Danielle Cleveland Kathy R Echols Donald E Tillitt Allison Schein Annie Chalifour Jess Kidd Robert Carter Brian Spears Donald D MacDonald 20260505 text Denver, CO U.S. Geological Survey Author's Open Researcher and Contributor Ids (ORCID) are as follows: Danielle Cleveland:0000-0003-3880-4584; Kathy Echols: 0000-0003-2631-9143; Donald Tillitt: 0000-0002-8278-3955; Allison Schein: None; Annie Chalifour: 0000-0003-2266-3094; Jess Kidd: 0000-0003-2539-4424; Robert Carter: None; Brian Spears: None; Donald MacDonald: None https://doi.org/10.5066/P145DPSJ These data are comprised of measured concentrations of PCBs, polychlorinate dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), Pb, and Hg, and percent lipid and moisture, in avian tissue samples (egg contents, nestlings, egg shells) collected from the Snow Creek and Choccolocco Creek watersheds downstream of the former PCB facility in Anniston, Alabama, USA. The nearby Talladega National Forest, which has not received PCB wastes, was used as a reference site. Samples were collected in calendar years 2014 and 2015. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are organochlorine chemicals that are well-documented to both persist for decades when released into the environment and to bioaccumulate from aquatic environments into local food webs. Intentional and unintentional releases of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into aquatic environments have contaminated local and regional ecosystems with releases of both PCBs and chemicals associated with production, such as lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg). The Monsanto Chemical Company, the only manufacturer of PCBs in the United States, had its primary manufacturing facility located in Anniston, Alabama (Al), USA. The facility actively produced PCBs from 1929 to 1971; stormwater monitoring data indicate that PCB releases from the facility continued through 2001. Although the total weight of PCBs released to the environment during production is uncertain, facility records indicate that more than 40 metric tons of PCBs may have been discharged in process wastewater during a single year of production. Insectivorous birds, for example, feeding along corridors of PCB-contaminated streams and rivers are known to accumulate PCBs from dietary sources. Additionally, birds with ground foraging behaviors are particularly susceptible to uptake since soils and sediments serve as a primary sink for both PCBs and metals; these soils and sediments can be taken up via incidental or direct ingestion. Due to limited foraging areas during the breeding season, toxicants can be maternally transferred or directly taken up by nestlings following ingestion of locally-sourced contaminated prey items. As such, monitoring of birds, including their eggs and nestlings, has been an important tool for environmental assessment of PCB-related hazards in both aquatic and terrestrial environments. These results are part of a study to assess the degree and extent of chemical contamination in avian species associated with riparian corridors downstream of the Anniston facility. Results are reflective of conditions at the time of collection. The impetus for this study was to assess the degree and extent of chemical contamination in avian species associated with riparian corridors downstream of the Anniston facility. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), and Geological Survey of Alabama (GSA) have trustee responsibilities for wildlife and other natural resources in Alabama. As such, these agencies are conducting a natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) to assess and restore natural resources injured by hazardous substances released from the Anniston facility. The goal of this study was to evaluate PCB, Pb, and Hg exposures in avian species downstream of the Anniston facility for to support the NRDA. To achieve this goal, our study aimed to: 1) document bird species inhabiting Snow Creek and Choccolocco Creek riparian corridors; 2) collect cavity nesting bird eggs and nestlings; 3) collect swallow eggs and nestlings from nests under bridges within the study area; and 4) chemically characterize the collected tissues for PCBs and potential co-contaminants from PCB production, namely PCDDs, PCDFs, Pb, and Hg. Users are advised to read the dataset's metadata thoroughly to understand appropriate use and data limitations. 20140101 20161230 ground condition Complete None planned -85.8756 -85.6082 33.7083 33.5700 Sampling area near Anniston, Alabama USGS Thesaurus industrial pollution lead chemical analysis birds contamination and pollution aquatic ecosystems terrestrial ecosystems toxic trace element contamination ISO 19115 Topic Category environment biota USGS Biocomplexity Thesaurus heavy metals hazardous materials PCDF PCDD PCB compounds chemical pollutants industrial wastes feeding behavior reproduction nest boxes breeding Marine Realms Information Bank (MRIB) keywords chemical analysis Alexandria Digital Library Feature Type Thesaurus streams industrial sites research areas cities None nestling egg contents egg shell impaired reproduction USGS Metadata Identifier USGS:69f8a4fab66b01f26a042940 None U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center Geographic Names Information System Choccolocco Creek Common geographic areas Anniston Alabama Choccolocco Talladega National Forest Snow Creek None. Please see 'Distribution Info' for details. These data are marked with a Creative Common CC0 1.0 Universal License. These data are in the public domain and do not have any use constraints. It is requested that the authors be cited for any subsequent publications that reference this dataset. Users are advised to read the dataset's metadata thoroughly to understand appropriate use and data limitations. Danielle M Cleveland U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center mailing and physical

4200 New Haven Road

Columbia MO 65201 USA 573-875-5399 dcleveland@usgs.gov This study was funded by the U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Restoration and Damage Assessment through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the ongoing natural resource damage assessment for the Anniston Polychlorinated Biphenyl Assessment Area. Additional salary support was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey's Ecosystems Mission Area (Environmental Health Program) to prepare this dataset and its metadata. Thank are due to the following individuals for their guidance and support in designing and executing the field sampling program and contributing to its supporting documents: Mary Lou Haines, Megan Wainwright, and Heather Prencipe at MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd.-Pacific Environmental Research Centre (MESL-PERC); Jesse Sinclair at MESL-PERC and LGL Limited; Warren Lorentz at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Engineer Research and Development Center; and Diane Nicks at the U.S. Geological Survey's Columbia Environmental Research Center (USGS-CERC). We thank Environmental Chemistry Branch staff at USGS-CERC: Jesse Arms, Randal Clark, Vanessa Melton, Adam Moody, Zach Rousslang, Vicki Schroeder, and Michael Walther for analyzing the tissue samples. Carl Orazio (USGS-CERC) served as the Quality Assurance Officer for the project; we thank Robin Tillitt (USGS-CERC) for initial preparation of the dataset for release, and Adrian Moore for reviewing the data and metadata. Daniel Wright, Chris Pellechia, Logan Miller, Aaron Ford, Andy Parris, and Michael Alexander (Jacksonville State University) assisted with the field collections. Windows 11 Enterprise version 23H2, build 22631.5039; Notepad++ 64-bit version 8.7.8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2014 publication Washington, DC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency https://www.epa.gov/esam/epa-method-6020b-sw-846-inductively-coupled-plasma-mass-spectrometry U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1996 publication Washington, DC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/epa-3050b.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1998 publication Washington , DC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-12/documents/7473.