Tshreport,2006

Toward Safe Harbours 2006

Progress Toward Delisting –TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND SEDIMENT REMEDIATION

Toward Safe Harbours 2006Progress Toward Delisting –TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND SEDIMENT REMEDIATION

Prepared by: BARC Monitoring CommitteeBARC Monitoring Committee Chair: Andrew SebestyenReport Writer: Jennifer ParkinJune 2006

TOWARD SAFE HARBOURS 2006 Progress Toward Delisting – Toxic Substances and Sediment Remediation

National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Parkin, Jennifer.Toward Safe Harbours: Progress Toward Delisting – Toxic Substances and Sediment Remediation / prepared by the BARC Monitoring Committee ; BARC Monitoring Committee Chair, Andrew Sebestyen ; Report Writer, Jennifer Parkin.

Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0-9736190-2-3

First Published: June 200650 Pages

For more information contact:Bay Area Restoration CouncilB130F-LSB1280 Main Street WestHamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1Canada

Tel: (905) 527-7111Fax: (905) 522-6066Email: [email protected]: www.hamiltonharbour.ca

ON THE COVER

Left: Collecting sediment to examine benthic community structure in Hamilton Harbour (Photo – Kelly Bowen, Fisheries and Oceans Canada).

Centre: Great Blue Heron (Photo – The Spirit of Nature).

Right: Hamilton Harbour RAP icon for Toxic Substances and Sediment Remediation.

TOWARD SAFE HARBOURS 2006 iProgress Toward Delisting – Toxic Substances and Sediment Remediation

PrefaceThis report and its conclusions were prepared using information available to the Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC) Monitoring Committee during the time period of September 2005 to January 2006. Every attempt was made to be as complete as possible; however other relevant monitoring programs, research projects or other activities may have been missed. Any omitted information should be brought to the attention of the Bay Area Restoration Council.

AcknowledgementsBARC gratefully acknowledges Stelco Hamilton for the generous contribution of printing services for this report. Their support is appreciated.

We recognize the dedication of the volunteers who comprise the BARC Monitoring Committee:

Andrew Sebestyen (chair) Stelco Hamilton and BARC Director

David Gale Conservation Halton

Bruce Gall Aldershot Community Council

John Hawley Citizen

Martin Keller Citizen and BARC Vice President

Brian McCarry McMaster University

Roland Weiler Citizen and BARC Treasurer

John Hall (resource) Hamilton Harbour RAP Office

Kristin O’Connor (resource) Hamilton Harbour RAP Office

Jennifer Parkin (writer) BARC Projects Coordinator

BARC thanks the experts interviewed for this report: Anne Borgmann, Duncan Boyd, Ron Dermott, Bill Fitzgerald, Lee Grapentine, Ora Johannsson, Marten Koops, Chris Marvin, Danielle Milani, Mohi Munawar, Roger Santiago and Cheriene Vieira.

About The Bay Area Restoration CouncilThe Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC) is at the centre of community efforts to restore and protect the ecosystem health of Hamilton Harbour and its watershed. A not-for-profit group incorporated in 1991, one of BARC’s roles is monitoring and assessing the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP).

BARC also involves the community in Harbour issues through public participation and membership support. The Bay Area Restoration Council promotes the RAP through school programs, public meetings, resource materials and newsletter up-dates, as well as providing advice to governments and coordinating popular community planting events. Together with its partners and members, the Bay Area Restoration Council is Bringing Back the Bay!

For more information please visit BARC’s website at www.hamiltonharbour.ca

TOWARD SAFE HARBOURS 2006 iiiProgress Toward Delisting – Toxic Substances and Sediment Remediation

Table of Contents

Preface - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i

Acknowledgements - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i

About The Bay Area Restoration Council - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i

Table of Contents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - iii

List of Tables - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - iv

List of Figures - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - iv

Executive Summary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - vIntroduction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - vMethodology - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - vConclusions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - viRecommendations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - viSummary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - vii

1. Introduction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11.1 Hamilton Harbour - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21.2 The International Joint Commission - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31.3 Areas of Concern - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 41.4 Beneficial Use Impairments - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 41.5 Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 51.6 Monitoring and Research - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5

2. Methodology - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6

3. Evaluation of Toxic Substances and Sediment Remediation Beneficial Use Impairments- - - - - - - - 83.1 General Comments on Delisting Objectives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 93.2 Beneficial Use Impairment (vi) – Degradation of Benthos - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10

3.2.1 Background - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 103.2.2 Restoration of Beneficial Use Impairment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 103.2.3 Current Research and Monitoring Programs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 113.2.4 Gaps in Information and Monitoring - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 133.2.5 Recommendations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13

3.3 Beneficial Use Impairment (vii) - Restrictions On Dredging Activities- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 133.3.1 Background - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 133.3.2 Restoration of Beneficial Use Impairment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 143.3.3 Current Research and Monitoring Programs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 143.3.4 Gaps in Information and Monitoring - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 143.3.5 Recommendations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15

iv TOWARD SAFE HARBOURS 2006 Progress Toward Delisting – Toxic Substances and Sediment Remediation

3.4 Beneficial Use Impairment (xiii) – Degradation Of Phytoplankton And Zooplankton Populations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15

3.4.1 Background - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 153.4.2 Restoration of Beneficial Use Impairment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 153.4.3 Current Research and Monitoring Programs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 163.4.4 Gaps in Information and Monitoring - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 173.4.5 Recommendations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18

4. Trends and Emerging Issues - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19

5. Conclusions and Recommendations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20

6. Next Steps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22

7. References - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23

Appendicies - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24

Appendix A – Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objectives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24

Appendix B – Recommendations from Series of Toward Safe Harbours Reports - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29

Appendix C – Interview Schedule and Contact Information - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34

Appendix D – Randle Reef Sediment Remediation Project - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35

Appendix E – BEAST Methodology - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40

Appendix F – Acronyms and Glossary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 41

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Contaminants in Hamilton Harbour - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8

Table 2. Planned Future Sampling by Fisheries and Oceans Canada Applicable to BUI (vi)- - - - - - - 12

Table 3. Proposed Activities by Fisheries and Oceans Canada Applicable to BUI (vi) - - - - - - - - - - - 12

Table 4. Planned Future Sampling by Fisheries and Oceans Canada Applicable to BUI (xiii) - - - - - - 16

Table 5. Proposed Activities by Fisheries and Oceans Canada Applicable to BUI (xiii) - - - - - - - - - - 16

Table 6. List of Recommendations by BUI - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21

Table 7. PAH Compounds of Greatest Concern - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35

Table 8. Studies to Assess the Randle Reef Sediment Remediation Project - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38

Table 9. Sediment Decision Making Framework (excerpt) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Watersheds of Hamilton Harbour. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

Figure 2. Location of Randle Reef in Hamilton Harbour. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36

Figure 3. Preferred conceptual design for the Randle Reef Sediment Remediation Project. - - - - - - - 37

TOWARD SAFE HARBOURS 2006 vProgress Toward Delisting – Toxic Substances and Sediment Remediation

Executive Summary

Toward Safe Harbours: Progress Toward Delisting – Toxic Substances and Sediment Remediation is the fourth report in a four part series dedicated to determining what evidence Hamilton Harbour stakeholders will need to delist Hamilton Harbour as an Area of Concern. The report is prepared annually by a group of volunteers and technical assistants who comprise the Monitoring Committee of the Bay Area Restoration Council.

INTRODUCTION

In 1987, Hamilton Harbour was declared an “Area of Concern” on the Great Lakes. Contaminated sediment, the presence of toxic substances, degraded fish and wildlife populations, beach closures, and excess algae were among the reasons this area was identified as requiring a special clean-up effort. There are 42 other locations on the Great Lakes with the same designation.

The Area of Concern designation is based on Annex 2 of a joint Canada-U.S. treaty called the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). It identified 14 Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) that are indicators of degraded ecosystem health. The delisting objectives of the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP) describe the environmental conditions necessary to declare the impairments restored and the Harbour delisted.

Three BUIs and their delisting objectives were examined and analysed: BUI (vi) – degradation of benthos; BUI (vii) - restrictions on dredging activities; and BUI (xiii) – degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations. The information was collected primarily through in-person interviews with representatives from various agencies conducting monitoring and research activities in Hamilton Harbour. The report summarizes the monitoring and research information available and makes recommendations based on gaps or other concerns identified during the analysis.

METHODOLOGY

The Bay Area Restoration Council Monitoring Committee evaluated several research and monitoring programs in relation to the toxic substances and sediment remediation BUIs. The report was guided by the primary question:

• Will Hamilton Harbour stakeholders have the evidence required to delist Hamilton Harbour as an Area of Concern and to fulfill the requirements as outlined in the GLWQA?

Other related questions included:

• Will the Hamilton Harbour RAP be able to satisfy the decision-makers that the correct indicators have been measured in Hamilton Harbour to meet the RAP Stage 3 criteria?

• Are there any gaps in monitoring or research that would preclude the presentation of the RAP Stage 3 document?

• Are there any obstacles that could prevent monitoring or research from occurring in the future?

vi TOWARD SAFE HARBOURS 2006 Progress Toward Delisting – Toxic Substances and Sediment Remediation

CONCLUSIONS

There is a great deal of research data currently available that illustrates the state of the benthic, phytoplankton and zooplankton populations in Hamilton Harbour. Additional data of this nature will be available in the future as the planned research projects proceed. However, it is unclear at this time if this research and monitoring data will be sufficient to support delisting according to the current wording of the BUIs and delisting objectives.

The navigational dredging beneficial use impairment has been identified as problematic across all Areas of Concern. It appears that a decision by the International Joint Commission is necessary to address the uncertainty surrounding this BUI.

In addition to the BUI mentioned above, the Committee identified several gaps that need to be addressed in order to delist Hamilton Harbour by the target date of 2015. The eight recommendations in this report focus on closing these gaps.

The implementation of the recommendations is the responsibility of multiple agencies and groups who work to complete the remedial measures detailed in the Hamilton Harbour RAP. A consolidated effort between groups such as the Bay Area Implementation Team (BAIT), the RAP Forum, the RAP Technical Team, researchers, and others will ensure the gaps are resolved in time for delisting.

Sustaining the monitoring and research programs necessary for delisting will only be possible if adequate funding is maintained into the future. Similarly, succession planning needs to occur for retiring staff and researchers to ensure the continuation of the monitoring and research programs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI RECOMMENDATIONS

(vi) – BUI (vi) – 1 That the benthic monitoring using the BEAST Degradation of benthos Methodology be continued and funded.

