stems with visible joints
(nodes), hollow or pithy centers; leaves with parallel veins on two sides of
the stem
b. Herb - A non-grass-like herbaceous plant with broad leaves with net-like
veins. Herbs (also called foriDs) may t>e annuals, biennials, or perennials
but always lack significant thickening by secondary woody growth and
have perenniating buds borne at or below the ground surface.
(1) Annual - Annual plants live only one season and do not come up a
second year from roots or crowns.
(2) Biennial - Biennial plants live just 2 years.
(3) Perennial- Perennial plants live more than 2 years, producing
leaves and stems from the same crown each subsequent year.
c. Graminoid - Grasses or grass-like plants. Grass-like plants are similar to
grass but without readily visible joints; have solid stems (not hollow); veins
In the leaves are parallel. Sedges, with triangular stems (in cross-section),
and mshes with round or oval stems (in cross section) are considered
graminoid.
d. Shrub - A woody plant, nonnally perennial, branching from the base with
several stems. A shmb Is usually less than 13 to 16 feet In height.
e. Low Shrub - A low growing shmb usually under 1.5 feet tall, never
exceeding 3 feet tall at maturity.
f. Tree - A perennial, woody plant with a single stem (tmnk), normally
greater than 4 to 5 meters (13 to 16 feet) tall at maturity.
6-3
Table 6.2-1 lists plant species recorded during the 1996 baseline sampling and four
subsequent studies conducted In 1998,1999, 2002, and 2005. For each species, the
life form (shmb, tree, etc.), nativity (native or alien to the area), decreaser/lncreaser
index, forage value, and year of observation (including notes on erroneous or
Incomplete identifications from 1996 through 2005) are provided. All sample locations
were found to be low quality rangeland dominated by increaser and invader species.
Table 6.2-2 summarizes composition and stmcture ofthe shmb community at each
sample location. Figures 6.2-1 and 6.2-2 provide interpretations ofthe spatial
distribution ofthe shmb species and percent shmb coverage in the study area.
Table 6.2-3 summarizes the herbaceous species, vegetation composition, and stmcture
of each sample location. Figures 6.2-3 and 6.2-4 Illustrate interpretations of the spatial
distribution of the dominant herbaceous species and percent herbaceous coverage in
the study area.
6.2.1 Shrub Layer Characterization. Results of the 2005 EMFS are generally similar
to those of the baseline and prior follow-on studies. Specific findings for shmb species
are noted as follows:
a. Big sagebmsh {Artemisia tridentata) was the dominant species observed
at 30 of the 42 (71 percent) sample locations. Big sagebmsh was
observed at all sample locations (either dominant or co-dominant) with the
exception of six sites (0214, 0623, 0802, 0819, 1022, and 1416), All of
these sites, except 1022, are new sample locations in the 2005 EMFS.
b. Utah Juniper {Juniperus osteosperma) dominated or was a cx)-dominant at
four sample locations (1022,1222,1223, and 1416).
c. Momrion tea {Ephedra spp.) was recorded for the first time in 2005.
Momnon tea was Identified at sample locations 0623, 0812,1011, and
1209. Two ofthe sites (0623 and 1209) were Investigated for the first time
6-4
In 2005. At sites 0812 and 1011, only a few small specimens were
identified Indicating that they are newly established.
d. Greasewood {Sarcobatus virmiculatus) was the dominant species at four
sample locations (0111, 0214, 0420, and 0819). Forage values at these
sample locations rate a 4 (poisonous) because young shoots and leaves
of greasewood can be poisonous to cattle and sheep (MacMahon, 1990).
e. Shadscale {Atriplex canascens) was the dominant or co-dominant shmb at
ten sites. Its presence Is consistent with past studies with populations
expected to be constant or Increasing because shadscale persists or
increases when other plants are disappearing due to human impacts such
as cattle grazing (MacMahon, 1990).
f. PInyon pine {Pinus edulis) was Identified for the first time at two sample
locations (1022 and 1416). The pinyon pine ti-ees are well established at
these sites and are not considered new growth since 2002. It is assumed
that the trees were not observed in past samplings because of the number
and density of Utah juniper at these locations.
g. The average shmb forage value for all 42 sample locations is 2.77,
indic:ating that the area-wide forage vaiue is fair to poor. Only three
sample locations (0802,1108, and 1305) had a "good" forage
classification (value of one) because of the presence of shadscale.
h. Broom snakeweed {Gutierezia sarothrae) and winterfat {Ceratoides
lanata) were Identified during 2005 and previous investigations. However,
past Investigations identified them as herbaceous plants where the
2005 investigation classified them as shmbs.
6-5
I. The average shmb coverage per hectare Is 5.040 square meters per
hectare (m%a) (approximately 50 percent cover), with an average height
classification of 1.81 (0.5 to 1 meter).
j. The number of clumps per hectare averaged 5,825 with an average vigor
value of 0.60.
6.2.2 Herbaceous Layer Characterization. Significant changes in the herbaceous
layer were observed in the 2005 EMFS. In particular, the dominance of weedy annuals
such as burr buttercup {Rancunculus recond'itus) and cheatgrass {Bromus tectorum) are
indicative of sites that have been stressed. The presence.of flixweed {Descurainia
Sophia) and tansy mustard {Descurainia pinnata) further Indicate stress
(MacMahon, 1990).
The increase of cheatgrass as a dominant species is noteworthy bec^ause cheatgrass
plays a role in determining the amount of sagebmsh on a site. Additionally, cheatgrass
successfully competes with many native grasses. It also produces large quantities of
stems and leaves that bum readily when dry and tends to Increase the frequency and
Intensity of fire (MacMahon, 1990). This situation does not favor big sagebmsh
{Artemisia tridentata). A summary of the findings are presented as follows:
a. Burr buttercup {Rancunculus reconditus) Is the most commonly
encountered herbaceous species, dominating 25 sample locations
(59 percent) and occumng In a total of 40 sample locations (95 percent).
b. Cheatgrass {Bromus tectorum) was the second most commonly
encountered herbaceous species, dominating 12 sample locations
(29 percent) and occumng In a total of 27 sample locations (64 percent).
c. Flixweed {Descurainia sophia), is a dominant or co-dominant species at
8 sites (19 percent). The presence of this invader species continues to
support the conclusion that Rush Valley is being influenced by stresses
6-6
such as drought, cattle grazing, and fire. Flixweed was not identified as a
dominant or co-dominant species at any of the sample locations during
previous studies.
d. The area-wide decreaser/lncreaser index calculated for 2005 further
indicates that disturiDance has occurred (average decreaser/lncreaser
index area-wide is 2.8). The herbaceous layer at 38 of the 42 sample
locations (90 percent) was dominated by Invader species, 3 locations
(7 percent) are dominated by increaser species, and 1 location (0707 or
2 percent) had species that could not be Identified (based on previous
samplings, the dominant unidentified species is assumed to be desert
saltgrass).
e. Foraging conditions across all the 2005 locations are fair to poor (average
herbaceous forage value is 2.5). The herbaceous layer Is dominated by
fair forage species at 17 sample locations (40 percent) and by poor forage
species at 24 sample locations (57 percent). Good forage species
dominated none of the sample locations. One sample location (2 percent)
did not have a forage value because the species at the location (0707)
could not be identified.
f. The area-wide herbaceous ground cover averaged 49 percent for all
sample location sectors as calculated from the field data forms.
6.3 Vegetation Summary and Comparison to Previous Studies
A summary of the combined 2005 EMFS vegetation characteristics Is provided In
table 6.3-1. Notable trends associated with the historical shmb data are presented In
the histograms provided In figures 6.3-1 through 6.3-3. Total vegetation coverage and
the relative dominance of the total shmb and herbaceous populations observed in the
study are shown In figure 6.3-4.
6-7
6.3.1 Shrub Data Comparison to Previous Studies. Cover, clumps per hectare,
average height class, and average vigor for shmbs are presented. Sixteen new sites
(15 programmed new sites and one replacement site) were sampled in 2005 so there is
no comparison of these data to previous studies. Two sample locations (0112 and
0224) were not sampled In 2005, so findings for these two sites are not included.
Shmb layer characteristics were reviewed to evaluate changes in composition and
stmcture by comparing the 1996 EMBS through 2005 EMFS data. A summary ofthe
findings Is as follows:
a. Average site-wide areal coverage for shmbs Increased to 5,040 m^/ha in
2005 versus 2,548 m%a In 1996. Ofthe 23 locations sampled in 1996
and 2005, only two locations in 2005 (locations 0616 and 0914) had a
decrease in areal coverage versus 1996. Average areal coverage also
increased in 2005 (5,040 m^/ha) versus 2002 (3,001 m^/ha). Areal
coverage was greater at all sample locations in 2005 versus 2002, with
the exception of location 1009.
b. Shmb clumps per hectare continue to be high versus the 1996 baseline
and 1998/1999 EMFSs. In 2005, area-wide shmb clumps per hectare
averaged 5,825 versus 1,502 In 1996 (figure 6.3-1). Every 2005 sample
location had a greater number of clumps per hectare versus 1996,1998,
and 1999. Clumps per hectare decreased slightly in 2005 (5,825) versus
2002 (5,986). However, the clumps per hectare observed in 2005 and
2002 are comparable.
c. Another change observed during the 2005 EMFS was that an all time high
number of individual shmb clumps was observed at seventeen of the
26 sample locations (27 percent).
d. At sample location 0707, shmbs were observed but all were dead In the
1996 EMBS and each EMFS. The absence of shmbs is due to the
6-8
presence of saline or alkaline soils that do no promote the growth of
shmbs. The saline/alkaline soil has resulted from a berm constmcted
neariDy that changed water flow.
e. The substanfial increase of new/young growth shmbs at the majority of the
sites has resulted in a large portion of the species population to be
classified within the low end of the height class (average height class in
2005 was 1.81 versus 2.48 In 1996). Figure 6.3-1 shows the significant
increase in the number of shmb clumps observed. Figure 6.3-2 shows the
corresponding decrease in average height classific^ation. This is likely a
result ofthe large number of new/young growth shmb clumps observed.
As shown in figure 6.3-3, mean shmb cover decreased by 20 percent from
1996 to 1998. The trend In shmb coverage has since Increased from
1998 through 2005.
f. Average area-wide vigor decreased in 2005 versus 2002 and each of the
previous studies. This could be a result of different interpretation by the
botanists but may also be a result of increased competition between
shmbs (areal coverage of shmbs and clumps of shmbs per hectare have
Increased) and the continued Increase in invasive herbaceous species
that compete with the shmbs. It may also reflect cumulative effects on
shmb health caused by the drought experienced from 1999 through 2004.
6.3.2 Herbaceous Data Comparisons. The EMBS FSP required that only cover and
frequency data be coliected for herbaceous species. Consequentiy, density data
(numbers of individual plants) were not collected in the EMBS or 1999 EMFS.
Therefore, comparisons of 2005 EMFS data to the EMBS or 1999 EMFS will only
involve cover and frequency. The 2002 EMFS was the flrst time that data on numbers
of individuals per species was recorded. Therefore, comparison of 2005 EMFS
herbaceous data to tiie 2002 EMFS data includes this additional parameter.
6-9
6.3.2.1 Comparison of 2005 EMFS to EMBS. The EMBS specified comparison of
herbaceous species based on cover and frequency. Density data were not reported in
the EMBS. Table 6.3.2.1-1 shows cover values forthe 10 species with the greatest
percent cover during the EMBS and the EMFSs of 1999, 2002, and 2005. In addifion to
species names and percent cover, the table includes the importance value and forage
value for each species. The total cover of all species and the number of species
recorded In a given year are shown at the bottom of the table. The percent cover and
Importance values represent means for the listed species across all sampling sites In a
given year. 1998 EMFS data is not Included because that sampling round was not
performed In the May time frame, and in that respect. Is not comparable.
Total cover decreased markedly from 1996 to 2002 and recovered by just over half In
the 2005 EMFS. The dramatic decrease in cover from 1996 to 2002 is an Indication of
a high level of stress on the hert>aceous community. By 2005 the level of stress was
less, allowing some recovery of the plant community.
Importance values given in the table are the sum of relative cover and relative
frequency for each species divided by the sum of relative cover and relative frequency
for all species. This statistic Is a measure of a species importance in the community.
Relative density, which Is usually a part ofthe Importance value calculation, was not
Included because density data were not collected In the EMBS or 1999 EMFS. The
rank order for Importance does not necessarily follow the order when cover alone Is
measured (compare the importance values for species POCU and LEPE in
table 6.3.2.1-1). A species with a high cover value but low frequency may have lesser
importance than a species with less cover but much greater frequency.
Examination ofthe forage values reveals that from 1996 to 2002 the dominant species
changed from species with good or fair forage value to species with fair or poor forage
value. Although species count and average cover increased by the time of the
2005 EMFS. the dominate species remain those with fair or poor forage value. Either
the environmental stress that led to the decline of the good forage value species has
6-10
continued or It takes longer than a single season for those species to regain dominance
once the stress has lessened.
The main stresses observed during the course ofthe TOCDF EMFS Include cattle
grazing, fire, and drought Evidence of cattle grazing, reported in field notes as signs of
fresh droppings and hoof prints, has been inconsistent between years and sites.
Likewise, the Influence of fire has been spotty. Even though it may be assumed that all
ofthe sampling sites have received deposition of smoke and particulate matter
emanating from the numerous fires, only a few of the sampling sites have actually been
bumed during the time ofthe monitoring study. By comparison, changes In precipitation
can be expected to be experienced relatively evenly over the study area, which is on
relatively level terrain and only a few kilometers long and wide.
The changes observed In the heriDaceous vegetation coincide very well with changes in
precipitation reported from 1996 to 2005 (see paragraph 3.2). Above average
precipitation was received in 1995,1996,1997, and 1998. Starting in 1999, Tooele,
Utah, experienced a drought that lasted through 2004 with 2002, which exhibited
extreme drought conditions, being the driest. The drought abated in 2005. In fact.
May 2005, with 7.51 inches of precipitation, was the wettest May on record and the
second wettest month overall in 79 years of U.S. Weather Service data for Tooele.
From the perspective ofthe herbaceous community, 1996 and 2002 can be looked
upon as "stable" years and 1999 and 2005 can be looked upon as "transition" years.
1996 was the fourth year in a string of years with above normal precipitation. The year
2002 was the fourth year In a string of years with below nonnal precipitation. The year
1999 was the first year of the drought that lasted from 1999 through 2004, and 2005 is
the year that the drought ended.
Precipitafion appears to be the most important factor in determining health of the
herbaceous community. This has implications for interpretation of chemical analytical
data as well. Plants under greater stress from lack of moisture may accumulate
materials from the environment at different rates than plants under less stress.
6-11
Likewise, soil biota are more active when more moisture is available. It can also be
expected that material transport within the soil will vary with differences in moisture
percolation and evaporation. These factors combined mean that differences in COPC
concentrations In soil or vegetation from one sampling round to another may be more
likely due to climatic trends than to emissions from a particular source such as the
TOCDF common stack.
6.3.2.2 HeriDaceous Comparison 2005 to 2002. Herbaceous layer characteristics data
were reviewed to evaluate changes In composition and stmcture by comparing the
2005 EMFS data to the 2002 EMFS. A summary of the findings Is presented as follows:
a. The area-wide average decreaser/lncreaser index for all sample locations
slightiy Increased from 2002 (2.68) to 2005 (2.76), indicating that the
herbaceous community is continuing to trend away from native species.
This continuing trend Is most likely in response to drought, cattle grazing,
and fire. The Increase in the decreaser/lncreaser Index is supported
through the observation of more invader species (bur buttercup,
cheatgrass, etc.) during the herbaceous characterization.
b. Forage value is determined on the basis of palatability, nutrient content,
and dependability as a forage supply for grazing animals (Parker, 1979).
Forage value is a relative factor that varies depending on the kind of
livestock using the plants, the soil conditions, and the season. A forage
value of one Is good, where as a value of three Is poor. The area-wide
average forage value increased slightiy from 2.36 In 2002 to 2.50 In 2005,
indicating a decrease in forage quality.
c. Species richness increased from 0.37 in 2002 to 0.80 in 2005. On
average, three herbaceous species were identified at sample locations in
2002 versus eight identified in 2005. In 1996, an average of seven
species was Identified at area-wide sampling loc^ations. The low number
6-12
of species identified in 2002 is a result of extreme drought conditions that
plagued Rush Valley In 2002.
d. Average area-wide percent ground cover increased from 29 percent in
2002 to 49 percent In 2005. The significant increase in percent cover is
directly related to a significant increase in precipitation between the two
sampling periods. In 2002. a total of 13.6 Inches of annual precipitation
was documented, which is significantiy below average annual levels and Is
considered a drought condition for Rush Valley. In comparison,
18.75 inches of precipitation was recorded by 22 July 2005.
e. It is reasonable to conclude that the decrease In numt>ers of species and
the decrease in percent cover observed in 2002 is a result of the drought
conditions.
6-13
Table 6.1-1. Sample Location Physical Variables
Sample
Location
0111
0112
0214
0224
0308
0400
0416
0420
0515
0611
0613
0616
0618
0623
0707
0714
0802
0812
0813
0817
0819
0914
1004
1007
1009
1011
1013
1015
1018
1022
Elevation
(feet)
5087.1
5050.0
5028.5
5060.0
5080.5
5311.1
5011.5
5010.2
5035.1
5031.2
5069.8
5031.0
5022.0
4984.3
5035.3
5162.2
5115.1
5129.2
5185.6
5110.1
5060.1
5229.4
5035.8
5059.2
5135.9
5179.7
5256.0
5285.5
5191.9
5366.0
Percent Slope
1.76
2
0.12
7
0.83
2.9
2.52
19.04
6.59
0.19
4.59
1.07
1.71
5.31
0.19
2.12
1.23
3.84
1.87
3.15
3.87
1.19
1.4
0.56
1.73
2.39
5.21
1.77
2.38
5.65
Aspect
(degrees)
72
285
45
115
74
89
267
128
188
315
207
322
258
290
135
180
315
148
172
342
284
297
164
225
184
270
255
283
336
295
Aspect
Transformation^
1.891
0.500
2.000
1.340
1.875
1.719
0.257
1.122
0.201
1.000
0.049
1.122
0.161
0.577
1.000
0.293
1.000
0.775
0.398
1.454
0.485
0.691
0.515
0.000
0.245
0.293
0.134
0.470
1.358
0.658
Plant
Community*"
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
N/A
1
2
1.2
3
3
3
N/A
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
4
6-14
Table 6.1-1. Sample Location Physical Variables (Continued)
Sample
Location
1108
1202
1209
1214
1218
1??2
1223
1305
1412
1416
1508
1706
1710
1808
Elevation
(feet)
5138.8
5049.8
5154.5
5444.1
5322.5
5613.6
5605.1
5074.5
5431.1
5818.6
5243.1
5182.6
5664.7
5493.5
Percent Slope
0.68
1.01
1.06
2.55
3.76
4.22
9.11
5.33
3.95
12.45
3.05
2.25
6.98
6.66
Aspect
(degrees)
169
88
180
242
267
233
175
264
220
262
236
225
231
283
Aspect
Transformation^
0.441
1.731
0.293
0.044
0.257
0.010
0.357
0.223
0.004
0.201
0.018
0.000
0.005
0.470
Plant
Community*"
3
3
3
3
3
4
3,4
2
3
4
3
1
3
3
Notes:
° Aspect Transformation = 1+Cosine(/\spect-45°)
'' Plant Community
1 = Sample locations with no shrub layer or with sagebrush only in the shrub plot
2 = Sample locations in isolated sagebrush communities
3 = Sample locations in sagebrush prairies
4 = Sample locations in woodlands
N/A not applicable
6-15
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected for the 2005 EMFS
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
0111 0111S5 0111A
0111B
0111C
EUTM-377604.457 NUTM-
4464380.888
Longitude- (-)l 12.440623105
Latitude-40.320991329
EUTM-377611.866 NUTM-
4464384.192
Longitude- (-)l 12.440536560
Latitude-40.321022174
EUTM-377615.508 NUTM-
4464389.339
Longitude- (-)l 12.440494689
Latitude-40.321069058
1B/ 35'.7" - 30° Sandy Silt, light brown, dry with small roots
1B/ 60'.2" - 41" Sandy Silt, light brown, dry with small roots
IB/ 82'.8" - 36° Sandy Silt, light brown, dry with small roots
0112 0112S2 Did not sample for the 2005 Follow-on Study
0214 0214S5 0214A
0214B
0214C
EUTM-379628.808 NUTM-
4466272.679
Longitude- (-)l 12.417159403
Latitude-40.338324038
1B/ 23',3" - 43° Sandy, silt, fine, dry light brown trace of root hairs
EUTM-379633.864 NUTM- 1B/ 52',4" - 32° Sandy, silt, fine, dry light brown trace of root hairs
4466280.757
Longitude-(-)l 12.417101419
Latitude-40.338397522
EUTM-379638.324 NUTM- IB/72' -35° Sandy, silt, fine, dry light brown trace of root hairs
4466284.595
Longitude- (-)l 12.417049643
Latitude-40.338432734
6-16
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected forthe 2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid
ID
0224
Sample
ID GPS/Name
0224S2
GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
Did not sample for the 2005 Follow-on Study
0308 0308S5 0308A
0308B
EUTM-379181.854 NUTM-
4460246.410
Longitude- (-)112.421281489
Latitude-40.283983638
1B/ 32', 10" - 30° Sandy, silt, light gray, dry with roots
EUTM-379188.914 NUTM- IB/ 58',10" - 37° Sandy, silt, light gray, dry with roots
4460251.095
Longitude- (-)112.421199342
Latitude-40.284026853
0308C EUTM-379193.829 NUTM-
4460254.553
Longitude- (-)112.421142189
Latitude-40.284058715
1B/ 79' - 36° Sandy, silt, light gray, dry with roots
0400 0400S5 0400A
0400B
0400C
EUTM-377677.179 NUTM-
4452641.176
Longitude-(-)112.437526742
Latitude-40.215267819
EUTM-377682.978 NUTM-
4452649.525
Longitude-(-)112.437460203
Latitude-40.215343862
EUTM-377683.377 NUTM-
4452657.891
Longitude-(-)112.437457110
Latitude-40.215419272
IA/ 33'. 8" - 5° Silt, sand (5%), with pebbles (5%), loose, medium brown to
light yellow brown
1/V 66', 11" -13° Silt, no sand, with pebbles (3%), medium brown to light
yellow brown
1A/92', -8.5° Silt, sand (5%), trace of pebbles, medium brown to light
yellow brown
0416 0416S5 0416A EUTM-379325.138 NUTM- 5B/26', 5"-210° Sandy, silt. buff, and moist
4468827.8999
Longitude-(-)112.421216640
Latitude-40.361293726
6-17
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected for the 2006 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
0416B
0416C
EUTM-379319.897 NUTM- 5B/51'.6" - 207° Sandy, silt, buff, and moist
4468821.571
Longitude-(-)112.421277153
Latitude-40.361235969
EUTM-379310.708 NUTM-
4468811.843
Longitude-(-)112.421383504
Latitude-40.361147028
5B/ 92'.9" - Sandy, silt, buff, and moist
207.5°
0420 0420S5 0420A EUTM-378926.717 NUTM-
4472514.618
Longitude-(-)112.426607872
Latitude-40.394440097
0420B EUTM-378931.002 NUTM-
4472521.330
Longitude-(-)112.426558674
Latitude-40.394501176
0420C EUTM-378941.445 NUTM-
4472526.915
Longitude-(-)112.426436716
Latitude-40.394552986
1B/14',3'' - 35° Gravelly, silty sand with F-M gravel and cobbles sub
angular, light brown and dry
1B/ 39',2'' - 27° Gravelly, silty sand with F-M gravel and cobbles sub
angular, light brown and dry
1B/ 76',3'' - 37.5° Gravelly, silty sand with F-M gravel and cobbles sub
angular, light brown and dry
0515 0515S5 0515A EUTM-380222.109 NUTM-
4467781.388
Longitude-(-)112.410459388
Latitude-40.351997627
0515B EUTM-380218.524 NUTM-
4467786.083
Longitude-(-)112.410502471
Latitude-40.352039401
8A/ 39' - 33° Gravelly, silty sand, light brown and dry
8PJ 59' - 37° Gravelly, silty sand, light brown and dry
6-18
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected for the 2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
0515C EUTM-380215.462 NUTM-
4467794.627
Longitude-(-)112.410540129
Latitude-40.352115911
8A/ 88' - 35° Gravelly, silty sand, light brown and dry
0611 0611S5 0611A
061 IB
0611C
EUTM-381443.843 NUTM-
4463214.035
Longitude-(-)112.395229197
Latitude-40.311035804
1B/ 22',4" - 26° Silt, no sand or pebbles, medium brown
EUTM-381447.214 NUTM- IB/36', 10" - 30° Silt, no sand or pebbles, medium brown
4463216.545
Longitude-(-)112.395190003
Latitude-40.311058889
EUTM-381453.803 NUTM-
4463223.264
Longitude-(-)112.395113730
Latitude-40.311120338
1B/ 67',9" - 32° Silt, no sand or pebbles, medium brown
0613 0613S5 0613A EUTM-381159.192 NUTM-
4465660.800
Longitude-(-)112.399033096
Latitude-40.333032423
0613B EUTM-381160.710 NUTM-
4465666.701
Longitude-(-)112.399016328
Latitude-40.333085778
0613C EUTM-381151.999 NUTM-
4465673.812
Longitude-(-)112.399120174
Latitude-40.333148584
8/V 32',r - 324° Silt, trace of sand, pebbles sub angular (5%), medium
brown
SN 49',8" - 334° Silt, trace of sand, pebbles sub angular (5%), medium
brown
8/V/ 80',2" - 322° Silt, trace of sand, pebbles and cobbles sub angular to sub
rounded (15%), medium brown
6-19
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected for the 2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
0616 0616S5 0616A
0616B
0616C
EUTM-380852.884 NUTM-
4468553.277
Longitude-(-)112.403177870
Latitude-40.359040012
EUTM-380840.770 NUTM-
4468556.368
Longitude-(-)112.403321069
Latitude-40.359066118
EUTM-380837.521 NUTM-
4468559.138
Longitude-(-)112.403359838
Latitude-40.359090601
TN 27' - 275° Silty, sand with fine sub angular gravel, brown, moist with
abundant roots
IN 67' - 273° Silty, sand with fine sub angular gravel, brown, moist with
abundant roots
IN 80' - 280° Silty, sand with fine sub angular gravel, brown, moist with
abundant roots
0618 0618S5 0618A
0618B
0618C
EUTM-381068.140 NUTM-
4470188.377
Longitude-(-)112.400948475
Latitude-40.373797313
EUTM-381077.708 NUTM-
4470185.673
Longitude-(-)112.400835294
Latitude-40.373774329
EUTM-381082.163 NUTM-
4470177.617
Longitude-(-)112.400781330
Latitude-40.373702405
3A/ 22',8" - 95.5° Sandy silt with trace of fine gravel buff, dry. about 20%
voids
ZN 53'.5" - 94° Sandy silt with trace of fine gravel buff, dry, about 20%
voids
3A/ 78',5" - Sandy silt with trace of fine gravel buff, dry, about 20%
118.5° voids
0623 0623S5 0623A EUTM-382526.972 NUTM-
4475068.415
Longitude-(-)112.384669296
Latitude-40.417956493
1B/ 30' - 38° Sandy silt, buff, dry
6-20
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected forthe 2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/LocaUon Soil Description
0623B
0623C
EUTM-382534.530 NUTM-
4475074.513
Longitude-(-)112.384581361
Latitude-40.418012483
1B/ 60' - 36° Sandy silt, buff, dry
EUTM-382542.488 NUTM- IB/90'-35° Sandy silt, buff, dry
4475079.371
Longitude-(-)112.384488474
Latitude-40.418057361
0707 0707S5 0707A
0707B
0707C
EUTM-382036.791 NUTM-
4459644.876
Longitude-(-)112.387595196
Latitude-40.278973426
5B/ 23' - 220° Silt, high organic content, dark brown
EUTM-382028.418 NUTM- 5B/ 57',2" - 222° Silt, high organic content, dark brown
4459639.296
Longitude-(-)112.387692636
Latitude-40.278921989
EUTM-382024.593 NUTM- 5B/86',2"-212° Silt, high organic content, dark brown
4459629.745
Longitude-(-)112.387735853
Latitude-40.278835422
0714 0714S5 0714A EUTM-382120.141 NUTM-
4466859.456
Longitude-(-)112.387944899
Latitude-40.343964523
0714B EUTM-382117.144 NUTM-
4466873.113
Longitude-(-)112.387982690
Latitude-40.344087104
8B/16',9" - 355° Silty sand (F) with sandy silt with fine sub angular gravel,
buff-brown moist
8B/ 61',3" - 342° Silty sand (F) with sandy silt with fine sub angular gravel,
buff-brown moist
6-21
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected forthe 2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
0714C EUTM-382118.513 NUTM-
4466880.184
Longitude-(-)112.387967891
Lafitude-40.344150975
8B/ 86' - 344° Silty sand (F) with sandy silt with fine sub angular gravel,
buff-brown moist
0802 0802S5 0802A
0802B
0802C
0812 0812S5 0812A
0812B
0812C
EUTM-383651.742 NUTM- 1B/ 20',5" - 29° Silt, no sand or pebbles, medium brown to gray
4455299.609
Longitude-(-)112.367815266
Latitude-40.240062603
EUTM-383656.925 NUTM- IB/ 41' - 36.5° Silt, no sand or pebbles, medium brown to gray
4455303.701
Longitude-(-)112.367755095
Latitude-40.240100176
EUTM-383668.477 NUTM- 1B/ 83'.9" - 41° Silt, no sand or pebbles, medium brown to gray
4455310.258
Longitude-(-)112.367620514
Latitude-40.240160841
EUTM-383030.190 NUTM-
4464780.443
Longitude-(-)112.376852000
Latitude-40.325367599
EUTM-383026.893 NUTM-
4464784.710
Longitude-(-)112.376891584
Latitude-40.325405570
EUTM-383025.521 NUTM-
4464794.001
Longitude-(-)112.376909431
Latitude-40.325489055
QN 22',8" - 325° Silt, sand (5%), pebbles sub rounded (20%), medium to
light brownish gray
QN 39' - 316° Silt, sand (5%), pebbles sub rounded (20%), medium to
light brownish gray
QN 69',2" - 326° Silt, sand (5%), pebbles sub rounded (20%), medium to
light brownish gray
6-22
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected for the 2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
0813 0813S5 0813A
0813B
0813C
0817 0817S5 0817A
0817B
0817C
EUTM-383254.692 NUTM-
4465640.836 Longitude-(-
)112.374367318
Latitude-40.333148308
EUTM-383256.989 NUTM-
4465644.451
Longitude-(-)112.374340940
Latitude-40.333181189
2B/ 50',4" - 72° Silt, sand (5%), pebbles sub angular (10%), medium brown
2B/ 57',9" - 84° Silt, sand (10%), pebbles and cobbles (15%), medium
brown with reddish tint
EUTM-383264.416 NUTM- 2B/81',9"-77° Silt, trace of sand, pebbles (10%), medium brown
4465643.342
Longitude-(-)112.374253333
Latitude-40.333172247
EUTM-382041.114 NUTM-
4469444.266
Longitude-(-)112.389352953
Lalitude-40.367233684
EUTM-382048.030 NUTM-
4469446.641
Longitude-(-)112.389271954
Latitude-40.367256056
EUTM-382053.232 NUTM-
4469457.540
Longitude-(-)112.389212713
Latitude-40.367354958
IB/ 26',1'' - 26° Gravelly silty sand (F-C), ground is fine to move, sub
rounded to sub angular, soft, wet with abundant roots
< 1/16"
1B/ 44',10" - 37° Gravelly silty sand (F-C), ground is fine to move, sub
rounded to sub angular, soft, wet with abundant roots
< 1/16"
1B/ 82'. 1 r - 27° Gravelly silty sand (F-C). ground is fine to move, sub
rounded to sub angular, soft, wet with abundant roots
< 1/16"
0819 0819S5 0819A EUTM-383243.892 NUTM- IB/22'-41° Sandy silt, light gray, dry
4472018.345
Longitude-(-)112.375661730
Latitude-40.390586715
6-23
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected forthe 2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
0819B
0819C
EUTM-383251.702 NUTM- 1B/ 59',5" - 33° Sandy silt, brownish gray, dry with roots and other organics
4472026.851
Longitude-(-)112.375571291
Latitude-40.40.390664423
EUTM-383258.366 NUTM-
4472030.451
Longitude-(-)112.375493461
Latitude-40.390697779
IB/ 83',4" - 37° Sandy silt, brownish gray, dry with roots and other organics
0914 0914S5 0914A
0914B
0914C
EUTM-384077.265 NUTM-
4466720.461
Longitude-(-)112.364882279
Latitude-40.342986826
EUTM-384077.498 NUTM-
4466729.346
Ldngitude-(-)112.364881146
Latitude-40.343066884
EUTM-384069.292 NUTM-
4466736.244
Longltude-(-)112.364978989
Latitude-40.343127872
8A/ 33',6" - 319° Fine silty sand/sandy silt brown, moist, good dilatancy,
abundant roots
QN 61',10" - Fine silty sand/sandy silt brown, moist, good dilatancy,
332° abundant roots
QN 92',4" - 320° Fine silty sand/sandy silt brown, moist, good dilatancy,
abundant roots
1004 1004S5 1004A EUTM-385242.061 NUTM-
4456755.754
Longitude-(-)112.349384541
Latitud6-40.253397408
1004B EUTM-385247.840 NUTM-
4456762.530
Longitude-(-)112.349317809
Latitude-40.253459229
1B/ 22' - 37° Silty sand with F-M sub rounded gravel, abundant roots,
dark brown, very moist
1B/ 50" - 32° Silty sand with F-M sub rounded gravel, abundant roots,
dark brown, very moist
6-24
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected for the 2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
1004C EUTM-385251.631 NUTM-
4456768.081
Longitude-(-)112.349274244
Latitude-40.253509749
1B/ 73' - 26.5° Silty sand with F-M sub rounded gravel, abundant roots,
dark brown, very moist
1007 1007S5 1007A EUTM-385038.524 NUTM-
4459375.992
Longitude-(-)112.352247140
Latitude-40.276969634
1007B EUTM-385043.084 NUTM-
4459378.408
Longitude-(-)112.352193953
Latitude-40.276992018
1007C EUTM-385048.631 NUTM-
4459384.662
Longitude-(-)112.352129850
Latitude-40.277049109
1B/ 37',10" - 24° Silt with trace of fine sand; pebbles and cobbles rounded to
sub angular (20%) medium to dark brown
1B/ 53',8" - 34° Silt with trace of fine sand; pebbles and cobbles rounded to
sub angular (20%) medium to dark brown
1B/ 80',6'' - 32° Silt with trace of fine sand; pebbles and cobbles rounded to
sub angular (20%) medium to dark brown
1009 1009S5 1009A EUTM-384999.484 NUTM-
4461598.544
Longitude-(-)112.353105419
Latitude-40.2g6982429
1009B EUTM-385001.084 NUTM-
4461587.993
Longitude-(-)112.353084707
Latitude-40.2g6887623
1009C EUTM-385000.846 NUTM-
4461577.993
Longitude-(-)112.353085706
Latitude-40.296797522
4B/ 21',5" -175° Silt with sand (5%), pebbles sub angular (5%) medium to
light brown
4B/ 56',5" -165° Silt with sand (5%), pebbles sub angular (5%) medium to
light brown
4B/ 90',3" -166° Silt with trace of pebbles sub angular medium to light
brown
6-25
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected forthe2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
1011 1011S5 1011A EUTM-385038.568 NUTM-
4463653.424
Longitude-(-)112.353014984
Latitude-40.315495717
101 IB EUTM-385030.368 NUTM-
4463654.016
Longitude-(-)112.353111578
Latitude-40.315499924
1011C EUTM-385020.438 NUTM-
4463651.617
Longitude-(-)112.353227986
Latitude-40.315476952
6B/ 30' - 264° Silt sand, fine, moist with abundant roots, brown
6B/ 60' - 263.5° Sandy silt, buff, dry with med sub rounded gravel
6B/ 92' - 254° Sandy silt, buff, dry
1013 1013S5 1013A
1013B
1013C
EUTM-385080.008 NUTM-
4465629.839
Longitude-(-)112.352882796
Latitude-40.333302556
EUTM-385087.996 NUTM-
4465625.931
Longitude-(-)112.352788075
Latitude-40.333268461
EUTM-385091.713 NUTM-
4465617.671
Longitude-(-)112.352742843
Latitude-40.333194573
3B/ 24',2" -123° Silt sand (5%), pebbles and cobbles (15%), medium brown
to gray
3B/ 50',7" -116° Silt, trace sand, pebbles and cobbles (20%), medium
brown to gray
3B/ 77',8" -121° Silt, trace sand, pebbles and cobbles (10%), medium
brown to gray
1015 1015S5 1015A EUTM-385064.970 NUTM-
4467622.656
Longitude-(-)112.353418494
Latitude-40.351249290
QN 24',6" - 241° Gravelly silty sand, fine buff brown moist, gravel sub
angular to sub rounded up to 2"
6-26
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected forthe 2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
1015B EUTM-385055.771 NUTM-
4467617.621
Longitude-(-)112.353525876
Latitude-40.351202675
1015C EUTM-385046.174 NUTM-
4467617.771
Longitude-(-)112.353638889
Latitude-40.351202707
QN 57',6" - 232° Gravelly silty sand, fine buff brown moist, gravel sub
angular to sub rounded up to 2"
QN 88',4" - 240° Gravelly silty sand, fine buff brown moist, gravel sub
angular to sub rounded up to 2"
1018 1018S5 1018A
1018B
1018C
EUTM-385128.388 NUTM-
4470746.486
Longitude-(-)112.353234544
Lafitude-40.379393477
EUTM-385134.863 NUTM-
4470741.849
Longitude-(-)112.353157454
Latitude-40.379352606
EUTM-385138.159 NUTM-
4470737.206
Longitude-(-)112.353117798
Latitude-40.379311234
3B/ 35' -120° Fine silty sand with trace fine sub angular to sub rounded
gravel, brown wet
3B/ 60' -117° Gravelly silty sand fine, gravel is fine and angular (15%),
brown, wet
3B/ 80' -122° Silty sand fine, brown , wet trace fine gravel
1022 1022S5 1022A
1022B
EUTM-385030.568 NUTM-
4474624.662
Lbngitude-(-)112.355086805
Latitude-40.414309392
EUTM-385041.423 NUTM-
4474633.406
Longitude-(-)112.354960485
Latitude-40.414389646
IB/16', 10" - 34° Silty sandy gravel F-C with cobbles and boulders, buff, dry,
abundant root hairs
IB/ 60',3" - 38° Silty sandy gravel F-C with cobbles and boulders, buff, dry,
abundant root hairs
6-27
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected forthe 2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
1022C EUTM-385045.704 NUTM-
4474642.866
Longitude-(-)112.354911746
Latitude-40.414475444
1B/ 93' - 28° Silty sandy gravel F-C with cobbles and boulders, buff, dry,
abundant root hairs
1108 1108S5 1108A EUTM-386126.663 NUTM-
4460756.701
Longitude-(-)112.339696625
Latitude-40.289554387
1108B EUTM-386127.734 NUTM-
4460760.909
Longitude-(-)112.339684780
Latitude-40.289592438
1108C EUTM-386134.831 NUTM-
4460762.927
Longitude-(-)112.339601667
Latitude-40.289611581
1B/ 31 ",9" - 44° Silt trace of sand, pebbles sub angular to rounded (5-10%),
medium brown
1B/ 43',4" - 32° Silt trace of sand, pebbles sub angular to rounded (5-10%),
medium brown
1B/ 65',5" - 42° Silt trace of sand, pebbles sub angular to rounded (15%),
medium brown
1202 1202S5 1202A
1202B
1202C
EUTM-387025.267 NUTM-
4454654.687
Longitude-(-)112.328052099
Lafitude-40.234715676
EUTM-387026.012 NUTM-
4454660.925
Longitude-(-)112.328044448
Latitude-40.234771959
EUTM-387028.793 NUTM-
4454664.696
Longitude-(-)112.328012426
Latitude-40.234806300
8B/15',2" - 346° Silt with small sub angular pebbles, medium brown
8B/ 35',6" - 354° Silt with small sub angular pebbles, medium brown
8B/ 48',4" - Silt with small sub angular pebbles, medium brown
359.5°
6-28
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected forthe 2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
1209 1209S5 1209A EUTM-387436.154 NUTM-
4460982.584
Longitude-(-)112.324334373
Latitude-40.291766244
1209B EUTM-387442.758 NUTM-
4460983.921
Longitude-(-)112.324256931
Latitude-40.291779177
1209C EUTM-387447.791 NUTM-
4460989.878
Longitude-(-)112.324198776
Latitude-40.291833503
1B/ 33',4" - 25° Clayey silt; loose no plasticity, minimal pebbles, sub
angular, medium brown
1B/ 51 ',6" - 40° Clayey silt, some sand (5%), pebbles and cobbles, sub
angular (10%), medium to dark brownish gray, low
plasticity
1B/ 77',3" - 36° Silt with sand (5%), clay (5%), pebbles and cobbles (10%),
medium brown to gray, no plasticity
1214 1214S5 1214A EUTM-387534.568 NUTM-
4466232.054
Longitude-(-)112.324100188
Latitude-40.339060943
1214B EUTM-387541.862 NUTM-
4466239.111
Longitude-(-)112.324015573
Latitude-40.339125494
12140 EUTM-387548.525 NUTM-
4466246.548
Longitude-(-)112.323938460
Latitude-40.339193372
1B/ 23',6" - 30° Sandy silt/silty sand, brown moist with abundant grass
roots
1B/ 56' - 32° Sandy silt/silty sand, brown moist with abundant grass
roots
1B/ 88',2" - 30° Sandy silt/silty sand, brown moist with abundant grass
roots
1218 1218S5 1218A EUTM-386779.720 NUTM-
4470344.474
Longitude-(-)112.333714801
Latitude-40.375998627
1B/ 32' - 34° Clayey silt, little to no plasticity, loose, with sub angular to
angular pebbles and cobbles, medium brown to gray
6-29
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected for the 2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
1218B EUTM-386784.990 NUTM-
4470350.450
Longitude-(-)112.333653804
Latitude-40.376053169
1218C EUTM-386790.834 NUTM-
4470356.585
Longitude-(-)112.333586074
Latitude-40.376109217
1B/ 58' - 33° Clayey silt, no plasticity, loose, with sub angular to angular
pebbles and cobbles, medium brown to gray
1B/ 86' - 32.5° Clayey silt, little to no plasficity, loose, with occasional
angular to sub angular pebbles and cobbles, medium
brown
1222 1222S5 1222A
1222B
1222C
EUTM-387089.750 NUTM-
4474700.868
Longitude-(-)112.330836064
Latitude-40.415277636
EUTM-387099.417 NUTM-
4474699.459
Longitude-(-)112.330721901
Latitude-40.415266257
EUTM-387107.888 NUTM-
4474694.699
Longitude-(-)112.330621232
Latitude-40.415224541
3A/ 24' -100° Silt with (5%) sand, pebbles and cobbles (15%), medium
brown to gray
ZN 55' - 94° Silt with (5%) sand, pebbles and cobbles (15%), medium
brown to gray
ZN QQ'.Q" - 98° Silt with (5%) sand, pebbles and cobbles (15%), medium
brown to gray
1223 1223S5 1223A EUTM-386883.659 NUTM-
4474864.622
Longitude-(-)112.333293678
Latitude-40.416724538
1223B EUTM-386890.098 NUTM-
4474873.624
Longitude-(-)112.333219406
Latitude-40.416806499
IB/ 29', 10" - 25° Silt with (10%) sand, pebbles and cobbles (10%), medium
brown to light gray
1B/ 66', 1" - 25° Silt with sand (trace), pebbles and cobbles (25%), medium
brown to gray
6-30
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected forthe 2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
1223C EUTM-386896.300 NUTM-
4474877.835
Longitude-(-)112.333147072
Latitude-40.416845266
IB/ 89',9": - 30° Silt with (5%) sand, pebbles and cobbles (30%), medium
brown to gray
1305 1305S5 1305A
1305B
1305C
EUTM-388122.487 NUTM-
4457501.760
Longitude-(-)112.315653676
Latitude-40.260506634
EUTM-388129.078 NUTM-
4457508.164
Longitude-(-)112.315577311
Latitude-40.260565193
EUTM-388137.391 NUTM-
4457513.153
Longitude-(-)112.315480440
Latitude-40.260611245
1B/ 22',4'' - 32° Silt sand (30%) sand is F-C sub rounded to sub angular,
brown , moist
1B/ 52' - 33° Silt sand (30%) sand is F-C sub rounded to sub angular,
brown , moist
1B/ 81 ",8" - 37° Silt sand (30%) sand is F-C sub rounded to sub angular,
brown, moist
1412 1412S5 1412A
1412B
1412C
EUTM-388826.342 NUTM-
4464707.853
Longitude-(-)112.308630144
Latitude-40.325505661
EUTM-388819.062 NUTM-
4464710.537
Longitude-(-)112.308716288
Latitude-40.325528861
EUTM-388809.477 NUTM-
4464714.211
Longitude-(-)112.308829720
Latitude-40.325560676
7A/17' - 282° Silty clay/clayey silt, with pebbles and cobbles sub angular,
medium brown, low plasticity, loose
IN 43' - 280° Clayey silt, with pebbles, sub angular to rounded, medium
brown, loose, low to no plasticity
IN 76' - 280.5° Clayey silt, with pebbles, some cobbles, medium brown,
loose, no plasticity
6-31
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected for the 2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
1416 1416S5 1416A EUTM-389395.113 NUTM-
4468148.323
Longitude-(-)112.302532698
Latitude-40.356569294
1416B EUTM-389399.790 N UTM-
4468152.969
Longitude-(-)112.302478431
Latitude-40.356611759
1416C EUTM-389404.541 NUTM-
4468156.096
Longitude-(-)112.302423046
Latitude-40.356640562
IB/ 41',2" - 31° Clayey gravelly, silty sand, gravel to 2" diameter, sub
angular to sub rounded, one sub angular cobble 4"
1B/ 64' - 33° Silty gravelly sand, gravel to 2" sub angular to sub rounded
1B/ 83',11" - 35° Gravelly silty sand, gravel to 1" sub angular to sub
rounded, sand is fine to course sub angular to sub rounded
1508 1508S5 1508A EUTM-390105.462 NUTM-
4460699.416
Longitude-(-)112.292888524
Latitude-40.289570909
1508B EUTM-390106.252 NUTM-
4460707.354
Longitude-(-)112.292880591
• Latitude-40.289642511
15080 EUTM-390114.502 NUTM-
4460718.165
Longitude-(-)112.292785416
Latitude-40.289740967
l/V 23' -14° Silt with small about of clay, occasional pebbles and
cobbles angular to sub angular (15%) medium brown to
light gray
1 A/ 47',10" - 4° Silt with small about of clay, occasional pebbles and
cobbles angular to sub angular (20%) medium brown to
light gray
^N 91',3" -13° Clayey silt, loose, no plasticity some pebbles and cobbles
angular to sub angular (5%) medium brown to light gray
1706 1706S5 1706A EUTM-392171.522 NUTM-
4458554.624
Longitude-(-)112.268226334
Latitude-40.270521472
1B/18', 11" - 34° Silt, and fine sand (30%), medium brown
6-32
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected for the 2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
1706B EUTM-392178.165 NUTM-
4458563.497
Longltude-(-)112.268149714
Latitude-40.270602256
1706C EUTM-392182.734 NUTM-
4458568.321
Longitude-(-)112.268096804
Latitude-40.270646287
1B/ 55',6" - 29° Silt, and fine sand (30%), medium brown
1B/ 76',3" - 30° Silt, and fine sand (30%), medium brown
1710 1710S5 1710A EUTM-392257.555 NUTM-
4462249.389
Longitude-(-)112.267836437
Latitude-40.303811846
171 OB EUTM-392265.792 NUTM-
4462251.924
Longitude-(-)112.267739953
Latitude-40.303835736
1710C EUTM-392269.060 NUTM-
4462261.286
Longitude-(-)112.267703080
Latitude-40.303920486
1B/ 28',5" - 30° Silty sand with F-C gravel, sand is F-C poorly graded, sub
rounded to sub angular with cobbles and boulders
1B/ 55' - 44° Silty sand with F-C gravel, sand is F-C poorly graded with
angular to sub angular with gravel and cobbles, wet
1B/ 81 ',25" - 33° Silty sand with F-C gravel, sand is F-C pooriy graded with
angular to sub angular with gravel and cobbles, wet
1808 1808S5 1808A EUTM-393015.841 NUTM-
4460689.370
Longitude-(-)112.258654713
Latitude-40.289857937
1808B EUTM-393011.677 NUTM-
4460683.200
Longitude-(-)112.258702659
Latitude-40.289801828
5A/ 42' -188° Clayey silt, loose, no plasticity, with (50%) angular to sub
angular pebbles, and cobbles, occasional boulders,
medium brown to gray
5/V 67' -191° Clayey silt, loose, no plasticity, with pebbles and cobbles
angular to sub angular, medium brown to gray
6-33
Table 6.1-2. Soil Samples Collected for the 2005 EMFS (Continued)
Grid Sample
ID ID GPS/Name GPS Location Sector/Location Soil Description
1808C EUTM-393008.053 NUTM-
4460677.948
Longitude-(-)112.258744408
Latitude-40.289754060
5A/89'-192° Clayey slit with sand (20%), loose, no plasticity with
pebbles and cobbles angular and sub angular, medium
brown to gray
Notes:
GPS = Global Positioning System
ID = identific:ation
6-34
Table 6.2-1. Plant Species List
Code
AGDE(CR)
AGEX
AGRE
AGSU
AGTR
ALAL
ALGE
ALsp
ARDE
ARFE
ARFR
ARTR
ASBE
ASNE
ASGE
ATCA
ATCO
BRTE
CAANF
CADR
CELA
CELO
CHDO
CHNA
CHRU
CHTE2
CHVI
Scientific Name
Agropyron desertorum
Agrostis exarata
Agropyron repens
Agropyron subsecundum
Agropyron trachycaulum
Allyssum alyssoides
Allium geyeri
Allium sp.
Arabis demissa
Arenaria fendleri
Artemisia frigida
Artemisia tridentata
/Astragalus beckwithii
Astragalus newbenryi
Astragalus geyeri
Atriplex canascens
Atriplex confertifolia
Bromus tectorum
Castilleja chromosa
Cardaria draba
Ceratoides lanata
Cenchrus longispinus
Chaenactis douglasii
Chrysothamnus nauseosus
Chenopodium rubrum
Chorispora tenella
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus
Common Name
Wheatgrass
Spike bentgrass
Quackgrass
Bearded wheatgrass
Slender wheatgrass
Yellow allyssum
Geyer onion
Onion
Low rockcress
Fendler sandwort
Fringed sagebrush
Big sagebrush
Beckwith's milkvetch
Newberry's milkvetch
Geyer milkvetch
Four-wing saltbush
Shadscale
Cheatgrass
Desert paintbrush
Whitetop
Winterfat
Longspine sandbur
Douglas' Dusty Maiden
Grey rabbitbrush
Red goosefoot
Purple crossflower
Douglas rabbitbrush
LF
G
G
G
G
G
F
F
F
F
L
L
L
F
F
F
S
S
G
F
F
S
G
F
S
F
F
S
D
P
P
P
P
P
A/B
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
A
B/P
P
A
A
P
NA
A
N
A
N
N
A
N
u
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
N
N
A
N
Dl
1
1
3
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
2
1
2
3
3
F
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
2
2
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
1996
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
X
e
X
X
X
X
X
pu
X
1998
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1999
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2002
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2005
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6-35
Table 6.2-1. Plant Species List (Continued)
Code
CRNA
CRsp
DEPI
DESO
DIST(p)
ELTA
ELTR
EPVI
EROI
EROV
ERPU
ERsp
ERUM
ERYSI
EUBR
FEsp
GlOO
GUSA
HAGL
HOJU
JUAR
JUBU
JUNE
JUGS
KRLA2
LASE
LEFE
Scientific Name
Cryptantha nana
Cryptantha sp.
Descurainia pinnata
Descurainia sophia
Distichlis stricta
Elymus trachycaulus
Elymus triticoides
Ephedra sp.
Erodium cicutarium
Eriogonum ovalifolium
Erigeron pumilus
Erigeron sp.
Erigognum umbellatum
Erysimum captatum
Euphorbia brachycera
Festuca sp.
Gilia congesta
Gutierrezia sarothrae
Halogeton glomeratus
Hordeum jubatum
Juncus articus
Juncus bufonius
Juncus nevadensis
Juniperus osteosperma
Ceratoides lanata
Lactuca serriola
Lesquerella sp
Common Name
Little cryptantha
Unknown cryptantha
Pinnate tansy mustard
Flixweed
Desert saltgrass
Slender wheatgrass
Beardless wild rye
Mormon tea
Redstem fileree
Cushion buckwheat
Low fleabane
Wild buckwheat
Sulfur buckwheat
Wallflower
Shorthorn spurge
Fescue
Ball-head giila
Broom snakeweed
Halogeton
Foxtail bariey
WIregrass
Toad rush
Nevada rush
Utah juniper
Winterfat
Prickly lettuce
Bladderpod
LF
S
P
F
F
G
G
G
S
G
F
S
F
G
R
R
R
T
S
F
F
D
P
P
A
A
P
P
P
P
A/B
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
A
P
P
P
A/B
P
NA
N
u
N
A
N
N
N
N
A
N
N
u
N
N
N
u
N
N
A
N
N
N
N
N
N
A
N
Dl
3
u
3
3
2
1
1
2
3
2
3
u
2
3
3
u
3
2 •
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
F
2
u
3
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
2
u
3
3
1
u
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
1996
X
X
e
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e
X
X
1998
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e
X
X
X
1999
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2002
X
X
2005
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6-36
Table 6.2-1. Plant Species List (Continued)
Code
LEKI
LELA
LEPE
LOPE
OECA
OPPA(O)
ORHE
PHHO
PHLO
PIED
POCU
POEP
POFE
PORA
POSE
RATE
RUOC
SAIB
SAVI
SERI
SIAL2
SIHY
SPCO
SPGR
STCM
STCO
Scientific Name
Lesquerella kingii
Lepidium latifolium
Lepidium perfoliatum
Lolium perenne
Oenethera caespitosa
Opuntia polyacantha
Oryzopsis hymenoides
Phlox hoodii
Phlox longifolia
Pinus edulis
Poa cusickii
Poa epilis
Poa fendeleriana
Polygonum ramosissimum
Poa secunda
Ranunculus testiculatus
Rudbeckia occidental is
Salsola iberica
Sarcobatus vimniculatus
Senecio riddelli
Sisymbrium altissimum
Sitanion hystrix
Sphaeralcea coccinea
Sphaeralcea grossularifolia
Stipa comata
Stipa Columbiana
Common Name
King's bladderpod
Perennial peppergrass
Shield peppergrass
Perrenial ryegrass
Desert evening-primrose
Plains pricklypear
Indian rice grass
Hood's phlox
Long-leaved phlox
Pinyon pine
Cusick's bluegrass
Skyline bluegrass
Mutton grass
Bushy knotweed
Sandberg bluegrass
Bur buttercup
Western coneflower
Russian thistie
Greasewood
Riddell's groundsel
Tumble mustard
Squin-eltail
Scariet globemallow
Gooseberry-leaf
globemallow
Needle-and-thread
Columbia needlegrass
LF
F
F
F
G
F
F
G
M
F
T
6
G
G
F
G
F
F
F
S
F
F
G
F
F
G
G
D
P
P
A
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
A
P
A
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
NA
N
A
A
A
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
A
N
A
N
N
A
N
N
N
N
N
Dl
2
3
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
F
3
2
2
3
4
3
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
1
3
2
2
4
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1996
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1998
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e
X
X
X
X
X
X
1999
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2002
X
X
X
X
X
X
2005
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6-37
Table 6.2-1. Plant Species List (Continued)
Code
STCR
TAOF
TENU
THIN
TRDU
TRRE
UCsp
Unsp
VIAM
YAST
ZIPA
ZIVE
Total
Scientific Name
Streptanthus cordatus
Taraxacum officinale
Teti-adymia nuttalli
Thelypodium intergrifolium
Tragopogon dubius
Trifolium repens
Unknown crucifera sp.
Unknown sp.
Vicia americana
Yellow Atragalus spp.
Zigadenus paniculatus
Zigadenus venenosus
Common Name
Heartleaf twistfiower
Dandelion
Nuttal's horsebrush
Whole-leaf mustard
Westem salsify
White clover
Unknown
Unknown
American vetch
Yellow astragalus spp.
Foothill death-camas
Watson's death-camas
LF D
B/P
P
P
B/P
A/B
P
P
P
P
NA
N
A
N
N
A
A
u
u
N
u
N
N
Dl
3
3
2
2
3
1
u
u
1
3
2
2
F
2
1
4
3
2
1
u
u
2
2
4
4
1996
X
X
pu
X
X
X
X
X
59
1998
X
X
X
X
X
44
1999
X
X
X
X
50
2002
X
17
2005
X
X
42
Notes:
Ll = life form
F= forb
G = grass
L = low shmb
M = mat fomier
R = graminoide
S = shrub
T = tree
D = duration
A = annual
B = biennial
P = perennial
u = unknown
NA = nativity
A = alien
N = native
u = unknown
Dl = decreaser/lncreaser index
1 = decreaser
2 = increaser
3 = invader
F = forage value
1 = good
2 = fair
3 = poor
4 = poisonous
1996/1998/1999/2002 = Year Observed
X = observed
e = erroneously identified as another species in original field work
u = unknown
6-38
Table 6.2-2. Shrub Community Composition
eaiTfUe
0111
0112
0214
0224
0308
0400
P^is
0420
0515
0611
0613
_P818__
0618
0623
„„£7p7 .
0714
0802
0812
0813
0817
0819
0814
1998
ir.wwmL n
ARTR,
Cjg^AVI
ARTR,
CHNA^AVI
BB^SWISR
ARTR,
ATCO, SAVI
ARTR,
SAVI
BggglggljIggjSII
ARTR
ARTR, SAVI,
ATCO
ARTR.SAVI,
ATCO
ARTR
ARTR,
SAVI
ARTR[doBd).
ARTR
ARTR
ARTR
1 ARTR
Dominant Shmb Sp«ciee*
1998
CHNA.
ARTR,
ARTR
ARTR.
ATCO,
SAVI
ARTR.
SAVI.
CHNA
ARIR,
ATCO,
CHNA
ARTR,
ATCA
ARTR.
ATCO
ARTR
ARTR;
SAVI
! 1999
ARTR.
CHNA.
SAVI
ARTR
ARTR,
ATCO,
SAVI
ARTR.
1 SAVI
ARTR,
ATCO
; ! ARTR
i ARTR
1 ARTR,
ATCO
ARTR,
SAVI
NONE 1 NONE
• ARtR".
A^R
ARTR
ARTR H
ARTR
^^rco^
1
j ARTR
1 ARTR
! ARTR
2002 2009
^TmB ^PTP
ARTR, BHEmlmB^^B
^^^^^••B
^^^^H ARTR
ARTR. ARTR,
SAVI, SAVI,
ATCO ATCO
; ARTR.
ARTR i SAVI
•nH SAVI
ARTR.
ARTR
ATCO, 1 ARTR.
CHNA 1ATCO
ARTR,
ATCO
ARTR,
CHNA,
ATCO
ARTR,
SAVI
ARTR.
ARTR,
ATCO
ARTR,
GUSA
ATCO
ARTR,
GUSA
ARTR,
SAVI ; SAVI
LrrnaJ '
VUaiMM EPVI
NONE 1ARTR
AR^ll ARTR .. .
l^mSK ATCO
1 ARTR,
ARTR 1 EPVI
"j ARTR,
ARTRJ GUSA
ffSwJJl ARTR
ARTR
SAVI
ARTR
Cover (m*/ha)
1996 1998
•^•ULI^^H
4742 3938
^S^^SBM
•BittJ^^li
1383 Ll707
1 g92 • 1093
•••
2103
2223
2156
2442
1858
3985
1553
1781
2682 1 2601
. 4P3,_ 0
2920^3«
1
1590 [ 1301
1
2145 1 1B57 im
4273 1568
1999 2002
•g^H maml
.3838 3638
ma^mmm
m^^^^^^Q
1765
1238
3948
^30
3592
1315
2127
1483
2764
*?
2j^
2260
1814
5545
4403
2806
1375
4070
0
1652
4791
3493 ••
1357 1453
2005
HHSISI
n^
2163
8707
7210
3716
8530
8596
7908
2396
7908
222
1897
^.5823
854
7886
5346
6487
2329
3206
1996
1985
_6ai_
2155
2098
1815
1304
1361
1077
2495
1077
1134
1191
1304
1 1134
Clumps per Hectare
1996
^"^ m
i35e
WUBM
2825
1B9B
ps
1864
847
2825
S'^BB
1696
._0 .
B£^_
1017
1412
847
1999
•1
m
1073
333
17S1
2655
1412
2337
1977
_^^
0
1356
2090
1695
1243
2002
^^^B
S02B
3615
^H^H
110790
6044
9208
8643
5028
3050
7005
Q._
u!^M
10507
L 7174 •1
t 1864
200S
7005
^S3BH
6722
2260
11487
12597
3728
9264
10055
11016
2712
13953
113
1884
.6.270
508
8078
_TPQ5_
5649
2147
1864
1996
^^^ •
2^
••Hi
2
2
^B
2
2
2
.2 .
2
^
2^
3
2
PP
AveiBQe Heigtit Oass
1998
3
2
HIH
2
•
2
2
2
_2
2
_P ._
3
2
2 •
1999
3
2_
2
2
IB
2
2
2
^_..2.. ..
2
._.P__
^2^
3
2 m
3
2002
2 wm
2
1
1
IBB •1
2
1
2
. 1
gjdSS
•HH
_ P_ _
1
1
1
2
2006
HR^B
1 • 1^
3
1
_1 _ ,
2
1
2
1
.. JL_
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
1996
0.85 H
^^2
0.68
0.69
0.68
0.41
0.94
.0:56
0.73
sas
..9:00
°£i-
0.87
0.79
0.64
Average vigor
1998
MM
0.77
0.73
0.89
•H
083
1.00
0.90
Q.62
0.92
. o.po
.HH
0.79
0.96
0.68
1999
•1
092
0.81
0.78
^^7
0.82
0.97
0.86
.P_66_
^^5
0.00 _
0.77
090
0.76
0.72
2002
^^^
^^5
0 36
0.64
0.48
0.75
089
0.82
..PJ4_
_0.45
P.pp._
^^3
0.76
0.68
I 0.60
2005
^^^^1 ^^^^1
^^^
^^^^1
0.85
0.87
•:
0.75
0.79
0.88
0.39
0.43
. 0 78,.
0.65
O.OO.
-0:62..
0^38
0:70
..P:64
0.69
0.88
0.59
6-39
Table 6.2-2. Shrub Community Composition (Continued)
Sample
ID
1004
1007
1009
1011
1013
1015
ioia
\I322
1108
1202
..12p?_
1214
1216
1222
1223
1305
1412
1416
1508
1706
1710
1806
Dominant Shrub Species*
1996
ARTR
ARTR
ARTR
ARTR,
ATCO, SAVI
ARTR
JUGS
ARTR
B
ARTR
^^^^^
ARIK
1998
ARTR
ARTR
ARTR,
ATCA
ARTR,
ATCO
ARTR
JUGS
ARTR,
ATCO
iii'igSo.-'-.l
ARTR,
JUGS
ARTR,
JUGS
ARTR,
SAVI
UmjR
ARTR,
ATCO
1999
ARTR
AHIR
ARTR,
ATCO,
SAVI
ARTR,
ATCO,
SAVI
ARTR
JUGS
BB
ARTR
£)9a,-.J99P
999.7993
936. 195?
ARTR,
JUGS
ARTR,
JUGS
ARTR,
SAVI
URTR
ARTR,
ATCO
2002
ARTR
msSM
ARTR,
ATCG
ARTR
ARTR,
SAVI,
ATCO
ARTR
CHNA,
ARTR
JUGS
ARTR,
ATC^
SAVI
ARTR
fr2C"52
ARTR,
JUGS
ARTR,
ATCG,
JUGS
ARTR
•
ARTR,
ATCO
2005
ARTR
ARTR
ARTR,
ATCG
ARTR,
EPVI
ARTR,
GUSA
ARTR,
ATCO,
SAVI
ARTR
JUGS,
PIED
ATCG,
ARTR
ARTR
EPVI,
ARTR
ARTR
ARTR
ARTR,
JUGS
ARTR,
JUGS
ATCO,
ARTR
ARTR,
SAVI
JUGS,
PIED
ARTR
ARTR
ARTR,
KRLA2,
ATCO
; ARTR
AVERAGE
Cover (m'/ha)
1996
2840
1998
2009
1999
3185
2002
3571
3U39
2498
3380
1857
2009
4914
2203
2579
1338
1422
2718
1083
2379
1261
1956
: 3917 2476 4451
6045
2407
3250
2274
2085
2318
1552
3938
•':•• • . . • ' • •
..•••• '• . -
1292 1170
446
1682
480
2018
1098
Nro7^^ 24^3416
Uee^hia^^oe^wo
2660
2462
2271
1992
2604
2037
4326
3001
2005
6821
954
5069
4348
10127
6322
4692
4703
3594
95S4
.4725
6932
6211
4858
1886
954
7143
2329
8518
344
5235
8130
6040
Dumps per Hectare
1996
567
454
1304
2495
1361
851
[J24_
Il588
2655
2635
148S
1998
508
1999
678
2002
4745
• -fc ^o- S"-
282
1808
4463
565
1977
1130
1864 1 4237
851 1 1977
960 1130
10903
1412
7626
3954
7344
804
6270
6440
'•'!• •:• % .v#' (•• ..?;•
1
1525 ] 2034
(
1
508 i 847
2486
1130
1011^429 6ffl9
1 f073 1 3107 J leaK
2203 ! 3615
1499 1968
B982
1988
2005
6666
1864
6553
1921
10055
8982
7005
1243
6270
7457
4632
5705
10166
3446
1638
3502
7287
678
9434
339
8135
7400
S82B
1996
4
I
4
2
2
2 H
H
•1
P
n
H 1.48
Average Heigh
1998
3 •
4
2
2
3
5 •
_3__
2
3
^^
3
2
2.42
1999
3 •
3
2
2
2
5 •
3^
2
2 •
I
2
2J7
aass
2002
m
1
3
1
2
2
5
1 m
ii
3 •
1
J__1__
1
1.71
2005
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
6
1
2
2
1
3
3
1
2
5
1
1
2
2
1*1
Average Vigor
1996
0.84
0.48
0.44
0.90
0.58
1.00 •
0.70
0.84
0.81
1 062
0.74
0.69
1998
0.92
1999
0.89
2002
0.72
>
.:... •''"•;•.
0.72
0.61
0.88
0.71
0.97
0.71
0.71
0.88
0.71
1.00
0.91 0.78
081
0.72
079
063
0.76
078
083
0.53
089
0.97
086
1.00
^"~ • " •••
0.84
i 088
0.78 0.83 0.81
0.87
0.81
0.79 0.82
0.80 ass
2005
070
0.09
051
083
073
0.73
0.83
071
074
0.27
P:29
068
a53
0.66
0.74
0.65
0.39
083
0.53
OOO
0.81
0.51
JML
6-40
Table 6.2-2. Shrub Community Composition (Continued)
Notes:
' Refer to table 6.2-1 for species names that go with the codes in this table.
m^/ha = square meter per hectare
6-41
1
2
Table 6.2-3. Herbaceous Community Composition
Grid
ID
0111
0112
0214
0224
0306
0400
0416
0420
0515
0611
0613
0616
Dominant Herbaceous Species
1996 1 1998 1 1999 j 2002 |
Not SamplBa ln-1936. 1998. 1999 & •••
2002 • 'al^SiW^f-
CELO,
BRTE,
DEPI
ELTR,
THIN
RATE,
ELTR,
DESO
DIST,
RATE
Not Sampled in 1996fl1998f^1999'S. "-
BRTE,
CELO,
POSE
BRTE,
AGEX,
GUSA
BRTE,
ALAL,
AGSU,
GUSA
BRTE,
RATE,
LEPE
^.:. Not.Sampled in •(995, 1998, 1999 &.
~ • ": : • 2002 •••••ii:<;iS.««j^i
ARFR,
EUBR.
SIHY
CELO,
SIHY,
ORHE,
TENU,
UCfip,
EUBR
BRTE,
SIHY
, Not Sarrifiledin-I
CELO,
BRTE,
ORHE
CELO,
LEPE,
DEPI
CELO,
BRTE,
ORHE
CELO,
BRTE,
ORHE
BRTE,
OPPO.
ARTR
LEPE,
BRTE,
CELO
BRTE,
LASE,
GUSA
BRTE,
GUSA
TENU,
ORHE,
ALAL,
BRTE
BRTE,
SIHY,
CELO
996,.799B,
X'2
BRTE,
GUSA,
BRTE,
DIST,
LASE,
LEPE
BRTE,
ORHE,
GUSA
BRTE,
POSE,
GUSA
BRTE
RATE,
BRTE
1999-&m
RATE,
BRTE
RATE,
BRTE,
DIST
RATE,
BRTE,
SIHY
RATE,
BRTE,
ORHE,
POSE
_ • •••• •'••
2005
RATE,
STCO
LEPE,
BRTE
Not ••"••';••- •
Sampled'!
in 2005 ••••
RATE,
LEPE,
RATE,
DESO,
STCO
RATE,
OESO,
STCM,
BRTE
RATE,
SIHY
BRTE,
LEPE,
RATE,
ERCI
BRTE,
RATE
RATE,
BRTE,
DESO
BRTE,
RATE,
DESO
RATE,
BRTE
' i
Number of Herbaceous Species 1
•3»lii'»°iiLiiiSS?lJ
10 2 7
'••<•• %'i^'"'-' • •'•'•
10 4 8
... . .^h:;-; .^
'•^ii ..:....rf- ••#•
15
4
:4 <
5
7
4
7
9
2
:%
4
5
6
2
11
3
3
7
6
5
2002 1 2005
6
2JHH
mL_8._.j
3 l^^g
^pfK
1
2
2
3
3
, 5
6
6
4
10
11
6
6
10
D;I
Index
3
3
3
3
3
FV
2
•
i
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
2002 EMFS Data
DIversltv
Inde^^Rldwess
0.41 0.14
•.'' "•;•••.i,-" • • • . •-•
0.48 0.33
-r?- M- :p: ..^
too
0.12
0.00
0.16
yfi ^'•-•''
0.48
0.33
0.29
0.53
0.17
0.47
0.42
0.67
Percent
Cover
42
18
17
39
9
18
68
2006 EMFS Data 1
on
Index
2 •
2^
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
FV
2 •
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
Diversity
Index
0.36
Richness
0.64
0.47 0.84
0.43
0.20
0.01
0.63
0.52
0.41
0.55
0.53
0.63
0.56
0.36
1.09
1.20
0.56
0.62
0.99
Percent
Cover
51
•p:- • • - '.
ae
.:s, .^ :•:.'.
44
44
31
73
58
54
29
62
6-42
1
2
Table 6.2-3. Herbaceous Community Composition (Continued)
Grid
ID
0616
0623
0707
0714
0802
0812
0813
0617
0819
0914
1004
1007
1009
Dominant Herbaceous Species
1996
CELO,
SIHY,
LEPE
1998
CELO,
SIHY
1999
SHIY,
RATE,
BRTE
2002
RATE,
SIHY
Not Sampled in 1.996, 1998, 1999 S.M
• ••'•:••••'•• •;•.: : •• ;>oo2 ;i- V't'-W
POCU.
STCM,
JUBU
ORHE,
BRTE.
ARFE
DISP,
CHRU,
JUNE
BRTE,
SAIB.
UCsp
DIST,
JUAR,
CHRU
BRTE,
ALAL,
LEPE,
SYAL
DIST
BRTE,
RATE,
ALAL
.Not Sampled in 1996. 1993^1999 3$"-:
2002 A' • 'f
ORHE,
CELO,
BRTE
CELO,
ORHE,
BRTE
BRTE,
ORHE.
LELA
BRTE,
UCsp,
AGEX
ORHE,
ALAL,
BRTE,
TENU
BRTE,
AUL,
GUSA
ORHE,
RATE,
ALAL,
BRTE
BRTE,
ALAL,
RATE,
ORHE
NotSampledir.-W96,-1098^r999-&—
2002 •••;• /iS: -r
Not Sampled in 1996. 1998; 1999 & '
• •:•- •>-S -i" 2002 • - if,
CELO,
ORHE,
BRTE
BRTE.
CLEG,
SYAL
BRTE,
LEPE
BRTE,S
YAL,
SIHY
BRTE.
LEPE,
SIHY
BRTE.
SYAL,
DESO
BRTE,
RATE
RATE,
BRTE
•iitNot.Sampledtnl996,''1998..19g3:&-'
-•^}~i'ij, • - ^2002 •'-;!;, ..i;~«<^ ••'
' Wot Sar
•.-• : -;*<'^
-.pled in 7S
fS.1999''
56. )998,»
RATE,
BRTE,
ALAL,
SIHY
2005
RATE,
CELO
BRTE,
RATE,
DESO
1(3). 1(1),
1(2). 2(1)
BRTE,
RATE
DESO,
BRTE,
RATE
BRTE,
ALAL,
RATE,
ORHE
BRTE,
RATE,
ALAL
BRTE,
RATE
RATE,
BRTE
BRTE,
RATE
RATE,
SIAL2,
DESO
DESO,
RATE,
CADR
RATE,
BRTE,
DESO
Number of Hertiaceous Spedes
1996
6 •
4
11
•••M";i
9
9
'IU
m m
1998
2
1999
3
•i.'-k.'.i-^-^y^^
4
7
4
6
•.•:f:p
6
6
10
6
•:•: ': -ji "'.
2
3
3
6
'•. $'"Hv • • •".:
2002
2
m
1
2
'."'•. • -tir^
4
5
Wi
2 •
4
2005
4
6
5
10
6
9
13
4
9
8
7
7
9
D/i
Index
3 •
2
31
2
3
H
3 •
3
^^^^K
FV
3 •
2
3 •
2
2
1
2
_3_
3
2002 EMFS Data
Diversity
index
0.48
RIctiness
0.22
0.00
0.51
0.00
0.30
- MM
0.62
0.71
0.64
0.80
.' r3'^^
0.45
0.23
0.18
0.37
•.j^' •••••••.• ••^•"
0.46 0.64
Percent
Cover
21
100
26
26
79
19
D/1
index
3
3
0
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
FV
3
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
tOOS EMFS Data
Diversity
Index
0.02
0.45
0.64
0.58
0.64
0.64
0.66
0.51
0.54
0.44
0.27
0.48
0.48
nicnness
0.34
0.64
0.54
1.11
0.64
0.96
1.39
0.33
1.01
0.64
0.85
0.74
0.94
P6rc8nt'
Cover
46
71
81
56
68
39
46
65
55
50
34
55
36
6-43
1
2
Table 6.2-3. Herbaceous Community Composition (Continued)
1 II
Grid
ID
1011
1013
1015
1018
1022
1108
1202
1209
1214
1218
1222
1223
Dominant Heriiaceous Species
1996
ORHE,
BRTE,
CELO
BRTE,
ORHE,
CELO
CLEG,
ORHE,
BRTE
CELO,
BRTE,
ARFE
YAST,
GUSA,
SIHY
1998
BRTE,
LASE,
TRDU
BRTE,
GUSA,
UCsp
BRTE,
GUSA
BRTE,
AGEX,
GUSA
AGEX,
UNsp,
ERsp
1999
BRTE,
SYAL,
SIHY
BRTE,
GUSA,
ORHE
BRTE,
RATE.
SiHY
BRTE.
LEPE,
GUSA
RATE,
ViAM,
POEP
• Not Sampled in 1990. 19^8^
• & 1999 . ,.•.:
BRTE, BRTE,
CELO, CLEG,
SYAL SYAL
BRTE,
SYAL,
LASE
2002
RATE.
BRTE
RATE,
BRTE,
ORHE,
ALAL
RATE,
SIHY
BRTE,
RATE.
POSE,
ORHE
RATE,
BRTE,
VIAM,
AGTR
BRTE,
ORHE
NONE
'• Not Samplea in 1996. 1998. 1999 & A
' .£pSfyi- t? 2002 . .. -•-'
• Not Sampled in.1996,i199S:.:1999 S
:i • •••4: ...2002^ " •
'§-Not.Samp]edin 1996,1993. 1999 i"^
• • "%:- • 2002 : • ••=, ...^iV,
CELO,
POSE,
AGTR
'•'Not'-'
S.ample
'.'•din
• 1996
AGEX,
AGDE,
CELO
AGDE,
BRTE,
ORHE
POSE,
AGTR.
RATE
BRTE,
ViAM.
AGDE
AGDE,
RATE,
BRTE
AGDE,
ORHE,
VIAM,
BRTE
2005
BRTE,
RATE
BRTE,
RATE
RATE,
BRTE,
CELO
RATE,
BRTE,
AGEX
RATE,
VIAM
CADR,
BRTE,
RATE
DESO,
RATE
BRTE,
RATE,
LEPE
BRTE,
RATE.
LEPE,
ARFE
RATE,
AGDE(CR)
,BRTE
RATE.
AGTR,
AGDE(CR)
BRTE.
RATE
Number of Herbaceous Species |
1996
8
8
5
6
14
1998
3
7
2
6
6
1999
3
8
4
9
13
7 3 3
2002
2
4
2
4
4
2
0
•• •.*,!; ^ ••"•••.••••• -wn.M.
10
•••••'h7j^'^
•0y
5
5
6
6
3
4
2005
10
9
6
6
11
8
8
7
8
14
10
12
2002 EMFS Data I
D/I
Index
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
FV
3
3
3
2
3
2 m
1
Diversity |
Index
0.19
0.37
0.48
0.63
0.38
0.49
0.00
Richness
0.16
0.53
0.22
0.42
0.62
0.24
0.00
• .i • . •.. .^, .sis-
0.55
0.59
0.35
0.51
Percent
Cover
48
21
60
46
14
6
•••.%lf
- •-••-• f^\:^>
m
39
200S EMFS Data 1
D/I
Index
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
FV
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
Dhrersttx, 1
index
0.53
0.51
0.31
0.48
0.19
0.66
0.39
0.57
0.64
0.36
0.2S
0.15
Richness
1.05
0.93
0.57
0.54
1.31
0.92
1.03
0.75
0.82
1.39
1.10
1.23
Percent
Cover
80
33
61
76
18
34
37
55
79
66
39
57
6-44 ^
Table 6.2-3. Herbaceous Community Composition (Continued)
Grid
ID
1305
1412
1416
1508
1706
1710
1808
Dominant Herbaceous Species*
igis'S 1
Not :5 a
CELO.
ORHE,
SYAL
WotSf
LEPE,
BRTE.
CELO
Noi S3
. ...:#^ :
• Wot Sa
BRTE.
ORHE.
CELO
199^
BRTE,
SIHY
BRTE,
LASE.
LEPE
BRTE.
GUSA.
SPCO
199^^2ro2
BRTE.
LEPE
BRTE,
RATE
BRTE.
ALAL.
GUSA
RATE,
BRTE,
ALAL
2006
DESO,
RATE,
ALAL,
BRTE
RATE,
BRTE
RATE,
BRTE
LEPE,
RATE,
BRTE
saB^i^^^H CADR
99e,~t998. 1999 &
K2
BRTE,
SPGR,
OPPO
RATE,
BRTE.
AGDE
RATE,
LEFE,
ORHE
RATE,
BRTE
AVERAOE
Number of Herbaceous Spedes Ijlill
5 2 2 2
6 5 8 3
••••:,• : •• is -i •; #'" "•''
6
7
4
4
5
6
3
3
2005
7
5
3
10
1
7
9
8
2002 EMFS Data
D/I
M.-M
3
3
3
rw
p.:
^ . •
2^
2
3
2
Diversity
•fr:raii:J!!rT!«
0.49 0.23
'•' --^i
0.39 0.47
#• \
0.33
0.48
0.44
0.37
Percent
•^.]^- -\.
Wm •
:
;
S
'
B
[
29
200S EMFS Data |
liKlex
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2.76
FV
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2.S0
Diversity
Index
0.71
0.32
0.10
0.62
0.00
0.29
0.19
0.42
Richness
0.83
0.42
0.26
1.16
0.00
0.69
0.89
0.80
Percent
Cover
48
106
6
31
7
31
28
49.42
Notes:
° Refer to table 6.2-1 for species names to go with the codes.
D/I Index = decreaser/increaser index
FV = forage value
6-45
Table 6.3-1. Summary of 2005 Vegetation Characteristics
Sample
ID
0111
0112
0214
0308
0400
0416
0420
0515
0611
0813 .
0616
0618
0623
0707
0714
0802
0812
0813
0817
0819
0914
1004
1007
IPO?.
1011
1013
1015
1018
Dominant Spedes'
SAVi. ARTR
Not Sampled in 2005
SAVI. GUSA
Not sarrpled in 2005
SAVI. ARTR
ARTR, SAVI, ATCO
ARTR, SAVi
SAVI, ARTR
ARTR, ATCO
ARTR. ATCO
ARTR, GUSA, ATCO_
ARTR, GUSA
ARTR, SAVI
EPVI
ARTR
ARTR
ATCO
ARTR, EPVI
ARTR. GUSA
ARTR
SAVi
ARTR
ARTR
ARTR
ARTR, ATCO
ARTR, EPVI
ARTR, GUSA
ARTR, ATCO, SAVI
ARTR
2005 Shrub Characteristics
Cover
(mi'/ha)
^^M35
^^178^
2163
8707
7210
3716
8530
8596
„.790!8
2396
7908
222
1897
5823
854
7886
5346
6467
2329
3206
6821
954
5089
4348
10127
6322
4692
FV
4 s
4
3
3
4
3
3
3_.
3
3
2
0
3
1
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
._ _2
3
3
3
3
Average
Height
aass
2 s
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
2
1
1 „_
2
1
1
1
Average
Vigor
063
0^^
0.85
0.67
0.75
0.79
0.68
0.39
0.43
0.76
0.65
0.75
0.00
0.62
0.38
0.70
0.64
0.69
0.88
0.59
0.70
0.09
A51
0.83
0.73
0.73
0.83
Clumps
per
Hectare
^Tore
^6^
2260
11467
12597
3728
9264
10055
_ .11016.
2712
13953
113
1864
6270
506
8078
7005
5649
2147
1864
6666
1864
6553
1921
10055
8982
7005
NuiTtwr
of
Species
2
^
2
3
2
2
2
2
...,-..3 ...._.
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
4
3
2
2005 Hertiaceous Characteristics 1
Dominant Spedes"
RATE. LEPE, BRTE
D/i index
_^^^
FV
^^^
RATE, LEPE 2 | 2
Not Sampled In 2005
RATE, LEPE. CADR
RATE, ALAL
RATE
BRTE. RATE, LEPE
BRTE, RATE, ARFE
RATE, BRTE, DESO
BFJTE, RATE, PESO
RATE, BRTE, ALAL
RATE
BRTE, RATE, DESO
UNKNOWN SPECIES
BRTE, RATE, ALAL
DESO. BRTE. RATE
BRTE. RATE, ALAL
BRTE, RATE, ALAL
RATE, BRTE
RATE, BRTE
BRTE, RATE
RATE, DESO
RATE. DESO, SISYM
RATE^BRJE
RATE, BRTE
BRTE, RATE, ALAL
RATE. BRTE
RATE, BRTE, LEPE
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3 _
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
0
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
. .2
3
3
3
2
Diversity
Index
058
Richness
0.64
^M^^O^^
0.43
0.20
0.01
0.63
0.52
0.41
0.55
0.53
0.02
0.45
0.64
0.58
0.64
0.64
0.66
0.51
0.54
0.44
0.27
0.48
0.48
0.53
0.51
0.31
0.48
0.63
0.56
0.36
1.09
1.20
0.56
0.62
0.99
0.34
0.64
0.54
1.11
0.64
0.96
1.39
0.33
1.01
0.84
0.85
0.74
0 94
1.05
0.93
0.57
0.54
NuiTber
of
Species
6 2
6
6
4
10
11
6
7
10
4
6
5
11
6
9
13
4
9
8
7
7
9 .
10
9
6
6
Percent Ground Cover 1
Herbaceous
51
Shrub
^S^^
^3^^^^1^^
44
44
31
73
58
54
29 .
62
46
71
81
56
88
38
46
65
55
50
34
55
_ _ 36
80
33
61
76
22
87
72
37
85
86
79
24
79
2
19
58
9
79
53
65
23
32
68
10
.51
43
101
63
47
6-46
Table 6.3-1. Summary of 2005 Vegetation Characteristics (Continued)
Sample
ID
1022
1108
1202
1209
1214
1218
1222
1223
1305
1412
1416
1508
1706
1710
1808
2005 Shmb Characteristics I
Dominant Spedes'
JUOS. PIED
ATCO. ARTR
ARTR
EPVI. ARTR
ARTR
ARTR
ARTR. JUOS
ARTR, JUOS
ATCO. ARTR
ARTR. SAVI
JUOS. PIED
ARTR
ARTR
ARTR. KRLA2. ATCO
ARTR
AVERAGE
Cover
(m'/ha)
4703
3594
9594
4725
6932
6211
4858
1886
954
7143
2329
8518
344
5235
8130
5040
FV
3
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
0
3
3
2.77
Average
neigfu
Class
6
1
2
2
2
1
3
3
1
2
5
1
1
2
2
1.81
Average
Vigor
0.71
0.74
0.27
0.29
0.68
0.53
0.66
0.74
0.65
0.39
0.83
0.53
0.00
0.81
0.51
0.60
Clumps
per
Hectare
1243
6270
7457
4632
5705
10168
3446
1638
3502
7287
678
9434
339
8135
7400
5825
Nurrber
of
Species
2
3
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
4
1
1.95
2005 Herbaceous Characteristics |
Dominant Spedes
RATE
BRTE. RATE. SISYM
DESO. RATE
RATE, BRTE
BRTE, RATE. LEPE.
ARFE
RATE. BRTE. LEPE
RATE. AGTR. ARFE
BRTE. RATE
RATE. ALAL, DESO
RATE, BRTE
RATE
LEPE. RATE. BRTE
SISYM
RATE. LEAR4
RATE. BRTE
D/I Index
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
FV
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2.53
Diversity
0.19
0.66
0.39
057
0.64
0.36
0.25
0.15
0.71
0.32
0.10
0.62
0.00
0.29
0.19
0.42
1.31
0.92
1.03
0.75
0.82
1.39
1.10
1.23
0.83
0.42
0.26
1.16
0.00
0.69
0.89
0.81
Nurrber
of
Species
11
8
8
7
8
14
10
12
7
5
3
10
1
6
9
7.71
Percent Ground Cover j
Herbaceous
18
34
37
55
79
66
39
57
48
106
6
31
7
31
28
49
ShnJb
47
36
96
47
69
62
49
19
10
71
23
85
3
52
81
50
Notes:
* Refer to table 6.2-1 for species names to go with the codes
D/I Index •= decreaser/increaser index
FV ' hxage value
m'/ha - square meter per hectare
6-47
Table 6.3.2.1-1. Herbaceous Vegetation Comparison 1996 Through 2005
EMBS 1996
Species'
CELO
BRTE
ORHE
POCU
LEPE
SIHY
ARFE
SYAL
POSE
DEPI
Sum
Total
Cover. All
Species
Number
of
Species
% Cover
35.45
21.63
14.66
3.74
2.69
1.57
1.52
1.42
1.33
0.72
84.73
88.93
59
IV
0.275
0.198
0.146
0.027
0.044
0.037
0.024
0.040
0.017
0.014
0.822
1.0
FV
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
3
Species'
BRTE
DISP(p)
RATE
ORHE
ALAL
POSE
SIHY
VIAM
SYAL
ELTR
1999 EMFS
% Cover
33.70
3.77
3.11
1.41
1.30
1.11
1.06
0.84
0.82
0.81
47.92
54.08
50
IV
0.172
0.015
0.075
0.052
0.037
0.045
0.097
0.015
0.037
0.007
0.551
1.0
FV
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
2
Species'
RATE
BRTE
DiST(p)
AGDE(CR)
ORHE
SIHY
ALAL
POSE
LEPE
VIAM
2002 EMFS
% Cover
1.17
0.91
0.49
0.28
0.16
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
3.26
3.27
17
IV
0.329
0.289
0.094
0.062
0.070
0.043
0.047
0.021
0.012
0.017
0.984
1.0
.
FV
3
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
Species'
RATE
BRTE
DESO
LEPE
1(3)"
CADR
ALAL
AGDE(C
R)
CELO
AGTR
2005 EMFS
% Cover
16.59
14.68
4.41
2.85
1.32
1.25
0.92
0.78
0.62
0.62
44.05
49.35
42
IV
0.228
0.211
0.090
0.056
0.015
0.040
0.035
0.023
0.028
0.020
0.746
1.0
FV
3
2
3
2
(3)
3
3
1
3
3
Notes:
* See table 6.2-1 for definitions of species codes.
'' 1(3) = unknown, tentatively identified as DIST(p), Distichlis stricta in which case FV would be changed to 2, fair.
IV = importance value
FV = forage value:
1 = good
3 = poor
2 = fair
(3) = assumed poor forage value for unknown species
6-48
SECTION 7
CHEMICAL RESULTS - GENERAL
This section contains Information pertaining to development of chemical analytical
results reported In sections 8 through 11.
7.1 Chemical Data Assessment
This section provides an assessment of the technical quality and validity of
the 2005 EMFS chemical data. Comparability ofthe 2005 EMFS chemical data with the
previous studies was discussed in section 5 of this report. Validation results for data
obtained from analysis of tiie samples collected during both the May 2005 and the
June 2005 events are discussed in the 2005 Data Validation Letter Report for
Environmental Monitoring Follow-on Study. Laboratory data reports are provided in
appendix C of this report.
In general, the overall chemical data derived from the 2005 EMFS were found to be
acceptable and useable for the purposes of this study. Use of the chemical data for
comparison to the previous studies Is considered technically acceptable.
Samples of environmental media were collected from 41 sites in May 2005 and from
four sites in June 2005. All sampling activities were conducted in accordance with the
approved Final FSP dated October 2004. The samples were submitted to ELAB and
Paradigm Laboratories, Inc. (Southwest Laboratories of Oklahoma, Inc. [SWLOK]) for
chemical analyses. Both laboratories maintain cun-ent State of Utah certifications for all
analyses required for this 2005 EMFS. ELAB was contracted to perform all analyses
required for this project with the exception of dioxins and furans. Paradigm
Laboratories, Inc. performed only the dioxin and furan analyses for all matrices.
In order to promote data comparability, the analytical laboratories were required to
perform testing within the guidelines of standardized USEPA-approved protocols. All
7-1
analyses were performed in strict accordance with the following protocols, unless
othenvlse noted: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-846, 3rd Edition,
(USEPA, 1997) The laboratories were required to report field sample and supporting
QC data in a USEPA Level 4 fomriat consistent with the current USEPA Contract
Laboratory Program Statement of Work (SOW). Level 4 laboratory data packages
Include all forms, summaries, and raw data specified in the USEPA Contract Laboratory
Program SOW. The Level 4 data packages are sufficient to recreate the analytical
process for full data validation. Scanned and Indexed data will be uploaded to the
Environmental Restoration Infomiation System (ERIS) database.
7.1.1 Chemical Data Validation Results. The quality of the chemical data was
evaluated following procedures included In the QAPjP. As reported In the 2005 Data
Validation Letter Report for Environmental Monitoring Follow-on Study, the quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) results associated with the 2005 EMFS data
generally Indicate that the data met "definitive data" standards and were of known
quality. QC data demonstrated that the quality assurance (QA) mechanisms were
effective In ensuring measurement data reliability within expected limits of sampling and
analytical error. The data, as qualified, are considered representative of site conditions
at the time sampled. Data reported are acceptable for the uses as intended with the
required qualifications and limitations.
One semivolatile target analyte, hexachlorocyclopentadiene. Is the only analyte with
unusable data due to QC deficiencies. Five soil samples and fifteen vegetation samples
required rejection for hexachlorocyclopentadiene. Rejected results were not Included in
statistical evaluation ofthe 2005 EMFS data. The rejected hexachlorocyclopentadiene
resutts were not anticipated to have a significant effect on project decision-making.
Data users are urged to review the data quality nan'atives and associated data
qualifications found In the 2005 Data Validation Letter Report for Environmental
Monitoring Follow-on Study before utilizing this data for decision-making.
The approved chemical data quality review procedures were based on EPA Contract
Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review,
7-2
EPA-540/R-99/008 (October 1999), EPA Contract Laboratory Program National
Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review, EPA-546/R-94/013 (February 1994),
and USEPA Analytical Operations/Data Quality Center National Functional Guidelines
for Chlorinated Dioxin/Furan Data Review, EPA 540-R-02-003 (August 2002), herein
collectively referred to as the Functional Guidelines. Data evaluations also were based
on the QC requirements of the analytical methods, project data quality objectives
(DQOs) presented in the QAPjP, and Infonned professional judgment of the evaluator.
Data validation was perfonned by qualified personnel, experienced in the evaluation of
analytical data quality.
7.2 Statistical Approach
A statistical evaluation of the 2005 EMFS chemical data derived from surface soil and
vegetation samples was perfonned to identify statistically significant increases in the
mean concentration for any monitored chemical parameter relative to the baseline mean
values from the 1996 EMBS. The statistical evaluation was performed in accordance
with the procedures presented in Section 6 ofthe TOCDF FSP.
Three statistical approaches were used to evaluate the 2005 EMFS data. The first
approach was consistent with the procedures used in the 1999 and 2002 EMFS. Data
from the original 26 sampling sites, plus two sites added for the 2002 EMFS, were
compared to the data from the 1996 EMBS. All data from site 0707 were eliminated
from the statistical evaluation as Indicated In the EMBS because of the anomalous
ecological nature of the site. Shmb data from site 1022 were also excluded from the
statistical evaluations because big sagebrush was not found at this site and was the
only shrub sampled at all other sites. No samples were collected at site 0224 In 2005
because access penmission was not obtained from the landowner. EMBS site 0112
was permanently moved approximately one-half mile and reestablished as site 0111 for
the 2005 EMFS. Based on these adjustments, statistical evaluation included data from
23 soil, 22 shrub and 22 herbaceous samples from each ofthe EMBS and the
2005 EMFS. It has been referred to as the "random-sample (matched)" statistical
approach in this document
7-3
The second approach was also consistent with the 1999 and 2005 EMFS as described
previously, but included data from the 16 new sampling sites added for the 2005 EMFS.
This evaluation helped determine if the new sampling sites are statistically consistent
with the sites chosen forthe EMBS, or If tiieir inclusion in the statistical evaluations
would bias the 2005 EMFS results. This statistical evaluation included data from
25 EMBS soil, 41 EMFS soil, 24 EMBS shrub, 39 EMFS shmb, 24 EMBS herbaceous
and 41 EMFS herbaceous samples. It has been referred to as the "random-sample
(all)" statistical approach in this document
The third approach used paired-sample statistical methods. All previous studies.
Including the EMBS, assumed a statistically random sampling pattem for t)oth the
EMBS and for each EMFS. However, as discussed in Section 6 ofthe TOCDF FSP, it
can be argued that the data are more appropriately evaluated using paired-sample
statistical methods since the EMFS samples are collected at the same sites as the
EMBS samples. Using a paired-sample approach allows for evaluation of data from
sites 0707 and the shmb data fnsm location 1022 because only paired differences are
evaluated. Variations In concentrations from site to site are eliminated using
paired-sample statistical methods. The third statistical evaluation included the data
from 24 soil, 23 shmb, and 23 herbaceous samples from the EMBS and the
2005 EMFS. It has been referred to as the "paired-sample" statistical approach in this
document.
The statistical evaluation process began by defining the condition to be tested, the null
hypothesis. The null hypothesis was evaluated for validity for each COPC In the EMFS
using a tiered approach. The null hypothesis is summarized as follows:
The average concentration observed during follow-on monitoring for each
COPC In each medium is less than or equal to the mean concentration
observed for that COPC in that medium during baseline monitoring.
If an Individual COPC was found to have sufficient evidence to reject the null
hypothesis, it was retained for historical trend and spatial distribution evaluation.
7-4
COPCs for which the null hypothesis was not rejected were eliminated from further
evaluation. The following summarizes the statistical approach applied to 2005 EMFS
chemical data. For additional information conceming each step, see Section 6 of the
FSP.
Step 1. Determine the frequency of detection for each COPC in 2005 EMFS and EMBS
and identify an appropriate distribution evaluation method based on detection
frequency.
Step 2. Detennine the distribution for each COPC in each medium using the distribution
test identified in step 1.
a. The Shapiro-Wilk test (data sets of less than 50 samples) was applied for
COPCs with 85 to 100 percent frequency of detection. In this test any
nondetect values were substituted with one-half the MDL.
b. The Shaplro-Wilk test also was applied for COPCs with 50 to 85 percent
frequency of detection; however, nondetect values were estimated in this
test using the linear regression technique known as regression on order
statistics (ROS) developed by Helsel (Helsel, 1990).
c. A nonparametric distribution was assumed for COPCs with a
10 to 50 percent frequency of detection.
d. A Poisson distribution, which is descriptive of a rare event, was assumed
for COPCs with less than 10 percent frequency of detection.
Step 3. Determine maximum detected value and estimate summary statistics (mean
and standard deviation) for each COPC In each medium based on the appropriate
distribution.
7-5
step 4. Compare 2005 EMFS summary statistics to EMBS screening levels:
a. Compare 2005 EMFS detected values to the EMBS 99 percent UTL.
b. Compare 2005 EMFS mean values to EMBS mean values.
c. Compare 2005 EMFS summary statistics to EMBS maximum detected
value (for those COPCs with an insufficient number of EMBS detections to
establish a UTL).
d. Compare 2005 EMFS summary statistics to EMBS reporting limits (for
those COPCs where there were no detections In the EMBS).
