Thunder bay rap update report 2012

PERIOR NORTH SHORE OF LAKE SUPERIOR
LANS REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS

thunder bay
r e m e d i a l a c t i o n p l a n U P D AT E 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 2

UPDATE THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN < I

I > THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN UPDATE

Photo by Zack Kruzins

M E S S A G E F R O M T H E CO O R D I N ATO R

On behalf of those involved with the Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan, I am pleased to provide you with a copy of the 2009 to
2012 program update. We have made great progress over the last four years and I am happy to report that science and monitoring
information is beginning to reveal signs of ecosystem recovery. Our progress-to-date and the major environmental improvements to
the Thunder Bay harbour can be attributed to all the hard work from our community volunteers and public service representatives. It is
truly an achievement to implement such a large-scale collaborative program.

I would like to personally thank all of the people who have dedicated their lives and careers to helping improve the environmental
health of this area. I would also like to acknowledge the financial support of the Canada Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great
Lakes Basin Ecosystem and the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund. We are grateful for the continued commitment from both our federal
and provincial governments.

The intent of this report is to provide a summary of our progress to a wider community audience. My hope is that the document
reflects the integrated and collaborative nature of the RAP.

Sincerely,

Aaron A. Nicholson
Remedial Action Plan Coordinator
Thunder Bay Area of Concern

UPDATE THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN < I I

REMEDIAL AC TION PLAN PROGRAM MEMBERS
T H U N D E R B AY P U B L I C A D V I S O R Y CO M M I T T E E

Ashleigh Nicholson Gordon Van Fleet
Resolute Forest Products Confederation College

Bruce Pritchard Guy Jarvis
Lake Superior Discovery Place Thunder Bay Port Authority

Carl Taylor Heidi Strobl
ERCO Worldwide General Public

Chris Walton Ian Dew
General Public General Public

David Spackman Jane Todd
General Public Ontario Power Generation

Duncan Hutchison Jean Hall-Armstrong (Co-Chair)
General Public Thunder Bay Field Naturalists

Frank Edgson (Co-Chair) Matt Roy
Northshore Steelhead Association General Public

Gerry Heinrichs Samuel Pegg
Richardson International General Public

T H U N D E R B AY R A P I M P L E M E N TAT I O N CO M M I T T E E

Aaron Nicholson Michelle McChristie
RAP Coordinator Ministry of the Environment

Abby Mackie Neville Ward
Thunder Bay District Health Unit Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Davis Viehbeck Paul Fayrick
Ministry of Natural Resources City of Thunder Bay

Ellen Mortfield Robert Stewart
EcoSuperior Environmental Programs Lakehead University

Jim Vukmanich Tammy Cook
City of Thunder Bay Lakehead Region Conservation Authority

Kate Taillon Troy Sampson
Environment Canada Thunder Bay District Health Unit

Kerri Marshall Werner Schwar
City of Thunder Bay City of Thunder Bay

Marilee Chase
Ministry of Natural Resources

I I I > THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN UPDATE

Photo by Zack Kruzins
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In July of 2009, government agencies involved with the Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan (RAP) approached faculty members at
Lakehead University to assist with implementation of the program. This new relationship resulted in the creation of a full-time RAP
Coordinator position housed out of Lakehead University. The primary focus of the RAP Coordinator was to facilitate public involve-
ment and coordinate of the RAP Implementation Committee. The purpose of this report is to summarize the progress made since the
beginning of this position and to illustrate the future direction of the Thunder Bay RAP.

The Thunder Bay Area of Concern is one of 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) identified by the governments of Canada and
the United States under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA, 1978). These areas are locations where environmental
quality is significantly degraded and Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) have been implemented to guide restoration efforts and ecosys-
tem recovery. The Thunder Bay AOC has experienced ecosystem impairments as a result of waterfront development, industrial and
municipal wastewater discharge, and the hydroelectric development of urban tributaries. The Thunder Bay RAP has completed both
Stage 1 (Definition of Problem) and Stage 2 (Remedial Strategies) as outlined by the 1987 amendments to the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement.

Since the early 1990’s, the Thunder Bay RAP has contributed significantly to improving the environmental health of Thunder Bay and its sur-
rounding watershed. Nearly $100M has been spent on wastewater infrastructure upgrades, over $22M on aquatic habitat enhancement, and
$68M on wastewater treatment technology. Science and monitoring information is showing that the Thunder Bay Area of Concern is begin-
ning to recover from its industrial legacy. Although there has been much progress towards restoring beneficial uses, many issues still remain.
Agencies and public representatives involved with the RAP program have been working over the last four years (2009-2012) to successfully
complete remedial actions and identify any remaining issues that require resolution before delisting could occur. Major remaining remedial
actions include the development of a management plan for contaminated sediments at the North Harbour site, implementation of manage-
ment plans to remediate non-point sources of pollution, management of bacterial sources at recreational swimming areas, and improvement
of access to historical spawning grounds for native fish populations. In collaboration with partner agencies and community members those
invoved with the RAP program will work towards implementing the identified remaining remedial actions and finalizing an updated status of
ecosystem health.

UPDATE THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN < I V

ta b l e o f co n t e n t s

MESSAGE FROM THE COORDINATOR..................................II
R AP PROGR AM MEMBERS..................................................III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................IV

1.0 INTRODUC TION.. ......................................................................................... ........... 1
1.1 Thunder Bay Area of Concern................................................................................................. ..1
1.2 Status of Environmental Impairments................................................................................. ..2
1.3 Completed Remedial Projects......................................................................3
1.4 Community Involvement...............................................................................5
1.5 Delisting Criteria...........................................................................................5

2.0 SCIENCE & MONITORING...................................................................................... 6
2.1 Fish Health........................................................................................................................................ 6
2.1.1 Dynamics of Fish Populations.................................................................................. 6
2.1.2 Loss of Fish Habitat.........................................................................9
2.1.3 Fish Consumption Restrictions..............................................................................11
2.1.4 Body Burdens of Fish.................................................................................................11
2.1.5 Fish Tumours and Other Deformities..................................................................12
2.2 Sediment Contamination.........................................................................................................13
2.2.1 Degradation of Benthos...........................................................................................13
2.2.2 Restrictions on Dredging...............................................................17
2.3 Water Quality.................................................................................................................................17
2.3.1 Beach Advisories.........................................................................................................17
2.3.2 Degradation of Phytoplankton & Zooplankton..............................................19
2.3.3 Degradation of Aesthetics......................................................................................19
2.4 Wildlife. 20
2.4.1 Dynamics of Wildlife Populations.........................................................................20
2.4.2 Loss of Wildlife Habitat.............................................................................................21
2.4.3 Contaminant Levels in Wildlife..............................................................................22

2.5 Science & Monitoring Summary.............................................................................................23

3.0 REMAINING REMEDIAL AC TIONS....................................................................... 25
3.1 Contaminated Sediment at North Harbour Site........................................25
3.2 Remaining Non-Point Sources of Contaminants........................................25
3.3 Beach Advisories - Chippewa Beach & Boulevard Lake............................25
3.4 Recovery of Native Fish Species................................................................26

4.0 CONCLUSIONS.. . . .................................................................................................. 26
4.1 Future Direction.........................................................................................26

5.0 REFERENCES...................................................................27
6.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS.........................................................29

