A Study Of Water And Sediment Quality As - TO THE TAR SANDS .ca

A STUDY OF WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY AS 

RELATED TO PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES, FORT 

CHIPEWYAN, ALBERTA 

on behalf of the 

Nunee Health Board Society 

Fort Chipewyan, Alberta 

by 

Kevin P. Timoney 

Treeline Ecological Research 

21551 Township Road 520 

Sherwood Park, Alberta 

T8E 1E3 

email: ktimoney@interbaun.com 

phone: 780-922-3741 

11 November 2007 

1

DEDICATION 

This study is dedicated to: 

the people of Fort Chipewyan, who have a right to a healthy future; 

and to my mom, Doris, who gave me a shovel on my fifth birthday and taught me to dig 

until I reached the bottom. 

Author’s Note 

Readers are invited to send relevant observations and to comment on points of fact or 

interpretation. I can be reached at ktimoney@interbaun.com. 

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page 

SUMMARY 4 

INTRODUCTION 6 

METHODS 13 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 21 

OTHER DATA and OBSERVATIONS 50 

CONCLUSIONS 68 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 73 

REFERENCES 74 

Appendix 1. Laboratory and Analytical Methods 82 

3

SUMMARY 

This study examined water and sediment quality indicators in the area of Fort 

Chipewyan, Alberta. Data were analyzed and discussed in the contexts of water and 

sediment quality guidelines, wildlife contaminants, and ecosystem and public health. 

Some of the findings of this study are: 

(1) The people and biota of the Athabasca River Delta and western Lake Athabasca are 

exposed to higher levels of some contaminants than are those upstream. Because the 

ecosystem around Fort Chipewyan is dominated by deltaic and lacustrine processes, it is 

fundamentally different from the mainstem Athabasca and Peace Rivers. Fort Chipewyan 

lies within a depositional basin in which metals and other contaminants tend to 

accumulate in fine-textured sediments. 

(2) Overall, the primary contaminants of concern may be arsenic, mercury, and 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Concentrations of these contaminants, already 

high, appear to be rising. 

(3) People most at risk of adverse health effects are those who eat an abundance of 

country food and those who consume untreated surface water. 

(4) In water, chemical constituents of concern include: arsenic, aluminum, chromium, 

cobalt, copper, iron, lead, phosphorus, selenium, titanium, and total phenols; the 

herbicides dicamba, mcpa, bromacil, and triallate; and the pesticide lindane. Other 

possible constituents of concern include: ammonia, antimony, manganese, molybdenum, 

and nickel. 

(5) In sediment, constituents of concern include: arsenic, cadmium, PAHs, and resin 

acids. 

(6) Mercury levels in fish used for human consumption present a serious concern. If US 

EPA standards are applied, all walleye (pickerel), all female whitefish, and ~ 90 % of 

male whitefish exceed subsistence fisher guidelines for mercury consumption. The 

human fetus is the most sensitive age-group. 

(7) An Alberta government sponsored report on the risk of cancer due to lifetime 

exposure to arsenic was reviewed. The report used questionable statistical methods and 

assumptions and underestimated levels of arsenic in water and sediment and the fish 

consumption rate of many Fort Chipewyan residents. Higher arsenic levels in the lower 

Athabasca River/western Lake Athabasca than found elsewhere, coupled with the clear 

link between arsenic exposure and various diseases, call for in-depth study. 

(8) When scientific data and traditional knowledge on fish deformities are considered 

together, they indicate that rates of fish abnormalities may be higher than expected, may 

be increasing, and may be related to declines in water quality. PAH and other 

contamination, changes in water and sediment quality, and changes to the food web may 

underlie the fish deformities. 

4

(9) A peer-reviewed epidemiologic and toxicologic study of disease rates and levels of 

exposure to environmental toxins in communities of the lower Athabasca River is 

needed. A well-designed study would allow epidemiologists to control for factors such as 

time of residence in the lower Athabasca River basin, diet, lifestyle, water supply, and 

demographic factors such that deviations in expected rates of disease could be detected if 

present. Toxicologists could quantify the level of risk associated with exposure to 

environmental toxins in the region. 

(10) For the seven parameters assessed in the fieldwork (arsenic, mercury and 

methylmercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins and furans, naphthenic acids, 

nitrogen, and coliform bacteria), the local water treatment plant appears to do a good job 

of removing impurities. For safety’s sake, a full chemical profile of the treated water 

should be conducted with low detection limits. 

(11) Reports of increased algal growth, softer and watery fish flesh, and an apparent 

increase in total coliform levels lend support to the notion that increased water 

temperatures, perhaps coupled with adequate to high concentrations of nitrogen and 

phosphorus and changes in the aquatic food web, are bringing about aquatic changes. 

(12) There is a paucity of data available from near Fort Chipewyan and from western 

Lake Athabasca. While there is a wealth of data available for river areas upstream of the 

Fort Chipewyan area, much of the Athabasca River data has become privately held in 

recent years. 

(13) This study has likely underestimated the cumulative risk posed to the people and the 

ecosystem of the lower Athabasca River and western Lake Athabasca. More needs to be 

learned regarding the concentrations of many parameters in water, sediments, and 

wildlife, including mercury, arsenic, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and naphthenic 

acids. 

(14) Concentrations of many parameters vary widely both in time and space, in some 

cases by factors of 10 to 100. This fact has three important implications. (a) a single 

measurement may mislead unless placed in context; (b) reliance on averages or medians 

as a means to interpret data may underestimate health risk; (c) short-term peaks in 

concentration (pollution events) may have a disproportionate effect on public and 

ecological health that is difficult to determine. 

(15) An environmental monitoring program independent of control by vested interests is 

needed. The program should be affiliated with a university and report regularly in open 

public forum to the people of Fort Chipewyan. 

5

INTRODUCTION 

Background 

Concern over the health of residents of Fort Chipewyan, Alberta has been rising 

in recent years. Health professionals and members of the general public have watched 

friends and family members grow sick with a variety of illnesses. At the same time, 

industrial developments on Lake Athabasca and upstream of the community on the Peace 

River, and, in particular, on the Athabasca River, have led many people to ask whether 

the illnesses in the community have an environmental cause. Environmental and public 

health concerns have been expressed in Fort Chipewyan and in other northern 

communities that industrial developments are leading to declines in the quality of air and 

water (NRBS 1999; MRBB 2004). 

The need for a study of Ft. Chipewyan water and sediment quality is rooted in 

five facts: (1) The community is located in a depositional basin downstream of major 

industrial developments known to release contaminants into the Athabasca River. (2) 

Natural background levels of some riverborne contaminants may pose a risk to human 

health. (3) The Athabasca River is the primary source of the community’s water supply. 

(4) There is a widespread perception among local people that rates of disease are above 

normal and are causally related to environmental contaminants. (5) The chief agency 

responsible for protection of public and environmental health, the Alberta Government, 

has a vested interest in oil sands development. 

Dr. John O’Connor was the first medical professional to publicly call attention to 

the question of elevated disease rates in the community. In radio interviews he stated that 

he had found abnormally high incidences of bile duct cancers (cholangiocarcinomas), 

colon cancers, lymphomas, leukemia, autoimmune diseases such as lupus, thyroid 

cancers, overactive thyroid, and a host of skin rashes. 

In response, the government of Alberta conducted a study of disease incidence 

(Alberta Health and Wellness 2006). The government reported statistical confidence 

intervals of expected disease rates and compared them to observed disease rates. It found 

elevated incidences of diabetes, hypertension, renal failure, and lupus in Fort Chipewyan. 

Injuries and poisoning accounted for 16.5% of deaths in Ft. Chipewyan compared to a 

provincial average of 3.8%. The overall Fort Chipewyan First Nations cancer rate was 

reportedly about 29% above the Alberta non-First Nations average. The government 

declined to conclude the cancer rate in Fort Chipewyan was elevated, perhaps due to the 

imprecise nature of its statistical estimates. 

Study of the government report led Timoney (2007) to conclude that: (1) Due to 

the small population of Fort Chipewyan, statistics offered a blunt tool for detection of 

elevated rates of disease. Wide confidence intervals in a small population limit the power 

to detect elevated rates of disease. (2) Expected cancer rates are subject to variations 

related to statistical assumptions and methods. For example, the upper 95 percent 

confidence interval for the expected number of cases of prostate cancer in the community 

was 28 by the Indirect Standardized Incidence Ratio (ISIR) method, 16 by the binomial 

method, and 13 by the Monte Carlo method. The ISIR method produced the highest 

upper confidence intervals of the three methods (see Alberta Cancer Board 2007) and 

was the method used by Alberta Health and Wellness. The fact that estimates of the upper 

confidence limit for the number of prostate cancer cases differed by more than 100% 

demonstrates the approximate nature of the statistics of small populations. For the 

6

concerned citizen of Fort Chipewyan it might raise the question: how can the Alberta 

government be certain that cancer rates are not elevated? 

This study seeks to provide timely answers to some of the questions that people 

have about water and sediment quality as it relates to public and environmental health. It 

is designed to be a short-term study focussed on water and sediment quality relevant to 

the community’s health. It is a beginning that will answer some questions, raise others, 

and recommend directions for the future. 

The Study Region 

Fort Chipewyan is located at the west end of Lake Athabasca in northern Alberta 

near the junction of the Peace and Athabasca Rivers (Figure 1). 

MacKay 

7 

Figure 1. Fort Chipewyan 

(noted by arrow) and regional 

place names in northern Alberta 

and adjacent Saskatchewan and 

the Northwest Territories. WPP 

refers to Wildland Provincial 

Park. Map courtesy of Spatial 

Vision Group, Vancouver.

As of 2001, about 195,000 people lived in the Peace River watershed (MRBB 

2004). The three largest cities are Grande Prairie in Alberta and Ft. St. John and Dawson 

Creek in British Columbia. About 12% of the population was aboriginal. Upstream of 

Fort Chipewyan, there are two hydroelectric dams, one coal mine, and one gold mine. 

Large-scale forestry operations supply wood to numerous sawmills and fiber to six pulp 

and paper mills, five of which discharge waste into the Peace River and its tributaries 

(there is a zero-effluent mill in Chetwynd, BC; MRBB 2004). Agricultural land covers 

about 23% of the basin. 

More than 155,000 people lived in the Athabasca River watershed as of 2001. 

Within the Municipality of Wood Buffalo (the lower Athabasca River region), the 

population has more than doubled in the past 10 years to a 2006 total of 79,810 people, a 

growth of 114% (RMWB 2006). The largest cities in the watershed are Ft. McMurray, 

Hinton, and Whitecourt. About 13% of the population was aboriginal in 2001. 

Conventional oil and gas and oil sands industries cover much of the basin. There are 

three coal mines in the river’s upper reaches and the forest industry operates several 

sawmills and panelboard factories, four pulp and paper mills and one newsprint mill. 

Agricultural land covers about 12% of the basin. 

The primary environmental threat facing Fort Chipewyan’s future is that it lies 

downstream of significant economic and industrial activity. Forest industry tenures have 

been granted to most public lands in northern Alberta. Oil and gas extraction and 

exploration and the forest industry have dissected and fragmented most of the landscape 

of northern Alberta. Seismic lines, pipelines, industrial service roads, and registered roads 

in northern Alberta extend for a total distance in excess of hundreds of thousands of 

kilometers. 

Oil sands developments have impacted and will continue to impact the region 

(MRBB 2004). Impacts come from large-scale water consumption; land disturbance; 

cumulative impacts on wildlife, soil, and plant species, and contaminant effects on human 

and ecosystem health. 

During the extraction of bitumen from oil sands, large volumes of water 

contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, naphthenic acids, and salt are 

produced, stored in waste water ponds and reclaimed in aquatic systems (Dixon et al., 

undated). Key contaminants of concern associated with the oil sands industry are PAHs, 

naphthenic acids, trace metals, and salinity. Chronic environmental toxicity of lands 

subjected to bitumen extraction has been most strongly associated with salinity and 

naphthenic acids. 

Contaminated dust, made airborne during oil sands mining operations, may have 

not only local and regional effects on air quality but also contribute to the contaminant 

burden of the Athabasca River. This hypothesis requires study. 

Wastewater issues facing the lower Athabasca River include the continued 

accumulation of tailings waters; releases of sewage, refinery effluent, cooling water, dyke 

seepage, industrial site drainage projects (of wetlands, overburden, mine runoff), mine 

depressurization water, and tailings release water (McEachern 2004). 

Water and Sediment Quality Parameters Assessed 

Water and sediment concentrations were determined for seven parameters of 

concern: arsenic, total mercury and methylmercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, 

dioxins and furans, naphthenic acids, total nitrogen and nitrate + nitrite, total coliform 

8

and fecal coliform bacteria. These data were placed in context by a review, and analysis 

where possible, of existing regional data for those parameters. Additionally, data on other 

parameters of concern or that have exceeded water or sediment quality guidelines were 

discussed. Data were discussed in the context of regional toxicological and exposure risk 

studies where possible. 

Arsenic 

Arsenic is a natural metallic element found in the Earth’s crust. It can enter water 

systems when geological deposits and soils leach the element. Humans increase the level 

of available arsenic through the burning of fossil fuels, oil sands, gold, and base metal 

mining, in agricultural pesticides and additives, and through the burning of waste. 

Across Canada, drinking water generally contains fewer than 5 µg/L of arsenic 

(Health Canada 2006a). For most Canadians, the primary exposure to arsenic is through 

food, followed by drinking water, soil, and air (Health Canada 2006a). 

Arsenic is a known carcinogen and has been linked with bile duct, liver, urinary 

tract, and skin cancers, vascular diseases, and Type II diabetes (Guo 2003; Merck 2003). 

Long-term adverse health effects of high levels of arsenic in drinking water include 

thickening and discoloration of the skin; nausea and diarrhea; decreased production of 

blood cells; abnormal heart rhythm and blood vessel damage; and numbness in hands and 

feet (Health Canada 2006a). Short-term exposure may result in gastro-intestinal 

disorders; muscular cramping or pain; rashes and weakness or flushing of skin; 

numbness, burning, or tingling in hands and feet; thickening of the skin on palms and 

soles of feet; and loss of movement and sensory responses (Health Canada 2006a). 

Exposure to arsenic is becoming a national issue, and potentially, a national crisis. 

Mercury 

Mercury is a natural metallic element that occurs in many forms. Natural sources 

of mercury include weathering of rocks and minerals, forest fires, volcanoes, undersea 

vents, and hot springs. It is also released from flooded soils, a fact of direct relevance to 

people living in or near a delta. Humans have increased the amount of mercury in the 

environment through metal smelting, the burning of coal and other fossil fuels, municipal 

and hospital waste incineration, sewage release, cement manufacturing, and leaching of 

mercury waste from landfills or storage (Environment Canada 2005). Dental amalgam, 

used to fill cavities, is an alloy of silver and mercury. 

The chemistry of mercury is complex and is related to reduction-oxidation 

potential, pH, organic content, sulfur content, and other characteristics of the water and 

sediments (Ullrich et al. 2001). Once released into the environment, inorganic mercury is 

converted to toxic methylmercury, the primary form of mercury in shellfish and fish (US 

EPA 2001). The ability of methylmercury to accumulate in fatty tissue and to bind to 

proteins makes it readily biomagnified by aquatic biota and may pose a threat to humans 

and other fish-eating animals. Sediments can act as both a source and a sink of mercury 

and, once contaminated, can remain toxic to aquatic life for long periods (Ullrich et al. 

2001). 

Uncontaminated freshwater usually contains < 0.005 µg/L total mercury, of which 

up to about 30% may be methylmercury (Ullrich et al. 2001). The range in the methyl to 

total mercury ratio in Canadian freshwater is

Fish at the top of the food chain bioaccumulate methylmercury to levels 1-10 

million times greater than the concentration of methylmercury in the surrounding waters 

(US EPA 2001). 

Mammals with toxic levels of mercury exhibit abnormal behavior, eating 

disorders, loss of balance, lack of coordination, and paralysis of legs (Environment 

Canada 2005). Human exposure to mercury is associated with a variety of serious 

neurological and organic disorders whose nature depends on the species of mercury and 

the route and severity of the exposure. 

Children and pregnant women, those with impaired kidney function, and people 

who consume large amounts of fish and wild meat are most at risk of adverse health 

effects. 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 

PAHs are a large group of organic ring compounds that are found or formed in 

some geologic deposits (petrogenic, e.g., oil sands) and can be created during combustion 

(pyrogenic) or via microbial degradation. They are hydrophobic and tend to bind to 

organic matter and small particles in the water column and in sediments. PAHs can 

bioaccumulate in the food chain; they do not biomagnify. 

Pyrogenic PAHs are diverse but generally have a high concentration of 

unsubstituted parent compounds and/or molecular weights greater than C3 

dibenzothiophene (Page et al. 1993). They are released during bitumen production and 

wildfires, in cigarette smoke, in vehicle exhaust, from asphalt roads, from burning of coal 

and from residential wood burning, agricultural burning, municipal and industrial waste 

incineration, and from hazardous waste sites (ATSDR 1995). Around the home, PAHs 

are found in tobacco smoke, smoke from wood fires, creosote-treated wood, some foods, 

and contaminated milk. Cooking meat at high temperatures, such as during grilling or 

charring, increases the PAH content (ATSDR 1995). PAHs of pyrogenic origin in animal 

tissue and fecal samples in Alaska were dominated by unsubstituted phenanthrene, 

fluoranthene, and pyrene whereas those of petrogenic origin (fresh oil spill) were 

dominated by naphthalenes and alkylated naphthalenes (Murphy et al. 2003). Weathering 

of fresh petroleum usually results in losses of naphthalenes such that alkyl-substituted 3ring 

PAHs become dominant in older or weathered petroleum (J. Short, pers. comm., 

October 2007) 

Generally, petrogenic PAHs are characterized by alkylated forms of their parent 

homologues. The chemistry of oil sands geological deposits near the Athabasca River is 

variable. In one study, alkylated forms of phenanthrene and anthracene (217,000 µg/kg), 

dibenzothiophenes (158,500 µg/kg), fluoranthene and pyrene (32,400 µg/kg), fluorene 

(26,400 µg/kg), naphthalene (19,100 µg/kg), and benzo(a)anthracene and chrysene (9,300 

µg/kg) were dominant (Evans et al. 2002). In deposits with visible oil and bitumen, the 

PAH content can reach 7.7 to 216 million µg/kg (Akre et al. 2004). Sediment PAH 

concentrations in the lower Athabasca River and its delta are generally about 1/100 the 

concentration found in oil sands deposits (Evans et al. 2002, their Figure 3). PAH 

concentrations of some sediments in Lake Athabasca and Richardson Lake ranged from 

1259-1867 µg/kg (Evans et al. 2002). Oil sands mixtures eroding into the Athabasca 

River can be rich in 3- and 4-ring alkylated PAHs, a fact of considerable toxicologic 

importance. 

Because PAHs can come from geologic and combustion sources, identification of 

the source can influence decisions regarding the liability for cleanup and remedial 

10

options. Geologic deposits may differ in their ages, degree of weathering, and geologic 

source. Techniques are being developed that attempt to differentiate petrogenic sources of 

PAHs (e.g., Akre et al. 2004). Once released, PAHs may be subject to losses from 

evaporation, dissolution, microbial degradation and photo-oxidation, and hence the 

‘signature’ of a PAH source is subject to change over time. 

Shell Canada (2006) maintained that PAHs originating from industrial ‘oil sands 

developments’ can be differentiated from ‘natural petroleum sources’ through PAH 

ratios—viz., a phenanthrene:anthracene ratio > 5 and a fluoranthene:pyrene ratio < 1 

indicated a ‘natural’ source. This view seems unlikely given the complex and dynamic 

nature of PAH assemblages. Liu et al. (2005) stated that a phenanthrene:anthracene ratio 

< 10 and a fluoranthene:pyrene ratio > 1 indicated a pyrogenic rather than a petrogenic 

source and did not mention differentiation of ‘oil sands’ from natural petroleum sources. 

Benzothiophene, dibenzothiophene, and naphthobenzothiophene, which contain a sulfur 

atom, are important for discriminating among petroleum sources (J. Short, pers. comm., 

October 2007). ‘Fingerprinting’ of PAH assemblages may prove of immense importance 

in the future if it can differentiate between natural and industrial sources in the lower 

Athabasca River oil sands region. 

