aquatic environment literature review and action plan, april 2014

EBC: Aquatic Environment Action Plan | 2014

Page | 1

April 4, 2014

Aquatic Environment Literature Review

and Action Plan

Completed by EcoBasin Consultants


Page | 1

Portlands Energy Centre Literature Review and Aquatic Environment Action Plan

April 4, 2014

EcoBasin Consultants

Katarzyna Czajkowski*, Kimberly Farias*, Rebecca Fyfe*, Kellsy Garrett*, Peter O’Connell*, Pascal Tuarze*

Presented to: The Portlands Energy Centre

and Dr. Shelley Hunt*

* School of Environmental Science, University of Guelph, Ontario


Page | 2

EcoBasin Consultants 50 Stone Rd E Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 To: Curtis Mahoney To: Leslie Hetherington General Manager Communications Director Portland’s Energy Centre Hardy Stevenson and Associates Ltd 470 Unwin Avenue 364 Davenport Road Toronto, ON M4M 3B9 Toronto, ON M5R 1K6 April 4, 2014

Dear Curtis Mahoney & Leslie Hetherington,

On behalf of EcoBasin Consultants (EBC), we present to you the commissioned report entitled Portlands Energy Centre Literature Review and Aquatic Environment Action Plan.

The report outlines our research into the PEC’s main aquatic concerns: E. coli, zebra mussels, fish diversity and habitat, and water quality. The material provided on each topic summarizes important background information, the current state in the waters surrounding the PEC, and viable management/rehabilitation ideas. A number of interviews were conducted with related organizations; summaries of these are included. Along with the information from the literature review and interviews, the report contains an innovative action plan outlining steps the PEC can take to improve the aquatic ecology in the shipping channel, turning basin and outer harbour. The action plan aims to provide the PEC with numerous actions that can be applied to enhance the status of the ecosystem while maintaining the industrial use of the waterways.

EcoBasin Consultants would like to thank you for the opportunity you have provided us and we hope that the information and ideas contained in this report will help the PEC reach their ecological sustainability goals.

Sincerely,

EcoBasin Consultant Group School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph Katarzyna Czajkowski, Environmental Geography Kimberly Farias, Environmental Biology Rebecca Fyfe, Earth and Atmospheric Science Kellsy Garrett, Environmental Geography Peter O’Connell, Environmental Biology Pascal Tuarze, Natural Resource Management


Page | 3

Acknowledgements

We would like to convey our thanks to Curtis Mahoney of the Portlands Energy Centre, Leslie Hetherington of Hardy Stevenson and Associates Ltd., and Shelley Hunt of the University of Guelph’s School of Environmental Sciences for their guidance throughout the duration of this project. Also, a special thank you to those who took the time to meet with us and answer our questions: Rick Portiss and Danny Moro at the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Don Forbes at the Toronto Port Lands Company, Mike Riehl at the Toronto Port Authority, Robert Eakins at EcoMetrix Incorporated, and Bill Snodgrass at Aquatic Habitat Toronto.


Page | 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 5 1.0 Introduction 6 2.0 Goals and Objectives 8 3.0 Methods and Materials 8 4.0 Literature Review

4.1 E. coli 10 4.2 Zebra Mussels 13 4.3 Fish and their Habitat 17 4.4 Water Quality 24

5.0 Interview Summaries 5.1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 34 5.2 Toronto Port Lands Company 35 5.3 Toronto Port Authority 36 5.4 EcoMetrix Incorporated 36 5.5 Aquatic Habitat Toronto 37

6.0 Proposed Action Plan for the PEC 6.1 E. Coli 39 6.2 Zebra Mussels 41 6.3 Fish and Habitat Diversity 43 6.4 Water Quality 45 7.0 Conclusion 48 References 49 Appendices Appendix A – Action Plan Flow-Chart 55 Appendix B – Target Fish Species for Rehabilitation 56 TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: Literature Review Search Terms 9 Figure 1: Tommy Thompson Park 19 Figure 2: Iron-enhanced Sand Filter Phosphate Removal 29 Figure 3: Don River Mouth Naturalization Conceptual Model 32


Page | 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Acting within the guidelines of the Ecological Sustainability Strategy set out by the

Portlands Energy Centre (PEC) in 2010, our goal as a student consulting group from the

University of Guelph, Ontario and acting herein as EcoBasin Consultants, is to create a

successful aquatic action plan by analyzing research from an extensive literature review. The

PEC has contracted our group to assess the following threats to the City of Toronto, Ontario

harbour area: E. coli contamination, Zebra Mussels invasiveness, a decrease in aquatic habitat

and species biodiversity, and water quality decrease from sewage and stormwater overflow

inputs. This report will present a formal literature review, followed by a discussion of final ideas

for tackling the aforementioned threats to the Shipping Channel, Turning Basin and (if possible)

the Outer Harbour, all of which are in the immediate proximity of the PEC facility. The presence

of E. coli is of particular concern with respect to water quality due to its indication of fecal

contamination of water (Van Elsas, 2011), and therefore the monitoring and control of E. coli in

public drinking and recreational water is extremely important. Our group analysed the

effectiveness of chlorination for the eradication of E. coli populations, and considered a few

other alternatives including the natural eradication of E.coli through an increase in water

quality. Our report goes on to evaluate bacterial strains such as Pseudomonas fluorescens (Pf CL145A) for their known ability to eradicate zebra and quagga mussels. Zebra mussels,

particularly, are a well-established invasive species causing detrimental ecological and

economic effects throughout much of the Great Lakes. Their rapid population increases have

posed a serious problem for the function of the PEC facility. We evaluated methods for mussel

eradication physically, chemically, and in response to a cumulative increase in water quality.

With respect to habitat, clear objectives, measurable variables and assessment plans for the

rehabilitation of native aquatic species have been identified and evaluated specifically, each for

their applicability in the Shipping Channel and Turning Basin. To ensure that actions suggested

in this report will have a viable long-term effect on habitat and species diversity, we also

assessed the typical amount of monitoring of the restoration practices that is crucial to the

success of the aquatic rehabilitation. Finally, typical sewage and stormwater overflow

contaminant parameters were assessed. Untreated or semi-treated urban drainage is one of the

largest factors in the degradation of the Toronto harbour area, and current infrastructure

developments in the City will only increase the water quality in the near future by a finite

amount. Our report outlines additional remediative measures available to the PEC that will help

to meet their ecological sustainability goals in waters adjacent to the PEC, and throughout the

harbour. The recommendations founded in this literature review and aquatic action plan should

act as a framework for the incremental improvement of the aquatic ecosystems surrounding the

PEC. The action plan was crafted based on both the assessed literature in this report and


Page | 6

interviews with invested parties. In conclusion, our action plan takes into account the

approximate scale at which the PEC would be able to conduct any aquatic remediation, the

viability of all options, and suggestions for communication with other invested parties with

whom the PEC may find success in the future. 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Portlands Energy Centre (PEC) is a combined cycle natural gas power plant owned by Ontario Power Generation Inc. and TransCanada Energy Ltd. The centre is located on the Toronto harbour and generates a net 550 megawatts of electricity. The PEC has developed an Ecological Sustainability Strategy, which focuses on improving the ecosystems surrounding the plant, and lessening the environmental impacts of the facility. This report will summarize research into the PECs aquatic environmental concerns (E. coli, zebra mussels, fish habitat and water quality) and outline steps that can be taken to regenerate and mitigate the plant’s impact on the aquatic environment in the Shipping Channel and Outer Harbour. Presently, the PEC has a variety of land, air and water initiatives that are integral in their Ecological Sustainability Strategy. The aquatic initiatives include an E. coli reduction and monitoring program, and the implementation of a water intake that minimizes the risk to fish.

