. :

'1 ,. , Bay Remedial ~ctionPlan

. . 'I... stage 2: ~emedialstrategies. for' '. ... Ecosystem Restoration . . i I

October 1995 , I (reprinted Februaty 1996 with Implementation Annex) Prepared by: Nipigon Bay Remedial Action Plan Team

with assistance from:

Nipigod Bay kblic. . Advisory Cdimk , ' . . " . ' ' . . >

NIPIGON BAY

. . NORTH SHORE . . OF SUPERIOR ' I : REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS . . . . . ~ ...... 1''', ......

. . . , . . . . . I '1 ......

1.:...... I

The N~pigonBay Stage 2 document was prepared by the North Shore of RAP Team Members of the RAP Teams and their affiliations are:

Ken Cullis (coordinator, Mipigon Bay) Ministry of ~aturalResources, Lake Superi~rManagement Unit . .

Jim Murphy (Coordinator. ~ackfishBay) : Ontario Ministry of ~nvironmentand , ' . Energy..Nolthem Region

Jake Vander Wal (Coordinator, Thunder Ontario Ministry of Environment and . ..

Bay and Peninsula. ~ Harbour) EnergylEnvironment . . John deBakker Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy

John Kelso Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Linda Melnyk-Ferguson . . Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. . ' . Nipigon District . . . . Ian Smith Ontario Ministry of Environment and . Energy

Patrick Morash Lake superior Programs

The RAP Teams would like to thank the North Shore Public Advisory Committees (PACs) for their assistance in preparing this document. Nipigon Bay PAC members are as follows:

. . ~ike~outilier Betty Brill - .. . . Rob Clark Ontario Hydro Public Domtar Packaging . . avid Crawford Maureen Dampier William Heitanen Waterfront . Nipigon Tourism Public 'Development and Nipigon Chamber of Commerce - . .

avid 'Nuttall. . ' Ll'oyd Roy Joe Procunier

Kama Point Cam,pe?s Public ' , Red Rock Fish and Game Association Club ' Doug Mowat Tom Murphy ' Bruce piitchaid Township of Red Rock Public Municipal Economic ...... Development Agency

PAC members provtded invaluable assistance in investigating and evaluating remedial options. They developed Water Use Goals which laid the foundation for choosing remedial options and provided suggestions on how to achieve these Goals. Through the PAC, the RAP Team is better able to prov~deand implement a Remed~alAction Plan that fulfils the goals and expectations of the community.

The work of PAC facilitators, whose involvement is crucial to the RAP process. is also recognized: . . Cindy Tulk Todd Hurdon

Special thanks to JimRusak (Northshore of Lake supen& Remedial AUionPlans), the primaw architect of this document...... ,.. i.: ...... This report has beeri,prepared under'the airspies of the ~anada-Ontario~rbat . . I Remedial Action Plan Program. Financial support for the preparation of this . .,

report was provided by the Ontario Ministry of Environmerit.and Energy, the Ontario . , ' Ministry of Natural Resources,. the. Department of Fisheries-andOceans, and . ' .I .. Environment.Canada: . I . :'

...... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...:..... :...:. : ...... :. .: 1 ...... : ...... i ... introduction ...... , ...; . .#.. .:...... :.... 1...... :...... i 1. :The Nipigon.Bay Ecosystem .... , . : ....1. . :. . ;...... : ...... :... iii Nipigon Bay Impairments and Goals: ... .,...... : . ; ...... ; ...... iii . Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration :.- ...... I . .'-.. ;...... : . iv I:O INTRODUCTION ...... -: ...... 1 1.1 Stages of ttie Plan . .;.. : ...... ' .. .:...... : ...: ...... 1 . . 1.2 PAC lnvolve,ment ...... i :...... :. .... ; . ;...... ; ...... 2 . ; .: . . . . . 2.0 THE NIPIGON BAY ECOSYSTEM .:..... ; ...... 1 4 I. .. 2.i.:Physical'~eatures ...... ; . .'. . : ...... , ...... ; . :...... 4 . .. 2.2 Biol~gicalFeatures ...... I :. '...... : .. :', 6 . , ... 2.3 Socioeconomic Profile ..: . ; ...... : ...: ...... :...... 9 2.4 Sources of Pollution ...... I . ;...... :...... :. .... 10 .. 3.0NlPlGON BAY IMPAlRMENTSANDGOALS. . .d.:. ; ::. ., ...... 12 3.1 Nipigon Bay.lmpairments' .....: : ....:...... , , , ...... :..... 12 .. 3.2 Nipigon Bay PAC Water-Use Goals ...... , ...... 17 ..

... : : 4.0 REMEDIAL STRATEGIES FOR ECOSYSTEM~RESTORATION...... : ...... 24 .. '4.1 Fish and Wildlife Population ~~namid~and~abitat Loss ...: .. ;.:. , . : 27 ... 4.2 Benthic population Dynamics:and Habitat Loss . : ...: ...... : ...... 40 ...... 4.3 Aesthetics ...... :...... 46 4 . '4.4 Education and Stewardship ...; ...... 50 I .. , 4.5 Future .Concerns ...... : ...... :. ...:.. ...; ...... 55 . . ... REFERENCES ...... :. ..:... .-.I...... ;...... 56'...... I. . . APPENDICES ...... ; ....1 60 ..IMPLEMENTATION ANNEX .:...... ;...... : ...... : ...... 92 ...... LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ......

. Table. A.GtWQA, A comparison in Nipigon of "im&irme"tsBay (impaired of =.I, beneficial not impaired uses",. = asNI, definedrequires by'thi. further , . . assessment = RFA)...... ': ...... Figure I. TheNipigo"B.y Area Of Concern. AOC sediment sampling areas .I , are indicated by' lightly-shaded'ellipses...... : ...... able 1'; The definition and current status of problem areas through an.

integration of use-impairments with PAC water use goals...... i ... 1 .. Table 2. A summary of remedial actions required to restore fish and.wildlife habitat and population dynamics with.associated criteria for targets; .. timetables, monitoring; and proponent involvement.' ;...... Table 3. A summary of remedial actions required to restore benthic habitat,and population dynamics with associated'criteria for targets, timetables, I monitoring and proponent involvement...... : : ..; .... : ...... Table4. A summary of remedial actions required to restore aesthetics with. associated criteria for targets, timetables, monitoring and proponent I involvement...... :. ... ;...... Table 5. A summary of remedial actions required to enhance education and : encourage stewardship with associated criteria for targets, timetables, . I monitoring and proponent involvement. :.. . :. . ; ..:...... : ...... : ......

LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . ' '...... I

. ~ Appendix 1.. ~i'~i~on:~a~RAP activities from September 1991 - May 1995...... Appendix 2A. Fauna of the Nipigon Bay AOC- Birds...... : ......

Appendix 2B. Fauna of the Nipigon Bay AOC -~'erpetiles(~m~hibiansand: ' : . . Reptiles) ...... : ...... ;...... Appendix 2C. Fauna of the Nipigon Bay AOC - Mammals...... Appendix 2D. Fauna of the Nipigon Bay AOC - Fish...... Appendix. 2E. Flora of the ~ipi'gonBay A0.C and the corresponding habitats in ' , which they are commonly found. : .... : ...... Appendix 3. A Stage 2 summary of GLWQA u~e~impairments.. Impaired stafus is defined as impaired (I), not impaired (NI).or requires further'. .. I .: assessment (RFA)...... : Appendix.4: A'collection of factsheets detailing the rationale and data,used to remove impairments of beneficial uses in the Nipigon Bay AQC...... : .. Appendix 5. A chronological summaryof accomplishments by fiscal (*complete)...... , ...... : ...... ~ppendix'6.Summary of the Nipigon ~iverWater ~anagementPlan preferred option. .:.. I ...... ;.: ...... / ...... : ....; ...... ,. .. Appendix 7. Dry weight sediment data from 1.988 and 1991 samples (Kirby ... unpublished data). Surface values are the range for 6 samples. Core. data are the mean of 2 samples taken fidm 28.1 - 30.0:cm below sediment surface...... 1.: .:. : ...... :. . j. :... : :.... ; ...... Appendix 8. Organic and total mercury levels in' surficial (< 10 cm) sediments adjacent to the omt tar outfal! (Murphy unpublished data)...... : .....: Appendix 9: Sediment PCB congener resui'ts (ngg dry wt.) for the area

. . ,- immediatelyadjaceht'to the Domtar mill obtfall.(~ur'~h~unpublished 'data). The PSQG for total PCB is 70 nglg.' ....: ...... : ...... Appendix 10. Background levels of metals in sediments ofthe Great ~akes (from PSQG, MOEE 1993). Values are measured as dry weights and are, . . based-on analyses of preco~bnia~sediment horizon...... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

. Introduction

As a direct result of the Canada - U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 and its 1987 revisions (GLWQA), participating federal, state and provincial agencies, in cooperation with the International Joint Commission (IJC), identified 43 polluted areas on the Great Lakes as individual Areas of Concern (AOCs), for which a cleanup or Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was required. Seventeen AOCs are in Ontario, and four are located on the north shore of Lake Superior. Nipigon Bay is the lake's most northerly AOC.

The Stage 2 document Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration, building on the remedial actions selected in the Discussion of Remedial Options in the Nipigon Bay AOC, outlines stakeholder commitments and implementation timetables necessary to restore the impaired beneficial uses identified in Stage 1 Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition. Actions to date have resulted in, a) the complete restoration of 3 and: b) the partial restoration of 2, of the 8 impairments of beneficial uses initially identifisd as impaired or requiring further assessment (Table A).

TABLE A. A comparison of "impairments of beneficial uses", as defined by the GLWQA, in Nipigon Bay (impaired = I, not impaired = NI, requires further assessment = RFA).

Stage Stage GLWQA IMPAIRMENT OF BENEFICIAL USE 1 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2 Status . . Status

Restrictions'on Fish and Wildlife Cpnsumption NI No consumption restrictions NI

Tainting of Fish. and Wildlife Flavour I Fish flavour no longer considered impaired due NI to mill processchanges anda continued lack of complaints. W~ldlifeflavour remains unimpaired . @

- ~ ~~~p~ ~~ ~~ - Degradation of Fish and W~ldlifePopulations

Dynamics of Fish Populations I The loss of walleye and perch fisheries in Nipigo~ Bay and declines in and lake trout stocks. continue to affect fish population dynamics. Fluctuating water levels, degraded ., water qualdy and.aquatic habitat, excessive exploitation, invasions of sea lamprey and other exotic species; andTFM application have all been implicated as contributing factors. .. . - - Body Burdens of Fish RFA Further sampling of fish has confirmed that bod) burdens for anthropogenic contaminants continue to remain low. Dynamics of W~ldlifePopulations NI Area faunal surveys indicate that diversityis . NI relatively high and abundances, although. fluctuating, are typical of the region.

Body Burdens of Widlife I il ISamoina ofcontaminant.residues in waterbirds '1 NI I and an idex established to assess the rlsk of I I fish-eat~nawlldlife bioaccumulat~no I

Fish Tumours and Other Deformities

Bird and An~malDeformities or Reproductive NI A continued lack of evidence from studies of +IProblems I Inearby connorant and herring gull colonies. I NI I Degradation of Benthos

Dynamics of Benthic Populations I The benthic community remains degraded in the vicinitylof the Dorntar mill and the Nipigon STP outfa11.1. ,

Body Burdens of Benthic organism RFA Low lej'el~oi contaminants in sport fish and .. . . . sedi~nh(relative to background and ambient 'conditions) were documented in the bay. Lack o . . support foreither a cause or effect of benthic contamination resutls in'its unimpaired status..

I . ~xceedancesof the PSQG's for a numberof metals'and nutrients occur in most areas of Nipigon Bay. However, strict applicationof these guidelines to the specific historical and ambient conditions found in the bay would allow the disposal of dredgedsediments, except from the area adjacent to the milt discharge, in most open-kter areas of the AOC. The sediments adjacent' to the Domtar outfall have never been. Inor are they scheduled to be, dredged. Becausc these sediments represent 'the only area exceeding guidelines, this use will be considered Iunimpaired. , Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae I Algal growth on substrates in the lower river may I be affecting spawning: Theinadequacy of the Nipigon. Red Rock, and Domtar STPs continues , to impact the ecosystem.

~ ~estrictionson Drinking Water consumption or NI Same status as reported in Stage 1. Taste and Odour Problems . . I I Beach Closing NI 1 Same =tatus as reported in Stage 1. N I

~, ~ ~ - -

Degradation of Aesthetics , . I Degraded water.quallty (efflueni plume) and' industrial development have impaired waterfront aesthe'tics. The installation of a foam barrier in the outfall channel appears to have resolved a I previous foam issue. Added Cost to Agriculture and Industry NI Same status as repoced in Stage 1'. N I

Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton NI Same status as reported in Stage 1. N I Populations

Loss of Fish and Wlldlife ~a'bitat . I Degradation continues at the mill outfall due to I wood fibre and contaminant accumulations, in Cleatwater and, potentially. Big Trout Creek from . anthropogenic, stresses, and throughout the watershed due to water level and flow fluctuations from hydro-electric generation., STP.discharge is affecting water quality and benthic communities.

' Substrate algal growth in the lower river maybe , impairing spawning success for some fish species. Historical stresses include scouring and transport of substrate from log drives as:well as a potential loss of both fish and wildlife' habiiat from former timber hawest practices. Ahernatives to the chemical controlof sea lamprey are being . . examined. . .

PAC involvement in Nipigon Bay RAP has been extensive, and integral to the success I of the process. The combination of local knowledge and community-based goals with scientific data and expertise has resulted in a pragmatic and defensible strategy I to rehabilitate the remaining problems in the AOC ecosystem.

1 The Nipigon Bay Ecosystem Noteworthy updates to our Stage 1 description of Nipigon Bay include additional I information on AOC flora and fauna (updated lists of fish and mammal species as well as new compilations of birds, herpetofauna and vegetation) and, most notably, a socioeconomic profile for the region. By dividing the ecosystem into separate I physical and biological components, resource use is discussed and its implications for remedial action planning are highlighted. The most notable stresses on the ecosystem are related to water level and flow fluctuations in and the I Nipigon River that result from the generation of hydroelectricity, discharges from the Domtar linerboard mill and sewage treatment plants in Nipigon and Red Rock and their impact on the benthic community, and the effects of timber harvest practices on I fish and wildlife habitat.

Nipigon Bay Impairments and Goals

Both the identified "impairments of beneficial uses" and PAC Water Use Goals I require resolution before the Nipigon Bay AOC can be delisted. To this end, Stage 2 has combined both impairments and. goals to define areas where problems still ' . '

remain as well as corresponding objectives for their restoration. The four resultant . . . I . areas identified'were: 1) fish and. wildlife habitat and population dynamics, 2) benthic habitat and population dynamics, I .- 3) aesthetics, and 4) education and stewardship. . . . I . . . . Remedial Strategies for ~cos~stemRestoration . . . . . I The remedial actions required for the effective remediation of each of the identified problem areas are listed below. These strategies, some of which are already complete (indicated by plain arrows) and all of which have already begun (circled I arrows), are seen as realistic solutions and, when implemented, should result in the complete restoration of the Nipigon Bay ecosystem.

I . . I Fish andwildlife Habitat and Population ~~nar$ia . . .m 9' Cleanup historic spawninggrounds a/ld wetlands in lower Aver I 9 Rejuvenate walleye populations via adult walleye stocking program 3 Implement a new design for a self-cleaning spawning substrate I 3 Restore Clearwater and Big Trout Crelek habitat .' ' 3 lmplement Nipigon River Water Manag'ement Plan 3 'Secondary treatment for Domtar Mill and NipigonIRed Rock STP effluent . . ' - 3 Controlsea lamprey via means other jthan lampricide I 3 Construct habitat overlay for Red Rock ~arina . . 3 Restore benthic populations via sediment remediation ' I . 3 Baseline monitoring and review of fis$ community , . i Benthic Habitat and Popula'tion Dynamics . j . . I I 11 . . . 3 Secondary treatment for Domtar Milleffluent ' 3 ~emediatesediment in area of Domtar mill outfall 3 Secondary treatment for townships of l~i~igonand ~edRock '.