Retain for furOier evaluation those COPCs where the 2005 EMFS statistic exceeds the
EMBS screening level.
Step 5. Perform appropriate statistical tests based on data distribution (step 2) to
determine If the compared means are statistically the same, different, or Indetemnlnate.
a. If EMFS and EMBS data both follow a parametric distribution (normal or
log nonnal) evaluate using a random-sample t-test. A paired-sample t-test
was used to compare the differences between paired samples from the
EMFS and EMBS (samples collected at the same sampling locations).
b. If the random sample data set distributions for the EMBS and EMFS were
not similar or if either data set demonstrated a nonparametric distribution,
the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum (WRS) test was used. For nonparametric data
sets, paired samples were compared using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank
(WSR) test. Paired Prentice-Wilcoxon (R) Test, or Sign Test. The test
used was based on frequency of detection and the number of censoring
levels.
7-6
c. If either the EMBS or EMFS data set had fewer than 10 percent
detections, a Poisson model was used to compare the data sets.
Significant differences In reporting limits between the EMBS and EMFS
may preclude use ofthe Poisson model. In such cases, a direct
comparison of the detected values and reporting limits for nondetects will
be used when a Poisson model cannot be used.
Retain for further evaluation those COPCs where there was a statistically significant
increase in concentration from the EMBS to the 2005 EMFS.
Step 6. Evaluate spatial and temporal trends. Spatial trends were evaluated by
mapping 2005 EMFS data. Temporal trends were evaluated by preparing a histogram
showing COPC values from the EMBS and each EMFS.
Statistical testing of the null hypothesis for this study led to one of three outcomes:
a. Accept Null Hypothesis. 2005 EMFS data show no statistically significant
Increase in COPC mean concentrations relative to the EMBS baseline
mean.
b. Reject Null Hypothesis. 2005 EMFS data show a statistically significant
increase in COPC mean concentrations relative to the EMBS baseline
mean concentrations.
c. Statistically Indeterminate. Comparison of 2005 EMFS and EMBS data Is
Inconclusive or not applicable. An Indeterminate decision can result from
differing detection limits between the two studies, COPC detection In the
2005 EMFS but not in the EMBS, Inconclusive or contradictory statistical
test results.
The analytical results for site 0707 were excluded from the random-sample (matched)
statistical evaluation to remain consistent with the EMBS and follow-on studies. The
7-7
site is located in a satt marsh. As in the previous studies, the soil samples were found
to have anomalously high values for many ofthe analytes tested. The analytical results
for site 0707 were included in the paired-sample statistical evaluations.
Common laboratory contaminants were excluded from historical trend and spatial
distribution analyses in the 2005 EMFS to remain consistent with the EMBS.
7-8
SECTION 8
CHEMICAL RESULTS - SOIL
Table C-1 in annex C presents all analytical results for 2005 EMFS soil samples. EMBS
maximums and UTL values are also given. The following paragraphs describe data for
analytes that were detected In 2005 EMFS soil samples and analytes that were
detected in the 1996 EMBS but not detected in 2005.
The 2005 EMFS surface soil samples were analyzed for the same metals,
dioxins/furans, nitro-aromatics (explosives), PCBs, and SVOCs, as the EMBS. Anions
were not analyzed In the 2005 EMFS and VOCs were only evaluated in new sampling
locations.
8.1 Surface Soil COPCs Detected (Step 1)
Table 8.1-1 lists the COPCs detected In 1996 and/or 2005. For each COPC the number
of samples, number of detections, and frequency of detection (percent detections) are
given. The distribution test method used for each analyte is also listed. The COPCs
detected include:
a. Metals. Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium,
calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese,
mercury, molybdenum, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium,
thallium, tin, vanadium, and zinc
b. Dioxins/Furans. OCDD, OCDF, heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxIns
(HPCDD), heptachlorinated dibenzofurans (HPCDF), hexachlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (HXCDD), hexachlorinated dibenzofurans (HXCDF),
pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PECDD), pentachlorinated
dibenzofurans (PECDF), tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDD), and
tetrchlorinated dibenzofurans (TCDF)
8-1
c. SVOCs. di-n-butylphthalate
d. VOCs. Acetone, benzene, carbon disulfide, ethylbenzene, 2-butanone,
toluene, and total xylenes
e. Explosives. High melting explosive (HMX), royal demolition explosive
(RDX), Tetryl and 2,4,6-trinltrotoluene (TNT).
Twenty-two analytes were detected In 1996 and also detected in 2005. Three analytes
were detected in 1996 but not in 2005, and 26 analytes were detected in 2005 that were
not detected in 1996. The analytes detected In the 2005 EMFS that were not detected
during the EMBS included:
Metals. Mercury, selenium, silver, and tin
Dioxins/Furans. OCDD, OCDF, HPCDD, HPCDF, HXCDD, HXCDF,
PECDD, PECDF, TCDD, and TCDF
SVOCs. di-n-butylphthalate
VOCs. Acetone, benzene, carbon disulfide, ethylbenzene, 2-butanone,
toluene, and total xylenes
Explosives. HMX, RDX, Tetryl and TNT.
Selenium was detected In two samples (site 0819 and 0707) during the 2005 EMFS.
Both detections were at locations outside the modeled zones of potential high or
medium particulate deposition. Selenium was detected In several locations during the
1999 EMFS, but was not detected at any location except 0707 In the EMBS or
2002 EMFS. The fact that site 0707 has shown consistent detections over all sampling
events, suggests that the selenium at this location Is due to a localized, non-TOCDF
8-2
emissions related source. Location 0819 was sampled for the first time in the
2005 EMFS. The amount of selenium detected (0.26 milligram per kilogram [mg/kg]) is
essentially at the EMBS reporting limit (0.25 mg/kg).
Tin was detected in one sample (site 0819) during the 2005 EMFS. The single detected
concentration of 4.70 mg/kg was below the lowest EMBS reporting limit. All 2005 EMFS
limits were less than the EMBS reporting limits. Tin could have been present during the
EMBS at concentrations higher than those reported in the 2005 EMFS but below the
laboratory's ability to measure. Accordingly, these data sets were deemed as being
consistent and tin was excluded from spatial distribution analysis.
8.2 Surface Soil COPC Distributions (Step 2)
Based on the frequency of detection, soil data were subjected to the distribution test
methods shown in table 8.1-1. Distribution test results are provided in table 8.2-1. The
EMBS data distributions in table 8.2-1 have been reevaluated for the purpose of central
tendency testing. In some cases, calculations indicated that EMBS data categorized as
normal distributions In the EMBS report (Dames and Moore, 1997b) are more
appropriately categorized as lognomnal.
8.3 Surface Soil Summary Statistics (Step 3)
Table 8.2-2 shows a mean, standard deviation, and maximum detected value for each
COPC in the 2005 EMFS and 1996 EMBS. The 99 percent UTLs from the EMBS are
also presented. Mean concentrations for the 2005 EMFS that exceeded the
corresponding EMBS value are highlighted, as are the EMFS maximum concentrations
that exceeded the baseline UTL. For analytes that had no detections in the EMBS, the
EMFS maximum value was highlighted if it exceeded the EMBS reporting limit.
8-3
8.4 Surface Soil Comparison to Screening Levels (Step 4)
The 2005 EMFS surface soil COPC concentrations were compared to the EMBS
99 percent UTL values as described in the TOCDF FSP.
Table 8.2-2 presents all detected 2005 EMFS soil COPCs and shading indicates those
that have one or more detections above the corresponding EMBS 99 percent UTL or
maximum. The 2005 EMFS COPC mean concentrations that exceeded the conrelative
reported EMBS mean are also indicated by shading. All shaded COPCs were
designated for further statistical evaluation unless they were classified as a common
laboratory contaminant
COPCs classified as common laboratory contaminants were excluded from the EMBS
statistical evaluation and, based on that exclusion, also were excluded from 2005 EMFS
statistical evaluation. Common laboratory contaminants excluded from additional
evaluation consisted of di-n-butyl phthalate, 2-butanone, and acetone.
Most COPCs detected In the 2005 EMFS surface soil samples exceeded the EMBS
screening levels for analytes identified in 1996. Only antimony was reported at
concentrations less than the EMBS. Nitroglycerine was not detected at reporting limits
less than the EMBS reporting limits. Phenol was not detected at limits similar to the
EMBS reporting limits. The remaining COPCs failed the screening test and were
designated for further statistical analysis as listed below.
a. Metals. Aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, calcium,
chromium, cobalt copper. Iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury,
nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium, tin, vanadium, and
zinc
8-4
b. Dioxins/Furans. OCDD, OCDF, HPCDD, HPCDF, HXCDD, HXCDF,
PECDD, PECDF, TCDD, and TCDF
c. VOCs. Benzene, carbon disulfide, ethylbenzene, toluene, and total
xylenes
d. Explosives. HMX, RDX, Tetryl and TNT.
8.5 Surface Soil Statistical Evaluation (Step 5)
8.5.1 Central Tendency Tests. The 2005 EMFS COPCs that exceeded the screening
criterion or had a higher mean concentration than the EMBS were evaluated using
central tendency tests to evaluate the potential for a statistically significant Increase in
the mean concentration. Table 8.4-1 summarizes the outcome of means testing
(central tendency) for the retained soil COPCs. The three possible outcomes of central
tendency testing were discussed in paragraph 7.2 of this report. Analytes detected in
the 2005 EMFS but not In the EMBS also were tested and are discussed in this section.
The null hypothesis was rejected forthe following COPCs detected In the EMBS and
evaluated using the statistical tests indicated in the table, t-test (t), WRS or Poisson
distribution (Poisson).
Aluminum (WRS)
Arsenic (WRS)
Barium ((t/WRS)
Beryllium (WRS)
Cadmium (same WRS) (paired-sample Pt/WSR - 16/24 increased)
8-5
Chromium (tA/VRS)
Cobalt (same t/WRS) (paired-sample Pt/WSR - 21/24 increased)
Copper (WRS)
Iron (t/WRS)
Magnesium (indetemnlnate tA/VRS) (paired-sample Pt/WSR - 19/24
increased)
Manganese (same t/WRS) (paired-sample Pt/WSR- 18/24 increased)
Nickel (WRS)
Potassium (t/WRS)
Thallium (Poisson - 2005 reporting limits elevated by 2X to 4X)
Vanadium (t/WRS)
Zinc (same WRS) (paired-sample Pt/WSR - 20/24 increased).
Concentrations ofthe commonly abundant metals aluminum, copper, iron, magnesium,
manganese, nickel, potassium, thallium and zinc were within ranges expected in the
geographical region and were excluded from further evaluation.
Arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, and vanadium were retained for
spatial distribution analysis and are discussed in more detail later In this section.
8-6
The means assessment results for soils (table 8.4-1) identified statistically significant
decreases in the 2005 EMFS concentrations relative to the 1996 EMBS concentrations.
Ofthe analytes detected in 1996 that were evaluated, five showed statistically
significant or apparent decreases in the 2005 EMFS as follows: antimony,
molytxlenum, sodium, nitroglycerin, and phenol.
No statistically significant change was indicated for 2005 EMFS concentrations of
boron, calcium, and lead.
8.5.2 Statistically Indeterminate COPC. For 2005 EMFS COPCs that were not
detected in the EMBS, statistical tests were not applicable because summary statistics
could not be generated from the baseline data. Twenty-six compounds not detected in
the 1996 EMBS were detected in the 2005 EMFS. These COPCs were categorized as
statistically indetemnlnate and Include the following:
Metals. Mercury, selenium, silver, and tin
Dioxins/Furans. OCDD, OCDF, HPCDD, HPCDF, HXCDD, HXCDF,
PECDD, PECDF, TCDD, TCDF
Explosives. TNT, RDX, HMX, and Tetryl
SVOCs. Di-n-butylphthalate
VOCs. Acetone, benzene, carbon disulfide, ethylbenzene, 2-butanone,
toluene, and total xylenes.
In these cases, the 2005 EMFS COPC maximum detection and/or mean (if applicable),
were compared against one-half the EMBS reporting limit. Each COPC was evaluated
8-7
separately to detennine If spatial distribution analysis would be required, with the
following results:
a. Mercury was not detected in 25 analyses during the EMBS at reporting
limits ranging from 0.1 to 6.26 mg/kg. The 2005 EMFS data indicated that
mercury was detected in 16 of 41 analyses (39 percent) and summary
statistics were computed using a nonparametric distribution. Both the
maximum detected concentration of 0.085 mg/kg and the computed mean
of 0.0276 were below the lowest EMBS reporting limit, indicating that
mercury could have been present In the EMBS samples at concentrations
equal to or higher than the EMFS concentrations, but below the
laboratory's ability to measure. Although no concentration increase is
Indicated, mercury Is a species of general environmental concem, and
thus, it was retained for spatial distribution analysis.
b. Selenium was not detected in 24 analyses during the EMBS at reporting
limits ranging from 0.25 to 0.50 mg/kg. The 2005 EMFS data Indicated
that selenium was present in only 1 of 41 analyses (2 percent). Summary
statistics were not computed because the distribution could not be
categorized due to the low detection infrequency. A concentration of
1.40 mg/kg was reported at site 0707. This site was identified In the
EMBS as an anomalous location and excluded from statistical evaluations.
The other detection was a value of 0.26 mg/kg at site 0819, a site not
sampled In the EMBS that lies outside the zones of high and medium
potential deposition. This value is slightiy above the EMBS reporting
limits. Limits In the 2005 EMFS were slightiy higher than the EMBS
reporting limits. The single detected value at the newly established
sampling site does not wan'ant spatial distribution mapping but its
relationship to the TOCDF common stack is noted and its concentration is
compared to historical trends In paragraph 8.6 of this report.
8-8
c. Silver was not detected in 25 analyses during the EMBS at reporting limits
ranging from 0.50 to 50.0 mg/kg. The 2005 EMFS data indicated that
silver was present In only 3 of 41 analyses (7 percent). Summary
statistics were not computed because the distribution could not be
categorized due to low detection frequency. Detected concentrations
ranged from 0.51 to 4.60 mg/kg. The highest concentration was at
location 0819, a newly established sampling location. The lowest
concentration detected was from sampling location 0606 and was only
slightiy higher than the lowest EMBS reporting limit of 0,50. All
2005 EMFS silver non-detects had limits lower than the highest EMBS
reporting limit. Accordingly, these data sets were deemed as being
consistent and silver was not retained for spatial distribution analysis.
d. Tin was not detected In 25 analyses during the EMBS at reporting limits
ranging from 5.0 to 60.0 mg/kg. The 2005 EMFS data Indicated that tin
was present In only 1 of 41 analyses (2 percent). The single detected
concentration of 4.70 mg/kg was below the lowest EMBS reporting limit.
All 2005 EMFS limits were tess than the EMBS reporting limits.
Accordingly, these data sets were deemed as being consistent and tin
was excluded fn^m spatial distribution analysis.
e. Dioxin/furan compounds were not detected in 25 analyses during the
EMBS at reporting limits between 63 and 310 ng/kg for ten classes of
compounds. The 2005 EMFS data Indicated that ten dioxin/furan classes
were detected at frequencies ranging from 7 percent to 98 percent of the
analyses at reporting limits ranging from 0.926 to 15,500 ng/kg. Summary
statistics were computed for each dioxin/furan compound detected In the
2005 EMFS with 10 percent or more detections, using the appropriate
distribution. In the 2005 EMFS, the only detections and the only reporting
limits (for nondetects) to exceed EMBS reporting limits were at the new
sampling site 1209, which lies within a fornner industrial area at DCD. At
that site, detected concentrations for total HPCDD, HXCDD, HXCDF,
8-9
OCDD, OCDF, and PECDF were 10 to 100 times greater than the highest
detected concentrations at any other EMFS sampling site. Likewise, the
reporting limit for total HPCDF was at least 10 times higher than any other
dioxin or furan reporting limit In the 2005 EMFS. The unusual nature of
this sampling site with regard to dioxins and furans appears to be related
to its history as an old industrial site and is not related to TOCDF
incinerator emissions. At sites sampled during both the EMBS and the
2005 EMFS, alt EMFS detections and all EMFS reporting limits were
below the corresponding EMBS reporting limit. There is no evidence
suggesting Increasing concentrations of any dioxin or furan compound at
any ofthe EMBS sampling locations. Accordingly, dioxin/furan
concentrations were not retained for spatial distribution analysis.
f. Explosives HMX, RDX, Tetryl, and TNT were not detected In 25 analyses
during the EMBS. HMX was detected at 6 of 41 sites (14 percent) In the
2005 EMFS at concentrations ranging from 65 to 740 micrograms per
kilogram (pg/kg). Summary statistics were computed using nonparametric
statistical methods. The maximum detected value of 740 pg/kg at new
sampling tocation 0308 is the only detection that exceeded the EMBS
reporting limit of 660. All other detected concentrations, the mean of
62.9 mg/kg and the reporting limits in the 2005 EMFS are less than the
EMBS reporting limit. Accordingly, these data sets were deemed
consistent and HMX was excluded from spatial distribution analysis.
RDX was detected In 5 of 41 analyses (12 percent) in the 2005 EMFS at
concentrations ranging from 36 to 68 pg/kg. Summary statistics were
computed using nonparametric statistical methods. All detected values
and the mean concentration of 25.9 mg/kg are approximately an order of
magnitude tower than the EMBS reporting limit of 580. All EMFS limits are
also below the EMBS reporting limit. Accordingly, these data sets were
deemed consistent and RDX was excluded from spatial distribution
analysis.
8-10
Tetryl was detected at only 1 of 41 (2 percent) 2005 EMFS locations, at a
concentration approximately an order of niagnitude betow the EMBS
reporting limit of 730 pg/kg. All 2005 EMFS limits are also betow the
EMBS reporting limit. Accordingly, these data sets were deemed
consistent and Tetryl was excluded from spatial distribution analysis.
TNT was detected In 2 of 41 (5 percent) 2005 EMFS locations, at
concentrations approximately an order of magnitude below the EMBS
reporting limit of 450 pg/kg. Att 2005 EMFS limits are also betow the
EMBS reporting limit. TNT was not retained for spatial distribution
analysis.
g. The VOC parameters, benzene: carbon disulfide; ethylbenzene; toluene;
and total xylenes, were not detected at a reporting limit of 10 pg/kg in
25 analyses during the EMBS. The 2005 EMFS data indicate that these
VOC parameters were present at frequencies ranging from 2 percent to
36 percent of the analyses. VOCs were not analyzed during the
2005 EMFS except In the newly established sampling sites. Therefore, no
VOC compounds were retained for spatial distribution analysis.
8.6 Spatial Distribution and Temporal Trends in Surface Soil (Step 6)
Detected values of COPCs retained for spatial distribution evaluation were plotted on a
map of the study area and visually inspected to detennine if a pattem was evident. The
maps, figures 8.6-1, -3, -5, -7, -9, -11, -13, and -15, display sampling tocations for the
2005 EMFS along with detected values for the COPC. Sampte locations where the
COPC, was not detected do not have a concentration value mapped. Previously, the
reporting limit had been mapped for non-detect sampling sites. However, for many
COPCs, most if not att detections were trace-level values (concentrations above the
detection limit but below the reporting limit). Mapping the reporting limit for nondetect
sample sites would give the impression that the concentration was greater than it
probably was and would mask any pattem displayed by the sites where the COPC was
8-11
detected. This was especially apparent when the reporting limits were several times
higher than the trace-level values.
Each map includes the modeled zones of potential deposition (refer to paragraph 3.1) to
assist In identification of apparent distiibution pattems. In addition, COPC distributions
were compared to other parameters that might have influenced the observed
distribution. These parameters included fire, proximity to roads, and other
known/reported natural conditions and anthropogenic activity.
Along with evaluating spatial distribution, detected values from the EMBS and each
EMFS were plotted in a histogram to evaluate trends over time at individual sampling
locations as well as the study area as a whole. This comparison only involved those
sampling locations that had been sampled during the 2005 EMFS and during at least
one other sampling round (the EMBS or the EMFS of 1998.1999, or 2003), which
resulted In the comparison of values at 26 sampling locations. Only detected
concentrations were plotted; nondetects were treated as zero concentration. Plotting
nondetects as "zeros" was done because detection limits were not available for the
EMBS and 1998 EMFS data. In addition to looking for temporal trends at Individual
sampling locations, the data were evaluated in the whole to determine if observed
trends were isolated to specific parts of the study or generally observed through the
study area. Such a comparison would help detennine if a significant increase in
concentration of a particular COPC Identified In the 2005 EMFS represented a gradual
Increase over time or a sudden change and whether that change was consistent with
what would be expected if the cause of the change were emissions from the TOCDF
common stack. The histograms are shown In figures 8.6-2, -4, -6, -8, -10, -12, -14,
and -16.
8-12
Possible conclusions to be drawn from these additional evaluations include:
Alt media showing a tendency towards an Increase over baseline for a
particular COPC may indicate that the observed significant increase in one
medium Is a real increase and not a sampling or analytical artifact.
Only one medium showing an increased concentration of the COPC would
require consideration of other infonnation, such as the fate and transport
of that COPC in the environment, before a conclusion about the meaning
of that increase can be made.
Geographic distribution of Increased concentrations con'etating to the
modeled deposition pattem would be an indication that the observed
increase may be related to emissions from the TOCDF common stack.
A geographic distribution of data not correlated to the modeled deposition
pattem may be an Indication that TOCDF is not the source of the
Increased concentration.
Temporal evaluation of the data Indicating a steady increase from EMBS
levels overtime may be an indication that the observed significant
increase is related to TOCDF operations.
Temporal evaluation of the data indicating a sudden increase in
concentration indicates that additional data are needed before a
conclusion can be reached about the meaning of the increase. Data on
other possible sources of the COPC, such as wildfire or mnoff from the
mountains, would be needed. The operational records of TOCDF would
need to be evaluated to determine if there had been an incident that could
resutt in a sudden increase of the COPC. If no cause for the sudden
Increase can be identified. It may be an indication that the Increase Is a
sampling or analytical outiier and not a tme Increase.
8-13
The following COPCs were evaluated for spatial and temporal trends: arsenic, barium,
beryltium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt mercury, tin, and vanadium.
a. Arsenic. Arsenic was detected in all 2005 EMFS soil samples. The
highest concentration (43.1 mg/kg) was found at location 0819,
approximately 10 km (6.25 miles) north of TOCDF and outside the
modeled high and low deposition zones. As shown in figure 8.6-1, arsenic
concentrations varied throughout the study area with higher
concentrations generally along the base of the Oquirrh Mountains, notably
where Mercur and Ophir Canyons and Soldier Creek open out Into the
valley. This pattem suggests an association between arsenic
concentrations in Rush Valley and sediments/groundwater from the
mountains. In any case, the pattem does not suggest a relationship to
TOCDF stack emissions.
Considering only the 26 sites sampled In the 2005 EMFS that were also
sampled in at least one otiier sampling round, there Is a trend for arsenic
concentrations to be higher in all follow-on sampling rounds than they
were In the baseline (figure 8.6-2). The EMBS arsenic concentration was
the lowest concentration recorded In 18 ofthe sampling sites that were
sampled in the EMBS and in all subsequent sampling rounds. The trend
of arsenic concentrations having increased over baseline is unifomn
across the study area both inside and outside the modeled deposition
zones, suggesting that the Increase is not related to TOCDF activities.
The 2005 EMFS arsenic concentration was highest at only 7 locations:
0613, 0616, 0714,1018,1022,1412, and 1808. These seven sites do not
form a pattem suggestive of a relationship to the TOCDF common stack.
Consequentiy, It Is concluded that temporal variations in arsenic
concentration in Rush Valley are not related to TOCDF emissions.
b. Barium. Barium was detected in all 2005 EMFS soil samples
(figure 8.6-3). Barium concentrations do not form a distinct pattem and
8-14
suggest a uniform distribution throughout the study area. The highest
concentration (342 mg/kg) is at site 0618, nearthe center of the moderate
deposition probability zone, approximately 9 km (5.6 mites) from the
TOCDF stack. Concentration values between site 0618 and TOCDF are
tower and seem consistent with other values both inside and outside the
modeled deposition zones. Therefore, It is concluded that the
concentration at site 0618 Is not related to the TOCDF common stack.
Because barium concentrations are fairiy uniform across the study area. It
is concluded that barium soil concentrations in Rush Valley are related to
the base material that formed the valley soil and not to modem Influences
such as TOCDF emissions, other DCD activities, mountain outwash, or
range fires.
Considering only the 26 sites that were sampled In the 2005 EMFS and in
at least one other sampling round, barium concentrations in 2005 EMFS
soil samples were the highest concentrations observed at att but
4 sampling sites: 1015,1222,1223, and 1808 (figure 8.6-4). The fact that
this increase is wide spread (not limited to sample sites within the
boundaries of the modeled high and low deposition areas) suggests that
the Increase Is not related to TOCDF emissions and Is probably related to
some wide spread influence. The lack of association with TOCDF is
reinforced by the fact that at half (13 of 26) of the sites, the second highest
barium concentration was during the baseline year 1996. Therefore, it is
concluded that the observed temporal variations in barium concentration is
not related to TOCDF incineration activities.
Beryllium. Beryltium was detected in all 2005 EMFS solt samples at tow
concentrations (figure 8.6-5). Beryltium concentrations do not fomn a
pattem that would indicate a relationship to the TOCDF common stack.
The distribution suggests that beryllium concentrations are related to the
nature ofthe soil and not to an extemal influence.
8-15
Considering only the 26 sites sampled in the 2005 EMFS and In at least
one other sampling round, the 2005 EMFS beryllium concentration was
the highest recorded at all but 3 sampling sites: 0707,1015, and 1808
(figure 8.6-6). The fact that this trend occun-ed across the entire study
area and not just at sites falling within the boundaries ofthe modeled high
and tow deposition areas Indicates that the increase is not related to
TOCDF emissions. Temporal variations in beryllium concentration are not
related to the TOCDF common stack.
Cadmium. Cadmium was detected in alt 2005 EMFS soil samples. The
highest concentration (15.6 mg/kg) was found at site 0819 (figure 8.6-7)
approximately 10 km (6.25 mites) north of TOCDF. The second highest
concentration (2.8 mg/kg) Is located at site 1416 approximately 7.3 km
(4.5 miles) northeast of TOCDF. These sites are within the outwash area
of Ophir Canyon, suggesting that these cadmium concentrations may be
related to sediments and water coming from Ophir Canyon. Beyond these
two sites, cadmium concentrations varied throughout the study area and
do not appear to fomn a pattem, suggesting no relationship to the TOCDF
common stack.
Considering only the 26 locations sampled during the 2005 EMFS and in
at least one other sampling round, the 2005 EMFS cadmium
concentrations were the highest observed at only 2 locations: 1009 and
1108. Both sites have only been sampled twice, once In the 2002 EMFS
and again in the 2005 EMFS (figure 8.6-8). The highest cadmium
concentrations at the other 24 sampling sites were seen in the
1998 EMFS. Aside from that observation, there does not appear to be a
trend In soil cadmium concentration and no indication of an association
with TOCDF emissions. There is no relationship between variation in soil
cadmium concentrations and the TOCDF common stack.
8-16
e. Chromium. Chromium was detected at low concentrations in att
2005 EMFS soil samples. Figure 8.6-9 suggests no particular distribution
pattem, leading to the conclusion that chromium concentrations are
related to the base material out of which the soil in Rush Valley was made.
The data do not suggest a relationship with the TOCDF common stack.
Considering only the 26 sites sampled in the 2005 EMFS and in at least
one other sampling round, the 2005 EMFS chromium concentration was
the highest recorded at att but three sampling sites: 0707,1015, and
1808 (figure 8.6-10). There appears to be a trend that the chromium
concentration Increased from 1996 EMBS to the 1998 EMFS then
decreased In the 1999 EMFS and increased again in the 2002 and
2005 EMFSs. Whether this trend Is real or merely natural variation is not
known. In either case, the fa^end is seen throughout the study area and is
not an indication of a relationship to the TOCDF common stack.
Variations in soil chromium concentrations over time are not associated
with the TOCDF common stack.
t Cobalt. Cobatt was detected in att 2005 EMFS soil samples. The
concentrations of cobalt varied throughout the study area (figure 8.6-11)
suggesting no relationship to the TOCDF common stack.
Considering only the 26 tocations sampled in the 2005 EMFS and in at
least one other sampling round, the concentration of cobatt was highest in
the 2005 EMFS sampte at only four of the sampling locations: 0515,
0812,1009, and 1108 (figure 8.6-12). Two of these sites, 1009 and 1108,
have only been sampled twice (in the 2002 EMFS and the 2005 EMFS) so
It Is difficult to assign importance to the pattem seen at those 2 sites. The
1998 EMFS had the highest cobalt concentration at 16 sampling locations.
The overall trend appears to be that cobatt concentrations increased from
1996 to 1998 then decreased in 1999 but increased again in 2002 and
2005. This observation Is seen throughout the study area and therefore
8-17
does not imply a relationship to the TOCDF common stack. Temporal
variations in soil cobatt concentrations are not related to the TOCDF
common stack.
g. Mercury. Figure 8.6-13 shows mercury was detected in 38 percent of the
soil samptes (16 of 42 samples). Ten ofthe 16 detections were from
sampte tocations along the base ofthe Oquirrh Mountains or in outwash
areas ofthe three main canyons (Mercur and Ophir Canyons and Soldier
Creek). This pattem suggests that the mercury concentration in Rush
Valley soil Is related to sediments and water coming off the mountains and
not to activity taking place in the valley. There is no suggestion of a
relationship t)etween the TOCDF common stack and mercury
concentrations.
Considering only the 26 locations sampled In the 2005 EMFS and In at
least one other sampling round, there are only four locations where
mercury was detected In two sampling rounds: 1004,1222,1223, and
1508, and no sites where mercury was detected more than twice
(figure 8.6-14). The sporadic nature of mercury detections precludes the
observation of a temporal trend. The fact that alt but two of the detections
have occurred in the last two sampling rounds (2002 and 2005 EMFSs) is
a function of lowered reporting limits and should not be interpreted as a
recent increase In mercury concentration. Mercury concentration In soil Is
not associated with the TOCDF common stack.
h. Vanadium. Vanadium was detected In alt 2005 EMFS soil samples.
Concentrations of vanadium varied throughout the study area
(figure 8.6-15) and suggest no particular pattem. tt is concluded that
vanadium concentrations are related to the base material the soil Is
composed of and not emissions from the TOCDF common stack.
8-18
Considering only the 26 tocations sampled during the 2005 EMFS and
during at least one other sampling round, the 2005 EMFS vanadium soil
concentrations were the highest recorded at 21 tocations (figure 8.6-16).
This increase occurred across the study area and Is not localized in any
pattem. It is concluded that temporal variations in vanadium
concentrations are not related to the TOCDF common stack.
8-19
Table 8.1-1, Detection Frequency - Surface Soil
Analyte
AJuminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium, Total
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
1996 EMBS
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detections
Detected In EMBS
25
15
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
Detec
Nitroglycerin
Phenol
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
25
25
25
25
5
25
25
25
25
24
25
25
24
25
24
25
25
25
1
25
25
25
1
20
25
ted in EMBS -
3
1
3
Percent
Detections
Number of
Samples
- Detected in 2005 EMFS
100
33
100
100
100
100
96
100
100
96
100
96
100
100
100
4
100
100
100
4
80
100
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
Not Detected In 2005 EMFS
12
4
12
41
41
41
2005 EMFS'
Number of
Detections
41
10
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
22
41
41
41
1
41
41
ND
ND
ND
Percent
Detections
100
24
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
54
100
100
100
2
100
100
NC
NC
NC
Distribution
Evaluation
Method
S/W
NP
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W+
S/W
S/W
S/W
p
S/W •
S/W
p
p
p
8-20
Tabte 8.1-1. Detection Frequency - Surface Soil (Continued)
Analyte
1996 EMBS
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detections
Percent
Detections
Number of
Samples
2005 EMFS^
Number of
Detections
Percent
Detections
Distribution
Evaluation
Method
Not Detected in EMBS - Detected in 2005 EMFS
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Tin
HPCDD (Total)
HPCDF (Total)
HXCDD (Total)
HXCDF (Total)
OCDD
OCDF
PECDD (Total)
PECDF (Total)
TCDD (Total)
TCDF (Total)
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
RDX
HMX
Tetryl
di-n-Butyl phthalate
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Ethylbenzene
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-butanone)
Toluene
Xylenes, Total
25
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
14
25
25
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
1
3
1
40
36
3
21
34
20
17
11
3
10
2
5
6
1
2
5
15
6
1
12
15
7
39
2
7
2
98
88
7
51
83
49
41
27
7
24
5
12
15
2
5
31
94
38
6
75
94
44
NP
P
P
P
S/W
v. S/W
P
S/W+
S/W+
NP
NP
NP
P
NP
P
.- NP
NP
P
P
NP
S/W
NP
P
S/W+
S/W
NP
8-21
Tabte 8.1-1. Detection Frequency - Surface Soil (Continued)
Notes:
° Values in this table for the 2005 EMFS are based on 41 samples. Sample site 0707 was not included in order to maintain comparability with
the 1996 EMBS, which excluded site 0707 from statistical calculations.
NC = not calculated
ND = not detected
NP = nonparametric assumed
P = Poisson distribution assumed
S/W = Shapiro-Wiik Test (Shapiro-Francia test if more than 50 samples)
S/W+ = Shapiro-Wilk (or Shapiro-Francia) Test after Regression on Order Statistics
8-22
Tabte 8.2-1. Distribution Test Resutts - Surface Soil
Analyte
1996 EMBS
Nonmal
Computed
Lognonmal
Computed Critical Value Distribution
2005 EMFS"
Normal
Computed
Lognormal
Computed Critical Value Distribution
Detected In EMBS - Detected In 2005 EMFS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium, Total
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
0.973
NC
0.940
0.947
0.962
0.891
0.971
0.925
0.930
0.968
0.817
0.980
0.737
0.940
0.949
NC
0.896
0.972
0.979
NC
0.916
NC
0.982
0.948
.0.984
0.961
0.906
0.968
0.950
0.817
0.943
0.946
0.928
0.976
0.979
NC
0.964
0.939
0.972
NC
0.918
NC
0.918
0.918
0.918
0.918
0.918
0.918
0.918
0.918
0.918
0.918
0.918
0.918
0.918
NC
0.918
0.918
0.918
NC
N
NP
L(N)
L(N)
L(N)
L
N
L(N)
L(N)
N
L
N(L)
L
L(N)
L(N)
P
L
N(L)
N(L)
P
0.941
NC
0.579
0.944
0.936
0.895
0.264
0.915
0.971
0.953
0.362
0.954
0.219
0.904
0.907
0.876
0.970
0.941
0.758
NC
0.874
NC
0.838
0.949
0.879
0.956
0.692
0.957
0.939
0.898
0.693
0.902
0.674
0.973
0.981
0.944
0.940
0.981
0.937
NC
0.941
NC
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
NC
NP
NP
NP
L(N)
NP
L
NP
L
N
N
NP
N
NP
L
L
L
N
L(N)
NP
P
8-23
Tabte 8.2-1. Distribution Test Results - Surface Soil (Continued)
Analyte
Vanadium
Zinc
1996 EMBS
Normal
Computed
0.974
0.969
Lognomnal
Computed
0.951
0.990
Critical Value
0.918
0.918
Distribution
N(L)
L(N)
2005 EMFS'
Normal
Computed
0.948
0.245
Lognomial
Computed
0.889
0.618
Critical Value
0.941
0.941
Distribution
N
NP
Detected in EMBS - Not Detected in 2005 EMFS
Nitroglycerin
Phenol
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NP
P
NP
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
Not Detected In EMBS
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
nn
HPCDD (Total)
HPCDF (Total)
HXCDD (Total)
HXCDF (Total)
OCDD
OCDF
PECDD (Total)
OECDF (Total)
TCDD (Total)
TCDF (Total)
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.167
0.165
NC
0.161
0.164
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.634
0.589
NC
0.637
0.714
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.941
0.941
NC
0.941
0.941
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NP
P
P
P
NP
NP
P
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
P
NP
P
8-24
Table 8.2-1. Distribution Test Resutts - Surface Soil (Continued)
Analyte
RDX
HMX
Tetryl
dl-n-Butyl phthalate
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon Disulfide
Ethylbenzene
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-butanone)
Toluene
Xylenes, Total
1996 EMBS
Nomial
Computed
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Lognomnal
Computed
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Critical Value
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Distribution
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2005 EMFS'
Normal
Computed
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.945
NC
NC
0.976
0.889
NC
Lognormal
Computed
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.850
NC
NC
0.973
0.900
NC
Critical Value
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.887
NC
NC
0.887
0.887
NC
Distribution
NP
NP
P
P
NP
^N
NP
P
N(L)
L(N)
NP
Notes:
' Values in this table for the 2005 EMFS are based on 41 samples. Sample site 0707 was not included in order to maintain comparability with
the 1996 EMBS, which excluded site 0707 from statistical calculations.
L = Lognomnal distribution
L (N) ~ Lognormal and normal distributions both acceptable - lognormal preferred
N = Nonnal distribution
NC - not calculated
ND » not detected
N (L) = Normal and lognormal distributions both acceptable - normal prefen'ed
NP ~ nonparametric
P = Poisson distribution
8-25
Table 8.2-2. Summary Statistics - Surface Soil
Analyte Units Mean
1996 EMBS
Standard
Deviation Maximum UTL
2005 EMFS'
Mean
Standard
Deviation Maximum
Detected In EMBS - Detected in 2005 EMFS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium, Total
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
10,900
0.38
5.79
173
0.64
19.3
0.85
64,700
11.4
4.28
21.1
11.200
31.2
10,900
500
NC
10.4
4,000
563
2.460
0.39
2.18
39.3
0.16
5.93
0.27
38,200
2.19
1.24
5.65
2,410
10.9
2,810
170
NC
2.56
1,200
97
16,200
1.39
12
257
1.01
35.6
1.33
130.000
16.8
6.66
45
16,600
85.3
18.800
963
1.52
17.9
6,700
786
18,600
1.4
12.5
294
1.1
61.3
1.7
170,000
16.4
8.2
66.9
18,800
99
19,900
1,030
5
33.1
7,800
869
;;-:;i|:15,50a:;
0.24
•..i^=.;-9^5^
205
||?5S;^9i9^
Ufimm^^
fc 76,2(H)
• ••:v:5::; 16.2
4;68
- : 31.8
; 13,500
'i/.,. .-.. ,-6|:
:; "12,600
':•..: m.
*0.79
11,8
5,880
448.
3,160
0.24
6.62
39.7
0.16
7.23
2.32
34.300
3.24
0.88
32.7
2,610
178
3,540
159
*0.33
2.52
1,770
188
21,800
1.1
43,1
342
1.3
40.8
15,6
178,000
25
6.3
220
19,400
1,170
24,900
1,130
2.3
17.3
11,100
1,260
8-26
Table 8,2-2, Summary Statistics - Surface Soil (Continued)
Analyte
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
1996 EMBS
Mean
NC
17
58.6
Standard
Deviation
NC
3.86
15.8
Maximum
0.31
26.1
96.8
UTL
3
29.5
108
2005 EMFS'
Mean
NC
,. >'.. -••i:s0^i
• Y:' --r^Bf*
Standard
Deviation
NC
4.39
137
Maximum
2.1
35,3
937
Detected in 1996 - Not Detected In 2005
Nitroglycerin
Phenol
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
2.550
NC
370
1.620
NC
1.240
8.180
240
6.300
8,200
2,000
3,220
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Not Detected in 1996 - Detected in 2005
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
nn
HPCDD (Total)
HPCDF (Total)
HXCDD (Total)
HXCDF (Total)
OCDD
OCDF
PECDD (Total)
PECDF (Total)
TCDD (Total)
TCDF (Total)
2.4.6-Trinitrotoluene
RDX
HMX
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
"0.1
" 0.25
"0.5
"5
"30
"20
"20
"20
"40
"50
"30
"10
"6.7
"30
"450
"580
"660
0.0276
NC
NC
NC
74.7
26.5
NC
•55.8
•395
10.3
1.55
14.4
NC
1.5
NC
25.9
62.9
0.0191
NC
NC
NC
441
157
NC
•346
• 2.420
50.9
7.93
86.1
NC
6.07
NC
11.6
138
0.085
0,26
4.6
4.7
2,830
10.6
545
2,220
15,500
328
2.5
552
0.88
1.19
63
68
740
8-27
Table 8,2-2, Summary Statistics - Surface Soil (Continued)
Analyte
Tetryl
dl-n-Butyl phthalate
Acetone
Benzene
Cartjon disulfide
Ethylbenzene
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-butanone)
Toluene
Xylenes, Total
Units
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
1996 EMBS
Mean
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
StandanJ
Deviation
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Maximum
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
UTL
"730
"140
"10
"10
"10
"10
"10
"10
"10
2005 EMFS'
Mean
NC
NC
24.6
5.22
1.65
NC
•17.5
3.97
1.13
Standard
Deviation
NC
NC
38.4
2.75
2
NC
•10.2
2.74
0.99
Maximum
79
43
110
12
6.9
1.8
39
10
4.3
Notes:
Adjusted mean and standard deviation for S/W-*- distributions. Adjusted means are either lognormal means adjusted for log-bias, means computed using
regression on order statistics (ROS) for censored data, or the Kaplan-Meier method. ROS was used when there were more than 50 percent censored.
Kaplan-Meier was used when 15 to 50 percent of the data points were censored. For fewer than 15 percent non-detects, a simple substitution of one-half the
reporting limit was used.
UTL values taken from the minimum reporting limit for undetected compounds
Values in this table for the 2005 EMFS are based on 41 samples. Sample site 0707 was not included in order to maintain comparability with
the 1996 EMBS, which excluded site 0707 from statistical calculations.
NC
ND
pg/kg
mg/kg
ng/kg
UTL
1
|,.-..-.^.
=
=
=
=
=
—
J
I]
not calculable
not detected
microgram per kilogram
milligram per kilogram
nanogram per kilogram
upper tolerance limit
Exceeds 1996 UTL Value
Exceeds 1996 Mean Value
8-28
Table 8.4-1. Means Testing - Surface Soil
Analyte Units EMBS
Mean
EMFS A
Percent
Detection
EMBS/EMF
S
Distribution
Test Outcome
EMBS/EMFS
Statistical
Test
Calculated
Result
Critical
Value
Means
Assessment'
Detected in EMBS - Detected in 2005 EMFS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium, Total
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
10.900
0.38
5.79
173
0.64
19.3
0.85
64,700
11.4
4.28
21.1
11,200
31.2
10,900
500
0.56
15,500
0.24
9.45
205
0.87
19.9
1.31
76,200
16.2
4.68
31.8
13,500
61
12,600
556
0.79
4.640
-0.14
3.66
32
0.23
0.6
0.47
11,600
4.84
0.4
10.7
2,340
29.8
1,710
55.7
0.23
100/100
33/24
100/100
100/100
100/100
100/100
96 /100
100/100
100/100
96/100
100/100
96/100
100/100
100/100
100/100
4/54
N/NP
NP/NP
L (N) / NP
L (N) / L (N)
L (N) / NP
L/L
N/NP
L (N) / L
L (N) / N
N/N
L/NP
N (L)/N
L/NP
L (N) / L
L (N) / L
P/L
WRS
WRS
WRS
tWVRS
WRS
t/WRS
Pt/WSR
t/WRS
tM/RS
PtMSR
WRS
tWVRS
WRS
PtAA/SR
PtMSR
P
5.05692
2.42534
-3.76192
3.25744
4.47825
0.16322
3.253
1.70271
7.19226
2.856
-3.50984
3.70428
0.46930
3.386
2.522
NA
1.95996
1.95996
1.95996
1.68100
1.95996
1.67300
1.714
1.68300
1.67000
1.714
1.95996
1.67500
1.95996
1.714
1.714
NA
SD - Increase
sb - Decrease
SD - Increase
SD - Increase
SD - Increase
SS
ss (random) SD -
Increase (paired)
SI - No apparent
increase
SD - increase
SS (random) SD -
Increase (paired)
SD - Increase
SD - increase
SS
Si (random) SD -
Increase (paired)
SS (random) SD -
Increase (paired)
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
8-29
Table 8.4-1. Means Testing - Surface Soil (Continued)
Analyte
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Mean
EMBS
10.4
4,000
563
0.14
17
58.6
EMFS
11.8
5,880
448
0.38
24.1
84.7
A
1.37
1.880
-115
0.24
7.12
26.1
Percent
Detection
EMBS/EMFS
100/100
100/100
100/100
4/2
80/100
100/100
Distribution
Test Outcome
EMBS/EMFS
L/N
N (L) / L (N)
N (L) / NP
P/P
N (L) / N
L(N)/NP
Statistical
Test
WRS
tM/RS
WRS
P
t/WRS
Pt/WSR
Calculated
Result
-2.67061
4.85118
-4.15083
NA
6.54534
3.368
Critical
Value
1.95996
1.67900
1.95996
NA
1.67400
1.714
Means
Assessment'
SD - increase
SD - Increase
SD - Decrease
NPG - No
apparent increase
SD - Increase
SS (random) SD -
Increase (paired)
Detected in EMBS - Not Detected in 2005 EMFS
Nitroglycerin
Phenol
bis(2-Ethyihexyl)
phthalate
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
2,550
76.8
370
NC
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
12/0
4/0
12/0
NP/ND
P/ND
NP/ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
Common
laboratory
contaminant
Not Detected in EMBS - Detected in 2005 EMFS
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Tin
HPCDD (Total)
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ng/kg
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0276
0.15
0.27
1.5
74.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0/39
0/2
0/7
0/2
0/98
ND/NP
ND/P
ND/P
ND/P
ND/NP
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - no
apparent inaease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
8-30
Table 8.4-1, Means Testing - Surface Soil (Continued)
Analyte
HPCDF (Total)
HXCDD (Total)
HXCDF (Total)
OCDD
OCDF
PECDD (Total)
PECDF (Total)
TCDD (Total)
TCDF (Total)
2.4,6-
Trinitrotoluene
RDX
HMX
Tetiyl
di-n-Butyl phthalate
Units
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
Mean
EMBS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
EMFS
26.5
14.4
55.8
395.
10.3
1.55
14.4
0.44
1.5
23.6
25.9
62.9
23.2
72.1
A
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Percent
Detection
EMBS/EMFS
0/88
0/7
0/51
0/83
0/49
0/41
0/27
0/7
0/24
0/5
0/12
0/15
0/2
0/5
Distribution
Test Outcome
EMBS/EMFS
ND/NP
ND/P
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/P
ND/NP
ND/P
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/P
ND/P
Statistical
Test
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Calculated
Result
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Critical
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Means
Assessment*
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG --Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
Common
laboratory
contaminant .
8-31
Table 8,4-1, Means Testing - Surface Soil (Continued)
Analyte
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Ethylbenzene
Methyl ethyi ketone
(2-butanone)
Toluene
Xylenes. Total
Units
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
EMBS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Mean
EMFS
24.6
5.22
1.65
0.68
17.5
3.97
1.13
A
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Percent
Detection
EMBS/EMFS
0/31
0/94
0/38
0/6
0/75
0/94
0/44
Distribution
Test Outcome
EMBS/EMFS
ND/NP
ND/N
ND/NP
ND/P
ND / N (L)
ND / L (N)
ND/NP
Statistical
Test
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Calculated
Result
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Critical
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Means
Assessment*
Analyzed at new
sampling sites
only
Analyzed at new
sampling sites
only
Analyzed at new
sampling sites
only
Analyzed at new
sampling sites
only
Analyzed at new
sampling sites
only
Analyzed at new
sampling sites
only
Analyzed at new
sampling sites
only
Notes:
For means assessments containing the note "NPG," the assessment was based on nonparametric statistical methods and comparison of
individual detections and reporting limits from EMBS and EMFS data.
8-32
Table 8.4-1, Means Testing - Surface Soil (Continued)
Notes: (Continued)
Units
pg/kg =
mg/kg =
ng/kg =
microgram per kilogram
milligram per kilogram
nanogram per kilogram
Distribution Test Outcome
L = Lognormal distribution applicable
L(N) = Lognormal and normal distributions applicable - lognormal preferred
N = Normal distribution applicable
N(L) = Normal and lognormal distributions applicable - normal preferred
ND = not detected
NP = nonparametric distribution assumed
P = Poisson distribution assumed
Mean
NA
NC
A
not applicable
not calculated; for analytes having zero detections
mean difference computed as (EMFS Mean) - (EMBS Mean)
Statistical Test
NA
NPG
PtAWSR =
t/WRS
WRS
not applicable
nonparametric statistical methods and graphical evaluations utilized
Paired t-test and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test
t-test and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test
Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test
Means Assessment
SD = statistically significant difference
SI = statistically indeterminate
SS = statistically same
8-33
SECTION 9
CHEMICAL RESULTS - WATER AND SEDIMENT
Table 9.1-1 is a list of att analytical results for surface water samptes from ttie
2005 EMFS. EMBS maximum and 99 percent UTL values are included for comparison.
Tabte 9.2-1 presents att analytical data for sediment samptes. EMBS maxima and
99 percent UTLs are also included.
Two surface water samples and two collocated sediment samptes were collected from
Rainbow Reservoir, One surface water sampte and one collocated sediment sampte
were collected from upstream In Ophir Creek, wtiich supplies water to the reservoir.
The Ophir Creek samptes were collected at a point just before the stream enters a
diversion pipe that canies the water to Rainbow Reservoir.
9.1 Surface Water Sample Results
The data for alt detected analytes, including the resutts for a duplicate sampte, are
summarized In tabte 9.1-1. Screening criteria Indicated In the table are based on the
EMBS 99 percent UTL established for the baseline data that followed a nomriat,
lognomnal, or Poisson distribution. For those baseline COPCs where no UTL was
calculated, the screening criteria were set equal to the maximum detected EMBS value
(magnesium only), or half the EMBS laboratory reporting limit for analytes that were not
detected during the EMBS. Samples collected at location 1512 represent Rainbow
Reservoir and samples from location 1917 represent Ophir Creek,
Rainbow Reservoir has been drained and refilled on several occasions, making
quantitative comparison between baseline data and follow-on sampling events difficult
due to a lack of comparability, Consequentiy, alt comparisons between baseline data
and follow-on sampling data are qualitative and no statistical evaluations were
performed.
9-1
During the 1996 EMBS, only Rainbow Reservoir was sampled and only six analytes, att
metals, were detected ab>ove the latx)ratory reporting limits ofthe time. Since 1996,
detection limits for most analytes have decreased. This resulted in eight metals and
one dioxin being detected in Rainbow Reservoir during the 2005 EMFS, The Ophir
Creek sample and duplicate had 16 detections, all metals. In 2005,
Review of the analytical data reveals that the following analytes exceeded baseline
screening criteria or baseline reporting limits for analytes not detected in the EMBS, tt
should be noted that with the exception of sodium, the maximum concentration, and
often the only detection, was found in Ophir Creek, The Ophir Creek location was
established and first sampled In 2002 and was not part ofthe EMBS, Therefore, the
tendency for higher metals concentrations in Ophir Creek, white not unexpected, cannot
be directly compared to conditions existing during the EMBS.
a. Aluminum was detected at concentrations of 9.69 and 10.5 milligrams per
titer (mg/L) in Ophir Creek, exceeding the EMBS UTL of 0.67 mg/L.
b. Arsenic was not detected in the EMBS and was not detected in Rainbow
Reservoir in the 2005 EMFS. Arsenic was detected in Ophir Creek
samples at concentrations of 3.6 pg/L and 3.8 pg/L, exceeding the EMBS
reporting limit of 2.5 pg/L.
c. Barium, which was not detected in the EMBS, was detected in Rainbow
Reservoir and Ophir Creek samptes at concentrations ranging from
19.2 to 145 pg/L. Only the Ophir Creek samples at 130 and 145 pg/L
exceeded the EMBS reporting limit of 25 pg/L.
d. Calcium was detected at values of 67 and 68.2 mg/L in the Rainbow
Reservoir samptes, and at 176 and 205 mg/L in the Ophir Creek sample.
All four values exceed the EMBS UTL of 65.137 mg/L.
9-2
e. Chromium, which was not detected in the EMBS, was detected in the
Ophir Creek sample at 14.5 and 15.5 pg/L, exceeding the EMBS reporting
limit of 10.0 pg/L.
f. Copper, which was not detected in the EMBS, was detected in the Ophir
Creek samples at 12.4 and 13.9 pg/L, exceeding the EMBS reporting limit
of 5.0 pg/L.
g. Iron was detected at a concentration of 8,39 and 8.92 mg/L in the Ophir
Creek sample, exceeding the EMBS UTL of 0.373 mg/L.
h. Potassium, which was not detected In the EMBS, was detected at
concentrations of 565 and 671 pg/L in the Rainbow Reservoir samptes
and at 3.290 and 3,510 pg/L In the Ophir Creek sampte, Alt values
exceed the EMBS reporting limit of 550 pg/L,
i. Magnesium was detected at a concentration of 13.7 and 14.5 mg/L In the
Ophir Creek sampte, exceeding the EMBS maximum detection of
12.4 mg/L.
J. Manganese, which was not detected in the EMBS, was detected at
concentrations of 5.4 and 8.7 pg/L in Rainbow Reservoir samples, and at
470 and 529 pg/L in Ophir Creek. All values exceed the EMBS reporting
limit of 5.0 pg/L.
k. Nickel, which was not detected in the EMBS, was detected in Ophir Creek
at concentrations of 18.2 and 20.2 pg/L, exceeding the EMBS reporting
limitof 15.0 pg/L.
I. Lead, which was not detected in the EMBS, was detected in Ophir Creek
at concentrations of 14,8 and 16.5 pg/L, exceeding the EMBS reporting
limit of 2.0 pg/L.
9-3
m. Vanadium, which was not detected in the EMBS, was detected in Ophir
Creek at concentrations of 14.3 and 15.4 pg/L, which exceeds the EMBS
reporting limit of 10.0 pg/L.
n. Zinc, which was not detected In the EMBS, was detected in Ophir Creek
samples at concentrations of 64.3 and 71.5 pg/L, which exceeds the
EMBS reporting limit of 20,0 pg/L,
White the retention time of Rainbow Reservoir has not been detemiined, it appears that
the biotic and abiotic systems at work in the reservoir are able to remove sufficient
quantities of metal ions from the influent water.
9.2 Sediment Sample Results
The data for att detected analytes, including the resutts for the Ophir Creek duplicate
sample, are presented in table 9.2-1. Screening criteria Indicated in the table are based
on the EMBS 99 percent UTL established forthe baseline data that followed a normal,
lognormal, or Poisson distribution. For those baseline COPCs that had at least one
detection but insufficient data to calculate a UTL, the screening criterion is the maximum
EMBS value. For analytes that were not detected during the EMBS, the laboratory
reporting limit was used as a comparison value for the 2005 EMFS data. Review of the
analytical data reveals that the following analytes exceeded the baseline screening
criteria:
a. Nitroglycerin, which was not detected in the EMBS, was detected at a
concentration of 27,000 pg/kg In one ofthe Rainbow Reservoir samptes,
exceeding the EMBS reporting limit of 4,000 pg/kg. All other samples
were betow the EMBS reporting limit,
b. Calcium was detected at values of 261,000 and 311,000 mg/kg in the
Rainbow Reservoir samptes, and at 104,000 and 127,000 mg/kg in Ophir
9-4
Creek. The two Rainbow Reservoir samptes exceed the EMBS UTL of
145,215 mg/kg.
c. Cadmium, which was not detected in the EMBS, was detected In Ophir
Creek at 0.58 and 0,82 mg/kg, exceeding the EMBS reporting limit of
0,50 mg/kg,
d. Selenium, which was not detected in the EMBS, was detected in the two
Rainbow Reservoir samples at 1,3 and 1,6 mg/kg, exceeding the EMBS
reporting limit of 0,25 mg/kg. Selenium was not detected in the Ophir
Creek samptes.
Changes in the upstream sediment sources in Ophir Creek can occur due to varying
erosional characteristics or exposure to storm water and snow melt runoff. Such
differences could t>e the result of changes in the soil surface characteristics due to
Increased road building, mining activities, other construction activities, vegetation loss
due to range and forest fires, landslides, or any other action that exposes new or
different soil and rock strata to erosion, tn addition, biotic and abiotic processes within
Rainbow Reservoir will tend to change the concentrations (increasing some and
decreasing others) of metals and other analytes compared to sediments upstream of
the reservoir.
9-5
Tabte 9.1-1. Comparison to 1996 Screening Criteria - Surface Water Samptes
Analyte
1996 EMBS
Maximum
1996 EMBS
99% UTL Units
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1512
1512W51
05/20/2005
1512
1512W52
05/20/2005
1917
1917W5
05/20/2005
1917
1917W5D
05/20/2005
Metals with 1996 Detections
Aluminum
Boron
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Sodium
0.292
0.181
61.2
0.171
12.4
5.53
0.67
0.181
65.137
0.373
NL
6.051
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
0.131
0.025 U
68.2
0.11
10.9
5.04
0.243
0.025 U
67
0.202
11.8
5.48
9.69
0.025 U
176
8.39
13.7
5.1
10.5
0.0254 J
205
8.92
14.5
5.26
Metals Without 1996 Detections
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury (Total)
Molybdenum
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
0.002 U
0.002 U
0.0192 J
0.002 U
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.01 U
0.005 U
0.002 U
0.0054
0.0001 U
0.005 U
0.002 U
0.002 U
0.0218
0.002 U
0.002 U
0.005 U
0.01 U
0.005 U
0.002 U
0.0087
0.0001 U
0.005 U
0.002 U
0.0036 J
0.13
0.002 U
0.002 U
0.0145
0.01 U
0.0124 J
0.0148
0.47
0.00016 U
0.005 U
0.002 U
0.0038 J
0.145
0.002 U
0.002 U
0.0155
0.01 U
0.0139 J
0.0165
0.529
0.00013 U
0.005 U
9-6
Tabte 9,1-1, Comparison to 1996 Screening Criteria - Surface Water Samples (Continued)
Analyte
1996 EMBS
Maximum
1996 EMBS
99% UTL Units
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1512
1512W51
05/20/2005
1512
1512W52
05/20/2005
1917
1917W5
05/20/2005
1917
1917W5D
05/20/2005
Nickel mg/L 0.005 U 0.005 U 0.0182 0.0202
Potassium mg/L 0.565 J 0.671 J 3.29 3.51
Selenium mg/L 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U
Silver mg/L 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U
Thallium mg/L 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U
Tin mg/L 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U
Vanadium mg/L 0.005 U 0.005 U 0.0143 0.0154
Zinc mg/L 0,005 U 0.005 U 0.0643 0.0715
Explosives Without 1996 Detections
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene pg/L 0.094 U 0.091 U 0.1 U 0.096 U
2,4-Dinitrotoiuene pg/L 0.094 U 0.091 U 0.1 U 0.096 U
2,6-Dinitrotoiuene ug/L 0.094 U 0.091 U 0.1 U 0.096 U
HMX pg/L 0.094 U 0.091 U 0.1 U 0.096 U.
Nitroglycerin pg/L 1.5 U 1.5 U 1.6 U 1.5 U
RDX pg/L 0.094 U 0.091 U 0.1 U 0.096 U
Tetryl pg/L 0.094 U 0.091 U 0.1 U 0.096 U
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Without 1996 Detections
PGB-1016 (Aroclor 1016) pg/L 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221) pg/L 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U
PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232) pg/L 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U
PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242) pg/L 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U
PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248) pg/L 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U
9-7
Tabte 9,1-1. Comparison to 1996 Screening Criteria - Surface Water Samples (Continued)
Analyte
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
1996 EMBS
Maximum
1996 EMBS
99% UTL Units
pg/L
pg/L
Location, Sample Number, and Date ]
1512
1512W51
05/20/2005
0.13 U
0.13 U
1512
1512W52
05/20/2005
0.13 U
0.13 U
1917
1917W5
05/20/2005
0.13 U
0.13 U
1917
1917W5D
05/20/2005
0.13 U
0.13 U
Semivolatile Organic Compounds Without 1996 Detections
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethyiphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenoi
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichiorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
1 U
1 U
1 U
1U
1 U
1 UJ
1 u
1 u
10 UJ
1 u
1 u
1 u
1 u
IU
1 U
1 u
IU
1 U
1U
1U
1 u
1U
IU
1 u
IU
1 u
10 u
1U
1 u
1 u
1 u
1U
IU
1 U
1 u
1 u
1 U IU
1 U
1U
1 U
1 U
1U
1 U
1 U
1 U
10U
1 U
IU
1 U
1 U
1U
1 U
1U
IU
1 u
IU
1 U
1 U
1 U
IU
1U
1 U
1 U
1 U
10U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
IU
1 U
1 U
1U
IU
1 u
9-8
Table 9,1-1, Comparison to 1996 Screening Criteria - Surface Water Samples (Continued)
Analyte
4,6-Dinitro-2-methyiphenol
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenoi
4-Chloroaniiine
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Methylphenol (p-Cresoi)
4-Nitroanilin6
4-Nitrophenoi
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzoic acid
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Cariiazole
Chrysene
Di-n-butylphthalate
1996 EMBS
Maximum
1996 EMBS
99% UTL Units
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1512
1512W51
05/20/2005
1 UJ
IU
IU
1 U
1U
IU
1U
5.2 UJ
1 U
IU
IU
1U
1 U
1 U
1U
1U
1U
IU
IU
IU
1 U
IU
1512
1512W52
05/20/2005
IU
1U
IU
1 U
1U
IU
IU
5U
IU
1 U
1 U
1 U
IU
1 U
1U
IU
1U
IU
1U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1917
1917W5
05/20/2005
1 U
1 U
IU
1 U
1 U
1 U
IU
5.2 U
1 u
1 U
1 U
1 U
IU
1 U
1 U
1 u
1U
1 u
IU
1 u
1 u
1 u
1917
1917W5D
05/20/2005
1 U
IU
1U
1 U
1U
1 U
IU
5.1 U
1 U
1 U
1 u
1 U
IU
1 U
1 U
1 U
1U
IU
1U
1 U
1 u
1 u
9-9
Table 9,1-1, Comparison to 1996 Screening Criteria - Surface Water Samptes (Continued)
Analyte
Di-n-octylphthalate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
1996 EMBS
Maximum
1996 EMBS
99% UTL Units
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1512
1512W51
05/20/2005
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.82 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 UJ
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1512
1512W52
05/20/2005
1 U
IU
IU
1U
IU
IU
1U
1 U
1U
1 U
1 U
1U
1 U
• 0.8 U
IU
1 U
1 U
IU
1 U
1 U
1 U
IU
1917
1917W5
05/20/2005
1 U
1 U
IU
IU
1U
1 U
1U
IU
IU
1 U
1 U
1 U
IU
0.82 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1917
1917W5D
05/20/2005
1 U
1 U
IU
1 U
IU
1 U
1U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
0.82 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
9-10
Tabte 9,1-1. Comparison to 1996 Screening Criteria - Surface Water Samples (Continued)
Analyte
bis(2-Chloroethyi)ether
(2-Chloroethylether)
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
1996 EMBS
Maximum
1996 EMBS
99% UTL Units
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1512
1512W51
05/20/2005
1 U
1 U
1 U
1512
1512W52
05/20/2005
1 U
1 U
1 U
1917
1917W5
05/20/2005
1 U
1 U
1 U
1917
1917W5D
05/20/2005
1 U
1 U
1 U
Dioxin/Furans Without 1996 Detections
1,2,3,4,6.7,8-HpCDD
1,2,3,4,6.7,8-HpCDF
1.2.3,4,7.8.9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2.3,4.7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,6.7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Calculated Dioxin/Furan Sum
OCDD
OCDF
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
0.0034 U
0.00381 U
0,00895 U
0.00657 U
0.00421 U
0.00373 U
0.00429 U
0.00313 J
0.00529 U
0.00436 U
0.00438 J
0.00484 U
0.00347 U
0.0034 U
0.00511 U
0.518
0.0119 U
0.0105 U
0.00341 U
0.00383 U
0.00899 U
0.00659 U
0.00423 U
0.00375 U
0.0043 U
0.0029 U
0.00531 U
0.00412 U
0.00294 U
0.00486 U
0.00349 U
0.00341 U
0.00513 U
0.52
0.011 U
0.0105 U
0.00338 U
0.00379 U
0.0089 U
0.00653 U
0.00419 U
0.00371 U
0.00426 U
0.00287 U
0.00526 U
0.00408 U
0.00291 U
0.00481 U
0.00345 U
0.00338 U
0.00508 U
0.515
0.0117 U
0.0104 U
0.00341 U
0,00383 U
0.00899 UJ
0.00659 U
0.00423 U
0.00375 U
0.0043 U
0.0029 U
0.00531 U
0.00412 U
0.00294 U
0.00486 U
0.00349 U
0.00341 U
0.00513 U
0.0412 U
0.0105 U
9-11
Table 9,1-1, Comparison to 1996 Screening Criteria - Surface Water Samples (Continued)
Analyte
Total HpCDD
Total HpCDF
Total HxCDD
Total HxCDF
Total PeCDD
Total PeCDF
Total TCDD
Total TCDF
1996 EMBS
Maximum
1996 EMBS
99% UTL Units
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
Location, Sample Number, and Date |
1512
1512W51
05/20/2005
0.0034 U
0.00381 U
0.0102 U
0.00421 U
0.00436 U
0.00438 U
0.0034 U
0.00511 U
1512
1512W52
05/20/2005
0.00341 U
0.00383 U
0.0029 U
0.00423 U
0.00412 U
0.00294 U
0.00341 U
0.00513 U
1917
1917W5
05/20/2005
0.00338 U
0.00379 U
0.00287 U
0.00419 U
0.00408 U
0.00291 U
0.00338 U
0.00508 U
1917
1917W5D
05/20/2005
0.00341 U
0.00383 U
0.0029 U
0.00423 U
0.00412 U
0.00294 U
0.00341 U
0.00513 U
Notes:
Shaded results exceed either the 1996 UTL or 1996 maximum value (if UTL not listed).
J = estimated concentration
pg/L = microgram per liter
mg/L = milligram per liter
ng/L = nanogram per liter
NL = not listed
U = not detected above quantitation limit
UTL = upper tolerance limit
9-12
•
Table 9.2-1. Comparison to 1996 Screening Criteria - Sediment Samples
Analyte
1996 EMBS
Maximum
1996 EMBS
99% UTL Units
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1512
1512D51
05/20/2005
1512
1512D52
05/20/2005
1917
1917D5
05/20/2005
1917
1917D5D
05/20/2005
IWetais with 1996 Detections
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
11,100,000
0.49
11
202
1
23.1
76,400
10.1
5.3
10
12,100
11.9
13,700
416
NL
10.9
3,210
3,300
21.1
48.5
22,228
NL
22.2
289
1.4
33.6
145,251
23
5.3
24
27,661
18.6
30,006
785
2
27.2
7,103
8,443
47.1
95.6
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
4,600
0.48 UJ
1.1 U
75
0.3 U
6.7 U
261,000
7.7
1 J
5.4
3,250
6.1 J
4,990
64.2
1.3J
4.5
1,250 J
234 J
8
22.7
2,580
0.78 U
0.87 U
77.1
0.37 U
6.2 U
311.000
6.1
0.56 J
4.6
1,790
6.1 J
4,820
38.2
1.2 U
3.1
775 J
227 J
5.5
18.1
5,220
0.31 UJ
3.3
49.7
0.36 J
5.3 U
127,000
14.3
2.1
6.5 J
7,280
7.5 J
2,740
157
0.74 U
10.2
1,350 J
133 J
12.6
44.3
3,130
0.26 UJ
2
35.4
0.23 U
3.2 U
104,000
8.6
1.5
4
4,420
5.7 J
1,790
109
0.55 U
6.6
790 J
86.6 U
7.6
28.8
9-13
Tabte 9,2-1. Comparison to 1996 Screening Criteria - Sediment Samples (Continued)
Analyte
1996 EMBS
Maximum
1996 EMBS
99% UTL Units
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1512
1512D51
05/20/2005
1512
1512D52
05/20/2005
1917
1917D5
05/20/2005
1917
1917D5D
05/20/2005
Metais Without 1996 Detections
Cadmium
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
0.4 U
0.058 U
1.6
0.6 U
1.7 U
6U
0.36 U
0.06 U
1.3 J
0.75 U
1.6 U
7.5 U
0.82
0.04 U
0.51 U
0.36 U
0.72 U
3.6 U
0.58
0,043 U
0.33 U
0.33 U
0.73 U
3.3 U
Explosives Without 1996 Detections
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
HMX
Nitroglycerin
RDX
Tetryl
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
770 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
27.000 J
45 U
45 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
810 U
48 U
48 U
SOU
50 U
50 U
50 U
850 U
50 U
50 U
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Without 1996 Detections
PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
6.3 UJ
6.3 UJ
6.3 UJ
6.3 UJ
6.3 UJ
6.3 UJ
5.6 UJ
5.6 UJ
5.6 UJ
5.6 UJ
5.6 UJ
5.6 UJ
9-14
Tabte 9,2-1, Comparison to 1996 Screening Criteria - Sediment Samples (Continued)
Analyte
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
1996 EMBS
Maximum
1996 EMBS
99% UTL Units
pg/kg
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1512
1512D51
05/20/2005
10 UJ
1512
1512D52
05/20/2005
12 UJ
1917
1917D5
05/20/2005
6.3 UJ
1917
1917D5D
05/20/2005
5.6 UJ
Semivolatiie Organic Compounds Without 1996 Detections
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoi
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichiorophenol
2,4-Dimethyiphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthaiene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthaiene
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-2-methyiphenoi
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
330 U
330 U
330 UJ
330 UJ
330 U
330 U
330 U
330 U
1,600 U
330 U
330 U
330 U
330 U
200 U
330 U
330 UJ
330 U
660 U
660 U
330 U
390 U
390 U
390 UJ
390 UJ
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
2.000 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
240 U
390 U
390 UJ
390 U
780 U
780 U
390 U
230 U
230 U
230 UJ
230 UJ
230 U
230 U
230 U
230 U
1,100 U
230 U
230 U
230 U
230 U
140 U
230 U
230 UJ
230 U
460 U
460 U
230 U
180 U
180 U
180 U J
180 UJ
180 U
180 U
180 U
180 U
890 U
180 U
180U
180 U
180 U
110U
180 U
180 U J
180 U
360 U
360 U
180 U
9-15
Table 9,2-1, Comparison to 1996 Screening Criteria - Sediment Samples (Continued)
Analyte
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Methylphenol (p-Cresol)
4-Nitroanlline
4-Nitrophenol
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
/Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzoic acid
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Di-n-butyiphthaiate
Di-n-octylphthalate
1996 EMBS
Maximum
1996 EMBS
99% UTL
Location, Sample Number, and Date
Units
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
1512
1512D51
05/20/2005
330 U
330 U
330 U
330 U
330 U
330 UJ
660 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
200 UJ
200 U
660 U
330 U
330 U
330 U
200 U
330 U
330 U
1512
1512D52
05/20/2005
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
390 UJ
780 U
240 U
240 U
240 U
240 U
240 U
240 U
240 UJ
240 U
780 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
240 U
390 U
390 U
1917
1917D5
05/20/2005
230 U
230 U
230 U
230 U
230 U
230 UJ
460 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 UJ
140 U
460 U
230 U
230 U
230 U
140 U
230 U
230 U
1917
1917D5D
05/20/2005
180 U
180 U
180 U
180 U
180 U
180 UJ
360 U
110U
110U
110U
110U
110U
110U
110 UJ
110U
360 U
180 U
180 U
180 U
110U
180 U
180 U
9-16
Table 9,2-1. Comparison to 1996 Screening Criteria - Sediment Samptes (Continued)
Analyte
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutad iene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chioroethyi)ether(2-Chioroethylether)
1996 EMBS
Maximum
1996 EMBS
99% UTL Units
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1512
1512D51
05/20/2005
200 U
330 U
330 U
330 U
200 U
200 U
330 U
330 UJ
660 UJ
330 UJ
200 U
330 U
330 U
330 U
200 U
330 U
660 U
200 U
330 U
200 U
330 U
330 U
1512
1512D52
05/20/2005
240 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
240 U
240 U
390 U
390 UJ
780 UJ
390 UJ
240 U
390 U
390 U
390 U
240 U
390 U
780 U
240 U
390 U
240 U
390 U
390 U
1917
1917D5
05/20/2005
140 U
230 U
230 U
230 U
140 U
140 U
230 U
230 UJ
460 UJ
230 UJ
140 U
230 U
230 U
230 U
140 U
230 U
460 U
140 U
230 U
140 U
230 U
230 U
1917
1917D5D
05/20/2005
110U
180 U
180 U
180 U
tio U
110U
180 U
180 U J
360 UJ
180 U J
110U
180 U
180 U
180 U
110U
180 U
360 U
110U
180 U
110U
180 U
180 U
9-17
Tabte 9,2-1, Comparison to 1996 Screening Criteria - Sediment Samples (Continued)
Analyte
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
1996 EMBS
Maximum
1996 EMBS
99% UTL Units
pg/kg
pg/kg
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1512
1512D51
05/20/2005
330 U
330 U
1512
1512D52
05/20/2005
390 U
390 U
1917
1917D5
05/20/2005
230 U
230 U
1917
1917D5D
05/20/2005
180 U
180 U
Dioxins/Furans Without 1996 Detections
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2,3,4,6.7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3.4.7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3.4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,6.7.8-HxCDF
2,3,4,7.8-PeCDF
2,3.7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Calculated Dioxin/Furan Sum
OCDD
OCDF
Total HpCDD
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
1.79 J
0.883 J
0.69 U
1.02 U
0.578 U
0.177 U
0.384 U
0.702 U
0.615 U
0.403 U
0.309 U
0.416 U
0.417 U
0.0967 U
0.319 U
113
1.08 U
5.69 U
3.29 J
1.87 J
0.672 U
r 0.779 U
1.16U
0.653 U
0.2 U
0.434 U
0,794 U
0.696 U
0.456 U
0.349 U
0.47 U
0.471 U
0,109 U
0.383 J
137
10.8 U
6.43 U
3.53 J
0.441 J
0.315 U
0.366 U
0.543 U
0.307 U
0.0938 U
0.204 U
0.373 U
0.327 U
0.214 U
0.164 U
0.221 U
0.221 U
0.0513 U
0.17 UJ
64.7
1.83 U
3.02 U
0.776 J
0.512 J
0.314 U
0.364 U
0.54 U
0.305 U
0.0933 U
0.203 U
0.37 U
0.325 U
0.213 U
0.163 U
0.219 U
0.22 U
0.051 U
0.198 J
2.57 U
3U
0.893 J
9-18
Tabte 9,2-1, Comparison to 1996 Screening Criteria - Sediment Samples (Continued)
Analyte
Total HpCDF
Total HxCDD
Total HxCDF
Total PeCDD
Total PeCDF
Total TCDD
Total TCDF
1996 EMBS
Maximum
1996 EMBS
99% UTL Units
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
Location. Sample Number, and Date
1512
1512D51
05/20/2005
1.53 J
0,177 U
0.384 U
0.403 U
0.309 U
0.0967 U
0.319 U
1512
1512D52
05/20/2005
0.672 U
0.2 U
0.434 U
0.456 U
0.349 U
0.109 U
0.383 J
1917
1917D5
05/20/2005
0.315 U
0.0938 U
0.204 U
0.214 U
0.164 U
0.0513 U
0.17 UJ.
1917
1917D5D
05/20/2005
0.314 U
0.0933 U
0.203 U
0.213 U
0.163 U
0.051 U
0.198 J
Notes:
Shaded results exceed either 1996 UTL or 1996 maximum value (if UTL not listed).
J = estimated concentration
mg/kg = milligram per kilogram
NL = not listed
UTL = upper tolerance limit
pg/kg = microgram per kilogram
ng/kg = nanogram per kilogram
U = not detected above quantitation limit
9-19
(This page Intentionally left blank,)
9-20
SECTION 10
CHEMICAL RESULTS - SHRUB VEGETATION
Table C-2 In annex C presents all analytical resutts for 2005 EMFS shrub samptes,
EMBS maximums and UTL values are also given. EMBS maximums and UTL values
are also given. The following paragraphs describe data for analytes that were detected
In 2005 EMFS shrub samples and analytes that were detected in the 1996 EMBS but
not detected in 2005.
The 2005 EMFS shrub vegetation samples were analyzed for the same metals,
dioxins/furans, nitro-aromatics (explosives), PCBs and SVOC parameters, as the
EMBS. Anions were not analyzed in the 2005 EMFS.
10.1 Shrub COPCs Detected (Step 1)
COPCs detected in the 2005 EMFS shrub samples included: metals, dioxins/furans,
SVOCs, and explosives, Tabte 10.1-1 Is a list of all COPCs detected in the 1996 EMBS
and all COPCs detected in the 2005 EMFS COPCs. The number of detections,
frequency of detection (percent detections), and distribution test method are given for
each COPC. The COPCs detected In the 2005 EMFS shrub samples include:
a. Metals. Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, calcium,
chromium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury,
molybdenum, nickel, potassium, selenium, sodium, tin, vanadium, and
zinc
b. Dioxins/Furans. OCDD, HPCDD, HPCDF, HXCDD, HXCDF, PECDD,
PECDF, and TCDF
c. SVOCs. Benzoic acid and di-n-butyl phthalate
10-1
d. Explosives. TNT, 2,4-dinitrototuene (DNT), nitroglycerine, HMX, RDX,
and Tetryl.
All but three of the analytes detected in shrubs during the EMBS were also detected in
2005 EMFS shmb samptes. The tiiree exceptions were OCDF, PCB-1254, and the
common laboratory contaminant bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Parameters detected in
the 2005 EMFS that were not detected during the EMBS include:
Metals. Antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, molytxlenum,
nickel, selenium, and vanadium
Dioxins/Furans. HPCDD, HPCDF, HXCDD, HXCDF, PECDD, PECDF,
and TCDF
SVOCs. Benzoic acid and di-n-butyl phthalate
Explosives. TNT, 2,4-DNT, HMX, and RDX,
Because these parameters were not detected In the EMBS, no summary statistics are
available for comparison to the 2005 EMFS statistics, tn these cases, the 2005 EMFS
values were compared to the laboratory reporting limits reported in the EMBS,
10.2 Shrub COPC Distributions (Step 2)
Based on detection frequency, shrub COPC data were subjected to the distribution test
method shown in table 10,1-1, The distribution test results forthe COPCs detected in
the 2005 EMFS are provided in tabte 10,2-1, Simitar data from the 1996 EMBS are
provided for comparison.
10-2
10.3 Shrub COPC Summary Statistics (Step 3)
Table 10,3-1 lists 1996 EMBS and 2005 EMFS summary statistics for each COPC in
tabte 10,1-1, The mean, standard deviation, and maximum detection are presented. In
addition, the 1996 EMBS data includes the UTL value or laboratory reporting limit for
each analyte. Calculated mean concentrations for the 2005 EMFS COPCs that
exceeded the EMBS mean values are highlighted, as are the maximum concentrations
that exceeded the baseline UTL or baseline reporting limit.
The mean, standard deviation, and maximum detection for each 2005 EMFS shmb
COPC are presented in table 10.3-1. Corresponding summary statistics date plus the
99 percent UTL from the EMBS also are presented for comparison. Calculated mean
concentrations for the 2005 EMFS COPCs that exceeded the EMBS mean values are
highlighted, as are the maximum concentrations that exceeded the baseline UTL.
10.4 Shrub COPC Comparison to Screening Levels (Step 4)
The 2005 EMFS shmb COPC concentrations were compared to the EMBS 99 percent
UTL values as described In the TOCDF FSP. EMFS concentrations that exceed the
EMBS UTL concentrations may help Identify analytes worthy of further consideration.
COPCs classified as common laboratory contaminants were excluded from the EMBS
statistical evaluation and, based on that exclusion, also were excluded from 2005 EMFS
statistical evaluation. Two analytes were thus excluded as common laboratory
contaminants, bis(2-ethythexyt) phthalate and di-n-butyl phthalate.
Most COPCs detected in the 2005 EMFS shmb samptes exceeded the EMBS
screening levels. Mercury, tin, nitroglycerin, and Tetryl were reported at concentrations
less than the EMBS. OCDF was not detected In the 2005 EMFS but reporting limits
were elevated above the EMBS reporting limits. PCB-1254 was not detected in the
10-3
2005 EMFS at reporting limits less than the EMBS reporting limits. The remaining
COPCs were designated for further statistical analysis:
Metals. Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, calcium,
chromium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury,
molybdenum, nickel, potassium, selenium, sodium, tin, vanadium, and
zinc
Dioxins/Furans. OCDD, HPCDD, HPCDF, HXCDD, HXCDF, PECDD,
PECDF, TCDF
SVOCs. Benzoic acid
Explosives. TNT, 2,4-DNT, RDX, and HMX.
10.5 Shrub COPC Statistical Evaluation (Step 5)
10.5.1 Central Tendency Tests. The 2005 EMFS COPCs that showed potential for
rejection of the null hypothesis by exceeding the screening criterion or by demonstrating
a mean concentration greater than the EMBS mean value, were subjected to central
tendency statistical tests to determine if there was a statistically significant increase to
the mean concentration. Tabte 10.4-1 summarizes the outcome of means testing
(central tendency) for the retained shmb COPCs. The three possible outcomes of
central tendency testing were discussed In paragraph 7.2 of this report. Analytes
detected in the 2005 EMFS but not in the 1996 EMBS also were evaluated and are
discussed in this section.
COPCs that rejected the null hypothesis or were indetemiinate were evaluated further
to determine if spatial distribution analysis would be appropriate. The central tendency
testing results indicated that ofthe COPCs subjected to statistical analysis, the t-test.
10-4
the WRS, or Poisson distribution, the null hypothesis was rejected forthe following
analytes. All other tests were either indetenminate or the null hypothesis was not
rejected.
Aluminum (t/WRS)
Barium (WRS)
Boron (t/WRS)
Calcium (t/WRS)
Copper (t/WRS)
Iron (t/WRS)
Magnesium (WRS)
Manganese (t/WRS)
Mercury (Poisson/nonparametric)
Potassium (WRS)
Sodium (WRS)
Tin (Poisson/nonparametric)
Zinc (WRS)
OCDD (Poisson/nonparametric),
10-5
Barium, mercury, tin, and OCDD were retained for further spatial distiibution evaluation.
Concentrations ofthe commonly abundant metals aluminum, boron, calcium, copper,
iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, sodium, and zinc were within ranges
expected in the geographical region and were excluded from further evaluation.
None ofthe 2005 EMFS COPCs were identified as statistically significant decreases or
as statistically simitar concentrations when compared to the EMBS, Nitroglycerin and
Tetryl were identified with apparent decreases In mean concentrations,
10.5.2 Statistically Indeterminate COPCs. For COPCs detected in the 2005 EMFS
but not detected in the EMBS, statistical tests were not applicable because summary
statistics could not be generated from the baseline data. These COPCs were
categorized as statistically indeterminate and included:
Metals. Antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, tead, molybdenum,
nickel, selenium, and vanadium
Dioxins/Furans. HPCDD, HPCDF, HXCDD, HXCDF, PECDD, PECDF,
and TCDF
Explosives. HMX, RDX, TNT. and 2,4-DNT
SVOC. Benzoic acid.
In these cases, the 2005 EMFS COPC maximum detection, mean (If applicable), and/or
reporting limit were compared against one-half the respective EMBS COPC reporting
limit. Each COPC was evaluated separately to determine if spatial distribution analysis
would provide additional insights. The resutts of the evaluations are presented as
follows:
a. Antimony, tn the 1996 EMBS, antimony was not detected at reporting
limits ranging from 4.75 to 5.0 mg/kg In 24 analyses. In the 2005 EMFS
10-6
data, antimony was detected in 6 of 39 analyses (15 percent) at the
reporting limits ranging from 0.46 to 0.66 mg/kg. Summary statistics were
computed using nonparametric statistical methods. All antimony
detections were more than an order of magnitude tower than the EMBS
reporting limits. Antimony was excluded from spatial distribution analysis.
b. Arsenic, tn the 1996 EMBS, arsenic was not detected at the reporting
limits ranging from 9.49 to 10.0 mg/kg in 24 analyses. In the 2005 EMFS
data, arsenic was detected in 12 of 39 analyses (31 percent) at the
reporting limits ranging from 0.58 to 0.83 mg/kg. Att detected
concentrations, the mean of 0.16 mg/kg, and nondetect reporting limits for
the 2005 EMFS arsenic data are well below the EMBS reporting limits,
indicating that arsenic could have been present during the EMBS at
concentrations below the laboratory's ability to measure. Accordingly,
these data sets were deemed as t>eing consistent and arsenic was
excluded from spatial analysis.
c. Cadmium. In the 1996 EMBS, cadmium was not detected at the reporting
limits of 0.47 to 0.50 mg/kg In 24 analyses, tn the 2005 EMFS data,
cadmium was detected in 20 of 39 analyses (51 percent) with reporting
limits of 0.29 to 0.42 mg/kg. Summary statistics were computed using
nonparametric statistical methods. Cadmium detections exceeded the
EMBS reporting limits at only two of the EMFS locations and at one new
sampling location. The 2005 EMFS cadmium mean concentration of
0.26 mg/kg was approximately half the EMBS reporting limit. Accordingly,
these data sets were deemed as being consistent and cadmium was
excluded from spatial distribution analysis.
d. Chromium. In the 1996 EMBS, chromium was not detected at the
reporting limits of 0.94 to 1.0 mg/kg In 24 analyses. In the 2005 EMFS
data, chromium was detected in 35 of 39 analyses (90 percent) with
reporting limits ranging from 0.56 to 0.65 mg/kg. Summary statistics were
10-7
computed using nonparametric statistical methods. Chromium detections
ranged from 0.48 to 2.5 mg/kg. The maximum detection (2.5 mg/kg) was
above the EMBS reporting limits, white the computed mean (0.80 mg/kg)
was below the EMBS reporting limits. While only one chromium detection
exceeded the EMBS reporting limit at established sampling sites, the
possibility cannot be mled out that concentrations may have increased
since the EMBS. Accordingly, chromium was retained for spatial
distribution evaluation.
e. Lead, tn the 1996 EMBS, tead was not detected at reporting limits of
9.49 to 10.0 mg/kg In 24 analyses. In the 2005 EMFS data, lead was
detected In 39 of 39 analyses (100 percent). Summary statistics were
computed using nonparametric statistical methods. Only the maximum
detection (10.1 mg/kg) at one ofthe newly established sampling sites
exceeded the EMBS reporting limits. The computed mean (1.32 mg/kg)
was neariy an order of magnitude betow the EMBS detection limit,
indicating that lead could have been present during the EMBS, but was
betow the laboratory's ability to measure. Accordingly, these data sets
were deemed as being consistent and tead was excluded from spatial
distribution analysis.
f. Molybdenum, tn the 1996 EMBS, molybdenum was not detected at
reporting limits of 0,94 to 1.0 mg/kg in 24 analyses. In the 2005 EMFS
data, molybdenum was detected in 31 of 39 analyses (79 percent).
Molybdenum detections were found to have a lognormal distribution and
summary statistics were computed. More than half the detections and the
computed mean (1,52 mg/kg) were above the EMBS detection limits.
Accordingly, molybdenum was retained for further spatial distribution
evaluation.
g. Nickel. In the 1996 EMBS, nickel was not detected at reporting limits of
1.9 to 2.0 mg/kg In 24 analyses. In the 2005 EMFS data, nickel was
10-8
detected In 38 of 39 analyses (97 percent) at;a reporting limit of
0.89 mg/kg. Nickel detections were found to have a tognonnal distribution
and summary statistics were computed. More than half the detections and
the computed mean (2.59 mg/kg) were above the EMBS detection limit.
Even though nickel concentrations have probably increased since the
EMBS, nickel is considered a commonly abundant metal with
concentrations within levels expected In this geographical area and was,
therefore, excluded from spatial distribution evaluation.
Selenium. In the 1996 EMBS, selenium was not detected at reporting
limits of 9,49 to 10.0 mg/kg in 24 analyses. In the 2005 EMFS data,
selenium was detected in 39 of 39 analyses (100 percent), with reporting
limits of 0.57 to 0.83 mg/kg. Summary statistics were computed fnDm a
tognomial distribution. Both the maximum detection (1.9 mg/kg) and the
computed mean (1.16 mg/kg) were well below the EMBS detection limits,
indicating that selenium could have been present during the EMBS at
concentrations below the laboratory's ability to measure. Accordingly,
these data sets were deemed as being consistent and selenium was
excluded from spatial distribution analysis.
Vanadium. In the 1996 EMBS, vanadium was not detected at reporting
limits of 0.94 to 1,0 mg/kg In 24 analyses. In the 2005 EMFS data,
vanadium was detected in 16 of 39 analyses (41 percent). Summary
statistics were computed using nonparametric statistical methods. The
maximum EMFS value (1.6 mg/kg) was detected at location 1108, which
was established and first sampled In 2002, and therefore, has no
corresponding EMBS value. The computed mean (0.35 mg/kg) and alt
other detected values were betow the EMBS detection limits, indicating
that vanadium could have been present during the EMBS at
concentrations below the laboratory's ability to measure. Accordingly,
vanadium was excluded from spatial distribution analysis.
10-9
j. Total Dioxin and Furan Compounds. This paragraph presents information
pertaining to the 7 total dioxins and furans: HPCDD, HPCDF. HXCDD.
HXCDF, PECDD, PECDF, and TCDF, OCDD was detected In botii the
EMBS and 2005 EMFS and was presented In paragraph 10,4, OCDF and
TCDD were not detected In any samples during either the EMBS or the
2005 EMFS and are not be included in this discussion.
The 7 total dioxins and furans listed previously were not detected at
reporting limits ranging from 0.04 to 2.0 ng/kg in 24 analyses during the
EMBS. tn the 2005 EMFS, these 7 parameters were detected at
frequencies ranging from 5 to 56 percent. The 2005 EMFS reporting limits
for these parameters ranged from 0.30 to 3.89 ng/kg. Means maximum
detected values from 2005 EMFS data were compared to the EMBS
eporting limits and the resutts are as follows:
Parameten 2005 EMFS mean/maximum; EMBS lowest/highest
reporting limit
Total HPCDD: 3.89/14.4 ng/kg; 0.17/1.9 ng/kg
Total HPCDF: 0.64/1.96 ng/kg; 0.15/0.61 ng/kg
Total HXCDD: 0.58/2.8 ng/kg; 0.08/2.0 ng/kg
Total HXCDF: 0.31/1.21 ng/kg; 0.05/0.38 ng/kg
Total PECDD: 0.30/1.23 ng/kg; 0.04/1.8 ng/kg
Total PECDF: 0.36/0.38 ng/kg; 0.09/0.61 ng/kg
Total TCDF: 0.33/1.61 ng/kg; 0.07/0.25 ng/kg.
10-10
These parameters indicate that 2005 EMFS mean values for total
HPCDD, HPCDF, and TCDF exceed the highest reporting limit for the
corresponding groups of compounds in the EMBS. tn addition, the
maximum detected values for all ofthe dioxins and furans exceeded the
corresponding maximum EMBS rep>orting limits for alt groups except
PECDD and PECDF. As noted in paragraph 10.4, the 2005 EMFS mean
for OCDD was statistically significantiy larger than the mean value
computed for OCDD using EMBS data. Therefore, the ten groups of total
dioxins and furans were retained for evaluation of spatial distribution.
Explosive Compounds. Four explosive compounds (HMX, RDX, TNT, and
2,4-DNT) were not detected at reporting limits ranging from 420 to
660 pg/kg in 24 analyses during the EMBS, but were present at
frequencies ranging from 3 percent to 21 percent of the analyses with
limits ranging from 630 to 160,000 pg/kg In the 2005 EMFS. The
distribution for TNT was nonparametric. The other three compounds had
Poisson distributions. Summary statistics were computed using
nonparametric statistical methods. The 2005 EMFS computed mean
values ranged from 440 pg/kg to 2,540 pg/kg, exceeding att EMBS
reporting limits. All detected concentrations for all four compounds
identified in the 2005 EMFS exceeded the EMBS reporting limits as
indicated in the following list. Values in parentheses indicate the
2005 EMFS maximum detection concentration followed by the EMBS
reporting limit.
HMX (single detect at 99,000 pg/kg versus 660 pg/kg)
RDX (140,000 pg/kg versus 580 pg/kg)
TNT (15,000 pg/kg versus 450 pg/kg)
2,4-DNT (17,000 pg/kg verses 420 pg/kg).
10-11
TNT and RDX were retained for further spatial distribution analysis. With
only single detections, HMX and 2,4-DNT will not be retained for spatial
distribution mapping, but the tocation of these detections relative to the
TOCDF common stack are noted and the concentrations are compared to
historical trends in paragraph 10.6 of this report.
I. SVOC Compounds. SVOC compound benzoic acid was not detected at
reporting limits ranging from 21,000 to 140,000 pg/kg in 24 analyses
during the EMBS. Benzoic acid was detected in 2 ofthe 2005 EMFS
analyses with reporting limits of 8,900 to 12,000 pg/kg. Both benzoic acid
detections (14,000 and 18,000 pg/kg) were at newly established sampling
locations and are betow the EMBS reporting limits. Benzoic acid could
have been present during the EMBS at concentrations below the
laboratory's ability to measure. Accordingly, this compound was excluded
from spatial distribution analysis,
10.6 Spatial Distribution and Temporal Trends In Shrubs (Step 6)
COPCs retained for evaluation of spatial distribution and temporal trends are described
In the following paragraphs. Maps and histograms used for this evaluation are
contained In figures 10.6-1 through 10.6-16. Data forthe 1998 EMFS were omitted
from the evaluation of temporal trends because that year sampling was performed in
October rather than May. There are significant differences in the maturity of leaves and
stems (especially first year stems) between the spring and fall seasons. It is felt that
these differences would complicate the interpretation of any observed trends and it was
pmdent to confine the evaluation to the four comparable data sets (those where
sampling occurred in the May time frame).
a. Barium. Barium was detected in all 2005 EMFS shmb samples
(figure 10.6-1). The highest barium concentiation (30,1 mg/kg) was found
at site 1305 In the modeled lower deposition zone approximately 5,5 km
(3,4 miles) south of TOCDF. The second highest value (25,8 mg/kg) was
10-12
at site 1108 In the modeled higher deposition zone approximately 1,6 km
(1 mile) south of TOCDF, Other sampling sites within the modeled high
and low deposition areas south of TOCDF have concentration values that
are comparable to sites outside the modeled deposition zones. Sampling
sites north of TOCDF show no pattem of higher concentrations inside the
modeled deposition zones than to outside the modeled deposition zones.
The wind in Rush Valley tends to blow to the north/northwest more often
than to the southeast, implying that If an emission related deposition were
to be found, it is more likely to be found north of TOCDF than to the south.
Therefore, It Is concluded that the association of the two high values south
of TOCDF with the air dispersion model is not an indication of an
association with TOCDF and more likely represents natural variation or
some other local infiuence.
Considering the 26 locations sampled in the 2005 EMFS and in at least
one other sampling round, the 2005 EMFS barium concentration in shmbs
was the highest recorded at only three tocations: 0812.1108. and 1710
(figure 10.6-2), The most noticeable trend is that the barium concentration
during att ofthe EMFSs has been higher than during the EMBS, This
trend is seen throughout the sampling area and is probably related to
Improvements in analytical methodology rather than to an actual jump in
concentration. Because the trend is uniform across the study area, it is
concluded that variability in barium concentrations in shmbs Is not related
to emissions from the TOCDF common stack.
Chromium. Chromium was detected in 90 percent (35 of 39) ofthe
2005 EMFS shmb samples (figure 10.6-3). The highest concentration
(2.5 mg/kg) was at site 0802, approximately 7 km (3.4 miles) south of
TOCDF and outside the modeled higher and lower deposition zones, tt
appears that chromium concentrations in the southem part of Rush Valley
are higher than those in the northem part, but on the whole, chromium
concentrations are distributed evenly across the study leading to the
10-13
conclusion that there is no conretation between the TOCDF stack and
chromium concentrations in shmbs.
Considering the 26 tocations sampled In the 2005 EMFS and in at least
one other sampling round, the 1999 EMFS recorded the highest
concentration at most sampling locations (figure 10.6-4). This observation
applies to sampling sites across the study area. There Is no relationship
between variations in chromium concentrations and the TOCDF common
stack.
c. Mercury. Mercury was detected in 51 percent (20 of 39) of 2005 EMFS
shmb samptes (figure 10.6-5). Sites with detected levels of mercury were
scattered across the study area with no particular pattem. The highest
concentration was at site 1412 approximately 4.4 km (2.7 mites) east of
TOCDF. This site is at the edge of the modeled lower deposition zone
and near the base of the Oquirrh Mountains. All other detected mercury
levels within the modeled deposition zones were comparable to levels
outside the modeled deposition zones, tt was concluded that mercury
distribution in shmbs is not related to the TOCDF common stack.
Considering only the 26 tocations sampled in the 2005 EMFS and during
at least one other sampling round, there are too few detections of mercury
in shmb samptes to determine a temporal pattem (figure 10.6-6). The
2005 EMFS mercury concentration In shmbs was highest at 6 ofthe
8 locations where it was detected, though the concentrations detected, are
comparable to the 2002 EMFS values. It is concluded that temporal
variation in mercury concentrations in shmbs does not form a discemable
pattem that can be associated with the operation of the TOCDF common
stack,
d. Molybdenum. Molybdenum was detected in 79 percent (31 of 39) of the
2005 EMFS shmb samples (figure 10.6-7). The highest concentration
10-14
(8.3 mg/kg) was at site 0308 approximately 6.4 km (4 miles) west of
TOCDF and outside the higher and tower air model deposition zones.
There is a tendency for molybdenum concentrations In the southem part
of Rush Valley to be greater than those in the northem part, though the
pattem Is not associated with the TOCDF stack. Five of 8 samptes from
the modeled high deposition area were nondetects. It is concluded that
there is no relationship to the TOCDF stack.