The portion of the waterfront where the PEC is located has been extensively modified over the past 200 years to become what it is today (Royal Commission on the Future of Toronto Waterfront, 1992). Between 1889 and 1910 many plans to reclaim and develop the Ashbridges Bay area, containing 1300 acres of land, marsh and water lots, were developed (Desfor, 1988). The marshes, once a natural area with a high diversity of migratory birds and other wildlife were being used to dump sewage and other wastes and had become highly polluted and a public health concern. There were many suggestions on developing the site, focused around the idea of reclaiming the land for industry and maintaining public ownership. Toronto was achieving substantial industrial growth and a growing population; developing the waterfront could reduce transportation costs of industry and deal with the health concerns of the polluted marsh (Desfor, 1988). The Toronto Harbour Commission (THC) formed in 1911 was responsible for port and harbour management as well as development in the area. A plan was drafted in 1912 to infill the area to create land for industry, and this was the largest engineering project on the continent being undertaken at the time. By the 1930s, 1000 acres of land had been infilled for industry, in addition to 340 for parkland, and the mouth of the Don River had been greatly altered (Desfor, 1988). The fill material was composed mostly out of sediment dredged from the Inner Harbour, but also included construction debris, excavated soil, municipal garbage, sewage sludge and incinerator refuse (Royal Commission on the Future of Toronto Waterfront, 1992). The materials


Page | 7

used in addition to years of heavy industrial use created contaminated brownfields which are now being reclaimed. The Toronto Water Revitalization Corporation, now Waterfront Toronto was created in 2001 by the Toronto Municipal and Canadian Federal governments to oversee the redevelopment and renewal of the waterfront area. The PEC’s aquatic restoration efforts can be additive to the many ongoing and planned projects to enhance the waterfront environment. The actions suggested in this document take a holistic, sustainable approach to improving aquatic ecology in the area.

Many cases of ecosystem-based management (EBM) exist on both large and small scales, of which most are based on general targets leading to confusion in management goals and failure (Arkema et al., 2006). The key to developing integrative ecological restoration is in properly addressing the main concerns within the system. Generally speaking, our interests will encompass the geographic area of the Shipping Channel and Turning Basin, the interspecific interactions between introduced species and their potential environment, and the neutralization of anthropogenic disturbances (Geist, 2011). These are the main drivers that govern the potential rehabilitation of this specific system (Geist, 2011). Here we have targeted specific management criteria and site plans to correctly address the concerns facing the PEC. It should be noted that due to the challenges of forecasting outcomes in ecological systems monitoring, adaptive management plans are necessary to address unpredictable situations (Arkema et al., 2006). The most comprehensive concept in environmental management is sustainability, which can be divided into the three following components: environmental protection, economic growth and social equity (Vugteveen et al., 2006). To ensure long term sustainable management plans, incentives need to exist for society. In this case, benefits of biodiversity and improved water quality should provide those positive social and economic incentives from continued use of the shipping facilities.

An ecosystem approach has been articulated in the updated Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (International Joint Commission, 2012). This agreement has provided lake-wide holistic frameworks for more sustainable planning, research and management since 1978, when it was first established. The amelioration of a small-scale Shipping Channel and Turning Basin ecosystem would be a non-binding extension to this federally encompassing agreement, addressing both the immediate interests as well as the long-term sustainability of the PEC and surrounding parties. As directed by the PEC we have collected, analysed and provided cost-effective solutions for health concerns with regards to the biological, chemical and physical stressor inputs in the interest of efficiency and sustainability (Vugteveen et al., 2006). Environmental health is a very ambiguous term in this context, and replacing it with environmental status will result in a better representation of its intended meaning (Arkema et al., 2006). The threats to the Shipping Channel and Turning Basin environmental status being


Page | 8

analysed are as follows: water pollution in the form of E. coli and contaminated sewage and stormwater inputs, habitat degradation causing fragmentation, invasion from exotic species, namely the zebra mussel, and flow modification from cold water intake and warm water outtake (Geist, 2011).

2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The main goal of this project is to provide the PEC with the information and ideas they need to improve the aquatic ecology within the Shipping Channel, the Turning Basin and the Outer Harbour. Through reviewing literature, and PEC’s available documents, a number of best practices for improving aquatic ecology have been identified and reported. The research focuses on key issues affecting aquatic health as identified by the PEC and by our group, which include: the presence of E coli and zebra mussels, the degradation of fish habitat, and the inflow of sewage and stormwater contaminants. Similar projects have also been reviewed to examine the application and success of many remedial actions. In addition, interviews with stakeholders have assisted in identifying actions that can be taken and those where collaboration may take place. An action plan containing ‘quick-wins’, short, medium and long term actions has also been provided. We understand that the Shipping Channel and Turning Basin have numerous industrial uses; the actions suggested focus on improving aquatic health without disrupting the numerous industries that rely on this infrastructure.

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Considering the outlined objectives, areas of focus were isolated for research; E. coli, zebra mussels, fish populations and ecology, and sewage and stormwater contamination (or water quality). The documents provided by the PEC were reviewed and information from these documents was used to identify search terms for analyzing the primary literature (see Table 1). Articles were sorted based on their content, relevance, and quality. Peer-reviewed articles held the most importance and were included in the literature review process to a far higher degree. Information about the current state of E. coli contamination, zebra mussel populations, fish habitat and diversity, and water quality in the Portlands area were assembled and from these, applicable remediation techniques could be identified from the literature.

In addition to analyzing literature, a number of interviews with the companies and governing bodies surrounding the PEC were conducted. We contacted and conducted interviews with representatives from EcoMetrix Inc., the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority


Page | 9

(TRCA), the Toronto Port Lands Company (TPLC), and the Toronto Port Authority (TPA). After outlining the PEC’s project objectives, we inquired about the individual organizations’ views on aquatic health. We also asked if the organizations had conducted any projects in the past, or had any ongoing or future plans regarding aquatic systems in the area, or an area with similar characteristics. After gaining an understanding of the views of the organizations, considering their ideas and integrating the information from our research, we formulated an action plan. The actions suggested are based on ecological principles and sustainability while taking into account the industrial uses of the area. We separated ‘quick-wins’, short-term, medium-term and long-term management actions into three respective categories: communication, monitoring and management. Table 1. Literature Review Search Terms

Research Area Search Terms

E. Coli Escherichia coli, gastroenteritis, Escherichia coli O157:H7, sodium hypochlorite, E. coli in environmental samples, Ontario Provincial Water Quality Objective

Fish Habitat Fish habitat restoration, armored shoreline restoration, adaptive management, embayment, connectivity. Optimal habitat for: northern pike, yellow perch, rainbow smelt, rainbow trout, and largemouth bass.

