Port Alberni Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) Cycle ......Suite 200 – 850 Harbourside Drive,...

Suite 200 – 850 Harbourside Drive, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V7P 0A3 • Tel: 1.604.926.3261 • Fax: 1.604.926.5389 • www.hatfi eldgroup.com

Port Alberni

Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM)Cycle Five Interpretive Report

March 2010

Prepared for:

Catalyst Paper CorporationPort Alberni, British Columbia

PORT ALBERNI

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING (EEM)

CYCLE FIVE INTERPRETIVE REPORT

Prepared for:

CATALYST PAPER CORPORATION PORT ALBERNI DIVISION

4000 STAMP AVENUE PORT ALBERNI, BC

V9Y 5J7

Prepared by:

HATFIELD CONSULTANTS SUITE 200 – 850 HARBOURSIDE DRIVE

NORTH VANCOUVER, BC V7P 0A3

MARCH 2010

PA1330

Suite 200 – 850 Harbourside Drive, North Vancouver, BC, Canada V7P 0A3 • Tel: 1.604.926.3261 Fax: 1.604.926.5389 • www.hatfieldgroup.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................ iv LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................ vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................ vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................... ix

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1-1

2.0 MILL, STUDY AREA, AND CYCLE FIVE DESIGN UPDATE .......... 2-1 2.1 MILL OPERATIONS .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Process Description and Update ..................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Effluent Quality ................................................................................................ 2-4 2.1.3 Spills to the Receiving Environment ................................................................ 2-5 2.1.4 Study Area Updates ......................................................................................... 2-6 2.2 CYCLE FIVE STUDY DESIGN UPDATE .............................................................. 2-6

3.0 SUBLETHAL TOXICITY TESTING OF MILL EFFLUENT ............... 3-1 3.1 METHODS ............................................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.1 General Methods and Definitions .................................................................... 3-2 3.1.2 Sublethal Toxicity Test Methods ....................................................................... 3-2 3.1.3 Zones of Effluent Concentration ...................................................................... 3-3 3.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................. 3-4 3.2.1 Topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) Growth and Survival Tests ................................. 3-4 3.2.2 Echinoderm Fertilization Test ........................................................................... 3-4 3.2.3 Algal (Champia parvula) Reproduction Test .................................................... 3-6 3.2.4 Potential Zone of Sublethal Effect ................................................................... 3-6 3.3 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 3-9

4.0 MAGNITUDE AND EXTENT STUDY ............................................... 4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 METHODS ............................................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.1 Modifications to Sampling Design ................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Grid Design ...................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.3 Sampling Locations and Collection Dates ....................................................... 4-3 4.2.4 Field Sampling Procedures ............................................................................. 4-3 4.2.5 Analytical Approach ....................................................................................... 4-10 4.3 RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 4-15 4.3.1 GIS Analyses ................................................................................................. 4-15 4.3.2 Statistical Analyses ........................................................................................ 4-28 4.3.3 BCCF Data Logger Study .............................................................................. 4-35 4.3.4 Temporal Trends ............................................................................................ 4-40 4.3.5 QA/QC ........................................................................................................... 4-43 4.4 DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 4-43 4.4.1 Effects ............................................................................................................ 4-43 4.4.2 Magnitude and Extent of Effects .................................................................... 4-44

Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five i Hatfield

4.4.3 Temporal Changes: Then and Now ............................................................... 4-45 4.4.4 Influence of Sediment Quality on Overlying Water Quality ............................ 4-45 4.4.5 Potential Influence of Water Quality on Migrating Salmon ............................ 4-47

5.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 5-1

6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................. 6-1

7.0 GLOSSARY ...................................................................................... 7-1

A1.0 CLOSURE ......................................................................................... 7-1

Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five ii Hatfield

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Annual results for process effluent quality variables, Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division, 2007 to 2009. ............................................... 2-3

Table 3.1 Potential Zone of Sublethal Effect, Catalyst Paper Ltd., Port Alberni Division, EEM Cycle One through Cycle Five. .............................. 3-8

Table 4.1 Sediment and water quality sampling locations and collections, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009. .............................................. 4-4

Table 4.2 Data sonde recording duration at each sampling station in the vicinity of Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division (2009). ............................. 4-8

Table 4.3 Areas of impact near the mill according to individual sediment and water quality variables, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009. ........................................................................................................ 4-16

Table 4.4 Results of Spearman rank correlations (rs) among all sediment and near-bottom water quality variables at all stations (n = 47), Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009. ............................................ 4-30

Table 4.5 Results of Spearman rank correlations (rs) among sediment and near-bottom water quality variables at stations within 1 km of the outfall (n = 28), Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009. ................... 4-30

Table 4.6 Results of Spearman rank correlations (rs) among water quality variables throughout the water column (n = 595), Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009. ................................................................ 4-33

Table 4.7 Results of regression analyses (n=47) between near-bottom water quality, sediment quality, and exposure gradient (both distance from the outfall and C:N ratio), Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009. ............................................................................................ 4-34

Table 4.8 Historical zones of sediment impact in Alberni Harbour (Hodgins 1989). ....................................................................................................... 4-43

Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five iii Hatfield

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Location of Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division, on Alberni Inlet, Vancouver Island, BC. ............................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2.2 Annual production and effluent flows from 1993 to 2009 Catalyst Paper Corporation, Port Alberni Division. .................................................. 2-4

Figure 2.3 Mean daily total suspended solids (TSS) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in effluent, Catalyst Paper Corporation, Port Alberni Division, 1970 to 2009. .................................................................. 2-6

Figure 3.1 Effect of exposure to Catalyst Paper Ltd., Port Alberni Division effluent on Topsmelt early life stage survival expressed as LC50 ±95% confidence limits, EEM Cycle Five. ................................................. 3-5

Figure 3.2 Effect of exposure to Catalyst Paper Ltd., Port Alberni Division effluent on Topsmelt early life stage growth expressed as IC25 ±95% confidence limits, EEM Cycle Five. ................................................. 3-5

Figure 3.3 Effect of exposure to Catalyst Paper Ltd., Port Alberni Division effluent on Echinoderm fertilization expressed as IC25 ±95% confidence limits, EEM Cycle Five. ............................................................ 3-6

Figure 3.4 Effect of exposure to Catalyst Paper Ltd., Port Alberni Division effluent on Champia reproduction expressed as IC25 ±95% confidence limits, EEM Cycle Five. ............................................................ 3-7

Figure 3.5 Geometric means of IC25 and LC50 results from sublethal toxicity tests of Catalyst Paper Ltd, Port Alberni Division effluent for EEM Cycle One through Cycle Five. .................................................................. 3-7

Figure 4.1 Sediment and water quality sampling locations, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, 2009. ....................................................................................... 4-6

Figure 4.2 BCCF dissolved oxygen sampling stations in the vicinity of Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division (2009). ............................................ 4-9

Figure 4.3 Spatial distribution of total organic carbon in Alberni Harbour sediments, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009. .......................... 4-17

Figure 4.4 Spatial distribution of total nitrogen in Alberni Harbour sediments, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009. ............................................ 4-18

Figure 4.5 Spatial distribution of C:N ratios in Alberni Harbour sediments, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009. ............................................ 4-19

Figure 4.6 Spatial distribution of redox potential in Alberni Harbour sediments, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009. .......................... 4-20

Figure 4.7 Spatial distribution of sulphides in Alberni Harbour sediments, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009. .................................................... 4-21

Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five iv Hatfield

Figure 4.8 Spatial distribution of near-bottom dissolved oxygen in the Alberni Harbour water column, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009. ........................................................................................................ 4-22

Figure 4.9 Spatial correlations between near-bottom dissolved oxygen distributions in the water column and sediment impact distributions according to redox potential, Port Alberni Cycle Five EEM, 2009. .......... 4-24

Figure 4.10 Cross-sectional depth profiles of water quality from the mill outfall to 4.3 km down-inlet, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009. .......... 4-27

Figure 4.11 Scatterplots showing Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) and best-fit regression line between untransformed sediment quality variables and dissolved oxygen measured in near-bottom water at all stations, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009. ........... 4-31

Figure 4.12 Scatterplots showing Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) and best-fit regression line between untransformed sediment quality variables and dissolved oxygen measured in near-bottom water at stations within 1 km of the outfall, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009. ................................................................................... 4-32

Figure 4.13 Diurnal fluctuations in salinity, dissolved oxygen, and tidal height at STN-1 (Catalyst Alberni outfall), 1.5 m from surface, Aug 11 – 12, 2009. .................................................................................................. 4-36

Figure 4.14 Diurnal fluctuations in salinity, dissolved oxygen, and tidal height at STN-1 (Catalyst Alberni outfall), 1 m from bottom, Aug 11 – 12, 2009. ........................................................................................................ 4-37

Figure 4.15 Diurnal fluctuations in salinity, dissolved oxygen, and tidal height at STN-2 (>1 km from outfall), 1.5 m from surface, Aug 11 – 12, 2009. ........................................................................................................ 4-38

Figure 4.16 Diurnal fluctuations in salinity, dissolved oxygen, and tidal height at STN-2 (>1 km from outfall), 1 m from bottom, Aug 11 – 12, 2009. ........................................................................................................ 4-39

Figure 4.17 Sediment carbon content at select Port Alberni Cycle Five EEM stations, 1991 versus 2009. ..................................................................... 4-41

Figure 4.18 Sediment C:N ratio at select Port Alberni Cycle Five EEM stations, 1991 versus 2009. ................................................................................... 4-41

Figure 4.19 Historical surficial sediment zones in Alberni Harbour (Seaconsult 1994, based on Hodgins 1989). ............................................................... 4-42

Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five v Hatfield

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A1 Sublethal Toxicity Data and Calculations

Appendix A2 ALS Environmental: Sediment Analytical Reports

Appendix A3 Raw Sediment and Water Column Quality Data

Appendix A4 Power Analysis for Regressions

Appendix A5 Redox Potential and Sulphides: Preparation, Calibration, and Analysis Methods

Appendix A6 QA/QC Sediment Quality Station Triplicate Samples

Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five vi Hatfield

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Primary investigators for the Cycle Five program for Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division, from Hatfield Consultants included Nara Henderson, Noah Baker, and Martin Davies. Susan Stanley prepared the maps, and Tara Ghasemi Rahni assisted with report production. Karl Kliparchuk performed all GIS analyses.

Thanks are due to the following people who assisted with field collections:

Nathan Blasco (MV Lobo Captain, Aquametrix);

Dave Stirling (MV Lobo Onboard Redox/Sulphides Chemist, Aquametrix); and

Bob Nelson (Environmental Technician, Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division).

We are also grateful to the following analytical subcontractors involved in the project:

ALS Environmental (Vancouver, BC); and

Cantest (Vancouver, BC).

The Port Alberni EEM Local Monitoring Committee (LMC) includes representatives from the federal, provincial, and local governments, non-governmental organizations, community members, First Nations, Hatfield Consultants, and Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division. LMC meetings provided a valuable forum for reviewing results from the previous EEM Cycles, and discussing the design for the Cycle Five program. Hatfield would like to acknowledge members of the Alberni LMC for their assistance:

Janice Boyd: Environment Canada;

Rosie Barlak: BC Ministry of Environment;

John Deniseger: BC Ministry of Environment;

Hira Chopra: City of Port Alberni;

Mike Irg: Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District;

Penny Cote: Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District;

Larry Cross: Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division;

Bob Nelson: Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division;

Kai Theus: Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division;

Rick Avis: Alberni Valley Enhancement Association;

Phil Edgell: Alberni Valley Enhancement Association;

Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five vii Hatfield

Libby Avis: Somass Estuary Committee;

Reid Robinson: Alberni Environmental Coalition;

Maureen Sager: Alberni Environmental Coalition;

Craig Wightman: BC Conservation Foundation; and

Ken Ashley: Northwest Hydraulics.

Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five viii Hatfield

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) Cycle Five program for Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division ran between April 2007 and April 2010, and included process effluent sublethal toxicological testing and a magnitude and extent study to address concerns regarding the oxidative state of sediments in upper Alberni Inlet and its potential effects on water quality, and by association the potential for effects on fish and benthos.

Sublethal toxicity testing during Cycle Five demonstrated no effects of mill effluent on survival or growth of topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) larvae, effects on echinoderm fertilization at a mean effluent concentration of 58% (IC25), and effects on Champia parvula reproduction at a mean effluent concentration of 5.4% (IC25). Based on a 1% effluent concentration zone of 3,000 m from the outfall, maximum potential zones of sublethal effect from the effluent discharge point were <30m for fish survival, 52 m for invertebrate fertilization, and 553 m for algal reproduction.

A magnitude and extent study was performed to address concerns regarding the oxidative state of sediments and its potential effects on water quality, fish and benthos in upper Alberni Inlet. The study objective was achieved by sampling for sediment quality and water quality profiles along a grid of historical stations previously sampled by Webb and McCullough (1992), as well as those routinely sampled during past EEM Cycles. Sediment quality variables examined included redox potential, sulphides, total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), and C:N ratio. Water quality variables included salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen (DO). GIS analyses, statistical analyses, and graphical visualizations were evaluated to determine the current magnitude and geographical extent of effects associated with the historical fibre mat, comparisons with the extent of the historical fibre mat 20 years prior, the influence of sediments on overlying water quality in the upper inlet, and the influence of water quality in the upper inlet on migrating salmon.

In general, sediments were slightly lower in organic content and moderately less reducing further from the mill; in contrast, near-bottom (i.e., within 1 m of bottom) DO was slightly better near the mill than further down-inlet. Statistical correlations between sediment redox potential and DO in near-bottom water indicated that as sediment oxidative conditions became more impacted within the upper inlet, DO in near-bottom water actually improved. No other sediment quality variables demonstrated significant relationships with near-bottom DO, and when using C:N ratio as the effluent exposure gradient, sediment quality and near-bottom DO did not demonstrate effects.

Given the variance observed in natural sediment and water quality throughout the upper inlet, an additional localized analysis was performed to evaluate effects within 1 km of the outfall. There was no relationship between redox potential and DO in near-bottom water within 1 km of the outfall. However, DO did improve significantly near the outfall with decreasing sulphides, TOC, TN (i.e., improved sediment quality).

Comparisons between 1991 data and 2009 data indicated that, in general, terrestrial organic matter from various sources (i.e., mill fibre, log booming debris) has declined over 20 years throughout Alberni Inlet. In 2009, the terrestrial versus marine nature (i.e., C:N ratio) of organic content in upper-inlet sediments did not change considerably with distance from the outfall.

Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five ix Hatfield

Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five x Hatfield

Based on geospatial analyses of sediment quality, the current extent of the historical fibre mat near the sediment/water interface was calculated to be ~ 0.29 to 0.56 km2 in size. In comparison, a study from nearly two decades ago showed a ~ 1.03 km2 zone of effects associated with the historical fibre mat; therefore, the exposed impacted area of the historical fibre mat has declined to at least half its size over the past two decades.

Low DO water overtop the historical fibre mat during the current study was confined to a small area of 0.21 km2, smaller than the fibre mat itself, right near the outfall and directly overtop the most grossly impacted sediment conditions. Low DO water similar to that overtop the fibre mat was observed within a much larger area (3.56 km2) down-inlet, from ~1 km south of the outfall to > 1 km south of Polly Point. Most of this area was characterized by normal to low impact sediment conditions, indicating that naturally low DO water is widespread throughout the lower layer of the mid to lower estuary and is not strongly related to sediment conditions.

Given the strong correlation between water quality variables throughout the water column, the presence of a density barrier preventing mixing between the lower and upper layers, and the lack of relationship between sediment quality variables and DO in near-bottom water, it was concluded that sediment quality also does not influence oxygen conditions in any of the water column layers closer to the surface.

Based on 2009 EEM results, and supported by recent DO monitoring reports, as migrating salmon move up-inlet toward the Somass River, they will likely encounter a band of naturally low DO water present at least 4 km south of the mill, extending north to Hohm Island (1.25 km south of the mill). North of here, within 1.25 km south of the outfall, however, there may be a higher dissolved oxygen corridor available to migrating salmon as they move toward the mouth of the Somass River. Within this corridor, summer temperatures reaching > 19°C would likely be the predominant factor limiting migration.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Under the federal Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations (PPER; originally released in 1992, revised in May 2004 [Government of Canada 2005], and amended in 2008) pulpmills are required to monitor the chemistry and toxicity of mill effluent and assess its potential effects on the receiving environment. Effluent chemistry (limited to total suspended solids and biological oxygen demand) and lethal toxicity are measured to evaluate effluent quality and its potential effects on aquatic biota. However, because there are many factors that can alter the chemistry and toxicity of effluent in the receiving environment, Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) studies also are conducted to directly assess the effects of mill effluent on fish, fish habitat, and use of fisheries resources in the vicinity of the effluent discharge (Environment Canada 2005). EEM studies can include:

A fish population survey to assess fish health;

A fish tissue survey to assess concentrations of dioxins and furans (only required for mills where dioxins and furans are present in mill effluent);

A benthic invertebrate community survey to assess the condition of fish habitat;

Supporting water quality data to help interpret findings from fish and benthic invertebrate surveys; and

Sublethal toxicity testing to assess effects of effluent on growth and reproduction of representative aquatic organisms.

EEM programs typically are conducted in three-year cycles, which begin with the development of a study design, followed by study implementation, data analysis, and reporting. The following cycles have been completed for the Port Alberni mill since the onset of the monitoring program:

Cycle One: 1993 to 1996;

Cycle Two: 1997 to 2000;

Cycle Three: 2000 to 2004; and

Cycle Four: 2004 to 2007.

The current program, Cycle Five, ran from April 2007 to April 2010. All components of the EEM program are conducted in accordance with the Pulp and Paper Technical Guidance for Aquatic Environmental Effects Monitoring. The 2005 technical guidance document remains applicable to Cycle Five (Environment Canada 2005), although updated guidance based on the 2008 PPER amendments is in progress.

Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five 1-1 Hatfield


The EEM Cycle Five program for Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division was previously described in the study design (Hatfield Consultants 2009a), and was designed to build upon the Cycle Four Investigation of Cause (IOC) into observed effects on benthos. The IOC determined that, despite improving conditions in the upper inlet associated with mill upgrades, a spatially extensive survey of the oxidative state of sediments and overlying waters had not been conducted since the early 1990s. Therefore, the Cycle Five program was designed to include a magnitude and extent assessment to better quantify and place in context current sediment quality, its potential effects on overlying water quality, and in turn its effects on benthos and fish in upper Alberni Inlet.

This report presents results from the EEM Cycle Five magnitude and extent study. The study also includes the results of ongoing sublethal toxicity testing of mill effluent. Information on changes to mill processes, effluent treatment, and/or the receiving environment that occurred during Cycle Five also is presented. Sections in this report include:

Section 2 – Mill, Study Area, and Cycle Five Design Update;

Section 3 – Sublethal Toxicity Testing of Mill Effluent;

Section 4 – Magnitude and Extent Study;

Section 5 – Conclusions;

Section 6 – References;

Section 7 – Glossary; and

Appendices.

2.0 MILL, STUDY AREA, AND CYCLE FIVE DESIGN UPDATE

2.1 MILL OPERATIONS

2.1.1 Process Description and Update

Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division, is located in Port Alberni, BC on Vancouver Island (Figure 2.1). The mill is situated at the head of Alberni Inlet, where the Somass River flows into the estuary. The inlet is a deep, narrow coastal fjord with a water column that is influenced by semi-diurnal tides, river discharge, and strong, diurnal winds. Water in the upper layer of the inlet is transported seaward, entraining deeper water from the lower layer and driving a deeper counter-current as it flows. The water column becomes highly stratified in summer, and is subject to mixing processes in winter.

The mill has been in operation since 1947, and currently produces paper products including telephone directory and light-weight, coated paper. The mill uses a mixed wood furnish consisting of coastal hemlock and balsam fir, as well as some purchased Kraft and deinked pulp. The majority of this furnish consists of residual chips from local sawmills, with the remainder being derived from chips produced in the mill’s woodroom.

Average production in 2009 was 856 ADMt/d, and effluent flow was 64,630 m3/day (Table 2.1, Figure 2.2).


Lone Tree Point

Hocking Pt.

Uchucklesit Inlet

NahmintBay

BarkleySound

Polly Point

Great Central Lake

Alberni

Inlet

Somass RiverPort Alberni

V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d

Sproat Lake

Qualicum Beach

S t r a i t o f G e o r g i a

Catalyst Paper CorporationPort Alberni Division

124°30'W

124°30'W

125°0'W

125°0'W

49°3

0'N

49°3

0'N

49°0

'N

49°0

'N

Projection: Albers Equal Area - NAD83

K:\Data\Project\PA1330\GIS\_MXD\B_InterpretiveReport\PA1330_B01_Location_20100202.mxd

Pulpmill

Roads

Waterbody

0 10 205Km t

Figure 2.1 Location of Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division, on Alberni Inlet, Vancouver Island, BC.

Scale 1:460,000

Stream Network BC

Port Alberni

LEGEND

Table 2.1 Annual results for process effluent quality variables, Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division, 2007 to 2009.

Parameter 2007 2008 2009 Production

Total Production (ADt/day) 792 781 856

Treated Effluent Quality

Effluent Flow (m3/d) 70,100 56,900 64,630

pH 7.4 7.3 7.2

TSS (t/day) 0.39 0.35 0.38

BOD5 day (t/day) 0.30 0.29 0.19

Toxicity (LC50)1:

Daphnia Magna (48h LC50) 100% 100% 100%

Rainbow Trout (96h LC50) 100% 100% 100%

ADt = air dried metric tones 1 Percentage of tests conducted where LC50 (effluent concentration that kills 50% of organisms) was >100%.

Detailed descriptions of mill processes, including bleaching, are documented in the Cycle One pre-design report (Seaconsult 1994). Some key process updates that have occurred since the mill began operating in 1947 include:

The introduction of primary treatment and an Aerated Stabilization Basin (ASB) for secondary treatment of mill effluent between 1970 and 1971;

The introduction of chemi-thermomechanical pulping (CTMP) in 1989;

The introduction of peroxide bleaching substitution in 1990;

Implementation of expanded secondary effluent treatment: an Activated Sludge Treatment (AST) system was added to the existing ASB system in 1993; and

Shut-down of the Kraft Mill in 1993, and consequently the elimination of elemental chlorine bleaching at the mill.

In Cycle Five, the mill operated two paper machines: PM4 (uncoated paper) and PM5 (coated paper). Operational updates that occurred at the mill during Cycle Five included:

Temporary shutdown of PM4 from September 2007 through April 2008, which reduced production rate by approximately 300 t/d and effluent flow by a similar amount. During this eight-month period, only one paper machine was running at the mill (PM5, which continued to produce light-weight coated paper); the CTMP mill, peroxide bleaching, and woodroom continued to operate at a reduced output.


In 2009, in response to challenging paper markets, PM5 began producing higher brightness coated paper grades (approximately five days per month), as well as uncoated grates. Higher brightness grades required greater hydrogen peroxide application in the mechanical pulp bleaching process.

In May 2009, a modest production increase project was implemented on the single CTMP-line, which produces the majority of the pulp for both paper machines. The project mainly consisted of installing larger refiner motors, and involved curtailing CTMP and PM5 production for a total of six days in April/May during the upgrades. Subsequently, CTMP production in 2009 increased by ~10% or 50 t/d, as de-bottlenecking and quality optimization continued.

Figure 2.2 Annual production and effluent flows from 1993 to 2009 Catalyst Paper Corporation, Port Alberni Division.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Prod

uctio

n (A

dt/d

)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Efflu

ent D

isch

arge

(m3 /d

)

Daily ProductionEffluent Flow

Permanent PM3 Shutdown

Temporary PM4 Shutdown

(09/ 07 - 04/ 08)

2.1.2 Effluent Quality

In 1970/1971, the primary clarifier and secondary treatment (aerated stabilization basin) were installed at the Port Alberni mill to treat selected effluent streams high in total suspended solids (TSS), biological oxygen demand (BOD), and toxicity (~60% of total effluent volume). Secondary treatment was further expanded in 1993 to include activated-sludge treatment. The combined secondary treatment system currently removes >95% of BOD and has reduced TSS concentrations to <10 mg/L (Seaconsult 2000). Since the shutdown of the kraft operation in 1993, the original aerated stabilization basin has been used to


treat relatively low strength effluent streams and provide additional treatment for effluents from the main treatment system. Treated effluents are combined and released via a single discharge point into Alberni Inlet.

Effluent quality variables are routinely measured following provincial and federal requirements. Annual results for the Port Alberni mill are presented in Table 2.1 for Cycle Five (i.e., 2007 to 2009); historical results are presented in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3. Mean daily paper production levels increased from 1993 to 1998, remained relatively consistent until 2004, and dropped in 2005 after the permanent shut-down of PM3 (Figure 2.2). In 2007 and 2008, due to the temporary shutdown of PM4, production dropped once again. Following the re-start of the paper machine, as well as modest increases to CTMP production in 2009, production in 2009 increased again. Mean daily effluent discharge rates have generally decreased since 1993 (Figure 2.2).

Immediately following expansion of the secondary treatment system in 1993 at the mill, BOD and TSS exhibited a marked improvement (Figure 2.3). Between 1994 and 2004, BOD remained relatively consistent, and levels of total suspended solids (TSS) generally decreased over time. In 2005, following the permanent shutdown of PM3, BOD and TSS exhibited a noticeable drop. BOD continued to drop as a result of the temporary PM4 shutdown in 2007/2008, and was low in 2009 for inexplicable reasons (L. Cross, Environmental Manager, Catalyst Alberni, pers.comm., 2010). TSS since 2005 has remained relatively consistent.

To remain in compliance with the PPER, mills are required to demonstrate no acute toxicity of effluent to rainbow trout (i.e., all LC50s – effluent concentrations that kill 50% of trout – must be greater than 100% v/v effluent). There has been no acute toxicity reported during any of the EEM Cycles at the Port Alberni mill. In Cycle Five, there was no acute toxicity of effluent to either rainbow trout or Daphnia magna; 100% of all tests passed (Table 2.1).

2.1.3 Spills to the Receiving Environment

The following spills to the receiving environment were reported by Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division between 2007 and 2009 (Cycle Five):

An estimated 1,000 to 4,000L of white water was spilled to Dry Creek in May 2007;

An estimated 1 m3 of dry sludge was spilled to the bank of Dry Creek in January 2009; and

In May 2009, cloudy water was discharged to Dry Creek via the storm drain from under the warehouse building for two days. The cause of the discharge was not determined; however, testing indicated no toxicity was present.

No impacts to the receiving environment were identified from any of the spill incidents.


2.1.4 Study Area Updates

During Cycle Five, the City of Port Alberni completed a sanitary sewage pump station upgrade to reduce/eliminate overflows during high flow periods. The upgrade was installed near the Clutesi Marina, upstream of the mill site. There were no other major changes to anthropogenic influences or significant natural ecological variations in the Port Alberni EEM study area during Cycle Five.

2.2 CYCLE FIVE STUDY DESIGN UPDATE

No major changes were made to the Cycle Five study design during field surveys.

Figure 2.3 Mean daily total suspended solids (TSS) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in effluent, Catalyst Paper Corporation, Port Alberni Division, 1970 to 2009.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Bio

logi

cal O

xyge

n D

eman

d (t/

d)

BOD (t/d)

Sept-07 to Apr-08: Temporary PM4 Shutdown

1993: Secondary effluent treatment expanded to AST

2005: Paper Machine #3 Shutdown

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.4

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

BOD

(t/d

)

1970: Primary clarifier and ASBsecondary treatment installed

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s (t/

d)

TSS (t/d)

Sept-07 to Apr-08: Temporary PM4 Shutdown

1993: Secondary effluent treatment expanded to AST

2005: Paper Machine #3 Shutdown

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

TSS

(t/d)

1970: Primary clarifier and ASBsecondary treatment installed


3.0 SUBLETHAL TOXICITY TESTING OF MILL EFFLUENT

Summary of Sublethal Toxicity Testing (Winter 2007 through Summer 2009) for Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five:

No effect of effluent was observed on topsmelt larvae growth (IC25) or survival (LC50);

Effects on echinoderm fertilization were observed at a mean effluent concentration of 58% (IC25);

Champia parvula reproduction was affected at a mean effluent concentration of 5.4% (IC25); and

Environment Canada’s predictive model suggests maximum potential zones of sublethal effect from the effluent discharge point of <30m for fish survival, 52 m for invertebrate fertilization, and 553 m for algal reproduction.

Federal and provincial government regulations require pulp and paper mills to undertake toxicity testing as part of their EEM programs, to determine potential lethality or inhibitory effects of their effluent on fish and fish habitat. Current EEM regulations require the use of sublethal toxicity tests to help meet the following objectives (Environment Canada 2005):

Contribute to the field program as part of a weight-of-evidence approach;

Compare process effluent quality between mill types, and measure changes in effluent quality as a result of effluent treatment and process changes; and

Contribute to the understanding of a mill’s relative contribution to receiving water quality in multiple discharge situations.

Sublethal toxicity testing for Port Alberni’s EEM Cycle Five included the following tests, as stipulated in the Pulp and Paper EEM Guidance Document (Environment Canada 2005):

Fish early-life-stage development growth and survival tests using topsmelt (Atherinops affinis). This test was excluded from the EEM testing requirements in August 2008 as part of amendments to the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations (Government of Canada 2008);

Invertebrate fertilization test using either the sand dollar (Dendraster excentricus) or the purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus); and

Algal reproduction test using the red marine alga Champia parvula.

Sublethal toxicity testing of topsmelt and echinoderms for Port Alberni was undertaken by Cantest Inc. (formerly Vizon SciTech, Vancouver, BC). Champia tests were conducted by the Saskatchewan Research Council (Saskatoon, SK) or by AquaTox Testing & Consulting Inc. (Guelph, ON). A summary of reported endpoints is included with this Cycle Five interpretive report.


3.1 METHODS

3.1.1 General Methods and Definitions

During Cycle One, quarterly tests were required for the year field studies were completed. Since Cycle Two, the Pulp and Paper EEM Technical Guidance Document (Environment Canada 2005) has stipulated sublethal toxicological testing of process effluent during both winter and summer seasons each year. Testing for Cycle Five was initiated in Winter 2007 and continued until Summer 2009.

In Cycle Five, test seasons assigned were not necessarily representative of the date the test was conducted. The first test period of each year (the “winter” test period) was usually carried out in April. The second test period of each year (the “summer” test period) was usually carried out between October and December. The apparent discrepancy in the naming of the test seasons was due to delays caused by scheduled retests, and restrictions associated with test organism availability. Figures presented in this section provide both the test season name and actual test date to prevent any confusion. This naming discrepancy has not been corrected because it has no effect on the validity of the toxicity results, and because correcting the naming would require that two sequential test periods be conducted too close to each other. The intent of having two test periods per year is to have them approximately six months apart.

