Contamination of Suspended Solids in Lake Saint-François and in the Cornwall–Massena Sector

Serge Lepage Contamination of the Aquatic Environment

St. Lawrence Centre Environmental Conservation Environment Canada – Quebec Region July 1999

NOTE TO READERS

Please direct all comments on the contents of this report to the St. Lawrence Centre, Environmental Conservation, Environment Canada – Quebec Region, 105 McGill Street, 7th Floor, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 2E7.

Correct citation for this publication: Lepage, S. 1999. Contamination of Suspended Solids in Lake Saint-François and in the Cornwall–Massena Sector. Environment Canada – Quebec Region, Environmental Conservation, St. Lawrence Centre. Scientific and Technical Report ST-171E. 186 pages.

Published by authority of the Minister of the Environment Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada 1999

Catalogue No. En 21-186/1999E ISBN 0-662-27502-0

Management Perspective

A long-term monitoring study was initiated in 1994 on the quality of the suspended matter

in the Cornwall–Massena region, in the western portion of Lake Saint-François, as a joint project

between Environment Canada (Quebec and Ontario regions), the Quebec Environment Ministry

(Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Faune du Québec - MEF), and the Ontario Ministry of the

Environment and Energy (OMEE). This study is related to the dredging of contaminated sediment

at three SUPERFUND sites in the river at Massena in that its aim was specifically to assess the

effects of the restoration measures on improving the quality of the suspended matter migrating

downstream. This suspended matter currently contributes to the contamination of sediment in Lake

Saint-François.

Perspective de gestion

Une étude de suivi à long terme de la qualité des matières en suspension a été entreprise

en 1994 dans le secteur Cornwall-Massena, dans la portion ouest du lac Saint-François, dans le

cadre d’un projet conjoint entre Environnement Canada (régions du Québec et de l’Ontario), le

Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Faune du Québec (MEF) et le Ministère de l’Environnement

et de l’Énergie de l’Ontario (OMEE). Ce suivi est relié aux activités de dragage de sédiments

contaminés à trois sites SUPERFUND localisés dans le secteur fluvial de Massena, dans l’État de

New York. Le projet vise en particulier à évaluer les effets des mesures de restauration utilisées sur

l’amélioration de la qualité de la matière en suspension qui migre vers l’aval et qui contribue

actuellement à la contamination des sédiments du lac Saint-François.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank all those who contributed to this study. My thanks go first to the

people who did the field work, Michel Arseneau and Germain Brault of the St. Lawrence Centre

(SLC), along with the teams headed by Henk Don, of the National Water Research Institute

(NWRI) and by Stéphane Lorrain, of the Service d’Études Sédimentologiques Inc. (SES).

For the data analyses, I thank Dominique Duval, Suzie Proulx, François Dumouchel and

Marc-Alain Lévesque, of the SLC, for shipping the samples to the Burlington and Laval

laboratories; Sharon Carrier, Gino Sardella, Yousuf Sheikh and Guy Paquette, of the NWRI

National Laboratory, for the metals analyses; and John Dalton, of the sedimentology laboratory of

the (NWRI), for the grain-size distribution analyses. I am grateful for the assistance of Paule

Tremblay, Denis Laliberté, Charles Brochu, Serge Moores and Guy Hamelin of the Ministère de

l’Environnement et de la Faune (MEFQ), who performed the PCB analyses.

I wish also to highlight the invaluable data processing advice provided by Yves de

Lafontaine and Pierre Gagnon of the SLC. I am grateful to Thao Pham and Bernard Rondeau of the

SLC for the data sets they provided as a complement to those collected in this study, Denise Séguin

and François Boudreau of the SLC for the mapping work, and Patricia Potvin, also of the SLC, for

editing the text.

Finally, I would be remiss in not thanking Hans Biberhofer, of the NWRI, who

participated in all stages of the project from its inception, including revision of the English version

of the manuscript, and Geneviève Boutin and Dominique Forget, who worked on data analysis

during unpaid training sessions at the SLC.

Abstract

Identified as an Area of Concern by the International Joint Commission, the transboundary

area of Cornwall, Ontario, and Massena, New York, is recognized for its heavy mercury (Cornwall)

and PCB (Massena) contamination. Massena is home to three industrial plants: General Motors

Powertrain (GM), Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), and Reynolds Metals Company

Ltd. All three of these plants have been ordered to remove a total of approximately 75 000 m3 of

PCB-contaminated sediment from the river bed. Over the summer of 1995, GM and ALCOA

began the dredging work and removed close to 14 000 m3 of sediment. In this context, a long-term

monitoring program of the suspended matter in the water was undertaken in autumn 1994. The

program used a network of sediment traps which were sampled monthly, when dredging work was

taking place, and sampled bimonthly when no dredging was being done.

This report describes the hydrodynamic characteristics of the study area and the work

carried out, and discusses the initial results obtained in the course of the first two years of the study

in terms of the PCB and mercury contamination of suspended matter. It also makes

recommendations for the completion of the study. Based on our sampling of suspended matter,

PCB contamination, 25 km downstream of Cornwall–Massena, is greater on the south side of Lake

Saint-François, with concentrations varying between 0.1 and 0.9 µg/g. The opposite is true for

mercury, for which concentrations are higher on the north side of the lake, between 0.3 and 0.4

µg/g. Correlation analyses having been performed using the quantity of suspended matter found in

the sediment traps, the observed concentrations of PCBs and mercury. The isomeric composition of

PCBs indicates that water originating from the Great Lakes is influential primarily on the north

shore of Lake Saint-François, whereas local sources of PCB contamination mainly influence the

south side. In this stretch of the river, the transport of suspended matter is governed by fluctuations

in the solid discharge of the St. Lawrence River, by the resuspension of surficial sediments in areas

of shallow water (< 2 m deep), and by the input of tributaries located on the south shore of Lake

Saint-François. The sampling activities will continue into 1999 in order to validate the initial

results obtained.

Résumé

Identifiée comme un secteur préoccupant par la Commission mixte internationale, la

région transfrontalière de Cornwall-Massena est reconnue comme une zone fortement contaminée

par le mercure (Cornwall) et les BPC (Massena). Le secteur de Massena compte trois industries,

soit General Motors Powertrain (GM), Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) et Reynolds

Metals Company Ltd., qui ont reçu ordre d’enlever un total d’environ 75 000 m3 de sédiments

contaminés aux BPC. Au cours de l’été 1995, GM et ALCOA ont entrepris des travaux de dragage

et retiré près de 14 000 m3 de sédiments. C’est dans ce contexte qu’un programme de suivi à long

terme des matières en suspension (MES) à l’aide de trappes à sédiments a été entrepris à l’automne

1994. Celui-ci est basé sur un échantillonnage mensuel des stations de suivi lorsqu’il y a dragage et

bimestriel en l’absence de tels travaux.

Ce rapport décrit les caractéristiques hydrodynamiques du secteur à l’étude, fait état des

travaux réalisés, discute les résultats obtenus au cours des deux premières années en ce qui a trait à

la contamination des MES par les BPC et le mercure, et émet des recommandations sur la

poursuite des travaux. Ces résultats montrent qu’à 25 km à l’aval du secteur Cornwall-Masena, les

échantillons de MES sont plus fortement contaminés par les BPC du côté sud du lac Saint-

François, avec des teneurs variant entre 0,1 et 0,9 µg/g. Pour le mercure, la situation est inverse,

c’est-à-dire que les plus fortes teneurs, 0,3 à 0,4 µg/g, sont observées du côté nord du lac. Les

analyses de corrélation effectuées en utilisant les quantités de MES recueillies dans les trappes à

sédiments, les concentrations observées de BPC et de mercure ainsi que la composition isomérique

des BPC indiquent que l’influence des eaux en provenance des Grands Lacs se fait surtout sentir du

côté nord du lac Saint-François alors que des sources locales de contamination influencent

particulièrement le côté sud. Quant au transport des MES dans ce secteur du fleuve, il serait relié

aux fluctuations du débit solide du Saint-Laurent, à la remise en suspension des sédiments

superficiels dans les zones où la hauteur d’eau est inférieure à 2 m et à l’apport provenant des

tributaires situés sur la rive sud du lac Saint-François. L’échantillonnage des MES se poursuivra

jusqu’en 1999 afin de valider les premiers résultats obtenus.

Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE iii

PERSPECTIVE DE GESTION iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv

ABSTRACT v

RÉSUMÉ vi

LIST OF FIGURES x

LIST OF TABLES xii

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Objectives of the Study 2

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA 3

2.1 Location 3

2.2 Geology and Physiography 3 2.2.1 Geology 3 2.2.2 Physiography 5

2.3 Hydrology 7

2.4 Sediment Regime 8

2.5 Contamination of Sediment 11

3 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH 14

3.1 Sampling Strategy 14

3.2 Complementary Information 18

3.3 Analysis of SS Samples 21 3.3.1 Conditioning of sampling equipment 21 3.3.2 Sample processing 21 3.3.3 Physico-chemical analysis 21 3.3.4 Contaminants 22

3.4 Analysis of Current Meter Data 23

3.4.1 Basic processing 23

viii

3.5 Analysis of Meteorological and Discharge Data 24

4 RESULTS 25

4.1 Sediment Regime 25 4.1.1 Sedimentation of SS 25 4.1.2 Contamination of SS 31 4.1.2.1 PCBs 31 4.1.2.2 Mercury 31

4.2 Current Meter Data 34 4.2.1 Water levels 41 4.2.2 Temperature and conductivity 45 4.2.3 Current velocity and direction 47 4.2.4 Light transmission 49

5 DISCUSSION 50

5.1 Origin of SS 50 5.1.1 SS collected versus solid load of the St. Lawrence 51 5.1.2 Wind regime 55 5.1.3 Wave regime 62 5.1.4 Gales 69

5.2 Potential Sources of PCB and Mercury Contamination 76

6 CONCLUSION 85

REFERENCES 87

APPENDICES 1A Concentration of total PCBs in SS 97 1B Concentration of total mercury in SS 98 2 Current meter series at the LSL, SFN, SFC and SFS stations 99 3 Daily discharge of the St. Lawrence at Cornwall between

September 21, 1994, and August 31, 1997 106 4 Daily wind data for the Saint-Anicet station between September 21,

1994 and March 20, 1997 114 5 Hourly wind at Saint-Anicet between September 1994 and

December 1996 141 6A Mean effective fetch for different sectors of the study area 142 6B Calculation of effective fetch at the Reynolds Co. site 143 6C Calculation of effective fetch at the General Motors Co. site 144 6D Calculation of effective fetch at the Domtar Co. site 145 6E Calculation of effective fetch at the Courtaulds Co. site 146 6F Calculation of effective fetch at the Pilon Island site 147

ix

6G Calculation of effective fetch at the Thompson Island site 148 6H Calculation of effective fetch at the Christatie Island site 149 7 Waves generated by wind at intermediate depths and

with limited fetch 150 8A Isomeric composition of PCBs in Lake Ontario and

in different mixtures of Aroclors 161 8B Isomeric composition of PCBs in the study area: LSL station 162 8C Isomeric composition of PCBs in the study area: TCTI station 163 8D Isomeric composition of PCBs in the study area: PILON station 164 8E Isomeric composition of PCBs in the study area: SFN station 165 8F Isomeric composition of PCBs in the study area: SFC station 166 8G Isomeric composition of PCBs in the study area: SFS station 167 8H Correlation of SS samples from LSL station 168 8I Correlation of SS samples from TCTI station 169 8J Correlation of SS samples from PILON station 170 8K Correlation of SS samples from SFN station 171 8L Correlation of SS samples from SFC station 172 8M Correlation of SS samples from SFS station 173

List of Figures

1 Map of the study area 4

2 Bathymetry of the study area 6

3 Classification of Lake Saint-François sediments based on percentage of grain-size composition in 1989 10

4 Map of sampling stations 15

5 Schematic representation of a typical mooring 17

6 Quantity of SS collected in sediment traps: Lake St. Lawrence–Cornwall sector 26

7 Quantity of SS collected in sediment traps: Lake Saint-François sector 27

8 Variation in total PCB concentrations in SS 32

9 Variation in total mercury concentrations in SS 33

10 Time series of water level between September 1994 and December 1995 35

11 Time series of water temperature between September 1994 and December 1995 36

12 Time series of water conductivity between September 1994 and December 1995 37

13 Time series of current velocity between September 1994 and December 1995 38

14 Time series of current direction between September 1994 and December 1995 39

15 Time series of light transmission between September 1994 and December 1995 40

16 Fluctuations in mean water level at the Lake Saint-François sampling stations 42

17 Discharge of the St. Lawrence River at Cornwall between September 1994 and December 1995 44

18 Mean daily wind velocity at the Saint-Anicet station 60

19 Percent occurrence relative to wind speed 61

20 Effective fetch calculation method 65

21 Shallow zone (0–2 m) where resuspension of surficial sediments is likely to occur with wind speeds of 28 km/h 70

22 Percentage of time wind velocity exceeded 28 km/h 72

23 Typical distribution of PCB isomers in SS samples collected in this study 77

24 Typical distribution of PCB isomers in Aroclors 78

25 Temporal variation in the coefficient r: a) correlation between SFN samples and A1248 and A1254; b) correlation between SFN, LSL and Lake Ontario samples 81

xi

26 Temporal variation in the coefficient r: a) correlation between SFS samples and A1248 and A1254; b) correlation between SFS, LSL and Lake Ontario samples 82

27 Temporal variation in the coefficient r: a) correlation between LSL samples and A1248 and A1254; b) correlation between LSL and Lake Ontario samples 83

List of Tables

1 Characteristics of the sampling stations 16

2 Suspended solids sampling stations and dates 19

3 Current meter data 20

4 Detection limits of the analytical methods 22

5 Mean quantity of SS collected in sediment traps during each sampling 28

6 Mean quantity of SS collected per day of sediment trap deployment 30

7 Suspended load transported by the St. Lawrence during trap-deployment periods 52

8 Correlation between the quantity of SS carried by the St. Lawrence and the quantity collected in sediment traps 53

9 Grain-size composition of SS 56

10 Statistics on grain-size composition of SS 57

11 Velocity values for the erosion and deposition of sediment particles 63

12 Effective fetch for different sites in the study area 67

13 Characteristics of waves generated in the study area 68

14 Number of hours between two samplings where wind speed exceeded 28 km/h 71

15 Correlation between the quantity of SS collected in traps, contaminant concentrations and the number of hours during which the wind speed exceeded 28 km/h 73

16 Correlation between PCB isomers at the sampling stations, one sample from Lake Ontario and mixtures of Aroclors 79

1 Introduction

The transboundary region of Cornwall–Massena, designated an Area of Concern (AOC)

by the International Joint Commission (IJC), is known to be heavily contaminated, particularly by

mercury in the Cornwall area and by PCBs in the vicinity of Massena (NYSDEC, 1990; IJC, 1991;

St. Lawrence RAP Team, 1988; 1992; 1995; 1997). Sediment characterization studies of Lake

Saint-François showed that these contaminants are transported across the border toward the areas

of the St. Lawrence River downstream from Cornwall (Sloterdijk, 1985; Lorrain et al., 1993;

Vanier et al., 1996; Richard et al., 1997).

Three major industrial concerns — General Motors Powertrain (GM), Aluminum

Company of America (ALCOA) and Reynolds Metals Company Ltd. (Reynolds) are located in

Massena. Owing to the high concentrations of PCBs, exceeding 10 000 µg/g, and other

contaminants found in sediments, these industrial plants have been included in the SUPERFUND

program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA, 1997). The EPA has ordered the

three companies to remove a cumulative total of about 75 000 m3 of heavily contaminated

sediment over the next few years from the St. Lawrence River and from two of its tributaries, the

Grasse and Raquette rivers, with a target PCB level in the remaining sediments of 1 µg/g

(NYSDEC, 1990; U.S. EPA, 1998a; 1998b).

GM conducted dredging operations during summer and fall 1995, removing

approximately 11 500 m3 of contaminated sediment between late May and late December (GE,

1998). This work included capping an area of about 2100 m2 where the residual PCB

concentrations exceeded 10 µg/g. Furthermore, between early August and late December of the

same year, ALCOA conducted excavation work in the Grasse River and removed just under

2400 m3 of the most contaminated sediment from the area around its main effluent discharge site

(GE, 1998). The remaining operations at the ALCOA and GM sites and the work to be done at the

Reynolds site should take place within a year or two.

At Cornwall, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, a number of industrial plants that

discharged large quantities of organic and inorganic contaminants into the river over a period of

decades have since shut down or modified their processes to make them less polluting. They

2

include Domtar, ICI Forest Products (formerly called CIL), Cornwall Chemicals, Marimac and

Courtaulds Fibres and Films. Mercury is considered the most worrisome of the toxic substances

released into the river. Although direct loadings of this metal have been virtually eliminated, zones

of heavy contamination subsist, and mercury concentrations greater than 2 µg/g have been detected

in surficial sediments (St. Lawrence RAP Team, 1997). The solutions envisaged to remedy this

situation include dredging the most contaminated sediment, capping and in situ treatment.

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

As part of the monitoring related to the remedial actions in the Cornwall–Massena sector,

a suspended solids quality monitoring program was initiated in fall 1994 by Environment Canada,

Quebec and Ontario Regions, the Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Faune du Québec (MEF)

and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy (OMEE). This program includes a

network of long-term sensing sites (LTSS) with the following objectives: 1) evaluate the

effectiveness of remedial operations undertaken in the Cornwall–Massena sector; that is, dredging

of PCB-contaminated sediments in Massena and cleanup of contaminated effluents on both sides

of the river, based on the quality of the suspended solids (SS) that drift toward Lake Saint-François,

2) link the contamination observed in Lake Saint-François with the corresponding sources of this

contamination, and 3) assess the transport mechanisms for SS in the study area. The monitoring

program, scheduled to run for five years, will also provide insight into how atmospheric (storm

winds) and hydrologic (variations in water discharge rates and levels) events contribute to the

resuspension, transport and deposition of contaminated sediment in the upstream part of Lake

Saint-François.

This report documents the progress of this undertaking and the results achieved during the

first two years of the program, from September 1994 to December 1996. Some results of analyses

covering the period from December 1996 to September 1997 are also provided. Furthermore, an

evaluation of the program is provided, together with recommendations for its continuation and

future direction.

2 Description of the Study Area

2.1 LOCATION

The study arae covers a 40-km section of the St. Lawrence River extending eastward from

Dupuis Point, on Lake Saint-François, to the Long Sault islands, in Lake St. Lawrence. This area

lies between the longitudes of 74º 24’ and 74º 54’ west and the latitudes of 44º 58’ and 45º 10’

north (Figure 1). The two largest cities in the sector are Cornwall, on the Ontario side of the St.

Lawrence, and Massena on the U.S. side.

2.2 GEOLOGY AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

2.2.1 Geology

The study area is situated in the geologic unit of the St. Lawrence Lowlands, which are

composed of carbonate sedimentary rocks between 450 and 570 million years old (Ordovician and

Cambrian). These relatively undeformed beds of sandstone, limestone, dolomite and shale rest on

the Precambrian basement which is more than 950 million years old (Gouvernement du Québec,

1994).

Overlying these structural formations are unconsolidated beds resulting from the last

glacial stage and the ensuing postglacial events (Occhietti, 1989). First there is glacial till (12 000

to 80 000 years old) composed of compacted heterogeneous deposits, varves, peat and river sand

and gravel. The deposits are distributed in a highly random way and are generally less than 30 m

thick (Landry and Mercier, 1992). The next layer consists of deposits from the Champlain Sea and

Lake Lampsilis, associated with the formation and disappearance of these two physiographic units

during the postglacial period (7500 to 12 000 years ago). These deposits, ranging from a few

metres to tens of metres in thickness, vary in nature but generally consist of clayey mud with a high

water content in deep facies. Composed of Quaternary deposits, the banks and bed of the St.

Lawrence River supply most of its natural suspended solids load through erosion (Coakley et al.,

1989).

CANADA

UNITED STATES

Quebec

Cornwall

Summerstown

Lancaster

Bainsville

Rivière-Beaudette

Dundee

Sainte-Barbe

Saint-Zotique

Coteau-Landing

Salaberry-de-Valleyfield

Saint-Anicet

UNITED STATES

CANADA

QUEBEC

ONTARIO

St. Reg

is Rive

r

Raquette River

Grasse River

Raisin River

Cornwall Island

Pilon Island

Moses Saunders Dam

Christatie Island Thompson Island

Hamilton Island

Saint-Zotique

Basin

Grenadier B

asin

Lancaster Basin

Thompson

Basin

Des Cèdres

Basin

Dupuis Point

Salmon River

Long SaultIslands

Figure 1 Map of the study area

À la Guerre River

Beaudette River

w

•Massena

5

Finally, recent deposits in the St. Lawrence River (less than 3000 years old), which are

often composed of sand, muddy sand, and clayey silt, form at varying rates in temporary or

permanent sedimentation zones within the fluvial lakes. These sediment deposits are rarely thicker

than 50 to 60 cm.

2.2.2 Physiography

The study area comprises two distinct sectors of the St. Lawrence River. The first, situated

on the west side of the study area, consists of the international section of the St. Lawrence, which

stretches as far as Cornwall in Canada and to the mouth of the St. Regis River in the U.S. (Figure

2). This sector of the St. Lawrence, whose widest point is 6.5 km at Long Sault, features a complex

bathymetry and a multitude of islands and islets. The water reaches a maximum depth of nearly

25 m near the Moses Saunders Dam. In the channels upstream from the dam, water depth generally

varies between 15 and 20 m, compared with 10 to 12 m downstream. The natural bathymetry of

this river section was altered substantially by the construction of the Moses Saunders Dam, the St.

Lawrence Seaway (Wiley Dondero Canal) and Snell and Eisenhower locks. The only noteworthy

tributaries of the St. Lawrence in this part of the study area are the Grasse and Raquette rivers,

which flow in U.S. territory and feed into the St. Lawrence south of Cornwall Island.

The second sector under study consists of the upstream portion of Lake Saint-François.

Originating at the eastern tip of Cornwall Island, where the St. Lawrence is 3.3 km wide, Lake

Saint-François begins to widen markedly at the mouth of the Salmon River. In the easternmost part

of the study area, in the Raisin River sector, the lake widens to nearly 8 km and features a few

dozen islands and several flow channels from 6 to 26 m deep (Figure 2). The St. Lawrence Seaway,

located in the northernmost channel, has a maintained depth of 8.2 m (Gouvernement du Québec,

1985). Outside the flow channels, mean depth varies between 2 and 10 m, gradually increasing

from west to east. The only major tributaries that discharge into this part of the study area are the

St. Regis and Salmon rivers on the south shore of the lake, and the Raisin River on the north shore.

There are no large municipalities in this section, although it does encompass the Akwesasne and

St. Regis Indian reserves. Lake Saint-François as a whole has a surface area of 233 km2 and an

average depth of 5.1 m (Lorrain et al., 1993).

LÉGENDECornwall

Massena

Saint-Anicet

Bassin Lancaster

Bassin Thompson

Pointe Dupuis

Bassin aux Cèdres

Île Hamilton

Île Cornwall

Île Colquhoun

Île Saint-Régis

0 - 2 mètres

2 - 6 mètres

6 - 10 mètres

10 - 26 mètres4 km0

Figure 2 : Bathymétrie de la zone d’étude

������

������ ����� � �����

� ��� � �� � �� � � ��

Christatie Island

Salmon River

St. Regis IslandRaquette RiverGrasse River

À la Guerre River

Raisin River

Beaudette River

Figure 2 Bathymetry of the study area

Thompson Island

Pilon Island

Des Cèdres Basin

Thompson BasinHamilton Island

Dupuis Point

Colquhoun Island

St. Regis Island

Cornwall Island0–2 metres2–6 metres6–10 metres10–26 metres

LEGENDCornwall

Saint-Anicet

Lancaster Basin

7

2.3 HYDROLOGY

In the study area, the discharge of the St. Lawrence River is composed primarily of

inflowing water from the Great Lakes. Between 1900 and 1986, the mean annual discharge at the

outlet of Lake Ontario was just over 6850 m3/s (St. Lawrence RAP Team, 1992). The fluvial

discharge increases by about 4% in the 170 km stretch of river between Cornwall and Kingston.

At Cornwall, during the period from 1919 (when measurements were first recorded) to 1990, the

mean annual discharge was just over 6930 m3/s. However, during the period 1968 to 1990 — that

is, ten years after the Iroquois Dam was built (control work on Lake Ontario located about 50 km

upstream from the Moses Saunders Dam) — the mean discharge was 7800 m3/s. The latter value

is generally used to denote mean annual discharge at Cornwall (SLC, 1997). With regard to

seasonal variations in discharge, the data show that mean monthly discharge rates range from

5800 m3/s to 10 000 m3/s, with minima occurring in January and maxima in July (Morin et al.,

1994).

Between Cornwall and Hamilton Island, where Lake Saint-François starts to widen

appreciably, the inflows from the Grasse, Raquette, St. Regis and Salmon rivers account for a

cumulative mean annual discharge of 140 m3/s, augmenting the discharge of the St. Lawrence by

less than 2%. During spring freshets, however, the combined flow of these tributaries can reach

450 m3/s and their contribution to the discharge of the St. Lawrence increases by nearly 6%. The

only tributaries between Hamilton Island and the outlet of Lake Saint-François at Coteau-Landing

are the Raisin, Beaudette and A La Guerre rivers. They contribute less than 9 m3/s to the mean

annual discharge of the St. Lawrence. In spring, an average difference of 700 m3/s is observed

between the discharge rates at the inlet and the outlet of Lake Saint-François. This value is

250 m3/s higher than the cumulative discharge of the lake’s tributaries, a situation which Morin et

al. (1994) have attributed to small, uncalibrated streams and surface runoff. Various authors

consider that the input from local tributaries has only a very minor effect on the main water mass

in Lake Saint-François and that the physico-chemical characteristics (conductivity, pH, alkalinity,

hardness, turbidity, suspended solids) of this water mass are homogeneous over nearly the full

length and depth of the lake, in both summer and winter (Désilets and Langlois, 1989; Verrette,

1990).

Data collected daily from September 1994 to June 1996 at the Moses Saunders Dam

indicate that the water level varied between 72.0 and 73.9 m in the area upstream from the dam,

8

and between 47.7 and 48.5 m downstream, which represents a seasonal fluctuation of 1.9 m at the

upstream end and 80 cm at the downstream end (Bourbonnais, 1996). The long-term data show

that the strict control measures implemented in the mid-1960s (IJC Management Plan 1958-D)

have limited seasonal water-level fluctuations to 30 cm at Cornwall and 10 cm at Coteau-

Landing, at the outlet of Lake Saint-François (Morin et al., 1994; Fay and Eberhardt, 1996). A

key factor behind this significant difference between the upstream and downstream ends of the

lake relates to the large increase in the cross-sectional surface area of the St. Lawrence between

those two points. Whereas the cross-sectional area is about 5000 m2 downstream from the Moses

Saunders Dam, it increases to more than 35 000 m2 upstream from Coteau-Landing. It is also

important to take account of the resistance caused by the presence of aquatic plants in the summer

and ice cover in the winter (Morin et al., 1994). The Beauharnois Dam is the main control

structure regulating water levels in Lake Saint-François. On average, 84% of the flow of the St.

Lawrence passes through this structure, while the remaining 16% goes through the Coteau-du-Lac

works (Fortin et al., 1994).

The flow regime of Lake Saint-François is characterized by the passage of the incoming

Great Lakes water mass. At Cornwall, the presence of numerous islands, including Cornwall, St.

Regis and Pilon islands, causes an uneven distribution of the water between the north and south

shores of the St. Lawrence, with 29% of the fluvial discharge flowing on the north side of

Cornwall Island and 71% on the south side. The opposite situation is observed at St. Regis Island,

where 54% of the flow moves along the north shore and 46% along the south shore (Nettleton,

1989). Between the inlet and outlet of Lake Saint-François, the water’s residence time is about 36

to 48 hours in the flow channels. In shallower lateral zones, residence time may increase by up to

10 days (Fortin et al., 1994; Carignan and Lorrain, in press). A recent digital modelling study of

pollutant transport from a starting point at Cornwall and Massena showed residence times ranging

from 36 hours to just over 100 hours (Morin, 1997).

2.4 SEDIMENT REGIME

Sediment characterization studies conducted in 1979–1981 (Sloterdijk, 1985) and in

1989 (Fortin and Desrochers, 1990; Lorrain et al., 1993) revealed the diversity of sediment

textures in Lake Saint-François. Sandy material makes up more than 30% of the sediment over

about 75% of the lake’s surface area (Lorrain et al., 1993). Sandy sediments are found primarily

9

in areas where the current velocity is greatest — in the upstream portion of the lake and in the

navigational channel, where gravel, sand and clayey sand dominate. The finest fractions,

including muddy sand, silty sand and clayey silt, occur in the sedimentation basins located on

either side of the main channel, in the central part of the lake, and in the downstream basins at

Saint-Zotique and Grenadier (Figure 3).

The reworking of surficial sediment by bioturbation and wave and current action has

been studied by Carignan (1990) and Carignan and Lorrain (in press). These authors showed that

short-term reworking (over several months) of sediments in Lake Saint-François occurs in the top

3.5 cm of sediment on average, whereas longer-term reworking (years to decades) occurs on

average in the top 5.2 cm. Lorrain et al. (1993) showed that the percentage of organic carbon

(Corg) in the surficial sediment varied between 0.24% and 12.0% and was correlated (τ = 0.56; p <

0.0001) with the thickness of the sediment layer. According to these authors, this correlation may

indicate that the organic matter present in the sediment may derive from the accumulation of

allochthonous organic debris, rather than in situ degradation of aquatic plants.

Since the physiography of the Great Lakes favours sedimentation of SS in the deep

basins located upstream from Kingston, the water that flows in the international section of the St.

Lawrence and in Lake Saint-François carries only a small amount of SS. Frenette et al. (1989) had

assessed the SS concentration in the Cornwall region at between 2.0 and 4.0 mg/L. In a more

recent study carried out from 1989 to 1993 by Rondeau et al. (in press), the mean SS

concentration during this period was estimated at 1.0 ± 0.6 mg/L, which is equivalent to an

annual load of 199 000 ± 10 000 metric tons (mt). Only a small proportion of this SS load is

deposited in the sedimentation basins in Lake Saint-François, and Carignan and Lorrain (in press)

have estimated the volume of fine sediment (silt/clay) that is deposited to be 79 000 mt, or 17%

of the 461 700 mt carried annually in the lake.

This figure of 461 7000 mt was estimated by Rondeau et al. (in press) by taking 199 000

mt as being the input of the Great Lakes, 261 700 mt as being the input of local tributaries, of

which the greatest portion (242 400 mt) can be attributed to tributaries on the lake’s south side —

the Grasse, Raquette, St. Regis and Salmon rivers. We should mention that this total load

corresponds to one-fifth the load estimated previously by Frenette et al. (1989); that is, 2 300 000

mt annually.

������

������ ����� � �����

� ��� � �� � �� � � ��

5 k m0

Rivière aux Raisins

LANCASTER

CORNWALL

MASSENA

Sable et gravier

Sable limoneux

Sable boueux

Limon argileux

Limon

Sources : Fortin et Desrocher, 1990.

LÉGENDE

SAINT-ANICET

Figure 3 : Classification des sédiments du lac Saint-François selon la composition en pourcentage des différentesfractions granulométriques en 1989

Île de Cornwall

Île Saint-Régis

S a b le + G ra v ie r (1 0 0 % )

A rg ile(1 0 0 % )

L im o n(1 0 0 % )

Nomenclature de Shepard (1954)

Source: Modified from Fortin and Desrochers, 1990.

Figure 3 Classification of Lake Saint-François sediments based on percentage of grain-size composition in 1989

Pilon Island

Christatie Island

Thompson Island

Dupuis Point

Salmon River

Sand and Gravel (100%)

Clay(100%)

Silt(100%) Shepard’s nomenclature (1954)

LEGEND

Sand and gravel

Silty sand

Silt

Clayey silt

Muddy sand

w

St. Regis IslandCornwall Island

Cornwall

Massena

Lancaster

Raisin River

Saint-Anicet

11

Carignan (1990), Carignan et al. (1994) and Carignan and Lorrain (in press) have

suggested that a phase of net accumulation of fine sediments began in Lake Saint-François at the

turn of the century and may have been coupled with a rise in water levels and modification of the

current regime caused by the construction of the Les Cèdres hydro-electric facilities in 1912 and

the Beauharnois facilities in 1932. Sediment core data show sedimentation rates ranging from a

few millimetres a year in some sectors of the lake (Grenadier Basin) to a few centimetres a year in

other spots (downstream from Christatie Island). This sedimentation of fine particles occurs in

basins deeper than 4.5 m, comprising an area of 28 km2. The mean sedimentation rate for all

these basins is about 1.5 to 2.0 mm per year and the residence time of mobile sediments is

somewhere around 4.9 years. In Lake Saint-François, solids are transported primarily in

suspension (INRS, 1974; Frenette et al., 1989). It should be noted, however, that transport by

traction has not yet been evaluated in the study area (Fortin et al., 1994), nor has the origin of the

fine sediments found in the various homogeneous zones of the lake yet been clearly determined

(Lorrain et al., 1993). However, the coarser sediments found in the area downstream from the

Raisin River have been attributed to inputs from this tributary. The sandy material found in the

central part of Lake Saint-François, between Dupuis Point and the Grenadier Basin, may derive

from the erosion of morainic material in the vicinity of Dupuis Point.

It bears mentioning that the marked influence of aquatic plants on the hydrodynamics of

Lake Saint-François in summer has been discussed by Carignan and Lorrain (in press) and by

Morin et al. (in press). These authors have all pointed to macrophyte beds as contributing

substantially to concentrating the water flow in lake channels, stabilizing the substrate and

trapping large quantities of fine sediment.

2.5 CONTAMINATION OF SEDIMENT

The heavy industrialization that has marked the Great Lakes region since the turn of the

20th century, combined with the establishment of numerous polluting industrial plants in the

Cornwall–Massena region, has contributed greatly to the input of contaminants in this section of

the St. Lawrence River. Many of these contaminants have ended up in the water and sediment of

the study area. A review of the main sources of urban, industrial and agricultural pollution that

affect the study area can be found in Fortin et al. (1994). However, it should be kept in mind that

a large number of the most polluting industries in the region have suspended their operations in

12

recent years or reduced their discharges of toxic substances considerably, thus decreasing the

overall loading of contaminants to the St. Lawrence River.

Three intensive characterization surveys of sediment quality in Lake Saint-François were

conducted between 1975 and 1990 (Sérodes and Labonté, 1978; Sloterdijk, 1985; 1994; Fortin

and Desrochers, 1990; Lorrain et al., 1993). In these surveys, some 300 samples of surficial

sediment were collected to determine the extent of mercury and PCB contamination, as well as

the levels of other organic contaminants, such as PAHs and organochlorine pesticides, and of

inorganic contaminants, including aluminum, cadmium, copper, chromium, iron, manganese,

nickel, lead and zinc. In addition, during sediment coring surveys conducted in 1990 and 1994, a

total of 27 sediment cores were collected in Lake Saint-François (SLC, unpublished data). The

1990 cores were used in studies of sediment dynamics and geochronology (7Be, 137Cs and 210Pb

dating) to assess sedimentation rates and changes in contamination over the past 50 years

(Carignan et al., 1994; Carignan and Lorrain, in press). More recent studies conducted in the

study area have focused on the contamination of sediment and macrophytes by PCBs (Vanier et

al., 1996; Richard et al., 1997).

All these studies found that the northern part of Lake Saint-François (region of Cornwall,

Lancaster Basin, Saint-Zotique Basin) was particularly affected by high concentrations of

mercury, whereas the southern part (regions of Massena and Christatie Island, Cèdres Basin and

Grenadier Basin) was contaminated to a large extent by PCBs. It was suggested that in both cases

the contamination came from upstream sources in the Cornwall–Massena sector (Sloterdijk,

1991; Lorrain et al., 1993; Vanier et al., 1996). The data collected in 1989 indicated that the lake

sediments were much less contaminated than they had been 20 years earlier. The highest mercury

levels appear to have been recorded in the mid-1970s, with a maximum value of 3.2 µg/g

recorded in 1975 (Sérodes and Labonté, 1978), subsequently dropping to 1.47 µg/g in the late

1970s (Sloterdijk, 1985) and 0.66 µg/g in 1989 (Lorrain et al., 1993). With regard to total PCBs

and excluding the high concentrations encountered near the Massena industrial plants, the

maximum value in Lake Saint-François was 1.9 µg/g in the late 1970s and 0.27 µg/g in 1989

(Lorrain et al., 1993).

For mercury and PCBs, the value used to define the minor effect threshold (MET) — the

value corresponding to a level of contamination producing observable but tolerable effects on

13

most benthic organisms — is 0.2 µg/g (SLC and MENVIQ, 1992). By contrast, the toxic effect

threshold (TET), which corresponds to a level of contamination considered harmful for most

benthic organisms, is 1.0 µg/g for both substances. Therefore, in 1989, the mercury level

exceeded only the MET. Other substances, such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel,

lead, zinc and PAHs, were measured in sediment samples collected in 1989. With the exception

of chromium, nickel and PAHs, these substances were present at concentrations exceeding the

MET in 6–27% of the samples. However, none of the substances exceeded the TET (Fortin et al.,

1994).

In general, sediment contamination in Lake Saint-François is related to substrate type,

the highest contaminant levels being associated with the fine sediment found in the sedimentation

basins on either side of the ship channel (Lorrain et al., 1993). PCB and metal (chromium,

copper, mercury, nickel, lead and zinc) levels generally exhibit a decreasing gradient from west to

east and they have been declining since the mid-1970s, a situation which suggests that the main

contamination sources are upstream of Lake Saint-François. Lum (1991) identified resuspension

of fine sediments and advection of these sediments as the two phenomena potentially responsible

for the observed decreases.

Since no intensive temporal monitoring of the contamination in Lake Saint-François has

been undertaken, the monitoring begun in fall 1994 under the LTSS project has given us the

opportunity to update our knowledge of the state of mercury and PCB contamination in the study

area. We have also gathered valuable information on the SS transport mechanisms identified in

earlier studies, and on the seasonal and other fluctuations that can affect these mechanisms.

3 Methodological Approach

3.1 SAMPLING STRATEGY

The LTSS program, which was launched in September 1994, initially included four

stations for sampling SS and hydrodynamic characteristics of flow (Figure 4 and Table 1). Three of

the stations were set up in Lake Saint-François — Saint-François North (SFN), Centre (SFC) and

South (SFS) — to collect SS originating from potentially contaminated areas of Cornwall and

Massena. The fourth station (LSL) was set up in Lake St. Lawrence, upstream of the contaminated

sites, to obtain data on the state of contamination of incoming suspended solids from Lake Ontario

before passing through the most heavily contaminated zones of the study area. At first, the LSL

station was set up between Moulinette and Macdonell islands, but owing to the low sedimentation

rate at this location, the station was moved farther upstream in November 1995. Since then, it has

been positioned in the small bay north of the Moses Saunders Dam. In December 1995, the

sampling plan was modified by adding two stations in the Cornwall area — the TCTI and PILON

stations situated on either side of Pilon Island. These two stations were established in response to a

request from the Cornwall Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Team.

At each site, two cylindrical Kenney-type (1985) sediment traps were installed initially. The

traps are 91.5 cm high and have an internal diameter of 7.0 cm; they have nine central openings

1.25 cm in diameter which are designed to let in water and SS. During summer 1995, a second pair

of traps was added to increase the quantity of material recovered for analysis purposes. InterOcean

model S4 electromagnetic current meters were installed at the four original sites in Lake Saint-

François and Lake St. Lawrence to measure current velocity and direction, water conductivity and

temperature and light transmission. The sampling interval was two hours during open-water

periods, and six hours, generally, during the winter. The current meters were taken out of service in

November 1996, after two years in the water.

���������������� �� �� � �

�������������� � ���� �� �� � �

��������������� � �� �� � �

� �� �� �� �� � �� � � � ��

� �� �� �� �� �� � �

� � � �� ������ ������ ���

� �� � � � � � �� � �

� �� � � � � � �� � �

� � � � ! ""

�� �� # �� �

��� �� �� � ��

� �� �� �� �� ��� � �

� �� �� �� �� � � �

� �� ���� �� ��� ��

� ��

��� �! � �� � ��" ���

���� ��� �� � ��

� �����

� �� �� �

� � �� �� �� � �� � � �

� ������ ���

��� � �

� � � � � �� � � � � � �� �� � � ��

�� ! � � ! �� �

�� " � �

� ����������

� ����� ������

� ��� � �� ������ ���

5 k m0

� # � �� � � � � �� � �$%�� ! & � '

� # � �� � � � �� ��� � � �� �$%�� ! & � '

����������������������� �����������������������

� # � ���� � � �$� �� � � � '

Figure 5 : Carte de localisation des stations d’échantillionnage

12

3

1

2

3

Long Sault Islands

Figure 4 Map of sampling stations

Moses Saunders Dam

Saint-FrançoisCentre (SFC)

Saint-FrançoisSouth (SFS)

Saint-FrançoisNorth (SFN)

Cornwall Island

Ontario

Grasse River

Raquette River

St. Regis R

iver

Christatie Island

QuebecCANADA

UNITED STATES

Salmon River

New York State

ALCOAGeneralMotors

Reynolds

Location of contaminated sitessubjected to dredging

St. Regis Island

General Motors (St. Lawrence)

Reynolds (St. Lawrence)

ALCOA (Grasse River)

TCTI

PilonLSL (1996–97)

LSL (1996–97)

0 5 km

CANADAUNITED STATES

16

Table 1 Characteristics of the sampling stations

Station Latitude Longitude Depth (m) Instrument type

Lake Saint-François SFN (north) 45º 08.67´ 74º 25.88´ 10 S4 + traps SFC (centre) 45º 07.14´ 74º 27.01´ 15 S4 + traps SFS (south) 45º 05.85´ 74º 26.01´ 9 S4 + traps Cornwall PILON 45º 01.52´ 74º 39.54´ 14 traps TCTI 45º 01.43´ 74º 40.95´ 12 traps Lake Saint-Laurent LSL (1994–95) 45º 00.50´ 74º 53.11´ 11 S4 + traps LSL (1995) 45º 01.20´ 74º 47.84´ 15 S4 + traps

Figure 5 shows a typical mooring setup. A team of divers — working from a surface

vessel during open-water periods, and from shelters set up on the ice using a helicopter and

hovercraft in winter — handled equipment installation and subsequent visits to the sites to collect

SS samples and retrieve the current meter data. As the project was providing data on suspended

sediment quality during the dredging activities carried out in the Massena sector, the schedule had

to be adjusted accordingly. Therefore, the field trips were made on a monthly basis when dredging

was under way and every two months when there was no dredging. Consequently, between

November 1994 and March 1996, monthly visits were made to the sampling stations, except during

the winter period (January to May), whereas only one visit took place in winter 1995 and winter

1996. Since no dredging work had been done since fall 1995, in July 1996 sampling was resumed

on a bimonthly basis. During each sampling survey, the SS was collected from the sediment traps

and the current meter data were recovered from the solid memory. Owing to technical failure, the

current meter at the SFN station was taken out of the water for good in October 1995. The three

other current meters were retrieved in November 1996 after more than two years in the water.

Tables 2 and 3 show the SS sampling dates and the periods covered by the current meter

recordings, respectively. Technical problems related to data recovery or instrument malfunction or

fouling resulted in a number of prolonged interruptions in the data records.

Figure 4 Schéma représentant un mouillage-type

Bouée de surface

Bouée de sub-surfaceStructure en aluminiumanodisé

Courantomètre S4

Appareild’écholocalisation

Trappes à sédimentsde type Kenney

Fond recouvert de sédiments

Lignes de fond

Sub-surface buoy

Surface buoy

Anodized aluminum structure

Echolocation device

Kenney-type sediment traps

S4 current meter

Bottom lines

Sediment-covered bottom

Figure 5 Schematic representation of a typical mooring

18

The sediment traps and current meters were retrieved from their moorings by divers.