Considering only the 26 locations sampled in the 2005 EMFS and during
at least one other sampling round, the 2005 EMFS samptes had the
highest recorded molybdenum concentrations at only 5 sites: 0400, 0613,
0714, 0812, and 1004 (figure 10,6-8), Only one site had molybdenum
detections in the four sampling rounds (the EMBS, and the 1999, 2002,
and 2005 EMFSs, No particular trend over time is evident. It is concluded
that there is no relationship between variation In molybdenum
concentrations in shmb samptes and the TOCDF common stack.
e. Tin. Tin was detected In 38 percent (15 of 39) of the 2005 EMFS shmb
samples (figure 10.6-9). The highest concentration (11.00 mg/kg) was at
sample site 1015, approximately 5.5 km (3.4 miles) from TOCDF in the
modeled tow deposition zone. Only three other detected levels of tin were
found at sites within the modeled deposition zones, compared to
10 detections at sites outside the modeled deposition zones, tt is
concluded that the distribution of tin in shmbs Is not associated with
location ofthe TOCDF common stack.
Considering the 26 locations sampled In the 2005 EMFS and also
sampled In at least one other sampling round, there are Insufficient sites
with multiple detections to observe a pattern (figure (10.6-10). The
1999 EMFS was the sampling round that had the greatest number of
detections. Only two sites, 1223 and 1808 had detected levels of tin in att
10-15
four sampling rounds. There is no observed relationship t>etween
variations in tin concentration in shmbs and the TOCDF common stack.
Dioxin/Furan Compounds. Total dioxins and furans were detected In
95 percent (39 of 41) of the 2005 EMFS shmb samples (figure 10.6-11).
The highest concentration (71.3 ng/kg) was found at site 1011
approximately 1.5 km (0.9 mile) from the TOCDF common stack. While
five ofthe 10 highest concentrations are within the modeled deposition
zones, including three that appear to form a tine with the TOCDF stack,
the data as a whole do not appear to fomn a pattem associated with the
TOCDF stack. The reason for this conclusion Is that If the 10 highest
concentrations are placed in rank order, tocations 1,3, 5, 7, and 9 fall
within the modeled deposition areas white tocations 2,4, 6, 8, and 10 are
outside the modeled deposition areas. It is also noted that soil dioxin and
furan concentrations in the 2005 EMFS were not significantiy higher than
baseline comparison values, and that there is no apparent TOCDF related
pattem in the distribution of total dioxin and furan concentrations seen in
herbaceous samptes,
Dioxins and furans may enter the environment from any combustion
process involving organic matter when chlorine is present (as it is in most
plants and fossil fuels). Therefore, exhaust from gas, oil, and coal-fired
heaters, as well as automobiles and natural fires, can contribute to dioxins
and furans in the environment. It Is much more likely that the levels of
dioxins and furans seen near TOCDF are related to these other potential
sources, which generally do not have air pollution abatement systems,
than they are to the TOCDF common stack, which has been equipped
with an air pollution abatement system since the day it started operation.
Therefore, it Is concluded that while suggestive, the distribution of total
dioxins and furans In shmbs within Rush Valley are not associated with
the operation of the TOCDF common stack.
10-16
Considering the 26 locations sampled in the 2005 EMFS and in at least
one other sampling round, there are three locations: 0813,1108, and
1808 were the 2005 EMFS total dioxin and furan concentration in shmb
samptes was the highest recorded (figure 10,6-12), These sites are
divided one site each Into the modeled high and low deposition zones and
into the area outside the deposition zone boundary. Beyond that
observation, there Is no clear temporal trend in total dioxin and furan
concentrations. Variation in total dioxin and furan concentrations in Rush
Valley are not associated with the TOCDF common stack,
g, RDX. RDX was detected in 8 percent (3 of 39) 2005 EMFS shmb
samples (figure 10,6-13). The three detections were alt south of TOCDF.
The largest concentration (140,000/yg/kg) occurred at site 1202
approximately 7.7 km (4.8 miles) south of TOCDF. The locations ofthe
three detections do not suggest a relationship with the TOCDF common
stack.
Considering the 26 sites sampled in the 2005 EMFS and during at least
one other sampling round, there are insufficient detections of RDX in
shrub samptes to determine a temporal pattem (figure 10.6-14).
h. TNT. TNT was detected at 21 percent (8 of 29) of 2005 EMFS shmb
sampte sites. All but one ofthe 8 detections were outside the modeled
deposition zones (figure 10.6-15). There is no observed relationship
between the occun-ence of TNT in shmb samples and the location of the
TOCDF common stack.
Considering the 26 locations sampled in the 2005 EMFS and during at
least one other sampling round, there were too few detections of TNT in
shmb samptes to discern a temporal pattem (figure 10.6-16).
10-17
Spatial distribution maps and histograms were not provided for 2,4-DNT
and HMX because there were too small a number of detections to justify
mapping. 2,4-DNT and HMX detects have occurred sporadically over
various EMBS and EMFS sampling events. Detects at various locations in
previous EMBS and EMFS sampling events have not been duplicated in
subsequent sampling events, suggesting that the presence of these
COPCs is sporadic and not consistent, and not associated with the
TOCDF common stack. During the 2005 EMFS, the highest concentration
of HMX (99,000 pg/kg) was detected at location 0623 (near Rush Lake)
and the highest concentration of 2,4-DNT (17,000 pg/kg) was detected at
location 1015, Previous sampling events at this tocation 1015 were
nondetect for 2,4-DNT, These locations should be monitored for
explosives during future sampling events.
10-18
Table 10.1-1. Detection Frequency - Shmb Data
Analyte
1996 EMBS
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detections
Percent
Detections
2005 EMFS
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detections
Percent
Detections
Distribution
Evaluation
Method
Detected in 1996 - Detected in 2005
/Muminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Sodium
Tin
Zinc
OCDD
Nitroglycerin
Tetryl
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
2
24
24
1
24
2
20
1
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
8
100
100
4
100
8
83
4
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
20
39
35
15
39
19
3
1
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
51
100
90
38
100
49
8
3
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W+
S/W
S/W
NP
S/W
NP
P
P
Detected In 1996 - Not Detected in 2005
OCDF 24 1 4 39 ND NC P
10-19
Table 10.1-1. Detection Frequency - Shr\jb Data (Continued)
Analyte
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
bis(2-Ethyihexyi) phthalate
1996 EMBS
Number of
Samples
24
23
Number of
Detections
9
1
Percent
Detections
38
4
2005 EMFS
Number of
Samples
39
39
Number of
Detections
ND
ND
Percent
Detections
NC
NC
Distribution
Evaluation
Method
P
P
Not Detected In 1996 - Detected In 2005
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
HPCDD (Total)
HPCDF (Total)
HXCDD (Total)
HXCDF (Total)
PECDD (Total)
PECDF (Total)
TCDF (Total)
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
6
12
20
35
39
31
38
39
16
22
15
5
9
5
2
8
8
15
31
51
90
100
79
97
100
41
56
38
13
23
13
5
21
21
NP
NP
S/W+
S/W
S/W
S/W+
S/W
S/W
NP
S/W+
NP
NP
NP
NP
P
NP
NP
10-20
•
Tabte 10.1-1, Detection Frequency - Shmb Data (Continued)
Analyte
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
RDX
HMX
Benzoic acid
di-n-Butyl phthalate
1996 EMBS
Number of
Samples
24
24
24
23
23
Number of
Detections
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Percent
Detections
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2005 EMFS
Number of
Samples
39
39
39
39
39
Number of
Detections
1
3
1
2
1
Percent
Detections
3
8
3
5
3
Distribution
Evaluation
Method
P
P
P
P
P
Notes:
NC = not calculated
ND = not detected
NP = nonparametric distribution assumed
P = Poisson distribution assumed
S/W = Shapiro-Will< Test (Shapiro-Francia test if more than 50 samples)
S/W+ = Shapiro-Wiik (or Shapiro-Francia) Test after Regression on Order Statistics
10-21
Tabte 10,2-1. Distribution Test Results - Shmb Vegetation
Analyte
1996 EMBS
Nonnal
Computed
Lognormal
Computed Critical Vaiue Distribution
2005 EMFS
Normal
Computed
Lognormal
Computed Critical Value Distribution
Detected In EMBS - Detected in 2005 EMFS
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Sodium
Tin
Zinc
OCDD
Nitroglycerin
Tetryl
0.895
0.985
0.971
0.980
0.920
0.876
0.953
0.934
NC
0.983
0.864
NC
0.926
NC
0.959
NC
0.948
0.979
0.981
0.973
0.986
0.946
0.972
0.919
NC
0.980
0.964
NC
0.971
NC
0.947
NC
0.916
0.916
0.916
0.916
0.916
0.916
0.916
0.916
NC
0.916
0.916
NC
0.916
NC
0.916
NC
L
N(L)
L(N)
N(L)
L(N)
L
L(N)
N(L)
P
N(L)
L
P
L(N)
P
N(L)
P
0.684
0.895
0.933
0.851
0.958
0.765
0.727
0.964
0.768
0.925
0.331
NC
0.761
NC
NC
NC
0.944
0.927
0.972
0.941
0.854
0.959
0.832
0.974
0.930
0.810
0.802
NC
0.913
NC
NC
NC
0.939
0.939
0.939
0.939
0.939
0.939
0.939
0.939
0.939
0.939
0.939
NC
0.939
NC
NC
NC
L
NP
L
L
N
L
NP
L(N)
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
P
P
Detected in EMBS - Not Detected in 2005 EMFS
OCDF NC NC NC P NC NC NC ND
10-22
I
Table 10,2-1, Distribution Test Resutts - Shmb Vegetation (Continued)
Analyte
PCB-1254
(Arochlor 1254)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
1996 EMBS
Nonnal
Computed
NC
NC
Lognormal
Computed
NC
NC
Critical Value
NC
NC
Distribution
NP
P
2005 EMFS
Normal
Computed
NC
NC
Lognormal
Computed
NC
NC
Critical Vaiue
NC
NC
Distribution
ND
ND
Not Detected in EMBS
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Lead
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
HPCDD (Total)
HPCDF (Total)
HXCDD (Total)
HXCDF (Total)
PECDD (Total)
PECDF (Total)
TCDF (Total)
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.556
0.754
0.439
0.615
0.697
0.908
NC
0.812
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.874
0.900
0.836
0.967
0.977
0.947
NC
0.967
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.939
0.939
0.939
0.939
0.939
0.939
NC
0.939
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NP,;^
NP
NP
NP
NP
L
L
L
NP
L
NP
NP
NP
NP
P
NP
10-23
Table 10.2-1. Distribution Test Results - Shmb Vegetation (Continued)
Analyte
2,4,6-Trlnitrotoluene
2,4-Dinitrotoiuene
RDX
HMX
Benzoic acid
di-n-Butyl phthalate
1996 EMBS
Normal
Computed
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Lognormal
Computed
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Critical Value
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Distribution
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Normal
Computed
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Notes:
L = Lognormal distribution
L/N = Lognomnal and normal distributions both acceptable
L (N) = Lognomnal and normal distributions both acceptable - lognormal preferred
N = Normal distribution
NC = not calculated
ND = not detected
N (L) = Normal and lognormal distributions both acceptable - normal preferred
NP = nonparametric
P = Poisson distribution
2005 EMFS
Lognomnal
Computed
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Critical Value
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Distribution
NP
P
P
P
P
P
10-24
Table 10.3-1. Summary Statistics - Shmb Vegetation
Analyte Units
1996 EMBS
Mean
Standard
Deviation Maximum UTL
2005 EMFS
Mean
Standard
Deviation Maximum
Detected In EMBS - Detected In 2005 EMFS
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Sodium
Tin
Zinc
OCDD
Nitroglycerin
Tetryl
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ng/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
100
5.86
13,7
2.630
6.27
91.2
673
24.2
NC
7.310
126
NC
10.5
NC
9.910,000
NC
51.4
1.51
3.26
485
2.33
41.9
106
4.35
NC
973
60.3
NC
3.78
NC
12.000.000
NC
211
9.03
20.8
3.750
13.3
192
948
34.8
0.7
9,310
320
7.8
21.4
13.5
43,700.000
33.000
269
10.7
23.8
4.170
13.8
228
1.020
38
2.5
10.400
323
20
22.6
10.2
43,700.000
7.000
•'jff 255
^^C.-.:..^:}^
• •'•? 32^5
C: 7,08b
SJ^e....- -yi^^
$|r 1,760
:;?^;:";yi^O
* 0.0564
^' 17.80?
3,060
2.97
|vj,,.,,;y ;.^2056;
9.25
NC
NC
132
4.62
8.09
1,840
3.85
119
528
26.6
* 0.0256
4,180
9.930
1.9
9.31
12.1
NC
NC
1,080
30,1
58,2
14,400
23,3
996
3,520
137
0.15
30,300
42,200
11
58.2
57
733.000
1.600
10-25
Table 10.3-1, Summary Statistics - Shmb Vegetation (Continued)
Analyte Units
1996 EMBS
Mean
Standard
Deviation Maximum UTL
2005 EMFS
Mean
Standard
Deviation Maximum
Detected In EMBS - Not Detected In 2005 EMFS
OCDF
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
ng/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
NC
51.5
NC
NC
84.6
NC
19.1
360
6,080
10.2
247
5.250
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Not Detected in EMBS - Detected In 2005 EMFS
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Lead
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
HPCDD (Total)
HPCDF (Total)
HXCDD (Total)
HXCDF (Total)
PECDD (Total)
PECDF (Total)
TCDF (Total)
2.4.6-Trinitrotoluene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
pg/kg
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
" 4.75
" 9.49
" 0.47
" 0.94
" 9.49
" 0.94
"1.9
" 9.49
" 0.94
"0.17
" 0.15
" 0.08
" 0.05
" 0.04
" 0.09
" 0.07
" 450.
0.16
0.32
*0.26
0.8
1.32
•1.52
2.59
1.16
0.35
*3.89
0.64
0.58
0.31
0.3
NC
0.33
2.290
0.0703
0.38
*0.27
0.4
1.56
*0.99
1.62
0.23
0.27
*3.1
0.45
0.63
0.21
0.21
NC
0.38
3.690
0.42
2.3
1.3
2.5
10.1
8.3
12.3
1.9
1,6
14,4
1,96
2,8
1,21
1,23
0.38
1.61
15,000
10-26
Table 10.3-1, Summary Statistics - Shmb Vegetation (Continued)
Analyte
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
RDX
HMX
Benzoic acid
di-n-Butyl phthalate
Units
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
Mean
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1996 EMBS
Standard
Deviation
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Maximum
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
UTL
"420
"580
"660
"21.000
"1,050
Mean
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2005 EMFS
Standard
Deviation
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Maximum
17,000
140,000
99,000
18.000
2.100
Notes:
Adjusted mean and standard deviation for S/W+ distributions. Adjusted means are either lognormal means adjusted for log-bias, means computed using
regression on order statistics (ROS) for censored data, or the Kaplan-Meier method. ROS was used when there were more than 50 percent censored.
Kaplan-Meier was used when 15 to 50 percent of the data points were censored. For fewer than 15 percent nondetects. a simple substitution of one-half the
reporting limit was used.
UTL values taken from the minimum reporting limit for undetected compounds
NA
NC
ND
pg/kg
mg/kg
ng/kg
UTL
1
= not applicable
= not calculable
= not detected
= microgram per kilogram
= milligram per kilogram
= nanogram per kilogram
= upper tolerance limit
HD Exceeds 1996 UTL Value
IZZI Exceeds 1996 Mean Value
10-27
Tabte 10,4-1, Means Testing - Shmb Vegetation
Analyte Units EMBS
Mean
EMFS A
Percent
Detection
EMBS/EMFS
Distribution
Test
Outcome
EMBS/EMFS
Statistical
Test
Calculated
Result
Critical
Value
Means
Assessmenf
Detected In EMBS - Detected In 2005 EMFS
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Sodium
Tin
Zinc
OCDD
Nitroglycerin
Tetryl
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ng/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
100
5.86
13.7
2.630
6.27
91.2
673
24.2
0.0483
7.310
126
2.67
10.5
2.05
9.910,000
1.720
255
13.5
32.5
7.080
12.7
324
1.760
70
0.0564
17,800
3,060
2.97
20.6
9.25
69,800
596
155
7.67
18.9
4.460
6.4
233
1.090
45.8
0.0081
10,500
2,940
0.3
10.1
7.2
-9.840.000
-1.130
100/100
100/100
100/100
100/100
100/100
100/100
100/100
100/100
8/51
100/100
100/90
4/38
100/100
8/49
83/8
4/3
L/L
N(L)/NP
L(N)/L
N(L)/L
L(N)/N
L/L
L(N)/NP
N(L)/L(N)
P/NP
N(L)/NP
L/NP
P/NP
L(N)/NP
P/NP
N(L)/P
P/P
WIRS
WRS
\ANRS
t/WRS
t/WRS
tWRS
WRS
t/WRS
P
WRS
WRS
P
WRS
P
P
P
7.31305
6.25628
13.89554
17.33261
8.18102
12.11141
-6.62485
14.39777
NA
6.28467
-2.46279
NA
5.73985
NA
NA
NA
1.67800
1.95996
1.67800
1.67200
1.67100
1.68300
1.95996
1.67200
NA
1.95996
1.95996
NA
1.95996
NA
NA
NA
SD - Increase
SD - Increase
SD - Increase
SD - Increase
SD - Increase
SD - Increase
so - Increase
SD - Increase
NPG - Apparent
Increase
SD - Increase
SD • Increase
NPG - Apparent
Increase
SD - Increase
NPG - Apparent
Increase
Poisson - Apparent
Decrease
Poisson - Apparent
Decrease
10-28
Tabte 10.4-1, Means Testing - Shmb Vegetation (Continued)
Analyte Units
Mean
EMBS EMFS A
Percent
Detection
EMBS/EMFS
Distribution
Test
Outcome
EMBS/EMFS
Statistical
Test
Calculated
Result
Critical
Vaiue
Means
Assessmenf
Detected In EMBS - Not Detected In 2005 EMFS
OCDF
PCB-1254
(Arochlor 1254)
bis(2-
Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
ng/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
1.53
51.5
1,780
NC
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
4/0
38/0
4/0
P/ND
NP/ND
P/ND
P
NA
P
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NPG - Same
Apparent Decrease
Common laboratory
contaminant
Not Detected in EMBS - Detected in 2005 EMFS
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium.
Total
Lead
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
HPCDD (Total)
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ng/kg
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.16
0.32
0.26
0.8
1.32
1.52
2.59
1.16
0.35
3.89
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0/15
0/31
0/51
0/90
0/100
0/79
0/97
0/100
0/41
0/56
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/L
ND/L
ND/L
ND/NP
ND/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - No Apparent
Increase
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Possible
Increase
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Increase
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Possible
Increase
10-29
Table 10,4-1, Means Testing - Shmb Vegetation (Continued)
Analyte
HPCDF (Total)
HXCDD (Total)
HXCDF (Total)
PECDD (Total)
PECDF (Total)
TCDF (Total)
2,4.6-
Trinitrotoiuene
2.4-
Dlnitrotoluene
RDX
HMX
Benzoic acid
dl-n-Butyi
phthalate
Units
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
Mean
EMBS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
EMFS
0.64
0.58
0.31
0.3
0.2
0.33
2.290
2.280
13.400
13,300
2,790
1.080
A
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Percent
Detection
EMBS/EMFS
0/38
0/13
0/23
0/13
0/5
0/21
0/21
0/3
0/8
0/3
0/5
0/3
Distribution
Test
Outcome
EMBS/EMFS
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/P
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/P
ND/P
ND/P
ND/P
ND/P
Statistical
Test
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Calculated
Result
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Critical
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Means
Assessment"
NPG - Possible
Increase
NPG - Possible
Increase
NPG - Possible
Increase
NPG - Possible
Increase
NPG - Possible
Increase
NPG - Possible
Increase
NPG - Apparent
Increase
NPG - Possible
Increase
NPG - Apparent
Increase
NPG - Possible
Increase
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
Common
laboratory
contaminant
Notes:
" For means analyses listed with the code "NPG," comparisons were made using nonparametric and graphical methods.
10-30
Table 10,4-1, Means Testing - Shmb Vegetation (Continued)
Notes: (Continued)
Units
pg/kg =
mg/kg =
ng/kg =
microgram per kilogram
milligram per kilogram
nanogram per kilogram
Distribution Test Outcome
L = Lognomnal distribution applicable
L(N) = Lognormal and normal distributions applicable - lognormal prefenred
N = Normal distribution applicable
N(L) = Normal and lognormal distributions applicable - normal preferred
ND = not detected
NP = nonparametric distribution assumed
P = Poisson distribution assumed
Mean
NA
NC
A
not applicable
not calculated; for analytes having zero detections
mean difference computed as (EMFS Mean) - (EMBS Mean)
Statistical Test
NA
NPG
Pt/WSR =
t/WRS
WRS
not applicable
nonparametric statistical methods and graphical evaluations utilized
Paired t-test and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test
t-test and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test
Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test
Means /Assessment
SD = statistically significant difference
SI = statistically indeterminate
SS = statistically same
10-31
SECTION 11
CHEMICAL RESULTS - HERBACEOUS VEGETATION
Tabte C-3 in annex C lists all analytical results for 2005 EMFS heriDaceous samptes.
EMBS maximums and UTL values are also given. The following paragraphs describe
data for analytes that were detected in 2005 EMFS herbaceous samples and analytes
that were detected in the 1996 EMBS but not detected in 2005,
The 2005 EMFS herbaceous samples were analyzed for the same metals,
dioxins/furans, nitro-aromatics (explosives), PCBs, and semivolatile chemical
parameters as the EMBS. Anions were not analyzed in the 2005 EMFS.
11.1 Herbaceous COPCs Detected (Step 1)
COPCs detected in the 2005 EMFS herbaceous samples Included: metals,
dioxins/furans, SVOCs, and nitro-aromatic (explosives) compounds. Tabte 11.1-1
provides a list ofthe 2005 EMFS COPCs detected, the number of detections, the
frequency of detection (percent detections), and the distribution test method. The table
provides a comparison to the detection frequencies reported forthe EMBS. The tabte
also includes three analytes OCDF, 2,4-DNT, and PCB-1254 that were detected in 1996
but not detected in 2005. The COPCs detected In 2005 include:
a. Metals. Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, calcium,
chromium, cobatt, copper. Iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury,
molybdenum, nickel, potassium, selenium, sodium, tin, vanadium, and
zinc
b. Dioxins/Furans. OCDD, HPCDD. HPCDF, HXCDD, HXCDF. PECDD,
PECDF, and TCDF
11-1
c. SVOCs. Benzoic acid, benzyl alcohol, and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
d. Explosives. TNT, RDX, HMX, Tetryl, and nitroglycerine.
All COPCs identified in tiie EMBS were detected in the 2005 EMFS with the exception
of OCDF, 2,4-DNT, and PCB-1254. In addition, a number of analytes detected in the
2005 EMFS were not found in the EMBS. These parameters are as follows:
Metals. Antimony, arsenic, cadmium, cobatt, lead, mercury, selenium, and
tin
Dioxins/Furans. HPCDD, HPCDF, HXCDD, HXCDF, PECDD, PECDF,
and TCDF
SVOCs. Benzoic acid
Explosives. TNT, RDX, and Tetryl.
11.2 Herbaceous COPC Distributions (Step 2)
Based on the frequency of detection, herbaceous COPC data were subjected to the
distribution test methods shown in tabte 11.1-1. The distribution test resutts for the
COPCs detected in tiie 2005 EMFS are provided in table 11.2-1. Simitar data from the
1996 EMBS are provided for comparison.
11.3 Herbaceous Summary Statistics (Step 3)
Tabte 11.3-1 provides 2005 EMFS and 1996 EMBS summary statistics for each COPC
listed In table 11.1-1. The mean, standard deviation, and maximum detection are
presented. In addition, the 1996 EMBS data include the UTL value or laboratory
reporting limit as appropriate. Calculated mean concentrations for the 2005 EMFS
COPCs that exceeded the EMBS mean values are highlighted, as are the maximum
11-2
concentrations that exceeded the baseline UTL and maximum values that exceeded the
1996 reporting limit.
11.4 Herbaceous COPC Comparison to Screening Levels (Step 4)
The 2005 EMFS herbaceous COPC concentrations were compared to the EMBS
99 percent UTL values as described In the TOCDF FSP. COPCs highlighted in
table 11.2-1 were designated for further statistical evaluation unless they were classified
as a common laboratory contaminant. The only analyte excluded from additional
evaluation as a common laboratory contaminant was bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Most
COPCs detected in the 2005 EMFS herbaceous samptes exceeded the EMBS
screening levels. Only five analytes (aluminum, chromium, iron, manganese, and
vanadium) were reported at concentirations less than the EMBS. The remaining COPCs
exceeded the screening levels and were designated for further statistical analysis as
follows:
Metals. Antimony, arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, calcium, cobalt,
copper, lead, magnesium, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, potassium,
selenium, sodium, tin, and zinc
Dioxins/Furans. OCDD, OCDF, HPCDD, HPCDF, HXCDD, HXCDF,
PECDD, PECDF. and TCDF
SVOCs. Benzyl alcohol and benzoic acid
PCBs. PCB-1254
Explosives. Nitroglycerin, 2,4-DNT, HMX, TNT, RDX, and Tetryl.
11-3
11.5 Herbaceous COPC Statistical Evaluation (Step 5)
11.5.1 Central Tendency Tests. The 2005 EMFS COPCs that showed the potential to
reject the null hypothesis by exceeding the screening criterion or by having a mean
concentration greater than the EMBS mean value were subjected to central tendency
statistical tests to detennine If there was a statistically significant Increase In the mean
concentration. Tabte 11.4-1 summarizes the outcome of means testing (central
tendency) for the retained shmb COPCs. The three possible outcomes of central
tendency testing were discussed in paragraph 7.2 of this report.
Data for COPCs that rejected the null hypothesis or were indeterminate required
additional evaluation to detemnine If spatial distribution analysis would be performed.
Review of the central tendency testing outcomes Indicates that of the COPCs subjected
to the statistical testing, t-test, the WRS, or Poisson distribution, the null hypothesis was
rejected for the following COPCs:
Boron (WRS)
Molybdenum (Poisson)
Potassium (t/WRS)
Zinc (WRS)
OCDD (WRS).
Statistical central tendency evaluations were indeterminate for the following COPCs,
which are evaluated in paragraph 11,6,
Magnesium (t/WRS)
OCDF (Poisson)
11-4
2,4-DNT (Poisson)
Nitroglycerin (Poisson)
HMX (Poisson),
Molybdenum and OCDD were retained for spatial distribution analysis and are
discussed in more detail In paragraph 11,6, Concentrations of the commonly abundant
metals (boron, potassium, and zinc) were within ranges expected In the geographical
region and were excluded from further evaluation.
The mean assessment resutts for herbaceous plants (tabte 11,4-1) Identified statistically
significant decreases In the 2005 EMFS concentrations relative to the 1996 EMBS, Of
the 25 analytes detected In 1996 that were evaluated, aluminum, chromium, iron and
vanadium showed statistically significant decreases in the 2005 EMFS, Barium,
calcium, copper, manganese, nickel, sodium, PCB-1254, and benzyl alcohol show no
statistically significant change in concentrations compared to the EMBS,
11.5.2 Statistically Indeterminate or Inconclusive COPCs. For COPCs detected in
the 2005 EMFS but not detected in the EMBS, statistical tests were not applicable
because no summary statistics could be generated from the baseline data. These
COPCs were categorized as statistically indeterminate and included:
Metals. Antimony, arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, tead, magnesium, mercury,
selenium, and tin
Dioxins/Furans. OCDF, HPCDD, HPCDF, HXCDD, HXCDF, PECDD,
PECDF, and TCDF
SVOCs. Benzoic acid
Explosives. TNT, RDX, Tetryl,
11-5
In these cases, the 2005 EMFS COPC maximum detection, mean (if applicabte), and/or
detection limit were compared against the respective EMBS COPC detection limit.
Each COPC was evaluated separately to determine if spatial distribution analysis would
provide additional insights. Results of these evaluations are presented as follows:
a. Antimony. Antimony was not detected at reporting limits ranging from
4,74 to 5,0 mg/kg in 24 analyses during the EMBS, In the 2005 EMFS
data, antimony was detected in 10 of 41 analyses (24 percent) with
reporting limits ranging from 0,43 to 0,61 mg/kg. Summary statistics were
computed using nonparametric statistical methods. Both the maximum
detection (0.54 mg/kg) and the computed mean (0.18 mg/kg) were below
the EMBS reporting limits. Accordingly, antimony was excluded from
spatial distribution analysis.
b. Arsenic. Arsenic was not detected at reporting limits ranging from 9.49 to
10.0 mg/kg in 24 analyses during the EMBS. In the 2005 EMFS data,
arsenic was detected in 13 of 41 analyses (32 percent) with reporting
limits ranging from 0.55 to 0.79 mg/kg. Summary statistics were
computed using nonparametric statistical methods. Both the maximum
detection (1.80 mg/kg) and the computed mean (0.36 mg/kg) were betow
the EMBS reporting limits. Accordingly, these data sets were deemed as
being consistent and arsenic was excluded from spatial analysis.
c. Cadmium. Cadmium was not detected at reporting limits ranging from
0.47 to 0.50 mg/kg in 24 analyses during the EMBS. In the 2005 EMFS
data, cadmium was detected in 17 of 41 analyses (41 percent) with
reporting limits ranging from 0.27 to 0.40 mg/kg. Summary statistics were
computed using nonparametric statistical methods. The maximum
detected value (3.6 mg/kg) exceeded the EMBS reporting limits. The
computed mean (0.34 mg/kg) did not exceed the EMBS reporting limits. A
total of nine 2005 EMFS detected concentrations exceeded the EMBS
11-6
reporting limits. Of these nine tocations, only one was a tocation sampled
during the EMBS. Cadmium was retained for spatial distribution analysis.
d. Cobalt. Cobalt was not detected at reporting limits ranging from 1.9 to
2.0 mg/kg in 24 analyses during the EMBS, tn the 2005 EMFS data,
cobatt was detected in 6 of 41 analyses (15 percent) with reporting limits
ranging from 0,55 to 0.79 mg/kg. Summary statistics were computed
using nonparametric statistical methods. The maximum detected value
(0.54 mg/kg) and the computed mean (0.097 mg/kg) did not exceed the
EMBS reporting limits. Indicating that cobatt could have been present
during the EMBS at concentrations below th^ laboratory's ability to
measure. Accordingly, cobatt was excluded from spatial distribution
analysis.
e. Lead. Lead was not detected at reporting limits ranging from 9.49 to
10.0 mg/kg in 24 analyses during the EMBS. tn the 2005 EMFS data,
lead was detected in 38 of 41 analyses (93 percent) with reporting limits
ranging from 0.34 to 0.36 mg/kg. Summary statistics were computed
assuming a tognonnal distribution. Only the maximum detected value
(14.1 mg/kg) exceeded the EMBS reporting limits. The maximum value
was reported from one of tiie newly established sampling sites. The
computed mean (1.29 mg/kg) did not exceed the EMBS reporting limits.
Lead could have been present during the EMBS at concentrations below
the laboratory's ability to measure. Accordingly, lead was excluded from
spatial distribution analysis,
f. Magnesium. Magnesium was detected in all 24 analyses during the
EMBS, In the 2005 EMFS data, magnesium was detected in alt
41 analyses. Summary statistics were computed assuming a lognormal
distribution. Only 13 of the 2005 EMFS concentrations exceeded the
EMBS concentrations at the same locations. The majority of the higher
concentrations in the 2005 EMFS were found in the newly established
11-7
sampling locations. Magnesium concentrations in the 2005 EMFS appear
to be only marginally higher than the concentrations in the EMBS. Since
magnesium is a commonly abundant metal with concentrations within
ranges expected in the geographical region, it was excluded from spatial
distribution analysis.
g. Mercury. Mercury was not detected at reporting limits ranging from
0.01 to 0.03 mg/kg in 24 analyses during the EMBS. tn the 2005 EMFS
data, mercury was detected in 18 of 41 analyses (44 percent) with limits
ranging from 0.026 to 0.048 mg/kg. Summary statistics were computed
using nonparametric statistical methods. Both the maximum detection
(0.16 mg/kg) and the computed mean (0.033 mg/kg) were above the
EMBS reporting limits, indicating that mercury concentrations may have
increased over the EMBS concentrations. Mercury was retained for
spatial distribution analysis.
h. Selenium. Selenium was not detected at reporting limits ranging from
9.49 to 10.0 mg/kg in 24 analyses during the EMBS. In the 2005 EMFS
data, selenium was detected in 40 of 41 analyses (98 percent) with a
reporting limit of 0.71 mg/kg. Summary statistics were computed using
nonparametric statistical methods. The maximum detected value
(3.9 mg/kg) and the computed mean (1.12 mg/kg) were betow the EMBS
reporting limits, indicating that selenium could have been present during
the EMBS at concentrations below the laboratory's ability to measure.
Accordingly, selenium was excluded from spatial distribution analysis.
i. Tin. Tin was not detected at reporting limits ranging from 4.74 to
5.0 mg/kg in 24 analyses during the EMBS. tn the 2005 EMFS data, tin
was detected in 16 of 41 analyses (39 percent) with limits ranging from
2.7 to 6.3 mg/kg. Summary statistics were computed using nonparametric
statistical methods. The maximum detected value (10,2 mg/kg) exceeded
the EMBS reporting limits. The computed mean (3.0 mg/kg) did not
11-8
exceed the EMBS reporting limits. Only two 2005 EMFS tin
concentrations exceeded the EMBS reporting limits at tocations sampled
during the EMBS. Ten ofthe 16 detected tocations are newly established
sampling sites. Tin was excluded from spatial distribution mapping, but
will be further evaluated in paragraph 11,6,
j, Dioxin/Furan Compounds. This paragraph presents Infonnation pertaining
to the seven total dioxins and furans: HPCDD, HPCDF, HXCDD, HXCDF,
PECDD. PECDF, and TCDF. OCDD was detected in both the EMBS and
2005 EMFS and was presented in paragraph 11.4. OCDF and TCDD
were not detected In any samptes during the 2005 EMFS and are not be
included in this discussion.
The seven total dioxins and furans listed previously were not detected at
reporting limits ranging from 0.02 to 1.7 ng/kg In 24 analyses during the
EMBS. In the 2005 EMFS, these seven parameters were detected at
frequencies ranging from 2 to 36 percent The 2005 EMFS reporting limits
for these parameters ranged from 0.13 to 5.84 ng/kg. Means maximum
detected values from 2005 EMFS data were compared to the EMBS
reporting limits and the resutts are shown as follows:
Parameter 2005 EMFS mean/maximum; EMBS lowest/highest
reporting limit
Total HPCDD: 1.15/12.7 ng/kg: 0.15/1.8 ng/kg
Total HPCDF: 0.47/1.37 ng/kg; 0.12/0.85 ng/kg
Total HXCDD: 0.37/0.49 ng/kg; 0.05/1.7 ng/kg
Total HXCDF: 0,37/4,51 ng/kg; 0,04/0,29 ng/kg
11-9
Total PECDD: 0,35/1,8 ng/kg; 0,03/1.7 ng/kg
Total PECDF: 0.26/1.85 ng/kg; 0.02/0.45 ng/kg
Total TCDF: 0.41/1.6 ng/kg; 0.04/0.96 ng/kg.
These parameters indicate that only the 2005 EMFS mean value for
HXCDF exceeds the highest reporting limit for the corresponding group of
compounds in the EMBS. tn addition, the maximum detected values for
att ofthe dioxins and furans except HXCDD exceeded the corresponding
maximum EMBS reporting limits. As noted in paragraph 11.4, the
2005 EMFS mean for OCDD was statistically significantiy larger than the
mean value computed for OCDD using EMBS data. Therefore, the ten
groups of total dioxins and furans were retained for evaluation of spatial
distribution.
Explosive Compounds. Five explosive compounds (HMX, RDX, TNT.
nitroglycerin, and Tetryl) were not detected at reporting limits ranging from
450 to 40,000 pg/kg in 24 analyses during the EMBS, but were present at
frequencies ranging from 2 percent to 5 percent of the analyses with limits
ranging from 650 to 230,000 pg/kg in the 2005 EMFS. Explosive
compound 2,4-DNT was not detected in the EMBS at a reporting limit of
420 pg/kg. and was also not detected in the 2005 EMFS at reporting limits
ranging from 850 to 24,000 pg/kg. Summary statistics were not computed
because of the Infrequency of detection. All detected concentrations for
these five compounds identified In the 2005 EMFS exceeded the
corresponding EMBS reporting limit.
These six compounds were not retained for spatial distribution mapping
because of the infrequency of detection. However, the locations of the
detections relative to the TOCDF common stack for these compounds are
11-10
discussed in paragraph 11.6 along with the historical trends of detected
values and reporting limits.
11.6 Spatial Distribution and Temporal Trends in Herbaceous Samples (Step 6)
COPCs retained for evaluation of spatial distribution and temporal trends are described
In the following paragraphs. Maps and histograms used for this evaluation are
contained in figures 11.6-1 through 11.6-8. The 1998 EMFS data was not included in
the temporal trend analysis because of comparability issues. That year samptes were
collected in October rather than in May/June as in all the other sampling rounds.
a. Cadmium. Cadmium was detected in 41 percent (17 of 41) of the
2005 EMFS herbaceous samples. The maximum value (3.6 mg/kg) was
found at location 0819. approximately 10 km (6.25 miles) north of TOCDF
and outside the modeled deposition zones. Except for the detection at
site 0819 and another at site 1416 at the mouth of Ophir Canyon,
sites with detected cadmium concentrations appear to form an east to
west line across the southern half of Rush Valley. This pattern is not
consistent with the pattem expected for emissions from the TOCDF
common stack, and therefore, it Is concluded that there is no association
between the location of the TOCDF stack and cadmium concentrations in
herbaceous vegetation.
Considering the 26 locations sampled in the 2005 EMFS and during at
least one other sampling round, there were insufficient detections of
cadmium in herbaceous samples to draw a conclusion regarding temporal
trends (figure 11,6-2), There is no observable trend in cadmium
concentrations, which indicates there is no relationship with the TOCDF
common stack.
b. Mercury. Mercury was detected in 45 percent (19 of 42) of the
2005 EMFS heriDaceous samptes (figure 11.6-3). The highest
11-11
concentration (0.16 mg/kg) was found at site 1412 approximately 4.4 km
(2.7 mites) east of TOCDF in the modeled tower deposition zone near the
base of the Oquirrh Mountains. Other high values seem to be associated
with the base of the Oquirrh Mountains (notably the base of Mercury and
Ophir Canyons) and the center of Rush Valley along Route 36. Taken as
a whole, mercury concenti-ations appear to be associated with outwash
from Ophir and Mercur Canyons. There is no indication of a relationship
between mercury concentrations In herbaceous vegetation and the
tocation of the TOCDF common stack.
Considering the 26 locations sampled in the 2005 EMFS and during at
least one other sampling round, there were insufficient detections of
mercury in heriDaceous samptes to draw a conclusion regarding temporal
trends (figure 11.6-4). There Is no observable trend In mercury
concentrations, which indicates there is no relationship to the TOCDF
common stack.
c. Molybdenum. Molybdenum was detected in 80 percent (33 of 41) of the
2005 EMFS herbaceous sampling sites (figure 11.6-5). The highest
concentration (61.5 mg/kg) was found at sampte site 0308 approximately
6.4 km (4.0 miles) west of TOCDF. Molybdenum detections are scattered
throughout the study area and do not form any particular pattem though
there appears to be a tendency for concentrations to be higher down the
middle of the valley (along Route 36) and along the base of the Oquirrh
Mountains that are on tiie side ofthe valley where TOCDF Is located.
There is no appearance of a pattem that would be consistent with a causal
relationship to the TOCDF common stack.
Considering the 26 tocations sampled in the 2005 EMFS and during at
least one other sampling round, variation In molybdenum concentrations
over time do not appear to display a pattem (figure 11.6-6). It Is
11-12
concluded that there is no relationship between variations in molybdenum
concentrations over time and the TOCDF common stack.
Dioxin/Furan Compounds. Dioxin/furan compounds were detected in
83 percent (34 of 41) 2005 EMFS herbaceous samples (figure 11.6-7).
The highest total dioxin/furan concentration (57.1 mg/kg) was found at
site 1209, approximately 2.5 km (1.5 miles) from the TOCDF common
stack and on the edge of the modeled tower deposition zone. Considering
the eleven sites with the highest concentrations (two sites tied for 10th
place), six are located outside the modeled deposition zones. In addition,
five of seven sites, where total dioxins and furans were not detected
(including the two sampling sites closest to TOCDF), were within the
modeled deposition zones. On the whole, the pattem of dioxin and furan
distribution Is not indicative of an association with the TOCDF common
stack. Site 1209 (where the highest concentration was found) is located in
a former industrial area, which perhaps explains the high concentration as
well as the value of 15.4 mg/kg at the nearby site 1108. It is concluded
that there Is no relationship between the tocation of the TOCDF common
stack and the distribution of total dioxins and furans in the herbaceous
vegetation in Rush Valley.
Considering the 26 locations sampled in the 2005 EMFS and during at
least one other sampling round, there appears to be a trend for total dioxin
and furan concentrations to be lower in 2005 than in the EMBS, 1999 or
2002 EMFSs (figure 11.6-8), There were no sampling locations where the
2005 EMFS concentration was the highest recorded. Aside from that
observation, there is no other discemable temporal pattem in total dioxin
and furan concentrations in herbaceous samples. Variability in total dioxin
and furan concentrations are not associated with the TOCDF common
stack.
11-13
Spatial distribution maps and histograms were not provided for the following COPCs
because there were too few detections to justify mapping; however, a discussion Is
warranted based on concentrations potentially above the 1996 EMBS,
a. Tin. Tin has been consistentiy detected at tow levels (tess than
10.2 mg/kg) in heriDaceous samples at various locations over the EMBS
and EMFS sampling events. Resutts at several locations are not
reproducible from event to event, and the sample sites where tin has been
detected are located throughout the study area. Consequentiy, it is
concluded that there is no relationship between tin concentrations and the
location of the TOCDF common stack.
b. Explosive Compounds. Several explosive compounds (2,4-DNT, HMX,
nitroglycerin, TNT. and Tetryl) have been detected sporadically In
herbaceous samptes during the EMBS and subsequent EMFS sampling
events. The majority of the detections were not reproducible from
sampling event to sampling event, suggesting sporadic contamination not
related to the TOCDF common stack. Ofthe listed explosive compounds,
only TNT and Tetryl were detected in the 2005 EMFS. TNT was detected
at locations 1011 and 1022, and Tetryl was detected at tocation 1108.
Locations 1011 and 1108 are within DCD boundaries, while site 1022 is
located north In the Oquirrh Mountain foothills. No pattem is discemable
that indicates a relationship to the TOCDF common stack.
11-14
Tabte 11.1-1, Detection Frequency - Herbaceous Vegetation
Analyte
1996 EMBS
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detections
Percent
Detections
Number of
Samples
2005 EMFS^
Number of
Detections
Percent
Detections
Distribution
Evaluation
Method
Detected In EM BS - Detected in 2005 EM FS
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Chromium, Total
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
OCDD
Nitroglycerin
HMX
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
20
24
20
24
24
24
24
1
9
24
23
18
24
4
14
3
100
100
83
100
83
100
100
100
100
4
38
100
96
75
100
17
58
13
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
33
41
41
41
41
33
31
41
31
11
41
22
2
1
100
100
100
100
80
100
100
100
100
80
76
100
76
27
100
54
5
2
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W+
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W
S/W+
S/W+
S/W
S/W+
NP
S/W
S/W+
P
P
11-15
Table 11,1-1, Detection Frequency - Herbaceous Vegetation (Continued)
Analyte
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
bis(2-Ethylhexyi) phthalate
1996 EMBS
Number of
Samples
24
24
Number of
Detections
10
3
Percent
Detections
42
13
2005 EMFS"
Number of
Samples
41
41
Number of
Detections
ND
1
Percent
Detections
NC
2
Distribution
Evaluation
Method
P
P
Detected In EMBS - Not Detected in 2005 EMFS
OCDF
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Benzyl alcohol
24
24
24
2
2
7
8
8
29
41
41
41
ND
ND
1
NC
NC
2
P
P
P
Not Detected in EMBS - Detected In 2005 EMFS
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Tin
HPCDD (Total)
HPCDF (Total)
HXCDD (Total)
HXCDF (Total)
PECDD (Total)
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
10
13
17
6
38
18
40
16
15
1
1
1
1
24
32
41
15
93
44
98
39
37
2
2
2
2
NP
NP
NP
NP
S/W
NP
S/W
NP
NP
P
P
P
P
11-16
Tabte 11,1-1, Detection Frequency - Herbaceous Vegetation (Continued)
Analyte
PECDF (Total)
TCDF (Total)
2,4,6-Trinitrotoiuene
RDX
Tetryl
Benzoic acid
1996 EMBS
Number of.
Samples
24
24
24
24
24
24
Number of
Detections
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Percent
Detections
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2005 EMFS"
Number of
Samples
41
41
41
41
41
41
Number of
Detections
2
11
2
2
2
1
Percent
Detections
5
27
5
5
5
2
Distribution
Evaluation
Method
P
NP
P
P
P
P
Notes:
Values in this table for the 2005 EMFS are based on 41 samples. Sample site 0707 was not included in order to maintain comparability with
the 1996 EMBS, which excluded site 0707 from statistical calculations.
NC
ND
NP
P
S/W
S/W+
not calculated
not detected
nonparametric assumed
Poisson distribution assumed
Shapiro-Will( test (Shapiro-Francia test if more than 50 samples)
Shapiro-Wili< (or Shapiro-Francia) test after Regression on Order Statistics
11-17
Tabte 11.2-1. Distribution Test Resutts - Heribaceous Vegetation
Analyte
1996 EMBS
Normal
Computed
Lognormal
Computed Critical Value Distribution
2005 EMFS"
Nomnai
Computed
Lognormal
Computed
Critical
Value Distribution
Detected in EMBS - Detected in 2005 EMFS
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Chromium, Total
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
OCDD
OCDF
0.935
0.982
0.952
0.935
0.976
0.941
0.963
0.973
0.969
NC
NC
0.888
0.902
0.959
0.960
NC
NC
0.925
0.872
0.977
0.963
0.981
0.912
0.898
0.941
0.898
NC
NC
0.958
0.965
0,969
0.931
NC
NC
0.916
0.916
0.916
0.916
0.916
0.916
0.916
0.916
0.916
NC
NC
0.916
0.916
0.916
0.916
NC
NC
N(L)
N
L(N)
L(N)
L(N)
N
N
N(L)
N
P
NP
L
L
L(N)
N(L)
NP
P
0.697
0.770
0.834
0.639
0.812
0.266
0.770
0.852
0.943
0.229
0.214
0.812
0.564
NC
0.641
0.567
NC
0.967
0.906
0.954
0.910
0.983
0.708
0.973
0.960
0.916
0.842
0.914
0.973
0.974
NC
0.912
0.894
NC
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
NC
0.941
0.941
NC
L
NP
L
NP
L
NP
L
L
N
NP
NP
L
L
NP
NP
NP
ND
11-18
Table 11.2-1. Distribution Test Results - Hertjaceous Vegetation (Continued)
Analyte
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Nitroglycerin
HMX
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
Benzyl alcohol
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
1996 EMBS
Normal
Computed
NC
0.905
NC
NC
NC
NC
Lognormal
Computed
NC
0.969
NC
NC
NC
NC
Critical Vaiue
NC
0.916
NC
NC
NC
NC
Distribution
P
L
NP
NP
NP
NP
2005 EMFS
Normal
Computed
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Lognomriai
Computed
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Critical
Vaiue
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Distribution
ND
P
P
ND
P
P
Not Detected in EMBS
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Tin
HPCDD (Total)
HPCDF (Total)
HXCDD (Total)
HXCDF (Total)
PECDD (Total)
PECDF (Total)
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.509
NC
0,623 _
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.975
NC
0.885
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.941
NC
0.941
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NP
NP
NP
NP
L
- NP
NP
NP
NP
P
P
P
P
P
11-19
Tabte 11.2-1. Distribution Test Results - HeriDaceous Vegetation (Continued)
Analyte
TCDF (Total)
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
RDX
Tetryl
Benzoic acid
1996 EMBS
Normal
Computed
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Lognormal
Computed
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Critical Value
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Distribution
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2005 EMFS"
Normal
Computed
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Lognormal
Computed
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Critical
Value
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Distribution
NP
P
P
P
P
Notes:
" Values in this table for the 2005 EMFS are based on 41 samples. Sample site 0707 was not included in order to maintain comparability with
the 1996 EMBS, which excluded site 0707 from statistical calculations.
L = Lognormal distribution
L (N) = Lognormal and nonnal distributions both acceptable - lognormal preferred
L/N = Lognormal and normal distributions both acceptable
N = Normal distribution
N (L) = Normal and lognormal distributions both acceptable - normal preferred
NC = not calculated
ND = not detected
NP = nonparametric
P = Poisson distribution
11-20
Tabte 11.3-1. Summary Statistics - HeriDaceous Vegetation
Analyte Units
1996 EMBS
Mean
Standard
Deviation Maximum UTL
2005 EMFS"
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Detected in EMBS - Detected in 2005 EMFS
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Chromium, Total
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
OCDD
Nitroglycerin
HMX
Benzyl alcohol
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ng/kg
Mg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
1,360
27.7
7.31
6,090
2.13
5.25
1,120
1,300
83.7
NC
1.59
3,850
118
2,2
15.4
3.22
35,600
676
861
917
12.4
3.06
4,130
1.58
2.2
688
616
36
NC
0.87
1,800
68.7
1.47
4.61
4.42
94.100
958
762
3,710
50.7
15
14,500
5.24
9.31
2,690
2,750
151
1.24
3.88
8,380
269
6.18
27.4
18.6
438.000
3,670
3.400
4.280
67.1
8.5
16.900
4.95
12,3
3.310
3.260
198
7.5
3.9
9.710
345
6.3
30
13.4
438.000
2.890
3.400
234
rs^f^-40-3
:^WSs0g
*0.97
®:v ':?^^75:
279
/;^: 2010
54
*3.06
V''''^\'.'*y^.
lffi#'*^7.i6a
;' ^V:^'i'^258
0.37
'h.:^.y ;,;;2i,
>fWt^^'^*6.81
NC
NC
NC
341
29.7
14.2
8,130
*0.79
12.3
255
1,100
21.4
*9.44
*22.4
7.740
M18
0.43
10.7
*6.47
NC
NC
NC
Maximum
1.470
106
58
44,700
3.7
83,7
1,330
6.230
97.8
61,6
145
52,900
2,370
2.1
76.6
37,5
140,000
8,200
2.700
11-21
Tabte 11.3-1. Summary Statistics - Herbaceous Vegetation (Continued)
Analyte
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Units
pg/kg
1996 EMBS
Mean
408
Standard
Deviation
214
Maximum
280
UTL
902
2005 EMFS"
Mean
NC
Standard
Deviation
NC
Maximum
5,100
Detected in EMBS - Not Detected In 2005 EMFS
OCDF
2,4-Dinitrotoiuene
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
ng/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
NC
NC
79.2
NC
NC
168
44.9
9,920
800
25
7.000
466
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
•ND
ND
ND
ND
Not Detected in EMBS
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Tin
HPCDD (Total)
HPCDF (Total)
HXCDD (Total)
HXCDF (Total)
PECDD (Total)
PECDF (Total)
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
•* 4.74
" 9.49
" 0.47
**1.9
" 9.49
" 0.01
" 9.49
" 4.74
"0.15
"0.12
" 0.05
" 0.04
" 0.03
" 0.02
0.18
0.36
0.34
0.0965
1.29
0.0337
1.12
3
1.15
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0963
0.37
0.62
0.0884
1.63
0.03
0.51
1.97
2.01
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.54
1.8
3.6
0.54
14.1
0.16
3.9
10,2
12,7
1.37
0.49
4.51
1.8
1.85
11-22
Tabte 11.3-1. Summary Statistics - Herbaceous Vegetation (Continued)
Analyte
TCDF (Total)
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
RDX
Tetryl
Benzoic acid
Units
ng/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
1996 EMBS
Mean
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Standard
Deviation
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Maximum
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
UTL
" 0.04
"450
"580
"730
"1.400
2005 EMFS"
Mean
0.41
NC
NC
NC
NC
Standard
Deviation
0.36
NC
NC
NC
NC
Maximum
1,6
3,100
32,000
28,000
18,000
Notes:
Adjusted mean and standard deviation for S/W-i- distributions. Adjusted means are either lognomfial means adjusted for log-bias, means computed using
regression on order statistics (ROS) for censored data, or the Kaplan-Meier method. ROS was used when there were more than 50 percent censored.
Kaplan-Meier was used when 15 to 50 percent of the data points were censored. For fewer than 15 percent nondetects. a simple substitution of one-half the
reporting limit was used.
UTL values taken from the minimum reporting limit for undetected compounds
Values in this table for the 2005 EMFS are based on 41 samples. Sample site 0707 was not included in order to maintain comparability with
the 1996 EMBS. which excluded site 0707 from statistical calculations.
NA
NC
ND
pg/kg =
mg/kg =
ng/kg =
UTL
1 1
1 1
not applicable
not calculable
not detected
microgram per kilogram
milligram per kilogram
nanogram per kilogram
upper tolerance limit
Exceeds 1996 UTL Value
Exceeds 1996 Mean Value
11-23
Tabte 11.4-1. Means Testing - Herbaceous Vegetation
Analyte Units
Mean
EMBS
r-
EMFS A
Percent
Detection
EMBS/EMFS
Distribution
Test Outcome
EMBS/EMFS
Statistical
Test
Calculated
Result
Critical
Value Means Assessment"
Detected in EMBS - Detected in 2005 EMFS
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Chromium, Total
Copper
iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
OCDD
Nitroglycerin
HMX
Benzyl alcohol
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ng/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
1.360
27.7
7.31
6.090
2.13
5.25
1.120
1,300
83.7
0.52
1.59
3.850
118
2.2
15.4
3.22
35.600
676
861
408
234
40.3
18.2
8,000
0.97
7.75
279
2,010
54
3.06
5.43
17.100
258
0.37
21
6.81
18.100
1.280
1,030
1.090
-1.130
12.7
10.9
1.920
-1.16
2.49
-839
710
-29.8
2.54
3.84
13,300
139
-1.83
5.66
3.59
-17,500
609
167
686
100/100
100/100
83 /100
100/100
83/80
100/100
100/100
100/100
100/100
4/80
38/76
100/100
96/76
75/27
100 /100
17/54
58/5
13/2
29/2-
13/2
N(L)/L
N/NP
L(N)/L
L(N)/NP
L(N)/L
N/NP
N/L
N(L)/L
N/N
P/NP
NP/NP
L/L
L/L
L(N)/NP
N (L) / NP
NP/NP
L/P
NP/P
NP/P
NP/P
t/WRS
WRS
WRS
WRS
t/WRS
Pt/WSR
WRS
t/WRS
tAWRS
NPG
WRS
t/WRS
t/WRS
WRS
WRS
WRS
P
P
P
P
-8.36069
-0.64570
4.27534
0.42143
-4.68720
1.850
-5.18586
3.12407
-3.68640
NA
0.31957
13.07976
0.61021
-5.74203
2.80062
-3.58891
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.67200
1.95996
1.95996
1.95996
1.67600
1.717
1.95996
1.68000
1.69200
NA
1.95996
1.67900
1.67100
1.95996
1.95996
1.95996
NA
NA
NA
NA
SD - Decrease
SS
SD - Increase
SS
SD - Decrease
SS (random) SD -
Increase (paired)
SD - Decrease
SD - Increase
SD - Decrease
Apparent Increase
SS
SD - Increase
SS
SD - Decrease
SD - Increase
SD - Increase
NPG - Possible Increase
NPG - Possible Increase
indeterminate - No
Apparent Increase
Common laboratory
contaminant
11-24
Table 11,4-1, Means Testing - Herbaceous Vegetation (Continued)
Analyte Units
Mean
EMBS EMFS A
Percent
Detection
EMBS/EMFS
Distribution
Test Outcome
EMBS/EMFS
Statistical
Test
Calculated
Result
Critical
Value Means Assessment"
Detected In EMBS - Not Detected in 2005 EMFS
OCDF
2.4-Dinitrotoluene
PCB-1254 (Arochlor
1254)
ng/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
3.38
1.020
79.2
3.89
1.170
6.02
0.5
152
-73.1
8/0
8/0
42/0
P/ND
P/ND
NP/ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NPG - No Apparent
Increase
NPG - Possible Increase
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
Not Detected In EMBS 'Z
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
nn
HPCDD (Total)
HPCDF (Total)
HXCDD (Total)
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.18
0.36
0.34
0.0965
1.29
0.0337
1.12
3
1.15
0.47
0.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0/24
0/32
0/41
0/15
0/93
0/44
0/98
0/39
0/37
0/2
0/2
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/L
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/NP
ND/P
ND/P
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
indetemninant - Possible
Increase
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Apparent
Decrease •r:..
Indetemninant- Possible
increase
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
NPG - Possible Increase
Indetenminant - Possible
Increase
Indetemilnant - Possible
Increase
Indeterminant - Possible
Increase
11-25
Table 11.4-1. Means Testing - Herbaceous Vegetation (Continued)
Analyte
HXCDF (Total)
PECDD (Total)
PECDF (Total)
TCDF (Total)
2.4.6-Trinitrotoluene
RDX
Tetryl
Benzoic Acid
Units
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
ng/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
pg/kg
Mean
EMBS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
EMFS
0.37
0.35
0.26
0.41
750
1,650
1.510
2,360
— a" ••nasssi^
A
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Percent
Detection
EMBS/EMFS
0/2
0/2
0/5
0/27
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/2
"' "1 lit frmjam
Distribution
Test Outcome
EMBS/EMFS
ND/P
ND/P
ND/P
ND/NP
ND/P
ND/P
ND/P
ND/P
Statistical
Test
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Calculated
Result
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Critical
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Means Assessment"
Indetemninant - Possible
Increase
Indetemiinant - Possible
Increase
Indetemninant - Possible
Increase
Indetemiinant - Possible
Increase
NPG - Possible Increase
NPG - Possible Increase
NPG - Possible Increase
NPG - Apparent
Decrease
Notes:
Means assessments containing the note "NPG" are based on nonparametric statistical methods and comparison of individual detections and
reporting limits from EMBS and EMFS data.
Units
pg/kg
mg/kg
ng/kg
= microgram per kilogram
= milligram per kilogram
= nanogram per kilogram
Distribution Test Outcome
L
L(N)
N
N(L)
ND
Lognormal distribution applicable
Lognormal and nonnal distributions applicable - lognormal prefen'ed
Normal distribution applicable
Normal and lognormal distributions applicable - normal preferred
not detected
11-26
Tabte 11.4-1. Means Testing - Herbaceous Vegetation (Continued)
Notes: (Continued)
NP
P
Mean
NA
NC
A
Statistical Test
NA
NPG
Pt/WSR =
t/WRS
WRS
Nonparametric distribution assumed
Poisson distribution assumed
not applicable
not calculated; for analytes having zero detections
mean difference computed as (EMFS Mean) - (EMBS Mean)
not applicable
nonparametric statistical methods and graphical evaluations utilized
Paired t-test and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test
t-test and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test
Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test
Means Assessment
SD = statistically significant difference
SI = statistically indeterminate
SS = statistically same
11-27
SECTION 12
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Ttie 2005 EMFS is the fourth follow-on study perfonmed since the 1996 EMBS. With the
exception of four sites, all sampling and tield data collection were perfonned in
May 2005. The last four sites were sampled in June 2005 after rights-of-entry
documents were executed. Conclusions from the evaluation of vegetation
characteristics and chemical data are summarized in this section.
12.1 Statistical Approach for Chemical Data
Chemical concentrations from each EMFS have been compared to EMBS results to
determine if there is evidence of Increased concentrations. Previous EMFS evaluations
used random-sample statistical methods, including the parametric t-test and the
nonparametric Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test. In addition to these methods, paired-sample
statistical methods were used to evaluate the chemical data from the 2005 EMBS.
When comparing the central tendency (mean) of two data sets where samples are
collected from the same tocations at different times, random-sample statistical methods
may not be able to detect significant differences because of natural variation between
sampling tocations and auto-correlation between samples from the same locations.
Auto-correlation is present when the results from the same sites, coliected during
different studies, show simitar concentrations. This can result in a false sense of
statistical confidence. Paired-sample statistical methods avoid this problem by
comparing the paired-differences between two data sets, thus removing variability
between sites. Paired-sample parametric and nonparametric tests included in the
2005 EMFS included the paired-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test.
Differences between the resutts of paired-sample statistical methods and random
sampte methods are described in the following paragraphs.
12-1
a. Soil Samples. Random-sample statistical evaluations of surface soil
samples showed no evidence of statistically significant differences in
mean concentrations of cadmium, cobalt, magnesium, manganese, and
zinc. Paired-sample evaluations showed statistically significant increases
for each of these analytes. Cadmium concentrations increased at
16 of 24 sampling sites, cobatt increased at 21 of 24 sites, magnesium
increased at 19 of 24 sites, manganese increased at 18 of 24 sites, and
zinc increased at 20 of 24 sites,
b. Herbaceous Samples. Random-sample statistical evaluations of
herbaceous vegetation samples showed no evidence of statistically
significant differences in the mean concentratbn of copper.
Paired-sample evaluations showed a statistically significant increase in
copper concentrations. Copper concentrations increased at 15 of
23 sampling sites, a marginally statistically significant increase.
Each of these analytes had a high percentage of detections, 96 to 100 percent in both
data sets. The 2005 EMFS data also showed a moderate increase In mean
concentrations and a more significant Increase In standard deviations over the EMBS
data. The random-sample t-test is valid only when the variance (standard deviation) Is
approximately the same for both data sets being compared. While there are
mathematical methods for compensating for minor to moderate differences in variance,
large differences invalidate the t-test. The increased variability in these analyte
concentrations may have contributed to the inability of the random-sample t-tests to
detect the increased mean concentrations.
12.2 Physical Characterization
In general, the sites have changed littie In the years since the 2002 EMFS in tenns of
evidence of anthropogenic disturiDance, fire, and land use. Significantiy, evidence of
off-road vehicular activity was common throughout the study area. Site 0707 remains a
seasonal salt marsh, devoid of shrubs and dominated by desert satt grass.
12-2
The greatest environmental change noted In the 2005 EMFS was the end ofthe drought
that had tasted from 1999 through 2004. May 2005 was the wettest May on record.
The Increased rainfall, combined with above average snowfall, resulted in a marked
change in the appearance of Rush Valley vegetation compared to what was seen in
2002.
12.2.1 Shrub Species. Big sagebrush {Artemisia tridentata) was the dominant species
at 30 ofthe 42 (71 percent) sampte tocations. There were only six tocations where big
sagebrush was not a dominant or co-dominant species: 0214, 0623, 0802, 0819,1022,
and 1416. Sites 1022 and 1416 were dominated by Utah juniper {Juniperus
osteosperma). Sites 0214 and 0819 were dominated by greasewood {Sarcobatus
vericulatis). Site 0623 was dominated by Mormon tea {Ephedra sp.). Site 0802 was
dominated by shadscale {Atriplex canascens). Alt six of these sites, except
location 1022, are new sampte locations in the 2005 EMFS.
Shrub cover values were significantiy higher In 2005 verses 1996. Of 23 locations
sampled in 1996 and 2005, only two locations (locations 0616 and 0914) had a smaller
cover value In the 2005 EMFS compared to the baseline. Aerial cover was greater at all
sampte tocations in 2005 versus the 2002 EMFS, with the exception of tocation 1009.
As expected, the average shrub forage value for the 2005 EMFS was on the poor side
of fair (a value of 2.77 out of 3). Shrub forage value is not expected to be very good in
this part of Utah. Only three sampte tocations (0802,1108, and 1305) had a "good"
forage classification due to the presence of shadscale.
The number of shrub clumps per hectare was high verses the 1996 baseline and
1998/1999 EMFSs and comparable to the 2002 EMFS density values, tn 2005, shmb
density averaged 5,825 clumps per hectare versus 1,485 clumps per hectare in 1996.
Every 2005 sampte location had greater shrub density than the corresponding 1996,
1998, or 1999 value. Shrub density decreased slightiy In 2005 (5,825 clumps per
hectare) versus 2002 (5,986 clumps per hectare) but the numbers are comparable. The
12-3
2005 EMFS exhibited an att time high shrub density at 17 ofthe 26 (65 percent)
sampling tocations retained from previous sampling rounds.
The average shrub height class in the 2005 EMFS was 1.8 versus 2.48 In the EMBS.
The decrease in average height resulted from an abundance of new/young shrubs in
over half of the sampling sites. Hence, shrub populations in 2005 are younger in age
and shorter in stature but numbers of shrubs in the population are increasing.
Average shrub vigor decreased in 2005 versus 2002 and previous studies. This could
be a resutt of different interpretation by the botanists but may also be a resutt of
increased competition between shmbs (both cover and density have increased) and the
continued increase in invasive herbaceous species that compete with the shmbs. It
may also represent lingering effects of the recent drought. Branches that died during
the drought remain on the bushes, decreasing the overall vigor of the plant.
12.2.2 Herbaceous Species. Significant changes in the herbaceous layer were
observed in the 2005 EMFS. In particular, the dominance of weedy annuals such as
burr buttercup {Rancunculus reconditus) and cheatgrass {Bromus tectorum) are
indicative of sites that have been heavily stressed. The presence of flixweed
{Descurainia Sophia) and tansy mustard {Descurainia pinnata) further indicate the
influence of stress. The most likely cause of the stress is the recent drought, though
cattle grazing and fire are also factors.
The average decreaser/lncreaser index increased slightiy from 2005 (2.76) and 2002
(2.68) indicating that the herbaceous community is continuing to trend away from native
species. This trend Is supported through the observation of more Invader species (for
example bunr buttercup and cheatgrass). This trend is likely a resutt of the recent
drought combined with cattie grazing.
The average forage value increased slightiy from 2.36 in 2002 to 2.50 in 2005,
indicating a decrease In the forage value. This is due to the presence of more invader
species that typically have poor forage qualities and is most likely due to the continued
12-4
influence ofthe recent drought.- Invader species rebound faster from adverse conditions
than do species more demanding of their environment.
Species richness increased from 2002 to 2005. On average, three heriDaceous species
were identified at each sampling location in 2002 versus eight in 2005. tn 1996, an
average of seven species was identified per sampling location. These changes show
how quickly a plant community responds to a change in moisture availability. The
year 2002 had an extreme drought, whereas precipitation was above average in 2005
and 1996.
Average percent cover for herbaceous species increased from 29 percent in 2002 to
49 percent in 2005. The significant increase in percent cover is directiy related to
increased precipitation. Precipitation In 2002 was almost one standard deviation betow
average (13.6 inches compared to 17.6 inches) while precipitation in 2005 was
34 iDercent above nonnal through the spring and by the end of July the annual total was
already 18.75 inches.
It Is concluded that vegetation changes observed over the course ofthe TOCDF
EnvinDnmental Monitoring Study are predominately responses to changes in
precipitation coupled with the effects of grazing, fire, and off-road vehicle travel. There
is no indication of a trend that could be associated with TOCDF emissions,
12.3 Chemical Data Assessment
The analytical suite of parameters and methodologies selected for the 2005 EMFS were
consistent with the EMBS except that anions were not analyzed and VOCs were only
analyzed at newly established sampling sites. Except where noted, att field procedures,
laboratory analysis, data handling and reduction, and data validation were conducted in
accordance with the project plans. In general, the 2005 EMFS chemical data were
found to be acceptable and useable for the purposes of this study.
12-5
A statistical evaluation of the EMFS chemical data derived for surface soil and
vegetation samples was perfonned to determine if the mean concentration of any
COPC has shown a statistically significant increase relative to the 1996 EMBS value.
The null hypothesis was screened for validity for each COPC using a tiered approach.
12.3.1 Surface Soil. The analytes identified In surface soil samples were grouped as
follows: 26 metal species; 10 dioxin/furan congeners; 1 SVOC; 7 VOCs (from the new
sampling locations); and 4 explosive compounds. After initial screening, the retained
COPCs were subjected to central tendency statistical tests to detennine if a statistically
significant Increase in mean concentration had occurred. Seven metal species were
retained for further evaluation. COPCs detected in the 2005 EMFS but not detected in
the EMBS were classed with the statistically indeterminate COPCs. These analytes
were evaluated by comparing the 2005 EMFS maximum detection (or mean if
applicable) to half of the EMBS reporting limit. One analyte from the statistically
indeterminate parameters was retained for spatial distribution evaluation.
Ofthe 24 analytes detected in the EMBS and the 2005 EMFS, four showed statistically
significant or apparent decreases In 2005. In the 2005 EMFS 26 analytes were
detected that had not been detected in the 1996 EMBS, Only one of these compounds
showed an apparent increase.
The spatial distribution of the retained 2005 EMFS COPCs was evaluated by mapping
the 2005 EMBS value for each sampling site. The spatial distribution of each COPC
also was compared to the particulate deposition pattem predicted by the air dispersion
model. Temporal trends in retained analytes were evaluated by plotting data from the
EMBS and all EMFSs in a histogram. Spatial and temporal trend evaluations did not
identify a single COPC that displayed a pattem associated with the TOCDF common
stack. It was concluded that emissions from the TOCDF common stack have had no
discemable influence on COPC soil concentrations in Rush Valley.
12.3.2 Vegetation. Shmb and herbaceous vegetation samples were collected and
submitted for chemical analysis. The analytes identified in shmb samples were grouped
12-6
as follows: 22 metal species; 8 dioxin/furan congeners; 2 SVOCs; and 6 explosive
compounds. Similar results were obtained for herbaceous samptes; detections
included: 23 metal species; 8 dioxin/furan congeners; 3 SVOCs; and 5 explosive
compounds.
After initial screening, retained COPCs were subjected to central tendency statistical
tests to determine if a statistically significant increase in mean concentration has
occurred. The null hypothesis was rejected (indicating a statistically significant increase
from the EMBS to the 2005 EMFS) for the foltowing parameters: 3 metals, 2 explosive
compounds, and 1 dioxin/furan congener in the shmb samptes; and 1 metal and
1 dioxin/furan congener in the herbaceous samptes. tn addition, statistically
indeterminate parameters were reviewed individually resulting In retention of 2 metals,
2 explosive compounds and total dioxin/furan compounds In shmb samples along with
2 metals and total dioxin/furan compounds in the herbaceous samples.
Of 19 shmb analytes detected in 1996 and evaluated in the EMFS, 4 showed
statistically significant or apparent decreases In the 2005 EMFS. A total of
22 compounds that were not detected In the 1996 EMBS were detected in the
2005 EMFS. Of those 22 compounds, 3 metals, 4 explosive compounds, and total
dioxin/furan compounds showed statistically significant or apparent increases.
Of 23 herbaceous analytes detected in 1996 and evaluated in the EMFS, 7 showed
statistically significant or apparent decreases in the 2005 EMFS. A total of
19 compounds that were not detected in the 1996 EMBS were detected in the
2005 EMFS. Of those 19 compounds, 4 metals, 3 explosive compounds, and total
dioxins/furans showed statistically significant or apparent increases.
The spatial distribution of retained 2005 EMFS COPCs was evaluated by mapping the
concentration for each sample site. The spatial distribution of each COPC was also
compared to the particulate deposition pattem predicted by air dispersion modeling.
Temporal trends were evaluated by plotting values from the EMBS and each EMFS in a
histogram.
12-7
Evaluation of chemical data for vegetation COPCs retained through the screening
process resulted In the conclusion that none of the COPCs displayed a spatial or
temporal pattem that could be related to emissions of the TOCDF common stack. It
was concluded that COPC concentrations in the vegetation of Rush Valley are not
related to the TOCDF emissions.
12.3.3 Surface Water and Sediment. Two surface water samples and collocated
sediment samples were collected from Rainbow Reservoir. One surface water sample
and collocated sediment sample were collected from Ophir Creek. The Ophir Creek
samptes were collected at a point just upstream of where water enters the RaintKDw
Reservoir diversion pipe.
a. Surtace Water. The reservoir has been drained and refitted on several
occasions, which makes quantitative comparison between the baseline
data and follow-on sampling events difficult due to tack of comparability.
Consequentiy, only qualitative comparisons were made. No statistical
evaluation was performed. Aluminum, arsenic, barium, calcium,
chromium, copper, iron, potassium, magnesium, manganese, nickel, lead,
vanadium, and zinc exceeded the EMBS UTL values or laboratory
reporting limits. The maximum detected concentration, and often the only
detection for these analytes, came from the Ophir Creek sampte.
Baseline EMBS UTL values were computed without Ophir Creek samples,
which were first coltected in 2002; therefore, baseline concentrations in
Ophir Creek are unknown. Calcium, potassium, and manganese were the
only analytes from the Rainbow Reservoir samples that exceeded the
EMBS UTL or reporting limit concentrations. The fact that the water in
Ophir Creek had higher concentrations of these analytes than did
Rainbow Reservoir, is no indication that emissions from the TOCDF
common stack are influencing the reservoir.
b. Sediment. Only 4 out of 24 analytes detected In 2005 EMFS sediment
samples showed any Increase in concentration relative to baseline
12-6
screening values, Analytes exceeding baseline screening criteria included
calcium, cadmium, selenium, and nitroglycerin.
As noted previously, Ophir Creek was not sampled in the EMBS,
Therefore, baseline UTL concentrations for Ophir Creek are not available.
Calcium, selenium, and nitroglycerine concentrations from the Rainbow
Reservoir samptes exceeded the EMBS UTL or reporting limits. Cadmium
from the Ophir Creek sample exceeded the EMBS reporting limit
established for Rainbow Reservoir,
As noted elsewhere, precipitation in May 2005 was the highest on record. The
increased rainfall, combined with water from snow melt, meant that the 2005 sampling
season was the wettest experienced. Changes In the upstream sources of sediments in
Ophir Creek can occur due to different erosion characteristics or exposure to
stonnwater and snow melt mnoff. Such differences could be the resutt of changes in
the soil surface characteristics due to increased road building, mining activities, other
constmction activities, vegetation loss due to range and forest flres, landslides, or any
other action that exposes new or different soil and rock strata to erosion. It is also likely
that biotic and abiotic processes in the reservoir explain the changes in water
composition between the Ophir Creek and Rainbow Reservoir samples, tt was
concluded that emissions from the TOCDF common stack are not influencing the COPC
concentrations in surface water or sediment in Rainbow Reservoir.
12.4 Conclusions
Evaluation of 2005 EMFS vegetation characteristics and COPC concentrations in soil,
vegetation, water, and sediment samptes did not identify a single characteristic or
COPC where an observed change could be associated with the location of the TOCDF
common stack or the start of chemical agent incineration in 1996. Consequentiy, it is
concluded that changes In vegetation characteristics and In concentrations of COPCs in
the soil, vegetation, water, and sediment of Rush Valley are the result of other
Influences and not associated with emissions from TOCDF. The most likely candidates
12-9
for these other influences are changes in rainfall from year to year and natural variation
in soil composition, tn addition, mnoff from the Oquirrh Mountains, cattle grazing, and
range flres are identified as infiuences on conditions found in the study area.
12-10
SECTION 13
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations provided in this section focus on improvements to the environmental
monitoring program. Suggested changes are intended to enhance technical results,
reduce cost, and expand the knowledge base. Based on a review of the project plans,
field sampling effort, analytical results, statistical analysis, and overall study outcome,
the following recommendations are presented:
a. Field work should be planned for the last half of May, as opposed to the
first half of May. A comparison of conditions observed in May and
June 2005 indicates significant maturation in the vegetation, which is
helpful for species identification.
b. Consideration should be given to computing and evaluating both mean
and median concentrations In the statistical approach for chemical data.
Computation of medians Is already part ofthe analysis In nonparametric
methods, such as the WRS test. Comparing median concentrations could
also be helpful when evaluating the newly established locations, several of
which have metal concentrations higher than the concentrations seen at
the original sampling sites.
c. The 1998 EMFS data should be excluded from future statistical testing of
vegetation characterization data and chemical analytical data. The
1998 EMFS was perfonned in October and is, therefore, not strictiy
comparable to the EMBS or other follow-on sampling rounds that were
performed in the May time frame. Sampling late in the year (after the end
of the growing season) has a major infiuence on soil biota and vegetation
and complicates Interpretation of any comparisons that are made.
13-1
d. The use of paired-sample statistical methods has proven useful in
identifying statistically significant increases in data sets where
random-sample statistical methods have failed to detect increases. With
the establishment of 16 new sampling sites for the 2005 EMBS, the
moving ofone ofthe original sampling sites, and the possibility of future
sampling site relocations, it is recommended that both the random-sample
and paired-sample statistical evaluations be continued for future EMFSs,
13-2
/M
ANNEX A
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ANNEX A
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AOAC
ASTM
Association of Official Analytical Chemists
American Society for Testing and Materials
cm
CO
CO2
COPC
centimeter
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
chemical of iDOtentiat concem
DCD
DEQ
DNT
DQO
Deseret Chemical Depot
Departinent of Environmental Quality
2,4-dinitrotoluene
data quality objective
E&E
ELAB
EMBS
EMFS
ERIS
ESE
Ecology & Environment, Inc.
EI_AB of Tennessee
Environmental Monitoring Baseline Study
Environmental Monitoring Follow-on Study
Environmental Restoration Information System
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc,
FSP Field Sampling Plan
GC/HRMS
GC/MS
GPS
gas chromatography/high resolution mass spectrometry
gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
Global Positioning System
HASP
HMX
Health and Safety Plan
high melting explosive
A-1
HPCDD
HPCDF
HXCDD
HXCDF
heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
heptachlorinated dibenzofurans
hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
hexachlorinated dibenzofurans
ID
IRIS
ISC3
identification
Integrated Risk Infonnation System
Industrial Source Complex, Version 3
km kilometer
LC/MS liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry
Mg/g
pg/kg
Mg/L
m^
m^/ha
MDL
mg/kg
mg/L
MLE
mm
ng/kg
NOAA
OCDD
OCDF
PCB
PCDD
microgram per gram
microgram per kilogram
microgram per liter
square meter
square meter per hectare
method detection limit
milligram per kilogram
milligram per titer
maximum likelihood estimation
millimeter
nanogram per kilogram
National Oceanic and Atmosphe
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
octachlorodibenzofuran
polychlorinated biphenyl
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxIn
A-2
PCDF
PECDD
PECDF
pg/L
PMECW
PMCD
Pt
polychlorinated dibenzofuran
pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
pentachlorinated dibenzofurans
picogram per titer
Program Manager for the Elimination of Chemical Weapons
Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization
Prentiss-Wilcoxon
QA
QA/QC
QAPjP
QC
quality assurance
quality assurance/quality control
Quality Assurance Project Plan
quality control
RDX
RL
ROS
RPD
cyclonite
reporting limit
robust regression on order statistics
relative percent difference
SOP
SOW
SQL
SVOC
SWLOK
Standing Operating Procedure
Statement of Work
sampte quantification limit
semivolatile organic compound
Southwest Laboratories of Oklahoma, Inc.
TCCC
TCDD
TCDF
TNT
TOCDF
Tooele County Chamber of Commerce
tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans
2,4,6-trinitrototuene
Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility
UBWR
UGS
Utah Board of Water Resources
Utah Geological Survey
A-3
USACHPPM
USAEC
USBLM
USEPA
USGS
UTL
UTM
U.S. Amny Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine
U.S. Anny Environmental Center
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
upper tolerance limit
Universal Transverse Mercator
VOC volatile organic compound
VX nerve agent, O-ethyl S-(2-diisopropytaminoethyt)
methylphosphonothioate
WRS
WSR
Wilcoxon Rank-Sum
Wilcoxon Signed-Rank
A'4
ANNEXE
REFERENCES
ANNEX B
REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), American Society for Testing and
Materials Methods Manual, 1993.
Dames & Moore, Final Agricultural Impact Assessment Plan forthe Environmental
Baseline Study. Tooele Chemical Demilitarization Facility (TOCDF), Tooele, Utah,
1997b.
Dames & Moore, Final Sampling and Analysis Plan, EnvinDnmental Monitoring Baseline
Study for the Tooele Chemical Demilitarization Facility (TOCDF), Tooele, Utah, 1996.
Dames & Moore, Final Technical Report, Environmental Monitoring Baseline Study,
Deseret Chemical Depot, Tooele, Utah. Prepared for Program Manager for Chemical
Demilitarization, Contract No. DACA31-94-D-0060, Detivery Order No. 2, 31 July 1997a.
Deseret Chemical Depot, Draft Interim Ecological Sampling Plan for Rainbow Reservoir,
Tooele, Utah. Deseret Chemical Depot, Environmental/Safety Division,
AMSSB-ODC-RM, 1999.
Helsel, D., Less than Obvious: Statistical Treatment of Data Below the Detection Limit,
Environmental Science and Technology, 24(12): 1767—1774, 1990.
Hitchcock, A. S., Manual of the Grasses ofthe United States, Misc. Pub. No. 200,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1950,
HydroGeoLogic, Inc, Draft Baseline Monitoring Data Assessment Report forthe Tooele
Chemical Demilitarization Facility, Tooele, Utah, Prepared for U,S, Army Program
Manager for Chemical Demilitarization, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland,
October 2001.
B-1
HydroGeoLogic, Inc., Draft Final Technical Report, Environmental Monitoring Follow-on
Study, Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, May 1999, Deseret Chemical Depot,
Tooele, Utah. Prepared for U.S. Anny Chemical and Biological Defense Command and
Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland,
September 2002.
HydroGeoLogic, Inc., Final Sampling and Analysis Plan and Health and Safety Plan,
Environmental Monitoring Baseline Study for the Tooele Chemical Demilitarization
Facility (JOCDF), Tooele, Utah, 1998.
Jacobs Engineering Group, Working Draft Technical Report Environmental Monitoring
Follow-on Study, Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, Deseret Chemical Depot,
Tooele, Utah, May 2002.
MacMahon, J., Deserts, The Audubon Society Nature Series, The Chanticleer Press
Edition, Alfred A. Knopf, New Yoric, 1990.
Margetef, D. R., "Information Theory In Ecology," General Systematics, Vot. 3,
pp. 36-71,1958.
Olig, S. et al.. Mapping and Quatemary Fault Scarp Analysis ofthe Mercur and West
Eagle Hill Faults, Wasatch Front, Utah, unpublished technical report submitted to the
U.S. Geologic Survey NEHRP Award No. 1434-HQ-97-GR-03154,1999.
Olig, S. et al., Paleoseismology of the Mercur fault and segmentation ofthe
Oquinh-East Great Salt Lake fault zone. Utah, unpublished technical report submitted to
the U.S. Geologic Survey NEHRP Award No. 98HQGR1036, 2001.
Pariter, K. G,, Some Important Utah Range Plants, Circular No, 383, Cooperative
Extension Service, Utah State University, 1979.
B-2
Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization (PMCD), 2002 Environmental
Monitoring Follow-on Study Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility Tooele, Utah,
Febmary 2003.
Simpson, E. H., "Measurement of Diversity," Nature, Vol. 163, p. 688, 1949,
Stubbendieck, J, S., S. L. Hatch, and C. H. Butterfield, North American Range Plants,
University of Nebraska Press, 1992.
Tooele County Chamber of Commerce (TCCC), Demographics, Tooele County
Chamber of Commerce, 2005.
http://wAvw.tooetechamber.com/18.Dhtmt
U.S. Amriy Chemical Materials Agency, 2005 Data Validation Letter Report for
Environmental Monitoring Follow-on Study forthe Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal
Facility Tooele, Utah, November 2005.
U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency, Field Sampling and Analysis Plan forthe
Environmental Monitoring Follow-on Study at Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility,
Tooele, Utah, Final, October 2003.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (USBLM), written Communication, Teresa Rigby,
United States Bureau of Land Management, 2004.
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), U.S. Census Bureau Report, 2000.
http://www.co.tooele.ut.us/TooeleX.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), EPA Contract Laboratory Program
National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review, EPA-540/R-94-013,
Febmary 1994.
B-3
USEPA, EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic
Data Review, EPA-540/R-99-008, October 1999.
USEPA, Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for use in Fish
Advisories, Volume I, Fish Sampling and Analysis, Third Edition, EPA 823-B-00-007,
November 2000.
USEPA, Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion Models (Revised), United States
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-454/B-95-003a, 19 July 1995.
USEPA, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, USEPA 600/4-79-20,
1979.
USEPA, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I: Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA/540-1-89-002, December
1989.
USEPA, Statistical Analysis of Ground-Water Monitoring Data at RCR/A Facilities.
Addendum to Interim Final Guidance, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste, Waste Management Division, EPA/530-R-93-003, July 1992.
USEPA, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Physical/Chemical Methods,
SW-846, Third Edition, 1997.
USEPA, USEPA Analytical Operations/Data Quality Center National Functional
Guidelines for Chlorinated Dioxin/Furan Data Review. EPA 540-R-02-003, August 2002.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), GPS Measurements. Fault Modeling and Integrated
Earthquake Hazard Assessment ofthe Wasatch Front. Utah, United States Geological
Survey, Progress Report for Period - October 1, 2001 to September 30,2002,
USGS Award Number 02HQGR0098,2002.
B-4
•
USGS, Preliminary Materials Mapping in the Oquirrh Mountains Region forthe Utah
EPA Project Using AVIRIS Data, Robert R. McDougal, Ro^er N. Claris, K. Eric Livo,
Raymond F. Kokaty, Bamaby W. Rockwell, and J. Sam Vance, 1999. JPL
Publication 99-17, Summaries ofthe 8th Annual JPL AirtDome Eartii Science Workshop,
R. O. Green, Ed., NASA JPL AVIRIS Wori^shop, conducted Feb 8-11,1999,
pp 291-298, 1999.
Utah Boand of Water Resources (UBWR), Utah State Water Plan West Desert Basin,
Utah Board of Water Resources, 1594 West North Temple, Suite 310, PO Box 146201,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-6201, May 2001.
Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), Draft Final Phase I Ecological Risk
Assessment; Deseret Chemical Depot Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility
(TOCDF), Utah Department of Environmental Quality, EPA I.D. No. UT5210090002,
5 September 2002a.
http://wvyw.ea.state.ut.us/EQSHW/CDS/PVA Documents/CDS ECOProtocat DRAFT.h
tm
UDEQ, TOCDF RCRA Hazardous Waste Penmit; Attachment 1 - Facility Description,
United States Department of the Anny, Deseret Chemical Depot, Utah Department of
Environmental Quality, State/EPA I.D. Number: UT5210090002,2002b.
httD://www.ea.state,ut.us/EQSHW/CDS/CDS TOCDF PERM.htm#Table%20of%20Con
tents
Utah Geological Survey (UGS), Fault Line Forum Volume 15, Number 2, 1999, Utah
Geological Survey, Utah Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 146100, Salt Lake
City, Utah, 1999a.
http://www.uqs.state.ut.us/ahp/fif/flf152.pdf
B-5
UGS, Geology and Geologic Hazards of Tooele Valley and the West Desert Hazardous
Industry Area, Tooele County, Utah, Special Study 96, November 1999, Bill D, Black,
Bany J, Solomon, and Kimm M, Harty, Utah Geological Survey, Utah Department of
Natural Resources, P,0, Box 146100, Satt Lake City, Utah, 1999b,
http://www,uqs.state.ut,us/whatsnew/news/archives/New0100.htm
UGS, Utah Geological Survey Geologic Hazards Program, Utah Geological Survey,
Utah Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 146100, Satt Lake City, Utah, 2002.
http://aeotoav.utah.aov/ahp/index.htm
Vallentine, J. F., Important Utah Range Grasses, Circular No. 281, Cooperative
Extension Service, Utah State University, not dated.
Western Regional Climate Center-Desert Research Institute (WRCC), Historical Climate
Information; Average Statewide Precipitation For Westem U.S. States, Westem
Regional Climate Center, Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno,
Nevada 89512, 2005. http:/Avww.wrcc.dri.edu/cai-bin/ctiMAtN.pt?uttooe
Whitson, T. D., ed.. Weeds ofthe West, Westem Society of Weed Science, 1992.
B-6
ANNEX C
FIELD DATA AND LABORATORY RESULTS
ANNEX C
FIELD DATA AND LABORATORY RESULTS
This annex contains field data for vegetation characterization and data tables containing
laboratory analyses of soil, shmb, and heriDaceous samples.
Table C-1. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil
Table C-2, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results -Vegetation (Shmbs)
Table C-3, 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (HeriDaceous)
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
C-1
(This page intentionally left blank.)
C-2
Tabte C-1. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil^
ANALYTE
Metals with 1996 detections
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryiium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
iron
Lead
Maonesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Explosives with 1996
detections
Nitroglycerin
1996
EMBS
Maximum
16200
1.4
12
257
1
35.6
1.3
130000
16.8
6.7
45
16600
85.3
18800
963
1.5
17.9
6700
788
0.36
26.1
96.8
8200
Semivolatile Organic Compounds with 1996
detections
Phenol
Metals without 1996 detections
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Tin
240
1996
EMBS
99% UTL
18646
NL
12.5
294
1.1
61.3
1.7
169508
18.4
8.2
66.9
18821
99
19937
1027
5
33.1
7795
869
3
29.5
108
NL
2000
Units
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
0111
0112S5
06/23/2005
18200
0.2 UJ
7.2
189
0.99
18.3
1
35700
w^mjf^m
6.3
22.5 J
18400
23.6
9630
666
0.88 J
17.3
5960
414 J
0.95 U
29.1
68.9
710 U
34 U
0.032 J
0.25 U
0.25 U
2.5 U
" "
0214
0214S5
05/20/2005
14700
0.21 UJ
10.3
238
0.76
40.8
0.6
58800
13.5
3.9
27.3
12000
22.4
'^ms^
505
0.58 U
9.1
7140 J
r-:^:mm$
0.88 u
22.6
57.8
810 U
140U
0.029 U
0.26 U
0.26 U
2.6 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0308
0308S5
06/22/2005
^i^'eiittii?!*
0.29 J
6.5
249
1.1
32.8
1
61500
m22^m
6.2
25.3 J
Witaiw^
23.1
16000
727
2.3
17.1
mmmm
572 J
0.61 U
75.7
710 U
33 U
0.027 U
0.25 U
0.25 U
2.5 U
0400
0400 S5
05/15/2005
17400
0.25 UJ
4.9
225
0.93
18.6
0.62
59200
15.9
5
19.5
13800
20.9
11300
626
0.53 J
10.8
5850
492
0.76 U
25.3
49.5
850 U
140 U
0.023 U
0.32 U
0.27 U
2.7 U
0416
041685
05/18/2005
17200
0.24 UJ
4.8
239
1
27.7
0.74
31900
16.7
5.3
25.6
15500
23.7
14000
649
0.85 U
11.6
7140
471
0.59 U
23.1
68.7
850 U
160 U
0.03 U
0.29 U
0.29 U
2.9 U
0420
0420S5
05/18/2005
13400
0.3 UJ
4.8
174
0.8
18.3
0.74
57700
15.3
3.9
22.1
11800
28
12100
465
0.55 U
10.2
5370
349
0.46 U
19.3
59.3
810 U
160 U
0.026 U
0.29 U
0.29 U
2.9 U
0515
0515S5
05/18/2005
14400
0.27 UJ
6.3
209
0.85
17.5
1.1
75900
15.2
4.5
28.4
13200
36.2
11900
645
0.81 U
10.9
5200
360
0.76 U
22.7
66.4
850 U
140 U
0.03 U
0.27 U
0.27 U
2.7 U
0515
0515S5D
05/18/2005
14100
0.22 UJ
5.7
202
0.83
17.1
1.1
68900
15.2
4.4
27.5
12800
34.5
11700
624
0.66 U
10.5
5090
341
0.59 U
21.3
65.2
740 U
140 U
0.033 U
0.27 U
0.27 U
2.7 U
C-3
Table C-1. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Explosives without 1996
detections
2,4,6-Trlnitrotoluene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoiuene
HMX
RDX
Tefry)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) without 1996
detections
PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Arodor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Semivolatile Organic
Compounds without 1996
detections
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dlchlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trtchiorophenol
2,4-Dlchlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dlnitrophenoi
2,4-Dlnitrotoluene
2.6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthaiene
2-Chlaophenoi
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol (o-Oesol)
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
UQIKQ
iialKg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugrtO
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug«g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
0111
0112S5
06/23/2005
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
4.1 U
4.1 U
4.1 U
4.1 U
4.1 U
4.1 U
4.1 U
34U
34 U
34 U
34U
34U
34U
34U
34 U
170 UJ
34U
34U
34U
34U
20U
34 U
0214
0214R5
05/20/2005
48U
48 U
48 U
48 U
48U
48 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
140 U
140 U
140 U J
140 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
700 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
84 U
140 U
Location. Sample Number, and Date
0306
0308S5
06/22«)0S
42 U
42 U
42 U
740 J
42 U
42 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
33 U
33 U
33U
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
170 UJ
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
20 U
33 U
0400
0400S5
05/15/2005
50 U
50U
SOU
50 U
50U
79 J
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
720 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
87 U
140 U
0416
0416S5
05/18/2005
50 U
50 U
50 U
SOU
SOU
SOU
4.8 UJ
4.8 UJ
4.8 UJ
4.8 UJ
4.8 UJ
4.8 UJ
4.8 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 UJ
160 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
780 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
94 U
0420
0420S5
05/18/2005
48 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
4.9 UJ
4.9 UJ
4.9 UJ
4.9 UJ
4.9 UJ
4.9 UJ
4.9 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 UJ
160 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
780 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
93 U
160 U 160 U
0515
0515S5
05/18/2005
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
4.4 UJ
4.4 UJ
4.4 UJ
4.4 UJ
4.4 UJ
4.4 UJ
4.4 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 UJ
140 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
710 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
85 U
140 U
...
