2019 Ecological Assessment · GHD was retained by Canadian National Railway (CN) to provide environmental services associated with a train derailment (Incident) that occurred around

GHD | 455 Phillip Street Waterloo Ontario N2L 3X2 Canada | 11102200 | Report No 22 | May 27 2020

2019 Ecological Assessment CN Gogama Derailment - Mile Point 88.7 Gogama, Ontario Canadian National Railway Company

`

GHD | 2019 Ecological Assessment | 11102200 (22) | Page i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Adaptive Management ....................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Site Description .................................................................................................................. 3

1.4 Regulatory Context ............................................................................................................ 4

1.5 Problem Formulation .......................................................................................................... 5

1.5.1 Focus of 2019 Ecological Assessment ............................................................. 5 1.5.2 Sheen Observations ......................................................................................... 5

1.6 Site Management Goals .................................................................................................... 6

1.6.1 Lines of Evidence ............................................................................................. 6

1.7 Approach and Report Organization ................................................................................... 6

2. Summary of Data to Support the 2019 Ecological Assessment .................................................. 7

2.1 Data to Support the 2019 Ecological Assessment ............................................................ 7

2.1.1 Surface Water ................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Sediment ........................................................................................................... 8 2.1.3 Benthic Invertebrate Survey ............................................................................. 9 2.1.4 Toxicity Tests .................................................................................................. 11

3. Uncertainties in Data Evaluation ................................................................................................ 11

3.1 Benthic Invertebrate Community Sampling Coverage ..................................................... 11

3.2 Masked Differences in Inter-group Comparisons ............................................................ 12

3.3 Applicability of Benthic Invertebrate Community Surveys ............................................... 12

3.4 Statistical Power Limitations ............................................................................................ 13

3.5 Applicability of the Results of the Toxicity Tests .............................................................. 13

4. Assessment of Benthic Invertebrate Communities .................................................................... 13

4.1 Approach .......................................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Line of Evidence 1 – Sediment Chemistry ....................................................................... 14

4.3 Line of Evidence 2 – Benthic Invertebrate Community Structure .................................... 14

4.3.1 Statistical Procedures ..................................................................................... 14 4.3.1.1 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) ....................................................................... 14 4.3.1.2 Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) ................................................................ 14 4.3.1.3 Multivariate Analyses ...................................................................................... 15 4.3.2 Results and Interpretation .............................................................................. 15 4.3.2.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 15 4.3.2.2 Dominant Taxa ............................................................................................... 16 4.3.2.3 Density ............................................................................................................ 17 4.3.2.4 Taxa Richness ................................................................................................ 18 4.3.2.5 Percent Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) ........................ 21 4.3.2.6 Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index (H') ............................................................. 23

`

GHD | 2019 Ecological Assessment | 11102200 (22) | Page ii

4.3.2.7 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) ........................................................................... 25 4.3.2.8 Simpson Diversity Index (Ds) ......................................................................... 27 4.3.2.9 Percent Oligochaetes ..................................................................................... 29 4.3.2.10 Number and Percent Hyalella ......................................................................... 31 4.3.2.11 Multivariate Statistics ...................................................................................... 34

4.4 Line of Evidence 3 – Toxicity Tests ................................................................................. 40

4.4.1 Chironomus dilutus ......................................................................................... 41 4.4.1.1 Survival ........................................................................................................... 41 4.4.1.2 Growth ............................................................................................................ 43 4.4.2 Hyalella azteca ............................................................................................... 45 4.4.2.1 Survival ........................................................................................................... 46 4.4.2.2 Growth ............................................................................................................ 47

4.5 Summary of Assessment of Benthic Invertebrate Communities ..................................... 49

4.5.1 Ranking the Lines of Evidence and Decision Matrix ...................................... 49 4.5.2 Decision Matrix ............................................................................................... 53

5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 53

6. Site Monitoring ........................................................................................................................... 54

7. References ................................................................................................................................. 55

Figure Index

Figure 2.1 Sample Station / Transect ............................................................................................... 10

Figure 4.1 Mean Density by Area ..................................................................................................... 18

Figure 4.2 Taxa Richness by Area .................................................................................................. 20

Figure 4.3 Mean Percent EPT by Area ............................................................................................ 22

Figure 4.4 Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index (H’) by Area ................................................................ 24

Figure 4.5 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index by Area....................................................................................... 26

Figure 4.6 Simpson’s Diversity Index by Area ................................................................................. 28

Figure 4.7 Percent Oligochaetes by Area ........................................................................................ 30

Figure 4.8 Number of Hyalella by Area ............................................................................................ 32

Figure 4.9 Percent of Hyalella by Area ............................................................................................ 33

Figure 4.10 nMDS Ordination Plot for 2017, 2018, and 2019 ............................................................ 34

Figure 4.11 nMDS Ordination Plot for Investigation Areas in 2019 .................................................... 35

Figure 4.12 nMDS Ordination Plot Centroids for Investigation Areas in 2019 ................................... 36

Figure 4.13 SIMPER Outputs of Taxa Contributing up to 70% of the Dissimilarity ............................ 39

Figure 4.14 nMDS Ordination Plot Centroids for Investigation Areas Showing 2017 - 2019 ............. 40

Figure 4.15 Chironomus dilutus Survival vs. Total PAH Concentration ............................................. 42

Figure 4.16 Chironomus dilutus Survival vs. Total PHC Concentration ............................................. 43

`

GHD | 2019 Ecological Assessment | 11102200 (22) | Page iii

Figure 4.17 Chironomus dilutus Growth vs. Total PAH Concentration .............................................. 44

Figure 4.18 Chironomus dilutus Growth vs. Total PHC Concentration .............................................. 45

Figure 4.19 Hyalella azteca Survival vs. Total PAH Concentration .................................................... 46

Figure 4.20 Hyalella azteca Survival vs. Total PHC Concentration ................................................... 47

Figure 4.21 Hyalella azteca Growth vs. Total PAH Concentration ..................................................... 48

Figure 4.22 Hyalella azteca Growth vs. Total PHC Concentration ..................................................... 49

Figure Index (following text) Figure 1 Site Location Map

Figure 2 Sediment, Benthic, and Surface Water Sample Locations

Table Index (within text)

Table 1.1 Description of the Benthic Invertebrate Sampling Program ................................................ 4

Table 2.1 Observations Noted During Surface Water Sampling ......................................................... 8

Table 2.2 Observations Noted During Sediment Sampling ................................................................ 8

Table 4.3 Dominant Taxa Summary.................................................................................................. 16

Table 4.4 Benthic Invertebrate Density Summary ............................................................................. 17

Table 4.5 Taxa Richness Summary .................................................................................................. 19

Table 4.6 Percent Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) ........................................... 21

Table 4.7 Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index (H’) ................................................................................ 23

Table 4.8 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) ............................................................................................. 25

Table 4.9 Simpson Diversity Index (Ds)............................................................................................. 27

Table 4.10 Percent Oligochaetes ...................................................................................................... 29

Table 4.11 Number of Hyalella .......................................................................................................... 31

Table 4.12 Percent Hyalella .............................................................................................................. 31

Table 4.13 Toxicity Test Results for C. dilutus .................................................................................. 41

Table 4.14 Toxicity Test Results for H. azteca .................................................................................. 45

Table 4.15 Mesomikenda Lake Control Dam Flow (centimeter per second) .................................... 51

Table 4.16 Decision Matrix for Assessment Areas ........................................................................... 53

`

GHD | 2019 Ecological Assessment | 11102200 (22) | Page iv

Table Index (following text) Table 2.3 Summary of Benthic Community Indices in Downstream Areas and Reference Areas

Table 4.1 ANOVA Statistical Contrasts for Benthic Invertebrates

Table 4.2 ANCOVA Statistical Contrasts (Substrate Phi Value as Covariate) for Benthic Invertebrates

Appendix Index Appendix A Analytical Data Verification Memo

Appendix B Surface Water Analytical Results and Laboratory Certificate of Analysis

Appendix C Benthic Invertebrate Sampling Field Data and Laboratory Results

Appendix D Sediment Toxicity Analytical Results using Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca

Appendix E Sediment Analytical Results and Laboratory Certificate of Analysis

`

GHD | 2019 Ecological Assessment | 11102200 (22) | Page 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

GHD was retained by Canadian National Railway (CN) to provide environmental services associated with a train derailment (Incident) that occurred around midnight on March 7, 2015, at Mile Point 88.7 of CN's Ruel Subdivision, near Gogama, Ontario (Site). The Site location is presented on Figure 1. The Incident involved 37 derailed railcars containing crude oil that ruptured during the Incident, releasing crude oil into the Makami River (River), which drains into Minisinakwa Lake (Lake), a branch of the Mattagami River system.

As part of the environmental emergency response services, GHD investigated potential impacts of the Incident on surface water, sediment, fish, and benthic invertebrate communities by completing comprehensive sampling programs and detailed analyses of the data. Documents presenting details of investigations completed to date have been submitted to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) and have been shared with the public on the CN Gogama website, and are listed below:

• Toxicological Analysis Technical Letter dated May 29, 2015

• Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment (Preliminary ERA) dated July 9, 2015

• Comprehensive Ecological Risk Assessment (2015 Comprehensive ERA) dated September 23, 2015

• Sediment Sampling and Results – Fall 2016 dated October 27, 2016

• Updated Ecological Risk Assessment (2016 Updated ERA) dated April 28, 2017

• Updated Ecological Risk Assessment (2017 Updated ERA) dated November 17, 2017

• Ecological Assessment (2018 EA) dated September 19, 2019

Based on data generated during investigations completed at the Site, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (collectively referred to as "BTEX"), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) were identified as the primary contaminants of concern (COCs).

The following is a brief summary of the work completed through 2019 to assess, remediate, and monitor the aquatic ecosystem.

• Sediment Characterization, Remediation, and Disposal – A sediment remediation program was completed in 2015 and 2016. Sediment remediation was completed using a barge-mounted hydraulic dredge, a manual hydraulic dredge, and excavators, all in a wet condition. Sediment was dewatered and transported off Site for disposal at Cartier landfill. Confirmation sediment samples were collected to determine the effectiveness of the remediation program and the results were incorporated into the ERAs.

• Sediment Monitoring and Risk Assessment – Sediment sampling and benthic invertebrate sampling were completed in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 in the River and Lake and the analytical data were used to support Ecological Risk Assessments (ERAs). Fish sampling was

`


completed in 2015 and 2016. Sediment and benthic invertebrate sampling was completed in 2019 in the River for use in the ongoing ecological assessment; specifically, monitoring recovery of the aquatic ecosystem from remedial actions conducted in 2015 and 2016.

1.2 Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is a systematic approach to risk management that incorporates data and information gained throughout the life of a project and defines a pathway forward. Adaptive management allows for more efficient use of resources as a project progresses by identifying the lines of evidence most useful in achieving project objectives while eliminating those that have limited value. Prior ERA updates were developed and executed in a phased manner using adaptive management, whereby the results of one phase guided the needs of the next phase. The following is a summary of changes in the risk management approach throughout the project to date:

• Benthic invertebrate community data were not used as a primary line of evidence for remediation decisions during the 2015 and 2016 sediment characterization work since:

- Concentrations of COCs were such that ecologically significant impacts were likely.

- Costs related to further investigation without remediation outweighed the costs related to immediate remediation and subsequent assessment and monitoring.

- It was apparent that sediment remediation would reduce the concentrations of the COCs to ultimately achieve a net environmental benefit.

• COCs have a low potential for biomagnification in the food chain. This was confirmed by fish samples collected in 2015 and a subsequent food chain analysis included in the 2015 Comprehensive ERA. As such, analysis of fish tissue was removed from consideration during ecological assessment activities conducted after 2015 but are continuing to be evaluated by the MECP.

• Based on results of the food chain analysis, COCs did not pose a significant risk to avian and mammal wildlife; therefore, risk to wildlife was not evaluated during assessment activities related to sediment conducted after 2015.

• Benthic invertebrates were collected from the River, Minisinakwa Lake, and Farm Lake during the spring in 2015. In 2016, benthic invertebrates were collected in the fall, and in 2017 and 2018 benthic invertebrates were collected in the spring. Farm Lake was excluded from further ecological assessment in 2016 and the Lake was excluded in 2017.

• In 2017, evaluation of risk to benthic invertebrate communities was modified to align with a weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach consisting of three lines of evidence:

- Sediment chemistry based on comparison of concentrations in bulk sediment to the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines (PSQGs) and the derivation of Site-specific equilibrium partitioning sediment benchmark toxic units (ESBTUs) for PAHs.

- Evaluation of data collected to characterize the structure of benthic invertebrate communities.

- Sediment toxicity testing results for select sediment samples. Sediment toxicity tests were not completed prior to 2017, as the concentrations of the COCs in bulk sediment did not

`


justify the need for additional lines of evidence at that time (e.g., sediment chemistry in 2015 was elevated such that adverse effects to benthic invertebrates were nearly certain).

• The ESBTUs were effective in evaluating the initial and post-remediation risk to benthic invertebrates, but are less effective in monitoring recovery compared to the other lines of evidence. The value of the ESBTUs is limited at this stage in the project due to low levels of organic carbon in areas that have been remediated. Therefore, ESBTUs were excluded as a line of evidence in the 2018 Ecological Assessment.

• Bulk sediment chemistry is a useful line of evidence to monitor recovery of the River and will be evaluated by comparing concentrations to the PSQGs. Furthermore, the chemistry data are useful to plot dose-response relationships while assessing the toxicity line of evidence.

• In 2018, an additional reference sample location (Reference Area A-1) was added to improve characterization of the reference benthic communities.

• Prior to 2018, statistical analyses of the invertebrate community data were focused on making group comparisons [i.e., analysis of variance (ANOVA) contrasts] between survey locations and years based on various community metrics (e.g., abundance, diversity, and pollution tolerance scores). In 2018, additional statistical analyses were undertaken to: (a) evaluate if differences in substrate (sediment physical characteristics) had a significant influence on the group comparisons [i.e., analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) contrasts]; and (b) to compare the locations using benthic invertebrate community composition directly (i.e., multivariate analyses on the counts for taxa present).

The lines of evidence and the additional statistical analyses used in the 2018 EA are also in the 2019 EA as they still provide valuable information and comparison points with the previous 2017 and 2018 datasets that allow for monitoring of the benthic invertebrate community recovery in the River.

1.3 Site Description

The Site is located approximately 3.0 kilometres (km) northwest of Gogama, Ontario, as presented on Figure 1. As part of the initial Site planning activities, eight Operational Divisions (Divisions A and C through I) were established along the potentially-impacted water bodies based on the remedial response and boom placement. Division A is at the location of the derailment from just upstream of the rail line, downstream to Old Gogama Road and is considered the Source Area for COCs. Divisions C through I are located downstream of Old Gogama Road, spanning the Mattagami River watershed (including wetlands) to the railroad trestle located at the east end of the Lake. The Operational Divisions are no longer relevant to the work being completed, therefore, are not discussed further in this report.

The Site includes aquatic and riparian habitats that likely support a diversity of fish and wildlife potentially impacted by the Incident (assessment area). The total assessment area is approximately 8 square kilometres (km2), and approximately 8 km in length.

The assessment area is subdivided into multiple investigation areas. Each investigation area includes three benthic invertebrate stations and a corresponding sediment chemistry sample location.

`


Table 1.1 describes the benthic invertebrate stations and the corresponding sediment chemistry sample locations.

Table 1.1 Description of the Benthic Invertebrate Sampling Program

Investigation Area

Benthic Invertebrate Station

Corresponding Sediment Chemistry Sample Location

Sample Location Description

Reference Area A

A1 R1 Reference locations in the River upstream of the derailment A2 R2

A3 R3 Reference Area A-1

A1-1 R6 Reference locations in the River upstream of the derailment A1-2 R5

A1-3 R4 Source Area B-1

B1-1 A3 Source Area; location of the derailment Site B1-2 A8

B1-3 A10 Downstream Area B

B1 C1 Near Downstream Area; immediately downstream of the derailment Site B2 C2

B3 C3 Downstream Area C

C1 C10 Near Downstream Area; further downstream of the derailment Site C2 C7

C3 C8 Downstream Area D

D1 E1 Far Downstream Area; further downstream of the derailment Site D2 E4

D3 E9 Downstream Area E

E1 F2 Far Downstream Area; further downstream of the derailment Site E2 F5

E3 F6

1.4 Regulatory Context

The 2019 Ecological Assessment was prepared using the following primary documents:

• Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy: Water Management Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives (MOE, 1994)

• Ontario Ministry of the Environment: Guidelines for Identifying, Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments in Ontario: An Integrated Approach (MOE, 2008)

• Canadian Counsel of Ministers of the Environment (CCME): A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: General Guidance, 1996 (CCME, 1996)

• Canadian Counsel of Ministers of the Environment (CCME): A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: Technical Appendices, 1997 (CCME, 1997)

`


Other secondary documents were used to prepare the 2019 Ecological Assessment and are listed either in the body of the text or in Section 7.

1.5 Problem Formulation

1.5.1 Focus of 2019 Ecological Assessment

PAHs, BTEX, and PHCs are the COCs associated with the Incident. Throughout the project, risk to ecological receptors posed by COCs in surface water and sediment has been evaluated by comparing the higher of the maximum detected concentration and the maximum detection limit ("screening concentration") to the corresponding Ecological Screening Values (ESVs). A COC is identified as potentially causing an adverse effect to ecological receptors if the screening concentration is higher than a conservative ESV. The ecological receptors identified in previous reports are aquatic life in the water column and sediment in the River.

For surface water, the ESVs are the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQOs) identified in Table 2 of MECPs Water Management, Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives.

For PAHs in sediment, the ESVs are Lowest Effect Levels (LELs) identified by the MECP (MOE, 2008). For BTEX, the ESVs are Ecological Screening Levels (ESLs) identified by Region 5 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2003).

Neither MECP, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), nor the USEPA have identified ESVs for total PHCs for bulk sediment. Massachusetts has developed sediment benchmarks for several aliphatic and aromatic fractions of PHCs (Battelle, 2007); however, because analysis for the F1 through F4 fractions and total PHCs does not differentiate between aliphatic and aromatic PHCs, bulk sediment data cannot be compared to these benchmarks. Battelle (2007) identifies aliphatic PHCs (carbon chains) with 13 or more carbons and aromatic PHCs (carbon rings) with 16 or more carbons as not likely toxic due to low solubility. Moreover, the Massachusetts benchmarks were developed using data for PAHs. BTEX and PAHs, which are major constituents of PHCs, have 16 or fewer carbons. In the absence of ESVs for PHCs, concentrations of BTEX and PAHs in bulk sediment can reasonably be used as surrogates for PHCs.

Section 2.1 discusses the data collected and evaluated for the 2019 Ecological Assessment. None of the COCs were detected in any of the 7 surface water samples collected from the River. In the absence of detections in the water column, the 2019 Ecological Assessment focuses on sediment chemistry and the benthic invertebrate community. The potentially-complete exposure pathways and routes for benthic invertebrates are:

• Direct contact with COCs in sediment

• Ingestion and/or uptake of COCs in sediment by benthic invertebrates

1.5.2 Sheen Observations

Recording sheen observations is a way of qualitatively assessing surface water quality. Sheen has been evaluated through all aspects of River monitoring including sediment and benthic invertebrate sampling. Since the end of 2016, the only observed source of sheen in the River is from disturbing sediment on the River bottom and the frequency of the observations of sheen have decreased each

`


year. Sheen and odour were observed during collection of some of the sediment samples in 2019. Potential constituents in the sheen are BTEX and PHCs, which were analyzed in the surface water. PAHs are also a potential constituent of sheen and were included in the surface water sampling program immediately following the Incident; however, samples were consistently non-detect after April 2015 and analysis of PAHs was subsequently discontinued.

1.6 Site Management Goals

The overall Site management goal prior to the remediation was to remove impacted sediment and facilitate recovery of the quality of surface water, sediment, and habitat within the remediated portion of the River.

Following the remediation, the Site management goal has been to provide a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the recovery and identify potential adverse effects to ecological receptors exposed to residual concentrations of COCs by using the results from 2017 (the first year post-remediation) as a baseline against which future monitoring data are compared. Additionally, the current year (2019) data are compared to previous post-baseline data (i.e., 2018 in the current evaluation).

1.6.1 Lines of Evidence

Recovery of the impacted benthic invertebrate community of the River was evaluated using the following lines of evidence:

• Comparison of concentrations of BTEX and PAHs in bulk sediment to ESVs.

• Statistical comparison of metrics of benthic invertebrate community structure for investigation areas downstream against reference areas upstream of the derailment site, and comparing the 2019 results against baseline conditions (2017) and against previous post-baseline conditions (2018) for the same investigation area.

• Survival and weight of C. dilutus and H. azteca exposed to sediment collected from eight locations (six locations within and downstream of the Source Area and two reference locations) for 10 days and 14 days, respectively.

1.7 Approach and Report Organization

The following presents an overview of the organization of the remaining sections of the 2019 Ecological Assessment:

Section 2 Summary of data to support the 2019 Ecological Assessment – This section provides a description of the sampling programs and resulting data for surface water, sediment, benthic invertebrate samples collected in 2019 and toxicity tests.

Section 3 Uncertainties in Data Evaluation – This section discusses the uncertainties associated with the data for each line of evidence used to assess recovery of the benthic invertebrate communities.

Section 4 Recovery of benthic invertebrate communities – This section evaluates recovery of benthic invertebrate communities using three lines of evidence: sediment chemistry, benthic invertebrate community structure, and sediment toxicity testing.

`


Section 5 Conclusions – This section presents conclusions related to recovery and potential adverse effects to aquatic receptors.

Section 6 Site Monitoring – This section discusses future Site monitoring based on the results of the 2019 Ecological Assessment.

Section 7 References – This section lists the reference documents used in the 2019 Ecological Assessment.

2. Summary of Data to Support the 2019 Ecological Assessment

2.1 Data to Support the 2019 Ecological Assessment

From May 7 to 16, 2019, surface water, sediment, and benthic invertebrate samples were collected from the assessment area to support the 2019 Ecological Assessment. Figure 2 presents the investigation areas and sample locations. Methods of collection and laboratory analyses were consistent with previous years and are provided in the 2019 Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP).

The monitoring results are presented as follows:

• Summary of surface water analytical results for 2019, and Laboratory Certificate of Analysis for 2019 are presented in Appendix B

• Summary of benthic invertebrate analytical results for 2019, and sampling field data sheets for 2019 are presented in Appendix C

• Summary of the toxicity test analyses for 2019 is presented in Appendix D

• Summary of sediment analytical results for 2017, 2018 and 2019, and Laboratory Certificate of Analysis for 2019 are presented in Appendix E

The 2015 and 2016 data were not used to evaluate current conditions in recognition that conditions in the River substantially changed during remediation over that time, and the current management goal is to compare current and future results to the post-remediation baseline established in 2017 and previous post-baseline data (i.e., 2018).

A GHD chemist validated surface water and sediment data prior to use. The data were reviewed to ensure acceptable levels of accuracy and precision. As such, the data may be used as reported with the qualifications noted in the analytical summary tables. Data qualified as estimated were considered acceptable for the purpose of the 2019 Ecological Assessment. The validation memo for the 2019 data is included in Appendix A.

2.1.1 Surface Water

Surface water was collected at seven sample locations, with at least one location in each investigation area. Surface water samples were submitted to Bureau Veritas (BV), formerly Maxxam Analytics, for analysis of BTEX and PHC fractions F1 to F4. In addition, the surface water was observed for presence of odour and/or sheen. The surface water samples were collected below the

`


surface of the water to confirm that COCs associated with residual sheen are not dissolving into the water column to an appreciable degree.

Table 2.1 summarizes observations noted while collecting the surface water samples.

Table 2.1 Observations Noted During Surface Water Sampling

Investigation Area

Surface Water Sample Location

Observations

A Benthic Station A1 No odour, no sheen, no product A-1 Benthic Station A1-1 No odour, no sheen, no product B-1 Benthic Station B1-2 No odour, no sheen, no product B Benthic Station B3 No odour, no sheen, no product C Benthic Station C2 No odour, no sheen, no product D Benthic Station D1 No odour, no sheen, no product E Benthic Station E1 No odour, no sheen, no product

2.1.2 Sediment

Sediment samples were collected from 24 locations in the River, both downstream and upstream of where the derailment occurred. Sample locations were selected based on the following considerations:

• Highest PAH, BTEX, and/or PHC concentrations

• Former boom locations

• Selected by community representatives in 2016

• Feedback from Regulators

GHD collected one discrete sediment sample from each benthic station/transect plus three additional sediment samples from the Source Area for chemical analysis. In addition, GHD collected one composite sediment sample from each benthic station/transect for grain size analysis.

Sediment samples were submitted to BV for analysis of 18 parent PAHs, an extended suite of alkylated PAHs (alkyl PAHs), BTEX, and PHC fractions F1 to F4. Sediment samples were also characterized for physical and general chemistry parameters, including grain size, percent solids, total organic carbon (TOC), and moisture. In addition, the sediment substrate was observed for visual and olfactory evidence of COCs. Sample locations were selected to represent worst-case conditions based on field observations. Table 2.2 summarizes observations noted while collecting the sediment samples.

Table 2.2 Observations Noted During Sediment Sampling

Investigation Area

Sediment Sample Location

Observations

Reference Area A

R1 No odour, no sheen, no product R2 No odour, no sheen, no product, organic debris R3 No odour, no sheen, no product, organic debris

`


Investigation Area

Sediment Sample Location

Observations

Reference Area A-1

R4 Organic odour, organic grey sheen, no product, organic debris R5 No odour, no sheen, no product R6 No odour, no sheen, no product, organic debris

Source Area B-1

A3 No odour, PHC silver sheen, no product, organic debris A4 Chemical odour, PHC rainbow sheen, no product, organic debris A5 Organic odour, PHC silver sheen, no product, organic debris A6 No odour, PHC rainbow sheen, no product, organic debris A8 Chemical odour, PHC rainbow sheen, no product, organic debris A10 No odour, PHC silver sheen, no product, organic debris

Downstream Area B

C1 Chemical odour, PHC rainbow sheen, no product, organic debris C2 Chemical odour, organic odour, PHC silver sheen, no product,

organic debris C3 Chemical odour, organic odour, PHC rainbow sheen, no product,

organic debris Downstream Area C

C7 Chemical odour, PHC silver sheen, no product, organic debris C8 Organic odour, PHC silver sheen, no product, organic debris C10 Chemical odour, PHC rainbow sheen, no product, organic debris

Downstream Area D

E1 No odour, no sheen, no product E4 No odour, PHC rainbow sheen, no product, organic debris E9 No odour, PHC silver and rainbow sheen, no product, organic

debris Downstream Area E

F2 No odour, PHC rainbow sheen, no product, organic debris F5 No odour, organic grey sheen, PHC silver sheen, no product,

organic debris F6 Organic odour, PHC silver sheen, no product, organic debris

2.1.3 Benthic Invertebrate Survey

GHD collected benthic invertebrate samples from three stations/transects within each investigation area. Each benthic invertebrate sample was composed of five grabs collected along a transect. All grabs collected along a given transect were composited into a single sample. Samples were collected in the same approximate locations sampled in previous years and were co-located with sediment samples collected for chemical analysis. Figure 2.1 below depicts a representative transect and locations of grab samples.

`


Figure 2.1 Sample Station / Transect

Twenty-one samples were collected and submitted to ZEAS Incorporated (Zeas) in Nobleton, Ontario, for identification of benthic invertebrates to the lowest practical taxonomic level (species where possible) and enumeration. For each transect, the following metrics for benthic invertebrate community structure were calculated:

• Dominant Taxon – Dominant taxa provide an indicator of the overall habitat quality for benthic invertebrate communities. Water bodies where the dominant taxon is more tolerant of pollution may indicate poor stream health or that the waterbody is in a stage of recovery.

• Density – Number of organisms per 0.05 square metre (m2). Generally, higher values are representative of good stream health.

• Taxa richness – Number of distinct taxa per sample. Generally, higher values are representative of good stream health.

• Percent Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) – Subset of taxa richness that describes the percent of specific pollution-intolerant taxonomic orders as an indicator of stream health. It is calculated as the total number of individuals belonging to Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera in a sample divided by the total count for the sample, expressed as a percentage. Generally, high percentages of EPT are representative of good stream health.

• Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index (H') – Index commonly used to characterize diversity in a community by both abundance and evenness of the taxa present. Generally H’<1 represents substantial pollution, 1-3 moderate pollution, and 3-5 absence of pollution.

• Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) – Index that assigns a single "tolerance value" to a community, weighted by abundance of each taxonomic group. Values are between 0.0 and 10, where 0.0

`


represents excellent water quality and no pollution, while 10 represents very poor water quality and severe pollution.

• Simpson Diversity index (Ds) – Index based on number of taxa, total number of individuals, and proportion of the total represented by each taxon. Values are between 0.0 and 1, with higher values representing a lower degree of pollution.

• Percent Oligochaetes – Metric characterizing the abundance of aquatic worms, a taxonomic group that is more tolerant to pollution. Generally, low percentages are indicative of good stream health.

• Percent and Number of Hyalella – Metrics that characterize the abundance of a genus of crustaceans with low tolerance to pollution. Generally, higher percentages and numbers are representative of good stream health.

Table 2.3 (following text) presents the survey data and community metrics. A detailed discussion of the collection methods and data analyses for the benthic invertebrate survey is presented in Appendix C.

2.1.4 Toxicity Tests

Toxicity tests were completed on seven sediment samples using two test organisms: H. azteca and C. dilutus. The samples for the toxicity tests were selected to represent a range of PAH and PHC concentrations in order to establish dose-response relationships for the test endpoints. Samples tested included one upstream reference location (R2), the location with the highest concentrations of PAHs and PHCs (A8), and locations with low to moderate concentrations for the remaining five samples (C8, C2, C3, C7, and E4).

Exposure duration was 10 days for C. dilutus and 14 days for H. azteca. Survival and dry weight (representative of growth) were the test endpoints for both species. Tests were conducted in accordance with standard procedures for C. dilutus (Environment Canada, 1997) and H. azteca (Environment Canada, 2013). Differences were considered ecologically significant if survival or dry weight of the test organisms exposed to sediment from the impacted areas were more than 20 percent lower than for organisms exposed to sediment from the field reference locations upstream of the Incident (Canada Ontario Agreement [COA] Sediment Task Group, 2008). A detailed discussion of the toxicity test analyses is presented in Appendix D.

3. Uncertainties in Data Evaluation

Prior to discussion of the monitoring results for the various biological and chemical analyses conducted, it is appropriate and important to identify factors that may introduce uncertainty in the findings. The main identified sources of potential uncertainly are presented in the following sections.

`


3.1 Benthic Invertebrate Community Sampling Coverage

Generally, there is uncertainty in the areal distribution of COCs throughout an impacted area of a water body.

The sample locations were selected to identify areas with the highest concentrations of total PAHs and total PHCs that represent worst-case conditions based on field observations from the River and Lake during response activities. The areas with the highest observed levels of impact are the Source Area and collection points along the River where booms were positioned during the response. Additional investigation areas were also added after 2015 based on feedback from community representatives and the Regulators. Based on information collected to date, the investigation areas are representative of worst-case conditions in the River that can influence the structure of benthic invertebrate communities. As such, the magnitude of uncertainty associated with sampling coverage is assumed to be small.

3.2 Masked Differences in Inter-group Comparisons

There is uncertainty in the inter-group comparisons using ANOVA and ANCOVA. The differences between groups for metrics and indices selected to represent the benthic community structure (i.e., diversity, abundance, etc.) may be masked if similar metric scores are obtained but different taxa are present (e.g., different taxa that may have similar pollution tolerance are present in different locations).

Furthermore, there is uncertainty in the year to year comparisons which can influence indices such as taxa richness. For example, if a taxon is identified to species level one year, but to a higher level (e.g., genus) another year due to the immature state of specimens, taxa richness values from year to year may be masked by the different level of specimen identification and imply an artificial change in community.

Additional multivariate statistical analyses were employed to identify differences between the groups with results that could be masked in the ANOVA and ANCOVA of the individual community metrics. Inputs for the multivariate analyses are counts for each group present in a sample.

3.3 Applicability of Benthic Invertebrate Community Surveys

Benthic invertebrate community surveys and the associated metrics were originally developed to evaluate nutrient pollution (as opposed to chemical pollution) but can also be used to evaluate pollution related to hydrocarbon spills. Given that the released product consists of biodegradable hydrocarbons, it is expected that aquatic bacteria could create an oxygen demand similar to typical nutrient pollution (e.g., Cailleaud et al., 2019). However, there is some degree of uncertainty as to the oxygen demand of hydrocarbon pollution relative to nutrient pollution.

The control/impact study design and multi-metric assessment approach is an industry standard for evaluation of benthic invertebrate communities. The structure of benthic invertebrate communities is strongly influenced by multiple natural conditions such as substrate type, flow regime, water depth, riparian cover, season, and rainfall. Given these strong potential influences, there is some degree of uncertainty related to whether or not variability related to adverse effects from the Incident would be distinguishable from natural variability observed in the reference locations.

`


3.4 Statistical Power Limitations

Statistical power is the probability that a statistical test is able to detect a significant effect, if present (e.g., a difference in community metrics between locations or years). Statistical power is affected by the magnitude of the potential effect, the selected significance level (i.e., confidence of the test), the sample size, and inherent variance within the data.

Datasets with a small number of samples and large variance have relatively low power to detect statistically significant differences. For the 2019 dataset (as well as previous years), statistical power has been limited by the small sample size and relatively large variability in the benthic invertebrate community metric data. As such, there is uncertainty as to whether the absence of a statistically significant difference is real, or if a small effect is simply not identifiable given the survey design.

Measures taken to improve statistical power in the contrasts implemented for the 2018 EA were continued in the analysis of the 2019 data, specifically:

1. Pooling study areas to increase the number of samples within each grouping. Specifically, considering the reference area as pooled Areas A and A-1 (Reference Areas), the source area as Area B-1 (Source Area), the near-downstream area as pooled Areas B and C (Near Downstream Areas), and the far-downstream areas as pooled Areas D and E (Far Downstream Areas).

2. Decreasing the confidence level of the tests (e.g., from the initial 95 percent to a lower 90 percent confidence level), to balance statistical significance and statistical power (as these are inversely related to one another).

3. Conducting multivariate analyses, which are independent of underlying distribution (i.e., normality) and variance and comparing results to the ANOVA and ANCOVA for the individual community metrics.

3.5 Applicability of the Results of the Toxicity Tests

As described in the MECP Guidelines (MOE, 2008), the results of the toxicity tests may not reliably predict effects in field populations. As such, assessment of recovery of benthic invertebrate communities includes consideration of all lines of evidence evaluated.

4. Assessment of Benthic Invertebrate Communities

4.1 Approach

Using a WOE approach, assessment of the recovery of benthic invertebrate communities considers three lines of evidence: bulk sediment chemistry, benthic invertebrate community structure, and sediment toxicity testing. In interpreting the 2019 data, bulk sediment chemistry and benthic invertebrate community structure are given higher weights than toxicity testing as they are direct measurements of field conditions. Bulk sediment chemistry data are likely to be given a lower weight for future monitoring events as the 2019 data indicate that concentrations of PAHs and PHCs are decreasing and consistently below PSQGs. Table 4.1 Table 4.2

`


4.2 Line of Evidence 1 – Sediment Chemistry

In 2019, sediment was analyzed for 18 parent PAHs, 16 alkylated PAHs, BTEX, and PHCs. The sediment analytical results for 2019, as well as from previous years, are summarized in Appendix E.

Concentrations of PAHs did not exceed the ESVs in any samples. None of the BTEX constituents were detected in any sample.

The concentrations of PAHs and PHCs in samples collected in 2019 were generally lower with few exceptions, compared to 2017 and 2018. In 2017, 2018, and 2019, concentrations of PAHs were detected above the laboratory detection limits in some of the reference locations.

Neither MECP, CCME, nor USEPA identify ESVs for PHCs. In the absence of ESVs for PHCs, BTEX, and PAHs can reasonably be used as surrogates of PHCs. Because concentrations of PAHs in samples were below ESVs and BTEX constituents were not detected, concentrations of the more toxic fractions of PHCs (i.e., less than 16 carbons) are unlikely to adversely affect benthic invertebrates.

4.3 Line of Evidence 2 – Benthic Invertebrate Community Structure

Metrics of benthic invertebrate community structure were evaluated using ANOVA and ANCOVA for inter-group comparisons contrasting the different monitoring locations (upstream pooled Reference Areas, Source Area, Near Downstream Areas, and Far Downstream Areas) and years (2017 baseline and 2018 and 2019 post-baseline). Additionally, multivariate analyses were undertaken to identify similarities and differences between the individual transects (defined in Section 2.1.3). Inputs for the multivariate analyses were the individual organism counts for each transect (i.e., pooling areas to increase statistical power was not required for these analyses). Comparisons between transects were performed utilising a series of statistical tests and procedures. The statistical methods are introduced below, followed by the results of the statistical analyses.

4.3.1 Statistical Procedures

4.3.1.1 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for statistically significant differences in individual metrics between investigation areas and years. The 2019 group means for each community metric for the Source Area and Downstream Areas (Near Downstream and Far Downstream Areas) were compared to the group mean for the upstream pooled Reference Areas, and the means for 2019 were compared against the baseline year (2017) and first post-baseline year (2018) mean. ANOVAs were performed using SYSTAT 10 for Windows, and were interpreted at a significance level of 0.10 (90 percent confidence).

4.3.1.2 Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)

In order to account for potential substrate-related influence on the benthic invertebrate community survey results, ANCOVA was used to repeat the ANOVA tests above including an index of sediment composition as a covariate. Specifically, a single metric of the predominant grain size, phi, was used as the covariate. Composite sediment samples co-located with benthic invertebrate samples were analyzed for percent sand, silt, and clay. Based on the scale developed by Krumbein (1938), a

`


modified mean value for phi was calculated for each composite sample as the weighted mean, based on percentages of sand, silt, and clay.

ANCOVAs were calculated using SYSTAT 10 for Windows and interpreted at a significance level of 0.10 (i.e., 90 percent confidence). Since samples for grain size analyses were not collected during the baseline year (2017), the ANCOVAs considered only post-baseline contrasts (i.e., within 2019 and 2019 vs. 2018).

4.3.1.3 Multivariate Analyses

Multivariate statistical procedures were used to identify similarities and differences between the groups (transects and year) that could be masked in the ANOVA and ANCOVA of the individual metrics and reduce uncertainty.

Non-parametric multivariate analyses (which do not make data distribution assumptions) were carried out using PRIMER Version 7.0.13 (Clarke & Warwick, 2001). Data were square-root transformed to reduce the influence of highly abundant taxa. A similarity matrix was then calculated between all samples based on the Bray-Curtis similarity measure. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) was then used to produce ordination plots as graphical representations of key spatial and/or temporal similarities and differences between the benthic invertebrate communities. Stress values associated with the ordinations were examined to identify accuracy of the ordinations (less than 0.2 indicates a potential useful 2-dimensional ordination). Significance was tested using non-parametric permutation analyses of variation (PERMANOVA). Taxa that contributed most to differences were identified using similarity percentages (SIMPER), which quantify the contribution of each taxon to the mean dissimilarity between groups, and to the mean similarity within a group.

4.3.2 Results and Interpretation

4.3.2.1 Overview

Tables 4.1 and 4.2 (following text) summarize the results of the ANOVAs and ANCOVAs, respectively.

ANOVAs and ANCOVAs identified some statistically significant differences between investigation areas for the 2019 data and 2019 compared to previous years (2017 baseline and 2018 post-baseline). The ANOVA results are interpreted recognizing that the precision of the contrasts (i.e., ability to detect small differences in mean community metrics) may be limited. Nonetheless, there is some evidence that the benthic invertebrate community may be recovering in certain areas, particularly in the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas, and to a lesser extent in Far Downstream Areas. It is uncertain at this time whether the improvements in 2019 are due to recovery from the Incident, natural between-year variability, factors associated with the Incident, unrelated factors, or some combination thereof.

Overall the 2019 invertebrate community results indicated a lower quality benthic invertebrate community relative to the 2017 baseline and 2018 post-baseline, including the Reference Areas. This result maintains a similar uncertainty of whether this is indicative of natural between-year variability or other influencing factors. Notwithstanding the apparent decrease in the quality of the

`


Reference Areas, metrics for the Reference Areas are interpreted to be representative of a healthy benthic invertebrate community, and are used to evaluate recovery in the assessment area.

4.3.2.2 Dominant Taxa

Dominant taxa are an indicator of the overall habitat quality for benthic communities. In general, change from a dominant taxon at baseline (2017) that is more tolerant to a less tolerant dominant taxon in subsequent years can be interpreted as improved habitat quality. Table 4.3 identifies the dominant taxa within each area by year.

Table 4.3 Dominant Taxa Summary

Area Dominant Taxon by year [% dominant taxon]

Comments

Reference Areas (A and A-1)

2019: Hyalella [11%] 2018: Biting-Midge Mallochohelea sp.

(family Ceratopogonidae) [7%] 2017: Duburaphia sp.

(Elmidae beetle larvae) [7%]

Hyalella has a higher tolerance value (8) than Duburaphia (6), the dominant taxa in 2017 and 2018.

Source Area B-1

2019: Aulodrilus pluriseta [33%] 2018: Midges (Chironominae:

Tanytarsus) [12%] 2017: Family Naididae immatures

without hair chaetae [21%]

A. pluriseta has a slightly higher tolerance value (7) than Tanytarsus (6). A. pluriseta and Tanytarsus have lower tolerance values than Naididae.

Near Downstream Areas (B and C)

2019: Aulodrilus pluriseta [17%] 2018: Midge Pupae (Chironomidae)

[10%] 2017: Aulodrilus pluriseta [11%]

A. pluriseta is dominant taxon in 2019 and baseline year 2017. The tolerance value for A. pluriseta is 7. A tolerance value is not available for unidentified midge pupae.

Far Downstream Areas (D and E)

2019: Limnodrilus udekemianus [11%] 2018: Midges (Orthocladiinae:

Rheosmittia) [7%] 2017: Biting-Midge Mallochohelea sp.

(family Ceratopogonidae) [10%]

L. udekemianus has substantially higher tolerance value (10) than Rheosmittia (6) and Mallochohelea (6).

In 2019, the dominant taxa in Reference Areas and Far Downstream Areas have higher tolerance values than the dominant taxa in baseline year 2017. This change in dominant taxa is not likely due to residual effects of the Incident. Reference Areas (A and A-1) are upstream of the Incident. Far Downstream Areas (D and E) are the furthest from the Incident and where remedial actions took place. In contrast, the dominant taxa in Source Area B-1 in 2018 and 2019 have lower tolerance values than the dominant taxon in baseline year 2017, which suggests conditions have improved.

`


4.3.2.3 Density

Density is the number of organisms per 0.05 m2. Generally, higher values are representative of good stream health. Table 4.4 summarizes mean density within each area in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Table 4.4 Benthic Invertebrate Density Summary

Area Year Value 2019 Between Years ANOVA ANCOVA ANOVA ANCOVA


2019 86.7 NA NA 2019 < 2018

2019 Not Significantly

Different 2018 164 2017 336

Source Area B-1 2019 67.2 Not Significantly

Different <Reference

2019 Not Significant Differences


Different 2018 99.3 2017 120


2019 81.5 Not Significantly

Different

Not Significantly

Different

2019 < 2017 2019 < 2018 2019 < 2018 2018 241

2017 325 Far Downstream Areas (D and E)

2019 100 Not Significantly

Different

Not Significantly

Different 2019 < 2017


Different 2018 157 2017 321

Note: Bold Font identifies statistically significant difference

Figure 4.1 plots density by pooled investigations areas for 2017 through 2019.

`


Figure 4.1 Mean Density by Area

The results for mean density suggest that habitat for benthic invertebrates was less suitable in the Reference Areas, Near Downstream Areas, and Far Downstream Areas in 2019 compared to previous years. However, density in the Source Area did not significantly decrease in 2019, which could indicate that impacts in the Source Area are diminishing over time.

4.3.2.4 Taxa Richness

Taxa richness is the number of different taxon in a sample. Generally, higher values are representative of good stream health. Table 4.5 summarizes taxa richness within each area in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

2017

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

-26

50

126

202

278

354

430

DENS

ITY

2018

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

-26

50

126

202

278

354

430

DENS

ITY

2019

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

-26

50

126

202

278

354

430

DENS

ITY

`


Table 4.5 Taxa Richness Summary



2019 61 NA NA


Different


Different 2018 73 2017 73

Source Area B-1 2019 26 < Reference < Reference 2019 < 2017

2019 < 2018 2019 < 2018 2018 52 2017 52


2019 46 < Reference < Reference


Different


Different 2018 54 2017 58


2019 56 Not Significantly

Different

Not Significantly

Different


Different


Different 2018 68 2017 59


Figure 4.2 plots taxa richness by pooled investigations areas for 2017 through 2019.

`


Figure 4.2 Taxa Richness by Area

Taxa richness in the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas was significantly lower than the Reference Areas in 2019. Compared to previous years, taxa richness in 2019 was slightly lower in all areas, but only significantly lower in the Source Area. This may be reflective of lower organism counts overall in 2019 (see previous Section). These results suggest that residual impacts are present in the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas. Taxa richness in the Far Downstream Areas in 2019 was not significantly different than the Reference Areas nor was it significantly different between years. This suggests the Far Downstream Areas have recovered from adverse effects the Incident may have had on taxa richness or was less impacted compared to investigation areas nearer to the Incident.

2017

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

4

13

22

31

40

49TA

XA R

ICHN

ESS

2018

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

4

13

22

31

40

49

TAXA

RIC

HNES

S

2019

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

4

13

22

31

40

49

TAXA

RIC

HNES

S

`


4.3.2.5 Percent Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT)

Percent EPT is a subset of taxa richness that describes the proportion of specific pollution-intolerant taxonomic orders. Generally, high percent EPT is representative of good stream health. Table 4.6 summarizes percent EPT within each area in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Table 4.6 Percent Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT)



2019 10.3 NA NA


Different


Different 2018 7.9 2017 12.2

Source Area B-1 2019 2.2 < Reference < Reference


Different


Different 2018 6.6 2017 6.6


2019 3.2 < Reference < Reference 2019 < 2018


Different 2018 3.8 2017 10.5



Different

Not Significantly

Different


Different


Different 2018 8.2 2017 7.6


Figure 4.3 plots percent EPT by pooled investigation areas for 2017 through 2019.

`


Figure 4.3 Mean Percent EPT by Area

Percent EPT in the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas was significantly lower than the Reference Areas in 2019. Compared to previous years, percent EPT in 2019 was significantly lower than 2018 in the Near Downstream Areas (ANOVA). The overall pattern indicates a reduction in percent EPT in the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas in 2019. These results suggest that residual impacts to sensitive benthic taxa are potentially present in the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas. Percent EPT in the Far Downstream Areas in 2019 was not significantly different than the Reference Areas nor was it significantly different between years. This suggests the Far Downstream Areas have recovered from adverse effects the Incident may have had on percent EPT or was less impacted compared to investigation areas nearer to the Incident.

2017

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

-2

4

10

16

EPT

2018

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

-2

4

10

16

EPT

2019

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

-2

4

10

16

EPT

`


4.3.2.6 Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index (H')

Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index (H’) characterizes diversity in a community based on abundance and evenness of the taxa present. Generally a value below 1 represents substantial pollution, between 1 and 3 suggests moderate pollution, and between 3 and 5 indicates absence of pollution. Table 4.7 summarizes Shannon-Weiner Diversity within each area in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Table 4.7 Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index (H’)



2019 2.88 NA NA 2019 < 2017

2019 < 2018


Different 2018 3.19 2017 3.26

Source Area B-1 2019 1.86 < Reference < Reference 2019 < 2017

2019 < 2018 2019 < 2018 2018 2.83 2017 2.66



Different < Reference 2019 < 2017

2019 < 2018 2019 < 2018 2018 2.93 2017 2.98



Different

Not Significantly

Different


Different


Different 2018 3.11 2017 3.04


Figure 4.4 plots H' by pooled reference areas for 2017 through 2019.

`


Figure 4.4 Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index (H’) by Area

Shannon-Weiner Diversity in the Source Area (ANOVA and ANCOVA) and Near Downstream Areas (ANCOVA) was significantly lower than the Reference Areas in 2019. Compared to previous years, H’ in 2019 was significantly lower than 2017 and 2018 in the Reference Areas (ANOVA), Source Area (ANOVA and ANCOVA for 2018), and Near Downstream Areas (ANOVA and ANCOVA for 2018). This pattern indicates an overall reduction in H’ in 2019. The significant differences in the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas suggest that residual impacts are potentially present in these areas. H’ was also significantly lower in 2019, which indicates that differences may be attributable to, at least to some degree, natural year to year variation. H’ for the Far Downstream Areas in 2019 was not significantly different from 2017 or 2018, which suggests year to year variation in diversity may not be the same in all investigation areas.

2017

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

0

1

2

3

4

SHAN

NON

2018

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

0

1

2

3

4

SHAN

NON

2019

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

0

1

2

3

4

SHAN

NON

`


4.3.2.7 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI)

The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index assigns a "tolerance value" to each taxon present and calculates overall index for a community weighted by abundance of each taxon. Values are between 0.0 and 10, where 0.0 generally represents excellent water quality and no pollution and 10 represents very poor water quality and severe pollution.

Table 4.8 summarizes HBI within each area in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Tolerance value coefficients were identified during the current evaluation for several taxa previously lacking these values. In order to provide comparable HBI values over time, the calculations for 2017 and 2018 were updated and, therefore, differ slightly from those previously reported.

Table 4.8 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI)



2019 6.06 NA NA


Different


Different 2018 5.97 2017 6.06

Source Area B-1 2019 7.23 > Reference > Reference 2019 > 2017

2019 > 2018 2019 > 2018 2018 6.16 2017 6.99


2019 7.15 > Reference > Reference 2019 > 2018 2019 > 2018 2018 5.96

2017 6.52 Far Downstream Areas (D and E)


Different

Not Significantly

Different


Different


Different 2018 6.25 2017 6.14


Figure 4.5 plots HBI by pooled investigation areas for 2017 through 2019.

`


Figure 4.5 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index by Area

The HBI in the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas was significantly higher than the Reference Areas in 2019. Compared to previous years, HBI in 2019 was also significantly higher for the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas than in 2017 (ANCOVA) and 2018 (ANOVA and ANCOVA). These results suggest that residual impacts are present in the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas. HBI was not significantly different between years for the Reference Area or the Far Downstream Areas. As the HBI is an index of overall tolerance of benthic invertebrate communities, the absence of differences between years suggests that neither the Reference Area nor Far Downstream Areas have responded to chemical stressors since baseline was established in 2017.

2017

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

3

5

7

9

HILS

ENHO

FF

2018

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

3

5

7

9

HILS

ENHO

FF

2019

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

3

5

7

9

HILS

ENHO

FF

`


4.3.2.8 Simpson Diversity Index (Ds)

Simpson Diversity Index (Ds) is based on number of taxa, total number of individuals, and proportion of the total represented by each taxon. Values are between 0.0 and 1, with higher values generally representing good stream health. Table 4.9 summarizes Ds within each area in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Table 4.9 Simpson Diversity Index (Ds)



2019 0.91 NA NA 2019 < 2017

2019 < 2018


Different 2018 0.94 2017 0.95

Source Area B-1 2019 0.77 < Reference < Reference 2019 < 2017

2019 < 2018 2019 < 2018 2018 0.92 2017 0.88



Different

Not Significantly

Different


Different


Different 2018 0.93 2017 0.93



Different

Not Significantly

Different


Different


Different 2018 0.94 2017 0.93


Figure 4.6 plots Ds by pooled investigation areas for 2017 through 2019.

`


Figure 4.6 Simpson’s Diversity Index by Area

Ds in the Source Area (ANOVA and ANCOVA) was significantly lower than the Reference Areas in 2019. Compared to previous years, Ds in 2019 was significantly lower than 2017 and 2018 in the Reference Areas (ANOVA only) and Source Area (ANOVA and ANCOVA for 2018). This pattern indicates an overall reduction in H’ in 2019. The significant difference in the Source Area suggests that residual impacts are present in these areas. Ds was also significantly lower in 2019, which indicates that differences may be attributable to, at least to some degree, natural year to year variation. Similar to H’, Ds for the Far Downstream Areas in 2019 was not significantly different from 2017 or 2018, which suggests year to year variation in diversity may not be the same in all investigations areas.