Afterwards, SS samples and current meter data were recovered onboard the support vessel. The

trap containers which held SS were retrieved and replaced by similar, previously conditioned

containers (see Section 3.3.1). The recovered containers were labelled (date and name of station)

and placed in a cooler. The current meter data were retrieved from the solid state memory of the

instruments using an application software produced by InterOcean and a portable computer.

Following retrieval of the information from the memory, the files containing baseline data were

checked to make sure that the current meters had functioned properly during the deployment

period. This procedure detected the instrument failure at the SFN station. The memory of each

current meter was cleared and a new sampling period initialized. The traps and current meters

were then redeployed by divers. Within 48 hours of collection, the SS samples were taken to the

sedimentology laboratory at the St. Lawrence Centre, the supernatant was removed after settling

and the samples were wet weighed (handling occurred only as of July 1996) and chilled at -20ºC.

3.2 COMPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Various types of information complementary to the sampling data were obtained from

government agencies or other organizations. The total daily discharge at Cornwall, that is, the

turbined discharge at the Moses Saunders Dam — plus the discharge at the Eisenhower Lock,

was obtained from Ontario Hydro. Hourly weather data (wind speed and direction, air

temperature, barometric pressure, precipitation) from the Saint-Anicet station were obtained from

the Scientific Services Branch of Environment Canada (Quebec Region). Lastly, Doppler current

meter data from a north-south transect surveyed in Lake Saint-François on July 3, 1996, near the

Saint-François South (SFS) station, were obtained from the Hydrometrics Service of Environment

Canada’s Atmospheric Environment Branch (Quebec Region). All these data were acquired to

gain a better understanding of the mechanisms involved in the transport of SS-associated

contaminants (PCB and mercury) in Lake Saint-François.

19

Table 2 Suspended solids sampling stations and dates

Sampling stations

Date of visit LSL TCTI PILON SFN SFC SFS

November 3, 1994 - - - 2 1 - December 21, 1994 - - - 2 2 2 January 1995 February 1995 March 9, 1995 2 - - 2 2 2 April 1995 May 1995 June 6, 1995 2 - - 2 2 3 July 4–6, 1995 2 - - 2 2 2 August 9–10, 1995 3 - - 3 3 3 September 6–7, 1995 4 - - 2 3 3 October 3–4, 1995 4 - - 2 3 4 November 8–9, 1995 2 - - - 4 3 December 5–8, 1995 - 3 3 4 4 3 January 1996 February 1996 March 14–28, 1996 2 2 2 - 2 2 April 1996 May 1996 June 1996 July 30–31, 1996 2 3 4 3 4 4 August 1996 September 10–11, 1996 2 2 4 2 2 2 October 1996 November 6–7, 1996 2 4 4 2 3 5 December 1996 January 1997 Feb. 26–March 1, 1997 2 4 4 3 3 5 March 1997 April 1997 May 14–15, 1997 2 2 4 4 3 6 June 1997 July 7–8, 1997 2 4 5 4 4 4 August 1997 September 18–19, 1997 2 4 5 3 4 4 October 1997 November 6–7, 1997 2 3 4 2 4 4

Note: Figures denote number of samples collected.

20

Table 3 Current meter data

Sampling stations

Month LSL TCTI PILON SFN SFC SFS September 1994 October 1994 November 1994 December 1994 January 1995 February 1995 March 1995 April 1995 May 1995 June 1995 July 1995 August 1995 September 1995 October 1995 November 1995 December 1995 January 1996 February 1996 March 1996 April 1996 May 1996 June 1996 July 1996 August 1996 September 1996 October 1996 November 1996 December 1996

IN (16/11) � � � S

(31/01–17/03) � � � � C

(03/07–22/08) � � �

S (25/10–30/07)

� � � � � �

W (06/11)

IN (21/09)

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

W-F (02/10)

IN (21/09)

� � � � � � � � � � � C

(03/07–22/08) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

W (07/11)

IN (16/11) � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

S (08/02–31/07)

� � � � �

W (07/11) Note: Figures in parentheses denote the dates on which recordings ended or started. C: Calibration of instrument. F: Instrument failure. IN: Installation of instrument. W: Withdrawal of instrument. S: Instrument stopped working because batteries died.

21

3.3 ANALYSIS OF SS SAMPLES

3.3.1 Conditioning of sampling equipment

To preclude the contamination of SS samples, the containers used in sediment traps were

pre-conditioned at the St. Lawrence Centre according to the methods described in the quality

control and assurance manual of its regional laboratory (Duval, 1995). For metal analyses,

250 mL polypropylene Nalgene® containers were conditioned using Method Number 5: they were

first rinsed three times in tap water, then soaked in 50% nitric acid, rinsed three times in purified

water and dried. For PCB analyses, 180- and 240-mL Teflon® containers and 120- and 225-mL

glass containers (used for shipping to the laboratory) were conditioned according to Method

Number 4, which entails three rinses with tap water, one rinse in concentrated sulfochromic acid,

three rinses in purified water, three rinses with acetone and two in pesticide-grade hexane,

followed by oven drying at 340ºC for two hours (Duval, 1995). At the start of the project, the

sediment traps themselves were conditioned prior to deployment by rinsing them with the same

solvents as for the SS containers.

3.3.2 Sample processing

The chilled SS samples were shipped at regular intervals, usually every four months, to

the National Laboratory of the National Water Research Institute (NWRI) in Burlington for

physico-chemical analyses and inorganic contaminant analyses, and to the laboratory of the

Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Faune du Québec (MEF) in Laval for analyses of organic

contaminants. Since July 1996, the wet weight of all the samples collected has been measured at

the St. Lawrence Centre’s sedimentology laboratory to determine the SS accumulation rate at the

different mooring sites.

3.3.3 Physico-chemical analysis

At the NWRI’s National Laboratory in Burlington, the SS samples were analysed for

organic carbon (Corg), inorganic carbon (Cinorg) and organic nitrogen (Norg) using a CHN analyser.

In addition, at the NWRI’s sedimentology laboratory, grain-size analyses were performed using

the screen and sedigraph method of Duncan and Lahaie (1979) on 30 SS samples collected

between July 1996 and November 1997. The composition of the different grain-size fractions, in

percentages, was calculated according to the Wentworth (1922) nomenclature.

22

3.3.4 Contaminants

Analyses of total metals were performed by the atomic absorption method for copper,

iron, manganese, lead and zinc, and by cold vapour atomic absorption for mercury (Hg)

(Environment Canada, 1979). The organic and inorganic phases of Hg were extracted and

oxidized by sequential digestion using sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid and potassium

persulfate and permanganate. PCB samples were toluene-extracted and purified on acidified silica

and sulfuric acid (Moore, 1996). PCB congener analyses (up to 83 congeners) were normally

performed by gas chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (GC/MS/MS ion

trap). Selected samples were analysed using high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC/HRMS).

Table 4 shows the detection limits for the selected compounds.

Table 4 Detection limits of the analytical methods

Analysis Method Detection limit (µg/g)

Total copper Atomic absorption 1.0

Total iron Atomic absorption 5.0

Total manganese Atomic absorption 1.0

Total mercury Cold vapour atomic absorption 2 x 10-3

Total lead Atomic absorption 5.0

Total zinc Atomic absorption 1.0

PCBs Ion trap (GC/MS/MS) and GC/HRMS

Varies with the sample volume and the congener being analysed: between 10-6 and 5 x 10-4; always below 3 x 10-3

Between November 1994 and November 1997, a total of 266 SS samples were

collected (Table 2). To date, 93 of the samples have been sent out for metal analyses and the Corg,

Cinorg, and Norg analyses, including 12 for quality control purposes (in addition to the laboratory’s

own internal control). Seventy samples have been submitted for analysis of PCBs, including five

intended for quality control (in addition to the lab’s own internal control).

23

This report discusses the analytical results for 107 samples (59 Hg and 48 PCBs) during

the period September 1994 to December 1996, plus the Hg results for the period January to May

1997 for Hg (Appendix 1). Data on the quantitative and grain-size analyses of SS performed up to

September 1997 (sedimentation in traps) and November 1997 (grain-size distribution of SS) are

also covered (Chapter 5). To compare the analytical results obtained at the six sampling stations,

basic descriptive statistics were used: minimum value, maximum value, mean, standard deviation

and coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean x 100).

3.4 ANALYSIS OF CURRENT METER DATA

The raw current meter data were retrieved as binary files using an interface (Model

S110), a retrieval software (CMAPP) designed by InterOcean Systems (1994a), and a portable

computer.

3.4.1 Basic processing

To facilitate the processing and analysis of the current meter data, the binary file was

converted to two series of complementary files in ASCII format. The one file contains data on

water conductivity, temperature and depth, and on current velocity and direction. The second file

contains current data in the form of north-south and east-west vectors, as well as turbidity data.

The ASCII data were imported into EXCEL spreadsheet files and combined with data

sets giving the date and time of each recording. The time series measurements of current velocity

(cm/s) and direction (degrees true), water temperature (ºC), water level (m) and light transmission

(percent) data were then verified to remove obviously erroneous data. The validated series were

then smoothed using a 25-hour moving mean to remove high-frequency fluctuations and facilitate

intercomparison of the observations made at the different stations. All the time series data were

plotted (Appendix 2). Due to the large quantity of data collected (up to 5000 data points per

variable and per station), the current meter series were subdivided into two blocks, covering the

periods of September 1994 to December 1995 and January 1996 to November 1996, respectively.

For a more effective visual display, current direction was plotted using a vertical axis extending

from azimuths -180 degrees true to +180 degrees true, instead of 0 to 360 degrees true

(Appendix 1).

24

3.5 ANALYSIS OF METEOROLOGICAL AND DISCHARGE DATA

The hourly meteorological data collected at the Saint-Anicet station, mainly wind speed

and direction, were analysed to obtain a meteorological description of the region and assist in

identifying links between hydrologic events (waves and currents) and meteorological events

(gales) observed in the study area. Percentages of exceedance (percentage of time during which

the wind speed is higher a given value) were established for different wind speeds and different

ranges of direction in the wind rose. Effective fetches characteristic of the study area were also

calculated. Daily wind data are presented in Appendix 3.

The discharge rates measured at the Moses Saunders Dam and at the Eisenhower Lock

(Appendix 4) were used to evaluate seasonal variations in runoff and the impact of these

fluctuations on SS transport. Appendices 5 to 7 present the results on the wind, fetches and the

characteristics of waves generated in response to different wind and effective fetch conditions.

4 Results

4.1 SEDIMENT REGIME

4.1.1 Sedimentation of SS

The quantities of SS collected in sediment traps during the period from July 1996 to May

1997 are shown in figures 6 and 7. Since each mooring was equipped with two pairs of traps,

separate curves are used to differentiate the quantities of SS collected in the upper set of traps and

the lower set, with each series representing the mean quantity of SS collected at each level (mean

of the two traps). We used the wet weight of the samples (after removal of the supernatant) because

samples had to be chilled within 48 hours of collection to ensure preservation, which is not enough

time to reach dryness. Nonetheless, given that removal of the supernatant and sample weighing are

always performed by the same person, the presence of water in the samples was not considered a

factor that would have a major impact on the general pattern of fluctuations observed in figures 6

and 7.

The data in figures 6 and 7 show that the quantities of SS collected vary widely over time

and space, and that the Lake Saint-François South (SFS) station almost always had the largest

amount of material, whereas Lake St. Lawrence (LSL) had the least. In addition, the SFS station is

distinctive in that the amount of SS found in the lower traps is sometimes much higher than that

found in the upper traps (Figure 7).

In absolute terms, the quantities of SS (mean of all four traps) collected at the sampling

stations ranged from 9.5 g at the LSL station (May 1997) to 158.4 g at the SFS station (July 1996)

(Table 5). At the SFS station, the mean (four traps) for the entire sampling period was 88.1

g/sample, followed by the PILON station with 80.1 g/sample, SFC with 61.4 g/sample and TCTI

with 45.3 g/sample. The SFN and LSL stations had the smallest quantities, with 36.3 g/sample and

21.9 g/sample, respectively. When the upper and lower traps are considered separately, a fairly

large difference is noted at the SFS station, with 96.2 g/sample on average in the lower traps and

80.0 g/sample in the upper traps. Smaller differences are observed at the other stations (Table 5).

26

0

50

100

150

200

J1996

J A S O N D J1997

F M A M J J A S O

Month (1996-1997)

Wet

wei

ght (

g)

LSL TOP LSL BOTTOMTCTI TOPTCTI BOTTOMPILON TOPPILON BOTTOM

Figure 6 Quantity of SS collected in sediment traps: Lake St. Lawrence–Cornwall sector

Month (1996–97)

Wet

wei

ght (

g)

LSL (upper traps)LSL (lower traps)TCTI (upper traps)TCTI (lower traps)PILON (upper traps)PILON (lower traps)

27

0

50

100

150

200

J1996

J A S O N D J1997

F M A M J J A S O

Month (1996-1997)

Wet

wei

ght (

g)

SFN TOP

SFN BOTTOM

SFC TOP

SFC BOTTOM

SFS TOP

SFS BOTTOM

Figure 7 Quantity of SS collected in sediment traps: Lake Saint-François sector

Wet

wei

ght (

g)

Month (1996–97)

SFN (upper traps)

SFN (lower traps)

SFC (upper traps)

SFC (lower traps)

SFS (upper traps)

SFS (lower traps)

29

From a temporal standpoint, the greatest variability was observed on the north shore of

Lake Saint-François, with a coefficient of variation of 59.0%. The lowest coefficient, 35.8%, was

derived for the TCTI station. When the incomplete data sets from the LSL and TCTI stations are

excluded, the analysis by level (upper traps/lower traps) shows that the smallest coefficient of

variation, 36.3%, was measured at the PILON station for the upper traps. The highest, 61.5%, was

measured at the SFN station, also for the upper traps.

The absolute quantities of SS shown in Table 5 give a skewed picture of the temporal

variability observed at each sampling station. The amount of SS collected in sediment traps is

directly related to the deployment period, which in this study varied between 42 and 139 days. To

account for this, the quantities of SS were calculated per day of trap deployment (Table 6). The

resulting accumulation rates (mean of four traps) ranged from a minimum of 0.11 g/d at the LSL

station (February 1997) to a maximum of 1.87 g/d at the SFC station (July 1997). The mean

accumulation rates for the entire study period varied between 0.31 g/d and 1.10 g/d (Table 6). The

SFS station exhibited the largest difference between the upper (1.00 g/d) and lower (1.20 g/d)

traps. The highest daily accumulation rates were recorded during the period from May to July

1997, with a mean of 1.05 g/d and a standard deviation of 0.46 g/d. Between November 1996 and

February 1997, the mean accumulation rate was 46% lower, with 0.48 g/d (standard deviation of

0.27 g/d). From a spatial standpoint, the May 1997 samples exhibited the greatest variability, with

a coefficient of variation of 76.4%, and the July 1996 samples the least variability, with a

coefficient of 30.9% (Table 6).

The coefficients of variation computed for these daily accumulation rates, although on the

same order of magnitude as for the absolute accumulation values, are more representative of

ambient hydrodynamic conditions and range from 31.3% (SFS station) to 53.9% (SFC station). In

general, the coefficients of variation in Table 6 indicate that spatial variability is greater than

temporal variability.

31

4.1.2 Contamination of SS

4.1.2.1 PCBs The results of total PCB analyses done on the SS samples collected between November

1994 and November 1996 clearly show that the suspended solids along the south shore of Lake

Saint-François are more contaminated by PCBs than is the north shore (Figure 8 and Appendix 1).

With a mean value of 0.30 µg/g, the PCB concentrations measured on the south shore of the lake

are five to six times higher than those found in the centre and on the north shore. In addition, the

maximum value of 0.89 µg/g is eight to eleven times higher than the maxima measured at all time

at the other two stations in Lake Saint-François. In comparison with Lake St. Lawrence, the south

shore of Lake Saint-François has a mean concentration ten times higher and a maximum value

thirteen times greater (Appendix 1).

The temporal variability in PCB levels is greater on the south shore of Lake Saint-

François than in the other parts of the study area (Figure 8). The coefficient of variation (CV)

computed for the concentrations measured at the SFS station between October 1995 and December

1996 is 66%. The Lake St. Lawrence (LSL) station had a CV of 50% and levels measured at the

other stations ranged from 19% to 34% (Appendix 1).

When compared to the interim criteria for evaluating sediment quality in the St. Lawrence

River (SLC and MENVIQ, 1992), the PCB concentrations at all stations were always below the

TET (1.0 µg/g). At the SFS station, they exceeded the MET (0.2 µg/g) eight times out of thirteen

(Appendix 1).

4.1.2.2 Mercury In Lake Saint-François, the highest mercury concentrations were measured on the north

shore, with a mean value of 0.33 µg/g and a maximum of 0.38 µg/g (Figure 9 and Appendix 1).

These values are about one and one-half times higher than those measured in the central part of the

lake (mean of 0.21µg/g and maximum of 0.23 µg/g) and twice as high as on the south shore (mean

of 0.15 µg/g and maximum of 0.19 µg/g). In the case of mercury, unlike the pattern noted for

PCBs, the SFS station rather than the LSL station had the lowest mean levels of the entire data

32

0,000,250,500,751,00

O94

D F95

A J A O D F96

A J A O D F97

A J

LSL StationMean = 0.03 µg/gStnd. dev. = 0.02 µg/g

0,000,250,500,751,00

O94

D F95

A J A O D F96

A J A O D F97

A J

TCTI StationMean = 0.06 µg/gStnd. dev. = 0.02 µg/g

0,000,250,500,751,00

O94

D F95

A J A O D F96

A J A O D F97

A JCon

cent

ratio

n(µ

g/g)

PILON StationMean = 0.04 µg/g

Stnd. dev. = 0.01 µg/g

0,000,250,500,751,00

O94

D F95

A J A O D F96

A J A O D F97

A J

Station SFNMoyenne = 0,06 µg/gÉcart-type = 0,01 µg/g

0,000,250,500,751,00

O94

D F95

A J A O D F96

A J A O D F97

A J

SFN StationMean = 0.06 µg/gStnd. dev. = 0.01 µg/g

0,000,250,500,751,00

O94

D F95

A J A O D F96

A J A O D F97

A J

SFC StationMean = 0.06 µg/g

Stnd. dev. = 0.02 µg/g

0,000,250,500,751,00

O94

D F95

A J A O D F96

A J A O D F97

A J

Mois (1994-97)

SFS StationMean = 0.30 µg/gStnd. dev. = 0.20 µg/g

Figure 8 Variation in total PCB concentrations in SS

1994 1995 1996 1997

1994 1995 1996 1997

1994 1995 1996 1997

1994 1995 1996 1997

1994 1995 1996 1997

1994 1995 1996 1997

Month (1994–97)

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/g)

1.000.750.500.250.00

1.000.750.500.250.00

1.000.750.500.250.00

1.000.750.500.250.00

1.000.750.500.250.00

1.000.750.500.250.00

33

0,000,501,001,502,00

O94

D F95

A J A O D F96

A J A O D F97

A J

LSL StationMean = 0.17 µg/g

Stnd. dev. = 0.05 µg/g

0,000,501,001,502,00

O94

D F95

A J A O D F96

A J A O D F97

A J

TCTI StationMean = 1.15 µg/g

Stnd. dev. = 0.38 µg/g

0,000,501,001,502,00

O94

D F95

A J A O D F96

A J A O D F97

A J

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/g)

PILON StationMean = 0.46 µg/g

Stnd. dev. = 0.28 µg/g

0,000,501,001,502,00

O94

D F95

A J A O D F96

A J A O D F97

A J

SFN StationMean = 0.33 µg/gStnd. dev. = 0.04 µg/g

0,000,501,001,502,00

O94

D F95

A J A O D F96

A J A O D F97

A J

SFC StationMean = 0.20 µg/gStnd. dev. = 0.02 µg/g

0,000,501,00

1,502,00

O94

D F95

A J A O D F96

A J A O D F97

A J

Mois (1994-97)

SFS StationMean = 0.15 µg/g

Stnd. dev. = 0.02 µg/g

Figure 9 Variation in total mercury concentrations in SS

1994 1995 1996 1997

1994 1995 1996 1997

1994 1995 1996 1997

1994 1995 1996 1997

1994 1995 1996 1997

1994 1995 1996 1997

Month (1994–97)

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/g)

1.000.750.500.250.00

1.000.750.500.250.00

1.000.750.500.250.00

1.000.750.500.250.00

1.000.750.500.250.00

1.000.750.500.250.00

34

set. The mean concentration at the SFS station was 0.15 µg/g ± 0.02 µg/g compared with 0.17 µg/g

± 0.05 µg/g at the LSL station. At the latter station, the minimum level detected was 0.13 µg/g and

the maximum 0.32 µg/g. The highest mercury levels were found in the Pilon Island area, with a

maximum of 1.68 µg/g at the TCTI station off the west shore of the island, and 1.10 µg/g at the

PILON station, on the east shore. At these two stations, the mean values were 1.15 µg/g and

0.46 µg/g (Appendix 1), respectively. The values at TCTI were eight to nine times higher than at

SFS and five to seven times higher than at LSL. Although the time series of mercury levels near

Pilon Island cover a very short period, they indicate that variability related to mercury is highest in

this part of the study area (Figure 9). Between December 1995 and March 1997, the greatest

variability was observed at the PILON station (CV = 62%). At the other stations, the coefficients of

variation ranged from 9% to 33% (Appendix 1).

Overall, while the time series are too short to clearly establish seasonal patterns of

variability, the winter period (November to March) appears to be associated with higher

contaminant levels in SS. This is true particularly for winter 1995–96, since seven out of ten results

obtained from analysing samples taken in March 1996 were maximum values for the entire

sampling period, for both PCBs and mercury. To test the hypothesis that this winter rise in

concentrations may be linked to increased resuspension of contaminated surficial sediments during

periods of more dynamic hydrometeorological conditions, an analysis was conducted of the wind,

wave and current regimes that are likely to cause resuspension. The results are discussed in Chapter

5 of this report.

4.2 CURRENT METER DATA

Figures 10 to 15 present the time series of water levels, temperature, conductivity and

current velocity and direction, along with light transmission data for the period from September

1994 to December 1995. From these records, the values obtained at the four sampling stations were

placed on common axes to facilitate comparison. Examination of the time series reveals the

difficulties in obtaining reliable readings in a shallow fluvial environment. The presence of aquatic

vegetation and ice can greatly affect records of current velocity and direction, and light

transmission, to the point of rendering them unusable during certain time periods, especially in

early winter.

7

9

11

13

15

21/0

9/94

26/1

0/94

30/1

1/94

03/0

2/95

19/0

5/95

05/0

7/95

09/0

8/95

13/0

9/95

18/1

0/95

22/1

1/95

Date (1994-95)

Prof

onde

ur (m

)

Figure 10 Time series of water level between September 1994 and December 1995

SFC

SFN

LSL

SFS

21/09 26/10 30/11 03/02 19/05 05/07 09/08 13/09 18/10 22/111994 1995

Date (1994–95)

D

epth

(m)

36

0

5

10

15

20

25LSL

SFN

0

5

10

15

20

25

Tem

péra

ture

(deg

. C)

0

5

10

15

20

25

SFN

SFC

0

5

10

15

20

25

21/0

9/94

26/1

0/94

30/1

1/94

03/0

2/95

19/0

5/95

05/0

7/95

09/0

8/95

13/0

9/95

18/1

0/95

22/1

1/95

Date (1994-95)

SFS

Figure 11 Time series of water temperature between September 1994 and December 1995

21/09 26/10 30/11 03/02 19/05 05/07 09/08 13/09 18/10 22/111994 1995

Date (1994–95)

Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

150

200

250

300

350

21/0

9/94

26/1

0/94

30/1

1/94

03/0

2/95

19/0

5/95

05/0

7/95

09/0

8/95

13/0

9/95

18/1

0/95

Date (1994-95)

Con

duct

ivité

(µS/

cm)

Figure 12 Time series of water conductivity between September 1994 and December 1995

LSL

SFN

SFS

21/09 26/10 30/11 03/02 19/05 05/07 09/08 13/09 18/10 22/111994 1995

Date (1994–95)

Con

duct

ivity

(µS/

cm)

38

0

10

20

30

40

50LSL

0

10

20

30

40

50

Vite

sse

(cm

/s)

SFN

0

10

20

30

40

50

SFC

0

10

20

30

40

50

21/0

9/94

26/1

0/94

30/1

1/94

03/0

2/95

19/0

5/95

05/0

7/95

09/0

8/95

13/0

9/95

18/1

0/95

22/1

1/95

Date (1994-95)

SFS

Figure 13 Time series of current velocity between September 1994 and December 1995

Vel

ocity

(cm

/s)

21/09 26/10 30/11 03/02 19/05 05/07 09/08 13/09 18/10 22/111994 1995

Date (1994–95)

39

-180

-120

-60

0

60

120

180

-180

-120

-60

0

60

120

180

Dir

ectio

n(d

eg. v

rai)

-180

-120

-60

0

60

120

180

-180

-120

-60

0

60

120

180

21/0

9/94

26/1

0/94

30/1

1/94

03/0

2/95

19/0

5/95

05/0

7/95

09/0

8/95

13/0

9/95

18/1

0/95

22/1

1/95

Date (1994-95)

Figure 14 Time series of current direction between September 1994 and December 1995

SFS

SFC

SFN

LSL

21/09 26/10 30/11 03/02 19/05 05/07 09/08 13/09 18/10 22/111994 1995

Date (1994–95)

Cur

rent

dir

ectio

n (d

egre

es tr

ue)

40

0

20

40

60

80

100

LSL

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tra

nsm

issi

on(%

)

SFN

0

20

40

60

80

100

SFC

0

20

40

60

80

100

Date (1994-95)

SFS

Figure 15 Time series of light transmission between September 1994 and December 1995

21/09 26/10 30/11 03/02 19/05 05/07 09/08 13/09 18/10 22/111994 1995

Date (1994–95)

L

ight

tran

smis

sion

(%)

41

4.2.1 Water levels

All the sampling sites in the LTSS project are situated at depths of between 9 m and 15 m

(Table 1). The current meter records show depths ranging from 8 to 14 m because the current

meters were installed on metal structures one metre above the bottom. Hence, it is necessary to add

one metre to obtain the total depth at each station (Figure 10).

An examination of the depth data reveals that the variations in water level observed in

Lake Saint-François can not be connected to those in Lake St. Lawrence, which reflects how

differently the two water bodies are managed via control works. However, the general pattern of

water-level fluctuations is similar for the three recordings obtained in Lake Saint-François,

indicating that short-lived hydrometeorological events (days, weeks) have the same impact and

occur simultaneously along the lake’s transverse axis. These recordings also confirm the lake’s

considerable water-level stability, with seasonal variations of less than 30 cm.

There was an increase in mean depth between the start and end of all recordings

obtained in Lake Saint-François. This phenomenon is most noticeable on the south shore of the

lake (Figure 16). The mean water level at the SFS station, smoothed using a 10-day moving

average, rose by about 45 cm between December 1994 and December 1995. The smoothing

explains the 10-day data gaps present each time the current meters were removed from the water

for maintenance. In the central part of the lake, at the SFC station, the increase was about 30 cm,

whereas on the north shore, at the SFN station, there was a net increase of 4 to 5 cm between

September 1994 and October 1995, when recording was completed. A major drop in water level,

approximately 35 cm, was recorded at the SFN station between September 1994 and February

1995, compared with a decrease of a dozen or so centimetres in the middle of the lake (Figure 16).

Assuming that the water level rose by 5 cm on the north shore of Lake Saint-François,

between October and December 1995, the period for which data are missing, it can be estimated

that the mean water level in the lake rose by about 10 cm on the north shore and by 45 cm on the

south shore between December 1994 and December 1995. This means that a lateral slope of 35 cm

would have been created. Several processes were investigated to explain this phenomenon. The

monthly means of the water levels recorded at the Coteau-Landing station, at the eastern end of

Saint-François, point to water-level fluctuations of 2 to 3 cm during this same period (Robichaud,

1998) rather than 45 cm.

-0,6

-0,4

-0,2

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

Date (1994-95)

Niv

eau

rela

tif (m

)

SFS SFC SFN

21/09 26/10 30/11 03/02 19/05 05/07 09/08 13/09 18/10 22/111994 1995

Date (1994–95)

Rel

ativ

e le

vel (

m)

Figure 16 Fluctuations in mean water level at the Lake Saint-François sampling stations

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

43

Between September 1994 and December 1996, the discharge of the St. Lawrence fluctuated

widely, varying between 6200 m3/s and more than 8300 m3/s, with an almost steady uptrend during

the period from May to December 1995 (Figure 17). Since the water level in Lake Saint-François is

carefully regulated, slight fluctuations in this parameter can be linked to variations in fluvial

discharge. However, these variations are not enough to explain either the measured increases or the

cross-sectional difference noted between the SFS and SFN stations. Consequently, the

morphometry of Lake Saint-François must be considered.

Between the Cornwall and Saint-Anicet sectors, the longitudinal axis of the St. Lawrence

corridor shifts about 30 degrees to the north (Figure 2). This change in the orientation of the river

channel forces the waters to undergo cyclonic (counterclockwise) rotation, inducing radial

acceleration. The resulting centrifugal force causes the water level on the outside of the curve to

rise. The concomitant difference in water level can be calculated with the following formula

(Leliavsky, 1966):

∆h = v2/g loge R2/R1 (1)

where ∆h = difference in elevation between the two sides of the water body, v = flow velocity, g =

gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2) and R1 and R2 = the radius of the inside and outside bends of

the curve. In the study area, it is on the south shore of Lake Saint-François that this increase in

water level occurs, and the higher the fluvial discharge and flow velocity, the more marked it is.

By using an inside bend radius of 9 km, an outside bend radius of 14 km and values of

25 cm/s and 35 cm/s to reflect the flow conditions generated in the vicinity of the moorings by

discharge rates of 6200 m3/s and 8300 m3/s, respectively, the calculations based on Equation (1)

yield a difference in water level of 2.8 mm for a discharge of 6200 m3/s and 5.5 mm for 8300 m3/s.

The results obtained and the difference in surface elevation computed from observations differ by

two orders of magnitude. To obtain a difference of about 30 cm, a velocity of 2.6 m/s would have

to be used, which is much higher than the values observed in this part of the St. Lawrence at the

exception of the navigational channel.

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

21/0

9/94

31/1

0/94

10/1

2/94

19/0

1/95

28/0

2/95

09/0

4/95

19/0

5/95

28/0

6/95

07/0

8/95

16/0

9/95

26/1

0/95

05/1

2/95

Date (1994-95)

Déb

it (m

3/s)

D

isch

arge

(m3 /s

)

21/09 31/10 10/12 19/01 28/02 09/04 19/05 28/06 07/08 16/09 26/10 05/121994 1995

Date (1994–95)

Figure 17 Discharge of the St. Lawrence River at Cornwall between September 1994 and December 1995

45

Major differences in bathymetry can also cause an increase or decrease in the surface

elevation of a body of water, such as when the flow goes over troughs or submerged obstacles

(Chow, 1959). In the case of a rise in water level, the higher elevation tends to approximate the

value v2/2g, giving similar values to those computed for the bend effect. Hence, even with the

combined effect of the bend in the river channel and changes in bathymetry, the expected increase

in elevation would be at most one to two centimetres. The 35-cm difference in surface elevation

between the south and north shores of Lake Saint-François calculated for a discharge rate of

8300 m3/s is therefore difficult to explain unless an instrumental bias.

The S4 current meters manufacturer, InterOcean, gives the precision as 0.15% of the full

scale for the pressure sensor; that is, 10 cm for the 0–70 m range employed (InterOcean Systems,

1994b). During data retrieval and periodic cleaning of the instruments, data recording is always

interrupted for a period of a few hours between the end of one recording period and the start of

the next. As shown in Figure 10, a difference in level often occurs during this time lapse. The

difference is generally positive at the SFS and SFC stations — that is, the new record begins with

a higher water level than the previous recording. This means that an artificial increase in level of

a few centimetres may have been superimposed on the record almost every time the current

meters at the SFS and SFC stations were taken out of the water and then put back. With regard to

the mooring structures themselves, based on observations made during servicing dives, setting of

the structures into loose sediments would only account for a difference of a few centimetres, and

furthermore this settling action occurred mainly in the first months of the project.

In Lake Saint-François, short- (days, weeks) and long-term (seasons) variations are of

small amplitude (less than 30 cm) (Morin et al., 1994). The water level fluctuations of roughly 5

to 10 cm which occurred between January and December 1995 may be associated with variations

in the discharge of the St. Lawrence River during this same period. However, the increases in

surface elevation measured in the middle and on the south shore of the lake seem to be quite

exaggerated and were probably caused by instrument bias.

4.2.2 Temperature and conductivity

The water temperature ranged from freezing (0ºC) in February and March to nearly 24ºC

in early August (Figure 11). The data confirm the isothermal nature of the water mass. Both

46

seasonal and short-term fluctuations (days, weeks) were recorded at the four monitoring stations

almost simultaneously. A maximum lag of 22 hours was noted between the north and south

shores of Lake Saint-François. The lowest temperature (0.1ºC) was recorded in winter 1994 on

February 2, and the highest temperature in summer 1995 (23.8ºC) on August 15 (Figure 11).

Electrical conductivity corrected for temperature was graphed for the LSL, SFN and SFS

stations. The data collected at the SFC station were not used because they varied between

350 µS/cm and over 500 µS/cm, probably indicating poor instrument calibration. The data from

the other stations were determined to be of good quality and exhibited some interesting elements.

At the SFN station, summer conductivity values were generally around 292 µS/cm, compared

with about 280 µS/cm at the SFS station (Figure 12). Overall, a difference ranging from 15

µS/cm to more than 70 µS/cm was observed between the north and south shores of Lake Saint-

François. To confirm the validity of the current meter data, in situ conductivity measurements

were made in September and December 1997 at the different sampling stations. Water samples

were collected at the surface and at depth, and the conductivity was measured immediately with

YSI and Hanna conductivity meters. These readings corroborated the current meter data, showing

conductivity levels (corrected for temperature) between 295 µS/cm and 299 µS/cm at the LSL,

PILON, SFN and SFC stations in September, and between 282 µS/cm and 292 µS/cm in

December. At the SFS station, the corresponding values were between 286 µS/cm and 288

µS/cm, respectively, in September and between 263 µS/cm and 266 µS/cm in December.

There are four tributaries along the south shore of Lake Saint-François upstream of the

SFS station: the Grasse, Raquette, St. Regis and Salmon rivers. These tributaries flow in the St.

Lawrence Lowlands and their specific conductivity is much lower than that of the Great Lakes

waters. Rondeau (1993) and Tremblay (1997) reported values varying between 50 µS/cm and

165 µS/cm for the first three tributaries and between 260 µS/cm and 365 µS/cm for the waters of

the St. Lawrence in the Cornwall region. Anderson (1990) presents mean conductivity values of

between 315 µS/cm and 335 µS/cm in the Cornwall area, whereas another, less recent study

estimated mean conductivity values at between 280 µS/cm and 300 µS/cm on the north side of

Cornwall Island and between 265 µS/cm and 295 µS/cm on the south side (Germain and Janson,

1984).

47

The observations made on the north shore of Lake Saint-François show good

concordance with the values presented above, and with the data collected for Lake St. Lawrence

(LSL station). This finding is indicative of the presence of a single water mass. The SFS data

shows that the waters from the tributaries on the south shore in this sector can cause a mean

decrease in conductivity of over 25 µS/cm. The combined mean discharge of the four tributaries

is approximately 140 m3/s. However, unlike the discharge of the St. Lawrence, which is

regulated, the combined discharge of the tributaries varies with the seasons. Whereas the

combined discharge may be an estimated 50 m3/s during the low-flow period of summer, it can

reach as high as 450 m3/s during spring runoff (Morin et al.,1994). Using this value of 450 m3/s,

along with a mean conductivity of 150 µS/cm for the tributaries, and assuming that 50–60% of

the discharge of the St. Lawrence flows on the south shore of Lake Saint-François (discharge of

3000 m3/s to 4500 m3/s with a conductivity of 295 µS/cm), the conductivity value obtained for

complete mixing of the water masses ranges from 276 µS/cm to 293 µS/cm in the area of the SFS

station.

Therefore, the tributaries can indeed have an effect on the conductivity of the water that

flows along the south shore of Lake Saint-François, and the data collected show that this impact

is greatest during the winter period. The drop in conductivity observed at the SFS station begins

around mid-October and lasts until March, with values on the order of 250 µS/cm (Figure 12).

There were sudden and marked drops of up to 210 µS/cm in January and March 1995; the

presence of water pockets from the tributaries appeared to offer the only explanation for this

phenomenon. This was confirmed by reviewing daily discharge data gathered by the United

States Geological Survey in the Raquette and St. Regis rivers (U.S. GS, 1998). These data show

that increases in discharge of up to 100 m3/s in each of the tributaries correspond to reductions in

conductivity observed in winter at the SFS station. The near-absence of mixing factors, in winter,

and the presence of ice in shallow zones contribute to channelling the flow of the tributaries into a

coastal strip, increasing their influence on the south shore of Lake Saint-François.

4.2.3 Current velocity and direction

The current meter records obtained in Lake Saint-François show that the instruments

were moored in basins where current speeds are generally lower than 35 cm/s and usually

48

oriented toward the northeast, along the longitudinal axis of the lake (figures 13 and 14). The

slowest speeds, between 5 cm/s and 15 cm/s, were recorded on the north shore of the lake. In the

central and southern part of the lake, the velocities ranged from 15 cm/s to 35 cm/s. Pulses of up

to 150 cm/s were observed several times at the Lake Saint-François Centre (SFC) station,

particularly between November and February (Appendix 2). Aside from technical failure of the

instrument, the accumulation of aquatic vegetation (macrophytes) on the structure to which the

current meter was attached (Figure 5) is the most likely cause of the sudden velocity changes

observed at the SFC station and, to a lesser extent, at the SFS station. A considerable build-up of

macrophytes was noted on the structures and on the other mooring components during the

sampling dives made in November, primarily at the SFS and SFC stations. It is suspected that

these accumulations on the current meter structures caused local intensification and reorientation

of the flow. Several such incidences were observed at the Lake Saint-François stations (Figure

14). After the structures were cleaned during periodic maintenance of the current meters, the

velocities returned to the typical range (Figure 13). The sudden increase in velocity noted in

February and March 1995 at the SFC station cannot be attributed to ice action as the structure was

at a depth of 14 m (Figure 10).

Overall, the current velocity and direction data for the three stations in Lake Saint-

François do not exhibit a seasonal or other pattern of variation that could have affected the three

recordings simultaneously. The fluctuations are of small amplitude and resemble high-frequency

noise caused by the different variables influencing the lake’s hydrodynamic regime (fluvial

discharges, meteorological events, macrophyte growth, etc.). These recordings, which can be

considered of poor quality, are only useful for evaluating mean flow conditions at the different

sites. In general, this flow moves along the longitudinal axis of Lake Saint-François at speeds

ranging from 5 cm/s to 35 cm/s. Since the recording instruments were moored at depths of

between 8 and 14 m, the velocity data cannot be used to assess the specific effect of wind storms

in terms of increasing current velocities in shallow zones (< 3 m), which is where resuspension

occurs.

In Lake St. Lawrence, when the mooring station was located between Moulinette and

Mcdonnell islands (November 1994 to December 1996), current amplitude varied between 0 and

30 cm/s (Figure 13). During that period, the direction of the current varied between 0 and 60

49

degrees true when the velocity exceeded 8 cm/s. During periods of low velocity (< 8 cm/s), such

as fall 1994 and fall 1995, current direction became extremely variable, limiting the value of the

data (Figure 14). Unlike Lake Saint-François, where the water level is maintained at a stable

range, Lake St. Lawrence exhibits large water-level fluctuations associated with hydro-electric

production at the Moses Saunders Dam and with the formation and break-up of the ice cover on

Lake Saint-François (Figure 10). These variations have a direct impact on the currents, as

evidenced by a comparison of the velocity and water depth data at this station (figures 10 and 13).

When the LSL station was moved upstream in November 1995, the current meter was

repositioned in a bay away from the main flow and hence the direct influence that water-level

management can have on the fluvial discharge (Figure 5). At this new location, current velocities

were on the order of 2 cm/s and not exceeding 5 cm/s, whereas current direction fluctuated

widely, encompassing over 135 degrees in the wind rose, in the sectors between the northeast and

the south (Appendix 2).

4.2.4 Light transmission

The S4 current meters were all equipped with a photo-conductor type of transmissometer

with a spectral response centred on the visible light emitted by a diode. In the water, the

percentage of light transmission measured (0 to 100%) depends on the transparency of the water,

much of which is mediated by SS content. Fouling is a problem with this type of sensor in an

environment with dense periphyton and macrophyte growth, as organic or other debris builds up

on the window of the emitting diode and the photoconductor. This biases the transmission values,

and unless the instrument can be cleaned fairly often, data collected over the long term become

compromised for assessing fluctuations in turbidity caused by an increased input of SS or

sediment resuspension.

Figure 15 indicates that fouling did occur, resulting in transmission curves that cannot be

used to analyse variations in turbidity in the study area. The transmission curves show that

fouling began within only a few days after equipment servicing. This led to a progressive decline

in the photosensor’s response. Following inspection of the transmissometers, it was discovered

that fine particles had gotten inside the photosensor windows, precluding a 100% reading.

50

Therefore, it was not possible to establish a relationship between the light transmission data and

SS concentration in the water.

5 Discussion

5.1 ORIGIN OF SS

Based on sediment mapping work done in Lake Saint-François by Lorrain et al. (1993),

the sediment traps at the stations on the north and south shores of the lake are moored in

sedimentation basins containing similar materials (silty sand). The traps at the Lake Saint-François

Centre (SFC) station are in a sector covering the Thompson and Cèdres basins, where the material

that accumulates consists of muddy sand (Figure 3). The origin of these sediment deposits has not

been clearly identified. According to Lorrain et al. (1993), the sand found in the central part of the

lake, between Dupuis Point and Grenadier Basin, may derive from erosion of the point, and the

coarse sand found downstream from the Raisin River may come partly from this very tributary. The

sources of supply for sedimentary materials found in the upstream sectors of Lake Saint-François

may include urban and industrial effluents, inputs from tributaries on the south shore of the lake

and resuspension of bottom sediment in shallow zones. There is also a contribution from the Great

Lakes water mass, which generally has an SS load ranging from 0.2 to 2.3 mg/L (Cossa et al.,

1998).

To explain the differences in SS quantities collected at one station to another or from one

sampling period to the next, it is necessary to first consider the carrying capacity of the flow, which

is a function of the current velocity — itself a function of the variability of ambient hydrodynamic

conditions. Based on the mean current velocities measured at the four sampling stations, it can be

seen that the sectors with the highest current speeds generally had the most SS accumulated in

sediment traps. The SFS and SFC stations, with currents of about 20 cm/s, had the largest

quantities of SS collected per day of trap deployment: 1.10 g/d of SS at the SFS station and

0.83 g/d at the SFC station (Figure 13 and Table 6). At the SFN and LSL stations, where the

currents were about 10 cm/s and 5 cm/s, respectively, the traps only collected 0.46 g/d and 0.31 g/d

of SS on average. There were no current meters installed at the TCTI and PILON stations, but

observations made by the diving team indicate that the currents were slower at TCTI. This is

consistent with the quantities of SS team collected at these stations: 1.13 g/d on average at PILON

versus 0.62 g/d at TCTI.