0515
0515S5D
05/18/2005
43 U
43 U
43 U
43 U
43 U
43 U
4.4 UJ
4.4 UJ
4.4 UJ
4.4 UJ
4.4 UJ
4.4 UJ
4.4 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U J
140 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
700 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
84U
140 U
C-4
Table C-1. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
/ANALYTE
2-Nitroanillne
2-Nltrophenol
3,3'-Dlch!orobenzidine
3-Nltroaniline
4,6-Dlnitro-2-methvlphenol
4-BroitK3phenyi phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methytphenoi
4-Chioroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Meth^phenal (p-Cresol)
4-Nitroanlllne
4-Nltrophenol
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h ,l)perylene
Benzo(lc)fluoranthene
Benzoic acid
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Cart>azoie
Chrysene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Dlbenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Dielhylphthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlaobenzeno
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugma
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
iiQlKg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
0111
0112S5
06/23fl005
34 UJ
34U
67 U
67 UJ
34U
34U
34U
34 U
34U
34 U
34 UJ
67 UJ
20U
20U
20U
20 U
20U
20U
20 UJ
20U
67 U
34 U
34 UJ
34U
20U
43 J
34 UJ
20 UJ
34U
34 U
34U
20U
20U
34 U
0214
0214SS
05/20/2005
140 UJ
140 U
280 U
280 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 UJ
280 U
84 U
84 U
84 U
84 U
64 U
84 U
84 UJ
84 U
260 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
84 U
140 U
140 U
84 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
64 U
84 U
140 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0308
0308SS
06«2n005
33 UJ
33 UJ
67 U
67 UJ
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 UJ
67 UJ
20 U
20 U
20U
20U
20 U
20U
20 UJ
20U
67 U
33 U
33 UJ
33 U
20U
33 U
33 UJ
20 UJ
33 U
33 U
33 U
20U
20U
33U
0400
0400S5
05/15/2005
140 UJ
140 U
290 U
290 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U J
290 U
87 U
87 U
87 U
87 U
87 U
87 U
87 U
87 U
290 U
• 140 U
140 U
140 U
87 U
140 U
140 U
87 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
87 U
87 U
140 U
0416
0416S5
05/18/2005
160 UJ
160 U
310 UJ
310 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 UJ
310 U
94 U
94 U
94 U
94 U
94 U
94 U
94 UJ
94 U
310 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
94 U
160 U
160 U
94 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
94 U
94 U
160 U
0420
0420S5
05/16/2005
160 U J
160 U
310 UJ
310 UJ
160U
160 U
160 U
160U
160 U
160 U
160 UJ
310 U
93 U
93 U
93 U
93 U
93 U
93 U
93 UJ
93 U
310 U
160 U
160 U
160U
93 U
160 U
160U
93 U
160U
160 U
160U
93 U
93 U
160U
0515
0515S5
05/18/2005
140UJ
140 U
280 UJ
280 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140UJ
280 U
85 U
85 U
85U
85 U
85 U
85 U
85 UJ
8SU
280 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
85 U
140 U
140 U
85 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
85 U
85 U
140 U
0515
0515S5D
05/18/2005
140 UJ
140 U
280 UJ
280 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U J
280 U
84 U
84 U
84 U
84 U
84 U
84 U
84 UJ
84 U
280 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
84 U
140 U
140 U
84 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
64 U
84 U
140 U
C-5
Tabte C-1. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachiorocyclopentadene
Hexachloroethane
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophwone
N-Nitroso-dl-n-propylamine
N-Nltrosodlphenylamine
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
bls(2-Chioroethoxy^ethane
bls(2-Chloroethyl)ether (2-
Chloroethylether)
bls(2-Chlorolsopropyl)ether
bls(2-Ethylhexyl)phthaiate
Volatile Organic Compounds
without 1996 detections
1.1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2.2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1.2-Trichloroethane
1.1-Dichloroethane
1.1-Dlchioroethene
1,2-Dlchloroethane
1,2-Dlchiaopropane
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyi
ketone)
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (Methyl
isobutyl ketone)
Acetone
Benzene
Brorrwdchloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugrt<g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
uglKg
ug/Ko
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugmg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugmg
ug/Ko
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
uq/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugrt<o
0111
0112S5
06/23/2005
34 U
67 U
34 U
20U
34 U
34 U
34 U
20U
34 UJ
67 U
20 U
20 U
34 U
34 U
34 UJ
34 UJ
0.9 U
2.2 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
2.2 U
1.1 U
11 U
11U
11 U
83
6.7 J
1.1 U
2.2 U
1.1 U
0214
021485
05/20/2005
140 UJ
280 UJ
140 UJ
84 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
84 U
140 U
280 U
84 U
84 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
0.87 U
2.2 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
2.2 U
1.1 U
2.7 UJ
2.7 U
2.7 U
2.7 UJ
1.1 U
1.1 U
2.2 U
1.1 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0308
0308S5
06/22/2005
33 U
67 U
33U
20 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
20U
33 UJ
67 U
20 U
20 U
33U
33 U
33 UJ
33 UJ
0.96 U
2.4 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
2.4 U
1.2 U
39
12 U
12 U
110J
5.6 J
1.2 U
2.4 U
1.2 U
0400
040085
05/15/2005
140 U
290 UJ
140 U
87 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
87 U
140 U
290 U
87 U
87 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
0416
0416S5
05/18/2005
160 U
310 UJ
160 UJ
94 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
94 U
160 U
310 U
94 U
94 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
0420
042085
05/18/2005
160U
310 UJ
160 UJ
93 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
93 U
160U
310 U
93 U
93 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
1.2 U
3U
1.5U
1.5U
1.5 U
3U
1.5 U
21
3.7 U
3.7 U
3.7 U
9.2 J
1.5 U
3U
1.5 U
0515
051SSS
05/18/2005
140 U
280 UJ
140 U J
85 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
85 U
140 U
280 U
85 U
85 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
,
0515
0515SSD
05/18/2005
140 U
280 UJ
140 U J
84U
140 U
140 U
140 U
84 U
140 U
280 U
84 U
84U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
C-6
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Caibon Disulfide
Caibon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styene
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Toluene
Totall,2-Dlchloroethene
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Vinyl chlaide
Xylenes. Total
cis-1,2-Dichioroethene
cts-1,3-Dichloropropene
tran s-1,2-Dichioroeth ene
trans-1.3-Dichloropropene
DIoxln/Furans without 1996
detections
1.2,3.4,6.7,8-HpCDD
1.2,3,4,6,7.B-HpCDF
1.2,3,4,7.8,9-HpCDF
1.2,3,4,7.8-HxCOD
1.2,3,4,7.8-HxCDF
1.2,3.6.7,8-HxCDD
1.2,3.6,7.8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3.7,8.9-HxCDF
1.2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1.2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,6.7.8-HxCDF
'1 r'j asssaea
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
UQlKo
ug«g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Ko
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
0111
Oil285
06/23/2005
1.9 J
0.79 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
3.4 U
1 U
IU
4.2 J
2.2 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1 J
1.1 U
1.1 U
2.2 U
1.1 U
2.66 J
1.42 J
0.352 UJ
0.349 U
0.257 U
0.248 J
0.218 J
0.337 U
0.415 U
0.215 U
0.156 U
0.144 J
0214
0214S5
05/20/2005
1.1 U
0.76 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
3.3 U
0.98 U
0.98 U
1.1 U
2.2 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
0.98 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
2.2 U
1.1 U
1.53 J
1.1 J
0.27 U
0.4 U
0.245 J
0.205 U
. 0.291 J
0.275 U
0.241 U
0.201 U
0.177 U
0.209 J
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0308
0308S5
08/22/2005
1.2 U
0.84 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
3.6 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
4.6 J
2.4 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.1 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
2.4 U
1.2 U
1.18 U
1.17 U
0.326 U
0.324 U
0.238 U
0.126 J
0.202 U
0.312 U
0.385 U
0.199 U
0.161 U
0.139 J
0400
040085
05/15/2005
1.06 J
0.853 J
0.285 U
0.423 U
0.239 U
0.0731 U
0.225 U
0.29 U
0.254 U
0.17 J
0.128 U
0.172 U
0416
041685
05/18/2005
1.92 J
1.48 J
0.308 U
0.457 U
0.258 U
0.206 J
0.295 J
0.313 U
0.274 U
018 U
0.176 J
0.19 J
0420
042085
05/18/2005
2J
IU
1.5 U
1.5 U
1.5 U
1.5 U
1.5 U
1.5 U
4.4 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
6.5 J
3U
1.5U
1.5 U
I.SJ
1.5 U
1.5 U
3U
1.5 U
2.32 J
1.29 J
0.309 UJ
0.459 U
0.259 U
0.214 U
0.209 J
0.315 U
0.276 U
0.181 U
0.17 J
0.186 U
0515
0515S5
05/18/2005
2.62 J
1.43 J
0.28 U
0.415 U
0.246 J
0.223 J
0.304 J
0.285 U
0.25 U
0.163 U
0.194 J
0.208 J
0515
0515S5D
05/18/2005
••-
2.46 J
1.7 J
0.261 UJ
0.387 U
0.274 UJ
0.0669 UJ
0.266 J
0.266 U
0.233 U
0.153 U
0.206 J
0.192 J
C-7
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
/MMALYTE
2,3,4,7.8-PeCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3.7,8-TCDF
Calculated Dioxin/Furan Sum
OCDD
OCDF
Total HpCDD
Total HpCDF
Total HxCDD
Total HxCDF
Total PeCDD
Total PeCDF
Total TCDD
Total TCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
no/Ka
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
no/Kg
0111
011285
06/23/2005
0.194 U
0.105 U
0.168 J
41.9
16.3
3.26 J
5.58
2.38 J
2.07 U
1.74 J
0.279 J
1.52 U
0.709 U
1.39 U
0214
021485
05/20/2005
0.219 U
0.0378 U
0.329 U
34.9
7.03 J
2.95 J
3.63 J
1.9 J
1.64 U
2.28 J
0.556 J
2.94 U
1.47 U
5.08 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0308
0308S5
06/22/2005
0.151 U
0.0974 U
0.133 U
33.8
5.87 U
2,5 J
2.64 J
1.63 J
1.16 U
2.49 U
0.199 U
1.81J
0.398 U
1.1 U
0400
040085
05/15/2005
0.172 U
0.04 U
0.178 J
31.8
5.15 J
2.35 UJ
2.37 J
0.853 J
1.46 U
1.15U
0.17 J
0.651 J
0.04 U
0.354 J
0416
041685
05/18/2005
0.201 J
0.0431 U
0.181 J
45
8.49 J
2.54 UJ
4.62 J
2.07 J
2.77 U
2.35 J
0.309 J
2.5 U
1.48 U
2.82 U
0420
042085
05/18/2005
0.187 U
0.0433 U
0.143 U
54.8
14.8
2.55 UJ
5.26 J
1.87 J
2.32 U
1.77 J
0.181 U
1.98 U
0.467 U
0.541 U
0515
0515S5
05/18/2005
0.175 J
0.0392 U
0.173 U
58.2
22.1
2.34 J
8.56
2.07 J
2.97 U
2.28 U
0.472 U
1.95 U
0.439 U
1.28 U
0515
0515S5D
05/18/2005
0.158 UJ
0.0366 UJ
0.121 U
16
3.21 UJ
9.6
2.42 U
2.31 U
2.33 U
0.153 U
1.69 U
0.0366 U
0.476 J
C-8
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Metals with 1996 detections
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beiylilum
Boron
Cadmium
Caldum
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Explosives with 1996
detections
Nitroglycerin
Semhralatiie Organic
Compounds with 1996
detections
Phenol
Metals without 1996
detect tons
Mercuiy
Selenium
Silver
Tin
1996
EMBS
Maximum
16200
1.4
12
257
1
35.6
1.3
130000
16.8
6.7
45
16600
85.3
18800
963
1.5
17.9
6700
788
0.38
26.1
96.8
8200
240
1996
EMBS
99% UTL
18646
NL
12.5
294
1.1
61.3
1.7
169508
18.4
8.2
66.9
18821
99
19937
1027
5
33.1
7795
869
3
29.5
108
NL
2000
Units
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mglKa
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg«g
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mgfl<g
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kfl
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0611
061 ISS
05/17/2005
17400
0.61 UJ
6
196
0.95
32.5
0.51
70900
18.4
4.9
21.4
14900
21.2
16800
416
0.58 U
13.1
7270
535
0.78 U
26.8
69.1
810 U
160 U
0.032 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
3U
0613
061385
05/17/2005
16700
0.29 UJ
7.1
230
0.93
20.2
0.85
87600
16.1
5
26.3
13900
31.2
14400
589
0.65 U
11.7
6160
437
0.62 U
24
59.1
710 U
150 U
0.028 U
0.28 U
0.28 U
2.8 U
0816
061685
05/13/2005
15600
0.24 UJ
7.7
213
0.88
19.3
0.96
78000
15.9
4.4
^MMWS
13400
39.9
13900
543
0.76 J
11.1
5690
441
0.84 U
23.5
68.7
850 U
160 U
0.03 U
0.3 U
0.51 J
3U
0618
0618S5
05/1SA2005
1^-1.930^*
0.22 UJ
7.1
^mnmm
1.1
28.5
1.3
54700
^EiiiS'^:
5.8
34.1
16000
49.8
16000
1010
0.75 U
13.2
mmtm^
538
0.7 U
26.7
85.7
650 U
140 U
0.04 U
0.27 U
0.27 U
2.7 U
0623
062385
06/21/2005
16100
0.2 UJ
6.6
166
0.85
27.9
1.2
65200
18.4
4.8
22.6 J
14600
54.9
12900
411
0.61 J
13.6
6980
417 J
0.94 U
25.4
67.2
650 U
34 U
0.042 J
0.26 U
0.26 U
2.6 U
0623
0623S5D
06/21/2005
15500
0.2 UJ
6.9
159
0.82
26.8
1.1
63500
17.5
4.7
21.6 J
14100
44.2
12500
401
0.67 J
13.2
6720
395 J
0.8 U
24
65.6
680 U
34 U
0.03 J
0.25 U
0.25 U
2.5 U
0707
070785
05/19/2005
11700
0.35 U
m&3ia;-m
218
0.61
umiimm.:
0.71
80700
11
2.6
34.5
8720
21.8
SSii^soosS
453
1.1 U
7.8
5480
mMif.r^ff,
1.2U
23.9
51.6
810 U
540 U
0.068 U
1.4
0.41 U
4.1 U
0714
071485
05/15^005
17100
0.24 UJ
7.1
225
0.95
21.1
0.81
59400
16.5
5.4
25.1
14400
29.6
12000
594
0.8 U
11.5
6300
451
0.84 U
25.7
57.2
850 U
160 U
0.033 U
0.42 U
0.3 U
3U
C-9
Table C-1. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Explosives without 1996
detections
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
2.4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
HMX
RDX
Tetryl
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) without 1996 detections
PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
PCB-1254 (Arocia 1254)
PCB-1260 (Arocia 1260)
Semivolatiie Organic
Compounds without 1996
detections
1,2,4-Trichiorobenrene
1,2-Dlchiorabenzene
1.3-Dichloroben2ene
1,4-Dlchlcrobenzene
2.4.5-Trich lorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlaophenal
2,4-Dlmethylphenol
2.4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dlnltrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthaiene
2-ChioraphenQl
2-Methylnaphthaiene
2-Meth^phenol (o-Cresoi)
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kq
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
UB/KO
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Ks
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0611
061185
05/17/2005
48 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
SUJ
SUJ
SUJ
SUJ
SUJ
SUJ
SUJ
160 U
160 U J
160 U J
160UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
810 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 UJ
97 U
160 U
0613
0613S5
05/17/2005
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
4.7 U
4.7 U
4.7 U
4.7 U
4.7 U
4.7 U
4.7 U
150 U
150 UJ
150 UJ
150 UJ
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
750 U
150 U
' 150 U
150 U
150 UJ
90 U
150 U
0616
061685
05/13/2005
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
5U
SU
5U
5U
SU
5U
5U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
800 UJ
160 U
180 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
160 U
0618
061885
05/15/2005
38 U
38 U
38 U
38 U
38 U
38 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.SU
4.5 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
720 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
87 U
140 U
0623
062385
06/21/2005
38 U
38 U
38 U
38 U
38 U
38 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
170 UJ
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
20 U
34 U
0623
0623SSD
06/21/2005
40 U
40 U
40 U
40 U
40 U
40 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
34 U
34 U
34U
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
170 UJ
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
20 U
34 U
0707
070785
05/19/2005
48 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
6.7 U
6.7 U
6.7 U
6.7 U
6.7 U
6.7 U
6.7 U
540 UJ
540 UJ
540 UJ
540 UJ
540 U
540 U
540 U
540 U
2700 UJ
540 U
540 U
540 U
540 UJ
320 U
540 U
0714
0714S5
05/15/2005
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SU
su
su
su
su
su
su
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
800 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
160 U
C-IO
Tabte C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
2-Nitroanlllne
2-Nltrophenol
3.3'-Dichiorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4.6-Dlnitro-2-meth^phenol
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methvlphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Melhb*phenol (p-Cresol)
4-Nltroenlline
4-Nltrophenol
Acenaphthene
Acenaphth^ene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluaranthene
Benzo(fl.h,l)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzdc acid
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Carirazde
Chrvsene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Dl-n-octylphthalate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UU Units
ugn<o
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Ko
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug«g
0611
061185
05/17/2005
160 U J
160 U
320 UJ
320 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 UJ
320 U
97 U
97 U
97 U
97 U
97 U
97 U
97 UJ
97 U
320 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
97 U
160 U
160 U
97 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
97 U
97 U
160 U
0613
061385
05/17/2005
150 UJ
150U
300 UJ
300 UJ
150 U
150U
150U
150 U
150U
150 U
150 UJ
300 U
90 U
90 U
90 U
90 U
90 U
90 U
90 UJ
90 U
300 U
150 U
150U
150U
90 U
1S0U
150 U
OOU
150U
150 U
150 U
90 U
90 U
150U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0616
061685
05/13/2005
160 U
160 U
320 U
320 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160UJ
320 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
96U
96U
96 U
96 UJ
96 U
320 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
96U
160 U
0618
061885
05/15/2005
140 U J
140 U
290 U
290 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140UJ
290 U
87 U
87 U
87 U
87 U
87 U
87 U
87 U
87 U
290 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
87 U
140 U
140 U
87 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
87 U
87 U
140 U
0623
06238S
06/21/2005
34 UJ
34 U
67 U
67 UJ
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 UJ
67 UJ
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 UJ
20 U
67 U
34 U
34 UJ
34 U
20 U
36 J
34 UJ
20 UJ
34 U
34 U
34 U
20 U
20 U
34 U
0623
0623SSD
06^1/2005
34 UJ
34 U
67 U
67 UJ
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 UJ
67 UJ
20U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 UJ
20 U
67 U
34U
34 UJ
34 U
20 U
34 U
34 UJ
20 UJ
34 U
34 U
34 U
20 U
20 U
34 U
0707
070785
05/19/2005
540 UJ
540 UJ
1100 U
1100 UJ
540 U
540 U
540 U
540 U
540 U
540 U
540 UJ
1100 UJ
320 U
320 U
320 U
320 U
320 U
320 U
320 UJ
320 U
1100 U
540 U
540 U
540 U
320 U
540 U
540 U
320 UJ
540 U
540 U
540 U
320 U
320 U
540 U
0714
071485
05/15/2005
160 UJ
160 U
320 U
320 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U;--
160 U.
160 U
160 UJ
320 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
320 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
160 U
160 U
96U
160 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
96 U
160 U
C-11
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachioroc^lopentadlene
Hexachloroethane
Indenod .2.3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
N-Nltrosodiphenylamlne
Naphthalene
Nitrot)enzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
bis(2-ChioroethoKy)methane
bis(2-Chioroethyl)ether (2-
Chioroethylether)
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
bis(2-Ethyihexyl)phthaiate
Volatile Organic Compounds
without 1996 detections
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane
1.1.2-Trlchloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dlchloroethene
1,2-Dtchloroethane
1,2-Dlchloropropane
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl
ketone)
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (Methyl
Isobutyl ketone)
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
uglKg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugfl<g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugfl<g
ugrt<g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
U9«g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug«p
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
0611
061185
05/17/2005
160 U
UR
160 UJ
97 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
97 U
160 U
320 U
97 U
97 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
0613
061385
05/17/2005
150 U
UR
1S0UJ
90 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
SOU
150 U
300 U
90 U
90 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0616
0616S5
05/13/2005
160 U
320 UJ
160 U
96 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
160 U
320 U
96 U
96 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
0618
061885
05/15/2005
140 U
290 UJ
140 U
87 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
87 U
140 U
290 U
87 U
87 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
0623
0623S5
06/21/2005
34 U
67 U
34 U
20U
34 U
34 U
34 U
20U
34 UJ
67 U
20 U
20 U
34 U
34 U
34 UJ
34 UJ
1.1 U
2.8 U
1.4 U
1.4 U
1.4 U
2.8 U
1.4 U
20
14 U
14 U
74
6.1 J
1.4 U
2.8 U
1.4U
0623
0623S5D
06/21/2005
34 U
67 U
34 U
20 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
20 U
34 UJ
67 U
20 U
20 U
34 U
34 U
34 UJ
34 UJ
1 U
2.6 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.3U
2.6 U
1.3 U
23
13U
13U
73
6J
1.3U
2.6 U
1.3 U
0707
0707S5
OSn 9/2005
540 UJ
1100 UJ
540 UJ
320 U
540 U
540 UJ
540 U
320 UJ
540 UJ
1100 U
320 U
320 U
540 U
540 UJ
540 UJ
540 U
•w = • -' ' ' VE
0714
071485
05/15/2005
160 U
320 UJ
160 U
96 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
160 U
320 U
96 U
96 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
C-12
Tabte C-1. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Carbon DisulfMe
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chlorofomi
Chloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Bhylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Toluene
Total 1,2-Dichioroethene
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes, Total
ds-l ,2-Dlchloroethene
cls-1.3-Dichloropropene
trans-1.2-Dichloroethene
tra ns-1,3-Dlchioropropen e
Dioxin/Furans without 1996
detections
1,2.3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2.3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2.3,4,7.8.9-HpCDF
1.2.3.4.7.8-HxCDD
1,2.3,4.7,e-HxCDF
1,2.3.6.7,e-HxCDD
1.2,3.6.7.8-HxCDF
1.2.3.7.8.9-HxCDD
1,2.3.7.8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3.7.8-PeCDD
1.2,3,7.8-PeCDF
2,3,4,6.7.8-HxCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UU Units
ug/Kg
ugn<g
ug/Kg
ugrt<a
ugrt<g
ug/Kg
ugfl<g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugrt<g
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng«g
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
LocaUon, Sample Number, and Date
0611
0611S5
05/17/2005
5.46 J
1.8 J
0.314 U
0.513 U
0.264 U
0.709 J
0.246 J
0.377 J
0.281 U
0.281 J
0.141 U
0.229 J
0613
061385
05/17/2005
1.61 J
0.972 J
0.293 U
0.623 U
0.245 UJ
0.174 J
0.194 J
0.298 U
0.261 U
0.171 U
0.183 J
0.177 U
0616
0616S5
05/13/2005
1.96 J
1.42 J
0.312 U
0.464 U
0.281 J
0.186 J
0.297 J
0.318 U
0.279 U
0.183 U
0.184 J
0.214 J
0618
061885
05/15/2005
1.42 J
1.52 J
0.276 U
0.41 U
0.253 J
0.136 J
0.292 J
0.281 U
0.246 U
0.161 U
0.156 U
0.199 U
0623
062385
06/21/2005
1.4 U
0.98 U
1.4 U
1.4 U
1.4 U
1.4 U
1.4 U
1.4 U
4.2 U
1.3 U
1.3U
5.4 J
2.8 U
1.4 U
1.4 U
1.3 J
1.4 U
1.4 U
2.8 U
1.4 U
1.06 J
0.758 J
0.355 U
0.353 U
0.26 U
0.137 U
0.143 U
0.34 U
0.419 U
0.217 U
0.133 U
0.131 U
0623
0623S5D
06/21/2005
1.3 U
0.89 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.3U
1.3U
3.8 U
1.1U •
1.1 U
5.7 J
2.6 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.4 J
1.3 U
1.3U
2.6 U
1.3 U
1.16J
0.751 J
0.346 U
0.344 U
0.253 U
0.133 U
0.14 U
0.332 U
0.409 U
0.212 U
0.12 U
0.128 U
0707
070785
05/19/2005
1— • -
5.52 J
2.43 U
0.402 U
0.596 U
0.46 J
0.103 U
0.442 J
0.409 U
0.356 U
0.272 J
0.18 U
0.38 U
0714
0714S5
05/15/2005
1.21 J
0.766 J
0.303 U
0.719 U
0.254 U
0.0776 U
0.169 U
0.308 U
0.27 U
0.177 U
0.136 U
0.183 U
C-13
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7.e-TCDF
Calculated Dioxin/Furan Sum
OCDD
OCDF
Total HpCDD
Total HpCDF
Total HxCDD
Total HxCDF
Total PeCDD
Total PeCDF
Total TCDD
Total TCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Untts
nglKg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kfl
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ngfl<g
ngrt<g
np/Kp
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0611
061185
05/17/2005
0.19 U
0.0441 U
0.146 U
76.2
30.3
3.09 J
10.7
4.18 U
5.79 U
4.46 U
1.91 U
3.01 U
1.03 U
1.67 U
0613
061385
05/17/2005
0.177 U
0.041 U
0.192 J
47.6
11.4
2.42 UJ
5.81
1.38 J
2.96 U
1.04 U
0.185 J
1.18 U
0.257 U
0.484 J
0616
0616S5
05/13/2005
0.189 U
0.0438 U
0.204 U
45.2
12.5
3.12J
5.04 J
2.16 J
1.76 U
2.42 J
0.274 U
1.9U
0.548 U
1.39 U
0618
061885
05/15/2005
0.277 J
0.0387 U
0.128 U
48.2
8.25 J
2.28 UJ
3.88 J
2.11 J
1.55 U
3U
0.249 U
3.45 U
0.99 U
2.02 U
0623
062385
06/21/2005
0.164 U
0.106 U
0.113 J
31.1
7.01 J
2.28 J
3.27 J
1.16J
0.734 U
0.526 J
0.217 U
0.653 UJ
0.286 U
0.704 J
0623
062385D
06/21/2005
0.16 U
0.103 U
0.12 J
8.39 J
2.38 J
3.63 J
1.11 J
1.11 U
0.696 J
0.212 U
0.753 J
0.389 U
0.631 J
0707
0707S5
05/19/2005
0.243 U
0.0563 U
0.365 J
136
62.8
5.2 J
15.7
5.29 U
1.46 J
5.54 U
1.24 U
20.5 U
1.34 U
6.53 U
0714
0714S5
05/15^005
0.183 U
0.0424 U
0.228 U
43.5
8.4 J
2.5 UJ
2.91 J
1.23 J
1.72 U
0.534 J
0.177 U
1.14U
0.544 U
0.638 U
C-14
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Surface Soil* (Continued)
/WALYTE
Metals with 1996 detections
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
ThalGum
Vanadium
Zinc
Fxplosives with 1996
detections
Nitroglycerin
Semivolatiie Organic
Compounds with 1996
detections
Phenol
Metals without 1996 detections
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Tin
1996
EMBS
Maximum
16200
1.4
12
257
1
35.6
1.3
130000
16.8
6.7
45
16600
85.3
18800
963
1.5
17.9
6700
788
0.38
26.1
96.8
8200
240
1996
EMBS
99% UTL
18646
NL
12.5
294
1.1
61.3
1.7
169508
18.4
8.2
66.9
18821
99
19937
1027
5
33.1
7795
869
3
29.5
108
NL
2000
Units
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mgmg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kp
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
0802
0080285
05/15/2005
18200
0.21 UJ
5.8
244
0.95
33.5
0.71
71200
14.4
4.7
20
13800
24.4
19100
614
0.55 J
9.8
W«mW
mmimB
0.86 U
24.6
52.4
810 U
140 U
0.027 J
0.27 U
0.27 U
2.7 U
0812
0812S5
05/16/2005
14100
0.46 UJ
6
174
0.79
13.7
0.8
68700
15.5
4.4
23.1
12400
26.1
10200
464
0.63 U
10.9
4580
327
0.52 U
22.3
54.2
630 U
140 U
0.026 U
0.26 U
0.26 U
2.6 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0813
081385
05/18/2005
14900
0.26 UJ
7.2
194
0.86
16.7
0.96
99100
15.2
4.5
25
12800
32.3
12600
467
0.82 U
11.1
4860
317
0.45 U
21.8
56.5
850 U
150 U
0.032 U
0.28 U
0.28 U
2.8 U
0817
081785
05/12/2005
11900
0.23 UJ
7.8
202
0.68
13.4
0.97
152000
12.7
3.7
20.9
9570
21.8
10800
404
0.54 J
9
4060
370
0.57 U '
18.3
43.3
630 U
160 U
0.08 J
0.28 U
0.28 U
2.8 U
0819
081985
06/21/2005
>*5?^M6i^
1.1 J
fe^SPi^^
177
1,3
22
^^aS^S
72700
25
5
wmmm
17600
S^iiBWy-
m'^imam
mmom
1.2 J
15.9
?JMIOO^
578 J
0.55 U
mmi^^
vSS1i7^l€
770 U
33 U
0.079 J
0.26 J
4.6
4.7 J
0914
091485
05/14/2005
18400
0.32 J
6.4
200
1
18.6
0.83
40700
17.8
5.2
27.6
15100
36.8
10100
508
0.72 J
12.3
6240
420
0.6 U
27.3
65.6
650 U
160 U
0.034 J
0.3 U
0.3 U
3U
0914
0914S5D
05/14/2005
18600
0.24 UJ
6.3
200
1
18.3
0.82
41400
18
5.2
27.2
15200
36.3
10200
492
0.75 J
12.4
6220
424
0.75 U
27.4
65.6
770 U
160 U
0.03 J
0.29 U
0.29 U
2.9 U
1004
100485
05/17/2005
mwmsm
0.29 UJ
8.7
247
1
32.3
0.78
86200
17.2
4.4
25.2
15300
25.4
»20ii68i^
595
0.7 U
11.3
^mmm}
705
0.73 U
25.8
66.8
850 U
170 U
0.042 U
0.33 U
0.33 U
3.3 U
C-15
Tabte C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
AN/VLYTE
Bcploslves without 1996
drtectlons
2,4,6-Trinitrotoiuene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2.6-Dinitrotoluene
HMX
RDX
Tetryl
Polychiorlnated Biphenyls
(PCBs) with out 1996
detections
PCB-1016 (/Vroda 1016)
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Arocia 1242)
PCB-1248 (Arodor 1248)
PCB-1254 (Arocia 1254)
PCB-1260 (Arocia 1260)
Semivolatiie Organic
Compounds without 1996
detections
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1.2-Dlchlaobenzene
1,3-Dichiaobenzene
1,4-Dlchiaabenzene
2,4,5-Trichiorophenol
2,4,6-Trichiorophenol
2,4-Dlchlaophenol
2,4-Dlmethylphenol
2.4-Dinitrophenol
2.4-Dinltrotoluene
2,6-Dlnitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthaiene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol (o-aesol)
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
up/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
up/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Ko
0802
0080285
05/15/2005
48 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
710 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
86 U
140 U
0812
0812S5
05/16/2005
37 U
37 U
37 U
37 U
37 U
37 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
140 U
140 UJ
140 UJ
140 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
680 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 UJ
81 U
140 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0813
0813S5
05/18/2005
63 J
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
4.6 UJ
4.6 UJ
4.6 UJ
4.6 UJ
4.6 UJ
4.6 UJ
4.6 UJ
1S0U
150 U
150UJ
150 U J
150U
150 U
150 U
150 U
730 U
150 U
1S0U
150 U
150 U
88 U
150 U
0817
081785
05/12/2005
37 U
37 U
37 U
37 U
37 U
37 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
160 UJ
160 U J
160UJ
160 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
780 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
93 U
160 U
0819
081985
06/21/2005
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
160 UJ
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
20 U
33 U
0914
0914S5
05/14/2005
36 U
38 U
38 U
520 J
38 U
38 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
800 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
160 U
0914
0914SSD
05/14/2005
45 U
45 U
45 U
2800 J
45 U
45 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
790 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
95 U
160 U
-•
1004
1004S5
05/17/2005
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
5.5 UJ
5.5 UJ
5.5 UJ
5.5 UJ
5.5 UJ
5.5 UJ
5.5 UJ
170 U
170 UJ
170 UJ
170 UJ
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
860 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 UJ
100 U
170 U
C-16
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
2-Nltroanlllne
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzl(fine
3-Nltroaniilne
4,6-Dlnitro-2-methylphenol
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Methylphend (p-Cresoi)
4-Nitroenlllne
4-Nitrophenol
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fiuaanthene
Be nzo(g,h,Dperylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzoic acid
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Carisazde
Chrysene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Dimethylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachiaobenzene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UU Units
ug/Kg
uglKg
ug/Ko
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Ko
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg-
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug«o
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
0802
0080285
05/15/2005
140 UJ
140 U
280 U
280 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 UJ
280 U
86 U
86 U
86 U
86 U
86 U
86U
86 U
86 U
280 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
86 U
140 U
140 U
86 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
86 U
86 U
140 U
0812
0812S5
05/16/2005
140 U J
140 U
270 UJ
270 UJ
140 U
140 U
140U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 UJ
270 U
61 U
81 U
81 U
81 U
81 U
81 U
81 UJ
81 U
270 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
81 U
140 U
140 U
81 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
81 U
81 U
140 U
Location, Sample Number, end Date
0813
081385
05/18/2005
150UJ
150 U
290 U
290 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 UJ
290U
88 U
88 U
88 U
88U
88 U
88 U
88 UJ
88U
290 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
88 U
150 U
150 U
88 U
150 U
150U
150 U
88 U
88 U
150 U
0817
081785
05/12/2005
160 U
160 U
310 U
310 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 UJ
310 U
93 U
93 U
93 U
93 U
93 U
93 U
93 UJ
93 U
310 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
93 U
160 U
160 U
93 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
93 U
93 U
160 U
0819
081985
06/21/2005
33 UJ
33 U
66 U
66 UJ
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
33 UJ
66 UJ
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 UJ
20 U
66 U
33 U
33 UJ
33 U
20 U
33 U
33 UJ
20 UJ
33 U
33 U
33 U
20 U
20 U
33 U
0914
091485
05/14/2005
160 U
160 U
320 U
320 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 UJ
320 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
96 UJ
96 U
320 U
160 U
160U
160U
96 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
96 U
160 U
0914
0914SSD
05/14/2005
160 U
160 U
320 U
320 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160UJ
320 U
95 U
95 U
95 U
95 U
95 U
95 U
95 UJ
95U
320 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
95 U
160 U
160 U
95 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
95 U
95 U
160 U
1004
100485
05/17/2005
170 UJ
170 U
350 UJ
350 UJ
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 u ':~
170 U
170 U
170 UJ
350 U
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 UJ
100 u ,
350 U '"'-
170 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
100 U
170 U
C-17
Tabte C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlaocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophaone
N-Nitroso-di-n-propyiamin e
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
bis(2-Chlaoethoxy)methane
bls(2-Chiaoethyl)ether (2-
Chioroethylether)
bls(2-Chiorolsopropyl)ether
bls(2-EthyIhexyl)phthaiafe
Volatile Organic Compounds
without 1996 detections
1,1,1-Trichloroefhane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachiaoethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichlaoethane
1,1-Dichiaoethene
1,2-Dlchlaoethane
1,2-Dlchlaopropane
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl
ketone)
2-Hexanone
4-Methvl-2-pentanone (Methyl
isobutyl ketone)
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromofonn
1996
EMBS
Maximum
Bromomethane
1996
EMBS
99% UU Units
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugrt<p
ug/Kg
up/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
up^g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
up/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
up/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug«g
0802
0080285
05/15/2005
140 U
280 UJ
140 U
86 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
86 U
140 U
280 U
86 U
86 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
0.95 U
2.4 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
2.4 U
1.2 U
11 J
3U
3U
3U
4.3 J
1.2 U
2.4 U
1.2 U
•
0812
081285
05/16/2005
140 U
UR
140 U J
81 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
81 U
140 U
270 U
81 U
61 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0613
0813S5
05/18/2005
150 U
290 UJ
150UJ
88 U
150 U
150U
150 U
88 U
150 U
290 U
88 U
88 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150U
0817
081785
05/12/2005
160 UJ
310 UJ
160 U J
93 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
93 U
160 U
310 U
93 U
93 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
1.2 U
2.9 U
1.4 U
1.4 U •
1.4 U
2.9 U
1.4 U
15
3.6 U
3.6 U
3.6 U
4.1 J
1.4U
2.9 U
0819
081985
06/21/2005
33 U
66 U
33 U
20 U
33 U
33 U
33 U
20 U
33 UJ
66 U
20 U
20 U
33 U
33 U
33 UJ
33 UJ
0.94 U
2.4 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
2.4 U
1.2 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
30
3.3 J
V2U
2.4 U
1.4 U 1.2 U
0914
091485
05/14/2005
160 U
320 UJ
160 U
96 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
160 U
320 U
96 U
96 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
0914
0914S5D
05/14/2005
160 U
320 UJ
160 U
95 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
95 U
160 U
320 U
95 U
95 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
1004
1004S5
05/17/2005
170 U
UR
170 UJ
100 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
170 U
350 U
100 U
100 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
C-18
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Caibon Disulfide
Caibon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chlaomethane
DIbromoehlwomethane
Bhylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Toluene
Total 1,2-Dichlaoethene
Trichlaoethene (TCE)
Vinyl chlaide
Xylenes, Total
cis-1,2-Dlchloroethene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,2-Dichlaoethene
trans-1,3-Dichlaopropene
Dioxin/Furans without 1996
detections
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2,3.4,6.7.8-HpCDF
1.2.3.4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4.7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,4.7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1.2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugfl<g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
np/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
- "'"'"• -.-...*-
0802
0080285
05/15/2005
1.2 U
0.83 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2U
1.2 U
1.2 U
3.6 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
3J
2.4 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.1 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
2.4 U
1.2 U
1.19J
1.06 J
0.285 U
0.423 U
0.239 U
0.184 J
0.22 U
0.29 U
0.254 U
0.195 J
0.163 J
0.191 U
0812
081285
05/16/2005
1.32 J
0.902 J
0.272 UJ
0.404 U
0.228 U
0.0697 U
0.253 J
0.277 U
0.243 U
0.159 U
0.176 U
0.164 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0813
0813S5
05/18/2005
2J
1.09 J
0.288 U
0.856 U
0.242 U
0.236 U
0.253 J
0.294 U
0.257 U
0.169 U
0.129 U
0.174 U
0817
081785
05/12/2005
1.4 U
IU
1.4 U
1.4 U
1.4 U
1.4 U
1.4 U
1.4 U
4.4 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
3.3 J
2.9 U
1.4 U
1.4 U
1.3 U
1.4 U
1.4 U
2.9 U
1.4 U
1.13U
0.669 J
0.295 U
0.438 U
0.247 U
0.0756 U
0.164 U
0.3 U
0.263 U
0.172 U
0.132 U
0.178 U
0819
081985
06/21/2005
1.2 U
0.82 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
3.5 U
IU
IU
2.8 J
2.4 U
1.2U
1.2 U
1.6 J
1.2 U
1.2U
2.4 U
1.2 U
1.16J
0.936 J
0.343 U
0.341 U
0.252 J
0.209 J
0.275 J
0.329 U
0.406 U
0.21 U
0.215 U
0.127 U
0914
091485
05/14/2005
1.58 J
1.07 J
0.301 U
0.446 U
0.252 U
0.246 J
0.221 J
0.306 U
0.268 U
0.176 U
0.152 UJ
0.181 U
0914
0914S5D
05/14/2005
1.35 J
1.01 J
0.318 UJ
0.472 U
0.266 U
0.381 UJ
0.274 J
0.324 U
0.284 U
0.186 U
0.156 J
0.192 U
-=—--ss=a
1004
100485
05/17/2005
1.18 U
0.747 J
0.336 U
0.659 U
0.281 U
0.086 U
0.187 U
0.342 U
0.299 U
0.196 U
0.15 U
0.202 U
C-19
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
2.3.4,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Calculated Dioxin/Furan Sum
OCDD
OCDF
Total HpCDD
Total HpCDF
Total HxCDD
Total HxCDF
Total PeCDD
Total PeCDF
Total TCDD
Total TCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ng/Kp
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
np/Kg
np/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
Location. Sample Number, and Date 1
0802
0080285
05/15/2005
0.172 U
0.0399 U
0.178 U
45.8
7.33 J
2.35 UJ
2.98 J
1.58 J
1.38 U
1.83 U
0.447 U
1.75 U
0.676 U
0.888 U
0812
081285
05/16/2005
0.164 U
0.0381 U
0.126 U
45.8
8.28 J
2.24 U
3.81 J
1.34 J
1.51 U
1.17 U
0.208 U
1.09 U
0.0381 U
0.198 U
0813
0813SS
05/18/2005
0.174 U
0.0404 U
0.134 U
42.9
11.1
2.38 UJ
4.95 J
1.61 J
3.43 U
1.6U
0.243 J
1.44J
0.414 U
1.01 U
0817
081785
05/12/2005
0.178 U
0.0413 U
0.138 U
39.6
6.24 U
2.43 U
2.5 J
0.943 J
1.01 U
0.467 J
0.566 U
0.544 J
0.235 U
0.276 U
0819
081985
06/21/2005
0.159 U
0.103 U
0.14 U
26.5
6.73 J
2.27 J
2.71 J
1.26 J
0.924 J
0.88 J
0.21 U
0.698 U
0.103 U
0.232 U
0914
091485
05/14/2005
0.182 U
0.0421 U
0.139 U
52
11.3
2.48 UJ
4.68 J
1.47 UJ
0.949 U
1.36 UJ
0.188 J
1.11 U
0.0421 U
0.253 UJ
0914
0914S5D
05/14/2005
0.192 U
0.0445 U
0.147 U
8.64 J
2.62 U
3.01 J
1.43 J
0.828 U
1.47 J
0.194 UJ
1.45 U
0.0445 U
0.267 J
1004
1004S5
05/17/2005
0.203 U
0.047 U
0.197 U
54.4
6.94 J
2,77 UJ
2.64 U
1.23 J
1.79 U
0.717 U
0.196 U
1.15 U
0.517 U
0.754 U
C-20
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Metalswith 1996 detections
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Baon
Cadmium
Caldum
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Maonesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Expk>sives with 1996
detections
Nitroglycerin
Semivolatile Orpanic
Compounds with 1996
detections
Phenol
Metals without 1996 detections
Mercury
Selenium
Sihrar
Tin
1996
EMBS
Maximum
16200
1.4
12
257
1
35.6
1.3
130000
16.8
6.7
45
16600
85.3
18800
963
1.5
17.9
6700
788
0.38
26.1
96.8
8200
240
1996
EMBS
99% UTL
18646
NL
12.5
294
1.1
61.3
1.7
169508
18.4
8.2
66.9
18821
99
19937
1027
5
33.1
7795
869
3
29.5
106
NL
2000
Units
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mgrt<g
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kp
mg/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
mg/Kg
mp/Kp
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
Location, Sample Number, and Data
1007
100785
05/13/2005
8830
0.22 UJ
7.3
197
0.49
13.5
0.49
82100
9.3
2.8
17.3
8310
16.9
8950
283
0.45 J
6.9
4060
304
0.62 U
14.3
32.6
650 U
150 U
0.03 U
0.28 U
0.28 U
2.8 U
1009
1009S5
05/16/2005
16000
0.24 UJ
6.5
221
0.91
18.6
1
92300
16.7
4.7
30
13100
31.2
13700
539
0.71 U
11.8
5840
424
0.57 U
23.3
62.4
610 U
140 U
0.028 U
0.42 U
0.26 U
2.6 U
1011
1011S5
05/16«)05
14800
0.36 UJ
9
185
0.86
18.7
1.4
69600
rmvmm
5.2
23
13800
34.5
13300
663
1.2 U
16.2
5060
375
0.55 U
26.6
76.6
650 U
150 U
0.036 U
0.27 U
0.27 U
2.7 U
1013
101385
05/19/2005
15900
0.21 UJ
7.8
185
0.86
15.2
1
68400
16.6
5.7
25.5
13900
33.4
10000
572
0.62 U
12
5180
321
0.76 U
26.4
55.5
740 U
140 U
0.032 U
0.27 U
0.27 U
2.7 U
1015
101585
05/14/2005
13400
0.22 UJ
6.5
184
0.77
13.8
0.98
119000
13.6
4.2
21.4
11400
22.6
9390
499
0.55 J
9.7
4720
372
0.81 U
21.5
45.5
770 U
140 U
0.028 U
0.27 U
0.27 U
2.7 U
1018
1018S5
05/13/2005
17200
0.46 J
8.9
254
0.98
21
1
60100
17.5
5.8
29.1
15400
37
12900
799
0.93 J
13.6
6020
510
0.79 U
28.9
67.5
770 U
170 U
0.034 J
0.33 U
0.33 U
3.3 U
1022
102285
05/16/2005
15700
0.21 UJ
10.3
197
0.87
14.1
1.3
85100
16.9
4.9
33.6
14500
42
8610
437
0.93 U
14.2
4250
307
0.76 U
25.1
74.4
740 U
140 U
0.025 U
0.49 U
0.27 U
2.7 U
1108
110885
05/16/2005
16900
0.29 UJ
6.5
233
0.94
21.4
1.1
72900
16.9
4.9
31.2
14500
36.5
13400
645
0.75 U
12.4
6950
419
0.78 U
24.2
69.9
740 U
1S0U
0.038 U
0.45 U
0.28 U
2.8 U
C-21
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Exptoslves without 1996
detections
2.4,6-Trinltrotoiuene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dlnltrotoluene
HMX
RDX
Tetryl
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) without 1996
detections
PCB-1016 (Arocia 1016)
PCB-1221 (Ajocia 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arocia 1232)
PCB-1242 (Arocia 1242)
PCB-1248 (Arocia 1248)
PCB-1254 (Arocia 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroda 1260)
Semivolatile Organic
Compounds without 1996
detedlons
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Olchlaobenzene
1,3-Dichiaobenzene
1,4-Dichlaobenzene
2.4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2.4-Dichiaophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotduene
2,6-Dinitrotduene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chl orophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
' '
1007
100785
05/13/2005
38 U
38 U
38 U
38 U
38 U
38 U
4.6 U
4.6 U
4.6 U
4.6 U
4.6 U
4.6 U
4.6 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
760 UJ
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
91 U
150 U
1009
1009SS
05/16/2005
36 U
36 U
36 U
36 U
36 J
36 U
4.3 U
4.3 U
4.3 U
4.3 U
4.3 U
4.3 U
4.3 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
680 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
81 U
140 U
Location, Sample Number, and Data
1011
1011S5
05/16«)05
38U
3eu
3SU
230 J
38 U
38U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
730 UJ
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
88U
150 U
1013
101385
05/19/2005
43 U
43 U
43 U
43 U
64 J
43 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
4.4 U
140 UJ
140 U J
140 U J
140 U J
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
700 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 UJ
84 U
140 U
1015
101585
05/14/2005
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
4.5 U
4,5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
720 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
87 U
140 U
1018
101885
05/13/2005
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
5.4 U
5.4 U
5.4 U
5.4 U
5.4 U
5.4 U
5.4 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
870 UJ
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
170 U
" —^-^ T""
1022
102285
05/16/2005
43 U
43 U
43 U
43 U
43 U
43 U
4.3 U
4.3 U
4.3 U
4.3 U
4.3 U
4.3 U
4.3 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
700 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
84 U
140 U
1 1 1
1106
1108S5
05/16/2005
43 U
43 U
43 U
43 U
43 U
43 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
4.5 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
730 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
88 U
150 U
C-22
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
2-NitroenBine
2-Nltrophenol
3,3'-Oichlaobenzidine
3-Nltroaniilne
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
4-Bromophenyl phen^ ether
4-Chioro-3-methylph en d
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyi phenyl ether
4-Methyiphend (pCresoi)
4-Nltroaninne
4-Nitrophenol
Accnaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluaanthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)1luoranthene
Benzdc add
Benzyl alcohd
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Cart)azde
Chrysene
Di-r>-butylphthalate
Dl-n-octylphthalate
Dlbenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Dimethylphthaiate
Fluaanthene
Fluaene
Hexachlorobenzene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
up/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
up/Kg
1007
100785
05/13/2005
150 U
150 U
300 U
300 UJ
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 UJ
300 U
91 U
91 U
91 U
91 U
91 U
91 U
91 UJ
91 U
300 U
150 U
1S0U
150 U
91 U
150 U
150 U
91 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
91 U
91 U
150 U
1009
100985
05/16/2005
140 U J
140 U
270 UJ
270 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 UJ
270 U
81 U
81 U
81 U
81 U
81 U
81 U
81 UJ
81 U
270 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
81 U
140 U
140 U
81 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
81 U
81 U
140 U
Location, Sample Number, and Oata
1011
1011S5
05/16/2005
1S0UJ
150 U
290 UJ
290 UJ
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U J
290U
88 U
88 U
88 U
88 U
88 U
88 U
88U
88 U
290 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
88 U
150 U
150 U
88 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
88 U
88U
150 U
1013
101385
05/19/2005
140 UJ
140 UJ
280 U
280 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U J
280 UJ
84 U
84 U
84 U
84 U
84 U
84 U
84 UJ
84 U
280 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
84 U
140 U
140 U
84 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
84 U
84 U
140 U
1015
101SSS
05/14/2005
140 U
140 U
290 U
290 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 UJ
290 U
87 U
87 U
87 U
87 U
87 U
87 U
87 UJ
87 U
290 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
87 U
140 U
140 U
87 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
87 U
87 U
140 U
1018
101885
05/13/2005
170 U
170 U
350 U
350 UJ
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170UJ
350 U
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 UJ
100 u
350 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
170 U
170 U
100U
170 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
100 U
170 U
1022
102285
05/16/2005
140 UJ
140 U
280 U
280 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 UJ
280 U
84 U
84 U
84 U
84 U
84 U
84 U
84 U
84 U
280 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
84 U
140 U
140 U
84 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
84 U
84 U
140 U
1108
1108S5
05/16/2005
150 UJ
150U
290 UJ
290 UJ
150U
150U
150 U
150 U '-
150 U
150U
150 UJ
290 U
88 U
88 U
88 U
88 U
88 U
88 U
88 UJ
88 U
290 U •^.
150U
150U
150 U
88 U
150 U
150 U
88 U
150U
150 U
150 U
88 U
88 U
150U
C-23
Tabte C-1. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Hexachiorobutadene
Hexach iorocydopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indenod .2.3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
N-Nltroso-di-rv propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamlne
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachiorophend
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
bis(2-Chlaoethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chlaoethyl)ether (2-
Chloroethv* ether)
bls(2-Chladsopropyl)ether
bis(2-Elhylhexyl)phthalate
Vdatile Organic Compounds
without 1996 detections
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-TebBchlaoethane
1.1,2-Trichioroethane
1.1-Dlchiaoethane
1.1-Dichlaoethene
1,2-Dlchlaoethane
1.2-Dichlaopropane
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl
ketone)
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (Methyl
isobutyl ketone)
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethan e
Bromoform
Bromomethane
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
up/Kg
ug/Ko
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
up/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Ko
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
1007
1007S5
05/13/2005
150 U
300 UJ
150 U
91 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
91 U
150 U
300 U
91 U
91 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
0.94 U
2.3 U
1.2 U .
1.2 U
1.2 U
2,3 U
1.2 U
25
2.9 U
2.9 U
2.9 U
4.7 J
1.2U
2.3 U
1.2 U
1009
1009S5
05^6/2005
140 U
270 UJ
140U
81 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
81 U
140 U
270 U
81 U
81 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
Location, Sample Number, and Data
1011
101185
05/16/2005
150 U
290 UJ
150 U
88 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
88U
150 U
290U
8BU
esu
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
1013
1013S5
05/19/2005
140UJ
280 UJ
140 U J
84 U
140 U
140 U J
140 U
84 UJ
140 U J
280 U
84 U
84 U
140 U
140 U J
140 U J
140 U
1015
101585
05/14/2005
140 U
290 UJ
140 U
87 U
140 U
140 U
140U
87 U
140U
290 U
87 U
87 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
1018
101885
05/13/2005
170 U
350 UJ
170 U
100 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
170 U
350 U
100 U
100 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
1022
102285
05/16/2005
140 U
280 UJ
140 U
84 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
84U
140 U
280 U
84 U
84 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
1108
110885
05/16/2005
150 U
290 UJ
150 U
88 U
150U
150 U
150 U
88 U
150 U
290 U
88 U
88 U
150U
150 U
150 U
150 U
C-24
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Caibon Disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlaoethane
Chlorofonn
Chloromethane
Dlbromochtoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Tduene
Total 1,2-Dichioroethene
Trichtoroethene (TCE)
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes, Tdal
ds-1,2-Dlchioroethene
ds-1,3-Dichioropropene
trans-1.2-DI chlaoeth ene
trans-1,3-Dlchiaopropene
Dioxin/Furans without 1996
detections
1,2,3.4.6.7.8-HpCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2.3,6.7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7.6-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9.HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,8,7,8-HxCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Ko
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
np/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
1007
100785
05/13/2005
1.2 U
0.82 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
3.5 U
IU
IU
2.9 J
2.3 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
IU
1.2 U
1.2 U
2.3 U
1.2 U
1.7 J
0.811 J
0.304 U
0.452 U
0.255 U
0.235 U
0.208 J
0.31 U
0.271 U
0.178 U
0.179 U
0.183 U
1009
100985
05/16/2005
20.4
5.26
0.483 J
0.515 J
0.465 J
0.937 J
0.583 J
1.02 J
0.241 U
0.519 J
0.306 J
0.511 J
Location, Sample Number, and Data
1011
101185
05/16/2005
10.9
2.8 J
0.298 U
0.443 U
0.435 J
0.526 J
0.399 J
0.322 J
0.266 U
0.174 U
0.16 J
0.18 U
1013
1013S5
05/19/2005
1.9 J
1.16J
0.274 U
0.406 U
0.229 U
0.153 J
0.195 J
0.279 U
0.244 U
0.21 U
0.155 U
0.165 U
1015
1015S5
05/14/2005
1.3J
0.764 J
0.274 U
0.407 U
0.23 U
0.171 J
0.153 U
0.279 U
0.245 U
0.16 U
0.123 U
0.165 U
1018
101885
05/13/2005
1.16 J
0.909 J
0.336 U
0.5 U
0.282 U
0.0863 U
0.187 U
0.343 U
0.3 U
0.197 U
0.165 J
0.203 U
1022
1022S5
05/16/2005
1.72 J
1.69 J
0.27 UJ
0.562 UJ
0.253 J
0.0692 U
0.299 U
0.275 U
0.241 U
0.158 U
0.135 J
0.163 U
1108
1108S5
05/16/2005
4.15 J
1.74 J
0.284 U
0.422 U
0.288 J
0.248 J
0.313 U
0.29 U
0.254 U
0.166 U
0.161 U
0.203 U
C-25
Tabte C-1. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
2.3,4,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Calculated Dioxin/Furan Sum
OCDD
OCDF
Total HpCDD
Total HpCDF
Tdal HxCDD
Total HxCDF
Total PeCDD
Total PeCDF
Tdal TCDD
Total TCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
np/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
nglKg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ngrt<g
Location, Sample Number, and Oata
1007
100785
05/13/2005
0.184 U
0.0426 U
0.174 U
46.1
10.2 J
2.51 U
3.79 J
1.31 J
1.85 U
1.16 U
0.283 J
0.953 U
0.921 U
0.546 U
1009
100985
05/16/2005
0.209 J
0.0379 U
0.185 U
276
190
9.05 J
40.2
10.6
9.37 U
8.27
2.5 J
4.31 J
0.177 J
1.74 U
1011
1011S5
05/16/2005
0.224 U
0.0416 U
0.215 J
151
89.6
5.24 J
27.1
5.56
5.25 U
4.09 J
1.23 U
2.46 U
0.706 U
1013
101385
05/19/2005
0.165 U
0.0383 U
0.127 U
43.7
10.1 J
2.26 U
4.22 J
1.66 J
1.27 U
1.05 J
0.21 U
1.08 U
0.0383 U
0.956 J 0.212 J
1015
101585
05/14/2005
0.166 U
0.0384 U
0.174 J
38.3
6.21 J
2.26 U
2.69 J
1.08 J
1.15 U
0.731 U
0.16 U
0.606 J
0.0384 U
0.327 U
1018
101885
05/13/2005
0.203 U
0.0472 U
0.193 J
50.1
6.39 J
2.78 UJ
2.61 J
1.3 J
1.21 U
0.651 U
0.198 U
1.37 U
0.428 U
0.796 J
1022
102285
05/16/2005
0.163 U
0.0378 U
0.125 U
36
10.7
2.62 J
3.96 J
2.23 J
2.75 U
1.84 U
0.225 J
1.5 U
0.0378 U
0.243 J
1108
110885
05/16/2005
0.172 U
0.0399 U
0.186 J
64.6
29.6
4.33 J
9.15
2.85 J
3.08 U
2.77 U
0.69 J
2.12 U
0.409 U
1.05 U
C-26
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Metais with 1996 detections
Aluminum
Alimony
A-senic
Barium
Beryliium
Boron
Cadmium
Caldum
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
iron
Lead
Magneshjm
Manganese
Mdybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodum
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Explosives with 1996
detections
Nitroglycerin
Sentivoiatile Organic
Compounds with 1996
detections
Phenol
Metais with out 1996
detections
Mercury
Selenium
SIver
Tin
1996
EMBS
Maximum
16200
1.4
12
257
1
35.6
1.3
130000
16.8
6.7
45
16600
85.3
18800
963
1.5
17.9
6700
788
0,38
26.1
96,8
8200
240
1996
EMBS
99% UTL
18646
NL
12.5
294
1,1
61.3
1.7
169508
18.4
6,2
66.9
18821
99
19937
1027
5
33.1
7795
869
3
29.5
108
NL
2000
Units
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kfl
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg«p
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mo/Kfl
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mp/Kp
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mgrt<g
mg/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mp/Kp
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1202
120285
05/15/2005
18100
0.25 UJ
7.2
198
1
31.8
0.64
67800
15.2
4.2
22.7
14000
22.7
16200
404
0.73 J
10.7
7180
502
0.56 U
24.4
55.5
710 U
160 U
0.037 U
0.31 U
0.31 U
3.1 U
1209
120985
05/13/2005
15800
0.96 J
9.6
217
0.89
17.6
0.85
109000
1209
120985D
05/13/2005
15300
O.SJ
9.4
209
0.88
17.2
0.84
89600
«^r^^pfs 5.2
20.6
14400
25.7
11900
598
0.59 J
13.8
6050
651
0.81 U
27.9
70.1
710 U
170 U
0.03 J
0.31 U
0.31 U
3.1 U
4.5
22.5
14100
27.4
12300
591
0.62 J
13
5800
557
0.99 U
26.6
68.9
740 U
170 U
0.039 J
0.33 U
0.33 U
3.3 U
1214
121485
05/19/2005
17600
0.38 UJ
7,3
213
1
18,2
1.1
20200
17.2
5,5
31,8
15700
48,9
9890
700
0,93 U
12,2
5770
333
0,44 U
25,5
75,7
810 U
160 U
0,043 U
0.31 U
0.31 U
3.1 U
1218
121885
05/11/2005
15800
0.38 J
10.6
183
0.93
15.9
1
51100
16
5
28.2
14300
42
11700
538
0.61 J
12,6
5310
369
0.66 U
25.6
73.2
650 U
160 U
0.031 J
0.3 U
0.3 U
3U
1222
122285
05/14/2005
15300
0.22 UJ
7.4
166
0.86
17.3
1.4
77200
16.7
4.5
35.1
12900
60.7
8340
436
1.4
13.3
4860
347
0.62 U
28.2
76.5
680 U
150 U
0.049 J
0.28 U
0.28 U
2.8 U
1223
122385
05/14/2005
12200
0.23 UJ
9
136
0.69
15.1
1
126000
^i:^m
3.5
24.6
11000
27.9
8870
317
1 J
13.9
3930
276
0.5 U
23.9
56.2
810 U
150 U
0.027 J
0.28 U
0.28 U
2.8 U
1223
1223S5D
05/14/2005
14900
0.28 UJ
10.7
164
0.85
19
1.2
132000
^^iojJ^M
4.3
30
13300
33.5
10800
385
1.3 J
15.4
4990
337
0.61 U
27.6
67.6
630 U
180 U
0.059 J
0.34 U
0.34 U
3.4 U
C-27
Tabte C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Explosives without 1996
detedlons
2,4,6-Trinllrotduene
2,4-DinltTotduene
2,6-Dinitrdduene
HMX
RDX
Tetryl
Polychiainated Biphenyls
(PCBs) without 1996
detedlons
PCB-1016 (Aroda 1018)
PCB-1221 (Aroda 1221)
PCB-1232 (Aroda 1232)
PCB-1242 (Aroda 1242)
PCB-1248 (Aroda 1248)
PCB-1254 (Aroda 1254)
PCB-1260 (Afoda 1260)
Semivoiatile Organic
Compounds without 1996
detections
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichiaobenzene
1,3-Dichiaobenzene
1,4-Dlchlaobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlariophenol
2,4-Dichlaophend
2.4-Dlmethylphend
2,4-Dinitrophend
2,4-Dinltrdduene
2,6-Dinitrdduene
2-Chiaonaphth aien e
2-Chlaophend
2-Methylnaphthaiene
2-Methytphend (o-Cresd)
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UU Units
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugflCg
uglKg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1202
120285
05/15/2005
56 J
42 U
42 U
42 U
43 J
42 U
SU
SU
SU
SU
5U
SU
5U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
800 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
97 U
180 U
1209
120985
05/13/2005
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
5.2 U
5.2 U
5.2 U
5.2 U
5.2 U
5.2 U
5.2 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
840 UJ
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
170 U
1209
1209S5D
05/13Q005
43 U
43 U
43 U
43 U
43 U
43 U
5.4 U
5.4 U
5.4 U
5.4 U
5.4 U
5.4 U
5.4 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
870 UJ
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
170 U
1214
121485
05/19/2005
48 U
48 U
48 U.
48 U
58 J
48 U
5.1 U
5.1 U
5.1 U
5.1 U
5.1 U
5.1 U
5.1 U
160 U J
160 UJ.
160 UJ
160 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
810 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160UJ
98 U
160 U
1218
121885
05/11/2005
38 U
38 U
38 U
38 U
38 U
38 U
SU
SU
5U
SU
5U
SU
SU
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
780 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
94 U
160 U
1222
122285
05/14/2005
40 U
40 U
40 U
65 J
68 J
40 U
4.7 U
4.7 U
4.7 U
4.7 U
4.7 U
4.7 U
4.7 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
750 UJ
150 U
150 U
150 U
150U
90 U
150 U
1223
122385
05/14/2005
48 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
48 U
4.6 U
4,6 U
4,6 U
4.6 U
4.6 U
4.6 U
4.6 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
730 UJ
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
88 U
150 U
1223
1223SSD
05/14/2005
37 U
37 U
37 U
37 U
37 U
37 U
5.6 U
5.6 U
5.6 U
5.6 U
5.6 U
5.6 U
5.6 U
180 U
180 U
180 U
180 U
180 U
180 U
180 U
180 U
890 UJ
180 U
180 U
180 U
180 U
110U
180 U
C-28
Tabte C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
2-Nitroanliine
2-Nltrophend
3,3'-Dichiorobenzidine
3-Nltroanillne
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphend
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chioro-3-methvlphend
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Methylphend (p-Cresd)
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophend
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
^thracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fiuaanthene
Benzo(g,h,i)per^ene
Benzo(k)fiuaanthene
Benzoic add
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Caibazde
Chiysene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
DibenzoAiran
DiethylphthalBte
Dimethylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachiaobenzene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
up/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
1202
120285
05/15/2005
160 U J
160 U
320 U
320 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U J
320 U
97 U
97 U
97 U
97 U
97 U
97 U
97 U
97 U
320 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
97 U
160 U
160 U
97 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
97 U
97 U
160 U
1209
120985
05/13/2005
170 U
170 U
340 U
340 UJ
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 UJ
340 U
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 UJ
100 u
340 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
' 170 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
100 U
170 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1209
1209S5D
05/13/2005
170 U
170 U
350 U
350 UJ
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 UJ
350 U
100 U
100U
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 UJ
100 u
350 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
100U
100 U
170 U
1214
121485
05/19/2005
160 UJ
160 U J
320 UJ
320 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U J
320 UJ
98 U
98 U
98 U
98 U
98 U
98 U
98 UJ
98 U
320 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
98 U
160 U
160 U
98 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
98 U
98 U
160 U
1218
1218S5
05/11/2005
160 U
160 U
310 U
310 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U J
160 U
160 U
160 UJ
310 U
94U
94 U
94 U
94 U
94 U
94 U
94 U
94 U
310 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
94 U
160 U
160 U
94 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
94 U
94 U
160 U
1222
122285
05/14/2005
150 U
150 U
300 U
300 UJ
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 UJ
300 U
90 U
90 U
90 U
90 U
90 U
OOU
90 UJ
90 U
300 U
150 U
150 U
1S0U
90 U
150 U
150U
90 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
90 U
90 U
150 U
1223
122385
05/14/2005
150 UJ
150 U
290 U
290 UJ
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U J
290 U
86 U
86 U
88 U
88U
88 U
88U
86U
88U
290 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
88 U
150 U
150 U
88U
150 U
150 U
150 U
88 U
88 U
150 U
1223
122385 D
05/14/2005
180UJ
180 U
360 U
360 UJ
180 U
180 U
180 U
180 U^
180 U
180 U
180 U J
360 U
110U
110 U
110U
110U
110 U
110U
110 U
110U
360 U.
180 U
180 U
180 U
110U
180 U
180 U
110 U
180 U
180 U
180 U
110U
110U
180 U
C-29
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Hexachlaobutadiene
Hexachlaocydopentadiene
Hexach laoeth ane
indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophaone
N-Nltroso-di-n-propyiamlne
N-Nitrosodiphenylamlne
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Penta chlaophenol
Phenanthrene
Pjrene
bls(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether (2-
Chlaoethylether)
bis(2-Chiordsopropyl)ether
bls(2-Ethvlhexyl)phthalate
Volatile Organic Compounds
without 1996 detedlons
1,1,1-Trichiaoethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichlaoethane
1,1-Dichla<je thane
1,1-Dichiaoethene
1,2-Dichlaoethane
1,2-Dichlaopropane
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl
ketone)
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
(Methyf isobutyl ketone)
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodlchlaomethane
Bromofam
Bromomethane
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
ug«g
ug/Ko
ug/Kg
ug«p
ug/Kg
uaKg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ugfKB
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Ko
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
isa/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Ka
up/Kg
1202
1202S5
05/15/2005
160 U
320 UJ
160 U
97 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
97 U
160 U
320 U
97 U
97 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
1209
1209SS
05/13/2005
170 U
340 UJ
170 U
100 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
170 U
340 U
100 U
100 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
0.93 U
2.3 U
1.2 U
1.2U
1.2 U
2.3 U
1.2 U
2.9 U
2.9 U
2.9 U
2.9 U
1.6 J
1.2U
2.3 U
1.2 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1209
1209S5D
05/13/2005
170 U
350 UJ
170 U
100U
170 U
170 U
170 U
100 U
170 U
350 U
100 U
100 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
170 U
0.99 U
2.5 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
2.5 U
1.2 U
10J
3,1 U
3.1 U
3.1 U
2,3 J
1.2 U
2,5 U
1.2 U
1214
1214S5
05/19/2005
160 UJ
320 UJ
160 U J
98 U
160 U
160 UJ
160 U
98 UJ
160 U J
320 U
98 U
98 U
160 U
160UJ
160 U J
160 U
0.81 U
2U
IU
1 U
1 U
2U
IU
12 J
2.5 U
2.5 U
2.5 U
4.4 J
IU
2U
IU
1218
1218S5
05/11/2005
160 U
310 UJ
160 UJ
94 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
94 U
160 U
310 U
94 U
94 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
0.74 U
1.8 U
0.93 U
0.93 U
0.93 U
1.8 U
0.93 U
18
2.3 U
2.3 U
2.3 U
4.8 J
0.93 U
1.8 U
0.93 U
1222
1222S5
05/14/2005
150 U
300 UJ
150 U
90 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
OOU
150 U
300 U
OOU
OOU
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
1223
1223S5
05/14/2005
150 U
290 UJ
150 U
88U
150 U
150 U
150 U
88 U
150 U
290 U
88 U
88 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
1223
1223S5D
05/14/2003
180 U
360 UJ
180 U
110U
180 U
180 U
180 U
110U
180 U
360 U
110U
110U
180 U
180 U
180 U
180 U
C-30
Tabte C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlaobenzene
Chlaoethane
Chiaofam
Chlaomethane
Dibromochiaom ethane
Bhylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
ayrene
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Tohiene
Tdal1.2-Dichiaoethene
Trichlaoethene (TCE)
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes, Total
ds-1,2-Dlchioroeth ene
ds-1,3-Dichioropropene
trans-1,2-Dtchlaoethene
iTBns-l ,3-Dichlaopropene
Dioxin/Furans without 1996
detections
1,2,3,4,6,7.8-HpCDD
1,2,3,4,6.7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4.7,8-HxCDD
1,2.3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1.2,3.6.7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3.7.8,9-HxCDD
1,2.3,7.8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,7.8-PeCDD
1,2.3,7,&-PeCDF
2,3,4.6.7,8-HxCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UU Units
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
uo/Ko
ug/Kg
ugfl<o
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugrt<g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
up/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kfl
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1202
120285
05/15/2005
1.46 J
1.51 J
0.303 U
0.45 U
0.291 J
0.0777 U
0.277 J
0.309 U
0.27 U
0.177 U
0.192 J
0,221 J
1209
1209S5
05/13/2005
1,2 U
0.81 U
1,2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1,2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
3.5 U
IU
IU
1.4 J
2.3 U
1.2 U
1.2U
1 U
1.2 U
1.2U
2.3 U
1.2 U
1650
634 J
55 J
26.4
256 J
105
55
56.1
29.2 J
19.1
14.4
83
1209
1209S5D
05/13/2005
1.2 U
0.86 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
3.7 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1.7J
2.5 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
1.1 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
2.5 U
1.2 U
554
206 J
16.9 J
11.5
78.6 J
38.7
19.8
22.6
7.91 J
8.51
4.92 J
28.8
1214
1214S5
05/19/2005
6.2 J
0.71 U
1 U
IU
IU
1 U
IU
IU
3U
0.92 U
0.92 U
2.7 J
2U
1 U
IU
0.92 U
IU
IU
2U
1 U
2.45 J
2.04 J
0.307 U
0.456 U
0.258 U
0.222 J
0.252 U
0.313 U
0.274 U
0.18 U
0.153 U
0.242 J
1218
121885
05/11/2005
1 J
0.65 U
0.93 U
0.93 U
0.93 U
0.93 U
0.93 U
0.93 U
2.8 U
0.83 U
0.83 U
4.2 J
1.8 U
0.93 U
0.93 U
1.7 J
0.93 U
0.93 U
1.8 U
0.93 U
1.01 U
0.933 J
0.313 U
0.464 U
0.262 U
0.0802 U
0.175 J
0.319 U
0.279 U
0.183 U
0.14 U
0.189 U
1222
1222S5
05/14/2005
2.16J
2.48 J-
0.307 U
0.456 U
0.295 J
0.263 J
0.4 J
0.313 U
0.274 U
0.222 J
0.201 U
0.26 J
1223
122385
05/14/2005
1.61 J
1.24 J
0.291 U
0.432 U
0.244 U
0.162 J
0.216 J
0.296 U
0.259 U
0.17 UJ
0.141 J
0.175 U
1223
1223S5D
05/14/2005
1.94 J
1.17J
0.291 U
0.747 U
0.244 U
0.256 J
0.238 J
0.296 U
0.26 U
0.178 J
0.149 UJ
0.175 U
C-31
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2.3,7.8-TCDF
Calculated Dioocin/Furan Sum
OCDD
OCDF
Total HpCDD
Total HpCDF
Total HxCDD
Total HxCDF
Total PeCDD
Total PeCDF
Total TCDD
Total TCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kfl
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ngfl<a
Location, Sample Number, and Date 1
1202
120285
05/15/2005
0.183 U
0.0425 U
0.198 U
35.7
8.49 J
3.89 J
3.19 J
2.26 J
0.987 U
2.12 J
0.674 U
1.98 J
0.949 U
1.4 U
1209
120985
05/13«005
41.8 J
2.17
2.37
24182
15500 J
328 J
2830
2010 UJ
545
2220
102 UJ
552
16 U
78.6 U
1209
1209SSO
05/13C005
13.8 J
1.26
1.11J
4380 J
108 J
1020
615 J
259
744
56.8 J
217
10.1 U
40.5 U
1214
121485
05/19/2005
0.186 U
0.0431 U
0.194 J
45.2
13.1
4.27 J
5.22 J
2.9 J
2.7 U
2.56 U
0.311 J
1.8 U
0.881 U
0.91 U
1218
121885
05/11/2005
0.189 U
0.0438 U
0.145 U
46.8
7.1 U
2.58 U
2.41 J
1.4 J
0.296 U
0.915 J
0.905 U
0.954 U
0.256 J
0.272 U
1222
1222S5
05/14/2005
0.212 J
0.043 U
0.27 J
50.5
10.8 J
6.21 J
5.2 J
3.35 J
2.91 U
3.02 U
0.503 U
2.19 U
0.875 J
1.19
1223
122385
05/14/2005
0.176 U
0.0407 U
0.135 U
30.2
8.07 J
2.5 J
3.44 J
1.61 J
0.993 U
1.4J
0.24 J
106 U
0.0407 U
0.27 U
1223
1223S5D
05/14/2005
0.176 U
0.0408 U
0.162 U
10.3 J
2.54 J
4.18 J
1.53 J
2.79 U
1.18J
0.411 J
1.29 U
0.0408 U
0.79 U
C-32
Table C-1. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Metals with 1996 detections
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Baon
Cadmium
Caldum
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mdyt>denum
Nickel
Pdasslum
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Explosives with 1996
detedlons
Nitroqiycerfn
Semlvdatiie Organic
Compounds with 1996
detedlons
Phend
Metals without 1996
detedlons
Mercuiy
Selenium
Silver
Tin
1996
EMBS
Maximum
16200
1.4
12
257
1
35.6
1.3
130000
16.8
6.7
45
16600
65.3
18800
963
1.5
17.9
6700
788
0.38
26.1
96.8
8200
240
1996
EMBS
99% UTL
18646
NL
12.5
294
1.1
61.3
1.7
169508
18.4
8.2
66.9
18821
99
19937
1027
5
33.1
7795
869
3 .
29.5
108
NL
2000
Units
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Ko
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mgrt<g
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
tng/Ka
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Ko
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1305
130585
05/17/2005
9190
0.45 UJ
5.6
250
0.51
13.1
1.1
139000
11.6
2.5
29.6
7380
15
11100
399
0.39 U
6.1
3820
354
0.87 U
12.8
43.8
630 U
160 U
0.029 U
0.31 U
0.31 U
3.1 U
1412
141285
05/10/2005
18000
0.56 J
vS4i4)^
226
1
16.3
1
26300
17.4
5.7
26.8
16500
44.4
10100
765
0.89 J
13.2
5460
512
0.71 U
28
77.9
740 U
160 U
0.034 J
0.29 U
0.29 U
2.9 U
1416
141685
05/11/2005
6020
0.46 J
10.2
122
0.5
7.7
^mm 50300
11.1
2.9
37.1
7820
masm
7030
423
0.45 J
6.7
2540
218
0.59 U
16.4
'^RisMaKsl
680 U
160 U
0.039 J
0.3 U
0.53 J
3U
1508
1508S5
05/12/2005
14800
0.36 J
msimm
202
0.86
16.2
0.8
65200
14.8
4.6
23.8
13300
32.1
10700
508
0.74 J
11
5130
440
0.31 U
23.6
58.2
770 U
200 U
0.063 J
0.31 U
0.31 U
3.1 U
1706
1706S5
05/19/2005
12200
0.35 U
^^mmm:.
166
0.73
13.2
0.52
83900
11.7
4.9
14.3
11600
16.2
8850
463
0.67 U
10.4
4820
290
0.25 U
20.2
39.9
850 U
140 U
0.062 U
0.25 U
0.25 U
2.5 U
1710
1710S5
05/12/2005
15000
0.86 J
msmsrm
197
0.87
14.5
0.65
79400
15.3
4.8
20
14500
25.4
13600
442
1.2 J
12.2
5080
340
2.1
25.3
53.3
770 U
160 U
0.085 J
0.29 U
0.29 U
2.9 U
1808
1808S5
05/12/2005
8480
0.23 UJ
12
125
0.59
9
0.68
mmmm
8.4
3
15.8
8960
21.7
8450
371
0.88 J
8.1
3000
287
0.7 U
14.9
41.7
710 U
150 U
0.038 J
0.29 U
0.29 U
2.9 U
1808
1808S5D
05/12/2005
7930
0.24 UJ
10,5
109
0,52
8.6
0.6
iSSiMobSS
8.2
2.4
14.2
7620
19.7
17900
329
0.7 J
6.7
2900
278
0.59 U
14.2
35.7
680 U
160 U
0.049 J
0.3 U
0.3 U
3U
C-33
Table C-1, 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Exptoslves without 1996
detedlons
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
2,4-Dinitrotduene
2.6-Dinitrotduene
HMX
RDX
Tetiyl
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) without 1996
detections
PCB-1016 (Arocia 1016)
PCB-1221 (Aroda 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arocia 1232)
PCB-1242 (Aroda 1242)
PCB-1248 (Arocia 1248)
PCB-1254 (Aroda 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroda 1260)
Semlvdatiie Organic
Compounds without 1996
detedlons
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlaobenzene
1,3-Dk:hlaobenzene
1,4-Dtohiaobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophend
2,4,8-Trichlorophend
2,4-Dichiaophenol
2,4-Dlmethyiphenoi
2,4-Dinitrophend
2,4-Dlnitrotduene
2,6-Dinltrotduene
2-Chl<xon aphtha iene
2-Chlorophend
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphend (o^iresol)
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
1305
130585
05/17/2005
37 U
37 U
37 U
37 U
37 U
37 U
SUJ
SUJ
SUJ
SUJ
SUJ
SUJ
SUJ
160 U
160 UJ
160 UJ
160 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
800 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 UJ
96 U
160 U
1412
1412S5
05/10/2005
43 U
43 U
43 U
130 J
43 U
43 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
160 U
160U
160 U
160 U
160U
160U
160U
160U
800 U
160U
160U
160 U
160 U
96 U
160 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1416
141685
05/11/2005
40 U
40 U
40 U
120
40 U
40 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
800U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
97 U
160 U
1508
1508S5
05/12/2005
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
5.2 U
5.2 U
5.2 U
5.2 U
5.2 U
5.2 U
5.2 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
1000 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
120 U
200 U
1706
170685
05/19/2005
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
140 U J
140 U J
140 U J
140 U J
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
680 UJ
140 U
140 U
140U
140 UJ
81 U
140 U
1710
171085
05/12/2005
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
45 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160U
160 U
160U
160 U
790 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160U
95 U
160 U
1808
180885
05/12/2005
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
760 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
91 U
150 U
1808
1808S5D
05/12/2005
40 U
40 U
40 U
40 U
40 U
40 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
4.9 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
780 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
94 U
160 U
C-34
Tabte C-1. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
2-NitroanBine
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichiaobenzidlne
3-Nitroanlline
4,6-Dlnitro-2-methylphend
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphend
4-Chloroanillne
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Methyiphend (p-Cresol)
4-Nitroanliine
4-Nitrophenol
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluaanthene
Benzo(g,h,l)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzdc add
Benzyl alcohd
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Carbazde
Chiysene
Dl-n-butylphthaiate
Dl-n-octylphthalate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Fluaanthene
Fluaene
Hexachlorobenzene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Ko
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug«o
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
uo/Ko
Ufl/Kg
ug/Ka
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugMg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
1305
130585
05/17/2005
160 UJ
160 U
320 UJ
320 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 UJ
320 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
96 UJ
96 U
320 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
96 U
160 U
1412
1412S5
05/10/2005
160U
160 U
320 U
320 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 UJ
320 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
96 U
96U
96 U
96U
96 U
320 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
96U
160 U
160 U
96 U
160 U
160 U
160U
96U
96 U
160 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1416
1416S5
05/11/2005
160 U
160 U
320 U
320 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U J
320 U
97 U
97 U
97 U
97 U
97 U
97 U
97 U
97 U
320 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
97 U
160 U
160 U
97 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
97 U
97 U
160 U
1508
150885
05/12/2005
200 U
200 U
410 U
410 UJ
200 U
200 U
200 U
200 UJ
200 U
200 U
200 UJ
410 U
120 U
120 U
120 U
120 U
120 U
120 U
120 U
120 U
410 UJ"
200 U
200 U
200 U
120 U
200 U
200 U
120 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
120 U
120 U
200 U
1706
1706S5
05/19/2005
140 UJ
140 UJ
270 U
270 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
140 UJ
270 UJ
81 U
81 U
81 U
81 U
81 U
81 U
81 UJ
81 U
270 U
140 U
140 U
140 U
81 U
140 U
140 U
81 UJ
140 U
140 U
140 U
81 U
81 U
140 U
1710
171085
05/12/2005
160 U
160 U
320 U
320 UJ
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 UJ
320 U
95U
95U
95 U
95 U
95 U
95U
95 UJ
95 U
320 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
95U
160 U
160 U
95 U
160 U
160U
160 U
95 U
95 U
160 U
1808
180885
05/12/2005
150 U
150 U
300 U
300 UJ
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U J
150 U
150 U
150 UJ
300 U
91 U
91 U
91 U
91 U
91 U
91 U
91 U
91 U
300 UJ
150 U
150 U
150 U
91 U
150 U
150 U
91 U
150 U
1S0U
150 U
91 U
91 U
150 U
1808
180&S5D
05/12/2005
160 U
160 U
310 U
310 UJ
160 U
160 U
160U
160 UJ' ~
160U
160 U
160 UJ
310 U
94 U
94 U
94 U
94 U
94 U
94 U
94 U
94 U
310 UJ"
160 U
160U
160 U
94 U
160 U
160 U
94 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
94 U
94 U
160 U
C-35
Tabte C-1. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Hexachlorobutacfiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
N-Nltroso-di-n-prop^amine
I^Nitrosodiphenylannine
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlaophend
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
bis(2-Chlaoethoxy)methane
bls(2-Chlaoethyl)ether (2-
Chloroethylether)
bls(2-Chladsopropyl)ether
bis(2-Bhylhexyl)phthalate
Vdatile Organic Compounds
without 1996 detections
1,1,1-TrichloroethBne
1,1,2,2-Tetrachlaoethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dk:hlaoethane
l,1-Dk:hlaoethene
1,2-Dk:hlaoethane
1,2-Dichlaopropane
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl
ketone)
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (Methyl
Isobutyl ketone)
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromofonn
Bromomethane
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/)^
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugA<g
up/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
up/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
up/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
1305
130585
05/17/2005
160 U
UR
160 UJ
96 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
96 U
160 U
320 U
96 U
96 U
160 U
160U
160 U
160 U
0.92 U
2.3 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
2.3 U
1.1 U
23
2.9 U
2.9 U
2.9 U
6.2 J
1.1 U
2.3 U
1.1 U
1412
1412S5
05/10/2005
160 U
320 UJ
160 U
96U
160 U
160 U
160U
96U
160U
320 U
96U
96U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1416
1416SS
05/11/2005
160 U
320 UJ
160 U
97 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
97 U
160 U
320U
97 U
97 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
1.2 U
3U
1.5 U
1.5 U
1.5 U
3U
1.5 U
28
3.8 U
3.8 U
3.8 U
12 J
1.5 U
3U
1.5 U
1508
1508S5
05/12/2005
200 U
410 UJ
200 U
120 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
120 U
200 U
410 U
120 U
120 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
1706
1706S5
05/19/2005
140 UJ
270 UJ
140 UJ
81 U
140 U
140 UJ
140 U
81 UJ
140 UJ
270 U
81 U
81 U
140 U
140 U J
140 UJ
140 U
IU
2.6 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
2.6 U
1.3 U
12J
3.2 U
3.2 U
80
3.2 J
1.3 U
2.6 U
1.3 U
1710
1710S5
05/12^005
160 U
320 UJ
160 U
95 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
95 U
160U
320 U
95 U
95 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
IU
2.5 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
2.5 U
1.3 U
12J
3.2 U
3.2 U
3.2 U
6.5 J
1.3 U
2.5 U
1.3 U
M=a«=«^=^=SMS
1808
1808SS
05/12/2005
150 U
300 UJ
150 U
91 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
91 U
150 U
300 U
91 U
91 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
150 U
1806
1808S5O
05/12/2005
160 U
310 UJ
160 U
94 U
160 U
160 U
160 U
94 U
160 U
310 U
94 U
94 U
160U
160 U
160 U
160 U
C-36
Tabte C-1. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
Cart)on Disulfide
Caibon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Dibromoch loromethan e
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chlortde
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Tduene
Tdal 1,2-Dichioroethene
Trichtoroethene (TCE)
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes. Total
ds-1,2-Dichloroethene
ds-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,2-Dlchlaoethene
trans-l ,3-Dichioropropene
Dioxin/Furans without 1996
detections
1,2,3.4.6.7.8-HpCDD
1.2.3.4.6.7.8-HpCDF
1.2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4.7.8-HxCDD
1,2.3,4.7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2.3,6,7,8-HxCDF
: 1,2,3,7,8.9-HxCDD
1,2,3.7,8.9-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,7,6-PeCOF
1 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum ~
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ug/Kg
ug/Ko
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug«g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kp
1305
130585
05/17/2005
1.1 U
0.8 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
3.4 U
IU
IU
3.2 J
2,3 U
1,1 U
1.1 U
IU
1.1 U
1.1 U
2.3 U
1.1 U
4.66 J
1.18J
0.624 U
0.663 U
0.26 U
0.566 U
0.173 U
0.538 U
0.277 U
0.181 U
0.176 J
0.187 U
1412
141285
05/10/2005
3.83 J
1.75 J
0.321 UJ
0.477 U
0.28 J
0.349 U
0.292 J
0.327 U
0.287 U
0.188 U
0.144 U
0.246 U
Location, Sample Number, and Oate
1416
1416S5
05/11/2005
6.9 J
1.1 U
1.5 U
1.5U
1.5 U
1.5 U
1.5 U
1.6 J
4.6 U
1.4 U
1.4 U
10 J
3U
1.5 U
1.5 U
4.3 J
1.5 U
1.5 U
3U
1.5 U
1.5U
0.073 J
0.281 UJ
0.418 U
0.236 U
0.201 U
0.157 U
0.286 U
0.251 U
0.164 U
0.126 U
0.17 U
1508
150885
05/12/2005
2.49 J
1.31 J
0.328 UJ
0,487 U
0,275 U
0.186 U
0,247 J
0,334 U
0.293 U
0.192 U
0.21 U
0.198 U
1706
170685
05/19/2005
1.3 U
0.9 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
3.8 U
1.2 U
1.2 U
2.5 J
2.6 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.2 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
2.6 U
1.3 U
0.656 J
0.68 J
0.253 U
0.376 U
0.212 U
0.0649 U
0.166 J
0.258 U
0.226 U
0.148 U
0.113 U
0.153 U
1710
171085
05/12/2005
2.2 J
0.89 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
3.8 U
1.1 U
1.1 U
4.4 J
2.5 U
1.3 U
1.3 U
1.9 J
1.3 U
1.3 U
2.5 U
1.3 U
1.29 U
0.795 J
0.289 UJ
0.43 U
0.243 U
0.0742 U
0.161 U
0.295 U
0.258 U
0.169 U
0.13 U
0.175 U
11 III
1808
180885
05/12/2005
1.14 UJ
0.604 J
0.286 U
0.424 U
0.24 U
0.257 UJ
0.159 U
0.291 U
0.255 U
0.167 U
0.128 UJ
0.172 U
1808
1808S5D
05/12/2005
1.22 J
0.776 J
0.286 U
0.424 U
0.239 U
0.159 J
0.159 U
0.291 U
0.255 U
0.167 U
0.13 J
0.172 U
C-37
Tabte C-1. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Surface Soil* (Continued)
ANALYTE
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Calculated Dioxin/Furan Sum
OCDD
OCDF
Total HpCDD
Total HpCDF
Total HxCDD
Total HxCDF
Total PeCDD
Total PeCDF
Total TCDD
Total TCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
ngMg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng«a
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
1305
1305S5
05/17/2005
0.188 U
0.0435 U
0.144 U
53.3
18.5
2.7 J
8,04
4.17 U
4.85 U
3.9 J
0.686 J
3.89 U
0.901 U
ng/Kg | 1.02
1412
141285
05/10/2005
0.194 U
0.045 U
0.167 U
65.7
23.2
4.21 J
7.92
3.68 J
3,58 U
4.26 U
0,39 U
3.17 U
0,602 U
1.46 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1416
141685
05/11/2005
0,17 U
0,0394 U
0.149 U
40.1
8.42 U
2.32 U
3.14 J
1.43 J
0,686 U
0.854 J
0.164 U
1.12 J
0.0394 U
0.594 U
1508
1508S5
05/12/2005
0,198 U
0,046 U
0,193 U
41.9
15.
3.06 J
5.81 J
2.29 J
0.872 J
2.2 U
0.2 J
1.9 U
0.54 U
1.17 U
1706
170685
05/19/2005
0.153 U
0.0355 U
0.117 U
33.1
2.67 U
2.09 U
1.3J
1.24 J
0.0649 U
0.827 J
0.396 J
0.516 U
0.0355 U
1710
171085
05/12/2005
0.175 U
0.0406 U
0.14 U
38.3
5.93 U
2.39 U
2.47 J
1.24 U
0.916 U
0.511 J
0.177 J
0.603 J
0.0406 U
0.158 J 0.625 U
1808
180885
05/12/2005
0.173 U
0.0401 U
0.132 UJ
37.6
5.6 U
2.36 U
2.25 J
0.604 J
1.76 U
0.374 J
0.167 UJ
0.436 J
0.355 U
0.172 U
1808
1808S5D
05/12/2005
0.173 U
0.04 U
0.2 J
5.83 U
2.36 U
2.72 J
1.18J
1.45 U
0.84 J
0.206 J
0.657 J
0.215 U
0.389 J
Notes:
* Data quality is described in the 2005 Data Validation Letter Report for Environmental Monitoring Follow-on Study for the Tooele Chemical
Agent Disposal Facility Tooele, Utah, (CMA, November 2005) including use ofthe data qualification codes which are briefly explained below:
U = analyte was analyzed for but was not detected (ND) above the reported sample quantitation limit.
J = analyte was positively identified; however, the associated numerical value is an estimate of the concentration of the analyte in the sample.
UJ = analyte was ND above the reported sample quantitation limit. However, the reported quantitation limit is an estimate and may or may not
represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
In this table, method detection limits are presented for ND samples for consistency with Environmental Monitoring Baseline Study.
C-38
Tabte C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Stimbs)'
fiiNALrre.
Metals with 1996 detections
Mercury
1096
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
mg/Kg
0111
0112V5
OB/23/2005
0.054 J
0214
0214VS
05/20/2005
0.035 J
Location. Sample Number, and Date
0300
0308VS
06/22/2005
0.054 J
0308
0308V5O
06/22/2005
0.043 J
0400
0400V5
05/15/2005
0.044 U
0400
0400VSD
05/15/2005
0.043 U
0416
0416V5
05/18/2005
0420
0420V5
05/ia«005
0.039 J 0.073 J
Potassium 9310 10408 mg/Kg ^jg^^^^pi^^ia^i
Sodium 320 323 mg/Kg 256 303 225 201 J 108 U
Tin 7.8 20 _ma«g_ 3.2 J 3.5 U 4.2 J 4.2 J 3.1 U 5.3 J 3.6 U 3.8 U
Zinc 21.4 22.6 mg/Kg 17.8 13.4 17.6 17.1 13.5 14.2 13.2 18.1
Explosives with 1996
dstecHons
NitroQlycarin 43700000 43700000 ug/Kg 690000 J 13000 U 500000 U 220000 U 13000U 14000 U 14000 U 12000 U
Tetryl 33000 7000 ug/Kg 900 U 700 U 1600 U 770 U 830 U 890 U 850 UJ 730 UJ
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) with 1996 detecitlons
PCB-1254 Ifimdor 1254) 360 360 "g^g 17 U 10 u 18 U 18U 0.7 UJ 11 UJ 10 U B.9U
Dioxin/Furans with 1996
detections
OCDD 13500 7000 MUSSL 19.BJ 2.52 J 4.47 J 3.66 J 3.22 UJ 6.73 J 4.97 U 4.59 J
Metals without 1996
detections
Antimony mg/Kg 0.24 U 0.27 U 0.26 J 0.31 J 0.25 U 0.28 U 0.25 U 0.25 U
0.31 U Arsenic mg/Kg 0.51 J 0.33 U 0.34 J 0.42 J 0.31 U 0.35 U 0.32 U
Beiylilum mg/Kg 0.15 U 0.17 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.16 U 0.17 U 0.16 U 0.15 U
0.12 U
0.53 U
Cadmium mg/Kg 0.15 J 0.2 U 0.43 0.15 J 0.13 U 0.14 U 0.22 U
Chromium
Cobalt
mg/Kg 0.67 0.B9 0.72 0.79 1.1 1.4
mg/Kg 0.12 U 0.13 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.13 U 0.14 U
0.55 U
0.13 U 0.12 U
0.67
1.4 J
Lead
Molybdenum
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
0.68
1 J
0.82
0.57 U
0.58
8.3
0.52 0.82
0.93 J
0.96
1.1 J
0.57
1.8
C-39
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs)* (Continued)
ANALYTE
NIdtel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Explosives without 1996
detections
2,4,B-Trinltrotoiuene
2,4-Dlnttrotoluene
2,B-DlnltrDtoluene
HMX
RDX
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) without 1996
detections
PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)
PCB-1221 (/Vroclor1221)
PCB-1232 (Ajpdor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Airodor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Arodor 1248)
PCB.1260 (Arodor 1260)
Semivolatile Organic
Compounds without 1996
detections
1,2,4-TrichlorDbenzene
1.2-0lchlorob8nzens
1.3-Dlchlorobenzene
1,4-Olchlorobenzene
2.4.5-Trichiorophenol
2.4,6-Trichlorophenoi
2,4-Olchlorophenol
2,4-Oimethylphenoi
2.4-Olnitrophenol
2,4-Olnitiotoluene
2^8«lnitrotoluene
1998
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
mg«g
mg/Kg
mgn<a
mflrt<g
mafl<g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugfl<fl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug«g
'
0111
0112V5
06/23/2005
1.5
1.3
0.3 U
0.54 U
0,44 J
10000 J
2400 U
940 U
7200 U
8500 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
1900 U
1900 U
1000 U
1800 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
9600 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
0214
0214V5
05/20/2005
0.89 U
i.i
0.33 U
0.59 U
0.34 U
2000 U
1000 U
1000 U
•3500 U
790 U
10 U
10 U
IffU
ICU
10 U
10 U
2200 UJ
2200 UJ
2200 UJ
2200 UJ
• 2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
11000 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0308
0308V5
08Q2/2005
3.3
1.9
0.3 U
0.72 U
0.31J
720 U
930 U
930 U
720 U
1200OU
18 U
18U
18 U
18 U
18 U
18 U
•
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
9700 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
.0308
0308V5D
06«2«005
3.4
1.8
0.31 U
0.56 U
0.32 J
6000 U
SOOOU
970 U
6600 U
0300 U
18U
18U
18U
i18U
iiau
;iBU
•
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
10000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
0400
0400V5
05/15«005
5J
0.83
0.31 U
0.31 U
0.65
830 U
1100U
1100U
830 U
830 U
9.7 UJ
9.7 UJ
9.7 UJ
9.7 UJ
9.7 UJ
9.7 UJ
2000 U
2000U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
9900 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
0400
0400V5D
05/15^2005
3.8 J
0.72
0.35 U
0.56 U
0.88
890 U
1200 U
1200 U
15000 U
890 U
11 UJ
11 UJ
11 UJ
11 UJ
11 UJ
11 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
11000 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
0416
0416V5
05/18/2005
1.6
1.2
0.32 U
0.51 U
0.32 U
850 UJ
1100 UJ
1100 UJ
48000 UJ
37000 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
10000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
0420
0420V5
05/18/2005
1.8
1.1
0.31 U
0.43 U
0.36 U
730 UJ
50000 UJ
950 UJ
14000 UJ
49000 UJ
8.9 U
8.9 U
8.9 U
8.9 U
8,9 U
8.9 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
.2000U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
10000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
C^O
Tabte C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Stirubs)* (Continued)
ANALYTE
1 2-Chloronaphthalsne
2-Chlaraphenol
1 2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresoi)
1 2-Nltroanlilne
1 2-Nitrophenol
1 3,3'-01chlorobenzldine
1 S-Nltroanlline
1 4.e-Oinltro-2-mBthylphenol
1 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
1 4-ChlorDanll!ne
1 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Methylphenol (p-Cresol)
4-4«litroanillne
4-NHrophenol
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,l)peiylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzoic add
1 Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl butyl phthalate
1 Carbazole
1 Chrysene
Dl-n-butylphthalato
1 Dl-n-octylphthalate
1 Dlbenz(a,h)anttiraoene
1 Dibenzofuran
1 Diethylphthalate
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL
'
Unite
ug/Kg
\talKa
ug«g
ug«fl
ugrt<g
UBn<g
ugrt<g
ug/Kg
ug«g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug«g
ugfl<g
uo«g
ugrt<g
UB/Kfl
wKa
ug/Kg
WlKa
ug/Kg
Uflfl<g
ug«fl
ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug«g
ug/Kfl
ug«g
ug/Kfl
ugfl<g
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
[ Ufl/Kfl
Ufl«fl
1 uglKg
•
0111
0112V5
06/23/2005
1900 U
1900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
1900 U
3800 U
3800 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1800 U
1900 U -
1900 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
3800 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
3800 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900 U
1200U
1900 U
1900 U
0214
0214V5
05/20/2005
2200 U
2200 UJ
1300 U
2200U
2200 UJ
2200U
4500 U
4500 UJ
2200 U
220dU
2200 U
- 2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
4500 UJ
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 UJ
1300 U
4500 U
2200 U
•,2200UJ
2200 U
1300U
2200U
2200 UJ-
1 1300 UJ
2200U
2200 U
LocaVort. Sample Number, and Date
0308
0308V5
0602/2005
1900 U
1900 U
1200 U
1900U
1900 UJ
1900 U
3900 U
3900 UJ
1900 U
ig(K)U
1000 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900U
1900 UJ
3900 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
3900 UJ
1900 U
1900U
1900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900 U
:0308
0308V5D
06/22/2005
2000 U
2000U
1200 U
2000U
2000 UJ
2000 U
4000 U
4000 UJ
^000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
4000 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
4000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
0400
0400V5
05/15/2005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
3900 UJ
3900 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
3900 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
3900 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
0400
0400V5D
05/15^005
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300U
2300 UJ
2300 U
4500 UJ
4500 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
4500 UJ
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 UJ
1400 U
4500 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
1400 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
0416
0416V5
05/18«005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
4100 UJ
4100 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
4100 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4100 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
1
0420
0420V5
05/18/2005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
4000 UJ
4000 Uj:
2000 U.r
2000U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
4000 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200U
1200 U •-
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
C-41
Tabte C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Obnelhylphthatete
Ruoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutediene
Haxachlorocydopentadlene
Hexachloroethane
Indenod,2,3-oJ)pyreno
Isophorone
N-Nitroso-dMi-propylamtne
N-Nitrosodlphenylamine
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
bls(2-Chloroelhoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether (2-
Chloroethylether)
bis(2-Chlorolsopropvl)ether
bls(2-Ethylhsxyl)phthalate
Dioxin/Furans without 1996
detecfions
1,2.3,4.8,7,8-HpCDD
1,2.3.4.e,7.8-HpCDF
1,2.3.4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1.2.3.4.7.8-HxCDD
1,2.3.4,7,8-HxCDF
1.2.3.6,7,8-HxCDD
1.2.3,6,7.8-HxCDF
1,2.3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1.2.3.7.8.9-HxCDF
1.2.3,7,8-PeCDD
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
UBrt<fl
Ufln<0
ugflCfl
ug/Kg
uglKa
ug/Kg
Ufl«fl
ug/Kfl
uglKa
UOrt<fl
ug/Ka
ug/Kn
ugfl<fl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Ko
ug/Kfl
ugfl<fl
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
nfl/Ko
ng/Kg
np/Kg
nfl/Kfl
ng/Kfl
ng/Kg
np/Kg
nomg
E^^SS^^^BC^
0111
0112V5
06/23^005
1900 U
1200 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900 U
3800 UJ
1900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1200 U
1900 UJ
3800 U
1200 U
1900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
1000 U
1.71 J
0.554 U
0.764 UJ
0.759 U
0.S59 U
0.284 U
0.309 U
0.732 U
0.902 U
0.467 U
^B^^^^Bcaa^
i|
|
2200 U
1300 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
4500 UJ
2200 UJ
1300 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
2200 U
1300 UJ
2200 UJ
4500 U
1300 U
2200 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
2200 UJ
2200, U J
-
0.735 U
.. 0.767 U
0.889 UJ
1.32U
0.745 U
0J228U
0.495 U
0.906 U
0.794 U
0.52 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0308
0308V5
06/22/2005
1900 U
1200 U
1200 U
1900 U
190OU
3900 UJ
1900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1800 U
1000 U
1200 U
1900 UJ
3900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
1900 U
. ~l
0.715 UJ
0.659 U
0.909 UJ
b.903U
0.665 U
0.35 U
0.387 U
0.871 U
1.07 U
0.558 U
0308
0308V5D
06)22/2005
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
4000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 UJ
4000 U
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000U
2000 UJ
2000 U
0.724 J
0.544 U
0.75 U
0.745 U
0.549 U
0.289 U
0.303 U
0.719 U
0.886 U
0.459 U
0400
0400V5
05/15/2005
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
3900 UJ
2000 U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 UJ
3900 U
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
0.674 J
0.624 U
0.725 U
1.08 U
0.607 U
0.186 U
0.404 U
0.736U
0.648 U
0.424 U
0400
0400V5D
05/15/2005
2300 U
1400 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
4500 UJ
2300 U
1400 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 UJ
4500 U
1400 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
1.2 J
0.724 U
0.84 UJ
1.25 U
0.704 U
0.215 U
0.468 U
0.855 U
0.749 U
0.491 U
0416
0416V5
05/18/2005
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
4100 UJ
2000 UJ
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 UJ
4100 U
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
0.751 J
1.42 J
0.673 U
0.099 U
0.584 UJ
0.172 U
0.375 UJ
0.665 U
o.eu
0.393 U
,3:e=!«BE=^»e
0420
0420V5
05/18«005
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
4000 UJ
2000 UJ
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 UJ
4000 U
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
0.91 J
0.813 J
0.707 UJ
1.05 U
0.592 UJ
0.181 U
0.394 UJ
0.72 U
0.631 UJ
0.413 UJ
C-42
Tabte C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Stirubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1,2.3,7.8-PeCDF
2.3.4.6.7.8-HxCDF
2.3.4.7.8-PeCDF
2.3.7.8-TCDD
2.3.7.8-TCDF
Calculated DloxIn/Furan Sum
OCDF
Totel HpCDD
Total HpCDF
Total HxCDD
Totel HxCDF
Totel PeCDD
Totel PeCDF
Totel TCDD
Totel TCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1096
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
nflrt<fl
ng«p
nfl/Kfl
nn/Kfl
nflrt<g
nfl/Kfl
ngrt<g
ngmg
ng/Kg
nart<g
np/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
no/Kg
ngrt<fl
0111
0112V5
Oe/23/2005
0.235 U
0.283 U
0.353 U
0.228 U
0.193 U
104
2.51 U
3.85 J
0.554 U
0.294 U
0.283 U
0.467 U
0.235 U
0.226 U
0.103 U
11 III 1
0214
0214V5
05/20/2005
0.398 U
0.536 U
0.537 U
0.125 U
0.412 U
141
7.34 U
0.735 U
0.767 U
0.228 U
0.495 U
0.52 U
0.398 U
0.125 U
0.412 U
Location. Sample Number, and Date
0308
0308V5
06/22/2005
0.28 U
0.337 U
0.42 U
0.272 U
0.23 U
113
2.99 U
0.715 U
0.659 U
0.3SU
0.337 U
0.556 U
028 U
0.272 U
0.23 U
0308
0308V5D
0SR22/2005
0.231 U
0.278 U
0.347 U
0.224 U
0.19 U
2.47 U
1.9 U
0.544 U
1.15 U
0.278 U
0.459 U
6.231 U
0^224 U
6J!17U
0400
0400V5
05/1Sn»}05
0.324 U
0.437 U
0.438 U
0.102 U
0.336 UJ
128
5.98 U
0.674 J
0.624 U
0.776 U
0.404 U
0.424 U
0.324 U
0.102 U
0.336 UJ
0400
0400V5D
05/15Q005
0.376 U
0.506 U
0.508 U
0.118 U
0.444J
6.93 U
2.45 J
0.724 U
0.215 U
0.466 U
0.491 U
0.376 U
0.118 U
0.444 J
0416
0416V5
05/18/2005
0.301 U
0.406 U
0.406 U
0.0943 UJ
0.311 UJ
84.2
5.55 U
1.97 J
1.42 J
1.12 U
0.641 U
0.415 J
0.375 J
0.0943 U
0.311 U
^^S^^^^^B!
