Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - Final Remedial Options Analysis & Remedial-Risk Management Action Plan - SedimentsFINAL Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan - Sediments Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Bayham, Ontario Stantec Prepared for: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) 520 Exmouth Street Sarnia, ON N7T 8B1 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 400-1331 Clyde Avenue Ottawa, ON K2C 3G4 Project No. 122511075 September 11, 2015 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................... ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................................... III 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1.1 2.0 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES........................................................................................3.2 3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION...................................................................................3.2 4.0 SCOPE OF WORK.........................................................................................................4.9 5.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK......................................................................................5.10 5.1 HUMAN HEALTH............................................................................................................5.10 5.1.1 Sediment.....................................................................................................5.10 5.1.2 Surface Water............................................................................................5.10 5.1.3 Fish Tissue..................................................................................................... 5.11 5.2 ENVIRONMENT..............................................................................................................5.11 5.3 FCSAP DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK..................................................................6.13 6.0 SSRA SUMMARY........................................................................................................6.13 7.0 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................7.15 7.1 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL.......................................................................................... 7.15 7.2 REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL ACTION/RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN.............................................................................................................................. 7.16 8.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL........................................................................................8.18 8.1 PHYSICAL AND HYDROLOGICAL SETTING.................................................................8.18 8.2 SEDIMENT, SURFACE WATER AND AQUATIC LIFE......................................................8.19 8.2.1 Sediment Stratigraphy.............................................................................. 8.19 8.2.2 Sediment Analytical Results..................................................................... 8.19 8.2.3 Surface Water............................................................................................ 8.23 8.2.4 Aquatic Life................................................................................................ 8.25 8.3 DATA GAP ANALYSIS................................................................................................... 8.26 8.4 DESIGN BASIS................................................................................................................8.26 8.4.1 Extent and Mass of Impacts..................................................................... 8.26 9.0 REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS...............................................................................10.27 9.1 SCREENING OF APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES .........................................................10.27 9.2 REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS....................................................................................10.27 10.0 RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN......................................................................................10.27 10.1 ADMINISTRATIVE MONITORING................................................................................ 10.27 10.2 PORT MAINTENANCE................................................................................................. 10.28 ® Stantec FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS 11.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................11.29 12.0 CLOSURE..................................................................................................................12.32 13.0 STANTEC QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .......................................................13.34 LIST OF TABLES IN REPORT BODY Table is Site Land Cover in Hectares.......................................................................................3.3 Table ii: Site Land Cover in Percentage................................................................................. 3.3 Table iii: Summary of Site History and Previous Environmental Work .................................. 3.4 Table iv: Description of Subject Land Parcels and APECs................................................... 4.9 Table v: CCME ISQGs and the PELs for Assessment of the Aquatic Life Community .... 5.12 Table vi: Summary of the Human Health COPC Screening in Sediment ......................... 8.21 Table vii: Toxic Units by Sediment Sample for Big Otter Creek, ranked by DDT (as a sum)............................................................................................................................8.22 Table viii: Toxic Units by Sediment Sample for Lake Erie, ranked by DDT (as a sum) ..... 8.23 Table ix: Summary of Human Health COPCs in Surface Water ......................................... 8.24 Table x: Comparison of Surface Water Maximum and 95% UCLM Concentrations against Ecological Guidelines................................................................................ 8.24 Table xi: Summary of Human Health COPCs in Fish Tissue.................................................8.25 Table xii: Potentially Impacted Sediment Volumes............................................................ 8.26 LIST OF FIGURES IN REPORT BODY Figure is Recent encroachment of Project Ojibwa access ramp onto Subject Lands (September 27, 2013, Google Earth)............................................................ 3.4 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A - FIGURES...................................................................................................A.1 A.1 Site Location...................................................................................................................A.2 A.2 Site Overview.................................................................................................................A.3 A.3 Site Land Cover.............................................................................................................A.4 A.4 Port Burwell in 1956........................................................................................................A.5 A.5 Port Burwell in 1973........................................................................................................A.6 A.6 Sampling Locations.......................................................................................................A.7 APPENDIX B - TABLES..................................................................................................... B.1 B.1 Summary of Sediment Analytical Results................................................................... B.2 B.2 Summary of Surface Water Analytical Results........................................................... B.3 B.3 Summary of Fish Tissue Analytical Results................................................................... B.4 B.4 Remedial Options Analysis........................................................................................... B.5 ® Stantec FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Executive Summary Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to complete a detailed Remedial Options Analysis (ROA) and a Remedial Action/Risk Management Plan (RAP/RMP) for sediments at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour located in the Municipality of Bayham, Ontario (the `Site' or `Property' or `Subject Lands'). The Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour is located at the confluence of Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie in Port Burwell, Municipality of Bayham, Elgin County, Ontario. The DFO property is an active port facility currently managed by the Small Craft Harbours division of DFO (SCH). The Site encompasses an area of approximately 79.1 hectares (ha) and includes land and water lots in Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie, consisting of the Crown -owned parcels identified as Parts 2, 6 and 7. DFO's objectives for this work are to satisfy internal due diligence and to facilitate the potential transfer of the Subject Lands to the Municipality of Bayham. Previous investigations have observed the presence of several contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) in site sediment including petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs), metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) in excess of applicable generic regulatory criteria (AGRC) in sediment at the Site. A site-specific risk assessment (SSRA) prepared under separate cover has determined that the observed exceedances of chemical concentrations to generic conservative guideline values do not pose a risk to human health or the environment. Despite the fact that the SSRA currently indicates no significant risk based on the Federal risk management framework, and that remediation is not required, risk management measures are needed to monitor conditions under which the SSRA assumptions remain valid, and to verify that these are maintained. Land use monitoring is the recommended remediation / risk management approach given the absence of risk at the Site. The remedial action/risk management (R/RM) plan for the Site while under Federal ownership would consist of administrative monitoring of land use changes by internal DFO staff to verify that the risk assessment exposure and receptor assumptions are maintained. The administrative and operational considerations involved in the transfer of an active port and associated facilities from SCH to the Municipality of Bayham are considered outside the scope of this Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan. Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour is likely to continue providing dockage and marina services to recreational and commercial fishing vessels regardless of future ownership. Siltation of the harbour due to the accumulating sediment load from Big Otter Creek will require regular dredging in order to maintain small craft access. Past dredging works at the Site have used a direct in -water sediment disposal approach, as historically approved by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) based on project -specific sediment analyses. ® Stantec FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Future dredging activities should be accompanied by monitoring of COPC concentrations in sediment in order to provide the information necessary to properly manage any material that contains significantly elevated concentrations (i.e., above the sediment quality standards). It is recommended that future dredging works for the purpose of maintaining port access should include the following elements to support the administrative monitoring approach and ensure that it remains protective of human health and the environment: Dredging design, sediment sampling/analysis plans and MOECC in -lake disposal approvals to be submitted to and reviewed by all site stakeholders. Dredging works must maintain appropriate silt containment measures (e.g. silt curtains). As -built dredging and disposal plans (including bathymetry of dredged channel and disposal area relative to the International Great Lakes Datum 1985 [IGLD 85]) to be provided to all site stakeholders. ® Stantec FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Abbreviations Ag Silver ANA Acenaphthene ANTH Anthracene APEC Area of potential environmental concern As Arsenic ASCS Aquatic Sites Classification System AGRC Applicable Generic Regulatory Criteria B (a)A Benzo(a)anthracene B(a)P Benzo(a)pyrene B(bj)F Benzo(b,j)fIuora nthene B(ghi)P Benzo(g,h,i)perylene B(k)F Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benz Benzene BH Borehole BFD Blind field duplicate BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes CALA Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation CCG Canadian Coast Guard CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CEPA Canadian Environmental Protection Act CEQG Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines CH Chrysene CoC Contaminant(s) of concern COPC Contaminants of potential concern CRM Certified reference material CSA Canadian Standards Association CWQG Canadian Water Quality Guidelines CWS Canada Wide Standard DCPT Dynamic cone penetration rest DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada DGPS Differential GPS DNAPL Dense non -aqueous phase liquid EIA Environmental impact assessment ESA Environmental site assessment Ethlb Ethylbenzene F1 Petroleum hydrocarbons fraction 1 (C6 -C10 range) F2 Petroleum hydrocarbons fraction 2 (>C10 -C16 range) FAA Flame atomic absorption FCSAP Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan Fe Iron FIGWQG Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines FLAN Fluoranthene FOC Fraction organic carbon g Grams GPS Global Positioning System ® Stantec FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS ha Hectare HHERA Human health and ecological risk assessment HQ Hazard quotient 1(123)P Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene IACR Index of additive cancer risk ICP -MS Inductively coupled plasma - mass spectrometry IGLD 85 International Great Lakes Datum 1985 L Litres LCP Lead containing paint LNAPL Light non -aqueous phase liquid LPRCA Long Point Region Conservation Authority LTM Long term monitoring M Metre m AMSL Metres above mean sea level mbg Metres below grade MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation MNR Monitored Natural Recovery MNPT Methylnaphthalene Mo Molybdenum MT Metric tonne MTM Modified Transverse Mercator MW Monitoring well NAD North American Datum NAD 83 North American Datum 1983 NAPH Naphthalene NAPL Non -aqueous phase liquid NAVD 88 North American Vertical Datum 1988 NCSCS National Contaminated Site Classification System ND Non -detect ng Nanogram ns No standard OCP Organochlorine pesticide OM&M Operations, maintenance and monitoring PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls Phase I ESA Phase I environmental site assessment Phase 11/III ESA Phase 11/III environmental site assessment PHCs Petroleum hydrocarbons PHE Phenanthrene ppb Parts per billion ppm Parts per million PQRA Preliminary quantitative risk assessment PWGSC Public Works and Government Services Canada Py Pyrene QMS Quality management system RAP Remedial action plan ROA Remedial options analysis R/RM Remediation/risk management RMP Risk management plan ® Stantec iv FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS RSC Record of site condition SARA Species At Risk Act SLERA Screening level ecological risk assessment SLRA Screening level risk assessment SO4 Sulfate SOP Standard operating procedure SQG Soil quality guideline SSRA Site-specific risk assessment SWDA Solid waste disposal areas SWE Surface water equivalent TBC To be completed TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure TDGA Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act Tol Toluene TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons TRV Toxicity reference value TSS Total suspended solids Pg Microgram USCS Unified Soil Classification System UTM Universal Transverse Mercator VECs Valued ecosystem components VOCs Volatile organic compounds WDA Waste disposal area Xy Total Xylenes ® Stantec v FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Introduction September 11, 2015 1.0 INTRODUCTION Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to complete a detailed Remedial Options Analysis (ROA) and a Remedial Action/Risk Management Plan (RAP/RMP) for sediment at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour (SCH) located in the Municipality of Bayham, Ontario (the `Site' or `Property' or `Subject Lands'). The purpose of the ROA and RAP/RMP is to establish a conceptual understanding of the current site conditions, develop a remedial design basis, identify additional data needs, determine the most appropriate remedial technologies, and develop and compare remedial and risk management (R/RM) options on a technical, cost and time basis. The ROA and RAP/RMP are completed for due diligence and to support the potential transfer of Part 2 of the subject lands to the Municipality of Bayham. The ROA and RAP/RMP are completed in conjunction with an aquatic Site-specific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (SSRA) in accordance with the Federal risk assessment framework. The ROA and RAP/RMP are based on the results of the SSRA, the current land use, and the Federal regulatory context. R/RM options are therefore evaluated based on their ability to mitigate and/or further reduce risks to human health and ecological receptors at the Site, or to maintain the conditions under which the SSRA is valid. A detailed rationale for selecting preferred R/RM actions is provided. The ROA and RAP/RMP document is structured as follows: • Statement of report objectives, as well as the remedial objectives (Section 2.0); • Summary of background information and history of the Site (Section 3.0); • Scope of work description (Section 4.0); • Regulatory framework and applicable site conditions standards assumed for subsequent analysis (Section 5.0); • Summary of the outcome of the SSRA (Section 6.0); • Description of the general methodology for the ROA and RAP/RMP, including a description of the options evaluation criteria (Section 7.0); • Conceptual site model (CSM), consisting of a summary of existing sediment, surface water and biota conditions, a data gap analysis, and preliminary design basis, which serve to conceptualize and quantify the geology, hydrology, and contaminant distribution to provide design inputs for potential remedial or risk management actions (Section 8.0); • The ROA, consisting of a preliminary screening of remedial technologies and risk management strategies based on general applicability to site-specific conditions, a description of the coupling of the selected technologies into options, development of R/RM options and associated costs, and comparison of those options against several criteria (Section 9.0); (► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-sediment-roa-revised-final-20150911.docx 1 .1 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Statement of Objectives September 11, 2015 • Recommendations moving forward based on the results of the ROA, consisting of a RAP/RMP describing the preferred project approaches, as well as important considerations for planning, implementation, and monitoring (Section 10.0). DFO's objectives for this work are to satisfy internal due diligence and to facilitate the potential transfer of Part 2 of the Subject Lands to the Municipality of Bayham. It is understood that Parts 6 and 7 of the Subject Lands, located within Lake Erie, will remain DFO property. In order to achieve this objective, the ROA and RAP/RMP goals are to: • Establish a conceptual understanding of site conditions and identify uncertainties; • Identify and evaluate relevant remediation and risk management strategies, and select the most appropriate approach; and • Define a R/RM action plan for the Site using the selected approach. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour is located at the confluence of Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie in Port Burwell, Municipality of Bayham, Elgin County, Ontario (see Figure A.1, Appendix A). The DFO properties are currently managed by the Small Craft Harbours division of DFO (SCH). The Site encompasses an area of approximately 79.1 hectares (ha) and includes land and water lots in Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie, consisting of the Crown -owned parcels indicated as Parts 2, 6 and 7 on Figure A.2, Appendix A. As shown in Table i and Table ii, as well as Figure A.3, Appendix A, the Site land cover consists mostly of freshwater (74.5 ha, or 94.3%), while approximately 85% of the 4.5 ha of dry land portions (as observed in 2010 aerial imagery) of the Site fall within a flood zone [ (MacLaren Engineers Inc., 1987) & (Philpott Associates Coastal Engineers Limited, 1989)], as defined by the Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA). Municipal zoning of the land portions of the Site are not known; however, current Site land user is considered commercial. Land use is herein defined as including both land-based uses and waterbody-based uses. 5 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell-sediment-roa_revised-final-20150911.docx 3.2 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Background Information September 11, 2015 Table is Site Land Cover in Hectares Table ii: Site Land Cover in Percentage Based on Google Earth aerial imagery dated September 27, 2013 (Google, 2015), and as illustrated on Figure i, an access ramp was constructed on the eastern shore of Big Otter Creek, immediately west of the turning circle at the end of Robinson Street, in order to transport the retired HMCS Ojibwa submarine (Project Ojibwa, 2015) to its exhibit location at the end of Wellington Street. The ramp appears to have been constructed of aggregate material, and to encroach by approximately 4 metres (for a total of approximately 30 m2) into DFO's water lot (Part 2). 