Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan Stage 2: Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration May 2004 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan Stage 2 report was originally drafted by the former Lake Superior Programs Office with the assistance of the Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan Team. Members of the RAP Team and their affiliations are listed below. Jake Vander Wal Formerly with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Ken Cullis Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Marilee Chase Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Patrick Morash Ontario Ministry of the Environment Tim Cano Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Thanks go to the Thunder Bay Public Advisory Committee for their assistance in preparing this document. PAC members played an integral part in the remedial action process, voicing the concerns of the community and providing assistance in investigating and evaluating remedial options. With the support and participation of the PAC, the RAP Team was better able to provide and implement a Remedial Action Plan that fulfills the goals and expectations of the Thunder Bay community. Current Thunder Bay PAC Members (2004) Bob Hartley PAC Chairman Guy Jarvis Harbour Commission Hartley Multamaki Buchanan Forest Products Dave Anderson Thunder Bay Terminals Ltd. Jane Todd Ontario Power Generation Nicholas Lewis Provincial Papers Gareth Barry Valley Camp Inc. Wil Carmean Public Joan Skelton Public Ray Dee North Shore Steelhead Association Walter Momot Public Bob Simpson Thunder Bay Salmon Association Bill Bartley Township of Shuniah Ajoy Chatterjee Bowater Nancy Erickson Public Jean Hall-Armstrong Thunder Bay Field Naturalists Umed Panu Lakehead Region Conservation Authority J. D. Polhill, now deceased, also contributed to the Stage 2 Remedial Action Planning process through his membership on the Thunder Bay PAC. It should also be acknowledged that the Stage Two process could not have proceeded without the efforts of those who participated in Stage One of the RAP process. The contributions of the following former members of the PAC are therefore gratefully acknowledged. Former PAC Members Who Participated in Stage One Bruce Hyer Environment North Michael Lynch Abitibi-Price/Ontario Forest Industries Association Wally Landolt Ontario Hydro Don Donovan Canadian Pacific Forest Products Jim Hill Thunder Bay Harbour Commission Lynn McCreadie North of Superior Tourism Association Rick McMullen Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ken Boshcoff (alternate) Thunder Bay Harbour Commission Laura Harnett (alternate) North of Superior Tourism Association Bob Simpson Thunder Bay Salmon Association Gord Earle Canadive Patrick Doherty N.M. Paterson Ltd. Cliff Jones (alternate) Thunder Bay SalmonAssociation Dawn Eccles Shuniah Township Gary Woodbeck N.M. Paterson Ltd. Mary Ellen MacCallum Public Mervi Henttonen (alternate) Lakehead Region Conservation Authority Bill Green Lakehead Terminal Elevators Association Harun Rasid Lakehead University Steve Suke (alternate) Lakehead Region Conservation Authority Jeff Reitberger Rowing Club Azim Mallik (alternate) Lakehead University Wes Allen Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce Special thanks to Jim Bailey, the original PAC facilitator, whose involvement was crucial to the RAP process. This report was edited by Ralph Jessup of Environment Canada’s Restoration Programs Division, with input from the PAC and from the Lake Superior coordinators of Environment Canada (John Marsden), the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (Patrick Morash), and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Pat Furlong). TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………… 1.1 Stages of the Plan …………………………………………………………….. 1.2 Role of Agencies in the Thunder Bay RAP …………………………............. 1.3 PAC Involvement ……………………………………………………………. 1 2.0 THUNDER BAY ECOSYSTEM ……………………………………………………… 2.1 Physical Features ……………………………………………………............... 2.2 Biological Features …………………………………………………………… 2.3 Socioeconomic Profile ……………………………………………….............. 2.4 Sources of Pollution and Voluntary Initiatives by Industry ...…….…............ 3 3.0 THUNDER BAY IMPAIRMENTS AND WATER USE GOALS ……………………. 3.1 Beneficial Use Impairments …………………………………………………... 3.2 Water Use Goals …………………………………………………………….. 13 4.0 REMEDIAL STRATEGIES FOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION ………………….. 4.1 Impaired Beneficial Uses Related to Fish and Wildlife ……………............... 4.2 Benthic Population Dynamics and Habitat Loss ……………………............... 4.3 Aesthetics and Beach Closures ……………………………………………….. 4.4 Dredging Restrictions ………………………………………………………… 4.5 Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Populations ………............... 4.6 Education and Stewardship …………………………………………......…….. 5.0 MONITORING PROGRAMS ASSOCIATED WITH REMEDIAL ACTIONS ………………………………………………………………………………. 5.1 The Monitoring Actions ……………………………………….……………..... 1 2 2 3 6 6 7 13 18 22 23 37 39 42 44 44 48 48 49 51 5.1.1 Fish and Wildlife Populations ………………………...……………… 5.1.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat ………………………...…………………... 5.1.3 Point Sources ……...…………………………………...…………….. 5.1.4 Non-Point Sources ……………………………………..…………….. 5.1.5 Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Populations …………..……………. 55 57 60 61 64 69 71 6.0 DELISTING CRITERIA ……………………………………...………………………. 7.0 SUMMARY OF RESTORATION STRATEGIES AND SUPPORTING ACTIONS ………………………………………………………..…………………….. 7.1 Concluding Remarks ……………………………………...……………………. REFERENCES ……………………………………………………..………………………. APPENDICES Appendix 1: Biological Features of the Thunder Bay AOC Appendix 2: Glossary, Acronyms, and Units of Measure Appendix 3: Proposed Methods for Upgrading the Water Pollution Control Plant Appendix 4: Potential Methods to Reduce Bacterial Growth at Chippewa Park Appendix 5: Corporate Report and Resolution Relating to Upgrades at Thunder Bay WPCP Produced and Approved by Thunder Bay City Council LIST OF TABLES Table E.1 Summary and Current Status of Beneficial Use Impairments …………………….………. i Table 2.1 Approximate Effluent Loadings to the Thunder Bay AOC from Major Point Sources ….... 8 Table 3.1 Metal and Organic Contaminant Levels in Sediments from the AOC ……………..……… Table 3.2 Beneficial Use Impairments, Water Use Goals, and Current Status of Degraded Areas …………………………………………………………………..……….. 17 20 Table 6.1 Delisting Criteria for the Impaired Beneficial Uses …………………………..……..….…. 61 Table 7.1 The Recommendations of the Five Ecosystem Restoration Strategies ………..………...… 64 Table 7.2 The Remediation and the Education and Stewardship Actions Supporting the Recommendations ………………..………………………….…...……….. 65 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Thunder Bay Area of Concern ……………………………………..……………………… 4 Figure 2.2 Major Effluent Dischargers to the Thunder Bay Harbour ………………………………… 9 Figure 2.3 Major Point Sources of Pollution in the Lower Kaministiquia River ……………………… 12 Figure 4.1 Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept …………………………….. 30 LIST OF REMEDIATION ACTIONS FWH-1 Rehabilitation of Degraded Walleye Spawning Habitat at the Current River Estuary …. 24 FWH-2 Alteration of Shoreline to Restore Habitat Diversity at the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway 25 FWH-3 Island Creation and Habitat Rehabilitation at the Mouth of McVicar Creek……..…….. 25 FWH-4 Redesign Waterfront Park to Protect and Enhance Shoreline of the Kaministiquia River, Including Scenic Overlook, Promenade, and Additional 500m of Park…………. 26 FWH-5 Creation of Embayments in the McKellar River to Restore Productive Littoral Habitat… 26 FWH-6 Improving Salmonid Access to the Upper Reaches of the Current River………………... 27 FWH-7 Alleviating Water Quality Barriers to Fish Migration in the Kaministiquia River……… 27 FWH-8 Test Guidelines for Collecting Baseline Aquatic Habitat Data…………...……………… 37 FWH-9 Develop Watershed Management Plan for the Slate River……………………………… 37 FWH-10 Implement the Slate River Watershed Management Plan……………………………….. 39 FWH-11 Tree Planting Projects……………………………………………………………………. 40 FWP-1 Directed Recovery of Native Fish Species ………………………..……………………. 29 FWP-2 Initiative to Devise Alternate Means to Control Sea Lamprey…………………………… 34 FWP-3 Preventing Further Introductions of Exotic Species…………………………….……….. Secondary Treatment at the Bowater Pulp and Paper Mill………………….…………… 35 PS-2 Upgrades at Thunder Bay Terminals…………………………………………………….. 31 PS-3 Developments at Ontario Power Generation - Thunder Bay Generating Station….…….. 31 PS-4 Secondary Treatment at Abitibi Consolidated……………………………..……………. 32 PS-5 Redirect Stormwater Outlet and Oil Separator Discharge at CPR……………………….. 32 PS-6 Secondary Treatment at Water Pollution Control Plant………………………………….. Thunder Bay Pollution Prevention and Control Plan……………………………..……… 32 PS-8 Process Improvements at Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc. ………………………... 33 PS-G1 Develop and Implement Plans to Remediate any Remaining Point Sources of Contaminants Contributing to the Fish and Wildlife Related Impairments …………….. 34 NPS-1 Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept (NOWPARC) Project….. 28 NPS-2 Develop a Management Plan for Mercury Contaminated Sediments at Cascades Fine Papers Group ……………………………………………………………………………. 33 NPS-3 Improvements at Chippewa Park………………………………………………………... 41 NPS-G1 Develop and Implement Plans to Remediate Any Remaining Non-Point Sources of Contaminants Contributing to the Fish and Wildlife Related Impairments …………….. 34 PS-1 PS-7 31 36 LIST OF EDUCATION AND STEWARDSIP ACTIONS ES-1 Community Cleanup of the Thunder Bay 40 Waterfront……………...…………………….. ES-2 ES-3 Public Involvement in Habitat Creation Project at McVicar Creek - Name the Island Contest………………………………………………………………………………… … 45 45 ES-5 Lake Superior Community Education Project…………………………………………… Lake Superior Day……………………………………………………………………….. Making a Great Lake Superior brochure ………………………………………………. ES-6 Waterfront Development Workshop…………………………………………………….. 46 ES-7 The Next Wave: Charting a New Course for Thunder Bay’s Waterfront ……………….. Achieving Integrated Habitat Enhancement Objectives: A Technical Manual………….. 46 Thunder Bay 2002 Clean & Green………………………………………………………. Development of Local Planner’s Guide to Ecosystem Health…………………………… 46 ES-4 ES-8 ES-9 ES-10 ES-11 Preventative Measures for Watershed Protection.............................................................. 45 45 46 47 47 LIST OF MONITORING ACTIONS FWPM-1 Monitoring to Support Lake Sturgeon Rehabilitation Strategy…………………………. 49 FWPM-2 Monitoring the Effectiveness of Alternate Sea Lamprey Control………………………. 49 FWPM-3 Monitoring of Exotic Species and of Associated Control Efforts………………………. 50 FWPM-G1 Identify and Assess Any Remaining Point and Non-Point Sources of Contaminants Which Have Contributed Significantly to the Fish and Wildlife Impairments…………………………………………………………………………… … FWPM-G2 FWHM-1 FWHM-2 Develop and Implement a Coordinated Monitoring Plan to Fill Baseline Information Gaps Wherever Possible and Track Progress on Restoring the Fish and Wildlife Beneficial Uses………………………………………………….. Monitoring the Rehabilitation of Walleye Spawning Habitat at Current River Estuary………………………………………………………………………………… … Monitor the Habitat Enhancement on the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway………………... 50 51 51 51 FWHM-3 Monitor Effects of Island Creation and Habitat Rehabilitation at Mouth………………. 52 FWHM-4 Monitoring Public Response to Waterfront Park on Kaministiquia River………………. 52 FWHM-5 Monitor Effectiveness of Habitat Remediation on McKellar River …………………….. 52 FWHM-6 Monitor Improvements in Salmonid Access to Upper Reaches of the Current River …………………………………………………………………………….. Monitor Alleviation in Water Quality Barriers to Fish Migration in the Kaministiquia River………………………………………………………………….…… FWHM-7 FWHM-8 FWHM-9 FWHM-10 FWHM-11 Apply Monitoring Guidelines for Collecting Baseline Aquatic Habitat Data…………… Monitor Demonstration Project for Slate River Watershed Management Plan……..….. Monitor Environmental Improvements Resulting from the Implementation of the Slate River Watershed Management Plan…………………………………………. 53 53 53 54 54 Monitor Success of Re-vegetation Projects in McVicar Creek and McKellar River…………………………………………………………………………..………… 54 PSM-1 Monitoring Environmental Improvements at Bowater………………………..………... 55 PSM-2 Monitoring Environmental Improvements at Thunder Bay Terminals………………….. 55 PSM-3 Monitoring Environmental Improvements at the OPG Thunder Bay Generating Station……………………………………………………………………….. 55 PSM-4 Monitoring Environmental Improvements at AbitibiConsolidated……………………... PSM-5 Monitoring Effectiveness of the Redirection of Stormwater and Oil Separator Discharge at CPR………………………………………...………….………… 56 Monitor Environmental Improvements Resulting from Secondary Treatment and UV Disinfection at the Water Pollution Control Plant………………………….…… 56 PSM-6 PSM-7 PSM-8 NPSM-1(a) Monitor the Effectiveness of the Short Term Pollution Prevention and Control Plan (PPCP) for the City of Thunder Bay………………………………….….. Monitoring of the Mission Bay Confined Disposal Facility to Ensure that no Contaminants Re-enter the Environment………………………………………………… Long Term Monitoring of Groundwater and Sediment Conditions Outside 56 56 57 the Berm in the Region of the NOWPARC Project………………………………..……. NPSM-1(b) NPSM-1(c) Long term Monitoring of Benthic Community Ecosystem Improvements Resulting from the NOWPARC project………………………………………………….. 57 58 Long term Monitoring of Fish Habitat Improvements Resulting from the NOWPARC project…………………………………………………………………. 58 NPSM-2 Monitoring Sediment Mercury Levels at Cascades Fine Papers Group………..………. 58 NPSM-3 Monitoring Contamination and Potential Sources in the Main Swimming Areas (Chippewa Beach and Mission Marsh Regions)………………………………..………. 59 NPSM-4 PZPM-1 Determine the Extent and Severity of Any Sediment Contamination That May Exist as a Result of Historic Discharges at Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc. (Formerly Thunder Bay Packaging)………………………..……………………….…… Monitoring the Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Populations…………………………… 60 60 LIST OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS MNG-1 MNG-2 MNG-3 Convene workshops to determine if the existing remediation actions are sufficient to restore the AOC to the point where it meets the revised set of delisting criteria produced under management action MNG-3 ……………………………………………………… Convene workshops to establish the necessary coordination between the overall monitoring strategy and the revised delisting criteria resulting from Action MNG-3 …... Convene workshops to produce a set of precise, objectively defined delisting criteria that are numerically quantified wherever possible, and which will provide the necessary decision framework that will govern the delisting of each impaired beneficial use and ultimately the delisting of the AOC itself ………………………………………………. 22 48 61 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 (GLWQA) and its 1987 revisions, establish general and specific water quality objectives for the Great lakes basin and affirm the determination of Canadian and U.S. Governments to restore and enhance the water quality of the Great Lakes. Participating federal, state, and provincial agencies, in cooperation with the International Joint Commission (IJC), identified 43 polluted areas on the Great Lakes as individual Areas of Concern (AOCs), for which a cleanup or Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was required. Seventeen AOCs were in Ontario (two have since been delisted), and four, including Thunder Bay, are located on the north shore of Lake Superior. The Stage 1 RAP provided a definition and detailed description of the environmental problems within the AOC and identified the beneficial use impairments for the Thunder Bay harbour and adjoining tributaries. The area was originally classified as an AOC because of problems associated with heavy metals, toxic organics, contaminated sediments, fish consumption advisories, impacted biota, beach closings, and conventional pollutants. In the Stage 1 Report, of the “14 Impairments of Beneficial Use” defined by the GLWQA (1987), ten were designated as “impaired”, three as “not impaired” and one as “requiring further assessment.” Currently, nine are impaired (one not due to local sources) and five unimpaired. Note that these figures relate to the overall status of each beneficial use and do not reflect the more detailed information provided by the breakdown of certain beneficial uses into various sub-components. Table E.1 Summary and Current Status of Impairments to Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Beneficial Uses in the Thunder Bay Area of Concern (I = impaired; NI = not impaired; RFA = requires further assessment; NL = impaired, but not due to local sources.) GLWQA IMPAIRMENT OF BENEFICIAL USE Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Consumption Fish Consumption Stage 1 Status I CURRENT CONDITIONS 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) (OMOE 1999). Stage 2 Status I In the inner harbour 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). Wildlife Consumption Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations Dynamics of Fish Populations NI I There are no advisories in place for the consumption of wildlife by humans. Organic enrichment, decreased dissolved oxygen levels, and increased water temperatures have resulted in periodic fish kills on the Kaministiquia River and a change in fish community structure above and below the Bowater outfall. However, water quality has improved with 100% chlorine i NI I GLWQA IMPAIRMENT OF BENEFICIAL USE Stage 1 Status CURRENT CONDITIONS Stage 2 Status dioxide substitution (1994) and secondary effluent treatment at both the kraft (1993) and newsprint (1995) mills. Harbour fish populations near Northern Sawmills (formerly Northern Wood Preservers) property should improve with the NOWPARC project. The introduction of exotic species may adversely affect fish populations in the AOC. Additional surveys are required to update the status of this impairment. Body burdens of Fish I Lake trout and white sucker populations have exhibited reductions in body burdens of dioxins. PCB levels in lake trout and whitefish still exceed guidelines for the protection of organisms that consume fish. I Dynamics of Wildlife Populations I Wetlands have been lost or threatened by pollution and development. Degradation and loss of aquatic and terrestrial habitat has impacted bird and mammal populations. Habitat rehabilitation projects should address this impairment. I RFA Polychlorinated dioxins are present to a varying degree in cormorant and herring gull eggs collected from colonies near Pie Island. Concentrations are higher in cormorants than in individuals from other colonies in Lake Superior. The same compounds are present in herring gulls nesting in the Thunder Bay area. Additional assessment is required to determine the status of this impairment. The Canadian Wildlife Service resampled (summer of 2000) and will provide additional information. I I Liver cancers have been reported in white suckers taken from the Kaministiquia River in 1990. The incidence of liver cancers may be associated with exposure to chemical contaminants, particularly PAHs in contaminated sediments. Due to process improvements by local industry, and the NOWPARC project, this impairment is no longer considered to be caused by sources of contamination within the AOC. NL There have been no recent reports from the public or fisheries/wildlife personnel. Unless new complaints are received, tainting will not be considered a problem. NI Bird and animal deformities have not been reported within the boundaries of the AOC. However, deformities in cormorants have occurred at nearby colonies at Cone and Gravel Islands (Ryckman et al 1998). While in the period of 1988-1994 the incidence of deformities was the lowest in the Great Lakes at 1.2 per 10,000, it was still elevated compared to areas outside of the Great Lakes. In the NI Body Burdens of Wildlife Fish Tumours and Other Deformities Tainting of Fish and Wildlife Flavour NI Bird and Animal Deformities or Reproductive Problems RFA ii GLWQA IMPAIRMENT OF BENEFICIAL USE Stage 1 Status CURRENT CONDITIONS Stage 2 Status summer of 2000, the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) resurveyed and will provide further information relating to the status change of this beneficial use. A CWS survey on the Great Lakes (1973-1991) indicated that during that time period cormorant populations were reproducing at normal levels and that the number of colonies on Lake Superior had increased (Weseloh and Collier 1995). Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat I Fish and wildlife habitat has been degraded by industrial growth and waterfront development. 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. Future waterfront development plans that incorporate habitat remediation will improve habitat value in the AOC. I Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Populations I It is assumed that plankton populations are degraded in the vicinity of industrial outfalls, however, no formal study on the condition of the phyto or zooplankton communities has been completed. Process effluent from Bowater is nonacutely lethal to Ceriodaphnia. Secondary treatment at Abitibi has also decreased effluent toxicity. I Degradation of Benthos I Benthic populations below the Bowater outfall in the Kaministiquia River and near the former Northern Wood Preservers site in the harbour are impaired as a result of sediment contamination, habitat alteration, and high organic loads. The situation has improved with the installation of secondary treatment at Bowater and the closure of Ogilvie Mills. Completion of the NOWPARC project is expected to further improve these conditions now that contaminated sediments have been either removed or isolated. Periodic dredging to permit shipping traffic will continue (eventually only in the Mission River) to impair the benthic community. Since this dredging activity is necessary it should not be considered when judging the status of this impairment. I Restrictions on Dredging Activities I Provincial lakefilling guidelines have been exceeded for pentachlorophenols (PCPs), oil, grease, dioxins, and furans. Provincial Water Quality Objectives have been exceeded for resin and fatty acids, phenols, cresols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metals. The NOWPARC project should alleviate some of this contamination. Mercury contamination is also a concern in sediments adjacent to the Cascades Fine Papers mill. I iii GLWQA IMPAIRMENT OF BENEFICIAL USE Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae Stage 1 Status NI Restrictions on Drinking Water Consumption or Taste and Odour Problems NI No restrictions on drinking water consumption or evidence of aesthetic impairment. NI Beach Closings I Beaches at Chippewa Park and Boulevard Lake are periodically closed each summer because of levels of faecal coliform bacteria in excess of Provincial Water Quality Objectives. Bird droppings, drainage from the wildlife exhibit at the zoo, and insufficient water circulation in the bay contribute to the contamination. I Degradation of Aesthetics I Industrialization, partially demolished structures, and degraded water quality have impaired river and harbourfront aesthetics in the AOC. Efforts such as the Kaministiquia River Heritage Park, the proposed Marina development on the waterfront, the McKellar embayments, the NOWPARC project, and community cleanup programs will enhance the natural aspects of the harbour, making it more attractive and accessible while still allowing industrial activity to continue. I Added Cost to Agriculture and Industry I There are no additional costs required to treat process water prior to use for industrial or agricultural purposes. Ontario Power Generation treats process water drawn from the Mission River, regardless of water quality because of extremely high purity standards. Improvements in water quality have occurred in the last few years, making treatment less rigorous. NI CURRENT CONDITIONS There have been no reports of nuisance algae growth within the AOC. Stage 2 Status NI The Thunder Bay Ecosystem The greatest impacts on the AOC have resulted from industrial and urban development along the Thunder Bay waterfront and adjoining tributaries. Dredging, waste disposal, channelization, and the release of a number of pollutants have eliminated a significant portion of quality habitat along the waterfront. The consequences have been a loss of species abundance and diversity, reduced recreational opportunities, and a decline in the aesthetic value of the area. Impacts resulting from the release of process effluent into the Kaministiquia River and Lake Superior have been significantly reduced in recent years because of improved effluent treatment and changes in industrial processes; however, the ecosystem remains impaired in a number of ways. Some areas of the AOC support benthic communities reflective of organic enrichment, contaminated sediments, and habitat loss from dredging activities. Dredging restrictions are still in effect because of sediment contamination in the harbour. This was particularly true at the former Northern Wood Preservers site. However, conditions are expected to improve there as a result of the iv successful completion of the NOWPARC project (see below). Elevated bacterial levels are also a concern as they present potential health hazards for water based recreational activities. To this end, Stage 2 documents remedial efforts implemented in the AOC, and presents restoration strategies designed to address the remaining beneficial use impairments. The Thunder Bay Public Advisory Committee (PAC) developed specific water use goals and objectives to assist in the rehabilitation and protection of the AOC. These goals provided community based guidelines for the recovery of the Thunder Bay harbour and its tributaries. The participation of the PAC, in combination with available scientific data and expertise, has resulted in a defensible strategy for the restoration of the AOC. Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration Remediation requires a cooperative effort by government, industry, and the public, aimed at reduction or cessation of impacts on the ecosystem and rehabilitation of historically degraded sites. Strategies to address beneficial use impairments have been designed to increase aquatic and terrestrial habitat, enhance recreational opportunities, improve the aesthetic value of the harbour and its tributaries, and to develop an understanding of environmental problems and resolutions. Efforts to restore the Thunder Bay AOC are already underway. The highest profile remediation project has been the Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept (NOWPARC) which, apart from post remediation monitoring, has now been completed. Abitibi Consolidated Inc., Northern Sawmills Inc., Canadian National Railway Co., Environment Canada and the Ministry of the Environment worked together to remediate the area around the Northern Wood Preservers site. NOWPARC was designed to address sediment contamination and to enhance existing habitat and aesthetic values. The remedial strategy was to isolate the source of contamination and treat contaminated sediments through a combination of containment, dredging, and capping. The completion of this project, in concert with other RAP initiatives, will help to improve water quality and sediment conditions in the harbour, and provide a hospitable environment for diverse biotic communities. The following projects (with their ID codes enclosed in parentheses) indicate a clear commitment to the remediation of the Thunder Bay AOC. For detailed descriptions of all these projects, see Chapter 4, and for the appropriate page numbers, refer either to the “Table of Contents” or to Table 7.2 in Chapter 7. Completed Projects · Rehabilitation of walleye spawning habitat in Current River estuary (FWH-1) · Restoration of habitat diversity along Neebing-McIntyre Floodway (FWH-2) · Island creation and habitat rehabilitation at mouth of McVicar Creek (FWH-3) · Creation of Kaministiquia River Heritage Park to protect and enhance shoreline (FWH-4) · Restoration of productive littoral habitat through creation of McKellar embayments (FWH-5) · Improved salmonid access to upper reaches of Current River (FWH-6) · Alleviation of water quality barriers to fish migration in Kaministiquia River (FWH-7) · Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept project (NPS-1) · Secondary treatment at local pulp and paper mills (PS-1) · Updates at Thunder Bay Terminals (PS-2) · Process upgrades at Ontario Power Generation (PS-3) · Secondary Treatment at Abitibi Consolidated (PS-4) · Process Improvements at Smurfit-Stone (PS-8) · Alternate sea lamprey control methods (FWP-2) v · Preventing further introductions of exotic species (FWP-3) · Thunder Bay Pollution Prevention and Control Plan (PS-7) · Guidelines for collection of baseline aquatic habitat data (FWH-8) · Watershed Management Plan for the Slate River (FWH-9) · Community cleanup of waterfront (ES-1) · Tree planting projects (FWH-11) · Navigational dredging of contaminated sediments (not a RAP activity) · Public awareness projects (Name the Island Contest) (ES-2) · Lake Superior Community Education project (ES-3) · Lake Superior Day (annual) (ES-4) · Publication of Making a Great Lake Superior (ES-5) · Waterfront development workshops (ES-6) · Technical manual on Integrated Habitat Enhancement Objectives (ES-8) · Thunder Bay 2002 Clean & Green (EcoSuperior) (ES-9) Incomplete and Ongoing Projects · Directed recovery of native fish species (lake sturgeon) (FWP-1) · Implement the Slate River Watershed Management Plan (FWH-10) · Redirection of stormwater outlet and oil separator discharge (PS-5) · Secondary treatment at Water Pollution Control Plant (PS-6) · Assessment of sediment mercury levels at the Cascade Fine Papers mill (NPS-2) · Improvements at Chippewa Park (NPS-3) · Develop and implement plans to remediate any remaining point sources of contaminants contributing to the fish and wildlife related impairments (PS-G1) · Develop and implement plans to remediate any remaining non-point sources of contaminants contributing to the fish and wildlife related impairments (NPS-G1) · Develop long term plan for waterfront (The Next Wave) (ES-7) · Development of local planner’s guide to ecosystem health (ES-10) · Preventative measures for watershed protection program (ES-11) For each of the above remediation projects there is a corresponding monitoring action described in the Stage 2 report. These monitoring actions are designed to measure the effectiveness of the corresponding remediation projects in meeting their designated goals. In addition, the report contains recommended actions to identify and remediate any remaining point and non-point sources which may be contributing to fish and wildlife related impairments and to fill baseline information gaps wherever possible. It is expected that, in concert with improvements in industrial processes and other mitigative measures, natural recovery will aid in the removal of contaminants as they become isolated from the system and eventually degrade by natural processes. Important to this approach is the maintenance of high standards of pollution prevention strategies by industrial and municipal interests, and continued monitoring of the AOC to document any effects of historic deposits of contaminated material on the ecosystem. In this way, progress of the ecosystem to a healthy state can be ensured and delisting of the AOC can occur at the earliest opportunity. vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Stages of the Plan As a result of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 (GLWQA) and its 1987 revisions, participating federal, state, and provincial agencies, in cooperation with the International Joint Commission (IJC), identified 43 degraded areas on the Great Lakes as specific Areas of Concern (AOC), for which cleanup or Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) would be required. Seventeen of these areas were within Ontario and four, including Thunder Bay, were located on the north shore of Lake Superior. Since then, as a result of the Remedial Action planning process, two of the Canadian AOCs, Collingwood Harbour and Severn Sound, have been delisted as Areas of Concern. In addition, remedial action planning has served as an important step toward the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances and the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin. Under the 2002 Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA), the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE), Environment Canada (EC), the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), in addition to several other provincial and federal departments, have committed themselves to providing the resources needed to implement three five-year goals that will demonstrate progress towards restoring environmental quality and beneficial uses in the remaining Areas of Concern. These include (1) restoring environmental quality and beneficial uses in at least two locations, resulting in the removal of the designation "Area of Concern"; (2) completing all required actions for Remedial Action Plans in at least six AOCs (and continuing to monitor recovery); and (3) making progress towards rehabilitation of ecological systems in the remaining AOCs. The cooperation and involvement of these agencies results from the necessity of viewing AOCs from an ecosystem perspective that incorporates land, water, air, plants, animals and, ultimately, people. To this end, Health Canada has also worked with RAP teams on the integration of human health considerations into the development and implementation of RAPs. The general public (i.e., both individuals and organizations) participate in the RAP process as members of Public Advisory Committees (PACs), providing a forum for the spectrum of interests existing within a community. The Thunder Bay PAC encompasses the interests of private citizens, academia, industry, labour, recreational groups, and property owners. The Stage 1 document, Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition, summarized background information concerning the AOC, its biogeography and land and water uses, and compiled information on environmental conditions in Thunder Bay. It identified which of the 14 beneficial uses defined in the Great lakes Water Quality Agreement were impaired within the AOC, documented these impairments (see the table in the executive summary), and specified their causes, where possible. Efforts to restore the beneficial uses, indicating any resultant improvements, identifying information gaps and studies needed to fill them were documented. It also identified objectives for the remediation of the AOC and documented public involvement in the process. The document was reviewed by both federal and provincial agencies and the IJC. This Stage 2 report outlines the various strategies for the remediation of the Thunder Bay AOC and identifies agencies and organizations from which implementation support may be expected. It describes the specific remedial actions (completed, ongoing, and remaining) to implement the strategies, and documents the progress of remedial measures already under way. It also contains a preliminary description of the criteria to be used in deciding when each of the beneficial use impairments may be delisted, and describes the various monitoring programs which will track the effectiveness of the remedial actions and measure progress toward delisting the AOC. A Stage 3 Report will be prepared after (1) all of the remedial actions have been fully implemented and confirmed as effective, (2) all of the delisting criteria have been met and confirmed as such by monitoring data, and (3) a long term monitoring program is in place to track the natural remediation of those beneficial uses which may still be impaired, but no longer due to local sources of pollution. The report will provide documentation that all of these conditions have been met, and will undergo scientific and policy review by agency experts and a review by the RAP 1 implementation teams and the Public Advisory Committee. Once these groups have approved the document it will be formally submitted to the federal and provincial governments The recommended options outlined in the following pages are thought to be appropriate solutions to the environmental problems and conditions within the AOC and should restore beneficial uses over time. Recognizing that the RAP process is a dynamic one, we must be willing to acknowledge any deficiencies that arise and act accordingly to modify remedial strategies. 1.2 Role of Agencies in the Thunder Bay RAP The North Shore of Lake Superior RAP Program was an integral component of the Lake Superior Programs Office (LSPO). The office was formed in 1991 by Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. The LSPO provided a unique one-window approach to delivering projects recommended by Public Advisory Committees for the Remedial Action Plans in Thunder Bay, Nipigon Bay, Spanish Harbour, St. Marys River, Jackfish Bay, and Peninsula Harbour. The office provided a critical link between the public, industry, and government agencies on issues concerning the Lake Superior ecosystem. Strong public involvement and funding from a variety of partners resulted in positive actions directed at cleaning up contaminated sediments, restoring native fish populations, rehabilitating fish and wildlife habitat, and increasing environmental awareness in North Shore communities. The LSPO closed in 1999. Finalizing Stage 2 documents marks the completion of the planning stages for the RAP process. Implementation of the RAPs and providing support in efforts to monitor ecosystem recovery is the responsibility of local, provincial, and federal authorities. For example, sewage treatment plant upgrades fall within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Environment’s Thunder Bay District Office. 