BUI (vi) – 2 That the criteria used in the BEAST Methodology, including the reference site, be clarified to ensure that the desired end points for delisting will be achieved.

(vii) – BUI (vii) – 1 That the meaning of the beneficial use impairment Restrictions on dredging and delisting objective be clarified, specifically whether or not ‘no restrictions on disposal activities’ implies open water disposal of dredged material.

BUI (vii) – 2 That it should be determined whether this beneficial use impairment is appropriate for dredging in Hamilton Harbour.

(xiii) – BUI (xiii) – 1 That the current research and monitoring programs Degradation of continue to be conducted and funded.phytoplankton and BUI (xiii) – 2 That a suitable control site or sites be formally zooplankton populations

identified to permit assessment of the current Hamilton Harbour data and subsequently, the progress toward delisting this BUI.

TOWARD SAFE HARBOURS 2006 viiProgress Toward Delisting – Toxic Substances and Sediment Remediation

BUI (xiii) – 3 That the taxonomic work of phytoplankton and zooplankton samples collected by the OMOE be carried out to ensure data are available when a suitable control site(s) is/are identified.

BUI (xiii) – 4 That future consideration is required to determine if the phytoplankton and zooplankton bioassay component of the delisting objective should be deleted, or acted upon by initiating appropriate research and monitoring programs.

SUMMARY

The Hamilton Harbour RAP has achieved successes with many water quality and habitat restoration activities. The improvements are due to the collaborative efforts of many stakeholders and their commitment to a restored Hamilton Harbour. There have been fewer successes with the toxic substances and sediment remediation activities but the groundwork is in place. The Bay Area Restoration Council is optimistic that the same collaborative efforts can be effective in completing the work that remains.

TOWARD SAFE HARBOURS 2006 1Progress Toward Delisting – Toxic Substances and Sediment Remediation

1. Introduction

To monitor and assess the progress of the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP), the Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC) has produced the Toward Safe Harbours report annually since 1994. This report is produced by a group of volunteers and technical assistants who form the BARC Monitoring Committee. The reports are written for the scientists and decision-makers of Hamilton Harbour, as well as the general public.

In 2002, the Toward Safe Harbours Report Card detailed an important conclusion: Hamilton Harbour was halfway to meeting restoration targets (BARC 2002). As a result, the focus of subsequent reports shifted from evaluating past remedial actions to determining what future actions are necessary for the Harbour to be restored.

In 2003, the Toward Safe Harbours report outlined a work plan for the next three reports. The reports of 2004, 2005 and 2006 each consider a different theme of the International Joint Commission’s 14 Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) and the delisting objectives associated with the Hamilton Harbour RAP (Appendix A):

2004 report: Fish and wildlife, progress towards delisting objectives (i)–(v), (xiv)

2005 report: Water quality, progress towards delisting objectives (viii) – (xii)

2006 report: Toxic substances and sediment remediation, progress towards delisting objectives (vi), (vii), (xiii)

This report completes the series outlined by the 2003 work plan. It is anticipated that the 2007 Toward Safe Harbours report will be presented in a report card format and will update the report card produced in 2002. A complete listing of the recommendations from the 2004, 2005, and 2006 Toward Safe Harbours reports can be found in Appendix B.

To be formally removed from the list of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes, or “delisted”, the Hamilton Harbour RAP must present proof in the form of a Stage 3 Report that the Harbour has reached its restoration objectives. The evaluation criteria for RAP Stage 3 Report submissions to the provincial and federal governments are based on the relevant portions of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), including Annex 2, section 4(a)(vii-viii), which requires:

(vii) a process for evaluating remedial measure implementation and effectiveness; and,

(viii) a description of surveillance and monitoring processes to track the effectiveness of remedial measures and the eventual confirmation of the restoration of uses.

(IJC 1987: 26)

2 TOWARD SAFE HARBOURS 2006 Progress Toward Delisting – Toxic Substances and Sediment Remediation

Thus, this series of Toward Safe Harbours reports were guided by the primary question:

• Will Hamilton Harbour stakeholders have the evidence needed to delist Hamilton Harbour as an Area of Concern and to fulfill the requirements as outlined in the GLWQA?


• Will the Hamilton Harbour RAP be able to satisfy the decision-makers that the correct indicators have been measured in Hamilton Harbour to meet RAP Stage 3 criteria?

• Are there any gaps in the monitoring or research that would preclude presentation of the RAP Stage 3 document?


The following sections of the Introduction provide background information about Hamilton Harbour, its designation as an Area of Concern, and the Remedial Action Plan to address the Beneficial Use Impairments and declare the Harbour restored.

Section 2 outlines the methodology for the writing of the report. The information gained from first person interviews and other published sources was compiled and analysed to produce the conclusions and recommendations found in Sections 3 to 6.

1.1 Hamilton HarbourHamilton Harbour (also known as Burlington Bay) is one of the largest and busiest commercial ports in the Great Lakes. It is also the largest naturally protected harbour on Western Lake Ontario and is separated from the Lake by a sandbar, with the Burlington Ship Canal as the only point of access. Some 46 percent of the Harbour’s 45 kilometre shoreline is composed of industrial uses, 10 percent is residential, and the remaining 44 percent is private, institutional, or public open space. The open water of the Harbour is approximately 2,150 hectares, and its 49,400 hectare watershed (Figure 1) is fed by the Grindstone, Spencer, and Red Hill Creeks as well as several smaller urban creeks. The cities of Hamilton and parts of Burlington and Puslinch (totaling nearly 650,000 people) are located within the Harbour’s watershed.


Figure 1. Watersheds of Hamilton Harbour.

Currently, Harbour concerns include: contaminated sediment; discharges from four wastewater treatment plants, combined sewer overflows, and industries; non-point source pollution; and degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. These conditions greatly affect the overall health of the watershed, and must be addressed to achieve the long-term goal of restoring and protecting the Hamilton Harbour ecosystem.

1.2 The International Joint CommissionThe International Joint Commission (IJC) is a bi-national organization established by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Its purpose is to help prevent and resolve disputes relating to the quality and use of water along the Canada-U.S. border (IJC 2005).

An IJC report in 1970 noted pollution problems in Lake Ontario, Lake Erie and the St. Lawrence River; this eventually resulted in the governments of Canada and the United States signing the Canada-U.S. 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), amended by protocol in 1987. A major goal of this Agreement was to “...restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem” (IJC 1987: 4).


1.3 Areas of ConcernThe 1987 amendment to the GLWQA designated 42 geographic areas on the Great Lakes that were particularly degraded as “Areas of Concern” under Annex 2. Seventeen sites are in Canada, including 5 sites shared between both Canada and the United States. The U.S. added one more in 1991, for a total of 43 Areas of Concern on the Great Lakes.

The GLWQA defines an Area of Concern (AOC) as “...a geographic area that fails to meet the General or Specific Objectives of the Agreement where such failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use or of the area’s ability to support aquatic life” (IJC 1987: 24).

Designating an Area of Concern is the responsibility of both the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States (the “Parties”). The Parties “in cooperation with State and Provincial Governments and the Commission [IJC] shall designate Areas of Concern” (IJC 1987: 35). The term “cooperate” is interpreted to mean that the Parties are responsible for listing (and delisting) an Area and will seek confirmation from the IJC, who is asked to perform a review of the evidence and comment on the recommendation to list (or delist). An Area of Concern will be considered for delisting “...when monitoring indicates that identified beneficial uses have been restored” (IJC 1987: 26).

1.4 Beneficial Use ImpairmentsEach Area of Concern, including Hamilton Harbour, has at least one of 14 Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs), as identified by the Parties and defined in the GLWQA. A BUI is “...a change in the physical, chemical or biological integrity of the Great Lakes system sufficient to cause any of the following:

i) restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption;ii) tainting of fish and wildlife flavour;iii) degradation of fish and wildlife populations;iv) fish tumours or other deformities;v) bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems;vi) degradation of benthos;vii) restrictions on dredging activities;viii) eutrophication or undesirable algae;ix) restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste or odour problems;x) beach closings;xi) degradation of aesthetics;xii) added costs to agriculture or industry;xiii) degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations; orxiv) loss of fish and wildlife habitat.”

(IJC 1987: 24)

Each Area of Concern is responsible for developing the criteria for determining that the beneficial use has been restored. In the Hamilton Harbour RAP, they are referred to as delisting objectives.

1.5 Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action PlanTo remediate and protect the ecosystem health of each Area of Concern, Annex 2 of the GLWQA calls for the creation and implementation of Remedial Action Plans for each of the identified locations. All Remedial Action Plans are divided into three stages:


Stage 1: Statement of environmental conditions and problem definition

Stage 2: Selection of remedial actions and regulatory measures

Stage 3: Evaluation of monitoring indicates that identified beneficial uses have been restored

The Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Stage 1 was first published in 1989 with a second edition in 1992. The RAP Stage 2 Report was also published in 1992 and identified pollution sources to the Harbour, suggested remediation measures and responsible agencies, and recommended 50 actions to restore the Harbour and prevent future pollution. The Hamilton Harbour RAP was developed by over forty stakeholder groups (including industry and government), and is implemented by the Bay Area Implementation Team (BAIT). The Bay Area Restoration Council monitors the progress of implementation through the Toward Safe Harbours reports.

The RAP Stage 2 Update 2002 was prepared to complement the Stage 2 Report of 1992, while incorporating the changes and improvements to the Harbour over the previous ten years. The RAP Stage 2 Update 2002 has 57 recommendations and 159 tasks, with timelines and responsible agencies added. The preparation of the Stage 3 report will likely begin in 2015, following the completion of the remedial actions.

1.6 Monitoring and ResearchThe importance of using information obtained through monitoring activities is outlined by the International Joint Commission in its guidelines for the preparation of RAP Stage 3 Report documents. An Area of Concern will be considered for delisting “when monitoring indicates that identified beneficial uses have been restored” (IJC 1987: 26). A definition and explanation of the use of the term monitoring is important, especially in contrast with the term research. The Hamilton Harbour RAP Monitoring Catalogue offers the following discussion on research versus monitoring:

“Frequently [research and monitoring] activities are lumped together as they are closely related; however, there is a difference between the two activities. Research is a short-term, intensive effort that examines a defined question to make a conclusion. Monitoring is a long-term process that requires data collected in a consistent manner over an extended period of time, in order to determine trends. Continuing research and development is needed to parallel the routine monitoring.”

