P\&S HûS\e.
Sediment and Benthic Community
Assessment of the St. Marys River
April 2000
Ontario
Ministry of the
Environment
Sediment and Benthic Community
Assessment of the St. Marys River
Prepared by:
Allan Arthur
(under contract to Intergrated Explorations)
R.R. l.Stn.
Delhi, Ontario N4B 2W4
and
Peter B. Kauss
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Water Monitoring Section
125 Resources Road
Etobicoke, Ontario M9P 3V6
April 2000
Cette publication technique
n'est disponible qu'en anglais.
Copyright: Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2000
This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial
purposes with appropriate attribution.
©Printed on 50% recyeled paper
including 10% post-consumer fibre
ISBN 0-7794-0223-5
pros 408 IE
DISCLAIMER
The initial drafts of this report were prepared for the Ontario Ministr>' of the Environment as part
of a Ministry investigation of sediment quahty and benthic community health in the St. Marys
River.
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the Ministry of the Environment, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. The Ministry', however,
encourages the distribution of information and strongly supports technology transfer and
diffusion.
Any person wishing to republish all or part of this report should apply for permission to do so
fi-om the Water Monitoring Section, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch, Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, 125 Resources Road. Etobicoke. Ontario. M9P 3V6. Canada.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Eight stations in the upper St. Marys River, spanning a distance of about 40 km., were sampled
in 1992 by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Six of these stations were located in
Canadian waters, ranging from the furthest upstream in Point aux Pins Bay (upstream of the St.
Marys Falls), downstream to Little Lake George. The two stations in American waters were
located in Tannery Bay, also upstream of the Falls, and in Lake George. This study was part of a
continuing monitoring program of environmental quality in the St. Marys River. This report
provides the benthic invertebrate community, sediment chemistry and toxicity resuhs. A
comparative integrated analysis was undertaken to summarize data, and to investigate
relationships among stations and environmental parameters.
The major findings of this report are:
Sediments in the Algoma Slip were devoid of benthic invertebrates and were also acutely toxic in
laboratory sediment bioassays. Elevated concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) were found in these sediments and appear to be linked to the observed toxic impacts.
Statistical (i.e., ordination and cluster) analysis of the benthic invertebrate data identified three
groups among the seven remaining sampling stafions. These were identified as: Group I
(Tannery Bay); Group II (Lake George Channel and Lake George) and Group III (Points aux
Pins Bay, Little Lake George, Bellevue Marine Park and Lake George Chaimel).
Contaminants found at elevated concentrations in the St Marys River sediment samples included
arsenic, cyanide, heavy metals, solvent extractables (oils and greases) and PAHs. No
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). chlorinated phenols, chlorinated benzenes, organochlorine
pesficides, phenoxyacid herbicides or triazine herbicides were found in river sediments above
their respective analytical minimum reporting limits. Significant correlations were found among
sediment chemistry parameters within specific contaminant groups for metals, PAHs and dioxins
and furans. Principal components analysis was used to reduce the multivariate data sets to one or
two principal components for these parameter groups and for sediment particle size data. A
strong positive correlation was observed between total organic carbon (TOC) and PAH
concentrations in the sediments.
Discriminant fimction analysis using principal components derived from environmental variables
(as outlined above), discriminated among station groups derived from the benthic invertebrate
community data. Based on this analysis, PAHs, TOC and station depth appeared to be important
factors affecting benthic communities. Particle size, total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen
and calcium were also identified as environmental variables possibly influencing the benthic
communities. However, this conclusion must be interpreted cautiously in light of the inherent
limitations of the data. Spatial autocorrelation may be in part responsible for the observed
relationships.
Laboratory sediment bioassays with Hexagenia limbata nymphs and Chironomus tentons larvae
indicated toxicity in all sediments except those from the two stations upstream of St. Marys Falls
and Sault Ste. Marie point source discharges (i.e.. Point aux Pins Bay and Tannery Bay).
Bioassays using juvenile fathead minnows {Pimephales promelas) did not detect toxicity' in any
sediments. In general, the sediment toxicity results were in agreement with the benthic
invertebrate community and chemistry results. There were however, several apparent
exceptions, including:
• Concentrations of chromium exceeded the Provincial Aquatic Sediment Quality Severe
Effect Level (SEL) guideline in Tannery Bay sediments, but no toxicity or negative
effects on the benthic invertebrate community were apparent; and
• Sediments from stations in Bellevue Marine Park and Lake George Channel were more
closely associated in terms of toxicity^ test results than was predicted by benthic
invertebrate commimity or sediment chemistry information.
• Concentrations of copper, cadmium and fluorene exceeding Provincial Aquatic Sediment
Quality Lowest Effect Level (LEL) guidelines in Point aux Pins Bay were apparently not
toxic to benthic taxa, as indicated by the sediment bioassay results. Sediment toxicity
would therefore not appear to be an important factor contributing to the relatively low
richness and productivity of the benthic community at that station.
Good evidence exists to suggest that toxicity from contaminants in sediments is impacting
benthic communities at Bellevue Marine Park and in Lake George Channel. At the former,
where the highest degree of toxicity was observed, asellid isopods dominated the benthic
community, which may indicate a low relative sensitivity of this taxon to the effect of pollutants.
Based on comparisons of contaminant levels among sites, a specific contaminant and/or
environmental conditions could not be identified which could be related to the high degree of
toxicity observed for Bellevue Marine Park sediment.
Sublethal toxicity was observed in bioassays with the sediments from Little Lake George and
Lake George, and these stations may be slightly impacted by such effects, either alone or in
combination with organic enrichment. Most notably, the benthic community from Lake George
was indicative of effects associated with organic enrichment.
Benthic communities at a station in Lake George Channel just downstream of the East End
sewage treatment plant outfall exhibited characteristics of a classic organic enrichment model,
resulting in very low diversity and high abundance of a few pollution-tolerant species.
Comparison of benthos and sediment quality data with 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989 and 1990
surveys showed that benthos status appears to have changed little over the years. Concentrations
of a some sediment contaminants decreased over time; for others, the trend was variable, or
perhaps increasing in recent years. A decreasing tend was more evident at the Little Lake
George and Lake George than at further upstream stations, perhaps due to their more depositional
nature.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The study was proposed and designed by P.B. Kauss of the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment's Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch. Sampling was conducted from
the Ministry survey vessel Monitor VI (captained by Rick Savage), by crew chief Greg Hobson
and summer student Jim Joukema. Sediment analyses were completed by staff of the Ministry's
Laborator\' Sen.-ices Branch. Sediment bioassays were performed by the Ministr>''s Sediment
Testing Laboratory.
Benthic sorting and taxonomy was completed at the Integrated E.xplorations Laboratorv' in
Guelph. Ontano. under the direction of Al Melkic. with Wanda Cook as benthic invertebrate
taxonomist. This analysis and report were completed under contract to the Ontario Ministry of
the Environment, through funding provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The efforts of
Doug Ceiling and of Dr. John Kelso (Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Sault Ste. Marie. Ontario) in
arranging this support are greatly appreciated.
Review and comments on the initial draft report were provided by Rein Jaagumagi. Keith Somers
and Peter Kauss. A copy of the draft report was also provide to the St. Marys River Remedial
Action Plan in 1998 to assist in updating the status of the river.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DISCLAIMER i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 OBJECTIVES 1
3.0 METHODS 1
3.1 Field Methods 1
3.1.1 Field Measurements 3
3.1.2 Sediment Collection 3
3.1.3 Benthic Invertebrate Sample Preparation 3
3.1.4 Sediment Chemistry Sample Preparation 3
3. 1 .5 Sediment Bioassay Sample Preparation 3
3.2 Analytical Methods 4
3.2. 1 Benthic Invertebrates 4
3.2.2 Sediment Chemistry 5
3.2.3 Sediment Bioassays 6
3.3 Interpretive Framework 6
3.3. 1 Benthic Community Data Analysis 6
3.3.2 Chemistry Data Analysis 7
3.3.3 Toxicity Data Analysis 7
3.3.4 Integrated Analysis of Benthic Invertebrate, Sediment Chemistry
and Bioassay Data Sets 8
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 8
4. 1 Benthic Invertebrate Communities 8
4.1.1 Benthic Community Characteristics 12
4.1.2 Cluster and Principal Components Analysis 12
4.1.3 Indicator Species/ Associations 19
4.2 Sediment Chemistry 22
4.3 Laboratory Sediment Bioassays 34
4.4 Integrated Analysis 36
4.5 Sediment Quality and Benthic Community Trends 41
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 46
6.0 REFERENCES 49
7.0 TAXONOMIC REFERENCES 54
APPENDIX A Station Locations and Descriptions 56
APPENDIX B Benthic Invertebrate Data 58
APPENDIX C Sediment Quality Data 82
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page
1 Sediment and biological characteristics at sampling stations 9
2 Summary of sediment particle size composition at sampling stations 10
3 Mean relative abundance (as %) of taxa listed in order of dominance 13
4 Mean abundance, richness and indices of diversity and evenness
for benthic invertebrate communities 14
5 Groupings of sampling stations according to Cluster Analysis and PCA
results for benthic invertebrate community data 16
6 Concentrations of nutrients, metals and persistent organic contaminants in
sediments 23
7 Concentrations of GC/MS-identified extractable organics in sediments 28
8 Summary of sediment bioassay results for sediments 35
9 Pearson correlations between environmental variables and the first two
discriminant functions for the benthic invertebrate communities 37
10 Summary and interpretation of information provided by sediment
chemistry, toxicity and benthic invertebrate data 40
1 1 Comparison of St. Marys River sediment contaminant concentrations,
1985-1992 42
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title Page
1 St. Marys River sediment sampling stations in 1992 2
2 Summary' plot of sediment particle size PCA scores 11
3 Benthic invertebrate community characteristics 15
4 Dendrogram for Wards Minimum-Variance cluster analysis of stations
using Coefficient of Community for benthic invertebrates 17
5 Dendrogram for Wards Minimum-Variance cluster analysis of stations
using Bray-Curtis Coefficient for benthic invertebrates 18
6 Summary plot of PCA results for benthic invertebrate communities using
taxa presence-absence data 20
7 Summary plot of PCA results for benthic invertebrate communities using
log (x-l-1) abundance data 21
8 Concentrations of selected contaminants in sediments 26
9 Concentrations of selected contaminants in sediments 27
10 Summary- plot of PCA results for metals concentrations in sediments 31
11 Summary- plot of PCA results for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
concentrations in sediments 32
12 Summary plot of PCA results for polychlorinated dioxins and furans
concentrations in sediments 33
13 Sample cluster plots on the first two discriminant functions 38
14 Sediment quality trends at Station 87 in Little Lake George 43
15 Sediment quality trends (TOC-normalized) at Station 87 in Little
Lake George 44
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
CC Coefficient of Community
H' Shannon-Wiener Diversity index
LEL Lowest Effect Level (see PSQG)
OMOEE Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
OMOE Ontario Ministry of the Environment
p probability value
PAH(s) polynuclear aromatic (or polyaromatic) hydrocarbon(s)
PCA Principal Components Analysis
PSQG Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines
r regression factor
SEL Severe Effect Level (see PSQG)
TOC total organic carbon
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In late August 1992, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment collected grab surface sediment
samples as part of a continuing program of environmental monitormg of the St. Marys River
(Kauss, 1992). Eight stations, distributed along a 40 km length of the upper river, were sampled
for benthic invertebrate community analysis, chemical analysis and toxicity testing. The study
area and sampling locations are illustrated in Figure 1.
The following report provides the results and interpretation of the 1992 survey data to assess
sediment quality in the St. Marys River.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
The 1992 study was conducted to:
(i) update and enhance the Ministry's database on inorganic and organic contaminants in St.
Marys River surficial sediments at selected locations;
(ii) determine if present concentrations of sediment-associated contaminants are above
background and/or exceeding available criteria; and if so, determine if these levels
correlate with impairment of the benthic invertebrate community or with toxicity to
laboratory test organisms; and
(iii) identify inorganic and organic contaminants that are not routinely analyzed for but which
may be exerting a toxic influence on the sediment-dwelling invertebrates, thereby
delaying recovery of the benthic communities.
3.0 METHODS
3.1 Field Methods
The eight sampling locations extend from upstream of Sault Ste. Marie, to about 40 km
downstream in Lake George are (Fig. 1 ). These stations were selected on the basis of past survey
information (Burt et al, 1991; Kauss & Hamdy. 1991; Pope & Kauss, 1995), to provide an
update over a relatively large geographic area. Descriptions and coordinates are provided in
Appendix A.
1
fl)
E
0
as
Ml
e
t
es
3.1.1 Field Measurements
Prior to sediment sampling at each station, pH was measured just above (-15 cm) the sediment
surface using appropriate calibrated meter.
3.1.2 Sediment Collection
Three replicate samples of sediment were collected at each of the eight stations using a clean
(rinsed with HPLC grade hexane) stainless steel Ponar dredge of 0.05 m' sampling area. For
each of the three replicate samples required per station, the upper 10 cm of multiple grabs were
removed and placed in a large, clean (hexane-rinsed) stainless steel pan. Once 6 litres had been
obtained, the sediment was gently but thoroughly homogenized with a clean (hexane-rinsed)
stainless steel spoon. Redox potential (Eh) and pH were then determined using appropriate
calibrated meters.
3.1.3 Benthic Invertebrate Sample Preparation
One quarter by volume ( 1 .5 litres) of the above sediment homogenate was placed in a 200 pm
mesh Nitex bag and gently washed with river water. The retained meiobenthic material was then
transferred to a large plastic screw-capped jar and the organisms immediately preserved with
sufficient buffered (pH~7) formalin. Benthic invertebrate samples were stored at room
temperature until sorting, identification and enumeration of the organisms could be carried out.
3.1.4 Sediment Chemistry Sample Preparation
A small volume of the above sediment homogenate had been weighed (using a glass jar of
known volume) and the wet weight recorded to permit calculation of field density. Sediment was
then distributed among the prescribed sample jars or containers, preserved as required (OMOE,
1989a) and shipped to the Ministry Laboratory Services Branch in Etobicoke for analysis.
3.1.5 Sediment Bioassay Sample Preparation
The remaining sediment homogenate (about 3 litres) from each station replicate was placed in a
large, labeled food-grade polyethylene bag and, along with the other two replicates, put in a pre-
cleaned plastic pail and shipped to the Ministry Sediment Bioassessment laboratory in Etobicoke.
3.2 Analytical Methods
3. 2. 1 Benthic Invertebrates
All meiobenthic invertebrates were sorted from the sediment and debris of each sample. The
sediment remaining after sorting was checked for missed invertebrates using a 1 OX power stereo
microscope. This material was then preserved in the original sample jar and archived.
Subsampling
Taxa occurring in numbers exceeding 100 individuals per sample were subsampled, such that a
minimum of 200 specimens were collected. All samples were split into equal fractions of 1/8 or
1/16 in a flat sorting pan. As sorting proceeded, specimens were separated into general classes
for subsequent identification. During this process, the number of individuals within each class
were recorded to provide an inventory and to compare the class distribution in subsequent
subsamples. Usually, three to five subsamples were sorted and analyzed to provide some
measure of sub-sampling consistency within a sample. For each subsample, the left over
material was checked to assure that no more than 10 % of the invertebrates had been overlooked.
The remaining sample fraction (i.e., the entire sample) was subsequently sorted for those taxa
occurring at numbers less than 100 per sample. A detailed catalogue of sorted specimen vials
was maintained indicating the sample identification and the total fraction sorted for each class
vial in order to calculate total numbers per sample.
Invertebrate Identification
All benthic invertebrates, including all insects, crustaceans, molluscs, annelids, and roimd worms
were identified to the generic level. Late-instar/mature leeches, worms, stoneflies, Stenonema
and Hexagenia mayflies, dragonflies, Gammarus amphipods, adult beetles and bugs were
identified to the species level. Chironomids were identified to the genus, and where practical and
significant to the species level. Lepidopterans, ceratopogonids, empidids, muscids and
flatworms were identified to the family level only. Nemerteans and nematodes were only
identified to phylum. All invertebrates were identified according to the taxonomic keys listed in
Section 6.
Quality Assurance
During sorting, a log was kept for each sample, indicating the subsample fraction, the sorting
technician, the numbers of individuals per class and picking efficiency. Sorting efficiency and
accuracy was determined on 10% of all samples by an experienced sorter other than the original
technician. Subsampling precision was determined on 10% of all samples. A comparison of the
invertebrates sorted between subsamples of the same sample was performed to identify any
significant differences among subsamples. Where anomalies in benthic invertebrate distributions
among subsamples were identified, the entire sample was sorted.
Standard taxonomic keys were used; these have been listed in this report to provide continuity
with respect to ongoing name changes. A reference collection was prepared containing
representatives of each taxon identified. The specimens of the reference collection were
preserved in 80% ethanol in shell vials with a Teflon® stopper, and slide mounts with Canada
Balsam or CMCP. All vials and slides are labeled with the pertinent information (location, taxon
and date) and are catalogued.
i.2.2 Sediment Chemistry
Sediment samples were submitted to the Ministry Laboratory Services Branch in Etobicoke and
analyzed according to documented procedures (OMOE 1989b; OMOE,1990, OMOEE,1994a-c;
OMOEE 1995a-f; OMOEE, 1996; OMOEE, 1997a-c). Laboratory analysis of the 24 samples
(i.e., eight stations, each with three spatial replicates) included:
(i) Metals. Nutrients, etc.
