DRAFT Degradation of Aesthetics 2015 Pilot Survey and Protocol Development for Future Monitoring Thunder Bay Area of Concern Prepared by: Dr. Robert Stewart Associate Professor, Lakehead University March 2016 Table of Contents Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Degradation of Aesthetics in the Thunder Bay AOC .................................................................................................................. 3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Survey Study Area ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Sampling Procedure .................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Determining the Index Value and Range ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Results .............................................................................................................................................. 14 AREA 1 - Kaministiquia River at the Resolute Outfall ............................................................................................................ 17 AREA 2 - Kaministiquia River near the Thunder Bay Rowing Club ................................................................................. 19 AREA 3 - Thunder Bay Harbour South within the Breakwall .............................................................................................. 20 AREA 4 - Thunder Bay Harbour Offshore of the Northern Wood facility ...................................................................... 22 AREA 5 - Thunder Bay Harbour North offshore the former Cascades Mill ................................................................. 23 Protocol Recommendations for 2016 Field Survey ................................................................... 25 Budgetary Implications of Full 2016 Survey ................................................................................................................................... 26 Water Quality Desk Audit for the Thunder Bay AOC ................................................................. 27 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 30 References: ...................................................................................................................................... 31 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix A - Aesthetics Monitoring Data Sheet ......................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix B - Aesthetics Monitoring Photo Log ........................................................................................................................... 33 Appendix C – Sampling Safety Requirements ............................................................................................................................ 34 Appendix D – Detailed Aesthetic Site Descriptions and Field Notes .............................................................................. 35 Appendix E – Sampling Site Limitations for Consideration in 2016 Survey ................................................................ 46 Overview The purpose of this report is to provide the results of a pilot project to assess the Aesthetics of the Thunder Bay Area of Concern and to recommend a sampling protocol to be implemented in 2016-17. The focus and site locations for the study were developed using the original locations of Aesthetics impairment determined in the original Stage 1 report on Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition in the Thunder Bay AOC (Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan, 1991), and builds off of a one-time, qualitative survey and assessment of Aesthetics completed in 2012 by the Lakehead University Remedial Action Plan Office and the members of the Public Advisory Committee (Bailey and Stewart, 2013). This report builds on the 2012 survey and uses a standardized methodology and weighting criteria to provide a more objective assessment. The methodology is adapted from the Aesthetic Index develop by Heidtke and Tauriainen in 1996, that was successfully employed for the Rouge, St. Clair and St. Marys Rivers (Carroll and Strang, 2014; Riley, 2012). This report outlines how the Aesthetic Index was adapted to the geographic context of the Thunder Bay Area of Concern, and from here forth, will be named the Thunder Bay Aesthetic Index (TBAI). The results demonstrate how the TBAI can be used to provide an overall numeric value assigned for a given date/location after visually quantifying clarity, colour, odour, visual debris, and the report provides a full sampling protocol and recommendations to be employed in the ice-free months of 2016-17. Although the results of this and the 2012 survey continue to show that the aesthetic conditions in the Thunder Bay Area of Concern continue to meet the delisting criteria, it is recommended that the protocol is adopted to ensure that consistent and weekly observations are made as a form of quality assurance. The protocol was developed to provide a standardized and consistent method of observation and adopts the precautionary principle to reduce any over reliance on subjectivity. The precautionary principle requires that, when the observer sees evidence that a parameter may very well fall into one of two similar categories, and subjectivity is required to make the close judgment, that the category with the lower weight is chosen to reduce subjectivity. For example, the colour of a water sample may appear greyish, or blackish. In such a case, the index value for black would be chosen, rather than gray, to ensure that the observer is precautionary in their subjective judgments. This level of subjectivity is rare, however and should not affect the overall ranking of the conditions, simply reduce subjectivity at its extreme. Degradation of Aesthetics in the Thunder Bay AOC The 1991 "Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan Stage 1: Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition" report addresses aesthetics as following (p. 36, 5.11): Degradation of Aesthetics: Impaired Degraded water quality has impaired river and harbour front aesthetics, thereby affecting recreational use of associated lands and water resources. Abandoned buildings and pilings are an eyesore in many areas. Thunder Bay harbour water is not as aesthetically pleasing as that outside the breakwater. This impairment is the result of such factors as harbour water not mixing well with the lake water, and commercial vessel traffic inside the breakwall causing increased turbidity. Also, the “Water Quality” section of the Stage 1 report notes that (p.13): The most degraded area is the lower Kaministiquia River, with a zone of influence that radiates out from its delta.” Additional Aesthetics information is included in the 2004 "Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan Stage 2: Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration" report which states that (p. 18, 3.1.10): 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 within the AOC. Additionally, the Stage 2 report, section 3.2, "Water Use Goals," under the title "General," notes that (p. 21, item 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. BUI Delisting Criteria The "Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan Update 2009 - 2012" lists the Delisting Criteria for aesthetics as follows (p. 20): This beneficial use will no longer be impaired when the waters are devoid of any substance which produces a persistent objectionable deposit, unnatural colour or turbidity, or unnatural odour (e.g. oil slick, surface scum).” Methodology Survey Study Area The pilot project occurred weekly across the Thunder Bay AOC between October 14 to November 14, 2015. Five Areas identified in the Stage 1 report as being particularly poor were chosen for this pilot study. Within each location, three to nine sample sites were chosen based on the geography of each (Figure 1): AREA 1 - Kaministiquia River at the Resolute outfall AREA 2 - Kaministiquia River near the Thunder Bay Rowing Club AREA 3 - Thunder Bay Harbour South within the breakwall AREA 4 - Thunder Bay Harbour Offshore of the former Northern Wood facility AREA 5 - Thunder Bay Harbour North offshore the former Cascades Mill 4 Figure 1: Aesthetics Survey 2015 Sample Sites for the Thunder Bay AOC Figure 1 shows the extent of the Thunder Bay AOC and the five areas chosen for the 2012 Aesthetic Survey and the 2015 Thunder Bay Aesthetic Index pilot project. These areas are confirmed to be the most relevant areas of the AOC to show aesthetic impairment, and should be used in the full 2016 survey during ice-free months (6 months from May through October). Areas 1 and 2 (Figures 2 and 3) are located upstream of the Kaministiquia River and are locations that continue to show the mainly industrially development areas along the river. Area 1 is in the ‘basin’ of the Resolute Mill and required 5 sampling sites to fully capture the features of the area. The area was traditionally a turn-around area for large ships and is also the location of the Resolute Mill effluent outfall, and Mosquito Creek output. The basin is a human-made area of (often) calm waters compared to the natural river flow, and the basin morphology can cause effluent and other surface debris to accumulate in the eddies that form in the basin. 5 Figure 2: AREA 1 - Kaministiquia River at the Resolute outfall Area 2 is strategically located near the launch docks provided by the Thunder Bay Rowing Club, and required 4 sites to capture the area of confluence between the Kaministiquia, McKellar and Mission Rivers. This is an area of intense industrial activity that represents the mid-way point of cumulative effluent in the AOC portion of the Kaministiquia River as it meets recreational uses of the river. For example, the area encompasses the site of the former Ogilvie Flour Mill, Suncor Energy Petroleum Bulk Station, the Thunder Bay Co-Generation Plant and an auto wrecking yard located on the southern banks of the Kaministiquia River (to name a few). It is also the location of a Yacht Club boat launch located up the McKellar River, and together with the Thunder Bay Rowing Club and Riverwalk path to the James Whalen Historic Tug Boat, provides an area of recreational activities on the Kaministiquia River. 6 Figure 3: AREA 2 - Kaministiquia River near the Thunder Bay Rowing Club Area 3 in Figure 4 on the following page shows the nine sampling locations at the Thunder Bay South Harbour, near the mouth of the Kaministiquia River. The location of the harbor breakwall has the potential to trap cumulative industrial effluent exiting the Kaministiquia River and effluent released from the Thunder Bay Secondary Sewage Treatment Plant (sewage outfall located on the north side of the river just 100 meters to the east of the transportation bridge spanning the Kaministiquia River in Figure 4). As can be seen in Figure 4, the turbid and high sediment load of the Kaministiquia River is evident as a brown hue that (particularly during high rain events) can affect the water clarity and colour of the Lake water in the inner harbor. Area 3 also captures outflows from the urbanized Neebing/McIntyre Floodway that exits into the inner harbor near an area of both naturalized and industrial activity. Figure 5 on the following page shows the 3 sampling locations of Area 4, located offshore of the Northern Wood Facility. This site was the location of a creosote ‘blob’ that was remediated as part of the Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan (RAP) in 2004 under the Northern Wood Preserve Alternative Remediation Concept (NOWPARC). The site was chosen as an historic site of contamination but also because it still maintains both heavy industrial shorelines and remediated/naturalized shorelines as a result of the RAP program. 