In an attempt to set water quality objectives for the lower Athabasca River, 

Golder (2007) defined PAH groups with similar structures based on their toxic 

equivalency to benzo(a)pyrene. Toxic equivalents were based on data in US EPA (1993) 

and OMEE (1997). PAH groups 1-3 are carcinogenic. PAH Group 1 includes types with 

a toxicity equivalent to that of benzo(a)pyrene; PAH Group 2 includes types with a 

toxicity equivalent to one-tenth, and PAH Group 3 includes types with a toxicity 

equivalent to one-hundredth that of benzo(a)pyrene. 

Laboratory studies on animals have demonstrated that PAH exposure can lead to 

reproductive and birth defects and decreased body weight and harmful effects on skin, 

body fluids, and the immune system. Many PAHs are known or expected human 

carcinogens (ATSDR 1995). Fishes exposed to Athabasca River PAHs can have elevated 

liver EROD, an indicator of interference with estrogen metabolism (Sherry et al. 2006). 

Fish hatching alterations, increases in mortality, spinal malformations, reduced size, 

cardiac dysfunction, edema, and reduction in the size of the jaw and other craniofacial 

structures have been observed in fishes exposed to PAHs (Tetreault et al. 2003a; 

Colavecchia et al. 2004, 2006, 2007; Incardona et al. 2004). 

Dioxins and Furans 

Adsorbable organic halides, which include toxic chemicals such as dioxins, 

furans, and chlorinated phenolics, are produced as industrial contaminants (often from 

pulp mills) and can be introduced via treated sewage and atmospheric deposition (MRBB 

2004). Incineration of municipal and medical waste is the largest source of dioxins and 

furans in Canada (Health Canada 2001). Other sources include the backyard burning of 

garbage, especially plastics; the production of iron and steel; combustion of fuel and 

wood; and electrical power generation (Health Canada 2001). 

Dioxins and furans can travel long distances in the atmosphere and can 

bioaccumulate in the food chain. The major route of exposure for humans is ingestion of 

food such as meat, milk products, and fish, and smoking of tobacco (Health Canada 

2001). 

11

High levels of dioxins and furans have been documented in some fish species of 

the Athabasca River (MRBB 2004). Dioxins and furans have been detected in Lake 

Athabasca sediments (Evans 2000). 

There is strong evidence that dioxin exposure is linked to non-Hodgkin’s 

lymphoma and soft tissue sarcoma and good evidence that associates dioxin exposure 

with Hodgkin’s disease, stomach cancer, altered sex ratio, hormonal changes, menstrual 

disorders, and thyroid disorders (Janssen et al. 2004). Skin, liver, and immune system 

effects have been observed (Health Canada 2001). 

Naphthenic Acids 

Naphthenic acids are natural constituents of bitumen that have a relatively high 

solubility in water, a low affinity for soil particles, are found in oil sands deposits, and 

tend to persist in the water column (McMartin 2003). During bitumen extraction from oil 

sands, naphthenic acids are concentrated in tailings. Under natural conditions, naphthenic 

acids may enter surface waters through groundwater mixing and through erosion of oil 

sands deposits. In oil sand extraction areas, naphthenic acids may enter surface waters 

through tailings pond and pipeline leaks. Typically, naphthenic acid concentrations in 

industrial tailings ponds are about 100 to 3000 times greater than they are in the 

Athabasca River. 

Since oil sand deposits can contain hundreds of kinds of naphthenic acids, it is not 

known at present which naphthenic acids are the most toxic. Toxicity is more a function 

of the content and complexity of the naphthenic acid mixture rather than one of 

concentration. Adverse health effects may result from repeated exposure of mammals to 

naphthenic acids (Rogers et al. 2002). Much more needs to be learned about the effects of 

long-term human exposure to naphthenic acids. 

Nitrogen 

Nitrogen is a naturally occurring essential element that exists in a variety of 

organic and inorganic forms in water. Assimilation of ammonia and nitrate by plants and 

microorganisms forms organic nitrogen. Nitrates and nitrites are formed in many ways, 

both natural and industrial. Among the natural pathways are nitrification of ammonia and 

precipitation of nitric and nitrous oxides. Fertilizer use, release of industrial and 

municipal wastes, and leaching of farm animal wastes and septic tanks are major sources 

of nitrates. Nitrites can be formed from nitrates by denitrification in sediments that lack 

oxygen. 

When total nitrogen is in excess it can contribute to eutrophication, odors, and 

harmful algal blooms. Nitrate in drinking water may affect human health in the general 

population at levels of 100-200 mg/L (McCasland et al., undated). Newborn babies are 

more susceptible to nitrite, which can bind to infant hemoglobin and cause an oxygen 

transport deficit. Studies linking nitrate in drinking water with cancer have involved high 

nitrate levels (>/= 100-200 mg/L), much higher than observed in all but extremely 

polluted waters. 

Coliform Bacteria 

Coliform bacteria are common and widespread within both ecosystems and 

organisms. They are usually harmless. Fecal coliforms and Escherichia coli are coliforms 

whose presence indicate that water may be contaminated with human or animal wastes. 

12

Coliform bacteria are useful indicators for the presence of pathogenic microorganisms 

associated with fecal contamination and waterborne illnesses (Ayebo et al. 2006). 

The location of the sewage disposal and domestic water supply intake at Fort 

Chipewyan may be unique in Alberta. While the domestic water intake is normally 

‘upstream’ of the sewage outfall, this is not always the case. When water levels on the 

Peace River are higher than those at Lake Athabasca, the Rochers River and other outlet 

channels cease to flow north. Instead a ‘flow reversal’ occurs and waters from the Peace 

River flow south. At that time, municipal sewage entering the Rochers River from 

Mission Creek flows south to Lake Athabasca and may contaminate the waters around 

Fort Chipewyan. There is also concern that the town sewage treatment plant may be 

under-capacity for the size of the population. Another potential source of future 

contamination is sewage emptied into Lake Athabasca from the Allison Bay settlement 

northeast of Fort Chipewyan. 

METHODS 

Field Methods 

Water and Sediment Samples 

The field crew was composed of Vanessa Phillips (University of Alberta), local 

guide Robert Grandjambe, and Kevin Timoney (Treeline Ecological Research). 

Water samples were gathered from four sites and sediment samples from three 

sites during the period 31 May to 1 June 2007 (Tables 1, 2 and Figures 2-6). Water 

samples were gathered from below the water surface after triple rinsing the appropriate 

container with the water to be sampled. 

Due to unacceptably high detection limits for total mercury in water, a second set 

of total mercury samples was taken from the four sites on 28 August 2007. 

Sediments were gathered with an Ekman grab sampler. The contents of the 

sampler were emptied into a clean glass tray and homogenized with a spatula prior to 

placing into containers. Sediments gathered for metal analyses were homogenized with a 

plastic spatula while those gathered for organic analyses were homogenized with a metal 

spatula. 

Samples were stored overnight (31 May) in a cooler stored in a basement, then 

shipped by air to Edmonton and covered with bagged ice (1 June) for delivery to the ALS 

lab on the morning of 2 June. 

PAH and naphthenic acid sampling protocols did not call for field preservation of 

water and sediment samples. Microbes may have used the PAHs and naphthenic acids as 

carbon sources, or both compounds may have adhered to sample container surfaces. 

Microbial degradation or adhesion to containers may have decreased the levels of PAHs 

and naphthenic acids below detection limits. 

Traditional Knowledge Interviews 

Elders with extensive knowledge of water were interviewed with a set of 

questions. Their responses were recorded digitally for later study. Each interview lasted 

from one-half hour to two hours. 

13

Interview questions 

1. Do you drink untreated water from the Athabasca River and other rivers 

and lakes? If not, did you drink it in the past? 

2. If so, do you think the water tastes or smells differently than it 

used to? 

3. How does it taste differently? Saltier? Oily smell? 

4. When did you notice the change? 

5. Have you noticed oil slicks in the Athabasca River? If so, when and where? 

5a. Do you have any photographs of oil spills or oiled animals? 

6. Have you noticed fish kills? If so, when and where? 

7. Have you noticed oiled birds? If so, when and where? 

8. Have you noticed oiled muskrats? Bloody noses? Die-offs? If so, when 

and where? 

8a. What happens to muskrats when they contact contaminants/oil? 

8b. What happens to waterfowl when they contact contaminants/oil? 

9. Have you noticed changes in the taste of meat, fish, waterfowl? 

If so, when, where, what changes? 

10. Have you noticed any changes in the abundance of waterfowl, rats, beavers, otters, 

mink, walleye, jackfish, whitefish, lake trout, burbot that might be related to 

water quality? 

11. Have you noticed any human diseases that did not occur in the past? 

Analytical Methods 

Water and sediment analyses were conducted by the ALS Laboratory Group, 

Edmonton, Alberta with the exception of total mercury in water which were analyzed by 

Flett Research Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba. Details are provided in Appendix 1. 

Data gathered during this study were compared to pre-existing water and 

sediment quality data and to toxicological and pathological data from the region and 

placed in the context of existing water and sediment quality guidelines. 

14

Table 1. Water quality parameters and collection containers. 

Parameter Medium Container 

Total Coliforms (in water) 250 mL sterilized plastic bottle with 

sodium thiosulfate preservative 

Fecal Coliforms (in water) 250 mL sterilized plastic bottle with 

sodium thiosulfate preservative 

Total Coliforms (in sediment) whirlpack 

Fecal Coliforms (in sediment) whirlpack 

Mercury (total) (in water) 125 mL teflon bottle (with 0.4% HCl); 

bottle is rinsed repeatedly with sample 

water, then filled) 

Mercury (total) (in sediment) ziploc bag 

Methylmercury (in sediment) 125 mL jar 

Methylmercury (in water) 1 L amber jar 

Arsenic (total) (in water) 250 mL plastic bottle (with 5 mL of 20% 

nitric acid, from vial) 

Arsenic (total) (in sediment) ziploc bag 

PAHs (in water) 2x1 L amber glass bottles 

PAHs (in sediment) 125 mL amber jar 

Dioxins and 

Furans 

(in water) 2x1 L amber glass bottles 

Dioxins and (in sediment) 500 mL amber jar 

Furans 

Naphthenic Acids (in water) 1 L amber glass bottle 

Naphthenic Acids (in sediment) 125 mL amber glass jar 

Total Kjeldhahl N (in water) 500 mL plastic bottle (with 2 mL of 1:1 

sulfuric acid, in vial) 

Total N by 

combustion 

(in sediment) whirlpack 

Nitrate-Nitrite (in water) 500 mL routine bottle 

Table 2. Location of the sample sites (UTM zone 12, NAD 27). See Figures 2-6. 

Site Easting Northing Comments 

Fletcher Channel 496635 6491684 site about 200 m south of the Canoe 

Portage – Fletcher Channel divergence; 

east side of thalweg; water depth 2.8 m 

Rochers River at Mission Creek 488649 6506892 site about 10 m north and 15 m west of 

the mouth of Mission Creek; water depth 

1.9 m 

Water Intake for Fort Chipewyan, 491666 6507606 site about 300 m south of Fort Chipewyan 

Lake Athabasca 

Water Treatment Plant in Fort 

Chipewyan 

15 

Lodge; water depth 6.0 m 

491139 6508410 treated water sample taken from tap inside 

of plant

Rochers 

River 

b 

d 

c 

Embarras 

River 

Figure 2. Overview of the study area with location of the water and sediment samples. a. 

Fletcher Channel. b. Rochers River at Mission Creek. c. Water intake in Lake Athabasca. 

d. Water treatment plant. The bidirectional red arrow signifies that the Rochers River can 

flow either north (the typical direction) or south. Note the apparent sharp transition 

between Lake Athabasca-origin water (light turquoise) and Athabasca River-origin water 

(grayish brown) in this false colour image. Landsat 7 image, 10 September 2002, 

courtesy of Spatial Vision Group, Vancouver. Image: crop of 

rgb_321_L7_p43r19s00_2002sep10.tif. 

16 

Lake 

Athabasca 

a 

Fletcher 

Channel

a 

b 

Canoe Pass 

17 

Sample Site 

Figure 3. a. Location of the Fletcher 

Channel sample, UTM NAD 27. b. View 

north from the sample site towards the 

divergence of Canoe Pass (Canoe 

Portage), left, and Fletcher Channel, right, 

1 June 2007.

a 

b 

Teapot 

Island 

Sample Site 

18 

Figure 4. a. Location of the Rochers River 

/ Mission Creek sample, UTM NAD 27. 

b. View northeast from the sample site in 

the Rochers River towards the mouth of 

Mission Creek, 31 May 2007.

a 

b 

Water Treatment Plant 

Water Intake 

19 

Figure 5. a. Location of the Fort 

Chipewyan Lake Athabasca water intake 

sample and the raw water sample from the 

water treatment plant, UTM NAD 27. b. 

View north from the sample site near the 

water intake pipe in Lake Athabasca 

towards the Environment Dock and the 

Fort Chipewyan Lodge, 31 May 2007.

a 

b 

Figure 6. Location of the water treatment plant and ponds, 12 August 2006. 

a. The water treatment plant. b. Two reservoir ponds. c. Backwash pond. d. Two sewage 

ponds. 

20 

c 

d

RESULTS and DISCUSSION 

1. Regulatory Guidelines and Pre-existing Regional Data 

Guidelines are prepared by government agencies as a means of summarizing 

information about water, sediment, air, food, or other natural or manufactured products. 

A guideline may be developed by a government agency as a regulatory limit used in 

enforcement of laws. A guideline may be developed to provide information to consumers 

as to what is safe to eat or drink. Alternatively, guidelines may be developed to inform 

the public about the levels of contaminants that would be expected to produce a given 

effect on an organism or a system. 

In any case, a guideline is subject to change over time and to differ among 

jurisdictions. As a general rule, the guideline for a particular water or sediment quality 

parameter tends to decrease over time as more information comes to light. For example, 

in 1978, the Canadian maximum acceptable concentration for arsenic in drinking water 

was 50 µg/L. By 2002, the Canadian environmental quality arsenic drinking guideline 

had fallen to 25 µg/L. Presently, Health Canada (2006b) proposes a maximum acceptable 

concentration of 5 µg/L arsenic. 

Similarly, if we compare a guideline across categories or jurisdictions, a wide 

variation may be found. In the case of human consumption of fish containing mercury, 

the present Canadian mercury guideline is 0.5 mg/kg for general consumers, 0.2 mg/kg 

for subsistence fishers, while the US EPA mercury consumption guideline is 0.40 mg/kg 

for recreational fishers and 0.049 mg/kg for subsistence fishers. 

Guidelines then, are simply that—they are meant to guide discussion and to 

structure knowledge. Whether the value for a chemical, biological, or physical parameter 

is acceptable or not is subject to change over time and to vary between jurisdictions or 

between individual risk profiles. 

Nor should failure to exceed a guideline be interpreted as a ‘safe’ condition. Some 

people, e.g., babies and people with weakened immune systems, are 

b more susceptible to c contaminants than other people. The human 

body does not face a single contaminant or stressor in the course of a 

lifetime. Instead, we are immersed in a milieu of stressors that change over time and 

differ among people. One person might face a contaminant burden of stored, fat soluble 

organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins. Another person might face a contaminant 

burden of arsenic, mercury, and lead. It could well be that neither person has 

concentrations of these toxins that exceed individual guidelines. Yet the combined 

contaminant burden in either person might result in an adverse health effect. 

Precautionary common sense dictates, then, that responsible agencies should seek 

to minimize the overall contaminant burden faced by each person. 

Tables 3 and 4 list relevant current water and sediment quality guidelines. 

Table 5 provides a summary of some regional observations of relevant water and 

sediment quality data. These data, and others not included in Table 5, provide a context 

for discussion of the results. I apologize for the difficulty in reading Table 5 but I have 

tried to collate a large amount of data into one table. 

The primary challenge to making comparisons of regional water and sediment 

quality is the absence of standardized statistical reporting. Many data are presented in 

reports in summary form without supporting raw data or information on the form of the 

statistical distributions, means, medians, quartiles, percentiles, and other measures. 

21

Without raw data it can be difficult or impossible to generate or to compare homologous 

statistics. In one case, a study might report a 90 th percentile while another study might 

report a 95 th percentile. One study might report numeric values for observations while 

another study might report for the same parameter the number of sites in exceedence of a 

guideline, but not the actual values. Some studies report the number of observations, 

some studies do not. In some cases it is unclear whether the datum reported is a median 

or a mean. 

Some studies present novel statistical measures that, while not without merit, may 

not be comparable to other studies. (Golder 2007, their Table 4.1) reported a maximum 

long-term average of the median background concentration [meaning unclear] of 0.034 

mg/L for naphthenic acids in the lower Athabasca River (without site locations and 

number of samples). In comparison, Imperial Oil (2006, volume 6, their Table 5-23) 

reported a mean naphthenic acid concentration of 0.74 mg/L for the Athabasca River 

(without site locations and number of samples). These summary values differ by a factor 

of 22. When it is realized that both these reports drew upon a host of other reports for 

their data, few of which received normal scientific peer review, it is difficult not to 

suspect that the message contained in the raw data has been muddled. 

In short, conducting a meta-analysis or even making meaningful comparisons is a 

challenge. 

22

Table 3. Canadian water and sediment quality guidelines as a context for the selected parameters. 

Guidelines Water 

Sediment 

Drinking Water Aquatic Life 

Total Coliforms 0 colonies/100 mL no guidelines no guidelines 

Fecal Coliforms 0 colonies/100 mL no guidelines no guidelines 

Mercury Total 1 µg/L MAC 0.013 µg/L acute 

0.005 µg/L chronic 

170 µg/kg ISQG 

Methylmercury no guidelines 0.001 µg/L chronic 

exposure 

no guidelines 

Arsenic Total 5 µg/L proposed 

MAC 

5 µg/L 5.9 mg/kg ISQG 

PAHs see Table 4 see Table 4 see Table 4 

Dioxins and Furans no guidelines no guidelines 0.85 ng TEQ/kg 

(PCDD/Fs) 

ISQG 

Naphthenic Acids no guidelines no guidelines no guidelines 

Nitrogen Total 10.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L chronic 

(total inorganic and 

organic) 

no guidelines 

Nitrate+Nitrite 3.2 mg/L for 0.06 mg/L for no guideline 

nitrite; no guideline nitrite; no guideline 

for nitrate for nitrate 

items in red are from CCME (2002) 

MAC = max acceptable concentration 

IMAC = interim MAC 

ISQG = interim sediment quality guideline 

items in green are from Health Canada (2006b) 

items in blue are from Alberta Environment (1999) 

23

Table 4. Canadian water and sediment quality guidelines for selected PAHs.* 

Guidelines Water (µg/L) 

PAH Drinking 

Water 

Aquatic Life 

Acenaphthene 5.8 

Acridine 4.4 

Anthracene 0.012 

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.018 

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.01 0.015 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 5.8 

Fluoranthene 0.04 

Fluorene 3.0 

Naphthalene 1.1 

Phenanthrene 0.4 

Pyrene 0.025 

Quinoline 3.4 

Benzo(a)anthracene 

Sediment (µg/kg, ISQG) 

31.7 

Benzo(a)pyrene 31.9 

Chrysene 57.1 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 6.22 

Fluoranthene 111.0 

Fluorene 21.2 

2-Methylnaphthalene 20.2 

Naphthalene 34.6 

Phenanthrene 41.9 

Pyrene 

* CCME (2002) 

53.0 

24

Table 5. A summary of some water and sediment quality observations from the region. 

Guidelines Water Sediment Location, Date, N Reference 

Total Coliforms Mean 31 colonies / 100 mL, median 12, range 4-384 Fort Chipewyan water intake, n=103, 

all but three values between June 2001 

25 

and July 2007 

Fecal Coliforms Mean 5.1 colonies / 100 mL, median 4, range 4-44 Fort Chipewyan water intake, n=101, 

all but three values between June 2001 

Mercury Total: mean 0.0093 µg/L, median 0.0050 µg/L, 90 th tile 0.0200 

µg/L, max 0.0510 µg/L 

Total: mean 0.0126 µg/L, median 0.0050 µg/L, 90 th tile 0.0300 

µg/L, max 0.1300 µg/L (many values above aquatic life 

acute guideline of 0.013 µg/L) 

Total: 0.036 µg/L@; 0.10 µg/L@@ (above aquatic life acute 

guideline of 0.013 µg/L) 

Total: maxima, winter 1.3 µg/L, spring 0.05 µg/L, summer 

0.11 µg/L, fall 0.4 µg/L & (above aquatic life acute guideline 

of 0.013 µg/L) 

Mean (?)

