J. Great Lakes Res. 22(2):469-483Internal. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., 1996

REPORT

The Remedial Action Plan That Led to the Cleanupand Delisting of Collingwood Harbour as an Area of Concern

Gail Krantzberg1and E. Houghton2

lOntario Ministry ofEnvironment and Energy40 St. Clair Ave. w:

Toronto, Ontario M4V 1M2

2Collingwood Public Utilities CommissionBox 189, 39 Hurontario St.

Collingwood, Ontario L9Y 325

ABSTRACT. This paper traces the rehabilitation and restoration of Collingwood Harbour's ecosystemand establishes that the targets set to delist Collingwood Harbour as one of 43 North American Areas ofConcern were met as of 1994. Numerous actions to ameliorate environmental problems and rehabilitatethe harbor ecosystem have been implemented. In so doing, environmental conditions to support the usesand goals identified by the Public Advisory Committee and the community of Collingwood have beenrealized. The process ofcleaning up and protecting Collingwood Harbour's ecosystem has been an exten­sive one, involving 8 years of legislative, organizational, and information-gathering efforts and a far­reaching program ofpublic consultation and participation. Extensive consultation with agency scientists,government officials, the International Joint Commission, the community of Collingwood, and the publicat large has resulted in unified consent that the environmental targets established for the community-dri­ven cleanup have been met, and infact, surpassed.

INDEX WORDS: Remedial Action Plan, rehabilitation, Lake Huron.

HISTORY OF THECOLLINGWOOD HARBOUR RAP

Collingwood Harbour is situated on the southshore of Nottawasaga Bay, which constitutes thesouthern extension of Lake Huron's Georgian Bay.The harbor is surrounded by the Town of Colling­wood, which has a permanent resident populationof 14,685. In 1977, Ontario identified CollingwoodHarbour (Fig. 1) as one of 43 Great Lakes Areas ofConcern (AOC) as part of a binational agreement torestore and protect the Great Lakes. Nuisance algalgrowth plagued the harbor waters up until the mid1980s as a result of excessive phosphorus inputs tothe harbor from the Collingwood sewage treatmentplant (STP), which at the time was a primary treat­ment facility. The federal and provincial govern­ments assembled a Remedial Action Plan (RAP)Team, to work with the community on a plan that

469

would rehabilitate ecosystem quality to restore ormaintain human and nonhuman uses of the harborand its watershed.

In fulfilling this mandate, the RAP has followedwhat is known as an ecosystem approach. As amanagement philosophy, the phrase indicates thatwe participate in the natural world, rather than havedominance over it (Bell 1994). Whatever remedialactions are taken, they must be consistent with a re­spect for the entire Collingwood Harbour ecosys­tem, the animals, plants and humans that interactwith one another within a shared environment. Weadopted the five themes inherent in the Royal Com­mission's definition of the ecosystem approach: theecosystem as "home," everything is connected toeverything else, sustainability, understandingplaces, and integrating processes (Royal Commis­sion 1992).

470 Krantzberg and Houghton

FIG. 1. Collingwood Harbour, showing station locations and land usearound the harbor shoreline.

Public consultation and involvement was centraland particularly extensive in the Collingwood area.In addition to its consultative role in establishinggoals and beneficial uses for Collingwood Harbour,the Public Advisory Committee (PAC) evaluatedand recommended a remedial action strategy toachieve those goals and uses. PAC (Table 1) wasdynamic in raising public awareness of RAP activi­ties through newsletters, fact sheets, articles in thelocal press, presentations to and publications forclubs and schools, the development of the environ­mental playground ENVIROPARK, organization ofteaching packages for elementary, secondary, andcollege level students, institution of an environmen­tal category in the region science fair, and radio andtelevision coverage.

The 1992 United Nations Conference on Envi­ronment and Development identified capacity­building in Agenda 21 as one of the essential meansto implement sustainable development. Capacity­building means enhancing the ability of a commu­nity, region, or country to identify and reachagreement on problems, develop policies and pro-

grams to address them, and mobilize appropriate re­sources to fulfill the policies and programs (Hartiget al. 1995). The Collingwood Harbour RAP em­ployed a combination of human, scientific, technol­gocial, organization, institutional, and resourcecapabilities to organize and sustain the capacity forthe changes required to solve the harbor's environ­mental problems.

As detailed in the Stage 3 Document (CHAT1994) and summarized here, it is the conclusion ofthe PAC, the RAP Team, provincial and federal sci­entific experts, the community, and the HC that theCollingwood Harbour ecosystem is capable of sup­porting the goals and uses identified by PAC andratified by the community of Collingwood. Assuch, Collingwood Harbour became the first NorthAmerican Area of Concern to be delisted in No­vember 1994.

THE COLLECTIVE VISION

To gain support for a restoration and rehabilita­tion strategy, the crucial first element was to articu-

The Cleanup of Collingwood Harbour, Georgian Bay

TABLE 1. Collingwood Harbour Public Advisory Committee 1987-1994.

471

Ed HoughtonPAC ChairpersonPresident, PAC Inc.Public Utilities Commission!Chamber of Commerce

Doug GarbuttBoard of Directors, PAC Inc.PAC Vice-ChairpersonNacan Products Limited

Laurie ArronCN Realty

Ray Barkerthen Mayor, Town of Collingwood

Ben BennettCitizen-at-largeResigned 1992

Jason BrearleyHigh School StudentResigned 1992

Fred DobbsMOEE/MNRChairperson Habitat Subcommittee, Resigned 1994

Peter DunbarDepartment of Parks, Recreation and Culture

Bill DurrelLAW Development Cranberry Resort

Carl EichenbergerGeorgian Triangle Anglers Association

Nancy FarrerChairperson, Coastline Development and SustainabilitySubcommitteePlanner, Town of Collingwood