On each test date, a grab sample of effluent was collected by mill personnel, following methods described in the Pulp and Paper EEM Guidance Document (Environment Canada 2005) and shipped to the appropriate lab for testing. Sublethal toxicity testing involves exposure of organisms to a series of effluent dilutions. All sublethal toxicity tests were conducted with controls to assess the background response of test organisms and determine the acceptability of the test using predefined criteria. In addition, in-house cultures were tested with a reference toxicant to monitor the health and sensitivity of the culture.

Sublethal toxicity tests report LC50 or IC25 endpoints. Fish larvae growth, algal reproduction and invertebrate fertilization tests provide an IC25 result, which is an estimate of the concentration of effluent that causes 25% inhibition of a quantitative biological function, such as reproduction or growth. The fish larvae test also yields an LC50 result, which is the effluent concentration that is lethal to 50% or more of the test organisms. Confidence limits are given for each endpoint where possible.

3.1.2 Sublethal Toxicity Test Methods

General procedures for conducting the topsmelt tests were based on Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms, First Edition, EPA/600/R-95/136, August 1995 (US EPA 1995). This 7-day static renewal test uses 9- to 15-day old topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) larvae to assess the toxicity of a sample by comparing the



growth and survival of exposed organisms to that observed in control organisms. The endpoints are effluent concentrations that result in 50% survival for the 7 days (LC50) and for the 25% inhibition of growth measured as dry weight (IC25) relative to control weights.

General procedures for the echinoderm fertilization test are based on the methodology document Biological Test Method: Fertilization Assay Using Echinoids (Sea Urchins and Sand Dollars), Report EPS/1/RM/27, December 1992, November 1997 amendments (Environment Canada 1997b). The test assesses the fertilization success of an echinoderm using the sand dollar Dendraster excentricus or the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. Male and female gametes are exposed to the test material for 20 minutes; the percentage of eggs fertilized is compared between the controls and the sample concentrations to determine if any significant inhibition of fertilization is observed. The IC25 endpoint is the percent effluent concentration where fertilization is reduced by 25% from control fertilization rates.

Procedures for conducting the marine algae (Champia parvula) test are based on Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Water to Marine and Estuarine Organisms, Third Edition, EPA 821/R/02-014, October 2002 (US EPA 2002). The Champia test is a static, non-renewal, marine algal reproduction test where male and female plants are exposed to a test sample for a 48-hour period, followed by a 6-to 8-day recovery period. The inhibition of cystocarp reproduction by 25% by the end of the recovery period is the effluent concentration endpoint (reproduction IC25) used to assess toxicity.

3.1.3 Zones of Effluent Concentration

A zone of effluent mixing was determined by a plume delineation study prior to Cycle One (Hodgins et al. 1993). This survey determined the maximum extent of effluent concentrations of 1% (i.e., 100:1 dilution) or greater, potentially present in the receiving water environment. This 1% effluent zone originally was used to define near-field and far-field areas to aid in selecting sites to conduct required environmental sampling. The 1% effluent zone represents conditions of minimum dilution, maximum extent, and long-term average conditions (Environment Canada 1998), and therefore represents worst-case effluent dilution conditions.

A maximum potential zone of sublethal effect was calculated for each test species from the geometric mean of the IC25 and LC50 results, and the extent of the 1% effluent concentration zone, as per Environment Canada (2005). This potential zone of sublethal effect describes the area where the effluent concentration exceeds the geometric mean of the IC25 or LC50 result, and is the maximum distance from the effluent discharge where a specified effect may be expressed for a test species. This maximum potential zone of sublethal effect was calculated as follows:

Zone (m) = Extent of 1% effluent zone (m) Geometric mean of IC25 or LC50 results

This model assumes simple linear dilution of effluent. This is not realistic for Port Alberni, given effluent is discharged through a diffuser that rapidly dilutes effluent into the marine environment upon release.

3.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Catalyst Paper Ltd., Port Alberni Division conducted six sublethal toxicity tests between Winter 2007 and Summer 2009. Appendix A1 provides a summary of Port Alberni Cycle Five sublethal toxicity test results, including dose-response curves for all tests conducted.

3.2.1 Topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) Growth and Survival Tests

Topsmelt growth and survival tests were completed for the Winter 2007 through Winter 2008 test periods. Consistent with amendments to the PPER (Government of Canada, 2008), this test was no longer required after Winter 2008. For Port Alberni effluent, the topsmelt survival (LC50) and growth (IC25) endpoints were >100% v/v effluent (i.e., the highest concentration of effluent tested resulted in no observed effect), indicating no toxicity during the Cycle Five testing period (Figure 3.1, Figure 3.2). These results are similar to those observed in Cycle Four (Hatfield 2007a) (Figure 3.5).

3.2.2 Echinoderm Fertilization Test

Echinoderm fertilization results for the Summer 2006 test period (Cycle Four) are included in this report (Figure 3.3); these results were excluded from the Cycle Four report because brine controls failed the minimum survival criteria and results could not be obtained before the Cycle Four report was finalized.

Echinoderm (sand dollar and sea urchin) fertilization IC25s ranged from 20.5% to >100% v/v effluent in Cycle Five, with a geometric mean of 58.0% (Figure 3.3). Results indicate higher toxicity compared to Cycle Four (geometric mean IC25 64.6% v/v effluent). However, overall results show a trend of improving effluent quality since Cycle One (Figure 3.5). In general, the echinoderm fertilization (IC25) endpoints were variable and showed no increasing or decreasing trends for Cycle Five.


Figure 3.1 Effect of exposure to Catalyst Paper Ltd., Port Alberni Division effluent on Topsmelt early life stage survival expressed as LC50 ±95% confidence limits, EEM Cycle Five.

>100 >100 >100

0

20

40

60

80

100

23-Apr-07 9-Oct-07 7-Apr-08 8-Dec-08 14-Apr-09 17-Nov-09

Winter 2007 Summer 2007 Winter 2008 Summer 2008 Winter 2009 Summer 2009

LC50

(% e

fflue

nt)

Sublethal Toxicity Testing Period (with actual test date)

Test no longer required

Figure 3.2 Effect of exposure to Catalyst Paper Ltd., Port Alberni Division effluent on Topsmelt early life stage growth expressed as IC25 ±95% confidence limits, EEM Cycle Five.

>100 >100 >100

0

20

40

60

80

100

23-Apr-07 9-Oct-07 7-Apr-08 8-Dec-08 14-Apr-09 17-Nov-09


IC25

(% e

fflue

nt)


Test no longer required


Figure 3.3 Effect of exposure to Catalyst Paper Ltd., Port Alberni Division effluent on Echinoderm fertilization expressed as IC25 ±95% confidence limits, EEM Cycle Five.

50.8

20.5

93.2

63.4

79.6

>100

39.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

5-Mar-07 23-Apr-07 10-Dec-07 7-Apr-08 8-Dec-08 14-Apr-09 17-Nov-09

Summer 2006 Winter 2007 Summer 2007 Winter 2008 Summer 2008 Winter 2009 Summer 2009

IC25

(% e

fflue

nt)

Sublethal Toxicity Testing Period (with actual test date)Cycle Four

3.2.3 Algal (Champia parvula) Reproduction Test

The IC25 results and confidence limits for Cycle Five Champia parvula tests are summarized in Figure 3.4.

Effluent effects on reproduction (IC25) ranged from 1.8% to 19.9% with a geometric mean concentration of 5.4% v/v effluent. Results in Cycle Five indicate a decline in effluent quality compared with Cycle Three and Cycle Four (Figure 3.5). However, results show improved effluent quality compared to Cycle One and Cycle Two. Overall, results were variable and indicate no increasing or decreasing trend for Cycle Five. Dose-response curves were similar across all test periods and can be found in Appendix A1.

3.2.4 Potential Zone of Sublethal Effect

The 1% effluent zone for Catalyst Paper Ltd., Port Alberni Division, extends a radial distance of approximately 3,000 m from the effluent outfall (Hodgins et al. 1993). This radius is a conservative estimate based on dispersion influences of the Somass River and tides in Alberni Inlet. The effluent plume mixes with the Somass River in the harbor and extends throughout the harbor becoming evenly mixed laterally by the time it reaches Polly Point.


Figure 3.4 Effect of exposure to Catalyst Paper Ltd., Port Alberni Division effluent on Champia reproduction expressed as IC25 ±95% confidence limits, EEM Cycle Five.

10.6

19.9

6.51.8 2.0 5.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

23-Apr-07 9-Oct-07 7-Apr-08 6-Jan-09 25-May-09 17-Nov-09


IC25

(% e

fflue

nt)


Figure 3.5 Geometric means of IC25 and LC50 results from sublethal toxicity tests of Catalyst Paper Ltd, Port Alberni Division effluent for EEM Cycle One through Cycle Five.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

ent E

fflu

ent C

once

ntra

tion

Topsmelt early life stage survival (LC50)

Topsmelt early life stage growth (IC25)

Echinoderm survival (IC25)

Algal reproduction(IC25)

Cycle One Cycle Two Cycle Three Cycle Four Cycle Five


Table 3.1 Potential Zone of Sublethal Effect, Catalyst Paper Ltd., Port Alberni Division, EEM Cycle One through Cycle Five.

Sublethal Toxicity Test Species

IC25 or LC50 Geometric Mean (% v/v) Potential Zone of Sublethal Effect 1 (m)

Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5

Topsmelt2

Growth 67.2% 60.4% 77.9% >100% >100% 45m 50m 39m <30m <30m

Survival 67.2% 60.4% 77.9% >100% >100% 45m 50m 39m <30m <30m

Echinoderm Fertilization 4.3% 5.9% 55.1% 64.6%3 58.0% 703m 510m 54m 46m3 52m

Algal Reproduction 4.8% 0.8% 14.0% 16.1% 5.4% 628m 3,723m 214m 186m 553m

1 Based on 1% effluent zone of 3,000m. 2 Cycle Five geomeans and Potential Zones of Sublethal Effect for Topsmelt growth and survival are based on 3 test

periods. Testing for this species was no longer required after Winter 2008. 3 Echinoderm Fertilization test results for the Summer 2006 test period were excluded from this calculation in the Cycle

Four Interpretive Report because retest results were unavailable at the time the report was finalized. Values for Cycle Four presented here have been updated to include these results.

Table 3.1 presents the geometric means of IC25 results for each test species for Cycle One through Cycle Five, and the resulting potential zone of sublethal effect, calculated using the defined 1% effluent zone (3,000 m). Calculations of geometric means and potential zones of sublethal effect appear in Appendix A1.

A potential zone of sublethal effect for topsmelt cannot be calculated with any accuracy, as the IC25 and LC50 concentrations were always greater than the highest concentration tested. Consequently, the zone is shown as being less than the distance calculated (<30 m) assuming that the IC25 was equal to the highest concentration tested.

The zone of sublethal effect for echinoderm fertilization increased slightly relative to Cycle Four (from 46 m to 52 m); however, results show a 74% decrease in the zone of sublethal effect compared with Cycle One, indicating improved effluent quality overall.

The algae reproduction zone of sublethal effect increased significantly in Cycle Five compared with Cycle Four (from 186 m to 553 m). However, this result was well below the Cycle Two high of 3,723 m, indicating better effluent quality than early cycles (Figure 3.5).



3.3 CONCLUSIONS

The toxicity testing results contribute to the overall weight-of-evidence used to assess potential environmental effects of effluent discharges. When interpreting sublethal toxicity data it is important to keep in mind that laboratory toxicity test results may not accurately predict toxicity in receiving environments. Laboratory tests involve single species that may or may not be found in the study area, and there is an assumption that there is no background toxicity in the area. Furthermore, effluent plume dispersion and dilution vary due to tides and currents, and receiving waters and effluent quality characteristics vary seasonally or in other ways that could affect toxicity levels.

Sublethal effects of Port Alberni effluent were observed at average effluent concentrations of 5.4% or higher. Such concentrations have not been observed in Alberni Inlet, and would not be expected to occur beyond the immediate initial dilution zone surrounding the outfall.

Topsmelt early life stage survival (LC50) and growth (IC25) showed effluent quality equal to Cycle Four, and improved quality over all other testing cycles. Echinoderm and algal results for Cycle Five showed decreased effluent quality compared to Cycle Four, but generally results indicate reduced toxicity relative to early testing cycles (Table 3.1, Figure 3.5).

4.0 MAGNITUDE AND EXTENT STUDY

Summary of Magnitude and Extent Study for Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five:

The objective of the study was to address concerns regarding the oxidative state of sediments and its potential effects on water quality, fish and benthos in upper Alberni Inlet. This objective was achieved by sampling a grid of historical stations (Webb and McCullough 1991, Hatfield 2007a) for sediment quality and water quality profiles. The results were examined to determine the current magnitude and geographical extent of effects associated with the historical fibre mat, comparisons with the extent of the historical fibre mat 20 years prior, the influence of sediments on overlying water quality in the upper inlet, and the influence of water quality in the upper inlet on migrating salmon.

Sediments were slightly lower in organic content and less reducing further from the mill; near-bottom (i.e., within 1 m) DO was slightly better near the mill than further away.

A weak relationship between sediment redox potential and near-bottom water DO indicated that as sediment oxidative conditions became more impacted, DO in near-bottom water actually improved. No other sediment quality variables correlated with near-bottom DO, and when using C:N ratio as the effluent exposure gradient, sediment quality and near-bottom DO did not demonstrate effects.

Within 1km of the outfall, there was no relationship between redox potential and DO in near-bottom water. However, DO improved significantly with decreasing sulphides, TOC, TN (i.e., improved sediment quality).

Comparisons between 2009 and 1991 indicated that terrestrial organic matter from various sources (i.e., mill fibre, log booming) has declined over 20 years throughout the inlet.

In 2009, the terrestrial versus marine nature (i.e., C:N ratio) of organic content in upper-inlet sediments did not change considerably with distance from the outfall.

The current extent of the historical fibre mat near the sediment/water interface is ~ 0.29 to 0.56 km2. 20 years prior, a ~ 1.03km2 zone of effects was associated with the historical fibre mat; the exposed fibre mat has diminished by at least half its size in two decades.

Low DO water overtop the historical fibre mat in 2009 was confined to a small area of 0.21 km2, near the outfall and directly overtop the most grossly impacted sediment conditions.

Low DO water similar to that overtop the fibre mat was observed within a much larger area (3.56 km2) further down-inlet, from ~1km south of the outfall to > 1km south of Polly Point. Most of this area was characterized by normal to low impact sediment conditions, indicating that naturally low DO water is widespread throughout the lower layer of the mid to lower estuary and is not strongly related to sediment conditions.

Given the strong relationship between water quality variables throughout the water column, a density barrier preventing mixing between lower and upper layers, and the lack of relationship between sediment quality variables and DO in near-bottom water, sediment quality also likely does not influence oxygen in water column layers closer to the surface.

As migrating salmon move up-inlet toward the Somass River, they will likely encounter naturally low DO water at least 4 km south of the mill, extending north to Hohm Island (1.25 km south of the mill). North of here, starting at 1.25 km south of the outfall, however, there may be a higher DO corridor available to fish as they move up toward the river mouth. Within this corridor, summer temperatures reaching > 19 °C would likely be the predominant factor limiting migration.

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Historically, prior to the introduction of effluent treatment at the Alberni mill, effluent discharges contained significant amount of fibre (Seaconsult 1994). After several years of the fibre settling out to the sediments in the upper harbour, a


thick fibre mat formed that was characterized by elevated levels of organic content, anoxic conditions, and depauperate benthic communities (Hodgins 1989; Seaconsult 1994, 2002, 2002; Hatfield 2008).

Despite improving conditions in Alberni Harbour associated with mill upgrades, previous EEM surveys have indicated an effect on benthos associated with distance from the mill outfall. In Cycle Four, an IOC study into the effects on benthos was conducted along with a traditional benthic survey, which indicated that current benthic effects were principally a result of the historical fibre mat.

The oxidative state of sediments in upper Alberni Inlet remains a key concern with respect to effects on water quality, and in turn potential effects on fish and benthos in the area. Although recent EEM and water-column-monitoring programs have demonstrated improving environmental conditions in the upper inlet, a spatially extensive survey of oxidative state has not been conducted since the early 1990s, particularly with respect to sediment conditions and their potential effect on overlying waters.

A magnitude and extent study was performed near Port Alberni in Cycle Five to address concerns regarding the oxidative state of sediments in upper Alberni Inlet and its potential effects on water quality, and by association the potential for effects on fish and benthos. The survey was undertaken to satisfy EEM Cycle Five requirements, and was designed based on a 1991 sediment-coring study performed in the inlet (Webb and McCullough 1992) to enable temporal comparisons to be made. The Cycle Five program involved analyzing sediment and water quality at a grid of stations in order to evaluate the magnitude and geographical extent of effects, as well as identify relationships between sediments and overlying water quality in the upper inlet.

This section reports methods, results, and interpretations for the Cycle Five magnitude and extent study conducted in August 2009. This section follows the reporting guidelines recommended by Environment Canada for Cycle Five interpretive reports (Environment Canada 2005).

4.2 METHODS

4.2.1 Modifications to Sampling Design

No major changes to the sampling design were made relative to the Cycle Five design document (Hatfield 2009a).

4.2.2 Grid Design

A grid-based sampling design was used in Cycle Five to enable GIS spatial analyses of the magnitude and extent of effects on sediment and water quality in upper Alberni Inlet. The 1991 sediment-coring study involved sampling along a grid of 57 stations located throughout the eastern half of Alberni Harbour as part of a fibre mat quantity survey (Webb and McCullough 1992). The Cycle Five


study involved re-sampling a large number of these stations, as well as the eleven stations sampled during the EEM Cycle Four IOC, for a total of 47 stations (Figure 4.1).

4.2.3 Sampling Locations and Collection Dates

47 grid stations were sampled in Alberni Inlet from August 11 – 12 2009 (Figure 4.1). Sampling was undertaken in August to correspond with expected seasonal low DO values, high temperatures, and movement of sockeye salmon. Station locations were identical to those sampled in the 1991 Webb and McCullough study, and during the EEM Cycle Four IOC. A single sediment quality sample was collected at each station (with the exception of QA/QC triplicates performed at 10% randomly selected sites), as well as a single water quality depth profile (Table 4.1).

4.2.4 Field Sampling Procedures

4.2.4.1 Sampling Platform

Samples were collected by experienced Hatfield personnel from the MV Lobo, a custom-built 7-m aluminum vessel with dual 4-stroke 115hp Yamaha outboard engines designed specifically for marine sediment and marine habitat related work. The vessel was equipped with a hydraulic winch system, VHF radio, and all safety equipment required by Transport Canada. Station locations were determined using an on-board differentially corrected Global Positioning System (GPS) integrated with digital nautical charts. Depth at each sampling station was recorded from the depth sounder (sonar).

4.2.4.2 Sediment Quality Sampling

One sediment quality sample was collected at each of the 47 stations using a 20L stainless-steel Van Veen sediment grab sampler (sample area = 0.1 m2). At 10% of the stations (i.e., 5 stations), two additional replicate sediment samples were collected for QA/QC triplicate checks. Upon retrieval, each grab was allowed to sit in a plastic tub until all excess water had drained out. The grab doors were then opened, and the surface sediments were photographed and then the top 2 cm were subsampled for the following sediment chemistry variables:

Total organic carbon;

Total nitrogen;

Redox potential; and

Total sulphides.



Table 4.1 Sediment and water quality sampling locations and collections, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009.

Station Collection Date Coordinates1 Distance

(km) Depth

(m) Samples Collected Subsamples Submitted for Analyses

AG00 11-Aug-09 124° 49.114' W 49° 14.237' N 0.3 12.2 1 sed quality grab;

1 water quality profile 1 jar for analysis of TOC, TN (ALS)







AG03A 11-Aug-09 124° 49.097' W 49° 13.573' N 1.5 23.1 1 sed quality grab;
















B2 11-Aug-09 124° 49.450' W 49° 13.459' N 1.8 19.9 1 sed quality grab;


B6 11-Aug-09 124° 49.037' W 49° 13.455' N 1.8 25.0 1 sed quality grab;


C5 11-Aug-09 124° 49.177' W 49° 13.567' N 1.5 22.8 1 sed quality grab;


D4 11-Aug-09 124° 49.225' W 49° 13.641' N 1.4 20.0 3 sed quality grabs;

1 water quality profile 3 jars for analysis of TOC, TN (ALS)

E3 11-Aug-09 124° 49.342' W 49° 13.716' N 1.3 18.8 1 sed quality grab;


E4 11-Aug-09 124° 49.227' W 49° 13.730' N 1.3 19.5 3 sed quality grabs;


E6 11-Aug-09 124° 49.027' W 49° 13.721' N 1.3 21.2 1 sed quality grab;


F2 11-Aug-09 124° 49.403' W 49° 13.827' N 1.1 16.6 1 sed quality grab;


F4 11-Aug-09 124° 49.197' W 49° 13.815' N 1.1 18.2 3 sed quality grabs;


F6 11-Aug-09 124° 49.013' W 49° 13.786' N 1.2 20.3 1 sed quality grab;


G2 11-Aug-09 124° 49.447' W 49° 13.909' N 1.0 14.4 1 sed quality grab;


Table 4.1 (Cont’d.)

Station Collection Date Coordinates1 Distance (km)

Depth (m) Samples Collected Subsamples Submitted

for Analyses

G3 11-Aug-09 124° 49.294' W 49° 13.923' N 0.9 15.8 3 sed quality grabs;


G5 11-Aug-09 124° 49.131' W 49° 13.914' N 0.9 17.2 1 sed quality grab;


H3 12-Aug-09 124° 49.329' W 49° 13.985' N 0.8 13.1 1 sed quality grab;






I2 12-Aug-09 124° 49.460' W 49° 14.065' N 0.7 10.5 1 sed quality grab;






J3 12-Aug-09 124° 49.333' W 49° 14.146' N 0.5 11.3 1 sed quality grab;






K1 12-Aug-09 124° 49.460' W 49° 14.234' N 0.5 1.4 1 sed quality grab;








L5 12-Aug-09 124° 49.094' W 49° 14.323' N 0.2 11.4 3 sed quality grabs;


L6 12-Aug-09 124° 48.974' W 49° 14.327' N 0.2 9.2 1 sed quality grab;


M1 12-Aug-09 124° 49.395' W 49° 14.415' N 0.3 3.9 1 sed quality grab;






N4 12-Aug-09 124° 49.170' W 49° 14.493' N 0.2 4.2 1 sed quality grab;


O3 12-Aug-09 124° 49.349' W 49° 14.616' N 0.5 1.9 1 sed quality grab;


RM1 12-Aug-09 124° 49.145' W 49° 14.357' N 0.1 8.3 1 sed quality grab;


RM2 12-Aug-09 124° 49.096' W 49° 14.475' N 0.1 7.1 1 sed quality grab;


1 For triplicate grab locations, centroid was used; coordinates for individual grabs available from field data sheets.


Figure 4.1 Sediment and water quality sampling locations, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, 2009.

Polly Pt.Stamp Pt.

Hoik I.

Hohm I.

Alb

erni

Inle

t

AG2313 km


EffluentDischarge

Catalyst PaperAerated StabilizationBasin (Lagoon)

City of Port AlberniSewage Treatment Plant

Som

as R

iver

River

L5

G3

F4

E4

O3

M1

N4

M4 M5

L6

K1 K5 K4

K6

J7J5J3

I2 I4 I6

H7H5H3

G5G2

F2 F6

E6E3

C5

B6B2

RM1

D4

AG24

AG00

AG02

AG19

AG06

AG08

AG03A

AG19A

AG06A

AG03

AG01

RM2

124°48'30"W

124°48'30"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'30"W

124°49'30"W

124°50'0"W

124°50'0"W

124°50'30"W

49°1

5'0"

N

49°1

5'0"

N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

2'30

"N

49°1

2'30

"N


K:\Data\Project\PA1330\GIS\_MXD\B_InterpretiveReport\PA1330_B05_Sites_20100112.mxd

0 0.5 10.25Km

t

BC

Port Alberni

Sediment Zone(Hodgins 1989)#

Sewer Overflow

Sewer Outfall

Pulpmill

Stream Network

Waterbody

1% Effluent Concentration Zone

LEGEND

Scale1:27,000

Sampling Site

Total Sites: 48

Depth (metres)

Intertidal

0 - 20

20 - 50

50 - 100

A small top-2 cm sediment subsample was collected in a small plastic beaker and analyzed immediately in the field for redox potential and sulphides by Aquametrix Research (Courtenay BC). Aquametrix performed their analyses according to the BC Ministry of Environment Protocols for Marine Environmental Monitoring (BC MOE 2002). Also consulted in support of the provincial protocols were the Recommended Protocols for Measuring Conventional Sediment Variables in Puget Sound from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSEP 1986). Sulphide readings were taken using a ThermoOrion 290A plus pH/ion/mV meter and 9678BNWP probe; redox potential was analyzed using a VWR Symphony SP301 pH/ion/mV meter and a 9616BNWP probe by ThermoOrion. Appendix A5 presents a detailed explanation of chemical preparations, calibration techniques, analysis methods, and QA/QC protocols.

An additional top-2 cm sediment subsample was collected from the same grab and placed in a labeled 125-mL glass jar for analyses of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Total Nitrogen (TN).

All containers and lids were pre-labelled with the appropriate sample ID number using an indelible marker or adhesive sticker. Matching sample IDs were written on the data sheet for each station. Sediments to be analyzed for TOC, TN, and sediment grain size were shipped to ALS Environmental (Vancouver, BC) for analysis (Appendix A2).

After sampling at each station, the grab and other stainless steel equipment were scrubbed and rinsed with ambient seawater in order to avoid cross-contamination between stations.

4.2.4.3 Water Quality Sampling

A complete water quality profile was measured in situ at each of the 47 stations using a Hydrolab sonde. The sonde was lowered slowly by hand into the water by an experienced technician, and readings were taken every 1 m from the surface to within 1 m of the bottom (i.e., near-bottom) for the following variables:

Dissolved oxygen;

Temperature;

Salinity; and

Depth.

4.2.4.4 Data Loggers

In August 2009, continuous dissolved oxygen readings were measured for the BC Conservation Foundation (BCCF) in conjunction with Cycle Five EEM sediment quality studies performed on behalf of Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni mill (Henderson 2009). The objective of the work performed for BCCF was to obtain information on diurnal dissolved oxygen fluctuations in Alberni Harbour.


In order to collect detailed readings of dissolved oxygen in Alberni Harbour, four data capture devices (sondes) were rented from Hoskins Scientific in Vancouver BC and transported to Port Alberni, BC. Each data sonde was set up to continuously record dissolved oxygen readings as well as a number of other measurements, including: temperature, conductivity, total dissolved solids, and salinity. The data sondes were set to take continuous readings at 15-minute intervals at two stations in Alberni Harbour: one near the Catalyst Alberni outfall over the historical fibre mat (STN-1); and a second station (STN-2) just over 1 km down-inlet on the east side of the harbour (Figure 4.2). Readings were taken by suspending data sondes at two depths per station: one was suspended 1.5 meters from the surface and another was suspended 1 m from the bottom. Suspension of the data loggers was accomplished by tethering them to an anchor and counter-float system which allowed them to float at the desired depth, despite the changing tides.

The sondes were deployed just prior to low slack tide on the morning of August 11, 2009, and remained in the water for one complete semi-diurnal tidal cycle, between 26.25 and 27 hours (Table 4.2). Data sondes were retrieved just following low slack tide the following afternoon on August 12, 2009. Upon retrieval, data sondes were transported back to Vancouver, BC for download and data analysis.

Table 4.2 Data sonde recording duration at each sampling station in the vicinity of Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division (2009).

Station Depth Data Start Data End Data Total Time

STN - 1 (Outfall) Surface 08/11/09 9:45 AM* 08/12/09 12:00 PM 26.25 hours

Bottom 08/11/09 9:00 AM 08/12/09 12:00 PM 27.0 hours

STN - 2 (> 1km from outfall) Surface 08/11/09 9:30 AM 08/12/09 11:45 AM 26.25 hours

Bottom 08/11/09 9:15 AM 08/12/09 11:45 AM 26.5 hours

* Adjusted in water column following original deployment 1 hour earlier


Projection: UTM Zone 10 NAD83

K:\Data\Project\PA1538\GIS\_MXD\PA1538_DO_20091102.mxd

Figure 4.2 BCCF dissolved oxygen sampling stations in the vicinity of Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division (2009).

Stamp Narrows

Somass River

Polly Point

HohmIsland


Alb

erni

Inl

et

STN 1

STN 2

124°46'W

124°46'W

124°48'W

124°48'W

124°50'W

124°50'W

49°1

4'N

49°1

4'N

49°1

2'N

49°1

2'N

Depth (metres)

Intertidal

0 - 20

20 - 50

50 - 100

100 - 150

LEGEND

Pulpmill

!!Dissolved OxygenSampling Station

Mill Outfall

Aerated StabilizatonBasin (Lagoon)

Scale:

Map Extent

0 0.5 1km

t1:50,000

Sewer Outfall

Sewer Overflow

4.2.5 Analytical Approach

GIS analysis was used to evaluate the magnitude and geographical extent of effects, and was used along with statistical analyses to identify relationships between sediments and overlying water quality in the upper inlet.

4.2.5.1 GIS Analyses

Contour Maps

Contour maps were created for each of the following sediment and water quality variables in order to visualize and calculate the magnitude and extent of effects in the upper inlet:

TOC (sediment);

TN (sediment);

C:N Ratio (sediment);

Redox Potential (sediment);

Sulphides (sediment); and

Near-bottom (< 1m from bottom) dissolved oxygen (water).

A regular spaced grid was produced for each set of variable values, using an Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) function in the 3D Analyst module of ArcGIS. The eight nearest sample locations (neighbours) to each grid cell location were used in the calculation of the grid cell value. The output was a regularly spaced grid of 20x20 meter grid cells. Other interpolation methods were tested (e.g, Kriging and Splines) but based on a visual inspection of the results, the IDW method (with eight nearest neighbours) was selected as the most appropriate.

The grids were then used to generate visual contour maps using ESRI ArcGIS software. Contours were created based on equally spaced intervals, using graduated shading of grey (grayscale), whereby darker shades were used to represent more impacted conditions and lighter shades were associated with less impacted conditions. Contours were plotted separately for each variable on a base map of the Alberni Inlet study area.

Geospatial Correlations

Additional GIS analysis was performed to determine the nature of correlations between dissolved oxygen distributions near the bottom of the water column and sediment impact distributions according to redox potential.