.' . 3 Monitorbenthic population in Nipigon Bay ...... 1 :.

Aesthetics . ' ' I ...... I . ". 3 Secondary treatment for Domtar mill effluent ' . ,.. 3 Constnrct habitat overlay for Red Rock ~arina" . . 3 Restore Clearwaterand Big Trout ~r+k'habitat 3 implement ~ipigonRiver Water ~anagement.plan I . . . . I Education and Stewardship I- 3 Construct interpretive component to Clearwater Creek habitat project r 3 Construct Nipigon Environmental Interpretive Centre and Museum I 3 Continue Nipigon Bay PAC as an environmental committee 3 Construct interpretive component to Red Rock Marina I 3 Examine and quantify environment - economy linkages As one might expect when designing strategies for ecosystem remediation, identified 1. actionrarehot speecific to individual pmblemareas, but, more often thannot, can be. applied towards the resolution of a number of issues. Thus, fheactions . recommended above can. be consolidated into thirteen individlial remedial projects, I that remain to be completed in NipigonBay. 'These are listed.below, as are their approximate total cost, estimates.. (K = thousands of dollars) and current status.

REMEDIAL ACTION !az% STATUS Priority Actions in progress 1. Big Trout Creek Inventory $25 K for inventory 1995 completion 2. Clearwater Creek Restoration - $900 K Ongoing 3. Domtar Secondary Treatment $25000 K 1995 completion 4. Assess Algal Growth in River $TBA 1995 completion 5. NipigonlRed Rock STP Upgrade $500-1000 I tooo-1500 K Pending study results Priority Actions near completion 6. Environment - Economy Study $15 K 1995 completion 7. Nipigon River Water Mgmt Plan $400 K 1995 implementation 8. Red Rock Marina Habitat $300 K 1995 completion Ongoing Projects 9. Ecosystem Monitoring $25 K annually Ongoing - Stage 3 10. Nipigon Bay PAC Involvement $TEA Ongoing - Stage 3 11. Nipigon Environmental Centre $5000 K Pending funding 12. Sea Lamprey Control Alternatives $50 K + $27 K annually Assessment ongoing 13. Sediment Remediation $500 K Pending study results . . !. . . I . . .. I ,. . ..'

' Section. ,. 1.0 1.~ ......

' .I . ' , , , . . INTRODUCTION : . . . .

. . . I,

. The one process now going on that will take millions of 16 correct is the loss df . genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. .This is the folly . . our descendants are least likely t0.forgiv.e. , . (E. .O. Wilson ......

Making a Great ~akesu~eriorNipigon Bay . ' 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Stages of,the Plan ...... As a direct result of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of .l978-(GLWQA)and. its 1987 revisions, participating federal, state and provincial agencies, in cooperation with the International Joint Commission (IJC), identified 43 degraded areas on the Great' Lakes as individual Areas-of Concern (AOCs), for which a cleanup or Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was required. seventeen of these areas are in Ontario, and four are' located on the north shore of Lake Superior. . .

Under the 1994 Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Ecosystem (COA), the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE) and Environment Canada will continue coordinating the development of the seventeen Canad~anRAPs. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) are also playing important roles in the development of the North Shore of Lake Superior RAPs.

The cooperation and involvement of these and other agencies results.from the necessity to view the AOCs from an ecosystem perspective, a holistic view incorporating land, water, air, plants, animals and, ultimately, people. Thus, the Great Lakes Health Effects Program (GLHEP) has also recently been working with RAP teams on the integration of human health considerations into the development and implementation of RAPs. In addition, members of the public are essential participants in the RAP process and are represented as members of the Public - Advisory Committee (PAC). The PAC provides a forum for the spectrum of interests that exist in a community. On the Nipigon Bay PAC, labour, industry, fisheries, environment, education, government and the general public are all represented.

Earlier in the RAP process, the Nipigon Bay PAC evaluated the identified environmental impairments and developed a list of objectives for the remediation of the area. These objectives have been incorporated into the first stage of the RAP, a detailed description of the environmental conditions and problems in the AOC. The document, Stage 1: Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition, has been completed and recently reviewed by both federal and provincial agencies and the IJC. An Options Discussion Paper then developed a list of remedial measures to address the identified environmental problems, carefully weighing each option and identifying preferences. This discussion paper was made available for public comment, as part of the ongoing community involvement critical to a RAP'S development, to assist in the selection of a preferred course of action.

The Stage 2 document Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration uses the selected options to outline stakeholder commitments and implementation timetables . . .. . 2 stage 2 *Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration . . necessary to restore impaired beneficial uses. The resolutions developed herein lay the groundwork for the third stage which monitors the path of remediation in the AOC, documenting progress and updating remedial efforts. An integral part of Stage 3 is this monitoring effort and the tools (biological community properties, restoration of habitat function, sediment and water chemistry $ampling etc.) it employs to assess ecosystem recovery. Thus, the monitoring protocol proposed in this document was explicitly designed to be logistically realistic without impairing its ability to effectively resolve ecosystem change. II The recommended options outlined in the follo4ing pages are thought to be appropriate solutions to the environmental problems facing the AOC and should successfully restore beneficial uses. However, the RAP process is a dynamic one and, when monitoring progress in Stage 3, we must also be willing to recognize any deficiencies that arise and act accordingly to modify remedial strategies.

1.2 PAC Involvement

PAC involvement in Nipigon Bay RAP has been extensive (Appendix I),and integral to the success of the process. The combination of local knowledge and community- based goals with scientific data and expertise has resulted in a pragmatic and defensible strategy to rehabilitate the AOC. Although the formal submission of the Stage 2 document (Recommended Plan) to the federal and provincial governments changes PAC involvement in the RAP from plan development to assisting implementation and monitoring progress, the cooperation, understanding, and stewardship that has been fostered will undoubtpdly continue to affect the community and its outlook on future environmental concerns. I 1 Section 2.0 I THE NlPlGON BAY ECOSYSTEM - I

.., . .. There's no system like an ecosystem, .-. ,.- it's the only system I know ... - Broadway musical 4 Stage 2 Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration 1 2.0 THE NlPlGON BAY ECOSYSTEM

Background information on the Nipigon' Bay AOq hasbeen detailed in the Stage 1 . . document (Nipigon Bay ,WPTeam 1991). The section that follows will briefly summarize background iriformation that is pertinent to Stage 2 discussions and '. . I document recent andadditional information that was initially absent...... 1 . . 2.1 Physical Features .I...... ' I . Nipigon Bay is the most northerly area of Lake quperior (Figure .I)and receives most of its drainage from a watershed underlain by Canadian Shield. The AOC has, as its I. most notable feature, the Nipigon River, flowing into the bay from the north. . . Originating at the outflow of Lake Nipigon,.the riqeris the largest single tributary'to I Lake Superior'and is an important source of hydroelectricity. The first upstream barrier o'n the river, Ontario Hydro's Alexander am,. delineates the northerly boundary for the AOC. However, many of theproblems being 'addressed require a larger I perspective; resulting in an informal expansion o'f the AOC to include the watershed.

Resource Use: Land

Land use in the area has been largely restricted to urbanization and forestry, with only a limited amount of agriculture,and because of the area's aesthetics, for hiking and I camping throughout the AOC. Each community operates separate municipal landfills well-removed from watercourses. Domtar uses two landfill sites, one for sludge waste (wood fibre) adjacent to mill property away from the water, and the other, for I general mill refuse, at the south end of its property adjacent to the lake. The latter landfill will have its leachate and runoff directed to Domtar's secondary treatment facility, presently under construction. Domtar also has a registered PCB storage site I behind the mill and away from the water. The mining industry has not been involved in resource use in the AOC, but Falconbridge Inc. is presently examining the potential for nickel extraction from a deposit, thought to be quite large, underlying Nipigon Bay. I

Resource Use: Water

Water is extracted for drinking and industrially, at Domtar, for in-mill processing. Thus three separate intakes are present in the AOC. Recreational uses of water resources are primarily restricted to boating. Dams on the Nipigon River operated by Ontario I Hydro regulate flow for the purposes of generating electricity. This manipulation has . resulted in unnatural flow regimes and water levels in the Nipigon watershed. I Implications for Remedial Action Planning . . .. , ; I The most pressing physical issue facing the ~ipigonBay ecosystem involves water . , . use and concerns the regulation of river flow and lake levels by Ontario Hydro. . . I ......

I . FIGURE'I. The Nipigon ~ay~rea Of ~oncern.AOC sediment... sampling areasare" . . indicated by lightly-shaded ellipses...... I...... I. :.

1. ;. ,. :. ,, .', I 6 . . .. Stage 2 ~emedial~trate~ies.for~cos~stem: Restoration . . . . i . .. . , .j 2.2 Biological. . ..Features, I . ..: . . j .. . The Nipigon Bay ecosystem is comprised of a wide variety of plants and animals, some of which were documented in Stage 1. Additional information regarding species distribut~onis now available on nesting/birds (Appendix Za), herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles - Appendix 2b), and mammals (Appendix 2c). Updated lists of fish species in the river and bay as well as vegetation in the AOC are also provided (Appendices 2d and 2e). These lists have been compiled from a number of sources, the most notable of which have been contact with members of the Field Naturalists (N. Escott, S. Bryan) and Lakehead University's ornithologist (J. Ryder), searches on the Ontario breeding bird, mammal and herpetofaunal databases and review of a recent Reconnaissance Life and Eaqh Science Inventory of the Nipigon River contracted by the Nipigon District MNR (Gpre and Storrie 1994) The more comprehensive species lists presented here may be used to infer habitat requirements and indicate habitat types that may need to be protected or restored. I 1 Data on bird abundance for Lake Nipigon'have been gathered by the Thunder Bay Field Naturalists (Escott and Bryan 1993) to coypare with a study conducted in the same area during 1923-24 (Snyder 1928). Over five-day periods in 1991 and 1992, 107 species of birds were recorded, compared with the 97 compiled during the previous survey. The most striking change over/ this 67-year interval was a marked increase in the number and diversity of colonial ,waterbirds. Great blue herons (Ardea herodius), ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis), and white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorynchos) colonized the area, while loonsi(Gavia immer), ducks, herring gulls (Larus argentatus) 2nd double-crested cormoral;lts (Phalacrocorax aurifis) have increased, the latter, dramatically. Several specles of large raptors, a variety of swallows, ravens (Corvus corax), and evening grosbeaks (Coccothraustes vespertinus) also appear to have increased. Species with notable declines included the american kestrel (Falco spardenus), mourning warbler (Oporonis philadelphia), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), killdeer (Charadnus vociferus) and various . shorebirds. Attempts to interpret declines did not reveal any apparent losses of specific habitat types and differences may well {epresent background variation in abundances, although changes in water levels n the lake and timber harvest practices in the watershed may have had somebffect on shorebirds and forest interior species respectively. The observed increases of large raptors and the breeding range expansion of pelicans (represedting only the second known colony in Ontario - Bryan 1991) are noteworthy, given that these birds are top predators in aquatic and terrestrial habitats they occupy and,/ as such, are valuable integrators of the health of the food chain. In general, the watershed appears to support a healthy avian fauna that is likely somewhat more diverse than is typical for this latitude because of the wide range of habitats in the AOC. I Gore and Storrie (1994)alsd document several important and unique terrestrialand . .I 1 Making a Great Lake Superior Nipigon Bay 7 wetland habitat features along the Nipigon River. These features include the marshes and submerged aquatic communities south of the Town of Nipigon, a fen located just north of Cameron Falls adjacent to the river, and a peatland community just south of Pine Portage. Bird and Hale (1994) also conducted an inventory, similar to the Nipigon River study, for Lake Nipigon. They too identified a number of unique habitats in this area of the watershed. In addition, critical areas throughout the watershed are associated with the numerous wildlife species that require fairly specific requirements for breeding, such as peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus), bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), ospreys (Pandion haliaetus), blue herons and white pelicans.

Resource Use: Flora

Use of the area's forests has centred around the pulp and paper industry. Domtar owns timber rights in the Nipigon Bay watershed for the forest east of the Nipigon River and MacMillan Bloedel, Domtar, and others are allocated wood by MNR from the area west of the river. -.. Resource Use: Fauna

Trapping fur-bearers in the AOC is a practice that undoubtedly dates back to the area's first inhabitants, the late Archaic-period Indians, who occupied the area approximately 4000 years ago. After European contact the area became the most profitable fur-bearing district along the north shore of Lake Superior, with the beave~ otter, fox, and muskrat associated with Nipigon waterways in seemingly limitless .: supply (Bertrand 1959). Trapping continues today, with 73 licensed traplines in the: Nipigon Bay watershed. Traplines are regulated by the OMNR and Nipigon District biologists have not observed any recent declines in the abundance of furbearers in the watershed (R. Swainson, R. Hartley personal communication).

The status of sport and commercial fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreational activities remain essentially unchanged since Stage 1, as do their management by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Implications for RemedialAction Planning

The two inventories noted above (Bird and Hale 1994, Gore and Storrie 1994) were commissioned by the MNR as part of its Keep It Wild program. This program represents MNR's commitment to a global initiative, consistent with the outcome of the 1992 Rio de Janiero World Summit, aimed at better protecting natural heritage values. The MNR is now conducting public information sessions to gather feedback on the opportunities identified for conservation and protection. 8 Stage 2 Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration

. . Timber harvest practices have had, and will continue-to have, 'an effect on the Nipigon, Bay ecosystem. Although a number of.different effects have been reported, interisive timber hawest adjacent to streams has been most consistently shown .toincrease stream water temperat~re~watervolume, sedimbnt load and large woodydebris while decreasing stream productivity through reductions in leaf litter inputs (e.g. . , Krause 1982, Salo and Cundy 1987, Hartman and Scrivener 1990). These potential . . degradations of fish habitat may thusaffect virtually any stage offish development. . I W~ldlifespecies depend on forests for habitat and forests depend on a variety of links with endemic wildlife to sustain a viable structure and function. Timber harvest can directly affect wildlife by reducing or eliminating available habitat for some species while increasing it for others, but, in general, fragmenting the forest which remains (Wedeles and Van Damme 1994). These effects are related to the home range size and habitat requirements of a species as well as its dependence on the availability of migratory corridors to maintain a viable population. Because it is virtually impossible to manage for all species at once, managing to attempt to mimic natural ecosystem disturbance is likely the most viable approach (Hunter 1990, Wedeles and Van Damme 1994). . . . Timber management plans f& forest management units within the .district of Nipigon are developed for 20 year periods and renewed every five years. Effortsare now being

. . made provincially to indorporate an "ecosystemq approach into forest management decisions as well as attempt to preserve habitahfor "featured specie's" (which

. . .. , include moose, deer, bear and, most recently, pjileated woodpecker and pine marten) . when allocating wood fibre. In addition, provinci,alhearingstodevise a long-term, sustainable, and ecologically-sound strategy to pivest timbb (Timber Management

. . , class Environmental ~ssessmentHearings)haye recently'resulted.in 115 terms and. conditions applicable,, through various initiative's,and legislation, to harvesting . . operationsop crown lands. One such MNR initiative has been the establishment of the centre for Northern Forest Eco'system ~es4archwhose mandate is to determine

, the effectiveness of current management guideljnes via' long-term research into timber harvest effects on aquatic, terresirial, and tourism values. The Crown Forest Sustainability Act, passed in 1995, is the most iecent 'legislation to result from these terms and conditions. The Actis a culmination of a series of commitments MNR has made to developing an ecosystem approach to resou-rce management and'has, as . . its primarygoal, the sustainability of crown forests. It guaranteesthat there will be funding for.forest renewal and protectionfor sensitive areas. 'AS part of the Act, MNR , . . . . has introduced. a significant change ,in terminology, from "Timber" to "Forest" Management Planning. This shift in emphasis is both noteworthy and laudable, as adherence to the old terminology suggested that the allocation of wood fibre remained of primary importance and the "ecosystem" and 'watershed". valueswere incorporated only as mitigation techniques once: harvest blocks were assigned. . . Changes such-as these are. subtle, but are undoubtedly necessary before-tha practice I ' . . I Making a Great Lake Superior Nipigon Bay 9 of managing for ecosystem function can be fully embraced. We are optimistic that I future practices will be conducted in a manner that will be least harmful to the Nipigon Bay ecosystem, assuming the recommended terms and conditions of the class EA I hearings are put into practice. 2.3 Socioeconomic Profile

A RAP, to be comprehensive in approach and context, must include a fundamental awareness of the connections among all environmental factors, socioeconomic I included. This approach can only lead to options that strive to be realistic and sustainable in the long term. The Stage 1 report identified a knowledge gap concerning the socioeconomic status of the Nipigon Bay AOC and the subsequent I need for completion of a study to address this deficiency. The resulti,ng document (Schaefer 1992), from which the following information has been obtained, was a descriptive summary of social and economic observations, factors, and trends in the I Nipigon Bay area with particular relevance to the RAP process.