1.3 PAC Involvement The involvement of the Public Advisory Committee in the Thunder Bay RAP has been an extensive and integral part of the success of this project. The IJC recognized the importance of public participation as a mechanism to provide accountability to the public. The combination of local knowledge and community-based goals with scientific data and expertise has resulted in a pragmatic and defensible strategy to rehabilitate the AOC. The formal submission of the Stage 2 document to the federal and provincial governments changes PAC involvement in the RAP process from plan development to assisting in the implementation of remedial strategies, and monitoring the progress of the plan. The cooperation, understanding, and stewardship that have been fostered will undoubtedly continue to affect the community and its outlook on future environmental concerns. 2 2.0 THE THUNDER BAY ECOSYSTEM Extensive background information on the Thunder Bay AOC has been documented in the Stage 1 report (Thunder Bay RAP Team 1991). This section summarizes background material that is pertinent to Stage 2 discussions, and highlights recent and additional information. 2.1 Physical Features The Thunder Bay AOC extends approximately 28 km along the shoreline of Lake Superior and up to nine kilometres offshore from the City of Thunder Bay (Fig. 2.1). It is exposed to the open waters of Lake Superior along its southern and eastern boundaries, while the Bay extends beyond the AOC to the north. The AOC is bordered on the west by the mainland. The Thunder Bay watershed is drained by the Kaministiquia River system and a number of smaller rivers and creeks, including the Neebing, McIntyre, and Current Rivers, and McVicar Creek. The Kaministiquia River begins at Dog Lake, situated about 40 km northwest of Thunder Bay, and drains an area of approximately 6,800 km2. The Shebandowan and Kashabowie Lake systems also feed the Kaministiquia River via the Shebandowan River. Ontario Power Generation - Northwest Hydroelectric Plant Group regulates flow in the Kaministiquia River through a series of control dams on the Dog and Shebandowan Lake systems, storing and releasing water in accordance with power generating requirements. A minimum flow rate of 17 m3/s is maintained at the Kakabeka Falls Dam and generating station during the summer months to help preserve the integrity of the downstream aquatic community. Approximately 3.2 km upstream from its mouth, the Kaministiquia River divides into three channels: the Kaministiquia, McKellar, and Mission Rivers. Both the Kaministiquia (from the mouth of the Kaministiquia River to the Westfort Turning Basin below Bowater) and Mission Rivers have been dredged for commercial shipping by the Canada Department of Public Works to a depth of 7.6 m. The McKellar River was also dredged prior to the 1980s. In the future, only the Mission River will be dredged for navigation (Thunder Bay Harbour Commission). Dredging activities and a naturally low gradient result in a backwater effect from Lake Superior, causing this section of the Kaministiquia River to behave like an estuary (Thunder Bay RAP Team 1991). The Thunder Bay harbour supports approximately 118 ha of marsh area, representing a major portion of wetlands in Canadian Lake Superior. Harbourfront wetlands are comprised of five separate marshes, namely the Mission Island (52.4 ha), Neebing (25.5 ha), Chippewa (23.4 ha), McKellar Island (11.5 ha), and Northern Wood Preservers (NWP) (5.0 ha) marshes. Harbour marshes consist of three main areas: the central harbour marshes (including the Neebing, McKellar, and Mission Marshes), the NWP Marsh in the north harbour, and Chippewa Marsh in the south harbour (Entwistle 1986). Central harbour wetlands provide important habitat to both resident fish and wildlife communities and to species that migrate through the area. Thirty-seven species of birds have been observed nesting in the marshes (Entwistle 1986), including 24 waterfowl species in the Mission and Neebing marsh areas (Hall-Armstrong and Rempel 1992). The NWP Marsh is small and surrounded by industrialized land, resulting in its present degraded condition. Chippewa Marsh exhibits low species diversity, possibly the result of the construction of a dredged spoils disposal facility (1978) that prevents the marsh from being flushed by Lake Superior (Thunder Bay RAP Team 1991). Resource Use: Land The most significant land use in the AOC is for urban and industrial development. The City of Thunder Bay, with its extensively developed harbour and large urban area, sprawls along the shoreline of the Bay and up the Kaministiquia River. Much of the industrial land within the harbour has been constructed through a combination of draining and filling of shoreline areas, including wetlands. Urban development and cottages extend along both the north shore of Lake Superior and inland along its tributaries. 3 Figure 2. 1 Thunder Bay Area of Concern Approximately 26,000 km2 (2.6 million hectares) or 84% of the Thunder Bay District is forested land. However, all but 1.5 million hectares of this area contains valuable wildlife habitat (including wetlands), recreation areas, shoreline reserves, regions committed to development, and other areas where forestry activities are excluded. Of these 1.5 million hectares, ninety percent are designated for growing merchantable timber and other forest products. The remaining 10% is held for protection purposes and is managed to regulate water flow, prevent erosion, and offer other environmental benefits (OMNR 1982). Agricultural activities are present in the AOC, particularly within the Kaministiquia River Valley. These include raising beef and dairy cattle and, to a lesser extent, the cultivation of fruit and vegetables. Most of the Thunder Bay area, however, has only low to moderate agricultural potential (Thunder Bay RAP Team 1991). Resource Use: Water Municipal water for the City of Thunder Bay is presently supplied by two water treatment plants. The north side plant has a design capacity of 91 million litres/day and draws water from Lake Superior through an intake located at Bare Point. The south side plant has a capacity of 77 million litres/day and draws water from Loch Lomond, which is located approximately 5 km southwest of the mouth of the Mission River. In 1979, the Bare Point pumping station was upgraded to a full filtration plant, where water is chlorinated prior to entering the distribution system. The Loch Lomond plant screens, chlorinates, and treats water with lime before it enters the distribution system (Anderson 1986). At present, the City of Thunder Bay is examining the potential closure of the Loch Lomond plant and the use of the Bare Point facility as its sole water source. In October 1997 Giardia, a minute parasite that causes intestinal infection, was found in the Loch Lomond water supply. The local Medical Officer of the Thunder Bay District Health Unit issued a boil water advisory for the Loch Lomond distribution area. The advisory was lifted in November 1998 following the installation of a microfiltration plant at the Loch Lomond facility. The new system satisfies the Ministry of the Environment’s treatment guidelines. Several industries, including local pulp and paper companies, draw their process water from Lake Superior. The Ontario Power Generation - Thunder Bay Generating Station is a two unit, 300 megawatt coal-fired operation located on the southeast corner of Mission Island. The station draws water from the mouth of the Mission River and is the largest individual water user in Thunder Bay. The pulp and paper industry, which uses lake water for cooling and processing purposes, is also a consumer of large amounts of water. Cascades Fine Papers Group (formerly Provincial Papers) draws process water from Thunder Bay, while Bowater (formerly Avenor Inc.) and Abitibi -Consolidated draw theirs from the Kaministiquia and Mission Rivers, respectively. Until its closure in December 2003 SmurfitStone Container Canada Inc. (formerly Thunder Bay Packaging) also took process water from Thunder Bay. Smaller water users include Northern Sawmills Inc. (formerly Northern Wood Preservers Ltd.), which uses water from the municipal system, and Canada Malting Co. Ltd., which treats its own water (Anderson 1986). Implications for Remedial Action Planning The most pressing issues within the Thunder Bay AOC have been the degradation of sediment and water quality, and the subsequent destruction of fish and wildlife habitat as a result of extensive contaminant inputs from industrial and urban development. Effluent release and pollutant seepage into the harbour have resulted in localized areas of substantial sediment contamination and degraded benthic communities, especially in the vicinity of Northern Sawmills (Beak 1988; Bedard and Petro 1995). Although the Northern Sawmills site has been remediated, concerns still exist over the presence of elevated mercury levels in surficial sediments in the north end of the inner harbour adjacent to the Cascades Fine Papers Group property. Fish species in the harbour experience elevated contaminant loads. Rehabilitation of the aquatic community in the AOC would involve improving habitat conditions by mitigating the effects of historic pollution and preventing further contaminant inputs. Wetlands provide a variety of beneficial uses including the provision of spawning, nursery, and forage habitat for a number of fish species. Within the AOC, the Neebing, McKellar, and Mission Marshes are located adjacent to rainbow trout and potential chinook salmon migration corridors. Highly productive aquatic habitats of this nature are used as staging areas by pre-spawning salmonids and are transitional zones for smolting salmonids. Surface water 5 runoff filtration, flood prevention, and chemical buffering are also provided by these areas (Government of Canada 1991). Wetland rehabilitation could provide widespread benefits to the AOC. Although enhancement of the natural values of the AOC is essential, human activity within the harbour is crucial to the economic well being of the City of Thunder Bay. Thus, actions with detrimental consequences to industry in the AOC are as unacceptable as practices that continue to degrade the ecosystem. 2.2 Biological Features The Thunder Bay AOC provides habitat for a wide variety of fish species (Appendix 1a) (Thunder Bay RAP Team 1991) (Momot and Stephenson). Native species, such as lake trout and lake whitefish, are important with respect to both commercial and sport fishing interests. Lake trout, lake herring, and lake whitefish comprise the largest proportion of the commercial catch within the AOC, while many other species are pursued by sport fishermen. The addition of non-native species (such as chinook salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, rainbow salmon, and smelt) has altered fish community structure; however, it has also enhanced the local recreational fishery. Rainbow trout, walleye, brook trout, northern pike, smelt, and pink and coho salmon are also part of the sport fishery. The productive wetlands along the harbourfront and the Kaministiquia River delta offer a range of habitat types to a large number of bird (Appendix 1b) and mammal (Appendix 1c) species. Birds primarily utilize the wetland areas as nesting, summer range, or migratory stopover habitat. Several mammal species, such as fox, deer, and mink, have also been observed in the area. As a result, the wetlands provide recreational wildlife viewing opportunities within city limits. The Thunder Bay harbour has noteworthy aesthetic value associated with the wetlands and Marina Park. Natural areas allow for passive viewing of Lake Superior itself as well as a wide variety of plant life (Appendix 1d). Timber harvesting in the Thunder Bay District has centred on the pulp and paper industry. Virtually all species are harvested, with black spruce (Picea mariana) and jack pine (Pinus banksiana) predominating (Thunder Bay RAP Team 1991). There are no logging rights within the AOC. Implications for Remedial Action Planning The Thunder Bay area provides the opportunity for a coexistence of urban activities and natural values. The presence of such a wide assortment of opportunities to experience nature within the confines of a city the size of Thunder Bay is truly unique. Through the implementation of an effective remedial strategy, impaired beneficial uses can be restored and this potential can be fully realized. 2.3 Socioeconomic Profile A comprehensive approach to the remedial action process must include a fundamental awareness of the connection between land and water, and economic, social, and environmental factors. This will allow for a more informed review of available options that strive to be both realistic and sustainable in the long term. To this end, a socioeconomic profile (Ecologistics 1993) was developed for the AOC to summarize social and economic factors and trends in the Thunder Bay area with particular relevance to the RAP process. The City of Thunder Bay is a significant economic centre with industrial activities dominating the waterfront and Kaministiquia River valley. The harbour is used as a transhipment point and grain handling port, though these aspects of the economy have recently experienced some decline. Employment losses have been replaced to some extent by newly created jobs in government and post secondary education (Environment Canada 1995). The services sector is also growing in importance with increased efforts to attract new manufacturers to the area (Ecologistics 1993). 6 Recent public interest in diversification of the economic base in Thunder Bay has lead to proposals for further development of recreational, tourism, residential, and commercial activities in the waterfront district (The Planning Partnership et al. 1998). Waterfront development would stimulate growth in the Thunder Bay economy by providing new construction and employment opportunities, increased returns to local businesses, and an enhanced tourism market. Metropolitan Thunder Bay has a population of roughly 120,000 and is not expected to grow significantly in the near future (Ecologistics 1993). Implications for Remedial Action Planning Thunder Bay is a working harbour and its viability is extremely important to the economic well-being of the area. Though remediation of the AOC is necessary, it must not severely compromise the feasibility of industrial and shipping interests within the harbour. To this end, remediation efforts such as the Northern Woods Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept (NOWPARC; see section 4.1) propose to rehabilitate and promote the natural values of the Thunder Bay harbour while still allowing industrial activity to continue. NOWPARC and other environmental initiatives will enhance the aesthetic enjoyment and accessibility of the waterfront and encourage growth in recreational use of the harbour (Environment Canada 1995). Part of the attraction of the Thunder Bay area is its inherent natural beauty. As the RAP process continues this feature will be enhanced, possibly resulting in secondary economic benefits for the city. 2.4 Sources of Pollution and Voluntary Initiatives by Industry Direct dischargers into Thunder Bay Harbour include Abitibi-Consolidated, Cascades Fine Papers Group (formerly Provincial Papers), Northern Sawmills (formerly Northern Wood Preservers) and, until its closure in December 2003, Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc. (formerly Thunder Bay Packaging) (Fig. 2.2). Bowater, and the Thunder Bay Water Pollution Control Plant discharge to Lake Superior via the lower Kaministiquia River (Fig. 2.3). Smaller dischargers to the harbour include a number of urban industries whose wastewater reaches Lake Superior via the Water Pollution Control Plant (Thunder Bay RAP Team 1991). Great West Timber Ltd. also released untreated thawpond water into the harbour on a bimonthly basis until June 2000. It should be noted, however, that a number of these dischargers have made voluntary improvements to plant facilities and operating procedures which have significantly reduced contaminant loadings to the environment since the release of the Stage 1 report. Northern Wood Preservers Site Historically, the highest profile source of pollution has been the contaminated sediments located at the Northern Wood Preservers site, which is now owned by Northern Sawmills Inc. As a result of long term seepage of wood preservatives, such as creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP), pollutants migrated into harbour sediments, sometimes appearing as ‘blankets’ over the sediments or as surface slicks (Beak 1988). Elevated levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins, and furans were also found in the sediments adjacent to the Northern Wood Preservers site (Environment Canada et al. 1996). Wastewater from the wood treatment facilities was directed to a biological treatment unit before being discharged into the harbour (Thunder Bay RAP Team 1991). The sawmill also discharged untreated thawpond water directly into Lake Superior until November 1999. These problems, however, have been effectively rectified through the Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept (NOWPARC) project (see Action NPS-1 in section 4.1), a major remediation program recently completed through the joint efforts of EC, MOE, Northern Sawmills, CNR, and Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. As a result of this project, a large portion of the contaminated sediment at the Northern Wood Preservers site was removed and 7 the remaining portion isolated by means of containment barriers which prevent seepage of contaminants into the harbour. Furthermore, the above mentioned wastewater from the treatment facilities and groundwater collected at the site is now directed to a new granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment plant. Table 2.1. Approximate Effluent Loadings to the Thunder Bay AOC from Major Point Sources† (Stage 1 status from Thunder Bay RAP Team 1991, unless otherwise noted). Abitibi Consolidated Cascades Fine Papers Group Bowater Northern Sawmills Water Pollution Control Plant Stage 1 status Stage 2a status Stage 1 status Stage 2a status Stage 1 status Stage 2d status Stage 1 status Stage 2a status Stage 1 status Stage 2b status Flow (103m3/day) 24 15.06 - 30.16 180 184.67 1.62 0.006 78 62.6 BOD (kg/day) 12192 331 4064 977 48770 7847 0.12 0.001 4735 4520 914 322 1727 1210 14021 7120 0.85 0.09 5029 2416 - 100 - - 39 100 - - - - - 27 - 20 - 351 0.07 - - 68 Phenol (kg/day) - 0.001 - 0.021 - 0.184 - 0.00009 - - Toluene (kg/day) - 0.001 - 0.076 - - - - - - - - - - 2.6c 0.41 - - - - Suspended Solids (kg/day) Toxicity (LC50) (% pass) Phosphorus (kg/day) AOX (kg/ADT) a MISA Compliance Report 1999 OMOE Sewage Treatment Plant Performance Evaluation 1998 c Environmental Effects Monitoring Report (Beak 1996) d Effluent data for 1999 † Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Ltd. has not been included in this table since it closed in December 2003. - data not available b 8 Smur?I-Stone Current River Contain" Canada Inc. a Boulevard .- Cascades Fine Papers Group Paco! Engineerin United Groin (3er Wm Pool 4 creek Richu'dson Tunisia}: Gnu West Tun Lid. 4mm Mme Put Island [swimmer Northern Sawmills Inc. (runner-1y Northern Wood Preserve-rs). Pool 7 United Gain Grown-s ll Mlniiobl When-l rool '3 Kearn- Termd? I eebing- McIntyre Floodwny Woo: Pollution Couuol Lake perior El . . a . minder River . u: McKellu' blend eKellnr River Mission River - Ontario Power Generation Thunder Bay Generating Station Abi?bi Consolidated . Figure 2.2. Major ef?uent dischargers (solid circles) to the Thunder Bay Harbour. In addition, Northern Sawmills Inc. is now participating in a voluntary, continuous improvement program that encourages best practices for the design and operation of wood preservation facilities. Under this national program, as described in the Technical Recommendations Document (Brudermann, 1999) and in the Strategic Options Report (1999), wood treating plants participating in the program would cooperate in an initial baseline assessment by a thirdparty auditor, and would then voluntarily prepare an implementation plan (based on the assessment) for meeting their contaminant reduction objectives over the five year period 2001 to 2005. The implementation plan would be submitted to Environment Canada by 2001, and would be followed by annual progress reports over the five year period, each of which would be reviewed by a steering committee made up of representatives from industry, federal and provincial government agencies, NGOs, and other key stakeholders. Northern Sawmills completed its baseline assessment in 2000 and submitted its five year contaminant reduction plan, which it is now implementing, in preparation for the 2005 assessment. Additional information on the Strategic Options Process may be found on the Internet at http://www2.ec.gc.ca/sop/en/index.cfm. Abitibi- Consolidated Since the release of the Stage 1 report, effluent from the Abitibi-Consolidated newsprint mill receives secondary treatment (1995) followed by discharge to a waterlot via the original main sewer outfall. According to the mill’s Cycle 3 Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) Study Design, the startup of secondary treatment contributed to a reduction in effluent toxicity, and since January,1999, effluent from the outfall has been non-toxic. The bark lagoon effluent and main sewer effluent were combined in 1995 and now discharge through the secondary treatment plant (B.A.R. Environmental 1996). Cascades Fine Papers Group (formerly Provincial Papers) Effluent from Cascades Fine Papers Group fine paper mill receives secondary treatment within an aerated stabilization basin (ASB) (completed in 1995) prior to its release into the inner harbour. Installation of a new primary clarifier (1996/97), including sludge pressing equipment, sewer segregation, and recycling of process water, has improved effluent quality. Cascades Fine Papers Group has made improvements to the ASB including the installation of nine submersible aerators. Furthermore, the diffused air fine bubble systems in passes 2 and 5 were moved and installed as additional diffusers in passes 3 and 4 (Oct. 1997). Consequently the mill meets the requirements for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), toxicity, and phenol loadings to Lake Superior (Table 2.1). Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc. (formerly Thunder Bay Packaging – now closed) Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc., which closed recently, began operation in March of 1996, producing 100% recycled corrugating medium mainly from recovered cardboard containers and varying proportions of mixed office wastes. Originally, process effluent received primary treatment within a clarifier and was then released from a settling lagoon into the harbour. On a number of occasions, the plant exceeded monthly discharge limits for TSS, BOD, toluene, phenol, and effluent toxicity (Thunder Bay Packaging Inc.1996). Subsequently, the implementation of secondary treatment (summer of 1997) improved effluent quality; however, some problems remained. The mill closed in December 2003. Ogilvie Mills Ogilvie Mills, prior to its closure in 1996, also introduced effluent containing high amounts of conventional pollutants including BOD, TSS, and phosphorus into this portion of the AOC. Bowater The Bowater bleached kraft pulp and newsprint mill discharges to the Kaministiquia River directly upstream of the Westfort turning basin. Secondary treatment at both the kraft (1993) and newsprint (1995) mills, and switching to 100% chlorine dioxide (1994) in the bleaching process, have improved effluent quality and reduced BOD and organochlorine (AOX) loadings (Table 2.1). The mill now meets allowable discharge limits for these parameters. Thunder Bay Water Pollution Control Plant 10 The Thunder Bay Water Pollution Control Plant is currently being upgraded. It will provide secondary treatment in 2005 and will be changing from chlorine disinfection to ultraviolet disinfection in 2006. Until then, it will continue to provide primary treatment, phosphorus removal, and anaerobic sludge digestion for serviced areas in the AOC. The facility currently operates at approximately 60% of its average daily rated capacity of 109,100 m3/d. Currently, from mid April to mid November the final effluent is chlorinated to reduce the discharge of bacteria during the recreational water use season (City of Thunder Bay 1995). In 1995, effluent released into the Kaministiquia River met all OMOE targets for adequate disinfection on an annual basis; however, it did not meet total compliance for monthly averages (City of Thunder Bay 1995). Ontario Power Generation - Thunder Bay Generating Station The main impact of the Ontario Power Generation - Thunder Bay Generating Station is the formation of a thermal plume of warm cooling water (Thunder Bay RAP Team 1991); however, Ontario Power Generation has limited the increase in receiving water temperature to 11.1°C. There are no associated impairments with this water use. Other Sources Non-point sources of contamination result from atmospheric deposition and urban runoff. Atmospheric deposition is known to occur for a number of substances found in the Great Lakes Basin (Superior Work Group 1995). Urban runoff includes a variety of contaminants contained in rain and meltwater finding its way into Lake Superior either directly or through sewers. Contaminants such as fertilizers, oil, grease, and metals may ultimately find their way into the lake in this manner. Bacterial non-point sources have also caused problems and have been implicated in beach closures at Chippewa Park. The first phase of the Pollution Prevention and Control Plan (1995) for the Thunder Bay urban service area reported that combined sewer overflow and stormwater discharges were not significant sources of pollutant loadings to the AOC. 11 Thunder Bay . Water Pollution Control Plan I 2 . . . chrsulc Gram Products Inc. Mann" RM, lr??l'lrriy Ugi?vic Milli} CITY OF THUNDER BAY :ion River Ontario Power Generation . ?133? 'l?hundcr Bay scam Generating Station Hwy ?lB ?ring: [formerly (II Ann?, hm] Waslfon Taming . 3m r. . Basin Consolidated Figure 2.3. Major point sources (solid circles) of pollution in the lower Kaministiquia River. 3.0 THUNDER BAY IMPAIRMENTS AND WATER USE GOALS 3.1 Beneficial Use Impairments Thunder Bay was originally identified as an AOC because of impairment of ten of the 14 beneficial uses defined by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The following section describes the current status of beneficial use impairments for this area. 1. Restrictions on fish consumption Consumption restrictions remain in effect. Consumption advisories for species associated with the outer harbour are usually based on tissue concentrations of toxaphene while those for the inner harbour are for mercury and/or PCBs. No point source of toxaphene exists within the AOC or on the Canadian side of Lake Superior, although long range transport and atmospheric deposition has been identified as an external source. Restrictions based on levels of this contaminant are a reflection of more stringent guidelines on fish consumption by Health Canada as opposed to recent increases in tissue contaminant concentrations. Although sources of toxaphene external to the AOC are beyond the scope of the RAP, local sources of mercury and PCBs are not, and these will be addressed through a number of actions described in this report. 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) taken from the outer harbour (OMOE 1999). In the inner harbour 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). 2. Degradation of fish and wildlife populations a) dynamics of fish populations Dynamics of fish populations remain impaired. The discharge of organic waste into the Kaministiquia River during periods of low flow has resulted in severely depressed oxygen levels, increased water temperatures, and periodic fish kills (Thunder Bay RAP Team 1991). In fact, fish community structure is different above and below the Bowater outfall, likely resulting from increased organic enrichment and decreased dissolved oxygen levels found below the mill’s outfall (Beak 1996). The quality of the effluent discharged into the Kaministiquia River has improved, however, with the advent of 100% chlorine dioxide substitution (1994) and the recent addition of secondary effluent treatment at both the kraft and newsprint mills (Beak 1996). Fish populations within the harbour are also affected by similar conditions. Fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) exposed to sediments obtained from the Northern Sawmills site exhibited increased mortality and reduced growth (Jaagumagi et al. 1996). These conditions are expected to improve with the completion of the NOWPARC project. Other negative pressures on fish populations throughout the AOC may be occurring as a result of the introduction of exotic species into the aquatic community. Recent sampling has shown the presence of exotics such as ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus), rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus), 3 and 4 spine sticklebacks, and Eurasian milfoil. The introduction of exotics may have detrimental effects on the fish community by out competing native species for 13 niches within the food web. Parasitic sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) remain a constant threat to the sport and commercial fishery. However, control measures initiated on the Kaministiquia, Neebing, and McIntyre Rivers have reduced lamprey populations considerably. b) body burdens of fish Body burdens of fish remain impaired. Dioxin levels in white suckers sampled below the Bowater outfall indicate minimal uptake of this pollutant; tissue concentrations (0.04 ppt) are well below the guidelines for unrestricted consumption (i.e., <10 ppt) (OMOE 1997). Similar low dioxin levels have also been found in lake trout sampled within the AOC (OMNR, unpublished data). However, PCB concentrations in lake trout and whitefish tissue still exceed acceptable levels for the protection of organisms that consume fish (IJC 1987). c) dynamics of wildlife populations Dynamics of wildlife populations remain impaired Extensive 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. Habitat rehabilitation projects will address this category of impairment. d) body burdens of wildlife Body burdens of wildlife are an impairment within the AOC. A Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) survey of chemical contamination in cormorant and herring gull eggs, sampled in 1989 and 1992 from colonies near Pie Island, indicates that several toxins are present in varying concentrations (Petit et al. 1994). Most notably, two polychlorinated dioxins, which exceed OMOE No Effect Levels in harbour sediments, are present in cormorants at concentrations higher than in individuals from other colonies in Lake Superior (Petit et al. 1994). The same two compounds, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and octachlorodibenzo-pdioxin, are found in high concentrations in herring gulls nesting in the Thunder Bay AOC relative to other colonies within the lake (Petit et al. 1994). CWS resampled (summer of 2000). Results will be compared to an earlier assessment completed approximately seven years earlier. The status of this impairment will be reassessed after completion of this study. 3. Fish tumours and other deformities Although this beneficial use remains impaired, it is no longer impaired due to contaminant sources within the AOC. White suckers sampled at the mouth of the Kaministiquia River had a higher incidence of liver cancers than fish taken from a reference population in a relatively pristine area (Smith et al. 1991). Baumann et al. (1996) associated this condition with exposure to chemical contaminants and, in particular, to PAHs in contaminated sediments. Fish sampled from the Current River, in the northern portion of the AOC, showed no such tumours. As a result of the process improvements implemented by local industry, and the completion of the NOWPARC project, this beneficial use, although it is still impaired, is no longer considered to be impaired due to contaminant sources within the AOC. Further assessments of this impairment, however, will still be needed for its eventual delisting. 14 4. Bird and animal deformities or reproductive problems Following further assessment, this beneficial use is considered not impaired. Bird and animal deformities have not been reported within the boundaries of the AOC. However, deformities in cormorants have occurred at nearby colonies at Cone and Gravel Islands (Ryckman et al 1998). While in the period of 1988-1994 the incidence of deformities was the lowest in the Great Lakes at 1.2 per 10,000, it was still elevated compared to areas outside of the Great Lakes. In the summer of 2000, the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) resurveyed and will provide further information relating to the status change of this beneficial use. A CWS survey on the Great Lakes from 1973 to 1991indicated that during that time period cormorant populations were reproducing at normal levels and that the number of colonies on Lake Superior had increased (Weseloh and Collier 1995). 5. Loss of fish and wildlife habitat Fish and wildlife habitat remains impaired. Habitat rehabilitation projects have worked to restore and create nearshore aquatic habitat in five tributaries, rehabilitate the littoral zone, stabilize wetlands, restore riverine diversity, and increase abundance of fish and wildlife populations. Future initiatives that incorporate habitat enhancement and remediation into waterfront development plans should significantly improve habitat value in the AOC. 6. Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations This beneficial use is still considered impaired. Populations are assumed to be degraded in the vicinity of industrial outfalls; however, formal studies on the condition of plankton communities have not been completed. Toxicity testing at Bowater showed effluent to be non acutely lethal to Ceriodaphnia. Secondary treatment at Abitibi has also decreased effluent toxicity. Monitoring actions are needed to verify the status of this beneficial use. 7. Degradation of benthos The benthic community remains impaired. The historic impacts of pollutants on the benthic community in the vicinity of the former Northern Wood Preservers (NWP) property were documented on a number of occasions from 1972 to 1996. In studies carried out in 1972 and 1986, pollution tolerant sludge worms were found to be prevalent at this location (Pugh 1989). Impacted sites were found on the north side of the NWP dock, resulting from a combination of habitat alteration, organic enrichment (wood waste), and sediment contamination (Pugh 1989). Surveys in 1996 showed that both chironomid diversity and density decreased with proximity to the dock (Jaagumagi et al. 1996). In fact, regression analysis determined that benthic community density decreased by 50% at PAH levels of 150 ppm (Jaagumagi et al. 1996). PAH levels near the docking site exceed this amount (DST 1996a). Creosote and pentachlorophenol seepage, and heavy oil and grease contamination impaired benthic populations (Pugh 1989). However, as described in section 4.1B, the Northern Wood Preservers site has recently been the focus of a major remediation effort known as the Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept (NOWPARC). As part of the NOWPARC Project, the area immediately adjacent to the NWP pier has been contained within a rockfill berm and capped. A post-construction study states that “When individual groups of organisms, such as chironomids, were analyzed with respect to sediment PAH concentrations, no effects could be determined. In 1995, chironomid density was found to vary inversely with sediment PAH concentrations, but this relationship was not evident in the 1999 15 survey” (Jaagumagi et al. 2001). Sediment contamination of the lower Kaministiquia River has reduced both the number and diversity of benthos. Heavy organic loading has resulted in a benthic community dominated by organisms tolerant of high organic loads, such as sludge worms (Beak 1996). However, in comparison to surveys undertaken in 1965/66, 1977-85, and 1985 (Beak 1987), the situation has improved and, as industry continues to enhance waste treatment technology, this trend is expected to continue (Beak 1996). Secondary treatment of effluent from Bowater’s pulp and paper mills has already improved water quality in the Kaministiquia River (Beak 1996) and effluent is now non acutely toxic to rainbow trout and Ceriodaphnia (C.Walton, pers. comm.). Closure of Ogilvie Mills in the summer of 1996 has also improved water quality in the Kaministiquia River. Waste from Ogilvie Mills, high in a variety of conventional pollutants, including BOD, TSS, and phosphorus, was discharged directly into the Kaministiquia River. A control order limiting BOD to 900 kg/day was exceeded 106 times during 1989 (Thunder Bay RAP Team 1991). Although this site was reopened as Riverside Grain Products Inc., effluent was not discharged to the Kaministiquia River. Riverside Grain Products is no longer in operation. Despite the improvements in water quality, periodic dredging to permit shipping traffic will continue to impair the benthic community in the lower Kaministiquia River. Eventually, however, only the Mission River will be dredged for navigational purposes (Thunder Bay Harbour Commission). Since this dredging activity is necessary it should not be considered when judging the status of this impairment. 