(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

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

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 





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 - 


,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 


^ 


-1- 


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 




















00 
00 





c 




































































ca 






















JZ 
















r>-i 


m 





C 
















r^, r<-) vi 


r^ 




















r'j r- •* 

in 00 


t^ 


-0 


r2 














s 


, 52-2, 
, 87-2, 
165-2 


r^ 



E 


3 




r-- 


X 








"7 "T — ' 


^ 


Z 


" 


5j 










B£ 




•^ ■"" lA 

"-' 00 S 


r'i 
r-- 




3 


e 










C 




~ 


~ 
















3 

































C 



































B 





















































^ 












'^ 








-^ 


'« 












« 








^ 


j: 


^ 










_Ç 








-^' 





t;: 














f^i r^i 
















■5 








^ 


c 


*^ 










u 




rJ a^ 























vO 




■~^ 


;o 


^ 

^ 












„ 


ri ri 

r'j cf\ 






G 










00 








vD 

ri cf\ 

vO 




c 


15 
3 

3 
£ 








u-i 












Q, 


55 




















e 












































^ 




























































r^j 




<u 




2 














ri 




es 

-0 









r^i 

-0 






•-• 


>ri 






15 


« 


r) 


r-i 








m 






3 


'5 "5 
j= 


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 






E 




c 
> -O 

— C 
^ 3 




OJ 

P 


"câ 


■p 






'o. 

a 


i 








5 

c 
p 



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 







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 - 





3 






'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 






^ 


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 




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 





53 





477 











7 


Viviparidae 


















Campeloma decisum 











7 














Pelecypoda 


















Sphaeridae 


















Pisidium sp. 





794 





51 





84 





7 


Sphaerium sp 





7 

















7 


Sphaerium heringianus 























27 


Nematoda 


152 


1077 





1097 


1787 


253 


1671 


124 


Annelida 


















Hirudinea 


















Erpobdellidae 


















Mooreobdella fervida 





20 




















Glossophoniidae 


















Helobdella slagnalis 





206 




















Helobdellafusca 





27 




















Alboglossiphoma heieroclita 





512 




















Oligochaeta 


















Enchytraeidae 





2149 




















Naididae 


















Slavma appendiculata 

















2934 


107 


62 


Nats variabilis 





53 





213 


84 


443 


213 


7 


Pristinella osborni 














84 











Vejdovskyella intermedia 

















1288 





38 


Ophidonais serpentina 

















63 








Chaetogaster diaphanous 























18 


Lumbriculidae 


















Stylodrilus heringianus 





346 





498 














Tubificidae 


















immature without hair setae 


51 


20 





1778 


12076 


1731 


583 


180 


immature with hair setae 





1481 




















Sp I rospe rma fe rox 


152 








640 


169 


697 


107 


20 


Potamothrix vejdovskyi 





1409 











1288 





193 


Limnodrilus hoffmeisleri 











213 


378 





107 





Autodritus plunseia 























109 


Sparganophiha 


















Sparganophilus einseni 





20 





7 














Polychaeta 


















Sabellidae 


















Manayunkia speciosa 























31 


Anhropoda 


















Ephemeroptera 


















Tricorythidae 


















Tnchorythodes sp. 





20 





7 















59 



Table B-1 continued. 









Station 










TAXON 


52 


35 


183 


165 


172 


169 


87 


102 


Caenidae 


















Caenis sp 





53 




















Hexageniidae 


















Hexagenia limbata 


20 























Tnchoptera 


















Polycentropodidae 


















Phylocenlopus sp. 


51 























Diptera 


















Empididae 


















Chelifera sp. 





186 

















18 


Cerratopogonidae 





60 




















Chironomidae 


















Procladius sp. 


51 








264 





296 


284 


98 


Apsecirolanypus sp. 


























Rheotanylarsus sp. 





253 




















Chironomus sp. 











51 





401 


85 


24 


Glyptotendipes sp. 





107 














171 





Mtcropseclra sp. 


203 


186 

















38 


Pagasliella sp. 


101 























F.ukiefehella sp. 


51 


167 





213 











182 


Cladopelma sp. 

















84 








Snctochironomus sp. 





922 




















Xenochironomus sp. 





51 




















Cryplochironomus sp. 





104 




















Cladotanylarsus sp. 