Mean (?) 1 µg/L, “modelled background median” 0.9 µg/L, 

range 0.2-10 µg/L (upper values in range above MAC for 

drinking water of 5.0 µg/L) 

Mean (?) 0.5 µg/L, “modelled background median” 0.9 µg/L, 

range

maximum 5 mg/L; median 1 mg/L AR between Muskeg River and Fort Imperial Oil (2006, 

Creek, fall 1972-2003, n = 13 volume 3, Table 5-24) 

maximum < 1, 1,

2. Water and Sediment Quality 

Water Quality 

Arsenic 

Arsenic levels near Fort Chipewyan were 2.6 µg/L at the Lake Athabasca water 

intake; 3.4 µg/L in the Rochers River near Mission Creek; and 1.6 µg/L in the Fletcher 

Channel. Arsenic was below the detection limit (0.4 µg/L) in treated tap water. 

Arsenic concentrations for untreated Lake Athabasca water near Fort Chipewyan 

are relatively high in comparison to regional values. For the Peace River at Peace Point, 

the 90 th percentile for dissolved arsenic, 1989-2001, was 0.4 µg/L (Table 5). 

Modelled median arsenic concentrations for the Athabasca River reaches 

“downstream of Steepbank River” and “upstream of Embarras River” were both 0.9 µg/L 

(ranges: 0.2-10 and

Comparison of the various datasets supports the view that levels of total arsenic in 

western Lake Athabasca (Table 6) and in the lower Athabasca River (Figure 7) are high 

relative to those in the region at large. 

Table 6. Total arsenic concentrations in western Lake Athabasca over the period 1987-94 

in µg/L. Data file courtesy of R. Tchir, Alberta Environment “data for 07ma_07md.csv”. 

Site 0.5 km south of Fort Chipewyan water intake is Alberta Environment number 

AB07MD0010. 

Lake Athabasca Arsenic Dataset Mean Median 95 th percentile n 

Values > detection limit (D.L.) 0.9 0.7 2.7 51 

All values ( D.L., at site 0.5 km south of LA 1.2 0.7 2.8 8 

water intake 

All values (/= 0.2 µg/L. In this graphs, stations* with values below detection 

limit were coded as missing. Y-axis is power-transformed 0.5. * Lower Athabasca River Stations 

(Downstream of Fort McMurray), 07DA: 0190, AT OLD AOSERP DOCK MILE 26.3; 0400, U/S OF THE CONFLUENCE 

WITH MUSKEG RIVER MILE 34.5; 0410, U/S FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH MUSKEG RIVER - RIGHT BANK; 0970, 

ABOVE THE FIREBAG RIVER - MILE 82.4; 1500, SITE 4 - MILE 19 – AOSERP; 1520, SITE 6 - MILEAGE 29.8 – AOSERP; 

1540, AT FORT MACKAY – AOSERP; 1550, BELOW CONFLUENCE WITH THE TAR RIVER - MILE 52.4 – AOSERP; 07DD: 

0010, AT OLD FORT - RIGHT BANK; 0020, 13.0 MILES BELOW CONFLUENCE WITH THE FIREBAG RIVER; 0040, AT 

EMBARRAS AIRPORT - AT WSC GAUGE ARC KM 111.3; 0105, D/S OF DEVILS ELBOW AT WINTER ROAD CROSSING; 

0150, EMBARRAS RIVER NEAR LAKE ATHABASCA; 0360, BIG POINT CHANNEL OUTLET - DELTA SITE – AOSERP.

Total Mercury 

Total mercury was 0.00139 µg/L at the Rochers River, 0.00161 µg/L at the Lake 

Athabasca water intake, 0.00325 µg/L at the Fletcher Channel, and 0.00083 µg/L for 

treated tap water (Table 7). The total mercury level in the Fletcher Channel approaches 

the chronic exposure guideline for protection of aquatic life (0.005 µg/L, Table 3). 

Other data place the preceding mercury concentrations in context. Many observed 

mercury concentrations exceed aquatic life protection guidelines (Table 5). 

For the Athabasca River above Embarras Portage the 90 th percentile mercury 

concentration was 0.02 µg/L with a maximum of 0.05 µg/L; for the Peace River at Peace 

Point, the 90 th percentile mercury concentration was 0.03 µg/L with a maximum of 0.13 

µg/L (Table 5; Donald et al. 2004). 

A lower Athabasca River maximum of the median background concentration of 

0.036 µg/L was reported by Golder (2007). Maximum mercury concentrations for the 

Athabasca River between Fort Creek and Embarras were: 1.3, 0.05, 0.11, and 0.4 µg/L 

for winter, spring, summer, and fall (Table 5). Modelled median mercury concentrations 

for the Athabasca River reaches “downstream of Steepbank River” and “upstream of 

Embarras River” were 0.027 and 0.030 µg/L, respectively (ranges:


PAHs in water were below the detection limit of 0.01 µg/L in the 2007 sample 

(Table 7). 

For the lower Athabasca River, Golder (2007) reported a “maximum... peak 

background concentration” (99.91 percentile) for PAH Group 2 of 0.034 µg/L and for 

PAH Group 3 of 0.016 µg/L (Table 5). The human health guideline for PAH groups 2 

and 3 is estimated at 0.0029 µg/L by Golder (2007). In the United States, concentrations 

of 0.004-0.024 µg /L of PAHs in drinking water have been observed (ATSDR 1995). 

Maximum peak background concentrations for PAH groups 2 and 3 in the lower 

Athabasca River have exceeded human health guidelines. Unfortunately, because the data 

in Golder (2007) were presented in summary form without statistics, it is not possible to 

determine how often the human health guidelines have been exceeded. 


Penta, hepta, and octachlorinated dibenzo-dioxins were detected in the surface 

waters (Table 8). No furans were detected in surface waters (detection limits 0.1 to 0.2 

pg/L). Neither dioxins nor furans were detected in treated drinking water. The highest 

value observed was 7.9 pg/L for P5CDD at the Lake Athabasca water intake. Overall, the 

dioxin concentrations would be considered low or very low (see Carey et al. 2004). 


No naphthenic acids were detected in the four water samples (detection limit of 

0.01 mg/L). This result is surprising in that naphthenic acids are known to be present in 

the lower Athabasca River (Table 5), albeit at concentrations of < 1 mg/L. 

Nitrogen 

The treated water nitrogen concentration was 0.2 mg/L (Table 7). Total nitrogen 

concentrations in the surface waters ranged from 0.6 to 1.0 mg/L, perhaps higher than 

typical of total nitrogen concentrations in the lower Athabasca and Peace Rivers (Tables 

5, 7). The possibility that total nitrogen levels are higher in the waters near Fort 

Chipewyan than in the rivers is supported by Hall et al. (2004) who found a mean total 

nitrogen concentration of 1.95 +/- 1.01 mg/L in lakes (n=57) as compared to 0.33 +/- 0.15 

mg/L in flowing rivers (n=9) of the Peace-Athabasca Delta in October 2000. 

Median and mean values for total nitrogen in RAMP acid sensitive lakes (2002- 

2005) were 0.96 and 1.27 mg/L respectively (RAMP 2006). Median total nitrogen 

concentrations for the Athabasca River between Fort Creek and Embarras(1968-2003) 

ranged from 0.4 to 0.6 mg/L (highest values in spring and summer) (Imperial Oil 2006). 

Nitrate + nitrite concentrations were all below detection limit (0.1 mg/L), 

consistent with mean concentrations of 0.08 mg/L and 0.07 mg/L observed on the 

Athabasca and Peace Rivers (Table 5). Median and mean values for total nitrate + nitrite 

in RAMP acid sensitive lakes (2002-2005) were 0.003 and 0.024 mg/L respectively, 

while median and mean values in 348 regional lakes were 0.002 and 0.021 (RAMP 

2006). Median nitrate + nitrite concentrations for the Athabasca River between Fort 

31

Creek and Embarras (1968-2003) ranged from 0.003 to 0.2 mg/L (highest in winter) 

(Imperial Oil 2006). 

The chronic exposure total nitrogen guideline for protection of aquatic life is 1.0 

mg/L (Table 3). The water quality data indicate that total nitrogen guidelines are 

commonly exceeded in the lakes of the Peace-Athabasca Delta whereas nitrogen 

guidelines are not often exceeded in the region’s flowing rivers. It is not possible to 

determine whether nitrite guidelines are exceeded in the region since nitrite and nitrate 

are reported as one number in the available data. 

Levels of nitrogen in the water around Fort Chipewyan do not pose a direct 

concern for human health but may pose a concern for aquatic life and indirectly to 

humans who depend on wildlife. An abundance of nitrogen in warm and shallow water 

may affect humans through environmental nuisances such as odors, eutrophication, and 

algal blooms—which can in turn impact aquatic life and waterfowl used for human food. 


Total coliforms were present in the three surface water samples (4-20 

colonies/100 mL) but absent in the treated tap water (Table 7). Fecal coliforms were 

present in only the Rochers River sample (5 colonies/100 mL). 

There are no CCME guidelines for total and fecal coliforms for protection of 

aquatic life. For direct contact recreation, the mean of >/= five samples over not more 

than a 30-day period should have a total coliform count < 1000 colonies/100 mL and a 

fecal coliform count of

The largest exceedences were for aluminum (2-60 times the guideline) and iron (3 to 59 

times the guideline). 

The pollution associated with uranium mining on Lake Athabasca requires study 

(Evans et al. 2002). The Lorado Mine (closed in 1960) left 0.6 million tonnes of tailings; 

and the Beaverlodge Mine (closed in 1982) left six million tonnes (Sierra Club 2001). 

The tailings contain about 85% of the radiation in the original ore in the form of 

radioactive uranium, thorium, radium, and polonium, as well as heavy metals such as 

arsenic, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. Gunnar (which operated from 1955 to 1964) left 

five million tonnes of tailings (SE 2006). Large amounts of tailings entered Langley Bay. 

Levels of radioactive uranium, radon and lead are reportedly much higher in the bay’s 

sediments and its whitefish than in ‘control’ areas also on Lake Athabasca (SE 2006). 

The tailings at Lorado and Gunnar leach acids and heavy metals. At Gunnar, tailings 

entered Lake Athabasca when the retainment dam was destroyed (SE 2006). At 

Beaverlodge, most of the tailings were dumped into Beaverlodge Lake (Sierra Club 

2001). 

Elevated levels of selenium and relatively high levels of growth deformities in 

fishes have been observed in Beaverlodge Lake (WUO 2005). Relatively high levels of 

uranium were observed in 2002 in Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum) and in lake 

whitefish from Lake Athabasca near Uranium City (AWG 2002). The former Alberta 

Premier, Ralph Klein, referred to the situation at Uranium City in 1993 as one of 

Canada’s “worst environmental nightmares” (Sierra Club 2001). The cost of cleanup at 

Gunnar and surrounding satellite mines has been estimated at $23-24 million dollars over 

eight years (Saskatchewan Govt. 2004). Sierra Club (2001) stated that the actual cost 

may be nearer to $100-150 million dollars. 

The effects of agriculture on the Fort Chipewyan area are not well documented. 

Upstream, pesticides and fertilizers are applied in varying amounts to crops such as 

canola, oats, peas, and barley (Evans 2000). Over the period 1995 to 2002, five pesticides 

were found to exceed water quality guidelines in the Peace and Athabasca River basins 

(Anderson 2005). The herbicides dicamba and mcpa exceeded irrigation water quality 

guidelines in 11% of samples in both rivers; bromacil exceeded guidelines in the 

Athabasca River basin. Guidelines for the protection of aquatic life were exceeded for the 

persistent insecticide lindane and for the herbicide triallate. Pesticide concentrations were 

generally < 1 µg/L, with maximum concentrations of 2 to >6 µg/L in the Athabasca River 

and 1 to 13.8 µg/L in the Peace River. Aquatic life protection guidelines were exceeded 

more often in the Peace River (3.8% of samples) than in the Athabasca River (0.5% of 

samples). Lindane is banned for all agricultural uses in the United States but is still used 

in Canada. 

33

Table 7. Summary of water quality values for the four sites. 

Parameter Rochers River at 

Mission Creek 

LA Water Intake Fletcher Channel Tap Water 

Arsenic Total 3.4 µg/L 2.6 µg/L 1.6 µg/L

Table 8. Concentrations of dioxins and furans from water at four sites near Fort 

Chipewyan. Values are in pg/L. 

Site T4CDD P5CDD H6CDD H7CDD O8CDD T4CDF P5CDF H6CDF H7CDF O8CDF 

Rochers R. 

at Mission 

Creek 

LA water 

intake 

Fletcher 

^ ND 

(0.3) 

ND 

(0.6) 

ND 

Channel (0.2) 

Tap water ND 

(0.3) 

2.2 ND (0.1) 1.1 3.7 ND 

(0.2) 

7.9 ND (0.2) ND 

(0.2) 

1.6 ND (0.2) ND 

(0.2) 

ND ND (0.1) ND 

(0.1) 

(0.2) 

3.4 ND 

(0.2) 

3.1 ND 

(0.1) 

ND (0.4) ND 

(0.1) 

35 

ND 

(0.1) 

ND 

(0.2) 

ND 

(0.1) 

ND 

(0.1) 

ND 

(0.1) 

ND 

(0.1) 

ND 

(0.1) 

ND 

(0.1) 

^ ND = not detected. The value in parentheses is the sample detection limit. 

Total Coliforms / 100 mL 

450 

300 

150 

14 Aug 2002 

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 

Observation Number 

ND 

(0.1) 

ND 

(0.2) 

ND 

(0.2) 

ND 

(0.1) 

ND 

(0.1) 

ND 

(0.2) 

ND 

(0.2) 

ND 

(0.2) 

Figure 8. Total coliform colonies per 100 mL in “raw water” at Fort Chipewyan, with 

“less than” values included, 3 Dec 1996 to 3 July 2007, n = 103 (100 values between 6 

June 2001 and 3 July 2007). Y-axis is power transformed (power = 0.1), line is a 

distance-weighted least squares regression, tension = 0.5. Data provided courtesy of 

Kathleen Pongar, Alberta Environment, 23 July 2007.

Table 9. Statistics for total and fecal coliform colonies per 100 mL in “raw water” at Fort 

Chipewyan (3 Dec 1996 to 3 July 2007, 100 values between 6 June 2001 and 3 July 

2007) and statistics for total coliforms (presence/absence, 3 Mar 2003 to 8 May 2007) 

and fecal coliform colonies per 100 mL in treated water at Fort Chipewyan (3 Mar 2003 

to 29 Apr 2003). Data provided courtesy of Kathleen Pongar, Alberta Environment, July 

and June 2007. 

Sediment Quality 

Raw Water Treated Water (P/A, 

(coliforms / 100 mL) coliforms / 100 mL) 

Statistic Total Fecal Total Fecal 

Mean 31.0 5.1 0 0 

Median 12.0 4.0 0 0 

Minimum 4 4 0 0 

Maximum 384 44 0 0 

n 103 101 423 16 

To facilitate placing the sediment observations in context, I have included 

relevant sediment quality data from a previous study in Lake Athabasca (Bourbonniere et 

al. 1996, Figure 9). In order to differentiate the data sources in this section, data from 

this study appear in italics. 

Figure 9. Sample site locations from the sediment study by Bourbonniere et al. (1996). 

36

Arsenic, Mercury, and Other Heavy Metals 

Arsenic 

Lake Athabasca sediment arsenic concentrations observed by Bourbonniere et al. 

(1996) and in this study are in close agreement with mean of 9.04 mg/kg and a median of 

8.80 mg/kg (n = 10, Table 10). The Fletcher Channel sediment arsenic concentration was 

1.8 mg/kg. Seven of the ten Lake Athabasca arsenic concentrations exceeded the interim 

sediment quality guideline of 5.9 mg/kg. Imperial Oil (2006) reported a median sediment 

arsenic concentration 4.5 mg/kg (maximum 6.6 mg/kg, n = 21) for the lower Athabasca 

River between Fort Creek and Embarras. 

Bourbonniere et al. (1996) noted that arsenic concentrations showed an increasing 

trend over time from 1970, starting at 2 mg/kg and increasing to 10 mg/kg by 1990. They 

noted that Allan (1979) had found a similar profile for arsenic in the central-west basin of 

Great Slave Lake, who suggested that surface enrichment may be related to processing at 

gold mines. The sediment arsenic concentration was high at one Langley Bay, Lake 

Athabasca coring location near uranium mining activities (Joshi et al. 1989). Uranium 

mining might partly explain some of the elevated arsenic values in Lake Athabasca, but 

Bourbonniere et al. (1996) thought that the arsenic more likely originated from western 

Lake Athabasca. They concluded that an east to west transport of arsenic in Lake 

Athabasca was unlikely and another source must be invoked to explain higher recent 

values for arsenic. 

Mercury and Methylmercury 

The available data for total mercury and methylmercury in sediment near Fort 

Chipewyan are enigmatic (Table 10). In the Bourbonniere et al. data, most of the total 

mercury was in the form of methylmercury. In the sites near Fort Chipewyan (sites B, D, 

F, and G), total mercury ranged from 85.0 to 89.0 µg/kg while methylmercury ranged 

from 73.0 to 89.0 µg/kg. By comparison, total mercury was 60 µg/kg at the Rochers 

River site of this study but below detection limits at the other two sites (< 50 µg/kg). 

Methylmercury was found at two of the three sites, but at concentrations more than 100 

times lower than found by Bourbonniere et al. 

These differences may be due in part to laboratory methods. Recent sedimentation 

may be another factor that may help to explain the low methylmercury concentrations in 

this study. In the spring of 2007, a large amount of fresh sediment was deposited as a 

result of high discharge on the region’s rivers. There may have been too little time for 

methylation of the mercury in the sediment to proceed. Conversely, sediment 

methylmercury concentrations in excess of 1% total mercury may be unrealistic (Ullrich 

et al. 2001), which calls into question the accuracy of the methylmercury values reported 

by Bourbonniere et al. (1996) which accounted for most of the total mercury. 

Total mercury ranged from 42.5 to 200 µg/kg in the sediment of five lakes of the 

Athabasca oil sands region; no data were provided for methylmercury (Shell Canada 

2006). 

Total mercury ranged from 11.1 to 33.0 µg/kg in the sediment of five lakes in 

Wyoming, while methylmercury ranged from 0.53 to 3.05 µg/kg, with methylmercury 

accounting for 1.8 to 11.0% of total mercury (Peterson and Boughton 2000). 

Further analyses of mercury contained in the sediments near Fort Chipewyan are 

needed. 

37

Other Heavy Metals 

Lead, chromium, copper, vanadium, and zinc, assessed by Bourbonniere et al. 

(1996) exhibited a nearly constant concentration with depth. Zinc and copper 

concentrations were relatively high over western Lake Athabasca. Those authors noted 

that their concentrations for copper, zinc, arsenic, and total mercury agreed well with the 

results of Allan and Jackson (1978) from Lake Athabasca. They concluded “that many of 

these metals have sources in the western part of the lake and probably move offshore 

according to grain size. An increasing trend from river to delta to lake for many of the 

same metals studied was reported by Allan and Jackson (1978).” 

Cadmium levels in all of the surface sediments (sites G, F, B, D, and I) exceeded 

the interim sediment quality guideline of 0.6 mg/kg by a factor to 3 to 4 times the 

guideline. 

Imperial Oil (2006, their Table 5-29) noted an exceedence for a maximum 

concentration of chromium (ISQG 37.3 mg/kg) of 61.3 mg/kg (Athabasca River, between 

Fort Creek and Embarras, fall 1997-2003, n=21; and two of three observations during 

summer 1976-95 were also in excess of guideline: 54 and 85 mg/kg). 

Table 10. Heavy metal concentrations in 1992 surficial sediments in western Lake 

Athabasca (from Bourbonniere et al. 1996, their Tables 6 and 7) compared to arsenic and 

mercury concentrations at three sites near Fort Chipewyan (this study). Values are in 

mg/kg (with exception of mercury for which values are in µg/kg). Note that the sites of 

Bourbonniere et al. are arranged in a westmost (site G, top of table) to eastmost (site S3) 

pattern. 