8. Restriction on dredging activities Dredging restrictions remain in effect. Shipping channels are dredged to a depth of 8.2 m in the main harbour and 7.6 m in the rivers where necessary (Ecologistics 1993). Dredged spoils that satisfy the Open Water Disposal Guidelines are contained within four prescribed offshore areas. Contaminated sediments are placed within a confined disposal facility located near the mouth of the Mission River. Several studies of sediment contamination in the AOC have been conducted, mainly in the vicinity of the former Northern Wood Preservers operation. Provincial lake filling guidelines (Persaud et al. 1993) have been exceeded for pentachlorophenol, oil, grease, dioxins, and furans (Beak 1988). Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQOs) have been exceeded for resin and fatty acids, phenols, cresols, PAHs, and metals (Jaagumagi et al. 1996) (Table 3.1). Sediment metal concentrations are also of concern in the north end of the harbour, adjacent to Cascades Fine Papers Group. Mercury is present at concentrations of 2.2-3.0 µg/g (Bedard and Petro 1995), exceeding provincial Severe Effect Levels of 2.0 µg/g (Persaud et al. 1993). 9. Beach closings Periodic closing of beaches remains an impairment within the AOC. The public bathing area at Chippewa Park is closed periodically each summer in response to elevated levels of faecal coliform bacteria. Studies at the park have indicated that droppings from Canada geese and seagulls significantly contribute to the problem (Irwin 1989). Bird droppings, containing extremely high faecal coliform levels, are washed into the bathing area by precipitation events. Drainage from the wildlife exhibit at the Chippewa zoo flows into a ditch running alongside the beach and enters the bay via the main ditch outfall. Although faecal coliform levels decline with increased distance from the zoo, levels are still high enough to suggest that the zoo ditch contributes to this problem (Thunder Bay RAP Team 1992). There may also be additional factors contributing to the problem such as, for example, the septic field in the adjacent trailer park, dog droppings on the ice during winter, and the possibility of continuing contamination from the several bathrooms at Chippewa. The situation, whatever the 16 Table 3.1 Metal and Organic Contaminant Levels in Sediment in the Northern Portion of Inner Thunder Bay Harbour and Surrounding the Northern Sawmills (formerly Northern Wood Preservers Ltd.) Property (Jaagumagi et al. 1996; Bedard and Petro 1995). Provincial sediment quality guidelines lowest and severe effect levels included for comparison (Persaud et al. 1993). Background† Lowest Effect Level Severe Effect Level Northern Sawmills Sediments - Northern Harbour Sediments¤ Cadmium (ppm) 1.1 0.6 10 1.36* 0.9 * Chromium (ppm) 31 26 110 56.7 * 41* Copper (ppm) 25 16 110 54.5 * 62* + + + 192.2 INA 3.12 2 4 3.5 * 1.0 Lead (ppm) 23 31 250 8.1 32.6 * Manganese (ppm) 400 460 1100 519* 101.7 Mercury (ppm) 0.1 0.2 2 0.18 2.6 ** Nickel (ppm) 31 16 75 38.1 * 19.7 * PAH (total - ppm) INA 4 10000 102482** INA Pentachlorophenol (ppb) 0.02 INA INA 25.6 ? INA 65 120 820 128.4 * 173.3 * Parameter Dioxins/furans (ppt) Iron (%) Zinc (ppm) † values based on analyses of Great Lakes pre-colonial sediment horizon; PCP value based on the highest mean surficial sediment concentration for Lake Superior (Persaud et al. 1993). -raw data from Jaagumagi et al. 1996. All values averaged; values below detectable levels considered as zero. ¤ raw data from Bedard and Petro 1995. All values averaged; values below detectable levels considered as zero. + no established guidelines (D. Hollinger, pers. comm.). * exceeds OMOE Sediment Quality Guidelines (1993) Lowest Effect Level (LEL). ** exceeds OMOE Sediment Quality Guidelines (1993) Severe Effect Level (SEL). ?exceeds Provincial Sediment Quality Guideline for Organic Compounds. INA - information not available cause, is exacerbated by a lack of sufficient water circulation in the bay, which limits the ability of the system to flush bacteria from the swimming area. It is unlikely that the high levels of bacteria at the mouth of the Kaministiquia river system were related to the beach closings because of the large separation between the two locations (Irwin 1989). Apart from Mission Marsh, no other swimming opportunities exist in the harbour outside of Chippewa Park because of the cold water temperatures in Lake Superior and inaccessibility of shoreline areas (Thunder Bay RAP Team 1991). However, other recreational activities such as sailing, windsurfing, and rowing will continue to increase as access to the Thunder Bay waterfront is improved. 17 10. Degradation of aesthetics Aesthetics remain degraded within the AOC. Extensive industrialization along the waterfront has impaired the aesthetic value of the AOC. Oil slicks and creosote deposits have made the harbour less attractive to recreational boaters, fishermen, and the public. The economic downturn of the port of Thunder Bay has resulted in abandoned and partially demolished buildings, creating further aesthetic problems in the AOC. A number of initiatives have been taken to beautify the waterfront while aiding in rehabilitation of the AOC. These include development at Marina Park, the NOWPARC project, Kaministiquia River Heritage Park, the McKellar embayments, and rehabilitation at the mouths of several rivers and creeks within the AOC. Projects such as these have enhanced the natural features of the area, increased access to the waterfront via public boardwalks and hiking trails, and have improved habitat values. 11. Added cost to agriculture and industry Added costs are no longer considered an impairment within the AOC. There are no additional costs required to treat process water prior to use for agricultural or industrial purposes. The Ontario Power Generation - Thunder Bay Generating Station treats process water, drawn from the Mission River, regardless of water quality because of extremely high purity standards. Further, quality of intake water from the Mission River has improved markedly within the last few years (J. Todd, pers. comm.). This category should be removed as a beneficial use impairment for the Thunder Bay AOC. 3.2 Water Use Goals The Public Advisory Committee (PAC) established water use goals designed to restore and protect the beneficial uses of the Thunder Bay AOC. Specific goals were developed through a series of public meetings involving representatives of various civic groups and the Federal-Provincial Remedial Action Plan (RAP) team. The Thunder Bay PAC recognizes that: 1. The Thunder Bay Area of Concern is one of the world's largest shipping ports and waterfront industrial activities form an important part of the local economy; 2. The water and waterfront areas provide a wide variety of beneficial uses and a multiple use approach must be considered; 3. The ultimate goal of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is the virtual elimination and zero discharge of persistent toxic substances; 4. The purpose of the Remedial Action Plan is to restore beneficial uses of the water and associated resources using an ecosystem approach; and 5. Air pollutants from international, global and (to a very much smaller degree) local sources contribute contaminants to Lake Superior food chains and water. Such sources of Lake Superior pollutants should be eliminated. 18 Lower Kaministiquia River a) In order to provide hospitable habitat and to prevent loss of aquatic migration corridors, oxygen levels should be maintained at a level adequate for the protection of aquatic life. b) Water quality should be adequate to support natural aquatic food chains. Water quality should be sufficient to avoid a disruption of the food chain by organic or inorganic contaminants. Water quality should also be sufficient to avoid bioaccumulation of organic or inorganic contaminants in fish to levels which result in consumption restrictions. c) River banks should be stabilized where necessary, in order to increase the river's aesthetic value and decrease turbidity. d) Sediment quality should be sufficient to provide a hospitable environment for aquatic organisms so as not to contribute to bioaccumulation in the food chain. e) In accordance with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Thunder Bay PAC Water Use Goals, there should be zero discharge of persistent toxic chemicals based on a timetable yet to be determined. The Ministry of the Environment will present options for review. f) Nearshore areas should be available as productive aquatic habitat except where legitimate human activities preclude such use. Thunder Bay Harbour a) Fish and wildlife habitat destroyed or damaged as a result of the disposal of dredged sediment should be rehabilitated. Future destruction in such a way should be prevented. b) Chemical conditions of the water and sediments, including levels of dissolved oxygen, should provide hospitable habitat to aquatic life. c) Nearshore areas should be available as productive aquatic habitat except where legitimate human activities preclude such use. Any shoreline developments should consider effects on existing fish and wildlife habitat. d) Sediment quality should be sufficient to provide a hospitable environment for aquatic organisms so as not to contribute to bioaccumulation of contaminants in the food chain. e) Significant wetlands, as defined by the Ministry of Natural Resources Evaluation System for Wetlands of Ontario, should be protected from further human-related degradation. f) In accordance with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Thunder Bay PAC Water Use Goals, there should be zero discharge of persistent toxic chemicals based on a timetable yet to be determined. The Ministry of the Environment will present options for review. General a) Fish species within Thunder Bay and the Kaministiquia River should be suitable for human consumption without restrictions. b) Water quality conditions in the area of Thunder Bay Harbour and the Kaministiquia River which are used for recreational pursuits or which are designated for human bathing, should not endanger human health. Table 3.2. GLWQA Beneficial Use Impairments, PAC Water Use Goals, and Current Status of Degraded Areas 19 in the Thunder Bay AOC. Use Impairment • Fish consumption restrictions • Degradation of fish and wildlife populations • Fish tumours and other deformities • Loss of fish and wildlife habitat • Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations • Dynamics of benthic populations • Beach closings • Aesthetics within the AOC Current Status • Water and sediment quality within the AOC should be sufficient to support healthy aquatic communities. • Sediment quality within the Kaministiquia River has improved with changes in industrial processes and waste treatment. Thunder Bay Harbour sediment remains degraded in a number of areas by metals and organics. • Nearshore habitat should be protected from development and rehabilitated where necessary. • Initiatives designed to mitigate habitat loss have been undertaken along the Kaministiquia River, McVicar Creek and other areas within the AOC. • Sediment quality should be such that the benthic community does not contribute to bioaccumulation of contaminants. • Water quality in the Kam River has improved to allow its use as habitat and as a migration corridor to upstream spawning areas by a variety of species. • • Rehabilitation of degraded sediments should occur to aid in the healthy function of benthos and fish. Changes to industrial processes and improved waste treatment have lessened impacts of industrial effluent on receiving waters in the AOC. Historical contamination remains in place. • Zero discharge of persistent toxic chemicals into AOC receiving waters should be achieved. • Discharge into the AOC should not create objectionable odours. • Recreational bathing, fishing and boating should be attractive to the public and pose no human health risk. • The Kam River Heritage Park, McKellar ponds and other initiatives have made the AOC more attractive and available for public use. • Natural values within the AOC should be accessible and attractive to the public. Restrictions on dredging activities • c) PAC Water Use Goal Aquatic life should not be significantly affected by human recreational activities. 20 d) Cleanup along Thunder Bay's inner harbour and the Kaministiquia River and its tributaries should be increased to promote access and to allow for passive recreational activities and aesthetic appreciation. The aesthetic value of the Area of Concern (AOC) should be increased wherever possible. e) All areas of the Kaministiquia River and Thunder Bay AOC, with the exception of navigation channels, ship berths and facilities, should provide a hospitable environment for normal benthic communities. f) Contaminated sediments dredged from navigable rivers or Thunder Bay should be confined in a disposal facility. This facility should not be a threat to human health. It is recognized that maintenance dredging is a necessary activity in portions of the bay and river. g) Drinking water from Thunder Bay should not contain substances which are harmful to human health. h) Thunder Bay should not become a receiver for unwanted foreign organisms i) Discharges to the waters of Thunder Bay should not result in objectionable odours. Cross referencing the use impairments for Thunder Bay with the PAC water use goals provides a framework to group and define the areas that require remedial action. Table 3.2 provides this comparison. 21 4.0 REMEDIAL STRATEGIES FOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION This chapter presents the various remedial strategies for restoring the following groups of impaired beneficial uses: 1) impairments related to fish and wildlife (i.e., degradation of fish and wildlife populations, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and fish consumption advisories - note that “fish tumours and other deformities” has not been included in this group since, as pointed out in section 3.1, this impairment is no longer due to local sources) 2) benthic population and habitat loss 3) aesthetics and beach closures 4) dredging restrictions 5) Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations It also describes plans for carrying out the required public education and environmental stewardship actions to support them. For each of the above groups of impairments, the strategy consists of a few rather general recommendations, which in turn are implemented through a number of specific remedial actions (or projects). These remedial actions, which are also described in this chapter, focus on controlling or eliminating the underlying disruptive factors which have caused the impairments. Such factors include point sources (PS) and non-point sources (NPS) of pollutants, fish and wildlife habitat (FWH) degradation, and factors which adversely affect fish and wildlife populations (FWP), such as the unwanted influx of nonindigenous, or exotic, species. Actions are also described which address the need for public education, and stewardship (ES). Many of the specific remedial actions described in this chapter will address more than one of the above groups of beneficial use impairments. So, to avoid confusion when referring to these numerous remedial actions, an alphanumeric identification code has been assigned to each of them. The first part of the code is alphabetic and identifies the type of activity (e.g., PS, NPS, FWH, FWP, ES), while the second part is numeric and serves to distinguish between activities of a similar type. Thus, for example, Action NPS-1 denotes the first of the non-point source remediation actions. As pointed out later in Chapter 5, most of the RAP related monitoring activities, completed or remaining, have been directly associated with individual remedial actions, and the ID codes for monitoring activities reflect this one-to-one correspondence. A monitoring action associated with a specific remediation activity will be assigned the same ID code as the remediation activity except for the addition of “M” at the end of the alphabetic portion of the alphanumeric code. Thus, for example, monitoring action FWPM-1 is the action which monitors the remediation action FWP-1. Finally, it should be noted that, because of certain changes recommended later in this report, it may be necessary to introduce some new remediation actions, in addition to those contained in this chapter. As described in section 6.0, management action MNG-3 addresses the need to refine, quantify, and to expand the present set of delisting criteria. Consequently, if the present remediation actions, as described in this report, are insufficient to bring about the fulfillment of these new criteria, it may be necessary to modify existing actions or to add new ones. This need is addressed by the following management action. Management Action MNG-1: It is recommended that a workshop session, or series of sessions be convened to determine if the existing remediation actions are sufficient to restore the AOC to the point where it meets the revised set of delisting criteria produced under management action MNG-3, and if they are not, to define whatever new actions may be required to rectify the situation. Furthermore, recognizing the close connection between remediation, monitoring and delisting, these workshops should be closely coordinated with those described in management actions MNG-2 and MNG-3 and should be attended by the same people, i.e., PAC members, agency experts (EC, DFO, MNR, MOE), and those who are involved in managing the implementation of RAP related restoration and monitoring actions. The results of this 22 management action should then be documented and included in a “Stage 2 Update,” along with the documentation resulting from management actions MNG-2 and MNG-3, as part of the Stage 2 Implementation Annex. 4.1 Impaired Beneficial Uses Related to Fish and Wildlife For over a century, aquatic and terrestrial habitat has been modified or destroyed in the Thunder Bay AOC and surrounding watershed with the advent of industrial, residential, and recreational development. Dredging, channelization, and the release of a number of pollutants have eliminated a significant portion of the quality habitat along the waterfront. Habitat degradation 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 this end, rehabilitation projects are a critical part of the overall waterfront enhancement initiative for the AOC. Lake Superior fish communities have changed dramatically from their historic norms. Populations have not only responded to habitat destruction, but have declined as a result of over exploitation, the introduction of exotic species, and the accumulation of toxic chemicals. Prior to the recent remediation measures at the Northern Sawmills site, wood preserving chemicals, mainly pentachlorophenol and creosote, inundated the sediments of the harbour as a result of seepage, spills, and incidental losses (Bérard and Tseng 1986). Both these substances, which are known to exert toxic effects on fish when exposed for short periods of time (Jaagumagi et al. 1996), migrated into the sediments and periodically appeared as a slick or unsightly mass in the harbour impairing both the water quality and aesthetic value of the area. Point sources of pollution (i.e., Bowater and the Thunder Bay Water Pollution Control Plant) have also impacted aquatic habitat and fish populations in the Kaministiquia River. Discharge has periodically exceeded the assimilative capacity of the river, resulting in restrictions to fish movement and intermittent fish kills. Exotic species have also created problems. Introductions of ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus), zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus), 3 and 4 spine sticklebacks, Eurasian milfoil, and spiny water fleas (Bythotrephes cederstroemi) have become a growing concern for northern areas of Lake Superior. In addition, the use of chemical lampricides in Thunder Bay tributaries may have a detrimental effect on the aquatic communities of the AOC. The accidental introduction of invading or exotic species has emphasized the importance of adopting control measures that are environmentally responsible and do not substantially alter the biotic community of Lake Superior. As a result of these various disruptive factors, a number of beneficial uses, as defined by the IJC, have been impaired within the AOC. This section will focus on those IBUs described earlier in section 3.1 which are related to fish and wildlife. These include restrictions on fish consumption, degradation of fish and wildlife populations, and loss of fish and wildlife habitat. A. THE STRATEGY TO ADDRESS FISH AND WILDLIFE RELATED IMPAIRMENTS The strategy to remediate the impaired beneficial uses (IBUs) related to fish and wildlife (i.e., degradation of fish and wildlife populations, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and fish consumption advisories) consists of the following four recommendations, each of which will be achieved through the implementation of specific remedial actions as described below. Recommendation 1-1: Increase the extent of productive aquatic and terrestrial habitat by rehabilitating and protecting wetland and riparian environments, and by enforcing existing environmental legislation. Recommendation 1-2: Prevent the loss of aquatic migration corridors. Recommendation 1-3: 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 23 quality and sediment conditions in both the lower Kaministiquia River and in Thunder Bay Harbour provide a healthy and hospitable environment. Recommendation 1-4: Prevent impacts on fish and wildlife population dynamics including those produced by the introduction of exotics. B. SPECIFIC REMEDIAL ACTIONS SUPPORTING THE STRATEGY TO ADDRESS FISH AND WILDLIFE RELATED IMPAIRMENTS This subsection contains a description of the various remedial actions, completed, ongoing and pending, which have contributed, or will contribute to the implementation of the recommendations listed in subsection A. They are collected into five parts, one for each of the four recommendations, and one final part for actions which, being more general in scope, address more than one recommendation. Note that each action has been assigned an alphanumeric identification code (ID code) as described at the beginning of this chapter. On the line below each action ID and action title is a list of acronyms identifying the proponents (see list of acronyms at the end of this report) which have, are, or will be providing support, depending on the implementation status of the remedial action. The remaining header-lines contain information on the status of the action and the estimated cost of implementation. Finally, in order to differentiate between those actions which have not yet been implemented and those which have (except, perhaps for some follow-up monitoring), the action titles of the former will be given in boldfaced italics and the latter in regular italics. (1) Actions Addressing the First Recommendation Related to Fish And Wildlife The following actions, many of which have been completed, address the first of the fish and wildlife population and habitat recommendations, i.e., to increase the extent of productive aquatic and terrestrial habitat by rehabilitating and protecting wetland and riparian environments, and by enforcing existing environmental legislation. Action FWH-1: Rehabilitation of Degraded Walleye Spawning Habitat at the Current River Estuary Proponents: EC/GLCUF, OMNR, OMOE, and DFO Status: Construction completed December 1991; assessment of adult walleye abundance ongoing. Cost: $37,500 for construction, and $42,000 for assessment. The mouth of the Current River has been identified as exceptionally valuable fish habitat in the Thunder Bay area as it provides both spawning and nursery grounds for one of the few remaining, naturally reproducing walleye stocks in Lake Superior. Over the past 130 years, spawning habitat has been lost or modified in the Current River by the effects of a silver stamp mill (1870s), saw mill (late 19th century), road and railway construction (late 19th to early 20th century), river impoundment for water management (~1905), and through the construction of a boat launch and docking facility (1984). This rehabilitation project (in support of the Walleye Rehabilitation Plan for Lake Superior) was designed to compensate for habitat removed during dredging activities by augmenting remnant, and creating new walleye spawning areas. Three sites were selected for enhancement in the Current River estuary covering an area (~1,700 m2) of approximately half the size of that destroyed by previous dredging activities (Geiling 1995a). Two of these sites were downstream extensions of remnant spawning areas in faster flowing sections of the estuary. A third site was created closer to the river mouth where walleye spawning has been observed in the past. Each area was cleared of debris, and clean substrate, in the form of gravel, cobble, and boulders, was added without disturbing existing spawning habitat. With the completion of this project in December 1991, a monitoring program was established to estimate walleye abundance, levels of spawning activity, and the frequency of successful spawning events (Geiling et al. 1996). Although there was no initial change in abundance of adult walleye, the area of habitat over which walleye successfully spawned increased (Geiling et al. 1996). Viable eggs were found in both the historic and newly created lotic spawning habitat. Further assessments were undertaken in 1999 and 2000 to evaluate the success of this rehabilitation project, 24 however assessment of the success of this habitat rehabilitation effort is inconclusive to date (see Action FWHM-1). As described under Action FWHM-1, additional assessment will be considered when water levels and flow return to those at which pre-rehabilitation assessment occurred. Action FWH-2: Alteration of Shoreline to Restore Habitat Diversity at the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway Proponents: EC/GLCUF, OMNR, OMOE, and DFO Status: Completed in 1991. However, additional remedial work was required on the trail adjacent to two constructed embayments to repair continuing bank failure and protect the trail. This was completed in 2001. Cost: $109,889 for construction, and $74,830 for assessment Until 1984, the Neebing and McIntyre Rivers entered Lake Superior within one kilometre of each other. Because flooding damaged adjacent residential areas almost annually, the narrow, meandering lower portions of the two rivers were filled and replaced with a single straight, wide (~35 m) channel devoid of instream structure. The littoral zone, which contained significant aquatic vegetation, was restricted to a very narrow (<1.5 m) strip along either bank and shoreline. Upstream portions of both rivers, however, were known for spring and fall rainbow trout spawning runs and resident brook trout populations. Walleye and yellow perch were also present in both river systems. Therefore, this project was designed to create refugia and restore a portion of the original instream habitat diversity in order to benefit both migratory and resident fish populations. Four embayments (30 m x 2 m) were constructed as a demonstration project to diversify habitat, and a collection of wood pilings, log mats, and boulder piles were added to a 1.25 km section of the floodway (Cullis 1995). The embayment structures were designed to reduce flow rates locally and to diversify littoral habitat in the floodway. Overhead vegetative cover provided shaded resting areas for fish and some degree of protection from predation by birds and mammals. Although some reports indicate a greater increase in fish abundance and diversity in the embayment areas than in the unaltered sections of the floodway, this has not been confirmed. There is no evidence which demonstrates that the habitat enhancement of the NeebingMcIntyre Floodway has adequately improved aquatic habitat. Action FWH-3: Island Creation and Habitat Rehabilitation at the Mouth of McVicar Creek. Phase I: Bank Stabilization and Substrate Enhancement. Phase II: Island Creation. Proponents: EC/GLCUF, OMNR, OMOE, and DFO Status: Phase I construction completed in 1992, with additional tree planting in 1993; Phase II completed in 1993. Cost: Phase I: $215,000. Phase II: $380,000. Assessment; $17,200. McVicar Creek winds through the north side of the City of Thunder Bay and empties into the harbour near a waterfront park and municipal marina. The Howe Street overpass was constructed in 1985 beside the lower 120 m of McVicar Creek as part of the park and marina complex. As a result, a small wetland area adjacent to the creek mouth was filled during the construction process. Sand and debris also eroded from the embankment areas and collected in the McVicar Creek estuary, restricting upstream fish passage. Bank stabilization, substrate enhancement, and terracing of the lower portion of the road embankment were completed 1992 to restore this urban fisheries habitat (Geiling 1995b). In addition, a crescent shaped island was built in 1993 just south of the creek mouth to recreate nearshore nursery habitat and to encourage the re-establishment of an historic wetland site (Geiling 1995c). The shape of the island is designed to trap sediments transported by the creek and by lake currents in order to foster the natural development of a wetland. At the same time, the island protects the banks of the overpass from erosion. Eight rock shoals were also installed underwater in the lee of the island to provide cover, shelter, and habitat diversity. 25 Monitoring efforts to confirm the success of this habitat rehabilitation effort, as described under Action FWHM-3, have been inconclusive to date. However, a number of unconfirmed reports have indicated that this project may have been successful in meeting its objectives. Action FWH-4: Redesign Waterfront Park to Protect and Enhance Shoreline of the Kaministiquia River, Including Scenic Overlook, Promenade, and Additional 500m of Park. Proponents: LSPO (in past), EC/GLCUF Status: Overlook completed in 1992; Promenade completed in 1994. Construction of further 500m of park has been completed. Cost: Overlook: $1.3 million. Promenade: $550,000. Estimated $1.5 million for project completion. Rehabilitation projects undertaken by the City of Thunder Bay in the lower reaches of the Kaministiquia River represent an integrative approach to waterfront development and habitat restoration. Shoreline degradation has left the area devoid of ecological, recreational, and economic value. To this end, the Kaministiquia River Heritage Park was developed to restore the environmental integrity and natural history of the region. The park was completed in three distinct phases. Phase one (completed in 1992) included a 25 m wide semicircular overlook constructed of steel sheet piling and concrete. The soft shoreline was eliminated in this area leaving only a hard, straight edge with little cover. In the second phase, a 60 m riverfront promenade was built on steel piles away from the river bank thus maintaining the natural shoreline and existing wetland in this area. The boardwalk was extended another 500 m along the shoreline in the final phase of the project. The open pile construction of the boardwalk maximizes the development of aquatic habitat by providing instream cover and enhanced substrate diversity. In addition, docking facilities have been included to moor the soon to be restored James Whalen tug. Overall, the historical significance of the area was maintained and expanded to include resource conservation measures. Action FWH-5: Creation of Embayments in the McKellar River to Restore Productive Littoral Habitat Proponents: EC/GLCUF, OMNR, OMOE, and DFO Status: Construction of embayments completed in 1994. Site monitored in first two seasons after construction Cost: Construction: $607,800. The McKellar River is the middle of three short channels comprising the Kaministiquia River delta flowing into the Thunder Bay harbour. Decades of dredging for commercial ship traffic produced a straight, deep channel and a shoreline partly armoured with steel sheet piling and concrete. While the McKellar River is no longer used for commercial shipping, most of the shallow littoral zone has been eliminated leaving little in the way of habitat productivity or diversity. Two shallow embayments were created near the mouth of the McKellar River adjacent to the Mission Marsh Conservation Area in order to increase the littoral zone and provide an additional three hectares of wetland habitat. Diverse habitats were provided with detailed bottom grading, gravel shoals, sand spits, a sand bluff for nesting bank swallows, and shallow woodland pools for amphibians. Constant circulation from wind, wave, and Lake Superior’s seiche action maintains oxygen levels throughout the embayments. Trees and shrubs were also planted in areas disturbed by construction to provide soil and bank stabilization as well as food and cover for wildlife. Walking trails connect the embayments to conservation property, creating a popular recreational area on the waterfront. Monitoring in the first two seasons after construction has indicated that a number of fish, waterfowl, songbirds, and mammals have made extensive use of the new habitat. Benthic organisms have also colonized the embayments. The site was subsequently used to compare the natural colonization of aquatic 26 macrophytes in the embayments to the artificial introduction of native plant species (Lee 1995). The success of this project will be measured over the long term by the development of diverse wetland habitat and selfsustaining biotic communities. (2) Actions Addressing the Second Fish and Wildlife Population and Habitat Recommendation The following actions address the second fish and wildlife population and habitat recommendation, i.e., to prevent the loss of aquatic migration corridors. Action FWH-6: Improving Salmonid Access to the Upper Reaches of the Current River Proponents: DFO, LRCA, OMNR, North Shore Steelhead Association. Status: Fish ladder completed in 1992, pool construction in 1995, and fish transfer program from 1993 to 1995 and in 1997. The project, however, has not achieved its objectives. Cost: Fish ladder $344,000. Pools: $62,500. Fish transfer: less than $500 per year. The Current River has approximately 50 km of potential spawning and nursery habitat available to rainbow trout. Passage of rainbow trout up this river system, however, was blocked by a dam situated approximately 600 m upstream from the mouth of the river. An attempt was made in the fall of 1992 to restore access to the productive spawning habitat in the Current River by constructing a fish ladder and step pools at the Boulevard Lake dam. Additional resting pools were excavated below the fishway to expedite upstream passage. A fish transfer program was also initiated in 1993 to accelerate the colonization of rainbow trout in the upper reaches of the Current River. It was expected that spawning adults, collected from adjacent streams and transplanted to the headwaters of the Current River, would produce a self-sustaining rainbow trout population over time. These expectations, however, have not been fulfilled. Unfortunately, low water levels have prevented the fish from gaining access to the fish ladder. It is recommended, therefore, that a study be initiated to determine what actions, if any, may be taken to enable the ladder and step pools to achieve their desired purpose. Action FWH-7: Alleviating Water Quality Barriers to Fish Migration in the Kaministiquia River Proponents: Bowater Status: Secondary treatment at kraft (1991) and newsprint (1995) mills complete. Bowater switched to 100% chlorine dioxide in 1994. Cost: Bowater has spent approximately $68 million on environmental controls and upgrades since 1991. In the past, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loadings from the Bowater pulp and paper mill have exceeded the assimilative capacity of the Kaministiquia River, particularly during low summer flows (Thunder Bay RAP Team 1991). At times, depressed oxygen levels have created intermittent barriers to fish movement between the harbour and unimpaired habitat in the upper reaches of the river. Secondary treatment of both the kraft and paper mill effluent has reduced BOD levels and effectively removed water quality barriers to upstream fish passage. (3) Actions Addressing the Third Fish and Wildlife Population and Habitat Recommendation The following actions address the third fish and wildlife population and habitat recommendation, i.e., to rehabilitate ecosystem function and structure in order to support a diverse, healthy, self-sustaining biological 27 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 Thunder Bay harbour provide a healthy and hospitable environment. Action NPS-1: Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept (NOWPARC) Project Proponents: Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., Canadian National Railway Co., Northern Sawmills Inc., OMOE, and EC/GLSF. Status: Schedule: Rockfill containment berm completed December 13, 1997; Dredging competed in August 1998; Clay isolation barrier completed August 2000; Waterloo sheet pile wall installed October 2001; Placement of clean fill inside rockfill berm completed in 2001; All contaminated sediment was transported off-site in 2001and thermal treatment completed by late summer 2002. Cost: Approximately $20 million. Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., Northern Sawmills Inc., Canadian National Railway Co., Environment Canada and the Ministry of the Environment worked together to remediate the area around the Northern Wood Preservers site. The Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept (NOWPARC) goal was to isolate the contaminant source, clean-up the contaminated sediment, and enhance fish habitat. The primary components of this project have now been completed and are described below and shown in Fig 4.1. Rockfill Containment Berm: Construction of the rockfill containment berm began on August 28, 1997, and was completed on December 13, 1997. Approximately 268,000 tonnes of shale and 21,000 tonnes of armourstone were placed to construct the 1000 meter long berm. The design of the berm was to protect the NWP site and to contain a portion of the contaminated sediment. Environmental Dredging: Approximately 3000 m3 of contaminated sediment was removed between October and November 1997 to prepare the lake bottom for berm construction. In August 1998, an additional 8000 m3 of contaminated sediment within the confines of the rockfill berm was removed. Biological Treatment: The dredged sediment was dewatered, screened down to 6 inches in diameter, mixed with a patented nutrient source (DARAMEND TM) and placed in an engineered bioremediation cell (EBC) on site. Due to the higher than anticipated contaminant concentrations, the site-specific remediation criteria could not be met. Enhanced bioremediation bench scale test in the laboratory confirmed that an alternate treatment technology would have to be used. Environmental Clay Barrier: As part of a technology demonstration, an environmental clay isolation barrier adjacent to the NWP pier was constructed to prevent the movement of contaminants into the harbour. The barrier was completed in August 2000. Approximately 114,000 tonnes of clay were placed along a 600 m section surrounding the NWP pier. However, it did not meet the permeability criteria specified to isolate on site contaminants. Waterloo Sheet Pile Wall: A Waterloo Sheet Pile wall was installed in October 2001 as a contingency measure for the clay barrier to ensure containment of the on site contaminants. The steel sheet sections were driven into the native clay layer and the joints between sections were sealed with concrete-like grout material in order to form an effective barrier which would meet the permeability criteria. Approximately 6000 m2 of sheet piling was placed along a 660 m section around the NWP pier. Stormwater Control: Modifications were required to accommodate stormwater flow across the new areas to be filled and protect the planned fish habitat. Approximately 500 m of storm sewer lines were installed to collect drainage from the pier prior to discharge through the containment berm into Thunder Bay Harbour. Monitoring of the water quality was undertaken to ensure that there were no discharges of contaminants. Additional upgrades were completed to improve drainage and stormwater controls on site including a 1,400 m3 stormwater settling pond. 28 Clean Fill Placement: As part of the remedial design, clean fill was placed to create a buffer zone between the containment berm and the clay barrier. Within this area monitoring wells were installed, residual contaminated sediments were capped. Habitat features have been developed along the inner portion of the containment berm adjacent to green space that will be maintained. Approximately 800,000 tonnes of fill has been placed within a fifteen hectare area. Groundwater Treatment Plant: A groundwater treatment plant has been constructed to treat contaminated groundwater that builds up behind the clay and steel pile wall barriers. Water levels will be maintained within the pier slightly below lake level to reverse possible movements through the barriers. This groundwater and the effluent generated from the current NWP operations are now directed to the new wastewater treatment plant. Thermal Treatment: Approximately 17,000 tonnes of contaminated sediment in the EBC was loaded into environmental rail cars and transported to Princeton, British Columbia for treatment. During the thermal treatment, the sediment was exposed to high temperatures, permitting the contaminants to be extracted into a vapour gas phase, separating them from the cleaned soil. All the sediment has been successfully treated and disposed of on an adjacent mine reclamation site. Fish Habitat Compensation: The project design involves the replacement of fish habitat lost due to dredging and infilling operations. As part of this compensation approximately 48,000 m2 of new or altered aquatic habitat was created in two areas. Reclamation of lost wetland habitat in the Northern Marsh was completed in 1999. Engineered habitat enhancements along the berm were completed in 2001. A tree planting plan for the green space (buffer zone) was implemented in the Spring of 2003. These areas will be monitored to track fish habitat development. Site Decommissioning: The EBC water retention pond and sediment storage cells were sampled and decommissioned. All clean materials were placed behind the berm. Impacted materials were sent with the contaminated sediment and thermally treated off site. Post Construction Monitoring: A long-term plan for monitoring groundwater conditions, fish habitat development, and sediment conditions outside the berm was finalized. Monitoring is currently underway. Reports on these three areas will be produced over the next four years (see Actions NPSM-1(a), NPSM1(b), and NPSM-1(c) in chapter 5). Action FWP-1: Directed Recovery of Native Fish Species Proponents: EC/GLSF, DFO, State and Tribal Governments, OMNR Status: Status of Lake Sturgeon in Lake Superior report completed (1996); draft Lake Sturgeon Rehabilitation Plan completed (1999); sturgeon population assessment in the Kaministiquia River has been ongoing since 1998 including a radio telemetry study of habitat use by sturgeon, critical habitat assessment and evaluation of the effects of managed flow regimes on sturgeon. Kam River sturgeon enhancement strategies are under consideration for incorporation into the water management plan on the Kam River. Cost: $100,000 (January 2004) The Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the Lake Superior Binational Program have been developing strategies to rehabilitate fish communities in the Great Lakes. In Lake Superior, lake sturgeon (Acipenser 29 CONSTRUCTED NORTHERN MARSH CREATED WETLAND ZONE OF HIGHEST CONTAMINATION ZONE OF CHRONIC BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS (30-150 PPM PAHs) (>500 PPM PAHs) ZONE OF ACUTE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS (>150 PPM PAHs) ISOLATION BARRIER AND GROUNDWATER CONTROL SYSTEM 30 M NATURALIZED BUFFER WITH FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENTS CONTAINMENT BERM WITH RIP RAP Figure 4.1. Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept (NOWPARC) site schematic (updated from DST Consulting Engineering Inc., Nov. 1996) fulvescens) have been identified as an endangered or threatened species in the United States and have been targeted for rehabilitation. To this end, the Lake Superior Sturgeon Restoration Committee has compiled background information on the Status of Lake Sturgeon in Lake Superior (Lake Sturgeon Subcommittee 1996) in order to refine fish community objectives for this species. A Lake Sturgeon Rehabilitation Plan providing recommendations and strategies for the restoration and protection of sturgeon in Lake Superior has also been completed. The overall goal is to maintain, enhance, and rehabilitate self-sustaining populations of lake sturgeon in areas where the species historically occurred basin wide. In the Thunder Bay AOC, the Kaministiquia River provides spawning and nursery habitat for Lake Superior sturgeon populations (Cullis et al. 1987). The Lake Superior Management Unit (OMNR) is utilizing a telemetry and habitat assessment study which has been used to determine sturgeon population characteristics, document seasonal distribution and movement patterns, and identify critical habitat for this species. Management options are currently under consideration, including modifying flow regimes (Kam River Water Management Plan) and regulation changes (harvest, seasons, sanctuaries etc.). Implementation of the Lake Superior Lake Sturgeon Rehabilitation Plan is proceeding on the Kam River, and other Great Lakes tributaries have also been identified for lake sturgeon restoration and are being considered for rehabilitative strategies. Action PS-1: Secondary Treatment at the Bowater Pulp and Paper Mill Proponents: Bowater Status: See Action FWH-7 Cost: See Action FWH-7 In 1988, kraft mill effluent was sub lethal to fathead minnows at 20% concentration and lethal to rainbow trout at levels ranging from 28-71% (Beak 1996). Following the installation of secondary treatment at the kraft mill in 1991, BOD decreased by more than 50% and TSS levels declined dramatically. In addition, the combined effluent of the pulp and newsprint mills has been non-lethal since the initiation of secondary treatment in 1995 (C. Walton, pers. comm.). Overall, secondary treatment and 100% chlorine dioxide substitution at the Bowater pulp and paper mill have resulted in dramatic reductions in effluent BOD, AOX, and resin and fatty acid levels (Beak 1996). These improvements have already enhanced benthic communities (see Action FWHM-7) and are expected to improve sediment and water quality conditions and encourage the return of healthy biotic communities. Action PS-2: Upgrades at Thunder Bay Terminals Proponents: Thunder Bay Terminals Status: Upgrades completed. Monitoring of groundwater recommended. Cost: Cost not available Coal is offloaded at the Thunder Bay Terminals and is transported by a conveyor belt under the McKellar River to the Ontario Power Generation - Thunder Bay Generating Station. Since the construction of this facility in the 1970s, efforts have been made to reduce environmental impacts associated with this activity: a liner has been installed under the laydown area beside the Kaministiquia River in order to reduce groundwater contamination; with a water collection system in place, recycled water is used for dust suppression; and fuel tanks have been relocated above ground and contained within a cement barrier. The Thunder Bay Terminals is the first facility of this type in Ontario to undergo an environmental review. Action PS-3: Process Upgrades at Ontario Power Generation - Thunder Bay Generating Station Proponents: Ontario Power Generation - Thunder Bay Generating Station Status: Process upgrades completed. Monitoring environmental improvements due to OPG’s development of Mission Island Marsh is recommended (see Action PSM-3). Cost: Cost not available 31 The Ontario Power Generation (OPG) - Thunder Bay Generating Station on Mission Island has two 150 MW generators, both of which are equipped with emissions monitoring. In particular, OPG has a mercury monitoring program and conducted stack testing in Thunder Bay in 1998. The Generating Station has implemented pollution prevention and control measures to ensure that all discharges meet environmental standards for safe and acceptable water and air quality emissions. The facility received the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce Green Award in 1996 commending its efforts to minimize the station’s impact on land, air, and water resources. Ontario Power Generation has also provided monetary support for the development of the neighbouring Mission Island Marsh. Action PS-4: Secondary Treatment at Abitibi- Consolidated Proponents: Abitibi-Consolidated Status: Ongoing cycles of the federal EEM program Cost: Cost not available The bark lagoon effluent and the main sewer effluent were combined through the new secondary treatment plant in 1995. Mill effluent is then discharged into a waterlot via the original main sewer outfall. The mill is presently meeting all federal requirements for TSS and BOD loadings to Lake Superior. Prior to secondary treatment, exposure to the combined mill effluent resulted in a high sub-lethal toxicity to the growth of fathead minnow and a high toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia reproduction. However, in Cycle 2 after installation of secondary treatment, there were no observed sub-lethal effects to fathead minnow growth and moderate toxicity to C. dubia reproduction (Borgmann et al. 2002). As described under Action PSM-4, the Cycle 2 EEM studies (carried out in the 1997-2000 period) showed improvements in effluent quality based on effluent toxicity results and a reduction in the zone of potential effect (Borgmann et al. 2002). Action PS-5: Redirect Stormwater Outlet and Remediate Residual Oil from CPR Water/Oil Separator Proponents: CPR Status: The design to redirect the stormwater discharge through a series of vegetated cells was completed In 1998. The separator has been removed, and some remediation has occurred. However, residual hydrocarbon accumulations still remain on the property. Cost: Cost not available Discharge from a stormwater culvert enters the Kaministiquia River at the Heritage Park location. Also, until its recent removal, discharge also occurred from a Canadian Pacific Railways water/oil separator. The intermittent stormwater flow and the discharge from the separator previously remained within a stagnant pool. In 1998, a design to redirect the discharge through a series of vegetated cells in the riparian area was implemented. However, historic hydrocarbon accumulations still remain on the property, and these may need to be remediated. Until this occurs, there will also be a need for regular monitoring to detect any groundwater contamination that may be present, or which may develop. Action PS-6: Secondary Treatment at Water Pollution Control Plant Proponents: City of Thunder Bay, OMOE, EC-GLSF, IC Status: Under construction. Secondary treatment will be operational in 2005, with change to UV disinfection in 2006. Cost: $73.6M for upgrade to secondary The Thunder Bay Pollution Prevention and Control Plan (PPCP) anticipated that secondary treatment at the Water Pollution Control Plant will reduce annual loadings of BOD and TSS to the Kaministiquia River. An assessment of potential secondary treatment technologies was completed in 1996 (W2O Inc. 1996) and is summarized in Appendix 3. Following this assessment, The City of Thunder Bay conducted a pilot study of the preferred alternatives: biological aerated filters and conventional activated sludge design. Selection 32 criteria for these options included the ability of the treatment process to meet effluent limits, land area requirements of the upgraded facility, and relative capital and operating costs. The pilot study also included an additional test of the trickling filter/solids contact process. Based on the conclusions of the study, the City Council decided in April 1999 to select the biological aerated filter process for the addition of secondary sewage treatment at the Atlantic Avenue Water Pollution Control Plant (see Appendix 5). Construction is now underway, and the selected secondary treatment process will be operational in 2005. In addition, the plant will be changing from chlorine disinfection to ultraviolet disinfection in 2006. This change was recommended by the Thunder Bay RAP Team and Public Advisory Committee, since discharges of chlorinated organic compounds, which occur when effluent is treated with chlorine gas, can be harmful to human health and to the aquatic environment. Action PS-8: Process Improvements at Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc. (formerly Thunder Bay Packaging) Proponents: Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc. Status: Implementation of secondary treatment completed in summer of 1997. Plant closed Dec. 3, 2003. Cost: unknown As described in section 2.4, process effluent from Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc. originally received only primary treatment within a clarifier before being released via a settling lagoon into the harbour. On a number of occasions, the plant exceeded monthly discharge limits for TSS, BOD, toluene, phenol, and effluent toxicity (Thunder Bay Packaging Inc.1996). In fact, on May 18, 2000, an Ontario Provincial Court Order was issued against Thunder Bay Packaging Inc. resulting from its conviction on two counts of depositing deleterious substance in water frequented by fish, both contrary to section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. F-14, (the Act). Prior to this conviction, however, the plant had already implemented secondary treatment (summer of 1997), and until its closure in December 2003, has been in compliance with federal regulations. Action NPS-2: Develop a Management Plan for Mercury Contaminated Sediments at Cascades Fine Papers Group Proponents: Cascades Fine Papers Group Status: The 2003 mercury study has been completed and is under review. Cost: Unknown As described in section 2.4, Cascades Fine Papers Group has introduced a number of process upgrades over the last few years to improve effluent quality. These include secondary treatment within an aerated stabilization basin (ASB) (completed in 1995), installation of a new primary clarifier (1996/97), sludge pressing equipment, sewer segregation, and recycling of process water. Cascades Fine Papers Group has made improvements to the ASB including the installation of nine submersible aerators and additional fine bubble diffusers (Oct. 1997). Consequently the mill meets the requirements for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), toxicity, and phenol loadings to Lake Superior (Table 2.1). However, according to an independent study commissioned by Cascades Fine Papers Group Inc. and former owners Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. (see monitoring Action NPSM-2), sediments in the northern portion of Thunder Bay harbour have total mercury levels that exceed the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines severe effect level over an area covering approximately three hectares adjacent to the Cascades Fine Papers Group effluent outfall. Overall, this study suggests an historic mercury source at or near the Cascades Fine Papers Group mill. Furthermore, an Environment Canada benthic assessment and biomagnification study in 2002 at 19 sites identified acute toxicity at some sites and altered benthic communities compared to reference. Mercury is transferred from sediment to benthic invertebrates, and mercury could bioaccumulate in higher trophic level receptor species to levels that are not protective of adverse effects at some sites (L. Grapentine pers. comm.) 33 It is recommended that further sediment assessments be carried out in the contaminated area to fill any data gaps which may impede the proper development and implementation of effective remediation measures (see Action NPSM-2). It is also recommended that a sediment management plan be developed that would include a scientifically defensible, public acceptable decision making framework which would identify remediation options and guide management decisions on sediment remediation. Implementation of the plan should proceed based on the results of the completed sediment assessments. Action NPS-G1: Develop and Implement Plans to Remediate Any Remaining Non-Point Sources of Contaminants Which are Contributing Significantly to the Fish and Wildlife Related Impairments Proponents: EC, MOE, NWRI, DFO, HC Status: Not yet implemented. It is possible that some of the monitoring actions such as FWPM-G1 or NPSM-4 will detect previously unidentified or inadequately addressed non-point sources (e.g., contaminated sediments, atmospheric deposition) within the AOC which are contributing to the fish and wildlife impairments (i.e., degradation of fish and wildlife populations, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and fish consumption advisories). It is recommended, therefore, that appropriate remediation actions be developed under Action MNG-1 for these non-point sources and that they be implemented within the context of the expanded monitoring plans and delisting criteria generated under Actions MNG-2 and MNG-3. The sources targeted under Action NPS-G1 would be those not already satisfactorily addressed by other actions in this report and which have been confirmed as contributing to the fish and wildlife impairments. Action PS-G1: Develop and Implement Plans to Remediate Any Remaining Point Sources of Contaminants Which are Contributing Significantly to the Fish and Wildlife Related Impairments Proponents: EC, MOE, NWRI, DFO, HC Status: Not yet implemented. This action is the same as Action NPS-G1, except that the focus is on the remaining point sources, rather than non-point sources. The sources targeted under this action would be those point sources (including point sources of atmospheric pollution within the AOC) which have been confirmed by Action FWPM-G1 as contributing to the fish and wildlife impairments (i.e., degradation of fish and wildlife populations, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and fish consumption advisories). (4) Actions Addressing the Fourth Fish and Wildlife Population and Habitat Recommendation The following actions address the fourth fish and wildlife population and habitat recommendation, i.e., to prevent impacts on fish and wildlife population dynamics including those produced by the introduction of exotics. Action FWP-2: Initiative to Devise Alternate Means to Control Sea Lamprey Proponents: Sea Lamprey Control Centre, EC/GLCUF, DFO Status: Fishway and sea lamprey barrier completed 1993. Cost: Operation of lamprey trap: $2,500/yr The Great Lakes Fishery Commission encourages the development of alternate lamprey control strategies in an effort to reduce dependence on lampricides. An experimental fishway and sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) barrier was constructed on the McIntyre River to prevent the passage of spawning phase lamprey and, at the same time, allow for the upstream movement of migratory fishes. The fishway consists of a conventional low-head barrier over which jumping fish species can proceed upstream and a long, sloping channel (8.5 m X 2.4 m with a 2% slope) for non-jumping fish to bypass the structure. The design of the channel was based on the limited swimming capabilities of lampreys relative to those of migratory teleost 34 fishes. During the sea lamprey spawning migration the length and slope of the channel, as well as stream discharge, produce water velocities that exceed the swimming speeds that adult lamprey can maintain for that distance. Both the low-head barrier and the downstream end of the channel are equipped with an overhanging lip to impede lamprey passage. A cooperative evaluation of the effectiveness of this structure was carried out by the Sea Lamprey Control Centre, the Lake Superior RAP Team, and the University of Guelph. The barrier was found to be successful in preventing the upstream passage of spawning phase sea lamprey except during high water events when the structure is inundated (McAuley and Young 1994). An assessment of fishway passage, however, suggests that the structure posed a challenge to migratory suckers and caused a delay in upstream movement (Chase 1996). High water velocities within the fishway channel further reduced passage success. Future velocity barriers should be designed to accommodate lower water velocities while keeping the entrance to the fishway submerged (see Action FWPM-2). Action FWP-3: Preventing Further Introductions of Exotic Species Proponents: DFO, TC, MNR, PAC, State and Tribal Governments. Status: Background report Ballast Water: State of the Science, Guidelines and Regulations completed 1994. Cost: $10,000 Exotic organisms have been transferred to Lake Superior via ballast water discharge. Consequently, the Thunder Bay RAP Team and Public Advisory Committee supported a study on the current state of ballast water treatment, control, and regulatory measures aimed at eliminating introductions and transfer of nonindigenous aquatic species (Hall-Armstrong 1994). The resulting document, Ballast Water: State of the Science, Guidelines and Regulations, urges stricter compliance with voluntary guidelines for ballast water treatment and exchange. In addition, a province wide public awareness program has been directed at boaters and anglers to help prevent the spread of exotic species. It is important to note that, although this action has been completed within the limited scope of the Thunder Bay RAP, the issue it addresses continues to receive considerable attention from the federal government and from other government agencies throughout the Great Lakes basin. It should also be noted that any Canadian-bound ship entering the Great Lakes through the seaway must also pass through U.S. waters, and consequently is subject to American as well as Canadian regulation. In fact, any ship in violation of the Canadian "voluntary guidelines" for the control of ballast water is automatically in violation of U.S. law and subject to prosecution. Furthermore, any ship master who refuses to provide information or knowingly provides false information concerning ballast water is guilty of a number of offences under Part 15 of the Canada Shipping Act. The existing guidelines, therefore, do have the necessary degree of enforceability for ships with ballast. However, they do not apply to ships without ballast, and so fail to address the hazard posed by the exotic species which may be contained in unpumpable ballast residue. Since ballast residue has been identified as an important route for the accidental introduction of exotic species, it is these ships which pose the greatest immediate threat. Unfortunately, existing technology does not allow treatment of these vessels in a safe or environmentally responsible manner. However, the federal government, through Transport Canada and DFO’s Great Lakes Laboratory on Fisheries and Aquatic Science (GLLFAS), has done a considerable amount of research into this problem. One study, for example, identified various organic acids for possible sterilization of vessels, and another examined chloramines for treatment of ballast tank slops. The federal government appreciates the importance of preventing exotic species from entering the waters of the Great Lakes. It supports this recommendation, and will continue its efforts to prevent further introductions of new exotic species. (5) Actions Which Address the First Three Fish and Wildlife Population and Habitat Recommendations 35 The following actions address the first three fish and wildlife population and habitat recommendations, i.e., 1. Increase the extent of productive aquatic and terrestrial habitat by rehabilitating and protecting wetland and riparian environments, and by enforcing existing environmental legislation. 2. Prevent the loss of aquatic migration corridors. 3. 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 Thunder Bay harbour provide a healthy and hospitable environment. Action PS-7: Thunder Bay Pollution Prevention and Control Plan Proponents: Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Program, City of Thunder Bay. Status: Phase I and II complete. Cost: $73.6M for upgrade to secondary treatment, $19.7M to reduce surface water and infiltration water, $2.6M for sewer upgrades, $1.3M for facilities to treat filter backwash water at water treatment plant. Direct municipal discharges to water courses in the Thunder Bay urban service area have had an adverse affect on the water quality of the AOC. As a result, a Pollution Prevention and Control Plan (PPCP) (W2O Inc. and Wardrop Engineering Ltd. 1998) was developed for the city to reduce urban pollutant loadings to receiving waters and to protect water resources. Phase I of the plan (June 1995) provided an assessment of wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Potential problem areas were identified relating to collection system management, basement flooding, combined sewer overflow (CSO) control, and pollution prevention and wastewater treatment requirements for the city of Thunder Bay. The plan was presented to the public and the Thunder Bay PAC for review. The second phase (Feb. 1997, revised Feb. 1998) of the plan evaluated pollution prevention and control strategies for the drainage basin. An implementation strategy was provided to address short and long term pollution control objectives. The short term PPCP addresses the immediate concerns identified in the phase one study: collection system and stormwater management, CSO control, basement flooding, and pollution prevention. The plan provides low cost alternatives that can be implemented over the next five to ten years. The short term plan also supports RAP goals for secondary treatment at the Water Pollution Control Plant. The recommendation in the plan for developing a pilot study on secondary treatment technology has been acted on by the City of Thunder Bay, and a summary of the 1999 study by XCG Consultants Ltd. and R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd. may be found in Appendix 5 (see also Action PS-6). Improvements realized through short term plan initiatives will be incorporated into the long term planning process. Long term PPCP programs are designed to respond to growth in the Thunder Bay area to ensure that future development can be sustained. For this reason, long term plans require a greater capital investment and are to be implemented over a 20 to 25 year period (W2O Inc. and Wardrop Engineering Ltd. 1998). Recognizing the city’s commitment to storm sewer separation, recommendations for CSO and stormwater discharges were not included in the PPCP as these systems did not contribute to pollutant loadings in the area. Continued enforcement of provincial stormwater guidelines and existing maintenance programs are advised. The plan encourages the use of pollution prevention measures to minimize the accumulation of pollutants in the watershed and thereby reduce the entry of contaminants into the collection system. The Thunder Bay RAP Team maintains that implementation of the PPCP will ensure an enhanced level of wastewater treatment, collection system performance, and stormwater control that is acceptable to the 36 municipality, regulatory agencies, and the public. The plan represents a progressive approach to enhancing the performance of city sewage facilities while protecting water resources within the AOC. Action FWH-8: Test Guidelines for Collecting Baseline Aquatic Habitat Data Proponents: DFO, OMNR Status: Aquatic habitat survey completed 1994. Cost: $20,000. The OMNR produced Guidelines for Collecting Baseline Aquatic Habitat Data in the Great Lakes Areas of Concern to assist municipal and provincial planning departments in determining rehabilitation priorities for AOCs, and to identify the progress of present remedial strategies. The Thunder Bay RAP participated in a pilot study to test these guidelines by completing an aquatic habitat survey of the AOC with some of this information being transferred to digital format for GIS mapping. It is anticipated that this project will initiate the standardization of aquatic habitat data collection using conventional survey techniques. Action FWH-9: Develop Watershed Management Plan for the Slate River Proponents: EC/GLCUF, DFO, Lakehead Region Conservation Authority (LRCA) Status: Completed: Draft management plan completed 1998. Remaining: The Watershed Management Plan for the Slate River needs to be reviewed by the members of the PAC and by the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority prior to its implementation under Action FWH-10. Implementation will be conditional upon the participation of the municipal government Cost: $120,000. Watershed management that addresses urban, rural, and industrial development is a proactive approach to the application of pollution prevention concepts in Lake Superior. Habitat degradation caused by water management practices along rivers and streams has been identified as a concern in each AOC. Pilot watershed management plans have been developed in two area RAPs: the Slate River in Thunder Bay and the Bennett-Davignon River system in Sault Ste. Marie. These watersheds best reflect stresses common to Northern Ontario AOCs. 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 management 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. 4.2 Benthic Population Dynamics and Habitat Loss Benthic invertebrates are appropriate biological indicators as they are directly associated with contaminants in sediments through their feeding and behavioural activities. In the Thunder Bay harbour a reduction in species richness and increased abundance of pollution tolerant organisms epitomizes an impaired benthic community. Some areas of the AOC continue to support benthic communities reflective of organic enrichment, contaminated sediments, and habitat loss from dredging activities. A. THE STRATEGY TO REMEDIATE BENTHIC POPULATION AND HABITAT 37 The strategy for restoring impaired benthic populations and habitat consists of the following two recommendations, which in turn will be implemented through the specific remedial actions described below in subsection B. Recommendation 2-1: Provide a hospitable environment for diverse benthic communities in the Thunder Bay harbour and its tributaries. Recommendation 2-2: Alleviate sediment contamination in order to prevent bioaccumulation of contaminants in the aquatic food chain. B. SPECIFIC REMEDIAL ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE BENTHIC POPULATION AND HABITAT STRATEGY As mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, many of the specific remedial actions which address one group of impairments will also address others. This subsection is an example of that fact, since several of the remedial actions supporting the fish and wildlife habitat recommendations listed in section 4.1 also support benthic recommendations 2-1 and 2-2. In fact, all the remedial actions listed below have already been described in detail in section 4.1, or are extensions of projects which have. Additional descriptive material, however, is provided for some of these actions, particularly as it relates to the restoration of benthos. As before, in order to differentiate between those actions which have not yet been implemented and those which have (except, perhaps for some follow-up monitoring), the action titles of the former will be given in boldfaced italics and the latter in regular italics. The ID codes follow the same format described at the beginning of this chapter. (1) Actions Addressing the First Benthic Population and Habitat Recommendation The remedial measures to restore riverine and nearshore habitat diversity, that were previously described in section 4.1-B(1), have also provided a variety of substrate types to enhance the productive capacity of the benthic community. The following actions, all of which may be found in section 4.1-B(1), also address the first of the benthic population and habitat recommendations, i.e., to provide a hospitable environment for diverse benthic communities in the Thunder Bay harbour and its tributaries. Action FWH-1: Rehabilitation of Degraded Walleye Spawning Habitat at the Current River Estuary Action FWH-2: Alteration of Shoreline to Restore Habitat Diversity at the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway Action FWH-3: Island Creation and Habitat Rehabilitation at the Mouth of McVicar Creek. Phase I: Bank Stabilization and Substrate Enhancement. Phase II: Island Creation. Action FWH-4: Redesign Waterfront Park to Protect and Enhance Shoreline of the Kaministiquia River, Including Scenic Overlook, Promenade, and Additional 500m of Park. Action FWH-5: Creation of Embayments in the McKellar River to Restore Productive Littoral Habitat Furthermore, in addition to the above, Action PS-1: Secondary Treatment at the Bowater Pulp and Paper Mill, previously described in section 4.1-B(3), also supports recommendation 2-1. Prior to secondary treatment, surveys of the Kaministiquia River below the Bowater outfall indicated a community dominated by organisms such as sludge worms, which are tolerant of high organic loads and decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations. Secondary treatment of mill effluent is designed to reduce organic inputs and improve water quality and sediment conditions in the AOC. As described under Action FWHM-7, the results from the Environmental Effects Monitoring Program (EEM) have already shown improvements in the benthic communities. 38 (2) Actions Addressing Both of the Benthic Population and Habitat Recommendations The following action addresses both of the benthic population and habitat recommendations, i.e., (1) to provide a hospitable environment for diverse benthic communities in the Thunder Bay harbour and its tributaries, and (2) to alleviate sediment contamination in order to prevent bioaccumulation of contaminants in the aquatic food chain. Action FWH-10: Implement the Slate River Watershed Management Plan Proponents: EC/GLSF, DFO, MOE, MNR, municipality, landowners Status: Initial efforts at implementation have been unsuccessful. Future implementation will be dependent on federal, provincial, municipal and landowner participation. Cost: Unknown The Slate River Watershed Management Plan (Lake Superior Programs Office, 1998) identifies specific remedial options to address habitat components and outlines preventative measures required to protect this northern Ontario stream system. Improved water management practices will reduce the impact of agricultural activities on the stability of benthic habitat and levels of productivity in this portion of the AOC. The plan outlines a rural non-point source pollution control project to assist agricultural landowners with environmentally sound practices. This project would demonstrate best management practices and remediation measures that can be implemented where tributary streams run through agricultural property. Initial efforts at implementation of this watershed management plan have been unsuccessful and future implementation will be dependent on federal, provincial, municipal and landowner participation. 