267 




















Phaenopsectra sp. 





1067 




















Tanylarsus sp. 





7 




















Potthastia sp. 





13 




















Pupae 





51 











148 








Crustacea 


















Decapoda 


















Cambaridae 


















Orconectes limosus 











7 








7 





Amphipoda 


















Talitridae 


















Hyalella sp. 





439 




















Gammaridae 


















Gammarus lacusths 


51 























Isopoda 


















Asellidae 


















Caecidotea sp. 


152 








4791 








562 





Lirceus sp. 




















427 





Copepoda 























60 


Tardigrada 




















107 





MEAN TOTAL ABUNDANCE 


1033 


12262 





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 





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 








53 


92 


0.43 


Viviparidae 














Campeloma decisum 

















0.00 


Pelecypoda 














Sphaeridae 














Pisidium sp. 





608 


1773 


794 


901 


6.47 


Sphaerium sp 





20 





7 


12 


0.05 


Sphaenum henngtanus 

















0.00 


Nemaloda 


2400 


324 


507 


1077 


1149 


8.78 


Annelida 














Hirudinea 














Erpobdellidae 














Mooreobdella fenida 


20 





40 


20 


20 


0.16 


Glossophoniidae 














Helobdella slagnalis 


60 


304 


253 


206 


129 


1.68 


Helobdellafusca 


20 


60 





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 

















0.00 


Nais variabilis 


160 








53 


92 


0.43 


Pristinella osbomi 

















0.00 


Vejdovskyella iniermedia 

















0.00 


Ophidonms serpentina 

















0.00 


Chaewgasier diaphanous 

















0.00 


Lumbnculidae 














Stylodnlus heringianus 


480 


304 


253 


346 


119 


2.82 


Tubificidae 














immature without hair setae 





60 





20 


35 


0.16 


immature with hair setae 


2720 


456 


1267 


1481 


1147 


12.08 


Spirosperma ferox 

















0.00 


Potamothrix \ejdo\skyi 


1440 


760 


2027 


1409 


634 


11.49 


Umnodrilus hoffmeisten 

















0.00 


Aulodhlus plunseta 

















0.00 


Sparganophiha 














Sparganophilus einseni 


20 


20 


20 


20 





0.16 


Polychaeta 














Sabellidae 














Manayunkia speciosa 

















0.00 


Arthropoda 














Ephemeroptera 














Tricorythidae 














Tnchorythodes sp- 


320 


152 





157 


160 


1.28 


Caemdae 














Caenis sp 


160 








53 


92 


0.43 


Hexagemidae 














Hexagema limbata 

















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 






304 


253 


186 


163 


1.52 


160 


20 





60 


87 


0.49 

















0.00 

















0.00 





760 





253 


439 


2.07 

















0.00 


320 








107 


185 


0.87 





304 


253 


186 


163 


1 52 

















0.00 


480 


20 





167 


272 


1.36 

















0.00 


1600 


912 


253 


922 


673 


7.52 





152 





51 


88 


0.41 


160 


152 





104 


90 


0.85 





40 


760 


267 


428 


2.17 


160 





3040 


1067 


1711 


870 





20 





7 


12 


0.05 





40 





13 


23 


0.11 





152 





51 


88 


0.41 






304 


1013 


439 


520 


3.58 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















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 

















000 


Viviparidae 














Campelonia decisum 

















0.00 


Pelecypoda 














Sphaeridae 














Pisidium sp. 

















