THUNDER  BAY  REMEDIAL  ACTION  PLAN  (RAP)   Public  Advisory  Committee  (PAC)  Meeting     September  21,  2016  –  7  p.m.   ATAC  Room  3004   Lakehead  University,  Thunder  Bay  ON     ATTENDANCE     Jim  Bailey  –  Lakehead  University  (LU)  Remedial  Action  Plan  (RAP)  Office   Eric  Berglund  –  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  and  Forestry  (MNRF)   Marilee  Chase  –  MNRF   Frank  Edgson  –  Thunder  Bay  Public  Advisory  Committee  (PAC),  Co-­‐chair   Tara  George  –  Ministry  of  the  Environment  and  Climate  Change  (MOECC)     Jean  Hall-­‐Armstrong  –  Thunder  Bay  PAC,  Co-­‐chair   David  Heald  –  Public   Lance  Heald  –  Thunder  Bay  Field  Naturalists   Gene  Kent  –  Lakehead  Region  Conservation  Authority  (LRCA)   Ashleigh  Marchl  –  Resolute  Forest  Products,  Inc.   Samuel  Pegg  –  LU  RAP  Office   Stefan  Pomorski  –  LU  Student   Bruce  Pritchard  –  Thunder  Bay  PAC   Pamela  Rubenick  –  Thunder  Bay  Field  Naturalists   Kathy  Sakamoto  –  Thunder  Bay  PAC   Mark  Serediak  –  Thunder  Bay  PAC   Rob  Stewart  –  Lakehead  University  –  Geography  and  the  Environment   Gerry  Stricker  –  Public     Nathan  Wilson  –  LU  Graduate  Student                         -­‐  1  -­‐     INTRODUCTIONS     J.  Hall-­‐Armstrong  called  the  meeting  to  order  and  asked  attendees  to  introduce   themselves.     REVIEW  OF  MINUTES  OF  JUNE  1,  2016     Meeting  minutes  of  the  June  1st,  2016  PAC  meeting  were  reviewed.  No  errors  or   omissions  were  noted.     REVIEW  OF  ACTION  ITEMS     ACTION  ITEM  #1  OF  JUNE  1ST/16:  M.  McMaster  to  check  if  livers  from  his   reproductive  study  have  been  retained  and  whether  they  could  be  studied  for  the   effects  of  mercury.  M.  McMaster  to  inform  J.  Bailey  if  such  study  can  proceed.     STATUS:  Jim  Bailey  said  that  M.  McMaster  had  informed  him  that  this  would  not  be   possible.       ACTION  ITEM  #2  OF  JUNE  1ST/2016:  G.  Heinrich  to  speak  with  Port  Authority   board  member  about  North  Harbour  and  report  back  to  the  PAC.   STATUS:  Jim  Bailey  said  he  had  contacted  G.  Heinrichs  who  had  no  information  to   provide.       ACTION  ITEM  #3  OF  JUNE  1ST/2016:  A  letter  to  be  sent  to  the  federal  Environment   and  Transport  ministers,  as  well  as  the  Port  Authority,  copying  MP  Patti  Hajdu,   asking  for  clarification  as  to  which  agency,  agencies  and/or  authority  is  responsible   for  North  Harbour  cleanup.     STATUS:  A  letter  was  not  sent  as  Jim  Bailey  had  received  word  that  a  response  to  a   previous  letter  sent  to  the  Port  Authority  was  forthcoming.  There  was  also  word  of   an  imminent  meeting  between  the  Federal  Ministry  of  Transport  and  the  Federal   Ministry  of  Environment  and  Climate  Change  so  the  letter  was  withheld.       ACTION  ITEM  #4  OF  JUNE  1ST/2016:  C.  Dias  to  ask  senior  ECCC  management  for  a   timeline  for  North  Harbour  cleanup  and  to  provide  this  information  to  the  PAC.     STATUS:  A  November  30th,  2016  update  regarding  North  Harbour  has  been   provided  by  Environment  and  Climate  Change  Canada.     ACTION  ITEM  #5  OF  JUNE  1ST/2016:  Contact  the  Hamilton  Harbour  RAP  and   request  a  presentation  to  the  Thunder  Bay  PAC  about  the  Randle  Reef  project,   seeking  information  about  cleanup  method,  challenges,  cooperation  and  direction   forward.       STATUS:  C.  McLaughlin,  Executive  Director  of  the  Hamilton  Harbour  Bay  Area   Restoration  Council  agreed  to  present  at  the  November  30th,  2016  Thunder  Bay  PAC   meeting.       -­‐  2  -­‐     ACTION  ITEM  #6  OF  JUNE  1ST/2016:  C.  