Thunder bay rap update report 2012

UPDATE THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN < I

REMEDIAL ACTION PLANSN O RT H S H O R E O F L A K E S U P E R I O R






thunder bayr e m e d i a l a c t i o n p l a n U P DAT E 2009 - 2012

I > THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN UPDATE

UPDATE THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN < I I

M E S S AG E F R O M T H E CO O R D I N ATO R

On behalf of those involved with the Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan, I am pleased to provide you with a copy of the 2009 to 2012 program update. We have made great progress over the last four years and I am happy to report that science and monitoring information is beginning to reveal signs of ecosystem recovery. Our progress-to-date and the major environmental improvements to the Thunder Bay harbour can be attributed to all the hard work from our community volunteers and public service representatives. It is truly an achievement to implement such a large-scale collaborative program.

I would like to personally thank all of the people who have dedicated their lives and careers to helping improve the environmental health of this area. I would also like to acknowledge the financial support of the Canada Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem and the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund. We are grateful for the continued commitment from both our federal and provincial governments.

The intent of this report is to provide a summary of our progress to a wider community audience. My hope is that the document reflects the integrated and collaborative nature of the RAP.

Sincerely,

aaron a. nicholSon

remedial action plan coordinator

thunder bay area of concern

Phot

o by

Zac

k Kr

uzin

s

I I I > THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN UPDATE

R E M E D I A L AC T I O N P L A N P R O G R A M M E M B E R S

T H U N D E R B AY P U B L I C A D V I S O R Y CO M M I T T E E

Gordon Van FleetConfederation College

Guy JarvisThunder Bay Port Authority

Heidi StroblGeneral Public

Ian DewGeneral Public

Jane ToddOntario Power Generation

Jean Hall-Armstrong (Co-Chair)Thunder Bay Field Naturalists

Matt RoyGeneral Public

Samuel PeggGeneral Public

Ashleigh NicholsonResolute Forest Products

Bruce PritchardLake Superior Discovery Place

Carl TaylorERCO Worldwide

Chris WaltonGeneral Public

David SpackmanGeneral Public

Duncan HutchisonGeneral Public

Frank Edgson (Co-Chair)Northshore Steelhead Association

Gerry HeinrichsRichardson International

T H U N D E R B AY R A P I M P L E M E N TAT I O N CO M M I T T E E

Aaron NicholsonRAP Coordinator

Abby MackieThunder Bay District Health Unit

Davis ViehbeckMinistry of Natural Resources

Ellen Mortfield EcoSuperior Environmental Programs

Jim VukmanichCity of Thunder Bay

Kate TaillonEnvironment Canada

Kerri MarshallCity of Thunder Bay

Marilee Chase Ministry of Natural Resources

Michelle McChristieMinistry of the Environment

Neville WardDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans

Paul FayrickCity of Thunder Bay

Robert StewartLakehead University

Tammy CookLakehead Region Conservation Authority

Troy SampsonThunder Bay District Health Unit

Werner SchwarCity of Thunder Bay

UPDATE THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN < I V

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

In July of 2009, government agencies involved with the Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan (RAP) approached faculty members at Lakehead University to assist with implementation of the program. This new relationship resulted in the creation of a full-time RAP Coordinator position housed out of Lakehead University. The primary focus of the RAP Coordinator was to facilitate public involve-ment and coordinate of the RAP Implementation Committee. The purpose of this report is to summarize the progress made since the beginning of this position and to illustrate the future direction of the Thunder Bay RAP.

The Thunder Bay Area of Concern is one of 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) identified by the governments of Canada and

the United States under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA, 1978). These areas are locations where environmental

quality is significantly degraded and Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) have been implemented to guide restoration efforts and ecosys-

tem recovery. The Thunder Bay AOC has experienced ecosystem impairments as a result of waterfront development, industrial and

municipal wastewater discharge, and the hydroelectric development of urban tributaries. The Thunder Bay RAP has completed both

Stage 1 (Definition of Problem) and Stage 2 (Remedial Strategies) as outlined by the 1987 amendments to the Great Lakes Water

Quality Agreement.

Since the early 1990’s, the Thunder Bay RAP has contributed significantly to improving the environmental health of Thunder Bay and its sur-

rounding watershed. Nearly $100M has been spent on wastewater infrastructure upgrades, over $22M on aquatic habitat enhancement, and

$68M on wastewater treatment technology. Science and monitoring information is showing that the Thunder Bay Area of Concern is begin-

ning to recover from its industrial legacy. Although there has been much progress towards restoring beneficial uses, many issues still remain.

Agencies and public representatives involved with the RAP program have been working over the last four years (2009-2012) to successfully

complete remedial actions and identify any remaining issues that require resolution before delisting could occur. Major remaining remedial

actions include the development of a management plan for contaminated sediments at the North Harbour site, implementation of manage-

ment plans to remediate non-point sources of pollution, management of bacterial sources at recreational swimming areas, and improvement

of access to historical spawning grounds for native fish populations. In collaboration with partner agencies and community members those

invoved with the RAP program will work towards implementing the identified remaining remedial actions and finalizing an updated status of

ecosystem health.

Phot

o by

Zac

k Kr

uzin

s

MESSAGE FROM THE COORDINATOR... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I RAP PROGRAM MEMBERS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV 1.0 INTRODUC TION .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.1 Thunder Bay Area of Concern................................................................................................. ..11.2 Status of Environmental Impairments ................................................................................ ..21.3 Completed Remedial Projects......................................................................31.4 Community Involvement...............................................................................51.5 Delisting Criteria...........................................................................................5

2.0 SCIENCE & MONITORING .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.1 Fish Health ....................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Dynamics of Fish Populations ................................................................................. 6 2.1.2 Loss of Fish Habitat.........................................................................9 2.1.3 Fish Consumption Restrictions .............................................................................11 2.1.4 Body Burdens of Fish ................................................................................................11 2.1.5 Fish Tumours and Other Deformities .................................................................122.2 Sediment Contamination ........................................................................................................13 2.2.1 Degradation of Benthos ..........................................................................................13 2.2.2 Restrictions on Dredging...............................................................172.3 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................17 2.3.1 Beach Advisories ........................................................................................................17 2.3.2 Degradation of Phytoplankton & Zooplankton..............................................19 2.3.3 Degradation of Aesthetics .....................................................................................192.4 Wildlife. 20 2.4.1 Dynamics of Wildlife Populations ........................................................................20 2.4.2 Loss of Wildlife Habitat ............................................................................................21 2.4.3 Contaminant Levels in Wildlife .............................................................................22

2.5 Science & Monitoring Summary. ...........................................................................................23

3.0 REMAINING REMEDIAL AC TIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253.1 Contaminated Sediment at North Harbour Site........................................253.2 Remaining Non-Point Sources of Contaminants........................................253.3 Beach Advisories - Chippewa Beach & Boulevard Lake............................253.4 Recovery of Native Fish Species................................................................26

4.0 CONCLUSIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264.1 Future Direction.........................................................................................26

5.0 REFERENCES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .276.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

t a b l e o f c o n t e n t S

UPDATE THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN < V I

L IST OF TABLES

1.0 Summary of Environmental Issues....................................................................21.1 Delisting Criteria - Fish Populations.................................................................61.2 Number of MNR FCIN net sets in Thunder Bay (2009-2011)...........................71.3 Current River walleye spawning population estimates....................................91.4 Delisting Criteria - Fish Habitat.......................................................................101.5 Delisting Criteria - Fish Consumption.............................................................111.6 Delisting Criteria - Fish Body Burdens............................................................111.7 Delisting Criteria - FishTumours......................................................................121.8 Delisting Criteria - Benthos.............................................................................131.9 Common Sediment Management Options.....................................................142.0 Delisting Criteria - Beach Advisories...............................................................182.1 Delisting Criteria - Aesthetics..........................................................................202.2 Delisting Criteria - Wildlife Population............................................................202.3 Delisting Criteria - Wildlife Habitat..................................................................212.4 Delisting Criteria - Contaminant Levels in Wildlife..........................................222.5 Science & Monitoring Actions.........................................................................23

LIST OF FIGURES

1.0 Thunder Bay Area of Concern..........................................................................11.1 Delisting Criteria Review Process.....................................................................51.2 Day larvae were captured drifting downstream (2004-2011)...........................8

1 > THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN UPDATE

1 .0 I N T R O D U C T I O N

In July of 2009, government agencies involved with the Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan (RAP) approached faculty members at Lakehead University to assist with implementation of the program. This new relationship resulted in the creation of a full-time RAP Coordinator position housed out of Lakehead University. The primary focus of the RAP Coordinator was to facilitate public involvement and coordination of the RAP Implementation Committee. The purpose of this report is to summarize the progress made since the beginning of this position, and to illustrate the future direction of the Thunder Bay RAP.

1 .1 T H U N D E R B AY A R E A O F CO N C E R N

The Thunder Bay Area of Concern is one of 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) identified by the governments of Canada and the United States under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA, 1978). These areas are locations where environmental quality is significantly degraded, so as to affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin, requiring Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) to guide restoration efforts and ecosystem recovery.These RAPs guide restoration and protection through three stages: STAGE 1 Identify environmental problems and sources of pollution.

STAGE 2 Evaluate and carry out actions to restore the area.

STAGE 3 Confirm that these actions have been effective and that the environment has been restored.

The Thunder Bay Area of Concern has experienced ecosystem impairments as a result of urbanization along the waterfront, industrial and mu-nicipal wastewater discharge, and the hydroelectric development of its urban tributaries. Thunder Bay is a heavely industrialized city, including significant developments from the pulp and paper industry. Thunder Bay is located in Northwestern Lake Superior and is one of four contami-nated sites identified along the Canadian North Shore. The boundaries of the AOC extend 28 km along the shoreline and 9 km off shore, includ-ing the Welcome Islands. There are five major tributaries that drain into Lake Superior within these boundaries, including the Kaministiquia, Neebing, McIntyre, and Current Rivers and McVicar Creek.

figure

1. 0

UPDATE THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN < 2

Summary of environmental iSSueS

Environmental Issue 1991 Status

(Stage 1)

2004 Status

(Stage 2)

2011 Status

(Update)

Impairments to Fish Health

Dynamics of Fish Populations I I I

Loss of Fish Habitat I I I

Fish Consumption Restrictions I I RFA

Fish Tumours & Other Deformities I I RFA

Impairments to Sediment Quality

Degradation of Benthos I I I

Restrictions on Navigational Dredging I I *NI

Impairments to Water Quality

Restrictions on Drinking Water Consumption or taste and odour problems

NI NI NI

Excess nutrients and/or undesirable algae NI NI NI

Added cost to agriculture and industry NI NI NI

Beach Advisories I I I

Degradation of Zooplankton & Phytoplank-ton

I I RFA

Degradation of Aesthetics I I I

Impairments to Wildlife

Wildlife Consumption Restrictions NI NI NI

Bird and Animal Deformities or Reproductive problems

RFA NI RFA

Loss of Wildlife Habitat I I I

Dynamics of Wildife Populations I I I

I = Impaired, NI = Not Impaired/No Longer Impaired, RFA = Requires Further Assessment, Asterisk* = Proposed Designiation

table

1.0

1.2 S TAT U S O F E N V I R O N M E N TA L I M PA I R M E N T S

Stage 1 (Definition of Problem) and Stage 2 (Remedial Strategies) of the Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan (RAP) have been com-pleted as outlined by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 and its 1987 amendments. Since the early 1990’s, the Thunder Bay RAP has contributed significantly to improving the environmental health of Thunder Bay and the surrounding watersheds. Nearly $100M has been spent on wastewater infrastructure upgrades, over $22M on aquatic habitat enhancement, and $68M on wastewater treatment technology. Since completetion of the Stage 2 report, agencies and public representatives involved with the RAP have been working to review remedial success and identify any remaining issues that require resolution before delisting could occur. The follow-ing table (1.0) provides a summary of past and current environmental issues for the Thunder Bay AOC.


1.3 completed remedial projectS

total coStS: approx. $165.6 million

*refer to Stage 2 rap report for detail

Remedial Project (*Stage 2 Ref.#) Project Costs

1 Secondary Treatment at the Resolute Pulp and Paper Mill (*PS-1)Proponent: Resolute Forest Products Inc. (formerly Bowater)

Approximately $68 million.