Particle Size Distribution scan
Percent Moisture
Loss on Ignition
Total Organic Carbon
Nutrients (Ammonia, Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Phosphorus)
Major Ions (Calcium, Chloride, Magnesium)
Arsenic
Cyanide, available
Metals (Aluminum, Barium, Cadmium, Cobalt, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead,
Manganese, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Vanadium, Zinc)
(ii) Organics
Solvent Extractables (Oils & Greases)
Infrared Spectroscopy of unknowns
Poly cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons scan (16 compounds)
Chlorinated Industrial Organics scan (14 compounds)
Organochlorine Pesticides and total PCBs scan (21 compounds)
(iii) Other Organics
Phenoxy Acid Herbicides scan (7 compounds)
Speciated Phenols scan (18 compounds)
Triazine Herbicides scan (8 compounds)
Polychlorinated Dioxins and Furans scan (10 homolog groups & 17 isomers)
Extractable Organics by full scan Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
Replicate sediment samples were initially submitted only for analysis of parameter groups (i) and
(ii). Duplicate sediment samples were kept frozen at -IS^C until they could be analyzed for the
secondary organic scans listed above in group (iii). Due to sample load and cost limitations,
only one of the three sediment replicates collected per station was analyzed for polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofiirans (PCDDs and PCDFs) and Extractable Organics.
3. 2. 3 Sediment Bioassays
Sediment bioassays were conducted as described by Bedard et al. (1 992). These utilized
Hexagenia limbata nymphs, Chironomus tentons larvae and juvenile fathead minnows
{Pimephales promelas). Both acute (mortality) and chronic (growth) endpoints were measured
in the invertebrates; for the fish, only mortality was determined. Sediment obtained from Honey
Harbour in Georgian Bay (the source of the Hexagenia used in the bioassays) was also tested as a
"negative control" or background sediment.
3.3 Interpretive Framework
3. 3. 1 Benthic Community Data Analysis
A list of invertebrate taxa and their abundances per square meter was produced for each station
replicate. Summary statistics were tabulated for each taxon and each species, indicating the
number of occurrences (i.e., presences) and the total count of organisms per sample and station,
including station means and standard deviations. The following community descriptors were
calculated for each station:
• taxa richness (total number of taxa, mean emd standard deviation);
• total abundance per m^ for each station (mean and standard deviation);
• relative abundance and nvmierical dominance of taxa for each station;
• mean abundance of all major taxa (e.g., Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera,
Chironomidae, etc.); and
• Shannon-Wiener H' diversity index.
Potential differences in benthic invertebrate communities among stations were examined by:
• univariate ANOVAs comparing station means, followed by Tukey's multiple pairwise
comparisons using both raw- and log-transformed abundance data; and
• cluster analysis performed on presence/absence data using the coefficient of community
(CC) (Gauch, 1982) and on log-transformed species abundances using the Bray-Curtis
coefficient (Bray and Curtis, 1957). Cluster analyses were completed for individual
sample replicates and station means using Ward's Minimum Variance linkages. Cluster
analyses results were verified by comparison to principal components analysis (PCA)
using Systat (Wilkinson, 1990) and by subsequent plotting of derived PC scores for both
abundance and presence-absence data sets. Station groupings based on cluster analysis
and PCA results were employed for subsequent discriminant analysis on environmental
variables.
Benthic invertebrate communities at each of the eight stations were also examined to determine
the relative abundance of taxa with reported pollution tolerance characteristics. An attempt was
made, where information was available, to categorize the dominant taxa as either tolerant,
moderately tolerant ("meso"-tolerant), or intolerant of pollution. In general, the sensitivities of
benthic invertebrates to organic pollution and associated low dissolved oxygen conditions are
relatively well established. Information is available on the tolerance of some benthic fauna to
other types of pollutants (e.g., heavy metals), and in such instances this is indicated in the
presentation of the results.
3. 3. 2 Chemistry Data Analysis
All chemistry data was summarized as mean values for each station in tabular format. Mean
concentrations were compared with Provincial Sediment Chemistry Guidelines (Persaud et al.,
1993). Parameters having only non-detect values were not included in this summary and were
eliminated from further statistical analysis.
Principal components analysis was employed to identify common patterns among chemistry
variables and to derive principal components to reduce chemistry variables required for further
statistical analysis (i.e., correlation and discriminant function analysis using benthic invertebrate
results). Separate PCAs were completed for: (i) particle size; (ii) heavy metals; (iii) PAHs; and
(iv) PCDD/F homologs and isomers. Derived PCA scores for principal components accounting
for a significant portion of the total multivariate variation were plotted by station in order to
identify grouping patterns among stations based on the chemistry results.
3.3.3 Toxicity Data A nalysis
Station 52 sediments were not significantly different from the Honey Harbour negative control
sediments in these toxicity tests (Bedard & Petro, 1997) and were therefore used as "Reference"
sediments in this report.
The bioassay test results were summarized as mean (± standard deviation) values in tabular
format. Dunnett's t-test was used to determine statistical differences between the control and
reference sediments and the other sediments for percent mortality (p < 0.05). Station means were
compared by Tukey's HSD test for percent mortality (p < 0.05) and by planned comparisons
using the non-parametric LSMeans test for comparing body weight data (p < 0.01) (Bedard &
Petro, 1997).
3. 3. 4 Integrated Analysis ofBenthic Invertebrate. Sediment Chemistry and Bioassay Data Sets
Discriminant function analysis was used to investigate the relationships between stations based
on benthic invertebrate groupings and measured environmental variables, including sediment
chemistry. Variables included in the analysis were conventional parameters, particle size
principal components, metals principal components, and PAH principal components.
An assessment matrix table was constructed to provide a comparative summary and interpretive
framework for the combined results of benthic invertebrate community structure, sediment
chemistry and sediment bioassays. Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines (PSQGs) were
employed to compare sediment contamination levels among stations. Bioassay (toxicity) results
were compared to toxicity in reference (i.e., "clean") sediments to indicate potential effects. No
suitable control or reference station, either in a spatial or a temporal sense, was considered
appropriate for comparison of the benthic communities in this study. Therefore, "indicators" of
benthic community health identified using the methods described in Section 3.3.1 were
incorporated in the assessment framework in a comparative manner in order to identify possible
effects on benthic communities.
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Benthic Invertebrate Communities
A summary of relevant benthic habitat information for each sampling station is presented in
Table 1. The particle size composition of sediments is presented in Table 2. The particle size
data was reduced to two principal components: (i) the first PC accounting for 71 % of the
variation related to increasing sand content; and (ii) the second PC accounting for 21 % of the
remaining variation differentiated between those samples containing gravel and with increasing
clay content (Fig. 2). Six of the eight stations grouped together, whereas Stations 35 and 102
formed their own distinct groups due to their higher sand and clay content, respectively. Note
that only one sample in the entire data set (i.e., one replicate from Station 183) contained a small
amount of gravel, and this would appear to be an anomaly. Differences in (physical) habitat
conditions can strongly influence the composition and structure of benthic invertebrate
communities. The potential effect of habitat differences on observed benthic communities is
discussed in subsequent sections of this report.
o
-o
CQ
ic
•a
c
. . y.
■/. =« -i
2. 3
r.
^ (/-. 'S
u x;
ri .ï £f
ir-,
'G T3 —
>, O
u
§
aj
r^
ra '— c
— ac
c
,C
c
=> n o
lo
rj
o
O
O
" -- -ï
—
Ë E =■
c '5
c
.l
=
Il =
11
O
^ -,
clay;
Iritus;
leen
E
^
£ '■$,
5 >
^5 oi
silty
nt del
oil sh
£?
ï^
— 2
■■^-
O)
o
00
^ — c
-, — n
:: ra u
ac
"H
c *o
■I
ij
hum
anim
lubri
brown
abunda
light
c
oo o
S
5 w^
£
c
o
ox
^r =« ^
§ 'A
'_)
u :2
Soi
oc
C
oc
ic acid
al fats
cant oi
■a i^
c _
-e °
00
'M
=« g
M 1
S
hum
anim
lubri
o H
c.
— -F
ç
"'
172
George
annel
00
o
ic acids,
al fats &
cant oils
own ooze;
ni detritus,
and sticks;
C
"E
00
o
c
-1)
u c
Eg
c
£
ai
1"^
ill
-^ "i î
ï?
C
"H
- Ë
C
3
"
■= -Ç _o
^
z
ç
165
ue Marine
Park
c,: =« ^
s i2 E
-p
E
x:
^;
1 -
ri
C
o
u-1
mie acid
mal fats
ricant oi
silt ov
i-gray c
ccn; so
■o
'3
m, snai
imprey
mocoet
-a
1 s
>
s~, c ^
ir _ P
"3
-ill
2 3 ■'•
Mj £ ■=
T3
Xi
5 "
^
5 -S
es
Xj ^
i
;-;
. 0)
c
Q.
ç:
.i^ ç^
^
"H
"b
2 S
O
_or
•*
silt over bla
gravelly, co;
sand; ovc
c
2
x:
'5
>--
>
3
X)
_2
M
'5
00
c
E
g
a.
c
1)
c
c
ea
-«1 j;
1/-J
O
ic acids,
al fats &
cant oils
rown over
rown silty
; orange
'5
73
-3
c
3 o
x:
S 5
C
C
,n
hum
anim
lubri
light b
darkb
sand
c
C
X
g
E ^
_3
o.
^
e
^- =a JC
^ d.
^
52
aux Pi
Bay
00
O
ic acid:
lal fats
cant oi
wn sill
dant ba
ood ch
o
II
u
£.
CN
hum
anim
lubri
o c s
^ 1 1
E C
o
•ï
c £■
>,
C
a
.i£
o '■^■
a.
c
3
O
_2
£
'T '^
o
u £
o
o.
u.
èa
c ~ 'i
"râ ^
2
x:
X
rz '_)
3 O
c
'" c:.
> C
_
-3
o
>
>
(S
a
o.
on
a
E
es
o
a
•^ -S
«
C/3
a
x:
.«^
c>
c
C3
V
(U
£
Irt
■o
t/2
Jl
W
ex
«H
©
e
fTl
.>-.
C8
U
E
o
fi
3
en
.fi
es
H
Station 102
Lake George
o
r~
rsi
Station 87
Little Lake
George
o
00
00
r-i
o6
Station 169
Lake George
Channel
o
00
ON
r<-l
Station 172
Lake George
Channel
o
ri
ri
Station 165
Bellevue
Marine Park
o
iri
rj
Station 183
Algoma Slip
oc
d
»/~i
r»-!
r^i
Station 35
Tannery Bay
o
nO
ri
ON
ri
Station 52
Point aux
Pins Bay
o
i^
n
oo
Diameter,
microns (/-/m)
o
o
o
(NI
ON
rj
V
Particle Size
Distribution,
Percent
"3
2
6
-a
c
a
c75
a
CO
SÛ
• ^
c
>.
a>
c/)
c«
>
(X!
03
0)
"^ ^
&
CnJ T- O
llSlxvOd
CNJ
(N
©
>>
u
es
S
E
s
4.1.1 Benthic Community Characteristics
The mean relative abundance of the dominant taxa at all stations is summarized in Table 3.
Summary indices, including measures of community diversity are presented in Table 4 and
Figure 3.
ANOVA testing indicated significant differences in the total abundance and richness of benthic
invertebrate communities among stations. Note that Station 1 83 was excluded from the ANOVA
due to the lack of variability among replicates (i.e., no organisms were foimd m any replicate).
Stations 52 and 102 had significantly lower mean abundances (p < 0.05, Tukey's multiple
pairwise test) compared to the other stations. Station 35 had the highest number of taxa of all the
stations sampled in this study. Stations 52, 1 65 and 1 72 had significantly fewer taxa than Station
35 (Fig. 3).
Species lists for the entire benthic invertebrate collection and for each station are presented in
Appendix B. Mean total abundance (number of organisms per m^ ) and mean relative abundance
(as %) for all species are also provided in Appendix B.
4.1.2 Cluster and Principal Components A nalyses
Cluster analysis and principal components analysis consistently identified four distinct
invertebrate groups from the eight stations sampled. These groupings are summarized in Table
5, along with a brief description of their distinguishing characteristics based on benthic species
data. Dendrograms of cluster analysis results using the Coefficient of Community for presence-
absence data and the Bray-Curtis coefficient for abundance data are presented in Figures 4 and 5.
Principal components analysis reaffirmed the cluster analysis groupings (see Figs. 6 and 7). The
first two principal components in each case accounted for only about 40 % of the variation in
their respective data sets, reflecting the substantial variation associated with this community data.
The subsequent discussion deals only with abundance data for convenience of presentation;
however, it is clear that abundance data or species presence-absence data give virtually identical
results.
Station 183 (Group IV in Table 5) was most obviously different from all other stations, since no
benthic invertebrates were found in any replicates. Station 35 replicates clustered as a distinct
12
s
a
c
E
o
^
C
S
c
s
'^ J
îflilriijih-rîrll
iir|M^|i:|i.f-ii
3C --
3 —
'7 ^
P; - 2i =^ vc rr f ; r4 r^ rsi ,-i -
iiiiï!|if-:
-s "1
■7 Y
^' 5 " " '^' ^ - = -=. '^- =- 3^ >-
iîîilliiCtil
'h
i i
_2
■^ s 5 5 -5
llfîtl
5^ z := £ = ■=
1 i
7. >
Hj||.|ll-.l|
Il |illjMI,illlt_:iîi.'??illli
-= r- ■- >- 3o a-, c- CN CT- =~ ^
£ 2 2 2 c^" ^ -J^ ^' 'J-' ^ -
1^1 ^^1 tfl 1-^
Ijllî^ll'"!""
^— I s ^ . _ : ^^-^ '
S s
o
to
1-
^
^
ir^
■^^
'p.
o
n
o
,t^
t/3
V
c
r^
J=
II
a>
^
C
fl;
a
U
u:;
/■"—
o
s
3
E
-5
a
H
c
Q
o
a
C
i- ^ >—
h >
c '^ o
c c -£
« o
> ^ ^
4» ^ ~
■3
S
■S
e
t) o
3 M
H
Station 102
Lake George
00
+1
ri
-H
ri
d
r-
ri
ri
o
d
4^
ri
OO
OO
d
Station 87
Little Lake George
o
(N
-H
O
O
-H
p
0^
d
-H
in
O
vO
OO
o
d
4H
O
1^
00
d
Station 169
Lake George
Channel
ri
r)
+1
r-
a-'
o
d
+1
ri
m
O
O
d
41
O
u^
OO
d
Station 172
Lake George
Channel
a
o
00
-r
ly-j
41
O
o
ri
d
41
>/".
d
ri
d
41
d
Station 165
Bcllevue Marine
Park
OO
00
O
O
r^
O
r-i
r-'
d
41
ri
1^
ri
n
rj
d
-H
m
vô
d
Station 183
Algoma Slip
41
o
o
+1
o
O
-H
O
o
4)
O
Station 35
lannery Bay
-H
M
^D
ri
ri
+1
d
m
d
41
ri
r-l
O
d
41
d
Station 52
Point aux Pins
Bay
rj
rj
+1
O
o
-H
p
*d
n
d
4H
o
d
-H
d
Bcnthic
Community
, , measure
Index
1)
E
C
4>
U
C
1 1
i— 2
<
o
c
c
o t.
£ c
re a>
>
c
<u
>
ll:
a>
■o
52 35 183 165 172 169 87 102
STATION
35 183 165 172 169 87 102
STATION
:ioo
10
o>
O
,000
,000
,000
100
10
1
Tubificids.
o c
o c
O 8,000 -;
E 4,000 \
Z
«0 0 -
,1
1
1,.
52 35 183 165 172 169 87 102
STATION
52 35 183 165 172 169 87 102
STATION
■o
E
o
O
"o
3,000 \
2,000 -.
1,000 ^
III
0 ^
-1-
0 1 ,
M 2,000
w 1,500
<^ 1,000 -
.a
E
52 35 183 165 172 169 87 102
STATION
500 -
52 35 183 165 172 169 87 102
STATION
Figure 3. Benthic invertebrate community characteristics.
15
s:
c
<
u
eu
c
3
Û
o
DU
S
"3
O
o ;^
DC .t:
e c
S C
o E
o
o
H
r^,
CX)
— ■
ri
OJ
>
r^
c
0
0
00
00
0
c
ca
JZ
r>-i
m
0
C
r^, r<-) vi
r^
r'j r- •*
in 00
t^
-0
r2
s
, 52-2,
, 87-2,
165-2
r^
0
E
3
r--
X
"7 "T — '
^
Z
"
5j
B£
•^ ■"" lA
"-' 00 S
r'i
r--
3
e
C
~
~
3
0
C
0
B
0
^
'^
-^
'«
«
^
j:
^
_Ç
-^'
0
t;:
f^i r^i
■5
^
c
*^
u
rJ a^
0
0 vO
■~^
;o
^
^
„
ri ri
r'j cf\
G
0
0
00
0 vD
ri cf\
0 vO
c
15
3
3
£
u-i
Q,
55
e
^
r^j
<u
2
ri
es
-0
0
r^i
-0
•-•
>ri
15
«
r)
r-i
m
3
'5 "5
j= 0
E
rsi
"7
<->
c
tu
H
Z
in
r*1
3
«
£
■;?
E
(i
•y)
a>
"o
c3
C3
u
V
alion and
mple replie
eluded
C
0
E
0
c
> -O
— C
^ 3
OJ
P
"câ
■p
'o.
a
i
0
0
5
c
p
0
c:
= 3
<
1^ S.£
ç
û
^
H -g
S 5
S
*r
52
165
87
172
169
102
35
183
0.0
0.5 1.0
Distances
1.5
Figure 4. Dendrogram for Wards Minimum- Variance cluster analysis of stations using
Coefficient of Community (based on presence-absence data matrix) for
benthic invertebrates.
17
172
87
165
52
102
169
35
183
0.0
■~i r~
0.5 1.0
Distances
1.5
Figure 5. Dendrogram for Wards Minimum-Variance cluster analysis of stations using
Bray-Curtis Coefficient (based on abundance data matrix) for benthic
invertebrates.
