Peninsula Harbour Area of Concern
Jellicoe Cove Thin-Layer Cap
2017 Long-Term Monitoring Assessment

Tara George
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks

November 2019

ISBN 978-1-4868-3850-9

 ACKNOWLEGMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge and thank Hans Biberhofer (ECCC), Lisa Richman
(MECP), ECCC’s Dive Crew (Bruce Grey, Chris Duggan, Cory Treen, and Jeremy Hughes),
MECP-EMRB Great Lakes Unit’s field crew (John Thibeau and Kyle McOuat), MECP-Northern
Region (Curniss McGoldrick and Todd Kondrat), ECCC Sediment Remediation Group (Kay
Kim, Matt Graham, and Roger Santiago), and TTU (Haley Schneider, Andrew Jackson, and
Danny Reibel) for their support in study design, sample collection and processing, and
instrument deployment and retrieval. Open hearts and open minds.
The MECP Laboratory Services Branch is acknowledged and thanked for the sample analysis, as
well as the MECP Geomatics Unit (Ela Lichblau) for creating the SWAC maps.
Thank you to Lisa Richman, Dawn Talarico, Hans Biberhofer, Mark Chambers, Gurpreet
Mangat, Danielle Milani, Jim Martherus, and Jennifer Winter for their review and comments on
this report.

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Peninsula Harbour is located on the north shore of Lake Superior and is identified as an Area of
Concern due to historical inputs from the former pulp mill and chlor-alkali plant, and historical
log booming within the harbour. Over time these activities resulted in impaired fish and benthic
communities, as well as elevated levels of contaminants in sediment and biota – specifically
mercury (Hg), methyl-mercury (MeHg), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The most
heavily impacted area within Peninsula Harbour was Jellicoe Cove, a ninety-seven hectare
embayment located adjacent to the mill and chlor-alkali plant. In 2008, an environmental risk
assessment (ERA) and human health risk assessment (HHRA) addressed the risks of Hg and
PCBs in the sediment and biota to receptors (ENVIRON 2008). The ERA concluded that hot
spot management was the preferred remedial approach to manage the risks to fish and mink from
exposure to sediment in Jellicoe Cove. Hot spots were defined as sediment with concentrations
of total Hg equal to or greater than 3 µg/g. Overlap in the distribution of MeHg and total PCBs
with the total Hg concentrations assured the management and reduction of those contaminants as
well.
To reduce the risks imposed by the contaminants, thin-layer capping was the selected sediment
management option for Jellicoe Cove. The remedial action objectives of the thin-layer cap were
to: reduce potential for offsite migration of Hg, MeHg, and PCBs from the hot spot area in
Jellicoe Cove to the rest of Peninsula Harbour; and to reduce the potential for future exposure of
MeHg and PCBs to receptors. In 2012 the thin-layer cap was constructed, and 15-20 cm of sand
was placed over sediment exceeding the remedial target of 3 µg/g total Hg. In 2017, five-years
post-cap, the first full long-term monitoring (LTM) assessment was completed with the goal of
evaluating cap stability, cap effectiveness, and ecological recovery.
Monitoring the cap against the remediation goals was a collaborative effort. The purpose of this
report is to communicate the results of the LTM program as they relate to the work completed by
the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP): surficial sediment
assessment, benthic invertebrate recolonization, and the assessment of fish tissue contaminants to
determine the risks to fish and wildlife. Findings from additional survey monitoring components
were reported by others, including: assessment of fish contaminant trends and fish consumption
by humans (Drouillard 2019); submerged aquatic vegetation, and cap movement measurements
and observations (Foster and Ratcliff 2018); passive samplers and sediment cores for sediment
pore water analysis and determination of Hg flux through the cap (Rao et al. 2018); and high
resolution multibeam sonar, and RoxAnn seabed classification and underwater video
documentation (ECCC TBD). The pore water passive sampling survey was described and
discussed in this report as it was integrated into the MECP’s survey design, and methodology
was largely based on this component.
Challenges were encountered with designing a sampling plan to address the LTM goals. The
medium and coarse sands used to cap Jellicoe Cove were more coarse than the initial design, and

 therefore the traditional sample methods used to collect samples for the pre-cap baseline
monitoring surveys were not feasible for the post-cap monitoring. Therefore, alternative
technologies were employed to collect samples, and divers were used for most survey
components. Divers collected sediment grabs (the surficial sediment that has deposited over the
cap sand), sediment cores, deployed and retrieved passive samplers, and benthos with a benthic
air lift.

The first post-cap LTM survey has demonstrated that the thin-layer sediment cap is effective and
met the goals and objectives of the remedial effort. Overall, the cap is stable (Foster and Ratcliff
2018), and the results from the analysis of passive samplers and sediment cores, have
demonstrated that the cap has effectively reduced the flux of Hg to the overlying waters (Rao et
al. 2018). Natural sedimentation has, and continues to, occur since the construction of the cap in
2012, and this surficial sediment was the focus of much of the MECP survey. The total Hg
spatially-weighted average concentration (SWAC) (median SWAC 0.37 µg/g) in the surficial
sediment was below the remedial target of 3 µg/g in the Jellicoe Cove capped area. As expected,
the cap also effectively reduced the concentrations of MeHg and PCBs, albeit not to the same
extent as the Hg reduction. Concentrations of some nutrients and metals in the cap surficial
sediment exceeded their respective Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines-Lowest Effect
Limits (PSQG-LELs) at some sampling stations. However, concentrations of many parameters
measured on the cap were similar to concentrations detected at the Peninsula Harbour reference
station in Beatty Cove (MECP unpublished data, 2011).
Biological surveys have indicated that the cap has been colonized with benthic invertebrates, the
coverage of submerged aquatic vegetation continues to increase over time (Ratcliff and Foster
2018), and contaminant levels in fish tissue have decreased (Drouillard 2019). The abundance of
benthos on the cap was low, but the diversity was fairly high and the taxa identified were similar
to what was observed in the 2009 pre-cap baseline survey. It is expected that over time, as the
sediment continues to deposit over the cap, the abundance of benthic invertebrates, as well as the
abundance and distribution of macrophytes on the cap will continue to increase. The cap appears
to have been effective in reducing the levels of Hg and PCBs in the fish tissue of Lake Trout and
Lake Whitefish. A short-term temporal comparison (2012 to 2017) of contaminants in the fillet
tissue of Lake Whitefish (50 – 55 cm) Lake Trout (45 – 55 cm) showed a decline of ≥ 26% in Hg
and ≥84% in PCBs (Drouillard 2019). The assessment of estimated hazard quotients showed that
the reproductive success of individual Longnose Sucker is predicted to be at risk from Hg
exposure; however, the hazard quotients was 1 and should be assessed further. There was no
potential for fish reproductive adverse effects from PCBs predicted at both the individual or
population level. Current estimated concentrations of Hg in fish at specified consumption
lengths were not at a level that was predicted to pose a risk to exposed bald eagles and mink.
Likewise, the risk of mink consuming the estimated current levels of PCBs in 15 cm wholebodied fish was no longer predicted to be at risk.
Recommendations for the next LTM survey (in 2022) are provided based on the sampling efforts
and results of the MECP survey, as well as the aforementioned surveys. Generally, the next

 LTM survey should continue with the primary monitoring components (surficial sediment,
benthic invertebrate collection, and fish and benthos tissue collection). Additionally, sediment
traps should be deployed to further investigate the quality of sediment depositing on the cap, and
the depositional patterns on the cap. The sampling effort should be increased over the coarse
sand cap, where concentrations of total organic carbon (TOC) and many metals, including Hg
and MeHg, are elevated, as well as in the north-east portion of the cap where PCB concentrations
are elevated.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 1

2.

SURVEY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................. 2

3.

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 3
3.1. Station Locations .............................................................................................................. 3
3.2. Passive Samplers .............................................................................................................. 4
3.3. Surficial Sediment ............................................................................................................ 4
3.4. Sediment Cores ................................................................................................................. 5
3.5. Benthic Invertebrates ........................................................................................................ 5
3.6. Fish Tissue Contaminants ................................................................................................. 6
3.7. Other Sampling Components ............................................................................................ 6
3.7.1. Imaging .................................................................................................................... 6
3.7.2. Cap Movement and Submergent Aquatic Vegetation ............................................. 6
3.8. Order of Operation ............................................................................................................ 6
3.9. Laboratory Analysis .......................................................................................................... 7
3.9.1. Surficial Sediment ................................................................................................... 7
3.9.2. Porewater and Sediment Cores................................................................................ 8
3.9.3. Benthic Invertebrates ............................................................................................... 8
3.9.4. Fish Tissue Contaminants ....................................................................................... 8
3.10. Statistical Analysis and Data Interpretation ...................................................................... 8
3.10.1. Surficial Sediment ................................................................................................... 8
3.10.1.1. Spatially-Weighted Average Concentrations .............................................. 9
3.10.1.2. Data Comparison ......................................................................................... 9
3.10.2. Benthic Invertebrates ............................................................................................. 10
3.10.3. Fish Tissue Contaminants ..................................................................................... 10
3.10.3.1 Fish ............................................................................................................ 11
3.10.3.2 Wildlife ..................................................................................................... 12

4.

RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 12
4.1. Surficial Sediment .......................................................................................................... 12
4.1.1. Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 12
4.1.2. Nutrients ................................................................................................................ 13
4.1.2.1. Total Organic Carbon ................................................................................ 13
4.1.2.2. Total Phosphorus ....................................................................................... 13

 4.1.2.3. Total Nitrogen ........................................................................................... 13
4.1.2.4. Historical Comparisons ............................................................................. 14
4.1.3. Metals .................................................................................................................... 14
4.1.3.1. Trace Metals .............................................................................................. 14
4.1.3.2. Specific Ions .............................................................................................. 16
4.1.3.3. Total Mercury ............................................................................................ 16
4.1.3.4. Methyl-Mercury......................................................................................... 17
4.1.4. PCBs ...................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.5. Surficial Sediment Discussion .............................................................................. 19
4.2. Benthic Invertebrates ...................................................................................................... 19
4.2.1. Pre-cap Baseline Comparison ............................................................................... 20
4.3. Fish Tissue ...................................................................................................................... 21
4.3.1. Trend Analysis ...................................................................................................... 21
4.3.2. Human Fish Consumption ..................................................................................... 21
4.3.3. Risks to Fish .......................................................................................................... 22
4.3.4. Risks to Mammals and Birds ................................................................................ 22
4.4. Passive Samplers and Sediment Cores ........................................................................... 23
4.4.1. Passive Samplers ................................................................................................... 23
4.4.1.1. Peepers ....................................................................................................... 23
4.4.1.2. Horizontal Flux Chambers ........................................................................ 23
4.4.2. Sediment Cores ..................................................................................................... 23
5.

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 24
5.1. Performance Monitoring Goal ........................................................................................ 24
5.1.1. Objective 1a - Cap Placement ............................................................................... 24
5.1.2. Objective 1b - Surficial Sediment Evaluation ....................................................... 24
5.1.3. Overall Conclusion of Performance Monitoring Goals ........................................ 25
5.2. Remedial Monitoring Goal ............................................................................................. 25
5.3. Ecological Recovery Goal .............................................................................................. 25
5.3.1. Objective 3a – Benthic Invertebrate Re-Colonization........................................... 26
5.3.2. Objective 3b – Tissue Contamination ................................................................... 26
5.3.2.1. Benthic Invertebrates ................................................................................. 26
5.3.2.2. Fish ............................................................................................................ 26
5.3.3. Objective 3c – Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Re-Colonization .................. 27
5.3.4. Objective 3d – Habitat for Benthic Invertebrates .................................................. 27
5.4. Overall Conclusions........................................................................................................ 27

6.

RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................... 28

7.

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 30

 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Monitoring goals, objectives, and monitoring components to fulfil the Jellicoe-Cove
thin-layer cap Long Term Monitoring program. ........................................................................... 33
Table 2. Sampling station locations for survey components (presented in directional order from
SE to NW). .................................................................................................................................... 35
Table 3. Particle size (median and range) of surficial sediment collected in individual deployment
and retrieval surveys, and a combination of both surveys. ........................................................... 36
Table 4. Nutrient concentrations (median and range) in surficial sediment collected in individual
deployment and retrieval surveys, and a combination of both surveys......................................... 37
Table 5. Concentrations (median and range) of select metals in surficial sediment collected in
individual deployment and retrieval surveys, and a combination of both surveys. ...................... 38
Table 6. Concentrations (median and range) of selected ions in surficial sediment collected in
individual deployment and retrieval surveys, and a combination of both surveys. ...................... 41
Table 7. Total mercury concentrations (median and range) in surficial sediment on the thin-layer
cap and at cap reference station 25. Sediment was from all surveys and all jars. ........................ 43
Table 8. Concentrations (median and range) of methyl-mercury, mercury, and total organic
carbon in surficial sediment collected in individual deployment and retrieval surveys, and a
combination of both surveys. All analysis conducted on sediment from MeHg jar. ................... 44
Table 9. Total PCBs in surficial sediment overlying the thin-layer cap and at cap reference 25. 45
Table 10. Average density of benthic invertebrate taxa in the surficial sediment on the thin-layer
cap and cap reference station 25. .................................................................................................. 46
Table 11. Percent dominant benthic invertebrate taxa in the surficial sediment on the thin-layer
cap and cap reference station 25. .................................................................................................. 46
Table 12. Indices, based on genus and species benthic invertebrate density in the surficial
sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25......................................................... 46
Table 13. Indices, based on family benthic invertebrate density in the surficial sediment on the
thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 in 2017, and pre-cap (2009) baseline stations on the
cap footprint and at reference station 289 in Beatty Cove. ........................................................... 47
Table 14. Risk estimation of fish collected from Peninsula Harbour, 2017. ................................ 48
Table 15. Summary of hazard quotients for wildlife consuming fish in Peninsula Harbour. ....... 48

 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Peninsula Harbour Area of Concern, Lake Superior. .................................................... 49
Figure 2. Capped area with 100 m grid lines (Figure source: Public Works and Government
Services Canada, 2012). ................................................................................................................ 50
Figure 3. Jellicoe Cove thin-layer sand cap and 2017 sampling station locations. ....................... 51
Figure 4. Design and placement configuration of vertical passive sampler (peeper). .................. 52
Figure 5. Design and placement configuration of the horizontal passive sampler. ...................... 53
Figure 6. Sediment core collected from sampling station on the thin-layer cap. .......................... 54
Figure 7. Optimal spacing and sampling design for monitoring components. ............................. 55
Figure 8. Spatially-weighted area average concentration of total organic carbon (mg/g) in the
surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap. SWACs were derived using the maximum concentration
detected at each station, the median of replicates from both surveys, and the minimum
concentration detected at each station. .......................................................................................... 56
Figure 9. Spatially-weighted area average concentration (SWAC) of total organic carbon (mg/g)
in the surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap collected in: A) 2017 (median of replicates at each
station); B) 2011 (single replicates at each station); and C) 2009 (single replicate at each station).
....................................................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 10. Median concentrations of select metals in surficial sediment at each station on the cap
and cap reference station 25. The relative concentration on the y-axis is due to Al, Fe, and Mn
being divided by factors of 10 in order to fit the scale so that trends could be easily compared. . 58
Figure 11. Median (max and min) of total mercury (µg/g) concentrations in surficial sediment on
cap stations and cap reference station 25. Horizontal line depicts the PSQG – Lowest Effect
Level (LEL) of 0.2 µg/g. ............................................................................................................... 59
Figure 12. Spatially-weighted area average concentration of total mercury (µg/g) in the surficial
sediment on the thin-layer cap. SWACs were derived using the maximum concentration detected
at each station, the median of replicates from both surveys, and the minimum concentration
detected at each station. ................................................................................................................ 60
Figure 13. Median (and max and min) of total mercury concentrations (bulk chemistry and TOCnormalized concentrations) measured in the post-cap 2017 survey, and pre-cap/historical surveys
conducted in 2000, 2002, 2009, and 2011. ................................................................................... 61
Figure 14. Spatially-weighted area average concentration (SWAC) of total mercury (µg/g) in the

 surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap collected in: A) 2017 (median of replicates at each
station); B) 2011 (single replicates at each station); and C) 2009 (single replicate at each station).
....................................................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 15. Median (and max and min) of methyl-mercury (ng/g) concentrations in surficial
sediment on cap stations and cap reference station 25.................................................................. 63
Figure 16. Spatially-weighted area average concentration of methyl-mercury (ng/g) in the
surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap. SWACs were derived using the maximum concentration
detected at each station, the median of replicates from both surveys, and the minimum
concentration detected at each station. .......................................................................................... 64
Figure 17.Spatially-weighted area average concentration (SWAC) of methyl-mercury (ng/g) in
the surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap collected in: A) 2017 (median of replicates at each
station); B) 2011 (single replicates at each station); and C) 2009 (single replicate at each station).
....................................................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 18. Median and range MeHg concentration (bulk chemistry and TOC-normalized
concentrations) measured in the post-cap 2017 survey, and pre-cap surveys conducted in 2000,
2002, 2009, and 2011. ................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 19. Spatially-weighted area average concentration of PCBs (ng/g) in the surficial sediment
on the thin-layer cap. SWACs were derived using the maximum and minimum concentrations
detected at each station. ................................................................................................................ 67
Figure 20. Spatially-weighted area average concentration (SWAC) of PCBs (ng/g) in the surficial
sediment on the thin-layer cap collected in: A) 2017 (minimum of replicates at each station); B)
2017 (maximum of replicates at each station; and C) 2011 (single replicates at each station). ... 68
Figure 21. Proportion of PCB congeners in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap................... 69
Figure 22. Average density of benthic invertebrates collected from the surficial sediment at the
cap stations and reference station 25............................................................................................. 70
Figure 23. Percent dominant benthic invertebrate taxa in the surficial sediment at the cap stations
and reference station 25. ............................................................................................................... 71

 1.

BACKGROUND

Peninsula Harbour is located on the north shore of Lake Superior, adjacent to the town of
Marathon, Ontario (Figure 1). The Harbour is identified as an Area of Concern (AOC) due to
historical inputs from the pulp mill and chlor-alkali plant, and historical log booming. Over
several decades, these activities resulted in impaired fish and benthic communities, elevated
levels of contaminants in sediment and biota, and degraded aesthetics (Peninsula Harbour RAP
Team, 1991). There have been efforts over time to reduce contaminant loads through regulatory
change, upgrades to effluent treatment facilities, and cessation of logging practices etc.; however,
contamination of the sediment continued to be a concern, specifically with regard to mercury
(Hg) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
In 2008, an environmental risk assessment (ERA) and human health risk assessment (HHRA)
were conducted to estimate the potential risks of Hg and PCBs in the sediment and biota to AOC
receptors (ENVIRON 2008a). Results of the risk assessments were:
 Hg was predicted to cause impaired reproduction in Lake Trout, Walleye, Lake
Whitefish, and Longnose Suckers;
 Reproductive success was predicted to be reduced in individual Bald Eagles (and other
raptors) exposed to Hg in fish;
 Longnose Suckers exposed to the PCBs in the assessed area were predicted to
reproductively impaired;
 The concentration of PCBs in the fish tissue was predicted to reduce the reproductive
success in mink and other piscivorous mammals; and
 The HHRA showed only PCBs in fish tissue were predicted to present a significant risk to
both adult anglers and more sensitive consumers such as children and adolescents.
The most heavily impacted area within Peninsula Harbour was Jellicoe Cove, a ninety-seven
hectare embayment located adjacent to the mill site (Figure 1). The risk assessment calculated
spatially weighted average concentrations (SWAC) of methyl-Hg (MeHg) and PCBs in both
Jellicoe Cove and in Peninsula Harbour as a whole. The SWAC for MeHg in Peninsula Harbour
and Jellicoe Cove were 1.9 ng/g and 5.1 ng/g, respectively. The PCB contamination was not as
widespread as Hg concentrations, but the areas of contamination did overlap. The SWAC for
PCBs in Peninsula Harbour and Jellicoe Cove were 120 ng/g and 140 ng/g, respectively
(ENVIRON 2008a).
Hot spot management was the preferred remedial approach to manage the risks to fish and mink
from exposure to contaminated sediment in Jellicoe Cove (ENVIRON 2008). The risk
assessment identified other management approaches (i.e., guideline based, background based,
and risk based); however, there were cost and feasibility constraints to considering the additional
options. Hot spots were defined as sediment with concentrations of total Hg equal to or greater
than 3 µg/g. Total Hg was selected as the remedial parameter as it is a source of MeHg, and it is
more cost effective to measure than MeHg. In addition, the overlap in the distribution of MeHg
and total PCBs with the total Hg concentrations assured the management and reduction of those
1

 contaminants as well.
Thin-layer capping was the selected sediment management option for the hot spot in Jellicoe
Cove. This decision was based on an informative assessment of the risks, benefits, costs, and
community acceptance. The average net deposition rate in Jellicoe Cove is very low (1 to 2 mm
of sediment being deposited per year), and as such, it was calculated that the placement of a 1520 cm sand cap would be equivalent to seventy-five years of sedimentation, thereby enhancing
the natural recovery of the site (ENVIRON 2008b). The remedial action objectives of the thinlayer cap were to:
 reduce potential for offsite migration of Hg, MeHg, and PCBs from the hot spot area in
Jellicoe Cove to the rest of Peninsula Harbour; and
 reduce the potential for future exposure of MeHg and PCBs to receptors (ENVIRON
2008b).
In 2012, a 15-20 cm thin-layer cap – at a cost of $7.3 million – was placed over Jellicoe Cove.
The cap was constructed from two different sand types: medium-grade and coarse-grade. The
coarse-grade sand, which was sourced from Manitoulin Island, was placed on the south side,
nearshore area of the delineated contaminated area; ultimately making up 33% of the total cap.
Since energy was higher in the nearshore areas, it was anticipated that the course sand would be
able to withstand storm events and prevailing currents. The medium-grade sand was sourced
from a local quarry and was used over the remainder of the cap footprint.
A long-term monitoring (LTM) plan was developed by AECOM (2011) to assess the success of
the cap over a twenty-year time frame. The first full assessment – presented in this report – was
completed five years post-cap construction. Initially, the intention of the LTM was to follow the
methodology used to collect samples in the pre-cap baselines studies conducted in 2009 and 2011
by AECOM and ECCC, respectively (ECCC unpublished data). However, the sand used to cap
was more coarse than the initial design specification, and therefore collecting and analyzing
samples from the cap could not be completed using the pre-cap survey methodologies. In
addition, there were concerns over the ability to penetrate the coarse cap, particularly due to the
high limestone content in the Manitoulin Island sourced material (J. Biberhofer per comm. 2013).
These challenges were addressed by introducing secondary sampling strategies, such as the use of
passive samplers to measure Hg levels in porewater, a benthic airlift to collect benthos, and
divers to collect surficial sediment.
2.

SURVEY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The LTM program outlined three main goals: performance monitoring, remedial goal
monitoring, and assessment of ecological recovery (AECOM 2011). Table 1 outlines the LTM
goals and objectives, with the associated primary and secondary monitoring components. The
primary monitoring components are those that were reflected in the original LTM plan (AECOM
2011). Secondary monitoring components were elements added to this LTM survey to address
2

 the challenges with monitoring the more course sand cap; these secondary components may not
necessarily be repeated in future LTM surveys. The question that each goal and objective was
intended to address were also included in Table 1.

The purpose of this report is to communicate the results of the LTM program as they relate to the
work completed by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP): surficial
sediment assessment and benthic invertebrate recolonization. Findings from additional survey
monitoring components were reported by others, including: fish contaminant levels (Drouillard
2019), submerged aquatic vegetation, and cap movement measurements and observations
(Foster and Ratcliff 2018); passive samplers for sediment pore water analysis (Rao et al. 2018);
and high resolution multibeam sonar, and RoxAnn seabed classification and underwater video
documentation (TBD). To some extent the pore water passive sampling survey will be described
and discussed here as it was integrated into the MECP’s surveys and was largely considered in
survey design and methodology. Additionally, the risk of fish contaminant levels to avian and
mammalian receptors was assessed in this report.
3.