2 Land vs water coverage determined based on 2010 SWOOP imagery (Land Information Ontario, 2010) Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_revised_final_20150911.docx 3.3 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Background Information September 11, 2015 Figure is Recent encroachment of Project Ojibwa access ramp onto Subject Lands (September 27, 2013, Google Earth) Figures A.4 and A.5, Appendix A also illustrate the past industrial uses along both shores of Big Otter Creek. Information on past land uses in previous reports, such as the Phase I completed in 2001 (MacViro Consultants Inc., 2001), is limited. A partial history and summary of environmental work (based on available information) completed at the Site are provided in Table iii. Historical activities in and about the harbour may have negatively impacted soils and sediment quality and introduced environmental legacies to the Subject Lands. Given that handling of bulk goods such as coal, fuel oil and fertilizer had taken place at the harbour for over 75 years, in addition to the refueling of small recreational craft, there may have been undocumented spills and other releases of contaminants on land and in -harbour. There were no historical spill records available for the Subject Lands in the documents reviewed by Stantec. Table iii: Summary of Site History and Previous Environmental Work 3 Based on available information (� Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-sediment-roa-revised-final-20150911.docx 3.4 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN — SEDIMENTS Background Information September 11, 2015 (l Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_ revised_final _20150911.docx 3.5 Description of Investigationor Event3 1860-1872 Decline of lumber industry activity at Port Burwell 1872-1910s Expansion of commercial fishing and coal shipping, with up to 600,000 tons of coal landing at Port Burwell by the 1910s. 1900 Major improvements to wharf for coal shipping Early 1900s Harbour is used largely as a commercial fishing and bulked goods (coal, potash and fuel oil) trans -shipment point 1906 Ashtabula railroad car ferry is launched, providing daily service between Port Burwell and Ashtabula, Ohio. Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) tracks and related rail infrastructure serve the ferry dock on the east side of the harbour, as seen on aerial imagery from 1956 shown on Figure A.4, Appendix A. 1948 Graham Oil constructs 2,700,000 litre (600,000 imperial gallons) oil tank off -Site (visible on aerial imagery from 1973 shown on Figure A.5, Appendix A) circa 1940 Construction of small wharf for fishing 1950s Fire within the area of an 8,000 ton (8,130 MT) coal pile (Gartner Lee Limited, 1997) 1958 Ashtabula ferry sinks in Ashtabula Harbour, and the railcar ferry service is discontinued. 1962-1970 Dredging of the harbour to 24 feet (7.3 metres) is discontinued sometime between 1962 and 1970 (Bradfield, 2011). The turning basin begins to fill with sediment. 1960-1973 Decline of commercial harbour traffic at Port Burwell. By 1973, bulk goods service has been transferred to Port Stanley 1970 -present Sporadic shallow dredging for recreational and small commercial vessels in the lower harbour and at the harbour mouth 1974-2010 Removal of off -Site 2,700,000 litre oil tank 1976 Transfer of Subject Lands (Parts 2, 6 and 7) from PWSGC/Transport Canada to DFO SCH. Dredging to be completed to 8 feet (2.4 metres) in the harbour, 10 feet (3 metres) at the harbour entrance (Bradfield, 2011). Some DFO SCH parcels are transferred to the municipality after 1976, including the east pier. 1978 Sediment analyses completed by Environment Canada (data unavailable) 1987 Floodline study of Port Burwell is completed (Maclaren Engineers Inc., 1987) 1989 Floodplain mapping study is completed for Canadian shoreline of Lake Erie (Philpott Associates Coastal Engineers Limited, 1989) (l Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_ revised_final _20150911.docx 3.5 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Background Information September 11, 2015 I& Description of Investigationor Event3 1996 Inspection of harbour conducted by PWGSC for Small Craft Harbours, considered in 'fair condition' 1996 Aquafor Beech completes a study of the potential effects of plough dredging at Port Burwell (Aquafor Beech Limited, 1996), and determines that the methodology, as well as dredging and in -water disposal in general, is acceptable at the Site. 1997 Gartner Lee Phase I Property Transfer Assessment (Gartner Lee Limited, 1997) is completed for DFO to support transfer of Parts 1 and 2 to Village of Port Burwell. The report concludes that there are no significant environmental issues with the Site. They recommend soil sampling to determine if the coal handling operations may have resulted in soil impacts. 1998 A plan of survey is generated for the crown -owned and surrounding land parcels of Port Burwell (Kim Husted Surveying Ltd., 1998) (surveyed boundaries are shown on Figure A.2, Appendix A) 2000 Dillon Consulting prepares the "Port Burwell Assessment and Management Strategy" for the Municipality of Bayham (Dillon Consulting Limited, 2000), a planning document that recommends conditional transfer of DFO lands to the municipality assuming a partnership with SCH, and a commercial marina built outside of Big Otter Creek to avoid ongoing dredging expenses, in partnership with the Province of Ontario. 2001 Environment Canada completes an assessment of Lake Erie tributaries, including sediment analyses from Port Burwell. 2001 MacViro prepares an enhanced Phase I ESA. One surface soil sample in Part 1 (beach) finds metals concentrations below applicable Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) criteria. Concentrations of PAHs in excess of Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) interim sediment quality guidelines, as well as concentrations of metals, nutrients and pesticides in excess of MOE guidelines, are identified from six sediment samples collected within Part 2. They recommend further delineation of sediment impacts. A review of the Phase I ESA is completed by Murray Brooksbank at Environment Canada (Environment Canada, 2001) - they note that sediment quality is relatively good at Port Burwell and comparable to background conditions within Lake Erie. 2008 SCH produces a letter report summarizing the impacts of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) on Port Burwell operations (SCH, 2008). SCH identifies two fish species that may be at risk, and outlines the habitat compensation requirements for future dredging work. 2010 A qualitative assessment of the sedimentation problem at Big Otter Creek is completed by Shoreplan Engineering (ShorePlan Engineering Ltd., 2010). The study concludes that regular dredging is likely the most cost-effective solution for maintaining the harbour. ® Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_ revised_final _20150911.docx 3.6 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN — SEDIMENTS Background Information September 11, 2015 I& Description of Investigation. 2011 Dredging plans are prepared by Riggs Engineering (Riggs Engineering Ltd., 2011) for the Elgin Military Museum Ojibwa Project, which consists of moving the retired HCMS Ojibwa Oberon -class submarine to Port Burwell as an outdoor museum exhibit. 2012 An assessment of environmental risks is completed by Stantec for the Municipality of Bayham (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2012). The assessment concludes that data gaps must be filled with a new Phase I ESA as well as a Phase II ESA to support an eventual risk assessment for the Site. 2012 Municipality of Bayham prepares Official Plan (Municipality of Bayham, 2012). This includes a Specific Policy Area (No.2) that includes portions of the Subject Lands (See Figure A.2, Appendix A). 2012-2013 HMCS Ojibwa is moved up the harbour to its exhibit location on the east shore of Big Otter Creek (Project Ojibwa, 2015). It is assumed that the required dredging planned in 2011 took place in 2012. The exhibit is opened to the public in the summer of 2013. 2013 Terrapex conducts a Phase 1/11 ESA on behalf of DFO (Terrapex Environmental Ltd., 2013). The report defines three areas of potential environmental concern (APECs) located both on and off -Site. The Subject Lands are all associated with Terrapex's APEC 1. Three monitoring wells are installed and three sediment sampling locations are placed within Part 2 of the Subject Lands, in addition to three additional background sediment sampling locations outside of the Subject Lands. Analytical results for soil indicated the presence of PHC F2 in one sample and PAHs in three samples that exceed the applicable Federal and /or Provincial guidelines. Groundwater in three locations exceeded the applicable guidelines for arsenic and iron. In sediment, PHC F3 and F4, PAHs and pesticides exceeded the applicable guidelines in up to five locations, including background sampling locations. An NCSCS score of 56.8 for the land lot portions of the Site (CS0001) categorizes the Site as 'Class 2: Medium Priority for Action'. For the water lot portions (CS0002), the FCSAP aquatic sites classification system (ASCS) is applied and a score of 79.4 is assigned, corresponding to 'Class 1: High Priority for Action'. The study recommends additional soil sampling, including vertical delineation, as well as a round of groundwater sampling from all monitoring wells, in support of a PQRA and SLERA for the land lot portions. For the water lot portions, supplemental surficial sediment sampling, toxicology assessment and benthic survey are recommended to support a risk assessment. 2013 IBI Group prepares a waterfront master plan study for Port Burwell (IBI Group, 2013). The report focuses on the valued economic and tourism aspects of the area. (l Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_ revised_final _20150911.docx 3.7 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Background Information September 11, 2015 rar & Description of Investigation 2014-2015 SNC-Lavalin completes a soil and groundwater assessment of the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) automation building (previously referred to as the PWGSC automation building by others) located on the west shore of Big Otter Creek (SNC Lavalin, 2015). PAHs, arsenic or selenium are observed in soil in excess of Federal and/or Provincial criteria in 4 of 7 sampling locations, while PAHs are observed in groundwater in excess of Federal and/or Provincial criteria in 3 of 3 monitoring wells. Stantec completes soil, groundwater, sediment, surface water and aquatic biota assessments. These support a terrestrial PQRA/SLERA (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2015.09.1 1) and ROA and RMP/RAP (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2015.09.11), as well as an aquatic SSRA (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2015.09.11), and the present ROA and RMP/RAP. Present day Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour is an active port facility owned and operated by SCH and provides privately operated dockage and marina services to recreational and commercial fishing vessels, based on field observations and previous reports. The harbour is also a possible harbour of refuge for vessels in danger on Lake Erie. Siltation of the harbour due to the accumulating sediment load from Big Otter Creek requires regular dredging in order to maintain small craft access. The foundations for the CPR locomotive turn table at the foot of Wellington Street in the east harbour, and the former bulk fuel tank site near the end of Chatham Street in the west harbour, remain visible in the 2010 aerial imagery (Land Information Ontario, 2010). These features are not on the Subject Lands but are in close proximity. The Port Burwell Provincial Park beach extends to the western property limit (Part 2) along the shoreline. The Port Burwell Municipal East Beach operates seasonally immediately east of Subject Lands. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) identifies the Port Burwell property as Directory of Federal Real Property (DFRP) Property Number 54022. The TBS notes that there are 10 Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory (FCSI) identifiers for the property. The current Site is identified as FCSI 00024432. The Terrapex report identifies these two Contaminated Sites at the Property as: 1. Soil and groundwater impacts in the land portions and infilled harbour areas due to the historical handling and storage of bulk fuel, coal, potash, fertilizers, other industrial commodities, above -ground storage tanks (ASTs) and dredgeate. These are labeled as 'Land: Floodplain' and 'Land: No Flood' (Part 2 only) on Figure A.3, Appendix A, and previously identified as CS0001 by Terrapex (see Table iv). 2. Sediment impacts in the water lot portions of Big Otter Creek and the inner harbour of the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour due to the historical handling and storage of bulk fuel, coal, potash, fertilizers, and other industrial commodities, as well as the current handling and storage of fuel at the marina upstream of the Site. These are labeled as (i Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_ revised_final _20150911.docx 3.8 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Scope of Work September 11, 2015 'Water (Part 2)' on Figure A.3, Appendix A, previously identified as CS0002 by Terrapex (see Table iv). Table iv provides a description of previously identified APECs at the Site with respect to the land parcels described in the 1998 land survey of the Subject Lands and surrounding properties (Kim Husted Surveying Ltd., 1998). Table iv: Description of Subject Land Parcels and APECs Property Owner Contaminated Description APEC ID4 Site ID Part 1 unknown N/A N/A Port Burwell Municipal East Beach and shore protection along the Lake Erie shoreline east of Big Otter Creek Part 2 DFO APEC 1 CS0001 (land) Includes piers, harbour walls and appurtenances and land parcels about the CS0002 (water) harbour, and west extension wall and associated water lots at the mouth of Big Otter Creek. Also includes the CCG automation building (approximately 30m2) and a portion of the building's fenced enclosure (approximately 140m2), and the municipal sewer outfall and related piping and manholes. Part 6 DFO N/A Water lot in Lake Erie that includes the stone break wall and signal tower east of the mouth of Big Otter Creek Part 7 DFO N/A Water lot in Lake Erie to the east of Part 6 Multiple Multiple APEC 2 N/A Off -Site lands adjacent to and west of owners property boundary Multiple Multiple APEC 3 N/A Off -Site lands adjacent to and east of the owners property boundary In accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW) outlined in Request for Proposal (RFP) FP802- 14087, the scope of work for this report focuses on sediment impacts on the aquatic portion of 4 APECs and contaminated site IDs as defined by Terrapex (Terrapex Environmental Ltd., 2013) Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell-sediment-roa_revised-final-20150911.docx 4.9 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Regulatory Framework September 11, 2015 the Site. Soil and groundwater impacts are assessed under separate covers. Nonetheless, it is understood that the management scenarios for the land lot portions of the project may trigger changes in the management of the sediment due to additional dredging, construction of new port facilities, or other intrusive work resulting from terrestrial -based activities. As the Site is currently federal property (owned by DFO), federal guidelines are applied in evaluating the extent of impacts on -Site; however, given that the objective is to transfer the Subject Lands to the Municipality of Bayham, sediment concentrations are also compared to the applicable provincial standards. Where no federal or provincial guideline or standard exists, guidance was obtained from US jurisdictions. 5.1 HUMAN HEALTH 5.1.1 Sediment Preference was given to CCME human health -based soil quality guidelines (CCME, 2015a) for screening and identification of COPCs. For petroleum hydrocarbons, the pathway -specific values from the CCME Canada -Wide Standards for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil were used (CCME, 2008a). In the absence of CCME pathway -specific guidelines, guidelines from the following alternate sources were employed, in order of preference: 1. MOECC human soil component standards from Table 8: Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Potable Ground Water Condition (OMOE, 2011.04.15). 2. USEPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) for industrial land use (USEPA, 2015a); RSL values were adjusted to HQ=0.2 or TR=1 E-05 to reflect differences between the USEPA and Health Canada/CCME approach to guideline derivation. 3. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Protective Concentration Levels (TCEQ PCLs) for commercial scenario (TCEQ, 2014) PCL values were adjusted to HQ=0.2 to reflect differences between the TCEQ and Health Canada/CCME approach to guideline derivation. 5.1.2 Surface Water Health Canada and CCME provide limited general requirements for recreational water quality guidelines and aesthetics; however, they currently do not provide health -based guidelines for human exposure to surface water, other than if it is used as a source of drinking water. Although the Site is non -potable, access to the beach located to the east of the Site is unrestricted and I Preliminary Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment and Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment of Soil and Groundwater at Port Burwell, Stantec, March 31, 2015 (30 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-sediment-roa-revised-final-20150911.docx 5.10 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Regulatory Framework September 11, 2015 swimming at the beach may lead to inadvertent ingestion of surface water. Therefore, in order to be conservative for screening of COPCs, maximum surface water contaminant concentrations were screened against drinking water guidelines to identify COPCs requiring further risk assessment for human receptors. Preference was given to Health Canada Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ) (Health Canada, 2014) for screening and identification of COPCs. In the absence of Health Canada GCDWQ values, guidelines from the following alternate sources were employed, in order of preference: 1. MOECC Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (OMOE, 2008) 2. USEPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) for residential tap water (USEPA, 2015a); RSL values were adjusted to HQ=0.2 or TR=1 E-05 to reflect differences between the USEPA and Health Canada/CCME approach to guideline derivation. 3. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Protective Concentration Levels (TCEQ PCLs) for commercial scenario (TCEQ, 2014); PCL values were adjusted to HQ=0.2 to reflect differences between the TCEQ and Health Canada/CCME approach to guideline derivation. 4. MOECC Site Condition Standards for Groundwater Components in a Potable Ground Water Scenario (OMOE, 201 1.04.15). In all cases, if only aesthetic objectives (AO), operation guidance values (OG), or interim guidelines were available, preference was given to more recent guidelines based on newer science and/or health -based guidelines. 5.1.3 Fish Tissue Health Canada and CCME do not currently provide health -based guidelines for human consumption of aquatic biota (e.g., fish). However, on behalf of Environment Canada, MacDonald et al. (2000) prepared a Compendium of Environmental Quality Benchmarks, which includes an appendix titled "A Summary of the Available Tissue Residue Quality Criteria and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Health". In order to be conservative for screening of COPCs, maximum fish tissue concentrations from the large body fish were screened against these guidelines to identify COPCs requiring further risk assessment for human receptors. COPC concentrations were also screened against background fish tissue sample concentrations. If no guideline was available, and COPC concentrations were greater than background values, these parameters were carried forward for further assessment. 5.2 ENVIRONMENT For freshwater sediment, assessment of potential effects was based on comparison to the CCME Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Both the interim (► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_revised_final_20150911.docx 5.11 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Regulatory Framework September 11, 2015 sediment quality guidelines (ISQG) and the probable effect levels (PEL) were used to determine not only the potential for an effect but also the magnitude. The ISQGs and PELs used in the SSRA are presented in Table v. Table v: CCME ISQGs and the PELs for Assessment of the Aquatic Life Community 1W ParameterME AMetal d . 