51

These observations show that there is a direct relationship between flow speed and

carrying capacity. Current velocities are higher in the centre and on the south shore of Lake Saint-

François than they are on the north shore. Moreover, the presence of tributaries on the south shore

contributes to a larger quantity of SS along the southern bank. This results in a north-south gradient

in the SS volumes collected by the traps moored in Lake Saint-François, with the traps on the south

shore collecting two and one-half times as much material as those on the north shore. The

quantities collected upstream, in the Pilon Island area, indicate that the traps are moored in a zone

that is conducive to sedimentation. A decrease in current velocity occurs here as the water flows

from the narrow channel situated north of Cornwall Island into a wider area. In the fluvial sector

along the western end of Cornwall Island, current velocities reach over 1.0 m/s, and, as a result,

fine suspended matter cannot settle out easily. In the vicinity of Pilon Island, there is a reduction in

velocity and a proportional decrease in carrying capacity, resulting in sedimentation of SS. The low

accumulation rates for the traps moored in Lake St. Lawrence show that the location of the LSL

station was not conducive to sedimentation of large quantities of SS, not even after it was relocated

in December 1995.

5.1.1 SS collected versus solid load of the St. Lawrence River

If no other processes are involved, a direct relationship can normally be observed between

the quantity of SS transported by the St. Lawrence and the quantity collected in sediment traps

moored in sedimentation basins. To assess this relationship, the amount of SS collected at the

different sampling sites can be correlated with the load transported by the river during the trap

deployment period. To estimate the quantity of SS carried by the St. Lawrence (MSt-L), the

discharge (Q) is multiplied by the SS concentration in the water column (S) and by the trap

deployment period (t):

MSt-L = Q S t (2)

where Q is expressed in m3/s, S in kg/m3, t in seconds and MSt-L in kg. For precise calculations,

daily data on river discharge at Cornwall (Moses Saunders Dam and Eisenhower Lock) and the SS

concentration in the study area are required. However, only the discharge data are available for the

study area. For the SS concentration, fragmentary data had to be used, consisting of historical data

and bimonthly data collected in 1995–96 under the SLC mass balance project (Cossa et al., 1998).

52

These data were used to develop estimates of SS concentrations for several sampling periods,

taking into account the prevailing discharge rates during the periods concerned and the

observations of divers (water transparency, presence of macrophytes). While this procedure

obviously entails a greater margin of error than if daily SS concentration values had been available,

this exercise was considered worthwhile since the goal was to determine whether there were any

major differences in the situations at the different sampling stations. Estimates of the suspended

solids load carried by the St. Lawrence during the five sediment-trap deployment periods between

March 1996 and July 1997 are presented in Table 7. The results of the correlation analyses

performed between these loads and the quantities of SS collected at the PILON Station and the

three stations in Lake Saint-François are shown in Table 8. The LSL and TCTI stations were not

used in the calculations because the information on the amounts collected by level (upper vs. lower

trap) was incomplete. Similarly, the July–September 1997 period was not included in the

calculations because discharge rates for the St. Lawrence were not available for September, when

the calculations were done.

Table 7 Suspended load transported by the St. Lawrence during trap-deployment periods

Sampling period

Variable

March–July 1996

July–Sept. 1996

Sept.–Nov. 1996

Nov. 1996–Feb. 1997

Feb.–May 1997

May–July 1997

Mean discharge (m3/s) 7921 8239 8072 8090 8704 9274

SS (mg/L) 1.2 1.4 1.2 0.6 0.8 2.0

Deployment period by station (d)

125 to 139 42 57 111 to 115 75 to 78 53

Load transported by the river by number of days (103 mt)

103 to 114 42 48 47 to 48 45 to 47 83

Theoretical quantity of SS (g) passing through traps when current velocity is 10 cm/s

390 to 433 152 177 173 to 179 156 to 162 275

Theoretical quantity of SS (g) passing through traps when current velocity is 20 cm/s

780 to 865 305 355 345 to 358 311 to 323 550

53

Based on the data used, the suspended load transported by the St. Lawrence River ranged

from 42 000 mt to 114 000 mt, depending on the sampling period and time of year. A correlation

analysis showed that the SFS station differed from the others in that the SS quantities collected

there were not correlated with the loads transported by the St. Lawrence (Table 8). At the three

other stations, the correlation coefficients r varied between 0.87 and 0.95, with a significance level

p below 0.03, whereas at the SFS station, the coefficients were lower than 0.59, with a significance

level above 0.20 (Table 8).

Table 8 Correlation between the quantity of SS carried by the St. Lawrence and the quantity

collected in sediment traps

Lower traps Upper traps

Station n r p n r p

PILON 6 0.87 0.025 6 0.90 0.013

SFN 6 0.89 0.016 6 0.91 0.012

SFC 6 0.95 0.003 6 0.94 0.005

SFS 6 0.34 0.510 6 0.59 0.218

Note: Significant results are underlined.

These results can be interpreted as indicative of a direct relationship between the load

transported by the main flow of the St. Lawrence and the SS collected in traps at the three stations

that show a significant correlation. The absence of correlation at the SFS station may be due to

local hydrodynamic and biological processes which have a more marked effect at this site. The

large quantities of SS collected in traps at the SFS station, particularly in the lower traps, indicate

that it probably captures a considerable amount of SS deriving from sediment resuspension in the

shallow littoral zones of the upstream part of Lake Saint-François. In addition, the tributaries on the

south shore (Grasse, Raquette, St. Regis and Salmon rivers), which are not regulated and transport

up to 4 mg/L of SS (Germain and Janson, 1984), may represent an appreciable input in the vicinity

of the SFS station. Finally, macrophyte build-up on the traps may, during certain periods of the

54

year, partially block the openings through which SS enters, thus reducing rates of deposition in the

traps. Observations made by divers revealed that the traps at the SFS station, notably the lower

ones, were at times (in November and February) completely covered with a layer of macrophytes

several centimetres thick.

The theoretical quantity of SS that passed through the traps during the five deployment

periods of the study was computed to determine the percent recovery at the different stations in

Lake Saint-François. This calculation was performed using the SS concentrations shown in Table 7

and based on the assumption that SS concentrations do not vary from one location to another in the

study area. The volume of water that passed through the traps was calculated for current velocities

of 10 cm/s (SFN) and 20 cm/s (SFC and SFS) and openings with a total area of 3.0 cm2. The

theoretical quantities of SS that were obtained are shown in the lower part of Table 7. By linking

these quantities with the wet volumes collected at the three Lake Saint-François stations (Table 5),

the following recovery percentages were derived: 17 ± 5% at the SFN station (lower and upper

traps), 14 ± 4% at SFC (lower and upper traps), 20 ± 8% at SFS (upper trap), and 25 ± 14% at SFS

(lower trap). Although these figures are not very precise due to the lack of precise data on SS

concentrations in the river near the mooring sites and on fluctuations in velocity, they nonetheless

corroborate the unique dynamics at the SFS station. The higher and more variable percentages of

SS recovery at this station suggest the presence of another source of SS in addition to the river’s

discharge, which may be attributed to the tributaries and episodes of resuspension.

In the river environment, suspended solids are not evenly distributed in the water column.

The vertical concentration profile depends on the size of the suspended particles and the prevailing

dynamic processes in the watercourse (Kenny, 1985; Tassone et al., 1993). In a sand-dominated

environment, the SS concentration increases markedly approaching the river bottom, whereas, in a

silt-dominated context, the profile is almost linear (Tassone et al., 1993). Where resuspension of

bottom sediment occurs, a vertical gradient can be observed for both the SS concentration and the

grain-size composition (Kenney, 1985).

The data collected in Lake Saint-François, in a sector dominated by clayey silt, indicate

that a large fraction of the material trapped at the SFS station derives from resuspension in the

shallow zones upriver. Owing to the pattern of sedimentation at this station, not only is a higher

amount of SS recovered, but the lower traps systematically collect larger quantities than do the

55

upper traps, with a few exceptions that are attributable to fouling by macrophytes during the fall

(tables 5 and 6).

A grain-size distribution analysis was performed on 30 SS samples collected between July

1996 and November 1997 (Table 9). None of the samples contained particles within the gravel

fraction. The samples contained 52.5 ± 5.0% silt, 43.8 ± 3.7% clay and 3.3 ± 2.7% sand, on

average. Using descriptive statistics, the variability of the grain-size distribution results was based

on three aspects: vertical spatial variability (upper traps/lower traps), horizontal spatial variability

(sampling stations) and temporal variability (deployment period). In keeping with what is generally

observed in a fluvial environment (Tassone et al., 1993), the results of the analyses of vertical

variability indicated that the sand content was slightly higher in the lower traps than in the upper

ones: 4.1% versus 2.0% (Table 10). For the two other grain-size fractions, there was less than a 2%

difference between the upper and lower traps.

The statistics on horizontal variability generally showed that there was slightly more sandy

material at TCTI and PILON than at the Lake Saint-François stations, which is consistent with their

geographic location. However, owing to the small sample sizes, a strong conclusion cannot be

made about the minor differences between the stations or even the seasonal variations. Overall, it

can be concluded that the grain-size composition of the SS is fairly similar over time and space.

5.1.2 Wind regime

The wind contributes to the dynamics of river and lake systems because wind stress acting

on the water surface imparts energy to the underlying water mass. This generates currents and

waves of varying amplitude, and a water surface slope ranging from a few millimetres to tens of

centimetres can be created (Forrester, 1983). In a shallow zone of a lake or river, such wind-

induced changes in the system’s hydrodynamics can cause disturbances in the flow regime and the

sediment regime. The greater the energy imparted to the water by the wind, the greater these

disturbances will be. Hence, the greater the wind speed (V), the longer it blows (T) and the greater

the distance it blows over the water surface unobstructed (fetch, F), the more waves it will generate

that are likely to disturb the substrate at an increasing depth and cause resuspension of surficial

sediment (U.S. ACERC, 1973).

56

Table 9 Grain-size composition of SS

Grain-size composition (%)

Year Month Station Trap Sand Silt Clay

1997 February TCTI Upper 5.00 46.51 48.49 1996 July TCTI Upper 2.65 47.15 50.20 1997 July TCTI Lower 2.14 54.34 43.52 1997 September TCTI Lower 4.92 58.88 36.20 1997 November TCTI Lower 2.84 53.17 43.99

1997 February PILON Lower 11.93 42.92 45.14 1996 July PILON Upper 7.49 45.15 47.36 1997 July PILON Lower 6.82 51.10 42.08 1997 September PILON Lower 1.94 50.24 47.82 1996 November PILON Upper 3.79 52.28 43.93 1997 November PILON Lower 5.24 41.44 43.32

1997 February SFN Lower 3.77 53.14 43.09 1997 May SFN Upper 0.08 57.21 42.71 1996 July SFN Upper 0.56 56.61 42.83 1997 July SFN Upper 0.48 55.25 44.26 1997 September SFN Lower 0.99 52.15 46.86

1997 February SFC Lower 1.01 51.88 47.11 1997 May SFC Lower 3.17 60.03 36.80 1996 July SFC Lower 4.38 57.28 38.34 1997 July SFC Lower 5.64 52.15 42.21 1997 September SFC Lower 4.20 49.47 46.33 1996 November SFC Upper 0.95 50.25 48.80 1997 November SFC Lower 1.27 52.57 46.16

1997 February SFS Upper 0.13 56.25 43.62 1997 May SFS Lower 1.99 57.77 40.24 1996 July SFS Upper 0.61 62.49 36.90 1997 July SFS Upper 0.12 55.20 44.68 1997 September SFS Lower 4.85 47.31 47.84 1996 November SFS Lower 6.45 47.93 45.62 1997 November SFS Lower 4.68 57.69 37.63

57

Table 10 Statistics on grain-size composition of SS

Grain-size composition (%)

Category Subcategory Statistics Sand Silt Clay

Height above bottom 2.0 m (upper) Mean 2.0 53.1 44.9 Standard deviation 2.4 5.1 3.5 Minimum 0.1 45.2 36.9 Maximum 7.5 62.5 50.2 % variation 118.4 9.6 7.9 Sample size 11 11 11

1.0 m (lower) Mean 4.1 52.2 43.2 Standard deviation 2.5 4.9 3.7 Minimum 1.0 41.4 36.2 Maximum 11.9 60.0 47.8 % variation 61.6 9.4 8.5 Sample size 19 19 19

Station TCTI Mean 3.5 52.0 44.5 Standard deviation 1.2 4.6 4.9 Minimum 2.1 46.5 36.2 Maximum 5.0 58.9 50.2 % variation 34.4 8.9 10.9 Sample size 5 5 5

PILON Mean 6.2 47.2 44.9 Standard deviation 3.2 4.2 2.1 Minimum 1.9 41.4 42.1 Maximum 11.9 52.3 48.0 % variation 50.9 8.9 4.6 Sample size 6 6 6

SFN Mean 1.2 54.9 44.0 Standard deviation 1.3 2.0 1.6 Minimum 0.1 52.2 42.7 Maximum 3.8 57.2 46.9 % variation 113.0 3.6 3.5 Sample size 5 5 5

SFC Mean 2.9 53.4 43.7 Standard deviation 1.8 3.6 4.3 Minimum 1.0 49.5 36.8 Maximum 5.6 60.0 48.8 % variation 59.5 6.7 9.8 Sample size 7 7 7

SFS Mean 2.7 54.9 42.4 Standard deviation 2.4 5.1 3.9 Minimum 0.1 47.3 36.9 Maximum 6.5 62.5 47.8 % variation 89.7 9.3 9.1 Sample size 7 7 7

58

Table 10 (continued) Statistics on grain-size composition of SS

Grain-size composition (%)

Category Subcategory Statistics Sand Silt Clay

Sampling March to July 1996 Sample size 6 6 6 period Minimum 0.6 45.2 36.9 Maximum 7.5 62.5 50.2 Mean 3.1 53.7 43.1 Standard deviation 2.6 6.6 5.1 % variation 82.8 12.2 11.8

February to May 1997 Sample size 3 3 3 Minimum 0.1 57.2 36.8 Maximum 3.2 60.0 42.7 Mean 1.7 58.3 39.9 Standard deviation 1.3 1.2 2.4 % variation 72.9 2.1 6.1

May to July 1997 Sample size 5 5 5 Minimum 0.1 51.1 42.1 Maximum 6.8 55.3 44.7 Mean 3.0 53.6 43.4 Standard deviation 2.7 1.7 1.1 % variation 89.4 3.1 2.4

July to September 1997 Sample size 5 5 5 Minimum 1.9 50.2 47.8 Maximum 4.9 58.9 47.8 Mean 3.4 51.6 45.0 Standard deviation 1.6 4.0 4.4 % variation 47.7 7.7 9.9

September to November 1996 and

Sample size

7

7

7

September to Minimum 1.0 41.4 37.6 November 1997 Maximum 6.5 57.7 48.8 Mean 3.6 50.8 44.2 Standard deviation 1.9 4.7 3.2 % variation 52.5 9.3 7.2

November 1996 to Sample size 5 5 5 February 1997 Minimum 0.1 42.9 43.1 Maximum 11.9 56.3 48.5 Mean 4.4 50.1 45.5 Standard deviation 4.2 4.8 2.0 % variation 95.6 9.6 4.5

59

The phenomenon of resuspension in a lake environment has been studied by Somlyody

(1981), Carper and Bachmann (1984), Bengtsson and Hellstörm (1992), Hawley and Lesht (1992),

Evans (1994), Lick et al. (1994), and Hawley et al. (1996). Resuspension becomes important when

the wind speed exceeds a threshold of between 20 and 30 km/h. However, not all wind conditions

are likely to induce reworking of the bottom, and resuspension studies require a knowledge of the

wind regime in the study area and of the morphological characteristics of the fluvial zone that is

likely to be affected by the wind is also necessary. In this study, the available sedimentological data

are not precise enough to justify a detailed statistical study of the wind and wave regime. Wind-

velocity data gathered at the Saint-Anicet station and calculations of the fetch at different sites in

the study area were used to determine the characteristics (height, wavelength) of the strongest

waves that might potentially be generated during storm periods and to estimate the maximum water

depth in which fine, non-cohesive sediment could be resuspended by wave action.

In the study area, the wind blows constantly, with a mean daily velocity varying between

5 km/h and 30 km/h (Figure 18), and hourly pulses sometimes exceeding 50 km/h (Appendix 4).

The wind conditions are sufficient to generate local waves of varying amplitudes that can affect

shallow sectors of the river and resuspend surficial sediment. In the present case, we set out to

determine whether the wind could cause the resuspension of contaminated sediment in the

Cornwall area, near the site of the Courtaulds and Domtar industrial plants and around Pilon

Island, as well as in the Massena area, near the GM and Reynolds plants. The entire area between

the mouth of the Raquette River and Christatie Island is also a source of concern in this regard

(Figure 4).

A total of 15 533 hourly observations of wind speed and direction, recorded from mid-

September 1994 to late December 1996, were analysed for different directions in the wind rose to

determine the percentage of exceedance for wind speeds between 0 and 50 km/h. Many fetch

calculations were performed using the method described in Section 5.1.3. Wind directions were

selected so as to compute the effective fetches for all the river sections mentioned in the previous

paragraph. To study the waves that might potentially affect the north shore of the St. Lawrence, the

range of winds covering azimuths 40º to 300º (east, west and south quadrants) was used, whereas

the range covering azimuths 235º to 110º (east, west and north quadrants) (Figure 19) was

employed for the south shore.

0

10

20

30

40

21/0

9/19

94

10/1

2/19

94

28/0

2/19

95

19/0

5/19

95

07/0

8/19

95

26/1

0/19

95

14/0

1/19

96

03/0

4/19

96

22/0

6/19

96

10/0

9/19

96

29/1

1/19

96

17/0

2/19

97

08/0

5/19

97

Date (1994-97)

Vite

sse

moy

enne

(km

/h)

21/09 10/12 28/02 19/05 07/08 26/10 14/01 03/04 22/06 10/09 26/11 17/02 08/051994 1995 1996 1997

Date (1994–97)

Figure 18 Mean daily wind velocity at the Saint-Anicet station

Mea

n ve

loci

ty (k

m/h

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

> 0 > 10 > 20 > 30 > 40 > 50

Vitesse du vent (km/h)

Pour

cent

age

(%)

Toutes directions

Directions 240 à 110 ° vrai

Directions 40 à 300 ° vrai

Saint-Anicet StationTotal number of recordings: 15 533

Figure 19 Percent occurrence relative to wind speed

All directions

Directions 240 to 110 degrees true

Directions 40 to 300 degrees true

Wind speed (km/h)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

62

The study area is nearly always subjected to wind stress since the wind blows (all

directions) more than 94% of the time (Figure 19 and Appendix 4). This figure falls to 48% for

winds greater than 10 km/h, to 15% for winds exceeding 20 km/h, and to just over 6% for high

winds over 25 km/h. A fairly similar pattern can be observed for azimuths 40–300º and azimuths

240–110º, although the percentages are much smaller for wind speeds below 10 km/h. Given that

strong winds will generate waves that are likely to affect the water column over a depth of a few

metres, the percentages calculated for winds exceeding 25 km/h may appear negligible. However,

it is important to remember that 6%, on an annual basis, represents a total of 525.6 hours, or almost

22 full days. These winds are observed mostly in fall and winter, and percent occurrences are

therefore much higher (see Section 5.1.4).

5.1.3 Wave regime

Waves, whether generated by wind or by passing ships (wake waves), play a key role in

coastal processes and phenomena related to sediment dynamics in shallow water (Wiegel, 1964;

Bascom, 1980; Leeder, 1982). In deep water, surface oscillation produces the circular movement of

water molecules. In places where the bottom rises high enough to affect wave motion, this

movement becomes elliptical, resulting in a horizontal back and forth motion. This back and forth

motion can displace surficial sediments. Heezen and Hollister (1964) provided critical velocity

values for the erosion and deposition of sediment particles of different sizes (Table 11).

Currents with a velocity of 25 cm/s have the ability to transport clay, silt, sand and gravel

particles up to 1 mm in diameter. Currents travelling at a speed of 10 cm/s can carry in suspension

particles 0.5 mm in diameter, and currents of 0.5 cm/s can carry fine sand 0.1 mm in diameter. To

erode these same materials, however, higher speeds are required: 7 cm/s for unconsolidated silt

(10 µm), 15 cm/s for fine sand and 30 cm/s for coarse sand. Currents greater than 1.0 m/s are

necessary to erode clays and silts (Table 11).

Since the suspended solids that settle out in the study area are composed of 95% materials

belonging to the clay and silt fractions (particle size < 62 µm; Wentworth, 1922), and that

observations of underwater divers found that surficial sediment at the mooring sites is not

cohesive, but rather easily reworked, we can consider that the surficial sediment in shallow zones

may be resuspended with bottom speeds on the order of 12 cm/s to 15 cm/s. Therefore, it was

63

necessary to determine the characteristic wave height likely to result from the wind conditions

described above, and calculate current velocities near the water bottom at different water depths.

Table 11 Velocity values for the erosion and deposition of sediment particles

Sedimentary material Bottom speed (cm/s)

Type Size (mm) Deposition Erosion

Gravel 10 1

< 30 < 25

>100 > 50

Sand 0.5 0.1

< 10 < 0.5

> 30 > 15

Silt Cohesive silt

0.01 0.01

< 0.01 --

> 7 > 100

Clay Cohesive clay

0.002 0.002

-- --

> 3 > 150

Source: Adapted from Heezen and Hollister, 1964.

Calculating the characteristic height (H) of waves in deep water calls for three variables:

wind speed (V), wind duration (t) and fetch (F). However, in a fluvial environment where the fetch

is reduced, and wave growth limited, and where lack of water depth affects wave propagation, as in

the study area, the wave period (T) and characteristic wave height can be calculated using a

formula that considers only wind speed and fetch, but that includes depth (U.S. ACERC, 1973):

T = 2πV/g · 1.2 tanh [ 0.833 ( gh/ V2 ) 0.375 ]

tanh {[ 0.077 ( gF / V2 ) 0.25 ] / tanh [ 0.833 ( gh/ V2 ) 0.375 ] } (3)

H = V2 /g · 0.283 tanh [ 0.530 ( gh / V2 ) 0.75 ] tanh { [ 0.0125 ( gF / V2 ) 0.42 ] / tanh [ 0.530 ( gh / V2 ) 0.75 ] } (4)

64

where T = period in seconds

V = wind speed in m/s

g = gravitational acceleration = 9.81 m/s2

h = water depth (m)

F = fetch in metres.

Where the fetch is limited, as is the case in the study area, wind-generated waves are

limited and, to best represent this effect in formulas (3) and (4), the effective fetch (Feff) should be

used. A method for calculating effective fetch was first developed in the early 1960s (U.S. ACE,

1962). This method integrates the distances over which the wind can blow unobstructed at intervals

of 6 degree angles, 42 degrees on either side of the main wind direction. The effective fetch (Feff) is

calculated with the following formula:

Feff = � Xi Cos αi / � Cos αi

(5)

where Xi represents the central radial projection (or wind direction) of the distance in metres in a

given direction and αi the angle in degrees from the central radius (Figure 20). After the

completion of studies on the St. Lawrence River and the reservoirs of the La Grande complex in

the 1980s by researchers from Laval University, a modification of this method was proposed by

Desjardins and Ouellet (1984). It involves the use of angles spaced 3 degrees apart instead of 6,

and considering successive arcs of 6°, 12°, 18° and so on up to 42° on either side of the central

radius. The effective fetch is thus derived from the mean value of 15 calculated values plus half the

standard deviation. This methodology was adopted in the present study.

The next step is to determine whether the study area is a deep-, intermediate- or shallow-

water environment with respect to its h/L ratio — that is, its relative depth, calculated by dividing

water depth (h) by wavelength (L). A deep-water environment is defined as one where the h/L ratio

> ½, an intermediate one as 1/20 < h/L < ½, and shallow-water conditions exist where h/L < 1

/20

(Bascom, 1980). Thus, for a wavelength of 10 m, a water depth of 7 m would be considered deep, a

depth of 4 m intermediate, and 40 cm shallow.

65

0 6000 12 000

Scale in metres

Source: U.S. ACE, 1962.

Figure 20 Effective fetch calculation method

Wind direction

Coast

Cen

tral

rad

ius

units

66

To describe the wave environment in a coastal zone, the wavelength is first computed for

deep water (L�) using the following formula (Wiegel, 1964; Komar, 1976):

L� = g T2 / 2π (6)

Then, depending on whether the water depth makes the environment an intermediate- or shallow-

water environment, the wavelength is recalculated using one of the following equations:

Intermediate water: L = L� [ tanh ( π / L� ) ]0.5 (7)

Shallow water: Lsh = T / (g h)0.5 (8)

where h represents water depth. Once the wavelength has been determined, the horizontal velocity

generated by the oscillatory motion of the waves can be computed with the following formula:

Uh = π H / T sinh (2πh / L) (9)

where H represents wave height, T wave period, L wavelength calculated using Equation (7) or

Equation (8), and h water depth.

The wave regime in the study area was analysed by first computing the effective fetch at

the Reynolds, GM, Courtaulds and Domtar sites and around Pilon, Thompson and Christatie

islands (Figure 2). To calculate the maximum potential height of wind-generated waves, effective

fetches were calculated at every 12° angle between 0° and 360°, and mean fetches were calculated

for the azimuths considered for the wind regime, or 40–300° and 240–110°.

The results of these calculations are shown in Table 12 and Appendix 6. They indicate

that the maximum effective fetch is between 2 to 3 km in the sector upstream of the study area

(Cornwall, Massena, Pilon Island), while it reaches 14–15 km in the area around Thompson and

Christatie islands. In terms of the different sites examined, the mean effective fetch varies from

0.3 km to 1.2 km in the former (upstream) sector, and from 2.6 km to 5.4 km in the latter

(downstream) (Table 12).

67

Table 12 Effective fetch for different sites in the study area

Maximum effective fetch

Site

Azimuths (degrees true)

Mean effective fetch (km) Azimuth

(degrees true) Length (km)

Reynolds 40º to 300º 240º to 110º

0.6 ± 0.6 1.0 ± 0.4 72º 1.9

GM 40º to 300º 240º to 110º

0.5 ± 0.7 0.8 ± 0.6 276º 2.2

Domtar 40º to 300º 240º to 110º

0.5 ± 0.5 0.3 ± 0.6

252º 2.3

Courtaulds 40º to 300º 240º to 110º

0.8 ± 0.8 0.6 ± 0.9 84º 3.1

Pilon Island 40º to 300º 240º to 110º

1.2 ± 0.3 1.0 ± 0.5 240º 2.2

Thompson Island 40º to 300º 240º to 110º

4.6 ± 3.8 5.4 ± 4.1 36º 15.4

Christatie Island 40º to 300º 240º to 110º

2.6 ± 3.2 5.0 ± 4.0 36º 14.3

Characteristic wave heights were subsequently calculated by considering effective fetches

of between 0.5 km and 15.0 km. As for the wind, various studies have shown that wind speeds of

between 25 km/h and 30 km/h mark a critical threshold for resuspension of surficial sediment in

the aquatic environment (Somlyody, 1981; Carper and Bachmann, 1984; Bengtsson and Hellström,

1992). Calculations were therefore performed for wind speeds of 15 km/h, 28 km/h, 40 km/h and

45 km/h. The complete results are presented in Appendix 7; the main points of the analysis are

shown in Table 13.

Considering that horizontal speeds of 10 cm/s to 15 cm/s on the water bottom can cause

the resuspension of fine sediment (fine sand, silt and unconsolidated clay particles) in the shallow

zones in the study area, the waves generated by winds of 15 km/h cannot, in all likelihood, rework

surficial sediment markedly in water depths more than one-half metre, in the immediate vicinity of

Cornwall–Massena (Table 13). In this same sector, winds of 28 km/h produce waves that are likely

to affect the bottom up to a depth of approximately 1 m and winds of 40 km/h up to 1.5 m deep.

Downstream, in the area of Thompson and Christatie islands, the depths that can be affected by the

68

same wind conditions are greater by some 30 cm. Occasionally, when a northeasterly storm with

winds of 45 km/h and higher strikes in the area, the waves generated can affect the bottom up to a

depth of 2.0 to 2.5 m.

Table 13 Characteristics of waves generated in the study area

Water depth (m) at which horizontal velocity exceeds

Effective fetch (km)

Wind speed (km/h) 10 cm/s 15 cm/s 20 cm/s 30 cm/s 40 cm/s 50 cm/s

1 15 0.3 0.2 -- -- -- -- 28 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.1 -- -- 40 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.1 -- 45 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 -- 2 15 0.4 0.2 -- -- -- -- 28 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.1 -- -- 40 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.1 -- 45 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.2 -- 3 15 0.5 0.3 -- -- -- -- 28 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.2 -- -- 40 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.1 -- 45 1.8 1.4 1.1 0.6 0.2 -- 5 15 0.6 0.3 -- -- -- -- 28 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.2 -- -- 40 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.5 0.1 -- 45 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.6 0.2 -- 7 15 0.7 0.4 -- -- -- -- 28 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.2 -- -- 40 2.0 1.5 1.1 0.5 0.1 -- 45 2.2 1.7 1.3 0.7 0.2 -- 10 15 0.8 0.4 -- -- -- -- 28 1.6 1.1 0.8 0.2 -- -- 40 2.1 1.6 1.2 0.6 0.2 -- 45 2.4 1.8 1.4 0.7 0.2 -- 15 15 0.9 0.5 -- -- -- -- 28 1.7 1.2 0.8 0.2 -- -- 40 2.3 1.7 1.3 0.6 0.2 -- 45 2.5 1.9 1.4 0.7 0.3 --

69

Based on these results, wave action is a mechanism that is likely to resuspend sediment

where the water is less than 2 m deep. This depth characterizes the central portion of the study area,

between Cornwall Island to the west and Thompson and Cedres basins to the east (Figure 21). The

estimated surface area of these shallow sectors is 32 km2 to 35 km2. It should be noted that in the

immediate vicinity of Cornwall–Massena, only a littoral band a few dozen to a few hundred metres

wide is vulnerable to this phenomenon. A wind speed of 28 km/h (15 knots) — a speed observed

just over 4% of the time at the Saint-Anicet station — was selected to represent conditions

inducing sediment resuspension.

5.1.4 Gales

The pattern of variation in wind velocity at the Saint-Anicet station exhibits a seasonal

component (Figure 18). The mean daily wind speed rarely exceeds 15 km/h in summer, whereas it

frequently exceeds 25 km/h in fall and winter. Storms with extreme winds occur mostly in the fall

and early winter, and only rarely in summer. These storm events have a marked influence on the

aquatic environment, generating wind currents and, in some cases, a sloping of the water surface by

piling (Forrester, 1983).

To assess the influence of gales on the quantity and quality of SS collected in sediment

traps, we looked at the number of hours during which wind speed exceeded 28 km/h for all the trap

deployment periods and for the two ranges of wind directions, azimuths 240–110º and azimuths

40–300º, selected as being the most representative for the Massena and Cornwall sectors,

respectively (Table 14 and Figure 22). However, the wind information for January 31 to March 25

of each year was excluded to account for the effect of ice cover during winter. When the ice cover

is complete or nearly complete, the wind has no effect on the water surface, thus preventing

sediment resuspension by the wind.

The wind field with speeds greater than 28 km/h shows marked seasonal variations

(Figure 22). This seasonal pattern is fairly similar for both ranges of direction considered, with

such gusts occurring most frequently in fall and winter. Storms are thus likely to affect

hydrodynamic processes on both sides of the river. Substances like mercury (north shore) and

PCBs (south shore) can be remobilized if resuspension of contaminated sediments occurs during

such events.

LÉGENDECornwall

Massena

Saint-Anicet

Bassin Lancaster

Bassin Thompson

Pointe Dupuis

Bassin aux Cèdres

Île Hamilton

Île Cornwall

Île Colquhoun

Île Saint-Régis

0 - 2 mètres

2 - 6 mètres

6 - 10 mètres

10 - 26 mètres4 km0

Figure 2 : Bathymétrie de la zone d’étude

������

������ ����� � �����

� ��� � �� � �� � � ��

Christatie Island

Thompson Island

Pilon Island

Des Cèdres Basin

Thompson Basin

Lancaster Basin

Hamilton Island

Dupuis Point

Colquhoun Island

St. Regis IslandCornwall Island

0–2 metres2–6 metres6–10 metres10–26 metres

LEGEND

Saint-Anicet

Figure 21 Shallow zone (0–2 m) where resuspension of surficial sediments is likely to occur with wind speeds of 28 km/h

Cornwall

Massena

Zone where sedimentresuspension is possible

71

Table 14 Number of hours between two samplings where wind speed exceeded 28 km/h

Wind speed over 28 km/h

Azimuths 240–110° Azimuths 40–300°

Date of sampling

Duration of deployment (d)

Number of hours

Percentage of time

Number of hours

Percentage of time

November 2–3, 1994 43 13 1.3 26 2.6 December 21, 1994 47–48 91 7.9 101 8.8 March 9, 1995 77 31 3.2 43 4.4 June 6, 1995 89 47 2.8 51 3.0 July 4–6, 1995 28–30 6 0.9 6 0.9 August 9–10, 1995 30–32 2 0.3 2 0.3 September 5–7, 1995 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 October 3–4, 1995 27–28 2 0.4 2 0.4 November 8–9, 1995 33–35 48 5.8 65 7.6 December 5–8, 1995 29–30 31 4.6 45 6.7 March 14–28, 1996 71–85 41–69 3.7 68–91 5.4 July 30–31, 1996 125–139 52 1.8 63 2.1 September 10–11, 1995 42 4 0.4 9 1.0 November 6–7, 1996 57 19 1.5 25 1.9 Feb. 26–March 1, 1997 111–115 93 3.4 115 4.2 May 14–15, 1997 7578 61 3.3 74 4.0 July 7–8, 1997 5355 29 2.2 37 2.9

Based on the principle that high autumn winds are capable of mixing the water column

enough to resuspend contaminated sediment in shallow river zones, we can hypothesize that this

phenomenon will have repercussions downstream, where the suspended solids settle out. This

should affect not only the amount of SS collected, but also the concentrations of the contaminants

that are remobilized. To verify this, the quantities of SS collected during each sampling trip (Table

5) and the mercury and PCB concentrations measured in the SS (tables 7 and 8) were correlated

with the number of hours during which wind gusts exceeded 28 km/h in the interval between each

sampling period (Table 14). The results of the correlations are presented in Table 15.

0

3

6

9

12

15

S94

O N D J 95 F M A M J J A S O N D J 96 F M A M J J A S

Mois (1994-96)

Pour

cent

age

(%)

Wind from all directions: Saint-Anicet station

Figure 22 Percentage of time wind exceeded 28 km/h

S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S 1994 1995 1996

Month (1994–96)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

73

Table 15 Correlation between the quantity of SS collected in traps, contaminant concentrations and

the number of hours during which the wind speed exceeded 28 km/h Lower traps Upper traps

Station Wind direction n r p n r p

Quantity of SS

PILON (40–300º) 6 0.24 0.643 6 0.14 0.783

SFN (40–300º) 6 0.62 0.186 6 0.69 0.127

SFC (40–300º) 6 0.23 0.660 6 0.32 0.539 (240–110º) 6 0.27 0.612 6 0.37 0.475

SFS (240– 110º) 6 0.82 0.048 6 0.66 0.153 (40–300º) 6 0.80 0.058 6 0.64 0.171

Mercury concentration

PILON (40–300º) - - - 7 0.33 0.473 (240–110º) 7 0.31 0.497

SFN (40–300º) - - - 10 0.57 0.087 (240–110º) 10 0.62 0.054

SFC (40–300º) 13 0.20 0.505 - - - (240–110º) 13 0.07 0.829 - - -

SFS (40–300º) - - - 13 0.09 0.773 (240–110º) - - - 13 0.79 0.001

PCB concentration

PILON (240–110º) 5 0.47 0.432 - - - (40–300º) 5 0.46 0.441 - - -

SFN (240–110º) 12 0.08 0.799 - - - (40–300º) 11 0.07 0.831 - - -

SFC (240–110º) - - - 14 0.20 0.505 (40–300º) - - - 13 0.02 0.934

SFS (240–110º) 13 0.77 0.002 - - - (240–110º) * 11 0.92 0.0001 - - - (40–300º) 13 0.79 0.001 - - -

Note: The significant analyses are underlined.

* The data from December 1995 and March 1996 were excluded for this analysis.

74

At the stations on the north shore (PILON and SFN), the quantities of SS collected in

traps were not correlated with wind events. Only the SFS station showed a slightly significant

correlation (p = 0.048) for the lower traps. Similarly, the correlations between mercury

concentrations in the SS and the wind were weak and non-significant for the two stations on the

north shore and for the SFC station. However, a significant correlation was noted at the SFS

station, for winds in the 240–110º range. PCB concentrations were correlated with the wind only

at the SFS station, where both ranges of wind direction yielded fairly similar coefficients. At the

latter station, the correlation was recomputed by excluding the PCB data from December 1995

and March 1996, which appeared to show abnormally high contaminant levels. The results

yielded a correlation coefficient of r = 0.92 and a significance level of p < 0.0001, a highly

significant correlation. All the results appear to be cosistent, since they show that the SFS station,

located on the south shore of Lake Saint-François, is greatly affected by wind action and by

sediment resuspension (Table 15). Assuming that the SS coming from upstream (i.e. Lake

Ontario) is contaminated by mercury and PCBs at levels similar to those observed at the LSL

station, sedimentation of these suspended solids in troughs in Lake Saint-François will not

contribute substantially to contamination in the study area. Therefore, the concentrations

measured at stations in Lake Saint-François should not vary greatly. However, the spatial and

temporal variations observed in the present study indicate that sources of contamination do exist

downstream from the LSL station, whether the inputs come from tributaries of the St. Lawrence,

industrial effluents or resuspension of surficial sediment. At the TCTI, PILON and SFS stations,

the highest mercury and PCB levels are usually recorded in winter. This is also true for PCBs at

the LSL station, although the PCB levels there are the lowest recorded in the study area. Aside

from the effects associated with sediment resuspension, the volatility of slightly chlorinated PCB

isomers (containing two to four chlorine atoms), which diminishes in winter, could explain why

higher PCB concentrations are observed at this time of year (Cossa et al., 1998). Nonetheless, the

abnormally high PCB levels recorded in December 1995 and March 1996 at the SFS station

cannot be explained easily without an input of PCB contaminated SS. An analysis of conductivity

data from the SFS station and of discharge data on the Grasse, Raquette, and St. Regis rivers

showed that these high levels of PCBs could be related, in part, to the marked increase in flow

rates in these rivers in January 1996, only a few weeks after the end of dredging operations in the

75

Massena sector (Lepage et al., in press). At the GM site, this work ended with the removal of

steel sheet-piles in late November 1995 and the capping of a zone still containing contaminated

sediment in late December. The work undertaken by ALCOA in the Grasse River also ended in

late December 1995. The completion of these operations and leaching of newly reworked

sediment (Grasse River) by an increased runoff may explain how slightly more contaminated SS

were found in the area of the SFS station.

Overall, the results of the different analyses reveal a significant correlation between the

solid discharge of the St. Lawrence and the quantities of SS collected in the sediment traps at

stations on the north shore of the study area, namely PILON, SFN and SFC. No such correlation

was found at the SFS station, on the south shore of Lake Saint-François (Table 8). However, this

was the only station where there was a significant, albeit weak, correlation between the wind and

the amount of SS deposited in the lower traps, those located one metre above the bottom. None of

the other analyses showed a significant correlation between wind and SS quantity (Table 15).

Only the SFS station yielded significant correlations between the wind and the mercury

and PCB concentrations measured in SS. In the case of mercury, only winds in the 240–110º

range showed a significant correlation; for PCBs, both wind ranges were correlated. The

significance levels obtained (p < 0.002) for these analyses indicate a high degree of correlation.

Only one other analysis, mercury at the SFN station with winds in the 240–110º range, exhibited

a correlation approaching the level of significance p = 0.05.

These results provide additional support for the hypothesis that resuspension of

contaminated sediment in the upstream part of Lake Saint-François contributes to contamination

of the fluvial sector where the SFS station was set up. In addition to wind episodes, fluctuations

in the fluvial discharge must be considered as a factor with the potential to resuspend sediment

and to explain some of the high concentrations of contaminants observed in winter at the different

sampling stations. Fluctuations in the discharge of south shore tributaries are observed regularly

during periods of flooding and in winter. These tributaries are already recognized as contributing

to the SS load transiting Lake Saint-François. Increased velocity due to heavy and sudden

discharges are thus likely to cause the leaching and resuspension of surficial sediment, whether

contaminated or not, which, in turn, settles out near the mouths of tributaries during low-water

periods. As for the St. Lawrence River, despite the fact that its discharge is regulated, variations

76

of over 1000 m3/s are noted occasionally over eight- to ten-day intervals, as occurred in January

and February 1995 (Figure 17). Such variations could cause the resuspension of unconsolidated

sediment in the Cornwall–Massena region, where the river cross-section is less than 10 000 m2.

5.2 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF PCB AND MERCURY CONTAMINATION

To determine the likely sources of the PCBs contained in the SS samples from Lake

Saint-François, the PCB isomers found in the samples were compared with those in Aroclors

1242, 1248, 1254 and 1260 (Manchester-Neesvig and Andren, 1989) and various Aroclor

mixtures — that is, A1242-A1248, A1248-A1254, A1242-A1248-A1254 and A1248-A1254-

A1260 (figures 23 and 24). The PCB isomers from the study area were also compared with those

detected in an SS sample taken from Lake Ontario in the early 1980s (Oliver and Niimi, 1988).

Since Aroclors tend to have unique signatures, correlation analyses were used to deduce which

Aroclors or mixture of Aroclors best matched the PCBs contained in our samples.

The results of the analyses showed that Aroclors 1242 and 1260, where considered the

sole source of contamination, were not significantly correlated with the samples in the present

study (Table 16 and Appendix 8). However, significant correlations were obtained for the north

shore of the study area (LSL, TCTI, PILON and SFN stations) for Aroclor 1254, whereas in the

middle of Lake Saint-François (SFC) Aroclors 1254 and 1248 were present, and on the south

shore (SFS), Aroclor 1248 was dominant. As for mixtures of Aroclors, significant correlations

were observed at all stations sampled: the mixtures A1248-A1254 and A1248-A1254-A1260

were dominant everywhere except at SFS, where the mixtures A1242-A1248 and A1242-A1248-

A1254 also showed significant correlations.

In general, Aroclor 1254 is dominant on the north shore of the study area (LSL before

November 1995, TCTI, PILON) and Aroclor 1248 on the south shore (SFS). At the SFN and SFC

stations, the two Aroclors are significantly correlated (r > 0.7 and p < 0.05) most of the time, but

A1254 is dominant at SFN and A1248 at SFC. An examination of the temporal variations in the

correlation coefficients was used to track changes in the relationship between the PCBs present in

SS samples from the present study (Aroclors 1248 and 1254) and in the sample from Lake

Ontario (figures 25 to 27).

77

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0

10

20

3040

50

60

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Pour

cent

age

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

010

20

3040

50

60

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Isomère

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Isomère

Figure 23 Typical distribution of PCB isomers in SS samples collected in this study

LSL

SFCTCTI

SFSPILON

SFN

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

Isomer Isomer

78

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Isomère

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Isomère

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

A1242 A1248

A1254 A1260

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

Isomer Isomer

Figure 24 Typical distribution of PCB isomers in Aroclors

79

Table 16 Correlation between PCB isomers at the sampling stations, one sample from Lake Ontario and mixtures of Aroclors

Station Correlation (r > 0.70; p < 0.05)

Absence of correlation (r < 0.70; p > 0.05)

Lake Ontario

A1254 Mixture A1248-54-60 Mixture A1248-54

A1242 A1248 A1260 Mixture A1242-48 Mixture A1242-48-60

LSL - before November 1995 - after November 1995

A1254 Mixture A1248-54-60

Mixture A1248-54 Lake Ontario Mixture A1248-54 A1248 Mixture A1248-54-60 Mixture A1242-48-60 Lake Ontario

A1242 A1248 A1260

Mixture A1242-48 A1242 A1254 A1260 Mixture A1242-48

TCTI and PILON Mixture A1248-54-60 Mixture A1248-54 Mixture A1242-48-54 A1254 Lake Ontario

A1242 A1248 A1260 Mixture A1242-48

SFN and SFC Mixture A1248-54-60 Mixture A1248-54 Mixture A1242-48-54 A1254 A1248 LSL Lake Ontario

A1242 A1260, Mixture A1242-48

SFS Mixture A1242-48 Mixture A1248-54 Mixture A1242-48-54 Mixture A1248-54-60 A1248 LSL Lake Ontario (before November 1995)

A1242 A1254 A1260 Lake Ontario (after November 1995)

80

At the SFN station, the coefficients r showed no particular temporal trend. The PCB

composition at this station was significantly correlated with that of Aroclors 1248 and 1254: the

best correlations were generally obtained with the second Aroclor (Figure 25 and Appendix 8).