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1994 publication Washington, DC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=20002GR6.txt U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1997 publication Washington, DC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=200036PX.txt Kathy R. Echols Robert W. Gale Kevin Feltz Jerome O'Laughlin Donald E. Tillitt Ted R. Schwartz 199806 publication Journal of Chromatography A vol. 811, issue 1-2 n/a Elsevier BV p. 135-144 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(98)00241-6 Kathy Echols Robert Gale Donald Tillitt Ted Schwartz Jerome O'Laughlin 19970801 publication Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry vol. 16, issue 8 n/a Oxford University Press (OUP) p. 1590-1597 https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620160805 Paul H. Peterman Carl E. Orazio Kathy R. Echols 20060101 publication Organohalogen Compounds vol. 68 n/a Elsevier BV p. 2458-2461 Paul H. Peterman Robert W. Gale Donald E. Tillitt Kevin P. Feltz 1996 Chapter 27 publication Boca Raton CRC Press p. 517-553 in G. Ostrander (Ed.), Techniques in aquatic toxicology John P McCarty Anne L Secord 19990701 publication Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry vol. 18, issue 7 n/a Oxford University Press (OUP) p. 1433-1439 https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620180713 Thomas W. Custer Christine M. Custer Buddy L. Goatcher Mark J. Melancon Cole W. Matson John W. Bickham 20060609 publication Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol. 121, issue 1-3 n/a Springer Science and Business Media LLC p. 543-560 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-005-9153-x Timothy B. Fredricks Matthew J. Zwiernik Rita M. Seston Sarah J. Coefield Stephanie C. Plautz Dustin L. Tazelaar Melissa S. Shotwell Patrick W. Bradley Denise P. Kay John P. Giesy 20091106 publication Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology vol. 58, issue 4 n/a Springer Science and Business Media LLC p. 1048-1064 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-009-9416-6 ARCADIS U.S., Inc. [ARCARDIS] 2007 publication Anniston PCB Site Administrative Records USEPA The USEPA hosts a home page for the Anniston PCB Site (Monsanto Co.) Anniston, AL Superfund Site at https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0400123. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/04/11199952.pdf Blasland, Bouck, and Lee, Inc. [BBL] 2004 publication The USEPA hosts a home page for the Anniston PCB Site (Monsanto Co.) Anniston, AL Superfund Site at https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0400123. A copy of this document may be available upon request from the USEPA Remedial Project Manager. Craig E. Hebert Karen A. Keenleyside 19950501 publication Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry vol. 14, issue 5 n/a Oxford University Press (OUP) ppg. 801-807 https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620140509 None Barn Swallow Brown-headed Cowbird Carolina Chickadee Carolina Wren Cliff Swallow Eastern Bluebird Tufted Titmouse Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) 2024 ONLINE_REFERENCE Washington, D.C. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) http://itis.gov Danielle M Cleveland U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center mailing and physical

4200 New Haven Road

Columbia MO 65201 US 573-875-5399 dcleveland@usgs.gov expert advice All birds were identified to species by Dr. Robert Carter of Jacksonville State University (Jacksonville, AL); no problems occurred. All birds were identified to species; no problems occurred. Kingdom Animalia animals Subkingdom Bilateria triploblasts Infrakingdom Deuterostomia Phylum Chordata chordates Subphylum Vertebrata vertebrates Infraphylum Gnathostomata Superclass Tetrapoda Class Aves Birds Order Passeriformes Perching Birds Family Hirundinidae Genus Hirundo Barn Swallows Species Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow TSN: 178448 Genus Petrochelidon Species Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow American Cliff Swallow TSN: 178455 Family Icteridae American Blackbirds Orioles New World Blackbirds Genus Molothrus Cowbirds Species Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird TSN: 179112 Family Paridae Chickadees Titmice Tits Genus Poecile Species Poecile carolinensis Carolina Chickadee TSN: 554383 Genus Baeolophus Titmice Species Baeolophus bicolor Tufted Titmouse TSN: 554138 Family Troglodytidae Wrens Genus Thryothorus Wrens Species Thryothorus ludovicianus Carolina Wren TSN: 178581 Family Turdidae Genus Sialia Bluebirds Species Sialia sialis Eastern Bluebird TSN: 179801 Quality control measures included the use of NIST-traceable calibration standards, second source and/or laboratory control standards, analysis duplicates and spikes, and calibrated balances and pipets. The data were checked for omissions and duplicates. All values fall within expected ranges. Data set is considered complete for the information presented, as described in the abstract. Users are advised to read the rest of the metadata record carefully for additional details. No formal positional accuracy tests were conducted No formal positional accuracy tests were conducted Cavity nesting birds, including Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis), and swallows (Hirundo rustica; Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) were targeted for collection based on previous surveys (BBL 2004; ARCADIS 2007). However, samples of other species that utilized the nest boxes were also collected opportunistically. All sampling was conducted under permit from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (No. MB04809B-O) and the State of Alabama (No. 2013000141768680 and No. 2015075475068680). Procedures to minimize disturbances to the birds included sampling nest boxes only once a week, collecting only one nestling or a maximum of three eggs from a single nest, and limiting close proximity of field personnel to each nest to 20 minutes or less during each visit. Passerine nest boxes were deployed within areas along Snow Creek and Choccolocco Creek within 100 meters of the creek banks to facilitate bird egg and nestling collection in accordance with previously published techniques (McCarty and Secord 1999; Custer et al. 2006; Fredricks et al. 2010). When site access and conditions permitted, passerine nest boxes were placed within 50 meters of the creek banks. The downstream exposure site was divided into four Exposure Areas (EAs; namely EA-1, EA-2, EA-3, and EA-4) based on proximity to the Anniston facility, and historical soil and sediment chemistry results. Exposure Area EA-1, which was closest to the Anniston facility (i.e., most upstream), consisted of Snow Creek between the Hamric Drive Bridge and the I-20 bridge (Oxford, AL). Exposure Area EA-4 was furthest downstream, located along Choccolocco Creek downstream of the Highway 21 bridge (Oxford, AL). Eggs and nestlings were collected in 2014 and 2015 from installed nest boxes and bridge nests during the reproductive season (April, May, June, July). A total of n=120 nest boxes were installed for the study. In 2014, there were n=15 nest boxes in EA-1; n=29 in EA-2; n=10 in EA-3; and n=26 in EA-4. In 2015, an additional n=40 nest boxes were installed in a reference area in the Talladega National Forest, approximately 24 kilometers northeast of the Anniston facility. This reference area has no known PCB manufacturing inputs. Collections from swallow and wren nests on bridges and gates were also made opportunistically; the bridges that were monitored included Hamric Drive Bridge (EA-1), I-20 Bridge (EA-2), Friendship Road Bridge (EA-2), and Highway 21 Bridge (EA-4), all in Oxford, AL. 2015 Robert Carter Clemson University Area Forestry and Wildlife Agent mailing and physical Clemson SC 29634 803-572-8491 rec4@clemson.edu Whole eggs were hand-collected, wiped with tissue paper to remove surficial debris if needed, and placed in a pillbox for transport. Nestling samples were hand-collected, euthanized by cervical dislocation, and transferred to pre-cleaned 250 mL pre-weighed (nearest 0.1 g) glass sample jars. Egg and nestling samples were transported on wet ice to the Jacksonville State University laboratory (Jacksonville, AL). In the laboratory, nestlings and eggs were weighed on a wet basis (plus or minus 0.1 grams), then the egg shells were scored with a pre-cleaned scalpel (rinsed with acetone) and split, with contents and shells placed in separate pre-cleaned, pre-weighed, and pre-labeled sample jars. Observations of egg condition, embryo development, and egg shell thickness (digital micrometer; plus or minus 0.01 mm) were recorded. Sample jars were then sealed and stored at -20 degrees Celsius until overnight shipment on dry ice to USGS-CERC for processing and chemical analyses. Samples were maintained frozen at USGS-CERC until processing. All samples were maintained under chain of custody protocols. 