0420
0420V5
05/ia«005
0.317 UJ
0.426 UJ
0.427 U
0.0991 U
0.327 U
103
5.83 U
2.14 U
0.615 J
0.526 U
0.394 U
0.413 U
0.317 UJ
0.494 U
0.327 U
C-43
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Units
0420
0420V5D
05/18/2005
0515
0515V5
05/18/2005
Location. Sample Number, and Date
0611
0611V5
05/17/2005
0813
0613V5
05/17/2005
0616
0616V5
05/13/2005
0618
0618V5
05/15/2005
0623
0823V5
06/21/2005
0714
0714V5
05/15/2005
Metals with 1996 detections
Aluminum 211 269 mg/Kp •^M^W§ 221 J
Barium 10.7 mg/Kg Wks ^
j^j^iitafaii wmmm
9.8 feS^^p
250 J 174 49
•SSi^ MM "j^imm. ^^mm^
194
3,6 mmmn Boron 20.8 23.8
Caldum
"'Q/Kfl ^m§m mmmm 3750 4168 mg/Kg g^jigi^lg wMmm mmsm m^m Wi'^'i 'st?.; ^¥.^]mti^
fei,'Sa?9jS'iaa
mmm$
glia^8iP ^'^Jiiiisai^ c<
WfMmm
Copper 13.3 13.8 mg/Kg 13.7 iMii! gel mmimi 11.8 9.2 9.4 13.3
Iron 192 228 mg/Kg ^^S W^ ^^ggfS^ 111 siii3PPi
Magnesium 94B 1017 mg/Kg IKtiBil ^' ^JimiliiilloSig jMiigo^ K5K? ^My ^ivasM jFjs^^s^ii:
Manganese 34.8 38 mg/Kg pJMsSi^ m iijgiiil^l li^lS^ l^ijg^giiife ^a^TM^^: MW^Mi 'M
Mercury 0.71 2.5 mg/Kg 0.043 J 0.035 J 0.04 J 0.035 J 0.045 U 0.034 U 0.031 U 0.04 U
Potessium 9310 10408 mg/Kg gj^jjaaiyitRgii m^^M tasii 'r^m^M gitsf17'70.DM^J S^^'280g0X-lg ^mimm
Sodium 320 323 mg/Kg 157 151 225 223 165 giiSootir' 114U
Tin 7.8 20 mg/Kg 3U 3.6 U
mmi^sm
3U 3.2 U 5.6 J 6.5 U 4.1 J 6.4 U
Zinc 21.4 22.6 mg/Kfl 18.3 '^Mmmm 18.9 16.5 14 ^^^i^iBB^ 13.5
Explosives wtth 1996
detec^Uons
Nltrogiycerin 43700000 43700000 Ufl/Kg 12000 U 13000U 13000U 12000 U 14000 U 14000 U 910000 U 220000 U
Tetryl 33000 7000 ug/Kg 770 UJ 790 U 800 UJ 770 UJ 860 U 900 U 1800 U 990 U
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) with 1996 detections
PCB-1254 (Arodor 1254) 360 360 ug/Kg 8.9 U 9.6 U 9.1 U 9.1 U 10 U 11 U 19 U 11 U
Dioxin/Furans with 1996
detections
OCDD 13500 7000 ng/Kfl 10.1 J 3.09 J 4.19 U 4.91 U 8.04 U 2.78 J 6.02 J 3.51 U
Metels without 1996
detec:tions
Antimony mg/Kg 0.26 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.3 U 0.28 U 0.37 U 0.25 U 0.35 U
Arsenic mg/Kg 0.3 U 0.31 U 0.3 U 0.32 U 0.35 U 0.36 U 0.32 U 0.37 U
Beryllium mg/Kg 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15U 0.15 U 0.17 U 0.18 U 0.16 U 0.18 U
Cadmium mg/Kfl 0.16 U 0.13 U 1.3 0.13 U 0.15 J 0.25 U 0.21 J 0.23 U
Chromium mg/Kg
Cobalt mg/Kg
0.65
0.12 U
0.65 0.87 0,84 0.63 0.76 0.48 J
_ 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.13 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.13 U
0.79
0.15 U
Lead
Molytxienum
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
1.1
IU
0.89
IU
0.72
2.1 ;i.3J
3.1
1.1 J
0.94
1.1 U
0.47
0.93 J
1.1
1.7 J
C-44
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Nickel
Selenium
Sihrer
Thallium
Vanadium
Explosives without 1996
detBcSons
2,4,e-Trinllrotoluene
2,4-Olnllrotoluene
2,e4}lnltrotoluenB
HMX
RDX
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) without 1996
detecticxis
PCB-1018 (Arodor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Anjdor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Arodor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Arodor 1248)
PCB-12e0 (Arodor 1260)
Semivoiatile Organic
Compounds without 1996
detections
1,2,4-Tr(chlorobenzene
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
1,3-Oichiorobenzene
1,4-Dlchlorobenzsne
2,4,5-Trichiorophenol
2.4,6-Triohlorophenol
2,4-Oichlorophenoi
2,4-Dlmethylphenol
2.4-Dlnltrophenoi
2,4-Dlnltrotoluene
2,B-Dlnltrotoluene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1998
EMBS
89% UTL Unite
mBfl<fl
mgn<g
mfln<fl
mgn<g
mgKa
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg
UBrt<n
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
uo/Kn
ug/Kfl
ugfl<fl
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugn<g
ugKg
0420
0420V5D
05/18/2005
1.1
0.94
0.3 U
0.54 U
0.47 U
770 UJ
1000 UJ
1000 UJ
19000 UJ
17000 UJ
8.0 U
8.0 U
8.9 U
8.9 U
8.9 U
8.9 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
10000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
0515
, 0515V5
05/18/2005
1.7
1.1
0.31 U
0.56 U
0.38 U
790 U
1000 U
1000 U
790 U
7200 U
9.6 U
S.6U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 UJ
• 2100U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
10000 UJ
2100 U
. 2100 U
Location, Sample Number, and Oate
0811
0611V5
05/17/2005
1.9
1
0.3 U
0.48 U
0.44 U
840 UJ
1000 UJ
1000 UJ
47000 UJ
35000 UJ
9.1 U
S.1U
9.1 U
9.1 U
9.1 U
9.1 U
2000U
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
9800 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
0613
0613V5
05/17/2005
1.8
1.2
0.29 U
0.64 U
0.64
770 UJ
1000 UJ
1000 UJ
770 UJ
770 UJ
9.1 U
8.1 U
9.1 U
O.IU
9.1 U
O.IU
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
9800 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
0616
0816V5
05/13/2005
4.3
1.1
0.35 U
0.84 U
0.42 J
860 U
18000 U
1100 U
860 U
860 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
11000 U J
2300U
2300 U
0618
06ieV5
05/15/2005
1.7 J
1.3
0.36 U
0.58 U
0.36 U
900 U
1200 U
1200 U
900 U
900 U
11 u
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
12000 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
0623
0623V5
06/21/2005
2
1.7
0.32 U
0.7 U
0.32 U
SOOOJ
960U
7000 U
99000
100000 U
19 U
19 U
19 U
19 U
19 U
19 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
10000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
0714
0714V5
05/15/2005
3.2 J
0.81
0.37 U
0.89 U
0.38 U
990 U
1300U
1300 U
33000 U
990 U
11 U
11 U
11U
11 U
11U
11U
••/f"
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
12000 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
C-45
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
2-ChlOTonaphthalene
2-Chloroohenoi
2-Methy(naphthalene
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresoi)
2-Nitroaniiine
2-Nltrophenol
3,3'-Dldilorobenztdlne
3-Nltroanlilne
4,6-Dlnltro-2-methylphenol
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chioroanlline
4-Chiorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Methylphenol (p-Cresol)
4-Nltroaniline
4-NItropheno)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fiuoranthene
Benzo(g,h,l)perylene
Benzo(k)fiuo[anthene
Benzoic add
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Oki-butylphthaiate
Dl-n-octylphthalate
Dibenz(a,h)anthiacene
Dibenzofuran
Dtethylphlhatete
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
ugn<n
ualKg
U8«n
ug/Kg
Uflfl<0
WKa
ug/Kg
ugrt<o
ugfl<a
Uflrt<0
ugrt<fl
ug/Kfl
Uflrt<fl
ug/Kfl
ug/Kfl
uflrt<g
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
ugfl<fl
ug/Kn
uglKg
ug«fl
ug/Kg
ug/Ka
Ufl«fl
ufl/Ko
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kg
-
0420
0420V5D
05/18/2005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
4000 UJ
4000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
4000 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
.
0516
0515V5
05/18/2005
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
4100 UJ
4100 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
4100 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
Locatlori, Sampte 1
0611
0611V5
05/17/2005
2000 U
2000 UJ
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
3900 U
3900 UJ
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
200OU
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
3800 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
3900 UJ
2000 U
2000U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000U
0613
0613V5
05/17«005
2000 U
2000 UJ
1200 U
2000 U
20OOUJ
2000 U
3900 UJ
3900 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
3900 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
3900 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
dumber, and Date
0618
0616V5
05/13C005
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
2300 U
4500 UJ
4500 UJ
2300 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
4500 UJ
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
4500 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
0618
0818V5
05/15/2005
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
4700 U
4700 UJ
2400 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
4700 UJ
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 UJ
1400 U
4700 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
0623
0623V5
06Q1/2005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
4000 U
4000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
4000 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
4000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
0714
0714V5
05/15/2005
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
4800 U
4800 UJ
2400 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
4800 UJ
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 UJ
1400 U
4800 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
C-46
Tabte C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Dimethylphthalate
Ruoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocydopentadlene
Hexachiortwthane
Indenod ,2.3-cd)oyrene
Isophorone
N-Nltroso-dl-n-propylamlne
N-Nltrosodlohenvlamlne
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
bls(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bte(2-Chloroethyi)ether (2-
Chloroethylether)
bls(2-Chlorolsopropyl)elher
bls(2-Ethylhexyl)phthatete
Dioxin/Furans without 1996
detections
1.2,3,4.6,7.8-HpCDD
1,2.3,4,6.7.8-HpCDF
1,2,3.4,7,8.941pCDF
1,2,3.4,7,8-HxCDD
1.2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1.Z3.6,7.&.HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1.2.3.7.8.9.HXCDF
1,2,3,7,e-PeCDD
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
Ufl/Kg
Uflfl<fl
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ufl«g
ugfl<g
ufl«g
up/Kfl
U9«fl
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kg
Uflfl<fl
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
ng/Kfl
nfl/Kg
nn/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
ns/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
ngMg
^^aasOMnmnnam
0420
0420V5O
05/18/2005
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
4000 UJ
2000 UJ
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 UJ
4000 U
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
2.02 J
1.8 J
0.632 UJ
0.939 U
0.711 J
0.607 U -
0.715 J
0.644 U
0.649 J
0.504 J
0515
0515V5
05/18/2005
2100 U
1200 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
4100 UJ
2100 UJ
1200 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
1200 U
2100 UJ
4100 U
1200 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 UJ
0.667 U
0.695 U
0.807 UJ
1.2 U
0.678 U
0.207 U
0.449 U
0.821 U
0.72 U
0.472 U
Location, Sample Number, and Oate
0611
0611V5
05/17/2005
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
UR
2000 UJ
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 UJ
3900 U
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
0.993 J
0.067 J
0.588 U
2.23U
0402 UJ
0.151 U
0.459 U
0.598 U
0.524 U
0.344 U
0813
0613V5
05/17/2005
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
! UR
2000 UJ
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 UJ
3900 U
1200 U
• 2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
0.859 J
0.902 J
0.522 U
Z5U
0.438 U
0.134 U
0.291 U
0.532 U
0.466 U
0.305 U
0616
0616V5
05/13«005
2300 U
1400 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
4500 UJ
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
4500 UJ
1400 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
0.583 U
1.01 J
0.681 UJ
1.01 U
0.571 U
0.175 U
0.38 U
0.694 U
0.606 U
0.398 U
0618
0618V5
05/15/2005
2400 U
1400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
4700 UJ
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 UJ
4700 U
1400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
0.563 U
0.72 J
0.661 U
1.01 U
0.571 U
0.175 U
0.38 U
0.694 U
0.606 U
0.398 U
0623
0623V5
0QI2M2005
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
4000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 UJ
4000 U
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
0.814 U
0.75 U
1.04 U
1.03 U
0.757 U
0.398 U
0.418 U
0.991 U
1.22 U
0.633 U
0714
0714V5
05/15«005
2400 U
1400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
4800 UJ
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 UJ
4800 U
1400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
0.583 U
0.608 U
0.706 U
2.56 U
0.591 U
0.181 U
0.393 U
0.719 U
0.63 U
0.413 U
C^7
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1A3,7.8-PeCDF
2,3.4,6.7.8-HxCDF
2,3,4.7.WeCDF
2,3.7.8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Calculated Oloxln/Furan Sum
OCDF
Total HpCDD
Total HpCDF
Total HxCDD
Total HxCDF
Total PeCDD
j Totel PeCDF
Totel TCDD
Total TCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
ng/Kfl
ng/Kg
hfl/Kfl
ngfl<g
ngMg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
nflfl<fl
ngrt<g
ng/Kg
nfl/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
ng«g
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
0420
0420V5D
05/18/2005
0.645 J
0.537 J
0.382 UJ
0.0886 U
0.442 U
5.22 U
3.57 U
1.6 J
Z71U
3.04 U
1.01 U
1.03 J
0.0886 U
0.762 U
0515
0515V5
0^18/2005
0.361 U
0.486 U
0.487 U
0.113 U
0.444 J
127
6.66 U
0.786 U
0.695 U
0.207 U
0449 U
0.472 U
0.361 U
0.113 U
0.444 J
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0811
oeiivs
05/17/2005
0.367 U
0.354 U
0.355 U
0.0824 U
0.272 U
S4.S
4.85 U
1.8 J
0.967 J
Z23U
0.875 U
0:344 U
0.7 U
0.0824 U
0613
0613V5
05/17/2005
0.234 U
0.315 U
0.316 U
00732 U
0.242 U
75.2
4.31 U
2.05 J
0.002 J
3.97 U
0.4 J
0.305 U
0.234 U
0.0732 U
0.272 U 0.242 U
0616
0616V5
05/13«005
0.305 U
0.411 U
0.412 U
0.0955 U
0.316 U
95.8
5.63 U
2.52 U
1.01 J
0.416 J
0.411 J
0.398 U
0.305 U
0.0955 U
0.316 U
0618
081BV5
05/15/2005
0.305 U
0.411 U
0.412 U
0.0955 U
0.316 U
97.5
5.62 U
0.659 U
0.72 J
1.64 U
0.38 U
0.398 U
0.305 U
0.517 U
0.316 U
0623
0623V5
06/21/2005
0.319 U
0.383 U
0.479 U
0.309 U
0.262 U
130
3.4 UJ
1.16 U
0.75 U
0.398 U
0.383 U
0.633 U
0.319 U
0.309 U
0.262 U
0714
0714V5
05/15/2005
0.316 U
0.426 U
0.426 U
0.0989 U
0.383 J
122
5.83 U
0.898 J
0.608 U
Z56U
0.393 U
0.413 U
0.316 U
0.0989 U
0.383 J
C-48
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
0602
00802V5
05/15/2005
Metals with 1996 detections
Aluminum 211 269 mg/Kfl 174
Barium 10.7
Boron
mg/Kg wmmm 20.8 23.8
Caldum 3750
mg/Kg 22.6
4168 mg/Kg ^?jg86Sli
Copper 13.3 13.8 mg/Kg
0812
0812V5
05/16/2005
13.2
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0612
0812V5D
05/16/2005
^mm
fta^affl
0613
0813V5
05/18/2005
mm^
0817
0817V5
05/12/2005
^wmM i^fsa^
? fXvi^-.^i^'i^fil^']ii'!i
m^^mi ^mm
0817
0817V5D
05/12/2005
iias26ag@
^aSgJ^
Wm^M&
0819
0819V5
06/21/2005
143
9.1
^0ai^^i
0914
0914V5
05/14/2005
139 J
8.4
23.4
gaSSi4ay-i
Iron 192 228 mg/Kg igMljSi^ ^mm^ 184
Magnesium 948 1017
Manganese
mg/Kg gi^ao^' -laoufei-jsf.
34.8 38 mg/Kg Pl^aPig ••^"'^m
mmmm mMM^ m Mercury 0.71 2.5 mg/Kg 0.045 U 0,046 U 0.045 U
^^^mi W^^M:
0.042 J 0.069 J 0.065 J 0.041 U 0.041 U
Potassium 9310 10408 mg/Kg j^mmM fsm^^m mmmi m^M wmm6m i^^^j^g^ immm Sodium 320 323 mg/Kg ^ 188 68.6 U 144 123 'MS^^^ 104 J
Tin 7.8 20 mg/Kg 4.3 J 3.9 U 3.8 U 3.2 U 2.9 J 3.7 J 3.9 J 5.9 J
Zinc 21.4 22.6 mg/Kg 18.4 14.3 22.1 20.7 20.7 21.3 ga^sKgasa 17.3
Explosives with 1996
detecfions
NItfPQiycertn 43700000 43700000 ug/Kg 15000 U 270000 J 15000 UJ 12000 U 10000U 9900 U 15000U 14000 U
Tetryl 33000 7000 "a/Kg 910 U 920 U 920 U 780 U 720 U 1100U 940 U 1000 U
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) with 1996 detections
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) 360 360 ug/Kfl 12 UJ 11 U 10 U 9.3 U 86 U 8.6 U 23 U 10 U
Dioxin/Furans with 1996
detections
OCDD 13500 7000 ng/Kg 28.6 J 3.8 UJ 7.03 J 37.1 7.84 U 5.24 U 16.5 J 5.88 U
Metels without 1996
detections
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Molybdenum
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kfl
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kfl
0.33 U
0.42 U
0.21 U
0,17 U
2.5
0.17 U
0.72
1.7 J
0.5 U
0.34 U
0.17 U
0.15 U
0.87
0.14 U
0.73
1.5 J
0.33 U
0.34 U
0.17 U
0.13 U
1.2
0.13 U
0.95
1,3J
0.25 U
0.32 U
0.16 U
0.13 U
0.8
0.13 U
0.89
1,2 U
0.23 U
0.39 J
0.14 U
0.22 J
0,85
0.11 UJ
1.8
1.2 J
0.23 U
O.SJ
0.14 U
0.17 J
0.99
0.12 J
1.2 J
0.31 U
0.38 U
0.19 U
1.1
1.1
0.15 U
10.1
0.48 J
0.33 J
0.34 U
0.17 U
0.14 J
0,56 J
0.13 U
0.74
0,83 J
C-49
Tabte C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Explosives without 1996
detections
2.4,6-Trinltrotoluene
2,4-Oinitrotoluene
2,6-Dlnltrotoluene
HIVW
RDX
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) without 1996
detections
PCB-1016 (Arodor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Arodor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arodor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Arodor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Arodor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arodor 1260)
SemhfolaUle Organic
Compounda without 1996
detections
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichiorobenzene
1,3-Olchlorobenzene
1,4-Oichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,a-Trich!orophonol
2,4-Dlchlonophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,e-01nitrotoluene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
mgn<g
man^
mg/Kg
mgrt<g
mo/Kg
ualKa
ugfl<g
ugrt<g
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
UB/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
un/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
Ufl/Kg
un/Kfl
"g/Kg
0802
00802V5
05/15^005
1.2J
1.4
0.42 U
0.5 U
0.42 U
9800 J
1200 U
1200 U
2700 U
2800 J
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
2700 U
2700 U
2700 U
2700 U
2700 U
2700 U
2700 U
2700 U
13000 UJ
2700 U
2700 U
0812
0812V5
05/16/2005
4.8
1.2
• 0.34 U
0.48 U
0.45 U
.020 U
1200 U
1200 U
920'U
920 U
:••
11 U
11 U
11 u
11 u
11 u
11 u
2300U
2300 UJ
2300 UJ
2300 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
12000 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
Locatton,! Sample Number, and Date
0812
0812V5D
05/16«005
5.3
1.1
0.34 U
0.75 U
0.53 U
920U
1200 U
1200 U
920 U
920 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
2300 UJ
2300 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
230OU
1100OUJ
2300 U
2300 U
0813
0813V5
05/18/2005
2.7
1,1
0.32 U
0.32 U
0.38 U
780 U
1000 U
1000 U
780 U
BBOOU
9.3 U
9.3 U
9.3 U
9.3 U
9.3 U
9.3 U
'
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
10000 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
0817
0817V5
05/12/2005
0.83 J
0.99
0.29 U
0.64 U
0.74
630 U
1600 U
820 U
16000 UJ
630 U
86 U
86 U
86 U
66 U
86 U
86 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
6900 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
0817
0817V5D
05/12/2005
2.6 J
1.1
0.29 U
0.3SU
0.83
620 U
810 U
810 U
5600 UJ
620 U
8.6 U
8.8 U
8.6 U
8.8 U
8.6 U
8.6 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800U
1800 U
9300 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
'
0819
0819V5
06/21/2005
IJl
1.2
0.38 U
0.77 U
0.38 U
940 U
1200 U
1200 U
940 U
940 U
23 U
23 U
23 U
23 U
23 U
23 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
12000 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
^^s^^^^cDcas
0914
0914V5
05/14/2005
3.3
0.82
0.34 U
0.48 U
0.34 U
890 U
1200 U
1200 U
890 U
3200 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
10000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
C-50
Tabte C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
2-Chloronaphttiaiene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthatene
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)
2-Nitroaniiine
2-NltrDphenol
3,3'-Dlchlorobenzldlne
3-Nitroanlline
4,6-Olnitro-2-methylphenol
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenoi
4-Chloroanliine
4-Chiorophenyt phenyl ether
4-Methylphenoi (p-Cresoi)
4-Nltroaninne
4-NItrophenol
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrsne
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h.l)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzidc add
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dl-n-butylphthatete
D)-n-octylDhlhatete
Dlbanz(a.h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Dlethylphthaiate
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL
r.
1
Unite
Uflrt<fl
Ufl/Kfl
ugrt<fl
ugrt<g
Uflrt<fl
ugfl<g
ugfl<fl
Ufl/Kfl
ugrt<g
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ugfl<g
uflrtO
uo/Kn
uaKa
uaKg
ugKa
Ufl/Kfl
uglKQ
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kp
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ugrt<fl
ufl/Ko
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kp
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
ugrt<g
i =
0802
00802V5
05/15/2005
2700 U
2700 U
1600 U
2700 U
2700 UJ
2700 U
5400 U
5400 UJ
2700 UJ
2700 U
2700 U
2700 U
2700 U
2700 U
2700 UJ
5400 UJ
1600 U
1600 U
1600 U
1600 U
1600 U
1600 U
1600 UJ
1600 U
18000 J
2700 U
2700 U
2700 U
1600 U
2700 U
2700 U
1600 UJ
2700 U
2700 U
0812
0812V5
05/16^005
2300 U
2300 UJ
1400 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
: 2300 U
4600 U
4600 UJ
2300 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300U
2300U
230d'U
2300 UJ
-4600 U J
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 UJ
1400 U
4600U
2300 U
2300 U .
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
1400 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
Location. Sample
0812
0812V5D
05/16/2005
2300 U
2300 UJ
1400 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
2300 U
4600 U
4600 UJ
2300 UJ
2300 U
2300U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
4600 UJ
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 UJ
1400 U
4600 U
2300U
230OU
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
1400 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
0813
0813V5
05/ia«005
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
4200 UJ
4200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U J
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
4200 UJ
liZOOU
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4200 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
Number, and Date
0817
0817V5
05/12/2005
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
3600 UJ
3600 UJ
1800 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
3600 UJ
1100 U
1100U
1100U
1100 U
1100 u
1100 u
1100 u
1100 u
3600 UJ
1600 U
1800 U
1600 U
1100 U
2100 J
1800 U
1100U
1800 U
1800 U
0817
0817V5D
05/12/2005
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U J
1800 U
3700 UJ
3700 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
3700 UJ
1100 U
1100 U
1100 U
1100 u
1100 u
1100 u
1100 UJ
1100 u
3700 U
1800 U
1800 U J
1800U
1100U
1800 U
1800 U
1100 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
0819
0819V5
06/21/2005
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
4800 U
4800 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
4800 UJ
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
14000 J
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
-
0914
0914V5
05/14^005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
4100 UJ
4100 UJ
2000 tJ"'
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
4100 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U,
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4100 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2OO0U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
C-51
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Dimethylphthalate
Ruoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hsxachlorocydopentedlene
Hexachloroethane
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
N-Nltroso-dl-n-propylamlne
N-Nltrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phend
Pyrene
bls(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bls(2-<3iloroethyl)ether (2-
Chloroethylether)
bte(2-Chloroi3opropyl)ether
bls(2-Ethylhexyl)phthatete
DIoxln/Furans without 1996
detections
1.2.3.4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1A3.4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1.2.3.4.7.8.9-HPCDF
1.2.3.4,7,8-HxCDD
1.2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF
1,2,3.6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3.6,7,8-HXCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1.2,3,7,8,&+1xCDF
1.2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unita
ugrt<fl
uflrt<g
UO«fl
Ufl«fl
ualKa
Ufl/Kg
ugrt<g
ug^fl
ugn<g
ugn^g
uon<fl
uglKg
ug/Kfl
unrt<g
UOfl<fl
up/Ko
uo/Kfl
uort<o
uq/Kfl
uglKg
up/Kp
ng/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
nfl/Kfl
no/Kg
no/Kg .
no/Kg
nfln<g
0802
00802VS
05/15C005
2700 U
1600 U
1600 U
2700 U
2700 U
5400 UJ
2700 U
1600 U
2700 U
2700 U
2700 U
1600 U
2700 UJ
5400U
1600 U
2700 U
1600 U
2700 U
2700 U
2700 UJ
2700 U
4.27 J
0.806 U
0.935 U
1.39 U
0.784 U
0.585 U
0.521 U
0.952 U
0.834 U
0.547 U
0812
0812V5
05/16/2005
2300 U
1400 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
UR
2300 UJ
1400 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 UJ
4600 U
1400 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
2300 U
0.625 UJ
0.652 U
0.758 U
1.12 U
0.634 U
0.194 U
0.421 U
0.77 U
0.675 U
0.442 U
Location. Sample 1
0812
0812V5O
05/16/2005
2300 U
1400 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
UR
2300 UJ
140OUJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
230OUJ
4600 U
1400 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
2300 U
»•
0.887 J
0.642 U
0.745 U
Z56U
0.824 U
0.101 U
0.415 U
0.759 U
0.665 U
0.435 U
0813
0813V5
05/l8«005
2100 U
1200 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
4200 UJ
2100 UJ
1200 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
1200 U
2100 UJ
4200 U
1200U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 UJ
1.94 J
1.01 J
0769 U
1.8 U
0:845 U
0.197 U
0.429 U
0.783 U
0:686 U
0.45 U
dumber, and Dato
0817
0817V5
05/12/2005
1800 U
1100 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
3600 U
1800 U
1100U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100U
1800 U
3600 UJ
1100 U
1800 U
1100U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1600 U
0.601 UJ
0.844 J
0.727 UJ
1.08 U
0.609 U
0.186 U
0.405 U
0.74 U
0.649 U
0.425 U
0817
0817V5D
05/12^005
1800 U
1100 U
1100U
1800U
1800 U
3700 UJ
1800U
1100 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1600 U
1100U
1800 UJ
3700 U
1100 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1.05 J
1.06 UJ
0.665 U
0.987 U
0.557 U
0.17 U
0.37 U
0.677 U
0.593 U
0.389 U
,^s,«a=ai^
0819
0819V5
06/21/2005
2400 U
1400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
4800 UJ
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 UJ
4800 U
1400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
1.74 J
1.19 U
1.64 U
1.63 U
1.2 U
0.631 U
0.662 U
1.57 U
1.94 U
IU
'^=^=^=
0914
0914V5
05/14/2005
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
4100 UJ
2000 U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 UJ
4100 U
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
1.07 J
0.672 U
0.779 UJ
1.16U
0.653 U
0.2 U
0.434 U
0.794 U
0.696 U
0.456 U
C-52
Tabte C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1,2.3.7,&-PeCDF
2,3,4,6.7.8-HxCDF
2,3,4.7.8-PeCDF
2.3,7.8-TCDD
2,3.7.8-TCDF
Calculated Dioxin/Furan Sum
OCDF
Totel HpCDD
Total HpCDF
Totel HxCDD
Totel HxCDF
Totel PeCDD
Totel PeCDF
Totel TCDD
Totel TCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
ng/Kg
ngfl<g
ng/Kg
nfl/Kfl
ng/Kg
nfl/Kfl
ng/Kg
ng/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
ngrt<fl
ng/Kg
nflfl<fl
ng/Kg
nfl/Kfl
nglKg
0802
00802V5
05/15«005
0.419 U
0.564 U
0.565 U
0.131 U
0.433 U
164
7.72 U
7.02 J
0.806 U
0.585 U
0.521 U
0.547 U
0.419 U
0.131 U
0.433 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date 1
0812
0812V5
05/16/2005
0.339 U
0.458 U
0.457 U
0.106 U
0.35 U
121
6.24 U
1.41J
0.652 U
0.194 U
0.421 U
1.23 J
0.339 U
0.106 U
0.35 U
0812
0812V5D
05/16/2005
0.334 U
0.449 U
0.45 U
0.104 U
0.345 U
6.15 U
1.87 J
0.642 U
2.56 U
0.415 U
0.435 UJ
0.334 U
0.104 U
0.345 U
0813
0813V5
0S/18r200b
0.345 U
0.464 U
0.465 U
0.108 U
0.356 U
120
6.35 U
3.91 J
1.71 J
i.8U
0:458 J
0.45 U
0'345U
0;108 U
0.356 U
0817
0817V5
05/12/2005
0.326 U
0.438 UJ
0.439 U
0.102 UJ
0.337 UJ
103
6U
1.97 J
0.844 J
0.186 U
0.405 UJ
0.425 U
0.341 J
0.102 U
0.337 UJ
0817
0817V5D
05/12/2005
0.298 U
0.401 U
0.402 U
0.0932 U
0.406 J
5.49 U
2.19 J
1.06 UJ
0.17 U
0.406 J
0.389 U
0.371 UJ
0.0932 U
0.406 J
0819
0819V5
06«1/2005
0.505 U
0.607 U
0.758 U
0.49 U
0.745 J
195
5.39 U
10.4 J
1.10 U
2.5 U
0.607 U
IU
0.505 U
0.49 U
0.745 J
0914
0914V5
05/14/2005
0.349 U
0.47 U
0.471 U
0.109 U
0.361 U
151
6.43 U
2.09 U -'i.
0.672 U.:
0.2 U
0.434 U
0.456 U
0.349 U
0.109 U
0.361 U
C-53
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
1004
1004V5
05/17/2005
1007
1007V5
05/13/2005
Location; Sample Number, and Date
1009
1009V5
05/16/2005
1011
1011V5
05/16/2005
1013
1013V5
05/18/2005
1015
1015V5
05/14/2005
1018
1018V5
05/13/2005
1022
1022V5
05/16/2005
Metels with 1996 detections
Sodium mg/Kg 96.2 U g^38l>^| 47.3 U
Tin 7.8 20 mg/Kg 3.6 U 3.4 J 4.3 U 4.3 U 3.1 U 11 4.5 J 4.3 U
Zinc 21.4 22.6 mg/Kg 15.6 18.5 18.8 13.6 14.1 7.4
Explosives with 1996
detecBons
Nitroglycerin 43700000 43700000 ug/Kfl 13000 U 14000 U 13000U 14000 U 12000 U 12000 U 12000 U 16000 U
Tetryl 33000 7000 ug/Kg 810 UJ 1600 U 830 U 6300 U 780 U 1600 J 770 U 970 U
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) with 1996 detections
PCB-1254 (Arodor 1254) 360 360 ug/Kfl 9.4 U 10 U 10 U 9.7 U 9.4 U 9.6 U 9.2 U 12 U
Dioxin/Furans with 1996
detections
OCDD 13500 7000 ng/Kfl 18.3 U 21.1 J 15.4 U 57 3.88 U 8.27 U 3.92 U 2.66 J
Metels without 1996
detections
/^timony mg/Kg 0.25 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.42 J 0.29 J 0.37 U
Arsenic mg/Kg 0.3 U 0.35 J 0.32 U 0.31 U 0.3 U 0.31 U 0.5 J
Beryliium mg/Kg 0.15 U 0.17 U 0.16U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.16 U 0.15 U
0.39 U
0.2 U
Cadmium "iQ/Kg 0.26 U 0.16 J 0.13 U 0.75 0.13 U 0.18 J 0.21 J 0.16 U
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Molybdenum
mg/Kfl
mo/Kfl
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
0.78
0.12 U
0.64
1.8
0.48 J
0.13 U
0.59
2.6
1.1
0.13 U
2.4
1.1 U
0.66
0.12 U
0.84
IU
0.61
0.12 U
IU
0.63
0.13 U
0.89
0.96 J
0.89
0.12 U
1.5
1.4 J
O.B
0.16 U
0.54
0.67 U
C-54
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
/VNALYTE
Nickel
Selenium
SlWer
Thallium
Vanadium
Explosives without 1996
detections
2,4.6-Trinltnotoluene
2,4-Dlnltrotoiuene
2,8-Olnlirotoluens
HMX
RDX
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCRs) without 1996
detections
PCB.1016 (Arodor 1016)
PCB.1221(/Vroclor1221)
PC8-1232 (/krodor 1232)
PCB.1242 (Aroclor 1242)
PCB.1248 (/Arodor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arodor 1260)
SemlvotetOe Organic
Compounds without 1996
detections
1,2,4-Trichiorobenzene
1,2-Dlchiorobenzane
1,3-Dlchlorobenzene
1,4-Dlchlorobsnzene
2,4,5-Trichloroph6nol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dlchlorophenol
2,4-Olmethylphenoi
2,4-Dlnitroohenoi
2,4-Oinitrotoluene
2,6-Dlnitrotoluene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1998
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
mg/Kfl
mo/Kfl
mflrt<fl
mfl/Kg
manfa
Ufl/Kfl
Uflrt<fl
ug/Kg
UQiKa
Ufl/Kfl
Uflrt<B
UB/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
uon<fl
uort<fl
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
UBn<fl
uBn<o
Ufl/Kp
Ufl/Kfl
1004
1004V5
05/17/2005
2.1
1.7
0.3 U
0.54 U
0.42 U
810 UJ
1000 UJ
1000 UJ
25000 UJ
59000 UJ
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
2100U
2100 UJ
2100 UJ
2100 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
10000 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
1007
1007V5
05/13/2005
1.6
i.4
0.33 U
0.59 U
0.33 U
890 U
1200 U
1200 U
75000 U
43000 U
10U
lOU
- 10U
10 U
10U
10 U
,
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
• 2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
11000UJ
2100 U
2100 U
Location. Sample Number, and Date
1009
1009V5
05/16«005
ZB
1.3
0.32 U
0.65 U
0.7
22000 U
1100U
1100U
830 U
31000U
10U
10 U
10 U
10 u
10 u
10 u
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 UJ
2100 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
10000 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
1011
1011V5
05/18/2005
Z2J
0.82
0i31U
0:43 U
0:33 U
840U
1100 U
1100 U
840 U
52000 U
9.7 U
9.7 U
9.7 U
9.7 U
9.7 U
9.7 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
10000 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
1013
1013V5
OS/ia/2005
1.7
1.2
0.3 U
0.54 U
0.42 U
960 U
1500 U
1000 U
780 U
4600 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
0800 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
1015
1015V5
05/14«005
2.5
0.96
0.31 U
0.31 U
0.35 J
7400 J
17000 J
1000 U
770 U
770 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
10000UJ
2000 U
2000 U
1018
1018V5
05/13/2005
4.5
1.1
0.3 U
0.54 U
0.57 J
960 J
16000 U
1000 U
2800 U
770 U
9.2 U
9.2 U
9.2 U
9.2 U
9.2 U
9.2 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
9700 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1022
1022V5
05/16ffi005
3.3 J
0.39 U
0.39 U
0.39 U
0.39 U
80000 U .
3600 U.
5400U
64000 U
970 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
f; •---.•;
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
13000 UJ
2500 U
2500 U
C-55
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chloroohenol
2-Methylnaphthaiene
2-Methylphenol (o^Jresoi)
2-NltroanllIne
2-Nltrophenol
3,3'-Oichlorobenzldlne
S-Nitroanillne
4,6-Dinitro-2-fnethylphenol
4-8romophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-melhylphenoi
4-Chloroanlllne
4-Chlorophenyi phenyl ether
4-Methylphenol (p-Cresol)
4-Nltroanlline
4-Nttrophenol
Acenaphthene
/toenaphthylone
Anthracene
Benzo{a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoran(hene
Benzo(fl,h,l)pervlene
Benzo(k)fluoranlhene
Benzoic add
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Cartiazols
Chrysene
Dl-n-butytphthalate
DI-nK>ctylphthaiate
Olbsnz(a,h)an(hraoene
Dibenzoiuran
DIsthylphthatete
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
UBiKg
ugKa
ugrt<fl
uglKa
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
UQKQ
uglKq
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
Uflfl<0
Uflft<fl
ug/Kfl
Ufl^fl
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Ko
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kfl
ugn<g
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
iig/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
ufln<fl
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kp
ug/Kg
uaKg
LocaUon,;Sample Number, and Date j
1004
10O4V5
05/17/2005
2100 U
2100 UJ
1200 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
4200 U
4200 UJ
2100 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
4200 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
1007
1007V5
05/13/2005
2100 U
2100 U
1300U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
4200 UJ
4200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
4200 UJ
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
- 1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 UJ
1300 U
4200 U
2100 U
.2100UJ
2100 U
1300 U
. 2100 U
2100 U
1300 UJ
21 OOU
2100 U
1009
1009V5
05/18«005
2100 U
2100 UJ
1200 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
4200 U
4200 UJ
2100 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
4200 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4200 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
1011
1011V5
05/16/2005
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2i00 UJ
2100 U
4200 U
4200 UJ
2100 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
4200 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
1013
1013V5
05/18/2005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
3900 UJ
3900 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
3S00UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
3900 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
1015
1015V5
05/14C005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
4100 UJ
4100 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
4100 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4100 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
1018
1018V5
05/13^005
1900 U
1900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
1900 U
3900 UJ
3900 UJ
1900 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
3000 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
3900 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900U
1022
1022V5
05/16«005
2500 U
2500 U
1500 U
2500 U
2500 UJ
2500 U
5100 U
5100 UJ
2500 UJ
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
2500 UJ
5100 U J
1500 U
1500 U
1500 U
1500 U
1500 U
1500U
1500 UJ
1500 U
5100 UJ
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
1500 U
2500 U
2500 U
1500UJ
2500 U
2500 U
C-56
Tabte C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Dimethylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachtorocydopentediene
Hexachloioethane
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
N-NItroso-dl-r>-propylamine
N-Nltrosodiphenviamine
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
bls(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether (2-
Chloroethylether)
bls(2-Chlorolsopropyl)ether
bls(2-Eihylhexyt)phthatete
Dioxin/Furans without 1996
detections
1,2.3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2,3,4.6.7.8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,e,7,8-HxCDF
1A3,7.8,9-HxCDD
1.2,3.7,8,9+ixCDF
1,2,3,7,84'eCDD
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
Uflrt<fl
UOfl<fl
Ufl«fl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugfl<g
ugrt<g
ug/Kfl
ug/Kfl
uart<fl
ugfl<fl
Ufl/Kfl
ugrt<g
ugfl<g
ug/Kg
ug/Ko
uflfl<B
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
uflflCg
no/Kfl
np/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
no/Kfl
no/Kfl
nfl/Kg
ng/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
ng/Kg
1004
1004V5
05/17/2005
2100 U
1200 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
UR
2100 UJ
1200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 UJ
4200 U
1200 U
2100 U
1200 U
21 OOU
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
1.21 U
0.764 U
0.886 U
1.55 U
0.742 U
0.227 U
0.494 U
0.902 U
0.791 U
0.518 U
"?
1007
• 1007V5
05/13/2005
2100 U
1300 U
1300 U
2100 U
2100 U
4200 UJ
2100 U
1300 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1300 U
2100 UJ
4200 U
1300 U
2100 U
1300 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2.20 J
0.727 U
0.693 U
1.03 U
0.581 U
0.176 U
0.386 U
0.706 U
o.ei9u
0.405 U
Location, Sample
1009
loogvs
05/16/2005
2100 U
1200 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
UR
2100 UJ
1200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 UJ
4200 U
1200 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
2.49 J
0.774 J
0.793 U
1.18 U
0.665 U
0.319 J
0.442 U
0.808 U
0.708 U
0.464 U
1011
1011V5
05/16«005
2100 U
1200 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
4200 UJ
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 UJ
4200 U
1200 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
4.66 J
1.96 J
0.986 U
1.46 U
0.826 U
0.462 J
0.540 U
IU
0.879 U
0.576 U
Mumber, and Date
1013
1013V5
05/13/2005
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
3900 UJ
2000 UJ
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 UJ
3900U
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
0.63 J
0.51 U
0.592 U
0.878 U
0.496 U
0.152 U
0.33 U
0.602 U
0.528 U
0.346 U
1015
1015V5
05/14/2005
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
4100 UJ
2000 U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 UJ
4100 U
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
1.4 J
0.902 J
0.638 UJ
0.947 U
0.534 U
0.164 U
0.355 U
0.649 U
0.569 U
0.373 U
...
1018
1018V5
05/13/2005
1900 U
1200 U
1200 U
1000 U
1900 U
3900 UJ
1900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1200 U
1900 U
3900 UJ
1200 U
1900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
0.74 J
0.579 U
0.672 UJ
0.997 U
0.563 U
0.172 U
0.374 U
0.684 U
0.599 U
1 0.393 U
1022
1022V5
05/16/2005
25O0U
1500 U
1500 U
2500 U
2500 U
5100 UJ
2500 U
1500 U
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
1500 U
2500 UJ
5100 U
1500U
2500 U
1500 U
2500 U
2500 U
2500 UJ
2500 U
0.56 U
0.523 J
0.505 U
0.75 U
0.424 U
0.275 U
0.346 J
0.515 U
0.451 U
0.295 U
C-57
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,6.7.8-HxCDF
2,3.4,7,8^eCDF
2,3,7,6-TCDD
2,3,7,B-TCDF
Calculated DIoxIn/Furan Sum
OCDF
Totel HpCDD
Totel HpCDF
Totel HxCDD
Totel HxCDF
Total PeCDD
Total PeCDF
Totel TCDD
Totel TCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
nfl/Kfl
ng/Kg
nBn<fl
nfl/Kg
ng/Kfl
nflrt<g
ng/Kg
ng/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
nn/Kn
nfl/Kfl
ng/Kg
nfl«g
Location,: Sampte Number, and Date 1
1004
1004V5
05/17/2005
0.397 U
0.534 U
0.535 U
0.124 U
0.732 J
170
7.31 U
1.96 U
0.764 U
1.55 U
0.494 U
0.518 U
0.397 U
0.124 U
1.31 J
1007
1067V5
05/13/2005
0.31 U
0.418 U
0.419 U
0.0972 U
0.321 U
. 122
5.72 U
5.61 J
1.4 U
0.178 U
0:386 U
0.405 U
0.31 U
0.0972 U
0.321 U
1009
1009V5
05/16/2005.
0.355 U
0.478 U
0.479U
0.111 U
0.387 U
99.3
6.55 U
5.08 J
0.774 J
2.48 U
0.573 J
0.809 J
0.856 U
0.111 U
0.502 J
1011
1011V5
05/16/2005
0.441 U
0.594 U
0.596 U
0.138 U
0.458 U
152
8.14 U
10.6 J
1.96 J
3.95 U
0.917 J
0.792 J
o;44iu
Oil 38 U
0.456 U
1013
1013V5
05/18/2005
0.265 U
0.357 U
0.357 U
0.0829 U
0.405 U
105
4.88 U
1.47 J
0.51 U
0.B2B U
0.33 U
0.346 U
0.265 U
0.0829 U
0.405 U
1015
1015V5
05/14/2005
0.286 U
0.385 U
0.385 U
0.0894 U
0.295 U
92.2
5.26 U
2.99 J
0.902 J
0.389 U
0.484 U
0.427 J
0.389 U
0.878 U
0.295 U
1018
1018V5
05/13/2005
0.301 U
0.405 U
0.406 U
0.0941 U
0.311 U
118
5.54 U
1.32 U
0.579 U
0.172 U
0.38 J
0.393 U
0,301 U
0.0941 U
0.311 U
1022
1022V5
05/16/2005
0.29 J
0.305 U
0.305 U
0.0708 U
0.348 J
53.3
4.17 U
1.09 U
0.523 J
0.88 U
0.346 J
0.295 U
0.534 J
0.0708 U
0.346 J
C-58
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
/KNALYTE
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
1108
1108V5
05/16/2005
1202
1202V5
05/15/2005
1-OcaUon. Sample Number, and Date
1209
1209V5
05/13/2005
1214
1214V5
05/19/2005
1216
1216V5
05/11/2005
1222
1222V5
05/14Q005
1223
1223V5
05/14/2005
1305
1305V5
05/17/2005
Metels with 1996 detections
Mercury mg/Kg 0.045 U
Potassium 9310 10408 mg/Kg
Scxjium 320 323 mg/Kg 320 3^7 U "^^^tel
0.051 J 0.057 J 0.051 U 0.048 U 0.057 J
^^^l^l^^I^^^^^^I^^M^^^^I irej^g
204 185 60J 61.7 J
Tin 7.8 20 mg/Kg 3.1 U 4U 5J 3U 3U 5.3 J 3U
Zinc 21.4 22.6 mg/Kg 21.6 11.9 16.2 18.6 21.6
Explosives with 1996
detections
Nitrofllycerin 43700000 43700000 ug/Kg 13000 U 733200 J 12000 U 12000 U 12000 U 13000 U 15000U 12000 U
Tetiyl 33000 7000 "9^Kg 810 U 860 U 2500 U 740 U 750 U 950 U 930 U 780 UJ
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) wtth 1996 detections
PCB-1254 (Arodor 1254) 360 360 "0^0 9.7 U 10 U 10 U 8.9 U 8.9 U 11 U 12 UJ 9.2 U
DIoxln/Furans witii 1996
detections
OCDD 13500 7000 ng/Kg 22.3 J 3.55 U 7.29 U 5.03 J 9.40 J 5.36 U 4.61 U 3.85 U
Metels without 1996
detections
Antimony mg/Kg 0.25 U 0.26 U 0.28 J 0.23 U 0.24 U 0.29 U 0.31 U 0.27 U
Arsenic mg/Kg 0.62 0.33 U 0.47 J 0.31 U 0.41 J 0.37 U 0.39 U 0.42 U
Beryllium mg/Kg 0.15 U 0.16 U 0.17 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.18 U 0.19 U 0.15 U
0.32 Cadmium mg/Kfl 0.25 U 0.13 U 0.28 J 0.24 U 0.22 J 0.26 J 0.15 U
Chromium
Cobalt
mg/Kfl
mg/Kg
1.9 0.6 U 0.73 0.55 U 0.77 0.76
0.34 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.15 U
Lead mfl/Kg
Moiybdenum mfl/Kfl
2.6
IU
0.66 1.1 0.85 1.6 0.98
1.4 J 2.8 1.6 1.2 J 0.99 J
0.84
0.15 U
0.78
O.BJ
0.88
0.12 U
0.91
3.8
C-59
Tabte C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Explosives witiiout 1996
detections
2,4,e-Trinltrotoiuene
2,4-Dlnltrotoluene
2,6-Oinltrotoluene
HMX
RDX
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) wittiout 1996
detections
PCB-1016 (Arodor 1016)
PCB-1221 (/Arodor 1221)
PCB-1232 lAmdor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Arodor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Arodor 1248)
PCB.1260 (Arodor 1260)
Semivolatile Organic
Compounds wittiout 199U
detections
1,2,4-Trichiorobenzene
1,2-Oichlorobanzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4.5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,&-Trichlorophanol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dlmethylphenol
2,4-Dlnltrophenol
2,4-Oinltrotoluene
2.6^31nltrotoluene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
mg/Kg
mfl/Kfl
mn/Kn
mfl«o
mg/Kg
Ufl/Kg
uglKa
ugn<fl
UQ/KQ
ugfl<o
ugrt<g
ug/Ka
UB/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
UB/Ko
uon<fl
UflflCfl
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kfl
ug/Kfl
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kfl
ugfl<9
'.. Location, Sample Number, and Date |
1108
110BV5
05/16«005
2.8
0.88
0.31 U
0.74 U
1.8,
810 U
1000 U
1000 U
33000U
10000U
9.7 U
9.7 U
9.7 U
9.7 U
9.7 U
9.7 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
10000 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
1202
1202V5
05/15fl!005
3.5 J
. 1.3
0.33 U
0.59 U
0.33 U
.
860 U
1100U
1100 U
34000U
140000 J
10 U
fOU
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 u
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
,11000 UJ
2200U
2200 U
1209
1209V5
05/13/2005
3.6
1
0.33 U
0.59 U
0.38 J
2400 U
980 U
980 U
160000 U
BSOOOJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000U
2000 U
10000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
1214
1214V5
05/19«005
1.1
1.2
0.20 U
0.52 U
0;35U
4400
970 U
970 U
30000U
41000U
8.9 U
aou
8.9 U
8.9 U
8.9 U
8.9 U
•
1800 UJ
1800 UJ
1800 UJ
1800 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
9100 UJ
1800 U
1600 U
1218
1218V5
05/11/2005
2.5
1.2
0.3 U
0.66 U
0.53 J
750 U
8800 U
980 U
22000U
14000U
8.9 U
6.9 U
8.9 U
6.9 U
8.9 U
8.9 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
9400 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1222
1222V5
05/14«005
4.4
0.8
0.37 U
0.37 U
0.37 U
2100 J
1000 U
1000 U
36000 U
810 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
12000 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
1223
1223V5
05/14«005
12.3
0.89
0.39 U
0.39 U
0.39 U
[•
15000 J
2000 U
1200 U
20000 U
930 U
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
12000 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
1305
1305V5
05/17/2005
1.6
1.1
0.3 U
0.54 U
0.57 U
780 UJ
3200 UJ
1000UJ
54000 UJ
42000 UJ
9.2 U
9.2 U
9.2 U
9.2 U
9.2 U
9.2 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
10000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
C-60
Tabte C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTB
2-Chloronaphttialene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphttiatene
2-Metiiylphenol (o-Cresoi)
2-Nltroanlllne
2-Nitrophenoi
3,3'-Dlchlorobenzldlne
3-Nitroanillne
4,643lnltrD-2-mettiylphenol
1 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
1 4.Chloro-3-methylphenol
1 4-Chloroanlline
1 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ettier
4-Methylphenol (p-Cresoi)
4-Nltroanlllne
4-Nltrophenol
1 Acenaphthene
1 Acenaphthylene
Anttiracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(fl,hJ)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzoic add
1 Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dl-n-butylphthalate
Dl-n-octylphttialate
Dlbenz(a,h)anttiracene
Dibenzofuran
Dtettiylphttialate
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
Ufl/Kp
Uflfl<fl
Uflfl<fl
UB/Kfl
ug«g
Ufl/Kfl
Uflfl<fl
unfl<fl
Ufl/Kfl
Uflfl<0
ufln<fl
unfl<fl
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kfl
ualKg
\tan<a
ug/Kg
Uflrt<fl
ug/Kg
ugfl<g
UBrt<n
UBfl<fl
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kg
Uflrt<0
Ufl/Kfl
un/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
Ufl/Ko
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
LocaUon, Sample Number, and Date |
1108
1108V5
05/16/2005
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
4200 U
4200 UJ
2100 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
4200 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4200 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200.UJ
2100 U
2100 U
1202
1202V5
05/15^005
2200 U
2200 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
2200 U
4400 U
4400 UJ
2200 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200U
2200 U
2200 UJ
4400 UJ
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 UJ
1300 U
4400 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200 U
1300 UJ
2200 U
. 2200U
1209
1209V5
05/13^005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
4100 U J
4100 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
26bouJ
4100 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4100 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
1214
1214V5
05/19/2005
1800 U
1800 UJ
1100 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 UJ
3600 U
3600 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
3600 UJ
1100 U
1100U
lioou
1100 u
1100 u
1100 u
1100UJ
lioou
3600 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1100 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1218
1218V5
05/11/2005
1900 U
1900 U
1100 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
1900 U
3800 U
3800 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
3800 UJ
1100 U
1100 U
1100 U
1100 U
1100 U
1100 u
1100 UJ
lioou
3600 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
lioou
1900 U
1900 U
1100 U
1900 U
1900 U
1222
1222V5
05/14/2005
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
2300 U
4700 UJ
4700 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
4700 UJ
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 UJ
1400 U
4700 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
1400 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
1223
1223V5
05/14/2005
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
4800 UJ
4800 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
4800 UJ
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 UJ
1400 U
4800 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
1305
1305V5
05/17/2005
2000 U
2000 UJ
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
4000 U
4000 UJ
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
4000 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
C-61
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Dimettiylphttiaiate
FluoranUiene
Ruorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocydopentediene
Hexachloroettiane
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
N-Nllroso-dl-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodlphenylamine
Naphttiaiene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
PhenanOirene
Phenol
Pyrene
bls(2-Chlaroethoxy)mettwne
bis(2-Chioroethyl)ether (2-
ChloroethyleUier)
bis(2-Chlorol8opropyl)ether
bte(2-Ethylhexyl)phUialate
Dioxin/Furans without 1996
detections
1.2,3.4,6,7,e+lpCDD
1.2,3,4,6,7.8-HpCDF
1,2,3.4,7,8,&.HpC0F
1,Z3,4,7,8.HxCDD
1,2,3,4.7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
U.3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2.3,7,8,9-HxCOD
1,2,3.7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3.7,8-PoCDD
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
"8^9
ug«g
ugfl<fl
ugrt<fl
ugn<g
ugrt<g
U9«p
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
uglKg
ugn<g
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ugKa
ugn<g
ugA<g
ugKg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ng/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
nglKa
1108
1108V5
05/16/2005
2100 U
1200 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
4200 UJ
2100 U
1200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200U
2100 UJ
4200 U
1200 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
2.34 J
0.927 J
0.784 U
1.16 U
0.657 U
0.201 U
0.437 U
0.798 U
0.699U
0.458 U
1202
1202V5
05/15^^005
2200 U
1300 U
' 1300U
2200U
2200 U
440OUJ
2200 U
11300 U
2200 U
2200U
2200 U
1300 U
2200 UJ
4400U
.1300 U
2200 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
2200 U
0.846 J
0.707 J
0.710 U
1.07 U
0.603 U
- 0.184 U
0.401 U
0.732 U
0.642 U
0.42 U
Location.Sample Number, and Date
1209
120gV5
05/13/2005
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
4100 UJ
2000U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 UJ
4100 U
1200 U
2000 U
1?00U
2000 U
2000U
2000U
200OUJ
.
1.54 U
0.72 U
0.835 UJ
1.24 U
0.7 U
0.214 U
0.465 U
0.851 U
0.745 U
0.488 U
1214
1214V5
05/10«005
1800 U
lioou
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U J
3600 UJ
1800 UJ
1100 U
1600U
1800 UJ
1800 U
1100 UJ
1600 UJ
3600 U
1100 U
1800 U
lioou
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 UJ
1800 UJ
0.857 J
0:769 U
0.892 U
1.32 U
0.748 U
0.229 U
0.497 U
01909 U
0.796 U
0.522 U
1218
1218V5
05/11/2005
1900 U
1100 U
1100 U
1900 U
1900 U
3800 UJ
1900 U
1100 U
1900 U
1000 U
1900 U
1100U
1900 U
3800 U
1100 U
1900 U
1100 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1.44 J
0.744 U
0.863 U
1.28 U
0.723 U
0.221 U
0.481 U
0.879 U
0.77 U
0.504 U
1222
1222V5
05/14/2005
2300 U
1400 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
4700 UJ
2300 U
1400 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 UJ
4700 U
1400 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
0.829 J
0.681 U
0.79 UJ
1.17 U
0.662 U
0.523 U
0.44 U
0.805 U
0.705 U
0.462 U
1223
1223V5
05/14«005
2400 U
1400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
4800 UJ
2400 U
1400 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 UJ
4800 U
1400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
0.816 J
0.675 U
0.783 UJ
1.16 U
0.656 U
0.201 U
0.436 U
0.797 U
0.699 U
0.458 U
1305
1305V5
05/17/2005
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
UR
2000 UJ
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 UJ
4000 U
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
0.983 U
1.03 U
1.19 U
1.77 U
0.997 U
0.305 U
0.663 U
1.21 U
1.06 U
0.695 U
C-62
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1,2,3.7.8-PeCDF
2.3,4,8,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,7.8-TCDD
2,3,7.8-TCDF
Calculated Dioxin/Furan Sum
OCDF
Totel HpCDD
Totel HpCDF
Totel HxCDD
Total HxCDF
Totel PeCDD
Totel PeCDF
Totel TCDD
Totel TCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
t\aKa
nfl/Kfl
nfl«fl
nfl/Kfl
ngrt<g
ng/Kg
noKa
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
no/Kfl
ng/Kg
ngrt<g
ng/Kfl
nn/Kn
nflrt<fl
Location, Sample Number, and Date 1
1108
1108V5
05/16tt005
0.351 U
0.473 U
0.474 U
0.11 U
0.397 J
91.2
8.47 U
5.17 J
0.927 J
0.618 J
0.484 J
0.458 U
0.351 U
0.11 U
0.397 J
1202
1202V5
05/150005
0.322 U
0.434 U
0.435 U
0.101 U
0.333 U
127
5.94U
1.48 U
0.707 J
0.184 U
0.401 U
0.42 U
0.322 U
0.101 U
0.333 U
1209
1209V5
OS/13/2005
0.374 U
0.504 U
0.505 U
0.117 U
0.387 U
147
6.9 U
3.28 U
0.72 U
0.703 J
0.465 U
0.522 U
0.374 U
0.117 U
0.387 U
1214
1214V5
05/19/2005
0.4 U
0.538 U
0.539 U
0.125 U
0.413 U
129
7:37 U
0.857 J
0.769 U
0.229 U
0.497 U
0.522 U
0.4 U
0.125 U
0.413 U
1218
1218V5
05/11/2005
0.388 U
0.52 U
0.521 U
0.121 U
0.4 U
145
7.12 U
2.94 U
0.744 U
1.79 U
0.481 U
0.504 U
0.386 U
0.121 U
0.4 U
1222
1222V5
05/14/2005
0.354 U
0.476 U
0.477 U
0.111 U
0.859 J
152
6.52 U
1.69 U
0.681 U
1.99 U
0.44 U
0.462 U
0.354 U
0.111 U
1.61 J
1223
1223V5
05/14/2005
0.351 U
0.472 U
0.473 U
0.11 U
0.827 J
137
6.46 U
1.72 J
0.675 U
0.201 U
0.436 U
0.458 U
0.351 U
0.11 U
1.6 J
1305
1305V5
05/17/2005
0.533 U
0.717 U
0.719 U
0.167 U
0.823 J
209
9.82 U
1.07 J
1.03 U
1.58 U
0.663 U
0.695 U
0.533 U
0.167 U
1.39 U
C-63
Tabte C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
1412
1412V5
05/10/2005
Location. Sample Number, and Date
1416
1416V5
05/11/2005
1506 ,
1508V5
05/12/2005
1710
1710V5
05/11/2005
1808
1808V5
05/11/2005
Metels witii 1996 detections
Aluminum 211 269 mg/Kg 238 135
Barium 10.7 mg/Kg m
Boron 20.8 23.8 mg/Kg 17.6
Caldum 3750 4168 mg/Kg wm
Copper 13.3 13.8 mg/Kg 11.3 2.7 12.3 11.8 9.4
Iron
Magnesium
192 228 mg/Kg 194 •m^rm
948 1017 mg/Kg
Manganese 34.8 38 mg/Kg ^m^m 20.3
Mercury 0.71 2.5 nfg/Kfl 0.15 J 0.078 J O.OOJ 0.078 J 0.036 J
Potessium 9310 10408 mg/Kg 4660 ^Pj
Sodium 320 323 mg/Kg 109 J 63.6 J 161 195 119J
Tin 7.8 20 mg/Kg 3.3 U 3.4 U 3U 2.9 U 4.3 J
Zinc 21.4 22.6 mg/Kg 17.3 10.9 16.5 18.6 16.3
Explosives with 1996
detections
Nitroglycerin 43700000 43700000 Ufl/Kfl 14000 U 12000 U 13000 U 12000 U 13000 U
Tetryl 33000 7000 ug/Kg 870 U 770 U 810 U 760 U 620 U
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) wtth 1996 detections
PCB-1254 (Arodor 1254) 360 360 ug/Kg 9.8 U 11 UJ 9.4 U 8.5 U 9.5 U
DIoxln/Furans with 1996
detections
OCDD 13500 7000 ng/Kg 12.4 J 4.92 J: 7.33 U 33.9 J 5.27 J
Metels without 1996
detections
Antimony
Arsenic
Beiylilum
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Molybdenum
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kfl
mg/Kg
0.26 J
0.5 J
0.16 U
0.16 J
0.63
0.13 U
1.4
1.1 J
0.27 U
0.34 U
0.17 U
0.14 U
0.61 J
0.14 U
2.1
0.36 J
0.24 U
1.1
0.15 U
0.12 J
0.71
0.12 U
0.96
1.3 J
0.24 U
2.3
0.15 U
0.12 J
1
0.12 U
1.3
1.2 J
0.25 U
0.6 J
0.15 U
0.13 J
0.66
0.12 U
0.89
1.1 J
C-64
Tabte C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Nickel
Selenium
Sliver
Thallium
Vanadium
Explosives without 1996
detections
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,B431nltrotoluene
HMX
RDX
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) without 1996
detections
PCB-1016 (Ajodor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Arodor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arodor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)
PCB.1248 (Arodor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arodor 1260)
Semivoiatile Organic
Compounds wittiout 1996
detections
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichiorophenol
2,4,6-Trlchiorophenol
2,4-Dlchlorophenol
2,4-Dlmettiylphenol
2,4-Dlnitrophenoi
2,4-Dlnltrotoluene
2,6-Dlnltrotoluene
1998
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% LfTL Unite
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mBn<o
mflrt<fl
mflrt<fl
ug/Kg
ugKq
Ufl«fl
unrtCfl
lig/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Ka
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg
ugrt<g
ugrt<g
ugfl<g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugn<g
Ufl/Kfl
1412
1412V5
05/10C005
2.6
1.1
0.33 U
0.46 U
0.41 J
870 U
1100 U
1100 U
7600 UJ
870 U
9.8 U
0.8 U
9.8 U
9.8 U
9.8 U
0.8 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
9800 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
Locatiori, Sample Number, and Oate
1418
1416V5!
05/11/2005
1.2
1.2
0.34 U
0.88 U
0.34 U
10000U
10000 U
84000U
S4000U
11000 U
11 UJ
11 UJ
11 UJ
11 UJ
11 UJ
11 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
11000 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
1508
. 1508V5
05/12/2005
1.4
1.3
0.3 U
0.59 U
0.46 J
3600 U
1000 U
1000 U
16000 UJ
810 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
10000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
1710
1710V5
05/11/2005
2.1
1.1
0.29 U
0.59 U
0.58 J
760 U
980 U
980 U
57000 UJ
760 U
8.5 U
8.5 U
8.5 U
8.5 U
8.5 U
8.5 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
9400 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1808
1808V5
05/11/2005
1.8
1.2
0.31 U
0.58 U
0.39 J
2300 U
1100 U
1100 U
30000 UJ
9500 U
0.5U
9.5 U
9.5 U
9.5 U
9.5 U
9.5 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
10000 U J
2000 U
2000 U
C-65
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
2-Chioronaphttiaiene
2-Chlorophenol
2-MeUiyinaphttiaiene
2-Mettiylphenol (o-Cresol)
1 2-Nitroanlllne
2-Nitrophenol
1 3,3'-Dlchlorobenzldlne
3-Nitroanillne
4,6-Dlnitro-2-mettiylphenol
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ettier
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-(^loroanilin8
4-Chioroplienyl phenyl ether
4-Mettiylphenol (p-Cresol)
4-Nltroanllins
4-Nitrophenol
Acenaphttiene
Acenaphttiylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anUiracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranttiBne
Benzo(g,h,l]perylene
Benzo(lt)fluoranttiene
Benzoic acid
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dl-n-butylphtfialate
Dl-n-octylphthatate
Dlbenz(a,h)anttiracene
Dibenzofuran
DIethylphttiaiate
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
90% UTL Unite
ugfl<g
uprt<fl
ugms
Ufl/Kfl
UOKB
vaiKa
ug/Kg
ugrt<g
ugrt<g
ug/Kg
un«fl
ug/Kg
ugn<g
up«g
ugrt<g
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg
un/kp
un/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg,
Ufl/Kg
un/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kg
ugrt<g
Ufl«fl
""
1412
1412V5
05/10/2005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
3900 U
3900 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
3900 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200U
1200 UJ
1200U
3900 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U"
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1416
1418V5
05/11/2005
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
2300 U;
4600 U
4600 UJ
2300 Ui
2300 U:
2300 U
2300 Ul
2300 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
4600 UJ
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 UJ
1400 U
4600 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
1508
1508V5
05/12/2005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
4000 U
4000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
4000 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
1710
1710V5
05/11/2005
1900 U
1900 U
1100U
1900 U
1900 UJ
1900 U
3800 U
3800 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
3800 UJ
1100U
1100 U
1100 U
1100U
1100 U
1100 u
1100 UJ
1100 u
3800 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1100 U
1900 U
1900 U
1100U
1900 U
1900 U
1808
180BV5
05/11/2005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ 1
2000 U
4100 U
4100 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
4100 U J
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4100 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
C-66
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Dimethylphttiaiate
FluoranUiene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutediene
Hexachlorocydopentediene
Hexachloroettiane
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrenB
Isophorone
N-Nitroso-di-n-propyiamlne
N-Nlttosodiphenyiamine
Naphttiaiene
Nitrobenzene
Pentechlorophenol
Phenanttirene
Phenol
Pyrene
bte(2-Chloroettioxy)metfiane
bls(2-Chloroettiyl)eUier (2-
Chloroettiylettier)
bls(2-Chloroisopropyl)ettier
bis(2-Ettiylhexyl)phttialate
Dioxin/Furans wittiout 1996
detections
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2.3.4.6.7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
l,2,3.6,7,&+ixCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1.2.3.7.8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
ug/Kg
ugfl<g
ugrt<g
ugrt<g
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kfl ,
UBiKa
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kg
ugrt<g
ugrt<n
ugrt<g
ualKa
ugn<g
ug«g
ufln<fl
ug/Kfl
up/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kfl
nn/Kfl
nofKg •
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
nfl/Kg
ng/Kg
1 nalKQ
Location, Sample Number, and Date |
1412
1412VS
05/10/2005
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
3900 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
3900 U
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1.69 J
i;05J
0.656 U
0.978 U
0.552 U
0.169 U
0.367 U
0.67 U
0.587 U
0.385 U
1418
1416V5
05/11ffi005
2300 U
1400 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 u:
4600 UJ
2300 u:
1400 u:
2300 U:
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
4600 U
1400 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U'
2300 U
2300 U
0.691 J
0.471 U
0.546 U
0.811 U
0.457 U
0.14 U;
0.304 U
0.556 U
0.487 U
0.319 U
1508
150BV5
05/12«005
2000 U
1200U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
4000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
4000 U
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
- 2000U
2000 U
1.18 J
0.707 U
0.82 UJ
1.22 U
0,687 U
0.21 U
0.457 U
0.835 U
0.732 U
0.48 U
1710
1710V5
05/11/2005
1900 U
1100 U
1100 U
1900 U
1900 U
3800 UJ
1900 U
1100U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1100 U
1900 U
3800 U
1100 U
1900 U
1100 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
9.13 J
0.872 J
0.937 U
1.39 U
0.785 U
1.4 J
0.522 U
0.954 U
0.836 U
0.548 U
1808
180BV5
05/11/2005
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
4100 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
4100 U
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
0.797 U
0.831 U
0.964 U
1.43 U
0.808 U
0.247 U
0.537 U
0.982 U
0.86 U
0.563 U
C-67
Table C-2. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Shrubs) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1,2,3,7,&.PeCDF
2,3,4,e,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,6-TCDF
1 Calculated DioxIn/Furan Sum
OCDF
Total HpCDD
Totel HpCDF
Totel HxCDD
Totel HxCDF
Total PeCDD
Total PeCDF
Total TCDD
1 Totel TCDF
1998
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
no/Kn
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ngfl<fl .,
ng/Kg
ngmq
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ngrt<fl
ng/Kg
ngfl<g
ng/Kg
ngrt<g
ng/Kg
ngn<g
1412
1412VS
05/10/2005
0.295 U
0.397 U
0.398 U
0.0923 U
0.305 U
84.8
5.43 U
4.02 J
1.88 J
0.169 U
0.544 J
0.385 U
0.295 U
0.0923 U
0.305 U
Locatton, Sample Number, and Date
1418
1418V5
05/11/2005
0.244 U
0.329 U
0.33 U
0.0765 U
0.26 U
80.6
4.51 U
1.4 U
0.471 U
0.293 J
0.304 U
0.319 U
0.244 U
0.0765 U
1 0.26 U
1508
1508V5
0&12J2005
0.387 U
0.495 U
0.496 U
0.115 UJ
0.38 U
159
6.77 U
2.28 U
0.707 U
0.21 U
0.457 U
0.48 U
0.367 U
0.115 U
0.38 U
1710 !
1710V5
05/11/2005
0.42 U
0.565 U
0.566 U
0.131 U
0.434 U
130
7.73 U
14.4 J
0.872 J
2.8 J
1.21 J
0.548 U
0.42 U
1 0.131 U
0.434 U
1
1808
1808V5
05/11/2005
0.432 U
0.581 U
0.582 U
0.135 U
0.446 U
156
7.96 U
0.797 U
0.831 U
0.247 U
0.537 U
0.563 U
0.432 U
0.135 U
0.446 U
Notes:
Data quality is described in the 2005 Data Validation Letter Report for Environmental Monitoring Follow-on Study for the
Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility Tooele. Utah, (CMA, November 2005) including use of the data qualification codes
which are briefly explained below:
U = analyte was analyzed for but was not detected (ND) above the reported sample quantitation limit.
J = analyte was positively identified; however, the associated numerical value is an estimate of the concentration of the
analyte in the sample.
UJ = analyte was ND above the reported sample quantitation limit. However, the reported quantitation limit is an estimate and
may or may not represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the
sample.
In this table, method detection limits are presented for ND samples for consistency with Environmental Monitoring Baseline Study.
C-68
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous)^
ANALYTE
1096
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
0111
0112H3
06/23/2005
0214
0214H5
05/20/2005
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0308
0308HS
Oa/22/2005
0400
O400H5
05/15/2005
0416
0416H5
05/18/2005
0420
0420H5
05/18/2005
0515
0515H5
05/16/2005
0611
0611H5
05/17/2005
Metate wltti 1096 detections
Aluminum 3710 4276 mfl/Kfl 58 63.7 J 29.6 346 278 J , 43.4 J 52.5 J 83.1 J
Barium 50.7 67.1 mfl/Kfl 12.8 13,3 23.1 16.6 27.6 22.2 10.3
Boron 15 8.5 mg/Kp ^iB^giai 5.9 J 7.5
Caldum 14500 16866 mg/Kfl 11100 8310 11000 4440 4440 2350 2580 8320
Chromium 5.2 5.8 mg/Kg 0.73 0.94 0.48 J 1.6 0.91 0.71 0.35 U 0.57 U
Copper 9.3 12.3 mg/Kg 3.3 6.2 3.8 6.4 6.4 3.4 3.7 5.2
Iron 2890 3307 mg/Kg 89.5 182J 81.3 433 265 J 108 J 81.2 J 136 J
Magnesium 2750 3261 mfl/Kfl 2680 2670 973 1890 1110 1050 2920
Manganese 151 198 mfl/Kp 46.5 46.8 J 70.8 81.4 68.1 J 43.2 J 49.9 J 27 J
Mdybdenum 1.2 7.5 mfl/Kp 4.1 0.97 U 1.3 J 0.88 U 1.2 U 0.91 U
Nickel 3.9 3.9 jnalKjL 0.39 J Z9 0.29 U
Potassium B380 0710 mfl/Kp mmsm
1.6 0.98 0.28 U 0.39 U
Sodium 269 345 mg/Kfl 2370 85.2 U 42.2 U 34.1 U
Vanadium 6.2 6.3 mg/Kd 0.29 U 0.38 U 0.29 U 0.57 J 0.39 U 0.29 U 0.28 U 0.33 U
Zinc 27.4 30 mg/Kg 16.4 18.9 9.3 18.5 17.6 15.9 13.6 23.4
Explosives witti 1996
detections
2.4-Dinitrotoiuene 9900 7000 ug/Kfl 930 U 1300 U 970 U 1100 U 930 UJ 9600 UJ 930 U 1100 UJ
HMX 3700 3700 _ya5Sa_ 710 U 1000 U 740 U 830 U 960 UJ 1000 UJ 720 U 840 UJ
Nitroglycerin 438000 438000 ug/Kg 11000U 16000U 12000U 13000 U 11000U 12000 U 11000 U 13000 U
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) with 1998 detections
PCB-1254 (Arodor 1254) 800 800 ug/Kg 17 U 12 UJ 18 U 10 UJ BU 9.1 U 8.5 U 9.7 U
Semivoiatile Organic
Compounds wltti 1996
detections
2.4-DinitrotoiuenB 9900 7000 ug/Kfl 1700 U 2400 U 1900 U 2200 U 1700 U 1800 U 1800 U 2200 U
Benzyl alcohol 3400 3400 ug/Kfl 1700 U 2400 U 1900 U 2200 U 1700 U 1800 U 1800 U 2200 U
Dioxin/Furans wltti 1996
detecBons
OCDD 18600 18600 ng/Kfl 1.38 J 2.08 J l.BJ 4.73 U 1.96 J 4.02 J 2.02 J I 5.97 U
C-69
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Metels Wittiout 1996
detections
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Explosives wittiout 1996
deteotions
2,4,6-Trlnltrotoluene
2,60initrotoiuene
RDX
Tetryl
Polychiorlnated Biphenyls
(PCBs) wittiout 1996
(ietettons
PCB-1016 (Arodor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Arodor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Atrodor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Arodor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arodor 1260)
Semlvolatlte Organic
Compounds wittiout 1996
detections
1,2,4-Trichlorat>enzene
1,2-D)chiorDbenzene
1.3-Dlchlorobenzene
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite ^
mn/Kfl^
mg«fl
moKa
mnrt<p
mg«fl'
mfl«fl
mg/Kfl
mn/Kfl
mfln<fl
mfl/Kg
mn/Kp
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kg
up/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
Uflrt<fl
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
upn<g
ug/Kg
i
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugfl<g
0111
0112H5
08/23/2005
0.24 J
0.29 U
0.15 U
IJ!
0.12 U
0.25 J
0.048 J
1.4
0.29 U
0.59 U
3.3J
710 U
930 U
710 U
710 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
,0214
0214H5
05^0/2005
-'
0.45 U
: 0.38 U
0.19 U
1.2
0.15 U
0.48
0.04 J
1.1
0.38 U
0.84 U
6.3 U
1000 U
1600 U
1000 U
1000 U
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
12 UJ
. 12 UJ
,.':•
2400 UJ
2400 UJ
2400 UJ
2400 UJ
Location, Sample 1
0308
03Q8H5
06/22/2005
0.26 J
0.36 J
0.15 U
0.94
0.12 U
0.18 J
0.033 J
3.9
0.29 U
0.S8U
3.6 J
740 U
970 U
740 U
740 U
1SU
IBU
18 U
18 U
18 U
18 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
0400
0400H5
05/15«005
0.27 U
0.34 U
0.17 U
0.13 U
0.13 U
0.72
0.048 U
0.81
0.34 U
0.34 U
3.4 U
3300 U
1100 U
830 U
5600 U
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
Mumber, and Date
0416
0416H5
05/18/2005
0.22 U
0.28 U
0.14 U
0.11 U
0.13 U
0.71
0.029 U
1.2
0.28 U
. 0.55 U
3.4 U
720 UJ
930 UJ
720 UJ
720 UJ
8U
BU
8U
BU
BU
BU
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U J
1700 UJ
0420
0420H5
OS/18/2005
0.39 U
0.29 U
0.14 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.38
0.026 U
1
0.29 U
0.35 U
6.7
730 UJ
950 UJ
730 UJ
730 UJ
9.1 U
9.1 U
9.1 U
9.1 U
9.1 U
9.1 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 UJ
1800 UJ
0515
0515H5
05/18C005
0.22 U
0.28 U
0.14 U
0.11 U
0.11 U
0.48
0.028 J
0.91
0.28 U
0.5 U
3.6 U
720 U
930 U
720 U
720 U
8.5 U
8.5 U
8.5 U
8.5 U
8.5 U
8.5 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 UJ
0611
0611H5
05/17/2005
0.27 U
0.33 U
0.16 U
0.67
0.13 U
0.43
0.036 J
1.1
0.33 U
0.53 U
3.6 U
640 UJ
1100 UJ
840 UJ
840 UJ
9.7 U
9.7 U
9.7 U
9.7 U
9.7 U
9.7 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
2200 UJ
2200 UJ
C-70
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
AiNALYTE
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,&-Tr1chtorophenol
2,4-Olchlorophenol
2,4-DImettiylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,6-Dlnitrotoluene
2-Chloranaphttiatene
2-Chiorophenol
2-Methylnaphttialene
2-Mettiylphenol (o.Cresol)
2-Nitroanliine
2-NItrophend
3,3'-Olchiorobenzidine
3-Nitroanlllne
4,6-Dlnltro-2-mettiylphenol
4-Bromophenyi phenyl ettier
4-Chioro.3-mettiyiphend
4-ChioroanliIne
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ettier
4-Mett)ylphenol (p-Cresol)
4-Nitooaniiine
4-Nttrophenoi
Acenaphttiene
Acenaphttiylene
Anttiracene
Benzo(a)anttiracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranttiene
Benzo(g,h,l)oetylene
Benzo(l()fIuoranthene
Benzoic add
Benzyl butyl phttialate
Carbazole
Chrysene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
ug/Kp
ualKal
ugnig
ugKa
ug/Kg:
ug/Kg
ugfl<gi
ug/Kfl;
ugrt<g;
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl:
ug/Kg
UBiKgi
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
ufl/Kfll
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugfl<fl
ufln<g ..
uglKa
ug/Ko
UQiKa
ug/Kg
ug«g
ug/Kg
ugfl<fl
ugfl<g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kp
ug/Kp
0111
0112H5
06/23/2005
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
8700 UJ
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 UJ
1700 U
3500 U
3500 UJ
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 UJ
3500 UJ
1000 U
1000 U
1000 u
1000 u
1000 u
1000 u
1000 u
1000 u
3500 UJ
1700 U
1700 U
1000 u
0214
0214H5
05ffi0«)05
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400U
12000 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
1400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 UJ
4800 U
4800 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400U
2400 U
2400 UJ
4800 UJ
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 UJ
1400 U
s^' 4800 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
1400 U
Location. Sample Number, and Date
0308
0308H9
0602/2005
1900 U
1900 U
1000 U
1900 U
9600 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
1900 U
3800 U
3800 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
1900U
1900 U
1900 UJ
3800 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
3800U
1900 UJ
1900 UJ
1200 U
0400
0400H5
05/15/2005
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
11000 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
2200 U
4500 UJ
4500 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
4500 UJ
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300U
1300 U
1300 UJ
1300 U
4500 U
2200 UJ
2200 U
1300 U
0416
0416H5
05/18/2005
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
8400 UJ
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U ,
1000 U
1700 U
1700 UJ
1700 U
3400 UJ
3400 UJ
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 UJ
1700 U
1700 U
1700 UJ
3400 UJ
1000 U
1000 U
1000 u
1000 u
1000 u
1000 u
1000 UJ
1000 u
3400 U
1700 UJ
1700 U
1000 u
0420
0420H5
05/18/2005
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
9200 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1100 U
1600 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
3700 UJ
3700 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800U
1800 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
3700 UJ
1100 U
1100 U
1100 U
1100 U
lioou
1100 u
1100 UJ
lioou
3700 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
1100 U
0515
0515H5
05/18/2005
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
9000 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U J
1800 U
3600 UJ
3600 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800U
1800 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
3600 UJ
1100 U
1100 U
1100 U
1100U
1100 U
1100 u
1100 UJ
1100 u
3600 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
1100 U
0611
0611H5
05/17/2005
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
11000 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
1300 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
2200 U
4400 U
4400 UJ
2200 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
4400 UJ
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 UJ
1300 U
4400 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
1300 U
C-71
Tabte C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Di-n4)utylphttialate
Dl-n-octylphttialate
Dlbenz(a,h)anttitaoene
Dibenzoiuran
Dtettiylphttialate
Dimettiylphttiatete
Fluoranttiene
Ruorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutediene
Hexachtorocydopentediene
Indenod ,2,3-od)pyrene
isophorone
N-NltFOSo-dl-n-propyiamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamlne
Naphttiaiene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanttirene
Phenol
Pyrene
bte(2-ChlorDettioxy)methane
bte(2-Chioroettiyl)eUier (2-
Chloroettiylsttisr}
Ws(2-Chloroisopropyi)eHier
bls(2-Ettiylhexyl)phttiatete
Dioxin/Furans wtthout 1996
detections
1,2,3.4,8,7,8+lpCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1.2.3.4.7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2.3.4,7,8+lxCDD
1,2,3,4,7.8-HxCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
uglKq:
Uflfl<fl,
uort<fl;
ugfl<qi
ug/Kfl;
Ufl/Kfl!
Ufl^fli
Ufl/Kfl;
ugrt<Bi
ug/Kg:
Ufl«0
ug/Kg
ug/Ko
uo/Ka:
ug/Kg:
ug/Kg;
ug/Kfli
ug/Kg;
uofl<ai
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kfli
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kfl;
MOlKa
Ufl/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
ng/Kfl
ng/Kfl
ng/Kfl
ny«g
0111
0112H5
06/23/2005
1700 U
1700 U
1000U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1000 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 U
3500 UJ
1700 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1000 U
1700 UJ
3500 U
1000 U
1700 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 UJ
1700 U
0.471 U
0.434 U
0.599 UJ
0.594 U
0.438 U
0214
,,. 0214H5
05/20^005
2400 U
2400 UJ
1400 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
4800 UJ
2400.UJ
1400 U
2400 U
24O0UJ
2400 U
1400 UJ
2400 UJ
4800 U
1400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 UJ
2400 UJ
0.721 U
0.752 U
0.873 U
1.3 U
0.731 U
Locatton, Sample Number, and Date
0308
0308HS
06/22/2005
1900 U
1900 UJ
1200 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1200 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900 U
3800 U
1900 U
1200 UJ
1900 U
. 1900 UJ
1900U
1200 U
1900 UJ
3800 U
1200 U
1900 U
1200 U
1900U
1900 U
1900 UJ
1900 UJ
0.627 U
0.578 U
0.707 UJ
0.792 U
0.583 U
0400
0400H5
05/15/2005
2200 U
2200 U
1300 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
1300 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200 U
4500 UJ
2200 U
1300 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
1300 U
2200 UJ
4500 U
1300 U
2200 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
0.816 J
0.716 U
0.83 U
1.23 U
0.696 U
0416
0416H5
05/18/2005
1700 U
1700 U
1000 UJ
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1000 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 U
3400 UJ
1700 UJ
1000 U
1700 U
1700 UJ
1700 U
1000 U
1700 UJ
3400 U
1000 U
1700 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U J
1700 UJ
0.677 U
0.706 U
0.819 U
1.22U
0.686 U
0420
0420H5
05/18/2005
1800 U
1800 U
1100 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100U
1100 U
1600 U
1800 U
UR
1800 U J
1100 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1B00U
1100U
1800 UJ
3700 U
1100 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1B00U
1800 UJ
1800 UJ
0.779 J
0.557 U
0.646 U
0.959 U
0.541 U
0515
0515H5
05/18/2005
1B00U
1800 U
1100 UJ
1800U
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
3600 UJ
1800 UJ
1100U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
1100 U
1800 UJ
3600 U
1100 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800UJ
0.507 U
0.529 U
0.614 U
0.911 U
0.514 U
0611
0611H5
05/17/2005
2200 U
2200 U
1300UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
1300 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200 U
UR
2200 UJ
1300 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
1300 U
2200 UJ
4400 U
1300 U
2200 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
2200 U
1.32 J
0.86 U
0.998 U
2.56 U
0.836 U
C-72
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1,2,3.6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,8,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3.7,8.9-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3.4.7.8-PeCDF
2,3,7.8-TCDD
2.3,7,8-TCDF
Calculated Dioxin/Furan Sum
OCDF
Totel HpCDD
Total HDCDF
Totel HxCDD
Totel HxCDF
Totel PeCDD
Totel PeCDF
Total TCDD
Total TCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite:
ng/Kg:
no«B:
nflrt<fl^
nnrt<fl
nflfl<fl:
nfl/Kfl
nglKal
no/Kgi
ng/Kfli
nfl/Kfl!
nfl^fli
ng/Kg:
ng/Kg:
nfl/Kg:
nflrt<g:
nfl«o;
nflfl<g
ng/Kg
no/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
1 1
0111
0112H5
06/23/2005
0.23 U
0.242 U
0.573 U
0.707 U
0.366 U
0.184 U
0.222 U
0.277 U
0.179 U
0.151 U
7i8
1.97 U
0.471 U
0.434 U
0.23 U
0.222 U
0.366 U
0.184 U
0.179 U
0.151 U
0214
0214H5
05^0/2005
0.224 U
hi. 0.488 U
0.889 U
0.770 U
0.51 U
0.416 U
0.526 U
0.527 U
0.122U
0.52 J
120
7.2 U
0.721 U
0.752U
0.709 U
0.486 U
0.51 U
0.416 J
0.122 U
0.52 J
location. Sample Number, and Date
0308
0308H5
06/22/2005
0.307 U
0.322 U
0.764 U
0.942 U
0.488 U
0JS4BU
0.295 U
0.369 U
0.238 U
0.202 U
96.7
2.62 U
0.627 U
0.578U
0.307 U
0.295 U
0.^88 U
0.246 U
0.238 U
0.202 U
0400
0400H5
05/15C005
0.213 U
0.483 U
0.846 U
0.741 U
0.485 U
0.372 U
0.501 U
0.502 U
0.116 U
0.47 J
143
6.85 U
0.818 J
0.716 U
0.213 U
0.463 U
0.485 U
0.372 U
0.116 U
0.47 J
0416
0416H5
05/18/2005
0.21 U
0.456 U
0.834 U
0.731 U
0.479 U
0.367 U
0.494 U
0.495 U
0.115 U
0.379 U
130
6.76 U
0.677 U
0.708 U
0.21 U
0.458 U
0.479 U
0.387 U
0.115 U
0.379 U
0420
0420H5
05/18/2005
0.168 U
0.36 U
0.658 U
0.576 U
0.378 U
0.289 U
0.389 U
0.39 U
0.0905 U
0.303 J
91.5
5.33 U
0.779 J
0.557 U
0.269 U
0.36 U
0.378 U
0.2B9U
0.0905 U
b.303J
0515
0515H5
05/18«005
0.157 U
0.342 U
0.625 U
0.548 U
0.359 U
0.275 U
0.37 U
0.371 U
0.086 U
0.284 U
97.8
5.07 U
0.507 U
0.S29U
0.1S7 U
0.342 U
0.359 U
0.275 U
0.086 U
0.284 U
0611
0811H5
05/17/2005
0.256 U
0.556 U
1.02 U
0.891 U
0.S83U
0.447 U
0.602 U
0.603 U.v.
0.14 u .:
0.557 U
176
8.24 U
1.32 J
0.86 U
2.56 U
0.556 U
0.583 U
0.447 U
0.14 U
0.557 U
C-73
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
/ANALYTE
Metels witti 1996 detections
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Caldum
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Maflnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Exploshres wltti 1996
2,4-DInitrotoluene
HMX
Nitroglycerin
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) Witti 1996 detections
PCB-1254 (Arodor 1254)
Semivolatile Organic
Compounds with 1996
detections
2,4-Dlnitrotoiuene
Benzyl alcohol
Dloxlnrt^urans witti 1996
detections
OCDD
1966
EMBS
Maximum
3710
50.7
15
14500
5.2
9.3
2690
2750
151
1.2
3.9
8380
269
6.2
27.4
9900
3700
438000
800
9900
3400
18600
1966
EMBS
09% UTL
4278
67.1
8.5
16866
5.8
12.3
3307
3261
198
7.5
3.9
9710
345
6.3
30
7000
3700
438000
BOO
7000
3400
18600
Unite
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
malKg
mgfl<g
mgKg
mg/Kfl
mIKa
mfln<o
mfl/Kfl
rrig/Kg
mg/Kg
nifl/Kfl
mfl/Kfl
nifl/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
nglKq
0613
0613H5
05/17/2005
62.9 J
19
8710-
0.5 U
5.3
124 J
2680
28.1 J . *
2.2
0.47 U
^SSB^lSi
244
0.32 U-.
22.2
990 UJ
760 UJ .
180000U
10 U
2100 U
2100 U
3.96 U
0616
0616H5
05/13/2005
91.5 J
27
6.3
3580
0.48 J
4.5
122 J
1190J
75 J
1.3 J
37;3J
0.29 U
14.8
1000 U
1900 U
12000 U .
8.4 U
1800 U
1800 U
4.12 U
Location. Sampte 1
0618
061BH5
05/15/2005
159
3850
0.66
7.0
148
1790
64.3
1.3 J
1.9 J
mmm.