The following degree-of-impact levels were used to classify redox potential, according to the sediment impact grading scheme suggested by the Pulp and


Paper EEM Guidance Document (Poole et al. 1978, Hargrave et al. 1995, cited in Environment Canada 2005):

Normal sediment conditions (>100 mV);

Low sediment impact or enrichment (0 to 100 mV);

Moderate to high sediment impact (-100 to 0 mV); and

Gross sediment impact (< -100 mV).

The following four categories were used to distribute dissolved oxygen values measured in near-bottom water (i.e., within 1m of bottom) into gradual intervals:

0 to 2 mg/L;

2 to 4 mg/L;

4 to 6 mg/L; and

6 and greater mg/L.

Other interval schemes were examined, but the 2 mg/L interval created the best illustration of the spatial distribution of dissolved oxygen.

For each sediment impact class based on redox potential, spatial distributions of each of the four dissolved oxygen level categories were compared. The spatial distribution of these comparisons was calculated using the Spatial Analyst Raster Calculator for ArcGIS.

Raster Calculator formulae used to compare “Normal sediment conditions” with each of the four categories of dissolved oxygen (DO) in near-bottom water were as follows:

Normal REDOX 02 = (( [redox] > 100) & ([DO] ≤ 2)) + (( [redox] > 100) * 10)

Normal REDOX 24 = (( [redox] > 100) & ([DO] > 2 & [DO] ≤ 4)) + (( [redox] > 100) * 10)

Normal REDOX 46 = (( [redox] > 100) & ([DO] > 4 & [DO] ≤ 6)) + (( [redox] > 100) * 10)

Normal REDOX 69 = (( [redox] > 100) & ([DO] > 6)) + (( [redox] > 100) * 10)

If redox potential was within the “Normal” range, the grid was assigned a value of 10. If redox potential was within the “Normal” range, and dissolved oxygen was within a given range (e.g., ≤2), then the grid cell at that location was assigned a value of 11. If redox potential was not within the “Normal” range, the grid cell was assigned a value of zero.


Similar formulae were applied for the other degree-of-impact levels associated with redox potential.

After producing the four grids for Normal REDOX / DO ≤2, Normal REDOX / DO>2 and DO≤4, Normal REDOX / DO>4 and DO ≤6, and Normal REDOX / DO >6, these grids were combined into a single grid using the following formula:

Normal Combined = normal REDOX 02 + ( 2 *normal REDOX 24) +( 3 * normal REDOX 46) + (4 * normal REDOX 69)

If all input grids at a specific grid cell location were zero, the Normal Combined grid cell value was zero. Zero therefore indicated no correlation between a given dissolved oxygen level and “Normal” redox potential. A value of 101 indicated a correlation with dissolved oxygen values ≤ 2, a value of 102 indicated a correlation with dissolved oxygen values >2 and ≤4, a value of 103 indicated a correlation with DO values >4 and ≤6, and a value of 104 indicated a correlation with DO values >6.

The Normal Combined grid was then symbolized using a shaded greyscale colour palette. White was used to indicate no correlation, dark grey symbolized correlation with DO ≤2, grey symbolized correlation with DO >2 and ≤4, light grey symbolized correlation with DO >4 and ≤6, and the lightest shade of grey was used to symbolize correlation with DO >6.

The Normal Combined grid was overlaid on the base map to produce the final output. The same procedure was repeated for “Low sediment impact or enrichment“, “Moderate to high sediment impact”, and “Gross sediment impact”.

Magnitude and Extent Calculations

Calculations were performed to obtain km2 for contour interval areas, geospatially correlated areas, and historical impact zones digitized from a Seaconsult study (Hodgins 1989).

Area calculations were performed in ArcGIS using the “Properties > Symbology” tool, a function that counts the number of grid cells corresponding to input value limits. This tool counts the number of grid cells, and then multiplies the result by the area of a single grid cell (20m x 20m = 0.0004 km2). For example, if ArcGIS counts the number of grid cells meeting the particular input criteria as 9,278, then the area meeting the criteria was calculated to be 9,278 * 0.0004 km2 = 3.7112 km2.

Cross-sectional Profiles of Water Column Quality

In order to generate a cross-sectional profile of water column quality throughout the upper inlet, a line of stations was selected through the middle of the sampling grid, extending from the mill outfall to the southern extent of the study area. This was achieved by first drawing a line from the outfall to past Polly Point that was visually close to a large number of sample locations. Next, a 50 m buffer was


generated around the line. All sample sites that were contained within the buffer area were selected for the vertical profile. South toward Polly Point where there were fewer sample locations to choose from, samples that were just outside the buffer but visually close to the buffer were also included in order to minimize large gaps in distance between sample points.

Stations located closest to the mid-line of the sampling grid were as follows:

M5 (0.054 km);

RM1 (0.086 km);

AG24 (0.172 km);

AG00 (0.310 km);

K4 (0.326 km);

J5 (0.534 km);

AG01 (0.572 km);

I4 (0.632 km);

H5 (0.766 km);

G5 (0.906 km);

F4 (1.090 km);

E4 (1.251 km);

D4 (1.415 km);

C5 (1.549 km);

AG19 (1.935 km);

AG06a (3.129 km);

AG08 (3.734 km); and

K6 (4.061 km)

A regular spaced grid of salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen values along a depth profile was generated using an Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) function in the 3D Analyst module of ArcGIS. The latitude coordinate was assigned to the X axis of the grid, and the depth value for each sample was assigned to the Y axis. The 6 nearest sample locations (neighbours) to each grid


cell location were used in the calculation of each grid cell value. The output was a regularly spaced grid of 5x5 meter grid cells. For purposes of visualization and formatting to fit on a single page, the vertical axis (depth) was then exaggerated by a factor of 2, and the horizontal dimension was reduced by 10.

Each vertically oriented grid was colour coded separately, using grayscale shading according to equally spaced intervals, and each formatted grid was placed into a single layout for visual comparison.

4.2.5.2 Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted using Excel 2003 and SYSTAT 11 (SPSS 2000).

Correlations

Spearman’s rank correlations were generated in SYSTAT and used to evaluate relationships among sediment quality variables, among water quality variables, and between water and sediment quality variables. Correlations with correlation coefficients (rs) greater than the critical rs (two-tailed, α = 0.10) were indicative of statistically significant relationships. Moderate correlations were defined as those ranging from |0.50| to |0.75|. Strong correlations were defined as those ranging from |0.75| to |1.00|.

Regression Analyses

Regression analyses generated in SYSTAT were used to determine if a gradient of effects on sediment quality and water quality was evident with the exposure gradient. Distance from the outfall and C/N ratio were used as indicators of pulpmill effluent exposure.

All tests were conducted at a significance level of α = 0.10 (Power = 0.90). Therefore, a significant effect was considered to be a relationship with p < 0.10. Residual plots were evaluated to ensure that following assumptions of the regression model had been met:

Equal variances: residual plots were examined to assess the evenness (homoscedasticity) of distributions of residual error estimates versus the values predicted by the model;

Normal distribution of data: residual plots were evaluated for normality, and the Studentized residual generated by SYSTAT was used to evaluate for the presence of outliers; and

Independent observations: the Durbin-Watson statistic generated by SYSTAT as a measure of autocorrelation was used to determine whether or not observations were independent from one another.

If data met regression assumptions, analyses were conducted using log10-transformed variables to see if the fit of the model could be improved. If the


fit was improved, results for log10-transformed variables were reported. If fit was not improved, results for untransformed variables were reported.

If data failed to meet regression assumptions, analyses were conducted using log10-transformed variables. If assumptions of the model were not met using the transformed variables, regressions were conducted using ranked data.

4.2.5.3 BCCF Data Logger Study

The results of the BCCF diurnal oxygen fluctuation study are summarized in this report, and used to aid with interpretation of the EEM data.

4.2.5.4 Temporal Trends

Results of the Cycle Five study were compared qualitatively with results of Webb and McCullough (1992) in order to evaluate temporal changes to effects associated with the mill in the upper inlet.

4.2.5.5 QA/QC

Triplicate samples collected at 10% of sampling stations were screened using QA/QC criteria from the BC Ministry of Environment Protocols for Marine Environmental Monitoring (BC MOE 2002). The protocols recommend using a 20% Relative Percent Difference for organic content variables, and therefore this was applied to the TOC and TN data. The protocols recommend assessing redox potential and sulphides graphically by plotting the two variables against one another to evaluate the relationship and any outliers.

4.3 RESULTS

Raw sediment and water quality data are presented in Appendix A3.

4.3.1 GIS Analyses

4.3.1.1 Contour Maps

Contour maps depicting spatial distributions of sediment quality variables and dissolved oxygen in near-bottom water (i.e., within 1 m of bottom) are presented in Figures 4.5 through 4.10. Areas of impact near the mill according to individual sediment and water quality variables were calculated from these contour maps (Table 4.3). Impact criteria for sediment quality variables were selected to be levels only observed near the mill (i.e., more impacted than background levels observed elsewhere in the study area). Given that low dissolved oxygen levels observed near the mill were also observed at several locations elsewhere in the inlet (i.e., similar to background), the lowest contour interval was designated as the impact criteria for dissolved oxygen.

Sediment Quality – Organic Content (Figures 4.5 to 4.7)

In the immediate vicinity of the outfall, contour maps showed a highly localized 0.3 km2 zone of elevated organic content (TOC: ≥ 8%, TN: ≥ 0.4 %), from a more


terrestrial source (CN: ≥ 25) (Figures 4.5 to 4.7; Table 4.3). Organic content declined gradually with distance down-harbour, reaching lower levels just south of Hoik Island (TOC: 4 to 6 %, TN: 0.2 to 0.3 %, CN: 13 to 22). Between Hoik Island and Polly Point, organic content remained relatively consistent. South of Polly Point, organic content and its terrestrial nature increased again somewhat (TOC: 6 to 8 %, TN: 0.3 to 0.4%, CN: 19 to 25).

Sediment Quality – Oxidative Conditions (Figures 4.8 to 4.9)

In the immediate vicinity of the outfall, contour maps showed a highly localized 0.38 – 0.56 km2 zone of more reducing sediments (redox: ≤ -150 mV, sulphides: ≥ 300 μMol) (Figures 4.8 and 4.9; Table 4.3). Sediment oxidative state improved with distance down-harbour to about 1 km away (> 0 mV, sulphides: < 100 μMol), and then remained relatively consistent until becoming slightly more reduced again south of Polly Point (redox: 0 to -150 mV, sulphides: 100 to 300 μMol).

Near-Bottom (< 1 m Bottom) Water Quality - Dissolved Oxygen (Figure 4.10)

In the immediate vicinity of the outfall, contour maps showed a localized 0.21 km2 zone of low near-bottom oxygen values (≤ 2 mg/L) (Figure 4.8; Table 4.3), increasing to 5+ mg/L with distance to the west shore and to 2 - 3 mg/L with distance down-harbour to about 1 km away. Levels south of 1 km declined again to remain below 2 mg/L within a large 3.57 km2 area until south of Polly Point where levels increased again within a somewhat localized area (2 - 3 mg/L).

The band of water toward the midline of the upper harbour, within the natural channel created by the Somass River that extends from Hoik Island up to the river mouth, is characterized by much higher levels of dissolved oxygen (3.5 - 8+ mg/L) (Figure 4.8).

Table 4.3 Areas of impact near the mill according to individual sediment and water quality variables, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009.

CategoryVariable

Sediment QualityC:N Ratio ≥ 25 0.32TOC ≥ 8% 0.29TN ≥ 0.4% 0.29Redox Potential ≤ -150 mV 0.38Sulphides ≥ 300 μMol 0.56

Water QualityDO* ≤ 2mg/L* 0.21*

* This level was also observed within a 3.71 km2 area south of Polly Point

Levels Only Observed Near Mill

Area (km2)


Figure 4.3 Spatial distribution of total organic carbon in Alberni Harbour sediments, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009.

Stamp Pt.

Hoik I.

Hohm I.

Alb

erni

Inle

t

AG2313 km




Som

as R

iver

River

Polly Pt.

124°48'30"W

124°48'30"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'30"W

124°49'30"W

124°50'0"W

124°50'0"W

124°50'30"W

49°1

5'0"

N

49°1

5'0"

N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

2'30

"N

49°1

2'30

"N


K:\Data\Project\PA1330\GIS\_MXD\B_InterpretiveReport\PA1330_B05_Sites_20100126_TOC v3.mxd

0 0.3 0.60.15Km

t

BC

Port Alberni

Sewer Overflow

Sewer Outfall

Pulpmill

Stream Network

Waterbody


LEGEND

Scale1:26,621

Depth (metres)

Intertidal

0 - 20

20 - 50

50 - 100

Total Organic Carbon (%)0 - 2

2 - 4

4 - 6

6 - 8

8 - 10

10 - 12

12 - 14

14 - 16

Effluent Discharge

Figure 4.4 Spatial distribution of total nitrogen in Alberni Harbour sediments, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009.

Stamp Pt.

Hoik I.

Hohm I.

Alb

erni

Inle

t

AG2313 km




Som

as R

iver

River

Polly Pt.

124°48'30"W

124°48'30"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'30"W

124°49'30"W

124°50'0"W

124°50'0"W

124°50'30"W

49°1

5'0"

N

49°1

5'0"

N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

2'30

"N

49°1

2'30

"N


K:\Data\Project\PA1330\GIS\_MXD\B_InterpretiveReport\PA1330_B05_Sites_20100126_TN v3.mxd

0 0.3 0.60.15Km

t

BC

Port Alberni

Sewer Overflow

Sewer Outfall

Pulpmill

Stream Network

Waterbody


LEGEND

Scale1:26,621

Depth (metres)

Intertidal

0 - 20

20 - 50

50 - 100

Total Nitrogen (%)

0.0 - 0.1

0.1 - 0.2

0.2 - 0.3

0.3 - 0.4

0.4 - 0.5

Effluent Discharge

Figure 4.5 Spatial distribution of C:N ratios in Alberni Harbour sediments, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009.

Stamp Pt.

Hoik I.

Hohm I.

Alb

erni

Inle

t

AG2313 km




Som

as R

iver

River

Polly Pt.

124°48'30"W

124°48'30"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'30"W

124°49'30"W

124°50'0"W

124°50'0"W

124°50'30"W

49°1

5'0"

N

49°1

5'0"

N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

2'30

"N

49°1

2'30

"N


K:\Data\Project\PA1330\GIS\_MXD\B_InterpretiveReport\PA1330_B05_Sites_20100126_CN Ratio v3.mxd

0 0.4 0.80.2Km

t

BC

Port Alberni

Sewer Overflow

Sewer Outfall

Pulpmill

Stream Network

Waterbody


LEGEND

Scale1:26,764

Depth (metres)

Intertidal

0 - 20

20 - 50

50 - 100

C:N Ratio

10 - 13

13 - 16

16 - 19

19 - 22

22 - 25

25 - 28

28 - 31

31 - 34

34 - 37

Effluent Discharge

Figure 4.6 Spatial distribution of redox potential in Alberni Harbour sediments, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009.

Stamp Pt.

Hoik I.

Hohm I.

Alb

erni

Inle

t

AG2313 km




Som

as R

iver

River

Polly Pt.

124°48'30"W

124°48'30"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'30"W

124°49'30"W

124°50'0"W

124°50'0"W

124°50'30"W

49°1

5'0"

N

49°1

5'0"

N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

2'30

"N

49°1

2'30

"N


K:\Data\Project\PA1330\GIS\_MXD\B_InterpretiveReport\PA1330_B05_Sites_20100126_REDOX v3.mxd

0 0.3 0.60.15Km

t

BC

Port Alberni

Sewer Overflow

Sewer Outfall

Pulpmill

Stream Network

Waterbody


LEGEND

Scale1:26,621

Depth (metres)

Intertidal

0 - 20

20 - 50

50 - 100

Redox Potential (mV)

-300 to -250

-250 to -200

-200 to -150

-150 to -100

-100 to -50

-50 to 0

1 to 50

50 to 100

100 to 150+

Effluent Discharge

Figure 4.7 Spatial distribution of sulphides in Alberni Harbour sediments, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009.

Stamp Pt.

Hoik I.

Hohm I.

Alb

erni

Inle

t

AG2313 km




Som

as R

iver

River

Polly Pt.

124°48'30"W

124°48'30"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'30"W

124°49'30"W

124°50'0"W

124°50'0"W

124°50'30"W

49°1

5'0"

N

49°1

5'0"

N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

2'3

0"N

49°1

2'30

"N


K:\Data\Project\PA1330\GIS\_MXD\B_InterpretiveReport\PA1330_B05_Sites_20100126_sulphides v3.mxd

0 0.3 0.60.15Km

t

BC

Port Alberni

Sewer Overflow

Sewer Outfall

Pulpmill

Stream Network

Waterbody


LEGEND

Scale1:26,710

Depth (metres)

Intertidal

0 - 20

20 - 50

50 - 100

Sulphides (uMol)

0 - 100

100 - 200

200 - 300

300 - 400

400 - 500

500 - 600

600 - 700

700 - 800

800 - 900

900 - 1,000

1,000 - 6,000

Effluent Discharge

Figure 4.8 Spatial distribution of near-bottom dissolved oxygen in the Alberni Harbour water column, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009.

Stamp Pt.

Hoik I.

Hohm I.

Alb

erni

Inle

t

AG2313 km




Som

as R

iver

River

Polly Pt.

124°48'30"W

124°48'30"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'30"W

124°49'30"W

124°50'0"W

124°50'0"W

124°50'30"W

49°1

5'0"

N

49°1

5'0"

N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

2'30

"N

49°1

2'30

"N


K:\Data\Project\PA1330\GIS\_MXD\B_InterpretiveReport\PA1330_B05_Sites_20100126_dissolved oxygen v3.mxd

0 0.3 0.60.15Km

t

BC

Port Alberni

Sewer Overflow

Sewer Outfall

Pulpmill

Stream Network

Waterbody


LEGEND

Scale1:26,735

Depth (metres)

Intertidal

0 - 20

20 - 50

50 - 100

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)0.5 - 1

1.0 - 1.5

1.5 - 2

2.0 - 2.5

2.5 - 3

3.0 - 3.5

3.5 - 4

4.0- 4.5

4.5 - 5+

Effluent Discharge


4.3.1.2 Geospatial Correlations

Spatial correlations between near-bottom (i.e., within 1m of bottom) dissolved oxygen distributions in the water column and sediment impact distributions according to redox potential are presented in Figure 4.9.

Normal sediment conditions (redox > 100 mV) were only present at three stations south of Polly Point; these areas, totaling 0.15 km2, correlated with regions of low dissolved oxygen in near-bottom water (≤ 2 mg/L).

Low impact sediment conditions (redox > 0 mV and < 100 mV) were present throughout the majority of the area extending from just north of Hohm Island to south of Polly Point. This area totaled 2.83 km2; the majority of the area (2.81 km2) correlated with low dissolved oxygen in near-bottom water (≤ 2 mg/L), and a more minor portion (0.02 km2) closer to the mill correlated with dissolved oxygen > 2 to < 4 mg/L.

A 0.38 km2 zone of moderate to highly impacted sediment conditions (redox < 0 mV and > -100 mV) was present further up-inlet from the zone of low impact, between about 250 m and 1.4 km from the outfall. The southernmost 0.08 km2

portion of this zone corresponded with low dissolved oxygen in near-bottom water (≤ 2 mg/L), while the remainder corresponded with higher oxygen levels increasing with proximity to the outfall (> 2 to > 5 mg/L). Another zone of moderate to highly impacted sediments was present further down-inlet, south of Polly Point near an eastern station. This zone was approximately 0.68 km2 and correlated with dissolved oxygen ≤ 4 mg/L.

A 0.79 km2 zone of grossly impacted sediment conditions (redox < -100 mV) was present closest to the outfall. 0.20 km2 of this zone correlated with low dissolved oxygen in near-bottom water (≤ 2 mg/L) in the immediate vicinity of the outfall, increasing incrementally with distance to reach > 2 to > 5 mg/L at the outer edges of this area 650 - 900 m away. South of Polly Point, an isolated, small 0.05 km2 zone of grossly impacted sediment conditions was present at the center of the previously mentioned zone of moderate to highly impacted conditions. This region corresponded to dissolved oxygen > 2 and ≤ 4 mg/L in near-bottom water.

Figure 4.9 Spatial correlations between near-bottom dissolved oxygen distributions in the water column and sediment impact distributions according to redox potential, Port Alberni Cycle Five EEM, 2009.

Stamp Pt.

Hohm I.

Alb

erni

Inle

t

PollyPt.

124°49'0"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'30"W

124°49'30"W

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

2'30

"N

49°1

2'30

"N


K:\Data\Project\PA1330\GIS\_MXD\B_InterpretiveReport\PA1330_B05_Sites_20100211_REDOX vs DO v4.mxd

0 0.3 0.60.15Km t

BC

Port Alberni

Scale

Water DO (mg/L) levelcorrelating with sediment

impact grade

No correlation

<=2

> 2 and <=4

>4 and <=6

>6

Stamp Pt.

Hohm I.

Alb

erni

Inle

t

PollyPt.

124°49'0"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'30"W

124°49'30"W

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

2'30

"N

49°1

2'30

"N

Stamp Pt.

Hohm I.

Alb

erni

Inle

t

PollyPt.

124°49'0"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'30"W

124°49'30"W

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

2'30

"N

49°1

2'30

"N

Stamp Pt.

Hohm I.

Alb

erni

Inle

t

PollyPt.

124°49'0"W

124°49'0"W

124°49'30"W

124°49'30"W

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'30

"N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

4'0"

N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'30

"N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

3'0"

N

49°1

2'30

"N

49°1

2'30

"N

Normal sediment conditions(redox > 100 mV)

Low impact sediment conditions(0 < redox < 100 mV)

Moderate to high impact sediment conditions (-100 < redox < 0 mV)

Grossly impacted sedimentconditions (redox < -100 mV)

Mill Outfall

4.3.1.3 Cross-sectional Profiles of Water Column Quality

Cross-sectional depth profiles of water quality from the mill outfall to 4.3 km down-inlet are presented in Figure 4.10.

Halocline

In an estuary, the halocline represents a layer of rapid salinity increase over depth between the upper and lower layers of the water column, characterized by an associated increase in density and decrease in temperature. This sharp density gradient acts as a barrier to vertical mixing between the layers, therefore influencing distributions of water quality characteristics such as dissolved oxygen. In Alberni Inlet, the upper layer (above the halocline) generally represents freshwater discharge from the Somass River, while the lower, more saline layer (below the halocline) represents seawater carried up-inlet from the Pacific Ocean. Currents in Alberni Inlet are characteristic of typical estuarine circulation, with the river-driven upper layer flowing out of the inlet, and the lower saline layer exhibiting a net inflow up the inlet.

Above the Halocline

Salinity and temperature profiles generated from data collected in August 2009 demonstrate the natural estuarine conditions present in Alberni Inlet (Figure 4.10). Consistent with annual dissolved oxygen monitoring reports (Seaconsult 2002; Hatfield 2005, 2006, 2007b, 2008, 2009b), the summer halocline rested at approximately 5 m depth throughout the extent of the upper inlet. Similarly, a strong temperature and dissolved oxygen gradient was also consistently observable at 5 m depth; beyond 5 m, both variables declined significantly with depth into the lower layer. Also consistent with annual monitoring reports, both salinity and dissolved oxygen in the upper layer during the summer of 2009 appeared to be largely governed by the supply of well-oxygenated, riverine freshwater versus more poorly oxygenated saline seawater inputs, and mixing with deeper layers. A freshwater lens was apparent on the surface of the inlet during the summer 2009 EEM program, as indicated by low levels of salinity and high levels of dissolved oxygen (Figure 4.10). This lens was thickest near the mouth of the river (i.e., near the outfall), and declined gradually in thickness with distance down-inlet. The outflowing freshwater lens in the summer of 2009 appeared to extend to approximately 1.7 km south of the mill outfall, at which point salinity and dissolved oxygen gradients within the upper layer of the water column remained relatively consistent throughout the rest of the upper inlet (Figure 4.10).

Below the Halocline

Below the halocline, salinity and temperature gradients during the summer 2009 EEM program remained relatively consistent (Figure 4.10). Annual monitoring reports have found that in the lower water layer of Alberni Inlet, below the halocline, salinity is largely influenced by the supply of saline water from down-inlet (seawater salinity is typically 35 ppt), as well as some mixing of



fresher water from upper layers (Hatfield 2005, 2006, 2007b, 2008, 2009b). Lower layer salinity tends to be higher (30-35 ppt), during the drier, warmer summer months when saline seawater influxes are more dominant than freshwater inputs, and mixing from the fresher upper layer is less prevalent.

Dissolved oxygen below the halocline is also governed by the up-inlet influx of deep, less-well-oxygenated saline water from down-inlet versus the mixing of more oxygenated water from upper layers of the estuary. Within this lower layer, the oxygen budget is also influenced by oxygen demand from a number of other sources, which vary depending on location: the historical wood fibre mat near the mill, confounding BOD inputs from municipal sewage near the mill, wood processing and log boom debris at varying locations down-inlet, natural organic matter in the water column and sediments, and to a lesser extent from current effluent biosolids (Hatfield 2009b). During the 2008 annual oxygen monitoring program, it was found that oxygen concentrations in the lower layer, particularly near the bottom, appeared to actually be somewhat higher near the mill outfall than further down the harbour near Hohm Island and Polly Point, and were more similar to concentrations 5 km from the mill (Hatfield 2009b). Similarly, during the 2009 EEM Cycle Five sampling program, low dissolved oxygen near the mill was confined to a localized area within 500 m of the outfall, while a much more significant proportion of the lower layer further down-inlet south of Hohm Island was characterized by low dissolved oxygen (Figure 4.10).

K6

AG08

AG06a

AG19 C5 D4 E4 F4 G5 H5 I4

AG01

J5 AG00K4AG24

RM1

M4M

5

Salinity (ppt)

11.5 - 14.5

14.5 - 17.5

17.5 - 20.5

20.5 - 23.5

23.5 - 26.5

26.5 - 29.5

29.5 - 32.5

North (Outfall)South (Down-inlet from Outfall)

Figure 4.10 Cross-sectional depth profiles of water quality from the mill outfall to 4.3 km down-inlet, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009.

K6

AG08

AG06a

AG19 C5 D4 E4 F4 G5 H5 I4

AG01

J5 AG00K4AG24

RM1

M4M

5

K6

AG08

AG06a

AG19

C5 D4 E4 F4 G5 H5 I4

AG01

J5 AG00K4AG24

RM1

M4M

5

Temperature (C)8 - 10

10 - 12

12 - 14

14 - 16

16 - 18

DO (mg/L)0 - 1

1 - 2

2 - 3

3 - 4

4 - 5

5 - 6

6 - 7

0

-4

-8

-12

-16

-20

-24

-32

-36

-44

-28

-40

Dep

th (

m)

500 m1000 m1500 m2000 m2500 m3000 m3500 m4000 m 0 m

0

-4

-8

-12

-16

-20

-24

-32

-36

-44

-28

-40

Dep

th (

m)

0

-4

-8

-12

-16

-20

-24

-32

-36

-44

-28

-40

Dep

th (

m)

Source: K:\Data\Project\PA1330\GIS\_MXD\DO salinity temp profile rescaled v2.mxd

0 m

0 m

Hohm I.Polly Pt.

500 m1000 m1500 m2000 m2500 m3000 m3500 m4000 m

500 m1000 m1500 m2000 m2500 m3000 m3500 m4000 m

Hohm I.Polly Pt.

Hohm I.Polly Pt.

4.3.2 Statistical Analyses

4.3.2.1 Correlations

Correlations Among and Between Sediment Quality and Near-Bottom Water Quality (Throughout Study Area)

Results of Spearman rank correlations among and between sediment and near-bottom water quality variables measured at all stations are presented in Table 4.4.

In the sediments, a strongly significant inverse correlation was observed between redox potential and sulphides, and a strongly significant positive correlation was observed between TOC and TN. A moderately significant inverse correlation was observed between TN and redox potential, and moderately significant positive correlations were present between TN and sulphides, and between TOC and C:N ratio.

Near the bottom of the water column (within 1 m), a strongly significant inverse correlation was observed between salinity and temperature, a moderately significant negative correlation was observed between salinity and dissolved oxygen, and a moderately significant positive correlation was observed between temperature and dissolved oxygen.

Between the sediments and the near-bottom layer of the water column, a strongly significant positive correlation was observed between redox potential (sediments) and salinity (water). Moderately significant inverse correlations were observed between redox potential (sediments) and temperature (water), and between sulphides (sediments) and salinity (water). A moderately significant positive correlation was observed between sulphides (sediments) and temperature (water). The relationship between redox potential (sediments) and dissolved oxygen (water) was inversely significant, but extremely weak, as demonstrated by the graphical relationship in Figure 4.11. Similarly, the inverse relationship between TOC (sediments) and dissolved oxygen (water) was significant but visually indecipherable (Figure 4.11). No other relationships between sediment and near-bottom water quality variables were significant (Table 4.4, Figure 4.11).

Correlations Between Sediment Quality and Near-Bottom Water Quality (Within 1km of Outfall)

Given the absence of any relevant, strongly significant relationships between sediment quality and near-bottom water quality throughout the study area, a second set of correlations were performed on a more localized area nearer to the outfall (within 1 km). The results of Spearman rank correlations among sediment and near-bottom water quality variables measured at stations within 1 km of the outfall are presented in Table 4.5.



No significant correlation was found between sediment redox potential and dissolved oxygen in near-bottom water within 1 km of the outfall; this lack of relationship is also observable graphically (Figure 4.12). Moderately significant inverse correlations were observed between dissolve oxygen in near-bottom water and sediment sulphides, TOC, and TN within 1 km of the outfall (Table 4.5); these relationships appeared to be exaggerated by two isolated higher dissolved oxygen values observed at low concentrations of the three sediment quality variables (Figure 4.12).

No significant relationships were observed between any sediment quality variables and near-bottom water salinity and temperature within 1 km of the outfall; the strong correlation identified between sediment redox potential and near-bottom salinity using all stations in the study area (Table 4.4) was not significant nor observable within 1 km of the outfall (Table 4.5).

Correlations Among Water Quality Variables in the Water Column

The results of Spearman rank correlations among water quality variables measured throughout the water column at all stations are presented in Table 4.6.

Relationships among all water quality variables throughout the water column were significant: a moderately significant inverse correlation was identified between dissolved oxygen and salinity, a moderately significant positive correlation was observed between dissolved oxygen and temperature, and a strongly significant inverse correlation was present between salinity and temperature.

Table 4.4 Results of Spearman rank correlations (rs) among all sediment and near-bottom water quality variables at all stations (n = 47), Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009.