Zebra Mussels Zebra Mussel mitigation, Industrial Application of Zebra Mussel Removal, Zequanox, Pseudomonas fluorescens

Water Quality Toronto sewage and stormwater, Toronto Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant, sewage effluent remediation, stormwater overflow contamination, Don River Naturalization, constructed wetlands, green roof implementation, sand filters, dissolved oxygen, eutrophication


Page | 10

4.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

4.1 E.coli

Escherichia coli (E. coli) is a gram negative bacteria that colonizes the guts of animals. Most E. coli is non-pathogenic to humans, however there are also virulent strains (Van Elsas, 2011). One major group of pathogenic E. coli is VTEC (verotoxin producing E. coli) which produces a toxin similar to that of the pathogenic bacteria Shigella (shigatoxin) (Taylor, 2008). The presence of E. coli is of particular concern with respect to water quality due to its indication of fecal contamination of water (Van Elsas, 2011). Consumption of, or swimming in contaminated water can result in acute gastroenteritis (fever, abdominal cramps, and diarrhea) (Pennington, 2010). In the case of infection by certain pathogenic E. coli strains (O157: H7), fatality can occur (Pennington, 2010). Therefore the monitoring and control of E. coli in public drinking and recreational water is extremely important.

E. coli in the Inner and Outer Harbours

In accordance with the Amended Certificate of Approval for Industrial Sewage Works (C-of-A) issued by the Ministry of Environment (MOE), the PEC is responsible for an E. coli

control program (EcoMetrix Inc., 2011). The PEC is permitted to intake water from the Shipping Channel for the purpose of non-contact cooling and discharge it into the Outer Harbour on the stipulation that the transfer of E. coli contaminated water is minimized to the Outer Harbour, specifically Cherry Beach (EcoMetrix Inc., 2011). Cherry Beach is a nearby public beach for recreational water use. Cherry Beach exceeded the Ontario Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO) of 100 colony forming units (CFU) of E. coli. per 100ml of water on four days during the Beach Season (June 3rd-September 1st) in 2013 (Toronto Public Health, 2013).

Monitoring of E. coli levels at the Portlands Energy Center conducted by EcoMetrix Incorporated (EcoMetrix Inc., 2011) in 2011 found that instances of E.coli greater than 100 CFU/100ml were associated with rainfall events of 10mm or more. Significant increases in E.

coli were noted the day after rainfall began and remained elevated for up to 2 days (EcoMetrix Inc., 2011). Therefore it is believed that Combined Sewer Outflows (CSO) are the source of E.

coli spikes in the Toronto Portlands water. According to EcoMetrix Inc. (2011), there was no relationship between E. coli levels at the PEC discharge site and at Cherry Beach. In general, E.

coli levels were similar at intake and at discharge (36% of intake samples were greater than 100 CFU/100ml compared to 26% of discharge samples). A total of 94% of samples were below 100 CFU/100ml at Cherry Beach. It is estimated that the discharge channel would require a concentration of 3500 E.coli CFU/100 ml at maximum output (50 000m3/hr) in order to cause an


Page | 11

exceedance of the PWQO level at Cherry Beach (EcoMetrix Inc., 2011). Plume modeling has isolated the Don River by way of the Eastern Gap as the likely source of E. coli at Cherry Beach (EcoMetrix Inc., 2011). Therefore, current PEC practices are sufficient to mitigate any effect plant processes may have on E. coli concentrations at Cherry Beach.

EcoMetrix also analyzed the effectiveness of PEC’s hyper-chlorination procedure in response to a rainfall event greater than 10mm. Initial E.coli concentrations were as high as 4200 CFU before chlorination in this case (EcoMetrix Inc., 2011). Water was treated using a sodium hypochlorite pump. Once the pump was established, a steady concentration of 0.5mg/L it was allowed to run for approximately 8 hours. Water was de-chlorinated to less than 0.01 mg/L of residual chlorine before being released into the environment (EcoMetrix Inc., 2011). An 88% reduction in average E. coli concentrations was found from intake to discharge (EcoMetrix Inc., 2011). Chlorination was effective as E. coli disinfection, however residual E. coli levels ranged from 80 to 500 CFU/ 100ml, exceeding the PWQO limit of 100 CFU/ 100ml in some cases (EcoMetrix Inc., 2011).

Under current practices and environmental conditions the PEC does not contribute to E.

coli at Cherry Beach significantly. However, E. coli concentrations at the intake and discharge sites can be improved to adhere to the provincial guideline (PWQO).

It is expected that if the goal of an overall increase in aquatic biodiversity is achieved, E.

coli will decrease as a result of predation by other microfauna (Van Elsas, 2011). A study conducted by Korajkic et al. (2013) found that the presence of indigenous microfauna was the single most important determining factor of E. coli survival in aquatic environments when compared to factors of habitat, sunlight, and salt versus fresh water. Present microbiota include nematodes, protozoa, bacteria, fungi and others. Specifically, protozoa are the primary predators of E. coli (Van Elsas, 2011). Increased micro-biodiversity decreases E. coli population through increased predation by protozoa, as well as increased competition by other bacteria species. This response is supported by LaLiberte and Grimes (1982) who found that the number and growth rate of E. coli coliforms was greater in sterilized sediment compared to unsterilized sediment, following inoculation. Therefore, it is evident that micro-biodiversity helps control E. coli

populations in aquatic environments, and removal of this diversity via disinfection makes water more susceptible to E. coli population spikes.

Disinfection Methods

The current PEC disinfection method of sodium hypochlorite could have potential negative effects on aquatic biodiversity. The use of sodium hypochlorite results in the formation of chemical by-products known as trihalomethanes, which are toxic to humans and aquatic life


Page | 12

(Abdel-Wahab et al., 2010). Although de-chlorination of water by sodium bisulphite before discharge prevents toxicity associated with residual chlorine in the aquatic environment, it is not as effective at controlling disinfection by products. For example, Watson et al. (2012) found that following chlorination of wastewater effluents, de-chlorination was not able to reduce toxicity levels to those observed prior to chlorination. This supports that de-chlorination is not completely effective at mitigating disinfection by-products. Additionally, sodium hypochlorite can compromise membrane filtration detection. Coliforms aggregate, leading to an underestimation of E. coli concentrations (Arana et al., 1999). Given these potential disadvantages, alternative disinfection methods must be considered, taking into account possible effects on the aquatic environment.