4.3 Aesthetics and Beach Closures Degraded water quality within the AOC has impaired river and harbourfront aesthetics and affected recreational use of associated land and water resources. Abandoned buildings, waste disposal, refuse, and industrial and residential development in portions of the AOC have also contributed to the decline in the aesthetic value of the Thunder Bay waterfront. Areas with excessively high bacterial concentrations present a potential health hazard for water based recreational activities. Elevated bacterial levels in waters at Chippewa Beach have routinely closed this public swimming area, and some actions have already been taken to help rectify this. The beach at Boulevard Lake is also closed periodically because of bacterial contamination. The Thunder Bay Pollution Prevention and Control Plan study found that stormwater outlets servicing urban developments in the Boulevard Lake area were not a significant source of bacteria to this water body. Public health officials continue to monitor bacterial levels in this area. Provincial Water Quality Objectives are exceeded for bacteria at other harbour locations; however, these areas are highly industrialized and not conducive to swimming. A. THE STRATEGY TO REMEDIATE AESTHETICS AND BEACHES The strategy for addressing aesthetic impairments and beach closures in the AOC consists of the following two recommendations, which in turn will be implemented through the specific remedial actions described below in subsection B. Recommendation 3-1: Implement aesthetic improvements to the Thunder Bay harbour and its tributaries to promote access and allow for passive recreational activities. Recommendation 3-2: Ensure that point and non-point source effluent and waterfront development does not have an adverse effect on aesthetic appreciation or recreational pursuits within the AOC. 39 B. SPECIFIC REMEDIAL ACTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGY TO REMEDIATE AESTHETICS AND BEACHES This subsection contains a description of the various remedial actions, completed, ongoing and pending, which have contributed, or will contribute to the implementation of the recommendations listed in subsection A. They are grouped into three parts, one for each of the two individual recommendations, and one final part for actions which, being more general in scope, address both recommendations. The ID codes are assigned in the same way as before, and boldfaced italics are again used to designate the titles of actions which have not yet been implemented. (1) Actions Addressing the First Recommendation for Aesthetics and Beaches The following actions, both of which have been completed, address the first aesthetics and beaches recommendation, i.e., to implement aesthetic improvements to the Thunder Bay harbour and its tributaries to promote access and allow for passive recreational activities. Action ES-1: Community Cleanup of the Thunder Bay Waterfront Proponents: City of Thunder Bay (Spring-up to Clean-up); Lake Superior Binational Program (Great Lake Superior Cleanup) Status: Wake Up to Your Waterfront has been incorporated into city wide annual event, Spring-up to Clean-up (ongoing). Cost: $20,000/yr “Wake Up to Your Waterfront” is a community based cleanup of Thunder Bay harbour and its tributaries. Since the development of this project in 1993, the commitment and dedication of numerous volunteers has demonstrated that there is a high level of public interest in preserving the waterfront environment. In 1997, the cleanup was incorporated into the City’s “Spring-up to Clean-up” campaign. Volunteers removed close to two tonnes of garbage from the Thunder Bay shoreline. The success of this annual event has served as a demonstration model for similar community based cleanups. As a result, municipal shoreline cleanups were expanded to include the entire Lake Superior shoreline. To co-ordinate cleanup activities the “Great Lake Superior Cleanup” project was developed in 1995 under the Lake Superior Binational Program. These events are designed to enhance public awareness of the significance of Lake Superior and the long-term impact of careless waste disposal and littering. Action FWH-11: Tree Planting Projects Proponents: EC/GLCUF, OMNR Status: Planting completed Cost: $25,000 Areas disturbed during construction of habitat rehabilitation projects were re-vegetated with plant species indigenous to the Thunder Bay area. Planting schemes were developed to produce natural plant communities that would require little initial and no long term maintenance programs. More than 1500 trees and shrubs were planted as part of the McVicar Creek remediation project to revegetate the riverbank and newly created Sanctuary Island. Volunteers from local organizations and various community groups participated in this endeavour to provide wildlife habitat, soil stabilization, and aesthetic enhancement of the marina park area. In the McKellar Embayments, volunteers planted over 4,000 native trees, shrubs, and ground cover to provide a diversity of food and shelter for wildlife, soil stability, instream cover in the lagoons, and an aesthetically pleasing recreational area. 40 Action NPS-1: The NOWPARC Project Proponents: See section 4.1-B(3) Status: See section 4.1-B(3) Cost: See section 4.1-B(3) The NOWPARC project will provide a visual barrier to Northern Sawmills operations as a result of the substantial size of the green space buffer zone and containment berm. This will not only benefit the natural system by removal and isolation of contaminants, but will also improve the presently impaired aesthetic values of the Thunder Bay Harbour. (2) Action Addressing the Second Recommendation for Aesthetics and Beaches The following action will address the second aesthetics and beaches recommendation, i.e., to ensure that point and non-point source effluent and waterfront development does not have an adverse effect on aesthetic appreciation or recreational pursuits within the AOC. Action NPS-3: Improvements at Chippewa Park Proponents: OMOE, City of Thunder Bay, District Health Unit Status: Completed: Preferred remedial strategies were selected from options provided in the Chippewa Park Beach Water Quality Improvements final report. These were implemented during 2002/03. Ongoing monitoring program: Continue to monitor bacterial levels at Chippewa Beach Concentrations of faecal coliforms in excess of Provincial Water Quality Objectives have frequently resulted in beach closures. As a result, the Ministry of the Environment, the City of Thunder Bay, the district health unit, and the RAP office investigated remedial options designed to improve the water quality in this area. Available options and cost estimates for implementation of remedial strategies were provided in the Chippewa Park Beach Water Quality Improvements final report (Appendix 4). Preferred courses of action were then selected, based on this report, and implemented from 2002 to 2003. During this period, the beach was regraded, a drainage system installed, sediments removed, and part of the breakwall removed to increase water circulation. Prior to this, a number of improvements had already been made to reduce bacterial levels in the Chippewa Beach area. Low-flow fixtures were installed in the public washrooms, drainage was improved along the highway and the playing fields, and a new septic system was constructed to serve the beach and amusement park area. It is recommended under the associated monitoring Action NPSM-3 that monitoring be carried out in the region of Chippewa Beach to determine the effectiveness of the above mentioned remediation measures. If it is found that these measures are not meeting their objectives, then appropriate modifications to the Chippewa Beach remediation strategy should be formulated and implemented. (3) Actions Addressing Both of the Recommendations for Aesthetics and Beaches The following actions will address both of the aesthetics and beaches recommendations, i.e., (1) to implement aesthetic improvements to the Thunder Bay harbour and its tributaries to promote access and allow for passive recreational activities, and (2) to ensure that point and non-point source effluent and waterfront development does not have an adverse effect on aesthetic appreciation or recreational pursuits within the AOC. 41 Habitat Rehabilitation Projects FWH-1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 The following five habitat rehabilitation projects, previously described in section 4.1, have restored riverine and nearshore habitat diversity at several degraded sites within the Thunder Bay AOC. Together with other initiatives to improve water quality, they have created waterfront enhancement, created new fishing and recreational opportunities, increased access to shoreline properties, and enhanced the aesthetic value of the AOC. Action FWH-1: Rehabilitation of Degraded Walleye Spawning Habitat at the Current River Estuary Action FWH-2: Alteration of Shoreline to Restore Habitat Diversity at the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway Action FWH-3: Island Creation and Habitat Rehabilitation at the Mouth of McVicar Creek. Phase I: Bank Stabilization and Substrate Enhancement. Phase II: Island Creation. Action FWH-4: Redesign Waterfront Park to Protect and Enhance Shoreline of the Kaministiquia River, Including Scenic Overlook, Promenade, and Additional 500m of Park. Action FWH-5: Creation of Embayments in the McKellar River to Restore Productive Littoral Habitat In addition to the above, the following action, previously described in section 4.2 B(2), will also help to address recommendations 3-1 and 3-2 once it has been implemented. Action FWH-10: Implement the Slate River Watershed Management Plan Proponents: see section 4.2B(2) Status: see section 4.2B(2) The Watershed Management Plan addresses physical degradation and aesthetic impairment associated with agricultural practices in the Slate River system. The plan recommends water management practices in the Slate River in order to reduce the impact of organic enrichment, turbidity, and sedimentation in the adjoining Kaministiquia River. 4.4 Dredging Restrictions In the Thunder Bay AOC, dredging restrictions are the result of sediment contamination in the harbour, particularly at the Northern Sawmills site. The environmental impact of dredging activities stem mainly from the disposal of dredged material as sediments exceed the “Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario” for a number of contaminants. A. THE STRATEGY TO ADDRESS DREDGING RESTRICTIONS The strategy for addressing dredging restrictions in the AOC consists of the following two recommendations, which in turn will be implemented through the specific remedial actions described below in subsection B. Recommendation 4-1: Ensure dredging and sediment disposal does not contribute to the degradation of the aquatic ecosystem. Recommendation 4-2: Maintain a multiple use approach to waterfront areas by ensuring that the harbour continues to function as a shipping port. B. SPECIFIC REMEDIAL ACTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGY TO ADDRESS DREDGING RESTRICTIONS 42 The following actions address both of the recommendations 4-1 and 4-2. It should be noted, however, that the first of these refers to routine dredging activities which are independent of the RAP program. The ID codes are assigned in the same way as before, and boldfaced italics are again used to designate the titles of actions which have not yet been implemented. Navigational Maintenance Dredging of contaminated sediments: The Thunder Bay shipping channel and parts of the harbour are periodically dredged for navigational purposes. Dredged sediments exceeding Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines for open water disposal are placed in the Mission Bay Confined Disposal Facility (CDF). The CDF has a design capacity of 2 million cubic metres and more than one half of this capacity remains. The estimated average maintenance dredging requirement is 2000 cubic metres per year. Maintenance dredging combined with confined disposal can lead to improvement in sediment quality of the navigational channels of the AOC. 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. Action PS-1: Secondary Treatment at the Bowater Pulp and Paper Mill Action PS-2: Upgrades at Thunder Bay Terminals Action PS-3: Developments at Ontario Power Generation - Thunder Bay Generating Station Action PS-4: Secondary Treatment at Abitibi-Consolidated Action PS-5: Redirect Stormwater Outlet and Oil Separator Discharge at CPR Action PS-6: Secondary Treatment at Water Pollution Control Plant In addition to these, certain follow-up provisions of the NOWPARC project will also address the dredging recommendations. Action NPS-1: The NOWPARC Project - Provisions to Control the Source of Contamination Proponents: See section 4.1-B(3) Status: See section 4.1-B(3) Cost: See section 4.1-B(3) Under the NOWPARC alternative, areas of highest sediment contamination were removed from the AOC. Contaminated sediments within the shipping channel just east of the Northern Sawmills site were left in place to allow for natural recovery. PAH concentrations in sediments in this area are, on average, below 50 ppm and are assumed to have minimal biological effects on aquatic organisms (Environment Canada et al. 1996). At the present time, water depth within the harbour channel prevents the resuspension of sediments by ship traffic. It is recommended, however, that maintenance dredging of the shipping channel include biological effects monitoring of the area. The NOWPARC alternative also includes provisions to control the source of contamination through the consolidation of Northern Sawmills operations such that the industrial property does not undermine remedial efforts. 4.5 Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Populations It has been assumed that plankton populations are degraded in the vicinity of industrial outfalls, however, no formal study on the condition of the phyto or zooplankton communities has been completed. Before a remediation strategy can be developed for this impairment, it will be necessary to carry out the required studies on the phytoplankton and zooplankton communities to verify the impairment and obtain the 43 required baseline data and any other information needed to determine suitable remediation measures. Once this has been done, assuming the impairment is verified, appropriate delisting criteria, a remediation strategy, and a monitoring program will be developed under Management Actions MNG-1, MNG-2, and MNG-3. On the other hand, if it is the opinion of an expert panel that the studies do not verify the impairment, then the impairment status will be changed accordingly. 4.6 Education and Stewardship The involvement of the public and their commitment to both rehabilitation and continued vigilance of the ecosystem are important to the success of the Thunder Bay RAP. The PAC plays a leading role, making the public aware of progress towards the final goal of a healthy, balanced ecosystem and the ways in which this can be accomplished. Ultimately, public involvement will ensure that the remedial action plan responds to community needs and enjoys a high level of support for implementation. A. THE EDUCATION AND STEWARDSHIP STRATEGY The education and stewardship strategy consists of the following two recommendations, which in turn will be implemented through the specific remedial actions described below in subsection B. Recommendation 5-1: Facilitate an understanding of environmental problems within the community to ensure that all issues can be assessed, discussed, and resolved in a timely manner. Recommendation 5-2: Develop a public respect for the AOC ecosystem and encourage pollution prevention strategies to prevent the need for future remedial actions. B. Actions Addressing Both of the Education and Stewardship Recommendations The following actions address both of the recommendations 5-1 and 5-2. The ID codes are assigned in the same way as before, and boldfaced italics are again used to designate the titles of actions which have not yet been implemented. Action ES-1: Community Cleanup of the Thunder Bay Waterfront This action was previously described under Aesthetics and Beaches in Section 4.3 B(1). Action ES-2: Public Involvement in Habitat Creation Project at McVicar Creek - Name the Island Contest Proponents: City of Thunder Bay Status: Completed in 1993. An interpretive sign was placed on the mainland explaining the purpose of the island creation project and displays the winning name from the Name the Island contest. Cost: Less than $1,000 In 1993, a crescent shaped island was built just south of the McVicar Creek mouth to recreate nearshore nursery habitat and to encourage the re-establishment of a wetland filled in during construction of the Howe Street overpass. The LSPO and the City of Thunder Bay cosponsored a Name the Island Contest in order to raise public awareness of the project. Participants were encouraged to select a name with significance to the local area. The winning name, Sanctuary Island, was chosen to reflect the role of the island, and was incorporated into an interpretive sign on the mainland explaining the purpose of the project. 44 Action ES-3 : Lake Superior Community Education Project Proponents: LSPO (in past), Lake Superior Centre in Duluth Status: Provided educational materials to primary and secondary school students Cost: $20,000 The Lake Superior Community Education Project, was a partnership between the LSPO and Lake Superior Centre in Duluth, which brought the Lake Superior ecosystem into the classroom. Four Canadian communities along the North Shore took part in the 1996/97 school year. Participating schools were associated with the Thunder Bay, Nipigon Bay, Jackfish Bay, and Peninsula Harbour AOCs. The curriculum, known as Lake Effects, provided the opportunity for students to explore aspects of physical geography, plant and animal life, and human settlement within the context of Lake Superior. The project was geared to all ages, with activities ranging from the Lake Superior Raindrop Journey for younger pupils to consultations with regional experts regarding development issues for more advanced ages. Action ES-4: Lake Superior Day Proponents: LSPO (in past) Status: Similar events now sponsored by the Lakewide Management Plan for Lake Superior Cost: $7,500 per year Lake Superior Day started in 1993, and was an annual event celebrating the majesty of Lake Superior. Attractions such as horse and buggy rides, a pancake breakfast, and live music were intermingled with educational presentations from government and non-government agencies highlighting water quality issues, North Shore clean up projects, and other environmental concerns. The celebration occurred simultaneously in other Lake Superior communities, involving thousands of participants from all age groups. In this manner, the event fostered a greater sense of environmental stewardship and promoted environmentally sound practices at the local level. Action ES-5: Making a Great Lake Superior Brochure Proponents: LSPO (in past), EC, DFO, OMNR, OMOE, EC/GLCUF Status: Completed in 1997. The brochure will be distributed upon request Cost: $10,000 Making a Great Lake Superior highlights Great Lakes 2000 Clean Up Fund projects. The brochure illustrates environmental restoration activities in the North Shore of Lake Superior AOCs, including methods to enhance fish populations, improve water quality, sediment remediation, and new approaches to habitat rehabilitation. Projects supported by the Clean Up Fund (renamed Great Lakes Sustainability Fund) adopt an ecosystem approach to remediation and rely on broad community support for implementation. Action ES-6: Waterfront Development Workshop Proponents: Waterfront Development Advisory Committee, EC/GLCUF Status: Completed: Two day workshop held in March 1996. Workshop proceedings have been published. Potential development plans, opportunities, and challenges to achieving waterfront goals were identified and incorporated into the Waterfront Development Plan (see Action ES-7). Cost: $50,000 Revitalizing Thunder Bay’s waterfront was the focus of a two day workshop held in March 1996. The event was coordinated by the Waterfront Development Advisory Committee, in cooperation with the Great Lakes 2000 Clean Up Fund. Invited speakers and workshop participants identified potential development plans and opportunities, challenges to achieving waterfront goals, and strategies for implementation. Ideas developed in this workshop helped build a consensus on the direction for waterfront activity and laid the foundation for a waterfront development strategy (see below: The Next Wave). 45 Action ES-7: The Next Wave: Charting a New Course for Thunder Bay’s Waterfront Proponents: Waterfront Development Committee, City of Thunder Bay, LSPO (in past), Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Status: Completed: long term waterfront development plan completed (The Next Wave: Charting a New Course for Thunder Bay’s Waterfront). Remaining: Waterfront Development Plan being implement as funds become available. Cost: Depends on selected projects In the Thunder Bay AOC issues of degraded waterfront habitat and concerns for future waterfront development have been confronted. The demonstration projects described thus far, provide examples of alternatives to traditional shoreline development techniques. By bringing together representatives from all interested city based agencies and organizations to discuss future waterfront enhancement initiatives, efficient plans and restoration strategies can be developed that incorporate ecological, social, and economic values into remedial measures. The strategy is to incorporate habitat enhancement and remediation into future waterfront development plans for the City of Thunder Bay. The Next Wave (Planning Partnership et al. 1998) provides a long-term plan to increase commercial and tourism development and to establish new destination attractions on available waterfront property such as, for example, the proposed marina development. The development plan builds on the remedial action process and successes of Clean Up Fund projects to restore beneficial uses in the AOC. Action ES-8: Achieving Integrated Habitat Enhancement Objectives: A Technical Manual Proponents: EC/GLCUF, DFO, OMNR, OMOE Status: Completed. Manual to be distributed upon request. Cost: $25,000 A technical manual was prepared by the North Shore of Lake Superior RAPs detailing three integrated habitat enhancement initiatives for the Thunder Bay, Nipigon, and Red Rock areas. The guide provides a practical demonstration of the type of enhancement projects that are possible with the development of partnerships and public involvement in both the design and implementation process. Action ES-9: EcoSuperior (previously, Thunder Bay 2002 Clean & Green) Proponents: LSPO (in past), EcoSuperior, multiple partners Status: Established regional resource From 1996-1999, the LSPO was the base for a non-governmental program, Thunder Bay 2002 Clean & Green. This organization, which has since changed its name to EcoSuperior, promotes water and energy conservation, household waste reduction, and pollution prevention through membership in its environmental consumers club and home inspection service. They also deliver a variety of projects to enhance and preserve local and regional greenspaces. EcoSuperior relies on corporate and community partnerships to make their environmental programs a success. EcoSuperior is a non-profit environmental organization based in Thunder Bay. The organization has undertaken several mercury reduction initiatives which directly address the Lake Superior Binational Program goal of an 80% reduction in mercury input to the Lake Superior Basin by the year 2010. EcoSuperior's efforts have centered primarily on reclaiming mercury found in common products. These include fluorescent lights, standard wall-mounted thermostats and button batteries for watches and calculators. Significant progress has been made in this regard and a wide range of well known local industries, institutions and commercial outlets have become involved. Another primary source of mercury contamination is the air-borne mercury by-product produced as a result of coal combustion. Ore processing and power generation contribute significantly to this issue. Currently, no technology exists which adequately addresses this problem. 46 EcoSuperior (www.ecosuperior.com ) has begun work on water and energy conservation within local industry to address this issue. Efforts have been undertaken to implement water use efficiencies within local industries like pulp and paper, which use massive quantities of water, along with the electric power to move this water. The goal of these efforts is reduced power consumption. Action ES-10: Development of Local Planner’s Guide to Ecosystem Health Proponents: OMNR, EC/GLSF Status: Dependent on further development of City of Thunder Bay Waterfront Development Plan. Remaining: Identify terrestrial and aquatic habitats and their relative sensitivity to development. Cost: $20,000 The need for site specific, detailed information on natural resource values to aid in municipal planning is addressed by this project. To ensure sensitivity to the local aquatic and terrestrial habitats, information on natural areas and their relative sensitivity to development must be available to municipal and provincial planners. Using this information, a system can be created which will identify those areas where development will be least likely to cause environmental degradation. Terrestrial and aquatic habitats and their relative sensitivity levels are presently being identified with the intention of incorporating this information into municipal and provincial databases. Action ES-11 : Preventative Measures for Watershed Protection Proponents: OMNR, EcoSuperior Status: Dependent on funding. Remaining: educate landowners of waterfront property on best options for protecting watercourses; Home Green Up service provided by EcoSuperior. Cost: Funding has yet to be approved. The City of Thunder Bay contains numerous tributaries to Lake Superior that provide a wide variety of benefits to fish and wildlife and affect the nutrient budget of Lake Superior. However, the presence of residential dwellings on these watercourses can result in impacts to the watershed as many homeowners are unaware of the importance of protecting the riparian area. EcoSuperior (Thunder Bay 2002), through its “Home Green Up” service, plans to initiate a program educating landowners of waterfront property on their best options to protect the integrity of the watercourse thus preventing future damage. It should be noted, however, that this service is already provided by the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority to its member municipalities (M. Henttonen, 2000). It also has a regulatory role on regional watercourses and Lake Superior via regulations and a partnership role with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans pertaining to Section 35 of the Fisheries Act. 47 5.0 Monitoring Programs Associated With Remedial Actions It should be noted that many of the RAP related monitoring activities, completed or remaining, have been directly associated with individual remedial actions. Consequently, the focus of many of these monitoring activities is restricted primarily to the restorative consequences of the associated remediation action. Unfortunately, this very close linkage between individual monitoring activities and specific projects prevents the overall monitoring program from achieving the broader focus necessary for gauging progress on restoring the impaired beneficial uses. Furthermore, many of the descriptions of ongoing and future monitoring programs described below do not provide enough information to properly assess the monitoring strategies and their potential for success in determining the effectiveness of remedial actions undertaken. It should also be noted that monitoring activities which track progress toward delisting must, in large measure, be determined by those very same criteria which define the delisting process itself. Consequently, any modifications or additions to the delisting criteria, such as those which are recommended under management action MNG-3 in Chapter 6, will require corresponding changes to the monitoring activities. Recognizing this need for coordination, the following management action is, therefore, recommended. Management Action MNG-2: It is recommended that a workshop session, or series of sessions be convened, to be attended by the PAC, agency experts, and those who are involved in managing the implementation of RAP related restoration and monitoring actions. These sessions would: 1. Establish the necessary coordination between the overall monitoring strategy and the revised delisting criteria resulting from Action MNG-3 (see section 6.0). 2. Link individual monitoring activities to the overall strategy and revise and expand monitoring plans wherever necessary. Additional monitoring activities would likely be required, for example, to measure the effect of new remediation measures resulting from Management Action MNG-1. 3. Provide proper documentation for each of the individual monitoring actions. This would include a description of the rational behind the action, its objectives, a description of how it will be implemented, and a summary of the results obtained to date. 4. Furthermore, recognizing the close connection between remediation, monitoring and delisting, these workshops should be closely coordinated with those described in management actions MNG-1 and MNG-3. It is recommended that the three series of workshops be attended by the same people, i.e., PAC members, agency experts (EC, DFO, MNR, MOE), and those who are involved in managing the implementation of RAP related restoration and monitoring actions. 5. The results of these monitoring workshops would then be documented as a planned and coordinated monitoring strategy for the AOC. The documentation would then be included in the “Stage 2 Update,” along with the revised delisting criteria, as part of the Stage 2 Implementation Annex. Agency experts (EC, DFO, MNR, MOE) could provide guidance to RAP teams on how to optimize the use of limited resources in implementing a successful monitoring program. Furthermore, with the assistance of local implementation teams, these experts could also help in identifying gaps that have occurred in the existing monitoring plans, and describe how agency support could help fill any that would impede the successful tracking of progress toward delisting. For example, there are many federal and provincial monitoring programs, some of which are independent of RAPs, each with their own objectives and timetables (e.g., rotating lake monitoring schedules, including a limnological survey of Thunder Bay in 1999), which nevertheless can provide valuable monitoring support to the RAP process. 5.1 The Monitoring Actions The following scheme will be used in assigning identifier codes to the monitoring actions. 48 • A monitoring action associated with a specific remediation activity will be assigned the same ID code as the remediation activity except for the addition of “M” at the end of the alphabetic portion of the alphanumeric code. Thus, for example, monitoring action FWPM-1 is the action which monitors the remediation action FWP-1. Similarly Action NPSM-2 is the monitoring action corresponding to implementation activity NPS-2. • General monitoring actions not linked with specific remediation actions will have the letter “G” immediately preceding the numeric portion of the code. Thus the first of the general fish and wildlife population monitoring actions would be labeled Action FWPM-G1. Likewise, Action NPSM-G1 would be the first general monitoring action for non-point sources. In the following subsections, the ID codes of the monitoring actions are immediately followed by the corresponding action titles. As in chapter 4, the titles of actions not yet completed are in bold faced type. 5.1.1 Fish and Wildlife Populations Monitoring Action FWPM-1: Monitoring to Support Lake Sturgeon Rehabilitation Strategy Proponents: State and Tribal Governments, OMNR Status: Ongoing monitoring program: tagging lake sturgeon in the Kaministiquia River to determine population characteristics, habitat requirements, and distribution and movement patterns (OMNR). As described under Action FWP-1, a Lake Sturgeon Rehabilitation Plan providing recommendations and strategies for the restoration and protection of sturgeon in Lake Superior has been completed. The overall goal is to maintain, enhance, and rehabilitate self-sustaining populations of lake sturgeon in areas where the species historically occurred basin wide. In the Thunder Bay AOC, the Kaministiquia River provides spawning and nursery habitat for Lake Superior sturgeon populations (Cullis et al. 1987). The Lake Superior Management Unit (OMNR) is utilizing a telemetry and habitat assessment study which has been used to determine sturgeon population characteristics, document seasonal distribution and movement patterns, and identify critical habitat for this species. Management options are currently under consideration including modifying flow regimes (Kam River Water Management Plan) and regulation changes (harvest, seasons, sanctuaries etc.). Once these rehabilitation plan implementation options have been established, monitoring will still be required, over the long term, to measure the effectiveness of the strategy and track progress. Monitoring Action FWPM-2: Monitoring the Effectiveness of Alternate Sea Lamprey Control Measures Proponents: Sea Lamprey Control Centre, EC/GLCUF, DFO Status: Completed: movement of migratory fish through the fishway; sea lamprey population estimate completed on an annual basis (Sea Lamprey Control Centre) Remaining: continue to monitor upstream reaches for lamprey nesting sites and juveniles; continue to monitor trap to estimate lamprey population abundance (Sea Lamprey Control Centre) As described under Action FWP-2, an experimental fishway and sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) barrier was constructed on the McIntyre River to prevent the passage of spawning phase lamprey while, at the same time, allowing for the upstream movement of migratory fishes. The design of the channel was based on the limited swimming capabilities of lampreys relative to those of migratory teleost fishes. A cooperative evaluation of the effectiveness of this structure showed that the barrier was successful in preventing the upstream passage of spawning phase sea lamprey, but suggested that it posed a challenge to migratory suckers and caused a delay in upstream movement. This barrier design will likely have limited implications for strong swimming migratory species i.e., rainbow trout and other salmonids, but 49 may cause some disruption to the migration of weaker swimming species (i.e., sucker, walleye etc.). Modifications to the design of the barrier may, therefore, be required, and additional monitoring will be needed to determine its effectiveness in limiting lamprey without at the same time preventing the passage of native species, especially migratory forage fish (e.g., trout, perch, creek chubs, pearl dance, etc.). Monitoring Action FWPM-3: Monitoring of Exotic Species and of Associated Control Efforts Proponents: DFO, TC, MNR, PAC, State and Tribal Governments. Status: Ongoing: Monitoring program to monitor presence of exotic species in Lake Superior. Province-wide public awareness program directed at boaters and anglers to help prevent the spread of exotics. As described under Action FWP-3, the study supported by the PAC, which examined regulatory measures for eliminating introductions and transfer of non-indigenous aquatic species, urged stricter compliance with voluntary guidelines. A province-wide public awareness program has also been directed at boaters and anglers to help prevent the spread of exotic species. Monitoring programs will be needed to (a) determine the effectiveness of this public awareness program and (b) to quantify the presence of exotic species in the AOC. The second of these two efforts should be coordinated with similar activities being implemented through the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP). Monitoring Action FWPM-G1: Identify and Assess Any Remaining Point and Non-Point Sources of Contaminants Which Have Contributed Significantly to the Fish and Wildlife Impairments Proponents: NWRI, DFO, HC Status: Not yet implemented. If the fish and wildlife impairments are to be remediated (i.e., degradation of fish and wildlife populations, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and fish consumption advisories), it is essential to identify and address all significant point and non-point sources within the AOC which have contributed significantly to these impairments. This action would evaluate all of the monitoring activities past and present in the context of the upgraded delisting criteria resulting from Action MNG-3 and would identify and rectify any program gaps which might have caused significant sources to be overlooked or inadequately addressed. Examples of such sources include: 1. 