2 Secondary Treatment at Abitibi - Consolidated (*PS-4)Proponent: Abitibi - Consolidated

Not Available

3 Redesign Waterfront Park to Protect and Enhance Shoreline of the Kaministiquia River (*FWH-4)Proponent: Lake Superior Programs Office, Environment Canada (EC)

Estimated $1.5 million.

4 Redirect Stormwater Outlet and Oil Separator Discharge at CPR (*PS-5)Proponent: Canadian Pacific Railway

Not Available

5 Improvements at Chippewa Park (*PS-3)Proponent: City of Thunder Bay

Approx. $750,000

6Developments at Ontario Power Generation - Thunder Bay Generating Station (*PS-3)Proponent: Ontario Power Generation (OPG)

Not Available

7Creation of Embayments in the McKellar River to Restore Productive Littoral Habitat (*FWH-5)Proponent: EC, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), Ministry of the Environment (MOE), Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)

Construction: $607,800.

8Upgrades at Thunder Bay Terminals (*PS-2)Proponent: Thunder Bay Terminals

Not Available

1

65

3

2

87

4

Lake Superior


Remedial Project (*Stage 2 Ref. #) Project Costs

9 Alteration of Shoreline to Restore Habitat Diversity at the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway (*FWH-2)Proponent: EC, MNR, MOE, and DFO

$109,889 for construction.

10Secondary Treatment at Water Pollution Control Plant (*PS-6)Proponent: City of Thunder Bay, EC, MOE, and Infrastucture Canada (IC)

$73.6M for upgrade to secondary

11 Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept (NOWPARC) Project (*NPS-1)Proponent: Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., Canadian National Railway Co., Northern Sawmills Inc., MOE, and EC

Approximately $20 million.

12Island Creation and Habitat Rehabilitation at the Mouth of McVicar Creek (*FWH-3)Proponent: EC, MNR, MOE, and DFO

Phase I: $215,000. Phase II: $380,000.

13 Rehabilitation of Degraded Walleye Spawning Habitat at the Current River Estuary (*FWH-1)Proponent: EC, MNR, MOE, and DFO

$37,500 for construction.

14Improving Salmonid Access to the Upper Reaches of the Current River (*FWH-6) Proponent: DFO, LRCA, MNR, North Shore Steelhead Association (NSSA)

Fish ladder $344,000. Pools: $62,500.

15 Process Improvements at Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc. (*PS-8)Proponent: Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc.

Not Available

9

1413

12

1110

15

N


1 .4 CO M M U N I T Y I N V O LV E M E N T

Following a six-year hiatus after the completion of the Thunder Bay Stage 2 Report, the Thunder Bay Public Advisory Committee (PAC) was re-established in September of 2009. Over the next four years, the PAC focused their attention on implementing remedial actions, science and monitoring information, and providing recommendations on future direction of the program.

The PAC is made up of individuals from various community and environmental organizations, industry stakeholders, public and com-munity members. Since the PAC was re-established, the committee has organized into five subcommittees to more systematically address the remaining BUIs. Each of these subcommittees has focused on reviewing the remedial actions and monitoring needs outlined in the Stage 2 RAP report. Updates on the status and success of these remedial actions were presented to the PAC during monthly meetings held between 2009 and 2012. The resulting recommendations made by the PAC have outlined a community-sup-ported direction for the Thunder Bay RAP program. These recommendations have been integrated into the remedial action planning process and are reflected in the monitoring and science decisions outlined in this document. 1 .5 D E L I S T I N G C R I T E R I A

Delisting criteria are a collection of environmental targets that allow scientists to evaluate remedial success as it relates to individual beneficial use impairments (BUIs). Many of these criteria use the principle of comparison, such as a regulation or guideline, a locally derived risk-based target, or an appropriate reference site outside the AOC. It is the RAP Implementation Committee’s responsibility to ensure the adopted delisting criteria are representative of the original reason for impairment, reflect impact from local sources, and allow for a measurable and achievable endpoint. An important principle identified for delisting an AOC is that it is no longer more degraded than the surrounding or a comparable area (e.g. lakewide conditions) in the Great Lakes basin.

When developing restoration targets for the Thunder Bay AOC a delisting criteria review process was used to ensure that adopted criteria were not only scientifically defensible but were also supported and endorsed by local community members. Members of the RAP Implementation Committee prepared draft delisting criteria for review and comment by the RAPIC and PAC. (figure 1.1). If agree-able, the criteria were adopted as restoration targets for the program. Criteria that are not yet endorsed by all parties are identified in the document as “proposed”.

bui lead agency

rap implementation committee

public adviSory committee

rap implementation committee

Produces draft delisting criteria

Reviews draft criteria (endorse/revise)

Reviews draft criteria (endorse/revise)

Finalize criteria for distribution

figure

1.1

Phot

o by

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity


2 .0 S C I E N C E & M O N I TO R I N G

Research and monitoring is an important component of the RAP process for understanding and measuring the success of restoration efforts. Government agencies and partner organizations involved with the RAP program are working towards filling information gaps to better understand the status and recovery of ecosystem impairments within the Thunder Bay Area of Concern. Relevant research and a brief synopsis of research results are provided in the following section. Sections are organized according to RAP working groups including; fish health, sediment quality, water quality, and wildlife. Each science and monitoring action has been given a RAP identification number. These numbers are used to organize and track the recovery of each BUI. Identification numbers have three components; action type, applicable BUI, and reference number. The action type for each project listed is either SM (Science & Monitoring)or RA (Remedial Action). Applicable BUIs include, FWP (Dynamics of Fish & Wildlife Populations), FWH (Loss of Fish & Wildlife Habitat), FCR (Fish Consumption Restrictions), FBB (Fish Body Burdens), FTD (Fish Tumours and other Deformities), DB (Degradation of Benthos), BA (Beach Advisories), PZP (Degrada-tion of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Populations), DA (Degradation of Aesthetics), and CLW (Contaminant Levels in Wildlife). Due to the overwhelming need for general monitoring actions, which are not focused specifically on measuring the success of any single remedial action, identification codes for ecosystem monitoring have been altered from those used in the stage 2 report to reflect target BUIs.

2 .1 F I S H H E A LT H

The degradation of fish habitat in the Thunder Bay AOC is a result of urbanization, industrial growth, waterfront development, dredging, channelization and pollution from municipal and industrial effluent. These impacts on the quality and quantity of fish habitat have in turn negatively affected fish populations resulting in the reduction of species diversity and abundance. The projects described below represent ongoing efforts to monitor and remediate these ecosystem impairments.

table

1.1deliSting criteria - degradation of fiSh populationS

Fish populations will no longer be impaired when the fish community within the AOC has the following characteristics,as observed by the MNR Fish Community Index Netting (FCIN) program. The fish community within the ThunderBay AOC should be similar to nearshore (0–80 m deep) fish communities adjacent to the AOC for a minimum of threeconsecutive years, as measured by the relative abundance (Catch Per Unit Effort) and species composition of the fishcommunity. Also, the nearshore fish community should be dominated by self-sustaining populations of native speciesshowing the following characteristics:

*Lake Trout • Themeanageoflaketroutisgreaterthaneightyears.• Thelengthatageofseven-yearoldlaketroutcaughtintheFCINorharvestedbythecommercialfisheryisstable and greater than 430 mm. • TheFCINand/orcommercialcatchisdominatedbymaturefishandmanyageclasses.

*Lake Whitefish • Populationcapableofsupportingacommercialfisherywithsustainableyieldsthatdonotexceed0.51kg/ha/yr (Busiahn 1990)• Maximumtotalannualmortalitydoesnotexceed60-65%.• Averageageinthecatchshouldbetwoyearsolderthantheageatwhich50%ofthepopulationmatures.

*Lake Sturgeon, Walleye and Brook Trout

The overall understanding of the population dynamics of these native species within Thunder Bay is limited, thereforeit is difficult to establish population criteria. Efforts are currently underway to better understand these species andtheir habitat use within Thunder Bay and its tributaries. As a result, criteria that reflect lake sturgeon, walleye, andbrook trout populations are covered under the loss of habitat delisting criteria.

2.1.1 Dynamics of Fish Populations

dynamicS of fiSh populationS waS initially liSted aS impaired due to organic enrichment, decreaSed diSSolved oxygen levelS, increaSed water temperatureS reSulting in periodic fiSh killS on the kaminiStiquia river, and a change in fiSh community Structure above and be-low the bowater outfall (vander wal et al. 2004). the lower kaminiStiquia river haS undergone Significant changeS in the paSt 20 yearS aS a reSult of a combination of Strict environmental regulationS limiting effluent diSchargeS, ceaSing river log driveS, and reducing Shipping traffic, which haS reduced the need for dredging. Since dynamicS of fiSh populationS waS originally deSignated aS impaired, the Strategy for aSSeSSing and managing thiS bui haS changed. current focuS haS expanded beyond Specific impairmentS relating to

kaminiStiquia river fiSh migration, to underStanding aoc-wide fiSh community Structure.


Action (SM-FWP-1): Fish Community Index Netting Program Status: Ongoing Monitoring Initiative (Completed – 2009 to 2012)Proponent: Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management Unit) with support from Environment CanadaCost: $16,000/year

In 2009, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Upper Great Lakes Management Unit (UGLMU) established the Fish Com-

munity Index Netting (FCIN) program on Lake Superior. This program provides independent fisheries trend-through-time information

on the fish community, with particular emphasis on lake trout and lake whitefish, both of which are commercially important species.

The FCIN program reflects the shift from a single species approach to an ecosystem-based fish community approach.

The FCIN program also serves as a monitoring tool to track the dynamics of fish populations and their recovery within the Thunder

Bay Area of Concern. Since 2009, 80 sites have been sampled within Thunder Bay, 31 of which have been within the AOC (Table 1.2).

Action (SM-FWP-2): Kaministiquia River Walleye Radio Telemetry ProjectStatus: Ongoing Monitoring Initiative (Com-pleted – 2009 to 2012)Proponent: Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management Unit) with support from Environment CanadaCost: $120,000 over three years

This is a multi-year project initiated in 2009

to document the seasonal distribution and

movement patterns of adult walleye within

the Kaministiquia River using radio telemetry.

This will help identify critical habitats and

migration routes within the river and also help

demonstrate whether water quality barriers to

fish migration exist. Milestones for this project

include:

• 2010-11: Implanted radio transmitters

into 23 adult walleye; transmitters have a life of

at least 543 days.

• 2011-12: Installed five shoreline-based data loggers in order to scan tag frequencies via two antennas at each station; monitored

individual walleye movements and spawning migration patterns by downloading data loggers weekly and tracking by boat and

on land via hand held antenna and receiver daily during the walleye staging and spawning period.

• 2012-13: Continue tracking walleye throughout the 2012 field season and maintain data collection until the tags expire (spring to

summer) and prepare final report (winter).

Phot

o by

Min

istr

y of

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es

Number of MNR FCIN Net sets in Thunder Bay (2009 - 2011).

YEAR Inside AOC Outside AOC TOTAL

2009 8 16 24

2010 14 18 32

2011 9 15 24

table

1.2

The FCIN uses a stratified random sampling design that ensures sampling coverage based on the surface area across four prede-termined depth strata: 0-30 m, 30-60 m, 60-90 m and >90 m. The FCIN consists of overnight sets using graded-mesh monofilament gillnets 1000 ft in length, set perpendicular to the depth contour to maximize catch and reduce the variability between catches. These nets catch a wide variety of sizes, ages, and species of fish. All fish caught were counted and recorded. Biological information was col-

lected from the catch and included length (mm), round weight (g), age, sex, and maturity.


Action (SM-FWP-3): Kaministiquia River Lake Sturgeon StudyStatus: Ongoing Monitoring Initiative (2004 - 2011)Proponent: Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management Unit & Northwest Science and Information)Cost: $33,000/year

During the Kaministiquia River Water Management Planning process, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) identified two issues concerning water management practices at Kakabeka Falls. The first was access of adult sturgeon to their historical spawning site at the base of Kakabeka Falls; the second was stranding of adults between the falls and the generating station.

In 2003, the Water Management Plan Steering Committee established a Research and Data Gathering Agreement to study sturgeon movements (ac-cess) and spawning success under different spill flows in order to determine suitable flow conditions for reproduction (access, egg deposition, incuba-tion, hatch, and larval drift). Studies have been conducted annually from 2004 to 2011.

