FINAL

JOINT ABBOTSFORD MISSIONENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM (JAMES)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY

(Water, Sediment, Benthos)

SUMMER 2000

Prepared for: DAYTON AND KNIGHT LTD.612 Clyde AvenueWest Vancouver, BCV7V 3N9

Prepared by: L.U. Young, M.Sc., R.P. Bio.Aquatic Ecologist

E. Dobson, M.Sc., R.P. Bio.Environmental Biologist

HATFIELD CONSULTANTS LTD.Suite 201 - 1571 Bellevue AvenueWest Vancouver, BCV7V 1A6

Tel: (604) 926.3261 Fax: (604) 926.5389Email: hcl@hatfieldgroup.com

OCTOBER 2000

JAM937:09/28/00 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

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

2.0 METHODS ...................................................................................................................2

2.1 FIELD SAMPLING........................................................................................................22.1.1 Site Selection .................................................................................................22.1.2 Sampling Methods .........................................................................................2

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .....................................................................................4

3.1 SAMPLING SUCCESS AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS .............................................43.1.1 Sampling on July 24, 2000.............................................................................43.1.2 Sampling on August 22, 2000 ........................................................................5

3.2 WATER QUALITY........................................................................................................53.3 SEDIMENT QUALITY...................................................................................................63.4 BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY...................................................................73.5 DISCUSSION...............................................................................................................7

4.0 CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................9

5.0 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................10

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF APPENDICES

JAM937:09/28/00 ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Station location and water quality results, JAMES environmental impactstudy, August 22, 2000

Table 2 Sediment quality results, JAMES environmental impact study, August 22,2000. (Bolded values exceed BC water quality guidelines.)

Table 3 Summary benthic invertebrate data and indices; JAMES environmentalimpact study, August 22, 2000. (Collected with 23-cm Ponar, sieved at 180µm, n=3.)

JAM937:09/28/00 iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Fraser River characteristics near JAMES outfall and locations of monitoringstations.

Figure 2 Site 1 (Outfall) location on July 24, 2000; JAMES environmental impactstudy.

Figure 3 Site 1 (Outfall) location on August 22, 2000; JAMES environmental impactstudy.

Figure 4 Site 4 (Matsqui Slough) illustrating "tea-coloured" plume, August 22, 2000;JAMES environmental impact study.

Figure 5 Site 1 (Outfall) sediment sample, August 22, 2000; JAMES environmentalimpact study.

Figure 6 Site 3 (100 m U/S of Outfall) sediment sample, August 22, 2000; JAMESenvironmental impact study.

Figure 7 Site 4 (Matsqui Slough) sediment sample, August 22, 2000; JAMESenvironmental impact study.

JAM937:09/28/00 iv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A1 Results of Water and Sediment Analyses, Analytical Service LaboratoriesLtd. (ASL)

Appendix A2 Results of Benthic Invertebrate Sample Analyses, Dr. Charlie Low

Appendix A3 Field Data Sheets

JAM937:11/23/01 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Joint Abbotsford Mission Environmental System (JAMES) has applied to increase theamount of discharge of effluent from their facility. BC Ministry of Environment required that anEnvironmental Impact Study (EIS) be conducted to assess current water and sediment quality andbenthic invertebrate communities at the outfall, upstream of the outfall, Matsqui Slough, and atthe proposed outfall extension in the Main Channel of the Fraser River. This report presentsresults of this EIS conducted by Hatfield Consultants Ltd. during summer 2000.

JAM937:11/23/01 2

2.0 METHODS

2.1 FIELD SAMPLING

2.1.1 Site Selection

Sites were selected by Dayton and Knight as follows (Figure 1):

• Site 1 - immediately downstream of the outfall;

• Site 2 - 100 m downstream of the outfall;

• Site 3 - 100 m upstream of the outfall;

• Site 4 - mouth of Matsqui Slough; and

• Site 5 - near the proposed outfall extension (main channel).