METHODOLOGY

This LTM survey – to assess the Jellicoe Cove thin-layer cap – was split into two sampling
efforts to accommodate the time the passive samplers needed to be deployed in/on the sediment,
and then retrieved once they reached equilibrium. The first sampling effort, herein known as the
deployment survey, corresponded to the deployment of the passive samplers on July 12 – 14,
2017. The second sampling effort, herein known as the retrieval survey, was completed August
10 – 13, 2017 and corresponded with the retrieval of the passive samplers.
The methodology will be presented according to the matrix investigated during the surveys.
3.1. Station Locations
Information on the sampling stations and the samples collected at each station is shown in Table
2. A 100 m x 100 m grid over the cap footprint, as depicted in Figure 2, was used as the basis of
selecting station locations. The grid captured a gradient of water depth and total Hg
concentrations in native sediment, while capturing adequate spatial coverage of the cap. As a
starting point, a sampling station was placed in the centre of each square on the grid. Where
historical sampling stations were within 50 m of the sampling station placed in the centre of the
grid, the historical station location was selected as a surrogate so that pre-cap/historical
comparisons could be made. Ultimately, sampling locations were selected and distributed on the
cap according to substrate types (course or medium-grade sand) and water depth (<5m, 5-12 m,
and >12 m).
Eighteen (18) stations were identified in total for this survey; twelve (12) on the medium sand
cap, four (4) on the course sand cap, and two (2) reference stations located off the cap (Table 2,
Figure 3). Reference stations were selected mainly for the passive sampling pore water
3

 assessment and were selected primarily based on lower total Hg concentrations and approximate
water depth. Consideration was also given to physical characteristics of the sediment (i.e.,
attempting to match native capped sediment characteristics with reference sediment
characteristics); however, this proved to be difficult.
3.2. Passive Samplers
Texas Tech University (TTU) was engaged to advise on the use of passive samplers on the cap to
assess pore water Hg concentrations, assist with construction, deployment, and retrieval of the
samplers, analyze the collected samples, and provide interpretation of analytical results. A full
report of the passive sampler survey was provided by Rao et al. (2018), and a brief overview is
provided in this report.
Passive samplers were used to determine the migration of total Hg from the underlying
contaminated sediment through the thin-layer cap. Two types of passive samplers were used:
vertical diffusion samplers (peepers) (Figure 4), and horizontal surface flux chambers (Figure 5).
For the vertical peeper, the ECCC Machine Shop fabricated a unique stainless steel casing so that
the peeper could withstand the force required to insert it into the sand cap. Environment and
Climate Change, in consultation with TTU designed the horizontal flux chambers, and the ECCC
Machine Shop fabricated them. Details of design of both the vertical peepers and the horizontal
flux chambers are provided in Rao et al. (2018).
Every station had at least one (1) passive sampler deployed. Vertical peepers were placed in the
medium sand cap at twelve (12) sites, one (1) in the course sand cap, and one (1) at each of the
two (2) reference stations. The horizontal surface flux chambers were designed to accommodate
the coarse sand area of the cap and were placed at four (4) sites. The horizontal surface flux
chambers were also co-located at three (3) vertical peeper sites, as well as one (1) of the
reference locations (Table 2).
The passive samplers were assembled on-shore, transported out to the divers, and deployed
within one hour of assembly. The vertical peepers were inserted in the cap, ensuring that one
chamber penetrated the native sediment, and one chamber was above the surface water-sediment
(cap) interface (Figure 4). The horizontal flux chamber was placed directly over the surface
sediment (Figure 5). The passive samplers were deployed for 28 days.
3.3. Surficial Sediment
Surficial sediment was collected during both the passive sampler deployment and retrieval
surveys to assess the effectiveness of the cap to meet the remedial goal of an area average of < 3
µg/g total Hg. The surficial sediment that overlaid the medium and coarse sand cap was the target
substrate. Given the low quantities of the surficial sediment (generally 1 mm to 3 cm thick), the
number of sediment sample replicates varied between stations. For each parameter measured,
one to three replicates were collected at select stations. Surficial sediment was not collected
from all stations.
4

 Due to the challenges associated with the cap grain size and the limited amount of surficial
sediment overlying the cap, sediment was collected by ECCC divers by use of a stainless steel
spatula or wafting the fine surficial sediment into the sampling jar. Each replicate for each
specified parameter(s) was collected in a separate jar. The parameter allocation was as such:




PET jar: particle size, total organic carbon (TOC), metals, Hg, total nitrogen (TN);
5P jar: PCBs; and
250 ml polyethylene jar: MeHg (and subsequently Hg and TOC)

At stations 9 and 17, where it was not possible to collect the minimal mass of sediment required
for analysis for multiple replicates, substrate from replicate jars were combined and homogenized
to create a single sample.
Sampling jars were brought to the surface by the divers and placed upright until the overlying
water was clear of suspended particulates and could be decanted. All sampling jars were kept
cool, in a dark location, until submitted for chemical analysis. Sediment that was collected for
MeHg analysis was frozen.
3.4. Sediment Cores
The purpose of the sediment core collection was twofold: (1) to determine the thickness of the
cap prior to the vertical peeper deployment; and (2) to measure Hg concentrations in different
horizons within the cap and native sediment. During the deployment survey, sediment cores
were collected from ten (10) selected stations, which included one (1) reference station, one (1)
coarse sand cap station, and eight (8) medium sand cap stations.
Sediment cores were collected using cellulose acetate butyrate core tubes (1 m long, with a 10
cm internal diameter). The tubes were hand pushed into the top layer of the cap and driven
through the remainder of the cap and into the native sediment with a 3 lb sledge hammer by the
divers. Once collected, the core tubes were put on ice until they could be processed. On shore,
water was decanted from the core tubes, and the tubes were split with a circular saw. Several
sediment samples were collected from the core for analysis, including: top surficial sediment
overlying the cap; top portion of the sand cap (approximate top 3 cm); bottom portion of the sand
cap (approximate the bottom 3 cm); and top 3 cm of native sediment, as well as other definitive
horizons in the native sediment (Rao et al. 2018) (Figure 6). Samples were collected from the
centre of the core to limit the effect of smearing and handling. Each sample was placed in a
separate 40 ml autosampling vial and stored in a dark cool location.
3.5. Benthic Invertebrates
Benthic invertebrates were collected using a benthic airlift provided by ECCC. The benthic airlift
was a 1.1 m long aluminum tube with a 37.5 mm inside diameter. The air used to ‘vacuum’ up
the samples was supplied by an eighty cubic foot dive tank regulated to airflow rates of 120-130
5

 psi. Airflow rate, which was controlled by the diver operated ball valve, dictated suction/water
flow rates for sample collection. Once an acceptable airflow rate was established on the first
station, all subsequent stations were set to the same flowrate. A 243 µm mesh drawstring closure
bag on the airlift allowed the air and water to pass through, while retaining benthic invertebrates
≥ 243 µm for enumeration.
The divers collected benthos samples from an area defined by a 50 cm x 50 cm (0.25 m 2 area)
quadrat at eight selected stations (Table 2). Sampling locations at each site were randomly
selected within a specified target area (described in section 3.7). Triplicate replicate samples
were collected within 5 m of each other and no less than 1 m apart.
Once sieved, each sample was placed in 500 ml polyethylene jar and preserved with 10%
formalin buffered with sodium borate until they were identified and enumerated.
3.6. Fish Tissue Contaminants
Longnose Suckers, Lake Trout, and Lake Whitefish were collected from the Peninsula Harbour
AOC by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Upper Great Lakes Management Unit as
part of the fish community index program. The species type, weight, length, and sex of each fish
was recorded prior to obtaining boneless skinless dorsal tissue. The fillets were processed and
stored according to the methods outlined in the MECP’s protocol for collecting sport fish
samples (MOE 2014).
Young-of-the-year (YOY) Round Whitefish were collected from the boat launch in Jellicoe Cove
by MECP-Biomonitoring Unit field staff in the fall of 2017. Fish were captured by seine nets,
measured for weight and length, and frozen on dry ice in the field. Each sample (four in total)
was a composite of whole-bodied fish equalling to a combined weight of approximately 10g
(requirement for routine monitoring) (MECP, unpublished methods).
3.7. Other Sampling Components
3.7.1. Imaging
Environment and Climate Change Canada conducted a high resolution multibeam sonar, and
RoxAnn seabed classification; both of which were supported by an underwater video. The data
generated from these initiatives will be reported separately.
3.7.2. Cap Movement and Submergent Aquatic Vegetation
A cap movement and submergent aquatic vegetation survey was conducted and reported on by
an external consultant, Northern Bioscience (Foster and Ratcliff 2018).
3.8. Order of Operation
The divers were instructed to collect the various samples according to spacing depicted in Figure
7. The final coordinates for the station were defined by the placement of the passive sampler
during deployment.
6

 Prior to deploying the passive samplers, the top sediment layer was collected within a 5 m radius
from the centre point, defined by the location of the passive sampler. Next, at approximately 5 to
10 m from the passive sampler centre point, a sediment core was collected and used to determine
depth of the cap to inform and guide the placement of the vertical peeper, and to provide
sediment samples for TTU. Following the collection of the sediment and cores, the passive
samplers were deployed at the centre point location. If the station had both a horizontal surface
flux chamber and a peeper, the flux chamber was placed approximately 50 cm from the vertical
peeper. The main objective of this collection and deployment strategy was to minimize
disturbance of both samplers.
Upon retrieval, the passive samplers were removed, ensuring that the area outside the 5 m radius
passive sampler footprint was not disturbed. Within the area of target substrate, but away from
previously disturbed core site, a footprint of 5 m x 5 m was established to air lift the benthos.
Benthic invertebrate samples were collected according to the methodology described in section
3.5. Outside of all the disturbed areas, but not to exceed a 20 m x 20 m footprint, surficial
sediment was collected.
3.9. Laboratory Analysis
3.9.1. Surficial Sediment
Surficial sediment samples were analysed according to established methods by the Ontario
MECP’s Laboratory Services Branch (LSB), Etobicoke, ON. Sediment samples were analysed
for: metals by method E3470 (including Al, Sb, As, Ba, Be, B, Ca, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mg,
Mn, Mo, Ni, K, P, Se, Ag, Na, Sr, S, Tl, Sn, Ti, V, and Zn); particle size by method E3328A;
total organic carbon (TOC) by method CARB3529; total nitrogen (TN) by method TN3529,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by method E3487; and total mercury (Hg) by method E3059A.
Value qualifier factors (VQF) were assigned to the sediment data provided by MECP-LSB (and
shown in the raw data appendices). The qualifier ‘W’ is the standard deviation of replicate
measurements of low-level spiked blank matrix samples, rounded down to the nearest 1, 2, or 5.
This value indicates the baseline response of the instrument and the smallest amount of the
analyte that can be measured by the procedure. A qualifier of ‘≤W’ is interpreted as no
measurable response. The qualifier ‘T’ is a factor of ‘W’; the factor is dependent upon the
parameter measured. Results quantified by ‘<T’ indicate that the analyte was confirmed, but it
was at a trace concentration and should be reported with caution. The qualifier ‘< MDL’
indicates that the value was less than the method of detection. The MDL is commonly defined as
the minimal concentration of the analyte that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence
that the concentration is greater than zero (USEPA 1997). The method detection limit is
calculated using the same standard deviation calculated for ‘W’, but is not rounded and is
multiplied by 3. Results of <MDL were analysed as non-detects (ND) = 1, meaning that where
the analyte was flagged as <MDL, the MDL value was used as concentration of that analyte for a
given sample.

7

 Surficial sediment samples that were collected for MeHg anlaysis were analysed by the
University of Western Biotron Laboratory, London, ON. The following, provided by Biotron
Laboratory, describes the method used: ‘Wet sediment samples weighed, freeze-dried and
reweighted for water content determination. Freeze-dried subsamples were microwave digested
using a state-of-the-science Milestone® Ethos UP system. Digestate were transferred to a closed
vessel, ethylated, purged with ultrapure nitrogen, trapped on Tenax® TA, thermally desorbed,
speciated by gas chromatography, and detected by atomic fluorescence. All sample analyses
were accompanied by method blanks, digestion duplicates, certified reference materials (CRM),
spiked reagent blank, matrix spikes and spike duplicates for 10% of all analyzed samples. The
analytical equipment was calibrated using traceable methyl-mercury standards. Calibrations
were all validated against secondary standards, as well as CRM.’
The remainder of the sediment from the polyethylene jar that was analyzed for MeHg was sent to
MECP-LSB and was analyzed for total Hg and TOC.
3.9.2. Porewater and Sediment Cores
Porewater collected from the passive samplers and sediment collected from the sediment cores
were analysed by TTU. The porewater samples were analysed for total Hg, as well as anions
which were used to aid in interpretation. Core sediment was also analysed by TTU for total Hg.
Methods are described in Rao et al. (2018).
3.9.3. Benthic Invertebrates
The benthic invertebrates collected from select stations were identified and enumerated by Craig
Logan Consulting in Guelph, ON. Mr. Logan is NABS certified and has over thirty year of
experience in taxonomy.
3.9.4. Fish Tissue Contaminants
MECP-Biomonitoring Unit processed and prepared the fish, as necessary, for analysis. Tissue
was analysed according to established methods by Ontario MECP-LSB, Etobicoke, ON.
3.10. Statistical Analysis and Data Interpretation
3.10.1. Surficial Sediment
The median and range concentrations were derived for each parameter where replicates were
taken. Median and range concentrations for each station were calculated for each deployment
and retrieval survey, and by combining all data. Discussion of results was mainly based on the
combination of all survey results, unless otherwise specified. The within-station variability in the
sediment samples collected during both surveys was calculated and expressed as a coefficient of
variation (CV). In the case of total PCBs, variability among replicates and surveys was
considered too great to provide medians (or means) and therefore data was presented as a range.
Total Hg results were a combination of data derived from both the metals PET jar and the MeHg
polyethylene jar. Any comparisons made between MeHg and Hg was conducted using data
8

 derived from the sediment collected in the MeHg polyethylene jar only.
The concentrations of certain parameters can be strongly correlated to particle size or organic
content. Therefore, sediment data were assessed as measured in the environment (bulk sediment
chemistry), and, where possible, normalized to particle size or total organic carbon. The purpose
of the normalization was to diminish the influence of the depositional environment, where
particle size may be smaller or organic content higher. Aluminum is an element that is believed
to not be locally enriched and the ratio of other metals to aluminum should remain constant
across a gradient of particle sizes, unless there is enrichment of the other metal (Forstner 1990).
As such, metal data were adjusted to corresponding aluminum concentrations and examined.
Organic contaminant data were normalized to the TOC concentration for each station.
Bulk and normalized sediment chemistry data were assessed and compared using a KruskalWallis one-way ANOVA on ranks, followed by a Dunn’s test for multiple pairwise comparisons.
Data often failed the normality test, but when a parametric test was suitable, a one-way ANOVA
followed by a Tukey test for multiple pairwise comparisons was used. A linear regression was
used to assess the relationship between two variables. Where normality test failed, variables
were log-transformed. All tests were performed with α = 0.05, using SigmaPlot 12 (Systat
Software Inc.).
3.10.1.1. Spatially-Weighted Average Concentrations
Spatially-weight average concentrations (SWACs) were calculated for Hg, MeHg, PCBs, and
TOC using an inverse distance weighting (IDW) interpolation technique. The IDW tool in
ArcGIS was used with the power parameter set to p=2 (ESRI 2011).
The SWACs for Hg, MeHg, and TOC were calculated using the minimum concentration detected
at each station, the maximum concentration detected at each station, and the median
concentration of all replicates at a given station. For PCBs, only the minimum and maximum
value SWACs were calculated. Data from both surveys were combined when calculating the
minimum, maximum, and median concentrations
Single samples were collected from each station in the pre-cap baseline surveys in 2009 and
2011, and therefore SWACs were derived from single values from stations that were located on
the cap footprint.
3.10.1.2. Data Comparison
Where applicable, sediment data were compared to the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines
(PSQG) Lowest Effect Level (LEL) and Severe Effect Level (SEL) criteria (Fletcher et al. 2008).
The PSQG-LEL indicates the level of contamination that can be tolerated by the majority of
benthic organisms. The PSQG-SEL is the level of contamination at which a pronounced
disturbance of the sediment-dwelling community is expected.

9

 Concentrations of Hg, MeHg, and PCBs were compared to the risk-based and/or remedial goals
outlined in the Peninsula Harbour ERA (ENVIRON 2008a).
Post-cap comparisons were made to baseline surveys conducted in 2009 (ECCC unpublished –
survey conducted by AECOM) and 2011 (ECCC unpublished). Additionally, where appropriate
and possible, historical surveys conducted in 2000 (Milani and Grapentine 2005) and 2002
(Grapentine et al. 2005) were used for historical comparisons.
Comparisons were made to sediment data collected in 2011 from an index station and reference
station that were established as part of MECP’s Great Lakes Nearshore Index Station Network.
The reference station for Peninsula Harbour, station 289 Beatty Cove located in the northern
portion of the Harbour, approximately 3 km from Jellicoe Cove. This reference location is not
considered to be impacted; however, it was accepted that diffuse influences of past operations at
the Marathon pulp mill may be detected. Index station 1346, McKellar Harbour, is located
approximately 25 km west of Jellicoe Cove, and for the purposes of this comparison is
considered unimpacted.
3.10.2. Benthic Invertebrates
Density and percent dominant taxa results were presented according to Class: Insecta,
Oligochaeta, Gastropoda, Malacostraca, Bivalvia, Arachnida, and other (Hirudinea,
Trepaxonemata, and Hydrozoa). Oligochaeta included immature Tubificinae (with and without
hairs). Brachiopoda, Copepoda, Ostracoda, and Nematoda were identified and counted, but were
not included in the analysis.
Indices were calculated using Paleontological Statistics (PAST) Version 3.20 software (Hammer
et al. 2018). Benthos were identified down to genus and species, and therefore the diversity
indices were based on this level of detail. To avoid the immature Tubificinae appearing to be a
separate taxon, the immatures were added to counts for Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri, as this was the
only genus identified at the site that belonged to the sub-family Tubificinae. Shannon-Weiner
Diversity Index (a measure of the number of species present and the number of individuals per
species), Margalef’s Richness Index (measure of biodiversity; the number of species or taxa in a
given area), and Equitablity (measure of evenness; which individuals are divided among the taxa
present) were the taxon indices used to describe the data.
Pre-cap comparisons were made to baseline survey conducted in 2009 (ECCC unpublished –
survey conducted by AECOM). Taxa were assessed as described previously, with the “other”
taxa category consisting only of Hirudinea counts. In addition, diversity indices were based on
family, as this was a level of detail that satisfied both the 2009 and 2017 dataset.
3.10.3. Fish Tissue Contaminants
The University of Windsor was contracted by ECCC to analyze the fish tissue contaminant data
and report findings (Drouillard 2019). The scope of Drouillard’s report included the assessment
of trends over time and the risk of eating fish caught in Peninsula Harbour to humans; it did not
10

 address the risk to the exposed fish wildlife in the Harbour. As such, an assessment was included
in this report to determine if the fish captured post-cap were at risk from Hg and PCB exposure.
In addition, wildlife exposed Peninsula Harbour fish were assessed to determine if bald eagles
and mink continued to be at risk from Hg and PCBs, respectively. For ease of comparison to precap results, methods and input variables used in the pre-cap ERA (ENVIRON 2008a) were used
to determine the potential risk for the exposed receptors post-cap. It is noted that was assumed
that Hg in tissue was in the form of MeHg.
To estimate the potential for risk, hazard quotients (HQ) were calculated by comparing estimated
exposure levels to effect levels, which in this case were toxicity reference values (TRV), for
whole-bodied fish.
HQ = [contaminant in whole-bodied fish] / TRV
Fillet contaminant concentrations in adult sport fish were converted to whole-body tissue
concentrations using one of the following equations (depending on the contaminant):


For Hg, a linear regression model provided by Peterson et al. (2005) was used:
 log10[whole-body Hg] = -0.2712 + log10[fillet tissue Hg]
 specific y-intercepts were provided for different species. The y-intercept of
-0.3203 was provided for White Sucker, and therefore was used in the conversion
equations for Longnose Sucker in this survey.

 For PCBs, conversion factors provided by Amrhein et al. (1999) were used:
 [whole-body total PCB] = [fillet total PCB] x conversion factor
 conversion factors:
 Rainbow Trout = 1.47
 Coho Salmon = 1.7
 as per the method used in the ERA (ENVIRON 2008a), a conversion factor of
1.47 was used for Lake Trout, and an average of salmon and trout conversion
factors (1.59) for Lake Whitefish and Longnose Suckers.
Young-of-year Round Whitefish were analysed as whole-bodied composites.
3.10.3.1 Fish
To assess the potential risk to fish, the mean and 95 th percentile for the whole-body contaminant
concentrations, and the mean and 95% upper confidence limit HQs were calculated. To avoid
skewed results, the large Lake Trout (90.3 cm; the remaining fish had a mean length of 56.4 cm)
was excluded. Generally, a HQ > 1 indicates that estimated exposures exceeds effect levels,
while a HQ < 1 indicates the exposures are less than effect levels. As described by ENVIRON’s
ERA (ENVIRON 2008a), the mean HQ is a central tendency estimate and therefore a mean HQ >
1 suggests that adverse effects in that fish species may propagate to population-level effects. The

11

 95th percentile HQ is used to predict risks to individuals, as it is based on the most highly
exposed fish.
3.10.3.2 Wildlife
To calculate the HQs for mammalian and avian piscivorous receptors, dietary intakes (DI) were
calculated for use as the effect parameter (HQ = DI / TRV). The DI variable was based on
whole-bodied fish at a length that would be consumed by the receptor of interest. The fish
collected in 2017 had lengths ranging from 46 – 90 cm for Lake Trout, 34 – 55 cm for Lake
Whitefish, and 31 – 49 cm for Longnose Suckers. As such, whole-bodied fish concentrations (as
calculated above) were size-normalized to the median length of fish the avian or mammalian
receptor would consume. Young-of-year Round Whitefish were not size-normalized, as they
were less than the target lengths for each receptor. The ERA (ENVIRON 2008a) provided
exponential power regressions for both PCB and Hg to model the relationship between fish
length and whole-bodied fish concentration for each fish species. The regression equations were
used to predict the concentration of Hg and PCB in whole-bodied fish at 15 cm (for mink
assessment) and 30 cm (for bald eagle assessment) in length. The average and 95% upper
confidence limit of the predicted concentrations for each target length were used to calculate the
DIs, and subsequently the HQs.
4.

RESULTS

4.1. Surficial Sediment
4.1.1. Characteristics
A fine layer of surficial sediment overlaying the sediment cap was observed both by the divers,
and in the cores that were collected for TTU. The divers described this layer of surficial
sediment to have a depth that ranged from 1 mm to 3 cm, and at some stations the surficial
sediment appeared to have a wavy-like pattern, with the formation of troughs.
As expected, the particle size of the surficial sediment overlying the cap was sandy; the majority
of stations were >54% sand in the 62-2000 µm range (Table 3). With the exception of stations
15 and 16 (which had CVs of 43% and 45%, respectively), the variability both within and
between surveys for particle size (% sand) was <20%. A one-way ANOVA indicated that there
were statistical (p<0.001) differences between stations for particle size; however, the variability
in replicates at stations 15 and 16 did not allow for a post-hoc test to indicate the differences. By
removing stations 15 and 16 from the statistical test (which had the lowest median % sand on the
cap), statistically significant (p<0.05) differences were noted between the stations with the most
sand content in the sediment (23, 17, 14, and 9) from stations 10 and 12, with the least amount of
sand.

12

 4.1.2. Nutrients
4.1.2.1. Total Organic Carbon
The median SWAC for TOC in the surficial sediment on the cap was 21.2 mg/g (min: 14.7 mg/g,
max: 26.2 mg/g), which exceeded the PSQG-LEL (10 mg/g) (Table 4, Figure 8). Individually,
the only stations that did not exceed the PSQG-LEL were stations 17 and 23 in the northwest
area of the cap. The highest median concentrations, ranging from 31 mg/g to 45 mg/g, were
measured at the course sand cap stations 19, 16, and 21. Statistically the TOC concentration at
the coarse cap stations differed (p<0.05) from the remainder of the medium cap stations, which
had median TOC concentrations ranging from 5.7 mg/g to 28 mg/g. Comparatively, the index
station in McKellar Harbour and the reference station in Beatty Cove – which had mostly silty
sediment – had median TOC concentrations in 2011 of 21 mg/g and 20 mg/g, respectively.
There was no relationship between TOC and particle size (% sand) (r 2 = 0.03, p = 0.275, power =
0.19) on the cap; log-transforming the data did not strengthen the relationship.
4.1.2.2. Total Phosphorus
The median TP concentrations in the surficial sediment on the cap ranged from 270 µg/g to 665
µg/g (Table 4). The highest and lowest median concentrations detected were at the reference
station 25 and the coarse cap stations (19, 16, 21), respectively. As a point of comparison, the TP
concentrations at the more silty index station in McKellar Harbour and the reference station in
Beatty Cove were 800 µg/g and 700 µg/g, respectively. Concentrations of TP were evenly
distributed across the remainder of the cap (p<0.05), with only slight elevations above the PSQGLEL (600 µg/g) at cap stations 9, 20, 12, 10, and 23. There was little variability between
measurements taken at each station during the two surveys (CV <24%).
4.1.2.3. Total Nitrogen
The median TN concentrations in the surficial sediment on the cap ranged from 0.10 mg/g to
1.31 mg/g (based on one replicate) (Table 4). Comparatively, the TN concentrations measured at
the index station in McKellar Harbour and the reference station in Beatty Cove were 1.1 mg/g
and 0.9 mg/g, respectively. When the TN cap data from the two surveys were combined, the
CVs ranged from 55 – 153%, which was due to significant (p<0.001) differences observed in
concentrations measured between the deployment and retrieval surveys. Generally, samples
collected during the deployment survey had higher TN concentrations (ranging from 0.93 to 1.63
mg/g) than samples collected during the retrieval survey (ranging from 0.05 to 0.46 mg/g). With
the exception of station 19, the median concentrations of TN in surficial sediment collected from
all the cap stations during the deployment survey exceeded the PSQG-LEL (0.55 mg/g). In the
retrieval survey, station 10 was the only station with a median concentration that exceeded the
PSQG-LEL. Due to the differences observed between the surveys, data was assessed as separate
surveys, with results showing no significant (p<0.05) differences in concentrations across the
cap.