Don GreenEnvironmental Engineering,Collingwood STP Steering Committee Chairperson

late a common vision for the future of CollingwoodHarbour and its watershed. After consulting with theRAP Team, the Public Advisory Committee ap­proved a list of goals and beneficial uses to be main­tained or achieved by the Remedial Action Plan.The PAC recognized that Collingwood Harbour hasbeen and will continue to be a site for a blend of in-

Leone HallBoard of Directors, PAC Inc.Chairperson, Public Awareness SubcommitteeCitizen-at-large

Larry HogarthCollingwood Yacht Club

Don JaquesCo-Chairperson, Public Awareness SubcommitteeCanadian Mist Distillery

Jim KilgourBoard of Directors, PAC Inc.Collingwood Collegiate Institute

Debra KuehlCollingwood Public Library

Lee MartinCanada Steamship Limited

Greta McGillivraySenior League of Collingwood

Sheila MetrasGeorgian Triangle Tourist Association

Jack PosteCollingwood Naturalist Club

Sandra RupertCollingwood TerminalsResigned 1993

Charles SandellHarbour Master

George StrampelAgriculture

Wayne Wilson, Dan WhiteNottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority

dustrial and recreational uses. In keepiI1g with thatrecognition, the PAC decided upon goals and uses,which met with public approval in January, 1989(Collil).gwood Harbour RAP 1992). The goals statethat water quality in the harbor should be such thatthe flow into Nottawasaga Bay should not adverselychange the bay or affect the town's drinking water.

472 Krantzberg and Houghton

The harbor water should be aesthetically pleasing soit can be used for passive recreation. Use of the har­bor should ensure that fish and wildlife levels withinthe harbor are sustained. Due to ship traffic, desig­nated swimming areas should not be a goal withinthe harbor, but water quality should meet provincialbacteriological guidelines for body-contact recre­ation. As with many Areas of Concern, the benefi­cial uses ranged from commercial/industrial torecreational and non-human activities.

To evaluate whether the harbor could support thegoals and uses formulated by the community,restoration and rehabilitation targets (Table 2) weredelineated by the RAP Team and PAC in theCollingwood Harbour Stage 2 Document (1992).

RECOVERY OF THECOLLINGWOOD HARBOUR ECOSYSTEM

The following sections examine the targetsachieved in Table 2. The intent is to provide thecontext within which decisions were made as to theenvironmental status of the harbor and the need forremedial measures. The targets, referred to asdelisting criteria, were used to evaluate whetherspecific beneficial use, as outlined in the GreatLakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA 1987),had been restored. A synopsis of several of the ac­tions taken to achieve the target, from research andmonitoring to rehabilitation and remedial measures,is included. Detailed project descriptions have beenprovided elsewhere (CHAT 1994; Krantzberg et ai.1995; Krantzberg 1994, 1995; Collis and Proud1994; Dobbs and Grillmayer 1994; Gore and Storrie1991).

Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Consumption

The goal, or delisting criteria was to achieve anabsence of consumption advisories. However, advi­sories could be present due to bay-wide effects. Inthis case, the RAP goal was to demonstrate that ad­visories were not due to contaminant input from theArea of Concern.

The Ontario Ministries of Environment and En­ergy, and Natural Resources have collected sportfish from Collingwood Harbour and other locationsin Georgian Bay to analyze for a variety of contam­inants. For the past 10 years, yellow perch, whitesucker, and walleye were tested for mercury, PCB,mirex, DDT, chlordane, lindane, aldrin, heptachlor,hexachloro-benzene, and octachlorostyrene. Allthree species met federal guidelines for unrestricted

consumption. Transient whitefish and chinooksalmon were also found to be well within the unre­stricted-consumption guidelines. The only restric­tion on fish consumption applies to yellow perchover 14 inches (35 cm) in length. The advisoryoriginates from a single sample of perch larger than14 inches, caught in 1984. The mercury concentra­tion in that sample of fish muscle was 0.54 ppm,above the federal guideline of 0.50 ppm for unlim­ited consumption. The RAP examined possiblesources of Hg and comparable populations outsideof the Area of Concern.

The same restrictions apply in Georgian Bay andLake Huron districts, where perch larger than 35 cm(14 inches) are found (OMOEE/OMNR 1995).Mercury was well below the provincial Lowest Ef­fect Level in sediment (Krantzberg 1994). This leadto the conclusion that the restriction was not due toconditions in or sources from Collingwood Har­bour. The evidence for this deduction consist of thebay-wide observations, lack of local sources, andinformation that yellow perch use the harbor in atransient fashion, foraging extensively outside ofthe harbor.

Restrictions on Dredging Activities

This impairment was considered in light of theneed for navigational dredging, which is not an an­ticipated need in Collingwood Harbour for at least30 years. The delisting target was to achieve con­centrations of contaminants in sediment that werebelow the provincial Lowest Effect Level (Persaudet al. 1992) except where background concentra­tions exceed these values. The relationship betweenthe chemical criteria and the biological significanceof chemicals in sediment was examined thoroughlyin conjunction with the impairment: Degraded Ben­thos. The RAP distinguished between the increasedcosts for dredging associated with constraints onopen water disposal, as compared to the environ­mental consequences of contaminated sediment thatmay result in degraded benthos. Contaminant im­pacts on ecosystem health is not the focus of thiscategory of impairment. Rather, it is the added costto dredging that causes a hindrance to a human ac­tivity, that of dredging.

The present levels of sediment contamination donot directly impair any of the commercial or recre­ational uses for the harbor as approved by the Pub­lic Advisory Committee. The maintenance of theharbor as a site for normal marine traffic might sug­gest that the harbor may have to be dredged. How-

The Cleanup of Collingwood Harbour, Georgian Bay 473

TABLE 2. The 14 use impairments recognized by Annex 2 of the GLWQA, and their significance toCollingwood Harbour as of1994.

GLWQA Impaired Uses

Restrictions on fish andwildlife consumption

Status in 1989

Impaired

Current Status

Impaired: notdue to local

sources

Basis of Designation

Human consumption advisory on yellow perch largerthan 35 cm; not attributed to local sources of mercury.