The outfall was located on July 24, 2000, with the assistance of Mr. Basil Wade, Dayton andKnight. A Garmin 45 Global Positioning Unit (GPS) was used to mark the location, in additionto visual observations. Sites 100 m from the outfall were located using GPS. All site UTMcoordinates were recorded (Table 1).

2.1.2 Sampling Methods

All samples were collected from a 6-m jet boat.

The following water quality variables were measured in situ using a YSI 85 meter: dissolvedoxygen, temperature, and conductivity. Bottles for water samples, except sterilized coliformbottles, were rinsed three times with ambient river water at each site prior to filling. Watersamples were collected approximately 20 cm below the surface of the water for the followinganalyses: residual chlorine, total phosphorus, total nitrates, nitrites, ammonia, total coliform andsettleable solids. pH was measured with a Piccolo Plus (HI 1295) pH stick meter inserted intothe sample container used for settleable solids. All water samples were immediately transferredto a cooler with ice and delivered to Analytical Service Laboratories Ltd. (ASL) within 24 hoursof collection. The laboratory report is presented in Appendix A1. Field data sheets are presentedin Appendix A3.

At each site, the 23-cm stainless steel Ponar grab and stainless steel sampling equipment forsediment and benthos were scrubbed and rinsed using ambient river water prior to use. Forsediment samples, two grabs were collected; the top 2 cm of sediment from each grab was placedin the stainless steel tray and mixed thoroughly to provide a composite sample for chemical and

JAM937:11/23/01 3

particle size analyses. The homogenized sediment was placed into heat-treated glass jars withTeflon-lined lids and kept in a cooler on ice until delivery to the laboratory (ASL).

The following analyses were conducted by ASL on sediment samples: total metals scan,polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total organic carbon (TOC), and particle grain size.The laboratory report is presented in Appendix A1.

Benthic invertebrate samples were collected with the 23-cm Ponar grab. Only those grabs thatwere at least 50% full were retained for analysis. Contents of the grab were placed into a cleanstainless steel tray, transferred to a labeled, polyethylene bag and preserved with bufferedformalin. Samples were shipped to Dr. Charles Low, Victoria, BC, for identification andenumeration. Each sample was sieved at 0.2 mm in the laboratory; invertebrate data arepresented in Appendix A2.

JAM937:11/23/01 4

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 SAMPLING SUCCESS AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

3.1.1 Sampling on July 24, 2000

Hatfield Consultants Ltd. commenced the field program to collect water and sediment sampleson July 24, 2000. Water Survey of Canada reported water levels at Mission to be approximately3.3 m at 0800 hrs on July 24; on the previous Thursday (July 20) the level was 3.6 m. High tidewas at approximately 1300 hours on July 24th.

Evan Dobson and Chris Lowe located the diffuser 87 m from shore with the help of Basil Wade,Dayton and Knight. UTM coordinates for Site No. 1, immediately downstream of the diffuser,were 549367E and 5440045N. Several photographs were taken for the purpose of relocating thatsite in the future (Figure 2). Depth at the diffuser was estimated to be 7 m (23 ft); the drawingprovided by Dayton and Knight indicated a 10-foot contour at this location (low flow). Currentvelocity was estimated at 1.1 m/s.

The field crew attempted several drops of the 9" and 6" Ponar grabs; these grabs are commonlyused for depositional studies in rivers and lakes. Due to strong current velocity, grabs werecontacting the substrate at an angle, resulting in a very small amount of sediment collected in onecorner of the grab (9" Ponar) or no sample since the grab could not trigger to close (6" Ponar).Attempts were made to drift with the current as the grab was dropped; this also was notsuccessful. The drift method would result in less accurate subsampling per site than a drop froman anchored boat. Attempts were made to lower the Ponar with an additional rope to control theangle of the drop through the water column; this method, too, proved unsuccessful. Theconclusion by the field crew was that the current was too strong and water levels too deep tocollect useful, viable sediment samples at this time. River depth and current velocity wereelevated relative to base flow due to freshet conditions; however, levels were declining at thistime of the year. The sampling program was halted on July 24th and postponed to a later date.