7 Figure 4: AREA 3 - Thunder Bay Harbour South within the Breakwall Figure 5: AREA 4 - Thunder Bay Harbour Offshore Northern Wood Facility 8 Figure 6: AREA 5 - Thunder Bay Harbour north offshore of the former Cascades Mill Finally, Area 5 in Figure 6 (above) captures aesthetic conditions at the North end of the Harbour breakwall. This Area required 7 sample locations to capture the potential impacts caused by the outflow of the Current River that discharges water from the man-made Boulevard Lake through the newly remediated Fisherman’s Park. The remainder of the sites attempt to capture areas near the breakwall where debris and effluent can accumulate, and also captures locations near the Cascades Mill, where sediment remediation efforts are currently ongoing to address the approximately 300,000 metric tons of mercury/pulp/sediment contamination on the lake bottom. Sampling Procedure Appendix A provides the fieldsheets used to capture the four parameters and conditions set forth in the Aesthetic protocol developed for the TBAI (adapted from Heidtke and Tauriainen, 1996). The forms were adapted for the Thunder Bay geographic context, as the methodology provided by Heidtke and Taurianen (1996) uses hypothetical figures in their index weights for each parameter, which was based on the Rouge River and the occurrence of human waste and intensive watershed pollution. In the Thunder Bay Context, the lake and waterfront environments present clarity and colour characteristics that do not match the conditions in the Rouge River. Furthermore, the pollution issues in the Rouge are different from those identified in the Thunder Bay AOC, and the Index values and weights for each parameter were modified to better reflect the delisting criteria primarily, and the natural and point source causes of the aesthetics quality secondly. 9 These sheets are to be filled out upon visual examination of aesthetic conditions at each location, and require a thorough review of the existing photo database before new or multiple observers are relied upon in the sampling. Reviewing the database, as a beginner or as a multiple user, will ensure that an accurate index value can be assigned in the field, based on standard observations made by previous observers. This will improve consistency and reduce the amount of subjective error that is common in value-based, multiple observer monitoring. Appendix B provides the fieldsheets used to characterize and catalogue the weekly photos (as necessary) for documenting aesthetic conditions at each location and for input into the GIS database. Photos taken were labeled according to location, and uploaded for storage in a digital database. Wherever there was uncertainty by the observer, photos of the samples (Figure 7) could be used in the field to compare against current observations. Figure 7: Water collection and Observation Technique The sampling procedure entailed a basic water quality approach that involved collecting water samples primarily for visual inspection. This was achieved by filling three 500ml water sampling bottles just below the surface and upstream of the current at the location to avoid any debris from the boat contaminating the sample. If conditions were not concerning (i.e. clear, odorless etc.) the samples were simply placed against a white back board in the boat to determine clarity, colour and any debris in the sample (Figure 7 and see next section: Determining Index Value and Range). If any odour, or issues with clarity and colour were of concern, the water sample was brought back to the Lakehead University Environmental Lab for analysis and comparison to the existing database and previously weighted index values. To date, not one sample has required such detailed analysis as observers were confident to provide index values in the field. Although the 2012 survey used a large lake-going craft, it was determined that the use of such a craft was not effective from a resource or efficiency/effectiveness standpoint. The large boat was expensive to utilize for an entire day of sampling, required a certified master seaman, and would be required weekly even when water conditions were too rough to be on the water. As well, areas where debris and industrial ruins exist are not accessible by large craft, therefore limiting observation of where unsightly build-up would most likely be located. The wake of a large or small craft often disturbed areas where aesthetic conditions were 10 potentially poor and the use of gas motors and outputs into the water simply added to the complexity and subjective nature of the sampling procedure. The decision to use kayaks for the sampling protocol was not only more effective from a data collection standpoint, but allowed for a continual monitoring of undisturbed conditions. Launch sites throughout the AOC allowed for the Kayak to be easily deployed near 2 Areas at a time, and the observer was much more connected to the continuous patterns of conditions between Areas. Finally, the Kayak did not require more time as it was easily deployable and traveled at the same speed and in the same conditions as a motorboat within the harbour. It was quiet so as to not disturb conditions or wildlife and allowed for a close proximity to the shore and for the observer to collect samples. The use of a kayak, however, does require a unique set of safety qualifications and requirements, and these are outlined in Appendix C – Sampling Safety Requirements. Appendix D provides the detailed field notes taken at each area during the 2015 pilot study. The exact location of the sample, parameters of concern, and detailed notes are all critical to contextualize and provide quality assurance to the subjective nature of the observations. Although the amount of raw photos for the sampling will need to be housed on a central computer, it will be accessible through the Lakehead University RAP office. The ‘Thunder Bay Harbour Aesthetics Database will provide a georeferenced and cross-linked source of information for field notes, site locations and photos. The database provides easy access to for observers to review before collecting observations in the field. The purpose is to reduce the discrepancies between different index values that may be assigned to similar conditions (quality assurance to reduce human error). The Thunder Bay Harbour Aesthetics Database also allows a consistent comparison of conditions sampled for PAC and stakeholders who are involved in weighting parameters, or applying the delisting criteria for the Aesthetics BUI (see next section). Determining the Index Value and Range Table 1 shows the Index Values used for the Thunder Bay Aesthetic Index (TBAI) based on the Rouge River Aesthetic Index (Heidtke and Tauriainen in 1996). Values of 10 are given for each parameter and descriptor if the sample is considered excellent, whereas a value of 0 would be Poor, or the lowest quality desirable. The parameters, types of conditions and the weights for each parameter are the same used by Heidtke and Tauriainen (1996). However slight changes to the order and index value of conditions in the colour and debris category were made to the TBAI. These index values were adapted, as recommended by Heidtke and Tauriainen (1996), to best capture the environmental context and BUI conditions of the Thunder Bay Area of Concern. The Rouge River, for example, was affected by raw sewage that altered the clarity of the river and caused eutrophication resulting in green algae growth. The RRAI therefore structures the ‘Colour’ parameters to include observations of green (value of 7) and brown (value of 5) to represent these conditions. In the case of the Thunder Bay Harbour, eutrophication of waters has not been an observed or common condition. Furthermore, the Thunder Bay Harbour can 11 receive sediment load form tributaries following rainstorms and the spring freshet, resulting in a natural brown discolouration of the water. Because an observation of brown coloured water would not necessitate a negative condition it was given a higher index value of 8. Observing green coloration of the water would indicate an undesirable aesthetic condition and was therefore given an index value of 6. The other adaptation to the TBAI occurred in the Debris parameter. Whereas the RRAI considered the presence of trash (index value of 2) to be a more concerning condition than the presence of oil/film (index value of 3), the TBAI considered the presence of oil/film (index value of 2) to be of more concern than trash (index value of 6). This was based on the rationale that the aesthetics delisting criteria for Thunder Bay specifies sewage and anaerobic odors, as well as visible foam, sewage and oil of primary concerns. Furthermore, trash in the harbor was often an accumulation of debris floating in from the open lake and not necessarily an indication of debris from the AOC (unlike trash in the Rouge River resulting from point source pollution). These adaptations to the index values were developed with discussion with a small pilot sample of stakeholders including a representative from the Thunder Bay RAP office, Public Advisory Committee, The Thunder Bay Rowing Club, the Thunder Bay Yacht Club and the North Shore Steelhead Association. It should be noted that this small sample of stakeholders was used in this pilot study to verify the rationale for adapting the TBAI and to validate the details of each parameter according to the delisting criteria. Future development of these weights and values, and how they represent the delisting criteria for the Thunder Bay AOC, should be more fully discussed with the PAC during the 2016 sampling year. Ideally, a broad group of stakeholder interests should be represented in the initial rationale for the index values and the PAC should discuss the incoming data in relation to this rationale to reduce any subjectivity in the application of the overall Index Range (Table 2). 