13

 4.1.2.4. Historical Comparisons
Prior to conducting historical comparisons, regression analyses were conducted to establish if a
relationship existed between TP and TN with TOC, and whether the TP and TN cap data could
be TOC-normalized. There was a significant negative (r2 = 0.59, p<0.001, power = 1.0)
relationship between TOC and TP when all the 2017 cap data was considered. Given this
unusual relationship, the TOC-normalized TP data was not assessed. There did not appear to be
a relationship (r2 = 0.037, p = 0.194, power = 0.25) between TN and TOC concentrations in the
surficial sediment on the cap; TN-normalized data was also not assessed.
The SWAC determined for the pre-cap baseline 2009 and 2011 measurements for TOC over the
cap footprint was 27.1 mg/g and 30.2 mg/g, respectively (Figure 9). These pre-cap values were
comparable to the 2017 maximum SWAC (26.2 mg/g). Given the results of the 2017 study, and
the differences noted between the coarse and medium sand cap areas, the current and historic
data were separated into two groups: one that reflected that area over the coarse sand cap, and
one which encompassed the remainder of the cap over the medium sand. Over the coarse sand
cap footprint there was no change in TOC concentrations over time. However, poor replication,
as well as variability in the historic data, resulted in a statistical test with low power (0.35), and
this conclusion is cautioned. For the remainder of the cap, the TOC concentrations observed in
2017 were significantly (p>0.05) lower than measured in all of the historic surveys.
Similar to TOC, the current and historical TP data was separated into two groups: coarse sand
cap stations and medium sand cap stations. Over the coarse cap footprint, concentrations of TP
significantly (p<0.05) declined since the 2002 survey (no significant difference from the TP
concentrations measured in 2000). Contrary to the coarse cap, the stations over the medium cap
displayed no significant (p<0.05) difference since the 2002 survey.
Historical comparison for TN could only be made to the 2000 (Milani and Grapentine 2005) and
2002 (Grapentine 2005) datasets, as TN was not analysed in the 2009 and 2011 pre-cap baseline
surveys (TKN was measured). Given the variability observed in the post-cap data, historical
comparisons were made based on the deployment and retrieval surveys individually. The
concentrations of TN observed during the deployment survey was not significantly (p<0.05)
different from the historical surveys, while concentrations measured in the retrieval survey were
significantly (p<0.05) less.
4.1.3. Metals
4.1.3.1. Trace Metals
Concentrations of select trace metals in the surficial sediment overlying the cap are presented in
Table 5. The variability (CV) between the replicates was reasonable, ranging from 22 to 47%.
Metal concentrations in the surficial sediment on the cap were compared to concentrations
measured in 2011 at reference station in Beatty Cove and the index station in McKellar harbour.
Again, it is recognized that the surficial sediment at the reference and index stations had a higher
14

 percentage of silt and clay; however, based on bulk chemistry alone, the concentrations of metals
observed on the cap were generally similar or less (with a few exceptions) than measurements
taken at the index and reference stations. The lowest concentrations of metals were detected over
the coarse cap stations 19 and 21, and highest concentrations mainly in the northern section of
the cap at station 12, 11, 20, 10, as well as stations 23 and 15 in the northwest cap area (Table 5).
There were exceptions to this generalization, specifically with As, Sb, B, Mo, Se, Sn, Sr, and Tl.
However, other than B and Sr, the concentrations of these metals were less than the method
detection limit at the stations on the medium cap, and only slightly above on the coarse cap, so
there is a hesitation to draw any conclusions on their distribution pattern. It should be noted that
the levels of Sn in the retrieval and deployment surveys at many stations were significantly
different, and this metal should be re-assessed in the next LTM survey.
Based on the index and reference data, the sediment is naturally enriched with Cu, Ni, and Cr.
Elevated concentrations of Cu and Ni are explained by the Coldwell Complex (Ecometrix 2012),
and Cr likely by the presence of mafic to ultramafic rocks in the Complex (M. Puumala, per.
comm., 2019). As expected, based on the elevated naturally occurring concentrations, these
metals exceeded the PSQG-LELs (Cu: 16 µg/g, Ni: 16 µg/g, Cr: 26 µg/g) at various stations on
the cap (Table 5). The median concentrations of Ni and Cr exceeded their respective LELs at all
stations except 16, 19, and 21 (Cr also exceeded at station 25). As described previously,
generally the lowest concentrations were measured at the coarse stations 19 and 21, and the
highest at stations located in the north and northwest portion of the cap (Figure 10).
For sake of completion, metals from the surficial sediment over the cap were compared to precap measurements. Prior to historical comparisons, metals were normalized to Al, as there was
no correlation between particle size and Al over the cap. As discussed previously, this finding
was likely an indication of the mixing of the surficial sediment and sand from the cap. In
general, most of the metals correlated well with Al (except B and Cu).
An assessment of the bulk metals data from the cap surficial sediment against the pre-cap
baseline bulk data indicated that concentrations of metals in the surficial sediment increased after
the placement of the cap. However, normalizing the current and historical data to Al, indicated
that metal concentrations were actually less than the pre-cap survey measurements. Exceptions
to this trend were: Mn, which had concentrations post-cap that were significantly (p<0.05)
greater than pre-cap measurements; Cu, which had concentrations that did not changed; and Ti,
which had concentrations that were similar to concentrations measured in 2011. The assessment
of bulk data at individual stations showed that metals decreased at the coarse sand stations 16 and
19, and stayed the same or increased at the remainder of the medium sand stations; there were
some exceptions (Mn and Zn), but this was the general pattern. Again, normalizing the metals
and individual stations to Al showed that the concentrations of many metals had decreased postcap, with similar exceptions as the whole cap for Mn, Sr, and Ti. Metals (Sb, As, Cd, Mo, Ag,
and Sn) that were detected at less than the method detection limit, or had an elevated detection
limit (on account of another parameter at a higher concentration), in both the pre-cap surveys and
the current survey were not assessed further.
15

 4.1.3.2. Specific Ions
The anions and cations Ca, Mg, K, Na, and S were measured on the cap as part of the metals scan
(Table 6). Elevated concentrations of Ca and Mg on the coarse sand stations 16, 19, and 21 can
likely be attributed to the coarse sand which was sourced from Manitoulin Island and primarily
consists of limestone and marbles, in which Ca and Mg carbonates are naturally elevated (R.
Purdon, per comm. 2019). The material for the medium sand cap was sourced locally, and
therefore concentrations of Mg and Ca were consistent to what was measured at the reference
and index stations. Levels of S were also higher at the coarse sand cap stations and north-central
stations 12 and 10, although concentrations were not as high as concentrations observed in
sediment adjacent to other kraft mills (MECP unpublished data). Generally, the distribution of S
over the majority of the cap could be considered even, as the coarse cap and north-central
stations were only significantly (p<0.05) different from station 17. Bulk concentrations of K
were highest at stations 12, 20, 15, and 23; however, when normalized to Al, the coarse cap
stations were shown to be enriched compared to the remainder of the cap. Reasons for this
observation are unknown. Generally bulk concentrations of Na followed a trend similar to K, but
due to a weak relationship with particle size and Al, normalized data was not assessed.
Given that the level of these specific ions seemed to be attributed mainly to the source of the
sand material, historical comparisons were not completed.
4.1.3.3. Total Mercury
The median concentrations of total Hg in the cap surficial sediment ranged from 0.07 µg/g to
1.10 µg/g, with a median SWAC of 0.37 µg/g (min: 0.23 µg/g, max: 0.61 µg/g) (Table 7, Figure
11). The CV for this data ranged from 27 to 53%, which was reasonable given that the data was
derived from the two surveys, and two separate jars for each survey (one jar collected for metals
scan and another for MeHg analysis). The median Hg concentration of the surficial sediment at
the cap reference station 25 was 0.53 µg/g (range 0.21 µg/g), which was higher than the
concentration of Hg at all stations except 16 and 19.
The distribution of total Hg over the cap is depicted in the Figure 12. The greatest median (range)
concentrations of Hg were observed over the coarse cap stations 16 (1.10 µg/g, range 1.05 µg/g)
and 19 (1.00 µg/g, range 1.36 µg/g). A statistical comparison showed Hg concentrations at
stations 16 and 19 to be significantly (p<0.05) higher than Hg concentrations detected in the
northwest corner of the cap (stations 23, 17, and 14). A regression analysis indicated that logTOC explained 61% of the variance in log-Hg concentrations (p<0.001, power = 1.0). As such,
Hg concentrations were TOC-normalized and assessed, showing no significant (p<0.05)
difference between stations on the cap.
Considering the cap as a whole, the median SWAC (0.37 µg/g) was approximately eight times
less than the remedial target concentration (3 µg/g) (Figure 12). As a point of comparison, the
cap median SWAC was the same as median concentration measured at the index station in Beatty
Cove in 2011. At the reference station in McKellar Harbour, outside of Peninsula Harbour AOC,
16

 the median concentration measured was 0.04 µg/g. The PSQG-LEL (0.2 µg/g) was exceeded at
all individual stations, except the northwest stations 15, 23, 14, 17, and 21.
A comparison of the 2017 dataset to the pre-cap data sets (both bulk and TOC-normalized
concentrations) indicated that Hg concentrations in the surficial sediment on the cap were
significantly less (p<0.05) than the concentrations measured in each historic survey (Figure 13).
The SWACs calculated for the 2009 and 2011 pre-cap baseline dataset were 7.69 µg/g and 6.37
µg/g, respectively (Figure 14). Given the relatively elevated concentrations of Hg detected at
stations 16 and 19 in 2017, these two stations (data combined) were compared to the pre-cap
baseline data (2009 and 2011) for stations over the coarse cap footprint. The comparison
indicated Hg concentrations in surficial sediment over the coarse cap footprint were significantly
(p<0.05) less than in the sediment collected pre-cap over the same general area.
4.1.3.4. Methyl-Mercury
The median surficial sediment concentrations of MeHg on the cap ranged from 0.42 ng/g to
12.14 ng/g (single replicate), with a median SWAC of 3.02 ng/g (min: 2.54 ng/g, max: 4.61 ng/g)
(Table 8, Figure 15). The MeHg concentration detected in the surficial sediment at the cap
reference station 25 was 1.33 ng/g (range 0.74 ng/g). The variability (CV) among the replicates
between surveys ranged from 0.4 to 80%. Excluding the variability observed at stations 16 and
12, the CV for the remainder of the stations did not exceed 49%.
The distribution of MeHg on the cap is depicted in Figure 16. Similar to the cap Hg analysis, the
highest concentrations were detected at station 16 (median 4.63 ng/g, range 14.20 ng/g) and
station 19 (12.14 ng/g, single replicate). The median MeHg concentration of the surficial
sediment at reference station 25 was 1.33 ng/g (range 0.74 ng/g), which was higher than the
concentration of MeHg in the northwest portion of the cap. Due to the lack of replication of
samples at several stations, the MeHg data was assessed according to groups based on a
combination of observed concentrations and location on the cap: <1 ng/g (stations 17 and 23 in
the northwest area of the cap); 1.1-1.9 ng/g (stations 21, 14, and 20, located mid-cap); and >2
ng/g (stations 16, 19, 11, 12, and 10, located in the southeast area of the cap). A comparison of
the groups using a one-way ANOVA showed the lowest concentration (<1 ng/g) group and the
highest concentration (>2 ng/g) group to be significantly (p<0.05) different. Given the
significant relationship between log-TOC and log-MeHg (r2= 0.69, p<0.001, power = 1.0), TOCnormalized MeHg data was assessed according to the predetermined groups. The result of the
MeHg-TOC normalized comparison was the same as the bulk data comparison – there was a
significant (p<0.05) difference between the high and low concentration group.
Methyl-mercury concentrations were compared to the Peninsula Harbour ERA risk-based
sediment management goal of 2.0 ng/g for the protection of fish (ENVIRON 2008a); there is no
provincial sediment guideline for MeHg. Specifically, sediment at stations 10, 12, 11, 16 and 19
(located in the southeast area of the cap) had concentrations of MeHg that exceeded the goal
(Table 8, Figure 15). The median SWAC of 3.02 ng/g exceeded the risk-based goal by a factor
of 1.5. However, there was a decrease compared to SWACs derived from pre-cap assessments:
17

 5.1 ng/g, as provided in the ERA and calculated using theissen polygons from data from multiple
years (ENVIRON 2008a); 7.78 ng/g in 2009; and 5.11 ng/g in 2011 (Figure 17). The decrease
observed post-cap in both the bulk and TOC-normalized concentrations were statistically
significant (p<0.05), with the exception of the comparison of 2011 and 2017 TOC-normalized
MeHg concentrations.
4.1.4. PCBs
The total PCB concentrations in the surficial sediment overlying the thin-layer cap in both the
deployment and retrieval surveys ranged from 10 (indicating less than method detection limit
(<MDL)) to 660 ng/g (Table 9). The concentration of PCBs at the cap reference station 25 was
less than the detection limit. The variability in total PCB concentrations both between and within
surveys for many stations on the cap was considerable; coefficient of variations for the surveys at
individual sampling stations on the cap ranged from 4 to 120%. There appeared to be no
relationship between log-TOC and log-PCBs (r2 = 0.05, p = 0.115, power = 0.35), which is
unusual given the high affinity of chlorinated compounds to organic matter in sediment. There
was a significant, but weak, relationship between log-PCB and log-particle size (r 2 = 0.27,
p<0.001, power = 0.96).
The SWAC for the cap ranged from a minimum of 53 ng/g to a maximum of 196 ng/g (Figure
19). Given the variation in the data, the median or mean were not provided, but rather the
minimum and maximum SWAC values were compared to the risk-based sediment management
goal (60 ng/g – protective of mink) and the PSQG-LEL (70 ng/g). The minimum SWAC value
was below both the risk-based goal and guideline, while the maximum SWAC value exceeded
both. Of the total number of replicate sediment samples collected during both surveys at all cap
stations, 46% exceeded the PSQG-LEL and 52% exceeded the risk-based sediment management
goal. The only pre-cap survey available for historical comparison of PCBs was ECCC’s 2011
study, where concentrations ranged from 111 ng/g to 835 ng/g; all measurements exceeding the
goal and guideline. The SWAC calculated using the 2011 cap footprint data was 372 ng/g
(Figure 20), which was greater than both the max and min SWACs calculated for 2017. At the
reference station in Beatty Cove, concentrations measured in three replicates collected in 2011
were 65, 86, and 100 ng/g, whereas total PCBs were not detected (<MDL) at the index station in
McKellar Harbour. While many of the total PCB levels measured at the stations were similar or
below the Beatty Cove reference station concentrations, the reasons for the elevated
concentrations (relative to the remainder of the cap) observed in the northeast corner of the cap
(stations 12, 10, 11, and 14) is unknown. However, the greatest concentrations of PCBs detected
in ECCC’s 2011 survey were in this same area, in particular around stations 12, 14, and 20 (there
were no historical stations sampled in the area of stations 10 and 11).
Analysis of the individual PCB congeners data showed a predominantly Aroclor 1260 pattern
(Figure 21). Previous investigations on and around the Marathon Pulp Mill site, as well as in
Jellicoe Cove have indicated an Aroclor 1260 pattern in samples as well (MOE 2009, Hayton
2005).
18

 4.1.5. Surficial Sediment Discussion
Overall the surficial sediment over the cap was variable in terms of concentrations of various
measured parameters in sediment collected from selected stations over the cap. Levels of TOC,
TP, most conventional metals and ions, total Hg, and MeHg were highest over most of, or
portions of, stations sampled on the coarse cap footprint. Contrarily, the highest concentrations
of TN, PCBs, and some metals and ions were measured at stations sampled along the northern
portion of the cap, on the medium sand cap footprint. The lack of a significant relationship
between TOC and particle size, particle size and most metals, and PCB and TOC made it
difficult to assess the cap in a manner that accounted for any differences in substrate (to assess
both the current study and make historical comparisons).
The main contaminants of concern (Hg, MeHg, and PCBs) were measured at levels less than
observed during the pre-cap surveys. The most notable difference was the decline in Hg
concentrations since the placement of the cap, with the median SWAC (0.37 µg/g) being more
than thirteen times less than the pre-cap baseline SWACs, and approximately eight times less
than the remedial target of < 3 µg/g. Concentrations of MeHg also decreased since cap
placement, but the median SWAC (3.02 ng/g) remained above the risk-based goal for the
protection of fish (2.0 ng/g).
There was a significant relationship between Hg and MeHg (r 2 = 0.79, p<0.001, power = 1.0) on
the cap. Given that MeHg remains above the risk-based goal, this relationship should be
analyzed further in the next study. To accomplish this, a more robust sampling effort is required
– in terms of increased numbers of stations and replicates – over the cap, especially the coarse
cap area where concentrations of Hg and MeHg are elevated relative to the medium cap.
There was a decrease in the concentration of PCBs following the placement of the cap, as
indicated by the comparison of pre-cap and post-cap SWACs. Oddly the PCBs did not follow
the depositional trend observed with TOC on the cap. Vane et al. (2007) observed a similar
pattern in an industrialized and urbanized estuary, and attributed the lack of correlation between
TOC and PCBs to other PCB inputs and/or geochemical processes. Similarly, in a study to
understand the spatial and temporal distributions on TOC in the sediment, Ouyang et al. (2006)
found that a lack of correlation between TOC and PCBs was due to the differences in source
location. There was a substantial amount of variation in the PCB data, and an additional survey
would need to be conducted to further understand the relationship between TOC and PCBs on
the cap.
4.2. Benthic Invertebrates
In total there were 102 species from 24 families that were identified from the eight (8) stations
sampled on the thin-layer cap. The highest average total density of organisms on the cap was
observed at coarse cap stations 16 (4429 individuals/m 2) and 19 (1971 individuals/m2) (Table 10,
Figure 22). However, these stations had a significant amount of variability between replicates
(station 16: 149% CV; station 19: 95% CV), which appeared to be the result of hitting a pocket
19

 of oligochaetes and chironomids in one replicate at both stations. The undisturbed cap reference
station 25 had an average total density of 1591 individuals/m 2, while the range of total density
values on the remainder of the cap was 516 – 1110 individuals/m 2 (Table 10).
Oligochaeta was the dominant taxon on the cap, ranging from 38 to 75% of the total taxa counted
(Table 11, Figure 23). The class Insecta, predominantly consisting of the family Chironomidae,
were also present in larger relative quantities on the cap, making up 20 to 29% of the total taxa
counted on the cap. In the case of the cap, the sandy substrate may have accounted for the high
proportion of Chironomidae, as this was the dominant taxa at reference station 25 (making up
53% of the total count), and the taxa is tolerant of sandy substrate. Mollusca (Bivalvia and
Gastropoda), with varying degrees of tolerance, were also present on the cap in relatively higher
proportions, ranging from 3 to 26%. The presence of more sensitive taxa such as Amphipoda
was encouraging.
Indices were examined using the density data calculated for each genus/species identified;
immature Tubicicinae were added to the counts for Limnodrillus hoffmeisteri for the purpose of
these calculations. With only a few minor exceptions (mainly at station 23, and the coarse cap
stations 16 and 19), the diversity, evenness, and species richness of the benthos across the cap
and at the cap reference station 25 was fairly consistent (Table 12). The relatively lower
evenness values of 0.52 and 0.64 at the coarse cap stations 16 and 19, respectively, was likely
indicative of the variability observed between the replicates. Station 23 was the deepest station
(18.5 m) sampled for benthos and had relatively lower TOC concentrations, which may likely be
reasons for the relatively lower index values. The Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index values were
high (ranging from 2.07 to 3.30 on the cap), which could be due to the presence of many taxa
with low individual counts, such as observed in this study.
4.2.1. Pre-cap Baseline Comparison
Comparisons to the 2009 pre-cap baseline benthos survey (ECCC unpublished) were made based
on densities calculated for families, as this was a level of detail that satisfied both the 2009 and
2017 dataset. Therefore, for the purposes of comparison, index values for the 2017 data were
recalculated using densities based on the family level (discussion above was based on genus and
species). It is also noted that the sampling method differed between the surveys, with samples
collected by ponar in 2009 and a benthic air-lift in 2017. Drake and Elliot (1982) showed that
differences in density estimates can be observed when different samplers were used. At this
point, it is not possible to estimate the extent of deviation in the results because of the different
samplers used in 2017 and 2009.
The density of organisms at stations on the cap footprint in 2009 was significantly (p<0.05)
greater than the density observed on the cap in 2017 (Table 13). As observed with the 2017
counts, the highest average total density of organisms in 2009 was on the footprint of the coarse
cap (ranging from 36 158 – 39 446 individuals/m 2). The average total density at the remainder of
the 2009 stations on the cap footprint ranged from 8363 – 16 477 individuals/m 2. In total there
were 24 families identified on the cap footprint in 2009, which is equal to the number of families
20

 identified on the cap in 2017. When the 2017 counts at station 19 and 16 were disregarded (for
reasons explained previously), the diversity and evenness of benthos were very similar in 2017
and 2009. The measure of richness is strongly dependent on sample size and effort, and therefore
the comparison of this index between the two datasets is difficult given the difference in
sampling method. Generally, Oligochaeta, Insecta, and Malacostraca were the dominant taxa
collected in 2009, with the percent distribution being more even than the 2017 observation.
4.3. Fish Tissue
A full report on the trend analysis of contaminant levels in Peninsula Harbour fish, as well as the
potential health risk to humans consuming the fish, was provided by Drouillard (2019). The
risks posed to fish dwelling in Peninsula Harbour, as well as the potential risks to mammals and
birds consuming fish in the Harbour, was assessed as part of this report. There is uncertainty
associated with these risk estimations, specifically for factors used to transform fillets to wholebody concentrations, literature values used for risk comparison (i.e., TRGs and TRVs), and the
small sample size used to establish site-specific relationships between fish length and
contaminant level. In addition, there are many factors that influence the accumulation and
depuration of mercury in fish, as evidenced by within- and among-population variability in Hg
concentrations in fish (Trudel and Rasmussen 2006). The risk assessment conducted here was
based on a fairly simplistic approach.
4.3.1. Trend Analysis
Short-term (2012 – 2017) and long-term (1970s – 2017) temporal comparisons were conducted
for Lake Whitefish and Lake Trout in Peninsula Harbour AOC. Longnose Suckers were also
collected in 2017, but there was no pre-cap collection, and therefore a short-term temporal
comparison could not be completed. The comparisons were conducted for each species using
fish that were in the same size class. Long-term comparisons from the 1970s have consistently
shown a decline in concentrations of Hg and PCBs in these fish species. However, assessing the
data post-1980, to reflect operational changes at the mill, resulted in variable results that
Drouillard (2019) described as ‘fish species dependent and either not changing or continuing to
decline for both Hg and PCBs.’
The short-term comparisons showed a decrease in the concentrations of Hg and PCBs in both
Lake Whitefish and Lake Trout. In Lake Whitefish – 50-55 cm size range – the concentrations of
Hg and PCBs in the fish tissue in 2017 decreased from 2012 concentrations by 26% and 85%,
respectively. In Lake Trout – 45-55 cm size range – the concentrations of Hg and PCBs in tissue
decreased by 50% and 84%, respectively.
4.3.2. Human Fish Consumption
Drouillard (2019) simulated fish consumption advisories for Peninsula Harbour using the 2017
fish data. Results indicated that PCB and Hg continue to be elevated above the fish consumption
advisory benchmarks. The primary contaminant of concern was PCBs, which have fairly
restrictive advisories (0-2 meals/month) for most sizes of Lake Trout and Longnose Suckers for
21

 both the general and sensitive populations. Mercury restrictions (4 meals/month) were focused
mainly on the sensitive populations eating Lake Trout and Longnose Suckers.
4.3.3. Risks to Fish
The pre-cap ERA (ENVIRON 2008a) indicated that Hg may have impaired reproduction to
individual Lake Trout, Lake Whitefish, Walleye, and Longnose Suckers. For Longnose Suckers,
the potential adverse reproductive effects were estimated to propagate to population levels. The
only impairment noted with PCBs was the reproductive success of individual Longnose Suckers.
The 2017 Hg fish tissue data suggested no potential risks (HQ < 1) at the individual or
population level for Lake Trout, Lake Whitefish, or YOY Round Whitefish exposed to Hg (Table
14). There was no estimated potential risk to the population of Longnose Suckers. However,
risk to individual Longnose Suckers were predicted based on the 95 th percentile estimation of
hazard; a more detailed assessment and uncertainty analysis would be required to predict the
extent of potential risk given that the HQ was only 1. Compared to the pre-cap risk estimations,
individual Lake Whitefish and Lake Trout were no longer deemed to be at risk from Hg
exposure, as well as the adverse reproductive effects of Longnose Suckers at a population level.
Post-cap, there were no potential individual or population level risks (HQ < 1) to PCBs estimated
for Lake Whitefish, Lake Trout, Longnose Suckers, and YOY Round Whitefish (Table 14).
4.3.4. Risks to Mammals and Birds
The pre-cap ERA (ENVIRON 2008a) predicted risk to the reproductive success in bald eagles
exposed to Hg in fish under worst-case scenario foraging scenarios (the majority of feeding on
fish from Jellicoe Cove versus the ‘rest of Peninsula Harbour’). There was no risk predicted for
mammals and birds that feed predominantly in the rest of Peninsula Harbour. Piscivorous
mammals exposed to PCBs in fish tissue under all exposure scenarios were predicted to be at risk
in the ERA.
There were no estimated risks (HQ < 1) from Hg or PCBs to mink or eagles consuming fish
collected post-cap (Table 15). This result was determined considering all fish species captured in
2017 for Hg, but did not include Longnose Suckers for PCBs due to the lack of a significant
relationship between length and total PCB concentration.
It is important to note that the estimates of risk in 2017 was based on YOY, which were captured
near the boat launch in Jellicoe Cove, and larger sport fish, which were netted in Carden Cove.
According to the feeding strategies outlined in the ERA (ENVIRON 2008a), the YOY would be
following a feeding scenario of 100% in Jellicoe Cove, and the sport fish would be considered as
100% feeding in the ‘rest of Peninsula Harbour’. However, as noted in Neff and Kipfer’s (2011)
report on the Hg and PCB concentrations in Peninsula Harbour fish, Lake Superior Lake Trout
and Lake Whitefish populations are considered migratory. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume
that the fish captured in Carden Cove would feed throughout Peninsula Harbour, including
Jellicoe Cove.
22