7 I PEL . T Manganese 460a 1 100° Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Acenaphthene 0.00671 0.0889 Acenaphthylene 0.00587 0.128 Anthracene 0.0469 0.245 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.0317 0.385 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0319 0.782 Chrysene 0.0571 0.862 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.00622 0.135 Fluoranthene 0.1 1 1 2.355 Fluorene 0.0212 0.144 Methylnaphthalene, 2- 0.0202 0.201 Naphthalene 0.0346 0.391 Phenanthrene 0.0419 0.515 Pyrene Organochlorine Pesticides DDD, o,p'- + DDD, p,p'- 0.053 0.00354 0.875 0.00851 DDE, o,p'- + DDE, p,p'- 0.00142 0.00675 DDT, o,p'- + DDT, p,p'- 0.000119 0.00477 Notes: a = No CCME guideline was available so the MOECC Sediment Standard (OMOE, 2008) was adopted as a surrogate ® Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_ revised_final _20150911.docx 5.12 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS SSRA Summary September 11, 2015 5.3 FCSAP DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK The FCSAP Decision -Making Framework (DMF) (Environment Canada, 2013) provides useful direction for the management of Federal contaminated sites. As outlined in the Introduction to the DMF for FCSAP, the DMF is a roadmap that outlines the specific activities and requirements for addressing federal contaminated sites in Canada. The DMF is based on A Federal Approach to Contaminated Sites, a 10 -step process guiding federal custodians in all aspects of working with contaminated sites. At Step 7 (Develop Remediation/Risk Management Strategy) of the federal approach, determination is made as to whether a guideline approach or a risk assessment approach will be used to establish what remediation or risk management objectives will be applied. Although this ROA initially screens sediment analysis results using guideline values, the R/RM options are ultimately based on the outcome and recommendations of the SSRA, provided under separate cover. Having adopted a risk assessment approach, there are specific recommendations in the SSRA that outline the assessed levels of risk from contaminants of potential concern (COPCs). The applicability of the recommendations is subject to the context within which the SSRA is set: necessary RM measures are derived from the context, and will be discussed in subsequent sections. "A Federal Approach to Contaminated Sites, November 1999" (Dillon Consulting Limited, 1999) will be used as guidance, as will the "FCSAP Decision -Making Framework 2013" specific to its guidance concerning a risk management approach. In addition, the Canada - Ontario Decision -Making Framework for Assessment of Great Lakes Contaminated Sediment (COA Sediment Task Group, 2008) provides additional guidance due to its specific focus on great lakes contaminated sediment. Stantec conducted a site-specific human health and ecological risk assessment (SSRA) of contaminated sediment for the Site (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2015). The SSRA was completed using sediment data collected by Terrapex Environmental Ltd. (Terrapex) in 2012, and sediment, surface water, benthic invertebrate and fish tissue data collected by Stantec in 20156. The purpose of the SSRA was to identify the presence or absence of impacts to sediment and surface water for the aquatic portion of the Site, and to determine whether or not concentrations of contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) pose unacceptable risk to human or ecological receptors. Note that the terrestrial environment (i.e., soil and groundwater) has been assessed by Stantec under separate cover, and no unacceptable risk under the Federal risk assessment framework was identified in the terrestrial environment. 6 Site Specific Human health and Ecological Risk Assessment of Sediment at Port Burwell, Stantec, July 17, 2015 (A Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_revised_final_20150911.docx 6.13 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS SSRA Summary September 11, 2015 For the human health risk assessment (HHRH), thallium, zirconium, and benzo(a)pyrene exceeded the guidelines for inadvertent ingestion and dermal contact with surface water, and cobalt, iron, and uranium exceeded selected guidelines in fish tissue. In addition, acenaphthylene, and pyrene in sediment exceeded the selected sediment guideline for bioaccumulation in fish tissue. These COPCs were carried forward into the HHRA. The results of the HHRA suggest that there are no risks to the selected human receptors (Toddler Site Visitor, and Adult Site Visitor) due to inadvertent ingestion and dermal contact with Site surface water, and consumption of fish caught at the Site; exposure to all identified non -carcinogenic COPCs from soil resulted in HQs less than the target benchmark of 0.2. For the Adult Site Visitor, chronic inadvertent ingestion of surface water, chronic dermal contact with water, and ingestion of fish from the Site resulted in an estimated cancer risk greater than 1 -in -100,000, the risk level considered to be "essentially negligible" by Health Canada. The fish consumption pathway was the primary exposure pathway for this estimated cancer risk. However, given the numerous conservative assumptions necessary in the exposure and risk estimation process, Stantec anticipates that actual on -Site risks posed by benzo(a)pyrene are negligible. For the ecological risk assessment (ERA), manganese, select PAHs and DDT (and metabolites) in sediment, and zinc in surface water, were carried through for risk assessment. The results of the ERA indicate that there are no unacceptable risks to semi -aquatic receptors from surface sediment and surface water at the Site.. This includes the potential for DDT and its metabolites to biomagnify in the food chain, thus resulting in a higher level of exposure for the top predators. Concentrations measured in fish tissue did not represent a concern to piscivorous birds and mammals. The results of the ERA are also considered protective of terrestrial receptor exposure through the ingestion of surface water. Given that the results of the assessment of the terrestrial environment determined that there were no risks to terrestrial receptors from soil or groundwater at the Site, it is not anticipated that the Site poses unacceptable risks to terrestrial or semi - aquatic birds or mammals from soil, groundwater, sediment or surface water. The viability of the aquatic health community was assessed using a weight -of -evidence approach. Taking into consideration the results of the surface water chemistry, sediment chemistry and benthic community analysis, two of the three lines of evidence indicate that there are no significant effects on the aquatic life community. The bioaccumulative potential of the COPCs was also assessed within fish but the results were more relevant to the assessment of birds and mammals than to the fish themselves as tissue -based toxicity limits were not available. Based on a comparison of the sediment physical characteristics with the COPC toxic potential and benthic community indices, the strongest influence on potential adverse effects appears to be substrate composition, mainly the proportion of clay and silt, and the concentration of TOC. Consequently, the COPCs identified at the Site are not expected to pose unacceptable adverse effects to the viability of the aquatic community within Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie within the study area. (► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_revised_final_20150911.docx 6.14 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Methodology September 11, 2015 The results of the Preliminary Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment and Screening Level Risk Assessment (PQRA/SLERA) of the terrestrial environment (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2015.09.1 1) determined that there were no risks to the selected human receptors due to direct exposure pathways (i.e., soil ingestion, soil dermal contact, inhalation of suspended soil particulate) for all non -carcinogenic and carcinogenic COPCs. Similarly, the results of the SLERA suggested that there are no significant risks to aquatic or terrestrial receptors at the Site, including species of conservation concern, from soil or groundwater at the Site. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Site poses unacceptable risks to terrestrial or semi -aquatic birds or mammals from soil, groundwater, sediment or surface water. Based on the results of the SSRA and the current Federal land use, no further intrusive work or remedial actions are currently anticipated for the Site. The ROA and RAP/RMP is conducted in accordance with current standards, guidance and best practices in Canada and as provided by Expert Support Departments in the suite of Federal Contaminated Action Plan guidance documents. 7.1 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL As defined in the scope of work, this CSM consists of an update of the Terrapex CSM, based on new information obtained by Stantec. When site-specific data is unavailable, values from literature are provided. The CSM is not intended to comply with the requirements for filing of a record of site condition (RSC) in Ontario. The site investigation methodology and detailed results are provided under separate cover, as an attachment to the SSRA (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2015.09.11). The most up-to-date mapping and measurements of the subject property boundaries are provided in the PWGSC property map provided (PWGSC, 2001); however, the drawing is not to scale. Using 20 -cm accuracy South Western Ontario Orthoimagery Project (SWOOP) aerial imagery, and the south -westernmost corner of the concrete dock visible on the imagery on the eastern shore of Big Otter Creek in Lake Erie as a reference point, property boundaries were converted to UTM zone 17N NAD83 datum to within approximately 5 m horizontal accuracy. The portions of the property limits indicated as `water's edge' on Plan 1 1 R-6760 were derived from elevation contours from the Big Otter Creek flood line mapping (Maclaren Engineers Inc., 1987). This allows comparison of sampling locations with property boundaries in the same coordinate system. The locations of sediment and surface water sampling locations were surveyed with a Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) instrument to a horizontal accuracy of 10 cm. (► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-sediment-roa-revised-final-20150911.docx 7.15 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Methodology September 11, 2015 Flood plain mapping was obtained from Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) to determine the proportion of DFO lands susceptible to flooding (Maclaren Engineers Inc., 1987) (Philpott Associates Coastal Engineers Limited, 1989). Flood zones were vectorised based on the georeferencing of the flood plain maps completed by LPRCA. 7.2 REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL ACTION/RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN Remedial or risk management options are typically developed using a combination or sequence of remediation or risk management technologies, since a single technology will rarely constitute the optimal remedy for the entire lifecycle of a remediation or risk management program. Remedial technologies are screened on the basis of their applicability to identified conditions and contaminants. Consideration of risk and reduction of risk are included in remedial technology and risk management strategy selection. Given the absence of significant risk, remedial technology screening was not required. R/RM options are developed using one, or a sequence/combination of several, of the selected remediation and risk management technologies. The options are developed with the objective of providing a representative range of indicative7 costs and timelines. Given the absence of significant risk, development of remedial options was not required. The recommended R/RM strategy is selected based on a matrix -style evaluation (Environment Canada, 2013) of the R/RM options against the following criteria$: 1) Cost a) Capital and OM&M; b) Indicative estimated cost to implement each remediation/risk management option to completion; c) Qualitative consideration is given to the time -value of remedial costs. 2) Effectiveness a) Ability to protect public health and the environment: 7 Indicative cost estimate: "...an estimate that is not sufficiently accurate to warrant Treasury Board approval as a cost objective and provides a rough cost projection used for budget planning purposes in the early stages of concept development of a project." (PWGSC, 2015) Also known as a class `D' cost estimate. 8 Weightings for each criterion were established in consultation with DFO, in order to reflect the priorities of the department. The weighting scheme is provided in Table B.4, Appendix B. (30 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_revised_final_20150911.docx 7.16 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Methodology September 11, 2015 i) Evaluation of the ability of each option to protect public health and the environment; ii) Considers the method of removal or control, and any associated engineering or institutional controls needed. b) Short-term effectiveness and impacts: i) Evaluation of the potential short-term adverse impacts on the community during the construction and/or implementation of the remedy; ii) Short-term benefits and safety aspects of the R/RM measures. c) Long-term effectiveness and permanence: i) Evaluation of the long-term effectiveness and permanence of the remedy after implementation; ii) Effectiveness in meeting remedial goals; iii) If, by design, contamination will remain after the selected remedy was implemented, the evaluation assesses the impact of the residuals on human exposures or ecological receptors, and the need for and complexity of institutional and/or engineering controls; iv) Incremental benefits and safety aspects of the remedial / risk management measures. d) Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume: i) Evaluation of the ability of a remedy to reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of site contamination; ii) Preference is given to remedies that permanently or significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of the contamination at the site. 3) Regulatory Acceptability a) Compliance with AGRC9, guidelines and risk-based screening levels, while taking regulatory guidance into consideration as appropriate; b) Effectiveness at reducing, eliminating or controlling potential non -occupational human health risk (or at a minimum, human exposure pathways), as well as ecological risks, to substances associated with each proposed remedial/risk management option; 4) Timeframe a) Timeframe or estimated length of time to complete the remediation/risk management of the site compared to desired timeframe outcome. 9 Including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) 1999 (Minister of Justice, 2014) ( ► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-sediment-roa-revised-final-20150911.docx 7.17 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Conceptual Site Model September 11, 2015 5) Implementability a) Technical and administrative feasibility of implementing a remedy; b) Applies to constructability, access, space, operation, maintenance and monitoring, reliability, as well as the potential difficulties in obtaining permits and approvals; c) Sustainability: Opportunities for reduction of energy and material use associated with remedies. 6) Community/stakeholder acceptance a) Anticipated response of the stakeholders10, including the LPRCA, Elgin County, Municipality of Bayham, the Elgin Military Museum, MOECC, Ontario Parks, and other federal agencies (Transport Canada and DFO), and the public (residents of Port Burwell), to the remedy, following consultation, review and/or implementation; b) Future land use potential: Evaluation of the current, intended and reasonably anticipated future use of the site and its surroundings, as it relates to remedy (e.g., continued use of the Site as a harbour/marina). The following sections aim to develop a preliminary conceptual site model (CSM) for the Site and adjacent properties, in terms of a quantitative physical description of the Site geology and hydrology. Furthermore, that understanding is extended to a remedial design basis, which quantitatively defines the contaminant impacts and hydrological parameters as design inputs for conceptual remedial options and associated cost estimates, including an evaluation of uncertainty and data gaps. 8.1 PHYSICAL AND HYDROLOGICAL SETTING The Site is located at the confluence of Big Otter Creek with Lake Erie, within the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence primary watershed, the Northern Lake Erie secondary watershed, the Long Point tertiary watershed, and both the Big Otter Creek and South Otter Creek quaternary watersheds. Part 2 of the Site falls within the Big Otter Creek subwatershed (819 km2), as shown in Figure A.1, Appendix A. The median stream flow from 1975 to 2003 in Big Otter Creek ranges from 2.9 to 12.7 m3/s, with 90th percentile flows greater than 43 m3/s, at the Calton monitoring station, which is located approximately 15 km upstream from Port Burwell (Lake Erie Source Protection Region Technical Team, 2008). Big Otter Creek has been previously identified as Canada's largest source of sediment contamination to Lake Erie (Cridland, 1997), with median sediment loads of approximately 25 milligram per litre (mg/L), and 95th percentile sediment loads upwards of 350 10 Stakeholders are defined as current and potential owners, regulatory and government agencies having jurisdiction at the Site, as well as local end users and neighbours of the Site. (30 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_revised_final_20150911.docx 8.18 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Conceptual Site Model September 11, 2015 mg/L. High peak flows and sediment load from Big Otter Creek are compounded by agricultural land uses within the subwatershed, the silty soil type of the region, relative lack of riparian vegetation, and the additional particulate loads from upstream wastewater treatment plants at Norwich and Tillsonburg (Lake Erie Source Protection Region Technical Team, 2008). Regional Site topography generally slopes southward towards Lake Erie, and locally towards the many creeks and rivers within the subwatershed, as shown in Figure A.1, Appendix A. At the Site scale, as indicated in Figure A.1, Appendix A, the topography is generally flat within the floodplain, with a mean shoreline at approximately 174 metres above mean sea level (m AMSL), and ground elevations ranging from approximately 180 to 183 m AMSL within the village of Port Burwell. Portions of the Site are situated within the Big Otter 100 -year Floodline, the Big Otter Regional Floodline, the Lake Erie Shoreline Regulatory Flood Level, or the Big Otter 100 -year Lake Level (with wind setup), per the flood line mapping studies provided by the LPRCA (Philpott Associates Coastal Engineers Limited, 1989), (Maclaren Engineers Inc., 1987). The LPRCA floodlines are represented with respect to property boundaries on Figure A.1, Appendix A. Given the above, the terrestrial portions of the Subject Lands are considered vulnerable to natural erosion and sedimentation from Big Otter Creek. In addition, the historically observed erosion, transport & deposition mechanisms in Big Otter Creek result in constant changes to the channel depth at the Site. 8.2 SEDIMENT, SURFACE WATER AND AQUATIC LIFE 8.2.1 Sediment St The sediment in Big Otter Creek was observed to be predominantly comprised of brown, very fine to medium -grained silty sand. Within the Lake Erie portion of the Site, the sediment consists of brown medium to coarse sand, with occasional shell fragments. Sediment stratigraphy of the creek bed, and to some extent the mouth of the creek within Lake Erie, is expected to be complex and dynamic given the significant erosion, transport and deposition mechanisms occurring within Big Otter Creek. 8.2.2.1 Human Health The sediment data relied upon for the development of the SSRA were collected by Terrapex in November 2012 (see Terrapex, 2013). Stantec collected additional data in March 2015 (i.e., sediment, surface water, and benthic invertebrates). Additional samples were collected in May 2015 (i.e., surface water and fish). ( ► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_revised_final_20150911.docx 8.19 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Conceptual Site Model September 11, 2015 The full sediment analytical data set is presented in Appendix B.I. The screening of those data with respect to the identification of contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) is summarized inTable A. Based on historical activities, potential contaminants in sediment at the Site include: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), PHCs F1 to F4, metals, PAHs, PCBs and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs). (30 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_revised_final_20150911.docx 8.20 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Conceptual Site Model September 11, 2015 Table vi: Summary of the Human Health COPC Screening in Sediment Site Maximum Background Federal MOECC Guidelines EcologicalParamet (mg/kg) L i6r. Sediment Concentration' (mg/kg) Human Health Guideline Human Health Guideline b from OtherConcentratio Jurisdictions (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Petroleum Hydrocarbons and BTEX (mg/kg) (mg/kg) PHC F3 (>C16- 180 12 3,500 a, 5,800 NA 43.3e NO C34) Metals Manganese 590 190 NG NG 5,200 c 460f No3 Thallium 0.072 <0.050 1 1 NA NG No3 Non -Carcinogenic PAHs ow— Acenaphthylene 0.008 (<0.01) <0.0050 NG 2.3 NA 0.00587 Yes2 Pyrene 0.086 0.0044 NG 78 NA 0.053 Yes2 Organochlorine Pesticides p,p'-DDD 0.022 <0.002 NG NG NG 0.008' NO3 DDD, o,p'- 0.008 <0.002 NG NG NG NG NO3 o,p'DDD+ 0.03 <0.002 NG 3.3 NA 0.00354 NO3 p,p'DDD p,p'-DDE 0.035 <0.002 NG NG 68 c 0.005 f NO3 o,p'DDE + 0.035 <0.002 NG 2.3 NA 0.00142 NO3 p,p'DDE p,p'-DDT 0.006 <0.002 NG NG NG NG No3 DDT + Metabolites 0.07 <0.003 NG NG NG NG NO3 DDT Total 0.07 <0.002 NG 2.3 86 0.00119 NO3 Notes: < = reported detection limit NG = no guideline available 1 Background calculated as the maximum of background samples collected by Terrapex in 2012 and Stantec in 2015. 