Dias  to  request  an  overview  of  the   outcomes  of  the  meeting  between  ECCC  and  Transport  Canada,  once  this  meeting   has  taken  place.     STATUS:  This  meeting  has  not  yet  taken  place.     UPDATE  –  DEGRADATION  OF  FISH  POPULATIONS   Eric  Berglund,  Upper  Great  Lakes  Management  Unit,  MNRF     J.  Bailey  also  mentioned  that  there  had  been  previous  discussions  on  the  topic  of  fish   populations  including  Terry  Marshall’s  presentation  to  the  PAC  in  March,  2015.  The   conclusion  of  this  earlier  meeting  was  that  -­‐  when  measured  against  the  delisting   criteria    -­‐  the  overall  fish  community  was  healthy,  including  lake  trout  and  whitefish.   J.  Bailey  also  reported  that  T.  Marshall  had  pointed  out  that  fish  habitat,  lake   sturgeon  populations,  walleye  populations,  and  brook  trout  remain  a  concern  or  are   in  need  of  further  analysis.  Outcomes  from  the  March  2015  meeting  included  further   review/revision  of  the  fish  habitat  delisting  criteria,  recognition  that  fish   populations  will  always  be  in  a  state  of  flux,  recognition  that  strong  population   trends  will  be  difficult  to  arrive  at  for  walleye  and  sturgeon  due  to  their  low   numbers,  that  a  coastal  wetland  inventory  might  be  helpful,  that  an  assessment  of   completed  and  existing  habitat  projects  would  be  helpful  in  determining  their   effectiveness,  and  recognition  that  extremely  poor  fish  access  to    the  Current  River   has  an  impact  on  the  health  of  Thunder  Bay  fish  populations  and  that  this  Current   River  fish  passage  issue  should  be  further  investigated.       E.  Berglund  presented  information  on  the  status  of  the  RAP  beneficial  use   impairment  (BUI)  for  degradation  of  fish  populations  within  the  Thunder  Bay  Area   of  Concern  (AOC).       He  began  by  describing  the  delisting  criteria  for  fish  populations  in  the  Thunder  Bay   Area  of  Concern.  He  explained  the  objective  of  the  fish  survey  project  (launched  in   2009)  was  to  look  at  the  relative  abundance,  population  dynamics  (juvenile   abundance,  recruitment,  growth,  mortality  and  exploitation)  and  population   structure  (length,  age,  sex  ratio)  of  the  target  species.    He  also  described  the   methods  used  to  sample  the  fish  that  included  stratified  random  sampling  from   different  depths  using  a  1000  ft.  x  6  ft.  gill  index  net  with  between  a  1.5”  and  6”   mesh  depending  on  species.  The  nets  were  set  for  a  24  hour  periods.       The  complete  presentation  by  E.  Berglund  can  be  accessed  here.         Information  provided  by  E.  Berglund  indicated  that  the  Thunder  Bay  fish   community  as  a  whole  was  doing  well,  particularly  lake  whitefish  and  lake  trout.   Brook  trout,  walleye  and  sturgeon  are  species  that  require  additional  monitoring   work  in  order  to  better  understand  population  dynamics.     Following  his  presentation,  E.  Berglund  opened  the  floor  for  questions  and/or   comments.       -­‐  3  -­‐       A  participant  asked  if  any  distinction  was  being  made  between  the  different  species   of  lake  trout.  E.  Berglund  mentioned  that  MNRF  does  differentiate  between  siscowet   and  lean  lake  trout.    He  noted  that  they  aren’t  classified  into  groups  like  yellow-­‐ finned,  but  rather  just  siscowet  or  lean.  He  said  that  if  these  fish  are  coming  out  of   water  deeper  than  80m  they  are  termed  siscowet  (i.e.  “fat”).       The  participant  also  asked  if  salmon  were  picked  up  in  the  surveys.  E.  