Besides chlorine, the other two commonly used disinfection methods are ozonation and UV radiation. Ozone is an attractive disinfectant because of its ability to dissociate into oxygen and water (Gottschalk et al., 2010). This limits the persistent toxicity of the treatment to aquatic organisms. Another benefit of ozonation is that treatment (ozone gas) can be synthesized on site, which cuts down the need for transportation and storage of chemicals (AECOM, 2010). Ozone is often passed over as a disinfection method due to its short residence time in the water, therefore making it unable to supply persistent water disinfection as chlorine does (Gottschalk et al., 2010). However, for the purpose of treating intake cooling water before discharge, persistent disinfection is not required. Following chlorination, water is de-chlorinated to below non-detectable levels before being discharged into the outer harbour. Therefore the rapid decay of ozone is actually an advantage, given that the de-chlorination process would no longer be required. This reduces dissolved solids and increases total dissolved oxygen in the water (AECOM, 2010). On the other hand, ozonation is not without its flaws. Bromide is a chemical commonly present in water that when subject to ozonation can form bromate, a known carcinogen (Gottschalk et al., 2010). This side effect is often highlighted as a concern to worker safety. Similar to the production of trihalomethanes by chlorination, ozonation can result in the formation of disinfection by-products (e.g. aldehyde) toxic to the aquatic environment (AECOM, 2010). Finally, ozone has the highest energy cost of the three disinfection options (AECOM, 2010).

UV radiation is another alternative to sodium hypochlorite. Oxidation of bacteria by solar radiation is a process that already occurs naturally. Therefore this is a treatment that mimics natural processes and does not create by-products. Like ozone, UV can be produced on site and does not require de-chlorination (AECOM, 2010). UV also does not add any dissolved solids to the water and has the shortest contact time of all three technologies (AECOM, 2010). The main concern with UV radiation is cost. The Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Disinfection Study Report estimated that implementing a sodium hypochlorite/UV radiation


Page | 13

combination system would have a capital cost $30 million greater than that of a sodium hypochlorite system alone (AECOM, 2010). Additionally, energy usage was estimated to increase by 32% with the UV method at the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant (AECOM, 2010).

Despite the aforementioned environmental concerns associated with sodium hypochlorite (disinfection by-products), sodium hypochlorite remains the most feasible and commonly used disinfection method (AECOM, 2010). The safety concerns, energy requirements, and cost associated with ozone and UV radiation currently hinder the viability of these methods in large scale E. coli disinfection.

4.2 Zebra Mussels

Zebra mussels are a well-established invasive species causing detrimental ecological and economic effects throughout much of the Great Lakes. Ecologically, zebra mussels impact aquatic biodiversity by reducing food sources for native mussels, fish larvae, and zooplankton, while also changing water quality (Britton et al., 2010). Another burden that zebra mussels place on aquatic systems is that the amount of food which they consume becomes detrimental to other species and can result in the displacement of native (often threatened or endangered) and recreationally important sport fish (Britton et al., 2010). Zebra mussels are a nuisance due to their high reproductive capability and their ability to attach themselves to nearly all hard surfaces. Cracks, crevices, scaling in older pipes and flanges provide low-velocity refuges and allows for zebra mussel settlement to occur (Phillips et al., 2005). Zebra mussels also settle when water flow is reduced during generator down-time, since conditions become more conducive for attachment (Phillips et al., 2005). Dead zebra mussels tend to create infrastructure issues, as the dead mussels are able to corrode steel and cast iron pipelines which increase maintenance costs. The only way to resolve these issues is to remove the zebra mussels entirely from the Great Lakes. A starting point in terms of this project would be attempting to remove zebra mussels from the PEC plant and surrounding waters as a part of creating a sustainable aquatic ecosystem.

Eradication Methods

The issue of zebra mussel infestation is a growing problem in Central Ontario, and throughout the eastern and central parts of the United States (Phillips et al., 2005). Fossil-fuel, hydropower, and nuclear power plants all depend on lake and/or river water to cool their systems and keep the plants running (Phillips et al., 2005). Zebra mussels cause several issues for power-generation plants, as discussed above, and many facilities have tried different methods of removal. The type of removal used by a facility or organization depends on the extent of zebra mussel infestation. Eradication of zebra mussels is most desired, but in some case when that is


Page | 14

not possible, controlling the infestation is another viable option (Culver et al., 2013). By gaining control of an infestation, referring to reducing populations and maintaining them at the lowest level possible, economic and environmental effects will be minimized (Culver et al., 2013). The main categories of removal include: manual and mechanical, oxygen deprivation, and chemical applications.

Manual and mechanical removal of zebra mussels should be the first option when deciding on a removal type, as it has no effect on ecosystem health or productivity, human health, or any effects on other species in the area. This type of removal eliminates juvenile and adult mussels with the use of hand-held tools or machines (mechanical suction, hydroblasting), with the intention of reducing populations (Culver et al., 2013). Divers (whether hired or volunteers) will be needed when conducting manual removal of zebra mussels, along with hand-held tools (i.e., paint scrapers, screwdrivers, chisels and/or dull knives) (Culver et al.,

2013). Physically, removing the zebra mussels from their attached location does not guarantee death, for in favourable conditions the zebra mussels can re-attach themselves and continue producing larva (Culver et al., 2013). Collection bags will be needed in order to prevent re-establishment of the pest and for proper disposal (which may require a disposal permit); in the case of larger, condensed populations, a suction pump can be used to remove the detached mussels from the area (Culver et al., 2013). Lastly, hydroblasting (high-pressure water guns) can be used for detaching mussels from infrastructure, which is ideal for infestations within power plants. This method will not eradicate the mussels, only remove them. In order to guarantee eradication, water conditions need to harbour extremely low oxygen levels (dissolved oxygen ≤ 2 mg/L), and these conditions need to be consistent for at least one month since these mussels will sink to the bottom (Culver et al., 2013). If these conditions cannot be met, but hydroblasting is the most feasible method, some form of suction pump should be used to collect the detached mussels from the area. These methods are ideal when zebra mussel concentrations are specifically located (Culver et al., 2013).

Oxygen deprivation is another method with minimal to no impacts on the aquatic ecosystem or human health. This method will deprive mussels of oxygen through the application of “tarps” (bottom/benthic mats or barriers), which are weighted down in order to keep them sealed (Culver et al., 2013). The oxygen depletion will kill off any pests trapped underneath (Culver et al., 2013). A minimum of one month of application is recommended, and in cases where faster results are required, chemicals or biocides can be applied underneath the tarps to speed the process (Culver et al., 2013). For optimum results, the area may need to be closed off since fast moving boats, water skiing, “wakeboarding” (and other water activities involving speed that affect water flow) can dislodge the tarps (Culver et al., 2013). This method of control or eradication is ideal for low to moderate, site-specific mussel infestations (Culver et al., 2013).


Page | 15

Chemical uses are applicable for facility infestations, as well as open water bodies, depending on the type of chemical to be used. Chlorinated chemicals are the most commonly used historically and still to this day, and recently biocides are becoming more commonly used due to their low amount of negative impacts on the aquatic ecosystems they are applied to. Within facilities, chemical applications are used successfully to control quagga and zebra mussels (such as DichlorMax, the active ingredient being sodium hypochlorite) (Culver et al.,

2013). Potassium chloride (KCl) has shown to be the only successful chemical used to eradicate mussels, while eliminating harm to other species within the water body (Culver et al., 2013). System-wide applications of KCl are typically used for dense and widespread mussel infestations, and other more benign tactics are no longer an option (Culver et al., 2013). Broad applications of KCl, or any type of chemical, work best when the open system has no, or very little, flow-through that would increase dissipation of the chemical (Culver et al., 2013). Chemical applications are not long-term control measures, as they are better suited for shorter-term eradication (Culver et al., 2013).