2015 Egg content and nestling tissue samples were analyzed individually for percent lipid, percent moisture, and concentrations of PCB congeners, PCDDs, PCDFs, Hg, and Pb if there was sufficient sample mass. The full suite of analyses required a minimum of 1.0 gram wet weight of tissue. If the sample had less than the required weight, analyses of PCB congeners, lipid content, PCDDs, PCDFs, and non-ortho PCB congeners were prioritized over analyses of moisture, Hg, or Pb. Tissue processing included the removal of feet and beaks from nestlings, and manual grinding and homogenization. Egg contents or nestlings (beaks and feet removed) were thawed, weighed, manually homogenized by chopping with titanium knives, ground in a blender, and then split for organic (PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs) and inorganic analyses (Hg, Pb). Sample splits were analyzed on a wet weight basis for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs, and lipids; sample splits for percent moisture, Pb, or Hg determinations were lyophilized and analyzed on a dry weight basis. Moisture was determined by weight loss on lyophilization; however, moisture content could not be determined for low weight samples due to the use of large, heavy sample containers and a desire to mitigate potential contamination by sample overhandling. 2016 Splits for organic analyses were dried overnight on the benchtop by mixing the wet tissue with three times the (wet) sample weight of diatomaceous earth (Hydromatrix, Agilent Technologies; pre-washed and pre-baked at 450 degrees Celsius). Dried, homogenized samples were then spiked with carbon-13 labeled surrogate standards for dioxins/furans (Wellington Labs 1613LCS, Guelph, Ontario), non-ortho PCBs (PCB 77, PCB 81, PCB 126, PCB 169) and congener PCBs (Wellington Labs EC9605-SS), and extracted by pressurized liquid extraction (ASE-200, Dionex/Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) with a 95:5 mixture of dichloromethane:acetone at 100 degrees Celsius and 10,342 kiloPascals for two cycles. Extracts were diluted to 30 milliliters in dichloromethane. An aliquot was removed for separate percent lipid determination, and the remainder was then dried with sodium sulfate and evaporated to 0.25 milliliters under a stream of high purity nitrogen. Lipid was removed from the samples using flash column (Ecospheres, Agilent, and Bio-Beads SX-3, Bio-Rad) gel permeation chromatography (GPC). Following lipid removal, samples were subjected to further cleanup using basic alumina solid phase extraction (SPE; pH 9.7, Sorbtech, Norcross, GA) and reactive sulfuric acid silica gel according to Peterman et al. (2006). Two fractions were collected from the alumina; the first fraction (#1) was a bulk congener PCB fraction, and the second fraction (#2) was a non-ortho PCB/PCDD/PCDF fraction. Fraction #2 was processed with a porous graphitic high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC-PGC) fractionation column to separate the non-ortho PCBs from the PCDDs/PCDFs (Echols et al. 1997; Echols et al. 1998). The bulk congener PCBs were collected in the first alumina fraction and were not applied to the carbon fractionation system. The alumina fractionation was completed before carbon fractionation to limit the loading of excessive PCBs onto the HPLC-PGC fractionation system (Echols et al. 1998). 2016 Fraction #1 (bulk PCB congeners) was analyzed by low-resolution gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) on benchtop systems (Voyager, Thermo Finnegan LLC, San Jose, CA; ISQ, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA) by selected ion monitoring (SIM); similar to USEPA Method 1668 (PCBs; USEPA 1997) and Method 1613 (dioxins/furans; USEPA 1994). An instrumental internal standard, carbon-13 labeled PCB 155 (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, Tewksbury, MA), was added to all sample vials. Extracts (3 microliters) were injected directly onto the GC column (30 meters x 0.18 millimeters internal diameter x 0.1 micometer film thickness MEGA-5 MS, MEGA, Legnano, Italy). Calibration of congeners was against certified reference materials C-CS-01, C-CS-02, C-CS-03, C-CS-04, and C-CS-05 (Accustandard, New Haven, CT) with carbon-13 surrogates (standard solution EC9605-SS; Wellington Laboratories) and individual Aroclor standards. Identification of PCBs was determined by retention time and selected ion monitoring of two ions. 2016 Non-ortho PCBs and PCDDs/PCDFs were analyzed according to Peterman et al. (1996) using a high resolution dual sector mass spectrometer (Autospec M, Waters Corporation, Milford, MA) with an Agilent 6890N gas chromatograph (Palo Alto, CA) and a 30 meter x 0.15 millimeter internal diameter x 0.1 micrometer film thickness 5 percent phenyl, 95 percent methyl polysiloxane crossbonded column (MEGA-5 MS, MEGA, Legnano, Italy). Non-ortho PCB congeners (IUPAC PCB 81, PCB 77, PCB 126, and PCB 169) were determined by retention time and selected ion monitoring of two ions, including a quantification ion and a confirmation ion, which was used to calculate an ion ratio. The PCDDs/PCDFs calibration standards were purchased from Wellington Laboratories (EPA-1613CVS), and target compounds were determined by retention time and selected ion monitoring of two ions, including a quantification ion and a confirmation ion, which was used to calculate an ion ratio. Results for these analytes are reported to 2 significant digits or 4 decimal places, whichever comes first. 2016 For all other PCB congeners, data were collected using Thermo XCalibur (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) and processed using Masslynx software in Targetlynx (Waters Corporation, Milford, MA). The non-ortho PCB ion response data and the PCDD/PCDF ion response data were directly collected and processed by the MassLynx software package; results were quantified by TargetLynx. Data processing included an evaluation of the ion responses for meeting the retention time and the ion ratio criteria, and quantification of the ion response with the calibration curve of standards. Data were background corrected, method detection limit censored, and rounded to two significant figures using Microsoft Excel. Results for these analytes are reported to 2 significant digits. 2016 The PCB concentrations were lipid normalized as the proportion of the concentration (wet weight basis) to the percent lipid (Hebert and Keenleyside 1995). In other words, the tissue-based concentration was divided by the lipid concentration (percent lipid/100); normalization processes are well established for lipophilic contaminants such as PCBs. Lipids are reported to 2 decimal places or 3 significant digits, whichever comes first. 2016 Quality control measures included verification of the congener PCB standards against a certified reference solution, and the use of NIST-traceable calibration, verification, and internal standard solutions. Recoveries were generally acceptable for the method. It should be noted that the instrument calibration ranges were designed to cover very low to as great as possible concentrations (i.e., coverage of the entire the linear range of the instrumentation) so that the congener PCB concentrations in the samples, which were unknown until analyzed, would fall within the calibration range. However, some sample concentrations were found to be above the upper calibration range during this study. Affected samples were diluted in auto-sample vials in isooctane solvent, to bring the responses into the calibration range. In some cases, a few congeners (typically PCB 153, PCB 118, PCB 101, PCB 110, PCB 99, and PCB 178) remained just above the maximum calibration range despite sample dilution, so the data system did not calculate a concentration. In other words, the congener PCB ion response remained above the greatest calibration standard for that congener. Unfortunately, there was insufficient sample volume to analyze additional dilutions; therefore, concentrations for affected congeners were estimated using a linear fit procedure in the TargetLynx software. Estimates were made only for compounds that had been positively detected and identified, passed the SIM ion ratio criteria, and for which the chromatography package was unable to quantify with the primary quadratic fit of the calibrations for the congeners. Affected congeners were re-quantified by the TargetLynx software and the estimated concentration was flagged with an “E” data qualifier, indicating the value is an estimate. Estimated values were used as provided, without consideration of associated error, in the determination of total PCBs and the statistical analyses. 2016 Homogenized egg content, nestling, and egg shell samples intended for Hg and Pb analyses were lyophilized for determination of percent moisture (by weight loss on drying). However, moisture content could not be determined for low weight samples due to the use of large, heavy sample containers and a desire to mitigate potential contamination by sample overhandling. 2016 Concentrations of Hg in egg contents and nestlings were measured on a dry weight basis by direct Hg analyzer (DMA-80, Milestone Scientific, Shelton, CT) using a method similar to USEPA Method 7473 (USEPA 1998); Hg results were censored at the method limit of detection (LOD) and are reported to 3 significant digits or 2 decimal places, whichever comes first. Caution is recommended when using results above the LOD but below a limit of identification (LOID) or limit of quantification (LOQ). 