Berglund   answered  that  they  may  get  one  or  two  salmon  in  the  entire  survey  across  all  of   Lake  Superior,  noting  that  salmon  are  particularly  good  at  net  avoidance.         K.  Sakamoto  asked  how  fish  populations  compare  to  historic  populations.  E.   Berglund  stated  that  the  only  historic  information  they  have  is  from  the  commercial   fishery.  He  said  there  is  harvest  information  that  goes  back  to  1948;  however,   sampling  of  the  commercial  catch  began  in  the  mid-­‐1960s,  with  relatively  spotty   records,  mostly  from  the  commercial  fishery.  He  mentioned  that  there  is  no  real   consistent  index  netting  data  prior  to  2009.  He  said  there  were  some  surveys  done   in  the  1980s  that  looked  at  one  particular  time/species,  and  that  this  survey  may   have  been  revisited  in  5  or  6  years.    He  said  this  information  did  not  represent  good   consistent  data  and  that  archival  commercial  fisheries  data  is  of  better  quality.       10’  BREAK     Following  the  break  J.  Hall-­‐Armstrong  asked  those  present  for  their  feelings  on  the   status  of  the  Degradation  of  Fish  Populations  BUI.         K.  Sakamoto  said  she  wished  there  was  longer-­‐term  data  saying  it  would  be  useful  to   include  some  of  the  commercial  catch  data  for  lake  trout  and  whitefish.  E.  Berglund   noted  that  commercial  catch  information  tells  you  little  about  the  population   dynamics  because  it  was  an  unregulated  industry  at  the  time,  so  the  numbers  will  be   biased,  in  addition  to  the  fact  that  most  of  the  catches  would  have  been  outside  the   AOC.       A  comment  was  made  that  perhaps  it  would  be  possible  to  obtain  this  data  for  lake   sturgeon  since  the  catches  were  reported  by  weight.  It  was  also  noted  that  unit  of   effort  would  also  have  to  be  included  with  this  information       A  participant  asked  if  it  would  be  possible  to  compare  the  monitoring  work  done  in   Thunder  Bay  to  that  in  other  AOCs.  E.  Berglund  replied  that  it  would  be  difficult  to   compare  Thunder  Bay  monitoring  data  to  data  for  Nipigon  Bay,  as  Nipigon  Bay  has   no  commercial  fishery.  He  also  noted  that  these  are  two  very  different  fisheries  so   the  data  would  not  be  that  comparable,  although  it  would  provide  a  relative  idea  of   the  health  of  a  population.       J.  Hall-­‐Armstrong  asked  if  community  index  netting  was  continuing.  E.  Berglund   responded  that  it  was.     -­‐  4  -­‐       R.  Stewart  asked  how  it  might  be  possible  to  achieve  a  three-­‐year  record  of  a   population’s  health  given  an  eight-­‐year  data  set.  He  also  asked  about  the  possibility   of  electrofishing  within  the  harbour.  He  said  the  Community  Index  Netting  work  E.   Berglund  presented  focuses  more  on  the  health  of  fish  populations  in  the  open   waters  of  Lake  Superior,  whereas  the  RAP  was  more  concerned  with  inshore  waters   (inside  the  breakwall)  which  are  more  heavily  impacted  by  urban  development,   stormwater  impacts,  pollution  and  loss  of  habitat.       SLATE  RIVER  PROJECT  AND  WETLANDS  EVALUATION   Gene  Kent,  Lakehead  Region  Conservation  Authority  (LRCA)     G.  Kent  presented  on  a  number  of  stewardship  projects  that  the  LRCA  had   completed  in  2016.    The  first  project  that  he  discussed,  funded  through  the  Great   Lakes  Guardian  Community  Fund,  dealt  with  high  water  levels  at  the  Mission  Island   Marsh  Conservation  Area.  There  were  a  number  of  erosion  issues  along  the   shoreline  trail  so  it  was  moved.  