The PCBs at the SFN station were strongly correlated with those at the LSL station and with the

sample from Lake Ontario, which suggests a close relationship between the SS trapped on the

north shore of Lake Saint-François and the SS that originates from Lake Ontario or settles out in

Lake St. Lawrence. A very different situation was seen at the SFS station — specifically, highly

significant correlations for Aroclor 1248, but not for Aroclor 1254. In addition, a gradual change

was noted at this site; this change became accentuated as of October 1995 and resulted in a

marked increase in the discrepancy between the two Aroclors (Figure 26). Consequently, the

relationship between the samples from the SFS station and the sample from Lake Ontario, which

were significantly correlated until October 1995, became non-significant thereafter. In the central

part of Lake Saint-François, at the SFS station, the situation was midway between that of the SFN

and SFS stations: the correlations with Aroclors A1248 and A1254 and with the sample from

Lake Ontario were nearly always significant (Appendix 8).

In Lake St. Lawrence, the results were subdivided into two groups: 1) samples collected

up to November 1995, and 2) samples collected after November 1995 (Figure 27). The station

was physically moved a distance of six kilometres in November 1995, a situation which justifies

this treatment of the data. The results show that moving the station may have had an effect on the

characteristics of the SS collected there. Before November 1995, the PCBs present at this station

showed a high correlation with Aroclor 1254 and with the sample from Lake Ontario, but not

with Aroclor 1248. Only 4 samples collected after November 1995 were analysed, but the results

show a reversed situation. Aroclor 1248 was significantly correlated instead of Aroclor 1254.

Despite this change, the relationship between the LSL samples and the Lake Ontario sample

persisted, except in March 1996. This suggests that the small bay where the LSL station has been

located since November 1995, despite the very low PCB levels recorded there, maybe more

affected by the presence of Aroclor 1248 compared to the former LSL site. From this it could be

concluded that the location of the LSL station prior to November 1995 was a better reference site

for assessing the presence of Lake Ontario waters. However, the temporal changes involving

81

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

O94

N D J F95

M A M J J A S O N D J F96

M A M J J A S O N D

Coe

ffic

ient

r

A1248

A1254

p = 0.05

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

O94

N D J F95

M A M J J A S O N D J F96

M A M J J A S O N D

Mois (1994-96)

Coe

ffic

ient

r

L. Ont.

LSL

p = 0.05

Figure 25 Temporal vatiation in the coefficient r a) Correlation between SFN samples, A1248 and A1254 b) Correlation between SFN, LSL and Lake Ontario samples

A

B

1994 1995 1996

1994 1995 1996

Month (1994–96)

Coe

ffic

ient

rC

oeff

icie

nt r

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

82

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

O94

N D J F95

M A M J J A S O N D J F96

M A M J J A S O N D

Coe

ffic

ient

r

A1248

A1254

p = 0.05

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

O94

N D J F95

M A M J J A S O N D J F96

M A M J J A S O N D

Mois (1994-96)

Coe

ffic

ient

r

L. Ont.

LSL

p = 0.05

Figure 26 Temporal variation in the coefficient r a) Correlation between SFS samples, A1248 and A1254 b) Correlation betwen SFS, LSL and Lake Ontario samples

A

B

1994 1995 1996

1994 1995 1996

Month (1994–96)

Coe

ffic

ient

rC

oeff

icie

nt r

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

83

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

O94

N D J F95

M A M J J A S O N D J F96

M A M J J A S O N D

Coe

ffic

ient

r

A1248

A1254

p = 0.5

Relocation of LSL stationin November 1995

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

O94

N D J F95

M A M J J A S O N D J F96

M A M J J A S O N D

Mois (1994-96)

Coe

ffic

ient

r

L. Ont.

p = 0.05

Figure 27 Temporal variation of the coefficient r a) Correlation between LSL samples, A1248 and A1254 b) Correlation between LSL and Lake Ontario samples

A

B

1994 1995 1996

1994 1995 1996

Month (1994–96)

Coe

ffic

ient

rC

oeff

icie

nt r

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Relocation of LSL stationin November 1995

84

correlations with Aroclors 1248 and 1254 at the different sampling stations could also reflect a

much larger-scale fluctuation in the St. Lawrence. This fluctuation may be linked to the river’s

low runoff and may have fostered the influence of local PCB sources in 1996.

The predominant PCB mixture used in the Massena sector industries consisted mainly of

Aroclor 1248, in contrast with the PCB sources in Lake Ontario, which were primarily mixtures

of Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260 (Bush and Kadlec, 1995; Sokol et al., 1995; Vanier et al.,

1996). The results of the correlation analyses in this study are therefore consistent with the earlier

findings indicating that the southern part of Lake Saint-François has been affected by the

industrial discharges from the Massena region. On the north shore, which is influenced by the

industrial region of Cornwall, Aroclors 1248 and 1254 are both present, and the correlations with

the samples from Lake St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario are highly significant.

Although the time series compiled so far are too short to allow us to make a firm

conclusion, the temporal variations in the correlation coefficients suggest an interannual influence

associated with the fluvial discharge of the St. Lawrence River. The data that have been collected

since November 1995 do not rule out a possible impact from the dredging operations conducted

in Massena during that year. Since that period of time, the predominance of Aroclor 1248 has

slightly increased on the south shore of Lake Saint-François. In addition, the fact that the LSL

station was moved upstream poses a problem in terms of interpreting the results obtained for this

reference site. It is not possible to determine whether the changes in the correlation coefficients

are due to this move or are linked to a larger-scale change affecting the entire study area. The low

number of samples analysed has also to be accounted for. A longer time series should help to

remove this uncertainty. The results of the work done between 1997 and 1999 will be useful in

this regard.

6 Conclusion

The data collected and analysed to date in the Cornwall–Massena region, in Lake Saint-

François, indicate that sediment transport is influenced by variations in the suspended load carried

by the St. Lawrence River. The southern part of Lake Saint-François seems to be especially

affected by wind storms that could cause resuspension of surficial sediment in shallow zones

(< 2 m). In addition, the tributaries on the south shore, namely the Grasse, Raquette, St. Regis and

Salmon rivers, have the potential to affect the south shore of Lake Saint-François and make a

substantial contribution to the suspended load during periods of peak flow, especially in winter.

The SS collected at the SFN station, on the north shore of the lake, shows a significant

correlation with the isomeric signature of Aroclor 1254 and with the corresponding distribution in

the samples from the LSL station and from Lake Ontario. This suggests that the PCBs contained in

the SS collected at SFN may be associated, at least in part, with incoming Great Lakes waters. On

the south shore of Lake Saint-François, at the SFS station, suspended solids are correlated with

Aroclor 1248, attesting to the importance of local sources of contamination.

In view of the short duration of the times series of data on SS sedimentation and

contamination, it was important to continue the sampling effort until the end of the project, in

1999. The data collected between 1997 and 1999 will contribute to delineate more effectively the

sources of contamination affecting the study area and the hydrodynamic processes involved in

contaminant transport. Samples of surficial sediment were collected in the vicinity of the

contaminated sites in Massena during summer 1997. Analyses of these samples will make it

possible to more precisely determine the source of the contaminated sediment found in Lake Saint-

François. The SS collected in February 1997 and February 1998 will provide an update on the high

PCB levels measured in SS at the SFS station in December 1995 and March 1996. This additional

information is needed before we can rule out the influence of the termination of the dredging

operations in Massena in 1995 on these elevated concentrations. In 1998, sampling frequency was

reduced to four collections of SS per year, in February, May, July and November. In 1999, one

sampling event took take place in May; at which time the LTSS sampling concluded. It would

certainly be worthwhile to perform other SS sampling a few months after the completion of all the

86

dredging operations in the Massena sector, to verify whether PCB levels have dropped along the

south shore of Lake Saint-François — something which has not yet happened.

With regard to the current meter component of the project, the S4 current meters were

removed in December 1996 after being deployed two full years. On the whole, the data from the

four current meters yielded results of mediocre quality owing to undue fluctuations in current

velocity and direction, and in light transmission, probably related to the presence of aquatic

vegetation. Only selected variables (mean current speeds and direction, and water conductivity)

were useful in the context of this study. Redeployment of the instruments is not recommended.

87

References

Anderson, J. 1990. St. Lawrence River Environmental Investigations, Volume 4: Assessment of Water and Sediment Quality in the Cornwall Area of the St. Lawrence River, 1985. Great Lakes Section, Water Resources Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Bascom, W. 1980. Waves and Beaches: The Dynamics of the Ocean Surface. Anchor Press/Doubleday: New York. 366 pp.

Bengtsson, L., and T. Hellström. 1992. Wind-induced resuspension in a small shallow lake. Hydrobiologia 241:163-172.

Bourbonnais, A. 1997. Personal communication. Ontario Hydro, Hydroelectric/Lake Ontario Plant, Cornwall.

Bush, B., and M. J. Kadlec. 1995. Dynamics of PCBs in the aquatic environment. Great Lakes Research Revue 1(2): 24-30.

Carignan, R. 1990. Étude préliminaire sur l’utilisation des radio-isotopes et autres marqueurs chronologiques pour déterminer la dynamique et le temps de résidence des sédiments du lac Saint-François. INRS-Eau for Environment Canada, Conservation and Protection, Quebec Region, St. Lawrence Centre.

Carignan, R., S. Lorrain, and K. R. Lum. 1994. A 50-yr record of pollution by nutrients, trace metals and organic chemicals in the St. Lawrence River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:1088-1100.

Carignan, R., and S. Lorrain (in press). Sediment dynamics in the fluvial lakes of the St. Lawrence River: Accumulation rates and residence time of mobile sediments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.

Carper, G. L., and R. W. Bachmann. 1984. Wind resuspension of sediments in a prairie lake. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:1763-1767.

Chow, V. T. 1959. Open-Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill: New York. 680 pp.

Coakley, J. P., J. C. Dionne, and D. Brodeur. 1989. Revue de la littérature et bibliograhie des processus géologiques et des sédiments du Saint-Laurent. NWRI Collection No. 89-07F, Environment Canada, National Water Research Institute, Canada Centre for Inland Waters. 58 pp.

Cossa, D, T.-T. Pham, B. Rondeau, B. Quémerais, S. Proulx, and C. Surette. 1998. Bilan massique des contaminants chimiques dans le fleuve Saint-Laurent. Scientific and

88

Technical Report ST-163. Environment Canada – Quebec Region, Environmental Conservation, St. Lawrence Centre. 258 pp.

Desjardins, L., and Y. Ouellet. 1984. Modèles numériques utilisés pour la conception des ouvrages maritimes. Proceedings of the Colloque sur la Simulation Numérique Appliquée au Domaine de la Ressource Hydrique. 52nd annual symposium of ACFAS, May 9 and 10, 1984, Laval University, Centre de Recherches sur l’Eau de l’Université Laval. pp. 187-224.

Désilets , L., and C. Langlois. 1989. Variation spatiale et saisonnière de la qualité de l’eau du fleuve Saint-Laurent. Environment Canada, Conservation and Protection, Quebec Region, St. Lawrence Centre. 144 pp.

Duncan, G. A., and G. G. Lahaie. 1979. Size Analysis Procedures used in the Sedimentology Laboratory. Environment Canada, National Water Research Institute, Hydraulics Division, Burlington, Ontario.

Duval, D. 1995. Manuel d’assurance et de contrôle de la qualité: Préliminaire. Environment Canada – Quebec Region, Conservation and Protection, St. Lawrence Centre.

Environment Canada. 1979. Analytical Methods Manual. Inland Waters Directorate, Water Quality Branch, Ontario Region.

Evans, R. D. 1994. Empirical evidence of the importance of sediment resuspension in lakes. Hydrobiologia 284:5-12.

Fay, D., and A. Eberhardt. 1996. “Future Options for Lake Ontario–St. Lawrence River Outflow Regulation.” In R. D. Needham and E. N. Novakowski (eds.), Sharing Knowledge, Linking Sciences: An International Conference on the St. Lawrence Ecosystem. University of Ottawa: Ottawa, Ontario. pp. 295–312.

Forrester, W. D. 1983. Canadian Tidal Manual. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Hydrographic Services, Scientific Information and Publications Branch. Ottawa. 138 pp.

Fortin, G, D. Leclair, and A. Sylvestre. 1994. Synthèse des connaissances sur les aspects physiques et chimiques de l’eau et des sédiments du lac Saint-François. Technical Report on Priority Intervention Zones 1 and 2. Environment Canada, Conservation and Protection, Quebec Region, St. Lawrence Centre. 144 pp.

Fortin, G., and D. Desrochers. 1990. Échantillonnage et caractérisation des sédiments du lac Saint-François, 1989. Services d’Interprétation Sismiques H.R. Inc. and Environnement Illimité Inc. for Environment Canada, Conservation and Protection, Quebec Region, St. Lawrence Centre. 42 pp. + 4 appendices.

Frenette, M., C. Barbeau, and J.-L. Verrette. 1989. Aspects quantitatifs, dynamiques et qualitatifs des sédiments du Saint-Laurent: Projet de mise en valeur du Saint-Laurent. Hydrotech

89

Inc. Consultants for Environment Canada and the Government of Québec. 185 pp. + 4 appendices.

Germain, A., and M. Janson. 1984. Qualité des eaux du fleuve Saint-Laurent de Cornwall à Québec (1977-1981). Environnement Canada, Direction générale des eaux intérieures, Service des relevés de qualité, région du Québec. 235 pp.

GE – General Electric. 1998. An Evaluation of the Feasibility of Environmental Dredging in the Upper Hudson River, including an Evaluation and Critique of Scenic Hudson’s Dredging Report. (Internet document: www.hudsonwatch.com/dredging1.html).

Gouvernement du Québec. 1985. Le Saint-Laurent : Ressource Prioritaire. Report on the Projet Saint-Laurent. Ministère du Conseil Exécutif, Secrétariat Général. 191 pp.

Gouvernement du Québec. 1994. Géologie du Québec. Ministère des Ressources Naturelles. 154 pp.

Hawley, N., and B. M. Lesht. 1992. Sediment resuspension in Lake St. Clair. Limnology and Oceanography 37(8): 1720-1737.

Hawley, N., X. Wang, B. Brownawell, and R. Flood. 1996. Resuspension of bottom sediments in Lake Ontario during the unstratified period, 1992-1993. Journal of Great Lakes Research 22(3): 707-721.

Heezen, B. C., and C. Hollister. 1964. Deep-sea current evidence from abyssal sediments. Marine Geology 1:41-174.

INRS-Eau – Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique-Eau. 1974. Étude du fleuve Saint-Laurent, tronçon Cornwall-Varennes : Synthèse des études 1972-73. Report to the Groupe de Travail Canada-Quebec sur le fleuve Saint-Laurent.

IJC – International Joint Commission. 1991. Review and Evaluation of the Great Lakes Remedial Action Plan Program 1991. Great Lakes Water Quality Board, Report to the International Joint Commission. 47 pp.

InterOcean Systems Inc. 1994a. S4 Current Meter Applications Software Users Guide, Version 2.72. San Diego, California.

InterOcean Systems Inc. 1994b. S4 Users Manual. 4th edition. San Diego, California.

Kenney, B. C. 1985. Sediment resuspension and currents in Lake Manitoba. Journal of Great Lakes Research 11(2): 85-96.

Komar, P. D. 1976. Beach Processes and Sedimentation. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 429 pp.

Landry B., and M. Mercier. 1992. Notions de Géologie. 3rd edition. Modulo Éditeur: Ville Mont-Royal. 565 pp.

90

Leeder, M. R. 1982. Sedimentology: Process and Product. George Allen & Unwin: London. 344 pp.

Lepage, S., J. Biberhofer, and S. Lorrain (in press). Sediment dynamics and the transport of suspended matter in the upstream area of Lake St. Francis. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.

Leliavsky, S. 1966. An Introduction to Fluvial Hydraulics. Dover Publications: New York. 257 pp.

Lick, W., J. Lick, and C. K. Ziegler. 1994. The resuspension and transport of fine-grained sediments in Lake Erie. Journal of Great Lakes Research 20(4): 599-612.

Lorrain, S., V. Jarry, and K. Guertin. 1993. Répartition spatiale et évolution temporelle des biphényles polychlorés et du mercure dans les sédiments du lac Saint-François: 1979-1989. Environment Canada, Conservation and Protection, Quebec Region, St. Lawrence Centre. 63 pp.

Lum, K. R. 1991. Transport des contaminants dans le fleuve et caractérisation des sédiments du lac Saint-François. Proceedings of workshops in the Symposium on the St. Lawrence Action Plan, October 9-10, 1990, Montreal.

Manchester-Neesvig, J. B., and A. W. Andren. 1989. Seasonal variation in the atmospheric concentration of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners. Environmental Science and Technology 23:1138-1148.

Moore, S. 1996. Guide de caractérisation des échantillons contaminés par des biphényles polychlorés: Document décrivant la problématique de l’analyse des BPC au Québec et proposant des eléments de solution. Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Faune du Québec, Direction des Laboratoires.

Morin, J. 1997. Personal communication. Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique-Eau, Québec.

Morin, J., P. Boudreau, and M. Leclerc. 1994. Restauration de l’ecosystème du Saint-Laurent, lac Saint-François : Les bases de la modélisation hydrodynamique. Research Report R-412. INRS-Eau, in collaboration with IREE, University of Ottawa. 48 pp. + 3 appendices.

Morin, J, M. Leclerc, Y. Secretan, and P. Boudreau (in press). Integrated two-dimensional macrophytes-hydrodynamics modeling, application to Lake Saint-François, St. Lawrence River. Journal of Hydraulic Research.

Nettleton, P. 1989. St. Lawrence River Environmental Investigations, Volume 5: Hydrodynamic and Dispersion Characteristics of the St. Lawrence River in the Vicinity of Cornwall-Massena. Unpublished manuscript. Environment Ontario, Toronto.

91

NYSDEC – New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1990. St. Lawrence River at Massena Remedial Action Plan - Stage 1. Prepared by NYSDEC, Great Lakes Section, Division of Water.

Occhietti, S. 1989. Géologie quaternaire de la sous-région de la vallée du Saint-Laurent et des Appalaches. In R. Fulton (ed.), Le Quaternaire du Canada et du Groenland. Commission géologique du Canada. pp. 374-407.

Oliver, B. G., and A. J. Niimi. 1988. Trophodynamic analysis of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners and other chlorinated hydrocarbons in the Lake Ontario ecosystem. Environmental Science and Technology 22:388-397.

Richard, M. R., M. E. Fox, and F. R. Pick. 1997. PCB concentrations and congener composition in macrophytes and sediments in the St. Lawrence River near Cornwall, Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research 23(3): 297-306.

Robichaud, A. 1998. Personal communication. Environment Canada, Scientific Services Branch.

Rondeau, B. 1993. Qualité des eaux du fleuve Saint-Laurent (1985-1990). Tronçon Cornwall-Québec. Environment Canada, Conservation and Protection, Quebec Region, St. Lawrence Centre. 150 pp. + 6 appendices.

Rondeau, B., D. Cossa, P. Gagnon, and L. Bilodeau (in press). Sources of suspended sediments transported in the St. Lawrence River. Hydrological Processes.

Sérodes, J. B. 1978. Qualité des sédiments de fond du fleuve Saint-Laurent entre Cornwall et Montmagny. Technical Report 15. Fisheries and Environment Canada, Regional Inland Waters Directorate for the Comité d’etude sur le fleuve Saint-Laurent. 467 pp.

Shepard, F. P. 1954. Nomenclature based on sand-silt-clay ratios. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 24(3): 151-158.

SLC – St. Lawrence Centre. 1997. The River at a Glance. Info-flash report on the state of the St. Lawrence River, St. Lawrence UPDATE series. Environment Canada – Quebec Region, Environmental Conservation, St. Lawrence Centre.

SLC and MENVIQ – St. Lawrence Centre and Ministère de l’Environnement du Québec. 1992. Interim Criteria for the Quality Assessment of St. Lawrence River Sediment. Environment Canada, Conservation and Protection, Quebec Region. 28 pp.

Sloterdijk, H. 1985. Substances toxiques dans les sédiments du lac Saint-François. Environment Canada, Quebec Region, Inland Waters Branch. 75 pp.

Sloterdijk, H. 1991. Mercury and organochlorinated hydrocarbons in surficial sediments of the St. Lawrence River (Lake St. Francis). Water Pollution Research Journal of Canada 26 (1): 41-60.

92

Sokol, R. C., C. M. Bethoney, and G. Y. Rhee. 1995. Effect of PCB concentration on reducive dechlorination and dechlorination potential in natural sediments. Water Research 29:45-48.

Somlyody, L. 1981. Modeling a Complex Environmental System: The Lake Balaton Study. WP-81-108, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria. Pp. 14-19.

St. Lawrence RAP Team. 1988. Remedial Action Plan for the Cornwall Area: Status Report on Environmental Conditions and Sources. Environment Canada, Environment Ontario and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 131 pp.

St. Lawrence RAP Team. 1992. Remedial Action Plan for the Cornwall-Lake St. Francis Area, Stage 1 Report: Environmental Conditions and Problem Definitions.

St. Lawrence RAP Team. 1995. Addendum (1988-1992) to the Stage 1 Report on the St, Lawrence River Remedial Action Plan (Cornwall-Lake St. Francis Area). Prepared by Geomatics Inc. for the St. Lawrence RAP Team. 66 pp + appendix.

St. Lawrence RAP Team. 1997. Remedial Action Plan for the St. Lawrence River (Cornwall) Area of Concern, Stage 2 Report: The Recommended Plan. 203 pp. + 7 appendices.

Tassone, B. L., F. Lapointe, and P. Zrymiak. 1993. Field Procedures for Sediment Data Collection. Volume 1: Suspended Sediment. Environnement Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service, Water Survey of Canada, Integrated Monitoring Branch, National Weather Services Directorate, Ottawa.

Tremblay, A. 1997. Caractérisation géochimique de la matière en suspension des principaux tributaires du Saint-Laurent entre Cornwall (Ontario) et Québec : Apport des éléments traces à l’étude de la provenance sédimentaire et à l’édification de traceurs. Master’s thesis (M. Sc.), Université du Québec, INRS-Géoressources. 168 pp. + 7 appendices.

U.S. ACE – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1962. Technical Memo No. 32. Beach Erosion Board, Washington.

U.S. ACERC – U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center. 1973. Shore Protection Manual. Washington.

U.S. EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. This is Superfund. (Internet document: http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfnd/ superfnd.htm).

U.S. EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998a. Superfund Post-Decision Plan. Reynolds Metals Superfund site, Massena, St. Lawrence County, New York. 16 pp.

U.S. EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998b. Superfund Post-Decision Plan. General Motors Superfund site, Massena, New York. 12 pp.

93

U.S. GS – United States Geological Survey. 1998. Historical Streamflow Daily Values. Water discharge and level data available from (Internet: http://water.usgs.gov/ public/realtime.html).

Vanier, C., M. Sylvestre, and D. Planas. 1996. Persistence and fate of PCBs in sediments of the St. Lawrence River. The Science of the Total Environment 192:229-244.

Verrette, J. L. 1990. Délimitation des principales masses d’eau du Saint-Laurent (Beauharnois à Québec). Les Consultants Hydriques for Environment Canada, Conservation and Protection, Quebec Region, St. Lawrence Centre.

Wentworth, C. K. 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. Journal of Geology 30: 377-392.

Wiegel, R. L. 1964. Oceanographical Engineering. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

532 pp.

Appendices

97

APPENDIX 1A

Concentration of total PCBs in SS

Concentration (µg/g)

Stations Date LSL TCTI PILON SFN SFC SFS

November 2–3, 1994 0.071 0.072 December 21, 1994 0.050 0.021 0.399 March 9, 1995 0.042 0.052 0.043 0.217 June 6, 1995 0.027 0.052 0.073 0.283 July 4–6, 1995 0.021 0.057 0.092 0.196 August 9–10, 1995 0.021 0.046 0.059 0.184 September 5–7, 1995 0.011 0.080 0.041 0.121 October 3–4, 1995 0.019 0.036 0.048 0.101 November 8–9, 1995 0.015 - 0.065 0.269 December 5–8, 1995 - 0.046 0.032 0.043 0.058 0.517 March 14–28, 1996 0.067 0.094 0.050 - 0.065 0.887 July 30–31, 1996 0.035 0.052 0.034 0.067 0.104 0.340 September 10–11, 1996 0.044 0.043 0.032 0.062 0.072 0.191 November 6–7, 1996 0.038 0.047 0.044 0.058 0.058 0.249

Statistics Mean (µg/g) 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.30 Standard deviation (µg/g) 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.20 Minimum (µg/g) 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.10 Maximum (µg/g) 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.89 Coefficient of variation (%) 50.2 33.8 18.9 21.0 32.6 65.9 Sample size 11 5 5 12 14 13

- Missing data.

98

APPENDIX 1B

Concentration of total mercury in SS

Concentration (µg/g)

Stations Date LSL TCTI PILON SFN SFC SFS

November 2–3, 1994 - - December 21, 1994 - - - March 9, 1995 - - - - June 6, 1995 - - 0.206 0.148 July 4–6, 1995 0.125 0.306 0.222 0.160 August 9–10, 1995 0.151 0.376 0.220 0.136 September 5–7, 1995 0.135 0.377 0.214 0.127 duplicate 0.134 October 3–4, 1995 0.150 0.361 0.223 0.135 duplicate 0.319 0.134 November 8–9, 1995 0.147 - 0.219 0.153 duplicate 0.205 December 5–8, 1995 - 1.440 0.261 0.363 0.199 0.150 duplicate 0.354 0.186 March 14–28, 1996 0.142 1.350 1.100 - 0.212 0.186 July 30–31, 1996 0.162 0.540 0.319 0.273 0.189 0.170 September 10–11, 1996 0.234 0.886 0.250 0.324 0.154 0.134 duplicate 0.724 November 6–7, 1996 0.194 0.818 0.327 0.367 0.217 0.139 duplicate 0.129 Feb. 26–March 1, 1997 0.179 1.680 0.372 0.293 0.201 0.153 May 14–15, 1997 0.165 1.350 0.288 0.276 0.197 0.149

Statistics Mean (µg/g) 0.17 1.15 0.46 0.33 0.20 0.15 Standard deviation (µg/g) 0.05 0.38 0.28 0.04 0.02 0.02 Minimum (µg/g) 0.13 0.54 0.25 0.27 0.15 0.13 Maximum (µg/g) 0.32 1.68 1.10 0.38 0.22 0.19 Coefficient of variation (%) 29.6 32.8 62.0 11.5 8.6 10.7 Sample size 13 7 8 11 15 15

- Missing data.

99

Station LSL - Lac Saint-Laurent

-180

-120

-60

0

60

120

180

Dir

ectio

n (d

eg. v

)

0

10

20

30

40

Vite

sse

(cm

/s)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Tem

péra

ture

(deg

. C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tra

nsm

issi

on (%

)

8,0

8,5

9,0

9,5

10,0

Prof

onde

ur (m

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

21/0

9/94

26/1

0/94

01/1

2/94

05/0

1/95

23/0

2/95

08/0

6/95

13/0

7/95

17/0

8/95

21/0

9/95

26/1

0/95

Date (1994-95)

Con

duct

ivité

(µS/

cm)

Données non corrigées pour la température

21/09 26/10 01/12 05/01 23/02 08/06 13/07 17/08 21/09 26/10

Date (1994-1995)

APPENDIX 2

Current meter series at the LSL, SFN, SFC and SFS stations

LSL station: Lake St. Lawrence

Date (1994–95)

Con

duct

ivity

(µS/

cm)

D

epth

(m)

T

rans

mis

sion

(%)

T

empe

ratu

re (º

C)

S

peed

(cm

/s)

Dir

ectio

n ( º

true

)

Data not corrected for temperature effects

100

Station LSL - Lac Saint-Laurent

-180

-120

-60

0

60

120

180

Dir

ectio

n (d

eg. v

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Vite

sse

(cm

/s)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Tem

péra

ture

(deg

. C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tra

nsm

issi

on (%

)

13,0

13,5

14,0

14,5

15,0

Prof

onde

ur (m

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

08/1

2/95

21/0

2/96

06/0

5/96

20/0

7/96

21/0

8/96

15/0

9/96

10/1

0/96

04/1

1/96

Date (1995-96)

Con

duct

ivité

(µS/

cm)

Données non corrigées pour la température

APPENDIX 2 (cont’d. 1)

LSL station: Lake St. Lawrence

12/08 21/02 06/05 20/07 21/08 15/09 10/10 04/11

Date (1995-1996)

Con

duct

ivity

(µS/

cm)

Dep

th (m

)

Tra

nsm

issi

on (%

)

Tem

pera

ture

(ºC

)

Spe

ed (c

m/s

)

D

irec

tion

( º tr

ue)

Date (1995–96)

Data not corrected for temperature effects

101

Station SFN - Lac Saint-François nord

-180

-120

-60

0

60

120

180

Dir

ectio

n (d

eg. v

)

0

10

20

30

40

Vite

sse

(cm

/s)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Tem

péra

ture

(deg

. C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tra

nsm

issi

on (%

)

9,0

9,5

10,0

10,5

11,0

Prof

onde

ur (m

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

21/0

9/94

26/1

0/94

30/1

1/94

03/0

2/95

19/0

5/95

05/0

7/95

09/0

8/95

13/0

9/95

18/1

0/95

22/1

1/95

Date (1994-95)

Con

duct

ivité

(µS/

cm)

Données non corrigées pour la température

21/09 26/10 01/12 05/01 23/02 08/06 13/07 17/08 21/09 26/10

Date (1994-1995)

APPENDIX 2 (cont’d. 2)

SFN station: Lake Saint-François North

Con

duct

ivity

(µS/

cm)

D

epth

(m)

T

rans

mis

sion

(%)

T

empe

ratu

re (º

C)

S

peed

(cm

/s)

Dir

ectio

n ( º

true

)

Date (1994–95)

Data not corrected for temperature effects

102

Station SFC - Lac Saint-François centre

-180

-120

-60

0

60

120

180

Dir

ectio

n (d

eg. v

)

0

40

80

120

160

Vite

sse

(cm

/s)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Tem

péra

ture

(deg

. C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tra

nsm

issi

on (%

)

13,0

13,5

14,0

14,5

15,0

Prof

onde

ur (m

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

21/0

9/94

26/1

0/94

30/1

1/94

03/0

2/95

19/0

5/95

05/0

7/95

09/0

8/95

13/0

9/95

18/1

0/95

22/1

1/95

Date (1994-95)

Con

duct

ivité

(µS/

cm)

Données non corrigées pour la température

APPENDIX 2 (cont’d. 3)

SFC station: Lake Saint-François Centre

21/09 26/10 01/12 05/01 23/02 08/06 13/07 17/08 21/09 26/10

Date (1994-1995)

Con

duct

ivity

(µS/

cm)

D

epth

(m)

T

rans

mis

sion

(%)

T

empe

ratu

re (º

C)

S

peed

(cm

/s)

Dir

ectio

n ( º

true

)

Date (1994–95)

Data not corrected for temperature effects

103

Station SFC - Lac Saint-François centre

-180

-120

-60

0

60

120

180

Dir

ectio

n (d

eg. v

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Vite

sse

(cm

/s)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Tem

péra

ture

(deg

. C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tra

nsm

issi

on (%

)

13,0

13,5

14,0

14,5

15,0

Prof

onde

ur (m

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

08/1

2/19

95

21/0

2/19

96

06/0

5/19

96

20/0

7/19

96

21/0

8/19

96

15/0

9/19

96

10/1

0/19

96

04/1

1/19

96

Date (1995-96)

Con

duct

ivité

(µS/

cm)

21/09 26/10 01/12 05/01 23/02 08/06 13/07 17/08 21/09 26/10

Date (1995-1996)

APPENDIX 2 (cont’d. 4)

SFC station: Lake Saint-François Centre

Con

duct

ivity

(µS/

cm)

D

epth

(m)

Tra

nsm

issi

on (%

)

Tem

pera

ture

(ºC

)

Spe

ed (c

m/s

)

D

irec

tion

( º tr

ue)

Date (1995–96)

Data not corrected for temperature effects

104

Station SFS - Lac Saint-François sud

-180

-120

-60

060

120

180

Dir

ectio

n (d

eg. v

)

0

10

20

30

40

Vite

sse

(cm

/s)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Tem

péra

ture

(deg

. C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tra

nsm

issi

on (%

)

7,0

7,5

8,0

8,5

9,0

Prof

onde

ur (m

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

21/0

9/94

26/1

0/94

01/1

2/94

05/0

2/95

20/0

5/95

06/0

7/95

10/0

8/95

14/0

9/95

19/1

0/95

23/1

1/95

Date (1994-95)

Con

duct

ivité

(µS/

cm)

Données non corrigées pour la température

APPENDIX 2 (cont’d. 5)

SFS station: Lake Saint-François South

21/09 26/10 01/12 05/01 23/02 08/06 13/07 17/08 21/09 26/10

Date (1994-1995)

Con

duct

ivity

(µS/

cm)

D

epth

(m)

Tra

nsm

issi

on (%

)

T

empe

ratu

re (º

C)

Spee

d (c

m/s

)

D

irec

tion

( º tr

ue)

Date (1994–95)

Data not corrected for temperature effects

105

Station SFS - Lac Saint-François sud

-180

-120

-60

0

60

120

180

Dir

ectio

n (d

eg. v

)

0

10

20

30

40

Vite

sse

(cm

/s)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Tem

péra

ture

(deg

. C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tra

nsm

issi

on (%

)

7,0

7,5

8,0

8,5

9,0

Prof

onde

ur (m

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

08/1

2/95

21/0

2/96

06/0

5/96

20/0

7/96

21/0

8/96

15/0

9/96

10/1

0/96

04/1

1/96

Date (1995-96)

Con

duct

ivité

(µS/

cm)

Données non corrigées pour la température

12/08 21/02 06/05 20/07 21/08 15/09 10/10 04/11

Date (1995-1996)

APPENDIX 2 (cont’d. 6)

SFS station: Lake Saint-François South

Con

duct

ivity

(µS/

cm)

D

epth

(m)

Tra

nsm

issi

on (%

)

Tem

pera

ture

(ºC

)

Spe

ed (c

m/s

)

D

irec

tion

( º tr

ue)

Date (1995–96)

Data not corrected for temperature effects

106

APPENDIX 3

Daily discharge of the St. Lawrence at Cornwall between September 21, 1994 and August 31, 1997

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

21/09/1994 7640.3 27/10/1994 7540.2 02/12/1994 7292.5 07/01/1995 6511.0 22/09/1994 7640.9 28/10/1994 7350.4 03/12/1994 7112.1 08/01/1995 6491.8 23/09/1994 7631.0 29/10/1994 7358.6 04/12/1994 7118.3 09/01/1995 6501.5 24/09/1994 7298.7 30/10/1994 7385.6 05/12/1994 7104.5 10/01/1995 6503.4 25/09/1994 7390.0 31/10/1994 7356.5 06/12/1994 7104.6 11/01/1995 6503.7 26/09/1994 7630.4 01/11/1994 7354.8 07/12/1994 7116.6 12/01/1995 6494.7 27/09/1994 7628.3 02/11/1994 7362.1 08/12/1994 7105.6 13/01/1995 6493.0 28/09/1994 7625.5 03/11/1994 7363.6 09/12/1994 7109.3 14/01/1995 6501.7 29/09/1994 7626.1 04/11/1994 7353.0 10/12/1994 7298.6 15/01/1995 6499.3 30/09/1994 7654.2 05/11/1994 7334.5 11/12/1994 7286.1 16/01/1995 6503.9 01/10/1994 7522.4 06/11/1994 7328.7 12/12/1994 7289.5 17/01/1995 6227.3 02/10/1994 7528.1 07/11/1994 7329.9 13/12/1994 7292.2 18/01/1995 6230.7 03/10/1994 7533.1 08/11/1994 7329.5 14/12/1994 7282.8 19/01/1995 6229.2 04/10/1994 7530.2 09/11/1994 7332.4 15/12/1994 7295.5 20/01/1995 6231.7 05/10/1994 7525.8 10/11/1994 7320.5 16/12/1994 7296.9 21/01/1995 6234.7 06/10/1994 7514.0 11/11/1994 7331.5 17/12/1994 7287.1 22/01/1995 6229.3 07/10/1994 7570.3 12/11/1994 7513.7 18/12/1994 7298.9 23/01/1995 6229.3 08/10/1994 7517.2 13/11/1994 7511.8 19/12/1994 7288.3 24/01/1995 6230.6 09/10/1994 7496.6 14/11/1994 7504.2 20/12/1994 7292.6 25/01/1995 6227.4 10/10/1994 7593.5 15/11/1994 7516.9 21/12/1994 7292.7 26/01/1995 6233.4 11/10/1994 7557.5 16/11/1994 7512.2 22/12/1994 7297.4 27/01/1995 6224.7 12/10/1994 7394.2 17/11/1994 7502.6 23/12/1994 7288.5 28/01/1995 6239.0 13/10/1994 7658.8 18/11/1994 7513.7 24/12/1994 7295.1 29/01/1995 6227.4 14/10/1994 7528.1 19/11/1994 7476.4 25/12/1994 7279.9 30/01/1995 6228.0 15/10/1994 7526.2 20/11/1994 7468.8 26/12/1994 7295.3 31/01/1995 6226.8 16/10/1994 7700.5 21/11/1994 7462.3 27/12/1994 7294.7 01/02/1995 6377.9 17/10/1994 7703.6 22/11/1994 7578.6 28/12/1994 7292.2 02/02/1995 6446.9 18/10/1994 7597.1 23/11/1994 7472.8 29/12/1994 7295.8 03/02/1995 6228.0 19/10/1994 7712.6 24/11/1994 7565.5 30/12/1994 7286.2 04/02/1995 6232.9 20/10/1994 7486.0 25/11/1994 7468.8 31/12/1994 7296.8 05/02/1995 6232.2 21/10/1994 7610.5 26/11/1994 7298.3 01/01/1995 7291.1 06/02/1995 6234.0 22/10/1994 7695.8 27/11/1994 7285.1 02/01/1995 7283.7 07/02/1995 6231.7 23/10/1994 7690.1 28/11/1994 7293.3 03/01/1995 7290.8 08/02/1995 6224.2 24/10/1994 7333.4 29/11/1994 7291.6 04/01/1995 7292.3 09/02/1995 6226.0 25/10/1994 7359.7 30/11/1994 7282.2 05/01/1995 7284.4 10/02/1995 6231.0 26/10/1994 7472.3 01/12/1994 7289.8 06/01/1995 7292.8 11/02/1995 6242.2

107

APPENDIX 3 (cont’d. 1)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

12/02/1995 6222.0 20/03/1995 7483.5 25/04/1995 6796.1 31/05/1995 6495.3 13/02/1995 6227.6 21/03/1995 7493.1 26/04/1995 6632.1 01/06/1995 6556.4 14/02/1995 6502.4 22/03/1995 7494.0 27/04/1995 6610.1 02/06/1995 6656.9 15/02/1995 6505.6 23/03/1995 7485.3 28/04/1995 6583.5 03/06/1995 6697.6 16/02/1995 6808.0 24/03/1995 7486.5 29/04/1995 6496.9 04/06/1995 6673.9 17/02/1995 6783.5 25/03/1995 7542.1 30/04/1995 6521.1 05/06/1995 6697.9 18/02/1995 7107.2 26/03/1995 7547.0 01/05/1995 6503.5 06/06/1995 6683.6 19/02/1995 7105.8 27/03/1995 7536.5 02/05/1995 6898.2 07/06/1995 6689.4 20/02/1995 7090.0 28/03/1995 7544.5 03/05/1995 6895.4 08/06/1995 6685.0 21/02/1995 7402.7 29/03/1995 7539.1 04/05/1995 6898.9 09/06/1995 6640.6 22/02/1995 7398.8 30/03/1995 7533.9 05/05/1995 6723.4 10/06/1995 6623.6 23/02/1995 7400.6 31/03/1995 7537.0 06/05/1995 6687.8 11/06/1995 6622.1 24/02/1995 7395.0 01/04/1995 7565.6 07/05/1995 6897.0 12/06/1995 6630.0 25/02/1995 7495.2 02/04/1995 7541.1 08/05/1995 6895.0 13/06/1995 6629.2 26/02/1995 7493.6 03/04/1995 7547.6 09/05/1995 6899.2 14/06/1995 6631.3 27/02/1995 7486.1 04/04/1995 7472.7 10/05/1995 6895.9 15/06/1995 6628.9 28/02/1995 7488.7 05/04/1995 7565.8 11/05/1995 6896.9 16/06/1995 6647.3 01/03/1995 7487.2 06/04/1995 7565.0 12/05/1995 6653.8 17/06/1995 6633.9 02/03/1995 7489.1 07/04/1995 7536.4 13/05/1995 6637.7 18/06/1995 6616.2 03/03/1995 7487.7 08/04/1995 7281.9 14/05/1995 6605.7 19/06/1995 6630.5 04/03/1995 7451.4 09/04/1995 7306.7 15/05/1995 6402.5 20/06/1995 6747.8 05/03/1995 7453.3 10/04/1995 7293.6 16/05/1995 6393.5 21/06/1995 6742.6 06/03/1995 7449.4 11/04/1995 7037.0 17/05/1995 6402.5 22/06/1995 6721.7 07/03/1995 7460.5 12/04/1995 7056.7 18/05/1995 6398.5 23/06/1995 6684.8 08/03/1995 7437.1 13/04/1995 7047.6 19/05/1995 6391.9 24/06/1995 6689.7 09/03/1995 7456.6 14/04/1995 6890.6 20/05/1995 6402.9 25/06/1995 6541.8 10/03/1995 7443.0 15/04/1995 6816.4 21/05/1995 6417.7 26/06/1995 6559.8 11/03/1995 7441.2 16/04/1995 7095.1 22/05/1995 6396.5 27/06/1995 6555.5 12/03/1995 7468.6 17/04/1995 7504.4 23/05/1995 6398.4 28/06/1995 6562.2 13/03/1995 7448.7 18/04/1995 7490.4 24/05/1995 6402.4 29/06/1995 6554.7 14/03/1995 7447.4 19/04/1995 6862.0 25/05/1995 6396.0 30/06/1995 6566.0 15/03/1995 7444.8 20/04/1995 6853.6 26/05/1995 6409.0 01/07/1995 6598.2 16/03/1995 7456.4 21/04/1995 6882.0 27/05/1995 6504.7 02/07/1995 6586.2 17/03/1995 7449.9 22/04/1995 6797.1 28/05/1995 6485.3 03/07/1995 6623.7 18/03/1995 7494.5 23/04/1995 6792.4 29/05/1995 6500.7 04/07/1995 6585.1 19/03/1995 7492.6 24/04/1995 6799.7 30/05/1995 6507.1 05/07/1995 6603.0

