THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (RAP)
Public Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting

December 6, 2017 – 7 p.m.
Advanced Technology and Academic Centre (ATAC-3004), Lakehead University
Thunder Bay, ON

ATTENDANCE
 
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Jim Bailey – Lakehead University (LU) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Office
Marilee Chase – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry (MNRF)
Gary Davies – Nature Conservancy of Canada
Frank Edgson – Thunder Bay Public Advisory Committee (PAC), Co-chair
Jean Hall-Armstrong – Thunder Bay PAC, Co-chair
Richard Harvey – Township of Nipigon
Chris McEvoy – Lakehead University Student
Curniss McGoldrick – Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
(MOECC)
Samuel Pegg – LU RAP Office
Jamie Saunders – EcoSuperior
Mark Serediak – PAC Member
Rob Stewart – LU RAP Office
Brent Staughan – Lakehead University Student
Michelle Willows – Lakehead University Graduate Student
Nathan Wilson – Lakehead University Graduate Student

 
 
 

1 

 INTRODUCTIONS
J. Hall-Armstrong called the meeting to order and asked for introductions from meeting
attendees.
REVIEW OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18, 2017
 
The minutes of the October 18th PAC meeting were reviewed and accepted.  
DRAFT HABITAT STRATEGY OVERVIEW (presentation)
Nathan Wilson, Lakehead University
J. Bailey provided a brief introduction to the “Loss of Fish Habitat” and “Loss of Wildlife
Habitat” Beneficial Use Impairments. Jim’s presentation is available here.
Jim mentioned that fish habitat classification based on previously completed substrate
mapping still needed to be completed.
He said that completed actions include a Northern Wood fish community comparison and
a wildlife habitat change detection study. J. Bailey noted that this change detection study
found that the harbour is becoming “greener” (more vegetated) and currently falls within
Environment Canada guidelines laid out in the document “How Much Habitat is
Enough.” He stressed that this document uses a single bird species and is based on
criteria developed for the lower Great Lakes. He said it had been suggested that further
study looking at multiple species, parameters and locations would be required to make
stronger conclusions about the state of habitat in the Thunder Bay Area of Concern.
R. Stewart noted that in the early days of the RAP it was observed that much of the
hardened shoreline and riparian habitat was on private property and it would be very
unlikely that this shorline would be “softened” through habitat restoration measures. He
said the idea was to find alternative means and delisting criteria to help improve habitat
in Thunder Bay.
N. Wilson (Lakehead University) provided a summary of his draft habitat strategy for the
Thunder Bay Area of Concern. He added that he was very interested in receiving
feedback from PAC participants on some of the key parameters for inclusion. He
highlighted the map and some of the goals of the habitat strategy.
A comment was made that “city-owned” should be changed to “publicly owned”. It was
noted that there are various additional owners of public lands such as the Conservation
Authority as well as provincial and federal landowners. R. Stewart commented that
details as to which public owner could be added to the planning tool later.
Jean Hall-Armstrong added that one additional parameter could be “invasive species.”

 

2 

 J. Saunders said he thought the mapping tool could help identify sites around Thunder
Bay that could be queried based on various requirements. For example, say an
organization had only $50,000 to work with, wanted to focus on invasive species and
work within a certain geographical range, one could enter those criteria into the map,
which would then provide a potential list of remediation sites. He said specific projects
need not be identified by the tool, but rather areas in need of remediation. He said that
organizations could work together to develop projects.
Based on the idea of a query tool, it was suggested that “requires regulatory approval” be
included as a parameter.
J. Hall-Armstrong commented that “presence/absence” of a given attribute was a good
way to look at sites because they wouldn’t be compared one to another, but looked at
individually.
Another suggestion was that potential projects be linked to specific agency goals or
outcomes (i.e. Canada-Ontario Agreement, Great Lakes Strategy, Thunder Bay
Stormwater Management Plan).
There was a question about what the “size” of the project meant. It was suggested that
costs and length of time to implement projects be considerations, not just geographic
extent.
A question was asked as to who would be the holder of the database, R. Stewart replied
that it would likely be held at Lakehead University as an impartial third-party that would
provide the information as a tool.
PAC TERMS OF REFERENCE – REVIEW AND REVISION
J. Hall-Armstrong presented an overview of the current PAC Terms of Reference, noting
that many things had changed since the original terms of reference were created in 2011.
She also provided the proposed revised terms of reference. Some of the updates include
an annual report on RAP activities and progress to be provided at the end of the fiscal
year, election of chair(s) every two years, redefining what constitutes a PAC member,
including attendance expectations, and setting regular meeting dates.
F. Edgson mentioned that the primary goal for revising the Terms of Reference was to
ensure continuity of membership, increased member attendance and greater depth of
knowledge about RAP issues.
N. Wilson also suggested that many discussions could take place in specific focus groups
or sub-committees, with more general discussion happening at the annual meeting or an
open house. Jean suggested that this annual meeting could be more like the “Lake
Superior Evenings.” She said such an event could include information about what the
RAP had done over the past year, as well as a cultural or historical presentation related to
Lake Superior.