2017

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

SIM

PSO

N

2018

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

SIM

PSO

N2019

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

SIM

PSO

N

`


4.3.2.9 Percent Oligochaetes

Percent oligochaetes is the abundance of aquatic worms, a taxonomic group tolerant to pollution as a percentage of total organism in a sample. Generally, low percentages are indicative of good stream health. Table 4.10 summarizes percent oligochaetes within each area in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Table 4.10 Percent Oligochaetes


Reference Areas (A and A1)

2019 13.2 NA NA


Different


Different 2018 6.8 2017 6.5

Source Area B-1 2019 53.8 Not Significantly

Different

Not Significantly

Different


Different


Different 2018 15.8 2017 31.1


2019 36.9 > Reference > Reference 2019 > 2018 2019 > 2018 2018 16.2

2017 29.6 Far Downstream Areas (D and E)


Different

Not Significantly

Different


Different


Different 2018 14.4 2017 12.0


Figure 4.7 plots percent oligochaetes by pooled investigation areas for 2017 through 2019.

`


Figure 4.7 Percent Oligochaetes by Area

Percent oligochaetes in the Near Downstream Areas (ANOVA and ANCOVA) was significantly higher than the Reference Areas in 2019. Compared to previous years, percent oligochaetes in 2019 in the Near Downstream Areas was also significantly higher than 2018 (ANOVA and ANCOVA). However, Figure 4.7 suggests that percent oligochaetes in the Source Area in 2019 was also high compared to previous years and upstream, but was not statistically significant due to high variability and the lower number of replicates (3) compared to the other pooled areas (with 6 replicates each). The results suggests that residual impacts and/or habitat impairment are potentially present in the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas.

2017

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

-3.0

10.4

23.8

37.2

50.6

64.0

PERC

ENT

OLI

GO

CHAE

TES

2018

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

-3.0

10.4

23.8

37.2

50.6

64.0

PERC

ENT

OLI

GO

CHAE

TES

2019

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

-3.0

10.4

23.8

37.2

50.6

64.0

PERC

ENT

OLI

GO

CHAE

TES

`


4.3.2.10 Number and Percent Hyalella

Number and percent Hyalella are metrics indicating the number and proportional abundance of a genus of crustaceans with a low tolerance to organic pollution. Generally, higher numbers and percentages are representative good stream health. Table 4.11 summarizes the number Hyalella within each area in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Table 4.12 summarizes percent Hyalella.

Table 4.11 Number of Hyalella


Reference Areas 2019 21.8 NA NA


Different


Different 2018 7.3 2017 20.7

Source Area 2019 2.0 < Reference < Reference


Different


Different 2018 0 2017 1.3

Near Downstream Areas


Different

Not Significantly

Different


Different


Different 2018 4.0 2017 18.0

Far Downstream Areas


Different

Not Significantly

Different


Different


Different 2018 11.5 2017 33.7


Table 4.12 Percent Hyalella


Reference Areas 2019 21.8 NA NA 2019 > 2018 2019 > 2018 2018 7.3

2017 20.7 Source Area 2019 1.4

< Reference < Reference 2019 Not

Significantly Different


Different 2018 0 2017 0.5

Near Downstream Areas


Different

Not Significantly

Different


Different


Different 2018 0.6 2017 1.4

Far Downstream Areas


Different

Not Significantly

Different

2019 > 2017 2019 > 2018 2019 > 2018 2018 3.5

2017 4.0 Note: Bold Font identifies statistically significant difference

Figure 4.8 and Figure 4.9 plot number and percent of Hyalella by pooled investigation areas for 2017 through 2019, respectively.

`


Figure 4.8 Number of Hyalella by Area

2017

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

-13

6

25

44

HYAL

ELLA

(CO

UNT)

2018

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

-13

6

25

44

HYAL

ELLA

(CO

UNT)

2019

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

-13

6

25

44

HYAL

ELLA

(CO

UNT)

`


Figure 4.9 Percent of Hyalella by Area

Number and percent Hyalella in the Source Area in 2019 were significantly lower than the Reference Areas (ANOVA and ANCOVA). Compared to previous years, percent Hyalella in 2019 was significantly higher in the Reference Areas in 2018 (ANOVA and ANCOVA) and Far Downstream Areas than 2017 (ANOVA) and 2018 (ANOVA and ANCOVA). These results suggest that conditions in the Reference Areas and Far Downstream Areas were more favorable for Hyalella in 2019, whereas the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas have not yet recovered to conditions to support a higher number and percent Hyallela.

2017

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

-4

2

8

14

PERC

ENT

HYAL

ELLA

2018

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

-4

2

8

14

PERC

ENT

HYAL

ELLA

2019

A+A1-Ref

B1-Sour

ce

River-B,C

River-D,E

-4

2

8

14

PERC

ENT

HYAL

ELLA

`


4.3.2.11 Multivariate Statistics

Figure 4.10 presents non-metric multidimensional scale (nMDS) ordination plots of benthic invertebrate samples collected from each area in 2017, 2018 and 2019. Each point on the nMDS ordination represents a benthic invertebrate sample and the distance between points is based on the relative similarity between samples. That is, samples closer together on the ordination have a more similar community composition (i.e. taxa present and abundance of each taxa). Alternatively, samples further apart have more differences in the community composition.

The ordination identifying samples from year of origin suggests 2019 had a more distinct benthic invertebrate community composition compared to 2017 and 2018. This is illustrated by the separation of 2019 samples ( green squares) from the other two years. There are relatively fewer differences between 2017 ( blue triangles) and 2018 ( red triangles) given that the samples overlap on the ordination. In nMDS ordinations, a shorter distance or overlap between data points illustrates similarity within or between communities, while greater distance between data points indicates dissimilarity within or between communities.

Figure 4.10 nMDS Ordination Plot for 2017, 2018, and 2019

Year201720182019

2D Stress: 0.22

`


When samples are identified by area, there are some notable groupings:

• Reference Area A ( gray cross) and Reference Area A-1 ( green X), with Downstream Area E ( blue triangle)

• Downstream Area B ( purple diamond) and Source Area B-1 ( light blue circle) with Downstream Area C (green square).

• The Downstream Area D ( red triangle) is intermediate between these two groupings.

Figure 4.11 nMDS Ordination Plot for Investigation Areas in 2019

However, the ordinations have a stress value >0.2 indicating the relationship among samples should be checked against other analyses such as tests for significance (Clarke & Warwick, 2001). The two-way PERMANOVA detected significant differences between both years and areas (P < 0.05). Given there was no significant interaction between year and area, pairwise comparisons were examined for each main effect (i.e. years across all areas; areas across all years).

The pairwise comparisons of years found that all were significantly different to one another. However, the strength of the difference was greatest between 2019 and the other two years. The main driver of the yearly differences is the lower abundances of many taxa in 2019 compared to previous years, particularly 2017. Pairwise comparisons of the different areas is best illustrated by an nMDS ordination using the centroid location for each area illustrated in Figure 4.11. That is, the ‘middle point’ for each area is used to summarise the similarity between each area (see Figure 4.12).

AreaArea AArea A-1Area B-1Area BArea CArea DArea E

2D Stress: 0.22

`


Figure 4.12 nMDS Ordination Plot Centroids for Investigation Areas in 2019

The nMDS ordination of centroids for each area suggests Reference Area-A and Area A-1 had a similar benthic community composition. This was confirmed by pairwise comparisons that detected no significant differences (P > 0.05). Moving downstream, there was a large change in composition. Source Area B-1 and Area B had a significantly different compositions compared to Reference Area-A and Area A-1 (P < 0.05). Furthermore, Source Area B-1 and Downstream Area B, and Downstream Area C, were not different from one another (P > 0.05). Further downstream, there was a trajectory of change with Downstream Areas D and E becoming more different to Source Area B-1 and Downstream Area B, but not returning to a composition that was more similar to the Reference Areas.

Figure 4.13 illustrates differences in benthic invertebrate community composition between the areas. Note that the areas have been pooled based on the pairwise comparisons discussed above to illustrate the broad changes in community composition. For example, there were no significant differences between Reference Area A and Area A-1 so these were pooled. Major changes in composition include a decrease in the mean abundance of bivalve molluscs (Amnicola) and the indicator amphipod Hyallela moving downstream from Reference Areas A and Area A-1 to Source Area B-1 and Downstream Areas B and C. There was also a decrease in blackfly larvae (Simuliidae), riffle beetle larvae (Dubiraphia) and midgefly larvae (Polypedilum scalaenum). Alternatively, at Source Area B-1 and Downstream Areas B C there was an increase in oligochaetes (Auldilus pluriseta, Limnodrilus udekemianus and Tubificinae), molluscs (Cyclocalyx), and midgefly larvae (Procladius, Rheotanytarsus and Parakiefferiella). Further downstream at Downstream Areas D and E there was a decrease in oligochaetes (A. pluriseta, L. udekemianus and Tubificinae), molluscs (Cyclocalyx), and midgefly larvae (Tanytarsus, Procladius and Parakiefferiella), and increases in the indicator amphipod Hyallela, biting midges (Mallochoelea), midgefly larvae (Rheosmittia and Pagastiella), and bivalve molluscs (Amnicola).


Area E

Area D

Area C

Area B

Area B-1Area A Area A-1

2D Stress: 0.01

`


The major changes at Downstream Areas D and E when compared to Reference Area A and Area A-1 were higher abundances of biting midges (Mallochoelea), midgefly larvae (Rheosmittia, Parakiefferialla, Helopelopia and Procladius), oligochaetes (A. pluriseta), and bivalve molluscs (Amnicola) at the downstream areas. Alternatively, at downstream areas there were lower abundances of blackfly larvae, riffle beetle larvae, midgefly larvae (P. scalaenum, Tanytarsus and Polypedilum halterale), caddisfly larvae (Oxyethira), and bivalve molluscs (Sphaerium). Interestingly, there were lower abundances of the indicator amphipod Hyallela at Downstream Area D but noticeably higher abundances at Downstream Area E compared to Reference Area A and Area A-1.

`


`


Figure 4.13 SIMPER Outputs of Taxa Contributing up to 70% of the Dissimilarity

The above analyses demonstrate that the Incident has likely impacted Source Area B-1 and Downstream Area B, where remedial actions were completed and Downstream Area C. This is illustrated by these areas having a community composition more tolerant to pollution compared to other areas. An important aspect of this assessment is to determine if there is evidence of recovery. Previous analyses based on 2017 and 2018 identified a relatively high variability among samples within each area as the major component of the PERMANOVA model which, combined with a low sample size, may have contributed to the lack of significant differences in some of the multivariate analyses. Consequently, when examining changes within an area overtime, it may be more appropriate to identify patterns based on nMDS ordinations and SIMPER analyses to provide an illustrative comparison of the community as a whole by investigation area and year to focus on evidence of trends towards similarity. To examine this, Figure 4.14 plots the centroids on the nMDS ordination plots for the Reference Areas, Source Area B-1, and Downstream Areas for 2017, 2018, and 2019.

`


Figure 4.14 nMDS Ordination Plot Centroids for Investigation Areas Showing 2017 - 2019

Figure 4.14 demonstrates an interesting pattern in trajectories in that the Reference Areas, Downstream Area D and to some extent Downstream Area E, have undergone a uniform change away from the community composition of 2017. This may indicate a natural seasonal change in communities. The trajectory of Source Area B-1 and Downstream Areas B and C moved away from the Reference Areas from 2017 to 2018. However, from 2018 to 2019 they followed the same trajectory and became more similar to the Reference Areas, particularly Area C, which suggests that these areas are recovering.

4.4 Line of Evidence 3 – Toxicity Tests

Toxicity tests conducted in 2017 and 2018 evaluated survival and growth (dry weight) of C. dilutus and H. azteca exposed to four and eight sediment samples, respectively. For the 2019 monitoring event, C. dilutus and H. azteca were exposed to seven sediment samples using the same test methodologies as in 2017 and 2018. Toxicity was determined based on two criteria. One criterion was a statistical comparison of the survival and dry weight in sediment from samples collected downstream of the derailment to field sediment collected from an upstream reference location. The other criterion was percent difference from the field reference. A test sediment was identified as causing an ecologically significant adverse effect if survival and/or dry weight for one or both test species was significantly different and more than 20 percent lower than the field reference (MOE, 2008). The toxicity tests for both species included a negative laboratory control conducted on sediment on provided by the laboratory. Although the negative controls were not used to evaluate toxicity of sediment from the assessment area, they were considered in interpretation of the results.

Year201720182019


Area E Area D

Area C

Area B

Area B-1

Area A

Area A-1

Area AArea E

Area D

Area C

Area B

Area B-1

Area A-1

Area A

Area E

Area D

Area C

Area B

Area B-12D Stress: 0.14

`


4.4.1 Chironomus dilutus

Table 4.13 summarizes the results of the 2019 toxicity tests for C. dilutus. Full results are provided in Appendix D.

Table 4.13 Toxicity Test Results for C. dilutus

Area Sediment Chemistry Sample Location

Survival Dry Weight Mean + SD (%)

Percent Difference from Reference R2

Mean + SD (mg)


Negative Control

NA 94 ± 9 +2.2 1.67 ± 0.21 -38

Source Area B1-1

A8 68 ± 4** -30 1.18 ± 0.64* -70

Downstream Areas B and C

C2 78 ± 29 -16.5 2.55 ± 0.81 +4.0 C3 84 ± 13 -9.1 1.99 ± 0.16* -21 C7 96 ± 5 +4.3 2.11 ± 0.12 -15 C8 92 ± 8 0 1.65 ± 0.31* -39

Downstream Area D

E4 98 ±4 +6.3 1.84 ± 0.52 -28

Reference Area A

R2 92 ± 8 NA 2.45 ± 0.31^ NA

Notes: SD = Standard Deviation NA = Not Applicable Statistical tests between the reference sample and samples within and downgradient of the Source Area are one-tailed comparisons. Bold indicates a decrease more than 20 percent lower than field reference. * Indicates a statistically significant decrease relative to the reference sediment R2. ** Indicates a statistically significant decrease relative to the reference sediment and negative control. Îndicates a statistically significant increase in the reference sediment R2 relative to the negative control. The decision level for statistical significance is 0.05 (p < 0.05).

4.4.1.1 Survival

Survival of C. dilutus exposed to sediment from location A8 (68 percent) is significantly lower than the reference sediment R2 (92 percent). The difference in survival of -30 percent exceeds the 20 percent threshold for ecological significance. Sediment from the location A8 tested in 2018 is also significantly lower than reference sediment with a difference in excess of 20 percent. Location A8 is located in Source Area B-1.

For all other test sediments, there are no significant differences from either the negative control or reference sediment. Percent differences from the reference sediment range from -16.5 percent for location C2 (Downstream Areas B and C) to +6.3 percent for location E4 (Downstream Area D).

Figure 4.15 plots percent survival vs. total PAH concentration for the pooled data for 2017, 2018, and 2019. The best-fit regression equation is polynomial, with a Coefficient of Determination (R2) of 0.770. Survival of 80 percent or greater is estimated at concentrations of total PAH below approximately 16 mg/kg. This is the same estimated threshold identified in the 2018 Ecological Assessment.

`


The only test concentrations greater than 16 mg/kg are 34.5 mg/kg for location C3 in 2017 and 23.8 mg/kg for location A8 in 2018. Survival for these samples are 4 and 66 percent, respectively. Survival for the sample from location A8 in 2019 is 68 percent for a test concentration of 4.90 mg/kg. Four other samples with test concentrations equal to or greater than 4.90 mg/kg do not have a statistically significant adverse effect on survival. This suggests that the total PAH concentration of 4.90 mg/kg may not be the primary cause of low survival for location A8 in 2019.

There is a gap in test concentrations between survival of 92 percent at 11.7 mg/kg and survival of 66 percent at 23.8 mg/kg. Future testing will include test concentrations to address this gap.

Figure 4.15 Chironomus dilutus Survival vs. Total PAH Concentration

Figure 4.16 plots percent survival vs. total PHC concentration for the pooled data for 2017, 2018, and 2019. The best-fit regression equation is polynomial, with a R2 of 0.614. Survival of 80 percent or greater is estimated at concentrations of total PHC below approximately 1,350 mg/kg. This threshold is slightly lower than the 1,500 mg/kg identified in the 2018 Ecological Assessment.

For the pooled dataset, concentrations of total PHC in two sediment samples exceed the estimated threshold of 1,350 mg/kg. Location C3 in 2017 had a concentration of 2,032 mg/kg and survival of 4 percent. Location A8 in 2018 had a concentration of 1,981 mg/kg and survival of 66 percent. A sample from location A8 was also collected and tested in 2019. The concentration for the 2019 sample is 181 mg/kg, which is nearly a full order of magnitude below the concentration in 2018. Survival for the 2019 sample is 66 percent and significantly lower than the reference sediment. The significant difference in survival at concentrations similar to those with no adverse effect suggests that total PHC may not be the only contributor to the low survival of C. dilutus.

y = -0.1309x2 + 1.7953x + 84.707R² = 0.7701

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent S

urvi

val

Total PAH Concentration (mg/kg)

80% Survival

2017 2018 2019

`


There is a gap in test concentrations between survival of 90 percent at 1,015 mg/kg and survival of 66 percent at 1,981 mg/kg. As concentrations of total PHC in all samples tested in 2019 are below the estimated threshold of 1,350 mg/kg it may not be possible to address this gap with in future sampling events.

Figure 4.16 Chironomus dilutus Survival vs. Total PHC Concentration

4.4.1.2 Growth

Dry weight of C. dilutus exposed to sediment from locations A8 (1.18 mg), C3 (1.99 mg), and C8 (1.65 mg) is significantly lower than the reference sediment R2 (2.45 mg). Percent differences for the reference sediment are -70 percent for A8, -21 percent for C3, -39 percent for C8, and -28 percent for E4. These differences exceed the threshold of 20 percent for ecological significance; however, location E4 was not statistically significantly different from reference sediment R2. Furthermore, dry weight for the negative control (1.67 mg) is also significantly lower than the reference sediment R2 and the difference of -38 percent exceeds the threshold of 20 percent. Location A8 is located in Source Area B-1, and locations C3 and C8 are located in the Downstream Areas B and C.

Figure 4.17 plots dry weight vs. total PAH concentration. The best-fit regression equation is exponential, with a R2 of 0.321. The mean dry weight of the one reference sediment for the 2017 tests (2.37 mg), two reference sediments for the 2018 tests (2.40 mg and 2.38 mg) and one reference sediment for 2019 (2.45 mg) is 2.40 mg. A 20-percent reduction in dry weight 1.92 mg. For the pooled dataset, a 20 percent reduction (1.92 mg) is estimated at concentrations of total PAH greater than approximately 2.00 mg/kg. Concentrations of total PAH exceed 2.00 mg/kg in seven of the 19 sediment samples tested in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Of these seven samples, dry weight for sediment from location C3 in 2017, location A8 in 2018 and 2019, and location C8 in 2019 is significantly lower and more than 20 percent lower than the reference sediment.

y = -3E-05x2 + 0.0392x + 81.862R² = 0.6137

0

20

40

60

80

100

10 100 1,000 10,000

Perc

ent S

urvi

val

Total PHC Concentration (mg/kg)

80% Survival

2017 2018 2019

`


For the pooled dataset, concentrations of total PAH with significantly lower dry weight range from 0.730 mg/kg (E4 in 2018) to 31.5 mg/kg (C3 in 2017). Concentrations with no significant differences range from 0.242 mg/kg (A10 in 2018) to 7.04 mg/kg (C10 in 2019). Due to this large degree of overlap, low value for R2, and high degree of scatter among data points, concentrations of total PAH causing negative effects to growth of C. dilutus are uncertain.

Figure 4.17 Chironomus dilutus Growth vs. Total PAH Concentration

Figure 4.18 plots dry weight vs. total PHC concentration. The best-fit regression equation is exponential, with a R2 of 0.481. A 20 percent reduction (1.92 mg) is estimated at concentrations greater than approximately 40 mg/kg. Concentrations of total PHC exceed 40 mg/kg in all 19 sediment samples tested in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Dry weight for sediment from locations A3, A4, and C3 in 2017, locations A8 and E4 in 2018, and location C8 in 2019 is significantly lower and more than 20 percent lower than reference sediment.

For the pooled 2017, 2018, and 2019 dataset, concentrations of total PHC with significantly lower dry weight range from 105 (location A4 in 2017) to 2,032 mg/kg (location C3 in 2017). Concentrations with no significant differences range from 65 mg/kg (location A10 in 2018) to 1,015 mg/kg (location E4 in 2018). The concentration of 276 mg/kg for location C8, which has significantly lower dry weight, is the highest concentration tested in 2019.

The difference between the lowest test concentration with significantly lower dry weight (105 mg/kg) and the highest concentration with no significant differences (1,015 mg/kg) is an order of magnitude. This large difference and estimated concentration of 40 mg/kg as the effect threshold suggests that dry weight is a poor indicator of toxicity and factors other than PHCs effect dry weight in the C. dilutus tests.

y = -0.0586x + 2.0342R² = 0.3216

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.1 1 10 100

Dry

Wei

ght (

mg)


20% Decrease in Weight

2017 2018 2019

`


Figure 4.18 Chironomus dilutus Growth vs. Total PHC Concentration

4.4.2 Hyalella azteca

Table 4.14 summarizes the results of 2019 toxicity test for H. azteca. Full results are provided in Appendix D.

Table 4.14 Toxicity Test Results for H. azteca

Area Sediment Chemistry Sample Location

Survival Dry Weight

Mean + SD (%)


Mean + SD (mg)


Negative Control NA 94 ± 13 +2.2 0.07 ± 0.02^ -44 Source Area B1-1 A8 58 ± 45* -45 0.09 ± 0.04 -20 Downstream Areas B and C

C2 88 ± 13 -4.4 0.10 ± 0.02 -9.5 C3 86 ± 9 -6.7 0.08 ± 0.01 -31 C7 92 ± 4 0 0.10 ± 0.01 -9.5 C8 86 ± 9 -6.7 0.09 ± 0.01 -20

Downstream Area D E4 90 ±7 -2.2 0.10 ± 0.03 -9.5 Reference Area A R2 92 ± 4 NA 0.11 ± 0.02^ NA Notes: SD = Standard Deviation NA = Not Applicable Statistical tests between the reference sample and samples within and downgradient of the Source Area are one-tailed comparisons. Bold indicates a decrease more than 20 percent lower than field reference. * Indicates a statistically significant decrease relative to the reference sediment R2. Îndicates a statistically significant increase in the reference sediment R2 relative to the negative control. The decision level for determining statistical significance is 0.05 (p < 0.05).

y = 1.9951e-0.001x

R² = 0.4814

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

10 100 1,000 10,000

Dry

Wei

ght (

mg)



2017 2018 2019

`


4.4.2.1 Survival

Survival of H. azteca exposed to sediment from location A8 (58 percent) is significantly lower than reference sediment R2 (92 percent). The difference in survival of -45 percent exceeds the 20 percent threshold for ecological significance. Survival for sediment from location A8 tested in 2018 is also significantly lower from reference sediment with a difference in excess of 20 percent. Location A8 is located in Source Area B-1.

For all other test sediments, there are no significant differences in survival from either the negative control or reference sediment. Percent differences from the reference sediment range from -6.7 percent for locations C3 and C8 (Downstream Areas B and C) to -2.2 percent for location E4 (Downstream Area D).

Figure 4.19 plots percent survival vs. total PAH concentration for the pooled data for 2017, 2018, and 2019. The best-fit regression equation is polynomial, with a R2 of 0.818. Survival of 80 percent or greater is estimated at concentrations of total PAHs below approximately 7.70 mg/kg. Concentrations of three samples in the pooled dataset exceed 7.70 mg/kg: location C3 in 2017 (31.5 mg/kg), location A8 in 2018 (23.8 mg/kg), and location C8 in 2019 (11.7 mg/kg). Of these three samples, survival for location C3 in 2017 and location A8 in 2018 are significantly lower and more than 20 percent lower than the reference sediment.

There is a gap in test concentrations between survival of 86 percent at 11.7 mg/kg and survival of 4 percent at 23.8 mg/kg. Future testing will include test concentrations selected to address this gap.

Figure 4.19 Hyalella azteca Survival vs. Total PAH Concentration

Figure 4.20 plots percent survival vs. total PHC concentration for the pooled 2017, 2018, and 2019 dataset. The best-fit regression equation is polynomial, with a R2 of 0.907. Survival of 80 percent or greater is estimated at concentrations of total PHC below approximately 610 mg/kg. Concentrations in three samples in the pooled dataset exceed 610 mg/kg: location C3 in 2017 (2,032 mg/kg),

y = -0.0797x2 - 0.7024x + 90.07R² = 0.8182

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.1 1 10 100

Perc

ent S

urvi

val


80% Survival

2017 2018 2019

`


locations A8 (1,981 mg/kg) and E4 (1,015 mg.kg) in 2018. Survival for all three samples is significantly lower and more than 20 percent lower than the reference sediment.

There is a gap in test concentrations between survival of 88 percent at 461 mg/kg (C3 in 2018) and survival of 70 percent at 1,015 mg/kg (C3 in 2018). Future testing will attempt to test concentrations to address this gap. As the highest concentration of total PHC detected in 2019 is 276 mg/kg, it may not possible to test higher concentrations.

Figure 4.20 Hyalella azteca Survival vs. Total PHC Concentration

4.4.2.2 Growth

Dry weight of H. azteca exposed to sediment from the Source Area (A8), Downstream Areas (C2, C3, C7, and C8), and Downstream Areas (E4) is not statistically different from reference sediment R2. Percent differences range from -31 percent for C3 to -9.5 percent for C2, C7, and E4.

Dry weight for the negative control (0.07 mg) is significantly lower than the reference sediment (0.11 mg) and the difference of -44 percent exceeds the threshold of 20 percent for ecological significance. None of the test sediments are statistically different from the negative control.

Figure 4.21 plots dry weight vs. total PAH concentration. The best-fit regression equation is exponential, with a R2 of 0.713. Mean dry weight of the reference sediments for the 2017 tests (0.17 mg), 2018 tests (0.080 mg and 0.160 mg), and 2019 reference sediment R2 (0.110 mg) is 0.130 mg. A 20-percent reduction in dry weight from 0.130 mg is 0.104 mg. A 20 percent reduction is estimated at concentrations greater than approximately 2.30 mg/kg. Concentrations of total PAH exceed 2.30 mg/kg in seven of the 19 sediment samples tested in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Of these seven samples, dry weight for sediment from location C3 in 2017, location A8 in 2018 and 2019, and location C8 in 2019 is significantly lower than the reference sediment.

y = -2E-05x2 - 0.0046x + 90.329R² = 0.907

0

20

40

60

80

100

10 100 1,000 10,000

Perc

ent S

urvi

val


80% Survival

2017 2018 2019

`


For the pooled dataset, concentrations of total PAHs with significantly lower dry weight range from 0.073 mg/kg (E4 in 2018) to 31.5 mg/kg (C3 in 2017). Concentrations with no significant differences range from 0.242 mg/kg (A10 in 2018) to 11.7 mg/kg (C8 in 2019). Due to this large degree of overlap, concentrations of total PAH causing negative effects to growth of H. azteca are uncertain.

Figure 4.21 Hyalella azteca Growth vs. Total PAH Concentration

Figure 4.22 plots dry weight vs. total PHC concentration. The best-fit regression equation is exponential, with a R2 of 0.643. A 20 percent reduction is estimated at concentrations greater than approximately 168 mg/kg. Concentrations of total PHC exceed 168 mg/kg in seven of the 19 sediment samples tested in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Concentrations of total PHC exceed 168 mg/kg at location C3 in 2017, locations A8, C2, C3, and E4 in 2018, location A8 and C8 in 2019. Dry weight for the two samples for 2017 and three of the four samples for 2018 (location C2 is the exception) is significantly lower than the reference sediment. Although concentrations exceed 168 mg/kg, neither of the two samples for 2019 have dry weight significantly lower than the reference.

For the pooled dataset, concentrations of total PHC with significantly lower dry weight range from 105 mg/kg (A3 in 2017) to 2,032 mg/kg (C3 in 2017). Concentrations with no significant differences range from 65 mg/kg (A10 in 2018) to 276 mg/kg (C8 in 2019). The concentration of 276 mg/kg for location C8 is the highest concentration tested in 2019.

There is a gap between the highest test concentration with no significant differences (461 mg/kg) and the concentration of 1,015 mg/kg with significantly lower dry weight. Future testing will include test concentrations to address this gap, if concentrations of total PHC are within this range. There is also uncertainty in the estimated threshold concentration of 168 mg/kg, as dry weight for three of the seven samples exceeding 168 mg/kg is not significantly lower than reference sediment.

y = 0.1709e-0.214x

R² = 0.7128

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.1 1 10 100

Dry

Wei

ght (

mg)



2017 2018 2019

`


Figure 4.22 Hyalella azteca Growth vs. Total PHC Concentration

Given that the only statistically significant difference is between the negative control and the field reference and the negative control is -44 percent different, it can be reasonably concluded that dry weight is a poor indicator of toxicity and factors other than PHCs effect dry weight in the H. azteca tests.

4.5 Summary of Assessment of Benthic Invertebrate Communities

Recovery of benthic invertebrate communities was evaluated using a WOE approach consisting of three lines of evidence: sediment chemistry, benthic community analyses, and toxicity testing. The MECP Guidelines (MOE, 2008) recommend developing a decision matrix to rank data from the available lines of evidence. Ranking is based on a scale of 1 to 3, with 1 representing a high potential for adverse ecological effects and 3 representing a low potential. The summary of the results and the ranking, according to Table 5 of the MECP Guidelines (MOE, 2008), for each line of evidence is presented in Section 4.5.1. The ranking given for each line of evidence is assessed in combination with the others to develop a decision matrix to determine if additional assessment is required, which is presented in Section 4.5.2.

4.5.1 Ranking the Lines of Evidence and Decision Matrix

Bulk Sediment Chemistry

The rank for bulk sediment chemistry is based on comparison of the sediment analytical results for BTEX and PAHs to the ESVs. None of the BTEX or PAH constituents exceeded the ESVs. BTEX were not detected in any sample and the highest concentrations of PAHs were detected at Location A8.

y = 0.1715e-0.003x

R² = 0.6433

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

10 100 1,000 10,000

Dry

Wei

ght (

mg)



2017 2018 2019

`


ESVs are not available for PHC fractions F1 through F4 or total PHCs. PHCs with 16 or more carbons are not likely to be toxic due to low solubility (Battelle, 2007). In the absence of ESVs for PHCs, concentrations of BTEX and PAHs in bulk sediment can reasonably be used as surrogates for PHCs.

Since concentrations of BTEX and PAHs in bulk sediment are below the ESVs, the sediment chemistry line of evidence is assigned a Rank of 3 for each of the areas.

Benthic Invertebrate Community Analyses

The rank of the benthic invertebrate community analyses is based on benthic invertebrate community metrics which were subjected to inter-group comparisons contrasting the different areas (Reference Areas A and A-1, Source Area B-1, Near Downstream Areas B and C, and Far Downstream Areas D and E) and years (focusing on 2017 baseline, 2018 and 2019 post-baseline). Multivariate analyses were undertaken separately for each investigation area (A, A-1, B-1, B, C, D, and E).

MECP Guidelines (MOE, 2008) rank benthic invertebrate community alteration based on differences relative to reference stations. An area is either considered different, very different, possibly different, or equivalent to the reference stations. The following is a summary of the findings of the key differences in the inter-group comparisons.

For 2019, taxa richness, Shannon-Weiner Diversity (H’), Simpson’s Diversity (Ds), percent EPT, and number and percent of Hyalella were all significantly lower, and HBI higher, for the Source Area compared to the Reference Areas. The Near Downstream Areas also had significantly lower taxa richness and percent EPT and higher HBI and percent oligochaetes than the Reference Areas. These results were complimented by the multivariate analyses that also identified significant differences in the community composition of the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas compared to the Reference Areas. The results suggest that the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas have not yet recovered from the Incident and disturbances resulting from remedial activities in 2015 and 2016. These two areas have a less diverse benthic invertebrate community that is more tolerant to pollution than the Reference Areas. Pollution tolerant oligochaetes and midgefly larvae contributed highly to the composition of these areas, while the indicator amphipod Hyalella was relatively rare.

The Far Downstream Areas appear to have recovered from and/or may have been less impacted by the Incident compared to the Source Area. The ANOVA and ANCOVA did not identify significant differences compared to Reference Areas for any of the individual metrics. The multivariate analyses are consistent with the ANOVA and ANCOVA. The community composition in the Far Downstream areas was different than the Reference Areas, which is likely due to natural variation in characteristics of the River, such as habitat structure and composition.

Overall, the multivariate analyses determined all areas have undergone some temporal changes with 2019 having lower densities compared to previous years. Although there was variation among areas, the ANOVA and ANCOVA suggest there was an overall decline in the quality of the communities. The exception to a decline was the statistically significant increase in percent of Hyalella in 2019. However, these increases were restricted to the Reference Areas and Far

`


Downstream Areas suggesting that the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas have not yet achieved conditions that favour Hyalella over oligochaetes.

It is notable that water levels and flows in 2019 were substantially higher than observed during previous years. Table 4.15 presents the flows observed during the sampling events conducted in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Table 4.15 Mesomikenda Lake Control Dam Flow (centimeter per second)

Monitoring and Sampling Event

Average Flow (cms) Maximum Flow (cms) Minimum Flow (cms)

2017 (May 1-9) 3.1 7.8 0.0

2018 (May 15-23) 0.0 0.0 0.0

2019 (May 7-16) 39.4 70.8 18.5

The effects of these conditions on the aquatic environment have not been clearly established, but may have influenced the changes in the benthic community observed in 2019 (in particular the overall lower organism counts). Such effects may be better understood in context of data collected in the future under more typical water level conditions. Furthermore, CN will be collecting additional data on the water levels and flow regime of the River in the future to investigate this uncertainty.

Investigating the potential influence of substrate characteristics (i.e., grain size of sediments), ANCOVAs with mean phi (representing the grain size distribution) as the covariate produced similar results as ANOVAs. This suggests that factors other than grain size may be influencing the benthic community metrics. The absence of significant differences for these metrics may be attributable to the small sample size and limited power of ANOVA and ANCOVA to detect significant differences.

The data described above suggest that the overall quality of the benthic invertebrate community in the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas in 2019 was lower compared to previous years, with the caveat that very high water levels during 2019 may have influenced the data. However, this condition was observed across the assessment area in 2019 indicating a temporal influence on the results of the 2019 survey. The 2019 data suggest that the Far Downstream Areas have recovered from and/or may have been less impacted by the Incident compared to the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas. Consistent with previous findings, the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas continue to have less diverse and more pollution-tolerant benthic communities than the upstream Reference Areas and Far Downstream Areas, suggesting that they may still be recovering from the Incident and subsequent remedial actions in 2015 and 2016.

It is uncertain at this time if the statistically significant differences in the benthic community metrics described above are due entirely to the Incident and/or remedial actions, or if they are influenced by naturally occurring unrelated factors such as very high water levels in 2019 (or some combination thereof). Due to this uncertainty, the benthic invertebrate community line of evidence is assigned a Rank of 2 for the Source Area and Near Downstream Areas. For the Far Downstream Areas, the benthic invertebrate community line of evidence is assigned a Rank of 3.

`


Toxicity Testing

MECP Guidelines (MOE, 2008) rank toxicity based on percent reduction of endpoints (i.e., survival and growth) relative to reference values. A minor reduction is 20 to 50 percent, whereas a major reduction is greater than 50 percent. As discussed above, an adverse effect was considered to be ecologically significant if survival and/or growth was statistically lower than a field reference AND the reduction was greater than 20 percent. The following bullets identify toxicity tests with both statistically significant differences and reduction of greater than 20 percent for survival and/or growth:

• A significant reduction for C. dilutus of 30 percent in survival and 70 percent in growth for sediment from Location A8 (major reduction)

• A significant reduction for H. azteca of 45 percent in survival for sediment from Location A8 (minor reduction)

The following bullets identify toxicity tests with statistical differences for growth only and a reduction of greater than 20 percent:

• A significant reduction for C. dilutus of 38 percent in growth relative to the field reference for the negative control (minor reduction)

• A significant reduction for C. dilutus of 21 percent in growth relative to the field reference, but not the negative control, for sediment from Location C3 (minor reduction)

• A significant reduction for C. dilutus of 39 percent in growth relative to the field reference, but not the negative control, for sediment from Location C8 (minor reduction)

• A significant reduction for H. azteca of 44 percent in growth relative to the field reference for the negative control (minor reduction)

The following bullets identify toxicity tests with a reduction of greater than 20 percent but the reduction is not statistically different from the field reference:

• A significant reduction of C. dilutus of 28 percent in growth for sediment from Location E4 (minor reduction)

• A significant reduction for H. azteca of 31 percent in growth relative to the field reference for sediment from Location C3 (minor reduction)

The significantly lower growth, measured as dry weight, in the negative controls for both C. dilutus and H. azteca relative to the field reference suggests that growth may be adversely affected by factors unrelated to concentrations of PAHs and PHCs in test sediment. Consequently, growth is not a reliable indicator of toxicity for either test species.

Sediment sample location A8 had highest concentrations of PAHs and PHCs. There is relatively good correlation between the concentrations of total PAHs and total PHCs and survival. However, given the significant differences between the reference and negative control, growth is a poor indicator of toxicity. Based on the toxicity results, the toxicity testing line of evidence is assigned a Rank of 1 for the Source Area, a Rank of 2 in the Near Downstream Areas and a Rank of 3 for the Far Downstream Areas.

`


Overall, although the toxicity tests identified statistically and potentially ecologically significant effects on C. dilutus and H. azteca, the results should be interpreted with caution because laboratory toxicity tests do not reliably predict effects to field populations (MOE, 2008). As such, the results of the toxicity tests should be interpreted in conjunction with the other lines of evidence.

4.5.2 Decision Matrix

Table 6 of MECP Guidelines (MOE, 2008) provides a series of scenarios developed based on a combination of the rankings for the various lines of evidence. Completion of a decision matrix based on Table 6 of MECP Guidelines (MOE, 2008) can be used to identify those areas within the overall assessment area that require further assessment and those areas in which further assessment is not warranted.

The rankings for each line of evidence were discussed in Section 4.5.1 and are summarized below.

Table 4.16 Decision Matrix for Assessment Areas

Investigation Area

Bulk Chemistry

Overall Toxicity

Benthos Alteration

Biomagnification Assessment

Source Area (B-1)

3 1 2 3 Determine reasons for benthos alteration and toxicity (track recovery)

Near Downstream Areas (B&C)

3 2 2 3 Determine reasons for benthos alteration and toxicity (track recovery)

Far Downstream Areas (D&E)

3 3 3 3 No further actions needed

Based on the above rankings for the lines of evidence and according to Table 6 of the MECP Guidelines (MOE, 2008), Source Area and Near Downstream Areas fall into Scenario 13 - Determine the reason(s) for sediment toxicity and benthos alteration. Far Downstream Areas fall into Scenario 1 – No further actions needed. Given the uncertainty described in Section 3.1 related to sampling coverage and statistical power and that Far Downstream Areas are downstream of the Source Area, it is appropriate to continue to include these Areas in the 2020 EA.

5. Conclusions

This 2019 EA presents an evaluation of the recovery of benthic invertebrate communities in the assessment area based on a WOE approach that considered three lines of evidence.

The first line of evidence based on the sediment chemistry shows that adverse effects are unlikely given concentrations of BTEX and PAHs are below the ESVs. ESVs are not available for PHCs; however, BTEX and PAHs are reasonable surrogates for PHCs. Even though this line of evidence suggests that adverse effects are unlikely, chemistry is considered as part of the toxicity line of evidence and has shown that the chemistry may be contributing to ecologically significant reductions in survival and growth in areas of the River that are recovering from the Incident or disturbances related to the remedial activities.

`


The second line of evidence is based on benthic community analyses and continues to suggest that the Source Area, and potentially the Near Downstream Areas, have not yet fully recovered from the Incident or disturbances related to the remedial activities. The analyses described above suggest that conditions in these areas were less favourable in 2019 compared to 2018 and 2017. However, very high water levels prior to the 2019 survey may have influenced the findings of the benthic invertebrate survey. It is therefore uncertain at this time if the statistically significant differences in the various benthic community metrics described above are due to the Incident and/or remedial actions, or are due to naturally occurring unrelated factors (or some combination thereof).

The third line of evidence is toxicity tests on C. dilutus and H. azteca exposed to eight sediment samples collected from the River for 10 days and 14 days, respectively. The toxicity tests identified reductions in survival and/or growth greater than 20 percent in four of the eight samples; specifically, those analyzed from the location A8 (Source Area), location C3 (Downstream Area B), location C8 (Downstream Area C) and location E4 (Downstream Area D), as well as the negative controls. Because there was significantly lower growth in the negative controls and there were no statistically significant differences detected at locations C3 and E4, only differences for location A8 (Source Area) can reasonably be attributable with relative certainty to effects of the Incident and remedial actions. For both C. dilutus and H. azteca, differences in growth for sediments from location C3 and E4 were not significantly different from the negative controls, which also had significantly lower growth from the field reference. These results provide evidence that survival is a relatively good indicator of toxicity to both C. dilutus and H. azteca. However, significant differences in growth for the negative controls relative to reference sediment suggest that factors other than, or in addition to, concentrations of PAHs and PHCs in sediment adversely affect growth of both test species.

The highest test concentration with no ecologically significant adverse effect was estimated based on the concentrations of total PAHs and total PHCs and the pooled results of the 2017, 2018 and 2019 toxicity tests. However, more data are required to confirm that this estimate is reliable and to reduce the gaps between the highest concentrations with no ecologically significant adverse effect and the lowest concentrations with an ecologically significant adverse effect. Selection of concentrations for future testing will attempt to reduce these data gaps. However, because concentrations of PAHs and PHCs have decreased since 2017, concentrations in future monitoring events may be below those needed to address the gaps, particularly for PHCs.

6. Site Monitoring

The 2019 data indicate that, based on the line of evidence for benthic invertebrate community analyses, there are differences between conditions in the Reference Areas and Source Area and Near Downstream Areas, but the factors responsible for the differences have not been confirmed at this time.

To investigate the effect of water levels and the flow regime, CN will be collecting additional data on the water levels and flow regime of the River in the future to investigate this uncertainty.

Based on the decision matrix presented in the Section 4.5.2 and the short duration of monitoring since the 2017 baseline was established, GHD recommends that surface water, sediment, and benthic community analyses continue in the Reference Areas, Source Area, Near Downstream

`


Areas, and Far Downstream Areas to track recovery and determine whether improvements and differences are due to recovery from the Incident, natural between-year variability, factors associated with the Incident, unrelated factors, or some combination thereof.

7. References

Battelle: Sediment Toxicity of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fractions. Report prepared for Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP), Boston, MA (Battelle, 2007).

Cailleaud, K., A. Basseres, C. Gelber, J.F. Postma, A.T.M. ter Schure, P.E.G. Leonards, A.D. Redman, G.F. Whale, M.J. Spence, and M. Hjort. 2019. Investigation predictive tools for refinery effluent hazard assessment using stream mesocosms. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol.38, No3, pp650-659, 2019 (Cailleaud, et al., 2019).

Canadian Counsel of Ministers of the Environment (CCME): A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: General Guidance, 1996 (CCME, 1996).

Canadian Counsel of Ministers of the Environment (CCME): A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: Technical Appendices, 1997 (CCME, 1997).

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME): Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life, 1999 (CCME, 1999).

Canada-Ontario Assessment Sediment Task Group: Canada-Ontario Decision-Making Framework for Assessment of Great Lakes Contaminated Sediment. Publication, March 2008 (CAO, 2008).

Clarke, K.R. and Warwick, R.M. (Clarke and Warwick): Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. 2nd Edition, PRIMER-E, Ltd., Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, 2001 (Clark and Warwick, 2001).

Environment Canada (EC): Biological Test Method: Test for Survival and Growth in Sediment Using Larvae of Freshwater Midges (Chironomus tentans or Chironomus riparius). Method Development and Application Section, Environmental Technology Centre. EPS 1/RM/21-December 1997 (EC, 1997).

Environment Canada (EC): Biological Test Method: Test for Survival and Growth in Sediment and Water Using the Freshwater Amphipod Hyallela azteca. Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada. EPS 1/RM/33. Second Edition. January 2013 (EC, 2013).

Krumbein, W.C. (Krumbein): Size Frequency Distributions of Sediments and the Normal Phi Curve. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol.8, No3, pp84-90, December, 1938 (Krumbein, 1938).

Ontario Ministry of the Environment: Guidelines for Identifying, Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments in Ontario: An Integrated Approach (MOE, 2008).

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy: Water Management Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives (MOE, 1994).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): Ecological Screening Levels for RCRA Appendix IX Hazardous Constituents, 2003 (USEPA, 2003).

`


United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/nscep (USEPA, 2003).

All of Which is Respectfully Submitted,

GHD

Steven M. Jones, PhD., CSE

Dan Murray, P.Eng.

https://www.epa.gov/nscep

Farm

Lake

M inisi nak wa Lake

Frigid Lake

Makami River

B

GOGAMA

Maka

miRi

ver

Mak ami River

390380

360

370 35

0

390380370

370

360 360

350

380

370

380

370360

370360

370

350

370360

370

360

360

350

36035

0

380

380

380

370

370

370

360

360

360

360

360

360

370

370

360

360

John St

Harris St

Pine StCedar St

Beatrice St

Low Ave

Conrad Cres

Russel

l Ave

Wes

t S

t

Poupore St

Miller S

t

James St

Mcgowan St

Henry St

Canfield StArthur S

t

Hwy661

Hwy 661

Hwy 144

Seaplane Base(Abandoned)

Heliport(Not Recognized)

SITE

FIGURE 1

0 140 280 420 560

Meters

Project No.Revision No. -

11102200Date May 26, 2020

CN GOGAMA DERAILMENT – RUEL MP 88.7GOGAMA, ONTARIO2019 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Map Projection: Transverse MercatorHorizontal Datum: North American 1983

Grid: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

Paper Size ANSI A

oData source: Source: MNRF NRVIS, 2018. Produced by GHD under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, © Queen's Printer 2020.Q:\GIS\PROJECTS\11102000s\11102200\Layouts\022\11102200(022)GIS001.mxd

Print date: 26 May 2020 - 11:13

SITE LOCATION MAP

!!

!

!

£¤69£¤6

£¤144

£¤11

£¤64

£¤101£¤66

£¤17

£¤129

Michigan

SITE

Elliot Lake Sudbury

Timmins

DISTRICTOF SUDBURY

A3/B1-1A3/B1-1A3/B1-1A3/B1-1A3/B1-1A3/B1-1A3/B1-1A3/B1-1


OLD GOGAMA RD.

OLD GOGAMA RD.

OLD GOGAMA RD.

OLD GOGAMA RD.

OLD GOGAMA RD.

OLD GOGAMA RD.

OLD GOGAMA RD.

OLD GOGAMA RD.


A3/B1-1

A8/B1-2

OLD GOGAMA RD.

A10/B1-3

PLAN VIEW

PROFILE VIEW

FARMLAKE

MINISINAKWALAKE

FRIGIDLAKE

DERAILMENTSITE

MAK

AMI R

IVER

OLD GOGAMA ROAD

RAILWAYTRESTLE

POPLARPOINT

HIGHW

AY 661

GOGAMA

R3/A3

A3/B1-1

C1/B1

E9/D3

F2/E1

F6/E3

A10/B1-3

R2/A2

C2/B2

E4/D2

F5/E2

R6/A1-3R5/A1-2

A5A4

A6

C10/C1

C8/C3

R1/A1

R4/A1-1

A8/B1-2

C3/B3

C7/C2

E1/D1

FAR DOWNSTREAMAREA E

FAR DOWNSTREAMAREA D

NEAR DOWNSTREAMAREA C

NEAR DOWNSTREAMAREA B

SOURCEAREA B-1

REFERENCEAREA A-1

REFERENCEAREA A

SAMPLE AREA AREA B-1APPROXIMATE SCALE = 1:4000

NOTE:· TOXICITY ANALYSIS SAMPLE LOCATIONS WILL BE DETERMINED

BASED ON CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS.

LEGEND

WATER BODY (APPROXIMATE)

RAILWAY CENTRE LINE

APPROXIMATE CN RIGHT-OF-WAY

SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION NAME/

BENTHIC COMMUNITY ANALYSIS LOCATION

CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL ANALYSIS LOCATION

R1/A1BENTHIC SAMPLING LOCATION NAME

BENTHIC AREA

SURFACE WATER CHEMICAL ANALYSIS LOCATION

SAMPLE STATION/TRANSECTNOT TO SCALE

figure 2SEDIMENT, BENTHIC, AND SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS

2019 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTCN GOGAMA DERAILMENT - RUEL MP 88.7

Gogama, OntarioN:\CA\Waterloo\Legacy\CAD\drawings\11100000s\11102200\11102200-report\11102200-13(022)\11102200-13(022)GN\11102200-13(022)GN-WA001.DWG Plot Date: MAY 26, 2020

SOURCES:· WATERWAYS FROM DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA. ALL RIGHTS

RESERVED. GEOBASE - NATIONAL HYDRO NETWORK (NHN) - NHN_04LA000.· RAILWAY CENTRELINES FROM DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA. ALL

RIGHTS RESERVED. GEOBASE - NATIONAL RAILWAY NETWORK (NRWN) - NRWN_ON_1_0.· AERIAL IMAGE SOURCE: © COPYRIGHT 2015 DIGITALGLOBE, INC., LONGMONT CO USA

80503. WORLDVIEW-2 IMAGERY, CAPTURED NOVEMBER 15 2011.

GRAB SAMPLE

SAMPLE STATION/TRANSECT

DISCRETE SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY/TOXICITY

SAMPLE AREA/STATION LEGEND

SURFACE WATER

COMPOSITE SAMPLE FOR GRAIN-SIZE ANALYSISAND BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE SURVEY

SAMPLE AREA NOTES:· EACH AREA CONTAINS 3 TRANSECTS.· ONE SURFACE WATER SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED PER DIVISION

AT THE SAME LOCATION AS THE SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY SAMPLE.

1:15000 15000.0016 0 150 300 450m

Page 1 of 5

GHD 11102200-22-T2.3

Table 2.3

Summary of Benthic Invertebrate Community Indices in Downstream Areas and Reference Areas2019 Ecological Assessment

CN Gogama Derailment - Ruel MP 88.7Gogama, Ontario

Percent Shannon- HilsenhoffSample Dominant Benthic Taxa Percent Weiner Biotic Simpson Percent Hyalella sp. Hyalella sp.