A  number  of  plantings  were  completed  with  the  help   of  students  from  Sir  Winston  Churchill  CVI,  MNRF  summer  student  workers  and   staff  of  the  LRCA.  He  said  they  also  planted  a  number  of  large  trees;  put  down   erosion  control  logs,  as  well  as  restricting  access,  which  has  improved  the  trail.       G.  Kent  also  presented  about  a  project  in  the  Slate  River  area  at  the  Otter  Creek   Farm  cattle  crossing.  Satellite  and  aerial  imagery  showed  erosion  and  nutrient   runoff  were  impacting  a  number  of  sites  in  the  Slate  River  watershed.  Fifteen   potential  sites  were  identified  as  being  in  need  of  remediation,  with  the  highest   priority  site  being  identified  as  the  Otter  Creek  farm,  due  to  the  severely  eroding   banks  and  the  unrestricted  cattle  access.  G.  Kent  also  noted  that  there  is  potential   for  a  number  of  partnerships  between  the  LRCA,  the  North  Shore  Steelhead   Association,  and  the  Thunder  Bay  Soil  and  Crop  Improvement  Association.  He  also   mentioned  that  they  are  actively  looking  for  volunteers  to  assist  with  the  plantings.       G.  Kent  also  presented  on  the  Wetland  Evaluation  of  the  McVicar  Creek  watershed,   noting  that  it  had  now  been  classified  as  a  Provincially  Significant  Wetland.  He  also   mentioned  that  an  evaluation  of  the  McIntyre  River  watershed  was  in  process   (hoping  to  be  completed  by  late-­‐Fall  2016)  and  that  the  LRCA  hoped  to  continue   evaluating  additional  potential  wetlands.  He  concluded  by  saying  that  provincially   significant  wetlands  are  often  a  complex  of  nearby,  inter-­‐related  wetlands  and  that   the  McVicar  Creek  watershed  was  deemed  significant  because  of  the   interconnectedness  of  the  overall  complex.     The  full  presentation  by  G.  Kent  is  available  here.     G.  Kent  opened  the  floor  to  questions  and  comments.       F.  Edgson  asked  a  question  about  fisheries  data  and  whether  or  not  the  LRCA   collected  any  electrofishing  data.  G.  Kent  noted  that  he  had  not  been  able  to  get  any     -­‐  5  -­‐     counts  done  but  that  it  would  be  something  useful  to  include  in  future  projects.  He   also  mentioned  that  stream  assessments  done  east  of  Thunder  Bay  would  likely   have  fewer  impediments  to  fish  movement  than  those  around  the  Slate  River.  He   said  the  area  of  the  Slate  River  valley  is  more  built  up  and  that  the  river  contained   many  rock  dams  and  obstacles.       A  meeting  participant  asked  about  the  land  evaluation  number.  G.  Kent  answered   that  the  number  was  somewhere  around  650.     R.  Stewart  commented  on  the  erosion  protection  work  done  by  the  LRCA  at  Mission   Island.    He  said  that  along  with  wave  action,  ice  action  is  also  a  significant  erosional   force.  G.  Kent  replied  that  the  LRCA  fully  expected  the  coconut  fibre  barriers  to  be   broken  up  by  the  ice,  but  that  the  idea  was  to  give  plantings  a  chance  to  start.  R.   Stewart  mentioned  that  in  the  United  States,  they  use  pointed  concrete  barriers  that   break  up  and  help  diminish  the  impacts  of  ice.       STATUS  OF  BENEFICIAL  USE  IMPAIRMENTS  (BUI)  AND  REDESIGNATION     J.  Bailey  provided  an  update  on  the  status  of  4  BUIs  pending  redesignation.       • Fish  tumours  –  M.  McMaster  of  ECCC  presented  information  to  the  PAC   on  current  status  at  the  previous  meeting  (June  1,  2016).  The  PAC   supported  redesignation  in  principle  but  will  make  a  formal  decision  on   redesignation  after  receiving  the  written  report  from  ECCC.     • Plankton  –  Tara  George  of  the  Ontario  Ministry  of  the  Environment  and   Climate  Change  (MOECC)  presented  information  to  the  PAC  at  their   January  20,  2016  meeting.  The  PAC  supported  redesignation  to  “not   impaired”  and  RAP  government  agencies  are  moving  this  BUI  through  the   process  of  redesignation.     • Bird  and  animal  deformities  –  Doug  Crump  of  ECCC  presented   information  to  the  PAC  at  their  March  23rd,  2016  meeting.  The  PAC   supported  redesignation  in  principle  but  a  more  formal  decision  on   redesignation  will  be  made  after  receiving  the  written  report  from  ECCC.     • Aesthetics  (i.e.  slicks,  scums,  odors  on  harbour  waters)  –  Lakehead   University  undertook  work  to  better  quantify  aesthetic  conditions  across   the  harbour  and  in  the  lower  Kaministiquia  River.  R.  Stewart  noted  that   the  MISA  requirements  introduced  in  the  1990s  removed  many  of  the   persistent  problems.  He  further  mentioned  that  conversations  with  the   Thunder  Bay  Yacht  Club  and  the  Thunder  Bay  Rowing  Club  both  confirm   that  these  issues  are  no  longer  a  significant  issue.  When  the  suggestion  to   redesignate  aesthetics  was  offered  to  ECCC,  it  was  suggested  that  more   quantifiable  data  be  collected.  Sixteen  weeks  over  the  later  part  of     -­‐  6  -­‐     summer  2016  were  used  to  evaluate  aesthetics  and  to  provide  additional   data.  R.  Stewart  mentioned  that  there  were  some  isolated  events  which   still  do  occur;  however,  for  the  most  part  the  primary  issues  regarding   aesthetics  are  from  stormwater  inputs  after  major  rain  events  –   something  which  was  not  part  of  the  original  RAP  process.    R.  Stewart   pointed  out  that  the  PAC  has  already  formalized  support  for   redesignating  this  BUI  to  “not  impaired.”       Other  Beneficial  Use  Impairments/Next  Steps:     • Fish  populations  –  A  presentation  by  Eric  Berglund  of  the  Ontario   Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  and  Forestry  was  presented  at  the  current   meeting.  The  PAC  made  no  recommendation  about  redesignating  this  BUI   at  the  current  meeting.   • Beach  Advisories  (i.e.,  swimming  advisories)  –  The  City  will  not  carry  out   any  work  to  correct  the  situation  with  respect  to  bacterial  contamination   at  either  Chippewa  or  Boulevard  beaches  until  individual  master  plans   are  in  place  for  each  of  the  parks.       • Degradation  of  Benthos  –  T.  George  pointed  out  that  the  sediment   projects  relating  to  this  BUI  were  divided  into  three  separate  areas,  which   were  Kaministiquia  River,  NOWPARC,  and  the  North  Harbour.  She   mentioned  that  the  Kaministiquia  River  study  would  hopefully  be   completed  in  summer  2017.  She  also  mentioned  that  NOWPARC  had  just   finished  its  10-­‐year  long-­‐term  monitoring  and  a  report  would  be   forthcoming.       • Restrictions  on  Dredging  –  ECCC  is  producing  a  report  that  will  provide   rationale  as  to  what  should  be  done  with  the  restrictions  on  dredging  BUI.   J.  Bailey  noted  that  the  material  from  navigational  dredging  historically   was  dumped  in  the  open  waters  of  Lake  Superior.  He  noted  that  this   practice  had  been  discontinued.       J.  Bailey  asked  those  present  for  suggestions  as  to  what  BUIs  should  be  focused  on  at   future  meetings.  J.  Hall-­‐Armstrong  noted  that  benthos  had  a  number  of  reports   coming  forward  but  T.  George  commented  that  the  work  wouldn’t  be  completed   until  2017.  J.  