Biocides, more specifically Zequanox and binary mixtures, are a more recent development in treatment methods. The topic of binary mixtures is still very experimental but has high eradication results in controlled lab settings. In a study conducted by Costa et al. (2011), it was found that different concentrations of poly (diallyldimethyl ammonium chloride: polyDADMAC) and potassium ions (dosed as potassium chloride) have high mortality rates of veligers and adult mussels. The combination of these two chemicals is attractive for use by industries because it is licensed for dosing in potable water (polyDADMAC) as a coagulant and drinking water (potassium chloride) (Costa et al., 2011). Zequanox, on the other hand, is comprised of dead Pf CL145A cells (Pseudomonas fluorescens), which is a bacteria strain that effectively kills zebra and quagga mussels. The ingestion of these bacteria by the mussels, being filter-feeders, causes the epithelial lining of their stomachs to hemorrhage (Adams and Lee, 2012; Molloy et al., 2013). Pf CL145A is highly lethal to mussels but environmentally safe for other aquatic organisms (Molley et al., 2013). Pf CL145A has been tested in closed systems and is expected to be effective in eradicating zebra mussels in an open system as well (Adams and Lee, 2012). In order to achieve efficacy, Pf CL145A levels must be kept at about 25-50 ppm in the targeted area for 6-10 hours (Adams and Lee, 2012). Adams and Lee (2012) found that Pf CL145A attenuates naturally in the water, leaving no chemical mess to be removed. The product will remove itself from the environment naturally, returning the water to its natural state and leaving no negative impacts on the native species. Overall, Pf CL145A is natural and safe for the environment as well as other aquatic species. Binary mixtures still need some more studies conducted to see the effects it may possess on an aquatic ecosystem, but current results deem it to be promising (Costa et al., 2011).


Page | 16

Methods in Practice

Every type of treatment option is successful when implemented in ideal conditions. But which method of treatment to use will depend greatly on the level of infestation, and the local environment. Many facilities have tested out these methods with success and there are several examples of facilities which have applied one or more of these methods, which will be discussed below.

In the Tennessee River Basin, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) chose to treat for bio-fouling using Clamtrol (a biocide) and thermal control in their fossil-fuel plants (Phillips et

al., 2005). Clamtrol was used specifically to treat for bio-fouling of the raw water piping. The TVA rents out the thermal control equipment for roughly $50,000 - $70,000 USD per month; whereas purchasing the equipment would cost $200,000 - $300,000. For hydropower plants, the TVA removes zebra mussels, using a manual treatment, from conduits and coolers by using pipe-cleaning brushes and Teflon balls (Phillips et al., 2005). Manual treatments are now the main source of zebra mussel control due to the pests being found throughout the Tennessee Valley.

The Cumberland River Basin, Nashville District USACE, installed automated chlorine injection systems at two of their nine district hydropower plants in order to protect its raw water system from zebra mussel infestations (Phillips et al., 2005). The system is proven to be effective, but was never put to use due to zebra mussel infestation levels not reaching high enough nuisance levels.

In the Niagara River region, the Ontario Power Generation installed sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) control systems in the late 1980s (Phillips et al., 2005). The system is effective and has a high mortality rate for zebra mussels, but the plant needs durable piping (i.e. Kyna) since the original piping (made of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene: ABS) failed and it needed to be replaced. For OPG’s fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, the NaOCl system is applied seven days a week, for 24 hours a day through the months of May to November. The NaOCl system is able to achieve 100% termination of zebra mussels when applied at a concentration of 0.5-0.7ppm at temperatures above 20°C for three weeks (Phillips et al., 2005). OPG’s annual costs to maintain the system includes three technicians at $65/hr for four weeks (160hrs), which totals USD $31,200 (Phillips et al., 2005). The cost of installation depends on the size of the plant, where Sir Adam Beck (SAB) #1 (470 mw, 10 generators) would cost approximately USD $403,000 with an annual inflation of 3% (Phillips et al., 2005).

At Deep Quarry Lake, DuPage County, Illinois, Zequanox was applied to three control plots and three treatment plots to test its effectiveness at controlling zebra mussels in open water and a natural system. The study by Weber and Roberts (2012) found that treated sites had an


Page | 17

average mussel mortality of 97.1% in comparison to 11.2% mortality in the control plots. Twenty-four hours after application, there were no juvenile or fish mortality observed within treated plots (Weber and Roberts, 2012). Water quality monitoring was conducted before, during and after application, which indicated no lasting water quality impacts caused by Zequanox application plots (Weber and Roberts, 2012). As well, fish were found swimming in the treated barriers with no observed mortalities, 24 hours after application (Weber and Roberts, 2012).

Each of these systems were effective, but were all installed by large plants capable of a significant budget. Smaller scale systems may be more viable for the PEC plant, or some of the other treatment types discussed earlier. Of the four examples, Zequanox would be the best to follow through with due to the plant being open to Lake Ontario, a large open system water body. Unlike the other methods mentioned earlier, this product is applied to the water source, which eliminates the source of the issue before it can enter the plant. By decreasing or eliminating populations of zebra mussels, not only will the plant run more efficiently, but the surrounding waters will be able to sustain more native species. Zebra mussels selectively feed on green algae, outcompeting native species for this resource and leaving behind the foul-smelling blue-green algae (Britton et al., 2010). Removing the zebra mussels from the Shipping Channel and the waters of Lake Ontario surrounding the plant will allow for a more successful creation of a sustainable aquatic ecosystem in the Shipping Channel and the Outer Harbour.

Summary

The management of zebra mussel populations will either result in complete eradication of the species or a control on the lowest possible population level. In order to obtain one of these results, one or more of the treatments discussed will need to be applied and which one(s) will depends on the situation. The types of treatment include: manual and mechanical removal, oxygen deprivation, chemical applications, and specific biocide treatments (Zequanox and/or binary mixtures). There have been several successful implementations of these treatments, with the most current being Zequanox. This biocide will remove itself from the environment naturally, returning the water to its natural state and leaving no negative impacts. The functionality of Zequanox makes it the most desirable option, due to its ability to leave no trace (good or bad) in the aquatic system it was applied too.

4.3 Fish and Habitat Diversity

A report conducted by EcoMetrix (2011) for PEC on impingement and entrainment of fish gives a good indication of fish species currently located in the Shipping Channel. The majority of individuals collected in the experiment were Alewife, a Great Lakes invasive species


Page | 18

(EcoMetrix, 2011). Another report by PEC (n.d.) stated that the main fish species within the PEC aquatic area were alewife, carp and gizzard shad. These findings were consistent with Supporting Document 3 (2003). This section of the report will concern methods of attracting native species of fish to increase fish diversity in the embayments surrounding the PEC. Foley et al. (2010) proposed three interrelated principles to guide this type of marine spatial planning: native species diversity, habitat diversity and heterogeneity, as well as connectivity. Monitoring will ensure that these three important aspects remain in check.