Redox Sulphides TOC TN C:N DO Salinity Temp.

Sediment QualityRedox

Sulphides -0.828Total Organic Carbon (TOC) -0.375 0.475Total Nitrogen (TN) -0.534 0.600 0.870Carbon:Nitrogen (C:N) 0.078 -0.052 0.532 0.183

Near-bottom Water QualityDissolved Oxygen (DO) -0.404 0.177 -0.243 -0.069 -0.227

Salinity 0.760 -0.632 -0.200 -0.324 0.024 -0.578Temperature (Temp.) -0.744 0.626 0.189 0.309 -0.051 0.637 -0.979

<bold> statistically significant correlation (> critical value |0.243| for n=47)<bold> moderate correlation (i.e., 0.5 < rs < 0.75)<bold> strong correlation (i.e., rs > 0.75)

Near-bottom Water QualitySediment Quality

Table 4.5 Results of Spearman rank correlations (rs) among sediment and near-bottom water quality variables at stations within 1 km of the outfall (n = 28), Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009.

Redox Sulphides TOC TN C:N

Near-bottom Water QualityDissolved Oxygen (DO) 0.294 -0.686 -0.737 -0.607 -0.284

Salinity 0.245 -0.255 -0.113 -0.150 -0.043Temperature (Temp.) -0.264 0.295 0.134 0.167 0.043


Sediment Quality


Figure 4.11 Scatterplots showing Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) and best-fit regression line between untransformed sediment quality variables and dissolved oxygen measured in near-bottom water at all stations, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009.

Redox and DO

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

‐300.00 ‐200.00 ‐100.00 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00

Redox

DO (m

g/L)

Sulphides and DO

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0.00 1000.00 2000.00 3000.00 4000.00 5000.00 6000.00 7000.00

Sulphides (μMol)

DO (m

g/L)

rs = 0.177

Total Organic Carbon and DO

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

TOC (%)

DO (m

g/L)

rs = ‐0.243

Total Nitrogen and DO

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700

TN (%)

DO (m

g/L)

rs = ‐0.069

C:N Ratio and DO

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

C:N Ratio

DO (mg/L)

rs = ‐0.227

rs = ‐0.404


Figure 4.12 Scatterplots showing Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) and best-fit regression line between untransformed sediment quality variables and dissolved oxygen measured in near-bottom water at stations within 1 km of the outfall, Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009.

Redox and DO (< 1km)

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

‐300.00 ‐200.00 ‐100.00 0.00 100.00

Redox

DO (m

g/L)

Sulphides and DO (< 1km)

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0.00 1000.00 2000.00 3000.00 4000.00 5000.00 6000.00 7000.00

Sulphides (μMol)

DO (m

g/L)

rs = ‐0.686

TOC and DO (< 1km)

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

TOC (%)

DO (m

g/L)

rs = ‐0.737

Total Nitrogen and DO (< 1km)

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700

TN (%)

DO (m

g/L)

rs = ‐0.607

C:N Ratio and DO (< 1km)

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

C:N Ratio

DO (mg/L)

rs = ‐0.284

rs = 0.294


Table 4.6 Results of Spearman rank correlations (rs) among water quality variables throughout the water column (n = 595), Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Salinity Temperature (Temp.)

DO

Salinity -0.687Temp 0.721 -0.981


Water Column Quality

4.3.2.2 Regression Analyses

Results of regression analyses performed to test relationships between sediment quality, near-bottom water quality, and the exposure gradient (both according to distance from the outfall, and C:N ratio as a surrogate) are summarized in Table 4.7.

Regressions Using Distance From Outfall as Exposure Gradient

When distance from the outfall was used as the exposure gradient in upper Alberni Inlet, several water and sediment quality variables showed significant effects (Table 4.7).

The following variables declined significantly with distance from the outfall: Dissolved oxygen in near-bottom water exhibited a significant but weak decline (rs = -0.365) with distance. Temperature and salinity both demonstrated strongly significant relationships with distance; temperature decreased further from the mill (rs = -0.830), while salinity increased (rs = 0.843).

In sediments, TOC and TN both demonstrated significant but weak declines with distance from the outfall (rs = -0.341 and -0.446, respectively). Sulphides declined moderately significantly with distance (rs = 0.729), and redox potential exhibited a strongly significant increasing relationship with distance from the outfall (rs = 0.791).

Regressions Using C:N Ratio as Exposure Gradient

When C:N ratio was used as a surrogate for the exposure gradient, only one variable showed significant effects: TOC significantly moderately increased with C:N ratio (rs = 0.532; Table 4.7).


Table 4.7 Results of regression analyses (n=47) between near-bottom water quality, sediment quality, and exposure gradient (both distance from the outfall and C:N ratio), Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five, August 2009.

Category p -value for Direction of Strength ofDependent Variable F-test Regression Equation r r2 rs Effect?1 Effect Effect2

EXPOSURE GRADIENT: DISTANCE FROM OUTFALL

Water Quality

Dissolved Oxygen 0.012 rank DO = 32.563 - 0.361*rank distance - - -0.365 Yes decrease with distance WeakTemperature 0.000 rank temp = 43.855 - 0.831*rank distance - - -0.830 Yes decrease with distance StrongSalinity 0.000 rank salinity = 3.728 + 0.836*rank distance - - 0.843 Yes increase with distance Strong

Sediment Quality

Total Organic Carbon 0.019 rank TOC = 32.161 - 0.342*rank distance - - -0.341 Yes decrease with distance WeakTotal Nitrogen 0.001 rank TN = 34.703 - 0.453*rank distance - - -0.446 Yes decrease with distance WeakCarbon:Nitrogen 0.916 rank C:N = 24.380 - 0.016*rank distance - - -0.016 No - None

Redox 0.000 rank redox = 5.026 + 0.791*rank distance - - 0.791 Yes increase with distance StrongSulphides 0.000 rank sulphides = 41.503 - 0.729*rank distance - - -0.729 Yes decrease with distance Moderate

EXPOSURE GRADIENT: C:N RATIO

Water Quality

Dissolved Oxygen 0.123 rank DO = 29.358 - 0.228*rank C:N - - -0.227 No - NoneTemperature 0.754 rank temperature = 25.044 - 0.047*rank C:N - - -0.051 No - NoSalinity 0.869 rank salinity = 23.196 + 0.025*rank C:N - - 0.024 No - No

Sediment Quality

Total Organic Carbon 0.000 rank TOC = 11.144 + 0.534*rank C:N - - 0.532 Yes increase with C:N ratio ModerateTotal Nitrogen 0.210 rank TN = 19.364 + 0.186*rank C:N - - 0.183 No - NoneRedox 0.601 rank redox = 22.124 + 0.078*rank C:N - - 0.078 No - NoneSulphides 0.727 rank sulphides = 25.257 - 0.052*rank C:N - - -0.052 No - None

Bolded entries represent statistically significant relationships (α = 0.10).r = Pearson's correlation coefficient (parametric correlations).r2 = coefficient of determination.rs = Spearman's correlation coefficient (non-parametric correlations).1 p < 0.102 Strength evaluated using Spearman rank correlation coefficient: weak correlation (rs < 0.5), moderate correlation (i.e., 0.5 < rs < 0.75), strong correlation (i.e., rs > 0.75)


4.3.3 BCCF Data Logger Study

In August 2009, continuous dissolved oxygen readings were measured for the BC Conservation Foundation (BCCF) in conjunction with EEM Cycle Five sediment quality studies performed on behalf of Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni mill. The objective of the work performed for BCCF was to obtain information on diurnal dissolved oxygen fluctuations in Alberni Harbour. Detailed results of the BCCF data logger study are presented in the full report (Henderson 2009). Summaries of the results and how they are relevant to the Cycle Five EEM study are provided below.

Study Summary

As discussed in Section 4.3.1.3, the upper layer of the water column (above the halocline) in Alberni Inlet is generally comprised of freshwater discharge from the Somass River, while the lower, more saline layer (below the halocline) consists of seawater carried up-inlet from the ocean. Currents in Alberni Inlet are characteristic of typical estuarine circulation, with the river-driven upper layer flowing out of the inlet, and the lower saline layer exhibiting a net inflow up the inlet.

Overall, the results of the BCCF monitoring program confirmed observations made during this EEM Cycle Five study and during past annual dissolved oxygen monitoring programs performed for the Catalyst, Port Alberni mill (e.g., Seaconsult 1992, 1994; Hatfield 2005, 2006, 2007b, 2008): salinity at the surface relative to the near-bottom layer was lower, and dissolved oxygen was higher. These two variables fluctuated with the rising and ebbing tides and, for the most part, exhibited an inverse relationship (i.e., increased salinity was associated with decreased oxygen, and vice versa). These observations are consistent with the concept that fresher water outflow closer to the surface from the Somass River is more oxygenated than deeper, more saline seawater intruding up-inlet along the bottom, and the balance between these two opposing flows varies with the changing tides. In general, daily ranges in dissolved oxygen at both stations were much greater near the surface than near the bottom, given the greater range in salinity concentrations in this layer during the fluctuating tides (Figure 4.13 to Figure 4.16).

Sampling station locations were chosen to determine the difference in dissolved oxygen levels relative to proximity to the mill’s outfall, and the associated historical fibre mat. Given the dominance of the freshwater lens from the Somass River, surface layer salinity concentrations closer to the river mouth at STN-1 were slightly lower overall than those observed further down-harbour at STN-2. Correspondingly, dissolved oxygen concentrations were slightly higher. Therefore, it can be concluded that in the surface layer of the water, the historical fibre mat did not demonstrate any obvious impact. Near the bottom of the water column, the opposite was true: dissolved oxygen concentrations were slightly lower near the outfall (STN-1) than further down-harbour (STN-2). Given that STN-1 was located at the most concentrated portion of the fibre mat, it can be concluded that dissolved oxygen was at least somewhat influenced


by the decomposing, deoxygenating historical deposits. This conclusion supports conclusions made in previous oxygen monitoring reports (Seaconsult 1992, 1994; Hatfield 2005, 2006, 2007b, 2008) and during the Cycle Five EEM study.

Figure 4.13 Diurnal fluctuations in salinity, dissolved oxygen, and tidal height at STN-1 (Catalyst Alberni outfall), 1.5 m from surface, Aug 11 – 12, 2009.

6

10

14

18

22

26

30

34

9:45

11:15

12:45

14:15

15:45

17:15

18:45

20:15

21:45

23:15

0:45

2:15

3:45

5:15

6:45

8:15

9:45

11:15

Salinity

(ppt)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Dissolved Oxygen (m

g/L)

Salinity (ppt) DO (mg/L)

0.00.51.01.5

2.02.53.03.5

9:45

11:15

12:45

14:15

15:45

17:15

18:45

20:15

21:45

23:15

0:45

2:15

3:45

5:15

6:45

8:15

9:45

11:15

Time

Est. Tidal Height (m)

Est. Tidal height (m)


Figure 4.14 Diurnal fluctuations in salinity, dissolved oxygen, and tidal height at STN-1 (Catalyst Alberni outfall), 1 m from bottom, Aug 11 – 12, 2009.

6

10

14

18

22

26

30

34

9:00

10:30

12:00

13:30

15:00

16:30

18:00

19:30

21:00

22:30

0:00

1:30

3:00

4:30

6:00

7:30

9:00

10:30

12:00

Salinity

(ppt)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Dissolved Oxygen (m

g/L)


0.00.51.01.5

2.02.53.03.5

9:00

10:30

12:00

13:30

15:00

16:30

18:00

19:30

21:00

22:30

0:00

1:30

3:00

4:30

6:00

7:30

9:00

10:30

12:00

Time




Figure 4.15 Diurnal fluctuations in salinity, dissolved oxygen, and tidal height at STN-2 (>1 km from outfall), 1.5 m from surface, Aug 11 – 12, 2009.

6

10

14

18

22

26

30

34

9:30

11:00

12:30

14:00

15:30

17:00

18:30

20:00

21:30

23:00

0:30

2:00

3:30

5:00

6:30

8:00

9:30

11:00

Salinity

(ppt)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Dissolved Oxygen (m

g/L)


0.00.51.01.5

2.02.53.03.5

9:30

11:00

12:30

14:00

15:30

17:00

18:30

20:00

21:30

23:00

0:30

2:00

3:30

5:00

6:30

8:00

9:30

11:00

Time




Figure 4.16 Diurnal fluctuations in salinity, dissolved oxygen, and tidal height at STN-2 (>1 km from outfall), 1 m from bottom, Aug 11 – 12, 2009.

6

10

14

18

22

26

30

34

9:15

10:45

12:15

13:45

15:15

16:45

18:15

19:45

21:15

22:45

0:15

1:45

3:15

4:45

6:15

7:45

9:15

10:45

Salinity

(ppt)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Dissolved Oxygen (m

g/L)


0.00.51.01.5

2.02.53.03.5

9:15

10:45

12:15

13:45

15:15

16:45

18:15

19:45

21:15

22:45

0:15

1:45

3:15

4:45

6:15

7:45

9:15

10:45

Time



Relevancy to EEM Cycle Five

The BCCF data logger study was performed in order to obtain information on diurnal, summer dissolved oxygen fluctuations in Alberni Harbour. Given that the EEM Cycle Five data was collected as snapshot data (i.e., one time of day only), the results of the diurnal study were used to determine if tidal cycle could potentially be a hidden, confounding factor influencing the EEM results.

Cycle Five statistical and geospatial analyses focussed on identifying and evaluating relationships between sediment quality and near-bottom (i.e., within 1 m of bottom) water quality. The results of the BCCF study demonstrated that there was not a significant level of fluctuation over a 24 hour period in near-bottom dissolved oxygen (ranges of 1.91 mg/L at STN 1 close to the outfall, and 1.32 mg/L at STN 2 further down-harbour) as compared to oxygen closer to the surface (ranges of 4.39 mg/L at STN 1, and 3.4 mg/L at STN 2). Therefore, it can be concluded that tidal cycle was not a confounding factor influencing the accuracy of results in near-bottom water quality.


4.3.4 Temporal Trends

4.3.4.1 Organic Content: Historical vs. Current

Several of the stations sampled in the 1991 fibre mat quantity survey (Webb and McCullough 1992) on which the EEM Cycle Five study was based were analyzed for sediment carbon and nitrogen content. In 1991, total carbon was measured; in 2009, total organic carbon was measured. Around the same time as the 1991 survey, the same company (Seaconsult) performed another sediment quality survey throughout the harbour (using different stations) that measured both the total carbon (TC) and the total organic carbon (TOC) content of sediments (Hodgins 1989). A regression analysis performed for the Cycle Five study using the 1989 data showed that the relationship between TC and TOC was significant (p = 0.000) and exhibited a strong linear relationship (TC = 1.0046 * TOC + 0.0137; Pearson r coefficient = 1.000). Given the nearly 1:1 relationship between the two variables, it was reasonable to assume that it was accurate to directly compare 1991 total carbon to 2009 total organic carbon.

Figure 4.17 shows the graphical relationship between 1991 total carbon and 2009 total organic carbon, with increasing distance from the outfall. In general, during both time periods, carbon content decreased with distance from the outfall. Carbon content also tended to be greater overall at 1991 stations than at 2009 stations, although this trend was not consistent at all stations. For example, at two stations within 65 meters of the outfall, including the closest station (M4), carbon content appeared to be greater in the more recent study than two decades prior. At the two other stations in this range, the reverse was true. This may partially be due to the patchy nature of the sediments within the fibre mat.

When C:N ratios were compared graphically between the two time periods (Figure 4.18), the overall terrestrial nature of the organic content was observably much higher (as indicated by higher C:N ratios) in 1991 versus 2009, with the exception of the station closest to the mill (M4) where C:N ratio has remained relatively unchanged. During both time periods, C:N ratio did not exhibit a consistent pattern with distance from the outfall.

4.3.4.2 Sediment Impact Zone: Historical vs. Current

The extent and magnitude of impacted sediment zones in Alberni Harbour associated with historical mill effluent were identified in a Seaconsult study performed 20 years prior to the Cycle Five EEM study (Hodgins 1989). The zones themselves are presented on a map in Figure 4.19; the areas of these zones were calculated for comparisons with EEM Cycle Five results, and are presented in Table 4.8.

According to organic content and sediment oxidative variables measured during the 2009 Cycle Five EEM study, the current extent of the historical fibre mat present near the sediment/water interface is estimated to be approximately 0.29 to 0.56 km2 in size (Table 4.3). In 1989, 20 years prior, Hodgins’ impact zones 1 through 3 totaled 1.03 km2 (Table 4.8). The transition zone, which was identified as a mix between impacted and natural marine sediments, was approximately 0.37 km2 in size.


Figure 4.17 Sediment carbon content at select Port Alberni Cycle Five EEM stations, 1991 versus 2009.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

M4(0.09)

L6(0.24)

K5(0.41)

K1(0.49)

I4(0.63)

I6(0.65)

I2(0.73)

H5(0.76)

G2(0.98)

E6(1.27)

E3(1.29)

C5(1.54)

B2(1.78)

K6(4.06)

Station and Distance from Outfall (km)

Car

bon

(%)

1991 Total Carbon 2009 Total Organic Carbon

Figure 4.18 Sediment C:N ratio at select Port Alberni Cycle Five EEM stations, 1991 versus 2009.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

M4(0.09)

L6(0.24)

K5(0.41)

K1(0.49)

I4(0.63)

I6(0.65)

I2(0.73)

H5(0.76)

G2(0.98)

E6(1.27)

E3(1.29)

C5(1.54)

B2(1.78)

K6(4.06)

Station and Distance from Outfall (km)

C:N

Rat

io

1991 C:N Ratio 2009 C:N Ratio


Figure 4.19 Historical surficial sediment zones in Alberni Harbour (Seaconsult 1994 based on Hodgins 1989).

Polly Pt.Stamp Pt.


Effluent Discharge


Hoik I.

Hohm I.

Alb

erni

Inle

tCatalyst PaperAerated StabilizationBasin(Lagoon)

Somass R.

5

4

6

3

2

1

124°48'W

124°48'W

124°49'W

124°49'W

124°50'W

124°50'W

124°51'W

49°1

5'N

49°1

5'N

49°1

4'N

49°1

4'N

49°1

3'N

49°1

3'N

49°1

2'N

49°1

2'N


K:\Data\Project\PA1330\GIS\_MXD\B_InterpretiveReport\PA1330_B02_Historical_20100112.mxd

Pulpmill

Stream Network

Waterbody

Depth (metres)

Intertidal

0 - 20

20 - 50

50 - 100 t0 1 20.5

KmLog Booming and Storage

Surficial Sediment Description

Zone 1Decomposed, spongy organic material,for at least 1m. Thick layer of blackorganic material containing little or nosediment, under a thin (approx. 2 cm)layer of white organic and bacterialmatter. Outgassing evident.

Zone 2A soft, thick layer (20 cm - 50 cm thick) ofblack, decomposed organic material,covered by a thin layer of whiteorganic/bacterial matter. Little outgassing.

Zone 3A soft grey layer (20 cm thick) ofdecomposed organic material, covered bya thin surficial layer of organic/bacterialmaterial, yellowish-brown in appearance.No outgassing.

Zone 4Soft, fine grey-brown sediments. Nocovering layer of organic/bacterial matter.Transition zone to natural marinesediments.

Zone 5Soft, very fine grey-brown sedimentcontaining mainly inorganic silts and mud.Natural marine sediments dominate thiszone.

Zone 6Surface layer is dominated by barkdebris, occasional logs and branchescovering soft, fine grey sediments.

Sediment Zone(Hodgins 1989)#

Scale 1:45,000

BC

Port Alberni

LEGEND

Table 4.8 Historical zones of sediment impact in Alberni Harbour (Hodgins 1989).

Zone # Description

Area (km2)

1 Impacted: Decomposed, spongy organic material, for at least 1m. Thick layer of black organic material containing little or no sediment, under a thin (approx. 2 cm) layer of white organic and bacterial matter. Outgassing evident.

0.14

2 Impacted: A soft, thick layer (20 cm - 50 cm thick) of black, decomposed organic material, covered by a thin layer of white organic/bacterial matter. Little outgassing.

0.45

3 Impacted: A soft grey layer (20 cm thick) of decomposed organic material, covered by a thin surficial layer of organic/bacterial material, yellowish-brown in appearance. No outgassing.

0.44

4 Transition to Natural: Soft, fine grey-brown sediments. No covering layer of organic/bacterial matter. Transition zone to natural marine sediments.

0.37

5 Natural: Soft, very fine grey-brown sediment containing mainly inorganic silts and mud. Natural marine sediments dominate this one.

1.67

6 Natural: Surface layer is dominated by bark debris, occasional logs and branches covering soft, fine grey sediments.

1.20

Increasing Distance from Outfall

4.3.5 QA/QC

QA/QC performed on triplicate samples collected at 10% of sampling stations is presented in Appendix A6.

4.4 DISCUSSION

4.4.1 Effects

4.4.1.1 In Sediments

Total organic carbon and nitrogen both significantly but weakly decreased with distance from the mill outfall, indicating a slight overall decline in the level of organic content with distance down-inlet. The terrestrial versus marine nature (i.e., C:N ratio) of the organic content did not change significantly with distance from the outfall, indicating that overall the source of the organic matter did not change considerably.

Sediment redox potential and sulphides demonstrated more strongly significant relationships with distance from the outfall: redox potential increased with distance from the outfall, and sulphides decreased. These results would indicate that sediment conditions became less reducing with distance from the outfall. However, when C:N ratio was used as a surrogate for the effluent exposure gradient, these variables did not demonstrate any effects.

4.4.1.2 In the Water Column

Salinity and temperature in near-bottom (i.e., within 1 m of bottom) water demonstrated strong relationships with distance from the outfall: salinity increased with distance down-inlet, while temperature decreased. However, given that salinity and temperature are indicators of relatively proportions of riverine versus fresh water, these effects are not related to the mill and are


instead related to natural estuary conditions. With distance from a river mouth toward the ocean, estuarine water naturally becomes increasingly saltier and cooler. Accordingly, when C:N ratio was used as a surrogate for the effluent exposure gradient, these variables did not demonstrate effects.

Dissolved oxygen in near-bottom water actually significantly declined with distance from the outfall, indicating that overall, oxygen conditions were better near the mill than further down-inlet. This again is likely related to natural estuarine conditions; with distance from a river mouth toward the ocean, freshly oxygenated fresh water tends to become increasingly more mixed into naturally lower oxygen seawater. The relationship between oxygen and distance was weak, and when C:N ratio was used as a surrogate for the effluent exposure gradient, dissolved oxygen did not demonstrate any effect.

4.4.2 Magnitude and Extent of Effects

The zone of effects related to the historical fibre mat was calculated for each sediment quality variable, and near-bottom dissolved oxygen. Impact criteria for sediment quality variables were selected to be levels only observed near the mill, and not elsewhere within the study area: TOC ≥ 8%, TN ≥ 0.4%, C:N ratios ≥ 25, redox potential ≤ -150 mV, and sulphides ≥ 300 mMol were only observed within a localized area near the mill. The lowest dissolved oxygen levels were ≤ 2mg/L; however, these were not only observed near the mill but also at several locations elsewhere down-inlet.

Impacted sediment quality near the mill, as indicated by organic content variables, was limited to a localized area near the outfall of ranging between 0.29 and 0.32 km2. Effects on sediment oxidative conditions were limited to a localized area of similar size, ranging between 0.38 and 0.56 km2. Therefore, it can be concluded that the current extent of the historical fibre mat present near the sediment/water interface is approximately 0.29 to 0.56 km2 in size.

Low dissolved oxygen in near-bottom water overtop the historical fibre mat was confined to a small area of 0.21 km2, smaller than the fibre mat itself, right near the outfall and directly overtop the most grossly impacted sediment conditions. Correspondingly, near-bottom dissolved oxygen declined significantly with declining sediment impact within 1 km of the outfall; beyond this point, however, no significant association between sediment quality and near-bottom water quality was observed (see section 4.4.4). Low dissolved oxygen levels similar to those overtop the fibre mat (≤ 2mg/L) were observed within a much larger area (3.56 km2) down-inlet extending from approximately 1km south of the outfall to > 1km south of Polly Point. Most of this area corresponded to relatively normal to low impact sediment conditions. This indicates that naturally depleted dissolved oxygen conditions in the lower layer of the estuary are widespread throughout the mid to lower inlet and are not strongly related to sediment conditions, while the extent of influence from the fibre mat on water quality is minimal and confined to a highly localized area smaller than the fibre mat itself.


4.4.3 Temporal Changes: Then and Now

Carbon content in the sediments was compared between 1991 and 2009 at the same stations. In general, carbon content during both studies declined overall with distance from the mill outfall; in 2009, this relationship with distance was statistically significant. However, during both time periods, C:N ratio (an indicator of organic matter sources) did not exhibit a consistent pattern with distance from the outfall. This is likely due to the significant presence of several non-mill sources of carbon throughout the upper inlet, including natural marine organic matter, riverine organic matter, sewage outputs, and log booming debris (Hatfield 2007a).

Carbon content throughout the study area tended to be greater overall in 1991 than in 2009, although this trend was not consistent at all stations; closer to the mill, this may partially be due to the patchy nature of the fibre mat. The overall terrestrial nature of the organic content was observably much higher at all stations (as indicated by higher C:N ratios) in 1991 versus 2009, with the exception of the station closest to the mill (M4) where C:N ratio has remained relatively unchanged. The results indicate that in general, terrestrial inputs of organic matter from various sources (i.e., mill fibre, log booming debris) have declined in the past two decades throughout the inlet.

As discussed in the previous section on magnitude and extent of effects (section 4.4.2), the current size of the exposed historical fibre mat is estimated to be approximately 0.29 to 0.56 km2. In comparison, a study from nearly two decades ago (Hodgins 1989) showed the zone of effects associated with the historical fibre mat to be approximately 1.03km2, fringed by a transition zone (i.e., mixed impacted and natural sediments) of 0.37 km2. Therefore, the exposed impacted area of the historical fibre mat has declined to at least half its size over the past two decades.

4.4.4 Influence of Sediment Quality on Overlying Water Quality

Correlation analyses identified relationships between sediment oxidative variables and salinity and temperature in near-bottom water throughout the study area. These relationships were not indicative of a direct cause-and-effect between sediment quality and water quality, however, given that changes were related to distance from the river mouth for salinity and temperature (see section 4.4.1.2) and distance from the outfall for sediment oxidative variables (see section 4.4.1.1).

When correlations were investigated between sediment quality and its effects on dissolved oxygen in near-bottom water throughout the study area, no strong relationships were identified. Those relationships that were significant were weak and visually indecipherable when plotted on graphs. The most significant relationship was identified between sediment redox potential and dissolved oxygen in the water; notably, this relationship was both weak and inverse, meaning that throughout the study area as sediment conditions became more impacted according to redox potential, dissolved oxygen in near-bottom water actually improved. Accordingly, geospatial analyses showed that moderate to


grossly impacted sediment conditions (according to redox potential) were mostly present within 1 km of the mill outfall, but with the exception of a small localized area of < 2 mg/L dissolved oxygen around the outfall, these impacted conditions were mostly associated with dissolved oxygen levels > 2 mg/L in near-bottom water. Furthermore, geospatial analyses showed that as sediment conditions improved to be categorized as normal to low impact > 1 km from the mill, dissolved oxygen conditions actually declined and remained at < 2 mg/L throughout the southern portion of the upper inlet.

Given the absence of any direct cause-and-effect relationship between sediment quality and near-bottom dissolved oxygen throughout the study area, a second set of analyses were performed on a more localized area nearer to the outfall (within 1 km). Within 1 km of the outfall, there was no relationship between sediment quality and dissolved oxygen in near-bottom water. Organic carbon, nitrogen, and sulphides declined significantly with distance from the outfall up to 1 km, although the relationships were only moderate in strength and appeared to be exaggerated by two isolated higher dissolved oxygen values observed at low concentrations of the three sediment quality variables.

Given the strong correlation observed between water quality variables (i.e., salinity, temperature, and oxygen) throughout the entire depth of the water column in the upper inlet, the obvious presence on cross-sectional water quality profiles of a density barrier preventing mixing between the lower and upper layers of the water column, and the lack of relationship between sediment quality variables and dissolved oxygen in near-bottom water, it is reasonable to conclude that sediment quality also does not influence oxygen conditions in any of the water column layers closer to the surface. In fact, preliminary investigative correlations between sediment quality and dissolved oxygen at successive 1 m depths above the near-bottom water column layer showed no statistically significant or even qualitatively observable relationships.

As evidenced by the statistical relationships, as well as cross-sectional profiles of water column quality, reducing conditions within the historical fibre mat appear to be having a very small, localized effect (i.e., in the immediate vicinity of the outfall) on dissolved oxygen in the lower layer of the water column. This conclusion is consistent with recent EEM and annual dissolved oxygen monitoring reports (Hatfield 2005, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2009b), which suggest that lower layer oxygen conditions near the mill are improving and the influence of anthropogenic oxygen demand from the historical fibre mat, although still present, appears overall to be diminishing. Throughout the remainder of the inlet, particularly around Polly Point and down-inlet, observations in this and past studies suggest that confounding oxygen demand (e.g., from up-inlet flux of low dissolved oxygen seawater, log booming debris, natural organic debris, etc.) likely play a predominant role in influencing low background levels of dissolved oxygen in the lower layer of the water column.


4.4.5 Potential Influence of Water Quality on Migrating Salmon

4.4.5.1 Background

Sockeye salmon have been reported to hold within the lower stretches of the upper inlet during the warmer summer months, waiting for temperatures in the Somass River to cool enough for their healthy and safe migration into spawning habitat (Living Rivers 2009). Sockeye are said to stop migrating in water reaching over 19 °C, and pre-spawning mortalities have been observed in the migrational rivers upstream of Alberni Inlet when temperatures have exceeded 20 °C. There is a concern that the fish holding in the upper inlet are exposed to poor water quality (i.e., low dissolved oxygen and high temperatures), and that these conditions are jeopardizing their health and reproductive fitness, and thus their chances for successful spawning migrations. There is a concern that the historical fibre mat may be creating these low dissolved oxygen conditions, and its remediation remains a key concern for fish biologists, resource managers, and conservationists in the area.

4.4.5.2 Answers from EEM Cycle Five

Temperature Concerns

The results of the EEM Cycle Five study show that summer temperatures in 2009 exceeded 19 °C in the upper inlet within the top 2-3 m of the water column. Temperatures exceeded 20 °C at one station (N4, near the river mouth, north of the outfall) at the surface of the water column.