Year Area Location Dominant Taxon Taxon Density Richness EPT Diversity Index Diversity Oligochaetes Count Percent

2015 Combined A-1 Limnodrilus udekemianus 56.9 28.0 16 6.2 1.61 8.05 0.65 56.9 1 1.54Reference A A-2 Dicrotendipes 32.9 73.3 27 23.5 2.66 6.74 0.87 3.5 12 7.06(A and A-1) A-3 Dubiraphia larvae 18.4 37.5 22 12.6 2.84 6.62 0.93 13.8 8 9.20

A1-1 < Not included in 2015 survey >A1-2 < Not included in 2015 survey >A1-3 < Not included in 2015 survey >

Combined 1 Dicrotendipes 36.1 46.3 45 14.1 2.37 7.10 0.82 24.7 7 5.93

Source B-1 B1-1 < Not included in 2015 survey >B1-2 < Not included in 2015 survey >B1-3 < Not included in 2015 survey >

Combined 1 < Not included in 2015 survey >

Near- B-1 Limnodrilus udekemianus 100.0 0.9 1 0.0 0.00 10.00 0.00 100.0 0 0.00Downstream B-2 Limnodrilus udekemianus 19.0 54.3 22 9.5 2.55 6.40 0.90 23.8 2 1.59

(B and C) B-3 Eurylophella 23.2 29.7 29 33.3 2.86 4.57 0.91 11.6 0 0.00C-1 Dubiraphia larvae 16.1 26.7 23 11.3 2.83 6.02 0.94 12.9 1 1.61C-2 Polypedilum scalaenum 44.7 73.3 22 2.4 2.21 6.05 0.78 11.8 0 0.00C-3 Tribelos 17.7 78.0 33 7.7 3.08 5.99 0.94 16.6 0 0.00

Combined 1 Polypedilum scalaenum 15.7 43.8 48.5 10.7 2.25 6.59 0.74 29.4 0.5 0.53

Far- D-1 Rheosmittia 25.0 6.9 10 12.5 2.13 6.44 0.92 12.5 0 0.00Downstream D-2 Eurylophella 22.5 34.5 28 32.5 2.88 5.11 0.92 11.3 0 0.00

(D and E) D-3 Dubiraphia larvae 13.6 25.4 17 40.7 2.64 5.10 0.93 3.4 0 0.00E-1 Rheosmittia 68.3 141.4 68 7.3 1.44 5.77 0.53 3.7 0 0.00E-2 Limnodrilus (immatures without hair chaetae) 26.7 148.7 27 17.7 2.52 6.74 0.87 29.0 8 2.32E-3 Polypedilum scalaenum 16.3 106.0 16 26.8 3.13 1.45 0.93 8.1 2 0.81

Combined 1 Rheosmittia 21.6 75.7 43 22.9 2.40 5.59 0.85 11.3 1.67 0.52

Note:1 - Combined area metrics are area averages (i.e., of the sample locations), except for dominant taxon and percent dominant taxon are based on totals. Combined Near-downstream and Far-downstream are averages of the combined individual area values (e.g., Combined Near-Downstream is the average of combined B and combined C, etc.).

Page 2 of 5

GHD 11102200-22-T2.3

Table 2.3





2016 Combined A-1 Polypedilum halterale 21.5 160.3 31 3.0 2.79 6.16 0.91 3.2 12 3.23Reference A A-2 Djalmabatista 17.9 163.8 33 9.5 3.13 6.61 0.94 7.4 24 6.32(A and A-1) A-3 Hyalella 12.3 161.2 50 19.8 3.54 6.07 0.96 7.0 46 12.30


Combined 1 Djalmabatista 11.9 161.8 69 10.7 3.15 6.28 0.94 5.8 27.3 7.28

Source B-1 B1-1 Aulodrilus pluriseta 45.1 114.7 13 6.8 1.92 6.63 0.76 51.1 0 0.00B1-2 Aulodrilus pluriseta 44.3 158.6 10 2.2 1.84 7.91 0.76 76.1 0 0.00B1-3 Limnodrilus (immatures without hair chaetae) 47.0 212.9 19 2.4 1.91 8.41 0.74 73.7 0 0.00

Combined 1 Aulodrilus pluriseta 32.4 162.1 31 3.8 1.89 7.65 0.75 67.0 0 0.00

Near- B-1 Aulodrilus pluriseta 19.5 228.0 25 17.4 2.67 6.87 0.91 43.1 0 0.00Downstream B-2 Aulodrilus pluriseta 35.2 94.4 19 10.0 2.37 6.55 0.84 49.3 4 1.83

(B and C) B-3 Limnodrilus (immatures without hair chaetae) 13.9 438.4 33 12.6 3.00 6.95 0.93 33.8 0 0.00C-1 Limnodrilus (immatures without hair chaetae) 43.8 260.8 20 4.0 2.13 8.38 0.78 68.8 0 0.00C-2 Aulodrilus pluriseta 26.2 338.4 37 3.6 2.85 7.05 0.89 48.4 12 1.53C-3 Amnicola 13.2 234.5 22 10.3 2.71 7.52 0.92 58.8 0 0.00

Combined 1 Aulodrilus pluriseta 16.2 265.7 49.5 9.6 2.62 7.22 0.88 50.4 2.7 0.56

Far- D-1 Aulodrilus pluriseta 26.5 162.9 21 7.4 2.53 6.89 0.89 44.4 8 2.12Downstream D-2 Limnodrilus udekemianus 12.5 225.0 38 6.1 3.20 7.26 0.95 28.4 12 2.30

(D and E) D-3 Cyclocalyx 15.6 199.1 27 8.7 2.92 6.33 0.93 15.6 0 0.00E-1 Hyalella 13.3 311.6 34 11.3 3.13 6.82 0.94 10.1 96 13.3E-2 Limnodrilus (immatures without hair chaetae) 12.7 324.6 21 12.7 2.83 7.18 0.93 12.9 64 8.50E-3 Caenis 11.1 372.4 25 18.5 3.05 6.91 0.95 11.1 32 3.70

Combined 1 Cyclocalyx 7.1 265.9 51 10.8 2.94 6.90 0.93 20.4 35.3 4.98

Note:1 - Combined area metrics are area averages (i.e., of the sample locations), except for dominant taxon and percent dominant taxon are based on totals. Combined Near-downstream and Far-downstream are averages of the combined individual area values (e.g., Combined Near-Downstream is the average of combined B and combined C, etc.).

Page 3 of 5

GHD 11102200-22-T2.3

Table 2.3





2017 Combined A-1 Rheosmittia 13.3% 84.1 34 14.4% 3.12 5.84 0.94 1.0% 10 5.1%Reference A A-2 F. Simuliidae indeterminiate 16.0% 237.1 39 16.2% 3.25 5.84 0.94 2.9% 20 3.6%(A and A-1) A-3 Limnodrilus udekemianus/ Dubiraphia larvae 9.5% 687.1 50 6.0% 3.41 6.49 0.95 15.6% 32 2.0%


Combined 1 Dubiraphia larvae 7.2% 336.1 73 12.2% 3.26 6.06 0.95 6.5% 20.7 3.6%

Source B-1 B1-1 F. Simuliidae 20.8% 53.9 25 9.6% 2.89 6.24 0.93 8.0% 0 0.0%B1-2 Aulodrilus pluriseta 25.0% 117.2 25 7.4% 2.64 6.56 0.88 26.5% 4 1.5%B1-3 F. Naididae immatures without hair chaetae 39.4% 187.9 31 2.8% 2.44 8.16 0.82 58.7% 0 0.0%

Combined 1 F. Naididae immatures without hair chaetae 20.6% 119.7 52 6.6% 2.66 6.99 0.88 31.1% 1.3 0.5%

Near- B-1 Aulodrilus pluriseta 20.3% 119.0 23 10.1% 2.81 5.64 0.92 24.6% 0 0.0%Downstream B-2 Parakiefferiella 16.2% 117.2 25 8.8% 2.98 6.25 0.94 20.6% 4 1.5%

(B and C) B-3 Limnodrilus udekemianus 16.0% 482.8 39 6.4% 3.22 7.46 0.94 37.1% 8 0.7%C-1 Limnodrilus udekemianus 21.2% 128.0 26 18.2% 2.76 6.86 0.91 47.1% 0 0.0%C-2 Aulodrilus pluriseta 18.2% 642.7 33 4.3% 2.93 6.83 0.92 26.8% 96 6.4%C-3 Aulodrilus pluriseta 7.9% 459.1 33 15.0% 3.21 6.06 0.95 21.0% 0 0.0%

Combined 1 Aulodrilus pluriseta 11.2% 324.8 57.5 10.5% 2.98 6.52 0.93 29.6% 18 1.4%

Far- D-1 Mallochohelea 27.2% 139.7 22 4.9% 2.51 6.51 0.87 18.5% 4 1.2%Downstream D-2 Amnicola 14.2% 194.0 54 12.0% 3.47 5.88 0.95 6.9% 6 1.3%

(D and E) D-3 Aulodrilus pluriseta/Mallochohelea 10.8% 572.8 30 9.7% 3.05 5.72 0.94 14.4% 48 3.6%E-1 Rheosmittia 14.1% 293.1 28 3.5% 2.97 6.09 0.93 12.9% 24 3.5%E-2 Amnicola 9.0% 462.1 26 7.5% 3.09 5.67 0.95 7.5% 80 7.5%E-3 Glyptotendipes 10.5% 262.5 31 7.9% 3.13 6.99 0.95 11.8% 40 6.6%

Combined 1 Mallochohelea 10.1% 320.7 59 7.6% 3.04 6.14 0.93 12.0% 33.7 4.0%

Note:1 - Combined area metrics are area averages (i.e., of the sample locations), except for dominant taxon and percent dominant taxon are based on totals. Combined Reference, Near-downstream and Far-downstream are averages of the combined individual area values (e.g., Combined Reference is the average of combined A and combined A1, etc.).

Page 4 of 5

GHD 11102200-22-T2.3

Table 2.3





2018 Combined A-1 Cyclocalyx 10.6% 114.2 43 12.8% 3.50 5.77 0.96 6.0% 8 3.0%Reference A A-2 Amnicola 12.8% 269.8 52 7.2% 3.40 6.28 0.95 3.8% 12 1.9%(A and A-1) A-3 Mallochohelea 17.1% 70.7 29 4.9% 2.94 5.79 0.93 9.8% 0 0.0%

A1-1 Rheotanytarsus 17.6% 176.7 27 17.8% 3.03 5.58 0.94 3.9% 8 2.0%A1-2 Pagastiella 10.8% 254.3 43 2.7% 3.25 6.27 0.95 5.4% 0 0.0%A1-3 Mallochohelea 13.7% 100.4 25 1.7% 3.00 6.11 0.94 12.0% 16 6.9%

Combined 1 Mallochohelea 7.3% 164.4 73 7.9% 3.19 5.97 0.94 6.8% 7.3 2.3%

Source B-1 B1-1 Tanytarsus 17.8% 38.8 28 14.4% 2.79 6.09 0.92 14.4% 0 0.0%B1-2 Cyclocalyx 19.5% 79.7 20 4.9% 2.71 6.15 0.92 19.5% 0 0.0%B1-3 Stempellinella 10.6% 179.3 35 0.5% 3.00 6.23 0.94 13.5% 0 0.0%

Combined 1 Tanytarsus 11.6% 99.3 52 6.6% 2.83 6.16 0.92 15.8% 0.0 0.0%

Near- B-1 Chironomid pupae 24.2% 213.8 23 4.8% 2.77 5.34 0.91 27.4% 0 0.0%Downstream B-2 Rheotanytarsus 19.6% 422.8 25 3.5% 2.76 5.97 0.91 14.7% 16 1.6%

(B and C) B-3 Procladius 16.0% 162.1 32 3.2% 3.06 6.79 0.94 9.6% Tha 2.1%C-1 Nemata 11.1% 186.6 30 7.6% 3.20 6.81 0.95 25.9% 0 0.0%C-2 Chironomid pupae 24.0% 172.4 19 0.0% 2.64 4.46 0.90 0.0% 0 0.0%C-3 Rheotanytarsus 12.5% 288.8 38 3.9% 3.17 6.37 0.94 19.7% 0 0.0%

Combined 1 Chironomid pupae 10.0% 241.1 53.5 3.8% 2.93 5.96 0.93 16.2% 4 0.6%

Far- D-1 Lopescladius 14.6% 118.1 31 9.1% 3.09 5.63 0.94 11.7% 0 0.0%Downstream D-2 S.F. Tubificinae immatures without hair chaetae 10.8% 155.2 48 10.3% 3.41 6.54 0.95 23.3% 4 1.1%

(D and E) D-3 Rheosmittia 20.7% 162.5 44 0.8% 3.05 6.09 0.92 15.1% 1 0.3%E-1 Hyalella 13.0% 119.4 44 12.3% 3.37 6.08 0.95 5.1% 36 13.0%E-2 Helopelopia 13.5% 256.0 24 8.1% 2.94 6.65 0.94 13.5% 16 2.7%E-3 Pagastiella 18.8% 128.4 24 8.7% 2.83 6.51 0.92 17.4% 12 4.0%

Combined 1 Rheosmittia 7.4% 156.6 68 8.2% 3.11 6.25 0.94 14.4% 11.5 3.5%


Page 5 of 5

GHD 11102200-22-T2.3

Table 2.3





2019 Combined A-1 Limnodrilus udekemianus 25.0% 39.7 19 2.2% 2.33 7.02 0.87 29.3% 1 1.1%Reference A A-2 Amnicola 16.7% 139.2 40 7.7% 3.13 5.67 0.94 6.2% 24 7.4%(A and A-1) A-3 Hyalella 22.5% 111.2 43 11.2% 2.97 5.78 0.91 9.7% 58 22.5%

A1-1 Hyalella 18.8% 64.2 29 16.8% 2.88 6.18 0.92 6.7% 28 18.8%A1-2 Djalmabatista 9.9% 104.7 37 17.3% 3.15 5.43 0.95 9.1% 16 6.6%A1-3 Mallochohelea 23.9% 61.2 29 6.3% 2.82 6.28 0.90 18.3% 4 2.8%

Combined 1 Hyalella 10.9% 86.7 61 10.3% 2.88 6.06 0.91 13.2% 21.8 9.9%

Source B-1 B1-1 Pisidium (Cyclocalyx) 31.2% 60.8 14 5.0% 2.07 6.52 0.83 21.3% 2 1.4%B1-2 Aulodrilus pluriseta 48.2% 59.1 15 0.7% 1.70 7.23 0.71 64.2% 0 0.0%B1-3 Aulodrilus pluriseta 35.8% 81.9 11 1.1% 1.81 7.94 0.76 75.8% 0 0.0%

Combined 1 Aulodrilus pluriseta 32.9% 67.2 26 2.2% 1.86 7.23 0.77 53.8% 2.0 0.5%

Near- B-1 Limnodrilus udekemianus 21.3% 81.0 17 2.1% 2.46 7.45 0.89 44.7% 4 2.1%Downstream B-2 Aulodrilus pluriseta 36.7% 90.5 21 1.9% 2.26 6.71 0.82 48.6% 0 0.0%

(B and C) B-3 Limnodrilus udekemianus 15.5% 160.8 31 3.5% 3.02 7.42 0.93 38.6% 28 7.5%C-1 Limnodrilus udekemianus 30.7% 108.2 32 3.2% 2.71 7.67 0.88 40.6% 10 4.0%C-2 Hyalella 26.6% 34.1 21 2.5% 2.37 7.15 0.86 34.2% 21 26.6%C-3 Pisidium (Cyclocalyx) 14.7% 14.7 20 5.9% 2.84 6.50 0.96 14.7% 2 5.9%

Combined 1 Aulodrilus pluriseta 16.8% 81.5 45.5 3.2% 2.61 7.15 0.89 36.9% 13.5 7.7%

Far- D-1 Mallochohelea 28.0% 10.8 9 4.0% 1.81 5.00 0.83 8.0% 0 0.0%Downstream D-2 Limnodrilus udekemianus 15.5% 178.0 39 12.1% 3.28 6.81 0.95 27.1% 36 8.7%

(D and E) D-3 Mallochohelea 17.0% 65.9 31 17.6% 2.93 6.07 0.93 9.2% 13 8.5%E-1 Hyalella 20.8% 45.7 24 23.6% 2.83 5.32 0.92 5.7% 22 20.8%E-2 Amnicola 24.5% 175.9 36 4.9% 2.95 6.18 0.90 2.0% 60 14.7%E-3 Hyalella 9.7% 124.1 29 11.1% 3.19 5.99 0.95 9.7% 28 9.7%

Combined 1 Hyalella 11.4% 100.1 56 12.2% 2.83 5.89 0.91 10.3% 30.6 10.4%


Page 1 of 1

GHD 11102200-22-T4.1

Table 4.1

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Statistical Contrasts for Benthic Invertebrates2019 Ecological Assessment


Benthic Community Density Benthic Taxa Richness Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index Hilsenhoff Biotic Index Simpson Diversity Index(Lower values suggest restricted growth) (Lower values suggest a less healthy community) (Lower values indicate more organic pollution) (Higher values indicate more organic pollution) (Lower values indicate more organic pollution)

Probability of Probability of Probability of Probability of Probability ofDownstream (2019) Reference (2019) Significance Conclusion Significance Conclusion Significance Conclusion Significance Conclusion Significance ConclusionSource Area B-1 Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.292 NSD 0.002 B-1 < A&A-1 0.001 B-1 < A&A-1 0.081 B-1 > A&A-1 0.035 B-1 < A&A-1Near Downstream B&C Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.849 NSD 0.068 B+C < A&A-1 0.152 NSD 0.005 B&C > A&A-1 0.318 NSDFar Downstream D&E Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.692 NSD 0.415 NSD 0.853 NSD 0.645 NSD 0.994 NSD

Current Year (2019) Baseline Year (2017)Pooled Reference A&A-1 Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.303 NSD 0.236 NSD 0.040 2019 < 2017 0.600 NSD 0.035 2019 < 2017Source Area B-1 Source Area B-1 0.307 NSD 0.008 2019 < 2017 0.010 2019 < 2017 0.691 NSD 0.079 2019 < 2017Near Downstream B&C Near Downstream B&C 0.049 2019 < 2017 0.116 NSD 0.031 2019 < 2017 0.078 2019 > 2017 0.103 NSDFar Downstream D&E Far Downstream D&E 0.021 2019 < 2017 0.560 NSD 0.436 NSD 0.963 NSD 0.455 NSDAll locations All locations 0.002 2019 < 2017 0.029 2019 < 2017 0.005 2019 < 2017 0.197 NSD 0.014 2019 < 2017

Current Year (2019) Previous Year (2018)Pooled Reference A&A-1 Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.076 2019 < 2018 0.540 NSD 0.076 2019 < 2018 0.152 NSD 0.048 2019 < 2018Source Area B-1 Source Area B-1 0.524 NSD 0.071 2019 < 2018 0.003 2019 < 2018 0.034 2019 > 2018 0.038 2019 < 2018Near Downstream B&C Near Downstream B&C 0.009 2019 < 2018 0.297 NSD 0.066 2019 < 2018 0.002 2019 > 2018 0.144 NSDFar Downstream D&E Far Downstream D&E 0.146 NSD 0.236 NSD 0.269 NSD 0.631 NSD 0.279 NSDAll locations All locations 0.001 2019 < 2018 0.032 2019 < 2018 0.002 2019 < 2018 3E-04 2019 > 2018 0.003 2019 < 2018

EPT Index Percent Oligochaetes Hyalella (Count) Hyalella (Percent)(Lower values suggest poor water quality) (Higher values indicate more organic pollution) (Lower values indicate more environmental stress) (Lower values indicate more environmental stress)

Probability of Probability of Probability of Probability ofDownstream Group Reference Group Significance Conclusion Significance Conclusion Significance Conclusion Significance ConclusionSource Area B-1 Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.025 B-1 < A&A-1 0.128 NSD 0.054 B-1 < A&A-1 0.046 B-1 < A&A-1Near Downstream B&C Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.033 B&C < A&A-1 0.004 B&C > A&A-1 0.287 NSD 0.690 NSDFar Downstream D&E Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.627 NSD 0.578 NSD 0.703 NSD 0.909 NSD

Current Year (2019) Baseline Year (2017)Pooled Reference A&A-1 Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.645 NSD 0.308 NSD 0.915 NSD 0.143 NSDSource Area B-1 Source Area B-1 0.160 NSD 0.366 NSD 0.686 NSD 0.981 NSDNear Downstream B&C Near Downstream B&C 0.018 2019 < 2018 0.285 NSD 0.676 NSD 0.178 NSDFar Downstream D&E Far Downstream D&E 0.206 NSD 0.841 NSD 0.631 NSD 0.075 2019 > 2017All locations All locations 0.291 NSD 0.209 NSD 0.560 NSD 0.010 2019 > 2017

Current Year (2019) Baseline Year (2017)Pooled Reference A&A-1 Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.513 NSD 0.113 NSD 0.152 NSD 0.089 2019 > 2018Source Area B-1 Source Area B-1 0.890 NSD 0.148 NSD 0.423 NSD 0.423 NSDNear Downstream B&C Near Downstream B&C 0.596 NSD 0.010 2019 > 2018 0.238 NSD 0.133 NSDFar Downstream D&E Far Downstream D&E 0.281 NSD 0.372 NSD 0.172 NSD 0.078 2019 > 2018All locations All locations 0.420 NSD 0.015 2019 > 2018 0.041 2019 > 2018 0.005 2019 > 2018

Notes:NSD = No significant difference (The calculated probability of significance is greater than 0.10 and there is less than 90% confidence of a difference between group means)

Page 1 of 1

GHD 11102200-22-T4.2

Table 4.2

Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) Statistical Contrasts (Substrate Phi Value as Covariate) for Benthic Invertebrates2019 Ecological Assessment


Benthic Community Density Benthic Taxa Richness Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index Hilsenhoff Biotic Index Simpson Diversity Index(Lower values suggest restricted growth) (Lower values suggest a less healthy community) (Lower values indicate more organic pollution) (Higher values indicate more organic pollution) (Lower values indicate more organic pollution)

Probability of Probability of Probability of Probability of Probability ofDownstream (2019) Reference (2019) Significance Conclusion Significance Conclusion Significance Conclusion Significance Conclusion Significance ConclusionSource Area B-1 Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.047 B-1 < A&A-1 0.002 B-1 < A&A-1 0.001 B-1 < A&A-1 0.089 B-1 > A&A-1 0.034 B-1 < A&A-1Near Downstream B&C Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.594 NSD 0.044 B&C < A&A-1 0.077 B&C < A&A-1 0.005 B&C > A&A-1 0.203 NSDFar Downstream D&E Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.990 NSD 0.278 NSD 0.569 NSD 0.756 NSD 0.635 NSD

Current Year (2019) Baseline Year (2017)Pooled Reference A&A-1 Pooled Reference A&A-1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Source Area B-1 Source Area B-1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Near Downstream B&C Near Downstream B&C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Far Downstream D&E Far Downstream D&E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --All locations All locations -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Current Year (2019) Previous Year (2018)Pooled Reference A&A-1 Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.144 NSD 0.448 NSD 0.131 NSD 0.129 NSD 0.132 NSDSource Area B-1 Source Area B-1 0.512 NSD 0.072 2019 < 2018 0.003 2019 < 2018 0.034 2019 > 2018 0.038 2019 < 2018Near Downstream B&C Near Downstream B&C 0.011 2019 < 2018 0.267 NSD 0.076 2019 < 2018 0.002 2019 > 2018 0.165 NSDFar Downstream D&E Far Downstream D&E 0.367 NSD 0.198 NSD 0.437 NSD 0.840 NSD 0.605 NSDAll locations All locations 0.006 2019 < 2018 0.033 2019 < 2018 0.032 2019 < 2018 0.003 2019 > 2018 0.012 2019 < 2018

EPT Index Percent Oligochaetes Hyalella (Count) Hyalella (Percent)(Lower values suggest poor water quality) (Higher values indicate more organic pollution) (Lower values indicate more environmental stress) (Lower values indicate more environmental stress)

Probability of Probability of Probability of Probability ofDownstream Group Reference Group Significance Conclusion Significance Conclusion Significance Conclusion Significance ConclusionSource Area B-1 Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.046 B-1 < A&A-1 0.120 NSD 0.026 B-1 < A&A-1 0.068 B-1 < A&A-1Near Downstream B&C Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.037 B&C < A&A-1 0.002 B&C > A&A-1 0.175 NSD 0.671 NSDFar Downstream D&E Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.633 NSD 0.960 NSD 0.983 NSD 0.956 NSD

Current Year (2019) Baseline Year (2017)Pooled Reference A&A-1 Pooled Reference A&A-1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Source Area B-1 Source Area B-1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Near Downstream B&C Near Downstream B&C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Far Downstream D&E Far Downstream D&E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --All locations All locations -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Current Year (2019) Previous Year (2018)Pooled Reference A&A-1 Pooled Reference A&A-1 0.619 NSD 0.166 NSD 0.125 NSD 0.107 NSDSource Area B-1 Source Area B-1 0.907 NSD 0.147 NSD 0.552 NSD 0.417 NSDNear Downstream B&C Near Downstream B&C 0.544 NSD 0.010 2019 > 2018 0.194 NSD 0.133 NSDFar Downstream D&E Far Downstream D&E 0.399 NSD 0.308 NSD 0.118 NSD 0.099 2019 > 2018All locations All locations 0.574 NSD 0.031 2019 > 2018 0.085 2019 > 2018 0.011 2019 > 2018

Notes:NSD = No significant difference (The calculated probability of significance is greater than 0.10 and there is less than 90% confidence of a difference between group means)-- Grain size data not available for 2017 (and therefore no phi values can be calculated)

GHD | 2019 Ecological Assessment | 11102200 (22)

Appendices


Appendix A Data Validation Memo

GHD 455 Phillip Street Unit #100A Waterloo Ontario N2L 3X2 Canada T 519 884 0510 F 519 884 0525 W www.ghd.com

October 25, 2019

To: Daniel Murray; Ann-Julie Roy; Steven Jones; Jennifer Balkwill

Ref. No.: 11102200

From: Stephanie Berton/kf/39

Subject: Analytical Data Verification Sediment and Surface Water Toxicity Investigation Canadian National Railway Gogama Derailment – Mile Point 88.7 Gogama, Ontario May 2019

1. Introduction

The following document details an analytical data verification of results for sediment and surface water samples collected in support of the Sediment and Surface Water Toxicity Investigation at the Canadian National Railway Gogama Derailment – Mile Point 88.7 Site in May 2019. Samples were submitted to Bureau Veritas Canada (2019) Inc. (formerly Maxxam Analytics Corporation International) located in Mississauga, Ontario. A sample collection and analysis summary is presented in Table 1. A summary of the analytical methodology is presented in Table 2.

Standard GHD Limited (GHD) report deliverables were submitted by the laboratory. The final results and supporting quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) data were assessed. Evaluation of the data was based on information obtained from the chain of custody forms, finished report forms, method blank data, duplicate data, recovery data from surrogate spikes, laboratory control samples (LCS), matrix spikes (MS), and field QC samples.

The QA/QC criteria by which these data have been assessed are outlined in the analytical methods referenced in Table 2 and applicable guidance from the documents entitled:

i) "USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review",October 1999, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 540/R-99/008

ii) "USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review",USEPA 540/R-94-013, February 1994

iii) "Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of theEnvironmental Protection Act", Laboratory Services Branch, Ministry of the Environment,March 9, 2004, amended as of July 1, 2011

Items i) and ii) will subsequently be referred to as the "Guidelines" in this Memorandum. Item iii) will subsequently be referred to as the "O. Reg. 153 Analytical Protocols".

http://www.ghd.com/

11102200Memo-39 2

2. Sample Holding Time and Preservation

The sample holding time criteria for the analyses are summarized in Table 2. Sample chain of custody documents and analytical reports were used to determine sample holding times. Most samples were prepared and analyzed within the required holding times. Data that were obtained past the recommended holding time have been qualified as estimated (see Table 3).

All samples were properly preserved and delivered on ice and stored by the laboratory at the required temperature (<10°C).

3. Laboratory Method Blank Analyses

Method blanks are prepared from a purified matrix and analyzed with investigative samples to determine the existence and magnitude of sample contamination introduced during the analytical procedures.

For this study, laboratory method blanks were analyzed at a minimum frequency of 1 per 20 investigative samples and/or 1 per analytical batch.

All method blank results were non‑detect, indicating that laboratory contamination was not a factor for this investigation.

4. Surrogate Spike Recoveries

In accordance with the methods employed, all samples, blanks, and QC samples analyzed for organics are spiked with surrogate compounds prior to sample extraction and/or analysis. Surrogate recoveries provide a means to evaluate the effects of laboratory performance on individual sample matrices.

All samples submitted for benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene (BTEX), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) and petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) determinations were spiked with the appropriate number of surrogate compounds prior to sample analysis.

Each individual surrogate compound is expected to meet the laboratory control limits with the exception of PAH analyses. According to the "Guidelines" for PAH analyses, up to one outlying surrogate in the base/neutral fraction is acceptable as long as the recovery is at least 10 percent.

Surrogate recoveries were assessed against laboratory control limits. All surrogate recoveries met the above criteria.

5. Laboratory Control Sample Analyses

LCS are prepared and analyzed as samples to assess the analytical efficiencies of the methods employed, independent of sample matrix effects.

11102200Memo-39 3

For this study, LCS were analyzed at a minimum frequency of 1 per 20 investigative samples and/or 1 per analytical batch.

Organic Analyses

The LCS contained all compounds of interest. All LCS recoveries were within the laboratory control limits, demonstrating acceptable analytical accuracy.

Inorganic Analyses

The LCS contained all analytes of interest. LCS recoveries were assessed per the "Guidelines". All LCS recoveries were within the control limits, demonstrating acceptable analytical accuracy.

6. Matrix Spike Analyses

To evaluate the effects of sample matrices on the extraction or digestion process, measurement procedures, and accuracy of a particular analysis, samples are spiked with a known concentration of the analyte of concern and analyzed as MS samples. If the original sample concentration is significantly greater than the spike concentration, the recovery is not assessed.

The MS samples were spiked with all compounds of interest. Most percent recoveries were within the laboratory control limits, demonstrating acceptable analytical accuracy. Non-detect results associated with low percent MS recoveries were qualified as estimated (see Table 4)

7. Duplicate Sample Analyses

Analytical precision is evaluated based on the analysis of laboratory duplicate samples. For this study, duplicate samples were prepared and analyzed by the laboratory. The laboratory performed additional site‑specific duplicate analyses internally. The relative percent differences (RPDs) associated with these duplicate samples must be less than 35 percent for sediment samples. If the reported concentration in either the investigative sample or its duplicate is less than five times the reporting limit (RL), the evaluation criteria is a difference of two times the RL value for sediment samples. Most duplicate analyses performed were acceptable, demonstrating acceptable analytical precision. Results which showed variability have been qualified as estimated (see Table 5).

8. Tentatively Identified Compounds

In laboratory report B9C6369, there were tentatively identified compound results that may be potentially biased high due to matrix interference. The associated results were qualified as estimated (see Table 6).

11102200Memo-39 4

9. Additional Silica Gel Clean-up

At the request of the client, the samples were treated with an additional portion of silica gel that is above the maximum amount prescribed in the reference method. The extra silica gel clean-up is considered a deviation from the method, but it is specifically done to remove contributions from biogenic organic compounds, reducing high bias in the petroleum hydrocarbon. It is acceptable under Ontario Regulation 153. Therefore, qualifications are not required.

10. Field QA/QC Samples

The field QA/QC consisted of four trip blank samples, two trip spike samples, two field blank samples and two field duplicate sample sets.

Trip Blank Sample Analysis

To evaluate contamination from sample collection, transportation, storage, and analytical activities, four trip blanks were submitted to the laboratory for BTEX and F1 analysis as outlined in Table 1. All results were non-detect for the compounds of interest.

Trip Spike Sample Analysis

To monitor the breakdown or loss of analytes during the sampling process, two trip spike samples were prepared and submitted to the laboratory for BTEX analyses. The trip spike sample in laboratory report B9C6257 was past holding time, but the percent recoveries were within the laboratory LCS acceptance limits. No qualifications necessary.

Field Blank Sample Analysis

To evaluate contamination from sample collection, transportation, storage, and analytical activities, two field blank samples were submitted "blind" to the laboratory for analysis as outlined in Table 1. All results were non-detect for the compounds of interest.

Field Duplicate Sample Analysis

To assess the analytical and sampling protocol precision, two field duplicate sample sets were collected and submitted "blind" to the laboratory, as specified in Table 1. The RPD associated with these duplicate samples must be less than 100 percent for sediment samples. If the reported concentration in either the investigative sample or its duplicate is less than five times the RL, the evaluation criteria is a difference of two times the RL value for sediment samples.

Most field duplicate results were within acceptable agreement, demonstrating acceptable sampling and analytical precision. Results which showed variability have been qualified as estimated (see Table 7).

11102200Memo-39 5

11. Conclusion

Based on the assessment detailed in the foregoing, the data are acceptable with the specific qualifications noted herein.

Page 1 of 2Table 1

Sample Collection and Analysis SummarySediment and Surface Water Toxicity Investigation

Canadian National Railway Gogama Derailment – Mile Point 88.7Gogama, Ontario

May 2019

Lab Report # Sample Identification Location Matrix Collection DateCollection

Time BTE

X

Petr

oleu

m

Hyd

roca

rbon

s (F

1)

Petr

oleu

m

Hyd

roca

rbon

s (F

2-F4

)

Alk

ylat

ed P

olyc

yclic

A

rom

atic

H

ydro

carb

ons

Poly

cycl

ic A

rom

atic

H

ydro

carb

ons

Tota

l Sol

ids

Tota

l Org

anic

C

arbo

n

Gra

in S

ize

Dis

trib

utio

n

Comments(mm/dd/yyyy) (hr:min:sec)

B9C6224 SED-11102200-050719-AJR-51 R4 Sediment 05/07/2019 12:25:00 - - - - - - - XB9C6224 SED-11102200-050719-AJR-52 R5 Sediment 05/07/2019 15:15:00 - - - - - - - XB9C6224 SED-11102200-050719-AJR-53 R6 Sediment 05/07/2019 16:40:00 - - - - - - - XB9C6224 SED-11102200-050719-AJR-54 R3 Sediment 05/07/2019 18:05:00 - - - - - - - XB9C6224 SED-11102200-050819-AJR-55 R2 Sediment 05/08/2019 09:35:00 - - - - - - - XB9C6224 SED-11102200-050819-AJR-56 R1 Sediment 05/08/2019 11:50:00 - - - - - - - XB9C6224 SED-11102200-050819-AJR-57 F6 Sediment 05/08/2019 13:55:00 - - - - - - - XB9C6224 SED-11102200-050819-AJR-58 F5 Sediment 05/08/2019 16:15:00 - - - - - - - XB9C6224 SED-11102200-050819-AJR-59 F2 Sediment 05/08/2019 17:35:00 - - - - - - - XB9C6224 SED-11102200-051019-AJR-60 E4 Sediment 05/10/2019 09:35:00 - - - - - - - X

B9C6257 SW-11102200-050719-AJR-01 R4 Surface Water 05/07/2019 10:47:00 X X X - - - - -B9C6257 SW-11102200-050819-AJR-02 R1 Surface Water 05/08/2019 10:25:00 X X X - - - - -B9C6257 SW-11102200-050819-AJR-03 F2 Surface Water 05/08/2019 17:25:00 X X X - - - - -B9C6257 TSPK-FIBB-19-4579 - Water 05/03/2019 10:50:00 X - - - - - - - Trip SpikeB9C6257 TRIP BLANK - Water 04/18/2019 17:25:00 X X - - - - - - Trip BlankB9C6257 SW-11102200-051019-AJR-04 - Water 05/10/2019 08:00:00 X X X - - - - - Field Blank

B9C6369 SED-11102200-050719-AJR-01 R4 Sediment 05/07/2019 10:47:00 X X X X X X X XB9C6369 SED-11102200-050719-AJR-02 R5 Sediment 05/07/2019 15:00:00 X X X X X X X XB9C6369 SED-11102200-050719-AJR-03 R6 Sediment 05/07/2019 15:54:00 X X X X X X X XB9C6369 SED-11102200-050719-AJR-04 R3 Sediment 05/07/2019 17:30:00 X X X X X X X XB9C6369 SED-11102200-050819-AJR-05 R2 Sediment 05/08/2019 09:00:00 X X X X X X X XB9C6369 SED-11102200-050819-AJR-06 R1 Sediment 05/08/2019 10:25:00 X X X X X X X XB9C6369 SED-11102200-050819-AJR-07 R1 Sediment 05/08/2019 10:25:00 X X X X X X X X FD (SED-11102200-050819-AJR-06)B9C6369 SED-11102200-050819-AJR-08 F6 Sediment 05/08/2019 13:55:00 X X X X X X X XB9C6369 SED-11102200-050819-AJR-09 F5 Sediment 05/08/2019 14:50:00 X X X X X X X XB9C6369 SED-11102200-050819-AJR-10 F2 Sediment 05/08/2019 18:00:00 X X X X X X X XB9C6369 SED-11102200-051019-AJR-11 E4 Sediment 05/10/2019 08:20:00 X X X X X X X XB9C6369 TRIP BLANK - Methanol 03/25/2019 08:20:00 X X - - - - - - Trip Blank

B9D3386 SED-11102200-051419-AJR-12 E9 Sediment 05/14/2019 08:35:00 X X X X X X X XB9D3386 SED-11102200-051419-AJR-13 E1 Sediment 05/14/2019 11:15:00 X X X X X X X XB9D3386 SED-11102200-051419-AJR-14 C8 Sediment 05/14/2019 13:00:00 X X X X X X X XB9D3386 SED-11102200-051419-AJR-15 C7 Sediment 05/14/2019 14:40:00 X X X X X X X XB9D3386 SED-11102200-051419-AJR-16 C10 Sediment 05/14/2019 17:05:00 X X X X X X X XB9D3386 SED-11102200-051519-AJR-17 C3 Sediment 05/15/2019 08:18:00 X X X X X X X XB9D3386 SED-11102200-051519-AJR-18 C3 Sediment 05/15/2019 08:15:00 X X X X X X X X FD (SED-11102200-051519-AJR-17)B9D3386 SED-11102200-051519-AJR-19 C2 Sediment 05/15/2019 11:20:00 X X X X X X X XB9D3386 SED-11102200-051519-AJR-20 C1 Sediment 05/15/2019 13:45:00 X X X X X X X X

Analysis/Parameters

GHD 11102200Memo39-Tables

Page 2 of 2Table 1

Sample Collection and Analysis SummarySediment and Surface Water Toxicity Investigation


May 2019

Lab Report # Sample Identification Location Matrix Collection DateCollection

Time BTE

X

Petr

oleu

m

Hyd

roca

rbon

s (F

1)

Petr

oleu

m

Hyd

roca

rbon

s (F

2-F4

)

Alk

ylat

ed P

olyc

yclic

A

rom

atic

H

ydro

carb

ons

Poly

cycl

ic A

rom

atic

H

ydro

carb

ons

Tota

l Sol

ids

Tota

l Org

anic

C

arbo

n

Gra

in S

ize

Dis

trib

utio

n

Comments(mm/dd/yyyy) (hr:min:sec)

Analysis/Parameters

B9D3386 SED-11102200-051519-AJR-21 A10 Sediment 05/15/2019 14:45:00 X X X X X X X XB9D3386 SED-11102200-051619-AJR-22 A8 Sediment 05/16/2019 08:25:00 X X X X X X X XB9D3386 SED-11102200-051619-AJR-23 A3 Sediment 05/16/2019 11:25:00 X X X X X X X XB9D3386 TRIP BLANK - Methanol 03/25/2019 00:00:00 X X - - - - - - Trip Blank

B9D3751 SW-11102200-051419-AJR-05 E1 Surface Water 05/14/2019 11:15:00 X X X - - - - -B9D3751 SW-11102200-051419-AJR-06 C7 Surface Water 05/14/2019 14:40:00 X X X - - - - -B9D3751 SW-11102200-051519-AJR-07 C3 Surface Water 05/15/2019 08:15:00 X X X - - - - -B9D3751 SW-11102200-051619-AJR-08 A8 Surface Water 05/16/2019 08:25:00 X X X - - - - -B9D3751 SW-11102200-051619-AJR-09 - Water 05/16/2019 08:30:00 X X X - - - - - Field BlankB9D3751 TSPK-F1BB-19-4600 - Water 05/10/2019 10:20:00 X X - - - - - - Trip SpikeB9D3751 TBLK-F1BB-19-4559 - Water 04/17/2019 00:00:00 X X - - - - - - Trip Blank

B9D3759 SED-11102200-051619-AJR-41 A6 Sediment 05/16/2019 09:45:00 X X X X X X X XB9D3759 SED-11102200-051619-AJR-42 A5 Sediment 05/16/2019 10:00:00 X X X X X X X XB9D3759 SED-11102200-051619-AJR-43 A4 Sediment 05/16/2019 10:25:00 X X X X X X X X

B9D3761 SED-11102200-051419-AJR-61 E9 Sediment 05/14/2019 09:25:00 - - - - - - - XB9D3761 SED-11102200-051419-AJR-62 E1 Sediment 05/14/2019 11:40:00 - - - - - - - XB9D3761 SED-11102200-051419-AJR-63 C8 Sediment 05/14/2019 13:55:00 - - - - - - - XB9D3761 SED-11102200-051419-AJR-64 C7 Sediment 05/14/2019 15:30:00 - - - - - - - XB9D3761 SED-11102200-051419-AJR-65 C10 Sediment 05/14/2019 17:25:00 - - - - - - - XB9D3761 SED-11102200-051519-AJR-66 C3 Sediment 05/15/2019 09:30:00 - - - - - - - XB9D3761 SED-11102200-051519-AJR-67 C2 Sediment 05/15/2019 11:20:00 - - - - - - - XB9D3761 SED-11102200-051519-AJR-68 C1 Sediment 05/15/2019 13:45:00 - - - - - - - XB9D3761 SED-11102200-051519-AJR-69 A10 Sediment 05/15/2019 16:00:00 - - - - - - - XB9D3761 SED-11102200-051619-AJR-70 A8 Sediment 05/16/2019 09:15:00 - - - - - - - XB9D3761 SED-11102200-051619-AJR-71 A3 Sediment 05/16/2019 11:25:00 - - - - - - - X

Notes:"-" - Not applicableFD - Field Duplicate Sample of sample in parenthesisBTEX - Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene


Page 1 of 1Table 2

Analytical Method and Holding Time CriteriaSediment and Surface Water Toxicity Investigation


May 2019

Parameters Methodology (1) Holding Time Criteria(2)

CCME CWS Tier 1 14/40(3)

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (F2-F4) CCME CWS Tier 1 14 days

Total Solids SM 22 2540G 7 days

Total Organic Carbon LECO 28 days

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons SW846 8270D 60 days

Alkylated PAHs SW846 8270D 60 days

Grain Size Distribution Carter 2nd ed 55.3 NA

Notes:(1) Methods referenced from the following:

CCME CWS - Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment - Canadian Wide StandardsSW846 - "Test Method for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods", EPA, November 1986 with promulgated updatesSM - "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater", 18th Edition, 1992, with subsequent revisions

(2) Holding times differing from those defined in the indicated methodology were obtained from the O. Reg. 153 Analytical Protocols

(3) x/y - x days to extract/y days to analyzeBTEX - Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, XyleneLECO - Laboratory Equipment CorporationNA - Not ApplicablePAHS - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

BTEX/Petroleum Hydrocarbons (F1) - sediment samples preserved in methanol


Page 1 of 1Table 3

Qualified Sample Results Due to Holding Time ExceedanceSediment and Surface Water Toxicity Investigation


May 2019

Holding QualifiedLab Holding Time Sample

Report # Parameter Sample ID Time Criteria Analyte Results Units(days) (days)

B9C6369 Gen Chem SED-11102200-050719-AJR-01 8 days 7 days Total solids 62.3 J %B9C6369 Gen Chem SED-11102200-050719-AJR-02 8 days 7 days Total solids 81.2 J %B9C6369 Gen Chem SED-11102200-050719-AJR-03 8 days 7 days Total solids 62.0 J %B9C6369 Gen Chem SED-11102200-050719-AJR-04 8 days 7 days Total solids 73.9 J %B9D3386 Gen Chem SED-11102200-051419-AJR-12 8 days 7 days Total solids 62.8 J %B9D3386 Gen Chem SED-11102200-051419-AJR-13 8 days 7 days Total solids 72.3 J %B9D3386 Gen Chem SED-11102200-051419-AJR-14 8 days 7 days Total solids 48.2 J %B9D3386 Gen Chem SED-11102200-051419-AJR-15 8 days 7 days Total solids 64.7 J %B9D3386 Gen Chem SED-11102200-051419-AJR-16 8 days 7 days Total solids 63.8 J %

Notes:J - Estimated concentrationGen Chem - General Chemistry


Page 1 of 1Table 4

Qualified Sample Data Due to Outlying Matrix Spike RecoveriesSediment and Surface Water Toxicity Investigation


May 2019

Lab MS Control Limits QualifiedReport # Parameter Spiked Sample ID Analyte % Recovery % Recovery Associated Sample IDs Result Units

B9D3759 PAHs SED-11102200-051619-AJR-42 C2-Benzo(a)anthracenes/chrysenes 22% 30-130% SED-11102200-051619-AJR-42 0.0050 UJ mg/kg

Notes:

PAHs - Polycyclic Aromatic HydrocarbonsUJ - Not detected; associated reporting limit is estimatedMS - Matrix Spike


Page 1 of 1Table 5

Qualified Sample Data Due To Outlying Laboratory Duplicate ResultsSediment Toxicity Investigation


May 2019

Lab QualifiedReport # Parameter Sample ID Analyte RPD/Diff Associated Sample IDs Result Units

B9C6369 PAHs SED-11102200-051019-AJR-11 C3-Dibenzothiophenes >2xRL SED-11102200-051019-AJR-11 0.033 J mg/kg

B9D3759 PAHs SED-11102200-051619-AJR-42 C4-Alkylated phenanthrene/Anthracenes (C4-178 isomers) 45% SED-11102200-051619-AJR-42 0.050 J mg/kg

Notes:

Diff - Difference (i.e., >2XRL for sediment)RPD - Relative Percent DifferenceRL - Reporting limitJ - Estimated concentrationPAHs - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons


Page 1 of 1Table 6

Qualified Sample Data Due Tentatively Identified CompoundsSediment and Surface Water Toxicity Investigation


May 2019

Lab QualifiedReport # Parameter Analyte Associated Sample ID Result Units

B9C6369 PAHs 1-Methyl-7-isopropylphenanthrene (Retene) SED-11102200-050719-AJR-01 0.060 J mg/kg




Notes:J - Estimated concentrationPAHs - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons


Page 1 of 1Table 7

Qualified Sample Data Due To Variability in Field Duplicate ResultsSediment and Surface Water Toxicity Investigation


May 2019

Lab Qualified Field Duplicate QualifiedReport # Parameter Analyte RPD/Diff Sample ID Result Sample ID Result Units

B9C6369 PAHs C3-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes >2xRL SED-11102200-050819-AJR-06 0.017 J SED-11102200-050819-AJR-07 0.0050 UJ mg/kg

B9D3386 PAHs 1-Methyl-7-isopropylphenanthrene (Retene) 43% SED-11102200-051519-AJR-17 0.038 J SED-11102200-051519-AJR-18 0.059 J mg/kgB9D3386 PAHs C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes >2xRL SED-11102200-051519-AJR-17 0.018 J SED-11102200-051519-AJR-18 0.041 J mg/kgB9D3386 PAHs C3-Dibenzothiophenes 37% SED-11102200-051519-AJR-17 0.050 J SED-11102200-051519-AJR-18 0.073 J mg/kg

Notes:Diff - Difference (i.e., >2XRL for sediment)RPD - Relative Percent DifferenceJ - Estimated concentrationUJ - Not detected; associated reporting limit is estimatedRL - Reporting limitPAHs - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons



Appendix B Surface Water Analytical Results and

Laboratory Certificate of Analysis

Table B.1

Summary of Surface Water Analytical Results - Spring 20192019 Ecological Assessment


Page 1 of 1

GHD 11102200-22-APPB-TB.1

Description Location: Reference Area Reference Area Far Downstream Far Downstream Near Downstream Near Downstream Source AreaBenthic Invertebrate Area: A-1 A E D C B B-1Co-located Sediment Sample Location: R4 R1 F2 E1 C7 C3 A8

Sample ID: SW-11102200-050719-AJR-01

SW-11102200-050819-AJR-02

SW-11102200-050819-AJR-03

SW-11102200-051419-AJR-05

SW-11102200-051419-AJR-06

SW-11102200-051519-AJR-07

SW-11102200-051619-AJR-08

Sample Date: 5/7/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 5/15/2019 5/16/2019

Parameters Units PWQO(a)

BTEXBenzene ug/L 100 ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) Ethylbenzene ug/L 8 ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) m&p-Xylenes ug/L 2 ND (0.40) ND (0.40) ND (0.40) ND (0.40) ND (0.40) ND (0.40) ND (0.40) o-Xylene ug/L 40 ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) Toluene ug/L 0.8 ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) Xylenes (total) ug/L ND (0.40) ND (0.40) ND (0.40) ND (0.40) ND (0.40) ND (0.40) ND (0.40)

PHCsPetroleum hydrocarbons F1 (C6-C10) ug/L NV ND (25) ND (25) ND (25) ND (25) ND (25) ND (25) ND (25) Petroleum hydrocarbons F1 (C6-C10) - less BTEX ug/L NV ND (25) ND (25) ND (25) ND (25) ND (25) ND (25) ND (25) Petroleum hydrocarbons F2 (C10-C16) ug/L NV ND (100) ND (100) ND (100) ND (100) ND (100) ND (100) ND (100) Petroleum hydrocarbons F3 (C16-C34) ug/L NV ND (200) ND (200) ND (200) ND (200) ND (200) ND (200) ND (200) Petroleum hydrocarbons F4 (C34-C50) ug/L NV ND (200) ND (200) ND (200) ND (200) ND (200) ND (200) ND (200)

Notes:BTEX - Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenesPHCs - Petroleum hydrocarbonsPWQO - Provincial Water Quality ObjectivesNV - No value is prescribed for associated parameterJ - Estimated concentrationµg/L - Micrograms per litreND (0.20) - Parameter not detected at associated reporting limit (reporting limit provided in parentheses)(a) - Water quality standards presented in "Table 2: Table of PWQOs and Interim PWQOs"

as provided in the MOECC document entitled "Water Management, Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives of the Ministry of the Environment and Energy", dated July, 1994

MAXXAM JOB #: B9C6257Received: 2019/05/10, 19:17

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

Your P.O. #: 73032176Your Project #: 11102200-13

Report Date: 2019/05/21Report #: R5719768

Version: 1 - Final

Attention: 11102200-13 - PO - 73032176

GHD Contractors LimitedWaterloo - CN455 Phillip StWaterloo, ONCANADA N2L 3X2

Your C.O.C. #: 713656-01-01

Site Location: GOGAMA, ONTARIO

Sample Matrix: Water# Samples Received: 6

Analyses QuantityDateExtracted

DateAnalyzed Laboratory Method Reference

Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Water 1 N/A 2019/05/14 CAM SOP-00315 CCME PHC-CWS m


Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2-F4 in Water (1) 4 2019/05/15 2019/05/16 CAM SOP-00316 CCME PHC-CWS m

Remarks:

Maxxam Analytics' laboratories are accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 for specific parameters on scopes of accreditation. Unless otherwise noted, proceduresused by Maxxam are based upon recognized Provincial, Federal or US method compendia such as CCME, MDDELCC, EPA, APHA.

All work recorded herein has been done in accordance with procedures and practices ordinarily exercised by professionals in Maxxam’s profession usingaccepted testing methodologies, quality assurance and quality control procedures (except where otherwise agreed by the client and Maxxam in writing). Alldata is in statistical control and has met quality control and method performance criteria unless otherwise noted. All method blanks are reported; unlessindicated otherwise, associated sample data are not blank corrected. Where applicable, unless otherwise noted, Measurement Uncertainty has not beenaccounted for when stating conformity to the referenced standard.

Maxxam Analytics' liability is limited to the actual cost of the requested analyses, unless otherwise agreed in writing. There is no other warranty expressedor implied. Maxxam has been retained to provide analysis of samples provided by the Client using the testing methodology referenced in this report.Interpretation and use of test results are the sole responsibility of the Client and are not within the scope of services provided by Maxxam, unless otherwiseagreed in writing. Maxxam is not responsible for the accuracy or any data impacts, that result from the information provided by the customer or theiragent.

Solid sample results, except biota, are based on dry weight unless otherwise indicated. Organic analyses are not recovery corrected except for isotopedilution methods.Results relate to samples tested. When sampling is not conducted by Maxxam, results relate to the supplied samples tested.This Certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.Reference Method suffix “m” indicates test methods incorporate validated modifications from specific reference methods to improve performance.

* RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference.

(1) All CCME PHC results met required criteria unless otherwise stated in the report. The CWS PHC methods employed by Maxxam conform to all prescribed elements of thereference method and performance based elements have been validated. All modifications have been validated and proven equivalent following “Alberta Environment’sInterpretation of the Reference Method for the Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Validation of Performance-Based Alternative Methods September 2003”.Documentation is available upon request. Modifications from Reference Method for the Canada-wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil-Tier 1 Method: F2/F3/F4 datareported using validated cold solvent extraction instead of Soxhlet extraction.