As of 1991, the populations of Nipigon and Red Rock were 2250 and 1510, I respectively. This represents a 16% loss in population for the AOC over the past 30 years. The trend ir. Nipigon Bay has been closely linked with the economic well-being I of the local forest-based industries (primarily Domtar in Red Rock - pulp and paper . and, secondarily, MacMillan Bloedel in Nipigon - plywood) and, in the short term, this link will likely continue. Assuming constant economic conditions in this sector, I predicted growth would result in approximately 400 more people in the AOC by 2011. - Conversely, the labour force and mix of economic activities in the AOC, particularly in '- the town of Nipigon, have experienced some expansion into the areas of tourism and I recreational opportunities over the last decade, adding to economic diversity. This trend has also been somewhat evident in Red Rock with work having begun on a marina and park located on the town's waterfront and encompassing Big Trout Creek. I If these activities flourish, as currently planned, the local population could double. This growth in the service sector and concurrent shift away from reliance on the manufacturing sector will increasingly provide greater community stability and I resilience during periodic downturns in the forestry sector. I Implications for Remedial Action Planning If the status quo remains, with the predicted moderate population increase, the implications for change in land and water use are not extensive. However, with the I two-fold increase possible under economic diversification, considerable investments in water supply and sewerage facilities and increases in recreational water and waterfront use would result. This latter scenario underlines the need for careful I planning and sustainable solutions to eliminate potential environmental effects on the *" * r 10 Stage 2 Remedial strategies for Ecosystem Restoration

beneficial. uses. of the land.and water of Nipigon Bay. , . . . . . In many ways, the success of the RAP process is important so as not to constrain the area's potentlal for future expansion into tourism. Attracting and sustaining the required visitorship rests, to some degree, on the success of remedial efforts in Nipigon Bay. Thus, while the cost of rest~rationlma~,in some instances, seem high, the potential benefits resulting from increased economic stability and opportunities are enormous. To this end, a study to explore and quantify the linkages between economic development capacity and the restoration, enhancement, and protection of natural ecosystems is scheduled for 1995, using the activities surrounding the Nipigon Bay RAP as data. The common thread emerging from similar analyses is that our livelihood in today's evolving and economy is directly tied to the restoration and protection of our environment.

Health Effects

The well-being of the AOC's residents is part of the overall health of the ecosystem. GLHEP has been working on links between human health and the environment with the aim of integrating issues relative to human health into all RAPS. This program is committed to the long-term monitoring and resolution of health-related issues in the Great Lakes basin. To this end, they have recently been developing tools to assist RAP teams and health professionals, collecting data for assessing human exposure, working on education programs and addressing community concerns in all AOCs.

. . . .

2.4 Sources of Pollution ~ ., , . . I The sources of contaminants entering the ~i~i~lnBay ecosystem have remained unchanged since Stage 1 and include three point sources and several non-point sources. The point sources include Domtar Packaging Ltd., the Red Rock Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) discharging into Nipigon Bay, and the Nipigon STP discharging into the Nipigon River. Stack emissions from Domtar are presently meeting provincial air quality objectives for particulate matter, but exceedances still occur for odour level guidelines (MOEE i994a). Non-point sources ihlude atmospheric deposition, in- place sediment contamination, historic pesticide treatments, current lampricide treatments, and potential spills (with the largest ;threat coming from the two rail lines that pass through the AOC). At present, both railways are complying with government regulations concerning emergency response to a spill event. Domtar'has the equipment and trained staff necessary to deal with any spills at the mill and has also offered assistance via a first response team to deal with minor spills outside the mill in the past. ,Section 3.0

NlPlGON BAY IMPAIRMENTS AND GOALS

...... Unless it is cherished, the gloryof the ~i~i~o"may fade andthe story of its marvellous attractions may becomea tradition of .the past. - ~ac~onough,A "gentleman anglef, '1888. . . . .

. ~ ......

. ~ 8' ' . ,. .

: 12 . . Stage 2.Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem ~estoration . . ~. 3.0 NlPlGON BAY IMPAIRMENTS AND GOALS I

-. . The ultimate goal ifany. RAP is the' effective rehabilitation of all use-impairments; as

. . defined. by the GLWQA '(1987); in an AOC.(Table A). Along the way,a RAP must also successfully incorporate the needs identified by the community in the PAC water Use

.' Goals. Both these concerns,are introduced separately, in sections 1 and 2,and, then '.. combined (Table I),to define problem areas and their corresponding objectives,~ :. before detailing the remedial. actions in chapter 4; In the ensuing plan, 'the problem . , . .. . ' areas'cin then be dealt withindividually, thus providing a simpler, integrated . ' 1 , .: approach to: restoration. . .. I . .. . . , .

. 3.1 Nipigon Bay Impairments

Of the 14 "impairments of beneficial use(s)" defined.bythe 1987reVision of the GLWQA, eight wemdeerned present or. requirinb further assessment in the ~ipigon . Bay ~0~fol1owing~thedefiniti'onof problems and environmental~conditionsinStage.1 . . . . , (~~~endix3): Theoptions Paper, using data gathered since' Sta$e I,reviewed and revised this list of use-impairments and Stage 2 now reports further devebpments. The ~JClistingldelisting. guidelines for AOCs employ a "c6mmon sense" approach to assigning and removing use-impairments (IJC 1991), resulting in RAPS that are . intended t'o address issues of local or. regional extent: Thus, the rationale for removal ofthe various use-impairments outlined below (see.Appen,dix 4 for greater detail) '

. ' reflects this scale of remediation, concentrating on solutions to problems generated

' within the watershed.. ltis then hoped that the whole ofour efforts in all AOCs will be, greater than the sum of their parts and contributd,td other initiatives anci the .. . . remediation ofproblemsthat are basin-wide in extent. . . . . 8 The actions taken to date have resulted in the complete restoration of three use- impairments and the partial restoration of two others. The current conditions in Nipigon Bay are detailed below. . . 8 . . . .

, ' CURRENT STA~SOF NIPI'GON BAY IMPAIRMENTS . , . ; . . . . , . .! . . , . . ! 1) Tainting of fish and wildlife flavour . ' . ,.,. . , . . Fish and wildl~fetainting will be removed as an ~'OCimpairment...... ~aintin~&fish flesh was documented in taste te~tsin 1967 (German 1968) and 1974.

(Whittle and. Flood 1977). Phenolics were suspeqted to be the cause of tainting. . '

, .. omt tar's implementation of primarytreatmentin';1972, a recovery system for : . . condensible organics, in 1974, a black liquor spilllcontrol system. in 1977, and the . , . I Making a Great Lake Superior Nipigon Bay 13 cessation of newsprint operations (including debarking, bleaching, and groundwood) I in 1992 have resulted in improvements to effluent quality since tainting was noted. There have been rio recent reports from the public and, unless new complaints are I received, tainting will no longer be considered a problem. No studies have been conducted on tainting of AOC wildlife populations, nor have any I complaints ever been received. Wildlife flavour will remain unimpaired. I - 2) Degradation of fish 'and wildlife populations. ' ...... a) dynamics'of fish and.wildlife populations

. . I. The dynamics of fish populations remain impaired: I The historic and recent loss of walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) fisheries and decline in the brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) fishery is I attributed to degraded water quality and aquatic habitat, excessive exploitation and, possibly, the invasion of sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) and other exotic species. Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) stocks are also below historical levels, largely due I to overfishing and sea lamprey predation.

Attempts have been made to control sea lamprey numbers in the Nipigon River and 1 its tributaries, with 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM) and Bayer-73, since 1964. The application of lampricide also may have had detrimental side effects on non- target species (Klar and Weise 1993, Munkittrick et al. 1994). Fluctuating water levels I in the Nipigon River have similarly adversely affected the spawning success and recruitment of both resident and anadromous fish communities (Curry et al. 1994). I- ~ildlifepopulation dynamics will continue to be considered unimpaired. '.

.Wildlife s'spcies that depend on riparianareas foi habitat and game fish for food have . :' . likely been impacted by habitat loss, fluctuating water levels, and indirectly by the . decrease in fish stocks, although limited data are currently available on these . I populations. Similarly, extensive data do not exist for those wildlife species. that may have been impacted by historical and currenttimber harvest in the AOC watershed. In . ., general, however, area bird and mammal.sllrveys have indicated that the faunal . .

I diversity is relatively high (Gore and Storrie 1994) and abundance, although , . fluctuating, relatively typical of the.region...... , . . 1 . . b) . . . . body burdens of fish and wildiife I Fish body burdens will be removed as a potential AOC impairment. I 14 Stage.2.~emedial'strate~ies I for Ecosystem ~estoration . . . . I , . Concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS), dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC) in spottail shiners (Notropis hudsonius) appear to have decreased between 1979 and 1986 (Suns et al. 19'91). Sampling in 1987, 1989, and 1992 for the 1995 - 1996 'Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish" (MOEEIMNR 1995) indicates that, for the size ranges of fish species sampled in Nipigon Bay, there are no longer restrictions on]consumption for contaminants with an anthropogenic source in the watershed. Contaminants in fish flesh will now be removed as a potential AOC impairment.

Body burdens of wildlife will&ntinue to be considered unimpaired. ' ' . ' .

Contaminant data for body burdens of wildlifespecies inthe Nipigon Bay ecosystem . are scarce. However, herring gulls, which have!been monitored as an indicator species on the Great Lakes, have had their eggs, sampled for organochlorines from' theGranite Island colony, in adjacent Black Bay, since1974 (Government of Canada 1991). Levels of CPCB, 'dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), mirex, and .. . hexachlorobenzene (HCB) have steadily declined over the sampling period and, since the late 1980's; appear to bestabilizing. Dieldrin and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p- 'dioxin (TCDD) have both fluctuated with no apparenttrendsover much the same time . . period. Double-crested cormorants have also been studied from the same iocation. . Data from their eggs show essentially the same contaminant trends as those observed in herring gulls. With.the exception of one location in ,,

- Island birds have the lowest surveyed levels on'the Great Lakes. . ' , .. .. I . . Given that wildlife bioaccumulat6 contaminant ldads from thdii prey 'and that a combination of several toxins are typically present in Great Lake fishes, a Forage-Fish contaminant Index (FFCI) has been devised that assesses wildlife risk levels for ". compound mixtures rather than 'individual compounds (Suns. etal. 1991). The FFCl establishedwildlife protection guidelines based,on the additivity of six organochlorine. . compbunds (total PCBs, total DDT, mirex; total ,chlordane, HCB; and . ' . . octachlorostyrene). Risk to wildlife populations was designated'at index values greater than '1. Sampling of spottail shiners.in ~ipigonBay in 1986 resulted in an ...... - FFCI valuethat was'nondetectable.

3) ~ishtumoursand other deformities . . , . .

, ' ~ishtumours and deformities will beremoved as a potential AOC impairment. I.. I No evidence of internal or external fish tumours or deformities, based on observations by fisheries personnel and reports by public, has been found. Additionally, although benthic-feeding fish attracted to mills in Thunder Bay and Jackfish Bay are reported to have an elevated incidence of liver tumours, suckers in Mountain Bay, adjacent to the AOC, are essentially free from this condition (Smith unpublished data). Nipigon Bay I Making a Great Lake Superior Nipigon Bay 15 sediments have fewer contaminant problems than the affected areas in Thunder Bay I and Jackfish Bay. In the absence of any reports confirming the presence of this obvious and noteworthy condition, further assessment will not be undertaken and this I impairment will be removed. . 4) Degradation of benthos I a) dynamics of benthic populations 1. Benthic. population.dynamics remain impaired. The benthic community is degraded in the vicinity of the Red Rock mill and the Nipigon and Red Rock STP outfalls. I , \ b) body burdens of benthic organisms

I Benthic body burdens will be removed as a potential AOC impairment.

The effects of contaminated sediment and degraded water quality on the body I burdens of benthic organisms remains uninvestigated in the Nipigon Bay AOC. Resident top predators (walleye, northern pike, lake trout and other salmonids), their planktivorous prey, and, most notably, benthic-feeding fish (suckers) in the bay's food I web have, however, been sampled for contaminants (see Appendix 4) and levels were found to be low for compounds with anthropogenic sources in the watershed. If benthic body burdens were high or elevated, biomagnification sh~uldresult in I elevated contaminant levels in upper trophic level organisms. Contaminants in the sediment itself were also sampled and generally found to be close to levels expected I to protect a majority of benthos and no greater than ambient or historical levels. Although quantitative estimates relating either sediment or top predator contaminant concentrations to benthic body burdens are problematic, the lack of evidence in I support of either a cause or an effect of contaminated benthos is deemed sufficient to remove this as a use-impairment in the AOC. 1 5) Restrictions on dredging activities I Restrictions on dredging will be removed as an AOC impairment. Concentrations of metals (chromium, nickel, zinc and iron) in localized areas exceed the lowest effect levels of the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines. Exceedances I occur in areas thought to be associated with natural lake-wide deposition, as well as in areas affected by the Domtar mill effluent. However, strict application of the guidelines with respect to background and ambient conditions in the bay would allow for the safe disposal of dredged sediments from all areas except the impacted zone Stage 2 Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restocation 1 16 adjacent to the Domtar mill outfall. This area is not associated with a navigational channel and dredging has never been undertaken here or anywhere else in the AOC, nor is any planned in the future. The nature of the restrictions are largely confined to wood fibre and oil and grease and, except for the few locations immediately adjacent to the outfall, persistent toxic substances are not a problem. For these reasons, we are changing the status of the dredging use-im6airment to unimpaired. I 6) Eutrophication or Undesirable algae I Algal impairment will be investigated further to assess effect on fish recruitment. . . :I . . There has been a reported.increase in algal groyth on substrates in the lower Nipigon River, upstream of both the STP and mill outfalls: The Nipigon and Red.Rock

STPs are also impairing water. quality immediately downstream of their discharges. . . '

7) Degradation, of aesthetics. . 1. . ..

Waferfront aesthetics remain impaired. . . . .