0.00 


Sphaerium sp 

















0.00 


Sphaerium henngianus 

















0.00 


Nematoda 





304 


152 


152 


152 


14.71 


Annelida 














Hirudinea 














Erpobdellidae 














Mooreobdella fervida 

















0.00 


Glossophoniidae 














Helobdella slagnalis 

















0.00 


Helobdella fusca 

















0.00 


Alboglossiphonia helerocliia 

















000 


Oligochaeta 














Enchytraeidae 

















0.00 


Naididae 














Slaxina appendiculata 

















0.00 


Nais variabilis 

















0.00 


Phstinella osbnmi 

















0.00 


Vejdovskyella intermedia 

















0.00 


Ophidonais serpentina 

















0.00 


Chaetogaster diaphanous 

















0.00 


Lumbriculidae 














Stytodnlus henngianus 

















0.00 


Tubificidae 














immature without hair setae 


152 








51 


88 


4.90 


immature with hair setae 

















0.00 


Spirosperma ferox 


304 





152 


152 


152 


1471 


Potamothrix vejdovskyi 

















0.00 


Limnodrilus hojfmeisten 

















0.00 


Autodrilus ptunseta 

















0.00 


Sparganophilia 














Sparganophilus emseni 

















0.00 


Polychaeta 














Sabelhdae 














Manayunkia speciosa 

















0.00 


Arthropoda 














Ephemeroptera 














Tricorythidae 














Trichorythodes sp- 

















0.00 


Caemdae 














Caenis sp. 

















0.00 


Hexageniidae 














Hexagenia limbata 





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 


















0.00 

















0.00 


152 








51 


gg 


4.90 

















000 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 





152 


456 


203 


232 


19.61 





152 


152 


101 


88 


9.81 


152 








51 


88 


4.90 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 









G 








0.00 


152 


G 





51 


88 


4.90 


152 


152 


152 


152 





14.71 


G 


G 











0.00 


G 














0.00 



64 



Table B-2. continued. 







Station 87 




Station 
Mean 


Standard 
Deviation 


Relative 


TAXON 


1 


2 


3 


Abundance 


Mollusca 














Gastropoda 














Valvatidae 














Valvaia sincera 

















0.00 


Viviparidae 














Campelnma decisum 

















0.00 


Pelecypoda 














Sphacridae 














Pisidium sp. 

















000 


Sphaerium sp 

















0.00 


Sphaenum henngianus 

















0.00 


Nematoda 





2133 


2880 


1671 


1495 


37.72 


Annelida 














Hirudinea 














Erpobdellidae 














Mooreobdellafervida 

















0.00 


Glossophoniidae 














Helobdella siagnalis 

















0.00 


Helobdella fusca 

















0.00 


Alboglossiphonta hetervclila 

















0.00 


Oligochaeta 














Enchytraeidae 

















0.00 


Naididae 














Slavina appendiculata 








320 


107 


185 


2.41 


Nais variabilis 








640 


213 


370 


4.82 


Prisiinella osbomi 

















0.00 


Vejdovskyella intermedia 

















0.00 


Ophidonais serpentina 

















0.00 


Chaetogasler diaphanous 

















0.00 


Lumbnculidae 














Stylodnlus henngianus 

















0.00 


Tubificidae 














immature without hair setae 


256 


853 


640 


583 


303 


13.16 


immature with hair setae 

















0.00 


Spirosperma ferox 








320 


107 


185 


2.41 


Potamothrix vejdovskyi 

















0.00 


Limnodntus hoffmeisteri 








320 


107 


185 


2.41 


Aulodnlus plunseta 

















0.00 


Sparganophilia 














Sparganophilus einseni 

















0.00 


Polychaeta 














Sabellidae 














Manayunkia speciosa 

















0.00 


Arthropoda 














Ephemeroptera 














Tncorythidae 














Tnchoryihodes sp. 

















0.00 


Caeiudae 














Caenis sp. 

















0.00 


Hexageniidae 














Hexagema limbata 

















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 


















0.00 

















0.00 





853 





284 


493 


6.42 

















0.00 

















0.00 


56 








85 


148 


1 93 


12 








171 


296 


3.85 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 





' 











0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 



0.15 


















0.00 

















0.00 


12 


853 


320 


562 


270 


12.68 





1280 





427 


739 


9.63 

















0.00 



66 



Table B-2. continued. 