Page 1 of 10

Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll-Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca





Version: 1 - Final

Attention: 11102200-13 - PO - 73032176


Your C.O.C. #: 713656-01-01


Encryption Key

Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.Jonathan Urben, Senior Project ManagerEmail: [email protected]# (613)274-3549==================================================================== Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Total Cover Pages : 2Page 2 of 10


Maxxam Job #: B9C6257Report Date: 2019/05/21

GHD Contractors LimitedClient Project #: 11102200-13


Your P.O. #: 73032176Sampler Initials: AJR

PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (CCME)

Maxxam ID JRO090 JRO091 JRO092

Sampling Date2019/05/07

10:472019/05/08

10:252019/05/08

17:25

COC Number 713656-01-01 713656-01-01 713656-01-01

UNITS CriteriaSW-11102200-050719-

AJR-01SW-11102200-050819-

AJR-02SW-11102200-050819-

AJR-03RDL QC Batch

BTEX & F1 Hydrocarbons

Benzene ug/L 5.0 ND ND ND 0.20 6122405

Toluene ug/L 22 ND ND ND 0.20 6122405

Ethylbenzene ug/L 2.4 ND ND ND 0.20 6122405

o-Xylene ug/L - ND ND ND 0.20 6122405

p+m-Xylene ug/L - ND ND ND 0.40 6122405

Total Xylenes ug/L 300 ND ND ND 0.40 6122405

F1 (C6-C10) ug/L 420 ND ND ND 25 6122405

F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX ug/L 420 ND ND ND 25 6122405

F2-F4 Hydrocarbons

F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons) ug/L 150 ND ND ND 100 6123421



Reached Baseline at C50 ug/L - Yes Yes Yes 6123421

Surrogate Recovery (%)

1,4-Difluorobenzene % - 102 102 103 6122405

4-Bromofluorobenzene % - 99 98 98 6122405

D10-Ethylbenzene % - 105 104 106 6122405

D4-1,2-Dichloroethane % - 102 101 101 6122405

o-Terphenyl % - 105 105 105 6123421

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

QC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Criteria: Ontario Reg. 153/04 (Amended April 15, 2011)Table 8: Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Potable Groundwater ConditionGround Water - All Types of Property Use

ND = Not detected

Page 3 of 10







Maxxam ID JRO093 JRO094


10:502019/04/18

17:25

COC Number 713656-01-01 713656-01-01

UNITS Criteria TSPK-FIBB-19-4579 RDL QC Batch TRIP BLANK RDL QC Batch


Benzene ug/L 5.0 110 0.20 6118971 ND 0.20 6122405

Toluene ug/L 22 110 0.20 6118971 ND 0.20 6122405

Ethylbenzene ug/L 2.4 110 0.20 6118971 ND 0.20 6122405

o-Xylene ug/L - 110 0.20 6118971 ND 0.20 6122405

p+m-Xylene ug/L - 110 0.40 6118971 ND 0.40 6122405

Total Xylenes ug/L 300 ND 0.40 6122405

F1 (C6-C10) ug/L 420 ND 25 6122405

F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX ug/L 420 ND 25 6122405


1,4-Difluorobenzene % - 101 6118971 102 6122405

4-Bromofluorobenzene % - 99 6118971 99 6122405

D10-Ethylbenzene % - 104 6118971 105 6122405

D4-1,2-Dichloroethane % - 102 6118971 102 6122405



Criteria: Ontario Reg. 153/04 (Amended April 15, 2011)Table 8: Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Potable Groundwater ConditionGround Water - All Types of Property Use

ND = Not detected

Page 4 of 10







Maxxam ID JRO095


08:00

COC Number 713656-01-01

UNITS CriteriaSW-11102200-051019-

AJR-04RDL QC Batch


Benzene ug/L 5.0 ND 0.20 6122405

Toluene ug/L 22 ND 0.20 6122405

Ethylbenzene ug/L 2.4 ND 0.20 6122405

o-Xylene ug/L - ND 0.20 6122405

p+m-Xylene ug/L - ND 0.40 6122405

Total Xylenes ug/L 300 ND 0.40 6122405

F1 (C6-C10) ug/L 420 ND 25 6122405

F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX ug/L 420 ND 25 6122405

F2-F4 Hydrocarbons

F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons) ug/L 150 ND 100 6123421



Reached Baseline at C50 ug/L - Yes 6123421


1,4-Difluorobenzene % - 104 6122405

4-Bromofluorobenzene % - 100 6122405

D10-Ethylbenzene % - 110 6122405

D4-1,2-Dichloroethane % - 102 6122405

o-Terphenyl % - 106 6123421



Criteria: Ontario Reg. 153/04 (Amended April 15, 2011)Table 8: Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in aPotable Groundwater ConditionGround Water - All Types of Property Use

ND = Not detected

Page 5 of 10






TEST SUMMARY

Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Date Analyzed Analyst

Maxxam ID: JRO090 Collected: 2019/05/07Sample ID: SW-11102200-050719-AJR-01

Matrix: WaterShipped:

Received: 2019/05/10

Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Water HSGC/MSFD 6122405 N/A 2019/05/15 Joe Paino

Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2-F4 in Water GC/FID 6123421 2019/05/15 2019/05/16 Prabhjot Gulati














Maxxam ID: JRO093 Collected: 2019/05/03Sample ID: TSPK-FIBB-19-4579



Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Water HSGC/MSFD 6118971 N/A 2019/05/14 Georgeta Rusu


Maxxam ID: JRO094 Collected: 2019/04/18Sample ID: TRIP BLANK










Page 6 of 10






GENERAL COMMENTS

Each temperature is the average of up to three cooler temperatures taken at receipt

Package 1 1.7°C

Sample JRO093 [TSPK-FIBB-19-4579] : F1/BTEX Analysis: Trip spike results are expressed as percentage of the spiked amounts. Analysis was performedpast sample holding time. This may increase the variability associated with these results.

Results relate only to the items tested.

Page 7 of 10





QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTMaxxam Job #: B9C6257Report Date: 2019/05/21

QC Batch Parameter Date % Recovery QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits Value UNITS Value (%) QC Limits

Matrix Spike SPIKED BLANK Method Blank RPD

6118971 1,4-Difluorobenzene 2019/05/14 101 70 - 130 99 70 - 130 99 %

6118971 4-Bromofluorobenzene 2019/05/14 101 70 - 130 102 70 - 130 98 %

6118971 D10-Ethylbenzene 2019/05/14 101 70 - 130 101 70 - 130 100 %

6118971 D4-1,2-Dichloroethane 2019/05/14 103 70 - 130 103 70 - 130 104 %



6122405 D10-Ethylbenzene 2019/05/15 100 70 - 130 105 70 - 130 103 %


6123421 o-Terphenyl 2019/05/15 107 60 - 130 109 60 - 130 104 %

6118971 Benzene 2019/05/14 98 70 - 130 94 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.20 ug/L

6118971 Ethylbenzene 2019/05/14 105 70 - 130 104 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.20 ug/L

6118971 F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX 2019/05/14 NC (1) 30

6118971 F1 (C6-C10) 2019/05/14 NC (1) 30

6118971 o-Xylene 2019/05/14 104 70 - 130 102 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.20 ug/L

6118971 p+m-Xylene 2019/05/14 108 70 - 130 106 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.40 ug/L

6118971 Toluene 2019/05/14 105 70 - 130 103 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.20 ug/L

6122405 Benzene 2019/05/15 NC 70 - 130 104 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.20 ug/L 0.10 (1) 30

6122405 Ethylbenzene 2019/05/15 NC 70 - 130 106 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.20 ug/L 0.54 (1) 30

6122405 F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX 2019/05/15 ND, RDL=25 ug/L 17 (1) 30

6122405 F1 (C6-C10) 2019/05/15 NC 70 - 130 103 70 - 130 ND, RDL=25 ug/L 4.9 (1) 30

6122405 o-Xylene 2019/05/15 92 70 - 130 104 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.20 ug/L 3.2 (1) 30

6122405 p+m-Xylene 2019/05/15 NC 70 - 130 111 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.40 ug/L 0.066 (1) 30

6122405 Toluene 2019/05/15 103 70 - 130 109 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.20 ug/L 1.3 (1) 30

6122405 Total Xylenes 2019/05/15 ND, RDL=0.40 ug/L 0.052 (1) 30

6123421 F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons) 2019/05/15 110 50 - 130 109 60 - 130 ND, RDL=100 ug/L NC (1) 30


Page 8 of 10





QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT(CONT'D)Maxxam Job #: B9C6257Report Date: 2019/05/21




Duplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement.

Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference.

Spiked Blank: A blank matrix sample to which a known amount of the analyte, usually from a second source, has been added. Used to evaluate method accuracy.

Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination.

Surrogate: A pure or isotopically labeled compound whose behavior mirrors the analytes of interest. Used to evaluate extraction efficiency.

NC (Matrix Spike): The recovery in the matrix spike was not calculated. The relative difference between the concentration in the parent sample and the spike amount was too small to permit a reliablerecovery calculation (matrix spike concentration was less than the native sample concentration)

NC (Duplicate RPD): The duplicate RPD was not calculated. The concentration in the sample and/or duplicate was too low to permit a reliable RPD calculation (absolute difference <= 2x RDL).

(1) Duplicate Parent ID

Page 9 of 10






VALIDATION SIGNATURE PAGE

The analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s).

Anastassia Hamanov, Scientific Specialist

Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Page 10 of 10


BV LABS JOB #: B9D3751Received: 2019/05/17, 16:45

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS – REVISED REPORT

Your P.O. #: 73032176Your Project #: 11102200-13Your C.O.C. #: 713656-02-01

Report Date: 2019/06/07Report #: R5743987Version: 2 - Revision

Attention: 11102200-13 - PO - 73032176


Sample Matrix: Water# Samples Received: 7





Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2-F4 in Water (1) 5 2019/05/23 2019/05/24 CAM SOP-00316 CCME PHC-CWS m

Remarks:

Bureau Veritas Laboratories are accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 for specific parameters on scopes of accreditation. Unless otherwise noted, procedures usedby BV Labs are based upon recognized Provincial, Federal or US method compendia such as CCME, MDDELCC, EPA, APHA.

All work recorded herein has been done in accordance with procedures and practices ordinarily exercised by professionals in BV Labs profession usingaccepted testing methodologies, quality assurance and quality control procedures (except where otherwise agreed by the client and BV Labs in writing). Alldata is in statistical control and has met quality control and method performance criteria unless otherwise noted. All method blanks are reported; unlessindicated otherwise, associated sample data are not blank corrected. Where applicable, unless otherwise noted, Measurement Uncertainty has not beenaccounted for when stating conformity to the referenced standard.

BV Labs liability is limited to the actual cost of the requested analyses, unless otherwise agreed in writing. There is no other warranty expressed or implied.BV Labs has been retained to provide analysis of samples provided by the Client using the testing methodology referenced in this report. Interpretation anduse of test results are the sole responsibility of the Client and are not within the scope of services provided by BV Labs, unless otherwise agreed in writing.BV Labs is not responsible for the accuracy or any data impacts, that result from the information provided by the customer or their agent.

Solid sample results, except biota, are based on dry weight unless otherwise indicated. Organic analyses are not recovery corrected except for isotopedilution methods.Results relate to samples tested. When sampling is not conducted by BV Labs, results relate to the supplied samples tested.This Certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.Reference Method suffix “m” indicates test methods incorporate validated modifications from specific reference methods to improve performance.


(1) All CCME PHC results met required criteria unless otherwise stated in the report. The CWS PHC methods employed by Bureau Veritas Laboratories conform to all prescribedelements of the reference method and performance based elements have been validated. All modifications have been validated and proven equivalent following “AlbertaEnvironment’s Interpretation of the Reference Method for the Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Validation of Performance-Based Alternative MethodsSeptember 2003”. Documentation is available upon request. Modifications from Reference Method for the Canada-wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil-Tier 1Method: F2/F3/F4 data reported using validated cold solvent extraction instead of Soxhlet extraction.

Page 1 of 10

Bureau Veritas Laboratories 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll-Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.bvlabs.com





Attention: 11102200-13 - PO - 73032176


Encryption Key

Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.Jonathan Urben, Senior Project ManagerEmail: [email protected]# (613)274-3549==================================================================== BV Labs has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.



BV Labs Job #: B9D3751Report Date: 2019/06/07

GHD Contractors LimitedClient Project #: 11102200-13Your P.O. #: 73032176Sampler Initials: AR


BV Labs ID JTG576 JTG577 JTG578 JTG579


11:152019/05/14

14:402019/05/15

08:152019/05/16

08:25

COC Number 713656-02-01 713656-02-01 713656-02-01 713656-02-01

UNITSSW-11102200-051419-

AJR-05SW-11102200-051419-

AJR-06SW-11102200-051519-

AJR-07SW-11102200-051619-

AJR-08RDL QC Batch


Benzene ug/L ND ND ND ND 0.20 6137654

Toluene ug/L ND ND ND ND 0.20 6137654

Ethylbenzene ug/L ND ND ND ND 0.20 6137654

o-Xylene ug/L ND ND ND ND 0.20 6137654

p+m-Xylene ug/L ND ND ND ND 0.40 6137654

Total Xylenes ug/L ND ND ND ND 0.40 6137654

F1 (C6-C10) ug/L ND ND ND ND 25 6137654

F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX ug/L ND ND ND ND 25 6137654

F2-F4 Hydrocarbons

F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons) ug/L ND ND ND ND 100 6135985



Reached Baseline at C50 ug/L Yes Yes Yes Yes 6135985


1,4-Difluorobenzene % 99 103 104 102 6137654

4-Bromofluorobenzene % 103 98 101 99 6137654

D10-Ethylbenzene % 105 106 107 103 6137654

D4-1,2-Dichloroethane % 98 102 103 106 6137654

o-Terphenyl % 98 98 102 91 6135985



ND = Not detected

Page 3 of 10





BV Labs ID JTG580 JTG581 JTG582


08:302019/05/10

10:202019/04/17

COC Number 713656-02-01 713656-02-01 713656-02-01

UNITSSW-11102200-051619-

AJR-09RDL QC Batch TSPK-F1BB-19-4600 RDL QC Batch TBLK-F1BB-19-4559 RDL QC Batch


Benzene ug/L ND 0.20 6137654 100 0.20 6137654 ND 0.20 6129535

Toluene ug/L ND 0.20 6137654 110 0.20 6137654 ND 0.20 6129535

Ethylbenzene ug/L ND 0.20 6137654 100 0.20 6137654 ND 0.20 6129535

o-Xylene ug/L ND 0.20 6137654 110 0.20 6137654 ND 0.20 6129535

p+m-Xylene ug/L ND 0.40 6137654 100 0.40 6137654 ND 0.40 6129535

Total Xylenes ug/L ND 0.40 6137654 ND 0.40 6129535

F1 (C6-C10) ug/L ND 25 6137654 ND 25 6129535

F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX ug/L ND 25 6137654 ND 25 6129535

F2-F4 Hydrocarbons

F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons) ug/L ND 100 6135985



Reached Baseline at C50 ug/L Yes 6135985


1,4-Difluorobenzene % 105 6137654 108 6137654 103 6129535

4-Bromofluorobenzene % 100 6137654 97 6137654 99 6129535

D10-Ethylbenzene % 108 6137654 104 6137654 104 6129535

D4-1,2-Dichloroethane % 109 6137654 109 6137654 97 6129535

o-Terphenyl % 96 6135985



ND = Not detected

Page 4 of 10




TEST SUMMARY


BV Labs ID: JTG576 Collected: 2019/05/14Sample ID: SW-11102200-051419-AJR-05




Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2-F4 in Water GC/FID 6135985 2019/05/23 2019/05/24 (Kent) Maolin Li


























BV Labs ID: JTG581 Collected: 2019/05/10Sample ID: TSPK-F1BB-19-4600




Page 5 of 10




TEST SUMMARY


BV Labs ID: JTG582 Collected: 2019/04/17Sample ID: TBLK-F1BB-19-4559



Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Water HSGC/MSFD 6129535 N/A 2019/05/19 Abdi Mohamud

Page 6 of 10




GENERAL COMMENTS


Package 1 3.7°C

Revised Report (2019/06/07): Client sample IDs have been amended.

Sample JTG581 [TSPK-F1BB-19-4600] : F1-BTEX Analysis:Trip spike results are expressed as percentage of the spiked amounts.


Page 7 of 10



QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTBV Labs Job #: B9D3751Report Date: 2019/06/07





6129535 D10-Ethylbenzene 2019/05/18 98 70 - 130 102 70 - 130 98 %


6135985 o-Terphenyl 2019/05/24 93 60 - 130 105 60 - 130 92 %



6137654 D10-Ethylbenzene 2019/05/24 103 70 - 130 98 70 - 130 105 %


6129535 Benzene 2019/05/18 97 70 - 130 103 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.20 ug/L NC (1) 30

6129535 Ethylbenzene 2019/05/18 99 70 - 130 102 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.20 ug/L NC (1) 30

6129535 F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX 2019/05/18 ND, RDL=25 ug/L NC (1) 30

6129535 F1 (C6-C10) 2019/05/18 101 70 - 130 93 70 - 130 ND, RDL=25 ug/L NC (1) 30

6129535 o-Xylene 2019/05/18 97 70 - 130 101 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.20 ug/L NC (1) 30

6129535 p+m-Xylene 2019/05/18 99 70 - 130 101 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.40 ug/L NC (1) 30

6129535 Toluene 2019/05/18 104 70 - 130 109 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.20 ug/L NC (1) 30

6129535 Total Xylenes 2019/05/18 ND, RDL=0.40 ug/L NC (1) 30

6135985 F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons) 2019/05/24 100 50 - 130 106 60 - 130 ND, RDL=100 ug/L 1.2 (1) 30

6135985 F3 (C16-C34 Hydrocarbons) 2019/05/24 NC 50 - 130 117 60 - 130 ND, RDL=200 ug/L NC (1) 30


6137654 Benzene 2019/05/24 97 70 - 130 95 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.20 ug/L NC (1) 30

6137654 Ethylbenzene 2019/05/24 104 70 - 130 100 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.20 ug/L NC (1) 30

6137654 F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX 2019/05/24 ND, RDL=25 ug/L NC (1) 30

6137654 F1 (C6-C10) 2019/05/24 92 70 - 130 98 70 - 130 ND, RDL=25 ug/L NC (1) 30

6137654 o-Xylene 2019/05/24 111 70 - 130 100 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.20 ug/L NC (1) 30

6137654 p+m-Xylene 2019/05/24 104 70 - 130 101 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.40 ug/L NC (1) 30

6137654 Toluene 2019/05/24 112 70 - 130 106 70 - 130 ND, RDL=0.20 ug/L NC (1) 30

Page 8 of 10



QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT(CONT'D)BV Labs Job #: B9D3751Report Date: 2019/06/07



6137654 Total Xylenes 2019/05/24 ND, RDL=0.40 ug/L NC (1) 30






NC (Matrix Spike): The recovery in the matrix spike was not calculated. The relative difference between the concentration in the parent sample and the spike amount was too small to permit a reliablerecovery calculation (matrix spike concentration was less than the native sample concentration)



Page 9 of 10







BV Labs has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Page 10 of 10



Appendix C Benthic Invertebrate Sampling Field Data and

Laboratory Results

TABLE 1: BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM GOGAMA, 2019 (Densities expressed per sampled area)

1

B-1110

2200

-0507

19-D

LA-01

B-1110

2200

-0507

19-D

LA-02

B-1110

2200

-0507

19-D

LA-03

B-1110

2200

-0507

19-D

LA-04

B-1110

2200

-0508

19-D

LA-05

B-1110

2200

-0508

19-D

LA-06

B-1110

2200

-0508

19-D

LA-07

B-1110

2200

-0508

19-D

LA-08

B-1110

2200

-0508

19-D

LA-09

B-1110

2200

-0510

19-D

LA-10

B-1110

2200

-0514

19-D

LA-11

B-1110

2200

-0514

19-D

LA-12

B-1110

2200

-0514

19-D

LA-13

B-1110

2200

-0514

19-D

LA-14

B-1110

2200

-0514

19-D

LA-15

B-1110

2200

-0515

19-D

LA-16

B-1110

2200

-0515

19-D

LA-17

B-1110

2200

-0515

19-D

LA-18

B-1110

2200

-0515

19-D

LA-19

B-1110

2200

-0516

19-D

LA-20

B-1110

2200

-0516

19-D

LA-21

Station ID:

ROUNDWORMSP. Nemata 8 4 2 1 4 - 8 8 - 8 - - 2 2 2 4 10 8 - 2 -

FLATWORMSP. Platyhelminthes

Cl. TurbellariaF. Plagiostomidae

Hydrolimax grisea - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 -

ANNELIDSP. Annelida

WORMSCl. Oligochaeta

F. Enchytraeidae - - - 1 - - 4 - - 20 - - - - - 7 - - - - -F. Naididae

S.F. NaidinaeNais - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Ripistes parasita - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

S.F. TubificinaeAulodrilus americanus - 4 - - - - - 4 - - 1 - - - - - - - - - -Aulodrilus pluriseta 6 18 22 20 16 2 12 - 2 12 6 1 2 20 5 51 77 36 68 66 20Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Limnodrilus tortilipenis - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - - - -Limnodrilus udekemianus - - - 2 2 23 8 4 - 64 2 1 2 3 77 58 10 40 60 18 10Limnodrilus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 - - - - - -immatures with hair chaetae - - - - - - - - - 8 - - - - - 7 5 4 - - -immatures without hair chaetae 4 - - 1 - 2 - - 4 8 - - 1 4 15 14 5 - 8 4 -

S.F. RhyacodrilinaeRhyacodrilus montana - - 2 - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - - - -

F. LumbriculidaeLumbriculus - - 2 - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - 5 4 8 - -

LEECHESCl. Hirudinea

F. Erpobdellidaeimmature - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - -

F. GlossiphoniidaeHelobdella stagnalis - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - -

ARTHROPODSP. Arthropoda

MITESO. Trombidiformes

Subcl. Acari - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -F. Arrenuridae

Arrenurus - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - -F. Lebertiidae

Lebertia - 2 - 3 2 - - - 2 - 2 1 1 - - - - - - - -F. Mideopsidae

Mideopsis - 2 - 1 - - - - - - 3 - - - 2 - 2 - - - -F. Unionicolidae

Neumania - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - -SEED SHRIMPSCl. Ostracoda - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 - -WATER SCUDSO. Amphipoda

F. HyalellidaeHyalella 28 16 4 58 24 1 28 60 22 36 13 - 2 21 10 28 - 4 - - 2

INSECTSCl. InsectaBEETLESO. Coleoptera

F. ChrysomelidaeDonacia 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - -

F. ElmidaeDubiraphia minima - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dubiraphia larvae 2 2 - 6 2 - 8 4 - 28 - - 1 - - - 2 4 - - 8

F. HaliplidaeHaliplus - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MAYFLIESO. Ephemeroptera

F. CaenidaeCaenis - 2 - - - - 4 8 2 - 1 - - 1 - 4 - - - - -

F. EphemeridaeHexagenia - 2 3 - - - - - 2 1 10 - 1 - - 4 - - 2 - 2

F. EphemerellidaeEurylophella 8 6 - 2 6 - - - 6 4 - - - - 2 - - - - - -

F. HeptageniidaeLeucrocuta - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 -

O. Megaloptera


2

B-1110

2200

-0507

19-D

LA-01

B-1110

2200

-0507

19-D

LA-02

B-1110

2200

-0507

19-D

LA-03

B-1110

2200

-0507

19-D

LA-04

B-1110

2200

-0508

19-D

LA-05

B-1110

2200

-0508

19-D

LA-06

B-1110

2200

-0508

19-D

LA-07

B-1110

2200

-0508

19-D

LA-08

B-1110

2200

-0508

19-D

LA-09

B-1110

2200

-0510

19-D

LA-10

B-1110

2200

-0514

19-D

LA-11

B-1110

2200

-0514

19-D

LA-12

B-1110

2200

-0514

19-D

LA-13

B-1110

2200

-0514

19-D

LA-14

B-1110

2200

-0514

19-D

LA-15

B-1110

2200

-0515

19-D

LA-16

B-1110

2200

-0515

19-D

LA-17

B-1110

2200

-0515

19-D

LA-18

B-1110

2200

-0515

19-D

LA-19

B-1110

2200

-0516

19-D

LA-20

B-1110

2200

-0516

19-D

LA-21

Station ID:

ALDERFLIESF. Sialidae

Sialis 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - -O. OdonataDAMSELFLIES

F. Coenagrionidaeimmature - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DRAGONFLIESF. Aeshnidae

Aeshna 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Basiaeschna - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Boyeria - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

F. GomphidaeGomphus - 1 - 3 - - - - 1 - 1 1 - - - 1 - - - - 3Hagenius - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -immature - - 2 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - -

F. MacromiidaeMacromia - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - -immature 2 - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 - 2 4 - - - - -

STONEFLIESO. Plecoptera

F. Chloroperlidaeimmature - - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - -

F. NemouridaeProstoia 2 - - 2 2 - - - 6 12 - - - - - - - - - - -Shipsa rotunda - - - - 2 - - - - 4 - - - - 2 - - - - - -

F. Perlodidaeimmature - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - -

CADDISFLIESO. Trichoptera

F. DipseudopsidaePhylocentropus 2 4 - - 2 1 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - 2

F. HydroptilidaeHydroptila 2 - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -Oxyethira 4 20 - 18 8 1 12 4 4 8 1 - - 1 - - - - - - -

F. LeptoceridaeCeraclea - - - 2 2 - 8 - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - -Oecetis 2 2 2 - - - 4 4 2 12 12 - - - 2 - - - - - -Triaenodes - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - -

F. MolannidaeMolanna - - 2 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

F. PolycentropodidaeNeureclipsis - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TRUE FLIESO. Diptera

indeterminate - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - -BITING-MIDGE

F. CeratopogonidaeBezzia - - - 2 4 - 24 4 - 4 1 - - 1 6 - - - - - -Culicoides - 2 - - - 1 - 4 - 8 - - - - - - - - - 1 -Dasyhelea - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - -Mallochohelea 6 20 34 21 26 6 20 - 6 16 26 7 4 3 10 28 12 8 8 26 30Probezzia - - - - - - - 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - -Serromyia - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MIDGESF. Chironomidae

chironomid pupae - - - - 2 1 4 - 10 - 6 - - - - 4 - - 4 - -S.F. Chironominae

Axarus - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - -Chironomus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - -Cladopelma - - - 1 - - 4 12 - 4 - - - - - 4 - - - - -Cladotanytarsus - 2 - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Cryptochironomus - - - - 2 - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - -Cryptotendipes - - - - - - - 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dicrotendipes - - - - 4 - - 4 - - - - - - 10 12 - - - - -Glyptotendipes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 4 - - - - -Lauterborniella - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - -Micropsectra - 4 - - 8 - 12 - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - -Microtendipes 2 - - 1 4 - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -Neostempellina 2 2 - 5 2 - - 4 2 4 - - - 1 2 4 - - - 1 -Nilothauma - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - -Pagastiella - 10 10 2 4 - - 20 2 12 5 - - 2 4 4 6 - - 5 -Parachironomus - - - - - - - - - 4 - - 1 - - - - - 4 - -Paralauterborniella - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Paratendipes - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Polypedilum halterale - 8 - 14 4 17 - 12 - 20 5 1 1 - 22 8 - 12 4 - 8Polypedilum scalaenum 26 2 4 - 8 5 20 4 - 8 - - - - - - 8 8 - 1 -Polypedilum - - - 6 - - - 4 - 8 - - - 1 10 - - - - - -Pseudochironomus - 4 2 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - -Rheotanytarsus - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Robackia - - 2 - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -


3

B-1110

2200

-0507

19-D

LA-01

B-1110

2200

-0507

19-D

LA-02

B-1110

2200

-0507

19-D

LA-03

B-1110

2200

-0507

19-D

LA-04

B-1110

2200

-0508

19-D

LA-05

B-1110

2200

-0508

19-D

LA-06

B-1110

2200

-0508

19-D

LA-07

B-1110

2200

-0508

19-D

LA-08

B-1110

2200

-0508

19-D

LA-09

B-1110

2200

-0510

19-D

LA-10

B-1110

2200

-0514

19-D

LA-11

B-1110

2200

-0514

19-D

LA-12

B-1110

2200

-0514

19-D

LA-13

B-1110

2200

-0514

19-D

LA-14

B-1110

2200

-0514

19-D

LA-15

B-1110

2200

-0515

19-D

LA-16

B-1110

2200

-0515

19-D

LA-17

B-1110

2200

-0515

19-D

LA-18

B-1110

2200

-0515

19-D

LA-19

B-1110

2200

-0516

19-D

LA-20

B-1110

2200

-0516

19-D

LA-21

Station ID:

Stenochironomus - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - 4 - - - -Stictochironomus - - - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - - - - 2 4 - - 2Tanytarsus - - 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - 8 - - - - -Tribelos - - 2 8 - 4 - - - - - - - - 2 8 - - - - -Xenochironomus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - -Zavreliella - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Chironomini indeterminate - - 2 - - - - - - - 1 - 2 1 - - - - - - -

S.F. DiamesinaePotthastia - - - - - - 4 - - - 3 - 1 - - - - - - - -

S.F. OrthocladiinaeEpoicocladius - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Heterotrissocladius 6 4 2 - - - - 8 - 4 2 - - 1 - - 2 - - - -Orthocladius S. lignicola - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Parakiefferiella - 2 - - 2 - 8 8 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 -Rheosmittia 2 4 10 3 32 - - 12 - - - - - 2 2 - - - - - -Xylotopus - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

S.F. TanypodinaeAblabesmyia - - 2 - - - 4 - 2 - 4 - - - - - - - - - -Clinotanypus - - - 2 4 - - - 2 - - - - - - 4 - - - - 2Djalmabatista 2 24 - 6 12 1 16 8 2 16 20 1 1 2 2 16 - 8 12 2 4Helopelopia 4 - - - - - 12 28 2 - 4 - - - 2 - - - - - -Labrudinia - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Larsia - - - 2 - - 4 - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - -Procladius 4 - 2 - - - - 8 - - - - - 1 - 4 4 - - 2 -Thienemannimyia complex - 8 - 2 10 1 - 8 - - - - - - 2 4 - - - - -

F. EmpididaeHemerodromia - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - -

F. Simuliidae - 22 - 22 16 2 12 4 2 12 - 5 - - 2 - 2 - - - -F. Tabanidae

Chrysops - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 2 4 - - - - -F. Tipulidae

Rhabdomastix 2 - - 1 - - - - - 12 - - - 1 - - - - - - -

MOLLUSCSP. Mollusca

SNAILSCl. Gastropoda

F. AncylidaeFerrissia - - - - - 1 - - 4 4 - - - - - - 2 - - - -

F. HydrobiidaeAmnicola 2 2 2 2 54 - 16 100 13 12 3 - 2 5 8 12 40 - - - -immature - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

F. PhysidaePhysella 1 - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

F. PlanorbidaeGyraulus - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Helisoma anceps - - - 1 - - - - - 4 1 - - - - - - - - - -immature - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CLAMSCl. Bivalvia

F. SphaeriidaePisidium (Cyclocalyx) 4 14 6 21 24 17 12 16 2 12 10 7 5 5 25 16 8 20 8 6 44Sphaerium (Amesoda) striatinum 11 16 8 3 8 2 - - - 6 - - 1 - 7 28 - 16 - - 4Sphaerium (Musculium) - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

F. UnionidaeLampsilis - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - -

TOTAL NUMBER OF ORGANISMS 149 243 142 258 323 92 288 408 106 413 153 25 34 79 251 373 210 188 190 137 141TOTAL NUMBER OF TAXA a 29 37 29 43 40 19 29 36 24 39 31 9 20 21 32 31 21 17 11 15 14

a Bold entries excluded from taxa count

Benthic Field Data Sheet Page 1 of 2

GHD 11102200-22-APPC

ObjectID GlobalID Fill out this form for a each transect. Date: Time: Agency Investigators: Site #: zone easting northingBenthos Collection Method:

Gear Type:

Mesh Size (microns)

Were all benthic grabs across the transect aggregated into one benthic sample? Sample ID:

1 cb274791-59d2-4159-b399-491cc257899b 5/16/2019 4:00 10:38 GHD DA A3/B1-1 17N 443962.6006 5283360.5474 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-051619-DLA-21

2 0cee7c99-5907-42c8-897f-5471678ef58f 5/16/2019 4:00 08:00 GHD DA A8/B1-2 17N 443894.5943 5283287.7337 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-051619-DLA-20

3 a2fce8a2-0865-4b15-877a-a50f956baa13 5/15/2019 4:00 14:45 GHD DA A10/B1-3 17N 443886.0181 5283243.4991 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-051519-DLA-19

4 18e55170-515a-4117-ab0c-1f1ec9d80016 5/15/2019 4:00 12:42 GHD DA C1/B1 17N 443907.2457 5283144.7845 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-051519-DLA-18

5 21843ee0-8bea-474a-83a4-d8043e7b2bcf 5/15/2019 4:00 08:20 GHD DA C3/B3 17N 443978.4539 5283004.7163 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-051519-DLA-16

6 2df39381-9aed-48c3-b46a-59e8d3073853 5/15/2019 4:00 10:04 GHD DA C2/B2 17N 444000.9884 5283126.1567 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-051519-DLA-17

7 4ce0dbaa-abde-4ecc-bddc-0e82b8d96fd2 5/14/2019 4:00 15:59 GHD DA C10/C1 17N 443719.8966 5282696.5515 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-051419-DLA-15

8 cdbd268e-cbcc-4825-b5b5-61e8795211a9 5/14/2019 4:00 09:54 GHD DA E1/D1 17N 443528.3793 5281737.0775 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-051419-DLA-12

9 c5edf964-7a5e-4353-929e-dd358d3ee42c 5/14/2019 4:00 14:39 GHD DA C7/C2 17N 443543.0594 5282699.9336 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-051419-DLA-14

10 b2ced615-45fe-4471-9b6f-17a6ee8dba55 5/14/2019 4:00 12:48 GHD DA C8/C3 17N 443513.3059 5282572.5119 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-051419-DLA-13

11 e8d34008-04e4-421c-84d1-7815860fa27a 5/14/2019 4:00 08:01 GHD DA E9/D3 17N 443387.5512 5281456.5722 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-051419-DLA-11

12 5e19361a-b8c5-46c1-b767-d26d4e914b17 5/10/2019 4:00 08:04 GHD DA E4/D2 17N 443370.0557 5281532.8799 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-051019-DLA-10

13 4ad7c44a-a1cc-4852-a25d-09b39aaf8d97 5/8/2019 4:00 14:27 GHD DA F5/E2 17N 443621.4304 5280698.1519 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-050819-DLA-08

14 27d0fddb-5e21-40b8-9024-f2577c5a7bb2 5/8/2019 4:00 12:40 GHD DA F6/E3 17N 443559.4072 5280587.9377 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-050819-DLA-07

15 65c617c2-7091-4e13-b460-d3b6578a725e 5/8/2019 4:00 16:28 GHD DA F2/E1 17N 443549.9050 5280892.8010 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-050819-DLA-09

16 8191cb8b-916a-4400-af2e-e7d5668778fa 5/7/2019 4:00 17:05 GHD DA R3/A3 17N 445005.3170 5283725.7149 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-050719-DLA-04

17 73c919fb-32a0-44a6-8263-1901b2e082bb 5/8/2019 4:00 08:27 GHD DA R2/A2 17N 445081.0315 5283774.6825 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-050819-DLA-05

18 bbc89b92-0d7b-4df6-8ef8-5d231a2b7ea3 5/8/2019 4:00 10:18 GHD DA R1/A1 17N 445022.4221 5283947.6291 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-050819-DLA-06

19 008d1f51-4218-4603-9769-3c85d5ca0fac 5/7/2019 4:00 13:27 GHD DA R5/A1-2 17N 444469.4044 5283621.5330 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-050719-DLA-02

20 ec8d6ecb-1c0e-42c5-bbff-3dc2e25c53f4 5/7/2019 4:00 15:35 GHD DA R6/A1-1 17N 444577.9212 5283647.9289 grab sample ponar 500 yes B-11102200-050719-DLA-03


GHD 11102200-22-APPC

ObjectID

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Number of bottles labelled with this sample ID: 1.5–10 m, Left Bank 1.5–10 m, Right Bank 10–30 m, Left Bank 10–30 m, Right Bank 30–100 m, Left Bank 30–100 m, Right Bank

% Canopy Cover (CC) above Transect:

Bankfull Width (m):

River Characterisation: River Characterisation Notes:

Candidate Reference Site

3 wetland other wetland scrubland wetland scrubland 0_24 17 perennial

Railway immediately downstream, remediated wetland on right bank, flooded - no bank between river and wetland, vegetated banks upstream no

2 other meadow wetland meadow wetland coniferous forest 0_24 18 perennialPlanted restored areas on both banks, immediately upstream of Bailey bridge no

1 scrubland coniferous forest other coniferous forest scrubland coniferous forest 0_24 16 perennial

Near site of derailment, some remediation in river done along transect making it hard to take grab samples; immediately downstream of Bailey bridge no

2 scrubland scrubland other coniferous forest scrubland coniferous forest 0_24 22 perennial Banks vegetated, lots of sand, high flows no

3 wetland wetland wetland wetland other wetland 0_24 18 perennial

Floating sheen, sheen coming up from grabs, near rail line and road on left bank looking downstream no

2 other coniferous forest other coniferous forest coniferous forest wetland 0_24 18 perennialAdjacent to road, tracks, forest and wetland on right bank (looking downstream) no

3 wetland wetland coniferous forest wetland coniferous forest wetland 0_24 18 perennial

High water levels, over banks, cattail marsh on right bank looking downstream, some sheen visible on right bank grabs no

1 wetland wetland wetland wetland wetland wetland 0_24 14 perennial High flows, cattail wetlands no

6 wetland coniferous forest wetland coniferous forest wetland wetland 0_24 15 perennialVegetated banks, wetland upstream onright bank looking downstream no

2 wetland coniferous forest wetland coniferous forest coniferous forest coniferous forest 0_24 14 perennial

Vegetated banks, high water levels with wetland On left bank, thin bank of caprice and cedear Btwn wetland and river no

2 wetland wetland wetland wetland wetland wetland 0_24 15 perennial High flows. Cattail wetlands no

2 wetland wetland wetland wetland wetland wetland 0_24 15 perennialRiver lined with cedar trees, typha/ open water wetland on both sides, river very high no

5 coniferous forest wetland coniferous forest wetland coniferous forest wetland 0_24 20 perennialFlow less than upstream, large wetland on right downstream bank no

5 wetland coniferous forest wetland coniferous forest wetland coniferous forest 0_24 18 perennial

Near mouth of river into minisnakwa, typha wetland onright bank, exposed bedrock on left bank no

3 wetland wetland coniferous forest wetland coniferous forest wetland 0_24 15 perennialExposed bedrock on left bank looking downstream no

9 coniferous forest scrubland scrubland scrubland coniferous forest coniferous forest 0_24 18 perennialA house 150m from river on right bank, alder thicket and fen wetlands abundant no

7 wetland coniferous forest coniferous forest wetland coniferous forest deciduous forest 0_24 24 perennial

Some exposed bedrock on river margins downstream, alder thicket wet pockets and spruce/birch aspen forest no

2 wetland wetland coniferous forest coniferous forest wetland coniferous forest 0_24 18 perennialConiferous forest, lowland forest with alder thickets no

5 coniferous forest coniferous forest coniferous forest wetland coniferous forest coniferous forest 0_24 18 perennial150m from highway, fen/bog wetland on both shores no

4 coniferous forest coniferous forest coniferous forest coniferous forest coniferous forest coniferous forest 0_24 18 perennial 20 m from highway bridge no


GHD 11102200-22-APP C

ObjectID sample_id_aggSubsample name/ID:

# Grabs pooled per sample:

Secchi depth (m):

Max Depth (m):

Wetted Width (m):

Max. Hydraulic Head (mm): Site Description Notes:

Were water quality parameters measured at both the sediment-water interface and at the surface?

Water Temperature (°C): pH:

Oxidative-Reductive Potential (mV):

Conductivity (μS/cm):

Turbidity (NTU):

1 0e4a97e4-0190-4907-8f93-046A 1 1.65 3 no 7.74 6.51 244 0.036 02 8b1d09dd-d156-4aaa-9c36-266B 1 1.6 3.4 no 7.72 6.27 253 0.035 03 9e0b2f83-12db-410e-8df3-512 C 1 1.8 3.3 no 7.71 6.24 250 0.035 04 B-11102200-051619-DLA-21 D 1 1.6 3.1 C - secchi 1.8, depth - 3.3m no 7.71 6.19 257 0.035 0

5 B-11102200-051619-DLA-21 E 1 1.5 2.5

River flooded into remediated wetland on right bank no 7.71 6.22 257 0.035 0

6 B-11102200-051619-DLA-20 A 1 1.6 3.15 24 1 no 7.78 6.01 349 0.036 0.2

7 B-11102200-051619-DLA-20 B 1 1.65 2.95 no 7.78 6.23 314 0.034 0.58 B-11102200-051619-DLA-20 C 1 1.54 3.522 20 no 7.74 6.15 281 0.035 0.29 B-11102200-051619-DLA-20 D 1 1.6 3.25 no 7.73 6.17 271 0.035 0.210 B-11102200-051619-DLA-20 E 1 1.6 2.4 no 7.75 6.14 275 0.035 011 B-11102200-051519-DLA-19 A 1 1.3 1.3 18 no 9.12 5.95 255 0.035 2.6

12 B-11102200-051519-DLA-19 B 1 1.2 2.15 no 9.21 5.99 252 0.035 2.4

13 B-11102200-051519-DLA-19 C 1 1.4 4.5 yes 9.22 6.01 228 0.035 2.6

14 B-11102200-051519-DLA-19 D 1 1.42 4.13 90 High flow yes 9.33 5.97 234 0.035 015 B-11102200-051519-DLA-19 E 1 1 2 no 9.48 5.97 229 0.034 2.5

16 B-11102200-051519-DLA-18 A 1 1.45 1.7 no 8.68 5.95 234 0.035 1.317 B-11102200-051519-DLA-18 B 1 no 8.73 6 230 0.035 0.02318 B-11102200-051519-DLA-18 C 1 1.4 3.4 22 20 no 8.78 5.97 236 0.034 2.319 B-11102200-051519-DLA-18 D 1 1.52 1.9 no 8.79 5.88 244 0.034 2.320 B-11102200-051519-DLA-18 E 1 1.1 1.1 no 8.86 5.83 244 0.034 2

21 B-11102200-051519-DLA-16 A 1 1.4 1.4

NeAr rail line and road,wetland on righ bank looking downstream, wood frogs calling no 8.8 5.88 295 0.035 0


GHD 11102200-22-APP C



Secchi depth (m):

Max Depth (m):

Wetted Width (m):






Turbidity (NTU):

22 B-11102200-051519-DLA-16 B 1 1.4 2.6 High flows no 8.77 5.79 268 0.035 0.823 B-11102200-051519-DLA-16 C 1 1.3 3.1 no 8.76 5.77 268 0.035 0.424 B-11102200-051519-DLA-16 D 1 1.2 2.85 no 8.75 5.57 272 0.035 1.625 B-11102200-051519-DLA-16 E 1 1.7 2 no 8.75 5.99 257 0.035 1.426 B-11102200-051519-DLA-17 A 1 1.4 1.4 17 High flow no 8.67 5.87 267 0.035 1.927 B-11102200-051519-DLA-17 B 1 1.3 28.67 no 8.67 5.9 258 0.035 2.328 B-11102200-051519-DLA-17 C 1.4 3.8 no 68.63 5.84 247 0.035 2.129 B-11102200-051519-DLA-17 D 1 1.4 3.7 no 8.63 5.84 252 0.035 2.130 B-11102200-051519-DLA-17 E 1 1.4 1.4 no 8.67 5.96 255 0.035 2.531 B-11102200-051419-DLA-15 A 1 1.4 no 9.08 6.12 286 0.036 032 B-11102200-051419-AJR-15 B 1 1.35 2 18 no 9.07 6.11 259 0.036 033 B-11102200-051419-AJR-15 C 1 1.25 2.85 no 9.08 6.1 257 0.036 034 B-11102200-051419-AJR-15 D 1 1.3 2.9 no 9.16 6.14 250 0.036 035 B-11102200-051419-AJR-15 E 1 1.1 2.3 no 9.24 6.16 247 0.036 0

36 89bb93a3-bd9e-436c-87c0-5a3A 1 1.3 2.6Lots of woody debris under water no 7.23 6.17 254 0.036 0.8

37 adbc9a66-636a-4f53-b5f3-c758B 1 1.25 3.75 no 7.27 6.26 247 0.036 1.338 b26dd93f-ec5f-4007-b40b-00f4C 1 1.65 3.75 no 7.29 6.16 252 0.036 139 B-11102200-051419-DLA-12 D 1 1.2 2.9 no 7.33 6.16 252 0.036 0.840 bb26dae5-166c-4d3b-8700-375E 1 1.25 3.2734 no 7.34 6.06 258 0.036 1.2

41 B-11102200-051419-DLA-14 A 1 1.1 1.1

High water levels, adjacent to cattail marsh on left upstream bank, rocky outcrops on left upstream bank no 9.11 6.14 266 0.036 0

42 B-11102200-051419-DLA-14 B 1 1.6 4 no 9.81 6.2 256 0.037 043 B-11102200-051419-DLA-14 C 1 1 3.75 no 8.8 6.36 244 0.036 044 B-11102200-051419-DLA-14 D 1 1.45 2.3 no 8.81 6.19 244 0.036 045 B-11102200-051419-DLA-14 E 1 1.55 2.15 no 8.83 6.21 244 0.036 0

46 15d9a227-c951-4435-9426-246A 1 1.25 2.3 16 no 8.31 5.59 282 0.036 047 B-11102200-051419-DLA-13 B 1 1.8 3 no 8.34 5.88 259 0.036 048 B-11102200-051419-DLA-13 C 1 1.1 2.95 no 8.3 6.01 252 0.036 049 B-11102200-051419-DLA-13 D 1 1.7 2.7 no 8.35 6.07 249 0.036 0

50 B-11102200-051419-DLA-13 E 1 1.45 2.55 no 8.38 5.97 252 0.036 0

51 86ff385e-9701-4668-8afe-469cA 1 1.6 1.6 10 no 7.13 5.81 294 0.036 3.552 aaa2fed5-9d90-4de1-8061-677B 1 1.9 2.7 High flows no 7.13 6.08 275 0.036 1.8


GHD 11102200-22-APP C



Secchi depth (m):

Max Depth (m):

Wetted Width (m):






Turbidity (NTU):

53 f5f0f800-c715-48fc-aff7-187b5 C 1 1.5 3 High flows no 7.16 6.11 267 0.036 1.654 a3b0439c-5335-4f12-ab02-ab0 D 1 1.35 3.5 no 7.15 6.1 266 0.036 1.355 B-11102200-051419-DLA-11 E 1 1.2 2.9 no 7.16 6.05 266 0.036 1.6

56 cf004284-d3d4-4555-aa31-a99 A 1 1.5 1.5 15 20 no 4.72 5.57 345 0.037 2

57 B-11102200-051019-DLA-10 B 1 1.5 3.25High flows, measurements not exact no 4.74 6.18 251 0.037 1.4

58 B-11102200-051019-DLA-10 C 1 no 4.75 6.04 249 0.037 1.1

59 B-11102200-051019-DLA-10 D 11512 1.5 3.25 15 30Flow high, measurements not exact no 4.76 6.16 244 0.037 0.8

60 B-11102200-051019-DLA-10 E 1 1.5 3.25 15 25Lots of woody debris on left bank no 4.77 6.12 241 0.037 1.4

61 0b04da9c-5581-47c7-b8a7-63bA 1 Flow to high6.43 no 6.43 6.32 289 0.038 062 9531b18f-570b-49cd-8672-226B 1 Flow too high no 6.58 6.19 263 0.037 0

63 B-11102200-050819-DLA-08 C 1 3 Flow to high for secchi no 6.66 6.32 263 0.037 064 B-11102200-050819-DLA-08 D 1 no 6.8 6.33 236 0.037 065 B-11102200-050819-DLA-08 E 1 Flow to high no 6.78 6.26 237 0.037 0

66 9bee952b-aed0-4276-bb62-140A 1 1.55Current too high to measure depth no 5.98 6.68 300 0.038 0

67 cf156f40-be90-47d9-b247-9e58B 1 17 20 Flow too high no 6.07 6.27 307 0.037 0

68 febc5a79-816c-425c-b794-a875C 1 3.5 Flows too high no 6.07 6 293 0.037 069 0ff8ba8e-5a95-456d-ad3a-9659D 1 Flow too high no 6.13 5.98 276 0.037 070 B-11102200-050819-DLA-07 E 1 Flows too high no 6.22 6.15 257 0.037 0

71 B-11102200-050819-DLA-09 A 1Current too strong to measure no 6.78 6.45 260 0.037 0

72 B-11102200-050819-DLA-9 B 1Current too strong to measure no 6.87 6.5 260 0.037 0

73 B-11102200-050819-DLA-9 C 1 3 16 Flow to high for secchi no 6.86 6.31 248 0.037 074 B-11102200-050819-DLA-9 D 1 Too much flow to measure no 7.06 6.46 264 0.037 075 B-11102200-050819-DLA-9 E 1 25 Current too fast no 7.09 6.22 289 0.037 0


GHD 11102200-22-APP C



Secchi depth (m):

Max Depth (m):

Wetted Width (m):






Turbidity (NTU):

76 B-11102200-050719-DLA-04 A 1 2 2 18 60Too fast for accurate measurement no 6.16 6.37 236 0.035 0

77 B-11102200-050719-DLA-04 B 1 Flow too fast to measure no 6.19 6.35 229 0.035 078 B-11102200-050719-DLA-04 C 1 Flow too high to measure no 6.2 6.4 227 0.035 079 B-11102200-050719-DLA-04 D 1 Flow too fast no 6.25 6.45 225 0.036 080 B-11102200-050719-DLA-04 E 1 Flow too high no 6.25 6.47 227 0.035 081 B-11102200-050819-DLA-05 A 1 Flow too fast no 4.56 6.35 257 0.037 082 B-11102200-050819-DLA-05 B 1 Flow too fast no 4.58 6.44 236 0.037 0

83 B-11102200-050819-DLA-05 C 1Flow too high, visibility a couple metres no 4.59 6.24 233 0.037 0

84 B-11102200-050819-DLA-05 D 1 50Flow too high, approx depth 5 m no 4.6 6.23 244 0.037 0

85 B-11102200-050819-DLA-05 E 1 Flow too high no 4.61 6.26 242 0.037 0

86 B-11102200-050819-DLA-06 A 1 1.4 1.4 16 5 no 4.82 6.32 249 0.037 087 B-11102200-050819-DLA-06 B 1 16 Flow too high no 5.03 6.15 295 0.037 088 B-11102200-050819-DLA-06 C 1 Too much current no 4.84 6.32 233 0.037 089 B-11102200-050819-DLA-06 D 1 40 Current too fast no 5.12 6.4 280 0.037 0

90 B-11102200-050819-DLA-06 E 1 Current too fast no 5.05 6.19 260 0.037 0

91 aa43cc51-51b8-45e2-9692-83f A 1Flow too high for secchi and depth measurements no 5.32 6.31 235 0.036 0

92 95ff85d2-724a-4e68-8bd1-5d6 B 1

No much flow for secchi and depth. Move transect up 5 m because of refusal no 5.42 6.26 238 0.036 0

93 b72a7283-e206-4e87-b1a7-af6C 1 Too much flow no 5.63 6.46 226 0.036 0

94 869bc772-4b9d-4dce-8e41-05dD 1 6 Too much flow for depths no 5.7 6.46 226 0.036 0

95 B-11102200-050719-DLA-02 E 1 Too much flow no 5.77 6.37 228 0.036 0

96 f96e0f30-accb-404a-9748-9321A 1Flow to high for depth measurements no 5.92 6.3 231 0.035 0