12 Table 1: The Thunder Bay Aesthetic Index Parameter Descriptor Index Value Clarity (Weight = 0.2) Clear Cloudy Opaque 10 7 0 Colour (Weight = 0.2) Clear Brown Green Gray Black 10 8 6 2 0 Odor (Weight = 0.3) None Musty Sewage Anaerobic 10 6 2 0 Debris (Weight = 0.3) None Natural Trash Oil/Film Sewage 10 8 6 2 0 Once the observer has provided a descriptor and Index Value for each sample site, each index value can be multiplied by the weight and totaled to provide a value out of 10 (10 being excellent conditions). This procedure can be done for one site, or as a composite index for each Area and for the entire AOC, as desired. When compared to Table 2 the TBAI can provide a condition from poor, fair, good or excellent. Table 2: Index Range for the Thunder Bay Aesthetic Index Aesthetic Condition Index Range Excellent Good Fair Poor TBAI ≥ 9 8 ≤ TBAI < 9 6 ≤ TBAI < 8 TBAI < 6 Table 2 uses the same Index Range as that of the Rouge River Aesthetic Index. The pilot group of stakeholders agreed that, according to the logic applied to understanding the values given in the TBAI index value (Table 1), that the Thunder Bay aesthetic results should maintain a good/excellent range for delisting to occur. However, a condition of excellent, good or fair would be sufficient to delist this BUI. Again, this subjective decision is justified using the 13 weight, Index Value and Index Range but should be verified and confirmed on an ongoing basis throughout the complete 2016 survey of stakeholders. Table 1 and 2 simply provides a logical baseline and descriptors of success to limit the subjectivity and improve the consistency of observations. Each survey and value should continue to undergo a conversation with stakeholders as to the natural/unnatural causes of reduced conditions, as well as valued expectations of how each survey compares to the original intent of the BUI designation. Any further parameters and conditions can be noted beyond the RAP program as a means of continually improving harbour aesthetics (i.e. trash is unsightly and requires continual efforts to reduce) but should not a limiting factor in determining if the status of the BUI meets the associated delisting criteria. Results Table 3 provides the results of the data collected for the four parameters (Clarity, Colour, Odour, Debris) from the four sample sites. Each sample site has four individual sampling days that occurred between October 14 and November 15, 2015. Columns three to six provide the individual index value for each parameter, based on the descriptor chosen for the site (see Table 1). Columns seven to ten provide the Index Value multiplied by the weight of the given parameter (see Table 1). The TBAI in column eleven then provides the total Aesthetic Index value for each sampling day, with column twelve listing the designated condition of that TBAI value (See Table 2). Below the table, the average TBAI and designated condition is provided for each site for the entire sampling period, and the overall TBAI in all sites in the AOC over the entire 1 month sampling period. Overall, the Thunder Bay Aesthetic Index uses a precautionary approach to ensure that all subjective observations of the parameters in each site are given the lower threshold of Index Values. Even with this precautionary approach, all sites receive the ‘Good’ Condition and the Thunder Bay AOC is given a rating of ‘Good’ for the entire AOC. This means that, if the 14 Table 3: Results of the 2015 Fall Pilot Thunder Bay Aesthetic Index Location Date Clarity Colour Odour Clarity (.2) Debris Colour (.2) Odour (.3) Debris (.3) TBAI (/10) Overall Condition Area 1 - Resolute Outfall 15-10-14 10 8 10 6 2 1.6 3 1.8 8.4 Good Area 1 - Resolute Outfall 15-10-30 10 8 10 6 2 1.6 3 1.8 8.4 Good Area 1 - Resolute Outfall 15-11-08 10 8 10 6 2 1.6 3 1.8 8.4 Good Area 1 - Resolute Outfall 15-11-14 10 8 10 6 2 1.6 3 1.8 8.4 Good Area 2 - Rowing Club 15-10-21 10 8 10 6 2 1.6 3 1.8 8.4 Good Area 2 - Rowing Club 15-10-31 10 8 10 6 2 1.6 3 1.8 8.4 Good Area 2 - Rowing Club 15-11-09 10 8 10 6 2 1.6 3 1.8 8.4 Good Area 2 - Rowing Club 15-11-14 10 8 10 6 2 1.6 3 1.8 8.4 Good Area 3 - South Harbour 15-10-18 10 8 10 6 2 1.6 3 1.8 8.4 Good Area 3 - South Harbour 15-10-26 10 10 10 6 2 2 3 1.8 8.8 Good Area 3 - South Harbour 15-11-08 10 8 10 6 2 1.6 3 1.8 8.4 Good Area 3 - South Harbour 15-11-15 10 8 10 6 2 1.6 3 1.8 8.4 Good Area 4 - Northern Wood Preservers 15-10-18 10 10 10 6 2 2 3 1.8 8.8 Good Area 4 - Northern Wood Preservers 15-10-30 10 10 10 6 2 2 3 1.8 8.8 Good Area 4 - Northern Wood Preservers 15-11-07 10 10 10 6 2 2 3 1.8 8.8 Good Area 4 - Northern Wood Preservers 15-11-15 10 10 10 6 2 2 3 1.8 8.8 Good Area 5 - North Harbour 15-10-17 10 10 10 6 2 2 3 1.8 8.8 Good Area 5 - North Harbour 15-10-25 10 10 10 6 2 2 3 1.8 8.8 Good Area 5 - North Harbour 15-11-07 10 10 10 6 2 2 3 1.8 8.8 Good Area 5 - North Harbour 15-11-11 10 10 10 6 2 2 3 1.8 8.8 Good Area 1 8.4 Good Area 2 8.4 Good Area 3 8.5 Good Area 4 8.8 Good Area 5 8.8 Good TBRAI 8.58 Good 15 condition of any parameter was questionable, the observer was required to give it the lesser of the two descriptors and subsequent Index Value. Thus, it is clear from the table that both water clarity and odour were not limiting factors in any of the sites during the entire sampling period. These parameters would, unto themselves, be considered ‘excellent conditions’ in the Index Range. In cases where clarity was of concern (i.e. all observations below an Index Value of 10 were characterized as ‘Slightly Brown Hue’), it was noted by the observer that the conditions were likely due to the sediment and tannins commonly present in the Kaministiquia River. Because the sampling timeframe occurred over a period of frequent fall rain events, the natural occurrence of erosion and sediment transport in the river causes the Kaministiquia River to be brown in colour in Areas 1 and 2, and the outflow also allows this sediment to cause a brown hue in the vicinity of Area 3. This naturally occurring affect to the water colour is clearly seen in Figure 4 of the methodology section. Despite this awareness, the observer listed the colour as brown, with a precautionary index value of 8 rather than 10. Area 3 shows one date (1510-26) where the water colour was confidently listed as 10 (clear) showing that the threshold between ‘clear’ and ‘brown’ was close. The 2016 survey should note the sediment transport difference between spring/summer/fall to further justify the natural cause of the river colour. Column 6 ‘Debris’ also deserves some qualifying remarks as this parameter had the largest impact on the overall TBAI for each site and for the AOC as a whole. Firstly, the Debris category received the highest weight, along with odour, as these two parameters were the most concerning parameters evident in the originally Stage 1 report for the Thunder Bay AOC. Concerns with sewage and anaerobic odors, as well as with visible foam, sewage and oil were of primary concerns for the original designation of this BUI. However, the 2012 and 2015 sampling surveys did not find any evidence of such odour or debris characteristics. The presence of natural debris and trash were evident throughout the sites and were the cause of the designated Index Value of 6. Despite this parameter being affected by descriptors that were not the main cause of the BUI designation in Stage 1, this survey included trash and natural debris based on the Rouge River case study (Heidtke and Tauriainen, 1996) and based on the precautionary approach. Additionally, the 2012 survey included a number of PAC and public interest groups who also identified trash as a concerning observation that should be addressed regardless of the original descriptors used in designating this BUI for the Thunder Bay AOC. Removal of trash and natural debris can be achieved by engaging the community in EcoSuperior’s yearly spring clean-up event, for example. It should be noted that trash was not a condition that was listed in the original designation of this BUI, and these efforts to remove trash are additional benefits for the community, but not required for the BUI to be delisted. Although not captured in the specific sites selected for the 2015 pilot survey of Areas 1-5, general observations ‘along the way’ did show the occurrence of sediment plumes, slicks, debris, and industrial sewage after major rain events. These observations were random throughout the areas and were not occurring outside of immediately after these events. The source of such observations could not be determined and were not persistent, as described in the original designation the BUI. These 2015 occurrences were also observed to be a result of cumulative run-off in severe overland flow, versus industrial waste as identified in Stage 1. 16 AREA 1 - Kaministiquia River at the Resolute Outfall The photos above for Area 1 represent the overall good conditions in the sample area. For example, the top two pictures demonstrate that the overall water quality is good and there is no concerning odours or oil/foam. The mill is located close to this site, and thus there is a strong pulp odour in the air, but this was not attributed to the water quality. The sample bottles in the photo on the left are clear of debris and show the slight brown hue that, although brings the overall Index Range condition down as a precautionary observation, is ultimately caused by sediment and organic content characteristics of natural conditions in the Kaministiquia River above and below this Area. Bubbles visible from mill effluent exiting pipe into the river. The two photos above in Area 1 demonstrate two areas that should be a key focus of continued monitoring. The photo to the left shows the bubbling of air at the surface water caused by the mill effluent pipe located below the surface. The photo to the right shows a surface water drain from the mill’s property. In both locations, bubbles (not foam) were forming and dissipating as a result of the disruption to the surface water. Although the bubbles were consistently visible in these two areas, they did not persist and did not appear to cause any affect on the parameters of concern. However, these areas should be the focus of future monitoring to ensure that changes in the mill’s operation, unintentional outputs, or changes to discharge are not present. 17 The next two photos above are isolated locations of Area 1 that did show a film, or slick and a surface scum build-up. The photo to the left shows a common condition of algae development along the shoreline and the photo to the right shows the scum build-up along hardened edges of the shoreline. These conditions extend along the shoreline for approximately 100 meters but are not considered ‘unnatural’. These photos only represent two locations in Area 1 where these conditions were isolated and minimal, but are recorded here to be locations of continued monitoring to ensure that such conditions were not persistent across the entire reach of Area 1. As a precautionary measure, these conditions, along with the natural brown hue of the water, are the reason that the colour of the water was given an index value of 8, rather than 10. Finally, the two photos above from Area 1 show the isolated areas of the basin that have debris and trash as a result of industrial history (photo to left showing docking material) and trash accumulation (photo to the right). November 14 samples were taken after a rain event when debris build-up increased and the presence of scum on the surface increased. These observations of debris and trash, although not critical determinants of the original designation of this BUI, are the key reasons why the debris category was given the Index value of 6. From a precautionary approach, it should also be noted that Mosquito Creek, which empties into Area 1 from the Slate River watershed, showed a noticeable green colour in the water sample and clear algal development. The inputs were not high enough to affect the aesthetics of Area 1, however this creek should be characterized more fully in future studies to determine the health of this tributary and the amount of nutrients coming from the Slate River watershed (agriculture area). 