Native Fish Species

The TRCA has reported a reduction in overall fish abundance, higher compositions of invasive species and a decrease in cool water species in embayments (Dietrich et al., 2008). Conversely, they reported increased diversity in embayments, a decline in non-native species and a recent increase in native species biomass (Dietrich et al., 2008). The overall goal of management of the fish communities is to protect, restore and diversify, with emphasis on self-sustaining the near-shore walleye, yellow perch, largemouth bass, northern pike, and the pelagic trout and salmon species (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2014).

Murphy et al., (2012) took samples of two warm water species (largemouth bass, pumpkinseed) and one cold water species (yellow perch) within the Tommy Thompson Park, Embayment C and Cell 2, and Trout Pond of the Toronto Harbor. A descriptive map of these areas can be seen on the following page, given by Fig. (1). All three species exist in metapopulations and are commonly found in the coastal embayments of the Great Lakes. Results indicate that cyprinids (yellow perch, largemouth bass and sunfish) represented 33% of present species, acting as the second most dominant group within the Toronto embayments, second only to catastomids (white sucker) at 41% (Dietrich et al., 2008).


Page | 19

Figure 1: Tommy Thompson Park.


Page | 20

In addition to yellow perch, pumpkinseed and largemouth bass, Aquatic Habitat Toronto (n.d.) and Casselman and Lewis (1996) have analysed northern pike. Results have shown increasing trends of abundance and biomass of northern pike. To maintain this trend, Casselman and Lewis (1996) suggest excluding carp to allow vegetation to grow, as is also a target of Aquatic Habitat Toronto (n.d.). Walleye have experienced the same increasing trend, and they provide a stabilized trophic structure through their role as a top predator, as they are also responsible for controlling the invasive alewife and round goby (Dietrich et al., 2008 and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2014).

Trout species in the Great Lakes went extinct in the 1970s due to overharvesting and poor lake conditions (Krueger and Ihssen, 1995). Due to this extinction, the Ministry of the Environment has been stocking the Great Lakes with trout species to increase populations (Ministry of Natural Resources, 2013). No natural recruitment of lake trout has occurred in the Great Lakes due to this stocking (Krueger et al., 1995). A study conducted by Krueger et al. (1995) studied the invasive species alewife, and its presence at Stoney Island Reef in Lake Ontario, as well as its impacts on trout populations. Results show that alewife feed on lake trout fry even if there is an abundance of other food sources. Alewifes are also known to feed at night, which corresponds with the emergent time of lake trout fry (Krueger et al., 1995). The emergence of lake trout fry also corresponds with alewife movement inshore, where water temperatures are higher (Kreuger et al., 1995). Alewife can also feed on fry of other species including whitefish and yellow perch (Kreuger et al., 1995). The study concluded by suggesting that alewife predation on lake trout fry causes a 100% mortality of emergent lake trout fry. Adult trout are responsible for balance with prey population and lower trophic levels (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2014).

Invasive species have forced major alterations to be made to aquatic communities. The implication of data and migration patterns for the PEC is that they cannot focus on the restoration of bay populations or even particular species alone. Maintaining fish populations can only be achieved through restoration of natural habitat diversity and connectivity, tailored to native species.

Habitat Diversity and Heterogeneity

Primarily, the Great Lakes support cold water fish, but that being said, sheltered coastal embayments are able to maintain warm water habitats containing higher available total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a and zooplankton (Hall et al., 2003). Approximately 75% of the Great Lakes fish species are known to use coastal embayments in at least one stage of their life cycle (Murphy et al., 2011). These aquatic habitats are unique as they are sheltered from the open lake, and within these habitats there is reduced water exchange resulting in warmer water


Page | 21

condition which attract and hold fish (Dietrich et al., 2008). Peichel (2001) reviewed a case study of coastal restoration on Lake Superior. Historically, Lake Superior has supported fish species including brook trout, walleye, and yellow perch. Project managers installed embayment structures, wood pilings, log mats and boulder piles to provide a diverse habitat for fish species (Peichel, 2001). Monitoring was conducted for a short time after project implementation, and the results showed an increase in abundance and diversity of fish populations. Specifically, there was an increase in the number of emigrating juvenile fish that survived in the area.

Thermal characteristics of these small embayments along the shoreline of Toronto act as the determinant factor in habitat suitability for the fish populations (Murphy et al., 2011). Bioenergetics of bluegill indicate that most of these embayments are too cold for adequate summer growth of sunfish (Murphy et al., 2011). Shallow embayments that have suitable exchange with the lake can provide acceptable warm water fish habitat (Murphy et al., 2011). Physical and chemical properties of coastal embayments are unique, as resident small inland lake fish species do not possess the same biological characteristics (Murphy et al., 2011).

Artificial reefs, rip-rap, steel piling or other structures where only sand is found can aid in yellow perch, bass and lake trout habitat creation (Jube and DeBoe, 1996). However, vegetation habitats are more important to most fish species than open waters (Jube and DeBoe, 1996). Casselman and Lewis (1996) also mention the use of both emergent and submergent vegetation to be optimal. Planting vegetation or adding woody debris can be successful for attracting many fish species (Chapman and Underwood, 2011). Shoreline vegetation can also encourage terrestrial insects to inhabit the area leading to a greater food source for fish (Toft et

al., 2013). Pander and Geist (2009) indicate that riparian or deadwood-textured habitats seem to attract the most diverse number of fish species. This deadwood provides areas for fish to hide, feed and spawn, and is successful for multiple species (Pander and Geist, 2011). For example, Olden and Jackson (2011) found that large amounts of woody vegetation contribute positively to yellow perch abundance. It should also be noted that the authors found the highest abundance of yellow perch at a depth of 1.5m. Vegetation and deadwood require constant management depending on the environmental conditions (Toft et al., 2013). This is because some vegetation can grow rapidly, having negative impacts on some fish species (Toft et al., 2013). Successfully grown riparian wood would lower the implementation costs, and buying deadwood is relatively cheap (Pander and Geist, 2011).

The suggested adult habitat for northern pike includes relatively shallow, clear and cool water (4m-12m in depth), as well as pondweed species at intermediate densities (30-70%) (Casselman and Lewis, 1996). Embryos are also sensitive to siltation that can occur due to excess wave action (Casselman and Lewis, 1996). Nursery habitat should consist of a larger habitat in relation to spawning habitat, dense cover, and a temperature of 22-23°C (Casselman


Page | 22

and Lewis, 1996). The most important variables listed for spawning habitat included vegetation hummocks of grasses and sedges in moderate density, water level depth of 10-70cm, and the successful connectivity of waterways (Casselman and Lewis, 1996).

Connectivity

The aquatic action plan requires a systems-based approach that considers biological linkages of coastal embayments. These linkages help to maintain the regional population and lower the probability of fish subpopulation extinction rates within embayments. Recent monitoring of fish species in the Inner and Outer Harbour have been conducted by Aquatic Habitat Toronto (2013). They were able to identify, tag and track northern pike, largemouth bass, common carp and walleye movements within the surrounding area (Aquatic Habitat Toronto, 2013).