 4.4. Passive Samplers and Sediment Cores
The allocation of passive samplers on the cap, as well as the locations for the collection of
sediment cores is outlined in Table 2. Rao et al. (2018) has provided full results and discussion
of the passive sampler and sediment core surveys, this is a summary for purposes of further
discussion in this report.
4.4.1. Passive Samplers
4.4.1.1. Peepers
Peepers were placed at every sampling station, except the coarse sand stations 19, 21, and 22.
Using the results of the field blank set, a statistically significant non-zero concentration of Hg in
porewater was set at 4.8 ng/L. Peepers at stations 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 23 had no
statistically significant concentrations (4.8 ng/L) detected in the chambers that were present in
the cap (i.e., not different than the field blanks). In addition, the chamber that was inserted into
the native sediment at these stations also had concentrations that were low, which could be due to
local conditions of low Hg contamination or the precipitation of Hg on account of reducing
conditions under the cap. At station 16, the sampler had slightly elevated Hg concentrations at
the cap-sediment interface which was attributed to sediment contamination, as there were no
elevated concentrations in the overlying cap layers. Slightly elevated concentrations of Hg were
detected in the upper layers of the cap (station 9) or in the overlying water (station 13). This
result was attributed to near-surface recontamination and not migration through the cap. The
greatest concentrations of Hg in porewater were observed at the cap reference station 25. It was
theorized that inputs from adjacent groundwater could have contributed to the elevated Hg
concentrations (average 30.1 ng/L). This theory is also supported by elevated levels of Cl with
sediment depth, and at concentrations greater than other stations, and higher levels of SO 4 in the
sediment than the overlying water. Contrary to results observed at the cap reference station 25
located near the shore, reference station 26, located north of the cap, had Hg levels less than the
non-zero concentration (4.8 ng/L).
4.4.1.2. Horizontal Flux Chambers
The horizontal flux chambers were deployed at all of the coarse sand cap stations (16, 21, 19, and
22), medium sand cap stations 17, 11, and 20, and cap reference station 25. The highest flux (65
ng/m2/day) was at cap reference station 25. The high flux was consistent with the high
concentration of Hg in the porewater collected from the peepers. All other stations had
horizontal flux chambers with fluxes calculated at approximately 15 ng/m 2/day, with the
exception of station 22 which had a flux of 56 ng/m 2/day (a peeper was not deployed at this site).
4.4.2. Sediment Cores
Sediment was collected from various depths in cores taken at stations 25, 16, 9, 110, 10, 14, 15,
17, 23, and 12. In general, the Hg concentrations measured in the cap layer were <0.05 µg/g at
all stations, except station 15, which appeared to be thinner and had some intermixing of
underlying native sediment. The top 3 cm of the cap – which in most cases included the surficial
sediment depositional layer – exceeded 0.10 µg/g at stations 9, 11, 12, 15, and 16. This relatively
23

 elevated concentration, compared to the concentrations observed in the middle of the cap, was
attributed to new deposition of sediment over the cap, and not the migration of Hg through the
cap. The concentrations of Hg measured in the native sediment under the cap were several order
of magnitude higher than what was detected in the cap and on top of the cap.
5.

CONCLUSIONS

The first post-cap LTM survey has demonstrated that the thin-layer sediment cap is effective and
met the goals and objectives – that were measured in this survey – of the remedial effort. As
previously described, there were three main goals associated with the thin-layer cap: performance
monitoring; remedial monitoring; and assessing ecological recovery. The data collected and
assessed for this survey were used to answer the questions associated with each goal and
objective (Table 1) and are discussed below.
5.1. Performance Monitoring Goal
There were two main objectives of performance monitoring: the evaluation of cap placement;
and the evaluation of surficial sediment total Hg concentration.
5.1.1. Objective 1a - Cap Placement
Two surveys were conducted in 2017 to evaluate cap placement: ECCC’s high resolution
multibeam sonar, and RoxAnn seabed classification; and Northern Bioscience’s submerged
aquatic vegetation survey. Environment and Climate Change Canada’s results were not
available at the time of this report write-up; however, Northern Bioscience’s researchers Foster
and Ratcliff (2018) found there to be little cap mobilization since placement. A layer of fine silt
that had accumulated over the cap was observed by Foster and Ratcliff and appeared to be thicker
than previous studies.
5.1.2. Objective 1b - Surficial Sediment Evaluation
The objective of evaluating the surficial sediment total Hg concentration was intended to
determine if the native sediment, either originating from under the cap or off the cap, was
incorporated into the thin-layer cap. Based on the passive samplers and sediment cores assessed
by TTU (Rao et al. 2018), the cap layer is effective in reducing Hg exposure and flux. The
porewater concentrations of Hg in the cap were not elevated relative to blank samples at most
stations. In addition, porewater concentrations of Hg in the underlying sediment were also low
despite elevated concentrations of bulk Hg in the native sediment; this was likely a result of the
cap causing reducing conditions and Hg precipitation. As expected, given the porewater results,
bulk Hg concentrations in the bottom portion of the cap were very low (<0.05 µg/g) at most
stations. The measurements of Hg at the top portion of the cap (which did include some of the
surficial sediment) was elevated above 0.10 µg/g at some stations. The low Hg concentrations
detected in the bottom portion of the cap sediment, as well in the porewater measured throughout
the cap at these stations, suggests the elevated Hg concentrations in the sediment at the top of the
cap were attributed to the deposition of new sediment over the cap, and not from migration
24

 through the cap. These results were supported by the measurements of Hg in this MECP study,
where concentrations of Hg in the surficial sediment of the cap were at or exceed levels measured
at the Peninsula Harbour reference station in Beatty Cove (2011 unpublished data).
Concentrations of Hg measured in the top layers of the core were less than levels measured in the
surficial sediment collected from the divers; however, this is expected given the top 3 cm of the
core was sampled and the Hg levels would be diluted by the cleaner cap material.
5.1.3. Overall Conclusion of Performance Monitoring Goals
The thin-layer cap has remained stable and has been effective in reducing exposure of Hg, and
other contaminants of concern, from the underlying contaminated sediment. A thin-layer cap is
not intended to isolate the contaminants, but rather to enhance natural recovery (AECOM 2011).
Therefore, it was generally expected that the thin-layer cap substrate and the underlying
contaminated sediment would mix both during construction (Biberhofer et al. 2019) and over
time due to processes such as bioturbation and erosion (Merritt et al. 2009). However, in this
case, the current survey by Rao et al. (2018) and a previous assessment conducted by Biberhofer
et al. (2019) using pollucite, a zeolite mineral tracer, showed that the migration of underlying
contaminants through the cap is generally not occurring. The measured concentrations of Hg on
the surface of the cap has been attributed to the layer of fine surficial sediment that was observed
on the cap by both Foster and Ratcliff (2018), and the ECCC divers that collected sediment for
this MECP study. Results from Rao et al. (2018) core analysis, as well as results of this survey,
show the concentrations of Hg in the deposited surficial sediment to be relatively low and similar
to concentrations measured in sediment at the Peninsula Harbour reference station 289 in Beatty
Cove (MECP unpublished data, 2011). Additionally, levels of other parameters detected on the
cap were similar to concentrations measured at the Beatty Cove reference site, thereby suggesting
lateral transport of sediment from the greater Peninsula Harbour and deposition on the Jellicoe
Cove cap. Further to the deposition on the cap, there does appear to be some mixing of the
newly deposited surficial sediment and the cap fines given the elevated concentrations of Ca and
Mg in the surficial sediment on the coarse cap. While not measured prior to construction, it is
likely the coarse sand, sourced from Manitoulin Island, has naturally elevated levels of Ca and
Mg carbonates given that the island consists primarily of limestone and marbles. The elevated
concentration of Ca and Mg in the surficial sediment on the coarse cap, compared to both the
medium sand cap sites and the Beatty Cove reference sediments, indicates mixing of the surficial
sediment and cap sand.
5.2. Remedial Monitoring Goal
The objective of the remedial monitoring was to determine if the area average concentration of
Hg on the cap surface was less than the remedial target of < 3 µg/g. The calculated SWAC for
Hg in the surficial sediment was 0.37 µg/g, and therefore it can be concluded that the cap has
effectively reduced the total Hg exposure and met the remedial goal for Jellicoe Cove.
5.3. Ecological Recovery Goal
There were four main objectives under the ecological recovery goal, which included the
25

 evaluation of: 1) benthic invertebrate community re-colonization; 2) trends for contaminant
tissue concentrations in benthic invertebrates and fish; 3) re-colonization of submerged aquatic
vegetation; and 4) habitat for benthic invertebrates.
5.3.1. Objective 3a – Benthic Invertebrate Re-Colonization
The re-colonization of benthic invertebrate community was determined through the assessment
of the abundance and diversity of the benthos collected. Overall, benthic invertebrates are
inhabiting the cap, and while the number of individuals were still low in 2017 – compared to
2009 pre-cap assessment – the major taxa identified were similar to those observed in the 2009
survey. The diversity of benthos, based on genus and species counts, was calculated to be fairly
high over the cap; however, the cap was predominantly recolonized by Oligochaeta and
Chironomidae. More sensitive taxa, such as amphipods, were also observed, which was
encouraging. The diversity, evenness, and species richness of the benthos across the cap was
fairly consistent, with only minor differences noted at the coarse cap stations 16 and 19, and
station 23. Differences noted at stations 16 and 19 were attributed to variation in replicates,
while low index values at station 23 were likely due to the station being the deepest station
sampled for benthos. It is expected that and abundance of benthic invertebrates on the cap will
continue to increase over time as sediment continues to deposit over the cap, and coverage of
aquatic vegetation increases.
5.3.2. Objective 3b – Tissue Contamination
5.3.2.1. Benthic Invertebrates
Determining the trends for contaminant tissue concentrations in the benthic invertebrates will be
completed in the next LTM survey. This first LTM survey was used to determine the presence of
benthos on the cap, as well as types of taxa and relative abundance.
5.3.2.2. Fish
The assessment of fish tissue contaminant levels measured in 2017 in Lake Whitefish and Lake
Trout in comparison to pre-cap databases was conducted by Drouillard (2019). In general, the
short-term temporal comparison showed decreases of Hg from 26% to 50%, and PCBs of about
85% from 2012 to 2017. These trends are in line with the substantial decreases of the
contaminants in the tissue of these fish species that have been observed since the 1970s.
The derivation of Hg HQs for individuals and populations of Lake Whitefish, Lake Trout, and
YOY Round Whitefish indicated no potential risk. Continued potential risk to the reproductive
success of individual Longnose Suckers was indicated; however, there was no potential for
adverse effects to be propagated to a population level. There was no potential for fish
reproductive adverse effects from PCBs predicted at both the individual or population level.
Current estimated Hg and PCB HQs for fish at specified lengths were not at a level that would
likely pose a risk to exposed bald eagles and mink. These results demonstrate an improvement
for bald eagles feeding mostly in Jellicoe Cove and mink consuming fish both in Jellicoe Cove
26

 and the rest of Peninsula Harbour.
5.3.3. Objective 3c – Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Re-Colonization
The re-colonization of the submerged aquatic vegetation survey was conducted by an external
contractor (Foster and Ratcliff 2018). The survey showed sparse patches of stonewort and other
submerged aquatic vegetation over the cap. The measured coverage of submergents was 5%, up
from 3% measured in a previous study in 2013 (one-year post-cap survey).
5.3.4. Objective 3d – Habitat for Benthic Invertebrates
A survey was conducted by ECCC a year after cap construction to determine the structure and
integrity of the cap (ECCC, unpublished trip report, 2013). During that survey, a thin-organic
layer that covered sections of the sand cap was observed. This thin-organic layer was to be
targeted in this survey; however, it was not observed by ECCC divers during sample collection.
At this time there can be no conclusions drawn regarding the previously observed thin-organic
layer and its potential role in providing habitat for benthic invertebrates.
5.4. Overall Conclusions
Overall, the Jellicoe Cove thin-layer cap is stable, and through the use of passive samplers and
sediment cores, has been shown to effectively reduce the vertical flux of Hg from the
contaminated native sediment below the cap. Natural sedimentation has occurred since the
construction of the cap in 2012, and to some degree, mixing of the cap surficial fines and the
deposited sediment has been observed. Concentrations of some nutrients and metals in the cap
surficial sediment at some sampling stations exceeded their respective PSQG-LELs; however,
the levels of many parameters measured on the cap were similar to concentrations detected at the
Peninsula Harbour reference station in Beatty Cove (MECP unpublished data, 2011), thereby
indicating sediment is being laterally transported from Peninsula Harbour and deposited on the
cap.
This survey has shown that the cap has been effective in reducing the total Hg surficial sediment
concentration (median SWAC 0.37 µg/g) to below the remedial target of 3 µg/g in the Jellicoe
Cove capped area. In addition, comparisons of cap Hg concentrations to pre-cap baseline
surveys have indicated that Hg concentrations in sediment have been reduced significantly in the
cap area; SWACs calculated for the 2009 and 2011 pre-cap baseline dataset were 7.69 µg/g and
6.37 µg/g, respectively.
As expected, the cap also effectively reduced the surface sediment concentrations of MeHg and
PCBs. The median calculated SWAC for MeHg in the surficial sediment was 3.02 ng/g; less
than the pre-cap baseline SWACS of 7.78 ng/g in 2009 and 5.11 ng/g in 2011. Although MeHg
levels have decreased, the concentrations in the surficial sediment on the cap continue to exceed
the risk-based sediment management goal of 2.0 ng/g for the protection of fish (ENVIRON
2008a). The PCB data was highly variable and interpreted with caution. Similar to MeHg, the
calculated SWACs for PCB in cap surficial sediment, that ranged from a minimum of 53 ng/g to
27

 a maximum of 196 ng/g, were below the 2011 pre-cap SWAC of 372 ng/g. However, when
compared to the risk-based sediment management goal (60 ng/g – protective of mink), only the
minimum SWAC value was below the risk-based goal, while the maximum SWAC value was
over three times greater than the goal.
Biological surveys have indicated that the cap has been colonized with benthic invertebrates, and
the coverage of submerged aquatic vegetation continues to increase over time. The abundance of
benthos was low in 2017, but the diversity was high, and taxa identified were similar to what was
observed in the 2009 survey. It is expected that over time as the sediment continues to deposit
over the cap, the abundance of benthic invertebrates, as well as the abundance and distribution of
macrophytes on the cap will continue to increase. The colonization of the cap and reduced levels
of available contaminants aligned with the decreases in fish tissue contaminant levels that have
been observed since the placement of the cap. In addition, given this result, further decreases in
fish tissue contaminant levels are expected over time.
6.

RECOMMENDATIONS

With regard to the components that were sampled in this MECP survey, the following is
recommended for the next Jellicoe Cove thin-layer LTM survey:
a. Deploy sediment traps on the cap at various locations to determine the quality of the
deposited sediment, to estimate deposition rates, and to investigate the differences in rates
and quality of sediment that is depositing on certain portions of the cap (i.e., southern
nearshore coarse cap stations versus north-east stations versus north-west stations);
b. Include the MECP Peninsula Harbour reference station, located in Beatty Cove, for a
point of comparison for the deposited sediment on the cap;
c. Increase the sampling effort over the coarse sand cap to further understand the elevated
levels of some parameters in relation to the medium sand cap;
d. Further examine the relationship between Hg and MeHg;
e. Collect sediment cores at select locations on the cap to further verify the sediment core
results from Rao et al. (2018);
f. Increase the sampling effort to include three or more replicates of surficial sediment
samples from each station to better assess any potential variability that may be presented
between replicates;
g. Increase the sampling effort in the north-east portion of the cap for PCBs, where the
highest concentrations were measured in both pre- and post-cap surveys;
h. Collect either oligochaetes or chironomids for benthic invertebrate tissue analysis;
i. Conduct multivariate analysis on benthic invertebrate data to examine any correlative
associations between response and potential variables that would influence habitat (depth,
28

 particle size) as deposition over the cap continues;
j. Collect smaller fish (~25 cm) to reduce uncertainty in risk estimations for fish, wildlife,
and birds exposed to Hg and PCBs;
k. Collect the thin-organic layer for analysis, if it is present; and
l. Continue with all primary monitoring components (Table 1), but discontinue with passive
sampling survey, unless sediment core results from 2022 indicates a flux of Hg through
the cap.

29

 7.

REFERENCES

AECOM. 2011. Long term monitoring following capping operations, Marathon environmental
remediation contract number EA754-093130/A. Prepared for: Public Works and Government
Services Canada. July 2011.
Amrhein JF, Stow CA, and Wible C. 1999. Whole-fish versus filet polychlorinated-biphenyl
concentrations: an analysis using classification and regression tree models. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 18:1817-1823.
Beckvar N, Dillon TM, and Read LB. 2005. Approaches for linking whole-body fish tissue
residues of mercury or DDT to biological effect thresholds. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 24:2094-2105.
Biberhofer J, Graham M, Hartman E, and Peters J. 2019. Assessment of sediment disturbance
during application of a thin-layer cap in Peninsula Harbour, Canada. Journal of Soils and
Sediments 19:1040-1052.
Drake CM and Elliott JM. 1982. A comparative study of three air-lift samplers used for sampling
benthic macro-invertebrates in rivers. Freshwater Biology 12:511-533.
Drouillard, K. 2019. Contaminants in Peninsula Harbour Fish. A report from an analysis of longterm monitoring data. Prepared for: Environment Canada and Climate Change. University of
Windsor. March 4, 2019.
ECOMETRIX Incorporated. 2012, Geological conditions at the Marathon PGM-Cu project site.
Prepared for: Stillwater Canada Inc. 11-1851. June 2012.
ENVIRON International Corporation. 2008a. Environmental Risk Assessment for Peninsula
Harbour Area of Concern. Final Report, Revision 2, Volume 1. Project Number: 21-16548C.
September 2008.
ENVIRON International Corporation. 2008b. Sediment Management Options for Peninsula
Harbour Area of Concern, Final Report. Prepared for: EcoSuperior Environmental Programs,
Thunder Bay, ON. September 2008.
Environment Canada. 1998. Tissue residue guideline for polychlorinated biphenyls for the
protection of wildlife consumers of aquatic biota. Final unpublished draft. November 1998.
Environment Canada, Guidelines and Standards Division, Ottawa, ON.
Environment Canada. 2000. Canadian tissue residue guideline for methylmercury for the
protection of wildlife consumers of aquatic biota. February 2000. Environment Canada,
30

 Guidelines and Standards Division, Ottawa, ON (unpublished).
ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.3.1. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research
Institute.
Fletcher R, Welsh P, Fletcher T. 2008. Guidelines for identifying, assessing and managing
contaminated sediments in Ontario: an integrated approach. Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, May 2008.
Forstner U. 1990. Inorganic sediment chemistry and elemental speciation. In Baudo R, Giesy JP,
and Muntau H (eds.). Sediments: chemistry and toxicity of in-place pollutants. Lewis
Publishers, United States, pp 61-106.

Foster RF and Ratcliff B. 2018. Peninsula Harbour submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and cap
movement study: 5 years post-cap survey. Prepared for: Environment and Climate Change
Canada. April 25, 2018.
Grapentine L, Milani D, Mackay S. 2005. A study of bioavailability of mercury and the potential
for biomagnification from sediment in Jellicoe Cove, Peninsula Harbour. Environment Canada
Water Science and Technology Directorate, NWRI Contribution No. 05-321. October 2005.
Hammer O. 2018. Paleontological Statistics, version 3.20. Natural History Museum, University
of Oslo, Norway.
Hansen DJ, Schimmel SC, Forester J. 1974. Aroclor 1254 in eggs of sheepshead minnows: effect
on fertilization success and survival of embryos and fry. Proceedings of Southeastern Game and
Fish Commission, pp. 420-426.
Hayton A. 2005. PCB investigations at Peninsula Harbour Lake Superior. Ontario Ministry of the
Environment. Draft Report, July 2005.
Hilsenhoff WL. 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. The Great Lakes
Entomologist 20:31-39.
Hynes HB. 1960. The biology of polluted waters. Liverpool University Press, 202p.
Merritt K, Condor J, Mager V, Kirtay VJ, and Chadwick BD. 2009. Enhanced monitoring naturl
recovery (EMNR) case studies review. U.S. Navy Tech Report No. 1983. San Diego, California,
USA.
Milani D and Grapentine LC. 2005. The application of the BEAST sediment quality guidelines to
Peninsula Harbour, Lake Superior, an Area of Concern. Environment Canada National Water
Research Institute, NWRI Contribution No. 05-320.
31

 MOE (Ontario Ministry of the Environment). 2009. PCB Soils Investigation: Marathon Pulp Inc.,
Marathon, Ontario (2006). Report prepared by: Terrestrial Assessment Unit, Air Monitoring and
Reporting Section, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch. Report No. S6016-2006.
April 2009.
MOE (Ontario Ministry of the Environment). 2014. Protocol for the collection of fish samples
for contaminant analysis. Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program. Updated April 2014.
Neff, MR and Kipfer M. 2011. Comparison of recent (2000-2007) mercury and PCB
concentrations between Peninsula Harbour (AOC) and other Lake Superior blocks: a baseline for
future AOC monitoring of sport fish contaminants. Ontario Ministry of the Environment,
Biomonitoring Unit.
Peninsula Harbour RAP Team. 1991. Stage 1: Environmental Conditions and Problem
Definition. September 1991.
Peterson DE, Van Sickle J, Hughes RM, Schacher JA, and Echols SF. 2005. A biopsy procedure
for determining filet and predicting whole-fish mercury concentration. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 48:99-107.
Ouyang Y, Zhang JE, Ou LT. 2006. Temporal and spatial distribution of sediment total organic
carbon in an estuary river. Journal of Environmental Quality. 3:93-100.
Rao B, Schneider H, Garza-Rubalcava U, Jackson A, and Reible D. 2018. Final technical report:
passive sampling for mercury in a sediment environment – Jellicoe Cove, Ontario. Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, Texas. March 27, 2018.
Rodriguez P and Reynoldson TB. 2011. The pollution biology of aquatic oligochaetes. Springer
Science+Business Media, 265 p.
Trudel M and Rasmussen JB. 2006. Bioenergetics and mercury dynamics in fish: a modelling
perspective. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 63:1890-1902.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. Guidelines establishing test
procedures for the analysis of pollutants (App. B, Part 136, Definition and procedures for the
determination of the method detection limit): U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, revised
July 1, 1997, p. 265-267.
Vane CH, Harrison I, and Kim AW. 2007. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in sediments from the Mersey Estuary, U.K. Science in the
Total Environment 347: 112-126.
32

 Table 1. Monitoring goals, objectives, and monitoring components to fulfil the Jellicoe-Cove thin-layer cap
Long Term Monitoring program.
LTM Goal
Performance
Monitoring

Objective
1a. Evaluate Cap
Placement – assess the
overall structural
condition and integrity
of the cap

Monitoring Component1
i.