108

APPENDIX 3 (cont’d. 2)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

06/07/1995 6597.8 11/08/1995 6872.4 16/09/1995 6895.5 22/10/1995 7059.4 07/07/1995 6598.0 12/08/1995 6949.9 17/09/1995 6884.5 23/10/1995 7049.5 08/07/1995 6599.3 13/08/1995 6944.3 18/09/1995 6897.6 24/10/1995 7051.2 09/07/1995 6611.0 14/08/1995 6941.1 19/09/1995 6883.9 25/10/1995 7045.3 10/07/1995 6605.6 15/08/1995 6926.4 20/09/1995 6913.4 26/10/1995 7072.7 11/07/1995 6616.7 16/08/1995 6940.8 21/09/1995 7154.8 27/10/1995 7051.0 12/07/1995 6608.4 17/08/1995 6941.0 22/09/1995 7155.4 28/10/1995 7013.4 13/07/1995 6613.7 18/08/1995 6942.4 23/09/1995 6819.4 29/10/1995 6906.2 14/07/1995 6622.2 19/08/1995 6971.7 24/09/1995 6828.3 30/10/1995 7320.4 15/07/1995 6598.7 20/08/1995 6967.6 25/09/1995 6812.7 31/10/1995 7322.9 16/07/1995 6591.3 21/08/1995 6965.2 26/09/1995 6820.0 01/11/1995 6994.0 17/07/1995 6594.0 22/08/1995 6973.6 27/09/1995 6822.4 02/11/1995 7002.2 18/07/1995 6604.0 23/08/1995 6971.5 28/09/1995 6818.2 03/11/1995 7000.2 19/07/1995 6600.8 24/08/1995 6972.8 29/09/1995 6681.9 04/11/1995 7003.6 20/07/1995 6597.9 25/08/1995 6962.6 30/09/1995 6854.9 05/11/1995 7005.6 21/07/1995 6606.4 26/08/1995 6905.8 01/10/1995 6806.5 06/11/1995 7000.2 22/07/1995 6757.2 27/08/1995 6923.1 02/10/1995 6849.3 07/11/1995 7417.0 23/07/1995 6748.3 28/08/1995 6916.3 03/10/1995 6848.4 08/11/1995 7414.5 24/07/1995 6748.6 29/08/1995 6901.1 04/10/1995 6843.7 09/11/1995 7420.9 25/07/1995 6749.0 30/08/1995 6910.3 05/10/1995 6834.7 10/11/1995 7419.1 26/07/1995 6750.0 31/08/1995 6899.2 06/10/1995 6658.8 11/11/1995 7489.7 27/07/1995 6753.2 01/09/1995 6906.5 07/10/1995 6487.9 12/11/1995 7495.4 28/07/1995 6744.5 02/09/1995 6688.2 08/10/1995 6481.4 13/11/1995 7490.0 29/07/1995 6861.9 03/09/1995 6674.6 09/10/1995 6479.9 14/11/1995 7494.6 30/07/1995 6862.3 04/09/1995 6880.8 10/10/1995 6476.8 15/11/1995 7480.5 31/07/1995 6855.5 05/09/1995 7028.3 11/10/1995 6478.7 16/11/1995 7489.5 01/08/1995 6874.2 06/09/1995 7177.2 12/10/1995 6479.7 17/11/1995 7492.0 02/08/1995 6859.4 07/09/1995 7140.2 13/10/1995 6710.5 18/11/1995 7863.3 03/08/1995 6861.7 08/09/1995 7003.0 14/10/1995 6865.9 19/11/1995 7856.8 04/08/1995 6859.9 09/09/1995 6988.8 15/10/1995 6861.8 20/11/1995 7864.5 05/08/1995 6879.5 10/09/1995 6870.1 16/10/1995 6885.8 21/11/1995 7855.8 06/08/1995 6865.2 11/09/1995 6770.6 17/10/1995 7063.0 22/11/1995 7866.2 07/08/1995 6886.4 12/09/1995 6797.2 18/10/1995 7096.4 23/11/1995 7854.5 08/08/1995 6891.5 13/09/1995 6858.6 19/10/1995 7131.9 24/11/1995 7860.6 09/08/1995 6876.7 14/09/1995 6917.6 20/10/1995 7045.1 25/11/1995 8061.9 10/08/1995 6880.7 15/09/1995 6873.2 21/10/1995 7033.5 26/11/1995 8059.7

109

APPENDIX 3 (cont’d. 3)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

27/11/1995 7947.2 02/01/1996 7104.1 07/02/1996 7100.3 14/03/1996 7603.9 28/11/1995 7862.9 03/01/1996 7190.7 08/02/1996 7096.3 15/03/1996 7595.6 29/11/1995 8056.5 04/01/1996 7139.9 09/02/1996 7095.5 16/03/1996 7533.1 30/11/1995 8060.9 05/01/1996 6089.6 10/02/1996 7361.6 17/03/1996 7531.9 01/12/1995 8057.9 06/01/1996 6236.3 11/02/1996 7360.3 18/03/1996 7519.4 02/12/1995 8115.8 07/01/1996 6228.5 12/02/1996 7360.6 19/03/1996 7539.2 03/12/1995 8009.2 08/01/1996 6228.5 13/02/1996 7356.2 20/03/1996 7529.9 04/12/1995 7981.9 09/01/1996 6232.0 14/02/1996 7361.3 21/03/1996 7526.0 05/12/1995 8065.6 10/01/1996 6232.2 15/02/1996 7357.5 22/03/1996 7530.5 06/12/1995 8115.6 11/01/1996 6225.2 16/02/1996 7357.3 23/03/1996 7514.2 07/12/1995 8363.2 12/01/1996 6227.0 17/02/1996 7499.2 24/03/1996 7508.2 08/12/1995 8179.1 13/01/1996 6505.8 18/02/1996 7502.2 25/03/1996 7512.7 09/12/1995 7875.0 14/01/1996 6498.2 19/02/1996 7499.7 26/03/1996 7507.8 10/12/1995 8244.0 15/01/1996 6497.7 20/02/1996 7495.1 27/03/1996 7512.0 11/12/1995 8243.4 16/01/1996 6504.4 21/02/1996 7504.9 28/03/1996 7506.1 12/12/1995 7316.6 17/01/1996 6491.4 22/02/1996 7502.6 29/03/1996 7507.2 13/12/1995 6415.1 18/01/1996 6497.9 23/02/1996 7496.7 30/03/1996 7437.9 14/12/1995 6498.3 19/01/1996 6505.8 24/02/1996 7478.0 31/03/1996 7463.2 15/12/1995 6502.1 20/01/1996 6505.7 25/02/1996 7486.1 01/04/1996 7449.0 16/12/1995 6502.6 21/01/1996 6504.7 26/02/1996 7473.2 02/04/1996 7449.9 17/12/1995 6563.6 22/01/1996 6496.5 27/02/1996 7482.1 03/04/1996 7449.5 18/12/1995 6799.0 23/01/1996 6496.1 28/02/1996 7482.1 04/04/1996 7454.8 19/12/1995 6800.6 24/01/1996 6494.1 29/02/1996 7479.5 05/04/1996 7449.5 20/12/1995 6796.4 25/01/1996 6507.8 01/03/1996 7476.6 06/04/1996 7493.5 21/12/1995 6128.1 26/01/1996 6497.7 02/03/1996 7589.5 07/04/1996 7491.6 22/12/1995 6388.5 27/01/1996 6500.9 03/03/1996 7591.8 08/04/1996 7466.3 23/12/1995 6500.1 28/01/1996 6513.2 04/03/1996 7591.2 09/04/1996 7486.6 24/12/1995 6501.7 29/01/1996 6504.6 05/03/1996 7594.7 10/04/1996 7482.2 25/12/1995 6226.4 30/01/1996 6490.0 06/03/1996 7546.1 11/04/1996 7489.8 26/12/1995 6249.8 31/01/1996 6497.9 07/03/1996 7627.0 12/04/1996 7501.1 27/12/1995 6913.3 01/02/1996 6502.7 08/03/1996 7592.6 13/04/1996 7504.5 28/12/1995 7095.7 02/02/1996 6493.1 09/03/1996 7606.2 14/04/1996 7480.8 29/12/1995 7101.5 03/02/1996 6804.3 10/03/1996 7593.6 15/04/1996 7482.3 30/12/1995 7102.0 04/02/1996 6800.8 11/03/1996 7603.9 16/04/1996 7225.6 31/12/1995 7102.8 05/02/1996 6924.9 12/03/1996 7599.6 17/04/1996 7231.9 01/01/1996 7098.0 06/02/1996 7100.6 13/03/1996 7598.4 18/04/1996 7221.4

110

APPENDIX 3 (cont’d. 4)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

19/04/1996 7244.1 25/05/1996 8221.6 30/06/1996 8558.4 05/08/1996 8555.8 20/04/1996 7725.5 26/05/1996 8220.9 01/07/1996 8560.9 06/08/1996 8693.0 21/04/1996 7706.7 27/05/1996 8219.7 02/07/1996 8558.4 07/08/1996 8704.7 22/04/1996 7715.8 28/05/1996 8216.2 03/07/1996 8562.6 08/08/1996 8701.3 23/04/1996 7519.2 29/05/1996 8222.0 04/07/1996 8561.6 09/08/1996 8680.9 24/04/1996 7173.9 30/05/1996 8220.7 05/07/1996 8563.5 10/08/1996 8528.6 25/04/1996 7100.3 31/05/1996 8221.3 06/07/1996 8674.5 11/08/1996 8532.3 26/04/1996 6931.5 01/06/1996 8237.8 07/07/1996 8667.3 12/08/1996 8447.4 27/04/1996 6917.9 02/06/1996 8247.1 08/07/1996 8657.0 13/08/1996 8327.1 28/04/1996 7291.9 03/06/1996 8238.0 09/07/1996 8680.6 14/08/1996 8330.2 29/04/1996 7308.0 04/06/1996 8239.5 10/07/1996 8660.0 15/08/1996 8331.5 30/04/1996 7307.4 05/06/1996 8240.7 11/07/1996 8675.2 16/08/1996 8326.1 01/05/1996 7316.0 06/06/1996 8238.1 12/07/1996 8656.1 17/08/1996 8258.6 02/05/1996 7318.3 07/06/1996 8244.1 13/07/1996 8262.1 18/08/1996 8262.4 03/05/1996 7623.5 08/06/1996 8294.4 14/07/1996 8259.9 19/08/1996 8262.3 04/05/1996 7350.6 09/06/1996 8306.4 15/07/1996 8258.1 20/08/1996 8260.7 05/05/1996 7319.1 10/06/1996 8302.8 16/07/1996 8260.6 21/08/1996 8259.9 06/05/1996 7575.3 11/06/1996 8299.0 17/07/1996 8260.0 22/08/1996 8255.4 07/05/1996 7613.7 12/06/1996 8299.4 18/07/1996 8260.2 23/08/1996 8257.5 08/05/1996 7607.1 13/06/1996 8298.5 19/07/1996 8276.4 24/08/1996 8179.1 09/05/1996 7599.9 14/06/1996 8302.7 20/07/1996 8570.6 25/08/1996 8181.0 10/05/1996 7593.4 15/06/1996 8365.4 21/07/1996 8572.3 26/08/1996 8185.1 11/05/1996 7623.1 16/06/1996 8374.4 22/07/1996 8563.7 27/08/1996 8121.2 12/05/1996 7367.4 17/06/1996 8374.0 23/07/1996 8569.9 28/08/1996 8067.1 13/05/1996 6700.8 18/06/1996 8368.7 24/07/1996 8574.1 29/08/1996 8031.0 14/05/1996 6701.9 19/06/1996 8369.2 25/07/1996 8571.5 30/08/1996 8029.1 15/05/1996 7048.2 20/06/1996 8359.0 26/07/1996 8550.3 31/08/1996 8026.3 16/05/1996 7495.2 21/06/1996 8380.9 27/07/1996 8131.6 01/09/1996 8031.9 17/05/1996 7802.9 22/06/1996 8357.6 28/07/1996 8133.2 02/09/1996 8024.5 18/05/1996 7978.5 23/06/1996 8362.5 29/07/1996 8268.8 03/09/1996 7952.0 19/05/1996 8054.5 24/06/1996 8361.7 30/07/1996 8269.2 04/09/1996 7823.4 20/05/1996 8048.8 25/06/1996 8358.8 31/07/1996 8267.6 05/09/1996 7829.7 21/05/1996 8177.4 26/06/1996 8361.0 01/08/1996 8274.6 06/09/1996 7836.8 22/05/1996 8041.0 27/06/1996 8359.0 02/08/1996 8269.6 07/09/1996 7868.1 23/05/1996 8110.1 28/06/1996 8366.8 03/08/1996 8541.9 08/09/1996 7859.0 24/05/1996 8218.2 29/06/1996 8562.1 04/08/1996 8541.5 09/09/1996 7861.4

111

APPENDIX 3 (cont’d. 5)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

10/09/1996 7856.6 16/10/1996 8178.4 21/11/1996 8597.9 27/12/1996 9071.8 11/09/1996 7861.1 17/10/1996 8042.8 22/11/1996 8596.6 28/12/1996 9029.0 12/09/1996 7860.7 18/10/1996 7576.6 23/11/1996 8599.1 29/12/1996 9204.8 13/09/1996 7858.7 19/10/1996 7566.6 24/11/1996 8405.9 30/12/1996 9201.8 14/09/1996 7912.1 20/10/1996 7672.7 25/11/1996 8154.2 31/12/1996 9144.7 15/09/1996 7912.3 21/10/1996 7498.0 26/11/1996 8070.7 01/01/1997 8825.6 16/09/1996 7908.8 22/10/1996 7684.8 27/11/1996 8412.2 02/01/1997 9202.4 17/09/1996 7909.2 23/10/1996 7999.9 28/11/1996 8460.4 03/01/1997 9198.2 18/09/1996 7920.3 24/10/1996 8084.6 29/11/1996 8457.7 04/01/1997 9206.0 19/09/1996 8012.5 25/10/1996 8197.3 30/11/1996 8428.4 05/01/1997 9188.2 20/09/1996 7772.4 26/10/1996 8302.7 01/12/1996 8324.8 06/01/1997 9127.8 21/09/1996 7607.5 27/10/1996 8299.6 02/12/1996 8559.4 07/01/1997 9061.7 22/09/1996 8152.9 28/10/1996 8303.3 03/12/1996 8599.6 08/01/1997 8179.5 23/09/1996 7976.7 29/10/1996 8249.2 04/12/1996 8196.1 09/01/1997 6985.3 24/09/1996 8105.4 30/10/1996 8046.7 05/12/1996 8296.7 10/01/1997 6612.4 25/09/1996 8177.8 31/10/1996 8303.0 06/12/1996 8213.7 11/01/1997 6603.6 26/09/1996 8170.1 01/11/1996 8298.1 07/12/1996 8420.2 12/01/1997 6691.5 27/09/1996 8172.7 02/11/1996 8324.4 08/12/1996 8569.5 13/01/1997 6899.3 28/09/1996 8173.4 03/11/1996 8317.3 09/12/1996 8592.7 14/01/1997 6511.6 29/09/1996 8169.2 04/11/1996 8321.2 10/12/1996 8570.4 15/01/1997 6594.7 30/09/1996 8169.6 05/11/1996 8262.5 11/12/1996 8334.0 16/01/1997 6484.2 01/10/1996 8168.5 06/11/1996 7932.6 12/12/1996 7568.6 17/01/1997 6373.0 02/10/1996 8172.7 07/11/1996 7965.7 13/12/1996 7982.7 18/01/1997 6501.9 03/10/1996 8222.8 08/11/1996 8207.1 14/12/1996 8430.8 19/01/1997 6498.0 04/10/1996 8299.0 09/11/1996 8302.6 15/12/1996 8507.6 20/01/1997 6503.0 05/10/1996 7954.0 10/11/1996 8296.4 16/12/1996 8476.1 21/01/1997 6582.2 06/10/1996 8305.4 11/11/1996 8300.2 17/12/1996 8576.2 22/01/1997 6782.8 07/10/1996 8294.0 12/11/1996 8301.8 18/12/1996 8430.8 23/01/1997 6902.4 08/10/1996 8259.2 13/11/1996 8300.2 19/12/1996 8430.8 24/01/1997 6898.5 09/10/1996 8176.3 14/11/1996 8382.0 20/12/1996 8600.6 25/01/1997 6763.0 10/10/1996 8183.6 15/11/1996 8471.9 21/12/1996 8603.5 26/01/1997 6506.3 11/10/1996 8175.7 16/11/1996 8402.6 22/12/1996 8598.0 27/01/1997 6612.2 12/10/1996 8181.1 17/11/1996 8398.0 23/12/1996 8603.9 28/01/1997 6749.2 13/10/1996 8178.5 18/11/1996 8402.2 24/12/1996 8815.0 29/01/1997 6499.2 14/10/1996 8183.2 19/11/1996 8431.7 25/12/1996 9048.8 30/01/1997 6503.4 15/10/1996 8180.0 20/11/1996 8540.2 26/12/1996 8901.9 31/01/1997 6626.9

112

APPENDIX 3 (cont’d. 6)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

01/02/1997 6924.8 09/03/1997 9058.8 14/04/1997 9296.7 20/05/1997 8874.3 02/02/1997 7226.0 10/03/1997 9102.9 15/04/1997 9296.3 21/05/1997 8802.1 03/02/1997 7526.2 11/03/1997 9091.6 16/04/1997 9303.9 22/05/1997 8814.1 04/02/1997 7704.0 12/03/1997 9141.0 17/04/1997 9111.1 23/05/1997 9120.7 05/02/1997 7784.8 13/03/1997 9195.0 18/04/1997 9000.5 24/05/1997 9314.2 06/02/1997 7985.4 14/03/1997 9204.1 19/04/1997 8688.6 25/05/1997 9399.7 07/02/1997 8097.1 15/03/1997 9178.6 20/04/1997 8503.0 26/05/1997 9445.5 08/02/1997 8104.7 16/03/1997 9224.0 21/04/1997 8498.3 27/05/1997 9506.1 09/02/1997 8096.7 17/03/1997 9220.6 22/04/1997 8498.6 28/05/1997 9534.1 10/02/1997 8212.2 18/03/1997 9307.8 23/04/1997 8505.8 29/05/1997 9603.9 11/02/1997 8352.3 19/03/1997 9345.8 24/04/1997 8502.1 30/05/1997 9604.0 12/02/1997 8440.3 20/03/1997 9439.9 25/04/1997 8488.9 31/05/1997 9602.3 13/02/1997 8502.5 21/03/1997 9547.3 26/04/1997 8690.8 01/06/1997 9609.5 14/02/1997 8498.0 22/03/1997 9639.3 27/04/1997 8783.1 02/06/1997 9568.1 15/02/1997 8499.0 23/03/1997 9712.3 28/04/1997 8518.9 03/06/1997 9595.8 16/02/1997 8504.7 24/03/1997 9598.0 29/04/1997 8195.2 04/06/1997 9513.5 17/02/1997 8494.0 25/03/1997 8828.0 30/04/1997 8001.8 05/06/1997 9484.9 18/02/1997 8552.1 26/03/1997 8579.8 01/05/1997 7999.3 06/06/1997 9495.7 19/02/1997 8593.7 27/03/1997 9188.6 02/05/1997 7997.0 07/06/1997 9506.0 20/02/1997 8606.0 28/03/1997 9081.9 03/05/1997 8112.0 08/06/1997 9506.3 21/02/1997 8599.5 29/03/1997 9303.8 04/05/1997 7832.6 09/06/1997 9486.2 22/02/1997 8600.7 30/03/1997 9301.4 05/05/1997 7601.6 10/06/1997 9506.3 23/02/1997 8601.3 31/03/1997 9193.1 06/05/1997 7597.2 11/06/1997 9505.2 24/02/1997 8643.9 01/04/1997 9009.7 07/05/1997 7605.2 12/06/1997 9453.0 25/02/1997 8763.2 02/04/1997 8865.0 08/05/1997 7597.2 13/06/1997 9394.4 26/02/1997 8833.8 03/04/1997 8399.0 09/05/1997 7600.8 14/06/1997 9406.4 27/02/1997 8896.4 04/04/1997 8337.6 10/05/1997 7591.7 15/06/1997 9394.2 28/02/1997 8910.4 05/04/1997 8421.5 11/05/1997 7612.5 16/06/1997 9406.4 01/03/1997 8906.9 06/04/1997 8939.3 12/05/1997 7822.5 17/06/1997 9336.1 02/03/1997 8898.2 07/04/1997 7918.5 13/05/1997 8182.9 18/06/1997 9311.1 03/03/1997 8790.9 08/04/1997 7661.5 14/05/1997 8300.1 19/06/1997 9303.8 04/03/1997 8696.3 09/04/1997 8000.9 15/05/1997 8298.3 20/06/1997 9293.1 05/03/1997 8695.8 10/04/1997 8569.4 16/05/1997 8410.7 21/06/1997 9302.3 06/03/1997 8818.4 11/04/1997 8935.5 17/05/1997 8712.6 22/06/1997 9288.2 07/03/1997 8903.2 12/04/1997 9112.5 18/05/1997 9002.5 23/06/1997 9309.3 08/03/1997 8911.5 13/04/1997 9254.5 19/05/1997 8999.4 24/06/1997 9298.0

113

APPENDIX 3 (cont’d. 7)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

Date

Discharge (m3/s)

25/06/1997 9300.3 31/07/1997 8800.9 26/06/1997 9304.9 01/08/1997 8800.4 27/06/1997 9296.5 02/08/1997 8763.3 28/06/1997 9305.4 03/08/1997 8755.7 29/06/1997 9303.4 04/08/1997 8764.1 30/06/1997 9288.5 05/08/1997 8761.1 01/07/1997 9302.9 06/08/1997 8761.4 02/07/1997 9262.6 07/08/1997 8753.7 03/07/1997 9204.6 08/08/1997 8696.6 04/07/1997 9197.7 09/08/1997 8702.4 05/07/1997 9202.4 10/08/1997 8699.5 06/07/1997 9196.4 11/08/1997 8702.7 07/07/1997 9213.1 12/08/1997 8697.9 08/07/1997 9186.1 13/08/1997 8699.6 09/07/1997 9157.4 14/08/1997 8699.8 10/07/1997 9098.3 15/08/1997 8658.7 11/07/1997 9092.2 16/08/1997 8468.9 12/07/1997 9096.9 17/08/1997 8473.7 13/07/1997 9101.4 18/08/1997 8468.4 14/07/1997 9107.7 19/08/1997 8469.3 15/07/1997 9092.2 20/08/1997 8475.5 16/07/1997 8993.2 21/08/1997 8466.5 17/07/1997 8999.8 22/08/1997 8467.2 18/07/1997 8997.8 23/08/1997 8431.5 19/07/1997 9009.6 24/08/1997 8432.8 20/07/1997 8997.0 25/08/1997 8428.0 21/07/1997 8999.8 26/08/1997 8425.9 22/07/1997 8951.5 27/08/1997 8432.6 23/07/1997 8797.0 28/08/1997 8433.7 24/07/1997 8797.7 29/08/1997 8423.8 25/07/1997 8799.5 30/08/1997 8420.6 26/07/1997 8805.9 31/08/1997 8425.9 27/07/1997 8793.2 28/07/1997 8807.5 29/07/1997 8795.2 30/07/1997 8796.0

114

APPENDIX 4

Daily wind data for the Saint-Anicet station between September 21, 1994 and March 20, 1997

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

21/09/1994 24 13.0 6.0 0 93.8 22/09/1994 21 11.0 7.9 0 82.9 23/09/1994 19 17.0 9.7 0 60.5 24/09/1994 24 9.0 5.6 0 60.0 25/09/1994 22 9.0 3.7 0 54.5 26/09/1994 24 13.0 6.8 0 84.6 27/09/1994 19 15.0 7.3 0 122.1 28/09/1994 24 17.0 8.0 0 188.8 29/09/1994 24 26.0 12.0 0 251.3 30/09/1994 24 30.0 18.7 3 281.3 01/10/1994 24 13.0 6.9 0 267.5 02/10/1994 24 22.0 12.6 0 270.8 03/10/1994 24 19.0 13.1 0 269.2 04/10/1994 24 17.0 12.6 0 280.0 05/10/1994 24 22.0 11.7 0 274.6 06/10/1994 21 13.0 7.7 0 222.4 07/10/1994 21 22.0 7.5 0 190.0 08/10/1994 22 19.0 7.4 0 196.8 09/10/1994 24 30.0 13.0 1 182.1 10/10/1994 22 24.0 15.7 0 275.9 11/10/1994 24 15.0 7.3 0 278.3 12/10/1994 24 11.0 4.2 0 183.8 13/10/1994 21 15.0 5.7 0 188.1 14/10/1994 24 20.0 9.3 0 88.3 15/10/1994 22 15.0 4.3 0 77.3 16/10/1994 24 9.0 4.7 0 230.8 17/10/1994 22 9.0 3.5 0 90.5 18/10/1994 24 7.0 3.6 0 90.8 19/10/1994 21 17.0 6.8 0 101.4 20/10/1994 22 15.0 7.1 0 190.9 21/10/1994 22 11.0 7.6 0 241.8 22/10/1994 22 11.0 3.3 0 155.9 23/10/1994 24 22.0 6.6 0 111.7 24/10/1994 19 20.0 12.3 0 231.1 25/10/1994 21 32.0 14.7 2 219.5

115

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 1)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

26/10/1994 24 20.0 8.9 0 245.8 27/10/1994 24 17.0 8.6 0 243.8 28/10/1994 24 32.0 16.3 5 232.1 29/10/1994 24 39.0 21.2 9 225.8 30/10/1994 24 24.0 15.2 0 244.2 31/10/1994 24 13.0 6.0 0 199.6 01/11/1994 24 26.0 17.3 0 61.7 02/11/1994 24 33.0 20.8 6 274.2 03/11/1994 24 13.0 6.9 0 167.5 04/11/1994 24 19.0 5.9 0 189.2 05/11/1994 24 32.0 17.7 4 202.5 06/11/1994 24 56.0 25.0 9 153.8 07/11/1994 24 33.0 23.5 10 259.2 08/11/1994 24 20.0 10.4 0 215.0 09/11/1994 20 20.0 11.4 0 270.0 10/11/1994 24 28.0 15.9 1 273.8 11/11/1994 24 20.0 14.1 0 270.8 12/11/1994 24 13.0 5.8 0 154.2 13/11/1994 24 9.0 2.8 0 85.0 14/11/1994 24 33.0 12.8 1 150.0 15/11/1994 24 28.0 19.2 2 262.9 16/11/1994 24 11.0 5.5 0 182.9 17/11/1994 24 9.0 3.8 0 75.0 18/11/1994 24 37.0 12.5 3 135.4 19/11/1994 24 33.0 23.5 8 267.1 20/11/1994 24 19.0 8.3 0 210.8 21/11/1994 24 33.0 12.3 2 117.9 22/11/1994 24 39.0 28.4 14 255.8 23/11/1994 24 46.0 25.5 9 276.7 24/11/1994 24 28.0 16.6 1 245.8 25/11/1994 22 30.0 19.9 2 248.2 26/11/1994 24 19.0 10.5 0 287.1 27/11/1994 24 20.0 10.6 0 117.9 28/11/1994 24 37.0 16.0 5 145.4 29/11/1994 24 41.0 27.2 12 242.9

116

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 2)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

30/11/1994 24 13.0 7.0 0 153.3 01/12/1994 24 19.0 9.6 0 227.1 02/12/1994 19 35.0 21.5 7 230.0 03/12/1994 24 13.0 5.5 0 165.8 04/12/1994 24 17.0 6.3 0 176.7 05/12/1994 22 19.0 10.5 0 70.5 06/12/1994 24 22.0 13.7 0 254.6 07/12/1994 24 19.0 11.0 0 318.8 08/12/1994 24 24.0 15.1 0 262.1 09/12/1994 24 15.0 7.3 0 123.8 10/12/1994 19 28.0 15.1 2 170.5 11/12/1994 24 35.0 23.4 9 210.8 12/12/1994 24 22.0 8.3 0 193.8 13/12/1994 24 22.0 11.2 0 68.3 14/12/1994 24 13.0 8.6 0 66.3 15/12/1994 21 19.0 11.1 0 66.2 16/12/1994 22 17.0 11.5 0 70.5 17/12/1994 21 19.0 8.7 0 130.0 18/12/1994 22 15.0 9.8 0 266.8 19/12/1994 24 22.0 14.0 0 278.8 20/12/1994 24 24.0 12.9 0 236.3 21/12/1994 24 28.0 22.6 3 238.3 22/12/1994 24 20.0 12.4 0 239.6 23/12/1994 24 17.0 7.6 0 77.5 24/12/1994 24 20.0 12.5 0 57.9 25/12/1994 24 15.0 6.9 0 206.7 26/12/1994 24 9.0 6.1 0 217.1 27/12/1994 24 7.0 4.4 0 111.7 28/12/1994 24 30.0 10.9 1 173.8 29/12/1994 24 32.0 24.8 10 296.7 30/12/1994 24 22.0 10.0 0 239.2 31/12/1994 24 13.0 7.1 0 62.1 01/01/1995 24 17.0 7.3 0 63.3 02/01/1995 24 32.0 14.3 2 246.3 03/01/1995 22 26.0 15.2 0 235.9

117

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 3)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

04/01/1995 24 32.0 18.7 1 248.3 05/01/1995 24 46.0 29.5 14 239.2 06/01/1995 24 43.0 21.8 10 226.3 07/01/1995 22 19.0 7.9 0 229.5 08/01/1995 22 41.0 14.5 4 196.4 09/01/1995 24 26.0 13.3 0 256.3 10/01/1995 24 11.0 6.3 0 187.9 11/01/1995 24 28.0 18.1 1 72.5 12/01/1995 24 22.0 17.2 0 61.3 13/01/1995 24 13.0 4.5 0 49.6 14/01/1995 24 11.0 3.0 0 27.1 15/01/1995 24 19.0 8.1 0 115.0 16/01/1995 24 20.0 10.1 0 112.1 17/01/1995 24 20.0 9.1 0 175.0 18/01/1995 24 22.0 12.3 0 63.3 19/01/1995 24 13.0 7.9 0 49.6 20/01/1995 24 33.0 22.6 8 59.2 21/01/1995 24 35.0 23.3 4 60.0 22/01/1995 24 22.0 11.3 0 119.6 23/01/1995 20 9.0 4.3 0 172.5 24/01/1995 24 15.0 6.1 0 143.8 25/01/1995 24 20.0 14.4 0 277.5 26/01/1995 24 28.0 15.4 1 260.8 27/01/1995 24 22.0 16.3 0 287.9 28/01/1995 24 19.0 14.1 0 254.6 29/01/1995 22 13.0 5.9 0 230.9 30/01/1995 24 24.0 15.8 0 242.9 31/01/1995 24 37.0 20.7 7 235.4 01/02/1995 24 26.0 17.9 0 255.4 02/02/1995 24 17.0 11.3 0 275.0 03/02/1995 22 13.0 4.1 0 127.3 04/02/1995 24 22.0 15.0 0 45.8 05/02/1995 24 39.0 28.3 17 277.1 06/02/1995 22 32.0 24.3 6 262.7 07/02/1995 24 26.0 15.4 0 216.3

118

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 4)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

08/02/1995 24 39.0 17.5 5 231.3 09/02/1995 23 37.0 26.4 9 238.3 10/02/1995 24 26.0 12.4 0 146.7 11/02/1995 24 37.0 25.0 13 225.8 12/02/1995 24 33.0 21.1 6 258.8 13/02/1995 24 32.0 20.8 2 232.1 14/02/1995 24 30.0 18.8 2 240.8 15/02/1995 24 30.0 10.2 1 159.6 16/02/1995 22 32.0 20.4 11 254.5 17/02/1995 22 26.0 13.5 0 218.6 18/02/1995 24 19.0 10.3 0 183.3 19/02/1995 24 28.0 9.6 1 212.5 20/02/1995 22 26.0 17.5 0 63.2 21/02/1995 24 19.0 10.8 0 127.9 22/02/1995 22 17.0 8.9 0 233.2 23/02/1995 24 20.0 8.3 0 73.8 24/02/1995 24 33.0 22.0 10 222.5 25/02/1995 24 26.0 18.3 0 264.6 26/02/1995 24 11.0 6.8 0 236.7 27/02/1995 24 24.0 17.3 0 57.9 28/02/1995 24 17.0 9.0 0 70.8 01/03/1995 24 13.0 6.8 0 201.3 02/03/1995 22 15.0 7.0 0 248.2 03/03/1995 24 13.0 3.8 0 132.5 04/03/1995 24 9.0 4.1 0 147.5 05/03/1995 21 28.0 12.2 1 78.1 06/03/1995 24 22.0 10.7 0 137.5 07/03/1995 24 35.0 15.5 2 102.1 08/03/1995 24 22.0 17.0 0 253.8 09/03/1995 24 28.0 17.7 2 282.5 10/03/1995 24 22.0 15.6 0 251.3 11/03/1995 24 24.0 13.5 0 73.8 12/03/1995 24 19.0 9.0 0 60.0 13/03/1995 24 15.0 6.5 0 208.3 14/03/1995 24 19.0 6.7 0 207.9

119

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 5)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

15/03/1995 24 11.0 5.3 0 60.0 16/03/1995 24 20.0 8.2 0 180.4 17/03/1995 19 17.0 10.9 0 262.1 18/03/1995 24 11.0 8.0 0 240.8 19/03/1995 22 24.0 10.5 0 98.6 20/03/1995 24 15.0 8.2 0 93.8 21/03/1995 24 20.0 10.3 0 160.8 22/03/1995 24 19.0 14.1 0 252.1 23/03/1995 24 19.0 10.2 0 250.8 24/03/1995 24 19.0 9.6 0 259.2 25/03/1995 24 24.0 14.0 0 306.3 26/03/1995 24 20.0 10.8 0 290.0 27/03/1995 24 15.0 5.8 0 128.8 28/03/1995 24 17.0 5.5 0 118.3 29/03/1995 24 22.0 9.0 0 82.5 30/03/1995 24 22.0 12.5 0 217.1 31/03/1995 24 28.0 14.0 1 259.2 01/04/1995 24 15.0 7.2 0 270.8 02/04/1995 24 13.0 6.1 0 150.4 03/04/1995 24 20.0 8.5 0 152.1 04/04/1995 24 39.0 21.0 12 221.7 05/04/1995 24 35.0 24.3 12 293.3 06/04/1995 24 17.0 6.6 0 176.7 07/04/1995 24 17.0 7.9 0 236.7 08/04/1995 24 11.0 5.3 0 125.4 09/04/1995 24 26.0 14.6 0 274.2 10/04/1995 24 15.0 9.6 0 264.2 11/04/1995 24 24.0 12.8 0 67.9 12/04/1995 24 11.0 5.3 0 115.0 13/04/1995 24 33.0 19.6 7 228.8 14/04/1995 24 22.0 14.0 0 286.7 15/04/1995 24 30.0 18.6 3 272.9 16/04/1995 20 22.0 15.7 0 300.5 17/04/1995 24 11.0 6.3 0 268.3 18/04/1995 24 19.0 9.7 0 87.5

120

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 6)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

19/04/1995 24 39.0 21.5 8 172.9 20/04/1995 22 26.0 14.6 0 245.9 21/04/1995 24 24.0 15.8 0 102.5 22/04/1995 24 41.0 24.4 7 262.9 23/04/1995 24 26.0 17.1 0 288.3 24/04/1995 24 20.0 10.5 0 288.3 25/04/1995 24 19.0 6.8 0 195.8 26/04/1995 24 30.0 19.8 3 242.9 27/04/1995 24 22.0 12.1 0 101.3 28/04/1995 24 32.0 14.3 1 195.0 29/04/1995 24 15.0 7.4 0 212.5 30/04/1995 24 15.0 4.5 0 70.0 01/05/1995 24 13.0 4.5 0 184.2 02/05/1995 24 19.0 7.3 0 108.8 03/05/1995 24 17.0 10.2 0 243.3 04/05/1995 24 19.0 10.0 0 241.3 05/05/1995 24 20.0 10.3 0 262.5 06/05/1995 24 30.0 17.1 4 315.4 07/05/1995 24 30.0 14.5 1 317.1 08/05/1995 24 20.0 9.7 0 262.9 09/05/1995 24 17.0 6.3 0 138.3 10/05/1995 16 24.0 10.1 0 96.9 11/05/1995 11 15.0 7.1 0 124.0 12/05/1995 24 15.0 10.7 0 210.8 13/05/1995 24 20.0 9.7 0 55.4 14/05/1995 24 26.0 9.9 0 112.1 15/05/1995 24 28.0 12.0 1 226.3 16/05/1995 22 19.0 6.1 0 82.3 17/05/1995 24 17.0 10.5 0 96.3 18/05/1995 24 30.0 17.5 2 250.0 19/05/1995 24 13.0 7.4 0 237.5 20/05/1995 24 22.0 11.3 0 222.5 21/05/1995 24 33.0 14.5 3 209.2 22/05/1995 24 30.0 19.7 2 248.3 23/05/1995 24 19.0 8.3 0 184.2

121

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 7)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

24/05/1995 24 24.0 11.1 0 222.9 25/05/1995 23 13.0 6.0 0 125.2 26/05/1995 22 22.0 6.8 0 118.2 27/05/1995 24 19.0 6.8 0 132.1 28/05/1995 24 20.0 6.7 0 139.6 29/05/1995 22 24.0 14.3 0 190.0 30/05/1995 22 22.0 14.3 0 268.6 31/05/1995 24 35.0 24.0 9 235.4 01/06/1995 24 28.0 15.4 1 240.0 02/06/1995 24 13.0 6.5 0 197.5 03/06/1995 24 20.0 10.8 0 76.3 04/06/1995 24 13.0 6.5 0 235.0 05/06/1995 17 26.0 15.5 0 214.1 06/06/1995 24 15.0 6.7 0 169.2 07/06/1995 24 20.0 7.5 0 192.9 08/06/1995 24 24.0 12.0 0 175.0 09/06/1995 24 15.0 6.4 0 115.0 10/06/1995 24 13.0 4.2 0 117.1 11/06/1995 23 30.0 16.3 3 213.5 12/06/1995 17 19.0 10.2 0 271.2 13/06/1995 24 19.0 11.5 0 245.0 14/06/1995 24 17.0 7.6 0 132.1 15/06/1995 24 15.0 7.5 0 261.3 16/06/1995 24 19.0 12.6 0 241.3 17/06/1995 21 26.0 18.6 0 234.8 18/06/1995 24 28.0 19.0 1 235.4 19/06/1995 22 30.0 20.0 4 240.9 20/06/1995 24 19.0 7.1 0 132.1 21/06/1995 24 19.0 8.4 0 51.7 22/06/1995 24 13.0 5.5 0 67.5 23/06/1995 24 13.0 5.0 0 172.5 24/06/1995 24 11.0 5.3 0 206.7 25/06/1995 24 19.0 4.4 0 160.0 26/06/1995 24 30.0 18.4 4 57.5 27/06/1995 24 22.0 10.3 0 80.0

122

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 8)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

28/06/1995 24 15.0 4.9 0 79.2 29/06/1995 24 15.0 4.5 0 115.0 30/06/1995 24 22.0 5.3 0 198.3 01/07/1995 24 22.0 10.1 0 216.7 02/07/1995 24 28.0 16.8 1 244.6 03/07/1995 24 11.0 5.0 0 200.4 04/07/1995 24 11.0 4.0 0 122.5 05/07/1995 24 13.0 5.7 0 182.5 06/07/1995 11 13.0 5.1 0 157.3 07/07/1995 5 7.0 6.2 0 208.0 08/07/1995 24 24.0 11.6 0 236.3 09/07/1995 24 24.0 12.9 0 250.4 10/07/1995 24 17.0 9.1 0 214.6 11/07/1995 24 9.0 3.2 0 178.8 12/07/1995 24 17.0 5.6 0 184.6 13/07/1995 22 22.0 13.7 0 - 14/07/1995 24 20.0 15.0 0 239.6 15/07/1995 24 19.0 8.3 0 252.5 16/07/1995 24 17.0 8.1 0 86.3 17/07/1995 24 15.0 7.5 0 62.9 18/07/1995 24 33.0 10.0 3 206.3 19/07/1995 24 20.0 13.7 0 240.0 20/07/1995 24 24.0 13.1 0 233.3 21/07/1995 24 15.0 8.9 0 251.3 22/07/1995 24 13.0 3.8 0 159.6 23/07/1995 14 15.0 3.6 0 111.4 24/07/1995 9 6.0 3.3 0 203.3 25/07/1995 24 9.0 3.0 0 135.4 26/07/1995 24 17.0 6.1 0 175.4 27/07/1995 24 11.0 4.1 0 107.5 28/07/1995 24 19.0 7.8 0 86.3 29/07/1995 24 28.0 16.1 1 233.8 30/07/1995 24 17.0 9.7 0 252.5 31/07/1995 24 22.0 12.3 0 237.5 01/08/1995 24 26.0 12.0 0 246.3

123

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 9)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

02/08/1995 24 15.0 8.8 0 70.8 03/08/1995 24 13.0 5.6 0 92.5 04/08/1995 24 15.0 6.0 0 192.5 05/08/1995 24 17.0 7.2 0 96.3 06/08/1995 24 22.0 12.0 0 52.1 07/08/1995 24 17.0 5.7 0 81.3 08/08/1995 24 11.0 2.9 0 126.7 09/08/1995 24 11.0 3.3 0 144.2 10/08/1995 24 7.0 3.4 0 180.8 11/08/1995 24 20.0 7.9 0 185.0 12/08/1995 24 20.0 12.5 0 269.2 13/08/1995 24 15.0 6.2 0 223.3 14/08/1995 24 9.0 4.6 0 122.5 15/08/1995 24 17.0 9.1 0 208.8 16/08/1995 24 17.0 9.1 0 235.8 17/08/1995 24 9.0 5.0 0 233.8 18/08/1995 15 17.0 8.5 0 50.0 19/08/1995 24 15.0 6.2 0 62.9 20/08/1995 24 11.0 4.7 0 195.8 21/08/1995 24 28.0 15.4 1 250.8 22/08/1995 24 19.0 11.8 0 282.1 23/08/1995 24 26.0 11.7 0 233.8 24/08/1995 24 24.0 15.7 0 293.3 25/08/1995 17 11.0 8.2 0 285.9 26/08/1995 24 9.0 4.1 0 196.3 27/08/1995 22 17.0 7.0 0 119.1 28/08/1995 22 11.0 5.4 0 85.9 29/08/1995 16 22.0 12.6 0 273.8 30/08/1995 22 9.0 4.9 0 240.9 31/08/1995 22 17.0 5.5 0 131.8 01/09/1995 24 15.0 9.1 0 280.0 02/09/1995 20 11.0 5.3 0 232.5 03/09/1995 15 11.0 3.8 0 188.7 04/09/1995 18 9.0 2.3 0 127.8 05/09/1995 21 26.0 12.6 0 239.0

124

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 10)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

06/09/1995 24 9.0 4.0 0 108.8 07/09/1995 19 30.0 14.6 2 244.2 08/09/1995 22 15.0 6.1 0 57.3 09/09/1995 21 19.0 5.8 0 128.1 10/09/1995 18 20.0 8.4 0 277.2 11/09/1995 24 22.0 11.5 0 236.7 12/09/1995 13 19.0 8.5 0 198.5 13/09/1995 24 32.0 17.1 2 222.5 14/09/1995 16 19.0 12.0 0 285.0 15/09/1995 15 11.0 6.9 0 252.0 16/09/1995 21 17.0 8.2 0 134.8 17/09/1995 16 15.0 9.1 0 258.1 18/09/1995 22 15.0 6.1 0 286.4 19/09/1995 24 13.0 4.0 0 105.0 20/09/1995 19 11.0 3.7 0 63.2 21/09/1995 18 9.0 5.6 0 182.2 22/09/1995 11 24.0 12.2 0 180.9 23/09/1995 7 19.0 6.9 0 227.1 24/09/1995 17 9.0 3.8 0 192.4 25/09/1995 14 7.0 2.7 0 47.1 26/09/1995 24 11.0 3.8 0 140.4 27/09/1995 22 24.0 12.7 0 240.5 28/09/1995 19 17.0 6.9 0 253.2 29/09/1995 24 9.0 3.1 0 45.4 30/09/1995 24 9.0 3.5 0 128.3 01/10/1995 24 13.0 3.4 0 110.8 02/10/1995 24 28.0 15.2 2 217.5 03/10/1995 24 19.0 9.7 0 216.7 04/10/1995 22 19.0 8.4 0 135.9 05/10/1995 24 22.0 9.8 0 110.0 06/10/1995 24 33.0 22.5 10 69.2 07/10/1995 24 13.0 7.7 0 162.1 08/10/1995 21 26.0 17.0 0 238.1 09/10/1995 24 15.0 7.1 0 226.3 10/10/1995 24 13.0 4.5 0 68.3