LIST OF TABLES

1.0 Summary of Environmental Issues....................................................................2
1.1 Delisting Criteria - Fish Populations.................................................................6
1.2 Number of MNR FCIN net sets in Thunder Bay (2009-2011)...........................7
1.3 Current River walleye spawning population estimates....................................9
1.4 Delisting Criteria - Fish Habitat.......................................................................10
1.5 Delisting Criteria - Fish Consumption.............................................................11
1.6 Delisting Criteria - Fish Body Burdens............................................................11
1.7 Delisting Criteria - FishTumours......................................................................12
1.8 Delisting Criteria - Benthos.............................................................................13
1.9 Common Sediment Management Options.....................................................14
2.0 Delisting Criteria - Beach Advisories...............................................................18
2.1 Delisting Criteria - Aesthetics..........................................................................20
2.2 Delisting Criteria - Wildlife Population............................................................20
2.3 Delisting Criteria - Wildlife Habitat..................................................................21
2.4 Delisting Criteria - Contaminant Levels in Wildlife..........................................22
2.5 Science & Monitoring Actions.........................................................................23

LIST OF FIGURES

1.0 Thunder Bay Area of Concern..........................................................................1
1.1 Delisting Criteria Review Process.....................................................................5
1.2 Day larvae were captured drifting downstream (2004-2011)...........................8

UPDATE THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN < V I

figure

1.0
1 .0 I N T R O D U C T I O N

In July of 2009, government agencies involved with the Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan (RAP) approached faculty members at Lakehead
University to assist with implementation of the program. This new relationship resulted in the creation of a full-time RAP Coordinator position
housed out of Lakehead University. The primary focus of the RAP Coordinator was to facilitate public involvement and coordination of the
RAP Implementation Committee. The purpose of this report is to summarize the progress made since the beginning of this position, and to
illustrate the future direction of the Thunder Bay RAP.

1 .1 T H U N D E R B AY A R E A O F CO N C E R N

The Thunder Bay Area of Concern is one of 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) identified by the governments of Canada and
the United States under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA, 1978). These areas are locations where environmental
quality is significantly degraded, so as to affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin,
requiring Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) to guide restoration efforts and ecosystem recovery.
These RAPs guide restoration and protection through three stages:

STAGE 1 Identify environmental problems and sources of pollution.
STAGE 2 Evaluate and carry out actions to restore the area.
STAGE 3 Confirm that these actions have been effective and that
the environment has been restored.

The Thunder Bay Area of Concern has experienced ecosystem impairments as a result of urbanization along the waterfront, industrial and mu-
nicipal wastewater discharge, and the hydroelectric development of its urban tributaries. Thunder Bay is a heavely industrialized city, including
significant developments from the pulp and paper industry. Thunder Bay is located in Northwestern Lake Superior and is one of four contami-
nated sites identified along the Canadian North Shore. The boundaries of the AOC extend 28 km along the shoreline and 9 km off shore, includ-
ing the Welcome Islands. There are five major tributaries that drain into Lake Superior within these boundaries, including the Kaministiquia,
Neebing, McIntyre, and Current Rivers and McVicar Creek.

1 THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN UPDATE

1 .2 S TAT U S O F E N V I R O N M E N TA L I M PA I R M E N T S

Stage 1 (Definition of Problem) and Stage 2 (Remedial Strategies) of the Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan (RAP) have been com-
pleted as outlined by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 and its 1987 amendments. Since the early 1990’s, the Thunder
Bay RAP has contributed significantly to improving the environmental health of Thunder Bay and the surrounding watersheds. Nearly
$100M has been spent on wastewater infrastructure upgrades, over $22M on aquatic habitat enhancement, and $68M on wastewater
treatment technology. Since completetion of the Stage 2 report, agencies and public representatives involved with the RAP have been
working to review remedial success and identify any remaining issues that require resolution before delisting could occur. The follow-
ing table (1.0) provides a summary of past and current environmental issues for the Thunder Bay AOC.

table

1.0 Summary of Environmental Issues
Environmental Issue 1991 Status 2004 Status 2011 Status
(Stage 1) (Stage 2) (Update)

Impairments to Fish Health

Dynamics of Fish Populations I I I

Loss of Fish Habitat I I I

Fish Consumption Restrictions I I RFA

Fish Tumours Other Deformities I I RFA

Impairments to Sediment Quality

Degradation of Benthos I I I

Restrictions on Navigational Dredging I I *NI

Impairments to Water Quality

Restrictions on Drinking Water Consumption NI NI NI
or taste and odour problems

Excess nutrients and/or undesirable algae NI NI NI

Added cost to agriculture and industry NI NI NI

Beach Advisories I I I

Degradation of Zooplankton Phytoplank- I I RFA
ton

Degradation of Aesthetics I I I

Impairments to Wildlife

Wildlife Consumption Restrictions NI NI NI

Bird and Animal Deformities or Reproductive RFA NI RFA
problems

Loss of Wildlife Habitat I I I

Dynamics of Wildife Populations I I I

I = Impaired, NI = Not Impaired/No Longer Impaired, RFA = Requires Further Assessment, Asterisk* = Proposed Designiation

UPDATE THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN 2

1.3 completed remedial projects 1

total costs: approx. $165.6 million
*refer to Stage 2 RAP report for detail

2
3
4

6
7 8
5

Lak
e Su
pe
r
io
r

Remedial Project (*Stage 2 Ref.#) Project Costs

Secondary Treatment at the Resolute Pulp and Paper Mill (*PS-1) Approximately
1 Proponent: Resolute Forest Products Inc. (formerly Bowater) $68 million.

Secondary Treatment at Abitibi - Consolidated (*PS-4) Not Available
2 Proponent: Abitibi - Consolidated

Redesign Waterfront Park to Protect and Enhance Shoreline of the Kaministiquia River (*FWH-4) Estimated $1.5
3 Proponent: Lake Superior Programs Office, Environment Canada (EC) million.

Redirect Stormwater Outlet and Oil Separator Discharge at CPR (*PS-5) Not Available
4 Proponent: Canadian Pacific Railway

Improvements at Chippewa Park (*PS-3) Approx. $750,000
5 Proponent: City of Thunder Bay

Developments at Ontario Power Generation - Thunder Bay Generating Station (*PS-3) Not Available
6 Proponent: Ontario Power Generation (OPG)

Creation of Embayments in the McKellar River to Restore Productive Littoral Habitat (*FWH-5) Construction:
7 Proponent: EC, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), Ministry of the Environment (MOE), Department of Fisheries $607,800.
and Oceans (DFO)

Upgrades at Thunder Bay Terminals (*PS-2) Not Available
8 Proponent: Thunder Bay Terminals


N

9

10 11
12

14
13

15
Remedial Project (*Stage 2 Ref. #) Project Costs

Alteration of Shoreline to Restore Habitat Diversity at the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway (*FWH-2) $109,889 for
9 Proponent: EC, MNR, MOE, and DFO construction.

Secondary Treatment at Water Pollution Control Plant (*PS-6) $73.6M for
10 Proponent: City of Thunder Bay, EC, MOE, and Infrastucture Canada (IC) upgrade to
secondary

Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept (NOWPARC) Project (*NPS-1) Approximately
11 Proponent: Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., Canadian National Railway Co., Northern Sawmills Inc., MOE, and EC $20 million.

Island Creation and Habitat Rehabilitation at the Mouth of McVicar Creek (*FWH-3) Phase I: $215,000.
12 Proponent: EC, MNR, MOE, and DFO Phase II: $380,000.

Rehabilitation of Degraded Walleye Spawning Habitat at the Current River Estuary (*FWH-1) $37,500 for
13 Proponent: EC, MNR, MOE, and DFO construction.