3S1
0.29U
25.2
980 U
WS^M^
12000 U
8.6 U
1600 U
1600 U
3.79 J
0623
0623H5
06/21/2005
12.3
27
2380
0.37 J
5.9
45.7
1320
85.2
4
0.31 J
5970
177
0.3 U
26.6
960 U
740 U
12000 U
18 U
2000 U
2000 U
1.64 J
'dumber, and Date
0707
0707H5
05/19/2005
46.5 J
23.0
2200
0.35 U
7.2
76.1 J
1210
36.3 J
3.3
0.28 U
0.28 U
11.5
960 U
740 U
12000 U
6.6 U
1900 U
1900 U
1.99 J
0714
0714H5
05/15/2005
114
25.4
^imn
3100
0.55 J
3.6
119
1160
50
1.5
0.43 U
0J2SU
13.7
910 U
3600 U
200000 U
8.4 U
1800 U
1800 U
8.01 J
0714
0714H5D
05/15«005
48.5
18.1
^m 2930
0.41 U
3.5
76
1230
58.4
1.4
0.41 U
0802
00802H5
03/15/2005
48.7
15.9
&mmi 6100
0.48 J
5.1
128
1870
20.4
1.4 J
2J
^^Wf^ ^fi?iCic^l
47.1 UJ
0.26 U
13.7
980 U
2000 U
12000U
8.6 U
1800 U
1800 U
4.23 J
212
0.34 U
17.4
1200 U
900 U
14000 U
10 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
4.61 J
C-74
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Metete Wittiout 1996
detections
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
SIhrer
Thanium
Tin
Explosives wittiout 1996
detec^tions
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
2,6-OInltrotoiuene
RDX
Tebyl
Pdychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) wittiout 1996
detetions
PCB-1016 (Arodor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Arodor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arodor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Arodor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Arodor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arodor 1260)
Semivoiatile Organic
Compounds wittiout 1996
detections
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Olchlorobenzene
1,3-Olchiotobenzsne
1,4-DlchlorobenzenB
1 —
1966
EMBS
Maximum
1966
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
mg/Kg
mglKg
nifln<g
mg/Kfl
ftmlKg
mB«g
mg/Kg
mfln<g
mg/Kg
mglKa
nifl/Kg
ug/Kg
tig/Kfl
uo/Kfl
ug/Kg
iigrt<fl
ug/Kg
ijg/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
UQKQ
ag/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Ka
ug/Kg
0613
0613H5
05/17/2005
0.26 U
0.32 U
0.16 U
0.26 U
0.13 U
0.72
0.038 J
1.4
0.32 U
0.51 U
3.5 U • „
760 UJ
990 UJ
760 UJ
760 UJ-
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 UJ
2100 UJ
' '
0616
0616H5
05/13«005
0.23 U
0.20 U
0.15 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
2.3
0.029 U
0.91
0.29U
0.59 U
4.4 J
770 U
1000 U
770 U
770U
8.4 U
8.4 U
8.4 U.
8.4 U
8.4 U
• 8.4 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
Locatton, Sample Number, and Oate
0616
06ieH5
OS/15a005
0.23 U
0.29 U
0.14 U
0.11 U
0.11 U
1.7
0.033 U
1.1
0.29 U
0.64 U
3.7 U
2600 U
9B0U
750 U
750 U
8.6 U
''•' 8.6 U
8.8 U
8.6 U
8.6 U
8.8 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
0623
0623H5
06/21/2005
0.24 U
0.54 J
0.15 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.28 J
0.031 J
1.4
0.3 U
0.54U
3.5 J
740 U
960 U
740 U
740 U
18 U
18 U
18U
IBU
18 U
18 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
0707
0707H5
0 VI9/2005
0.23 U
0.36 U
0.14 U
0.11 U
0.11 U
0.35
0.12 J
1.2
0.28 U
0.62 U
3.3 U
740 U
960 U
920 U
740 U
8.6 U
8.6 U
8.6 U
B.6U
8.6 U
6.6 U
1000 UJ
1900 UJ
1900 UJ
1900 UJ
0714
0714H5
05/150005
0.22 U
0.28 U
0.14 U
0.11 U
0.11 U
0.5
0.026 U
0.95
0.28 U
0.45 U
3U
840 U
910 U
700 U
1600 U
8.4 U
8.4 U
8.4 U
8.4 U
8.4 U
8.4 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
' "
0714
0714H5D
05/15/2005
0.27 U
0.28 U
0.14 U
0.11 U
0.11 U
0.33
0.031 U
0.86
0.28 U
0.45 U
3.6 U
750 U
980 U
750 U
750 U
8.6 U
8.6 U
8.6 U
8.6 U
8.8 U
8.6 U
1600 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
0802
00802H5
05/15/2005
•
0.27 U
0.34 U
0.17 U
0.18 J
0.14 U
0.8
0.036 U
1.2
0.34 U
0.34 U
3.4 U
6500 U
1200 U
900 U
900 U
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
C-75
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
2,4.5-Trichiorophenol
2,4,B-T[ichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenoi
2,4-Oimettiylphenol
2,4-Oinitrophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chioronaphttiaiene
2-Chlorophenoi
2-Mettiylnaphttialene
2-Mettiylphenol (o<:resol)
2-Nitioaninne
2-Nltrophend
3,3'-Dichlorobenzldlne
3-Nltroanlline
4,6-Dlnltn}-2-mettiylphenoi
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ettier
4-ChIoro-3-mettiyiphenoi
4-Chloroaniiine
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Mettiylphend (p-Cresol)
4-Nitroanliine
4-Nibnophenol
Acenaphttiene
Acenaphttiylene
/Vnttiracene
Benzo(a)anttiracene
Benzo(a)pyrBne
Benzo(b)fluoranttienB
Benzo(a,h,i)peiYlene
BenzodcXIuoranttiene
Benzoic add
Benzyl butyl phttialate
Carbazole
Chrysene
1966
EMBS
Maximum
1966
EMBS
99% im. Unite
ug/Kg
UflMfl
ug/Kg
ugrt<g
up/Kg
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
ugfl<g
UOfl<fl
ug/Kg
ug«g
UBn<fl
ub/Kg
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kfl
uia/Kg
ufl«g
uiBn<g
Ufl/Kg
Uja/Kg
un/Kg
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kg
0613
0613H5
05/17/2005
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
10000 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
1200 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
4200 UJ
4200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U •
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
4200 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4200 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
1200 U
"*™™"
0616
0616H5
05/13/2005
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
9100 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
3600 UJ
3600 UJ
1800 U J
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
3600 UJ
1100U
1100 U
1100 U
1100U
lioou
1100 u
lioou
lioou
3600 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
0818
0818H5
05/15/2005
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
9300 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
iirau
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
3700 U
3700 UJ
1800 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800U
1800 U
1600 U
1800 UJ
3700 UJ
1100 U
1100 U
1100 U
1100 U
lioou
1100 u
1100 UJ
lioou
3700 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
lioou
0623
0623H5
0e«1/2005
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
9800 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
3900 U
3900 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
3900 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
3900 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
0707
0707H5
05/19/2005
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
9500 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
1100U
1900 U
1900 UJ
1900 UJ
3800 U
3800 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1000 UJ
3800 UJ
1100U
1100 U
1100U
1100U
1100 u
1100 u
1100 UJ
lioou
3800 U
1900 UJ
1900 U
1100 U
0714
0714H5
05/15/2005
1800 U
1600 U
1800 U
1800 U
9000 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100U
1800U
1800 UJ
1800U
3600 U
3600 UJ
1800 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
3600 UJ
1100 U
lioou
1100 U
1100 U
1100 U
1100 u
1100 UJ
lioou
3600 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
0714
0714H5D
05/15«005
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
8900 UJ
1800 U
ieoou
1800U
lioou
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
3600 U
3600 UJ
1800 UJ
1800 U
1600 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
3600 UJ
1100 U
1100 U
1100U
1100U
1100U
1100 u
1100 UJ
lioou
3600 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1100U
II1
0602
00802H5
05/15/2005
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
11000UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
2200 U
4400 U
4400 UJ
2200 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
4400 UJ
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 UJ
1300 U
4400 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
1300 U
C-76
Tabte C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Di-n-butyiphttiatete
Dl-n-octyiphttiatete
Dibenz(a,h)anttiracene
Dibenzoiuran
Dtettiylphttialate
Dimettiylphttiatete
Ruoranttiene
Ruorene
Hexachiorotjenzene
Hexachlorobutediene
Hexachlorocydopentediene
Hexachloroettiane
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
IsoDhorone
N-Nltroso-dl-n-propylamine
N-Nlttosodiphenyiamine
Naphttiaiene
Nitrobenzene
Pentechlorophenol
Phenanttirene
Phenol
Pyrane
bte(2-Chloroettioxy)mettiane
bls<2-ChlofDettiyt)ettier (2-
Chloroettiylettier)
bb(2-Chiaroi80propyl)ettier
bte(2-Ettiylhexyi)phttiatete
Dtoxin/Furans wittiout 1996
detections
1,2,3,4.6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2,3.4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1966
EMBS
Maximum
1966
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
Ufl«o
unrt<fl
ugrt<g
ug/Kg
ugfl<g
ug«a
ugrt<g
upfl<g
up/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug«g
up/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
uis/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
uin/Kfl
ug/Kg
up/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
ng/Kg
rjp/Kfl
rifl/Kg
nfl/Kp
nglKq
'~'^'''
0613
0613H5
05/17/2005
2100 U
2100 U
1200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
UR
2100 UJ
1200 U
2100 IiJ'
2100 UJ
2100 U
1200 U
2100 UJ
4200 U
1200 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 UJ
0.976 J
0.897 U
1.04 U
2.46 U
0.872 U
0616
0ei6H5
05/13«005
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
3600 UJ
1800 U
1100 U
1B00U
1800 U
1800 U
1100U
1800 U
3600 U J
1100 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
0.854 U
0.682 U
0.792 UJ
1.18 U
0.663 U
LocaUon. Samole
0618
0818H5
os/isnoos
1800 U
1800 U
1100 UJ
1800U
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
3700 UJ
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 UJ
3700 U
1100 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
, •
0.889 U
0.927 U
1.08 U
1.8 U
0.901 U
0623
0623H5
06/21/2005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
3900 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 UJ
3900 U
1200 U
2000U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
0.407 U
0.375 U
0.517 U
0.514 U
0.378 U
Mumber, and Oate
0707
0707H5
05/19/2005
1900 U
1900 UJ
1100 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1100U
1100U
1900 U
1900 UJ
3800 UJ
1900 UJ
1100 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
1900 U
1100 UJ
1900 UJ
3800 U
1100 U
1900 U
1100 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
1900 UJ
1900 UJ
0.595 U
0.62 U
0.72 UJ
1.07 U
0.603 U
0714
0714H5
05/15C005
1800 U
1800 U
1100 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
3600 UJ
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 UJ
3600 U
1100U
1800 U
lioou
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
0.696 J
0.786 U
0.912 U
1.35 U
0.764 U
0714
0714H5D
05/15/2005
1800 U
1800 U
1100 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
3600 UJ
ieoou
lioou
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
lioou
1800 UJ
3600 U
1100 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
1.16 J
0.807 U
0.036 U
1.39 U
0.784 U
0802
00802H5
05/15/2005
2200 U
2200 U
1300 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
1300 U
1300U -
2200 U "
2200 U
4400 UJ
2200 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
1300 U
2200 UJ
4400 U
1300 U -
2200 U .-...
1300 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
2200 U
0.842 U
0.878 U
1.02 U
1.51 U
0.854 U
C-77
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1,2,3,8,7,8-HxCDD
1.2.3,6,7,8+teCDF
1,2,3,7.8.9-HxCDD
1,2,3.7.8.9-HxCDF
1.2.3,7.8-PeCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCOF
2.3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
2.3,4,7,8-PeCDF
2.3,7,8-TCDD
2.3,7,8-TCDF
Calculated Dioxin/Furan Sum
OCDF
Total HpCDD
Total HpCDF
Totel HxCDD
Totel HxCDF
Totel PeCDD
Totel PeCDF
Totel TCDD
Totel TCDF
1966
EMBS
Maximum
1966
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
ng/Kg
nfln<g
ng/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
riflrt<o
nflfl<p
ngfl<p
nfl«g
ngfl<g
ng/Kp
njj/Ko
np/Kg
ng/Kp
na/Ko
ng/Kg
ngrt<g
n^g
ngfl<g
ng/Kg
ngrt<o
0613
0613H5
05/17/2005
0.267 U
0.58 U
1.08 U
0.929 U
0.608 U
0.466 U
0.628 U
0.629 U
0.146 U
0.643 U
183
8.59 U
0.976 J
0.697 U
2.46 U
0.58 U
0.608 U
0.466U
0.146 U
0.643 U
0616.
0616H5
05/13/2005
0.203 U
0.441 U
0.606 U
0.706 U
0.463 U
0.355 U
0.477 U
0.478 U
0.111 U
0.367 U
153
6.54 U
0.654 U
0.682 U
0.203 U
0.441 U
0.463 U
0.355 U
o.iiiu
0.367 U
Location. Sample Number, and Oate
0618
0618HS
05/15«005
0.276 U
0.509 U
1.09 U
0.959 U
0.629 U
0.481 U
0.646 U
0.65 U
0.151 U
0.616 U
172
8.87 U
0.889 U
0.927 U
0i76U
0.S99 U
0.629 U
0.481 U
0.1S1 U
0.616 U
0623
0623H5
08/21/2005
0.199 U
0.209 U
0.405 U
0.611 U
0.316 U
0.159 U
0.191 U
0.239 U
0.155 U
0.131 U
63.3
1.7 U
0.819 U
0.375 U
0.199 U
0.191 U
0.316 U
0.159 U
0.155 U
0.131 U
0707
07O7H5
05/19/2005
0.185 U
0.401 U
0.733 U
0.642 U,
0.421 U
0.322 U
0.434 U
0.435 U
0.101 u
0.333 U
115
5.94 U
0.595 U
0.62 U
0.185 U
0.401 U
0.421 U
0.322 U
0.101 U
0.333 U
0714
0714H5
05/15«005
0.234 U
0.508 U
0.929 U
0.814 U
0.533 U
0.408 U
0.55 U
0.551 U
0.128 U
0.422 U
133
7.53 U
0.896 J
0.766 U
0.234 U
0.508 U
0.533 U
0.408 U
0.128 U
0.422 U
0714
0714H5O
05/15W005
0.24 U
0.522 U
0.953 U
0.835 U
0.547 U
0.419 U
0.565 U
0.566 U
0.131 U
0.434 U
7.73 U
1.16J
0.807 U
0.24 U
0.522 U
0.547 U
0.419 U
0.131 U
0.434 U
0802
00802H5
05/15^005
0.261 U
0.568 U
1.04 U
0.909 U
0.596 U
0.456 U
0.615 U
0.616 U
0.143 U
0.472 U
164
8.41 U
0.986 U
0.878 U
0.261 U
0.568 U
0.596 U
0.456 U
0.143 U
0.472 U
C-78
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Metete wltti 1996 detections
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Caldum
Chramitm
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
l^nganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Explosives vtdtti 1996
detections
2.4-Oinltrotoluene
HMX
Niboglycerin
Pdychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) wltti 1996 detections
PCB-1254 (Arodor 1254)
Semlvoiattle Organic
Compounds wltti 1996
detections
2,4-Olnltrotoiuene
Benzyl alcohol
Dioxin/Furans witti 1996
detections
OCDD
1996
EMBS
Maximum
3710
50.7
15
14500
5.2
9.3
2690
2750
151
1.2
3.9
8380
269
62
27.4
9900
3700
438000
800
9900
3400
18600
1996
EMBS
99% UTL
4278
67.1
8.5
16866
5.8
1^3
3307
3261
198
7.5
3.9
9710
345
6.3
30
7000
3700
438000
BOO
7000
3400
18600
Unite
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mgKg
mgfl<fl
mg^fl
mgft<g
mg/Kd
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kq
mg/Kg
mBfl<fl
mg/Kg
mgrt<g
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
. nfl/Kg
0812
0812H5
05/16/2005
57.4
23.2
0.45 U
4.5
62.8
Mfks0m
20.8
1.1 U
0.3 U
63.4 U
0.3 U
19
1000 U
780 U
12000U
9.3 U
2000 U
2000 U
3.92 J
0813
0813H5
05/18/2005
37.5 J
38.4
8.1
6010
0.83
5.9
100 J
1190
66.9 J
1.2 U
2.9
42.3 U
0.31 U
15.2
1100 U
; 830 U
230000 U
9.4 U
2000 U
2000 U
3.03 U
Locatton. Sample
0817
0817H5
05/12/2005
234
34
6.2
4090
0.57
6.4
236
1210
69.5
0.94 J
0.52 J
62J
0.36 J
14.9
9600 U
7400 UJ
12000 U
85U
1700 U
1700 U
6.18 U
0819
0819H5
08/21/2005
111
|31
14100
0.55 J
8.6
175
74.6
4
0.29 U
0.29 U
i^m^
920 U
710 U
11000U
17 U
1800 U
1800 U
4.63 J
''lumber, and Date
0914
0914H5
05/14/2005
89.6 J
26.4
7.4
3160
0.76
5.7
171 J
1030 J
66.8 J
0.97 J
2.5
^s^m
8Z6J
0.31 U
17.2
12000 U
2000 U
13000 U
9.6 U
2100 U
2100 U
9.22 U
1004
1004H5
05/17/2005
75 J
20.4
^m^m
9030
0.58 U
5.9
322 J
2750
27.4 J
1.3 J
^^^^
^^SiPlii
199
0.36 U
18
1100 UJ
840 UJ
13000 U
11 U
2400 U
2400 U
4.58 U
1004
1004H5D
05/17/2005
49.9 J
25.1
^^^
10300
0.94
6.1
147 J
^^^^1^'
29.8 J
2.3
0.86 UJ
0.35 U
28.8
1100 UJ
880 UJ
14000U
10 U
2300 U
2300 U
6.05 U
1007
1007H5
05/13^005
69.6 J
29.8
^^3^^
10900
0.61 J
5.3
254 J
3120 J
26.6 J
1.5 J
2.3
^^H^p
301
0.39 U
22.2
1400 U
1000 U
17000 U
12U
2500 U
2500 U
4.41 U
C-79
Tabte C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
AiNALYTE
Metels wittiout 1996
detections
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
ThalHum
Tin
Explosives wittiout 1996
detectlona
2,4.6-Trinltrotoiuene
2.8-Dlnitrotoiuene
RDX
Tetryl
(PCBs) wittiout 1996
detetions
PCB-1016 (Arodor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Arodor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arodor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Arodor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Arodor 1248)
PCB-12eO (Arodor 1260)
Semivoiatile Organic
Compounds wittiout 1996
detections
1.2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ^2-Oichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UU Unite:
me«S
mBn<g
mfl/Kg
mflrt<g
molKa
mgrt<o
mo/Kg
mfl«fl
mg/Kfl
mgrt<9
mg/Kg
ualKg
Ufl/Kg
uo/Ko
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
up/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
ufln<o
ug/Kg
0812
0812H5
05/16/2005
0.24 U
0.3 U
0.15 U
0.21 U
0.12 U
0.3 J
0.036 U
0.09
0.3 U
0.48 U
3.2 U
780 U
1000 U
3100 U
780 U
9.3 U
9.3 U
9.3 U
9.3 U
9.3 U
9.3 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
- 0813
0813H5
05/18/2005
0.25 U
0.31 U
0.16 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.89
0.03 J
0.84
0.31 U
0.56 U
4.1 U
B30U
1100 U
830 U
830 U
9.4 U
V 9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000UJ
Location. Sample Number, and Date
0817
0817H5
05/12/2005
0:22 U
0.38 J
0.14 U
0.11 U
0.11 U
1.1
0.08 J
0.88
0.28 U
0.45 U
4.4 J
720 U
940U
720 U
720 U
85U
85 U
B5U
85U
BSU
85U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
0819
0819H5
06/21/2005
0.32 J
0.71
0.14 U
3.6
0.11 U
5.4
0.031 U
1.4
0.29 U
0.7 U
3.1 J
710 U
920 U
710 U
710 U
17 U
17 U'
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
1800 U
ieoou
ieoou
1800 U
0914
0914H5
05/14«005
0.25 U
0.31 U
0.16 U
0.13 U
0.13 U
0.47
0.031 U
0.66
0.31 U
0.31 U
6.3
840 U
1100U
840 U
840 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1004
1004H5
05/17/2005
0.29 U
0.36 U
0.18 U
0.22 U
0.14 U
0.3 U
0.038 UJ
1.1
0.36 U
0.65 U
4.4 U
840 UJ
1100 UJ
840 UJ
840 UJ
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 UJ
2400 UJ
1004
1004H5D
05/17/2005
0.35 U
0.35 U
0.18 U
0.42
0.14 U
0.24 U
0.038 J
1.2
0.35 U
; -0.42 U
' 3.5 U
880 UJ
2100 UJ
880 UJ
880 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
2300 UJ
2300 UJ
1007
1007H5
05/13/2005
0.41 J
0.39 U
0.19 U
0.29 J
0.15 U
0.51
0.041 U
1.4
0.39 U
0.55 U
7J
1000 U
1400 U
14000 U
6500 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
C-80
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
2,4,5.Trtchloroohonol
2,4,6-Trtchlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenoi
2.4-Olmettivtphenol
2.4-OlnlbDphenot
2,6-Olnltrotoluene
2-ChloronaphttiBlene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Mettiylnaphttiaiene
2-Mettiylphenol (o-Cresol)
2-Nltroaniiine
2-Nitrophend
3,3'-Oichlorobenzldine
3-NItroanlllns
4,6-01nitrt>-2-mettiyiphenoi
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ettier
4-Chton>-3-ffiettiylphenoi
4-Chtoroaniiine
4-Ghtorophenyi phenyl ettier
4-Mettivtohenol (p-Cresd)
4-NltroaniIine
4-Nitrophenol
Acenaphttiene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anttiraoene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranttiene
Benzo(g,h,i)pervlene
Benzo(k)fluoranttiene
Benzdc add
Benzvl butvl phtiialate
Carbazde
Chrysene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
ugrt<g
uon<o
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug«g
ug/Kg
ug«g
ug/Kg
ug«g
ugrt<fl
Ufl/Kd
Uflfl<fl
ug/Kg
uo/Ka
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kp
Ufl/Kfl
uort<o
Ufl/Kfl
Uflrt<fl
ugfl<g
ugfl<g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
UQiKg
up/Kg
Ufl/Kg
ugfl<g
ugfl<g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugKg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
0812
0812H5
05/18Q005
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
9800 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
3900 U
3900 UJ
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
3900 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
3900 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
0813
0813'H5
05/18/2005
' 2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
9800 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
3900 UJ
3900 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
3900 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
3900 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
LxxsVon, Sampte
0817
0817H5
05/12/2005
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
8400UJ
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 UJ
1700 U
3400 UJ
3400 UJ
1700 UJ
1700 U
1700 U
1700 UJ
1700 U
1700 U
1700 UJ
3400 UJ
1000 U
1000 U
1000 U
.1000 U
1000 u
1000 u
1000 u
1000 u
3400 UJ
1700 U
1700 U
1000 U
0819
0819H5
06^1/2005
1800 U
ieoou
1800 U
1800 U
8900 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100U
1800 U
1800 U J
1800 U
3500 U
3500 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
3500 UJ
1100 U
1100U
1100U
1100 U
1100 U
1100 u
lioou
lioou
3500 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1100U
Mumber, and Oate
0914
0914H5
05/14/2005
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
10000 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
4200 UJ
4200 UJ
2100 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
4200 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
4200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
1004
1004H5
05/17/2005
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
12000 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
1400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
4800 U
4800 UJ
2400 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
4800 UJ
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 UJ
1400 U
4800 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
1004
1004H5D
05/17/2005
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
11000 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
1400 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
2300 U
4600 U
4600 UJ
2300 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
4600 UJ
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 UJ
1400 U
4600 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
1007
1007H5
05/13W005
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
13000 UJ
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
1500 U
2500 U
2500 UJ
2500 U
5100 UJ
5100 UJ
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
2500 UJ
2500 U
2500U
2500 UJ
5100 UJ
1500 U
1500 U
1500 U
1500U
1500 U
1500 U
1500 UJ
1500U
5100 U
2500 UJ
2500 U
1500U
C-61
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Di-n-butylphttialate
Oi-n-octvlphttialate
Dibenz(a.h)anttiracene
Dibenzofuran
Dlettiyiphttiatete
Dimettiylphttiatete
Ruoranttiene
Ruorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutediene
Hexachlorocydopentediene
Hexachloroettiane
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
IsoDhorane
N-Nltroso-di-n-propylamlne
N-Nittosodlphenylamine
Naphttiaiene
NItaobenzene
Penbchiorophsnol
Phenanttirene
Phenol
Pyrene
bte(2-Chioroettioxy)metfiane
bte(2-Chloroettiyl)ettier (2-
Chtofoethylettier)
bls(2-Chiorolsopropyi)ettier
bls(2-Ettiyihexyi)phttiatete
DIoxln/Furans wittiout 1996
detecfions
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1.2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1.2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
l.Z3,4,7,e-HxCDD
1,2.3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite:
ug/Kg;
uglKa
Ufl/Kg
ugrt<g;
uglKa'
ug/Kfli
ufln<p;
Uflfl<fl
ugfl<g
ug/Kfl
ugrt<fl;
ug/Kg;
ugn<fl
Ufl/Ko
uglKa
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
u0Kgi
up/Kfl;
ug/Kfl;
ug/Kgi
ug«fl
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kfl
ng/Kg
no/Kfl
ngrt<g
0812
0812H5
05/16/2005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
UR
2000 UJ
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 UJ
3900 U
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
0.761 U
0.794 U
0.921 UJ
1.37 U
0.772 U
0813
0813H5
05/iaC005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
3900 UJ
2000 UJ
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 UJ
3900 U
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 UJ
0.760 U
0.802 U
0.931 U
1.38 U
0.78 U
Location, Sampla Number, and Date
0817
0817H5
05/12/2005
1700 U
1700 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1000 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 U
3400 U
1700 U
1000 U
1700 U
170OU
170OU
1000 U
1700 U
3400 UJ
1000 U
1700 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1.62 J
1.16 U
1.35 UJ
2U
1.13 U
0819
0819H5
06C1/2005
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1100U
1800 U
1800 U
3500 UJ
1800 U
lioou
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100U
1800 UJ
3500 U
1100 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
0.833 U
0.768 U
1.06 U
1.05 U
0.774 U
0914
0914H5
05/14^005
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
4200 UJ
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
4200 UJ
1200 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1.24 J
0.693 U
0.804 U
1.19 U
0.674 U
1004
1004H5
05/17/2005
2400 U
2400 U
1400 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
UR
2400 UJ
1400 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 UJ
4800 U
1400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
0.914 U
0.953 U
1.11 U
3U
0.927 U
•"• '
1004
1004H5D
05/17/2005
2300 U
2300 U
1400 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
UR
2300 UJ
1400 UJ
2300 U
2300 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 UJ
4600 U
1400 U
2300 U
1400 U
2300 U
2300 U
2300 UJ
2300 U
0.925 U
0.964 U
1.12 U
1.66 U
0.937 U
1007
1007H5
05/13/2005
2500 U
2500 U
1500 UJ
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
1500 U
1500 U
2500 U
2500 U
5100 UJ
2500 U
1500 U J
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
1500 U
2500 UJ
5100 U
1500 U
2500 U
1500 U
2500 U
2500 U
2500 U
2500 UJ
0.791 U
0.825 U
0.957 UJ
1.42 U
0.802 U
C-82
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1,2.3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7.8-HxCDF
1,2,3.7.8.9+txCDD
1,2,3,7,8,94ttCDF
1.2,3.7.8-PeCDD
1.2.3,7,8-PaCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
2.3,4.7.8-PeCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Caicuteted Oloxln/Furan Sum
OCDF
Totel HpCDD
Total HpCDF
Totel HxCDD
Totel HxCDF
Totel PeCDD
Totel PeCDF
Totel TCDD
Total TCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite:
ng/Kp;
ng/Kg
ng/Kfl
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ngfl<g
ngrt<g
ng/Kg
ng/Kfl
ng/Kg
ng/Kfl
ng/Kg
no/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kfl
ng/Kg
ngAto
0812
0812H5
05/16«005
0.236 U
0.513 U
0.938 U
0.822 U
0.S39 U
0.413 U
0.SS6U
0.557 U
0.129 U
0.48 J
145
7.61 U
0.761 U
0.794 U
0.236 U
0.513 U
0.539 U
0.413 U
0.129 U
0.4BJ
0813
0813H5
05/18/2005
0.239 U
0:518 U
0.948 U
0.83 U
0.544 U
0.417 U
0.561 U
0.562 U
0.13U
0.741 J
177
7.68 U
0.769 U
0.802 U
1.23 U
0.518 U
0.544 U
0.417 U
0.13 U
0.741 J
Location. Sample
0817
0817H5
05/12/2005
0.346 U
0.751 U
1.37 U
1.2 U
0.788 U
0.604 U
0.813 U
0.815 U
0.189 U
0.625 U
238
11.1 U
1.62 J
1.16 U
0.346 U
0.751 U
0.788 U
0.604 U
0.189 U
0.625 U
0819
0819H5
06^1/2005
0.407 U
0.427 U
1.01 U
1.25 U
0.848 U
0.326 U
0.392 U
0.489 U
0.316 U
0.288 U
117
3.48 U
0.847 J
0.768 U
0.407 U
0.392 U
0.648 U
0.326 U
0.316 U
0.313 U
Mumber. and Date
0914
0914H5
05/14«005
0.206 U
0.448 U
0.819 U
0.718 U
0.47 U
0.36 U
0.485 U
0.486 U
0.113 U
0.796 J
154
8.64 U
2.11 U
0.693 U
0.206 U
0.448 U
0.47 U
0.36 U
0.113 U
1.39 J
1004
1004H5
05/17/2005
0.283 U
0.616 U
1.13 U
0.987 U
0.646 U
0.495 U
0.667 U
0.668 U
0.155 U
o.eou
192
9.13 U
0.914 U
0.953 U
3U
0.616 U
1.8 J
0.495 U
0.155 U
1.38 J
,—assBMns^
1004
1004H5D
05/17/2005
0.287 U
0.623 U
1.14 U
0.998 U
0.654 U
0.501 U
0.675 U
0.678 U
0.157 U
0.586 J
9.23 U
0.925 U
0.964 U
1.62 U
0.623 U
0.654 UJ
0.501 U
0.157 U
0.566 J
"°""°™^°°*'°~
1007
1007H5
05/13/2005
0.245 U
0.533 U
0.975 U
0.854 U
0.56 U
0.429 U
0.577 U
0.579 U
0.134 UJ
0.443 U
185
7.9 U
0.791 U
0.625 U
0.245 U
0.533 U
0.56 U
0.429 U
0.134 U
0.443 U
C-83
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UU Unite
1009 1011
1009H5 - 1011H5
05/16/2006 05/16/2005
LocaUon, Sample Number, and Date
1011
1011H5D
05/16/2005
1013
1013H5
05/18/2005
1015
1015H5
05/14/2005
1016
1018H5
05/13/2005
1022
1022H5
05/16/2005
1108
1108H5
05/16/2005
Metete wltti 1996 detections
Aluminum 3710 4278 JDfl^fiL 79.2 284 J 23.1 J 64.9 J 281 J 168 J 126 1470
Barium 50.7 67.1 mfl/Kg 26.1 42 32.7 33.2 37
Boron 15 8.5 mfl/Kfl
Caldum 14500 16866 mg/Kfl 14600
, 7
5010
6.3 6.7
2920 3760 3790 3580
Chromium 5.2 5.8 mg/Kg 0.84 1.3 0.53 U 0.39 U 0.81 1.1 0.75 2.6
Copper 9.3 12.3 mfl/Kfl 5.3 6.8 4.4 3.3 5.3 8.5
Iron 2690 3307 mp/Kfl 252 374 J 73.8 J 78.9 J 275 J 303 J 198 1330
Magnesium 2750 3261 mg/Kg 3060 1310 1170 1110 1740 J 1160 J 1410
Manganese 151 198 mg/Kg 31.1 65.6 5Z1 50.9 J 57.5 J 52.6 J 30 97.8
Molybdenum 1.2 7.5 mg/Kg 1.5 J 1.4 0.74 U 0.81 J 1.2 J 1.4 1.6 J
Nidcel 3.9 3.9 mfl/Kfl mm^m ^mm^ 0.42U 1.2 3.7 1.4 J 1.6
Potassium 6380 9710 mfl/Kfl
Scxilum 269 345 ma^fl 238 63.2 U e3.su 28.3 U 193 88.5 J 185 131 U
Vanadium 62 63 mg/Kg 0.35 U 0.52 U 0.29 U 0.28 U 0.35 J 0.31 U 0.28 U 2.1
Zinc 27.4 30 mg/Kg 22.2 16.3 12.2 11.2 18.3 15.3 27.5 27.7
Explosives witti 1996
detections
2,4-DInitrotoluene 9900 7000 ug/Kg 1100 U 940 U 1100 U 860 U 1100U 1000 U 940 U 4100 U
HMX 3700 3700 "8^ 870 U 2000 U SOOOU 660 U 6600 U 1400 U 4900 U 4300 U
Nittoglycerin 438000 438000 "g^fl 71000 J 12000U 12000U 10000U 13000 U 13000 U 12000 U 14000U
Potydilorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) wltti 1998 detections
PCB-1254 (Arodor 1254) 800 800 "B^a 10 U 8.9 U 9U 8.5 U 9.6 U 9.6 U 8.7 U 11 U
Semlvoiattle Organic
Compounds wltti 1996
detecttons
2.4-Dlnltrotoiuene 9900 7000 "8^8 2200 U 1900 U 1900U 1700 U 2000 U 2000 U 1800 U
Benzyl alcohol 3400 3400
Oloxln/Furans wltti 1996
detecttons
OCDD
Ufl/Kfl 2200U 1900 U 1900 U 1700 U 2000 U 2000 U 1800 U
18600 18600 nfl/Kg 6.42 U 3.5 UJ 5.12 J 2.34 U 7.79 U 4.66 U 3.11 J
2400 U
2400 U
11.7 J
C-84
Tabte C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Metete wittiout 1996
detections
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Explosives wittiout 1996
daiscMons
2.4,6-Trinltrotoiuene
2,6-Dinibiotduene
RDX
Tetiyl
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) wittiout 1996
deteOons
PCB-1016 (/Vrodor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Arodor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arodor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Arodor 1242)
PCB-1248 (ArDdor 1248)
PCB-12eO (Arodor 1260)
Semlvoiattle Organic
Compounds wittiout 1998
detections
1,2,4-Tridilorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Olchlorobenzene
1,4-Oidilorobenzene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UU Unite
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mon<g
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kfl
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mo/Kg
mis/Kg
ualKg
up/Kg
up«g
ugrt<p
ugn<g
ug«g
Ufl/Kfl
up/Kg
ug/Kg
up/Kg
ug/Kg
U0rt<fl
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
1009
1009HS
05/16/2005
0.31 U
0.35 U
0.17 U
0.51
0.14 U
0.25 U
0.04 U
1
0.35 U
0.49 U
3.5 U
870 U
1100 U
5700 U
14000 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
2200 UJ
2200 UJ
1011
1011H5
05/16/2005
0.23 U
0.33 U
0.15 U
0.12 U
0.14 U
"0.99 J
0.036 U
0.8
0.20 U
0.S2U
3.2 U
1100 J
940U
720 U
720 U
8.9 U
8.9 U
8.9 U
8.9 U
B.gu
8.9 U
IWOU
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
Locatton. Sample
1011
1011H5O
05/16/2005
0.23 U
0.29 U
0.14 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.26 U J
0.031 U
0.93
0.29 U
0^52 U
2.9 U
900 UJ
940U
720 U
720 U
9U
9U
9U
9U
9U
9U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1013
1013H5
05/18/2005
0.27 U
0.28 U
0.14 U
0.11 U
0.11 U
0.64
0.029 J
0.97
0.28 U
0.45 U
4U
660 U
860U
1600 U
660 U
8.5 U
8.5 U
8.5 U
B.5U
8.5 U
8.5 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 UJ
1700 UJ
hlumber, end Date
1015
1015H5
05/14/2005
0.25 U
0.31 U
0.16 U
0.15 J
0.13 U
0.95
0.034 U
0.79
0.31 U
0.5 U
3.2 J
830 U
1100 U
830 U
830 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1018
lOIBHS
05/130005
0.28 J
0.31 U
0.18 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.88
0.033 U
0.94
0.31 U
0.62 U
6.7
800 U
1000 U
800 U
800 U
9.8 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1022
1022HS
05/16/:a}05
0.22 U
0.49 U
0.14 U
0.22 U
0.11 U
1.6
0.033 U
0.86
0.28 U
0.56 U
4.5 U
3100 J
940U
730 U
4000
8.7 U
8.7 U
8.7 U
8.7 U
8.7 U
8.7 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1108
1108H5
05/16/2005
0.26 U
0.76
0.18 U
0.65
0.44 U
3.2
0.044 U
0.69 U
0.35 U
0.56 U
3.5 U
910 U
5600 U
32000 J
28000 J
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
C-85
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
2,4,5-Trichlorophend
2.4,6-Trichlorophend
2,4-Dlchlorophenol
2,4-Dlmettiylphenoi
2,4-Dinibophenol
2.&01nltrotoluene
2-Chioronaphttialene
2-Chlorophend
2-Mettiylnaphttiaiene
2-Mettiylphend (o-Cresd)
2-Nibt)aninne
2-Nltrophenoi
3,3'-Dlchiorobenzldine
3-Nltroanlline
4,6-Dlnltto-2-mettiylphenol
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ettier
4-Chloro-3-mettiylphenoi
4-ChloroanUlne
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ettier
4-MettiyIphenol (p-CresoI)
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
Acenaphttiene
Acenaphttiylene
Anttiracene
Benzo(a)anttiraoene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranttiene
Benzo(g.h.i)perylene
BenzoO()fluoranttiene
Benzoic add
Benzyl butyl phttialate
Cartiazole
Chrysene
il
l
'^ U
J S

1996
EMBS
99% UU Unite.
Ufl/Kfl
ugrt<fl
Ufl«B
Ufl/Kfl
uglKg
U0fl<fl
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg
WilKg
ug/Kg
UBn<g
ug«p
Ufl/Kfl
ufln<g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Ka
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufln<6
Ufl/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
ugfl<g
1009
1009H5
05/16/2005
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
11000 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
1300 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
2200U
4400 U
4400 UJ
2200 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
4400 UJ
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 UJ
1300 U
4400 U
2200 U
2200U
1300 U
1011
1011H5
05/16/2005
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
' 9500UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1100 U
.1900 U
1900 UJ
igoou
3800 U
3800 UJ
. 1000UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
3800 UJ
1100U
1100 U
1100 u
lioou
lioou
lioou
1100 UJ
lioou
3800 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1100U
LocaUon. Sample Number, and Date
1011
1011H5D
05/18«003
igoou
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
9700 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900 UJ
1900 U
3900 U
3900 UJ
1900 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1800U
1S0OUJ
3600 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
3900 UJ
1900U .
1900 U
1200 U
1013
1013H5
05/16/2005
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
8600 UJ
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 UJ
1700 UJ
3400 U
3400 UJ
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 UJ
3400 UJ
1000 U
1000 U
1000 U
1000 U
1000 u
1000 u
1000 UJ
1000 u
3400 U
1700 UJ
1700 U
1000 U
1015
1015H5
05/14/2005
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
10000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
4000 UJ
4000 UJ
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
4000 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
4000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
1016
1018H5
05/13^005
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
9900 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
4000 UJ
4000 UJ
2000 UJ
2000U
2000 U
2000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
2000 UJ
4000 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
4000 UJ
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
1022
1022H5
05/16«OOS
1800U
1800 U
1800 U
1800U
9100 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
lioou
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
3600 U
3600 UJ
1800 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800U
ieoou
1800 U J
3600 UJ
1100 U
1100 u
lioou
lioou
lioou
lioou
1100 UJ
lioou
3600 UJ
ieoou
1800 U
lioou
1108
1108HS
05/16/2005
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
12000 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
4700 U
4700 UJ
2400 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
4700 UJ
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 UJ
1400 U
4700 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
C-86
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
CMHvbutylphttialate
Ol-n-octylphthalate
Dlbenz(a.h)anttiracene
Dibenzofuran
Dtettiylphttialate
Dimettiylphttiatete
Ruoranttiene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutediene
Hexachlorocydopentediene
Hexachloroettiane
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
(soDhorone
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
N-Nllrosodlphenytemino
Naphttiaiene
Nibtibenzene
Pentechlorophenol
Phenanttirene
Phenol
Pyrane
bls(2-Chloroettioxy)mettiane
bls(2-ChlomeO)yl)ettier (2-
Chloroettiylettier)
bls(2-Chlorolsopropyi]eUier
bte(2-Ettiylhexyl)phtiiatete
Oloxln/Furans wittiout 1996
detections
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,&+1pCDF
1,2,3,4,7,e-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,7.e-HxCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug«fl
ugrt<g
ufln<o
Uflrt<fl
Ufl/Kfl
ugrt<fl
ugrt<g
ugfl<fl
ugA<p
ug/Kfl
ug/Kfl
Uflfl<fl
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
ugrt<fl
ug/Kg
ugfl<g
ugflCfl
ug/Kfl
up/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
no/Kfl
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
1009
1009H5
05/16/2005
2200 U
2200U
1300 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
1300 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200 U
UR
2200 UJ
1300 UJ
2200 U
2200U
2200U
1300 U
2200 UJ
4400 U
1300 U
2200 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200U
2200 UJ
2200 U
1.04 U
1.06 U
1.26 UJ
1.67 UJ
1.05 U J
1011
1011H5
05/16/2005
1900 U
1900 U
1100 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1100 U
1100U
1900 U
1900 U
3800 UJ
1900 U
1100 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1100 U
1900 UJ
3600 U
1100U
1900 U
1100 U
igoou
1900 U
1900 UJ
1SD0U
0.712 U
0.743 U
0.862 U
1.28 U
0.722 U
Location, Sample
1011
1011H5D
05/16/2005
1900 U
igoou
1200 UJ
igoou
1900 U
1900 U
1200 U
1200 U
1900 U
1900 U
3900 UJ
igoou
1200 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1200 U
1900 UJ
3900 U
1200 U
1900 U
1200 U
iSoou
1900 U
1900 UJ
1900 U
•
0.763 U
0.796 U
0.926 U
1.37 U
0.776 U
1013
1013H5
05/18/2005
1700 U
1700 UJ
1000 UJ
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1000 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 U
3400 UJ
1700 UJ
1000 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1000 U
1700 UJ
3400 U
1000 U
1700 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 UJ
1700 UJ
0.805 U
0.84 U
0.974 UJ
1.45 U
0.816 U
Mumber, and Date
1015
1015H5
05/14«005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000U
4000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
4000 UJ
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1.15J
0.757 U
0.879 U
1.3 U
0.736 U
1018
1018H5
05/13«005
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
4000 UJ
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
4000 UJ
1200 U
2000 U
1200 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
2000 U
0.758 U
0.791 U
0.918 UJ
1.36 U
0.769 U
1022
1022H5
05/16C005
1800 U
ieoou
1100 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
ieoou
lioou
1100 u
1800 U
1800 U
3600 UJ
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 UJ
3600 U
1100 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
ieoou
1800 UJ
1800 U
0.757 U
0.789 U
0.916 U
1.38 U
0.767 U
1108
1108H5
05/16«005
2400 U
2400 U
1400 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U •
4700 UJ
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 UJ
4700 U
1400 U
2400 U
14O0U "
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
1.87 J
1.51 U
1.75 U
2.6 U
1.47 U
C-87
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
U.3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3.7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9+lxCDF
1,2,3,7.8-PeCDD
1,2,3,7.8-PeCDF
2,3.4,6.7,8-HxCDF
2.3,4,7,e-PeCDF
2,3.7,B-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Calculated Dioxin/Furan Sum
OCDF
Totel HpCDD
Total HpCDF
Total HxCDD
Total HxCDF
Totel PeCDD
Totel PeCDF
Total TCDD
Totel TCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UU Unite
ng/Kfl
nflrt<fl
ng/Kg
ng/Kfl
nfl/Ko
nflfl<g
ng/Kp
nflrt<p
nglKg
ng«g
nfl/Kfl
nfl/Kg
ngfl<fl
nn/Ko
ng/Kfl
no/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
ng/Kg
ng/Kfl
ng/Kfl
1009
1009H5
05/16/2005
0.322 U
0.7 U
1.26 U
1.12 U
0.735 U
0.563 U
0.75B UJ
0.759 U
0.176 UJ
0.582 U
243
10.4 U
1.44 U
1.08 U
1.22U
0.7 U
0.735 U
0.563 U
0.176 U
0.582 U
1011
1011H5
05/16/2005
0.221 U
0.48 U
0.87B U
0.769 U
0.504 U
0.386 U
0.52 U
0.521 U
0.121 U
0.399 U
167
7.11 U
0.712 U
0.743 U
0.244 U
0.48 U
0.504 U
0.386 U
0.121 U
0.399U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1011
1011H5D
os/ieaoo5
0.237 U
0.516 U
0.943 U
0.828 U
0.541 U
0.414 U
0.558 U
0.559 U
0.13 U
0.489 U
7.64 U
0.765 U
0.798 U
0.237 U
0.516 U
0.541 U
0.414 U
0.13 U
0.469 U
1013
1013H5
05/18/2005
0.25 U
0.543 U
0.992 U
0.869 U
0.569 U
0.436 U
0.587 U
0.589 U
0.137 U
0.451 U
188
8.04 U
0.805 U
0.84 U
0.25 U
0.543 U
0.569 U
0.436 U
0.137 U
0.451 U
1015
1015H5
05/14/2005
0.432 U
0.49 U
0.895 U
0.784 U
0.514 U
0.394 U
0.53 U
0.531 U
0.123 U
0.745 U
155
7.25 U
1.15 J
0.757 U
0.432 U
0.49 U
0.514 U
0.394 U
0.123 U
1.43 U
1018
1018H5
05/13«005
0.235 U
0.511 U
0.934 U
0.819 U
0.536 U
0.411 U
0.553 U
0.555 U
0.129 U
0.485 U
176
7.57 U
0.758 U
0.791 U
0.235 U
0.511 U
0.536 U
0.411 U
0.129 U
0.485 U
1022
1022H5
05/16«005
0.235 U
0.51 U
0.933 U
0.817 U
0.535 U
0.41 U
0.552 U
0.553 U
0.128 U
0.532 U
148
7.56 U
0.757 U
0.789 U
0.235 U
0.61 U
0.535 U
0.41 U
0.128 U
0.532 U
1108
1108H5
05/16«005
0.449 U
0.977 U
1.79 U
1.56 U
1.02 U
0.765 U
1.06 U
1.06 U
0.246 U
0.812 U
257
14.5 U
3.68 J
1.51 U
0.457 U
0.977 U
1.02 U
0.785 U
0.248 U
0.812 U
C-88
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Metete wltti 1998 detections
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Caldum
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nidcel
Potassium
Sodlun
Vanadium
2Jnc
Fxplosives witti 1996
detecttons
2,4-OlnltrotduBne
HMX
Nitroglycerin
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) witti 1996 detections
PCB-1254 (Arodor 1254)
Semlvoiattle Organic
Compounds with 1996
detections
2,4-Oinittotoluene
Benzyl alcohol
Dioxin/Furans wltti 1998
detections
OCDD
1996
EMBS
Maximum
3710
50.7
15
14500
5.2
9.3
2690
2750
151
1.2
3.9
8380
269
6.2
27.4
9900
3700
438000
800
9900
3400
18600
1996
EMBS
99% UU
4278
67.1
8.5
16866
5.8
12.3
3307
3261
198
7.5
3.9
9710
345
6.3
30
7000
3700
438000
800
7000
3400
18600
Unite
mgrt<g
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mgn<g;
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mgrt<g
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kfl
mfl/Kg
mg/Kfl
mo/Kfl
mg/Kfl
mg/Kg
ug/Kg
ualKg
Ufl/Kg
Uflrt<fl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
nfl/Kg
'
1108
1108H5FD
05/16/2005
6.78 UJ
1202
1202H5
05/15/2005
40.9
21.2
12600
0.62 U
6.4
130
2470
28.9
1.7
1.4 J
303
0.34 U
26.6
1100 U
620 U
13000 U
-.
10 u
2200 U
2200 U
2.89 U
Location, Sample Number, and Date
1209
1209H5
05/13/2005
8B.4J
33.4
1214
1214H5
05/19/2005
25.7 J
21
4.5 J i^l^^^
4900
1.3
6.6
304 J
1310 J
60J
1.3 J
Z7
mm^m 64.5 J
0.4 U
18.5
24000U
1800 U
17000 U
12 U
2400 U
2400 U
37.5 J
2980
0.29 U
4.2
53J
1230
46J
1.2 U
0.28 U
1218
1218H5
05/11/2005
614
15.2
'^^im 3910
1.9 J
5.8
609
1040
80.2
1.8
3.7 J
28.9 U
0.28 U
14.7
050 U
730 U
12000 U
6.5 U
1B00U
1600 U
81.8 J
0.9
22
1100U
1800 UJ
13000 UJ
9.4 U
1900 U
1900 U
2.09 J 13 J
1218
1218H5D
05/11/2005
273
13.3
4.6 J
3520
0.62 J
4.3
248
744
55.7
1.8
0.33 J
mmm. 39.2 J
0.41 J
18
1000 U
770 U
8.6 U
1800 U
1800 U
10.7 J
1222
1222H5
05/14/2005
156 J
17.1
4.2 J
3250
0.65
4.3
177 J
59BJ
50.1 J
2.4
1.2
8970
32.4 J
0.3 U
18.3
960 U
8800 U
12000U
8.8 U
1800 U
ieoou
5.17 U
1223
1223H5
05/14/2005
26.8 J
16.4
7.6
3520
O.SJ
3.8
93.6 J
1140 J
29.5 J
1.2 J
1.3
^li^T^
36.5 J
0.29 U
14
850 U
13000 U
10000 U
8.5 UJ
1800 U
ieoou
e.28U
C-89
Tabte C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Metete wtthout 1996
detecttons
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Explosives wittiout 1996
detections
2.4,6-Tilnltrotoluene
2,6-Olnittotoiuene
RDX
Tetryl
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) wittiout 1996
detetions
PC8-1016 (Arodor 1016)
PCB.1221 (Arodor 1221)
PCB.1232 (Arodor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Arodor 1242)
PCB-124e (Arodor 1246)
PCB-1260 (Arodor 1260)
Semlvotetile Organic
Compounds wittiout 1996
detecttons
1,2,4-Trichlorol)enzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Oichlorobenzane
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UU Unite
mgKg
mg/Kg
mprt<g
malKo
mg/Kg
mo/Kg
mgfl<g
mg«g
mprt<g
mglKa
mg/Kg
ug/Kg
up/Kg
uon<g
ug«p
unfl<g
Ufl/Kg
Ufl«g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kd
Ufl/Kfl
uq/Kp
ualKQ
'
1108
1108H5FD
05/16/2005
1202
1202H5
05/15«005
0.27 U
0.34 U
0.17 U
0.39
0.14 U
0.28 U
0.033 U
1.7
0.34 U
0.75 U
3.6 U
820 U
1100 U
8800 J
820 U
•10U
10 U
10 U
10 (J
10 U
„ 10U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
Locatton, Sample Number, and Date
1209
1209HS
05/13«005
0.54 J
0.4 U
0.2 U
0.16 U
0.18 U
0.8
0.039 U
1.1
0.4 U
0.79 U
10.2
1000 U
140OU
1000 U
1000 U
12U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1214
1214H5
05/19/2005
0.22 U
0.28 U
0.14 U
0.11 U
0.11 U
0.68
0.029 J
1
0.28 U
0.5 U
3.1 U
730 U
1400 U
730 U
730 U
8.5 U.
8.5 U
8.5 U
8.5 U
8.5 U
8.5 U
1800UJ
1600 UJ
1B00UJ
leoo UJ
1218
1218H5
05/11/2005
0.27 J
0.53 J
0.15 U
0.12 U
0.15 J
1.8
0.068 J
1.2
0.31 U
0.62 U
3.3 J
13000U
1100U
840U
5600 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
9.4 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
igoou
1218
1218H5D
05/11/2005
0.22 U
0.28 U
0.14 U
0.11 U
0.11 UJ
0.98
0.029 J
1.1
0.28 U
0.5 U
2.BU
770 U
1000 U
770 U
770 U
8.6 U
8.6 U
8.6 U
8.6 U
8.6 U
8.6 U
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
'
1222
1222H5
05/14«005
0.24 U
0.3 U
0.15 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.81
0.037 U
0.73
0.3 U
0.36 U
3U
740U
960 U
740 U
740 U
8.6 U
B.BU
8.8 U
8.8 U
8.8 U
8.8 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1223
1223H5
05/14/2005
0.24 U
0.35 J
0.15 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.3
0.026 U
0.74
0.29 U
0.52 U
4.1 J
650 U
850 U
650 U
650 U
8.5 UJ
8.5 UJ
8.5 UJ
8.5 UJ
8.5 UJ
8.5 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
ieoou
C-90
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
2,4,5-Trichlorophend
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Olditorophenol
2,4-Dlmettiylphenol
2,4-Dlnlttiophenol
2,6-OinitaDtduene
2-ChloronaphttialenB
2-Chlorophsnoi
2-Mettiylnaphttiaiene
2-Mettiylphend (o-Cresol)
2-Nltroanlline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Olchlorobenzidine
3-Nltroaniiine
4,6-Dlnitro-2-mettiylphend
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ettier
4-Chioro-3-mettiylphenol
4-Chioroaniline
4-Chiorophenyl phenyl ettier
4-Mettiylphenol (p-Cresol)
4-Nitroaniilne
4-NittDphenol
Acenaphttiene
Acenaphttiylene
Anttiracene
Benzo(a)anttiracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranttiene
Benzo(g,h,l)perylene
Benzo(k)nuoranthene
Benzoic add
Benzyl butyl phttialate
Cartjazote
1996
EMBS
Maximum
Chrysene
1996
EMBS
99% UU Unite
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Ko;
Ufl/Kfl:
ugKa
ugrt<g
uprt<g
UQrt<p
Uflfl<g
Ufl/Ko'
ug/Kg
ug«g:
ug/Kg:
uo/Ka j
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugrt<g
ug/Kfl
ug«fl
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl:
ug/Kg;
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugfl<g-
Ufl/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg;
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg:
ugfl<g
1108
110eH5FD
05/16/2005
1202
1202H5
05/15/2005
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
11000 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
2200 U
4400 U
4400 UJ
2200 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
4400 UJ
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 U
1300 UJ
< 1300U
4400 UJ
2200 U
2200U
1300 U
ijocation. Sample 1
1209
1209H5
05/13/2005
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
12000 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1500 U
2400U
2400 UJ
2400U
4900 UJ
4900 UJ
2400 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
4900 UJ
1500 U
1500 U
1S00U
1500 U
1500 U
1500 U
1500U
1500U
18000 J
2400 U
2400 U
1500U
1214
1214H5
05/19/2005
1800 U
1800 U
ieoou
ieoou
9000 UJ
ieoou
ieoou
1600 UJ
lioou
ieoou
1800 UJ
1800 UJ
3600 U
3600 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1600 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
3800 UJ
1100 U
1100 U
1100U
1100 u
lioou
lioou
1100UJ
1100 u
3600 U
1800 UJ
1600 U
1100 U
dumber, and Dato
1216
1218H5
05/11/2005
1900 U
igoou
1900 U
igoou
0400 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1100 u
1900 U
1900 UJ
1900 U
3800 U
3800 UJ
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1000 UJ
3600 UJ
1100 U
1100 U
1100 U
lioou
lioou
lioou
1100 UJ
1100 u
3600 U
1900 U
1900 U
lioou
1218
1218H5D
05/11/2005
1800 U
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
9300 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100 u
ieoou
leoo UJ
ieoou
3700 U
3700 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
ieoou
ieoou
1800 U
ieoou
1800 UJ
3700 UJ
lioou
lioou
lioou
lioou
lioou
1100 u
1100 UJ
lioou
3700 U
ieoou
1800 U
lioou
35a„„„5B==»«
1222
1222H5
05/14/2005
1800 U
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
9100 UJ
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
lioou
ieoou
1800 UJ
ieoou
3600 UJ
3600 UJ
1800 UJ
1800U
1800 U
1800 U J
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
3600 UJ
1100U
1100 U
1100 U
1100U
1100 U
1100 u
lioou
1100 u
3&}QUJ
1800 U
1800 U
lioou
1223
1223H5
05/14/2005
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
OOOOUJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
3600 UJ
3600 UJ
1600 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U J
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
3600 UJ
1100 U
1100 U
1100 U
1100U
1100U
lioou
1100UJ
lioou
3600 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
1100 U
C-91
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Dl-n-butvlphttiaiate
Ol-n-octviohthatete
Oibenz(a,h)anttiracene
Dibenzofuran
Dlettiyiphttiatete
Dimettiylphttiatete
Ruoranttiene
Ruorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutediene
Hexachlorocydopentediene
Hexachloroettiane
indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isootiorone
N-Nitroso-dl-n-propylamlne
N-Nltamodiphenytemine
Naphttiaiene
Nitrobenzene
Pentechlorophenol
Phenanttirene
Phenol
Pyrene
bte(2-Chioroettioxy)mettiane
bte(2-Chloroettiyl)ettier (2-
Chioroettiylettier)
bls(2-Chlorolaopropyl)ettier
b(s(2-Ettiyihexyl)phttiatete
Dioxin/Furans virittiout 1996
detecttons
1.2.3,4,8.7,8-HpCDO
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4.7.8.9-HpCDF
1.2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
9g%uu
; '
Unite
Ufl«fl
uaKg
ualKg
ugn<g
ugKg
Ufl/Kfl
ug«g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg:
ugrt<g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg:
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kfl
ufln<fl
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl:
Ufl/Kg:
ng/Kg
ng/Kg:
ng/Kfl
ng/Kg
noflCfl'
1108
110eH5FD
05/16«005
1.72 U J
1.70 U
2.0BU
3.00 U
1.74 U
, 1202
1202HS
05/15«005
2200 U
2200 U
1300 UJ
2200 U
2200 U
2200U
1300 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200 U
4400 UJ
2200 U
1300 U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 U
1300 U
2200 UJ
4400 U
1300 U
2200 U
- 1300U
2200 U
2200 U
2200 UJ
2200U
J-'
0.97 U
1.0TU
1,17 U
1.74 U
0.983 U
Locatton, Sample Number, and Oate
1209
1209H5
05/13/2005
240OU
2400 U
1500 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1500 U
1500 U
2400 U
2400 U
4900 UJ
2400 U
1500 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1S00U
2400 U
4000 UJ
1500 U
2400 U
1500 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
5.SJ
1.67 J
1.12 UJ
1.66 U
0.936 U
1214
1214H5
05/19/2005
1600 U
1800 UJ
1100 UJ
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
lioou
lioou
1800 U
1800 UJ
3600 UJ
1800 UJ
1100U
1800 U
1800 UJ
ieoou
1100 UJ
1800 UJ
3600 U
lioou
1800 U
lioou
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 U J
1800 UJ
0.635 U
0.662 U
0.768 U
1.14 U
0.643 U
1218
1218H5
05/11/2005
1900 U
1900 U
1100 U
igoou
igoou
igoou
1100 u
lioou
1900 U
1900 U
3800 UJ
1900 U
1100 u
1900 U
1000 U
1900 U
1100 U
1900 U
3800 U
1100 U
1900 U
1100 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1900 U
1.41 J
0.699 UJ
0.811 UJ
1.2 U
0.68 U
1218
1218H5D
05/11/2005
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
3700 UJ
1800 U
1100 U
1800 U
1800 U
ieoou
lioou
ieoou
3700 U
lioou
ieoou
1100 u
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
1800 u
0.697 J
0.917 J
0.693 U
1.33 U
0.748 U
1222
1222H5
05/14«005
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1600 U
1800U
ieoou
1100U
lioou
ieoou
ieoou
3600 UJ
ieoou
lioou
ieoou
1800 u
ieoou
lioou
ieoou
3600 UJ
lioou
ieoou
lioou
ieoou
ieoou
1800 u
ieoou
0.707 J
0.671 U
0.778 U
1.16 U
0.652 U
1223
1223H5
05/14«005
1800U
1800 U
1100 UJ
ieoou
1800 U
ieoou
lioou
lioou
ieoou
ieoou
3600 UJ
ieoou
1100 UJ
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
1100 u
1800 UJ
3600 U
1100 u
1600 U
lioou
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
1800 UJ
0.932 J
0.642 U
0.745 UJ
1.11 U
0.625 U
C-92
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Resutts - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
AtNALYTE
1.2.3.6.7.8-HxCDD
1.2.3.8,7.8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,7.e-PeCDD
1,2,3,7,84'eCDF
2,3,4.6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,7,8^'eCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2.3.7.e-TCDF
Calculated Dioxin/Furan Sum
OCDF
Totel HpCDD
Totel HoCDF
Totel HxCDD
Totel HxCDF
Totel PeCDD
Totel PeCDF
Totel TCDD
Totel TCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UU Unite
nfl«Q
ng/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg:
ng«g,
no/Kfl
ngfl<g
ng/Kgi
no/Kg
ngrt<g
ng/Kg
ng/Kfl
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
ngrt<g
1108
1108H3FD
05/16«005
0.533 U
1.16 U
2.12 U
1.86 U
1.22 U
0.932 U
1.25 U
1.26 U
0.292 U
0.963 U
17.2 U
1.72 UJ
1.79 U
0.533 U
1.16 U
1.22 U
0.932 U
0.292 U
0.963 U
1202
1202H5
05/15^005
- • 0.301 U
0.654 U
1.19 U
1.05 U
0.686 U
0.525 U
0.707 U
0.709 U
0.164 U
0.543 U
227
9.68 U
0.97 U
1.01 U
1.72 U
0.654 U
0.686 U
0.525 U
0.164 U
0.543 U
Locatton. Sample
1209
1209H5
05/13^005
0.286 U
0.622 U
1.14 U
0.997 U
0.653 U
0.5 U
0.674 U
0.676 U
0.157 U
0.557 J
165
9.22 U
12.7 J
3.61 U
5.84 U
4.51 J
0.748 U
1.85 J
0.157 U
0.557 J
1214
1214H5
05/19/2005
0.197 U
0.428 U
0.782 U
0.685 U
0.449 U
0.344 U
0.463 U
0.464 U
0.108 U
0.356 U
122
6.34 U
0.635 U
0.662 U
0.197 U
0.428 U
0.449 U
0.344 U
0.108 U
0.358 U
Mumber, and Oate
1218
1218H5
05/11/2005
0.208 U
0.452 U
0.826 U
0.724 U
0.474 U
0.363 U
0.489 U
0.49 U
0.114 U
0.441 U
128
6.7 U
Z79J
0.699 UJ
0.208 U
0.452 U
0.474 U
0.363 U
0.114 U
0.441 U
1218
1218H3D
05/11/2005
0.229 U
0.497 U
0.909 U
0.797 U
0.522 U
0.4 U
0.538 U
0.54 U
0.125 U
0.485 U
7.37 U
2.23 UJ
0.917 J
0.229 U
0.497 U
0.522 U
0.4 U
1.21 U
0.485 U
III 1 II B«^,B^
1222
1222H5
05/14/2005
0.2 U
0.434 U
0.793 U
0.695 U
0.455 U
0.349 U
0.469 U
0.47 U
0.109 U
0.91 J
135
6.43 U
1.36 U
0.671 U
0.492 J
0.434 U
0.455 U
0.349 U
0.109 U
1.6 J
ac====.
1223
1223H5
05/14/2005
0.191 U
0.415 U
0.759 U
0.665 U
0.436 U
0.334 U
0.449 U
0.45 U
0.104 U '
0.677 J
131
6.15 U
1.84 J
0.642 U
0.191 U
0.415 U
0.436 U
0.334 U
0.104 U
1.19 J .
C-93
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UU Unite:
1305
1305H5
05/17/2005
.1412
•i412H5
05/10/2005
Locatican, Sample Number, and Date
1412
1412H5D
05/10/2003
1416
1416H5
05/11/2005
150B
1508HS
05/12/2005
1706
1706H5
05/19/2005
1710
1710H5
05/11/2005
1808
1B08H5
05/11/2005
Metete wltti igge detections
Aluminum 3710 4278 jng^a. 136 J 496 462 958 753 479 J 846 674
Barium 50.7 67.1 mg/Kg 20.4
Boron 15 8.5 mg/Kp 7.7
Caldum 14500 16866 mg/Kp 0930 3890 3850 8380 5270 4180 6820
Chromium 5.2 5.8 mg/Kg 0.68 1.6 1.4 3.7 Z3 1.1 1.2 2.4
Copper 9.3 12.3 mg/Kg 9.3 7.5 8.1 7.2 4.3 7.7
Iron 2690 3307 mg/Kfl 188 J 456 .438 913 632 540 J 721 625
Magnesium 2750 3261 mg/Kg 2830 1760 1780 1960 2030 861 1940
Manganese 151 198 jngflCtL 28.6 J •57.1 55 71.5 62.7 93.3 J 30.2 71.7
Molybdenum 1.2 7.5 mg/Kg 1.4 J I.U I.U 0.B4J 0.66 J 2.6 1.8 0.88 J
Nickel 3.9 3.9 mp/Kfl O.eu 3.7 1.8 IU 1.6 2.1
Potassium 8380 9710 JTlfl^ 6280
Sodium 260 345 mg/Kfl 132 150 133 111 J 168 115U 53.8 J 235
Vanadium 6.2 6.3 mg/Kg 0.32 U 0.68 0.62 1.6 0.96 0.76 IJJ 0.95
Zinc 27.4 30 mg/Kg 27.5 21.9 21.9 19.6 25.9 13.7 20.8
Explosives wltti 1996
detecttons
2,4-Olnitttitoluene 9900 7000 ug/Kg: 1100 UJ 970 U 860U 900U 920 U 1200 U 940 U 920 U
HMX 3700 3700 Ufl/Kfl 670 UJ 750 U 680 U 6300 U 710 U 950 U 730 U 700 U
Nllroglycerin 43B000 438000 "0^ 14000 U 12000U 11000 U 140000 J 11000U 15000 U 12000 U 11000 U
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) wltti 1096 detecttons
PCB-1254 (Arodor 1254) 800 800 ug/Kg; 9.6 U 8.4 U 8.2 U 8.2 U 7.7 U 11 U 8.3 U 8.2 U
Semivoiatile Organic
CX)mpounds witti 1996
datecttons
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 9900 7000 ug/Kg 2100 U 1800 U 1700 U 1800 U ieoou 2400 U 1800 U ieoou
Benzyl alcohol 3400 3400 ug/Kg 2100 U ieoou 1700 U ieoou 1800 U 2700 J 1800 U ieoou
DIoxln/Furans wltti 1996
detections
OCDD 16600 leeoo _nflrt<fl_ 3.65 U 15.5 J 13.3 J 14.5 J 5.1 J 5.52 J 15.2 J 6.78 U
C-94
Tabte C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Metete wittiout 1996
detecttons
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Sliver
Thallium
Tin
Explosives wittiout 1996
detections
2,4,6-Trinitrotduene
2.60lnibiotoiuene
RDX
Tetryl
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) wittiout 1996
detetions
PCB-10ie (Arodor 1016)
PCB-1221 (Arodor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arodor 1232)
PCB-1242 (Arodor 1242)
PCB-1248 (Arodor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arodor 1260)
Semivolatiie Organic
Compounds witiiout 1996
detecttons
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-DidiiorobenZBne
1,3-Dlchtorobenzene
1 1,4-Dichiorobenzene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UU Unite
mgKa
mgrt<g
mgKq
mgKg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kp
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kfl
mon<fl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug«g
ug/Kg
ug/Kp
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kfl
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Ko
uglKg
•
1305
1305H5
05/17/2005
0.26 U
0.32 U
0.16 U
0.39
0.13 U
0.35
0.035 J
1.3
0.32 U
0.65 U
3.8 U
870 UJ
1100 UJ
870 UJ
870 UJ
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
9.6 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U J
2100 UJ
1412
1412H5
05/10/2003
0.29 J
0.48 J
0.14 U
0.16 j
0.16 J
4.8
0.16 J
1.1
0.28 U
0.45 U
4.9 J
750 U
970 U
750 U
750 U
8.4 U
8.4 U
8.4 U
8.4 U
8.4 U
8.4 U
ieoou
^•' 1600 U
ieoou
ieoou
Location, Sample 1
1412
1412H5D
05/10/2005
0.22 U
0.57
0.14 U
0.16 J
0.17 J
2
0.086 J
1.2
0.28 U
0.73 U
ZBJ
680 U
880 U
680 U
680U
8.2 U
8.2 U
8.2 U
8.2 U
B.2U
e.2U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1416
1416H5
05/11/2005
0.32 J
1.2
0.14 U
0.78
0.54 J
14.1
0.063 J
1.3
0.28 U
0.62 U
2.8 U
700 U
900U
700 U
700 U
8.2 U
8.2 U
8.2 U
8.2 U
8.2 U
8.2 U
1800 U
ieoou
1BD0U
1800 U
dumber, and Date
1506
150BH5
05/12/2005
0.22 U
1
0.14 U
0.12 J
0.23 J
1.7
0.049 J
1.1
0.27 U
0.43 U
2.7 U
710 U
920 U
710 U
710 U
7.7 U
7.7 U
7.7 U
7.7 U
7.7 U
7.7 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1706
1706H5
05/19/2005
0.29 U
1.2
0.18 U
1.1
0.24 U
1.5
O.IU
1
0.38 U
0.58 U
4.5 U
950 U
1200 U
3200 U
950 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
2400 UJ
2400 UJ
2400 UJ
2400 UJ
1710
1710H5
05/11/2005
0.29 J
1.8
0.14 U
0.11 U
0.21 J
2.3
0.1 J
1.2
0.27 U
0.38 U
2.7 U
730 U
940 U
730 U
730 U
8.3 U
8.3 U
8.3 U
8.3 U
8.3 U
8.3 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1808
1808H5
05/11/2005
0.22 U
0.84
0.13 U
0.12 J
0.25 J
2.1
0.029 U
1.1
0.27 U
0.54 U
2.9 J
700 U
920 U
700 U
700 U
8.2 U
8.2 U
8.2 U
8.2 U
8.2 U
8.2 U
1800 U
1800U
1800 U
1800 U
C-95
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
2.4,5-Trtchlorophenol
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dlchlorophend
2,4-Dlmettivlphend
2,4-DlnibQphend
2,6-Dlnltrototuene
2-Chioronaphttiaiene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Mettiylnaphttialene
2-Mettiylphenoi (o-Cresol)
2-Nitroaniiine
2-Nittt)phend
3,3'-Oichlorobenzidlne
3-Nltroanillne
4,6-Dlnlti^2-mettiylphenol
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ettier
4-Chtoro-3-mettiylphenol
4-ChioroaniHne
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ettier
4-Mettiylphenoi (p-Crssol)
4-Niboanlllne
4-Nltrophenal
Acenaphttiene
Acenaphttiylene
Anttiracene
Benzo(a)anttiracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fiuorenttiene
Benzo(g,h,l)perytene
Benzo(lc)fluoranttiene
Benzdc add
Benzyl butyl phttialate
Carbazde
Chrysene
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UTL Unite
up/Kfl
yjoiKg
ugrt<g
Ufl/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
up/Ko
ysalKg
uflfl<g
upfl<fl
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg
up/Kfl
Ufl/Kg
uo/Kfl
uo/Kfl
ugKg
up/Kg
upfl<fl
uprt<g
up/Kg
uglKg
ugfl<g
ug/Kg
Ufl/Ko
uglKa
up/Kg
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kg
up/Kg
up/Kg
ug/Kg
Uflrt<fl
Locatton, Sample Number, and Date
1305
1305H5
05/17/2005
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
10000 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
1200 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
4100 U
4100 UJ
2100 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
4100 UJ
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 U
1200 UJ
1200 U
4100 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
1412
_, 1412H5
05/10/2005
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
ieoou
6800 UJ
1800U
ieoou
ieoou
1000 u
ieoou
1600 UJ
1800 U
3500 U
3500 UJ
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
1B0OU
1800 U
1800 UJ
3500 UJ
1000 U
1000 U
1000 U
1000 U
1000 u
1000 u
1000 UJ
1000 u
3500 U
1800 U
1800 U
" 1000U
1412
1412H5P
05/10/2005
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
8400 UJ
170OU
1700 U
1700 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 UJ
1700 U
3400 U
3400 UJ
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 UJ
3400 UJ
1000 U
lOOOU
1000 U
IGOOU
1000 U
1000 u
1000 UJ
1000 u
3400 U
1700 U
1700 U
1000 U
1416
14ieH5
05/11/2005
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
ieoou
9000 UJ
1800 U
ieoou
ieoou
lioou
1600 U
1800 UJ
ieoou
3600 U
3600 UJ
1800U
ieoou
ieoou
1800 U
ieoou
1800 U
1800 UJ
3600 UJ
1100 u
lioou
1100 u
1100 u
lioou
1100 u
1100 UJ
lioou
3600 U
ieoou
ieoou
lioou
150B
1508HS
05/12«005
1800 U
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
9100 UJ
ieoou
ieoou
1800 U
1100 u
1800 U
1800 UJ
ieoou
3600 UJ
3600 UJ
1800 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
1800 UJ
3600 UJ
lioou
lioou
1100 u
lioou
lioou
lioou
lioou
lioou
3600 UJ
1800 U
1800 U
lioou
1706
1706H5
05/19/2005
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
12000 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U J
1400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 UJ
4800 U
4800 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
4800 UJ
1400U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 U
1400 UJ
1400 U
4600 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
1400 U
1710
1710H3
05/11/2005
1600 U
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
6600 UJ
1800 U
ieoou
ieoou
1000 u
ieoou
1800 U J
ieoou
3500 U
3500 UJ
ieoou
1800 U
ieoou
1800 U
ieoou
1800 U
1800 UJ
3500 UJ
1000 u
1000 u
1000 u
1000 u
1000 u
1000 u
1000UJ
1000 u
3500 U
ieoou
ieoou
1000 u
iBoe
1808H5
05/11/2005
1B00U
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
6800 UJ
1800 U
ieoou
1800 U
1000 u
1800 U
ieoou J
1800 U
3500 U
3500 UJ
1800 U
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
1800 U
1800 UJ
3500 UJ
1000 u
1000 u
1000 u
1000 u
1000 u
1000 u
1000 UJ
1000 u
3500 U
ieoou
ieoou
1000 u
C-96
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
Dl-n-butylphttiatete
Dl-n-octylphttiaiate
Dlbenz(a,h)anttiracene
Dibenzofuran
Dtettiylphttialate
Dimettiylphttiaiate
Ruoranttiene
Ruorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutediene
Hexachlorocydopentediene
HexachioiDettiane
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
N-Nltroso.dl-n-propylamlne
N-Nlbosodiphenyiamlne
Naphttiaiene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachiorophend
Phenanttirene
Phenol
Pyrene
bls(2-Chloroettioxy)mettiane
bte(2-Chloroettiyl)ether (2-
Chloroettiylettier)
bls(2-ChloroIsopropyi)etiier
bte(2-Ettiylhexyl)phttialate
Dioxin/Furans wittiout 1996
detecttons
1,2,3,4.6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2.3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2.3,4,7.8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7.8+ixCDD
1,2,3,4,7,e-HxCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
99% UU United
ug/Kfl'
ugrt<g
ugrt<p:
ug/Ka
Ufl/Kg
ug/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl:
Ufl/Kfl
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
Ufl/Kfl
Ufl/Kfl
Uflrt<fl
ualKa
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
uo/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ugfl<g
no^g
ng/Kg
ng/Kg
nfl/Kg
ngrt<g
1305
1305H5
05/17/2005
2100 U
2100 U
1200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
UR
2100 UJ
1200 UJ
2100 U
2100 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 UJ
4100 U
1200 U
2100 U
1200 U
2100 U
2100 U
2100 UJ
2100 U
0.966 U
1.01 U
1.17 U
2.43 U
0.98 U
1412
1412H5
05/10/2005
1800 U
1800 U
1000 U
ieoou
1800 U
ieoou
1000 u
1000 u
ieoou
ieoou
3500 UJ
ieoou
1000 u
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
1000 u
ieoou
3500 u
1000 u
ieoou
1000 u
1800 U
1800 U
ieoou
ieoou
1.81J
1.1 u
1.28 UJ
i.gu
1.07 U
Location, Sample
1412
1412H5D
05/10/2003
1700 U
1700 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1000 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 U
3400 UJ
1700 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1000 U
1700 U
3400 U
1000 U
1700 U
1000 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
1.85 J
1.26 U
1.46 U
2.17 U
1.23 U
1416
1418H5
05/11/2005
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1600 U
ieoou
ieoou
lioou
lioou
ieoou
ieoou
3600 UJ
ieoou
lioou
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
lioou
ieoou
3600 u
lioou
ieoou
lioou
ieoou
1800 u
1800 U
1800 U
1.33 U
1.38 U
1.6 U
2.38 U
1.34 U
^lumber, and Date
1508
1508H5
05/12/2005
ieoou
1600 U
1100U
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1100 U
1100 U
ieoou
ieoou
3600 U
ieoou
1100 u
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
lioou
ieoou
3600 UJ
lioou
1800 U
lioou
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
ieoou
0.615 U
0.85 U
0.966 U
1.46 U
0.B27 U
1706
1706H5
05/19/2005
2400 U
2400 UJ
1400 UJ
2400 U
2400 U
2400 U
1400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
4800 UJ
2400 UJ
1400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 U
1400 UJ
2400 UJ
4800 U
1400 U
2400 U
1400 U
2400 U
2400 UJ
2400 UJ
2400 UJ
1.54 U
1.6 U
1.88 U
2.76 U
1.56 U
1710
1710H5
05/11/2005
1600 U
1800 U
1000 U
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
1000 u
1000 u
1800 U
1800 U
3500 UJ
1800 U
1000 u
ieoou
ieoou
ieoou
1000 u
ieoou
3500 U
1000 u
1800 U
1000 u
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
5100
1.59 J
0.714 U
0.826 U
1.23 U
0.694 U
1808
leOBHS
05/11/2005
1800 U
ieoou
1000 u
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
1000 U
1000 u
ieoou
ieoou
3500 UJ
ieoou
1000 u
IBOOU
1800 U
ieoou
1000 u
ieoou
3500 U
1000 u
ieoou
1000 u
ieoou
1800 U
1800 U
1800 U
0.895 U
0.933 U
1.08 U
1.61 U
0.908 U
C-97
Table C-3. 2005 EMFS Analytical Results - Vegetation (Herbaceous) (Continued)
ANALYTE
1,2.3.6.7.8-HxCDD
1.2,3,6.7.6-HxCDF
1,2,3,7.8.9-HxCDD
1.2.3.7.8.9-HxCDF
1.2,3,7.&4>eCDD
1.2.3,7.8-PeCDF
2,3,4,6.7.8-HxCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Calculated Dioxin/Furan Sum
OCDF
Totel HPCDD
Total HoCDF
Total HxCDD
Total HxCDF
Totel PeCDD
Totel PeCDF
Totel TCDD
Totel TCDF
1996
EMBS
Maximum
1996
EMBS
9g%uu Unite
r\glKg
t^alKa
ngn<g
nflfl<fl:
nalKa
nflrt<fl
nort<o
no/Kfl:
no/Kfl
ng/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
nfl/Kfl
no/Kg
nfl/Kg
ng/Kfl
ng/Kg:
nfl/Kfl
nglKa
no«o
1305
1305H5
05/17/2005
0.3 U
0.651 U
1.19 U
1.04 U
0.683 U
0.523 U
0.705 U
0.706 U
0.164 U
0.635 J
222
g.esu
0.066 u
1.01 u
2.43 U
0.651 U
0.683 U
0.523 U
0.164 U
0.635 J
1412
1412H5
05/10/2005
0.320 U
0.714 U
1.3 U
1.14 U
0.749 U
0.574 U
0.773 U
0.774 U
0.18 U
0.593 U
171
10.6 U
1.81' J
1.37 J
.-0.329 U
0.714 U
0.749 U
0.574 U
0.18 U
0.593 U
l-cxatton. Sampla Number, and Date
1412
1412H5D
05/10«005
0.373 U
0.815 U
1.40 U
1.31 U
0.855 U
0.855 U
0.882 U
0.884 U
0JZ05U
0.677 U
1Z1U
1.65 J
1.26 UJ
0.373 U
0.815 U
0.835 U
0.655 U
0.205 U
0.%77U
1416
1416H5
05/11/2005
0.411 U
0.894 U
1.83 U
1.43 U
0.938 U
0.718 U
0.967 U
0.97 U
0.225 U
0.743 U
265
13.2 U
1.33 U
1.38 U
0.411 U
0.894 U
3.07 U
0.718 U
0.225 U
0.743 U
1508
1508H5
05/12/2005
0.253 U
0.55 U
IU
0.88 U
0.577 U
0.442 U
0.595 U
0.596 U
0.138 U
0.457 U
160
8.14 U
0.815 U
0.85 U
0.253 U
0.55 U
0.577 U
0.442 U
0.136 U
0.457 U
1706
1706H5
05/19/2005
0.477 U
1.04 U
1.89 U
1.66 U
1.09 U
0.833 U
1.12U
1.12 U
0.261 U
0.861 U
298
15.3 U
1.54 U
1.6 U
0.477 U
1.04 U
1.09 U
0.833 U
0.261 U
0.861 U
.
1710
1710H5
05/11/2005
0.212 U
0.461 U
0.843 U
0.739 U
0.484 U
0.371 U
0.499 U
0.5 U
0.116 U
0.383 U
132
6.83 U
3.03 J
0.714 U
0.212 U
0.461 U
0.484 U
0.371 U
0.116 U
0.383 U
IBOe
leoeHs
05/11/2005
0.276 U
0.603 U
1.1 U
0.966 U
0.633 U
0.465 U
0.653 U
0.654 U
0.152 U
0.596 U
190
8.94 U
1.04 J
0.933 U
0.278 U
0.603 U
0.633 U
0.465 U
0.152 U
0.596 U
Notes:
Data quality is described in the 2005 Data Validation Letter Repoil for Environmental Monitoring Follow-on Study for the Tooele Chemical
Agent Disposal Facility Tooele, Utah, (CMA, November 2005) including use of the data qualification codes which are briefly explained below:
U =
J =
UJ =
analyte was analyzed for but was not detected (ND) above the reported sample quantitation limit.
analyte was positively identified; however, the associated numerical value is an estimate of the concentration of the analyte in the sample,
analyte was ND above the reported sample quantitation limit. However, the reported quantitation limit is an estimate and may or may not
represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
In this table, method detection limits are presented for ND samples for consistency with Environmental Monitoring Baseline Study.
C-98
Tabte C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization
Slug): OinSlmib
SactorlP: IA
Date: eizaaoos
No. or RsWIva DsmHy
Spadas Clumps Frequency (clumps/ha)
Height Clan
MeanHt
CteM
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KR1A2
PIED
SAVI
49
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
75
0.3SS
0.000
OJX»
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
OJWO
0.605
2.768
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.237
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
Z1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
Total: 124 ToUb 7,005
Nnmber of Spedae;
SHe Averafle Helflht Clan: 1J»
Dtemater claai (meteia)
Specie* 0.SO 1.00 IJO
Avenge
Dtameter a* (m') Pomliuuice Cevef (iii*/Ha) % Cwer Co»af
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
37
. P..
D
0
0
0
0
0
Q
47 0.9
3S.27
osa
OJBO
OJOO
COO
OM
0.00
0.00
53.41
OMA
ojno
OAOO
0.000
OLOOO
aooo
oixn
oooo
0.000
osn
Z218J57
OilOO
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ora
3j)ieJB8
2Z1B4
0.000
" o.bob
0.000
D.OOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
30.170
OAU
0.0QO
ojidb
0.000
COOO
0.00D
OMO
0.000
oino
0.578
Total: »2JM Total: 3,235J2 5Z.353
Site % Coven 52.353
-
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
ffVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total:
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
importance
Value
4Z264
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
66.749
109.013
(Rel. Com.
+ Rel.
FrBq.V2
0.409
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.591
Total:
Relative
Importance
0.388
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.612
Foraoe
Value
Index
1.22B
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.362
3J91
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Sum % Clumps
foliage per per
clump/100 apedes
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
4S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
0.494
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.767
VlHor Relative Vigor
124
Site Average Vigor
I3«i
0.630
0.392
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.608
C-99
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shrub Characterization (Continued)
site ID:
Sector ID:
Species
ARTR
ATCA
AlCU
CHNA
EPVI
tSUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Tetak
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIB}
SAVI
S
Spades
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PtEO
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total:
0214Shnjb
1A
No. of
Clumps
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
89
119
Relative
Frequency
0.000
0.000
0.0(n
O.OO)
0.000
0.252
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.748
Total:
Number of Spedes:
0.50
0
""o"
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
75
Date:
Density
(clumpsAia)
0
0
0
0
0
1.695
0
0
0
5,028
6,722
2
Diametsr dass
1JI0
0
o"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
Forage (Rel. Dom. +
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Rel. Frsq.)/2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.219
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.781
Total:
Relative
Value Importance
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.86B
0.000
0.000
0.000
17.073
20J41
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.185
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.815
1.80
0
o'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage
Vahje Index
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.877
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.123
4.000
S«V2005
1 2
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
87
2.00 2.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spedes
APTTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Height Class
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
Diameter
0.5
0.8
Total:
Sum%
foliage per
Total: _
'
elump/100
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
51
71
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m')
0.W
6.00
0.00
0.00
aoo
5.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.72
31.81
Clumps
per
species
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
89
119
Site Average Vigor.
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Relathn
Somtnsncs
aooo
0.066
0.000
0.000
0.000
ai88
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.814
Total:
Vigor
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.657
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.572
1.229
0.615
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
MsanHt
Class
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stte Average Height Cll
Cover
(m'/Ha)
0.000
"6.666
0.000
0.000
aooo
332.754
0.000
0.000
•0.000
1,453^024
1,765.78
5itB%Co<
Relative
Vigor
0.000
0.000
0.(X>0
0.000
0.000
0.534
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.466
% Cover
aooo
bxm
nnnn
0.000
n.vn
0.000
OMO
0.000
14.530
17.8SS
17.858
0
0
0
0
1.0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
ReiaUve
Cover
0.000
0.066
OJMO
0.000
0.000
0.186
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.814
C-100
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shrub Characterization (Continued)
StoD:
Sector ID:
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Totah
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAW
0308 Shmb
IA
No. of
Chrnips
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
40
Number of
OJO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
Rslathe
Frec|Uttncy
aozs
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.97S
Total:
Sp«:les:
Date:
Denslly
(dumps/ha)
sa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.203
2,260
2
Diameter class
IM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2S
IJO
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
6020005
1
2.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
2JD
0
0
d'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
3
t
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
Average
DluiHiter
1.5
1.1
Total:
Height Class
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m^
1.77
0.00
0.00
0X10
0.00
0.00
0.00
OJOO
OM
38.52
36.29
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reiathra
DoiMrancs
OJOW
0.000
0.000
OJIOO
OJXO
OJIOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
ags4
Total:
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Site Average Height Class:
Cover (m'Ma)
99.628
0.000
0.000
0.0K
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
OiXIO
2083.072
2,162.60
Site % Cover:
«Cover
0.998
O.OOO
OJOO
OJOO
OJXW
OilOO
OJOO
OJOO
OOOO
20.631
21.629
21.629
MsanHt.
Class
3.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ZO
ZJS
Relative
Cover
0.046
0.000
0.000
OJOO
OJOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0X
0J54
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total:
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
4.771
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
62.272
67JM4
(ReLDom.'f
Rsi. FFeq.V2'
a036
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.964
Total:
Relative
Importance
0.071
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.929
Vaiue Index
0.107
0.000
O.OOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.858
3.964
Ipoclia
AITTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total:
Sums
fpltageper
dump/100
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
32
per
species
site Averaqs Viqor
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
40
':
Vigor RelatNe Vigor
0.900
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.801
1.701
0.851
0.529
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.471
C-101
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shrub Characterization (Continued)
site ID: 0400 Shrub
Sector ID: IB
Data: 9150005
Height Class
Species
No. of
Clumps
Rslsthw
Fiequency
Dsnsity
(dumps/ha)
Mean Ht.
Class
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
133
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0.655
0.000
ai48
0.000
0.000
0.000
aox
0.000
aooo
aig7
7,513
0
1,695
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.2W)
45
0
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
64
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.7
0
1.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
IJ
Total: 203 Total:
Number of Spedes:
11/467 SItB Average Height Class: 1.3
Dlsmcter dass
Spedes OJSO IJO 1.60 2JID 2.50
° Itelathm Rslattvs
DIametBr Bs(ni') Dominance Cover (m'/Ha) % Cover Cover
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
23
0
20
P
0
0
0
0
0
38
71
0
10
0
0
O
0
0
0
2
36
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
1.1
0.7
0.5
133.32
0,00
ii.re
0.00
OJO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.03
a68S
P^oop
0.076
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.QS9
7,531^22
0.000
8^i07
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
510.222
75J13
0.000
0.000
OJOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.OOD
5.102
0.865
0.000
0.676
0.000
OJOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
OJOO
O.0S9
Total: 164.13 Total: 8,767.06 67.071
SHe % Cover: B7;071
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
HED
SAVI
Total:
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
104.281
0.000
9.395
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.S68
ITOJtU
(Rel. Dom.
+ Rel.
Freq.V2
0.760
0.000
0.112
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.128
ToiaL-
Relathre
Importance
0.867
0.000
0.078
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.055
Forage
Value
Index
2.2BO
0.000
0.112
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.511
2.904
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
QUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
HED
SAVI
Sum K Clumps
foliage per par
ciump/100 spedes
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
133
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
vp°^
Total: 121 203
SRa Average Vigor
0.S16
0.000
0.752
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.746
2.614
0.671
Relativa
Vigor
0.256
0.000
0.373
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.371
C-102
Site ID:
Sector ID:
4
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
HVl
GUSA
JUOS
IOtLA2
PIH)
SAVI
Totah
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
HED
SAVI
Spedes
AITTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
HVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
jiins
KRLA2
HED
SAVI
Total:
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
0416Shnjb
SA
Ne.or
ClBinps
143
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
223
Number el
0.50
72
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
81
.•
Forage |
Value 1
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shruti
Importance
Value 1
145.632
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
26.144
171.778
Relathre
FfBQmncy
0.641
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
OJOO
0.000
OJOO
0.000
0.3S9
Total:
'Species:
Dote:
DensBy
(dumps/ha)
8,076
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.519
12^
2
Diameter dess
IJO
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
[ReLDom.-*-
Itel. FrBq.V2
0.707
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.293
Total:
Relative
Importance
0.848
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.152
UD
IS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Forage
Vahie
Index
Z121
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.172
3.293
5if1U2005
1 2
64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
2JD 2M
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9p0cm
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
HED
SAVI
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1
-
Totah _
I
3
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
Dtameter
0.6
OJ
Total:
Sum%
loRage per
dumpnoo
114
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56
170
Height Class
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m^
64 J4
0.00
OJO
OJO
OJO
OJO
OJO
OJO
0.00
27J8
122.72
Clumps
per
spedes
143
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
221
Site Average Vigor.
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
j
Relative
Ooffllnanee
a773
OJOO
aooo
OJOO
OJOO
aooo
aooo
OJOO
OJOO
02Zt
Total:
.'
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Site Average Height Cbos:
Cover (m'Aia)
5,357.332
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
OJOO
OJOO
OJOO
1,578.084
e,e32j7
Stte % Coven
Vigor
0.799
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.701
1.900
0.750
Relative
Vigor
0.533
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.467
%Caver
53.573
0.000
0.000
OJOO
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
15.750
66J24
69.324
IMeanHL
Class
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.2
U
Raiallve
Cover
a773
OJOO
OJOO
OJOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
OJOO
0.000
0.227
C-103
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shrub Characterization (Continued)
Site ID: 0420 Shnt)
Sector ID: IA
Date: sneasKG
Height dass
No. of
Spedes Clumps
RdaUvs Denstty
Frequency <dumps/ha)
UaanHL
Class
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
QUSA
JUOS
KRua
HED
SAVI
IS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
0J73
0.000
0.000
O.OOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
OJOO
0.727
1,017
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.712
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
1.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
Total: 68 Toul: 3,728
Numi>er of Species:
Site Average Height Class: 1.6
Diameter class
Species 0.50 IJO 1.S0 2.00 2J0
Average
DIaiiiuter •in^
Itelative
Dominance Cover InrtHa) % Cover
itelative
Cover
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
HED
SAVI
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
6
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
10
1.2
ro
22.38
0.00
0.00
aoo
O.M
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.n
43.39
0.340
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
O.OOO
0.680
1,284.464
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
ZAS^JBS
12.645
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
24.513
0.340
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
oooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
gsso
Total: 66.76 Total: 3,718.78 37.157
Site % Cover 37.157
Spwdes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
HED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total:
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
31.907
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
65.551
67.458
(Rel. Dom.-)-Forage
Rel. Freq.y2 Value Index
0.307
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.693
Total:
Relative
Importance
0J27
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.673
0.920
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.7T4
3.693
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Sum%
foliage per
dump/100
Clumps
per
species
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
Jflflor.
Total:
Site Average Vigor
0.744
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.836
1.581
0.790
Relative
Vigor
0.471
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.529
C-104
Tabte C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shrub Characterization (Continued)
Site ID:
Sector ID:
Species
fKm
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
.nias
KRLA2
HED
SAVI
Total:
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
B^n
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
HED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
HED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
HED
SAVI
Total:
0515 Shmb
8B
Near
Dumps
151
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
164
Number d
aso
38
0-
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Relative
Fiequency
0.921
0.000
0.079
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.OX
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
rspedee:
Date:
Density
8,530
0
734
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,264
2
Diameter dass
IJO
72
••• - -0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage (Rel. Dom. -f
Value 1
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
-
Shrub
Importance
Vahie 1
127.725
0.000
4.104
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
131J29
1.50
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage
Rel. Freq.V2 Value Index
0.944
0.000
0.056
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.OOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
-
Relative
mportance
0.969
0.000
0.031
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
2.832
0.000
0.056
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.666
5/1 a/2005
1 2
66
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2J0 2J0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Species
ARTR
ATCA
AlCU
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRIA2
HED
62
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"o"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
SAVI
Total:
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AvHfiys
Diameter
1.0
0.7
Total:
Sum%
foliage per
dumpnoo
88
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
Height Class
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BsOti')
146.06
aoo
4.91
aoo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
150.99
Clumps
per
species
151
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
98 164
SHe Average Vigor
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
RelatNe
Donnnsnco
0.967
OJOO
0.033
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
Total:
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MeanHt
OaSB
1.6
0
1.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
site Average Height Class:
Covw (m'/Ha)
8JS2J288
0.000
277.295
0.000
aooo
aooo
oono
aox
0.0X
aox
6,529.56
SKe % Cover
Vigor
0.582
0.000
0.773
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1JS5
0.677
Relathra
Vigor
0.429
0.000
0.571
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
% Cover
82.523
0.0X
i773
0.0X
aox
0.0X
O.OX
aox
O.OX
O.OX
85.296
85.296
IJ
Relative
Cover
0.X7
O.OX
0.033
aox
0.0X
0.0X
O.OX
O.OX
0.0X
O.OX
C-105
SHe ID:
Sector ID:
Spades
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
AIDS
KRLA2
HED
SAVI
Total
Species
ARTR
ATCA„
ATCO
CHNA
EPM
GUSA
Jiias
I0UA2
HED
SAVI
SpBClOS
ARTR
ATCA
AlUO
CHNA
B=V1
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
HED
SAVI
Totah
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shrub Characterization (Continued)
MIIShnA
IA
No. of
Clumps
91
0
87
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
178
Number of
0.50
19
...... . . 0
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reiathm
Frequsncy
asii
O.0X
0.489
O.OX
O.OX
aox
aox
aox
aox
0.0X
Total:
Spedes:
Data:
Density
5,141
0
4,915
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,055
2
Diameter class
IJO
38
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage (fteL Dom. -•-
Value Rel. Fraq.V2
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
0.610
0.000
0.390
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
Relativa
Value Importance
69.969
0.000
17.328
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
87Jffl7
0.802
0.000
0.198
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.50
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage
Value
Index
1.831
0.000
0.390
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.221
smiToos
1 2
20
0
74
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.M 2.50
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EI^
GUSA
JUOS
I0^LA2
HED
SAVI
55
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~o"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
Diameter
1.1
as
Total:
Sum%
foliage per
Total:
ciump/100
38
0
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69
HdghtOass
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m^
107.x
p.po
44.16
OM
0.x
0.M
o.m
0.x
0.x
ax
152.17
Clumps
per
apedes
91
0
87
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
178
Site Average Vigor
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
RalaOve
Dominance
a710
p.ppo
a»o
aox
0.0X
0.000
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
aox
Total:
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
Cover (m'/Ha)
6,1X.482
0.000
2,485.652
O.0X
OJX
0.000
0.0X
O.0X
O.0X
OJX
8,538.13
Site % Caver
Vigor
0.420
0.000
0.355
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.774
0387
Relative
Vigor
0.542
0.000
0.4.58
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
%Cavar
61.005
aox
24JI57
0.0X
0.OX
0.000
0.0X
0.0X
0.OX
O.OX
81961
85.961
MeanHL
ChBS
ZO
0
1.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
RetaOve
Cover
a710
.0.0X
d.2B0
aox
0.0X
0.000
O.OX
aox
0.0X
O.OX
C-106
SHeKh
Sector ID:
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total:
Spedes
AiTTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPM
GUSA
JUOS
l«LA2
HED
SAVI
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shrub Characterization (Continued)
XlSShnib
6B
No.efaumps
80
0
4
0
0
102
0
0
0
0
Retattvtt
Fiw|uwicy
0.456
OJX
0.021
OJX
0.0M
0.523
OJX
O.0X
OJX
O.OX
186 Totah
niniiDMr of 5p#ciflsi
050
8
0
3
0
0
91
0
0
0
0
Date:
Density
5,028
0
226
0
0
5.782
0
0
0
0
11,016
3
Diameter class
IJO
43
0
1
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
IJO
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VI60005
1
21
0
4
0
0
102
0
0
0
0
2.W
7
0
0' ••
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2Ja
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AV0f90O
DIametar
1.2
0 J
as
Totah
Height Class
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m') 1
11Z12
0.x
1.37
OJO
0.x
28.51
OJO
ax
0.x
0.x
140 JO
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RetatNe
Dominance
OJ01
OJX
0J10
aox
aox
a 169
0.0X
0.0K
OJX
OJX
Total:
4
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
site Average Height Class:
Cover (m'/Ha)
6,333.410
OJX
77J42
OJX
0.0X
1,497jgi
OJX
0.0X
0.OX
OJX
7J0I.44
Site % Cover
% Cover
63J34
OJX
0.778
OJOO
0.0X
14J74
aox
aox
OJX
o.on
79J84
79.084
WeanHL
Class
1.8
0
IJ
0
0
IJ
0
0
0
IJ
Relative
Cover
axi
O.OX
aoio
O.OX
0.0X
aies
0.0X
O.OX
OJM
0.X0
Spedes
AI7TR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
HED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KTO^
PIED
SAVI
Total:
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
-
Shrub
Importance
Value
113.186
0.000
0.088
0.000
0.000
20.126
0.000
0.000
O.OOO
0.000
133.400
(Rai. Dom.-*-
Rel. Freq.V2
0.629
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.000
0J56
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
Relative
Importance
0.848
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.151
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Forage
Value
Index
1.886
0.000
0.015
0.000
o;ooo
1.425
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3J26
Spedes
AfTTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
B>VI
GUSA
JUOS
KRL«
PIED
SAVI
Totah
SumK
foDageper
chimp/100
42
0
0
0
0
75
0
0
0
0
117
Clumps
per
species
89
0
4
0
0
102
0
0
0
0
195
Sita Averaga Viqor
Vigor 1
0.469
0.000
0.075
0.000
0.000
0.736
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1i79
0.426
Relative Vigor
0.366
0.000
0.059
0.000
0.000
0.575
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
C-107
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shrub Characterization (Continued)
Table OA. 2005 EIMFS Field Data for Shiub Characterization (Contlnuad)
WlBSIvub
SectorlD: 7B
SpeclM
No. of
Chnnp»
DansBy
Ftwiuaticy IdumpWha)
nWBm QSCT
MeinHL
CtasB
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
BM
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIB>
SAVI
41
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
ajas4
0.0X
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.148
aooo
OJOO
OJXD
0.000
2Ai9
0
0
0
0
306
0
0
0
0
«a
0
D
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
IS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
I.S
0
0
0
0
1.0
0
0
0
Tolai: 2,712
Nmiber ot Sptlis:
Ste Avnw i toHjM ClaxK
RaMn RataUm
1(111^ DomlninoB Cewr(i>i'/H«l »Cc»»f Cawr
ARTR
ATCA
"ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
11
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
41J4
aoo
aso
aoo
OM
1J7
aoo
aoo
on
0.00
Djaa 2,316.163
oooo OJOO
0J»O .OOOO
oooo OJOOO
0.000 OJOO
OOS 77J42
OJOO OJDOO
OuOOO OJOO
OOOD OJOO
oooo gooD
23.182 0M8
aooo OJOO
oooo 0.000
OOOO oooo
OJOO OJOOO
a77B 0J32
0.000 oino
0.000 OOOO
OJOO OJOO
0.000 0.000
4t41 Tetrt; 2aj5B
She % Cover 23J56
8pecl«
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRt^
PIED
SAVI
Spteia
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total:
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shnib
Importance
Value
57.972
0.0X
0.0X
0.000
0.0X
1.19B
aox
0.0X
0.0X
O.OX
59.170
(RsLDom.'t'
RsL Freq.V2
agii
0.0X
0.0X
aox
aox
0.089
aox
O.OX
aox
OOX
Total:
Relative
Importance
0.980
aox
aox
0.OX
aox
0.020
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
Forage
Vahie
Index
2.733
O.OX
0.0X
aox
aox
0.3SS
0.0X
0.OX
aox
aox
xam
Sum % Clumps
foOageper per
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total:
27 41
0 0
' 0 0
0 0
0 0
6 7
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
U 41
Sits Average Vigor
0.657
O.OX
aox
aox
0.0X
0.871
aox
O.OX
0.0X
OOX
1J2S
a764
0.430
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
aox
0570
0.0X
O.0X
0.0X
0.0X
C-108
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
She ID:
Sector D:
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
BVI
GUSA
JUOS
KmA2
RED
SAVI
Total:
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
W18 Shmb
SB
Naof
Chimps
IU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
247
Relative
Freqiran^
a72g
aox
aox
OJX
O.OX
aox
aox
O.OX
O.OX
0J71
Total:
Nmnbttr of Spflctefli
OJO
85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
Date:
Density
(clumps/hi)
10.166
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.785
13,653
2
Diemetarclass
IJO
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
IJO
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G/15/2005
1
2.M
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
2J0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
Dlmeler
OJ
a7
Total:
Height Class
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m')
110.B4
0.x
0.x
ax
o.x
0.x
o.x
o.x
OJO
29Je
140 JO
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rslalhw
Dombunca
a792
OJX
oMo
OJX
aox
OJX
OJX
OJX
aox
0.208
Total:
J
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
site Average Height Class:
Cover (m'/Ha)
6,2eeJS9
OJX
aox
O.OX
aox
0.0X
OJX
OJX
1.641.584
7.M6.44
Site % Coven
KCover
82.688
0.0X
0.0X
aox
o.ax
O.OX
O.OX
O.0X
aox
16.416
70J64
79.084
Mean Ift.