2016 Egg shells and nestling tissues were analyzed for Pb on a dry weight basis using inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) following microwave-assisted sample digestion. These methods were similar to USEPA Method 6020B (USEPA 2014) and USEPA Method 3050B (USEPA 1996), respectively. The digestion method was selected to reflect the environmentally available fraction of Pb in the tissues. The approach is not considered a total digestion and generally provides an incomplete recovery of elements associated with silica. The egg shell samples were lyophilized as received from personnel; shells were not washed to remove excess yolk or albumin transferred to the surface during separation. Results were censored at the method limit of quantification (LOQ) and are reported to 3 significant digits or 2 decimal places, whichever comes first. 2016 Laboratory quality control included the use of National Institute of Standards and Technology-traceable calibration standards, second source calibration verification standards, laboratory control samples, certified reference materials (CRMs), and analytical duplicates and spikes. Results for quality control samples were within the expected ranges for the methods. 2016 both Tissue samples (egg contents, egg shells, nestlings) were field-collected from the study area and returned to the laboratory for further processing and analysis following established methods. Collection events were made during the 2014 and 2015 breeding seasons along the Choccolocco Creek and Snow Creek riparian corridors. This data release covers only the laboratory-based measurements of PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs, Pb, Hg, and moisture in tissues (egg contents, nestlings, egg shells) performed by USGS at the Columbia Environmental Research Center (USGS-CERC). Anniston_Avian_Chemistry Tab delimited text (.txt) file containing measured concentrations of PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs, Pb, Hg, percent lipid, and percent moisture in avian samples collected along the Snow Creek and Choccolocco Creek corridors and from the Talladega National Forest. Note that the file can be opened in Excel or similar spreadsheet programs but the user should import columns in TEXT format to preserve significant digits. Producer defined CERC_ID A unique numeric identifier assigned to each sample upon arrival at USGS-CERC to ensure traceability. Producer defined Custom sample identifier assigned to the sample by the analytical laboratory Field_ID A unique alphanumeric identifier assigned to the sample by field personnel upon collection. Producer defined Custom sample identifier assigned to the sample by field personnel Jar_No A unique number assigned to the individual sample jar, assigned by field personnel when packaging the samples for shipment to USGS-CERC. Producer defined 1 481 Sample_Type The type of avian sample being analyzed. Producer defined Egg contents The sample was comprised of egg contents. Producer defined Egg shell The sample was comprised of egg shell. Producer defined Nestling The sample was comprised of nestling tissue. Producer defined Species The species of bird from which the SAMPLE_TYPE was obtained. Producer defined Carolina Wren The sample was identified as a Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus). Taxonomic Serial No.: 178581. Producer defined Eastern Bluebird The sample was identified as an Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis). Taxonomic Serial No.: 179801. Producer defined Carolina Chickadee The sample was identified as a Carolina Chickadee (Poecile carolinensis). Taxonomic Serial No.: 554383. Producer defined Tufted Titmouse The sample was identified as a Tufted Titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor). Taxonomic Serial No.: 554138. Producer defined Brown-headed Cowbird The sample was identified as a Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater). Taxonomic Serial No.: 179112. Producer defined Barn Swallow The sample was identified as a Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica). Taxonomic Serial No.: 178448. Producer defined Cliff Swallow The sample was identified as a Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota). Taxonomic Serial No.: 178455. Producer defined Date A representation of time in which the smallest unit of measure is a day. The value is expressed in YYYYMMDD and represents the date when the sample was collected. Numeric Producer defined 20140401 20150717 YYYYMMDD Site_Type The type of area from which the sample was collected. Producer defined Assessment The sample was collected from a contaminated assessment area downstream from the former Anniston PCB manufacturing facility. Producer defined Reference The sample was collected from a reference area in the Talladega National Forest; this area has no known inputs of PCB or other contamination. Producer defined EA The exposure area from which the sample was collected. Producer defined EA-1 The sample was collected from the Anniston PCB Exposure Area 1. Exposure Area EA-1 was closest to the Anniston facility (i.e., most upstream) and consisted of Snow Creek between the Hamric Drive Bridge and the I-20 bridge (Oxford, AL). Producer defined EA-2 The sample was collected from the Anniston PCB Exposure Area 2. Exposure Area EA-2 was downstream of Exposure Area EA-1, and consisted of Snow Creek south of the I-20 Bridge and its confluence with Chocolocco Creek, and the portion of Chocolocco Creek north of Friendship Bridge Road and downstream of GPS coordinates 33.600378, -85.813705 (latitude, longitude in decimal degrees), in Oxford, AL. Producer defined EA-3 The sample was collected from the Anniston PCB Exposure Area 3. Exposure Area EA-3 consisted of the portion of Chocolocco Creek between Friendship Bridge Road and the Highway 21 bridge (Oxford, AL). This exposure area was downstream from Exposure Areas EA-1 and EA-2, but upstream of EA-4. Producer defined EA-4 The sample was collected from the Anniston PCB Exposure Area 4. Exposure Area EA-4 was furthest downstream, located along Choccolocco Creek downstream of the Highway 21 bridge (Oxford, AL). Producer defined NA The sample was collected from the study reference area in the Talladega National Forest. Producer defined Nestbox_ID A unique identifier assigned to each nestbox by field personnel Producer defined Custom identifier assigned to the nestbox Lat_DD Geographic coordinate that specifies the north-south position of a point on the Earth's surface where the sample was collected. Presented as the WGS84 datum; reported in decimal degrees. Numeric Producer defined 33.58076667 33.79141667 decimal degrees Long_DD Geographic coordinate that specifies the east-west position of a point on the Earth's surface where the sample was collected. Presented as the WGS84 datum; reported in decimal degrees. Numeric Producer defined -85.86176667 -85.55716667 decimal degrees Analyte The common name of the analyte or parameter measured by USGS-CERC. International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) names and Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers (CASRN) are provided as appropriate. Producer defined PCB 1 The analyte was PCB 1 (IUPAC name 2-Chlorobiphenyl; CASRN 2051-60-7) Producer defined PCB 2 The analyte was PCB 2 (IUPAC name 3-Chlorobiphenyl; CASRN 2051-61-8) Producer defined PCB 4_10 The analytes were PCB 4 and PCB 10 (IUPAC names 2,2'-Dichlorobiphenyl and 2,6-Dichlorobiphenyl, respectively; CASRNs 13029-08-8 and 33146-45-1, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 7_9 The analytes were PCB 7 and PCB 9 (IUPAC names 2,4-Dichlorobiphenyl and 2,5-Dichlorobiphenyl, respectively; CASRNs 33284-50-3 and 34883-39-1, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 6 The analyte was PCB 6 (IUPAC name 2,3'-Dichlorobiphenyl; CASRN 25569-80-6) Producer defined PCB 5 The analyte was PCB 5 (IUPAC name 2,3-Dichlorobiphenyl; CASRN 16605-91-7) Producer defined PCB 8 The analyte was PCB 8 (IUPAC name 2,4'-Dichlorobiphenyl; CASRN 34883-43-7) Producer defined PCB 14 The analyte was PCB 14 (IUPAC name 3,5-Dichlorobiphenyl; CASRN 34883-41-5) Producer defined PCB 12 The analyte was PCB 12 (IUPAC name 3,4-Dichlorobiphenyl; CASRN 2974-92-7) Producer defined PCB 13 The analyte was PCB 13 (IUPAC name 3,4'-Dichlorobiphenyl; CASRN 2974-90-5) Producer defined PCB 19 The analyte was PCB 19 (IUPAC name 2,2',6-Trichlorobiphenyl; CASRN 38444-73-4) Producer defined PCB 18 The analyte was PCB 18 (IUPAC name 2,2',5-Trichlorobiphenyl; CASRN 37680-65-2) Producer defined PCB 17 The analyte was PCB 17 (IUPAC name 2,2',4-Trichlorobiphenyl; CASRN 37680-66-3) Producer defined PCB 24_27 The analytes were PCB 24 and PCB 27 (IUPAC names 2,3,6-Trichlorobiphenyl and 2,3',6-Trichlorobiphenyl, respectively; CASRNs 55702-45-9 and 38444-76-7, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 16 The analyte was PCB 16 (IUPAC name 2,2',3-Trichlorobiphenyl; CASRN 38444-78-9) Producer defined PCB 32 The