Tainting of fish & wildlifeflavor

Degradation of fish andwildlife populations

Fish tumors or otherdeformities

Bird or animal deformitiesor reproductive problems

Not impaired

Not impaired

Not impaired

Not impaired

Not impaired No reports of tainting.

Not impaired Surveys indicate healthy, reproducing populations offorage and predatory fish. Provincially significantspecies present.

Not impaired No reports of tumors or other deformities.

Not impaired No reports. Wetlands support healthy communities ofprovincially significant species.

Degradation of benthos

Restrictions on dredgingactivities

Not impaired Not impaired Benthos contains mesotrophic species, comparable toreference composition. Resident fauna do not haveelevated contaminants. Bioassay endpoints comparableto reference values.

Impaired Impaired, does Concentrations of some metals are in excess of opennot affect local water disposal guidelines, but comparable to regionaluses and goals background. No navigational dredging anticipated for

at least 30 years.

Eutrophication or undesir­able algae

Restrictions on drinkingwater consumption, tasteand odor problems

Beach closings

Impaired

Not impaired

Not impaired

Not impaired Phosphorus concentrations persistently below 20 Ilg/L;(restored) low chlorophyll a values, oxygen saturation at depth.

Not impaired Water intake is outside the harbor. Harbor water qualitydoes not effect water intake.

Not impaired Concentrations of fecal coliform and E. coli consis­tently below 100 counts per 100 mL.

Degradation of aesthetics Impaired Not impaired(restored)

Current level to be maintained or improved. Secchidisk increasing through time.

Added costs to agriculture Not impairedor industry

Degradation of phytoplank- Not impairedton and zooplanktonpopulations

Loss of fish and wildlife Impairedhabitat

Not impaired No industrial or agricultural withdrawals from theharbor.

Not impaired Fish community healthy, a good integrator of planktoncommunity. Phytoplankton bioassays show no growthinhibition.

Not impaired No loss attributable to degraded water or sediment(restored) quality. Habitat rehabilitation extensive in Black Ash

Creek and Collingwood Harbour.

474 Krantzberg and Houghton

ever, the closure of the Collingwood Terminals, andthe recent dredging in 1986, will likely result in nofurther navigational dredging. The sources of sedi­ment contamination to Collingwood Harbour arelargely historical, and the major contributors are nolonger active. Throughout Collingwood's period ofindustrial and population expansion in the 20th cen­tury, the primary income and employment generatorwas shipbuilding. The closure of the shipyards andsubsequent dredging in 1986, 1992, and 1993 allcontributed to the current decline in contaminantconcentrations in Collingwood Harbour (Colling­wood Harbour RAP 1992).

All trace organic compounds and metals, with theexception of lead, copper, and zinc, are below theprovincial Lowest Effect Level (CHAT 1994). Cop­per and zinc concentrations are comparable to re­gional background values as determined by coreprofiles and the Geological Survey of Canada dataset (Painter 1992). Exceeding the LEL for metals isfrequently a reflection of geological variability(Painter 1992).

Sediment quality in the harbor has improved sub­stantially since the 1970s pursuant to navigationaldredging. The restricted zone remaining, which hasmetals at levels that would restrict open-water dis­posal, is not within the turning basin. While ecotox­icological considerations are not the purport of thiscategory of beneficial uses, the sediment does sup­port a predicted benthic community (discussedbelow), and elicits no toxicity (discussed below).The RAP concluded that navigation dredging wasnot a foreseeable use, and as such, the impairmentwas no longer applicable.

Degradation of Benthos

Up to 1994, there was frequent disruption of ben­thic communities as a consequence of shipping ac­tivities and vessels moving within the turning basin.The RAP considered selection of a suitable restora­tion target would be that contaminants in sedimentwere not of toxicological significance. This wasphrased such that chronic toxic effects of sediment­associated contaminants would be absent, withbioassay end points corresponding to reference val­ues. The RAP target also included ensuring thatbenthic community structure was similar to refer­ence sites of comparable physical and chemicalcharacteristics, outside of the turning basin.

The first phase of the sediment assessment pro­gram was to determine whether metal and trace or­ganic contaminants were present at concentrations

sufficient to warrant further biological evaluation.The Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energyguidelines for the management of contaminatedsediment (Persaud et al. 1992) has developed bio­logically based chemical guidelines for metals andtrace organic contaminants. The Lowest EffectLevel (LEL) is the level of sediment contaminationthat can be tolerated by 95% of benthic organisms,while the Severe Effect Level (SEL) indicates thelevel at which pronounced disturbance of the ben­thic macroinvertebrate community can be expected.Because the LEL is based on bulk sediment chem­istry and is a general guideline for the Great LakesBasin, Persaud et al. (1992) recommended that bio­logical tests be performed on sediment when conta­minants exceed the LEL.

The sediment bioassays conducted by the RAPTeam provided information on whether exceedingthe LEL for some parameters was of toxicologicalsignificance. The most sensitive endpoints in theCollingwood Harbour bioassays were the growthresponses and reproductive capabilities of test or­ganisms. The absence of growth inhibition is oneline of evidence that indicates sediment is not elicit­ing toxicity. At harbor stations in proximity to theCollingwood shipyards (Fig. 2), metal concentra­tions exceeded the LEL (Fig. 3). Concentrations ex­ceeded the SEL within the shipyard slips (Fig. 4).With the exception of the Collingwood shipyards,mayflies, amphipods, chironomids and fathead min­nows exposed to Collingwood Harbour sedimentgrew as well as or better than reference organisms(Krantzberg 1995). Analysis of introduced freshwa­ter mussels and native benthic invertebrates sup­ported the laboratory findings on toxicity andbioaccumulation, having tissue residues no differentfrom reference conditions (Table 3). Benthic com­munity structure in 1992 was comparable to refer­ence sites of similar environmental properties andremote from pollutant sources (Krantzberg 1995).The presence of mesotrophic indicator species con­firmed that the harbor sediment could support ahealthy benthos.