From 2004 to 2006, flow over Kakabeka Falls was provided to allow sturgeon access to the spawning site at the base of Kakabeka Falls. Studies conducted in each of these years indicated that adult sturgeon reached the spawning site and spawned successfully during flows of 23 m3∙s-1 and 17 m3∙s-1. In 2007 lake stur-geon movements and reproduction during scenic flows were examined and it was found that sturgeon spawned upstream and downstream of the generating station. In 2008 and 2009, an attempt was made to examine another flow condi-tion (14 m3∙s-1) to determine if migration to the base of the falls and successful spawning would occur. Due to high water conditions, however, spill flow could not be controlled at 14 m3∙s-1 during these years. In 2010, lake sturgeon spawning migrations and reproductive success were examined during controlled flows of 14 m3∙s-1, and it was found that sturgeon spawned upstream and downstream of the generating station. Adult sturgeon reached the spawning site below the falls and spawned successfully during mean daily spill flows of 14.6 m3∙s-1 and 16.6 m3∙s-1.

The period when larvae drift downstream from the spawning site is variable, depending on spawning times and water temperature during incubation. Larvae was documented drifting downstream from the spawning site from May 31 to July 20 (figure 1.2) during flows that ranged from 14.7 to 177 m3∙s-1.

In 2011, another attempt was made to examine lake sturgeon spawning migrations and reproductive success during controlled spill flows of 14 m3∙s-1. Spill was provided from May 15 to June 26, with a 4 day taper to scenic flows. Only two of the 25 sturgeon ra-dio tagged in 2011 migrated to Kakabeka Falls. These fish arrived at Kakabeka on May 15 (14.7°C) and May 18 (14.8°C) during total river flows that ranged from 32 to 58 m3∙s-1. One sturgeon accessed the base of the falls during controlled spill of 14.7 m3∙s-1 and migrated back downstream during controlled spill of 16.3 m3∙s-1. The other sturgeon accessed the base of the falls during controlled spill of 14.8 m3∙s-1 and migrated back downstream during controlled spill of 14.5 m3∙s-1.

Days during which larvae were captured drifting downstream from Kakabeka Falls, 2004 to 2011.

Phot

o by

Min

istr

y of

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es

figure

1.2


Lake sturgeon are listed as “threatened” under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act 2007. As a result of this listing, lake sturgeon andtheir habitats receive special protection. It is unlawful to kill, harm, or harass the species or damage or destroy habitat, which the sp-cies depends on to carry out its life processes (i.e. spawning habitat). MNR and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) will be reviewing the results of this eight-year study, and will use the information to improve spawning conditions for lake sturgeon at Kakabeka Falls.

Action (SM-FWP-4): Current River Walleye Assessment Status: Ongoing Monitoring Initiative (Completed – 1991 to 1993, 2010 to 2012)Proponent: Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management Unit)Cost: $10,000/year

the mouth of current river iS a known hiStorical Spawning Site for walleye within the thunder bay harbour. in 1984, however, the conStruction of the federal dockS contributed to a loSS of Spawning habitat due to navigational dredging. further degradation haS occurred due to railway and Shipping-related development. aS compenSation for habitat loSS, artificial Spawning habitat waS inStalled at a nearby location at the mouth of the current river in 1991 (geiling 1995).

the thunder bay remedial action plan (rap) includeS preScribed monitoring actionS to “fill baSeline information gapS wherever poSSible and track progreSS on re-Storing the fiSh and wildlife beneficial uSeS” (vander wal et al. 2004, pg.51). for thiS reaSon the Spawning population of walleye at the mouth of the current river haS been periodically aSSeSSed, uSing a mark-recapture protocol, initially in 1991-1993 by the mnr lake Superior programS office (lSpo) (geiling et al. 1996), with a follow-up Study in 1999-2000 by the mnr upper great lakeS management unit (Schmidt and friday 2000). the current Study (2010-2012) iS the third in thiS SerieS of Spawning aSSeSSmentS (bobrowicz 2011) (table 1.3).

pre-Spawning and Spawning walleye were captured alive uSing a 1.8 m (6 ft) trapnet with a 60 m (200 ft) lead Situated on the South Shore of the main iSland at the eStuary of the current river. the trapnet waS lifted every 24 hourS. all walleye were Sampled (length, weight, Sex, gonad development) and tagged with a t-bar anchor tag (“floy tag”) embedded in the dorSal muSculature. aging StructureS were collected (ScaleS, dorSal SpineS), and aging of individual fiSh waS completed at the mnr aging laboratory in dryden. the removal of the firSt three dorSal SpineS alSo Served aS a redundant marking for fiSh captured in 2010. in addition to the dorSal SpineS, fiSh captured in 2011 were given a left pectoral clip aS a diStinguiShing mark. all walleye were releaSed alive. the Spawning population for 2010 waS eStimated at 364 ±80 (r. bobrowSki, mnr, perSonal communication). population eStimateS for 1972, 1999, and 2000 are not available due to low Sample SizeS and inconSiStency in Sampling yearS. population eStimate for 2011 will be calculated baSed on the number of recaptureS in the 2012 netting project.

The concluding round of mark-recapture trapnetting in this phase of the Current River walleye assessment was conducted in the spring of 2012.

YEARPopulation Estimate Estimation Method

1991* 1167 (938-1544) Schumacher

1992* 1188 (923-1668) Schumacher

1993* 1485 (1098-2293) Schumacher

2010** 364 (284-444) Chapman-Peterson

Current River walleye spawning population estimates based on mark recapture data (range in parentheses). *From Geiling et al. (1996). ** Population estimate based on limited sample size. A more accurate representation of population size should be available in 2013.

2.1.2 Loss of Fish Habitat

Dynamic fish and wildlife habitat degradation within the Thunder Bay AOC has resulted in a loss of species abundance and diversity,

reduced recreational opportunities, and a decline in the aesthetic value of the harbour and its tributaries. To date, habitat enhancement

projects have restored and created nearshore aquatic habitat, stabilized wetlands, restored riverine diversity, and increased abundance

of fish and wildlife populations. Although a large portion of fish and wildlife habitat has now been restored, issues still exist that require

further resolution.

table

1.3

UPDATE THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN < 1 0

table

1.4 deliSting criteria - loSS of fiSh habitat

This beneficial use will no longer be impaired when the following habitat-related projects from the Thunder Bay Stage 2 RAP Report (2004) have been completed, evaluated for effectiveness, and areas support diverse self-sustaining biological communities:

• Alleviation of water quality barriers to fish migration in the Kaministiquia River• Re-vegetation projects in McVicar Creek and McKellar River• Habitat improvements associated with the creation of Sanctuary Island at the mouth of McVicar Creek• Habitat remediation on McKellar River• Rehabilitation of walleye spawning habitat at Current River Estuary• Improving salmonid access to the upper reaches of the Current River• Implement the Slate River Watershed Management Plan• Monitoring to support lake sturgeon rehabilitation strategy • Implement plan for shoreline naturalization within the Thunder Bay AOC

In addition to the Stage 2 RAP projects, the following should also be completed:

• Remaining and created wetlands are protected from further degradation through existing environmental legislation, with provincial standards used to inventory and classify wetlands within the Thunder Bay AOC

• Provide unrestricted access to critical spawning habitat by providing adequate flow in the Kaministiquia River• Ensure that native fish populations are not negatively affected by industrial water-use practices, including water intake

and discharge

Action (SM-FWH-1): Fish Habitat Classification and AssessmentStatus: Planned for 2012Proponent: Environment Canada with support from Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management Unit)Cost: $30,000

Important information on fish habitat quality and quantity can be determined by identifying and mapping the lakebed characteristics. Assess-

ment of the availability of fish habitat in the AOC will indicate the success of previous habitat restoration projects in restoring this beneficial

use. This project will provide information about the extent and quality of fish habitat in the form of a ground truthed dataset developed by EC

and a summary report reviewed by the MNR. Milestones for this project include:

• Completion of monitoring field work for the assessment of the substrate, which will include examining components of cobble

and gravel areas for sediment and/or organic material

• Classification and assessment of lake bottom (submerged) substrates to determine the amount of fish habitat for each life stage

• Creation of substrate and bathymetry maps that show fish habitat classification and availability

Action (SM-FWH-2): Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept (NOWPARC) Fish Community ComparisonStatus: Completed Monitoring Initiative (2005-2006)Proponent: Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management Unit) and Department of Fisheries and OceansCost: Not Available

In 2004 and 2006, the MNR conducted a study to assess and compare the fish community around the Northern Wood Preservers

(NWP) Inc. property with contemporary fish communities at four other sites within the Thunder Bay Harbour, as well as with pre-reme-

diation (1986) data from around the NWP property (Parker et al. 2008). Sampling sites included two additional remediation locations:

the mouth of McVicar Creek, and the McKellar River embayment. Fish communities were sampled using a combination of boat and

backpack electrofishing, seine netting, and minnow trapping. Sampling techniques varied drastically in their effectiveness with boat

electrofishing and seine netting capturing the greatest number of fish and species.

1 1 > THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN UPDATE

2.1.3 Fish Consumption Restrictions

In the outer harbour, consumption is restricted for lake trout >35 cm (toxaphene), walleye >55 cm (mercury), northern pike >65 cm

(mercury), whitefish >45 cm (toxaphene), carp >65 cm (PCBs), and longnose suckers >45 cm (mercury) (MOE 1999). In the inner har-

bour of Thunder Bay, fish consumption is restricted for walleye >45 cm (mercury), northern pike >75 cm (mercury), round whitefish >45

cm (mercury), carp >65 cm (PCBs), and white suckers >45 cm (mercury).

table

1.5 deliSting criteria - fiSh conSumption reStrictionS

This beneficial use will no longer be impaired when the fish consumption advisories in the AOC (inner and outer Har-bour) are no more restrictive than the advisories for the same contaminants in an open water reference site (SchreiberPoint to Sewell Point – Block 7), based on samples collected in the same time frame (< 5 years) for a minimum of twoconsecutive studies.

Action (SM-FCR-1): Statistical Analysis of Fish Consumption Advisory DataStatus: Planned for 2012Proponent: Ministry of the EnvironmentCost: $15,000

A statistical analysis was conducted to compare fish contaminant levels in the Thunder Bay AOC with that from reference sites and de-

termine trends over time. Data was insufficient to make an accurate assessment of long-term trends, and therefore a follow up study

is planned to expand the fish consumption data set for both the Thunder Bay AOC and its Lake Superior reference site. The MOE will

continue to monitor and compare consumption advisories and contaminants in sport fish collected during the same time period from

the inner and outer harbour and appropriate reference sites, such as the open water area from Schreiber Point to Sewell Point (Block 7

in the Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish) (MOE Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program).

2.1.4 Body Burdens of FishLake trout and white sucker populations have exhibited reductions in body burdens of dioxins (Vander Wal et al. 2004). PCB levels in lake trout and whitefish still exceed guidelines for the protection of organisms that consume fish (Vander Wal et al. 2004).

table

1.6 deliSting criteria - body burdenS of fiSh

young-of-the-year fiSh (<7 cm) can be uSed aS a line of evidence in determining fiSh conSumption adviSorieS. reStrictionS on fiSh conSumption will no longer be liSted aS an impairment when contaminant levelS in young-of-year fiSh (<7 cm) collected within the aoc exhibit declining or Stable concentrationS, and have lower or equivalent contaminant levelS to young-of-year fiSh collected at a Suitable reference Site for a minimum of two conSecutive StudieS.

note: an appropriate reference Site iS in the proceSS of being eStabliShed through a criteria-baSed approach. Site Selection will take into conSid-eration both environmental characteriSticS of the aoc aS well aS exiSting land-uSe practiceS. the main focuS of the ‘body burdenS of fiSh’ bui iS to aSSeSS local conditionS. young-of-the-year (yoy) fiSh are the beSt SurrogateS for thiS bui aS they dwell in the nearShore and do not travel great diStanceS. meaSuring contaminantS in yoy tiSSue generally provideS an indication of the local conditionS and/or point SourceS. however, the caveat to aSSeSSing yoy iS that often the contaminant levelS obServed in tiSSue are not at a level of concern, aS the young fiSh do not ac-cumulate enough contaminant in the firSt year. aS Such, adequate reference SiteS, aS well aS multiple lineS of evidence (e.g., Sport fiSh tiSSue), are required for compariSonS and aSSeSSmentS.

in compariSon to other contemporary SiteS within the thunder bay harbour, the nwp area had moderate to high valueS of fiSh diver-

Sity and low to moderate fiSh abundance. the contemporary relative abundance of fiSh at nwp waS well within the range reported for

18 SiteS that were Sampled prior to remedial actionS (1986). the mckellar river embayment remediation project in particular ShowS no-

tably high relative abundance valueS when compared to both contemporary and hiStorical data. theSe reSultS SuggeSt that Suitability

of fiSh habitat around the reStored areaS of nwp iS Similar to that of other SiteS within the thunder bay harbour. given that remedial

actionS were not concluded until 2003, any reSponSeS by the fiSh community around the nwp property are likely ongoing and will

require future Sampling.