Site Arsenic Lead Cadmium Chromium Copper Vanadium Zinc Total Methyl- 

Mercury mercury 

G 8.5 8.8 1.8 26.5 23.1 36.2 98.2 86.0 86.0 

F 8.5 8.2 2.1 27.8 26.6 36.5 102.0 89.0 89.0 

B 3.1 7.4 2.2 28.8 24.3 32.6 98.5 83.0 73.0 

D 5 8.5 2.1 27.8 25.3 36.4 106.0 85.0 78.0 

I 22.9 10.9 2.5 30.6 23.2 40.4 100.0 74.0 63.0 

S1CB (0-6) 5.5 9.1 ND* 31.7 25.6 46.0 110.0 126 ND (20) 

S2CA (0-6) 9.5 7.2 ND* 35.5 22.7 46.4 87.1 83.3 21.3 

S3CB (0-6) 9.1 5.9 ND* 24.4 14.7 30.3 54.2 25 ND (20) 

Rochers R. at 

Mission Ck 

9.1 60 0.281 

LA Water 

9.2 ND (50) 0.137 

Intake 

Fletcher 

Channel 

* detection level of 0.3 mg/kg 

1.8 ND (50) ND 

(0.050) 

38


PAHs were assessed by the GC/MS method. In order to place those values in 

context, PAH concentrations determined by the same method by Bourbonniere et al. 

(1996) are provided in Table 11. Those data indicate only one exceedence (for 

phenanthrene, 42 µg/kg at Bourbonniere’s site D). It is difficult to compare the data from 

this study with those of Bourbonniere et al. due to differences in detection limits. For 

those types of PAHs for which a comparison can be made, it appears that the levels of 

phenanthrene, pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and perhaps benzo(a)pyrene observed in 

this study were lower than those observed in 1992. 

Bourbonniere et al. (1996) detected 11 types of PAHs. 

Data from the lower Athabasca River (reported by Imperial Oil 2006) indicate 

exceedences of sediment quality guidelines for naphthalene, acenaphthene, 

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, phenanthrene, and pyrene (Table 12). 

Sediment samples from the lower Athabasca River and major open-drainage lakes 

adjacent to Fort Chipewyan were studied for PAH concentrations by Evans et al. (2002) 

(Table 13). Evans et al. (2002) observed that PAH concentrations were variable in space 

and time. Overall, sediment quality guidelines were exceeded in 7 % of the samples. 

Concentrations of 2-methylnaphthalene exceeded guidelines in 35.6% of samples while 

those of naphthalene, benzo(a)anthracene, and chrysene exceeded guidelines in 6.8% of 

samples. Guidelines levels of fluoranthene and pyrene were exceeded only in “Fort 

Chipewyan Harbor”. Lower molecular weight PAHs tended to increase in concentration 

from upstream sources to downstream depositional areas. Bioassay toxicity testing was 

done on some sediment samples using the midge Chironomus tentans, the amphipod 

Hyalella azteca, and the oligochaete worm Lumbriculus variegatus. In a 1999 Athabasca 

River Delta sample, survivorship was low for C. tentans (42%) and H. azteca (72%). 

Growth of Lumbriculus was low in both 1999 (62%) and 2000 (53-58% in two samples). 

In the PERD lakes (exclusive of the RAMP river data), four of the PAHs 

exceeded guidelines: naphthalene (18.5% of samples), 2-methylnaphthalene (70.4% of 

samples), and fluoranthene and pyrene (both 3.7% of samples). Ratios of unsubstituted to 

alkylated PAHs in Athabasca River are on the order of 0.05 to 0.4, indicating that most 

PAHs in Athabasca River sediments are from oil sands deposits rather than from 

combustion sources (Shell Canada 2006). 

Six PAHs exceeded guidelines in some sediment samples on the Peace and 

Athabasca Rivers (phenanthrene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, 

fluoranthene, and pyrene) (Crosley 1996). The frequencies of exceedences were not 

reported, but inspection of the raw data indicated that exceedences were uncommon. 

Taken together, the data indicate that concentrations of PAHs in the lower 

Athabasca River and the adjacent delta and western Lake Athabasca can vary greatly in 

time and space and may at times exceed guidelines. 

39

Table 11. Concentrations of PAHs from 1992 surficial sediments in western Lake 

Athabasca (from Bourbonniere et al. 1996, their Table 5, by GCMS method) compared to 

those observed at three sites near Fort Chipewyan (this study). Abbreviations: 

Naphthalene (Npth); Fluorene (Fl); Phenanthrene (Ph); Fluoranthene (Fth); Pyrene (Py); 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene (B(b)Fth); Benzo(k)fluoranthene (B(k)Fth); Benzo(a)pyrene 

(B(a)Py); Benzo(ghi)perylene (B(ghi)Per). See Figure 9 for site locations. Values are in 

micrograms / kg ( = nanograms / g). 

Site Npth Fl Ph Fth Py B(b)Fth B(k)Fth B(a)Py B(ghi)Per 

G 4.8 *ND (0.5) 22 11 18 24 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) 

B ^ tr (2.7) ND (0.5) 26 11 18 29 ND (0.5) 8.9 22 

D 8 ND (0.4) 42 12 21 35 ND (0.4) 15 30 

H tr (2.0) ND (0.6) 25 11 13 36 ND (0.6) ND (0.6) 29 

I tr (1.7) ND (1.0) 29.5 15 13.5 40.5 ND (1.0) 17.5 35 

Mission ** ^^ 20 NA 10 10 ND (10) ND (10) NA 

Creek ND (10) NA 

LA water ND (10) NA 10 NA ND (10) 10 ND (10) ND (10) NA 

intake 

Fletcher 

Channel 

ND (10) NA ND (10) NA ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) NA 

^ trace values are greater than the method detection but less than the quantitation limit 

* ND values are less than the method detection limit (given in parentheses) 

** ND values are less than the method detection limit (given in parentheses) 

^^ NA = not assessed 

Table 12. Maximum concentrations of nine PAHs in the Athabasca River between Fort 

Creek and Embarras, fall 1997 to 2003 (from Imperial Oil, 2006, volume 3, their Table 5- 

29). Exceedences of guidelines are bolded. PAH assay method was not specified. 

PAH Maximum 

Observed 

(µg/kg) 

Interim Sediment 

Quality Guideline 

(CCME 2002, 

µg/kg) 

40 

N Comments 

Naphthalene 37 34.6 22 

Acenaphthene 11.3 ? 21 no CCME standard, but Imperial (2006) 

listed the maximum concentration as an 

exceedence 

Dibenzo(a,h) 

41.7 6.22 22 

anthracene 

Benzo(a)anthracene 27 31.7 22 

Benzo(a)pyrene 95 31.9 22 

Chrysene 1010 57.1 20 

Fluoranthene 65.5 111 22 

Phenanthrene 189 41.9 22 

Pyrene 435 53.0 22

Table 13. Exceedences of sediment quality guidelines for PAHs reported by Evans et al. 

(2002) from 73 study sites in Lake Athabasca and the lower Athabasca River. The 73 

sites included 46 Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) samples from the 

Athabasca, Clearwater, Muskeg, and Mackay Rivers and McLean and Fort Creeks and 27 

Petroleum and Energy Development (PERD) samples from western Lake Athabasca, the 

Athabasca Delta, Mamawi Lake, and Lake Claire. PAH assay method was not specified. 

PAH Exceedences (% 

of observations 

in exceedence, 

range in 

exceedence 

values in µg/kg) 

Interim 

Sediment 

Quality 

Guideline 

(CCME 

2002, 

µg/kg) 

41 

Comments 

Naphthalene 6.8, 35-77 34.6 

2-Methylnaphthalene 35.6, 20-92 20.2 most common exceedence 

Fluorene 0 21.2 

Phenanthrene 4.1, 45-58 41.9 

Benzo(a)anthracene 6.8, 48-300 31.7 highest values in Donald and McLean Cks 

and in the AR upstream of Fort Ck 

Anthracene 0 46.9 

Chrysene 6.8, 142-900 57.1 highest values in Donald and McLean Cks 

and in the AR upstream of Fort Ck 

Fluoranthene 1.4, 131 111 one exceedence in “Fort Chipewyan Harbor” 

Pyrene 1.4, 118 53.0 one exceedence in “Fort Chipewyan Harbor”

Total PAHs in Sediments 

Up to this point the results have focussed on concentrations of individual types of 

PAHs. What are the concentrations and trends for the total suite of PAHs in the 

sediments? Each of the four study sites, and the aggregate group, showed an apparent 

trend of increasing PAHs from 2001-2005 (Figure 10a, b). Mean concentrations for 

sediment PAHs in the Athabasca Delta assayed over the period 2001-2005 have varied 

from 1 to 1.4 mg/kg. 

Total PAHs (mg/kg) 

1.7 

1.4 

1.1 

0.8 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Year 

Figure 10a. PAH concentrations from four sites in the Athabasca River Delta (er = 

Embarras divergence; flc = Fletcher Channel, bpc = Big Point Channel, and gic = Goose 

Island Channel). Data re-analyzed from RAMP (2006). There are overlapping data 

points in four of five years. Lines are linear best fits. 

42 

STATION 

bpc 

er 

flc 

gic

Total PAHs (mg/kg) 

1.6 

1.5 

1.4 

1.3 

1.2 

1.1 

1.0 

Mean of 4 sites/year 

in Athabasca 

River Delta 

sediments 

0.9 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Year 

43 

Figure 10b. Mean sediment PAH 

concentrations from four sites in the 

Athabasca River Delta (Embarras 

divergence; Fletcher Channel, Big Point 

Channel, and Goose Island Channel). 

Data re-analyzed from RAMP (2006). 

Total PAHs in sediment of the Athabasca River along the reach from above 

Lesser Slave River to near Fort Mackay ranged from 0.637 to 2.233 mg/kg (mean 1.505 

mg/kg) and that for the Peace River from above the Little Smoky River to below Fort 

Vermilion ranged from 2.363 to 4.115 mg/kg in October 1994 (mean 2.985 mg/kg; 

Crosley 1996). 

RAMP (2001) reported total PAHs in sediment of 0.88, 1.59, 1.55 mg/kg for the 

Athabasca River upstream of Embarras River, Big Point Channel, and Flour Bay, 

respectively, as of the year 2000. In comparison, a ‘historical median’ (period 1976-99) 

total PAH concentration for the Athabasca River Delta of 1.22 mg/kg was reported. 

RAMP (2001) concluded: “Sediments from the lower Athabasca River, including 

Athabasca Delta, were found to be toxic to several species of invertebrates.” It is unclear 

why those data were not included in the RAMP (2006) report. 

Sediments in almost all of the Athabasca River Delta contained high levels of 

PAHs and metals (RAMP 2006). When the ARD observed values are normalized to 1% 

total organic carbon, the observed total PAH values approximate 100 mg/kg of sediment, 

which exceeds the mean probable effect concentration of 22.8 mg/kg suggested by 

Wisconsin DNR (2003). 

Are the lower Athabasca River sediment PAH concentrations a cause for 

concern? There are presently no Canadian guidelines for total PAHs in sediment. A study 

conducted for the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Johnson 2000) 

recommended a threshold of 1 mg/kg dry weight of total PAHs in marine sediment for 

protection of estuarine fish populations. Above 1 mg/kg total PAHs, there was a 

substantial increase in the risk of liver disease, reproductive impairment, and potential 

effects on growth. Levels of total PAHs in sediments of the lower Athabasca River 

exceed by a factor of about two the PAH threshold observed to induce liver cancers in 

fishes (Myers et al. 2003).

Levels of cytochrome P450 1A (CYP 1A) in fish livers collected from the 

Athabasca River or its tributaries show large increases near tar sands mining sites 

(Colavecchia et al. 2006, 2007; Sherry et al. 2006, Tetreault et al. 2003b), as do fish liver 

cells exposed to lipophilic contaminants concentrated from the Athabasca River (Parrott 

et al. 1996). These increases, indicative of contaminant stress, are not evident at sites 

affected by natural erosion of tar sands bitumen (Tetreault et al. 2003a). 


Minute levels of dioxins were detected in the 2007 sample (Table 14). The highest 

level of dioxin detected in this study was for O8CDD group at the Lake Athabasca water 

intake (5.6 pg/g). Similarly, Bourbonniere et al. (1996) found that O8CDD group was the 

most abundant of the dioxins. Levels of dioxins and furans in sediments near Fort 

Chipewyan may have declined since 1992 (Table 14). No furans were detected in this 

study. 

Carey et al. (2004) noted an apparent decline in sediment concentrations of pulpmill 

related PCDDs and PCDFs in the Athabasca River near Hinton over the period 1988- 

1995. They concluded that the Lake Athabasca sediment dioxin and furan data indicated 

long-range atmospheric transport and combustion seemed to be the primary sources of 

the contaminants. The major dioxin and furan congeners found are related to the 

fungicide pentachlorophenol used in western North America during the 1970s and early 

1980s. 

Toxic equivalencies (TEQ), based on the assumption that a non-detection equals 

one-half the detection limit were: Mission Creek 0.17 ng/kg; LA water intake 0.30 ng/kg; 

Fletcher Channel 0.22 ng/kg. As the CCME (2002) TEQ interim sediment quality 

guideline is 0.85 ng/kg, there were no exceedences observed at the three sites. 


Naphthenic acids were not detected in the sediments (Table 15), a result that may 

stem from the high detection limit of the laboratory (1 mg/L). No regional sediment data 

for naphthenic acids were found. 

Nitrogen 

Observed levels of total nitrogen (Table 15) in the three sediment samples (0.02, 

0.12, 0.14 %) are low to average for levels of percent nitrogen in subsoils in six Alberta 

ecoregions (0.06 to 0.19%) (Alberta Agriculture 2002). 

44

Table 14. Concentrations of dioxins and furans from 1992 surficial sediments in western 

Lake Athabasca (from Bourbonniere et al. 1996, their Table 2, by GC/MS method) 

compared to those observed at three sites near Fort Chipewyan (this study). Values are in 

nanograms / kg ( = picograms / g). 

Dioxins Furans 

Site T4CDD P5CDD H6CDD H7CDD O8CDD T4CDF P5CDF H6CDF H7CDF O8CDF 

G 2.9 ^ ND (0.5) 2.4 5.6 16 0.9 ND (0.3) ND (0.6) ND (0.5) ND (0.7) 

F 11 5.9 5.3 2.7 7.2 0.6 ND (0.1) ND (0.2) ND (0.3) 0.7 

B 8.4 6.0 4.8 5.4 17 0.6 ND (0.2) ND (0.3) ND (0.3) ND (0.3) 

D 8.5 3.7 5.0 2.9 14 1.0 ND (0.1) 1.1 0.6 0.4 

H 11 3.4 4.4 4.1 10 1.6 ND (0.2) ND (0.2) 0.8 0.9 

I 6.4 4.4 5.9 8.8 23 2.1 ND (0.7) ND (1.1) ND (1.5) ND (1.9) 

* 1 8.8 5.6 4.3 4.4 12.9 1.5 ND (0.2) 0.6 0.7 0.9 

Rochers R. ^ ND ND (0.1) 1.4 ND (0.2) 3.9 ND ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) 

at Mission 

Creek 

(0.1) 

(0.1) 

LA water ND ND (0.2) 1.6 ND (0.3) 5.6 ND ND (0.1) ND (0.2) ND (0.3) ND (0.4) 

intake (0.2) 

(0.1) 

Fletcher ND ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.2) ND (0.5) ND ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) 

Channel (0.2) 

(0.1) 

^ ND = not detected. The value in parentheses is the sample detection limit, which for the 

Bourbonniere et al. (1996) data equaled three times the maximum peak detected on baseline runs. 

* Site 1 (of the ‘deep core’ sites, the nearest to Ft. Chipewyan) values are the average of sections 

0 to 1, 2 to 3, and 4 to 5 cm. For P5CDF, two-thirds of the values were below detection limits 

(ND), for H6CDF, H7CDF, and O8CDF, one-third of the values were ND. 


Total coliforms were present in the three sediment samples at a level of four 

colonies per gram (Table 15). Fecal coliform colonies were not detected. 

Coliform populations in sediment near the shore of southern Lake Michigan were 

observed to vary over four orders of magnitude (Whitman et al. 2006). Multiple samples 

are needed to describe sediment coliform population variations in space and time. 

It is likely that the observed levels of coliform bacteria in the three sediment 

samples do not pose a risk to human health. 

Table 15. Naphthenic acid and nitrogen concentrations and coliform bacteria counts in 

the sediments near Fort Chipewyan.^ 

Site Naphthenic 

Acids (mg/kg) 

Nitrogen 

Total (%) 

45 

Coliforms 

Total 

(MPN/g) 

Coliforms 

Fecal 

(MPN/g) 

Rochers R. at Mission 

Creek 

ND (1) 0.14 4 ND (3) 

LA water intake ND (1) 0.12 4 ND (3) 

Fletcher Channel ND (1) 0.02 4 ND (3) 

^ ND = not detected. The value in parentheses is the sample detection limit.

Other Pollutants 

Resin acids and chlorinated resin acids were detected in sediments at all the sites 

studied by Bourbonniere et al. (1996). Chlorinated resin acids do not occur in nature and 

are produced by pulp bleaching with chlorine (Carey et al. 2004). The westernmost site 

(site G, south of Fort Chipewyan) had the highest resin acid concentrations. Their 

presence may indicate that bleached kraft mill contaminants are reaching Lake Athabasca 

from the Athabasca River. Levels of resin and chlorinated resin acids in sediment at sites 

on the Wapiti and upper Athabasca Rivers declined from the late 1980s to 1995 due to 

changes in pulping methods (Carey et al. 2004). 

The elevated resin acid concentrations near Fort Chipewyan may be due to its 

sheltered location relative to other sites and/or to winter freezing of ice to the bottom that 

might block removal of resin acids from the site (Bourbonniere et al. 1996). Resin acids 

and retene (a breakdown product of resin acids) may prove to be useful time markers in 

future sediment core studies (P. Hodson, pers. comm., November 2007). 

3. Traditional Ecological Knowledge 

Four elders were interviewed in person and recorded digitally. In the following, 

some of their observations are provided. Other observations are provided in sections on 

fish deformities and oil spills. 

The observations of the elders are remarkably consistent. They say that the river 

water tastes differently now—oily, sour, or salty. When the river water is boiled, it leaves 

a brown scum in the pot. Fish (and muskrat) flesh is softer now, and watery. Ducks, 

muskrats, and fishes taste differently now. There is now a slimy, sticky, or gummy 

material (algae?) in their fishing nets in winter; this started in perhaps the mid-1990s. 

There is inadequate information provided to the community by outside agencies about the 

state of the ecosystem and human health. They have noted increased rates of cancer, 

diabetes, and heart problems. 

John Piche, interviewed 31 May 2007 at his fish camp on the Rochers River. 

John Piche still drinks the river water, but it does not taste good. On the 

Athabasca River, the water has an oily taste. He has seen oil seeping from the banks of 

the Athabasca River. When tea or coffee is made, the local river and lake water leaves a 

coating in the pot and on cups. He has noted an oily film on top of the water. 

While he continues to drink from the river, he noted: “I know now it’s affecting 

me... I feel tired... Water from the tap tastes different, it’s a lot smoother, tastes better... 

but this water [the river],... I lose all my strength.” 

Regarding the Athabasca River’s water quality, he noted that “No information is 

ever given to the people here, nothing, [they just keep saying] the water’s fine, the 

water’s fine.” 

He has seen many fish kills, especially in the spring time. Summer fish kills 

happen when the weather is hot. 

46

Ducks in the spring, beavers, and muskrats taste differently now. They have a 

watery taste and the meat is tougher after it’s cooked. Whitefish meat is softer now in 

summer. 

Muskrats that live along the rivers are smaller than they used to be. He has 

noticed that “frog water” along the shores of the rivers is more common in recent years. 

JP wondered if the “frog water” prevents the muskrats from reaching full size. 

Algal blooms are more common than they used to be. Fishing nets when pulled 

are nowadays often coated with a blackish slimy material, even in winter. He thought it 

might be algae. 

Ice is no longer blue in winter. It is slushy and weaker. 

The sky is lighter blue than it used to be, not deep blue. Sunsets are more red than 

they used to be. 

Regarding air pollution from the south he noted: “I’ve seen that in town... south 

wind... a black cloud... [you] see that in cities... been in San Francisco, I’ve seen smog. I 

know what it looks like, that’s what it was.” 

Johnny Courtereille, interviewed 1 June 2007, at his home in Fort Chipewyan. 

He does not drink unboiled water from the river anymore. “You have to boil the 

water now. Dip your cup into a pot of tea; the water coats the cup brown; it didn’t used to 

be like that.” 

“The water doesn’t tasted good anymore. It’s not sweet; there’s a sour taste to the 

water.” 

“There’s a gummy stuff that sticks to the nets in winter. It started at least 10 years 

ago; it’s worse now.” 

Some years ago John Weeks dug a well [near Jackfish village and the Richardson 

River, on the Athabasca River and had the [ground]water tested. The results said the 

water was not fit to drink. 