Degraded water-quality and industrial development have impaired, waterfront aesthetics. . . . . ' i 1 8) Loss of fish and wildlife habitat " Fish and wildlife habitat remains degraded.at various locations in the AOC.. . . . 1 Fish and wildlife habitat is degraded near the mlill outfall and old mill site dieto wood fibre accumulation. Historical losses of habitat throughout the Nipigon River occurred as a result of log drives (physical stouring, transport of substrate, and removal of "obstacles" to log drives), while water level fluct~lationsresulting from the generation' of electricity continue to affect streambank eros/on and sediment load, as well as reduce the amount of available habitat, thus impacting riverine fish. and wildlife. Any "X .: impairment of water quality appears to belargely restricted to the mixing zones associatedwith the mill and. STP outfalls as the most recent offshore sampling . . (approximately 2.0 km ESE of the town of ~edFfock), conducted in 1992 as part of MOEE's long-term monitoring program; indicated that.both water and sediment quality

. . were good (Howell unpublished data): This sttidy analysed PaH and organochlorines from sediment samples and metals and nutrients in both the water column and . . sediments. ~ishand wildlife habitat may also de degraded in the watershed. . from .' . other historic timber harvest practices. ! .. .

I. ' ......

Making a Great Lake Superior Nipigon Bay '17

3.2 Nipigon Bay PAC Water-Use Goals

The purpose of the Nipigon Bay RAP PAC is to provide public input into the rehabilitation effort for the natural ecosystem of Nipigon Bay. To do this, long-term objectives were identified. Based on the impaired uses and sources of contamination, the Public Advisory Committee proposed the following water use goals:

1. The waters of Nipigon Bay, and those flowing into it, should have minimal toxic substances in them, such that human health is not affected and the natural (native) biota are able to thrive.

2. Water should be drinkable afler standard treatment.

3. A healthy, thriving and edible-without-restrictions fishery of native game fish must be reestablished. These species include yellow perch, walleye, northern I pike, speckled trout and lake trout.

4. There must be safe public access for recreational activities, such as I swimming, boating, etc.

These long-term objectives cannot be attained without establishing some specific I goals and taking action to meet these goals. The PAC has established the specific I water use goals listed below with respect to the following factors: .i I 1. Historic and current introductions of toxic chemicals to the environment via point and non-point discharges (e.g. mill effluent, point and non-point source I air pollutants, DDT from previous spray programs and heavy metals in sediments); . .

1 ' 2. ~istoicand &rrent'introd"ctions of municipal sewage; . . . I 3. Unnatural fluctuations in water levels in the Nipigon River;

. . 4. Clear cutting of boreal forest in broad areas around the lake and inflowing . ' . . streams. I, . .

SPECIFIC NlPlGON BAY WATER USE GOALS

. . 1 'Wafer quality . .

I I ' 1. . Nipigon Bay andits watersheds should have water quality that is suitable as a i , , . ~.

18 Stage 2 *Remedial.Strategiis for Ecosystem Restoration . . . ! . . municipal and domestic water supplywith the present treatment technology usedin the Nipigon Bay area. Nevertheless, a reasonable mixing zone for . . . .. point source discharges~shouldbe allowed. Water should also be fishable, swimmable and aesthetically-- pleasing. ,~ : !

2. ' ' individuals should be ableto consume tap water at any time without risk of , .

encountering ataste andlor odour problem. ,. . ' i . . I 3. The effluent from point source dischargesshould be of sufficient quality so that \ 5 it does not impair beneficial uses, inhibit (ndigenous, biota or produce other ,. adverseimpacts on the' ecosystem. ' I.'

4. . Levels of potentially toxic chemicals in'Ni'pigon Bay and its watekhed'should.' not exceed accepted standards as detemiined by. the best scientific 1,

' !. . I methodology available. , . 5. Col,our, odour and turbidity of the effluent from any, point source discharge should be reduced as much as possible to protect the aesthetic value of Nipigon Bay so that individuals can enjoy unimpaired recreational use of the . . nearby lands and waters. ' ...... I' . . Fisheries

6. People should be able to consume all fish species from Nipigon Bay and its watershed without any restrictions due to/high contamination levels which cause human health risks and fish flavour and odour impairment.

7. Fish should be free to migrate back and forth from Alexander Landing to Lake . . I Superior...... 'e

1.. : . 8. All native species of fish that would normslly inhabit Nipigon Bay should be able to live there. Near shore mixing zones should be rehabilitated in order to restore the normal community of bottom dwelling organisms.

9. ' ~ishspecies and fish habitats, in~ipi$bnl~ayshould besustained s6 as to I. allow natural reproduction.. , . '' . . Water levels . . . . 10.. Water levels in key.ricer spawning areas lshould be maintained to allow natural reproduction of fish and.other aquatic organisms. The aquatic community of.

Nipigon Bay and itswatershed Should be protected,from negative impacts . . associated with artificially controlled river flow fluctuations. Specifically, the . . . . ~ . . I , . Making a Great Lake Superior Nipigon Bay 19

. . ' . . impacts of exposingspawning areas and. covering the river bottom with solids, originating from artificially induced river bank erosion, should be minimized: .. I ,. . . Condition of bottom dwelling organisms. I- 11. The bottom dwelling organisms of Nipigon Bay should not be restricted in either quantity or species type due to point and non-point source discharges. There should be a viable community of native organisms which do not need to be pollution tolerant in nature. . . I' Restrictions'on dredging activities . . 12. The dredging and disposal of sediments should not contiibute to the I degradation of the Nipigon Bay aquatic ecosystem. Specifically, high concentrations of contaminants present in the sediments should not be I released into the water. Eutrophication or undesirable algal growth

I 13. Algal growth precipitated by any human induced activity should not have an undesirable effect on the aquatic community. Nutrients originating from human I sources should not exceed levels which cause accelerated eutrophication. sediments

.14. Sediments should berehabilitated where contamination isinterfering with the natural function of the aquatic community.

I 15. Eroded sediments are being deposited in Nipigon Bay and its watershed. The river banks should be stabilized to minimize erosion./ -I Aesthetics . . I.. 16. he. sl~ould'have developed accessto the Nipigon Bay waterfront and valley systems. This will make the system-a focus for recreation, enjoyment, cultural activities and tourism. - I '' 17.. . ~ateifrontdevelopments should not have an adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem. I . . 18. The water quality of Nipigon Bay and its valley systems should be high so as not to discourage legitimate economic opportunities for shoreline I development. 20 Stage 2 Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration I

. . Virtual. elimination...... 19: There should be virtual elimination of persi,stent toxic chemicals such as . . dioxins and furans. .Point and non-point source discharges and atmospheric ' I deposition to Nipigon Bay's Waterfront and its watershed should not contain ... '. harmfulsubstances at.le.vels which impair and inhibit biota in the ecosystem. . .~ . . ~. Wildlife . .

20. Aquatic flora and fauna species should nbt be manipulated without public. ' consultation and careful regard forboth short and long. term environmental . implications of these species (e.g. recent :introduction'of Canada Geese to Nipigon Bay). :i . . . I Introduction of new species to Nipigon Bay. . i. . . ! . . .:'21.. Introduction of new species of fish; other aquatic organisms and waterfowl to the Nipigo" Bay ecosystem should not be allowed without an envirorunental . . . .. impact study. .. , , ...... I . ~. . . . . ; By cross-refer'6ncing the previous GLWQA impairments with the detailed water use. goalspresented above, a concise framework cab be developed to.groupand define the areas thatrequire remedial action (Table 1). IA~additional area not found in.the . ' following table, educationand, stewardship,,has plso been included in the RAP. .. I Although this issue has no specific use-impairments or water use .goals assigned, the actions .required to foster awareness of .and.respect for the ecosystem comprise

just as important a strategy as anyof the otherslrequired for the successful resolution . ~ . of the plan: ......

. .

Making a'Great.Lake Superior Nipigon Bay . . 21 . . . .

TABLE' I.The definition and current status of problem areas through an. integration of ' , . , ' . . . , - use-impairments. . with PAC water use goals. . .

.~. J. Use-impairment Specific Water Use Goals' Problem Area and. Status . . .-

Degradation of Water should be fishable, swimmable, and Fish and wildlife fish and wildlife aesthetically pleasing 1 . . habitd and population population Point-source effluent should not inhibit native biota 3 dynamics are impaired dynamics No barriers to fish within the AOC 7 near the mill outfall A 'normal' fish community of native fish species due to wood fibre . . Loss of fish and should be able to live in the waters of Nipigon Bay 8 accumulation; and, in wildlife habitat ' Fish species and habitats should. be sustained to allow general, are impacted natural reproduction 9 by water level and flow . . Eutrophication Water levels should allow 'natural reproduction 1.0. fluctuations resulting . . or undesirable .Sediment dredging, disposal anderosion should not . from the generation of algae degrade AOC ecosystem 12 .. . electricly. Habitat has . . Nutrients and algal growth caused by human. activity also been affected . .. . should not. negatively affekt the aquatic community 13 throughout the river. . . Rehabilitate sediments where contamination is . due to the effects of . . interfering with the natural function of the -aquatic historic log drives. community 14 Species introductions Unnatural riverbank emsion should be minimized15 have impacted

Waterfront developments.should not have an adverse , dynamics. Lampricide effect on the aquatic ecosystem 17 applications and timber, . . .'Virtual elimination' of toxic substances. at' levels harvest practices. also . . impairing biota, from point, non-point and atmospheric have potential to' .' sources 19 . . impact populations. -Aquatic biota'should not be manipulated without Algal growth on some . . careful regard for public and environmental concerns20 substrates inthe lower Species introductions should not be allowed without' river may be affecting an environmental impact study '21 spawning habitat.

. . . . ., ......

...... I 22 Stage 2 Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration I

Degradation of Water should be fishable, swimmable, and ' Benthic habitat and benthic aesthetically pleasing 1 population dynamics population Point-source effluent should not inhibit native biota 3 are currently impaired dynamics . Levels of potentially toxic compounds should not in the vicinity of the exceed current scientific standards 4 mill and sewage . Restrictions on Nearshore mixing zones should be rehabilitated to treatment plant outfalls. dredging restore the 'normal' benthic community 8 Dredging restrictions for activities Water levels should allow natural reproduction 10 contaminated . The benthic community should not be restricted in sediments exist in the either quantity or diversity due to discharges 11 and in . Sediment dredging and disposal should not degrade the area associated the AOC ecosystem (specifically, high concentrations with the mill outfall. of contaminants should not be released into water)l2 Unnatural riverbank erosion should be minimized15 Nutrients and algal growth caused by human activity should not negatively affect the aquatic community 13 Sediments should be rehabilitated where aquatic community function is impaired 14 Waterfront developments should no< have an adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem 17 -Aquatic biota should not be manipulated without careful regard for public and environmental concerns20

I: . . Aesthetics are ~e~radation.of.Water should be fishable, swimmabie, and . , aesthetics aesthetically pleasing 1. currently impaired in Point source effluent should notimpair beneficial Nipigon and Red Rock .. use53 waterfront areas Qualityof any point source effluent ,should be . sufficient to protect aesthetics and recreation in the AOC~. . . . , . Public should have developed access to the AOC. . .

making the area a focus for recreation, enjoyment, . ' . culture and tourism 16 . Waterfront developments should not have an adverse . .. effed on the aquatic ecosystem 17 1 . . . . I , I i . . * numerical sLperscripts ili this column identify the relatedspecificwat.er use goal . . . . I Section 4.0 I 1 REMEDIAL STRATEGIES FOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION I

Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and aesthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, I stability and beauty of the biotic community, it is wrong when it tends otherwise. (Leopold 1949) 24 Stage 2 Remedial dtrategies for Ecosystem Restoration I I 4.0 REMEDIAL STRATEGIES FOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN

The strategy to address each problem area outlined above will consist of three major components, beginning with a list of objectives, integrating both use-impairments and water-use goals, followed by a summary of completed remedial actions, and ending with an update of the remaining impairments and associated remedial actions required to restore that particular component of the ecosystem. For each action, the plan will also detail the delisting target and an approximate timetable for implementation. Each problem area strategy ends with a summary of the tools identified to monitor change and document recovery as well as the agencies responsible for action.

Stage 2 builds upon the efforts expended in developing and finalizing A Discussion of Remedial Options in the Nipigon Bay Area of Concern (Nipigon Bay RAP Team 1994). This document evaluated the array of options available to restore impairments of beneficial uses in Nipigon Bay and identified preferences for dealing with each problem. The assessment process was extensive, involving the identification of costs and advantages and disadvantages associated with each remedial option as well as the current status of impairments and the rationale for their restoration.

The ecosystem approach, in which every RAP has its roots, stresses that links among components are critical to the natural functioning of a system as well as its rehabilitation. Thus, the above attempts to compartmentalize problems within the ecosystem is recognized as being artificial, but necessary for ease of understanding. As a result, there is overlap among categories. When a remedial action contributes to solving more than one problem, it will be discussed in greatest detail where it is deemed to give the greatest remedial value. The reader will be referred to these sections where appropriate.

THE ROLE OF THE LAKE SUPERIOR PROGRAMS OFFICE mI The North Shore of Lake Superior RAP Program is an integral component of the Lake Superior Programs Office (LSPO). The Office was formed in 1991 by Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries of Oceans, the Ministry of Environment and I Energy and the Ministry of Natural Resources as a unique one-window approach to . deliver projects recommended by Public Advisory Committees for the Remedial Action Plans in Thunder Bay, Nipigon Bay, Jackfish Bay, and Peninsula Harbour. This I ongoing responsibility has expanded to include bordination of a range of programs, Making a Great Lake Superior: ~i~i~onBay. . . 25". :' . . including the Binational Program to Restore and Protect the Lake Superlor Basin, the I Great Lakes Clean Up Fund, and Lakewide Management Plans. The LSPO thus provides a critical link between the public, industry, and government agencies on issues concerning the Lake Superior ecosystem. In 1994, the Institute of Public I Administration of Canada recognized the LSPO with a finalist award for the year's theme of "Reshaping Government". The office's four-agency partnership (MOEE, Environment Canada, MNR, and DFO) was viewed as an innovative approach to I administering government programs. Strong public involvem.ent and funding from a variety of partners has resulted in positive actions directed at cleaning up contaminated sediments, restoring native fish populations, rehabilitating fish and I wildlrfe habitat and increasing environmental awareness in North Shore communities.

I As a result, the LSPO has the lead role in coordinating the implementation of remedial actions in Stage 2, as well as providing support in efforts to monitor ecosystem recovery. In this respect, the office is the lead organization in the I implementation and monitoring of essentially the entire RAP. Lake Superior Programs will thus assist the various other proponents, identified in the tables be~dw, in the execution of the RAP. Their participation is also essential to the success of the I plan.

ECOSYSTEM MONlTORlNG

The monitoring effort required for Stage 3 will incorporate three components. First is I the traditional interagency approach consisting of federal and provincial initiatives. Secondly, a partnership approach which will rely on the commitment and involvement of industry and third, a community-based effort which will be sustained by the I enthusiasm of private citizens. While examples of the first two components abound, the latter program, although still in its infancy, already has a number of successes to I report. Third, both individuals and citizens groups have recently become involved in efforts to monitor ecosystems on a scale that extends from local (school monitoring of Clearwater Creek) to regional (water clarity sampling component of Superior I Lakewatch) to international (Christmas Bird Count, Forest Bird Monitoring Program, Marsh Bird and Amphibian Monitoring Program, etc.). The LSPO will have a voice and I a role in all three monitoring components. . . , . .. 3 '...... / ...... 8 ' . ' : I

. Fish and Wildlife Population Dynamics . . .. . 1 ' land ~abitatLoss;.. . ., : : ...... : 1 .. ~ .. >, .

. M; good man,^ ask you what isthe sense of m'e being ~~~~in~r~fthis widespread,. . ' , . . . . far flung, sea-to-sea Dominion if Icannot 'catch all the fish I have a mind to? I . - ~ukeof Connaught, Governor.General,. 191 1-1916 . . . . : ......