Visual observations
of substrate via
photographs, videos,
and grab samples

ii. Secondary - High
resolution
multibeam sonar,
RoxAnn seabed
classification and
underwater video
documentation
1b. Evaluate Surficial
Sediment Total Hg
Concentration –
determine if the native
sediment (on-cap or
off-cap) incorporated
into the thin-layer cap

Question to Address
Has the cap, as constructed,
continued to provide
consistent performance in
protecting the underlying
mercury contaminated
sediments from
resuspension and
subsequent redistribution
into the environment?

i. Surficial sediment
from the cap

What is the concentration of
total Hg in the surficial
sediment?

ii. Secondary - passive
samplers to assess
the extent of total Hg
mixing within the
cap

Is total Hg moving from the
native sediment up through
the cap?

Remedial
Monitoring

2. Evaluate Cap
Effectiveness –
determine if the area
average concentration
of total Hg of the oncap surface sediment is
<3 mg/kg (remedial
target)

i. Surface sediment
with particle size
<2000 um

Is the total Hg level on the
surface of the thin-layer cap
< 3 mg/kg?

Ecological
Recovery

3a. Evaluate benthic
invertebrate
community recolonization

i.

Are there benthic
invertebrates present in the
thin-layer cap, and if so,
how many and what kind?

Visual observations
of benthic
invertebrates in
samples or by divers

ii. Abundance and
diversity of benthic
invertebrates
collected via benthic
air lifter

33

 LTM Goal

Objective

Monitoring Component1

3b. Evaluate trends for
contaminant tissue
concentrations in
benthic invertebrates
and (benthivorous)
fish

i.

Benthic invertebrate
tissue (postponed)2

3c. Evaluate recolonization of
submerged aquatic
vegetation

i.

3d. Evaluate habitat for
benthic invertebrates

Secondary - thinorganic layer covering
cap3

ii. Fish tissue Hg
concentrations in
varying species of
varying sizes

1

Plant colonization
based on high
density underwater
video transects and
targeted sampling

Question to Address
Is Hg continuing to be taken
up by biota on and around
the cap, and if so, how
much?

What is the estimated
coverage and taxa present
on the cap?

What is the physical and
chemical composition of the
organic layer covering the
cap, and is it hospitable for
benthos?

secondary monitoring components in italics
postponed to the next survey. Needed to first ensure the presence of benthos and relative abundance of species that
could be used to assess benthic tissue contaminant levels.
3
thin-organic layer was not observed in the 5 year post-cap monitoring survey
2

34

 Table 2. Sampling station locations for survey components (presented in directional order from SE to NW).
Coordinates2

MECP
Station
Number

Cap
Type1

0100170025

Samples Collected
Depth
(m)

Vertical
Peeper

Horizontal
Flux
Chamber

Deploy

3.0

x

x

x

5396644

5.5

x

x

x

544451

5396652

6.9

C

544483

5396734

11.4

x

0100170009

M

544705

5396728

6.2

x

0100170020

M

544539

5396780

10.7

x

x

x

x

0100170011

M

544841

5396801

6.5

x

x

x

x

0100170021

C

544319

5396829

13.7

x

x

x

0100170012

M

544550

5396850

12.4

x

0100170010

M

544679

5396830

10.5

x

Easting
(mE)

Northing
(mN)

Ref

544751

5396569

0100170019

C

544609

0100170022

C

0100170016

M

544749

5396854

7.7

x

0100170018

M

544390

5396852

14.0

x

0100170015

M

544309

5396929

17.9

x

0100170017

M

544450

5396968

14.8

x

0100170014

M

544557

5396955

13.5

x

0100170024

M

544259

5397039

24.0

x

0100170023

M

544353

5397047

18.5

x

0100170026

Ref

544354

5397247

16.7

x

M – medium sand cap; C – coarse sand cap; Ref – reference
2 UTM zone 16
3 excavate of top and bottom layer of cap

35

Retrieve

Sediment
Core

Benthic
Invertebrate

x

x

x
x

x

0100170013

1

Surficial Sediment

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x
x
x

x

x

x

x

x

E3

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

 Table 3. Particle size (median and range) of surficial sediment collected in individual deployment and
retrieval surveys, and a combination of both surveys.
Particle Size
(%
sand:
62–2000µm)
MECP
Number
1
Station
Survey
of
Individual surveys
Combined surveys
Number
Replicates
median
range
median
range
0100170025
0100170019
0100170016
0100170009
0100170020
0100170011
0100170021
0100170012
0100170010
0100170015
0100170017
0100170014
0100170023
1

D
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R

2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
3
3
1

81
82
86
72
26
78
92
82
83
78
73
61
76
64
56
70
83
38
85
89
92
84
85
91

6.1
7.3
8.2
6.4
45
20
----10
--6.3
--14
20
--5.4
--36
--3.1
--0.9
6.5
---

D – deployment; R - retrieval

36

82

12

77

17

67

60

92

---

82

10

74

9.7

74

25

64

20

68

15

54

48

87

5.4

85

7.8

88

6.5

 0100170025
0100170019
0100170016
0100170009
0100170020
0100170011
0100170021
0100170012
0100170010
0100170015
0100170017
0100170014
0100170023

No. of
Reps

MECP
Station
Number

Survey1

Table 4. Nutrient concentrations (median and range) in surficial sediment collected in individual deployment and retrieval surveys, and a combination
of both surveys.

D
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R

2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
3
3
1

PSQG-LEL
PSQG-SEL
1

Total Organic Carbon (mg/g)
Individual surveys
median
range
4.3
0.1
3.9
1.3
47.0
15.0
31.0
11.0
33.0
10.0
29.0
11.0
10.0
--10.0
--10.0
2.9
6.5
--15.0
5.0
28.0
--47.0
4.0
28.0
20.1
28.0
--16.0
5.0
9.8
--11.0
3.3
10.0
--5.4
0.6
14.0
--18.0
8.0
9.4
2.0
4.7
--10
100

Total Nitrogen (mg/g)

Combined surveys
median
range
4.2

1.3

40.5

25.0

31.0

13.0

10.0

---

10.0

2.9

14.0

11.5

45.0

19.0

28.0

20.1

17.5

14.0

10.4

3.3

5.7

4.9

17.0

10.0

8.6

5.1

D – deployment; R - retrieval

37

Individual surveys
median
range
0.10
--0.30
0.33
0.10
--0.27
0.69
1.53
0.44
0.18
0.10
1.31
--1.31
--0.25
0.26
1.13
--0.42
0.19
0.93
--0.10
0.27
0.58
0.91
1.68
--0.68
0.43
1.68
--0.10
0.06
1.05
--0.17
0.13
1.46
--0.10
0.42
1.14
0.39
0.10
--0.55
4.8

Total Phosphorus (µg/g)

Combined surveys
median
range
0.25

0.48

0.10

0.69

0.66

1.46

1.31

---

0.32

1.18

0.50

0.75

0.24

0.83

0.58

0.91

0.75

1.29

0.13

1.58

0.23

0.95

0.31

1.36

0.98

1.10

Individual surveys
median
range
970
--1000
200
280
80
340
20
490
50
330
90
650
--630
--610
130
440
--470
30
400
--250
40
610
40
570
--670
20
610
--520
30
610
--520
0
600
--500
40
650
40
530
--600
2000

Combined surveys
median
range
1000

260

335

90

415

230

650

---

615

140

460

40

270

150

610

40

665

110

530

100

520

90

510

120

635

130

 0100170025
0100170019
0100170016
0100170009
0100170020
0100170011
0100170021
0100170012
0100170010
0100170015
0100170017
0100170014
0100170023

No. of
Reps

MECP
Station
Number

Survey1

Table 5. Concentrations (median and range) of select metals in surficial sediment collected in individual deployment and retrieval surveys, and a
combination of both surveys.

D
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R

2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
3
3
1

Aluminum (µg/g)
Individual surveys
median
range
4600
440
5160
1090
2420
960
4200
1050
6870
1090
4800
470
6290
0
7400
0
8200
790
8090
0
9370
1410
5570
0
3530
720
7910
350
7220
0
7680
420
7800
0
8400
680
6920
0
7950
600
6080
0
7360
760
7620
530
7970
0

Combined surveys
median
range
4820

1090

3410

2550

5415

2510

6290

0

7875

940

9080

2110

3840

2140

7910

350

7630

780

8225

930

7650

1330

7090

1500

7760

600

PSQG-LEL
PSQG-SEL
1

Chromium (µg/g)

D – deployment; R - retrieval

38

Individual surveys
median
range
42.8
3.9
41.9
3.2
12.1
5.3
18.2
3.9
29.7
3.2
20.3
2.1
32.1
0.0
33.4
0.0
33.5
3.5
44.6
0.0
44.1
5.2
25.3
0.0
14.7
3.4
35.5
4.3
34.5
0.0
33.3
0.5
33.5
0.0
31.4
1.0
31.8
0.0
27.7
0.2
30.4
0.0
28.6
0.0
35.8
3.0
28.4
0.0
26
110

Copper (µg/g)

Combined surveys
median
range
41.9

5.4

16.6

10.6

23.7

11.7

32.1

0.0

33.5

3.5

44.4

5.2

16.2

11.0

35.5

4.3

33.5

1.4

31.8

2.3

27.8

4.2

28.8

3.3

34.7

8.1

Individual surveys
median
range
5.6
2.0
41.9
3.2
7.4
1.2
18.2
3.9
24.0
2.6
20.3
2.1
16.6
0.0
28.0
0.0
33.5
3.5
9.0
0.0
44.1
5.2
14.4
0.0
14.7
3.4
35.5
4.3
21.6
0.0
33.3
0.5
30.0
0.0
31.4
1.0
23.6
0.0
27.7
0.2
16.4
0.0
28.6
1.8
32.0
2.2
28.4
0.0
16
110

Combined surveys
median
range
5.4

2.0

8.3

4.8

20.5

9.6

16.6

0.0

27.1

1.8

10.6

3.0

9.0

6.6

29.2

3.0

20.8

3.2

24.6

7.6

23.4

1.2

15.7

1.2

31.3

8.8

 01170025
01170019
01170016
01170009
01170020
01170011
01170021
01170012
01170010
01170015
01170017
01170014
01170023

No. of
Reps

MECP
Station
Number

Survey1

Table 5 cont’d. Concentrations (median and range) of selected metals in surficial sediment collected in individual deployment and retrieval surveys, and
a combination of both surveys.

D
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R

2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
3
3
1

PSQG-LEL
PSQG-SEL
1

Iron (µg/g)
Individual surveys
median
range
18500
1400
19900
2200
6830
2120
9740
2070
15400
1700
11500
1980
15300
0
17000
0
19000
1100
18800
0
21800
2800
12300
0
7400
1380
19700
1700
17100
0
17900
300
17100
0
17600
1000
15900
0
17000
600
15200
0
16500
700
17700
900
17400
0
20000
40000

Manganese (µg/g)

Combined surveys
median
range
19200

2400

8755

5140

12800

5480

15300

0

18450

2000

21650

5500

8080

4920

19700

1700

17900

1100

17350

1000

16700

1400

16200

1400

17550

900

D – deployment; R - retrieval

39

Individual surveys
median
range
164
11
182
25
136
32
193
34
316
54
233
21
238
0
323
0
370
24
335
0
426
56
236
0
160
27
409
112
387
0
358
27
320
0
329
19
301
0
278
1
305
0
292
14
319
24
262
0
460
1110

Nickel (µg/g)

Combined surveys
median
range
169

30

165

92

262

122

238

0

367

65

413

121

173

77

409

112

367

38

325

19

278

24

294

23

307

57

Individual surveys
median
range
14.7
0.1
14.8
2.0
2.8
3.3
7.7
2.8
15.3
2.2
9.8
2.4
17.3
0.0
19.5
0.0
20.7
1.5
24.7
0.0
26.5
3.8
13.6
0.0
5.6
2.3
22.0
2.3
19.0
0.0
19.4
0.8
19.7
0.0
19.9
1.4
17.9
0.0
18.7
0.8
16.3
0.0
17.5
0.4
21.1
0.6
18.7
0.0
16
75

Combined surveys
median
range
14.8

2.0

6.8

7.4

12.6

7.3

17.3

0.0

20.6

2.4

26.5

5.5

6.6

8.3

22.0

2.3

19.3

0.9

19.8

1.4

18.3

1.2

17.4

1.4

19.3

2.8

 01170025
01170019
01170016
01170009
01170020
01170011
01170021
01170012
01170010
01170015
01170017
01170014
01170023

No. of
Reps

MECP
Station
Number

Survey1

Table 5 cont’d. Concentrations (median and range) of selected metals
in surficial sediment collected in individual deployment and retrieval
surveys, and a combination of both surveys.

D
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R

2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
3
3
1

PSQG-LEL
PSQG-SEL
1

Zinc (µg/g)
Individual surveys
Combined surveys
median

range

45.1
53.0
30.1
42.5
57.0
39.8
55.3
55.9
55.2
74.7
92.2
45.1
26.1
71.1
81.8
62.1
51.7
51.6
48.4
41.4
46.1
45.8
51.9
39.3
120
820

2.4
6.9
5.7
3.9
6.6
6.9
0.0
0.0
10.5
0.0
13.9
0.0
6.2
16.9
0.0
4.9
0.0
7.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.9
1.7
0.0

median

range

49.1

12.1

37.9

16.7

48.5

23.8

55.3

0.0

55.6

10.5

91.2

29.3

29.0

19.4

71.1

16.9

63.9

21.1

51.6

7.3

41.5

7.1

46.0

0.9

51.9

14.2

D – deployment; R – retrieval

40

 0100170025
0100170019
0100170016
0100170009
0100170020
0100170011
0100170021
0100170012
0100170010
0100170015
0100170017
0100170014
0100170023
1

No. of
Reps

MECP
Station
Number

Survey1

Table 6. Concentrations (median and range) of selected ions in surficial sediment collected in individual deployment and retrieval surveys, and a
combination of both surveys.

D
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R

2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
3
3
1

Calcium (µg/g)
Individual surveys
median
range
9950
2500
9760
4890
129000
20000
107000
13100
75100
16800
112000
16000
20500
0
32800
0
33800
2900
7700
0
10300
700
83600
0
130000
18000
30900
2800
31900
0
21900
900
41500
0
41600
2400
30800
0
36700
200
24600
0
28100
2100
33900
600
38800
0

Magnesium (µg/g)

Combined surveys
median
range
9670

4890

110000

35100

93200

50400

20500

0

33700

3700

10200

3100

121500

47400

30900

2800

22200

10300

41550

2400

36600

6000

27450

4300

34100

5100

D – deployment; R - retrieval

41

Individual surveys
median
range
7115
2230
5524
2720
82000
13500
58600
6800
47600
11700
62500
8600
9470
0
17000
0
14800
1000
9300
0
10100
650
55100
0
73900
10400
16400
3600
19100
0
13100
400
22100
0
22400
2300
15500
0
11800
800
13400
0
11600
600
18400
2000
12200
0

Potassium (µg/g)

Combined surveys
median
range
6000

3820

65250

31400

56200

21700

9470

0

15200

2400

9925

1100

68900

19200

16400

3600

13250

6100

22250

2300

12200

4100

11650

2300

17550

6500

Individual surveys
median
range
420
60
540
200
440
0
780
190
1110
90
830
50
870
0
1160
0
1220
120
740
0
820
140
850
0
680
70
1200
70
1020
0
990
60
1210
0
1120
100
980
0
1005
90
760
0
870
170
1160
90
1000
0

Combined surveys
median
range
450

200

605

450

945

290

870

0

1190

120

780

140

695

210

1200

70

1005

60

1140

150

980

90

815

170

1155

240

 0100170025
0100170019
0100170016
0100170009
0100170020
0100170011
0100170021
0100170012
0100170010
0100170015
0100170017
0100170014
0100170023
1

No. of
Reps

MECP
Station
Number

Survey1

Table 6 cont’d. Concentrations (median and range) of selected ions in surficial sediment collected in individual
deployment and retrieval surveys, and a combination of both surveys.

D
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R

2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
3
3
1

Sodium (µg/g)
Individual surveys
median
range
135
10
160
50
150
30
200
20
210
10
200
30
160
0
230
0
260
40
140
0
140
30
200
0
180
10
240
40
200
0
210
20
230
0
180
40
200
0
220
40
160
0
190
50
220
50
210
0

Sulphur (µg/g)

Combined surveys
median
range
140

50

175

60

205

50

160

0

245

40

140

30

185

20

240

40

205

20

200

50

200

40

175

50

215

50

D – deployment; R - retrieval

42

Individual surveys
median
range
105
10
130
30
460
20
540
30
600
160
420
100
190
0
240
0
290
150
200
0
350
70
420
0
420
130
570
330
660
0
370
60
200
0
310
100
240
0
160
0
250
0
310
40
210
30
140
0

Combined surveys
median
range
130

60

510

110

520

380

190

0

265

150

340

200

420

130

570

330

395

300

275

140

160

80

295

70

205

90

 Table 7. Total mercury concentrations (median and range) in surficial sediment on
the thin-layer cap and at cap reference station 25. Sediment was from all surveys
and all jars.
MECP
Station Number
0100170025
0100170019
0100170016
0100170009
0100170020
0100170011
0100170021
0100170012
0100170010
0100170015
0100170017
0100170014
0100170023
PSQG- LEL 0.2
PSQG-SEL

Number of
Replicates
9
7
11
1
6
5
5
5
7
4
8
7
7

Total Mercury (µg/g)

Coefficient of
Variation of all
Replicates

median

range

(%)

0.53
1.00
1.10
0.41
0.22
0.24
0.19
0.36
0.31
0.16
0.07
0.17
0.08

0.21
1.36
1.05
--0.15
0.19
0.21
0.37
0.40
0.20
0.15
0.14
0.13

13
38
38
--27
29
42
48
37
53
53
27
51

0.2
2.0

43

 0100170025
0100170019
0100170016
0100170020
0100170011
0100170021
0100170012
0100170010
0100170017
0100170014
0100170023

Sample
Size

MECP
Station
Number

Survey1

Table 8. Concentrations (median and range) of methyl-mercury, mercury, and total organic carbon in surficial sediment collected in individual
deployment and retrieval surveys, and a combination of both surveys. All analysis conducted on sediment from MeHg jar.

D
R
D
D
R
D
R
R
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
R

2
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2

PSQG-LEL
PSQG-SEL
ERA risk-based goal
1

Methyl-Mercury (ng/g)
Individual surveys
median
range
1.07
0.35
1.53
0.20
12.14
0.00
14.24
12.11
3.00
0.89
1.26
0.00
1.26
0.00
2.10
0.00
1.85
0.00
2.51
2.43
3.02
0.38
3.55
0.84
1.15
0.20
0.48
0.03
2.11
0.00
1.24
0.78
0.57
0.00
0.38
0.10

Mercury (µg/g)

Combined surveys
median
range
1.33

0.74

12.14

0.00

4.64

14.20

1.26

0.01

2.10
1.85
2.51

0.00
0.00
2.43

3.17

1.14

0.77

0.79

1.63

1.26

0.42

0.24

2

D – deployment; R - retrieval

44

Individual surveys
median
range
0.55
0.13
0.56
0.00
2.10
0.00
1.50
0.72
0.94
0.32
0.17
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.28
0.16
0.39
0.09
0.26
0.04
0.17
0.06
0.07
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.16
0.03
0.08
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.2
2

Total Organic Carbon (mg/g)

Combined surveys
median
range
0.56

0.13

2.10

0.00

1.10

0.72

0.19

0.04

0.21
0.29
0.28

0.00
0.00
0.16

0.31

0.19

0.11

0.13

0.14

0.09

0.06

0.02

Individual surveys
median
range
3.5
0.4
5.6
1.2
65
0.0
31
5.0
35
10
8.2
0.0
10
0.0
16
0.0
32
0.0
20
17
20
2.0
18
2.0
9.6
2.8
7.4
0.7
9.7
0.0
21
1.0
6.1
0.0
5.8
1.2
10
100

Combined surveys
median
range
4.4

2.9

65

0.0

31

13

9.1

1.8

16
32
20

0.0
0.0
17

19

4.0

8.0

4.0

20

11

6.1

1.2

 Table 9. Total PCBs in surficial sediment overlying the thin-layer cap and at cap reference 25.
MECP
Station
Number

0100170025
0100170019
0100170016
0100170009
0100170020
0100170011
0100170021
0100170012
0100170010
0100170015
0100170017
0100170014
0100170023

Survey

Deployment
Retrieval
Deployment
Retrieval
Deployment
Retrieval
Deployment
Deployment
Retrieval
Deployment
Retrieval
Deployment
Retrieval
Retrieval
Deployment
Retrieval
Retrieval
Deployment
Retrieval
Deployment
Retrieval
Deployment
Retrieval

Number of
Replicates

2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
2
3
1
3
3
1

Range of Total
PCB

Coefficient
of Variation

(ng/g dw)

(%)

10
10
24 – 240
44 – 82
100 – 140
33 – 69
14
40
24 – 250
230
540 – 660
18
12 – 79
140 – 260
310
140 – 160
56 – 110
59 – 62
10– 29
29
67 – 520
10
10 - 25

0
0
116
37
17
46
----120
--11
--74
30
--8
33
4
61
29
113
--48

45

Number of Exceedences
PSQG-LEL
(70 ng/g)

Risk-based
Goal
(60 ng/g)

1
1
3

1
1
3
1

1
1
3

1
1
3

1
3
1
3
2

1
3
1
3
2
1

2

3

 Table 10. Average density of benthic invertebrate taxa in the surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25.
Station Number
Oligochaeta
Insecta
Gastropoda
Bivalvia
Arachnida
Malacostraca
Other
TOTAL

25 (Ref)
324.0
838.7
117.3
72.0
69.3
161.3
8.0
1590.7

Average Density (individuals/m2)
16
20
10
17
3337.3
224.0
424.0
326.7
896.0
128.0
261.3
190.7
96.0
133.3
109.3
124.0
45.3
1.3
44.0
9.3
20.0
13.3
26.7
26.7
20.0
13.3
81.3
22.7
14.7
12.0
52.0
6.7
4429.3
525.3
998.7
706.7

19
1078.7
552.0
85.3
156.0
38.7
12.0
48.0
1970.7

14
224.0
170.7
120.0
4.0
29.3
14.7
29.3
592.0

23
258.7
132.0
38.7
4.0
13.3
9.3
8.0
464.0

Table 11. Percent dominant benthic invertebrate taxa in the surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25.
Station Number
Oligochaeta
Insecta
Gastropoda
Bivalvia
Arachnida
Malacostraca
Other

25 (Ref)
20.4
52.7
7.4
4.5
4.4
10.1
0.5

19
54.7
28.0
4.3
7.9
2.0
0.6
2.4

16
75.3
20.2
2.2
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.3

Dominant Taxa (%)
20
10
42.6
42.5
24.4
26.2
25.4
10.9
0.3
4.4
2.5
2.7
2.5
.1
2.3
5.2

17
46.2
27.0
17.5
1.3
3.8
3.2
0.9

14
37.8
28.8
20.3
0.7
5.0
2.5
5.0

23
55.7
28.4
8.3
0.9
2.9
2.0
1.7

Table 12. Indices based on genus and species benthic invertebrate density in the surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap
and cap reference station 25.
Taxon Indices
Number of taxa
Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index
Margalef’s Richness Index
Equitability (evenness)