Chronic low level toxicity problems were foundwithin the shipyard slips and in a limited zonenorthwest of the slips (Fig. 5). While depressed, re­production did continue to occur in bioassay expo­sures, and based on the community structure,oligochaetes are abundant at those sites in the har­bor that elicited low level toxicity. Part of the re­duction in reproduction could be attributed to thehigher clay content of these sites, which is not apreferred substrate for oligochaetes because bur-

The Cleanup ofCollingwood Harbour, Georgian Bay 475

100

1,000<-- Zn

10,000

LLL..L.IlUJL.L-.L.LL...JL..-LLL...u 1010

rowing activity is more difficult and less food isavailable. However, tubificids have been found tobe particularly sensitive to metal contamination(Reynoldson et al. 1994), and a remedial strategywas developed and implemented.

In 1992, the Collingwood Harbour RAP hosted ademonstration project to test innovative technolo­gies that could be applied to the removal of contam­inated sediment at other sites in the Great LakesBasin. Collingwood Harbour presented a viable lo­cation due to the marginal nature of sediment toxic­ity, and the relatively small volume of sediment thatdid not meet both chemical and biological guide­lines. In addition, the harbor featured a confineddisposal facility that had capacity to receive thedredged material.

Sediment from the CSL (Canada Steamship Lim­ited) dry dock, launch basin, and adjacent sites inthe inner harbor were removed using the PneumaPump. This is a system developed in Italy thatachieves relatively high solids concentrations byvolume in the dredge mixture, while minimizing theproblems of secondary pollution caused by the dis­turbance of the sediment-water interface. The pumpsystem is based on a principal of using static waterhead and compressed air inside cylinders. Each ofthree cylinders is rapidly filled with slurry bycounter pressure due to a hydrostatic head and in­duced vacuum. When one cylinder has filled, com­pressed air acts as a piston and the slurry is thenforced through a check valve to the discharge

1,000

Pb and Cu (ug/g) Zn (ug/g)10,000 ..... -.------.----.---. LEAD ... 100,000

fZ)COPPER

DZINC

Pb -_..>

Cu -100

E06 E07 E08 W09 Wl0 Wll

FIG. 4. Concentrations of metals in sedimentwithin the east and west slips of the Collingwoodshipyards. Arrows depict the Ontario Severe EffectLevels (see text).

1718212226

6713,

067146704 6710 00 0

6715 6718 06720

671~0 67~~6717

67220672f 6724

67Q50

0672""0 6726

6725

s

Collingwood Harbour sample locations1992-93

ug/g DRY WEIGHT250 -.------------_.---~

LEAD

fZ)COPPER

DZINC

6712 0

Pb->Cu-~>

FIG. 3. Concentrations of metals in sedimentoutside of the Collingwood shipyards. Arrowsdepict the Ontario Lowest Effect Levels (see text).

DFIG. 2. Station locations for intensive sedimentsampling at the northeast end of the harbour bythe Collingwood shipyards.

476 Krantzberg and Houghton

TABLE 3. Trace metals in mussel biomonitors placed in Collingwood Harbour and harbor tributariesfor three weeks, 1990. All values are Ilg.g-1 (parts per million) on a wet weight basis, for mussel tissue,exclusive ofthe shell.

Station description Cu Ni Pb As Cd Se Hg Zn Mn

C Balsam Lake control 1.35 0.50 0.80 0.74 0.54 2.14 0.01 31.5 1,28013 Black Ash creek 1.17 0.50 0.70 0.62 0.51 0.60 0.01 36.3 78014 Oak St. canal 1.73 0.43 0.63 0.77 0.58 0.77 0.01 63.0 94015 Hickory St. canal 3.77 0.43 0.63 0.58 0.43 0.90 0.01 39.3 71311 Goodyear 2.87 0.47 0.79 0.44 0.71 0.78 0.01 41.3 1,5033 STp l prech1orination 0.86 0.47 0.67 0.48 0.82 0.81 0.02 31.7 45621 East Harbour 1.06 0.47 0.67 0.44 0.41 0.96 0.01 32.7 50625 Centre Harbour 1.01 0.43 0.63 0.61 0.56 1.10 0.01 40.0 54632 Black Ash Creek mouth 1.33 0.47 0.67 0.74 0.83 0.90 0.02 49.7 1,546

I Sewage treatment plant, prech1orination

REFERENCE EAST SLIP WEST SLIP HARBOUR

FIG. 5. Mean number of Tubifex tubifexcocoons and young produced in 28-day sedimentbioassays, using sediment from the east and westslips (n = 9), and sediment from outside theCollingwood shipyards (n =30). The referencevalues are from Reynoldson et al. (1994).

pipeline (HSP Inc. 1993). The pipeline was used totransport dredge mixture from the Pneuma Pump tothe CDF, and was approximately 1.2 km in length,traversing both water and land. A silt curtain lo­cated at the north end of each slip was used to con­fine any possible particle resuspension due tounforeseen dredging complications. Turbidity, sus­pended solids, and total organic carbon concentra-

NUMBERS:100

.COCCOONS DVOUNG

tions were minimal. Partners in the cleanup wereEnvironment Canada, the Town of Collingwood,Transport Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Environ­ment and Energy, Collingwood Terminals, theAquateers, and Canada Steamship Limited.

Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae

The RAP furnished quantitative numerical targetsthat would prevent excessive algal productivity, andbe used to recognise the point at which the harborwas no longer considered eutrophic. The objectiveswere to maintain phosphorus concentrations below0.020 mg/L, chlorophyll concentrations below 10/-Ig/L, unionized ammonia concentrations below0.02 mg/L, oxygen saturatation in the water col­umn, and Secchi disc transparencies greater than1.2 m. Further, a maximum phosphorus load limitfrom the STP to the harbor was specified as 2,760kg/yr, based on a nutrient model constructed for theharbor.