IS
group (Group I) from other stations. This station was distinguished by the presence and/or
relatively higher abundance of the chironomid Stictochironomus sp. , the leeches Helobdella
stagnalis, and Alboglossiphonia heteroclita, Enchytraeidae. and immature tubificids with hair
setae. The second principal component distinguished between the two remaining groups.
Stations 102 and 169 (Group H) were grouped according to the higher relative abundance of the
naidids Vejdovskyella intennedia, and Slavinia appendiculata, the tubificid Potamothrix
vejdovski and Chironomus sp. Stations 172, 165, 87 and 52 scored low on both PC axes and
formed Group HI by virtue of their lack of similarity in benthic structure to the other groups.
Stations 87 and 165 clustered most tightly among this group. All four stations shared a high
proportion of nematodes and immature tubificids without hair setae. The isopod Caecidotea sp.
was a dominant taxon at all stations except for Station 172, where it was absent.
4.1.3 Indicator Species/Associations
Immature tubificids were common and among the dominant taxa at all stations. Tubificids are
generally tolerant of organically polluted environments where reduced oxygen levels often result
in the loss of more sensitive benthic taxa (Mason, 1981). The increased food supply and reduced
competition in such organically enriched habitats typically leads to an increase in the abundance
of tubificids.
Nematodes were also among the dominant taxa identified at all stations. There is a paucity of
information on the ecology of nematodes in general, and the taxonomy of this group is poorly
defined. Nematodes appear to prefer soft, fine substrates where they may tend to occur in the
deeper layers of bottom sediments (Wetzel, 1975). As a group, they seem to be tolerant of at
least moderate levels of organic pollution but may disappear in severely degraded habitats.
Ephemeropterans (mayflies) and trichopterans (caddisflies) were only found in sediments at
Stations 52 and 35. Ephemeropterans, trichopterans and plecopterans (stoneflies) represent a
group of insect taxa which are generally considered sensitive to pollution, especially organic
enrichment and the resultant low dissolved oxygen conditions. In the St. Marys River, low
densities or the complete absence of burrowing mayfly (Hexagenia limbata) nymphs have been
correlated with the presence of visible oil in sediments (Hiltunen & Schloesser, 1983). H.
limbata and the trichopteran Phylocentopus sp. were present in low numbers at Station 52. The
ephemeropterans Caenis sp. and Trichorythodes sp. were found at Station 35. Ephemeropterans,
trichopterans and plecopterans were absent from all other stations.
The lumbriculid worm Stylodrilus heringianus, which is considered to be largely intolerant of
organic pollution (i.e., a clean water organism), was relatively abundant at Stations 35 and 165.
This species prefers sandy to gravelly sediments, but is typically absent or reduced in numbers in
19
^ inpx cna r^, o^(D
CD
CN
X
CO
CO
■0
0
inP"
►/
H ^-
^f>
- CO
- Cvl
« I ^ "
2 ^ u n
's t '£ ■§
à '"^ ^ >>
"" 2 r^ -C
-C ^ C 'J
•t: cn •= uJ
CO
û_ "^
1 &
IS .5
CO
CM
CNJ
II S!xv Od
^■5 2
^ 03 a:
00
^ V- ^ \5
;ï 2 '-î c
5 ci (£ ai
?
a
93
c
e
u
E
3
a
60
? ;^ .2 "^
CO I £ 1 1
S à ^ >-
-? ^ S ■=
ij -ST < 'J
c<; ^ Ï: UJ
<
O
oo
CM lO
in
o
d
in
■^ ^ z
^ (-= ^
C/2 .Ë U
es
e
es
G
3
l|S!XVOd
S
.a
a.
£
E
s
oj :^ ce
o
5; ~- Se -5
C O c2 5:
1^
3
00
disturbed areas such as near urban centres (Nalepa & Thomas, 1 976). The higher proportion of
larger substrate particles (i.e., sand) may account for its greater abundance at Station 35 (see
Table 2); however. Station 165 was characterized by finer substrate, similar to the other stations
sampled. Therefore, particle size composition of the sediments cannot be inferred as the sole
causal factor for the presence of 5. heringianus in this study.
The isopod Caecidotea sp. comprised almost half the total benthic invertebrate population at
Station 165. The presence of this species in association with a number of more pollutant-tolerant
forms would suggest low to moderate impacts at Station 165. Another mesotrophic indicator
found at this station was the gastropod (snail) Valvata sincera.
Stations 102 and 169 were both characterized by a moderate diversit>' of benthic fauna, with the
common dominant taxa including nematodes, immature tubificids without hair setae, the naidids
Slavina appendiculata and Vejdovskyella intermedia, the tubificid Potamothrix vejdovskyi, and
the chironomids Procladius sp. and Chironomus sp. Throughout the Great Lakes, these taxa are
generally characteristic of areas exhibiting organic enrichment (Cook & Johnson, 1974). The
polychaete Manayimkia speciosa was only found at Station 1 02 in upper Lake George. This
species has been associated with, and may be indicative of. moderate organic pollution (Poe &
Stefan. 1975).
Station 1 72 exhibited a low benthic invertebrate richness and the benthic community was
dominated by a very high abundance of immature tubificids without hair setae. These tubificids
were most likely Limnodrilns hoffmeisteri. based on the presence of adult specimens at this
location. This tubificid is known to be extremely tolerant of organic pollution (i.e.. severe
enrichment and low oxygen conditions).
4.2 Sediment Chemistry
Contaminants detected in sediment samples are surrunarized in Table 6 and the levels of selected
contaminants are plotted in Figures 8 and 9. Since no polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
chlorinated aliphatics, benzenes and insecticides, or herbicides were found in river sediments
above their respective analytical minimum reportable values (MRVs). these are not included in
this table. However, a complete listing of contaminants and the analytical results or MRVs for
individual replicates is provided in Appendix C. Sediment concentrations of total organic carbon
(TOC) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) were above the respective PSQG-LELs at all stations.
Station 52 (Point aux Pins Bay) sediment, with low concentrations of most contaminants, can be
considered to be relatively "clean". Of the persistent contaminants, copper, cadmium and
22
o nC 5=:
,-j TT r- — — >^,j rr — Oî r-4
- - 5 ï:: r-'-j2[|^
r~ rsi r^. =c f-j — I o-j r-l l-^t —t
*"' — ? '^' C '-J d 2 Z
i~ rs — — — r-il «I u-il -CI r~t
£-=•■= o r.1 ol 2Î J -i
I Sl^ 5 ^i g g^j g z I = S| - o S ^
2I 5 = =1 -= Ç:| ?| f^ ^ ^ = ^3 f^j - = S, ^
l^5âi:=|sjjs||l!£^:s = ^
îr,
I/-,
-' ^ i ^- 1 - V
-SIS ^13 #:^-iSl^|25 g|i^^ = i —
.2 «
ai Ë e£i
I £: I 2 I
S < Z f :i -^ J < < =
2
o
—
—
=i
. o
j s
2 o
= è
o
J
si
~
1
o
1 o
O O
o
o o
o
o
1
O
^
3,
,
,
"~H
■^
rs) TT
sO
r*1 (N
sO
v-,
o
^
— O
rn
Os
o
o
^
'3
/3
1.
ij
[
rj
OJ
1 "^
r- r-
^
sD «^
o-
rsj
1
sO
Os
TT
■
1
■
,
rn
— m
m
Cl r-
-^I-
o
O
o
o o
o
o o
o
d
d
u
1
r^
TT"
"ôë"
"ôôT
r^ -i
^û o^
so
t*^î ~
"3"
O
"^
rj
sO
sr>
>/-l
"vT*
ce
o
o
"^
rs4
o
V-,
o rs) <-i o o
O
y-,
-;ri
f-t
o
o
o
act
si
c- —1
Os
^ z^.
o
■*
r^
d
■V
f
-b
<-i
""
fn
(^
m
V
m
^ —: V — —
V ^ V V
V
sO
o
o
o
oi
o]
o o
o
3 =
o
o
~
O
•^
o<
^r,
OO
VO
OO rf
H ?s
Os
J^
_
o
r-i
rsl
r„
■^
"^
rsj
Os
"T
o
j^
sO
sO
o
O r^ — Os OO
Os
1^
SO j
Os
o —
os
V
r-
V
00
O
O
o
— i '^
rs)
o ^
o
rs
O
—
rs)
rr
r*^
^ _ V V V
rn|
O
o
O
o o
es]; '='
o
oi ^
o
o
O
d
d
<N
o
^
t>
t;
f> 5
— o
rs
os) V,
OS ^^
^
Os
Os
Os
s;
m
-T
S
o
o
§
T
»o
o-
»/■.
sO r-^ — r^ r»^
1^ rsi V V V
V
K
^
^
O
=
—
- _
o o
_
OÎ rs
'^
d
o
d
_;
rn
s
2
0-.
2 =5
r- wo
Os
w^J OO
s
■o
s
sO
sD
Os
Os
PJ
Os
§
o
SO
r^
O
sO
o
os
o r^ Os sD sO
rs) _ V V
V
sO
V
sO
"^1
o
1^
o
O
^
o
~ o
oj o
oi —
^
o
^
d
o
ir,
o
O
o
rs
r-
O
^ OO
~ o
o O
S
rstj V-,
oJ (S
1
d
so
O
^
2
S
0^
V
-
o
o
o
SO
OO
T
o
V
3
— rsl — o o
■"^ V ^ — —
7
§g
x;!
r^
r--i
O^
Os
r-4
3n ,-
-T os
-Il
rs^
§ S
5^
Os
sT
s
i
Os:
rsj
V
V
o
o
rr,
O
os
s6
2
r^
r-l V V V V
V
3
^î
ao
'^
O
rri
-i
-o t--
*/-i
rs
OI r-
„
rn
^
ri
~
t-s
-"
sO
O
o
O
se
rsj so
TT OO
sO
o ",
^
V-.
^
,„,
r^
SO
Os
Tf
rsl
Os
O
(N
rj
rn
j^
Os Os — — r^
fS
^o
cn'
es
■^
t/-l -çl-
TT rsi
O
os
^
sO
Os
sO
V,
V
V
V j
1»!
O
o
O
O
o o
O O
O
o —
o
o
O
O
O
OO
""
"~
o
V
o
o
V
o
o o
O o
o o
o
o
d
d
O
d
o
o
o
rn
SD V-,
OO m
T
o sO
§
^
^
^
^
m
00
sO
rn
o — — 00 OO
o
O -a-
"T o
^
r-
r-
Os
V
V
V
rsl V V V V
p
o
o
o
o =>
=. o
o
o —
o
O
O
o
v-i
(^
»n
V
30
rs|
in
V
o
V
o
V
o
o
o
o o
V
<=
o
d
d
d
011
>
^
£
M
^
ffl
c c
<
Q
c
oT
<
Q
Q
o
Q.
D
Û
O
c
o
à.
s
a
o
o
•5
4.
o
c
X)
G
a
o
X
6
■a
Q.
o
S
a
g
ç
o
Q
U
c
^3
LU
Q
u
q
c
u
o
Q
O
c
O
o
g
j3
Ë
<
c
c c
5 ffl
fr
2 c
1 ^
o
Q.
a.
<
a.
sD
o
c
o
c
-o
O
C
c
° o § s
5 Q 3 o D
f a u = =
2 H- "V ». =».
IH OO r-; V so'
5
1
c
o.
c
o o
jz a.
oô ■^
"s s
U
S j:
S =
c 2
■e §
u.
c
"5
c
1
>s
_o
-O
■o
o
_o
o
_o
■o
o
_o
o
2
_o
■5
c
CT-,
c!
M
5
c
■s
c
N M
1
=
T3
Q.
g
1
o
2
5
Q.
M
2
c
s
E.
2 J^- J^- 1^- ^-
;:}
r*i
a.
<
<
<
ffi
£2 m
ffl ffl
O
Q lZ
u.
C
Z
âi
g.
H
_=.
■=_
—
o
JlL
■E-
—
C rg" — ■ -■ — ■
— •
_zL
v'v — — — — — V>-i^
V V V V ^ _;
V V V V V
V V V V V —
vvvvv— v^;:?-.
V V V V V
V V V V
vvvvvv— v^, ^
rj TT Tj- I/-, V-, 3C 3C r^. U-.
vvvvvvv-~o
^ U O-
_ o ■=
^ S ;r
g § i
-2 c5i -S
120
100
SILT & CLAY
É
il
I
ii
ill
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
I
t
É
«i
g]
É
I^
I
^
#1
52 35 183 165 172 169 87 102
STATION NUMBER
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
I
Y/,..
ill
^
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
É
,<4
jI
//
fail
ii
rr^-
|ii
È:
°:^Y/.,.
U.
lu
■i»
J
52 35 183 165 172 169 87 102
STATION NUMBER
Figure 8. Mean percent silt and clay and concentrations of total organic carbon, total
phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, arsenic, cyanide, cadmium, chromium,
copper and lead in sediments. Vertical lines on bars represent one standard
deviation for replicates (n = 3).
26
60,000
50,000 -
s: 40.000 4-
■o
a» 30,000
o>
E 20,000
10.000
m
Ea
i
il
1
jza_
?^^"^^
I
I
^
I
i
rfe
TOTAL PAHs
nilii
^
52 35 183 165 172 169 87 102
STATION NUMBER
a 16
E
7,500
■s: 6,000
a 4,500
E 3,000 -
1,500
MANGANESE
*
Itiîj
il,,.
É
In
*
ill î
SOLVENT EXTRACTABLES
[*1
â
*
fi ^ I
rii
'éM
TOTAL 2,3,7 ,8-TetraCDD TEQ
Jl
lia I
Iiir
V. y/ v^ ''^
i
52 35 183 165 172 169 87 102
STATION NUMBER
Figure 9. Mean concentrations of iron, manganese, mercury, nickel, zinc, solvent
extractables, total PAHs and Total 2,3,7,8-TetraCCD TEQ in sediments.
Vertical lines on bars represent one standard deviation for replicates (n = 3).
Table 7. Concentrations of GC/MS-identified extractable organics in sediments.
All values are approximate, in mg.kg"' (ppm), dry sediment.
Compound
Station |
52 1 35
183
165 1 172
169 1 87 1 102 1
Aliphalics: |
l-Hexen-3-one, 5-methyl-l -phenyl
6.0
3.0
2,0
2.0
a methyl phenyl Hexanone
9.0
l-Penlen-3-one. 1 -Phenyl
0.3
unidentified bicyclic hydrocarbon
3.0
unidentified hydrocarbon(s)
14.0 >
3.7'
53.8'°
43.8»
55.3 ■"
23.1 "
11.0"
18.1"
Aromatics ]
aC, alkyl Benzene
2.0
aC, alkyl Benzene
0.3
1 , 1 '-{ 1 .2-ethanediy 1 )bis-Benzene
10
1 , 1 '-etheney lidenbis-Benzene
3.0
1 . 1 '[thiobis(methylene)]bis-Benzene
3.0
5,0
5.0
7.0
an unidentified aromatic hydrocarbon
10
Polycychc Aromatics (PAHs): \
Acenaphthene
10
Acenaphthylene
2.0
Anthracene
10
Ben2o(a)anthracene
10
Benzo(a)anthracene / Chrysene
06
Benzofluorenes
21 '
5,0 =
a Benzopyrene
2.0
Benzopyrenes / Benzofluoranthenes
90'
an 1 IH-Benzofluorene
1.0
Chrysene
10
a Chrysene-type PAH
0.6
Fluoranthene
2.0
40
4.0
3,0
2.0
0.9
1.0
9H-Fluorene
10
Naphthalene
0.2
20
3.0
08
2.0
1.0
Phenanthrene
50
Phenanthrene / Anthracene
0.3
03
1.0
Pyrene
40
8.0
5.0
2.0
4.0
l,r-Biphenyl
3.0
methyl l.l'-Biphenyls
19 =
Cj alkyl Biphenyls
3.0 =
unidentified PAHs
10'
Methylated PAHs: ||
a C; alkenyl Anthracene
0.2
an ethenyl Anthracene / Phenanthrene
1.0
a methyl Chrysene / Benzo(a) anthracene
3.0
a methyl 9H-Fluorene
20
28
Compound
Station ||
52
35
183
165
172
169
87
102
Cj alkyl Naphthalenes
8 9'
a C, alkyl Naphthalene
2.0
methyl Naphthalenes
7.0^
a phenyl Naphthalene
3.0
dihydro Phenanthrene(s)
5.0 =
1.0'
a Cj alky! Phenanthrene
6.0
a tetramethyl Phenanthrene
2.0
methyl Anthracenes / Phenanthrenes
10'
4H-Cyclopenta(d,e,0Phenanthrene
10
C; alkyl Phenanthrenes / Anthracenes
8.0'
a methyl Pyrene / Fluoranthene
2.0
C, alkyl Pyrenes / Fluoranthenes
9.0 =
Sulphur-containing PAHs: |
Benzo(b)thiophene
4.0
DIbenzothiophene
6.0
a methyl DIbenzothiophene
1.0
Nitrogen-containing PAHs:
9H-Carbazole | | | 70 | | | | |
Oxygen-containing PAHs:
a methyl dihydrophenyl Benzofuran
1.0
Dibenzofuran
8.0
methyl Dibenzofurans
6.0 =
Benz(b)naphtho(2,3-d)fiiran
2.0
Miscellaneous: \
a methoxy Benzene Methanol
2.0
an ester
1.0
a methyl ester
1.0
1.0
a Dichlorohydroxybenzaldehyde
0.4
1 -Phenanthrene carboxaldehyde, l^,3,4,4,a
7.0
a Carboxylic Acid
1,0
a C,6 Carboxylic Acid
2.0
methyl esters of a C,6 Carboxylic Acid
1.3-
0.4
a fatty acid
2.0
a steroid
0.7
unidentified compounds
52'
6.5'
3.0'
33
19
19"
2.3'
3.7'
NOTES: 1) all concentrations are approximate, relative to the d|o-Phenanthrene internal standard.