2 COPC retained for fish consumption pathway, owing to maximum concentration being greater than the sediment ecological guideline, and parameter not analyzed for in fish tissue. 3 COPC is not retained for the fish consumption pathway, as measured concentrations in fish tissue were found to be less than the selected fish tissue criteria (see Appendix C for details of screening). a CCME Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines (SQG) for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health; lowest of applicable human health guidelines, commercial land -use; coarse textured soil. al CCME CWS for PHCs in Soil; lowest human health guideline, commercial land use for coarse-grained surface soils b OMOE (201 1) Site Condition Standards. Table 9 - Soil Components for Within 30m of a Water Body. c USEPA RBC Regional Screening Levels; industrial soil (USEPA, 2015a). Hazard quotient adjusted to HQ=0.2 or TR=1 E-05. d CCME Canadian SQG for the Protection of Aquatic Life; freshwater interim sediment quality guidelines (ISQG). e Atlantic Risk -Based Corrective Action (RSCA) Version 3.0; chronic narcosis -based sediment toxicity benchmarks. f OMOE Guidelines for Identifying, Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments in Ontario: An Integrated Approach, May 2008; lowest effect level (LEL). ® Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_ revised_final _20150911.docx 8.21 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Conceptual Site Model September 11, 2015 8.2.2.2 Environment For each COPC within a sediment sample, a toxic unit was calculated by dividing the reported concentration by the applicable sediment guideline value (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2015.09.11). The sediment quality benchmarks are provided in Table v. Table vii lists the toxic units for manganese, PAHs (as the sum) and DDT (as a sum) for the sediment samples from Big Otter Creek. Table viii lists the same information for those samples taken at the mouth of the port and into Lake Erie. Based on the magnitude of the toxic units and the number of contaminated samples, DDT (and metabolites) represents the primary group potentially responsible for toxic effects. Table vii: Toxic Units by Sediment Sample for Big Offer Creek, ranked by DDT (as a sum) N otes: * Indicates a reference sample station In contrast to the approach taken with calculating HQs based on a TRV, the HQs calculated for aquatic life receptors are based on a benchmark screening approach. b For Manganese, the no effect level (NEL) and severe effect level (SEL) were used in place of the ISQG and PEL, respectively NC = Not calculated; concentrations were below the laboratory detection limits Bolded values indicate a total Hazard Quotient exceeding 1.0 4 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_revised_final_20150911.docx 8.22 Manganese° Total PAH Total DDT Manganeseb Total PAH Total DDT 0.35 INC INC 0.15 NC NC 0.48 0.15 INC 0.20 0.01 NC 0.59 0.20 1.55 0.25 0.01 0.33 0.52 1.52 1.83 0.22 0.10 0.39 0.59 1.26 2.04 0.25 0.09 0.43 0.33 2.97 2.32 0.14 0.22 0.49 • 1.02 1.27 2.61 0.43 0.08 0.55 0.67 0.69 4.08 0.28 0.04 0.86 1.13 1.82 4.58 0.47 0.11 0.96 1.37 2.30 43.45 0.57 0.14 2.29 N otes: * Indicates a reference sample station In contrast to the approach taken with calculating HQs based on a TRV, the HQs calculated for aquatic life receptors are based on a benchmark screening approach. b For Manganese, the no effect level (NEL) and severe effect level (SEL) were used in place of the ISQG and PEL, respectively NC = Not calculated; concentrations were below the laboratory detection limits Bolded values indicate a total Hazard Quotient exceeding 1.0 4 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_revised_final_20150911.docx 8.22 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Conceptual Site Model September 11, 2015 Table viii: Toxic Units by Sediment Sample for Lake Erie, ranked by DDT (as a sum) Manganese ° Total PAH Total DDT Manganeseb Total PAH Total DDT 0.30 NC INC 0.13 INC INC 0.46 INC INC 0.19 INC INC 0.39 NC INC 0.16 INC NC 0.35 0.18 INC 0.15 0.01 NC 0.5 NC INC 0.21 INC NC Notes: * Indicates a reference sample station In contrast to the approach taken with calculating HQs based on a TRV, the HQs calculated for aquatic life receptors are based on a benchmark screening approach. b For Manganese, the no effect level (NEL) and severe effect level (SEL) were used in place of the ISQG and PEL, respectively NC = Not calculated; concentrations were below the laboratory detection limits Bolded values indicate a total Hazard Quotient exceeding 1.0 Based on the chemistry data, adverse effects to the aquatic environment are considered likely to occur as a result of exposure to DDT (and metabolites) at one station within Big Otter Creek (Station 8; SID 15-08, Figure A.6, Appendix A). At this location, the sum of the toxic units derived from the PELs exceeded 1.0. An additional seven locations within the creek were categorized as having the potential to have an effect (i.e., the toxic units based on the ISQG exceeded 1.0 for one or more of manganese, total PAHs, or total DDT). The remaining sample locations, including all of those in Lake Erie and the upstream reference location, were categorized as having an unlikely potential for adverse effects on aquatic life. 8.2.3.1 Human Health A total of 15 (plus one duplicate) surface water samples were collected by Stantec in 2015. Five of the 15 surface water samples were collected from background locations. All chemicals in surface water at the Site were either below human health screening guidelines or were not detected, with the exception of benzo(a)pyrene, thallium and zirconium. Benzo(a)pyrene was measured at a maximum concentration greater than the applicable screening guideline. For thallium and zirconium, the detection limits for surface water analysis were greater than the selected screening guidelines. Therefore, thallium and zirconium were identified as COPCs in surface water, and were carried forward for further assessment. The complete compilation of data is presented in Appendix B.2. Surface Water COPCs are summarized in Table ix. Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-sediment-roa-revised-final-20150911.docx 8.23 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Conceptual Site Model September 11, 2015 Table ix: Summary of Human Health COPCs in Surface Water Notes: < = reported detection limit NG = no guideline available = value not required Background calculated as the maximum of background samples collected by Terrapex in 2012 and Stantec in 2015. 2 COPC retained as all detection limits for parameter were greater than the selected guideline value. a Health Canada Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (2014). b MOECC Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (OMOE, 2006). USEPA RBC Regional Screening Levels; residential tap water (USEPA, 2015a). Values adjusted to HQ=0.2 orTR=1 E-05. 8.2.3.2 Environment The potential risks to the environment associated with COPCs in surface water were assessed by comparing the 95% UCLM of the surface water concentrations to the CCME freshwater quality guideline (Table x). Table x: Comparison of Surface Water Maximum and 95% UCLM, Concentrations against Ecological Guidelines Notes: a CCME Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life; freshwater. b In contrast to the approach taken with calculating HQs based on a TRV, the HQs calculated for aquatic life receptors are based on a benchmark screening approach. The HQ for zinc was less than 1 (i.e., the 95% UCLM did not exceed the applicable guideline). Therefore, exposure to zinc in surface water is not expected to result in adverse effects to aquatic receptors or the aquatic habitat at the Site. Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_revised_final_20150911.docx 8.24 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Conceptual Site Model September 11, 2015 8.2.4 Aquatic Life 8.2.4.1 Human Health A total of 20 (plus one duplicate) fish tissue samples were collected by Stantec in 2015. Ten of the fish samples were collected from the Site, and ten (plus one duplicate) of the fish samples were collected from two reference locations. Five of the fish samples were from large body fish (two white sucker (Catostomus commersonii); three common carp (Cyprinus carpio)), while the other five were composite samples of small body fish (emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides)). For the reference locations, two (plus one duplicate) fish samples comprised large body fish (yellow perch (Perca flavescens); white bass (Morone chrysops)), and the other eight were composite samples of small body fish (four rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax); four spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius)). The complete compilation of data is presented in Appendix B.3. Fish tissue COPCs are summarized in Table A. Table A: Summary of Human Health COPCs in Fish Tissue Notes: < = reported detection limit NG = no guideline available 1 Background calculated as the maximum of background samples collected by Terrapex in 2012 and Stantec in 2015 2 COPC retained owing to absence of published screening guideline for this COPC. 3 A Compendium of Environmental Quality Benchmarks (Environment Canada, 2000). 8.2.4.2 Environment The viability of the aquatic health community was assessed using a weight -of -evidence approach. Taking into consideration the results of the surface water chemistry, sediment chemistry and benthic community analysis, two of the three lines of evidence indicate that there are no significant effects on the aquatic life community. Based on a comparison of the sediment physical characteristics with the COPC toxic potential and benthic community indices, the strongest influence on potential adverse effects appears to be substrate composition, mainly the proportion of clay and silt, and the concentration of TOC. Consequently, the COPCs identified at the Site are not expected to pose unacceptable adverse effects to the viability of the aquatic community within Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie within the study area. Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-sediment-roa-revised-final-20150911.docx 8.25 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Conceptual Site Model September 11, 2015 8.3 DATA GAP ANALYSIS A high level data gap analysis was completed to identify uncertainties associated with the data collected to date at the Site. Although the current legal survey drawing (Kim Husted Surveying Ltd., 1998) for the Site provides accurate relative Site boundaries that are adequate to support the title transfer of the property, Stantec has noted some technical issues with the survey that DFO may wish to address. The current survey does not include sufficient information to be translated to a known projection and datum. As a result, the Site boundary accuracy can be validated and improved by completing an update to the survey based on NAD83 and a Transverse Mercator projection. A specific area of improvement is the property line located at the northeast shoreline of Big Otter Creek nearest to Bridge Street, which is loosely defined as the water's edge on December 8, 1997. Soil, groundwater and sediment sampling at the Site has been previously completed on a judgmental basis, rather than a grid approach. Based on a Voronoi tessellation 11, each sediment sampling location represents approximately 0.37 ha on average. While representing good general coverage of the Big Otter Creek, previous investigations leave significant areas of the Lake Erie water lots unassessed. Nonetheless, previously acquired analytical results are considered to be representative of overall Site conditions. Despite the uncertainty associated with the lack of COPC horizontal and vertical delineation, the impact of this uncertainty on the R/RM outcome is considered low given the absence of risk based on known concentrations of COPCs. 8.4 DESIGN BASIS 1.4.1 Extent and Mass of Impacts Given the dynamic nature of sediment erosion, transport and deposition at the Site, and the identification of COPCs throughout the Site, the entire water lot surface area is considered to be potentially affected by the COPCs at any given time. Summaries of estimated sediment impacts are provided in Table Al. Table xii: Potentially Impacted Sediment Volumes 11 Polygons delineated by perpendicular lines located mid -way between points. 12 Maximum sediment depth sampled in 2015. Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell-sediment-roa_revised-final-20150911.docx 8.26 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Remedial Options Analysis September 11, 2015 Since the sediment does not constitute a risk to potential receptors based on the SSRA, the mass of contaminants was not quantified. A quantitative evaluation of mass flux could not be completed given the complexity of the Big Otter Creek erosion, transport and deposition mechanisms. REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS 9.1 SCREENING OF APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES Land Use Monitoring 13 is considered to be the only relevant R/RM technology for the Site, given the evaluated absence of risk. Land Use Monitoring is an administrative tool that can be applied when a risk assessment has found no significant risk, in order to ensure that the conditions under which the risk assessment remains valid (i.e., the context of the risk assessment) are maintained, and to flag cases where they are not, such that risk can then be appropriately re-evaluated. 9.2 REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS An analysis of the selected option is provided in Table B.4, Appendix B. Since the estimated cost for the risk management measure is considered negligible, neither an indicative nor a substantive 14 cost estimate is provided. 10.1 ADMINISTRATIVE MONITORING The risk management plan for the Site while under Federal ownership would consist of administrative monitoring of land use changes by internal DFO staff to ensure that the risk assessment exposure and receptor assumptions are maintained. The identified contaminants that exceed guideline values at the site are considered unlikely to trigger remediation or additional risk management measures in the future, given the Site's restricted land use potential. A change in land use triggered by a change in jurisdiction (i.e., federal to provincial transfer) has an uncertain outcome with respect to risk assessment results, and new or additional assessment, and remediation and/or risk management work may need to be completed under a new land use scenario. If the property is divested to the Municipality of Bayham, the land use is expected to remain the same, although the jurisdiction would change. As a result of the jurisdictional 13 Land Use Monitoring refers specifically to administrative land use monitoring and is not equivalent to Long Term Monitoring (LTM) 14 "A substantive estimate is one of high quality and reliability..." (PWGSC, 2015) based on detailed design, all significant deliverables, all agreed objectives, and market assessments for lease or capital purchases. (� Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-sediment-roa-revised-final-20150911.docx 10.27 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Risk Management Plan September 11, 2015 change, the risk assessment may need to be re-evaluated to screen in parameters that specifically exceed provincial criteria, which have not been considered in the SSRA. If risk was identified as a result of this re-evaluation, further investigation and/or development of remediation/risk management options may be warranted. The administrative and operational considerations involved in the transfer of an active port and associated facilities from SCH to the Municipality of Bayham are considered outside the scope of this Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan. 10.2 PORT MAINTENANCE Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour is likely to continue providing dockage and marina services to recreational and commercial fishing vessels regardless of future ownership. Siltation of the harbour due to the accumulating sediment load from Big Otter Creek will require regular dredging in order to maintain small craft access. Past dredging works at the Site have used a direct in -water sediment disposal approach, as historically approved by the MOECC based on project -specific sediment analyses (Riggs Engineering Ltd., 2011). The results of the core sampling conducted as part of the SSRA indicate that concentrations of COPCs (i.e., PAHs and DDTs) vary with the depth of the sediment but at their maximum are not significantly different from the surface sediments. The results from the three cores do not indicate a consistent pattern with one showing a significant increase of COPC concentrations with depth; the other showing a decrease and the third showing no change. These apparent contradictions are likely the product of the heterogeneity associated with historical sediment deposition, making it difficult to predict the quality of the sediment at any particular location or depth; however, since the COPC concentrations at depth were not found to be greater than those assessed in surface sediments, if buried material was disturbed and brought to the surface during dredging activities, it is unlikely to represent a significant concern. Due to the limited number of cores collected and the observation that in one location the COPC concentrations increased with depth, dredging activities should be accompanied by monitoring of COPC concentrations in sediment in order to provide the information necessary to properly manage any material that contains significantly elevated concentrations (i.e., above the sediment quality standards). It is recommended that future dredging works for the purpose of maintaining port access should include the following elements to support the administrative monitoring approach and ensure that it remains protective of human health and the environment: • Dredging design, sediment sampling/analysis plans and MOECC in -lake disposal approvals to be submitted to and reviewed by all site stakeholders. • Dredging works must maintain appropriate silt containment measures (e.g. silt curtains). • As -built dredging and disposal plans (including bathymetry of dredged channel and disposal area relative to IGLD 85) to be provided to all site stakeholders. (► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-sediment-roa-revised-final-20150911.docx 10.28 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS References September 11, 2015 Aquafor Beech Limited. (1996). Port Burwell Harbour Dredge Monitoring Study, Interim Report Prepared for Village of Port Burwell, July 1996, Project No. 67372.30. Aquafor Beech Limited. Armstrong, D., & Dodge, J. (2007). Paleozoic geology of southern Ontario, Miscellaneous Release --Data 219. Ontario Geological Survey. Bradfield, R. (2011, 10 23). E-mail from Ron Bradfield to John Langan (Stantec), Re: Port Burwell Risk Study. Bayham, Ontario, Canada. CCME. (2008a). Canada Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil: Scientific Rationale. January 2008. PN 1399. ISBN 978-1-896997-77-3. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. CCME. (2015a). Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health. (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment) Retrieved March 2015, from http://cegg-rcge.ccme.ca/ COA Sediment Task Group. (2008). Canada -Ontario Decision -Making Framework for Assessment of Great Lakes Contaminated Sediment. Toronto: Government of Canada, Government of Ontario. Cridland, W. (1997). Shoreline Water Quality Study Port Burwell to Long Point, Lake Erie. Long Point Conservation Authority, Environment Canada Great Lakes 2000 Clean Fund. Simcoe ON. DFO. (2014, 10 21). Station Inventory Data, Station 12400. Retrieved 03 23, 2015, from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Government of Canada: http://www.meds-sdmm.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/isdm-gdsi/twl-mne/inventory-inventaire/interval-intervalle- eng.asp?user=isdm-gdsi&region=CA&tst=1 &no=12400&ref=maps-cartes Dillon Consulting Limited. (1999). A Federal Approach to Contaminated Sites. Prepared for the Contaminated Sites Management Working Group. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Dillon Consulting Limited. (2000). Port Burwell Assessment and Management Strategy, Draft, September 12, 2000. Toronto: Dillon Consulting Ltd. Environment Canada. (2001, 12 17). E-mail from Murray Brooksbank to Kyle Kruger, Port Burwell (Enhanced Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment). Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Environment Canada. (2013). Federal Contaminated Sites Action -Plan (FCSAP): Decision -Making Framework, May 22, 2013. Gatineau, QC: Government of Canada. Fletcher, R., Welsh, P., & Fletcher, T. (2008). Guidelines for Identifying, Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments in Ontario: An Integrated Approach, May 2008. Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario. Freeze, R., & Cherry, J. (1979). Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice -Hall Inc. FRTR. (2014, 01 13). Technology Screening Matrix. Retrieved 03 18, 2015, from Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable: http://www.frtr.gov/scrntools.htm Gao, C., Shirota, J., Kelly, R. I., Brunton, F. R., & van Haaften, S. (2006). Bedrock topography and overburden thickness mapping, southern Ontario; Miscellaneous Release --Data 207. Ontario Geological Survey. Gartner Lee Limited. (1997). Phase I Property Transfer Assessment, Site 4766, Port Burwell, Ontario, GLL 97-303, September 1997. For PWSGC and DFO Small Craft Harbours Branch. Markham: Gartner Lee Limited. (A Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-sediment-roa-revised-final-20150911.docx 11.29 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS References September 11, 2015 Google. (2015). Google Maps. Retrieved 03 09, 2015, from Port Burwell ON - Google Maps: https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Port+Burwell,+ON/@42.6444881,- 80.807393,898m/data=!3m 1 ! 