Evidence is now beginning to clearly establish fish species movements among these embayments (Murphy et al., 2011). Pumpkinseed, largemouth bass and yellow perch sampling between 2007 and 2008 indicated that populations in Embayment C and Trout Pond had moved from the locations they had occupied the previous year (Murphy et al., 2012). Minns et al., (1996) estimated the ranges of adult largemouth bass, yellow perch and pumpkinseed to be 34,403 m2, 9173 m2 and 9048 m2, respectively. The embayments of the Toronto Harbor are well within these estimated ranges. Given the movements of these three fish species, it appears they are split into metapopulations. Connecting warm and cold water embayments allows pumpkinseed to travel freely between them and increases their resistance to climatic disparity (Murphy et al., 2011). Concentrating fish habitat rehabilitation and construction in areas with multiple embayments is a way of maintaining and improving habitat connectedness (Murphy et

al., 2011).

Connectivity not only refers to habitat but also flow of inputs into the system. The Tommy Thompson Park and Humber Bay Park were carefully designed to allow for hydraulic flushing to keep fish populations connected with those in the lake (Murphy et al., 2011). Connectivity of waterways between the embayments and lake is also emphasized by Toft et al. (2013) for other fish species, especially between the terrestrial and aquatic environments. Connectivity can also occur within a habitat to increase survival of a species. With respect to northern pike, hummocks should be dense enough to entrain northern pike eggs and suspend them above the bottom of the channel (Casselman and Lewis, 1996). Connectivity of cover allows for hiding as well as prey stalking, which will enhance survival (Casselman and Lewis, 1996).


Page | 23

Results of this literature review support that fish population dynamics, habitat diversity and connectivity are three interrelated components which make up a location’s ability to attract healthy fish populations. Monitoring will ensure that these suitability requirements are maintained, to safeguard those healthy populations.

Monitoring

Minns et al. (1996) suggests that previous aquatic restoration initiatives have not included a monitoring aspect. The authors suggest that management actions should be treated as experiments with consistent testing and monitoring to maintain successful implementations. Implementation, sampling, replication and controls are all required to implement successful restoration and monitoring (Minns et al., 1996). Vegetation habitats can be successful in habitat restoration, however, zebra mussels can also use these habitats and therefore careful monitoring is required in Lake Ontario for this project (Jude and DeBoe, 1996). Peichel (2001) also stresses the importance of long-term monitoring to ensure implemented plans continue to be successful.

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (2014) stresses the monitoring of many aspects of aquatic ecosystems. These include changes in fish community structure, population dynamics, growth rates, contamination loads, as well as reproductive capability and success of species. Monitoring of all these characteristics can provide a better understanding of fish community stressors within an ecosystem (Ministry of Natural Resources, 2014). Routinely collecting and analyzing body size, life stage, and the taxonomic groups of fish species can provide valuable information about nutritional status and fitness of fish populations (Dietrich et

al, 2008). Dietrich et al., (2008) also suggest measuring energy density (calories per gram) and body composition (percent lipid, protein, water or elements such as carbon and nitrogen) as indicators of nutritional status. Lower trophic level monitoring is also important for Lake Ontario (Dietrich et al., 2008). This can be used to analyze impacts of invasive species, climate change, and ecological disturbances on ecosystem health.

One method on the frontier of population analysis is otolith microchemistry, a type of micro-elemental analysis of fish subpopulations for the purpose of establishing seasonal movement patterns between embayments (Murphy et al., 2012). Each age group and embayment needs to be identified as a separate factor (Murphy et al., 2012). To accurately assess the connectivity of fish subpopulations, elemental conditions of embayments needed to be established. If different embayments and individual concentrations could not be distinguished by year, connectivity could not be inferred (Murphy et al., 2012).


Page | 24

Monitoring using any of the above methods will be necessary to undertake the successful restoration of fish populations and their habitat (Dietrich et al., 2008). This will allow for an adaptive management strategy that can continue to improve fish diversity in the Shipping Channel and Outer Harbour.

Summary

The importance of native fish species diversity has been discussed by many institutions (TRCA, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Aquatic Habitat Toronto). The importance of these species includes the maintenance of a healthy trophic level structure, as well as reducing invasive species. To ensure this diversity, habitat diversity, connectivity and monitoring of restoration practices are crucial. Habitat restoration can be accomplished through artificial reefs, rip-raps, dead wood debris, vegetation, and increasing habitat restoration techniques within embayments; these additionally aid in connectivity. All of these measures can aid in the restoration of native fish diversity, however long-term monitoring and adaptive management will be critical in ensuring successful implementation.

4.4 Water Quality

Defining Poor Water Quality

Sewage treatment in our society is deemed ‘sophisticated’ and entirely clean, while in reality effluent contains trace or greater amounts of the original constituents, the majority of which cannot fully be removed. Generally, urban stormwater runoff and overflow consists of heavy metals, hydrocarbons, pesticides, suspended solids, pathogenic microorganisms and nutrients (Berndtsson, 2010). Additionally, effluents may be broken down by aquatic systems to provide essential nutrients for nuisance species, leading to aquatic system degradation (Wilber, 1969). As defined by the PEC’s Supporting Document 3: Aquatic Environment (2003), eutrophication is common in Lake Ontario, and is characterized during stratification and high biological productivity by high conductivity, low transparency and low oxygen content in deeper waters. This eutrophication results in the overall degradation of water quality and the lake’s biological factors (Supporting Document 3, 2003).

According to Wilber (1969), water is considered polluted if overburdened with many different sources of waste. For our purposes we will define them as (Wilber, 1969):

a) Organic wastes from domestic sewage and or industrial origins that remove oxygen from the water through decomposition.


Page | 25

b) Infectious agents transmitted via domestic sewage and certain types of industrial wastes. c) Plant nutrients transmitted via domestic sewage and runoff that promote the growth of ecosystem-inhibiting algae and weeds. d) Synthetic-organic or inorganic chemicals that are toxic to aquatic life.

In the last 30 years, it has become very apparent that urban flooding is the major culprit resulting in the deterioration of local watersheds (Malaviya and Singh, 2012). Short-duration storms that follow long, dry periods of pollutant accumulation allow stormwater to erode and carry the pollutants to the water system, resulting in a significantly higher shock load than treated domestic sewage (Malaviya and Singh, 2012). Chlorinated industrial products such as pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin) and solvents (tetrachloromethane, trichloroethylene) are common and need to be properly managed so as to dilute their concentrations in stormwater discharge (Malaviya and Singh, 2012). However, many similar chemicals and different elements (such as arsenic, chromium and copper) don’t follow the same path of stormwater transport due to their solubility characteristics, which makes them much harder to manage in a system (Malaviya and Singh, 2012).