“Muskrats taste different in the Otter Lake area [near the Embarras R]. They have 

an oily taste. The muskrats near Sweetgrass [north of Lake Claire] don’t taste oily.” 

Muskrat die-offs might have something to do with the water. 

Years ago his dad had a trapline. There was a nice slough off the Athabasca 

across from Kathy ? cInnes’s. “The river flooded into the slough and we thought there’d 

be lots of rats after the flood; no rats came; still today, no rats on that slough.” 

“Whitefish don’t taste as good as they used to; they taste ‘mossy’”. 

“Last spring there was a big fish die-off in Lake Claire; that water was so damn 

low in the winter.” 

“They take samples of water; we never hear nothing. They took some water 

samples from the Prairie River (about 20 years ago); still today, I never heard anything.” 

“TB was the number one disease in the past. Now more are diabetic, heart 

problems. Cancer... never heard of it long ago-- maybe one or two. Now, somebody gets 

sick and you hear it’s cancer; you never used to hear that.” 

“All the information never comes back to town; I think the government, they 

hide... they don’t tell you.” 

“Dr. O’Connor... he’s the first doctor that’s not hiding anything behind a bush.” 

Regarding the cancer rates... “Last year [2006] 22 people died here, half of 

cancer. There’s something wrong... There has to be something wrong....” [The Alberta 

47

Government’s view that Fort Chipewyan cancer rates are not statistically elevated 

(Alberta Health and Wellness 2006) is based on an incomplete set of cancer statistics that 

ends in 2004]. 

What to do? “The Athabasca River... There’s not too much we can do once they 

[oil companies] get their licence... The government gives them the license... All these 

problems they’re causing, they should compensate the people; there’s lots of ways they 

can help...” 

Big Ray Ladouceur, interviewed 2 June 2007, at his home in Fort Chipewyan. 

He used to drink untreated water from the Athabasca River. For the last 10 years 

he hasn’t. When he stopped drinking the water, he used to haul water from town to his 

cabin. Now he drinks from a little ‘muskeg’ creek near his cabin, or he digs a shallow 

well over an underground stream. 

There is a different taste and color to the Athabasca River now. When you boil 

water, it leaves a scum on the pot; there is oily sheen on top. He has noticed an oily sheen 

on the surface of the river when the water is flowing smoothly and there is no wind. 

“They are really destroying the water... right from the farmer’s fields... we have 

things coming down, you know, after a rain...the highways, they have salt, that ends up 

here... the sewers, whatever they discharge... the pulp mills, the mines from the east... 

we’re collecting, we’re the dumping ground... It’s very dangerous to live here... I call it a 

danger zone, a red zone in this area, we’ve lost so many people.” 

He talked about setting nets in the winter time. “Have a drink of that water, you 

can taste salt in there... dad said the same thing...This thing is salty, how come?” [Total 

dissolved solids, a measure of the ‘saltiness’ of the water varies seasonally. During the 

period 1997 to 2005 total dissolved solids in the Athabasca River at Old Fort varied from 

a low of ~ 100-150 mg/L in early summer to a high of ~ 220 to 320 mg/L in the winter 

(RAMP 2006, their Figure 5.1-12).] 

Of setting a fishing net in winter in a side creek connected to the Athabasca River 

... “After two nights or so in the river, the net is just brown... it’s a scum or 

something...dirty... years back... thirty, forty years ago, it wasn’t like that... sticky, slimy 

thing... brown.” 

“It’s killing the fish too... [About five years ago] Right here at Goose Island, one 

spring, after breakup, there were... maybe 10,000 fish floating on [Goose Island] creek... 

they went in there and they all died... don’t know what the cause was... they were rotten, 

must have happened in the winter... there was whitefish, northern pike in there.” 

He has noticed many big die-offs of muskrats over the years. In the past (more 

than 10-15 years ago), when they would die-off, next year they’ be back. Now, when 

they come back, in the first winter they are dying again. “They just can’t increase, they 

keep dying.” 

He used to eat burbot liver, but hasn’t for some time since he heard the liver can 

make you sick. 

Ducks taste different now. And they pluck differently. Years ago you could pluck 

them. Now, the skin tears. 

Fish flesh is softer than it used to be; e.g, northern pike.. when you would cook it, 

it was hard in the past . Now it’s mushy. 

48

Air pollution. The other day, at Big Point, there was a south wind. The smell was 

really strong, like the smell at Suncor. He had to skidoo to Camsell Portage recently. A 

man there told him “they were getting the smell there too, from Suncor and all that, tar 

smell... damn strong”. 

Diseases: This new kind of cancer is killing the young people too. There’s more 

heart problems, and Alzheimer’s. He thought aluminum might be a factor in the 

Alzheimer’s. Years ago, you never heard about diabetes. People used to die of ‘old age.’ 

Young people are getting diabetes now. 

“I think our main killer here is our water. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell 

these reporters... It’s too much chemicals in our water, too much garbage in our water... 

The air and the water are very important, without that, we’re not going to exist... And 

these people that’s more interested in money than life in this Earth... I don’t know, that’s 

just a piece of paper... Sure it’s nice to have money, but who are you destroying down 

below? See, McMurray’s not as affected as we are... they’re upstream... we’re getting 

everything from the Rockies on down, and from Saskatchewan... ” 

“Auntie Elsie, my uncle’s wife, has a list of the people who died here... from [the 

year] 2000, took the names of people who died... my mother was the 98 th one... more 

than that now...Must be at least a hundred now. Take all the names on that list and 

determine which ones died of cancer... out of those 98, maybe 50 or 60 of them died of 

that [cancer]... We’re losing people in way higher numbers [than in the cities to the 

south]... [the government’s number of cancer cases for Fort Chipewyan] don’t make 

sense...” 

“The oil companies they come here, they destroy the land... they’ll never put that 

land the way it was... just leave a heck of a mess... It’s gonna be another Sahara Desert.” 

“They have to watch what they’re discharging, that’s my main concern... and 

what they’re using out there in the fields, it’s been going on for years... without the 

people knowing in this part of the country... one of the beautifullest places to live... nice 

and quiet,... but one of the deadliest now... scared... how many more’s gonna die, when’s 

my turn?” 

A friend killed a moose. “It had an enlarged liver... white spots right through...” 

“If they don’t... reduce the pollution of this country... straight across North 

America... we’re not gonna have anything to drink in the years to come.” 

Jumbo Fraser, interviewed 2 June 2007, at his home in Fort Chipewyan. 

He does not drink untreated surface water; he drinks water from the treatment 

plant. He does not drink bottled water. 

He oversaw the water treatment from about 1966. About then he stopped drinking 

the surface water (he saw that the water was dirty). 

When they go hunting, they haul water from town. If he uses surface water, he 

“boils the tar out of it.” 

He has noticed that boiled water leaves a brown or black scum around the pot. It 

is hard to get off the pot when cleaning. 

“The Alberta government is just as bad as the oil companies... all they’re looking 

for is that dollar... that’s not right... Think what this country is going to be like in 50 years 

from now; there’s just going to be a desert... All these tailings are going to be sitting 

there... Reclamation, they’ll never put nothing back...” 

49

He noted places where thick tar has seeped through the sands to the river. He 

compared these to the abandoned tailings ponds, and asked how it can be said that 

tailings water won’t seep through the ground to the river. 

He has heard people talk about oiled birds that couldn’t fly. 

He noted that there were thousands of pickerel in the spring 2007 kill in Lake 

Claire. He questioned whether it was winter-kill. If it were a winter-kill, where’s the rest 

of the fish, how come it was just pickerel? Thousands of them floating near Frog Creek. 

He has not seen oiled rats, nor has he seen bloody-nosed rats. 

His favorite meal used to be goose and duck. Now, it’s not his favorite meal 

anymore. He wondered why. Is the taste different? He doesn’t know why. 

He was filleting a walleye the other day and it was difficult to do, the flesh was 

too soft. Burbot are not like they used to be-- they used to be bigger. 

Diseases. “Seems like our biggest disease is cancer.” And heart disease. He had 

colon cancer in 1995. Not too many just die of old age. That doesn’t happen anymore. 

“Their [Alberta government’s] numbers [on cancer in the community] are not that 

good. They’ve got lots to hide.” 

“I would like to see a good study... What’s bringing the rare cancer?... Why?... 

Something like that, they should be really digging, and trying to figure out where in the 

heck that came from?” 

“They should also look at the stuff that comes out of Lake Claire... Lake 

Mamawi... that’s where we do most of our hunting... Whether it comes from the oil 

companies, or if it comes from up in the Birch Hills... the McIvor River... it would be 

nice to know if you could take a cup and go have a drink of this water... They say... drink 

tap water, don’t drink this water... but why?” 

If Lake Athabasca becomes too polluted to use as a water source, “then what do 

we do have?... all because of somebody wanting to make a whole bunch of money.” 

OTHER DATA and OBSERVATIONS 

1. Chronic and Acute Spills of Bitumen and Tailings 

Large and small oil and tailings spills have occurred in the basin, particularly in 

the oil sands area of the lower Athabasca River. Finding information to document these 

spills is no small task. Some examples are provided below. 

A failure of a power plant at Suncor (Great Canadian Oil Sands) on 30 November 

1967 resulted in a spill to an Athabasca River backwater (Shewchuk 1968). “The flare 

accumulator became flooded with oil because of the upset condition in the plant. The oil 

over flowed the accumulator into the flare pond and then over flowed the flare pond into 

a rather inaccessible heavily wooded slough area, unknown to operating personnel. 

Warm weather during the weeks of February 26 to March 7 resulted in heavy surface runoff 

carrying some of the oil to the Athabasca River. It was not known how much oil was 

lost...” On 7 March 1968, the government received a complaint of oil in the Athabasca 

River; on 11 March, an investigation began. While the documentation is unclear, it 

appears that in late March, “a bituminous layer of oil under the ice was evident and the 

Oils and Grease concentration was estimated to be 20,000 mg/L... The west side of the 

50

iver was opened approximately ½ mile downstream from the Great Canadian Oil Sands 

plant and covered with a black layer of oil” (Shewchuk 1968). 

In June 1970, a Suncor pipeline break spilled ~ 19,123 barrels of oil [roughly 3 

million liters]. “Appreciable quantities did reach the river and were visible down to Lake 

Athabasca... oil was... visible in certain sections of the west end of the lake for 

approximately six days” (Hogge et al. 1970) (Figure 11). Even allowing for the passage 

of time, the actions on the part of industry and government to contain, mitigate, and 

monitor the spill were perfunctory. A government report (Hogge et al. 1970) stated that: 

“a surface boom had been installed below the 28 th Base Line to contain free oil and the 

emulsion in Big Point Channel [date and location not specified]... a boom was being 

constructed to prevent the flow of oil into Des Rochers River... application of emulsifiers 

to Lake Athabasca was discontinued because of potential secondary effects and the oil 

appeared to have been dispersed by wind action... biological studies on aquatic life were 

being initiated to determine long term effects”. No studies of long-term effects were 

found in a library search. 

Due to conflicting reports, an independent biologist was hired by the 

Conservation Fraternity of Alberta to provide a biological assessment (Jakimchuk 1970). 

While the spill had occurred on 6 June 1970, as of 12 June, Jakimchuk found no evidence 

an effort had been made to stop the downstream flow of oil, during which time the slick 

had travelled some 240 km en route towards Lake Athabasca and the vicinity of Ft. 

Chipewyan. During a meeting on 11 June, Great Canadian Oil Sands (Suncor) “stated 

that all necessary men and equipment would be moved to the Embarras [Airport] location 

to stage a two front attack” (Hogge et al. 1970). The “attack” proved to be little more 

than a “low key” operation focussed on dispersing the oil with a chemical emulsifier 

(Jakimchuk 1970). “Opportunities to minimize the ecological significance of the spill 

have been lost with the entry of some oil into Lake Athabasca... There is justifiable 

reason for the existing controversy and a need for further investigations... The actual 

impact of the spill remains to be seen” (Jakimchuk 1970). 

Figure 11. In June 

1970, a Suncor 

pipeline break spilled 

~ 19,123 barrels of 

oil [roughly 3 million 

liters]. “Appreciable 

quantities did reach 

the river and were 

visible down to Lake 

Athabasca... oil 

was... visible in 

certain sections of 

the west end of the 

lake for 

approximately six 

days” (Hogge et al. 

1970). This is an 

aerial view of part of the oil slick that had reached the Peace-Athabasca Delta on 16 June 1970 

(image from Hogge et al. 1970). The caption read: “Iridescence oil film on delta shore line.” 

51

Suncor Oil Spills (1981(?), 1982) 

Suncor experienced at least one, perhaps two, spills in the early 1980s. 

In 1981, “an oil spill in Fort McMurray affected the water and fish as far as Fort 

Chipewyan” (Brady 1985). No other documentation has been found to date. 

In March 1982 there was a large spill from Suncor. While it would seem a matter 

of some importance to environmental officials and to the public, there is a dearth of 

readily available documentation for the spill. A prolonged search in the Alberta 

Environment library, and online, uncovered only one document pertaining to the spill. 

Alberta Environment (1982) is a single page terms of reference to investigate the spill of 

oil and contaminants from Suncor into the Athabasca River. The terms of reference, 

dated 17 March 1982, called for an investigation of the failures that led to the flow of oil 

and contaminants into a wastewater pond and the subsequent discharge of the oil and 

contaminants into the Athabasca River. If the study was ever carried out, there is no 

library record of it. 

With the assistance of the Alberta Environmental Law Centre, I provide an 

excerpt of some of information in their law library. 

From Judge Michael Horrocks’ decision: 

1. Because of an earlier fire that had damaged a flare area, contaminated material escaped 

from a flare pond into the wastewater system. A major fire then took place on 21 January 

1982 in the wastewater pond; one witness described the flames as being three hundred 

feet high. [This pattern of fire at a flare pond facility followed by a spill to the Athabasca 

River was the same sequence in the 1967-68 Suncor spill.] 

2. Beginning on 17 February 1982 concentrations and volumes of oil and grease in the 

effluent rose above levels permitted in the Suncor license [420 kg/day]. Over the period 

17-25 February, 42,129 kg of oil and grease were released. It is noteworthy that this 

volume is a minimum, as discharge occurred both before and after the 17-25 February 

period (see item 3). 

3. On 16 February, an Alberta Fish and Wildlife Officer, T. A. Wendland, “saw a cloudy 

area and then we saw a sheen on the open water, an oil sheen on the open water.” 

4. “There is no evidence that in the initial period these increasing rates of emissions into 

the Athabasca River gave any concern to the employees of Suncor.” 

From the Edmonton Journal, 19 October 1982 (Struzik 1982a): 

5. In the fall of the year, Suncor was in court to face the first two of 22 charges of 

spilling effluent into the Athabasca River. 

6. “The charges were laid following spills last February which closed the commercial 

fishing season on Lake Athabasca and allegedly caused illnesses among natives in Fort 

Mackay.” 

7. Joe Kostler, an Alberta Environment engineer, told court he first learned of the spill 

through a conversation with a fish and wildlife officer, four days after the first major 

spill. “Under the Clean Water Act, the company is required to report such spills within 24 

hours.” 

8. Bob Martin, Suncor’s water environment manager, testified that he believed the sheen 

on the river to be an “esthetic problem.” 

52

From the Edmonton Journal, 23 October 1982 (Struzik 1982b): 

9. A federal contaminant expert, Otto Langer, “said a 20-tonne spill could be ‘extremely 

catastrophic’ to the river system”. A minimum of 42 tonnes were spilled. 

10. A provincial official, Joe Kostler, “was not of the opinion that the alleged spill would 

have an adverse effect on the river.” 

11. “The provincial official said the environmental standard was set to meet the 

technological capabilities of the oil sands plant in controlling pollution and not 

necessarily to control the impact on the environment.” 

12. Judge Michael Horrocks “asked Kostler why the department allowed Suncor to use a 

pollution monitoring device which was not standard or approved in the company’s 

license.”... “He also questioned why the department did not regularly check Suncor’s 

procedures for pollution monitoring, which are being challenged as unreliable evidence in 

the trial by the company’s lawyers. Kostler answered to both questions that he didn’t 

know.” 

No data on contaminants such as mercury and arsenic in the spill were found. Nor 

was a study found of the ecological and human health impacts. Whether there were 

“catastrophic” downstream effects on the ecosystem and the people, we may never know. 

As a result of this spill, commercial fishing by local people was cancelled due to an oily 

taste in the fish (Brady 1985). 

Has the situation improved in recent decades? That is difficult to tell due to the 

veil that has been drawn down over provincial river monitoring activities. In a recent 

book, Marsden (2007) noted that “Suncor admitted in 1997 that its Tar Island Pond... 

leaks approximately 1,600 cubic metres of toxic fluid into the Athabasca River every 

day.” That volume is 1,600 tonnes, roughly 38 times the size of the big spill in 1982 

described above. If that statement is even remotely accurate, the Athabasca River is in 

trouble. Perhaps most of the leakage is captured and returned to Tar Island Pond— 

without publicly available data, the question is difficult to answer. 

Other Spills 

On about 20 October 1985 an estimated 10,000 gallons (about 45,000 litres) of 

fuel were spilled into Lake Athabasca at Uranium City (Saskatchewan Legislature 1986). 

On 1 August 2000, one million liters of light crude oil were spilled into the Pine 

River, a tributary of the Peace River, from a ruptured pipeline (Oil Spill News, undated). 

Despite a concerted effort, I was unable to quantify the oil spill rate for the lower 

Athabasca River. For the province as a whole from 1980-1997, there were 4,596 

hydrocarbon pipeline releases of

hydrocarbons (L. Noton, pers. comm., May 2006). Unfortunately, the latter analyses were 

not done until recently and are difficult to compare to earlier data. Secondly, datasets for 

the parameters of interest often contain large data gaps or too few observations for the 

data to be meaningful. 

Analysis of the data often raises troubling questions. One example should suffice: 

On 13 July 2000, in the Muskeg River, 2.2 miles northeast of Fort Mackay at the Water 

Survey of Canada gauge, the extractable hydrocarbon concentration (carbon chain C8 and 

up) was 100 mg/L (data file: atha ab07D organic2.csv, supplied by Alberta 

Environment). The data file note read: “PAH not collected. water clean and clear, slight 

yellow color, oily sheen on surface, good flow, lots of minnows”. Why was a PAH 

sample not collected? What caused such a high hydrocarbon concentration? 

Failure to consider earlier oil and grease data creates an institutional amnesia and 

limits the ability to assess change. If a threshold of 5 mg/L of oil and grease is used to 

indicate an oil spill (P. McEachern, pers. comm., May 2006), Athabasca River spills took 

place on or around: 

28 June 1973 (176 mg/L) [Sometime around August 1973, Oliver Glanfield, a long-time 

resident of Fort Chipewyan, observed a large oil slick in the Athabasca River while he 

flew at low elevation in an aircraft. He followed the slick upriver to the vicinity of the 

Steepbank River.] 

24 Aug. 1976 (5 mg/L) 

2 Sept. 1976 (7 mg/L) 

9 July 1980 (8.2 mg/L) 

and 30 March 1982 (5.9 mg/L). 

As about 89% of Alberta Environment data for lower Athabasca River water 

quality pre-date the 1990s, the lack of more recent spills may be due, at least in part, to 

lack of data —this seems likely in light of the AEUB (1998) report. 

Chronic human-caused pollution of the lower Athabasca River and adjacent 

western Lake Athabasca comes from licensed discharges; from above-ground and belowground 

pipeline leaks and breaks; and from tailings pond leaks that are not captured and 

returned to the tailings ponds. There are thousands of kilometers of pipelines in the oil 

sands area and hundreds of stream crossings. 

Abandoned tailing ponds pose a major threat of oil sands contamination (P. 

McEachern, Alberta Government, pers. comm., May 2006). While a mine is in operation, 

monitoring and pumping of tailing pond leaks is continuous. No one knows what will 

happen when a mine has exhausted a site, shuts down it operation, and leaves. Tailings 

pond abandonment is an unproven technology whose success is predicated on modeling 

rather than real world experience. 

Based on a study of tailings pond management around the world, Morgenstern 

(2001) concluded: “There are too many failures involving waste containment structures... 

The reliability of mine waste containment structures is among the lowest of earth 

structures and risk-taking on the part of all stake-holders is excessive... Closure design 

involves time frames that exceed the performance history of most engineered structures.” 