Action (SM-BBF-1): Assessment of Body Burdens of Fish within Thunder Bay AOCStatus: Data collected in 2011 Analysis Planned for 2012Proponent: Ministry of the EnvironmentCost: Not Available

During the 2011 sampling season a study was conducted to monitor and compare contaminants in young-of-the-year (YOY) and for-age fish, such as white sucker, collected from the Thunder Bay AOC and an appropriate reference site. As small fish are unlikely to be found in the open water reference sites used for the sport fish analysis, an alternative reference site will be selected.

2.1.5 Fish Tumours and Other DeformitiesIn the 1980s, tumours in wild fish populations were found in multiple Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs), including elevated occur-rences in the Thunder Bay AOC. Studies by Environment Canada over 20 years ago showed that white suckers (Catostomus commer-soni)aroundThunderBayhadalivertumour(neoplasm)prevalencerateof7.1%.WhencomparedwithareferencesiteatMountainBay,whichhadaprevalencerateofonly2.6%,thesevalueswereconsiderunusuallyhighandpromptedfishtumourstobedesignatedas impaired under the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) program in the early 1990s.

In2006-07,EnvironmentCanadareassessedwhitesuckersfromtheAOCandfoundthetumourprevalenceratetobe2%,a5.1%decrease from some twenty years prior. In addition, the Thunder Bay fish were not significantly different from white suckers sampledat the Mountain Bay reference location. However, although the results are encouraging, the age of the specimens collected in 2006were relatively young (median age was five years younger than the reference location) and therefore relatively low tumour rates are tobe expected. Although this study limitation was partially offset by having more numerous liver sections examined, the RAP team rec-ommended a follow-up survey to verify this low tumour rate.

table

1.7 deliSting criteria - fiSh tumourS & other deformitieS

thiS bui will no longer be impaired when a Survey of 100 white SuckerS (catoStomuS commerSoni) - and more if avail

able - encompaSSing a diverSe age range indicateS a liver tumour prevalence rate of leSS than 5%.

Action (SM-FTD-1): Thunder Bay AOC Fish Tumour Assessment Status: Planned for 2013Proponent: Environment Canada with support from Fisheries & Oceans Canada (Winnipeg lab) Cost: $70,000

Tumours in fish were an impaired beneficial use at many AOCs. Environment Canada scientists have assessed liver tumours and external and internal DELTs (deformities, erosions, lesions, and tumours) at most Canadian AOCs (Baumann 2010a). This assessment found that follow-up work was required at the Thunder Bay AOC. Completion of the tumour assessments will enable us to assess the tumour BUI at individual AOCs and will also permit comparisons of tumour rates across Canadian AOCs. It will also facilitate the creation of a Great Lakes tumor database for comparison of background tumour rates and as a reference aid for reliable diagnostics which will be critical as the move is made into recovery monitoring at the Canadian AOC sites. In the Thunder Bay AOC, Environment Canada will conduct the field sampling in 2013, while the Depart-ment of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) will perform the tumour assessment and diagnoses. Environment Canada will then develop the summary report. The main products of this project will be the publication of tumour assessment data for Canadian AOCs, the creation of a fish tumour database for the Great Lakes Basin, and either the completion of the tumour assessment for Thunder Bay AOC or identifcation of areas requir-ing follow-up studies or actions. The reference tumour database will play a key role in the monitoring of tumour rates in areas in recovery.

Photo by Ministry of the Environment


2 .2 S E D I M E N T CO N TA M I N AT I O N

Sediment contamination within the Thunder Bay AOC has been one of the major causes of environmental impairments within the area. Historical degradation of sediment quality and benthic community structure have been observed below the AbitibiBowater outfall in the Kaministiquia River, near the former Northern Wood Preservers site in the intercity harbour, and around the North Harbour Industrial Site (RAP Stage 1 1991). Since these original findings, significant improvements have been made through both remedial actions and effluent treatment technology, including the successful completion of the Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept (NOWPARC) Project. For our purposes, the following beneficial use impairments (BUIs) will be addressed through this section: Degrada-tion of Benthos and Restrictions on Dredging Activities. 2.2.1 Degradation of Benthos

table

1.8 deliSting criteria - degradation of benthoS

benthic community impairmentS were originally identified in three locationS within the thunder bay area of concern: the kaminiStiquia river, the area adjacent to the northern wood preServerS (nwp) property, and the area adjacent to the former caScadeS fine paper property (“north harbour”). each of the identified SiteS haS itS own unique character-iSticS, contaminantS of concern, and preScribed management action, and therefore requireS diStinct deliSting

criteria.

lower kaminiStiquia river (including miSSion & mckeller riverS): thiS bui will no longer be impaired when monitoring

data indicateS that the benthic invertebrate communitieS and contaminant concentrationS in Sediment from the lower

kaminiStiquia river, miSSion river, and the mckellar river remain Stable (Similar to 2005 data), or are improving.

northern wood preServerS Site: the northern wood preServerS alternative remediation project for contaminated Sediment (nowparc) waS completed in 2003. benthoS will no longer be impaired when monitoring data indicateS that the benthic community from the nowparc area iS Similar to the benthic community in other partS of the harbour.

north harbour induStrial Site: thiS bui will no longer be impaired when: 1) monitoring data indicateS that contaminant

concentrationS in Sediment and/or benthoS from the north harbour are Showing a declining trend in concentrationS

and benthic communitieS are improving; and 2) Site Specific criteria have been met (or objectiveS accompliShed) aS per the Sediment management plan (to be added when available).

Action (SM-DB-1): North Harbour Sediment Management StrategyStatus: Ongoing Assessment Initiative Proponent: Environment Canada, Ministry of the Environment, and Cascades Fine Paper GroupCost: To be determined

Sediments in the northern portion of Thunder Bay harbour (North Habour) have total mercury levels that exceed the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines (PSQG) Severe Effect Level over an area covering approximately three hectares adjacent to the Superior Fine Papers Inc. effluent outfall. The Stage 2 RAP report (2004) recommended the completion of additional sediment assessments in this area to fill any data gaps that might impede the proper development and implemen-tation of effective remediation measures.

A number of studies have been conducted since this time to better delineate the extent of contamination in the North Harbour (North/South Consultants Inc. 2006, Fletcher 2006, Milani and Grapentine 2006, Stantec 2003). In 2009 representatives from Abitibi Consolidated Inc, Cascades Fine Paper Group, Environment Canada, and the Ministry of the Environment formed a steering committee and contracted AMEC to assess the technical feasibility of sediment management op-tions (AMEC, 2010 & 2011). Although their study identified information gaps, AMEC suggested that an isolation cap would be the most technically feasible option, however, a pilot test would be required prior to making a final decision with respect to sediment management.

Phot

o by

Min

istr

y of

the

Envi

ronm

ent


Sediment Management

OptionsAdvantages Disadvantages

Monitored NaturalAttenuation

• Low cost• Can be easily

implemented

• Does not reduce exposures• Does not reduce toxicity or mobility• Timeframe for natural reduction of

contaminant concentrations uncertain• Long-term monitoring• Land use controls necessary

Construction of anEngineered (Sand or

Reactive) IsolationCap

• Reduces exposures to contaminants of concern (COCs)

• Relatively low cost• Quick results• Low impact

implementation

• Land use controls necessary• Long-term monitoring/maintenance• Implementation pilot study needed prior

to construction to reduce uncertainties• Short-term risks with resuspension of

particulates during construction• Mitigation for loss of shoreline access and

open water

Dredging withDisposal at an Onsite

Confined Disposal Facility (CDF)

• Reduces exposure to contaminants

• Uncertainties with implementation of the CDF

• Land use controls necessary• Long-term monitoring/maintenance• Short-term risks with resuspension of

particulates during construction• Mitigation for loss of shoreline access and

open water

Dredging withDisposal at an Offsite

CDF

• Eliminates exposure to contaminants

• CDF already exists (managed by the Thunder Bay Port Authority)

• Land use controls necessary• Long-term monitoring• Short-term risks with resuspension of

particulates during construction• Material must be transported through

active shipping channels• Permitting issues may prohibit disposal in

offsite CDF• Long-term and short-term adverse impacts

to nearby receptors

Dredging withDisposal in an Upland

Disposal Facility

• Eliminates exposure to contaminants

• Short-term risks with resuspension of particulates during construction

• Ex situ water treatment and disposal• Long-term risk for disposal in local landfill

Common Sediment Management Options as Screened for Technical Feasibility (AMEC, 2011).

Subsequently, the Steering Committee contracted Anchor QEA to complete a peer review of the technical feasibility study; their report recommended further characterization in the form of additional geotechnical work, sampling and modelling before selecting a preferred sediment manage-ment option (Anchor QEA, 2011).

A Detailed Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment and Preliminary Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment are currently underway. All exposure pathways will be identified and depicted in Conceptual Site Models (CSMs) to estimate the risks to wildlife and humans.

A Preliminary Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment is currently underway. A CSM will be developed and the risk and all potential exposure pathways to human recep-tors will be identified.

Phot

o by

Min

istr

y of

the

Envi

ronm

ent

table

1.9


Additional studies to characterize the site and existing Mission Bay CDF will be undertaken to assess sediment management optionsand may include: • debriS Survey - to aSSeSS potential hazardS involved in the implementation of the Selected Sediment option. potential logging

debriS within the enriched organic Sediment (eoS) could impact the Selection of a preferred dredging method and/or Slow down dredging operationS.

• dredging Study – baSed on information on the eoS, identify and evaluate approacheS for the containment of SolidS and diS-Solved phaSe that iS reaSonably conServative. there iS a need to better define the dredging accuracy baSed on the contaminated and native material characteriSticS. one way to achieve thiS would be Speak to dredging contractorS and Survey other projectS for actual overdredge achieved, SucceSS and problemS and leSSonS learned.

• geotechnical/fate and tranSport Study - evaluate fate and tranSport of contaminantS within the off-Site cdfS through modeling and reSearch. conduct geotech and other StudieS to aSSeSS the exiSting cdf

• dewatering teStS and effluent treatment – determine the beSt method for dewatering the eoS, and eStimate the volume of water requiring treatment that iS generated during dredging and treatment requirementS to meet the provincial water quality guide-lineS (pwqg).

• Dewatering tests and effluent treatment – determine the best method for dewatering the EOS, and estimate the volume of water requiring treatment that is generated during dredging and treatment requirements to meet the PWQG.

After these studies are completed, preferred sediment management option(s) can be selected with public input. Once preferredmanagement option(s) is/are selected, engineering design and environmental assessment need to be completed.

Action (SM-DB-2): Northern Wood Preservers SiteStatus: Ongoing Monitoring Initiative (Completed – 1999, 2003, 2004, 2007 and 2009)Proponent: Ministry of EnvironmentCost: Not Available

Sediment adjacent to the Northern Wood Preservers site was heav-ily contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs from creosote), chlorophenols, and dioxins and furans (impurities from PCP); all contaminants that were used or produced for over 60 years during the wood treatment process (Clerk et al., 2011). Remediation of the contaminated sediment (termed the Northern Wood Preserv-ers Alternative Remediation Concept – NOWPARC) commenced in 1997 with the goal to isolate the contaminant sources, clean-up the contaminated sediment, and enhance fish habitat. The project was completed in 2005 with most contaminated sediment removed, the area capped and bermed, and the installation of both a clay and Waterloo barrier around the initial footprint of the site.

On the Northern Wood Preservers site, groundwater and storm wa-ter is collected and pre-treated at the site. Groundwater is partially treated and discharged to the Thunder Bay sanitary sewer under a Sewer Use Bylaw Agreement. Storm water is managed by a storm water treatment pond that discharges to Lake Superior via perme-able pond berms and an overflow spillway.

Sediment outside of the berm was considered to be a low hazard to aquatic life (Jaagumagi et al. 2001), and as such, it was determined that a long-term monitoring plan would be implemented to monitor natural recovery of the sediment. Monitoring of the sediment, water, and biota was conducted in 1999, 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2009. The 2009 report (Clerk et al. 2011) is in draft form and will be available in early 2012.