2) blank space indicates that compound was not detected.
3) numbers in superscripts after concentration indicate the number of distinct isomers or
compounds identified.
29
fluorene were the only parameters exceeding the respective PSQG-LELs. Station 35 (Tannery
Bay) sediment generally had low levels of contaminants as well; however, the mean
concentration of chromium, at 2600 mg.kg"' (parts per million), was 24 times higher than the
PSQG-SEL (Fig. 8). Arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury levels also exceeded the respective
PSQG-LELs. Iron concentrations exceeded the SEL guideline in Bellevue Marine Park (Station
165), and in Lake George Channel (Stations 169 and 172). The LEL Guidelines for chromium,
copper, manganese, nickel and zinc were also exceeded at Stations 183, 165, 172, 169 , 87 (Little
Lake George), and 102 (Lake George). Mercury only exceeded the PSQG-LEL at Stations 183,
172, and 169. Cyanide was also above the Provincial Open Water Dredged Material Disposal
Guideline (OWDMDG) in sediments from the Algoma Slip and downstream of the Falls.
Barium, cobalt, magnesium, selenium, silver and vanadium concentrations also increased
noticeably at these stations (Table 6)
Sediment at all locations except Station 35 exceeded at least one PSQG-LEL for a PAH
compound. In addition, sediments at Stations 183, 165, 172, 169 and 102 all exceeded the LEL
guideline for Total PAHs of 4 mg.kg ' (Fig. 9). None of the stations had sediment concentrations
exceeding the SEL guideline for any of the 16 unsubstituted PAH compounds measured (Table
6). However, the Total PAHs concentration at Station 1 83 (292 mg.kg"' ), was 300 times that
found in Station 52 or 35 sediments. The 1990 Ministry study involving the collection of
sediment cores from the Algoma Slip found some areas (particularly the upper, or northwest end)
with PAH concentrations above the respective PSQG-SELs. At that time, concentrations of
Total PAHs within the slip ranged from 9.3 to 1386 mg.kg ', and at Station 183 it averaged 686
mg.kg' (Pope & Kauss, 1995).
Although there is no PSQG for solvent extractables (oils and greases), the OWDMDG of 1500
mg.kg"' was exceeded in all sediments but those from Station 35.
Table 7 summarizes the results of fiill-scan GC/MS analysis for extractable organics. These data
indicate the presence of a large number of hydrocarbons - principally aromatics - in the
sediments, particularly in the Algoma Slip (Station 183). Many alkyl-, sulphur-, nitrogen- and
oxygen-containing PAHs which cannot currently be routinely analyzed for were also detected at
this station, and concentrations were usually highest here as well. Some of these compounds
may be exerting a toxic effect on benthic invertebrates.
Using PC A, the first two principal components explained 69 % of the variation in metals
concentrations among stations. PC score plots on these two axes indicate four groups based on
metals chemistry (Fig. 10) PC I separates stations based on increasing concentrations of nickel,
copper, cobalt, iron and zinc. PC II differentiates stations based on increasing lead and mercury
concentrations. A negative conelation (Pearson Product Moment correlation, r = - 0.599) was
observed between PC I for grain size and PC I for metals suggesting some influence of percent
30
ID
/5--
1 ,
^^N
°D i]'
\ g
D ••-•■■'
-
/X ■■.,
--
9
— 1 —
►
.>•-"■'
— 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — ( — 1 — 1 1 —
o
in O
dû-
00
O
in
I
CM
I
CM lO
X5
ID o in
d CD
II Sjxv 3d
in
oo
J2
e
B
'•B
U
a
>>
b
R
S
E
3
so
00
<
"^ CO CM T- O
<: lisjxvod
so
CN
I
s
i
1
e
o
a
b
o
o.
es
S
E
s
«A
i
1 o\
N
■■■•x .-••■"
— ' — \ — ' — \ — ^ — \ — ^ — ■
1 1 1 1 \
CNJ
in
o
X
<
O
CL
lO
d
lO
c\j
lO
LO
d
lO
d
IlSjXVOd
1°
<a-
(N
lO
= Q
« û
CNJ
I
■o
"o
a
U
eu
es
S
S
s
CO
s
(an
sand in the sample on the concentrations of heavy metals such as nickel, copper, cobalt, iron and
Concentrations of all PAH compounds in St. Marys River sediments were found to be highly
correlated with each other (r > 0.9; see also Table C-10). PAHs were also correlated with total
organic carbon (TOC) in sediments (r > 0.9). A PCA performed with PAHs and the with the first
principal component accounted for almost 90 % of the variation in PAHs. The first PC axis
differentiates Station 183 from all other stations due to the much higher PAH concentrations
observed at that station (Fig. 1 1). The second PCA accounted for an additional 5 % of the
variation, which was mainly due to a difference in PAH compounds measured in one of the three
replicates from Station 165.
Only certain PCDD and PCDF compounds were detected in sediment samples, and then at low
concentrations (Table 6). Most notably, heptachlorodibenzo-/7-dioxins (H7CDDS) and
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (O^CDD) exhibited a spatial contamination pattern similar to that
observed for PAHs. No official PSQGs have yet been published for PCDDs, PCDFs or their
toxic isomers. However, the calculated Total 2,3,7,8-T4CDD TEQ (normalized to 1 % TOC)
slightly exceeded the draft Environment Canada guideline of 1 .7 ng.kg' (normalized to 1 %
TOC) to prevent bioaccumulation by aquatic life (EC, 1994) at Station 35 in Tannery Bay.
Principal components analysis on the five PCDD and five PCDF homolog groups identified three
components, accounting for almost 95 % of the variation. The first component separated stations
based on increasing PCDD/F concentrations in general. As indicated in Figure 12, Stations 35,
52 and 87 grouped together low on PC I due to the lower measured PCDD and PCDF
concentrations at these stations. Of all eight locations sampled. Station 172 and 165 sediments
exhibited the highest degree of PCDD and PCDF contamination. The subsequent principal
components accounted for differences in the relative amounts of specific congeners present at
each station.
4.3 Laboratory Sediment Bioassays
Results of Hexagenia limhata nymph and Chironomus tentans larvae acute and chronic toxicity
tests with the St. Marys River sediments were highly correlated (Bedard & Petro, 1997).
(Pearson correlation coefficients between these two test species were r = 0.93 for mortality- and
r = 0.76 for the growth response endpoint.) No significant detrimental effect on juvenile
Pimephales promelas survival was detected in this study. This is in marked contrast to 1990,
when fathead minnow mortality averaged 81.2 % at Stafion 183 (Pope & Kauss. 1995). and may
reflect the somewhat lower contaminant concentrations at this station, or reduced bioavailabiliy
via the water column.
34
" -a .2 ^
i5 -^ ■= -a
0Û o —
c .iï
o >
U "
i: -H
=« i3
o ea "^
11 = =
a, '3= o
O c/; 2
u 2 — 1
::: D.-
5 s 2
S S =
5 •? ^
'-J = E
CQ ^
- =^ -TJ '-=
p, CA. ^3 .Jj
•P
£ en
o
C3 O —
15 V o
I ^1
> 5 =^
?û r3 ~ —
>-.
O
■
■—
.tz
«
t^
y:
5
1
'7.
O
.^
— "
^1
;/"
O
c
04
>.
3:
=
E
1
Cm
^
r3
\—
a-
©
O
C
>.
>->
'<»«
^^
x;
„— V
y.
5
s
r:
Uj
,_o
V !£;■
X
<^
^
^
c X-
es
H
*s
~! r
^ o
i/-.
— 1
^g
^
s ^ 'à
O 1
— ■
>c j
—
~
ê 2 M
+1 1
+1
+1 1
+1
+1
ÎS w
■ — )
c^
-r 1
—
t:
~ji
~ j
■=
r~ '-■
^
^ 1
àc -i o
~ 1
r-
— 1
-r
S -- -
■C. I
r~- 1
—
c
.s _o 5
+1 1
+1
+1 1
+1
+1
(^j
V! _:
" i
—
^ 1
^
S -i
^ 1
1
,
^ ^ T"
"■ [
-r
C: !
•^
c;
1 ^ 1
+1 1
+1
+1 1
+1
+1
3 -^ o
-' 1
^
"T 1
-
t^
'^ J:
fS ]
" ^ô
— 1
ir-.
^
TT
Z-
Î II
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
2 -ï O
2
■X.
-T
■X.
-r
-
w- -i^
. .
. — ,
_
5 o ^
—
~;
E
ï
~
+1
+ 1
+1
+1
+1
1 =^1
f^l
^
M
—
—
fS
'^
r4
<~\
rf C
3C —
— y.
^
-ji
^■
s ;r
+1
+1
+1
'■S c
se
ir.
,^
s =ii
^
•ri
^■
^ <
3^
C^
ir,
Kr.
3^
yz
^
5 S £^
—
'^i
^
—
3'
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
■^ ^ "^
3C
3C
,^
v^
-r
ri
2
2
"i
Jr 2 ><
^
î_
~„
ç S ~:
—
O
T
1 —
c:
•S = -
+1
+1
+1
1 ■•"'
+1
1 "^
r^
v: — ~
f~j
1 ^
1 ,
^
1 ^
"3 >, 5
_
i "*
c
1 "':
^ 'J c
C
1 —
-r
1 ~
—
s S -£
+1
1 +1
+1
1 +1
+1
^ ~ —
—
'T
1 3C
"
^^
1 -
ii
1 -
^
• S
^
— ~
>>
1 C ""
>>
s.
■ —
o —
- —
o —
L^
■3
2
] 2 F
1 ^
i ^ '^
1 ^
"
2
>.
s
S S
1 t.
"5 -S
■r. 'S
'y 'Z
^ ^
"^ i
i.
ci
■~ 1
1" £
■^
""
'^
Results of the bioassays are summarized in Table 8, indicating that Station 183 sediments were
the most toxic, resulting in 95 % or higher mortality of Hexagenia and Chironomus test
organisms. Sediment from Station 165. and 169 for Hexagenia only, exhibited a lower degree of
toxicity (20 to 23 % mortality) than the Algoma Slip sediment, but this was still significantly
greater than that observed with Control or Station 52 sediments (0 to 4 % mortality).
H. limbata and C. tentans growth, as determined by weight gain, was significantly greater
(p<0.01 ) for Station 35 sediment than for Control and Station 52 sediments. This may be due to
an hormesis effect or some other factor such as nutrient/food availability in Tannery Bay
sediments. In contrast, C tentans growth was significantly reduced by sediments from all
stations in and downstream of Bellevue Marine Park (Stations 165, 172, 169, 87, 102). The
growth endpoint in the H. limbata test did not follow a similar pattern (i.e., no effects on growth
were observed with sediments from downstream stations with this test).
4.4 Integrated Analysis
Three discriminant functions were calculated to predict group membership of stations according
to the four benthic community' groupings based on a combination of original and derived
environmental variables. The combined discriminant function separated station benthic
invertebrate groups almost perfectly, suggesting some underlying relationship between benthic
invertebrate communit>' assemblages and environmental conditions (Fig. 13). Based on the
obser\ed correlations of predictor variables with discriminant functions (Table 9), it appears that
PAHs and TOC concentrations are among the most important environmental variables affecting
the benthic invertebrate communities at these stations. Station depth, sediment particle size,
calcium and total phosphorus were also correlated with the first Discriminant Function (DF) axis
and may be influencing or covarying factors on the benthic invertebrate communities. The
second DF axis represented increasing nitrogen concentration and decreasing sediment density
(i.e., increasing porosity). However, these findings must be interpreted with caution. The actual
number of stations in the study was small compared with the large number of environmental
variables examined. The benthic invertebrate data exhibited a large amoimt of variation among
stations and the principal components defining the benthic groups accounted for less than half the
observed variation. Spatial autocorrelation may produce apparent relationships even when no
specific cause and effect can be ascertained.
Toxicity results for each station are compared with chemistry and benthic commimity results in
an assessment matrix in Table 10, based on the approach of Chapman et al. (1996).
Although chemistry and toxicit) test results indicated Station 52 sediments to be of relatively
36
Table 9. Pearson correlations between environmental variables and the first two
discriminant functions for the benthic invertebrate communities. The first
two discriminant functions were significant using the Chi-square statistic (alpha
<0.00I.)
Parameter
Discriminant Function |
I
II
PAH PCA I
0.802
-0.409
TOC
0.759
-0.256
Calcium
0.631
-0.411
Particle size PCA I
0.495
-0.417
Chloride
0.466
0.265
Loss of Ignition
0.364
0.193
Density
0.339
-0.555
Particle Size PCA U
0.258
-0.128
Sohent Extractables
0.099
0.181
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
0.073
0.549
Ammonium (total reactive)
0.024
0.287
Metals PCA H
-0.161
0.017
Distance from CDN shore
-0.195
0.43 1
Metals PCA I
-0.262
0.068
Metals PCA m
-0.418
-0.152
Eh (Redox Potential)
-0.485
0.077
Moisture
-0.491
0.5
Water Depth
-0.554
-0.287
Total Phosphorus
-0.565
0.182
37
a.
2
O
>
à --
^ \ ,
a
l-H ~" -
t— 1 ^ -, . ■ • ■
1 -
: [ftp;
°° .s o
o
CNJ
O
CD
o
to
<
<
Q
o
CM
O
V
a,
c B
'Uî o
«s *-•
o
CM
•S 3
o
s\xy VG
o
•S ^
C3 to
.1^
o
CM
■a
o
o
■q.
a
E
9
M)
good quality compared with the other stations, the benthic community at this station was
relatively pauperate. This observation could be due to a number of factors including basic habitat
conditions, and/or the presence of contaminants exceeding LELs, however no solid conclusions
can be made at this time as to the possible cause of low benthic invertebrate numbers. The
presence of at least some "sensitive" ephemeropteran taxa may indicate that pollution effects may
be relatively unimportant in affecting benthic communities at this station.
Station 35 sediment contained very high concentrations of chromium which exceeded the PSQG-
SEL by an order of magnitude. Lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium levels also exceeded the
respective PSQG-LELs. However, laboratory bioassay tests with Hexagenia limbata,
Chironomus tentans and Pimephales promelas did not identify any toxicity. This suggests that
these metals were not readily available to the organisms and/or did not exceed an actual toxic
threshold in the tests. The bioassay test results correspond with the benthic invertebrate
community results, since Station 35 had the richest and most abundant benthic fauna assemblage
of all stations sampled in this study.
The high acute toxicity of Algoma Slip sediments, as indicated by the two invertebrate bioassays,
would appear to explain the total absence of benthic invertebrates in situ. PAHs may be
responsible for the toxicity of these sediments. Relative to other stations sampled, PAHs were
significantly (p < 0.05) elevated at Station 183. Total PAHs were two orders of magnitude above
the PSQG-LEL, but below the SEL guideline. Concentrations of other contaminants in Station
183 sediments were not appreciably different from those at Stations 102, 165, 169 and 172,
where benthic invertebrates were still present in the sediments.
Station 102, 165, 169 and 172 sediments were all characterized by moderately elevated heavy
metals and PAH concentrations, with numerous parameters exceeding the respective PSQG-
LELs. Within this group of stations, laboratory bioassay test results indicated that Stations 165
and 1 69 were more toxic to the two benthic invertebrate species tested than were sediments from
stations 172 or 102. All of these sediments resulted in chronic effects to Chironomus tentans ;
however, only Station 165 and 169 sediments were acutely toxic. This association of stations
based on toxicity test results does not correspond with the groups based on chemistry and benthic
fauna results, in which Stations 102 and 169 consistently grouped together. Review of the
sediment chemistry results did not indicate any obvious differences in contaminant profiles
which might account for the differences in the observed toxicity among these stations.
Station 172, in the Lake George Channel, had the lowest diversity of the eight stations sampled.
This was associated with a dominance by immature tubificid worms without hair setae (>80%
relative abundance). Station 172 is located just downstream of the East End Sewage Treatment
Plant which, results would suggest, may be responsible for impairment at this station. The
benthic community at this station exhibited the classical response to severe organic enrichment
39
T3
S
£
3
t/2
H
—
—
5
z
>
>.
j_, c
«
3
Q 3
o
>.
"c
o
< ^
■^ 3
■c S
u O
c
3
B
o
o
X
<
a.
X
< S
c
o
P
1
a. Z
U (3
II
0- .Q
1
1
3
'3
a. §
2 -S
=
5
>. 1 1
"S Ml
= 1
■ft 00
— C
-0
î 1
O 'O
— C
c
o
U
">
3
o
o
gradation
an of benthic commu!
;;ity in sediments assc
ns between PAHs am
i 2
Xi Y^
o ao
■C 3
effects on benthic co
t/low DO
toxicity may be conti
i -
0
3
0
0
'3
i
toxicity possibly duc
t probable
benthic community i
1
1 1
"S c 1 '^
Ç 4J
3
^
g
•7: c G
S
i
il ^1
o >
1. '^ "1 &
C3 O
0
^
1
_
c
"O
"c
T3
2
c/ *5
A
S
"H >^
^ s
—
c
3 W5
c
5
h-
0. _
i'l
■o
c
II ^
c
>^
■1 y E
3 i >
Il i
UJ
A i
^ c
■O -3
^ O
C
>,
^
"0
"0
'3
3
5
3
5
:i i
■•J c
A S
■0 5
■5 '^
n
a
-
H
u ~
^
S ^
« o
•J >
S
ll
+
+
+
+
+
3
-^
'X o
o ^
.-
c —
■p
c
H
3
<
+
+
+
+
A
U
li^
it
£
>^
û: 15 i-
i
oil
X
<
JD a.'
û. S
Z ==
Z
c"
S
M)
a.'
a.'
03
c
t^'s:"
f 1
Z X
1
A
3
2
o
3
E
3
<
TKN. TOC, As, Cd, Cr, Cu,
Anth. BaA, BaP, BkF. Chry. D
Fluor. BghiP. IP. Phen. Pyr.