~akinga.Great Lake Superior Nipigon Bay ' 27

. ~ 4.1 Fish and Wildlife Population Dynamics and Habitat Loss

Aquatic and terrestrial habitat has been degraded within the,AOC from a number of disturbances. At various times, and to varying extent, aquatic habitat is affected by water level fluctuations from the generation of hydroelectricity. These fluctuations effectively 1) decrease the amount and type of fish and wildlife habitat that can be found at any one location, 2) disrupt spawning, incubation, and hatching for both brook trout and other species both in the lake and river, and 3) increase the amount of erosion occurring in the watershed. Timber harvest can reduce habitat for forest- dwelling biota, and log drives have historically scoured substrates and resulted in the deposition of bark and wood fibre. Point sources (Domtar and the N~pigonand Red Rock STPs) and their associated mixing zones have also reduced aquatic habitat. Additionally, infiltration (causing system overload) and sludge bed overflow have been ongoing problems associated with the Nipigon STP. Spawning habitat for broadcast spawners over cobble may also be impacted in at least one location in the lower river because of increased algal growth on substrates.

In concert with and linked to this loss of habitat, fish and wildlife population dynamics have also been impacted. Fish populations may be negatively affected by the ongoing use of chemical lampricides in Nipigon Bay tributaries and, indirectly, by degraded benthic populations in localized areas of impairment. Introductions, including the various west coast salmonids and rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) that have been intentionally brought to the Great Lakes and the accidental entry of carp (Cyprinus carpio) and sea lamprey, have restructured the historic fish community. More recently, accidental introductions of ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus), zebra mussel (Dreissena - polymorpha), and spiny water-flea (Bythotrephes cederstroemi) are beginning to impact the aquatic community in southern areas of the Lake Superior and may soon be present in greater abundances in the north. Given this degree of biotic community restructuring, it will be difficult to return to the lake's pristine fish community as proposed by the IJC's Lake Ecosystem Objectives (GLWQA 1987). This objective states that Lake Superior "be maintained as a balanced and stable oligotrophic ecosystem with lake trout as the top aquatic predator of a cold-water community and the amphipod Pontoporeia hoyi as a key organism in the food chain". However, we can and must strive for an aquatic community that at least has a similar function, with lake trout as an integral and, preferably, abundant component 8f the top trophic level.

In addition to restoring use-impairments and accommodating PAC water use goals, essentially all remedial actions are linked to or reflective of larger efforts to manage fish populations. Habitat restoration projects as well as the stocks targeted'for rehabilitation are consistent with the regional objectives of the MNR District Fisheries Management Plan, the provincial policy of Strategic Planning for Ontario Fisheries and the international goals of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. All policies stress the need to direct rehabilitation efforts towards native stocks. Endemic populations of . . . .

28 ' . Stage 2-0~emedial Strategies for ~cosyste'mRestoration . . walleye, lake trout and brook trout have thusgenerated the bulk of actions inthis plan. . . . .

. . . . 1) Rehabilitate degraded and protect existing aquatic and terrestrial habitat to . . ' . - . maintain native fish and wildlife communities thatarehealthy and naturally self- . .. sustaining. Population abundances should fluctuate around optimal levels given the .. . :I . .

. . ~ amount and.quality of existing habitat. .'

. ' 2) Point and non-point discharges and atmospheric deposition should not degrade 1: . . . . .fish and wildlife populations in the ecosystem; 1 ...... 3) Sediments, in'situ or those generated by dredgingI or erosion; should not degrade' I fish and wildlife populations in the ecosy'stem. Rehabilitation should be undertaken . . in areas where ecosystem function is impaired.: . .. . , ...... I 4) Development and manipulations or introductions of flora and fauna must not . degrade fish and wildlife populations in the ecosystem and should be subject to careful scrutiny for environmental impacts or public concerns. I

. . REMEDIAL ACTIONS TO DATE . .

Objective One '. . .

I~ction1 a)cleanup of historic spawning grounds in the. lower river. . ' . . . , Removal of logsldebrisl'barkfrom historic spawning areas of the Iqwer Nipigon River . ' . . was completed on schedule. This removal of debris from historic log. drives and a , . . recent landslide, will allbw for enhanced flushiri$:of any. remainingmaterial, ensure ..

' that historic migratory routes for walleye and, salmonids remainopen, and encourage public use and recreation. I ...... !. . . 1.

l~ction1 b) Cleanup &the Old Mill site wetland, in the lower river. ' .

Rehabilitation of the Old Mill site, a former &tla,"'d; involved the removal 6f logs, '.I . . pilings, debris,.derelict machinery, and sawdust. 'Access to the site was also '

' improved-and natural regeneration of.aquatic pl:ants has occurred in the nearshore , areas. Future regeneration of the terrestrialareas has been:discussed (i.e. park . . I development to improve habitat, access, aesthetics and economic ~~pbrtunities), however, Further use of this site is dependanton the long-term objectives of om tar' .. . . . Inc. and the Township of Nipigon. , .. I !. . . Making a Great Lake Superior Plipigon Bay 29

Action 1 c) Adult walleye stocking program to rejuvenate walleye population in Nipigon Bay. During the spring of 1992, 4043 adult walleye from Ombabika Bay, Lake Nipigon, and an additional 21 1 Georgia Lake walleye were stocked in Nipigon Bay and the Nipigon River to successfully complete our walleye transfer program (see Appendix 5 for a complete summary). The target of 12,000 adult fish was exceeded (12,134 walleye were stocked in three years), and provides the first restorative step by creating a larger pool of spawning fish. Biological sampling, to monitor movements and assess population abundance, included trapnetting, tagging, seining, electrofishing, and the use of sonic and radio transmitters. Baseline genetic analysis, to help identify successful reproduction from stocking and the relative contribution of some of the individual donor stocks has been completed. Additional assessment work in the next year will be required to determine if the project met objectives. In the spring of 1994, two larval walleye were captured using a drift net, one in each of the Nipigon and Jackfish Rivers. Sampling for young walleye in the lower Nipigon River with an electrofishing boat yielded 2 two-year-old walleye in August of 1993, and an additional 7 juvenile walleye in September of 1994. This information also suggests that walleye are reproducing in the AOC. Preliminary results from the genetic analysis of one of the two-year-old walleye captured in 1993 indicate that the fish was likely the progeny of at least one parent of Lac Des Mille Lacs origin. It remains to be determined if recruitment is sufficient to sustain the walleye population.

Action 1 d) ldentlfy spawning habitat in the Nipigon River and candidate sites for Iimplementation of a self-cleaning spawning substrate. I ~itensivetracking of these stocked fish, using radio and sonic tags, helped to identify probable walleye spawning habitat, monitor spawning activity and identlfy post- spawning migration patterns in the Nipigon River. The spawning habitat delineated by tracking studies has provided candidate sites to implement a self-cleaning spawning substrate presently being developed by the Great Lakes Clean Up Fund (CUF). The underlying concept was initially discussed with hydrological engineers from the National Water Research Institute in Burlington to ensure that the project was viable and a schematic design was subsequently produced by project team members. The design was recently engineered from a concept to a construction stage and is being further evaluated by an OMNR hydrological engineer. The results. of this evaluation, as well as a scheme to implement a version of this technology, are pending. The trial location for the substrate is also under review, with the Nipigon River being one of the north shore tributaries under consideration. This self-cleaning, self-maintaining system for rivers with high sediment loads has potential as an economical and effective tool for a multiple-use spawning habitat. Evaluation of the success of spawning is necessary if the technology is to be properly developed. As a 30 Stage 2 Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration

result, a dontinuation of assessment and design alterations seems cost-effective for . this worthwhiletechnology. I l~ctionI e) Devised rehabilitation plan for clearwater creek. . . 1 Clearwater Creek has been, and continues to be, the target of a community-based effort to clean up and restore habhat in and aroundthis once productive and aesthetic brook trout stream.. In the spring of 1993, a concept' plan outlining the required

rehabilitation in 13 streamsegments (reaches) was wmpleted (Marshall.Macklin. , 'Monaghan and ~odhunterSchollen 1993). This; rehabilitation strategy identified 13 watercourse and8 interpretive initiatives to impr&ve water quality, habitat, and;

. ultimately, the pr'oductivityofthe fish community in Nipigon Bay. 'on June 5, 1.993, a. '~ . - school cleanup of the creek flowing through St. ~dwardsSeparate Schooi property

was completed'followed.by a community cleanup event of the entire creek on June 19, .

1993. During this major two day ckanup, approximately 30 tonnes of garbage-was . ' - collected and removed to the local landfill site. Water flow, bank slope, vegetation and the fish-community were also inventoriedd~ring~thesummers of 1992 and 1993 and. two areas in the creek's headwaters have been ;selected for initial rehabilitation. . Rehabilitation of these reaches adjacent to theschool is scheduled for thefall of

' . 1994. A water quality pond to help' remove contaminants from the urban runoff carried- by this creek to Nipigon Bay and the replacement or redirection of storm sewers'with . . stepldetention pools arealso part of the design. Because of these latter initiatives, the overall plan will therefore include, in.additionto the rehabilitation of abrook trout stream' and the establishment of an excellent long-term educational site; the development of a stormwater management plan for a large. . portion of the Township of Nipigon. - I

I Action 1 f) Initiated and assisted in devising a water management plan for the Nipigon River. The ~i~i~onRiver Water Management plan was conceived to establish, through public'involvement, a water management option :that would reduce the impacts of the- operation of Ontario~ydro'sNipigon River hydro-electric dams on the Lake NipigonlNipigon River watershed, particularly on'the Nipigon River fishery. The need for a plan was flagged when observations noted,theI exposure of brooktrout spawning redds during the winter due to water level fluctuations and was finalized whenfurther; investigations demonstrated that these events also affected thegroundwater supply critical fo the survival of brook trout embryos. The plan expanded upon an interim . . agreement between MNRand Ontario Hydro established in 1990 to maintain . . minimum flows. The final report, released. in September, 1994 (Atria 1994), detailed the preferred option (Appendix 6) 'and was endorsed by all stakeholders, including Ontario Hydro. On an annual basis, the preferrep option shifts the cyclingof water levels in the lake and flowsin the river to more closelyresernble a natural scenario. . . Making a Great Lake Superior Nipigon Bay 31' ...... In the shorter term, peaking operations, which often caused dramatic fluctuations on a daily basis have been constrained to a narrower range. These actions when implemented will provide more reliable groundwater discharge through spawning redds, thus protecting spawning and incubation periods from exposure and freezing associated with drawdown events. Juvenile fish will benefit from a more stable supply of water and the chances of fish strandings will be reduced. By these actions directed at brook trout, other fish, wildlife and benthic populations in the ecosystem also will benefit by a more natural cycle of river flows.

Objective Two

Action 1 g)-~ssisted in the planningof secondary treatment fcir,the Domtar Mill and

the townshi~s'of~i~iaon and Red Rock. . . ' ' L . " I Domtar, .in reviewing mill operations and the need to comply with provincial and federal regulations, identified the Aerated Stabilization Basin design, at a cost $25 million, as the pref~rredoption for secondary effluent treatment. Preliminary work on the project began in the summer of 1994, and it was given final approval in the fall of the same year. Installation of a secondary treatment system will decrease both the effluent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), toxicity, and solids. With the exception of the first two parameters, mill effluent is within current regulations. The federally- regulated Environmental Effects Monitoring Program (EEMP) will provide data on fish, benthos, and water quality after the installation of secondary treatment has been completed.

Domtar also has suggested the possibility of accommodating effluent from the STPs in both Nipigon and Red Rock. The Options Paper identified suitable municipal sewage treatment technologies, but there were clearly additional problems that were related to water conservation and system efficiency (i.e. sludge bed overflow and infiltration problems causing system overloads) that required resolution. Studies are presently being planned for both municipalities to find an integrated solution that will address all water supply problems in a consistent and unified manner.. l~ction1 h) supported initiative todevise alternate means to control sea lamprey. 1 -- --- In an attempt to decrease their reliance on chemical lampricide, the Sea Lamprey Control Centre. in coniunction with Lake Su~eriorRAP teams and PACs. has proposed to &ntinue ihe research and development of alternate methods. The design and construction of a permanent trap on the Nipigon River in 1995 will also serve as a demonstration project for developing this control method for use elsewhere in the Great Lakes. The Nipigon River was one of six Canadian tributaries included in a sterile male release program. An evaluation of the technique's effectiveness will continue with the release of additional sterile males into the Nipigon ! . . . .

32 . , Stage . 2. .dernedial Strategies for ~cos~stem~estoration. .

River in 1995. Investigations are also being conducted on the potential for the modification of habitat to enhance capture of sea lampreys in portable traps.

Objective Four

Action 1 i) Assisted with and funded plan to provide a habitat overlay component to the Red Rock Marina. Construction is complete for the first two of three phases. The Township of Red Rock initiated construction of a marinalpark on Nipigon Bay in the summer of 1991. The Nipigon Bay RAP Team and RAP PAC have worked with the Waterfront Development Steering Committee and project consultants, suggesting environmental components to incorporate in the breakwater design. Designs are complete to overlay a standard armour stone breakwall with suitable habitat to enhance the aquatic ecosystem, provide access, to Nipigon Bay and provide improved aesthetics and additional recreational opportunities to marina users. The completed breakwater will be the first of its kind in Ontario, and will provide a model for future waterfront developments in the Great Lakes Basin. This demonstration project will be directly applicable to marina developments as well as a wide variety of structures designed to harden shorelines for the purpose of erosion control andlor storm protection. I

The traditional breakwall component of the Red Rock Marina has been completed. Two islands with vegetation and inwater structures, representing phase one of the I habitat overlay of the breakwall, were added in September 1993. The balance of the phase one aquatic habitat features were constructed in the fall of 1994 on the inside of the breakwall and included inwater rootwads,' trees, boulders, and shoals and I overhead log cover. Topsoil, donated by Domtar from their excavations of secondary treatment ponds, necessary to establish vegetation on the breakwall was also placed this fall. The breakwall was seeded in the spring of 1995, and planting will follow, to I provide additional increases in habitat for terrestrial wildlife. I I- Action 1j) Documented use of habitat features at Red Rock Marina by spawning lake trout and whitefish. I In October of 1994, spawning lake trout and deqosited lake trout. eggs were documented along the constructed shoals inside the breakwall of the Red Rock Marina as well as at a number of 'locations along its perimeter. The congregations of I spawnlng lake trout numbered in the hundreds (on October 13, afler a survey of the entire southern portion of the marina, the number observed was estimated at approximately 400 individuals). The fish that appear to be using this habitat the most I are those lake trout that have been stocked (the 6 fish examined were all hatchery- reared). The stocked fish are of mainly of ~ichibicotenand Slate Islands origin and, as a result, this habitat may be especially impohant since these fish would be shoal I . . Making a Great Lake Superior Nipigon ~ay . . '33 . . spawners and may not have a well-defined preference for riverine habitat. Lake whitefish have also been observed in the area during their spawning period.

Action 1 k) Intensive review of walleye stocking program to ensure no net negative Ieffects. I The stocking of adult walleye in Nipigon Bay represented a noteworthy manipulation I of the area's fauna as it introduced alternate gene pools to a remnant native stock. Given the historic presence of walleye and the belief that the remnant population was unable to re-establish itself, this solution was viewed as the only remaining I alternative if the population was to be rehabilitated.

1 REMAINING IMPAIRMENTS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

.Objective One ,I ' ' Action 1 I) Devise and implement a plan to restore degraded habitat in Big Trout Hcreek. I Y'1 I' Streambank erosion and channelization in Big Trout Creek has been identified as a source of high sediment loadings. Siltation at the mouth of the creek, adjacent to the I Red Rock Marina, has been an ongoing issue and could have an impact on the aquatic community and recreational opportunities associated with the marina. Big I Trout Creek currently supports rainbow and brook trout in a watershed that is primarily rural and undeveloped. A stream inventory is proposed to identify degraded areas. * Pending problem resolution, this survey will be followed by the development of a Sub- I Watershed Management Plan (see Action Im), including a rehabilitation strategy. The restoration plan may incorporate many of the actions implemented at Clearwater Creek. I.~

I The second phase of habitat restoration in Clearwater Creek is scheduled for completion by the end of 1994. This latest work encompasses initiatives 6 and 7 of the overall rehabilitation strategy (Marshall Macklin Monaghan and Todhunter I Schollen 1993).