analyte was PCB 32 (IUPAC name 2,4',6-Trichlorobiphenyl; CASRN 38444-77-8) Producer defined PCB 34 The analyte was PCB 34 (IUPAC name 2,3',5'-Trichlorobiphenyl; CASRN 37680-68-5) Producer defined PCB 29 The analyte was PCB 29 (IUPAC name 2,4,5-Trichlorobiphenyl; CASRN 15862-07-4) Producer defined PCB 26_25 The analytes were PCB 26 and PCB 25 (IUPAC names 2,3',5-Trichlorobiphenyl and 2,3',4-Trichlorobiphenyl, respectively; CASRNs 38444-81-4 and 55712-37-3, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 28_31 The analytes were PCB 28 and PCB 31 (IUPAC names 2,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl and 2,4',5-Trichlorobiphenyl, respectively; CASRNs 7012-37-5 and 16606-02-3, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 33_20 The analytes were PCB 33 and PCB 20 (IUPAC names 2,3',4'-Trichlorobiphenyl and 2,3,3'-Trichlorobiphenyl, respectively; CASRNs 38444-86-9 and 38444-84-7, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 22 The analyte was PCB 22 (IUPAC name 2,3,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl; CASRN 38444-85-8) Producer defined PCB 54 The analyte was PCB 54 (IUPAC name 2,2',6,6'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 15968-05-5) Producer defined PCB 53 The analyte was PCB 53 (IUPAC name 2,2',5,6'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 41464-41-9) Producer defined PCB 51 The analyte was PCB 51 (IUPAC name 2,2',4,6'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 68194-04-7) Producer defined PCB 45 The analyte was PCB 45 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,6-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 70362-45-7) Producer defined PCB 46 The analyte was PCB 46 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,6'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 41464-47-5) Producer defined PCB 69 The analyte was PCB 69 (IUPAC name 2,3',4,6-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 60233-24-1) Producer defined PCB 73 The analyte was PCB 73 (IUPAC name 2,3',5',6-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 74338-23-1) Producer defined PCB 52 The analyte was PCB 52 (IUPAC name 2,2',5,5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 35693-99-3) Producer defined PCB 49 The analyte was PCB 49 (IUPAC name 2,2',4,5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 41464-40-8) Producer defined PCB 48_75_47 The analytes were PCB 48, PCB 75, and PCB 47 (IUPAC names 2,2',4,5-Tetrachlorobiphenyl, 2,4,4',6-Tetrachlorobiphenyl, and 2,2',4,4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl, respectively; CASRNs 70362-47-9, 32598-12-2, and 2437-79-8, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 44_59 The analytes were PCB 443 and PCB 59 (IUPAC names 2,2',3,5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl and 2,3,3',6-Tetrachlorobiphenyl, respectively; CASRNs 41464-39-5 and 74472-33-6, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 42 The analyte was PCB 42 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 36559-22-5) Producer defined PCB 71_41 The analytes were PCB 71 and PCB 41 (IUPAC names 2,3',4',6-Tetrachlorobiphenyl and 2,2',3,4-Tetrachlorobiphenyl, respectively; CASRNs 41464-46-4 and 52663-59-9, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 64 The analyte was PCB 64 (IUPAC name 2,3,4',6-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-58-8) Producer defined PCB 40 The analyte was PCB 40 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 38444-93-8) Producer defined PCB 63 The analyte was PCB 63 (IUPAC name 2,3,4',5-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 74472-34-7) Producer defined PCB 67 The analyte was PCB 67 (IUPAC name 2,3',4,5-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 73575-53-8) Producer defined PCB 74 The analyte was PCB 74 (IUPAC name 2,4,4',5-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 32690-93-0) Producer defined PCB 70 The analyte was PCB 70 (IUPAC name 2,3',4',5-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 32598-11-1) Producer defined PCB 66 The analyte was PCB 66 (IUPAC name 2,3',4,4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 32598-10-0) Producer defined PCB 56_60 The analytes were PCB 56 and PCB 60 (IUPAC names 2,3,3',4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl and 2,3,4,4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl, respectively; CASRNs 41464-43-1 and 33025-41-1, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 104 The analyte was PCB 104 (IUPAC name 2,2',4,6,6'-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 56558-16-8) Producer defined PCB 103 The analyte was PCB 103 (IUPAC name 2,2',4,5',6-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 60145-21-3) Producer defined PCB 100 The analyte was PCB 100 (IUPAC name 2,2',4,4',6-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 39485-83-1) Producer defined PCB 93 The analyte was PCB 93 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,5,6-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 73575-56-1) Producer defined PCB 95 The analyte was PCB 95 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,5',6-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 38379-99-6) Producer defined PCB 91 The analyte was PCB 91 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,4',6-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 68194-05-8) Producer defined PCB 92 The analyte was PCB 92 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,5,5'-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-61-3) Producer defined PCB 84 The analyte was PCB 84 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',6-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-60-2) Producer defined PCB 90 The analyte was PCB 90 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,4',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 68194-07-0) Producer defined PCB 101 The analyte was PCB 101 (IUPAC name 2,2',4,5,5'-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 37680-73-2) Producer defined PCB 99 The analyte was PCB 99 (IUPAC name 2,2',4,4',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 38380-01-7) Producer defined PCB 119 The analyte was PCB 2 (IUPAC name 2,3',4,4',6-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 56558-17-9) Producer defined PCB 83 The analyte was PCB 83 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 60145-20-2) Producer defined PCB 97 The analyte was PCB 97 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,4',5'-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 41464-51-1) Producer defined PCB 117 The analyte was PCB 117 (IUPAC name 2,3,4',5,6-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 68194-11-6) Producer defined PCB 115 The analyte was PCB 115 (IUPAC name 2,3,4,4',6-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 74472-38-1) Producer defined PCB 87 The analyte was PCB 87 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,4,5'-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 38380-02-8) Producer defined PCB 85 The analyte was PCB 85 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,4,4'-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 65510-45-4) Producer defined PCB 110 The analyte was PCB 110 (IUPAC name 2,3,3',4',6-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 38380-03-9) Producer defined PCB 82 The analyte was PCB 82 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-62-4) Producer defined PCB 124 The analyte was PCB 124 (IUPAC name 2,3',4',5,5'-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 70424-70-3) Producer defined PCB 107_123 The analytes were PCB 107 and PCB 123 (IUPAC names 2,3,3',4',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl and 2,3',4,4',5'-Pentachlorobiphenyl, respectively; CASRNs 70424-68-9 and 65510-44-3, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 118 The analyte was PCB 118 (IUPAC name 2,3',4,4',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 31508-00-6) Producer defined PCB 114 The analyte was PCB 114 (IUPAC name 2,3,4,4',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 74472-37-0) Producer defined PCB 122 The analyte was PCB 122 (IUPAC name 2,3,3',4',5'-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 76842-07-4) Producer defined PCB 105 The analyte was PCB 105 (IUPAC name 2,3,3',4,4'-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 32598-14-4) Producer defined PCB 136 The analyte was PCB 136 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',6,6'-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 38411-22-2) Producer defined PCB 154 The analyte was PCB 154 (IUPAC name 2,2',4,4',5,6'-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 60145-22-4) Producer defined PCB 151 The analyte was PCB 151 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,5,5',6-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-63-5) Producer defined PCB 135_144 The analytes were PCB 135 and PCB 144 (IUPAC names 2,2',3,3',5,6'-Hexachlorobiphenyl