1 e3!4m2!3m 1 ! l sOx882dd802da685d47:Ox1 ef7689977b5f346?h 1=en Government of Canada. (2012, 07 15). GOST. Guidance and Orientation for the Selection of Technologies. Retrieved 03 18, 2015, from Canada.gc.ca: http://gost.irb-bri.cnrc- nrc.gc.ca/hm.aspx?ind_lang=en Hanscomb Limited. (2012). Yardsticks for Costing - Cost Data for the Canadian Construction Industry. Ottawa, ON: Hanscomb Limited. Health Canada. (2014). Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Ottawa: Federal - Provincial -Territorial Committee on Drinking Water of the Federal -Provincial -Territorial Committee on Health and the Environment. IBI Group. (2013). Municipality of Bayham Port Burwell Waterfront Master Plan Background Report, Draft Report, January 2013, IBI ref 32894. IBI Group. ITRC. (2015). ITRC Documents - View, Download or Print For Free. Retrieved 03 1 i8, 2015, from Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council: http://www.itrcweb.org/Guidance Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan I IR -6760, Project 97-45621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tillsonburg, ON. Lake Erie Source Protection Region Technical Team. (2008). Draft Long Point Region Watershed Characterization Report, January 2008, Revision 2.0. Long Point Region Conservation Authority. Land Information Ontario. (2010). Southwestern Ontario Orthoimagery Project (SWOOP). LIO. Long Point Region Conservation Authority. (2015). Long Point Region Conservation Authority. Retrieved 03 06, 2015, from Home: http://Iprca.on.ca/pages/l /Home MacLaren Engineers Inc. (1987). Vittoria, Port Ryerse, Lynedoch and Port Burwell Floodline Mapping Study, Report to Long Point Region Conservation Authority, April 1987. London, ON. MacViro Consultants Inc. (2001). Enhanced Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Site No.4766, Port Burwell, Ontario. Prepared for Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Public Works and Government Services Canada. Markham: MacViro Consultants Inc. Minister of Justice. (2014). Consolidation: Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (S.C. 1999, c. 33, Current to February 6, 2014, Last amended on October 25, 2013). Minister of Justice. Municipality of Bayham. (2012). Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham, Schedule 'D', Port Burwell: Land Use and Constraints. National Air Photo Library. (1956). Port Burwell Air Photo, September 25, 1956. 1:10,000. A 15551. Photo 18. Ottawa, ON: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. National Air Photo Library. (1973). Port Burwell Air Photo, May 19, 1973. 1:30,000. A23285. Photo 196. Ottawa, ON: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. National Geodetic Survey. (2012, 11 5). IGLD 85 Height Conversion. Retrieved 03 18, 2015, from Tool Kit: NAVD88 - IGLD85 Height Conversion: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi- bin/IGLD85/IGLD85.prl OMOE. (2008). Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines. Toronto: MOECC, formerly Ontario Ministry of the Environment. OMOE. (2008.05). Guidelines for Identifying, Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments in Ontario: An Integrated Approach. Toronto: MOECC, formerly Ontario Ministry of the Environment. (► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-sediment-roa-revised-final-20150911.docx 11.30 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS References September 11, 2015 OMOE. (2011.04.15). Soil, Ground Water, and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.I of the Environmental Protection Act, Ontario Regulation 153/04, as amended. MOECC, formerly Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Ontario Geological Survey. (2000). Quaternary geology, seamless coverage of the Province of Ontario; Data Set 14 ---Revised. Ontario Geological Survey. Philpott Associates Coastal Engineers Limited. (1989). Shoreline Management Plan, Long Point Region Conservation Authority, Final Report, December 1989. Project Ojibwa. (2015). Home Page. Retrieved 03 13, 2015, from Project Ojibwa: http://www.projectojibwa.ca/ PWGSC. (2001). Sketch of Port Burwell Harbour, lots 1 1 & 12, concession 1, geographic Township of Bayham (Village of Port Burwell), Municipality of Bayham, County of Elgin. Scale 1:2,000. Item no. 00 -068 -SKETCH (Derived from Plan 1 1R-6760). Public Works and Government Services Canada, Real Property Services, Geomatics Advisory Division. PWGSC. (2015, 03 02). Cost Estimate Definitions. Retrieved 08 21, 2015, from Public Works and Government Services Canada Services: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/biens- property/sngp-npms/bi-rp/conn-know/couts-cost/definition-eng.html Riggs Engineering Ltd. (2011). Project Ojibwa Dredging 2011, prepared for The Elgin Military Museum, June 10, 2011, Project No. 10-893. St. Thomas, ON: Riggs Engineering Ltd. RSMeans. (2014). Heavy Construction Cost Data, 28th Annual Edition. Norwell, MA: Reed Construction Data, LLC. SCH. (2008). Impacts of Species At Risk Act- Small Craft Harbours' Port Burwell Facility, letter by Mark Sandeman from DFO SCH to Kyle Kruger, Municipality of Bayham, dated April 16, 2008. Burlington: Small Craft Harbours, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. ShorePlan Engineering Ltd. (2010). Port Burwell Coastal Processes, Sedimentation and Dredging Review, Municipality of Bayham, Final Report. Toronto: ShorePlan Engineering Ltd. SNC Lavalin. (2015). PWGSC Automation Building, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Port Burwell, ON. SNC Lavalin. Stantec Consulting Ltd. (2012). Assessment of Environmental Risks for Municipality of Bayham at Port Burwell, March 2012. London: Stantec Consulting Ltd. Stantec Consulting Ltd. (2015.09.11). Final Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan - Soil and Groundwater, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Bayham, Ontario, Prepared for Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Project No. 12251 1076. Ottawa. Stantec Consulting Ltd. (2015.09.11). Preliminary Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment and Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment of Soil and Groundwater at Port Burwell, Prepared for Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ottawa, ON: Stantec Consulting Ltd. Stantec Consulting Ltd. (2015.09.11). Site -Specific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment of Sediment at Port Burwell. Prepared for Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Project Number 122511075. Ottawa. TCEQ. (2014). Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) Protective Concentration Levels (PCLs). Updated November 2014. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Terrapex Environmental Ltd. (2013). Final Report on Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, DFRP# 54022, Port Burwell, ON PWGSC Project No. 8.059352.008/.009. Burlington: Terrapex Environmental Ltd. USDoD. (1998). Estimating Cleanup Times Associated with Combining Source -Area Remediation with Monitored Natural Attenuation, Cost and Performance Report (ER -0436). Arlington, VA: Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, U.S. Department of Defense . �► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-sediment-roa-revised-final-20150911.docx 11.31 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Closure September 11, 2015 USEPA. (2001). Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000 (EPA -542-R-01-009). Washington DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response. USEPA. (2014). Technical Resource Document on Monitored Natural Recovery, EPA/600/R- 14/083, April 2014. Cincinnati: National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency. USEPA. (2015a). Mid -Atlantic Region Risk -Based Concentrations (RBC). (United States Environmental Protection Agency) Retrieved 2015, from http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb- concentration_table/Generic_ Tables/index.htm This report documents work that was performed in accordance with generally accepted professional standards at the time and location in which the services were provided. No other representations, warranties or guarantees are made concerning the accuracy or completeness of the data or conclusions contained within this report, including no assurance that this work has uncovered all potential liabilities associated with the identified property. This report provides an evaluation of selected environmental conditions associated with the identified portion of the property that was assessed at the time the work was conducted and is based on information obtained by and/or provided to Stantec at that time. There are no assurances regarding the accuracy and completeness of this information. All information received from the client or third parties in the preparation of this report has been assumed by Stantec to be correct. Stantec assumes no responsibility for any deficiency or inaccuracy in information received from others. The opinions in this report can only be relied upon as they relate to the condition of the portion of the identified property that was assessed at the time the work was conducted. Activities at the property subsequent to Stantec's assessment may have significantly altered the property's condition. Stantec cannot comment on other areas of the property that were not assessed. Conclusions made within this report consist of Stantec's professional opinion as of the time of the writing of this report, and are based solely on the scope of work described in the report, the limited data available and the results of the work. They are not a certification of the property's environmental condition. This report should not be construed as legal advice. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client identified herein and any reliance by any third party is prohibited. Stantec assumes no responsibility for losses, damages, liabilities or claims, howsoever arising, from third party use of this report. This report is limited by the following: (► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-sediment-roa-revised-final-20150911.docx 12.32 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Closure September 11, 2015 1. Information received from DFO from work completed by others concerning the Site. 2. Conditions observed at the Site at the time of the 2015 investigation completed by Stantec. The locations of any utilities, buildings and structures, and property boundaries illustrated in or described within this report, if any, including pole lines, conduits, water mains, sewers and other surface or sub -surface utilities and structures are not guaranteed. Before starting work, the exact location of all such utilities and structures should be confirmed and Stantec assumes no liability for damage to them. The conclusions are based on the site conditions encountered by Stantec at the time the work was performed at the specific testing and/or sampling locations, and conditions may vary among sampling locations. Factors such as areas of potential concern identified in previous studies, site conditions (e.g., utilities) and cost may have constrained the sampling locations used in this assessment. In addition, analysis has been carried out for only a limited number of chemical parameters, and it should not be inferred that other chemical species are not present. Due to the nature of the investigation and the limited data available, Stantec does not warrant against undiscovered environmental liabilities nor that the sampling results are indicative of the condition of the entire site. As the purpose of this report is to identify site conditions which may pose an environmental risk; the identification of non -environmental risks to structures or people on the site is beyond the scope of this assessment. Should additional information become available which differs significantly from our understanding of conditions presented in this report, Stantec specifically disclaims any responsibility to update the conclusions in this report. (30 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_revised_final_20150911.docx 12.33 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS Stantec Quality Management Program September 11, 2015 13.0 STANTEC QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGR,. This report, entitled FINAL Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial Action/Risk Management Plan - Sediments, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Ontario, prepared for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, dated September 11, 2015, was produced by Stantec Consulting Ltd. This report was written by the following individual: Marc Bouchard, P.Eng. (Ontario) Senior Environmental Engineer Aq Signature This report was reviewed by the following individuals: Francois Lauzon, C.D., M.Eng., P.Eng. (Ontario) Senior Principal Signature David Wilson, CD, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. (Ontario) Senior Associate 1� Signature Approval to transmit to client: Alicja Wierzbicka Project anager i�7 Signature Distribution: (1) Addressee (PDF) 4 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511075\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_sediment_roa_revised_final_20150911.docx 13.34 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS APPENDIX A- FIGURES September 11, 2015 ® Stantec A.1 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS APPENDIX A- FIGURES September 11, 2015 A.1 SITE LOCATION ® Stantec A.2 I KEY WP / Lake Erie Port Stanley 1:3,000,000 O mrn Vienna Port Burwell � % Provincial/�ark�� �� Port Barwell ,Cake ShO�e C��e D o V a U I,VVV m 1:50,000 i- 515000 520000 July 2015 Project # 122511075 Legend Client/Project Q Project Area Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Sta ntec O Big Otter Creek Watershed Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/ ® Long Point Region Conservation Risk Management Plan Authority Watershed Boundary Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Ontario Notes Figure No. 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N A.1 2. Base features produced under license with the A. 7 1 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen's Title for Ontario, 2013. Site Location FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS APPENDIX A- FIGURES September 11, 2015 A.2 SITE OVERVIEW ® Stantec A.3 NO UBBYE 10 Port Burwell BUR IlELL ST I w�® W Light Standard Lighthouse= rovincial Park i U ♦ A � � I BROOK ST ♦ ♦ I ♦ ,�� Former ♦ ♦ , , // Q Turning l ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ �% Basin 0149,1 ( o ♦ ♦ , a�, ��, ♦ ♦ , ♦ , ♦ ♦ jll a�/-'tee ♦ �� I i ® �L� ♦ ♦ ♦. ♦, ♦ ♦ I i ):, �t I PORT BIPA EAST BFAC� ♦ • , I O /i I p/UNIC ♦ ♦ ♦ �♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Qbo� eground� ♦ �� ♦ /// I ♦ Storage Tanks \ i ♦ ♦t -_<- Municipal I -- - ❑ , ♦ , Waste Water I ♦ ♦� Treatment Plant , ® , , I I ♦/ Signal Structure h Automation 5uilding b v v EAST EST \ CONCRETE PIER PIER \\ ART 2\\ Municipal Sewer Outfall �Q \ \ 7�2 Signal Structure s S/IR 0 HMCS Ojibwa Exhibit EllI 766 ai 76 ss 76j5 7"4s Signal Structure 0 ST I LAKE SHORE LINE F a w N1© 150 300 m 1:6,000 August 2015 Project No. 122511075 Legend Client/Project Sta ntec ® Building I_ _� Contaminated Site Boundary (Ter apex) Lot Parcel Lake Erie Shoreline Regulatory Flood Level Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan QProperty Boundary Big Otter 100 -year Floodline/Lake Level (with wind setup) Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour,. Ontario Notes 9--F Aboveground Utility Line Big Otter Regional Floodline Figure No. 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Bathymetric datum assumed to be IGLD. Bathymet is Contour (m) � Provincial Park Boundaries A.2 Title 3. Base features produced under license with the Contour (m AMSL) Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen's Land Printer for Ontario, 2013. 4. Property Boundary: Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 11R-6760, — •S— - Municipal Sewer Outfall Waterbody Site Overview Project 9745621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998-Tillsonburg, ON. Road FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS APPENDIX A- FIGURES September 11, 2015 A.3 SITE LAND COVER ® Stantec A.4 (3 Stantec Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2008. 3. Property Boundary: Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 11 R-6760, Project 97-45621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tillsonburg, ON. Legend QProperty Boundary Approximate Site Land Cover (per 2010 SWOOP Imagery) Land: Floodplain Land: No Flood _ Water July 2015 Project No 12251 1 075 Client/Project Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Ontario Figure No. A.3 Title Site Land Cover FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS APPENDIX A- FIGURES September 11, 2015 A.4 PORT BURWELL IN 1956 ® Stantec A.5 Legend Terrestrial Site Area Sta me c Aquatic Site Area Property Boundary Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Image Source: National Air Photo Library. (1956). Port Burwell Air Photo, September 25, 1956. 1:10,000. A15551. Photo 18. Ottawa, ON: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. 3. Property Boundary: Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 11 R-6760, Project 9745621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tillsonburg, ON. July 2015 Project No. 1 225110 75 l Client/Project Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Ontario Figure No. A.4 Title Port Burwell in 1956 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS APPENDIX A- FIGURES September 11, 2015 A.5 PORT BURWELL IN 1973 ® Stantec A.6 00 r s • sit. 13% / ~`i toe. . D ` ' 14 �" DOrN AP r k �I (3 Stantec 4 • Legend Approximate Terrestrial Site Area Approximate Aquatic Site Area Property Boundary Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Image Source: National Air Photo Library. (1973). Port Burwell Air Photo, May 19, 1973.1:30,000. A23285. Photo 196. Ottawa, ON: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. 3. Property Boundary: Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 11 R-6760, Project 97-45621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tillsonburg, ON. -4 t= LAI' N PA 0 100 200 M 1:4,000 July 2015 Project No. 1 225110 75 1 Client/Project Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Ontario Figure No. A.5 Title Port Burwell in 1973 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS APPENDIX A- FIGURES September 11, 2015 A.6 SAMPLING LOCATIONS ® Stantec A.7 (3 Stantec Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Orfhoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2008. 