18 AREA 2 - Kaministiquia River near the Thunder Bay Rowing Club Old Dock Structures The photos from Area 2 above show the relatively clear and colourless water quality, however, the natural brown hue resulted an Index Value of 8 for the ‘colour’ parameter. Again, this was a precautionary judgment given the natural sediment and tannins present in the large river. The photo above and to the left provides an example of the good water conditions, despite the natural debris that is trapped within the old dock structures of the River Banks. Some stakeholder perspectives show an appreciation for the industrial remnants along the shores, others feel they are unsightly and represent poor conditions. These perspectives should be explored more fully in a stakeholder survey for the full sampling protocol in 2016, perhaps identifying sites that are clearly poor, or valued. The next two photos above are further examples of the large amount of natural debris and trash collecting along the river. These are persistent throughout each Area of the river, and are the principle reason that the debris category was designated an index value of 6 (as opposed to the presence of oil/film that would have been the critical concerns in the Stage 1 report of the Thunder Bay AOC). In this area, it is clear that older garbage accumulates as a result of the river transport, but a fair amount of new garbage can be seen on each visit and can be credited to people using the banks for the consumption of alcohol and other substances, not as a result of the AOC as this BUI was originally designated. This is clearly evident in the presence of new bottles etc. in patches of grass that have recently been depressed by humans. This is not a factor in the designation of conditions, but is an issue 19 that could be addressed through river clean-up programs and outreach to individuals in need by the community as a whole. The above photos, despite being isolated and not representative of Area 2 as a whole, did show surface organics and a green hue to the water as it exited the drainage pipes seen in the photo on the left. The photo on the right shows the water colour and particulate matter that would build up in this fortified bank outfall. The condition quickly dissipated outside of this sheltered area, and with wind and waves, and was therefore only a small influence on the judgment of the water colour (index value = 8). However, if this area continues to show such conditions the index value could be lowered to a 6 as a result of the green colour of the water, or such areas and their influence can be evaluated in the stakeholder survey. AREA 3 - Thunder Bay Harbour South within the Breakwall The photos above show the clear difference in the colour of the water samples taken from Area 3 the Thunder Bay Harbour South, as compared to Areas located within the Kaministiquia River. Although the brown hue from sediment load does infiltrate Area 3, the water samples taken clearly show that the colour is not nearly as affected by the River’s sediment load. This adds weight to the theory that the colour of the water found in Areas 1 and 2 is largely influenced by natural conditions. The photo above and to the right demonstrates that the water is very clear to the naked eye and the colour is of excellent condition. This is the reason why the sites in Area 3 show both an index value of 8 in some 20 reaches close to the mouth of the Kaministiquia River, and a value of 10 in reaches further away. The next two photos above provide an example where sediment build-up and shallow waters near the mouth of Area 3 are more turbid and result in brown colour. These were observed to be natural conditions along this vegetated area as the sediment builds in this location and forms habitat for waterfowl. These areas were clearly rich in wildlife such as geese, ducks, eagles and beavers near Site F and along the shoreline near Site C. The two photos above, however, show that other shoreline areas and the sites near the breakwall are clear. A line of dried algae are present on this rock, but not considered a reflection of the 4 site visits of this survey. The water on the photo to the right does demonstrate the clear and colourless nature of water in the harbour, as you can see the rock beneath the surface. It should be noted from a logistics perspective that Area 3 was a large and unpredictable area to sample. Two different circuits were required for this area because of weather and water conditions, as opposed to the east of Areas 1 and 2 up River, and this should be noted in the logistics and risk management of future sampling. The kayak could easily collect samples in most weather along the shoreline of Area 3, however the sites near the breakwall could get very rough and waves can push watercraft against the breakwall very easily. 21 AREA 4 - Thunder Bay Harbour Offshore of the Northern Wood facility Samples from Area 4 (above left) again show the very clear and colourless water from the open harbour. No influences of river inputs in this location, and despite the tremendous depth offshore, the water is clear to well below 10 meters. The debris conditions again influenced an Index value of 6 as a result of underwater debris, old industrial infrastructure (Below right is clearly dangerous to recreational boats) and ‘muck’ and natural debris along the shoreline (above left, above right and top right). 22 The shoreline of Area 4 showed lots of debris and logs in the bay on the north side of Northern Wood Preservers. It is possible that some of this has been left deliberately to encourage development of the artificial fish habitat, as there are lots of logs that are difficult to see in some lighting. It may be worth surveying in more detail particularly near the trestle bridge and inside the containment area for NWP (show in previous two photos and located as sites 1a and 1b in Figure 5). AREA 5 - Thunder Bay Harbour North offshore the former Cascades Mill As with the other Areas, particularly Areas 3 and 4, the photos above demonstrate the clear colourless, and odourless water found in Area 5. The photo to the right does show a line of film along the rocks, which was common in most areas but probably a result of long term conditions as the surface waters for this sampling period rarely showed surface scum or objectionable deposits. The photo above (left) shows that, in some locations where water was stagnant as a result of hardened shorelines, foam and scum build-up was evident. This photo captures this issue occurring during only 1 of the 4 sample days for this location, so does not represent conditions during this survey. However, more frequent and long-term sampling is required to determine if these conditions are more persistent. The photo to the right (above) demonstrates the more common conditions in the sites of Area 5. It is clear that the breakwall at the north harbour acts as a trap for surface debris and scum and is a factor to consider. 23 Finally, the photos above for Area 5 demonstrate the recurring condition of natural and human debris from garbage located in all sites. These photos capture common shoreline conditions that resulted in a lower Index Value of 6 for the debris category. This affects the Index Range as it lowers the conditions of this site from ‘excellent’ to ‘good’. As a precautionary measure, the infrequent presence of bubbles and scum were also factors that provided confidence to the condition of ‘good’ rather than ‘excellent’. This area, in particular, is a very busy area for loading grain, and the Current River enters here. As a result, this area should be closely monitored under natural conditions and following rain events and increased periods of industrial activity, as daily conditions may change more frequently than the other Areas in this study. This increased monitoring may add more issues that further lower Index Values and the overall Range. For example, surface waters sometimes have high levels of scum near Fisherman’s wharf, with bubbles and scum collecting around the breakwall. Large amount of debris collected at Site B (Figure 6) in lower corners of the breakwall and lots of industrial debris on the mainland could easily be washed into the waters during intense run-off or years of higher water levels. Members of the North Shore Stealhead Association use this location regularly, and are a good source of determining the validity of monitoring this Area more than other Areas. 24 Protocol Recommendations for 2016 Field Survey The results of the Fall 2015 pilot study showed that changing aesthetic conditions in the Thunder Bay AOC occur from week to week, and particularly after rain events. The 2016 survey, as conducted in this pilot study, is therefore recommended for the ice free months to capture this variation and can be effectively deployed weekly. Since conditions can also vary by day/weather, additional survey days (approximately 3) should be factored in to monitor conditions immediately after major rain event(s). This should be done in addition to weekly monitoring, as it requires the observer to be prepared to launch when weather conditions develop. Rain events should, at a minimum, be captured three times in the ice-free season; 1 event in the spring, 1 in the summer and 1 in the fall. This would ideally capture the season differences in surface moisture, overland flow and variations in debris/contaminants flowing into the lake during spring melt, versus build-up over the summer and release again in the fall. It should also be noted that, despite the presence of ice in November, that the lake conditions begin to become highly unpredictable and unsafe closer to November. Additionally, ice off might be as late as May or June, and thus the ‘ice-free months may actually be only 6 months between May-November. Although this report provides representative weighting and Index values and ranges based on input from all key stakeholder groups, it only relied on one individual from each group. The 2016 survey should provide a more robust sample of individuals from each stakeholder group to capture values within and among groups. The survey should also occur more than once, and consult with stakeholders at three different periods of the 2016 survey (spring/summer/fall). This is important as weights and values are subjective to differing perspectives of aesthetic health and to changing natural conditions over the seasons. A high degree of learning can occur if the observer can work with stakeholders to not only reconsider the weight of parameters, index values/ranges and their rationale, but to develop a strong narrative that not only confirms BUI status and delisting criteria, but fosters continued efforts to improve the shoreline. Since the natural debris and trash were the key factors that reduced the Index Range from a condition of ‘excellent’ to a condition of ‘good’ (with little affect to meeting the delisting criteria) it is important that ongoing improvements and stakeholder capacity is harnessed to improve the harbour beyond the mandate and timeframe of the RAP. This rationale is part of the precautionary principle employed at various phases of this pilot project, and conforms to an adaptive approach to ecosystem management. The Area and site locations used in the 2015 pilot project are ideal from a logistical standpoint, and representative of the most likely degraded areas of the AOC. The 2016 protocol can be improved on with a greater attention to safety conditions and flexibility during fall weather and to