Dissolved Oxygen Concerns

The results of the EEM Cycle Five study, supported by annual dissolved oxygen monitoring reports from recent years, demonstrate that as migrating salmon move up Alberni Inlet toward the Somass River, they are likely to encounter a band of naturally low dissolved oxygen water (i.e., not mill-related) present at least 4 km south of the mill (1.3 km south of Polly Point), extending north to Hohm Island (1.25 km south of the outfall). North of this point, fish would likely encounter higher dissolved oxygen levels.

Closer to the river mouth, near Hoik Island and within 500 m of the outfall, dissolved oxygen conditions in the upper harbour vary based on location closer to the midchannel or further toward the shore. Toward the eastern shore, there is a localized zone of low dissolved oxygen immediately near the outfall. At this same latitude, however, the band of water toward the midline of the upper harbour, within the natural channel created by the Somass River that extends from Hoik Island up to the river mouth, is characterized by much higher levels of dissolved oxygen (3.5 – 8+ mg/L).

Overall, based on 2009 EEM results and supported by DO monitoring results from recent years, it can be concluded that south of Hohm Island, migrating salmon are likely to encounter low background levels of dissolved oxygen in the lower reaches of the upper inlet. Within 1.25 km south of the outfall, however, a



higher dissolved oxygen corridor may be available to migrating salmon as they move toward the mouth of the Somass River. Within this corridor, summer temperatures reaching > 19 °C would likely be the predominant factor limiting migration.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five program, the following conclusions can be made:

No effect of effluent was observed on topsmelt larvae growth (IC25) or survival (LC50);

Effects on echinoderm fertilization were observed at a mean effluent concentration of 58% (IC25);

Champia parvula reproduction was affected at a mean effluent concentration of 5.4% (IC25); and

Maximum potential zones of sublethal effect from the effluent discharge point were <30m for fish survival, 52 m for invertebrate fertilization, and 553 m for algal reproduction.

A magnitude and extent study was performed for the Port Alberni EEM Cycle Five program, with the following outcomes:

o Redox potential, sulphides, TOC, and TN demonstrated variably significant relationships with distance from the outfall, indicating that sediments were slightly lower in organic content and moderately less reducing further from the mill;

o Near-bottom (i.e., within 1 m of bottom) DO was slightly better near the mill than further down-inlet;

o A weakly significant inverse correlation between sediment redox potential and DO in near-bottom water indicated that as sediment oxidative conditions became more impacted, DO in near-bottom water actually improved. No other sediment quality variables correlated with near-bottom DO;

o Within 1km of the outfall, there was no relationship between redox potential and DO in near-bottom water. However, DO improved significantly with decreasing sulphides, TOC, TN (i.e., improved sediment quality);

o Using C:N ratio as the effluent exposure gradient, sediment quality and near-bottom DO did not demonstrate effects;

o Comparisons between 1991 data and 2009 data indicated that terrestrial organic matter from various sources (i.e., mill fibre, log booming debris) has declined over 20 years throughout the inlet;

o In 2009, the terrestrial versus marine nature (i.e., C:N ratio) of organic content in upper-inlet sediments did not change considerably with distance from the outfall;



o Based on geospatial analyses of sediment quality, the current extent of the historical fibre mat near the sediment/water interface was calculated to be ~ 0.29 to 0.56 km2 in size;

o In comparison, a study from nearly two decades ago showed a ~ 1.03 km2 zone of effects associated with the historical fibre mat; therefore, the exposed impacted area of the historical fibre mat has declined to at least half its size over the past two decades;

o Low DO water overtop the historical fibre mat during the current study was confined to a small area of 0.21 km2, smaller than the fibre mat itself, right near the outfall and directly overtop the most grossly impacted sediment conditions;

o Low DO water similar to that overtop the fibre mat was observed within a much larger area (3.56 km2) down-inlet, from ~1 km south of the outfall to > 1 km south of Polly Point. Most of this area was characterized by normal to low impact sediment conditions, indicating that naturally low DO water is widespread throughout the lower layer of the mid to lower estuary and is not strongly related to sediment conditions;

o Given the strong correlation between water quality variables throughout the water column, the presence of a density barrier preventing mixing between the lower and upper layers, and the lack of relationship between sediment quality variables and DO in near-bottom water, it was concluded that sediment quality also does not influence oxygen conditions in any of the water column layers closer to the surface; and

o Based on 2009 EEM results, and supported by recent DO monitoring reports, as migrating salmon move up-inlet toward the Somass River, they will likely encounter a band of naturally low DO water present at least 4 km south of the mill, extending north to Hohm Island (1.25 km south of the mill). North of here, within 1.25 km south of the outfall, however, there may be a higher dissolved oxygen corridor available to migrating salmon as they move toward the mouth of the Somass River. Within this corridor, summer temperatures reaching > 19 °C would likely be the predominant factor limiting migration.

6.0 REFERENCES

BCMOE (formerly WLAP). 2002. Protocols for Marine Environmental Monitoring. BC Ministry of Environment (formerly Water, Land and Air Protection), September 5, 2002, 29 pp.

Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Second Edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hillsdale, New Jersey.

Environment Canada. 1998. Biological Test Method: toxicity tests using early life stage of salmonid fish (rainbow trout), EPS 1/RM/28 2nd Ed. Method Development and Application Section, Environmental Technology Centre, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON.

Environment Canada. 2005. Pulp and paper technical guidance for aquatic environmental effects monitoring. Environment Canada, January 2005.

Faul, F. and E. Erdfelder. 1992. GPOWER: A priori, post-hoc, and compromise power analyses for MS-DOS (computer program). Bonn University, Department of Psychology, Bonn, Germany.

Government of Canada. 2005. Gazette Part II, Vol. 138, No. 10. Regulations Amending the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations. 4 May, 2004. SOR/DORS/2004-109.

Government of Canada. 2008. Regulations Amending the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations. Registered July 28, 2008. Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 142, No. 16 SOR/DORS/2008-239 published August 6, 2008.

Hatfield. 2005. Port Alberni Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring Program Interpretive Report (2003-2004). Prepared for NorskeCanada, Port Alberni Division, by Hatfield Consultants

Hatfield. 2006. Port Alberni Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring Program Interpretive Report (2005). Prepared for Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division, by Hatfield Consultants

Hatfield. 2007a. Port Alberni Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) Cycle Four Interpretive Report. Prepared for Catalyst Paper Corporation, Port Alberni Division, by Hatfield Consultants.

Hatfield. 2007b. Port Alberni Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring Program Interpretive Report (2006). Prepared for Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division, by Hatfield Consultants.


Hatfield. 2008. Port Alberni Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring Program Interpretive Report (2007). Prepared for Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division, by Hatfield Consultants.

Hatfield. 2009a. Port Alberni environmental effects monitoring (EEM) Cycle Five design document. Prepared for Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division by Hatfield, December 2009.

Hatfield. 2009b. Port Alberni Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring Program Interpretive Report (2008). Prepared for Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division, by Hatfield Consultants.

Henderson, N.M. 2009. Dissolved Oxygen in Alberni Inlet. Prepared for the British Columbia Conservation Foundation, Nanaimo, BC, by Hatfield Consultants.

Hodgins, D.O. 1989. Assessment of Water Quality in Alberni Harbour, Phase 2: Seabed Survey. Prepared for MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., Alberni Pulp and Paper Division, by Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd. August 1989.

Hodgins, D.O., A.J. Webb and S.L.M. Hodgins. 1993. Assessment of Water Quality in Alberni Harbour, Phase 9: Mill effluent dispersion study. Prepared for MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., Alberni Pulp and Paper Division, by Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd.

Living Rivers. 2009. Summary of DFO/MOE meeting to discuss fisheries conservation flows in the Somass River watershed. Living Rivers, Georgia Basin, Vancouver Island, December 3, 2009: 5 pp.

Seaconsult. 1992. Assessment of water quality in Alberni Harbour, Phase 6: Fibre mat quantity survey. Prepared for MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., Alberni Pulp and Paper Ltd., by Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd., April 1992.

Seaconsult. 1994. Environmental Effects Monitoring pre-design study for the Alberni Pulp and Paper Mill at Port Alberni, British Columbia, Part 1: Baseline Information. Prepared for MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., Alberni Pulp and Paper Division, by Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd.

Seaconsult. 2000. Environmental effects monitoring study for the Alberni Pulp and Paper Mill at Port Alberni, British Columbia: Final interpretive report for Cycle 2. Prepared for Pacifica Papers Inc., Alberni Specialties Division, by Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd., March 2000.

Seaconsult. 2002. Receiving water sampling and biological monitoring annual report for 2001, Alberni Inlet and Somass River Estuary. Prepared for Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division, by Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd.



SPSS Inc. 2000. Statistics I. SPSS Inc. United States of America.

Webb A.J. and D.F. McCullough. 1992. Assessment of Water Quality in Alberni Harbour, Phase 6: Fibre Mat Quantity Survey. Prepared for MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., Alberni Pulp and Paper Division, by Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd. April 1992.

7.0 GLOSSARY

Acute With reference to toxicity tests with fish, usually means an effect that happens within four to seven days, or an exposure of that duration. An acute effect could be mild or sublethal, if it were rapid.

ANCOVA Analysis of covariance. ANCOVA compares regression lines, testing for differences in either slopes or intercepts (adjusted means).

ANOVA Analysis of variance. An ANOVA tests for differences among levels of one or more factors. For example, individual sites are levels of the factor site. Two or more factors can be included in an ANOVA (e.g., site and year).

BEAST Benthic assessment of sediment. BEAST is a tool for evaluating the health of benthic invertebrate communities by using predictive models that relate site habitat attributes to an expected community, commonly referred to as a reference condition (see CABIN and RCA, below).

Benthos Organisms that inhabit the bottom substrates (sediments, debris, logs, macrophytes) of aquatic habitats for at least part of their life cycle. The term benthic is used as an adjective, as in benthic invertebrates.

BOD Biochemical oxygen demand. The test measures the oxygen utilized during a specified incubation period for the biochemical degradation of organic material and the oxygen used to oxidize inorganic material such as sulfides and ferrous iron. Usually conducted as a 5-day test (i.e., BOD5).

�13C (permil) Carbon isotope (13C) ratio.

CABIN Canadian aquatic biomonitoring network. CABIN is a collaborative programme developed and maintained by Environment Canada to establish a network of reference sites (see RCA, below) available to all users interested in assessing the biological health of fresh water in Canada.

CL Confidence limits. A set of possible values within which the true value will lie with a specified level of probability.


Colour True colour of water is the colour of a filtered water sample (and thus with turbidity removed), and results from materials which are dissolved in the water. These materials include natural mineral components such as iron and calcium carbonate, as well as dissolved organic matter such as humic acids, tannin, and lignin. Organic and inorganic compounds from industrial or agricultural uses may also add colour to water. As with turbidity, colour hinders the transmission of light through water, and thus "regulates" biological processes within the body of water.

Community A set of taxa coexisting at a specified spatial or temporal scale.

Concentration Units Concentration Units Abbreviation Units

Table Parts per million ppm mg/kg or μg/g or %

Parts per billion ppb μg/kg or ng/g or μg/L

Parts per trillion ppt ng/kg or pg/g or ng/L

Parts per quadrillion ppq pg/kg or fg/g or pg/L

Condition Factor A measure of the plumpness or fatness of aquatic organisms. For oysters and mussels, values are based on the ratio of the soft tissue dry weight to the volume of the shell cavity. For fish, the condition factor is based on length-weight relationships.

Conductivity A numerical expression of the ability of an aqueous solution to carry an electric current. This ability depends on the presence of ions, their total concentration, mobility, valence and relative concentrations, and on the temperature of measurement.

Covariate An independent variable; a measurement taken on each experimental unit that predicts to some degree the final response to the treatment, but which is unrelated to the treatment (e.g., body size [covariate] included in the analysis to compare gonad weights of fish collected from reference and exposed areas).

Dioxins/Furans Polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins (PCDDs) and dibenzofurans (PCDFs) are often simply called dioxins, although they are two separate groups of substances with similar effects. There are 210 different compounds, of which 17 are the most toxic.


DO Dissolved oxygen, the gaseous oxygen in solution with water. At low concentrations it may become a limiting factor for the maintenance of aquatic life. It is normally measured in milligrams/litre, and is widely used as a criterion of receiving water quality. The level of dissolved oxygen which can exist in water before the saturation point is reached is primarily controlled by temperature, with lower temperatures allowing for more oxygen to exist in solution. Photosynthetic activity may cause the dissolved oxygen to exist at a level which is higher than this saturation point, whereas respiration may cause it to exist at a level which is lower than this saturation point. At high saturation, fish may contract gas bubble disease, which produces lesions in blood vessels and other tissues and subsequent physiological dysfunctions.

ECp A point estimate of the concentration of test material that causes a specified percentage effective toxicity (sublethal or lethal). In most instances, the ECp is statistically derived by analysis of an observed biological response (e.g., incidence of nonviable embryos or reduced hatching success) for various test concentrations after a fixed period of exposure. EC25 is used for the rainbow trout sublethal toxicity test.

Fecundity The number of eggs or offspring produced by a female.

Gonad A male or female organ producing reproductive cells or gametes (i.e., female ovum, male sperm). The male gonad is the testis, the female gonad is the ovary.

GSI Gonadosomatic Index. Calculated by expressing gonad weight as a percentage of whole body weight.

Hardness Total hardness is defined as the sum of the calcium and magnesium concentrations, both expressed as calcium carbonate, in milligrams per litre.

ICp A point estimate of the concentration of test material that causes a specified percentage impairment in a quantitative biological test which measures a change in rate, such as reproduction, growth, or respiration.

LC50 Median lethal concentration. The concentration of a substance that is estimated to kill half of a group of organisms. The duration of exposure must be specified (e.g., 96-hour LC50).

LSI Liver Somatic Index. Calculated by expressing liver weight as a percent of whole body weight.


Macroinvertebrates Those invertebrate (without backbone) animals that are visible to the eye and retained by a sieve with 500 µm mesh openings for freshwater, or 1,000 µm mesh openings for marine surveys (EEM methods).

δ15N (permil) Nitrogen isotope (15N) ratio.

Near Bottom Within 1 m of bottom (i.e., sediment/water interface)

Negative Control Material (e.g., water) that is essentially free of contaminants and of any other characteristics that could adversely affect the test organism. It is used to assess the "background response" of the test organism to determine the acceptability of the test using predefined criteria.

Organochlorine Chlorine that is attached to an organic molecule. The amount present is expressed as the weight of the chlorine. There are thousands of such substances, including some that are manufactured specifically as pesticides because of their toxicity.

pH A measure of the acid or alkaline nature of water or some other medium. Specifically, pH is the negative logarithm of the hydronium ion (H30+) concentration (or more precisely, activity). Practically, pH 7 represents a neutral condition in which the acid hydrogen ions balance the alkaline hydroxide ions. The pH of the water can have an important influence on the toxicity and mobility of chemicals in pulpmill effluents.

Plume The main pathway for dispersal of effluent within the receiving waters, prior to its complete mixing.

Population A group of organisms belonging to a particular species or taxon, found within a particular region, territory or sampling unit. A collection of organisms that interbreed and share a bounded segment of space.

ppt Parts per thousand.

Quality Assurance (QA) Refers to the externally imposed technical and management practices which ensure the generation of quality and defensible data commensurate with the intended use of the data; a set of operating principles that, if strictly followed, will produce data of known defensible quality.

Quality Control (QC) Specific aspect of quality assurance which refers to the internal techniques used to measure and assess data quality and the


remedial actions to be taken when data quality objectives are not realized.

RCA Reference condition approach. The key to assessing the condition of our waterways through CABIN is the use of the Reference Condition Approach. Reference sites are established based on minimal impacts by human use, and present users with a baseline for assessing potentially impaired sites. The reference sites represent as many different geographic regions and stream sizes as possible and are used to establish the type of community of organisms expected to occur in the range of natural habitat types present in regions covered by the CABIN network. Once the reference condition has been established, sites suspected of being impaired are sampled. Differences between the organisms found at the reference sites and the test-site indicate the extent, if any, of impairment at the site.

Redox Potential (Eh) In marine sediments, the measurement of reduction and oxidation by testing electron movement and, consequently, available oxygen.

Reference Toxicant A chemical of quantified toxicity to test organisms, used to gauge the fitness, health, and sensitivity of a batch of test organisms.

Resin Acids Any of a class of vegetable substances, composed chiefly of esters and ethers of organic acids, that occur as a sticky yellow or brown substance exuded on the bark of various plants and trees, such as the pine and fir.

Salinity A measure of the quantity of dissolved salts in seawater - in parts per thousand (ppt) by weight.

SD Standard deviation.

SE Standard error.

Secondary Treatment A stage of purification of a liquid waste in which micro-organisms decompose organic substances in the waste. In the process, the micro-organisms use oxygen. Oxygen usually is supplied by mechanical aeration and/or large surface area of treatment ponds (lagoons). Most secondary treatment also reduces toxicity.

Sentinel Species A monitoring species selected to be representative of the local receiving environment.



Stressor An environmental factor or group of factors eliciting a response by a community.

Sublethal A concentration or level that would not cause death. An effect that is not directly lethal.

T4CDD 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin, the most toxic dioxin.

TEQ Toxic Equivalents.

TN Total nitrogen.

TOC Total organic carbon (TOC).

Total-TEQs TEQs are calculated by multiplying the concentration of each congener with its respective International Toxicity Equivalency Factor (ITEF), to normalize concentrations to the level that would be produced by an equivalent amount of 2,3,7,8-T4CDD, then summing all the concentrations.

TS Total sulphides.

TSS Total suspended solids (TSS) is a measurement of the oven dry weight of particles of matter suspended in the water which can be filtered through a standard filter paper with pore size of 0.45 micrometres.

Turbidity Turbidity in water is caused by the presence of matter such as clay, silt, organic matter, plankton, and other microscopic organisms that are held in suspension.

v/v volume/volume - used to define dilution ratios for two liquids.

APPENDICES

Appendix A1

Sublethal Toxicity Data and

Calculations

Table A1.1 Catalyst Paper, Port Alberni Division, Sublethal Effluent Toxicity Test Results, Cycle Five.

Effluent Description

Collection Date Test type Flag

LC50%Flag EC25 or IC25%

(final, cooling, etc.) yyyymmdd

S=Survival, G=Growth,

R=Reproduction

> for greater

than 100%

LC50 %LC50 Lower 95% cI

LC50 Upper 95% cI

> for greater

than 100%

EC25 or IC25 %

EC25 or IC25 Lower

95% cI

EC25 or IC25

Upper 95% cI

Summer 2006 pp1052 final 20070305 Cantest Ltd. Strongylocentrotus purpuratus R 50.8 47.1 55.3 Re-test result (original test failed due to poor control survival)

Winter 2007 pp1052 final 20070423 Cantest Ltd. Atherinops affinis S > 100One fish was accidentally transferred from Salt Control rep C to repd D on Day 4.

Winter 2007 pp1052 final 20070423 Cantest Ltd. Atherinops affinis G > 100 ***Same as above***

Winter 2007 pp1052 final 20070423 Cantest Ltd. Strongylocentrotus purpuratus R 20.48 16.3 31.23

Winter 2007 pp1052 final 20070423 Saskatchewan Research Council Champia parvula R 10.6 0.0 16.5

Summer 2007 pp1052 final 20071009 Cantest Ltd. Atherinops affinis S > 100

Summer 2007 pp1052 final 20071009 Cantest Ltd. Atherinops affinis G > 100

Summer 2007 pp1052 final 20071210 Cantest Ltd. Strongylocentrotus purpuratus R 93.17 82.93 100

Summer 2007 pp1052 final 20071009 Saskatchewan Research Council Champia parvula R 19.9 6.9 22.0

Winter 2008 pp1052 final 20080407 Cantest Ltd. Atherinops affinis S > 100

Winter 2008 pp1052 final 20080407 Cantest Ltd. Atherinops affinis G > 100

Winter 2008 pp1052 final 20080407 Cantest Ltd. Strongylocentrotus purpuratus R 63.41 59.31 67.26

Winter 2008 pp1052 final 20080407 Saskatchewan Research Council Champia parvula R 6.5 4.5 8.3

Summer 2008 pp1052 final 20081208 Cantest Ltd. Strongylocentrotus purpuratus R 79.6 71.4 92

Testing Period Consultant/Laboratory Species Tested CommentsProject Number

pp gy p p

Summer 2008 pp1052 final 20090106 Aquatox Testing and Consulting Inc. Champia parvula R 1.8 0.5 3.9

Winter 2009 pp1052 final 20090414 Cantest Ltd. Strongylocentrotus purpuratus R > 100

Winter 2009 pp1052 final 20090525 Cantest Ltd. Champia parvula R 2.04 1.61 2.29

Summer 2009 pp1052 final 20091117 Cantest Ltd. Strongylocentrotus purpuratus R 39.6 26.7 46.1

Summer 2009 pp1052 final 20091117 Saskatchewan Research Council Champia parvula R 5.07 2.63 5.9

= Cycle Four results

Table A1.2 Catalyst Paper Ltd., Port Alberni Division - Calculataion of geomeans and potential zones of sublethal effect.

Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5LC50 LC50 LC50 LC50 LC50 IC25 IC25 IC25 IC25 IC25 IC25 IC25 IC25 IC25 IC25 IC25 IC25 IC25 IC25 IC25

66.2 67 100 100 66.2 67 100 100 0.5 4 45.7 47.7 20.48 1.3 0.25 35.8 10.5565.9 65 67 100 100 65.9 65 67 100 100 10.6 0.6 67 67 93.17 4.9 1.5 24.02 21.98 19.9367.9 67 100 100 67.9 67 100 100 4.2 42.02 67 63.41 4.2 0.4 9.97 16.65 6.5167.7 67 67 100 67.7 67 67 100 14.9 10 67 67 79.6 5.3 2.7 39.90 9.62 1.8

39.8 67 100 39.8 67 100 26.3 67 100 100 1.3 12.97 10.39 2.0470 100 100 70 100 100 11.2 100 50.8 39.6 0.1 51.41 13.43 5.07

100 100 14.7 44.52100 100 100 17.91

16.69

Geomean 67.16 60.39 77.86 100.00 100.00 67.16 60.39 77.86 100.00 100.00 4.27 5.89 55.10 64.63 58.02 4.8 0.8 14.0 16.1 5.4 SE 0.6 5.5 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 5.5 6.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 4.4 10.2 7.6 12.7 0.3 0.4 6.1 4.0 2.8

1% effluent zone (m) 3000

Zone of potential effect (m) 44.7 49.7 38.5 30.0 30.0 44.7 49.7 38.5 30.0 30.0 703.0 509.6 54.5 46.4 51.7 627.9 3723.0 213.7 186.0 553.0

FishSurvival Growth

InvertebrateFertilization

AlgaeReproduction

Figure A1.1 Mean (± SD) percent mortality and dry weight of topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) exposed to final effluent and control water, Catalyst Paper - Port Alberni Division, EEM Cycle Five.

April 7, 2008 (Winter 2008) October 9, 2007 (Summer 2007) April 23, 2007 (Winter 2007)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

0.0 6.3 12.5 25 50 100

Dry

Wei

ght (

mg)

Mor

talit

y (%

)

Effluent Concentration (% v/v)

% Mortality Dry Weight

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

0.0 6.3 12.5 25 50 100

Dry

Wei

ght (

mg)

Mor

talit

y (%

)



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

0.0 6.3 12.5 25 50 100

Dry

Wei

ght (

mg)

Mor

talit

y (%

)



Figure A1. 2 Mean (± SD) percent fertilized eggs of an echinoderm exposed to final effluent and control water, Catalyst Paper - Port Alberni Division, EEM Cycle Five.

April 23, 2007 (Winter 2007) December 12th, 2007 (Summer 2007) April 7, 2008 (Winter 2008)

Strongylocentrotus purpuratus Dendraster excenticus Strongylocentrotus purpuratus

December 8, 2008 (Summer 2008) April 14, 2009 (Winter 2009) November 17, 2009 (Summer 2009)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 6.3 12.5 25.0 50.0 100.0

% E

ggs

Fert

ilize

d


0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 3.1 6.3 12.5 25.0 50.0 100.0

% E

ggs

Fert

ilize

d


0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 0.8 1.6 3.1 6.3 12.5 25.0 50.0 100.0

% E

ggs

Fert

ilize

d


40

60

80

100

% E

ggs

Fert

ilize

d

40

60

80

100

% E

ggs

Fert

ilize

d

40

60

80

100

% E

ggs

Fert

ilize

d

Strongylocentrotus purpuratus Strongylocentrotus purpuratus Strongylocentrotus purpuratus

March 7, 2007 (Summer 2006)

*Cycle Four results Strongylocentrotus purpuratus

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 6.3 12.5 25.0 50.0 100.0

% E

ggs

Fert

ilize

d


0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 3.1 6.3 12.5 25.0 50.0 100.0

% E

ggs

Fert

ilize

d


0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 0.8 1.6 3.1 6.3 12.5 25.0 50.0 100.0

% E

ggs

Fert

ilize

d


0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 6.3 12.5 25.0 50.0 100.0

% E

ggs

Fert

ilize

d


0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 1.6 3.1 6.3 12.5 25.0 50.0 100.0

% E

ggs

Fert

ilize

d


0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 6.3 12.5 25.0 50.0 100.0

% E

ggs

Fert

ilize

d


0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 4.2 8.4 16.8 33.5 67.0

% E

ggs

Fert

ilize

d


Figure A1.3 Mean (± SD) number of cystocarps produced by an alga Champia parvula) exposed to final effluent and control water,Catalyst Paper - Port Alberni Division, EEM Cycle Five.

April 23, 2007 (Winter 2007) October 9, 2007 (Summer 2007) April 7, 2008 (Winter 2008)

January 6, 2009 (Summer 2008) May 25, 2009 (Winter 2009) November 17, 2009 (Summer 2009)

0

10

20

30

40

0 6.19 12.38 24.75 49.5 99

No.

of c

ysto

carp

s


0

10

20

30

40

0 6.19 12.38 24.75 49.5 99

No.

of c

ysto

carp

s


0

10

20

30

40

0 0.8 2.7 8.9 29.7 99

No.

of c

ysto

carp

s


0

10

20

30

40

0 0.2 0.8 2.7 8.9 29.7 99.0

No.

of c

ysto

carp

s


0

10

20

30

40

0 0.8 2.7 8.9 29.7 99.0

No.

of c

ysto

carp

s


0

10

20

30

40

0 0.8 2.7 8.9 29.7 99.0

No.

of c

ysto

carp

s


Appendix A2

ALS Environmental: Sediment

Analytical Reports

THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF THE LABORATORY.ALL SAMPLES WILL BE DISPOSED OF AFTER 30 DAYS FOLLOWING ANALYSIS. PLEASE CONTACT THE LAB IF YOUREQUIRE ADDITIONAL SAMPLE STORAGE TIME.

____________________________________________

NATASHA MARKOVIC-MIROVICAccount Manager

PA1330

Comments:

Job Reference: Project P.O. #:

Other Information:

Legal Site Desc: CofC Numbers:

1988 Triumph Street, Vancouver, BC V5L 1K5Phone: +1 604 253 4188 Fax: +1 604 253 6700 www.alsglobal.com

A Campbell Brothers Limited Company

13-AUG-09Lab Work Order #: L805711 Date Received:

HATFIELD CONSULTANTS LTD.

201 - 1571 BELLEVUE AVE.

WEST VANCOUVER BC V7V 1A6

ATTN: NARA HENDERSON FINAL 24-AUG-09 17:47 (MT)Report Date:

Version:

Certificate of Analysis

24-AUG-09 17:49

Sample ID Description

Client ID

Sampled Date

Grouping Analyte

Sampled Time

ALS LABORATORY GROUP ANALYTICAL REPORT

L805711 CONTD....

2PAGE of 14

SOIL

12-AUG-09 12-AUG-09 12-AUG-09 12-AUG-09 12-AUG-09

AG00 AG01 AG02 AG03 AG03A

L805711-1 L805711-2 L805711-3 L805711-4 L805711-5

Total Nitrogen by LECO (%)

Total Organic Carbon (%)

0.363 0.257 0.249 0.280 0.274

6.77 4.13 3.77 4.39 4.48

Leachable Anions & NutrientsOrganic / Inorganic Carbon

24-AUG-09 17:49


Client ID

Sampled Date

Grouping Analyte

Sampled Time


L805711 CONTD....

3PAGE of 14

SOIL


AG06 AG06A AG08 AG19 AG19A

L805711-6 L805711-7 L805711-8 L805711-9 L805711-10



0.231 0.263 0.356 0.285 0.285

4.84 6.22 7.61 4.51 4.68


24-AUG-09 17:49


Client ID

Sampled Date

Grouping Analyte

Sampled Time


L805711 CONTD....

4PAGE of 14

SOIL


AG23 AG24 B2 B6 C5

L805711-11 L805711-12 L805711-13 L805711-14 L805711-15



0.197 0.399 0.266 0.302 0.279

2.77 5.96 4.32 4.89 4.33


24-AUG-09 17:49


Client ID

Sampled Date

Grouping Analyte

Sampled Time


L805711 CONTD....

5PAGE of 14

SOIL


D4-1 D4-2 D4-3 E3 E4-1

L805711-16 L805711-17 L805711-18 L805711-19 L805711-20



0.293 0.280 0.267 0.292 0.256

4.50 4.49 4.28 4.83 4.44


24-AUG-09 17:49


Client ID

Sampled Date

Grouping Analyte

Sampled Time


L805711 CONTD....

6PAGE of 14

SOIL


E4-2 E4-3 E6 F2 F4-1

L805711-21 L805711-22 L805711-23 L805711-24 L805711-25



0.266 0.269 0.277 0.289 0.280

4.33 4.33 4.60 5.45 3.99


24-AUG-09 17:49


Client ID

Sampled Date

Grouping Analyte

Sampled Time


L805711 CONTD....

7PAGE of 14

SOIL


F4-2 F4-3 F6 G2 G3-1

L805711-26 L805711-27 L805711-28 L805711-29 L805711-30



0.284 0.263 0.284 0.282 0.282

4.25 4.00 4.32 5.82 4.39


24-AUG-09 17:49


Client ID

Sampled Date

Grouping Analyte

Sampled Time


L805711 CONTD....

8PAGE of 14

SOIL


G3-2 G3-3 G5 H3 H5

L805711-31 L805711-32 L805711-33 L805711-34 L805711-35



0.268 0.258 0.285 0.280 0.269

4.15 4.52 4.13 4.10 3.70


24-AUG-09 17:49


Client ID

Sampled Date

Grouping Analyte

Sampled Time


L805711 CONTD....