(Hamilton Harbour RAP 2004: 3)


2. Methodology

The RAP delisting objective for each Beneficial Use Impairment associated with toxic substances and sediment remediation was examined to determine what type of evidence is needed in order to be delisted as an Area of Concern. Information was collected primarily through in-person interviews with representatives from various agencies performing research and monitoring activities in Hamilton Harbour. The BARC Monitoring Committee, aided by staff from BARC and the Hamilton Harbour RAP Office, conducted the interviews. Each representative was asked a standard set of questions (BARC 2003), along with any questions specific to their work or questions raised by the committee:

1. What data (and how much) do we need for delisting?2. How do we know when we have met the objective? 3. What monitoring is being done?4. What is the current status of meeting the delisting objective?5. How fast are we getting there?6. What are the trends?7. Are we going to meet the target?8. When will we meet the target?9. What are the successes?10. What are the obstacles to success in meeting the delisting objective?11. What additional monitoring is required?12. Other comments?

The list of individuals and agencies interviewed was determined in consultation with the RAP Office and from the RAP Monitoring Catalogue. Published by the Hamilton Harbour RAP (2004), the report compiles metadata (such as site location, parameters, frequency, etc.) on monitoring activities occurring throughout Hamilton Harbour. It is available on the RAP website (www.hamiltonharbour.ca/rap).


The following representatives were interviewed regarding the research and/or monitoring they or their agencies conduct in Hamilton Harbour and its watershed:

• Anne Borgmann – Environment Canada• Duncan Boyd – Ontario Ministry of the Environment• Ron Dermott – Fisheries and Oceans Canada• Bill Fitzgerald – Hamilton Port Authority• Lee Grapentine – Environment Canada• Ora Johannsson – Fisheries and Oceans Canada• Marten Koops – Fisheries and Oceans Canada• Chris Marvin – Environment Canada• Danielle Milani – Environment Canada• Mohi Munawar – Fisheries and Oceans Canada• Roger Santiago – Environment Canada• Cheriene Vieira – Ontario Ministry of the Environment

The interview schedule and select contact information can be found in Appendix C.


3. Evaluation of Toxic Substances and Sediment Remediation Beneficial Use Impairments

The Hamilton Harbour RAP defines toxic substances as “any substance that adversely affects the health or well being of any living organism” (Hamilton Harbour RAP 2002: C-8). The definition is based on the one used in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. One of the primary principles of the Hamilton Harbour RAP is to achieve zero discharge of persistent toxic substances.

As identified in the RAP Stage 2 Update (2002: 17), the water and sediments of Hamilton Harbour contain undesirable levels of toxic substances such as zinc, lead, nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Polynuclear (Polycyclic) Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). These contaminants result from a variety of sources including historical industrial activities, current industrial operations, municipal wastewater treatment plants, improper disposal of chemical waste into municipal sewers, and pesticide and insecticide run-off (Hamilton Harbour RAP 2002: 17).

The contaminants that are prevalent in the Harbour have been grouped into two lists (Table 1) based on whether or not they pose a significant risk to fish and wildlife in the Harbour (Hamilton Harbour RAP 2002: 81). The toxics on the “A” list are present in the Harbour at levels that represent a risk to fish and wildlife. Mercury was included on the “A” list not only because it can be toxic but also because of a lack of information about the levels of mercury in the Harbour. The compounds on the “B” list are also toxic but they are not present in Hamilton Harbour at sufficient levels to threaten fish and wildlife.

Table 1. Contaminants in Hamilton Harbour

“A” “B”

PAHs Dioxins and Furans

PCBs Organochlorine Pesticides (e.g. DDT)

Arsenic, Cadmium, Iron, Lead & Zinc Other Pesticides (in use)

Mercury Endocrine-Disrupting Compounds (EDCs)

Ammonia

Source: Hamilton Harbour RAP (2002: 81)

The RAP strategy suggests that over time the contaminants in most harbour sediments may react physically, biologically or biochemically to form less toxic or non-toxic compounds, or they may be covered with enough new material to prevent the contaminants from interacting with the biological components of the ecosystem (Hamilton Harbour RAP 1996: 5). There are however, three sites (Randle Reef, the Ottawa Street boat slip and the Dofasco boat slip) where the contamination levels are such that active remediation measures are necessary to prevent the toxic substances from affecting the ecosystem.


There are three Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) that deal with various aspects of toxic substances and sediment remediation. The focus of this report is the delisting objectives associated with each BUI. Section 3.1 provides general comments that apply to all of the delisting objectives while the subsequent sections provide a summary and evaluation of each individual BUI:

3.2: Beneficial Use Impairment (vi) – degradation of benthos 3.3: Beneficial Use Impairment (vii) – restrictions on dredging activities 3.4: Beneficial Use Impairment (xiii) – degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations

The linkage between contaminated sediments and how they are associated with the BUIs is not specifically outlined as part of the conditions for the BUIs. It is also not clear how the impairments are specifically addressed through sediment remediation. Nonetheless, the remediation of contaminated sediments, particularly the Randle Reef site, is imperative to the overall delisting of Hamilton Harbour.

Background on the Randle Reef Sediment Remediation Project can be found in Appendix D. Information on the monitoring activities associated with the project and how they can provide data that could potentially be used to support the case that BUI (vi) and BUI (xiii) have been restored, is also provided in Appendix D.

3.1 General Comments on Delisting ObjectivesComments specific to each Beneficial Use Impairment and delisting objective are contained in their respective sections. The following issues are applicable to some or all of the delisting objectives.

a) Clarification of endpoints required for delisting

The delisting objectives for Beneficial Use Impairments (vi) and (xiii) assume that the benthic, phytoplankton, and zooplankton community structures are dependant only on the amount and nature of the toxicity in the sediments and overlying water. Community structures include a variety of other factors such as physical, geological and chemical characteristics. The benthic community structure could still be degraded in comparison to a control site even if the contaminants in the sediments and water column are remediated.

For example, achieving higher levels of oxygen in the summer months in the lower depths of Hamilton Harbour (hypolimnion) may not be resolved by improvements in the quality of the inflow to the Harbour (Hamilton Harbour RAP 2002: 35). During these times of low oxygen levels, the benthic community structure may differ significantly from reference sites located either in the Harbour or in another Great Lakes location.

b) Absence of timeframes in the delisting objectives

There is an absence of timeframes in the delisting objectives. Monitoring is necessary for more than one season to allow for natural variability. To address this, a statement could be added that outlines over how many monitoring periods the targets must be achieved in order to state that the overall target has been met.


3.2 Beneficial Use Impairment (vi) – Degradation of BenthosHamilton Harbour Delisting Objective for BUI (vi)

Using the BEAST (BEnthic Assessment of SedimenT) Methodology:

1. Littoral Zone (depth < upper limit of maximum extent of anoxic conditions)

• Benthic community structure (BCS) not different from that of appropriate reference sites in the Great Lakes (i.e. Hamilton Harbour sites determined as “equivalent to reference conditions” by BEAST methodology) and BCS not correlated to sediment contaminant levels among sites.

• Absence of acute or chronic sediment toxicity attributable to contaminants in sediments.

2. Profundal Zone (depth > upper limit of maximum extent of anoxic conditions)

• BCS not correlated to sediment contaminant levels among sites.


3.2.1 BackgroundBenthos describes the organisms that live on or in the bottom sediments of a body of water. These organisms include the benthic invertebrate community and are an important component of the food chain. The species and population numbers of the organisms present in the sediment can be used to assess the health of the sediment and/or water components of the ecosystem.

In Hamilton Harbour, the benthic community is dominated by organisms that can tolerate eutrophic conditions (i.e. high nutrient levels) and the presence of contaminants in the sediment. However, there have been improvements in the abundance and composition of the benthic community since 1964 (Hamilton Harbour RAP 1992: 85). Low dissolved oxygen concentrations also result in the benthos of the Harbour being impaired (Hamilton Harbour RAP 1992: xxv).

3.2.2 Restoration of Beneficial Use ImpairmentGuidelines published by the IJC suggest this BUI be considered restored when:

“... the benthic macroinvertebrate community structure does not significantly diverge from unimpacted control sites of comparable physical and chemical characteristics. Further, in the absence of community structure data, this use will be considered restored when toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants is not significantly higher than controls.”

(IJC 1991)

The Hamilton Harbour delisting objective for this BUI requires the use of the BEnthic Assessment of SedimenT (BEAST) Methodology. The BEAST Methodology is a predictive approach for assessing sediment quality in the Great Lakes using multivariate techniques (i.e. it considers multiple variables in the same analysis). Additional details about the BEAST Methodology can be found in Appendix E.


There are no other Canadian Areas of Concern that refer to this methodology in their delisting criteria. However, BEAST has been a component of the benthic assessment methodology applied at 12 other AOCs.

The first edition of the RAP Stage 2 report did not include the BEAST Methodology; instead the following was used:

1. Biomass estimates for mesotrophic conditions to range from 25 to 50 g/m2 wet weight of benthos.

2. Shift in oligochaete assemblages (benthic sludge worms) from Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri,Tubifex tubifex, indicators of eutrophic environments, to mesotrophic indicators such as Spirosperma ferox, Stylodrilus heringianus, and Ilyodrilus templetoni.

3. An increase in the contribution of other species in Hamilton Harbour sediment indicative of mesotrophic conditions such as midge (Tanypus and Strictochironomus), fingernail clams (Pisidium), mayflies (Haxagenia) and the amphipod Pontoporeia hoyi.

4. Reduction in oligochaete (sludge worm) density from an average 10,000 animals per m2 found in 1984 to between 2,000 and 3,000 per m2 in profundal sediments.

5. Appearance of crustaceans, such as freshwater shrimp, (Mysis relicta) in deep water basin and the amphipod (Pontoporeia hoyi) in the surficial sediments throughout the hypolimnion.

6. Absence of acute and chronic toxic effects attributable to trace metals or organics in benthic macroinvertebrates throughout the Harbour and Cootes Paradise (Station 270 at the west end of the Harbour has been selected as an interim, local target). See also Dredging delisting criteria (vii).