U
Û .
si
i/T 0-
<
g
a.'
H
S-
Û
£•
.c
U
u.'
03
a.'
CD
<
03
<
1
0.'
a."
CD
o
E
TKN, TP, TOC, As, Cd, Cr. Cu
Zn.
BaA, BaP, BkF, Chry, DahA, Fl
IP, Phen, Pyr. TPAH;
3'
U
^ c-
T>' N
^ X.-
1/ CL
<
a.'
H
Z
E :£
■§ f-
:2 ^-
6^
u g
03
a.'
<
3'
<
H
z"
(-
a.
a.'
Ob
03
<
1-
^
_
_
c
^
c
^
t>
c
S5
c
o
!îî CO
1 ^
r". .9-
oc — ;
.1 i
a!
— c
c
!:: 6
c au
c
£ u
5 M,
DC
c
0
2
1 5
55
i
g
a g
c5 an
n aj
-5 c
2
^ i^
t/!
1
«^
^ <
— 3
^
j
« j3
^
X
^_
-3
a. .X
z
a.
„
•p
+
-q
—
II
j:
u
-q
u
^
p
„)
Ë
X
!^
','.
XI
'
#
■
'0
— .
,,
a: g g
■5 ë -
2 3 a
o JJ 60
3 ^U c
ï: 3 Ë
o t; o
Ils
and low dissolved oxygen often associated with sewage treatment plant effluent. The benthic
community had a very low diversity, resulting from the very high abundance of a few pollution-
tolerant forms. Stations 169, 165, 102 and 87 had more diverse benthic invertebrate community
assemblages, comprised of many pollution-tolerant forms. However the relative dominance of
naidid worms at Station 169 and 102, and of isopods at Stations 165 and 87, indicate an
environment with reduced effects of organic pollution compared to Station 172.
Little Lake George sediments (Station 87) caused growth inhibition of C. tentons; however, it
was not possible to discern the result of any such toxic effect on the resident benthic invertebrate
community. Station 87 did, however, have a less rich fauna compared with Station 102. As
with Station 102, Station 87 represents a lentic habitat, making direct comparison with the
benthic fauna at riverine stations tenuous, due to potential habitat differences.
4.5 Sediment Quality and Benthic Community Trends
An attempt was made to determine if any long-term temporal trends are evident in the St. Marys
River sediments. This was performed by comparing benthic invertebrate community (Table 10)
and sediment qualit\' data (Table 6) from the 1992 study with that from earlier Ministry surveys
in 1983 (McKee et ai, 1984), 1985 (Burt et al.. 1988), 1987 (Pope, 1990), 1989 (Kauss, 1999;
Kauss & Nettleton. 1999) and 1990 (Pope & Kauss, 1995). This proved difficult, since the eight
stations sampled in 1992 were not always sampled in the earlier studies. Moreover. Station 35
was a completely new sampling location added for the 1 992 survey. Finally, analytical
capability was not readily available for some contaminants (e.g., PAHs) during the earlier
studies.
Nevertheless, the data summarized in Table 1 1 shows that, for a number of the sediment
contaminants, there has been a decrease in concentration over time; for others, the trend is
variable, or perhaps increasing in more recent years. A decreasing trend was more evident at the
Little Lake George and Lake George stations than at those located further upstream, perhaps due
to the more depositional nature of the former. The most extensive temporal information is for
Station 87 in Little Lake George, with data available for most contaminants from four years,
dating back to 1985. Concentrations of a number of these contaminants are plotted in Figxire 14,
indicating decreases of 44 % or more between 1985 and 1992. For example, TKN, TP, arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, manganese, lead, nickel, zinc and solvent extractables decreased
51, 44, 52. 68, 58, 68, 53, 44, 36 and 54 %, respectively, over the seven year period. Total PAHs
decreased by 55 % between 1987 and 1992. In fact, many contaminant concentrations were
below their respective PSQG-LELs or OWDMDGs in 1992 sediment, and copper and solvent
extractables were close (Fig. 14). This decrease was however, also evident in the sediment TOC
content and to lesser extent, the proportion of silt and clay (Fig. 14). Statistical analysis of data
41
(A
e
s s SI îïj -1-1-3 -1 :S1 S SI s 1 2 ai S! i -1
i s S-t 2Î il il : 1 :SI 5;| i SI : Il f ?;t =1 | :
"• "
O? aï
a^ -o
i
- ;^ Si a s ? i ^ S! ai 1 s i g i 1 , 1 ^
1 s SI -1 1 2i 5 1 SI #■! i -1 i 1 H -i ii 1 î
ë ^ ^ SI ih ^ ^ ^1 s| 1 ^1 1 Ih ^t 11 I ?!
£ K «1 " si il : Zl 31 SI 1 ?.l ^ m ai g| 1 :
- -•
c
- c
^ _ .-4 ^1 rjl t-.l <• 1-1 -rj-l "1 «I 5 .cl Ol , ,-1 ^ ="[
- = si îl si =1 o ■£ rI ^1 s -1 s -1 si -! -i = o\
^ i 3 3 S - -1 -i SI i SI i il ■ 21 il g sj
- ■"•
r-
^ -o
i
c
^ § ai :^i ihi i ^ Si S] 1 su £ il ai SI i ii
J s 31 :^ il si s ^' 5i 1 g ai 1 ^ su S! i ^
- -o
^
E
? i n fi î % s 11 S! SI 1 SI 1 Si î ^.1 s i 1!
: & SI - si ^ : ÏIl § SI 1 SI 1 II : ^1 li | |i
- -^
3 i 1
^ 1 i
i § Ë a ï i! S 1 -1 SI i P. i ^1 ï ^ M SI
^ S 2i - f, r i ^ SI i 1 Hl ï ^ ^ S il
- -
o.
i 1 il
£ £ 1
^ s § SI a s : II) i 11 i ï 1 § à ! n s
^ 3 II :i S ^ ^ i i - i S g S t - 5 1 1
O ^
1 1
1 J i
Silt & Clay (<62 um diam ) "o
l.oss on Ignition g kg '
lolal Organic Carbon
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Arsenic mg kg '
Cyanide
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
.Solvent f-xiractables
Tolalof 16 PAIIs
<
"E. u
z 3
o
III
O
3
■£ 5
- e-
■o
r,
5
-c
=«
-=
^
.,
,%
5
g.
p
y
^
3
E
Si
O
fc
_3
^
^
J3
■^
E
1
S
8
3
O
■O
1
>
II
."
y
y
1
iç
sCOPPER
1987 1989
YEAR
buo-
400-
200-
0-
■ _ rsoG-is. ikU
at
1— _ZjNC
\manganese
E
1
PSOG-LB. au
h 1 1 r
1987 1989
YEAR
1992 1985
1987 1989
YEAR
1987 1989
YEAR
1987 1989
YEAR
Figure 14. Sediment quality trends at Station 87 in Little Lake George.
43
o
o
1-
140
O)
40
E
10
1987 1989
YEAR
o> 1,000
YEAR
1987 1989
YEAR
1987 1989
YEAR
Figure 15. Sediment quality trends (TOC-normalized) at Station 87 in Little Lalve
George.
44
from Stations 165, 172, 169 and 87 (those most relevant to this section of the river) indicated
significant positive correlations (Pearson Product-Moment; p < 0.05, see Table C-1 1) between
TOC concentrations and those of TKN. solvent extractables. arsenic, chromium, copper, iron,
lead, mercur>'. manganese, selenium, zinc and Total PAHs (Appendix C). Plots of sediment
contaminant concentrations normalized to TOC indicate a relatively unchanging (e.g.. Total
Kjeldahl nitrogen, copper, zinc), an increasing (e.g., arsenic, lead, manganese), or variable (e.g.,
iron, solvent extractables, Total PAHs) trend over time (Fig. 15).
Benthic community status appears to have changed little, i.e., "moderately impaired" (Table 11).
although there is only information for 1985 and 1992.
The specific reasons for the increases in some contaminant concentrations over time at certain
stations (e.g., chromium, iron and manganese at Station 52) are unclear, but may be related to
local spatial heterogeneity and/or the temporal variability (i.e., transient nature due to movement
of sediments in the river) as a result of physical factors (e.g., short- or long-term changes in the
outflow from Lake Superior and/or flow patterns in the river, wave action, storms, vessel-
induced turbulence). Except for sediments in the deepest areas of some water bodies (e.g.. Lakes
Superior and Ontario), those in the connecting rivers, riverine lakes and shallower areas of lakes
will eventually be resuspended and moved downstream (Allan, 1986; Carter & Kites, 1992;
Hawley et ai, 1996; McCorquodale & Tomczak, 1998).
45
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Eight stations in the upper St. Marys River, spanning a distance of about 40 km., were sampled in
1992. Of these stations, the sediments at the Algoma Slip station were completely devoid of
benthic invertebrates and were also acutely toxic in laboratory sediment bioassays. Elevated
concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were found in these sediments and
appear to be linked to the observed toxic impacts. Statistical analysis (i.e., ordination and
cluster) of the benthic invertebrate data identified three groups among the seven remaining
stations. These were identified as: Group I (Tannery Bay); Group II (Lake George Channel and
Lake George) and Group DI (Points aux Pins Bay, Little Lake George. Bellevue Marine Park and
Lake George Channel).
Contaminants found at elevated concentrations in the St Marys River sediment samples included
arsenic, cyanide, heavy metals, solvent extractables (oils and greases) and numerous PAHs. No
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorinated phenols, chlorinated benzenes, organochlorine
pesticides, phenoxyacid herbicides or triazine herbicides were found in river sediments above
their respective analytical minimum reporting limits. Significant correlations were found among
sediment chemistry parameters within specific contaminant groups for metals, PAHs and
polychlorinated dioxins and furans. Principal components analysis was used to reduce the
multivariate data sets to one or two principal components for these parameter groups and for
sediment particle size data. A strong positive correlation was observed between total organic
carbon (TOC) and PAH concentrations in the sediments.
Discriminant function analysis using principal components derived from environmental variables
(as outlined above), discriminated among station groups derived from the benthic invertebrate
community data. Based on this analysis, PAHs, TOC and station depth appeared to be important
factors affecting benthic communities. Particle size, total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen
and calcium were also identified as environmental variables possibly influencing the benthic
communities. However, this conclusion must be interpreted cautiously in light of the inherent
limitations of the data. Spatial autocorrelation may be in part responsible for the observed
relationships.
Laboratory sediment bioassays with Hexagenia limbata nymphs and Chironomits tentans larvae
indicated toxicity in all sediments except those from the two stations upstream of St. Marys Falls
and Sault Ste. Marie point source discharges (i.e.. Point aux Pins Bay and Tannery Bay).
Bioassays using juvenile fathead minnows {Pimephales promelas) did not detect toxicity in any
sediments. In general, the sediment toxicity results were in agreement with the benthic
invertebrate community and chemistr}' results. There were however, several apparent exceptions,
including:
46
• Concentrations of chromium exceeded the Provincial Aquatic Sediment Quality Severe
Effect Level (SEL) guideline in Tannery Bay sediments, but no toxicity or negative
effects on the benthic invertebrate community were apparent; and
• Sediments from stations in Bellevue Marine Park and Lake George Channel were more
closely associated in terms of toxicity test results than was predicted by benthic
invertebrate community or sediment chemistrv' information.
• Concentrations of copper, cadmium and fluorene exceeding Provincial Aquatic Sediment
Quality Lowest Effect Level (LED guidelines in Pomt aux Pins Bay were apparently not
toxic to the benthic taxa, as indicated by the sediment bioassay results. Sediment toxicity
would therefore not appear to be an important factor contributing to the relatively low
richness and productivity of the benthic community at that station.
Good evidence exists to suggest that toxicity from contaminants in sediments is adversely
affecting benthic communities at Bellevue Marine Park and in Lake George Channel. At the
former, where the highest degree of toxicity was observed, asellid isopods dominated the benthic
community, which may indicate a low relative sensitivity of this taxon to the effect of pollutants.
Based on comparisons of contaminant levels among sites, a specific contaminant and/or
environmental conditions could not be identified which could be related to the high degree of
toxicity observed for Bellevue Marine Park sediment.
Sublethal toxicity was observed in bioassays with the sediments from Little Lake George and
Lake George, and these stations may be slightly impacted by such effects, either alone or in
combination w^ith organic enrichment. Most notably, the benthic community from Lake George
was indicative of effects associated with organic enrichment.
Benthic communities at a station in Lake George Channel just downstream of the East End
sewage treatment plant outfall exhibited characteristics of a classic organic enrichment model,
resulting in ver>' low diversity and high abundance of a few pollution-tolerant species.
To determine if any long-term temporal trends exist in the St. Mar}'s River sediments, benthic
invertebrate community and sediment quality data were compared with that from earlier Ministry
surveys in 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989 and 1990. Benthic invertebrate community status appears to
have changed little over the years. For a number of the sediment contaminants, there was a
decrease in concentration over time; for others, the trend was variable, or perhaps even
increasing in more recent years. A decreasing trend was more evident at the Little Lake George
and Lake George stations than at those located further upstream, perhaps due to their more
depositional nature. The most extensive temporal information was for Station 87 in Little Lake
George, with data available for most contaminants from four years, dating back to 1985.
47
Concentrations of a number of these contaminants (TKN, TP, arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, manganese, lead, nickel, zinc and solvent extractables) indicated decreases of 40 % or
more between 1985 and 1992. Total PAHs decreased by 55 % between 1987 and 1992. This
decrease was however, also evident in the sediment TOC content and to lesser extent, the
proportion of silt and clay. Statistical analysis of data from Stations 165, 172. 169 and 87
indicated significant positive correlations between TOC concentrations and those of TKN,
solvent extractables, arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, manganese, selenium, zinc
and Total PAHs. Plots of sediment contaminant concentrations normalized to TOC indicated a
relatively unchanging (e.g., total Kjeldahl nitrogen, copper, zinc), an increasing (e.g., arsenic,
lead, manganese), or variable (e.g., iron, solvent extractables, Total PAHs) trend over time.
Reasons for the increases in some contaminant concentrations over time at certain stations (e.g.,
chromium, iron and manganese at Station 52) are unknown, but may be related to spatial
heterogeneity and/or the temporal variability as a result of physical factors.
Recommendation: Due to the spatial variability of sediments in the river and their dynamic
nature, several stations should be sampled within a sub-area (e.g.. Lake George Channel) to
obtain a more representative picture of sediment quality and benthic community status. These
should be re-sampled periodically (e.g., every five years, or after completion of major upstream
source remediation) to obtain trend infonnation. In addition, the collection, chemical analysis
and radiodating of discrete sections of sediment cores from a "depositional" area of the river
(e.g.. Lake George) will provide a good historical perspective of sediment quality and upstream
contaminants loadings.
48
6.0 REFERENCES
Allan, R.J., 1986. The limnological units of the lower Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River corridor
and their role in the source and aquatic fate of toxic contaminants. Water Poll. Res. J.
Canada, 21(2): 168-186.
Bedard, D., A. Hayton and D. Persaud, 1992. Ontario Ministry of the Environment Laboratory
Sediment Biological Testing Protocol. Ontario Ministry of the Environment report.
Toronto, Ontario. 23 pp.
Bedard, D. and S. Petro. 1997. Laboratory Sediment Bioassay Report on St. Marys River
Sediments 1992 &. 1995. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, Standards
Development Branch report. Toronto, Ontario. 60 pp. + appendix.
Bray, R. T., and J.T. Curtis, 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southem
Wisconsin Ecol. Monogr., 27: 325-349.
Burt, A.J., D.R. Hart and P.M. McKee. 1988. Benthic Invertebrate Survey of the St. Marys
River. 1985. Volume 1 - Main Report. Report prep, by Beak Consultants Ltd. for
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Great Lakes Section. Toronto, Ontario.
Carter, D.S. and R.A. Hites, 1992. Unusual alkylphenols and their transport in the Trenton
Channel of the Detroit River. Michigan. J. Great Lakes Res., 18(1): 125-131.
Chapman, P.M., M.D. Paine. A.D. Arthur and L.A. Taylor, 1996. A triad study of sediment
quality associated with a major, relatively untreated marine sewage discharge. Mar.
Pollut. Bull., 32: 47-64.
Cook, D.G. and M.G. Johnson. 1974. Benthic macroinvertebrates of the St. Lawrence Great
Lakes. J. Fish. Res. Board Can., 3: 763-782.
EC (Environment Canada). 1994. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines for
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-/7-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans Supporting
Document. Evaluation and Interpretation Branch, Ecosystem Conservation Directorate.
Ottawa, Ontario.
Gauch, H.G. Jr., 1982. Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology. Cambridge University
Press . 298 pp.
49
Hawley, N., X. Wang, B. BrouTiawell and R. Flood, 1996. Resuspension of bottom sediments in
Lake Ontario during the unstratified period. 1992-93. J. Great Lakes Res., 22(3): 707-
721.
Hiltunen, J.K. and D.W. Schloesser, 1983. The occurrence of oil and the distribution of
Hexagenia (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae) nymphs in the St. Marys River. Michigan and
Ontario. Freshwat. Invert. Biol.. 2(4): 199-203.
Kauss. P.B., 1999. Algoma Slag Dump (St. Mar>s River) Nearshore Sediment Quality and
Contaminant Bioavailability. Ontario Ministr>' of the Environment. Water Monitoring
Section. Technical Report. Etobicoke. Ontario. 70 pp.
Kauss, P.B.. 1992. Project Description. Contaminants in St. Mar\'s River Sediments and their
Relationship to Impairment of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities. Ontario
Ministn,- of the Environment. Water Resources Branch, Great Lakes Section. Toronto,
Ontario. 10 pp.
Kauss. P.B. and Y.S Hamdy. 1991. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in surficial sediments and
caged mussels of the St. Marys River. 1985. Hydrobiologia, 219: 37-62.