97 e4ac12fc-e4fa-4650-818f-79f03B 1 Flow too high no 6.07 6.46 222 0.036 0

98 fd421b78-a92f-4689-9a41-9d9 C 1 Flow too fast 6.08 no 6.08 6.37 227 0.036 0

99 242c65c4-b00c-471b-9ffe-11a2D 1 Flow to fast for depths no 6.09 6.56 222 0.036 0

100 B-11102200-050719-DLA-03 E 1Flow too fast to measure depth no 6.12 6.64 221 0.036 0


GHD 11102200-22-APP C

ObjectID

1234

5

6

7891011

12

13

1415

1617181920

21

DO (mg/L):

Total Dissolved Solids (field parameter in g/L):

Dominant substrate:

2nd Dominant substrate: Substrate notes:

Woody Debris: Detritus: Emergent:

Rooted Floating: Submergent:

Free Floating:

Select dominant type:

Floating Algae: Filaments:

Attached Algae:

Slimes or Crusts:


9.18 0.023 sand silt Sandy present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent9.51 0.023 sand gravel Sandy absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent9.88 0.023 sand silt Coarse sand absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent9.95 0.023 sand silt absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

10.01 0.023 sand silt Sand absent present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

10.45 0.023 silt sand

Turbidity sensor not reading accurately present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

10.37 0.023 silt sand

Turbidity sensor not reading accurately , substrate has lots of PHC rainbow sheen present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

10.29 0.023 sand silt present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent10.08 0.023 sand gravel absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent10.08 0.023 sand gravel Large gravel present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

8.77 0.023 sand silt Sandy present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

8.61 0.023 gravel sandRemediate area

present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

8.86 0.023 na na

No recovery, 5 attempts, high flow, thalweg present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

8.88 0.023 gravel sandHigh flows, small recoveries present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

8.88 0.022 sand silt present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

8.9 0.023 sand siltFine sand

present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent8.77 0.023 sand silt present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent8.91 0.022 sand gravel Gravel absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent8.85 0.022 sand gravel present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent8.81 0.022 sand silt present present present absent present absent submergent absent absent absent absent absent

9.06 0.023 sand siltOrganic material, fine sand present abundant present absent present absent submergent absent absent absent absent absent


GHD 11102200-22-APP C

ObjectID2223242526272829303132333435

3637383940

4142434445

46474849

50

5152

DO (mg/L):


Dominant substrate:




Free Floating:



Attached Algae:

Slimes or Crusts:


9.26 0.023 sand gravel Fine sand absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent9.26 0.023 sand gravel Sand absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent9.12 0.023 gravel sand Very rocky absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent9.11 0.023 sand silt present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent9.03 0.023 sand silt present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

9.1 0.023 sand silt present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent9.15 0.023 sand silt Sand absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

9.1 0.023 sand silt Sand present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent8.77 0.023 sand silt present present present absent present absent submergent absent absent absent absent absent8.71 0.023 silt sand absent abundant present absent present absent submergent absent absent absent absent absent8.92 0.023 sand gravel Coarse sand absent present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent8.95 0.023 sand gravel absent present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent8.86 0.023 sand gravel Coarse sand absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent8.84 0.023 sand silt present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

9.22 0.023 na na No grab taken abundant absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent9.04 0.023 sand gravel Coarse sand present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent9.08 0.023 sand gravel Coarse sand absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent9.14 0.023 sand gravel present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent9.13 0.023 sand silt Fine sand present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

8.92 0.024 sand silt present abundant present absent abundant absent submergent absent absent absent absent absent8.4 0.024 sand gravel present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

9.04 0.023 sand gravel Coarse sand absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent8.96 0.023 sand gravel present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent8.94 0.023 sand gravel absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

8.98 0.024 sand siltLots of submergent veg present present absent absent present absent submergent absent absent absent absent absent

8.93 0.023 sand gravel Coarse sand present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent8.91 0.023 sand gravel Coarse sand present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent8.99 0.023 sand gravel Finer sand present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

9.05 0.023 sand gravelSand

present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

9.75 0.023 silt sandGrey/rainbow sheen present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent

9.34 0.023 sand gravel Coarse sand absent present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent


GHD 11102200-22-APP C

ObjectID

535455

56

57

58

59

60

6162

636465

66

67

686970

71

72737475

DO (mg/L):


Dominant substrate:




Free Floating:



Attached Algae:

Slimes or Crusts:


9.38 0.023 sand gravel Coarse sand absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent9.44 0.023 sand gravel absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent9.46 0.023 sand silt present present absent absent present absent submergent absent absent absent absent absent

10.38 0.024 sand siltLots of macrophytes present present absent absent abundant absent submergent absent absent absent present slimes crusts

9.74 0.024 sand gravelCoarse sand and cobbles present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

9.91 0.024 sand gravelCobbles, small grab due to substrate present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

9.72 0.024 sand gravel Fine sand present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

9.74 0.024 sand gravel Fine sand present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

11.47 0.025 sand silt Organics, fine sand present present present absent present absent submergent absent absent absent absent filaments11.4 0.026 sand gravel Coarse sand present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

11.51 0.024 sand gravelLots of woody debris present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

11.32 0.024 silt sand present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments11.27 0.024 sand silt Lots of detritus present abundant absent absent present absent submergent absent absent absent absent filaments

12.48 0.024 silt sand present present present absent present absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

12.17 0.024 sand siltFine sands and organics absent present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

11.67 0.024 sand gravelLittle woody/ detritus present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

11.64 0.024 sand sand absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments11.2 0.024 sand silt Some organics present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

11.59 0.024 sand siltOrganics

present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

11.46 0.024 sand gravel Coarse sand absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments11.41 0.024 sand gravel Coarse gravel present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments11.69 0.024 sand gravel Coarse sand present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments11.62 0.024 sand silt present present absent absent present absent submergent absent absent absent absent filaments


GHD 11102200-22-APP C

ObjectID

76777879808182

83

8485

86878889

90

91

92

93

94

95

9697

98

99

100

DO (mg/L):


Dominant substrate:




Free Floating:



Attached Algae:

Slimes or Crusts:


10.54 0.023 sand silt Mostly sand present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments10.52 0.023 sand silt Mostly sand present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

10.5 0.023 sand gravel Coarse gravel absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments10.47 0.023 sand gravel Coarse sand absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments10.47 0.023 silt sand Organic present present present absent absent present absent submergent absent absent absent absent filaments12.15 0.024 sand silt present present absent absent present absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments11.88 0.024 sand gravel Coarse gravel present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

11.9 0.024 sand gravel Coarse sand present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

11.81 0.024 sand gravel Coarse sand present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments11.9 0.024 sand gravel Coarse sand present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

11.11 0.024 sand naSand with some detritus present present absent absent present absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

12.08 0.024 sand silt Sandy present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments11.56 0.024 sand gravel Coarse sand present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments12.37 0.024 sand gravel Coarse sand present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

11.8 0.024 sand siltLots of woody debris abundant present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

11.16 0.023 silt sand Organic debris present present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

11.22 0.024 na na Refusal, rocky absent present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

10.79 0.023 sand gravelRocks causing refusals absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

10.72 0.023 sand gravelRocky bottom causing refusals absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

10.69 0.023 silt sandLarge Woody debris in grabs present present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

10.58 0.023 silt sand Organic matter present present absent absent present absent submergent absent absent absent absent filaments10.55 0.023 na na Refusal absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

10.57 0.023 gravel sandLarge rocks and gravel absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent present absent absent filaments

10.48 0.023 sand gravelCoarse sand and gravel absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments

10.48 0.023 sand gravel Coarse sand present absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent absent filaments


Appendix D Sediment Laboratory Certificate of Analysis for Toxicity Testing using Chironomus dilutus and

Hyalella azteca

www.bvlabs.com BUREAU VERITAS LABORATOIES Office 604 734 7276

4606 Canada Way Toll Free 800 665 8566

Burnaby, BC, V5G 1K5 Fax 604 731 2386

FRESHWATER SEDIMENT TOXICITY

TESTING USING CHIRONOMUS DILUTUS

AND HYALELLA AZTECA

Prepared for:

Bureau Veritas Campobello

6740 Campobello Road

Mississauga, ON

Canada, L5N 2L8

Prepared by:

Ecotoxicology Group

Bureau Veritas Laboratories (Formerly Maxxam Analytics)

Job #: B937252 & B939423

July 2019

http://www.bvlabs.com/

Freshwater Sediment Toxicity Testing using Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca

BUREAU VERITAS LABORATORIES

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Please Note: Bureau Veritas S.A. has been the parent company of Maxxam (Maxxam Analytics

International Corporation) since 2014. To align with our global family, Maxxam Analytics is

formally changing the business operating name to Bureau Veritas Canada (2019) Inc. and we

have moved to Bureau Veritas branding effective June 3, 2019.

Freshwater sediment samples were collected between May 07, 2019 and May 16, 2019 for

testing. Thesamples arrived at Bureau Veritas Laboratories, in good condition, on May 16, 2019

and May 24, 2019.

The following freshwater sediment toxicity tests were conducted on the samples; a 10 day

survival and growth test with the freshwater midge, Chironomus dilutus, and a 14 day survival

and growth test with the freshwater amphipod, Hyalella azteca.

Sample AJR-05 was tested out of hold time for the Chironomus test. The client was notified of

this deviation which was due to the lab having difficulties obtaining organism of the correct age.

For all remaining samples, both sediment tests were initiated within their respective hold times

with the Chironomus test ending on July 01, 2019 and the Hyalella test ending on July 02, 2019.

The sample results were statistically assessed against the reference sediment and negative

control for the Chironomus test and the reference control for the Hyalella test.

Details regarding the test results, methods, test conditions, organism acclimation, and quality

control measures are summarised within the report. All tabulated data, raw data, and

associated supporting documents are located within the report appendices.

Each test was considered valid as survival and growth in the negative control(s) met the validity

criteria outlined in the associated reference methods.



ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Sample Information ......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Negative Control Sediment .............................................................................................. 1

1.3 Porewater Characterization ............................................................................................. 2

2 10 DAY CHIRONOMUS DILUTUS SURVIVAL AND GROWTH TEST ......................................... 3

2.1 Test Methods ................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Organism Information ...................................................................................................... 4

2.2.1 Organism Acclimation and Holding Information ................................................ 4

2.2.2 Organism Health ................................................................................................. 4

2.2.3 Organism Age ...................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Test Conditions................................................................................................................. 4

2.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control .................................................................................. 6

2.4.1 Reference Toxicant Results ................................................................................. 6

2.4.2 Test Validity Criteria ............................................................................................ 6

2.5 Results .............................................................................................................................. 6

2.5.1 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 7

2.6 Deviations and Observations ........................................................................................... 7

3 14 DAY HYALELLA AZTECA SURVIVAL AND GROWTH TEST ................................................. 9

3.1 Test Methods ................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Organism Information .................................................................................................... 10

3.2.1 Acclimation and Holding Information ............................................................... 10

3.2.2 Organism Health ............................................................................................... 10

3.2.3 Organism Age .................................................................................................... 10

3.3 Test Conditions............................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ................................................................................ 12

3.4.1 Reference Toxicant Results ............................................................................... 12

3.4.2 Test Validity Criteria .......................................................................................... 12



iii

3.5 Results ............................................................................................................................ 12

3.5.1 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 13

3.6 Deviations and Observations ......................................................................................... 13

4 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 14

A Sample Information ..............................................................................................

B 10-day Chironomus dilutus Survival and Growth Test..........................................

C 14-Day Hyalella azteca Survival and Growth Test ................................................



iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Physiochemical Characterization of Yaquina Bay Beach Sand .....................................1

Table 2-1 Test Conditions for the 10-day Chironomus dilutus Test .............................................5

Table 2-2 Reference Toxicant Test Result for Chironomus dilutus ...............................................6

Table 2-3 Results for Mean Chironomus dilutus Survival and Growth .........................................7

Table 3-1 Test Conditions for the 14-day Hyalella azteca Test ................................................. 11

Table 3-2 Reference Toxicant Test Results for Hyalella azteca ................................................. 12

Table 3-3 Results for Mean Hyalella azteca Survival and Growth ............................................ 13



1

SECTION

1 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION

1.1 Sample Information


testing. The samples arrived at Bureau Veritas Laboratories, in good condition, on May 16, 2019

and May 24, 2019.

Samples were collected separately for grain size, total organic carbon content, and moisture

content. The data for these analyses were sent directly to the client and are not included in this

report.

All tests were initiated within their respective hold times. Sample information, including sample

descriptions, porewater ammonia analyses, and water quality data are located in Appendix A.

Upon opening the sample containers, a description of each sample was recorded (“Sediment

Sample Descriptions” in Appendix A).

Prior to testing, each field replicate was homogenized, using a stainless steel spoon. Any

headspace in the sample container was purged with nitrogen gas prior to re-sealing it in order to

prevent oxidation of the sediment during storage. When not in use, the sediments were stored

in the dark at 4 ± 2°C.

1.2 Negative Control Sediment

The control sediment (negative control) for the toxicity tests was collected from Yaquina Bay,

Newport, Oregon, by staff of Northwestern Aquatic Sciences. This beach sand has been used as

a negative control in previous studies within our laboratory, and has been found to be non-toxic

to a variety of organisms. It was wet sieved through 500 µm stainless steel mesh and thoroughly

washed with the appropriate control water before use in the tests.

Table 1-1 Physiochemical Characterization of Yaquina Bay Beach Sand

Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)

Moisture Content (%)

Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%)

<500 16 98 2.4 <2.0



2

1.3 Porewater Characterization

On Day -1 of Chironomus testing, a seventh replicate of each sample was prepared, filled with

reconstituted control water and aerated overnight, along with the test vessels. The following

morning, the overlying water in the seventh replicate of each sample was decanted and aliquots

of the sediment were distributed into 500 mL polycarbonate bottles. Nitrogen gas was placed

over the sediments prior to centrifuging for 20 minutes at ~5,000 rpm. The resulting porewater

was carefully decanted and analysed for ammonia, pH, and temperature.

Analysis of ammonia in porewater was performed at the Bureau Veritas Laboratories Inorganic

Water Laboratory. The total ammonia concentrations as N (mg/L) in the samples, was measured

under basic conditions using the Berthelot reaction in the presence of EDTA. A sample was

treated sequentially until a blue indophenol complex formed, which could then be measured

photometrically at 660 nm.

Results of the ammonia, temperature, and pH in porewater analyses for each of the test

samples are available in Appendix A.



3

SECTION

2 10 DAY CHIRONOMUS DILUTUS SURVIVAL AND GROWTH TEST

2.1 Test Methods

The survival and growth of Chironomus dilutus larvae, when exposed to whole sediment samples

for 10 days, was assessed according to the Bureau Veritas Laboratories Standard Operating

Procedure: Chironomus dilutus 10-Day Survival and Growth Test (BBY2SOP-00010), which is

based on the Environment Canada Biological Test Method: Test for Survival and Growth in

Sediment Using the Larvae of Freshwater Midges (Chironomus tentans or Chironomus riparius)

(EPS 1/RM/32).

One day prior to test initiation, the field replicates were individually homogenized, and a 100 mL

aliquot was distributed into a 375 mL labelled test vessel. Reconstituted moderately hard water

was then slowly added to the vessel by pouring a stream of water onto a Plexiglas baffle to

minimize disturbing the sediment layer. The test vessels were then randomized on the bench

top, and airlines and lids were fitted to each test vessel.

A composite sample was produced by combining equal portions of each field replicate. Then,

100 mL of the composite sample was distributed into the sixth and seventh replicate test vessels

for water quality and porewater measurements.

The following day, aliquots of overlying water were removed from the test vessels for initial

overlying water chemistry. The sixth replicate test vessel was used for water quality

measurements for the duration of the test and the seventh replicate was decanted and

centrifuged to extract porewater for ammonia, temperature, and pH measurements (see

Section 1.3). To initiate the test, ten larval chironomids were randomly selected from their

holding containers and directly seeded into the test vessels.

During the test, daily observations and aeration checks were performed. Temperature and

dissolved oxygen measurements were taken three times per week in the test vessels designated

for water quality measurements. Test vessels were also fed 3.75 mL TetraminTM flakes, prepared

as a 4 g dry solids/L slurry, on the days water quality measurements were taken.

At test termination, the contents of each test vessel were sieved through a 500 µm sieve in

order to retrieve the live larval midges. The number of larvae found was recorded along with

any other observations made. The organisms were then placed into pre-weighed aluminum

weigh boats that were subsequently placed into a ~60°C drying oven for >24 hours. Missing

chironomids were presumed to have died and decomposed during the test. Any larval midges

that had reached the pupal or adult stage of development were excluded from the dry weight

analysis, if applicable.



4

2.2 Organism Information

2.2.1 Organism Acclimation and Holding Information

One batch of laboratory-reared Chironomus dilutus larvae was received from Aquatic Biosystems

on June 21, 2019. The midge larvae were shipped in 1L plastic containers filled with unbleached

paper towels and overlying moderately hard water. Prior to shipping, the headspace in each

container was filled with oxygen gas of a sufficient concentration to maintain adequate

saturation levels in the shipping water. They were shipped directly for overnight delivery to

Bureau Veritas Laboratoies and arrived without incident.

Upon arrival at Bureau Veritas Laboratories, the water quality of the shipping water was

measured and compared to the test conditions. Gentle aeration was supplied to each shipping

container. Any moribund or deceased larvae were removed and recorded on the acclimation

sheet, if applicable (Appendix B).

The chironomid larvae were not fed during the holding period as they were used the same day.

Historically at Bureau Veritas Laboratories, it has been determined that little to no acclimation is

required as long as the shipping, testing, and supplier laboratory conditions are similar.

2.2.2 Organism Health

The mortality rate during shipping did not exceed 10% overall. Bench sheets with the

receiving water quality and observations of the number dead or inactive larvae are available

in Appendix B.

2.2.3 Organism Age

At test initiation, 20 representative larvae were euthanized and their head capsule widths were

measured to the nearest 0.01 mm, using an inverted microscope outfitted with an ocular

micrometer. The average head capsule width of the organism batch was determined to greater

than the 0.33 – 0.45 mm range (see Table 2-1).

2.3 Test Conditions

See Table 2-1 for a detailed list of the test conditions. All bench sheets used to record raw data

are available in Appendix B.



5

Table 2-1 Test Conditions for the 10-day Chironomus dilutus Test

Parameter Conditions and Methods

Test Type and Duration 10 Day, Static (non-renewal)

Temperature Average daily temperature 23 ± 1 °C; instantaneous temperature 23 ± 3 °C.

Photoperiod and Light Intensity

16 hours light: 8 hours dark. Wide spectrum cool white fluorescent lights used to provide 319-350 lux.

Aeration < 100 bubbles/ minute. Clean oil-free air supplied to each test vessel via micro-bore plastic tubing.

Test Chamber 375 mL glass jars with plastic lids containing small opening for airline tubing.

Sediment Volume 100 mL of each homogenized field replicate (3-4 cm depth).

Porewater Water Quality Temperature, pH, and ammonia.

Overlying Water Source and Volume

175 mL (~5-6 cm depth); Reconstituted Moderately Hard Water; warmed to 23 ± 1°C and aerated >24 hours before use.

Overlying Water Quality Temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductance, hardness, alkalinity, and ammonia measurements on Day 0 and Day 10 of the test. Temperature and dissolved oxygen were also measured three times weekly during the test.

Replicates 5 replicates per sample, plus 2 additional replicates for water quality measurements and porewater analyses.

Control Sediment (Negative Control)

Yaquina Bay Beach Sand, rinsed with control water and sieved through a 500 µm stainless steel mesh.

Reference Sediment AJR05

Feeding 3.75 mL TetraminTM flakes as slurry (4g dry solids/L) per vessel, three times weekly.

Organisms/ replicate 10

Organism Source Aquatic Biosystems, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Mortality during acclimation 0.0%

Mean Head capsule width and organism age

0.56 ± 0.11 mm; 3rd instar larval midges

Endpoints Mean Survival and Mean Dry Weight

Test Validity Criteria ≥70% mean survival in the negative controls. >0.6 mg mean dry weight in the negative controls.

Statistical Software CETIS™ version 1.9.2.4. Tidepool Scientific Software (Copyright 2009-2016).



6

2.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

2.4.1 Reference Toxicant Results

A 96 hour reference toxicant test, or positive control test, was conducted alongside the

sediment test. The water-only test, using copper sulphate (CuSO4), was initiated to aid in the

assessment of organism sensitivity and the precision of the results. The resulting LC50 was then

compared in a control chart against the results of previous tests. Table 2-2 summarises the

result of the reference toxicant test.

The calculated LC50 for the reference toxicant test was within two standard deviations (95%)

range of the historic mean LC50. This supports the assumption that the sensitivity of the

organism batch was comparable to batches previously test in this laboratory.

A reference toxicant test is only one of the tools used to assess the health of an organism.

Natural variability accounts for the spread in reference toxicant LC50s. The method used in

preparing the control charts was based on from “Ecotoxicology Control Charting” (COR2WI-

00002).

Table 2-2 Reference Toxicant Test Result for Chironomus dilutus

Organism Batch

Test Date

LC50 with 95% Confidence Limits

(mg/L Cu2+)

Previous Mean

with 2SD

(mg/L Cu2+)

AB190621 2019 Jun 21 0.49 (0.39, 0.61) 0.75 (0.35, 1.59)

2.4.2 Test Validity Criteria

The test is considered to be acceptable if the mean percent survival in the negative control is

≥70%, and the mean dry weight is ≥ 0.6 mg. The mean percent survival of the negative controls

was 94%, and the mean dry weight was 1.67 mg.

2.5 Results

Total survival and dry weights in each replicate, and mean ± standard deviation (SD) in the

control and test sediments are listed in the “Chironomus dilutus Survival and Growth Test -

Survival of Larvae” and the “Chironomid Survival and Growth Test - Dry Weights of Larvae” data

sheets, respectively. A summary of the test results is presented in Table 2-3.

Total ammonia concentrations, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, hardness, conductance, and

alkalinity measurements of the overlying water at test initiation (Day 0) and completion (Day 10)




7

2.5.1 Data Analysis

The survival and dry weight data for both the samples and the negative control were entered

into the statistical program “Comprehensive Environmental Toxicity Information System”

(CETIS™, 2009-2016). When determining the appropriate comparison tests to use, the

Environment Canada “Guidance Document on Statistical Methods for Environmental Toxicity

Tests” (EPS 1/RM/46, 2005) was followed.

See the CETIS™ Analytical Reports for information on the specific tests used for the mean

survival and dry weight comparisons. Analyses between the negative control and reference

sediment was conducted as two‐tailed comparisons. Analyses of the negative control or

reference sediment versus samples were conducted as one‐tailed comparisons. All analyses

were done with the decision level for determining statistical significance set to 0.05 (p value

<0.05).

Table 2-3 Results for Mean Chironomus dilutus Survival and Growth

Sample ID Mean Survival ± SD (%)

Mean Dry Weight ± SD (mg)

Negative Control 94 ± 9 1.67 ± 0.21

AJR05 92 ± 8 2.45 ± 0.31^

AJR11 98 ± 4 1.84 ± 0.52

AJR14 92 ± 8 1.65 ± 0.31*

AJR15 96 ± 5 2.11 ± 0.12

AJR17 84 ± 13 1.99 ± 0.16*

AJR19 78 ± 29 2.55 ± 0.81

AJR22 68 ± 4** 1.18 ± 0.64*

SD = Standard Deviation

*Indicates a statistically significant decrease in the sample, relative to the Reference sediment AJR05

**Indicates a statistically significant decrease in the sample, relative to both the Negative Control and Reference sediment AJR05

Îndicates a statistically significant increase in Reference sediment AJR05, relative to Negative Control

2.6 Deviations and Observations

At test end, pupated organisms were found in replicates A & B of sample AJR05 and replicate A of sample AJR15. The pupated organisms were removed from the statistical analysis for mean dry weight.

With client approval, sample AJR05 was tested outside of the 6 week hold time. All other samples were tested within hold time.

At test start, the head capsule width of the organisms were measured to be greater than the recommended range of 0.33 and 0.45 mm. With client approval, the test was allowed to



8

continue, as postponing the testing any longer would put additional samples past the 6 week hold time.



9

SECTION

3 14 DAY HYALELLA AZTECA SURVIVAL AND GROWTH TEST

3.1 Test Methods

The survival and growth of the freshwater amphipod, Hyalella azteca, when exposed to whole

sediment samples for 14 days, were assessed according to the Bureau Veritas Laboratories SOP:

Hyalella azteca 14-Day Survival and Growth Test (BBY2SOP-00011), which is based on the

Environment Canada Biological Test Method: Test for Survival and Growth in Sediment and

Water Using the Freshwater Amphipod Hyalella azteca (EPS 1/RM/33).

One day prior to test initiation, the field replicates were individually homogenised, and a 100 mL






100 mL of the composite sample was distributed into a sixth replicate test vessel used for water

quality measurements.



measurements for the duration of the test. To initiate the test, the amphipods were removed

from their holding containers and ten Hyalella were randomly selected and placed into plastic

medicine cups containing control water. Once enough organisms were collected to start the

test, they were seeded into the test vessels.


dissolved oxygen measurements were taken three times per week in the test vessel designated

for water quality measurements. Additionally, pH and ammonia concentrations were monitored

in the overlying water in the reference sediment three times weekly. Test vessels were also fed

340 µL per replicate of a ground Tetramin™ flake slurry (4 g dry solids/L) and 0.75 mL YCT (yeast,

alfalfa flakes, and digested trout chow) daily.

At test termination, the contents of each test vessel were examined, a small portion at a time, in

a glass pan on a light table. The live amphipods were collected and counted. The amphipods

were then placed into aluminum foil weigh boats that were subsequently placed into a ~60°C

drying oven for >24 hours. Missing amphipods were presumed to have died and decomposed

during the test.



10


3.2.1 Acclimation and Holding Information

One batch of Hyalella azteca was received from Aquatic Biosystems, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA,

on June 14, 2019. Laboratory reared juvenile amphipods were packed into 1L plastic containers,

filled with moderately hard water and a few plastic mesh squares. Prior to shipping, the

headspace in each container was filled with oxygen gas of a sufficient concentration to maintain

adequate saturation levels in the shipping water. They were shipped directly for overnight

delivery to Bureau Veritas Laboratories and arrived without incident.

Upon arrival at Bureau Veritas Laboratories, the container contents were carefully poured into

glass culture dishes. Gentle aeration was supplied to each culture pan. An aliquot of shipping

water from each container was set aside for water quality. It was then ensured that

temperature adjustments to the holding water of the amphipods did not exceed 3°C per day.

The organisms were held at Bureau Veritas Laboratories for two days before the test was

initiated. The amphipods were fed YCT and Tetramin™ slurry at organism arrival and daily before

test initiation. Datasheets containing the water quality measurements, with observations of

number dead or inactive amphipods during the holding period, are available in Appendix C.


The average mortality rate in the culture did not exceed 10%.

3.2.3 Organism Age

At test initiation, the amphipods were 7-9 days old.

3.3 Test Conditions

See Table 3-1 for a detailed list of the test conditions. All bench sheets and raw data are

available in Appendix C.



11

Table 3-1 Test Conditions for the 14-day Hyalella azteca Test


Test Type and Duration 14 Day; Static (non-renewal)



16 hours light: 8 hours dark. Wide spectrum cool white fluorescent lights used to provide 319- 350 lux.




Overlying Water Volume and Source

175 mL (~5-6 cm depth); Reconstituted water; SAM5 recipe (Borgmann, 1996). Temperature adjusted and aerated >24h before use.


Ammonia and pH was measured three times per week in the reference sediment

Feeding 340 µL of a ground Tetramin™ flake slurry (4g dry solids/mL) and 0.75 mL YCT per vessel, daily.

Replicates 5 replicates per sample, plus an additional replicate for water quality measurements.

Control Sediment Yaquina Bay Beach Sand, rinsed with control water and sieved through a 500 µm stainless steel mesh.


Organisms/ Replicate 10

Organism Source and age Aquatic Biosystems; amphipods aged 7-9 days at test start.

Mortality during acclimation

0.0%

Endpoints Mean Survival and Mean Dry weight

Test Validity Criteria ≥ 80% mean survival in the controls. ≥0.1 mg/amphipod in the controls.




12




sediment test. The water-only test, using copper sulphate (CuSO4) was initiated to aid in the

assessment of organism sensitivity and the precision of the results. The reference toxicant test

LC50 result was then compared in a control chart against the results of previous tests. Table 3-2

summarises the result of the reference toxicant test.

The calculated LC50 for the reference toxicant test was just outside two standard deviations

(95%) range, but within three standard deviations of the historic mean LC50. This indicates the

organisms were slightly more sensitive to the toxicant, copper, than historically observed. The

reference toxicant test data was reviewed, and was determined that the test performed

normally, with no unusual observations. As a result, this point has been included into the control

chart.




00002).

Table 3-2 Reference Toxicant Test Results for Hyalella azteca

Organism Batch Test Date LC50 with 95% Confidence Limits

(µg/L Cu2+)

Previous Mean

with 2SD

(µg/L Cu2+)

Previous Mean

with 3SD

(µg/L Cu2+)

AB190614 2019 June 18 144 (118, 174) 230 (153, 346) 230 (125, 425)


Survival data in the negative control is considered to be acceptable if the mean percent survival

in the negative control is ≥80%, and the mean dry weight in the negative control is ≥0.1

mg/amphipod. The mean percent survival of the negative control was 94% and the mean dry

weight was 0.1 mg/amphipod.

3.5 Results


control and test sediments are listed in the “Hyalella azteca Survival and Growth Test-Survival”

and “Hyalella azteca Survival and Growth Test- Dry Weights” data sheets, respectively. A

summary of the results is located in Table 3-3.



13


alkalinity measurements in the overlying water at test initiation (Day 0) and completion (Day 14)

are available in Appendix C.

3.5.1 Data Analysis







survival and dry weight comparisons. Analyses between the control and the reference sediment

was conducted as a two-tailed comparisons. Analysis between the reference sediment and

samples were conducted as one‐tailed comparisons. All analyses were done with the decision

level for determining statistical significance set to 0.05 (p value <0.05).

Table 3-3 Results for Mean Hyalella azteca Survival and Growth




AJR05 92 ± 4 0.11 ± 0.02^

AJR11 90 ± 7 0.10 ± 0.03

AJR14 86 ± 9 0.09 ± 0.01

AJR15 92 ± 4 0.10 ± 0.01

AJR17 86 ± 9 0.08 ± 0.01

AJR19 88 ± 13 0.10 ± 0.02

AJR22 58 ± 45* 0.09 ± 0.04





None



14

SECTION

4 REFERENCES

Borgmann, U. 1996. Systematic Analysis of Aqueous Ion Requirements of Hyalella azteca: A

Standard Artificial Medium Including the Essential Bromide Ion. Archives of Environmental

Contamination and Toxicology. 30: 356-363.

Bureau Veritas Laboratories SOP for the Chironomus dilutus 10-Day Survival and Growth Test.

BBY2SOP-00010.

Bureau Veritas Laboratories SOP for the Hyalella azteca 14-Day Survival and Growth Test.

BBY2SOP-00011.

Bureau Veritas Laboratories WI for Ecotoxicology Control Charting. COR2 WI-00002.

Comprehensive Environmental Toxicity Information System (CETIS™). 2009-2016. Tidepool

Scientific. LLC. Version 1.9.2.4

Environment Canada. 1997. Biological Test method: Test for Survival and Growth in Sediment of

Freshwater Midges (Chironomus tentans or Chironomus riparius). Environmental Protection

Publications, Conservation and Protection. Ottawa, Ontario. EPS 1/RM/32.

Environment Canada. 2005. Guidance Document on Statistical Methods for Environmental

Toxicity Tests. Environmental Protection Publications. Conservation and Protection. Ottawa,

Ontario. EPS 1/RM/46.

Environment Canada. 2013. Biological Test method: Test for Survival and Growth in Sediment

and Water Using the Freshwater Amphipod Hyalella azteca. Environmental Protection




APPENDICES



APPENDIX

A SAMPLE INFORMATION



APPENDIX

B 10-DAY CHIRONOMUS DILUTUS SURVIVAL AND GROWTH TEST



APPENDIX

C 14-DAY HYALELLA AZTECA SURVIVAL AND GROWTH TEST

www.bvlabs.com BUREAU VERITAS LABORATOIES Office 604 734 7276

4606 Canada Way Toll Free 800 665 8566

Burnaby, BC, V5G 1K5 Fax 604 731 2386

FRESHWATER SEDIMENT TOXICITY

TESTING USING CHIRONOMUS DILUTUS

AND HYALELLA AZTECA

Prepared for:

Bureau Veritas Campobello

6740 Campobello Road

Mississauga, ON

Canada, L5N 2L8

Prepared by:

Ecotoxicology Group

Bureau Veritas Laboratories (Formerly Maxxam Analytics)

Job #: B937252 & B939423

July 2019

http://www.bvlabs.com/



i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Please Note: Bureau Veritas S.A. has been the parent company of Maxxam (Maxxam Analytics

International Corporation) since 2014. To align with our global family, Maxxam Analytics is

formally changing the business operating name to Bureau Veritas Canada (2019) Inc. and we

have moved to Bureau Veritas branding effective June 3, 2019.


testing. Thesamples arrived at Bureau Veritas Laboratories, in good condition, on May 16, 2019

and May 24, 2019.

The following freshwater sediment toxicity tests were conducted on the samples; a 10 day

survival and growth test with the freshwater midge, Chironomus dilutus, and a 14 day survival

and growth test with the freshwater amphipod, Hyalella azteca.

Sample AJR-05 was tested out of hold time for the Chironomus test. The client was notified of

this deviation which was due to the lab having difficulties obtaining organism of the correct age.

For all remaining samples, both sediment tests were initiated within their respective hold times

with the Chironomus test ending on July 01, 2019 and the Hyalella test ending on July 02, 2019.

The sample results were statistically assessed against the reference sediment and negative

control for the Chironomus test and the reference control for the Hyalella test.

Details regarding the test results, methods, test conditions, organism acclimation, and quality

control measures are summarised within the report. All tabulated data, raw data, and

associated supporting documents are located within the report appendices.

Each test was considered valid as survival and growth in the negative control(s) met the validity

criteria outlined in the associated reference methods.



ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Sample Information ......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Negative Control Sediment .............................................................................................. 1

1.3 Porewater Characterization ............................................................................................. 2

2 10 DAY CHIRONOMUS DILUTUS SURVIVAL AND GROWTH TEST ......................................... 3

2.1 Test Methods ................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Organism Information ...................................................................................................... 4

2.2.1 Organism Acclimation and Holding Information ................................................ 4

2.2.2 Organism Health ................................................................................................. 4

2.2.3 Organism Age ...................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Test Conditions................................................................................................................. 4

2.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control .................................................................................. 6

2.4.1 Reference Toxicant Results ................................................................................. 6

2.4.2 Test Validity Criteria ............................................................................................ 6

2.5 Results .............................................................................................................................. 6

2.5.1 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 7

2.6 Deviations and Observations ........................................................................................... 7

3 14 DAY HYALELLA AZTECA SURVIVAL AND GROWTH TEST ................................................. 9

3.1 Test Methods ................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Organism Information .................................................................................................... 10

3.2.1 Acclimation and Holding Information ............................................................... 10

3.2.2 Organism Health ............................................................................................... 10

3.2.3 Organism Age .................................................................................................... 10

3.3 Test Conditions............................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ................................................................................ 12

3.4.1 Reference Toxicant Results ............................................................................... 12

3.4.2 Test Validity Criteria .......................................................................................... 12



iii

3.5 Results ............................................................................................................................ 12

3.5.1 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 13

3.6 Deviations and Observations ......................................................................................... 13

4 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 14

A Sample Information ..............................................................................................

B 10-day Chironomus dilutus Survival and Growth Test..........................................

C 14-Day Hyalella azteca Survival and Growth Test ................................................



iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Physiochemical Characterization of Yaquina Bay Beach Sand .....................................1

Table 2-1 Test Conditions for the 10-day Chironomus dilutus Test .............................................5

Table 2-2 Reference Toxicant Test Result for Chironomus dilutus ...............................................6

Table 2-3 Results for Mean Chironomus dilutus Survival and Growth .........................................7

Table 3-1 Test Conditions for the 14-day Hyalella azteca Test ................................................. 11

Table 3-2 Reference Toxicant Test Results for Hyalella azteca ................................................. 12

Table 3-3 Results for Mean Hyalella azteca Survival and Growth ............................................ 13



1

SECTION

1 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION

1.1 Sample Information


testing. The samples arrived at Bureau Veritas Laboratories, in good condition, on May 16, 2019

and May 24, 2019.

Samples were collected separately for grain size, total organic carbon content, and moisture

content. The data for these analyses were sent directly to the client and are not included in this

report.

All tests were initiated within their respective hold times. Sample information, including sample

descriptions, porewater ammonia analyses, and water quality data are located in Appendix A.

Upon opening the sample containers, a description of each sample was recorded (“Sediment

Sample Descriptions” in Appendix A).

Prior to testing, each field replicate was homogenized, using a stainless steel spoon. Any

headspace in the sample container was purged with nitrogen gas prior to re-sealing it in order to

prevent oxidation of the sediment during storage. When not in use, the sediments were stored

in the dark at 4 ± 2°C.

1.2 Negative Control Sediment

The control sediment (negative control) for the toxicity tests was collected from Yaquina Bay,

Newport, Oregon, by staff of Northwestern Aquatic Sciences. This beach sand has been used as

a negative control in previous studies within our laboratory, and has been found to be non-toxic

to a variety of organisms. It was wet sieved through 500 µm stainless steel mesh and thoroughly

washed with the appropriate control water before use in the tests.

Table 1-1 Physiochemical Characterization of Yaquina Bay Beach Sand

Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)

Moisture Content (%)

Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%)

<500 16 98 2.4 <2.0



2

1.3 Porewater Characterization

On Day -1 of Chironomus testing, a seventh replicate of each sample was prepared, filled with

reconstituted control water and aerated overnight, along with the test vessels. The following

morning, the overlying water in the seventh replicate of each sample was decanted and aliquots

of the sediment were distributed into 500 mL polycarbonate bottles. Nitrogen gas was placed

over the sediments prior to centrifuging for 20 minutes at ~5,000 rpm. The resulting porewater

was carefully decanted and analysed for ammonia, pH, and temperature.

Analysis of ammonia in porewater was performed at the Bureau Veritas Laboratories Inorganic

Water Laboratory. The total ammonia concentrations as N (mg/L) in the samples, was measured

under basic conditions using the Berthelot reaction in the presence of EDTA. A sample was

treated sequentially until a blue indophenol complex formed, which could then be measured

photometrically at 660 nm.

Results of the ammonia, temperature, and pH in porewater analyses for each of the test

samples are available in Appendix A.



3

SECTION

2 10 DAY CHIRONOMUS DILUTUS SURVIVAL AND GROWTH TEST

2.1 Test Methods

The survival and growth of Chironomus dilutus larvae, when exposed to whole sediment samples

for 10 days, was assessed according to the Bureau Veritas Laboratories Standard Operating

Procedure: Chironomus dilutus 10-Day Survival and Growth Test (BBY2SOP-00010), which is

based on the Environment Canada Biological Test Method: Test for Survival and Growth in

Sediment Using the Larvae of Freshwater Midges (Chironomus tentans or Chironomus riparius)

(EPS 1/RM/32).

One day prior to test initiation, the field replicates were individually homogenized, and a 100 mL






100 mL of the composite sample was distributed into the sixth and seventh replicate test vessels

for water quality and porewater measurements.



measurements for the duration of the test and the seventh replicate was decanted and

centrifuged to extract porewater for ammonia, temperature, and pH measurements (see

Section 1.3). To initiate the test, ten larval chironomids were randomly selected from their

holding containers and directly seeded into the test vessels.


dissolved oxygen measurements were taken three times per week in the test vessels designated

for water quality measurements. Test vessels were also fed 3.75 mL TetraminTM flakes, prepared

as a 4 g dry solids/L slurry, on the days water quality measurements were taken.

At test termination, the contents of each test vessel were sieved through a 500 µm sieve in

order to retrieve the live larval midges. The number of larvae found was recorded along with

any other observations made. The organisms were then placed into pre-weighed aluminum

weigh boats that were subsequently placed into a ~60°C drying oven for >24 hours. Missing

chironomids were presumed to have died and decomposed during the test. Any larval midges

that had reached the pupal or adult stage of development were excluded from the dry weight

analysis, if applicable.



4


2.2.1 Organism Acclimation and Holding Information

One batch of laboratory-reared Chironomus dilutus larvae was received from Aquatic Biosystems

on June 21, 2019. The midge larvae were shipped in 1L plastic containers filled with unbleached

paper towels and overlying moderately hard water. Prior to shipping, the headspace in each

container was filled with oxygen gas of a sufficient concentration to maintain adequate

saturation levels in the shipping water. They were shipped directly for overnight delivery to

Bureau Veritas Laboratoies and arrived without incident.

Upon arrival at Bureau Veritas Laboratories, the water quality of the shipping water was

measured and compared to the test conditions. Gentle aeration was supplied to each shipping

container. Any moribund or deceased larvae were removed and recorded on the acclimation

sheet, if applicable (Appendix B).

The chironomid larvae were not fed during the holding period as they were used the same day.

Historically at Bureau Veritas Laboratories, it has been determined that little to no acclimation is

required as long as the shipping, testing, and supplier laboratory conditions are similar.


The mortality rate during shipping did not exceed 10% overall. Bench sheets with the

receiving water quality and observations of the number dead or inactive larvae are available

in Appendix B.

2.2.3 Organism Age

At test initiation, 20 representative larvae were euthanized and their head capsule widths were

measured to the nearest 0.01 mm, using an inverted microscope outfitted with an ocular

micrometer. The average head capsule width of the organism batch was determined to greater

than the 0.33 – 0.45 mm range (see Table 2-1).

2.3 Test Conditions

See Table 2-1 for a detailed list of the test conditions. All bench sheets used to record raw data




5

Table 2-1 Test Conditions for the 10-day Chironomus dilutus Test


Test Type and Duration 10 Day, Static (non-renewal)



16 hours light: 8 hours dark. Wide spectrum cool white fluorescent lights used to provide 319-350 lux.




Porewater Water Quality Temperature, pH, and ammonia.

Overlying Water Source and Volume

175 mL (~5-6 cm depth); Reconstituted Moderately Hard Water; warmed to 23 ± 1°C and aerated >24 hours before use.


Replicates 5 replicates per sample, plus 2 additional replicates for water quality measurements and porewater analyses.

Control Sediment (Negative Control)

Yaquina Bay Beach Sand, rinsed with control water and sieved through a 500 µm stainless steel mesh.


Feeding 3.75 mL TetraminTM flakes as slurry (4g dry solids/L) per vessel, three times weekly.

Organisms/ replicate 10

Organism Source Aquatic Biosystems, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Mortality during acclimation 0.0%

Mean Head capsule width and organism age

0.56 ± 0.11 mm; 3rd instar larval midges

Endpoints Mean Survival and Mean Dry Weight

Test Validity Criteria ≥70% mean survival in the negative controls. >0.6 mg mean dry weight in the negative controls.




6




sediment test. The water-only test, using copper sulphate (CuSO4), was initiated to aid in the

assessment of organism sensitivity and the precision of the results. The resulting LC50 was then

compared in a control chart against the results of previous tests. Table 2-2 summarises the

result of the reference toxicant test.

The calculated LC50 for the reference toxicant test was within two standard deviations (95%)

range of the historic mean LC50. This supports the assumption that the sensitivity of the

organism batch was comparable to batches previously test in this laboratory.




00002).

Table 2-2 Reference Toxicant Test Result for Chironomus dilutus

Organism Batch

Test Date

LC50 with 95% Confidence Limits

(mg/L Cu2+)

Previous Mean

with 2SD

(mg/L Cu2+)

AB190621 2019 Jun 21 0.49 (0.39, 0.61) 0.75 (0.35, 1.59)


The test is considered to be acceptable if the mean percent survival in the negative control is

≥70%, and the mean dry weight is ≥ 0.6 mg. The mean percent survival of the negative controls

was 94%, and the mean dry weight was 1.67 mg.

2.5 Results


control and test sediments are listed in the “Chironomus dilutus Survival and Growth Test -

Survival of Larvae” and the “Chironomid Survival and Growth Test - Dry Weights of Larvae” data

sheets, respectively. A summary of the test results is presented in Table 2-3.


alkalinity measurements of the overlying water at test initiation (Day 0) and completion (Day 10)




7

2.5.1 Data Analysis







survival and dry weight comparisons. Analyses between the negative control and reference

sediment was conducted as two‐tailed comparisons. Analyses of the negative control or

reference sediment versus samples were conducted as one‐tailed comparisons. All analyses

were done with the decision level for determining statistical significance set to 0.05 (p value

<0.05).

Table 2-3 Results for Mean Chironomus dilutus Survival and Growth




AJR05 92 ± 8 2.45 ± 0.31^

AJR11 98 ± 4 1.84 ± 0.52

AJR14 92 ± 8 1.65 ± 0.31*

AJR15 96 ± 5 2.11 ± 0.12

AJR17 84 ± 13 1.99 ± 0.16*

AJR19 78 ± 29 2.55 ± 0.81

AJR22 68 ± 4** 1.18 ± 0.64*



**Indicates a statistically significant decrease in the sample, relative to both the Negative Control and Reference sediment AJR05



At test end, pupated organisms were found in replicates A & B of sample AJR05 and replicate A of sample AJR15. The pupated organisms were removed from the statistical analysis for mean dry weight.

With client approval, sample AJR05 was tested outside of the 6 week hold time. All other samples were tested within hold time.

At test start, the head capsule width of the organisms were measured to be greater than the recommended range of 0.33 and 0.45 mm. With client approval, the test was allowed to



8

continue, as postponing the testing any longer would put additional samples past the 6 week hold time.



9

SECTION

3 14 DAY HYALELLA AZTECA SURVIVAL AND GROWTH TEST

3.1 Test Methods

The survival and growth of the freshwater amphipod, Hyalella azteca, when exposed to whole

sediment samples for 14 days, were assessed according to the Bureau Veritas Laboratories SOP:

Hyalella azteca 14-Day Survival and Growth Test (BBY2SOP-00011), which is based on the

Environment Canada Biological Test Method: Test for Survival and Growth in Sediment and

Water Using the Freshwater Amphipod Hyalella azteca (EPS 1/RM/33).

One day prior to test initiation, the field replicates were individually homogenised, and a 100 mL






100 mL of the composite sample was distributed into a sixth replicate test vessel used for water

quality measurements.



measurements for the duration of the test. To initiate the test, the amphipods were removed

from their holding containers and ten Hyalella were randomly selected and placed into plastic

medicine cups containing control water. Once enough organisms were collected to start the

test, they were seeded into the test vessels.


dissolved oxygen measurements were taken three times per week in the test vessel designated

for water quality measurements. Additionally, pH and ammonia concentrations were monitored

in the overlying water in the reference sediment three times weekly. Test vessels were also fed

340 µL per replicate of a ground Tetramin™ flake slurry (4 g dry solids/L) and 0.75 mL YCT (yeast,

alfalfa flakes, and digested trout chow) daily.

At test termination, the contents of each test vessel were examined, a small portion at a time, in

a glass pan on a light table. The live amphipods were collected and counted. The amphipods

were then placed into aluminum foil weigh boats that were subsequently placed into a ~60°C

drying oven for >24 hours. Missing amphipods were presumed to have died and decomposed

during the test.



10


3.2.1 Acclimation and Holding Information

One batch of Hyalella azteca was received from Aquatic Biosystems, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA,

on June 14, 2019. Laboratory reared juvenile amphipods were packed into 1L plastic containers,

filled with moderately hard water and a few plastic mesh squares. Prior to shipping, the

headspace in each container was filled with oxygen gas of a sufficient concentration to maintain

adequate saturation levels in the shipping water. They were shipped directly for overnight

delivery to Bureau Veritas Laboratories and arrived without incident.

Upon arrival at Bureau Veritas Laboratories, the container contents were carefully poured into

glass culture dishes. Gentle aeration was supplied to each culture pan. An aliquot of shipping

water from each container was set aside for water quality. It was then ensured that

temperature adjustments to the holding water of the amphipods did not exceed 3°C per day.

The organisms were held at Bureau Veritas Laboratories for two days before the test was

initiated. The amphipods were fed YCT and Tetramin™ slurry at organism arrival and daily before

test initiation. Datasheets containing the water quality measurements, with observations of

number dead or inactive amphipods during the holding period, are available in Appendix C.


The average mortality rate in the culture did not exceed 10%.

3.2.3 Organism Age

At test initiation, the amphipods were 7-9 days old.

3.3 Test Conditions

See Table 3-1 for a detailed list of the test conditions. All bench sheets and raw data are

available in Appendix C.



11

Table 3-1 Test Conditions for the 14-day Hyalella azteca Test


Test Type and Duration 14 Day; Static (non-renewal)



16 hours light: 8 hours dark. Wide spectrum cool white fluorescent lights used to provide 319- 350 lux.




Overlying Water Volume and Source

175 mL (~5-6 cm depth); Reconstituted water; SAM5 recipe (Borgmann, 1996). Temperature adjusted and aerated >24h before use.


Ammonia and pH was measured three times per week in the reference sediment

Feeding 340 µL of a ground Tetramin™ flake slurry (4g dry solids/mL) and 0.75 mL YCT per vessel, daily.

Replicates 5 replicates per sample, plus an additional replicate for water quality measurements.

Control Sediment Yaquina Bay Beach Sand, rinsed with control water and sieved through a 500 µm stainless steel mesh.


Organisms/ Replicate 10

Organism Source and age Aquatic Biosystems; amphipods aged 7-9 days at test start.

Mortality during acclimation

0.0%

Endpoints Mean Survival and Mean Dry weight

Test Validity Criteria ≥ 80% mean survival in the controls. ≥0.1 mg/amphipod in the controls.




12




sediment test. The water-only test, using copper sulphate (CuSO4) was initiated to aid in the

assessment of organism sensitivity and the precision of the results. The reference toxicant test

LC50 result was then compared in a control chart against the results of previous tests. Table 3-2

summarises the result of the reference toxicant test.

The calculated LC50 for the reference toxicant test was just outside two standard deviations

(95%) range, but within three standard deviations of the historic mean LC50. This indicates the

organisms were slightly more sensitive to the toxicant, copper, than historically observed. The

reference toxicant test data was reviewed, and was determined that the test performed

normally, with no unusual observations. As a result, this point has been included into the control

chart.




00002).

Table 3-2 Reference Toxicant Test Results for Hyalella azteca

Organism Batch Test Date LC50 with 95% Confidence Limits

(µg/L Cu2+)

Previous Mean

with 2SD

(µg/L Cu2+)

Previous Mean

with 3SD

(µg/L Cu2+)

AB190614 2019 June 18 144 (118, 174) 230 (153, 346) 230 (125, 425)


Survival data in the negative control is considered to be acceptable if the mean percent survival

in the negative control is ≥80%, and the mean dry weight in the negative control is ≥0.1

mg/amphipod. The mean percent survival of the negative control was 94% and the mean dry

weight was 0.1 mg/amphipod.

3.5 Results


control and test sediments are listed in the “Hyalella azteca Survival and Growth Test-Survival”

and “Hyalella azteca Survival and Growth Test- Dry Weights” data sheets, respectively. A

summary of the results is located in Table 3-3.



13


alkalinity measurements in the overlying water at test initiation (Day 0) and completion (Day 14)

are available in Appendix C.

3.5.1 Data Analysis







survival and dry weight comparisons. Analyses between the control and the reference sediment

was conducted as a two-tailed comparisons. Analysis between the reference sediment and

samples were conducted as one‐tailed comparisons. All analyses were done with the decision

level for determining statistical significance set to 0.05 (p value <0.05).

Table 3-3 Results for Mean Hyalella azteca Survival and Growth




AJR05 92 ± 4 0.11 ± 0.02^

AJR11 90 ± 7 0.10 ± 0.03

AJR14 86 ± 9 0.09 ± 0.01

AJR15 92 ± 4 0.10 ± 0.01

AJR17 86 ± 9 0.08 ± 0.01

AJR19 88 ± 13 0.10 ± 0.02

AJR22 58 ± 45* 0.09 ± 0.04





None



14

SECTION

4 REFERENCES

Borgmann, U. 1996. Systematic Analysis of Aqueous Ion Requirements of Hyalella azteca: A

Standard Artificial Medium Including the Essential Bromide Ion. Archives of Environmental

Contamination and Toxicology. 30: 356-363.

