Great Lakes Water Quality Board Report to the International Joint Commission 1987 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality Appendix A Progress in Developing Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin Presented at Toledo, Ohio November 1987 Cette publication peut aussi Gtre obtenue en franGais. Table of Contents Page AC r ‘LEDGEMENTS iii INTRODUCTION 1 1. PENINSULA HARBOUR 5 2. JACKFISH BAY 9 3. NIPIGON BAY 13 4. THUNDER BAY (Kaministikwia River) 17 5. ST. LOUIS RIVER/BAY 23 6. TORCH LAKE 27 7. DEER LAKE-CARP CREEK/RIVER 29 8. MANISTIQUE RIVER 31 9. MENOMINEE RIVER 33 IO. FOX RIVER/SOUTHERN GREEN BAY 35 11. SHEBOY GAN 41 12. MILWAUKEE HARBOR 47 13. WAUKEGAN HARBOR 55 14. GRAND CALUMET RIVER/INDIANA HARBOR CANAL 57 15. KALAMAZOO RIVER 63 16. MUSKEGON LAKE 65 17. WHITE LAKE 69 18. SAGINAW RIVER/BAY 73 19. COLLINGWOOD HARBOUR 79 20. PENETANG BAY to STURGE1 r BAY ( EVER 0 ir c 83 21. SPANISH RIVER 87 22. CLINTON RIVER 89 23. ROUGE RIVER 93 24. RIVER RAISIN 99 25. MAUMEE RIVER 101 26. BLACK RIVER 105 27. CUYAHOGA RIVER 109 28. ASHTABULA RIVER 113 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 29. WHEATLEY HARBOUR 117 30. BUFFALO RIVER 123 31. EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK 127 32. ROCHESTER EMBAYMENT 131 33. OSWEGO RIVER 135 34. BAY OF QUINTE 139 35. PORT HOPE 145 36. TORONTO HARBOUR 151 37. HAMILTON HARBOUR 157 38. ST. MARYS RIVER 165 39. ST. CLAIR RIVER 171 40. DETROIT RIVER 181 41. NIAGARA RIVER 185 42. ST. LAWRENCE RIVER 195 ANNEX I LIST OF RAP COORDINATORS 1203 GLOSSARY 207 ii Acknowledgements Remedial action plans (RAPs) for the 42 Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes basin are being prepared by the jurisdictions (i.e. the eight Great Lakes states and the Province of Ontario), with assistance from federal and local governments and concerned citizenry. The Water Quality Board wishes to acknowledge the RAP Coordinators and other members of the RAP writing teams who provided information for this report. In addition, the Board wishes to acknowledge the important contributions of all people working in many different capacities on development of RAPs. It will only be through a cooperative effort that we will be able to achieve our common goals. iii Introduction Since 1973, the Great Lakes Water Quality Board has identified Areas of Concern (originally called 'problem areas') where Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement objectives or jurisdictional standards, criteria or guidelines established to protect uses have been exceeded and remedial measures are necessary to restore beneficial uses. Areas of Concern include the major municipal and industrial centers on Great Lakes rivers, harbours and connecting channels. The major problems identified in Areas of Concern have changed in parallel to the evolution of scientific knowledge of water quality problems (i.e. from bacterial pollution to eutrophication to toxic substances contamination) and progress in implementing pollution controls. Despite considerable progress, particularly in abating bacterial pollution and cultural eutrophication, the Board reports that there are still 42 Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes basin (Figure 1) where beneficial uses are impaired. Although some Areas of Concern still exhibit bacterial pollution and eutrophication problems, the major problem in 41 of the 42 Areas of Concern today is toxic substances contamination. In addition, there are differences between Areas of Concern in the severity of problems. In 1985, the Board reported that it was not always clear on how to track and measure progress in Areas of Concern or how to remove one from the Areas of Concern list. In addition, there was at best, limited progress in remediating toxic substances problems in Areas of Concern. To alleviate these problems, the Board adopted a new system of categories for Areas of Concern which represents a logical sequence for problem solving and resolution. The categories identify the status of the information base, programs which are underway to fill in information gaps, and the status of remedial efforts. Remedial action plans are developed in order to address specific use impairments. Resolution takes place when evidence can be presented that the full complement of uses has been restored and the site can be removed from the Areas of Concern list. As a result of adopting the six category system for classifying Areas of Concern in the 1985 Board Report, the eight Great Lakes states and the Province of Ontario committed themselves to developing a remedial action plan (RAP) to restore all beneficial uses in each Area of Concern within their political boundaries (see Table 1). RAPS will not only identify specific measures necessary to control existing sources of pollution, abate environmental contamination already present and restore beneficial uses, but also present timetables for remedial action implementation to be able to measure progress. Chapter 4 (i.e. Restoration