THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (RAP) Public Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting February 8, 2017 – 7 p.m. ATAC Room 3004 Lakehead University, Thunder Bay ON ATTENDANCE Jim Bailey – Lakehead University (LU) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Marilee Chase – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Gary Davies – Nature Conservancy of Canada Frank Edgson – Thunder Bay Public Advisory Committee (PAC), Co-chair Zhenyu Guo – LU Student Jean Hall-Armstrong – Thunder Bay PAC, Co-chair Gerry Heinrichs – Richardson International, Inc. Rick Kiriluk – Environment and Climate Change Canada (online) Brant Muir – LU Student Samuel Pegg – LU RAP Office Kathy Sakamoto – Thunder Bay PAC Mark Serediak – Thunder Bay PAC Bill Skrepichuk – Public Rob Stewart – Lakehead University – Geography and the Environment Carrie Strangway - Public Theresa Strangway – Public Brent Straughan – LU Student Bruce Thacker – Thunder Bay Field Naturalists Michelle Willows - Public Nathan Wilson – LU Graduate Student Carolyn Verhoeven – Thunder Bay Field Naturalists Jack Verhoeven – Thunder Bay Field Naturalists - 1 - INTRODUCTIONS J. Hall-Armstrong called the meeting to order and asked attendees to introduce themselves. REVIEW OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016 Meeting minutes of the November 30th, 2016 PAC meeting were reviewed. No errors or omissions were noted. THUNDER BAY FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT IMPAIRMENT Jim Bailey, Remedial Action Plan Office – Lakehead University J. Bailey provided a brief overview of some of the historic habitat impairments for fish and wildlife throughout the Thunder Bay AOC. He also highlighted some of the projects that have been completed over the years and those actions that still need to be completed. J. Bailey included the delisting criteria for fish and wildlife habitat for reference. J. Bailey noted that fish habitat research suggests the harbor is sufficient for moderate to high species diversity and low to moderate abundance. Wildlife habitat research suggests that there is more green space on the Thunder Bay waterfront than in previous decades. J. Bailey also noted that the habitat guidelines laid out in the ECCC publication, “How Much Habitat is Enough?”, were developed for the lower Great Lakes utilizing songbird species native to the lower lakes. He said that further data collection referring to multiple species, parameters and locations was probably needed to make strong conclusions about the status of wildlife habitat in the Thunder Bay Area of Concern. Slides from J. Bailey’s presentation including the delisting criteria can be accessed here. PRESENTATION – HARBOUR SUBSTRATE MAPPING Rick Kiriluk, Environment and Climate Change Canada Rick Kirilik gave a presentation, utilizing data and information provided by Johann (Hans) Biberhofer,, also of ECCC, on submerged substrate mapping of the Thunder Bay harbor and adjacent areas. He noted that most substrate in the harbor is finegrain (soft) sediment with low-profile well-defined “waves” in the substrate or sand. Slides from R. Kiriluk’s presentation can be accessed here. Following his presentation, R. Kiriluk opened the floor for questions and/or comments. F. Edgson asked why Thunder Bay North Harbor was not included in the substrate mapping. R. Kiriluk said he believed that for the most part Han’s work was tight with the shoreline; but he agreed that there was a distinct area of the harbor that was not included in the survey. - 2 - ACTION ITEM: R. Kiriluk mentioned that he would follow up with Hans as to why the mercury-contaminated area of sediment was not surveyed. J. Bailey to report back to the PAC the reasoning. J. Hall-Armstrong asked if the substrate data would be used to determine fish habitat. R. Kiriluk replied that using the substrate data, as well as the bathymetry data, it is possible to determine which species tend to frequent a given area and during which portion of their life cycle. He noted this work is part of a project through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to classify habitat. J. HallArmstrong also asked if this work was similar to work done in the Saint Marys River. R. Kiriluk responded that he was not sure if habitat classification had been completed there, but he believed the substrate had been mapped there. R. Stewart asked how much potential habitat could not be mapped along the shoreline because water was not deep enough for the boat carrying out the substrate mapping. R. Kiriluk said he would check on this question. ACTION ITEM: R. Kiriluk to ask Hans about the lack of data near the shoreline and what habitat information might be lost because of this. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT IMPAIRMENT – NEXT STEPS Dr. Rob Stewart, Lakehead University R. Stewart said determination was necessary to ensure all habitat actions laid out in the RAP Stage 2 document had been completed and monitored for success, improvement, or otherwise. He said the PAC could engage in additional habitat projects, whether wetland protection or rehabilitation, riparian zone and shoreline work or encouraging waterfront development to protect or enhance habitat. He noted that addressing habitat impairment might requires more than just checking off criteria, rather showing meaningful action to create additional habitat or improve existing habitat. He asked the PAC for input as to whether habitat actions completed to date were sufficient or whether additional work should be considered. J. Hall-Armstrong asked who created habitat guidelines for Great Lakes Areas of Concerm. R. Stewart responded that ECCC had authored the document “How Much Habitat is Enough?”