station 102 




Station 
Mean 


Standard 
Deviation 


Relative 


TAXON 


1 


2 


3 


Abundance 


Mollusca 














Gastropoda 














Valvatidae 














Valvata sincera 








20 


7 


12 


0.53 


Viviparidae 














Campeloma decisum 

















0.00 


Pelecypoda 














Sphaendae 














Pisidium sp 








20 


7 


12 


0.53 


Sphaenum sp 








20 


7 


12 


0.53 


Sphaerium henngianus 








80 


27 


46 


2.14 


Nematoda 


53 


220 


100 


124 


86 


9.96 


Annelida 














Hirudinea 














Erpobdellidae 














Mooreobdella fervida 

















000 


Glossophoniidae 














Helobdella slagnalis 

















0,00 


Helobdella fusca 

















0.00 


Alboglossiphonia heleroclila 

















0.00 


Oligochaeta 














Enchytraeidae 

















0.00 


Naididae 














Slavina appendiculata 


107 


40 


40 


62 


38 


4.98 


Nais variabilis 








20 


7 


12 


0.53 


Prislinella osbomi 

















0.00 


Vejdovskyella intermedia 


53 





60 


38 


33 


3.02 


Ophidonais serpentina 

















0.00 


Chaelogaster diaphanous 


53 








IS 


31 


1.42 


Lumbnculidae 














Slylodrilus heringianus 

















0.00 


Tubificidae 














immature without hair setae 


320 


100 


120 


180 


122 


14.41 


immature with hair setae 

















0.00 


Spirosperma ferox 





40 


20 


20 


20 


1.60 


Potamothrix vejdovskvi 


320 


80 


180 


193 


121 


15.48 


Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 

















0.00 


Autodnlus plunseta 


267 


40 


20 


109 


137 


8.72 


Sparganophiha 














Sparganopliilus einseni 

















0.00 


Polychaeta 














SabeHidae 














Manayunkia speciosa 


53 


40 





31 


28 


2.49 


Arthropoda 














Ephemeroptera 














Tricorythidae 














Trichorythodes sp. 

















0.00 


Caemdae 














Caems sp. 

















0.00 


Hexageniidae 














Hexagema limbata 

















• 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 








IS 


31 


1.42 

















0.00 


53 


120 


120 


98 


38 


7.83 

















0.00 

















0.00 


53 





20 


24 


27 


1.96 

















0.00 


53 


40 


20 


38 


17 


3.02 

















0.00 


107 


320 


120 


182 


120 


14.59 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 





- 











000 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 


















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 





180 





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 




304 









2560 




640 





640 

1920 


1920 



640 





4.63 
0.06 



51 88 0.49 

0.00 

0.00 

427 1097 1269 10.64 



0.00 

0.00 

0.00 





213 











3413 








1778 


640 


213 







0.00 


370 


2.07 





0.00 





0.00 





0.00 





0.00 





1109 



370 





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 


















0.00 











G 





0.00 


152 


640 





264 


334 


2.56 











G 





0.00 

















0.00 


152 








51 


88 


0.49 

















0.00 











G 





0.00 

















0.00 





640 





213 


370 


2.07 

















0.00 

















0.00 











G 





0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 





■ 











0.00 











G 





0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 


















0.00 

















0.00 


4560 


6400 


3413 


4791 


1507 


46.49 

















0.00 

















0.00 



70 



Table B-2. continued. 







Station 169 




Station 
Mean 


Standard 
Deviation 


Relative 


TAXON 


1 


2 


3 


Abundance 


Mollusca 














Gastropoda 














Valvalidae 














Vulvala sincera 

















0.00 


Viviparidae 














Campeloma decisum 

















0.00 


Pelecypoda 














Sphaeridae 














Pisidium sp. 





253 





84 


146 


0.87 


Sphaerium sp 

















0.00 


Sphaerium heringianus 

















0.00 


Nematoda 


760 








253 


439 


2.61 


Annelida 














Hirudinea 














Erpobdellidae 














Mooreobdella fervida 

















0.00 


Glossophoniidae 














Helobdetla slagnatis 

















000 


Helobdetla fusca 

















0.00 


Alboglossiphonia heteroclita 

















0.00 


Oligochaeta 














Enchytraeidae 

















0.00 


Naididae 














Slavina appendiculata 


3230 


3040 


2533 


2934 


360 


30.22 


Nais variabilis 


570 


253 


507 


443 


168 


4.57 


Phstinella osborni 

















0,00 


Vejdovskyella intermedia 


1330 


1773 


760 


1288 


508 


13.26 


Ophidonais serpentina 


190 








63 


110 


0.65 


Chaetogaster diaphanous 

















0.00 


Lumbnculidae 














Stylodrilus heringianus 

















0.00 


Tubificidae 














immature without hair setae 


1140 


2027 


2027 


1731 


512 


17.83 


immature with hair setae 

















0.00 


Spirospermaferox 


1330 


507 


253 


697 


563 


7.17 


Potamothrix vejdovskyi 


570 


2280 


1013 


1288 


887 


13.26 


Limnodrilus hoffmeisleh 

















0.00 


Aulodrilus pluriseta 

















0.00 


Sparganophiha 














Sparganophilus einseni 

















0.00 


Polychaeta 














Sabellidae 














Manayunkia speciosa 

















0.00 


Arthropoda 














Ephemeroptera 














Tncorythidae 














Tnchorylhodes sp. 

