(Hamilton Harbour RAP 1992a: 224)

The delisting objective was changed when the RAP Stage 2 Update was published in 2002. During the update process, it was determined that several of the original delisting objectives were unrealistic or not relevant for Hamilton Harbour sediments (L. Grapentine pers. comm. April 4, 2006). As well, the data for the biomass and species-level taxonomic identification requirements of two of the original delisting objectives were not being collected. The updated delisting objective was felt to be more easily measured and appropriate for impacts due to contaminated sediment (L. Grapentine pers. comm. April 4, 2006).

The original objective lists specific requirements in terms of species and conditions. The updated objective focuses on the restored conditions being comparable to a Great Lakes reference site.

3.2.3 Current Research and Monitoring ProgramsResearchers at the National Water Research Institute (NWRI) of Environment Canada used the BEAST method to assess the surficial, nearshore sediments of Hamilton Harbour in 2000, 2002 and 2005. The benthic condition in the sediments was determined by integrating and interpreting four components: sediment toxicity, resident invertebrate community structure, sediment physico-chemistry, and bioaccumulation. Each of the four components was compared to the corresponding conditions in the reference site using a pass/fail system. See Appendix E for further explanation.

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment samples benthic invertebrates as part of the Great Lakes Index-Reference Station Monitoring Program. In Hamilton Harbour, samples are collected during the summer survey from Station 258 (centre of the Harbour) every third year.


Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) identified a need to examine the biological condition of the Harbour (see also Section 3.4.3). Between 2002 and 2004, a comprehensive study was conducted that incorporated the simultaneous examination of a wide set of biological components, including the benthos.

Sampling was conducted every two weeks at various sites in the Harbour. In 2002, two sites near LaSalle Park and one in the centre of the Harbour were sampled. In 2003, sampling was done in the west end at Willow Cove and a western mid-harbour station.

Each year temperature, oxygen, and light profiles were measured. Samples were collected to assess the benthic community including species composition, diversity, spatial distribution and biomass, and zebra mussel density. Also, in 2002 spatial surveys were carried out for benthic fauna at a larger number of sites across the Harbour.

DFO plans to undertake similar sampling programs in the future (Table 2). They are also proposing several projects (Table 3) that will address a variety of delisting criteria including assessments of benthic beneficial uses from a community structure and energy flow perspective. They do not have work planned on the impacts of contamination on the benthos.

Table 2. Planned Future Sampling by Fisheries and Oceans Canada Applicable to BUI (vi)

Parameters Schedule

1 Water chemistry in conjunction with Environment Canada 2006-2008

2 Benthic sampling at index sites 2007, 2009

3 Nearshore benthic and zebra mussel abundance on hard 2006 substrates and among macrophytes

Table 3. Proposed Activities by Fisheries and Oceans Canada Applicable to BUI (vi)

Description

1 Technical report on status of benthic community (1985-2004)

2 Biomass data for use in ecosystem model to determine efficiency of linkages between pelagic and benthic components and capacity to support target fish community

3 Report on Beneficial Use Assessment of harbour benthos based on data from 2002-2008

4 Develop indices of health for AOCs using Hamilton data linked to other AOCs

The data generated from the OMOE monitoring program and the DFO research activities does not directly apply to the delisting objective; however, it can be used to support the findings of the NWRI studies using the BEAST Methodology.


3.2.4 Gaps in Information and MonitoringAccording to the delisting objective, this BUI is considered restored when the benthic community structure is not different from an “appropriate reference site”. Determining an appropriate reference site for Hamilton Harbour is complicated by several factors. The Harbour is subjected to multiple stressors, including seasonal anoxia (low oxygen at depth) and the physical disturbance of sediments by ship traffic.

It is possible for the reference site to be located outside of the Harbour but finding one that is directly comparable may be difficult. Possible solutions to this problem include using several reference sites from throughout the Great Lakes that best represent the various conditions in Hamilton Harbour or using a location in the west end of the Harbour (generally considered to be the cleanest section of the Harbour) in conjunction with the other Great Lakes reference sites.

3.2.5 RecommendationsBUI (vi) – 1 That the benthic monitoring using the BEAST Methodology be continued and funded.


3.3 Beneficial Use Impairment (vii) - Restrictions on Dredging ActivitiesHamilton Harbour Delisting Objective for BUI (vii)

When contaminants in sediments do not exceed biological and chemical standards, criteria or guidelines such that there are no restrictions on disposal activities associated with navigational dredging.

3.3.1 BackgroundHistorically, Public Works Canada carried out any dredging required to maintain a navigational depth of approximately nine metres in the main ship channels and slips. From 1976 to 1984, 350,000 m3 of sediments were removed from the Harbour (Hamilton Harbour RAP 1992) and placed in a confined disposal facility (CDF) located at the east end of the Harbour. The amount of dredging taking place in the Harbour has gradually decreased since the late 1950s (Hamilton Harbour RAP 1992: 78).

In the mid 1990s, the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners (now known as the Hamilton Port Authority) took over the responsibility for dredging the boat slips and dock faces as well as the entrance to the Burlington Canal (on the Lake Ontario side) to maintain navigable depths. Accumulated material can trap ships in the slip (against the side) and this can lead to additional costs to the Hamilton Port Authority (HPA) for tugs and delay charges by the shipping companies (B. Fitzgerald pers. comm. October 17, 2005). The areas are usually over-dredged to maximize the time between dredging events. The last dredging was done in 1996.

There is no set schedule for dredging. The timing is determined based on historical dredging records and anecdotal feedback from the ship captains who notice when they encounter slow sections in the slip or rub against the accumulated sediment. The next dredging is anticipated in 2006 or 2007.


The dredged material continues to be placed in CDFs operated by the HPA at Piers 26 and 27. Pier 26 is currently being capped. Prior to placement in the CDF, the material is analyzed for a variety of chemical parameters including: heavy metals, organic compounds, and hydrides. For example, in the 1996 Hamilton Harbour Maintenance Dredging Project, the following parameters were analyzed: silver, aluminum, barium, beryllium, calcium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, iron, potassium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, sodium, nickel, phosphorus, titanium, vanadium, zinc, zirconium, total organic carbon (TOC), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), arsenic, mercury, PCBs, oil and grease, and 16 types of PAHs (see Table 7) (B. Fitzgerald pers. comm. May 9, 2006).

At Pier 27, the HPA is currently undertaking studies to finalize the life span of the disposal facility. Current estimates indicate a life span of 20-25 years. The Hamilton Port Authority is also developing a management plan for dredged material. There are no plans to construct any additional CDFs in Hamilton Harbour.

Stelco Hamilton rarely carries out any dredging for navigational purposes. The last project was approximately 15 years ago on the north dock (A. Sebestyen pers. comm. November 11, 2005). Dofasco does not do any dredging for navigational purposes (T. McGuire pers. comm. November 25, 2005).

3.3.2 Restoration of Beneficial Use ImpairmentGuidelines published by the IJC suggest that this BUI is considered restored:

“When contaminants in sediments do not exceed standards, criteria, or guidelines such that there are restrictions on dredging or disposal activities.”

(IJC 1991)

3.3.3 Current Research and Monitoring ProgramsThere are no regular monitoring or research programs associated with this BUI. Monitoring is conducted on a project-by-project basis when the HPA is required to dredge for navigational purposes. These projects are subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and as such, HPA is required to comply.

3.3.4 Gaps in Information and MonitoringThere is an increasing level of uncertainty about being able to achieve this delisting objective in all Areas of Concern that conduct dredging for navigational purposes, including Hamilton Harbour. If ‘no restrictions’ is interpreted to mean open water disposal, it is extremely unlikely any dredged material would ever meet the criteria, making delisting impossible. It is also difficult to determine monitoring parameters for this BUI given that it does not contain any ecological reference points (George et al. 2004: 16).


3.3.5 RecommendationsBUI (vii) – 1 That the meaning of the beneficial use impairment and delisting objective be clarified, specifically whether or not ‘no restrictions on disposal activities’ implies open water disposal of dredged material.


3.4 Beneficial Use Impairment (xiii) – Degradation of Phytoplankton And Zooplankton Populations

Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objective for BUI (xiii)

When phytoplankton and zooplankton community structure does not significantly diverge from unimpacted control sites of comparable physical and chemical characteristics. Further, in the absence of community structure data, this use will be considered restored when phytoplankton and zooplankton bioassays confirm no significant toxicity in ambient waters.

3.4.1 BackgroundPhytoplankton (plants) and zooplankton (animals) are small organisms that live suspended in the water column. Phytoplankton such as algae forms the base of the food chain. There are both carnivorous and herbivorous species of zooplankton.

In Hamilton Harbour, the phytoplankton and zooplankton populations are degraded due to: high nutrient levels, low dissolved oxygen in the bottom layers, and contaminated sediment (Hamilton Harbour RAP 1992: xxix). As well, a lack of submerged vegetation limits the available habitat. The eutrophic condition of the Harbour results in increased productivity and a large number of phytoplankton organisms. The size of individual zooplankton organisms is small indicating a high level of predation by other zooplankton and fish (Hamilton Harbour RAP 1992: xxix).

3.4.2 Restoration of Beneficial Use ImpairmentThe guideline published by the IJC (1992) to indicate that this beneficial use impairment is restored is the same as the delisting objective listed in the Hamilton Harbour RAP (see above). The delisting objective has two components. It includes a community structure component and a toxicity component. Either one or both can be addressed depending on the information available, to determine if the beneficial use is restored.

It is the opinion of the BARC Monitoring Committee that the preferred criterion is the community structure of the phytoplankton and zooplankton populations, as it provides a comprehensive measure of the species the Harbour can support. It would be ideal to present the status of both criteria at the time of delisting.


3.4.3 Current Research and Monitoring ProgramsAs discussed in Section 3.2.3, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) identified a need to examine the biological condition of Hamilton Harbour. The comprehensive study undertaken between 2002 and 2004 included phytoplankton and zooplankton components.

In 2002, two sites near LaSalle Park and one in the centre of the Harbour were sampled. In 2003, sampling was done in the west end at Willow Cove and a western mid-harbour station. In 2004, sampling was repeated at the western mid-harbour and centre-harbour stations. Sampling was done every two weeks at various sites to examine food-web relationships between microbes and fish, as well as key nutrients and oxygen.

Each year, temperature, oxygen and light profiles were measured. Samples were collected to assess:

• Water chemistry;• Algal community (species composition, biomass, temporal and spatial distribution);• Primary production;• Microbial loop (bacteria, flagellates, cilates, distribution, total biomass); and• Zooplankton and rotifers (species identification, community structure, biomass, productivity, relations

to gradients of depth, oxygen).