capture rain events. Given the depth and hydraulic conditions of the Thunder Bay Harbour behind the breakwall, a weekly survey requires that multiple days of the week are available for monitoring, to ensure that one full day of monitoring is possible (ideally 2 if weather turns during the fieldwork). Particularly during the fall, there were often only 2 half days per week open to safe and effective monitoring of all sites. Observers should also employ a sechi disk and the use of glass bottles to ensure that water colour and clarity can be defined beyond just the definition of the Aesthetics BUI from Stage 1. The conditions in the harbour have drastically improved, but many stakeholders are aware that heavy industry and outdated practices existed at the time of Stage 1. Any monitoring should seek to address aesthetics to current stakeholder values, and changing land 25 use/industrial practices regardless if delisting criteria are continually being met. This is a matter of ethics and a precautionary approach that further reduces the subjective nature of this BUI assessment. In addition to the select examples of photos in this report that represent the more extreme conditions found during the pilot study, the photo database at Lakehead University should be used to cross list 2016 observations, and provide a level of quality assurance to crossreference Index values and to provide representative photos from each site to compare new conditions. The sampling procedure may be straightforward from a technical perspective, however, cataloguing each site is very time intensive and the observer requires time to accurately observe conditions during weekly, daily and hourly conditions. The morning periods seem to provide the best sampling period from a safety, efficiency, effectiveness and logistical perspective. Appendix E provides further notes from each site to be considered to further reduce error/hardships that were common during the 2015 protocol. Budgetary Implications of Full 2016 Survey To occur during the ice-free (6 month) 2016 season are as follows: • • • • • Monthly sampling protocol (via Small outboard or Kayak) ($4000/month) = $24000 Data Logging, Database development ($1000/month) = $6000 Stakeholder Survey/Workshop x3 = $3000 Monitoring and Survey Reporting = $2000 Overhead = $3500 Approximate Total = $38,500 26 Water Quality Desk Audit for the Thunder Bay AOC Tables 1 and 2 provide the most recent effluent data to the pre-existing 2013 report on Aesthetics. Both Table 1 and 2 show recent 2015 data for both biological oxygen demand and residue and particulates for the Resolute Mill (formerly Bowater). As can be seen in the tables, the mill’s effluent has continued to decrease since 2010 and adds further credit to the conclusion that significant improvements have occurred to the main effluent discharges into the Kaministiquia River. Furthermore, the source of effluent discharge at Abitibi Fort William no longer exists as a result of the Mill closing prior to 2010. Table(1:(Effluent(Data(for(Biological(Oxygen(Demand((Tonnes/Year)( 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 THUNDER(BAY( BOWATER/RESOLUTE** WPCP* 1921 16612 1481 54146 1617 3160 1040 1508.5 91 450 N/A 303 ABITIBI FW*** 4349 2751 115 110 N/A N/A *Thunder7Bay7Water7Pollution7Control7Plant **Formerly7Bowater7up7to72010,720157data7provided7under7new7name7Resolute7 ***Abitibi7Fort7William Table(2:(Effluent(Data(for(Residue(and(ParOculate((Tonnes/Year)( 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 THUNDER(BAY WPCP* 1761 1012 826 599 172 N/A Bowater/Resolute** 4764 4202 3371 2806 692 477 ABITIBI FW*** 369 299 113 163 N/A N/A *Thunder7Bay7Water7Pollution7Control7Plant **Formerly7Bowater7up7to72010,720157data7provided7under7new7name7Resolute7 ***Abitibi7Fort7William 27 Unfortunately, the data for the Thunder Bay Water Pollution Control Plant will not be made available until the spring of 2016, but will be added to these tables at that time. Regardless, communications with the process engineer at the treatment plant indicated that effluent data for both BOD and particulates should not be outside of the values provided for 2010. Significant upgrades have occurred to the treatment process at the plant since 2005, and for this reason, effluent data should remain well below the pre-2010 values that were existent at the time of the original Aesthetics designation (Stage 1 of the Thunder Bay RAP). It is clear that the original contaminants that lead to the Aesthetics BUI have not only been consistently regulated but have clearly decreased. The field work in this study purposely focused on observations in the areas of the harbor that these contaminants were released, and further verify that regulation, treatment and an overall decline in contaminant production has lead to good/excellent aesthetic conditions in the Thunder Bay AOC. What follows is an updated list of actions and monitoring results related to aesthetics in the Thunder Bay Harbour. This provides additional, secondary justification for the significant improvements to aesthetic conditions in the Thunder Bay AOC since Stage 1, and support the delisting of this BUI. 1991 – Bowater Pulp and Paper Mill upgraded their treatment technology to improve the quality of wastewater discharged to the Kaministiquia River. Cost – approximately $68 million. Proponent: Bowater Inc. (now Resolute Forest Products Inc.) – (Stage 2 Report, p. 27 - FWH7) 1992 – Redesign Waterfront Park to protect and enhance shoreline of the Kaministiquia River including scenic overlook, promenade and additional 500m. of park at a cost of $1.5 million Proponent: Environment Canada/Great Lakes Clean-up Fund (EC/GLCUF) through Lake Superior Programs Office (LSPO) (Stage 2 Report, p. 26 – FWH-4) 1993 – Island creation and habitat rehabilitation at the mouth of McVicar Creek at a cost of $595,000 – Proponent: EC/GLCUF, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE), Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) through LSPO (Stage 2 Report, p. 25 – FWH-3) 1994 – Creation of embayments in the McKellar River to restore productive littoral habitat at a cost of $607,800 – Proponent: EC/GLCUF, OMNR, OMOE, OMNR through LSPO (Stage 2 Report, p. 26 – FWH-5) 1995 – Installation of secondary effluent treatment completed at Abitibi–Consolidated Inc. – Proponent: Abitibi–Consolidated Inc. (Stage 2 Report, p. 33 – PS-8) 1997 – Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc. upgraded its treatment technology to improve the quality of wastewater discharged to Lake Superior. The cost of this upgrade is unknown Proponent: Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc., (Stage 2 Report, p. 32 – PS-4) 1999 – The City of Thunder Bay adopted the Pollution Prevention Control Plan to reduce urban pollutant loadings to receiving waters and to protect water resources. Proponent: City of Thunder Bay, Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Agreement (Stage 2 Report, p. 36 – PS-7) 28 2002 – Northern Wood Preservers, Canadian National Railway Co., Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment completed the Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept (NOWPARC). The project cleaned up contaminated sediment and improved fish and wildlife habitat. Proponent: Abitibi-Price Inc., Canadian National Railway Inc., Northern Sawmills Inc., OMOE, EC/GLCUF (Stage 2 Report, p. 28 – NPS-1) For several years, prior to release of the 2004 Stage 2 Report for Thunder Bay, community waterfront clean-up events were held each spring along the Thunder Bay waterfront and rivers flowing into Thunder Bay harbour. Proponent: City of Thunder Bay, Lake Superior Binational Program (Stage 2 Report, p. 40 – ES-1) 2005 - The City of Thunder Bay upgraded to secondary treatment at the Water Pollution Control Plant to improve wastewater quality discharged to Lake Superior. The cost of this project was $73.6 million. Proponent: City of Thunder Bay, OMOE, EC/GLSF (Stage 2 Report, p. 32 – PS-6) 2012 - A Thunder Bay PAC harbour tour, focusing on aesthetics, was taken in September 2012. The tugboat "Glenelda" carried PAC members to all areas of the harbour, including the lower Kaministiquia River as far upstream as the Resolute Forest Products outfall. PAC members filled out a survey of Thunder Bay aesthetics during the tour. The results of the survey and the subsequent 2 PAC meetings to review the survey resulted in the unanimous decision that the Aesthetic BUI had met the delisting criteria. Further monitoring was then required by the RAP team to ensure that this decision was grounded in a more robust sampling timeframe. This resulted in the development of the 2015 pilot project to develop a protocol for long-term monitoring and decision-making that reduced the subjective aspects of the assessment. 2016 – Updated biological oxygen demand and residue/particulates data from Resolute Mills continue to show a decline in both parameters for effluent. Additionally, no new industry has occurred to affect aesthetic conditions and the Abitibi Bowater Mill remains closed. 2015 – Fall pilot project confirms the findings of the 2012 PAC conclusions that the aesthetic BUI is not impaired and that the delisting criteria has been met. Furthermore, the development of the Thunder Bay Aesthetic Index provides a more quantifiable database of conditions that represent conditions in the AOC. Using a precautionary approach, the TBAI for the Fall 2015 pilot project lists the AOC as ‘Good’ in condition, and would be elevated to ‘excellent with some community efforts to clean up shores following the spring melt. 29 Conclusions The Fall 2015 protocol testing allowed for the successful development of a survey technique that provides consistent and long-term aesthetic monitoring for the Thunder Bay AOC. Sampling occurred weekly for one month and involved a pilot sample of stakeholders in the development of the Thunder Bay Aesthetic Index. The overall survey involved a precautionary approach and ranked the aesthetic conditions of the AOC as ‘good’. Further work to reduce visible trash and debris that is common to shoreline areas could easily increase this condition classification to ‘excellent’. The pilot project demonstrated that the AOC continues to meet the delisting criteria, and this conclusion can be confirmed through the execution of the protocol as a full survey in 2016. Despite the visible observations of trash and natural debris throughout the sites sampled, surface water in the Thunder Bay Area of Concern does not contain substances that produce persistent objectionable deposits, unnatural colour or turbidity, or unnatural odour. The 2015 protocol, although not robust in capturing the entire ice-free season, again confirms the previous results of a 2012 survey via tugboat tour of the harbour by Public Advisory Committee members. The 2015 1-month survey continues to support the results and recommendations of the Public Advisory Committee’s that the aesthetics Beneficial Use Impairment be redesignated as "not impaired" (See notes of the PAC meeting of May 8th, 2013 available at InfoSuperior.com). Furthermore, data provided in Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate how treatment upgrades to both mills and the pollution control plant in the Thunder Bay AOC have drastically reduced BOD from effluent discharge into surface waters since the designation of the Aesthetics BUI. Results of a 2016 weekly survey using the Thunder Bay Aesthetic Index developed in this report, alongside a complete stakeholder survey to verify values and parameter weights of the TBAI, should occur during the ice-free months. This will provide the best possible data that is consistent and representative of the changing conditions in the Thunder Bay AOC. This survey will reduce, as much as possible, the subjective nature of previous surveys and provide a database of photos and conditions to further reduce any inconsistencies in observer judgement. It will also provide a valuable database to improve value and efforts towards improving the health of the Thunder Bay AOC 30 References: Bailey, J., and Stewart, R. 2013. Redesignation Recommendation: Degradation of Aesthetics Beneficial Use Impairment for the Thunder Bay Area of Concern. Report prepared for Environment Canada by the North Shore of Lake Superior Remedial Action Plan Office: Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario. Carroll, E. and Strang, D. 2014. Status of the Degradation of Aesthetics Beneficial Use Impairment. Report Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, St. Clair River Area of Concern, by the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority, St Clair, Michigan. Canada and United States of America. 