Improving Salmonid Access to the Upper Reaches of the Current River (*FWH-6) Fish ladder
14 Proponent: DFO, LRCA, MNR, North Shore Steelhead Association (NSSA) $344,000. Pools:
$62,500.

Process Improvements at Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc. (*PS-8) Not Available
15 Proponent: Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc.


Photo by Lakehead University
1 .4 CO M M U N I T Y I N V O LV E M E N T

Following a six-year hiatus after the completion of the Thunder Bay Stage 2 Report, the Thunder Bay Public Advisory Committee
(PAC) was re-established in September of 2009. Over the next four years, the PAC focused their attention on implementing remedial
actions, science and monitoring information, and providing recommendations on future direction of the program.

The PAC is made up of individuals from various community and environmental organizations, industry stakeholders, public and com-
munity members. Since the PAC was re-established, the committee has organized into five subcommittees to more systematically
address the remaining BUIs. Each of these subcommittees has focused on reviewing the remedial actions and monitoring needs
outlined in the Stage 2 RAP report. Updates on the status and success of these remedial actions were presented to the PAC during
monthly meetings held between 2009 and 2012. The resulting recommendations made by the PAC have outlined a community-sup-
ported direction for the Thunder Bay RAP program. These recommendations have been integrated into the remedial action planning
process and are reflected in the monitoring and science decisions outlined in this document.

1 .5 D E L I S T I N G C R I T E R I A

Delisting criteria are a collection of environmental targets that allow scientists to evaluate remedial success as it relates to individual
beneficial use impairments (BUIs). Many of these criteria use the principle of comparison, such as a regulation or guideline, a locally
derived risk-based target, or an appropriate reference site outside the AOC. It is the RAP Implementation Committee’s responsibility
to ensure the adopted delisting criteria are representative of the original reason for impairment, reflect impact from local sources, and
allow for a measurable and achievable endpoint. An important principle identified for delisting an AOC is that it is no longer more
degraded than the surrounding or a comparable area (e.g. lakewide conditions) in the Great Lakes basin.

When developing restoration targets for the Thunder Bay AOC a delisting criteria review process was used to ensure that adopted
criteria were not only scientifically defensible but were also supported and endorsed by local community members. Members of the
RAP Implementation Committee prepared draft delisting criteria for review and comment by the RAPIC and PAC. (figure 1.1). If agree-
able, the criteria were adopted as restoration targets for the program. Criteria that are not yet endorsed by all parties are identified in
the document as “proposed”.

figure

1.1 BUI Lead Agency
Produces draft delisting criteria

RAP Implementation Committee
Reviews draft criteria (endorse/revise)

Public Advisory Committee
Reviews draft criteria (endorse/revise)

RAP Implementation Committee
Finalize criteria for distribution


2 .0 S C I E N C E M O N I TO R I N G

Research and monitoring is an important component of the RAP process for understanding and measuring the success of restoration
efforts. Government agencies and partner organizations involved with the RAP program are working towards filling information gaps to
better understand the status and recovery of ecosystem impairments within the Thunder Bay Area of Concern. Relevant research and a brief
synopsis of research results are provided in the following section. Sections are organized according to RAP working groups including; fish
health, sediment quality, water quality, and wildlife. Each science and monitoring action has been given a RAP identification number. These
numbers are used to organize and track the recovery of each BUI. Identification numbers have three components; action type, applicable
BUI, and reference number. The action type for each project listed is either SM (Science Monitoring)or RA (Remedial Action). Applicable
BUIs include, FWP (Dynamics of Fish Wildlife Populations), FWH (Loss of Fish Wildlife Habitat), FCR (Fish Consumption Restrictions),
FBB (Fish Body Burdens), FTD (Fish Tumours and other Deformities), DB (Degradation of Benthos), BA (Beach Advisories), PZP (Degrada-
tion of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Populations), DA (Degradation of Aesthetics), and CLW (Contaminant Levels in Wildlife). Due to
the overwhelming need for general monitoring actions, which are not focused specifically on measuring the success of any single remedial
action, identification codes for ecosystem monitoring have been altered from those used in the stage 2 report to reflect target BUIs.

2 .1 F I S H H E A LT H

The degradation of fish habitat in the Thunder Bay AOC is a result of urbanization, industrial growth, waterfront development, dredging,
channelization and pollution from municipal and industrial effluent. These impacts on the quality and quantity of fish habitat have in turn
negatively affected fish populations resulting in the reduction of species diversity and abundance. The projects described below represent
ongoing efforts to monitor and remediate these ecosystem impairments.

2
.1.1 Dynamics of Fish Populations

Dynamics of fish populations was initially listed as impaired due to organic enrichment, decreased dissolved oxygen levels, increased
water temperatures resulting in periodic fish kills on the Kaministiquia River, and a change in fish community structure above and be-
low the Bowater outfall (Vander Wal et al. 2004). The lower Kaministiquia River has undergone significant changes in the past 20 years
as a result of a combination of strict environmental regulations limiting effluent discharges, ceasing river log drives, and reducing
shipping traffic, which has reduced the need for dredging. Since dynamics of fish populations was originally designated as impaired,
the strategy for assessing and managing this BUI has changed. Current focus has expanded beyond specific impairments relating to
Kaministiquia River fish migration, to understanding AOC-wide fish community structure.

table

1.1 Delisting Criteria - Degradation of Fish Populations

Fish populations will no longer be impaired when the fish community within the AOC has the following characteristics,
as observed by the MNR Fish Community Index Netting (FCIN) program. The fish community within the Thunder
Bay AOC should be similar to nearshore (0–80 m deep) fish communities adjacent to the AOC for a minimum of three
consecutive years, as measured by the relative abundance (Catch Per Unit Effort) and species composition of the fish
community. Also, the nearshore fish community should be dominated by self-sustaining populations of native species
showing the following characteristics:

*Lake Trout
• The mean age of lake trout is greater than eight years.
• The length at age of seven-year old lake trout caught in the FCIN or harvested by the commercial fishery is stable
and greater than 430 mm.
• The FCIN and/or commercial catch is dominated by mature fish and many age classes.

*Lake Whitefish
• Population capable of supporting a commercial fishery with sustainable yields that do not exceed 0.51 kg/ha/yr
(Busiahn 1990)
• Maximum total annual mortality does not exceed 60-65%.
• Average age in the catch should be two years older than the age at which 50% of the population matures.

*Lake Sturgeon, Walleye and Brook Trout

The overall understanding of the population dynamics of these native species within Thunder Bay is limited, therefore
it is difficult to establish population criteria. Efforts are currently underway to better understand these species and
their habitat use within Thunder Bay and its tributaries. As a result, criteria that reflect lake sturgeon, walleye, and
brook trout populations are covered under the loss of habitat delisting criteria.


Action (SM-FWP-1): Fish Community Index Netting Program
Status: Ongoing Monitoring Initiative (Completed – 2009 to 2012)
Proponent: Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management Unit) with support from Environment Canada
Cost: $16,000/year

In 2009, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Upper Great Lakes Management Unit (UGLMU) established the Fish Com-
munity Index Netting (FCIN) program on Lake Superior. This program provides independent fisheries trend-through-time information
on the fish community, with particular emphasis on lake trout and lake whitefish, both of which are commercially important species.
The FCIN program reflects the shift from a single species approach to an ecosystem-based fish community approach.