Bureau Veritas Laboratories SOP for the Chironomus dilutus 10-Day Survival and Growth Test.

BBY2SOP-00010.

Bureau Veritas Laboratories SOP for the Hyalella azteca 14-Day Survival and Growth Test.

BBY2SOP-00011.

Bureau Veritas Laboratories WI for Ecotoxicology Control Charting. COR2 WI-00002.

Comprehensive Environmental Toxicity Information System (CETIS™). 2009-2016. Tidepool

Scientific. LLC. Version 1.9.2.4

Environment Canada. 1997. Biological Test method: Test for Survival and Growth in Sediment of

Freshwater Midges (Chironomus tentans or Chironomus riparius). Environmental Protection


Environment Canada. 2005. Guidance Document on Statistical Methods for Environmental

Toxicity Tests. Environmental Protection Publications. Conservation and Protection. Ottawa,

Ontario. EPS 1/RM/46.

Environment Canada. 2013. Biological Test method: Test for Survival and Growth in Sediment

and Water Using the Freshwater Amphipod Hyalella azteca. Environmental Protection




APPENDICES



APPENDIX

A SAMPLE INFORMATION



APPENDIX

B 10-DAY CHIRONOMUS DILUTUS SURVIVAL AND GROWTH TEST



APPENDIX

C 14-DAY HYALELLA AZTECA SURVIVAL AND GROWTH TEST


Appendix E Title

Appendix F Title

Appendix H Title

Appendix I Title

Appendix K Title

Appendix L Title

Appendix M Title

Appendix O Title

Appendix P Title

Appendix Q Title

Appendix R Title

Appendix J Title

Appendix N Title

Appendix S Title

Appendix E Sediment Analytical Results and

Laboratory Certificate of Analysis

Table E.1

Summary of Sediment Analytical Results - Spring 20192019 Ecological Assessment


Page 1 of 6

Sample Location: A3 A3 A4 A5 A6 A8 A8 A10 A10 C1 C1 C2 C2 C3 C3 C3 C7

Sample ID: SED-11102200-051619-AJR-23

SED-11102200-051619-AJR-71

SED-11102200-051619-AJR-43

SED-11102200-051619-AJR-42

SED-11102200-051619-AJR-41

SED-11102200-051619-AJR-22

SED-11102200-051619-AJR-70

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-21

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-69

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-20

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-68

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-19

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-67

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-17

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-66

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-18

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-15

Sample Date: PSQG LEL or 5/16/2019 5/16/2019 5/16/2019 5/16/2019 5/16/2019 5/16/2019 5/16/2019 5/15/2019 5/15/2019 5/15/2019 5/15/2019 5/15/2019 5/15/2019 5/15/2019 5/15/2019 5/15/2019 5/14/2019USEPA Region 5 (Duplicate)

Parameters Units Screening Value

PAHs1-Methyl-7-isopropylphenanthrene ug/g NV 0.039 - 0.081 0.075 0.020 0.90 - 0.016 - 0.032 - 0.29 - 0.038 J - 0.059 J 0.055 1-Methylnaphthalene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.014 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 2-Methylnaphthalene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.017 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Acenaphthene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0098 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Acenaphthylene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Acridine ug/g NV ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) ND (0.010) Anthracene ug/g 0.22 ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) 0.0058 0.010 - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) Benzo(a)anthracene ug/g 0.32 ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.013 0.0095 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.016 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Benzo(a)pyrene ug/g 0.37 ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0086 0.0078 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.013 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Benzo(b)fluoranthene/Benzo(j)fluoranthene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.0064 ND (0.0050) 0.013 0.016 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.018 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Benzo(b)pyridine (Quinoline) ug/g NV ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) ND (0.010) Benzo(c)phenanthrene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Benzo(e)pyrene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.0078 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.013 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.011 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ug/g 0.17 ND (0.0050) - 0.010 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0093 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0090 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/g 0.24 ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.015 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) C1-Acenaphthene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) C1-Benzo(b,j,k)fluoranthene/Benzo(a)pyrene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.011 ND (0.0050) 0.0067 0.023 - 0.0079 - ND (0.0050) - 0.011 - ND (0.0050) - 0.010 0.0069 C1-Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.011 0.090 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0071 ND (0.0050) C1-Dibenzothiophenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.036 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0074 - 0.0099 ND (0.0050) C1-Fluorenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.036 - 0.0063 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) C1-Methylated benzo(a)anthracene chrysenes (C1-228 isomers) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.011 0.025 - 0.0081 - ND (0.0050) - 0.012 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0074 ND (0.0050) C1-Methylated fluoranthene/Pyrenes (C1-202 isomers) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.015 ND (0.0050) 0.017 0.10 - 0.024 - 0.010 - 0.035 - 0.017 - 0.024 0.014 C1-Methylated phenanthrene/Anthracenes (C1-178 isomers) ug/g NV 0.0083 - 0.0093 0.016 0.020 0.067 - 0.010 - ND (0.0050) - 0.058 - 0.013 - 0.014 0.017 C1-Naphthalenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) 0.0067 ND (0.0050) 0.031 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) C2-Alkylated fluoranthene/Pyrenes (C2-202 isomers) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.018 ND (0.0050) 0.026 0.15 - 0.035 - 0.011 - 0.046 - 0.036 - 0.043 0.033 C2-Benzo(a)anthracenes/chrysenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.0069 ND (0.0050) J 0.014 0.057 - 0.010 - 0.0064 - 0.011 - 0.018 - 0.0082 0.0055 C2-Benzo(b,j,k)fluoranthene/Benzo(a)pyrene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.012 0.0062 0.012 0.026 - 0.014 - ND (0.0050) - 0.011 - 0.0099 - 0.011 ND (0.0050) C2-Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.0069 ND (0.0050) 0.0087 0.084 - 0.0083 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0083 - 0.015 ND (0.0050) C2-Dibenzothiophenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.035 ND (0.0050) 0.030 0.29 - 0.035 - 0.026 - 0.039 - 0.047 - 0.063 0.036 C2-Fluorenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0071 0.079 - 0.012 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0085 - 0.010 - 0.017 ND (0.0050) C2-Naphthalenes ug/g NV 0.020 - 0.0056 0.023 0.020 0.077 - 0.012 - ND (0.0050) - 0.028 - 0.015 - 0.012 0.016 C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.017 0.0088 0.012 0.11 - 0.016 - 0.013 - 0.028 - 0.018 J - 0.041 J 0.020 C3-Alkylated phenanthrene/Anthracenes (C3-178 isomers) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.057 0.022 0.041 0.40 - 0.053 - 0.036 - 0.10 - 0.056 - 0.079 0.048 C3-Benzo(a)anthracene/Chrysenes (C3-228 isomers) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.040 - 0.0080 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0070 ND (0.0050) C3-Dibenzothiophenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.052 ND (0.0050) 0.034 0.23 - 0.045 - 0.034 - 0.046 - 0.050 J - 0.073 J 0.035 C3-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.038 ND (0.0050) 0.025 0.21 - 0.059 - 0.034 - 0.057 - 0.072 - 0.075 0.062 C3-Fluorenes ug/g NV 0.032 - 0.052 0.029 0.046 0.35 - 0.064 - 0.031 - 0.061 - 0.072 - 0.094 0.054 C3-Naphthalenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0065 0.056 - 0.0052 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0052 - 0.0054 - 0.0079 ND (0.0050) C4-Alkylated fluoranthene/Pyrenes (C4-202 isomers) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.014 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.11 - 0.034 - 0.019 - 0.025 - 0.033 - 0.035 0.0076 C4-Alkylated phenanthrene/Anthracenes (C4-178 isomers) ug/g NV 0.026 - 0.10 0.050 J 0.041 0.83 - 0.072 - 0.064 - 0.23 - 0.078 - 0.11 0.078 C4-Benzo(a)anthracene/Chrysenes (C4-228 Isomers) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0066 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) C4-Dibenzothiophenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.020 ND (0.0050) 0.013 0.11 - 0.039 - 0.020 - 0.035 - 0.028 - 0.035 0.019 C4-Naphthalenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.056 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0069 - 0.011 ND (0.0050) Chrysene ug/g 0.34 ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.012 0.012 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.014 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ug/g 0.06 ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Dibenzothiopene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Fluoranthene ug/g 0.75 ND (0.0050) - 0.0091 0.012 ND (0.0050) 0.037 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.036 - 0.0061 - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Fluorene ug/g 0.19 ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.017 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)fluoranthene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ug/g 0.2 ND (0.0050) - 0.011 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0066 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.010 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Naphthalene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0082 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Perylene ug/g NV 0.010 - 0.013 ND (0.0050) 0.0067 0.014 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.013 - 0.0082 - 0.0062 0.014 Phenanthrene ug/g 0.56 ND (0.0050) - 0.014 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.027 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.013 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Pyrene ug/g 0.49 ND (0.0050) - 0.0091 0.0088 0.0091 0.051 - 0.0058 - ND (0.0050) - 0.032 - 0.0074 - 0.0083 ND (0.0050) Total benzo(a)pyrene equivalents ug/g NV ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) 0.014 0.014 - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - 0.021 - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071)

Calculated Total PAH (All PAHs) ug/g NV 0.1353 N/A 0.6311 0.2575 0.5042 4.8878 N/A 0.5996 N/A 0.3364 N/A 1.3427 N/A 0.6606 N/A 0.883 0.521Calculated Total PAH (16 PAHs) ug/g 4.0 0 N/A 0.0596 0.0208 0.0615 0.2212 N/A 0.0058 N/A 0 N/A 0.161 N/A 0.0135 N/A 0.0083 0

BTEXBenzene ug/g NV ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) ND (0.020) Ethylbenzene ug/g 0.175 ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) ND (0.020) m&p-Xylenes ug/g NV ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) ND (0.040) o-Xylene ug/g 0.433 ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) ND (0.020) Toluene ug/g 1.22 ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - 0.031 - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) ND (0.020) Xylenes (total) ug/g NV ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) ND (0.040)

GHD 11102200-22-APPE-TE.1

Table E.1



Page 2 of 6


Sample ID: SED-11102200-051619-AJR-23

SED-11102200-051619-AJR-71

SED-11102200-051619-AJR-43

SED-11102200-051619-AJR-42

SED-11102200-051619-AJR-41

SED-11102200-051619-AJR-22

SED-11102200-051619-AJR-70

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-21

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-69

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-20

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-68

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-19

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-67

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-17

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-66

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-18

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-15

Sample Date: PSQG LEL or 5/16/2019 5/16/2019 5/16/2019 5/16/2019 5/16/2019 5/16/2019 5/16/2019 5/15/2019 5/15/2019 5/15/2019 5/15/2019 5/15/2019 5/15/2019 5/15/2019 5/15/2019 5/15/2019 5/14/2019USEPA Region 5 (Duplicate)


Petroleum ProductsChromatogram to baseline at nC50 NA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Petroleum hydrocarbons F1 (C6-C10) ug/g NV ND (10) - ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) ND (10) Petroleum hydrocarbons F1 (C6-C10) - less BTEX ug/g NV ND (10) - ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) ND (10) Petroleum hydrocarbons F2 (C10-C16) ug/g NV ND (10) - ND (10) ND (10) 14 21 - 10 - ND (10) - 15 - 22 - 22 17 Petroleum hydrocarbons F3 (C16-C34) ug/g NV ND (50) - ND (50) ND (50) 50 130 - 70 - ND (50) - 95 - 97 - 98 85 Petroleum hydrocarbons F4 (C34-C50) ug/g NV ND (50) - ND (50) ND (50) ND (50) ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) ND (50)

Calculated Total PHC NV 0 N/A 0 0 64 151 N/A 80 N/A 0 N/A 110 N/A 119 N/A 120 102

GeotechMoisture % NV 29 - 25 31 24 36 - 23 - 23 - 40 - 30 - 32 34

General ChemistryClay % NV 3 2 ND (2) 3 3 ND (2) ND (2) ND (2) ND (2) ND (2) ND (2) ND (2) 2 ND (2) 2 3 ND (2) Moisture % NV 28 - 22 27 26 29 - 22 - 21 - 34 - 23 - 24 27 Sand % NV 86 92 97 86 89 85 93 91 92 97 96 83 92 96 97 95 92 Silt % NV 11 6 ND (2) 11 8 13 6 8 7 ND (2) 2 15 5 2 ND (2) ND (2) 6 Texture none NV ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () Total organic carbon (TOC) ug/g NV 5200 - 1200 5400 3600 6900 - 3200 - 1700 - 9600 - 2100 - 2700 8000 Total solids % NV 66.6 - 77.6 63.8 76.5 65.3 - 73.2 - 73.2 - 58.0 - 70.8 - 68.4 64.7 J

Notes:

a

b - Average values of benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(j)fluoranthenePSQG - Provincial Sediment Quality GuidelineLEL - Lowest Effect LevelPEL - Probable Effect LevelBTEX - Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenesPAHs - Polycyclic Aromatic HydrocarbonsMOE - Ontario Ministry of the Environment USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency- - Sample not analyzed for associated parameterJ - Estimated concentrationµg/g - Micrograms per gram

ND (0.040)

NV - No value is prescribed for associated paramter0.57 - Parameter detected above screenling levels

(16 PAHs)

References:- Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOE), 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario, August 1993.- Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 2008. Guidelines for Identifying, Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments in Ontario: An Integrated Approach, May 2008.- USEPA, 2003. Ecological Screening Levels for RCRA Appendix IX Hazardous Constituents. August 2003.

- Screening values for PAHs are based on PSQG (MOE, 1993 and 2008), and screening values for BTEX are based on USEPA Region 5 ecological screening levels (ESLs) (USEPA, 2003)

- Parameter not detected at associated repoting limit (reporting limit provided in parentheses)

- Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benzo(a)anthracene,Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene/Benzo(j)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, and Pyrene.

GHD 11102200-22-APPE-TE.1

Table E.1



Page 3 of 6

Sample Location:

Sample ID:

Sample Date: PSQG LEL orUSEPA Region 5


PAHs1-Methyl-7-isopropylphenanthrene ug/g NV1-Methylnaphthalene ug/g NV2-Methylnaphthalene ug/g NVAcenaphthene ug/g NVAcenaphthylene ug/g NVAcridine ug/g NVAnthracene ug/g 0.22Benzo(a)anthracene ug/g 0.32Benzo(a)pyrene ug/g 0.37Benzo(b)fluoranthene/Benzo(j)fluoranthene ug/g NVBenzo(b)pyridine (Quinoline) ug/g NVBenzo(c)phenanthrene ug/g NVBenzo(e)pyrene ug/g NVBenzo(g,h,i)perylene ug/g 0.17Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/g 0.24Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) ug/g NVC1-Acenaphthene ug/g NVC1-Benzo(b,j,k)fluoranthene/Benzo(a)pyrene ug/g NVC1-Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) ug/g NVC1-Dibenzothiophenes ug/g NVC1-Fluorenes ug/g NVC1-Methylated benzo(a)anthracene chrysenes (C1-228 isomers) ug/g NVC1-Methylated fluoranthene/Pyrenes (C1-202 isomers) ug/g NVC1-Methylated phenanthrene/Anthracenes (C1-178 isomers) ug/g NVC1-Naphthalenes ug/g NVC2-Alkylated fluoranthene/Pyrenes (C2-202 isomers) ug/g NVC2-Benzo(a)anthracenes/chrysenes ug/g NVC2-Benzo(b,j,k)fluoranthene/Benzo(a)pyrene ug/g NVC2-Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) ug/g NVC2-Dibenzothiophenes ug/g NVC2-Fluorenes ug/g NVC2-Naphthalenes ug/g NVC2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes ug/g NVC3-Alkylated phenanthrene/Anthracenes (C3-178 isomers) ug/g NVC3-Benzo(a)anthracene/Chrysenes (C3-228 isomers) ug/g NVC3-Dibenzothiophenes ug/g NVC3-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes ug/g NVC3-Fluorenes ug/g NVC3-Naphthalenes ug/g NVC4-Alkylated fluoranthene/Pyrenes (C4-202 isomers) ug/g NVC4-Alkylated phenanthrene/Anthracenes (C4-178 isomers) ug/g NVC4-Benzo(a)anthracene/Chrysenes (C4-228 Isomers) ug/g NVC4-Dibenzothiophenes ug/g NVC4-Naphthalenes ug/g NVChrysene ug/g 0.34Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ug/g 0.06Dibenzothiopene ug/g NVFluoranthene ug/g 0.75Fluorene ug/g 0.19Indeno(1,2,3-cd)fluoranthene ug/g NVIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ug/g 0.2Naphthalene ug/g NVPerylene ug/g NVPhenanthrene ug/g 0.56Pyrene ug/g 0.49Total benzo(a)pyrene equivalents ug/g NV

Calculated Total PAH (All PAHs) ug/g NVCalculated Total PAH (16 PAHs) ug/g 4.0

BTEXBenzene ug/g NVEthylbenzene ug/g 0.175m&p-Xylenes ug/g NVo-Xylene ug/g 0.433Toluene ug/g 1.22Xylenes (total) ug/g NV

C7 C8 C8 C10 C10 E1 E1 E4 E4 E9 E9 F2 F2 F5 F5 F6 F6SED-11102200-051419-AJR-64

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-14

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-63

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-16

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-65

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-13

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-62

SED-11102200-051019-AJR-11

SED-11102200-051019-AJR-60

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-12

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-61

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-10

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-59

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-09

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-58

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-08

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-57

5/14/2019 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 5/10/2019 5/10/2019 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019

- 5.1 - 0.090 - 0.0084 - 0.093 - 0.026 - 0.042 J - 0.33 - 0.038 -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) -- ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- 0.012 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- 0.010 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- 0.018 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.018 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0061 - 0.0075 - 0.011 -- 0.012 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- 0.016 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- 0.013 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- 0.016 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0094 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- 0.13 - 0.018 - ND (0.0050) - 0.024 - 0.012 - 0.018 - 0.023 - 0.022 -- 0.051 - 0.059 - ND (0.0050) - 0.011 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0069 - 0.0096 -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- 0.12 - 0.050 - ND (0.0050) - 0.036 - 0.019 - 0.017 - 0.029 - 0.024 -- 0.030 - 0.0061 - ND (0.0050) - 0.020 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0065 - 0.010 - 0.015 -- 0.023 - 0.0095 - ND (0.0050) - 0.011 - ND (0.0050) - 0.020 - 0.016 - 0.010 -- 0.024 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0087 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- 0.23 - 0.038 - ND (0.0050) - 0.029 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0080 - 0.022 - 0.022 -- 0.025 - 0.011 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0097 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0066 - 0.0086 -- 0.073 - 0.042 - 0.0058 - 0.025 - 0.014 - 0.0054 - ND (0.0050) - 0.027 -- 0.059 - 0.014 - ND (0.0050) - 0.016 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.011 - 0.012 -- 1.1 - 0.072 - ND (0.0050) - 0.075 - 0.017 - 0.040 - 0.11 - 0.057 -- 0.016 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.018 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0061 - 0.016 -- 0.16 - 0.043 - 0.0063 - 0.033 J - 0.012 - 0.0059 - 0.023 - 0.024 -- 0.17 - 0.055 - ND (0.0050) - 0.068 - 0.030 - 0.038 - 0.042 - 0.040 -- 0.18 - 0.085 - ND (0.0050) - 0.048 - ND (0.0050) - 0.034 - 0.039 - 0.029 -- 0.015 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0087 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0072 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- 0.079 - 0.019 - ND (0.0050) - 0.056 - ND (0.0050) - 0.021 - 0.045 - 0.026 -- 3.5 - 0.099 - 0.012 - 0.031 - 0.060 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.015 -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0069 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- 0.35 - 0.022 - ND (0.0050) - 0.038 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- 0.016 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.014 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0086 - 0.011 -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- 0.019 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.012 - 0.0064 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - 0.020 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- 0.030 - 0.0090 - 0.029 - 0.040 - 0.043 - 0.069 - 0.018 - 0.018 -- 0.010 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- 0.025 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.012 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0057 - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) -

N/A 11.632 N/A 0.7616 N/A 0.0615 N/A 0.7714 N/A 0.2394 N/A 0.3381 N/A 0.7594 N/A 0.4352 N/AN/A 0.066 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0.024 N/A 0.0064 N/A 0 N/A 0.0057 N/A 0 N/A

- ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) -- ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) -- ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) -- ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) -- ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - 0.14 - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) -- ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) -

GHD 11102200-22-APPE-TE.1

Table E.1



Page 4 of 6

Sample Location:

Sample ID:



Petroleum ProductsChromatogram to baseline at nC50 NAPetroleum hydrocarbons F1 (C6-C10) ug/g NVPetroleum hydrocarbons F1 (C6-C10) - less BTEX ug/g NVPetroleum hydrocarbons F2 (C10-C16) ug/g NVPetroleum hydrocarbons F3 (C16-C34) ug/g NVPetroleum hydrocarbons F4 (C34-C50) ug/g NV

Calculated Total PHC NV

GeotechMoisture % NV

General ChemistryClay % NVMoisture % NVSand % NVSilt % NVTexture none NVTotal organic carbon (TOC) ug/g NVTotal solids % NV

Notes:

a


ND (0.040)


(16 PAHs)





C7 C8 C8 C10 C10 E1 E1 E4 E4 E9 E9 F2 F2 F5 F5 F6 F6SED-11102200-051419-AJR-64

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-14

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-63

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-16

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-65

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-13

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-62

SED-11102200-051019-AJR-11

SED-11102200-051019-AJR-60

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-12

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-61

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-10

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-59

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-09

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-58

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-08

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-57

5/14/2019 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 5/10/2019 5/10/2019 5/14/2019 5/14/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (20) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) -- ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (20) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) -- 31 - 21 - ND (10) - ND (20) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) -- 190 - 98 - ND (50) - ND (100) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) -- ND (100) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (100) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) -

N/A 221 N/A 119 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A

- 47 - 35 - 26 - 45 - 34 - 31 - 24 - 40 -

ND (2) 2 2 3 ND (2) 2 ND (2) 4 ND (2) ND (2) ND (2) 3 ND (2) 2 2 4 ND (2) - 45 - 31 - 25 - - - 31 - - - - - - -

98 75 92 86 97 93 98 79 92 84 95 87 95 94 90 80 93 ND (2) 22 6 11 ND (2) 4 ND (2) 17 7 14 3 11 3 4 8 16 5 ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND ()

- 17000 - 8200 - 3400 - 15000 - 8900 - 6300 - 2100 - 13000 -- 48.2 J - 63.8 J - 72.3 J - 56.3 - 62.8 J - 70.3 - 76.7 - 59.5 -

GHD 11102200-22-APPE-TE.1

Table E.1



Page 5 of 6

Sample Location:

Sample ID:




Calculated Total PAH (All PAHs) ug/g NVCalculated Total PAH (16 PAHs) ug/g 4.0


R1 R1 R1 R2 R2 R3 R3 R4 R4 R5 R5 R6 R6SED-11102200-050819-AJR-06

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-56

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-07

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-05

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-55

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-04

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-54

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-01

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-51

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-02

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-52

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-03

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-53

5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/7/2019 5/7/2019 5/7/2019 5/7/2019 5/7/2019 5/7/2019 5/7/2019 5/7/2019(Duplicate)

ND (0.0050) - 0.011 0.028 J - 0.12 J - 0.060 J - ND (0.0050) - 0.016 -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) -ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0074 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0088 -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0063 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - 0.0075 - 0.0055 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) 0.0057 - 0.0094 - 0.018 - ND (0.0050) - 0.039 -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -

0.0055 - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - 0.0064 - 0.0099 - 0.0075 - 0.011 -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) 0.0052 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - 0.0064 - 0.0094 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) 0.024 - 0.012 - 0.030 - ND (0.0050) - 0.016 -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -

0.0096 - 0.0064 0.012 - 0.034 - 0.027 - 0.0083 - 0.010 -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0065 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -

0.017 J - ND (0.0050) J ND (0.0050) - 0.010 - 0.018 - 0.017 - 0.014 -0.019 - 0.015 0.017 - 0.012 - 0.033 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -

ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) 0.0053 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0052 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.020 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0070 -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.023 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) 0.0085 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) 0.025 - 0.012 - 0.012 - ND (0.0050) - 0.033 -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) -

0.0511 N/A 0.0324 0.1307 N/A 0.2297 N/A 0.2912 N/A 0.0328 N/A 0.1548 N/A0 N/A 0 0.0085 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A

ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) -ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) -ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) -ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) -ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.020) -ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) -

GHD 11102200-22-APPE-TE.1

Table E.1



Page 6 of 6

Sample Location:

Sample ID:







Notes:

a


ND (0.040)


(16 PAHs)





R1 R1 R1 R2 R2 R3 R3 R4 R4 R5 R5 R6 R6SED-11102200-050819-AJR-06

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-56

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-07

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-05

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-55

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-04

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-54

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-01

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-51

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-02

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-52

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-03

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-53

5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/8/2019 5/7/2019 5/7/2019 5/7/2019 5/7/2019 5/7/2019 5/7/2019 5/7/2019 5/7/2019(Duplicate)

- - - - - - - - - - - - -ND (10) - ND (10) ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) -ND (10) - ND (10) ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) -ND (10) - ND (10) ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) -ND (50) - ND (50) ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) -ND (50) - ND (50) ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) -

0 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A

20 - 20 23 - 26 - 36 - 20 - 39 -

ND (2) ND (2) ND (2) 2 ND (2) ND (2) ND (2) 4 ND (2) ND (2) ND (2) 2 ND (2) - - - - - - - - - - - - -

97 96 97 92 97 92 95 82 94 98 100 83 94 ND (2) ND (2) ND (2) 5 2 6 4 14 4 ND (2) ND (2) 15 4 ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () 980 - 770 4900 - 3900 - 9300 - ND (500) - 11000 -80.8 - 81.2 77.0 - 73.9 J - 62.3 J - 81.2 J - 62.0 J -

GHD 11102200-22-APPE-TE.1

Table E.2



Page 1 of 6


Sample ID: SED-11102200-052318-AJR-26

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-71

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-25

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-24

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-22

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-23

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-70

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-21

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-69

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-20

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-68

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-18

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-67

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-19

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-17

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-66

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-15

Sample Date: PSQG LEL or 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/22/2018 5/22/2018 5/22/2018 5/22/2018 5/22/2018 5/22/2018 USEPA Region 5 (Duplicate)


PAHs1-Methyl-7-isopropylphenanthrene ug/g NV 0.047 - 0.12 ND (0.0050) 0.15 1.4 - ND (0.0050) - 0.057 - 2.3 - 1.3 0.36 - ND (0.0050) 1-Methylnaphthalene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0075 0.026 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) ND (0.0095) - ND (0.0050) 2-Methylnaphthalene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0075 0.024 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) ND (0.0095) - ND (0.0050) Acenaphthene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) ND (0.0095) - ND (0.0050) Acenaphthylene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.022 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) ND (0.0095) - ND (0.0050) Acridine ug/g NV ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.022) ND (0.019) - ND (0.010) Anthracene ug/g 0.22 ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) 0.011 0.039 - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0080) - ND (0.0088) 0.0087 - ND (0.0040) Benzo(a)anthracene ug/g 0.32 ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.012 0.022 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) 0.016 - ND (0.0050) Benzo(a)pyrene ug/g 0.37 ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.017 0.020 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) 0.017 - ND (0.0050) Benzo(b)fluoranthene/Benzo(j)fluoranthene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.023 0.030 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) 0.024 - ND (0.0050) Benzo(b)pyridine (Quinoline) ug/g NV ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.022) ND (0.019) - ND (0.010) Benzo(c)phenanthrene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) ND (0.0095) - ND (0.0050) Benzo(e)pyrene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.025 0.043 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) 0.022 - ND (0.0050) Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ug/g 0.17 ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.028 0.029 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) 0.019 - ND (0.0050) Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/g 0.24 ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) ND (0.0095) - ND (0.0050) Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.029 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) ND (0.0095) - ND (0.0050) C1-Acenaphthene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) ND (0.0095) - ND (0.0050) C1-Benzo(b,j,k)fluoranthene/Benzo(a)pyrene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.0078 ND (0.0050) 0.043 0.10 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) 0.053 - ND (0.0050) C1-Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.018 0.22 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) 0.017 - ND (0.0050) C1-Dibenzothiophenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.046 0.46 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0090 - ND (0.010) - 0.019 0.062 - ND (0.0050) C1-Fluorenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.017 0.20 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) 0.021 - ND (0.0050) C1-Methylated benzo(a)anthracene chrysenes (C1-228 isomers) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.0090 ND (0.0050) 0.032 0.12 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.021 - 0.022 0.045 - ND (0.0050) C1-Methylated fluoranthene/Pyrenes (C1-202 isomers) ug/g NV 0.032 - 0.022 ND (0.0050) 0.11 0.52 - 0.0079 - 0.017 - 0.014 - 0.029 0.16 - ND (0.0050) C1-Methylated phenanthrene/Anthracenes (C1-178 isomers) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.0074 ND (0.0050) 0.049 0.36 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0095 - ND (0.010) - 0.017 0.066 - ND (0.0050) C1-Naphthalenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.014 0.046 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) ND (0.0095) - ND (0.0050) C2-Alkylated fluoranthene/Pyrenes (C2-202 isomers) ug/g NV 0.014 - 0.043 ND (0.0050) 0.22 0.85 - 0.013 - 0.035 - 0.072 - 0.092 0.27 - ND (0.0050) C2-Benzo(a)anthracenes/chrysenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.022 ND (0.0050) 0.12 0.42 - ND (0.0050) - 0.014 - 0.012 J - 0.027 0.14 - ND (0.0050) C2-Benzo(b,j,k)fluoranthene/Benzo(a)pyrene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.012 ND (0.0050) 0.051 0.14 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0086 - ND (0.010) - 0.013 0.063 - ND (0.0050) C2-Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.059 0.63 - ND (0.0050) - 0.014 - ND (0.010) - 0.022 0.071 - ND (0.0050) C2-Dibenzothiophenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.031 ND (0.0050) 0.24 1.6 - ND (0.0050) - 0.038 - 0.054 - 0.075 0.36 - ND (0.0050) C2-Fluorenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.068 0.60 - ND (0.0050) - 0.013 - ND (0.010) - 0.022 0.089 - ND (0.0050) C2-Naphthalenes ug/g NV 0.019 - 0.021 ND (0.0050) 0.042 0.18 - 0.0054 - 0.0098 - 0.021 - 0.027 0.064 - ND (0.0050) C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.017 ND (0.0050) 0.13 1.0 - ND (0.0050) - 0.019 - 0.019 - 0.040 0.18 - ND (0.0050) C3-Alkylated phenanthrene/Anthracenes (C3-178 isomers) ug/g NV 0.011 - 0.048 ND (0.0050) 0.42 2.4 - 0.019 - 0.075 - 0.062 - 0.17 0.59 - ND (0.0050) C3-Benzo(a)anthracene/Chrysenes (C3-228 isomers) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.018 ND (0.0050) 0.080 0.29 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0079 - ND (0.010) - 0.020 0.11 - ND (0.0050) C3-Dibenzothiophenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.063 ND (0.0050) 0.44 2.3 - 0.016 - 0.066 - 0.057 - 0.14 0.59 - ND (0.0050) C3-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes ug/g NV 0.034 - 0.094 ND (0.0050) 0.41 1.6 - 0.027 - 0.084 - 0.071 - 0.15 0.59 - ND (0.0050) C3-Fluorenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.36 2.3 - ND (0.0050) - 0.065 - ND (0.010) - 0.12 0.46 - ND (0.0050) C3-Naphthalenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.026 0.27 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0076 - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) 0.031 - ND (0.0050) C4-Alkylated fluoranthene/Pyrenes (C4-202 isomers) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.19 0.89 - ND (0.0050) - 0.025 - 0.036 - 0.055 0.31 - ND (0.0050) C4-Alkylated phenanthrene/Anthracenes (C4-178 isomers) ug/g NV 0.047 - 0.16 0.0094 0.48 2.8 - 0.019 - 0.093 - 1.9 - 1.2 0.77 - ND (0.0050) C4-Benzo(a)anthracene/Chrysenes (C4-228 Isomers) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.019 0.058 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) 0.029 - ND (0.0050) C4-Dibenzothiophenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.048 ND (0.0050) 0.22 0.95 - 0.013 - 0.042 - 0.029 - 0.081 0.32 - ND (0.0050) C4-Naphthalenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.0072 ND (0.0050) 0.058 0.45 - ND (0.0050) - 0.012 - ND (0.010) - 0.016 0.068 - ND (0.0050) Chrysene ug/g 0.34 ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.011 0.012 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) 0.012 - ND (0.0050) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ug/g 0.06 ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) ND (0.0095) - ND (0.0050) Dibenzothiopene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) ND (0.0095) - ND (0.0050) Fluoranthene ug/g 0.75 ND (0.0050) - 0.010 ND (0.0050) 0.031 0.054 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.012 - 0.015 0.035 - ND (0.0050) Fluorene ug/g 0.19 ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.028 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) ND (0.0095) - ND (0.0050) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)fluoranthene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - 0.0095 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) 0.025 - ND (0.0050) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ug/g 0.2 ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.024 0.015 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) 0.015 - ND (0.0050) Naphthalene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.016 0.0098 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) ND (0.0095) - ND (0.0050) Perylene ug/g NV 0.016 - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.021 0.017 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.013 - 0.013 0.026 - ND (0.0050) Phenanthrene ug/g 0.56 ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.018 0.077 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.011) 0.015 - ND (0.0050) Pyrene ug/g 0.49 ND (0.0050) - 0.013 ND (0.0050) 0.052 0.16 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.013 - 0.018 0.054 - ND (0.0050) Total benzo(a)pyrene equivalents ug/g NV ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) 0.026 0.030 - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.014) - ND (0.016) 0.028 - ND (0.0071)

Calculated Total PAH (All PAHs) NV 0.22 N/A 0.7829 0.0094 4.442 23.8408 N/A 0.1203 N/A 0.7214 N/A 4.706 N/A 3.703 6.2057 N/A 0Calculated Total PAH (16 PAHs) 4.0 0 N/A 0.023 0 0.243 0.5178 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0.025 N/A 0.033 0.2157 N/A 0

BTEXBenzene ug/g NV ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.060) ND (0.060) - ND (0.020) Ethylbenzene ug/g 0.175 ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.060) ND (0.060) - ND (0.020) m&p-Xylenes ug/g NV ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.080) ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.12) ND (0.12) - ND (0.040) o-Xylene ug/g 0.433 ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.060) ND (0.060) - ND (0.020) Toluene ug/g 1.22 ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.060) ND (0.060) - ND (0.020) Xylenes (total) ug/g NV ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.080) ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.12) ND (0.12) - ND (0.040)

GHD 11102200-22-APPE-TE.2

Table E.2



Page 2 of 6


Sample ID: SED-11102200-052318-AJR-26

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-71

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-25

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-24

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-22

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-23

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-70

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-21

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-69

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-20

SED-11102200-052318-AJR-68

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-18

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-67

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-19

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-17

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-66

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-15

Sample Date: PSQG LEL or 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 5/22/2018 5/22/2018 5/22/2018 5/22/2018 5/22/2018 5/22/2018 USEPA Region 5 (Duplicate)


Petroleum ProductsChromatogram to baseline at nC50 NA YES - YES YES YES YES - YES - YES - YES - YES YES - YES Petroleum hydrocarbons F1 (C6-C10) ug/g NV ND (20) - ND (20) ND (10) ND (20) ND (20) - ND (20) - ND (10) - ND (20) - ND (30) ND (30) - ND (10) Petroleum hydrocarbons F1 (C6-C10) - less BTEX ug/g NV ND (20) - ND (20) ND (10) ND (20) ND (20) - ND (20) - ND (10) - ND (20) - ND (30) ND (30) - ND (10) Petroleum hydrocarbons F2 (C10-C16) ug/g NV ND (10) J - 19 J ND (10) J 32 J 290 J - ND (10) J - ND (10) J - 13 J - ND (20) J 46 J - ND (10) J Petroleum hydrocarbons F3 (C16-C34) ug/g NV ND (50) J - 110 J ND (50) J 180 J 1600 J - ND (50) J - ND (50) J - 76 J - 110 J 350 J - ND (50) J Petroleum hydrocarbons F4 (C34-C50) ug/g NV ND (50) - ND (50) ND (50) ND (50) 81 - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (100) ND (100) - ND (50)

Calculated Total PHC NV 0 N/A 129 0 212 1971 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 89 N/A 110 396 N/A 0

GeotechMoisture % NV 28 - 38 21 33 30 - 23 - 26 - 35 - 41 48 - 20

General ChemistryClay % NV ND (2.0) ND (2.0) 2.1 ND (2.0) ND (2.0) 2.3 2.1 ND (2.0) ND (2.0) 2.6 ND (2.0) 2.6 ND (2.0) ND (2.0) 2.6 ND (2.0) ND (2.0) Moisture % NV 47 - 43 31 41 45 - 29 - 36 - 51 - 56 53 - 27 Sand % NV 85 97 76 96 88 84 92 88 93 92 93 85 97 83 71 97 99 Silt % NV 13 2.8 22 3.1 11 13 5.6 11 6.5 4.9 5.8 12 3.0 15 26 ND (2.0) ND (2.0) Texture none NV ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () Total organic carbon (TOC) ug/g NV 4700 - 9600 1300 6400 8600 - 2300 - 3500 - 10000 - 11000 9300 - 580 Total solids % NV 67.8 - 62.6 77.3 66.8 64.5 - 73.2 - 71.2 - 54.2 - 58.5 56.9 - 80.0

Notes:

a


ND (0.040)


(16 PAHs)



- Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene/Benzo(j)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, and Pyrene.

- Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOE), 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario, August 1993.- Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 2008. Guidelines for Identifying, Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments in Ontario: An Integrated Approach, May 2008.- USEPA, 2003. Ecological Screening Levels for RCRA Appendix IX Hazardous Constituents. August 2003.

References:

GHD 11102200-22-APPE-TE.2

Table E.2



Page 3 of 6

Sample Location:

Sample ID:




Calculated Total PAH (All PAHs) NVCalculated Total PAH (16 PAHs) 4.0


C7 C8 C8 C10 C10 E1 E1 E1 E4 E4 E9 E9 F2 F2 F5 F5 F6SED-11102200-052218-AJR-64

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-14

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-63

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-16

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-65

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-12

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-62

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-13

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-11

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-61

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-10

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-60

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-09

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-59

SED-11102200-051618-AJR-08

SED-11102200-051618-AJR-58

SED-11102200-051618-AJR-07

5/22/2018 5/22/2018 5/22/2018 5/22/2018 5/22/2018 5/17/2018 5/17/2018 5/17/2018 5/17/2018 5/17/2018 5/17/2018 5/17/2018 5/17/2018 5/17/2018 5/16/2018 5/16/2018 5/16/2018 (Duplicate)

- 0.28 - 3.1 - 0.045 J - 0.014 J 0.090 - 0.092 - 0.21 - 0.056 - 0.019 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0066 - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0099 - 0.013 - ND (0.0050) 0.011 - 0.0089 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0083 - 0.0083 - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - 0.0089 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0084 - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - 0.0056 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.013 - 0.014 - ND (0.0050) 0.011 - 0.025 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0070 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.014 - 0.0073 - ND (0.0050) 0.0087 - 0.011 - 0.011 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.012 - 0.036 - 0.014 - 0.0064 0.029 - 0.021 - 0.10 - 0.013 - 0.0094 - ND (0.0050) - 0.013 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.043 - 0.12 - 0.025 J - 0.040 J 0.032 - 0.027 - 0.029 - 0.026 - 0.019 - ND (0.0050) - 0.039 - 0.013 J - ND (0.0050) J 0.018 J - 0.031 J - 0.0099 J - 0.015 J - 0.0094 J - ND (0.0050) - 0.018 - 0.0074 - ND (0.0050) 0.015 - 0.026 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0091 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0088 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.020 - 0.082 - 0.0086 - ND (0.0050) 0.028 - 0.014 - 0.013 - 0.017 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.013 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) 0.0087 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0076 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.018 - 0.015 - 0.015 - 0.015 0.029 - 0.019 - 0.014 - 0.024 - 0.0095 - ND (0.0050) - 0.031 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) 0.020 - 0.0091 - 0.0096 - 0.0094 - ND (0.0050) - 0.028 - 0.11 - 0.020 - 0.015 0.066 - 0.048 - 0.070 - 0.041 - 0.020 - ND (0.0050) - 0.028 - 0.0087 - 0.0083 0.013 - 0.011 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0097 - ND (0.0050) - 0.035 - 0.14 - 0.015 - 0.0082 0.043 - 0.019 - 0.019 - 0.033 - 0.016 - 0.052 - 0.17 - 0.057 - 0.030 0.082 - 0.060 - 0.093 - 0.053 - 0.027 - ND (0.0050) - 0.090 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0060 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.022 - 0.057 - 0.019 J - ND (0.0050) J 0.036 - 0.021 - 0.044 - 0.033 - 0.012 - 0.26 - 2.7 - 0.012 - ND (0.0050) 0.027 - 0.011 - 0.017 - 0.020 - 0.012 - ND (0.0050) - 0.0071 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.023 - 0.090 - 0.026 - 0.016 0.052 - 0.042 - 0.032 - 0.040 - 0.034 - ND (0.0050) - 0.010 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.011 - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0089 - 0.011 - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - 0.0098 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0097 - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0099 - 0.010 - 0.015 0.019 - 0.028 - 0.060 - 0.018 - 0.024 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.014 - 0.0098 - ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) - 0.0082 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - 0.012 - ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071)

N/A 0.793 N/A 6.9689 N/A 0.4068 N/A 0.1679 0.6384 N/A 0.5565 N/A 0.7391 N/A 0.4172 N/A 0.2113N/A 0 N/A 0.0328 N/A 0.0695 N/A 0 0.011 N/A 0.0325 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0

- ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.080)

GHD 11102200-22-APPE-TE.2

Table E.2



Page 4 of 6

Sample Location:

Sample ID:







Notes:

a


ND (0.040)


(16 PAHs)





References:

C7 C8 C8 C10 C10 E1 E1 E1 E4 E4 E9 E9 F2 F2 F5 F5 F6SED-11102200-052218-AJR-64

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-14

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-63

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-16

SED-11102200-052218-AJR-65

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-12

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-62

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-13

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-11

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-61

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-10

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-60

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-09

SED-11102200-051718-AJR-59

SED-11102200-051618-AJR-08

SED-11102200-051618-AJR-58

SED-11102200-051618-AJR-07

5/22/2018 5/22/2018 5/22/2018 5/22/2018 5/22/2018 5/17/2018 5/17/2018 5/17/2018 5/17/2018 5/17/2018 5/17/2018 5/17/2018 5/17/2018 5/17/2018 5/16/2018 5/16/2018 5/16/2018 (Duplicate)

- YES - YES - YES - YES YES - YES - YES - YES - YES - ND (20) - ND (20) - ND (20) - ND (20) ND (20) - ND (20) - ND (20) - ND (20) - ND (20) - ND (20) - ND (20) - ND (20) - ND (20) ND (20) - ND (20) - ND (20) - ND (20) - ND (20) - ND (10) J - ND (10) J - ND (10) - ND (10) 160 - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (50) J - 57 J - ND (50) - ND (50) 820 - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50)

N/A 0 N/A 57 N/A 0 N/A 0 980 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0

- 32 - 30 - 30 - 28 41 - 39 - 40 - 33 - 37

ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) 2.5 ND (2.0) 3.6 2.4 3.5 ND (2.0) 3.6 3.4 2.4 ND (2.0) ND (2.0) 3.6 2.2 3.4 - 45 - 38 - 29 - 28 38 - 41 - 34 - 33 - 36

97 83 98 89 93 85 89 86 82 89 76 93 78 92 84 70 84 ND (2.0) 16 ND (2.0) 8.5 5.8 11 8.9 10 17 7.4 20 4.1 21 7.1 12 27 13

ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () - 8100 - 6100 - 5500 - 6000 11000 - 9500 - 9400 - 7300 - 7000 - 62.0 - 63.7 - 61.7 - 64.2 54.2 - 56.9 - 59.0 - 59.4 - 57.6

GHD 11102200-22-APPE-TE.2

Table E.2



Page 5 of 6

Sample Location:

Sample ID:






F6 R1 R1 R2 R2 R3 R3 R4 R4 R5 R5 R6 R6SED-11102200-051618-AJR-57

SED-11102200-051618-AJR-06

SED-11102200-051618-AJR-56

SED-11102200-051618-AJR-05

SED-11102200-051618-AJR-55

SED-11102200-051518-AJR-04

SED-11102200-051518-AJR-54

SED-11102200-051518-AJR-01

SED-11102200-051518-AJR-51

SED-11102200-051518-AJR-02

SED-11102200-051518-AJR-52

SED-11102200-051518-AJR-03

SED-11102200-051518-AJR-53

5/16/2018 5/16/2018 5/16/2018 5/16/2018 5/16/2018 5/15/2018 5/15/2018 5/15/2018 5/15/2018 5/15/2018 5/15/2018 5/15/2018 5/15/2018

- ND (0.0050) - 0.13 - 0.60 - 0.064 - 0.045 - 0.024 -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - 0.010 - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) -- ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) - ND (0.0040) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.014 - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) - ND (0.010) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.026 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.041 - 0.018 - 0.020 - 0.040 -- ND (0.0050) J - ND (0.0050) J - ND (0.0050) J - ND (0.0050) J - 0.0083 J - ND (0.0050) R -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.012 - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.011 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.015 - 0.064 - 0.020 - 0.021 -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.023 - 0.048 - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - 0.011 - ND (0.0050) - 0.020 - 0.022 - 0.012 -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - 0.0080 -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) - ND (0.0050) -- ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) - ND (0.0071) -

N/A 0 N/A 0.141 N/A 0.679 N/A 0.261 N/A 0.1413 N/A 0.105 N/AN/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0.014 N/A 0 N/A

- ND (0.020) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.060) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) -- ND (0.020) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.060) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) -- ND (0.040) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.12) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) -- ND (0.020) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.060) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) -- ND (0.020) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.020) - ND (0.060) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.040) -- ND (0.040) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.040) - ND (0.12) - ND (0.080) - ND (0.080) -

GHD 11102200-22-APPE-TE.2

Table E.2



Page 6 of 6

Sample Location:

Sample ID:







Notes:

a


ND (0.040)


(16 PAHs)





References:

F6 R1 R1 R2 R2 R3 R3 R4 R4 R5 R5 R6 R6SED-11102200-051618-AJR-57

SED-11102200-051618-AJR-06

SED-11102200-051618-AJR-56

SED-11102200-051618-AJR-05

SED-11102200-051618-AJR-55

SED-11102200-051518-AJR-04

SED-11102200-051518-AJR-54

SED-11102200-051518-AJR-01

SED-11102200-051518-AJR-51

SED-11102200-051518-AJR-02

SED-11102200-051518-AJR-52

SED-11102200-051518-AJR-03

SED-11102200-051518-AJR-53

5/16/2018 5/16/2018 5/16/2018 5/16/2018 5/16/2018 5/15/2018 5/15/2018 5/15/2018 5/15/2018 5/15/2018 5/15/2018 5/15/2018 5/15/2018

- YES - YES - YES - YES - YES - YES -- ND (10) - ND (20) - ND (10) - ND (30) - ND (20) - ND (20) -- ND (10) - ND (20) - ND (10) - ND (30) - ND (20) - ND (20) -- ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (10) - ND (20) - ND (20) - ND (20) -- ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (100) - ND (100) - ND (100) -- ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (50) - ND (100) - ND (100) - ND (100) -

N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A

- 20 - 28 - 25 - 50 - 36 - 40 -

ND (2.0) ND (2.0) 2.3 ND (2.0) ND (2.0) 3.5 ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) 2.4 - 21 - 26 - 26 - 49 - 38 - 39 -

97 95 96 95 99 87 97 73 95 73 91 79 82 3.1 3.2 ND (2.0) 4.7 ND (2.0) 9.4 2.3 27 4.0 26 8.3 21 15

ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () - 1100 - 2900 - 4800 - 11000 - 12000 - 6900 -- 78.0 - 70.7 - 70.7 - 38.7 - 52.8 - 57.4 -

GHD 11102200-22-APPE-TE.2

Table E.3



Page 1 of 4

Sample Location: A3 A3 A4 A5 A6 A10 C1 C2 C3 C3 C5 C7 C7 C8

Sample ID: SED-11102200-050917-AJR-25

SED-11102200-050917-AJR-26

SED-11102200-050917-AJR-24

SED-11102200-050917-AJR-23

SED-11102200-050817-AJR-22

SED-11102200-050817-AJR-21

SED-11102200-050517-AJR-18

SED-11102200-050517-AJR-17

SED-11102200-050417-AJR-15

SED-11102200-050417-AJR-16

SED-11102200-050417-AJR-14

SED-11102200-050317-AJR-10

SED-11102200-050317-AJR-11

SED-11102200-050317-AJR-09

Sample Date: 5/9/2017 5/9/2017 5/9/2017 5/9/2017 5/8/2017 5/8/2017 5/5/2017 5/5/2017 5/4/2017 5/4/2017 5/4/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 PSQG LEL or (Duplicate) (Duplicate) (Duplicate)