2012. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Protocol of 2012. Heidtke, T. M. and Taurianen, E. 1996. An Aesthetic Quality Index for the Rouge River. Report Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. Riley, J. 2012. Statewide Aesthetics Assessment Findings for Impaired AOCs: Muskegon Lake, Clinton River, Rouge River and Detroit River Areas of Concern. Report Prepared by the Office of the Great Lakes, Areas of Concern Program: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Vander Wal J., Kelso J., Cullis K., Smith I., and Schmidt J. 1991. Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan Stage 1: Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition. Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan Team with assistance from: Thunder Bay Public Advisory Committee. Vander Wal J., Kelso J., Cullis K., Chase M., Morash P., and Cano T. 2004. Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan Stage 2: Remedial Strategies for Ecosystems Restoration. Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan Team with assistance from: Thunder Bay Public Advisory Committee. 31 APPENDICES Appendix A - Aesthetics Monitoring Data Sheet Aesthetics Monitoring Data Sheet Date: Time: Crew: Weather: Area of Concern & Site Description G.P.S. Coordinates Water Temp: Windy Approx Air Temp Rain Today Rain Yesterday Other Comments: Clear Cloudy WATER CLARITY (pick one) Clear Slightly Turbid Moderately Turbid Highly Turbid Opaque WATER COLOR (pick one color and one qualifier) Clear Brown Green Yellow Grey Black Milky/White Other: Light Medium Dark ODOR None/Natural Musty: Faint Strong Sewage/Fishy: Faint Strong Anaerobic/Septic: Faint Strong None None None VISIBLE DEBRIS/OBVIOUS POLLUTION None Natural (leaves,limbs,weeds) Foam Oil Film None Trash: Floating Fixed None Solids: Floating Fixed None Floating Scum None Deposits: Describe ADDITIONALCOMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS:_ 1) Does this AOC have local delisting criteria? If so, how does it differ from the state criteria? 2) Are there any designated uses** that may be impaired in your judgment due to aesthetic conditions? If so, which one(s)? 3) The impairment(s) may be specifically due to which of the following “physical properties in unnatural quantities?” [circle all that apply: turbidity, color, oil films, floating solids, foams, settleable solids, suspended solids, deposits] 4) Are these conditions “persistent, high levels” or temporary & transient? 5) Does this site meet the applicable delisting criteria? 6) Please make any other notes that are relevant to the answer in #5: **Designated uses are as follows: - agriculture - navigation - industrial water supply - public water supply at the point of water intake - warmwater fishery - other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife - partial body contact recreation - total body contact recreation between 5/1 and 10/1 - coldwater fishery, depending on location ! 32 Appendix B - Aesthetics Monitoring Photo Log A note should be made for each photo, indicating the exact subject of the photo and the reason for taking it. The note should include any contextual information that will help make the photo more useful in the future. If the photo is intended to demonstrate the existence or the absence of a particular condition, the note should explicitly state this. There should be a minimum of 5 photos taken at each site: upstream, downstream (or left and right), directly in front of the monitoring location, straight down into the water, and the three sample jars with white backdrop, plus any other items of interest. An example photo log entry might read as follows: “Photo DG00547371 – Subject of photo is near shore water, approx two feet deep. Photo is intended to show milky white turbidity at the site, with variable opacity. Note the mostly buried car tire in the lower left corner.” Be sure to note the name assigned to each photo’s electronic file, whether automatically by the camera or if renamed by monitoring staff afterwards. Be sure to note the ultimate electronic storage location for this set of photos after monitoring is completed. Photo ID Comments Electronic File Location of Photos: _______________________________________________ 33 Appendix C – Sampling Safety Requirements Recommended Certifications: • • Member of Paddle Canada.; Paddle Canada Level Two Sea Kayaking and Level One Sea Kayaking Instructor. Well acquainted with the Thunder Bay Harbour and Thunder Bay waterways and the dangers of paddling on Lake Superior. Standard safety precautions: • • • • All necessary Transport Canada safety gear (i.e. pfd, 50 ft floating line, signalling device, lights, spare paddle) plus VHF radio, SPOT GPS tracking device, a float plan for each day on the water plus clothing for cold water immersion, i.e. a wetsuit or drysuit as needed. 1 day training in rescues and executing self-rescues – in the unlikely event that one should capsize. Remain clear of Lakers moving in and out of the harbour. 1 day training of Thunder Bay harbour transport and navigation features, use of marine weather forecasts and risk management for kayak conditions remaining low to moderate 34 Appendix D – Detailed Aesthetic Site Descriptions and Field Notes Area 1 – Resolute Paper Mill Site A (GPS Lat: 48, 21' 11.720000"; Long: 89, 18' 15.010000"): drainage pipes near old building on shoreline Site B (GPS Lat: 89, 18' 15.010000"; Long: 89, 18' 15.010000"): Output pipe with effluent bubbling to the surface, about 300 feet south of Site A. Site C (GPS Lat: 48, 20' 45.180000"; Long: 89, 18' 22.460000"): Output pipe near electrical tower Site D (GPS Lat: 48, 20' 33.290000"; Long: 89, 18' 41.860000":): Mouth of Mosquito Creek Site E (GPS: Lat: 48, 21' 5.070000"; Long: 89, 17' 59.370000": drainage pipes upstream from Mountdale boat launch about 500 feet) Visit 1: October 14, 2015 - Sites sampled: A, B, C, D Weather: Clear, windy, temperature ca 15 C Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear, slight brown hue Odor: None (Intense mill and creosote smell in air) Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A –bubbling near output, nothing unexpected. Site B- large bubbles coming up to the surface. No significant effect on water appearance in area. Site C: large bubbles coming up to the surface. No significant effect on water appearance in area. Site D: Mosquito Creek – slick on surface, algae growing in water. Comments: Garbage on opposite shoreline: bricks, baby carriage, chair, bin. Algae growing on deadfall. Mucky shoreline with severe erosion issues. Visit 2: October 30, 2015 - Sites sampled: A, B, C, D, E Weather: overcast, windy, temperature ca 8 Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear, slight brown hue Odor: None (mill smells) Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: increasing bubbling near output. Site B- large bubbles coming up to the surface. No significant effect on water appearance in area. Site C: large bubbles coming up to the surface. No significant effect on water appearance in area. Site D: slick on surface, collecting place for debris, some turbidity Site E (added this site on 2nd visit): drainage pipe; very little effect on the surface water 35 Visit 3: November 8, 2015 - Sites sampled: A, B, C, D, E Weather: clear, windy, temperature near freezing Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear, slight brown hue Odor: None (mill smells) Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: increasing bubbling near output; increased amount of slick/bubbles remaining on surface. Site B- large bubbles coming up to the surface. Significantly Increased amount of slick and bubbles remaining on the surface. Site C: large bubbles coming up to the surface. Increased amount of slick and bubbles remaining on the surface. Very noticeable stream of bubbles remaining on the surface and extending downstream for a considerable distance. Site D: slick on surface, collecting place for debris, more turbidity. Site E: slick on surface, more debris Visit 4: November 14, 2015 - Sites sampled: A, B, C, D, E Weather: clear, windy, 5 Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear, slight brown hue Odor: None (mill smells) Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: increasing bubbling near output; increased amount of slick and bubbles remaining on the surface. More debris and noticeable turbidity Site B- large bubbles coming up to the surface. Significantly Increased amount of slick and bubbles remaining on the surface. Site C: large bubbles coming up to the surface. Increased amount of slick and bubbles remaining on the surface. Very noticeable stream of bubbles remaining on the surface and extending downstream for a considerable distance. Site D: slick on surface, collecting place for debris, more turbidity. Site E: slick on surface, more debris Comments: Garbage on opposite shoreline: bricks, baby carriage, chair, bin. Algae growing on deadfall. Mucky shoreline with severe erosion issues. Additional notes on this area: My impression on the first two visits was that the water looked very good. Additional slick and debris seemed understandable post-rain days. ON my 3rd and 4th visits, effects from the two output pipes were far more significant with bubble trails and some slick leading far downstream, especially coming from the output pipe at Site C. Wildlife: lots of beaver sign; one eagle seen on two separate visits; lots of gulls, ravens and crows; came across two beaver houses though hard to tell if they are both still being used. Lots of bubbling from the bottom of the river. There were almost always people fishing at Mountdale when I put in there. They told me the bubbling is decaying matter on the bottom of the river. I did not see anyone successfully catch any fish however. 