54

The Tar Island Dike is a hydraulic fill structure about 3.5 km long and up to 90 m high. It 

rests in part on a deep layer of alluvial clay and has demonstrated a unique history of 

lateral creep. The dike, which rests on a weak foundation, was never intended to reach its 

current height. The nearby main tailings dam at Syncrude is a closed containment 

structure, ~18 km long with a height of 40 to 88 m and appears to be the largest earth 

structure in the world. It rests on a foundation of high plasticity clay shales with 

extraordinarily low strength. 

On average, each oil sands company pumps 60 million cubic meters of water into 

tailings ponds each year. What will happen to the contaminated water? The McMurray 

Formation is known to be porous with active subsurface water movements. Billions of 

cubic meters of contaminated water soon will be sitting untended, with no active 

pumping, in abandoned ponds adjacent to the Athabasca River. 

Observations by Elders 

Some years ago, John Piche worked for Syncrude. He once saw a leak from the 

lease that made an oil slick in the Athabasca River. When he worked near Fort 

McMurray, he would sometimes go down to the Athabasca River for a picnic. Near 

Suncor, the river water tasted bad; he could not drink it. He recalled the big oil spill of 

1981 and the shutting down of the fish plant in Fort Chipewyan due to oil pollution. 

Ray Ladouceur: “That [oil spill, early 1970s or late 1960s] buggered up our 

fishing... even the fish later on tasted like oil... God knows how much fish we lost...” He 

observed some oiled ducks. 

Johnny Courtereille remembered the big oil spill in spring 1968. People tried to 

clean up the oil. He was out spring hunting and shot a pintail duck that was sitting on the 

water. It was coated with oil. This was near the Embarras River, a distributary of the 

Athabasca River. 

Jumbo Fraser remembered a couple of spills ... early 1970s? Straw bales were put 

along the shore of Lake Athabasca to soak up oil. They had a big store of hay bales on the 

lake in Fort Chipewyan for a while in case of another spill. 

Big Ray Ladouceur remembered winter fishermen angling through the ice on 

Lake Athabasca during the 1980s. When they punched holes in the ice, they observed oil 

in the water. This oil may have been from the October 1985 spill of fuel oil at Uranium 

City. 

About 15 years ago [in the 1990s], Jumbo Fraser was boating up the Athabasca to 

McMurray. “There was a gush of real black looking stuff coming out of a pipe...up in a 

berm, quite a ways up above the river, ... gushing out... I didn’t have a camera... I 

continued on up and got a hold of the Coast Guard... We went right back down again [in 

Jumbo’s boat, with the Coast Guard] and they had shut it off [the flow from the pipe]... it 

was going down to the river...” He asked: “What better way to get rid of it” [discharge of 

oil sands fluid waste into the river]? 

Five or six years ago, Big Ray Ladouceur boated upriver to Fort McMurray for 

groceries. Right below Suncor, by Fort Mackay, for ten miles there was foam in the river. 

He wondered what has happening. “All of a sudden, I can see this foam coming out right 

about the middle of a river. There’s a pump house there... Suncor. These guys seen me 

getting close, they went inside [the pump house]... I was looking at them... They shut it 

down... I went right close to them and I pointed... They were discharging foam... Again, 

55

this spring [2007], there was all kinds of foam right after break-up... My cousin, Mike 

Cardinal, he took some of that foam, dried it for few hours, he lit it, just like gas it 

burned.” “What are they discharging into the river? ... we’re getting so much foam here 

[in the Athabasca River Delta]... in the spring...” 

Based on the contaminant spill documentation, data, and observations of elders, it 

seems reasonable to conclude that inadvertent and intentional pollution events have and 

will continue to impact the aquatic health of the lower Athabasca River and adjacent 

Lake Athabasca. 

2. Contaminated Sites Within or Near Fort Chipewyan 

At least two contaminated sites are known within Fort Chipewyan: a diesel fuelcontaminated 

site west of The Northern store at a former generating station and on the 

grounds of the health clinic. At the former generating station (Figure 12), diesel fuel 

contamination has spread west through the deep sand towards Lake Athabasca. The 

nearby fish processing plant will reportedly be moved in consequence of the fuel in the 

subsoil. For some reason, this site does not appear to be listed under the Federal 

Contaminated Sites Inventory. 

At the health clinic, in 1998 and 2000, about 620 cubic meters of soil 

contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons were removed as were underground and 

aboveground fuel tanks (Treasury Board of Canada 2005). 

There are three other contaminated sites within Fort Chipewyan, one at the High 

Island Beacon in Lake Athabasca, one at Jackfish, a devegetated site with heavy metals 

on Bustard Island, and eight contaminated sites at Allison Bay. To date, little or no 

information is available on these sites (see Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory). 

The degree to which these sites have in the past affected, or continue to affect, the 

health of Fort Chipewyan residents is unknown. 

56 

Figure 12. Part of 

the excavation to 

remove sands 

contaminated by 

diesel fuel in Fort 

Chipewyan. 2 June 

2007.

3. Mercury in Walleye (Pickerel) and Lake Whitefish 

Mercury concentrations in commonly consumed mature fish of the lower 

Athabasca River pose a human health risk (Figures 13, 14). In September 2005, mean 

mercury concentrations in female and male walleye were 0.51 and 0.35 mg/kg while 

those in lake whitefish were 0.11 and 0.08 mg/kg (Table 16). 

Mean mercury concentrations were ~ 4-5 times higher in walleye than in 

whitefish for both sexes. There was a clear trend of increasing mercury concentration 

with increased size of walleye. Virtually all walleye longer than 40 cm or weighing more 

than 500 g contained more than 0.20 mg/kg of mercury, the Health Canada subsistence 

fisher guideline (RAMP 2006, their Figures 5.1-29 and -30). 

The Health Canada general consumer guideline for mercury was exceeded in ~ 30 

% of male and ~ 40 % of female walleye. The Health Canada subsistence fisher guideline 

for mercury was exceeded in all female walleye and ~ 70 % of male walleye. If the more 

stringent US EPA standards are applied, all walleye, all female whitefish and ~ 90 % of 

male whitefish exceeded subsistence fisher guidelines. These values constitute a human 

health concern. 

It is not known whether fishes caught in Lake Athabasca, or near Fort Chipewyan 

in particular, have similar mercury concentrations to those near the Muskeg and 

Steepbank Rivers. It would seem likely, however, as mercury is readily transported on 

suspended sediments (Ullrich et al. 2001). If a fish bioaccumulation factor of 1 to 10 

million times (in keeping with US EPA 2001) is applied to the methylmercury 

concentrations observed near Fort Chipewyan in this study, predatory fishes in the lower 

Athabasca River and adjacent Lake Athabasca would be expected to contain about 0.12 

mg/kg to 1.34 mg/kg of mercury. Mercury concentrations in walleye (pickerel) in the 

lower Athabasca River are indeed within this predicted range (mean 0.51 mg/kg in 

females, 0.35 mg/kg in males) while those in lake whitefish lie near the lower end of that 

range (mean 0.08 mg/kg in males and 0.11 mg/kg in females). 

RAMP (2006) stated that the fish mercury concentrations observed were 

“consistent with the natural range of concentrations observed in this region of northern 

Alberta”, but did not provide locations. RAMP (2006) further stated that significant 

temporal trends in tissue mercury were not found, but only three years of data were 

available and no statistics were provided. See section 6 (below) for a discussion of trends 

in mercury concentration. 

Health Canada (2004) recommends that consumption of large predatory fish 

should not exceed one meal per week for adults. Pregnant women, women of childbearing 

age, and children should consume no more than one fish meal per month. The 

predominant form of mercury in fish is methylmercury, but quantitative data on the ratio 

of organic to inorganic mercury in fish is scant due to the expense of analysis of 

individual mercury species. For the purposes of health risk assessments, it is assumed that 

all mercury in fish is in the form of methylmercury (Health Canada 2007). 

For protection of the fetus, the World Health Organization has recommended that 

daily methylmercury intake should not exceed 0.23 micrograms/kg body weight (Health 

Canada 2007). For a 50 kg pregnant woman, the daily limit would be 11.5 micrograms 

methylmercury/day. If a 50 kg pregnant woman consumed 500 g of lower Athabasca 

57

egion female walleye, she would consume, on average, 255 micrograms of mercury, 

roughly 22 times the recommended limit. 

Due to the nutritional value of fish, and the traditional-cultural and economic 

importance of fish to Fort Chipewyan residents (Figures 15, 16), the mercury levels 

observed pose a serious dilemma. It would be prudent to determine local mercury levels 

in fish species consumed in Fort Chipewyan and mercury levels in human volunteers 

from Fort Chipewyan—this can be done easily through hair samples. 

58

Mercury Concentration (mg/kg) 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

Female 

Male 

Lake lkwh Whitefish Walleye wall 

Species 

Figure 13. Health guidelines in relation to concentration of mercury (mg/kg, wet weight) 

in muscle of mature lake whitefish and walleye from the Athabasca River (from the 

Muskeg and Steepbank River areas), September 2005. Data summarized from RAMP 

(2006, their Table 5.1-15). See Table 16 for details. 

Table 16. Concentration of mercury (mg/kg, wet weight) in muscle of mature lake 

whitefish and walleye (pickerel) from the Athabasca River (from the Muskeg and 

Steepbank River areas), September 2005. Data summarized from RAMP (2006, their 

Table 5.1-15). 

Whitefish (Hg mg/kg) Walleye (Hg mg/kg) 

Male Female Male Female 

Mean 0.081 0.106 0.352 0.510 

Median 0.073 0.105 0.259 0.464 

Maximum 0.170 0.160 0.765 0.694 

Minimum 0.034 0.058 0.078 0.391 

S.D. 0.037 0.040 0.237 0.110 

95% CI, upper 0.101 0.133 0.478 0.595 

95% CI, lower 0.061 0.079 0.225 0.425 

Normality (p)* 0.445 0.850 0.246 0.709 

N 15 11 16 9 

* Kolmogorov-Smirnov one-sample normality test, two-tailed p 

59 

Health Guidelines 

Health Canada, General Consumer 

Health Canada, Subsistence Fisher 

US EPA, Subsistence Fisher

60 

Figure 14. Forage fish in 

the throat of a walleye. As 

top predators, walleye 

effectively accumulate 

mercury. 31 May 2007 

Figure 15. Elder John Piche at his summer fish camp 

preparing a supper of jackfish fillets. Locally-caught 

fish form an important part of the diet of many 

people in Fort Chipewyan. 31 May 2007. 

Figure 16. Freshly-netted 

walleye, lake whitefish, 

and burbot caught by John 

Piche at his fish camp on 

the Rochers River. 31 May 

2007.

4. Fish Deformities 

Scientific Data 

Fish abnormalities include a number of internal and external deviations from a 

normal, healthy condition. Depending on the study, abnormalities may include fin 

erosion, the presence of parasites, lesions, skeletal deformities, and tumors (Figure 17). 

Observations on fish pathology types and rates vary widely between the various 

studies. Frequencies of abnormalities ranged from zero to 77% across a number of studies 

conducted from 1992 to 1994 in the Athabasca, Peace, and Slave Rivers and Lake 

Athabasca (Mill et al. 1997). Some of the variability in the frequency of abnormalities 

may be due to individual differences in classification of pathologies. 

Mill et al. (1997) found: “Relatively low overall levels of gross pathology...” for 

most species,

Figure 17. These walleye caught in Lake Athabasca in 2007 exhibit external tumors, 

lesions, deformed spines, bulging eyes, abnormal fins, and other defects. Credit: L. 

Carota, Vancouver, BC. 

Observations of Elders 

Ray Ladouceur: “There’s deformed pickerel in Lake Athabasca... Pushed in faces, 

bulging eyes, humped back, crooked tails... never used to see that. Great big lumps on 

them... you poke that, it sprays water...” A friend caught a jackfish recently with two 

lower jaws... He had seen deformed jackfish before, but never one with two jaws. 

Ray Ladouceur: “The skins on the whitefish are starting to turn red. Before they used to 

be white...What’s in the water?... Even goldeyes... they’re red... never seen that before. 

The lake trout on Lake Athabasca, great big heads and skinny little bodies... One of the 

healthiest lakes in Canada is now one of the deadliest lakes.” 

Ray Ladouceur: “About five years ago, ... two of those boxes full of deformed pickerel... 

we sent them out to fish and wildlife... they sat there over the weekend, everything was 

rotten... they never sent those fish out to get tested... They should have put them in the 

cooler... I think they did that on purpose. They didn’t want to get the feedback... They’re 

scared.” 

Johnny Courtereille: “Whitefish caught at Dog Camp... years back, they were white, no 

color; now they’re an orange color, a reddish color on the outside... red nose; sometimes 

they have one eye.” 

John Piche: Burbot liver used to be light brown, clean, and clear. Now the liver is spotted. 

He now longer eats the liver, but still eats the meat. 

Jumbo Fraser has noticed that walleyes have red bruises beneath the scales, but the meat 

beneath is okay. Some of the walleye have external growths. 

62

Possible Causes for the Fish Abnormalities 

Fish abnormalities are not necessarily related to water pollution or toxic 

discharges. Injury, disease, parasites, unusual water quality conditions (e.g., high 

temperatures), poor nutrition, and toxic algal blooms can also cause abnormalities. In the 

Northern River Basins Study, high frequencies of pathological abnormalities were 

observed in fish near pulp mill effluents and in lake whitefish perhaps “related to 

physiological and behavioural responses to spawning” (Mill et al. 1997). 

Athabasca River natural bitumen and oil-refining wastewater pond sediments 

caused significant hatching alterations and increases in mortality, malformations, and 

reduced size in young fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) (Colavecchia et al. 2004). 

“Larval deformities included edemas, hemorrhages, and spinal malformations.” Fish 

embryos exposed to complex mixtures of petrogenic PAHs display a characteristic suite 

of abnormalities that include cardiac dysfunction, edema, spinal curvature, and reduction 

in the size of the jaw and other craniofacial structures (Incardona et al. 2004). Exposure 

to different PAH compounds leads to different and specific effects on young fishes 

(Incardona et al. 2004). 

Four metals appear to exceed fish protection threshold effects levels in Athabasca 

River walleye and lake whitefish: aluminum, selenium, silver, and vanadium (RAMP 

2006, their Table 5.1-17). Of these metals, selenium levels may present the largest risk to 

fish health (values of 0.46, 0.60 mg/kg in female and male walleye, and 0.45, 0.38 mg/kg 

in female and male lake whitefish). Selenium can contribute to reproductive failure, 

deformities, and death among aquatic organisms and water birds, and can adversely affect 

people (CRBSCF 1999). 

At Beaverlodge Lake, as a result of uranium mining, elevated levels of selenium 

and relatively high levels of growth deformities in fishes have been observed (WUO 

2005). Selenium levels are believed to be high enough to cause significant reproductive 

failure in fish populations over the next several decades. 

It is difficult at this time to draw general conclusions about spatial patterns or 

temporal trends in the fish deformities from the scientific data alone. When combined, 

the scientific data and traditional knowledge suggest that rates of fish abnormalities may 

be higher than expected, may be increasing, and may be related to changes in water 

quality. 

The changes in taste, texture, and deformities observed in the local fishes appear 

to signal ecological degradation. Some of the changes may be chemically-induced, but 

others may be a food-web effect. Soft, watery flesh noted in the traditional knowledge 

interviews might indicate starvation. Fish consume protein when starving and replace cell 

mass with water (P. Hodson, pers. comm., November 2007). Fishes with big heads and 

small bodies (“pinheads”) are clearly starving. Starving fish suggest: (a) reduced 

productivity of food organisms due to pervasive pollution effects; (b) a break in the food 

web (e.g., a pollution-related loss of a keystone species); or (c) direct toxicity effects (P. 

Hodson, pers. comm., November 2007). Research by fisheries biologists and 

toxicologists is needed. 

63

5. Cancer Risk and Arsenic Exposure 

Estimating the effect on cancer rates of lifetime exposure to even one 

contaminant, such as arsenic, is analytically challenging and sensitive to assumptions. 

Suncor (2005) concluded that lifetime exposure to arsenic in the Wood Buffalo region 

could result in 312-453 additional cases of cancer per 100,000 people depending upon 

levels of local fish and vegetable consumption. Alberta Health and Wellness (2007) 

responded to the Suncor report and concluded that lifetime exposure to arsenic could 

result in an additional 17 to 33 cases of cancer per 100,000 people. Both the Suncor and 

Alberta Health and Wellness estimates were in excess of the “acceptable” rate of 

additional cancers of 1 per 100,000 people. 

The Alberta Health and Wellness (2007) report concluded: 

“the current indigenous population is at little, if any, risk of developing 

cancer as a result of exposure to inorganic arsenic contributed by both naturallyoccurring 

sources and existing anthropogenic sources in the region via the 

exposure pathways examined as part of the work” 

Regarding the future, the government report concluded: 

“the current indigenous population is at essentially no risk of developing 

cancer as a result of exposure to any inorganic arsenic that might be contributed 

by projected future anthropogenic activity in the region via the exposure pathways 

examined. Added confidence is provided by the conservatism incorporated into 

the re-assessment.” 

The two reports are unlikely to settle the question of increased cancer risk due to 

arsenic exposure. Both reports are unpublished ‘gray literature’ that have not been 

subjected to impartial peer review. Both reports were modeling exercises that did not 

include fieldwork and interviews with the people of Fort Chipewyan. How realistic were 

assumptions about rates of exposure for commercial fishermen and traditional users who 

handle and clean many thousands of fish each year and consume more fish than assumed? 

The fact that the reports reached different conclusions only adds to the feelings of 

uncertainty about level of risk and demonstrate that risk assessment is sensitive to the 

assumptions used in the models. 

Models of contaminant exposure are only as good as the data input into those 

models. In the case of the Alberta Health and Wellness report (2007), the statistics used 

for arsenic levels in soil and water appear open to question on several points. These are: 

1. The model relied upon confidence limits of mean values of arsenic, but extreme values 

of a toxin may have disproportionate effects on human health. 

2. The model used statistics (upper confidence limits of the mean) that rely upon a normal 

statistical distribution, yet the dissolved arsenic data for the Athabasca River are 

decidedly non-normal. For example, for datasets of Athabasca River dissolved arsenic 

(analyzed earlier in this report), the data are strongly non-normal. The effect on the 

calculation of cancer risk of using an incorrect statistical distribution of arsenic 

concentrations should be addressed. 

3. There was unresolved uncertainty in the kinds of arsenic data in the government report 

(dissolved vs. total, organic vs. inorganic) which could affect the values used in the 

model. For example, mean dissolved arsenic values reported in RAMP (2006, their Table 

6.6-5) are roughly 84% the concentration of total arsenic. 

64

4. The arsenic levels assumed by the Alberta government for both water and sediment 

were underestimates (see respective sections in arsenic results). For water, the 

government used a mean arsenic concentration of 1 µg/L and an upper 95% confidence 

limit of the mean of 1.2 µg/L (n = 42). Depending on how the statistics were calculated 

and compared, the arsenic concentrations used by the government were 1.4-1.5 times 

lower than those relevant to the lower Athabasca River and Lake Athabasca. 

5. For sediment, a similar underestimate of arsenic concentration and exposure resulted. 

The government used a mean arsenic concentration of 0.85-1.1 mg/kg and an upper 95% 

confidence limit of the mean of 1.3 mg/kg (n = 62). Depending on how the statistics were 

calculated and compared, the sediment arsenic concentrations used by the government 

were 3.5 to 10.6 times lower than those relevant to the lower Athabasca River and Lake 

Athabasca. 

Why the government study reported lower levels of arsenic than those in this 

study is uncertain. The government study used RAMP Athabasca River and Ells River 

water quality data from the years 2002-2004 while the sediment data were derived from 

eight areas in the oil sands region. Limiting the data to only three years within a fairly 

small upstream area characterized by coarse-textured parent materials may have resulted 

in a skewed sample in the government study. 

6. The government model of arsenic exposure was based on a wealth of assumptions 

about arsenic levels in wildlife and country food consumption rates that have scant data 

to support them. Yet the results are presented without recognition of the uncertainties 

inherent in the model. Much of the uncertainty in the government report could have been 

eliminated had that study gathered actual data in Fort Chipewyan. Rather than estimate 

arsenic exposure based on assumptions, empirical values for arsenic burdens in human 

tissue could have been determined. 

There is a disconnect between the government report assumptions and the reality 

of life in Fort Chipewyan. The report, e.g., considered the consumption of “sport fish”. 

People in Fort Chipewyan do not eat “sport fish” any more than they eat sport ducks and 

sport moose. Fish are a respected staple of the diet, not something to be dismissed as 

sport. 