9PAGE of 14

SOIL


H7 I2 I4 I6 J3

L805711-36 L805711-37 L805711-38 L805711-39 L805711-40



0.310 0.310 0.454 0.329 0.297

5.77 6.12 7.22 5.34 4.41


24-AUG-09 17:49


Client ID

Sampled Date

Grouping Analyte

Sampled Time


L805711 CONTD....

10PAGE of 14

SOIL


J5 J7 K1 K4 K5

L805711-41 L805711-42 L805711-43 L805711-44 L805711-45



0.159 0.339 0.118 0.455 0.567

2.83 5.53 2.62 6.47 8.23


24-AUG-09 17:49


Client ID

Sampled Date

Grouping Analyte

Sampled Time


L805711 CONTD....

11PAGE of 14

SOIL


K6 L5-1 L5-2 L5-3 L6

L805711-46 L805711-47 L805711-48 L805711-49 L805711-50



0.363 0.329 0.235 0.412 0.373

6.45 8.76 4.92 9.22 10.1


24-AUG-09 17:49


Client ID

Sampled Date

Grouping Analyte

Sampled Time


L805711 CONTD....

12PAGE of 14

SOIL


M1 M4 M5 N4 03

L805711-51 L805711-52 L805711-53 L805711-54 L805711-55



0.199 0.452 0.489 0.577 0.112

2.13 13.9 12.9 9.25 1.39


24-AUG-09 17:49


Client ID

Sampled Date

Grouping Analyte

Sampled Time


L805711 CONTD....

13PAGE of 14

SOIL

12-AUG-09 12-AUG-09

RM1 RM2

L805711-56 L805711-57



0.425 0.555

15.4 8.06


C-TOT-ORG-LECO-SK

N-TOT-LECO-SK

Reference Information

Organic Carbon by combustion method

Total Nitrogen by combustion method

Methods Listed (if applicable):

ALS Test Code Test Description

Soil

Soil

SSSA (1996) p. 973

SSSA (1996) p. 973-974

Analytical Method Reference(Based On)

** Laboratory Methods employed follow in-house procedures, which are generally based on nationally or internationally accepted methodologies.The last two letters of the above ALS Test Code column indicate the laboratory that performed analytical analysis for that test. Refer to the list below:

Matrix

Laboratory Definition Code Laboratory Location Laboratory Definition Code Laboratory Location

SK ALS LABORATORY GROUP - SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA

Total Organic Carbon (C-TOT-ORG-LECO-SK, C-TOT-ORG-SK)

Total C and inorganic C are determined on separate samples. The total C is determined by combustion and thermal conductivity detection, while inorganic C is determined by weight lass after addition of hydrochloric acid. Organic C is calculated by the difference between these two determinations.

Reference for Total C:Nelson, D.W. and Sommers, L.E. 1996. Total Carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. P. 961-1010 In: J.M. Bartels et al. (ed.) Methods of soil analysis: Part 3 Chemical methods. (3rd ed.) ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI. Book series no. 5

Reference for Inorganic C:Loeppert, R.H. and Suarez, D.L. 1996. Gravimetric Method for Loss of Carbon Dioxide. P. 455-456 In: J.M. Bartels et al. (ed.) Methods of soil analysis: Part 3 Chemical methods. (3rd ed.) ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI. Book series no. 5

The sample is introduced into a quartz tube where it undergoes combustion at 900 C in the presence of oxygen.Combustion gases are first carried through a catalyst bed in the bottom of the combustion tube, where oxidation is completed and then carried through a reducing agent (copper), where the nitrogen oxides are reduced to elemental nitrogen.This mixture of N2, CO2, and H2O is then passed through an absorber column containing magnesium perchlorate to remove water. N2 and CO2 gases are then separated in a gas chromatographic column and detected by thermal conductivity.

Reference: Bremner, J.M. 1996. Nitrogen - Total (Dumas Methods). P. 1088 In: J.M. Bartels et al. (ed.) Methods of soil analysis: Part 3 Chemical methods. (3rd ed.) ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI. Book series no. 5

GLOSSARY OF REPORT TERMSSurr - A surrogate is an organic compound that is similar to the target analyte(s) in chemical composition and behavior but not normally detected in enviromental samples. Prior to sample processing, samples are fortified with one or more surrogate compounds.The reported surrogate recovery value provides a measure of method efficiency. mg/kg (units) - unit of concentration based on mass, parts per millionmg/L (units) - unit of concentration based on volume, parts per millionN/A - Result not available. Refer to qualifier code and definition for explanation

Test results reported relate only to the samples as received by the laboratory.UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, ALL SAMPLES WERE RECEIVED IN ACCEPTABLE CONDITION.Although test results are generated under strict QA/QC protocols, any unsigned test reports, faxes, or emails are considered preliminary.

ALS Laboratory Group has an extensive QA/QC program where all analytical data reported is analyzed using approved referenced procedures followed by checks and reviews by senior managers and quality assurance personnel. However, since the results are obtained from chemical measurements and thus cannot be guaranteed, ALS Laboratory Group assumes no liability for the use or interpretation of the results.

24-AUG-09 17:49

L805711 CONTD....

14PAGE of

Additional Comments for Sample Listed:

Samplenum Matrix Sample CommentsReport Remarks

14

Appendix A3

Raw Sediment and Water Column

Quality Data

Tabl

e A

3.1

Sed

imen

t and

wat

er q

ualit

y da

ta fo

r Por

t Alb

erni

EEM

Cyc

le F

ive,

Aug

ust 2

009.

Stat

ion

Sam

ple

Dat

eTi

me

Sam

ple

Dep

th

(m)

DO

(m

g/L)

Tem

p (°

C)

Salin

ity

(ppt

)

Sam

ple

D

epth

(m

)S2

- (µm

)R

edox

(m

V)TN

(%)

TOC

(%

)

AG

008/

11/0

918

:00

09.

3619

.64

8.2

12.2

76.2

-25.

40.

363

6.77

AG

008/

11/0

91

9.04

19.5

18.

7

AG

008/

11/0

92

8.57

19.3

39.

44

AG

008/

11/0

93

8.47

19.2

210

AG

008/

11/0

94

3.11

16.3

20.7

1

AG

008/

11/0

95

2.1

13.0

727

.67

AG

008/

11/0

96

1.67

12.1

428

.65

AG

008/

11/0

97

1.98

11.2

29.5

AG

008/

11/0

98

1.95

10.6

529

.88

AG

008/

11/0

99

2.01

10.4

129

.98

AG

008/

11/0

910

1.99

10.2

430

.12

AG

008/

11/0

912

2.11

9.47

30.5

9

AG

008/

11/0

912

.72.

129.

3530

.6

AG

018/

11/0

917

:49

09.

1219

.32

8.85

16.4

126.

0-4

9.9

0.25

74.

13

AG

018/

11/0

91

8.86

19.3

59.

62

AG

018/

11/0

92

8.74

19.2

89.

81

AG

018/

11/0

93

8.66

19.2

69.

84

AG

018/

11/0

94

4.01

16.9

819

.28

AG

018/

11/0

95

2.3

13.0

527

.59

AG

018/

11/0

96

1.9

12.9

228

.19

AG

018/

11/0

97

2.06

11.2

129

.5

AG

018/

11/0

98

1.95

10.8

129

.82

AG

018/

11/0

99

2.17

10.2

530

.11

AG

018/

11/0

910

2.13

10.1

630

.18

AG

018/

11/0

912

2.24

9.79

30.4

1

AG

018/

11/0

915

.52.

149.

1930

.74

AG

028/

11/0

917

:37

08.

9619

.49

8.57

17.7

178.

0-1

47.8

0.24

93.

77

AG

028/

11/0

91

8.85

19.4

28.

8

AG

028/

11/0

92

8.75

19.2

710

.02

AG

028/

11/0

93

8.08

19.1

610

.55

AG

028/

11/0

94

3.2

16.7

520

.19

AG

028/

11/0

95

2.15

14.2

725

.76

AG

028/

11/0

96

1.88

12.1

728

.78

AG

028/

11/0

97

2.15

11.2

129

.4

AG

028/

11/0

98

2.13

10.3

730

.06

AG

028/

11/0

99

2.57

10.1

730

.19

AG

028/

11/0

910

2.59

9.97

30.3

5

AG

028/

11/0

912

2.63

9.65

30.5

1

AG

028/

11/0

915

2.45

9.18

30.6

9

AG

028/

11/0

917

.62.

319.

0130

.78

AG

038/

11/0

916

:09

08.

6319

.29

8.39

21.5

34.0

44.3

0.28

4.39

AG

038/

11/0

91

8.69

19.3

49.

01

AG

038/

11/0

92

8.37

19.1

99.

94

AG

038/

11/0

93

6.37

18.4

417

.62

AG

038/

11/0

94

2.65

15.7

923

.91

AG

038/

11/0

95

2.2

13.1

327

.5

AG

038/

11/0

96

2.15

11.6

129

.09

AG

038/

11/0

97

2.27

10.6

29.9

9

AG

038/

11/0

98

2.52

10.3

530

.11

AG

038/

11/0

99

2.22

10.0

130

.27

AG

038/

11/0

910

2.34

9.87

30.4

AG

038/

11/0

912

2.64

9.58

30.5

5

AG

038/

11/0

915

2.75

9.22

30.6

8

AG

038/

11/0

920

1.4

8.84

30.8

2

AG

038/

11/0

921

.41.

028.

6430

.91

AG

03A

8/11

/09

14:5

70

9.25

19.4

18.

1522

.490

.217

.70.

274

4.48

AG

03A

8/11

/09

18.

5919

.15

9.49

AG

03A

8/11

/09

27.

1618

.66

13.6

6

AG

03A

8/11

/09

33.

7917

.13

20.4

8

AG

03A

8/11

/09

42.

4913

.85

26.6

8

AG

03A

8/11

/09

52.

211

.92

28.7

5

AG

03A

8/11

/09

62.

610

.54

29.9

3

AG

03A

8/11

/09

72.

710

.330

.15

AG

03A

8/11

/09

82.

8710

.13

30.2

4

AG

03A

8/11

/09

92.

829.

7930

.38

AG

03A

8/11

/09

102.

499.

6630

.54

AG

03A

8/11

/09

121.

899.

3330

.55

AG

03A

8/11

/09

152.

359.

2130

.7

AG

03A

8/11

/09

202.

138.

8430

.8

AG

03A

8/11

/09

22.1

1.43

8.66

30.8

7

AG

068/

11/0

912

:23

09.

8718

.93

7.95

25.4

29.1

85.7

0.23

14.

84

AG

068/

11/0

91

8.41

18.8

9.35

AG

068/

11/0

92

7.29

19.0

714

.12

AG

068/

11/0

93

5.26

17.2

518

.45

AG

068/

11/0

94

2.83

14.0

926

.24

AG

068/

11/0

95

2.15

11.8

228

.94

SED

IMEN

T Q

UA

LITY

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY

Pag

e 1

of 8

Tabl

e A

3.1

(C

ont'd

.)

Stat

ion

Sam

ple

Dat

eTi

me

Sam

ple

Dep

th

(m)

DO

(m

g/L)

Tem

p (°

C)

Salin

ity

(ppt

)

Sam

ple

D

epth

(m

)S2

- (µm

)R

edox

(m

V)TN

(%)

TOC

(%

)

AG

068/

11/0

96

1.89

10.8

629

.76

AG

068/

11/0

97

1.49

10.3

830

.11

AG

068/

11/0

98

1.88

10.6

630

.32

AG

068/

11/0

99

2.22

9.72

30.4

2

AG

068/

11/0

910

2.24

9.49

30.5

2

AG

068/

11/0

912

1.58

9.27

30.6

AG

068/

11/0

915

1.65

9.15

30.6

8

AG

068/

11/0

920

0.92

8.71

30.8

8

AG

068/

11/0

923

.50.

898.

5230

.94

AG

06A

8/11

/09

12:0

10

9.59

19.4

26.

6731

.025

.610

9.2

0.26

36.

22

AG

06A

8/11

/09

18.

8518

.75

9.38

AG

06A

8/11

/09

27.

1918

.514

.22

*Cab

le to

o sh

ort t

o ob

tain

ent

ireA

G06

A8/

11/0

93

5.71

16.6

118

.44

dept

h pr

ofile

at A

G06

A o

n A

ug 1

1A

G06

A8/

11/0

94

274

14.1

626

.1

AG

06A

8/11

/09

52.

4812

.36

28.5

4

AG

06A

8/11

/09

62.

6611

.65

29.1

4

AG

06A

8/11

/09

72.

2310

.529

.88

AG

06A

8/11

/09

81.

8910

.17

30.1

2

AG

06A

8/11

/09

92.

0410

30.2

4

AG

06A

8/11

/09

102.

489.

8230

.36

AG

06A

8/11

/09

123.

579.

630

.54

AG

06A

8/11

/09

153.

39.

3530

.7

AG

06A

8/11

/09

201.

418.

830

.85

AG

06A

8/11

/09

240.

978.

5330

.91

AG

06A

8/14

/09

12:3

50

8.52

19.0

110

.3*A

G06

A w

ater

qua

lity

sam

pled

AG

06A

8/14

/09

18.

2518

.86

11.7

6A

ug 1

4 w

ith lo

nger

cab

leA

G06

A8/

14/0

92

7.81

18.8

412

.89

AG

06A

8/14

/09

36.

3517

.03

18.0

1

AG

06A

8/14

/09

43.

0914

.82

23.5

2

AG

06A

8/14

/09

51.

7612

.89

27.3

4

AG

06A

8/14

/09

62.

2611

.85

28.8

1

AG

06A

8/14

/09

72.

6411

.24

29.4

8

AG

06A

8/14

/09

81.

7710

.729

.88

AG

06A

8/14

/09

91.

8510

.430

.04

AG

06A

8/14

/09

102.

1910

.28

30.1

6

AG

06A

8/14

/09

121.

9510

.02

30.2

2

AG

06A

8/14

/09

153.

389.

8930

.46

AG

06A

8/14

/09

203.

239.

5330

.64

AG

06A

8/14

/09

252.

289.

0930

.78

AG

06A

8/14

/09

300.

958.

6530

.87

AG

06A

8/14

/09

31.6

0.82

8.48

30.9

6

AG

088/

14/0

99:

360

8.87

18.5

410

.84

46.6

46.5

108.

40.

356

7.61

AG

088/

14/0

91

7.41

18.7

112

.29

AG

088/

14/0

92

7.46

17.7

15.9

8

AG

088/

14/0

93

6.5

16.2

120

.25

AG

088/

14/0

94

3.91

14.5

923

.98

AG

088/

14/0

95

2.62

13.6

226

.03

AG

088/

14/0

96

2.29

12.7

327

.5

AG

088/

14/0

97

3.58

10.9

929

.82

AG

088/

14/0

98

3.62

10.6

830

.02

AG

088/

14/0

99

3.58

10.4

530

.19

AG

088/

14/0

910

3.76

10.4

230

.25

AG

088/

14/0

912

3.38

10.1

30.3

4

AG

088/

14/0

915

3.34

9.64

30.5

4

AG

088/

14/0

920

2.35

9.16

30.6

9

AG

088/

14/0

925

1.88

8.86

30.7

8

AG

088/

14/0

930

1.14

8.55

30.8

9

AG

088/

14/0

935

0.92

8.32

31.0

5

AG

088/

14/0

940

0.96

8.22

31.0

8

AG

088/

14/0

944

.21.

118.

1631

.16

AG

198/

11/0

912

:56

09.

3619

.32

7.11

24.4

31.5

49.8

0.28

54.

51

AG

198/

11/0

91

9.01

18.8

310

.35

AG

198/

11/0

92

7.17

18.6

816

.33

AG

198/

11/0

93

4.35

17.2

619

.43

AG

198/

11/0

94

2.32

13.9

126

.81

AG

198/

11/0

95

2.13

12.0

528

.8

AG

198/

11/0

96

2.15

10.5

429

.93

AG

198/

11/0

97

1.9

10.1

430

.15

AG

198/

11/0

98

2.07

9.89

30.3

3

AG

198/

11/0

99

2.07

9.6

30.4

6

AG

198/

11/0

910

1.8

9.49

30.4

8

AG

198/

11/0

912

1.82

9.23

30.6

2

AG

198/

11/0

915

1.8

9.07

30.7

1

AG

198/

11/0

920

1.54

8.7

30.8

8

AG

198/

11/0

922

.51.

418.

6130

.9

AG

19A

8/11

/09

12:4

00

9.38

19.3

26.

7424

.311

.783

.30.

285

4.68

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TYSE

DIM

ENT

QU

ALI

TY

Pag

e 2

of 8

Tabl

e A

3.1

(C

ont'd

.)

Stat

ion

Sam

ple

Dat

eTi

me

Sam

ple

Dep

th

(m)

DO

(m

g/L)

Tem

p (°

C)

Salin

ity

(ppt

)

Sam

ple

D

epth

(m

)S2

- (µm

)R

edox

(m

V)TN

(%)

TOC

(%

)

AG

19A

8/11

/09

18.

419

.08

9.49

AG

19A

8/11

/09

27.

118

.87

14.6

AG

19A

8/11

/09

36.

0117

.33

18.1

3

AG

19A

8/11

/09

42.

4314

.14

26.2

3

AG

19A

8/11

/09

52.

2511

.79

28.9

3

AG

19A

8/11

/09

62.

110

.58

29.9

4

AG

19A

8/11

/09

71.

8110

.21

30.1

4

AG

19A

8/11

/09

82.

029.

8730

.32

AG

19A

8/11

/09

92.

179.

5430

.49

AG

19A

8/11

/09

102.

259.

4930

.54

AG

19A

8/11

/09

122.

29.

3430

.58

AG

19A

8/11

/09

152.

229.

1130

.69

AG

19A

8/11

/09

201.

448.

7430

.85

AG

19A

8/11

/09

23.9

0.72

8.49

30.9

4

AG

238/

11/0

910

:30

07.

8217

.87

18.5

923

.93.

319

9.3

0.19

72.

77

AG

238/

14/0

98:

420

8.37

17.5

618

.76

AG

238/

14/0

91

8.34

17.5

818

.8

AG

238/

14/0

92

8.18

17.5

319

.18

AG

238/

14/0

93

7.62

16.1

922

.38

AG

238/

14/0

94

7.07

14.7

525

.96

AG

238/

14/0

95

6.93

12.2

629

.93

AG

238/

14/0

96

7.06

12.1

130

.19

AG

238/

14/0

97

7.08

12.0

230

.34

AG

238/

14/0

98

7.02

11.8

230

.42

AG

238/

14/0

99

6.96

11.3

530

.7

AG

238/

14/0

910

6.95

11.3

330

.7

AG

238/

14/0

912

6.77

11.1

30.7

4

AG

238/

14/0

915

6.69

10.9

30.7

6

AG

238/

14/0

920

6.3

10.5

530

.86

AG

238/

14/0

925

5.66

10.0

630

.87

AG

238/

14/0

930

5.19

9.78

30.9

3

AG

238/

14/0

935

4.53

9.37

31

AG

238/

14/0

940

3.85

9.06

31.0

4

AG

248/

11/0

918

:11

09.

1519

.57

8.02

14.9

943.

0-2

48.0

0.39

95.

96

AG

248/

11/0

91

9.02

19.5

8.47

AG

248/

11/0

92

8.51

19.3

19.

42

AG

248/

11/0

93

8.35

19.2

49.

78

AG

248/

11/0

94

4.22

17.2

118

.28

AG

248/

11/0

95

1.7

13.2

527

.06

AG

248/

11/0

96

1.48

11.7

728

.97

AG

248/

11/0

97

1.7

11.2

229

.42

AG

248/

11/0

98

1.91

10.6

429

.85

AG

248/

11/0

99

1.95

10.3

130

.08

AG

248/

11/0

910

1.92

9.85

30.3

4

AG

248/

11/0

912

2.11

9.34

30.6

3

AG

248/

11/0

914

.72.

129.

2130

.69

B2

8/11

/09

13:1

30

9.36

19.3

77.

1420

.217

.570

.60.

266

4.32

B2

8/11

/09

18.

0219

.03

10.1

9

B2

8/11

/09

26.

9718

.87

15.3

3

B2

8/11

/09

34.

4816

.11

22.9

7

B2

8/11

/09

42.

2513

.52

27.2

B2

8/11

/09

52.

211

.61

29.1

3

B2

8/11

/09

62.

1410

.529

.92

B2

8/11

/09

72.

0210

.130

.17

B2

8/11

/09

81.

969.

8230

.34

B2

8/11

/09

91.

939.

5930

.45

B2

8/11

/09

101.

659.

4530

.5

B2

8/11

/09

121.

619.

230

.64

B2

8/11

/09

151.

338.

9630

.76

B2

8/11

/09

201.

178.

6230

.89

B6

8/11

/09

13:2

90

8.8

19.7

56.

4824

.927

.141

.30.

302

4.89

B6

8/11

/09

18.

4918

.93

10.5

6

B6

8/11

/09

27.

1218

.85

15.5

8

B6

8/11

/09

33.

7916

.818

.69

B6

8/11

/09

42.

6413

.24

26.9

4

B6

8/11

/09

52.

411

.84

29.3

1

B6

8/11

/09

62.

3310

.85

29.6

9

B6

8/11

/09

72.

5610

.63

29.8

8

B6

8/11

/09

82.

559.

830

.38

B6

8/11

/09

92.

879.

7130

.48

B6

8/11

/09

102.

559.

5430

.49

B6

8/11

/09

122.

59.

4430

.62

B6

8/11

/09

153

9.18

30.7

8

B6

8/11

/09

201.

838.

7330

.85

B6

8/11

/09

24.2

1.31

8.42

30.9

8

C5

8/11

/09

14:4

10

9.63

19.4

87.

8722

.850

.232

.40.

279

4.33

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TYSE

DIM

ENT

QU

ALI

TY

Pag

e 3

of 8

Tabl

e A

3.1

(C

ont'd

.)

Stat

ion

Sam

ple

Dat

eTi

me

Sam

ple

Dep

th

(m)

DO

(m

g/L)

Tem

p (°

C)

Salin

ity

(ppt

)

Sam

ple

D

epth

(m

)S2

- (µm

)R

edox

(m

V)TN

(%)

TOC

(%

)

C5

8/11

/09

19.

3619

.32

8.44

C5

8/11

/09

27.

1318

.96

14.6

5

C5

8/11

/09

34.

2617

.39

19.5

1

C5

8/11

/09

42.

6613

.75

26.8

2

C5

8/11

/09

52.

2511

.92

28.7

2

C5

8/11

/09

62.

3910

.67

29.9

1

C5

8/11

/09

72.

7510

.27

30.1

3

C5

8/11

/09

82.

249.

9930

.24

C5

8/11

/09

91.

989.

730

.42

C5

8/11

/09

102.

279.

5530

.49

C5

8/11

/09

122.

399.

3930

.61

C5

8/11

/09

151.

879.

1130

.7

C5

8/11

/09

201.

528.

8130

.8

C5

8/11

/09

22.8

0.93

8.61

30.8

9

D4

8/11

/09

15:1

10

9.27

19.2

78.

7919

.444

.68.

00.

293

4.5

D4

8/11

/09

19.

0619

.24

9.29

20.8

39.4

9.8

0.28

4.49

D4

8/11

/09

26.

4618

.715

20.4

54.4

-60.

30.

267

4.28

D4

8/11

/09

36.

2118

.49

17.8

2

D4

8/11

/09

42.

6513

.63

27.1

2

D4

8/11

/09

52.

2212

.88

28.2

5

D4

8/11

/09

62.

3310

.47

30.0

2

D4

8/11

/09

72.

5310

.230

.12

D4

8/11

/09

82.

119.

9330

.32

D4

8/11

/09

92

9.76

30.3

8

D4

8/11

/09

102.

249.

4730

.55

D4

8/11

/09

121.

819.

2930

.6

D4

8/11

/09

152.

219.

2230

.71

D4

8/11

/09

201.

168.

7830

.81

D4

8/11

/09

20.7

0.84

8.7

30.8

4

E3

8/11

/09

15:2

60

9.32

19.2

59.

3918

.744

.662

.00.

292

4.83

E3

8/11

/09

19.

1319

.22

9.69

18.7

40.0

98.2

E3

8/11

/09

27.

3318

.99

12.5

918

.833

.331

.2

E3

8/11

/09

35.

7818

.38

16.3

1

E3

8/11

/09

43.

1614

.81

24.6

7

E3

8/11

/09

52.

213

.46

27.4

1

E3

8/11

/09

62.

0910

.99

29.6

2

E3

8/11

/09

72.

1110

.47

29.9

7

E3

8/11

/09

82.

3110

.05

30.2

3

E3

8/11

/09

92.

379.

7830

.38

E3

8/11

/09

102.

289.

6530

.47

E3

8/11

/09

122.

29.

4630

.62

E3

8/11

/09

152.

749.

2530

.71

E3

8/11

/09

18.6

1.76

8.83

30.7

9

E4

8/11

/09

15:4

10

9.01

19.2

59.

3219

.442

.1-5

5.2

0.25

64.

44

E4

8/11

/09

18.

8319

.22

9.62

19.6

5.3

49.2

0.26

64.

33

E4

8/11

/09

28.

0718

.92

11.0

919

.837

.237

.50.

269

4.33

E4

8/11

/09

36.

4118

.64

16.3

3

E4

8/11

/09

43.

8616

.92

20.5

5

E4

8/11

/09

52.

2913

.227

.53

E4

8/11

/09

61.

9511

.21

29.4

4

E4

8/11

/09

72.

2510

.729

.83

E4

8/11

/09

82.

4310

.29

30.0

9

E4

8/11

/09

92.

399.

9130

.39

E4

8/11

/09

102.

679.

7130

.49

E4

8/11

/09

122.

819.

4130

.59

E4

8/11

/09

152.

799.

2230

.69

E4

8/11

/09

19.1

1.39

8.81

30.7

9

E6

8/11

/09

15:5

50

9.11

19.4

18.

7920

.749

.838

.90.

277

4.6

E6

8/11

/09

18.

9819

.39.

19

E6

8/11

/09

28.

7219

.19

9.85

E6

8/11

/09

36.

6318

.616

.26

E6

8/11

/09

42.

6615

.51

24.9

7

E6

8/11

/09

52.

2913

.38

27.3

6

E6

8/11

/09

62.

1911

.72

29.0

5

E6

8/11

/09

72.

2210

.69

29.8

9

E6

8/11

/09

82.

5410

.33

30.1

1

E6

8/11

/09

92.

539.

9430

.31

E6

8/11

/09

102.

299.

7630

.47

E6

8/11

/09

122.

579.

4930

.54

E6

8/11

/09

152.

759.

2730

.7

E6

8/11

/09

201.

598.

8230

.78

E6

8/11

/09

211.

018.

6930

.89

F28/

11/0

916

:50

08.

9419

.27

10.1

816

.635

.830

.00.

289

5.45

F28/

11/0

91

8.73

19.2

210

.59

F28/

11/0

92

8.31

19.1

311

.18

F28/

11/0

93

7.38

18.8

112

.75

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TYSE

DIM

ENT

QU

ALI

TY

Pag

e 4

of 8

Tabl

e A

3.1

(C

ont'd

.)

Stat

ion

Sam

ple

Dat

eTi

me

Sam

ple

Dep

th

(m)

DO

(m

g/L)

Tem

p (°

C)

Salin

ity

(ppt

)

Sam

ple

D

epth

(m

)S2

- (µm

)R

edox

(m

V)TN

(%)

TOC

(%

)

F28/

11/0

94

4.2

17.3

519

.92

F28/

11/0

95

2.5

14.3

225

.59

F28/

11/0

96

2.21

11.8

128

.78

F28/

11/0

97

2.12

10.9

229

.74

F28/

11/0

98

2.15

10.4

330

.02

F28/

11/0

99

2.12

10.0

230

.25

F28/

11/0

910

1.97

9.66

30.4

3

F28/

11/0

912

1.79

9.42

30.5

7

F28/

11/0

915

2.02

9.16

30.6

7

F28/

11/0

916

.31.

829.

1130

.73

F48/

11/0

916

:33

08.

719

.27

10.0

518

.458

.1-6

1.9

0.28

3.99

F48/

11/0

91

8.63

19.2

510

.18

18.3

67.8

29.8

0.28

44.

25

F48/

11/0

92

8.56

19.2

110

.45

18.2

59.0

23.4

0.26

34

F48/

11/0

93

6.98

18.9

112

.27

F48/

11/0

94

4.42

17.5

319

.04

F48/

11/0

95

2.95

13.8

126

.39

F48/

11/0

96

2.41

11.1

329

.58

F48/

11/0

97

5.15

10.7

729

.78

F48/

11/0

98

210

.45

29.9

9

F48/

11/0

99

2.49

10.1

630

.2

F48/

11/0

910

2.86

9.96

30.3

3

F48/

11/0

912

2.79

9.54

30.5

4

F48/

11/0

915

2.75

9.24

30.6

5

F48/

11/0

917

.81.

889.

0430

.74

F68/

11/0

916

:21

08.

4719

.34

9.07

20.3

55.6

18.0

0.28

44.

32

F68/

11/0

91

8.56

19.3

9.18

F68/

11/0

92

8.48

19.2

49.

62

F68/

11/0

93

6.41

18.6

115

.66

F68/

11/0

94

2.41

15.4

423

.08

F68/

11/0

95

2.16

12.9

727

.79

F68/

11/0

96

2.18

11.6

529

.14

F68/

11/0

97

2.17

10.6

429

.92

F68/

11/0

98

2.5

10.3

230

.13

F68/

11/0

99

2.51

10.0

430

.28

F68/

11/0

910

2.56

9.94

30.3

7

F68/

11/0

912

2.65

9.56

30.5

3

F68/

11/0

915

2.85

9.25

30.6

8

F68/

11/0

920

1.74

8.81

30.8

3

F68/

11/0

921

0.88

8.66

30.8

4

G2

8/11

/09

17:0

00

9.82

19.3

59.

314

.640

.6-9

4.8

0.28

25.

82

G2

8/11

/09

19.

6619

.33

9.32

G2

8/11

/09

28.

5119

.19

10.6

3

G2

8/11

/09

38.

3219

.08

11.8

4

G2

8/11

/09

43.

8916

.83

21.0

1

G2

8/11

/09

52.

4713

.62

26.9

1

G2

8/11

/09

62.

0212

.28

28.2

8

G2

8/11

/09

71.

9711

29.6

7

G2

8/11

/09

82.

0610

.33

30.0

5

G2

8/11

/09

92.

0910

.05

30.2

4

G2

8/11

/09

101.

939.

8530

.4

G2

8/11

/09

122.

569.

4830

.54

G2

8/11

/09

152.

079.