2. any heretofore unaddressed or unidentified on-shore or off-shore sites which have been used for the disposal of contaminated or hazardous material and which may be leaching or otherwise transferring contaminants into the streams, rivers, water bodies, and groundwater within the AOC. any heretofore unaddressed or unidentified contaminated sediments in the harbour or rivers resulting from historic discharges of mercury or other contaminants known to be associated with the fish and wildlife impairments and/or consumption restrictions. Once such sources are identified, then monitoring actions would be initiated to determine the identity, toxicity, bioavailability, and distribution of the contaminants at these locations and the degree to which they are contributing to the above mentioned impairments within the AOC. Once the locations requiring remediation have been identified, additional monitoring would be carried out, as required, to formulate appropriate remediation strategies (see Actions NPS-G1, PS-G1) and to measure progress. Finally, it should be noted that atmospheric deposition is another means whereby contamination may be spread. Therefore, this action would also identify and rectify any program gaps which might have caused any significant sources of atmospheric pollution, which are located within the AOC and which are contributing to the IBUs, to be overlooked or inadequately addressed. 50 Monitoring Action FWPM-G2: Develop and Implement a Coordinated Monitoring Plan to Fill Baseline Information Gaps Wherever Possible and Track Progress on Restoring the Fish and Wildlife Beneficial Uses Proponents: EC/GLCUF, OMNR, OMOE, and DFO Status: Not yet developed. The fish and wildlife related impairments (i.e., degradation of fish and wildlife populations, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and fish consumption advisories) cannot be delisted unless a suitable monitoring program is in place which has provided the necessary baseline information and which is compatible with the delisting criteria. A coordinated monitoring plan should therefore be developed under action MNG-2 which would identify and rectify baseline information gaps, wherever possible, and track progress toward meeting the expanded and upgraded set of delisting criteria resulting from action MNG-3. It would be necessary to examine all past and present fish and wildlife monitoring programs, identify gaps, and define new monitoring actions as required, including those necessitated as a consequence of Action MNG-1. It should be noted that the NOWPARC monitoring program which MNR and DFO are developing (see Action NPSM-1(c)) will contribute to this action, since it will form the basis for a coordinated monitoring plan for fish in Thunder Bay Harbour. 5.1.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Monitoring Action FWHM-1: Monitoring the Rehabilitation of Walleye Spawning Habitat at Current River Estuary Proponents: EC/GLCUF, OMNR, OMOE, and DFO Status: Completed: monitored walleye spawning populations (an estimated 1500 fish using estuary in 1993) and use of spawning habitat (area containing live walleye eggs increased by five times). Attempts to estimate fish numbers using Current River estuary in 1999 and 2000 were unsuccessful Remaining: Conduct additional abundance estimates when river flows and lake levels are similar to pre-rehabilitation conditions. As described under Action FWH-1, the mouth of the Current River provides both spawning and nursery grounds for one of the few remaining, naturally reproducing walleye stocks in Lake Superior. Three sites were selected for enhancement in the Current River estuary. Each area was cleared of debris and clean substrate was added without disturbing existing spawning habitat. With the completion of this project in December 1991, a monitoring program was established to estimate walleye abundance, levels of spawning activity, and the frequency of successful spawning events (Geiling et al. 1996). Although there was no initial change in abundance of adult walleye, the area of habitat over which walleye successfully spawned increased (Geiling et al. 1996). Viable eggs were found in both the historic and newly created lotic spawning habitat. Further assessments have been undertaken in 1999 and 2000 to evaluate the success of this rehabilitation project. Adult walleye mark and recapture projects were undertaken in the spring of 1999 and 2000 to estimate numbers of fish accessing the modified spawning shoals. Capture, tagging and live release of adult spawning run walleye were undertaken at sites sampled during previous population assessments. It was not possible to estimate spawning adult numbers in 1999 or 2000 due to the low number of fish captured. Extremely low water levels may have affected the efficiency of the capture gear or the migratory patterns of spawning fish. Assessment of the success of this habitat rehabilitation effort is inconclusive to date. Undertaking additional assessment will be considered when water levels and flow return to those at which pre-rehabilitation assessment occurred. Monitoring Action FWHM-2: Monitor the Habitat Enhancement on the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway Proponents: EC/GLCUF, OMNR, OMOE, and DFO 51 Status: Completed: monitored fish populations and benthic communities in 1991-1995. Reports of greater diversity and abundance of fish in embayment areas than in unaltered sections of floodway have not been confirmed. Action FWH-2 was designed to create refugia and instream habitat diversity that was lost with the creation of the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway in order to benefit both migratory and resident fish populations. Four embayments (30 m x 2 m) were constructed as a demonstration project to diversify habitat. Following completion of the project, it was reported that a biological assessment indicated a greater increase in fish abundance and diversity in the embayment areas than in the unaltered sections of the floodway, but this was not confirmed. It has since been concluded that the habitat enhancement project on the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway has not demonstrated the potential for improving aquatic habitat while maintaining the function of flood control within an urban environment. Monitoring Action FWHM-3: Monitor Effects of Island Creation and Habitat Rehabilitation at Mouth of McVicar Creek Proponents: EC/GLCUF, OMNR, OMOE, and DFO Status: Monitoring efforts to confirm the success of this habitat rehabilitation action have been inconclusive to date. Unconfirmed reports have indicated that there may have been an increase in fish community abundance and diversity in the mouth of McVicar Creek. These same reports indicate that the shallow waters of the inner bay may have been colonized by aquatic macrophytes, and that smallmouth bass have spawned in the lee of the island. There are other unconfirmed reports that herring gulls and least sandpipers have nested on the island crest and that waterfowl are commonly seen in the sheltered inner bay as they move through on their annual migrations in the spring and fall. Monitoring Action FWHM-4: Monitoring Public Response to Waterfront Park on Kaministiquia River As described under Action FWH-4, rehabilitation projects undertaken by the City of Thunder Bay in the lower reaches of the Kaministiquia River represent an integrative approach to waterfront development and habitat restoration. Shoreline degradation has left the area devoid of ecological, recreational, and economic value. To this end, the Kaministiquia River Heritage Park was developed to restore the environmental integrity and natural history of the region. A monitoring plan (City Recreation Department) will measure public response and use of the area. Monitoring Action FWHM-5: Monitor Effectiveness of Habitat Remediation on McKellar River Proponents: EC/GLCUF, OMNR, OMOE, and DFO Status: Completed: monitoring has indicated that a number of fish, waterfowl, songbirds, and mammals have made extensive use of the new habitat (3 ha of habitat created) Remaining: monitor the development of diverse wetland habitat and self-sustaining biotic communities over the long term. As previously described, decades of dredging for commercial ship traffic has eliminated most of the shallow littoral zone in the McKellar River, leaving little in the way of habitat productivity or diversity. Several remediation measures to address this problem have been implemented under Action FWH-5. Monitoring in the first two seasons after the completion of Action FWH-5 indicated that a number of fish, waterfowl, songbirds, and mammals have made extensive use of the new habitat. Benthic organisms have also colonized the embayments. The site was subsequently used to compare the natural colonization of aquatic macrophytes in the embayments to the artificial introduction of native plant species (Lee 1995, Vincent). The success of this project will be measured over the long term by monitoring the development of diverse wetland habitat and self-sustaining biotic communities. 52 Monitoring Action FWHM-6: Monitor Improvements in Salmonid Access to the Upper Reaches of the Current River Proponents: LRCA, OMNR, North Shore Steelhead Association. Status: Completed: electrofishing survey of Ferguson Creek showed that young of the year, yearling, and two year old rainbow trout were present, indicating that successful spawning had occurred each year rainbow trout were transferred. However, monitoring of the fishway passage and colonization of headwaters by rainbow trout (North Shore Steelhead Association) has indicated that the step ladder is not achieving its desired purpose, as described under action FWH-6. As previously described (see Action FWH-6), the Current River has approximately 50 km of potential spawning and nursery habitat available to rainbow trout. Passage of rainbow trout up this river system, however, was blocked by a dam situated approximately 600 m upstream from the mouth of the river. Remediation measures described under Action FWH-6, which included the construction of a fish ladder and step pools, attempted to restore access to productive spawning habitat in the Current River. In addition, a fish transfer program was also implemented to accelerate the colonization of rainbow trout in the upper reaches of the Current River. It was anticipated that spawning adults, collected from adjacent streams and transplanted to the headwaters of the Current River, would produce a self-sustaining rainbow trout population over time. However, as described under action FWH-6, monitoring has indicated that the fishway passage is not presently achieving its desired purpose, and so it is recommended that a study be initiated to determine what actions, if any, may be taken to enable the ladder and step pools to achieve their desired purpose. A monitoring program may be needed as part of this study, and should modifications be initiated to the design and structure of the fishway, additional monitoring will be required to determine their effectiveness in meeting the original goals of the project. Monitoring Action FWHM-7: Monitor Alleviation in Water Quality Barriers to Fish Migration in the Kaministiquia River Proponents: Bowater Status: Completed: Bowater has been responsible for monitoring fish, benthos, sediment, and water quality through the federal Environmental Effects Monitoring Program (EEM) Remaining: continue with EEM program (Bowater). As described previously under Action FWH-7, in the past, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loadings from the Bowater pulp and paper mill have exceeded the assimilative capacity of the Kaministiquia River, and at times, depressed oxygen levels have created intermittent barriers to fish movement to the unimpaired habitat in the upper reaches of the river. However, secondary treatment of both the kraft and paper mill effluent has reduced BOD levels and effectively removed water quality barriers to upstream fish passage. The long term improvements resulting from these measures will be monitored under the Environmental Effects Monitoring Program. Results from two cycles of the regulated environmental effects monitoring program (EEM) under the Federal Pulp and Paper Effluent regulations indicate that there have been improvements between Cycle 1 (1992 - 1996) and Cycle 2 (1996 - 2000) in the benthic communities sampled for the Bowater and Abitibi-Consolidated EEM studies (Borgmann et al., 2001). Monitoring Action FWHM-8: Apply Monitoring Guidelines for Collecting Baseline Aquatic Habitat Data Proponents: LSPO (in past), OMNR Status: Completed: tested data collection system (LSPO). Documented the applicability of standardized collection method (OMNR). Ongoing: Applying the applicable standardized methods, where appropriate, to other monitoring activities in the AOC. 53 As described under Action FWH-8, the Thunder Bay RAP participated in a pilot study to test OMNR’s Guidelines for Collecting Baseline Aquatic Habitat Data in the Great Lakes Areas of Concern by completing an aquatic habitat survey of the AOC, with some of this information being transferred to digital format for GIS mapping. Now that the data collection system has been tested, the applicable standardized methods are being applied, where appropriate, to other monitoring activities currently underway in the AOC, and to those being planned. For example, ongoing small fish sampling surveys are being conducted utilizing standardized protocols, and a GIS based fish habitat mapping survey is planned through COA for portions of the Kam River and Thunder Bay Harbour for 2004. Monitoring Action FWHM-9: Monitor Demonstration Project for the Slate River Watershed Management Plan Proponents: EC/GLSF, DFO, MOE, MNR, municipalities, landowners Status: Completed: none Remaining: Depending on available funding, develop a demonstration site to initiate the cleanup of the Slate River (EC), and implement a monitoring plan to track improvements resulting from the demonstration. As described under Action FWH-9, a pilot watershed management plan has been developed for the Slate River. This watershed management plan addresses physical degradation and aesthetic impairment associated with agricultural practices in this area. A demonstration site now needs to be developed to initiate the cleanup of the Slate River (EC), and this must accompanied by appropriate monitoring plans to track habitat improvements resulting from the demonstration. Development of the demonstration site is dependent on federal, provincial, municipal and landowner participation and funding. Monitoring Action FWHM-10: Monitor Environmental Improvements Resulting from the Implementation of the Slate River Watershed Management Plan Proponents: EC/GLSF, DFO, MNR, MOE, municipalities, landowners Status: Not yet started The Slate River Watershed Management Plan identifies specific remedial options to address habitat components and outlines preventative measures required to protect this northern Ontario stream system. The plan outlines a rural non-point source pollution control project that can be implemented where tributary streams run through agricultural property. The implementation of this project must be accompanied by an appropriate monitoring plan to track the resulting habitat improvements. Monitoring Action FWHM-11: Monitor Success of Re-vegetation Projects in McVicar Creek and McKellar River Proponents: EC/GLCUF, OMNR Status: Completed: Areas monitored and determined to be successfully re-vegetated. Areas disturbed during construction of habitat rehabilitation projects in the McVicar Creek (see Action FWH-3) and McKellar River areas (see Action FWH-5) were re-vegetated with plant species indigenous to the Thunder Bay region. As part of the McVicar Creek remediation project, more than 1500 trees and shrubs were planted by local volunteers to re-vegetate the riverbank and newly created Sanctuary Island. Likewise, in the McKellar embayments, volunteers planted over 4,000 native trees, shrubs, and ground cover to provide a diversity of food and shelter for wildlife, soil stability, instream cover in the lagoons, and an aesthetically pleasing recreational area. It is recommended that appropriate monitoring be carried out in both these regions to track the effectiveness of these re-vegetation projects. Planted areas have been assessed and have re-vegetated to the point that stream bank and shoreline areas are considered stable. 54 5.1.3 Point Sources Monitoring Action PSM-1: Monitoring Environmental Improvements at Bowater Proponent: Bowater Status: Industries are responsible for monitoring fish, benthos, sediment, and water quality through the federal Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) Program. Remaining: Ongoing cycles of the federal EEM program Following the installation of secondary treatment at the kraft mill in 1993, BOD decreased by more than 50% and TSS levels declined. Overall, secondary treatment and 100% chlorine dioxide substitution at the Bowater pulp and paper mill has resulted in dramatic reductions in effluent BOD, AOX, and resin and fatty acid levels (Beak 1996). The EEM sub-lethal toxicity results demonstrate that the mill effluent in Cycle 1 produced a moderate sub-lethal toxicity to the growth of fathead minnow and a high toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia reproduction. However, in Cycle 2 the mill effluent had low sub-lethal effects to fathead minnow growth and moderate toxicity to C. dubia reproduction (Borgmann et al. 2002). Mean invertebrate densities (particularly tubificids) were lower in the exposure areas in Cycle 2 compared to Cycle 1, suggesting ecological improvement (Beak 2000). Furthermore, the reduction of tubificids (pollution tolerant) in Cycle 2 relative to Cycle 1 downstream of the mill is consistent with the reduction in BOD5 and TSS loadings achieved by the mill after Cycle 1 (Beak 2000). Monitoring Action PSM-2: Monitoring Environmental Improvements at Thunder Bay Terminals Proponent: Thunder Bay Terminals. Status: Completed: monitored fish, benthos, sediment, and water Remaining: continue with monitoring program As described under Activity PS-2, a number of actions have been taken at Thunder Bay Terminals to reduce the environmental impacts associated with its industrial activities. In particular, these actions should result in reduced groundwater contamination. Continued monitoring is expected to confirm expected improvements in groundwater quality. Monitoring Action PSM-3: Monitoring Environmental Improvements at the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) - Thunder Bay Generating Station Proponent: Canadian Wildlife Service, OPG-Thunder Bay Generating Station. Status: Ongoing: Mercury emissions monitoring for both generators. Remaining: monitor environmental improvements resulting from actions supported by OPG on the Mission Island Marsh. As described under Action PS-3, the OPG Thunder Bay Generating Station on Mission Island has two 150 MW generators, both of which are equipped with emissions monitoring. In particular OPG has a mercury monitoring program and conducted stack testing in Thunder Bay in 1998. Furthermore, Ontario Power Generation has provided monetary support for the development of the neighbouring Mission Island Marsh. A monitoring plan is recommended to track expected environmental improvements resulting from the marsh development. Monitoring Action PSM-4: Monitoring Environmental Improvements at Abitibi-Consolidated. Proponent: Abitibi-Consolidated. 55 Status: Completed: Pulp and Paper Companies are responsible for monitoring fish, benthos, sediment, and water quality through the federal Environmental Effects Monitoring Program (EEM) Remaining: continue with EEM program Prior to the secondary treatment upgrades described under Action PS-4, exposure to the combined mill effluent from the Abitibi-Consolidated mill generally resulted in varying levels of toxicity to fathead minnow, duckweed, and Ceriodaphnia. Toxicity levels and the potential zone of effect decreased, however, after the installation of secondary treatment in 1995. A noticeable shift in the populations of macroinvertebrates, between Cycles 1 and 2, to more pollution sensitive species indicates an overall improvement in the water and sediment quality of the Fort William Division waterlot (C. Portt and Associates 2001). Monitoring Action PSM-5: Monitoring Effectiveness of the Redirection of Stormwater and Oil Separator Discharge at CPR Proponent: CPR Status: Completed: none Remaining: Programs to monitor groundwater and surface contamination and also the effects of the vegetated cells on local wildlife. In 1998, as described under Action PS-5, a design was implemented at the CPR site to redirect discharge through a series of vegetated cells in the riparian area. However, historic hydrocarbon accumulations still remain on the property, and these may need to be remediated. Until this occurs, there will be a need for regular monitoring to detect any groundwater contamination that may be present, or which may develop. It is also recommended that the monitoring program should include an examination of the effects of the vegetated cells on local wildlife. Monitoring Action PSM-6: Monitor Environmental Improvements Resulting from Secondary Treatment and UV Disinfection at the Water Pollution Control Plant Proponents: City of Thunder Bay, OMOE, EC/GLSF, IC Status: Not yet initiated As described under Action PS-6, construction is now underway at the WPCP, and the selected secondary treatment process will be operational in 2005. In addition, as recommended by the Thunder Bay RAP Team and Public Advisory Committee, the plant will be changing from chlorine disinfection to ultraviolet disinfection in 2006. Monitoring programs are recommended to determine the effectiveness of both of these upgrades in mitigating environmental impacts of the WPCP. Monitoring Action PSM-7: Monitor the Effectiveness of the Short Term Pollution Prevention and Control plan (PPCP) for the City of Thunder Bay Proponents: City of Thunder Bay, EC/GLSF, Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Program Status: Remaining: a monitoring plan to be implemented to track the effectiveness of the short term PPCP initiatives, including any new and innovative technologies which may employed. As described under Action PS-7, phase I of the PPCP provided an assessment of wastewater collection and treatment facilities and identified potential problem areas. The second phase of the plan evaluated pollution prevention and control strategies for the drainage basin. An implementation strategy was provided to address short and long term pollution control objectives. The short term PPCP addresses the immediate concerns identified in the phase one study by providing low cost alternatives that can be implemented over the next five to ten years. The short term plan also supports RAP goals for secondary treatment at the Water Pollution Control Plant, and includes recommendations for developing a pilot study on secondary treatment technology. 56 It is recommended that a monitoring plan be implemented to track the effectiveness of the short term plan initiatives, including any new and innovative technologies which may employed. The resulting information will be important to the planning and implementation of the long term PPCP. Monitoring Action PSM-8: Monitoring of the Mission Bay Confined Disposal Facility to Ensure that no Contaminants Re-enter the Environment Proponents: Thunder Bay Port Authority Status: uncertain Cost: Unknown As described previously, the Thunder Bay shipping channel and parts of the harbour are periodically dredged for navigational purposes. Dredged sediments exceeding Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines for open water disposal are placed in the Mission Bay Confined Disposal Facility (CDF). The CDF has a design capacity of 2 million cubic metres and more than one half of this capacity remains. The estimated average maintenance dredging requirement is 2000 cubic metres per year. Although maintenance dredging combined with confined disposal can lead to improvement in sediment quality of the navigational channels of the AOC, it is important that precautions be taken to ensure that none of the contaminants in these confined sediments re-enter the environment. Therefore, the responsible agency, if it is not already doing so, should be carrying out periodic monitoring to: 1. detect any contaminants from these confined sediments that may escape the boundaries of the facility by leakage or any other physical or chemical process. 2. check the physical integrity of the confinement facility to detect any structural or design defects that may result in such escapes occurring in the future. If the above mentioned monitoring determines that contaminants are re-entering the environment, or are likely to do so because of structural or design defects, then the public should be informed and appropriate remediation actions should be taken by the responsible agency to correct the problem. It is likely that the responsible agency is already carrying out the periodic monitoring described above, and if so, it should inform the public of this fact and provide information to the public, on request, relating to its monitoring program and the monitoring results. Furthermore, it is important to determine the length of time before natural deterioration processes compromise the ability of the facility to safely fulfill its designated function. This information should be ascertained, documented, and provided to the public by the responsible agency if it has not already done so. 5.1.4 Non-Point Sources Monitoring Action NPSM-1(a): Long Term Monitoring of Groundwater and Sediment Conditions Outside the Berm in the Region of the NOWPARC Project Proponents: Abitibi Price Inc., Canadian National Railway Co., Northern Sawmills Inc., OMOE, and EC/GLSF. Status: Underway As described under Action NPS-1, the groundwater treatment plant was constructed as part of the NOWPARC project to treat contaminated groundwater that builds up behind the clay and steel pile wall barriers. Water levels will be maintained within the pier slightly below lake level to reverse possible movements through the barriers. The granular activated carbon treatment plant is used to treat this material and the effluent generated from the current Northern Sawmills operations. A long-term monitoring plan is required to monitor groundwater conditions. 57 Action NPSM-1(b): Long Term Monitoring of Benthic Community Ecosystem Improvements Resulting from the NOWPARC project Proponents: EC/GLSF, OMOE Status: Baseline study completed in 1999. Follow-up survey to be completed in 2004. Cost: Unknown Sediment surrounding the Northern Sawmills property, especially on the north side of the dock, exhibited extremely degraded benthic communities because of extensive organic enrichment and creosote and PCP contamination. The benthos was dominated by pollution tolerant sludge worms, which are the only organisms able to thrive in the environment of organic (wood waste) and chemical pollution at the site. The NOWPARC project was designed to either remove or isolate heavily contaminated sediments within 100 m of the mill dock, thus allowing the benthic community to rebound in both diversity and number as a result of cleaner conditions. The long-term monitoring Action NPSM-1(b) will document the recovery of the benthic community resulting from the NOWPARC project. Action NPSM-1(c): Long Term Monitoring of Fish Habitat Improvements Resulting from the NOWPARC project Proponents: EC/GLSF, DFO, OMNR, OMOE Status: Northern Wood Preservers prepared an initial survey in 1999. Post-construction surveys to be completed in 2004 and 2006. Cost: $25,000 As described under Action NPS-1, the NOWPARC project design involves the replacement of lost fish habitat due to dredging and infilling operations. As part of this compensation approximately 48,000 m of new or altered aquatic habitat will be created in two areas. Reclamation of lost wetland habitat in the Northern Marsh was completed in 1999. Engineered habitat enhancements along the berm were completed in 2001. A tree planting plan for the green space (buffer zone) was implemented in the Spring of 2003. These areas will be monitored over the long term to track fish habitat development and the resulting improvements in fish populations. The NOWPARC monitoring program that MNR and DFO are developing will form the basis for a coordinated monitoring plan for fish in Thunder Bay Harbour. Monitoring Action NPSM-2: Monitoring Sediment Mercury Levels at Cascades Fine Papers Group Proponents: Cascades Fine Papers Group Status: Completed: In 1999, completed survey of northern portion of harbour to determine distribution of mercury in sediments. An additional, more recent, study was completed in January 2003 and is under review. Remaining: Pending the review of the 2003 study, additional assessments of sediments in the contaminated area may be required to determine if sediment remediation is required and to fill any data gaps that could impede proper planning and implementation of remediation measures (Cascades Fine Papers Group). Cascades Fine Papers Group Inc. (and former owners Abitibi-Consolidated Inc.) commissioned an independent survey of the northern portion of Thunder Bay harbour to determine the distribution of mercury concentrations in sediments in this area (Beak, 1999). Previous surveys (OMOE 1971, 1979, and 1993) indicated the presence of elevated mercury levels in surficial sediments in the north end of the inner harbour adjacent to the Cascades Fine Papers Group property. This more recent survey, which was completed by Beak in 1999, suggested that mercury concentrations in surficial sediments were lower than in the early 1970s; however, total mercury levels exceeded the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines severe effect level of 2.0 µg/g in sediments covering an area of approximately three hectares adjacent to the Cascades Fine Papers Group effluent outfall. Overall, this study suggested an historic mercury source at or near the Cascades Fine Papers Group mill (see Action NPS-2). In January 2003, an 58 additional study was completed, and is currently under review. Pending the results of this review, further assessments of the contaminated sediments in the area may be required to: a) determine the degree to which the mercury in these sediments is bioavailable. b) determine if remediation of mercury contaminated sediments in this area is required, and c) fill any data gaps which may impede the proper development and implementation of effective remediation measures should they be required. Furthermore: a) if a sediment remediation program is implemented, additional long term monitoring will be required to measure the effectiveness of the remediation measures and to track progress toward delisting. Monitoring Action NPSM-3: Monitoring Contamination and Potential Sources in the Main Swimming Areas (Chippewa Beach and Mission Marsh Regions) Proponents: OMOE, City of Thunder Bay, District Health Unit Status: Ongoing program to monitor bacterial levels at Chippewa Beach and to provide the public with the resulting information As described under Action NPS-3, concentrations of faecal coliforms in excess of Provincial Water Quality Objectives have frequently resulted in closures of Chippewa Beach. To address this problem, preferred remedial strategies were selected from the options provided in the Chippewa Park Beach Water Quality Improvements final report, and implemented during 2002/03. Earlier, a number of other improvements were also made to reduce bacterial levels in the Chippewa Beach area. These included low-flow fixtures installed in the public washrooms, improved drainage along the highway and the playing fields, and construction of a new septic system to serve the beach and amusement park area. Therefore, in addition to the ongoing program to monitor bacterial levels and eutrophication at Chippewa Beach, it is recommended that monitoring also be carried out to: 1. determine the effectiveness of the selected remedial actions implemented during 2002-03 (i.e., regrading of beach, installation of drainage system, removal of sediments, and removal of part of the breakwall). 2. determine how well the earlier upgrades in the Chippewa Beach region are working 3. check all septic systems, the Creek, and all fields in the region which may contain contaminants. 4. determine the degree to which the zoo ditch is contributing to the contamination. If the above mentioned monitoring actions identify unremediated point or non-point sources of contamination, or indicate that the remedial actions already taken have failed to meet their objectives, then further remediation should be taken, as described under Action NPS-3. Furthermore 5. since the Mission Marsh area is also used for swimming and other recreational activities, monitoring should also be carried out to determine if the waters in that region meet the necessary safety standards. If they don’t, then the contamination sources should be identified. 6. monitoring of bacterial levels and eutrophication at Boulevard Lake should continue. 7. in response to concerns expressed by the public, a study should be carried out to determine conclusively whether or not there is any possibility that the outfall from the sewage treatment plant could contaminate any of the nearby beach areas once the ongoing upgrades have been completed in 2005 and 2006 (see Action PS-6). The results of this study should be made available to the public. Since the results of these studies have a direct bearing on human health, it is recommended that the results of these studies be made available to the public on request. It is also recommended that the study by Irwin (MOE, 1989), which concluded that high levels of bacteria at the mouth of the Kaministiquia river system were unrelated to past beach closings, be made available to the public on request. 59 Monitoring Action NPSM-4: Determine the Extent and Severity of Any Sediment Contamination That May Exist as a Result of Historic Discharges at Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc. (Formerly Thunder Bay Packaging) Proponents: Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc. Status: Completed: Implementation of secondary treatment (summer of 1997). Remaining: The plant closed in December of 2003. So long as it remains closed, there will be no need to identify and track contaminants in discharges. However, there is a need to monitor the residual impact of historic discharges. Cost: unknown As described under Action PS-8, the implementation of secondary treatment (summer of 1997) improved effluent quality at Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc. However, the plant closed in December of 2003 and, so long as it remains closed, there will be no need to identify and track contaminants in discharges. Nevertheless, it is recommended that a monitoring program be implemented to determine if any contaminated sediments exist in the vicinity of the Smurfit Stone location as a result of historic discharges from the plant. If such sediments are found, then additional monitoring actions should be initiated to determine the identity, toxicity, bioavailability, and distribution of any contaminants which may be present and the degree to which they could be contributing to the impairments within the AOC. Additional monitoring would be carried out, as required, to formulate appropriate remediation strategies (see Action NPS-G1) and to measure progress. 5.1.5 Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Populations Monitoring Action PZPM-1: Monitoring the Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Populations Proponents: OMOE, MNR, DFO Status: Not yet initiated Cost: Not known Although populations have been assumed to be degraded in the vicinity of industrial outfalls, no formal studies on the condition of plankton communities have been completed. Therefore, studies on the phytoplankton and zooplankton communities in the AOC should be completed to obtain baseline data and to confirm the status of this beneficial use. If the impairment is verified, it may also be necessary to obtain additional information for the purpose planning suitable remediation measures. 