25 (Ref)

19

16

67
3.09
8.97
0.74

56
2.57
7.26
0.64

55
2.07
6.44
0.52

46

Station Number
20
10
43
2.98
6.74
0.79

59
3.10
8.42
0.76

17

14

23

52
3.12
7.80
0.79

51
3.30
7.87
0.84

37
2.44
5.89
0.67

 Table 13. Indices, based on family benthic invertebrate density in the surficial sediment on the thin-layer
cap and cap reference station 25 in 2017, and pre-cap (2009) baseline stations on the cap footprint and at
reference station 289 in Beatty Cove.
Station
Number
2017
25 ref
19
16
20
10
14
17
23
2009
289 ref
5C
B5
D4
E3
E5
G3
G5
H5

Number of
Taxa

Density
(individuals/m2)

Indices
Shannon-Weiner
Margalef’s
Diversity Index
Richness Index

Equitability
(evenness)

25
17
17
16
23
20
18
13

1591
1971
4429
525
999
592
707
464

1.75
1.36
0.80
1.62
1.85
1.75
1.62
1.37

2.99
2.11
1.91
2.40
3.19
2.98
2.59
1.96

0.56
0.48
0.28
0.58
0.59
0.58
0.56
0.53

7
16
15
11
13
13
19
14
14

5005
15 562
8363
11 231
16 503
9473
16 477
36 158
39 446

1.38
1.77
1.63
1.60
1.48
1.76
1.75
1.74
1.51

0.70
1.55
1.55
1.45
1.34
1.31
1.85
1.24
1.23

0.71
0.64
0.60
0.67
0.58
0.69
0.59
0.66
0.57

47

 Table 14. Risk estimation of fish collected from Peninsula Harbour, 2017.
Mercury

Species

Average
Length
(cm)

Number
of Fish

Whole-body
Concentration
(µg/g ww)

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Hazard Quotient

Whole-body
Concentration
(ng/g ww)

Hazard Quotient

Mean

95% UCL

Mean

95% UCL

Mean

95% UCL

Mean

95% UCL

Longnose Sucker

41.7

10

0.15

0.21

0.8

1

1157

2083

0.3

0.5

Lake Whitefish

44.2

6

0.05

0.06

0.2

0.3

40

52

0.01

0.01

Lake Trout

59.8

9

0.16

0.30

0.5

0.7

506

2058

0.1

0.2

YOY Round Whitefish

9.7

41

0.07

0.07

0.3

0.4

590

603

0.1

0.1

1

composite samples

Table 15. Summary of hazard quotients for wildlife consuming fish in Peninsula Harbour.
Hazard Quotient
Mink

Contaminant

Bald Eagle

mean

95% UCL

mean

95% UCL

Mercury

0.01

0.02

0.5

0.7

PCBs

0.2

0.4

0.01

0.03

48

  

 

 

     
  
 
  
  
   
     

Po rt

 

  

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. 4: Creek
- Munro ?34 
. . 119'! 1? 
PL 
Cour: 
Monmqulli '?lChar'iero
Island 
Sturdee 
Mons 
Peninsula Point.
Buy Shack
Lake
36mm Carden- i
one
Cove
. 
Ypreg,? Cir;
Poinit Blondin -
Yser . Islarrd {3-53.
Point 
. Skin
Prammiui'n [SIR-lld?
Harbour
iHawkIns lemme .
Island from,
. Penn
The - Luke
Peninsula M?mlhoh19%@ Group 14
:3 Lake
Lake Superior

Disclaimer: This map is. iniandad fur illustra?va purposes only.
Digital Mapping Sources: Base mapping femurs-s -
Minishy pf Natural Raspurcaa and NPCA
Nora-I Amaiiran Datum 1933, Universal Transverse Mercator.
Zane North. Centml Meridian 
0.5 2 3 1-
Minimums
Legend ?3
I . L?i'v
WastewaterTreatmeni Piant Airport Great Lakes
Pulp Mill ADC Areas of Concern
3" 
Mili Outfall ADC Watershed 7 
Milt intake wat'ands ?nrj; ?i 
Forest Cover . ,r 2" Peninsula Harberrea of Concern
Major Highways 1 1 i A 
Hydrolngy 5* 1 .1 9'
Roads r" A 
Ra?way I 1 WI was" Canada

 

Figure 1. Peninsula Harbour Area of Concern, Lake Superior.

49

Figure 2. Capped area with 100 m grid lines (Figure source: Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2012).
50

  

 

Peninsula
Harbour

 

 

Lake Superior

 

35' 

18?

 

 

Skin
Island

Jeii?icoe
Cove

Marathon

 

 

Sampling station locations
on the Jellicoe Cove
Thin-layer Cap, Peninsula
Harbour Area of Concern.
Marathon+ ON.

El Cap Area

Sampling Station
0 coarse sand cap
0 medium sand cap

reference

 

SOD

DINIH: T B1atll?5E Meltdl??

Dill ?rm me 31'! Mnis'lrial he En'uran'nelit Corxrualmn
rind Par-c1 Land (Jr-lane

NAD 1563 Zone 15h:

Dah- mums: Halon 1i 2E-l5
Branch: Em-rmmenraIAr-wmsaianth 
Gmmalrts Cunne

I?i'm maps Mft??n? l'ur dunlralmn WW cm,- 
no1 sustain in! sule-smn?m use or ewes-ans TM 
erihe Emrmn'enz. Conservalnon and Parts- romdea the
nrumaom Imm me undelsuudnu lhal II I5 r4]. quelallmd

In he ?cu-'31: con-act or compiere and concluwons nun" [rum
?Eh Info-mum" ale In: responstlurfol In: use-I 'h'mli: ?ery
Morn run: been man: In use ruin mmeoh he occurs! a
?1 W95 WP 
G?lya?? m? Ew-mmenl.
E?m-klvaln?n and Pans will accept no Labill'li' Io: coilseuwntul
EM MME5 We use Iresemaw 
ransaie nssibuied 'aa wb'I anL-ea U1 hilt}:
?Fused or Implied mEKIdll'i? burns! 'rnilcd lo'nananliesol'
mlla?li?,? In a wrhoular nose or use

Phi-
15"" Ontario

Lin-Inn's Pill-Em for Delano, 

 

Figure 3. Jellicoe Cove thin-layer sand cap and 2017 sampling station locations.

51

 

 

{Sewer plate

 

 

 

 

   

5 cm Stainlas?teel Screws
41ch Allmaterialstahla's
Heel



4cm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Design and placement configuration of vertical passive sampler (peeper).

52

Overlying water

Sand cap
Native sediment

Figure 5. Design and placement configuration of the horizontal passive sampler.
53

  

    
 

"I'l

 



a

1 
l?llluuq.

i

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. Sediment core collected from sampling station on the thin-layer cap.

54

20 m

Core/excavation
Core/excavation
footprint
footprint

5m
5m
Benthic
footprint

5m
5m
5m

20 m

Peeper/thin
organic layer
footprint

5m
0.5m
0.5m

5m
>1m
Benthic footprint

centre point for placement of passive sampler
area of each air-lifted benthic lift replicate (3 reps no less than 1m apart in a 5x5 m area)
area for collection of core
surficial sediment collected in a 20x20 m area, based on centre point
Figure 7. Optimal spacing and sampling design for monitoring components.

55

 Figure 8. Spatially-weighted area average concentration of total organic carbon (mg/g) in the
surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap. SWACs were derived using the maximum
concentration detected at each station, the median of replicates from both surveys, and the
minimum concentration detected at each station.
56

 Figure 9. Spatially-weighted area average concentration (SWAC) of total organic carbon (mg/g)
in the surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap collected in: A) 2017 (median of replicates at each
station); B) 2011 (single replicates at each station); and C) 2009 (single replicate at each station).
57

 100
Al
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Ni
Zn

Relative Concentration

80

60

40

20

0
25

19

16

21

9

11

10

12

20

14

17

23

15

Station Number
Figure 10. Median concentrations of select metals in surficial sediment at each station on the
cap and cap reference station 25. The relative concentration on the y-axis is due to Al, Fe, and
Mn being divided by factors of 10 in order to fit the scale so that trends could be easily
compared.

58

 2.5
2.0

Total Mercury (ug/g dw)

1.5

1.0

0.5

LEL
0.0
25

19

9

16

20

11

21

12

10

17

14

23

15

Station Number

Figure 11. Median (max and min) of total mercury (µg/g) concentrations in surficial sediment on
cap stations and cap reference station 25. Horizontal line depicts the PSQG – Lowest Effect Level
(LEL) of 0.2 µg/g.

59

 Figure 12. Spatially-weighted area average concentration of total mercury (µg/g) in the surficial
sediment on the thin-layer cap. SWACs were derived using the maximum concentration detected at
each station, the median of replicates from both surveys, and the minimum concentration detected at
each station.
60

 35
Bulk Chemistry
TOC-Normalized Chemistry

30

Total Mercury (ug/g dw)

800
25
600

20

15

400

10
200
5

0

0
2000

2002

2009

2011

2017

Survey Year
Figure 13. Median (and max and min) of total mercury concentrations (bulk chemistry and TOC-normalized
concentrations) measured in the post-cap 2017 survey, and pre-cap/historical surveys conducted in 2000,
2002, 2009, and 2011.

61

TOC-Normalized Total Mercury (ug/g TOC dw)

1000

 Figure 14. Spatially-weighted area average concentration (SWAC) of total mercury (µg/g) in the
surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap collected in: A) 2017 (median of replicates at each station);
B) 2011 (single replicates at each station); and C) 2009 (single replicate at each station).
62

 18
16

Methyl-mercury (ng/g dw)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
25

16

19

21

20

11

12

10

17

14

23

Station Number
Figure 15. Median (and max and min) of methyl-mercury (ng/g) concentrations in surficial sediment
on cap stations and cap reference station 25.
63

 Figure 16. Spatially-weighted area average concentration of methyl-mercury (ng/g) in the surficial
sediment on the thin-layer cap. SWACs were derived using the maximum concentration detected at
each station, the median of replicates from both surveys, and the minimum concentration detected at
each station.
64

 Figure 17.Spatially-weighted area average concentration (SWAC) of methyl-mercury (ng/g) in the
surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap collected in: A) 2017 (median of replicates at each station);
B) 2011 (single replicates at each station); and C) 2009 (single replicate at each station).

65

 25

1200

1000

20

MeHg (ng/g)

800
15
600
10
400
5

200

0

0
2000

2002

2009

2011

2017

Survey Year
Figure 18. Median and range MeHg concentration (bulk chemistry and TOC-normalized
concentrations) measured in the post-cap 2017 survey, and pre-cap surveys conducted in
2000, 2002, 2009, and 2011.

66

TOC-Normalized MeHg (ng/g TOC)

Bulk Chemistry
TOC-Normalized Chemistry

 Figure 19. Spatially-weighted area average concentration of PCBs (ng/g) in the surficial sediment on the
thin-layer cap. SWACs were derived using the maximum and minimum concentrations detected at each
station.
67

 Figure 20. Spatially-weighted area average concentration (SWAC) of PCBs (ng/g) in the surficial
sediment on the thin-layer cap collected in: A) 2017 (minimum of replicates at each station); B) 2017
(maximum of replicates at each station; and C) 2011 (single replicates at each station).
68

 20
18
16

12
10
8
6
4
2

PCB Congener
Figure 21. Proportion of PCB congeners in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap.

69

210

200

190

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

Proportion

14

 5000
Insecta
Oligochaeta
Gastropoda
Malacostraca
Bivalvia
Arachnida
Other

Average Density (no./m2)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
25

19

16

20

10

17

14

23

Station Number
Figure 22. Average density of benthic invertebrates collected from the surficial sediment at the cap
stations and reference station 25.
70

 100

Dominant Taxa (%)

80

Insecta
Oligochaeta
Gastropoda
Malacostraca
Bivalvia
Arachnida
Other

60

40

20

0
25

19

16

20

10

17

14

23

Station Number
Figure 23. Percent dominant benthic invertebrate taxa in the surficial sediment at the cap stations and
reference station 25.

71

 Appendix Table 1a. Particle size of surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – deployment
survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station No.

Sample ID

100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170015
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171310
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

<2.63 um >0.10 um
% vol.
qualifier
1.2
3.5
2.9
0.9
1.7
8.2
8.8
3.5
1.3
1.5
1.6
2.5
1.7
4.3
1.6
1
1.6
2.3
2.8
-

<62 um >2.63 um
% vol.
qualifier
6.5
40.5
19.3
7.3
15.7
66.3
67
26.7
13.8
12.2
12.9
19.6
16.5
34.5
13.7
7.4
13.2
14.7
20.3
-

72

<1000 um >62 um
% vol.
qualifier
71.4
50.2
75.7
55.1
68.7
25.5
24.2
47.9
60.9
57.6
63.6
58.4
63.6
54
56.9
60.4
59.8
83
76.9
-

1000-2000 um
% vol.
qualifier
21
6
2
36.5
14
0.5
<=W
0.5
<=W
22
24
28.5
22
19.5
18
7
28
31
25.5
0.5
<=W
0.5
<=W

 Appendix Table 1b. Particle size of surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – retrieval survey.
Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station No.

Sample ID

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

<2.63 um >0.10 um
% vol
qualifier
2.8
2.6
2.8
3.4
1.7
2.1
2.2
1.6
1.7
3.9
3.3
2.3
2.5
2.2
1.9
2.4
2.8
1.6
2.9
2.6
3.1
2.6
2.6
2.9
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.4
1
1.1
2.9
7.5
6.7
-

<62 um >2.63 um
% vol
qualifier
25.1
22
28.5
32.6
13.9
19.5
23.8
15.9
13.9
40.2
32.7
21.9
16.4
15.4
9.7
21.5
25.5
12.6
27.3
26.6
31.6
22.9
29.4
24.5
13.8
14.3
14.7
11.5
8.7
7.7
25.9
58.4
56.1
-

73

<1000 um >62 um
% vol
qualifier
49.4
49.3
48.9
50.7
55.8
55.2
58.6
61.1
53.4
54
58.4
64
81.1
81.2
88.4
55.7
60.1
63.1
57.9
57.7
60.8
71.3
65.5
70.2
55.7
55.2
56.8
70.7
60.3
62.9
61.5
34.1
37.2
-

1000-2000 um
% vol
qualifier
22.5
26
20
13.5
28.5
23
15.5
21.5
31
2
5.5
12
0.5
<=W
1
<T
0.5
<=W
20.5
11.5
22.5
12
13
4.5
3
2.5
2.5
29
29
27
16.5
30
28.5
9.5
0.5
<=W
0.5
<=W

 Appendix Table 2a. Nutrients in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 –
deployment survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station No.
100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170015
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

Sample ID
GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171310
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

Total Organic Carbon
(mg/g)
qualifier
10
28
6.5
14
9.8
26
36
33
10
55
47
40
10
28
9.8
7.8
9.4
4.2
4.3
-

Total Nitrogen
(mg/g)
qualifier
1.31
1.68
1.13
1.46
1.68
1.56
1.53
1.12
1.05
0.1
<MDL
0.1
<MDL
0.1
<MDL
1.31
0.93
1.14
1.2
0.81
0.1
<MDL
0.1
<MDL

74

Phosphorus
(ug/g)
qualifier
650
570
440
600
610
510
490
460
610
260
280
340
630
400
660
650
620
1110
970
-

 Appendix Table 2b. Nutrients in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 –
retrieval survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station No.

Sample ID

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

Total Organic Carbon
mg/g
qualifier
41
31
30
28
39
29
12
9.1
10
30
28
9.9
3.8
5.1
3.9
47
43
47
16
14
19
15
18
13
18
16
24
5.7
5.1
4.7
8.7
12
11
-

Total Nitrogen
mg/g
qualifier
0.27
0.1
<MDL
0.79
0.1
<MDL
0.18
0.2
0.25
0.13
0.39
1.18
0.58
0.27
0.25
0.3
0.58
0.1
<MDL
0.37
0.1
<MDL
0.39
0.68
0.82
0.42
0.38
0.57
0.1
<MDL
0.52
0.1
<MDL
0.23
0.1
<MDL
0.1
<MDL
0.1
<MDL
0.16
0.1
<MDL

75

Phosphorus
ug/g
qualifier
340
350
330
280
330
370
610
620
490
610
610
570
1000
850
1050
250
290
250
660
680
670
470
450
480
500
520
480
520
520
530
540
520
510
-

 Appendix Table 3a. Ions in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – deployment survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station No.
100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170015
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

Sample ID
GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171310
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

Calcium
(ug/g)
qualifier
20500
31900
7700
24600
41500
67600
75100
84400
30800
131000
129000
111000
32800
83600
33900
33700
34300
8700
11200
-

Magnesium
(ug/g)
qualifier
9470
19100
9300
13400
22100
43800
47600
55500
15500
84300
82000
70800
17000
55100
18400
16700
18700
6000
8230
-

76

Potassium
(ug/g)
qualifier
870
1020
740
760
1210
1110
1110
1020
980
400
440
550
1160
850
1240
1160
1150
390
450
-

Sodium
(ug/g)
qualifier
160
200
140
160
230
220
210
210
200
140
150
170
230
200
230
180
220
130
140
-

Sulphur
(ug/g)
qualifier
190
660
200
250
200
600
740
580
240
460
460
480
240
420
210
200
230
100
110
-

 Appendix Table 3b. Ions in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – retrieval survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station ID

Sample No.

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

Calcium
ug/g
qualifier
107000
109000
95900
102000
118000
112000
33600
36500
33800
30900
30900
33700
9670
13100
8210
130000
113000
131000
22500
21600
21900
10300
10100
10800
26800
28100
28900
36600
36800
38800
43800
41600
41400
-

Magnesium
ug/g
qualifier
58600
59700
52900
56900
65500
62500
15600
14600
14800
16400
16900
13300
5540
7130
4410
73900
63900
74300
13400
13100
13000
9750
10400
10100
11700
11600
11100
11400
12200
12200
21400
23700
22400
-

77

Potassium
ug/g
qualifier
660
780
850
820
830
870
1250
1220
1130
1160
1230
1200
540
560
360
640
710
680
1040
980
990
740
880
820
880
870
710
960
1050
1000
1160
1120
1060
-

Sodium
ug/g
qualifier
180
200
200
170
200
200
260
260
220
220
240
260
160
180
130
180
180
190
220
210
200
130
140
160
200
190
150
200
240
210
220
180
180
-

Sulphur
ug/g
qualifier
570
540
540
460
360
420
360
210
290
570
580
250
130
160
130
360
420
490
420
370
360
350
400
330
310
280
320
160
160
140
240
340
310
-

 Appendix Table 4a. Metals in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – deployment survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station
No.
100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170015
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

Sample ID
GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171310
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

aluminum
(ug/g) qualifier
6290
7220
8090
6080
7800
6980
6870
5890
6920
2180
2420
3140
7400
5570
7900
7370
7620
4380
4820

antimony
(ug/g) qualifier
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
10 <EDL
5 <MDL
10 <EDL
10 <EDL
10 <EDL
5 <MDL
10 <EDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL

78

arsenic
(ug/g) qualifier
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
10 <EDL
5 <MDL
10 <EDL
10 <EDL
10 <EDL
5 <MDL
10 <EDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL

barium
(ug/g)
qualifier
24.8
31.8
23.6
23.4
33.8
31.3
32.2
28.8
28.3
10.5
12.1
14.9
32.5
22.9
35.4
35.3
34.2
14
14.8

beryllium
(ug/g)
qualifier
0.172
0.234
0.201
0.174
0.228
0.222
0.229
0.19
0.188
0.067
0.059
0.108
0.218
0.169
0.235
0.197
0.21
0.13
0.155

boron
(ug/g)
qualifier
4.44
7.64
4.43
5.95
6.42
10.2
8.89
7.8
5.8
4.91
3.8
5.87
7.69
7.99
7.64
6.01
6.32
2.44
3.8

 Appendix Table 4a cont’d. Metals in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – deployment survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station No.

Sample ID

100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170015
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171310
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

cadmium
(ug/g)
qualifier
0.1 <MDL
0.1
0.1 <MDL
0.1
0.1 <MDL
0.1 <MDL
0.1 <MDL
0.2 <EDL
0.1 <MDL
0.2 <EDL
0.2 <EDL
0.2 <EDL
0.1 <MDL
0.2 <EDL
0.1 <MDL
0.1 <MDL
0.1 <MDL
0.1 <MDL
0.1 <MDL

chromium
(ug/g)
qualifier
32.1
34.5
44.6
30.4
33.5
30.1
29.7
26.9
31.8
10.6
12.1
15.9
33.4
25.3
36.5
33.5
35.8
44.7
40.8

79

cobalt
(ug/g)
qualifier
6.1
6.9
8.4
5.8
7.4
6.3
6
5.5
6.4
2
2.1
2.7
7.4
4.4
7.9
8
7.5
4.1
4.5

copper
(ug/g)
qualifier
16.6
21.6
9
16.4
30
24.4
24
21.8
23.6
6.4
7.4
7.6
28
14.4
32
32.8
30.6
4.6
6.6

iron
(ug/g)
qualifier
15300
17100
18800
15200
17100
15400
15400
13700
15900
6160
6830
8280
17000
12300
18100
17200
17700
19200
17800

(ug/g)
0.8
2.9
0.5
1.9
3.3
4.6
3.9
1
0.5
1
1
1
1.1
1
2.6
0.6
2.1
1.5
3.1

lead
qualifier

<MDL

<EDL
<MDL
<EDL
<EDL
<EDL
<EDL

 Appendix Table 4a cont’d. Metals in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – deployment survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station No.

Sample ID

100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170015
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171310
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

manganese
(ug/g) qualifier
238
387
335
305
320
316
339
285
301
120
136
152
323
236
319
295
319
158
169

mercury
(ug/g)
qualifier
0.41
0.6
0.18
0.19
0.1
1.1
1.5
1.1
0.12
0.94
0.74
1
0.22
0.35
0.12
0.08
0.18
0.69
0.49

80

molybdenum
(ug/g)
qualifier
0.7
0.5 <MDL
0.5 <MDL
0.5 <MDL
0.5 <MDL
0.5 <MDL
0.5 <MDL
1 <EDL
0.5 <MDL
1 <EDL
1 <EDL
1 <EDL
0.5 <MDL
1 <EDL
0.5 <MDL
0.5 <MDL
0.5 <MDL
0.5 <MDL
0.5 <MDL

nickel
(ug/g)
qualifier
17.3
19
24.7
16.3
19.7
16.1
15.3
13.9
17.9
2.8
2.8
6.1
19.5
13.6
21.5
20.9
21.1
14.7
14.8

selenium
(ug/g)
qualifier
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
10 <EDL
5 <MDL
10 <EDL
10 <EDL
10 <EDL
5 <MDL
10 <EDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
5 <MDL

silver
(ug/g)
qualifier
0.2 <MDL
0.2 <MDL
0.2 <MDL
0.2 <MDL
0.2 <MDL
0.2 <MDL
0.2 <MDL
0.4 <EDL
0.2 <MDL
0.4 <EDL
0.4 <EDL
0.4 <EDL
0.2 <MDL
0.4 <EDL
0.2 <MDL
0.2 <MDL
0.2 <MDL
0.2 <MDL
0.2 <MDL

 Appendix Table 4a cont’d. Metals in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – deployment survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station No.

Sample ID

100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170015
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171310
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

strontium
(ug/g)
qualifier
22.7
24
13.8
21.5
30
29.1
30.3
30.2
26.6
32.6
32.3
30.7
27.7
29
28.5
27
27.3
16.8
17.8

thallium
(ug/g)
qualifier
7
6
9
10
8
5 <MDL
5 <MDL
15
8
10 <EDL
10 <EDL
10
6
12
7
8
8
6
7

81

tin
(ug/g)
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5
2.5
5
5
5
2.5
5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5

qualifier
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<EDL
<MDL
<EDL
<EDL
<EDL
<MDL
<EDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

titanium
(ug/g)
qualifier
1200
1140
1380
1030
1260
971
851
764
1210
224
226
408
1250
742
1270
1070
1140
1080
1130

vanadium
(ug/g)
qualifier
31.5
32.5
35.4
30.8
35.4
28.6
27.2
24.4
33.1
9.34
9.41
13.3
35.9
23
38
35.7
36.1
41.1
38.4

zinc
(ug/g)
qualifier
55.3
81.8
74.7
46.1
51.7
57
60.2
53.6
48.4
28.6
30.1
34.3
55.9
45.1
53.5
51.8
51.9
43.9
46.3

 Appendix Table 4b. Metals in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – retrieval survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station No.