Kauss. P.B. and P.C. Nettleton. 1999. Impact of Sault Ste. Marie East End Wastewater
Treatment Plant Discharge on Lake George Channel Waters in 1989. Ontario Ministry' of
the Environment. Surface Water Section and Modelling Section, Technical Report.
Toronto. Ontario. 58 pp.
Mason. CF.. 1981. Biology of Freshwater Pollution. Longman Inc.. NewYork. 250 pp.
McCorquodale. J. A. and M. Tomczak. 1998. Application of Computer Modelling and
Biomonitoring in Decision Making for the St. Clair River Area of Concern. Overview of
Findings Summar}' and Recommendations - A Component Report of the Application of
Computer Modeling and Biomonitoring Tools to Assist in Decision Making for the St.
Clair River Area of Concern. Report prep, for St. Clair River Remedial Action Plan by
Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research. Windsor. Ontario. 20 pp.
McKee. P.M.. A.J. Burt, and D.R. Hart, 1984. Benthic Invertebrate and Sediment Survey of the
St. Marys River, 1983. Report (unpublished) prep, by Beak Consultants Ltd. for Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, U'ater Resources Branch. Toronto. Ontario.
Nalepa. T.F. and N.A. Thomas. 1976. Distribution of macrobenthic species in Lake Ontario in
relation to pollution and sediment parameters. J. Great Lakes. Res.. 2( ): 150-163.
50
Nemec. A.F.L. and R.O. Brinkhurst. 1989. Using bootstrap to assess statistical significance in
the cluster analysis of species abundance data. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 45: 965-970.
OMOE (Ontario Ministr>' of the Environment). 1989a. Guide to the Collection and Submission
of Samples for Laboratorv' Analysis. 6th edition. Laboratory' Services Branch. Etobicoke.
Ontario. 81 pp.
OMOE ( ), 1989b. The Detenmnation of Mercur)' in Soils,
Sediments and Vegetation by Cold Vapour-Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry (CV-
AAS). Laboratory Services Branch. Etobicoke. Ontano.
OMOE ( ), 1990. The Determination of Arsenic. Selenium
and Antimony in Vegetation. Soil and Sediments by Hydnde-Flameless Atomic
Absorption Spectrophotometry (HYD-FAASj. Laboraior\- Services Branch. Etobicoke,
Ontario.
OMOEE (Ontario Ministry' of Environment and Energy), 1994a. The Determination of Trace
Metals in Sediments by the Spectro Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission
Spectrometer (ICP-OES). HMARSOIL-E3062A. Laboraton,- Ser\ices Branch Quality
Management Office. Etobicoke. Ontario.
OMOEE ( ). 1994b. The Determination of
Polychlonnated Biphenyls (PCBs), Organochlonnes (Ocs) and Chlorobenzenes (Cbs) in
Soil and Sediments by Gas Liquid Chromatography-Electron Capture Detection (GLC-
ECD). PSAOC-E3270A. Laboratory- Ser\ices Branch Quality Management Office.
Etobicoke, Ontario.
OMOEE ( ), 1994c. The Determination of
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in Soil and Sediments by Gel Permeation
Chromatography-High Performance Liquid Chromatography (GPC-HPLC). PSAPAH-
E3350A. Laboratory Ser\ices Branch Quality Management Office. Etobicoke. Ontario.
OMOEE ( ). 1995a. The Determination of
Polychlonnated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans in Soil and Sediment by GC-MS.
PSAFD-E3151B. Laboratory Services Branch Quality Management Office. Etobicoke,
Ontano.
51
OMOEE ( ), 1995b. The Determination of
Extractable Organics in Water, Waste and Soil by Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry (GC-MS). E3186A. Laboratory Services Branch, Quality Management
Office. Etobicoke, Ontario.
OMOEE ( ), 1995c. The Determination of Total
Carbon in Sediments by the LECO Carbon Analyzer. CARBONTC-E3142A.
Laboratory Services Branch, Quality Management Office. Etobicoke, Ontario.
OMOEE ( ), 1995d. The Determination of Moisture
Content, RST, RSTA and LOI in Sediments by Gravimetry. PHYSOLID-E3139A.
Laboratory Services Branch, Quality Management Office. Etobicoke, Ontario.
OMOEE ( ), 1995e The Determination of Particle
Size on Sediment Samples by Microtrac Particle Size Analyzer Model 7991-2. PZSIZE-
E3262A and SMPART-E3128A. Laboratory Sen.'ices Branch. Quality Management
Office. Etobicoke, Ontario.
OMOEE ( _____), 1995f The Determination of Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus in Soil and Sediments by Colourimetry
(NPSED-E3 1 16A). Laboratory Services Branch, Quality Management Office. Etobicoke,
Ontario.
OMOEE ( ), 1996. The Determination of Organic
Solvent Extractable Materials in Solids by Soxhlet Extraction (SXT-E3241 A). Laboratory
Services Branch, Quality Management Office. Etobicoke, Ontario.
OMOEE ( ), 1997a. The Determination of Total
Cyanide in Solid Samples by Colourimetry. E3007A. Laboratory Services Branch,
Quality Management Office. Etobicoke, Ontario.
OMOEE { ), 1997b. The Determination of Arsenic,
Selenium, and Antimony in Soil, Sediments and Vegetation by Hydride Generation-
Flameless Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry (HYD-FAAS). E3245A. Laboratory
Services Branch, Quality Management Office. Etobicoke, Ontario.
OMOEE ( ), 1997c. The Determination of
Water-Extractable Chloride in Soil and Sediments by Ion Chromatography (IC). E3013A.
Laboratory Services Branch, Quality Management Office. Etobicoke, Ontario.
52
Persaud, D.. R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton, 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management
of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy,
Standards Development Branch and Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch
report. 24 pp. + figures.
Poe, T. P. and D.C. Stefan, 1975. Several environmental factors influencing the distribution of
the freshwater polychaete, Manayiinkia speciosa Seidy. Chesapeake Sci., 15: 235-237.
Pope, R., 1990. Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Samples from St. Marys River Sediment
Cores 1987. Report prep, for Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources
Branch 58 pp.
Pope, R. and P.B. Kauss, 1995. Algoma Slip Sediment Quality and Benthic Invertebrate
Community Assessment. Report prep, by Tarandus Associates Ltd. for Ontario Ministry
of Environment and Energy, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch, Surface
Water Section, Toronto, Ontario. 65 pp.
Rohlf, F.J. 1992, NYTSYS-pc. Numeric Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System. Version
1.70. Applied Biostatistics Inc., N.Y.
Wetzel, R.G., 1975. Limnology. W.B. Saunders Co., Toronto, Ontario. 743 pp.
Wilkinson, L., 1990. SYSTAT: The Svstem for Statistics. SYSTAT, Inc., Evanston, Illinois.
53
7.0 TAXONOMIC REFERENCES
Bednarik, A.F. and W.P. McCafferty, 1979. Biosystematics revision of the genus Stenonema
(Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Bull No 201. 73 pp.
Borror, D.J., C.A. Triplehom and N.F. Johnson, 1989. An Introduction to the Study of Insects.
6th edition. Saunders College Publ., Philadelphia, Pa. 875 pp.
Brown, H. P., 1976. Aquatic dryopoid beetles (Coleoptera) of the United States. Water
Pollution Control Research Series 18050 ELD04/72, 2nd printing. 82 pp.
Clarke, A. H., 1981. The Freshwater Molluscs of Canada. National Museum of Natural History.
National Museums of Canada. Ottawa, Can.. 446 pp.
Flint, O. S., 1962. Larvae of the caddisfly genus Rhyacophila in eastern North America
(Trichoptera: Rhyacophilidae). Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., 113: 465-493.
Fullington, K.E. and K.W. Stewart. 1980. Nymphs of the stonefly genus Taeniopteryx
(Plecoptera: Taeniopterygidae) of North America. J. Kansas Ent. Soc. 53: 237-259.
Harper, P.P. and H.B.N. Hynes, 1971. The nymphs of the Taniopterygidae of eastern Canada
(Insecta: Plecoptera). Can. J. Zool., 49: 941-947.
Hilsenhoff. W.L.. 1984. Aquatic Hemiptera of Wisconsin. The Great Lakes Ent.. 17:29-50.
Hilsenhoff. W.L. and W.U. Bringham, 1978. Crawling water beetles of Wisconsin (Coleoptera:
Haliplidae). The Great Lakes Ent., 11:1 1-22.
Hitchcock. S.W.. 1974. Guide to the insects of Connecticut. Part VII. The Plecoptera or
stoneflies of Connecticut. State Geological and Nat. Hist. Survey of Conn. Bull. 107,
263 pp.
Klemm, D.J., 1985. A Guide to the Freshwater Annelida (Polychaeta, Naidid and Tubificid
Oligochaetes. and Hirudinea) of North America. Kendall/Hunt Publ.. Dubuque. Iowa.
198 pp.
McCafferty. W.P., 1975. The burrowing mayflies of the United States (Ephemeroptera:
Ephemeroidea). Trans. Am Ent. Soc, 101: 447-504.
Merrit, R.W. and K.W. Cummins, 1984. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North
America. Kendall/Hunt Publ., Dubuque, Iowa. 722 pp.
54
Pennak, R.W., 1989. Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States. Protozoa to Mollusca. 3rd
edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 628 pp.
Stewart, K.W. and B.P. Stark. 1988. Nymphs of the North American stonefly genera
(Plecoptera). The Thomas Say Foundation, 12, 460 pp.
Wiederholm, T. (éd.). 1983. Chironomidae of the Holartic region. Keys and diagnosis. Parti.
Larvae. Ent. Scand. Suppl. No. 19, 457 pp.
Wiederholm, T. (éd.), 1983. Chironomidae of the Holartic region. Keys and diagnosis. Part 2.
Pupae. Ent. Scand. Suppl. No. 28, 482 pp.
Wiggins, G.B., 1977. Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera). Univ. of
Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. 401 pp.
Wood, D.M., B.V. Peterson, D.M. Davies and H. Gyorkos, 1963. The black flies
(Diptera:Simuliidae) of Ontario. Part II. Larval identification with descriptions and
illustrations. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Ont., 93: 99-129.
55
APPENDIX A
Station Locations and Descriptions
56
c
E
et
fS
ON
OS
J3
H
c
ii £
u a
-O Q.
S J
> ^
T3
— *c
2i
c
u
1»
V
IE E
ë E
"«
s
n
ra
CL
K
5
T3
Jc
5
S o
'c
3
o
o
g
a u
3
"
"
E
-
E
E
^
■3
Co
ÔO
3 ^^
o
p
E
—
r^
r^
o
TT
^
^
^
■»
^
■^
^
-]
OO
OO
OO
OO
OO
OO
00
3 ^
ÔV
'■c
'T
Co
rn
'T
0-
Ôv
r-i
ON
rn
CTs
r^
c>
"
<>
VO
O
^
vO
vO
<i
Co
■^
•T
■^
"
* S
■O
«v-i
vD
»y-i
r^
O
f^l
tN
= £
T
O
rvi
fN
—
vO
r-i
—
ft> H.
-^
E ^
= 2
u f
O
O
ÏQ
O
O
o
O
= ë
S
z
DO
—
o
ïâ
Q.
E
3
w
1
i
o.
&•
■5
H
^
o
^
&.
s
Û
-a
c
LU
;o
•s
c
1
1
J
u
o
E
a
o
E
^^
"
â
E
E
i
v5
S
1
o
o
o
-a
O
z
E
o
•o
E
"o
â
z
E
o
r
Z
o
<
o
o
z
J
o
o
o
o
c:
o
1
1
c
c
Ç
a
■■^
c
_ç
_g
OO
o
o
«
o
*M
U
6
a.
ex
>.
c-
S
M
Uj
O
-5
c
ffl
^
S
o
o
j^
o
5.
3
C
>
o
o
'E
'o
a.
eo —
a
c
h-
3
a
-' S
J
-J
3
c
c
Ç
Ç
.= 2.
c
c
Ç
■~
■~
■~
■~
C 4<
.2 -o
V-.
rn
^o
r-
'Z
^
r;
o
— 3
'^ Z
APPENDIX B
Benthic Invertebrate Data
58
Table B-1. Mean density (number, m"^) of benthic organisms at each station in the
St. Marys River, 1992. The mean (n=3), standard deviation (S.D.) and
coefficient of variation (C.V.) of total abundance and richness are also given.
Station
TAXON
52
35
183
165
172
169
87
102
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Valvatidae
Vatvata sincere
0
53
0
477
0
0
0
7
Viviparidae
Campeloma decisum
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
Pelecypoda
Sphaeridae
Pisidium sp.
0
794
0
51
0
84
0
7
Sphaerium sp
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
7
Sphaerium heringianus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
Nematoda
152
1077
0
1097
1787
253
1671
124
Annelida
Hirudinea
Erpobdellidae
Mooreobdella fervida
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
Glossophoniidae
Helobdella slagnalis
0
206
0
0
0
0
0
0
Helobdellafusca
0
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
Alboglossiphoma heieroclita
0
512
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oligochaeta
Enchytraeidae
0
2149
0
0
0
0
0
0
Naididae
Slavma appendiculata
0
0
0
0
0
2934
107
62
Nats variabilis
0
53
0
213
84
443
213
7
Pristinella osborni
0
0
0
0
84
0
0
0
Vejdovskyella intermedia
0
0
0
0
0
1288
0
38
Ophidonais serpentina
0
0
0
0
0
63
0
0
Chaetogaster diaphanous
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
Lumbriculidae
Stylodrilus heringianus
0
346
0
498
0
0
0
0
Tubificidae
immature without hair setae
51
20
0
1778
12076
1731
583
180
immature with hair setae
0
1481
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sp I rospe rma fe rox
152
0
0
640
169
697
107
20
Potamothrix vejdovskyi
0
1409
0
0
0
1288
0
193
Limnodrilus hoffmeisleri
0
0
0
213
378
0
107
0
Autodritus plunseia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
109
Sparganophiha
Sparganophilus einseni
0
20
0
7
0
0
0
0
Polychaeta
Sabellidae
Manayunkia speciosa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
Anhropoda
Ephemeroptera
Tricorythidae
Tnchorythodes sp.
0
20
0
7
0
0
0
0
59
Table B-1 continued.
Station
TAXON
52
35
183
165
172
169
87
102
Caenidae
Caenis sp
0
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hexageniidae
Hexagenia limbata
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tnchoptera
Polycentropodidae
Phylocenlopus sp.
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Diptera
Empididae
Chelifera sp.
0
186
0
0
0
0
0
18
Cerratopogonidae
0
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chironomidae
Procladius sp.
51
0
0
264
0
296
284
98
Apsecirolanypus sp.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rheotanylarsus sp.
0
253
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chironomus sp.
0
0
0
51
0
401
85
24
Glyptotendipes sp.
0
107
0
0
0
0
171
0
Mtcropseclra sp.
203
186
0
0
0
0
0
38
Pagasliella sp.
101
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F.ukiefehella sp.
51
167
0
213
0
0
0
182
Cladopelma sp.
0
0
0
0
0
84
0
0
Snctochironomus sp.
0
922
0
0
0
0
0
0
Xenochironomus sp.
0
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cryplochironomus sp.
0
104
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cladotanylarsus sp.
0
267
0
0
0
0
0
0
Phaenopsectra sp.
0
1067
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tanylarsus sp.
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potthastia sp.
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pupae
0
51
0
0
0
148
0
0
Crustacea
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Orconectes limosus
0
0
0
7
0
0
7
0
Amphipoda
Talitridae
Hyalella sp.
0
439
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gammaridae
Gammarus lacusths
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidotea sp.
152
0
0
4791
0
0
562
0
Lirceus sp.
0
0
0
0
0
0
427
0
Copepoda
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
Tardigrada
0
0
0
0
0
0
107
0
MEAN TOTAL ABUNDANCE
1033
12262
0
10306
14578
9711
4430
1249
S.D.
226
4351
6188
10969
1527
2509
284
C.V. %
21.9
35.5
60.0
75.2
157
566
22.8
MEAN RICHESS (number of taxa)
6
20.7
0
7.7
3.7
9.7
6
13.3
SJ).
I
5
2.1
1.5
1.2
2
2.5
C.V. %
167
242
27.3
405
124
33 3
18.8
60
Table B-2. Density (number.m"-) of benthic organisms in individual replicates.
Station 35
Station
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Relative
TAXON
1
2
3
Abundance
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Valvatidae
Valvaia smcera
160
0
0
53
92
0.43
Viviparidae
Campeloma decisum
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Pelecypoda
Sphaeridae
Pisidium sp.
0
608
1773
794
901
6.47
Sphaerium sp
0
20
0
7
12
0.05
Sphaenum henngtanus
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Nemaloda
2400
324
507
1077
1149
8.78
Annelida
Hirudinea
Erpobdellidae
Mooreobdella fenida
20
0
40
20
20
0.16
Glossophoniidae
Helobdella slagnalis
60
304
253
206
129
1.68
Helobdellafusca
20
60
0
27
31
0.22
Alboglossiphonta heleroclila
320
456
760
512
225
4.18
Oligochaeia
Enchytraeidae
4320
608
1520
2149
1934
17.53
Naididae
Slavina appendiculata
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Nais variabilis
160
0
0
53
92
0.43
Pristinella osbomi
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Vejdovskyella iniermedia
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Ophidonms serpentina
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Chaewgasier diaphanous
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Lumbnculidae
Stylodnlus heringianus
480
304
253
346
119
2.82
Tubificidae
immature without hair setae
0
60
0
20
35
0.16
immature with hair setae
2720
456
1267
1481
1147
12.08
Spirosperma ferox
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Potamothrix \ejdo\skyi
1440
760
2027
1409
634
11.49
Umnodrilus hoffmeisten
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Aulodhlus plunseta
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Sparganophiha
Sparganophilus einseni
20
20
20
20
0
0.16
Polychaeta
Sabellidae
Manayunkia speciosa
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Arthropoda
Ephemeroptera
Tricorythidae
Tnchorythodes sp-
320
152
0
157
160
1.28
Caemdae
Caenis sp
160
0
0
53
92
0.43
Hexagemidae
Hexagema limbata
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
61
Table B-2 continued
TAXON
Station
Mean
Standard Relative
Deviation Abundance
Trichoptera
Polycentropodidae
Phylocentopus sp.