Also in 2002, spatial surveys were carried out for the microbial loop, phytoplankton, and zooplankton at a larger number of sites across the Harbour. The microbial loop (food-web) includes more complex linkages between the bacteria, algae and zooplankton. In contrast, a traditional food chain only shows direct links from small phytoplankton through zooplankton to fish.

DFO plans to undertake similar sampling programs in the future (Table 4). They are also proposing several projects (Table 5) that will address a variety of delisting criteria including assessments of plankton beneficial uses from a community structure and energy flow perspective. They do not have work planned on the impacts of contamination on plankton.

Table 4. Planned Future Sampling by Fisheries and Oceans Canada Applicable to BUI (xiii)

Parameters Schedule

1 Water chemistry in conjunction with Environment Canada 2006-2008

2 Seasonal microbial, phytoplankton and zooplankton at 2 index sites 2006-2009

3 Spatial sampling microbial, phytoplankton (spring) and zooplankton 2006, 2008 (summer), noxious algae (fall)

Table 5. Proposed Activities by Fisheries and Oceans Canada Applicable to BUI (xiii)

Description

1 Technical report on status of plankton communities (2002-2003)

2 Report on Beneficial Use Assessment of harbour plankton based on data from 2002-2008

3 Develop indices of health for AOCs using Hamilton data linked to other AOCs


The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE) samples phytoplankton and zooplankton populations as part of the Great Lakes Index-Reference Station Monitoring program. Single samples are collected on each of the three surveys (spring, late summer, and fall) from all monitored sites, every third year. After collection, they are preserved in a laboratory; no taxonomic identification is currently undertaken.

Phytoplankton and zooplankton are sampled periodically under the Central Station Water Quality Monitoring Program carried out by the National Water Research Institute (NWRI) at Environment Canada. The sampling is conducted infrequently due to a lack of funding (M. Charlton pers. comm. March 9, 2006). Some zooplankton sampling was done to determine a general population assessment and to look for deformities. Some algal sampling has also been conducted.

3.4.4 Gaps in Information and MonitoringIt is generally thought that there is not enough guidance to interpret the meaning of this BUI or how it should be measured (George et al. 2004; M. Charlton pers. comm. March 9, 2006). There is potential for this BUI to be considered resolved as the phosphorus levels in the Harbour are further reduced (under Beneficial Use Impairment (viii) – Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae).

In the delisting objective, this BUI is considered restored when the phytoplankton and zooplankton populations do not significantly diverge from “unimpacted control sites”. Consensus amongst the interviewees for this BUI was that there are currently no such sites in the Harbour. It is possible for the control site to be located outside of the Harbour but finding one that is directly comparable may be difficult.

Possible solutions to this include using several reference sites from throughout the Great Lakes that best represent the various conditions in Hamilton Harbour or using the west end of the Harbour (generally considered to be the cleanest section of the Harbour) in conjunction with the other Great Lakes reference sites.

The second part of the delisting objective references phytoplankton and zooplankton bioassays. A bioassay is a method by which phytoplankton and zooplankton samples are exposed to water samples in a laboratory setting. The observed effects on the organisms and their biological functions can be used to determine to what degree the water is toxic. The BARC Monitoring Committee was not made aware of any such research or monitoring being conducted.


3.4.5 RecommendationsBUI (xiii) – 1 That the current research and monitoring programs continue to be conducted and funded.

BUI (xiii) – 2 That a suitable control site or sites be formally identified to permit assessment of the current Hamilton Harbour data and subsequently, the progress toward delisting this BUI.


BUI (xiii) – 4 That future consideration is required to determine if the phytoplankton and zooplankton bioassay component of the delisting objective should be deleted, or acted upon by initiating appropriate research and/or monitoring programs.


4. Trends and Emerging Issues

a) Future monitoring

As the Hamilton Harbour RAP process approaches the point of delisting, the monitoring must be conducted at a level that is increasingly more sensitive in order to detect the decreasing contaminant levels. Also, the frequency of the monitoring will need to be examined to ensure that it is capturing the changes as they occur.

Monitoring is necessary for more than one season to allow for natural variability; establishing timeframes in the delisting objectives would assist in determining the frequency of monitoring required.

b) Addressing uncertainties in the BUIs

At AOCs where the delisting objectives for the BUIs have been rewritten, the trend is toward more quantitative criteria. Establishing delisting objectives based on the SMART system of setting goals may eliminate many of the issues identified over this series of Toward Safe Harbours reports. The SMART system focuses on developing goals that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Tangible (Top Achievement 2005). For example, a specific goal considers one or more of the questions who, what, where, when and why.

c) Other research and monitoring programs

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is undertaking an Ecopath model of Hamilton Harbour using benthos, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish data. It is hoped this mass-balance model can be applied to evaluate targets, enhance the fisheries management plan and explore various restoration scenarios in the Harbour.

The ecosystem modeling will provide: an integrated view of the current status of the fish, benthic fauna, zooplankton and phytoplankton populations; a method to evaluate the results that can be achieved while balancing the biological components of an ecosystem; and predictions of what constitutes a sustainable and healthy food web for Hamilton Harbour (R. Dermott pers. comm. April 27, 2006).

d) Positive progress due to collaborative efforts of many stakeholders

Researchers, industry, municipalities, and the general public have come together to ensure a restored Hamilton Harbour. The efforts and progress of these stakeholders are commendable and indicative of a strong commitment toward restoring the Harbour.


5. Conclusions and Recommendations

In this report, the Bay Area Restoration Council Monitoring Committee evaluated several of the research and monitoring programs in relation to the toxic substances and sediment remediation Beneficial Use Impairments. The report was guided by the primary question:

• Will Hamilton Harbour stakeholders have the evidence needed to delist Hamilton Harbour as an Area of Concern and to fulfill requirements as outlined in the GLWQA?


• Will the Hamilton Harbour RAP be able to satisfy the decision-makers that the correct indicators have been measured in Hamilton Harbour to meet RAP Stage 3 criteria?

• Are there any gaps in monitoring or research that would preclude presentation of the RAP Stage 3 document?


There is a great deal of research data currently available that illustrates the state of the benthic, phytoplankton and zooplankton populations in Hamilton Harbour. Additional data of this nature will be available in the future as the planned research projects proceed. However, it is unclear at this time if this research and monitoring data will be sufficient to support delisting according to the current wording of the BUIs and delisting objectives.

The navigational dredging beneficial use impairment has been identified as problematic across all Areas of Concern. It appears that a decision by the International Joint Commission is necessary to address the uncertainty surrounding this BUI.

In addition to the BUI mentioned above, the Committee identified several gaps that need to be addressed in order to delist Hamilton Harbour by the target date of 2015. The eight recommendations (Table 6) in this report focus on closing these gaps.

The implementation of the recommendations is the responsibility of multiple agencies and groups who work to complete the remedial measures detailed in the Hamilton Harbour RAP. A consolidated effort between groups such as the Bay Area Implementation Team (BAIT), the RAP Forum, the RAP Technical Team, researchers, and others will ensure the gaps are resolved in time for delisting.

Sustaining the monitoring and research programs necessary for delisting will only be possible if adequate funding is maintained into the future. Similarly, succession planning needs to occur for retiring staff and researchers to ensure the continuation of the monitoring and research programs.

The Hamilton Harbour RAP has achieved successes with many water quality and habitat restoration activities. The improvements are due to the collaborative efforts of many stakeholders and their commitment to a restored Hamilton Harbour. There have been fewer successes with the toxic substances and sediment remediation activities but the groundwork is in place. The Bay Area Restoration Council is optimistic that the same collaborative efforts can be effective in completing the work that remains.


Table 6. List of Recommendations by BUI

BUI RECOMMENDATIONS

(vi) – Degradation of benthos BUI (vi) – 1 That the benthic monitoring using the BEAST Methodology be continued and funded.


(vii) – Restrictions on dredging BUI (vii) – 1 That the meaning of the beneficial use impairment and delisting objective be clarified, specifically whether or not ‘no restrictions on disposal activities’ implies open water disposal of dredged material.


(xiii) – Degradation of BUI (xiii) – 1 That the current research and monitoring phytoplankton and programs continue to be conducted and funded.zooplankton populations BUI (xiii) – 2 That a suitable control site or sites be formally identified to permit assessment of the current Hamilton Harbour data and subsequently, the progress toward delisting this BUI.


BUI (xiii) – 4 That future consideration is required to determine if the phytoplankton and zooplankton bioassay component of the delisting objective should be deleted, or acted upon by initiating appropriate research and monitoring programs.


6. Next Steps

While this report completes the series outlined by the 2003 work plan, BARC will continue to assess the implementation of the remedial actions required for delisting. It is anticipated that the next Toward Safe Harbours report will be presented in a report card format and will update the findings of the 2002 report card. A future Toward Safe Harbours report will include a follow up on the status of the recommendations put forward in the 2004, 2005, and 2006 reports. A complete listing of these recommendations can be found in Appendix B.


7. References

Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC). 2002. Toward Safe Harbour Report Card. Bay Area Restoration Council. Hamilton, Ontario.

Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC). 2003. Toward Safe Harbours: Progress Toward Delisting – Work Plan. Bay Area Restoration Council. Hamilton, Ontario.

George, T. D. Boyd and N. Diep. 2004. DRAFT Canada-Ontario Agreement Area of Concern Monitoring Discussion. Identifying Sediment, Water, and Biological Monitoring Requirements to Track Progress Towards Restoration of Beneficial Use Impairments. Unpublished.

Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP). 1992. Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton Harbour. Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition. Second Edition of the Stage 1 Report. Burlington, Ontario: Hamilton Harbour RAP Office.

Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP). 1992a. Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton Harbour. Goals, Options and Recommendations. Stage 2 Report, Volume 2 – Main Report. Burlington, Ontario: Hamilton Harbour RAP Office.

Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP). 1996. Randle Reef Sediment Remediation Project: Comprehensive Study Report Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Burlington, Ontario: Hamilton Harbour RAP Office.

Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP). 2002. Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton Harbour. Stage 2 Update 2002. Burlington, Ontario: Hamilton Harbour RAP Office.

Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP). 2004. Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Monitoring Catalogue. Burlington, Ontario: Hamilton Harbour RAP Office.

International Joint Commission (IJC). 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended November 18, 1987. Windsor, Ontario.