Bailey  mentioned  that  there  was  talk  of  having  someone  speak  on  the   Hamilton  Harbour  situation  at  a  future  meeting.  B.  Pritchard  mentioned  that  this   might  be  a  good  idea.  F.  Edgson  seconded  the  idea.  R.  Stewart  also  noted  that  the   RAP  office  would  be  meeting  in  Marathon  about  Peninsula  Harbour  in  October  so   the  status  of  the  sediment  cap  could  be  presented  at  a  future  meeting.  He  also   mentioned  that  there  should  be  another  year  of  beach  data  as  well  from  the   Thunder  Bay  District  Health  Unit.  B.  Pritchard  wondered  if  there  was  interest  in   touring  the  City’s  water  treatment  facilities  in  the  New  Year.         -­‐  7  -­‐     ACTION  ITEM  #1  OF  SEPTEMBER  21ST/2016:  J.  Bailey  to  contact  Hamilton   Harbour  RAP  about  the  possibility  of  having  a  presentation  about  the  “Randle  Reef”   harbour  cleanup  project.     ACTION  ITEM  #2  OF  SEPTEMBER  21ST/2016:  J.  Bailey  to  contact  the  City  of   Thunder  Bay  to  see  if  they  are  offering  tours  of  the  Atlantic  Avenue  Water  Pollution   Control  Plant.         NORTH  HARBOUR  UPDATE     J.  Hall-­‐Armstrong  noted  that  there  was  no  update  on  North  Harbour  and  that  there   had  not  been  a  response  to  a  previous  letter  to  the  Port  Authority.  She  asked  those   present  what  the  PAC’s  action  should  be.    B.  Pritchard  suggested  that  a  follow-­‐up   letter  to  the  manager  of  the  Port  Authority  be  written.  J.  Hall-­‐Armstrong  suggested   that  MPs,  MPPs,  Thunder  Bay  city  council  members,  federal  ministers  of  both   Environment  and  Climate  Change  Canada  and  Transport  Canada,  as  well  as  the  local   daily  newspaper  be  copied.       ACTION  ITEM  #3  OF  SEPTEMBER  21ST/2016:  J.  Bailey  to  draft  a  follow-­‐up  letter   to  the  Port  Authority  asking  for  clarification  of  their  intended  actions  re  North   Harbour  cleanup.       LAKEHEAD  UNIVERSITY  UPDATE     J.  Bailey  provided  an  update  on  the  activities  of  the  RAP  office.       • Nipigon  Bay  –  design  and  engineering  is  underway  for  a  new  secondary   treatment  plant  in  the  town  of  Red  Rock.  All  actions  to  address  BUIs  within   the  AOC  have  been  completed.     • Jackfish  Bay  –  a  meeting  on  October  19th  in  Terrace  Bay  will  provide  an   update  on  environmental  monitoring  completed  since  this  AOC  was   redesignated  as  an  Area  of  Concern  in  Recovery  in  2011.       • Peninsula  Harbour  –  The  results  of  environmental  monitoring  for  the  thin-­‐ layer  remediation  cap  will  be  presented  on  October  19th.   • Other  Summer  Activities  –  J.  Bailey  showed  those  present  the  PEERS   newsletter  that  has  been  sent  out  regularly  throughout  the  summer.  He  said   the  newsletter  contained  information  about  Lake  Superior  RAPs  as  well  as   other  information  about  Lake  Superior.  He  also  showed  some  photographs  of   a  RAP  kayak  tour  that  took  place  on  the  lower  Kaministiquia  River  in  August.       R.  Stewart  also  mentioned  that  there  would  be  a  tree  planting  event  happening  at   McVicar  Creek  near  Madeline  Street  on  September  29  at  5  pm.  He  said  the  goals  of   this  project  included  managing  stormwater,  something  supported  by  the  PAC  and   other  stakeholders.         -­‐  8  -­‐       F.  Edgson  stated  that  there  would  be  a  shoreline  cleanup  sponsored  by  the   EcoDivers  and  EcoSuperior  at  the  mouth  of  the  Current  River  that  would  take  place   on  September  24th.     ADOURNMENT     J.  Hall-­‐Armstrong  adjourned  the  meeting  at  9:05pm.  Next  meeting  is  scheduled  for   November  30th,  2016.         -­‐  9  -­‐