36 Area 2 – Rowing Club Site A: Lat: 48, 26' 29.650000"; Long: 89, 14' 40.680000", at boat launch upstream from the rowing club. Site B: Latt: 48, 26' 29.650000"; Long: 89, 14' 40.680000", further upstream, close to grain elevator, drainage pipe Site C: Latt: 48, 26' 29.650000"; Long: 89, 14' 40.680000", past car wrecker, just past lift bridge, opposite site to grain elevator Site D: Latt: 48, 26' 29.650000"; Long: 89, 14' 40.680000", downstream, intersection of McKellar River and Kam. Visit 1: October 21, 2015 - Sites sampled: A, B, C, D Weather: clear, temperature ca 8 Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear, slight brown hue Odor: None (Air: occasional industrial smells) Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: water clear and clean Site B: water clear and clean, garbage collects here, some bubbling on surface Site C: water clear and clean, some surface bubbling and minor amounts of scum Site D: water clear and clean, mucky shoreline, some garbage Visit 2: October 31, 2015 - Sites sampled: A, B, C, D Weather: overcast, windy, temperature ca 5 Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear, slight brown hue Odor: None (Air: occasional industrial smells Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: water clear and clean Site B: water clear and clean, garbage collects here, some bubbling on surface Site C: water clear and clean, some surface bubbling and minor amounts of scum Site D: water clear and clean, mucky shoreline, some garbage Visit 3: November 9, 2015 - Sites sampled: A, B, C, D Weather: clear, windy, temperature near freezing Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear, slight brown hue Odor: None (mill smells) Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: water clear and clean Site B: water clear and clean, garbage collects here, some bubbling on surface, some scum on surface Site C: water clear and clean, some surface bubbling and minor amounts of scum, minor turbidity Site D: water clear and clean, mucky shoreline, some garbage 37 Visit 4: November 14, 2015 - Sites sampled: A, B, C, D Weather: clear, windy, temperature near freezing Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear, slight brown hue Odor: None (mill smells) Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: water clear and clean Site B: water clear and clean, garbage collects here, some bubbling on surface, lots of new garbage Site C: water clear and clean, higher levels of surface bubbling and minor amounts of scum, minor turbidity Site D: water clear and clean, mucky shoreline, some garbage Comments: the water in this area is generally clean although, like the water at Resolute, after rain or snow when there is water draining into the lake, the amount of surface bubbles, scum and garbage increases. There is some erosion along the shoreline (shore opposite the grain elevator). On my last visit I came across an interesting section of clay that I hadn’t noticed previously. There are trains coming through the area all day, including oil tankers. One possible area of interest would be further downstream, past the James Whalen, along the mainland shoreline. Wildlife: lots of beaver sign though I didn’t see any beaver houses; lots of geese and gulls. Area 3 – Thunder Bay Harbour South Site A: Latt: 48, 23' 57.490000"; Long: 89, 13' 22.700000", just past Island Road bridge on RH side of McIntryre River. Site B: Latt: 48, 23' 56.820000"; Long: 89, 13' 16.940000", mouth of McIntyre River, RH side. Site C: Latt: 48, 23' 50.400000"; Long: 89, 13' 1.430000", south of mouth, along shoreline in front of first No Trespassing sign. Site D: Latt: 48, 23' 50.400000"; Long: 89, 13' 1.430000", entrance to breakwall (North entrance) Site E: Latt: 48, 24' 5.200000"; Long: 89, 12' 9.170000", breakwall, about 300+ feet north of opening. Site F: Latt: 48, 24' 11.240000", Long: 89, 12' 51.080000", just south of Keefer Terminal, about 150 feet from shoreline, in shallow water. Site G: Latt: 48, 23' 34.930000", Long: 89, 13' 3.770000", up Kam River, RH side, at what I believe to be the secondary water treatment outlet Site H: Latt: 89, 13' 3.770000", Long: 89, 13' 3.230000", Kam River, boat slip not far from the mouth of the Kam Site I: Latt: 48, 23' 39.810000", Long: 89, 12' 51.230000", past mouth of Kam but heading back, south, behind, the piles of sand and industrial equipment. Visit 1: October 18, 2015 – Sites sampled: A, B, C, D, E, F Weather: clear, moderate temperature Water Clarity: Clear but river is turbid and looks dirty Water Colour: Clear 38 Odor: None (very slight sewage smell) Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: surface dirt, garbage, lots of particulate in water Site B: mostly clean, a lot of debris collects here Site C: surface okay, garbage collects here, some algae/plant growth underwater Site D: bubbles gather here, some algae on rocks Site E: minor amounts of scum, some bubbles, some algae on rocks Site F: some garbage under surface but looks clear otherwise, water is obviously higher than in previous years with a lot of shoreline growth now falling into the water Visit 2: October 26, 2015 – Sites Sampled: A, B, C, G, H, I Conditions: Evening paddle. Lake is quite active so I go up Kam River instead of out to the break wall; entrance to Kam River also quite rough. Weather: clear, windy, cool, late afternoon Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear Odor: None Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: cleaner on this visit Site B: mostly clean Site C: surface okay, garbage collects here, some algae/plant growth underwater Site G: collecting point for bubbles and moderate amounts of scum Site H: surface water clear Site I: collecting point for garbage, lots of bushes and reeds growing in this small bay Visit 3: November 8, 2015 - Sites Sampled: A, B, C, G, H, I Weather: clear, windy, temperature near freezing Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear, slight brown hue Odor: None Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: debris, some scum Site B: some surface debris and bubbles Site C: surface okay, garbage collects here Site G: Some slick, (can’t be seen on pictures) Site H: surface water clear Site I: plant growth underwater, surface water clear Visit 4: November 15, 2015 - Sites sampled: A, B, C, D, E, F Weather: clear, moderate winds, temperature around 5 Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear, slight brown hue Odor: None (mill smells) Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: lots of new garbage, lots of particulate in water, lots of surface bubbles Site B: mostly clean, collection point for natural debris 39 Site C: surface okay, garbage collects here, some algae/plant growth underwater Site D: bubbles gather here, some algae on rocks Site E: some bubbles, algae on rocks Site F: some garbage under surface but looks clear otherwise, water is obviously higher than in previous years with a lot of shoreline growth now falling into the water Comments: Did two different circuits for this area because of weather and water conditions. Wildlife: Geese, some ducks, four eagles on my last visit, dead gull floating at Site F on Visit 4. Lots of beaver sign on shoreline near Site F and along shoreline near Site C. Eagle seen on Kam at Site H. Area 4 – Northern Wood Preservers Site A: Latt: 48, 25' 32.700000"; Long: 89, 13' 16.920000", past cruise ship dock but fairly close to it, near industrial waste of beams, pipes and wires about 200 feet from shoreline Site B: Latt: 48, 25' 18.940000", Long: 89, 13' 8.680000", in remedial finger area, farthest away from mainland, last area before turning L along outer breakwall, going towards trestle bridge Site C: Latt: 48, 25' 14.780000", Long: 89, 13' 3.340000", along breakwall, close to trestle bridge Visit 1: October 18, 2015 – Sites sampled: A, B, C Weather: clear, temperature around 8 Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear Odor: None Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: clear, debris underwater Site B: clear, more surface debris, lots of garbage collecting on shoreline of semi-enclosed areas Site C: clear, algae on rocks Visit 2: October 30, 2015 - Sites sampled: A, B, C Weather: clear, moderate winds, temperature ca 5 Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear Odor: None Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: clear, debris underwater, looked like toilet paper collecting underwater but couldn’t get a picture. Didn’t see this on subsequent visits. Site B: clear, more surface debris, lots of garbage collecting on shoreline of semi-enclosed areas Site C: clear Visit 3: November 7, 2015 - Sites sampled: A, B, C Weather: faster moving clouds, gale force winds moved in as I was heading back, cold Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear 40 Odor: None Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: clear, debris underwater, paddling further to shoreline, lots of muck and natural debris Site B: clear Site C: clear, watched pair of Mergansers here, paddled further north along breakwall and discovered entrance to protected area belonging to Northern Wood Preservers. Water looked reasonably clear. Wind was picking up so I didn’t stay longer. Rounded the corner to cross the bay back to the Pool 6 area and got blasted by winds. Spent time in the put-in bay. Took pictures of large drainpipe/stream. Lots of shoreline debris both natural and garbage. Visit 4: November 15, 2015 - Sites sampled: A, B, C Weather: clear, moderate winds, temperature around 5 Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear Odor: None Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: clear, debris underwater, Site B: clear Site C: clear Comments: On return to the put-in visited and took pictures of the finger on the north side of the put-in. Made from industrial waste including cement and old rail ties. Lots of new debris along put-in shoreline as well. Lots of debris and logs in the bay on the north side of Northern Wood Preservers. It’s possible that some of this has been left deliberately to keep larger boats from entering this area as there are lots of logs that are difficult to see in some lighting. It may be worth testing in the area I only visited once, near the trestle bridge and inside the containment area for NWP. Wildlife: Hangout area for large numbers of geese. Saw eagle on last visit. Pair of Mergansers hanging out on outer area, Site C. 41 Area 5 – Thunder Bay Harbour North, Cascades Site A: Latt: 48, 27' 17.830000", Long: 89, 10' 9.760000", at opening to lagoon Site B: Latt: 48, 27' 21.220000", Long: 89, 10' 7.230000", at NE corner of breakwall (no opening to the lake here) Site C: Latt: 48, 26' 59.990000", Long: 89, 10' 5.560000", next corner of breakwall, heading E[?] Site D: Latt: 48, 26' 59.990000", Long: 89, 10' 5.560000", midpoint of breakwall, near airplane marker Site E: Latt: 48, 26' 41.830000" , Long: 89, 10' 32.840000", opening of breakwall Site F: Latt: 48, 26' 29.650000", Long: 89, 14' 40.680000", near Fisheman’s Wharf Visit 1: October 17, 2015 – Sites sampled: A, B, D, E Weather: clear, moderate winds, temperature around 8 Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear Odor: None Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: clear, water is shallow outside bermed area, plant growth coming up. Site B: clear, garbage collects here but not too much here today, saw Coyote, Site C: [didn’t sample here on first visit] Site D: foam bubbles, algae on rocks Site E: foam bubbles, algae on rocks Visit 2: October 25, 2015 – Sites Sampled: A, B, C, D, F