3. Property Boundary: Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 11 R-6760, Project 97-45621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tillsohburg, ON. Legend August 2015 Project No. 122511075 Client/Project Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Sampling Location Remedial Options Analysis and A Sediment Sample, Stantec Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan A Sediment Sample, Stantec (Background) Port Burwell Small Crafts Harbour, Ontario A Deep Core Sample A Sediment Sample, Terropex Surface Water Sample, Stantec 0 Surface Water Sample, Stantec (Background) OProperty Boundary Figure No. A.6 Title Sampling Locations FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS APPENDIX B - TABLES September 11, 2015 ® Stantec a FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS APPENDIX B - TABLES September 11, 2015 B.1 SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS ® Stantec B.2 Table B-1 Summary of Sediment Analytical Results DFO Port Burwell Sediment Fisheries and Oceans Canada Sample Location Pg/g SD15-01 SD15-01 COMP SD15-02 SDI 5-02 COMP SD15-03 SD15-03 COMP SD15-04 SD15-05 SD15-06 SD15-07 SD15-08 SD15-09 SD15-10 SD15-11* SD15-12* SD15-13* SD15-14* Sample Date lag/g 11 -Mar -15 11 -Mar -15 11 -Mar -15 11 -Mar -15 10 -Mar -15 10 -Mar -15 10 -Mar -15 10 -Mar -15 10 -Mar -15 9 -Mar -15 9 -Mar -15 9 -Mar -15 9 -Mar -15 12 -Mar -15 11 -Mar -15 11 -Mar -15 10 -Mar -15 11 -Mar -15 12 -Mar -15 16 -Mar -15 12 -Mar -15 13 -Mar -15 13 -Mar -15 16 -Mar -15 16 -Mar -15 Fluoride hg/g - - - - - - - - - - SD15-03 COMP - - - - - - - - - - - - Moisture Content % 31 SD15-01 COMP SD15-01 COMP SD15-01 COMP 17 17 SD15-02 COMP SD15-02 COMP SD15-02 COMP 20 SD15-03 COMP SD15-03 COMP 23 22 21 26 36 22 25 16 17 20 20 18 Sample ID Pg/g SD15-01 - - - SD15-02 QGSD-15-02 - - - SD15-03 1,2,3/SSD215-03 SD15-04 SD15-05 SD15-06 SD15-07 SD15-08 SD15-09 SD15-10 SD15-11 SD15-12 SD15-13 SD15-14 QCSD15-01 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) lag/g - 1,2/SD15-01 SS2 3,4/SD15-01 SS4 5,6/SD15-01 SS6 - 1 2/SD15-02 SS2 3,4/SD15-02 SS4 5,6/SD15-02 SS6 <0.04 4,5 6,7/SD 15-03 SS7 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 Nitrite (as N) lag/g <10 <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Sample Depth S. U. 0-0.1 m 0-1.52m 1.52-3.05m 3.05-4.57m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-1.52m 1.52-3.05m 3.05-4.57m 0-0.1 m 0-1.52m 1.52-3.05m 3.05-4.57m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m Sampling Company lag/g STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC Laboratory lag/g MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX Laboratory Work Order mg/kg B545246 B548083 B548083 8548083 B545246 B545246 B548083 B548083 B548083 B545246 8548083 8548083 8548083 8545059 B545246 B545246 B545246 B545246 B545059 8547816 B545059 B547816 B547816 B547816 B547816 Laboratory Sample ID none ZW4605 ZX7701/ZX7617 ZX7702/ZX7618 ZX7703/ZX7619 ZW4602 ZW4603 ZX7698/ZX7614 ZX7699/ZX7615 ZX7700/ZX7616 ZW4601 ZX7695/ZX7612 ZX7696 ZX7697/ZX7613 ZW4017 ZW4608 ZW4607 ZW4604 ZW4606 ZW4018 ZX6291 ZW4019 ZX6288 ZX6289 ZX6292 ZX6293 Sample Type Units 5.7 1.6 1.5 2.4 Field Duplicate 1.5 1.8 5.8 1.4 2.1 1.5 1.9 1.5 2.7 2.6 5 6.8 3.3 2.5 1.4 2.7 1.8 Field Duplicate General Chemistry Ammonia (as N) Pg/g <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - <0.005 - <0.005 - <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Chloride lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - 0.1 0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Fluoride hg/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Moisture Content % 31 19 19 15 17 17 20 16 27 20 24 19 11 23 22 21 26 36 22 25 16 17 20 20 18 Nitrate (as N) Pg/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) lag/g - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - - <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 Nitrite (as N) lag/g <10 <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 pH S. U. <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 Sulfate lag/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen lag/g 391 82 157 72 103 184 85 267 776 66 510 136 85 218 448 200 502 961 409 310 136 51 60 77 65 Total Organic Carbon mg/kg 12000 - - - 2200 3800 - - - 2000 - - - 4700 4700 4300 10000 14000 13000 4000 5500 3900 4100 2900 3400 BTEX and Petroleum Hydrocarbons Benzene lag/g <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Toluene lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.1 0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Ethylbenzene lag/g <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Xylene, m & p- lag/g <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 Xylene, o- lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Xylenes, Total lag/g <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) lag/g <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) minus BTEX lag/g <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 PHC F2 (>C10 -C16 range) lag/g <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 PHC F3 (>C16 -C34 range) lag/g <50 <10 <10 <10 <50 <50 <10 <10 11 <50 <10 <10 <10 <50 <50 <50 <50 54 51 <10 <50 <10 <10 <10 <10 PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) lag/g <50 <10 <10 <10 <50 <50 <10 <10 <10 <50 <10 <10 <10 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <10 <50 <10 <10 <10 <10 Chromatogram to baseline at nC50 none YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Metals Aluminum lag/g 7800 1800 2000 3400 2000 2900 1700 2000 7600 1400 2500 1700 2100 1800 3400 3300 6900 9600 4300 2700 1600 1600 1700 1600 1600 Antimony lag/g <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.21 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Arsenic lag/g 2.4 <1.0 <1.0 1.2 <1.0 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 3.0 <1.0 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.2 1.2 2.2 3.4 1.9 1.4 <1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 Barium lag/g 45 8.9 10 20 11 16 7.8 9.6 45 6.9 13 8.0 9.4 9.5 19 19 40 57 28 16 8.5 8.1 8.4 8.2 7.7 Beryllium lag/g 0.38 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.37 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.32 0.45 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Bismuth lag/g <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Boron lag/g 6.4 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 6.7 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 7.3 7.3 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Boron (Available) lag/g 0.27 <0.050 0.090 0.22 0.082 0.12 0.071 0.089 0.39 <0.050 0.12 0.071 0.095 0.18 0.27 0.17 0.24 0.33 0.31 0.16 0.065 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 Cadmium lag/g 0.14 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.18 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.13 0.16 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Calcium lag/g 67000 50000 53000 53000 52000 60000 49000 52000 90000 49000 64000 55000 65000 51000 58000 58000 66000 69000 60000 59000 48000 75000 71000 57000 57000 Chromium (Hexavalent) lag/g <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Chromium (Total) lag/g 12 4.1 4.8 6.6 4.3 6.1 5.9 5.3 12 2.6 5.5 4.4 5.4 3.6 6.4 6.7 12 15 7.5 5.0 4 17 6.5 3.5 5.0 Cobalt lag/g 5.7 1.6 1.5 2.4 1.8 2.5 1.5 1.8 5.8 1.4 2.1 1.5 1.9 1.5 2.7 2.6 5 6.8 3.3 2.5 1.4 2.7 1.8 1.5 1.6 Copper lag/g 14 2.0 2.4 5.1 3.2 5.4 1.9 2.8 16 2.2 4.4 2.8 4.7 2.9 6.1 6.1 13 18 8.4 5.5 2.5 2.2 3.8 2.4 2.9 Iron lag/g 15000 5300 5300 7300 5600 7000 7700 6300 16000 3500 6600 5200 5700 4100 7800 8200 14000 18000 9400 6200 4700 27000 8900 4400 6400 Lead lag/g 8.8 2.4 2.6 4.7 2.7 3.8 2.4 2.6 11 2.6 3.7 2.8 3.2 2.3 4 4 7.8 11 7.2 4.4 2.3 4.0 3.2 3.0 2.9 Lithium lag/g 12 2.5 2.7 4.6 3.5 5 2.2 2.7 12 2.9 3.9 2.7 3.4 3 4.7 5.1 10 14 7 3.8 2.9 1.2 1.9 2.3 2.1 Magnesium lag/g 14000 9000 9000 9800 9500 11000 9000 9300 19000 6300 12000 8200 12000 8700 10000 12000 14000 15000 12000 9800 8100 12000 11000 7900 7700 Manganese lag/g 520 160 170 240 190 250 150 180 580 140 240 160 230 150 270 270 470 630 310 240 160 210 180 160 160 Mercury lag/g <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 Molybdenum lag/g <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Nickel lag/g 12 2.6 2.6 4.5 3.5 4.8 2.4 3.1 12 3.1 4.4 3.2 3.7 2.6 5.2 4.9 10 15 6.5 5.1 2.8 4.2 3.4 3.3 3.3 Phosphorus lag/g 780 450 440 530 430 520 640 510 790 240 590 400 480 400 600 680 750 830 660 450 430 1500 750 360 400 Potassium lag/g 1100 280 320 480 290 430 240 310 1100 230 390 290 370 250 460 510 1000 1400 580 420 240 210 270 280 240 Selenium lag/g <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Silver lag/g <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Sodium lag/g 160 58 66 71 81 100 64 68 140 70 90 64 83 86 99 120 150 160 110 80 75 69 69 <50 <50 Strontium lag/g 92 59 65 65 64 76 57 65 120 64 78 69 80 61 72 72 89 98 76 76 58 92 86 74 72 Sulfur lag/g 560 100 120 270 170 <50 100 180 1000 200 250 200 360 120 <500 220 490 690 400 280 97 280 310 220 210 Thallium lag/g 0.075 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.10 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.067 0.11 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 Tin lag/g <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Titanium lag/g 220 - - - 160 170 - - - 94 - - - 150 180 190 210 230 170 140 150 - - 130 160 Tungsten Pg/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Uranium lag/g 0.41 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.22 0.27 0.32 0.27 0.49 0.16 0.34 0.25 0.27 0.2 0.29 0.28 0.37 0.44 0.36 0.26 0.23 0.58 0.35 0.22 0.23 Vanadium lag/g 19 9.1 9.1 11 9.5 11 16 11 20 5.2 11 8.6 8.2 6.7 11 13 19 23 13 8.4 8.4 63 18 6.4 12 Zinc lag/g 48 14 16 23 15 23 13 15 48 13 20 13 15 14 24 29 44 62 30 23 13 33 19 15 9.9 Zirconium lag/g See notes on last page Sta ntec 122511075 Page 1 of 4 Table B-1 Summary of Sediment Analytical Results DFO Port Burwell Sediment Fisheries and Oceans Canada Sample Location Sample Date Sample ID Sample Depth Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Work Order Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type Uni Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons SD15-01 11 -Mar -15 SD15-01 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545246 ZW4605 SD15-02 SD15-01 COMP 10 -Mar -15 11 -Mar -15 11 -Mar -15 11 -Mar -15 SD15-01 COMP SD15-01 COMP SD15-01 COMP 1,2/SD15-01 SS2 3,4/SD15-01 SS4 5,6/SD15-01 SS6 0-1.52m 1.52-3.05m 3.05-4.57m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX B548083 B548083 B548083 ZX7701/ZX7617 ZX7702/ZX7618 ZX7703/ZX7619 SD15-02 10 -Mar -15 10 -Mar -15 SD15-02 QGSD-15-02 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX B545246 B545246 ZW4602 ZW4603 STANTEC Field Duplicate SD15-03 9 -Mar -15 SD 15-03 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545246 ZW4601 SD15-02 COMP 13 -Mar -15 10 -Mar -15 10 -Mar -15 10 -Mar -15 SD15-02 COMP SD15-02 COMP SD15-02 COMP 1,2/SD15-02 SS2 3,4/SD15-02 SS4 5,6/SD15-02 SS6 0-1.52m 1.52-3.05m 3.05-4.57m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX B548083 B548083 B548083 ZX7698/ZX7614 ZX7699/ZX7615 ZX7700/ZX7616 SD15-03 9 -Mar -15 SD 15-03 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545246 ZW4601 SD15-04 12 -Mar -15 SD15-04 0 - 0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545059 ZW4017 SD15-05 11 -Mar -15 SD15-05 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545246 ZW4608 SD15-06 11 -Mar -15 SD15-06 0 - 0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545246 ZW4607 SD15-07 10 -Mar -15 SD15-07 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545246 ZW4604 SD15-08 11 -Mar -15 SD15-08 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545246 ZW4606 SD15-09 12 -Mar -15 SD15-09 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545059 ZW4018 SD15-10 16 -Mar -15 SD15-10 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B547816 ZX6291 SD15-11* 12 -Mar -15 SD15-11 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545059 ZW4019 SD15-12* 13 -Mar -15 SD15-12 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B547816 ZX6288 SD15-13* SD15-03 COMP 13 -Mar -15 9 -Mar -15 9 -Mar -15 9 -Mar -15 SDI 5-03 COMP OCSD15-01 0- 0.1 m 0- 0.1 m SD15-03 COMP SD15-03 COMP 1,2,3/SD15-03 STANTEC MAXX MAXX 4,5 6,7/SD 15-03 SS7 SS2 B547816 ZX6289 0-1.52m 1.52-3.05m 3.05-4.57m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX B548083 B548083 B548083 ZX7695/ZX7612 ZX7696 ZX7697/ZX7613 SD15-04 12 -Mar -15 SD15-04 0 - 0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545059 ZW4017 SD15-05 11 -Mar -15 SD15-05 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545246 ZW4608 SD15-06 11 -Mar -15 SD15-06 0 - 0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545246 ZW4607 SD15-07 10 -Mar -15 SD15-07 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545246 ZW4604 SD15-08 11 -Mar -15 SD15-08 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545246 ZW4606 SD15-09 12 -Mar -15 SD15-09 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545059 ZW4018 SD15-10 16 -Mar -15 SD15-10 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B547816 ZX6291 SD15-11* 12 -Mar -15 SD15-11 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B545059 ZW4019 SD15-12* 13 -Mar -15 SD15-12 0-0.1 m STANTEC MAXX B547816 ZX6288 SD15-13* SD15-14* 13 -Mar -15 16 -Mar -15 16 -Mar -15 SD15-13 SD15-14 OCSD15-01 0- 0.1 m 0- 0.1 m 0- 0.1 m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX B547816 B547816 B547816 ZX6289 ZX6292 ZX6293 <0.0050 <0.0050 Field Duplicate Acenaphthene Pg/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Acenaphthylene Ng/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0083 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Anthracene Pg/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0068 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0092 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Benzo(a)anthracene ug/g 0.01 <0.0050 0.0065 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.017 <0.0050 0.0065 0.037 <0.0050 0.012 0.0062 <0.0050 0.014 0.006 <0.0050 0.0075 0.014 <0.0050 0.0078 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Benzo(a)pyrene Ng/g 0.012 <0.0050 0.0071 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.015 <0.0050 0.0055 0.042 <0.0050 0.012 0.0057 <0.0050 0.012 0.0054 <0.0050 0.0081 0.016 0.0052 0.0067 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Benzo (b/j)fIuoranthene ug/g 0.021 <0.0050 0.0092 0.0068 <0.0050 0.02 <0.0050 0.0082 0.067 <0.0050 0.019 0.010 0.0060 0.014 0.009 0.0059 0.015 0.027 0.0081 0.011 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ug/g 0.0096 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0085 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.033 <0.0050 0.0079 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0081 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0075 0.014 <0.0050 0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Benzo(k)fluoranthene Pg/g 0.0071 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0074 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.023 <0.0050 0.0057 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0058 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Chrysene Ng/g 0.011 <0.0050 0.0071 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.016 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.041 <0.0050 0.012 0.0077 <0.0050 0.013 0.0054 <0.0050 0.0081 0.014 0.0058 0.0084 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Dibenzo (a,h)anthracene Ng/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0071 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Fluoranthene ug/g 0.029 <0.0050 0.016 0.011 0.0062 0.055 <0.0050 0.015 0.095 <0.0050 0.032 0.020 0.012 0.04 0.014 0.0081 0.019 0.033 0.013 0.022 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0059 0.0096 Fluorene ug/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0071 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Pg/g 0.009 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0091 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.037 <0.0050 0.0091 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0081 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0069 0.013 0.0058 0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Methylnaphthalene (Total) Pg/g - <0.0071 <0.0071 <0.0071 - - <0.0071 <0.0071 0.016 - <0.0071 <0.0071 <0.0071 - <0.0071 - - - - <0.0071 - <0.0071 <0.0071 <0.0071 <0.0071 Methylnaphthalene, 1- Pg/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0059 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Methylnaphthalene, 2- ug/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0066 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Naphthalene Ng/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Phenanthrene Pg/g 0.011 <0.0050 0.0082 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.026 <0.0050 0.0055 0.048 <0.0050 0.019 0.011 0.0080 0.033 0.006 <0.0050 0.0075 0.012 0.0052 0.016 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0064 Pyrene ug/g 0.022 <0.0050 0.013 0.0084 0.005 0.041 <0.0050 0.011 0.076 <0.0050 0.025 0.017 0.010 0.031 0.011 0.0065 0.015 0.028 0.01 0.018 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0065 0.0096 Total PAH Pg/g I - - <0.0020 - - - I - - - - - <0.0020 - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 - Polychlorinated Biphenyls Aroclor 1016 ug/g <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.020 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 Aroclor 1221 Ng/g <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.020 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.020 <0.020 <0.015 <0.015 <0.023 <0.020 <0.015 <0.020 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 Aroclor 1232 Ng/g <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.020 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 Aroclor 1242 Ng/g <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.020 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 Aroclor 1248 Ng/g <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 Aroclor 1254 ug/g <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 Aroclor 1260 Ng/g <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 Aroclor 1262 Ng/g <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 Aroclor 1268 Pg/g <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Ng/g <0.023 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.020 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.020 <0.020 <0.015 <0.015 <0.023 <0.020 <0.015 <0.020 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 Organochlorine Pesticides Aldrin Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Aldrin + Dieldrin Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 BHC, alpha- Pg/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 BHC, beta- Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 BHC, delta- Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Chlordane (Total) Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Chlordane, alpha- Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Chlordane, gamma- Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 DDD, o,p'- Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.0049 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 DDD (p,p'-DDD) Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.015 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.0024 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 DDD, o,p'- + DDD, p,p'- Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.020 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.0024 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 , o,p - N9 9 < 0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 DDE (p,p'-DDE) Ng/g 0.0065 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.0028 0.013 <0.0020 0.0053 0.0040 0.0027 0.0033 0.0029 0.0022 0.0037 0.0092 0.0058 0.0026 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 DDE, o,p'- + DDE, p,p'- ug/g 0.0065 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.0028 0.013 <0.0020 0.0053 0.0040 0.0027 0.0033 0.0029 0.0022 0.0037 0.0092 0.0058 0.0026 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 DDT, o,p'- Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 DDT (p,p'-DDT) Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.0026 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.0044 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 DDT, o,p'- + DDT, p,p'- Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.0026 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.0044 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 DDT + Metabolites Ng/g 0.0065 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.0028 0.035 <0.0020 0.0053 0.0064 0.0027 0.0033 0.0029 0.0022 0.0037 0.014 0.0058 0.0026 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 DDT Total Pg/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dieldrin ug/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Endosulfan Pg/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Endosulfan I Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Endosulfan 11 Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Endosulfan Sulfate ug/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Endrin Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Endrin Aldehyde Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Endrin Ketone Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Heptachlor Pg/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Heptachlor Epoxide ug/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Heptachlor + Heptachlor epoxide Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Hexachlorobenzene Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Hexachlorobutadiene (Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene) Ng/g <0.0075 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0075 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ug/g <0.0075 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0075 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Hexachloroethane Pg/g <0.0075 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0075 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Lindane (Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma) Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Methoxychlor(4,4'-Methoxychlor) Ng/g <0.0075 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0075 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Mirex Ng/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Octachlorostyrene ug/g <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Toxaphene (Camphechlor) Ng/g <0.12 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.12 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 See notes on iasT page ® Stantec 122511075 Page 2 of 4 Table B-1 Summary of Sediment Analytical Results DFO Port Burwell Sediment Fisheries and Oceans Canada Sample Location SD15-15* SED1-1 SED1-3 SED2-1 SED2-3 SED3-1 SED3-2 SED4-1 SED5-1* SED6-1 SED7-1* SED8-1* SED9-1 Sample Date 16 -Mar -15 5 -Dec -12 5 -Dec -12 5 -Dec -12 5 -Dec -12 5 -Dec -12 6 -Dec -12 6 -Dec -12 6 -Dec -12 6 -Dec -12 6 -Dec -12 6 -Dec -12 6 -Dec -12 6 -Dec -12 Sample ID SD15-15 SED1-1 SED10-1 SED1-3 SED2-1 SED2-3 SED3-1 SED3-2 SED4-1 SED5-1 SED6-1 SED7-1 SED8-1 SED9-1 Sample Depth 0-0.1 m 0-1.5m 0-1.5m 3-4.5m 0-0.9m 2.4-3.9m 0-0.9m 0.9-2.3m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m Sampling Company STANTEC TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX Laboratory MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX Laboratory Work Order B547816 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Laboratory Sample ID ZX6294 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Sample Type Units Field Duplicate 7.71 7.69 7.7 7.72 7.41 Sulfate ug/g - <20 <20 <20 <20 General Chemistry Ammonia (as N) Pg/g - <25 <25 252 68 197 <25 184 59 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 Chloride Ng/g - <20 <20 23 <20 <20 21 <20 30 <20 <20 <20 <20 35 Fluoride Pg/g - <5 <5 <5 <5 5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Moisture Content % 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nitrate (as N) Pg/g - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 4 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) Pg/g <0.04 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 4 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Nitrite (as N) Ng/g <10 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 pH S. U. <10 7.12 7.12 7.45 7.09 7.47 7.25 7.75 7.13 7.71 7.69 7.7 7.72 7.41 Sulfate ug/g - <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 71 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Pg/g 74 321 459 1490 500 1010 217 177 784 127 83 40 48 802 Total Organic Carbon mg/kg 2500 7800 6900 14000 6400 12000 4300 9500 12000 5100 3100 8200 7600 14000 BTEX and Petroleum Hydrocarbons Benzene ug/g <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Toluene