125

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 11)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

11/10/1995 24 22.0 11.2 0 220.4 12/10/1995 24 26.0 15.5 0 237.5 13/10/1995 24 24.0 14.7 0 235.0 14/10/1995 24 37.0 7.8 1 167.5 15/10/1995 24 44.0 27.8 13 229.6 16/10/1995 24 41.0 30.3 17 265.4 17/10/1995 24 26.0 13.7 0 228.3 18/10/1995 24 35.0 14.8 4 216.7 19/10/1995 24 20.0 13.3 0 93.8 20/10/1995 24 24.0 15.8 0 98.3 21/10/1995 24 37.0 21.4 7 140.4 22/10/1995 24 26.0 10.3 0 197.9 23/10/1995 24 22.0 12.3 0 188.3 24/10/1995 24 37.0 13.3 4 160.8 25/10/1995 16 24.0 16.6 0 238.8 26/10/1995 24 19.0 8.3 0 184.6 27/10/1995 24 37.0 12.6 2 126.7 28/10/1995 24 26.0 15.1 0 222.9 29/10/1995 24 30.0 22.2 2 265.8 30/10/1995 24 22.0 10.3 0 251.7 31/10/1995 24 11.0 5.5 0 163.8 01/11/1995 24 24.0 13.9 0 67.9 02/11/1995 24 20.0 10.3 0 106.3 03/11/1995 24 35.0 17.0 4 185.0 04/11/1995 24 32.0 22.1 3 261.7 05/11/1995 24 39.0 26.5 10 240.4 06/11/1995 24 26.0 15.3 0 221.7 07/11/1995 24 17.0 7.5 0 151.3 08/11/1995 24 26.0 17.4 0 286.3 09/11/1995 24 26.0 16.3 0 243.8 10/11/1995 24 13.0 7.8 0 84.6 11/11/1995 24 43.0 17.8 5 135.4 12/11/1995 24 43.0 27.9 14 256.7 13/11/1995 24 13.0 7.7 0 99.6 14/11/1995 24 37.0 16.4 3 55.8

126

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 12)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

15/11/1995 24 46.0 24.7 9 112.1 16/11/1995 24 26.0 15.8 0 228.8 17/11/1995 24 20.0 12.0 0 238.3 18/11/1995 24 22.0 12.3 0 58.8 19/11/1995 24 20.0 10.3 0 123.8 20/11/1995 15 9.0 4.0 0 118.7 21/11/1995 6 17.0 13.7 0 230.0 22/11/1995 24 28.0 17.9 2 254.2 23/11/1995 24 33.0 15.9 4 218.8 24/11/1995 24 17.0 9.1 0 247.1 25/11/1995 24 15.0 6.7 0 74.6 26/11/1995 24 13.0 4.8 0 196.3 27/11/1995 24 26.0 15.8 0 80.0 28/11/1995 24 22.0 11.1 0 209.2 29/11/1995 24 9.0 3.4 0 55.8 30/11/1995 24 7.0 3.8 0 139.6 01/12/1995 24 28.0 14.8 1 178.3 02/12/1995 24 37.0 20.2 4 256.3 03/12/1995 24 26.0 11.4 0 92.1 04/12/1995 24 26.0 11.0 0 228.8 05/12/1995 24 24.0 10.8 0 100.0 06/12/1995 24 41.0 24.3 11 233.3 07/12/1995 24 24.0 10.9 0 261.3 08/12/1995 24 13.0 5.8 0 175.4 09/12/1995 24 33.0 16.6 2 100.0 10/12/1995 24 43.0 24.4 6 235.0 11/12/1995 24 30.0 22.4 5 262.9 12/12/1995 24 28.0 18.1 1 261.3 13/12/1995 24 13.0 5.8 0 177.9 14/12/1995 24 35.0 22.7 9 64.6 15/12/1995 22 24.0 6.6 0 75.9 16/12/1995 24 24.0 16.6 0 73.3 17/12/1995 24 22.0 11.9 0 218.8 18/12/1995 24 20.0 13.0 0 254.6 19/12/1995 24 9.0 3.5 0 141.3

127

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 13)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

20/12/1995 24 20.0 10.5 0 186.7 21/12/1995 24 32.0 24.3 5 235.8 22/12/1995 24 28.0 21.5 1 235.4 23/12/1995 24 20.0 13.5 0 247.5 24/12/1995 24 20.0 16.1 0 247.9 25/12/1995 24 17.0 12.5 0 245.8 26/12/1995 24 26.0 18.3 0 256.7 27/12/1995 24 22.0 18.6 0 240.8 28/12/1995 24 22.0 16.0 0 247.9 29/12/1995 24 24.0 13.5 0 221.3 30/12/1995 24 22.0 15.7 0 216.3 31/12/1995 24 19.0 10.0 0 170.0 01/01/1996 24 20.0 11.2 0 65.8 02/01/1996 24 13.0 4.4 0 48.3 03/01/1996 24 19.0 12.5 0 56.7 04/01/1996 24 22.0 8.6 0 192.1 05/01/1996 24 26.0 16.8 0 239.6 06/01/1996 22 17.0 11.6 0 238.6 07/01/1996 24 9.0 3.6 0 178.3 08/01/1996 24 11.0 5.0 0 160.8 09/01/1996 24 9.0 5.8 0 67.9 10/01/1996 24 15.0 9.9 0 172.5 11/01/1996 24 20.0 9.0 0 205.0 12/01/1996 24 17.0 8.6 0 95.4 13/01/1996 21 28.0 14.4 1 244.3 14/01/1996 24 37.0 14.6 5 212.5 15/01/1996 24 26.0 12.9 0 268.3 16/01/1996 22 24.0 10.1 0 51.8 17/01/1996 24 33.0 12.8 3 203.3 18/01/1996 24 22.0 9.2 0 125.8 19/01/1996 24 48.0 25.9 10 196.3 20/01/1996 24 46.0 18.0 5 231.7 21/01/1996 24 22.0 11.8 0 97.1 22/01/1996 24 17.0 7.3 0 158.3 23/01/1996 24 20.0 8.0 0 190.0

128

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 14)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

24/01/1996 24 35.0 13.8 4 175.8 25/01/1996 24 35.0 18.0 4 236.7 26/01/1996 24 22.0 13.3 0 69.2 27/01/1996 24 54.0 27.1 10 160.0 28/01/1996 24 37.0 22.6 11 237.5 29/01/1996 24 33.0 14.4 1 91.7 30/01/1996 24 35.0 25.3 8 244.6 31/01/1996 24 24.0 15.8 0 269.2 01/02/1996 24 13.0 6.0 0 146.7 02/02/1996 24 33.0 15.6 5 221.3 03/02/1996 24 9.0 4.9 0 234.2 04/02/1996 24 20.0 8.3 0 215.4 05/02/1996 24 24.0 11.9 0 231.3 06/02/1996 24 20.0 10.4 0 240.8 07/02/1996 24 22.0 10.8 0 156.7 08/02/1996 24 20.0 9.2 0 149.6 09/02/1996 24 22.0 12.2 0 223.3 10/02/1996 24 20.0 13.8 0 215.8 11/02/1996 24 24.0 16.3 0 167.1 12/02/1996 24 26.0 20.5 0 277.1 13/02/1996 24 32.0 17.3 3 257.5 14/02/1996 22 20.0 9.2 0 77.3 15/02/1996 21 7.0 2.5 0 107.6 16/02/1996 24 9.0 2.7 0 88.3 17/02/1996 24 22.0 11.5 0 243.3 18/02/1996 24 30.0 14.9 2 263.8 19/02/1996 24 15.0 8.3 0 134.6 20/02/1996 24 19.0 6.8 0 99.2 21/02/1996 24 11.0 7.1 0 208.3 22/02/1996 24 7.0 5.6 0 238.3 23/02/1996 24 17.0 7.3 0 149.6 24/02/1996 24 43.0 26.7 14 170.8 25/02/1996 24 37.0 27.1 11 267.9 26/02/1996 24 24.0 16.9 0 271.3 27/02/1996 24 19.0 9.6 0 171.3

129

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 15)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

28/02/1996 24 22.0 11.3 0 205.0 29/02/1996 24 32.0 21.2 3 254.6 01/03/1996 24 26.0 13.7 0 197.1 02/03/1996 24 17.0 9.4 0 130.4 03/03/1996 24 43.0 25.7 13 221.3 04/03/1996 24 32.0 20.5 5 257.5 05/03/1996 24 19.0 8.9 0 114.6 06/03/1996 24 19.0 10.9 0 43.8 07/03/1996 24 20.0 10.8 0 93.3 08/03/1996 24 22.0 14.1 0 165.8 09/03/1996 24 30.0 17.9 4 257.9 10/03/1996 24 33.0 17.9 1 235.8 11/03/1996 24 20.0 10.7 0 240.4 12/03/1996 24 15.0 8.5 0 242.9 13/03/1996 24 15.0 7.8 0 240.4 14/03/1996 24 24.0 10.1 0 185.8 15/03/1996 24 17.0 11.4 0 239.6 16/03/1996 24 20.0 14.0 0 280.4 17/03/1996 24 22.0 13.1 0 247.5 18/03/1996 24 17.0 8.8 0 202.1 19/03/1996 24 32.0 13.7 1 54.2 20/03/1996 24 52.0 28.3 12 55.4 21/03/1996 24 17.0 8.0 0 140.4 22/03/1996 24 28.0 21.8 1 241.3 23/03/1996 24 28.0 19.6 3 267.5 24/03/1996 24 24.0 14.5 0 231.7 25/03/1996 24 33.0 12.7 1 128.3 26/03/1996 24 44.0 30.8 17 242.9 27/03/1996 24 28.0 18.2 3 264.2 28/03/1996 24 11.0 5.7 0 165.4 29/03/1996 24 17.0 10.4 0 53.8 30/03/1996 24 15.0 6.3 0 138.8 31/03/1996 24 15.0 6.8 0 76.7 01/04/1996 24 15.0 8.8 0 145.0 02/04/1996 24 22.0 10.4 0 280.4

130

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 16)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

03/04/1996 24 28.0 14.6 1 293.8 04/04/1996 24 22.0 12.2 0 284.6 05/04/1996 24 22.0 9.5 0 235.4 06/04/1996 24 22.0 11.9 0 164.2 07/04/1996 24 20.0 12.3 0 77.9 08/04/1996 24 15.0 8.4 0 58.8 09/04/1996 24 15.0 8.6 0 187.1 10/04/1996 22 19.0 9.5 0 250.9 11/04/1996 24 30.0 19.3 3 268.3 12/04/1996 24 24.0 11.7 0 271.3 13/04/1996 24 26.0 15.8 0 76.3 14/04/1996 24 22.0 8.3 0 195.0 15/04/1996 24 30.0 12.5 2 77.5 16/04/1996 24 20.0 11.3 0 140.8 17/04/1996 24 30.0 21.5 2 264.6 18/04/1996 24 22.0 14.4 0 234.6 19/04/1996 24 20.0 9.2 0 62.9 20/04/1996 12 15.0 10.3 0 64.4 21/04/1996 16 39.0 25.4 8 250.6 22/04/1996 24 19.0 8.1 0 141.7 23/04/1996 24 26.0 12.1 0 235.4 24/04/1996 24 32.0 23.9 6 262.1 25/04/1996 24 17.0 11.5 0 143.8 26/04/1996 24 28.0 10.9 1 186.3 27/04/1996 24 44.0 27.8 16 238.8 28/04/1996 24 28.0 16.6 1 242.9 29/04/1996 24 20.0 10.8 0 107.5 30/04/1996 24 37.0 18.1 2 129.2 01/05/1996 24 30.0 17.5 3 214.6 02/05/1996 22 32.0 18.4 2 232.3 03/05/1996 24 22.0 11.3 0 249.2 04/05/1996 24 13.0 6.3 0 134.6 05/05/1996 24 17.0 9.3 0 197.9 06/05/1996 24 19.0 8.6 0 131.7 07/05/1996 24 22.0 12.5 0 230.8

131

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 17)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

08/05/1996 24 17.0 7.6 0 197.5 09/05/1996 24 22.0 9.1 0 120.8 10/05/1996 24 26.0 10.0 0 110.4 11/05/1996 24 28.0 16.9 1 35.0 12/05/1996 24 26.0 16.3 0 250.0 13/05/1996 24 30.0 16.3 1 264.6 14/05/1996 24 28.0 17.1 1 232.1 15/05/1996 24 19.0 8.7 0 208.3 16/05/1996 24 22.0 8.1 0 159.6 17/05/1996 24 9.0 3.9 0 209.6 18/05/1996 20 19.0 10.0 0 147.5 19/05/1996 0 - - - - 20/05/1996 12 24.0 15.8 0 247.5 21/05/1996 24 30.0 18.0 3 247.9 22/05/1996 24 32.0 15.2 2 247.9 23/05/1996 24 20.0 9.3 0 282.1 24/05/1996 24 24.0 11.8 0 209.2 25/05/1996 24 26.0 13.0 0 292.9 26/05/1996 24 20.0 11.3 0 260.4 27/05/1996 24 13.0 4.8 0 230.4 28/05/1996 24 22.0 12.6 0 261.3 29/05/1996 24 20.0 10.8 0 292.9 30/05/1996 24 19.0 10.1 0 236.3 31/05/1996 24 24.0 17.2 0 239.6 01/06/1996 24 24.0 13.1 0 240.0 02/06/1996 24 17.0 5.8 0 150.4 03/06/1996 24 13.0 7.3 0 147.9 04/06/1996 24 13.0 6.8 0 134.6 05/06/1996 24 39.0 17.8 6 220.4 06/06/1996 24 22.0 12.5 0 218.8 07/06/1996 24 22.0 8.3 0 82.1 08/06/1996 24 19.0 11.1 0 70.0 09/06/1996 24 19.0 9.8 0 67.9 10/06/1996 24 9.0 5.0 0 90.8 11/06/1996 17 13.0 4.4 0 155.3

132

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 18)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

12/06/1996 14 11.0 5.9 0 197.1 13/06/1996 24 11.0 5.3 0 213.3 14/06/1996 24 20.0 12.1 0 245.4 15/06/1996 24 19.0 11.2 0 262.5 16/06/1996 24 11.0 4.7 0 73.3 17/06/1996 24 17.0 7.5 0 246.7 18/06/1996 24 20.0 11.0 0 63.8 19/06/1996 24 17.0 6.9 0 115.8 20/06/1996 24 17.0 6.1 0 60.0 21/06/1996 24 24.0 11.9 0 249.6 22/06/1996 24 15.0 7.5 0 122.1 23/06/1996 24 28.0 13.5 1 263.8 24/06/1996 22 15.0 6.5 0 108.6 25/06/1996 24 19.0 11.1 0 273.3 26/06/1996 24 24.0 13.7 0 280.0 27/06/1996 24 15.0 9.8 0 246.3 28/06/1996 24 9.0 4.9 0 141.7 29/06/1996 24 24.0 8.3 0 141.3 30/06/1996 24 20.0 12.7 0 216.3 01/07/1996 24 26.0 17.5 0 235.4 02/07/1996 24 20.0 11.1 0 214.6 03/07/1996 24 13.0 6.4 0 152.5 04/07/1996 24 17.0 10.5 0 255.0 05/07/1996 24 22.0 14.5 0 257.9 06/07/1996 24 26.0 16.4 0 255.0 07/07/1996 24 11.0 5.9 0 173.3 08/07/1996 24 19.0 12.3 0 234.6 09/07/1996 24 26.0 12.4 0 240.0 10/07/1996 24 24.0 15.0 0 246.7 11/07/1996 24 26.0 18.2 0 232.5 12/07/1996 21 9.0 4.9 0 178.1 13/07/1996 24 17.0 7.3 0 103.8 14/07/1996 24 13.0 5.6 0 135.8 15/07/1996 24 20.0 8.5 0 108.3 16/07/1996 24 30.0 17.4 2 235.0

133

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 19)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

17/07/1996 24 20.0 13.5 0 245.8 18/07/1996 24 15.0 7.5 0 204.6 19/07/1996 24 24.0 8.5 0 202.1 20/07/1996 24 32.0 18.8 2 285.4 21/07/1996 24 22.0 13.3 0 277.9 22/07/1996 24 13.0 8.0 0 209.6 23/07/1996 24 11.0 3.6 0 181.7 24/07/1996 24 11.0 6.0 0 213.8 25/07/1996 24 19.0 7.0 0 207.1 26/07/1996 24 19.0 10.2 0 254.2 27/07/1996 24 22.0 11.7 0 258.8 28/07/1996 24 13.0 5.6 0 232.1 29/07/1996 21 15.0 7.3 0 76.7 30/07/1996 14 7.0 5.9 0 81.4 31/07/1996 24 11.0 6.2 0 106.3 01/08/1996 24 6.0 3.3 0 79.6 02/08/1996 24 15.0 6.5 0 233.8 03/08/1996 24 9.0 2.8 0 179.2 04/08/1996 24 9.0 3.8 0 187.5 05/08/1996 2 4.0 3.0 0 195.8 06/08/1996 22 9.0 4.3 0 129.2 07/08/1996 21 11.0 3.5 0 175.4 08/08/1996 23 17.0 5.4 1 228.8 09/08/1996 24 29.0 13.2 0 251.7 10/08/1996 24 24.0 11.5 0 280.0 11/08/1996 3 7.0 6.3 0 156.0 12/08/1996 17 10.0 4.2 0 115.4 13/08/1996 18 8.0 3.8 0 217.9 14/08/1996 24 22.0 9.0 0 131.3 15/08/1996 19 10.0 3.6 0 105.0 16/08/1996 24 14.0 7.8 0 236.3 17/08/1996 24 18.0 9.6 0 247.5 18/08/1996 24 17.0 8.5 0 258.3 19/08/1996 24 17.0 9.6 0 42.5 20/08/1996 18 10.0 4.3 0 125.4

134

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 20)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

21/08/1996 22 12.0 4.9 0 260.8 22/08/1996 22 15.0 8.8 0 191.7 23/08/1996 20 12.0 6.2 0 226.7 24/08/1996 23 18.0 8.6 0 230.4 25/08/1996 23 12.0 5.3 8 238.3 26/08/1996 24 40.0 21.7 0 112.5 27/08/1996 21 17.0 6.4 0 75.8 28/08/1996 22 17.0 7.6 0 155.8 29/08/1996 23 10.0 5.2 0 270.0 30/08/1996 24 19.0 9.9 0 188.8 31/08/1996 23 18.0 8.4 0 238.8 01/09/1996 24 23.0 13.9 0 206.3 02/09/1996 20 12.0 5.8 0 110.0 03/09/1996 21 10.0 3.3 0 101.3 04/09/1996 24 11.0 5.5 0 132.9 05/09/1996 22 8.0 2.6 0 242.9 06/09/1996 24 18.0 8.3 0 67.5 07/09/1996 21 14.0 6.5 0 65.8 08/09/1996 24 20.0 11.3 0 89.2 09/09/1996 24 20.0 9.1 0 251.3 10/09/1996 24 17.0 8.5 0 262.9 11/09/1996 24 12.0 6.4 0 187.9 12/09/1996 24 9.0 5.3 0 99.6 13/09/1996 23 10.0 5.6 0 77.9 14/09/1996 24 22.0 12.9 0 55.4 15/09/1996 24 20.0 9.8 0 62.1 16/09/1996 24 14.0 9.0 0 60.0 17/09/1996 24 15.0 10.1 0 46.7 18/09/1996 24 19.0 12.0 0 176.3 19/09/1996 24 18.0 6.5 0 277.5 20/09/1996 24 12.0 7.3 0 248.3 21/09/1996 24 16.0 10.7 1 240.4 22/09/1996 24 29.0 14.0 1 53.8 23/09/1996 23 28.0 16.4 0 68.8 24/09/1996 24 22.0 11.5 0 168.8

135

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 21)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

25/09/1996 22 8.0 3.9 0 135.0 26/09/1996 23 10.0 5.1 0 188.3 27/09/1996 22 14.0 6.2 0 88.3 28/09/1996 24 10.0 6.6 0 212.9 29/09/1996 24 22.0 15.3 0 231.3 30/09/1996 24 26.0 17.9 0 237.9 01/10/1996 24 20.0 12.2 0 138.3 02/10/1996 23 25.0 5.8 1 215.0 03/10/1996 24 33.0 12.8 0 282.1 04/10/1996 24 24.0 15.5 0 225.8 05/10/1996 22 17.0 6.0 0 118.3 06/10/1996 20 9.0 4.0 0 131.3 07/10/1996 20 20.0 6.1 0 185.8 08/10/1996 22 16.0 6.7 0 107.9 09/10/1996 24 22.0 9.5 0 179.6 10/10/1996 24 17.0 8.8 0 255.0 11/10/1996 22 16.0 8.5 0 278.3 12/10/1996 24 23.0 11.4 0 194.6 13/10/1996 24 20.0 8.8 0 142.1 14/10/1996 24 23.0 7.1 4 282.5 15/10/1996 24 35.0 22.1 0 262.1 16/10/1996 24 23.0 12.4 0 245.0 17/10/1996 24 19.0 8.9 0 80.4 18/10/1996 24 18.0 10.5 0 64.6 19/10/1996 24 22.0 15.6 0 66.3 20/10/1996 24 27.0 14.1 1 61.7 21/10/1996 24 29.0 19.8 2 62.9 22/10/1996 24 32.0 18.1 0 145.4 23/10/1996 24 19.0 8.0 0 85.9 24/10/1996 22 26.0 12.1 1 220.8 25/10/1996 24 28.0 17.4 2 249.6 26/10/1996 24 29.0 18.8 0 241.8 27/10/1996 17 11.0 5.9 0 99.2 28/10/1996 24 27.0 9.3 2 269.2 29/10/1996 24 28.0 21.2 0 251.3

136

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 22)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

30/10/1996 24 16.0 8.8 5 135.0 31/10/1996 22 30.0 16.7 11 248.8 01/11/1996 24 40.0 26.8 6 230.0 02/11/1996 24 30.0 20.9 0 259.6 03/11/1996 24 21.0 13.6 1 256.7 04/11/1996 24 30.0 17.8 0 229.1 05/11/1996 22 26.0 17.0 0 105.0 06/11/1996 24 22.0 13.0 0 58.8 07/11/1996 24 14.0 8.6 2 130.0 08/11/1996 24 32.0 12.8 1 208.8 09/11/1996 24 28.0 11.5 3 200.8 10/11/1996 24 35.0 15.0 0 144.2 11/11/1996 24 22.0 9.2 1 256.3 12/11/1996 24 30.0 15.8 0 279.2 13/11/1996 24 21.0 12.1 0 253.8 14/11/1996 24 16.0 8.3 0 157.0 15/11/1996 20 9.0 3.9 0 70.0 16/11/1996 24 14.0 8.1 0 62.0 17/11/1996 20 16.0 9.4 0 66.3 18/11/1996 24 21.0 10.6 0 108.6 19/11/1996 21 8.0 3.4 0 225.0 20/11/1996 20 17.0 7.4 0 246.7 21/11/1996 24 21.0 16.3 0 257.9 22/11/1996 24 27.0 17.9 0 267.5 23/11/1996 24 20.0 14.0 3 243.8 24/11/1996 24 30.0 16.5 0 225.4 25/11/1996 24 11.0 5.5 0 141.0 26/11/1996 20 10.0 3.4 0 130.0 27/11/1996 24 22.0 11.2 0 302.5 28/11/1996 24 15.0 9.3 0 236.2 29/11/1996 21 16.0 8.7 0 195.9 30/11/1996 22 15.0 6.5 0 93.6 01/12/1996 22 10.0 4.7 1 123.8 02/12/1996 24 28.0 11.2 3 235.0 03/12/1996 24 31.0 22.3 0 171.7

137

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 23)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

04/12/1996 24 20.0 9.3 0 126.7 05/12/1996 24 13.0 7.4 0 82.9 06/12/1996 24 16.0 9.5 0 60.8 07/12/1996 24 21.0 13.2 0 124.6 08/12/1996 24 18.0 10.0 0 230.0 09/12/1996 22 22.0 10.9 0 263.8 10/12/1996 24 16.0 9.6 0 160.4 11/12/1996 24 19.0 8.5 0 60.4 12/12/1996 24 17.0 9.8 0 70.4 13/12/1996 24 27.0 18.6 1 72.9 14/12/1996 24 29.0 17.0 0 108.3 15/12/1996 18 6.0 3.2 0 108.8 16/12/1996 24 12.0 6.3 0 84.5 17/12/1996 20 12.0 5.0 2 104.2 18/12/1996 24 36.0 14.1 0 234.2 19/12/1996 24 25.0 14.9 0 249.6 20/12/1996 24 19.0 12.1 4 275.8 21/12/1996 24 39.0 22.0 0 190.8 22/12/1996 24 20.0 9.1 0 169.5 23/12/1996 22 20.0 8.0 0 70.4 24/12/1996 24 13.0 7.5 7 182.1 25/12/1996 24 45.0 19.0 5 268.3 26/12/1996 24 35.0 19.0 0 180.0 27/12/1996 24 13.0 7.0 0 177.5 28/12/1996 24 13.0 5.0 0 99.2 29/12/1996 24 20.0 8.8 0 227.1 30/12/1996 24 21.0 9.9 1 279.2 31/12/1996 24 29.0 16.4 0 110.0 01/01/1997 24 23.0 10.9 0 116.3 02/01/1997 24 18.0 9.5 0 80.0 03/01/1997 24 19.0 10.0 0 129.5 04/01/1997 21 21.0 7.4 0 139.0 05/01/1997 20 20.0 6.4 2 100.0 06/01/1997 24 37.0 12.0 15 253.8 07/01/1997 24 38.0 29.5 7 273.8

138

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 24)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

08/01/1997 24 35.0 25.5 6 270.4 09/01/1997 24 34.0 24.5 0 149.6 10/01/1997 24 27.0 14.1 1 158.3 11/01/1997 24 31.0 16.1 5 250.4 12/01/1997 24 31.0 23.5 2 271.7 13/01/1997 24 33.0 22.7 1 255.8 14/01/1997 24 28.0 18.7 0 248.8 15/01/1997 24 26.0 20.5 1 191.7 16/01/1997 24 28.0 16.2 11 223.8 17/01/1997 24 45.0 25.5 4 205.0 18/01/1997 24 33.0 18.7 0 283.3 19/01/1997 24 16.0 9.3 7 235.0 20/01/1997 24 37.0 22.4 2 249.6 21/01/1997 24 32.0 17.1 0 214.5 22/01/1997 22 15.0 9.7 6 169.5 23/01/1997 22 36.0 19.5 5 256.3 24/01/1997 24 37.0 19.4 0 68.8 25/01/1997 24 23.0 19.0 10 176.7 26/01/1997 24 50.0 23.0 1 268.3 27/01/1997 24 36.0 19.3 3 93.3 28/01/1997 18 31.0 18.8 6 168.8 29/01/1997 24 41.0 16.3 2 272.1 30/01/1997 24 30.0 16.0 3 71.3 31/01/1997 24 29.0 16.3 0 60.4 01/02/1997 24 19.0 13.8 0 145.4 02/02/1997 24 18.0 11.4 0 201.3 03/02/1997 24 19.0 10.5 0 135.8 04/02/1997 24 14.0 6.7 0 70.0 05/02/1997 21 23.0 15.1 0 154.1 06/02/1997 22 16.0 11.0 3 268.8 07/02/1997 24 34.0 17.5 0 272.1 08/02/1997 24 18.0 12.3 0 82.0 09/02/1997 20 22.0 10.6 1 237.9 10/02/1997 24 29.0 14.8 0 243.8 11/02/1997 24 21.0 13.4 0 74.2

139

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 25)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

12/02/1997 24 23.0 13.7 1 162.9 13/02/1997 24 28.0 10.7 0 175.8 14/02/1997 24 23.0 9.8 0 95.0 15/02/1997 24 15.0 5.9 0 254.6 16/02/1997 24 24.0 15.7 0 175.4 17/02/1997 24 13.0 8.5 0 65.5 18/02/1997 22 11.0 7.0 13 220.8 19/02/1997 24 44.0 25.0 6 247.1 20/02/1997 24 38.0 22.9 1 192.9 21/02/1997 24 35.0 11.9 0 78.8 22/02/1997 24 25.0 10.2 7 154.2 23/02/1997 24 53.0 22.0 0 212.1 24/02/1997 24 27.0 15.4 1 267.5 25/02/1997 24 32.0 16.4 0 239.2 26/02/1997 24 24.0 15.5 9 240.8 27/02/1997 24 35.0 25.5 1 98.8 28/02/1997 24 33.0 11.8 0 230.5 01/03/1997 22 18.0 10.6 0 77.1 02/03/1997 24 16.0 7.1 2 236.3 03/03/1997 24 31.0 16.7 0 125.4 04/03/1997 24 20.0 11.3 0 109.2 05/03/1997 24 23.0 13.5 0 111.0 06/03/1997 20 21.0 9.7 3 213.8 07/03/1997 24 31.0 19.6 3 270.0 08/03/1997 24 32.0 14.3 0 153.6 09/03/1997 22 12.0 6.6 0 69.0 10/03/1997 20 22.0 14.1 7 210.8 11/03/1997 24 38.0 19.4 0 288.2 12/03/1997 22 17.0 9.8 1 275.8 13/03/1997 24 28.0 12.1 0 252.8 14/03/1997 18 24.0 11.6 6 80.5 15/03/1997 22 35.0 19.4 13 251.7 16/03/1997 24 47.0 29.4 3 258.8 17/03/1997 24 31.0 18.6 2 231.3 18/03/1997 24 31.0 16.2 0 262.1

140

APPENDIX 4 (cont’d. 26)

Date

Number of values

obtained

Maximum speed

(km/h)

Average speed

(km/h)

Number of values with speed > 28 km/h

Mean direction (degrees true)

19/03/1997 24 19.0 11.1 0 241.7 20/03/1997 24 19.0 11.4 0 238.8 21/03/1997 24 25.0 16.0 0 178.3 22/03/1997 24 20.0 8.8 0 234.2 23/03/1997 24 25.0 15.4 0 255.8 24/03/1997 24 25.0 15.8 0 250.8 25/03/1997 24 27.0 15.3 0 129.1 26/03/1997 22 24.0 10.4 11 256.3 27/03/1997 24 39.0 26.3 0 208.8 28/03/1997 24 24.0 13.9 0 83.2 29/03/1997 19 24.0 12.7 0 85.4 30/03/1997 24 13.0 7.2 0 240.9 31/03/1997 23 22.0 11.8 1 56.3 01/04/1997 24 29.0 17.3 0 220.8 02/04/1997 24 18.0 10.8 0 227.5 03/04/1997 24 21.0 9.0 0 152.3 04/04/1997 22 16.0 6.7 0 263.3 05/04/1997 24 20.0 12.6 0 75.9 06/04/1997 22 19.0 10.0 0 79.2 07/04/1997 24 25.0 8.0 19 244.2 08/04/1997 24 43.0 32.1 10 275.8 09/04/1997 24 33.0 25.3 0 299.6 10/04/1997 24 27.0 19.0 0 279.2 11/04/1997 24 27.0 15.6 0 237.5 12/04/1997 24 27.0 15.3 0 107.7 13/04/1997 22 24.0 12.3 0 201.7 14/04/1997 24 22.0 12.0 0 283.8 15/04/1997 24 25.0 14.8 0 240.8 16/04/1997 24 20.0 8.4 0 240.8 17/04/1997 24 20.0 11.8 0 267.5 18/04/1997 24 24.0 14.3 0 96.7 19/04/1997 24 21.0 11.8 0 87.9 20/04/1997 24 22.0 10.7 0 -

141

APPENDIX 5

Hourly wind at Saint-Anicet between September 1994 and December 1996

Number of recordings Wind rose sector

by wind speed, in km/h

0–360

240–110

40–300

40–260

40–230

Absolute values Total number 15 533 11 155 15 202 12 150 6 456 Number > 0 km/h 14 649 10 711 14 331 11 378 5 950 Number > 10 km/h 7 476 6 318 7 292 5 533 2 521 Number > 20 km/h 2 359 2 096 2 300 1 731 672 Number > 25 km/h 938 770 919 709 272 Number > 28 km/h 651 510 637 489 195 Number > 30 km/h 453 334 445 354 143 Number > 40 km/h 49 25 48 41 18 Number > 50 km/h 3 0 3 3 2

Values in % Total number 100.0 71.8 97.9 78.2 41.6 Number > 0 km/h 94.3 69.0 92.3 73.3 38.3 Number > 10 km/h 48.1 40.7 46.9 35.6 33.7 Number > 20 km/h 15.2 13.5 14.8 11.1 4.3 Number > 25 km/h 6.0 5.0 5.9 4.6 1.8 Number > 28 km/h 4.2 3.3 4.1 3.2 1.3 Number > 30 km/h 2.9 2.2 2.9 2.3 0.9 Number > 40 km/h 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 Number > 50 km/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

142

APPENDIX 6A

Mean effective fetch for different sectors of the study area

Effective fetch (km)

Azimuth (° true) Reynolds GM Domtar Courtaulds Pilon Island Thompson Is. Christatie Is.

0 0.90 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.57 3.63 8.23 12 0.83 0.94 0.00 0.02 0.60 6.00 10.68 24 0.81 1.22 0.00 0.11 0.77 10.43 13.59 36 0.90 1.38 0.00 0.35 1.06 15.37 14.27 48 1.12 0.73 0.00 0.86 1.56 13.83 9.39 60 1.51 0.35 0.01 1.63 1.61 10.59 6.25 72 1.94 0.13 0.03 2.45 1.21 7.93 3.81 84 1.24 0.02 0.11 3.12 1.00 5.91 2.28 96 0.77 0.00 0.25 1.83 0.93 4.59 1.50 108 0.42 0.00 0.48 1.21 1.13 3.75 1.21 120 0.20 0.00 0.76 0.82 1.25 3.15 1.18 132 0.11 0.00 0.71 0.63 1.18 2.53 1.22 144 0.07 0.00 0.52 0.60 1.10 1.94 1.12 156 0.05 0.00 0.38 0.58 1.07 1.65 0.92 168 0.05 0.00 0.29 0.60 1.16 1.60 0.75 180 0.05 0.00 0.26 0.65 1.02 1.81 0.61 192 0.05 0.00 0.28 0.74 1.02 2.35 0.53 204 0.05 0.00 0.32 0.76 1.13 3.03 0.53 216 0.06 0.01 0.48 0.66 1.31 4.05 0.62 228 0.09 0.10 0.76 0.31 1.57 4.91 0.79 240 0.21 0.38 1.20 0.14 2.22 5.26 1.20 252 0.43 0.84 2.32 0.04 1.71 3.80 1.28 264 0.76 1.83 1.05 0.00 1.29 2.92 1.69 276 1.34 2.19 0.52 0.00 1.02 1.93 2.79 288 1.29 1.38 0.20 0.00 0.81 1.49 3.27 300 1.31 1.00 0.03 0.00 0.69 1.45 2.88 312 1.20 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.62 1.95 2.59 324 1.20 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.59 2.09 2.95 336 1.11 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.59 2.11 4.15 348 1.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.58 2.40 6.22

Mean 1.01 0.79 0.31 0.59 1.03 5.37 5.01 Std. dev. 0.39 0.58 0.57 0.93 0.45 4.07 4.02

APPENDIX 6B

Calculation of effective fetch at the Reynolds Co. site

Length of radii (km) Alpha i 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 Xi (km) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.82 0.80 0.85 0.80 0.82 0.80 0.75 0.72 0.74 0.70 0.80 0.85 0.80 0.90 0.93 1.00 1.10 1.23 4.40 2.60 2.30 2.10 1.95 1.82 0.80 0.65 Alpha i 90 93 96 99 102 105 108 111 114 117 120 123 126 129 132 135 138 141 144 147 150 153 156 159 162 165 168 171 174 177 Xi (km) 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.47 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Alpha i 180 183 186 189 192 195 198 201 204 207 210 213 216 219 222 225 228 231 234 237 240 243 246 249 252 255 258 261 264 267 Xi (km) 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 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.55 0.60 Alpha i 270 273 276 279 282 285 288 291 294 297 300 303 306 309 312 315 318 321 324 327 330 333 336 339 342 345 348 351 354 357 Xi (km) 1.00 2.00 1.80 1.62 1.43 1.25 1.15 1.18 1.53 1.57 1.62 0.95 0.86 0.85 0.72 1.70 1.50 1.35 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.23 1.10 1.18 1.05 1.05 1.02 0.95 0.90 0.90

Effective fetch for azimuth considered main radius (km) Angle of central radius

Angles 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180 192 204 216 228 240 252 264 276 288 300 312 324 336 348 0 0.90 0.82 0.82 0.74 0.80 1.10 2.30 0.80 0.60 0.20 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.25 0.55 1.80 1.15 1.62 0.72 1.20 1.10 1.02

± 3 0.90 0.82 0.81 0.72 0.85 1.11 2.33 1.09 0.58 0.27 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.25 0.55 1.81 1.19 1.38 1.09 1.25 1.17 1.01 ± 6 0.90 0.84 0.80 0.74 0.85 1.72 2.66 1.16 0.57 0.29 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.26 0.61 1.57 1.30 1.30 1.12 1.29 1.15 0.99 ± 9 0.90 0.84 0.79 0.76 0.85 1.73 2.33 1.21 0.56 0.30 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.27 0.76 1.38 1.38 1.22 1.13 1.33 1.14 1.00

± 12 0.90 0.84 0.78 0.77 0.86 1.68 2.03 1.26 0.55 0.31 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.27 0.81 1.26 1.44 1.15 1.18 1.23 1.13 1.00 ± 15 0.90 0.84 0.78 0.78 0.88 1.63 1.81 1.30 0.62 0.32 0.14 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.12 0.28 0.82 1.18 1.44 1.20 1.21 1.19 1.12 1.00 ± 18 0.90 0.83 0.78 0.79 1.11 1.59 1.65 1.46 0.68 0.32 0.16 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.13 0.31 0.81 1.14 1.36 1.23 1.22 1.15 1.13 1.00 ± 21 0.90 0.82 0.79 0.79 1.17 1.53 1.52 1.37 0.72 0.32 0.18 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.15 0.40 0.79 1.11 1.27 1.25 1.21 1.12 1.14 1.00 ± 24 0.90 0.82 0.78 0.80 1.20 1.44 1.43 1.28 0.76 0.33 0.19 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.16 0.45 0.76 1.08 1.19 1.26 1.19 1.13 1.09 0.99 ± 27 0.90 0.82 0.79 0.82 1.21 1.36 1.35 1.21 0.81 0.38 0.20 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.17 0.48 0.74 1.02 1.17 1.28 1.18 1.13 1.06 0.98 ± 30 0.89 0.82 0.79 0.94 1.21 1.29 1.28 1.15 0.91 0.42 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.20 0.49 0.74 0.97 1.14 1.25 1.17 1.12 1.04 0.99 ± 33 0.89 0.82 0.79 0.98 1.20 1.24 1.22 1.09 0.88 0.46 0.22 0.12 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.25 0.49 0.73 0.93 1.11 1.21 1.17 1.10 1.01 0.99 ± 36 0.88 0.81 0.79 1.01 1.16 1.19 1.16 1.04 0.85 0.50 0.22 0.13 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.28 0.49 0.73 0.89 1.07 1.17 1.16 1.08 1.01 0.97 ± 39 0.87 0.82 0.80 1.02 1.13 1.15 1.11 1.00 0.82 0.53 0.26 0.14 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.31 0.49 0.71 0.87 1.04 1.14 1.16 1.07 1.01 0.95 ± 42 0.87 0.81 0.87 1.02 1.09 1.11 1.07 0.96 0.80 0.59 0.28 0.15 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.14 0.32 0.50 0.69 0.86 1.01 1.11 1.14 1.06 1.00 0.93

Mean f 0.89 0.82 0.80 0.85 1.04 1.39 1.68 1.16 0.71 0.37 0.18 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.17 0.38 0.72 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.14 1.16 1.09 0.99 Std dev 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.16 0.23 0.51 0.16 0.12 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.31 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.02

Eff f 0.90 0.83 0.81 0.90 1.12 1.51 1.94 1.24 0.77 0.42 0.20 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.21 0.43 0.76 1.34 1.29 1.31 1.20 1.20 1.11 1.00

APPENDIX 6C

Calculation of effective fetch at the General Motors Co. site Length of radii (km)

Alpha i 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 Xi (km) 0.70 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.82 0.93 1.05 1.18 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.67 1.73 2.00 2.22 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alpha i 90 93 96 99 102 105 108 111 114 117 120 123 126 129 132 135 138 141 144 147 150 153 156 159 162 165 168 171 174 177 Xi (km) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

180 183 186 189 192 195 198 201 204 207 210 213 216 219 222 225 228 231 234 237 240 243 246 249 252 255 258 261 264 267 Xi (km) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.35 0.50 0.50 2.60 3.60 Alpha i 270 273 276 279 282 285 288 291 294 297 300 303 306 309 312 315 318 321 324 327 330 333 336 339 342 345 348 351 354 357 Xi (km) 3.40 3.00 3.00 2.53 1.33 1.15 0.95 0.90 0.88 0.80 0.70 0.72 0.68 0.70 0.67 0.65 0.60 0.58 0.62 0.60 0.58 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.58 0.62 0.60 0.60 0.65 0.65 Effective fetch for azimuth considered main radius (km) Angle of central radius Angles 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180 192 204 216 228 240 252 264 276 288 300 312 324 336 348 0 0.70 0.82 1.30 1.73 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 2.60 3.00 0.95 0.70 0.67 0.62 0.60 0.60 ± 3 0.68 0.85 1.29 1.80 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.28 2.23 2.84 1.00 0.74 0.67 0.60 0.58 0.61 ± 6 0.69 0.87 1.28 1.82 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.29 2.12 2.65 1.04 0.75 0.66 0.59 0.58 0.61 ± 9 0.69 0.88 1.28 1.58 0.77 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.28 1.98 2.56 1.21 0.76 0.65 0.59 0.59 0.61 ± 12 0.69 0.91 1.28 1.42 0.78 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.50 1.90 2.38 1.34 0.77 0.65 0.60 0.59 0.62 ± 15 0.70 0.92 1.29 1.28 0.79 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.72 1.80 2.08 1.42 0.79 0.66 0.60 0.59 0.61 ± 18 0.71 0.94 1.31 1.17 0.78 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.85 1.63 1.86 1.50 0.81 0.66 0.60 0.59 0.62 ± 21 0.73 0.95 1.22 1.07 0.76 0.33 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.92 1.50 1.70 1.56 0.89 0.66 0.61 0.59 0.62 ± 24 0.74 0.96 1.14 1.00 0.74 0.39 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.24 0.97 1.38 1.56 1.56 0.97 0.67 0.61 0.59 0.63 ± 27 0.75 0.98 1.06 0.93 0.72 0.42 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.38 0.99 1.28 1.45 1.45 1.04 0.68 0.61 0.60 0.63 ± 30 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.70 0.44 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.47 0.95 1.20 1.35 1.37 1.10 0.69 0.61 0.60 0.64 ± 33 0.78 0.96 0.94 0.84 0.67 0.45 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.53 0.92 1.14 1.27 1.29 1.15 0.74 0.61 0.60 0.65 ± 36 0.79 0.93 0.89 0.80 0.65 0.46 0.22 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.58 0.88 1.08 1.20 1.23 1.16 0.79 0.62 0.60 0.66 ± 39 0.81 0.89 0.85 0.76 0.63 0.46 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.22 0.61 0.85 1.03 1.14 1.17 1.11 0.83 0.62 0.61 0.67 ± 42 0.82 0.85 0.81 0.73 0.61 0.45 0.27 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.28 0.60 0.82 0.98 1.09 1.12 1.07 0.87 0.63 0.61 0.68 Mean f 0.74 0.91 1.13 1.19 0.67 0.26 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.26 0.70 1.59 1.87 1.28 0.92 0.70 0.61 0.59 0.63 Std dev 0.05 0.05 0.18 0.38 0.12 0.19 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.23 0.27 0.48 0.64 0.19 0.16 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.02 Eff f 0.76 0.94 1.22 1.38 0.73 0.35 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.38 0.84 1.83 2.19 1.38 1.00 0.74 0.61 0.60 0.64