Results of the 2009 monitoring survey (Clerk et al. 2011) showed that at most sampling sites in the area left for natural recovery, therehas been a marked improvement in the sediment; total PAH concentrations in the sediment have decreased since 2004. However, to-tal PAH continues to be elevated above the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines (PSQG), with sediment at one site in the northeastcorner exceeding the PSQG severe effect level (SEL). While sediment PAH concentrations have decreased in the northeast cornerof the site, concentrations of PAHs at some of neighbouring sampling sites have increased. This occurrence is likely due to weatheringof PAHs at the more contaminated sites, and the mobilization of the lower-ringed compounds generally associated with creosote(phenanthrene, pyrene, and fluoranthene) from the more contaminated sites to the previously less-contaminated neighbouring sites.As creosote in the contaminated sediment continues to break down, similar changes in contamination patterns may be observed.Despite the elevated levels of PAHs, there does not seem to be a measurable impact to the resident benthic invertebrates (whencompared to harbour reference sites).

Phot

o by

Min

istr

y of

the

Envi

ronm

ent


Toxicity to invertebrates was observed in the laboratory for some of the more heavily contaminated sites; however it is hypothesized that in situ, the invertebrates can avoid the distinct lenses of contaminated sediment, and thus avoid adverse effects. Exposed caged mussels had elevated concentrations of PAHs, especially in the northeast corner of the natural recovery area. The observed elevated concentrations were likely a reflection of elevated sediment levels, as PAHs detected in all water samples were at low levels.

Next Steps: The next monitoring event is scheduled for 2014, at which time a review of the long-term monitoring data will be lead by

the MOE and EC.

Action (SM-DB-3): 2011 Thunder Bay AOC Sediment SurveyStatus: Completed Monitoring Initiative Proponent: Ministry of the EnvironmentCost: Not Available

There are several distinct areas within the Thunder Bay Area of Concern (AOC) that have significant sediment contamination issues.While some areas are well characterized, others areas (such as in the vicinity of Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc., and east of theMission and McKellar deltic islands) have not been re-examined in some time. The main objective of the 2011 Thunder Bay HarbourSediment Survey was to monitor the residual impacts of historical discharges in the sediment of selected locations in the ThunderBay Harbour. Specifically, the area east of the delta associated with the Kaminis-tiquia River, and the area at the outfall of the formerSmurfit-Stone plant was investigated.

Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc., formerly Thunder Bay Packaging, is located 2 km outside of the breakwall north of the Thunder Bay Harbour. The company beganoperationin1996andproduced100%recycledcorrugatingmediumfrom mixed office wastes and recovered cardboard containers, until their closure in 2003 (Thunder Bay RAP, 2004). The plant ran for a year and a half with only primary treatment (effluent released to the Harbour via a clarifier and a settling lagoon), resulting in exceedences of monthly discharge limits for TSS, BOD, tolu-ene, phenol, and effluent toxicity. The implementation of secondary treatment improved the effluent quality; however some problems still remained (Thunder Bay RAP, 2004).

The Stage 2 Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan (2004) outlined remedial strategies for ecosystem restoration. The remedial strategy for Smurfit Stone was listed under recommendation 1-3, under the impaired beneficial uses related to fish and wildlife. Recommendation 1-3 was to “rehabilitate ecosystem function and structure in order to support a diverse, healthy, self-sustaining biological community”. This will ultimately require the virtual elimination of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances (bearing in mind social and economic factors) to ensure that the water quality and sediment conditions in both the lower Kaministiquia River and in the Thunder Bay Harbour provide a healthy and hospitable environment.” Specifically the monitoring action (NPSM-4) for Smurfit-Stone was to ‘determine the extent and severity of any sediment contamination that may exist as a result of historic discharges at Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc.’ It was further outlined that if sediment contamination was identified then additional monitoring actions should be initiated to determine identity, toxicity, bioavailability, distribution, and degree to which the contaminants are contributing to the impairment within the AOC (Thunder Bay RAP, 2004). The survey conducted in 2011 only addressed the severity of sediment contamination in the vicinity of the former Smurfit-Stone process effluent outfall (via the collection of sediment samples for chemistry). If a comparison of the chemistry results to the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines (PSQG) indicates an issue, then the extent of sediment contamination, and any potential impacts to biota, will be studied further. There is no reason to expect significant sediment contamination adjacent to the former Smurfit-Stone site.

It has been documented in the past, and most recently in a 2005 study, that organics, metals, and nutrients are present in the sedi-ment of the Kaministiquia River, and its associated deltic rivers (Mission and McKellar). Of interest in the 2011 study was the currentquality of the sediment east of the delta, towards the Welcome Islands. There have been a number of provincial studies that havefocused on the area east of the delta (Anderson 1986, Simpson 1987, Boyd 1990, and Richman 2004). Anderson (1986) found that thezone of influence, with regard to water quality, was from the Kaministiquia River delta east to the Welcome Islands (7.5 km) and southto Pie Island (13 km). In 1999, Richman found that similar to previous studies, the most degraded areas were the lower KaministiquiaRiver and outward from the delta. Several industries that would have contributed to the contaminant loading in these earlier studies

have either ceased operations, or implemented greater pollution controls.

Phot

o by

Min

istr

y of

the

Envi

ronm

ent


2 .3 WAT E R Q UA L I T Y

Water quality was originally identified as a concern within the Thunder Bay AOC due to elevated biological oxygen demand (BOD), TotalPhosphorus (TP), and E.coli exceeding of Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQOs) (Boyd 1990, RAP Stage 1 1991). These impairmentswere primarily associated with the discharge of industrial and municipal effluent, as well as urban and stormwater runoff. Since this time,contaminant loading has been significantly reduced as a result of upgrades to industrial treatment facilities, and the construction and subse-quent upgrades to the Thunder Bay Water Pollution Control Plant. The RAP program uses a series of beneficial uses to represent waterquality impairments within the AOC; these include Beach Advisories, Degradation of Phytoplankton & Zooplankton, and Degradation of Aesthetics.

2.3.1 Beach AdvisoriesThe Thunder Bay District Health Unit periodically posts swimming advisories at the Chippewa Park and Boulevard Lake beaches.The postings are due to elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria and are triggered when water quality samples exceed the OntarioMinistry of the Environment Guideline for Recreational Water Quality (Ontario Public Health 2008). The guideline is exceeded when E.coli levels are in excess of 100 counts per 100 millilitres of water, based on the geometric mean of at least five samples (Ministry of theEnvironment, 1994, RAP Stage 1 1991).

2.2.2 Restrictions on DredgingRestrictions on Dredging was originally listed as impaired within the Thunder Bay AOC due to elevated levels of PCBs, heavy metals,and nutrients which exceeded the Open Water Disposal Guidelines (RAP Stage 1). At the time, dredged material which exceeded the OWDG were disposed of in a confined disposal facility in Mission Bay. In 1993 the province of Ontario adopted the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines (PSQGs), and an implementation procedure to assess sediment suitability for open water disposal and Lakefill Guidelines. Today, sediments from occasional navigational dredging in Thunder Bay harbour that are not suitable for open water disposal are still disposed of at the Mission Bay CDF (RAP Stage 2). Most new dredging projects are required to test dredged sediments prior to removal, and suitability for open water disposal is assessed against the procedure included in the PSQG guidance. This procedure has meant that sediments from most new dredging projects rarely qualify for open water disposal and are disposed of either in confined disposal facilities (CDFs), or at upland (landfill) sites (Golder 2012). The nearshore CDF was designed with a two million cubic meter sediment capacity (RAP Stage 2), including four enclosed contami-nant cells and a holding reservoir/receiving cell (Jarvis 2010). It was estimated in 2004 that only half of the sediment capacity of the CDF had been utilized (RAP Stage 2). Since this time, the Thunder Bay Port Authority conducted a small dredging program in 2007; dredged material was placed within the receiving cell (Jarvis 2010).

The RAP Stage 2 report (2004) “Strategy to Address Dredging Restrictions” had three substantive recommendations (see below). Withguidelines and permit requirements in place for navigational dredging when it is required, regular monitoring of the Mission Bay CDFand progress on all of the point source actions listed below it appears that all required actions to address the restrictions on dredgingBUI have been completed in the Thunder Bay Area of Concern.

1. Ensure dredging and sediment disposal does not contribute to the degradation of the aquatic ecosystem.2. Maintain a multiple use approach to waterfront areas by ensuring that the harbour continues to function as a shipping port.3. Controlling point sources of pollution - Actions PS-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6

Levels of locally produced contaminants are expected to decline now that many of the following pollution prevention measures at industrial sites along the waterfront have already been implemented.

• SecondaryTreatmentattheResolutePulpandPaperMill• UpgradesatThunderBayTerminals• DevelopmentsatOntarioPowerGeneration-ThunderBayGeneratingStation• SecondaryTreatmentatAbitibi-Consolidated• RedirectStormwaterOutletandOilSeparatorDischargeatCPR• SecondaryTreatmentatWaterPollutionControlPlant

The Restrictions on Dredging BUI was previously used as an indicator of contaminated sediments, though it may have been intendedas an indicator of additional cost associated with contaminated sediments. With the development of the PSQG in 1993 and the Cana-da Ontario Sediment Decision Making Framework in 2007, focus on contaminated sediment was properly shifted to an effects-basedassessment approach. Now that more regulatory tools and appropriate methods are in place to assess the effects of contaminants in sediments this BUI no longer makes sense for most Canadian Areas of Concern.

No additional management action is necessary to restore restrictions on dredging as a beneficial use within the Thunder Bay AOC.


Action (SM-BA-2): Beach Bacterial DNA AnalysisStatus: Completed Monitoring Initiative (2010) Proponent: Lakehead University (Paleo-DNA Lab & RAP Office) Cost: $15,000

During the 2010 swimming season, Lakehead University’s Paleo-DNA Laboratory (2011) conducted a genetic analysis on surface watersamples at Chippewa and Boulevard beaches for E. coli, human, and animal fecal bacteria markers. Six haplotypes (DNA sequences)were identified with regard to the animal source, suggesting that six different animal sources or animal subspecies could be contribut-ing to the problem (Fratpietro 2011). No human fecal bacteria markers were detected in the water samples collected, with exceptionof the primary influent, primary effluent, and final effluent provided by the waste water treatment plant. This sample suggests thathuman fecal contamination is not contributing to beach postings at the two beaches tested (Fratpietro 2011).

table

2.0 deliSting criteria - beach adviSorieS

thiS beneficial uSe will no longer be impaired when primary SourceS of fecal pollution are identified and pollution

control planS have been developed and implemented. theSe planS Should include, but Should not be limited to,management of Stormwater inputS, upgradeS of Septic SyStemS to provincial StandardS, implementation of a waterfowl

management program, and completion of feaSible actionS to improve water circulation.

Action (SM-BA-1): Stormwater Impacts AssessmentStatus: Ongoing Assessment Initiative (2010 & 2011)Proponent: Lakehead University (RAP Office). Lakehead Region Conserva-tion Authority, and EcoSuperior Environmental ProgramsCost: $120,000/year

The Phase I Stormwater Impacts Assessment (completed in 2010) involved an Urban Stream Assessment (USA) on three water systems that discharge into Lake Superior within the AOC: McVicar Creek, Lower Neebing River, and Lyons/Third Avenue Channels. The USA also included an inventory of stormwater outfalls, water quality assessment, and benthic invertebrate survey. Result from Phase I identified three areas on McVicar Creek that were of particular concern in terms of site characteristics, water quality, and benthic community status (LU RAP Office 2010).

In 2011, these three areas became the focus of Phase II of the study, which provided a second year of water quality samples over a greater spatial and temporal interval, and looked to further investigate subwatershed land-use that may be causing impairments to water quality. 2011 data collec-tion shows a correlation between the quality of stormwater discharge and urban land-use inputs found within the subwatersheds. Recommendations from Phase II of the study included potential options to remediate storm-water impacts including community education, alternative snow removal, maintenance, policy enforcement, landscaping, Low Impact Development (LID), and retrofits. The third phase of this project will focus on working with the City of Thunder Bay to develop potential mitigation strategies for urban stormwater impacts.