Both the GLWQA and the provincial water qual­ity guidelines discuss water quality problems interms of persistence, a term which is not well de­limited. The Collingwood Harbour RAP examinedpersistence in the context of impairing the goalsand uses described by PAC. If a particular objectivewas not met for a specific location or during agiven length of time, the RAP Team and PAC ex­amined the implications for achieving the commu­nity-based endpoints.

In studies conducted in the open-water monthsfrom 1989 to 1994, average phosphorus concentra­tions in the harbor were below the provincial guide­line of 0.020 mg/L (Fig. 6). Phosphorus

The Cleanup ofCollingwood Harbour, Georgian Bay 477

FIG. 6. Mean concentrations of total phospho­rus in Collingwood Harbour from 1989 to 1993.

concentrations, however, were above 0.020 mg/Lfor periods of days or weeks in some of the morestagnant areas of the harbor, notably, in the east andnorth east zones (Fig. 7). Mean open water concen­trations as well as mean monthly values for all sta­tions were sufficiently low that algal blooms werenot observed or measured during intensive and ex-

O.ot

,.

• -tI1

,...

....

'"'

••13

'"' '"'

PWQO

tensive monitoring. Therefore, short-term eleva­tions of phosphorus did not impair beneficial uses,as nuisance algal growth was not observed, chloro­phyll !! values were below the RAP Target of 10/-lg/L, and bottom waters of the harbor remained sat­urated with oxygen during routine sampling from1989 to 1994, inclusive (Table 4).

Currently, the STP annual loading is 1,923kg/year as compared to 5,333 kg/yr in 1990. TheRAP estimated that the STP contributes as much as96 per cent of total phosphorus loadings to the har­bor. Due to uncertainty surrounding high-flow peri­ods, a minimum of 92 per cent of the phosphorusload was attributable to the STP (Gore and Storrie1991). With the aid of a simulation model based ondata collected from the harbor, a maximum annualload of 2,790 kg/yr was assigned to the STP to en­sure that the receiving waters would not suffer fromnuisance levels of algal growth.

Phosphorus loadings to the harbor from the STPcontinue to be substantially reduced from previousyears (Fig. 8). A plant process audit, commissionedby the municipality in co-ordination with theCollingwood Harbour RAP team, showed that theaverage phosphorus concentrations in STP effluentfor 1989 to 1993 were 0.52, 0.66, 0.39, 0.27, and0.28 mg/L respectively (Fig. 9).

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

o

1Il89

-B- tlllG

till

-.g.- tl!l2

• __ A --b· 1993

APRIL MAY oIUNE JULY AUGUST SEPT. OCT. NOY.

MONTH

FIG. 7. Mean monthly concentrations of total phosphorus at station 21in Collingwood Harbour from 1989 to 1993.

478 Krantzberg and Houghton

TABLE 4. Collingwood Harbour water quality data, receiving water summary statistics for 1989 to 1993.Values do not include inflows or the sewage treatment plant outfall.

E. coliAlkalinity Ch1orophy1 Chloride Turbidity Total P Kje1dah1 N Ammonia (counts/

year (mglL) (lJglL) (mglL) pH (FTU) (mglL) (mglL) (mg/L) 100 mL)

1989 89.4* 3.6 18.3 8.2 6.5 0.0165 0.28 0.036 166.8** 2.6 30.1 0.1 2.7 0.0084 0.20 0.117 43

47*** 134 11 47 47 172 193 164 179

1990 82.2 3.2 7.3 8.2 4.7 0.0186 0.26 0.025 311.4 2.0 0.1 0.1 3.7 0.0109 0.08 0.023 68

18 129 1 18 129 151 163 134 164

1991 83.4 3.6 10.2 8.1 7.3 0.0161 0.28 0.032 111.8 2.5 0 0.1 2.0 0.0082 0.08 0.029 173 87 1 3 8 85 91 87 91

1992 78.8 2.4 6.5 8.2 3.5 0.0173 0.27 0.023 141.3 2.3 0.9 0.1 2.9 0.0124 0.10 0.026 199 65 5 9 9 63 65 65 70

1993 103.8 1.7 8.2 6.2 0.0204 0.32 0.053 5225.5 1.2 0.1 5.8 0.0294 0.14 0.052 214 90 4 4 100 100 100 100

* mean; ** standard deviation; *** sample size

5

19931992199119901989o

Phosphorus (ug/L)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

00 coOl Ol~

o a

20

15

P LOADS (kg/year)30

10

25

FIG. 8. Total loading ofphosphorus dischargedannually to Collingwood Harbour from theCollingwood Sewage Treatment Plant.

FIG. 9. Concentrations of total phosphorus ineffluent from the Collingwood Sewage TreatmentPlant.

The Cleanup ofCollingwood Harbour, Georgian Bay 479

Enhanced phosphorus (P) removal at the STP hasbeen achieved by multi-point chemical (alum) addi­tion, automated alum dosage control, and raw andbiological solids inventory control through com­puter-assisted operation. Automation of the chemi­cal feed system to pace the rate of chemicaladdition based on the P loading to the plant was ap­proached by the use of on-line P analyzers in con­junction with automatic pump control. Dual-pointchemical addition was investigated by implement­ing alum addition to the primary clarifiers in con­junction with the current practice of adding alum tothe secondary portion of the plant (CH2M HILL1994). Based on the success of these approaches, itis probable that the cost of expanding to tertiary fil­tration at the plant can be avoided. Data indicatethat the Collingwood STP is capable of high effi­ciency P removal, and low effluent P concentra­tions. Partners in the innovative application oftechnology are the Town of Collingwood, MOEE,and Environment Canada

To complement the optimization program, two in­centives were used in Collingwood to reduce waterconsumption, one economic and the other environ­mental. The economic incentive consisted of an in­crease in the unit cost of water, making use of theCollingwood Public Utilities Commission water­metering system. Applying the user pay principle towater should encourage conservation initiatives byresidential, commercial, and industrial users.Process changes at industry that result in water con­servation and reuse could significantly decreasewater consumption and hydraulic load to the STP.