This exercise, with its associated planning, problem delineation, partnership I development, and implementation (including strategies for rehabilitation and education) components, represents the framework necessary for the design of a I complete Sub-watershed Management Plan. As such, this work should serve as a model for future endeavours. I . , .. , . . , :. . . 34 Stage 2 Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration 1 . .

. . ,, . objective Three . .

Action 1 n). Restoration of benthic populations;'viasediment remediation; to ensure , . unimpaired predator - prey dynamics forfish and wildlife populations. '1

Benthic co'mmunities indirectly influence the' area's fish and wildlife by being an . . important source of food. Impairments of benthic communities remain .in the area. of . 1

' , . the Domtar mill and STP. outfalls. The.requirement for the' rehabilitation of sediments is.recognized here, but will be detailed insectiori, 4.2. , . I . . objective Four . . I . . 'll~ction1 o) lmpleme~~ipigonRiver Water Makgement Plan:

. . ' ' : With the.sljbmissionof the final report, the mandate of the Study ~eam,who have . I been responsible for the.planls design and a large factorin sustaining progress; dame to an end. The Nipigon~iverManagement Committee, comprised of all' stakeholders, has reviewed andendorsed the selected option, but a concerted effort .' I to imolement the NRWMP and its recommendations must be maintained. I I . . I

This process should also serve asa useful template for a ~ar~ti~iver ~zina~ement' . . I

: ' Plan as there are a.number of rivers along the n@rthshore of Lake Superior (e.g., Magpie, Michipicoten, ~ontreal)that could benefit from the applic'ation,of similar . . partnerships and management strategies. - . . . . . I . .. , . Action 1 p) Determine if algal growth on spawning substrates in the lower Nipigon , .. River is impairing recruitment to fish populations. . .

. . . "~ . . I .. increases in algal growth on spawning substrates might have on reducing

recruitment to AOC fish populations. . , . . , . , . I- I major programs and a number of minor efforts. These programs will be useful for , providing both benchmark information on fish populations as well as monitoring their recovery. I An angler survey of the summer sport fishery in the Nipigon River was conducted from 1992 to 1994. This survey was a joint effort, funded by Ontario Hydro, MNR, and the I I Making a Great ~akeSuperior Nipigon Bay ' ' ' . 35 . . Nipigon Bay RAP Program to gather current background data on Nipigon River angler harvest , in general, and the river's brook trout population, in particular. The I continuation of the river creel survey in 1995 will be dependant on funding allocations.

A need for baseline data on angling pressure in Nipigon Bay, via a creel survey or, at a minimum, spring boat counts, was expressed by Nipigon District MNR staff at the Options Paper Open House. These data would compliment the ueel survey on the Nipigon River and provide a much needed database on the fishery in the bay prior to any further increase in effort.

A need also exists to assess the status of the lake trout population and whether continued stocking is warranted. Lake trout have been proposed as an important tool in assessing the health of the Lake Superior ecosystem (Ryder and Edwards 1985, GLWQA 1987, Edwards et al. 1990, Lake Superior Binational Program 1993). The Nipigon District OMNR has been stocking lake trout, and, since 1982 when reliable stocking records began, over 2.3 million yearlings and fall fingerling lake trout have been put into Nipigon Bay (MNR Lake Superior Management Unit unpublished data). Hansen et al. (1994) have recently reviewed survivorship data for lake trout stocked in U.S. waters of Lake Superior from 1962-1986 and conclude that survival of stocked lake trout may be low. They recommended that stocking be evaluated in other areas to determine if similar low survival exists, in addition to research into the causes of high mortality. Resloring lake trout populations in Nipigon Bay may depend on the prudent management of naturally reproducing lake trout rather than continuing-to stock hatchery-reared fish.

The continuation of ongoing programs undertaken by the LSPO will also be necessary to properly assess the recovery of AOC fish populations. Electrofishing and seining for young-of-the-year and juvenile walleye at index sites and for small fish at the Red Rock marina and elsewhere, spring trap-netting of adult walleye on spawning grounds in the lower Nipigon River, and spring drift-netting for larval fish in the Nipigon and Jackfish Rivers are all seen as cost-effective means of assessing recovery of the fish community.

ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION SUMMARY: TARGETS AND MONlTORlNG

Table 2 provides a summary of actions to remediate fish and wildlife habitat and population dynamics. It also presents delisting targets and monitoring programs with associated schedules and agencies. These requirements are mindful of criteria established by the IJC for each use-impairment, but are tailored for specific remedial actions. Lake Superior Programs (LSP) have, and will continue to provide, the leadership necessary to implement and monitor actions to restore the Nipigon Bay ecosystem. The proponents listed below represent partners that, in addition to this . . I.

' 36 Stage 2 Remedial strategies.for l&osystern Restoration

I office, are crit~calto the success of remedial efforts. Responsibilities for implementation and monitoring have not been assigned separately as it is recognized that any inter-agency remedial action will require communication at the earliest possible opportunity to achieve the largest degree of success with the minimum of effort. I

i. ~ TABLE2. A summary of remedial'a~tions~ii?~uirddto restore fish and wil'dlife habitat and populationdynami& with associated criterta for targets, timetables, monitoring,

and proponent involvement. I ','

Remedial Action and Delisting ~ar~dtand Monitoring Program and I Cost Estimate I Implementation qchedule I Project Proponents I Actions Ia+b: Cleanup of Target: maintenand of Program: monitor sites for historic spawning grounds migration routes and suitable further accumulations of and the Old Mill site wetland spawning and wetland debris in the lower river habitat I I cost: $50 K each. . , '. I Schedule: asrequir,ed ' . ' 1' ~roponent:LSP* ' . I Actions lc+k: Adult Target: rehabilitatioe of Program: monitor recruitment walleye stocking program walleye stocks to historic to walleye population levels (approx. 41 000 - annually to document Ryder 1968) iI recovery I Cost: $300 K . , Schedule: completec! . . Proponent: LSP . . Action Id: Implement self- Pmgnrn:.monitor substrate cleaning spawning substrate . success if technology is implemented . . . . Schedule: pending hesign I Proponent: LSP completion and site selection I

Actions le+m: Restore Target: restore deg/aded Pmgram: monitor brook trout Clearwater Creek habitat habitat and provide a population to assess stormwater manage~entplan recovery that will no longer the stream . . I I Cost: $9M K Schedule: ongoing 1995 Proponent: LSP /Nipigon I completion for current work Township . . ~akin~a Great Lake Superior Nipigon Bay 37

Target: increase existing Program: continue to monitor Water Management Plan aquatic and terrestrial habitat the AOC fish community, with by providing more natural particular emphasis on fluctuations in lake and river Ni~iaon. - River brook trout levels I Cost: $400 K Schedule: '95 implementation Proponent: LSP

Action 1g: Seconday Target: partially increase Program: monitoring of fish, treatment for Domtar Mill and forage base for local fish benthos, and sediment and Nipigon and Red Rock STPs populations by restoring water quality by the federal degraded habitat and benthic Environmental Effects communities Monitoring Program (EEMP) and MOEE longterm sensing I program Cost: Domtar - $25 M Municipalities - $0.5 - 1.5 M . Schedule: 1995 deadline for Pmponent: Domtar Inc. I (without link to Domtar) completion 1 Townships l LSP - Action lh: Sea lamprey Target: reduce amount and Program: monitor to assess control via habitat-enhanced rate of lampricide use to sea lamprey populations traps and sterile male release coritrol sea lamprey via or other techniques . research and development of new technology Cost: Trap - $50 K + 10 Klyr Schedule: 1995 completion Proponent: Sea Lamprey SMRT - $17 K per release for Nipigon River trap Cow,DFO, MNR I - -- Actions li+j: Red Rock Target: provide diverse and Program: continue to monitor Marina habitat overlay functional habitat for aquatic local fish species distribution and terrestrial organisms and relative abundance

Cost: $300 K Schedule: 1995 completion Pmponent: LSP 1Red Rock

Action 11: Restore Big Trout Target: identify and Creek rehabilitate degraded trout population to assess habitat remediation and rehabilitated habitats for integrity I Cost: $25 K inventory I Schedule: spring '95 start Proponent: LSP IRed Rock I Township Action In: Restoration of Target: restore a healthy Program: monitor benthic benthic populations via benthic community for community for change as in sediment ren?ediation impacted areas section 4.2 I Schedule: ASAP pending I Pmponenf; LSP . favourable test results . . . . I . ., I

, ..

. .

38 ' Stage 2 Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration . . Action 1p: Assess effect Target: ensure that walleye Program: monitor spawning of substrate algal growth on stock recovery will not be activity and success for fish recruitment hampered by degraded impacted and unimpacted spawning substrate sites .

Cost: $5 K Schedule: Spring 1995 Proponent: LSP

Action lq: Baseline Target: further quantify and Program: monitor relative monitoring and review of evaluate stresses on the fish abundances of fish Nipigon Bay fish community community by establishing populations and angling baseline data and continue pressure via creel surveys sampling to assess recovery and small fish sampling - review stocking programs

Cost: $25 K annually Schedule: Ongoing Prop~nent: LSP

Lake Superior Programs - indudes MOEE, MNR, DF~,and Environment Canada - Benthic Population Dynamics and Habitat Loss

Hiding under stones and driftwood, well aware, no doubt, what enticing morsels they I are to a great variety of fishes, we find a number of species... I - Stephen A. Forbes, 1887 . ..

40 ' Stage 2 Remedial Strategies for EcosystemRestoration I 4.2 Benthic Population Dynamics and Habitat Loss

. . . . he standards applied .to,determine contamination are the Lowest Effect Levels. (LELs) of the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines (PSQG) instituted by MOEE. . . , I (1993). The LEL corresponds to any concentration thatexceeds the lowest levels at ..

, which ecotoxic effects become apparent . These levels are derived using field-based: data that 'relate sediment contaminant koncentratioris to the occurre.nceof benthic I organisms. The LELSthus indicate the.level of sediment contamination,that &n be ' 'tolerated by the majority of benthic organisms. , . . . ' :I . . '. The benthic. community is impaired, largely due to the accumulation of wood fibre, for . . an area adjacent to the ouffall of the Domtar mill in Red' Rock. Sediment contaminant . . . values exceed provincial LELs adjacent to Domtar as well as over much of the area I' .. . comprising Nipigon Bay proper (Kirby unpublished data -Appendix 7). Although the . ' area around the discharge was sampled as part of this dataset, the most heavily . , . .I, : contaminatedzone adjacent to the outfall was not targeted. This area, in which ..

Sandilands (1977) identified mercGlevels exceeding LELs (mean =. 0.1 8.pglg, ' ' standard deviation = 0.10, maximum = 0.42 pglg), was. more'recently sampled as part . I of the in situ sediment remediation study (Murphy unpublished data - Appendix 8). . . . Surficial mercury concentrations in theimmediate discharge area are now below the . . . . LEL. However, these most recent samples also indicatethat concentrations.of total PCBs exceedthe LEL (70 nglg)immediately adjacent to the outfall (~p~endix9). I Background levels for Lake Superior have been estimated at 20 nglg (MOEE 1993). . .

Additionally, .one of 16 PaH compounds tested (flouranthene) immediately adjacent to . . ' . ,, the outfall had values that .slightly exceeded the ~LECfor 7 of 24 samiples(range = 2.10 I

. - 420 nglg, LEL=190nglg) andone of 19 organochlorine compounds (dieldrin) ' . . . exceeded the LEL for 17 of 24 samples (range.i2.8 - 141 nglg, LEL = 2 nglg). here . 1 . is no known source in the AOC for these latter two.compounds...... Recognizing that natural levels of metals in sediment may have considerable local ' variation,the PSQG also consider background sediment concentrations, in addition to ' the absolute values given as limits, in the application of theguidelines (MOEE 1993). .' . . . If surficial concentrations exceed LELs in areas"where local unimpacted oC - . 1, background levels (samples from precolonial sediments - below the Ambrosia . .,, horizon) are also high, background levels will form the lowerpractical limit for management. In Lake Superior, if background,levels have not been adequately I' - sampled, the guide lists average metal' concentrations for. unimpacted areas (Appendix 10). When the metal concentrations exceeding the LELs:for.sediments in Nipigon Bay proper (Appendix 7) are put into this context, sediments can no longer be ' I classified as contaminated. Itappears that the levelsof metals found here are . . attributable to normal weathecirig ,of the Canadian Shield as they occur in areas

, ' thought to be associated with natural lake-wide deposition (Nipigon Bay. RAP Team I Making a Great Lake Superior Nipigon Bay 41

1994). Although benthic sampling was insufficient to conclusively document a lack of impairment, the community in this area of the bay does not appear to be unusual (Todd Howell, Dave Pugh personal communication) and the densities of the amphipod Pontoporeia hoyi, established as an IJC ecosystem health indicator, are well above the minimum levels (GLWQA - Annex II).

Restrictions on disposal of dredged material (MOEE 1993) are present for the degraded sediments in the area around the mill outfall. However, no dredging has ever occurred in this area, nor are there any plans to do so. The nature of the restrictions are largely confined to wood fibre and oil and grease and, except for the few locations immed~atelyadjacent to the outfall, persistent toxic substances are not a problem.

Effluent from the Domtar mill currently exceeds provincial and federal limits for BOD and acute toxicity and is contributing to benthic community impairment in this area. The benthic community is also impaired for a relatively short distance downstream of the sewage treatment plant outfalls in Nipigon and Red Rock (the latter is in close proximity to the Domtar mill outfall). From sampling conducted in 1994 below the Town of Nipigon STP outfall, it appears that the zone of impairment extends approximately 100 m downstream (D. Pugh unpublished data 1994). Water quality is impaired because of bacterial contamination exceeding provincial guidelines for drinking (MOEE 1994b) below the Nipigon STP (D. Pugh unpublished data 1994) and, most likely, the Red Rock STP.

. OBJECTIVES . . 1) Discharges, erosion, dredging and disposal, toxic substances, anthropogenic 1 inputs of nutrients, and fluctuating..waterlevels should not negativelyaffectthe benthic community. Rehabilitation of sediments should be undertaken, especially in degraded'mixing zones, to restorea benthic community similar to control sites.. I. .. 2) 'Waterfront development and species manipulations of introductions should not negativelyaffect.the benthic. community and should only be conduited after a thorough 1 . e+minationof the potential consequences. . . . . REMEDIAL ACTIONS TO DATE

Objective One

Action 2 a) Identified Oxygenation and Enhanced Biodegradation as the preferred alternative for sediment remediation at the Domtar mill outfall, pending test results. The Options Paper identified a preference for the treatment of contaminated 42 Stage 2 Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration ...... sediments in thearea of the mi.11 outfall using a technique that would enhance ' . biodegradation via oxygenation. This bioremediation technology is presently being. tested in and St. Mary's River. Implementation in Nipigon Bay will . . 1, depend on the results from these demonstration' sites. However;remedial effork will . .be wasted unless the source of impairment is controlled. Domtaris scheduled to 1, . . , . bring secondary treatment for its'effluenton line by December 31,.1995(see action . . 1.9j. , . ',. . I

l~ction2 b) ~ssi~tedindevi$ing. a water' management plan for theNipigon River. 1. ., ', The NipigOn Riqer Water ~anagementPlan will improve benthic.habitat. Please refer, . . . 1' . . - . . . toactions If and-2gforfurther information. .. . . ,

' Objective Two: . . , .I . Action 2 c) Assisted in the provision of a local increase in benthic productivity with the I construction of the Red Rock Marina habitat component. m The habitat overlay of the Red Rock Marina should add to the diversity and area of substrate available for colonization by benthos, providing a small gain in local I productivity.