Phot

o by

Aar

on N

icho

lson

Photo by Kaegan Walsh


2.3.2 Degradation of Phytoplankton & ZooplanktonDegradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton was originally listed as impaired within the Thunder Bay AOC, however no formalstudy on the condition of plankton communities had been completed (Stage 1 1991). The Stage 2 report indicates that the planktonpopulations were degraded in the vicinity of industrial outfalls, yet process effluent from Resolute was proven to be non-acutely lethalto the zooplankton Ceriodaphnia (Stage 2 2004). Since no data existed when the phytoplankton and zooplankton population BUI wasassessed, an assessment of the potential causes of impairment will be done to determine if there is reason to believe that this BUI isimpaired. Finally, additional studies can then be undertaken to determine the population status.

Action (SM-PZP-1): Assessment of Total Phosphorus and Chlorophyll in Thunder BayStatus: : Completed Assessment Initiative (2012)Proponent: Ministry of the Environment (Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch)Cost: $10,200

In 2005, the MOE Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch (EMRB) undertook a water quality investigation, focusing on totalphosphorus (TP) and chlorophyll a concentrations within the Thunder Bay AOC (Benoit et al. 2012). The objective of the study was todetermine if TP or chlorophyll a were degraded in relation to both historical and reference conditions. The approach was designed touse water chemistry indicators to assess the potential for phytoplankton and zooplankton degradation.

As expected, TP results suggested that urban inputs within the study area were the cause, but showed improvements compared tohistorical records. These improvements are most likely attributed to upgrades to wastewater and industrial treatment infrastructure.Relatively low chlorophyll a concentrations comparable to historical levels suggest consistency in terms of primary productivity andprovide evidence that the area maintains its status as an oligotrophic (nutrient deficient) freshwater system. The report concludes that,despite localized elevations in TP concentrations and other water quality parameters consistent with an urban environment, thereis no present indication of eutrophication or evidence that suggests plankton degradation.Recommendation: BUI is not impaired

2.3.3 Degradation of AestheticsPoor water quality has been the primary cause of impairments to river and harbourfront aesthetics in the AOC. It has been suggestedthat aesthetic impairments were caused by factors such as harbour water not mixing well with lake water, and commercial vesseltraffic inside the breakwall causing turbidity (RAP Stage 1). Since aesthetics was originally listed as impaired in the Stage 1 report,many remedial actions have been implemented that have had positive effects on water quality within the AOC. These actions includeupgrades to effluent treatment systems for industrial and municipal wastewater.

Action (SM-BA-3): Chippewa Beach Advisories – Review & AnalysisStatus: Completed Monitoring Initiative (2012)Proponent: RAP Implementation Team & Lakehead University Cost: $6,000

In April 2011, the Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Implementation Committee recommended a review and analysis of the bacterial contamination issue and actions at Chippewa Park since the establishment of the RAP program. The report provided a summary of completed remedial actions, research review, and recommendations intended to assist the City of Thunder Bay to better manage Chippewa Park as a public recreational swimming area. In 1996 the Thunder Bay RAP Implementation Committee undertook an investigation of further remedial strategies that were selected and implemented during 2002 & 2003 (Vander Wal et al., 2004). Dur-ing this period, the beach was regraded, the drainage system was upgraded, sediments removed, and part of the breakwall removed to increase water circulation.

According to available data (1984, 1985, 1988, 2005-2011), the number of days where beach advisories were posted at Chippewa Park increased since 1984, with 2010 showing the highest number of postings on record. When comparing the seasonal geometric mean from each swimming season the data shows no definitive improvements from the historical baseline. Inconsistencies with sampling procedures and lack of consistent historical data (i.e. 16-year data gap between 1988 and 2005) make it difficult to establish reliable trends over time. After review and analysis of the existing information the Thunder Bay RAP Implementation Committee has recom-mended that a risk management approach be employed to reduce potential sources of pollution at Chippewa Park. This type of approach will ensure that ecosystem services are enhanced despite the potential inability to dramatically reduce bacterial counts to an acceptable level.

This strategy should include the identification of primary sources of fecal pollution and implementation of pollution control plans for each contributing source. These plans should include, but should not be limited to, the management of stormwater inputs, upgrades of septic systems to provincial standards, implementation of a waterfowl management program, and completion of all feasible actions to improve water circulation.


table

2.1 deliSting criteria - degradation of aeStheticS

thiS beneficial uSe will no longer be impaired when the waterS are devoid of any SubStance that produceS a perSiStent objectionable depoSit, unnatural colour or turbidity, or unnatural odour (e.g. oil Slick, Surface Scum).

2.4 W I L D L I F E

Wildlife-related BUIs (i.e dynamics of wildlife populations, loss of wildlife habitat, and contaminant levels in wildlife) were originally listed as impaired under the Thunder Bay RAP due to urban and industrial waterfront development that lead to degradation of aquatic and terrestrial habitat as well as elevated levels of polychlorinated dioxins present in cormorant and herring gull eggs. Coastal wetlands within the area had been altered, and those remaining had no official status that would protect them from development (Stage 1 RAP). There were also concerns about the contamination of local marshes and the potential for bioaccumulation within the food web (Stage 1 RAP). Since this time, many habitat enhancement projects have been implemented and environmental regulations updated to help better protect Lake Superior’s coastal wetlands. Science and monitoring initia-tives continue in order to ensure that the quality and quantity of existing riparian and wetland habitat is preserved. For our purposes, the wildlife section of this report will include the following BUIs: Dynamics of Wildlife Populations, Loss of Wildlife Habitat, and Contaminant Levels in Wildlife. Delisting criteria for these BUIs have not been discussed by members of the Implementation Committee or the Public Advisory Committee and, as such, are noted as proposed.

2.4.1 Dynamics of Wildlife PopulationsExtensive waterfront development has resulted in the degradation and loss of aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and has subsequently impacted bird (including passerine and waterfowl species) and mammal populations (Stage 2 RAP). Habitat rehabilitation projects have been implemented in order to address this impairment (Refer to completed remedial actions – pg.9).

table

2.2 deliSting criteria - dynamicS of wildlife populationS (propoSed)

monitoring data ShowS that the wildlife community (at a population level) doeS not differ Significantly from the abun-dance that would be expected from the amount and quality of phySical, chemical and biological habitat typical of the aocorthat the wildlife community (at a population level) doeS not differ Significantly from Suitable lake Superior reference SiteS.

Action (SM-DA-1): Thunder Bay Harbour Aesthetics SurveyStatus: Ongoing Monitoring Initiative Proponent: Thunder Bay Public Advisory Committee, Environ-ment Canada & Lakehead University (RAP Office)Cost: $1,500

In September of 2012 the Thunder Bay Public Advisory Com-mittee participated in an aesthetics survey of the Thunder Bay harbour. The survey included a harbour cruise that covered the majority of industrial locations within the AOC. Partici-pants visited sites that had been historically recognized as aesthetically impaired. This included the Northern Wood Preservers Site, the North Harbour Site, and the wastewater outfall at the Resolute Forest Products Inc. property. Partici-pants were asked to record information related to the pres-ence of objectionable deposits, unnatural colour or turbidity, or unnatural odour. The results from this survey, as well as an inventory of historical photographs, will be used to determine the status of aesthetics within the Thunder Bay AOC. This information will help to illustrate how remedial efforts have altered the aesthetic value of the harbour and tributaries. This work will be summarized and completed by March 2013.

Photo by Jean Hall-Armstrong


table

2.3 deliSting criteria - loSS of wildlife habitat (propoSed)

thiS beneficial uSe will no longer be impaired when riparian, wetland, and coaStal habitat within the thunder bay aoc iS in compliance with the guidelineS Set out through environment canada’S how much habitat iS enough? (2004).

in addition, remaining and created wetlandS muSt be protected from further degradation through exiSting environ-mental legiSlation. provincial StandardS Should be uSed to inventory and claSSify wetlandS within the thunder bay aoc.

Action (SM-FWH-3): Wildlife Habitat Change DetectionStatus: : Completed Assessment Initiative Proponent: Lakehead University (RAP Office)Cost: $10,000

Change detection habitat analysis was completed by Lakehead University within the watersheds surrounding the Thunder Bay Areaof Concern. The study utilized Environment Canada’s document How Much Habitat is Enough? (Environment Canada 2004) to assessthe status of current and historical wildlife habitat. The analysis was performed using remotely sensed data (i.e. satellite imagery andaerial photography) covering five time periods: 1976, 1988, 2000, 2006, and 2010. The analysis was divided into four case studies: theThunder Bay Area of Concern (using Landsat satellite imagery), McKellar/Mission Island, Thunder Bay Harbourfront, and TributaryRiparian Zones (using aerial photography).

Spatial temporal analysis of each case study identified significant change related to wildlife habitat locations over the 34-year studyperiod. The analysis has identified that the Thunder Bay AOC has become “greener” since 1976, suggesting increased locations ofwildlife habitat. The McKellar/Mission Island, Harbourfront, and Riparian Zones case studies introduced significantly greater resolutionimagery that provided a greater means for identifying locations associated wildlife habitat. Comparative analysis between theresults from the Landsat-based change detection and the aerial photography-based change detection identified similar wildlife habi-tat locations, suggesting coarse level change detection can provide an accurate assessment of wildlife habitat change within an urbanenvironment.

Although study results show that, in many respects, the Thunder Bay AOC is meeting Environment Canada’s wildlife habitat guidelines, it should be noted that habitat parameters as recommended in these guidelines are largely based on a single species from southern Ontario. While songbird species may represent wildlife habitat locations in southern Ontario, the same cannot be considered accurate in all environ-ments, specifically in Northwestern Ontario (Boyle and McDonald 1999, Cooper and Millspaugh 1999, Hebblewhite and Merrill 2008, Johnson et al. 2004, McDonald and McDonald 2002).

2.1.1 Loss of Wildlife HabitatWildlife habitat has been degraded by industrial growth and waterfront development, resulting in loss of habitat along shorelines andtributaries within the AOC (Stage 2 RAP). To date, habitat enhancement projects have restored and created nearshore aquatic habitat,stabilized wetlands, restored riverine diversity, and increased abundance of fish and wildlife populations (refer to completed remedialactions, page 9).

Action (SM-FWP-5): Population Trends in Colonial WaterbirdsStatus: : Ongoing Monitoring Initiative Proponent: Environment Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service)Cost: Approx. $15,000

An assessment of population status of colonial waterbirds was conducted in the Thunder Bay AOC in 2007. Two species, herring gulls and double-crested cormorants, were found nesting within the boundary of the AOC. Populations appear stable in the AOC based on reported increases in nest numbers for both species between the earlier Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) decadal survey conducted in 1996 and 1999 and the latest decadal survey in 2007 (CWS unpublished). Additional nest counts will be conducted in 2012 at two nesting sites within the AOC, Mutton Island and the Welcome Islands, where studies relating to colonial waterbird reproduction, deformities, health, and contaminant body burdens will also be conducted.

Recommendation: BUI is not impaired

Phot

o by

Aar

on N

icho

lson


2.1.1 Contaminant Levels in Wildlife/Bird and Animal DeformitiesContaminant levels in wildlife was originally listed as impaired due to elevated levels of polychlorinated dioxins present to a varying degree in cormorant and herring gull eggs collected from colonies near Pie Island (Pettit et al. 1994, Stage 2 RAP). Concentrations sampled in 1989 and 1992 were higher in cormorants than in individuals from other colonies in Lake Superior. The same compounds were present in herring gulls nesting in the Thunder Bay area (Stage 2 RAP). Further challenges exist in associating wildlife contaminant data with locally-based sources of pollution. Although herring gulls and cormorants may be year-long Great Lakes residents, they do not reside in the Thunder Bay AOC or at the reference site year-round. Further research is required to assess the local significance of this data.

table

2.4 deliSting criteria - contaminant levelS in wildlife/bird and animal deformitieS (propoSed)

herring gull eggS were collected from mutton iSland (within the aoc) in 2007 and analyzed for contaminantS including organochlorine peSticideS, pcbS, dioxinS and mercury. contaminant levelS in eggS were largely Similar between the aoc Site and the non-aoc lake Superior reference Site at granite iSland. contaminant body burdenS in herring gullS (aS late-Stage embryoS) will be examined further in 2012 following artificial incubation of eggS from two aoc SiteS and compared to levelS in incubated eggS from the granite iSland reference Site. contaminant body burdenS will alSo be examined in the double-creSted cormorant, another aquatic-feeding top predator SpecieS. freSh double-creSted cormorant eggS will be collected from one aoc Site and the reference Site and analyzed for contaminantS.

thiS beneficial uSe will no longer be impaired when concentration of contaminantS in wildlife tiSSueS are below locally derived targetS aSSociated with adverSe impactS on wildlife populationS. orthiS bui will be conSidered reStored when contaminant levelS in wildlife populationS do not exceed current StandardS, objectiveS or guidelineS for the protection of human health orthiS beneficial uSe will no longer be impaired when tiSSue concentrationS in Sentinel wildlife SpecieS are comparable to Suitable reference SiteS. (adapted from the international joint commiSSion)

Ecological literature suggests the use of multiple species to understand and evaluate wildlife habitat. The parameters from How Much Habitat is Enough? are difficult to apply to the Thunder Bay Area of Concern and further consultation is required to develop more

suitable locally based targets.