60 6.0 Delisting Criteria For the Thunder Bay AOC The delisting criteria provide the decision framework that will govern the delisting of each impaired beneficial use and ultimately the delisting of the AOC itself. Ideally, they should be clearly defined, numerically quantified, and non-subjective, thereby providing a set of non-ambiguous decision rules which stipulate precisely when each of the impairments can be legitimately designated unimpaired. Many of the delisting criteria for the Thunder Bay AOC, as with the monitoring actions, were closely linked with a corresponding remediation project and were formulated accordingly. This means that, as a whole, they do not completely fulfil the requirements for delisting the beneficial use impairments, which are more broadly focused than are the individual projects. Furthermore, many of the criteria do not have the degree of precision that will be required when the time comes to delist the impairments. Consequently, the following management action has been recommended. Management Action MNG-3: Convene a workshop session, or series of sessions which will produce a set of precise, objectively defined delisting criteria that are numerically quantified wherever possible, and which will provide the necessary decision framework that will govern the delisting of each impaired beneficial use and ultimately the delisting of the AOC itself. These workshop sessions should be closely coordinated with those described under management Actions MNG-1 and MNG-2 and attended by the same people, i.e., the PAC members, agency experts (EC, DFO, MNR, MOE), and those who are involved in managing the restoration and monitoring actions. The results of these workshops should then be compiled and issued as a Stage 2 update document which would then be included in the Implementation Annex. In the following table, the current delisting criteria are grouped according to the beneficial use impairments to which they relate. The table also reflects the above mentioned linkage between the delisting targets and the associated remediation actions. The ID codes of these associated actions are shown, in bold faced type, immediately after each target (criterion) in the second column. Table 6.1 (Preliminary) Delisting Criteria (Targets) for the Impaired Beneficial Uses IMPAIRMENTS (A) Restrictions on Fish Consumption (B) Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations DELISTING CRITERIA AND ID CODES OF RELATED ACTIONS* Targets for this impairment to be produced under Management Action MNG-3 Target B1: Provide recommendations and strategies for the restoration and protection of sturgeon in Lake Superior. FWP-1 Target B2: Prevent upstream migration of spawning phase sea lamprey; allow upstream movement of migratory fishes. FWP-2 Target B3: Ballast water treatment, control, and regulatory measures to eliminate introductions and transfer of non-indigenous species. FWP-3 Target B4: The implementation of a fisheries management plan for the AOC. 61 IMPAIRMENTS (C) Fish Tumors and Other Deformities (D) Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat DELISTING CRITERIA AND ID CODES OF RELATED ACTIONS* Delisting criteria for this impairment to be produced under Management Action MNG-3. Note that even though this impairment is no longer caused by contaminant sources within the AOC, criteria will still be needed at some point for its complete delisting. Target D1: Increased abundance of walleye using Current River estuary for spawning (double the pre-enhancement (1991) population estimate of 1100 fish); increased egg deposition and fry production. FWH-1 Target D2: Increased diversity and abundance of fish populations in embayment areas of the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway as compared to the unaltered sections of the floodway. FWH-2 Target D3: Protect mouth and shoreline of McVicar Creek from wave action and foster growth and redevelopment of an historic wetland. FWH-3 Target D4: Restore environmental integrity and natural history of the Waterfront Park region on the Kaministiquia River. FWH-4 Target D5: Restore and enhance estuarine habitat diversity in McKellar River; demonstrate rehabilitation method for dredged channel; increase littoral zone and provide critical habitat for resident and migratory fish and birds. FWH-5 Target D6: Restore access to productive spawning habitat; produce a self-sustaining rainbow trout population in the headwaters of the Current River (128 adult rainbow trout were transferred to Ferguson Creek, a tributary of the Current River, between 1993-1995). FWH-6 Target D7: Maintain BOD levels in the Kaministiquia River below MISA discharge limits. FWH-7 Target D8: Standardize aquatic habitat data collection using conventional survey techniques. FWH-8 Target D9: Identify remedial options to address habitat issues in a rural environment; outline preventative measures to protect northern Ontario streams. FWH-9 Target D10: Implement the Slate River Watershed management Plan. FWH-10 Target D11: Re-vegetate areas in vicinity of McVicar Creek, Sanctuary Island and the McKellar River which were disturbed during project construction. Use plants indigenous to the AOC, and produce a natural plant community. FWH-11 (E) Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Populations Targets for this impairment to be produced under Management Action MNG-3 (F) Degradation of Benthos Target F1: Completion of the benthos enhancement components of the fish and wildlife habitat remediation actions FWH-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10. Target F2: Secondary Treatment at the Bowater Pulp and Paper Mill. PS-1 62 IMPAIRMENTS DELISTING CRITERIA AND ID CODES OF RELATED ACTIONS* (G) Restrictions on Dredging Target G1: Reduce environmental impacts associated with industrial activity. Related remediation measures are the point source actions PS-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Target G2: Mitigate sediment contamination through the completion of the sediment related components of the NOWPARC project. NPS-1 (H) Beach Closings Target H1: Remove health hazard for water based recreational activities. NPS-3 Target H2: Complete implementation of the preferred option for Chippewa Park. NPS-3 (I) Degradation of Aesthetics Target I1: Aesthetic improvement of the Thunder Bay harbour and its tributaries; enhance public awareness of long-term impact of careless waste disposal. ES-1 Target I2: Re-vegetate areas in vicinity of McVicar Creek, Sanctuary Island and the McKellar River which were disturbed during project construction. Use plants indigenous to the AOC, and produce a natural plant community. FWH-11 Target I3: Completion of the aesthetic enhancement components of the NOWPARC project. NPS-1 Target I4: Completion of the aesthetic enhancement components of the following fish and wildlife habitat actions: FWH-1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Target I5: Implement the components of the Slate River Watershed management Plan which will reduce aesthetic impairment. FWH-10 * The ID codes of the corresponding projects are shown in bold faced type immediately after each target. 63 7.0 Summary of Restoration Strategies and Supporting Actions The discharge of pollutants and habitat loss, resulting from industrial and urban development along the waterfront, are the primary concerns in the AOC. With the installation of secondary treatment, changes in the bleaching process, and other mill improvements, effluent from pulp and paper operations has improved considerably. With the completion of the NOWPARC project and numerous habitat creation projects in AOC, it is expected that a compromise between the role of Thunder Bay as a working harbour and a natural ecosystem can be achieved. In this manner the harbour can provide a hospitable natural environment while remaining a viable part of the Thunder Bay economy. Further assessments and definitive actions are required to alleviate the remaining use impairments. Table 7.1: The Recommendations of the Five Ecosystem Restoration Strategies 1. The Strategy to Address Fish and Wildlife Related Impairments Recommendation 1-1: Increase the extent of productive aquatic and terrestrial habitat by rehabilitating and protecting wetland and riparian environments, and by enforcing existing environmental legislation. Recommendation 1-2: Prevent the loss of aquatic migration corridors. Recommendation 1-3: 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 Thunder Bay harbour provide a healthy and hospitable environment. Recommendation 1-4: Prevent impacts on fish and wildlife population dynamics including those produced by the introduction of exotics. 2. The Strategy to Remediate Benthic Population And Habitat Recommendation 2-1: Provide a hospitable environment for diverse benthic communities in the Thunder Bay harbour and its tributaries. Recommendation 2-2: Alleviate sediment contamination in order to prevent bioaccumulation of contaminants in the aquatic food chain. 3. The Strategy to Remediate Aesthetics And Beaches Recommendation 3-1: Implement aesthetic improvements to the Thunder Bay harbour and its tributaries to promote access and allow for passive recreational activities. Recommendation 3-2: Ensure that point and non-point source effluent and waterfront development does not have an adverse effect on aesthetic appreciation or recreational pursuits within the AOC. 64 4. The Strategy to Address Dredging Restrictions Recommendation 4-1: Ensure dredging and sediment disposal does not contribute to the degradation of the aquatic ecosystem. Recommendation 4-2: Maintain a multiple use approach to waterfront areas by ensuring that the harbour continues to function as a shipping port. 5. The Education and Stewardship Strategy Recommendation 5-1: Facilitate an understanding of environmental problems within the community to ensure that all issues can be assessed, discussed, and resolved in a timely manner. Recommendation 5-2: Develop a public respect for the AOC ecosystem and encourage pollution prevention strategies to prevent the need for future remedial actions. Table 7.1 lists the recommendations which comprise the five ecosystem restoration and public outreach strategies. Each strategy consists of a set of recommendations, each with is own identification code. The remediation activities which support these recommendations are listed in Table 7.2 along with the ID numbers of both the activities themselves and the recommendations which they support. Also contained in this second table are the names of the proponents associated with each of the restoration activities. As before, bold faced type is used for the names of those activities which have yet to be implemented. Project status and costs have already been provided in chapter 4. Table 7.2: The Remediation and the Education & Stewardship Actions Supporting the Recommendations Action ID page # Action Title (Bold type for actions not yet completed) Supported Recommendations Proponents* (see Table 7.1) FWH-1 page 24 Rehabilitation of Degraded Walleye Spawning Habitat at the Current River Estuary 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, 3-2 EC/GLCUF, OMNR, OMOE, and DFO FWH-2 page 25 Alteration of Shoreline to Restore Habitat Diversity at the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, 3-2 EC/GLCUF, OMNR, OMOE, and DFO FWH-3 page 25 Island Creation and Habitat Rehabilitation at the Mouth of McVicar Creek. Phase I: Bank Stabilization and Substrate Enhancement. Phase II: Island Creation. 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, 3-2 EC/GLCUF, OMNR, OMOE, and DFO 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, 3-2 LSPO (in past), EC/GLCUF FWH-4 page 26 Redesign Waterfront Park to Protect and Enhance Shoreline of the Kaministiquia River, Including Scenic Overlook, Promenade, and Additional 500m of Park 65 Action ID page # Action Title (Bold type for actions not yet completed) Supported Recommendations Proponents* (see Table 7.1) FWH-5 page 26 Creation of Embayments in the McKellar River to Restore Productive Littoral Habitat 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, 3-2 FWH-6 page 27 Improving Salmonid Access to the Upper Reaches of the Current River 1-2 DFO, LRCA, OMNR, North Shore Steelhead Association. FWH-7 page 27 Alleviating Water Quality Barriers to Fish Migration in the Kaministiquia River 1-2 Bowater FWH-8 page 37 Test Guidelines for Collecting Baseline Aquatic Habitat Data 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 DFO, OMNR FWH-9 page 37 Develop Watershed Management Plan for the Slate River 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 EC/GLCUF, DFO FWH-10 page 39 Implement the Slate River Watershed Management Plan FWH-11 page 40 Tree Planting Projects 3-1 EC/GLCUF, OMNR FWP-1 page 29 Directed Recovery of Native Fish Species 1-3 EC, DFO, State and Tribal Governments, OMNR, EC/GLSF FWP-2 page 34 Initiative to Devise Alternate Means to Control Sea Lamprey 1-4 Sea Lamprey Control Centre, EC/GLCUF, DFO FWP-3 page 35 Preventing Further Introductions of Exotic Species 1-4 DFO, TC, PAC, State & Tribal Governments PS-1 page 31 Secondary Treatment at the Bowater Pulp and Paper Mill PS-2 page 31 Upgrades at Thunder Bay Terminals 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 3-2 1-3, 2-1, 4-1, 4-2 1-3, 4-1, 4-2 EC/GLCUF, OMNR, OMOE, and DFO EC/GLSF, DFO, MOE, MNR, municipality, landowners Bowater Thunder Bay Terminals Ontario Power 66 Action ID page # Action Title (Bold type for actions not yet completed) Supported Recommendations Proponents* (see Table 7.1) PS-3 page 31 Developments at Ontario Power Generation Thunder Bay Generating Station 1-3, 4-1, 4-2 Generation - Thunder Bay Generating Station PS-4 page 32 Secondary Treatment at Abitibi -Consolidated 1-3, 4-1, 4-2 Abitibi-Consolidated PS-5 page 32 Redirect Stormwater Outlet and Oil Separator Discharge at CPR 1-3, 4-1, 4-2 CPR PS-6 page 32 Secondary Treatment at Water Pollution Control Plant 1-3, 4-1, 4-2 City of Thunder Bay, OMOE, EC-GLSF, IC PS-7 page 36 Thunder Bay Pollution Prevention and Control Plan 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 City of Thunder Bay, Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Program. PS-8 page 33 Process Improvements at Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc. PS-G1 page 34 Develop and Implement Plans to Remediate Any Remaining Point Sources of Contaminants Which are Contributing Significantly to the Fish and Wildlife Related Impairments 1-3 Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc. 1-3 EC, MOE, NWRI, DFO, HC 1-3, 3-1, 4-1, 4-2 NPS-1 page 28 Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept (NOWPARC) Project NPS-2 page 33 Develop a Management Plan for Mercury Contaminated Sediments at Cascades Fine Papers Group 1-3 NPS-3 page 41 Improvements at Chippewa Park 3-2 NPS-G1 page 34 ES-1 page 40 Develop and Implement Plans to Remediate Any Remaining Non-Point Sources of Contaminants Which are Contributing Significantly to the Fish and Wildlife Related Impairments Community Cleanup of the Thunder Bay Waterfront 67 1-3 3-1 Abitibi Price Inc., Canadian National Railway Co., Northern Sawmills Inc., OMOE, EC/GLCUF. Cascades Fine Papers Group OMOE, City of Thunder Bay, District Health Unit EC, MOE, NWRI, DFO, HC City of Thunder Bay, Lake Superior Binational Program Action ID page # Action Title (Bold type for actions not yet completed) Supported Recommendations Proponents* (see Table 7.1) ES-2 page 45 Public Involvement in Habitat Creation Project at McVicar Creek - Name the Island Contest 5-1, 5-2 City of Thunder Bay ES-3 page 45 Lake Superior Community Education Project 5-1, 5-2 Lake Superior Centre in Duluth ES-4 page 45 Lake Superior Day 5-1, 5-2 LSPO (no longer involved) ES-5 page 45 Making a Great Lake Superior brochure 5-1, 5-2 ES-6 page 46 Waterfront Development Workshop 5-1, 5-2 ES-7 page 46 The Next Wave: Charting a New Course for Thunder Bay’s Waterfront 5-1, 5-2 ES-8 page 46 Achieving Integrated Habitat Enhancement Objectives: A Technical Manual 5-1, 5-2 EC/GLCUF, DFO, OMNR, OMOE ES-9 page 46 Thunder Bay 2002 Clean & Green 5-1, 5-2 EcoSuperior ES-10 page 47 Development of Local Planner’s Guide to Ecosystem Health 5-1, 5-2 OMNR, EC/GLSF ES-11 page 47 Preventative Measures for Watershed Protection 5-1, 5-2 OMNR, EcoSuperior LSPO (in past), EC, DFO, OMNR, OMOE, EC/GLCUF Waterfront Development Advisory Committee, EC/GLCUF Waterfront Development Committee, City of Thunder Bay, LSPO (in past), Northern Ontario Heritage Fund * Note that the Lake Superior Programs Office (LSPO) has been a proponent in the past. However, since it no longer exists, it will obviously not be a proponent in any future projects. 68 7.1 Concluding Remarks The completion of this Thunder Bay Stage 2a Report is only a milestone, albeit a significant one, in a continuing process that ultimately will lead to the delisting of the AOC. Considerable progress has been made, as can be seen from the large number of completed projects, including those which have remediated fish and wildlife habitat, the plant upgrades at the paper mills, the impending upgrade at the Sewage Treatment Plant, improvements at the Waterfront Park, and perhaps most notably of all, the NOWPARC project. Despite these major achievements, however, it is important not to lose sight of the significant challenges which remain. The most significant of these, of course, are the remaining impaired beneficial uses. Of the original 10 impairments, two have had their designation changed. These are, “Added Costs to Agriculture and Industry,” which is now “Not Impaired,” and “Fish Tumours and Other Deformities,” which, although still impaired, is no longer impaired due to local sources of contamination. “Bird and Animal Deformities and Reproductive Problems,” previously designated as “Requires Further Assessment,” has now been designated as “Not Impaired.” Although only two IBUs have had their designation changed at this point, it would be a serious mistake to construe this as a lack of progress. It is important to keep in mind that the healing of an ecosystem is very much like that of a living organism and has three requirements. The first is the elimination of the causes, the second is a protective environment that will allow natural healing to occur, and the third is time. The RAP program has made considerable progress in providing the first two of these, but only time itself can provide the third. Despite the considerable progress achieved by the RAP, a number of challenges remain. It will be necessary to ensure that (1) no root causes have remained unidentified or unremediated, (2) the proper recovery conditions are established and maintained, and (3) the delisting of the remaining IBUs meets all of the appropriate scientific and technical standards. To meet these challenges certain management actions must be taken. Some of these have been described earlier in this report. As pointed out in Chapter 6, the present set of delisting criteria, because of its close linkage to remediation projects rather than the IJC defined impairments, does not fulfill the requirements for delisting the impaired beneficial uses. Furthermore, many of the criteria do not have the degree of precision that will be required when the time comes to delist the impairments. It is very important that management action MNG-3, which focuses on this problem, be given the attention it deserves. The delisting criteria provide the primary environmental “target points” guiding the entire RAP process. They define all the conditions that must be met before each IBU can be legitimately delisted. All the remediation and monitoring actions, therefore, are ultimately defined and guided by these targets. Remediation focuses on moving environmental conditions toward them, and monitoring, by measuring this convergence (or lack thereof), provides the feedback needed to guide the remediation process and to confirm its ultimate success. It is vital, therefore, that the set of delisting criteria be comprehensive, objective, and precise. Because the delisting criteria play such a central role in the RAP, any changes made to them, either through expansion or refinement, will ultimately create gaps in the remediation and monitoring programs. The remaining two management actions will attempt to identify all these gaps and rectify them by introducing appropriate new remediation and monitoring actions. The effort expended in doing this will greatly facilitate the next stage in the RAP process, i.e., Stage 3, and will give it the required degree of scientific and technical legitimacy it requires. Even after these three management actions have been taken, it would be a mistake to assume that no problems will remain. It is to be anticipated, for example, that setbacks will occur, that some remediation actions will not yield the anticipated results, or that additional gaps will be discovered in the remediation or 69 monitoring programs. New actions, or modifications to ongoing actions, will therefore be needed, and this will require adaptive management practices guided by properly focused monitoring. It will also require continued agency support. Finally, it is important to remember that any restoration strategy for the Thunder Bay AOC would be incomplete without a comprehensive long term plan to prevent future deterioration. Without this, contamination problems could resurface and continued deterioration of habitat may occur from economic, urban, or industrial growth and development within both the AOC and the surrounding area. The remedial action process requires a continuing commitment to water and atmospheric pollution prevention strategies in order to prevent the need for future remedial actions. Industry has already responded to this new era of environmental awareness by changing their practices to reflect a sense of environmental responsibility. Similarly, efforts by the community at large have indicated a commitment to environmental restoration and a new awareness of their role in maintaining a healthy ecosystem. It is through this consolidation of efforts that a healthy and functional environment can be maintained and preserved for future generations. 70 REFERENCES Anderson, J. 1986. Nearshore Water Quality at Thunder Bay. Lake Superior, 1983. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. B.A.R. Environmental Inc. 1996. Environmental Effects Monitoring, Abitibi-Price Inc., Fort William Division. 89 pp. Baumann, P.C., I.R. Smith, and C.D. Metcalfe. 1996. Linkages between chemical contaminants and tumors in benthic Great Lakes fish. J. Great Lakes Res. 22(2): 131-152. Beak Consultants Limited. 1988. Lake Sediment Studies - Thunder Bay, Lake Superior. Northern Wood Preservers Sediment Sampling Program, 1988. 43 pp. Beak Consultants Limited. 1996. Environmental Effects Monitoring, Avenor. Beak Consultants Limited. 1999. Mercury Investigation in Thunder Bay Harbour Sediment - 1997 and 1998. Draft report prepared for Provincial Papers Inc. and Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. Beak Consultants Limited. 2000. Second Cycle EEM Interpretive Report. Prepared by Beak International Inc., Brampton, Ontario, for Bowater Pulp and Paper Canada Inc., Thunder Bay. Bedard, D. and S. Petro. 1995. Laboratory Sediment Bioassay Report on Thunder Bay Abitibi-Price Provincial Papers and Fort William Mills 1993. 26 pp. Sediments at the Bérard, M. and T. Tseng. 1986. Survey of Northern Wood Preservers Inc. Thunder Bay, Ontario. October, 1984. for Environment Canada. 48 pp. Borgmann, A. I., S. Humphrey, and S.Michajluk. 1999. Environmental Effects Monitoring at 22 Pulp and Paper Mills in Ontario, Cycle 2 Interim Report, Summary of Summer 1997 and Winter 1998 EEM Effluent Toxicity Results, Environment Canada Report, Environmental Protection Branch Ontario Region. On Internet at http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/eem/c2report.doc Borgmann, A. I., Tuininga, K., Ali, N., and D. Audet. 2002. Environmental Effects Monitoring at TwentyThree Pulp and Paper Mills in Ontario - Synthesis of Cycle 2 Study Results and Recommendations for Cycle 3. Environmental Protection Branch – Ontario Region, Environment Canada. Chase, M.E. 1996. Barriers to Fish Migration. M. Sc. Thesis, University of Guelph. City of Thunder Bay. 1995. Water Treatment Plant and Water Pollution Control Plant, Annual Report. Transportation & Works Environment Division. C. Portt and Associates and Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd. 2001. Cycle 3 Environmental Effects Monitoring – Pre-design and Study Design. Prepared for Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., Fort William Division. November 2001. 49 p. + appendices. Cullis, K. 1995. Neebing-McIntyre floodway habitat restoration, pages 21-26. In J.R.M. Kelso and J.H. Hartig [editors]. 1995. Methods of modifying habitat to benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem. CISTI Occas. Pap. 1: 294 pp. Cullis, K., W.T. Momot, and R. Sein. 1987. Kaministiquia River Study, 1987. North Shore of Lake Superior Remedial Action Plans, Technical Report #2. 148 pp. DST Consulting Engineers. 1996a. Project Proposal Report. Northern Wood Preservers Site. Thunder Bay Harbour. Thunder Bay, Ontario. Report #TG95240. 50 pp. 71 DST Consulting Engineers. 1996b. Fish Habitat Compensation Proposal. Northern Wood Preservers Industrial Site (Thunder Bay). Report #TE96140. 44 pp. Ecologistics Limited. 1993. Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan Socio-Economic Profile. Prepared for Environment Canada. 47 pp. Entwistle, J. 1986. Thunder Bay Harbour Marshes Study Summary Report 1982-1985. Lakehead Region Conservation Authority. Environment Canada. 1995. Development potential and other benefits from restoration, enhancement and protection of the Thunder Bay Area of Concern. Final Report. 68 pp. Environment Canada, DST Consulting Engineers, and Dillon Consulting Limited. 1996. Northern Wood Preservers Site Sediment Remediation Project. Thunder Bay Harbour. Comprehensive Study Report. 105 pp. Geiling, W.D. 1995a. Current River estuary walleye spawning habitat, pages 27-31. In J.R.M. Kelso and J.H. Hartig [editors]. 1995. Methods of modifying habitat to benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem. CISTI Occas. Pap. 1: 294 pp. Geiling, W.D. 1995b. McVicar Creek rehabilitation, pages 45-50. In J.R.M. Kelso and J.H. Hartig [editors]. 1995. Methods of modifying habitat to benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem. CISTI Occas. Pap. 1: 294 pp. Geiling, W.D. 1995c. McVicar Creek mouth island creation, pages 39-44. In J.R.M. Kelso and J.H. Hartig [editors]. 1995. Methods of modifying habitat to benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem. CISTI Occas. Pap. 1: 294 pp. Geiling, W.D., J.R.M. Kelso, and E. Iwachewski. 1996. Benefits from incremental additions to walleye spawning habitat in the Current River, with reference to habitat modification as a walleye management tool in Ontario. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53 (Suppl. 1): 79-87. Government of Canada. 1991. The State of Canada’s Environment. Published by the Authority of the Ministry of the Environment. 686 pp. Hall-Armstrong, J. 1994. Ballast Water: State of the Science, Guidelines and Regulations. North Shore of Lake Superior Remedial Action Plans Technical Report #21. 19 pp. Hall-Armstrong, J., and R. Rempel. 1992. The 1990 Fall Waterfowl Study - Mission and Neebing Marshes. Prepared for the North Shore of Lake Superior Great Lakes Cleanup Fund Program. 78 pp. Henttonen, M. 2000. Review comments on the September 2000 Stage 2 Draft Report for the Thunder Bay Area of Concern. International Joint Commission (IJC). 1987. Great lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 as amended by Protocol signed November 18, 1987. Irwin, G.S. 1989. Chippewa Beach Joint Study. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Jaagumagi, R., D. Bedard, and S. Petro. 1996. Sediment and Biological Assessment of the Northern Wood Preservers Inc. Site, Thunder Bay. July and September, 1995. Ministry of Environment and Energy. 27 pp. Jaagumagi, R., D. Bedard and R. Santiago. 2001. Northern Wood Inc (NOWPARC) Post-Construction Baseline Study 1999. OMOE Draft Report. May 2001. 72 Lake Superior Programs Office. 1998. Watershed Management Plan for the Slate River. Report prepared by the Lake Superior Programs Office with financial assistance from Environment Canada’s Great Lakes 2000 Clean-up Fund. Lake Sturgeon Subcommittee. 1996. Status of Lake Sturgeon in Lake Superior. Prepared for the Lake Superior Technical Committee. J.W. Slade [ed.]. 40 pp. Lee, P.F. 1995. Aquatic macrophyte establishment in McKellar River embayments at Thunder Bay, Ontario, pages 179-183. In J.R.M. Kelso and J.H. Hartig [editors]. 1995. Methods of modifying habitat to benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem. CISTI Occas. Pap. 1: 294 pp. McAuley, T. and R. Young. 1994. Performance Evaluation of the McIntyre River Experimental Velocity Barrier. A report to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission summarizing Year II work of research project entitled “Development and Assessment of an Experimental Sea Lamprey Velocity Barrier”. Sea Lamprey Control Centre, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Momot, W. T. and S. A. Stephenson. Atlas of the Distribution of Fishes of the Canadian Portion of Western Lake Superior. Lakehead University Centre for Northern Studies. Occasional Papers Series, No. 19 Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1987. Survey of the Benthos of the Lower Kaministiquia River 1985. 19 pp. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy. 1997. Guide to eating Ontario sport fish. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario. 173 pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1982. Thunder Bay Land Use Plan Background Information. Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy, Water Resources Branch. 24 pp. 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 of the Great Lakes (1989-1992) Vol. II. Technical Report Series No. 194, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Region. Planning Partnership, Moriyama & Teshima Architects, and Hemson Consulting Limited. 1998. TheNext Wave: Charting a New Course for Thunder Bay’s Waterfront. Prepared for the City of Thunder Bay. Pugh, D. 1989. A Benthos and Substrate Quality Survey of Benthos of Thunder Bay Harbour in the Vicinity of Northern Wood Preservers, 1972 and 1986. Ministry of the Environment. 39 pp. Ryckman, D.P., D.V. Weseloh, P. Hamr, G.A. Fox, B. Collins, P.J. Ewins, and R. J. Norstrom. 1998. Spatial and temporal trends in organochlorine contamination and bill deformities in doulbe-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) from the Canadian Great Lakes Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 53:169-195. Smith, I.R., C.B. Portt, and D.A. Rokosh. 1991. The impact of two Great Lakes bleached kraft mills (BKME) on receiving water mutagenicity and the biochemistry and pathology of wild white suckers inhabiting impacted areas. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1774: 718-719. Thunder Bay Packaging Inc. 1996. Annual Effluent Report. 26 pp. 73 Thunder Bay RAP Team. 1991. Thunder Bay Area of Concern Remedial Action Plan Stage 1: Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition. 109 pp. Thunder Bay RAP Team. 1992. Bacterial Study of Chippewa Beach - Thunder Bay, Ontario. 28 pp. Trow Consulting Engineers Ltd. 1992. Environmental Investigation and Analysis of Cleanup Options. Northern Wood Preservers Inc. Thunder Bay Ontario. 79 pp. Vincent, J. M. Sc. Thesis in Environmental Biology (in preparation - title pending). University of Guelph. Anticipated completion: fall 2005. Advisors: Dr. Paul Sibley, University of Guelph and Dr. Tom Pratt, DFO-GLLFAS (Sault Ste Marie). Wesloh, D.V., and B. Collier. 1995. The Rise of the Double-crested Cormorant on the Great Lakes: Winning the War Against Contaminants. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. W2O Inc. 1996. Thunder Bay WPCP - Evaluation of Secondary Treatment Upgrade Options. 51 pp. W2O Inc., and Wardrop Engineering Ltd. 1998. Thunder Bay Pollution Prevention and Control Plan Phase 2: Implementation Plan Final Report. Prepared for the Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay. Personal Communications Chuck Cox, Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring, OMOE. Dave Hollinger, Water Resources Unit, OMOE. Wayne MacCallum, formerly of the Lake Superior Management Unit, OMNR. Darryl Matson, City of Thunder Bay Ian Smith, Lake Superior Coordinator, OMOE. Jane Todd, Environmental Health and Safety Officer, Ontario Power Generation Chris Walton, Environmental Technologist, Avenor Inc. Lee Grapentine, Research Scientist, Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts Research Branch, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada. 74 Appendix 1 ?inlngica] features [If the Thunder Bay ADC Appendix 1 Biological features ?f the Thunder Bay ADC Appendix. la: Fish Cammunity {If Thunder Bay Scienti?c Name Common Name Lamp?m famai?raz' Pefr?myzan marina? exam: Jill'mi'a maua'ahm'aagaa as gar-Mama Maura}: UH i'aha'ujwmha Dr: ca ram ch as m?iaa Safma Iran?a Salvah'naa?nn'aa?a Salva?naa Caraganaa arraa'? aiapeafanm'a Dam eras mardax Umbra Iima' Esax .I'Hafaa Chmaamua 5am 1a.: HS car-pic: Narrapia arharmafdaa aarnuma Naa?apia herarafapr'a Nah-apia hadaanfaa Pimephafaa pramaa?m Rhfai'aha'a? catamaran Rhfm'ahfhyi' aframfmi? Semi:me Erma: Causaiaa Seamaiaa margarita Camaram as aaraai'am as Caraaramua Maxaarama animram American brook lamprey Baal lamp-m} Lake sturgcan Alandfa Pink salmon Calm salman Chinauk salami: Rninhaw traut Brown tmut HEIDI: trout Lake u'aut L?k? herring Lake whila?sh Raund WhitB?Sh Hai smelt [342111131 mudminnaw Nunhcm pike Earth-am Itdb??'j' dam Fimscalr: [13:36 Gunman carp Emamld Shiner Eamon sl?nar Blackmaa shinar Spanaj] 51mm: Fathmd mirmuw Langnase dam: Blaahmsa dam: Creek chub Laka chub P0311 dam: Langmse maker Camnmn white sackar Sifvar mdharal: Scienti?c Name C?mlnun Name Mnm??ma sin-3mm: rasrmfa Lam tam Eucn?a Pamgi?'us Ape?ex qimdrmux Percapsia umf?cmnayz'lm Ambi?pm? rupesrrl'?' anuxrls nfgr?macufnmx Pawn ?aw S?m?edmn vfrmum Ethan-r:an nfgrum Parana capradea' Cam?: I: air-Hf Came cognams Cams hafm?f Calms cagnatus Slm?lmu? m?l?rsx: ?ancrican ml hu?mt Email: Ninaspina stiuklehack Fuumpin: s?cl?ehnck Ruck bass Smallmuulh bass Black cmppir: Yc?nw patch Johnny darfcr Lugp?cll Mottled sculpiu Slimy ?m?pin Sculpin hybrid Appendix Birds efthe Thunder Bay AOC Scienti?c Name Padilyrubue pedieipe Betauma lentiginesaa Eranta Air: epensa Ame plalyrliynehee Encepliala elangula Lepha-rlytea eueullama {Zinnia Aeeipiler shiath Euler: platyplenia Elmira Falea apawenaa Falee ealurnhai'ius Banana mnlaellua Rallus limieela Grits canadensia Chara-drills weil?ems Aetin'a maeularia Bamamia langieaud? Gallinaga gallinage Sealepaa miner Celumha livia Emaida machna Paras atrieapillua Silla eanadeaeis TregLrirly-Les aerlan Tragladylea lragladjrtee Eistaihame platensis Regulus salrapa Regulus ealenilula Sialia sialis Ca?rarus fusemaeens Calhanls gutlahis Cemman Name Pied-billed Grebe American Billem Canada Geese Wee-d. Duel: Mallard Carmine-n Galdeneye Handed Merganeer Nerlhem Harrier Sharp?shinned Hawk Bread winged?Hawk- Red-taileii Haw}: American Kestrel Merlin Rn?erl Ermine Virginia ?ail Sela Crane Killrieer Spent-:1 Sandpiper Upland Sandpiper Cemmen Snip-e American Weedeaelr Rack Dene Maui-rang Dave Black-capped Clackadee Rinlhreaalerl Nuthatch Heuae Wren Winter Wren Sledge Wren Goldeneran-nea Kiaglel Ruby-cream Kinglel. Eastern Bluebird Wary Hermit Thrush Scienti?c Name {3430:3315 eq'ilirapthaimie: Bub-a r'irginiaruls Chardeiles miner Amhilaelma ealuhria Cerjrle aleyen Spinnpimrs varina Pieaides Pieeidea villaaua CeIrrpies anratus Unreeapna pilealus Canlapua ?Lamas Eanpidenax alnamrn Empidenax mininius Sayornis phoebe My?iarehna erirlilus Tyrarmaa ly'iarmaa Taehfeinela hieeler Biparia riparia Himnda pfn'll?mt? Hininda malice Pedanreus eanarleneia Cyamcziila erislala Carma bran}qu Carina earn}: Deirdreiea 1rirleua Dendmiea?iaea Irritant-Eta vana Selaphaga mlieilla Siumrs aaraeanillus Serums Dpararnia philadelphia Gantl?jrpia irieliaa Wilsania Wilsenia eanadeneis Gammon Name Black-billed Chicken Greal Horned Owl Cemrnan Nighthawk lIurnrrIing Bird Belled Hingl?iaher Tellew-bellied Sapauelrer Weedpeelrer Hair].r Weedpeel-Ler Northern Flicker Pileaterl Weriripeelrer Eastern WeedaPewee Miler Flyealeher Least Flycatcher Ermtern Phoebe Great Created Flyealelier Eaalam Kinghird Tree Swallew ?ank Swallnw Cli?' Swallew Barn Swallew Era}r Ila}r Elm: lay American Cn'm' Gammon Raven Elael-r-lhraaterl Green Warbler Warbler Black ?e white Warbler American Hadrian Dvenhird Nnnhem WaierLluuslI Mourning Warbler "'r'el Wilaan?a Warbler Canada Warbler Scienti?c Name Turner: migralnn'ua Dumalella earalineneia Texeetarna m?Jrn Bembyeilla Shanna wager-is Wren philadelpbicua Vireo nljeaeens pergriml Venn'rvera ru?eapilla Deni mica peieehia Dendrniea Derilrniea magnolia Herdmiea ?grina Denelrniea enmnla ngeIaina phaerneus Elrpbagus eyanneephalus Malelbmener Carpedaeus palpnrena Carduelis triatis Passer darnea?ens Cnmman Name Ameriean Rabin Gray Calbird Brawn Thrasher Cedar Wamng Earnpean Starling Philadelphia Viree Red-eyed Vim: Tennessee Warbler Haehille Warbler Yellnw Warbler {?reemmrsiderl Warbler Magmlia Warbler Cap-e Illa},r Warbler Tellnar-rumped Warbler Red-winged Blackbird Brewer?s Blackbird Cewbirrl Purple Finch American Galel?mh Harare Spannw Seienti?e Name Piranga aliva?ea Plremtieaa Pame?re ey?nea Spirella Spirella pallida Pnemlea gramirlens Pasaereulns aaralwlehenaia Ammnebarnua leennleii Melnapira rneiedia Melnapiaa lineblnii Melaepisragenrglana albieallis Junen hyernalia Dnliehnnya unfair-rams SInrru?la negleela Quisealua guise-Ma Ietema gaIbula Car?uelia pinaa veepenlnae Name Scarlet Tanager Ruse-breasted [iruabealr Bunting Chipping Sparraw Sparrow Vesper Spannw Savannah Sparruw Le Dante's Sparrnw Sung Spamw Linenln'a Sparraw Swamp Spanner White?mmated Sgnal'rn?ar Darla?r:de lunar: E?bulinle Western Meadewlarl: Lral-L Gnrekle Nnnbem D?nle Pine Sialrin Gmabaalr Appendix 11:: Mammals uf the Thunder ADC Scienti?c Name Cummnn Name INCH alcm' .wtrfai?u?' Tmm'nsciums hudmm'cus Musrefa vimn Mustefa?emm Musrefa w'scm ?bre: card 1' ms 35er cinemas: Sarex?mmw .Hicmms' mums?! 1mm:qu Eapus hudmm'un' Napaemapus Ensigm's [Judah-a szerhl'cus Caster wander:er Lm?m canan'msix Marmara mama: ?fephf?s mag-thin} Frag-m: {afar Lap w: um trim-mu.