Ng/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Ethylbenzene Pg/g <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Xylene, m & p- Pg/g <0.04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Xylene, o- Ng/g <0.02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Xylenes, Total Pg/g <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 PHC F1 (C6 -C10 range) Ng/g <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 PHC F1 (C6 -C10 range) minus BTEX Pg/g <10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - PHC F2 (>C10 -C16 range) Pg/g <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <20 <10 19 <10 <10 <10 PHC F3 (>C16 -C34 range) Ng/g <10 180 83 69 19 59 <10 42 45 18 53 14 19 24 PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) Pg/g <10 40 12 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <20 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Chromatogram to baseline at nC50 none YES - 13 - 12 - 5 8.1 - 2.4 - 3.5 11 Metals Aluminum Pg/g 2000 2600 2600 7600 3000 7100 1700 2500 4200 1300 1300 1200 1200 6700 Antimony Pg/g <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Arsenic Ng/g 1.3 1.5 1.6 3.5 1.9 3.6 1.2 1.9 2 1.3 1.9 1.7 1.7 3.1 Barium Pg/g 10 18 17 55 20 53 11 15 33 7.9 6.2 5.7 6.7 54 Beryllium Ng/g <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.39 <0.20 0.38 <0.20 <0.20 0.25 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.39 Bismuth Pg/g <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Boron Pg/g <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Boron (Available) Ng/g <0.050 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cadmium Pg/g <O.10 <O.10 0.1 0.2 <0.10 0.17 <0.10 <O.10 0.1 <0.10 <O.10 <0.10 <O.10 0.17 Calcium Ng/g 70000 61000 63000 68000 68000 77000 57000 85000 58000 59000 52000 81000 82000 65000 Chromium (Hexavalent) Pg/g <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Chromium (Total) Pg/g 4.4 6 5.7 13 6 12 4.7 5 8.1 3.3 2.4 8.2 3.5 11 Cobalt Ng/g 2.0 2.5 2.5 5.9 3.1 6.2 1.7 2.7 3.6 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.6 5.3 Copper Pg/g 4.8 5.9 5.9 16 8.5 17 3.8 11 9.6 3 3.2 2.9 3.6 15 Iron Ng/g 5800 7500 7500 16000 8500 16000 5900 7800 10000 5000 3700 13000 4500 15000 Lead Pg/g 3.5 4.2 4.3 14 5.3 12 2.8 4.2 6 3 3.2 3.3 3.1 9 Lithium Pg/g 3.1 Magnesium Ng/g 12000 13000 13000 14000 14000 15000 11000 19000 11000 9500 5900 14000 14000 12000 Manganese Pg/g 230 270 290 540 360 590 210 420 390 160 150 200 210 560 Mercury Ng/g <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 Molybdenum Pg/g <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Nickel Pg/g 4.0 4.9 5 12 6.3 13 3.4 5.6 7.8 3.4 3.7 3.2 3.4 12 Phosphorus Ng/g 480 750 770 960 620 860 640 670 670 550 190 1600 850 810 Potassium Pg/g 340 290 300 710 360 750 210 330 470 <200 <200 <200 <200 750 Selenium Ng/g <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Silver Pg/g <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Sodium Pg/g 70 100 <100 <100 110 110 <100 110 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 120 Strontium Pg/g 89 73 75 93 83 110 68 110 78 74 67 95 96 92 Sulfur Pg/g 370 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thallium Ng/g <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.064 <0.050 0.072 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.068 Tin Pg/g <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Titanium Pg/g 150 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 Tungsten Ng/g - n n <1 n <1 n <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Uranium Pg/g 0.30 0.24 0.27 0.44 0.28 0.42 0.24 0.32 0.26 0.23 0.18 0.49 0.32 0.35 Vanadium Ng/g 9.2 11 11 19 11 18 9.1 9 13 7.4 <5.0 28 6.8 17 Zinc Pg/g 17 27 25 56 29 52 16 25 36 14 11 34 19 51 Zirconium Pg/g - - 5 - 5 2 3 1 1 1 <1 4 See notes on last page Sta ntec 122511075 Page 3 of 4 Table B-1 Summary of Sediment Analytical Results DFO Port Burwell Sediment Fisheries and Oceans Canada Sample Location SD15-15* SED1-1 SED1-3 SED2-1 SED2-3 SED3-1 SED3-2 SED4-1 SED5-1* SED6-1 SED7-1* SED8-1* SED9-1 Sample Date 16 -Mar -15 5 -Dec -12 5 -Dec -12 5 -Dec -12 5 -Dec -12 5 -Dec -12 6 -Dec -12 6 -Dec -12 6 -Dec -12 6 -Dec -12 6 -Dec -12 6 -Dec -12 6 -Dec -12 6 -Dec -12 Sample ID SD15-15 SED1-1 SED10-1 SED1-3 SED2-1 SED2-3 SED3-1 SED3-2 SED4-1 SED5-1 SED6-1 SED7-1 SED8-1 SED9-1 Sample Depth 0-0.1 m 0-1.5m 0-1.5m 3-4.5m 0-0.9m 2.4-3.9m 0-0.9m 0.9-2.3m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m 0-0.1 m Sampling Company STANTEC TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX Laboratory MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX Laboratory Work Order 8547816 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Laboratory Sample ID ZX6294 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Sample Type Units Field Duplicate <0.0050 0.0054 0.0098 0.0059 0.017 <0.0050 0.0059 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Acenaphthene Pg/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Acenaphthylene Ng/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.008 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Anthracene µg/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0068 <0.0050 0.013 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Benzo(a)anthracene ug/g <0.0050 0.0076 0.0084 0.025 0.01 0.045 0.0066 0.012 0.012 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0071 Benzo(a)pyrene Ng/g <0.0050 0.0079 0.0096 0.02 0.0098 0.034 0.0067 0.01 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0063 Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene ug/g <0.0050 0.013 0.016 0.026 0.017 0.045 0.011 0.015 0.016 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.011 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Ng/g <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0066 0.012 0.0061 0.021 <0.0050 0.0075 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0059 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/g <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0054 0.0098 0.0059 0.017 <0.0050 0.0059 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Chrysene ug/g <0.0050 0.011 0.016 0.021 0.02 0.043 0.0084 0.016 0.014 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0095 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Ng/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Fluoranthene ug/g <0.0050 0.017 0.021 0.055 0.022 0.1 0.017 0.036 0.031 0.0099 0.0062 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.018 Fluorene Ng/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0055 <0.0050 0.0093 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/g <0.0050 0.0058 0.0073 0.014 0.0069 0.025 <0.0050 0.0078 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.006 Methylnaphthalene (Total) ug/g <0.0071 0.0052 <0.0050 0.0051 0.0065 0.0176 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0052 Methylnaphthalene, 1- Ng/g <0.0050 0.0052 <0.0050 0.0051 0.0065 0.011 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0052 Methylnaphthalene, 2- ug/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0066 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Naphthalene Ng/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Phenanthrene µg/g <0.0050 0.0068 0.011 0.034 0.0094 0.066 0.009 0.022 0.013 0.0063 0.0076 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0073 Pyrene ug/g <0.0050 0.015 0.017 0.048 0.018 0.086 0.014 0.029 0.026 0.0081 0.0072 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.015 Total PAH Ng/g - 0.085 0.1183 0.2722 0.1161 0.5129 0.0727 0.1322 0.086 0.0162 0.0138 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0861 Polychlorinated Biphenyls Aroclor 1016 ug/g <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 Aroclor 1221 Ng/g <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 Aroclor 1232 Ng/g <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 Aroclor 1242 Ng/g <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 - <0.015 - <0.015 <0.015 - Aroclor 1248 Ng/g <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 - <0.015 - <0.015 <0.015 - Aroclor 1254 ug/g <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 - <0.015 - <0.015 <0.015 - Aroclor 1260 Ng/g <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 - <0.015 - <0.015 <0.015 - Aroclor 1262 Ng/g <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 - <0.015 - <0.015 <0.015 - Aroclor 1268 Ng/g <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 - <0.015 - <0.015 <0.015 - Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Ng/g <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 - <0.015 - <0.015 <0.015 Organochlorine Pesticides Aldrin ug/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Aldrin + Dieldrin Ng/g <0.0020 BHC, alpha- Ng/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 BHC, beta- Ng/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 BHC, delta- ug/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 Chlordane (Total) ug/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.002 <0.0020 0.002 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 Chlordane, alpha- Ng/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 Chlordane, gamma- Ng/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.002 <0.0020 0.002 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 DDD, o,p'- Ng/g <0.0020 0.003 0.003 0.007 <0.0020 0.008 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 DDD (p,p'-DDD) Pg/g <0.0020 0.009 0.008 0.021 <0.0020 0.022 0.004 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 DDD, o,p'- + DDD, p,p'- ug/g <0.0020 0.012 0.011 0.028 <0.0020 0.03 0.004 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 DDE, o,p'- Ng/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 DDE (p,p'-DDE) Ng/g <0.0020 0.019 0.016 0.033 0.004 0.035 0.005 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 DDE, o,p'- + DDE, p,p'- Ng/g <0.0020 0.019 0.016 0.033 0.004 0.035 0.005 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 DDT, o,p'- ug/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 DDT (p,p'-DDT) ug/g <0.0020 0.003 0.002 0.006 <0.0020 0.005 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 DDT, o,p'- + DDT, p,p'- Ng/g <0.0020 0.003 0.002 0.006 <0.0020 0.005 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 DDT + Metabolites Ng/g <0.0020 0.034 0.029 0.067 0.004 0.07 0.009 <0.0020 - <0.0030 - <0.0030 <0.0030 DDT Total Ng/g - 0.034 0.029 0.067 0.004 0.07 0.009 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 Dieldrin Pg/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 Endosulfan ug/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 Endosulfan I Ng/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 Endosulfan II Ng/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 Endosulfan Sulfate Ng/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 Endrin Pg/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 Endrin Aldehyde ug/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 - Endrin Ketone Ng/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 - Heptachlor Ng/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 - Heptachlor Epoxide Ng/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 - Heptachlor + Heptachlor epoxide ug/g <0.0020 Hexachlorobenzene ug/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 - Hexachlorobutadiene (Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene) Ng/g <0.0050 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 - Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Ng/g <0.0050 Hexachloroethane Ng/g <0.0050 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 - Lindane (Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma) ug/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 - Methoxychlor (4,4' -Methoxychlor) ug/g <0.0050 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 - Mirex Ng/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 - <0.0020 <0.0020 - Octachlorostyrene ug/g <0.0020 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - <0.0050 <0.0050 - Toxaphene (Camphechlor) Pg/g <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 <0.080 - <0.080 - <0.080 <0.080 - ® Stantec Notes: 15.2 Concentration was detected. <0.03 Analyte was not detected at a concentration greater than the laboratory reportable detection limit. - Parameter not analyzed / not available. MI Detection limit was raised due to matrix interferences. * Background samples 122511075 Page 4 of 4 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS APPENDIX B - TABLES September 11, 2015 B.2 SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ® Stantec B.3 Table B-2 Summary of Surface Water Analytical Results DFO Port Burwell Sediment Fisheries and Oceans Canada Sample Location Sample Date Sample ID Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Work Order ( Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type Units General Chemistry SWI. 11 -Mar -15 SW15-01 STANTEC MAXX B545248/ B521988 ZW4617/ LX0924 i-01 12 -Mar -15 QC -SW -15-01 STANTEC MAXX B545248/ B521988 ZW4615/ LX0922 Field Duplicate SW15-02 10 -Mar -15 SW15-02 STANTEC MAXX B545248/ B521988 ZW4614/ LX0921 SW15-03 9 -Mar -15 SW15-03 STANTEC MAXX B545248/ B521988 ZW4613/ LX0920 SW15-04 12 -Mar -15 SW15-04 STANTEC MAXX B545209/ B521998 ZW4483/ LX0946 SW15-05 SW15-06 SW15-07 SW15-08 11 -Mar -15 11 -Mar -15 10 -Mar -15 11 -Mar -15 SW15-05 SW15-06 SW15-07 SW15-08 STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX B545209/ B545209/ B545248/ B545248/ B521998 B521998 B521988 B521988 ZW4482/ ZW4481/ ZW4616/ ZW4618/ LX0945 LX0944 LX0923 LX0925 SW15-09 SW15-10 SW15-11* SW15-12* SW15-13* SW15-14* SW15-15* 12 -Mar -15 21 -May -15 I 12 -Mar -15 21 -May -15 21 -May -15 21 -May -15 21 -May -15 SW15-09 SW15-10 SW15-11 SW15-12 SW15-13 SW15-14 SW15-15 STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX <0.20 6526959/ B526959/ B526959/ N B526959/ B526959/ 6545209/ 6545209/ <0.20 0.35 0.23 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 6596463/ B596463/ B596463/ B596463/ B596463/ 6521998 8521998 I 0.54 0.43 0.35 0.58 0.5 0.65 B543306 B543306 B543306 B543306 B543306 <0.10 AW2719/ AW2720/ AW2721/ AW2722/ AW2723/ ZW4485/ ZW4484/ <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 AHZ739/ AHZ740/ AHZ741/ AHZ742/ AHZ743/ LX0948 LX0947 I <0.20 <0.20 II <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 MH7156 MH7157 MH7158 MH7159 MH7160 Field Blank Trip Blank 12 -Mar -15 12 -Mar -15 FIELD BLANK TRIP BLANK STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX B545209/ B545209/ B521998 B521998 ZW4486/ ZW4487/ LX0949 LX0950 Field Blank Trip Blank Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 240 120 120 170 160 <0.20 <0.20 pH S.U. lag/L <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 8.24 8.08 8.09 8.15 8.22 <0.20 0.35 0.23 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 0.34 0.58 0.37 0.43 0.62 0.5 0.54 0.43 0.35 0.58 0.5 0.65 <0.50 <0.50 1.4 0.37 0.13 <0.10 BTEX and Petroleum Hydrocarbons Benzene lag/L <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Toluene lag/L <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.53 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.35 0.23 <0.20 <0.20 Ethylbenzene lag/L <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 ` <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Xylene, m & p- lag/L <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.24 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 II <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Xylene, o- lag/L <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.20 <0.40 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.40 <0.40 Xylenes, Total lag/L <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 0.24 <0.40 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.40 <0.40 PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) lag/L <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) minus BTEX lag/L <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 PHC F2(>C10-C16range) lag/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 PHC F3(>C16-C34range) lag/L <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) lag/L <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 Chromatogram to baseline at nC50 lag/L YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Metals Aluminum lag/L 173 473 149 139 398 157 129 143 152 570 710 411 296 415 792 703 <3.0 <3.0 Antimony lag/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Arsenic lag/L 0.42 0.49 0.38 0.43 0.51 0.47 0.41 0.38 0.39 0.53 0.80 0.51 0.62 0.67 jj 0.90 0.69 <0.10 <0.10 Barium lag/L 43.4 49.6 44.0 42.6 48.7 44.4 46.0 45.2 47.5 49.3 45.3 44.2 26.2 27.5 I 37.0 33.5 <1.0 <1.0 Beryllium lag/L <O.10 <0.10 <O.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <O.10 <0.10 <O.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <O.10 <0.10 I <0.10 <0.10 <O.10 <0.10 Bismuth lag/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Boron lag/L <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 Cadmium lag/L <0.010 0.015 <0.010 0.012 0.016 0.011 0.010 <0.010 0.012 0.011 0.010 0.014 0.012 0.011 0.027 0.012 <0.010 <0.010 Calcium mg/L 86.8 86.8 90.5 87.3 88.0 90.9 89.2 90.0 89.4 88.1 75.0 84.4 35.9 36.0 50.1 44.6 <0.050 <0.050 Chromium (Hexavalent) lag/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Chromium (Total) lag/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 P <1.0 PPP <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Cobalt lag/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Copper lag/L 1.23 2.09 1.30 1.77 1.62 0.99 1.34 1.12 1.47 1.66 1.85 2.06 2.07 1.63 2.48 2.44 <0.50 <0.50 Iron lag/L 360 694 304 325 663 303 298 308 323 762 668 637 304 378 968 863 <10 <10 Lead lag/L 0.25 0.57 <0.20 0.24 0.50 0.31 0.26 <0.20 0.27 0.57 0.56 0.49 0.24 0.34 0.80 0.67 <0.20 <0.20 Lithium lag/L <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Magnesium mg/L 16.4 16.9 16.4 16.9 16.3 18.0 17.3 16.8 17.4 16.6 14.5 16.0 8.79 9.23 11.1 9.63 <0.050 <0.050 Manganese lag/L 44.2 64.3 43.2 47.4 61.6 45.1 45.3 43.9 44.3 62.4 72.4 58.5 9.8 9.9 70.4 46.8 <1.0 <1.0 Mercury lag/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.010 <0.01 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.01 <0.01 Molybdenum lag/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.1 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Nickel lag/L <1.0 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.3 1.4 1.6 <1.0 1.2 1.6 1.5 <1.0 <1.0 Phosphorus lag/L 35 46 25 48 44 21 20 25 24 45 - 40 - - - - <10 <10 Potassium mg/L 2.39 2.72 2.49 2.35 2.54 2.57 2.44 2.50 2.45 2.77 2.37 2.53 1.58 1.77 2.03 1.77 <0.050 <0.050 Selenium lag/L 0.16 0.15 <O.10 0.22 0.15 0.21 0.16 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.15 <0.10 0.16 0.17 0.21 0.16 <0.10 <0.10 Silicon lag/L 4390 4860 4670 4560 4950 4870 4520 4800 4560 5140 3400 4850 838 1110 1860 1660 <100 <100 Silver lag/L <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 0.031 <0.020 Sodium mg/L 40.3 57.8 25.8 24.9 58.7 43.2 47.8 28.6 51.6 39.9 14.6 37.4 9.06 9.44 11.2 9.42 <0.050 <0.050 Strontium lag/L 309 314 319 307 324 329 320 313 322 304 280 298 166 171 212 187 <1.0 <1.0 Sulfur mg/L 11.4 12.6 9.2 11.5 9.0 9.7 14.6 11.5 14.3 11.2 10.4 11.6 8.5 4.6 N 7.8 8.5 <3.0 <3.0 Thallium lag/L <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 ^ <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 Tin lag/L <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Titanium lag/L 22.5 23.3 <5.0 5.2 11.3 5.6 <5.0 6.1 5.7 42.7 26.2 15.0 7.6 26.2 20.1 17.6 <5.0 <5.0 Uranium lag/L 0.76 0.78 0.78 0.80 0.76 0.84 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.73 0.73 0.40 0.41 0.54 0.48 <O.10 <0.10 Vanadium lag/L <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Zinc lag/L 27.9 5.1 <5.0 46.2 <5.0 30.1 <5.0 18.5 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 (1) 5.7 101 5.1 9.3 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Zirconium lag/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Polychlorinated Biphenyls Aroclor 1016 lag/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 Aroclor 1221 lag/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 Aroclor 1232 lag/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Aroclor 1242 lag/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Aroclor 1248 lag/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Aroclor 1254 lag/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Aroclor 1260 lag/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 Aroclor 1262 lag/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 Aroclor 1268 lag/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) lag/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 See notes on last page ® Stantec 122511075 Page 1 of 2 Table B-2 Summary of Surface Water Analytical Results DFO Port Burwell Sediment Fisheries and Oceans Canada Sample Location fag/L SW15-01 <0.010 SW15-02 SW15-03 SW15-04 SW15-05 SW15-06 SW15-07 SW15-08 SW15-09 SW15-10 SW15-11* SW15-12* SW15-13* SW15-14* SW15-15* Field Blank Trip Blank Sample Date Acenaphthylene 11 -Mar -15 12 -Mar -15 10 -Mar -15 9 -Mar -15 12 -Mar -15 11 -Mar -15 11 -Mar -15 10 -Mar -15 11 -Mar -15 12 -Mar -15 21 -May -15 I 12 -Mar -15 21 -May -15 21 -May -15 21 -May -15 21 -May -15 12 -Mar -15 12 -Mar -15 Sample ID <0.010 SW15-01 QC -SW -15-01 SW15-02 SW15-03 SW15-04 SW15-05 SW15-06 SW15-07 SW15-08 SW15-09 SW15-10 SW15-11 SW15-12 SW15-13 SW15-14 SW15-15 FIELD BLANK TRIP BLANK Sampling Company <0.010 STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC Laboratory <0.010 MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX I MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX <0.010 <0.010 ^ <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Benzo (b/j)fIuoranthene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 6526959/ B526959/ B526959/ B526959/ B526959/ <0.010 0.02 <0.010 <0.010 6545248/ 6545248/ 6545248/ 6545248/ 6545209/ 6545209/ 6545209/ 6545248/ 6545248/ 6545209/ 6545209/ <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 6545209/ 6545209/ Laboratory Work Order <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Benzo(k)fluoranthene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 B596463/ B596463/ B596463/ B596463/ B596463/ <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 6521988 6521988 6521988 6521988 6521998 6521998 6521998 6521988 6521988 6521998 6521998 I <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 6521998 6521998 <0.010 <0.010 0.014 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene fag/L B543306 B543306 B543306 B543306 6543306 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Fluoranthene AW2719/ AW2720/ AW2721/ AW2722/ AW2723/ <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 ZW4617/ ZW4615/ ZW4614/ ZW4613/ ZW4483/ ZW4482/ ZW4481/ ZW4616/ ZW4618/ ZW4485/ ZW4484/ fag/L <0.010 <0.010 ZW4486/ ZW4487/ Laboratory Sample ID <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 AHZ739/ AHZ740/ AHZ741/ AHZ742/ AHZ743/ <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 LX0924 LX0922 LX0921 LX0920 LX0946 LX0945 LX0944 LX0923 LX0925 LX0948 LX0947 I <0.010 Methylnaphthalene, 1- fag/L LX0949 LX0950 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 MH7156 MH7157 MH7158 MH7159 MH7160 fag/L <0.010 Sample Type Units <0.010 Field Duplicate <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.011 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Field Blank Trip Blank Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Acenaphthene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Acenaphthylene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 I <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Anthracene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Benzo(a)anthracene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.013 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 ` <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Benzo(a)pyrene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.015 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 ^ <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Benzo (b/j)fIuoranthene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.02 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Benzo(k)fluoranthene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Chrysene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.014 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Fluoranthene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.014 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Fluorene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 1ndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Methylnaphthalene, 1- fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Methylnaphthalene, 2 fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.011 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Naphthalene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.015 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 N <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Phenanthrene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Pyrene fag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.013 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Organochlorine Pesticides Aldrin fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 Aldrin + Dieldrin ug/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - <0.005 - - - - <0.005 <0.005 BHC, alpha- fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 BHC, beta- fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 BHC, delta- fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 Chlordane (Total) fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - <0.005 - - - - <0.005 <0.005 Chlordane, alpha- fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 Chlordane, gamma- fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 DDD, o,p'- fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 DDD (p,p'-DDD) fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 DDD, o,p'- + DDD, p,p'- fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - <0.005 - - ` - - <0.005 <0.005 DDE, o,p- pg/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 ^ <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 DDE (p,p'-DDE) fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 DDE, o,p'- + DDE, p,p'- fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - <0.005 - - ! - - <0.005 <0.005 DDT, o,p'- fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 DDT (p,p'-DDT) fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 DDT, o,p'-+ DDT, p,p'- fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - <0.005 - - - - <0.005 <0.005 DDT+ Metabolites ug/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - <0.005 - - - - <0.005 <0.005 Dieldrin fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 Endosulfan I fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 Endosulfan 11 fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 Endosulfan Sulfate fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 Endosulfan fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - <0.005 - - - - <0.005 <0.005 Endrin fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Endrin Aldehyde fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 Endrin Ketone fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 Heptachlor fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 Heptachlor Epoxide fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 Heptachlor + Heptachlor epoxide fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - <0.005 - - - - <0.005 <0.005 Hexachlorobenzene fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 Hexachlorobutadiene (Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene) fag/L <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 <0.004 <0.009 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.009 <0.009 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ug/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 Hexachloroethane fag/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.003 <0.01 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.01 <0.01 Lindane (Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma) fag/L <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 Methoxychlor (4,4' -Methoxychlor) fag/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.003 <0.01 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.01 <0.01 Mirex fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 Octachlorostyrene fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 Oxychlordane fag/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.005 <0.005 Toxaphene ug/L <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 - <0.2 - - <0.2 <0.2 See notes on last page �+ Stantec N otes: 15.2 Concentration was detected. <0.03 Analyte was not detected at a concentration greater than the laboratory reporting limit. - Parameter not analyzed / not available. MF Matrix Spike outside acceptance criteria (10% of analytes failure allowed). MI Detection limit was raised due to matrix interferences. * Background samples 122511075 Page 2 of 2 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS APPENDIX B - TABLES September 11, 2015 B.3 SUMMARY OF FISH TISSUE ANALYTICAL RESULTS ® Stantec B.4 Table B-3 Summary of Fish Tissue Analytical Results DFO Port Burwell Sediment Fisheries and Oceans Canada Sample Name Sample Date Sample ID Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type Fish Species Fat (gravimetric) Moisture Metals REFI-COMP1* 19 -May -15 REF]-COMP1 STANTEC MAXX AIS104 Composite Small Body Rainbow Smelt REFI-COMP2* 19 -May -15 REFI -COMP2 STANTEC MAXX AIS105 Composite Small Body Rainbow Smelt REF1-COMP3* 19 -May -15 REF] -COMP3 STANTEC MAXX AIS106 Composite Small Body Spottail Shiner REF1-COMP4* 19 -May -15 REF1-COMP4 STANTEC MAXX AIS107 Composite Small Body Rainbow Smelt REF1-COMPS* 19 -May -15 REF1-COMP5 STANTEC MAXX AIS108 Composite Small Body Rainbow Smelt EXP -WS -01 EXP -WS -02 EXP -CC -01 EXP -CC -02 EXP -CC -03 EXP -ES -01 EXP -ES -02 EXP -ES -03 EXP -ES -04 EXP -ES -05 REF -I -WB -OI* MAXX 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 Body EXP -WS -01 EXP -WS -02 EXP -CC -01 EXP -CC -02 EXP -CC -03 EXP -ES -01 EXP -ES -02 EXP -ES -03 EXP -ES -04 EXP -ES -05 REF -I -WB -01 79.6 STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC <0.3 MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX 0.5 AIS099 AIS100 AIS101 AIS102 AIS103 AIS115 AIS116 AIS117 AIS118 AIS119 AIS 114 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite <0.05 <0.05 Fillet Filler Fillet Fillet Fillet <0.05 <0.05 Bismuth (Bi) lag/g <0.05 Fillet <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Small Body Small Body Small Body Small Body Small Body <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Emerald Emerald Emerald Emerald Emerald <0.5 Units White Sucker White Sucker Common Carp Common Carp Common Carp <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 White Bass <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Shiner Shiner Shiner Shiner Shiner 0.01 0.04 0.06 1.0 0.40 3.5 9.5 2.4 2.2 2.6 2.8 3.3 2.9 3.3 g/ l OOg 84.2 82.3 76.0 70.3 79.0 80.0 79.9 77.6 77.1 78.1 74.6 REFI-COMP1* 19 -May -15 REF]-COMP1 STANTEC MAXX AIS104 Composite Small Body Rainbow Smelt REFI-COMP2* 19 -May -15 REFI -COMP2 STANTEC MAXX AIS105 Composite Small Body Rainbow Smelt REF1-COMP3* 19 -May -15 REF] -COMP3 STANTEC MAXX AIS106 Composite Small Body Spottail Shiner REF1-COMP4* 19 -May -15 REF1-COMP4 STANTEC MAXX AIS107 Composite Small Body Rainbow Smelt REF1-COMPS* 19 -May -15 REF1-COMP5 STANTEC MAXX AIS108 Composite Small Body Rainbow Smelt REF I-COMP6* REF2-YP-0I* REF2-COMP1* 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 1.8 78.8 2.0 80.1 1.6 77.2 1.2 81.3 1.9 77.9 REF I-COMP6* REF2-YP-0I* REF2-COMP1* 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 REF1-COMP6 REF2-YP-0I REFIYP-01 REF2-COMP1 STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX AIS109 AIS112 AIS113 AIS110 Composite Small <0.1 Composite Small <0.1 Fillet Fillet (Duplicate) Antimony (Sb) Body <0.05 Body Rainbow Smelt Yellow Perch Yellow Perch Spottail Shiner <0.05 2.5 0.10 0.30 1.3 77.2 79.6 79.9 74.5 REF2-COMP2* 19 -May -15 REF2-COMP2 STANTEC MAXX AIS111 Composite Small Body Spottail Shiner 2.3 76.1 Arsenic (As) lag/g <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 Antimony (Sb) lag/g <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Barium (Ba) lag/g <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 2.2 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.6 <0.3 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.6 1.1 2.0 <0.3 <0.3 2.6 1.6 Beryllium (Be) lag/g <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Bismuth (Bi) lag/g <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Boron (B) lag/g <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Cadmium (Cd) lag/g <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.06 <0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.03 Calcium (Ca) lag/g 400 130 69 78 76 9500 6400 8200 8200 7700 920 5900 4700 4700 4400 6000 12000 380 1000 8500 9300 Chromium (Cr) lag/g <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Cobalt (Co) lag/g <0.005 0.009 0.012 0.009 0.011 0.052 0.028 0.032 0.036 0.041 <0.005 0.005 0.007 0.020 0.007 0.014 0.012 <0.005 <0.005 0.037 0.028 Copper (Cu) lag/g <0.5 0.5 1.7 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.6 <0.5 0.6 0.8 <0.5 0.7 0.7 <0.5 0.6 0.8 0.6 Iron (Fe) lag/g 6 9 29 16 19 140 60 76 83 110 5 10 12 25 16 20 15 4 4 100 37 Lead (Pb) lag/g <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.07 <0.03 <0.03 0.03 0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0.05 <0.03 <0.03 0.11 0.04 Magnesium (Mg) lag/g 230 260 240 250 240 450 350 410 400 420 290 290 280 310 260 340 400 290 300 370 370 Manganese (Mn) lag/g 0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 7.8 4.2 5.4 5.6 5.9 0.4 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.5 2.1 2.6 <0.3 0.7 6.7 2.9 Mercury (Hg) lag/g 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.022 0.027 0.036 0.035 0.042 0.10 0.049 0.034 0.038 0.055 0.030 0.045 0.040 0.058 0.054 0.030 Molybdenum (Mo) lag/g <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Nickel (Ni) lag/g <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.10 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 <0.05 Phosphorus (P) lag/g 2100 2400 2300 2200 2300 6300 5200 6000 5900 5800 2500 4800 4200 4100 3800 4900 7600 2400 2900 4900 6800 Potassium (K) lag/g 3500 4700 3800 3700 3900 2900 3000 3100 3000 3000 3800 3100 3100 3000 2800 2800 2700 4200 4200 3000 2900 Selenium (Se) lag/g 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 Silver (Ag) lag/g <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Sodium (Na) lag/g 570 350 440 330 430 670 640 740 740 750 370 750 710 760 540 520 690 300 320 840 730 Strontium (Sr) lag/g <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 15 11 13 14 12 1.0 6.4 5.1 6.7 5.1 7.9 14 <0.5 0.6 13 12 Thallium (TI) lag/g <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.024 0.006 0.008 0.004 0.005 0.003 0.004 0.010 0.015 0.003 0.004 Tin (Sn) lag/g <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Titanium (Ti) lag/g 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 7.5 4.8 5.9 6.2 6.2 2.1 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.0 4.3 6.3 2.0 2.4 4.9 5.4 Uranium (U) lag/g 0.007 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.007 0.006 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.009 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.007 Vanadium (V) lag/g <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Zinc (Zn) lag/g 4 3 16 13 8 59 55 bl 65 67 5 20 26 23 28 23 24 6 7 25 27 Polychlorinated Biphenyls Aroclor 1016 lag/g <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 Aroclor 1221 lag/g <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.05 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 Aroclor 1232 lag/g <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.05 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 Aroclor 1242 lag/g <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.05 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.1 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 Aroclor 1248 lag/g <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.05 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 Aroclor 1254 lag/g <0.03 <0.03 0.14 0.21 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.04 <0.03 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.06 <0.03 <0.03 0.08 0.04 Aroclor 1260 lag/g <0.03 0.04 0.31 0.29 0.21 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.10 <0.03 <0.03 0.11 0.05 Aroclor 1262 lag/g <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 Aroclor 1268 lag/g <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) lag/g I <0.03 1 0.04 1 0.45 1 0.50 1 0.30 1 0.08 1 0.14 1 0.18 1 0.11 1 0.14 1 0.09 1 0.08 1 <0.05 1 0.16 1 0.13 1 0.12 1 0.2 1 <0.03 1 <0.03 1 0.19 1 0.09 Stantec 122511075 Page 1 of 2 Table B-3 Summary of Fish Tissue Analytical Results DFO Port Burwell Sediment Fisheries and Oceans Canada Sample Name Sample Date Sample ID Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type Fish Species Organochlorine Pesticides Units EXP -WS -01 EXP -WS -02 EXP -CC -01 EXP -CC -02 EXP -CC -03 EXP -ES -01 EXP -ES -02 EXP -ES -03 EXP -ES -04 EXP -ES -05 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 EXP -WS -01 EXP -WS -02 EXP -CC -01 EXP -CC -02 EXP -CC -03 EXP -ES -01 EXP -ES -02 EXP -ES -03 EXP -ES -04 EXP -ES -05 STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX AIS099 AIS100 AIS101 AIS102 AIS103 AIS115 AIS116 AIS117 AIS118 AIS119 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Fillet Filler Fillet Fillet Fillet <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Small Body Small Body Small Body Small Body Small Body <0.02 <0.02 delta -BHC lag/g <0.02 Emerald Emerald Emerald Emerald Emerald White Sucker White Sucker Common Carp Common Carp Common Carp <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Shiner Shiner Shiner Shiner Shiner <0.02 REF -I -WB -OI* 19 -May -15 REF -I -WB -01 STANTEC MAXX AIS 114 Fillet White Bass REFI-COMP1* 19 -May -15 REF]-COMP1 STANTEC MAXX AIS104 Composite Small Body Rainbow Smelt REFI-COMP2* 19 -May -15 REF1-COMP2 STANTEC MAXX AIS105 Composite Small Body Rainbow Smelt REFI-COMP3* 19 -May -15 REF] -COMP3 STANTEC MAXX AIS106 Composite Small Body Spottail Shiner REFI-COMP4* 19 -May -15 REFI -COMP4 STANTEC MAXX AIS107 Composite Small Body Rainbow Smelt REFI -COMPS* 19 -May -15 REFI -COMP5 STANTEC MAXX AIS108 Composite Small Body Rainbow Smelt REFI-COMP6* REF2-YP-0I * REF2-COMP1 * REF2-COMP2* 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 19 -May -15 REFI-COMP6 REF2-YP-0I REFIYP-01 REF2-COMP1 REF2-COMP2 STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX AIS109 AIS112 AIS113 AIS110 AIS111 Composite Small <0.02 Composite Small Composite Small <0.02 Fillet Fillet (Duplicate) <0.02 <0.02 Body <0.02 Body Body Rainbow Smelt Yellow Perch Yellow Perch Spottail Shiner Spottail Shiner Aldrin lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Aldrin + Dieldrin lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 alpha -BHC lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 beta -BHC lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 delta -BHC lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Chlordane (Total) lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 a -Chlordane lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 g -Chlordane lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 DDD, o,p'- lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 DDD (p,p'-DDD) lag/g <0.02 <0.02 0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 DDD, o,p'-+ DDD, p,p'- lag/g <0.02 <0.02 0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 DDE, o,p'- lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 DDE (p,p'-DDE) lag/g <0.02 <0.02 0.09 0.06 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.04 <0.02 0.02 0.04 <0.02 <0.02 0.03 0.03 DDE, o,p'-+ DDE, p,p'- lag/g <0.02 <0.02 0.09 0.06 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.04 <0.02 0.02 0.04 <0.02 <0.02 0.03 0.03 DDT, o,p'- lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 DDT (p,p'-DDT) lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 DDT, o,p'- + DDT, p,p'- lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 DDT+ Metabolites lag/g <0.02 <0.02 0.12 0.06 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.04 <0.02 0.02 0.04 <0.02 <0.02 0.03 0.03 Dieldrin lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Endosulfan I (alpha) lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Endosulfan 11 lag/g <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 Endosulfan sulfate lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.03 Endosulfan (Total) lag/g <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 Endrin lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Endrin aldehyde lag/g <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Heptachlor lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Heptachlor epoxide lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Heptachlor+ Heptachlor epoxide lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Hexachlorobenzene lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Lindane lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Methoxychlor lag/g <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.1 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 Mirex lag/g <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Octachlorostyrene lag/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Toxaphene lag/g I <0.5 1 <0.5 1 <0.5 1 <0.5 1 <0.5 1 <0.5 1 <0.5 1 <2 <1 (1) 1 <0.5 1 <0.5 1 <0.5 1 <0.5 1 <1 <0.5 1 <0.5 1 <0.5 1 <0.5 1 <0.5 1 <0.5 1 <0.5 Notes: 15.2 Concentration was detected. <0.03 Analyte was not detected at a concentration greater than the laboratory reportable detection limit. - Parameter not analyzed / not available. MI Detection limit was raised due to matrix interferences. * Background samples Stantec 122511075 Page 2 of 2 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS APPENDIX B - TABLES September 11, 2015 B.4 REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS ® Stantec M, Table BA - REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS 91 Criteria2 OptionRemedial Maximum of Range of Opinion of Total Duration: Undetermined NPV3 Probable Remediation and Risk - Management Costs, including Contingency FV - Negligible cost 1) Cost 5.0 Given absence of risk, land use monitoring is considered an effective management strategy. 2) Effectiveness 4 Given absence of risk, land use monitoring is likely to be acceptable to regulatory agencies. Additional risk assessment and R/RM measures may be required 3) Regulatory Acceptability should the land use of the property change. 3 Duration is undetermined - to be maintained while DFO is owner 4) Timeframe 4 Easiest option to implement, and most sustainable in terms of material and energy usage. 5) Implementability 5 The community is considered likely to favour the cessation of monitoring activities. b) Community/stakeholder acceptance 5 Summary.• Considered • •• •given negligible cost, • acceptable humanrisks to -•lth and the environment. s Notes: 1 - For all criteria except cost effectiveness, a qualitative absolute score from 1 to 5 is used, with 5 being the highest score possible. As a result, the maximum or minimum score may no be reached by any given option. For cost effectiveness, the score is based on a quantitative absolute scale: ('option cost' minus'lowest cost')/('highest cost' minus'lowest cost') x - 2 - Refer to criteria definitions in the report body. 3 - Refer to 'Abbreviations' (section II of the report) for acronym definitions. Page 1 of 1 9/9/2015 V:\01225\active\122511075\reports\ROA\final\tbl_DFO_Burwell_Sediment_ROA_revised_FINAL_20150910.xlsm\B4_ROA Stantec Consulting Ltd.