0.00 


Caenidae 














Caenis sp 

















0.00 


Hexageniidae 














Hexagenia timbata 

















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 






G 











0.00 

















0.00 


380 


507 





296 


264 


3.04 

















0.00 

















0.00 


190 


507 


507 


401 


183 


4.13 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 








253 


84 


146 


0.87 

















000 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 


190 





253 


148 


132 


1.52 


















0.00 

















000 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















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 

















0.00 


Viviparidae 














Campelonm decisum 

















0.00 


Pelecypoda 














Sphaeridae 














Pisidium sp. 

















0.00 


Sphaertum sp 

















0.00 


Sphaenum heringianus 

















0.00 


Nematoda 


3547 


1813 





1787 


1773 


12.26 


Annelida 














Hinidinea 














Erpobdellidae 














Mooreobdella fervida 

















000 


Glossophoniidae 














Helobdella slagnalis 

















0.00 


Helobdella fusca 

















0.00 


Albogtossiphonia heteroclita 

















0.00 


Oligochaeta 














Enchytraeidae 

















000 


Naididae 














Slavina appendiculala 

















0.00 


Nais variabilis 


253 








84 


146 


0.58 


Pristinella osborni 


253 








84 


146 


0.58 


Vejdovskyella intermedia 

















0.00 


Ophidonais serpeniina 

















0.00 


Chaetogaster diaphanous 

















0.00 


Lumbriculidae 














Stylodrilus henngtanus 

















0.00 


Tubificidae 














immature without hair setae 


11653 


22040 


2533 


12076 


9760 


82.84 


immature with hair setae 

















0.00 


Spirosperynaferox 





507 





169 


293 


1.16 


Potamothnx \ejdovsk\i 

















0.00 


Limnodrilus Iwjfmeisleh 


760 


120 


253 


378 


338 


2.59 


Aulodrilus pluriseta 

















0.00 


Sparganophiha 














Sparganophilus einsent 

















0.00 


Polychaela 














Sabellidae 














Manayunkia speciosa 

















0.00 


Arthropoda 














Ephemeroptera 














Tricorythidae 














Trichorylhodes sp. 

















0.00 


Caenidae 














Caenis sp 

















0.00 


Hexageniidae 














Hexagenia limbata 

















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 


















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 





. 











0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 


















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















0.00 

















o.oo 

















0.00 


S7 


24480 


2787 


1457S 




100 



74 



Table B-2. continued. 



Station 183 


TAXON 


1 


: 


3 


Mollusca 








Gastropoda 








Valvatidae 








Valvata sincera 











Viviparidae 








Campeioma decisum 











Pelecypoda 








Sphaendae 








Pisidmm sp. 











Sphaerium sp 











Sphaerium henngianus 











Nematoda 











Annelida 








Himdinea 








Erpobdellidae 








Mooreobdella fenida 











Glossophoniidae 








Hetobdella stagnalis 











Helobdella fusca 











Alboglossiphonia heleroclita 











Oligochaeta 








Ench>lraeidae 











Naididae 








Slavina appendiculata 











Nais variabilis 











Pristinella osbomi 











Vejdovskyella intermedia 











Ophidonais serpentina 











Chaetogaster diaphanous 











Lumbriculidae 








Sniodrilus henngianus 











Tubificidae 








immature without hair setae 











immature with hair setae 











Spirosperma ferox 











Potamothnx vejdovskyi 











Limnodrilus hoffineisten 











Aulodrilus pluriseta 








Sparganophiha 








Sparganophitus einseni 











Polychaeta 








Sabellidae 








Manayunkia speciosa 











Arthropoda 








Ephemeroptera 








Tncorythidae 








Tnchorythodes sp. 











Caenidae 








Caenis sp. 











Hexageniidae 








Hexagenia limhata 












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 























































































































































































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 





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 





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 



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