International Joint Commission (IJC). 1991. Commission Approves List/Delist Criteria for Great Lakes Areas of Concern. FOCUS On International Joint Commission Activities. 16 (1). http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/listdelist/index.html. Accessed January 14, 2005.

International Joint Commission (IJC). 2005. International Joint Commission – Who We Are. http://www.ijc.org/en/background/biogr_commiss.htm. Accessed April 28, 2005.

Procter & Redfern Limited. 1995. Randle Reef Contaminated Sediment Remediation Project Hamilton Harbour Pre-Project Assessment. Hamilton, Ontario: Procter & Redfern Limited.

Thomson Nelson. 2002. Thomson Nelson – Our Environment: A Canadian Perspective 2nd edition – Glossary. http://www.environment.nelson.com/0176169040/glossary.html. Accessed March 16, 2006.

Top Achievement. 2005. Creating S.M.A.R.T.Goals. http://www.topachievement.com/smart.html. Accessed April 3, 2006.


Appendicies

Appendix A – Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objectives

No. Beneficial Use Impairments and Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objectives

(i) Restriction on fish and wildlife consumption.

That there be no restrictions on consumption of fish and wildlife from the Harbour attributable to local sources.

(ii) Tainting of fish and wildlife flavour.

When survey results confirm no tainting of fish or wildlife flavour.

(iii) Degraded fish and wildlife populations.

1. That the fish community has the following structure:

a. Shift from a fish community indicative of eutrophic environments, such as white perch, alewife, bullheads, and carp to a self sustaining community more representative of a mesotrophic environment, containing pike, bass, yellow perch, and sunfish.

b. Attain a littoral fish biomass of 200 - 250 kg/ha.

c. Increase the species richness from 4 species to 6-7 species per transect.

d. Increase the native species biomass from 37% to 80-90% of the total biomass.

e. Reduce the spatial variability in fish biomass within the Harbour.

f. Proposed nearshore fish community of Hamilton Harbour:

Category Littoral Biomass (kg/ha)

Piscivores (pike, bass) 40 - 60 Specialists (Insectivores like pumpkinseeds and yellow perch) 70 - 100 Generalists (Omnivores like carp and brown bullheads) 30 - 90

The percent of fisheries biomass allocated to the three trophic groups was based on the effects of improved water quality in the Bay of Quinte and Severn Sound. The littoral fish biomass of 200-250 kg/ha was based on electrofishing data collected from Hamilton Harbour, Bay of Quinte and Severn Sound in 1990.

g. Attain an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) of 55-60 for Hamilton Harbour



(iii) 2. Colonial waterbirds:

cont’d The overall objective is to have a self sustaining mixed community of colonial waterbirds generally with an increase of the rarer species and a reduction in the number of ring-billed gulls which currently nest in the Harbour. These figures are subject to revision once these general levels have been reached. Management of colonial waterbirds is experimental and achieving specific populations of particular species is highly speculative.

Suggested Interim Targets Number of Pairs

Ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) 5,000 Common terns (Sterna hirundo) > 600 Herring gulls (Larus argentatus) 350 Caspian terns (Sterna caspi) > 200 Double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) 200 Black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax) 200

3. Other wildlife including waterfowl:

No target will be suggested for other species of birds or animals, but a target for habitat has been suggested which will enhance wildlife populations generally. In addition, management of some species may be necessary as a result of habitat enhancement.

That fish and wildlife bioassays confirm no significant toxicity from water column or sediment contaminants.

(iv) Fish tumours or other deformities.

When incidence rates of fish tumours or other deformities do not exceed rates at unimpacted control sites that are locally relevant and when survey data confirm the absence of neoplastic or preneoplastic liver tumours in bullheads or suckers.

(v) Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems.

When the incidence rates of deformities or reproductive problems in sentinel wildlif species do not exceed background levels in control populations.



vi) Degradation of benthos.

Using the BEAST (BEnthic Assessment of SedimenT) Methodology:

1. Littoral Zone (depth < upper limit of maximum extent of anoxic conditions)

• Benthic community structure (BCS) not different from that of appropriate reference sites in the Great Lakes (i.e., Hamilton Harbour sites determined as “equivalent to reference conditions” by BEAST methodology) and BCS not correlated to sediment contaminant levels among sites.


2. Profundal Zone (depth > upper limit of maximum extent of anoxic conditions)

• BCS not correlated to sediment contaminant levels among sites.


(vii) Restrictions on dredging activities.

When contaminants in sediments do not exceed biological and chemical standards, criteria, or guidelines such that there are no restrictions on disposal activities associated with navigational dredging.

(viii) Eutrophication or undesirable algae.

That there are no persistent adverse water quality conditions for each of the components attributable to cultural eutrophication. The following net loading targets provide the specific objectives.

Eutrophication goals and anticipated conditions in Hamilton Harbour, Cootes Paradise, and the Grindstone Creek area:

TABLE 1: Net Loading Targets (Kg/d)

Phosphorous Ammonia Suspended Solids Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Woodward WWTP 140 60 2270 530 3750 900 Skyway WWTP 30 12 470 115 500 200 King WWTP (Dundas) 5 22 28 Main WWTP (Waterdown) 1 5 5 CSOs 70 5 160 20 1400 200 Streams * 90 65 Industry (combined) 400 270 Stelco 4000 1500 Dofasco 3500 1500

* Stream loadings are extremely variable from year-to-year. The percentage of reduction is based on the estimated effect of best management practice.



(viii) TABLE 2: Environmental Conditions

cont’d Hamilton Cootes Grindstone Harbour Paradise Creek Area Beaches Initial Final Initial Initial Initial Goals Goals Goals Goals Goals Phosphorus concentration (ug/L) 34 17 60 - 70 60 - 70 Un-ionized Ammonia conc. (mg/L) < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 Chlorophyll a conc. (ug/L) 15-20 5-10 20 20 Secchi Disk Trans. (m) 2 3 1.5 1 1.2 Min. DO con. (ppm) > 1 > 4 > 5 > 5 Submergent/emergent aquatic plant area (ha) 105 170 240 50 Suspended solids (ppm) 25 25 Bacteria (E. coli organisms/100 ml water) < 100

TABLE 3: Criteria for Determining Compliance with RAP Goals

Goal Compliance Formula

Compliance with environmental conditions 13 out of 13 samples analysed weekly* with respect to Phosphorus, Secchi depth at the centre station from June to August are and chlorophyll a at or better than the targeted level.

Compliance with environmental conditions Weekly samples from March to June at the with respect to unionized ammonia centre station are not to exceed 0.02.

Compliance with environmental conditions Weekly samples at 1 metre from bottom at with respect to dissolved oxygen centre station, from July to September are at or better than the targeted level.

Compliance with environmental conditions Daily samples meet target on every day that with respect to E. coli is 48 hours after a rain event.

* Although weekly sampling is recommended at only one location, there will be periodic sampling of a large number of locations harbour-wide to confirm representativeness of the centre station.

(ix) Restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and odour problems.

That Hamilton Harbour water outflow to Lake Ontario not give rise to water quality restrictions on the water intakes for Hamilton and Halton.

(x) Beach closings. (Water contact sports.)

1. That Hamilton Harbour effluent to Lake Ontario not give rise to conditions which would cause restrictions on open Lake water contact sports.

2. That water quality conditions in the west-end and in the north-half of the Harbour, be such as to permit opening of beaches and which would cause no significant restriction on water contact sports.



(xi) Degradation of aesthetics.

When the waters are free of any substance which produces a persistent objectionable deposit, unnatural colour or turbidity, or unnatural odour (e.g. oil slick, surface scum, algae).

(xii) Added cost to agriculture or industry.

When there are no significant additional costs required to treat water prior to use for industrial purposes (i.e. intended for commercial or industrial applications and non-contact food processing). Cost associated with zebra mussels or other invasive organisms are excepted. An added cost related to withdrawal of water from the Harbour to agriculture is not appropriate as this is not a use directly applicable to Hamilton Harbour.

(xiii) Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations.

When phytoplankton and zooplankton community structure does not significantly diverge from unimpacted control sites of comparable physical and chemical characteristics. Further in the absence of community structure data, this use will be considered restored when phytoplankton and zooplankton bioassays confirm no significant toxicity in ambient waters.

(xiv) Loss of fish and wildlife habitat.

1. Provide 500 ha of emergent and submergent aquatic plants in Hamilton Harbour, Cootes Paradise, Grindstone Creek delta, and Grindstone Creek marshes in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project (360 ha FWHRP sites + 140 ha littoral zone).

2. Provide 15 km of littoral shore.

3. Provide 300 ha of wildlife habitat.

4. Provide 3 ha of colonial nesting bird habitat.


Appendix B – Recommendations from Series of Toward Safe Harbours Reports

2004 Toward Safe Harbours: Progress Toward Delisting – Fish and Wildlife

BUI

(i) - Restriction on fish and wildlife consumption

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (i)-1 That both the OMOE’s Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program and the DFO’s Hamilton Harbour Contaminant Trend Monitoring Study Program are important sources of monitoring information to fulfill the fish consumption component of Beneficial Use Impairment (i) and should be continued.

BUI (i)-2 That further study is needed to determine if the wildlife portion of delisting objective (i) be removed or acted upon with appropriate monitoring programs initiated.

BUI

(ii) – Tainting of fish and wildlife flavour

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (ii)-1 That fish from Hamilton Harbour be tested for tainting of flavour.

BUI (ii)-2 That further study is needed to determine if tainting of wildlife flavour is a use that is impaired in the Hamilton Harbour and whether this portion of the delisting objective should be removed or acted upon with appropriate monitoring programs initiated.

BUI

(iii) – Degraded fish and wildlife populations

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (iii)-1 That extensive and important monitoring programs related to fish and wildlife populations led by the DFO, EC-CWS and RBG be continued.

BUI (iii)-2 That delisting objective (iii) be clarified in the following ways:

• Add the words “indicators” and “Hamilton Harbour” so that the first part of the delisting objective reads, “That these indicators of the Hamilton Harbour fish community have the following structure:”

• Targets for colonial waterbirds now listed as “interim” should be reviewed and finalized within a scheduled time period closer to the time of delisting.

• Further consideration is required to determine whether the delisting objective requirement for fish and wildlife bioassays should be removed or acted upon with appropriate monitoring programs initiated.


BUI

(iv) – Fish tumours or other deformities

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (iv)-1 That monitoring by the RBG at the Cootes Paradise Fishway of deformities in Hamilton Harbour fish provides an important opportunity to collect monitoring information and should be continued.