Diptera
Empididae
Chelifera sp.
Cerratopogonidae
Chironomidae
Procladius sp.
Apsecirotanypus sp.
Rheoianytarsus sp.
Chironomus sp.
Glyptolendipes sp.
Micropsecira sp.
Pagastiella sp
Eukiefenella sp
Cladopelma sp.
Stictochironomus sp.
Xenochironomus sp.
Cryplochironomus sp.
Cladotanytarsus sp.
Phaenopseara sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Potthastia sp.
Pupae
Crustacea
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Orconectes limosus
Amphipoda
Talitridae
Hyalella sp.
Gammaridae
Gamnmnis lacuslris
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidotea sp.
Lirceus sp.
Copepoda
Harpacticoda
Tardigrada
TOTALS
0
304
253
186
163
1.52
160
20
0
60
87
0.49
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
760
0
253
439
2.07
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
320
0
0
107
185
0.87
0
304
253
186
163
1 52
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
480
20
0
167
272
1.36
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
1600
912
253
922
673
7.52
0
152
0
51
88
0.41
160
152
0
104
90
0.85
0
40
760
267
428
2.17
160
0
3040
1067
1711
870
0
20
0
7
12
0.05
0
40
0
13
23
0.11
0
152
0
51
88
0.41
0
304
1013
439
520
3.58
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
100
62
Table B-2. continued.
Station 52
Station
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Relative
TAXON
1
2
3
Abundance
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Valvatidae
Valvaia sincera
0
0
0
0
0
000
Viviparidae
Campelonia decisum
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Pelecypoda
Sphaeridae
Pisidium sp.
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Sphaerium sp
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Sphaerium henngianus
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Nematoda
0
304
152
152
152
14.71
Annelida
Hirudinea
Erpobdellidae
Mooreobdella fervida
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Glossophoniidae
Helobdella slagnalis
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Helobdella fusca
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Alboglossiphonia helerocliia
0
0
0
0
0
000
Oligochaeta
Enchytraeidae
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Naididae
Slaxina appendiculata
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Nais variabilis
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Phstinella osbnmi
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Vejdovskyella intermedia
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Ophidonais serpentina
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Chaetogaster diaphanous
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Lumbriculidae
Stytodnlus henngianus
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Tubificidae
immature without hair setae
152
0
0
51
88
4.90
immature with hair setae
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Spirosperma ferox
304
0
152
152
152
1471
Potamothrix vejdovskyi
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Limnodrilus hojfmeisten
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Autodrilus ptunseta
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Sparganophilia
Sparganophilus emseni
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Polychaeta
Sabelhdae
Manayunkia speciosa
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Arthropoda
Ephemeroptera
Tricorythidae
Trichorythodes sp-
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Caemdae
Caenis sp.
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Hexageniidae
Hexagenia limbata
0
20
40
20
20
1.94
63
Table B-2 continued
TAXON
Station Standard Relative
Mean Deviation Abundance
Tnchoplera
Polycentropodidae
Phylocentopus sp.
Diptera
Empididae
Chelifera sp.
Cerratopogonidae
Chironomidae
Procladius sp
Apsectrolanypus sp.
Rheotanytarsus sp.
Chironomus sp.
Glyptotendipes sp.
Micropsectra sp.
Pagastiella sp
Eukiefehella sp.
Cladopelma sp.
Stictochironomus sp.
Xenochironomus sp.
Cryptochironomus sp.
Cladoianytarsus sp.
Phaenopsecira sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Polthastia sp
Pupae
Crustacea
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Orconectes limosus
Amphipoda
Talitridae
Hyalella sp.
Gammaridae
Gammarus tacustns
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidotea sp.
Lirceus sp.
Copepoda
Harpacticoda
Tardigrada
TOTALS
152
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
152
0
0
51
gg
4.90
0
0
0
0
0
000
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
152
456
203
232
19.61
0
152
152
101
88
9.81
152
0
0
51
88
4.90
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
G
0
0
0.00
152
G
0
51
88
4.90
152
152
152
152
0
14.71
G
G
0
0
0
0.00
G
0
0
0
0
0.00
64
Table B-2. continued.
Station 87
Station
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Relative
TAXON
1
2
3
Abundance
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Valvatidae
Valvaia sincera
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Viviparidae
Campelnma decisum
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Pelecypoda
Sphacridae
Pisidium sp.
0
0
0
0
0
000
Sphaerium sp
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Sphaenum henngianus
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Nematoda
0
2133
2880
1671
1495
37.72
Annelida
Hirudinea
Erpobdellidae
Mooreobdellafervida
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Glossophoniidae
Helobdella siagnalis
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Helobdella fusca
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Alboglossiphonta hetervclila
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Oligochaeta
Enchytraeidae
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Naididae
Slavina appendiculata
0
0
320
107
185
2.41
Nais variabilis
0
0
640
213
370
4.82
Prisiinella osbomi
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Vejdovskyella intermedia
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Ophidonais serpentina
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Chaetogasler diaphanous
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Lumbnculidae
Stylodnlus henngianus
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Tubificidae
immature without hair setae
256
853
640
583
303
13.16
immature with hair setae
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Spirosperma ferox
0
0
320
107
185
2.41
Potamothrix vejdovskyi
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Limnodntus hoffmeisteri
0
0
320
107
185
2.41
Aulodnlus plunseta
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Sparganophilia
Sparganophilus einseni
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Polychaeta
Sabellidae
Manayunkia speciosa
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Arthropoda
Ephemeroptera
Tncorythidae
Tnchoryihodes sp.
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Caeiudae
Caenis sp.
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Hexageniidae
Hexagema limbata
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
65
Table B-2 continued
TAXON
Station Standard Relative
3 Mean Deviation Abundance
Tnchoptera
Polycentropodidae
Phyloceniopus sp.
Diptera
Empididae
Chelifera sp.
Cerratopogonidae
Chironomidae
Procladius sp.
Apsectrotanypus sp.
Rheotanylarsus sp.
Chironomus sp
Glyptotendipes sp.
Micropseclra sp.
Pagastiella sp
Eukieferietla sp.
Cladopelma sp.
Slictochironomus sp.
Xenochirvnomus sp.
Cryptochironomus sp.
Cladotanytarsus sp.
Phaenopsectra sp.
Tanyiarsus sp.
Potthastia sp.
Pupae
Crustacea
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Orconectes limosus
Amphipoda
Talitridae
Hyalella sp.
Gammaridae
Gammarus lacustris
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidolea sp.
Lirceus sp.
Copepoda
Harpacticoda
Tardigrada
TOTALS
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
853
0
284
493
6.42
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
56
0
0
85
148
1 93
12
0
0
171
296
3.85
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
' 0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.15
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
12
853
320
562
270
12.68
0
1280
0
427
739
9.63
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
66
Table B-2. continued.
station 102
Station
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Relative
TAXON
1
2
3
Abundance
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Valvatidae
Valvata sincera
0
0
20
7
12
0.53
Viviparidae
Campeloma decisum
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Pelecypoda
Sphaendae
Pisidium sp
0
0
20
7
12
0.53
Sphaenum sp
0
0
20
7
12
0.53
Sphaerium henngianus
0
0
80
27
46
2.14
Nematoda
53
220
100
124
86
9.96
Annelida
Hirudinea
Erpobdellidae
Mooreobdella fervida
0
0
0
0
0
000
Glossophoniidae
Helobdella slagnalis
0
0
0
0
0
0,00
Helobdella fusca
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Alboglossiphonia heleroclila
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Oligochaeta
Enchytraeidae
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Naididae
Slavina appendiculata
107
40
40
62
38
4.98
Nais variabilis
0
0
20
7
12
0.53
Prislinella osbomi
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Vejdovskyella intermedia
53
0
60
38
33
3.02
Ophidonais serpentina
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Chaelogaster diaphanous
53
0
0
IS
31
1.42
Lumbnculidae
Slylodrilus heringianus
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Tubificidae
immature without hair setae
320
100
120
180
122
14.41
immature with hair setae
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Spirosperma ferox
0
40
20
20
20
1.60
Potamothrix vejdovskvi
320
80
180
193
121
15.48
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Autodnlus plunseta
267
40
20
109
137
8.72
Sparganophiha
Sparganopliilus einseni
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Polychaeta
SabeHidae
Manayunkia speciosa
53
40
0
31
28
2.49
Arthropoda
Ephemeroptera
Tricorythidae
Trichorythodes sp.
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Caemdae
Caems sp.
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Hexageniidae
Hexagema limbata
0
0
0
0
0
• 0.00
67
Table B-2 continued
TAXON
Station
3 Mean
Standard Relative
Deviation Abundance
Trichoptera
Polycentropodidae
Phylocentopus sp.
Diptera
Empididae
Chelifera sp.
Cerratopogonidae
Chironomidae
Procladius sp.
Apsectrolanypus sp.
Rheotanytarsus sp.
Chironomus sp.
Glyptotendipes sp.
Micropseara sp
Pagasliella sp.
Eukieferietla sp
Cladopelma sp.
Sticlochi ronomus sp.
Xenochironomus sp.
Cryptochironomus sp.
Cladotanytarsus sp.
Phaenopsectra sp.
Tanylarsus sp.
Pouhastia sp.
Pupae
Crustacea
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Oramecles Hmosus
Amphipoda
Talitridae
Hyalella s p.
Gammaridae
Gammarus lacustris
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidotea sp.
Lirceus sp.
Copepoda
Harpacticoda
Tardigrada
TOTALS
53
0
0
IS
31
1.42
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
53
120
120
98
38
7.83
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
53
0
20
24
27
1.96
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
53
40
20
38
17
3.02
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
107
320
120
182
120
14.59
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
- 0
0
0
0
000
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
180
0
60
104
480
000
100
68
Table B-2. continued.
TAXON
Station Standard Relative
Mean Deviation Abundance
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Valvatidae
Valvala sincera
Vivipandae
Campeloma decisum
Pelecypoda
Sphaendae
Pisidium sp.
Sphaerium sp
Sphaenum heringianus
Nematoda
Annelida
Hirudinea
Erpobdellidae
Mvoreobdella fenida
Glossophoniidae
Helobdella slagnalis
Helobdella fusca
Alboglossiphonia heteruchta
Oligochaeta
Enchytraeidae
Naididae
Slavina appendiculata
Nais variabilis
Pristinella usbomi
Vejdovskyella inlermedia
Ophidonais serpentina
Chaetogaster diaphanous
Lumbnculidae
Stylodnlus heringianus
Tubificidae
immature without hair setae
immature with hair setae
Spirosperma ferox
Polamolhrix vejdovskyi
Lim/iodrilus hojfmeisleri
Aulodnlus pluriseia
Sparganophiha
Sparganophilus einseni
Polychaeta
Sabelhdae
Manayunkia speciosa
Arthropoda
Ephemeroptera
Tncorythidae
Thchorylhodes sp.
Caenidae
Caems sp.
Hexageniidae
Hexagema limbata
152
152
0
0
304
0
0
0
2560
0
640
0
0
0
0
640
1920
0
1920
0
640
0
4.63
0.06
0 51 88 0.49
0 0 0 0.00
0 0 0 0.00
427 1097 1269 10.64
0 0 0 0.00
0 0 0 0.00
0 0 0 0.00
0 0
0 213
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3413
0
0
0
0
0
1778
0
640
0
213
0
0
0.00
370
2.07
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
1109
0
370
0
17.25
0.00
6.21
0.00
2.07
0.00
69
Table B-2 continued
TAXON
Station Standard Relative
3 Mean Deviation Abundance
Trichoptera
Polycentropodidae
Phylocenlopus sp
Diplera
Empididae
Chelifera sp.
Cerratopogonidae
Chironomidae
Procladius sp
Apsectrotanypus sp.
Rheotanylarsus sp.
Chironomus sp.
Glyplotendipes sp
Micropsecira sp.
Pagastielta sp.
Eukieferiella sp.
Cladopelma sp.
Stictochironomus sp.
Xenochironomus sp.
Cryptochironomus sp.
Cladotanytarsus sp.
Phaenopsectra sp.
Tanylarsus sp.
Potthasiia sp.
Pupae
Crustacea
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Orconecres limosus
Amphipoda
Talitridae
Hyalella sp.
Gammaridae
Gammarus lacustns
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidotea sp.
Lirceus sp.
Copepoda
Harpacticoda
Tardigrada
TOTALS
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
G
0
0.00
152
640
0
264
334
2.56
0
0
0
G
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
152
0
0
51
88
0.49
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
G
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
640
0
213
370
2.07
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
G
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
■ 0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
G
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
4560
6400
3413
4791
1507
46.49
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
70
Table B-2. continued.
Station 169
Station
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Relative
TAXON
1
2
3
Abundance
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Valvalidae
Vulvala sincera
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Viviparidae
Campeloma decisum
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Pelecypoda
Sphaeridae
Pisidium sp.
0
253
0
84
146
0.87
Sphaerium sp
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Sphaerium heringianus
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Nematoda
760
0
0
253
439
2.61
Annelida
Hirudinea
Erpobdellidae
Mooreobdella fervida
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Glossophoniidae
Helobdetla slagnatis
0
0
0
0
0
000
Helobdetla fusca
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Alboglossiphonia heteroclita
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Oligochaeta
Enchytraeidae
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Naididae
Slavina appendiculata
3230
3040
2533
2934
360
30.22
Nais variabilis
570
253
507
443
168
4.57
Phstinella osborni
0
0
0
0
0
0,00
Vejdovskyella intermedia
1330
1773
760
1288
508
13.26
Ophidonais serpentina
190
0
0
63
110
0.65
Chaetogaster diaphanous
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Lumbnculidae
Stylodrilus heringianus
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Tubificidae
immature without hair setae
1140
2027
2027
1731
512
17.83
immature with hair setae
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Spirospermaferox
1330
507
253
697
563
7.17
Potamothrix vejdovskyi
570
2280
1013
1288
887
13.26
Limnodrilus hoffmeisleh
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Aulodrilus pluriseta
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Sparganophiha
Sparganophilus einseni
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Polychaeta
Sabellidae
Manayunkia speciosa
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Arthropoda
Ephemeroptera
Tncorythidae
Tnchorylhodes sp.
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Caenidae
Caenis sp
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Hexageniidae
Hexagenia timbata
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
71
Table B-2 continued
TAXON
Station
3 Mean
Standard Relative
Deviation Abundance
Trichoptera
Polycentropodidae
Phylocenlopus sp.
Diptera
Empididae
Chelifera sp.
Cerratopogonidae
Chironomidae
Procladius sp.
Apsectrotanypus sp.
Rheolanytarsus sp.
Chironomus sp.
Glyptolendipes sp.
Micrppsectra sp.
Pagastiella sp.
Eukieferiella sp.
Cladopelma sp.
Stictochinmomus sp.
Xenochironomus sp.
Cryptochironomus sp.
Cladotanytarsus sp.
Phaenopsectra sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Polthastia sp
Pupae
Crustacea
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Orconectes limosus
Amphipoda
Talitridae
Hyalella sp.
Gammaridae
Gammarus lacuslris
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidotea sp.
Lirceus sp.
Copepoda
Harpacticoda
Tardigrada
TOTALS
0
G
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
380
507
0
296
264
3.04
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
190
507
507
401
183
4.13
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
253
84
146
0.87
0
0
0
0
0
000
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
190
0
253
148
132
1.52
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
000
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
100
72
Table B-2. continued.
Station 172
Station
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Relative
TAXON
1
2
3
Abundance
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Valvatidae
Valvata sincera
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Viviparidae
Campelonm decisum
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Pelecypoda
Sphaeridae
Pisidium sp.
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Sphaertum sp
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Sphaenum heringianus
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Nematoda
3547
1813
0
1787
1773
12.26
Annelida
Hinidinea
Erpobdellidae
Mooreobdella fervida
0
0
0
0
0
000
Glossophoniidae
Helobdella slagnalis
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Helobdella fusca
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Albogtossiphonia heteroclita
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Oligochaeta
Enchytraeidae
0
0
0
0
0
000
Naididae
Slavina appendiculala
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Nais variabilis
253
0
0
84
146
0.58
Pristinella osborni
253
0
0
84
146
0.58
Vejdovskyella intermedia
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Ophidonais serpeniina
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Chaetogaster diaphanous
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Lumbriculidae
Stylodrilus henngtanus
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Tubificidae
immature without hair setae
11653
22040
2533
12076
9760
82.84
immature with hair setae
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Spirosperynaferox
0
507
0
169
293
1.16
Potamothnx \ejdovsk\i
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Limnodrilus Iwjfmeisleh
760
120
253
378
338
2.59
Aulodrilus pluriseta
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Sparganophiha
Sparganophilus einsent
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Polychaela
Sabellidae
Manayunkia speciosa
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Arthropoda
Ephemeroptera
Tricorythidae
Trichorylhodes sp.
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Caenidae
Caenis sp
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Hexageniidae
Hexagenia limbata
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
73
Table B-2 continued
TAXON
Station
Mean
Standard Relative
Deviation Abundance
Trichoptera
Polycentropodidae
Phylocentopus sp.
Diptera
Empididae
Chetifera sp.
Cerratopogonidae
Chironomidae
Procladius sp.
Apsectrolanypus sp.
Rheolanylarsus sp.
Chironomus sp.
Glyptotendipes sp.
Micropsectra sp.
Pagastiella sp.