2730

.59

G3

8/11

/09

17:1

10

9.01

19.3

210

.14

15.8

77.9

-16.

90.

282

4.39

G3

8/11

/09

18.

8519

.310

.17

15.8

25.8

-2.1

0.26

84.

15

G3

8/11

/09

28.

5919

.24

10.4

215

.864

.4-1

2.6

0.25

84.

52

G3

8/11

/09

38.

4119

.210

.47

G3

8/11

/09

43.

2916

.48

22.4

2

G3

8/11

/09

52.

6413

.45

26.7

5

G3

8/11

/09

62.

311

.79

28.7

3

G3

8/11

/09

72.

2511

.08

29.5

3

G3

8/11

/09

82.

1510

.65

29.8

4

G3

8/11

/09

92.

210

.26

30.0

9

G3

8/11

/09

102.

749.

9130

.37

G3

8/11

/09

122.

719.

7230

.43

G3

8/11

/09

152.

489.

2330

.68

G3

8/11

/09

15.7

2.27

9.21

30.6

1

G5

8/11

/09

17:2

60

9.02

19.4

58.

5417

.317

1.0

-148

.50.

285

4.13

G5

8/11

/09

18.

7119

.27

10.2

6

G5

8/11

/09

28.

6319

.24

10.3

G5

8/11

/09

38.

5619

.23

10.3

3

G5

8/11

/09

42.

9517

.56

18.4

8

G5

8/11

/09

52.

1314

.24

26.1

4

G5

8/11

/09

61.

9113

.05

27.7

6

G5

8/11

/09

72.

0911

.12

29.5

3

G5

8/11

/09

82.

2810

.330

.14

G5

8/11

/09

92.

6610

.15

30.2

4

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TYSE

DIM

ENT

QU

ALI

TY

Pag

e 5

of 8

Tabl

e A

3.1

(C

ont'd

.)

Stat

ion

Sam

ple

Dat

eTi

me

Sam

ple

Dep

th

(m)

DO

(m

g/L)

Tem

p (°

C)

Salin

ity

(ppt

)

Sam

ple

D

epth

(m

)S2

- (µm

)R

edox

(m

V)TN

(%)

TOC

(%

)

G5

8/11

/09

102.

859.

9730

.34

G5

8/11

/09

122.

489.

5930

.53

G5

8/11

/09

152.

543.

2730

.65

G5

8/11

/09

172.

249.

130

.72

H3

8/12

/09

7:30

08.

9419

.07

4.5

13.5

65.0

66.9

0.28

4.1

H3

8/12

/09

18.

7919

.31

9.71

13.8

62.0

57.8

H3

8/12

/09

27.

9819

.06

11.7

313

.858

.144

.5

H3

8/12

/09

36.

6218

.38

16.1

6

H3

8/12

/09

42.

5416

.321

.5

H3

8/12

/09

51.

213

.56

26.8

7

H3

8/12

/09

61.

5112

.25

28.6

5

H3

8/12

/09

71.

8911

.06

29.5

9

H3

8/12

/09

81.

9110

.42

30

H3

8/12

/09

91.

7310

.16

30.1

4

H3

8/12

/09

101.

989.

8530

.29

H3

8/12

/09

122.

549.

5930

.5

H3

8/12

/09

13.7

2.46

9.46

30.5

6

H5

8/12

/09

7:48

08.

9718

.75.

0715

.55.

141

.40.

269

3.7

H5

8/12

/09

19.

119

.32

9.09

H5

8/12

/09

28.

1519

.02

11.4

3

H5

8/12

/09

35.

8218

.24

16.1

6

H5

8/12

/09

42.

9216

.59

19.9

5

H5

8/12

/09

51.

6613

.39

26.8

7

H5

8/12

/09

61.

9111

.71

29.1

6

H5

8/12

/09

72.

0711

.04

29.5

3

H5

8/12

/09

82.

0910

.42

30.0

2

H5

8/12

/09

92.

389.

9830

.26

H5

8/12

/09

102.

769.

9230

.33

H5

8/12

/09

122.

939.

630

.54

H5

8/12

/09

152.

729.

430

.58

H7

8/12

/09

8:02

09.

0218

.15

6.02

18.3

37.2

27.9

0.31

5.77

H7

8/12

/09

18.

5619

.11

10.5

618

.237

.8-1

4.6

H7

8/12

/09

27.

8418

.812

.32

18.2

37.3

-6.3

H7

8/12

/09

36.

117

.97

17.5

9

H7

8/12

/09

43

16.6

620

.4

H7

8/12

/09

51.

8312

.94

27.6

6

H7

8/12

/09

61.

9211

.46

29.2

5

H7

8/12

/09

72.

0311

.04

29.5

5

H7

8/12

/09

82.

2510

.34

30.0

2

H7

8/12

/09

92.

3710

.02

30.2

2

H7

8/12

/09

102.

759.

7330

.42

H7

8/12

/09

122.

729.

5730

.47

H7

8/12

/09

152.

589.

4130

.58

H7

8/12

/09

18.2

2.62

9.13

30.7

1

I28/

12/0

98:

420

8.76

18.9

92.

9310

.664

.5-7

9.9

0.31

6.12

I28/

12/0

91

8.81

19.1

88.

8

I28/

12/0

92

8.2

19.1

11.1

4

I28/

12/0

93

6.72

18.3

915

.63

I28/

12/0

94

2.43

16.2

321

.01

I28/

12/0

95

1.58

13.3

826

.64

I28/

12/0

96

1.54

12.0

328

.69

I28/

12/0

97

1.77

10.9

629

.49

I28/

12/0

98

1.93

10.3

830

.05

I28/

12/0

99

2.33

10.1

230

.23

I28/

12/0

99.

82.

539.

930

.32

I48/

12/0

98:

300

8.35

19.0

15.

3614

.075

.4-1

80.4

0.45

47.

22

I48/

12/0

91

8.68

19.2

49.

85

I48/

12/0

92

7.68

18.9

811

.79

I48/

12/0

93

6.75

18.5

214

.84

I48/

12/0

94

3.01

16.3

920

.71

I48/

12/0

95

1.6

13.6

426

.42

I48/

12/0

96

1.35

11.7

828

.97

I48/

12/0

97

1.77

10.9

229

.65

I48/

12/0

98

2.04

10.6

429

.85

I48/

12/0

99

1.98

10.1

330

.17

I48/

12/0

910

2.62

9.89

30.3

5

I48/

12/0

912

2.71

9.62

30.4

9

I48/

12/0

913

.52.

699.

5130

.57

I68/

12/0

98:

170

8.71

18.9

45.

7815

.160

.3-2

71.5

0.32

95.

34

I68/

12/0

91

8.65

19.1

710

.21

I68/

12/0

92

7.17

18.7

512

.35

I68/

12/0

93

6.15

18.4

315

.98

I68/

12/0

94

3.94

16.9

219

.54

I68/

12/0

95

1.7

12.9

427

.77

I68/

12/0

96

1.7

11.5

429

.26

I68/

12/0

97

1.83

11.2

329

.44

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TYSE

DIM

ENT

QU

ALI

TY

Pag

e 6

of 8

Tabl

e A

3.1

(C

ont'd

.)

Stat

ion

Sam

ple

Dat

eTi

me

Sam

ple

Dep

th

(m)

DO

(m

g/L)

Tem

p (°

C)

Salin

ity

(ppt

)

Sam

ple

D

epth

(m

)S2

- (µm

)R

edox

(m

V)TN

(%)

TOC

(%

)

I68/

12/0

98

2.04

10.5

529

.91

I68/

12/0

99

2.2

10.1

530

.19

I68/

12/0

910

2.37

1030

.26

I68/

12/0

912

2.64

9.64

30.5

4

I68/

12/0

913

.32.

799.

6130

.5

J38/

12/0

98:

590

8.16

19.2

45.

4811

.311

9.0

-135

.40.

297

4.41

J38/

12/0

91

8.84

19.4

19.

7

J38/

12/0

92

8.02

19.0

511

.45

J38/

12/0

93

5.93

18.3

915

.57

J38/

12/0

94

2.73

16.4

120

.97

J38/

12/0

95

1.08

12.8

627

.53

J38/

12/0

96

1.02

11.7

728

.84

J38/

12/0

97

1.68

10.5

829

.91

J38/

12/0

98

1.84

10.3

430

.05

J38/

12/0

99

2.25

10.0

330

.22

J38/

12/0

910

2.33

9.97

30.2

9

J38/

12/0

911

.32.

49.

7230

.51

J58/

12/0

99:

110

8.65

19.3

5.56

10.6

24.0

-15.

20.

159

2.83

J58/

12/0

91

8.58

19.2

89.

8

J58/

12/0

92

7.45

18.8

412

.42

J58/

12/0

93

6.44

18.5

315

.13

J58/

12/0

94

3.5

16.9

819

.55

J58/

12/0

95

1.85

12.8

227

.65

J58/

12/0

96

1.73

11.7

829

.05

J58/

12/0

97

1.92

10.6

229

.91

J58/

12/0

98

2.17

10.2

30.1

6

J58/

12/0

99

2.42

9.9

30.3

4

J58/

12/0

910

.12.

619.

6730

.47

J78/

12/0

99:

230

8.74

18.3

15.

945.

032

3.0

-171

.20.

339

5.53

J78/

12/0

91

8.67

19.0

610

.02

J78/

12/0

92

7.29

18.7

313

.14

J78/

12/0

93

5.69

18.1

915

.71

J78/

12/0

94

3.76

16.4

520

.73

J78/

12/0

94.

32.

8315

.78

22.1

7

K1

8/12

/09

10:0

20

8.38

19.2

12.

231.

445

.8-5

4.0

0.11

82.

62

K1

8/12

/09

18.

2319

.39

8.77

K1

8/12

/09

1.3

8.4

19.2

110

.84

K4

8/12

/09

9:41

08.

0719

.18

2.06

11.5

419.

0-1

76.4

0.45

56.

47

K4

8/12

/09

19.

0419

.34

9.93

K4

8/12

/09

27.

1518

.84

11.7

4

K4

8/12

/09

36.

0218

.15

16.4

7

K4

8/12

/09

41.

7114

.67

24.4

5

K4

8/12

/09

51.

0112

.65

28.0

4

K4

8/12

/09

61.

6311

.56

29.1

6

K4

8/12

/09

71.

6211

.14

29.4

3

K4

8/12

/09

81.

6910

.39

30.0

1

K4

8/12

/09

92.

189.

8730

.35

K4

8/12

/09

102.

39.

6830

.47

K4

8/12

/09

10.8

2.15

9.46

30.5

6

K5

8/12

/09

9:52

07.

9419

.18

3.74

8.5

210.

0-1

27.8

0.56

78.

23

K5

8/12

/09

18.

9819

.37

9.32

K5

8/12

/09

27.

1218

.78

13.2

K5

8/12

/09

35.

6418

.04

16.9

1

K5

8/12

/09

42.

4616

.29

22.4

3

K5

8/12

/09

51.

3812

.37

28.2

8

K5

8/12

/09

61.

4411

.34

29.3

8

K5

8/12

/09

71.

6710

.71

29.8

2

K5

8/12

/09

7.9

210

.29

30.1

2

K6

8/12

/09

9:30

09.

6219

.14

6.19

11.2

244.

0-1

13.7

0.36

36.

45

K6

8/12

/09

18.

9319

.310

.1

K6

8/12

/09

26.

8618

.85

12.5

8

K6

8/12

/09

35.

0117

.94

16.4

7

K6

8/12

/09

42.

4715

.87

22.2

1

K6

8/12

/09

51.

7812

.82

27.9

2

K6

8/12

/09

61.

3511

.48

29.2

K6

8/12

/09

71.

7410

.82

29.7

8

K6

8/12

/09

82.

0710

.29

30.1

5

K6

8/12

/09

92.

339.

9830

.3

K6

8/12

/09

102.

529.

8730

.33

K6

8/12

/09

11.4

2.31

9.42

30.6

L58/

12/0

910

:12

09.

1419

.14

5.83

11.9

148.

0-4

5.6

0.32

98.

76

L58/

12/0

91

9.04

19.2

59.

411

.145

8.0

-133

.40.

235

4.92

L58/

12/0

92

7.41

19.0

111

.31

11.6

571.

0-1

52.6

0.41

29.

22

L58/

12/0

93

4.98

17.9

617

.32

L58/

12/0

94

1.92

16.6

322

.01

L58/

12/0

95

0.95

13.1

427

.08

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TYSE

DIM

ENT

QU

ALI

TY

Pag

e 7

of 8

Tabl

e A

3.1

(C

ont'd

.)

Stat

ion

Sam

ple

Dat

eTi

me

Sam

ple

Dep

th

(m)

DO

(m

g/L)

Tem

p (°

C)

Salin

ity

(ppt

)

Sam

ple

D

epth

(m

)S2

- (µm

)R

edox

(m

V)TN

(%)

TOC

(%

)

L58/

12/0

96

1.25

11.5

929

.03

L58/

12/0

97

1.4

10.6

829

.73

L58/

12/0

98

2.23

10.1

630

.21

L58/

12/0

99

2.37

9.89

30.3

5

L58/

12/0

910

1.88

9.47

30.5

6

L58/

12/0

911

.81.

599.

3830

.63

L68/

12/0

910

:24

08.

9818

.78

6.78

9.3

159.

0-1

20.3

0.37

310

.1

L68/

12/0

91

9.04

19.2

610

.49.

319

8.0

-56.

2

L68/

12/0

92

7.7

18.9

112

.03

9.3

151.

0-4

2.5

L68/

12/0

93

6.21

18.1

416

.36

L68/

12/0

94

2.93

16.6

20.5

9

L68/

12/0

95

1.15

12.7

727

.52

L68/

12/0

96

1.13

11.5

729

.04

L68/

12/0

97

1.26

10.7

129

.74

L68/

12/0

98

1.82

10.4

529

.99

L68/

12/0

98.

72.

0710

.21

30.1

8

M1

8/12

/09

11:2

70

8.35

19.3

32.

334.

219

2.0

-157

.10.

199

2.13

M1

8/12

/09

19.

419

.311

.21

M1

8/12

/09

26.

8618

.88

12.6

1

M1

8/12

/09

34.

6617

.56

17.7

8

M1

8/12

/09

42.

2315

.83

22.0

3

M4

8/12

/09

11:1

20

9.12

19.8

14.

965.

868

5.0

-163

.30.

452

13.9

M4

8/12

/09

18.

119

.02

11.0

8

M4

8/12

/09

27

18.8

812

.75

M4

8/12

/09

34.

9917

.92

16.6

4

M4

8/12

/09

42.

0114

.92

23.9

6

M4

8/12

/09

51.

6711

.93

28.8

2

M4

8/12

/09

61.

5711

.129

.55

M5

8/12

/09

10:3

70

9.09

19.2

75.

7411

.354

50.0

-186

.60.

489

12.9

M5

8/12

/09

18.

1519

.210

.4

M5

8/12

/09

26.

3918

.74

13.0

2

M5

8/12

/09

35.

2318

.25

15.6

4

M5

8/12

/09

42.

0116

.121

.79

M5

8/12

/09

51.

0313

.11

27.1

4

M5

8/12

/09

60.

8911

.44

28.9

2

M5

8/12

/09

70.

7810

.76

29.6

5

M5

8/12

/09

81.

7710

.28

30.0

8

M5

8/12

/09

91.

9810

.06

30.2

3

M5

8/12

/09

102

9.97

30.2

6

N4

8/12

/09

11:1

80

8.59

20.5

55.

44.

460

10.0

-169

.60.

577

9.25

N4

8/12

/09

18.

3919

.41

9.75

8

N4

8/12

/09

26.

0118

.67

13.2

6

N4

8/12

/09

33.

5316

.88

19.7

6

N4

8/12

/09

41.

8815

.622

.7

O3

8/12

/09

11:3

50

8.37

19.4

2.02

2.0

87.3

-104

.30.

112

1.39

O3

8/12

/09

18.

8219

.36

7.33

O3

8/12

/09

1.4

8.78

19.3

48.

89

RM

18/

12/0

911

:03

08.

9419

.85

4.71

8.2

761.

0-1

73.7

0.42

515

.4

RM

18/

12/0

91

8.31

19.8

78.

99

RM

18/

12/0

92

6.73

18.8

812

.6

RM

18/

12/0

93

4.98

1816

.39

RM

18/

12/0

94

1.81

15.4

423

.5

RM

18/

12/0

95

1.47

12.1

828

.4

RM

18/

12/0

96

1.41

11.5

729

.07

RM

18/

12/0

97

1.47

10.5

129

.9

RM

18/

12/0

98

1.73

10.2

230

.12

RM

28/

12/0

910

:50

07.

2919

.09

6.2

7.0

4410

.0-1

85.1

0.55

58.

06

RM

28/

12/0

91

6.89

19.2

9.95

6.9

4370

.0-1

85.6

RM

28/

12/0

92

5.88

18.6

113

.95

6.9

4170

.0-1

86.6

RM

28/

12/0

93

4.52

17.8

416

.51

RM

28/

12/0

94

1.71

16.1

20.9

5

RM

28/

12/0

95

1.18

12.9

27.2

8

RM

28/

12/0

96

0.87

10.6

429

.83

RM

28/

12/0

96.

61.

0810

.42

29.9

1

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TYSE

DIM

ENT

QU

ALI

TY

Pag

e 8

of 8

Appendix A4

Power Analysis for Regressions

Figure A4.1 Post-hoc power analysis for regressions to detect critical effect r ≥ |0.707|.

Appendix A5

Redox Potential and Sulphides:

Preparation, Calibration, and Analysis Methods

MINISTRY OF WATER, LAND AND AIR PROTECTION

Protocols for Marine Environmental Monitoring

05 September 2002

Assistant Deputy Minister

Environmental Protection Division

Protocols for Marine Environmental Monitoring 2

Table of Contents

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................3

Acronyms, Abbreviations, & Definitions................................ ................................ ................................ ......4

1. Currents Metering................................ ................................ ................................ ..............................6

Equipment .......................................................................................................................................6Procedures.......................................................................................................................................6Reporting.........................................................................................................................................6

2. Video Surveys....................................................................................................................................9

Equipment .......................................................................................................................................9Procedures.......................................................................................................................................9

3. Sediment Sampling........................................................................................................................... 11

Equipment ..................................................................................................................................... 11Procedures..................................................................................................................................... 11Reporting....................................................................................................................................... 14

4. Checking the Quality of Sediment Samples................................ ................................ ............................ 15

Physical and Chemical QA/ QC................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 15Biological QA/ QC................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 15Reporting....................................................................................................................................... 15

5. Calibrating the Sulphide Electrode ....................................................................................................... 16

Materials ........................................................................................................................................ 16Preparing Solutions.......................................................................................................................... 16Procedures..................................................................................................................................... 18

6. Standardizing the Redox Electrode....................................................................................................... 20

Materials ........................................................................................................................................ 20Procedures..................................................................................................................................... 20

7. Performing Statistical Analyses................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 21

Preparations for Statistical Analyses ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 21Statistical Methods to Determine If Requirements Have Been Met ............................................................. 22Statistical Power Analyses ................................................................................................................. 25

Appendix A: Design of Video Survey........................................................................................................ 26

Baseline Monitoring.......................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix B: Design of Sediment Sampling................................................................................................ 27

Baseline Monitoring.......................................................................................................................... 27Operational Monitoring..................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix C: Statistical Procedures .......................................................................................................... 29


Introduction

To support the Finfish Aquaculture Waste Control Regulation, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (WLAP) has developed Protocols for Marine Environment Monitoring. These protocols will ensure that high quality data are collected, thereby leading to sound decisions as to whether environmental standards are being met. WLAP developed the protocols with assistance from various government agencies, consultants, literature reviews, and equipment manufacturers.

The protocols were developed with regard to the aquaculture industry. However, these protocols mayalso be relevant to monitoring or assessing impacts of other anthropogenic activities.

The protocols comprise 7 sections:

Section 1 lists acceptable types of current meters for generating data on currents at BC aquaculture operations. It also specifies the supporting information that monitoring agencies must submit.

Section 2 specifies the video equipment for completing video surveys (typically of hard-bottom sites) and outlines procedures for deploying the camera and generating acceptable quality video.

Section 3 describes materials and methods for soft-bottom sampling, including procedures for obtaining specific types of data.

Section 4 outlines the quality assurance/ quality control requirements for physical and chemical parameters and biological samples.

Sections 5 and 6 describe procedures for standardizing and calibrating field meters for sulphide and Eh measurements. The procedures are specific to ThermoOrion meters and probes, the most widely used brand. Other companies’ meters and probes are acceptable, provided the standardization and calibration procedures provided by the manufacturer are followed.

Section 7 describes statistical tools for analysing sampling data from soft-bottom sites and the video from hard-bottom sites.

Appendix A summarizes the video survey requirements for baseline inventory monitoring.

Appendix B summarizes the sediment sampling requirements for both baseline inventory and operational monitoring.

Appendix C describes statistical procedures to be used for existing facilities and new facilities respectively.


Acronyms, Abbreviations, & Definitions

ANOSIM: analysis of similarities

ANOVA: analysis of variance

BACI: before-after-control-impact (study design)

Baseline monitoring: sampling conducted before operation of a finfish aquaculture facility

BCGS: British Columbia Geographic System

Beggiatoa: a genus of bacteria that forms white mats on the sediment surface in areas of intense organic enrichment

Capitella : a genus of polychaetes that thrives in areas of intense organic enrichment

CEAA: Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

Cu: copper concentration (expressed in µg/ g dry sediment)

DGPS: Differential Global Positioning System

DI: de-ionized

EDTA: ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid

Eh: redox potential (expressed in millivolts, mV)

Epifauna: animals that live on top of the substratum

EScrit: critical effect size

HA: alternate hypothesis

HO: null hypothesis

Infauna: animals that live within the substratum

LWBC: Land & Water British Columbia Inc.

M: median

Macrofauna: animals with body sizes on the scale of millimetres

MAFF: BC Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

MCI: multiple control/ impact (study design)

MDS: multi-dimensional scaling


Megafauna: animals with body sizes on the scale of centimetres

MLR: multiple linear regression

N: sample size

NAD: North American datum

NLR: non-linear regression

Operational monitoring: sampling conducted during operation of a finfish aquaculture facility and as outlined in Schedule B of the Finfish Aquaculture Waste Control Regulation

QA/ QC: quality assurance/ quality control

ROV: remotely operated vehicle

S=: free sulfide concentration (expressed in micromolar, µM)

SAOB: sulphide anti-oxidant buffer

SD: standard deviation

SGS: sediment grain size

SLR: simple linear regression

TOC: total organic carbon (expressed in µg/ g dry sediment)

TVS: total volatile solids (expressed as a percentage)

WLAP: BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection

x : sample mean

Zn: zinc concentration (expressed in µg/ g dry sediment)

1 – ß: power (of statistical test)

a: Type I error rate (significance level)

ß: Type II error rate

ß1: rate of increase (non-linear) or slope (linear) of population regression line

µ: population mean


1. Currents Metering

EquipmentElectronic current meters capable of determining both speed and direction are available from several manufacturers (Aanderaa, Sontek, Nortek, RD Instruments, Applied Microsystems, InterOcean Systems, etc). We recommend a meter with an internal data-logger, which can be pre-set for the correct interval and record the results automatically. Both vector-averaging and instantaneous type meters areacceptable. Only experts should attempt to program and deploy these devices, or extract and process the collected data.

Procedures1. Measure currents at 2 depths: approximately 15 m below the surface and approximately 5 m

above the bottom.

2. Report current direction in degrees True (include magnetic north reading and correction factor)and speed in cm/ s.

3. Record current speed and direction at least once every 30 min over a period of at least 30 days.

4. At sites with infrastructure in place, locate the meter away from attenuation effects of any infrastructure and in line with the prevailing current direction. Moor the current meter approximately 30 m from the offshore side of the containment structure unless circumstances do not allow it.

5. At sites where infrastructure has not yet been installed, metering locations should represent currents within the tenure, especially near containment structures.

ReportingThis information must be included with both the raw data and data summaries:

1. Current meter moorings and deployment locations

Supply a diagram showing how the current meters were deployed within the tenure area. Include in the diagram:

• the type and position (surface or sub-surface) of the flotation devices used to support the current meters during deployment

• the distances between the current meter and the flotation device

• the type and weights of anchors used.

Also, show and describe any other components or instruments attached to the mooring apparatus (e.g. mechanical or acoustic releases).

Supply DGPS co-ordinates for the deployment locations and a written description of the locations (e.g. 30 m at 270º from the southwest corner of the containment structures), indicating the locations on a map. A 1:20,000 scale BCGS map is recommended, but equivalents are acceptable. Indicate whether the DGPS co-ordinates and maps are based on the NAD 27 or NAD 83 co-ordinatesystem.


2. Start date and time

Record the date and time that the current monitoring commenced (i.e. the individual date and time that each meter began to collect and record good-quality data of local currents). Indicate whether time is recorded as Pacific Standard Time (UTC-8) or Pacific Daylight Saving Time (UTC-7).

3. End date and time

Record the date and time that the current monitoring was terminated for each meter (i.e. the date and time the current meter collected its last good record of the currents before it was recovered). Clearly indicate whether time is recorded as above.

4. Instrument

Provide the make and model of the current me ters used, including a copy of the manufacturer’s specifications, and date of last calibration and servicing.

5. Number of data points

Report the actual number of instantaneous or average measurements recorded by the meter. If measurements are taken every 30 min, there will be approximately 1400 measurements in the monitoring period and therefore 1400 data points. This number assists in calculating averages.

6. Sample interval

Report the sample interval (min) between consecutive measurements made by the meter. A sample interval must be 30 min or less.

7. Data processing and reporting

Describe the data-processing methods and software used to correct and process the current meter data. Indicate whether the current direction is in degrees True (recommended) or degrees magnetic.

Indicate whether the current meter records average or instantaneous measurements, and describe the instrument’s set-up or configuration. If the meter records average measurements, indicate the averaging interval.

Details should be provided in distinct sections of the report under the appropriate section headings or titles.

8. Depth of meter

Report the depth of the meter below the water surface or the distance of the meter from the bottom. The meter should be 15 m below the surface for surface-currents measurements and approximately 5 m above bottom for bottom-currents measurements.

9. Water depth

Report the water depth at the location of deployment.

10. Average current speed

Calculate the average current speed for the entire data-collection period (30 d). This should be calculated from the entire dataset, not from the summary data.


11. Contact names

Provide the name and contact information of the staff person or consulting company responsible for collecting and reporting the current measurements.


2. Video Surveys

EquipmentAcceptable vehicles for carrying video equipment include:

• An ROV

• A cable camera apparatus

• Scuba divers

Video equipment must meet these criteria:

• be capable of producing broadcast-quality images

• have supplemental light to increase clarity and maintain good colour balance

• have a reference object or superimposed image to show scale on the viewing screen in metres

• have an in-built DGPS unit or similar tracking device to define the transect or station being videotaped

• original video must be transferable to digital-format storage media.

Acceptable quadrat types include:

• A wire frame (1 × 1 m, with nine 33 × 33 cm sections) placed on the seabed

• A wire frame mounted on the cable camera or ROV

• A laser-delineated frame

Acceptable transect lines include:

• Brightly-coloured polypropylene ropes, weighted, and with flagging tape placed at regular intervals

• Brightly-coloured measuring tapes, weighted

ProceduresSee Appendix A for summary of design information.

A. Baseline Monitoring

1. Survey several transects across the entire tenure, capable of mapping biophysical characteristics to a 50 m resolution.

2. Within the tenure, s urvey a minimum of one transect perpendicular to shore, starting at the shore and terminating at the opposite perimeter of the tenure to describe depth


variation. Surveys should encompass all area(s) of probable footprint(s) expected forfuture containment structures.

3. Survey a minimum of 2 transects at each of 2 reference stations, each 100 m long with one oriented perpendicular to shore.

4. Use a sufficient number of macrofauna quadrats to represent each substratum type.

5. Quadrats must measure 1 × 1 m, with nine 33 × 33 cm sections. Note that quadrat size must be the same at all stations.

6. Place at least 5 quadrats at each station.

B. Selection of Reference Stations

1. Locate stations within a range of 0.5 – 2.0 km from facility.

2. Locate stations at least 0.5 km apart.

3. Ensure that the mean depth is within 20% of the mean depth of the facility tenure.

4. Ensure that characteristics such as topography, angle of repose, current and tidal regimes, amount of freshwater run-off, etc. are similar to those at facility stations;

5. If facility stations are potentially influenced by other human activities (e.g. log dumping), seek reference stations that may be similarly influenced.

C. Deployment

1. Place transect line on bottom for camera or ROV to follow on a selected bearing.

2. Attach a small boat anchor and vertical line to one end of the transect line. The camera or ROV will use the vertical line as a guide to the transect line.

3. A DGPS reading must be taken at the beginning and end of each transect and at each quadrat. Readings associated with transects are to be taken when the transect line has been pulled taut.

4. If possible, deploy the camera during slack tide to minimize drifting.

5. Deploy the camera during daylight, when there is plenty of well-diffused light. Avoid taking videos at night or in extreme overcast conditions.

6. Keep the camera or ROV close enough to the bottom to provide optimum resolution of the bottom and never more than 1.5 m above the substratum.

7. Manoeuvre the camera or ROV at a maximum speed of 0.25 m/ s.

8. Position the transect line at the edge of the camera’s field of view so that it focuses on substratum and not on the line.

9. In areas of extreme slope and or boulder complexes, move the camera from deeper to shallower water to ensure that the field of view includes the substratum.

D. Reporting

Submit data after filling out templates provided by WLAP. Provide either audio (i.e. voice dubbing) or text narration of the video. For each quadrat, describe the angle of repose as either horizontal, vertical, or oblique.


3. Sediment Sampling

Equipment1. Acceptable sampling devices for chemical/ physical sampling include Petite Ponar, Ponar,

Smith-MacIntyre, VanVeen or other appropriate equipment.

2. For biological sampling, use a Smith-MacIntyre, VanVeen, or other appropriate large-volumesediment sampling device with a 0.1 m2 footprint.

3. Various probes and chemicals, described fully in Sections 4 & 5, are to be used.

ProceduresFor a summary of sampling design, see Appendix B.

A. Baseline Monitoring

• Within each of the probable footprints, at least 3 grab samples must be taken for each sediment type. If only one sediment type predominates, at least 5 grab samples must be taken.

• 2 reference stations must be selected as described above for video surveys; at least 3 grabs must be taken at each reference station.

B. Operational Monitoring

• Ensure the transect is parallel to the predominant current direction.

• Use at least one transect for each dominant current direction or alternate design, provided extent and magnitude of effects is represented.