REMAINING IMPAIRMENTS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS I

. . Objective One ' ......

. . ' Action 2 d) Determine the limits of degradation and impleinent sediment remediation for the area adjacent to the Dmtarrmilloutfall, pendingtest results. . . . . I. , .. .

The.sdected remedialoption requires further testing, as described above, prior to . . . . implementation and, if this technique is feasible, the-areaof contamination at this . I location also. requires furtherdefinition before remediation is undertaken: . . : I If resirlts of the oxygenation and enhanced biodegradationtrials prove the technique, I to be. unfeasible in' Nipigon. Bay, it is unlikely that the 'benefits accrued from alternative mettiods of sediment treatment. to restore benthic habitat earlier than natural processes, warrant their cost (see Options %per for more information). The I :. .suspected area of impairment appears to be less than 10 km2 (with varying degrees' . of impact - K. Cullis personal: communication).and now that the source of .impairment will b= controlled. the area should remediate. on its own, although time willbe required ' I . before its recovery is realized. During this period, productivity will remain: impaired . .. locally, but the effect on the ecosystem as"a:whole should be minimal. . . Making a Great Lake Superior Nipigon Bay 43

Action 2 e) Assist in the implementation of secondary treatment for the Townships of I Nipigon and Red Rock. It is expected that both townships will soon be equipped with secondary treatment I facilities to remedy the problems downstream of their outfalls. It is anticipated that changes to the provincial MunicipaVlndustrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) regulations will soon require this treatment at a municipal level. The townships have I been encouraged to move, proactively, in this direction. With secondary treatment in place (including remediation of sludge bed and system overloads in Nipigon), the I impacted areas should recover relatively quickly. I Action 2 f) Implement the Nipigon River Water Management Plan . By reducing both long and short term water level and discharge fluctuations, the Nipigon River Water Management Plan benefits the benthic community by stabilizing I available benthic habitat and reducing erosion which will ultimately improve benthic productivity in the ecosystem. I ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION SUMMARY: TARGETS AND MONITORING

Given the nature of the problems identified in Nipigon Bay, it would seem to be more I realistic and cost-effective to assess remedial efforts (Table 3) by monitoring for an unimpaired benthic community rather than contaminant concentrations in the sediment. As before, LSP will continue to provide the leadership necessary to I implement and monitor actions to restore the Nipigon Bay benthos, with the other m proponents listed below as partners. I TABLE3. A summary of remedial actions required to restore benthic habitat and population dynamics with associated criteria for targets, timetables, monitoring and I proponent involvement.

Remedial Actions'and Delisting Target and Monitoring Program and I Costs Implementation Schedule Project Proponent

Actions 2a+d: Sediment Target: sediments will be Program: monitor benthic I remediation forarea of considered rehabilitated I community in contaminated I omt tar mill outfall when the benthic community zone and-at a control site, if . . in question is not significantly necessary, to supplement different from a control site EEMP monitwing Proponent: LSP /Domtar Cost: $500 K Schedule: ASAP pending I favourable test results 44 Stage 2 Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration

Actions 2b+f: Nipigon River Target: reduce impacts to Program: continue to monitor Water Management Plan benthos from water level water levels in the Nipigon fluctuations River I Cost: $400 K Schedule: '95 implementation I Proponent: LSP

Action 2c: Increased local Target: provide a local net Program: monitor benthos benthic productivity at Red increase in benthic habitat only to document and assess Rodc Marina colonization t- t- Schedule: 1995 coipletion I Pmponbnt: LSP Action 2e: Assist in the Target: A properly Program: monitoring of implementation of secondary functioning secondary benthos and water quality to treatment for Nipigon and Red treatment system and benthic be provided by the federal community M

Cost: $0.5 - ISM Schedule: ASAP Proponent: Nipigon and Red (without a link to Domtar STP) Rock Townships

Lake Superior Programs - indudes MOEE, MNR, DFO, and Environment Canada , Aesthetics'.

. . Our ability to perceivequality in nature begins, as in art, withthe pretty. 'lt expands through successive stages of the beautiful tovalues as yet uncaptured by language. (~eopold1949) ...... ~ . . ,'. . . I. . . . . 1. i . ., . . . . . ,. , . . .. 46 . . Stage' 2 Remedial Stratigies for ~cos~stern~estoration

4.3 Aesthetics

Aesthetics are impaired by the buoyant mill effluent from Domtar Packaging and industrial development along the waterfront. The mill also received complaints about foam from effluent discharge impairing aesthetics in the bay and in 1990 they I improved the foam barriers at the outfall. No complaints have been received since this technology was implemented. I ......

. . , ow~cnVEs .. . .,, .

. I)Point source effluent ind wa~erfrontdevelop&e"~should not bave anadver$e. . . .. effect onaesthetics or recreation in the AOC: - : : ...... I . . . . 2) ~ubllcaccess should be developed and imprpved within the AOC to make the area . . a focus for aesthetics, recreation, culture, and tourism......

Objective One I Action 3 a) Assisted in the planning for secondary treatment at the Domtar Mill. I Although secondary treatment will greatly improve the water quality of mill effluent, the visibility and appearance of the effluent plume, currently impairing aesthetics in the I immediate vicinity of the mill and for a downstream distance that varies with prevailing conditions, will only be partially remediated. Suspended sol~dswill be reduced by I increasing the detention time for the effluent. This increase in detention time will also increase the cooling of process water allowing for greater mixing with the relatively cold water of Nipigon Bay and resulting in a plume that wilt be buoyant for a shorter I period of time. . .

. . Objective Two . . , , . . . . . , '. 3 l~ction3 b) Canplete the. habitat overlay componentof theRed Rock ~anna. I ' I The habitat overlay for the Red 'Rock Marina includes a terrestrial component in ., . .. addition to the aquatic and shoreline.features previously described (see section 4.1). Trees and shrubs will be planted to create a park-like, atmosphere, botl; on the I' . . breakwall and adjoining mainland area. Recrea/ional opportunities will beenhanded.. .' ...... by providing.a walking trail along ihe entire,perimeter of 'the breakwall. ', . .,. .. .I .. . , . , 1; ......

, Making a Great Lake Superior Nipigon Bay 47

Action 3 c) completed Clearwater Creek cleanup and rehabilitation strategy, which Iincludes the concept and structural design for a recreational component. I Prior to stream rehabilitation, a major cleanup of Clearwater Creek was completed in June 1993. Approximately 30 tonnes of garbage was collected in two days, by St. Edwards School on June 5th and then by the community as a whole on the 19th, and removed to the local landfill site. The Clearwater Creek project incorporates, in addition to initiatives specifically directed at restoring habitat, plans to achieve recreational opportunities related to the creek. The rehabilitation strategy includes the creation of a system of trails and footpaths, using the creek valley as a spine for circulation, linking the town to the waterfront and tying into the trail system between Nipigon and Red Rock (Marshall Macklin Monaghan and Todhunter Schollen 1993).

REMAINING IMPAIRMENTS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Buoyant mill effluent will still be observable as a mixing zone, to varying degrees depending on the time of year and prevailing conditions, but its impact on aesthetics should be substantially diminished with the implementation of secondary treatment. It is anticipated that the improvements to foam containment and effluent mixing will result in no further concerns by the public as well as meet the mixing zone criteria established by MOEE (1994).

Objective One

I(~ction 3 d) Implement the Nipigon River Water Management Plan. 11 The Water Management Plan for the Nipigon River attempts to better natural flows and lake levels to reduce erosional impacts which occasionally impair aesthetics within the AOC.

Objective Two

Action 3 e) Construct the recreational component of the Clearwater Creek rehabilitation strategy. Work on the stream and valley adjacent to St. Edwards School, the first area to be rehabilitated, began in the fall of 1994 and included plans for the completion of walkways, trails, and bridges.

ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION SUMMARY: TARGETS AND MONlTORlNG

Table 4 provides a summary of the actions and commitments required to remediate impairments to aesthetics in the AOC. Although few people would argue that pulp ...... , . . , ~ . .

48 , Stage 2 Remedial ~trate~iesfoi ~cos~st'em orad ad. . on , . . ' I' 1

. ' millsa.re more pleasing to the eyethan parkland, it seems'apparent:that; for the grey . area somewhere' in between' these two extfemes, the residents of the~OCshouldbe I

left to decideupon their own tolerances. The LSPOwill again provide the necessary . , g'uidance,and support to successfully resolvethis problem area. ., . . . . I TABLE4. A summary of remedial actionsrequired to restore aesthetics with associated criteria for targets, timetables,, monitoring and proponent involvement. . . . . I Remedial Actions and Delisting Targef and Monitoring Program and Costs Implementation Schedule Project Proponent

Action 3a: Secondary Target: no evidence of an Program: monitor for target treatment at the Domtar Mill objectionable deposit, scum, parameters at least once colour, odour, or turbidity monthly ICost: $25M I Schedule: ~ecemb=r1995 1 Proponent: Domtar lnc. I Target: enhance local Program: ensure recreational opportunities and constructed. habitat features waterfront aesthetics and trails remain intact,

I Schedule: ASAP . , Proponent: LSP IRed Rock ' I Township . . I - ~ ~ IAction 3c+e: Clearwater Target: improve creek Program: monitor to ensure Creek . . aesthetics and enhance local no additional degradation of . . recreational opportunities aesthetics and ensure constructed habitat features and trails remain intact . . Schedule: Cleanup Cost: $900 K . . completed in 1993, Proponent: LSP /Nipigon rehabilitation and recreational Township component begun in Fall 1994. Completion of this . . phase is scheduled for 1995.

Action 3d: Nipigon River Target: remove a major Program: continue to monitor Water Management Plan portion of anthropogenic water quality aesthetics in I impacts to aesthetics by the Nipigon River reducing unnatural erosive forces i 'Schedule: lmplementation propoknt: LSP. scheduled for 1995..

Lake Superior Programs - indudes MOEE, MNR, DFO, and Environment Canada Education and Stewardship

Humans thinking they own the earth is like fleas thinking they own the dog...... -.Crocodile Dundee . 50 Stage 2 Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration 4.4 Education and Stewardship I Public education is a critical component of any RAP. 'Education is the vehicle by which perceptions are changed, environmental awareness is raised, and stewardship is encouraged. Additionally, participants in the RAP process need an understanding of I an oflen complex ecosystem before addressing the problems associated with its function. I

1) Foster a sense of environmental understanding in the community so that new issues and concerns can be rationally contemplated, discussed and proactively addressed. I

2) Develop a respect for the AOC ecosystem to ensure that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated in the future. I

REMEDIAL ACTIONS TO DATE I I . . Objec@es One and Two . ., 1

Action 4 a) Assisted with development of the concept and desigri for the interpretiveleducational component of Clearwater Creek rehabilitation strategy. I The Clearwater 'creek project incorporates, in addition to initiatives specifically . . directed at restoring habitat, plans to achieve educational andinterpretive .. 1, opportunities relatedto the 'creek. The rehabilitation strategy includes the creation of interpretive stations, each 'designed to convey a message about the' functionin$ of the . creek ecosystem and the history of the creek, the town, and the rehabilitation project, I andan outdoor classroom, where students can monitor water quality, gauge flows, and'analyze the workings of the creek ecosystem (Marshall Macklin Monaghan and Todhunter Schollen 1993). 1 I Action 4 b) Developed concept and design for Nipigon Environmental Interpretive Centre component of Nipigon Museum. I A preliminary concept proposal has been developed for the Interpretive Centre that has been proposed to be constructed in conjunction with the Nipigon Museum. The I focus of the centre will be on Great Lakes water quality I Nipigon Bay Area of Concern I Remedial Actions Plan and Clean Up Fund issues and efforts. The central theme will involve our role in the historical degradation of the natural environment, plans to 1 . . . . Making a Great Lake.Superior Nipigon'Bay . . 51

undertake restorative action, and the vision for the future of the Great Lakes system as I a healthy aquatic ecosystem. The centre will enhance the tourism base of the area and generate public interest, understanding, and involvement in environmental programs. Construction of the Environmental Interpretive Centre in conjunction with I the new Nipigon Museum has been delayed as a result of a lack of funding commitments.

I Action 4 c) Supported the publishing of "The Glory of Nipigon", a book and educational aid about the history of and environmental concerns in the area. I "The Glory of Nipigon" (Kelso and Demers 1993) is a book celebrating the natural wonders of the land of the Nipigon, relates its rich history, from glaciation to the present, as well as the manner in which people have impacted the ecosystem, both I as stewards and resource users. The book also includes a chapter on how the text can be used as an educational aid, outlining activities and projects for teachers to tailor to any program level. The Nipigon Bay PAC endorsed and supported the I publishing of this book and all proceeds from its sale will be applied to environmental restoration, education, and heritage preservation in the Nipigon Bay region. I REMAINING IMPAlaMENTS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

I Objectives One and Two

1 Action 4 d) Constnrct the educational component of the Cleatwater Creek rehabilitation strategy. 1 Work on the stream and valley adjacent to St. Edwards School, the first area to be rehabilitated, began in the fall of 1994 and included plans for the completion of open air workstations for monitoring climate, hydrology, and biota. Completion of this area I is scheduled for the spring of 1995.

Action 4 e) Continuationof the Nipigon Bay PAC asan environmental commitiee, . . . ( , . offering guidance and coordinating efforts, and responses to environmental issues.

' . . , Nth the formal submisiion of the Stage 2 document (~ecimmendedPlan) to the ( federal and provincial governments, the nature of a PACs duties in a Wchanges. Proactively, some of the Nipigon Bay PAC members have expressed interest in continuing as an environmental umbrella organization, with. anexpansion to include I representatives from all committees having concerns about the watershed, that could assist in addressing environmental issues and concerns as they arise.

. . , . 52 Stage 2 Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration 1 . . . . Action 4.f) Incorporate interpretive signage to explain habitat features along.the~ed. I Rock Marina walking trail.. . . . ,

. . The. man-made habitat features incodorated into the marina breakwall provide an . . , . . ' excellent model for future waterfront developments in the Great Lakes Basin. As I' such, their attributes and function should be highlighted and explained in an effort illustrate their importance to aquaticorganisms and.potential applicationto similar . . projects. I

Action 4 g) Undertake a study to examine and 4uantify the linkages between I environmental restoration and economic benefit in the Nipigon Bay AOC. A study to explore and quantify the linkages between economic development capacity I and the restoration, enhancement,'and protection of natural ecosystems is underway and scheduled for completion by the summer of 1995. The actiyities surrounding the Nipigon Bay RAP are being examined as part of the data for this project. 1

ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION SUMMARY: TARGETS AND MONITORING 1 . ~ltho~~~hnot identified by the IJC or COA as a kbecific requirement for delisting, the targets for initiatives in the education and stewardshipcomponent of the Nipigon Bay RAP (Table 5) are as impoitant to achieveas.any other remedial measure. The LSPO will continue to play. a leading role in their implementationand monitoring...... , . .. . . I TABLE5. A summary of remedial actions required to enhance education and encourage stewardship with associated criteria for targets, timetables, monitoring and proponent involvement. 1

Remedial Actions and I Delistina ~araetand Monitoring Program and . Cost. lmplemenktionSchedule Project Proponent

Action 4e+d: Clearwater Target: achieve an Program: assess Creek increased awareness and effectiveness by monitoring respect for the Nipigon Bay public response as required ecosystem

' Schedule: first to be ~ro~oknt:~ipigon ' completed in spring lq995 Township

. . . . i 'Making a rea at Lake Superior Nipigon Bay 53 . ..