The FCIN program also serves as a monitoring tool to track the dynamics of fish populations and their recovery within the Thunder
Bay Area of Concern. Since 2009, 80 sites have been sampled within Thunder Bay, 31 of which have been within the AOC (Table 1.2).

table

1.2 YEAR Inside AOC Outside AOC TOTAL

2009 8 16 24

2010 14 18 32

2011 9 15 24

Number of MNR FCIN Net sets in Thunder Bay (2009 - 2011).

The FCIN uses a stratified random sampling design that ensures sampling coverage based on the surface area across four prede-
termined depth strata: 0-30 m, 30-60 m, 60-90 m and 90 m. The FCIN consists of overnight sets using graded-mesh monofilament
gillnets 1000 ft in length, set perpendicular to the depth contour to maximize catch and reduce the variability between catches. These
nets catch a wide variety of sizes, ages, and species of fish. All fish caught were counted and recorded. Biological information was col-
lected from the catch and included length (mm), round weight (g), age, sex, and maturity.

Action (SM-FWP-2): Kaministiquia River
Walleye Radio Telemetry Project
Status: Ongoing Monitoring Initiative (Com-
pleted – 2009 to 2012)
Proponent: Ministry of Natural Resources
(Upper Great Lakes Management Unit) with
support from Environment Canada
Cost: $120,000 over three years

Photo by Ministry of Natural Resources

T
his is a multi-year project initiated in 2009
to document the seasonal distribution and
movement patterns of adult walleye within
the Kaministiquia River using radio telemetry.
This will help identify critical habitats and
migration routes within the river and also help
demonstrate whether water quality barriers to
fish migration exist. Milestones for this project
include:

• 2010-11: Implanted radio transmitters
into 23 adult walleye; transmitters have a life of
at least 543 days.
• 2011-12: Installed five shoreline-based data loggers in order to scan tag frequencies via two antennas at each station; monitored
individual walleye movements and spawning migration patterns by downloading data loggers weekly and tracking by boat and
on land via hand held antenna and receiver daily during the walleye staging and spawning period.
• 2012-13: Continue tracking walleye throughout the 2012 field season and maintain data collection until the tags expire (spring to
summer) and prepare final report (winter).


Action (SM-FWP-3): Kaministiquia River Lake Sturgeon Study
Status: Ongoing Monitoring Initiative (2004 - 2011)
Proponent: Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management
Unit Northwest Science and Information)
Cost: $33,000/year

During the Kaministiquia River Water Management Planning process, the
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) identified two issues concerning water
management practices at Kakabeka Falls. The first was access of adult
sturgeon to their historical spawning site at the base of Kakabeka Falls; the
second was stranding of adults between the falls and the generating station.

In 2003, the Water Management Plan Steering Committee established a
Research and Data Gathering Agreement to study sturgeon movements (ac-

Photo by Ministry of Natural Resources
cess) and spawning success under different spill flows in order to determine
suitable flow conditions for reproduction (access, egg deposition, incuba-
tion, hatch, and larval drift). Studies have been conducted annually from
2004 to 2011.

From 2004 to 2006, flow over Kakabeka Falls was provided to allow sturgeon
access to the spawning site at the base of Kakabeka Falls. Studies conducted in
each of these years indicated that adult sturgeon reached the spawning site and
spawned successfully during flows of 23 m3∙s-1 and 17 m3∙s-1. In 2007 lake stur-
geon movements and reproduction during scenic flows were examined and it
was found that sturgeon spawned upstream and downstream of the generating
station. In 2008 and 2009, an attempt was made to examine another flow condi-
tion (14 m3∙s-1) to determine if migration to the base of the falls and successful
spawning would occur. Due to high water conditions, however, spill flow could
not be controlled at 14 m3∙s-1 during these years. In 2010, lake sturgeon spawning
migrations and reproductive success were examined during controlled flows of 14 m3∙s-1, and it was found that sturgeon spawned upstream
and downstream of the generating station. Adult sturgeon reached the spawning site below the falls and spawned successfully during mean
daily spill flows of 14.6 m3∙s-1 and 16.6 m3∙s-1.

The period when larvae drift downstream from the spawning site is variable, depending on spawning times and water temperature
during incubation. Larvae was documented drifting downstream from the spawning site from May 31 to July 20 (figure 1.2) during
flows that ranged from 14.7 to 177 m3∙s-1.

In 2011, another attempt was made to examine lake sturgeon spawning migrations and reproductive success during controlled spill
flows of 14 m3∙s-1. Spill was provided from May 15 to June 26, with a 4 day taper to scenic flows. Only two of the 25 sturgeon ra-
dio tagged in 2011 migrated to Kakabeka Falls. These fish arrived at Kakabeka on May 15 (14.7°C) and May 18 (14.8°C) during total
river flows that ranged from 32 to 58 m3∙s-1. One sturgeon accessed the base of the falls during controlled spill of 14.7 m3∙s-1 and
migrated back downstream during controlled spill of 16.3 m3∙s-1. The other sturgeon accessed the base of the falls during controlled
spill of 14.8 m3∙s-1 and migrated back downstream during controlled spill of 14.5 m3∙s-1.

figure

1.2

Days during which larvae were captured drifting downstream from Kakabeka Falls, 2004 to 2011.


Lake sturgeon are listed as “threatened” under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act 2007. As a result of this listing, lake sturgeon and
their habitats receive special protection. It is unlawful to kill, harm, or harass the species or damage or destroy habitat, which the sp-
cies depends on to carry out its life processes (i.e. spawning habitat). MNR and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) will be reviewing the
results of this eight-year study, and will use the information to improve spawning conditions for lake sturgeon at Kakabeka Falls.

Action (SM-FWP-4): Current River Walleye Assessment
Status: Ongoing Monitoring Initiative (Completed – 1991 to 1993, 2010 to 2012)
Proponent: Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management Unit)
Cost: $10,000/year

The mouth of Current River is a known historical spawning site for walleye within the Thunder Bay harbour. In 1984, however, the
construction of the federal docks contributed to a loss of spawning habitat due to navigational dredging. Further degradation has
occurred due to railway and shipping-related development. As compensation for habitat loss, artificial spawning habitat was installed
at a nearby location at the mouth of the Current River in 1991 (Geiling 1995).

The Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan (RAP) includes prescribed monitoring actions to “fill baseline information gaps wherever possible and track progress on re-
storing the fish and wildlife beneficial uses” (Vander Wal et al. 2004, pg.51). For this reason the spawning population of walleye at the mouth of the Current River
has been periodically assessed, using a mark-recapture protocol, initially in 1991-1993 by the MNR Lake Superior Programs Office (LSPO) (Geiling et al. 1996),
with a follow-up study in 1999-2000 by the MNR Upper Great Lakes Management Unit (Schmidt and Friday 2000). The current study (2010-2012) is the third in
this series of spawning assessments (Bobrowicz 2011) (table 1.3).