Action (SM-CLW-1): Wildlife Habitat AssessmentStatus: : Planned for 2012 to 2014Proponent: Environment CanadaCost: $30,000

Environment Canada (EC) is working on the following for a 2012-2014 assessment of wildlife habitat in Thunder Bay AOC. EC wildilfe

habitat scientists will choose a representative subset of sites within and near to the AOC for assessment. The objective of the study is

to assess baseline wildlife habitat condition and determine how breeding migratory or marsh bird and amphibian communities com-

pare among sites inside and outside the AOC boundary.

Tasks:

1. Survey and report on the assigned survey sites, submerged aquatic vegetation, macro invertebrates and water quality indices.

2. Conduct breeding bird and amphibian surveys at selected sites over two seasons.

3. Prepare a report on results with attention to interpretation of how conditions within the AOC differ from or are similar to condi-

tions outside the AOC

Photo by Aaron Nicholson


Action (SM-CLW-2): Health Effects in Colonial WaterbirdsStatus: : Ongoing Monitoring Initiative Proponent: Environment CanadaCost: Approx. $70,000

Various assessments of reproduction, health effects, and contaminant levels were conducted in colonial waterbirds nesting within the Thun-der Bay AOC in CWS studies from 2000-2008. While measures associ-ated with reproduction and health effects were largely comparable, there was some evidence that clutch volume and egg size differed in herring gulls nesting on Mutton Island in the AOC compared to those nesting at the non-AOC Lake Superior reference site at Granite Island on the other side of Sleeping Giant Provincial Park. Contaminant levels in herring gull eggs, however, were largely similar between the two sites. To investigate this further, an additional year of study will be conducted in 2012 to provide a current and more thorough assess-ment of colonial waterbird health in the Thunder Bay AOC. The study design includes a field component examining measures related to herring gull productivity, body condition, stress response, and defor-mities in chicks, as well as a laboratory component in which eggs are artificially incubated under standardized conditions to examine hatch-ability, pipping success, and embryonic deformities.

Contaminant analyses of embryos will evaluate body burdens. Two sites within the AOC, Mutton Island and the Welcome Islands, have been selected for study purposes, along with the Granite Island non-AOC Lake Superior reference site. A second year of study using the same approach may be conducted in 2013 upon an evaluation of the findings in the 2012 field season.

rap-id# Project Status Proponents Cost

Sm-fwp-1Fish Community Index Netting Program

Ongoing Monitoring Initia-tive (Completed – 2009 to 2012)

Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management Unit) with support from Environment Canada

$16,000/year

Sm-fwp-2Kaministiquia River Walleye Radio Telemetry Project

Ongoing Monitoring Initia-tive (Completed – 2009 to 2012)

Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management Unit) with support from Environment Canada

$120,000 over three years

Sm-fwp-3Kaministiquia River Lake Stur-geon Study

Ongoing Monitoring Initia-tive (2004 - 2011)

Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management Unit & North-west Science and Information)

$33,000/year

Sm-fwp-4Current River Walleye Assess-ment

Ongoing Monitoring Initia-tive (Completed – 1991 to 1993, 2010 to 2012)

Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management Unit)

$10,000/year

2 .2 S U M M A R Y O F S C I E N C E & M O N I TO R I N G

Many agencies and organizations have been involved with tracking environmental recovery of the Thunder Bay AOC. The information summarized in this report exemplifies the scope of the RAP program and the diversity of information required to assess ecosystem recovery. Table 2.5 provides a summary of science and monitoring actions and displays over 1 million dollars in RAP related research. Some of these initiatives are long-term moni-toring programs and have been ongoing since the implementation of Stage 2 remedial strategies. Some actions represent initial impact or status assessments and seek to generate a baseline understanding for ecosystem impairments. Whether the actions are intended to monitor recovery or to assess impairment status, all are intended to further our understanding of environmental change and have helped to increase our knowledge of healthy ecosystem function. Much of the information summarized above shows progress towards ecosystem recovery. The NOWPARC Fish Commu-nity Comparison (SM-FH-2) shows that fish communities around the Northern Wood Preserves Site have recovered and that both the McVicar Creek and the McKeller River habitat restoration projects have been successful. Sediment monitoring surveys at the NOWPARC site (SM-DB-3) also reveal that areas left for natural recovery are improving in terms of sediment quality. Although some indictors show positive trends from historical assess-ments (i.e. SM-PZP-1 and SM-WP-1)) there is much work still required to analyze science and monitoring results and assess BUI status in relation to the adopted delisting criteria.

table

2.5 Science & monitoring actionSPh

oto

by A

aron

Nic

hols

on


rap-id# Project Status Proponents Cost

Sm-fwh-1Fish Habitat Classification and Assessment

Planned for 2012 Environment Canada with support from Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management Unit)

$30,000

Sm-fwh-2NOWPARC Fish Community Comparison

Completed Monitoring Initia-tive (2005-2006)

Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management Unit) and Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Not Available

Sm-fcr-1Statistical Analysis of Fish Con-sumption Advisory Data

Planned for 2012 Ministry of the Environment $15,000

Sm-bbf-1Assessment of Body Burdens of Fish within Thunder Bay AOC

Data collected in 2011 Analy-sis Planned for 2012

Ministry of the Environment Not Available

Sm-ftd-1Thunder Bay AOC Fish Tumour Assessment

Planned for 2013 Environment Canada with support from Fisheries & Oceans Canada (Winnipeg lab)

$70,000

Sm-db-1North Harbour Sediment Man-agement Strategy

Ongoing Assessment Initia-tive

Environment Canada & Ministry of the Environment

To be deter-mined

Sm-db-2Northern Wood Preservers Site Ongoing Monitoring Initia-

tive (Completed – 1999, 2003, 2004, 2007 and 2009)

Ministry of Environment Not Available

Sm-db-32011 Thunder Bay AOC Sedi-ment Survey

Completed Monitoring Initiative

Ministry of Environment Not Available

Sm-ba-1

Stormwater Impacts Assessment Ongoing Assessment Initia-tive (2010 & 2011)

Lakehead University (RAP Office). Lakehead Region Conservation Author-ity, and EcoSuperior Environmental Programs

$120,000/year

Sm-ba-2Beach Bacterial DNA Analysis Completed Monitoring Initia-

tive (2010) Lakehead University (Paleo-DNA Lab & RAP Office)

$15,000

Sm-ba-2Chippewa Beach Advisories – Review & Analysis

Completed Monitoring Initia-tive (2012)

RAP Implementation Team & Lakehead University (RAP Office)

$6,000

Sm-pzp-1Assessment of Total Phosphorus and Chlorophyll in Thunder Bay

Completed Final Report (2012)

Ministry of the Environment (Envi-ronmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch)

$10,200

Sm-da-1Thunder Bay Harbour Aesthetics Survey

Ongoing Monitoring Initia-tive

Thunder Bay Public Advisory Commit-tee, Environment Canada & Lakehead University (RAP Office)

$1,500

Sm-fwp-5Population Trends in Colonial Waterbirds


Environment Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service)

Approx. $15,000

Sm-fwh-3Wildlife Habitat Change Detec-tion

Completed Assessment Initiative

Lakehead University (RAP Office) $10,000

Sm-wh-2 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Planned for 2012 to 2014 Environment Canada $30,000

Sm-clw-1Health Effects in Colonial Water-birds


Environment Canada Approx. $70,000

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS Approx.

$1,020,700


3 .0 R E M A I N I N G R E M E D I A L AC T I O N S

Major remaining remedial actions for the Thunder Bay Area of Concern include the development of a management plan for contaminated sedi-ments at the North Harbour site, implementation of management plans to remediate non-point sources of pollution, management of bacterial sources at recreational swimming areas, and improvement of access to historical spawning grounds for native fish populations. More detailed project descriptions and proponent agencies/organization are provided below.

3 .1 D E V E LO P M A N AG E M E N T P L A N F O R CO N TA M I N AT E D S E D I M E N T S AT N O R T H H A R B O U R S I T E

Beneficial Use Impairments: Degradation of Benthos, Restrictions to Fish ConsumptionProponent: Cascades Fine Papers Group, OMOE, and EC.

Sediments in the northern portion of Thunder Bay harbour (North Habour) have total mercury levels that exceed the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines Severe Effect Level over an area covering approximately three hectares adjacent to the Superior Fine Papers Inc. effluent outfall. The Thunder Bay stage 2 RAP report (2004) recommended that a sediment management plan be developed to identify remediation options and guide management decisions for the North Harbour site. Since the completion of this report a number of studies have been conducted to better delineate the extent of contamination in the North Harbour (refer to action SM-DB-1) (North/South Consultants Inc. 2006, Fletcher 2006, Milani and Grapentine 2006, Stantec 2003). In 2009 representatives from Abitibi Consolidated Inc., Cascades Fine Paper Group, Environment Canada, and the Ministry of the Environment formed a steering committee and contracted AMEC to assess the technical feasibility of sediment manage-ment options (AMEC, 2010 & 2011). Subsequently, the Steering Committee contracted Anchor QEA to complete a peer review of the technical feasibility study; their report recommended further characterization in the form of additional geotechnical work, sampling and modelling before selecting a preferred sediment management option (Anchor QEA, 2011). After these studies are completed, preferred sediment management option(s) can be selected with public input. Once preferred management option(s) is/are selected, engineering design and environmental as-sessment need to be completed.

3 .2 D E V E LO P A N D I M P L E M E N T P L A N S TO R E M E D I AT E A N Y R E M A I N I N G N O N - P O I N T S O U R C E S O F CO N TA M I N A N T S

Beneficial Use Impairments: Beach Advisories, Degradation of Aesthetics, Degradation of Phytoplankton & Zooplankton PopulationsProponent: City of Thunder Bay, MOE, LRCA, EcoSuperior, LU RAP and EC

The stage 2 RAP report (2004) had also recommended that if the fish and wildlife impairments are to be remediated it is essential to identify and address all significant point and non-point sources within the AOC that are contributing to these impairments. Stormwater has been identified as a non-point source of pollution in the Thunder Bay AOC that contributes to multiple ecosystem impairments (refer to Action: SM-BA-1) (LU RAP Office 2010). Stormwater Impact assessments have been completed on three water systems that discharge into Lake Superior within the AOC: McVicar Creek, Lower Neebing River, and Lyons/Third Avenue Channels. In 2011, a more detailed study was completed on McVicar Creek, which provided further investigation into subwatershed land-use and recommen-dations on potential remedial options including community education, alternative snow removal, maintenance, policy enforcement, landscaping, Low Impact Development (LID), and retrofits. The third phase of this project will focus on working with the City of Thunder Bay to develop wide scale mitigation strategies for urban stormwater impacts. Additional management actions were in the Stage 2 RAP report (2004) that would help to identify and remediate non-point sources of pollution. This included implementation of the Slate River Water Management Plan. The Slate River Watershed Management Plan (Lake Superior Programs Office, 1998) addresses physical degradation and aesthetic impairment associated with agricultural practices in this area. Nutrient enrichment and erosion have resulted in the physical degradation of benthic habitat downstream in the Kaministiquia River. The plan recommends improved water manage-ment practices in order to reduce the impact of organic enrichment, turbidity, and sedimentation on the stability of benthic habitat and levels of productivity in this portion of the AOC. Further investigation into the suitability of this plan is necessary before implementation occurs.

3 .3 R E D U C E T H E F R E Q U E N C Y O F B E AC H A D V I S O R I E S - C H I P P E WA B E AC H & B O U L E VA R D L A K E

Beneficial Use Impairments: Beach Advisories, Degradation of Aesthetics, Degradation of Phytoplankton & Zooplankton PopulationsProponent: City of Thunder Bay, Thunder Bay District Health Unit, LRCA, OMOE, and EC

The Thunder Bay District Health Unit periodically posts swimming advisories at the Chippewa Park and Boulevard Lake beaches.The postings are due to elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria and are triggered when water quality samples exceed the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Guideline for Recreational Water Quality (Ontario Public Health 2008). Recommendations from the Stage 2 RAP report (2004) included additional monitoring actions to further characterize local sources of contamination.