APPENDIX 6D

Calculation of effective fetch at the Domtar Co. site Length of radii (km)

Alpha i 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 Xi (km) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 Alpha i 90 93 96 99 102 105 108 111 114 117 120 123 126 129 132 135 138 141 144 147 150 153 156 159 162 165 168 171 174 177 Xi (km) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.92 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.78 0.67 0.60 0.50 0.42 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Alpha i 180 183 186 189 192 195 198 201 204 207 210 213 216 219 222 225 228 231 234 237 240 243 246 249 252 255 258 261 264 267 Xi (km) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.32 0.32 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.37 0.32 0.27 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.37 0.42 0.45 1.68 1.75 3.20 4.20 4.45 0.82 0.70 0.60 0.40 Alpha i 270 273 276 279 282 285 288 291 294 297 300 303 306 309 312 315 318 321 324 327 330 333 336 339 342 345 348 351 354 357 Xi (km) 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Effective fetch for azimuth considered main radius (km) Angle of central radius

Angles 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180 192 204 216 228 240 252 264 276 288 300 312 324 336 348 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.92 0.80 0.50 0.33 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.32 0.37 0.35 0.45 4.20 0.60 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

± 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.47 0.90 0.79 0.51 0.31 0.22 0.23 0.30 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.85 3.95 0.57 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.12 0.51 0.90 0.77 0.52 0.32 0.22 0.23 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.93 2.88 0.54 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.52 0.90 0.75 0.53 0.32 0.22 0.23 0.29 0.33 0.34 0.35 1.17 2.40 1.03 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

± 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.51 0.81 0.74 0.53 0.32 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.36 1.40 1.98 1.26 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.18 0.50 0.75 0.72 0.53 0.34 0.24 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.34 0.47 1.57 1.70 1.31 0.18 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.23 0.49 0.69 0.72 0.52 0.35 0.25 0.24 0.28 0.31 0.33 0.55 1.41 1.49 1.24 0.21 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.25 0.48 0.65 0.70 0.52 0.36 0.26 0.25 0.28 0.31 0.33 0.69 1.29 1.33 1.18 0.45 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.27 0.47 0.61 0.65 0.52 0.37 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.85 1.20 1.20 1.07 0.61 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.28 0.45 0.57 0.61 0.52 0.38 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.30 0.39 0.97 1.11 1.10 0.98 0.69 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.29 0.44 0.54 0.57 0.52 0.39 0.30 0.26 0.27 0.29 0.43 0.93 1.04 1.01 0.91 0.70 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.15 0.29 0.43 0.51 0.54 0.52 0.40 0.31 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.51 0.89 0.97 0.95 0.86 0.70 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.16 0.29 0.41 0.48 0.51 0.50 0.40 0.32 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.60 0.85 0.91 0.89 0.81 0.66 0.35 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.17 0.29 0.39 0.46 0.49 0.48 0.41 0.33 0.28 0.27 0.32 0.67 0.82 0.86 0.84 0.76 0.63 0.41 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.18 0.29 0.38 0.44 0.46 0.46 0.41 0.34 0.28 0.27 0.34 0.66 0.78 0.82 0.80 0.73 0.60 0.42 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mean f 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.22 0.44 0.67 0.66 0.51 0.36 0.27 0.25 0.28 0.31 0.42 0.64 1.07 1.78 0.92 0.39 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Std dev 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.11 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.12 0.24 0.28 1.07 0.25 0.27 0.15 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Eff f 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.25 0.48 0.76 0.71 0.52 0.38 0.29 0.26 0.28 0.32 0.48 0.76 1.20 2.32 1.05 0.52 0.20 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

APPENDIX 6E

Calculation of effective fetch at the Courtaulds Co. site Length of radii (km)

Alpha i 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 Xi (km) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.55 0.50 0.75 1.20 1.15 3.15 2.25 2.20 2.20 2.60 3.70 3.75 4.50 4.30 Alpha i 90 93 96 99 102 105 108 111 114 117 120 123 126 129 132 135 138 141 144 147 150 153 156 159 162 165 168 171 174 177 Xi (km) 3.60 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.65 0.55 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.60 0.60 0.60 Alpha i 180 183 186 189 192 195 198 201 204 207 210 213 216 219 222 225 228 231 234 237 240 243 246 249 252 255 258 261 264 267 Xi (km) 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.78 0.82 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.85 0.77 0.67 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alpha i 270 273 276 279 282 285 288 291 294 297 300 303 306 309 312 315 318 321 324 327 330 333 336 339 342 345 348 351 354 357 Xi (km) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Effective fetch for azimuth considered main radius (km) Angle of central radius

Angles 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180 192 204 216 228 240 252 264 276 288 300 312 324 336 348 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 1.15 2.20 4.50 1.00 0.80 0.65 0.65 0.60 0.58 0.58 0.60 0.80 0.82 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

± 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 1.83 2.33 4.18 1.00 0.78 0.62 0.65 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.62 0.78 0.82 0.83 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.45 1.70 2.58 3.96 1.47 0.77 0.62 0.63 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.63 0.77 0.82 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.49 1.59 2.82 3.36 1.77 0.77 0.63 0.61 0.62 0.59 0.59 0.64 0.75 0.82 0.72 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

± 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.51 1.54 2.80 2.96 1.95 0.78 0.65 0.61 0.61 0.58 0.58 0.65 0.74 0.82 0.65 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.69 1.51 2.78 2.70 1.99 0.78 0.66 0.61 0.61 0.58 0.59 0.65 0.73 0.80 0.60 0.29 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 18 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.17 0.74 1.56 2.67 2.51 2.01 0.96 0.67 0.61 0.60 0.58 0.59 0.65 0.73 0.78 0.57 0.31 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 21 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.22 0.78 1.59 2.43 2.43 1.94 1.13 0.67 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.65 0.72 0.73 0.54 0.32 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 24 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.25 0.80 1.64 2.24 2.26 1.87 1.26 0.68 0.62 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.65 0.71 0.68 0.52 0.33 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 27 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.36 0.84 1.66 2.07 2.12 1.81 1.33 0.69 0.62 0.58 0.58 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.64 0.50 0.33 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 30 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.42 0.91 1.66 1.93 1.99 1.76 1.38 0.78 0.61 0.58 0.58 0.61 0.65 0.69 0.61 0.49 0.33 0.17 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 33 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.46 0.96 1.56 1.80 1.88 1.74 1.38 0.88 0.61 0.58 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.58 0.47 0.33 0.19 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 36 0.00 0.03 0.15 0.49 1.02 1.48 1.70 1.78 1.67 1.36 0.96 0.62 0.58 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.63 0.55 0.45 0.33 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 39 0.00 0.04 0.21 0.52 1.06 1.41 1.61 1.69 1.61 1.34 1.01 0.62 0.58 0.58 0.60 0.63 0.60 0.53 0.44 0.33 0.20 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ± 42 0.00 0.05 0.25 0.57 1.07 1.35 1.53 1.61 1.55 1.33 1.04 0.67 0.58 0.58 0.60 0.63 0.58 0.52 0.43 0.32 0.21 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mean f 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.25 0.75 1.55 2.23 2.66 1.68 1.08 0.75 0.62 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.64 0.71 0.70 0.59 0.26 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Std dev 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.19 0.22 0.16 0.43 0.91 0.31 0.26 0.15 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.12 0.14 0.10 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Eff f 0.00 0.02 0.11 0.35 0.86 1.63 2.45 3.12 1.83 1.21 0.82 0.63 0.60 0.58 0.60 0.65 0.74 0.76 0.66 0.31 0.14 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

APPENDIX 6F

Calculation of effective fetch at the Pilon Island site Length of radii (km)

Alpha i 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 Xi (km) 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.50 0.47 0.42 0.42 0.45 0.56 0.70 0.90 1.00 1.15 1.35 1.77 1.88 1.80 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.18 1.10 1.05 0.83 0.75 0.75 0.75 Alpha i 90 93 96 99 102 105 108 111 114 117 120 123 126 129 132 135 138 141 144 147 150 153 156 159 162 165 168 171 174 177 Xi (km) 0.75 0.75 0.70 0.70 0.55 0.52 1.53 1.50 1.42 1.40 1.38 1.30 1.30 1.20 1.20 1.15 1.15 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.30 1.10 1.00 Alpha i 180 183 186 189 192 195 198 201 204 207 210 213 216 219 222 225 228 231 234 237 240 243 246 249 252 255 258 261 264 267 Xi (km) 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.15 1.07 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.00 1.10 1.30 1.80 2.65 2.90 3.75 2.15 1.95 1.60 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.00 1.00 Alpha i 270 273 276 279 282 285 288 291 294 297 300 303 306 309 312 315 318 321 324 327 330 333 336 339 342 345 348 351 354 357 Xi (km) 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.90 0.85 0.82 0.80 0.75 0.72 0.70 0.62 0.62 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60

Effective fetch for azimuth considered main radius (km) Angle of central radius

Angles 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180 192 204 216 228 240 252 264 276 288 300 312 324 336 348 0 0.60 0.50 0.45 1.00 1.88 1.85 1.10 0.75 0.70 1.53 1.38 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.40 0.80 1.00 1.10 1.25 1.10 2.90 1.60 1.00 0.95 0.82 0.70 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60

± 3 0.60 0.49 0.48 1.02 1.82 1.85 1.11 0.75 0.72 1.18 1.36 1.18 1.07 1.00 1.33 0.87 1.00 1.08 1.25 1.13 3.10 1.65 1.07 0.95 0.82 0.68 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 ± 6 0.59 0.49 0.51 1.02 1.73 1.84 1.20 0.76 0.69 1.10 1.36 1.20 1.07 1.04 1.26 0.92 1.01 1.09 1.24 1.31 2.65 1.68 1.10 0.95 0.82 0.68 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 ± 9 0.58 0.49 0.56 1.06 1.66 1.74 1.22 0.80 0.67 1.08 1.35 1.21 1.07 1.07 1.18 0.97 0.98 1.11 1.18 1.49 2.35 1.89 1.12 0.94 0.82 0.68 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60

± 12 0.57 0.50 0.60 1.07 1.60 1.68 1.23 0.82 0.77 1.07 1.35 1.20 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.01 0.97 1.11 1.15 1.61 2.12 1.90 1.15 0.93 0.82 0.69 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.59 ± 15 0.56 0.51 0.63 1.07 1.55 1.62 1.24 0.83 0.83 1.05 1.25 1.19 1.07 1.11 1.07 1.04 0.98 1.10 1.15 1.75 1.95 1.87 1.19 0.93 0.81 0.69 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.59 ± 18 0.55 0.52 0.67 1.07 1.50 1.53 1.24 0.88 0.86 1.04 1.18 1.18 1.09 1.10 1.05 1.05 0.99 1.09 1.19 1.72 1.85 1.79 1.23 0.94 0.80 0.69 0.62 0.59 0.59 0.59 ± 21 0.54 0.55 0.73 1.08 1.41 1.45 1.23 0.91 0.90 1.03 1.15 1.18 1.10 1.09 1.03 1.04 1.01 1.06 1.26 1.68 1.76 1.70 1.35 0.95 0.79 0.69 0.62 0.59 0.59 0.58 ± 24 0.53 0.57 0.77 1.08 1.33 1.38 1.23 0.98 0.92 1.01 1.11 1.18 1.12 1.07 1.01 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.32 1.63 1.68 1.61 1.38 0.96 0.79 0.70 0.63 0.59 0.58 0.57 ± 27 0.53 0.59 0.80 1.07 1.27 1.32 1.21 1.03 0.94 0.99 1.07 1.13 1.13 1.05 1.01 1.02 1.04 1.04 1.39 1.58 1.61 1.54 1.40 0.98 0.79 0.70 0.63 0.59 0.58 0.56 ± 30 0.53 0.61 0.82 1.07 1.20 1.26 1.18 1.06 0.98 0.98 1.05 1.10 1.13 1.05 1.01 1.01 1.05 1.06 1.39 1.53 1.55 1.49 1.37 1.00 0.79 0.70 0.63 0.59 0.57 0.55 ± 33 0.54 0.64 0.84 1.04 1.15 1.20 1.14 1.08 1.00 0.98 1.02 1.08 1.12 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.03 1.10 1.37 1.49 1.50 1.44 1.33 1.06 0.80 0.69 0.63 0.59 0.56 0.54 ± 36 0.55 0.67 0.85 1.02 1.11 1.15 1.13 1.10 1.02 0.97 1.00 1.06 1.11 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.15 1.34 1.44 1.45 1.40 1.29 1.08 0.80 0.69 0.63 0.59 0.56 0.53 ± 39 0.56 0.68 0.86 1.00 1.07 1.11 1.12 1.11 1.03 0.96 0.98 1.05 1.07 1.03 0.99 0.99 1.01 1.20 1.32 1.40 1.41 1.36 1.25 1.10 0.81 0.69 0.63 0.59 0.55 0.53 ± 42 0.57 0.69 0.86 0.97 1.03 1.06 1.10 1.10 1.03 0.97 0.97 1.03 1.04 1.02 0.99 0.99 1.01 1.20 1.29 1.36 1.37 1.33 1.22 1.08 0.83 0.69 0.63 0.58 0.54 0.52

Mean f 0.56 0.57 0.69 1.04 1.42 1.47 1.18 0.93 0.87 1.06 1.17 1.14 1.08 1.05 1.10 0.98 1.01 1.10 1.27 1.48 1.95 1.62 1.23 0.98 0.81 0.69 0.62 0.59 0.58 0.57 Std dev 0.02 0.07 0.14 0.03 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.19 0.54 0.18 0.12 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03

Eff f 0.57 0.60 0.77 1.06 1.56 1.61 1.21 1.00 0.93 1.13 1.25 1.18 1.10 1.07 1.16 1.02 1.02 1.13 1.31 1.57 2.22 1.71 1.29 1.02 0.81 0.69 0.62 0.59 0.59 0.58

APPENDIX 6G

Calculation of effective fetch at the Thompson Island site Length of radii (km)

Alpha i 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 Xi (km) 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 8.6 10.9 14.6 19.6 20.3 18.6 16.8 16.1 16.3 14.8 13.5 12.4 11.3 10.4 9.5 8.8 8.0 7.4 6.7 6.1 5.6 5.2 5.0 Alpha i 90 93 96 99 102 105 108 111 114 117 120 123 126 129 132 135 138 141 144 147 150 153 156 159 162 165 168 171 174 177 Xi (km) 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.5 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Alpha i 180 183 186 189 192 195 198 201 204 207 210 213 216 219 222 225 228 231 234 237 240 243 246 249 252 255 258 261 264 267 Xi (km) 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.9 1.9 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.1 5.1 5.2 6.2 6.6 6.9 6.7 2.4 2.4 4.2 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.5 Alpha i 270 273 276 279 282 285 288 291 294 297 300 303 306 309 312 315 318 321 324 327 330 333 336 339 342 345 348 351 354 357 Xi (km) 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.5 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3

Effective fetch for azimuth considered main radius (km) Angle of central radius

Angles 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180 192 204 216 228 240 252 264 276 288 300 312 324 336 348 0 2.4 1.8 10.9 18.6 14.8 10.4 7.4 5.2 4.4 3.8 3.2 2.7 1.6 1.2 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.9 4.2 5.1 6.9 4.2 3.3 1.4 1.0 1.0 2.7 2.2 2.1 2.2

± 3 2.3 2.0 11.4 18.5 14.9 10.4 7.4 5.3 4.4 3.8 3.2 2.7 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.5 2.4 2.4 4.2 5.1 6.7 3.2 3.3 1.4 1.0 1.0 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2 ± 6 2.3 2.1 11.1 18.2 14.6 10.5 7.4 5.3 4.4 3.8 3.2 2.6 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.3 2.7 4.2 5.3 5.7 3.0 3.0 1.4 1.0 1.1 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.2 ± 9 2.3 3.0 11.0 17.4 14.4 10.5 7.4 5.4 4.4 3.8 3.2 2.5 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.8 4.2 5.3 5.2 3.6 2.8 1.6 1.0 1.1 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.2

± 12 2.2 3.8 10.8 16.3 14.3 10.6 7.5 5.5 4.4 3.8 3.2 2.5 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.9 4.0 5.3 5.0 3.9 2.8 1.7 1.1 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.1 2.2 ± 15 2.2 4.6 10.5 15.3 14.3 10.7 7.5 5.6 4.4 3.8 3.2 2.5 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.8 2.1 3.0 3.9 5.3 4.9 4.1 2.6 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.2 ± 18 2.1 5.4 10.3 14.0 14.2 10.7 7.6 5.6 4.4 3.7 3.1 2.5 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.8 2.2 3.0 4.0 4.9 4.7 4.0 2.5 1.8 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.2 ± 21 2.5 6.1 10.1 13.0 13.8 10.6 7.7 5.7 4.5 3.7 3.1 2.5 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.7 2.2 3.0 4.0 4.7 4.5 3.9 2.6 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.2 ± 24 2.9 6.4 9.8 12.2 13.2 10.7 7.8 5.8 4.5 3.7 3.0 2.5 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.3 3.0 4.0 4.5 4.4 3.8 2.7 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.1 ± 27 3.3 6.6 9.6 11.5 12.5 10.7 8.0 5.9 4.6 3.7 3.0 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.3 3.0 4.0 4.2 4.3 3.7 2.8 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.1 ± 30 3.9 6.8 9.3 11.0 11.7 10.7 8.0 6.0 4.6 3.7 3.0 2.4 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.8 2.3 3.0 3.8 4.1 4.1 3.6 2.8 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.1 ± 33 4.3 6.8 9.0 10.4 11.1 10.5 8.1 6.1 4.6 3.7 3.0 2.4 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.3 3.1 3.7 4.0 4.0 3.5 2.8 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.3 ± 36 4.6 6.8 8.7 10.0 10.5 10.2 8.2 6.1 4.7 3.7 3.0 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.4 3.1 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.4 2.8 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.5 ± 39 4.7 6.8 8.5 9.6 10.0 9.9 8.2 6.2 4.7 3.7 2.9 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.4 3.1 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.3 2.7 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.7 ± 42 4.9 6.7 8.2 9.2 9.6 9.4 8.2 6.3 4.8 3.7 2.9 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.4 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.2 2.7 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.9 3.0

Mean f 3.1 5.0 9.9 13.7 12.9 10.4 7.8 5.7 4.5 3.7 3.1 2.5 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.9 4.6 4.8 3.6 2.8 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 Std dev 1.0 1.9 1.0 3.3 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3

Eff f 3.6 6.0 10.4 15.4 13.8 10.6 7.9 5.9 4.6 3.8 3.1 2.5 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.3 3.0 4.1 4.9 5.3 3.8 2.9 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.4

APPENDIX 6H

Calculation of effective fetch at the Christatie Island site Length of radii (km)

Alpha i 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 Xi (km) 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.2 10.8 11.6 12.8 14.2 16.8 19.6 20.3 18.5 12.9 10.0 9.9 8.7 7.7 6.8 5.6 5.2 4.7 4.4 3.2 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.5 Alpha i 90 93 96 99 102 105 108 111 114 117 120 123 126 129 132 135 138 141 144 147 150 153 156 159 162 165 168 171 174 177 Xi (km) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 Alpha i 180 183 186 189 192 195 198 201 204 207 210 213 216 219 222 225 228 231 234 237 240 243 246 249 252 255 258 261 264 267 Xi (km) 0.6 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 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 Alpha i 270 273 276 279 282 285 288 291 294 297 300 303 306 309 312 315 318 321 324 327 330 333 336 339 342 345 348 351 354 357 Xi (km) 0.6 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 4.0 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Effective fetch for azimuth considered main radius (km) Angle of central radius

Angles 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180 192 204 216 228 240 252 264 276 288 300 312 324 336 348 0 8.0 10.2 14.2 18.5 8.7 5.2 2.8 1.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.5 1.2 0.6 4.0 3.8 3.0 1.9 1.5 4.0 6.5

± 3 8.2 10.2 14.6 17.2 8.8 5.2 2.9 1.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.2 0.6 3.3 3.7 3.1 1.9 1.6 3.6 6.5 ± 6 8.2 10.2 15.0 16.2 8.6 5.3 3.1 1.7 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.4 1.2 0.6 2.9 3.7 3.1 2.1 1.7 3.6 6.5 ± 9 8.2 10.3 15.1 15.4 8.8 5.3 3.1 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.3 1.2 0.9 2.7 3.7 3.0 2.2 1.7 3.7 6.5

± 12 8.2 10.4 14.8 14.4 9.4 5.4 3.2 1.8 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.2 2.6 3.6 2.9 2.2 2.0 3.7 6.3 ± 15 8.2 10.7 14.1 13.6 9.9 5.5 3.2 1.8 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.5 2.5 3.4 2.9 2.2 2.2 3.8 6.1 ± 18 8.2 11.0 13.4 12.9 10.1 5.6 3.3 1.9 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.7 2.4 3.1 2.9 2.2 2.5 3.9 5.9 ± 21 8.2 11.2 12.8 12.2 10.0 5.7 3.4 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.8 2.3 2.9 2.9 2.3 2.7 4.0 5.9 ± 24 8.2 11.3 12.2 11.7 9.7 6.1 3.5 2.1 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.8 2.3 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.9 4.0 5.8 ± 27 8.2 11.0 11.7 11.1 9.5 6.5 3.7 2.2 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.6 3.1 4.1 5.8 ± 30 8.3 10.6 11.2 10.7 9.2 6.7 3.8 2.3 1.6 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.3 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.7 3.2 4.2 5.8 ± 33 8.4 10.3 10.7 10.2 8.9 6.8 3.9 2.4 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.8 3.3 4.3 5.8 ± 36 8.3 9.9 10.3 9.8 8.6 6.7 4.2 2.5 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.9 3.4 4.4 5.9 ± 39 8.2 9.5 9.9 9.5 8.3 6.6 4.5 2.7 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.9 3.5 4.4 5.9 ± 42 8.0 9.2 9.6 9.1 8.1 6.5 4.6 2.7 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.9 3.6 4.5 6.1

Mean f 8.2 10.4 12.6 12.8 9.1 5.9 3.5 2.1 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.2 1.4 2.5 3.0 2.8 2.4 2.6 4.0 6.1 Std dev 0.1 0.6 1.9 2.9 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.3

Eff f 8.2 10.7 13.6 14.3 9.4 6.3 3.8 2.3 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.7 2.8 3.3 2.9 2.6 3.0 4.2 6.2

150

APPENDIX 7

Waves generated by wind at intermediate depths and with limited fetch*

Effective fetch Wind speed Water depth Period Height Wave length (m) Hourly speed (km) (m/s) (m) (s) (m) Deep water Interm. water (cm/s)

0.50 4.17 0.1 0.72 0.03 0.81 0.81 15.29 0.50 4.17 0.2 0.81 0.04 1.01 1.01 10.91 0.50 4.17 0.3 0.85 0.05 1.12 1.11 7.33 0.50 4.17 0.4 0.87 0.06 1.18 1.17 4.83 0.50 4.17 0.5 0.89 0.06 1.22 1.22 3.17 0.50 4.17 0.6 0.90 0.06 1.26 1.25 2.07 0.50 4.17 0.7 0.91 0.06 1.28 1.27 1.35 0.50 4.17 0.8 0.91 0.06 1.30 1.29 0.88 0.50 4.17 0.9 0.92 0.06 1.32 1.31 0.57 0.50 4.17 1.0 0.92 0.06 1.33 1.32 0.37 0.50 4.17 1.5 0.94 0.06 1.38 1.36 0.04 0.50 4.17 2.0 0.95 0.07 1.40 1.39 0.01 0.50 4.17 2.5 0.95 0.07 1.42 1.40 0.00 0.50 4.17 3.0 0.96 0.07 1.43 1.41 0.00

1.00 4.17 0.1 0.78 0.03 0.94 0.94 17.15 1.00 4.17 0.2 0.89 0.05 1.23 1.23 14.10 1.00 4.17 0.3 0.94 0.06 1.39 1.38 10.83 1.00 4.17 0.4 0.98 0.07 1.50 1.47 8.09 1.00 4.17 0.5 1.00 0.07 1.57 1.54 5.97 1.00 4.17 0.6 1.02 0.08 1.63 1.59 4.38 1.00 4.17 0.7 1.03 0.08 1.67 1.63 3.20 1.00 4.17 0.8 1.04 0.08 1.70 1.66 2.33 1.00 4.17 0.9 1.05 0.08 1.73 1.69 1.69 1.00 4.17 1.0 1.06 0.08 1.76 1.71 1.23 1.00 4.17 1.5 1.09 0.08 1.84 1.78 0.25 1.00 4.17 2.0 1.10 0.09 1.89 1.82 0.05 1.00 4.17 2.5 1.11 0.09 1.92 1.85 0.01 1.00 4.17 3.0 1.11 0.09 1.94 1.87 0.00

2.00 4.17 0.1 0.82 0.03 1.04 1.04 18.41 2.00 4.17 0.2 0.96 0.05 1.44 1.43 16.53 2.00 4.17 0.3 1.04 0.07 1.68 1.64 13.96 2.00 4.17 0.4 1.09 0.08 1.84 1.78 11.43 2.00 4.17 0.5 1.12 0.08 1.96 1.88 9.19 2.00 4.17 0.6 1.15 0.09 2.05 1.95 7.32 2.00 4.17 0.7 1.17 0.09 2.12 2.01 5.80 2.00 4.17 0.8 1.18 0.10 2.18 2.06 4.57 2.00 4.17 0.9 1.19 0.10 2.23 2.10 3.59 2.00 4.17 1.0 1.21 0.10 2.27 2.13 2.81 2.00 4.17 1.5 1.24 0.11 2.41 2.24 0.82 2.00 4.17 2.0 1.26 0.11 2.49 2.30 0.24 2.00 4.17 2.5 1.28 0.11 2.55 2.34 0.07 2.00 4.17 3.0 1.29 0.11 2.59 2.37 0.02

3.00 4.17 0.1 0.84 0.03 1.09 1.09 18.93

* Wind speeds selected: 5 km/h (4.17 m/s); 28 km/h (7.79 m/s); 40 km/h (11.11 m/s); 45 km/h (12.5 m/s).

APPENDIX 7 (cont’d. 1)

Effective fetch Wind speed Water depth Period Height Wave length (m) Hourly speed (km) (m/s) (m) (s) (m) Deep water Interm. water (cm/s)

3.00 4.17 0.2 1.00 0.05 1.56 1.53 17.55 3.00 4.17 0.3 1.09 0.07 1.85 1.79 15.41 3.00 4.17 0.4 1.14 0.08 2.04 1.95 13.13 3.00 4.17 0.5 1.19 0.09 2.19 2.07 10.98 3.00 4.17 0.6 1.22 0.10 2.31 2.16 9.09 3.00 4.17 0.7 1.24 0.10 2.40 2.23 7.46 3.00 4.17 0.8 1.26 0.11 2.48 2.29 6.09 3.00 4.17 0.9 1.28 0.11 2.55 2.34 4.96 3.00 4.17 1.0 1.29 0.12 2.60 2.38 4.02 3.00 4.17 1.5 1.34 0.13 2.79 2.51 1.38 3.00 4.17 2.0 1.36 0.13 2.91 2.59 0.47 3.00 4.17 2.5 1.38 0.13 2.98 2.64 0.16 3.00 4.17 3.0 1.39 0.13 3.04 2.68 0.05

5.00 4.17 0.1 0.85 0.03 1.14 1.14 19.41 5.00 4.17 0.2 1.04 0.05 1.68 1.64 18.50 5.00 4.17 0.3 1.14 0.07 2.04 1.95 16.78 5.00 4.17 0.4 1.21 0.08 2.29 2.15 14.84 5.00 4.17 0.5 1.26 0.10 2.49 2.30 12.91 5.00 4.17 0.6 1.30 0.11 2.64 2.41 11.10 5.00 4.17 0.7 1.33 0.11 2.77 2.50 9.47 5.00 4.17 0.8 1.36 0.12 2.87 2.57 8.02 5.00 4.17 0.9 1.38 0.13 2.96 2.63 6.76 5.00 4.17 1.0 1.40 0.13 3.04 2.68 5.68 5.00 4.17 1.5 1.46 0.15 3.31 2.85 2.30 5.00 4.17 2.0 1.49 0.15 3.48 2.95 0.91 5.00 4.17 2.5 1.52 0.16 3.59 3.01 0.36 5.00 4.17 3.0 1.53 0.16 3.67 3.06 0.14

7.00 4.17 0.1 0.86 0.03 1.16 1.16 19.64 7.00 4.17 0.2 1.06 0.05 1.75 1.70 18.95 7.00 4.17 0.3 1.17 0.07 2.15 2.04 17.44 7.00 4.17 0.4 1.25 0.08 2.44 2.26 15.70 7.00 4.17 0.5 1.31 0.10 2.67 2.43 13.93 7.00 4.17 0.6 1.35 0.11 2.85 2.55 12.22 7.00 4.17 0.7 1.39 0.12 3.01 2.65 10.63 7.00 4.17 0.8 1.42 0.13 3.13 2.74 9.19 7.00 4.17 0.9 1.44 0.13 3.24 2.80 7.91 7.00 4.17 1.0 1.46 0.14 3.34 2.86 6.77 7.00 4.17 1.5 1.53 0.16 3.67 3.06 3.01 7.00 4.17 2.0 1.58 0.17 3.88 3.18 1.30 7.00 4.17 2.5 1.61 0.18 4.03 3.25 0.55 7.00 4.17 3.0 1.63 0.18 4.13 3.31 0.23

10.00 4.17 0.1 0.87 0.03 1.18 1.18 19.83 10.00 4.17 0.2 1.08 0.05 1.81 1.76 19.33 10.00 4.17 0.3 1.20 0.07 2.25 2.12 17.97 10.00 4.17 0.4 1.29 0.09 2.59 2.37 16.40 10.00 4.17 0.5 1.35 0.10 2.85 2.55 14.77 10.00 4.17 0.6 1.40 0.11 3.07 2.69 13.19

152

APPENDIX 7 (cont’d. 2)

Effective fetch Wind speed Water depth Period Height Wave length (m) Hourly speed (km) (m/s) (m) (s) (m) Deep water Interm. water (cm/s)

10.00 4.17 0.7 1.44 0.12 3.25 2.81 11.68 10.00 4.17 0.8 1.48 0.13 3.40 2.90 10.28 10.00 4.17 0.9 1.50 0.14 3.53 2.98 9.01 10.00 4.17 1.0 1.53 0.15 3.65 3.05 7.85 10.00 4.17 1.5 1.61 0.17 4.07 3.27 3.81 10.00 4.17 2.0 1.66 0.19 4.33 3.41 1.78 10.00 4.17 2.5 1.70 0.20 4.51 3.50 0.82 10.00 4.17 3.0 1.72 0.20 4.64 3.56 0.37

12.00 4.17 0.1 0.87 0.03 1.19 1.19 19.90 12.00 4.17 0.2 1.09 0.05 1.84 1.78 19.48 12.00 4.17 0.3 1.21 0.07 2.30 2.16 18.19 12.00 4.17 0.4 1.30 0.09 2.66 2.42 16.68 12.00 4.17 0.5 1.37 0.10 2.94 2.61 15.12 12.00 4.17 0.6 1.43 0.11 3.17 2.76 13.60 12.00 4.17 0.7 1.47 0.12 3.37 2.88 12.14 12.00 4.17 0.8 1.50 0.13 3.53 2.98 10.77 12.00 4.17 0.9 1.53 0.14 3.68 3.06 9.51 12.00 4.17 1.0 1.56 0.15 3.80 3.13 8.36 12.00 4.17 1.5 1.65 0.18 4.26 3.38 4.21 12.00 4.17 2.0 1.71 0.20 4.56 3.52 2.04 12.00 4.17 2.5 1.75 0.21 4.76 3.62 0.97 12.00 4.17 3.0 1.77 0.21 4.91 3.69 0.46

15.00 4.17 0.1 0.88 0.03 1.20 1.19 19.97 15.00 4.17 0.2 1.09 0.05 1.87 1.80 19.64 15.00 4.17 0.3 1.23 0.07 2.36 2.20 18.42 15.00 4.17 0.4 1.32 0.09 2.73 2.47 16.97 15.00 4.17 0.5 1.39 0.10 3.04 2.67 15.49 15.00 4.17 0.6 1.45 0.11 3.29 2.83 14.02 15.00 4.17 0.7 1.50 0.13 3.50 2.96 12.62 15.00 4.17 0.8 1.54 0.14 3.69 3.07 11.29 15.00 4.17 0.9 1.57 0.15 3.85 3.16 10.06 15.00 4.17 1.0 1.60 0.16 3.99 3.23 8.93 15.00 4.17 1.5 1.70 0.19 4.51 3.50 4.70 15.00 4.17 2.0 1.76 0.21 4.84 3.66 2.37 15.00 4.17 2.5 1.80 0.22 5.07 3.76 1.18 15.00 4.17 3.0 1.83 0.23 5.24 3.84 0.58 0.50 7.79 0.1 0.91 0.04 1.29 1.28 28.40 0.50 7.79 0.2 1.04 0.07 1.70 1.66 24.55 0.50 7.79 0.3 1.11 0.09 1.92 1.85 20.12 0.50 7.79 0.4 1.15 0.10 2.06 1.96 16.12 0.50 7.79 0.5 1.18 0.11 2.16 2.05 12.80 0.50 7.79 0.6 1.20 0.11 2.24 2.11 10.10 0.50 7.79 0.7 1.21 0.12 2.30 2.15 7.95 0.50 7.79 0.8 1.23 0.12 2.35 2.19 6.25 0.50 7.79 0.9 1.24 0.12 2.39 2.22 4.90 0.50 7.79 1.0 1.25 0.12 2.42 2.25 3.84

APPENDIX 7 (cont’d. 3)

Effective fetch Wind speed Water depth Period Height Wave length (m) Hourly speed (km) (m/s) (m) (s) (m) Deep water Interm. water (cm/s)

0.50 7.79 1.5 1.27 0.13 2.53 2.33 1.13 0.50 7.79 2.0 1.29 0.13 2.60 2.38 0.33 0.50 7.79 2.5 1.30 0.13 2.64 2.41 0.10 0.50 7.79 3.0 1.31 0.14 2.68 2.43 0.03

1.00 7.79 0.1 0.96 0.04 1.45 1.43 30.20 1.00 7.79 0.2 1.13 0.07 2.01 1.92 27.63 1.00 7.79 0.3 1.22 0.09 2.34 2.18 24.21 1.00 7.79 0.4 1.28 0.11 2.56 2.35 20.75 1.00 7.79 0.5 1.32 0.12 2.73 2.47 17.56 1.00 7.79 0.6 1.35 0.13 2.85 2.55 14.74 1.00 7.79 0.7 1.38 0.14 2.95 2.62 12.31 1.00 7.79 0.8 1.39 0.15 3.04 2.68 10.25 1.00 7.79 0.9 1.41 0.15 3.11 2.72 8.51 1.00 7.79 1.0 1.42 0.15 3.17 2.76 7.05 1.00 7.79 1.5 1.47 0.17 3.37 2.88 2.71 1.00 7.79 2.0 1.49 0.17 3.49 2.95 1.03 1.00 7.79 2.5 1.51 0.18 3.57 3.00 0.39 1.00 7.79 3.0 1.52 0.18 3.63 3.03 0.15

2.00 7.79 0.1 1.00 0.04 1.56 1.54 31.39 2.00 7.79 0.2 1.21 0.07 2.29 2.15 29.55 2.00 7.79 0.3 1.33 0.09 2.75 2.48 26.88 2.00 7.79 0.4 1.40 0.12 3.08 2.70 24.08 2.00 7.79 0.5 1.46 0.13 3.33 2.86 21.35 2.00 7.79 0.6 1.50 0.15 3.53 2.98 18.77 2.00 7.79 0.7 1.54 0.16 3.69 3.07 16.40 2.00 7.79 0.8 1.57 0.17 3.83 3.14 14.27 2.00 7.79 0.9 1.59 0.18 3.94 3.21 12.37 2.00 7.79 1.0 1.61 0.18 4.04 3.26 10.69 2.00 7.79 1.5 1.68 0.21 4.38 3.44 5.03 2.00 7.79 2.0 1.71 0.22 4.59 3.54 2.31 2.00 7.79 2.5 1.74 0.23 4.73 3.61 1.05 2.00 7.79 3.0 1.76 0.23 4.84 3.66 0.48

3.00 7.79 0.1 1.02 0.04 1.62 1.58 31.87 3.00 7.79 0.2 1.25 0.07 2.43 2.25 30.30 3.00 7.79 0.3 1.38 0.10 2.97 2.63 27.89 3.00 7.79 0.4 1.47 0.12 3.37 2.88 25.39 3.00 7.79 0.5 1.54 0.14 3.68 3.07 22.94 3.00 7.79 0.6 1.59 0.15 3.93 3.20 20.59 3.00 7.79 0.7 1.63 0.17 4.14 3.31 18.37 3.00 7.79 0.8 1.66 0.18 4.31 3.40 16.32 3.00 7.79 0.9 1.69 0.19 4.46 3.48 14.45 3.00 7.79 1.0 1.71 0.20 4.59 3.54 12.75 3.00 7.79 1.5 1.80 0.23 5.05 3.75 6.60 3.00 7.79 2.0 1.85 0.25 5.34 3.88 3.32 3.00 7.79 2.5 1.88 0.26 5.53 3.97 1.65 3.00 7.79 3.0 1.91 0.27 5.68 4.03 0.81

154

APPENDIX 7 (cont’d. 4)

Effective fetch Wind speed Water depth Period Height Wave length (m) Hourly speed (km) (m/s) (m) (s) (m) Deep water Interm. water (cm/s)

5.00 7.79 0.1 1.03 0.04 1.66 1.62 32.29 5.00 7.79 0.2 1.28 0.07 2.57 2.36 30.97 5.00 7.79 0.3 1.44 0.10 3.22 2.79 28.75 5.00 7.79 0.4 1.54 0.12 3.71 3.08 26.51 5.00 7.79 0.5 1.62 0.14 4.11 3.30 24.34 5.00 7.79 0.6 1.68 0.16 4.43 3.46 22.26 5.00 7.79 0.7 1.74 0.17 4.70 3.59 20.28 5.00 7.79 0.8 1.78 0.19 4.93 3.70 18.41 5.00 7.79 0.9 1.81 0.20 5.13 3.79 16.65 5.00 7.79 1.0 1.84 0.21 5.31 3.87 15.01 5.00 7.79 1.5 1.95 0.26 5.95 4.14 8.65 5.00 7.79 2.0 2.02 0.29 6.36 4.30 4.81 5.00 7.79 2.5 2.06 0.30 6.65 4.41 2.62 5.00 7.79 3.0 2.10 0.31 6.86 4.49 1.42

7.00 7.79 0.1 1.04 0.04 1.68 1.64 32.47 7.00 7.79 0.2 1.30 0.07 2.65 2.41 31.29 7.00 7.79 0.3 1.47 0.10 3.36 2.87 29.15 7.00 7.79 0.4 1.58 0.12 3.91 3.19 27.01 7.00 7.79 0.5 1.67 0.14 4.36 3.43 24.97 7.00 7.79 0.6 1.74 0.16 4.73 3.61 23.03 7.00 7.79 0.7 1.80 0.18 5.05 3.76 21.19 7.00 7.79 0.8 1.85 0.19 5.33 3.88 19.45 7.00 7.79 0.9 1.89 0.21 5.57 3.98 17.79 7.00 7.79 1.0 1.92 0.22 5.78 4.07 16.23 7.00 7.79 1.5 2.05 0.28 6.57 4.38 9.93 7.00 7.79 2.0 2.13 0.31 7.08 4.57 5.86 7.00 7.79 2.5 2.18 0.33 7.44 4.70 3.38 7.00 7.79 3.0 2.22 0.35 7.72 4.79 1.93

10.00 7.79 0.1 1.04 0.04 1.70 1.66 32.61 10.00 7.79 0.2 1.32 0.07 2.71 2.46 31.55 10.00 7.79 0.3 1.49 0.10 3.48 2.95 29.47 10.00 7.79 0.4 1.62 0.12 4.09 3.29 27.39 10.00 7.79 0.5 1.72 0.14 4.60 3.54 25.45 10.00 7.79 0.6 1.80 0.16 5.03 3.75 23.63 10.00 7.79 0.7 1.86 0.18 5.40 3.91 21.91 10.00 7.79 0.8 1.92 0.20 5.73 4.05 20.29 10.00 7.79 0.9 1.96 0.21 6.01 4.16 18.74 10.00 7.79 1.0 2.00 0.23 6.27 4.27 17.28 10.00 7.79 1.5 2.15 0.29 7.22 4.62 11.18 10.00 7.79 2.0 2.24 0.33 7.86 4.84 6.97 10.00 7.79 2.5 2.31 0.36 8.32 5.00 4.24 10.00 7.79 3.0 2.36 0.38 8.67 5.11 2.55

12.00 7.79 0.1 1.04 0.04 1.70 1.66 32.66 12.00 7.79 0.2 1.32 0.07 2.74 2.47 31.65 12.00 7.79 0.3 1.50 0.10 3.53 2.98 29.60 12.00 7.79 0.4 1.64 0.12 4.18 3.33 27.55 12.00 7.79 0.5 1.74 0.14 4.71 3.60 25.64

APPENDIX 7 (cont’d. 5)

Effective fetch Wind speed Water depth Period Height Wave length (m) Hourly speed (km) (m/s) (m) (s) (m) Deep water Interm. water (cm/s)

12.00 7.79 0.6 1.82 0.16 5.17 3.81 23.87 12.00 7.79 0.7 1.89 0.18 5.57 3.98 22.20 12.00 7.79 0.8 1.95 0.20 5.92 4.13 20.62 12.00 7.79 0.9 2.00 0.21 6.23 4.25 19.13 12.00 7.79 1.0 2.04 0.23 6.51 4.36 17.72 12.00 7.79 1.5 2.20 0.29 7.56 4.74 11.75 12.00 7.79 2.0 2.30 0.34 8.26 4.98 7.52 12.00 7.79 2.5 2.37 0.37 8.78 5.14 4.70 12.00 7.79 3.0 2.42 0.40 9.18 5.27 2.89