Arsenic and its metabolites bioaccumulate (but do not biomagnify) in the tissues 

of aquatic organisms (EPA 2003). Bioconcentration factors based on laboratory studies 

were found to be far lower than the bioaccumulation factors observed in real-world field 

studies. The degree to which aquatic organisms accumulate arsenic varies widely across 

species groups in relation to foods consumed. Bioaccumulation factors for trophic level 

three and four fishes in lakes reported by EPA (2003) were in the range of 19 to 96 L/kg. 

Bioaccumulation factors for trophic level three and four brook trout and white suckers in 

rivers were in the range of 238 to 571 L/kg. In other words, these fishes accumulate 

arsenic in their bodies to levels about 19 to 571 times higher than the concentration of 

dissolved arsenic in the water column. 

About 85-90% of the arsenic in edible portions of marine fish and shellfish is in 

organic forms (such as arsenobetaine, arsenocholine, dimethylarsenic acid); about 10% is 

inorganic arsenic. Less is known about the forms of arsenic in freshwater organisms, but 

field data indicated that 88-99% of the total arsenic in fishes were in organic forms (EPA 

2003). The fact that organic forms of arsenic constituted a far higher proportion of total 

65

arsenic than has been observed in laboratory settings indicates that biomethylation in real 

world ecosystems may greatly exceed rates observed in the laboratory. 

Each form of arsenic differs in its toxicity; it is therefore important to estimate the 

levels of each arsenic form when attempting to assess the level of risk to human health of 

consumption of arsenic-contaminated wildlife (EPA 2003). The Alberta Health and 

Wellness (2007) report stated that organic forms of arsenic are less harmful to humans 

than is inorganic arsenic. That view is in need of revision. “Recent research indicates that 

when compared to arsenite [inorganic arsenic], trivalent methylated arsenic metabolites 

exert a number of unique biological effects, are more cytotoxic and genotoxic, and are 

more potent inhibitors of the activities of some enzymes” (EPA 2003). 

The relevance of these results to the people of Fort Chipewyan is large. They 

mean that: (1) the concentration of dissolved arsenic in water is a poor predictor of actual 

arsenic exposure; (2) for people who eat locally-caught fish, the health risk from arsenic 

exposure may be greater than assumed previously. 

6. Are Levels of Arsenic, Mercury, and PAHs Rising? 

As noted earlier in the report, three contaminants of high concern are arsenic, 

mercury, and PAHs. Current levels of all three contaminants are sufficiently high to 

present a risk to either humans or wildlife. Are levels of these contaminants rising? 

While there are abundant data, the observations are spread among a variety of 

datasets, making time series analyses difficult to conduct. Clearly, answering this 

question is central to maintenance of public and ecosystem health and to future 

management, political, and legal actions. A concerted effort should be made to metaanalyze 

all the available data. In the interim, several observations (detailed below) 

indicate that, yes, concentrations of these contaminants appear to be rising above 

“historical” levels. The increases in contaminant concentrations may prove to be 

underestimates given the fact that “historical” (RAMP 2001) refers to a period that spans 

1976-87 (water) and 1976-99 (sediment), well within the oil sands industrial era. 

Mercury: 

(1) Levels of total mercury in sediments at Big Point Channel (80 µg/kg, in 2000), Flour 

Bay (90 µg/kg, in 2000) and in the Rochers River near Mission Creek (60 µg/kg, in 2007) 

were about 76%, 98%, and 32%, respectively, above the historical median level of total 

mercury (45.5 µg/kg, 1976-99) reported in RAMP (2001). 

(2) Data in RAMP (2001, Table 5.9) suggest that mercury levels in the Athabasca River 

upstream of the Embarras River and in the ARD have risen above the historical median 

(1976-87). 

Arsenic: 

(1) Levels of total arsenic upstream of the Embarras River (

at the Fort Chipewyan water intake (2.6 µg/L), and in the Fletcher Channel (1.6 µg/L) are 

about 466%, 333%, and 167% above historical levels. 

(3) Levels of arsenic in sediments at Big Point Channel (6.2 mg/kg, in 2000), Flour Bay 

(5.8 mg/kg, in 2000), in the Rochers River near Mission Creek (9.1 mg/kg, in 2007) and 

at the Fort Chipewyan water intake (9.2 mg/kg, in 2007) were about 44%, 35%, 112%, 

and 114%, respectively, above the historical median level of sediment arsenic (4.3 mg/kg, 

1976-99) reported in RAMP (2001). 

PAHs: 

(1) Median PAH levels in Big Point Channel and Flour Bay have risen 14% and 6% 

above historical levels (1976-99) while mean PAH levels for those areas have risen 42% 

and 29% above historical levels (Table 17). 

Table 17. Concentrations of PAHs in sediments of the ARD from historical data (1976- 

99) compared to concentrations in 2000 (data analyzed from RAMP 2001, their Table 

5.21). 

Concentration (µg /kg) Percent Change Percent Change 

@ 

@@ 

Big Flour ARD Big Flour Big Flour 

Point Bay 

Point Bay Point Bay 

Channel 

Channel Channel 

PAH 2000 2000 Historical 

naphthalene 24 22 19 26 16 26 16 

C1 naphthalenes 40 47 35 14 34 14 34 

C2 naphthalenes 49 54 43 14 26 14 26 

C3 naphthalenes 48 50 54 -11 -7 -11 -7 

C4 naphthalenes

C1 fluoranthene / pyrene 59 63 43 37 47 37 47 

C2 fluoranthene / pyrene 110 110 

C3 fluoranthene / pyrene 100 89 

fluorene 4 5 3 33 67 33 67 

C1 fluorene

In water, chemical constituents of concern include: arsenic, aluminum, chromium, 

cobalt, copper, iron, lead, phosphorus, selenium, titanium, and total phenols. The 

herbicides dicamba, mcpa, bromacil, and triallate and the pesticide lindane are also of 

concern; they have exceeded guideline levels at various times and places, particularly in 

the Peace River sector. 

In sediment, the constituents of concern include: arsenic, cadmium, a variety of 

PAHs, and resin acids. 

Aluminum, selenium, silver, and vanadium levels may present a risk for fish 

health in some areas. 

Mercury levels in fish used for human consumption present a serious concern. 

More needs to be learned regarding the local concentrations of mercury, arsenic, 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and naphthenic acids in water, sediments, and 

wildlife. 

The people and biota of the Athabasca River Delta and western Lake Athabasca 

are exposed to higher levels of metals than those upstream. Higher arsenic levels than 

elsewhere, coupled with the clear link between arsenic exposure and various diseases, 

call for in-depth study of the issue. Arsenic exposure is associated with bile duct, liver, 

urinary tract, and skin cancers, vascular diseases, and Type II diabetes. Rates of exposure 

to arsenic and the resultant estimates of risk of cancer in the Alberta Health and 

Wellness-commissioned report almost certainly underestimate the actual arsenic-related 

cancer risks facing the people of Fort Chipewyan. 

Adverse health effects from cadmium exposure may occur at lower exposure 

levels than previously thought, primarily in the form of kidney damage (Järup 2003). 

There may be additional constituents of concern that were not addressed in this 

study, including ammonia, fluoride, antimony, molybdenum, and nickel (see McEachern 

2004). Levels of these constituents in the waters and sediments near Fort Chipewyan 

should be determined in the near future. 

Statistics for some constituents of concern (in water) have been summarized for 

Athabasca River reaches downstream of the Steepbank River and for upstream of the 

Embarras River (Suncor 2005, their Tables 60 and 61). Of those parameters with 

sufficient data for evaluation, aluminum and manganese had medians that exceeded water 

quality guidelines. 

People most at risk of adverse health effects are those who eat an abundance of 

country food and those who do consume untreated surface water. 

For the seven parameters assessed in the fieldwork, the water treatment plant 

appears to do a good job of removing impurities. In light of the findings of this study, a 

full chemical profile of the treated water should be conducted with low detection limits. 

Increasing temperatures may, in light of the levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in 

the water, encourage increased algal blooms, some of which may be toxic to wildlife and 

humans who depend on them. Fishermen are reporting that nets set in rivers in winter are 

becoming fouled with a dark greasy material that may be decomposing algae. Reports of 

softer fish flesh and the apparent increase in total coliform levels lend support to the 

notion that increased water temperatures are bringing about aquatic changes. 

69

Variability in Contaminant Levels 

The data presented, assembled from a variety of studies, demonstrate that levels 

of contaminants tend to vary widely both in space and time. This spatial and temporal 

variability is important to both environmental and public health. 

While the median and mean values of contaminants are useful measures, 

maximum values are often more important from a health perspective. The system is 

characterized by periods of ‘normal’ conditions punctuated by pulses of pollution. 

The pulses may derive from high discharge during break-up, storms, or from 

spills of contaminants related to oil sands industrial activities. 

What is the effect on human health of a brief pulse of pollution? Without a good 

human health monitoring program, it is impossible to determine the effect. But what is 

certain is that pulses of pollution do occur. For example, on 11 June 1980, the 

concentration of dissolved arsenic in the Athabasca River mainstem near Ft. Mackay was 

27 µg/L, 45 times the median arsenic concentration in the river. 

Many water quality parameters on the Lower Athabasca River follow a seasonal 

cycle with high concentrations during winter low discharge and low concentrations 

during the peak discharge of early summer. 

Spatial variation in the levels of contaminants in the region stem from a number 

of sources of variation, principally the depositional environment, the grain size 

distribution of the sediments, local parent materials, and point sources. Based on 

principal components analysis, RAMP (2006) recognized four regions with regards to 

water and sediment characteristics (their data did not include Lake Athabasca). The 

majority of the Athabasca River Delta, one-half of the Athabasca River, and one-third of 

its western tributaries were characterized by high metal concentrations, high PAH 

concentrations showing little variability, and a high proportion of silts and clays with 

little sand. 


Municipal water treatment at the plant produces drinking water safe from 

bacterial contamination. Currently surface waters around Fort Chipewyan have low 

populations of coliform bacteria. 

People travelling by boat in the vicinity of Fort Chipewyan, the Rochers River, 

and perhaps the Quatre Fourches River, should be made aware that drinking untreated 

surface water may not be safe as the water does contain both total and fecal coliform 

bacteria. 

During flow reversals on the Rochers River, municipal sewage entering the 

Rochers River from Mission Creek flows south to Lake Athabasca and may contaminate 

the waters around Fort Chipewyan. There is also concern that the town sewage treatment 

plant may be under-capacity for the size of the population. Another potential source of 

future contamination is sewage emptied into Lake Athabasca from the Allison Bay 

settlement northeast of Fort Chipewyan. 

Contaminant Burden 

The question of what proportion of the water and sediment contamination is due 

to natural sources vs. industrial activities is interesting if somewhat moot. What is not 

70

moot is that levels of some environmental contaminants have exceeded water and 

sediment quality guidelines. 

Contaminant guidelines for protection of human and ecosystem health are defined 

in isolation for each contaminant. People and other organisms living in real-world 

ecosystems are, however, exposed to a host of toxins in a lifetime. Thus, an assessment of 

the concentration of each toxin in isolation from others does not address the true 

contaminant burden. Humans in the Fort Chipewyan area are exposed to an array of 

toxins in their food, water, air, and soil. In some cases exposure is a matter of choice, as 

in smoking tobacco, but in the majority of cases the exposure is involuntary. 

Synergistic health effects of contaminants should be investigated. For example: 

Arsenic is a risk factor for development of Type II diabetes. 

The impaired kidney function typical of people with diabetes places them 

at greater risk of adverse health effects from mercury exposure. 

Might kidney damage due to contaminant exposure be related to the 

elevated rates of renal failure and hypertension observed in Fort 

Chipewyan? 

Those who consume a significant portion of their diet as country food, especially 

fish, may be exposed to a greater toxin burden than those who eat store-bought food. 

While this may seem counter-intuitive, the wildlife of the region live within a 

sedimentary basin that receives, bioaccumulates, and stores toxins originating within a 

large watershed. 

Future Monitoring and Study 

The current situation in which the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program 

(RAMP) gathers ‘private’ data subject to vetting is inadequate. The approach is: 

1. Analytically weak in that (a) the statistical power to detect change is not addressed; (b) 

the temporal baseline proscribed for change detection is too short (5-9 years); (c) no 

effort is made to analyze relevant water quality and biological data; (d) no empirical 

justification is provided for delineation of “reference” sites and “potentially influencedoil 

sands sites”; (e) there is a paucity of comparisons with relevant study sites both within 

and outside the region; (f) references to the scientific literature are sparse— there is little 

or no context provided for the data. 

2. Biased. The steering committee, which acts as the funding source, is dominated by the 

oil industry and provincial government with a vested interest in oil sands development. 

3. Overly conservative. There is a tendency to dismiss exceedences of wildlife 

contaminant and water and sediment quality guidelines as anomalous or inconclusive. 

4. Subject to errors. There are errors of fact. The report, e.g., states that water 

withdrawals for oil sands operations in 2005 were 98.8 million cubic meters, when the 

actual withdrawal was over four times that amount. 

5. Inconsistent. The composition of the monitoring team varies over time. Continuity in 

monitoring personnel is critical for change studies. Morever, continual changes in 

methods and means of presentation render the report of limited utility. Often there are 

unexpected and unacceptable data gaps. For example, in 2006 (RAMP 2007), there was 

no sampling of sediment quality, benthic invertebrate community, and fish tissues for the 

71

Athabasca River mainstem. For the Athabasca River Delta, RAMP (2007) conducted no 

sampling. 

Ad hoc reports, funded by the Alberta government or industry, do not attain the 

standard of impartiality and peer review that is required in matters of public health. And 

finally, boards charged with overseeing or managing public concerns, such as the Energy 

Resources Conservation Board and the Cumulative Effects Management Association are 

hampered in their mandates by restrictive terms of reference and bureaucratic structures. 

The result is the appearance of monitoring and management of environmental concerns 

in the public interest. The reality is a lack of timely publicly available information and 

the perpetuation of business as usual. 

Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and other techniques have proved useful in 

detection and monitoring of oil spills at sea. Similar techniques might prove useful for 

monitoring of bitumen and tailings spills on the Athabasca River. Optimum wind speeds 

for oil spill detection are about 3-6 meters per second. These wind speeds create small 

waves (wavelets) on an oil-free water surface which makes it generate a larger 

backscatter than does an oil covered area. The contrast in backscatter from oil-free water 

vs. oil-covered water enables the detection of oil spills (Figure 18). 

Because rivers are more sheltered than open sea, they may have few wavelets 

critical for oils spill detection (J. van der Sanden, pers. comm., October 2007). As a first 

step, it might be useful to search databanks to determine dates of appropriate SAR 

imagery for the lower Athabasca River. If images exist at the time of known spills, the 

imagery could be examined to assess how well it detects those spills. If the technique 

provides useful information it could be used to document future contaminant releases. 

Figure 18. A visible-band satellite image of the Athabasca River and an adjacent Suncor 

tailings pond illustrates the dangerous juxtaposition of contaminated ponds (left) and the 

Athabasca River (right). Note the bright, wave-textured surface of the Athabasca River in 

comparison to the darker, smoother surface of the tailings pond. In a radar image, there 

could be a large contrast in the backscatter of the two water bodies. Image from Google 

Earth. 

72

The people of Fort Chipewyan deserve straight answers about their environmental 

health concerns. In order for the people to have timely and accurate information on water 

and sediment quality relevant to their health, a monitoring program independent of 

control by vested interests is needed. Such a program need not be large and expensive. 

The program should be designed to be cost-effective, focussed on information-rich 

parameters, and report regularly to the people of Fort Chipewyan. Ideally, the program 

would be designed by academics, health professionals, and local people, funded 

independently, with data gathering and reporting done in cooperation with a university. 

The monitoring program should be sufficiently flexible such that research questions 

could be addressed that would facilitate the involvement of graduate students. Costs 

could be minimized through use of data gathered under pre-existing programs such as the 

National Pollution Release Inventory, assuming that the data could be accessed in a form 

amenable to analyses. 

It is unlikely that the controversy of elevated disease rates in the community will 

be settled without a proper and independent study. A peer-reviewed epidemiologic and 

toxicologic study of disease rates and levels of exposure to environmental toxins in 

communities of the lower Athabasca River is needed. As of 2006, the Regional 

Municipality of Wood Buffalo was home to about 79,810 people. The much larger 

population in the municipality as compared to that of Fort Chipewyan (~ 1163 people as 

of June 2005) would allow for more powerful statistical analyses than possible in the 

hamlet. 

A well-designed study would allow epidemiologists to control for factors such as 

time of residence in the lower Athabasca River basin, diet, lifestyle, water supply, and 

demographic factors such that deviations in expected rates of disease could be detected 

with reasonable power. At the same time, toxicologists could quantify the level of risk 

associated with exposure to environmental toxins in the region. The explosive growth of 

the oil sands industry in northeastern Alberta poses risks to environmental and public 

health that demand immediate attention independent of provincial and industrial 

oversight. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

I thank Donna Cyprien who initiated the project, the Nunee Health Board Society, 

Elders John Piche, Johnny Courtereille, Big Ray Ladouceur, and Jumbo Fraser for their 

traditional knowledge, Drs. Suzanne Bayley, Malcolm Conly, Robert Flett, Xuimei Han, 

John Headley, Jon Martin, David Schindler, Jeff Short, Vincent St. Louis, Joost van der 

Sanden, and Eleanor Wein for scientific discussions or analyses of chemical parameters, 

ALS Laboratories for analytical testing, Fred Baehl and Desmond Flett for information 

about the Fort Chipewyan water treatment facilities, Kathleen Pongar for coliform data 

and Ron Tchir for chemical parameter data, Zane Gulley for a Suncor report, staff of the 

Alberta Environmental Law Centre for information on the 1982 Suncor spill, and Robert 

Grandjambe and Vanessa Phillips for field assistance. 

Drs. David Schindler, Jeff Short, and Peter Hodson provided critical reviews. 

73

REFERENCES 

AEUB (Alberta Energy and Utilities Board). 1998. Pipeline performance in Alberta 1980-1997. 

EUB Information Services, Calgary, AB. 

Akre, C. J., J. V. Headley, F. M. Conly, K. M. Peru, and L. C. Dickson. 2004. Spatial 

patterns of natural polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediment in the lower 

Athabasca River. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 39 (5): 

1163 – 1176. 

Alberta Agriculture. 2002. Soil quality benchmark sites. Alberta Agriculture, Food 

and Rural Development. Edmonton, AB. organicmatter.pdf. 

Alberta Cancer Board. 2007. Confidence intervals of cancer incidence in Fort 

Chipewyan (1995-2005) – Report to Larry Svenson, Alberta Health and Wellness. 

Email correspondence received from Dr. Larry Svenson, 19 April 2007. Document: 

FortChip_CI_ACB_Response.pdf. 

Alberta Environment. 1982. Terms of reference for joint Alberta Environment – Energy 

Resources Conservation Board Inquiry into the recent Suncor incident. Sessional Paper 

503/82. Document held in Alberta Environment library, Edmonton, AB. 

Alberta Environment. 1999. Surface water quality guidelines for use in Alberta 

(November 1999). Alberta Environment, Edmonton. Alberta 

surface water quality guidelines.pdf. 

Alberta Environment. 2001. Overview of water quality in the Muskeg River basin July 

1972 to March 2001. Alberta Environment, Edmonton. 6622.pdf. 

Alberta Health and Wellness. 2006. Fort Chipewyan Health Data Analysis. 

Document: Fort Chipewyan presentation 25july2006(2).ppt. 

Alberta Health and Wellness. 2007. Assessment of the Potential Lifetime Cancer Risks 

Associated with Exposure to Inorganic Arsenic among Indigenous People living in the 

Wood Buffalo Region of Alberta. Alberta Health and Wellness, Public Health 

Surveillance and Environmental Health, Edmonton, AB. arsenicreport.pdf. 

Allan, R. J. 1979. Heavy metals in bottom sediments of Great Slave Lake (Canada): A 

reconnaissance. Environmental Geology 3:49-58. 

Allan, R. and T. Jackson. 1978. Heavy metals in bottom sediments of the mainstem 

Athabasca River system in the AOSERP study area. Alberta Oil Sands 

Environmental Research Program, Project HY 2.4. Edmonton, AB. 

Anderson, A.-M. 2005. Overview of Pesticide Data in Alberta Surface Waters Since 

1995. Alberta Environment, Publ. No. T/772. Edmonton, AB. 

74

ATSDR. 1995. Public Health Statement for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Center for Disease 

Control, Atlanta, GA USA. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs69.html. 