Eukiefenella sp.
Cladopelma sp.
Stictochironomus sp.
Xenochironomus sp.
Cryptochironomus sp.
Cladolanylarsus sp.
Phaenopsecira sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Potthastia sp.
Pupae
Crustacea
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Orconecles limosus
Amphipoda
Talitridae
Hyalella sp.
Gammaridae
Gammarus lacusths
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidotea sp.
Lirceus sp.
Copepoda
Harpacticoda
Tardigrada
TOTALS
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
. 0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
o.oo
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
S7
24480
2787
1457S
100
74
Table B-2. continued.
Station 183
TAXON
1
:
3
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Valvatidae
Valvata sincera
0
0
0
Viviparidae
Campeioma decisum
0
0
0
Pelecypoda
Sphaendae
Pisidmm sp.
0
0
0
Sphaerium sp
0
0
0
Sphaerium henngianus
0
0
0
Nematoda
0
0
0
Annelida
Himdinea
Erpobdellidae
Mooreobdella fenida
0
0
0
Glossophoniidae
Hetobdella stagnalis
0
0
0
Helobdella fusca
0
0
0
Alboglossiphonia heleroclita
0
0
0
Oligochaeta
Ench>lraeidae
0
0
0
Naididae
Slavina appendiculata
0
0
0
Nais variabilis
0
0
0
Pristinella osbomi
0
0
0
Vejdovskyella intermedia
0
0
0
Ophidonais serpentina
0
0
0
Chaetogaster diaphanous
0
0
0
Lumbriculidae
Sniodrilus henngianus
0
0
0
Tubificidae
immature without hair setae
0
0
0
immature with hair setae
0
0
0
Spirosperma ferox
0
0
0
Potamothnx vejdovskyi
0
0
0
Limnodrilus hoffineisten
0
0
0
Aulodrilus pluriseta
Sparganophiha
Sparganophitus einseni
0
0
0
Polychaeta
Sabellidae
Manayunkia speciosa
0
0
0
Arthropoda
Ephemeroptera
Tncorythidae
Tnchorythodes sp.
0
0
0
Caenidae
Caenis sp.
0
0
0
Hexageniidae
Hexagenia limhata
0
0
0
75
Table B-2 continued
TAXON
Tnchoptera
Pol y ce ntropodi dae
Ph\locentopus sp
Diplera
Empididae
Chelifera sp.
Cerratopogonidae
Chironomidae
Procladius sp.
Apseclrotanypus sp.
Rheolanytarsus sp.
Chironomus sp.
Glyptotendipes sp.
Micropseclra sp.
Pagasiiella sp.
Eukieferiella sp.
Cladopelma sp.
Slictochironomus sp
Xenochironomus sp.
Crypiochironomus sp.
Cladoianylarsus sp.
Phaenopseclra sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Potlhaslia sp.
Pupae
Crustacea
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Orconectes limosus
Amphipoda
Talitndae
Hyalella sp.
Gammaridae
Gammarus lacuslris
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidolea sp.
Lirceus sp.
Copepoda
Haqjacticoda
Tardigrada
TOTALS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
76
Table B-3. Benthic invertebrate sorting record.
Sample
Sub
Initial
V
Cr
Mo
In
Ol
Ol
X ;
\^«
SuiwtraU Notci
Sorted
d/m
Time
min.
Fraction
vv .
A
S^-1
1
y^
/
1
^5 .
2Z
/
<*
-•<7/ie olonic/e-f-i-iii^S
s/.
2.10
/y
/^A(
■f
2
YK
2
?V .
ZQ
2
s
'•PineL c,/-i,ss
0
2<fO
X^
^^.
' S'O^cJ
1
^
3
10°I
5h
3
/¥
4-50
7.5
;
AA
2
10
//
/
as oùou^
20/j
20
Aï
/ih
2
AA
a
S
€
//
30
'.
Ah
2
AA
Z
2
g
/
//
20
■'
M
i/
V
/f/î
2
3
e
/
'/
30
"
■—
5
Ah
:2
^
S
//
3Ô
"
—
^
^
1
1/
zs
a^
1
150
2.
^^Ê
1
AA
1
a
<?
5
os ahou-C
20/2
h-S
An
Ah
2.
AA
X
:z
^
5
\
/r
h-5
II
^h
ty
3
AA
5
8
'f
1
II
h-S
II
Jb^
/^
3
^
23
/^
2
135
2
■s^m
1
/ÔA
f
2-
-■Pi he ohrA c/rfrJ-L'S
lo/î
35
A^
■^
1
AA
/
2
;î-
- bar-k
II
3^
II
^
^/^
3
>4A
i
II
3^
II
1/
f
A/>
/
II
35
II
m
F
Ak
K
35
il
--
3
^
s
I7B
2
^M
i 1
AA
\
QS oi^oi/c
nA
?ç
Vn
Àt\
Z
AA
II
2^
1 1
J^h
"h
4A
z
II
35
II
^/^
H
AA
1
M
35
II
/ùh\
5
J^
1
II
35
"
^ii'
/
-2_
2.
lis
2
77
Table B-3. continued.
Sample
«
Sub
loitUl
V
Cr
Mo
In
01
Cb
X
//^
Substnte Note*
suited
d/m
Time
min.
Fraction
vv
mm
/
RJ
Q$ aLo^c
13/2
35
>^^
-—
n
RJ
l<
3S
1/
—
RO
II
35
1/ t
^
y
V
^A
1
%
II
3S
11
MU
^
Jk/
1
3
1
II
15
>' è^\
,.^^
/
)
S
;
175
2
iFl
1
r^
1
/
/
/
- f'Dit o/ûn-hcl^/,i(JS
u/3
ko
'/a
éih
2
y^R
— Oq u^"^ 1 <■ Olo^i^
1/
^0
'/^v A<^
3
VR
1
II
ko
'/&^
Ah
^
YR
II
ko
'A^
m
5
YR
1
/
Z
II
ko
y^H
- —
^^
?
/
3
3
zoo
f7^
1
^R
u
2
cxS ahai/ç
/6/3
k^
'A^
4^V
2
t/A
1
3
1
If
V5
'Ah
^^*i
3
^R
3
1
3
2
II
kS
lA^
/ok
y
^^^.--^
-^
/
/o
S
135
m-^
/
VR
Ç
0
1
^
n<, olûou-^
le/z
60
'A^
4^
o
Yf^
?-
1
1
V
h
kS
A-^
^h
^'
^
/3
J
2
S
IcS
/ot!-}
"iK
%^
•pint piar^4 de-hiioS
Vs
Uo
'A?
ê-^
JlV
25
%
-x
Ir
30
>4
/>i*^
-0
Jiv
Z7
Q
3
It
SO
yt
,^M
//
V
^
7g
8
s
ISO
2.9:
3.3
78
Table B-3. continued.
Sample
«
Sub
Initial
V
Cr
Mo
In
01
C3i
X 1
VSL
Sutxtrau Notu
Suited
d/m
TUne
min.
FnctioD
vv
WM
1
Jx^)
/3
/
\o
^
o^ abai^€
/^A
'i-S
K ,
^'^
2
P^J
7
Ç
G
a
h
Z C-
n
-^
3
RJ
9^
II
10
1
2
1 (
IfO
"
fl^Z,
— "71
L
V
K^
^
10
7
n
/
M
VO
" ^M
-
3G
28
3^
3
1/
155
X
/
HJ
^
3^
)
OS OOOirC
/Vs
'tS
K fch
2
RJ
<?
ZV
1>
30
>■
/^A
^
3
RJ
"?
33
2.
1'
^0
"
Ith
r
'^
r:>
^
V2
2-
M
kO
//
—
33
las
5
IS5
a
^W
1
/3A
5
3
2
--fit^e nla^dAyihjS
/7A
36
y^^
4H
2
>^A
^
1
1
Vc
"
— '
3
M
4
-3
7
3^
'1
^/^
,/
'f
A^
Ç
Ç
"fO
"
4^^
>
Ç
/éA
?
1
1
i^
^O
n
3)
7
3
^
no
l^m
'
r^ 'i
/
i
25
1
2
as ohaLT^
/f/s
7S
1 /
>
/T
^
y^K
Ê
2
/6
1
1
€0
%^
X^>^
'
t/
^
3
/
35
%
V-
13^
l£5Si
\ 1
5
1
Z?
1
c/S ûleair<_
/1/s
éo
'A^
>
2
/
1
3
kS
/..
f>^
7
3
2
I
;o
60
Y^H
k^l
/\
8
il
tf-
h
/
I6S
79
Table B-3. continued.
Sample
#
Sub
#
Initial
V
Cr
Mo
In
01
Ch
X
Ht
SubstraU Notes
Started
d/m
Urne
min.
Fraction
vv
iGm
!
JW
/é
/
z
--Tinr f}/afi-i-cf<riyih£
n/3,
7S
^r
Z
/^O
1
9
;
(f
7?
II
1
3
RJ
1
2^
/
1
If
7^
II
[/
W
RJ
2'
/
2-
1/
7S
>/
v'
Z
69
't
2
h
300
s
1M2
1
A/l
23
^
as ahoLT^
^lA
^5
\A^
2
AA
23
3
2
II
56
II
?
J^^
29
1
II
50
II
' 1
7B
^
;^
IhS
;
nm
/
/A
22
a^ aLoir^
2 //s
7S
'A^
2
RO
33
3
1'
Go
II
y
3
JW
27
i
a
II
60
II
1/
'
^2
Ç
1
/S5
/tKi
1
/4/1
^2
3
- -fihc p/ar,-/- de hi hs ^ 1 A
éo
'/n
2
Jiv
57
3
II
£0
II
3
vjW
^2.
5
1/
ÇO
II
jifi
II
ISô
wm
, 1
Jv
55
1
ns alûoirn
^Vi
^5
!/3Y
^z/'
2.
JiV
if^
Z
II
^5
n
^/i
, /
1
JlV
^3
H
II
rs
II
m
ly
1
=!^
7
/^5
80
Table B-3. continued.
Sample
«
Sub
#
Initial
V ■
Cr
Mo
In
01
Cl
X
SubtCrmU Note*
Suited
d/m
Time
min-
Fraction
vv
imi
1
R3
a
a^ ahairt..
22A
V5
Vit
A^
n^
Rû
K
/^
^5
'' .
/,>■
a
3
RJ
12
//
if Ç
M
/^/7
/
LfC
135
Z.z.
ifm'
f^^
-<^Qn^
^3/s
5c
/^r
/O^L
.àL.
RJ
~rnûl J^y^oa ir>^n^<>
'
ç C
1'
^>^
R3
- -fcit^ spe-cç
/(
é c
1 1
ifO
2-
lm2
1
/îh
n? alûnv't.
:Z3/3
Co
/s^
#
z
/^/^
1
v
i^
/(
/fA-
^
4f^
1!
^£
('
—
1
Ic^O
a-
wwi
/
y^h
a 5 ^^<3 t't.
23/^
ce
;/3f
//4
2
4^
1
('
H^
\ 1
/?/l
3
»M
1
/ '
hS
—
2
\so
2
WM
l
1
„„
^_ /
10./ 7,
t
s
81
APPENDIX C
Sediment Quality Data
82
5 5 s S S S ^
SSS SSS Sï
3 S *;
5SS 5S3 SS
■Q
H
.c
«
H
S =■ ?
t- H h- f-f-H H H
!- H H H i-
f- 1- h- i- 1-
u
H
s s
^ 2
C/3
c
<-> '
s
e
•V
c
A
C
o
H
© =
© .■=:
S I
es ^
E g
o •=
Û
es
H
I 4
I f
I I
i 1 i
C _:
.2 ^
sss sss sss ttt
'C t 3 s
§- i- f- 1-
3 5 s S 3 S
C
Où
o
u
^
1/5
~
ÎS
c
V
'^
E
ti
>»
c
>
2
o
■C
■o
<f
B
03
tf)
U
n
CQ
U)
I E
1 1
H
fe <
c
o
u
s
o ^
^ J=
TJ -5
E E
U =
o J:^
t tvt ^ \, '^ StS tSS
s 5 s S S 5 S
ir !r s-
•- s- H
H !- I- i-
S S s 3 s
S S S 3 3 3
3 5 3 3 3 3
3^3 *; 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
I- t- >- ^. *7,
t t S S
Ù
es
H
(- i- h t t fe
C/3
C
5?S ?**, *** SSS SSS 5SS SSS SSS
SS5 *** sss s?s sss sss sss sss
SSS **==, *?* SSS SSS S5S SSS SS5
5SS ^** SSS SSS SSS S5S 5S5 SSS
SSS **?, **^ SS5 SSS SSS SS5 SSS
S5S ?, ** *?^ SSS SSS SSS SSS SS5
SSS *^* ?^^ SSS SSS SSS SSS SS3
sss *?, ?, * ?* sss sss sss sss sss
SSS **==, *>*, SSS ass SS3 sss sss
SSS ?*S SS5 SSS S5S SSS SSS 5SS
S5S *** SSS SS5 S5S S5S SSS 35S
.£
a
.fi
•o
c
es
Î/1
u
«
E
o
u
03
ni
S
S
■o
«
'hfl
x:
^
a
&Û
n
■C
(U
R
C
u
c
O
SSS *>S *** 5SS sss sss sss ss?
SSS ?** SSS SSS 5SS SSS SSS SS5
SSS *?, ?, *^S SSS SSS SSS SS5 sss
5SS SSS **S 5S5 SSS SSS SSS S5S
Ï E 1
H
c
ai
B
-5
SS5 SSS ^ » ^ ^ ^ % ^ ^ K ??v ?vv ^vv
SS5 ÏSS *?? ^ % ^ ^?v ^vv ?vv ^v^
^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^_, ^^-, -^ 1 t -t-t-T
SS5 SSS *^^ ^?? ??? ??v ^^v ??v
,,^ ,-T-T ^-t-» ^^T r,-,^ -,^^ ^-T-J -,•,-,
5S5 » » » % ^ ^ ^ % ^ K K ^ ??? ?^^ ^^^
,^^ -ttT -IT«» TTT-t rr-»^ TT-j-r r,-,^ -r»ft
5SS SS5 ^^^ ?^? ??^ ??^ ^^^ ???
S3S SSS ^ ^ % K K ^ ?^v ?v? ??v V*?
5SS SSS ?^? ?^^ ??v ^v? ??* ???
sss sss ss
s SSS SSS 5S? ?^? ^??
C/3
C
VI
C
.2 ^
^)
«
u
S
C
>.
oi
T3
C
hfl
©
f.
1/3
3
4>
■c
w
C
*-
O
<u
a
C
a>
o
c
u
O
o
£
<■
u
©
c
«
ei
u
o
so
U
V
.c
«
H
3S5 *^^ ^^^ ?^^^?^ ??^ ^^? ?^?
S5S SSS ^^^ ??^ ??v ^?v ^v* ?v^
SS5 SSS ^^^ ^?^ ^?? ^ K % ^vv v*v
5S5 3S5 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ K ^ ^ ^ ?^v ^vv ^vv
S5S 3SS *S^ ?^^ ?^v ^vv ^v* ?vv
S5S S5S *^? ?^^ ?^v ??v ^vv v?v
SSS 5SS ^^^ K K % ^vv ?v? ^?v ?vv
SSS 55S ^^^ ??^ ^^^ ??^ ^?? ???
se
Ù
S5S S5S S3S SSS S5S ??* ??^ ???
SSS SSS SSS SS3 **? ??? ??? ???
iSS SSS SSS S5S SS* *** ??? ???
SSS i i i S5S SSS SS? ?*? ??? ?^?
b:
t/3
C
SS3 SSS SSS 5S5 SS5 SSS 5SS SSS
5S5 SSS 55S 5SS 5SS 3SS ÏS3 ==3=*
SSS SSS S5S SSS SSS SSS SSS SSÏ
SSS SSS SS5 S5? S5S SS? SS5 *?.*
S3S S55 SSS SSS SS3 SSS 5SS *?,*
SSS SSS SSS S5S SSS 5SS SSS SSS
SSS SSS SSS S3S SSS SSS SS S ^**
_o ou
O c
g^
H
CD
e
V)
C
O
J=
«
aj
u
•s
e
04
•n
W
c
~
o
SSS SSS SÏS SSS 5SS ?5;? ?^? ?^^
SSS ^^? ^^^ ^^v ^v? ??^ ^^? ^^*
sSS sSS SSS SSS =11 III III ill
55S SSS SSS SSS SSS *** ??? ?ï?
SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS ^ss %^?
SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS ?^?
SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS
SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS
SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS
I i
c
o
5
z
2
s
\
F
(U
•s
n
s
N
<u
«
n
E
U
^1
a
H
H
<
QO
1
£
U
O
04
JS
o
%
«
%
H
'X,
Z
c
■
I
I
II
P
I
I
I
I
a
o
s
c
c
a
v.
"S ^
'■? i
o -
■o =
-o -
Û
08
H
■S 5
o "
g g S
Ù
c
E
es
^
S S î^
**
in
r-i — f^.
s
^ ~ "
Vi
«
sii
ii
CQ
p
333
tm
'L
^
5ll
©
ii
33? 3
33
3c: c^— 333= 33
253
3S55
o
■
3133
sl3i|si
i35S3ss^|
c2C£g:S<<5eS5id
< c £ •< bk Ck
fi. o c d ^ ^
F < < X n aa
I ï i a
â5S3
î%
âsS
z
H
335
1%%Î
IS - ; = Z rj
s s Z v: <
^^s
iS^i
CO
e
ii
lis
et
eu
.iia
§3311
c
03
e
o
C5
00
w«
O
ON
w
so
.^
^^
c
^
9i
r^
E
1^
o
S
VO
^
^H
3
c
"B
o
O
u
«
c
c/:
©
>->
t/1
u
c
a
o
it
cu
V; t:
ssssiaigsa
sill
is3
es
H
u ;j u u u