of Areas of Concern) in the 1987 Water Quality Board Report presents an overview of the RAP development program. This appendix to the 1987 Water Quality Board Report has been prepared to present specific information on progress in developing remedial action plans for each of the 42 Areas of Concern. The data and information presented in this appendix is based on RAP status reports received in May 1987. Information is presented on each Area of Concern in the order presented in Table 1. For further details about a particular Area of Concern, the reader is encouraged to contact the RAP Coordinators identified in Annex 1. -1- -2- TABLE 1 JURISDICTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS FOR THE 42 AREAS OF CONCERN IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN RESPONSIBLE MAP JURISDICTION AREAS OF CONCERN BY LAKE BASIN REF. N0.a Lake Suoeri or Ontario Peninsula Harbour 1 On tari o Jackfish Bay 2 Ontario Nipigon Bay 3 Ontario Thunder Bay 4 Mi nnesota/Wi sconsi n St. Louis River 5 Michigan Torch Lake 6 Michigan Deer Lake-Carp Creek-Carp R.Jer 7 Lake Michiqan Michi gan Manistique River B Wisconsin/Michigan Menomi nee River 9 Wisconsin Fox River/Southern Green Bay 10 Wiscons in She boygan 11 Wisconsin Mi 1 waukee Harbor 12 I11 i noi s Waukegan Harbor 13 Indiana Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal 14 Michigan Kal amazoo River 15 Michi gan Muskegon Lake 16 Michi gan White Lake 17 Lake Huron Michigan Sagi naw River/Sagi naw Bay 18 Ontario Collingwood Harbour 19 Ontario Penetang Bay to Sturgeon Bay 20 Ontario Spanish River Mouth 21 Lake Erie Michigan C1 i nton River 22 Michigan Rouge River 23 Michigan River Raisin 24 Ohio Maurnee River 25 Ohio Black River 26 Ohio Cuyahoga River 27 Ohio Ashtabula River 28 Ontario Wheatley Harbour 29 Lake Ontario New York Buffalo River 30 New York Eighteen Mile Creek 31 New York Rochester Embayment 32 New York Oswego River 33 Ontario Bay of Quinte 34 Ontario Port Hope 35 Ontario Toronto Waterfront 36 On tari o Hamilton Harbour 37 Connectina Channels Ontario/Mi chi gan St. Marys River 38 Ontario/Mi chigan St. Clair River 39 Michigan/Ontario Detroit River 40 Ontario/New York Niagara River 41 OntarioINew York St. Lawrence River 42 aSee Figure 1. -3- 1. PENINSULA HARBOUR Environmental Assessment Peninsula Harbour is located on the northeastern shore of Lake Superior, 300 km (186 miles) east of the city of Thunder Bay. The town of Marathon (population: 2,250) is situated on the southeastern shore of the harbour. The principal industry in the town of Marathon is a bleached-kraft pulp mill complex owned by James River-Marathon, Limited. Both the mill and the municipal sewage treatment plant discharge their effluents to Lake Superior, adjacent to Peninsula Harbour. Prior to 1984, surveys of the Peninsula Harbour area indicated that the main impacts resulting from industrial discharges were bacteriological contamination, aesthetic impairment, mercury accumulation in fish and sediments, and organic enrichment of the lake bottom. The effects of the effluent plume on surface water chemistry were increased dissolved and suspended solids, nutrients, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand and phenols. The most significant changes in concentrations of these materials were restricted to the vicinity of the outfall. An intensive study of the effluent plume characteristics in relation to the diffuser outfall was carried out in 1986. Near-field dilutions in the immediate vicinity of the diffuser were approximately 50: 1 with dilutions of 1,000: 1 being achieved within 4,000 m. Conductivity values in the vicinity of the diffuser ranged from 100 to 125 pmhos/cm, compared to background levels of 65 pmhos/cm. Prior to the installation of the diffuser outfall, conductivities near the point of discharge were as high as 400 pmhos/cm. Drastic reductions in concentrations of other pollutants such as BOD and phenols were also noted in the discharge area. Bacteria levels were also much reduced in the 1986 survey where fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus levels were 10 and 4 per 100 mL, respectively. Previous levels were as high as 15,000 and 900 organisms per 100 mL, respectively. Although the in-plant modernization program and the use of the diffuser to dilute the effluent have been successful in eliminating large areas of concentrated contamination, laboratory bioassays of the effluent prior to discharge remain very toxic at 96-hour LCqo values of approximately 15%. Results of plume tracking, fish caging and fish netting studies indicate, however, that there are no zones of acute lethality in Lake Superior in the vicinity of the discharge; nor does the effluent appear to represent a chemical barrier to shoreline passage of migrating fish. The benthic populations likewise were largely unaffected. Prior to 1976, American Can Company of Canada Limited, the previous owner of the kraft mill, also operated a chlor-alkali plant on the mill property adjacent to Peninsula Harbour.