and 2,2',3,4,5',6-Hexachlorobiphenyl, respectively; CASRNs 52744-13-5 and 68194-14-9, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 147 The analyte was PCB 147 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,4',5,6-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 68194-13-8) Producer defined PCB 149 The analyte was PCB 149 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,4',5',6-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 38380-04-0) Producer defined PCB 134 The analyte was PCB 134 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',5,6-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52704-70-8) Producer defined PCB 131_165 The analytes were PCB 131 and PCB 165 (IUPAC names 2,2',3,3',4,6-Hexachlorobiphenyl and 2,3,3',5,5',6-Hexachlorobiphenyl, respectively; CASRNs 61798-70-7 and 74472-46-1, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 146 The analyte was PCB 146 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,4',5,5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 51908-16-8) Producer defined PCB 153 The analyte was PCB 153 (IUPAC name 2,2',4,4',5,5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 35065-27-1) Producer defined PCB 132 The analyte was PCB 132 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,6'-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 38380-05-1) Producer defined PCB 141 The analyte was PCB 141 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,4,5,5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52712-04-6) Producer defined PCB 137 The analyte was PCB 137 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,4,4',5-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 35694-06-5) Producer defined PCB 130 The analyte was PCB 130 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-66-8) Producer defined PCB 164_163 The analytes were PCB 164 and PCB 163 (IUPAC names 2,3,3',4',5,6-Hexachlorobiphenyl and 2,3,3',4',5',6-Hexachlorobiphenyl, respectively; CASRNs 74472-44-9 and 74472-45-0, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 138_158 The analytes were PCB 138 and PCB 158 (IUPAC names 2,2',3,4,4',5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl and 2,3,3',4,4',6-Hexachlorobiphenyl, respectively; CASRNs 35065-28-2 and 74472-42-7, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 129 The analyte was PCB 129 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,5-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 55215-18-4) Producer defined PCB 128 The analyte was PCB 128 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,4'-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 38380-07-3) Producer defined PCB 167 The analyte was PCB 167 (IUPAC name 2,3',4,4',5,5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-72-6) Producer defined PCB 156 The analyte was PCB 156 (IUPAC name 2,3,3',4,4',5-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 38380-08-4) Producer defined PCB 157 The analyte was PCB 157 (IUPAC name 2,3,3',4,4',5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 69782-90-7) Producer defined PCB 179 The analyte was PCB 179 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',5,6,6'-Heptachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-64-6) Producer defined PCB 176 The analyte was PCB 176 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,6,6'-Heptachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-65-7) Producer defined PCB 178 The analyte was PCB 178 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',5,5',6-Heptachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-67-9) Producer defined PCB 175 The analyte was PCB 175 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,5',6-Heptachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 40186-70-7) Producer defined PCB 187 The analyte was PCB 187 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,4',5,5',6-Heptachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-68-0) Producer defined PCB 183 The analyte was PCB 183 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,4,4',5',6-Heptachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-69-1) Producer defined PCB 185 The analyte was PCB 185 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,4,5,5',6-Heptachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52712-05-7) Producer defined PCB 174 The analyte was PCB 174 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,5,6'-Heptachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 38411-25-5) Producer defined PCB 177 The analyte was PCB 177 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,5',6'-Heptachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-70-4) Producer defined PCB 171 The analyte was PCB 171 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,4',6-Heptachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-71-5) Producer defined PCB 173 The analyte was PCB 173 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,5,6-Heptachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 68194-16-1) Producer defined PCB 172 The analyte was PCB 172 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,5,5'-Heptachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-74-8) Producer defined PCB 193_180 The analytes were PCB 193 and PCB 180 (IUPAC names 2,3,3',4',5,5',6-Heptachlorobiphenyl and 2,2',3,4,4',5,5'-Heptachlorobiphenyl, respectively ; CASRNs 69782-91-8 and 35065-29-3, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 191 The analyte was PCB 191 (IUPAC name 2,3,3',4,4',5',6-Heptachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 74472-50-7) Producer defined PCB 190_170 The analytes were PCB 190 and PCB 170 (IUPAC names 2,3,3',4,4',5,6-Heptachlorobiphenyl and 2,2',3,3',4,4',5-Heptachlorobiphenyl, respectively ; CASRNs 41411-64-7 and 35065-30-6, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 189 The analyte was PCB 189 (IUPAC name 2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-Heptachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 39635-31-9) Producer defined PCB 202 The analyte was PCB 202 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',5,5',6,6'-Octachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 2136-99-4) Producer defined PCB 201 The analyte was PCB 201 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,5',6,6'-Octachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 40186-71-8) Producer defined PCB 197 The analyte was PCB 197 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,4',6,6'-Octachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 33091-17-7) Producer defined PCB 200 The analyte was PCB 200 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,5,6,6'-Octachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-73-7) Producer defined PCB 199 The analyte was PCB 199 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,4',6,6'-Octachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 33091-17-7) Producer defined PCB 203_196 The analytes were PCB 203 and PCB 196 (IUPAC names 2,2',3,4,4',5,5',6-Octachlorobiphenyl and 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6'-Octachlorobiphenyl, respectively; CASRNs 52663-76-0 and 42740-50-1, respectively). These PCBs are quantified together because the compounds cannot be separated by the methods (i.e., co-elution). Producer defined PCB 195 The analyte was PCB 195 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6-Octachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-78-2) Producer defined PCB 194 The analyte was PCB 194 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5'-Octachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 35694-08-7) Producer defined PCB 205 The analyte was PCB 205 (IUPAC name 2,3,3',4,4',5,5',6-Octachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 74472-53-0) Producer defined PCB 208 The analyte was PCB 208 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6,6'-Nonachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-77-1) Producer defined PCB 207 The analyte was PCB 207 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6,6'-Nonachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 52663-79-3) Producer defined PCB 206 The analyte was PCB 206 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6-Nonachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 40186-72-9) Producer defined PCB 209 The analyte was PCB 209 (IUPAC name Decachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 2051-24-3) Producer defined PCB 81 The analyte was PCB 81 (IUPAC name 3,4,4',5-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 70362-50-4) Producer defined PCB 77 The analyte was PCB 77 (IUPAC name 3,3',4,4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 32598-13-3) Producer defined PCB 126 The analyte was PCB 126 (IUPAC name 3,3',4,4',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 57465-28-8) Producer defined PCB 169 The analyte was PCB 169 (IUPAC name 3,3',4,4',5,5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 