Action 4b: Nipigon , Target: achieve an Program: assess Environmental Interpretive increased awareness and effectiveness by monitoring Centre respect for the Nipigon Bay public response as required ecosystem

Cost: $5 M Schedule: status on hold Proponent: LSP* INipigon pending funding commitments Township I Action 4 c: 'The Glory of Target: achieve an Program: assess the Nipigon" increased awareness and effectiveness by monitoring respect for the Nipigon Bay schooVpublic response as ecosystem required1 Cost: $20 K Schedule: 1993 completion Proponent: Nipigon Bay PAC I

Action 4e: Continuation of Target: achieve a Program: assess coordinated and cooperative the Nipigon Bay PAC effectiveness by monitoring approach to addressing public response as required environmental issues

Schedule: discussion Proponent LSP INipigon Bay I ongoing I PAC Action 4f: Red Rock Marina Target: achieve an Program: assess increased awareness of effectiveness by monitoring native biota and the potential public response as required for constructing marinas that can also provide habitat for a variety of organisms

Schedule: Fall 1995 ~ro~heni'LSP IRed Rock. I I I Township Action 49: Identify Target: examine the Program: monitor long-term Ieconomic incentives for I economic rationale for I economic growth of AOC - ecosystem restoration and ecosystem restoration . . protection.. ' Schedule: Summer 1995 Proponent: Economics Cost: $15 K . . completion Section - Environment Canada

Lake Superior programs - indudes MOEE, MNR, DFO, and Environment Canada Future Concerns Making a Great Lake Superior Nipigon Bay 55

4.5 Future Concerns I : . . Had the RAP process been applied to problems affecting Nipigon Bay as recently as the19601s,the most stringent recommendation for action would likely have concerned the implementation of primary treatment for mill effluent. At that time, the discharge of wood fibre was largely viewed as the major environmental impact of pulp and paper mills. Similarly, as these remedial actions are progressing towards full implementation, the practice of continuing to discharge wastes, regardless of the levels of contaminants, into our lakes and rivers, is coming under increased scrutiny. The Binational Program to Restore and Protect the Lake Superior Basin was established in 1991 in response to the designation of Lake Superior, by the IJC, as "a demonstration area where no point source of any persistent toxic substance will be permitted" (F~fthbiennial report on Great Lakes water quality - IJC 1989). Although compliance with recent federal and provincial regulations has contributed substantially to improving water quality in Nipigon Bay, the continued release of other undesirable substances and reliance on end-of-pipe treatment is ultimately at odds with goals directed at having no discernable impact on the Great Lakes ecosystem. Proactively, industry has played a leading role in research that has demonstrated that the complete recycling of effluent for many types of mills is not only possible, but the technology is currently available, in use, and being improved (PAPER 1992). Treatment technology for municipal water and effluent has been making similar advances in increasing its efficiency and decreasing its reliance on toxic chemicals in processing waste. Furthermore, as we approach the 21st century, prevention strategies are beginning, albeit slowly, to displace remedial approaches in dealing with the management of Great Lakes environmental issues. Stage 2 is thus a first, but very important step, in the progression towards our sustainable use and management of a completely healthy ecosystem. Hopefully the spirit of change, awareness, and cooperation that the Nipigon Bay RAP Team and PAC have helped foster in the community will continue to help provide solutions to future issues, before they become problems, in the Nipigon Bay ecosystem. 56

. ~

REFERENCES, . . . . : . . . ..

. . Documents, : . . Ankley, G.T.. P.M. Cook, A.R. Carlson, D.J. Call. J.A. Svenson, H.F. Corcoran, and R.A. Hoke. 1992. Bioaccumulation of PCBs from sediments by oligochaetes and fishes: comparison of field and laboratory studies. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49:2080-2085.

Atria ~n~ineeringHydraulics Inc., 1994. Nipigon River: ,Development of a water management plan , - Preferred Option Report. Prepared for the Nipigon River Water Management Committee. 36pp......

Bertrand, J.P. 1959. ~ighwayof destiny. Vantage Press. Toronto as cited in Our Living Heritage: The Glory of the Nipigon. J.R.M.Kelso.& J:W. Demers. 1993. . Mill Creek Publishers, Echo . . Bay, Canada.

Bird and p ale Ltd. 1994. ~arthand Life Science and Ctiltural ~eaturesReconnaissance Survey, Prepared for Nipigon District MNR. I. .. Bryan, S. 1991.' pelicans nesting on Lake Nipigon. Ontario Birds 9 58-62...... Cumji, R.A., J. ~ehrels,D.L.G. Noakes & R, swainson. 1994. Effects of riverflow fluctuations on groundwater discharge through brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis, 'spawning and incubation . ~ habitats. Hydrobiologia 277: 121-134. . . Deacon, K.J. 1987. ~esponseof benthic macroinveiebratesto water quality .improvements in Nipigon Bay. Lake Superior. 1986. Lakehead hivek kit^. Biology Department. Thunder Bay, Ontario. . . . .

Edwards, C.J., R.A. Ryder & T.R. Marshall. 1990. Using lake trout as a surrogate of ecosystem health for oligotrophic waters of the Great Lakes. J. Great Lakes Res. 16: 591-608.

German, M.J. 1968. Biological survey of Nipigon Bay. 1967-1968. Ontario Water Resource Commission.

Gobas, F.. W.Y. Shiu, and D. MacKay. 1987. Factors determining partitioning of hydrophobic organic chemicals in aquatic organisms. QSAR in Environ. Toxicol. 11:107-123.

Goodier, J.L. 1981. Native lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) stocks in Canadian waters of Lake Superior. Master's Thesis - .University of Toronto, Canada. Gore and Stonie Ltd. 1994. Reconnaissance Life and Earth Science Inventory. Prepared for Nipigon District MNR. , Government of Canada. 1991. Toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes and their associated effects - Volume I:Contaminant levels and trends. Environment Canada. DFO, and Health and Welfare Canada. Minider of Supply and Services. Ottawa, Canada. 488 p.

Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 1985. TFM vs. The Sea Lamprey: A generation later. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub. 85-6. 17pp. Great Lakes Fishery omm mission. undated. Sea Lamprey management program. Great Lakes Fish.. Comm. Spec. Pub. . . 1 . . Hansen. M.J. 1990: ~ake~uperior'~he stateof the iake in 1989. Great Lakes Fishery Com. Spec. . . Pub. 90-3. 55p: '. . I I . .. . . Hartman, G.F. & J.C. Scrivener. .:19~0.Impacts offorestry practices on a coastal stream ecosystem, Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Canadian. Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 148 p. 11. : . . Hunter..M.L. 1990. Wldlife, Forests, and Forestry: Pririciples of managing forests for biologi& I' diversity. Prentice Hall Inc.. New Jersey. . . International Joint Commission. 1989. Fiflh biennial report on Great Lakes water quality. lnternational Joint Commission United States and Canada, Wndsor. Canada. 20pp + 50pp . '. . . I.lnterriational Joint commission. 1989. RevisedGreat ~akesWater Quality Agreement of1978 as' amended by protocol signed Noyember 18. 1987. Office consolidation. lnternational Joint Commission-United Staies and Canada. . mI lnternational Joint Commission. 1991. Commission approves listldelist criteria for Great Lakes Areas of Concem. Focus on IJC activities 16(1): 1-3. I , 1. . Kelso. J.R.M. 1977. Density, distribution.and AovimFnt of Nipigon Bay fishes innlation to a bulp and paper mill effluent. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 34: 879-885. Keko. J.R.M..C.K. ~inns,6 R.J.P. ~roules.1977: Pulpmd paper mill sffluintiins ireshwiter 1 environment. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 34:,771-775. . . . .

Klar, G.T. 8 J.G. Weise. 1993. Sea am prey. In The State of Lake Superior in 1992, M .J. , . .. Hansen (Ed.). Great Lakes Fish.:Comm. Spec. Pub. . . . . Krause, H.H. 1982. Effect of forest management practices on water quality - a review of Canadian studies. Proceedings of the Canadian Hydrology Symposium '82: Hydrological processes of forested areas. National Research Council, Fredericton. New Bmnswick...... Lake superior Binational Program. 1993. State of the Lake Superior Basin ~eportin~'~eries- . 'Volume 4': Ecosystem Principles and Objectives for Lake Superior - Discussion Paper...... '. Superior Work Group. 16 p. I . . 2 .: Lawrie, A.H. & J.F. Rahrer. 1973.' Lake superioi-a case history of the lake and its fisheries. Great Lakes Fish. Com. Tech. Rep. #19. 69 p. . '. . .

. Leopold, A. 1949. Sand ~ount~~lmanac;Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford U.K...... MacCallum, M.E. 1999. The Nipigon River A retrospective summary about the fish community. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. . . . . MacCallum, W.R. & J.H. Selgeby. 1987. Lake Superior revisited 1984. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. . . 44 (s~ippl.2): 23-36. 1 I. .. . Marshall Macklin Monaghan. 1991. Township of Red Rock waterfront study.

Marshall Macklin Monaghan and Todhunter Schollen. 1993. Clearwater Creek rehabilitation strategy: Background report and summary of restoration initiatives. Prepared for North Shore Lake Superior Remedial Action Plan. . .

McAlli~ter,D.E., Parker. B.J., and P.M. ~c~ee.1985. Rare, endangered and extinct fishes in . . Canada. Syllogeus No. 54. National Museums of Canada. .. . Ministry of the Environment. 1984, ontarid Drinking Water Objectives. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto, ,Canada. " I

m in is try of ~nvimnmentand Energy. 1993. Guidelines for the proteaion and management of ' . , . ' aquatic sediment quality in Ontario: Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto. Canada. . . I Ministry of ~nviro"mentand Energy. . l994a.. Air Quality Annual Report, , . 1993. Queen's Printerfor Ontarip, Toronto, Canada: . . ... Ministry of ~nvironmentandEnergy. .'l994b. .'~ater.~ana~ement:Policies, Guidelines and Provincial Water Quality Objectives. Queen's Printer for Ontario. Tomnto, Canada. I . . Ministry of Environment and Energy IMinistry of Natural Resources., 1995.. Guide to eating . I Ontario sport fish. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto. Canada......

~oore1 George Associates Inc.. 1984. Township of Nipigon wat?rh.int develop'ment plan - Final ' . report. 81 Sheppard Ave W., North York, Canada. . . . I . .

Moore I Geoige Associates Inc. 1990. , Township of ~i~ibbnwatemont development riyised master . plan. 119 Spadina Ave. Suite 704, Toronto. Canada. . .. . ~

' , ~unkitthck.K.R:, M.R. Servos, J.L. Parrott, V. Martin; J.H. Carey, P.A. Flett 8 G:J. Van DerKrqak. '1.994. Identification of lampricide formulations asa potent inducer of MFO activity in fish. J. Great Lakes Res. 20: 355-365.

Nipigon Bay RAP Team. 1991. Nipigo? Bay Remedial Action pian. Stage 1: ~nvironmental .. . Conditions and Problem Definition. Ontario Ministry. of Natural. Resources,. 109 p.

~i~igonBay ~APTeam. 1994. Nipigon Bay Remedial A&bn Plan. A Discussion of ~emedial Options in the Nipigon Bay Area of Concern.. 69p. . . PAPER 1992. he dosed mill knceptin PAPER for the Pulp and paper lnduitry, March issue: I. Benn Publications Ltd. Tonbridge, England..

Ponnamperuma.. . F.N. 1972. The chemistry of submerged soils. Adv. in Agronomy 24: 29-88...... ~yder,.R.A. 1968. Dynamics and exploitation of mature walleyes, (~tizostedionvitreum [Mitchilln, . . in the Nipigon Bay region of Lake Superior. J. Fish: Res. Bd. Can. 25:. 1347-1376. - . . I Ryder, R.A. 8 C.J. Edwards. 1985. A conceptual approach for the application of biological indicators of ecosystem quality in the Great Lakes basin. Report to the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board of the International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario. 169 p.

Salo, E.O. 8 T.W. Cundy (eds). 1987. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle, WA. 471 p. . ... ~andilands,R.G. 1977. Effect of pulp mill effluent on the surfi~a~sedimentsofweiternNipigon Bay, Lakesuperior. J. Fish.. Res.. Bd.Can. 34: 817-823 , . . ~'mtt,W.B. 8 E.J. ~rb~srnan.1973.. Freshwatei ~ishesi"canada. ~isheries~eseatch.~oard of . Canada.

Schaefer, K. 1992.' selected soci&economic inforrnati~for the Nipigon BayRemedial Action Plan. Water Planning and Management Branch, Environment Canada. . . . .

. . ~tehly,G.R: and'^.^: Hayton. 1990. Effect of pH on the accumulation kinetics of pentachlorophenolin goldfish. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 19:464-470. . . Suns, K:,. Hilchin, G., 8 D: ~oner. 1991. spatial and temporal trends of organochlorine contaminants in spottail shiners (Notfopis hudsonius) from the Great Lakes and their connectingchannels ($975-1988). Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy. Queen's . . Printer for Ontario, Toronto. Canada.

Wastewater Technology Centre. 1992. Upgrading costs for municipal sewage treatment plants and potential impacts of innovative technologies. Environment Canada, Pollution Prevention Office. Toronto, Canada. ?

Wedeles, C.H.R. and L. Van Damme. 1994. DRAFT Effects of clearcutling and alte'malive .. silvicultural systems on wildlife in Ontario's boreal mixedwoods. ESSA Technologies Ltd...... ,127~~.. . .

Wetzel. R.G. 1975. Limnology. W. B. Saunders Co., Toronto, Canada. . . . . Whittle, D.M. 8 K.W. Flood. 197.7. Assessment of the acute. toxicity, growth impairment and flesh tainting potential of a bleached' kranmill effluent on rainbowtrout (Salmo gairdnen). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 34: 869-878,

,Wilson, E. 0. 1984. Biophilia. Ha~ardUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Wilson. L. 1991.. ~istoricallilerature review of the Nipigon area. wth emphasis on fisheries from . . . . , 1959-1990: Kinistry of Natural Resources. North Shore of Lake Superior Tech. Report Series #8: 178pp.

Vander Wal, J. 1977. Relation between Nipigon Bay benthic macroinvertebrates and selected aspects of their hablat.' J: Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 34:824-829.

Personal Communications

Bryan, S. Thunder Bay Field Naturalists. Thunder Bay. Ontario. Cullis, K. ,Environmental ~oordinatorf& Lake Superior.. Ministry of Natural ~esources: 1194

DawsonRoad. Thunder Bay. Ontario. ' .

Escon, N. Thunder Bay Field Naturalists, Thunder Bay, Ontario.

Hartley. R. Area Biologist, Ministry of Natural Resources, Nipigon, Ontario.

Howell. T. :Surface Water Section, ~nvironmentalMonitoring and Reporting Branch. Ontario Ministryof Environment and Energy,Toronto; Ontario,

Kirby, M. Statistical Support and Data Management Unit, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting . Branch. Ontario Ministry of. . Environmentand Energy.-Toronto, Ontario.

Murphy. T. New Technologies Research Branch. National Water Research.lnslitute. Burlington Ontario. , .

Pugh. D. Senior Environmental Officer. Ministry of Environment and Energy. Thunder Bay Laboratory, Ontario.

Ryder. R. Productivity Unit Leader, Ministry of Natural Resources Thunder Bay, Ontario. .. . .

Smith, I. Lakewide Management Plan coordinator, Ministry of Environment and Energy. Toronto...... Ontario. . . I ' . . . .. Swainson, R. Area Biologist. Mini~t~,of Natural Resources, Nipigon. Ontario: ...... , . I Vander ~al,J. Manager, ~ederall~rovincialEnvironmental programs for Lake ~,uierior,~hunder. . . Bay, Ontario. .. .

. . Young, 'R.'sea Lamprey Control Oftice. Department of Fisheries and Oceans,'Sault Ste.Marie, Ontario. . '