Water Survey of Canada was contacted; the following information was provided for the Missiongauge:

• 1999 (cool, wet spring, high snow pack) - water levels were 2.2 and 2.1 m on September 3and 4, 1999, respectively;

• 1998 (low rain, dry summer) - water levels were 2.0 m in July and continued to declinethrough August and September;

• 1997 (average snowpack) - water levels reached 2.0 m the last week of August, and remained2.0 m or less throughout September.

JAM937:11/23/01 5

Based on this historical information, Hatfield Consultants Ltd. recommended that sampling beundertaken in late August/early September. Water levels were confirmed with Water Survey ofCanada prior to scheduling the actual date.

3.1.2 Sampling on August 22, 2000

Hatfield Consultants Ltd. conducted the field program to collect water and sediment samples atthe JAMES facility on August 22, 2000. This program followed the previous field attemptapproximately one month earlier (July 24, 2000), at which time it was determined that water flowin the Fraser River was too great to facilitate proper sampling. The Fraser River flow on theAugust 22 sampling date was substantially less than one month earlier; water height was 1.33 mat Mission gauge on August 21, 2000 (Water Survey of Canada, pers. comm.).

Sampling was initiated at Site 1, immediately downstream of the diffuser, for which the specificco-ordinates were determined during the first sampling attempt (sighting-in with the assistance ofBasil Wade, July 22, 2000) (Figure 3). A 23-cm Ponar was used for all sediment sampling. Dueto the presence of some water flow, the Ponar hit the bottom substrate at a slight angle; however,this flow was not strong enough to hamper sediment collection. The locations of sites 2 and 3were determined in reference to Site 1: a distance of 100 m was determined downstream (Site 2),and upstream (Site 3) from the location of Site 1. These three sites were at approximately thesame depth (3.5 m). No difficulty in sediment collection occurred for these sites, although amoderate current velocity was observed (E. Dobson, HCL, pers. comm.). All sediments weresandy; partial grabs (approximately ¾ full) were collected using the Ponar grab.

Site 4 was initially chosen to be slightly downstream of the Matsqui Slough opening; however,rocky substrate at this location prevented proper closing of the Ponar grab. The site was thenmoved slightly upstream, approximately even with the slough opening. A 'tea-coloured' plumewas evident in the slough (Figure 4). At the time of sampling, the site at the slough mouth wason the edge of this plume and would have been exposed to it. Sediment sampling was successfulat this location; however, due to the high density of the sandy substrate, grab samples wereapproximately half the Ponar volume at this site. Depth at this site was 2.2 m; current velocitywas very low or non-existent given the anchor rope was slack during sampling (E. Dobson, HCL,pers. comm.).

Site 5 was in the north (main) channel on the opposite side of Matsqui Island and the sewagetreatment plant. The location was chosen based on the diagram position provided by Dayton andKnight, where the future outfall will be positioned. The depth of the site was similar to that atsites 1, 2, and 3, approximately 3.5 m. The substrate was predominately sand; all grabs were atleast half full. Site 5 exhibited a moderate current velocity during sampling (E. Dobson, HCL,pers. comm.).

JAM937:11/23/01 6

3.2 WATER QUALITY

Water quality data and laboratory results are presented in Table 1 and Appendices A1 and A3.Dissolved oxygen levels ranged from 9.9 to 10.0 mg/L in the Fraser River and 9.6 mg/L atMatsqui Slough. pH varied from 7.51 at Matsqui Slough to 7.64 at Site 5 (Main Channel).Temperature and conductivity were similar at all sites (approximately 17°C and 86 µS/cm,respectively).

Residual chlorine (detection limit 0.2 mg/L) and settleable solids (0.1 mL/L) were not-detect inall water samples. Ammonia was measured at the detection limit (0.005 mg/L) at sites 1 and 2(Outfall and 100 m D/S); all other levels were non-detect. Nitrate concentrations ranged from0.041 mg/L at Site 2 to 0.045 mg/L at sites 4 and 5; nitrite ranged from 0.003 mg/L (Site 3) to0.004 mg/L (all other sites). Total phosphate was lowest at Site 4 (0.028 mg/L, Matsqui Slough);Fraser River sites ranged from 0.030 to 0.034 mg/L.