32774-16-6) Producer defined PCB 131 The analyte was PCB 131 (IUPAC name 2,2',3,3',4,6-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 61798-70-7) Producer defined PCB 165 The analyte was PCB 165 (IUPAC name 2,3,3',5,5',6-Hexachlorobiphenyl; CASRN 74472-46-1) Producer defined OCDD The analyte was OCDD (IUPAC name Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; CASRN 3268-87-9) Producer defined OCDF The analyte was OCDF (IUPAC name Octachlorodibenzofuran; CASRN 39001-02-0) Producer defined PCDD 54 The analyte was PCDD 54 (IUPAC name 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; CASRN 40321-76-4) Producer defined PCDD 66 The analyte was PCDD 66 (IUPAC name 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; CASRN 39227-28-6) Producer defined PCDD 67 The analyte was PCDD 67 (IUPAC name 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; CASRN 57653-85-7) Producer defined PCDD 70 The analyte was PCDD 70 (IUPAC name 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; CASRN 19408-74-3) Producer defined PCDD 73 The analyte was PCDD 73 (IUPAC name 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; CASRN 35822-46-9) Producer defined PCDF 114 The analyte was PCDF 114 (IUPAC name 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran; CASRN 57117-31-4) Producer defined PCDF 118 The analyte was PCDF 118 (IUPAC name 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran; CASRN 70648-26-9) Producer defined PCDF 121 The analyte was PCDF 121 (IUPAC name 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran; CASRN 57117-44-9) Producer defined PCDF 130 The analyte was PCDF 130 (IUPAC name 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran; CASRN 60851-34-5) Producer defined PCDF 124 The analyte was PCDF 124 (IUPAC name 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran; CASRN 72918-21-9) Producer defined PCDF 131 The analyte was PCDF 131 (IUPAC name 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran; CASRN 67562-39-4) Producer defined PCDF 134 The analyte was PCDF 134 (IUPAC name 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran; CASRN 55673-89-7) Producer defined PCDF 94 The analyte was PCDF 94 (IUPAC name 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran; CASRN 57117-41-6) Producer defined TCDD The analyte was TCDD (IUPAC name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; CASRN 1746-01-6) Producer defined TCDF The analyte was TCDF (IUPAC name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran; CASRN 51207-31-9) Producer defined Hg The analyte was Hg (IUPAC name Mercury; CASRN 7439-97-6) Producer defined Pb The analyte was Pb (IUPAC name Lead; CASRN 7439-92-1) Producer defined Moisture The analyte was percent moisture, measured as sample weight loss on lyophilization. Producer defined Lipid The analyte was percent lipid, measured determined during analyses of PCBs, PCDDs, and PCDFs. Producer defined Units The units of measure and basis on which the analytical RESULT is reported. Text Producer defined micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis The results are reported in units of micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined milligrams per kilogram on a dry weight basis The results are reported in units of milligrams per kilogram on a dry weight basis. Producer defined percent The results are reported as a percent. Producer defined Result The measured concentration of the specified ANALYTE in the specified UNITS. Producer defined LTMDL 0.0001 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.0001 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.0004 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.0004 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.0005 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.0005 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.0007 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.0007 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.0008 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.0008 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.0010 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.0010 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.0011 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.0011 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.0015 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.0015 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.0020 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.0020 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.0025 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.0025 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.0030 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.0030 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.0050 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.0050 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.0060 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.0060 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.010 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.010 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.019 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.019 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.025 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.025 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.026 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.026 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.040 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.040 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.07 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.07 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.09 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.09 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.10 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.10 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.11 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.11 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.12 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.12 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.13 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.13 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.14 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.14 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.15 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.15 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.16 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.16 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.17 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.17 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.18 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.18 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.19 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.19 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.20 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.20 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.21 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.21 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.22 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.22 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.23 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.23 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.24 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.24 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.25 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.25 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.26 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.26 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.27 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.27 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.28 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.28 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.30 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.30 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.32 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.32 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.33 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.33 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.35 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.35 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.36 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.36 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.37 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.37 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.39 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.39 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.40 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.40 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.41 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.41 