Parameters Units USEPA Region 5Screening Value

PAHs1-Methyl-7-isopropylphenanthrene ug/g NV 0.010 0.0079 0.013 ND (0.0050) 0.17 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 1.2 0.59 0.47 0.27 0.52 0.20 2.1 1-Methylnaphthalene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0099 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.037 0.030 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 2-Methylnaphthalene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.012 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.045 0.036 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Acenaphthene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0069 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.061 J 0.042 J ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Acenaphthylene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.011 0.010 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Acridine ug/g NV ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) 0.026 ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) 0.073 0.054 ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) Anthracene ug/g 0.22 ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) 0.013 ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) 0.058 0.054 ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) Benzo(a)anthracene ug/g 0.32 0.0065 0.0059 J ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.016 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.061 0.043 0.0062 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.013 Benzo(a)pyrene ug/g 0.37 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) J ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.016 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.049 0.038 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Benzo(b)fluoranthene/Benzo(j)fluoranthene ug/g NV 0.013 0.0062 J ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.019 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.056 0.063 0.011 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.013 Benzo(b)pyridine (Quinoline) ug/g NV ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) 0.038 J 0.022 J ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) Benzo(c)phenanthrene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0090 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Benzo(e)pyrene ug/g NV 0.0081 ND (0.0050) J ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.020 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.073 0.058 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.013 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ug/g 0.17 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.014 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.049 0.037 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.010 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/g 0.24 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.016 0.020 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.049 0.038 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) C1-Acenaphthene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) C1-Benzo(b,j,k)fluoranthene/Benzo(a)pyrene ug/g NV 0.0065 0.0067 0.0064 ND (0.0050) 0.043 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.16 0.10 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.023 C1-Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) ug/g NV 0.011 0.016 0.011 ND (0.0050) 0.064 ND (0.0050) 0.0068 ND (0.0050) 0.56 0.36 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.023 C1-Dibenzothiophenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.022 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.20 0.12 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.012 C1-Fluorenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.021 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.25 0.14 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.016 C1-Methylated benzo(a)anthracene chrysenes (C1-228 isomers) ug/g NV 0.0085 0.011 J 0.0073 ND (0.0050) 0.046 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.19 0.12 0.010 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.031 C1-Methylated fluoranthene/Pyrenes (C1-202 isomers) ug/g NV 0.025 0.035 J 0.030 ND (0.0050) 0.16 0.014 0.0080 ND (0.0050) 0.73 0.44 0.021 0.0085 0.0095 0.088 C1-Methylated phenanthrene/Anthracenes (C1-178 isomers) ug/g NV 0.012 0.015 0.013 ND (0.0050) 0.067 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.52 0.27 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.039 C1-Naphthalenes ug/g NV ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.021 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.078 0.061 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) C2-Alkylated fluoranthene/Pyrenes (C2-202 isomers) ug/g NV 0.033 0.054 J 0.048 ND (0.0050) 0.28 0.031 0.012 0.0064 1.4 0.86 0.038 0.024 0.049 0.22 C2-Benzo(a)anthracenes/chrysenes ug/g NV 0.022 0.030 J 0.029 ND (0.0050) 0.16 0.024 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.77 0.47 0.013 ND (0.0050) 0.0079 0.11 C2-Benzo(b,j,k)fluoranthene/Benzo(a)pyrene ug/g NV 0.0065 0.010 0.0083 ND (0.0050) 0.060 0.0079 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.22 0.14 0.0094 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.034 C2-Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) ug/g NV 0.013 0.028 0.024 ND (0.0050) 0.12 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 1.0 0.60 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.066 C2-Dibenzothiophenes ug/g NV 0.042 0.074 0.062 ND (0.0050) 0.30 0.020 0.011 ND (0.0050) 1.8 0.98 0.020 0.011 0.012 0.19 C2-Fluorenes ug/g NV 0.014 0.030 0.023 ND (0.0050) 0.11 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.96 0.54 0.0072 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.077 C2-Naphthalenes ug/g NV 0.0088 0.0079 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.049 ND (0.0050) 0.0075 ND (0.0050) 0.27 0.18 0.018 0.010 0.0083 0.042 C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes ug/g NV 0.035 0.061 0.046 ND (0.0050) 0.24 0.012 0.010 ND (0.0050) 1.8 0.98 0.018 0.011 0.0099 0.19 C3-Alkylated phenanthrene/Anthracenes (C3-178 isomers) ug/g NV 0.074 0.14 0.11 ND (0.0050) 0.59 0.043 0.038 ND (0.0050) 4.1 2.2 0.044 0.023 0.017 0.26 C3-Benzo(a)anthracene/Chrysenes (C3-228 isomers) ug/g NV 0.010 0.018 0.018 ND (0.0050) 0.11 0.011 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.43 0.24 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.060 C3-Dibenzothiophenes ug/g NV 0.039 0.083 0.053 ND (0.0050) 0.28 0.019 0.016 ND (0.0050) 1.7 0.91 0.021 0.013 0.012 0.20 C3-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes ug/g NV 0.054 0.071 0.088 ND (0.0050) 0.52 0.051 0.026 ND (0.0050) 1.8 1.0 0.034 0.017 0.023 0.25 C3-Fluorenes ug/g NV 0.061 0.10 0.097 ND (0.0050) 0.47 0.027 0.016 ND (0.0050) 3.9 1.9 ND (0.0050) 0.017 0.020 0.30 C3-Naphthalenes ug/g NV 0.014 0.018 0.013 ND (0.0050) 0.074 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.56 0.33 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.041 C4-Alkylated fluoranthene/Pyrenes (C4-202 isomers) ug/g NV 0.014 0.027 0.026 ND (0.0050) 0.16 0.015 0.0082 ND (0.0050) 0.66 0.38 0.017 0.0074 0.011 0.085 C4-Alkylated phenanthrene/Anthracenes (C4-178 isomers) ug/g NV 0.054 0.13 0.094 ND (0.0050) 0.56 0.047 0.029 0.93 3.0 1.8 0.25 0.43 0.17 1.9 C4-Benzo(a)anthracene/Chrysenes (C4-228 Isomers) ug/g NV ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.016 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.088 0.053 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.013 C4-Dibenzothiophenes ug/g NV 0.020 0.046 0.034 ND (0.0050) 0.19 0.020 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 1.5 0.89 0.020 0.011 0.014 0.14 C4-Naphthalenes ug/g NV 0.015 0.029 0.021 ND (0.0050) 0.12 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.59 0.46 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.062 Chrysene ug/g 0.34 0.0096 0.0082 J ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.023 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.088 0.073 0.0098 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.014 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ug/g 0.06 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Dibenzothiopene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Fluoranthene ug/g 0.75 0.019 0.015 J 0.0079 ND (0.0050) 0.032 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.16 0.14 0.017 ND (0.0050) 0.0098 0.021 Fluorene ug/g 0.19 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.013 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.071 0.053 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)fluoranthene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0090 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0097 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ug/g 0.2 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0093 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.025 0.026 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Naphthalene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) 0.0069 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.022 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.048 0.040 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) Perylene ug/g NV ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.020 ND (0.0050) 0.0084 ND (0.0050) 0.039 0.041 0.011 0.010 0.0099 0.018 Phenanthrene ug/g 0.56 0.0078 0.0082 0.0069 ND (0.0050) 0.035 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.23 0.17 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.017 Pyrene ug/g 0.49 0.022 0.022 J 0.015 ND (0.0050) 0.059 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.32 0.22 0.017 ND (0.0050) 0.0095 0.042 Total benzo(a)pyrene equivalents ug/g NV 0.0080 ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) 0.024 ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) 0.069 0.057 ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) 0.0080

Calculated Total PAH (All PAHs) NV 0.6963 1.1209 0.9048 0 5.4131 0.3419 0.1969 2.1364 31.552 18.377 0.8826 1.1129 0.5928 6.7507Calculated Total PAH (16 PAHs) 4.0 0.0779 0.0724 0.0298 0 0.2782 0 0 0 1.303 1.029 0.061 0 0.0193 0.13

BTEXBenzene ug/g NV ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.060) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.060) Ethylbenzene ug/g 0.175 ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.060) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.060) m&p-Xylenes ug/g NV ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.080) ND (0.080) ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.080) ND (0.12) ND (0.080) ND (0.080) ND (0.080) ND (0.12) o-Xylene ug/g 0.433 ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.060) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.060) Toluene ug/g 1.22 ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.060) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.060) Xylenes (total) ug/g NV ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.080) ND (0.080) ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.080) ND (0.12) ND (0.080) ND (0.080) ND (0.080) ND (0.12)

GHD 11102200-22-APPE-TE.3

Table E.3



Page 2 of 4

Sample Location: A3 A3 A4 A5 A6 A10 C1 C2 C3 C3 C5 C7 C7 C8

Sample ID: SED-11102200-050917-AJR-25

SED-11102200-050917-AJR-26

SED-11102200-050917-AJR-24

SED-11102200-050917-AJR-23

SED-11102200-050817-AJR-22

SED-11102200-050817-AJR-21

SED-11102200-050517-AJR-18

SED-11102200-050517-AJR-17

SED-11102200-050417-AJR-15

SED-11102200-050417-AJR-16

SED-11102200-050417-AJR-14

SED-11102200-050317-AJR-10

SED-11102200-050317-AJR-11

SED-11102200-050317-AJR-09

Sample Date: 5/9/2017 5/9/2017 5/9/2017 5/9/2017 5/8/2017 5/8/2017 5/5/2017 5/5/2017 5/4/2017 5/4/2017 5/4/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 PSQG LEL or (Duplicate) (Duplicate) (Duplicate)

Parameters Units USEPA Region 5Petroleum ProductsChromatogram to baseline at nC50 NA YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Petroleum hydrocarbons F1 (C6-C10) ug/g NV ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) ND (20) ND (20) ND (20) ND (10) 42 49 ND (20) ND (20) ND (20) ND (30) Petroleum hydrocarbons F1 (C6-C10) - less BTEX ug/g NV ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) ND (20) ND (20) ND (20) ND (10) 42 49 ND (20) ND (20) ND (20) ND (30) Petroleum hydrocarbons F2 (C10-C16) ug/g NV 26 24 16 ND (10) 54 16 ND (10) ND (10) 350 320 ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) 50 Petroleum hydrocarbons F3 (C16-C34) ug/g NV 100 99 54 ND (50) 280 79 ND (50) ND (50) 1500 1500 67 ND (50) ND (50) 280 Petroleum hydrocarbons F4 (C34-C50) ug/g NV ND (50) ND (50) ND (50) ND (50) ND (50) ND (50) ND (50) ND (50) 98 94 ND (50) ND (50) ND (50) ND (100)

Calculated Total PHC NV 126 123 70 0 334 95 0 0 2032 2012 67 0 0 330

GeotechClay % NV 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.3 2.2 0.0 2.4 2.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 Hydrometer passing 1 min. % NV 3.9 6.4 5.0 5.0 11.5 11.2 6.7 3.4 14.0 15.6 6.8 5.5 4.6 20.1 Hydrometer passing 10 min. % NV 1.3 3.8 2.5 2.5 5.1 3.7 4.5 2.2 4.7 4.5 2.3 1.4 1.5 4.5 Hydrometer passing 1080 min. % NV 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.4 2.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.2 Hydrometer passing 270 min. % NV 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 1.3 1.2 2.2 0.0 2.4 2.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 Hydrometer passing 3 min. % NV 2.6 5.1 3.8 3.8 7.7 6.2 4.5 2.2 5.9 6.7 3.4 2.7 2.3 6.7 Hydrometer passing 30 min. % NV 1.3 2.5 1.3 1.3 3.8 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.3 0.7 1.5 2.2 Hydrometer passing 90 min. % NV 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.3 2.6 1.2 2.2 0.0 2.4 2.2 2.3 0.7 1.5 2.2 Moisture % NV 21 20 21 23 33 26 30 27 43 44 34 33 29 48 Sand % NV 96.2 93.6 95.1 95.2 88.7 89.3 93.5 96.8 86.4 84.9 93.6 94.8 95.6 80.1 Sieve, #10, passing % NV 99.5 97.3 100.0 100.0 98.4 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.2 Sieve, #100, passing % NV 20.6 57.6 25.6 27.4 56.4 78.2 67.7 46.8 79.8 84.2 64.7 66.0 66.6 88.7 Sieve, #20, passing % NV 90.8 94.5 85.0 99.9 95.9 99.9 100.0 99.7 99.4 99.7 100.0 99.9 99.7 98.7 Sieve, #200, passing % NV 8.0 17.3 13.9 2.3 22.6 28.3 35.8 11.4 22.1 33.8 15.3 15.4 16.9 46.4 Sieve, #4, passing % NV 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sieve, #40, passing % NV 66.0 85.8 42.9 99.4 89.7 99.8 99.6 99.1 99.2 99.4 99.4 99.6 99.6 98.4 Silt % NV 3.8 5.1 4.9 3.6 10.0 10.4 4.3 3.2 11.3 12.9 4.1 5.2 4.4 17.9

General ChemistryBlack carbon % NV NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 1 1 NO NO NO Moisture % NV 22 / 18 17 20 / 19 21 / 20 28 / 35 20 / 26 25 24 50 40 36 26 25 39 Total organic carbon (TOC) ug/g NV ND (500) 2800 1900 ND (500) 5900 1400 4900 2500 11000 14000 6100 4000 3000 12000 Total solids % NV 81.7 77.9 80.7 80.1 68.1 77.9 69.7 70.6 49.7 49.1 63.9 65.4 69.1 51.6

Notes:

a


ND (0.040)


(16 PAHs)




- USEPA, 2003. Ecological Screening Levels for RCRA Appendix IX Hazardous Constituents. August 2003.

References:- Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOE), 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario, August 1993.- Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 2008. Guidelines for Identifying, Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments in Ontario: An Integrated Approach, May 2008.

GHD 11102200-22-APPE-TE.3

Table E.3



Page 3 of 4

Sample Location:

Sample ID:

Sample Date:PSQG LEL or

Parameters Units USEPA Region 5Screening Value




C9 C10 C11 C12 D1 D3 E1 E4 E9 F2 F5 F6 R1 R2 R3SED-11102200-050417-AJR-13

SED-11102200-050317-AJR-12

SED-11102200-050817-AJR-20

SED-11102200-050517-AJR-19

SED-11102200-050317-AJR-08

SED-11102200-050317-AJR-07

SED-11102200-050317-AJR-06

SED-11102200-050217-AJR-05

SED-11102200-050217-AJR-04

SED-11102200-050217-AJR-03

SED-11102200-050117-AJR-02

SED-11102200-050117-AJR-01

SED-11102200-050917-AJR-29

SED-11102200-050917-AJR-28

SED-11102200-050917-AJR-27

5/4/2017 5/3/2017 5/8/2017 5/5/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/9/2017 5/9/2017 5/9/2017

0.061 0.87 0.018 ND (0.0050) 1.8 J 0.0073 0.014 0.054 0.062 0.021 0.018 0.21 ND (0.0050) 0.42 0.15 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.010) 0.024 ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) J ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.021) ND (0.010) ND (0.027) ND (0.010) ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) ND (0.0040) ND (0.0084) ND (0.0040) ND (0.011) ND (0.0040)

0.0098 0.022 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.020 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050)

0.016 0.028 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.014 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.010) ND (0.021) ND (0.010) ND (0.027) ND (0.010) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050)

0.0089 0.033 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.012 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.023 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0094 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050)

0.0075 0.068 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.020 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.033 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.023 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.024 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050)

0.0093 0.071 0.0060 ND (0.0050) 0.039 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.019 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) 0.024 0.22 0.019 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.011 0.018 0.014 0.022 0.016 0.040 0.051 ND (0.0050) 0.019 ND (0.0050)

ND (0.0050) 0.056 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.015 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050)

0.042 0.53 0.036 ND (0.0050) 0.025 0.035 0.021 0.020 0.026 0.020 0.039 0.11 ND (0.0050) 0.047 ND (0.0050) 0.024 0.30 0.028 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.013 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0069 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.074 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) 0.010 0.097 0.0083 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.024 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050)

ND (0.0050) 0.087 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.014 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) 0.019 0.39 0.028 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0095 ND (0.0050) 0.010 0.011 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.062 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050)

ND (0.0050) 0.13 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.024 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) 0.014 0.052 0.0060 ND (0.0050) 0.012 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.013 0.013 0.0088 0.0075 0.050 0.010 0.040 0.031 0.019 0.36 0.022 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0082 ND (0.0050) 0.0099 0.0093 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.053 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) 0.066 1.3 0.074 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.035 ND (0.0050) 0.014 0.015 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.22 ND (0.0050) 0.017 ND (0.0050) 0.011 0.19 0.019 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0082 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.042 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) 0.024 0.51 0.032 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.015 ND (0.0050) 0.010 0.012 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.075 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) 0.058 0.77 0.070 ND (0.0050) 0.012 0.037 0.010 0.022 0.024 0.0064 0.020 0.14 ND (0.0050) 0.017 ND (0.0050)

ND (0.0050) 0.68 0.040 ND (0.0050) 0.0095 0.018 ND (0.0050) 0.047 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.078 ND (0.0050) 0.041 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.051 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.010 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.011 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) 0.0071

0.014 0.23 0.024 ND (0.0050) 0.046 0.013 ND (0.0050) 0.012 0.010 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.049 ND (0.0050) 0.032 ND (0.0050) 0.084 1.4 0.068 ND (0.0050) 1.5 J 0.030 0.016 0.056 0.066 0.025 0.021 0.28 ND (0.0050) 0.34 0.12

ND (0.0050) 0.036 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) 0.026 0.40 0.027 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.015 ND (0.0050) 0.014 0.0098 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.080 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050)

ND (0.0050) 0.084 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.017 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) 0.013 0.028 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050)

ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050)

0.032 0.034 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0069 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.015 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.016 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050)

0.0053 0.035 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.0095 0.024 0.066 0.082 0.017 0.011 0.19 0.032 ND (0.0050) 0.069 0.0070 ND (0.0050) 0.025 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.011) ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050)

0.028 0.072 0.0085 ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) ND (0.0050) 0.021 ND (0.0050) ND (0.014) ND (0.0050) 0.0080 0.030 ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) ND (0.0071) ND (0.015) ND (0.0071) ND (0.019) ND (0.0071)

0.6338 9.3614 0.5338 0 3.4599 0.2792 0.145 0.3879 0.304 0.1082 0.3355 1.812 0.01 1.042 0.31510.0988 0.2774 0.0085 0 0.0069 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0 0 0

ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.060) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.060) ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.060) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.060) ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.080) ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.080) ND (0.12) ND (0.080) ND (0.080) ND (0.12) ND (0.16) ND (0.080) ND (0.16) ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.060) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.060) ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.020) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.020) ND (0.040) ND (0.060) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.060) ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.080) ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.040) ND (0.080) ND (0.040) ND (0.080) ND (0.12) ND (0.080) ND (0.080) ND (0.12) ND (0.16) ND (0.080) ND (0.16) ND (0.080)

GHD 11102200-22-APPE-TE.3

Table E.3



Page 4 of 4

Sample Location:

Sample ID:

Sample Date:PSQG LEL or

Parameters Units USEPA Region 5Petroleum ProductsChromatogram to baseline at nC50 NAPetroleum hydrocarbons F1 (C6-C10) ug/g NVPetroleum hydrocarbons F1 (C6-C10) - less BTEX ug/g NVPetroleum hydrocarbons F2 (C10-C16) ug/g NVPetroleum hydrocarbons F3 (C16-C34) ug/g NVPetroleum hydrocarbons F4 (C34-C50) ug/g NV


GeotechClay % NVHydrometer passing 1 min. % NVHydrometer passing 10 min. % NVHydrometer passing 1080 min. % NVHydrometer passing 270 min. % NVHydrometer passing 3 min. % NVHydrometer passing 30 min. % NVHydrometer passing 90 min. % NVMoisture % NVSand % NVSieve, #10, passing % NVSieve, #100, passing % NVSieve, #20, passing % NVSieve, #200, passing % NVSieve, #4, passing % NVSieve, #40, passing % NVSilt % NV

General ChemistryBlack carbon % NVMoisture % NVTotal organic carbon (TOC) ug/g NVTotal solids % NV

Notes:

a


ND (0.040)


(16 PAHs)




- USEPA, 2003. Ecological Screening Levels for RCRA Appendix IX Hazardous Constituents. August 2003.

References:- Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOE), 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario, August 1993.- Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 2008. Guidelines for Identifying, Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments in Ontario: An Integrated Approach, May 2008.

C9 C10 C11 C12 D1 D3 E1 E4 E9 F2 F5 F6 R1 R2 R3SED-11102200-050417-AJR-13

SED-11102200-050317-AJR-12

SED-11102200-050817-AJR-20

SED-11102200-050517-AJR-19

SED-11102200-050317-AJR-08

SED-11102200-050317-AJR-07

SED-11102200-050317-AJR-06

SED-11102200-050217-AJR-05

SED-11102200-050217-AJR-04

SED-11102200-050217-AJR-03

SED-11102200-050117-AJR-02

SED-11102200-050117-AJR-01

SED-11102200-050917-AJR-29

SED-11102200-050917-AJR-28

SED-11102200-050917-AJR-27

5/4/2017 5/3/2017 5/8/2017 5/5/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/3/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/2/2017 5/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/9/2017 5/9/2017 5/9/2017

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES ND (20) ND (20) ND (10) ND (10) ND (20) ND (10) ND (20) ND (30) ND (20) ND (20) ND (30) ND (40) ND (20) ND (40) ND (20) ND (20) ND (20) ND (10) ND (10) ND (20) ND (10) ND (20) ND (30) ND (20) ND (20) ND (30) ND (40) ND (20) ND (40) ND (20) ND (10) 41 21 ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) ND (20) ND (10) ND (10) ND (20) 49 ND (10) ND (20) ND (10)

85 470 100 ND (50) ND (50) 71 ND (50) ND (100) ND (50) ND (50) ND (100) 240 ND (50) ND (100) ND (50) ND (50) ND (50) ND (50) ND (50) ND (50) ND (50) ND (50) ND (100) ND (50) ND (50) ND (100) ND (100) ND (50) ND (100) ND (50)

85 511 121 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 289 0 0 0

2.3 2.4 0.0 2.3 0.8 1.1 1.3 2.0 1.9 0.3 4.9 0.0 1.3 2.6 1.2 9.2 9.5 5.1 7.9 8.9 3.7 11.3 16.1 10.0 6.7 41.9 21.7 7.5 20.2 10.6 2.3 4.8 2.6 3.4 2.2 1.8 2.5 4.6 2.2 2.2 15.7 6.2 3.7 6.4 4.7 2.3 2.4 0.0 2.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.3 2.2 0.0 5.2 0.0 1.2 1.8 1.2 2.3 2.4 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 3.9 0.0 1.2 1.8 1.2 4.6 4.8 3.8 4.5 4.5 2.5 5.0 6.9 4.4 4.4 23.6 9.3 5.0 10.1 7.1 2.3 2.4 1.3 2.3 2.2 1.2 2.5 2.3 2.2 0.0 10.5 3.1 2.5 4.6 3.5 2.3 2.4 0.0 2.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.3 2.2 0.0 7.9 0.0 2.5 2.8 2.4 30 37 26 25 35 23 34 51 35 35 50 61 28 53 32

91.2 90.9 95.1 92.5 91.5 96.3 89.4 84.3 90.5 93.6 56.4 79.0 92.8 71.6 89.7 100.0 99.4 100.0 100.0 99.8 96.3 100.0 99.3 99.7 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.8 70.7 99.3 72.1 50.5 28.4 69.1 74.7 14.0 81.3 86.0 84.5 74.6 95.1 79.0 31.3 48.7 54.7 99.9 99.2 100.0 99.9 99.5 84.8 100.0 98.6 99.6 100.0 1000 99.5 99.3 70.7 99.1 18.9 24.0 12.9 39.2 25.0 7.8 33.0 39.2 23.9 29.0 70.9 49.4 14.8 26.6 20.9 100.0 99.5 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 70.7 100.0 99.6 96.2 95.1 99.5 99.0 53.9 99.7 98.0 99.5 99.9 99.9 99.2 95.8 69.9 97.3 6.5 6.7 4.9 5.3 7.7 2.6 9.4 13.7 7.5 6.2 38.7 21.0 6.0 25.8 9.1

NO NO 1 NO NO NO NO 1 NO NO NO 1 NO NO NO 33 48 25 22 27 19 27 41 30 25 41 53 26 / 22 63 / 51 27 / 34

5200 7300 2100 4500 5900 3400 7300 14000 5400 6200 19000 19000 2000 29000 3900 58.1 55.4 77.3 74.1 60.3 70.1 62.3 47.9 53.6 62.8 46.9 39.7 73.0 48.2 65.4

GHD 11102200-22-APPE-TE.3





Version: 1 - Final

Attention: 11102200-13 - PO - 73032176


Your C.O.C. #: 713655-01-01


Sample Matrix: Sediment# Samples Received: 10



Texture by Hydrometer (1) 10 N/A 2019/05/21 AB SOP-00035/00030 Carter 2nd ed 55.3 m

Texture Class (1) 10 N/A 2019/05/21 Calc.

Remarks:






(1) This test was performed by Campo to Calgary - Offsite

Page 1 of 9






Version: 1 - Final

Attention: 11102200-13 - PO - 73032176


Your C.O.C. #: 713655-01-01


Encryption Key

Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.Jonathan Urben, Senior Project ManagerEmail: [email protected]# (613)274-3549==================================================================== Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.







SUBCONTRACTED ANALYSIS (SEDIMENT)

Maxxam ID JRN938 JRN938


09:352019/05/08

09:35

COC Number 713655-01-01 713655-01-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050819

-AJR-55RDL QC Batch

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-55Lab-Dup

RDL QC Batch

Texture N/A SAND N/A 6133463

SOIL

Clay % ND 2 6133462 ND 2 6133462

Sand % 97 2 6133462 97 2 6133462

Silt % 2 2 6133462 2 2 6133462



Lab-Dup = Laboratory Initiated Duplicate

N/A = Not Applicable

ND = Not detected

Maxxam ID JRN934 JRN935 JRN936 JRN937


12:252019/05/07

15:152019/05/07

16:402019/05/07

18:05

COC Number 713655-01-01 713655-01-01 713655-01-01 713655-01-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050719

-AJR-51SED-11102200-050719

-AJR-52SED-11102200-050719

-AJR-53SED-11102200-050719

-AJR-54RDL QC Batch

Texture N/A SAND SAND SAND SAND N/A 6133463

SOIL

Clay % ND ND ND ND 2 6133462

Sand % 94 100 94 95 2 6133462

Silt % 4 ND 4 4 2 6133462




ND = Not detected

Page 3 of 9







Maxxam ID JRN943


09:35

COC Number 713655-01-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051019

-AJR-60RDL QC Batch


SOIL

Clay % ND 2 6133462

Sand % 92 2 6133462

Silt % 7 2 6133462




ND = Not detected

Maxxam ID JRN939 JRN940 JRN941 JRN942


11:502019/05/08

13:552019/05/08

16:152019/05/08

17:35

COC Number 713655-01-01 713655-01-01 713655-01-01 713655-01-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050819

-AJR-56SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-57SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-58SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-59RDL QC Batch


SOIL

Clay % ND ND 2 ND 2 6133462

Sand % 96 93 90 95 2 6133462

Silt % ND 5 8 3 2 6133462




ND = Not detected

Page 4 of 9






TEST SUMMARY


Maxxam ID: JRN934 Collected: 2019/05/07Sample ID: SED-11102200-050719-AJR-51

Matrix: SedimentShipped:


Texture by Hydrometer 6133462 N/A 2019/05/21 Muhammad Naeem

Texture Class CALC 6133463 N/A 2019/05/21 Report Automation Engine


















Texture Class CALC 6133463 N/A 2019/05/21 Automated Statchk








Maxxam ID: JRN938 Dup Collected: 2019/05/08Sample ID: SED-11102200-050819-AJR-55




Page 5 of 9






TEST SUMMARY































Page 6 of 9






GENERAL COMMENTS


Package 1 1.0°C


Page 7 of 9





QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTMaxxam Job #: B9C6224Report Date: 2019/05/22

QC Batch Parameter Date Value (%) QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits

RPD QC Standard

6133462 Clay 2019/05/21 NC (1) 30 83 79 - 121

6133462 Sand 2019/05/21 0.14 (1) 30 102 87 - 113

6133462 Silt 2019/05/21 3.2 (1) 30 107 90 - 110


QC Standard: A sample of known concentration prepared by an external agency under stringent conditions. Used as an independent check of method accuracy.


(1) Duplicate Parent ID [JRN938-01]

Page 8 of 9








Harry (Peng) Liang, Senior Analyst


Page 9 of 9


MAXXAM JOB #: B9D3761Received: 2019/05/17, 16:45




Version: 1 - Final

Attention: 11102200-13 - PO - 73032176







Remarks:






(1) This test was performed by Campo to Calgary - Offsite

Encryption Key

Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.Jonathan Urben, Senior Project ManagerEmail: [email protected]# (613)274-3549

Page 1 of 9


MAXXAM JOB #: B9D3761Received: 2019/05/17, 16:45




Version: 1 - Final

Attention: 11102200-13 - PO - 73032176


==================================================================== Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.



Maxxam Job #: B9D3761Report Date: 2019/05/31

GHD Contractors LimitedClient Project #: 11102200-13Your P.O. #: 73032176Sampler Initials: AJR


Maxxam ID JTG647 JTG648 JTG648


17:252019/05/15

09:302019/05/15

09:30

COC Number 713655-03-01 713655-03-01 713655-03-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051419

-AJR-65SED-11102200-051519

-AJR-66RDL QC Batch

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-66Lab-Dup

RDL QC Batch

Texture N/A SAND SAND N/A 6150571

SOIL

Clay % ND 2 2 6150572 ND 2 6150572

Sand % 97 97 2 6150572 97 2 6150572

Silt % ND ND 2 6150572 ND 2 6150572





ND = Not detected

Maxxam ID JTG643 JTG644 JTG645 JTG646


09:252019/05/14

11:402019/05/14

13:552019/05/14

15:30

COC Number 713655-03-01 713655-03-01 713655-03-01 713655-03-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051419

-AJR-61SED-11102200-051419

-AJR-62SED-11102200-051419

-AJR-63SED-11102200-051419

-AJR-64RDL QC Batch


SOIL

Clay % ND ND 2 ND 2 6150570

Sand % 95 98 92 98 2 6150570

Silt % 3 ND 6 ND 2 6150570




ND = Not detected

Page 3 of 9





Maxxam ID JTG652 JTG653


09:152019/05/16

11:25

COC Number 713655-03-01 713655-03-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051619

-AJR-70SED-11102200-051619

-AJR-71RDL QC Batch

Texture N/A SAND SAND N/A 6150573

SOIL

Clay % ND 2 2 6150570

Sand % 93 92 2 6150570

Silt % 6 6 2 6150570




ND = Not detected

Maxxam ID JTG649 JTG650 JTG651


11:202019/05/15

13:452019/05/15

16:00

COC Number 713655-03-01 713655-03-01 713655-03-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051519

-AJR-67QC Batch

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-68

QC BatchSED-11102200-051519

-AJR-69RDL QC Batch

Texture N/A SAND 6150571 SAND 6150573 SAND N/A 6150573

SOIL

Clay % 2 6150572 ND 6150572 ND 2 6150570

Sand % 92 6150572 96 6150572 92 2 6150570

Silt % 5 6150572 2 6150572 7 2 6150570




ND = Not detected

Page 4 of 9




TEST SUMMARY


Maxxam ID: JTG643 Collected: 2019/05/14Sample ID: SED-11102200-051419-AJR-61



































Page 5 of 9




TEST SUMMARY


Maxxam ID: JTG648 Dup Collected: 2019/05/15Sample ID: SED-11102200-051519-AJR-66


































Page 6 of 9




GENERAL COMMENTS


Package 1 4.7°C


Page 7 of 9



QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTMaxxam Job #: B9D3761Report Date: 2019/05/31

QC Batch Parameter Date Value (%) QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits

RPD QC Standard

6150570 Clay 2019/05/29 113 79 - 121

6150570 Sand 2019/05/29 98 87 - 113

6150570 Silt 2019/05/29 95 90 - 110

6150572 Clay 2019/05/29 21 (1) 30 98 79 - 121

6150572 Sand 2019/05/29 0.18 (1) 30 99 87 - 113

6150572 Silt 2019/05/29 NC (1) 30 101 90 - 110




(1) Duplicate Parent ID [JTG648-01]

Page 8 of 9






Winnie Au, B.Sc., QP, Scientific Specialist


Page 9 of 9






Version: 1 - Final

Attention: 11102200-13 - PO - 73032176





Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil (2) 3 N/A 2019/05/23 CAM SOP-00315 CCME PHC-CWS m

F2-F4 PHCs with extra silica gel cleanup (3) 3 2019/05/23 2019/05/23 CAM SOP-00316 CCME CWS m

Moisture (Subcontracted) (1, 4) 3 N/A 2019/05/24 AB SOP-00002 CCME PHC-CWS m

Target & Alkylated PAH in Soil by GC/MS (1, 5) 3 2019/05/23 2019/05/29

B[a]P Total Potency Equivalent (1) 3 N/A 2019/05/31 CCME



Moisture 3 N/A 2019/05/18 CAM SOP-00445 Carter 2nd ed 51.2 m

Total Organic Carbon in Soil 3 N/A 2019/05/22 CAM SOP-00468 BCMOE TOC Aug 2014

Total Solids 3 N/A 2019/05/22 CAM SOP-00428 SM 23 2540 G m

Remarks:

Bureau Veritas Laboratories are accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 for specific parameters on scopes of accreditation. Unless otherwise noted, procedures usedby BV Labs are based upon recognized Provincial, Federal or US method compendia such as CCME, MDDELCC, EPA, APHA.



Solid sample results, except biota, are based on dry weight unless otherwise indicated. Organic analyses are not recovery corrected except for isotopedilution methods.Results relate to samples tested. When sampling is not conducted by BV Labs, results relate to the supplied samples tested.This Certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.

Reference Method suffix “m” indicates test methods incorporate validated modifications from specific reference methods to improve performance.


(1) This test was performed by Campo to Calgary - Offsite(2) No lab extraction date is given for F1BTEX & VOC samples that are field preserved with methanol. Extraction date is the date sampled unless otherwise stated.

Page 1 of 19






Version: 1 - Final

Attention: 11102200-13 - PO - 73032176


(3) All CCME PHC results met required criteria unless otherwise stated in the report. The CWS PHC methods employed by Bureau Veritas Laboratories conform to all prescribedelements of the reference method and performance based elements have been validated. All modifications have been validated and proven equivalent following “AlbertaEnvironment’s Interpretation of the Reference Method for the Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Validation of Performance-Based Alternative MethodsSeptember 2003”. Documentation is available upon request. Modifications from Reference Method for the Canada-wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil-Tier 1Method: F2/F3/F4 data reported using validated cold solvent extraction instead of Soxhlet extraction.(4) Offsite analysis requires that subcontracted moisture be reported.(5) Alkylated PAH results are semiquantitative.

Encryption Key

Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.Jonathan Urben, Senior Project ManagerEmail: [email protected]# (613)274-3549==================================================================== BV Labs has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.





RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT

BV Labs ID JTG621 JTG622


09:452019/05/16

10:00

COC Number 713655-12-01 713655-12-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051619

-AJR-41SED-11102200-051619

-AJR-42RDL QC Batch

Inorganics

Moisture % 24 31 1.0 6129778

Total Organic Carbon mg/kg 3600 5400 500 6131264

Total Solids % 76.5 63.8 0.1 6132043

Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons

Acenaphthene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Acenaphthylene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Acridine mg/kg ND ND 0.010 6159361

Anthracene mg/kg 0.0058 ND 0.0040 6159361

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.013 ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.013 ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(c)phenanthrene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.0086 ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(e)pyrene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Chrysene mg/kg 0.012 ND 0.0050 6159361

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Fluoranthene mg/kg ND 0.012 0.0050 6159361

Fluorene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)fluoranthene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Naphthalene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Phenanthrene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Perylene mg/kg 0.0067 ND 0.0050 6159361

Pyrene mg/kg 0.0091 0.0088 0.0050 6159361

C3-Fluorene mg/kg 0.046 0.029 0.0050 6159361

Quinoline mg/kg ND ND 0.010 6159361

Retene mg/kg 0.020 0.075 0.0050 6159361

C1-Naphthalene mg/kg ND 0.0067 0.0050 6159361

C2-Naphthalene mg/kg 0.020 0.023 0.0050 6159361

C3-Naphthalene mg/kg 0.0065 ND 0.0050 6159361

C4-Naphthalene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361



ND = Not detected

Page 3 of 19







09:452019/05/16

10:00

COC Number 713655-12-01 713655-12-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051619

-AJR-41SED-11102200-051619

-AJR-42RDL QC Batch

Biphenyl mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

C1-Biphenyl mg/kg 0.011 ND 0.0050 6159361

C2-Biphenyl mg/kg 0.0087 ND 0.0050 6159361

C1-Fluorene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

C2-Fluorene mg/kg 0.0071 ND 0.0050 6159361

Dibenzothiophene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

C1-Dibenzothiophene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

C2-Dibenzothiophene mg/kg 0.030 ND 0.0050 6159361



C1-Phenanthrene/Anthracene mg/kg 0.020 0.016 0.0050 6159361




C1-Fluoranthene/Pyrene mg/kg 0.017 ND 0.0050 6159361



C4-Fluoranthene/Pyrene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

C1-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.011 ND 0.0050 6159361

C2-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.014 ND 0.0050 6159361

C3-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

C4-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

C1-Benzo(bjk)fluoran/Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.0067 ND 0.0050 6159361

C2-Benzo(bjk)fluor/benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.012 0.0062 0.0050 6159361

C1-Acenaphthene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

1-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Physical Testing

Moisture-Subcontracted % 26 27 0.30 6159362


D10-Anthracene % 87 95 6159361

D14-Terphenyl % 92 98 6159361

D8-Acenaphthylene % 83 87 6159361

D8-Naphthalene % 87 92 6159361



ND = Not detected

Page 4 of 19







10:002019/05/16

10:25

COC Number 713655-12-01 713655-12-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051619

-AJR-42Lab-Dup

RDL QC BatchSED-11102200-051619

-AJR-43RDL QC Batch

Inorganics

Moisture % 25 1.0 6129778

Total Organic Carbon mg/kg 1200 500 6131264

Total Solids % 77.6 0.1 6132043


Acenaphthene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

Acenaphthylene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

Acridine mg/kg ND 0.010 6159361 ND 0.010 6159361

Anthracene mg/kg ND 0.0040 6159361 ND 0.0040 6159361

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 0.0064 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 0.010 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(c)phenanthrene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(e)pyrene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 0.0078 0.0050 6159361

Chrysene mg/kg 0.0070 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.012 0.0050 6159361 0.0091 0.0050 6159361

Fluorene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 0.011 0.0050 6159361

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)fluoranthene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.0064 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.0066 0.0050 6159361 0.014 0.0050 6159361

Perylene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 0.013 0.0050 6159361

Pyrene mg/kg 0.010 0.0050 6159361 0.0091 0.0050 6159361

C3-Fluorene mg/kg 0.025 0.0050 6159361 0.052 0.0050 6159361

Quinoline mg/kg ND 0.010 6159361 ND 0.010 6159361

Retene mg/kg 0.10 0.0050 6159361 0.081 0.0050 6159361

C1-Naphthalene mg/kg 0.0081 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

C2-Naphthalene mg/kg 0.022 0.0050 6159361 0.0056 0.0050 6159361

C3-Naphthalene mg/kg 0.0053 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361




ND = Not detected

Page 5 of 19







10:002019/05/16

10:25

COC Number 713655-12-01 713655-12-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051619

-AJR-42Lab-Dup


-AJR-43RDL QC Batch

C4-Naphthalene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

Biphenyl mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

C1-Biphenyl mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

C2-Biphenyl mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 0.0069 0.0050 6159361

C1-Fluorene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

C2-Fluorene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

Dibenzothiophene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

C1-Dibenzothiophene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

C2-Dibenzothiophene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 0.035 0.0050 6159361



C1-Phenanthrene/Anthracene mg/kg 0.020 0.0050 6159361 0.0093 0.0050 6159361




C1-Fluoranthene/Pyrene mg/kg 0.0086 0.0050 6159361 0.015 0.0050 6159361

C2-Fluoranthene/Pyrene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 0.018 0.0050 6159361



C1-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

C2-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 0.0069 0.0050 6159361



C1-Benzo(bjk)fluoran/Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 0.011 0.0050 6159361

C2-Benzo(bjk)fluor/benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.0078 0.0050 6159361 0.012 0.0050 6159361

C1-Acenaphthene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

1-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361 ND 0.0050 6159361

Physical Testing

Moisture-Subcontracted % 22 0.30 6159362


D10-Anthracene % 93 6159361 94 6159361

D14-Terphenyl % 101 6159361 98 6159361

D8-Acenaphthylene % 88 6159361 89 6159361




ND = Not detected

Page 6 of 19







10:002019/05/16

10:25

COC Number 713655-12-01 713655-12-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051619

-AJR-42Lab-Dup


-AJR-43RDL QC Batch

D8-Naphthalene % 92 6159361 93 6159361




Page 7 of 19





BV Labs ID JTG623


10:25

COC Number 713655-12-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051619

-AJR-43RDL QC Batch


SOIL

Clay % ND 2 6150570

Sand % 97 2 6150570

Silt % ND 2 6150570




ND = Not detected



09:452019/05/16

10:002019/05/16

10:00

COC Number 713655-12-01 713655-12-01 713655-12-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051619

-AJR-41SED-11102200-051619

-AJR-42RDL QC Batch

SED-11102200-051619-AJR-42Lab-Dup

RDL QC Batch

Texture N/A SAND LOAMY SAND N/A 6150573

SOIL

Clay % 3 3 2 6150570 2 2 6150570

Sand % 89 86 2 6150570 86 2 6150570

Silt % 8 11 2 6150570 12 2 6150570





Page 8 of 19




SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS BY GC-MS (SEDIMENT)



09:452019/05/16

10:002019/05/16

10:25

COC Number 713655-12-01 713655-12-01 713655-12-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051619

-AJR-41SED-11102200-051619

-AJR-42SED-11102200-051619

-AJR-43RDL QC Batch


Benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency Equiv. mg/kg 0.014 ND ND 0.0071 6159366



ND = Not detected

Page 9 of 19







09:452019/05/16

10:002019/05/16

10:25

COC Number 713655-12-01 713655-12-01 713655-12-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051619

-AJR-41SED-11102200-051619

-AJR-42SED-11102200-051619

-AJR-43RDL QC Batch


Benzene ug/g ND ND ND 0.020 6136880

Toluene ug/g ND ND ND 0.020 6136880

Ethylbenzene ug/g ND ND ND 0.020 6136880

o-Xylene ug/g ND ND ND 0.020 6136880

p+m-Xylene ug/g ND ND ND 0.040 6136880

Total Xylenes ug/g ND ND ND 0.040 6136880

F1 (C6-C10) ug/g ND ND ND 10 6136880

F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX ug/g ND ND ND 10 6136880

F2-F4 Hydrocarbons

Extra Silica Gel F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons) ug/g 14 ND ND 10 6135592

Extra Silica Gel F3 (C16-C34 Hydrocarbons) ug/g 50 ND ND 50 6135592

Extra Silica Gel F4 (C34-C50 Hydrocarbons) ug/g ND ND ND 50 6135592

Extra Silica Gel Reached Baseline at C50 ug/g Yes Yes Yes 6135592


1,4-Difluorobenzene % 99 98 98 6136880

4-Bromofluorobenzene % 97 97 99 6136880

D10-Ethylbenzene % 100 108 107 6136880

D4-1,2-Dichloroethane % 93 92 92 6136880

Extra Silica Gel o-Terphenyl % 82 77 76 6135592



ND = Not detected

Page 10 of 19




TEST SUMMARY


BV Labs ID: JTG621 Collected: 2019/05/16Sample ID: SED-11102200-051619-AJR-41



Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil HSGC/MSFD 6136880 N/A 2019/05/23 Abdi Mohamud

F2-F4 PHCs with extra silica gel cleanup GC/FID 6135592 2019/05/23 2019/05/23 Prabhjot Gulati

Moisture (Subcontracted) BAL 6159362 N/A 2019/05/24 Sangeetha John

Target & Alkylated PAH in Soil by GC/MS GC/MS 6159361 2019/05/23 2019/05/29 Don Maxwell

B[a]P Total Potency Equivalent GC/MS 6159366 N/A 2019/05/31 Veronica Falk



Moisture BAL 6129778 N/A 2019/05/18 Prgya Panchal

Total Organic Carbon in Soil COMB 6131264 N/A 2019/05/22 Dhruvik Modh

Total Solids BAL 6132043 N/A 2019/05/22 Mandeep Kaur
















BV Labs ID: JTG622 Dup Collected: 2019/05/16Sample ID: SED-11102200-051619-AJR-42















Page 11 of 19




TEST SUMMARY









Page 12 of 19




GENERAL COMMENTS


Package 1 6.3°C

Package 2 7.0°C

Sample JTG621 [SED-11102200-051619-AJR-41] : F2-F4 Analysis: At the request of the client the sample was treated with an additional portion ofsilica gel that is above the maximum amount prescribed in the reference method.




Page 13 of 19




QC Batch Parameter Date % Recovery QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits Value UNITS Value (%) QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits

Matrix Spike SPIKED BLANK Method Blank RPD QC Standard

6135592 Extra Silica Gel o-Terphenyl 2019/05/23 91 60 - 130 93 60 - 130 89 %



6136880 D10-Ethylbenzene 2019/05/23 111 60 - 140 102 60 - 140 103 %


6159361 D10-Anthracene 2019/05/29 88 (3) 50 - 130 84 50 - 130 103 %

6159361 D14-Terphenyl 2019/05/29 94 (3) 50 - 130 91 50 - 130 105 %

6159361 D8-Acenaphthylene 2019/05/29 84 (3) 50 - 130 87 50 - 130 98 %

6159361 D8-Naphthalene 2019/05/29 89 (3) 50 - 130 90 50 - 130 101 %

6129778 Moisture 2019/05/18 0 (1) 20

6131264 Total Organic Carbon 2019/05/22 ND, RDL=500 mg/kg 5.7 (1) 35 108 75 - 125

6132043 Total Solids 2019/05/22 ND, RDL=0.1 % 0.20 (1) 35

6135592 Extra Silica Gel F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons) 2019/05/23 87 50 - 130 93 80 - 120 ND, RDL=10 ug/g NC (1) 30



6136880 Benzene 2019/05/23 94 60 - 140 100 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g NC (1) 50

6136880 Ethylbenzene 2019/05/23 95 60 - 140 102 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g NC (1) 50

6136880 F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX 2019/05/23 ND, RDL=10 ug/g NC (1) 30

6136880 F1 (C6-C10) 2019/05/23 100 60 - 140 98 80 - 120 ND, RDL=10 ug/g NC (1) 30

6136880 o-Xylene 2019/05/23 95 60 - 140 99 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g NC (1) 50

6136880 p+m-Xylene 2019/05/23 97 60 - 140 104 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.040ug/g NC (1) 50

6136880 Toluene 2019/05/23 95 60 - 140 101 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g NC (1) 50

6136880 Total Xylenes 2019/05/23ND,

RDL=0.040ug/g NC (1) 50

6150570 Clay 2019/05/29 NC (2) 30 113 79 - 121

6150570 Sand 2019/05/29 0.27 (2) 30 98 87 - 113

6150570 Silt 2019/05/29 6.6 (2) 30 95 90 - 110

Page 14 of 19






6159361 1-Methylnaphthalene 2019/05/29 86 (3) 50 - 130 92 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Acenaphthene 2019/05/29 90 (3) 50 - 130 96 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Acenaphthylene 2019/05/29 88 (3) 50 - 130 96 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Acridine 2019/05/29 58 (3) 50 - 130 70 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.010mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Anthracene 2019/05/29 88 (3) 50 - 130 94 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0040mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Benzo(a)anthracene 2019/05/29 90 (3) 50 - 130 95 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Benzo(a)pyrene 2019/05/29 88 (3) 50 - 130 99 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene 2019/05/29 86 (3) 50 - 130 93 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Benzo(c)phenanthrene 2019/05/29 89 (3) 50 - 130 94 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Benzo(e)pyrene 2019/05/29 86 (3) 50 - 130 95 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2019/05/29 87 (3) 50 - 130 100 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2019/05/29 90 (3) 50 - 130 102 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Biphenyl 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 C1-Acenaphthene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 C1-Benzo(bjk)fluoran/Benzo(a)pyrene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 C1-Biphenyl 2019/05/29 85 (3) 50 - 130 92 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

Page 15 of 19






6159361 C1-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 C1-Dibenzothiophene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 C1-Fluoranthene/Pyrene 2019/05/29 92 (3) 50 - 130 93 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 C1-Fluorene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 C1-Naphthalene 2019/05/29 85 (3) 50 - 130 92 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 19 (2) 50

6159361 C1-Phenanthrene/Anthracene 2019/05/29 92 (3) 50 - 130 98 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 25 (2) 50

6159361 C2-Benzo(bjk)fluor/benzo(a)pyrene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 24 (2) 50

6159361 C2-Biphenyl 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 C2-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene 2019/05/29 22 (4,3) 30 - 130 44 30 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 C2-Fluoranthene/Pyrene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 C2-Fluorene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 C2-Naphthalene 2019/05/29 86 (3) 50 - 130 97 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 4.1 (2) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 21 (2) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

Page 16 of 19






6159361 C3-Fluorene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 17 (2) 50

6159361 C3-Naphthalene 2019/05/29 89 (3) 50 - 130 97 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 6.6 (2) 50

6159361 C3-Phenanthrene/Anthracene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 22 (2) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 C4-Naphthalene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 44 (2) 50

6159361 Chrysene 2019/05/29 88 (3) 50 - 130 94 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 33 (2) 50

6159361 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2019/05/29 97 (3) 50 - 130 106 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Dibenzothiophene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Fluoranthene 2019/05/29 91 (3) 50 - 130 95 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 6.9 (2) 50

6159361 Fluorene 2019/05/29 91 (3) 50 - 130 99 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)fluoranthene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2019/05/29 91 (3) 50 - 130 105 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Naphthalene 2019/05/29 88 (3) 50 - 130 93 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 25 (2) 50

6159361 Perylene 2019/05/29 87 (3) 50 - 130 99 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (2) 50

Page 17 of 19






6159361 Phenanthrene 2019/05/29 89 (3) 50 - 130 97 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 27 (2) 50

6159361 Pyrene 2019/05/29 91 (3) 50 - 130 94 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 13 (2) 50

6159361 Quinoline 2019/05/29 108 (3) 50 - 130 116 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.010mg/kg NC (2) 50

6159361 Retene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 30 (2) 50

6159362 Moisture-Subcontracted 2019/05/24 ND, RDL=0.30 %









(2) Duplicate Parent ID [JTG622-01]

(3) Matrix Spike Parent ID [JTG622-01]

(4) Recovery or RPD for this parameter is outside control limits. The overall quality control for this analysis meets acceptability criteria.

Page 18 of 19







Dennis Ngondu, B.Sc., P.Chem., QP, Supervisor, Organics


Veronica Falk, B.Sc., P.Chem., QP, Scientific Specialist, Organics

BV Labs has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Page 19 of 19


BV LABS JOB #: B9C6369Received: 2019/05/10, 19:14




Attention: 11102200-13 - PO - 73032176


Your C.O.C. #: 713655-04-01, 713655-02-01
















Additional Subcontracted Analysis (2) 2 N/A N/A



Remarks:

Bureau Veritas Laboratories are accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 for specific parameters on scopes of accreditation. Unless otherwise noted, procedures usedby BV Labs are based upon recognized Provincial, Federal or US method compendia such as CCME, MELCC, EPA, APHA.



Solid sample results, except biota, are based on dry weight unless otherwise indicated. Organic analyses are not recovery corrected except for isotopedilution methods.Results relate to samples tested. When sampling is not conducted by BV Labs, results relate to the supplied samples tested.

Page 1 of 39


BV LABS JOB #: B9C6369Received: 2019/05/10, 19:14




Attention: 11102200-13 - PO - 73032176


Your C.O.C. #: 713655-04-01, 713655-02-01


This Certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.Reference Method suffix “m” indicates test methods incorporate validated modifications from specific reference methods to improve performance.


(1) This test was performed by Campo to Calgary - Offsite(2) This test was performed by Campo to Burnaby Subcontract(3) No lab extraction date is given for F1BTEX & VOC samples that are field preserved with methanol. Extraction date is the date sampled unless otherwise stated.(4) All CCME PHC results met required criteria unless otherwise stated in the report. The CWS PHC methods employed by Bureau Veritas Laboratories conform to all prescribedelements of the reference method and performance based elements have been validated. All modifications have been validated and proven equivalent following “AlbertaEnvironment’s Interpretation of the Reference Method for the Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Validation of Performance-Based Alternative MethodsSeptember 2003”. Documentation is available upon request. Modifications from Reference Method for the Canada-wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil-Tier 1Method: F2/F3/F4 data reported using validated cold solvent extraction instead of Soxhlet extraction.(5) Alkylated PAH results are semiquantitative.

Encryption Key

Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.Jonathan Urben, Senior Project ManagerEmail: [email protected]# (613)274-3549==================================================================== BV Labs has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per ISO/IEC 17025, signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.



BV Labs Job #: B9C6369Report Date: 2019/07/30





BV Labs ID JRP233 JRP233


10:472019/05/07

10:47

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050719

-AJR-01RDL QC Batch

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-01Lab-Dup

RDL QC Batch

Inorganics

Moisture % 36 1.0 6118223


Total Solids % 62.3 0.1 6121273 62.4 0.1 6121273


Acenaphthene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Acenaphthylene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Acridine mg/kg ND 0.010 6142588

Anthracene mg/kg ND 0.0040 6142588

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Benzo(c)phenanthrene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Benzo(e)pyrene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Chrysene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Fluoranthene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Fluorene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)fluoranthene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Naphthalene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Phenanthrene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

Perylene mg/kg 0.012 0.0050 6142588

Pyrene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

C3-Fluorene mg/kg 0.033 0.0050 6142588

Quinoline mg/kg ND 0.010 6142588

Retene mg/kg 0.060 (1) 0.0050 6142588

C1-Naphthalene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588




ND = Not detected

(1) Tentatively identified result and may be potentially biased high due to matrix interference.