Pre-spawning and spawning walleye were captured alive using a 1.8 m (6 ft) trapnet with a 60 m (200 ft) lead situated on the south shore of the main island at the
estuary of the Current River. The trapnet was lifted every 24 hours. All walleye were sampled (length, weight, sex, gonad development) and tagged with a T-bar
anchor tag (“Floy tag”) embedded in the dorsal musculature. Aging structures were collected (scales, dorsal spines), and aging of individual fish was completed at
the MNR aging laboratory in Dryden. The removal of the first three dorsal spines also served as a redundant marking for fish captured in 2010. In addition to the
dorsal spines, fish captured in 2011 were given a left pectoral clip as a distinguishing mark. All walleye were released alive. The spawning population for 2010 was
estimated at 364 ±80 (R. Bobrowski, MNR, personal communication). Population estimates for 1972, 1999, and 2000 are not available due to low sample sizes and
inconsistency in sampling years. Population estimate for 2011 will be calculated based on the number of recaptures in the 2012 netting project.

table YEAR

1.3
Population Estimate Estimation Method

1991* 1167 (938-1544) Schumacher

1992* 1188 (923-1668) Schumacher

1993* 1485 (1098-2293) Schumacher

2010** 364 (284-444) Chapman-Peterson

Current River walleye spawning population estimates based on mark recapture data (range in
parentheses). *From Geiling et al. (1996). ** Population estimate based on limited sample size. A more
accurate representation of population size should be available in 2013.

The concluding round of mark-recapture trapnetting in this phase of the Current River walleye assessment was conducted in the spring of
2012.

2
.1.2 Loss of Fish Habitat
Dynamic fish and wildlife habitat degradation within the Thunder Bay AOC has resulted in a loss of species abundance and diversity,
reduced recreational opportunities, and a decline in the aesthetic value of the harbour and its tributaries. To date, habitat enhancement
projects have restored and created nearshore aquatic habitat, stabilized wetlands, restored riverine diversity, and increased abundance
of fish and wildlife populations. Although a large portion of fish and wildlife habitat has now been restored, issues still exist that require
further resolution.


table

1.4 Delisting Criteria - Loss of Fish Habitat

This beneficial use will no longer be impaired when the following habitat-related projects from the Thunder Bay Stage
2 RAP Report (2004) have been completed, evaluated for effectiveness, and areas support diverse self-sustaining
biological communities:

• Alleviation of water quality barriers to fish migration in the Kaministiquia River
• Re-vegetation projects in McVicar Creek and McKellar River
• Habitat improvements associated with the creation of Sanctuary Island at the mouth of McVicar Creek
• Habitat remediation on McKellar River
• Rehabilitation of walleye spawning habitat at Current River Estuary
• Improving salmonid access to the upper reaches of the Current River
• Implement the Slate River Watershed Management Plan
• Monitoring to support lake sturgeon rehabilitation strategy
• Implement plan for shoreline naturalization within the Thunder Bay AOC

In addition to the Stage 2 RAP projects, the following should also be completed:

• Remaining and created wetlands are protected from further degradation through existing environmental legislation,
with provincial standards used to inventory and classify wetlands within the Thunder Bay AOC
• Provide unrestricted access to critical spawning habitat by providing adequate flow in the Kaministiquia River
• Ensure that native fish populations are not negatively affected by industrial water-use practices, including water intake
and discharge

Action (SM-FWH-1): Fish Habitat Classification and Assessment
Status: Planned for 2012
Proponent: Environment Canada with support from Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management Unit)
Cost: $30,000

Important information on fish habitat quality and quantity can be determined by identifying and mapping the lakebed characteristics. Assess-
ment of the availability of fish habitat in the AOC will indicate the success of previous habitat restoration projects in restoring this beneficial
use. This project will provide information about the extent and quality of fish habitat in the form of a ground truthed dataset developed by EC
and a summary report reviewed by the MNR. Milestones for this project include:

• Completion of monitoring field work for the assessment of the substrate, which will include examining components of cobble
and gravel areas for sediment and/or organic material
• Classification and assessment of lake bottom (submerged) substrates to determine the amount of fish habitat for each life stage
• Creation of substrate and bathymetry maps that show fish habitat classification and availability

Action (SM-FWH-2): Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept (NOWPARC) Fish Community Comparison
Status: Completed Monitoring Initiative (2005-2006)
Proponent: Ministry of Natural Resources (Upper Great Lakes Management Unit) and Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Cost: Not Available

In 2004 and 2006, the MNR conducted a study to assess and compare the fish community around the Northern Wood Preservers
(NWP) Inc. property with contemporary fish communities at four other sites within the Thunder Bay Harbour, as well as with pre-reme-
diation (1986) data from around the NWP property (Parker et al. 2008). Sampling sites included two additional remediation locations:
the mouth of McVicar Creek, and the McKellar River embayment. Fish communities were sampled using a combination of boat and
backpack electrofishing, seine netting, and minnow trapping. Sampling techniques varied drastically in their effectiveness with boat
electrofishing and seine netting capturing the greatest number of fish and species.

UPDATE THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN 1 0

In comparison to other contemporary sites within the Thunder Bay Harbour, the NWP area had moderate to high values of fish diver-
sity and low to moderate fish abundance. The contemporary relative abundance of fish at NWP was well within the range reported for
18 sites that were sampled prior to remedial actions (1986). The McKellar River embayment remediation project in particular shows no-
tably high relative abundance values when compared to both contemporary and historical data. These results suggest that suitability

of fish habitat around the restored areas of NWP is similar to that of other sites within the Thunder Bay Harbour. Given that remedial
actions were not concluded until 2003, any responses by the fish community around the NWP property are likely ongoing and will
require future sampling.

2
.1.3 Fish Consumption Restrictions
In the outer harbour, consumption is restricted for lake trout 35 cm (toxaphene), walleye 55 cm (mercury), northern pike 65 cm
(mercury), whitefish 45 cm (toxaphene), carp 65 cm (PCBs), and longnose suckers 45 cm (mercury) (MOE 1999). In the inner har-
bour of Thunder Bay, fish consumption is restricted for walleye 45 cm (mercury), northern pike 75 cm (mercury), round whitefish 45
cm (mercury), carp 65 cm (PCBs), and white suckers 45 cm (mercury).

table

1.5 Delisting Criteria - Fish Consumption Restrictions

This beneficial use will no longer be impaired when the fish consumption advisories in the AOC (inner and outer Har-
bour) are no more restrictive than the advisories for the same contaminants in an open water reference site (Schreiber
Point to Sewell Point – Block 7), based on samples collected in the same time frame ( 5 years) for a minimum of two
consecutive studies.

Action (SM-FCR-1): Statistical Analysis of Fish Consumption Advisory Data
Proponent: Ministry of the Environment
Cost: $15,000

A statistical analysis was conducted to compare fish contaminant levels in the Thunder Bay AOC with that from reference sites and de-
termine trends over time. Data was insufficient to make an accurate assessment of long-term trends, and therefore a follow up study
is planned to expand the fish consumption data set for both the Thunder Bay AOC and its Lake Superior reference site. The MOE will
continue to monitor and compare consumption advisories and contaminants in sport fish collected during the same time period from
the inner and outer harbour and appropriate reference sites, such as the open water area from Schreiber Point to Sewell Point (Block 7
in the Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish) (MOE Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program).

2
.1.4 Body Burdens of Fish
Lake trout and white sucker populations have exhibited reductions in body burdens of dioxins (Vander Wal et al. 2004). PCB levels in
lake trout and whitefish still exceed guidelines for the protection of organisms that consume fish (Vander Wal et al. 2004).

table

1.6 Delisting Criteria - Body Burdens of Fish

young-of-the-year fish(7 cm) can be used as a line of evidence in determining fish consumption advisories. restrictions on fish consumption will
no longer be listed as an impairment when contaminant levels in young-of-year fish (7 cm) collected within the AOC exhibit declining or stable
concentrations, and have lower or equivalent contaminant levels to young-of-year fish collected at a suitable reference site for a minimum of two
consecutive studies.

