Skip to main content

Full text of "Sediment and benthic community assessment of the St. Marys River"

See other formats


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