During the 2010 swimming season, the RAP Implementation Committee continued its investigation of local contaminant sources (refer to action SM-BA-2). Lakehead University’s Paleo-DNA Laboratory (2011) was contracted to conduct a genetic analysis on surface water samples at Chippewa Beach and Boulevard Lake. Results of this study suggest that human fecal contamination is not contributing to beach postings at the two beaches tested (Fratpietro 2011).


In April 2011, the Implementation Committee completed a review and analysis of the bacterial contamination issues and actions at Chippewa Park (refer to action SM-BA-3). Through this review the committee has recommended that a risk management approach be employed to reduce potential sources of pollution at Chippewa Park. This type of approach will ensure that ecosystem services are enhanced despite the potential inability to dramatically reduce bacterial counts to an acceptable level. This strategy should include the identification of primary sources of fecal pollution and implementation of pollution control plans for each contributing source. These plans should include, but should not be limited to, the management of stormwater inputs, upgrades of septic systems to provincial standards, implementation of a waterfowl management program, and completion of all feasible actions to improve water circulation. Additional work is required to design and implement these risk-based measures.

3 .4 R E CO V E R Y O F N AT I V E F I S H S P E C I E S

Beneficial Use Impairments: Dynamics of Fish Populations, Loss of Fish HabitatProponent: City of Thunder Bay, DFO, LRCA, MNR, LU RAP, and North Shore Steelhead Association

Native fish species within the Thunder Bay AOC have been historically impacted due to habitat degradation caused by industrial growth, waterfront development, dredging, channelization, and the release of a number of pollutants from municipal and industrial ef-fluent. Many of these historical impacts have been mitigated through habitat restoration initiatives (refer to section 1.3) and changes to environmental legislation. Although improvements have been made in the recovery of native fish species, further information is required to understand fish community status, movements and spawning migrations.

During the Kaministiquia River Water Management Planning process, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) identified two issues concerning water management practices at Kakabeka Falls. The first was access of adult sturgeon to their historical spawning site at the base of Kakabeka Falls; the second was stranding of adults between the falls and the generating station. In 2003, the Water Manage-ment Plan Steering Committee established a Research and Data Gathering Agreement to study sturgeon movements (access) and spawning success under different spill flows in order to determine suitable flow conditions for reproduction (access, egg deposition, in-cubation, hatch, and larval drift). Studies have been conducted annually from 2004 to 2011. MNR and Ontario Power Generation will be reviewing the results of this eight-year study, and will use the information to improve spawning conditions for lake sturgeon at Kakabeka Falls.

Issues also still remain in the Current River related to native fish habitat. The Current River has approximately 50 km of potential spawn-ing and nursery habitat for Salmonid species that is blocked by a dam situated approximately 600 m upstream from the mouth of the river. An attempt was made to restore access to the productive spawning habitat by constructing a fish ladder and step pools at the Boulevard Lake dam. Unfortunately, low water levels have prevented the fish from gaining access to the fish ladder. It was recommend-ed in the Stage 2 RAP report (2004) that the Current River Water Management Plan is revised and the fish ladder be repaired to enable the ladder and step pools to achieve their purpose.

4 .0 CO N C LU S I O N S

Historically, the Thunder Bay Area of Concern has experienced ecosystem impairments as a result of urbanization and industrial devel-opment. The Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan has contributed significantly to both understanding the status of these impairments and implementing remedial actions. Major accomplishments of the RAP program include the successful sediment remediation of the former Northern Wood Preserves site and the implementation of secondary treatment at the Water Pollution Control Plant. Changes in environmental regulations have also allowed for major improvements in the quality of industrial effluent being discharged within the AOC. Habitat restoration projects have been constructed at various locations along the waterfront and many of these sites now harbour healthy fish communities.

Throughout 2009-2012, agencies and public representatives involved with the RAP program have been working to review monitoring and science information to determine the status of individual beneficial use impairments. Both the RAP Implementation Committee and the PAC have also finalized many of the delisting criteria that represent targets for ecosystem health within the area.

4 .1 F U T U R E D I R E C T I O N

The Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has completed both Stage 1 (Definition of Problem) and Stage 2 (Remedial Strategies) as

outlined by the 1987 amendments to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. In collaboration with partner agencies and community

members those invoved with the RAP program will work towards implementing the identified remaining remedial actions and finalizing

an updated status of ecosystem health.


5 .0 R E F E R E N C E S

AMEC 2010. Feasibility Study-Phase I Thunder Bay Harbour Sediment Management Project. August 2010.

AMEC. 2011. Final Feasibility Study Phase II: Thunder Bay Harbour Sediment Management Project. AMEC Earth & Environmental,Inc., 10239 Technology Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37932.

Anchor QEA. 2011. Feasibility Study Phase II Peer Review Thunder Bay. Anchor QEA, LLC, 500 Cummings Center, Suite 3470, Beverly,Massachusetts, 01915.

Benoit, N. George, T. Boyd, D. Baker, S. 2012. Assessment of Total Phosphorus and Chlorophyll in Thunder Bay, 2005. Ministry of theEnvironment. Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch.

Boyd, D. 1990. Water and Sediment Quality in the Kaministiquia River Delta and Nearshore Area of Lake Superior During 1985 and1986. Water Resources Branch, Ministry of the Environment.

Boyle, M. S. and McDonald, L. L. (1999) Relating Populations to Habitat using Resource Selection Functions. TREE. 14(7), 268-272.

Cooper, A. B. and Millspaugh, J. J. (1999). The Application of Discrete Choice Models to Wildlife Resource Selection Studies. Ecology.80(2), 566-575.

Clerk S, Awad E, Palmer M, and Petro S. 2011. Post-Remediation Monitoring of the Northern Wood Preservers Inc. Site in Thunder BayHarbour: Results from the 2009 Biomonitoring Investigation. Biomonitoring Section, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch,Ontario Ministry of the Environment. DRAFT – December 2011.

Environment Canada. 2004. How Much Habitat is Enough? A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas ofConcern. Second Edition. Canadian Wildlife Service. Environment Canada. ISBN 0-662-35919-4.

Fletcher, R., Welsh, P., Fletcher, T. 2008. Guidelines for Identifying, Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments in Ontario: AnIntegrated Approach. Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario.

Fratpietro, 2011. Chippewa Beach Bacteria Analysis: Report of Results. Paleo DNA Laboratory, Lakehead University. 1294 BalmoralStreet 3rd Floor, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, P7B 5Z5.

Golder Associates. 2012. Review of Sediment-Related BUIs in the Toronto and Region AOC and the Bay of Quinte AOC. Report No.11-1118-0101. Submitted to Environment Canada February 2012.

Geiling, D. 1995. Current River Estuary Walleye Spawning Habitat, p. 27-31. In J.R.M. Kelso and J.H. Harding [editors]. Methods of modifying habitat to benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem. CISTI (Can. Inst. Sci. Tech. Inf.) Occas. Pap. No. 1.

Geiling, W.D., J.R.M. Kelso and E. Iwachewski. 1996. Benefits from incremental additions to walleye spawning habitat in the CurrentRiver, with reference to habitat modification as a walleye management tool in Ontario. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53(Suppl. 1): 79-87.

Hamilton, J.G. 1987. Survey of critical fish habitat within international joint commission designated areas of concern, August – Novem-ber 1986. B.A.R. Environmental. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 38 pp.

Hebblewhite, M. and Merrill, E. (2008). Modeling Wildlife-Human Relationships for Social Species with Mixed-Effects Resource SelectionModels. Applied Ecology. 1-11.

Jarvis, G. 2010. Thunder Bay Port Authority, Director of Engineering and Harbour Master. Personal Communication.

Johnson, C. J.; Seip, D. R and Boyce, M. S. (2004) A Quantitative Approach to Conservation Planning: Using resource selection functionsto map the distribution of mountain caribou at multiple spatial scales. Journal of Applied Ecology. 41, 238-251.

Matos, L. 2010. Guidance on Addressing the Beneficial Use Impairment “Restrictions on Dredging Activities” in Canadian Areas ofConcern. Canada-Ontario Agreement Guidance document.

McDonald, T. L. and McDonald, L. L. (2002). A New Ecological Risk Assessment Procedure using Resource Selection Models and Geo-graphic Information Systems. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 30(4), 1015-1021.

Ministry of the Environment. 1994. Water Management: Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objective. ISBN 0-7778-8473-9 rev.Ontario Public Health. 2008. Beach Management Protocol. ISBN: 978-1-4249-7599-0.

Milani, D. and Grapentine, L. 2006. Biological Assessment of Sediment Quality in Thunder Bay North Harbour: 2002 and 2005. Environ-ment Canada Water Science Technology Directorate Contribution No. 06-431.


North/South Consultants Inc. 2006. Thunder Bay North Harbour. Report on the Collection, Handling, and Analysis Results of SedimentSamples from the Thunder Bay North Harbour, October 2005. Report # MOE-001-06.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy. 1997. Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, On-tario. 173 pp.

Parker, S, Addison, P.A, MacIntosh, K.J., and Garach, G.R. 2008. Fish community comparison between nearshore remediation areas ofthe Northern Wood Preservers facility and four nearshore areas within Thunder Bay Harbour in 2004 and 2006. Ontario Ministry of Natu-ral Resources, Upper Great Lakes Management Unit. Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.

Pettit, K.E., C.A. Bishop, D.V. Weseloh, and R.J. Norstrom. 1994. An atlas of contaminants in the eggs of fish-eating colonial birds ofthe Great Lakes (1989-1992) Vol. II. Technical Report Series No. 194, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Region.

Schmidt, K. and M. Friday. 2000. Current River Walleye Assessment. Lake Superior Management Unit QUIK Report 00-08. Ontario Minis-try of Natural Resources, Thunder Bay, ON. 5pp.

Stantec. 2003. Mercury Investigations in Thunder Bay Harbour Sediment. Stantec Consulting Ltd. 14 Abacus Road, Brampton, Ontario,L6T 5B7.

Thunder Bay RAP Team. 1991. Thunder Bay Area of Concern Remedial Action Plan Stage 1: Environmental Conditions and ProblemDefinition. 109 pp.

Vander Wal, J., K. Cullis, M. Chase, P. Morash and T. Cano. 2004. Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan – Stage 2: Remedial Strategies forEcosystem Restoration. 74pp. plus appendices.


6 .0 L I S T O F AC R O N Y M S

AOC - Area of Concern

BOD - Biological Oxygen Demand

BUI - Beneficial Use Impairment

CDF - Confined Disposal Facility

CSMs - Conceptual Site Models

COC - Contaminants of Concern

CPR - Canadian Pacific Railway

CWS - Canadian Wildlife Service

DFO - Department of Fisheries and Oceans

DELTs - Deformities, Erosions, Lesions, and Tumours

DNA - Deoxyribonucleic Acid

EC - Environment Canada

EMRB - Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch

EOS – Enriched Organic Sediment

FCIN - Fish Community Index Netting

GLWQA - Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

IC - Infrastructure Canada

IJC – International Joint Commission

LID - Low Impact Development

LSPO - Lake Superior Programs Office

MOE - Ministry of the Environment

MNR - Ministry of Natural Resources

NOWPARC - Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept

NSSA - North Shore Steelhead Association

NWP - Northern Wood Preservers

OPG - Ontario Power Generation

PAC - Public Advisory Committee

PAHs – Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PCBs – Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PSQG - Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines

PWQG – Provincial Water Quality Guidelines


RAP - Remedial Action Plan

SEL - Severe Effect Level

TP – Total Phosphorus

TSS – Total Suspended Solids

UGLMU - Upper Great Lakes Management Unit

YOY - Young-of-the-Year








M O R E I N F O R M AT I O N :

W W W. N O R T H S H O R E R A P. C A

807 - 343 - 8514

O R CO N TAC T U S BY M A I L . . .remedial action plan office

rc-3000, lakehead univerSity

955 oliver road, thunder bay, on

printed in canada on chlorine and acid-free 100% poSt-conSumer recycled paper.

Date post:	15-Jul-2015
Category:	Education
Upload:	lake-superior-binational-forum
View:	2,952 times
Download:	0 times

Thunder bay rap update report 2012

Education