Note: An appropriate reference site is in the process of being established through a criteria-based approach. Site selection will take into consid-
eration both environmental characteristics of the AOC as well as existing land-use practices. The main focus of the ‘body burdens of fish’ BUI is
to assess local conditions. Young-of-the-Year (YOY) fish are the best surrogates for this BUI as they dwell in the nearshore and do not travel
great distances. Measuring contaminants in YOY tissue generally provides an indication of the local conditions and/or point sources. However,
the caveat to assessing YOY is that often the contaminant levels observed in tissue are not at a level of concern, as the young fish do not ac-
cumulate enough contaminant in the first year. As such, adequate reference sites, as well as multiple lines of evidence (e.g., sport fish tissue), are
required for comparisons and assessments.

1 1 THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN UPDATE

Photo by Ministry of the Environment

Action (SM-BBF-1): Assessment of Body Burdens of Fish within Thunder Bay AOC
Status: Data collected in 2011 Analysis Planned for 2012
Cost: Not Available

During the 2011 sampling season a study was conducted to monitor and compare contaminants in young-of-the-year (YOY) and for-
age fish, such as white sucker, collected from the Thunder Bay AOC and an appropriate reference site. As small fish are unlikely to be
found in the open water reference sites used for the sport fish analysis, an alternative reference site will be selected.

2
.1.5 Fish Tumours and Other Deformities
In the 1980s, tumours in wild fish populations were found in multiple Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs), including elevated occur-
rences in the Thunder Bay AOC. Studies by Environment Canada over 20 years ago showed that white suckers (Catostomus commer-
soni) around Thunder Bay had a liver tumour (neoplasm) prevalence rate of 7.1%. When compared with a reference site at Mountain
Bay, which had a prevalence rate of only 2.6%, these values were consider unusually high and prompted fish tumours to be designated
as impaired under the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) program in the early 1990s.

In 2006-07, Environment Canada reassessed white suckers from the AOC and found the tumour prevalence rate to be 2%, a 5.1%
decrease from some twenty years prior. In addition, the Thunder Bay fish were not significantly different from white suckers sampled
at the Mountain Bay reference location. However, although the results are encouraging, the age of the specimens collected in 2006
were relatively young (median age was five years younger than the reference location) and therefore relatively low tumour rates are to
be expected. Although this study limitation was partially offset by having more numerous liver sections examined, the RAP team rec-
ommended a follow-up survey to verify this low tumour rate.

table

1.7 Delisting Criteria - Fish Tumours Other Deformities

This BUI will no longer be impaired when a survey of 100 white suckers (Catostomus commersoni) - and more if avail
able - encompassing a diverse age range indicates a liver tumour prevalence rate of less than 5%.

Action (SM-FTD-1): Thunder Bay AOC Fish Tumour Assessment
Proponent: Environment Canada with support from Fisheries Oceans Canada (Winnipeg lab)
Cost: $70,000

Tumours in fish were an impaired beneficial use at many AOCs. Environment Canada scientists have assessed liver tumours and external and
internal DELTs (deformities, erosions, lesions, and tumours) at most Canadian AOCs (Baumann 2010a). This assessment found that follow-up
work was required at the Thunder Bay AOC. Completion of the tumour assessments will enable us to assess the tumour BUI at individual AOCs
and will also permit comparisons of tumour rates across Canadian AOCs. It will also facilitate the creation of a Great Lakes tumor database for
comparison of background tumour rates and as a reference aid for reliable diagnostics which will be critical as the move is made into recovery
monitoring at the Canadian AOC sites. In the Thunder Bay AOC, Environment Canada will conduct the field sampling in 2013, while the Depart-
ment of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) will perform the tumour assessment and diagnoses. Environment Canada will then develop the summary
report. The main products of this project will be the publication of tumour assessment data for Canadian AOCs, the creation of a fish tumour
database for the Great Lakes Basin, and either the completion of the tumour assessment for Thunder Bay AOC or identifcation of areas requir-
ing follow-up studies or actions. The reference tumour database will play a key role in the monitoring of tumour rates in areas in recovery.


2 .2 S E D I M E N T CO N TA M I N AT I O N

Sediment contamination within the Thunder Bay AOC has been one of the major causes of environmental impairments within the area.
Historical degradation of sediment quality and benthic community structure have been observed below the AbitibiBowater outfall in
the Kaministiquia River, near the former Northern Wood Preservers site in the intercity harbour, and around the North Harbour Industrial
Site (RAP Stage 1 1991). Since these original findings, significant improvements have been made through both remedial actions and
effluent treatment technology, including the successful completion of the Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Concept
(NOWPARC) Project. For our purposes, the following beneficial use impairments (BUIs) will be addressed through this section: Degrada-
tion of Benthos and Restrictions on Dredging Activities.

2.2.1 Degradation of Benthos

table

1.8 Delisting Criteria - Degradation of Benthos

Benthic community impairments were originally identified in three locations within the Thunder Bay Area of Concern:
the Kaministiquia River, the area adjacent to the Northern Wood Preservers (NWP) property, and the area adjacent to
the former Cascades Fine Paper property (“North Harbour”). Each of the identified sites has its own unique character-
istics, contaminants of concern, and prescribed management action, and therefore requires distinct delisting
criteria.

Lower Kaministiquia River (including Mission McKeller Rivers): This BUI will no longer be impaired when monitoring
data indicates that the benthic invertebrate communities and contaminant concentrations in sediment from the lower
Kaministiquia River, Mission River, and the McKellar River remain stable (similar to 2005 data), or are improving.

Northern Wood Preservers Site: The Northern Wood Preservers Alternative Remediation Project for contaminated sediment (NOWPARC) was
completed in 2003. Benthos will no longer be impaired when monitoring data indicates that the benthic community from the NOWPARC area is
similar to the benthic community in other parts of the harbour.

North Harbour Industrial Site: This BUI will no longer be impaired when: 1) monitoring data indicates that contaminant
concentrations in sediment and/or benthos from the North Harbour are showing a declining trend in concentrations
and benthic communities are improving; and 2) site specific criteria have been met (or objectives accomplished) as per the sediment management plan
(to be added when available).

Action (SM-DB-1): North Harbour Sediment Management Strategy
Status: Ongoing Assessment Initiative
Proponent: Environment Canada, Ministry of the Environment, and
Cascades Fine Paper Group
Cost: To be determined

Sediments in the northern portion of Thunder Bay harbour (North
Habour) have total mercury levels that exceed the Provincial Sediment Photo by Ministry of the Environment
Quality Guidelines (PSQG) Severe Effect Level over an area covering
approximately three hectares adjacent to the Superior Fine Papers
Inc. effluent outfall. The Stage 2 RAP report (2004) recommended the
completion of additional sediment assessments in this area to fill any
data gaps that might impede the proper development and implemen-
tation of effective remediation measures.

A number of studies have been conducted since this time to better
delineate the extent of contamination in the North Harbour (North/
South Consultants Inc. 2006, Fletcher 2006, Milani and Grapentine
2006, Stantec 2003). In 2009 representatives from Abitibi Consolidated
Inc, Cascades Fine Paper Group, Environment Canada, and the Ministry
of the Environment formed a steering committee and contracted
AMEC to assess the technical feasibility of sediment management op-
tions (AMEC, 2010 2011). Although their study identified information gaps, AMEC suggested that an isolation cap would be the
most technically feasible option, however, a pilot test would be required prior to making a final decision with respect to sediment
management.


Subsequently, the Steering Committee contracted Anchor
QEA to complete a peer review of the technical feasibility
study; their report recommended further characterization
in the form of additional geotechnical work, sampling and
modelling before selecting a preferred sediment manage-
ment option (Anchor QEA, 2011).