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.42 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.42 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.43 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.43 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.44 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.44 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.46 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.46 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.47 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.47 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.48 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.48 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.49 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.49 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.50 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.50 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.51 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.51 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.52 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.52 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.53 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.53 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.54 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.54 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.55 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.55 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.56 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.56 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.59 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.59 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.63 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.63 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.64 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.64 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.72 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.72 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.80 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.80 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.81 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.81 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.82 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.82 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.86 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.86 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.90 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.90 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.91 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.91 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.93 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.93 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 0.98 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 0.98 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTMDL 1.4 The measured concentration was below the method detection limit of 1.4 micrograms per kilogram on a wet weight basis. Producer defined LTLOQ 0.04 The measured concentration was below the method limit of quantification of 0.04 milligrams per kilogram on a dry weight basis. Producer defined LTLOQ 0.07 The measured concentration was below the method limit of quantification of 0.07 milligrams per kilogram on a dry weight basis. Producer defined LTLOD 0.06 The measured concentration was below the method limit of detection of 0.06 milligrams per kilogram on a dry weight basis. Producer defined LTLOD 0.07 The measured concentration was below the method limit of detection of 0.07 milligrams per kilogram on a dry weight basis. Producer defined LTLOD 0.08 The measured concentration was below the method limit of detection of 0.08 milligrams per kilogram on a dry weight basis. Producer defined LTLOD 0.1 The measured concentration was below the method limit of detection of 0.1 milligrams per kilogram on a dry weight basis. Producer defined 0.0001 87000 See UNITS attribute Add_Qual Any additional qualifiers describing the data quality of the result in terms of issues with methodological issues encountered during the laboratory analyses. Producer defined NA No additional data qualifiers to add. Producer defined LR The carbon-13 surrogate for this analyte had less than 25 percent recovery. Producer defined HR The carbon-13 surrogate for this analyte had greater than 125 percent recovery. Producer defined DRY The sample extract went dry at one step in the cleanup. Producer defined BP The sample was inadvertently dropped onto a stainless steel balance pan during transfer from the storage container to a microwave digestion tube during the lead (Pb) analysis; there was insufficient sample weight for re-analysis on a separate aliquot. A significant contribution of Pb to the result from the balance pan is unlikely but cannot be ruled out. Producer defined E The result is an estimate because the measured concentration was above the calibration range and there was insufficient sample volume for re-analysis with dilution. Producer defined E_HR The result is an estimate because the measured concentration was above the calibration range and there was insufficient sample volume for re-analysis with dilution. Additionally, the carbon-13 surrogate for this analyte had greater than 125 percent recovery. Producer defined AFS Recoveries of PCB 105, PCB 156, and PCB 157 were less than anticipated (nominal =100 percent) due to these congeners having been split across two fractions on the alumina column. Producer defined IR20 The analyte concentration was not fully quantifiable because the ion ratio exceeded plus or minus 20 percent. Producer defined IR15 The analyte concentration was not fully quantifiable because the ion ratio exceeded plus or minus 15 percent. Producer defined E_IR20 The analyte concentration was not fully quantifiable because the ion ratio exceeded plus or minus 20 percent. Additionally, the result is an estimate because the measured concentration was above the calibration range and there was insufficient sample volume for re-analysis with dilution. Producer defined HR_IR20 The analyte concentration was not fully quantifiable because the ion ratio exceeded plus or minus 20 percent. Additionally, the carbon-13 surrogate for this analyte had greater than 125 percent recovery. Producer defined LR_IR20 The analyte concentration was not fully quantifiable because the ion ratio exceeded plus or minus 20 percent. Additionally, the carbon-13 surrogate for this analyte had less than 25 percent recovery. Producer defined DRY_IR15 The sample extract went dry at one step in cleanup. Additionally, the analyte concentration was not fully quantifiable because the ion ratio exceeded plus or minus 15 percent. Producer defined DRY_AFS The sample extract went dry at one step in cleanup. Additionally, recoveries of PCB 105, PCB 156, and PCB 157 were less than anticipated (nominal =100 percent) due to these congeners having been split across two fractions on the alumina column. Producer defined AFS_IR20 The analyte concentration was not fully quantifiable because the ion ratio exceeded plus or minus 20 percent. Additionally, recoveries of PCB 105, PCB 156, and PCB 157 were less than anticipated (nominal =100 percent) due to these congeners having been split across two fractions on the alumina column. Producer defined LOID The analyte concentration was above the method limit of detection but below the method limit of identification. Affected results may have greater associated uncertainty compared to results that are above the method limit of identification. Producer defined MQL The analyte concentration was above the method limit of detection but below the method limit of quantification. Affected results may have greater associated uncertainty compared to results that are above the method limit of quantification. Producer defined Meth_rep An indication of whether the result is for a sample that was a method replicate. Producer defined No The result is for a sample that was not a method replicate. Producer defined Yes The result is for a sub-sample that was a method replicate. Producer defined ScienceBase U.S. Geological Survey mailing and physical

Denver Federal Center, Building 810, Mail Stop 302

Denver CO 80225 United States 1-888-275-8747 sciencebase@usgs.gov Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data on any other system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. 20260505 CERC Data Manager U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center Natural Resource Data Manager mailing and physical

4200 New Haven Road

Columbia MO 65201 United States 573-875-5399 gs-mw-cerc_data_manager@usgs.gov Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998 Record created using USGS Metadata Wizard tool. (https://github.com/usgs/fort-pymdwizard)