Sample ID

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

Aluminum
ug/g
qualifier
3680
4200
4730
4800
4470
4940
8340
8200
7550
7910
8260
7910
5160
5360
4270
3430
4150
3530
8000
7580
7680
8790
10200
9370
7580
7360
6820
7650
8250
7970
8730
8400
8050
-

Antimony
ug/g
qualifier
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL

82

Arsenic
ug/g
qualifier
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5 <MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5 <MDL

Barium
ug/g
qualifier
16.7
17.3
19.5
21
18.2
19.8
33.2
32.3
31
35.3
35.8
31.7
15
16.2
13.2
13
15.4
13.2
30.1
28
28.3
26.2
29.9
27
23.7
23.6
22.4
26.9
28.6
28.1
31.2
32.2
29.9
-

Beryllium
ug/g
qualifier
0.153
0.195
0.206
0.192
0.186
0.191
0.313
0.293
0.279
0.298
0.325
0.282
0.22
0.236
0.262
0.141
0.18
0.192
0.287
0.269
0.264
0.248
0.301
0.287
0.238
0.247
0.229
0.255
0.278
0.29
0.296
0.287
0.288
-

Boron
ug/g
qualifier
8.13
7.74
7.23
5.42
7.3
6.98
6.46
6.73
6.37
6.45
7
6.97
2.93
4.25
2.76
5.85
5.7
6.56
6.58
5.49
4.85
3.99
4.29
4.34
5.03
4.91
4.69
5.04
5.24
5.79
6.85
6.37
7.14
-

 Appendix Table 4b cont’d. Metals in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – retrieval survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB
Station No.

Sample ID

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

Cadmium
ug/g
qualifier
0.2
<EDL
0.2
<EDL
0.2
<EDL
0.2
<EDL
0.2
<EDL
0.2
<EDL
0.1
<MDL
0.1
<MDL
0.1
<MDL
0.1
<MDL
0.3
0.2
0.1
<MDL
0.1
<MDL
0.1
<MDL
0.2
<EDL
0.2
<EDL
0.2
<EDL
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
<MDL
0.2
0.1
<MDL
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
<MDL
0.1
<MDL
0.1
<MDL
0.1
<MDL
0.2
0.1
-

Chromium
ug/g
qualifier
17.3
18.2
21.2
20.5
18.4
20.3
35
33.5
31.5
35.5
38.4
34.1
42.5
39.3
41.9
14.3
17.7
14.7
33.6
33.1
33.3
43.4
48.6
44.1
28.9
28.6
27.1
27.6
27.8
28.4
31.4
32.2
31.2
-

83

ug/g
3
3.1
3.7
4.6
4.1
4.5
7.9
7.6
7.8
8.2
8.4
7.7
4.4
4.8
4.1
2.4
3.1
2.7
6.7
6.4
6.4
9.1
10.7
8.8
6.3
6
6
6.3
6.7
6.6
7.2
7.3
6.8

Cobalt
qualifier
-

Copper
ug/g
qualifier
9.6
9
11.2
19.2
14.8
16.8
26.2
26.8
27.4
29.2
31.4
28.4
5.4
6
5.2
8.2
9.8
7.8
22.6
20
19.4
10.6
12
10.6
15.8
15.2
15.6
22.4
23.4
24
25.2
24
22.4
-

ug/g
9230
9740
11300
11900
9920
11500
19000
19000
17900
19700
20500
18800
19900
18000
20200
7400
8760
7380
18200
17900
17900
21500
24300
21800
16500
16600
15900
16700
17300
17400
17800
17600
16800

Iron
qualifier
-

ug/g
1.2
1
4.7
1
1
3
4.8
1.3
3.2
5.7
6
2.8
4.6
3.2
5.2
1
1
5.7
4.5
5.5
5.4
3.9
5
3.3
3.8
3.9
2.1
2.5
2
3.5
3.1
4.2
4.2

Lead
qualifier
<EDL
<EDL
<EDL
<EDL
<EDL
-

 Appendix Table 4b cont’d. Metals in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – retrieval survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB
Station No.

Sample ID

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

Manganese
ug/g
qualifier
178
193
212
238
217
233
388
364
370
409
436
324
182
188
163
160
186
159
358
376
349
426
456
400
292
296
282
277
278
262
329
333
314
-

Mercury
ug/g
qualifier
1.1
1
1.4
0.69
0.45
0.55
0.32
0.17
0.29
0.5
0.54
0.17
0.49
0.49
0.53
0.14
0.19
0.14
0.2
0.32
0.31
0.37
0.29
0.24
0.17
0.18
0.22
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.11
0.3
0.2
-

84

Molybdenum
ug/g
qualifier
1
<EDL
1
<EDL
1
<EDL
1
<EDL
1
<EDL
1
<EDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
1
<EDL
1
<EDL
1
<EDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL
0.5
<MDL

ug/g
7.4
7.7
10.2
11.2
8.8
9.8
21.9
20.7
20.4
22
23.9
21.6
14.8
15.9
13.9
5.3
7.6
5.6
19.9
19.4
19.1
26.4
30.2
26.5
17.7
17.5
17.3
18.3
19.1
18.7
19.9
20.8
19.4

Nickel
qualifier
-

Selenium
ug/g
qualifier
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
6
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL

ug/g
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

Silver
qualifier
<EDL
<EDL
<EDL
<EDL
<EDL
<EDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<EDL
<EDL
<EDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

 Appendix Table 4b cont’d. Metals in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – retrieval survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station No.

Sample ID

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

Strontium
ug/g
qualifier
28.8
31.6
30.1
29
32.9
32.5
28
29.9
24.4
23.2
24.4
29.4
18.8
18.5
14.6
33.6
31.7
34.6
24.8
24.4
24.3
14.4
15.8
18.1
27
27.8
23.9
33
34.1
34.5
31.6
24.3
25.9
-

Thallium
ug/g
qualifier
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
10
<EDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
6
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL

85

ug/g
36.4
37.2
29.3
33.7
44.4
39.2
6.4
8.6
6.5
4.5
5.2
7.1
2.5
2.5
2.5
52.1
40.3
50.8
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.3
4.3
4.5
8.9
9.7
10.4
12.5
11.2
10.8

Tin
qualifier
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
-

Titanium
ug/g
qualifier
354
626
697
320
565
584
1350
1330
841
1150
1290
1300
1270
1230
976
412
500
447
1330
1320
1310
1300
1540
1490
1160
1130
900
1080
1190
1180
1220
998
1040
-

Vanadium
ug/g
qualifier
13.7
17.6
20.1
19.1
17.6
18.6
36.5
36.3
32.5
35.2
37.1
35.8
40
36.2
39.9
13.5
16
14.2
34.2
33.9
33.3
35.2
39.2
36.6
30.6
30.8
28.4
31.5
32
32.4
32.1
30
29.4
-

ug/g
42.5
41.4
45.3
43.3
36.4
39.8
63.9
53.4
55.2
71.1
73.2
56.3
49.1
56
53
26.1
31.9
25.7
65.6
60.7
62.1
92.2
104
90.1
45.6
45.8
46.5
41.3
41.5
39.3
49.2
56.5
51.6

Zinc
qualifier
-

 Appendix Table 5. Methyl-mercury in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – retrieval and deployment survey. Data provided
by Biotron Laboratory, University of Western.
MeHg from
Moisture
Wet Wt Conc.
Original Sample
(%)
(ng/g)
(ng)
0100170025
GL171325
07/14/2017
0.1018
0.091
23.7
0.682
0100170025
GL171326
08/10/2017
0.0980
0.122
29.4
0.876
0100170025
GL172273
08/11/2017
0.1030
0.168
28.1
1.171
0100170025
GL172274
08/11/2017
0.1114
0.159
26.9
1.043
0100170019
GL171317
07/13/2017
0.1077
1.307
27.5
8.802
0100170016
GL171311
07/13/2017
0.1099
0.509
27.9
3.341
0100170016
GL171312
07/13/2017
0.0982
1.644
44.6
9.281
0100170016
GL171313
07/13/2017
0.1029
1.465
45.7
7.738
0100170016
GL172264
08/10/2017
0.0996
0.254
37.3
1.600
0100170016
GL172265
08/10/2017
0.1008
0.347
38.7
2.107
0100170020
GL171320
07/14/2017
0.1126
0.141
31.7
0.857
0100170020
GL172267
08/10/2017
0.1029
0.130
25.7
0.937
0100170011
GL172282
08/11/2017
0.1990
0.418
34.2
1.383
0100170021
GL172276*
08/11/2017
NA
NA
41.8
1.079
0100170012
GL172270
08/10/2017
0.1013
0.378
34.3
2.453
0100170012
GL172271
08/11/2017
0.1080
0.140
22.4
1.007
0100170010
GL171306
07/12/2017
0.1102
0.312
40.1
1.693
0100170010
GL171307
07/12/2017
0.1050
0.337
28.8
2.283
0100170010
GL172279
08/11/2017
0.2007
0.629
36.8
1.980
0100170010
GL172280
08/11/2017
0.2007
0.797
34.1
2.618
0100170017
GL171314
07/13/2017
0.1037
0.109
24.0
0.798
0100170017
GL171315
07/13/2017
0.1028
0.128
19.9
1.001
0100170017
GL172288
08/11/2017
0.2028
0.101
17.1
0.411
0100170017
GL172289
08/12/2017
0.2067
0.096
12.8
0.403
0100170014
GL171309
07/13/2017
0.1135
0.240
25.3
1.578
0100170014
GL172285
08/11/2017
0.1985
0.323
22.7
1.259
0100170014
GL172286
08/11/2017
0.2005
0.170
25.1
0.636
0100170023
GL171322
07/14/2017
0.0988
0.056
28.5
0.406
0100170023
GL172291
08/12/2017
0.2027
0.086
25.7
0.315
0100170023
GL172292
08/12/2017
0.2056
0.068
12.3
0.289
MDL
0.009
MRL
0.027
*an estimated value from multiple runs as the sample had homogenity / matrix issue with high RPD values (46%).
Station No.

Sample ID

Date Collected

Sample Weight
(g)

86

Dry Wt Conc.
(ng/g)
0.893
1.241
1.630
1.427
12.139
4.636
16.746
14.242
2.551
3.440
1.256
1.262
2.101
1.853
3.730
1.298
2.827
3.205
3.133
3.971
1.050
1.250
0.496
0.462
2.111
1.629
0.849
0.568
0.424
0.329

 Appendix Table 6. Methyl-mercury, mercury, and total organic carbon in surficial sediment on the thinlayer cap and cap reference station 25 – retrieval and deployment survey. Methyl-mercury data provided
by Biotron Laboratory, University of Western (as shown in Table 5), and mercury and TOC data
provided by MECP-LSB.
MeHg
Hg
TOC
(ng/g dw)
(ug/g dw)
(mg/g dw)
0100170025
GL171325
0.89
0.48
3.7
0100170025
GL171326
1.24
0.61
3.3
0100170025
GL172273
1.63
0.56
6.2
0100170025
GL172274
1.43
0.56
5.0
0100170019
GL171317
12.14
2.1
65
0100170016
GL171311
4.64
0.78
32
0100170016
GL171312
16.75
1.5
31
0100170016
GL171313
14.24
1.5
27
0100170016
GL172264
2.55
0.78
40
0100170016
GL172265
3.44
1.1
30
0100170020
GL171320
1.26
0.17
8.2
0100170020
GL172267
1.26
0.21
10
0100170011
GL172282
2.10
0.21
16
0100170021
GL172276
1.85*
0.29
32
0100170012
GL172270
3.73
0.36
28
0100170012
GL172271
1.30
0.2
11
0100170010
GL171306
2.83
0.34
21
0100170010
GL171307
3.21
0.43
19
0100170010
GL172279
3.13
0.24
19
0100170010
GL172280
3.97
0.28
17
0100170017
GL171314
1.05
0.14
8.2
0100170017
GL171315
1.25
0.2
11
0100170017
GL172288
0.50
0.07
7.7
0100170017
GL172289
0.46
0.07
7
0100170014
GL171309
2.11
0.08
9.7
0100170014
GL172285
1.63
0.17
20
0100170014
GL172286
0.85
0.14
21
0100170023
GL171322
0.57
0.08
6.1
0100170023
GL172291
0.42
0.06
6.4
0100170023
GL172292
0.33
0.06
5.2
*an estimated value from multiple runs as the sample had homogenity / matrix issue with high RPD values (46%).
Station No.

Sample ID

87

 Appendix Table 7a. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – deployment survey. Data provided by
MECP-LSB.
Station
No.

Sample ID

100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171315
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

2',3,4-trichloro
PCB(33)
(ng/g)
qual.
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL

2',3,4,4',5pentachloro
PCB(123)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
-

88

2,2'-/2,6dichloro
PCB(4/10)
(ng/g)
qual.
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL
5
<MDL

2,2',3',4,5pentachloro
PCB(97)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
6
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3-trichloro
PCB(16)
(ng/g)
qual.
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL

2,2',3,3'tetrachloro
PCB(40)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,3',4',5,6heptachloro
PCB(177)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
8
7
1
4
4
3
3
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,3',4,4'hexachloro
PCB(128)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
3
2
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
1
1
<MDL
6
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7a cont’d. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – deployment survey. Data
provided by MECP-LSB.
Station
No.

Sample ID

100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171315
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

2,2',3,3',4,4',5heptachloro
PCB(170)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
16
18
2
7
7
5
3
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
5
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5'octachloro
PCB(194)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
7
12
1
3
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

89

2,2',3,3',4,5',6,6'octachloro
PCB(201)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6'octachloro
PCB(199)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
8
10
1
1
<MDL
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,3',4,5,6'heptachloro
PCB(174)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
19
15
2
8
8
6
5
4
2
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,3',4,5,6,6'octachloro
PCB(200)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,3',5,5',6heptachloro
PCB(178)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
4
2
1
<MDL
2
2
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,3',5,5',6,6'
-octachloro
PCB(202)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7a cont’d. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – deployment survey. Data
provided by MECP-LSB.
Station
No.

Sample ID

100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171315
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

2,2',3,3',5,6'hexachloro
PCB(135)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
5
2
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,4',5',6hexachloro
PCB(149)
(ng/g)
qual.
2
29
13
4
13
12
10
5
7
3
17
5
5
3
3
1
2
1
<MDL
1
-

90

2,2',3,4',5,5',6heptachloro
PCB(187)
(ng/g)
qual.
2
20
16
2
10
10
7
4
4
2
1
<MDL
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,4',5,6,6'heptachloro
PCB(188)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,4tetrachloro
PCB(41)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,4,4'pentachloro
PCB(85)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
4
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,4,4',5'hexachloro
PCB(138)
(ng/g) qual.
3
32
18
4
14
14
11
7
8
4
29
5
5
3
4
2
2
1
1
-

2,2',3,4,4',5',6heptachloro
PCB(183)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
10
9
1
4
5
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7a cont’d. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – deployment survey. Data
provided by MECP-LSB.
Station
No.

Sample ID

100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171315
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

2,2',3,4,4',5hexachloro
PCB(137)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,4,4',5,5',6octachloro
PCB(203)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
8
11
1
3
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

91

2,2',3,4,5'pentachloro
PCB(87)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
2
1
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
10
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,4,5,5'hexachloro
PCB(141)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
12
7
2
6
5
4
2
3
1
6
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,5'tetrachloro
PCB(44)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
3
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,5',6pentachloro
PCB(95)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
8
4
1
3
3
3
1
3
1
15
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,5,5',6hexachloro
PCB(151)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
12
5
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
5
2
2
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',4,4',5pentachloro
PCB(99)
(ng/g)
qual.
2
<MDL
2
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
7
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7a cont’d. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – deployment survey. Data
provided by MECP-LSB.
Station
No.

Sample ID

100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171315
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

2,2',4,4',6,6'hexachloro
PCB(155)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',4,5'tetrachloro
PCB(49)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',4,6,6'pentachloro
PCB(104)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

92

2,2',5-trichloro
PCB(18)
(ng/g)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

qual.
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,2',5,5'tetrachloro
PCB(52)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
2
2
1
<MDL
2
2
1
1
<MDL
1
1
7
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',6-trichloro
PCB(19)
(ng/g)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

qual.
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,2',6,6'tetrachloro
PCB(54)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2'3,3',6pentachloro
PCB(84)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
5
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7a cont’d. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – deployment survey. Data
provided by MECP-LSB.
Station
No.

Sample ID

100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171315
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

2,2'3,4'5/2,2'4,5,5'pentach
PCB(90/101)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
11
5
1
3
4
3
2
3
1
19
2
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,3',4',5tetrachloro
PCB(70)

2,3'-dichloro
PCB(6)
(ng/g)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

qual.
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

93

(ng/g)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual.
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,3',4,4'tetrachloro
PCB(66)
(ng/g)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual.
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,3',4,4',5pentachloro
PCB(118)
(ng/g)
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual.
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,3',4,4',5,5'hexachloro
PCB(167)
(ng/g)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual.
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,3',4,4',6pentachloro
PCB(119)
(ng/g)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual.
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,3,3',4',6pentachloro
PCB(110)
(ng/g)
1
5
3
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
17
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual.
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7a cont’d. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – deployment survey. Data
provided by MECP-LSB.
Station
No.

Sample ID

100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171315
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

2,3,3',4,4'pentachloro
PCB(105)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
7
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,3,3',4,4',5'hexachloro
PCB(157)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

94

2,3,3',4,4',5',6heptachloro
PCB(191)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,3,3',4,4',5hexachloro
PCB(156)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
2
2
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
1
1
<MDL
4
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,3,3',4,4',5,5'heptachloro
PCB(189)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,3,3',4,4',5,5',6octachloro
PCB(205)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,3,3'4,4'6hexachloro
PCB(158)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
<MDL
4
1
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,3,4'-trichloro
PCB(22)
(ng/g)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

qual.
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7a cont’d. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – deployment survey. Data
provided by MECP-LSB.
Station
No.

Sample ID

100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171315
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

2,4'-dichloro
PCB(8)
(ng/g)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

qual.
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,4,4'-/2,4',5trichloro
PCB(28/31)
(ng/g)
qual.
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL

95

22',33',4,5hexachloro
PCB(129)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

22',44',55'hexachloro
PCB(153)
(ng/g)
qual.
3
38
20
5
17
17
13
6
8
4
21
6
6
4
4
2
3
1
<MDL
1
-

22'33'44'55'6nonachloro
PCB(206)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
2
3
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

22'33'44'566'nonachloro
PCB(207)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

22'33'455'66'nonachloro
PCB(208)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

22'344'55'heptachloro
PCB(180)
(ng/g)
qual.
2
38
43
4
16
17
13
12
7
4
8
5
5
3
4
2
3
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7a cont’d. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – deployment survey. Data
provided by MECP-LSB.
Station
No.

Sample ID

100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171315
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

23',44',5'6hexachloro
PCB(168)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

233'4'55'6heptachloro
PCB(193)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

96

3,3',4,4'tetrachloro
PCB(77)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

3,3',4,4',5pentachloro
PCB(126)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

3,3',4,4',5,5'hexachloro
PCB(169)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

3,4,4'-trichloro
PCB(37)
(ng/g)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

qual.
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

3,4,4',5tetrachloro
PCB(81)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

4,4'-dichloro
PCB(15)
(ng/g)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

qual.
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7a cont’d. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station 25 – deployment survey. Data
provided by MECP-LSB.
Station No.

Sample ID

100170009
100170010
100170011
100170014
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170017
100170017
100170019
100170019
100170019
100170020
100170021
100170023
100170023
100170023
100170025
100170025

GL171305
GL171306
GL171308
GL171309
GL171311
GL171312
GL171313
GL171315
GL171316
GL171317
GL171318
GL171319
GL171320
GL171321
GL171322
GL171323
GL171324
GL171325
GL171326

cisnonachlor/2,3,4,4',5pentach PCB(114)
(ng/g)
qual.
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

97

DMDT/2,2',3,3',4,4',6heptach PCB(171)
(ng/g)
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual.
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

G-CHLA/2,3,4,4'tetrachloro PCB(60)
(ng/g)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual.
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

H-Epoxide/2,4,4',5tetrachloro PCB(74)
(ng/g)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual.
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

Total PCB
(ng/g)
14
310
230
29
130
140
100
59
62
24
240
45
40
18
25
10
14
10
10

qualfier
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7b. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap ref. stn. 25 – retrieval survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station No.

Sample ID

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172290
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

DMDT/2,2',3,3',
4,4',6-heptach
PCB(171)
(ng/g)
qual
1
<MDL
2
1
2
1
1
6
1
<MDL
1
5
5
3
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
2
3
3
3
1
<MDL
12
11
2
2
10
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
2
3
2

2',3,4-trichloro
PCB(33)
(ng/g)
2
2
2

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

98

2',3,4,4',5pentachloro
PCB(123)
(ng/g)
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2'-/2,6-dichloro
PCB(4/10)
(ng/g)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,2',3',4,5pentachloro
PCB(97)
(ng/g)
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
2
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3-trichloro
PCB(16)
(ng/g)
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,2',3,3'tetrachloro
PCB(40)
(ng/g)
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7b. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap ref. stn. 25 – retrieval survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station
No.

Sample ID

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172290
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

2,2',3,3',4',5,6heptachloro
PCB(177)
ng/g
qual
1
3
1
2
1
1
8
1
1
7
6
4
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
3
4
3
4
19
16
15
3
2
16
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
3
4
2
-

2,2',3,3',4,4'hexachloro
PCB(128)
ng/g
qual
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
1
<MDL
2
2
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
2
2
6
4
4
1
1
3
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL

2,2',3,3',4,4',5heptachloro
PCB(170)
ng/g
qual
2
4
2
4
2
2
16
2
2
12
10
7
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
2
1
6
6
5
7
35
32
28
5
3
27
1
1
2
1
5
7
4
-

99

2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5'octachloro
PCB(194)
ng/g
qual
1
2
1
2
1
1
8
1
1
5
5
3
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
3
2
3
3
15
15
13
2
1
13
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
3
4
3
-

2,2',3,3',4,5',6,6'octachloro
PCB(201)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
2
2
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6'octachloro
PCB(199)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
5
6
3
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
3
16
14
14
2
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,3',4,5,6'heptachloro
PCB(174)
ng/g
qual
2
4
2
4
2
1
<MDL
16
1
<MDL
2
14
12
8
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
3
1
6
8
6
8
38
34
30
5
4
28
1
1
2
1
5
8
4
-

2,2',3,3',4,5,6,6'octachloro
PCB(200)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
6
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7b. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap ref. stn. 25 – retrieval survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station
No.

Sample ID

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172290
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

2,2',3,3',5,5',6heptachloro
PCB(178)
ng/g
qual
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
<MDL
3
3
2
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
2
1
1
6
6
5
1
1
5
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
2
1
-

2,2',3,3',5,5',6,6'octachloro
PCB(202)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
2
2
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,3',5,6'hexachloro
PCB(135)
ng/g
qual
1
2
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
5
4
3
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
4
2
3
11
10
9
1
1
8
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
2
1
-

100

2,2',3,4',5',6hexachloro
PCB(149)
ng/g
qual
5
7
5
7
4
4
20
5
4
24
20
13
1
2
1
5
2
6
15
13
12
55
48
47
9
8
31
2
2
3
1
7
9
1
<MDL

2,2',3,4',5,5',6heptachloro
PCB(187)
ng/g
qual
3
7
3
5
3
3
19
3
2
17
14
10
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
4
1
6
9
7
10
40
37
35
6
4
30
1
1
2
1
6
8
5
-

2,2',3,4',5,6,6'heptachloro
PCB(188)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,4tetrachloro
PCB(41)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,4,4'pentachloro
PCB(85)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7b. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap ref. stn. 25 – retrieval survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station
No.

Sample ID

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172290
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

2,2',3,4,4',5'hexachloro
PCB(138)
ng/g
qual
6
8
6
8
5
5
27
7
4
30
23
18
2
1
1
<MDL
6
2
9
18
16
19
76
63
60
11
9
45
2
2
4
1
10
13
6
-

2,2',3,4,4',5',6heptachloro
PCB(183)
ng/g
qual
1
3
1
2
1
1
9
1
1
8
7
5
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
2
1
4
5
4
5
21
19
18
3
2
16
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
3
4
3
-

2,2',3,4,4',5hexachloro
PCB(137)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
4
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

101

2,2',3,4,4',5,5',6octachloro
PCB(203)
ng/g
qual
1
2
1
2
1
1
9
1
1
6
5
3
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
3
3
3
4
18
16
15
3
2
15
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
3
3
3
-

2,2',3,4,5'pentachloro
PCB(87)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
5
3
2
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,4,5,5'hexachloro
PCB(141)
ng/g
qual
2
3
2
3
1
1
9
2
1
9
7
6
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
2
1
3
6
4
6
22
20
20
3
3
15
1
1
1
1
<MDL
3
4
2
-

2,2',3,5'tetrachloro
PCB(44)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',3,5',6pentachloro
PCB(95)
ng/g
qual
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
1
6
5
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
5
4
5
11
11
9
3
3
3
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
-

 Appendix Table 7b. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap ref. stn. 25 – retrieval survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station
No.