A Detailed Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment and

Preliminary Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment
are currently underway. All exposure pathways will be
identified and depicted in Conceptual Site Models (CSMs)
to estimate the risks to wildlife and humans.

A Preliminary Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment
is currently underway. A CSM will be developed and the
risk and all potential exposure pathways to human recep-
tors will be identified.

table

1.9 Sediment Management
Options
Advantages Disadvantages

Monitored Natural • Low cost • Does not reduce exposures
Attenuation • Can be easily • Does not reduce toxicity or mobility
implemented • Timeframe for natural reduction of
contaminant concentrations uncertain
• Long-term monitoring
• Land use controls necessary

Construction of an • Reduces exposures to • Land use controls necessary
Engineered (Sand or contaminants of concern • Long-term monitoring/maintenance
Reactive) Isolation (COCs) • Implementation pilot study needed prior
Cap • Relatively low cost to construction to reduce uncertainties
• Quick results • Short-term risks with resuspension of
• Low impact particulates during construction
implementation • Mitigation for loss of shoreline access and
open water

Dredging with • Reduces exposure to • Uncertainties with implementation of the
Disposal at an Onsite contaminants CDF
Confined Disposal Facility • Land use controls necessary
(CDF) • Long-term monitoring/maintenance
• Short-term risks with resuspension of
particulates during construction
• Mitigation for loss of shoreline access and
open water

Dredging with • Eliminates exposure to • Land use controls necessary
Disposal at an Offsite contaminants • Long-term monitoring
CDF • CDF already exists • Short-term risks with resuspension of
(managed by the Thunder particulates during construction
Bay Port Authority) • Material must be transported through
active shipping channels
• Permitting issues may prohibit disposal in
offsite CDF
• Long-term and short-term adverse impacts
to nearby receptors

Dredging with • Eliminates exposure to • Short-term risks with resuspension of
Disposal in an Upland contaminants particulates during construction
Disposal Facility • Ex situ water treatment and disposal
• Long-term risk for disposal in local landfill

Common Sediment Management Options as Screened for Technical Feasibility (AMEC, 2011).


Additional studies to characterize the site and existing Mission Bay CDF will be undertaken to assess sediment management options
and may include:

• Debris Survey - to assess potential hazards involved in the implementation of the selected sediment option. Potential logging
debris within the enriched organic sediment (EOS) could impact the selection of a preferred dredging method and/or slow down
dredging operations.
• Dredging Study – based on information on the EOS, identify and evaluate approaches for the containment of solids and dis-
solved phase that is reasonably conservative. There is a need to better define the dredging accuracy based on the contaminated
and native material characteristics. One way to achieve this would be speak to dredging contractors and survey other projects for
actual overdredge achieved, success and problems and lessons learned.
• Geotechnical/Fate and Transport Study - evaluate fate and transport of contaminants within the off-site CDFs through modeling
and research. Conduct geotech and other studies to assess the existing CDF
• Dewatering tests and effluent treatment – determine the best method for dewatering the EOS, and estimate the volume of water
requiring treatment that is generated during dredging and treatment requirements to meet the Provincial Water Quality Guide-
lines (PWQG).
• Dewatering tests and effluent treatment – determine the best method for dewatering the EOS, and estimate the volume of water
requiring treatment that is generated during dredging and treatment requirements to meet the PWQG.

After these studies are completed, preferred sediment management option(s) can be selected with public input. Once preferred
management option(s) is/are selected, engineering design and environmental assessment need to be completed.

Action (SM-DB-2): Northern Wood Preservers Site
Status: Ongoing Monitoring Initiative (Completed – 1999, 2003, 2004, 2007 and 2009)
Proponent: Ministry of Environment
Cost: Not Available

Sediment adjacent to the Northern Wood Preservers site was heav-
ily contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs from
creosote), chlorophenols, and dioxins and furans (impurities from
PCP); all contaminants that were used or produced for over 60 years
during the wood treatment process (Clerk et al., 2011). Remediation
of the contaminated sediment (termed the Northern Wood Preserv-
ers Alternative Remediation Concept – NOWPARC) commenced in
1997 with the goal to isolate the contaminant sources, clean-up the

contaminated sediment, and enhance fish habitat. The project was
completed in 2005 with most contaminated sediment removed, the
area capped and bermed, and the installation of both a clay and
Waterloo barrier around the initial footprint of the site.

On the Northern Wood Preservers site, groundwater and storm wa-
ter is collected and pre-treated at the site. Groundwater is partially
treated and discharged to the Thunder Bay sanitary sewer under a
Sewer Use Bylaw Agreement. Storm water is managed by a storm
water treatment pond that discharges to Lake Superior via perme-
able pond berms and an overflow spillway.

Sediment outside of the berm was considered to be a low
hazard to aquatic life (Jaagumagi et al. 2001), and as such, it
was determined that a long-term monitoring plan would be implemented to monitor natural recovery of the sediment. Monitoring of the
sediment, water, and biota was conducted in 1999, 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2009. The 2009 report (Clerk et al. 2011) is in draft form and will be
available in early 2012.

Results of the 2009 monitoring survey (Clerk et al. 2011) showed that at most sampling sites in the area left for natural recovery, there
has been a marked improvement in the sediment; total PAH concentrations in the sediment have decreased since 2004. However, to-
tal PAH continues to be elevated above the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines (PSQG), with sediment at one site in the northeast
corner exceeding the PSQG severe effect level (SEL). While sediment PAH concentrations have decreased in the northeast corner
of the site, concentrations of PAHs at some of neighbouring sampling sites have increased. This occurrence is likely due to weathering
of PAHs at the more contaminated sites, and the mobilization of the lower-ringed compounds generally associated with creosote
(phenanthrene, pyrene, and fluoranthene) from the more contaminated sites to the previously less-contaminated neighbouring sites.
As creosote in the contaminated sediment continues to break down, similar changes in contamination patterns may be observed.
Despite the elevated levels of PAHs, there does not seem to be a measurable impact to the resident benthic invertebrates (when
compared to harbour reference sites).


Toxicity to invertebrates was observed in the laboratory for some of the more heavily contaminated sites; however it is hypothesized
that in situ, the invertebrates can avoid the distinct lenses of contaminated sediment, and thus avoid adverse effects. Exposed caged
mussels had elevated concentrations of PAHs, especially in the northeast corner of the natural recovery area. The observed elevated
concentrations were likely a reflection of elevated sediment levels, as PAHs detected in all water samples were at low levels.

Next Steps: The next monitoring event is scheduled for 2014, at which time a review of the long-term monitoring data will be lead by
the MOE and EC.

Action (SM-DB-3): 2011 Thunder Bay AOC Sediment Survey
Status: Completed Monitoring Initiative
Cost: Not Available

There are several distinct areas within the Thunder Bay Area of Concern (AOC) that
have significant sediment contamination issues.
While some areas are well characterized, others areas (such as in the vicinity of
Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc., and east of the
Mission and McKellar deltic islands) have not been re-examined in some time. The
main objective of the 2011 Thunder Bay Harbour
Sediment Survey was to monitor the residual impacts of historical discharges in
the sediment of selected locations in the Thunder
Bay Harbour. Specifically, the area east of the delta associated with the Kaminis-
tiquia River, and the area at the outfall of the former

Smurfit-Stone plant was investigated.

Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc., formerly Thunder Bay Packaging, is located
2 km outside of the breakwall north of the Thunder Bay Harbour. The company
began operation in 1996 and produced 100% recycled corrugating medium
from mixed office wastes and recovered cardboard containers, until their closure
in 2003 (Thunder Bay RAP, 2004). The plant ran for a year and a half with only
primary treatment (effluent released to the Harbour via a clarifier and a settling
lagoon), resulting in exceedences of monthly discharge limits for TSS, BOD, tolu-
ene, phenol, and effluent toxicity. The implementation of secondary treatment
improved the effluent quality; however some problems still remained (Thunder
Bay RAP, 2004).

The Stage 2 Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan (2004) outlined remedial strategies for ecosystem restoration. The remedial strategy for Smurfit
Stone was listed under recommendation 1-3, under the impaired beneficial uses related to fish and wildlife. Recommendation 1-3 was to
“rehabilitate ecosystem function and structure in order to support a diverse, healthy, self-sustaining biological community”. This will ultimately
require the virtual elimination of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances (bearing in mind social and economic factors) to ensure
that the water quality and sediment conditions in both the lower Kaministiquia River and in the Thunder Bay Harbour provide a healthy and
hospitable environment.” Specifically the monitoring action (NPSM-4) for Smurfit-Stone was to ‘determine the extent and severity of any
sediment contamination that may exist as a result of historic discharges at Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc.’ It was further outlined that if
sediment contamination was identified then additional monitoring actions should be initiated to determine identity, toxicity, bioavailability,
distribution, and degree to which the contaminants are contributing to the impairment within the AOC (Thunder Bay RAP, 2004). The survey
conducted in 2011 only addressed the severity of sediment contamination in the vicinity of the former Smurfit-Stone process effluent outfall
(via the collection of sediment samples for chemistry). If a comparison of the chemistry results to the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines
(PSQG) indicates an issue, then the extent of sediment contamination, and any potential impacts to biota, will be studied further. There is no
reason to expect significant sediment contamination adjacent to the former Smurfit-Stone site.

It has been documented in the past, and most recently in a 2005 study, that organics, metals, and nutrients are present in the sedi-
ment of the Kaministiquia River, and its associated deltic rivers (Mission and McKellar). Of interest in the 2011 study was the current
quality of the sediment east of the delta, towards the Welcome Islands. There have been a number of provincial studies that have
focused on the area east of the delta (Anderson 1986, Simpson 1987, Boyd 1990, and Richman 2004). Anderson (1986) found that the
zone of influence, with regard to water quality, was from the Kaministiquia River delta east to the Welcome Islands (7.5 km) and south
to Pie Island (13 km). In 1999, Richman found that similar to previous studies, the most degraded areas were the lower Kaministiquia
River and outward from the delta. Several industries that would have contributed to the contaminant loading in these earlier studies
have either ceased operations, or implemented greater pollution controls.


2
.2.2 Restrictions on Dredging
Restrictions on Dredging was originally listed as impaired within the Thunder Bay AOC due to elevated levels of PCBs, heavy metals,
and nutrients which exceeded the Open Water Disposal Guidelines (RAP Stage 1). At the time, dredged material which exceeded
the OWDG were disposed of in a confined disposal facility in Mission Bay. In 1993 the province of Ontario adopted the Provincial
Sediment Quality Guidelines (PSQGs), and an implementation procedure to assess sediment suitability for open water disposal and
Lakefill Guidelines. Today, sediments from occasional navigational dredging in Thunder Bay harbour that are not suitable for open
water disposal are still disposed of at the Mission Bay CDF (RAP Stage 2). Most new dredging projects are required to test dredged
sediments prior to removal, and suitability for open water disposal is assessed against the procedure included in the PSQG guidance.
This procedure has meant that sediments from most new dredging projects rarely qualify for open water disposal and are disposed of
either in confined disposal facilities (CDFs), or at upland (landfill) sites (Golder 2012).

The nearshore CDF was designed with a two million cubic meter sediment capacity (RAP Stage 2), including four enclosed contami-
nant cells and a holding reservoir/receiving cell (Jarvis 2010). It was estimated in 2004 that only half of the sediment capacity of the
CDF had been utilized (RAP Stage 2). Since this time, the Thunder Bay Port Authority conducted a small dredging program in 2007;
dredged material was placed within the receiving cell (Jarvis 2010).

The RAP Stage 2 report (2004) “Strategy to Address Dredging Restrictions” had three substantive recommendations (see below). With
guidelines and permit requirements in place for navigational dredging when it is required, regular monitoring of the Mission Bay CDF
and progress on all of the point source actions listed below it appears that all required actions to address the restrictions on dredging
BUI have been completed in the Thunder Bay Area of Concern.

1. Ensure dredging and sediment disposal does not contribute to the degradation of the aquatic ecosystem.
2. Maintain a multiple use approach to waterfront areas by ensuring that the harbour continues to function as a shipping port.
3. Controlling point sources of pollution - Actions PS-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6

Levels of locally produced contaminants are expected to decline now that many of the following pollution prevention measures at
industrial sites along the waterfront have already been implemented.

• Secondary Treatment at the Resolute Pulp and Paper Mill
• Upgrades at Thunder Bay Terminals
• Developments at Ontario Power Generation - Thunder Bay Generating Station
• Secondary Treatment at Abitibi-Consolidated
• Redirect Stormwater Outlet and Oil Separator Discharge at CPR
• Secondary Treatment at Water Pollution Control Plant

The Restrictions on Dredging BUI was previously used as an indicator of contaminated sediments, though it may have been intended
as an indicator of additional cost associated with contaminated sediments. With the development of the PSQG in 1993 and the Cana-
da Ontario Sediment Decision Making Framework in 2007, focus on contaminated sediment was properly shifted to an effects-based
assessment approach. Now that more regulatory tools and appropriate methods are in place to assess the effects of contaminants in sediments
this BUI no longer makes sense for most Canadian Areas of Concern.

No additional management action is necessary to restore restrictions on dredging as a beneficial use within the Thunder Bay AOC.

2 .3 WAT E R Q UA L I T Y

Water quality was originally identified as a concern within the Thunder Bay AOC due to elevated biological oxygen demand (BOD), Total
Phosphorus (TP), and E.coli exceeding of Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQOs) (Boyd 1990, RAP Stage 1 1991). These impairments
were primarily associated with the discharge of industrial and municipal effluent, as well as urban and stormwater runoff. Since this time,
contaminant loading has been significantly reduced as a result of upgrades to industrial treatment facilities, and the construction and subse-
quent upgrades to the Thunder Bay Water Pollution Control Plant. The RAP program uses a series of beneficial uses to represent water
quality impairments within the AOC; these include Beach Advisories, Degradation of Phytoplankton Zooplankton, and Degradation of
Aesthetics.

2
.3.1 Beach Advisories
The Thunder Bay District Health Unit periodically posts swimming advisories at the Chippewa Park and Boulevard Lake beaches.
The postings are due to elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria and are triggered when water quality samples exceed the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment Guideline for Recreational Water Quality (Ontario Public Health 2008). The guideline is exceeded when E.
coli levels are in excess of 100 counts per 100 millilitres of water, based on the geometric mean of at least five samples (Ministry of the
Environment, 1994, RAP Stage 1 1991).


Thunder bay rap update report 2012

Thunder bay rap update report 2012

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Thunder bay rap update report 2012

Similar to Thunder bay rap update report 2012 (20)

More from Lake Superior Binational Forum

More from Lake Superior Binational Forum (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Thunder bay rap update report 2012