The second incentive involves a public educationprogram to encourage the use in the household ofsuch items as water-saving shower heads, faucet aer­ators, and toilet dams. The education program con­centrates on the benefits of reduced waterconsumption to both the environment and the do­mestic budget, and is being expanded through a pro­ject locally referred to as the Greening ofCollingwood. A 30% reduction in per capita resi­dential use has been documented since 1990(Houghton, pers. observation).

Algal growth does not impair the commercialuses for the harbor as determined by the Public Ad­visory Committee, and no longer detracts from aes­thetics in the harbor, or the use of the harbor as avenue for sightseeing and the operation of charters.Decreases in nutrient concentrations support thedesignated recreational uses for the harbor, fishingand boating in particular. The Environment Net-

work of Collingwood, the RAP's storefront opera­tion, began The Greening of Collingwood in 1994,to aid in modifying the behavior of individuals.This multi-media pollution prevention program ismoving away from "end-of-the-pipe" controls tomitigate the effects of pollution, with an emphasison educating the community on environmentally re­sponsible activities.

Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat

To rectify historical loss of habitat through shore­line development, additional littoral shoreline wasto be provided, and was recommended in conjunc­tion with all future harbor development. The exist­ing 96.4 hectares of the Collingwood WetlandComplex has been zoned "environmental protec­tion." In co-operation with the Town of Colling­wood, further destruction of wetlands and/ordevelopmental invasion of wetlands was ap­proached through zoning and incorporation of RAPprincipals into the official plan (CDSS 1994). Thepreservation of wetlands contributes to sustainingfish and wildlife populations within the harbor area,which is one of the Public Advisory Committee'sgoals. Preserved wetlands also ensure that the har­bor can continue to be used as a recreational areafor fishing and nature observation. While the exist­ing wetland provides a niche for resident flora andfauna, the purple loosestrife infestation is eliminat­ing habitat. A control program was instituted in1992 to rehabilitate the wetland.

Collingwood Harbour is a modified warmwaterhabitat attached to a large oligotrophic coldwaterhabitat (Nottawasaga Bay). Fish species residing inthe harbor include smallmouth bass, walleye, north­ern pike, yellow perch, rock bass, pumpkinseed sun­fish, white sucker, redhorse sucker, common carp,and a variety of other cyprinid species. Coldwaterspecies such as rainbow trout, lake trout backcross,brown trout, chinook salmon, rainbow smelt, andalewife also are found seasonally in CollingwoodHarbour during the cold-weather months. Rainbowtrout and chinook salmon which spawn in BlackAsh Creek also use Collingwood Harbour as a mi­gration route from Nottawasaga Bay.

Remediation and rehabilitation measures havebeen ongoing within the harbor since 1991. Effortshave been focused on the reduction of siltation forthe reestablishment of spawning beds concurrentwith the provision of riparian vegetation forwildlife species. The majority of the work has been

480 Krantzberg and Houghton

undertaken in the watershed's major tributary,Black Ash Creek, to reduce erosion that causes sil­tation. Over 5 km of stream and shoreline habitathave benefited from the rehabilitation projects, withan estimated 20 hectares of additional wetland habi­tat rehabilitated. Approximately 80 in-water sub­strates have been installed. Bass spawning boxeswere installed adjacent to boulders placed in theharbor to provide cover, and resting habitat forwater fowl. Christmas tree reefs were constructedby imbedding used tree bases into concrete foot­ings, and submersing linked chains of trees to in­crease bottom diversity. Carp exclosures were built,encompassing planting of native wetland species, asan experimental attempt to reestablish habitat dam­aged by carp foraging actions (Figs. 10, 11).

Habitat improvements on Black Ash Creek wereprincipally directed at providing spawning andearly rearing habitat for migratory rainbow trout.Banks were stabilized through a combination oftechniques, including revegetating riparian zones,rock rubble placement, root wad placement, bankregrading, and construction of vortex weirs to di­vert the main current flow away from unstablebanks. In combination, the improvements are reduc­ing nutrient and suspended sediment load in streamand into the harbor. Provision of coldwater habitathas enhanced rainbow trout populations and pro-

vided migratory rainbow trout spawning and rear­ing habitat.

The most effective techniques included selectiveinstream debris removal, installation of lateral sedi­ment trapslbrush bundles, rock placement and bio­engineering, baseflow channel narrowing, poolenhancement, early rearing cover construction,overhead cover construction, riffle construction,spawning habitat enhancement, and grade controlstructure placement (Fig. 12).

Partners in habitat rehabilitation include Environ­ment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Re­sources, the Ontario Ministry of Environment andEnergy, the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Au­thority, Collingwood Rotary Club, CollingwoodCollegiate Institute, Georgian Triangle Anglers As­sociation, Collingwood Senior League EndowmentSociety, Collingwood Naturalists Club, Landownersin the Black Ash Creek Watershed, Shell Fund,Georgian College, Collingwood Community Liv­ing, and the Salvation Army Intermittent Employ­ment Program.

Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations

Since Collingwood Harbour is a mesotrophicwarmwater habitat linked to the large, oligotrophic,cool/coldwater habitat of Georgian Bay, the popula-

Whites 8ay

Georgian Bay

N

16. - tree reef

• - osprey platform

."I' - tree planting

• - carp exc:losure

'3IL - new wetland area

- - coast guard approved area

.... - pike spawning channel

FIG. 10. Collingwood Harbour habitat enhancement projects.