Class
1.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.3
1.4
Raialive
Cover
0.792
O.OX
OOX
aox
0.0X
aox
O.OX
aox
0.0X
0.208
Species
AiTTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRUtt
PIED
SAVI
Species.
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total:
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Velue
80.395
O.DOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
34.361
114.756
(Rel.
Rel.
. DOITL-I-
Fr.ei.V2
0.761
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.239
Total:
Relative
Importance
0.701
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.299
Forage
Value Index
2.282
0.(K)0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.958
3.239
ARTR
ATT»
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Sum % Clumps
foDageper per
Clump/100 speclea
93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
0.515
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.xo
0.000
o.(no
0.779
Vigor Relative Vigor
Totah 247
Site Average Vigor
1J94
0.647
0.398
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.602
C-109
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shrub Characterization (Continued)
SStBtD-.
Sector ID:
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
BVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Totah
Spsdes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAV)
0e23Shnit
IA
No. of
Chimps
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
RelatNe
0.0X
0.0X
O.OX
0.0X
1JX
O.OX
aox
0.0X
aox
0.X0
Totah
Number of Species:
OJO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Date:
Density
0
0
0
0
113
0
0
0
0
0
113
1
Dtameter dass
IJO
0
0
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
IJO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0/21/2006
1
2J0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2J0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
Dlamater
1.5
Total:
Height Class
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m')
OX
0.x
OJO
ax
SOS
o.n
0.x
ax
ax
0.x
3J3
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Relathre
Dominance
0.0X
OJX
OJX
OJX
1.0X
OJX
OJX
OJX
aox
aox
Total:
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
Site Average Height Class:
Cover (m'/Ha) % Cover
aox
OJX
OJX
aox
221 Jsa
0.0X
aox
0.0X
O.OX
aox
221J4
Bite % Coven
0.0X
O.0X
aox
0.0X
2.218
O.OX
0.0X
OJX
0.0X
O.0X
2.216
2.218
MeanHL
Class
0
0
0
ZO
0
0
0
0
2J
Relative
Cover
OJOO
OJOO
aooo
0.000
1J00
OJOO
0.000
OJOO
OJOO
OJOO
Species
AfHR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
ifflLA2
PIED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
Kvja
PIED
SAVI
Total:
Forage
Vahie
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
6.597
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6JB7
(ReLDom.-»
Rel. FrBq.V2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
Relative
Importance
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ocw
Forage
Value Index
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
iOOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.aM
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EI>VI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Totah
Sums
foDageper
clump/100
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
Clumps
per
species
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
SKe Average Vigor:
Vigor
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.750
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.7W
0.750
Relative vigor
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
C-110
Tabte C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
Site ID:
Sector ID:
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIH)
SAVI
Tirtal:
.Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
B>VI
GUSA
JUOS
KfOja
PIB3
SAVI
O707Shnjb
5A
No. of
Clumps
—
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
Relathre
Frequency
1.0X
aox
aox
O.OX
aox
aox
0.0X
0.0X
aox
aox
Total:
Number of Species:
OJO
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Date:
Density
(dumps/hs)
1.664
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1J64
1
Diametsr dass
1.M
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.x
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V19Q0X
1
2J0
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
Dlamater
1.1
Total:
Height aass
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m')
33.58
ax
0.x
OX
ax
OJO
OJO
0.x
0.x
0.x
33J8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RstaUvo
Dominance
1.0X
aox
OJX
0.0X
OJX
OJX
0.0X
0.0X
OJX
0.0X
Total:
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MeanHt
Class
1.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
Site Averaga Height Class:
Cover (m'/Ha)
1J98.695
OJX
aox
0.0X
aox
OJX
OJX
aox
OJX
aox
ijoe.7o
SlteSCover
% Cover
18.W7
aox
O.OX
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
aox
aox
aox
18J67
18.967
IJt
Relethm
Cover
1.0X
O.OX
O.OX
0.0X
0.0X
O.OX
OJX
0.0X
0.0M
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PtBD
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
.OJOS
KRLA2
PIEO
SAVI
Total:
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.(K)0
0.000
0.000
OJOO
(ReLDom.
+ Rel.
Fr«i.V2
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
Total:
Relative
iH}IV/OI
#DIV/DI
ffiiV/OI
»IV/OI
#DIV/OI
1H3IV/0I
«DtV/OI
«DIV/OI
«DIV/OI
1»IV/0I
Forage
Value
Indeoc
3.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.M0
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIS)
SAVI
Total;
Sums
foliage per
dump/100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Clumps
per
species
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
Site Average Vigor
Vigor Relative Vigor
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.OX
0.000
WJIV/OI
WNIO\
ffilV/OI
fi}|V/OI
ffilV/OI
«}IV/OI
#DIV/DI
#OIV/OI
#DiV/0l
#DIV/OI
C-111
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
Site ID: 0714 Shrub Date: 5/15/2005
Sector ID:
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EP\n
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total.
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPW
GUSA
JUOS
KR1.A2
PIED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIEO
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIEO
SAV)
Totel:
SA
No. of
Clumps
111
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
111
Relathre
Frequency
1.X0
aox
aox
O.OX
O.OX
aox
O.OX
OJX
0.OX
O.OX
Total:
o.n
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
-
Shrub
Importance
Density ~
(dimips/ha)
6^70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,270
1
Diameter dass
1.x
56
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(Rel. Dom.
•»Rel.
IJO
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage
FrBq.V2 Value Index
1.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
Total:
Relathre
Value Importance
108.935
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
10SJ35
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
3.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.0M
1 2
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2J0 2.M
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Total:
'i
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Avarage
Dlamater
1.0
Total:
Sum%
foliage per
dump/100
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69
Height Class
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bslm*)
103.x
O.X
b.OO
ax
0.X
0.M
0.x
0.x
o.x
0.x
103M
Clumps
per
species
111
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
111
SKe Average Vigor
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Relattve
OonitntncB
1.0X
0.0X
0.0X
aox
0.0X
0.0X
aox
aooo
aox
0.0X
Total:
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oc
Site Average Height Class:
Cover (m'/Ha)
5,823.187
aox
0.0X
0.0X
O.0X
aox
aox
OJX
0.0X
0.0X
5,623.16
SHe % Cover
Vigor
0.622
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.OOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.622
0.622
Relative
Vigor
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
%Cover
56.232
aox
aox
aox
aox
0.0X
0.0X
aox
aox
aox
58.232
58.232
MeanHL
Class
' 1.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.7
Rslathw
Cover
t.OX
OJX
OJX
OJX
OJX
aox
O.OX
O.OX
0.0X
C-112
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
Site ID:
Sector 10:
Species
AinR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total:
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
QUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
0602Shnj|;
IA
No. of
Ctuinps
1
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B
Relative
Frequency
O.OX
0.0X
1.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.X0
OJX
0.0X
0.0X
O.OX
Totah
Number of Spedes:
OJO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Date:
Density '
(dmnps/ha)
0
0
608
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SOI
1
Dismeter class
IJO
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IJO
0
0
• • " 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SnSC2005
1
2J0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2J0
0
0
'1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
Diameter
1.4
Total:
Height Class
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Batnf)
OM
0.x
15.12
OJO
0.x
ax
OJO
ax
0.x
0.x
16.12
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rsulivo
OJX
O.0X
1JX
OJX
0.0X
OJX
OJX
OJX
OJX
0.0X
Totah
6 7
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00
Stte Average Height Qass:
Cover (m'/Ha) % Cover
OJXO aox
OJX 0.0X
654J87 6J41
OJX 0.0X
O.0X 0.0X
OJX O.0X
0.0X O.OX
0.0X O.0X
OJX O.OX
654J7 6J41
site % Cover 8.541
MeanHL
Class
0
IJ
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
Relative
Cover
O.OX
O.OX
1.0X
0.0X
OJX
O.OX
0.0X
O.OX
O.OX
OJOO
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Sped«i
AiHR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Totah
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Vahie
0.000
0.000
8.777
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
6.777
(ReLDonfL-i-
Rel. Freq.)a
0.0(X)
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
Total:
Relative
Importance
0.000
0.000
1.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
Forage
Value
index
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Totah
Sum%
foltageper
dump/I 00
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Clumps
per
spedes
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
Site Average Vigor
vigor
0.000
0.000
0.383
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0JB3
0J83
Relative vigor
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
o.xo
0.000
0.000
C-113
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
site ID:
SectorlO:
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Totah
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CWJA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
I0<LA2
PIED
SAVI
Spedes
AfHR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Totah
U12Shnib
68
No. of
Clumps
138
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
143
Relathia
Frequency
oust
0.0X
aox
0.0X
0.035
0.014
aox
OJX
O.OX
o.xo
Totah
Number of Species:
OJO
25
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
86.317
aooo
aooo
aooo
a844
0.295
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
•7.4S6
Date:
Density
(chimpsAia)
7J83
0
0
0
282
113
0
0
0
0
8,076
3
Diameter dass
IJO
71
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rel. Dora -•-
Rel. Freq.V2
0.971
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.021
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
RelaUve
mportance
0.987
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
aoo3
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
IJO
35
0
0"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ForaQS
Value
Index
2.912
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.042
0.034
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
2.967
5/1S/2005
1 2
81
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
2J0 2Je
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Speclea
ARTR
ATCA
AlCU
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
72
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totab
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
•Diameter
1.1
OJ
OS
Totah
Sums
Mlageper
dump/100
68
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
73
Height Oass
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m')
13623
0.x
OJO
OJO
ass
OJO
0.X
ax
0.x
0.x
136.M
Ciumjis
por
spades
136
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
143
SHe Average Vigor
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Itelolive
dominance
OJX
OJX
OJX
OJX
0J07
0J03
0.0X
O.0X
OJX
O.0X
Totah
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oe
Covar(mMla)
7JXJ17
OJX
OOX
O.0X
SS.45B
22.164
0.0X
0.0X
OJX
OJX
7J66Jt6
Site % Cover
Vigor
0.498
0.000
0.000
0.000
aseo
0.750
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.10S
0.703
Relative
Vigor
0.236
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.408
0.356
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
%Cover
78.088
0.0X
aox
aox
QJS5
0772
OJX
nnx
OJX
OJX
76J63
78.863
MeanHL
Oass
U
0
0
0
IJ
IJ
0
0
0
12
ReteUve
Cover
OJSO
O.0X
OJX
o.om
0.007
o.oaa
aox
o.ax
O.OX
0.0X
C-114
SKe ID:
SectorlO:
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIEO
SAVI
Total:
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
ICRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
W13 Shnib
2A
No. of Clumps
104
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
124
Numbar ofi
OJO
34
0
0-
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
•
Relathre
Frequency
0.839
0.OX
0.0X
OJX
aox
0.181
O.QW
OJX
0.0X
0.X0
Totah
Species:
Date:
Density
6,875
0
0
0
0
1.130
0
0
0
0
7,M5
2
Dbmeterdass
IJO
47
0
0 •
0
0
1
0
0
0
' 0
\M
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5/160005
1
S3
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
2J0
2
0
0- •
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2.x
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
Diameter
1.0
0.5
Totah
He^htCtass
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m»)
X.12
ax
ax
0.x
ax
4.52
OJO
a.x
ax
ax
94J4
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Relattve
Dontfnanc*
0.SS2
aox
aox
aox
O.0X
0.048
aox
0.0X
0.0X
osma
Total:
!
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
01
Site Average Heighl Class:
Cover (m'ftto)
5,X1.1X
0.0X
OBX
0.OX
OSXSS
SS.111
OJX
OSKO
aox
0.0X
5,346 J4
SItB % Coven
% Cover
sasii
0.0X
aox
aox
0.0X
2.551
aox
0.0X
0.0X
aox
53.462
53.462
MeanHL
aass
1.5
0
0
0
0
1.0
0
0
0
1
IJ
Relathm
Cover
0.952
OJX
0.0X
0.000
0.0X
0.048
OJX
aox
0.0X
aox
Forage Sum% Clumps -
Forage (ReLDoon.-f Value foliage per par Relative
Spedes clump/1 DO apedes Vigor VlHor
ARTR 48 104 0.458 0.356
ATCA 0 0 0.000 0.000
ATCO 0 0 0.000 0.000
CHNA 0 0 0.000 0.000
EPVI 0 0 0.000 0.000
GUSA 17 20 0.830 0.644
JUOS 0 0 0.000 0.000
KR1.A2 0 0 0.000 0.000
nED 0 0 0.000 0.000
SAVI g 0 0.000 0.000
Totah 64 124 1.268
Site Average Vigor 0.644
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIEO
SAVI
Totah
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
43.590
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.760
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
47 JSO
ReL Freq.V2
0.895
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
ai05
0.000
0.000
'0.000
0.000
Total:
RelaUve
Importance
0.921
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.079
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Index
^686
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.418
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
X105
C-115
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
site ID: M17Shnib
Sector ID; IA
Date: S/12/2005
No. of Rslalhre Denslly
Spedes Chimps Frequency (chimps/ha)
Height Class
MeanHL
Class
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
IX
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0X
0.0X
0.0X
O.OX
O.0X
O.OX
O.OW
o.ora
OJX
0.0X
5,649
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
1.7
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
Total: 100 Total:
Numtier of Spedes;
5,648 ate Average Heluht Class: 1.7
Diameter dass
Species OJO 1JW IJO
Average Relative Relathre
2.M 2J0 Diameter Bs(m') Demhianca Cover (m'/He) % Cover Cover
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
X
' 0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
34
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
1.1 114.47
O.X
-ax
0.x
0.x
o.x
ax
0.x
o.x
o.x
1.0X
OJX
OJX
OJX
OJX
OJX
0.0X
0.0X
O.OX
O.0X
8.460511
O.0X
OJX
OJX
OJX
OJX
OJX
OJOO
OJX
OJX
04J6S
OJX
OJX
OJX
o.om
OJX
OJX
OJX
OOX
OJX
1.0X
OJX
aox
OJX
OJX
0.000
0.000
0.0X
OJX
O.OX
Total: 114>I7 Totah 6,4e6J1 64J65
SHe % Cover 64.665
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRIA2
PIEO
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIEO
SAVI
Totah
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
importance
Value
132.909
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
132.909
(ReL Dom.-t-Forage
Rel. Fraq.V2 Value Index
1.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
Relative
1.000
0.0(K)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
3J00
Sum % Clumps
tallage per per RelaUve
Spedes clump/100 species Vigor Vigor
ARTR 69 100 0.686 1.000
ATCA 0 0 0.000 0.000
ATCO 0 0 aooo aooo
CHNA 0 0 0.000 0.000
EPVI 0 0 0.000 0.000
GUSA 0 0 0.000 0.000
JUOS 0 0 0.000 0.000
KRLA2 0 0 0.000 0.000
PIED 0 0 0.000 0.000
SAVI 0 0 0.000 aooo
Total: IW
Site Average Vigor
0.668
0.686
C-116
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
BHe ID: X19 Shrub
SectorlO; IA
Date: 6/21/2005
itelatlve Density
Spedes No. of dumps Frequency (ciumps/ha)
Height Oass
MesnHL
Class
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
O.OX
O.OX
OJX
O.OX
aox
O.OX
OJX
OJX
O.OX
1.0X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.147
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.9
Total: 38 Totah 2,147
Number of Species:
SHe Average Height Class: IJ
Dtameter dass
Spedes o.n 1.W 2.x
Average RalBthre fteiattvs
2J0 Diameter Bs (ro*) Dominance Covor (m'/Hal % Cover Cover
AITTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
B>VI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIEO
SAVI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Total:
J
1.1
Total:
Sum%
foDageper
chDnpMOO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
33
0.x
0.X
ax
ax
ax
ax
0.x
ax
ax
41.23
41Jt3
Chimp*
P"
spedes
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
38
36
Site Average Vigor
O.OX
aox
aox
O.0X
aox
0.0X
aox
0.0X
1.X0
Totah
O.OX
0.0X
O.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
OJX
OJX
2,329.275
2.329.27
Site % Cover
Vigor
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
aB80
OJM
as8o
Relative
Vigor
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
aox
0.0X
aox
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
aox
aox
OJX
23.293
23w293
23J293
O.OX
aox
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
aox
1JX
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
ia^LA2
PIED
SAVI
Species
AKIK
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total:
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
ImixMlance
Value
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
aooo
72.424
72.424
(Rel. Dom.
*RBI.
FreaV2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
Total:
Relative
importance
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
aooo
0,000
1.000
rOfAQtt
Value
Index
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
4.000
4JX
C-117
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
Site 10;
SectorlO:
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Totah
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLAZ
PIED
SAVI
X14 Shnib
8B
No. of Clumps
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
Relalhn
Frequency
1.X0
O.0X
aox
0.K0
a.ox
OJX
OJX
0.0X
aox
0.0X
Totah
Number of Spades:
0.50
2
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dste:
DansRy
(dunips/ha)
1,864
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,884
1
Diameter class
1.x
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IJO
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S/14/2005
1
2ja
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2je
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AwraQs
Dtameter
AA
Totsh
Height Oass
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m?)
5B.75
OJO
0.x
0.x
0.x
0.x
ax
0.x
0.x
o.x
56.76
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Retalhre
Dombunes
1JX
OJX
OJX
aox
OJX
OJX
OJX
o.ax
OJX
aox
Totsh
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MeanHL
Class
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
site Average Height Ctass:
Cover (m'/Ha)
3,20.1.526
0.0X
0.0X
OJX
0.OX
0.0X
OJX
aox
0.0X
aox
3,205J3
Site% Cover
%Cover
32.055
OJX
0.0X
aox
0.0X
0.0X
OJX
aox
OJX
aox
32J55
32J)5S
2J
Retative
Cover
1JX
a.ox
aox
O.0X
0.0X
O.0X
O.OX
aox
O.0X
O.0X
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIEO
SAVI
Totah
(ReL Dom.-f
Forage Value Ret. Fn»q.V2
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
89.859
0.000
aooo
O.OOO
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
69J59
1.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
Relativa
Importance
1.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
Forage
Value
Index
3.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3J00
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
IOaA2
PIED
SAVI
Sum % Clumps
foBaga per per
chimpAlOQ speclea
»>
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.592
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
O.OO0
aooo
Vigor Relatfve Vigor
Total: 20 33
SHe Average Vigor
0J92
0.592
1.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
C-118
site ID:
SedorlD:
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Total:
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRIA2
PIED
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KFII.A2
RED
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total:
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
1004 Shmb
1A
No. of
Oianps
118
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
116
-
Retative
1.0X
O.OX
O.0X
O.OX
0.0X
0.0X
O.OX
aox
aox
axo
Total:
Number of Spcdss:
OJO
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Date:
Denslly
(dumpe/ha)
6,686
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,X6
1
Dtameter dass
IJO
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage (ReL Dom. -•-
Value Rel. Freq.VZ
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
-
Shrub
Importance
1.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
o.xo
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
Relative
Value Importance
190.410
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
in>(io
l.OOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
1.x
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage
Value
Index
3.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
3JX
»17/2005
1 2
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2J0 2.50
5
0
' "o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Species
AKTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
Q»VI
GUSA
JUOS
KRIA2
PIED
SAVI
56
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"a"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Avenge
DIametar
1.0
Total;
Sums
foliage per
dump/100
83
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Height Class
4
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Batnf) 1
110.94
OJO
abb
0.X
o.x
0.x
o.x
0.x
0.X
ax
110.94
Clumps
par
species
118
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totah 63 118
Site Average Vigor
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
site Average Height Oess:
Relathw
Domfaianco
1.0X
O.OX
0.0X
aox
O.OX
o.ax
OJX
OJX
0.0X
axo
Total:
Cover (m'/Ha)
6,26SJ59
aox
6.000
aox
aox
0.0X
0.0X
O.OX
0.0X
aox
e,26ej6
Site % Cover
Vigor
0.700
0.000
O.OOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0OT
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.700
0.700
RelaUve
Vigor
1.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
WCover
6Z869
0.0X
0.iJM
aox
aox
0.0X
aox
0.0X
0.0X
aox
82.669
- 62.669
MeanHL
Oass
ZI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.1
Relathre
Cover
1.0X
O.0X
0.000
O.OX
0.0X
aox
aox
0.0X
aox
aox
C-119
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
She ID;
Sector ID:
Spsdes
AHIR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RH)
SAVI
Totah
Species
AinR
ATCA -
ATCO
CHNA
S^
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RH}
SAVI
1X7 Shmb
IA
Naof
Clumps
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
RataUve
Frequency
1.0X
0.0X
0.X0
0.0X
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
aox
O.OX
aox
Total;
Number of Spedes:
OJO
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Date:
Density
(clumps/ha)
1.684
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,864
1
Diameter dass
IJO
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.x
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5/13«)0S
1
2J0
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2J0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
Diameter
as
Total:
Height Oass
4
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
B8(m?)
16.x
ax
ax
0.x
o.x
ax
ax
o.x
0.X
ax
16J9
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IWathra
DonwiBncs
IJXW
O.OX
0.0X
aox
O.OM
aox
aox
0.0X
0.0X
O.OX
Totah
,
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MeanHL
Ctass
IJ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
Bite Avange Height Ctass:
Cover (m'/Ha)
9531894
aox
OJX
aox
0.0X
aox
aox
aox
axo
0.OX
•53J9
SHe % Cover
K Cover
9.539
O.DX
aox
0.0X
0.0X
aox
aox
0.0X
0.0X
aox
9.539
IJ
Relathm
Cover '
1.0X
0.OX
0.0X
aox
O.OX
OJX
0.0X
0.0X
O.OX
0.0X
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
GAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Total:
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
1.227
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1Jt27
(ReLDom.
-i-RaL
Frea.V2
1.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
Relative
Importance
1.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
Forage
Value
Index
3.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.0X
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATOO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Toial:
Sum%
foBage per
dumpnoo
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Clumps
per
species
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
Site Average Vigor
Vigor
a086
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0J86
0.086
RelaUve Vigor
1.000
0.000
0.(K>0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
C-120
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
Site ID:
Sector ID;
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
Arco
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total:
Spedes
AI7TR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
rajSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total:
IOX Shmb
4A
No. of
Oumps
64
0
37
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
lie
Number ol
OJO
3
• •• 0
21
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
Forage |
Value 1
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
14.746
0.000
11.585
0.000
0.000
2.179
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
28 JIO
RslaUve
Frequency
0J52
0.0X
0J18
O.OX
0.0X
0.129
0.0X
O.0X
O.OX
0.0X
Total:
r Spedes:
Date:
Density
(dumps/lw)
3J15
0
2JM
0
0
847
0
0
0
0
6,553
3
Dtameter dass
1.x
43
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
|ReLDom.<t-
ReL Freq.V2
a645
aooo
0.274
0.000
0.000
0.081
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
RelaUve
tmportsnco
0.517
0.000
0.408
0.000
0.000
0.076
aooo
0.000
0.000
O.OOO
IJO
16
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage
Value
Index
1.934
aooo
0.274
0.000
aooo
a324
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
2.532
5/18/2005
1 2
18
0
29
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
2J0 2J0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
I0^LA2
RED
47
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SAVI
Totel;
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
Dtameter
1.1
OJ
0.5
Total:
8um%
foliage per
clump/100
11
0
23
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
45
Height Ctass
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m^ 1
6ai7
0.x
2a82
ox
ax
2.85
0.x
0.x
o.x
0.x
69.73
Clumps
per
species
64
0
37
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
116
Site Average Vigor
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
Rsiathn
DofiuiiBncs
0.737
O.OX
OJOO
OJX
0.0X
a033
0.0X
aox
0.0X
aox
Totah
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MeanHL
Ctass
IJ
0
IJ
0
0
1.0
0
0
0
00
5ito Average Height Oass:
Cover (m'/Ha)
3,737.632
0.0X
1,164.637
aox
O.OX
1MJ77
aox
0.0X
aox
aox
5,0SSJ5
Site % Cover
Vigor
ai70
0.000
0.614
0.000
0.000
0.740
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
1.523
0.508
Relathre
Vigor
0.111
0.000
0.403
0.000
0.000
0.488
o.xo
aooo
0.000
aooo
% Cover
37.379
0.0X
11.646
O.OX
0.0X
1.684
0.0X
0.X0
O.OX
0.000
X.889
50.689
IJ
Relathre
Cover
0.737
0.0X
0.230
0.0X
0.0X
0.033
0.0X
aox
aox
aox
C-121
Tabte C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
SlteD; 1011 Shmb Dale: S/1B/20X
Sector ID: 6A
Species
No. of
dumps
Relathre
Fiequency
Density
(dumps/ha)
Height Class
MeanHL
APCm
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
33
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0J71
aox
O.0X
O.OX
0J29
0.0X
O.OX
OJX
0.0X
0.0X
1J04
0
0
0
w
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
2.8
0
0
0
IJ
0
0
0
0
Totah 34 Totah 1,921
Number of Spedes:
Site Average Height Oass; 1J
Diameter dass
OJO IJO 2J0 2J0
Average RetaOve IteUrtive
DJameter Bslm*) Domhanee Cover (nAita) % Cover Cover
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
B>VI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IJ
IJ
76.18
OJO
O.X
0.x
0.79
OJO
OJO
OJO
OJO
OJO
OJX
o.px
0.0X
0.0X
OJHO
0.000
aox
OJX
OJX
OJX
4,303.613
OJX
0.0X
0.0X
44J87
OJOO
OJX
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
43.036
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.444
0.000
aox
0.0X
OJX
O.0X
o.om
0.0X
O.OX
0.0X
0.010
0.000
0.0X
0.0X
o.xo
O.OX
Totah 76J7 Totah 4,347J6 43^ro
Site % Cover 43.480
Forage (ReL Dom. -•- Forage
Value Rel. Freq.)/2 Vahie Index
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPM
GUSA
JUOS
ICRLA2
RED
SAVI
Total;
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shnib
Importance
Value
17a9B1
aooo
aooo
aooo
a746
aooo
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
171J27
0.980
0.000
0.000
0.000
ao2o
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
Toial:
ReiaUve
Importance
0.998
0.000
0.000
0.000
aoo4
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.OOO
0.000
2.941
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.040
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.980
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Sum%
fdlage per
chtmp/100
23
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Clumps
per
species
33
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Vigor
0.711
0.000
0.000
0.000
a950
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
Totah 24 34
SHe Average Vigor
1J61
aB30
0.428
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.572
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
C-122
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
SRslO;
Sector ID:
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
HED .
SAVI
Total:
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
AIU>
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KnM
REO
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
AICO
CHNA
EPVfl
GUSA
JUOS
KFtLA2
PIED
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RB}
SAVI
Total:
1013 Shmb
3A
No. of
Oumpe
140
0
3
0
0
33
0
0
0
2
178
RataUve
Frequency
0.787
OJX
0.017
O.OX
O.0X
0.185
0.0X
O.0X
O.0X
aoii
Totah
Nionber of Species:
0.50
16
0
2
0
0
29
0
0
0
1
Forage |
Value 1
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
159.642
aooo
1.021
O.OOO
0.000
6.460
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.433
18SJ56
Date:
Density
(dumps/ha)
7.9X
0
169
0
0
1.664
0
0
0
113
10,055
4
Diamstardass
1.x
M
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
1
[ReL Dom. •*-
Rel. Freq.V2
a883
0.000
aoi2
aooo
0.000
aii7
0.000
O.OX
0.000
o.ooa
Total:
RelaUve
Imiiortance
0.947
aooo
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.038
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.009
IJO
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage
Value
Index
Z588
aooo
0.012
aooo
aooo
a469
aooo
aooo
aooo
a033
3.102
s/18/2005
1 2
37
0
3
0
0
33
0
0
0
1
2J0 2JD
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spades
ARTR
ATCA
AlCU
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
REO
SAVI
91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Totah _
3
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AWflQS
Diameter
1.2
a7
OJ
as
Total:
Sum%
foliage per
chimp/100
77
0
3
0
0
23
0
0
0
2
104
Height Clsss
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m^
1U.27
0.x
1.18
0.x
OJO
8.84
0.x
0.00
ax
am
179i7
Clumps
per
spedes
140
0
3
0
0
33
0
0
0
2
178
Stte Average Vigor
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Retathre
Dominance
0.939
0.0X
aoo7
aox
aox
0.046
0.0X
O.OX
0.0X
aoo5
Total:
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stte Average Height Oass:
Cover (m'/Ha)
9,S05LX0
aox
66.551
0.0X
0.0X
469.1X
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
55.450
io,i2e.u
Sita % Cover
Vigor
a548
aooo
a833
aooo
aooo
a702
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.850
2J33
0.733
RelaUve
Vigor
ai87
aooo
0.284
aooo
aooo
a239
aooo
aooo
aooo
a2go
WCover
95.057
aox
a686
aox
O.OX
4.901
O.OX
O.OX
0.0X
0.555
ioi.2ra
101.268
MesnHL
Ctass
IJ
0
IJ
0
0
IJ
0
0
0
1.5
IJ
Retathre
Cover
0.939
O.OX
0.007
O.OX
O.OX
a049
O.OX
o.xo
O.OX
0.005
C-123
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
SBe ID; 1015 Shmb
Sector ID: 68
Oate: 5/14Q005
Spedes
No. of
Oumps
RsMIvs
Frequency
Denslly
(ciumps/ha)
Height Oass
MeanHL
Oass
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
104
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0.654
O.OX
0.296
aox
O.OX
O.OX
0.0X
O.OX
0.0X
0.050
5,675
0
Z655
0
0
0
0
0
0
452
27
0
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
72
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
IJ
0
1.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
Total: 159 Total:
Numl>er of Species:
Site Average Height Class: 1.4
mameter dass
Spedes 0.x IJO 1.50 2.00 2.x
Average Itetatlve Relative
DJameter Bs(m*) Dominance Cover (m'/Ha) % Cover Cover
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
B-W
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
I3ED
SAVI
24
0
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
X
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
0.7
0.7
X.S3
ax
18.65
ax
o.x
0.x
0.x
0.x
0.x
3.34
0.B04
0.0X
ai67
aox
0.0X
aox
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
OJ30
5,ax.038
0.0X
1,053.720
0.0X
OJX
o.px
0.0X
0.0X
'. 0.0X
1MJM
XJX
0.0X
10537
aox
aox
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
OJX
1J86
0.804
O.OX
0.187
aox
O.OX
0.0X
0.0X
O.0X
O.OX
0.030
Total:
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIEO
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
e>vi
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RB)
SAVI
Total:
.^
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
99.235
0.000
19.115
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.161
121 Jll
(Rel. Dom.
-I-ReL
Freq.V2
0.729
0.000
0.231
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.040
Total:
RelaUve
Importance
0.817
0.000
ai57
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
a026
Forage
Value Index
2.186
0.000
0.231
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
ai60
2J78
IllJg Totel; 6J22.32
Totah IW 159 2.187
SKe Average Vigor 0.729
mm
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
BVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Sum%
foliage P»
chimp/100
63
0
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Clumps
per
SPOCIBS
104
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
Vigor
0.602
0.000
0.791
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.794
Site % Cover 63.223
RelaUve
Vigor
0.275
0.000
0.362
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.363
C-124
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
Site ID:
SectorlO:
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Totel:
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHMA
EPVI
GUSA
jiias
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
B^
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Total:
1018 Shnib
3A
No. of
Clumps
77
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
124
Rslative
Fiequency
0.621
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
O.OX
0J79
0.OX
0.0X
0.0X
O.OX
Total:
Number of Species:
OJO
31
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
Forage (
Value 1
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value 1
100.492
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
11.614
aooo
aooo
0.000
aooo
112.106
Date:
Density
(dumps/ha)
44X
0
0
0
0
2,655
0
0
0
0
7,m5
2
Dlamater dass
IJO
25
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
[ReL Dom. -t-
ReL Freq.y2
0.730
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.270
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
Total:
Relathre
Importance
0.896
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
ai04
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
IJO
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage
Value
Index
Z190
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
1.080
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
3J70
Sri 3/2005
1 2
34
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
• 0
0
2J0 2.x
5
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spedss
ARIR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
BM
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIEO
SAVI
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"o"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total:
3 .
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
Diameter
IJ
OJ
Total:
Sum%
foliage per
chimpnOO
61
0
0
0
0
41
0
0
0
0
101
Height Cless
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(ni^
X.70
0.x
0.x
0.x
0.x
13J5
0.x
0.x
ax
0.x
63.H
Clumps
per
apedes
77
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
124
SKe Average Vigor
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
Relathre
DcH 11 Irancc
0J39
0.OX
aox
O.OX
O.0X
aiei
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
aox
Total:
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MeanHL
Oass
1.6
0
0
0
0
1.0
0
0
0
00
Bite Average Height Oass:
Cover (m'/Ha)
3,937J64
O.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
754J41
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
aox
4J81J3
Site % Cover
'
Vigor
a789
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.886
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
1J55
0.827
Relative
Vigor
0.477
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.523
0.000
O.OOO
O.OOO
0.000
%Cover
XJ76
OJX
O.OX
0.OX
aox
7J42
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
4BJ16
46.918
U
Rotathre
Cover
0.838
O.OX
0.000
0.000
aora
0.161
OJX
0.000
aox
0.0X
C-125
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
site ID: 1022 Shrub Date; 5/18/2005
SedorlD:
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Totel
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO •
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
REO
SAVI
Spedss
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Total:
IA
No. of
Oumps
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
1
0
22
RelaUve
Frequency
O.OX
0.0X
aox
O.OX
0.0X
O.OX
a955
0.0X
a045
aox
Totah
Number of Spedes:
0.M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Density ~
(dumps/ha)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,1M
0
SS
0
1,243
2
Diameter dass
low
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Forage (RsL Dom. *
Value Rel. Freq.V2
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.977
aooo
0.023
aooo
Total:
Relative
Value Importance
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
41?.?36
aooo
31.809
0.000
444.044
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.928
0.000
0.072
0.000
1.x
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
Q
0
Forage
Value
Index
O.OOO
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.932
aooo
0.068
aooo
3.0X
1 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2Je 2J0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Spedss
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
-
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Average
Dtameter
IJ
Total;
Sum%
foDage per
_ dump/100
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
1
0
Height Ctaas
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Be(m')
0.x
0.x
0.x
ax
0.x
ax
39.07
0.x
0.x
ax
39.07
Chimps
per
species
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
1
0
Total: IS 22
SHB Average Vigor
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
Relative
Dominance
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
aox
O.OX
O.0X
1.0X
O.OX
aox
aox
Total:
Vigor
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.671
aooo
a750
0.000
1.421
0.711
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
1
0
7
00
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
00
site Average Height Class:
Covw (m'/Ha)
0.0X
O.OX
0.0X
0.0X
O.0X
OJX
2,207.265
0.0X
0.0X
aox
2,207 JE7
Site % Cover
Relative
Vigor
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.472
aooo
0.528
0.000
%Covsr
0.0X
OJX
aox
0.0X
OJX
0.0X
2Z073
aox
0.0X
aox
22.073
22.073
MeanHL
Osss
0
0
0
0
0
5.7
0
6.0
SJ
Relathre
Cover
aox
0.0K
0.OX
o.om
aox
0.0W
1.0X
0.0W
O.OX
aox
C-126
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
She ID: 1108 Shnjb
SedorlD: IA
Dato: 5AI7/2D05
Height Class
Na of ReiaUvs Density
Spedes Chimps Frequency (duitips/lia)
IHean HL
Oass
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
15
0
93
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0.135
D.0X
0.838
aox
aox
0.027
O.OX
aox
aox
aox
847
0
5.S4
0
0
IX
0
0
0
0
15
0
83
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
1.0
0
1.1
0
0
1.0
0
0
0
Total: 111 Totah
Number of Spedes:
6,270 Sito Average ttelght Class; IJ
Spedes OJO i.ro IJO 2J0 2ja
Average Relathre Rdattve
Dtainetor Bs (in*) Domfawnce Cover (m'/Ha) % Cover Cover
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
13
0
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
X
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0.6
OJ
1.0
4.12
ax
57.14
D.X
O.X
2.38
0.x
O.X
O.X
0.x
0065
0.0X
OJU
aox
aox
0.037
0.0X
O.0X
aox
aox
232J27
0.0X
3^27.710
a.ox
aox
133.101
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
O.0X
2.329
O.0X
32JZ77
aox
aox
1.331
0.0X
OJX
aox
0.0X
0.065
O.OX
0.888
0.0X
O.OX
0.037
O.OX
0.0X
0.0X
O.0X
Total; 63.62 Total: 3,593.74 35.937
Site % Cover 35.937
Sp0cios
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Total:
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
2.808
0.000
42.853
aooo
0.000
2.003
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
47J64
(ReLDom.
-^Rel.
Freq.y2
aioo
aooo
0.868
0.000
0.000
0.032
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
Relative
Importance
0.059
0.000
a899
aooo
aooo
0.042
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
Value
Index
0.300
0.000
0.868
0.000
aooo
0.128
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
1.296
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Simi%
foliage per
ehimpAlOO
12
0
55
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
Clumps
P»r
apedes
15
0
93
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
Vigor
RelaUve
Vigor
Totah 111
Site Average Vigor:
0.773
aooo
a590
0.000
0.000
0.850
O.XO
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.214
0.738
0.349
0.000
0.2B7
0.000
0.000
0.384
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
C-127
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
Site ID: 1202 Shrub Date: 5/15/2005
SectorlD; 6A
Spedes
No. of
Oumps
itetative Density
Frequency (dumps/ha)
Height Claas
MsanHL
7 Osss
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
131
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
aM2
O.OX
aox
aox
aox
O.OX
O.OX
0.X0
0.0X
O.OX
7,4X
0
56
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
2.2
0
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total: 132 Total: 7,487
Number of Species:
Site Average Height Class: 1.6
Dismeter ctass
Spedes ax UD 1.M 2.x
Average itetalhre
2.x Dtameter Bs(m') Dominance Cover (m'/Ha) %Cover
Relative
Cover
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLAZ
RED
SAVI
IB
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0,
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
O
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
1.2
1.0
164.15
a.x
0.79
CX
O.X
0.x
0.X
aw
0.x
0.X
0.895
aox
0.005
0.0X
aox
aox
0.0X
aox
aox
O.OX
0,272.733
0.0X
44JS7
aox
OJX
OJX
O.OX
aox
OJX
0.0X
92.727
aox
0.444
aox
O.OX
O.0X
0.0X
aooo
O.0X
O.OX
0.995
O.OX
0.009
0.000
0.0X
0.000
0.0X
aooo
O.OX
O.OX
Total: 164.B3 Totel: 9,317.10 B3.171
Site % Cover 9X171
Spsdss
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RHJ
SAVI
Total;
Forage
Vakie
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
135.511
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
135.511
(ReLDom.
-fReL
Fnq.V2
0.994
aooo
0.006
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
Total:
RelaUve
mportance
1.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
l=orage
Value
Index
2.981
0.000
aoo6
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
O.OOO
2Jsa
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIH3
SAVI
Sum % Clufii])s
foliage per per
dump/I 00 apedes
71
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
131
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vigor
Total: 71
Stte Average Vigor
a545
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.545
0.273
Relative
Vigor
1.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
C-128
Tabte C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
SBe ID; 1209 Shmb
SectorlD: 6B
Date: 5/19BD05
3p<ClM
No. of
Clumps
DensHy
Fiequency (dumps/lia)
Height Class
MeanHL
Ctass
AiCTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLU
PIED
SAVI
17
0
0
0
65
0
0
0
0
0
0.207
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.793
0.0X
0.0X
aox
aox
O.OX
9X
0
0
0
3,672
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
ZI
0
0
0
1.7
0
0
0
0
Total: '62 Totah 4,632
Number of Spedes;
Site Average Height Class: IJ
JMametardase
Spedes OJD 1.M IJO 2J0
Average Iteiattve Relative
IJO Dtametor Bs (m*) Domhianee Cover (m'/Ha) % Cover Cover
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAW
4
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
12
IJ
23J7
O.X
O.X
0.x
eojB
0.x
o.x
0.x
o.x
0.x
0.279
OJX
OJX
OJX
0.721
OJX
OJX
OJX
O.0X
O.OX
1J19J22
OJX
0.0X
OJX
3,405.176
O.0X
OJX
0.0X
O.0X
0.0X
13.1M
aox
O.0X
O.0X
34.052
O.0X
OJX
0.0X
D.OX
D.OX
0.279
0.0X
OJX
aox
0.721
aox
0.0X
0.0X
OJX
0.0X
Totah 83.64 Totah 4,726.10 47 JSI
Site % Cover 47.251
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total;
Forage
Vaiue
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
5.812
0.000
0.000
aooo
18.732
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
24J44
(Rel. Dom.-^ Forage
ReL Freq.V2 Value Index
0J243
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.757
0.000
o.xo
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
RelaUve
hnportance
0.237
0.000
O.DOO
0.000
0.763
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.730
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.513
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.343
Sum % Clumpis
foliage per per
Spsdes dump/100 apedea
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
6
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
65
0
0
0
0
0
0.374
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.202
O.OOO
O.OX
0.000
0.000
0.000
Vigor Relative Vigor
Totah
Stte Average Vigor
aj7s
0.288
0.649
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.351
0.000
O.OX
0.000
0.000
0.000
C-129
Tabte C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
SlteUk
SectorlD:
Spedss
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRUa
REO
SAVI
Toteh
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
1214 Shnib
IA
No. of
Clumps
101
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
101
Number of
OJO
16
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
Retathie
FfSQusncy
1.0X
OJX
0.0X
0.0X
aox
0.0X
O.OX
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
Total:
Spedes:
Date;
Density
(ctuRips/ha)
5,705
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,705
1
DIamstsr class
IJO
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IJO
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S/19/2005
1
2.M
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
S4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2J0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
3
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
Diameter
1.2
Totah
Keigiit Ctass
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m')
122.72
0.x
0.x
ax
O.X
0.x
0.x
0.x
o.x
0.x
122.72
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RstaUvs
Dominance
1.0X
0.0X
a.ox
0.0X
aox
0.0W
0.0X
aox
aox
O.0X
Totah
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MeenHL
^^faflg
IJ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Stte Average Helghi Oass:
Cover (m'/Ha)
6,832JX
aox
OJX
OJX
OJX
OJX
OJX
aox
0.0X
6J3aJ7
sites Cover
%Cavw>
XJ24
0.0X
aox
OlOX
OJX
OJX
O.0X
0.0X
OJX
0.0X
69.324
Sgj24
u
nBBDVtt
Cover
1.0X
0.0X
aox
OJX
O.OX
0.0X
OJX
OJX
aox
OJXIO
Spedee
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
B>VI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total;
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shmb
Importance
Value
164.659
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
O.OOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
164J59
(ReL Dom.-1-
ReL Freq.V2
1.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
Total:
RelaUve
ImiXM-tance
1.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
Forage
Value Index
3.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
3Joe
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRI.A2
RED
SAVI
Toteh
Sum%
foDageper
chimp/100
68
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
66
Clumps
per
spedes
101
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
101
SKe Average Vigor
Vigor
0.675
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
a675
0.675
telative Vigor
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.OOO
0.000
0.000
C-130
Tabte C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
site ID:
SedorlD:
Spedes
AIHR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
REO
SAVI
Total:
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
QUSA
JUOS
KRIA2
RED
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
jun.s
KRt.A2
PIEO
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KPiM
PIED
SAVI
Totel:
1218 Shmb
IA
Ito. of Oumps
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
180
Relative
Frequency
1.0X
aox
aox
OJX
O.DX
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
Total:
Number of Spedes:
OJO
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dato;
Density
(dumps/ha)
lOilX
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,1U
1
1.x
02
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage (ItoL DonL *
Vahie Rel. Freq.)a
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value 1
80.317
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
M.317
1.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
Totah
RelaUve
Importance
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
-0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
IJO
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage
Value
Index
3.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.0X
5/11/2005
1 2
lie
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.K 2.x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
opsclos
APcm
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
niLSA
JUOS
KRLA2
REO
SAVI
64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totel: _
-
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Avarags
Dtameter
0.8
Toteh
Sum%
foliage par
chimp/100
95
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Height Osss
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bsim')
1X.W
0.x
ax
ax
0.x
0.x
o.x
ax
ax
0.x
IMJS
Chimps
per
species
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
65 IN
Site Average Vigor
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
RaiaUve
Dominance
1.0X
aox
0.0X
aox
0.0X
O.OX
aox
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
Totel:
-
Vigor
0.529
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.526
0.529
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oc
She Average Height Oass:
Cover (m'/Hs)
6,211.4X
0.0X
aox
OOX
aox
O.OX
0.0X
0.0X
O.0X
OJX
6,211.40
SKe % Cover
Relative
Vigor
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
%Covsr
SZ114
OJX
0.0X
OOX
OJX
O.DX
0.0X
0.0X
aox
0.0X
62.114
62.114
MeanHL
Oess
1.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1.4
Rslattvs
Cover
1.0X
0.0X
OJX
0.0X
0.0X
aox
OOX
0.0X
aox
0.0X
C-131
Tabte C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
Stte ID; 1222 ShnA
SectorlD: 3B
Dato: 5/14/2005
RelatWe Density
Spedes No.ofawnps Frequency (dumps/ha)
Height Oass
MeanHL
Oass
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
REO
SAVI
54
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
0
0.885
O.XO
0.0X
0.0X
O.XO
o.ra8
0.016
OJX
O.OX
O.OX
3,050
0
0
0
0
338
56
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
32
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
00
1.6
0
0
0
0
1.2
7J
0
0
Totel: 61 Total: 3,446
Number ef Species:
SKe Average iteight Class; 3.3
DIametordass
Spedes O.X 1.00 2J0
Average Reialive itolativs
2.W Diameter Ba (m') Dominance Cover (m'/Ha) % Cover Cover
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIEO
SAVI
21
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
O
1
0
0
0
0
IJ
0.8
72.26
ax
0.x
ax
o.x
3.93
ax
o.x
o.x
0.X
0.948
O.OX
aox
aox
O.OX
0.052
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
aox
4,M1.777
0.0X
aox
aox
aox
221 jse
aox
a.ox
aox
0.0K
40J18
.0.0X
aox
aox
0.0X
Z218
axo
aox
0.0X
0.0X
0.B48
O.0X
aox
O.0X
O.OX
0.092
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
aox
Toteh 76.18 Totol: 4,303.61 43J38
Site % Cover 43.036
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
nea
SAVI
Totoh
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
78.579
0.000
0.000
O.OOO
0.000
1.404
116.828
aooo
0.000
aooo
196J11
(Rel. Dcrni.
+ ReL
Freq.V2
0.917
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.075
0.008
0.000
aooo
0.000
Total:
RelaUve
Importance
0.399
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
aoo7
a594
aooo
0.000
aooo
Forage
Vaiue
Index
2.751
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.300
0.025
0.000
O.OOO
0.000
3.076
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Sum%
foliage per
chwip/10D
31
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
Clumps
per
spedes Vigor
54
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
0
Total:
Sfte Average Vigor
0.572
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.567
0.850
0.000
0.000
0.000
1J69
0.663
Relath/a
Vigor
0.288
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.285
0.427
0.000
0.000
0.000
c-132
Tabte C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
Stte ID; 1223 Shnib Dato: 5/14/2X5
Sector ID: IA
Spede
Height Pass
No. of
Oumpa
Raiattve
Frequency
DensHy
(dumps/ha)
MeanHL
Oass
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
REO
SAVI
16
0
0
0
0
10
3
0
0
0
0.552
O.0X
O.OX
O.0X
0.0X
0.345
O.IX
O.OX
O.OX
0.0X
904
0
0
0
0
565
169
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
00
1.3
0
0
0
0
IJ
6.3
0
0
Totel: 29 Totol: 1,638
Number of Spedee;
Site Average Height Clsss: 2.9
Dismeter class
Spedes OJO IJO i.n
Average Relathre Relative
2.x 2.n IHameter Bs (m*) Dominance Cover (m'/Ha) % Cover Cover
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
1.0
OJ
2.0
15.51
0.x
O.X
O.X
O.X
4J1
3.14
ax
D.X
O.X
0.658
0.0X
OJX
0.0X
O.0X
0.208
ai33
a.ox
0.0X
0.0X
676.251
0.0X
OJX
O.OX
0.0X
277.295
177.469
aox
0.0X
O.OX
8.783
aox
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
2.773
1.775
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
0.658
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
0.2X
0.133
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
Total: 23J6 Toteh 1,331.01 13J10
Spedes
AFITR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EFM
GUSA
JLN3S
KRLA2
REO
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total:
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
13.128
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
^985
100.845
0.000
0.000
aooo
116.956
(Rel.
Rel.
.Dom.-!-
Freq.V2'
asos
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.277
0.116
0.000
aooo
0.000
Total:
Relative
importance
aii2
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.026
0.862
0.000
0.000
aooo
Forage
Value Index
1.815
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
1.106
a355
0.000
0.000
0.000
3i77
_.
Spsdes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RB}
SAVI
Sum%
foliage per
clunqi/IOD
10
0
0
0
0
7
3
0
0
0
Clumps
per
species
16
0
0
0
0
10
3
0
0
0
Vigor
0.847
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aees
0.900
0.000
0.000
0.000
Site % Cover 13 JIG
Relative Vigor
0.292
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.301
0.407
0.000
0.000
0.000
Totel: 20 29 2J12
SKe Average Vigor 0.737
C-133
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
Site ID:
SectorlD;
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
REO
SAVI
Totah
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KraA2
RED
SAVI
Spectas
ARIR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Totoh
1305 Shmb
IA
No. of Oumps
2
0
eo
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
fteiative
Frequency
0.032
O.OX
asse
aox
O.OX
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
O.OX
Totsh
NunuMr of Spcclss!
OJO
1
0
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dato:
Density
(dumps/ha)
113
0
3,389
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V«
2
Diameter dass
IJO
1
0
7"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage (RaL Dom. -••
IJO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage
Value ReL Freq.VZ Value Index
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
0.815
0.000
8.796
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
6 Jll
a045
0.000
0.955
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
Relative
mportance
0.085
0.000
a915
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.136
0.000
a955
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
UN
Sn7/2D05
1 2
1
0
W
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2J0 2JD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~o"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
Diamelar
OJ
OJ
Totah
Sum%
loDageper
dumii/lOO
1
0
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
Height Class
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m')
0.M
O.X
15.x
0.x
O.X
OJO
O.X
OJO
0.x
O.X
16J9
Clumps
pw
spedes
2
0
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
SAVI 0 0
Toteh 39 62
site Average Vigor
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Retative
Oombianca
0.058
OJX
0042
aox
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
OJX
Toteh
-
vigor
0.675
0.000
0.622
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0O0
aooo
aooo
1.297
0.648
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mssn Ht
Ctass
IJ
0
IJ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Stte Average Height Ctass;
Cover (m'/Ha)
65.459
0.000
696.435
0.0X
aox
aox
O.0X
aox
OJX
0.0X
053J9
Sites Cover
Relative Vigor
a52i
0.000
0.479
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
KCovsr
OJSS
OJX
8je4
OOX
aox
OLOX
aox
0.0X
OJX
OJOO
6J38
9.539
IJ
Rslstlve
Cover
0.058
0.0X
0.942
OJX
a.ox
OJOO
0.0X
aox
0.0X
C-134
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
Stte ID:
SedorlD:
Species
AiHR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Total:
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KBLA2
RHJ
SAVI
1412 Shnib
78
No. of
Clumps
12B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
129
Number of
OJO
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rdattve
Frequency
0.992
O.OX
0.0X
0.0X
aox
0.0X
OJX
0.0X
O.0X
OJX
Total:
Spedes:
Dato:
Denstty
(dumps/ha)
7,231
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56
7^.
2
Dtameter dass
IJO
54
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
IJO
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V10/2005
1
2J0
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2.x
1
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
DIamstsr
IJ
1.0
ToUl:
Height Oass
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m')
125.68
0.x
D.X
O.X
O.X
0.x
0.x
O.X
O.X
a7B
128.45
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
Retathre
Domhiancs
aB94
0.0X
aox
aox
aox
aox
a.ox
0.0X
aox
Total;
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stte Average Height Class:
Cover (m'/Ha)
7,096.743
O.OX
aox
O.OX
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
44J67
7,143.11
Site % Cover
% Cover
7aX7
0.0X
0.0X
OJX
O.DX
0.0X
0.0X
OJX
0.DX
0.444
71.431
71^431
MeanHL
Class
1.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.0
IJ
Itolathre
Cover
0.904
O.OX
aox
O.OX
O.OX
aox
0.0X
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Totoh
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
153.369
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
ai57
1S3.S26
(Rel. Dom.
-i-ReL
Freq.V2
0.993
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
Total:
Relative
Importance
a99g
0.000
O.OOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
Forage
Value
Index
2.979
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.028
3.007
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Total:
Sum%
foliage per
88
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chimps
pw
spedes
128
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
88 129
Site Average Vigor
Vigor
0.6BS
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aioo
0.768
0.394
Relative vigor
aB73
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
ai27
C-135
Tabte C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
SltatD-.
SectorlD:
Spades
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Total;
Spocios
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
B>V1
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
1416 Shrub
IA
No. of
Clumps
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
6
0
12
Number of
0.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
RalaUve
Frequency
aox
O.OX
0.0X
O.OX
0.0X
0.0X
OJX
0.0X
0.5X
aox
Totel;
Spedss:
Date:
Denstty
(dumps/hs)
0
0
0
0
0
0
339
Q
338
0
678
2
DIamstsr class
1.M
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
IJO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
siAanaos
1
2.K
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2J0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Awra09
DIaroelsr
1.1
IJ
Totel:
Height Ctass
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B8{m')
0.x
0.x
0.x
0.x
o.x
ax
ax
0.X
5.ra
ax
11.76
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Retathre
DofiilnBnc#
OJX
0.0X
aox
OJX
aox
a.ox
a5i7
OJX
0.483
aox
Total:
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
7
00
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
00
Stte Average Height Oass:
Cover (m'/Ha)
0.0X
aox
aox
aox
0.0X
S43J45
aox
321.682
0.0X
665.51
Bite % Cover
%Cover
aox
O.OX
aox
aox
O.OX
O.OX
3.438
0.0X
3^17
aox
6JSS
6.655
MeanHL
Class
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
8.0
S.2
Retathre
Cover
aox
O.0X
0.0X
OJX
0.0X
0.0X
0.517
aox
0.483
0.0X
Spades
AfOR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA ,
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KR1.A2
RED
SAVI
Total:
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Vahw
aooo
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
125.153
aooo
203.133
aooo
328.267
(IteL Dom. -•-
Rel. Freq.)/2
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.508
0.000
0.492
0.000
Total:
Relative
Importance
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.381
0.000
0.819
D.OOO
Forage
Vahie Index
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.525
0.000
1.475
0.000
3.M0
Spedss
AFTTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Sum % Clumps
foliage par per
dump/100 speclea Vigor Relative Vigor
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
6
0
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.858
0.000
asos
0.000
Told: 10 12
Site Average Vigor
1JB7
0.833
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.515
O.OOO
0.485
0.000
C-136
Tabte C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
SnsID:
SedorlD;
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHIM
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Toteh
Spedes
AKTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRUa
RED
SAVI
Spedee
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Sp«:hs
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Totoh
ISOSShnib
18
No. of
Oumps
167
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
167
Retative
FracpiMicy
1.0X
0.(K)0
OJX
Oino
OJX
O.OX
0.0X
OJOO
OJOO
OJOO
Total:
Number of Spedes:
OJO
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
-
Shrub
Importance
Value
109.907
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1WJ07
Data:
DensBy ~
(dumps/ha)
9,434
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0^
1
Otemetsrdass
IJO
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(RaLDofiL-f
IJO
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forage
Rel. Freq.V2 Value Index
1.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
Total:
Relative
Importance
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.OOO
3JM
5/11/2005
1 2
97
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
2J0 2J0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spedes
AICTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRI.A2
RED
SAVI
67
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tolat_
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
Dtameter
IJ
Totah
Sum%
Foliage per
dump/1 DO
88
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Height Oass
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bs(m^
IXJO
OJO
OJO
ax
ax
ax
0.X
OJO
0.x
0.x
160 JO
Clumps
per
spedes
167
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
88 167
Site Average Vigor:
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
Relathra
Domhianee
1JX
OJX
a.ox
OJX
aox
aox
0.0X
0.0X
OJX
0.0X
Totah
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oc
Cover (m'/Ha)
8J18.461
aox
aox
aox
aox
aox
OJX
aox
0.0X
8J18.4S
Site % Cover
Vigor
a527
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.527
0.527
Relative
Vigor
1.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
scorer
85.185
OJX
OJX
aox
0.0X
O.0X
0.0X
OJX
D.OX
85.188
85.185
MeanHL
Ctass
1.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1.4
Relattve
Cover
1JX
OJX
p.ox
O.0X
O.0X
O.0X
aox
O.OX
O.0X
aox
C-137
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
Stte ID: 1706 Shrub
SectorlD: IA
Dato: snaaoos
fteiative Denstty
Spsdes No. of Oumps Fiequency (dumps/ha)
Height Oaas
MeanHL
Pass
AFTTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRU2
RED
SAVI
1.0X
O.OX
aox
O.OX
O.OX
aox
O.OX
0.0X
O.OX
O.OX
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total: Totel: 339
Number of Species:
Stte Average Height Class: 1.0
Diameter dass
Spedes 0.x IJO IJO ZX 2J0
Average Raiathra Relative
Dtameter Bs(m*) Dominance Cover (m'/Ha) H Cover Cover
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RHJ
SAVI
1.1 6.x
0.x
0.x
ax
0.x
0.0D
0.x
ax
ax
0.x
1.0X
O.OX
0.OX
OJX
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
aox
OJX
0.0X
343J45
.aox
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
aox
aox
aox
0.0X
0.0X
a436
O.0X
aox
0.0X
aox
0.0X
0.X0
aox
O.OX
O.0X
1.0X
aox
O.0X
aox
O.OX
0.0X
aox
cox
O.OX
0.0X
Total: B.ra Total: 343JS 3.438
Site % Cover 3J438
•'
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RH)
SAVI
Total:
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
tmportsnco
Value
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
OJM
(ReLDom.
•l-ReL
Freq.)n
1.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
Relative
Importance
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
Forage
Value
Index
3.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
0.000
3.0M
Spsdss
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
B>V1
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Sum% Clumps
follaga per per
dump/100 species Vigor Relative Vigor
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
Site Average Vigor
0.0X
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
0.000
C-138
sito ID;
SectorlD:
Spedes
AICTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
ia^LA2
REO
SAVI
Totol:
Spedes
AiCTR
ATCA .
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
SpBClM
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
QUSA
JUOS
KRLAZ
RED
SAVI
Spedes.
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Totoh
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
1710 Shnib
IA
No. of
Clumfis
73
0
27
0
0
0
1
43
0
0
144
J
RetoUve
FfCffuofficy
0.507
aox
ai8S
0.0X
OJX
O.OX
0.007
0.299
O.OX
Total:
Number ef Species:
OJO
19
0
20
d
0
0
0
41
0
0
Dato:
Denstty
(dumps/lis)
4.124
0
1J2S
0
0
0
SB
Z429
0
0
8,135
4
Dtameter class
ije
32
0
7
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Forage (ReL Dom. *
Value 1
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Rel.Freq.V2
a641
0.000
ai45
0.000
0.000
aooo
aoi3
0.201
0.000
0.000
Total:
Relattve
Vahie Importance
83.517
0.000
7.648
aooo
aooo
0.000
7.952
7.520
aooo
0.000
108J37
a783
0.000
a072
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.075
ao7i
aooo
0.000
IJO
IB
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Forage
Value
Index
1.924
0.000
0.145
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.039
0.201
0.000
0.000
2jaa
5/12/2005
1 2
X
0
Z7
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
2J0 2J0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spsdes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLAZ
PIED
SAVI
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Totah
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Avtiage
Dtameter
IJ
OJ
IJ
OJ
Totah
Sum%
Foliage per
dumpMDO
56
0
22
0
0
0
1
33
0
0
112
Height Ctass
4
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
Bs(m») 1
71 JS
OJO
9.42
0.00
OJO
0.x
1.77
9J2
OJO
0.x
92J8
Clumps
per
spedes
73
0
27
0
0
0
1
43
0
0
144
Site Average Vigor
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stte Average Height
itetotlve
Dominance
0.775
OJX
0.102
OJX
OJX
OJX
0J10
0.104
OJX
OJX
Tolah
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
Class:
Cover (m'/He) % Cover
4JS9J9
OJO
532.41
ax
OJO
OJO
WJ3
54SJ0
OJO
OJO
5,23SJ2
Site % Cover
Vigor
a764
aooo
0.815
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.900
0.776
0.000
0.000
3.254
0314
Relative
Vigor
0.235
0.000
0.250
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.277
0.238
0.000
0.000
4a5X
aox
8J24
aox
0.0X
0.0X
aooe
6.435
OOX
0.0X
82JS3
S2J53
MeanHL
Ctass
IJ
0
IJ
0
0
0
5J
IJ
0
2.1
Relathre
Cover
0.775
OJX
P.102
OJX
0.0X
OJX
0.019
ai04
0.0X
0.OX
C-139
Table C-4. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Shmb Characterization (Continued)
Stte ID:
SectorlD:
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Totah
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
:
IBXShnit
SB
No. of
Oumpg
131
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
itelathre
Frequency
1.0X
0.0X
OJX
0.0X
aox
aox
0.0X
O.OX
O.OX
aox
131 Toteh
Number of Species:
OJO
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Date:
Density
(chimps/ha)
7,4X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,4M
1
DtBrnslBf CIBSS
1.M
SO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IJO
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5/12B20M
1
2J0
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
82
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2J>
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
Diameter
1.1
Total:
Height Oass
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bstm"!
143J2
OJO
OX
OJO
OJO
OJO
OJO
ax
0.x
0.x
143J2
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Retathre
Sonilnflncs
1.0X
0.0X
O.OX
0.OX
aox
0.0X
0.X0
0.0X
OJX
OJX
Total:
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MeanHL
Oass
IJ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
Site Average Height Ctass:
Cover(niMta) % Cover
8,1X.Z6
0.x
0.x
0.x
OJO
ax
0.x
0.x
o.x
o.x
6,13DJ8
Site % Coven
81 JOS
OJX
OJX
OJX
0.0X
OJX
OJX
OJX
OJX
0.0X
81J03
81303
1.6
Retative
Cover
1.0X
O.OX
0.0X
0.0X
0.0X
OJX
OJX
0.0X
0.0X
aox
Spedes
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
PIED
SAVI
Species
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KPSM
RED
SAVI
Totah
Forage
Value
3
1
1
3
2
4
3
1
3
4
Shrub
Importance
Value
126.462
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
12S>ta2
(ReLDom.
fReL
FTB^.Y2
1.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total:
RalaUve
Importance
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
Forage
Value Index
3.000
aooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
aooo
aooo
3JU
Spedss
ARTR
ATCA
ATCO
CHNA
EPVI
GUSA
JUOS
KRLA2
RED
SAVI
Total:
Sums
foliage per
dump/1 DO
67
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Clumps
per
species
131
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
87 131
site Average Vigor
Vigor
a5i5
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
aooo
0.000
aooo
aooo
0J15
asis
Relative vigor
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.OOO
0.000
C-140
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
pgtK ttfuaadoa
1A.1B
Sndn
BRTE
LEPB
RATI
STCO
Bnn!
LEPE
fUiTB
BRIE
BATE
STCO
BRTE
IB>E
BRTE
USPS
BATE
STCO
ASTBA
RATE
STCO
ASTRA
nolNa. Ourattr
s
n
w
a
4
20
too
a
600
2S
S
as
11
10
nn
a
T
TS
S
a
«CO«
•
10
1
10
1
s
w
x
B
40
1
ao
3
2
19
9
2
10
15
»
•na
SDMin
BRTE
LEPE
RATE
STCO
BRTE
RATE
STOO -
BRTE
LASE
L£PE
HATE
STCO
ASTRA
BRTE
RATE
STCO
uTorrMdoaibrnu
PWNa.
ID
10
10
10
OuaMr
ts
B
IOO
10
10
290
9
ao
1
90
290
S
1
40
SOO
T
«Conr
2
1
10
IS
z
» »
s
1
10
20
ts
1
s
40
»
8p«k>
ToW
PMMD.
tnt Immmf
Quniar
I4U
«C>Mr
«Caw
912
au
SPKIM
ASTRA
BRTE
lAse
lEPE
RATE
STCO
TeW
om*r
Mannrf)
1.1
11.1
ai
as
lau
ar
»4M
IMrtMDMMr
OODS
lUBS
OJBO
ai2z
arsi
OJBB
Bk>p»rt
Imta
OOOl
CUKO
fUB
oois
OIB
OJOOI
0044
SJSS
SBMlM
ASTRA
lASE
lEPE
RATE
STCO
ToM
No. or noli
•rOhPM.
s
s
1
s
•
s
n
Tmvxict
njoo
a2N
aoos
aw
azso
UlS
1
SDKill
ASTRA
BRTB
USE
101
BATE
ToM
S».l
env
• »
sr
1
Ite
171
1»D
S12
nrtaiii
Camr
<LDt0
am
ojiai
ozil
094
OSM
1
OonSinMa
OS
s.r
ai
IOS
1T.1
17
IU
Oontann
aoio
am
aooi
0211
OSM
OSS
1
1
SPKiM
ASTRA
BRTE
LASE
lEPE
RATE
STCO
TDbl
•l>l>)pitoi)«
Rdom
O04T
am
oats
aiBB
0202
ozrr
1
imoflnoi (Nm
atylallaldtf)**
RSHd
OJ33
am
OOIO
Oils
0458
ai94
1
SpKto
ASTRA
BRTE
LASE
LEPE
RATE
STCO
TsW
VUia Inda
ooei
0417
0030
O40S
1JT9
0194
UOO
Panel VMM In
SpKto
ASntA
BRTl
LASE
LEPE
RATE
9ILU
Tow
Pengs
VWM
dn
Fir»»i
VMwIndsl
O1J0
iLzrg
oooo
OS31
1373
0104
U2S
C-141
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for HeriDaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Prtg snsaaas
r D: rt Hdon ttChidkQ SA, es
SpMto
111)
DESO
LEPE
RATE
10)
LEPE
RATE
im
in
BRTE
BATE
Ifil
IB)
BRTE
RATE
csm
UPE
RATE
1(1)
PMMo. Ounttr
2
1
no
400
1
1
•1
300
90
120
10
100
B
ED
» m
e
2
900
7
KCDW
10
2D
ID
10
19
ID
IS
B
1
2S
4
Sonuy If PWO Dmbi PM
SPKIM
112)
BRTE
CELO
LEPE
BATE
IU)
ryir)
LEPE
BATE
111)
10)
BRTE
CBJO
LEPE
RATS
W)
1«
AGOCICR)
LEPE
RATB
PtotttaL OonSIr
3
2
3
300
40
UO
10
300
19
aoo
IOD
KOnv
I
1
5
1
10
s
1
I
15
20
3
1
ID
1
IS
10
s
1
IS
10
SpKln
IU)
L£PE
BATE
TOM
PMNo.
ID
10
10
SIHAont*
OunSIr
1
SOO
ISO
4141
»Canr
HOonr
9
70
9
375
37.*
SMdM
10)
m
lAOOEtCRI
BRTE
CELO
DESO
LEPE
BATE
ToM
OMNr
Oil iKl^
OS
lai
u
2.7
1.4
Ol
eaii
IBS
414J
nUMKlllMrtB
oon
aov
O004
0007
003
am
ajx
ooas
Slnipnfoi«Micr<Bnnl»
ttnmmf
am
ooa
ojeo
am
fum
am
O0S4
0471
OS30
0*70
SOIIIll
lit)
10)
AOOeiCRI
BRTE
cao
DESO
LEPE
RATE
TMri
nmarar
Na.arnMl
w
«3
Kmmia
0200
aiis
OQ13
OOBI
oess
00(7
aioo
0231
1
SBMM
1(1)
m
AGOEICm
BRTE
CBJO
OSO
LS>e
RATE
TDM
Conr aad Dondnaca
•waer
CoMT
09
10
1
0
» »
S7
120
140
amt
aiu
aiB7
OOOl
0017
OOBO
aooi
0210
OJ47
1
.-»-.
oo
1
01
OS
1.4
02
07
12
34.B
_niliUia
O101
IUB7
ooa
O01T
ooaa
OOOB
0200
0347
1
Ssadia
1(1)
IB)
ASDEICR)
BRIE
cao
LEPE
RATE
TaM
bnoQitanea
iDvartaneapid
StyhllRriag*
Rdonti
020
01DI
0011
O0S9
0091
0020
0231
0200
1
laiartBicapiaia
SlylsKaidilyla*
RdlfU]
O140
OOBI
0010
0030
OOEB
OOIS
om
0422
1
Dlcn
Spadal
1(1)
112)
AGOEJCR)
BRTE
riPiri
DESO
lEPE
RATE
Total
tooaaaar
Valua
iftadaa
Diumirr
tocnaaar
Indaa
OOOO
(UBO
OOIO
0117
D.1S8
OJOt
OOBS
UB7
I.n2
ParagaValiialndaa
Spadaa
1(1)
IB)
AQCEICR)
BRTE
mn
DESO
LEPE
RATE
TaM
Fonga
Vahia
Ponoa
Valui Indaa
aooo
oooo
O01D
OOTB
oiea
0.093
04BS
1J87
2040
C-142
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Pata for HeriDaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
DatK VOfKOS
KiMHh*r of ip<clMi
SDadn
LB«
RATE
STCO
OESO
RATB
STCO
BRTE
CADR
RATE
STCO
3ESO
LEPE
RATE
5TDD
OESO
LER
RATE
BRTE
DESO
PMW.
7
Qnaniai
TS
400
1
75
1
ISO
2
1
90
BO
B
a>
10
900
2
• 4
ISO
ISO
1
»
«Co«ai
29
29
2
S
1
19
2
1
20
19
10
S
s
40
2
1
40
IS
1
3
Sunaaaiy Of FWd DBd> N Rat
Swdaa
LEPE
RATE
STCO
IXSO
lEPE
RATE
STCO
oeso
LEPE
RATE
STCO
DESO
LEPE
RATE
PIOIHO.
w
10
10
OuBdty
30
100
I
SO
20
ISO
1
2
100
100
1
t
100
190
«Covaf
20
ts
9
39
10
10
2
1
30
10
s
2
10
10
Soadaa
Ta«d
PlolMa. Qumlfty
an
%Cam
440
Spadaa
BRTE
CMIR
(SSO
lEPE
RATE
STCO
rolal
Dlll«r
onttr
tUMhfl
02
ttS
02
40S
1«
u
1»7J
OOOl
ao<7
OLOn
aioB
OTM
funr
SInsaaa-a Maa al dhaMlir
ataquon^i
(LOOO
OLOCB
aooi
aoM
. ft.iBH
OLOOC
0570
9A90
Saadaa
ERIE
CAOR
DESO
LEPE
RATE
STCO
ratal
Fraouoncr
NB.ornaii
•OiPlama
t
I
7
T
B
7
J4
OOSB
UBO
0200
0200
0209
020S
1
soadaa
BRTE
CACR
DESO
UEPE
RATE
STCO
roM
SOB of
COMT
X
4S
90
IBO
US
ts
440
CoKar
Qjra
01ID
OIM
ajB4
0191
0004
'
r=-—
02
43
0
IB
IOS
2.S
44
RabSn
iLoas
0102
0114
0304
0LSS2
0004
1
BpMdaa
BRTE
CASR
DESO
LB>E
RATE
STCO
ToM
tanotanea
SimilRSaq*
RdD04
am
OOBI
0190
OIS
O30B
ai3s
1
S^taltaldaola*
Rdao^
OXSI
OOBS
0117
0292
0.440
QXtO
1
apBdaa
BRTE
CAOR
DESO
LBt
RATE
STCO
TOM
nirrmiir
vakM
r Indaa
kidBdi
0094
O20S
0390
07SS
1J47
0002
2.110
Fnaoavaluakidaa
Saadaa
BRTE
CAOR
DESO
LEPE
BATE
STCO
ToM"
Fansa
Valua valua IndBi
0043
0208
OJSO
USDS
1X7
0DB2
L943
C-143
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for HeriDaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
DaiK srunooi
,odudtlBlA.1B
NunaMrotaoadaa:
iBMla.
BRTE
DESO
RATE
BRTE
DESO
BATE
STCM
IBRIE
ceso
jRATE
STCM
AUL
DESO
RATE
isicx
BRTE
1DE«0
RATE
STCM
IBRTE
PWNa
1 s
1 OaanlBi
1 40
SD
1000
s
12
1000
1
» 10
IDOO
1
300
m
SDO
u
40
IS
IOOS
* 40
1 IkCOMt
2
S
a
1
t
SO
1
1
1
40
n
w
2
10
19
2
12
a
s
1
Sanmary o> Flaw Data br PiDl
Spadaa
ae»
IRATE
ami
[BRIE
OESO
[RATE
ISTCU
IBRTE
DESO
OCO
RATE
STCM
{ALAL
BRTE
[SSO
[OICO
RATE
BRTE
DEED
PWHs.
9
to
10
1 o.«a.
1 12
1
90
2
10
a
900
1
10
2
3
7SB
1
3
S
go
1
zoo
9
29
»C0»at
S
1
3
9
1
40
ID
1
1
1
1
39
•
1
10
29
1
ID
1
3
Soadaa
RATE
srcH
TaM
PMNo.
10
10
QiMBr
100
4
TSM
«Cow
20
0
431
Spaaha
MJi,
BRTE
DESO
OICO
RATE
STCM
[TOM
OaoaA,
f—y,^
»:
Hi
a.0
» BIS
4.2
7»«
RaMMDwaMr
oora
(UBS
oass
OLOOl
OM
OOOB
Shqmn^ Indaa afdhonlly
"sr
•ua
am
OMl
OLMD
OTR
ojno
OJOO
•um
OBadaa
ALAL
ame
(SSO
EICO
RATE
STCM
Tow
Fraquaaer
No.ofFtola
•nnada
2
B
10
1
10
9
«
Pn»aiir>
0D4*
UM
0231
oon
0L2SB
oin
1
Cpwr«ndPBBtfianc»
•oadaa
ALAL
BRTE
DESO
OICO
RATE
STCM
ToM
CMor
" 10
" 1
29S
SB
<3S
eoOT
maa 1.1
OOiSl 1
0219
0007
OST1
Oltt
1
OB
OJ
IS
OS
413
Rilanira
ooes
0040
0219
0007
OSM
OUl
1
Spadaa
ALAL
BRTB
OESO
0100
RATE
STCU
k-oni
lasonana
bapotancalOlO
lt»m|R*a*»
OOU
0.130
0220
a.03S
0.401
OISI
1
ImoitBKaptair
SIXa)I0U«rla«
Rd».I
0038
0004
0199
OOZT
09B7
oto>
1
Oacra
Spadaa
ALAL
BRTE
DESO
OICO
BATE
STCM
Tow
Ooaaawl
Insaaw
Valaa
irhMtaa
DamHaif
Mcnaaar
Indaa
0113
02S1
0.488
ojoao
1.701
OlOB
1.711
Foraoa Valua Indaa
Soadaa
ALAL
BRTE
DESO
GtCO
RATE
STCM
TOM
Poraoa
Vahia
masa
valua Maa
011J
0189
0489
oxBa
1J01
O100
U8D
C-144
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for HeriDaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
rlOEi
Pan: inmaoa
•A. SB
Nunbar oTapadaa: 4
ISpadaa
IDESO
IRATE
SHT
RATE
IRATE
RATE
SIHT
RATE
sitrr
IRATE
RATE
Isiwr
RATE
|S«V
IRATE
IBRTE
IRATE
S»ir
FWNo.
to
10
ID
1 OaamllT
1
SOO
1 4
230
1 ""
1 SOD
1 1
1 BOD
1 2
1 in
1000
3
1 '^ T
> BO
1
290
[ 2
»CO.«
1
n
s
ID
3D
M
1 30
«| « 9D|
8
4Dj
IS]
20|
10|
2
Sunananr ol FWd Data b* PIM
jSpadaa Plot No. O—Ay %Ca«ar
Soadaa
[BRTE
DESO
IRATE
lG»fV
Lw
>•
Om*
bteitarn^
Ol
Ol
410
«
411.1
iMH
R«a>aenal«
. (LOOO
OOOD
OOK
(LOOS
Istaooa.^ Indaa afdhraran.
Slmpaob^
Maa
OJX]
OOODJ
OJOO^
aooDl
ojsJ
OLOIOJ
SiKlaa
iBma
iDESO
IRATE
ISHT
T-"
Na.o(Plata
wmiPlarta
1
1
10
9
_
11
RMaOn
Fiaqwaey
0188
0098
09B9
om
1
ISoadaa
ITOW
PMNo. Quamm
4121
»Co<rar
107
SSaAaanoaHCown lOT
CvwandDaodnanca
Laadw
IDBSO
IRATE
SHT
ITOM
il
l
1
1
279
»
107
NaWha
COM
nm
oon
0909
0JB8
1
Oaa*«»a
at
Ol
273
I
m7
RaWha
Ooodoanca
O009
OOOl
0JS8
ooos
1
soadaa
BRTE '
RATE
SW
TaW
hnwMlaiiLa
trnponaneafOM
8li«.)|R«taq*
Rdam
0020
002B
0728
0218
1
baananealNa.
S«l.|[oidatyla4'
Rdaoal
ooai
OJQOl
0819
OlUl
ll
Soadaa
lERTE
klESO
IRATE
ISIHT
ToM
Daoraaaatf
VMua
1
8
> I
kidaa
ODSS
OOSB
2448
0148
LTIol
ForaB> VMy> ""w
Soadaa
iBRTE
DESO
RATE
aHy
TOM
Pofaga
Vkkn
2
1
1
2
FMoa
irdiii aidai
fUOsI
OOSB
2448
0201
2.BI9I
C-145
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
04»IWbat«uua Ooia: snaaoos
Saoarnt alladnaodulns IA, IB
soadaa
ARPE
BRTE
DESO
sua
IB>E
RATE
SIMY
BRTE
ERCI
LEPE
RATE
snrr
BRTE
•PCI
kB>E •
IsHV
SPCO
ARFE
BRTE
Bta
PWN.. OoamRy
10
31
B
10
8
m
so
18
10
» IK
B
IOB
ID
1
S
1
10
SOO
IS
»Co.ar
1
2
S
3
9
n
19
9
8
29
10
10
19
10
1
5
1[
S
40
io|
SkamaiT of Plaid IMto brPlol
Soadaa
ALAL
BRTE
ERO
SOff
ARFE
BRTE
ERO
IB>E
ISPCO
LEPE
HATE
BITE
lERQ
^B>E
|RATE
BRTE
ERO
LEPE
RATE
PMNo.
9
OoalAr
9
•OO
s
19
ID
SOO
20
1
1
8
190
1 290
290
90
8
198
29
10
78
100
KCoaar
2
70
IS
8
1
00
10
1
2
8
70
3D
SO
IS
9
10
20
8
80
sl
Spadaa
SIHY
BRTE
ERCI
LEPE
RATE
rroM
PMNOL
s
10
ID
10
ID
QuanOly
1
15
25
too
190
1727
SaaAaanaaHCoiran
KCaoar
1
8
ID
49
S>
719
TU
1
AGOEICRI
MAL
ARPE
BRTE
iDESO
BICI
pjEPE
RATE
SMY
^PCO
TaM
DandUr
Dandur
08
U
8
203
25
109
SOB
8S
IOS
02
171.7
oixa
OOOl
oon
0941
ooor
(UH
oora
S2SS
oozs
OOOl
OIntmiYa
OOOl
OCOO
aooo
oisr
aooo
OLOOK
(uni
OLOOS
aooi
0.000
OLS7S!
Slnpao«^lndaaofdl>ataa> 1 OBlSl
So«taa
WOEICRI
lALAL
ARFE
BRTE
OESO
ERO
La>E
RATE
8WY
SPCO
TaM
Ptagaaoo
Ha.olPWa
irn Plaira
•• 2
48
IWiW a
Will J
OOB
0022
0087
osa
0022
oao
0178
am
0111
0044
-
1
SoacMo
AODEICR)
ALAL
ARPE
BRTB
OESO
ERQ
MPH
»«ATB
awr
SPCO
TOM
ConranaOomlnMa
loa or
Ctoar
5
t
7
3B7
a
83
ar
7B
21
1
879
Canr
007
oon
OOIO
ooor
om
onr
om
0091
OOM
1
OS
02
07
207
OS
02
207
TJ
1.1
Ol
87JI
Ralanna
0007
lUEB
OOIO
OSM
0007
ai23
0JO7
am
OS11
0004
1
Spadaa
lAiaiEICR)
ALAL
ARFE
BRTE
OESO
ERCI
LEPE
HATE
SUV
SPCO
TaM
lavovMica
ln«uiMica(OM
BWalparaq*
Rdoaq
0019
oon
ono
0L20B
0019
0181
am
0122
0071
O024
1
8«da)Ioldat|b«
Rdan«|
0011
oooo
ono
0380
oon
0121
OIBI
01B8
O0S7
OD18
ll
Daaa
Spadaa
AGOEICRI
UM.
ARFE
BRTE
DESO
ERO
LEPE
RATE
SMV
ISPCO
^OW
bicraaaar
Valua
•r Indaa
tocnaaar
kdoa
OS11
0017
oooo
1.14D
O03I
0273
(U83
0400
O0S7
ons
21181
Fotagavaiua Indaa
soadaa
AOOeiCR)
ALAL
ARFE
WRTE
DESO
ERO
LEPE
RATE
sonr
SPCO
ToM
Ponga
Vakia
Ponsa
VakM Indaa
0011
0027
0080
0.780
0038
0124
03S8
0400
0114
OLDie
im
C-146
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Hert)aceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Ddai anwoos
Sador O: iS aaaoia aadudhio BA, SB
Soadaa
ARPE
BRTE
ORHE
RATE
SW12
ALAL
BRTE
DESO
RATE
ARFE
BRTE
DESO
BJO
SU12
ASTRA
BRTE
RATE
ARFE
ASTRA
BRTE
PMNo. Cklanair
89
in
2
290
1
10
SD
3
no
40
SCO
1
IS
3
1
UO
200
2
2
«
%CoMr
IS
ID
40
80
10
10
18
S.
Sunaaanr Of Fhld Data bv Hot
Spadaa
RATE
ARFE
BPm
DESO
RATE
SPCO
ARFE
BRIE
OPPAIOI
RATE
BRTE
DRie
RATE
BRTE
DESO
RATE
SUU
AWE
BRIS
ERO
PMNo.
ID
10
n
QuanOtr
in
s
1
1
in
1
ISO
SOD
1
19
200
1
200
sn
4
190
4
90
9n
9D
«Ca«ar
2
»
9
1
9
2
10
D
9
2
40
9
30
m
8
7
8
9
89
9
Soadaa
RATE
ToM
PMNo.
10
Quanaiy
IOD
4200
KConr
9
on
BR* AvnaB* % CowR
Soodaa
ALAL
ARTE
ASTTU
BRTE
DESO
Bia
OPPAIO)
ORHE
RATE
SIAL2
SPCO
TaW
Oai
(pMdahA
1
27a
OS
VOLS
12
OS
01
as
121J
OB
Ol
418
nakr
oan
OOM
OOOl
aaa
oan
OOIS
OOOO
OOOl
0298
OOOl
OLOOO
Shvaoo^ Mdaa af dhmBv
SWpaon^
todai
B£a
O0O4
oan
am
ooa
OOOO
OMI
n^
0081
ODOC
oon
0478
Asa
spadaa
ALAL
WPE
ASTRA
BRIE
OESO
ERO
OPPAW)
ORHE
RATE
SIAt2
SPCO
TOM
rialllidii 1
Na.orPMa
vaipwoa
10
«
Ratdba
OOM
0148
O040
0244
oaas
0048
002'
0048
022!
0073
OOM
1
ALAL
ARPI
ASTRA
Bins
oeeo
tna
OPPABJl
ORHE
RATE
suu
SPCO
ToM
-taof
Panama
Conr
1
24
a
4S
a
IS
B
S
n
13
2
870
Com
0802
OOtl
0011
oisr
0014
0028
0008
oooo
OIB
DjDa
O004
1
01
2*
OS
42
OS
IJ
OS
OS
7.1
12
02
87
fWae-
oaoG
ao42
0011
anr
0LO14
•UKM
oaao
OJU
OIB
aaa
OOOl
1
spadaa
ALAL
ARPE
ASTIU
BRTE
DESO
ERQ
OPPAIO)
tjnm
RATE
5IAU
SPCO
ToM
bnpMtanca
SWIa)|R*a,«
Rdanil
oon
O0S4
nmr
0490
oasa
IUQ8
O017
OuOOl
0172
(L040
0014
1
s«la)[aual|4a«
RdMial
OOOl
0084
0.020
OS38
0038
ono
OOtl
0020
0210
(UOI
oora
1
Dacfa
Spadaa
ALAL
ARFE
ASTRA
BRTE
DESO
ERO
OPPAIO)
cfoe
RATE
SIAU
SPCO
TOM
11
1
rtaidaa
btcnaaar
bld*>
0028
01U
oow
ija7
0114
aooo
0022
0020
0820
ooes
ODIB
2J04
Spadaa
ALAL
ARPE
ASTRA
BRTE
DESO
Bia
OPPAIOI
(WHE
RATE
SIAU
SPCO
Total
PMga
VdW
Fanga
valua kidaa
0038
am
OOBO
1J71
0114
0030
O033
oni
0028
om
OODB
2J19
C-147
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Dala: smaoos
Soadaa
BRTE
RATE
BRTE
DESO
RATE
BRTE
rarcn
RATE
BRTE
OESO
RATE
4(1)
BRTE
OESO
RATE
BRTE
(^ LEPE
RATE
PMNO. Quandlir
sn
2D
nra
sn
m
ion
sn
18
ion
4
n
in
1
in
40
a
1
1
n
ID
»Co«ar
SS
1
B
» 15
40
B
2
80
5
ID
18
» 20
a
19
1
2
8
IS
Suianarv or FbM Oata by nx
Spadaa
7tl)
BRTE
DESO
RATE
7(1)
DESO
LEPE
BATE
BRTE
DESO
IBt
RATE
7(1)
RATE
nol Ha.
T
7
7
7
8
8
a
8
t
s
0
8
10
ID
QnaaOIr
40
2
4
SD
30
1
40
49
1
X
4
UDD
SD
ion
»CoMr
30
10
IB
SO
4
aa
Soadaa
TOM .
PWNaL Quana«r
70*7
KConr
941
flBi AMn0> V CoMR
Boadaa
«(ll
m)
BRTE
DESO
IB>E
RATE
ToM
Dandty
Damiir
lDlan«rf|
ai
It
140S
irj
8.7
8308
7807
ono
OOIT
ona
ona
oon
a7n
9ta«aaa% hdaa ofdlvanttr
awpaoo^
bidoa
oooo
oaao
ojn
0002
aooo
0Ji4
OS8S
0419
Spadaa
4(1)
711)
BRTE
DESO
I£PE
HATE
TOM
H>.afPlota
ID
S4
pSp,
OOI*
OOBS
02B
02B
OOSl
0294
1
Boadaa
m
m)
BRTE
DESO
IffE
RATE
ToM
OoMrandOoMnoeo
Suaar
COMT
« • 128
4S
IB
M)
,_ .¥*
•WaOaa
COMT
OSDI
OOIT
OOBI
OOIS
OBn
1
Ol
OB
128
4J
IJ
MJ
54J
niiniiia
OODI
OOIT
02B
fuin
OOS
ftssa
1
aoadaa
4(11
m
BRTE
DESO
LEPE
RATE
TaM
biiiNMlBuua
BUrtDIRbaq*
RdOOl]
OOIT
aaB2
02B
0174
0059
040
1
bnortaooaOWf
SUdalloUMita*
Rdan4
ODll
0011
tuaa
ons
0042
05S4
1
Dacn
Spadaa
4(1)
7(11
BRTE
DESO
LEPE
RATE
roM
Docnaaaff
liaiiaaiac
Valua
rMdaa
balaa
OOOD
OOOO
oaao
owa
OIB
un
2J48
Poraoa Vakiabala.
Soodaa
4(1)
7(11
BRTE
DESO
LEPE
RATE
TaM
Paraaa
Vahia
Fansa
Valua kidaa
ItlBD
tkOOO
0448
osss
aos4
lasi
uso
C-148
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for HeriDaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Dala: snaaon
18A.BB
Spadaa
BRTE
ICQJO
DESO
RATE
BRTE
DEfiO
RATE
BRTE
RATE
BRTE
DESO
RATB
BRTE
CELO
[DESO
>UTE
iBtAU
BRTE
bso
PWNa Oaaneir
sn
1
ao
in
80
3
ara
2n
19
in
80
1
n
3D
1
4
V
2
lora
3!
«Coaar
10
s
8
is
s
1
8
15
9
IS
a
2
4|
8
1|
»|
8
1|
SDl
4I
Sunaaan Of FUd Data b> not
Soadaa
RATE
BRTE
CADR
OESO
RATE
SIAU
BRTE
IDESO
BATE
iBRTE
ICADR
\CEUO
RATE
•ms
[CADR
CBJO
DESO
RATE
PMNo.
10
10
10
10
10
OuanOIr
sra
BO
1
40
SO
2
in
1
2m
ID
4
a
in
»
1
8
•
m
ftcew
. 8
10
1
12
n
20
1
10
Soodaa
fntai
PtotNo.
SSaAoarasa
Oulnin,
lao
%Ca«aR
«Cow
»l
Bkl
•Wdaa
BRTE
ICAOR
)CB0
Beso
[RATE
Buu
TOM
OaaS>
Daodl,
(idMialkA
171
Oil
1
104
noa
04
' lOJ
RiM>inaiiKlj
OSB
un
oan
OOBO
0424
OOOl
Shneooo^ Imlaa Of dmnSa
bidia
0270
oaoi
aora
OOOl
aiB
son
0411
0847I
isMdw
BRTE
CADR
CELO
DESO
RATS
SIAU
ToM
noooaMv
No.ofPWa
aakPtanM
IS
1
4
•
10
2
11
noaoMcjr
02S1
OOTB
OlOS
0217
02S1
Ojpf
1
L-*.
BRTE
ICAOR
[CEtO
DESO
RATE
SIAI2
toM
Panaola
Conr
IB
9
M
B
00
s
211
Coav
OAB
OOIT
ati7
OJBB
0148
0010
1
0.—
12J
OS
04
u
OS
Ol
B.1
Oondnanoa
0.4JO
ODTT
OtlT
ocsa
as«
ODID
1
SMdal
BRTE
CADR
CEUQ
DESO
RATE
SUU
TOM
bBponanaa(OU
8«>la)|Rfta«*
RtfORU
0348
O048
0111
0181
o,aBa
0031
1
8|]4»|olda«fla4
Rdanal
040*
ooa
DOTS
oot
0343
omi
1
spadaa
IBRTE
ICADR
ICELD
IDESO
HATE
SIAU
ToM
naiiaoaair
vataa
1 InriiiMi
bidai
1211
oon
02B
0271
1 una.
0043
2J7»
Ponoa ValuaaidBa
Soadaa
BRTE
CAOR
cao
DESO
RATE
SIAU
[TOM
Fonoa
Valua
Ponsa
Valua tedaa
0808
oon
0.229
0273
Mas
ODBS
2J17
C-149
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
DMa: aniiioos
Soadaa
BRIE
DESO
ORHE
RATE
TAOP
BRTE
POSE
RATE
BRTE
cno
RATE
BRTE
cao
RATE
RATE
•LAL
BRTE
DESO
RATE
ALAL
PWHo. Quanmr
an
19
IS
no
10
sn
a
ion
in
s
sn
sn
1
m
sn
79
9ra
B
9W
30
%Caw
89
9
1
8
1
B
S
8
8
S
80
40
2
IS
30
10
20
a
40
a
SoauoafyofFkridCWabirRal
Soadaa
BITE
LEPE
RATE
ALAL
ARFE
BRTE
DESO
RATE
BRTE
RATE
AIVE
BRTE
DESO
TAOF
ALAL
BKn
oao
ORHE
RATE
PWNoi
ID
10
10
10
ID
OnnlMr
ID
ID
200
20
IS
sn
90
low
2D
200
10
on
90
4
B
BO
SO
1
sra
KCooar
u
1
ID
1
1
3D
2
9D
2
20
1
90
4
8
8
20
8
a
4D
Soodaa
Taw
PWNo.
aaaAaanga
Ouanlttr
8801
«Coiiar.
ftConr
•18
MJ
soadaa
ALAL
ARFE
BRTE
cnii
DESO
1B>E
CHHE
POSE
RATE
TAOP
TOW
Dander
Oaaa»
Odanaftrfl
»
U
847
08
IB
1
IJ
08
480
1.4
8801
Rdadia DanaOr
0017
ium
OBS
OOOl
0812
OOBI
0002
OOOl
0SB2
oon
Smoaao^ balaa of iBvonlty
bidai
oon
am
oisg
OLOOE
flLOGO
OuOOO
QJJQQ
OLODC
o.aas
OXOB
a4u
CSSS
aoadaa
ALAL
ARPE
BRTE
cao
DESO
uen
OVE
POSE
RATB
TADP
row
Plmuaiw
ItoLOfPWa
4
2
10
a
a
1
2
1
10
2
B
PMoom,
otoi
O0S1
0288
oni
oin
OOB
om
OOM
o2sa
om
1
spaaMa
•LAL
ARPE
BRTE
mn
OESO
ICPE
ORW
POS
RATE
TAOP
TBM
cwarwdOoadnama
lumof
COMT
21
2
211
7
21
1
a
0
BB
a
»•
HdaBii
COMT
OiBfl
oan
0L471
OBtt
OOB
0003
OOU
oooo
0428
0008
1
21
02
202
or
21
Ol
OS
0
2SJ
OB
SOS
RabOn
OiOS
oon
0471
OOQ
CLOB
OOOl
OODB
ff«W^
04B
(UKB
1
Soadaa
•LAL
WIFE
BRTE
cao
DESO
LEPE
ORHE
POSE
RATE
TAOF
ToM
imiMjiiaiMa
BWa) IHean.
Hdoo4
OOSB
0027
0184
0031
OC82
0014
OOB
oon
0341
OOB
1
SUM MO MUM*
Hdaoal
oosz
O019
0178
ODll
OOOl
oan
O0S1
ono
0411
oo»
1
Dacn
Spadaa
ALAL
ARFE
BRTE
CEIO
DESO
LEPE
ORHE
POSE
RATE
TAOP
ToM
Doenoiad
bttnoiar
Vaba
rkatai
Daaaaaaif
bnaav
balaa
otss
OOB
LIB
0DB4
OI89
OOEI
OIBI
OOIS
1234
0DS1
un
Foniavaloa balaa
soadaa
ALAL
ARFE
BITE
mo
DESO
LEPE
ORHE
POSE
RATE
TAOF
ToM
Fonoa
Vaba
Fongo
vababidai
Otss
ooa
OTSl
0084
oiaa
001E
oon
ojn
UI4
oooo
U98
C-150
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Daa: snaaoM
SadorSJEtf aedano
Soadaa
CZLO
DESO
BATE
CEUJ
BATE
ASTRA
cao
RATE
CELO
RATE
cao
RATE
cao
RATE
CELO
RATE
CELO
RATE
CEIO
RATE
PMNO.
8
•
Ouanny
4
4
an
4
an
1
1
ton
3
4n
IS
nn
1
an
3
ion
1
un
10
in
«Cowr
1
1
40
a
n
1
2
•70
8
40
10
m
2
B
2
ra
1
M
s
. . •
SunanmofPlaHOidabirFkl
Soodaa
CELO
RATE
PWNa.
18
10
QaanOtr
4
in
«Oo>ar
1
8
Soodaa
ToW
PlolMo.
•181
kConr
4*1
ASTRA
CELO
DESO
RATE
ToW
OolWIy
(pWdaMft
Ol
4.8
04
•10
.
•
819.1
RaWM OaildH
O00«
ooor
OOOl
DJSl
"sr
aon
fljm
oon
oan
OM4
one
spadaa
ASTRA
cao
DESO
RATE
Tow
Pnouancf
Ra,dPfcda
oHBiPianla
1
ID
1
ID
31
noguangr
0048
0489
004S
04B
1
aoKlaa
ASTRA
CELO
DESO
RATE
ToW
Cooor
1
14
1
4B
4n
Coaor
oon
0074
oam
osa
1
^^
Ol
J.4
01
42S
.