. J. Hall-Armstrong asked about increased waterfront green space. She said she wondered if it is a primarily on private land or not. She said that if this increased green space was on private land, due to an increase in derelict industrial facilities, there was no guarantee these areas would remain “green”. R. Stewart said most of this increased green cover is indeed on private land. With respect to wetlands, he noted that the Conservation Authority had asked Northern Bioscience to prepare a report on the McVicar watershed to classify “Provincially Significant” wetlands for protection regardless of whether they are private or not. R. Stewart contended that simply protecting habitat could become a PAC habitat priority going forward. He - 3 - also noted that stormwater protection had been a focus within the city in the past few years. A member of the Thunder Bay Field Naturalists asked if there had been any discussion with the Port Authority whether they could assist. He also asked about the City, suggesting the possibility of tax easement for land purchased for environmental purposes. R. Stewart noted that the Port Authority works with industries along the waterfront who are all private property owners. K. Sakamoto commented that there is a great deal of “hardened shoreline” (steel sheet piling or cement retaining walls) around the Thunder Bay waterfront. She also noted that there was substantial substrate mapping of the North Harbor area conducted under a different study and that this is why it was not surveyed by Hans Bieberhofer. She suggested that since the North Harbor is out of the way of most shipping it might be possible to create artificial islands or some other form of habitat following the cleanup of mercury contamination. J. Hall-Armstrong noted that some of the projects already completed (described by J. Bailey earlier in the meeting) were not well monitored. J. Hall-Armstrong highlighted a pond located north of the fish fingers with access from the marina. She said the pond provides fish and wildlife habitat, but does not have good exchange with the lake due to a culvert which is too highly placed for this purpose. R. Stewart noted that the whole area around the pond, “fish fingers” and Pool 6 is part of a greater historic wetland area that had at one time also contained submerged vegetation. ACTION: Approach the City to ask about the status of the Pool 6 development project. F. Edgson mentioned improvements to the fish ladder at Boulevard Lake as being a potential project. He said that if fish passage could be improved, there was a vast amount of fish habitat within the Current River watershed. He noted that the manually operated gates could be replaced by more efficient electronic or hydraulically-operated ones. In addition, he mentioned that the water intake for hydro-electric power generation is located close to the fish ladder with what is believed to be an improper screen. He said this meant there is nothing to prevent fish migrating downstream from being eviscerated. F. Edgson noted that this would be a politically charged project, but that the Current River should be a key fishery. THUNDER BAY NORTH HARBOUR CONTAMINATION – NEXT STEPS Jim Bailey, Remedial Action Plan Office – Lakehead University - 4 - J. Bailey provided an overview regarding North Harbour sediment contamination. R. Stewart also mentioned some of the engagement actions that had been completed recently, specifically a meeting with the Thunder Bay Port Authority. J. Bailey also mentioned that while there are many lessons that can be learned from the sediment contamination in Randle Reef (Hamilton, ON) there are also some key differences. He said that one difference is that the Hamilton Port Authority owns most of the waterfront property there and collects fees from industry for use of this land. He said this meant the Hamilton Port Authority had much more money than the Thunder Bay Port Authority. A question was rasied as to who owns the mill property adjacent to the North Harbour site. J. Bailey responded that the mill is owned by a salvage operator. K. Sakamoto mentioned that there should be public access to the area once remediation is completed, as well as the inclusion of habitat features. She said discussion about what level of access will be provided is necessary, as it informs potential options. J. Hall-Armstrong mentioned that several studies have been completed and remediation options presented to the public but that, a timeline for remediation work has not been laid out. She said there has been little communication with the PAC about what will be done to address the North Harbour situation. R. Stewart said he felt ECCC had proceeded as far as possible and that it was up to the Port Authority and the Minister of Transportation to start to put together a solution. He said that, as in the case of Hamilton Harbour, the City of Thunder Bay should also support cleanup, having benefited from tax payments from the mill for decades and decades. J. Hall-Armstrong mentioned that there is concern that responsibility is being passed from one group to another. R. Stewart noted that North Harbour c (along with NOWPARC and the mouth of the Kaministiquia River) were three sites specifically mentioned in the Stage 2 Report which needed to be addressed before delisting Thunder Bay as an Area of Concern. SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT – FISH POPULATIONS BUI Jim Bailey, Remedial Action Plan Office – Lakehead University J. Bailey reported that the sub-committee for the Fish Populations beneficial use impairment had met. He said they discussed a presentation to the PAC given by Eric Berglund at the June 2012 meeting (available here) which contended that the delisting criteria for degradation of fish populations had been met. - 5 - The sub-committee also discussed the overall health of the fish community in the Thunder Bay Area of Concern. The resolution of the sub-committee was that the delisting criteria for degradation of fish populations had been met. K. Sakamoto added that lake trout and whitefish were deeper water species and were well studied. She said it should be noted that nearshore species were not included within the criteria. Meeting participants agreed with the sub-committee determination that delisting criteria for degradation of fish populations had been met and that related concerns were not sufficient to hold up the process. LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY UPDATE Dr. Rob Stewart, Lakehead University R. Stewart mentioned that a seminar highlighting the stream inventory work conducted over the summer would be held on February 13, 2017 at Lakehead University (RC-2003) from 10am-1pm. R. Stewart also mentioned the aesthetics work that was conducted over the summer. He said this project consisted of an extensive suite of visual inspections of the harbour over 16 weeks, looking for slicks, scums, and other odours. He noted concerns such as shoreline garbage and stormwater runoff but no evidence of aesthetic issues seen in the past. R. Stewart noted that they anecdotal information about occasional foams on the Kaministiquia River. He said the research team also observed some fibers near the municipal wastewater treatment plant outfall; however, these fibers were also observed following a rain event and are not thought to be a regular occurrence. J. Bailey provided the PAC with an update of the outreach activities noting the success of the email newsletter, newspaper and other media coverage, and the Infosuperior website. He also mentioned that the number of unique visitors to the website has increased substantially. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:59pm. Next meeting is scheduled for April 12th, 2017. - 6 -