The Cleanup ofCollingwood Harbour, Georgian Bay 481

Christmas Tree Reel Oeslg l \

,BUOY Marke"

-=_ -:F-·--":-_~o.m-.---==L·--=",=_.LI~_,::::"""""Depth 01 IIII v,rt•• from 1.4m • 2.1

adult fish populations which have a low susceptibil­ity to predation. With the abundant carp populationsin the harbor and adjacent nearshore zones, predatorbiomass and numbers can be limited. The health ofthe harbor ecosystem has been evaluated bearing inmind these site specific circumstances.

The RAP objective was to rehabilitate the fishand wildlife communities such that they would becomparable to those observed in similar habitatsoutside the harbor. For fish, the target was thatspecies be representative of a mesotrophic environ­ment, containing pike, bass, yellow perch, and wall­eye. The composition was 5%-10% predators bynumber or 30-40% by biomass, and 90-95% bot­tom feeders by number or 60-70% by biomass.

Collis and Proud (1993) and Collis (1995) de­tailed the fish and wildlife survey results. With theexception of carp, brassy minnow, and gizzard shadthe species captured within the harbor (Table 5)were indicative of mesotrophic conditions (Scottand Crossman 1973).

The Black Ash Creek Project Fish CommunityMonitoring Program indicated a significant increase(p < 0.05) in the number of young-of-the-year rain­bow trout, common shiner, and white sucker be­tween 1992 and 1994, following streamrehabilitation. No significant increases in fish popu­lation size were observed at the reference site(Krantzberg et ai. 1995). A volunteer wildlife mon­itoring network was established in 1994, with databeing collected on amphibians, reptiles, and marshbirds, according to the protocols of the CanadianWildlife Service (Environment Canada 1995).

I!m'ullnl VlgllaUon.

.::::::===:=." .....-----

Wlter depthl b,twI'P 1.3 - O.lm (1"1 Pllum).

llouldllLflllCllmllnt.frolllCt

. :. ,.:",..:., :.:.. :..~,,:....;.:.r :. .'6 :::. -. .' .... : " ............ ",t ..u"I '"'.,II"' _~ . • . "'_"'" Ck ,.•.

Um..tonl boulder 1 • 2m In die.

...e-

FIG. 11. Details ofCollingwood Harbour habitatenhancement projects, highlighting the ChristmasTree Reefs and Boulder Placement projects.

CONCLUSION

tion sizes of alewife, walleye, yellow perch, rain­bow trout, and other transient species are dependanton conditions and phenomena associated with theGeorgian Bay ecosystem. In order to effectivelyevaluate changes in Collingwood Harbour associ­ated with local environmental quality and habitatimprovement, the RAP focused on species whichare dependent on the harbor and its watershed dur­ing most of their lifecycle.

In an environment containing only native species,bottom feeders may be readily consumed by preda­tors, and therefore assimilated into the upper levelsof the food web. Common carp represent a bottle­neck in the normal food web in that they can con­sume and assimilate a tremendous amount ofproductivity in the system and convert it into large

As a result of the community's commitment tothe RAP, environmental quality has improved dra­matically over the last 5 years. All the "delisting,"or clean-up targets recommended in the Stage 2 and3 Reports have either been met or exceeded. As aconsequence, Collingwood Harbour no longer hasthe attributes of an Area of Concern, and as of N0­

vember 1994, was the first in North America to bedelisted.

The ongoing challenge is to unite the communityin a long-term plan that will enable the harbor andits watershed to support a diversity of uses whilemaintaining a diversity of life. The mission is to en­sure that individual actions are compatible with therehabilitation of the harbor ecosystem.

Environment and economy must be integrated.Land use and resource management must be coordi-

482 Krantzberg and Houghton

CRIBWALL CONSTRUCTION - BRUSHLAYER DETAIL- TYPICAL SECTION

FACE VIEW OF CRIBWALL

cr~_ - -~I __ u: '~'rI c• .-,.. \

fI

II_..,

-----

Notes· Fint •• lot 1& IlIftM on 0 I.,., (I0mwtNctJ .......

CUl'tll'lt..

enDw.lI I. buitt 1.....1• .-hh bono", Cit or ..to.... Of

_-.nit••.

InnNapws ",.eo Oft .. I'· 0""'. Iftun .to.... Mea of

••COlIIItlofli.

TNQftH. of "'I. &InaNe,.,. ft on dII 01----..Sh",D -.iIaow1 ' .. 3.,..... 11_ ll'l ..,.••

~.. otttoftOlll"'~ .. 1.30"'.5..-._...,.. ..Nt Dell 300 n.illH'"'efh tw............ "-.....

......., , c•••y.c-...... •• ,....inaM...

Fill COftIida ., IHWWnt m••riel.

...... Totl 2: btustl...,... fwtIiact Wltlt 7"'7"7 Uz••

UP.,....."" of en " ret1InMd into ..

!II~ sOlI ..., .ittt. 00" ...,..

~ .... Anti- WIll .. Goolu'.'

TYPICAL SECTION

"!! •

aACK ASH ClfaK ~~t:T

.lOncHIIlCAL SLDI'C~

.,.,.~ ""1fTY10TH ... flOn.M

MAIIW ..,. ". IM'I&.LJMJ"D

FIG. 12. Bioengineered cribwall design (brushlayer detail) used forstream bank stabilization on Black Ash Creek in 1993.

TABLE 5. Fish species present in Collingwood Harbour.