 

3 

 J. Hall-Armstrong said that PAC membership had changed over time. She also noted the
importance of a running list of attendance and that there would likely be more outreach to
past members, those who have attended meetings frequently, or those organizations that
have been identified as potential stakeholders. She asked if the PAC supported the new
Terms of Reference and if there were objections to the updated iteration. Support was
voiced and no objections raised.
A link is provided here to the revised Terms of Reference.
R. Stewart noted that there is a RAP Implementation Committee in which certain groups,
such as the City or LRCA, have preferred to participate. R. Stewart also noted that there
were many different sectors and sub-groups represented in the early days of the PAC. J.
Hall-Armstrong noted that North Harbour and just a few Beneficial Use Impairments
remained to be addressed whereas several Beneficial Use Impairments were being dealt
with in the earlier stages of the RAP.
R. Harvey suggested that sometimes meetings be divided into two halves. The first half
would focus on more general interest topics and then, after a coffee break, more specific
PAC business could be undertaken.
C. McGoldrick spoke about sub-committees and that there could be a focus on specific
issues such as North Harbour, beaches, or habitat.
J. Hall-Armstrong added that having specific meeting dates laid out well in advance helps
meeting participants, including government representatives, as they know exactly when
meetings are going to be held.
R. Stewart asked about the importance of quality of membership, including
considerations like members knowledgeable in specific fields (i.e. habitat) and/or having
specific organizations represented.
C. McGoldrick suggested that there could be more inclusion by making meetings
accessible online. J. Bailey noted that this was definitely a possibility as some meetings
in the past had included remote participation.
R. Stewart asked if it would be possible for a group of students to join. J. Hall-Armstrong
said that the intention was not to have the membership skewed in any one direction. R.
Stewart noted that the spirit of the original agreement was to have students be more
involved. He wondered about several students being involved and whether they would
each get a vote or be part of a student group which got one vote. J. Hall-Armstrong noted
that there were some students that regularly attended meetings and were considered “on
the PAC.” She said those students who attended regularly should each be allowed to vote.
RAP UPDATE

 

4 

 J. Bailey said that Transport Canada had been approached to attend a future PAC meeting
to provide perspective on North Harbour. He said a response had not been received prior
to the December 6th meeting.
J. Bailey provided an update on the beneficial use impairments in the process of
redesignation. He said these impairments included degradation of phyto- and zooplankton
populations, degradation of aesthetics and fish tumours/deformities.
He also noted that North Harbour had been receiving media attention, including CBC
Superior Morning, and several more extended and in-depth articles through various local
media outlets.
J. Bailey provided a review of Infosuperior web statistics, noting an upward trend in
visitors and the same trend in visitors to the Infosuperior Facebook and Twitter social
media feeds. He added that the Infosuperior newsletter was well-subscribed and had been
helpful in providing RAP information, as well as increased knowledge of issues affecting
Lake Superior on a broader scale.
C. McGoldrick suggested that perhaps web statistics could be further broken down to
indicate whether web traffic was going to the RAP portion of the site, the climate change
portion, or the section of the site which dealt with the broader lake.
S. Pegg noted that plans are underway for a RAP “binder” providing key RAP
information like stage reports, documentation about specific Beneficial Use Impairments,
as well as the history of the PAC. R. Stewart suggested that the binder could highlight
some of the RAP costs and funds spent on projects. C. McGoldrick suggested that a
timeline be included. J. Hall-Armstrong suggested the binder be made into electronic
format rather than being in physical format, which she said would be cumbersome.
R. Harvey suggested meeting minutes and agendas only be made available in electronic
format as a means of saving paper. He said anyone who wanted a paper copy of the
agenda and minutes could request this in advance.
ADOURNMENT
J. Hall-Armstrong adjourned the meeting at 9:00 pm. The next PAC meeting is scheduled
for February 7, 2018.

 

5