BUI (iv)-2 That the DFO fish tumour study be conducted as soon as possible using the brown bullhead as the sentinel species, and repeated again at appropriate intervals.

BUI

(v) – Bird or animal deformities or other reproductive problems

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (v)-1 That monitoring rates of deformities in mobile species such as birds may require inference of rates using indirect measures (e.g. reproductive rates).

BUI (v)-2 That herring gulls and snapping turtles continue to be used as the sentinel species for Beneficial Use Impairment (v).

BUI (v)-3 That programs by the EC-CWS that monitor herring gull egg contaminants, colonial nesting bird reproductive rates and deformity and reproductive rates for snapping turtles at various sites on the Great Lakes be continued, as they are important to determine trends in Hamilton Harbour.

BUI

(xiv) – Loss of fish and wildlife habitat

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (xiv)-1 That the delisting objective applicable to BUI (xiv) be clarified so that the delisting objective reads:

Provide 500 ha of emergent and submergent aquatic plants in Hamilton Harbour, Cootes Paradise, Grindstone Creek delta, and Grindstone Creek Marshes in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project (360 ha FWHRP sites + 140 ha littoral zone), including:

• Provide 15 km of littoral shore

• Provide 300 ha of wildlife habitat

• Provide 3 ha of colonial nesting bird habitat

BUI (xiv)-2 That the Fish & Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project (FWHRP) continue its important work of coordinating major habitat projects, providing summary documentation and coordinating funding.


2005 Toward Safe Harbours: Progress Toward Delisting – Water Quality

BUI

(viii) – Eutrophication or undesirable algae

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (viii)-1 That frequency of loading estimates be specified and that the frequency be sufficient to capture variations in loadings (e.g. monthly average, seasonal).

BUI (viii)-2 That the environmental conditions (see Table 2) and the final RAP loading targets (see Table 1) from the delisting objective for the WWTP and stream inputs be reviewed and adjusted as necessary as the initial loading targets are met (This is also reflected in the RAP Recommendation WQ – 1b.2 in the Stage 2 Update (2002).

BUI (viii)-3 That the compliance criteria set out in Table 3 of the delisting objective be re-examined to verify they are consistent with the loading targets in Table 1 and the environmental conditions in Table 2.

BUI

(viii) - Streams

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (viii)-4 That continued effort be focused on management and stewardship activities to address suspended solid loadings to Hamilton Harbour.

BUI (viii)-5 That after the construction of the Red Hill Valley Parkway, monitoring of the Red Hill Creek is assessed to ensure it is adequate to meet the delisting objectives of the Remedial Action Plan.

BUI (viii)-6 That the methodology for estimating loads be reviewed to better quantify the loadings the streams deliver to the Harbour (See also Recommendation 5 in the 1996-2002 Contaminant Loadings and Concentrations to Hamilton Harbour report).

BUI

(viii) - Hamilton Harbour

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (viii)-7 That as the water quality goals for the centre of the Harbour approach the final goals, monitoring for un-ionized ammonia begin in March to ensure compliance with the RAP criteria in Table 3 of the delisting objective.

BUI

(viii) - Cootes Paradise and Grindstone Creek Area

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (viii)-8 That temporal variations in the inputs and speciation of phosphorus be considered in the upcoming review of RAP water quality loading targets.


BUI

(ix) – Restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and odour problems

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (ix)-1 That the results of the legislated monitoring of drinking water for the City of Hamilton and the Region of Halton continue to be made available to the public.

BUI

(x) – Beach closings

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (x)-1 That the source of the E. coli resulting in exceedances of the PWQO and subsequent beach closures at Bayfront and Pier 4 Park beaches continue to be investigated.

BUI (x)-2 That the Secchi disk criteria from Table 2 of the delisting objective of BUI (viii) be reviewed to determine if it is appropriate. If it is found to be applicable as currently written, that the criteria be added to the beach monitoring programs for Hamilton Harbour.

BUI

(xi) – Degradation of aesthetics

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (xi)-1 That agencies which routinely monitor the Harbour (e.g. Environment Canada, Municipal Health Departments, etc.) document observations on aesthetic conditions.

BUI (xi)-2 That this BUI be considered restored when the final loading targets from Table 1 of the delisting objective for BUI (viii) are met.

BUI

(xii) – Added cost to agriculture or industry

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (xii)-1 That overall improvements to Harbour water quality will be sufficient to consider this BUI restored.


2006 Toward Safe Harbours: Progress Toward Delisting – Toxic Substances and Sediment Remediation

BUI

(vi) – Degradation of benthos

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (vi)–1 That the benthic monitoring using the BEAST Methodology be continued and funded.

BUI (vi) –2 That the criteria used in the BEAST Methodology, including the reference site, be clarified to ensure that the desired end points for delisting will be achieved.

BUI

(vii) – Restrictions on dredging

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (vii)-1 That the meaning of the beneficial use impairment and delisting objective be clarified, specifically whether or not ‘no restrictions on disposal activities’ implies open water disposal of dredged material.

BUI (vii)-2 That it should be determined whether this beneficial use impairment is appropriate for dredging in Hamilton Harbour.

BUI

(xiii) – Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations

RECOMMENDATIONS

BUI (xiii)-1 That the current research and monitoring programs continue to be conducted and funded.

BUI (xiii)-2 That a suitable control site or sites be formally identified to permit assessment of the current Hamilton Harbour data and subsequently, the progress towards delisting this BUI.

BUI (xiii)-3 That the taxonomic work of phytoplankton and zooplankton samples collected by the OMOE be carried out to ensure data are available when a suitable control site(s) is/are identified.

BUI (xiii)-4 That future consideration is required to determine if the phytoplankton and zooplankton bioassay component of the delisting objective should be deleted, or acted upon by initiating appropriate research and monitoring programs.


Appendix C – Interview Schedule and Contact Information

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

Date Name(s) Affiliation Email

October 17, 2005 Bill Fitzgerald Hamilton Port Authority [email protected]

October 24, 2005 Lee Grapentine Aquatic Ecosystems [email protected] Danielle Milani Impacts Research Branch, [email protected] Environment Canada

October 31, 2005 Ora Johannsson Department of Fisheries [email protected] Ron Dermott and Oceans [email protected] Mohi Munawar [email protected] Marten Koops [email protected]

December 16, 2005 Roger Santiago Environment Canada [email protected] Anne Borgmann & Ontario Ministry of [email protected] Cheriene Vieira the Environment [email protected]

January 16, 2006 Chris Marvin Environment Canada [email protected]

January 30, 2006 Duncan Boyd Ontario Ministry of [email protected] the Environment

BARC Contact Information

Bay Area Restoration Council 1280 Main Street West LSB-B130F Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1 (905) 527-7111 [email protected]

RAP Contact Information

Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Office 867 Lakeshore Road PO Box 5050 Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6 (905) 336-6279 [email protected]


Appendix D – Randle Reef Sediment Remediation Project

BACKGROUND

Randle Reef is located on the south shore of Hamilton Harbour, west of Pier 16 (Stelco Hamilton) and north of Pier 15 and Sherman Inlet (Figure 2). Past industrial processes resulted in a local accumulation of contaminants including elevated concentrations of iron, manganese, lead, zinc, chromium, copper and Polynuclear (Polycyclic) Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Figure 2. Location of Randle Reef in Hamilton Harbour.

PAHs are made up of carbon and hydrogen arranged in two or more fixed aromatic rings and, as such, there are several hundred different PAH compounds (Procter & Redfern Limited 1995: 2.5). Of those, there are 16 compounds (Table 7) that are a priority for remediation because they are carcinogenic, persistent in the environment and present in concentrations defined as very high (Hamilton Harbour RAP 1996: 8).

Table 7. PAH Compounds of Greatest Concern

Naphthalene Benz(a)anthracene

Acenaphthylene Chrysene

Acenaphthene Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Fluorene Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Phenanthrene BenzP(a)pyrene

Anthracene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Fluoranthene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

Pyrene Benzo(g,h,l)perylene

Source: Procter & Redfern Limited 1995: 2.10


In Hamilton Harbour, the concentrations of PAHs are expressed as sum totals less naphthalene; accurate measurements of naphthalene concentrations in the laboratories of the Canada Centre for Inland Waters (CCIW) are hindered by various environmental factors (C. Marvin pers. comm. May 9, 2006).

At over 800 parts per million (ppm), the concentration of PAHs less naphthalene in the bottom sediments of the Randle Reef area is significantly higher than anywhere else in the Harbour. For example, at Station 52 in the centre of the Harbour the concentration in the bottom sediments is typically on the order of 50 ppm.

THE RANDLE REEF SEDIMENT REMEDIATION PROJECT

Under the Canada-Ontario Agreement, and as a key component of the Hamilton Harbour RAP, the remediation project is led by Environment Canada. An implementation agreement has been established between Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Hamilton Port Authority to complete the detailed engineering design for the preferred remedial option.

The preferred remedial option was selected based on public consultation conducted over a period of two and a half years with significant stakeholder input through a Project Advisory Group (PAG). The PAG represented 17 stakeholder groups including various levels of government, industry and local community and public interest groups. The project is subject to an environmental assessment (EA) under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and a comprehensive study report is underway.

The preferred conceptual design (Figure 3) option includes a nine and a half hectare engineered containment facility (ECF) adjacent to or attached to Pier 15 (Stelco) and a secondary facility built as a triangular extension to Pier 14. Approximately 130,000 cubic metres of the most highly contaminated sediment (concentrations greater than 800 ppm PAH less napthalene) will be contained in place. An additional 500,000 cubic metres of the less toxic sediment (concentrations between 200-800 ppm PAH less napthalene) is proposed to be dredged from the surrounding areas and placed within the containment facility. Currently, the preferred conceptual design is undergoing the detailed engineering design. Depending on the final facility design, the HPA may undertake long-term ownership, monitoring and maintenance of the site.


Figure 3. Preferred conceptual design for the Randle Reef Sediment Remediation Project.

The EA process is targeted for completion by the spring or summer of 2007, with construction beginning in late 2007 or early 2008, provided funding is secured. It is estimated to be completed over a 5-10 year period (J. Shaw pers. comm. February 20, 2006). The detailed engineering design will provide a more fully developed construction schedule.

MONITORING

Eight research projects have been identified to assess the Randle Reef clean up (Table 8). The studies will begin before construction (baseline data), be conducted during construction and again when construction is complete. When the research projects were being designed, the delisting objectives of the Hamilton Harbour RAP were considered.