Scientific Name

Alosa pseudoharengusAmbloplites rupestrisAmia calvaCatostomus catostomusCatostomus commersoniCyprinus carpioDorosoma cepedianumEsox luciusEtheostoma nigrumFundulus diaphanusGasterosteus aculeatusHybognathus hankinsonilctalurus nebulosusLepisosteus osseusLepomis gibbosusLepomis macrochirusLota lotaMicropterus dolomieuiMorone americana

Common Name

alewiferockbassbowfinlongnose suckercommon white suckercarpgizzard shadnorthern pikejohnny darterbanded killifishthree spine sticklebackbrassy minnowbrown bullheadlongnose garpumpkinseedbluegillburbotsmallmouth basswhite perch

Scientific Name

Moxostoma macrolepidotumNotemigonus crysoleucasNotropis atherinoidesNotropis cornutusNotropis hudsoniusNotropis volucellusOncorhynchus tshawytschaOsmerus mordaxPerca flavescensPercopis omiscomaycusPimephales notatusProsopium cylindraceumOncorhynchus mykissSalvelinus namaycushSalvelinus namaycush

(Salvelinus namaycush X

Salvelinus fontinalis)Semotilus atromaculatusStizostedion vitreum

Common Name

shorthead redhorsegolden shineremerald shinercommon shinerspottail shinermimic shinerchinook salmonrainbow smeltyellow perchtrout perchbluntnose minnowround white fishrainbow troutlake trout

lake trout backcrosscreek chubyellow pickerel

The Cleanup ofCollingwood Harbour, Georgian Bay 483

nated, and local decision-making capacity must beenhanced through the RAP process to affirm suc­cess. The Collingwood Harbour RAP has broughttogether community leaders, and assisted in forginglinkages among fragmented and diverse interestswithin the community. Only with the continueddedication of the local community, assisted by theefforts of the Environment Network, will Colling­wood Harbour sustain a hard earned recovery.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Throughout this discussion, we have attempted toacknowledge the many partners in the RAP andtheir critical contribution to its success. Particularthanks go to the current and former mayors of theTown of Collingwood for their unwavering supportand participation. We salute the members of thePublic Advisory Committee who volunteered theirtime over 7 years to advance the harbor's improve­ment and that of the watershed. We thank MichealD' Andrea, Alex Smith, and Rimi Kalinauskas, theRAP Team members, for their expert advice andtremedous enthusiasm.

REFERENCESBell, A. 1994. Non-human nature and the ecosystem

approach. Alternatives 20:20-25.CDSS 1994. Collingwood Harbour: Planning for the

Future. Report of the Coastline Development andSustainability Subcommittee to the CollingwoodTown Council. RAP Environment Network, Colling­wood, Ontario.

CH2M HILL. 1994. Optimization ofphosphorus removalefficiency at the Collingwood water pollution controlplant. Technical Memorandum. Unpublished Report.

CHAT 1994. The Collingwood Harbour RAP Stage 3Document, Right on Target. Collingwood HarbourAction Team, Ontario Ministry of Environment andEnergy, Toronto, Ontario.

Collingwood Harbour RAP. 1992. Stage 2 Document.Prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Environment andEnergy, Toronto, Ontario; Environment Canada, Min­istry of Natural Resources, and the Collingwood Har­bour Public Advisory Committee.

Collis, J. 1995. The 1994 Collingwood Harbour fish andwildlife monitoring report. Prepared for the Colling­wood Harbour RAP, MOEE, Toronto, Ontario.)

____, and Proud, 1. 1994. Collingwood HarbourHabitat Assessment and Fish 1nventory. Environmen­tal Status Report for the Collingwood Harbour RAP,MOEE, Toronto, Ontario.

Dobbs, F., and Grillmayer, R. 1994. Black Ash CreekRehabilitation Project, Implementation Report.

Gore and Storrie Ltd. 1991. Collingwood Harbour Mod-

elling. Report to the Ontario Ministry of Environment,Water Resources Branch, Toronto, Ontario.

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. 1987. Revisionof the of the 1978 GLWQA between United Statesand Canada signed at Ottawa November 22 1978 andamended by Protocol signed November 18, 1987.

Hartig, J.H., Law, N.L., Epstein, D., Fuller, K., Letter­hos, J., and Krantzberg, G. 1995. Capacity-buildingfor restoring degraded areas in the Great lakes. Int. J.Sustain. Dev. World Eco!. 2:1-10

HSP Inc. 1993. Demonstration of Pneuma dredgingtechnology at Collingwood Harbour, Ontario. Reportto Environment Canada, Contaminated SedimentRemoval Program, Toronto, Ontario. Project No.1560.

Krantzberg, G. 1995. Using the burden of evidence forsediment management. In The Lake Huron Ecosys­

.tern: Ecology, Fisheries and Management, ed. M.Munawar, T. Edsall, and J. Leach, pp. 365-395. Eco­vision World Monograph Series, S.P.B. AcademicPublishing, The Netherlands.

___, Grillmayer, R., and Dobbs, F. 1995. A Bio­engineering approach to stream rehabilitation andHabitat Creation, Black Ash Creek, Collingwood,Ontario. Proceedings of a National Symposium onUsing Ecosystem Rehabilitation To Meet Clean WaterAct Goals. Pp. 147-158.

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE)1995. Water Management - Policies, Guidelines, andProvincial Water Quality Objectives of the Ministryof the Environment. MOEE publication, Toronto,Ontario. ISBN 0-7778-3494-4

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy/OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources. 1995. Guide to EatingOntario Sport Fish.

Painter, S. 1992. Regional Variability in Sediment Back­ground Metal Concentrations and the Ontario Sedi­ment Quality Guidelines. National Water ResearchInstitute Report, Burlington, Ontario.

Persaud, D., Jaagumagi, R., and Hayton, A. 1992. Guide­lines for the protection and management of aquaticsediment quality in Ontario. Report of the OntarioMinistry of the Environment.

Reynoldson, T.B., Day, K.E., and Norris, R.H. 1994.Methods for establishing biologically based sedimentquality guidelines for freshwater quality managementusing Benthic Assessment of Sediment (the BEAST).Aust. J. Ecology pp. 198-219.

Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Water­front. 1992. Regeneration: Toronto's Waterfront andthe Sustainable City: Final Report.

Scott, W.B., and Crossman, E.J. 1973. FreshwaterFishes of Canada. Bulletin 184, Fisheries ResearchBoard of Canada.

Submitted: 29 August 1995Accepted: 5 October 1995