Page 3 of 39









10:472019/05/07

10:47

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050719

-AJR-01RDL QC Batch

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-01Lab-Dup

RDL QC Batch

C2-Naphthalene mg/kg 0.030 0.0050 6142588



Biphenyl mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

C1-Biphenyl mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588


C1-Fluorene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588


Dibenzothiophene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

C1-Dibenzothiophene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588

C2-Dibenzothiophene mg/kg 0.0094 0.0050 6142588



C1-Phenanthrene/Anthracene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588


C3-Phenanthrene/Anthracene mg/kg 0.027 0.0050 6142588


C1-Fluoranthene/Pyrene mg/kg 0.0055 0.0050 6142588




C1-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.0063 0.0050 6142588

C2-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588



C1-Benzo(bjk)fluoran/Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.0074 0.0050 6142588

C2-Benzo(bjk)fluor/benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.0099 0.0050 6142588

C1-Acenaphthene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588



D10-Anthracene % 91 6142588

D14-Terphenyl % 105 6142588




ND = Not detected

Page 4 of 39









10:472019/05/07

10:47

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050719

-AJR-01RDL QC Batch

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-01Lab-Dup

RDL QC Batch

D8-Acenaphthylene % 94 6142588

D8-Naphthalene % 94 6142588




Page 5 of 39









15:002019/05/07

15:00

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050719

-AJR-02RDL QC Batch

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-02Lab-Dup

RDL QC Batch

Inorganics

Moisture % 20 1.0 6118223 19 1.0 6118223

Total Organic Carbon mg/kg ND 500 6120430

Total Solids % 81.2 0.1 6121273






















Perylene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588




Retene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588






ND = Not detected

Page 6 of 39









15:002019/05/07

15:00

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050719

-AJR-02RDL QC Batch

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-02Lab-Dup

RDL QC Batch

















C1-Fluoranthene/Pyrene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588








C1-Benzo(bjk)fluoran/Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6142588






D14-Terphenyl % 108 6142588





ND = Not detected

Page 7 of 39









15:002019/05/07

15:00

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050719

-AJR-02RDL QC Batch

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-02Lab-Dup

RDL QC Batch





Page 8 of 39







BV Labs ID JRP235 JRP236 JRP237


15:542019/05/07

17:302019/05/08

09:00

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050719

-AJR-03SED-11102200-050719

-AJR-04SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-05RDL QC Batch

Inorganics

Moisture % 39 26 23 1.0 6118223

Total Organic Carbon mg/kg 11000 3900 4900 500 6120430

Total Solids % 62.0 73.9 77.0 0.1 6121273


Acenaphthene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

Acenaphthylene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

Acridine mg/kg ND ND ND 0.010 6142588

Anthracene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0040 6142588

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

Benzo(c)phenanthrene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

Benzo(e)pyrene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

Chrysene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

Fluoranthene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

Fluorene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)fluoranthene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

Naphthalene mg/kg ND ND 0.0085 0.0050 6142588

Phenanthrene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

Perylene mg/kg 0.033 0.012 0.025 0.0050 6142588

Pyrene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

C3-Fluorene mg/kg ND 0.012 0.017 0.0050 6142588

Quinoline mg/kg ND ND ND 0.010 6142588

Retene mg/kg 0.016 0.12 (1) 0.028 (1) 0.0050 6142588

C1-Naphthalene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

C2-Naphthalene mg/kg 0.016 0.012 0.024 0.0050 6142588



ND = Not detected


Page 9 of 39









15:542019/05/07

17:302019/05/08

09:00

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050719

-AJR-03SED-11102200-050719

-AJR-04SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-05RDL QC Batch

C3-Naphthalene mg/kg ND ND 0.0053 0.0050 6142588


Biphenyl mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

C1-Biphenyl mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

C2-Biphenyl mg/kg ND ND 0.0052 0.0050 6142588

C1-Fluorene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588


Dibenzothiophene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

C1-Dibenzothiophene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

C2-Dibenzothiophene mg/kg ND 0.0064 ND 0.0050 6142588



C1-Phenanthrene/Anthracene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588


C3-Phenanthrene/Anthracene mg/kg 0.010 0.034 0.012 0.0050 6142588


C1-Fluoranthene/Pyrene mg/kg ND 0.0075 ND 0.0050 6142588

C2-Fluoranthene/Pyrene mg/kg 0.039 0.0094 0.0057 0.0050 6142588

C3-Fluoranthene/Pyrene mg/kg 0.014 0.010 ND 0.0050 6142588

C4-Fluoranthene/Pyrene mg/kg 0.0070 ND ND 0.0050 6142588

C1-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588




C1-Benzo(bjk)fluoran/Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.0088 ND ND 0.0050 6142588

C2-Benzo(bjk)fluor/benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.011 0.0064 ND 0.0050 6142588

C1-Acenaphthene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588



D10-Anthracene % 92 91 96 6142588

D14-Terphenyl % 103 104 108 6142588


D8-Naphthalene % 85 85 90 6142588



ND = Not detected

Page 10 of 39









10:252019/05/08

10:252019/05/08

13:55

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050819

-AJR-06SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-07SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-08RDL QC Batch

Inorganics

Moisture % 20 20 40 1.0 6118223


Total Solids % 80.8 81.2 59.5 0.1 6121273















Fluoranthene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588





Naphthalene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588


Perylene mg/kg ND ND 0.018 0.0050 6142588

Pyrene mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0050 6142588

C3-Fluorene mg/kg 0.019 0.015 0.029 0.0050 6142588


Retene mg/kg ND 0.011 0.038 0.0050 6142588






ND = Not detected

Page 11 of 39









10:252019/05/08

10:252019/05/08

13:55

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050819

-AJR-06SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-07SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-08RDL QC Batch






C2-Fluorene mg/kg ND ND 0.0086 0.0050 6142588



C2-Dibenzothiophene mg/kg ND ND 0.022 0.0050 6142588



C1-Phenanthrene/Anthracene mg/kg ND ND 0.0096 0.0050 6142588




C1-Fluoranthene/Pyrene mg/kg ND ND 0.022 0.0050 6142588


C3-Fluoranthene/Pyrene mg/kg 0.017 ND 0.040 0.0050 6142588



C2-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND ND 0.015 0.0050 6142588



C1-Benzo(bjk)fluoran/Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg ND ND 0.011 0.0050 6142588

C2-Benzo(bjk)fluor/benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.0055 ND 0.010 0.0050 6142588




D10-Anthracene % 87 86 81 6142588

D14-Terphenyl % 98 95 104 6142588


D8-Naphthalene % 79 81 91 6142588



ND = Not detected

Page 12 of 39









14:502019/05/08

18:002019/05/10

08:20

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01 713655-02-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050819

-AJR-09SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-10SED-11102200-051019

-AJR-11RDL QC Batch

Inorganics

Moisture % 24 31 45 1.0 6118223


Total Solids % 76.7 70.3 56.3 0.1 6121273















Fluoranthene mg/kg ND ND 0.012 0.0050 6142588







Perylene mg/kg 0.018 0.069 0.040 0.0050 6142588

Pyrene mg/kg 0.0057 ND 0.012 0.0050 6142588

C3-Fluorene mg/kg 0.039 0.034 0.048 0.0050 6142588


Retene mg/kg 0.33 0.042 (1) 0.093 0.0050 6142588


C2-Naphthalene mg/kg ND 0.0054 0.025 0.0050 6142588



ND = Not detected


Page 13 of 39









14:502019/05/08

18:002019/05/10

08:20

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01 713655-02-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050819

-AJR-09SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-10SED-11102200-051019

-AJR-11RDL QC Batch

C3-Naphthalene mg/kg ND 0.0072 0.0087 0.0050 6142588

C4-Naphthalene mg/kg 0.0086 ND 0.014 0.0050 6142588





C2-Fluorene mg/kg 0.0066 ND 0.0097 0.0050 6142588



C2-Dibenzothiophene mg/kg 0.022 0.0080 0.029 0.0050 6142588



C1-Phenanthrene/Anthracene mg/kg 0.0069 ND 0.011 0.0050 6142588









C2-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.010 0.0065 0.020 0.0050 6142588

C3-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.0061 ND 0.018 0.0050 6142588


C1-Benzo(bjk)fluoran/Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.0075 0.0061 0.018 0.0050 6142588

C2-Benzo(bjk)fluor/benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.016 0.020 0.011 0.0050 6142588




D10-Anthracene % 88 88 84 6142588

D14-Terphenyl % 102 101 98 6142588


D8-Naphthalene % 79 89 87 6142588



ND = Not detected

Page 14 of 39







BV Labs ID JRP243


08:20

COC Number 713655-02-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051019

-AJR-11Lab-Dup

RDL QC Batch















Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.010 0.0050 6142588



Indeno(1,2,3-cd)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.0054 0.0050 6142588




Perylene mg/kg 0.032 0.0050 6142588

Pyrene mg/kg 0.0092 0.0050 6142588

C3-Fluorene mg/kg 0.057 0.0050 6142588


Retene mg/kg 0.10 0.0050 6142588









ND = Not detected

Page 15 of 39







BV Labs ID JRP243


08:20

COC Number 713655-02-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051019

-AJR-11Lab-Dup

RDL QC Batch




C2-Fluorene mg/kg 0.010 0.0050 6142588
























D14-Terphenyl % 98 6142588






ND = Not detected

Page 16 of 39









15:542019/05/07

17:30

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050719

-AJR-03Lab-Dup


-AJR-04RDL QC Batch


SOIL

Clay % 2 2 6142590 ND 2 6133462

Sand % 82 2 6142590 92 2 6133462

Silt % 15 2 6142590 6 2 6133462





ND = Not detected



10:472019/05/07

15:002019/05/07

15:54

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050719

-AJR-01SED-11102200-050719

-AJR-02QC Batch

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-03

RDL QC Batch

Texture N/A LOAMY SAND SAND 6142587 LOAMY SAND N/A 6142587

SOIL

Clay % 4 ND 6133462 2 2 6142590

Sand % 82 98 6133462 83 2 6142590

Silt % 14 ND 6133462 15 2 6142590




ND = Not detected

Page 17 of 39









13:552019/05/08

14:502019/05/08

18:00

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050819

-AJR-08SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-09SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-10RDL QC Batch

Texture N/A LOAMY SAND SAND SAND N/A 6133463

SOIL

Clay % 4 2 3 2 6133462

Sand % 80 94 87 2 6133462

Silt % 16 4 11 2 6133462






09:002019/05/08

10:252019/05/08

10:25

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050819

-AJR-05RDL QC Batch

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-06

SED-11102200-050819-AJR-07

RDL QC Batch

Texture N/A SAND N/A 6142587 SAND SAND N/A 6142587

SOIL

Clay % 2 2 6133462 ND ND 2 6133462

Sand % 92 2 6133462 97 97 2 6133462

Silt % 5 2 6133462 ND ND 2 6133462

Subcontracted Analysis

Subcontract Parameter N/A SEE ATTACH N/A 6248801




ND = Not detected

Page 18 of 39







BV Labs ID JRP243


08:20

COC Number 713655-02-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051019

-AJR-11RDL QC Batch

Texture N/A LOAMY SAND N/A 6133463

SOIL

Clay % 4 2 6133462

Sand % 79 2 6133462

Silt % 17 2 6133462




Page 19 of 39









10:252019/05/08

13:552019/05/08

14:50

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050819

-AJR-07SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-08SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-09RDL QC Batch


Benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency Equiv. mg/kg ND ND ND 0.0071 6142589



ND = Not detected



17:302019/05/08

09:002019/05/08

10:25

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050719

-AJR-04SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-05SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-06RDL QC Batch





ND = Not detected



10:472019/05/07

15:002019/05/07

15:54

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050719

-AJR-01SED-11102200-050719

-AJR-02SED-11102200-050719

-AJR-03RDL QC Batch





ND = Not detected

Page 20 of 39









18:002019/05/10

08:20

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-02-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050819

-AJR-10SED-11102200-051019

-AJR-11RDL QC Batch


Benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency Equiv. mg/kg ND ND 0.0071 6142589



ND = Not detected

Page 21 of 39









10:472019/05/07

10:47

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050719

-AJR-01RDL QC Batch

SED-11102200-050719-AJR-01Lab-Dup

RDL QC Batch


Benzene ug/g ND 0.020 6123392 ND 0.020 6123392

Toluene ug/g ND 0.020 6123392 ND 0.020 6123392

Ethylbenzene ug/g ND 0.020 6123392 ND 0.020 6123392

o-Xylene ug/g ND 0.020 6123392 ND 0.020 6123392

p+m-Xylene ug/g ND 0.040 6123392 ND 0.040 6123392

Total Xylenes ug/g ND 0.040 6123392 ND 0.040 6123392

F1 (C6-C10) ug/g ND 10 6123392 ND 10 6123392

F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX ug/g ND 10 6123392 ND 10 6123392

F2-F4 Hydrocarbons

Extra Silica Gel F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons) ug/g ND 10 6125388



Extra Silica Gel Reached Baseline at C50 ug/g Yes 6125388




D10-Ethylbenzene % 102 6123392 103 6123392


Extra Silica Gel o-Terphenyl % 74 6125388




ND = Not detected

Page 22 of 39









15:002019/05/07

15:542019/05/07

17:30

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050719

-AJR-02SED-11102200-050719

-AJR-03SED-11102200-050719

-AJR-04RDL QC Batch








F1 (C6-C10) ug/g ND ND ND 10 6123392


F2-F4 Hydrocarbons








D10-Ethylbenzene % 95 99 103 6123392





ND = Not detected

Page 23 of 39









09:002019/05/08

10:252019/05/08

10:25

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050819

-AJR-05SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-06SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-07RDL QC Batch








F1 (C6-C10) ug/g ND ND ND 10 6123392


F2-F4 Hydrocarbons








D10-Ethylbenzene % 96 95 108 6123392





ND = Not detected

Page 24 of 39









13:552019/05/08

14:502019/05/08

18:00

COC Number 713655-04-01 713655-04-01 713655-04-01

UNITSSED-11102200-050819

-AJR-08SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-09SED-11102200-050819

-AJR-10RDL QC Batch








F1 (C6-C10) ug/g ND ND ND 10 6123392


F2-F4 Hydrocarbons








D10-Ethylbenzene % 109 110 107 6123392





ND = Not detected

Page 25 of 39









08:202019/03/25

08:20

COC Number 713655-02-01 713655-02-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051019

-AJR-11RDL QC Batch TRIP BLANK RDL QC Batch


Benzene ug/g ND 0.040 6123392 ND 0.020 6118412

Toluene ug/g 0.14 0.040 6123392 ND 0.020 6118412

Ethylbenzene ug/g ND 0.040 6123392 ND 0.020 6118412

o-Xylene ug/g ND 0.040 6123392 ND 0.020 6118412

p+m-Xylene ug/g ND 0.080 6123392 ND 0.040 6118412

Total Xylenes ug/g ND 0.080 6123392 ND 0.040 6118412

F1 (C6-C10) ug/g ND 20 6123392 ND 10 6118412

F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX ug/g ND 20 6123392 ND 10 6118412

F2-F4 Hydrocarbons








D10-Ethylbenzene % 113 6123392 104 6118412





ND = Not detected

Page 26 of 39






TEST SUMMARY


BV Labs ID: JRP233 Collected: 2019/05/07Sample ID: SED-11102200-050719-AJR-01



Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil HSGC/MSFD 6123392 N/A 2019/05/15 Georgeta Rusu


Target & Alkylated PAH in Soil by GC/MS GC/MS 6142588 2019/05/16 2019/05/16 Liping Zong

B[a]P Total Potency Equivalent GC/MS 6142589 N/A 2019/05/23 Automated Statchk



Moisture BAL 6118223 N/A 2019/05/13 Min Yang

Total Organic Carbon in Soil COMB 6120430 N/A 2019/05/15 Godwin Okereke

Total Solids BAL 6121273 N/A 2019/05/15 Xinyue (Sarah) Hou


BV Labs ID: JRP233 Dup Collected: 2019/05/07Sample ID: SED-11102200-050719-AJR-01























Page 27 of 39






TEST SUMMARY











































Additional Subcontracted Analysis 6248801 N/A Harwin Grewal

Page 28 of 39






TEST SUMMARY












































Page 29 of 39






TEST SUMMARY








































B[a]P Total Potency Equivalent GC/MS 6142589 N/A 2019/05/23 Report Automation Engine




Page 30 of 39






TEST SUMMARY





Additional Subcontracted Analysis 6248801 N/A Harwin Grewal









BV Labs ID: JRP244 Collected: 2019/03/25Sample ID: TRIP BLANK




Page 31 of 39






GENERAL COMMENTS


Package 1 2.0°C

Package 2 0.7°C

Package 3 0.7°C

Revised report (2019/07/30): Freshwater Sediment Toxicity Report is included.

Sample JRP233 [SED-11102200-050719-AJR-01] : F2-F4 Analysis: At the request of the client the sample was treated with an additional portion ofsilica gel that is above the maximum amount prescribed in the reference method.










Sample JRP243 [SED-11102200-051019-AJR-11] : F1BTEX Analysis: Detection limits were adjusted for high moisture content and sample weight.

F2-F4 Analysis: At the request of the client the sample was treated with an additional portion of silica gel that is above the maximum amountprescribed in the reference method.

F2-F4 Analysis: Detection limits were adjusted for high moisture content.


Page 32 of 39





QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTBV Labs Job #: B9C6369Report Date: 2019/07/30





6118412 D10-Ethylbenzene 2019/05/13 101 60 - 140 99 60 - 140 107 %


6123392 1,4-Difluorobenzene 2019/05/15 100 (4) 60 - 140 100 60 - 140 98 %

6123392 4-Bromofluorobenzene 2019/05/15 105 (4) 60 - 140 105 60 - 140 102 %

6123392 D10-Ethylbenzene 2019/05/15 101 (4) 60 - 140 100 60 - 140 106 %

6123392 D4-1,2-Dichloroethane 2019/05/15 96 (4) 60 - 140 97 60 - 140 102 %

6125388 Extra Silica Gel o-Terphenyl 2019/05/16 85 60 - 130 81 60 - 130 92 %

6142588 D10-Anthracene 2019/05/16 92 (6) 50 - 130 97 50 - 130 100 %

6142588 D14-Terphenyl 2019/05/16 104 (6) 50 - 130 106 50 - 130 109 %

6142588 D8-Acenaphthylene 2019/05/16 84 (6) 50 - 130 99 50 - 130 91 %

6142588 D8-Naphthalene 2019/05/16 84 (6) 50 - 130 100 50 - 130 92 %

6118223 Moisture 2019/05/13 1.6 (1) 20

6118412 Benzene 2019/05/13 92 60 - 140 105 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g NC (2) 50

6118412 Ethylbenzene 2019/05/13 94 60 - 140 106 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g NC (2) 50


6118412 F1 (C6-C10) 2019/05/13 102 60 - 140 99 80 - 120 ND, RDL=10 ug/g NC (2) 30

6118412 o-Xylene 2019/05/13 88 60 - 140 99 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g NC (2) 50

6118412 p+m-Xylene 2019/05/13 89 60 - 140 100 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.040ug/g NC (2) 50

6118412 Toluene 2019/05/13 95 60 - 140 106 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g NC (2) 50


RDL=0.040ug/g NC (2) 50

6120430 Total Organic Carbon 2019/05/15 ND, RDL=500 mg/kg 18 (2) 35 109 75 - 125


6123392 Benzene 2019/05/15 81 (4) 60 - 140 101 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g NC (5) 50

Page 33 of 39





QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT(CONT'D)BV Labs Job #: B9C6369Report Date: 2019/07/30



6123392 Ethylbenzene 2019/05/15 86 (4) 60 - 140 105 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g NC (5) 50


6123392 F1 (C6-C10) 2019/05/15 97 (4) 60 - 140 106 80 - 120 ND, RDL=10 ug/g NC (5) 30

6123392 o-Xylene 2019/05/15 81 (4) 60 - 140 97 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g NC (5) 50

6123392 p+m-Xylene 2019/05/15 82 (4) 60 - 140 98 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.040ug/g NC (5) 50

6123392 Toluene 2019/05/15 86 (4) 60 - 140 104 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g NC (5) 50


RDL=0.040ug/g NC (5) 50


6125388 Extra Silica Gel F3 (C16-C34 Hydrocarbons) 2019/05/17 91 50 - 130 90 80 - 120 ND, RDL=50 ug/g 1.9 (2) 30

6125388 Extra Silica Gel F4 (C34-C50 Hydrocarbons) 2019/05/17 87 50 - 130 86 80 - 120 ND, RDL=50 ug/g 26 (2) 30

6133462 Clay 2019/05/21 NC (2) 30 83 79 - 121

6133462 Sand 2019/05/21 0.14 (2) 30 102 87 - 113

6133462 Silt 2019/05/21 3.2 (2) 30 107 90 - 110


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Acenaphthene 2019/05/23 84 (6) 50 - 130 96 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Acenaphthylene 2019/05/23 83 (6) 50 - 130 97 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Acridine 2019/05/23 68 (6) 50 - 130 75 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.010mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Anthracene 2019/05/23 98 (6) 50 - 130 103 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0040mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Benzo(a)anthracene 2019/05/23 101 (6) 50 - 130 98 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

Page 34 of 39








6142588 Benzo(a)pyrene 2019/05/23 100 (6) 50 - 130 101 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene 2019/05/23 95 (6) 50 - 130 98 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Benzo(c)phenanthrene 2019/05/23 96 (6) 50 - 130 96 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Benzo(e)pyrene 2019/05/23 94 (6) 50 - 130 98 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2019/05/23 99 (6) 50 - 130 104 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2019/05/23 103 (6) 50 - 130 104 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Biphenyl 2019/05/23ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 0 (7) 50

6142588 C1-Biphenyl 2019/05/23 78 (6) 50 - 130 89 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 26 (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 C1-Fluoranthene/Pyrene 2019/05/23 104 (6) 50 - 130 102 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 7.1 (7) 50

6142588 C1-Fluorene 2019/05/23ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 C1-Naphthalene 2019/05/23 78 (6) 50 - 130 90 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 48 (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 37 (7) 50

Page 35 of 39








6142588 C2-Biphenyl 2019/05/23ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 C2-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene 2019/05/23 31 (6) 30 - 130 34 30 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 37 (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 22 (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 34 (7) 50

6142588 C2-Fluorene 2019/05/23ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 3.6 (7) 50

6142588 C2-Naphthalene 2019/05/23 80 (6) 50 - 130 96 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 27 (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 50 (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 17 (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 40 (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 7.8 (7) 50

6142588 C3-Fluorene 2019/05/23ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 15 (7) 50

6142588 C3-Naphthalene 2019/05/23 85 (6) 50 - 130 97 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 11 (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 14 (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 31 (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 30 (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 19 (7) 50

6142588 C4-Naphthalene 2019/05/23ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

Page 36 of 39









RDL=0.0050mg/kg 25 (7) 50

6142588 Chrysene 2019/05/23 100 (6) 50 - 130 100 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2019/05/23 101 (6) 50 - 130 104 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Fluoranthene 2019/05/23 104 (6) 50 - 130 106 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 12 (7) 50

6142588 Fluorene 2019/05/23 87 (6) 50 - 130 98 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 7.9 (7) 50

6142588 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2019/05/23 98 (6) 50 - 130 103 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Naphthalene 2019/05/23 76 (6) 50 - 130 89 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Perylene 2019/05/23 99 (6) 50 - 130 103 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 22 (7) 50

6142588 Phenanthrene 2019/05/23 100 (6) 50 - 130 105 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Pyrene 2019/05/23 104 (6) 50 - 130 105 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 24 (7) 50

6142588 Quinoline 2019/05/23 102 (6) 50 - 130 100 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.010mg/kg NC (7) 50

6142588 Retene 2019/05/23ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 7.8 (7) 50

6142590 Clay 2019/05/21 3.0 (8) 30 98 79 - 121

6142590 Sand 2019/05/21 0.48 (8) 30 103 87 - 113

Page 37 of 39








6142590 Silt 2019/05/21 2.2 (8) 30 100 90 - 110








(1) Duplicate Parent ID [JRP234-02]



(4) Matrix Spike Parent ID [JRP233-03]


(6) Matrix Spike Parent ID [JRP243-01]



Page 38 of 39








Brad Newman, Scientific Service Specialist


Jingyuan Song, QP, Organics – Senior Analyst

BV Labs has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per ISO/IEC 17025, signing the reports.For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Page 39 of 39




Your P.O. #: 73032176Your Project #: 11102200-13Your C.O.C. #: 713655-05-01, 713655-13-01


Attention: 11102200-13 - PO - 73032176








Moisture (Subcontracted) (1, 5) 12 N/A 2019/05/24 AB SOP-00002 CCME PHC-CWS m







Additional Subcontracted Analysis (2) 5 N/A N/A



Remarks:

Bureau Veritas Laboratories are accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 for specific parameters on scopes of accreditation. Unless otherwise noted, procedures usedby BV Labs are based upon recognized Provincial, Federal or US method compendia such as CCME, MELCC, EPA, APHA.



Solid sample results, except biota, are based on dry weight unless otherwise indicated. Organic analyses are not recovery corrected except for isotopedilution methods.Results relate to samples tested. When sampling is not conducted by BV Labs, results relate to the supplied samples tested.This Certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.

Page 1 of 37




Your P.O. #: 73032176Your Project #: 11102200-13Your C.O.C. #: 713655-05-01, 713655-13-01


Attention: 11102200-13 - PO - 73032176


Reference Method suffix “m” indicates test methods incorporate validated modifications from specific reference methods to improve performance.


(1) This test was performed by Campo to Calgary - Offsite(2) This test was performed by Campo to Burnaby Subcontract(3) No lab extraction date is given for F1BTEX & VOC samples that are field preserved with methanol. Extraction date is the date sampled unless otherwise stated.(4) All CCME PHC results met required criteria unless otherwise stated in the report. The CWS PHC methods employed by Bureau Veritas Laboratories conform to all prescribedelements of the reference method and performance based elements have been validated. All modifications have been validated and proven equivalent following “AlbertaEnvironment’s Interpretation of the Reference Method for the Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Validation of Performance-Based Alternative MethodsSeptember 2003”. Documentation is available upon request. Modifications from Reference Method for the Canada-wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil-Tier 1Method: F2/F3/F4 data reported using validated cold solvent extraction instead of Soxhlet extraction.(5) Offsite analysis requires that subcontracted moisture be reported.(6) Alkylated PAH results are semiquantitative.

Encryption Key

Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.Jonathan Urben, Senior Project ManagerEmail: [email protected]# (613)274-3549==================================================================== BV Labs has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per ISO/IEC 17025, signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.




GHD Contractors LimitedClient Project #: 11102200-13Your P.O. #: 73032176Sampler Initials: ADR


BV Labs ID JTE987 JTE987


08:352019/05/14

08:35

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051419

-AJR-12RDL QC Batch

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-12Lab-Dup

RDL QC Batch

Inorganics

Moisture % 34 1.0 6129825


Total Solids % 62.8 0.1 6132043 62.9 0.1 6132043






















Perylene mg/kg 0.043 0.0050 6159361




Retene mg/kg 0.026 0.0050 6159361







ND = Not detected

Page 3 of 37







08:352019/05/14

08:35

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051419

-AJR-12RDL QC Batch

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-12Lab-Dup

RDL QC Batch

























C2-Benzo(bjk)fluor/benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361



Physical Testing




D14-Terphenyl % 97 6159361





ND = Not detected

Page 4 of 37







08:352019/05/14

08:35

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051419

-AJR-12RDL QC Batch

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-12Lab-Dup

RDL QC Batch





Page 5 of 37





BV Labs ID JTE988 JTE989 JTE990


11:152019/05/14

13:002019/05/14

14:40

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051419

-AJR-13SED-11102200-051419

-AJR-14SED-11102200-051419

-AJR-15RDL QC Batch

Inorganics

Moisture % 26 47 34 1.0 6129825


Total Solids % 72.3 48.2 64.7 0.1 6132043







Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene mg/kg ND 0.012 ND 0.0050 6159361





Benzo(e)pyrene mg/kg ND 0.010 ND 0.0050 6159361



Fluoranthene mg/kg ND 0.019 ND 0.0050 6159361






Phenanthrene mg/kg ND 0.010 ND 0.0050 6159361

Perylene mg/kg 0.029 0.030 0.014 0.0050 6159361

Pyrene mg/kg ND 0.025 ND 0.0050 6159361

C3-Fluorene mg/kg ND 0.18 0.054 0.0050 6159361


Retene mg/kg 0.0084 5.1 0.055 0.0050 6159361


C2-Naphthalene mg/kg 0.0058 0.073 0.016 0.0050 6159361

C3-Naphthalene mg/kg ND 0.015 ND 0.0050 6159361

C4-Naphthalene mg/kg ND 0.016 ND 0.0050 6159361



ND = Not detected

Page 6 of 37







11:152019/05/14

13:002019/05/14

14:40

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051419

-AJR-13SED-11102200-051419

-AJR-14SED-11102200-051419

-AJR-15RDL QC Batch


C1-Biphenyl mg/kg ND 0.012 ND 0.0050 6159361

C2-Biphenyl mg/kg ND 0.024 ND 0.0050 6159361

C1-Fluorene mg/kg ND 0.013 ND 0.0050 6159361

C2-Fluorene mg/kg ND 0.025 ND 0.0050 6159361


C1-Dibenzothiophene mg/kg ND 0.016 ND 0.0050 6159361

C2-Dibenzothiophene mg/kg ND 0.23 0.036 0.0050 6159361


C4-Dibenzothiophene mg/kg ND 0.35 0.019 0.0050 6159361

C1-Phenanthrene/Anthracene mg/kg ND 0.051 0.017 0.0050 6159361




C1-Fluoranthene/Pyrene mg/kg ND 0.13 0.014 0.0050 6159361




C1-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND 0.016 ND 0.0050 6159361

C2-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND 0.030 0.0055 0.0050 6159361

C3-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND 0.016 ND 0.0050 6159361


C1-Benzo(bjk)fluoran/Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg ND 0.018 0.0069 0.0050 6159361

C2-Benzo(bjk)fluor/benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg ND 0.023 ND 0.0050 6159361



Physical Testing

Moisture-Subcontracted % 25 45 27 0.30 6161811


D10-Anthracene % 91 92 94 6159361

D14-Terphenyl % 95 99 97 6159361


D8-Naphthalene % 90 90 92 6159361



ND = Not detected

Page 7 of 37







17:052019/05/15

08:182019/05/15

08:15

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051419

-AJR-16QC Batch

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-17

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-18

RDL QC Batch

Inorganics

Moisture % 35 6129825 30 32 1.0 6129825

Total Organic Carbon mg/kg 8200 6131264 2100 2700 500 6131264

Total Solids % 63.8 6132043 70.8 68.4 0.1 6132043


Acenaphthene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Acenaphthylene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Acridine mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.010 6159361

Anthracene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0040 6159361

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(c)phenanthrene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(e)pyrene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Chrysene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Fluoranthene mg/kg ND 6159361 0.0061 ND 0.0050 6159361

Fluorene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.020 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Naphthalene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Phenanthrene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Perylene mg/kg 0.0090 6159361 0.0082 0.0062 0.0050 6159361

Pyrene mg/kg ND 6159361 0.0074 0.0083 0.0050 6159361

C3-Fluorene mg/kg 0.085 6159361 0.072 0.094 0.0050 6159361

Quinoline mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.010 6159361

Retene mg/kg 0.090 6159361 0.038 0.059 0.0050 6159361

C1-Naphthalene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

C2-Naphthalene mg/kg 0.042 6159361 0.015 0.012 0.0050 6159361

C3-Naphthalene mg/kg ND 6159361 0.0054 0.0079 0.0050 6159361

C4-Naphthalene mg/kg ND 6159361 0.0069 0.011 0.0050 6159361



ND = Not detected

Page 8 of 37







17:052019/05/15

08:182019/05/15

08:15

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051419

-AJR-16QC Batch

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-17

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-18

RDL QC Batch

Biphenyl mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

C1-Biphenyl mg/kg ND 6159361 ND 0.0071 0.0050 6159361

C2-Biphenyl mg/kg ND 6159361 0.0083 0.015 0.0050 6159361

C1-Fluorene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

C2-Fluorene mg/kg 0.011 6159361 0.010 0.017 0.0050 6159361

Dibenzothiophene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

C1-Dibenzothiophene mg/kg ND 6159361 0.0074 0.0099 0.0050 6159361

C2-Dibenzothiophene mg/kg 0.038 6159361 0.047 0.063 0.0050 6159361



C1-Phenanthrene/Anthracene mg/kg 0.059 6159361 0.013 0.014 0.0050 6159361




C1-Fluoranthene/Pyrene mg/kg 0.018 6159361 0.017 0.024 0.0050 6159361




C1-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND 0.0074 0.0050 6159361

C2-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.0061 6159361 0.018 0.0082 0.0050 6159361

C3-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND 0.0070 0.0050 6159361

C4-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

C1-Benzo(bjk)fluoran/Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND 0.010 0.0050 6159361

C2-Benzo(bjk)fluor/benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.0095 6159361 0.0099 0.011 0.0050 6159361

C1-Acenaphthene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

1-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg ND 6159361 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Physical Testing

Moisture-Subcontracted % 31 6159362 23 24 0.30 6161811


D10-Anthracene % 85 6159361 90 87 6159361

D14-Terphenyl % 93 6159361 95 92 6159361

D8-Acenaphthylene % 81 6159361 84 82 6159361

D8-Naphthalene % 85 6159361 88 84 6159361



ND = Not detected

Page 9 of 37







11:202019/05/15

13:452019/05/15

14:45

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051519

-AJR-19SED-11102200-051519

-AJR-20SED-11102200-051519

-AJR-21RDL QC Batch

Inorganics

Moisture % 40 23 23 1.0 6129825


Total Solids % 58.0 73.2 73.2 0.1 6132043






Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.016 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.018 ND ND 0.0050 6159361


Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg 0.0090 ND ND 0.0050 6159361


Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.013 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(e)pyrene mg/kg 0.011 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Chrysene mg/kg 0.014 ND ND 0.0050 6159361


Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.036 ND ND 0.0050 6159361


Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.010 ND ND 0.0050 6159361




Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.013 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Perylene mg/kg 0.013 ND ND 0.0050 6159361

Pyrene mg/kg 0.032 ND 0.0058 0.0050 6159361

C3-Fluorene mg/kg 0.061 0.031 0.064 0.0050 6159361


Retene mg/kg 0.29 0.032 0.016 0.0050 6159361







ND = Not detected

Page 10 of 37







11:202019/05/15

13:452019/05/15

14:45

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051519

-AJR-19SED-11102200-051519

-AJR-20SED-11102200-051519

-AJR-21RDL QC Batch




C1-Fluorene mg/kg ND ND 0.0063 0.0050 6159361

C2-Fluorene mg/kg 0.0085 ND 0.012 0.0050 6159361














C1-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.012 ND 0.0081 0.0050 6159361

C2-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.011 0.0064 0.010 0.0050 6159361



C1-Benzo(bjk)fluoran/Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.011 ND 0.0079 0.0050 6159361

C2-Benzo(bjk)fluor/benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.011 ND 0.014 0.0050 6159361



Physical Testing

Moisture-Subcontracted % 34 21 22 0.30 6161811


D10-Anthracene % 85 87 85 6159361

D14-Terphenyl % 91 90 93 6159361


D8-Naphthalene % 84 84 85 6159361



ND = Not detected

Page 11 of 37







14:452019/05/16

08:25

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-13-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051519

-AJR-21Lab-Dup


-AJR-22RDL QC Batch

Inorganics

Moisture % 36 1.0 6129825

Total Organic Carbon mg/kg 3100 500 6131264 6900 500 6131264

Total Solids % 65.3 0.1 6132043


Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.0098 0.0050 6159361



Anthracene mg/kg 0.010 0.0040 6159361

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.0095 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.016 0.0050 6159361


Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg 0.0093 0.0050 6159361


Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.0078 0.0050 6159361

Benzo(e)pyrene mg/kg 0.013 0.0050 6159361

Chrysene mg/kg 0.012 0.0050 6159361



Fluorene mg/kg 0.017 0.0050 6159361

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.0066 0.0050 6159361


2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.017 0.0050 6159361

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.0082 0.0050 6159361

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.027 0.0050 6159361

Perylene mg/kg 0.014 0.0050 6159361

Pyrene mg/kg 0.051 0.0050 6159361

C3-Fluorene mg/kg 0.35 0.0050 6159361


Retene mg/kg 0.90 0.0050 6159361







ND = Not detected

Page 12 of 37







14:452019/05/16

08:25

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-13-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051519

-AJR-21Lab-Dup


-AJR-22RDL QC Batch


Biphenyl mg/kg 0.015 0.0050 6159361

C1-Biphenyl mg/kg 0.090 0.0050 6159361

C2-Biphenyl mg/kg 0.084 0.0050 6159361

C1-Fluorene mg/kg 0.036 0.0050 6159361

C2-Fluorene mg/kg 0.079 0.0050 6159361





















1-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.014 0.0050 6159361

Physical Testing




D14-Terphenyl % 89 6159361





ND = Not detected

Page 13 of 37







14:452019/05/16

08:25

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-13-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051519

-AJR-21Lab-Dup


-AJR-22RDL QC Batch





Page 14 of 37





BV Labs ID JTE998


11:25

COC Number 713655-13-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051619

-AJR-23RDL QC Batch

Inorganics

Moisture % 29 1.0 6129778


Total Solids % 66.6 0.1 6132043






















Perylene mg/kg 0.010 0.0050 6159361


C3-Fluorene mg/kg 0.032 0.0050 6159361


Retene mg/kg 0.039 0.0050 6159361







ND = Not detected

Page 15 of 37





BV Labs ID JTE998


11:25

COC Number 713655-13-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051619

-AJR-23RDL QC Batch
























C2-Benzo(bjk)fluor/benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg ND 0.0050 6159361



Physical Testing




D14-Terphenyl % 87 6159361





ND = Not detected

Page 16 of 37







14:402019/05/14

17:052019/05/15

08:18

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051419

-AJR-15QC Batch

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-16

QC BatchSED-11102200-051519

-AJR-17RDL QC Batch

Texture N/A SAND 6150573 LOAMY SAND 6150573 SAND N/A 6150573

SOIL

Clay % ND 6150570 3 6150570 ND 2 6150570

Sand % 92 6150570 86 6150570 96 2 6150570

Silt % 6 6150570 11 6150570 2 2 6150570




ND = Not detected



08:352019/05/14

11:152019/05/14

13:00

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051419

-AJR-12QC Batch

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-13

QC BatchSED-11102200-051419

-AJR-14RDL QC Batch

Texture N/A LOAMY SAND 6150573 SAND 6150573 LOAMY SAND N/A 6150573

SOIL

Clay % ND 6150570 2 6150572 2 2 6150570

Sand % 84 6150570 93 6150572 75 2 6150570

Silt % 14 6150570 4 6150572 22 2 6150570




ND = Not detected

Page 17 of 37







14:452019/05/16

08:252019/05/16

11:25

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-13-01 713655-13-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051519

-AJR-21QC Batch

SED-11102200-051619-AJR-22

QC BatchSED-11102200-051619

-AJR-23RDL QC Batch

Texture N/A SAND 6150573 SAND 6150573 LOAMY SAND N/A 6150573

SOIL

Clay % ND 6150570 ND 6150570 3 2 6150570

Sand % 91 6150570 85 6150570 86 2 6150570

Silt % 8 6150570 13 6150570 11 2 6150570




ND = Not detected



08:152019/05/15

11:202019/05/15

13:45

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051519

-AJR-18QC Batch

SED-11102200-051519-AJR-19

QC BatchSED-11102200-051519

-AJR-20RDL QC Batch

Texture N/A SAND 6150573 LOAMY SAND 6150573 SAND N/A 6150573

SOIL

Clay % 3 6150572 ND 6150570 ND 2 6150570

Sand % 95 6150572 83 6150570 97 2 6150570

Silt % ND 6150572 15 6150570 ND 2 6150570




ND = Not detected

Page 18 of 37







14:452019/05/16

08:252019/05/16

11:25

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-13-01 713655-13-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051519

-AJR-21SED-11102200-051619

-AJR-22SED-11102200-051619

-AJR-23RDL QC Batch


Benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency Equiv. mg/kg ND 0.014 ND 0.0071 6161812



ND = Not detected



08:152019/05/15

11:202019/05/15

13:45

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051519

-AJR-18SED-11102200-051519

-AJR-19SED-11102200-051519

-AJR-20RDL QC Batch


Benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency Equiv. mg/kg ND 0.021 ND 0.0071 6161812



ND = Not detected



14:402019/05/14

17:052019/05/15

08:18

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051419

-AJR-15SED-11102200-051419

-AJR-16SED-11102200-051519

-AJR-17RDL QC Batch





ND = Not detected



08:352019/05/14

11:152019/05/14

13:00

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051419

-AJR-12SED-11102200-051419

-AJR-13SED-11102200-051419

-AJR-14RDL QC Batch





ND = Not detected

Page 19 of 37







08:352019/05/14

11:152019/05/14

13:00

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051419

-AJR-12SED-11102200-051419

-AJR-13RDL

SED-11102200-051419-AJR-14

RDL QC Batch


Benzene ug/g ND ND 0.020 ND 0.020 6136164

Toluene ug/g ND ND 0.020 ND 0.020 6136164

Ethylbenzene ug/g ND ND 0.020 ND 0.020 6136164

o-Xylene ug/g ND ND 0.020 ND 0.020 6136164

p+m-Xylene ug/g ND ND 0.040 ND 0.040 6136164

Total Xylenes ug/g ND ND 0.040 ND 0.040 6136164

F1 (C6-C10) ug/g ND ND 10 ND 10 6136164

F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX ug/g ND ND 10 ND 10 6136164

F2-F4 Hydrocarbons

Extra Silica Gel F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons) ug/g ND ND 10 31 20 6135592

Extra Silica Gel F3 (C16-C34 Hydrocarbons) ug/g ND ND 50 190 100 6135592

Extra Silica Gel F4 (C34-C50 Hydrocarbons) ug/g ND ND 50 ND 100 6135592





D10-Ethylbenzene % 97 95 94 6136164





ND = Not detected

Page 20 of 37







14:402019/05/14

17:052019/05/15

08:18

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051419

-AJR-15SED-11102200-051419

-AJR-16SED-11102200-051519

-AJR-17RDL QC Batch








F1 (C6-C10) ug/g ND ND ND 10 6136164


F2-F4 Hydrocarbons

Extra Silica Gel F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons) ug/g 17 21 22 10 6135592

Extra Silica Gel F3 (C16-C34 Hydrocarbons) ug/g 85 98 97 50 6135592






D10-Ethylbenzene % 103 92 99 6136164





ND = Not detected

Page 21 of 37







08:152019/05/15

11:202019/05/15

13:45

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-05-01 713655-05-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051519

-AJR-18SED-11102200-051519

-AJR-19SED-11102200-051519

-AJR-20RDL QC Batch



Toluene ug/g ND 0.031 ND 0.020 6136164





F1 (C6-C10) ug/g ND ND ND 10 6136164


F2-F4 Hydrocarbons

Extra Silica Gel F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons) ug/g 22 15 ND 10 6135592







D10-Ethylbenzene % 106 98 96 6136164





ND = Not detected

Page 22 of 37







14:452019/05/16

08:252019/05/16

11:25

COC Number 713655-05-01 713655-13-01 713655-13-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051519

-AJR-21SED-11102200-051619

-AJR-22SED-11102200-051619

-AJR-23RDL QC Batch








F1 (C6-C10) ug/g ND ND ND 10 6136164


F2-F4 Hydrocarbons








D10-Ethylbenzene % 94 98 95 6136164





ND = Not detected

Page 23 of 37







11:252019/03/25

COC Number 713655-13-01 713655-13-01

UNITSSED-11102200-051619

-AJR-23Lab-Dup

RDL QC Batch TRIP BLANK RDL QC Batch


Benzene ug/g ND 0.020 6129589

Toluene ug/g ND 0.020 6129589

Ethylbenzene ug/g ND 0.020 6129589

o-Xylene ug/g ND 0.020 6129589

p+m-Xylene ug/g ND 0.040 6129589

Total Xylenes ug/g ND 0.040 6129589

F1 (C6-C10) ug/g ND 10 6129589

F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX ug/g ND 10 6129589

F2-F4 Hydrocarbons






1,4-Difluorobenzene % 100 6129589

4-Bromofluorobenzene % 99 6129589

D10-Ethylbenzene % 106 6129589

D4-1,2-Dichloroethane % 94 6129589





ND = Not detected

Page 24 of 37




TEST SUMMARY


BV Labs ID: JTE987 Collected: 2019/05/14Sample ID: SED-11102200-051419-AJR-12



Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil HSGC/MSFD 6136164 N/A 2019/05/23 Abdikarim Ali


Moisture (Subcontracted) BAL 6161811 N/A 2019/05/24 Salma Mohamed









BV Labs ID: JTE987 Dup Collected: 2019/05/14Sample ID: SED-11102200-051419-AJR-12





























Page 25 of 37




TEST SUMMARY






Additional Subcontracted Analysis 6254990 N/A Jonathan Urben







































Page 26 of 37




TEST SUMMARY










































Page 27 of 37




TEST SUMMARY













































Page 28 of 37




TEST SUMMARY





























BV Labs ID: JTE999 Collected: 2019/03/25Sample ID: TRIP BLANK




Page 29 of 37




GENERAL COMMENTS


Package 1 1.7°C

Package 2 2.0°C

Package 3 1.3°C

Package 4 2.7°C

Package 5 2.3°C

Package 6 2.0°C

Revised report (2019/07/30): Freshwater Sediment Toxicity Report is included.

Sample JTE987 [SED-11102200-051419-AJR-12] : F2-F4 Analysis: At the request of the client the sample was treated with an additional portion ofsilica gel that is above the maximum amount prescribed in the reference method.


Sample JTE989 [SED-11102200-051419-AJR-14] : F2-F4 Analysis: Detection limits were adjusted for high moisture content. At the request of theclient the sample was treated with an additional portion of silica gel that is above the maximum amount prescribed in the reference method.











Page 30 of 37








6129589 D10-Ethylbenzene 2019/05/18 113 60 - 140 103 60 - 140 104 %


6135592 Extra Silica Gel o-Terphenyl 2019/05/23 91 (4) 60 - 130 93 60 - 130 89 %



6136164 D10-Ethylbenzene 2019/05/23 105 60 - 140 93 60 - 140 95 %


6159361 D10-Anthracene 2019/05/29 88 50 - 130 84 50 - 130 103 %

6159361 D14-Terphenyl 2019/05/29 94 50 - 130 91 50 - 130 105 %

6159361 D8-Acenaphthylene 2019/05/29 84 50 - 130 87 50 - 130 98 %

6159361 D8-Naphthalene 2019/05/29 89 50 - 130 90 50 - 130 101 %

6129589 Benzene 2019/05/18 106 60 - 140 97 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g NC (1) 50

6129589 Ethylbenzene 2019/05/18 105 60 - 140 100 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g NC (1) 50


6129589 F1 (C6-C10) 2019/05/18 87 60 - 140 97 80 - 120 ND, RDL=10 ug/g NC (1) 30

6129589 o-Xylene 2019/05/18 102 60 - 140 98 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g NC (1) 50

6129589 p+m-Xylene 2019/05/18 107 60 - 140 101 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.040ug/g NC (1) 50

6129589 Toluene 2019/05/18 102 60 - 140 98 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g NC (1) 50


RDL=0.040ug/g NC (1) 50

6129778 Moisture 2019/05/18 0 (1) 20

6129825 Moisture 2019/05/18 0 (1) 20

6131264 Total Organic Carbon 2019/05/22 ND, RDL=500 mg/kg 5.7 (2) 35 108 75 - 125


6135592 Extra Silica Gel F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons) 2019/05/23 87 (4) 50 - 130 93 80 - 120 ND, RDL=10 ug/g NC (5) 30

Page 31 of 37








6136164 Benzene 2019/05/23 100 60 - 140 91 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g

6136164 Ethylbenzene 2019/05/23 102 60 - 140 93 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g

6136164 F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX 2019/05/23 ND, RDL=10 ug/g 6.8 (1) 30

6136164 F1 (C6-C10) 2019/05/23 137 60 - 140 92 80 - 120 ND, RDL=10 ug/g 6.8 (1) 30

6136164 o-Xylene 2019/05/23 98 60 - 140 86 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g

6136164 p+m-Xylene 2019/05/23 99 60 - 140 90 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.040ug/g

6136164 Toluene 2019/05/23 103 60 - 140 93 60 - 140ND,

RDL=0.020ug/g


RDL=0.040ug/g

6150570 Clay 2019/05/29 NC (1) 30 113 79 - 121

6150570 Sand 2019/05/29 0.27 (1) 30 98 87 - 113

6150570 Silt 2019/05/29 6.6 (1) 30 95 90 - 110

6150572 Clay 2019/05/29 21 (1) 30 98 79 - 121

6150572 Sand 2019/05/29 0.18 (1) 30 99 87 - 113

6150572 Silt 2019/05/29 NC (1) 30 101 90 - 110

6159361 1-Methylnaphthalene 2019/05/29 86 50 - 130 92 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 2-Methylnaphthalene 2019/05/29 86 50 - 130 92 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 Acenaphthene 2019/05/29 90 50 - 130 96 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 Acenaphthylene 2019/05/29 88 50 - 130 96 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 Acridine 2019/05/29 58 50 - 130 70 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.010mg/kg NC (1) 50

Page 32 of 37






6159361 Anthracene 2019/05/29 88 50 - 130 94 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0040mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 Benzo(a)anthracene 2019/05/29 90 50 - 130 95 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 Benzo(a)pyrene 2019/05/29 88 50 - 130 99 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene 2019/05/29 86 50 - 130 93 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 Benzo(c)phenanthrene 2019/05/29 89 50 - 130 94 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 Benzo(e)pyrene 2019/05/29 86 50 - 130 95 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2019/05/29 87 50 - 130 100 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2019/05/29 90 50 - 130 102 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 Biphenyl 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 C1-Biphenyl 2019/05/29 85 50 - 130 92 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 C1-Fluoranthene/Pyrene 2019/05/29 92 50 - 130 93 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 C1-Fluorene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 C1-Naphthalene 2019/05/29 85 50 - 130 92 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 19 (1) 50

Page 33 of 37






6159361 C1-Phenanthrene/Anthracene 2019/05/29 92 50 - 130 98 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 25 (1) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 24 (1) 50

6159361 C2-Biphenyl 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 C2-Chrysene/Benzo(a)anthracene 2019/05/29 22 (6) 30 - 130 44 30 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 C2-Fluorene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 C2-Naphthalene 2019/05/29 86 50 - 130 97 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 4.1 (1) 50

6159361 C2-Phenanthrene/Anthracene 2019/05/29 90 50 - 130 95 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 21 (1) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 C3-Fluorene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 17 (1) 50

6159361 C3-Naphthalene 2019/05/29 89 50 - 130 97 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 6.6 (1) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 22 (1) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

Page 34 of 37







RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 C4-Naphthalene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg 44 (1) 50

6159361 Chrysene 2019/05/29 88 50 - 130 94 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 33 (1) 50

6159361 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2019/05/29 97 50 - 130 106 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 Fluoranthene 2019/05/29 91 50 - 130 95 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 6.9 (1) 50

6159361 Fluorene 2019/05/29 91 50 - 130 99 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50


RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2019/05/29 91 50 - 130 105 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 Naphthalene 2019/05/29 88 50 - 130 93 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 25 (1) 50

6159361 Perylene 2019/05/29 87 50 - 130 99 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 Phenanthrene 2019/05/29 89 50 - 130 97 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 27 (1) 50

6159361 Pyrene 2019/05/29 91 50 - 130 94 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 13 (1) 50

6159361 Quinoline 2019/05/29 108 50 - 130 116 50 - 130ND,

RDL=0.010mg/kg NC (1) 50

6159361 Retene 2019/05/29ND,

RDL=0.0050mg/kg 30 (1) 50


Page 35 of 37















(2) Duplicate Parent ID [JTE996-02]


(4) Matrix Spike Parent ID [JTE998-03]


(6) Recovery or RPD for this parameter is outside control limits. The overall quality control for this analysis meets acceptability criteria.

Page 36 of 37







Dennis Ngondu, B.Sc., P.Chem., QP, Supervisor, Organics


Veronica Falk, B.Sc., P.Chem., QP, Scientific Specialist, Organics

Jonathan Urben, Senior Project Manager

BV Labs has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per ISO/IEC 17025, signing the reports.For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Page 37 of 37


Steven Jones [email protected] 860.747.8348

Dan Murray [email protected] 519.884.0510

Steven Jones [email protected] 860.747.8348

Dan Murray [email protected] 519.884.0510