Fecal and total coliform levels were highest at Site 2 (100 m D/S of Outfall) at 5,000 and11,000 MPN per 100 mL, respectively. (Note: MPN = most probable number.) Fecal coliformconcentrations ranged at from 4 to 23 MPN per 100 mL (Site 3) for other sites. Total coliformlevels ranged from 140 to 240 MPN per 100 mL, except at Site 1 (3,000 MPN per 100 mL) andSite 2.

British Columbia water quality guidelines for aquatic life (BC Environment 1998) are providedfor specific variables in Table 1. No BC guidelines were exceeded for any variables, whereavailable.

3.3 SEDIMENT QUALITY

Sediment quality results and observations are presented in Table 2 and Appendices A1 and A3.Fraser River sites exhibited predominantly sandy sediments (98.4 to 98.8%), with 1% or less clayand silt fractions (Figures 5 and 6). Site 4 at the Matsqui Slough was comprised of 84.9% sand,12.5% silt, and 2.6% clay (Figure 7). Total organic carbon (TOC) at Fraser River sites were<0.05 mg/kg; Site 4 TOC level was 0.15 mg/kg. Site 4 sediments also contained the highestmoisture content: 30.5% relative to 22 to 26% at other sites.

Total metal concentrations were generally higher at the Matsqui Slough site (Site 4) relative toother Fraser River sites (Table 2). Metal levels were compared to Working Water QualityGuidelines for British Columbia (BC Environment 1998); the lowest level reported (e.g., interimsediment quality guideline [ISQG]) is provided in Table 2 for comparison. Chromium and nickelconcentrations exceeded ISQGs (37 mg/kg chromium, 16 mg/kg nickel) at all sites, exceptchromium at Site 5. Manganese and iron exceeded ISQGs at Site 4. For lead and silver,detection limits were not low enough to encompass ISQG levels. Slightly higher concentrationsfor several metals (aluminum, barium, and vanadium) at sites 1 and 2 were observed relative tosites 3 and 5 (upstream and main channel); it is not conclusive whether sewage effluent, MatsquiSlough, and/or natural variation accounted for these elevated levels.

JAM937:11/23/01 7

All polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations were below detection limits insediments (Table 2; Appendix A1). No effect of treated sewage effluent was discernible at sitessampled in this study.

3.4 BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY

Benthic invertebrate counts and taxa are provided in Appendix A2. Mean site densities, numberof taxa, and biological indices are provided on Table 3.

The three sites near the outfall (upstream and downstream) supported similar benthic invertebratecommunities consisting of four to six taxa and 99 to 125 organisms/m2. Number of taxa andbenthic invertebrate density at sites located downstream of the outfall were not different relativeto the one site upstream of the outfall. The Main Channel site (Site 5) exhibited slightly highernumbers: 8 taxa and 460 organisms/m2. Low densities, particularly at Fraser River sites, aremost likely due to sandy sediments and moderate current velocities. During freshet, sandsubstrates can be easily modified by movement - either erosion or deposition - based on currentvelocities. Given water levels and velocities were continuing to decline following freshet, littletime was available for the substrate to become stable for invertebrate colonization. Usually, aminimum of four weeks for colonization is recommended.

Benthic invertebrate densities at Site 4 (Matsqui Channel) were the highest of all sites sampled:2,055 organisms/m2 with 17 taxa. At Site 4, current velocity was nil during sampling. This siteappeared to be at the edge of higher current velocities (i.e., substrate at nearby locations consistedof rock); it represented a more stable, depositional habitat for benthic invertebrates. This finer-grained substrate, most likely stable during freshet conditions, supported good colonization ofbenthic invertebrate communities.