15.00 7.79 0.1 1.05 0.04 1.71 1.67 32.71 15.00 7.79 0.2 1.33 0.07 2.76 2.49 31.75 15.00 7.79 0.3 1.52 0.10 3.59 3.01 29.73 15.00 7.79 0.4 1.65 0.12 4.27 3.38 27.71 15.00 7.79 0.5 1.76 0.14 4.84 3.66 25.84 15.00 7.79 0.6 1.85 0.16 5.33 3.88 24.11 15.00 7.79 0.7 1.92 0.18 5.76 4.06 22.49 15.00 7.79 0.8 1.98 0.20 6.14 4.22 20.97 15.00 7.79 0.9 2.04 0.22 6.48 4.35 19.53 15.00 7.79 1.0 2.08 0.23 6.79 4.46 18.17 15.00 7.79 1.5 2.26 0.30 7.96 4.88 12.38 15.00 7.79 2.0 2.37 0.35 8.76 5.14 8.16 15.00 7.79 2.5 2.45 0.39 9.34 5.32 5.25 15.00 7.79 3.0 2.51 0.42 9.80 5.46 3.33 0.50 11.11 0.1 1.03 0.05 1.65 1.62 38.45 0.50 11.11 0.2 1.20 0.08 2.24 2.11 34.54 0.50 11.11 0.3 1.28 0.11 2.57 2.35 29.95 0.50 11.11 0.4 1.34 0.13 2.79 2.51 25.51 0.50 11.11 0.5 1.37 0.14 2.95 2.62 21.51 0.50 11.11 0.6 1.40 0.15 3.07 2.69 18.03 0.50 11.11 0.7 1.42 0.16 3.16 2.75 15.06 0.50 11.11 0.8 1.44 0.17 3.24 2.80 12.55 0.50 11.11 0.9 1.46 0.17 3.31 2.84 10.44 0.50 11.11 1.0 1.47 0.18 3.36 2.88 8.67 0.50 11.11 1.5 1.51 0.19 3.55 2.99 3.39 0.50 11.11 2.0 1.53 0.20 3.66 3.05 1.31 0.50 11.11 2.5 1.55 0.20 3.73 3.09 0.51 0.50 11.11 3.0 1.56 0.20 3.78 3.12 0.19

1.00 11.11 0.1 1.08 0.05 1.82 1.76 40.15 1.00 11.11 0.2 1.29 0.08 2.60 2.38 37.05 1.00 11.11 0.3 1.40 0.11 3.08 2.70 33.39 1.00 11.11 0.4 1.48 0.14 3.42 2.91 29.76 1.00 11.11 0.5 1.53 0.16 3.67 3.06 26.28 1.00 11.11 0.6 1.57 0.17 3.86 3.17 23.07 1.00 11.11 0.7 1.60 0.19 4.02 3.25 20.14 1.00 11.11 0.8 1.63 0.20 4.15 3.32 17.53 1.00 11.11 0.9 1.65 0.21 4.26 3.38 15.21

156

APPENDIX 7 (cont’d. 6)

Effective fetch Wind speed Water depth Period Height Wave length (m) Hourly speed (km) (m/s) (m) (s) (m) Deep water Interm. water (cm/s)

1.00 11.11 1.0 1.67 0.21 4.36 3.42 13.16 1.00 11.11 1.5 1.73 0.24 4.68 3.58 6.27 1.00 11.11 2.0 1.77 0.25 4.88 3.68 2.93 1.00 11.11 2.5 1.79 0.26 5.01 3.74 1.35 1.00 11.11 3.0 1.81 0.26 5.11 3.78 0.62

2.00 11.11 0.1 1.11 0.05 1.94 1.86 41.22 2.00 11.11 0.2 1.37 0.08 2.91 2.59 38.55 2.00 11.11 0.3 1.51 0.11 3.56 3.00 35.36 2.00 11.11 0.4 1.61 0.14 4.04 3.26 32.32 2.00 11.11 0.5 1.68 0.16 4.41 3.45 29.44 2.00 11.11 0.6 1.74 0.18 4.71 3.60 26.70 2.00 11.11 0.7 1.78 0.20 4.96 3.71 24.12 2.00 11.11 0.8 1.82 0.22 5.16 3.81 21.71 2.00 11.11 0.9 1.85 0.23 5.34 3.88 19.48 2.00 11.11 1.0 1.88 0.24 5.50 3.95 17.43 2.00 11.11 1.5 1.97 0.29 6.04 4.18 9.71 2.00 11.11 2.0 2.02 0.31 6.38 4.31 5.26 2.00 11.11 2.5 2.06 0.33 6.62 4.40 2.81 2.00 11.11 3.0 2.09 0.34 6.79 4.46 1.49

3.00 11.11 0.1 1.13 0.05 1.98 1.90 41.63 3.00 11.11 0.2 1.40 0.08 3.06 2.69 39.12 3.00 11.11 0.3 1.56 0.11 3.81 3.14 36.06 3.00 11.11 0.4 1.68 0.14 4.38 3.44 33.23 3.00 11.11 0.5 1.76 0.17 4.83 3.65 30.60 3.00 11.11 0.6 1.83 0.19 5.20 3.82 28.12 3.00 11.11 0.7 1.88 0.21 5.51 3.96 25.78 3.00 11.11 0.8 1.92 0.23 5.78 4.07 23.57 3.00 11.11 0.9 1.96 0.24 6.00 4.16 21.48 3.00 11.11 1.0 1.99 0.26 6.20 4.24 19.53 3.00 11.11 1.5 2.11 0.31 6.92 4.51 11.77 3.00 11.11 2.0 2.17 0.35 7.38 4.68 6.87 3.00 11.11 2.5 2.22 0.37 7.70 4.79 3.93 3.00 11.11 3.0 2.26 0.38 7.94 4.87 2.23

5.00 11.11 0.1 1.14 0.05 2.03 1.94 41.97 5.00 11.11 0.2 1.43 0.08 3.21 2.78 39.63 5.00 11.11 0.3 1.62 0.11 4.08 3.28 36.67 5.00 11.11 0.4 1.75 0.14 4.76 3.62 33.98 5.00 11.11 0.5 1.85 0.17 5.32 3.87 31.55 5.00 11.11 0.6 1.93 0.19 5.79 4.07 29.32 5.00 11.11 0.7 1.99 0.21 6.19 4.23 27.23 5.00 11.11 0.8 2.05 0.23 6.53 4.37 25.25 5.00 11.11 0.9 2.09 0.25 6.84 4.48 23.38 5.00 11.11 1.0 2.13 0.27 7.10 4.58 21.61 5.00 11.11 1.5 2.28 0.34 8.10 4.92 14.17 5.00 11.11 2.0 2.37 0.39 8.75 5.13 8.98 5.00 11.11 2.5 2.43 0.42 9.21 5.28 5.57 5.00 11.11 3.0 2.47 0.44 9.56 5.39 3.41

APPENDIX 7 (cont’d. 7)

Effective fetch Wind speed Water depth Period Height Wave length (m) Hourly speed (km) (m/s) (m) (s) (m) Deep water Interm. water (cm/s)

7.00 11.11 0.1 1.14 0.05 2.04 1.95 42.11 7.00 11.11 0.2 1.45 0.08 3.28 2.83 39.87 7.00 11.11 0.3 1.64 0.11 4.22 3.35 36.95 7.00 11.11 0.4 1.79 0.14 4.98 3.72 34.32 7.00 11.11 0.5 1.90 0.17 5.61 4.00 31.97 7.00 11.11 0.6 1.98 0.19 6.14 4.22 29.84 7.00 11.11 0.7 2.06 0.21 6.60 4.39 27.87 7.00 11.11 0.8 2.12 0.24 7.01 4.54 26.03 7.00 11.11 0.9 2.17 0.26 7.36 4.67 24.28 7.00 11.11 1.0 2.22 0.28 7.68 4.78 22.62 7.00 11.11 1.5 2.39 0.35 8.88 5.18 15.54 7.00 11.11 2.0 2.49 0.41 9.69 5.42 10.33 7.00 11.11 2.5 2.56 0.45 10.27 5.59 6.72 7.00 11.11 3.0 2.62 0.48 10.72 5.72 4.31

10.00 11.11 0.1 1.15 0.05 2.06 1.96 42.22 10.00 11.11 0.2 1.46 0.08 3.34 2.86 40.06 10.00 11.11 0.3 1.67 0.11 4.35 3.42 37.18 10.00 11.11 0.4 1.82 0.14 5.17 3.81 34.58 10.00 11.11 0.5 1.94 0.17 5.87 4.11 32.29 10.00 11.11 0.6 2.04 0.19 6.48 4.35 30.24 10.00 11.11 0.7 2.12 0.22 7.00 4.54 28.36 10.00 11.11 0.8 2.19 0.24 7.47 4.71 26.62 10.00 11.11 0.9 2.25 0.26 7.89 4.85 24.98 10.00 11.11 1.0 2.30 0.28 8.27 4.98 23.43 10.00 11.11 1.5 2.49 0.37 9.71 5.43 16.76 10.00 11.11 2.0 2.62 0.43 10.70 5.72 11.66 10.00 11.11 2.5 2.71 0.48 11.43 5.92 7.93 10.00 11.11 3.0 2.77 0.52 12.00 6.07 5.31

12.00 11.11 0.1 1.15 0.05 2.06 1.97 42.25 12.00 11.11 0.2 1.47 0.08 3.36 2.88 40.13 12.00 11.11 0.3 1.68 0.11 4.40 3.44 37.27 12.00 11.11 0.4 1.84 0.14 5.26 3.85 34.69 12.00 11.11 0.5 1.96 0.17 5.99 4.16 32.42 12.00 11.11 0.6 2.06 0.19 6.63 4.40 30.40 12.00 11.11 0.7 2.15 0.22 7.19 4.61 28.56 12.00 11.11 0.8 2.22 0.24 7.69 4.79 26.86 12.00 11.11 0.9 2.28 0.26 8.14 4.94 25.26 12.00 11.11 1.0 2.34 0.28 8.55 5.07 23.76 12.00 11.11 1.5 2.55 0.37 10.12 5.55 17.28 12.00 11.11 2.0 2.68 0.44 11.22 5.86 12.27 12.00 11.11 2.5 2.78 0.50 12.03 6.08 8.53 12.00 11.11 3.0 2.85 0.54 12.67 6.24 5.83

15.00 11.11 0.1 1.15 0.05 2.07 1.97 42.29 15.00 11.11 0.2 1.47 0.08 3.39 2.89 40.20 15.00 11.11 0.3 1.69 0.11 4.45 3.47 37.36 15.00 11.11 0.4 1.85 0.14 5.35 3.89 34.80

158

APPENDIX 7 (cont’d. 8)

Effective fetch Wind speed Water depth Period Height Wave length (m) Hourly speed (km) (m/s) (m) (s) (m) Deep water Interm. water (cm/s)

15.00 11.11 0.5 1.98 0.17 6.12 4.21 32.56 15.00 11.11 0.6 2.09 0.19 6.80 4.47 30.56 15.00 11.11 0.7 2.18 0.22 7.41 4.69 28.76 15.00 11.11 0.8 2.26 0.24 7.94 4.87 27.09 15.00 11.11 0.9 2.32 0.26 8.43 5.03 25.55 15.00 11.11 1.0 2.38 0.28 8.87 5.17 24.09 15.00 11.11 1.5 2.61 0.37 10.61 5.69 17.84 15.00 11.11 2.0 2.75 0.45 11.84 6.03 12.95 15.00 11.11 2.5 2.86 0.51 12.76 6.27 9.22 15.00 11.11 3.0 2.94 0.56 13.49 6.45 6.46 0.50 12.50 0.1 1.07 0.05 1.79 1.74 42.27 0.50 12.50 0.2 1.25 0.09 2.44 2.26 38.16 0.50 12.50 0.3 1.34 0.12 2.82 2.53 33.50 0.50 12.50 0.4 1.40 0.14 3.07 2.70 28.96 0.50 12.50 0.5 1.44 0.16 3.26 2.81 24.81 0.50 12.50 0.6 1.48 0.17 3.40 2.90 21.12 0.50 12.50 0.7 1.50 0.18 3.51 2.97 17.92 0.50 12.50 0.8 1.52 0.19 3.60 3.02 15.17 0.50 12.50 0.9 1.53 0.19 3.68 3.06 12.81 0.50 12.50 1.0 1.55 0.20 3.74 3.10 10.81 0.50 12.50 1.5 1.59 0.22 3.96 3.22 4.55 0.50 12.50 2.0 1.62 0.22 4.09 3.29 1.89 0.50 12.50 2.5 1.64 0.23 4.18 3.33 0.78 0.50 12.50 3.0 1.65 0.23 4.24 3.36 0.32

1.00 12.50 0.1 1.12 0.05 1.96 1.88 43.90 1.00 12.50 0.2 1.34 0.09 2.82 2.53 40.46 1.00 12.50 0.3 1.47 0.12 3.37 2.88 36.63 1.00 12.50 0.4 1.55 0.15 3.75 3.10 32.93 1.00 12.50 0.5 1.61 0.17 4.04 3.26 29.40 1.00 12.50 0.6 1.65 0.19 4.26 3.38 26.10 1.00 12.50 0.7 1.69 0.20 4.44 3.47 23.07 1.00 12.50 0.8 1.72 0.22 4.59 3.54 20.31 1.00 12.50 0.9 1.74 0.23 4.72 3.60 17.84 1.00 12.50 1.0 1.76 0.24 4.83 3.65 15.63 1.00 12.50 1.5 1.83 0.27 5.22 3.83 7.88 1.00 12.50 2.0 1.87 0.28 5.45 3.93 3.89 1.00 12.50 2.5 1.89 0.29 5.60 4.00 1.90 1.00 12.50 3.0 1.91 0.30 5.72 4.04 0.93

2.00 12.50 0.1 1.15 0.05 2.07 1.98 44.92 2.00 12.50 0.2 1.42 0.09 3.14 2.74 41.82 2.00 12.50 0.3 1.57 0.12 3.87 3.17 38.37 2.00 12.50 0.4 1.68 0.15 4.41 3.45 35.21 2.00 12.50 0.5 1.76 0.18 4.83 3.65 32.26 2.00 12.50 0.6 1.82 0.20 5.17 3.81 29.49 2.00 12.50 0.7 1.87 0.22 5.45 3.93 26.87 2.00 12.50 0.8 1.91 0.24 5.69 4.03 24.40

APPENDIX 7 (cont’d. 9)

Effective fetch Wind speed Water depth Period Height Wave length (m) Hourly speed (km) (m/s) (m) (s) (m) Deep water Interm. water (cm/s)

2.00 12.50 0.9 1.94 0.25 5.89 4.12 22.10 2.00 12.50 1.0 1.97 0.27 6.07 4.19 19.97 2.00 12.50 1.5 2.07 0.32 6.71 4.43 11.67 2.00 12.50 2.0 2.13 0.35 7.10 4.58 6.62 2.00 12.50 2.5 2.17 0.37 7.38 4.68 3.69 2.00 12.50 3.0 2.20 0.38 7.58 4.75 2.04

3.00 12.50 0.1 1.17 0.05 2.12 2.01 45.30 3.00 12.50 0.2 1.45 0.09 3.29 2.84 42.34 3.00 12.50 0.3 1.63 0.12 4.13 3.31 38.99 3.00 12.50 0.4 1.75 0.15 4.76 3.62 36.00 3.00 12.50 0.5 1.84 0.18 5.27 3.85 33.28 3.00 12.50 0.6 1.91 0.20 5.69 4.03 30.76 3.00 12.50 0.7 1.97 0.22 6.04 4.18 28.38 3.00 12.50 0.8 2.02 0.24 6.34 4.29 26.13 3.00 12.50 0.9 2.06 0.26 6.60 4.39 24.01 3.00 12.50 1.0 2.09 0.28 6.83 4.48 22.01 3.00 12.50 1.5 2.22 0.34 7.67 4.78 13.84 3.00 12.50 2.0 2.29 0.38 8.20 4.96 8.42 3.00 12.50 2.5 2.34 0.41 8.58 5.08 5.02 3.00 12.50 3.0 2.38 0.43 8.86 5.17 2.96

5.00 12.50 0.1 1.18 0.05 2.16 2.05 45.61 5.00 12.50 0.2 1.48 0.09 3.44 2.92 42.80 5.00 12.50 0.3 1.68 0.12 4.40 3.44 39.53 5.00 12.50 0.4 1.82 0.15 5.16 3.80 36.65 5.00 12.50 0.5 1.92 0.18 5.78 4.07 34.11 5.00 12.50 0.6 2.01 0.20 6.31 4.28 31.80 5.00 12.50 0.7 2.08 0.23 6.75 4.45 29.67 5.00 12.50 0.8 2.14 0.25 7.15 4.59 27.66 5.00 12.50 0.9 2.19 0.27 7.49 4.72 25.76 5.00 12.50 1.0 2.23 0.29 7.80 4.82 23.96 5.00 12.50 1.5 2.39 0.37 8.94 5.19 16.28 5.00 12.50 2.0 2.49 0.43 9.69 5.42 10.71 5.00 12.50 2.5 2.56 0.47 10.23 5.58 6.89 5.00 12.50 3.0 2.61 0.50 10.64 5.70 4.37

7.00 12.50 0.1 1.18 0.05 2.18 2.06 45.74 7.00 12.50 0.2 1.50 0.09 3.51 2.97 43.01 7.00 12.50 0.3 1.71 0.12 4.54 3.51 39.78 7.00 12.50 0.4 1.86 0.15 5.38 3.90 36.95 7.00 12.50 0.5 1.97 0.18 6.07 4.19 34.47 7.00 12.50 0.6 2.07 0.20 6.67 4.42 32.26 7.00 12.50 0.7 2.15 0.23 7.19 4.61 30.23 7.00 12.50 0.8 2.21 0.25 7.64 4.77 28.34 7.00 12.50 0.9 2.27 0.27 8.05 4.91 26.57 7.00 12.50 1.0 2.32 0.29 8.41 5.03 24.88 7.00 12.50 1.5 2.50 0.38 9.78 5.45 17.63 7.00 12.50 2.0 2.62 0.45 10.71 5.72 12.12 7.00 12.50 2.5 2.70 0.50 11.39 5.91 8.16

160

APPENDIX 7 (cont’d. 10)

Effective fetch Wind speed Water depth Period Height Wave length (m) Hourly speed (km) (m/s) (m) (s) (m) Deep water Interm. water (cm/s)

7.00 12.50 3.0 2.76 0.54 11.91 6.05 5.40 10.00 12.50 0.1 1.18 0.05 2.19 2.07 45.84 10.00 12.50 0.2 1.51 0.09 3.57 3.00 43.18 10.00 12.50 0.3 1.73 0.12 4.66 3.57 39.98 10.00 12.50 0.4 1.89 0.15 5.57 3.98 37.18 10.00 12.50 0.5 2.02 0.18 6.35 4.30 34.75 10.00 12.50 0.6 2.12 0.20 7.02 4.55 32.61 10.00 12.50 0.7 2.21 0.23 7.61 4.76 30.66 10.00 12.50 0.8 2.28 0.25 8.13 4.93 28.87 10.00 12.50 0.9 2.35 0.28 8.60 5.09 27.19 10.00 12.50 1.0 2.40 0.30 9.02 5.22 25.61 10.00 12.50 1.5 2.61 0.39 10.67 5.71 18.79 10.00 12.50 2.0 2.75 0.47 11.80 6.02 13.47 10.00 12.50 2.5 2.85 0.53 12.65 6.24 9.45 10.00 12.50 3.0 2.92 0.57 13.31 6.41 6.53

12.00 12.50 0.1 1.19 0.05 2.19 2.07 45.87 12.00 12.50 0.2 1.52 0.09 3.59 3.01 43.24 12.00 12.50 0.3 1.74 0.12 4.72 3.60 40.06 12.00 12.50 0.4 1.90 0.15 5.66 4.02 37.27 12.00 12.50 0.5 2.04 0.18 6.47 4.34 34.87 12.00 12.50 0.6 2.14 0.20 7.17 4.60 32.75 12.00 12.50 0.7 2.23 0.23 7.80 4.82 30.83 12.00 12.50 0.8 2.31 0.25 8.36 5.01 29.07 12.00 12.50 0.9 2.38 0.28 8.86 5.17 27.44 12.00 12.50 1.0 2.44 0.30 9.32 5.31 25.90 12.00 12.50 1.5 2.67 0.40 11.10 5.83 19.29 12.00 12.50 2.0 2.81 0.48 12.36 6.17 14.08 12.00 12.50 2.5 2.92 0.54 13.30 6.40 10.08 12.00 12.50 3.0 3.00 0.59 14.04 6.59 7.11

15.00 12.50 0.1 1.19 0.05 2.20 2.08 45.90 15.00 12.50 0.2 1.52 0.09 3.62 3.03 43.30 15.00 12.50 0.3 1.75 0.12 4.77 3.62 40.14 15.00 12.50 0.4 1.92 0.15 5.75 4.06 37.37 15.00 12.50 0.5 2.06 0.18 6.60 4.39 34.99 15.00 12.50 0.6 2.17 0.20 7.35 4.67 32.89 15.00 12.50 0.7 2.27 0.23 8.02 4.90 31.01 15.00 12.50 0.8 2.35 0.25 8.62 5.09 29.28 15.00 12.50 0.9 2.42 0.28 9.16 5.26 27.69 15.00 12.50 1.0 2.49 0.30 9.66 5.41 26.20 15.00 12.50 1.5 2.73 0.40 11.63 5.97 19.81 15.00 12.50 2.0 2.89 0.48 13.03 6.34 14.76 15.00 12.50 2.5 3.00 0.55 14.09 6.60 10.80 15.00 12.50 3.0 3.09 0.61 14.93 6.80 7.79

APPENDIX 8A

Isomeric composition of PCBs in Lake Ontario and in different mixtures of Aroclors

Isomeric composition (%) Lake Ontario Aroclors Mixtures of Aroclors Isomers April 1984 A1242 A1248 A1254 A1260 A42+48 A48+54 A42+48+54 A48+54+60

2 1.3 17.7 2.1 1.7 1.6 9.9 2.0 7.2 1.8 3 6.7 49.6 33.5 1.2 1.2 41.5 22.7 28.1 11.9 4 22.9 26.9 49.8 20.0 1.3 38.4 39.8 32.2 23.7 5 38.9 4.4 11.0 47.0 20.9 7.0 23.0 20.8 26.3 6 15.2 0.7 2.0 25.4 25.4 1.7 9.8 9.4 17.6 7 10.8 0.5 1.0 4.3 37.6 1.1 2.1 1.9 14.3 8 3.0 0.3 0.6 0.3 11.0 0.4 0.5 0.4 4.0 9 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

APPENDIX 8B

Isomeric composition of PCBs in the study area: LSL station

Isomeric composition (%)

Isomers

Nov. 1994

Dec. 1994

March 1995

June 1995

July 1995

Aug. 1995

Sept. 1995

Oct. 1995

Nov. 1995

Dec. 1995

March 1996

July 1996

Sept. 1996

Nov. 1996

2 - - 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.6 0.5 - 0.6 0.6 2.7 2.6 3 - - 10.3 7.3 11.1 11.2 7.3 12.0 1.2 - 10.0 11.1 16.0 13.1 4 - - 24.1 16.4 12.8 31.6 38.9 32.7 28.1 - 57.2 41.6 31.2 30.7 5 - - 46.2 43.0 29.7 26.1 20.1 23.9 35.5 - 16.1 24.0 21.6 22.8 6 - - 17.0 27.1 20.3 21.4 25.3 22.3 23.6 - 8.9 11.0 15.8 17.2 7 - - 0.7 3.8 9.9 5.4 7.2 5.2 6.3 - 4.2 6.6 8.0 8.4 8 - - 0.4 1.9 14.3 2.5 0.0 2.1 2.5 - 2.2 3.1 3.6 4.1 9 - - 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.9 0.0 0.2 2.3 - 0.9 1.9 1.2 1.2

Total - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

APPENDIX 8C

Isomeric composition of PCBs in the study area: TCTI station Isomeric composition (%)

Isomers

Nov. 1994

Dec. 1994

March 1995

June 1995

July 1995

Aug. 1995

Sept. 1995

Oct. 1995

Nov. 1995

Dec. 1995

March 1996

July 1996

Sept. 1996

Nov. 1996

2 - - - - - - - - - 0.5 0.5 0.6 3.4 3.1 3 - - - - - - - - - 8.1 7.3 11.7 12.2 9.1 4 - - - - - - - - - 26.6 32.2 28.3 27.0 22.7 5 - - - - - - - - - 35.8 33.0 31.0 24.8 33.1 6 - - - - - - - - - 21.9 17.7 17.9 22.5 18.2 7 - - - - - - - - - 3.1 6.2 7.3 6.1 9.3 8 - - - - - - - - - 2.8 2.1 1.9 3.4 3.9 9 - - - - - - - - - 1.2 1.0 1.2 0.7 0.6

Total - - - - - - - - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

APPENDIX 8D

Isomeric composition of PCBs in the study area: PILON station Isomeric composition (%)

Isomers

Nov. 1994

Dec. 1994

March 1995

June 1995

July 1995

Aug. 1995

Sept. 1995

Oct. 1995

Nov. 1995

Dec. 1995

March 1996

July 1996

Sept. 1996

Nov. 1996

2 - - - - - - - - - 0.6 0.7 0.8 2.7 2.5 3 - - - - - - - - - 8.2 9.5 13.5 14.4 10.0 4 - - - - - - - - - 27.6 32.0 28.5 27.0 21.2 5 - - - - - - - - - 31.2 31.8 28.3 23.2 22.1 6 - - - - - - - - - 18.8 15.6 18.0 21.9 13.8 7 - - - - - - - - - 8.2 6.6 7.1 6.5 18.9 8 - - - - - - - - - 4.0 2.1 2.4 3.4 10.5 9 - - - - - - - - - 1.4 1.6 1.5 0.9 1.0

Total - - - - - - - - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

APPENDIX 8E

Isomeric composition of PCBs in the study area: SFN station Isomeric composition (%)

Isomers

Nov. 1994

Dec. 1994

March 1995

June 1995

July 1995

Aug. 1995

Sept. 1995

Oct. 1995

Nov. 1995

Dec. 1995

March 1996

July 1996

Sept. 1996

Nov. 1996

2 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.5 0.9 0.0 - 0.6 - 1.6 2.7 2.6 3 11.1 12.4 11.8 14.9 16.3 12.0 10.2 1.7 - 8.2 - 17.2 14.8 12.4 4 35.1 36.3 34.2 30.9 19.8 37.7 36.0 31.5 - 27.6 - 33.8 29.9 27.2 5 30.9 23.9 25.7 28.2 28.2 23.2 25.9 34.0 - 31.2 - 25.1 22.0 23.8 6 16.9 15.7 14.6 16.9 21.8 16.3 16.2 21.1 - 18.8 - 11.5 18.9 18.7 7 3.4 7.8 8.8 4.6 8.8 6.8 8.0 7.4 - 8.2 - 6.9 7.9 9.9 8 0.6 2.4 2.9 2.0 3.3 1.3 2.2 2.9 - 4.0 - 2.6 3.6 4.4 9 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 1.2 0.7 1.4 - 1.4 - 1.3 0.4 1.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0

APPENDIX 8F

Isomeric composition of PCBs in the study area: SFC station Isomeric composition (%)

Isomers

Nov. 1994

Dec. 1994

March 1995

June 1995

July 1995

Aug. 1995

Sept. 1995

Oct. 1995

Nov. 1995

Dec. 1995

March 1996

July 1996

Sept. 1996

Nov. 1996

2 2.9 1.7 0.0 1.4 1.4 1.5 0.8 1.9 2.4 3.7 2.0 1.6 3.8 3.0 3 18.5 12.7 3.3 13.1 12.3 11.5 12.2 19.2 18.7 22.3 17.5 16.2 15.4 15.9 4 36.8 39.8 32.0 37.5 21.2 35.2 34.1 32.0 28.5 31.9 47.0 27.8 30.9 30.1 5 20.6 24.2 32.1 24.1 35.5 25.6 24.9 20.5 22.7 21.1 18.7 22.7 19.7 23.4 6 12.7 13.4 19.9 13.0 17.1 15.7 18.9 17.6 15.5 12.5 8.1 15.2 16.9 15.0 7 5.6 5.9 9.2 7.5 8.9 8.5 5.8 5.9 9.9 6.0 4.0 12.6 8.1 8.5 8 2.4 1.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.0 3.3 2.1 1.7 2.2 2.0 2.8 4.4 3.3 9 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

APPENDIX 8G

Isomeric composition of PCBs in the study area: SFS station Isomeric composition (%)

Isomers

Nov. 1994

Dec. 1994

March 1995

June 1995

July 1995

Aug. 1995

Sept. 1995

Oct. 1995

Nov. 1995

Dec. 1995

March 1996

July 1996

Sept. 1996

Nov. 1996

2 - 1.6 3.2 2.7 1.2 2.0 1.9 3.0 5.0 6.9 6.6 2.6 5.9 5.1 3 - 11.4 15.2 17.3 15.3 15.8 16.1 18.6 23.8 27.7 23.4 23.1 21.2 21.7 4 - 31.0 37.2 37.3 24.9 39.9 39.9 35.3 37.7 33.8 29.0 33.6 35.0 34.5 5 - 34.4 24.9 24.7 35.5 23.9 22.3 21.7 20.9 20.3 16.2 23.0 18.8 20.0 6 - 16.3 10.8 9.9 15.4 9.5 10.0 10.4 6.8 6.1 9.9 9.0 10.4 9.8 7 - 4.3 6.3 6.1 7.7 6.3 6.6 8.2 4.6 4.1 9.4 6.2 5.4 6.0 8 - 0.9 2.0 1.7 0.0 2.1 2.6 2.3 1.1 0.9 4.6 2.0 2.8 2.4 9 - 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4

Total - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

APPENDIX 8H

Correlation of SS samples from LSL station

A1242

A1248

A1254

A1260

A42 +48

A48 +54

A42

+48+54

A48

+54+60

L. Ont. 1984

LSL March 1995

June 1995

July 1995

Aug. 1995

Sept. 1995

Oct. 1995

Nov. 1995

March 1996

July 1996

Sept. 1996

Nov. 1996

A1242 1.00

A1248 0.77 1.00

A1254 -0.19 0.16 1.00

A1260 -0.57 -0.44 0.34 1.00

A42+48 0.94 0.94 -0.02 -0.53 1.00

A48+54 0.59 0.92 0.53 -0.25 0.81 1.00

A42+48+54 0.76 0.92 0.43 -0.33 0.89 0.96 1.00

A48+54+60 0.12 0.52 0.84 0.39 0.34 0.77 0.68 1.00

L. Ont. Apr 1984 -0.06 0.34 0.95 0.34 0.15 0.67 0.56 0.93 1.00

LSL March 1995 0.07 0.39 0.95 0.14 0.24 0.71 0.65 0.86 0.96 1.00

June 1995 -0.12 0.17 0.98 0.35 0.02 0.53 0.46 0.84 0.92 0.95 1.00

July 1995 -0.16 0.12 0.86 0.48 -0.03 0.44 0.36 0.80 0.84 0.83 0.90 1.00

August 1995 0.20 0.64 0.82 0.11 0.45 0.87 0.77 0.93 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.71 1.00

September 1995 0.16 0.65 0.68 0.10 0.44 0.82 0.69 0.85 0.72 0.69 0.66 0.54 0.96 1.00

October 1995 0.24 0.67 0.77 0.08 0.49 0.88 0.78 0.91 0.81 0.82 0.77 0.67 1.00 0.97 1.00

November 1995 -0.14 0.34 0.95 0.29 0.10 0.66 0.52 0.90 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.93 0.86 0.90 1.00

March 1996 0.37 0.86 0.40 -0.23 0.66 0.90 0.77 0.67 0.55 0.52 0.35 0.26 0.81 0.87 0.83 0.63 1.00

July 1996 0.31 0.81 0.62 -0.08 0.60 0.94 0.82 0.83 0.76 0.73 0.58 0.49 0.92 0.91 0.92 0.79 0.96 1.00

September 1996 0.41 0.81 0.68 0.01 0.65 0.96 0.88 0.91 0.78 0.78 0.68 0.60 0.96 0.93 0.97 0.81 0.88 0.96 1.00

November 1996 0.29 0.73 0.74 0.08 0.55 0.92 0.82 0.93 0.83 0.82 0.73 0.65 0.98 0.95 0.99 0.87 0.87 0.96 0.99 1.00

APPENDIX 8I

Correlation of SS samples from TCTI station

A1242

A1248

A1254

A1260

A42 +48

A48 +54

A42 +48+54

A48 +54+60

L. Ont. 1984

TCTI Dec. 1995

March 1996

July 1996

Sept. 1996

Nov. 1996

A1242 1.00

A1248 0.77 1.00

A1254 -0.19 0.16 1.00

A1260 -0.57 -0.44 0.34 1.00

A42+48 0.94 0.94 -0.02 -0.53 1.00

A48+54 0.59 0.92 0.53 -0.25 0.81 1.00

A42+48+54 0.76 0.92 0.43 -0.33 0.89 0.96 1.00

A48+54+60 0.12 0.52 0.84 0.39 0.34 0.77 0.68 1.00

L. Ont. Apr 1984 -0.06 0.34 0.95 0.34 0.15 0.67 0.56 0.93 1.00

TCTI Dec. 1995 0.03 0.44 0.95 0.19 0.24 0.75 0.65 0.92 0.95 1.00

March 1996 0.09 0.56 0.89 0.15 0.34 0.83 0.71 0.94 0.94 0.97 1.00

July 1996 0.17 0.59 0.88 0.17 0.40 0.85 0.76 0.96 0.94 0.98 0.99 1.00

September 1996 0.20 0.59 0.84 0.15 0.42 0.83 0.75 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00

November 1996 0.02 0.41 0.95 0.31 0.22 0.72 0.63 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.93 1.00

APPENDIX 8J

Correlation of SS samples from PILON station

A1242

A1248

A1254

A1260

A42 +48

A48 +54

A42 +48+54

A48 +54+60

L. Ont. 1984

PILON Dec. 1995

March 1996

July 1996

Sept. 1996

Nov. 1996

A1242 1.00

A1248 0.77 1.00

A1254 -0.19 0.16 1.00

A1260 -0.57 -0.44 0.34 1.00

A42+48 0.94 0.94 -0.02 -0.53 1.00

A48+54 0.59 0.92 0.53 -0.25 0.81 1.00

A42+48+54 0.76 0.92 0.43 -0.33 0.89 0.96 1.00

A48+54+60 0.12 0.52 0.84 0.39 0.34 0.77 0.68 1.00

L. Ont. Apr 1984 -0.06 0.34 0.95 0.34 0.15 0.67 0.56 0.93 1.00

PILON Dec. 1995 0.04 0.50 0.91 0.24 0.29 0.79 0.67 0.96 0.96 1.00

March 1996 0.15 0.62 0.86 0.11 0.41 0.87 0.75 0.94 0.93 0.99 1.00

July 1996 0.24 0.64 0.84 0.13 0.47 0.88 0.80 0.96 0.91 0.98 0.98 1.00

September 1996 0.27 0.64 0.79 0.13 0.49 0.86 0.79 0.93 0.82 0.94 0.93 0.98 1.00

November 1996 -0.02 0.42 0.69 0.55 0.21 0.63 0.50 0.92 0.83 0.84 0.81 0.81 0.76 1.00

APPENDIX 8K

Correlation of samples from SFN station

A1242

A1248

A1254

A1260

A42 +48

A48 +54

A42

+48+54

A48

+54+60

L. Ont. 1984

SFN Nov. 1994

Dec. 1994

March 1995

June 1995

July 1995

Aug. 1995

Sept. 1995

Oct. 1995

Dec. 1995

July 1996

Sept. 1996

Nov. 1996

A1242 1.00

A1248 0.77 1.00

A1254 -0.19 0.16 1.00

A1260 -0.57 -0.44 0.34 1.00

A42+48 0.94 0.94 -0.02 -0.53 1.00

A48+54 0.59 0.92 0.53 -0.25 0.81 1.00

A42+48+54 0.76 0.92 0.43 -0.33 0.89 0.96 1.00

A48+54+60 0.12 0.52 0.84 0.39 0.34 0.77 0.68 1.00

L. Ont. Apr 1984 -0.06 0.34 0.95 0.34 0.15 0.67 0.56 0.93 1.00

SFN Nov. 1994 0.24 0.68 0.82 0.02 0.49 0.91 0.81 0.91 0.89 1.00

December 1994 0.31 0.77 0.70 0.02 0.58 0.94 0.83 0.91 0.81 0.97 1.00

March 1995 0.26 0.74 0.74 0.07 0.53 0.92 0.81 0.93 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00

June 1995 0.32 0.71 0.80 0.02 0.55 0.93 0.85 0.93 0.87 0.99 0.97 0.98 1.00

July 1995 0.20 0.47 0.87 0.30 0.35 0.74 0.71 0.94 0.89 0.88 0.83 0.85 0.92 1.00

August 1995 0.31 0.78 0.68 -0.01 0.58 0.94 0.83 0.88 0.78 0.97 1.00 0.99 0.96 0.81 1.00

September 1995 0.23 0.72 0.75 0.07 0.50 0.91 0.79 0.92 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.84 0.99 1.00

October 1995 -0.08 0.43 0.92 0.25 0.18 0.72 0.58 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.92 0.91 0.86 0.89 0.93 1.00

December 1995 0.04 0.50 0.91 0.24 0.29 0.79 0.67 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.92 0.91 0.95 0.98 1.00

July 1996 0.44 0.83 0.67 -0.07 0.67 0.98 0.91 0.88 0.80 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.83 0.97 0.97 0.84 0.89 1.00

September 1996 0.34 0.74 0.73 0.08 0.57 0.92 0.84 0.93 0.80 0.96 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.90 0.98 0.97 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00

November 1996 0.21 0.64 0.81 0.20 0.46 0.87 0.77 0.97 0.88 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.93 0.96 0.98 0.94 0.97 0.94 0.99 1.00

APPENDIX 8L

Correlation of SS samples from SFC station

A1242

A1248

A1254

A1260

A42 +48

A48 +54

A42

+48+54

A48

+54+60

L. Ont. 1984

SFC Nov. 1994

Dec. 1994

March 1995

June 1995

July 1995

Aug. 1995

Sept. 1995

Oct. 1995

Nov. 1995

Dec. 1995

March 1996

July 1996

Sept. 1996

Nov. 1996

A1242 1.00

A1248 0.77 1.00

A1254 -0.19 0.16 1.00

A1260 -0.57 -0.44 0.34 1.00

A42+48 0.94 0.94 -0.02 -0.53 1.00

A48+54 0.59 0.92 0.53 -0.25 0.81 1.00

A42+48+54 0.76 0.92 0.43 -0.33 0.89 0.96 1.00

A48+54+60 0.12 0.52 0.84 0.39 0.34 0.77 0.68 1.00

L. Ont. Apr 1984 -0.06 0.34 0.95 0.34 0.15 0.67 0.56 0.93 1.00

SFC Nov. 1994 0.52 0.90 0.56 -0.15 0.75 0.99 0.93 0.82 0.69 1.00

December 1994 0.35 0.81 0.66 -0.07 0.62 0.96 0.85 0.86 0.77 0.98 1.00

March 1995 -0.04 0.48 0.89 0.26 0.23 0.76 0.61 0.94 0.93 0.81 0.90 1.00

June 1995 0.34 0.81 0.67 -0.03 0.61 0.95 0.85 0.88 0.79 0.98 1.00 0.90 1.00

July 1995 0.08 0.42 0.94 0.29 0.26 0.72 0.66 0.94 0.98 0.74 0.79 0.91 0.81 1.00

August 1995 0.27 0.73 0.74 0.07 0.53 0.92 0.81 0.93 0.84 0.96 0.99 0.94 0.99 0.86 1.00

September 1995 0.26 0.72 0.76 0.05 0.52 0.91 0.81 0.92 0.83 0.95 0.98 0.94 0.98 0.86 0.99 1.00

October 1995 0.49 0.83 0.62 -0.06 0.70 0.96 0.91 0.86 0.72 0.98 0.95 0.83 0.95 0.79 0.95 0.96 1.00

November 1995 0.45 0.79 0.68 0.07 0.66 0.94 0.90 0.92 0.79 0.96 0.94 0.85 0.95 0.86 0.96 0.95 0.98 1.00

December 1995 0.61 0.90 0.55 -0.15 0.80 0.99 0.97 0.82 0.69 0.98 0.94 0.76 0.94 0.76 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.97 1.00

March 1996 0.51 0.93 0.44 -0.26 0.77 0.97 0.89 0.72 0.60 0.98 0.96 0.75 0.96 0.62 0.91 0.89 0.92 0.88 0.94 1.00

July 1996 0.36 0.74 0.70 0.18 0.58 0.91 0.84 0.96 0.83 0.94 0.94 0.89 0.95 0.87 0.97 0.95 0.96 0.99 0.94 0.87 1.00

September 1996 0.41 0.81 0.65 0.01 0.65 0.95 0.87 0.89 0.75 0.98 0.97 0.87 0.98 0.80 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.93 0.97 1.00

November 1996 0.39 0.78 0.71 0.04 0.62 0.95 0.88 0.93 0.82 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.98 0.87 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.91 0.98 0.99 1.00

APPENDIX 8M

Correlation of SS samples from SFS station

A1242

A1248

A1254

A1260

A42 +48

A48 +54

A42

+48+54

A48

+54+60

L. Ont. 1984

SFS Dec. 1994

March 1995

June 1995

July 1995

Aug. 1995

Sept. 1995

Oct. 1995

Nov. 1995

Dec. 1995

March 1996

July 1996

Sept. 1996

Nov. 1996

A1242 1.00

A1248 0.77 1.00

A1254 -0.19 0.16 1.00

A1260 -0.57 -0.44 0.34 1.00

A42+48 0.94 0.94 -0.02 -0.53 1.00

A48+54 0.59 0.92 0.53 -0.25 0.81 1.00

A42+48+54 0.76 0.92 0.43 -0.33 0.89 0.96 1.00

A48+54+60 0.12 0.52 0.84 0.39 0.34 0.77 0.68 1.00

L. Ont. Apr 1984 -0.06 0.34 0.95 0.34 0.15 0.67 0.56 0.93 1.00

SFS Dec. 1994 0.20 0.61 0.88 0.08 0.42 0.87 0.78 0.93 0.94 1.00

March 1995 0.42 0.84 0.65 -0.10 0.67 0.97 0.89 0.86 0.78 0.93 1.00

June 1995 0.47 0.87 0.62 -0.13 0.71 0.98 0.92 0.85 0.76 0.92 1.00 1.00

July 1995 0.23 0.55 0.89 0.18 0.41 0.82 0.77 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.87 0.87 1.00

August 1995 0.44 0.87 0.59 -0.13 0.70 0.98 0.89 0.83 0.74 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.84 1.00

September 1995 0.45 0.88 0.57 -0.14 0.71 0.98 0.89 0.82 0.72 0.89 0.99 0.99 0.82 1.00 1.00

October 1995 0.52 0.89 0.56 -0.11 0.75 0.99 0.93 0.84 0.72 0.88 0.99 0.99 0.84 0.99 0.99 1.00

November 1995 0.67 0.95 0.45 -0.28 0.86 0.99 0.97 0.73 0.61 0.81 0.95 0.97 0.78 0.96 0.96 0.98 1.00

December 1995 0.77 0.95 0.39 -0.33 0.91 0.96 0.99 0.67 0.55 0.76 0.90 0.93 0.74 0.91 0.91 0.94 0.99 1.00

March 1996 0.73 0.94 0.37 -0.19 0.89 0.96 0.97 0.72 0.54 0.75 0.90 0.93 0.73 0.91 0.92 0.95 0.97 0.98 1.00

July 1996 0.61 0.91 0.54 -0.17 0.81 0.99 0.97 0.80 0.69 0.86 0.96 0.98 0.85 0.96 0.96 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.97 1.00

September 1996 0.64 0.94 0.47 -0.24 0.84 0.99 0.97 0.75 0.61 0.83 0.96 0.97 0.78 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.98 0.98 1.00

November 1996 0.63 0.93 0.49 -0.22 0.83 0.99 0.97 0.77 0.64 0.84 0.97 0.98 0.80 0.97 0.97 0.99 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00