- Vufpex wipes Cam's Emma; Udamiu'eux virgini??u? Unmx am aricanus 35mm: mm?nensfx Manse Eastern chipmunk Rad squirm] Sim?utailed wanna] Lung-tailed WEHSEI Min}: Arctic Mad Smukcy' shew Mendnw vale. Meadnw jumping mans: Woodland jumping mans-3 Muscat Elm-fer River ullcr Wnudchuck Ship-Dd skunk 11am End fox Cuyut: White-tailed deer Black hear gray squint] Appendix Id: Flera ef the Thunder Be},r ADC Scienti?c Name Cemmee Name Lyeepee'r'mr: In?del:an Equieemm?ew'ee?ie emine- Ljereprerix ?egmx Dn'epferi: eer?me?f?nu Dnepa'en'x ex]: mm: Gymneearpfum reberi'r'emmr Pe?e'?dmm emu? if Heme? Huem'ie Awpfenfum Irie?hemnne: Sagirterm eeneefe Segil'l'nrfe Ia?jh?a Ari'meme H'Jph?fum Cerex eenee {Tar-er Care: hebbil' Cerex?enee Carer}:er Cmexpetftmeufem Caren: restrafa Cure: Subaru Caren: met'ermen? Carer umhe??m?a Ef?eeher'ie acieuferfx Eefrp 1:3 mm viremi' Sigr?nehmm menfnnum June?; nedesue' Juno!? Ienm'x Leenfe eeumirlere mu?yfem T?gfeehm Lemur: miner Shining Water Hereeteil Lady Fem Fmg?e Fem Weed Fem Henhem Weed Fern Dekfem Limeslene ?ak Fern Emun?s Fem Rest}r Weedeia Maidetalmir Selectmen ?eeting Anne-fleet: Duel: Peteie leek-m-Lhe-Pelpit HeyIiJ-ze er Cepper Sedge Sedge Bebe's Sedge Dry?spiked Sedge Peek'e Hedge PettheIed Sedge Beuked S?dgc Slipitete Sedge Tuekerelan's Hedge Um'eelle'J-ze Sedge Needle Sikemsh Marsh Spikemsh Blae}: Belrueh Cemmen Blue?Eyed [312155 Kneued Rush Slender er Path Rush Weed Rush Mew-?ewered Weed Rush Lesser Arrew Grass Lesser Deekweed Scienti?c Name barea?a Hiram Mafaarhamraa aanaa'anaa Maa'aa?aam um are-Harum Streprapaa mama Tri?jam carnal-am Uvafari'a grandf?am hrajaa ?axa'h'a air-id's CaraHaa-In?za Spimm'haa Afapeaaraa aaqaa?a Danrhania apfaata Eahrnaahfaa micraataa?gra Elmira repam' G?raarfa baraa?a yak-1': pamia J'rfuhfanbargfa ma?ama asparyra?a Pam'aam aapr'?ara Paa gfaaca Paa Sphanapha?a? fatarmaa'fa Paramageraa Paramagaranfa?asaa Paramagaran graminaua Pal'amagai?aa naIana Paramagatan parfa?ama Patamagefan pacifnalaa Typha angaal'?'a?a Act-r Aaar ricer sac-ath Aaar apicaram Amaranth as afbaa Camman Name Blur; Bead. Lil},r Wand Lil}r Wild Lily [Jr the Va?ay Star-Flowered Salaman?s Seal Twislad Stalk N?dding Trillium. Ya?aw Ba?wart Marry Balls Slat?cl? Mains; Frag Dmhia Spott?d Caral Raat Marmara Slamiar Ladies? Elma-harried Faatail Pavamr Bamjrard Grass C?ll?h Glass Ha?lmr? Manna Grass Battle Brush Grass Mn??y Raugh?lwvad Mmmiain Rial: Wilah Grass Glaua?as Blue Grass Farascl Mcadaw Glass Slemi?I Wedgagraas Alpine Pond Weed Lnafy Pauli Wand VarLahIa-Laavcd Pond Waad Flaming-Lva P?l? Wand Saga Pond Wcad Nam-Leaver} Catlail Maniiaba, Bax Eldar Rad Maple Sugar Maple Mountain Maple. Tumblawaad Etimti?c Name Anthrib'cm' .grh-rm'rri'i' HEr-crm?aum Ianamm Slum mmle mafia matrmam madame: ?ner (21' Haida; Axrer fater?'hms mam-mph Hide?! mm In: tham'hemum faucanrhemmn fjic?mrium in?ux (Simian: ?ndman? Gnaphn?um u?g?nasum Hfamcfum numm'mcum Hi'cracr'um pffmi'e?a Fran cm Eh es arin Samaria amen: Saffdago Su?d?ga ufig?nnm Impatiens cap?nsis Impatienx puf?tfa Cauinphy?um Bern-Ia anpufa squarr?S-? Barbara?: unfgarfs pcn?'fv?'m'ca .mphr'a dammit}er pamxrris 53mph awenm?a? Humul'us Inpuiux J?nicem canurfensis C'erm'ffum for: Em: um Skier-gum swarms Emma'er grammc? Cummun Name Wild flaw Water Parsm'p Wild Ginger Ciljate Wand Aster Calicn Aster large-Inm?l Astar Hudding Beggar?ck ?it-Eye Daisy Chicuqr Fluclman?s Thistle Law Cudwmd Mouse-car Hawkweezd White Lettuce. Rattlesmk: Ram Cnn?mn Hagwurt Uphill G?ld?nmd Marsh magma IBWBI Weed Pale Tnuch?ME-Hut Blue Cuhush Yulluw Birch BluchuIr, Cummun Wintcl' Cress Hitler Cress Flixwwd Peppugmm, Cummun Peppc: Mash Yclluw 1:11:53 Wild Mustard. Chad-tuck Cummun Hops Swamp F1}r Huncysucldc Grumman Mauses'EaI Chi :kwmd Cum Spurrey, Cumxmn or Lease: Stichwo? Seien?ti?e Name Sie?arm fengipes Sahara hm grannin Came; nJ'i'emUbh'rr Cam u: canaderm'x Cnmmi' rugn?'a Camus .s'fnfunr?ra Knau?a Emmi; Gnu?heria pmeumbem Chmaeme Eupharbi'a warm'ias Amphr'mrpaea bruerema Lafhyrux HEJIIFDIEHCUS Mef?'m'ux nib Tri?lh'um aurenm Ihfu?um Cogdah?x auraa CHWIHUS Sempewfrens Genffanup?s whim Hafeme de?ance Geranium bickne?? Ri?e: inner-femur? bees [ri?e 331' up}: 1' um ver? minimum Gig-chums: hedemeea Lwepras {gauges unmann- ?fenrhn mum?s: Five-regregja trip-gimme Frune?n vuigaria' Un'fmlarin wigan's Nephew variegmmn Heritage media Caffemm linen-rig Pei-Manure: nehareum amphibium Cemmen Name Siilehwen Selle-mt, Russian ThiEtle Dedder Mtemate-Ie'wed Degweed Bumlbeny Rem-13mm Degweed Red Usier Ragweed Field Seem-nus, Blue Euttens Cheeketheny, Teahem', Winiergteen Slender Spmge Cypress er tweeter},r Spurge Hug Peanul Cream-Celeured er Pale Vetehling While Sweet Clever Yellow err Hep Clever White Clever Golden: Cemdaljs Pale Curydalis F?nged Gemian Spumad Hiekeell?s Craneshil] Wild Black Cumin: Amen'een. er Swamp Red Cumml Braeted Water Mill'eil Gill ever [he Gmm? Water Hurehuurui Nnrt'l'tem Buglewemi Field er Mint Falee Dragenheud Heal-All, Cementer W??d Gunmen er Greater Eieddemrnn: Spaiterdeek. Yellow Peed Lil},r Hoary Plantain Gleam W?I?Bl?i?g K??h'r'CEd Water Sme?weed Scienti?c Name Pa?-gamam Paipgn??m Pail-Emma! Iapm'hy'ry?um Pnimanum puncmfum Emma: aceram Cia?ania caraiinian? swam Lyaimnchia Lysimnchin rhym?ium Triema?j bar-cam Adrian ruer Anemone Aneumne quinquejb?a Aqniiugi? canadensis Emma puhm?ris Baum-sums." Harm Ran unmimr hr'pidua: Rammcm?us .mei'erai?us venufm-um aim?vh'a :imaia?c?hi?r Geum aicppicum Parmimn ?unregica Prunus virginimm Manda Spirut'u [Iin Eaiix Paruwm?a pnium?fs Urm?i?i'a negiecl?n Mfmmus ringens Harm Em per-Rim Permian ser?u?ifn?a grandi?ara Wain canrrdunsi?' Commun Name Gammon Jim-tweed Black Bindde Gammon u: Fail: Water Sm'eed Rough Garnicn 3:1qu Spling Beauty F?ngud Lnascsuife Swamp Lmsest?fn Tu?ud Liam-midi": Rad Cmuda Anemone Amarican ur Wand Wild Culumhinc Marsh Mn?gnld, Cuwslip Buttercup Cummun T311 Buttercup North?cm Swamp Bu?cruup Celery-me Bl?i?mu'p Northern Scnicciiem' Eunicehurry Cummuu Hume [laugh Cirquefoil Cinkucth' Ernth Wild Ruse M?aduw Sweet aniami P111153 Willnw Grazia nf Pamassus Hudg? Marley Finwur Parsian Thyme?me Whit: Gmur?cl?m' Canada Vic-11:1 Scienti?c Name Cemmen Name Wain cum-Ham Hair: Fink: nmwe-angh?ae Hem pubescemr Wain reny?e?a Wain .i'efkr'rin'i Hole Emmi-fa in?rm Marsh Blue 1iIfielet Henllem While 1 .fielei New England Vielet Smeelh Yellew Violet Violet Selki?e's 1 Ifielet Nerthem Blue Violet Vlrginia Creeper Appendix 2 Glossary, Acronyms, and Units of Measure ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Area of Concern:an arearecognizedby the InternationalJoint Commissionwherewaterusesareimpairedor whereobjectivesof the GreatLakesWater Quality Agreementor local environmentalstandards arenot being achieved. Adsorbableorganichalides,including chlorinatedorganics BiochemicalOxygenDemand:the amountof dissolvedoxygenrequired for the bacterialdecompositionof organicwastein water. Obtainedby measuringthe amountof oxygenconsumedby a sampleunder controlledconditionsover a specifiedtime period. CCME CanadianCouncil of Ministersof the Environment Canada-Ontario AgreementRespectingthe GreatLakesBasin Ecosystem:the 1986agreementwherebythe governmentsof Canada andOntariorecognizetheir sharedresponsibilityto maintainthe aquatic ecosystemof the GreatLakesBasin. DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane: a widely used,very persistent pesticide(now bannedfrom productionandusein many countries)in the chlorinatedhydrocarbongroup. GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement InternationalJoint Commission:a binationalorganizationestablishedin 1909by the BoundaryWatersTreaty. Throughthe IJC, Canadaand the United Statesco-operativelyresolveproblemsalong their common border,including waterandair pollution, lake levels,power generation, andotherissuesof mutualconcern. LCso That concentrationof a toxicantor effluent which is lethal to 50% of the testorganismsover a specifiedtime period. An acutelylethal effluent is onethat kills morethan50% of the test speciesin 100%(undiluted) effluent. Lake SuperiorProgramsOffice GLOSSARY ADSORBABLE ORGANIC HALOGEN A genericmesurement to indicatethe organic chlorineloadingby a pulp mill using chlorine bleaching.LessAOX is producedwhen chlorinedioxideis the principal bleaching agent. BENTmC/BENTHOS Aquatic organismsthat live on bottom sedimentor dependon it for their subsistence. BIOA v AILABll...ITY Extentto which a compoundor elementis availablefor uptakeby flora or fauna. BIOACCUMULATION When an organismstoreswithin its body, a higherconcentrationof a substancethat is nonnally found at very low levels within the environment. BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND The amountof dissolvedoxygenrequiredfor the bacterialdecompositionof organicwaste in water. BIOMONITORING The useof organismsto test the acutetoxicity of substances in effluent dischargesaswell as the chronictoxicity of low-level pollutantsin the ambientaquaticenvironment. CARCINOGEN Cancer-causing chemicals,substances, or radiation. Cm.ORINA TED ORGANICS An organiccompoundwhich includes chemicallyboundchlorine. Thousandsexist but only a small proportion of thoseformed in the kraft mill bleachingprocess(whenever chlorineis used)havebeenidentified. DISSOLVED OXYGEN The amountof oxygendissolvedin water. See BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND. DRAINAGE BASIN A body of water andthe land areadrainedby it. ECOSYSTEM The interacting complex of living organisms and their non-living environment; the biotic community and its abiotic environment. EFFLUENT Any liquid andassociatedmaterialdischarged from industrialor municipalsewagetreatment plants directly or indirectly to any waters. EROSION The wearingaway andtransportationof soils rocksanddissolvedmineralsfrom the land surfaceor alongshorelinesby rainfall, running water,or wave andcurrentaction. EUTROPillCA TION The processof fertilization that causeshigh productivity and biomassin an aquatic ecosystem.Eutrophicationcanbe a natural processor it can be a cultural process accelerated by an increaseof nutrientloading to a lake by humanactivity. EXonc SPECmS Speciesthat arenot nativeto an areaand have beenintentionallyintroducedor have inadvertentlyinfiltrated the system. FOOD CHAIN The processby which organismsin higher trophiclevelsgain energyby consuming organismsat lower trophic levels. GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT A joint agreementbetweenCanadaandthe United Statesthat commitsthe two countries to developand implementa plan to restore andmaintainthe manydesirableusesof the GreatLakesBasin. GROUNDWATER Waterentrainedandflowing below the surface that supplieswater to wells and springs. HYDROLOGIC CYCLE The naturalcYcleof water on earth,including precipitationasrain and snow,runoff from land, storagein lakes,streams,andoceans,and evaporationand transpiration(from plants) into the atmosphere. LEACHATE Materialssuspendedor dissolvedin water and otherliquids usually from wastesitesthat percolatethrough soils and rock layers. LITTORAL Productiveshallow-waterzone of lake where light penetratesto the bottom, allowing vegetativegrowth. MOBll..ITY Ability of a substanceto be releasedfrom its supportingenvironmentor its environmentof origin underthe influenceof physicalor chemicalprocesses. NON-POINT SOURCE Dischargeof pollutantsover a widespreadarea or from a numberof small inputs ratherthan from distinct,identifiable sources. NUTRIENT A chemicalthat is an essentialraw materialfor the growthand developmentof organisms. OLIGOTROPffiC Oligotrophicwatersare characterizedby low ratesof productivity and are regulatedto a largeextentby low inputs of inorganic nutrientsfrom externalsources.For this reasontheyusually containhigh levels of dissolvedoxygen. SeeTROPIllC STATUS ORGANOCm.ORINE An organiccompoundwith one or more chlorineatoms. PATHOGEN A disease-causing agentsuchasbacteria, viruses,andparasites. PCBs Polychlorinatedbiphenyls: A classof persistentorganicchemicalsthat are insoluble in waterandbioaccumulate.They adsorb ontofine sedimentand organicmattervery readilyanddissolvein oils and greases. pH PHYTOPLANKTON PL U:I\ffi A measureof the acidic or basicnatureof a solution.Valuesof pH below 7 represent acidicconditionsandvaluesabove7 arebasic. A changeof oneunit, for examplefrom 7 to 6, representsa ten-fold increasein acidity. pH playsa majorrole in chemicalreactions, especiallythe mobility of heavy metalsin dredgedmaterial. Minute, microscopicaquaticvegetativelife. Becauseof temperature differences between effiuent and the receiving waters, an effluent dischargewill form a surface/bottom plume when it is warmer/cooler than the receiving waters. POINT SOURCE A sourceof pollution that is distinct and identifiable,suchasan outfall pipe from an industrialplant. PRIMARY TREATMENT Stageof effluenttreatmentin which suspended solidsareremovedfrom effiuent. Normally includesde-wateringthe recovered settledsolidsto facilitatelandfilling or incineration. RESUSPENSION The remixingof sedimentparticlesand pollutantsback into the water by stonns, currents,organisms,or humanactivities such asdredging. SECONDARY TREAThffiNT Stageof wastetreatmentthat decomposes organicconstituentsin effluent and reduces SEDIMENT toxicity. The fines or soils on the bottom of a body of water. TOTAL SUSPENDEDSOLIDS(TSS) Solidparticlesfloating in a liquid or maintainedin the water column by turbulence TOXIC SUBSTANCE As definedin the GreatLakesWater Quality Agreement,any substancethat adversely affectsthe healthor well-beingof any living TROPffiC STATUS organism. A measureof thebiological productivity in a body of water. Aquatic ecosystemsare characterizedasoligotrophic(low productivity), mesotrophic(medium productivity) or eutrophic(high productivity). MISA Municipal-IndustrialStrategyfor Abatement:the principal goal of this programis to cleanup Ontario'swaterways.It representsa new approachto controllingpoint sourcewaterpollution. MISA will control andreducethe amountof toxic contaminantsin all industrial and municipaleffluentsdischargedinto Ontario'ssurfacewaters. The ultimategoal of MISA is the virtual eliminationof toxic contaminants from all municipalandindustrialdischargesinto the province's waterways. MNR/OMNR OntarioMinistry of NaturalResources MOE/OMOE OntarioMinistry of the Environment Northern Wood Preservers PAC Public Advisory Committee RAP RemedialAction Plan TCDD 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p:.dioxin: consideredto be the most toxic dioxin found in kraft mill wastes TCDF 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran: a chlorinated furan prominent in kraft mill wastes Toxic Equivalency Factor: the toxicity of a variety of isomers for dioxins and furans expressedrelative to 2.3.7.8-tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin STP/wPCP SewageTreatmentPlantIWaterPollution Control Plant COMMONLY USED TERl\flNOLOGY Measurementsand Units mg/kg= ng/kg = Ud = micrograms per gram = parts per million (ppm) milligrams per litre = parts per million (ppm) microgram per litre = parts per billion (Ppb) nanogram per litre = parts per trillion (ppt) milligram per kilogram = parts per million (ppm) mi crogram per kilogram = parts per billion (Ppb) nanogramper kilogram - parts per trillion (ppt) litres per day cubic metres per day kg/yr= kilograms per year tonnesper year LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AOC AOX ASB BOD CCME CNR COA CPR CSO CWS DDT DFO EBC EC EEM ES FWH FWHM FWP FWPM GAC GIS GLCUF GLSF GLWQA HC IBUs IC ID IJC INA LaMP LC50 LEL LRCA LSPO M MISA MNG MNR MOE MW Area of Concern: an area recognized by the International Joint Commission where water uses are impaired Adsorbable organic halides, including chlorinated organics Aerated stabilization basin Biochemical oxygen demand: the amount of dissolved oxygen required for the bacterial decomposition of organic waste in water. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Canadian National Railway Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem: the 1986 agreement whereby the governments of Canada and Ontario recognize their shared responsibility to maintain the aquatic ecosystem of the Great Lakes Basin. Canadian Pacific Railways Combined sewer overflow Canadian Wildlife Service Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane Department of Fisheries and Oceans Engineered bioremediation cell Environment Canada Environmental Effects Monitoring Education, and stewardship Fish and wildlife habitat (used in labeling remediation actions) Fish and wildlife habitat monitoring (used in labeling monitoring actions) Fish and wildlife populations (used in labeling remediation and monitoring actions) Fish and wildlife populations monitoring (used in labeling monitoring actions) Granular activated carbon Geographic Information System Environment Canada’s Great Lakes Cleanup Fund (renamed Great Lakes Sustainability Fund) Great Lakes Sustainability Fund Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Health Canada Impaired beneficial uses Industry Canada Identification International Joint Commission Information not available Lakewide Management Plan That concentration of a toxicant or effluent which is lethal to 50% of the test organisms over a specified time period. Lowest Effect Level Lakehead Region Conservation Authority Lake Superior Programs Office Million (e.g., $1.2M) Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement. The ultimate goal of MISA is the virtual elimination of toxic contaminants from all municipal and industrial discharges into the province’s waterways. Management (used in labeling the management actions) (Ontario) Ministry of Natural Resources (same as OMNR) (Ontario) Ministry of the Environment (same as OMOE) Mega-watt NGOs NOWPARC NPS NPSM NWP NWRI, OMNR OMOE OPG PAC PAHs PCP PPCP PS PSM PZPM RAP SEL STP TC TCDD TCDF TEQ TSS UV WPCP WPCP Non-Governmental Organizations Northern Woods Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept Non-point source (used in labeling remediation actions) Non-point source monitoring (used in labeling monitoring actions) Northern Wood Preservers National Water Research Institute Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (same as MNR) Ontario Ministry of the Environment (same as MOE) Ontario Power Generation Public Advisory Committee Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Pentachlorophenol Pollution Prevention and Control Plan Point source (used in labeling remediation actions) Point source monitoring (used in labeling monitoring actions) Phytoplankton and zooplankton populations monitoring (used in labeling monitoring actions) Remedial Action Plan Severe Effect Level Sewage treatment plant Transport Canada 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin: considered to be the most toxic dioxin found in kraft mill wastes 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran: a chlorinated furan prominent in kraft mill wastes Toxic Equivalency Factor: the toxicity of a variety of isomers for dioxins and furans expressed relative to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Total suspended solids Ultraviolet Water Pollution Control Plant Water Pollution Control Plant Appendix 3 Proposedmethods for upgrading the Thunder Bay Water Pollution Control Plant to a secondary treatment facility (W 20 Inc. 1996). Treatment Activated Sludge Processes: a) conventional (CAS). . removes 90-95% of raw sewageBOD . can nitrify year round . BOD - 15 mg/L . TSS - 15 mg/L b) high rate clarifier am adequate aerationtank . requiressecondaty . 70-95%BOD removal . lower efIluentquality . increased ability to treat high strength wastewater . greater toleraoce for peak organic loads d) step feed . requiressecondary .. high sludgerecycle high organicloadingrate .reduced retention time c) pure oxygen Di sadvantages Advantages . potential for improved sludge settling . reducedeffluent TSS during peak flows .operationamBOD. clarifier than conventional activatedsludge . iIx:reasedequipment am storagefor productionof high purity oxygen . requiIespecial building materials .. requires large land area requires significant Costs . capitalcostsof $229-332/m3of designcapacity .~ electrical cost of SO.53/m3 of sewagetreated . similar operating costs to CAS reducedcapital costs . .capitalam operating costs similar to CAS . electricalcosts slightly lower than CAS; maintenance costsare slightly higher . similar to CAS operntor knowledge removalratessimilar to CAS . cancontrolorganic loadingratesat points alongaerationtank Rotating biological contactor .lessmaintenance . canhavepoor settling andoperntorattention characteristics . requireslarger required . c~micals addedfor more ~Iw:laI:y clarifier efficientphosphorus surfacearea may requirecovering removal to reduceheatloss . . capitalcostsfor upgradingrange from $195-553/m3 designcapacity . iocreasedelectrical costsof$O.51/m3of laW sewagetreated Trickling filter . simpleandeasyto operate . little control over mass . upgrndingcostsof of organisms in reactor S196/m3design 00 effective way to capacity iocreasedelectrical control effiuent quality . . ..cold doesnot settlewell temperature costs of SO.2/m3of treated sewage Trickling filter/solid contact operation a concern .better effiuent. quality . unreliableeflluent thantrickling fIlter . short retentiontime BOD, TSS, and TP . difficult to trulint~in andopemte . upgradingcostsof $196/m3design capacity .lowerergy requirementsof $0.321m3of treated sewage Biological aeratedfilter* (BIOCARBONE) .. smallarearequirements reducedloadingratesfor TP, TSS, and BOD ineffiuent . easyto operate . rot in usein Ontario . little fleXloilityin operation . capitalcostsof $207/m3design capacity . iocreasedelectrical costsof$0.42/m3 of treatedsewage Deep shaft techmlogy . 00 primaryclarification . increasedliquid . similarto CAS required . deeptanksmeanless arearequired ..laM shortretentiontime reducedaerationcosts . immuneto temperature circulation costs . unprovenon municipal scale . increasedckmical costs effects Biological pOOSpOOIUSremoval processes: a) AlO process . reducedcremical additionsandassociated costs . total phosphorus<1.0 .redI£ed perfOrma1¥:e jf system nitrifies during summer months . similar capital costs costsrelative to CAS becauseof reducedcremical costsassociated with phosphorus removal am sludge control mg/L . BOD comparableto CAS . equivalentor betterTSS . comparedto CAS reduced sludge production b) UCTNIP process to CAS . lower opemting . reduced chemical and . iocreasedoxygen . higher capital costs . requirements . increasedopernting . similar operating sludge Mndting costs not impacted by nitrification costs than CAS coststo CAS . increased capital costs *preferred secondary treatment upgrade alternatives as stated in the Thunder Bay Pollution Prevention and Control Plan (W20 Inc. and Wardrop Engineering Ltd. 1998). Alternatives for waste disinfection at the Thunder Bay Water Pollution Control Plant (W20 Inc. 1996). Treatment Chlorination Ultraviolet imldiation Advantages . already in place .no chemical residue left in water . supportsLake Superior dischargegoals ..zero the technologyis safe no chemical MM1ing .can reducefecal oolifonn levelsto <200per 100 mL .can beusedin Di sadvantage .haveto contendwith toxic eff(X;tsof chlorinated effiuent . additional chlorinators required to meet disinfection requirements .requiresuseof an alternativecoomicalfor phosphorusremoval Costs . $163 000 capital cost . $323 100operating coststyear . $2.6 million capital cost . $468 520 operating costs/year conjunctionwith existing chlorinatorsat peakflow Chlorination /dechlorination . removes chlorine residue . cblorinecontacttank is from disinfected efllueot . supports Lake Superior zero discharge goals ..reliable process almost instantaneous requiredto allow sufficientdisinfection time . monitorsrequiredto control cblorineand sulphurdioxide dosage . $2.1 million capital cost . $539500 operating costs/year Appendix 4 Potential Methods to Reduce Bacterial Growth at Chippewa Park (Northwest Engineering Ltd. 1996) Appendix 4 Potential methods to reduce bacterial growth at Chippewa Park (Northwest Engineering Ltd. 1996). I Option Advantages Disadvantage Costs W- a) regrade beach area - will remove direct ?ow of - requires retaining wall and 135,000 waste from bathing area subdrains to prevent beach?s return to natural slope b) culvert extensions - will remove wastes collected - requires extension of three (or one) $155,000 in ditches and discharged culvert(s) out into the bay, outside for one through culverts from the the breakwall culvert to beach area $230,000 for all three Drainage improvement - improved ?ow - wastes still within breakwall $3,000 (ditch regrading) - will allow discharge of zoo waste further from bathing area Breakwall/Pier Removal a) complete removal - improved water circulation - loss of pedestrian walkway and $180,000 of breakwall - reduced weed and bacteria mooring area growth - colder water temperature in bathing area - increased potential for beach erosion b) lowering of - increased water circulation as - lose pedestrian walkways and breakwall water would ?ow-over moorings breakwall - expensive uetainsprotectivenatureof - . breakwall c) removal of sections - similar to lowering I - isolated portions of breakwall $65,000 of breakwall would remain for removal - possible loss of pedestrian of~90m of walkways breakwall pedestrian bridges needed to connect isolated sections Divert ?ow from increase in - culverts needed to divert creek $10,000 Creek "Circulation water Mechanical circulation - maintains breakwall - requires equipment removal in 'capital protection winter costs of allows water exchange with - requires equipment maintenance $50,000 rest of lake - annual operating costs -anmral - provides aeration of water operating - potential to create visually costs of appealing fountain $1,700/yr Discourage presence of - reduced E. coli contamination - presence of birds enjoyed by public waterfowl - dif?cult to do on continual basrs APPENDIX 5 Corporate Report and Resolution Relating to Upgrades at Thunder Bay WPCP Produced and Approved by Thunder Bay City Council 3] HUI an: Report SupmarbyNam PAGE 1 OF 5 Transportation Works DIVISION Engineering Division REPORT NO. 1999.054 DATE February 25, 1999 FILE NO. 0289.023 MEETING DATE April 6, 1999 Pilot Evaluation of Secondary Sewage SUBJECT Treatment Processes REPORTSUMMARY To recommend selection of Secondary Sewage Treatment Processes. BACKGROUND Report No. 25 9/96 (Engineering) approved by City Council on September 9, 1996 authorized the retaining of W20 Inc. (now renamed as XCG Consultants Ltd.) to provide consulting services to assist the City to carry out the pilot evaluation of several different secondary treatment processes in order to determine the most appropriate technology to use to treat the City?s sewage. COMMENTS The consultant has now completed the Final Report. The Executive Summary has been circulated separately. - This Report was funded with assistance ?'om Environment Canada?s Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund and from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and bene?ted from the participation of of?cials from these agencies during the review. The Study also received considerable assistance ?om Mr. Lou Romano and Mr. Paul Drea from the City of Windsor. Their recent experience with similar studies for Windsor enabled them to assist the consultant and Administration in evaluating and adjusting the pilot processes effectively. It should be noted that the City of Thunder Bay is not yet required by the Province to introduce secondary sewage treatment; however the lack of secondary treatment has been a factor which has identi?ed Thunder Bay as an Area of Concern by the US. and Canadian Governments and the International Joint Commission. For this reason the Lake Superior Remedial Action Plan strongly supported the City?s application for assistance under the Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund and has identi?ed the introduction of secondary sewage treatment for the City as a key objective. In proceeding with this important project City Council has demonstrated its commitment towards the protection of the aquatic environment of the Kaministiquia River and Lake Superior. REPORT NO. 1999.054 (Engineering) PAGE 2 OF 5 Technologies Evaluated Pilot scale plants were set up for four (4) different processes. Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS) 9 Biological Aerated Filters (BAF) Trickling Filter/Solids Contact Biological Phosphorus Removal (BPR) The various forms of the CAS process are the most common technology used in Ontario. The remaining processes have been used elsewhere in Canada but not to date in Ontario, except for very small scale facilities. The BAF process is a proprietary process developed in France with several large plants now operating in Quebec. City Of?cials have visited the BAF plant in Sherbrooke and were impressed with this facility. The BAF process is odour free and extremely clean in appearance. Operating sta?' at the Sherbrooke plant are very satis?ed with the performance of the plant. The other two (2) processes are not proprietary and have been used for some years in Ontario. Administration is satis?ed however that all four (4) of the technologies evaluated would produce satisfactory results. E?'ectiveness 01? Process The pilot evaluation con?rmed that all four (4) technologies would provide levels of treatment acceptable to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. (M.O.E.) The following table illustrates the design objectives which are recommended compared with the M.O.E. minimum requirements. Parameter Design Objective M.O.E. - Minimum Requirements BODS 15 mg/L 25 mg/L TSS 15 mg/L 25 mg/L Total Phosphorus 1 mg 1 mg 0A Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODs) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) values are annual average targets. Phosphorus targets are average targets. BOD 5 is a measure of the oxygen amount which would be depleted from the receiving stream due to the decomposition of organic matter. ?1 REPORT NO. 1999.054 (Engineering) PAGE 3 OF 5 T83 is the Total Suspended Solids contained in the treated effluent . Phosphorus is a nutrient which contributes to the growth of algae in water. M.O.E. does not require the City to produce an effluent which is virtually free of ammonia due to the high quality of water in Lake Superior (Signi?cant levels of ammonia are quite toxic to some species of Federal and Provincial of?cials would, however, prefer a target level of less than 5 mg for ammonia in the treated e?luent. The pilot plants were Operated over a full twelve (12) month period to ensure the processes were effective in all seasons. All technologies achieved the design targets except for the process which did not meet the targets for ammonia in the winter periods. The BAF process could meet the ammonia targets by modi?cations to the Operation of the unit. Capacity of Existing Facilities The Study has con?rmed that the existing primary plant generally has adequate capacity (109,000 M3/day average) to meet the City?s requirements over the design period (to the I year 2016). Some improvements are necessary at the plant inlet to ensure that peak? instantaneous ?ows during wet weather periods are properly handled. These improvements include adding a ?fth pump at the main pumping station and twinning the last portion of the Kaministiquia Interceptor Sewer at the plant site. Disinfection The existing plant has facilities to disinfect the treated e?luent using chlorine gas. Disinfection is only required seasonally. (April 15 November 15). The Federal Government is in the process of developing new policies intended to reduce the discharge of chlorinated organic compounds into the aquatic environment. It is not clear at the present time the extent to which the new policies will in?uence the disinfection process at the Thunder Bay Plant. Recent studies at Duluth have resulted in virtual elimination of disinfection at its sewage treatment plant except when high bacteria counts are measured in the harbour. The Thunder Bay situation is thought to be much better than Duluth with better currents to dilute and disperse the treated ef?uent. While more studies are required it may be desirable to eliminate all disinfection of Thunder Bay?s treated ef?uent, once secondary treatment has been implemented. Assuming that seasonal disinfection will continue to be desirable the Study has recommended that chlorination continue to be used for this purpose. If new Government policies are introduced to limit the allowable discharge of chlorine compounds into the aquatic environment, de?chlorination processes could be economically installed at that time. RR REPORT NO. 1999.054 (Engineering) PAGE4 OF 5 Recommended Processes The Consultant recommends that the Biological Aerated Process (BAF) be used as the Secondary sewage treatment process at the Atlantic Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant, and be designed to meet the ef?uent quality standards required by the M.O.E. The BAF process takes up the least surface area and thus provides the greatest buffer to adjacent lands. The process facilities are also the most aesthetically pleasing. The BAP process is possibly more expensive than the other preferred option, the CAS process, with a life cycle cost (capital and operating) of $50.0 Million compared to a life cycle cost of between $47.7 Million and $50.1 Million. The cost range for the CAS process is because the capacity of the secondary clari?ers as calculated by the consultants for this process is less than the normal M.O.E. guidelines. If the secondary clari?er capacity must meet the M.O.E. guidelines the higher ?gure . re?ects the additional cost to do so. The consultant is reasonably con?dent that their calculated capacity is adequate but there is a risk that de?ciencies will develop during full scale operation. If the higher capacity of the M.O.E. guideline is built into the CAS process to avoid this risk, the costs of the BAF and CAS processes are almost equivalent Million advantage to BAF) If nitri?cation is required in the future the additional costs to include nitri?cation in the processes would be $4 Million for BAF and $7.2 Million for CAS. Administration concurs with the Consultant and recommends that the BAF process be chosen for the addition of Secondary Treatment at the Atlantic Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant. Estimated Cost The total capital cost for the recommended project is $31,900,000 including engineering . and contingency, plus GST. M.O.E. Approval Because this project would be the ?rst BAF process in Ontario a meeting was held with the M.O.E. Approvals Branch and the Thunder Bay District Of?ce of the M.O.E. These o?'icials con?rmed that a design based on the parameters recommended by this Report would be acceptable to the M.O.E. The proprietary equipment for the BAF process is available from several manufacturers. Administration would seek com etitive tenders to pre-select this equipment. If a supplier other than that for the BIOFOR . process is success?il in the tendering process an additional pilot evaluation of this equipment would be required to con?rm the design parameters appropriate to the selected supplier. Outfall Sewer Concern has been raised that the construction of the 110* Avenue Causeway may negatively impact the dispersion of the treated ef?uent into the Kaministiquia River. 66 ncrum NU. 1999.054 (Engineering) PA GE 5 OF 5 Additional studies will be carried out, once the Causeway is in place, to determine if any modi?cations are required to the outfall sewer. This issue is common to all options for secondary sewage treatment. The Consultant?s Final Report sets out the necessary parameters required for the detailed design of the secondary treatment facilities. CONCLUSION It is concluded that the Biological Aerated Filter process is the best technology for the addition of Secondary Sewage Treatment at the Atlantic Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant and that the Final Report provides adequate information for consulting engineers to proceed with the ?nal design for this project. The selection process for a consulting engineer should be commenced based on the recommendations outlined in this Report. It is also concluded that the ?nal decision on construction of de-chlorination facilities or the elimination of disinfection and the provision of a nitri?cation process should be deferred until such time as Government Policies on these issues have been clari?ed. RECOMMENDATION THAT with respect to Report No. 1999.054 (Engineering) we recommend that the Biological Aerated Filter process be selected for the addition of secondary sewage treatment at the Atlantic Avenue Water Pollution Control Plan and that the design of the project include the improvement to the inlet worlds as outlined in the Final Report; AND THAT further studies regarding the advisability of introducing de-chlorination processes and/or elimination of disinfection of the treated effluent be carried out once Government Policies have been clari?ed; AND THAT the design provide for the future inclusion of nitri?cation to eliminate the presence of ammonia in the treated ef?uent, should Government Policy require this in the future; AND THAT Administration proceed with the process to select consulting engineers to assist in the pre-selection of major equipment and in the design, inspection and contract administration of the proposed works. PREPARED BY: D. W. Scott, Manager Engineering :cc I f) . suammso av: cow/ma.- razzoz 67 to Q5, swam Committee of the Whole The City of Thunder Bay ution mm ?at/MM ?m April 6, 1999/ Page 1 of CARRIED LOST one TD a: coumeowcouncn. or m- on RE: Report No. 1999.054 (Engineering) - Pilot Evaluation of Secondary Sewage Treatment Processes THAT with respect to Report No. 1999.054 (Engineering) we recommend that the Bi?1?8i?al Aerated Filter process be selected for the addition of secondary sewage treatment at the Atlantic . Avenue Water Pollution Control Plan and that the design of the project include the iumVement to the inlet werks as outlined in the Final Report; AND THAT further studies regarding the advisability of introducing de-chlorination processes and/or elimination of disinfection of the treated effluent be carried out once GOVemment Policies have been clari?ed; AND THAT the desigi provide for the future inclusion of nitri?cation to eliminate the presence of ammonia in the treated ef?uent, should Government Policy require this in the future; AND THAT Administration proceed with the process to select consulting engineers to assist in the pre-selection of major equipment and in the design, inspection and contract administration of the proposed works. Engineering File: 0239.023 FOR OFFICE USE RESOLUTION DISTRIBUTION .ammu cm CLERK Imsrnucnous: To: Cm CLERK msmucnom: 0- 5?9? Compliance 7 Wright lufomatinn 3 33101 Information 9 0 Cirv Manoecr Information .- Cirv Cit-fl! [Si TUTRL. -