Sample ID

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172290
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

2,2',3,5,5',6hexachloro
PCB(151)
ng/g
qual
1
3
2
3
1
1
8
2
1
9
8
6
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
2
6
5
6
20
20
19
3
3
12
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
3
3
2
-

2,2',4,4',5pentachloro
PCB(99)
ng/g
qual
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
2
4
2
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL

2,2',4,4',6,6'hexachloro
PCB(155)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

102

2,2',4,5'tetrachloro
PCB(49)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',4,6,6'pentachloro
PCB(104)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',5-trichloro
PCB(18)
ng/g
2
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,2',5,5'tetrachloro
PCB(52)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,2',6-trichloro
PCB(19)
ng/g
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7b. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap ref. stn. 25 – retrieval survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station
No.

Sample ID

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172290
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

2,2',6,6'tetrachloro
PCB(54)
ng/g
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,2'3,3',6pentachloro
PCB(84)
ng/g
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,2'3,4'5/2,2'4,5,5'pentach
PCB(90/101)
ng/g
qual
2
2
2
2
1
2
5
2
1
7
6
1
<MDL
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
1
6
6
6
16
14
13
1
<MDL
3
6
1
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
2
2
2
-

103

2,3'-dichloro
PCB(6)
ng/g
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,3',4',5tetrachloro
PCB(70)
ng/g
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,3',4,4'tetrachloro
PCB(66)
ng/g
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,3',4,4',5pentachloro
PCB(118)
ng/g
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
10
4
4
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,3',4,4',5,5'hexachloro
PCB(167)
ng/g
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7b. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap ref. stn. 25 – retrieval survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station No.

Sample ID

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172290
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

2,3',4,4',6pentachloro
PCB(119)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,3,3',4',6pentachloro
PCB(110)
ng/g
qual
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
3
3
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
3
3
3
10
7
6
2
2
3
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
-

2,3,3',4,4'pentachloro
PCB(105)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
4
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

104

2,3,3',4,4',5'hexachloro
PCB(157)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
4
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,3,3',4,4',5',6heptachloro
PCB(191)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,3,3',4,4',5hexachloro
PCB(156)
ng/g
qual
1
1
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
1
<MDL
2
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
5
4
4
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
-

2,3,3',4,4',5,5'heptachloro
PCB(189)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

2,3,3',4,4',5,5',6octachloro
PCB(205)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7b. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap ref. stn. 25 – retrieval survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station No.

Sample ID

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172290
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

2,3,3'4,4'6hexachloro
PCB(158)
ng/g
qual
1
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
1
<MDL
2
2
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
1
1
2
6
5
5
1
1
4
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
-

2,3,4'-trichloro
PCB(22)
ng/g
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,4'-dichloro
PCB(8)
ng/g
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

105

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

2,4,4'-/2,4',5trichloro
PCB(28/31)
ng/g
qual
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
2
<MDL
2
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL
2
<MDL

22',33',4,5hexachloro
PCB(129)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

22',44',55'hexachloro
PCB(153)
ng/g
qual
6
9
6
8
4
5
25
6
4
30
25
18
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
7
2
9
17
15
21
72
62
62
11
9
47
2
2
3
1
11
14
7
-

22'33'44'55'6nonachloro
PCB(206)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
<MDL
3
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
1
1
-

22'33'44'566'nonachloro
PCB(207)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7b. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap ref. stn. 25 – retrieval survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station No.

Sample ID

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172290
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

22'33'455'66'nonachloro
PCB(208)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

22'344'55'heptachloro
PCB(180)
ng/g
qual
5
10
6
9
5
5
40
5
4
30
26
17
1
2
1
7
2
15
15
13
19
92
78
73
12
8
1
<MDL
2
3
5
2
14
19
11
-

23',44',5'6hexachloro
PCB(168)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

106

233'4'55'6heptachloro
PCB(193)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
<MDL
72
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
1
-

3,3',4,4'tetrachloro
PCB(77)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

3,3',4,4',5pentachloro
PCB(126)
ng/g
qual
3
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
2
2
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
1
2
1
<MDL
1
1
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL

3,3',4,4',5,5'hexachloro
PCB(169)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

3,4,4'-trichloro
PCB(37)
ng/g
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

 Appendix Table 7b. Polychlorinated biphenyls in surficial sediment on the thin-layer cap and cap ref. stn. 25 – retrieval survey. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Station No.

Sample ID

3,4,4',5-tetrachloro
PCB(81)

100170019
100170019
100170019
100170016
100170016
100170016
100170020
100170020
100170020
100170012
100170012
100170012
100170025
100170025
100170025
100170021
100170021
100170021
100170010
100170010
100170010
100170011
100170011
100170011
100170014
100170014
100170014
100170017
100170017
100170017
100170023
100170015
100170015
100170015

GL172261
GL172262
GL172263
GL172264
GL172265
GL172266
GL172267
GL172268
GL172269
GL172270
GL172271
GL172272
GL172273
GL172274
GL172275
GL172276
GL172277
GL172278
GL172279
GL172280
GL172281
GL172282
GL172283
GL172284
GL172285
GL172286
GL172287
GL172288
GL172289
GL172290
GL172291
GL172294
GL172295
GL172296

ng/g
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

4,4'-dichloro
PCB(15)
ng/g
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

107

G-CHLA/2,3,4,4'tetrachloro PCB(60)
ng/g
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL

HEpoxide/2,4,4',5tetrachloro
PCB(74)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

cisnonachlor/2,3,4,4',
5-pentach
PCB(114)
ng/g
qual
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL
1
<MDL

Total PCB
ng/g
47
82
44
69
33
33
250
41
24
260
210
140
10
10
10
45
12
79
140
140
160
660
570
540
91
67
520
10
12
29
10
83
110
56

qual
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
-

 Appendix Table 8. Benthic invertebrate counts on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station. 25. Each replicate is 0.25m2. Data provided by Craig Logan.

Family
Hydridae
Enchytraeidae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Lumbriculidae
Lumbriculidae
Glossiphoniidae
Glossiphoniidae
Plagiostomidae
Pisidiidae
Pisidiidae

SAMPLE CODE
STATION NO.
#cells picked out of 100 -->
TAXA
Hydra
Mesenchytraeus
Tubificinae - imm. with hairs
Tubificinae - imm. without hairs
Amphichaeta leidyi
Arcteonais lomondi
Aulodrilus americanus
Aulodrilus pluriseta
Chaetogaster diaphanus
Chaetogaster diastrophus
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Nais
Nais behningi
Nais communis
Nais simplex
Piguetiella blanci
Rhyacodrilus
Slavina appendiculata
Specaria josinae
Spirosperma ferox
Stylaria lacustris
Tasserkidrilus superiorensis
Uncinais uncinata
Vejdovskyella comata
Vejdovskyella intermedia
Lumbriculus variegatus complex
Stylodrilus herringianus
Glossiphonia complanata
Gloiobdella elongata
Hydrolimax grisea
Musculium
Musculium securis

TSRC1

TSRC3

TSRC4

100

TSRC2
0019
100

100

2
0
86
2
0
1
1
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
8
0
3
0
16
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
0
0

8
0
11
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

8
0
453
29
0
7
60
72
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
11
0
1
1
2
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0

108

TSRC6

TSRC7

100

TSRC5
0016
100

TSRC9

TSRC10

100

TSRC8
0020
100

100

1
0
45
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
11
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

4
0
1696
31
3
30
0
209
0
0
2
0
0
5
1
27
4
13
85
175
0
24
8
4
19
1
0
0
0
3
0
0

0
2
29
1
0
15
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
1
0
1
14
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0

TSRC12

100

TSRC11
0025
100

100

5
0
33
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
21
0
0
13
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
16
0
0
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0

3
0
35
0
0
10
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

2
8
12
0
0
10
0
0
1
6
0
0
0
0
5
13
0
0
0
1
0
0
8
0
0
6
0
1
1
1
1
0

0
1
6
0
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
3
0
0
8
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0

1
9
35
1
0
10
0
0
0
6
0
1
0
0
18
23
0
0
2
2
0
0
17
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0

100

 Pisidiidae
Pisidiidae
Pisididae
Pisidiidae
Pisidiidae
Pisidiidae
Lymnaeidae
Lymnaeidae
Lymnaeidae
Physidae
Planorbidae
Planorbidae
Planorbidae
Planorbidae
Planorbidae
Planorbidae
Valvatidae
Valvatidae
Valvatidae
Valvatidae
Hydrobiidae
Leptoceridae
Leptoceridae
Leptoceridae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae

Pisidium
Pisidium casertanum
Pisidium ferrugineum
Pisidium henslowanum
Pisidium nitidum
Pisidium ventricosum
Unknown specimens
Fossaria
Pseudosuccinea columella
Physa
Unknown specimens
Gryaulus
Gyraulus circumstriatus
Gyraulus deflectus
Gyraulus parvus
Helisoma anceps
Valvata
Valvata lewisi
Valvata piscinalis
Valvata tricarinata
Pyrgulopsis lacustrica
Mystacides sepulchralis
Oecetis
Oecetis nocturna
Chironominae
Orthocladiinae
Ablabesmyia janta
Chironomus
Cladotanytarsus
Conchapelopia
Cricotopus
Cryptochironomus blarina
Demicryptochironomus cuneatus
Heterotrissocladius
Heterotrissocladius changi
Heterotrissocladius marcidus
Larsia canadensis
Mesocricotopus

0
37
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
7
4
5
1
1
6
1
0
0
22
23
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

109

0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
10
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0

0
57
0
7
0
6
0
0
0
4
0
6
0
0
1
6
0
10
3
5
2
2
0
1
1
3
0
4
14
1
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
1

0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
13
3
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0

0
21
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
30
1
3
1
0
0
22
1
0
0
32
2
0
0
0
1
0
5
1
0
0

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
8
3
1
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
6
5
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
9
3
8
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
0
0

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
6
23
13
9
12
1
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0

0
3
1
0
9
0
4
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
9
1
5
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
126
0
0
0
0
4
18
5
0
0

3
0
0
1
11
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
5
1
1
6
1
0
3
0
2
0
0
88
0
1
0
0
0
7
6
0
0

1
0
0
0
24
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
5
0
1
4
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
101
0
0
0
0
1
6
8
0
0

 Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Gammaridae
Pontoporeiidae
Asellidae
Aturidae
Hygrobatidae
Lebertiidae
Limnesiidae
Oxidae
Oxidae
Pionidae
Pionidae
Halicaridae
Halicaridae
Hydrozetidae

Micropsectra
Microtendipes pedellus group
Monodiamesa tuberculata
Orthocladius
Orthocladius annectens
Parachronomus potamogeti
Paracladopelma
Paracladopelma winnelli
Parakiefferiella
Paratanytarsus
Paratendipes
Phaenopsectra
Polypedilum lateum group
Polypedilum scalaenum group
Potthastia
Procladius
Protanypus
Psectrocladius
Pseudochironomus
Stempellina
Stempellinella
Tanytarsus
Thienemannimyia norena
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
Pontoporeia hoyi
Caecidotea
Unknown specimens
Aturus
Hygrobates
Lebertia
Limnesia
Frontipoda americana
Oxus
Unknown specimens
Piona
Unknown specimens
Parasoldanellonyx parviscutatus
Hydrozetes

5
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
67
6
1
0
6
1
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0

110

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
1
1
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

4
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
13
0
6
21
0
3
0
96
7
1
0
4
0
22
0
4
4
0
0
0
5
4
0
0
2
0
7
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
5
0
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

143
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
60
86
0
29
0
135
2
0
0
5
0
51
0
0
6
2
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0

0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
9
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0

1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
13
1
0
0
6
0
8
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0

8
0
2
1
0
0
0
3
10
2
0
0
0
0
0
25
1
3
0
3
0
53
1
23
7
0
0
0
6
3
0
0
2
0
11
0
0
1

2
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
14
0
1
1
3
0
29
0
14
23
1
0
2
7
1
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
0

10
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
6
1
0
0
0
2
0
29
0
3
0
1
0
20
0
19
29
5
0
0
5
4
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2

 Malaconothricidae
Chydoridae
Daphniidae
Holopediidae
Cyclopidae

Candonidae
Candonidae
Candonidae
Cyprididae
Cyprididae
Cyprididae
Cyprididae
Lymnocythereidae

Unknown specimens
Unknown specimens
Unknown specimens
Unknown specimens
Holopedium gibberum
Unknown specimens
Unknown specimens
Unknown specimens
Unknown specimens
Unknown specimens
Candona
Fabaeformiscandona
Cyclocypris
Cypria
Cypridopsis
Pelocypris
Limnocythere

0
0
280
12
0
5
385
14
42
0
112
36
307
4
0
378
104

111

0
0
111
35
0
11
136
16
13
0
78
17
159
4
0
0
40

0
0
299
28
0
0
444
56
52
0
133
57
267
6
0
319
142

0
0
17
9
0
18
158
26
2
0
17
10
21
4
0
192
5

0
100
50
7
0
6
130
973
22
0
165
63
20
37
0
254
61

0
3
18
2
0
2
106
23
3
0
94
10
48
0
0
191
12

1
1
35
17
0
9
131
43
7
0
74
19
59
1
0
252
23

0
0
26
31
0
14
153
25
4
0
77
15
91
0
0
251
18

0
4
30
35
0
5
193
48
13
0
85
50
154
3
0
283
24

0
0
3316
5
18
5
1046
115
308
0
622
1
41
2
0
415
30

1
20
2712
1
23
11
860
27
210
0
405
0
16
0
22
532
20

0
34
1567
0
19
9
823
106
359
0
589
0
23
0
30
550
35

 Appendix Table 8 cont’d. Benthic invertebrate counts on the thin-layer cap and cap reference station. 25. Each replicate is 0.25m2. Data provided by Craig
Logan.

Family
Hydridae
Enchytraeidae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Naididae
Lumbriculidae
Lumbriculidae
Glossiphoniidae
Glossiphoniidae
Plagiostomidae
Pisidiidae

SAMPLE CODE
STATION NO.
#cells picked out of 100 -->
TAXA
Hydra
Mesenchytraeus
Tubificinae - imm. with hairs
Tubificinae - imm. without hairs
Amphichaeta leidyi
Arcteonais lomondi
Aulodrilus americanus
Aulodrilus pluriseta
Chaetogaster diaphanus
Chaetogaster diastrophus
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Nais
Nais behningi
Nais communis
Nais simplex
Piguetiella blanci
Rhyacodrilus
Slavina appendiculata
Specaria josinae
Spirosperma ferox
Stylaria lacustris
Tasserkidrilus superiorensis
Uncinais uncinata
Vejdovskyella comata
Vejdovskyella intermedia
Lumbriculus variegatus complex
Stylodrilus herringianus
Glossiphonia complanata
Gloiobdella elongata
Hydrolimax grisea
Musculium

TSRC13
100
18
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0

112

TSRC14
0010
100

TSRC15

TSRC16

100

100

10
1
76
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0

8
1
115
3
0
13
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
0
1
10
13
0
0
1
0
15
0
3
0
0
1
0

8
0
9
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
7
0
3
0
0
1
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
1

TSRC17
0014
100

TSRC18

TSRC19

100

100

7
1
5
0
0
10
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
10
0
10
0
12
0
9
0
0
3
0
16
0
2
0
0
0
0

6
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
14
0
4
0
0
1
0
16
0
1
0
0
1
0

1
0
1
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
16
3
0
0
0
2
0

TSRC20
0017
100

TSRC21

TSRC22

100

100

1
0
68
2
0
19
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
9
2
0
0
29
0
0
2
0
17
5
0
0
0
0
0

0
2
11
2
0
7
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
1
10
0
0
0
1
0

2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
12
0
0
1
0
49
5
0
0
0
2
0

TSRC23
0023
100
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
15
0
0
2
0
44
1
0
0
0
0
0

TSRC24
100
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
1
0
31
4
0
0
0
0
0

 Pisidiidae
Pisidiidae
Pisidiidae
Pisididae
Pisidiidae
Pisidiidae
Pisidiidae
Lymnaeidae
Lymnaeidae
Lymnaeidae
Physidae
Planorbidae
Planorbidae
Planorbidae
Planorbidae
Planorbidae
Planorbidae
Valvatidae
Valvatidae
Valvatidae
Valvatidae
Hydrobiidae
Leptoceridae
Leptoceridae
Leptoceridae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae

Musculium securis
Pisidium
Pisidium casertanum
Pisidium ferrugineum
Pisidium henslowanum
Pisidium nitidum
Pisidium ventricosum
Unknown specimens
Fossaria
Pseudosuccinea columella
Physa
Unknown specimens
Gryaulus
Gyraulus circumstriatus
Gyraulus deflectus
Gyraulus parvus
Helisoma anceps
Valvata
Valvata lewisi
Valvata piscinalis
Valvata tricarinata
Pyrgulopsis lacustrica
Mystacides sepulchralis
Oecetis
Oecetis nocturna
Chironominae
Orthocladiinae
Ablabesmyia janta
Chironomus
Cladotanytarsus
Conchapelopia
Cricotopus
Cryptochironomus blarina
Demicryptochironomus cuneatus
Heterotrissocladius
Heterotrissocladius changi
Heterotrissocladius marcidus
Larsia canadensis

0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
10
2
5
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0

113

1
3
0
0
0
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
11
1
4
0
0
0
3
0
4
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
5
4
1
0

1
4
13
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
1
25
0
4
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
1
16
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
0

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
17
4
5
1
0
0
3
5
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
5
20
0
9
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
4
6
0
0
0
0
1
4
1
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
21
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
11
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
0

0
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
21
2
2
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
6
5
0

0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
20
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
2
7
0

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
1

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
1
10
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0

 Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Gammaridae
Pontoporeiidae
Asellidae
Aturidae
Hygrobatidae
Lebertiidae
Limnesiidae
Oxidae
Oxidae
Pionidae
Pionidae
Halicaridae
Halicaridae

Mesocricotopus
Micropsectra
Microtendipes pedellus group
Monodiamesa tuberculata
Orthocladius
Orthocladius annectens
Parachronomus potamogeti
Paracladopelma
Paracladopelma winnelli
Parakiefferiella
Paratanytarsus
Paratendipes
Phaenopsectra
Polypedilum lateum group
Polypedilum scalaenum group
Potthastia
Procladius
Protanypus
Psectrocladius
Pseudochironomus
Stempellina
Stempellinella
Tanytarsus
Thienemannimyia norena
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
Pontoporeia hoyi
Caecidotea
Unknown specimens
Aturus
Hygrobates
Lebertia
Limnesia
Frontipoda americana
Oxus
Unknown specimens
Piona
Unknown specimens
Parasoldanellonyx parviscutatus

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
8
1
5
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0

114

0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
4
0
17
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
11
6
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
7
0
0
0
0
2
1
58
3
0
0
12
0
7
0
9
13
6
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0

0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
18
0
6
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
10
0
2
0
3
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
2
4
0

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
4
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
3
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
9
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
7
0

0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
10
0
0
0
17
0
12
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
1
0
0
8
0
0
0
1
6
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
12
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
0

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
28
0
5
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0

 Hydrozetidae
Malaconothricidae
Chydoridae
Daphniidae
Holopediidae
Cyclopidae

Candonidae
Candonidae
Candonidae
Cyprididae
Cyprididae
Cyprididae
Cyprididae
Lymnocythereidae

Hydrozetes
Unknown specimens
Unknown specimens
Unknown specimens
Unknown specimens
Holopedium gibberum
Unknown specimens
Unknown specimens
Unknown specimens
Unknown specimens
Unknown specimens
Candona
Fabaeformiscandona
Cyclocypris
Cypria
Cypridopsis
Pelocypris
Limnocythere

1
0
0
61
53
26
7
159
49
5
4
21
5
112
3
1
236
10

115

0
0
5
28
26
2
5
202
123
16
0
51
15
93
9
0
149
9

0
1
0
38
43
4
5
273
568
27
0
76
12
142
8
9
223
43

0
0
0
18
13
0
21
323
96
13
0
82
6
140
0
0
143
29

1
0
1
30
19
0
69
363
71
9
0
93
8
95
1
0
231
26

0
0
0
35
10
8
60
241
121
17
0
65
11
87
3
0
112
12

0
0
0
34
7
1
152
328
39
10
0
50
4
24
1
0
256
38

1
0
20
23
9
0
48
106
73
7
0
46
6
37
0
0
256
28

0
0
4
0
0
1
37
136
23
0
0
36
0
41
0
0
200
15

0
0
23
22
0
0
73
84
7
6
0
72
1
33
0
0
511
38

0
0
12
11
2
1
27
39
2
0
0
13
0
15
0
0
249
15

0
0
9
32
4
4
101
74
1
4
0
39
3
31
0
0
695
16

 Appendix Table 9. Mercury, total PCBs, and DLPCB congener concentrations in dorsal fillet tissue of Lake Trout, Lake Whitefish, and Longnose Suckers, and
whole-body composites of young-of-year Round Whitefish collected in Peninsula Harbour. Data provided by MECP-LSB.
Species Name

Length

Weight

Sex

M ercury

Total PCB

Lipid

PCB 77

PCB 81

PCB105

PCB114

PCB118

PCB123

PCB126

PCB156

PCB157

PCB167

PCB169

PCB189

ug/g ww

ng/g ww

%

pg/g ww

pg/g ww

pg/g ww

pg/g ww

pg/g ww

pg/g ww

pg/g ww

pg/g ww

pg/g ww

pg/g ww

pg/g ww

pg/g ww

Lake Trout

90.3

7900

M

1.3

6600

5

81

5.6

23000

1500

81000

1000

250

42000

3800

15000

66

9700

Lake Trout

67.2

2605

M

0.38

1400

7.1

21

2

2600

140

9200

110

34

4200

360

1500

9

940

Lake Trout

61.3

2135

M

0.19

160

4.4

33

2.5

1700

82

5300

80

29

1700

200

840

8.7

360

Lake Trout

59.7

1960

M

0.36

600

5

38

2.8

4100

230

14000

200

52

6400

540

2400

12

1400

Lake Trout

54.3

1295

M

0.14

78

2.4

Lake Trout

54.2

1100

M

0.11

210

4.5

Lake Trout

52.4

1135

F

0.1

45

3.6

Lake Trout

51.7

1220

M

0.15

310

9.8

Lake Trout

45.8

685

F

0.13

70

2.5

7.1

<0.79

430

22

1400

20

7.4

470

51

180

2.7

100

Lake Trout

61

2240

F

0.2

230

5.7

Lake Whitefish

54.8

1265

M

0.11

39

4

Lake Whitefish

51.5

1125

M

0.11

20

1.8

3.5

<0.38

89

4.2

250

5.1

2.5

56

9.4

27

<0.64

11

Lake Whitefish

49.8

1140

F

0.09

25

4.3

5.5

<0.48

190

9.8

530

12

4.1

130

22

70

1.5

27

Lake Whitefish

40.5

465

F

0.09

27

2.1

Lake Whitefish

34.5

330

F

0.07

20

2.2

Lake Whitefish

34.3

340

M

0.07

20

2.7

<1.6

<0.51

88

4.4

260

5.2

<1.5

52

9.8

31

<0.45

11

Longnose Sucker

48.5

1090

F

0.67

1100

5

Longnose Sucker

47.3

860

F

0.5

1400

2.4

Longnose Sucker

47.2

1025

F

0.23

130

1.9

Longnose Sucker

45.6

955

F

0.21

360

2.1

Longnose Sucker

44.1

800

0.3

480

2.8

Longnose Sucker

42

755

F

0.25

200

1.3

Longnose Sucker

39.4

625

M

0.32

650

2.5

Longnose Sucker

37.8

550

M

0.43

2700

3.7

Longnose Sucker

34.2

350

F

0.17

150

1.4

31.2

285

F

Longnose Sucker

0.15

130

1.6

1

9.9

0.07

590

2.0

Round Whitefish1

9.8

0.07

590

2.0

Round Whitefish1

9.6

0.06

590

1.5

Round Whitefish1

9.5

0.06

590

1.6

Round Whitefish

1young-of-year

whole-body composites

116