• Sample at least 3 stations on each transect: at perimeter of the containment structure, at 30 mfrom zero metre station, and at perimeter of tenure.

C. Selection of Reference Stations

• Sample at least 2 reference stations for each facility.

• Ensure the stations are within 0.5 – 2.0 km of the facility tenure, if possible.

• Ensure reference stations are at least 0.5 km apart, if possible.

• Ensure the mean depth is within 20% of the mean depth of facility stations.

• Ensure the SGS fractions are within 15% of the facility stations’ SGS fractions.

• Ensure that characteristics such as topography, current and tidal regimes, amount of freshwater run-off, etc., are similar to that of the facility stations.

• If the facility stations appear to have been influenced by anthropogenic activity ensure that the reference stations have similar characteristics to that of the facility stations (e.g. log dumps).

D. Sampling Preparation

1. Prepare a sulphide stock solution and EDTA/ NaOH solution in advance. Note that:


� 10,000 µM sulphide stock solution is stable for up to 5 d, if it is kept cool with limited head space.

� EDTA/ NAOH solution is stable for up to 7 d, if kept cool.

2. Check tidal conditions. If possible, do not sample during maximum flood and ebb tides or strong wind conditions.

4. Obtain latitude/ longitude using DGPS, with a minimum accuracy of ± 5 m at each station.

5. When sampling on a transect, use polypropylene rope pre-marked in metre increments to ensure accurate measurements.

6. When sampling on a transect, note bearing. Report the true-north bearing as well as the magnetic north reading and correction factor.

7. Report water depths in metres.

8. Check the Eh electrode against standard (re-check every 4 hr and when recalibrating the sulphide meter).

9. Calibrate the sulphide electrode, and recalibrate it at least every 3 - 4 hr.

10. Drift: before recalibration, and hourly during sampling or at a minimum at the completion of each sampling station, check and record the drift by measuring the sulphide concentration against each of the standard concentrations originally used to calibrate the electrode. Alwaysuse fresh standards (1000, 100, 10 µM) by serial dilution from the stock solution whenrecalibrating or checking drift. Do not attempt to correct the data for any observed drift. A drift of up to 20% is acceptable.

E. Collect and describe samples

1. Deploy and retrieve sampling device at a maximum rate of 0.3 m/ sec. Rinse all equipment with ambient seawater between grab deployments. Take care that 2nd and 3rd grab samples are not taken from the crater formed by the first grab sample. Typically, this is only of concern at the when the sampling vessel is moored at the edge of the containment structure.

2. Check for these indicators of an acceptable sample:

� overlying water present – indicating minimal leakage

� overlying water not excessively turbid – indicating minimal sample disturbance

� sediment surface relatively flat – indicating minimal sample disturbance or washing

� desired penetration depth achieved – at least 4 to 5 cm for characterizing surficial sediments

� overfilled sampling device – if occurring routinely some or all of the detachable weight might have to be removed

3. Do not make more than 4 deployments of the grab to obtain a suitable sample. If unsuccessful, provide a video of the station as an alternative (see Section 2)

4. Siphon the overlying water from the sample. Retain it for sieving if biological samples required.

5. Examine the sediment sample and record the following:


� Sediment texture, colour, odour, presence/absence of gas bubbles, Beggiatoa, fish feed, fish feces, flocculent organic material, macrophytes, terrigenous material, and farm litter

6. Take a colour photo of the sample or score sediment colour by comparing with colour charts

7. Record the penetration depth of the sampler in centimetres.

F. Measure S= and Eh levels

1. Extract 2 sub-samples by removing the top 2 centimetres of sediment from the centre of each side of the sampling device. Limit the volume of each sub-sample to what is needed for the required tests as summarised in Appendix B (i.e. 50 mL required for Eh potential and sulphide concentration). Place the 2 sub-samples in a suitable container and homogenize by gently stirring with a flat tipped steel spatula. Sulphide and Eh analyses must done within 60 min of sampling to avoid sample degradation. Wear gloves if you will be touching the sediment.

2. Measure sulphide:

a. Rinse the electrode with distilled water and blot it dry. Then insert it into sample.

b. When the initial sample is obtained and accepted, add 8.75 mg L ascorbic acid to 250 mLof previously prepared EDTA/ NaOHbuffer and thoroughly mix to create SAOB buffer. (Various amounts of SAOB can be made, provided the 8.75 g L ascorbic acid: 250 mLEDTA/ NaOHratio is maintained).

c. Combine equal volumes of sediment and SAOB in a suitable container (5 mL of each istypically sufficient for this analysis). The sediment from the sample can extracted using a cut-off syringe or spatula. Do not include material more than 0.5 cm in diameter.

d. Homogenize the mixture with a spatula.

e. Insert the sulphide electrode into the solution and gently swirl it until meter reads READY (typically 2 – 5 min).

f. Gently wipe the probe before the next sample. If an oily residue is observed on the probe, wash it with detergent before taking another sample.

3. Obtain an Eh measurement. Insert the probe into the homogenized sample described above , and wait until either the meter reads READY or the drift is 3 mV or less over a 2 sec period. Gently wipe excess sediment from the probe between sample measurements.

4. Record the temperature in the sediment sample.

5. Correct the Eh measurements by using sediment temperature and the correction factor for the filling solution in the probe supplied by the manufacturer.

6. Perform any additional measurement or analysis using the sediment sub-samples collected in Section C, step 1. Do not collect additional sub-samples for these analyses. Remove allunrepresentative material (e.g. shells, large worms, wood waste, rock) before filling the sampling receptacle See Appendix A for sample frequency and location.

7. Store all laboratory samples at 4º Celsius.

G. Biological Sampling

1. When collecting biological samples, scrape and rinse sediments from the grab into pre-cleanedcontainers. Save the rinse water* for infaunal sampling.


2. When sieving biological samples in the field:

� Sieve each sediment sample, associated overlying water and rinse water through a 1.0 mm screen. Count, identify and record megafauna (e.g. large cnidarians, echinoderms and tube worms) then return them to the sea. Photograph specimens that need to be identified by taxonomists. Fix the remaining organisms in 10% buffered formalin. After 4 d, rinse over 0.5 mm screen and preserve in 70% isopropyl alcohol or ethyl alcohol.

� Retain all coarse gravel and cobble less than 2.5 cm in diameter.

� Remove epifauna adhering to rocks and other material that is greater than 2.5 cm diameter and include them in sieved sample.

*Prior to use in sieving biological samples, rinse water must be filtered through a minimum 250 µm screen

3. For samples not sieved during the day they were obtained in the field use a 10% buffered formalin solution for preservation.

ReportingSubmit monitoring data by filling out templates supplied by WLAP.


4. Checking the Quality of Sediment Samples

Physical and Chemical QA/ QC

Free Sulfides

Take an additional sulphide measurement once every 20 samples, or once per batch if fewer than 20 samples are taken. See Section 7 for statistical approach to QA/QC.

Redox Potential

Take a triplicate measurement of Eh once every 20 samples, or once per batch if fewer than 20 samples are taken. See Section 7 for statistical approach to sulphide QA/QC.

TVS/ SGS/ Other Parameters

Obtain additional sediment from 1 of every 20 sub-samples, or once per batch if fewer than 20 samples are taken, and have duplicate analyses of required parameters completed.

Biological QA/ QCThere are 2 options for QA/ QC on biological samples:

1. Have certified facility staff submit QA samples to an expert contract taxonomist. The taxonomist’s lab must have its own QA/ QC program.

2. Have certified facility staff complete the taxonomy on site. For every 10 grab samples, they must take an additional grab sample, screen it, and split it into 2 samples. They count and identify one of the samples themselves, while submitting the other one to a recognized lab for the same procedure.

The results obtained by facility staff should match the lab results at a similarity level of at least 70%. Results from the contract lab must be reported to WLAP directly.

The facility staff must be certified by an educational institute recognized for expertise in taxonomy. Staff must be certified in taxonomic identification of benthic organisms to the family level.

Samples used by both the facility staff and the labs must be preserved and stored for a minimum of 5 years.

ReportingSubmit data by filling out templates supplied by WLAP.


5. Calibrating the Sulphide Electrode

A sulphide electrode should be calibrated before each sampling session, and recalibrated every 3 - 4 hrduring the session.

Materials� Orion model 290A meter and 9616BN silver/ sulphide electrode (Accumet and other brands are also

acceptable.)

� Electrolyte Solution: Ag/ Cl reference electrode filling solution Optimum Results A

� Prepared solutions:

Solution Preparation frequency

Sulphide Anti-Oxidant Buffer (SAOB) every 3 to 4 hr

stock S= solution 10,000 μM (10 -2 M Na2S) every 5 d

standard S= solution 1,000 μM (10-3 M Na2S): every 3 to 4 hr

standard S= solution 100 μM (10 -4 M Na2S) every 3 to 4 hr

standard S= solution 10 μM (10-5 M Na2S)use only for a 3- point calibration of sediment samples with low sulphide concentrations

every 3 to 4 hr

final calibration solutions immediately before calibration

Preparing Solutions

A. Sulphide Anti-Oxidant Buffer (SAOB)

1. Materials

� 20.00 g NaOH (sodium hydroxide)

� 17.9g EDTA

� 8.75 g L-ascorbic acid

� de-aerated DI or distilled water.

2. Procedures� In a 250 mL plastic screw top jar, mix the NaOH with the EDTA and dilute it to 250 mL with

de-aerated DI or distilled water. This solution is stable for up to 7 d. (Larger or smaller volumes can be made up provided the ratios are maintained).

� Do not add the L-ascorbic acid to EDTA/ NaOHsolution until just before sample analysis, since the solution is stable for only 4 hr after adding the L-ascorbic acid. Store SAOB buffer in the dark at 4°C.


� Once SAOB is added to a sediment sample or sulphide standard, take measurements within 30 min.

B. Stock S= solution 10,000 μ M (10-2 M Na2S)

1. Materials� 0.2402 g Na2S*9H20 (pre-weighed and stored under nitrogen)

� de-aerated DI or distilled water

2. Procedures

� In a well-ventilated area, add 0.2402 g Na 2S*9H20 to a volumetric flask and dilute to 100 mL using de-aerated DI or distilled water.

� Store this stock solution in an airtight dark glass bottle at 4°C. Provided the head space isminimized, this stock solution is stable for up to 5 d.

C. Standard S= solution 1,000 μ M (10-3 M Na2S)

1. Materials� stock solution


2. Procedure

� In a 100 mL volumetric flask, pipette 10 mL of the stock solution and dilute to 100 mL using de-aerated DI or distilled water. Store in an airtight dark glass bottle at 4°C.

D. Standard S= solution 100 μM (10-4 M Na2S)

1. Materials

� 1,000 µM solution


2. Procedure� In a 100 mL volumetric flask, pipette 10 mL of the 1,000 µM solution and dilute to 100 mL

using de-aerated DI or distilled water. Store in an airtight dark glass bottle at 4 °C.

E. Standard S= solution 10 μ M (10-5 M Na2S)

This solution is to be used only for a 3-point calibration for sediment samples with low sulphide concentrations.

1. Materials

� 100 µM solution


2. Procedure:� In a 100 mL volumetric flask, pipette 10 mL of 100 μM solution and dilute to 100 mL using de-

aerated DI or distilled water. Store in an airtight dark glass bottle at 4°C.


F. Final Calibration Solutions

1. Materials

� 25 mL SAOB buffer (containing L-ascorbic acid)

� 25 mL Stock S = solution 10,000 μM

� 25 mL Standard S= solution 1,000 μM

� 25 mL Standard S= 100 μM

2. Procedures

� Mix 25 mL of SAOB buffer and 25 mL Stock S= solution (10,000 μM) in a dark plastic 100 mL wide mouth bottle at 4°C.

� Repeat preceding step for 1,000 μM solution and 100 μM (or 10 μM concentration as necessary).

� Ensure that all calibration solutions are at the same temperature as the sediments being measured.

ProceduresThe sulphide electrode should be recalibrated between each set of samples or once every 3-4 hr,whichever is less.

A. Prepare the probe for calibration

1. Remove the cover from the electrode and connect the electrode to the meter.

2. Check the level of the probe’s filling solution, which should almost reach the filler hole. Add more solution if necessary. After filling a dry probe or topping up a low solution level, press down on the cap to wet the bottom O-ring and then tilt the container back to wet the top O-ring. Then add more solution to ensure the level almost reaches the filler hole.

B. Calibrate the probe for each standard solution

Calibrating the probe against 3 standard solutions (a 3-point calibration) is recommended. Start with the least concentrated standard (10 µM or 100 μM) and progress to the most concentrated standard (1,000 μM or 10,000 µM). Select standards with concentration ranges that bracket the expected sulphide concentration of the samples

1. Press the mode button until the display indicates concentration mode.

2. Place the electrode in the lowest standard and until the meter reading stabilizes before beginning calibration process.

3. Press the second function button and then the calibrate button. After a few seconds the lower field will read P1, indicating that the meter is ready for calibrating the first standard.

4. Press up arrow and 0.000 will appear.

5. Press up arrow again and decimal point will flash.


6. Press the up or down arrow keys to move the decimal place to the position you want (3 decimal places to the right for 100 μM and off the screen for 1,000 µM and 10,000 µM). Press YES when the decimal is in the correct position.

7. The first digit on the left will flash. Use the up or down arrow keys to change the digit, and press YES when the correct digit is displayed. To select 1,000 μM, press up or down arrow until first digit disappears, the press YES; for 10,000 µM press up or down arrow until 1 appears, then press YES. The next digit will then flash. Repeat the sequence for all digits until the readout displays the correct standard.

Once you have entered the first standard, the lower field will indicate the next standard to calibrate (e.g. P2 = second standard).

8. Rinse the electrode.

9. Repeat steps 4-7 until the 3 standards have been entered which completes the calibration.

C. Check the calibration

1. Press MEASURE. The meter will display the slope.

2. If the slope is between -27 and -33 record it on the data sheet. If the slope is outside this range, check the standards and calibrate the meter again.

3. Following calibration, rinse the electrode with DI or distilled water and blot it dry before measuring the first sample.

4. After taking the last sample in a series, rinse the electrode with distilled water and store in distilled water for short periods (up to one week). For longer periods, store it dry.


6. Standardizing the Redox Electrode

Materials� Orion model 290A meter and 9678BN combination redox electrode (Accumet or other brands will

work as well).

� electrolyte solution: Ag/ AgCl (silver chloride) reference electrode filling solution 900011 (correction factor at 20C is 204 mV).

� redox standard (an Orion off-the-shelf standard triiodide/ iodide redox couple or other standardsrecommended by the manufacturer)

ProceduresStandardization should occur every 4 hr or at the beginning and end of each transect:

1. Remove the cover from the electrode and connect the electrode to the meter.

2. Check the level of the filling solution. If necessary, add solution until it is at least one inch above the level of the solution being measured. After filling a previously dry probe or topping up the probe, push the cap and body together to leak some filling solution past the conical reference junction.

3. Place the electrode in the standard solution and wait until the reading stabilizes. Record the value of the standard and the meter reading at each standardization (for the triiodide/ iodide redox couple standard, the meter should read 220 mV – the potential of this standard solution).

4. The electrode is now ready for sampling. Insert it into the sample and record the mV reading after stabilization (when meter flashes READY or when drift is 3 mV or less over a 2 second period). Remove electrode and gently wipe off excess sediment prior to next measurement.

Note: This raw data is uncorrected. To correct the data, follow the procedure in SedimentSampling: SECTION 3 F(5).

5. After use, rinse the electrode in DI or distilled water and store for short periods (a few weeks) in tap water. For longer periods, drain the electrode, rinse it in DI or distilled water, and store dry.


7. Performing Statistical Analyses

Preparations for Statistical AnalysesThese procedures must be followed before the data are analyzed using inferential statistics.

A. Validate sampling stations

1. Validate reference stations a. Confirm that there is more than one local reference station per facility.

b. Confirm that reference stations are 0.5-2.0 km from the fa cility.

c. Confirm that reference stations are at least 0.5 km apart.

d. Confirm that mean depth at local reference stations is within 25% of that at facilitystations.

e. Confirm that mean % silt/ clay fraction at local reference stations is within 15% of that at facility stations.

2. Validate transects

a. Confirm that transects were laid along prevailing currents. Current meter directions should be within 20o of transect directions.

B. Correct data entry errors

1. Identify dubious values (e.g. outliers)a. Draw graphs (e.g. box plots, scatter plots)

b. Calculate summary statistics (e.g. x , M, SD, max, min)

2. Make corrections

a. Contact data collectors for corrections

b. Make necessary changes

C. Perform QA/QC for physical, chemical, & biological data

1. Check SGS data

Confirm that 35% Relative Standard Difference has not been exceeded

2. Check S= and Eh dataPlot one variable against the other and look for outliers

3. Check TVS or TOC data

Confirm that 20% Relative Percent Difference has not been exceeded

4. Check Cu and Zn data

(to be added)


5. Check taxonomic data

Confirm Similarity is at least 70%. See Appendix C for summary of tests.

Statistical Methods to Determine If Requirements Have Been MetThese study designs and statistical tests are to be used to determine whether facilities are meeting chemical and biological requirements. See Appendix C for summary of tests.

A. Basic Study Designs

1. Existing facilities

2 basic designs are employed:

a. MCI design – data are collected at facility stations and compared against data collected atreference stations

b. Multiple Gradient design – data are collected at stations along multiple transects extending outward from the facility along prevailing currents, and related to distance from the facility

2. New facilities

Beyond BACI design – data are collected at facility stations and reference stations, in both baseline and operational periods, to see if effect of facility/reference depends on baseline/operational. Ideally there are multiple sampling times in both periods.

B. Meeting Chemical Requirements

1. Existing facilitiesFor stations located at or beyond the 30 m stations but within the tenure perimeter, firstdetermine whether there has been a S= exceedance at any of these stations. Do this for each station by testing these h ypotheses using a 1-sample t-test:

HO : µ ≤ 1300 µM; HA : µ > 1300 µM (1-tailed)

HO : µ ≤ 6000 µM; HA : µ > 6000 µM (1-tailed)

If there is evidence for an exceedance at a particular station, do analyses below to determine whether exceedance is due to fish farming or natural processes.

a. MCI design

For each station, perform Nested 1-way ANOVA to test this hypothesis:

HO : µF ≤ µR; HA: µF > µR (1-tailed) (F = facility, R = reference)

If the facility station mean is significantly greater than the reference station mean, thereis evidence that the exceedance is due to fish farming, and the requirement has not been met.

Note that the above test is the same as a 2-sample t- test when design is balanced.

Note also that this analysis may be superfluous if facility values are far above referencevalues.

b. Multiple Gradient design

Perform NLR, SLR, or MLR, depending on relationships. For example, perform NLR to test this hypothesis:


HO : ß1 ≥ 0; HA : ß1 < 0 (1-tailed)

If there is a significant non-linear decline outward from facility, then there is supporting evidence that the requirement has not been met.

Alternatively, use a post hoc test (e.g. Tukey’s test), to make all possible pair-wisecomparisons of distances, if more than one sample was taken at each distance. As above, a declining pattern provides supporting evidence that the requirement has not been met.

Again, note that these analyses may be superfluous if facility values are far above reference values.

For stations located at or beyond the perimeter of the tenure, do the above analyses without first testing for an exceedance.

2. New facilities

For stations located at or beyond the 30 m stations but within the tenure perimeter, firstdetermine whether there has been a S= exceedance at any of these stations using a 1-samplet-test as described above .

If there is evidence for an exceedance at a particular station, do analysis below to determine whether exceedance is due to fish farming or natural processes.

a. Beyond BACI design

For each station, perform Asymmetric ANOVA to test the following hypotheses

HO: There is no interaction between facility/reference and baseline/operational; HA : there is an interaction (2- tailed).

If there is a significant interaction, there is evidence that the exceedance is due to fish farming, and the requirement has not been met.

Note that this analysis may be superfluous if facility values are far above reference orbaseline values.

For stations located at or beyond the perimeter of the tenure, do the above analyses without first testing for an exceedance.

C. Meeting Biological Requirements

If a chemical requirement has not been met at a particular facility station, then biological analyses may be required for that station . Follow the methods below if biological analyses are required.

Use taxon richness (total number of taxa) as the measure of diversity to be analyzed, and total number of individuals or total percent cover, as measures of total abundance to be analyzed.

Data on biota from soft bottoms will be at the family, whereas those from hard substrata will be at class level.

1. Existing facilitiesa. MCI design

For each station located at or beyond the 30 m stations but within the tenure perimeter,perform Nested 1-way ANOVA to test these hypotheses:

HO : µF ≥ µR; HA: µF < µR (1-tailed) (F = facility, R = reference)


Note that the above test is the same as a 2-sample t- test when design is balanced.

Report the results of these analyses in accordance with Section 6 (2)b of the Finfish Aquaculture Waste Control Regulation.

For stations located at or beyond the perimeter of the tenure, do a 1-way Nested ANOVA to test these hypotheses:

HO : µF = µR; HA: µF ≠ µR (2-tailed) (F = facility, R = reference)

If mean richness or mean total abundance at a particular station differs significantly from that at reference stations, then the requirement has not been met.

b. Multiple Gradient design

For each station located at or beyond the 30 m stations but within the tenure perimeter, perform NLR, SLR, or MLR, depending on relationships.

For example, perform NLR to test these hypotheses:

HO : ß1 ≤ 0; HA : ß1 > 0 (1-tailed)

Report the results of these analyses in accordance with Section 6 (2)b of the Finfish Aquaculture Waste Control Regulation and indicate if there is a significant non-linearincrease in richness or abundance outward from the facility.

Alternatively, use a post hoc test (e.g. Tukey’s test), to make all possible pair-wisecomparisons of distances, if more than one sample was taken at each distance. Again,report the results of these analyses in accordance with Section 6 (2)b of the Finfish Aquaculture Waste Control Regulation and indicate any increases.

For stations located at or beyond the perimeter of the tenure, do above analyses, except hypotheses should always be 2-tailed. If there are significant increases then the requirement has not been met.

2. New facilitiesa. Beyond BACI design

For stations located at or beyond the 30 m stations but within the tenure perimeter,perform Asymmetric ANOVA to test these hypotheses for each station:

HO : There is no interaction between facility/reference and baseline/operational; HA:there is an interaction (2- tailed).

Report the results of the analysis for both richness and abundance in accordance with Section 6 (2)b of the Finfish Aquaculture Waste Control Regulation and indicate if there are significant interactions.

For stations located at or beyond the perimeter of the tenure, perform Asymmetric ANOVA to test the same hypotheses. If there is a significant interaction for either the richness analysis or the abundance analysis, then the requirement has not been met.

D. Analyses of Additional Variables

In addition to the analyses described above, analyses of other physical, chemical, and biological variables may also be done in a weight-of-evidence approach to determine whether requirementshave been met.

Use contingency table analyses or ANOVA to determine whether gas bubbles, strong odours, black sediments, etc., are more common at facility stations than reference stations.


Use ANOVA and regression methods to analyze Eh, TVS, or TOC data, as was done above with S=, to test for differences and trends.

Use contingency table analyses or ANOVA to determine if Beggiatoa or Capitella are more common at facility stations than reference stations.

In addition to the analyses of means described above, analyses of standard deviations may prove useful in further defining the nature of fish farm effects.

Use multivariate methods (e.g. MDS, ANOSIM) to determine whether community composition has been altered.

Statistical Power Analyses

A. Raising Statistical Power

Due to the variable nature of the data and small sample sizes, statistical power will often be low.Power can be increased by doing the following:

1. Increasing N

a. 1-sample t-tests

Increase number of grabs or quadrats per facility station.

b. MCI designs

For ANOVAs, increase number of reference stations by “borrowing” reference stationsfrom facilities in the same geographic region, or from facilities coast-wide.

Alternatively, include nearby facilities belonging to the same company in same geographic region at similar stage of production cycle, along with their reference stations, in analyses.

Note that including additional reference stations and facilities in analyses will have a much greater effect on power than increasing number of grabs or quadrats at each station.

c. Multiple Gradient designs

For regressions, increase number of stations sampled per transect, or increase number of grabs or quadrats per station.

For post hoc tests, increase number of grabs or quadrats per station.

2. Increasing α

For all tests, consider using the more precautionary α = 0.10 instead of the usual 0.05.

B. Estimating Desired Sample Sizes

To determine sample sizes (numbers of transects, stations, grabs, quadrats) needed to achieve desired statistical power for future monitoring, power calculations must be done.

1 − β ≥ 80% is recommended.

For both Multiple Gradient designs and MCI designs, power calculations will be based on EScritvalues decided upon by the investigator.

When doing any power calculations, consider using the more precautionary α = 0.10 instead of the usual 0.05, to raise power.


Appendix A: Design of Video Survey

Baseline MonitoringParameter Sampling Units Sampling Locations Spatial Scale Min # Replicates

Class richness and abundance of megafauna

Transects Across e ntire tenure

Reference stations

Length/width of tenure

At least 100 m long

Enough to ID biophysicalcharacteristics to 50 m resolution

2 at each station*

Class richness and abundanceof macrofauna

Quadrats Entire tenure

reference station

1 x 1 m, with nine33 x 33 cm sections

As above

Enough to represent each substratum type

5 at each station

Notes

*1 transect runs perpendicular to shore .


Appendix B: Design of Sediment Sampling

Baseline Monitoring

Parameter Sampling Units Spatial Scale Sampling Locations Min # Grabs

S= Petite-Ponar, Ponar, Smith-MacIntyre, or van Veen grab, etc.

Any size all stations 3 grabs per sediment type for each probable footprint. Minimum of 5 grabs if only 1 sediment type present.

Eh Petite-Ponar, Ponar, Smith-MacIntyre, or van Veen grab, etc.


TVS or TOC Petite-Ponar, Ponar,Smith-MacIntyre, or van Veen grab, etc.


SGS Petite-Ponar, Ponar, Smith-MacIntyre, or van Veen grab, etc.


Cu or Zn Petite-Ponar, Ponar, Smith-MacIntyre, or van Veen grab, etc.

Any size all stations 3 grabs per sediment type for each probable footprint.Minimum of 5 grabs if only 1 sediment type present.

Species richnessand abundance of infauna and epifauna

Smith-MacIntyre, or van Veen grab, etc.

0.1 m2 all stations 3 grabs per sediment type for each probable footprint. Minimum of 5 grabs if only 1 sediment type present.


Operational MonitoringParameter Sampling Units Spatial Scale Sampling Locations Min # Samples

S= Petite-Ponar, Ponar, Smith-MacIntyre, or van Veen grab, etc.

Any size All stations (see Notes: below)

3 grabs at all stations**

Eh Petite-Ponar, Ponar, Smith-MacIntyre, or van Veen grab, etc.

Any size All stations (see Notes: below)

3 grabs at all stations**

TVS or TOC Petite-Ponar, Ponar, Smith-MacIntyre, or van Veen grab, etc.

Any size Only at stations at perimeter of c.s. and reference stations

3 grabs at each station located at perimeter of c.s., and 3 at each reference station

SGS Petite-Ponar, Ponar, Smith-MacIntyre, or van Veen grab, etc.


1 grab at each station located at perimeter of c.s., and 1 at each reference station

Cu or Zn Petite-Ponar, Ponar, Smith-MacIntyre, or van Veen grab, etc.


3 grabs at each st ationlocated at perimeter of c.s., and 3 at each reference station

Family richness and abundance of infauna and epifauna*

Smith-MacIntyre, or van Veen grab, etc.

0.1 m2 All stations 5 grabs at each station, except 3 at each reference station

*Biological sampling will only occur if a S= requirement has not been met.

**If the mean of the S= measurements from the 3 grabs exceeds 1300 µM, an additional 2 grabs must be obtained from that station for S= and Eh.

Notes:

• Sampling station locations are: perimeter of containment structures; 30 m from zero metre station; perimeter of tenure; and reference stations.

• Within tenure, have at least one transect for each dominant current direction or an alternate study design, provided extent and magnitude of effects are represented.


Appendix C: Statistical Procedures

Main statistical methods for different facility station locations, and differen t variables. Information for richness and abundance applies to both soft and hard bottom sites. Note that a 1-way Nested ANOVA is equivalent to a 2-sample t-test when design is balanced.

A. Existing Facilities

Free Sulphides Richness & Abundance

Within Tenure Do 1-sample t-test (1-tailed), then if necessary, do 1-way Nested ANOVA (1-tailed)

Do 1-way Nested ANOVA (1-tailed)

Tenure Perimeter Do 1-way Nested ANOVA (1-tailed) Do 1-way Nested ANOVA (2-tailed)

B. New Facilities

Free Sulphides Richness & Abundance

Within Tenure Do 1-sample t-test (1-tailed), then if necessary, do Asymmetric ANOVA (2-tailed)

Do Asymmetric ANOVA (2-tailed)

Tenure Perimeter Do Asymmetric ANOVA (2-tailed) Do Asymmetric ANOVA (2-tailed)

I:\EPD\EMB\Ind Bus\Alec\fish farm sampling protSept04.doc

Appendix A6

QA/QC Sediment Quality Station

Triplicate Samples

QA/QC Checks on TOC TN Replicates

RPD = relative percent differenceRPD = 100* Absolute Value(X1-X2)/((X1+X2)/2) where X1 and X2 are two reps being comparedRed Values > 20% RPD

TOCD4 E4 F4 G3 L5

Rep 1 Rep 2 0.2 2.5 6.3 5.6 56.1Rep 2 Rep 3 4.8 0.0 6.1 8.5 60.8Rep 1 Rep 3 5.0 2.5 0.3 2.9 5.1

Mean 3.3 1.7 4.2 5.7 40.7

TND4 E4 F4 G3 L5

Rep 1 Rep 2 4.5 3.8 1.4 5.1 33.3Rep 2 Rep 3 4.8 1.1 7.7 3.8 54.7Rep 1 Rep 3 9.3 5.0 6.3 8.9 22.4

Mean 6.2 3.3 5.1 5.9 36.8

STATION

STATION

QA/QC Checks on Redox Potential and Sulphides Replicates

50.0

100.0

mV)

Redox Vs. Sulphides

y = -0.3009x + 9.642R = 0.837

-200.0

-150.0

-100.0

-50.0

0.0

50.0

100.0

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0

Red

ox P

oten

tial (

mV)

Redox Vs. Sulphides

y = -0.3009x + 9.642R = 0.837

-200.0

-150.0

-100.0

-50.0

0.0

50.0

100.0

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0

Red

ox P

oten

tial (

mV)

Sulphides (μMol)

Redox Vs. Sulphides

Date post:	01-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Port Alberni Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) Cycle ......Suite 200 – 850 Harbourside Drive,...

Documents