Of the eight studies, the Characterization of Sediment Toxicity and Benthic Invertebrate Conditions of Randle Reef and Surrounding Area study (number 1 in Table 8) will generate data applicable to the BUIs this report addresses. The benthic study will supplement the BEAST research (see Section 3.2) required to restore BUI (vi). The results from the Toxic Identification and Evaluation (TIE) study (number 8 in Table 8) will identify the chemicals in the sediment that are causing the toxicity, and assist in determining a threshold clean up target. The other research will be beneficial in assessing the restoration of the fish and wildlife beneficial use impairments.

The scope of the Randle Reef Sediment Remediation Project extends beyond this report. More detailed information can be accessed at www.hamiltonharbour.ca/rap or www.sustainabilityfund.gc.ca.


Table 8. Studies to Assess the Randle Reef Sediment Remediation Project

Title Summary Schedule

1 Characterization of sediment toxicity and benthic invertebrate conditions of Randle Reef and surrounding Area

This study will provide baseline data prior to remediation. It is an initial step in a long-term monitoring strategy with the goal to examine the spatial extent of the biological effects, and to determine the impacts of Randle Reef sediment removal and the recovery of benthic conditions (e.g. to conditions meeting delisting criteria). Benthic community structure, PAH bioaccumulation in mayfly tissues and sediment toxicity in the Randle Reef area will be compared to reference areas (within the harbour and in Lake Ontario).

Two studies completed (2000 & 2002). Additional baseline (2005) and subset of sites sampled to fill data gaps (2006); once post-capping of ECF (2010); every 4 to 5 years post-implementation.

2 The use of MFO, embryo-larval deformities and SPMDs to assess the success of Randle Reef clean up

Fish and fish embryos exposed to Randle Reef sediments will determine the potency of chemicals in the sediments before, during and after site remediation. Accumulation of PAHs in semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMDs) will assess potential bioavailability of water-borne PAHs.

2 years of baseline studies (2005 & 2006); once during dredging (2009); once post-remediation.

3 Quantitation of Haemocytic Leukemia in caged bivalves in Randle Reef area

This study will evaluate the incidence of Haemocytic Leukemia in caged bivalves in an area of extreme sediment contamination in Randle Reef relative to less contaminated areas of the Harbour and a reference site.

Two years baseline (2005 & 2006); once during remediation (2009); once post-remediation.

4 Suspended sediment monitoring in Hamilton Harbour as an indicator of the Randle Reef Remediation Project

Existing suspended sediment trapping program will be supplemented with two additional moorings in Randle Reef area. Analysis of the material collected will provide a measure of the quality of particulate in the water column and sources of contamination. Zebra mussels will also be collected for tissue PAH levels.

Every year, starting in 2005.


5 Use of genetic and reproductive endpoints in fish to monitor the progress of the Randle Reef clean up

It has been shown that genetic material in fish from contaminated sites including Hamilton Harbour was damaged. This study will seek to link sub-cellular changes at the DNA and chromosome levels with meaningful, whole organism effects. In another component of this study, juvenile rainbow trout injected with a female hormone will be exposed to Randle Reef sediment to determine reproductive effects of PAHs.

Phase 1 (2005 -2007); Phase II during (2010 – 13); Phase III post-remediation.

6 Evaluation of wild fish health in the Randle Reef area

Wild fish assessments and endocrine tools developed in previous studies will be used to evaluate the effects of Randle Reef sediments on the health of native fish before and after remediation.

Baseline (Fall 2005); post-remediation.

7 Evaluation of tumour incidence in wild fish in Hamilton Harbour

This program will extend wild fish health studies to evaluate tumour incidence in fish within the Harbour. Observations will be made on the presence of external fish abnormalities (such as deformities erosion, lesions and tumours) and liver abnormalities.

Baseline (Fall 2005, 2006, 2007); post-remediation.

8 Toxic Identification & Evaluation (TIE) of contaminated sediment in Randle Reef

This study was developed to address the need for a meaningful clean up threshold target for Randle Reef. Past studies have shown that there are other factors (beside PAH) that contribute to the toxicity of the Randle Reef sediments including high metal concentrations and anoxic conditions.

Sampling completed in May and November of 2005.

Source: A. Borgmann pers. comm. February 20, 2006

.

(Table 8 con’t)


Appendix E – BEAST Methodology

The BEnthic Assessment of SedimenT (BEAST) Methodology is a predictive approach for assessing sediment quality in the Great Lakes using multivariate techniques (i.e. it considers multiple variables in one analysis).

It uses information collected over a three year period from nearshore reference sites in the Great Lakes. The data include benthic community structure and habitat variables, as well as the survival, growth and reproductive responses of four species of benthic invertebrates in laboratory toxicity tests (L. Grapentine, D.Milani pers. comm. March 7, 2006).

The data compiled from the reference sites establish normal conditions for selected parameters and determines a range of expected biological variability. The expected biological conditions at the site where the assessment is being conducted are predicted by applying relationships between biological and habitat conditions. These expected conditions are then compared to the conditions observed at the assessment location (L. Grapentine, D. Milani pers. comm. March 7, 2006).

Researchers at the National Water Research Institute of Environment Canada used the BEAST Methodology to assess the surficial, nearshore sediments of Hamilton Harbour in 2000, 2002 and 2005. The benthic condition in the sediments was determined by integrating and interpreting four components: sediment toxicity, resident invertebrate community structure, sediment physico-chemistry, and bioaccumulation. Each of the four components was compared to the corresponding conditions in the reference site using a pass/fail system.

The data components were integrated using a “quadrad” system (Table 9). The 16 combinations of either pass (-) or fail (+) outcomes for the individual elements were interpreted by a rule based, weight-of-evidence system. For each scenario, a description of the current status, interpretation and management recommendations can be made (L. Grapentine, D. Milani pers. comm. October 24, 2005).

Table 9. Sediment Decision Making Framework (excerpt)

Che

mist

ry

Toxi

city

Com

mun

ity

Bioa

ccum

ulat

ion

Conclusion

(Note: + = different to reference; – = equivalent to reference)

+ + + + Strong evidence for contamination-related impairment+ – – – Contaminants unavailable

– + – –Unmeasured chemicals or conditions exist with potential to cause toxicity and resistance may have developed

– – + – Alteration not due to chemical contamination+ + – – Toxic chemicals stressing system but resistance has developed– + + – Unmeasured toxic chemicals causing impairment+ – + – Chemicals are not bioavailable or alteration is not due to toxic chemicals– – – – No contamination or impairment

Source: L. Grapentine, D. Milani pers. comm. October 24, 2005


Appendix F – Acronyms and Glossary

AcronymsAOC Area of Concern

BAIT Bay Area Implementation Team

BARC Bay Area Restoration Council

BUI Beneficial Use Impairment

CCIW Canada Centre for Inland Waters

CDF Confined Disposal Facility

CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada

EA Environmental Assessment

EC Environment Canada

ECF Engineered Containment Facility

GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

IJC International Joint Commission

MFO Mixed Function Oxygenase

NWRI National Water Research Institute (Environment Canada)

OMOE Ontario Ministry of the Environment

PAG Public Advisory Group

PAH Polynuclear (Polycyclic) Aromatic Hydrocarbon

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

RAP Remedial Action Plan

SPMD Semi-Permeable Membrane Device

TIE Toxic Identification and Evaluation

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen


Glossary(Unless otherwise noted, glossary entries are referenced from Appendix C of the RAP Stage 2 Update 2002)

Anoxic conditions The absence of oxygen necessary for sustaining most life. In aquatic ecosystems this refers to the absence of dissolved oxygen in water.

Area of Concern “...a geographic area that fails to meet the General or Specific Objectives of the Agreement where such failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use or of the area’s ability to support aquatic life.” (IJC 1987: p.24).

Beneficial Use Impairment A change in the physical, chemical or biological integrity of a Great Lakes system sufficient to impair any one of fourteen beneficial uses as defined in Annex 2 of the GLWQA.

Benthos Bottom dwelling organisms including sessile animals such as sponges, some worms and attached algae; creeping forms such as snails and flatworms; and burrowing forms such as clams, worms, mayflies and midges.

Bioassay A determination of concentration (dose) of a given material (often suspected pollutant) necessary to affect living cells under stated conditions.

Confined Disposal Facility Storage area for dredged material, usually contaminated sediments.

Delisting Objectives Describe the environmental conditions that are deemed necessary to delist each Area of Concern, and are focused on conditions that can be corrected through local action.

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement A joint agreement between Canada and the United States that commits the two countries to develop and implement plans to restore and maintain the many desirable uses of the water in the Great Lakes Basin. Originally signed in 1972 and reviewed in 1978, the Agreement was amended in 1987.

Kjeldahl Nitrogen Total nitrogen content of a sample, determined by digesting the sample with concentrated sulphuric acid and distilling the resultant NH4SO4 to produce ammonia.

Littoral zone A shallow area along the shore of a body of water with light penetration to the bottom, usually with emergent subaquatic plants.

Metadata Definitional data that provides information about or documentation of other data including sampling procedures, frequency of collection, location, time of day, etc.

Monitoring Usually a long-term process that requires data collected in a consistent manner over an extended period of time, in order to determine trends.


Parties The Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America.

Parts per million (ppm) The amount of a substance per million parts of another substance (other than a liquid).

Phytoplankton The plant community in marine and freshwater ecosystems that float freely in the water; contains many species of algae and diatoms. They form the base of the natural food chain.

Polynuclear (Polycyclic) Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) Compounds composed of at least two fused benzene rings. Many are known or suspected carcinogens.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) A class of persistant organic chemicals with the potential to bioaccumulate through the food chain, cause reproductive failure and cause cancer. They were banned in 1980, except for use in existing electrical equipment.

Profundal zone The deepest zone of a body of water where the lack of light means no producers can survive (Thomson Nelson 2002).

Remedial Action Plan A work plan for performing remedial action on a site of environmental contamination (e.g. Hamilton Harbour).

RAP Forum An expanded stakeholder group reconvened to update the RAP Stage 2 document from 1998 to 2002.

Trophic level Functional classification of organisms in a community according to feeding relationships.

Water Quality Objectives Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, goals set by the Governments of Canada and the United States for protection of the uses of the Great Lakes as in allowable concentrations of individual chemicals.

Zooplankton The animal portion of the community of small organisms that live suspended in the water column of a body of water.

Documents

Tshreport,2006