AWG (Athabasca Working Group). 2002. Uranium City, Athabasca Working Group 

Environmental Monitoring Program 2002. www.cri.ca/common/pdfs/Uranium_City_ 

2002.pdf. 

Ayebo, A., D. Plowman, and S. States. 2006. Nitrate, coliforms, and Cryptosporidium 

spp. as indicators of stream water quality in western Pennsylvania. Journal of 

Environmental Health 69: 16-21. 

Bourbonniere, R. A., S. L. Telford, and J. B. Kemper. 1996. Depositional history of 

sediments in Lake Athabasca: geochronology, bulk parameters, contaminants and 

biogeochemical markers. Northern River Basins Study Project Report No. 72. 

Northern River Basins Study, Edmonton, AB. 

Brady, A. J. 1985. A History of Fort Chipewyan. Sponsored by Education North, printed 

at Harmony Print Shop, Westlock, Alberta. Second edition. 

Carey, J. H., O. T. R. Cordeiro, and B. G. Brownlee. 2004. Distribution of contaminants 

in the water, sediment and biota in the Peace, Athabasca and Slave River basins: 

present levels and predicted future trends. NREI (Northern Rivers Ecosystem 

Initiative), F. M. Conly (compiler), Collective Findings (cd-rom). Environment 

Canada, Saskatoon, SK. NRBS Contaminants report 3.pdf. 

CCME (Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment). 2002: Canadian 

Environmental Quality Guidelines, summary table, update 2002. www.ccme.ca/ 

assets/pdf/e1_06.pdf. 

Colavecchia, M. V., S. M. Backus, P. V. Hodson, and J. L. Parrott. 2004. Toxicity of oil sands 

to early life stages of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 23: 1709-1718. 

Colavecchia, M.V., P. V. Hodson, and J. L. Parrott. 2006. CYP1A induction and blue sac disease 

in early life stages of white suckers (Catostomus commersoni) exposed to oil sands. 

Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A, 69: 967-994. 

Colavecchia, M.V., P. V. Hodson, and J. L. Parrott. 2007. The relationships among CYP1A 

induction, toxicity and eye pathology in early life stages of fish exposed to oil sands. 

Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A, 70:1542-1555. 

Cooley, M. and S. Davies. 2001. Phase 2 Technical Memorandum for Red and Assiniboine 

Ammonia Criteria Study. Winnipeg, MB. June 2001. fp-01-tm.pdf. 

CRBSCF (Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum). 1999. Supplemental Report 

on the 1999 review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System. 

October 1999. ut_8_amend.pdf. 

75

Crosley, R. W. 1996. Environmental contaminants in bottom sediments, Peace and 

Athabasca River basins, October, 1994 and May, 1995. Northern River Basins 

Study, Project Report No. 106. Northern River Basins Study, Edmonton. 

Dixon, G., R. Smith, B. Greenburg, L. Lee, G. Van Der Kraak, and M. Power. Undated. 

Assessing the Cumulative Impacts of Oil-Sands Derived Chemical Mixtures on 

Aquatic Organisms in Alberta. Health Canada. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/ 

finance/tsri-irst/proj/cumul-eff/tsri-144_e.html. 

Donald, D. B., W. Aitken, J. Syrgiannis, N. E. Glozier, F. G. Hunter, and M. R. Gilchrist. 2004. 

State of the Aquatic Environment Peace-Athabasca Delta -- 2002. In: F. M. Conly 

(compiler), Northern Rivers Ecosystem Initiative: Collective Findings (cd-rom). 

Environment Canada, Saskatoon, SK. 

Environment Canada. 2005. Inorganic mercury and methylmercury. National 

Guidelines and Standards Office, Environment Canada. 

Gaag_mercury_wqg_e.pdf. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Technical summary of information available 

on the bioaccumulation of arsenic in aquatic organisms. US Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Science and Technology. Tech-sum-bioacc.pdf. 

Evans, M. S. 2000. The large lake ecosystems of northern Canada. Aquatic Ecosystem 

Health and Management 3: 65-79. 

Evans, M.S., B. Billeck, L. Lockhart, J. P. Bechtold, M. B. Yunker, and G. Stern. 2002. 

PAH sediment studies in Lake Athabasca and the Athabasca River ecosystem 

related to the Fort McMurray oil sands operations: sources and trends. In: C. A. 

Brebbia (editor), Oil and Hydrocarbon Spills III, Modelling, Analysis and 

Control. WIT Press, Southampton. Boston, MA. pp. 365-374. 

Golder. 2007. Reach-specific water quality objectives for the lower Athabasca River. 

Technical report submitted to Cumulative Effects Management Association. 

Golder Associates, Calgary, AB. CEMA ARIO interim memo may 15.pdf. 

Guo, H. R. 2003. The lack of a specific association between arsenic in drinking water and 

hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Hepatology 39(3): 383-388. 

Hall, R., B. Wolfe, and T. Edwards (with 17 contributing researchers). 2004. A multi-century 

flood, climatic, and ecological history of the Peace-Athabasca Delta, northern Alberta, 

Canada. BC Hydro, Burnaby, BC. 

Health Canada. 2001. Dioxins and Furans. It’s Your Health. Health Canada. 

Ottawa, ON. dioxins_e.pdf. 

Health Canada. 2004. Mercury and Human Health. It’s Your Health. Health Canada. 

Ottawa, ON. mercury2004_e.pdf. 

Health Canada. 2006a. Arsenic in Drinking Water. It’s Your Health. Health Canada. 

Ottawa, ON. arsenic_e.pdf. 

76

Health Canada. 2006b. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality Summary 

Table (March 2006). Health Canada, Ottawa. water quality summary table.pdf. 

Health Canada. 2007. Human Health Risk Assessment of Mercury in Fish and Health 

Benefits of Fish Consumption. (March 2007). Bureau of Chemical Safety, Food 

Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa. 

merc_fish_poission_e.pdf. 

Hogge, H. L., R. J. Allman, M. J. Paetz, R. E. Bailey, and E. E. Kupchanko. 1970. Alberta 

Government committee report on Great Canadian Oil Sands oil spill to Athabasca 

River, June 6, 1970. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, AB. 

Imperial Oil. 2006. Kearl Oil Sands Project – Mine Development. Application and all 

supplemental information, August 2006. Submitted to Alberta Environment, 

Edmonton, AB. 

Incardona, J. P., T. K. Collier, and N. L. Scholz. 2004. Defects in cardiac function precede 

morphological abnormalities in fish embryos exposed to polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 196 (2): 191-205. 

Janssen, S., G. Solomon, and T. Schettler. 2004. Chemical contaminants and human disease: 

A summary of evidence. Spreadsheet available from: http://www.protectingourhealth. 

org/corethemes/links/environmentallinks.xls. 

Jakimchuk, R. D. 1970. A biological investigation of the Athabasca River oil spill. Report 

to the Conservation Fraternity of Alberta (Confab). Report on file in Alberta 

Environment library, Edmonton, AB. 

Järup, L. 2003. Hazards of heavy metal contamination. British Medical Bulletin 68:167-182. 

Johnson, L. 2000. An analysis in support of sediment quality thresholds for polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to protect estuarine fish. US National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, 

WA. pah7_2000.pdf 

Joshi, S.R., D.T. Waite and R.F. Platford. 1989. Vertical distribution of uranium mill 

tailings contaminants in Langley Bay, Lake Athabasca sediments. Science of 

the Total Environment 87/88:85-104. 

Liu, G. Q., G. Zhang, X. D. Li, J. Li, X. Z. Peng, and S. H. Qi. 2005. Sedimentary record 

of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in a sediment core from the Pearl River 

Estuary, South China. Marine Pollution Bulletin 51: 912-921. 

Marsden, W. 2007. Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta is Bringing Environmental 

Armaggedon to Canada (And Doesn’t Seem to Care). Knopf Canada, Toronto, ON. 

McCasland, M., N. M. Trautmann, K. S. Porter, and R. J. Wagenet. Undated. Nitrate: 

Health Effects in Drinking Water. Cornell University, Cooperative Extension. 

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/nit-heef-grw85.html. 

77

McEachern, P. 2004. Water quality issues for the oil sands and current management 

status. CONRAD Water Use Workshop, Calgary, Alberta, February 2004. 

Water_quality_issues_for_the_oil_sands_McEachern.pdf. 

McMartin, D. W. 2003. Persistence and fate of acidic hydrocarbons in aquatic environments: 

naphthenic acids and resin acids. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Saskatchewan, 

Saskatoon, SK. 

Merck. 2003. Primary liver cancers (other). http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec10/ch139/ 

ch139e.html. 

Milburn, D., M. Stone, M. English, and T. Prowse. 2000. Observations on sediment chemistry 

of the Slave River Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada. In: M. Stone (editor), The Role 

of Erosion and Sediment Transport in Nutrient and Contaminant Transfer. Proceedings 

of a symposium, Waterloo, ON. IAHS Publ. 263. pp. 203-209. 

Mill, T. A., P. Sparrow-Clark, and R. S. Brown. 1997. Fish distribution, movement and gross 

external pathology information for the Peace, Athabasca, and Slave River Basins. 

Northern River Basins Study, Edmonton. Report 147. 

Morgenstern, N. 2001. Geotechnics and mine waste management – update. Seminar on Safe 

Tailings Dam Constructions. Swedish Mining Association and the European 

Commission, Director-General Environment. Gällivare, Sweden, 20-21 September 2001. 

Technical Papers, pp. 54-67. 

MRBB (Mackenzie River Basin Board). 2004. State of the Aquatic Ecosystem Report 2003. 

Mackenzie River Basin Board Secretariat, Ft. Smith, NT. 

Murphy, S. M., J. M. Neff, T. J. Mabee, and J. S. Brown. 2003. Hydrocarbon ingestion by 

black oystercatchers 12 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Society of Environmental 

Toxicologists, Annual Meeting. 5_3_murphy_oystercatcher.pdf. 

Myers, M. S., L. L. Johnson, and T. K. Collier. 2003. Establishing the causal relationship between 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) exposure and hepatic neoplasms and neoplasiarelated 

liver lesions in English Sole (Pleuronectes vetulus). Human and Ecological Risk 

Assessment 9(1): 67-94. 

NRBS (Northern River Basins Study). 1999. Northern River Basins Human Health 

Monitoring Program. Health Surveillance, Alberta Health. Edmonton, AB. 

Oil Spill News. Undated. Pipeline spills 1 million litres of light crude oil into the Pine River, 

British Columbia, Canada. www.oil-spill-web.com/news/latest.htm. 

OMEE (Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy). 1997. Scientific Criteria Document for 

Multimedia Standards Development. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH). Part I: 

Hazard Identification and Dose-Response Assessment. (Report authors: P. Muller, 

B. Leece, and D. Raha.) Toronto, ON. 

78

Page, D. S., P. D. Boehm, G. C. Douglas, and A. E. Bence. 1993. Identification of 

hydrocarbon sources in the benthic sediments of Prince William Sound and 

the Gulf of Alaska following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. In: P. G. Wells, 

J. N Butler, and J. S. Hughes (editors), Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and 

Effects in Alaskan Waters. Third Symposium on Environmental Toxicology 

and Risk Assessment, Atlanta, GA, 26-28 April 1993. pp. 41-83. 

Parrott, J. L., P. V. Hodson, D. E. Tillitt, D. T. Bennie, and M. E. Comba. 1996. 

Accumulation of fish mixed function oxygenase inducers by semipermeable 

membrane devices in river water and effluents, Athabasca River, August and 

September, 1994. Northern River Basins Study Project Report No. 83, 

Northern River Basins Study, Edmonton, Alberta. 

Peterson, D. A. and G. K. Boughton. 2000. Organic Compounds and Trace Elements 

in Fish Tissue and Bed Sediment from Streams in the Yellowstone River Basin, 

Montana and Wyoming, 1998. Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4190, 

National Water-Quality Assessment Program, US Geological Survey. 

wri004190.pdf. 

RAMP (Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program). 2001. Oil Sands Regional Aquatics 

Monitoring Program (RAMP) 2000, Volume I: Chemical and Biological Monitoring. 

Golder Associates, submitted to RAMP Steering Committee. 2000_RAMP_Vol_1.pdf. 

from www.ramp-alberta.org. 

RAMP (Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program). 2006. Regional Aquatics Monitoring 

Program, 2005 Technical Report, Final. Prepared for the RAMP Steering Committee 

by the RAMP 2005 Implementation Team. April 2006. Ramp2005_Final_Technical 

Report_Main.zip, from www.ramp-alberta.org. 

RAMP (Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program). 2007. Regional Aquatics Monitoring 

Program, 2006 Technical Report, Final. Prepared for the RAMP Steering Committee 

by the RAMP 2006 Implementation Team. April 2007. Ramp2006_Final_Technical 

Report_Main.zip, and Ramp2006_Final_TechnicalReport_Appendices.zip from 

www.ramp-alberta.org. 

RMWB (Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo). 2006. Municipal Census 2006. Regional 

Municipality of Wood Buffalo, Fort McMurray, AB. 2006_census.pdf. 

Rogers, V. V., M. Wickstrom, K. Liber, and M. D. MacKinnon. 2002. Acute and 

subchronic mammalian toxicity of naphthenic acids from oil sands tailings. 

Toxicological Sciences 66: 347-355. http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/ 

content/full/66/2/347. 

Saskatchewan Govt. 2004. Saskatchewan makes recommendations on former uranium sites. 

News release, Northern Affairs #04-033. http://www.gov.sk.ca/newsrel/releases/2004/ 

02/04-033.html. 

Saskatchewan Legislature. 1986. Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly Hansard. 

www.legassembly.sk.ca/hansard/20L5S/86-05-15.PDF. 

79

SE (Saskatchewan Environment). 2006. Athabasca Land Use Plan, 5.0 Appendices. 

Saskatchewan Environment. http://www.se.gov.sk.ca/ecosystem/land%20use/ 

Athabasca/. 

Shell Canada. 2006. Albian Sands Energy Inc., Muskeg River Mine Expansion 

Project. Responses to Alberta Environment request for clarification of 

supplemental information provided. EPEA Application No. 004-20809. 

April 2006. MK-PRO-0026.pdf. 

Sherry, J., J. Parrott, C. Tinson, M. Colavecchia, and M. Baker. 2006. Measurement 

of vitellogenin like protein in feral Catostomus catostomus from upstream 

and downstream of oil sands operations on the Athabasca River. Poster 345, 

27 th Annual Meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

North America, 5-9 November 2006, Montréal, PQ. 

Shewchuk, P. G. 1968. Investigation of oil spill in Athabasca River, March, 1968. Alberta 

Environment, Edmonton, AB. 

Sierra Club. 2001. TOXICanada: 13 good reasons to establish a clean Canada fund. 

A report by MiningWatch and the Sierra Club of Canada. http://sierraclub.ca/ 

national/postings/toxicanada-july-2001.pdf. 

Stone, M., and I. G. Droppo. 1996. Distribution of lead, copper, and zinc in size-fractionated 

river bed sediment in two agricultural catchments of southern Ontario, Canada. 

Environmental Pollution 93(3): 353-362. 

Struzik, E. 1982a. Suncor lawyer challenges his client’s records. The Edmonton Journal, 

19 October 1982. 

Struzik, E. 1982b. Possible impact of Suncor spills cited. The Edmonton Journal, 

23 October 1982. 

Suncor. 2005. Voyageur Project. Project Application and Environmental Impact Assessment and 

Environmental Setting Reports. Volume 3. Air Quality, Noise and Environmental Health. 

Distributed on cd by Suncor Energy Ltd. Relevant to cancer risk from arsenic exposure, 

see Appendix 1: Summary tables of exposure ratios for multi-media risk assessment. 

Appendix 1.pdf provided via email from Suncor Energy Ltd., Fort McMurray, AB. 

Tetreault, G. R., M. E. McMaster, D. G. Dixon, and J. L. Parrott. 2003a. Using reproductive 

endpoints in small forage fish species to evaluate the effects of Athabasca oil sands 

activities. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 11:2775-2782. 

Tetreault, G. R., M. E. McMaster, D. G. Dixon, and J. L. Parrott. 2003b. Physiological and 

biochemical responses of Ontario slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) to sediment from the 

Athabasca oil sands area. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada 38:361-377. 

Timoney, K. 2006. An Ecosystem Model and Measures to Assess the Ecological Integrity 

of the Peace-Athabasca Delta. Parks Canada, report. Ft. Smith, NT. 

Timoney, K. 2007. Brief Analysis of Cancer Statistics for Fort Chipewyan, Alberta. 

Prepared in the public interest. Treeline Ecological Research, Sherwood Park, AB. 

80

Treasury Board of Canada. 2005. Site 15808001 – Fort Chipewyan. Federal Contaminated Sites 

Inventory. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fcsi-rscf/site.aspx?Language=EN&sid= 

wu112153524180&qid=47&OrderKey=0. 

Ullrich, S. M., T. W. Tanton, and S. A. Abdrashitova. 2001. Mercury in the aquatic 

environment: a review of factors affecting methylation. Critical Reviews 

in Environmental Science and Technology 31(3): 241-293. 

US EPA. 1993. Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Environmental Criteria 

and Assessment Office. EPA/600/R-93/089. Washington, DC. 

US EPA. 2001. Mercury Update: Impact on Fish Advisories. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ 

fishadvice/mercupd.pdf. 

US EPA. 2003. EPA’s Draft Report on the Environment, Technical Document. 

http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/pdf/tdEco5-7.pdf. 

Whitman, R. L., M. B. Nevers, and M. N. Byappanahalli. 2006. Examination of the 

watershed-wide distribution of Escherichia coli along southern Lake Michigan: an 

integrated approach. Applied Environmental Microbiology 72(11): 7301–7310. 

Wisconsin DNR (Dept. of Natural Resources). Consensus-based Sediment Quality Guidelines. 

Recommendations for Use & Application Interim Guidance. December 2003, WT-732 

2003. cbsqg_interim_final.pdf 

WUO (Wise-Uranium.Org). 2005. Beaverlodge mine decommissioning (Saskatchewan). CNSC 

issues waste facility operating licence for Beaverlodge mine and mill in spite of concern 

on observed environmental impacts. http://www.wise-uranium.org/udcdn.html. 

81

Appendix 1. Laboratory analytical methods. 

Arsenic concentrations in water and sediment were determined by EPA 3015 

(preparation) and EPA 6020 (analysis). 

Mercury. The methylmercury analyses in water and soil employed cold vapor atomic 

fluorescence (EPA 1630). 

The total mercury in sediment analyses used the ICP-MS method (EPA 6020). 

The total mercury in water analyses, done by Flett Research Ltd., used the 

“Oxidation, Purge and Trap, and CVAFS (T00120 version 4) method. “Detection Limit: 

MDL = 0.04 ng Hg/L (based on 7 replicates of analytical blanks (99% confidence level)). 

The ML of 0.5 ng/L, as stated in Method 1631e, has been adopted for our laboratory to 

reflect occasional elevated bottle blanks (< 0.5 ng/L) observed in reused acid-cleaned 

Teflon bottles. Estimated Uncertainty: The estimated uncertainty of this method has 

preliminarily been determined to be ± 14.7 % @ 95 % confidence at a concentration level 

of 0.2 - 50 ng/L.” 

PAH concentrations in water were determined by EPA 3510 (preparation) and analyzed 

by GCMS (gas chromatographic mass spectrometric, EPA 3510/8270-GC/MS). 

PAH concentrations in sediment were determined by EPA 3540/8270-GC/MS. 

Dioxin and furan concentrations in water and sediment were determined by EPA 1613 

Revision B. 

Naphthenic acid concentration in water and sediment was determined by FTIR, 

Syncrude, 1994. 

Total nitrogen concentration in water was determined by APHA 4500N-C –Dig.-Autocolorimetry. 

Total nitrogen in sediment was determined by combustion, SSSA (1996), 

pp. 973-974. Total nitrate-nitrite in water was determined by APHA 4500 NO3-H - 

Colorimetry. Total nitrate-nitrite in sediment was not requested. 

Total coliform counts in water were determined by APHA 9222B MF. Fecal coliform 

counts in water were determined by APHA 9222D MF. Total and fecal coliform counts 

in sediment were determined by HPB MFHPB-19; MFO-14. 

For sediment, concentrations were corrected for percent moisture. Moisture was 

determined by the oven dry 105C-Gravimetric method. 

82

A Study Of Water And Sediment Quality As - TO THE TAR SANDS .ca

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?