No sensitive taxa of the Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonefly), or Trichoptera(caddisfly) orders were found at any site. These invertebrates prefer cool, pristine waters andboulder/cobble habitat, which was not the substrate found in this reach of the Fraser River.Oligochaete worms were found predominantly at Site 4; this may be due in part to the finersediment particle size measured at this site and stable habitat. Facultative taxa (i.e., thoseorganisms which inhabit pristine to moderately polluted waters) provided the majority oforganisms.

Biological indices of dominance, equitability (evenness), richness and diversity were calculatedfor the five sites (Table 3). Given the overall low number of taxa and densities, these indiceswere not useful in identifying impacts to benthic invertebrate communities.

3.5 DISCUSSION

Fecal and total coliforms were the only variables to indicate the presence of sewage effluentdownstream of the outfall (sites 1 and 2) relative to upstream (sites 3 and 4) in the water column.Except for coliforms, sites 1, 2 and 3 were very similar to the proposed outfall extension site

JAM937:11/23/01 8

(Site 5) in water and sediment quality and benthic invertebrate communities, although densitiesand number of taxa were slightly higher in the main channel relative to the existing outfall sites.Site 4 (Matsqui Slough) exhibited water quality similar to other sites; however, metals and TOCin sediments were generally higher. The benthic invertebrate community at Site 4 exhibitedhigher density and number of taxa, likely due to finer-grained sediment and lower currentvelocity.

Variables of concern for the JAMES facility include fecal and total coliforms, and possiblychromium and nickel. Coliform levels may be reduced in effluent when the new facilitycommences operation. Slightly elevated metal concentrations at sites downstream of the outfallmay be due to sewage effluent, input from Matsqui Slough and/or natural variation; noconclusions can be reached based on this survey. Other studies indicated that metals were foundto be naturally high in sediments throughout the Fraser River basin (Brewer et al. 1998). Theprimary concern regarding metals may be focused on Matsqui Slough rather than sewageeffluent.

JAM937:11/23/01 9

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the environmental impact study conducted August 22, 2000 for the JAMES facility, thefollowing conclusions are presented.

• Water quality variables were similar at all sites except fecal and total coliforms; levelsof coliforms were higher at sites downstream of the sewage outfall.

• Sediment quality variables indicated very little difference between the three sites nearthe outfall and the main channel site in the Fraser River; metal concentrations weregenerally higher at the Matsqui Slough site.

• PAHs were not detected in any sediments.

• Benthic invertebrate communities exhibited low density and numbers of taxa at thethree outfall sites; given downstream communities (sites 1 and 2) were not differentrelative to the upstream community (site 3), no impact of sewage effluent was observedin the receiving environment. The benthic community at the Main Channel siteexhibited slightly higher density and number of taxa relative to the outfall sites; highestnumbers were found at Matsqui Slough.

• Differences exhibited at Matsqui Slough may have been due to the higher silt/claycontent and TOC values relative to other sediments. Higher silt/clay content indicates alower current velocity and more stable substrate relative to the sand substrates in theFraser River.

JAM937:11/23/01 10

5.0 REFERENCES

BC Environment. 1998a. British Columbia water quality guidelines (criteria): 1998 edition.Water Quality Section, Water Management Branch, Environment and ResourceManagement Department, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. August 1998.

BC Environment. 1998b. A compendium of working water quality guidelines for BritishColumbia: 1998 edition. Water Quality Section, Water Management Branch,Environment and Resource Management Department, Ministry of Environment, Landsand Parks. December 1998.

Brewer, R., S. Sylvestre, M. Sekela and T. Tuominen. 1998. Sediment quality in the FraserRiver basin. In: Gray, C., and T. Tuominen, eds. Health of the Fraser River AquaticEcosystem. A Synthesis of Research Conducted under the Fraser River Action Plan.DOE FRAP 1998-11.

Tables

Figures

Appendices

Appendix A1

Results of Water and SedimentAnalyses, Analytical Service

Laboratories Ltd. (ASL)

Water

Sediment

Appendix A2

Results of Benthic InvertebrateSample Analyses, Dr. Charlie Low

Appendix A3

Field Data Sheets