401
HiMlm
oon
O074
(UfE
oan
1
aoadaa
ASTRA
CBJO
DESO
HATE
ToW
boponaon
la«Manca|OU
•»»WI»»«'
Hdaall
OOU
a2S4
OOM
oaas
1
SI>W|oidal>to«
Hdaofl
O018
017S
OOIB
07B
1
spadaa
ASTRA
ceio
DESO
RATE
Torn
vaiuo
2
3
3
1
bidaa
om
0S3S
ooia
USS
2884
Ponaa vidua balaa
Soodaa
ASTRA
cao
DESO
RATE
ToM
Fonoa
vaha
4
1
3
1
Poiaga
valua brtai
0084
OSB
0048
oan
3JII
C-151
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Sis ID: 0SZ3 DatK 603/2005
SedBTDc d ndors ndudng IA. IB
Soadaa
BRTE
DESO
LASE
RATE
BRTE
OESO
LASE
LEPE
RATE
BRTE
DESO
LASE
BATE
BRTE
lASE
RATE
BRTE
LASE
LEPE
PhXNa.
5
S
QuailRy
ira
10
10
in
ISO
X
m
ID
ira
m
ID
ID
in
BO
B
18
tn
B
10
to
KCovar
40
9
2
10
40
10
s
s
a
45
8
» ID
» a
a
B
10
s
9
Sononanr of FWd Oaia br PW
Spadao
RATE
BRTE
DESO
BUTE
DESO
BRTE
DESO
LASE
BRTE
BRTE
DESO
LASE
LEPE
RATE
PWNa
IS
10
10
10
ID
Qoanair
no
BO
4
BO
a
tao
10
1
BD
ISO
IS
3
S
ISO
»CoMr
ID
B
S
W
9
40
9
S
in
40
10
1
3
15
Spadaa
ToM
Plot No.
SaaAMnsa
Quanln
MB
KCovaR
KConr
711
TU
Saadaa
BRTE
DESO
lASE
10E
LEPE
HATE
ToW
D>
OanaSy
171
OB
B
1
IJ
SOS
, ,
MU
iMlr
paWMOaWB.
om
oow
one
0004
oooa
0217
aknsaon^ bidoa of dknualla
aWpaoA
bidaa
0484
OOIO
ojra
ono
aaE2
0848
0482
•aalaa
BRTE
DESO
LASE
L0E
LEPE
RATE
ToM
Ifoooamv
Ma.alPMa
aairwua
ID
8
r
1
a
a
14
Pnounnr
B2H
a2B
uoa
oon
ona
0178
1
•RTE
DESO
LABE
LEPE
iSt
RATE
ToW
Coaor and Doodnma
Ca-r
SW
as
2S
s
10
as
Til
RdWaa
a7B
ouor7
OOB
ooor
O014
0077
•1
OS
u
05
1
u
TU
Rdadn
Bnnluanca
OT8S
0077
i^iafi
0007
0014
0077
1
Soodaa
BRTE
DESO
LASE
IB=E
LEPE
RATE
row
bnoorMKa
baponanoaioid
aWallRfta,*
Rdom
0540
OlSB
OIB
O018
OOB
0127
1
SI7la)tddi«rla«
Rdana)
0504
0117
oon
O013
ons
om
1
Soadn
BRTE
DESO
LASE
l»E
lEPE
RATE
row
Daaroaaarf
binaanr
VUaa
Oacnaaari
1.TB3
tuaa
0289
0040
O07S
. 0481
OOM
Fonoa VMna balaa
aoodaa
BRIE
DESO
LASE
LEFE
LEPE
RATE
TcW
PonBo
Valua
2
3
2
3
2
1
Ponsa
VMwMdaa
LIB
Dl3S2
0177
0040
ODSS
0481
2211
C-152
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Od» anaaoB
Badoi O: dl aadon aWu»o SA, 9B
Mwiwuf Bf >p>clwi
soodn
1(1)
IB)
1(3)
1(1)
10)
2(1)
1(1)
IB)
1(1)
IB)
IB)
1(11
IB)
10)
101
IB)
at)
1(1)
IB)
IP)
PWNa
-a
17
m
27
in
3
40
in
so
B
in
ra
n
40
B
B
in
ra
70
in
%Coaar
B
2
n
Q
70
1
B
n
B
1
B
B
8
B
8
1
70
8
8
n
Sonmanr of Fhid Oata b> PM
Soadaa
2(1)
1(1)
1(31
2(1)
811)
1(11
10)
8(1)
1(1)
IB)
IP)
PMNo.
8
10
10
10
OuaoOtr
•
ID
in
20
a
in
mo
4
ID
7
in
«Conr
1
2
n
4
a
B
B
a
4
1
70
Soadaa
10)
IB)
10I
ai)
am
TOW
DanlBi
Ut—Mfl
4U
202
84
102
2S
-
181J
a2n
OIB
OLSB
njaa
ODia
••
Sbrnwrn^WtaofdhanR,
kidoa
aaa
OLSH
0270
oja7
oon
OBO
OS42
Soodaa
nil
m
VSI
2(1)
BII)
Tow
knpoitanca
8l»1a||R*a,.
Rdonn
0253
oin
0488
0111
0042
1
SlnlaKoMalifla*
02S4
0112
04B
0182
0034
1
Boadaa
Tow
PMNO.
SBaAaonga
QuanUly
1818
%Coiiac
%Conr
no
•1
Spadaa
1(1)
IBl
10)
»1)
ani
ToM
mwmiu
HaofPMa
.MPIanta
10
a
a
4
2
»
HaWkn
OJO
0104
02n
OIB
OOB
1
Soodaa
1(1)
IB)
10)
2(1)
8(1)
ToM
Conr and Donb
Ban of
Conr
MS
18
886
78
18
810
Coaar
0184
ODll
oaa
aos4
OOIB
1
lama
DnwHianra
«.•
IJ
S5J
7J
tJ
81
RaWtn
ai84
OOIO
oaas
OOM
OOIB
1
Doen
Opadaa
1(1)
IB)
10)
ffl)
8(1)
Total
bicnaaar
VMoa
0
0
0
0
D
yllMMa
nacnanir
hnaaaar
bidaa
oon
oon
oon
0.000
oon
ono
Fonoa VMoa bidaa '
Boadn
1(1)
IB)
IO)
at)
0(1)
Tow
Fonoa
Vahia
0
0
D
0
0
Poraga
VMoa bidaa
oora
oon
ojn
OJOC
oon
orao
C-153
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
SKOr 10: rt Mdon aB^ilnB BA. BB
spadao
A(aJE(CR)
ARFE
BRTE
LEPE
RATE
ARFE
BRTE
RATE
TAOF
ALAL
BRTE
ORHE
RATE
ALAL
BRTE
CRHE
RATE
ALAL
BRTE
PMNo.
S
5
OuaMitr
1
10
BO
in
tn
B
2SD
SO
n
eo
no
s
1
so
n
in
1
SO
90
TS
«Conr
9
1
40
40
as
a
9
ZO
1
5
S
19
Suaoaair of FlaM Data by Rol
Spadaa
CAOR
RATE
BRTE
CAOR
BRTE
LEPE
RATE
ARFE
BRTE
CADR
RATE
TAOF
TAOF
ARFE
BRTE
RATE
BRTE
LB>E
RATE
TAOP
PMNo.
10
10
10
10
OuiMBy
10
B
Era
a
an
79
im
9
ira
2
in
1
2
SO
sra
in
0
15
in
1
KCoaar
s
2
B
2
B
B
5
2
8
1
S
8
8
1
a
B
S
5
S
1
Spadaa
TOW
Plot No. Quaaair
SIS
«Canr
BBS
AOOEICRI
ALAL
ARFE
BRTE
CADR
OESO
IB9
(»*
RATE
TAOP
raw
DaoiBir
D-^r
(pWaiA^
Ol
20
08
2008
U
s
IB
03
BTJ
04
MM
om
OOB
OSID
OOIS
oasa
om
oan
1 ODta
SbaoaoB^i Indaa of dkmai
Sbnpoao^
bMaa
oasE
0004
oaoi
0170
abn
(UOC
0003
oon
0043
Qjra
0421
0878
aoidaa
AODEdSQ
ALAL
ARFE
BRTE
CADR
DQO
LEPE
OWE
RATE
TAOP
Tow
Nb.ofPMa
aWiPlanIa
1
3
4
ID
4
40
DOSB
OOTB
OMO
0290
OOS
OOB
O07S
ooeo
02B
am
1
AODCICn
ALAL
AWE
BRIE
CADR
ceso
LEPE
ORHE
RATE
TAOP
ToM
Conr and Dow
Byoiaf
9
11
T
181
a
a
B
a
48
32
•IS
MaOn
Cmaf
001D
om
O014
08B7
0019
OOIO
oon
0012
oon
OOS
1
WMa
09
1.1
Rdaen
OMO
DJBI
OT OOMi
BLI
Ol
OS
3J
OS
4J
02
•U
08^7
OOIS
OOIO
O0S8
OOU
ooas
0082
1
apadao
AGOEICR)
ALAL
ARFE
BRTE
CADR
DESO
LB>E
ORHE
RATE
TACF
Toial
bapoitannMId
BI»la)|R»ao*
Hdon4
OOIT
0048
OIS7
0473
OOIS
0017
O071
am
0158
om
1
baoftanealNaa
St|lta)IoUoD4a«
Rdana]
ODt2
OOS
0018
osto
OOB
0D17
O087
om
0174
0.059
1
Oacn
Soadaa
AODEICR)
ALAL
AISE
BRTE
CADR
DESO
LEPE
ORHE
RATE
TAOF
Tow
vuuo
3
irtatdaa
Dacnaaad
bidaa
0012
ai97
0003
UB
om
OOBO
02n
om
n^m
017B
2.SW
Ponaa vakiabida
Soadaa
AGOE(CR)
ALW.
ARFE
BRTE
CADR
DESO
LEPE
CRHE
RATE
TAOP
TaM
Fongo
Vaha
1
3
2
2
3
3
2
1
a
1
ValaabidaB
0013
0137
ouoas
1J17
om
OOSO
0133
oon
aS23
ons
MB
C-154
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
SlaD:_
Kl:'i
Daw artaion
1A.1B
|Baadaa
BRTE
CHTEa
RATE
BRTE
DBSO
RATE
30)
BRTE
OESO
BRTE
OESO
at)
BRIE
DESO
RATE
3(1)
BRTE
[ESO
Kl)
PMNo. OuanOy
in
1
B
BD
2
62
1 ^ 2
2n
2
so
4
a
an
m
2
7
2
an
12
KCow
19
5
_. 2D
B
1
40
S
1
7D
8
48
2
1
SO
n
1
2
1
B
4
SwnmanrofFMdOotabrPM
ISoodoa
ICADR
CKIE2
DESO
RATE .
BRTE
CHTE2
[DESO
Wl)
BRIE
CAOR
DESO
3(1)
BRIE
DESO
RATE
PMNo.
7
7
7
7
a
8
a
a
a
• • 10
«
ID
10
Oonaty
4
1
40
7
n
1
2n
40
n
1
12
a
7
an
15
%Conr
8
10
15
5
BO
2
B
B
15
a
7
3
4
TS
S
Spodaa
Taw
PMNat
saa Aniaya
Ouanny
3117
%eamr.
«Conr
878
87J
Soadw
3(1)
BRTE
CAOR
CHiea
DESO
RATE
ToW
Da
DaraBiF
Wnwafi
TJ
aoi
OT
or
•4J
«U
211.7
natty
RMknOandIr
omi
04ia
(Lon
080!
0487
0144
S-T-^Sxteofdhanft
•npooM^
bidn
OOOl
OT71
oon
oon
OIB
OOM
)
our
0841
Spadw
10)
BRTE
CADR
CHTB2
DESO
RATE
TOW
Pnwaacy
lk.a(PWi
adOiPlanta
a
a
» a
10
»
B
PngawQ
0171
02ST
O087
oon
oin
om
1
Soodw
Ml)
BRTE
CADR
CHTE2
DESO
HATE
Tow
Su^oi
Patona
Coaor
11
Bl
11
17
aa
17
878
RdaOn
Coaor
OOIS
0371
OD18
ooa
•L487
OBS
1
,__:____
01
S.1
1.1
1.7
32S
17
B7J
RdaOM
0048
0271
OOW
OOB
04S7
ooas
1
Soadw
S(1)
BRTE
CAOR
CHTE2
DESO
RATE
Total
Rdoa4
om
0314
0017
oass
om
ojn
1
a4nttaWal|«a«
Rdanal
oon
0347
ooa
008
0LB3
0114
1
Spadaa
301
ans
CADR
CHIE2
DESO
RATE
ToM
vakn
0
3
3
a
3
3
kaWl
OOOO
Ull
OD7B
0114
1.17S
0341
2JSI
Fowfli VWm bUMH
Boadaa
3(1)
BRTE
CADR
OfTEl
DESO
RATE
ToM
Ponoa
Vabia
0
2
3
3
3
1
Fna»
vataatodm
Am
0804
0078
0114
t.lTB
0141
un
C-155
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
oao: snaraon
Sader B3c d aadoia aukie« OA, 8B
Soadaa
ALAL
ORHE
RATE
10)
ALAL
BRTE
ORHE
RATE
•LAL
BRTE
CELO
DESO
ante
RATE
ALAL
BRTE
OfWE
RATE
ALAL
BRTE
not No.
s
a
QuBOBy
in
7
3
1
TS
1
7
3
B
in
1
1
1
sn
in
B
4
a
n
nra
%Conr
a
B
1
4
4
1
B
1
S
19
4
4
3
15
15
4
B
8
S
ra
Suaaoan af FMd Data by PM
Spadaa
RATE
ALAL
BRTE
CADR
DESO
•RHE
RATE
ALM.
BRTE
ORHE
RATE
2(1)
ALAL
BRTE
AOTR
ALAL
BRIE
ORHE
RATE
ALAL
Plot No.
10
QoaalB,
in
ao
200
4
0
2
SO
UO
2
4
8
1
in
an
« tn
10
1
40
tra
HConr
• a
a
18
1
1
ID
a
4
T
1
4
a
a
Spadao
BRIE
ORHE
RATE
row
PMNo.
10
ID
ID
BBaAaanga
OuanStr
ira
1
2ra
4m
HConr.
«Co.ar
s
4
12
as
38L1
"t—•••
«1l
AOTR
ALAL
BRTE
CELO
DESO
•nc
RATE
Tow
DnnBy
Oaawy
lolananr)
02
04
n
lOBJ
04
01
1.7
27
1001
40.1
RakdMDandgr
aoBU
om
OMS
0487|
DJD1
OOQC
0004
0DB7
0293
Shnoooara balaa of dinnlty
aiiiiMiiM-a
•Lno
tun
oon
0218
(Lon
OJOOC
ono
oon
0084
OJO
08U
aunuii
2(1)
ACTR
ALAL
BRTE
CADR
cao
DESO
ome
RATE
ToW
Pwpwnr
Ma. of nan
oanptama
10
41
0047
oan
02n
02B
0013
0003
0047
OIB
oaa
1
ap-
an
Asm
ALAL
9RTE
CAOR
CELO
DESO
CRHE
RATE
ToW
ConramOoMnano.
•on of
C>»ar
8
4
B
UO
4
4
8
57
ai
141
HakOkn
Conar
OOIS
0012
0292
oas2
O0I2
0012
0021
01B7
0152
1
»-«-«.
OS
04
OS
12
0.4
04
OB
OT
SJ
14.1
RaMm
0018
0012
iua2
OJSl
0011
0012
oon
01S7
ai52
1
Soadaa
HI)
AOTR
ALAL
BRIE
CAOR
CEIO
DESO
ORHE
RATE
TaM
baporwicaliad
S«<a)(RftaQ*
Raooi)
OOS
OOIT
0242
OBI
0017
0017
OOB
0177
0181
1
bnoitaacalNaat
Slyla)[ofcli«la*
fld.^
0012
OM3
0390
0012
0012
ooa
ouo
dins
1
soodaa
2(1)
AGTR
ALAL
BRTE
CAOR
CEIO
DESO
ORtlE
RATE
Tow
Dacnoaad
bioaalar
Vikn
0
1
1
bidoa
oon
OOll
0730
1MB
OOB
pfwi
0074
Ota
0815
1J71
PO
aoadaa
2(1)
ASTR
ALAL
BRTE
CADR
CELO
DESO
ORHE
RATE
TaM
noa VBlua balaa
Ponsa
Hdua
Fonga
VBlua kidaa
o.ora
0012
OTB
oan
OOB
OOB
O074
oia
OBIS
2JS
C-156
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
SB8B>:_ Dala: BrtBans
Sador llll as aaoon aKUba 2A, n
Ispadaa .
lALAL
bltlE
ORHE
IRATE
lALAL
CADR
OIWE
piATE
ALAL
iBRIE
IRATE
AOTR
[ALAL
tonE
CEIO
lORHE
IRATE
SIAU
[ALAL
ARFE
Plot No. 1 OoantRy
1 2n
2
IB
ISO
1 n
an
so
sra
« Coaor
a]
1
Si
1
ft
1
111
1
7]
Bl
ll
a
IS
s
B
4l
ll
1
W
l|
Soaaa
Ispadaa
iBRTE
IRATE
ACTR
ALAL
[BRTE
IcELO
BATE
7(1)
lAOTR
ALAL
BRTE
IcELO
RATE
AGTR
ALAL
IBRTE
CHTB2
RATE
iMAL
BRTE
anrofFMdDabibyFM
PMNoL 1 QoB0y
m
40
" m
lora
1
a
8
8
1
40
2
ton
1 ID
m
7M
1
lora
10
ao
KConr
8
1!
•i
8
m
8
3l
l]
8
1
2
4
40
al
al
s
lj
al
1
sol
Ispodoa
CAOR
loESO
UTE
liott)
LtOTR
UlAL
BRTE
CELO
IRATE
Ttw
PMNO.
B
B
• ID
0
10
ID
0
10
aoanim
4
a
8
1
B
4D
a
2
ira
S7«l
%Canr j
4
15
tl
3
a'
ll
1
8
a
484]
Spadaa
llOd)
l7(1)
lAOIR
lALAL
lAHFE
iBRTE
CMOR
CELO
CHTE2
OESO
ORHE
MATE
5MU
^row
Slwnon^bi
Dwdtr
Daodv
ipwdarnfl
0.1
oo
OS
11SJ
02
asj
SJ
OB
Ol
8
08
218
02
S74L3
daaafdlvaWly
IMMtiaOanWy
nooo
fUUB
ODll
0201
oon
oaar
0801
oaoi
orao
oon
oaoi
OBO
ofloa
niiliaiiii^
BKtai
OOOB^
OODl
Qj^flOpI
oowJ
oooo]
OlSB
oocol
ooogj
oaoD
OLOOQI
oooJ
ai44{
OOOD
OMll
oasil
apadaa
Inn)
170)
lAO™
lALAL
lAHPE
[BRTE
[CADR
ICELO
CHTE2
DESO v
lORHE
[RATE
[SIAU
ToW
Pnaoamy
Ho.afPbM
BMiPlanIa
1
1
B
ID
1
B
2
4
1
1
3
10
1
•
iwdiit
Pnwaaor
002D]
OOBM
OlDl^
0204
OOIU
OIBJ
OOflj
0002
ooa
ooa
OOBI
02D4|
ooal
ll
Cp—andPondnmo
Bpadw
10(1)
7(11
lAfllR
^
iBftlt
CAOR
mn
OfTEa
DESO
OWE
RATE
SMU
TiM
Panarto
Coaor
1
1
88
101
1
152
4
18
a
18
4
a
1
441
Conr
0107
OOBI
0127
02a
OOB
OS44
oan
OOll
ooa
0034
oon
01a
00m
1
r,iiii>iiiioa
03
01
OS
101
01
IM
04
IJ
02
IJ
04
OS
ot
44J
WaSn
Oaodnoica
OOO7I
ooaii
ai27{
02»|
OOOl
aS44|
oao^
a043
(LonI
O0S4
OIXH^
oie^
OJOl
ll
aoadaa
[10(1)
[701
[AOTR
ULAL
lARFE
ISRTE
ICADR
[CELO
CHTEl
[CRHE
IRATE
SWJ
Tow
8«yM»nao9*
Rdonl
0D14
OSIt
0114
0218
OOll
0284
ooa
OOOl
0012
O02T
ons
0108
0011
1
SUM told atyta^i
Rdanal
oon
ono
oon
0211
oonI
oan
O017
0042I
oon
oaa[
OOMJ
02sr
oonl
ll
Spadaa
ItOd)
ITO)
IAGTR
ULAL
URFE
BRTE
CADR
CELO
CHTE2
DESO
\om£
IRATE
suu
Tow
Onmnatf
bnaaaar
vakw
narnaaairi
bnaoao
balaa
OOOO
ooraj
ono
OBB
0015
ojaa
om
01a
OQSl
oora
0024
• 0771
OD15
2.7al
Ponoa Vaba bulaa
10(1)
|7(1)
lAOTR
ULAL
IARFE
[BRIE
[CAOR
IcELO
CHTE2
IDESO
OIWE
RATE
SIAU
TOM
Poraw
Vataa
0
a
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
3
4
Fonga
Vdua kidaa
am
OOOB
OOBO
oan
OOIS
osir
oostj
oiin
ooal
lUMOl
0034
0771
am
Mill
C-157
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for HeriDaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
SadarBK dl aadiB oWuft« IA. 18
Nunbar of apodar. 4
Soodaa
BRIE
ORHE
RATE
BRTE
RATE
BRTE
RATE
BRTE
ORHE
RATE
BRTE
LEFE
RATE
BRTE
LEFE
ORHE
RATE
BRIE
RATE
BRIE
PMNo. ouanny
7B
a
350
75
an
n
390
ion
ID
lora
2ra
to
ion
raa
1
B
BO
BD
4ra
%CaMr
7S
s
IS
10
so
s
a
« 2
a
IS
1
™
B
1
4
It
18
40
mo sol
BonnaiT of FWd Oata by Rot
•oadaa
RATE
BRTE
LEPE
RATE
BRTE
RATE
PMNo.
a
8
8
8
10
to
Ouaallly
an
ara
n
sn
SO
ara
«Oonr
18
a
a
a
1
10
•POCM.
TOM
PMNO. Ouantlcr
•IM
«Co<iar
•48
• AiiilQiUCown
•oadaa
BRIE
LffE
CRHE
RATE
ToM
Daodar
Oandtj
laWMar)
4S7J
Ol
OS
470
»1M
MMkoOandbr
0478
ooor
OOOB
0811
Sbmoifk Indoi of dlnnMy
tMaot
0227
am
oon
oai
OJU
OJll
BRTE
LEFE
ORHE
RATE
ToM
NotofPMa
»M. Plana
10
1
1
10
B
.•*»~
OSB
Oils
0115
OBS
1
OlIllllH
BRTE
LffE
oenB
BATE
ToM
Son of
Coaar
SB
T
11
271
840
Oonr
084*
OOll
aeiT
0424
1
IkaakiMNla
39J0
OT
M
27J
84J
MaOn
Pooduaiioa
OS4B
OOll
OOIT
0414
1
Spadaa
BRIE
l£K
ORHE
RATE
row
Rdonj
0487
OOS
om
O404
1
koortwcoINani
SvlallBldalyb't'
0470
O044
O0<8
0440
1
Spadaa
BRIE
LEFE
ORHE
HATE
TOM
Doeraaaod
Valao
1
1
1
1
Donooaaif
bmaaaar
t.4ra
OIB
OUS
ua
2JU
Poiaga Vakn biWa
•oadaa
BRTE
LBS
ORHE
HATE
row
POnga
VMw
2
1
1
1
Fnaga
VduakaWi
08U
0133
OOIS
ua
241.
C-158
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field ;Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Sacbrlt ilnden onkdtv IA. IB
Soodn
BRIE
CADR
RATE
BRIE
DEPI
ERO
RATE
BRTE
DESO
aiR
HATE
BRIE
DEPI
DESO
LASE
RATE
AaDE(CR)
BRTE
DESO
|Aa
PMNo.
4
Iknffltty
ra
B
10
a
a
15
ra
a
IS
8
m
n
10
10
ID
m
2
250
2
1
KCoaor
10
a
1
s
IS
10
8
10
5
10
8
n
a
a
s
9
10
ra
5
1
Smnnaiy olFlaM oata by PM
Spadao
RATE
BRTE
CADR
DEPI
BRTE
DEPI
RATE
ERIE
ISPI
RATE
BRTE
OESO
RATE
AODEICRl
BRTE
DEPI
RATE
PMNo.
IS
ID
10
»
Ouaanr
280
1
SO
a
1
ISO
I
sra
4
SO
2
SO
n
a
sn
1
ISO
1
B
«Canr
a
8
5
15
8
ID
9
n
ID
40
S
10
a
a
70
8
8
1
10
aoadaa
TOM
PMNo.
BBoAaonga
OoBdby
27n
kConn
KConr
SSI
901
aaadao
AODEICR)
BRTE
CADR
DEPI
DESO
am
BIB
USE
RATE
ToM
Sbnoaombi
Dandbr
Dandly
fedanwaft
OS
•7J
8
U
47
OS
IJ
1.1
in
mj
daaafdIaaiaRy
OHO
OBS
ooia
0014
0017
OOB
OOB
oaoi
oaas
aknpani-a
mn
aia
umo
oooo
OJBD
flioa
oooo
ftflWf
OMO
a4w
OSB
0^
AODEICR)
BRTE
CADR
oem
DESO
aiR
Bva
uss
RATE
ToM
ftaouaNCV
Na.orPMa
aMlPWda
4
W
a
a
B
BabOn
Pnoaanoy
om
oass
0J51
0184
om
ooa
ooa
om
0231
1
Spadao
AODEICR)
CADR
DSt
DQO
aiR
ERO
LASE
RATE
Tdal
Paioana
Ooaar
B
ITS
as
81
a
10
0
• in
935
Ralalkn
Oaaor
O0S8
03D
OOB
OJB
OOBI
OOIB
oon
0011
OIB
1
nuatwaia
3
17J
aj
M
S
1
0
oa
18
S3J
Rd-m
OOBS
oia
OLOW
OOB
ooos
OOIB
oon
OOll
O330
1
aoodaa
AGOeiCR)
BRTE
CADR
DEPI
DESO
aiR
BKI
LASE
RATE
row
baponanoa
atyWIHba^*
Rdonl
oora
oan
oon
OIB
OOU
ooa
0013
0011
0284
1
8«la)(oUalyla'»
Rdaaal
O094
0311
O0«9
oon
0071
0818
OOIO
0022
0381
1
Daoo
Soadaa
AGOEICRI
BRTE
CAOR
DEPI
DESO
aiR
ERO
LASE
RATE
ToM
narltaonaai
Valua
okHtaa
11
1
0084
0033
aiB
oja
0213
oow
om
oon
Lira
2jai
ForagiVduotodn
Soadaa
AGOEICR)
BRTE
CADR
DEPI
DESO
aiR
ERO
USE
RATE
Tow
Fonga
VMua
Fonga
VUuakidB
0054
0022
OIB
0178
0213
0018
OOIO
OOW
l.UO
2J18
C-159
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
uaoc srwatn
BadirlDE riaadDaa>dWaoM,B
Han*net aoodaa; •
Soadn
BRTE
LEPE
ORHE
RATE
lADP
BRTE
RATE
BfOE
(XLO
POSE
RATE
BRTE
CELO
RATS
BRIE
HATE
BRIE
ORHE
RATE
BRTE
PWNa.
a
7
Ikddbr
ara
» IS
tn
8
78
in
m
1
1
BD
W
8
in
IS
4
in
sn
«Conr
n
1
1
5
2
8
10
10
1
1
a
1
8
IS
1
8
40
1
10
B
Bnnoan
Boadaa
RATE
BITE
DESO
RATE
BRIG
DESO
TAOP
BRTE
TAOF
of FWd Oak
PWNa.
n
10
byFU
IMaoay
in
298
a
2H
an
IS
10
sn
4
«Canr
1
43
10
10
B
8
S
BS
S
apWn
TaW
PMMa. QoaaStr
4«M
VConr
4B
BRTE
CELO
DESO
LEPE
(WHE
POSE
RATE
TACF
row
On
0»dUiDd«iWift
BD
OT
4
IJ
M
Ol
110
IJ
4nj
Wy
niMlnnauli
fUBO
OOB
OOIO
oan
nan
oan
0279
un
Sbaoaw^hdnofdnWIy
sbnnwa
OMO
ono
oan
nan
oon
ono
0078
oora
OS84
04B
•oadn
BRIE
CELO
DESO
LB«
ORHE
POSE
RATE
TAOP
TaM
Na.ofFhda
n
1
1
1
1
1
• 3
• n
BdaOn
riiiii-m
IILS45
oora
oan
aas4
oon
0034
OITS
OUS
1
Spadaa
BRIE
cao
DESO
LEPE
tmm
MTE
TAOP
TaW
'"ioaol
••nana
Coan
JTT
8
19
1
8
1
78
,18
4*1
Conr
OLTas
0812
am
0002
OOIO
oao
OIB
wnan
1
njr
oa
IJ
01
aa
Ol
TJ
1
401
Baiitiaaa
0781
OOU
OOU
oaoi
OOIC
wnm
OIB
OOB
1
Saadn
BRTE
CELO
DESO
LEPE
ORHE
POSE
RATE
TAOF
Tatd
StytallRftoq-fSdan^
OBS
8M1
OOU
0018
OOIO
OBIS
021S
ooa
1
0«M)(oWaM>»
Rd.n4
OOU
ooa
O017
on4
OJBB
OMI
02B
ooa
1
t^oa
Soadaa
BRTE
CELO
OESO
LEPE
OPHE
nsE
RATE
TADF
T— . ,
Vdaa
3
rlB^a
Oaanamf
kalaa
un
IXOBS
ono
OOll
OOB
OOB
OTB
OIB
2JI1
PangaVatoabi
apadn
BRIE
cao
DESO
IBV
DRHE
POSE
RATE
TAOF
ToW
Rwg.
vaiaa
2
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
dn
Rn«a
VduaOMas
un
0M3
Olio
OOB
ona
0S12
oas
0043
2.217
C-160
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field,Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Ddr BO7/20n
Spadaa
CELO
DESO
RATE
SIAU
cmH2
uat
RATE
CELO
RATE
SIAU
DESO
RATE
SUU
SIHT
DESO
RATE
SIAU
CHTE2
RATE
SMU
PMNo.
B
a
a
QunOy
a
2
2ao
2
1
a
an
3
m
a
1
SO
a
1
1
ra
8
1
n
10
»Co*n
a
15
a
IS
40
«
10
BanmanrolFWd
Soodw
Sim
LEPE
RATE
SUU
DESO
LEPE
HATE
SMU
SIHV
SMU
OESO
RATE
SUU
PMNo.
ID
10
ID
DanbyPM
OuanOtr
1
a
in
2
S
1
no
1
1
11
ra
u
3
«Conr
10
a
7»
9
1
Boadaa
ToM
PMNO. auwny
1T78
»Conr
Ml
Spodoo
OELO
CNIE2
DESO
LEPE
RATE
SMU
SHf
ToM
OnWIy
(plaMaInf)
OJ
02
M
21
101
01
05
117.8
RdMMOoadv
oon
anofl
oon
OOM
oan
ooia
oaot
Slaiooon'a bidoa ol dhirMty
nmpMNi^
bidaa
oon
oan
ooos
om
OTXl
oom
oon
0711
<H»
apadaa
CELO
CHTEl
DESO
LEPE
BATE
SMU
SW
ToW
Pnvaaar
Na.alHda
oUiPWdo
n
rnguaoay
om
am
om
om
oan
0271
om
1
Sp-a.
CELO
CHTE2
DESO
LB-E
RATE
SMU
S»fT
row
ConrmOna
son of
Conr
10
2
as
17
B
OB
S
IU
Rdaen
Coaor
aoa
oaot
oaa
OD50
0248
a4a
(LS2I
1
nam
1
02
03
1.7
01
18J
OS
34J
RaMho
OSB
oon
0243
oon
0340
0482
ooa
1
•oadao
CELO
CHTE2
DESO
LEPE
RATE
SIAU
anr
Tew
nyWPUnq'^
Rdon4
004S
0033
O107
0070
oan
02B
O0E7
1
•«W(oUal>la«
Rdaaal
0031
ona
OIB
ODSS
04S7
02a
OJOSS
1
CELO
CHIEJ
DESO
LEPE
RATE
SMU
sur
Tow
Vataa
niLiaaml
amaoMi
fcidaa
OOB
oon
04B
01B4
U71
04»
anXN
3M2
Poiwa Vataa balaa
Soadaa
CELO
CHIB
DESO
LEPE
RATE
SMU
SIHT
Tow
vakn
3
1
Pnaoa
VMuaanai
OOB
OOU
04B
OllD
1J71
OOU
0070
1.149
C-161
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Sodar an 01 anwa aWB*s lA. IB
Nunbar of apadaic T
on: yiiaoB
Bpodao
CADR
rfy>
RATE
2(1)
•ITE
CAOR
DESO
CAOR
•ESO
BRTE
CAOR
RATE
BPCO
SPCO
BRTE
CADR
DESO
RATE
BTCM
BRTE
PMNo. Quonny
40
SO
2
1
1
8
B
S
B
ID
a
4
1
1
4
a
• lora
1
12
»Cnaa
B
a
1
1
1
ts
45
s
a
1
a
1
1
1
1
a
10
a
8
8
BunanaiyarFHtdB
Boadaa
CAO)
DESO
RATE
CADR
OESO
RATE
STCM
BRIE
DESO
RATE
Sita
BRTE
CUDR
OESO
RATE
CAOR
XSO
RATE
PMNo.
aubyPM
•WWB.
• 8
10
ID
n
21
ton
a
IB
5
2
1
IB
ra
1
2
8
in
m
40
m
1
HCow
10
a
ID
S
«
1
8
1
«• a
8
1
8
W
as
5
80
8
Boodoa
•
row
PMNO. QuonlHy
mi
SComr
892
• AMi«o>1kC«ww:
ItO.rtia
ai)
BRIE
CAOR
DESO
HATE
9PC0
na*
-
Tow
Da
OaraOr
kdaatalkfl
Ol
Ol
101
81.7
2101
U
05
BU
ndtr
nakOM Dandly
ono
001(1
' ooai^
0354
0878
oaoi
oaoj
•lm»Hi%balo(ordlnnlIy
Sbopoorfk
todaa
oora
ono
ooo*
oon
0483
oora
om
OS21
0478
•naana
301
BITE
CAW
DESO
RATE
SPCO
SICM
Tow
Pnwancy
Na.orMola
aWlPWOa
•
nawia
OOB
01U
0237
0237
0211
oosa
OOTB
1
•onlaa
Kl)
BRTE
CADR
DEBO
RATE
SPCO
r
ToW
CoaaraodOonbnnca
Ban of
Pamnla
Cevar
1
10
OB
113
a
2
IB
•
sa
BdaHn
OOOl
OOIS
02»
OS71
OIB
OOM
ooa
1
Ol
1
HB
IIJ
as
02
LS
•U
iniMlia
OBOO
O018
0218
osri
am
O0O4
OISS
1
Spadaa
20)
BRTE
CADR
DESO
HATE
SPCO
SICM
Taw
•*la)IR»aQ*
Rdonl
0014
oora
0233
O40<
OIB
ooa
O054
1
amioumif*
RdonM
luaa
OOBI
0174
0154
OMS
OOIB
OOB
1
Docn
Boodoa
20)
BRTE
CADR
DESO
RATE
SPCO
ETCH
Total
Diunaid
Vtfuo
irtaidn
Dd an
tadoaaar
Maa
luai
OIB
osa
1JS2
1.034
ons
oooo
um
Fonoa VHuo todaa
Boodoa
2(1)
BRIE
CAOR
DESO
RATE
SPCO
STCM
Tow
POraga
Vakn
0
Fongo
Vakntodoi
ODOg
0124
osa
1.002
tJI34
ooia
0038
L7U
C-162
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Sodor IDC aa todai iMudtig 4A, 4B
spodoo
BRTE
DEPI
•Rte
RATE
ALAL
BRTE
DESO
LEFE
LEPE
RATE
BRTE
Lsm
RATE
BRTE
LBT
ORHE
RATE
BRTE
CADR
DESO
PMNO. Ouonaiy
10
1
1
sra
B
ra
a
4
1
a
a
2
sra
m
3
2
an
n
1
a
«Ca«or
1
1
IS
IB
1
1
1
8
1
1
14
< a
1
8
4
10
4
1
a
Sttmnirr or FMd Dn by not
RATE
ALAL
CADR
DESO
ORHE
HATE
BRTE
LSS
RATE
ALAL
BRIS
OESO
10E
RATE
ALAL
ALAL
BRTE
DESO
LEPE
RATE
PMNo. QioMBy
a
40
4
1
1
am
ao
2
sn
a
a
a
4
an
4
n
ion
18
1
ara
%Co«or
2
a
1
1
4
to
10
s
a
8
1
a
8
IB
10
8
40
n
1
»
spodaa
BRIE
CADR
DESO
RATE
ToW
PMNo.
10
10
10
10
SItaAnnsa
QaaoOty
a
1
2
ao
4(n
kCnor.
«Conr
8
2
1
10
Ul
BJ
Soadaa
ALAL
BRIE
CADR
DEPI
DESO
lot
LEPE
ORHE
RATE
TaW
Dndly
Owd*
(pWdoraf)
ms
148
OM
Ol
B
IJ
03
04
317
-1
48aa
RddhoDnWtr
QJE
0207
OOOl
OXOt
oon
oon
» (UBO
OOOl
oasa
ShnpMifi tndn flf dhnriRy
bidaa
an
OOBt
am
oon
oon
oon
oon
OOOl
oaa
om
0471
aoadw
ALAL
BRTE
CABR
am
DEBO
LBB
LEPE
ORHE
RATE
Taw
No.orPbla
aiRbPWda
10
44
RabBao
Fnvwey
0114
gas
0088
ooa
Ota
0114
oots
oosa
0227
1
Soodw
ALAL
BRIE
CADR
DEPI
DESO
LB«
LEPE
ORHE
RATE
Tow
Coaor OOd Boodi
Sno of
Conr
a
ra
s
»
H
M
2
B
ia
m
ITilB 1
Conr
oon
02*0
oota
ona
0174
0072
ona
OOM
oan
1
w^
^^^
22
B
oa
oa
SJ
24
02
OS
13
SU
Rdaan
ooa
0240
ooia
oon
ai74
oon
oan
OOM
ojn
1
Soodao
ALAL
BRTE
CADR
DEPI
DESO
LH^
LEPE
ORHE
RATE
Tow
«ywiH»o»»
Rdna)
om
0222
0043
O014
Otss
O09]
oosa
OOM
om
1
8«la)loklotylo»
Rdaa«
ooaa
oai
ooa
OOIO
om
om
ODIT
am
04a
1
Iteon
Soadaa
AUL
BRTE
CADR
DEPI
DESO
LEFE
LEPE
•Rte
RATE
ToW
II p 1 III
VMua
vkidB
todaa
0205
OTSl
0087
(Lmfi
0333
Oia
OOSl
om
1J70
um
FonaoValuo kidaa
Sl^adaa
ALAL
BRTE
CAOR
DEPI
DSO
LEFE
LEPE
•RHE
RATE
Totd
Fanoa
vakn
FofOOO
vataa Indai
OSB
OSOl
O0B7
0D18
osa
OIB
OD3S
ODll
1271
2Jn
•
C-163
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
SKlar ID: •• Hdbn entidnB Blk, OB
Spadaa
BRTE
DESO
LEPE
RATE
SMU
SIHY
BRTE
RATE
SUU
ARFE
BRTE
LEPE
RATE
SMU
BRTE
CADR
CELO
DESO
HATE
PMNK
3
Qoanffly
an
sra
in
a
sra
so
sn
a
in
UCsnr
a
5
5
18
s
10
n
s
1
2
1
n
5
>| 2
a
' a
2
.. »
SunnwyofFWdDalabyPW
Soodaa
BRIE
CAOR
DESO
RATE
BRTE
DESO
LEPE
RATE
BMU
ARFE
BRTE
DESO
LEFE
RATE
BRTE
CADR
RATE
AGDEfCR)
LER
RATE
PMNo. Quanlly
an
1
1
an
ara
1
t
am
2
90
in
a
15
sn
U
1
m
1
L__ _. 7
Sl ISO
«Canr
U
48
U
75
a
a
2
40
Spadw
BRIE
LEFE
RATE
TaM
PMNo.
ID
ID
ID
Quantty
1
2
im
807T
«Coaar
1
2
IS
m
SttB AvwBffa K Covan
AODEICR)
ARFE
BRTE
CAOR
cao
DESO
LEPE
HATE
SMU
BDIY
ToW
Dandbr
omdbi
hOManft
01
T
MOB
04
Ol
a.7
4J
SO
u
01
^
807.7
(Lno
O014
0474
om
om
ooor
oam
OAE
OOB
om
DMOsnri non oF divMHy
Sbapow^
noa
oon
oon
OIB
oan
nnw
nnw
r oon
0242
nm
am
0487
(LSU
AoseicR)
ARFE
CADR
CELO
DEED
IBt
RATE
SUU
saflr
Tow
Pnqoawi
Na,a(Ploia
ariOiPlaMo
10
4
1
43
Prnnaney
0i|23
0047
0209
O07I
ooa
0148
O140
02n
ODD
OOB
1
Soadaa
AODEICRl
ARPE
•RTE
CADR
cao
DESO
LB>E
RATE
SMU
smr
ToM
Coaor MdDoadwnaa
sno of
Paioanio
a
0
4B
1
a
18
a
ao
1
0
T71
Rdaan
OJBS
OAN
OS47
08M
USfl
OIBI
OOIB
oa7
oan
oon
1
n [I
a
08
4U
03
2
IJ
IJ
a
OB
0
77.1
aaWtw
OOB
oool
0J4T
0004
OJSl
OIBS
OOIS
aS37
omB
(Lon
1
AODEICR)
ARFE
BRTE
CADR
fpin
DESO
LEPE
BATE
SUU
swr
ToM
kapaftana
bapntannlOkl
8lyla)tRba,*
Rdood
ODS
0027
OS78
OOIT
OOB
OOBI
oorJ
02S5
OOB
OD12
1
bnntaacalNaar
Sl>la)[oUatyla*
Rdan«
OOIB
OOB
0410
ooa
OOIB
0097
OOSB
0254
OOM
•una
1
Daon
Boodoa
AGDEICR]
ARFE
BRTE
CADR
CELO
DESO
LEPE
RATE
SIAU
SIHY
vataa
irkidaa
Ooonaaaif
todaa
OOIS
OOIS
un
OD74
ooo
0171
0187
1J82
OOBS
OOU
2JS4
Fanga Vataa todaa
apadaa
AGDEICR)
ARFE
BITE
CADR
CELO
DESO
IBt
RATE
SIAU
SHI
TaW
Ponoa
vataa
1
2
2
Fonga
VMualodaa
0018
0049
oaa
O074
0048
0171
0112
1.003
Ola
OOIS
2J8]
#
C-164
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Daw inBiaB
Sackr •>: a ladon odidtoB BA. a
Nuiwbar of aindaa: .
Spadn
ALAL
BRTE
ERQ
RATE
BPCO
ALAL
BRIE
OESO
RATE
BRTE
CEIO
RATE
BRTE
CELO
RATE
ALAL
BRTE
CELO
RATE
SUU
PtotNo.
8
1
5
9
a
Oun«y
m
ion
a
u
1
m
ion
1
a
a
1
ao
am
4
ion
a
an
1
ta
1
%esni
85
n
10
10
4(
2
a
2
a
1
Sunnan or Pldd Data by PM
Soadaa
ALAL
BRTE
RATE
BRTE
RATE
BRIE
RATE
BRTE
RATE
AUL
BRTE
CADR
CELD
RATE
PMNa
» » ID
ID
ID
QuaWly
1
7
a
so
in
an
m
u
a
8
in
1
1
48
KConr
B
is
Soadaa
ToW
PWNo. OawOly
MB
»Conr
ao
Sta AcMnga %CoMR
Soodw
ALAL
BRIE
CADR
cao
ceso
ERO
RATE
SMU
SPCO
ToM
Da
DdWtr
a4j
a4.7
01
OT
01
a
ta
Ol
Ol
i
'
845
ndly
RddbnDanaSf
0044
0814
oan
am
oiva
oon
OIM
ono
ona
•»
Skasoon^ bidn of dlaonlly
Sboponfa
kidaa
OOOl
0377
ojaa
oom
aon
am
0112
amo
oom
0411
osm
Sontaa
ALAL
BRTE
CADR
CELO
DESO
Bva
RATE
SUU
SPCO
Tdd
Ha.ofPtali
aHBiPWda
5
tt
1
4
1
1
a
1
1
u
014T
02H
OOB
0118
OOB
oan
02S4
ooa
ooa
1
_LS
0041
08S7
oom
O0S8
OOM
ooia
oaa
oon
apadao
ALAL
BRTE
!CADR
CELO
DESO
ERCI
RATE
SUU
SPCO
ToM
toimlaiMa (Old
•WWIRk-l*
Mtat
oaas
a4a
ooia
0087
OOIB
002]
oas
OOIB
OOIS
1
SyW loM atylB •
Rdam
0078
OS15
O012
OOU
0011
0017
ojrn
0011
oon
•
1
Soadaa
ALAL
BRTE
CADR
CELO
(SSO
ERa
RATE
SMU
SPCO
Tow
11
1
kidoa
OSB
1J4S
OOB
017S
om
OIBD
0884
0022
ooa
2879
PoianaVafaa todaa
Spadn
ALU.
BRIE
CADR
roir^
CESO
ERO
RATE
SIAU
BPCO
ToM
Ponga
vataa
Ponga
vataa todaa
CUB
ion
ooai
0175
0033
0017
0J84
O044
orno
2441
C-165
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Ddo: sri4<10n
a ttcdudbQSA. n
Spadaa
BRTE
CEIO
RATE
BRTE
CELO
RATE
BRTE
CELO
LEPE
OPPAIO)
RATE
BRTE
CELO
RATE
BRTE
CEIO
RATE
BRTE
cao
PMML Oaontby
a
2
in
an
sn
an
15
sn
BD
ISO
a
a
sn
a
4
VCmor
1
5
10
10
15
8
SS
ID
5
3
a
a
n
a
18
1
8
4(
t
1
Somn
Spodaa
RATE
BRIE
cao
RATE
BRIE
mn
RATE
BRTE
CELO
RATE
BRIE
r.pin
POSE
RATE
•rrofPWdOdabynot
PMNo.
10
ID
10
10
OuartMr
im
an
8
sm
a
18
nm
ra
12
7m
im
4
12
lom
HCoyar
ID
IS
s
n
1
s
w
fi
10
w
s
10
8
70
Spadn
Tow
PMNOL Ooaidlly
8401
%Conr
an
'•ACT
Slnpuaif% hidwt cf lilwum
BRTE
OELO
LEPE
DPPAIOI
POSE
RATE
Tow
riiiBwa 1
No.orPtali
•lOiFbudo
IB
W
1
1
a
10
M
RaWao
Pnaaxcy
02M
02M
ooa
ons
OOBO
02M
1
•tlE
ZIO
iBt
OPPAIO)
POSE
RATE
ToM
ConraWDnotowca
Co<nr
m
•r
s
a
a
ao
am
OalaBn
Ooaar
017»
01W
OOOS
0041
ODIS
(LBIt
1
IOC
OT
OJ
1
1
a
BOJ
Omitnmc,
oin
one
oaoi
oota
OOIS
0840
1
Soadaa
BRTE
CELO
LEPE
OPPAICq
POSE
RATE
ToW
knportaon
baponanoolOW
BtylallRBaq*
Rdonl
0217
0202
O017
ooa
OOSB
04S7
1
BDMIloblalyla*
Rdana)
0215
Oia
OOll
OOB
ooa
0582
1
Docn
BTIE
CEIO
LEPE
OPPAIO)
POSE
RATE
Tow
Daciawiif
bicnoaar
Vaba
ir todaa
Oocnooorf
bidaa
0844
04ia
OS17
0JB3
oooa
1.747
2848
Pojooa VMua todaa
Soodoa
BRTE
CELO
LEPE
OPPAIO)
POSE
RATE
Tow
Fonga
Valua
2
1
2
1
1
3
Ponga
valua todaa
04a
0418
OOM
OB7S
ooa
1.747
2711
C-166
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for HeriDaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Svdor 03: fll ntfam BUfttfro av IS
Huiiflwf >l flpBdni
Spodaa
BRTE
LEPE
POSE
BATE
ASEX
BRTE
LEPE
POSE
BATE
AGEX
POSE
BATE
BRTE
LEPE
RATE
AGEX
BRTE
LEPE
POSE
FMNo.
J
OuanOly
a
ara
a
a
ion
2
4n
a
1
4n
4
a
ion
am
in
sn
4
lom
m
4
«Cnnr
10
9
1
10
ra
s
4S
B
3
a
s
5
79
40
a
a
s
ra
10
3
SoaaimyofFtoldDdobyPM
Spodaa
RATE
AOEX
POSE
RATE
AGEX
BRTE
LEPE
RATE
AGEX
BRIE
POSE
RATE
AGEX
BRTE
RATE
AGEX
ASTRA
BRII
RATE
PWNo.
5
8
8
B
7
7
.7
7
8
8
s
8
8
»
a
10
10
10
tt
Ouaaehr
ton
12
a
m
a
no
s
sra
a
BD
4
sra
4
in
sn
no
10
sm
sn
«Conr
40
a
IS
a
10
s
n
a
8
a
s
a
s
8
«
U
1
45
a
soodw
ToW
PMNo.
SWAaanga
Ouanmy
•771
ILOaaar
»C«nr
TST
707
Spadn
AGEX
ASTRA
BRTE
LEPE
poeE
RATE
Tow
Dandly
oaaaBy
(BMMrf)
102
1
as
a
OS
840
. .
877.1
RafaSnDaMltr
0017
oaoi
.02821
am
ofln
0855
Skaoaon^ todaa of dMnlly
8kkpaaiA
todn
oom
tun
aoB
OJDI
OJOOO
0,4a
i
OJIS
04B
Spadaa
AGEX
Asnu
BRTB
LEPE
l«SE
RATE
TOW
Pwaancy
No. of Pton
alMiPWiti
10
B
Fnwnv
OBI
ua
•as
oia
OIM
OUBS
1
ernmruAOaKtkmmm
Sonlw
AGEX
ASTRA
BRTE
LEPB
RATE
TOM
Cam
a
1
as
SI
a
3ra
TS7
•dolt II
Coaor
om
OOOl
0271
0007
OOBS
asm
1
B—n.
8
Ol
20S
Ol
4
a
.
707
RaWm
om
OOOl
0271
0087
ons
OS02
1
apadn
AGEX
ASTRA
BRIE
LEPE
POSE
RATE
Tow
baporttna
«yM(IR*aq»
Rdom]
Oin
O013
0238
OOBS
om
OSTO
1
knataoaa|Ha»
StyWIoMalyn*
RdMd
0110
oom
oas
0078
0071
0471
1
Dacn
Spadaa
AGEX
ASTRA
BRTE
LEPE
POSE
RATE
TOW
niriiinri
toenaav
Vataa
1
2
1
3
2
3
r bidaa
t»n~n.r
todaa
0118
OOIO
OTB
0224
0142
1.413
2884
Fonga valua kidaa
spadaa
AGEX
ASTRA
BRTE
LEPE
POSE
RATE
Tow
FOtapa
Vakn
taaga
Vataa todn
0118
oor
osn
0148
O071
1.413
oai
C-167
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
DMo: snaaoB
Sodsr ax aB lodon eWuSno IA. IB
Seacka
AOEX
AGTR
aiSP4
D0I
LEFE
RATE
MAM
AGEX
CRSP4
RATE
VIAM
ASTRA
RATE
AGEX
LEFE
RATE
VMM
CRSP4
RATE
BRTE
PWNo.
4
4
QwnBly
3
1
1
10
1
in
1
1
1
an
15
8
ao
1
1
ira
3
2
am
4
%Canr
2
1
1
1
1
8
2
1
1
10
5
U
ID
1
1
5
1
1
10
1
Suooaaiy af Flaw Dan by not
Spadaa
0EP1
RATE
ALAL
BRTE
LEFE
RATE
VMM
AOTK
ALAL
ARFE
BRTE
CRSR4
RATE
VIAM
AGTR
BRIE
DEPI
RATE
VMM
AOTR
PMNo.
10
Quanaty
B
BO
4
1
1
in
3
7
10
5
«Coaor
B
10
1
S 51
1
2n
B
1
IS
IS
am
8
5
10
19
Soodaa
ARFE
BRIE
eRSP4
DEPI
LEFE
RATE
VMM
TaW
PMNo.
18
ID
10
10
to
to
10
SWAnnga
Qandft^
n
5
1
V)
1
am
s
2ia
%CD»ar
KCoaar
ID
S
178
t7J
AOEX
AOTR
ALAL
ARFE
ASTRA
BRTE
CRsm
DSil
ta«
RATE
VMM
low
BInpiuirtto
oond«r
Dondty
tolandaA
OS
L8
tJ
IJ
08
«
08
8
oa
no
8
m
riaaofdhnrdty
oral
oon
OOO)
ooor
0004
OOU
aim
OOS
oon
oaa
ooa
tkapumfm
omr
cuoo
amo
OJBO
CUDE
OLCOO
OiDO
onn
qyona
flUOS
OJDI
a.«ii
ans
AOEX
AOIR
ALAL
ARFE
ASTRA
BRTE
CRSFI4
DEPI
LEFE
RATE
VMM
Tow
riaiiiNto J
No.ofPlal>
•wipwao
a
4
2
2
1
5
s
• 4
4
10
7
<r
O0B4
OOB
ooo
-ooa
om
om
OIOI
OOB
ooa
0213
0148
1
Aiax
AGTR
«UL
ARFE
ASTRA
BRTE
CRBIH
DEPI
LEFE
RATE
VIAM
TOW
em
ParaMi
Conr
4
12
2
2
10
10
8
12
8
ra
27
IW
oraWDnw
OOM
O072
OOll
nna
04
u
OJ
oota 02
n^ff^^
OOBO
OOB
0072
(Lon
a4a
om
1
1
1
OB
u
OJ
7J
27
loe
ITMaaaa
OOM
0072
0012
aon
amo
(USO
ooa
0072
aora
0458
om
1
.P—
AOEX
AGTR
ALAL
ARFE
ASTRA
BRTE
CRSP4
DEPI
ia=E
RATE
VIAM
ToM
kopononn
BtytDIRbaq*
RdoMI
0044
OOTS
OOBT
ODir
OMI
OOB
O071
0079
OOU
03B
OIM
1
koownalNaBi
Slyla)(oMatyli«
Rdan4
O03C
0855
OOD
om
OOB
am
O048
ooa
ooag
0822
0113
1
Dana
AGEX
AGTR
ALAL
ARFE
ASTRA
BRTE
CRSP4
DB1
LEFE
IMTE
VMM
row
11
1
1
1
irlndn
Ooenaaaif
todaa
OD3(
OOS
OOBI
om
O0S7
0181
OMS
om
ons
1.U7
om
OSM
Fa
Soadn
AGEX
AGTR
ALAL
ARFE
ASTRA
BRIE
CRSP4
DEPI
LffE
RATE
VIAM
TaW
ngaVitaob
POnoo
Vakn
Idn
Fonga
VOtaa todaa
0030
OOBS
OOBI
0J41
0114
0121
ooor
oia»
Olio
1J67
0227
2994
C-168
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field.Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Niiiuhf of flpBclm
BRIE
CAOR
RATE
CAOR
ERIE
CAOR
CELO
RATE
BRTE
CADR
RATE
BRIE
CAOR
RATE
HATE
AlAL
BRTE
CAOR
DEBO
FWNOL Ouaatay
ao
40
a
1
m
40
1
ao
2n
TS
in
a
n
a
ia
1
8
a
5
1
KConr
S
a
n
a
a
a
1
is
1
fciHiiimy of WiM Prti fcy Plot
Bpodw
RATE
SPCO
BRTE
CADR
DESO
RATE
10)
CAOR
RATE
ALAL
BRIE
CACR
DESO
RATE
natNB.
7
r
10
10
10
to
to
OwdlhF
1
1
im
40
3
2m
1
5
a
to
ao
a
1
n
MCoan
1
S
ID
IS
1
15
8
8
» 2
15
8
1
8
Spadn
row
PMNo. QuaidBy
mo
KCoaar
as
BpiLlai
80)
•LAL
BRIE
CADR
cao
DESO
RATE
SPCO
ToW
Oo
"way
Ol
Ol
a
44J
Ol
OS
807
01
an
odbr
Rdaan Danalty
oom
oeir
a4B
0213
onD
OOOl
oam
om
»»•-*• "^ •""*•*'
kWw
am
OLODI
0207
OOIS
am
oon
om
oom
034I
0897
Bpodw
B(t)
AlAL
BRTE
CADR
»o
DESO
RATE
SPCO
Tow
Pnoawoy
No.o(PMa
adBi Plana
1
» r
H
1
a
a
1
M
ndiiiio
Fnwwoy
ooa
02M
02M
ooa
OOU
oaas
0808
1
Swdn
HI)
•LM.
BRTC
CAOR
CELO
DESO
RATE"
SPCO
ToW
Paroona
Coan
a
a
TB
IB
a
a
a
s
3B
Cnw
OSM
oom
0227
0881
oan
OJOOO
0118
oots
1
^^ ,
OJ
OS
7J
ISJ
08
02
Ot
OS
au
RiWIn
Bualiiauco
OOH
OOO
0327
•882
0018
oms
om
ODIS
1
Soadn
801
ALAL
8RIE
CADR
CELO
DESO
HATE
SPCO
Tow
ItalHauiwa
slyWIRbaa«
Rdwd
0(B7
om
oils
04B
0094
OOIO
0181
OOD
1
tonrtanaalNaai
aowiudatyte'r
Hdan«
ooia
ooa
oan
0983
OOIB
(Loa
0227
OOIS
1
Soadn
atn
ALAL
BRIE
CADR
cao
OESO
RATE
SPOD
ToW
Vakn
0
a
3
3
3
3
1
2
11
1
ftOOO
oon
OSB7
ixm
O04S
OIOI
DJB1
om
oan
FoiaoaVWuata
Soadn
80)
AlAL
BRTE
CADR
(JELO
DESO
RATE
SPCO
ToM
Fanga
Vakn
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Wa
Foiaoa
valua todn
om
ooas
osn
torn
OMB
OIOI
om
ODlS
ua
C-169
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Heribaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
owt Msans
Badar D; oi aadon n^dlng SA, a
NanAarofasadoo: a
Iswdn
IDESO
IRATE
IDESO
IRATE
STCM
ICADR
IDESO
IRATE
IDESO
RATE
kit
IDESO
RATE
CHTE2
IDESO
IRATE
kl)
DESO
:RATE
IBRTE
PMNo.
r
1 Quaidlly
1 IB
1 3 in
a
1
1
s
I 4
10
to
11
1 " 0
4
25
: im
« 1
a
2
KConr
a
31
45I
a.
sj
4|
sj
1
s
1
4
5
l|
1
15
10
2
ll
5
ll
Sionmary oTFIaM Data by FM
ISpntom
iDESO
10(1)
IDESO
IDESO
PtolNo.
8
B
0
18
Quaaaty
21
3
179
an
f.
KConr 1
a
11
nl
Bi
Bpadn
TMd
PtotNo. CanntRi
aa
KConr 1
aal
Soodw
ISO)
iBO)
iBRTE
ICUJR
|CHTE2
iDESO
IRAIE
ISTCM
kual
DnWa
Danay^
(ptaittanr)
2J
02
02
01
04
17
102
01
ooa
RawtnlWimy
ooa
om
om
am
om
0741
0214
am
'sbnoian% todaa ofdknnlty
•taanenk,
kaiaa
am
oom
ojoati
AJMBI
ftHnp
US9
WK«I
00001
owsl
OIMI
aoaam
Isni
laoi
IBRTE
KAOn
CHTB2
DESO
IRATE
STCM
TaM
Fiawwiw
Na.ofPlon
••bPWam
2
1
1
1
1
10
7
1
a
IMIiaaa
Piiiaiincy
oon
0012
0041
OOtl!
ooa
04 7|
a2Bil
0042
ll
Co'KURd OoHitnuwi
laoadn
kl) |8(1)
IBRIE
ICADR
b<IE2
DESO
RATE
HTCM
TOM
In. Of
conr
8
1
1
4
1
327
18
D
3a
nalWiO
Caoar
0017
ons
(un
0011
oon
osn
oon
oom
1
OB
01
ai
04
01
aor
u
0
318
^RaWtn 1
0017
aon
AOOI
OJOtt
^^Iffy'
oaiil
OJBI^
OOOB
ll
ISoadaa
ISII)
too)
IBRIE
ICAOR
CHTE2
jOESO
RATE
STCM
TOW
hnportaoca
loipottmu (LBO
8t»ia|(Rlmi»
RdMl
OCSD
0022
om
OOES
ooa
0.885
0171
ooai
1
lraoitann|Nn>
Slyla|(oUat|(a*
Rdana]
OMI
0014
OOIS
OOIB,
OOIS
oaas
OIB
0014
l|
Dacn
BonSn
|9(1l
tel,
Bmc
ICADR
talTEl
IDESO
BATE
5ICU
ToM
Donoaaaif
Vataa
0
0
irtodn
IDacraaaart
tocnaaar
todn 1
1 oom
oom.
1 Oj0<7
0094
OO4J
2jra
osss.
0014
L7Bi|
FonwVMoatodw
Soodn
|5(1)
IBIII
IBRTE
CADR
CHTE2
DESO
RATE
STCM
ToW
P«o«a
Vdw
Fonga
Vataa todaa
oom
OOOD
1 om
om,
0048
2S7S
OS9S
1 O014
LTSlI
MaivUara
C-170
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Dan: snioon
Sodor D: tf lattn mdudjng IA, IB
Spadn
BRTE
DESO
•ESO
iBt
RATE
SMU
BRTE
ERa
LEPE
RATE
SMU
BRIE
DESO
DESO
ERd
IS*
RATE
BRTE
RATE
SMU
PWNo.
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
Qoanmy
a
8
1
ra
sn
1
10
ra
11
ion
1
in
a
•
18
1
a
ao
1
n
KConr
1
2
1
a
a
1
t
1
a
n
1
IS
IS
10
0
1
IS
B
1
4
Stannary ef FMd ona by FM
Spadn
STCM
BRTE
DESO
SUU
BRTE
STCU
BPTTE
DESO
DESO
B«a
RATE
STCM
BRIE
LEPE
RATE
SIAU
STCM
STCM
BRIE
LEPE
PMNo, QuaMRy
2
a
4
»
in
1
sm
1
5
1
S
1
7
1
IS
1
4
1
im
«
KCnnr
1
5
3
U
a
1
a
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
8
1
40
18
Spodn
RATE
STCM
BRTE
LEPE
RATE
STCM
Tow
PMNo,
•
a
10
10
ID
n
OuantBy
ao
s
a
8
m
I
a44
KConr
a
a
1
2
12
1
MS
Soodn
BRTE
DESO
Ba
LEPE
HATE
BMU
STCM
row
Dandly
DaMW
|pww*rf|
1802
SJ
2J
IU
187J
8.4
IJ
tO*A
RddhoOndly
02S8
OOIS
ooon
ooa
0548
om
ooa
Sbnoaoo^ todn of dkniiBy
awtnWk
oia
oral
oom
0002
oai
oom
oom
04a
0J87
Bpntaa
BRIE
DESO
ERCI
LEFE
RATE
SMU
STCM
TOW
Pnqoner
No. of Pton
aaapwiia
10
a
•dillia
Fnqonoy
0217
01S2
ooa
oia
0174
om
om
1
soodn
BRTE
DESO
BtCI
LEPE
RATE
SIAU
STCM
ToM
SunW
Coaor
2(5
M
n
87
182
18
ai
848
Coan
0447
ooa
ooa
oiot
0277
ooa
aos7
1
MJ
04
Ll
07
102
IJ
1.1
S4J
ItoWIn
0447
ooaa
OIM
0277
ooa
0857
1
Spadn
BRTE
OESO
ERO
LEPE
RATE
SMU
STCM
ToW
koponannlOH
Slyla»[R*aq*
Rdood
osa
0107
O043
am
osa
ao7i
OIM
1
laaalanaa piaw
Slyla|[oMatyta*
Rdddl
OM1
oon
om
om
OJM
O0B4
O071
1
Spadn
BRIE
DESO
ERO
LEPE
RATE
SIAU
STCM
ToM
nir 1
toriaian
vataa
1
Oaoaaaair
knWi
Loa
0232
OOM
0274
1J01
om
0LO71
Lsn
Po
SanSu
BRTE
DESO
ERCI
L0E
BATE
SIAU
STCM
Tow
•aoo Vataa Indaa
Puago
Vain
Fnaga
VMuatodw
0882
0233
oral
om
1J01
0217
0071
2417
C-171
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
8>oD: llMHorbacaow
Nuoibn of aoadw: a
aoadn
ARFE
BRTE
IBt
RATE
ARFE
BRTE
LH>E
RATE
ARFE
BRTE
ERa
LDiE
RATE
ARFE
BRTE
ERd
LEPE
RATE
ARFE
PMNo.
1
1
OoanOty
a
am
ra
ISO
a
aso
im
im
a
ira
1
10
im
ara
a
am
10
75
im
is
KCoaar
5
40
a
IS
5
4D
40
5
S
a
3
5
a
a
s
a
3
B
ID
a
Soodn
BRTE
LEPE
RATE
SUU
ARFE
SITE
LEPE
RATE
ARFE
BRTE
POSE
RATE
ARFE
BRTE
LEPE
POSE
HATE
BRTE
LEPE
PMNa OuadBy
ISO
50
im
1
n
250
a
2
iro
m
im
a
290
in
sm
1
ID
sra
am
40
KConr
n
s
10
s
s
B
10
2
5
8
8
10
a
w
a
1
s
a
a
10
Soodn
RATE
ARFE
BRIE
LEPE
RATE
TOW
PMNO.
a
m
10
10
10
BBoAaaiaga
Qunmy
3m
a
ISO
3
am
BMO
KCoaan
KCoaor
a
1
IS
1
15
7»7
707
Soodn
ARFE
BFfTE
CHID
aa
IBt
POSE
RATE
SUU
roM
Do
Daodbf
bWonnA
41
MO
ai
a
4TJ
02
m
01
•M
ndty
RaWmOanaOy
OLgar
0487
oam
0004
•Lm
am
oam
OJOOO
SbapaM^todnofdmnlly
SbapooA
todaa
oon
oats
(Lm
ono
am
am
am
am
OSB
0844
ARFE
BRTE
CHTEt
Btd
LEPE
POSE
RATE
SUU
ToM
Fiauwaui
naLOfPkda
•WRana
» 10
1
2
• a
10
1
«
Fiill rj
osm
02a
oooa
OOU
oan
O0S7
0222
0(B2
... -,•>
Soadn
•RPE
BRTE
CHTE2
ERCI
LEFE
POSE
RATE
SUU
roM
Son of
Conr
« m
a
7
m
IT
im
a
Tn
Coan
OOB
oata
ooot
oon
0177
OOB
oa7
oon
1
4J
40
OS
07
127
1.7
IB
05
77J
RatoOn
oom
OJU
(U04
oom
ai77
aoa
0207
oon
•
1
Bpadn
AfFE
BRTE
Sta
LEPE
POSE
RATE
SHU
Trtd
a«yla)(RBoq+
Rdn4
Oia
0270
OOll
0027
am
O04I
0215
0014
1
boofWnalNaw
Blyto)[ddal|to«
Rdana]
0112
0402
oom
OOIB
01S7
ooa
oam
ooto
1
Spadn
ARFE
BITE
CHIE2
ERa
LEFE
POSE
RATE
SIAU
ToM
oaoaaanf
toaraaan
vataa
2
Daonnd
02M
1J07
ooa
ODB7
0470
OOBI
07W
OOIB
1847
FOngoVdnatodn
apadn
ARFE
BRTE
CHTEl
ERO
LEPE
POSE
RATE
SUU
ToM
FOnga
vataa
2
2
1
1
2
1
3
4
Fonga
vataa todn
02M
OSB
OOB
0018
OSIS
ooas
ora
O03I
2J3T
C-172
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
MuiBbof of wwrioK
soodn
BRTE
LEPE
RATE
AODEICR)
AOTR
BRTE
RATE
AGOE(CRI
ARFE
RATE
4(1)
AGOECCR)
POSE
RATE
BRTE
LEPE
RATE
TAOF
8(1)
PWNo. (knnay
IB
im
a
torn
8
1
40
tan
10
a
ton
IS
a
4
ran
m
to
ton
IS
a
KConr
a
a
1
a
13
2
2
ID
IS
1
15
2
a
3
m
40
1
as
15
5
Saoni
Soadn
BRTE
Bia
RATE
TAOF
7111
AODEtCR)
POSE
UTE
B(1)
ASDE(CR)
BRTE
RATE
AODEICR)
LEPE
RATE
10(1)
naoEtan
BRTE
LEPE
UTE
fyofFMSDatobyPM
PMNa
ra
ra
w
10
10
Quaniay
nm
4
lom
«
nm
im
sm
ao
im
a
1
sm
T2
10«
KCoaor
W
1
a
s
1
a
3
a
1
M
10
a
a
» 15
2
4
a
s
40
Bimna
ToM
PMNa Qundtty
11217
KConr
SB
#
sp—
10(1)
4(1)
0(1)
7(1)
8(1)
AGDEICR)
AGTR
ARFE
BRTE
ERO
LEPE
POSE
RATE
TAOP
ToM
Da
Owdly^
3
IJ
a
08
02
102
Ol
. 02
1T4J
04
31
08
BO
02
1121.7
nay
BilMliillaaaBi
USS
am
ooor
e.m
om
0017
oom
orao
am
oon
om
0801
OTSS
OOOl
Sfcnpooans todn of dmraSy
todaa
anOB
(LflOB
am
am
^^ff^
OLOOC
ojim
IIDDB
OOM
oon
ourat
oom
OBIS
am
OB41
oaa
apodn
10(1)
«1)
»1)
HI)
811)
AOIR
ARFE
BRTE
ERO
LEPE
POSE
RATE
TAOF
roM
Fngunnr
HaofPloti
oBbPlwla
1
10
2
40
RakMn
Fnqnwflf
OOB
OOB
aaa
ooa
OOSS
oao
OWE
ooa
01BC
lUBS
OIOI
OOSO
oao
ooeo
1
Spadn
10(1)
4(1)
Bit)
7(1)
Bll)
taoEKn
AOTR
AHFE
BRTE
Bia
LEPE
POSE
RATE
TAOF
Tow
in
2
2
8
1
I
174
•
1
ia
1
a
a
215
ao
m
ItoMdia
Caan
oan
oan
oam
oaoi
OODi
oaa
ojm
oom
oar
ooos
DJB7
0010
oais
am
1
,^_^___
oa
02
OS
ai
Ol
17.4
0
Ol
12
Ol
aj
OJ
IIJS
2
ai
RBkdtaa
Dnabiaim
oon
oom
oom
oon
OOOB
ojm
oom
oom
02D7
OOOl
ODS7
OOIO
0170
OOM
1
Soadn
10(11
4(1)
8(1)
ni)
8(1)
AaDE(CRI
AGTR
ARFE
BRTE
ERO
LEPE
POSE
RATE
TAOF
ToW
tonoitna
siyia)iRinq«
Uon]
OOM
O014
0.017
OOIS
0013
om
0013
ODll
oira
0013
OOTS
DJB
O310
ooe
1
•WalldOnylat
Rdana)
OOIO
OOIO
O014
oom
oom
0172
oma
ona
0171
0.008
OJOBI
OJBD
0408
{lioa
1
apadn
lam
Mil
Bd)
7(1)
B(t)
AaDE(CR)
AOTR
ARFE
BRTE
ERD
LEPE
POSE
RATE
rAOF
ToW
vakia
ano
(Lon
oiom
oom
oom
OITI
oora
0018
OS12
0827
OIM
0.041
i.4n
oom
2.4M
Faraga vataa todn
Bpnna
10(1)
4(1)
8(1)
7(1)
8(1)
AGOE(CR)
AOTR
ARFE
BRIE
ERa
LEPE
POSE
RATE
TAOF
Tow
Fanga
Vaba
Fonga
vakatodn
om
am
oon
oon
oan
ai72
oom
OOIS
OMI
oom
oia
OJBO
1/UB
ooa
2ia
C-173
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for HeriDaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Ddg BiAaon
Sador ID: as ladon nokdkg SA. a
spadn
AGDEICR)
ACTR
RATE
AGTR
RATE
VIAH
AODEICR)
AOTR
RATE
4(1)
AGTR
BRTE
RATE
AGDE(CR)
AGTR
ARFE
BRTE
RATE
AGOEICRI
PWMa Qoanonr
1
8
torn
3
40
as
IS
2
40
sm
1
7
2
a
a
a
8
ID
n
1
KConr
s
9
B
0
B
2
7
10
a
a
8
IS
1
2
1
»
1
1
1
8
Ottxiwnttf olVwU 0MM by HM
Bpadn
AOTR
RATE
at)
AGTR
BRTE
RATE
AOOEICRI
AOTR
AHFE
BRIE
RATE
AGDEICR)
AGTR
ALAL
HATE
AODEICR)
AGTR
RATE
STCO
PMNa
10
10
M
10
OuaaOly
a
im
4
7
5
lom
a
a
2n
w
2n
7
18
1
8
3
11
2m
1
KConr
IS
B
4
8
1
a
a
s
s
1
ID
18
10
1
1
12
5
5
8
soodn
TOW
PMNa ammt
mt
KConr
38S
Bll 1
2tt)
4(1)
AGDEICR)
AOTR
•LAL
ARFE
BRTE
HATE
area
VIAM
ToW
Bbnsaoirobi
D«
Dandly
lulmmMtt
04
01
U
22J
Ol
ai
-27
3303
Ol
IJ
3707
dnofdlmolly
MRy
"•I" ill *•'
ODD1
om
O007
om
oora
O099
0007
OSM
oom
OOM
todn
•um
am
am
OLOW
oora
ojn
oom
0747
imo
•mn
0751
OM7
ai)
4(1)
AOOE(CR)
AOIR
ALAL
ARFE
BRTE
RATB
STCO
VIAM
Tow
Naof Pton
naipintt
1
1
a
n
1
2
4
10
1
1
-
Rddkn
oom
ooa
02a
02B
OOB
001
om
02a
ooa
ooa
•
1
»i)
4(1)
ASTR
ALAL
ARF6
BRIE
RATE
STCO
MAM
TOW
CoanndDnataana
SwiOf
Foronla
4
«
181
1
a
* a
8
8
'
MS
ItaMr
ooia
aoi4
0287
OJB
OLom
OOIT
OOtl
am
OOIT
oom
1
oo-n-n
04
u
OS
101
01
OS
04
a
OJ
0
MJ
Rakdin
oma
OOM
oisr
04a
0003
OOIT
0012
oai
0017
oom
1
aoadn
2(1)
4(1)
AGDEICR)
AGTR
•LAL
ARFE
BRTE
RATE
STCO
VIAM
•
ToM
lauiultina
8lyla)|H»oq*
Rdont)
OOIB
ooa
0231
0b34S
0014
OOM
0JS7
0244
0021
0013
1
tondaonOWa
SlyniEddalyto^
Rdanal
0013
0013
om
oai
OOIO
OMI
0040
04S1
0.014
0010
1
Dacn
Bpadn
Mil
4(1)
AODEICR)
AOTR
ALAL
ARFE
BRTE
RATE
STCO
VIAM
Tow
tanaaan
vataa todn
oon
oom
om
oai
ooa
ooa
0121
1JS2
ODM
OOIO
2018
FOragaVdwto
Spodn
ai)
4(1)
AODEICR)
AOTR
ALAL
ARFE
BRTE
RATE
STOO
VIAM
Tow
Pongo
Vakn
0
0
2
dn
Fonoo
Vataa todn
oon
arao
0199
OBI
ooa
oon
am
US2
0014
ooa
IJB
C-174
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for HeriDaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Odr tnVTOoa
Skew ID: a aadan oidbdns lA, IB
Nunbar of apadaa;
lapactaa
AGEX
BRTB
RATB
ARF«
BRTB
CADS
ERO
BATt
VIAM
AG^flCR)
AGTR'
AWB
BRIR
CADR
RATB
VIAM
AOTTJ
lARFB
BRTB
;eo
PMNa
1
1
Quantity
4
sn
40
8
lom
7
IS
a
8
1
2
5
mo
1
a
a
1
M
wm
5
KCmor
IS
ID
70
m
10
m
1
Bunmarr of FWd Dan by not
Isoodn
|RATE
AGEX
AGTR
BRIE
RATE
AGEX
ALAL
BRTB
RATE
lAGEX
BRIE
lERO
RATE
STCO
VMM
lAGEX
Aom
ARFE
BRIE
SW)
PMNO. anony
a
1
2
im
m
3
10
lom
m
2
im
2
10
1
ra
1
4
a
loro
1
KConr
1
10
1
4
2
12
1
40
a
8
a
1
1
8
8
1
8
8
W
1
ISoodn
RATE
BRTE
RATE
SUU
AGTR
BRTE
RATE
VIAM
Tow
PMNa
8
•
8
S
ID
ID
10
10
QonlM
W
torn
a
1
15
2m
in
11
T4B
KCoaar
1
ra
1
1
a
s
5
4
sm
'Bpaon
AGDEICR)
A^
AGm
AUL
ARFB
flRTB
PADR
l@a
HATfi
SUL2
BTDO
VIAM
Tow
Sbaaaoaraki
Dandly
Dandtr
(pMaMA
01
1.1
04
1
05
U
u
41
01
01
4J
7401
idnofdtaWty
nililba naiidh
oom
OOOl
OLflm
OOOl
O007
om
;r ajBB
OAO
OOBS
OiOOl
OlOOO
(UOB
Btavworo
kidn
oom
oora
090
oom
oom
ojia
oeoi
oni
ooos
oom
am
OlOOO
ofinl
B.149I
aooetaa
koBCRl
lAOEX
lAom
lALAL
ARFB
ERIE
CADR
BW
RATE
SUU
STCO
MAM
ToM
NaofPtota
aBbPWW
1
ID
10
48
RaWtao
fwmoor
O021
OIM
OIM
OD21
oon
1 oam
0042
oon
oam
O021
0021
itfMn
1
AGDEICR)
[AGEX
UGTR
AlAL
ARFE
BRIE
CADR
ERO
RATE
SUU
srco
VUM
iroM
Bnaot
Paioonn
Coan
1
44
a
1
s
4M
2
a
14
* a
»
8M
ndinia
Conr
om
OD78
Qjaa
oaa
OOU
OTB
om
oan
OOB
mn
0014
OOM
1
Ouiidliiiiai
01
4.4
28
01
oa
424
02
Ol
1.4
01
08
tJ
814
tWdlm
oom
O07I
OOBI
ILOB
O014
OTB
OOM
(Lm
001
oool
0014
OOH
1
apKtaa
AGDEICR)
AOEx' ^
Mm
ALAL
JWFB
gRTB
CAOR
ea
RATB
SIAU
STCO
VIAM
TDW
hnoottann
SlyWIRbao*
Hdond
O011
OOBI
0078
OOll
ooto
OL487
OOB
0044
0117
OOll
OOIS
OOSO
1
«yWC«*"nyia*
Rdna]
om
0082
OLOB]
aim
OJBS
osn
ODIS
am
ojm
oom
DJ12
OMI
1
Dam
Sontaa
AGISICR)
AGEX
AOTR
ALAL
AWE
CAOR
ERO
RATE
SHU
ISTCO
IVIAM
rroM
•nrikiuoan
Daciaaaail
Vdn
1
1
rMn
todn
oora
am2
oora
OOM
0070
1JM
0M7
O0B2
oaa
oots
0D12
OWl
2jn
FonwVUuabidn
Spadn
AODEICR)
AOEX
ASTR
ALAL
lARPE
BRTE
CADR
ERO
RATE
SUU
STCO
VIAM
ToM
Fonga
valua
Fongo
vataa todn
oom
0DB2
ODB
OOH
0070
12B
O047
om
02M
ooa
0012
OOB
1J70
C-175
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Ddat smaoos
Sndn
BRTE
DESO
RATE
SUU
BRIE
DESO
RATE
BRTE
DESO
RATE
BRTB
SUU
ALAL
BRTE
OESO
RATE
ALAL
BRIE
PMNa (bnnRy
3
IS
a
3
ee
2
a
2m
10
m
im
im
im
1
in
3
18
W
a
'
KCoan
2
« 8
2
5
2
a
a
2
45
15
ra
7S
18
8
8
S
8
8
1
Swooary of Flald Dau by Flat
Soodn
DESO
SPCO
DESO
RATE
SUU
ALAL
ERIE
DESO
RATE
CESO
SPCO
nnNa
•
w
Ouanmy
8
1
ra
im
1
vo
4
IS
u
1
1
KConr
S
1
n
ra
Soodn
Tow
PMNa
SbaAonaoa
Quanay
laa
KConR
KCoaar
471
47J
MM.
BRIS
DESO
HATE
SIAU
SPCO
ToW
Dndbr
bdanwan
32J
17.1
02
27J
a
OS
02
»
1104
BdadaaDanaltr
0244
Oia
OOOl
oam
0413
oam
ODOI
Bhnono^itodnofdlnntty
Stoipn-a
OOSB
oon
oam
0044
aire
amfl
., oral
oam
OTIS
apadn
ALAL
BRIE
cmE2
DESO
RATE
SMU
T«M
HaafPMa
a
nabd a
Pnnancr
OS07
oaa
ooa
02m
OIM
OOBI
ooa
1
ALM.
BRTE
oma
DESO
RATE
SUU
SPCO
Taw
Bon of
Poroonn
coan
IID
a
2
271
es
IS
2
47B
Conr
Oia
ODM
OOM
osn
0115
0027
OOH
r
1
11
2J
02
27.1
SJ
IJ
02
47J
Rddtao
OJX
aoB4
OOM
osn
OTIS
0037
0004
1
soadn
•LAL
BRTE
CHTE2
DESO
RATE
SHU
SPCO
ToW
toonrann
kapcnannlOld
BOrta) IHftan •
RdnOI
om
0140
OOIS
04a
OIM
om2
0094
1
BtyMloMi«to»
Rdanal
om
01a
0013
0355
0240
OL043
ooa
1
Spadn
AlAL
BRIE
CmE2
DESO
RATE
SUU
BVO
Tow
tocnaan
Vataa
II
I
OSTO
04m
ooa
IJBS
0121
ooas
OM7
2JM
Ponga Vataa todn
Soadn
ALU.
BRTE
CHTE3
OESO
RATE
SUU
SPCO
ToM
Fnoga
vataa
3
1
a
1
s
4
1
Fongo
Vataa todn
OSTO
0272
oon
IJB
0721
OITD
DJB
2jn
C-176
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for HeriDaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
matonofapadaK
spadn
BRTE
RATE
BRTE
RATE
BRIE
Btt3
IBt
RATE
BRTE
RATE
BRTE
LB>E
HATE
AOTR
BRTE
RATE
BfriE
RATE
BRTE
RATE
PMNa OuanSly
W
ion
31
torn
4ra
IB
270
lom
sm
lom
w
4
lom
8
im
lom
im
ion
in
ion
KConr
1
a
1
18
s
10
IS
a
5
a
4
1
B
S
1
44
10
IS
a
n
Bonanaiy of FWd Data by FM
Soodn
BRTE
RATE
BRIE
RATE
PMNa
B
8
10
10
Quanaty
3n
ion
4m
lom
KConr
IS
am
15
40
Spadn
ToM
PMNa Qondly KConr
108S
spodn
AGTR
BRTE
Bia
IBiE
RATE
TOM
Ondtr
oandly
iPtottkA
oa
••7.1
13J
BA
lom
lUOS
RaWtaaDaaSy
DOOC
OUS
OOll
0022
0807
Slmiaoira todn of divanib
todn
oom
ooa
om
om
oasa
0878
0122
Spntao
ASTR
BRTE
ERa
IBt
RATE
ToM
Fnqonqf
NaolPlola
1
10
1
2
ID
M
Pnqoway
OM2
0417
0012
om
0417
1
Spnin
AGTR
BRIE
ERO
LEPE
RATE
ToW
ConrndDndnwa
Sua of
Panoni
Conr
S
77
10
18
847
IOB
ndWia
Coan
om
0071
oom
OOIS
osn
1
^^^
OS
7.T
1
IJ
84.7
18U
RaWtn
aim
oora
oora
0019
osa
1
Bpadn
AOTR
BRTE
ERa
LEPE
RATE
Tow
tomonann
Blyta)[Rftn'*'
Rdnm
ooas
OMS
ooa
O0I8
08S7
1
8t>ta|Iakla«4a«'
Rdnm
OOIB
oais
om
OHO
0.7D7
1
Oacn
Boadn
AGTR
BRTE
ERO
LEPE
RATE
TaW
lianaan
Vataa
rtadn
Mdn
OOIB
OMB
O08Z
0121
2ia
un
Fonoa vataato
Soodn
AGTR
BRTE
ERO
IH>E
RATE
TdM
Fonga
vaiua
1
2
1
2
3
dn
Foraga
VMua todn
0018
04a
om
oora
Lia
asn
C-177
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for HeriDaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Baoor OK tf ndnt anftifflnD IA. 10
_WMnb*refiip«dwt
Bpadn
RATE
BRTE
HATE
BRIE
RATE
UTE
BRTE
HATE
AOTR
RATE
RATE
BRTE
RATE
BRTE
KATE
BRIE
RATE
PMNa
n>
ID
QuaotRy
im
8
ao
s
4m
in
5
ao
u
2m
im
s
m
2
tm
Tt
UD
I
KCoaor
IS
10
Biannnnr of FWd Oan by not
Somn PMNa Oawttty KConr
A61R
BRTE
RATE
row
DdMh
.«.y
1
02
IM
aoi
am
OLOtS
OBB
SkapooA
tadni
am
OLOOI
0802
08M
OJM
AGTR
ERIE
RATE
.-
TaM
haaoancy
Naof FMa
WMPtonn
1
a
10
17
RaWhn
anoonar
OOBO
oaa
osa
'
Bpactoa
TbM
PMNa Ouontty
an
KCoaar
u
BBaAiniBaKCwar: 8
Coan and DnrtiwMa
AOTR
BRTE
RATE
,
raM
BOBIOf
Coan
a
a
51
"
Conr
OOSO
om
oan
,
1
OLI
oa
01
8
Rdrtn
Duudiniiua
OOBO
aioo
OBBO
1
•padn
AOTR
BRTE
RATE
ToM
tmpnWKa
bapoinncalOkl
SUtallRbaq*
Bdnoi
OOSA
oaa
0718
1
baorWKopWa
StyMIIddiOla*
OOB
Ota
a7m
1
Dacn
soodn
AOTR
BRTE
RATE
row
Vataa
1
1
1
atadn
Dauanarf
todn
OOU
OAH
23U
UM
Fonpt virttio todM
spodn
AOTR
BRTE
RATE
ToM
Ponso
VOtaa
1
2
a
Fongo
vataa todn
OOU
osn
ua
27a
C-178
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
Daw sniapB
Monbar af aoodaas
BfmtU*
AGOEICRI
BRTE
CAOR
DESO
LEPE
RATE
IB*
RATE
B>nE
CAOR
DESO
l£PE
RATE
BRTE
LEPE
RATE
Sfl)
BRTE
RATE
STCO
PlatNa
a
»
Qoanttly
1
21
2
B
1
IS
ta
ao
to
1
•
4
ao
4
ta
m
1
8
W
s
KConr
1
1
1
1
•1
2
a
a
1
1
1
1
a
1
40
IS
1
1
a
a
Baamainr ol FMd Data by PM
Boadaa
LB>E
RATE
BRIE
CADR
RATE
8(1)
Bll)
BRTE
RATE
811)
BRIE
CAOR
LEPE
RATE
BRIE
LEPE
RATE
'
PMNa
8
8
a
ra
n
10
to
Ouaolty
TB
m
17
8
IS
2
1
11
im
3
ao
2
8
U
40
1
1
SO
KConr
m
s
2
1
1
4
1
1
a
1
10
1
1
ID
a
1
1
1
Sndn
roM
PMNa
SBaWorasa
OaanlRy
aa
KCoaoR
KCovn
IM
MJ
Sfl)
8(1)
8(1)
AOOE(CR)
BRIE
CADR
•ESO
LEPE
RATE
STCO
ToM
onwar
OBW«r
hdntatoft
oa
Ol
08
Ol
aoB
1.4
u
ar
M.7
OS
au
Rdatmoandbr
OJOt
asm
oaoi
oam
oia
oam
0007
OAa
0414
olav
Bbopwn^todnofdtaMI,
Bbapooifk
todn
oom
oom
niKt
OJBD
0018
om
oni
0187
0171
ono
0177
ooa
apadn
8(1)
8(1)
8(1)
AODEICR)
BRTE
CADR
DESO
LEPE
RATE
rrco
row
Ha ar Pton
a
10
1
»
Raton
Fnnnoy
nwH
ntwfi
ooa
ooa
0211
oia
oora
OIM
02a
ooa
1
aoadn
S(l)
•n
8(1)
AGteCB)
BRTE
CADR
DESO
LEPE
RATE
STCO
TaM
Panaida
Coan
8
1
1
1
IS
5
1
IB
TS
a
BO
RaMha
Coan
ooa
OOM
OOH
OIM
0078
ooao
am
OSB
oats
oiao
1
OS
01
Ol
Ol
u
05
01
IU
TJ
OS
a
RabUn
DanbwKo
0LO30
OOU
OOH
OOM
oora
OOB
OOM
aS3i
0318
ooa
1
awdn
5(1)
am
atn
AiaiEICR)
BRTE
CAOR
DESO
LEPE
RATE
STCO
TaM
toonrtaoca
lanlillail«low
SqrIillRbao*
Rdnn)
OOB
ODIS
0015
oots
0143
0878
(LOB
OIB
02m
0LD23
1
•lyla)(oaialyta*
Rdms)
0803
oon
oon
oon
0141
OLDU
0021
oan
0311
ooia
1
Soadn
SH)
8(11
8(1)
AaDE(CR)
BRTE
CADR
IBt
RATE
STCO
ToW
vataa todn
oam
oom
oom
OOIO
OAD
OIM
oora
1.148
OOH
OOIB
3J11
Fonga Vataa todn
Spadn
5(1)
Kll
8(1)
A00E(CR1
BRTE
CAOR
DESO
LEPE
RATE
STCO
Tow
Fonga
Vain
Fonoi
VMualWn
OODI
ono
oom
ODTC
oai
om
oora
OJU
OSM
0018
UM
C-179
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for HeriDaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
SWD: ITbSHaitonouo Daw snonoos
Saaor D: as aadan antaSrv lA, IB
Spadn
CADR
CADR
CAOR
CADR
CADR
CADR
PMNa
to
Quanay
1
a
1
a
4
11
KConr
1
IS
1
40
4
8
aonna
CADR
row
I^Briiy
Ondbf
ftnnoio()_
too
tOJ
•dam Dandly
ijm
aknnon^todnoldhnnna
Skn-nA
ijra
ijm
oom
auaanarrofFWdOdabrPM
PWNa OoantRy KCon, spodn
TOW
PWMa OUMtor
HB
KConr
a
spodn
CAOR
ToW
MaofPMo
•ddiPlanu
8
•
tjm
1
•pnna
CADR
ToW
Coan and Donb
•naof
Conr
a
a
RaWtao
Conr
ijra
1
nrm
Dantaann
•J
OS
RataOn
Ijm
1
Soadn
CADR
ToM
laiooninn
bnpnwinnjw
SlylallRbaq*
Rdonl
i.om
1
SI>ta)tablalyM«
Rdanal
ijm
1
Soodn
CAOR
TOW
Dacraaaw
tocnaan
Valua
a
L
tooaaaar
todn
3L0m
ura
Fonn vaiua hdn
Spntaa
CADR
TaM
Fnaga
Vdw
3
Fonga
vataa todn
omo
um
C-180
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for HeriDaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
IIA, IB
Spadn
BRTE
ORtC
RATE
BRIE
LEFE
ORHE
RATE
CAANF
LB^
ORHE
PHLO
RATE
ERrsi
LEFE
RATE
BRTE
LEFE
ORW
RATE
LEFE
FMNa aundRy
ra
a
am
w
a
2
2m
2
ra
1
1
lom
1
a
sm
10
m
8
sm
n
KCoaar
1
a
18
«
10
a
a
10
IB
8
Suoanaiv of FMM Dan by PM
Soodn
•Rte
RATE
LEFE
LEFE
RATE
LEFE
ORHE
RATE
LEFE
RATE
LEFE
ORW
HATE
PMNa
B
8
7
7
7
a
8
a
B
a
ra
ra
ra
Ooadtly
12
sm
40
1
im
sm
2
sm
ra
am
im
3
lom
KConr
10
a
2
1
s
a
to
13
3
n
5
ID
a
soadn
TaW
PMNa
SBaAwraaa
OnnOty
sno
KCoaoR
KCoan
311
31,1
Spadn
BRIE
CAANF
ERYSI
LEFE
ORHE
PHO
HATE
Tow
nanalli
Dwdir
idwtamn
3
02
Ot
•1.1
ot
01
478
asrj
nd1iiiBand»
oon
oom
oom
OIBI
oms
oro
osa
Sianaoo^ todn ofdlnnlly
Bnpaoaro
txan
OLOOC
ooaa
ooa
oom
oom
oon
OTM
oaa
Bpadn
BRTE
CAANF
ERVSI
lEK
ont
PHLO
RATE
TOW
pnowwy
NaorPtaM
oBlPWdi
8
1
1
«
r
1
10
a
RaMBvo
OOBI
ooa
ooa
oas
0212
ooa
0301
1
BRIE
CAANF
BITSI
lEFE
ORHE
PHO
RATE
Total
Siwef
Com
4
1
1
a
TS
1
BS
aa
Conr
OD14
oom
oms
om
oan
CU103
OS24
1
04
Ol
Ol
u
7J
Ol
«J
3U
RaMltaa
Danhlann
OOU
OOOS
oom
om
0293
Booa
09M
1
Soadn
BRIE
CAANF
ERVSI
iBt
ORHE
PHLO
RATE
ToM
•mtalPWoq*
Rdna)
0082
ODIT
0017
oai
oaa
O017
0413
1
Sqn)|oWnyv«
RdanO
0037
OOll
OOtl
0221
01S7
OOtl
0952
1
Daoai
sooctaa
BRTE
CAAHP
ERYSI
LEFE
ORHE
noo
RATE
ToM
vataa
r todaa
Dacnnatf
todn
Olio
OOB
OOM
ojra
ai»7
ODM
1.9H
2(79
Fonoa vataa todn
9oodn
BRTE
CAANF
Birsi
LEFE
ORHE
PHLO
RATE
ToM
Fonoa
Vaba
Fnaga
vataa bum
0073
OOB
ODM
oea
0157
0034
1.855
UM
C-181
Table C-5. 2005 EMFS Field Data for Herbaceous Vegetation Characterization
(Continued)
a10:_
rI0:i
Nuuiliaraf apactm
Spadn
RATE
2(21
ALAL
BRTE
RATE
BRTE
DBO
LEFE
RATE
BRTE
DESO
RATE
BRTE
DESO
RATE
BRTE
RATE
SPCO
rPI
PMNa
8
Ckiartty
im
nm
1
1
a
am
too
a
15
sm
im
• ram
an
a
su
a
lom
1
a
KCovar
2
B
15
a
10
10
a
Soaanary of FWd DOB by IM
Soadn
BRTB
cao
DESO
RATE
BRTE
cao
HATE
cao
LEFE
RATE
BRTE
cao
DESO
RATE
s>co
PlolNa
7
7
7
7
B
B
B
a
8
s
10
ID
10
ID
ra
auwBy
40
N
a
im
40
a
lom
a
1
lom
a
a
a
tora
1
KCoior
to
10
1
8
1
1
a
1
2
45
2
1
2
a
1
Soadn
Tow
PMNa Ooandly
am
KConr
in
Spadn
in
7R)
ALAL
BRTE
CELO
DESO
IBt
RATE
SPCO
TOW ,
Do
Dan^f
01
2
Ol
87
12
U
IJ
7a
02
nu
nam
RaHBnOanaly
oora
oon
om
O0B2
ODIS
OOH
0LD02
004
ono
BtoipnnltodnMdlnMtr .
tupmfm
bidn
anai
ono
ami
ooor
oom
oom
oom
a7a
oam
osm
OIM
SBKtao
am
7(2)
ALAL
BRTE
cao
OESO
LEFE
RATE
SPCO
row
NaidPtata
aBhPWda
1
1
1
•
4
S
2
10
a
a
RataBn
Fnqnnqr
OOM
ooa
oom
0257
0114
014S
0887
02a
OD57
1
Spntaa
2»
TOJ
ALAL
BATE
CELO
DESO
LEFE
RATE
SPCO
ToM
CoannriDndoan
Panawa
Oonr
1
2
1
a
11
10
0
170
1
au
Rdadn
Coan
OSM
OLOOB
OJOM
diss
OLOS
ao4i
DJDS
OOM
oon
1
B=-3nn
01
02
Ol
u
u
1
DJ
17
02
MJ
Rdatho
Itiaiiliwaa
0804
OUS
OOM
OUS
OOBS
OMI
oon
OSM
oom
1
Soadn
tm
7(2)
ALAL
BRTE
cao
DESO
LEFE
RATE
SPCO
Tow
tovmawa
bnwtancalOkl
«»M)[R«W|*
Rdonl
ODIB
ooto
OOIO
oan
OOH
oma
0045
o4n
OOB
1
SlylaKotdalyla*
Rdansi
ODll
0J13
0011
oia
oom
ooa
o.m
oas
0022
1
Soodn
2(2)
7(2)
ALU
BRIE
CELO
DESO
LEFE
RATE
SPCO
ToM
tocnaaar
vataa
II
I
oom
oom
OOB
OAM
0182
Ota
0002
1.874
aM4
2jm
Fg>»Bi Vahw bwltai
Spntaa
212)
7(2)
ALM.
BRIE
CELO
DESO
LEFE
RATE
SPCO
TOM
Fonga
Vdw
Fonga
vakn todn
oom
oom
0033
03a
om
am
D.DBa
1J74
01122
rm
C-182