Weather: clear, winds building, cold Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear Odor: None Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: lots of plant life in area, lots of ducks in area Site B: some garbage and muck but not bad, pulp [?] line visible on rocks Site C: bubbles and some plant debris, algae on rocks Site D: bubbles and some plant debris, algae on rocks Site E: [didn’t visit, waves throwing boat against breakwall, headed back] Site F: clear [took sample here instead of breakwall], family of mallards and one merganser hanging out on broken tree at shoreline Visit 3: November 7, 2015 – Sites Sampled: A, B, C, D, E Weather: clear, moderate winds, temperature around 5 Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear Odor: None Visibile Debris: natural & garbage 42 Site A: clear, noted site where pulp is visible underwater Site B: extensive plant debris and some new garbage [earlier gale force winds were offshore. Good collection point for these winds] Site C: clear, minor slick Site D: bubbles, algae on rocks Site E: bubbles, algae on rocks Visit 4: November 11, 2015 (with Jim Bailey) - Sites Sampled: A, B, C, D, E Weather: clear, moderate winds, temperature around 5 Water Clarity: Clear Water Colour: Clear Odor: None Visibile Debris: natural & garbage Site A: clear, four eagles fishing in area, visited area where pulp is visible. Water is about 2 feet deep here. Pushed paddle into pulp, went down four feet without feeling any bottom. Paddled away from area at least 40 feet where pulp was still visible. Site B: lots of plant material and garbage collecting here. More than the previous week. Pulp [?] line is very strong along the breakwall in this area Site C: clear, algae on rocks Site D: bubbles, lots of plant debris, minor slick Site E: high concentration of bubbles Notes: Lots of foam on surface in the area around Fisherman’s Wharf Comments: Very busy area for loading grain. Current River enters here. Surface water sometimes has some slick near Fisherman’s wharf. Bubbles and minor slick collect around the breakwall. Large amount of debris collects at Site B in lower corner of breakwall. Lots of industrial debris on the mainland. Wildlife: Golden eyes at various life stages – some black and white, some with brown heads; flocks of ducks frequent the back area near the lagoon - too difficult to identify; coyote, 4 eagles. Eagle with fish. 43 • • • • • • • • • General comments and issues, post-project: Possible to get very close with kayak; Good opportunity to see what is happening with wild life in each area. Kayak is quiet enough to get closer than would be possible in a motorized boat. In many instances, it is possible to see through to the bottom of the water from a kayak. Waterproof camera gives GPS reading and date so it is great for record-keeping and eliminates the need to take notes while on the water. It is also possible to do underwater pictures. Downside: my particular camera does not handle low light well so pictures are not always in focus. Water on the lens is also difficult to remove. I discovered, the hard way, that one battery was no longer taking a charge so the camera died a couple of times. Fortunately, I always had my 35mm camera with me in the boat. I generally took the test sequence of pictures on the little camera and pictures of the area with my 35mm camera. (I kept this camera more or less dry by keeping it inside the boat in a waterproof case. [The one-piece aquapack waterproof camera protector was too difficult to use for this project.]) For future projects I would recommend purchasing a new waterproof camera with GPS. Mine is 5-7 years old and is not as sharp or reliable as it used to be. A newer camera would probably not have the same low light issues. A challenge of being in a kayak is that it is constantly moving, making it challenging, at times, to take clear photographs. It is difficult to take notes while in kayak. Waterproof paper gets sopping wet. A small waterproof notebook would be fine but still adds to the hassle of having too much stuff on the front deck of the boat. Because the waterproof camera gave me dates and GPS locations, I found it easier to make my notes after I got home and let the photos do the remembering for me. My boat has an underdeck pouch where I kept the bottles. This saved time and hassle when heading out. After completing all the area surveys, it became obvious that cataloguing the pictures sequentially, according to sites, would be the best way to observe the changes from visit to visit. Cataloguing the photos has been satisfying (because of being able to compare the sites by date) and it’s easier now that I have a system; however, it was time consuming to organize everything in a way that would be easy for you to use. The weather was not always safe for visiting certain sites. Because we started the project so late in the season, it was challenging to find dates with good paddling and photographing conditions. There have been severe wind warnings on the lake almost every day for the last month. This meant it was necessary to head out quite early each day to be on the water before the wind came up. Low light was sometimes an issue. I did do a couple of late afternoon paddles but, with the short days, low light was also a challenge on these outings. The additional risk at this time of year (apart from the temperature) is that there are few people around who might notice if I was in trouble on the water. I did have a back-up system in place but I was quite aware that darkness added to the risk. 44 • • • • • • I did not go out to the southernmost outer breakwall. Conditions were not favorable for heading this far out to an exposed site. The challenges aside, I really enjoyed my time doing this project and often made the sessions longer than strictly needed because there were so many interesting things to see and photograph. For example, at the start of the project there were many ships inside and outside the breakwall. Yesterday, there were only 3 ships inside and 4 ships outside - the end of the shipping season is tangible! You will see that I worked out a system to manage the water bottles. I got better as I progressed through the visits although, as mentioned earlier, I had problems with the little camera on a few outings. Also, one of the bottles became inaccessible part way through one of my circuits so I only had two bottles for a couple of tests. (Resolute, Visit 2, I think.) You will also see that I switched boats part way through. The plastic boat is more stable but the glass boat is faster. Once I worked out a way to hang onto and photograph the sample bottles, the glass boat was an advantage. The project was quite time consuming. Loading and unloading the boat is labour intensive; dressing for cold water immersion is time consuming but crucial. Two of the areas could be surveyed in under an hour, not including loading and unloading (Rowing Club and Northern Wood Preserver). The other 3 sites needed quite a bit more time to survey. Another advantage of the kayak is that it was possible to notice different things each time I went out. I often extended my surveys to explore something I hadn’t noticed on a previous visit. Although this made some of my circuits longer, it opened up possibilities to notice things that might be relevant to a full assessment of each area. In a future project, the length of time for each circuit could be contained by being strict about the sites; however, I think that having the flexibility to take extra time and explore, when the conditions are good, might be of benefit to the project. Budget suggestions: budget a higher rate of pay for the site visits and/or include additional wages for compiling photos and reports. Even though the site person does not have to do a formal report, gathering all the bits and pieces together is still time intensive. N.B.: I decided to do the report like this, rather than using separate sheets for each site because it seemed like a waste of paper (4-7 pages for each visit x 20…); Other budget suggestions: include a budget for gasoline and/or mileage; consider buying a new waterproof camera. (Under $300.) 45 Appendix E – Sampling Site Limitations for Consideration in 2016 Survey Area 1 - Resolute: Low light challenges. Issues with the camera lens getting wet (pictures are readable but smeary) and temporarily losing one of the bottles (therefore only two bottles for two of the tests - the bottle was in the boat but had slipped out of reach....). I added an additional testing area on my way out - about 300 yards before the Mountdale boat launch. Area 2 - Rowing Club: water on the lens and low light challenges. Area 3 - Thunder Bay Harbour South: Rough water. Heading out to south breakwall was unsafe as it was getting dark quickly and waves were still building. Getting out there will depend on getting good conditions early in the day. This is the most explosed of the paddles. I went up the Kam River to the area of the secondary treatment plant. (The mouth of the Kam was also quite rough.) I also sampled in the sheltered area (wet dock?) on the South side of Kam opposite the secondary treatment plant and then sampled in behind the city work area on the N. side of entrance to Kam River. Area 4 - Northern Wood: Trying to get some underwater pictures at first testing area. Looks like toilet paper under the water, as well as old pipes and other debris. The underwater pictures were not sucessful this time. Focus issues because of low light. Area 5 - Cascades: Beautiful day but rough water at Cascades. Did all sites except the entrance to the breakwall. The boat was being thrown up against the rocks at the two earlier sample sights and the wind and waves were increasing so I decided to skip the entrance to the breakwall and head back in. I added a test at the shoreline across from Fisherman's Wharf. General challenges: Very short days without enough light. There have been severe weather warnings on the lake every day for the last week or so. This is only a problem in a couple of places but it has been difficult to find good windows to go out. First thing in the morning is generally the best time but I got to Northern Wood at 8:30 a.m. just as the sun was starting to come up and it was still too dark. Sunrise will be even later with the time change. I did Thunder Bay Harbour South beginning one evening at 5:30 and by 7:30 it was too dark. My small waterproof camera doesn't have the ability to change ISO settings so it is not good in low light. I am taking about 80% of the pictures using this camera as it is always accessible; however, it is very difficult to clean the tiny lens once it gets wet. I carry dry photo cloths but my paddling gloves are wet and tend to soak the lens even as I try to dry it. It was also raining on and off at areas 1 & 2 so this also got in the way of keeping the lens dry. I think that's it for now. All the water samples look good. The water in areas that don't get a lot of circulation tends to be murky and look dirty on the surface but this is pretty much as one would expect. Whether I'm able to complete another two full circuits will depend on the weather. If the weather is good, I'll be starting circuit 3 next Tuesday. I generally do 1 site when I go out except for Northern Wood and the Rowing Club which can be done in the same day. 46