Water Quality of the Toronto Harbour

In 1987, Toronto’s waterfront was designated one of forty-three “Areas of Concern” for the Great Lakes region, due to impaired water quality (Don River and Central Waterfront Project, 2012). The main areas of impairment were and still are the Don River and Inner Harbour, whose water quality is significantly affected by both the combined sewer overflows and storm sewer discharges in the area (Don River and Central Waterfront Project, 2012). Approximately two-thirds of the contaminant loading into the near-shore environment are from the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant (Halfon, 2001). This contaminant loading from the combined sewer overflows was identified as a principal source of water quality impairment in the area, and was noted in the City of Toronto’s 2003 Wet Weather Flow Master Plan as an objective to overcome (Don River and Central Waterfront Project, 2012). Specifically, the Ashbridges Bay Plant discharges nutrients that enhance eutrophication, while the sewer overflows provide the majority of the E. coli and other bacteria loading to the area (Supporting Document 3, 2003). However, only small areas of the Toronto waterfront are directly affected by sewage and other local sources because the main waterfront waters are circulated by currents and winds, and are replaced every 9 days (Halfon, 2001). As such, water quality is generally better the further you get from shore, but in areas where circulation is restricted (Humber Bay and the Inner Harbour), the water quality remains poor (Supporting Document 3, 2003).


Page | 26

In practice, the ‘main waterfront’ does not include inland channels such as the Inner Harbour and Shipping Channel, and therefore these areas do not experience as much of a circulation pattern. Contaminants tend to incubate in these areas, bioaccumulating in sediments and aquatic species, and dissolving in the water column. Apart from the main contaminants affecting water quality, there are still many other additional compounds that are of concern for Lake Ontario waters: chlordane, dieldrin, DDT, dioxin, hexachlorobenzene, mercury, mirex, octachlorostyrene and PCBs (Supporting Document 3, 2003).

The actual water quality in the Shipping Channel is generally poorer during wet weather due to the amount of soluble ions and total dissolved solids that are liberated from the urban areas, such as nitrate, ammonia, reactive silica, fluoride, chloride, sodium, grease aluminum, iron, manganese and zinc (Supporting Document 3, 2003). The PEC’s Supporting Document 3 (2003) agrees with other sources noted above, that these higher concentrations are likely caused by Toronto’s combined sewer overflow system that drains into the Shipping Channel (Turning Basin). The combined sewers carry effluent during dry periods, and a combination of effluent and stormwater runoff during wet periods (Don River and Central Waterfront Project, 2012). To avoid overwhelming the capacity of the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant during wet weather, a series of system diversions direct excess water out into the Inner Harbour and the Don River via approximately 50 separate discharge points (Don River and Central Waterfront Project, 2012). Sediment quality in the area is generally poor, but most so in the Inner Harbour, again due to the sewer overflow discharges (Supporting Document 3, 2003). It has been suggested that one way to improve both sediment and water quality is through the introduction of submerged, native macrophytes. Currently, phosphorus loading to the area still exceeds manageable levels, but supportive macrophyte growth is poor along the Toronto Waterfront, and non-existent in the Shipping Channel (Supporting Document 3, 2003).

Water level or depth, wind speed and direction, and water temperature are all determinants of the chemical fate of contaminants in a lake (Halfon, 2001). The dilution of wastes from the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant is slow and there is little transport of effluent in the PEC area due to the complexity of the Inner Harbour, yielding a decreased ability to environmentally degrade contaminants (Halfon, 2001). Wilber (1969) concluded that with respect to fish species, the most critical result of sewage and effluent entering a system is the decrease in dissolved oxygen from decomposing organic constituents; this results in a lethal lower limit for fish, and/or an increase in other toxins. Fish can usually survive in heavily polluted environments as long as the amount of dissolved oxygen is above an environmentally-determined lethal limit.

Potential Routes of Remedial Action


Page | 27

Hamilton Harbour has for many decades been a source of concern, and as a large industrial urban center, a plan for the PEC could be greatly aided by studying measures taken in that area. The Hamilton Harbour is currently listed like Toronto as an “Area of Concern”. Some key remediation measures from the Hamilton Harbour Remediation Action Plan concerning sewage and storm-water effluent include (Rogers et al., 1992):

a) Sand filters should be placed at Sewage Treatment Plants or their outflows to adsorb extraneous contaminants; this is ideal for sewage and storm-water overflow events (Rogers et al., 1992). Sand filters can be removed for disposal and/or replaced. b) The dissolved oxygen levels of the benthic (bottom) habitat should be monitored and increased to above 4 mg/L throughout the harbour; this will increase fish habitat, improve benthic fauna and diversity, and reduce the toxicity of the bottom sediments (Rogers et

al., 1992). Oxygenation will help to counteract the effects of sewage and storm-water effluent, as well as overflow effluent and migrating non-point-source contaminants. c) Dissolved oxygen, water clarity and algae populations must be monitored; the amount of loaded dissolved phosphorus is the key nutrient for algal growth and must be counteracted in instances of higher than normal growth (Rogers et al., 1992).

The dissolved oxygen and sand filter methods are relatively inexpensive and are smaller-scale practices that can be easily implemented to deal with extraneous contaminants. In addition, the Halfon (2001) literature review and statistical model analysis concluded that an increase in the transportation and circulation of water in the Inner and local Outer Harbour of Toronto would significantly dilute contaminants. These contaminants would remain in the area for a smaller amount of time while the mixing not only dilutes concentrations, but increases possible remediation processes (Halfon, 2001). These methods include biodegradation, adsorption and volatilization of the contaminants (Halfon, 2001). Nonetheless, in his study Halfon (2001) indicates that transportation is still the most effective and the most important measure for this area of Lake Ontario based on the physical set-up of the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge. Although local sources are only a small part of the problem, circulation of the Inner Channel beyond current rates would be an excellent start to dealing with the local contamination (Halfon, 2001).

Discussion of Dissolved Oxygen

The oxygen concentration in waters is reduced by increases in both temperature and salinity (Kramer, 1987), as well as other dissolved solids and compounds. As such, the higher the concentrations of these constituents are, the harder it is for aquatic organisms to attain their required levels of oxygen. Eutrophication of the lakes reduces dissolved oxygen levels, and the growth rates of aquatic organisms may be significantly reduced, even if the amount of


Page | 28

eutrophication is not lethal (Kramer, 1987). The Toronto harbour area experiences non-lethal levels of eutrophication, and so the easiest way to increase the dissolved oxygen, and therefore the growth rates and abundance of aquatic species, is through the limitation of sewage and stormwater overflow into the area. The Inner Harbour and Shipping Channel experience some circulation, but not nearly as much as the Outer Harbour. Simple stagnation over time through lack of atmospheric contact can occur when the water is partially protected from wind, currents and strong temperature changes; due to the slow rate of oxygen diffusion in water, the water body can become oxygen deficient (Kramer, 1987). In these cases, and likely that of the Shipping Channel, mixing between water layers is reduced and oxygen production is determined by the photosynthesis of primary producers, yielding a limited amount for the respiration of aquatic organisms (Kramer, 1987). The behavioural responses that fish show to limited dissolved oxygen are generally 1) changes in activity level, 2) increased use of air breathing (for fish with that ability), 3) increased use of aquatic surface and/or upper water column respiration, and 4) vertical or horizontal habitat changes, which can affect predation and population (Kramer, 1987).

Sand Filters

Many studies have recently assessed the effectiveness of sand filters in sewage and stormwater drainage given their ability to adsorb phosphates and other water contaminants. Erickson et al. (2012) found that iron-enhanced sand filters are an excellent method for removing phosphates and dissolved solids from drainage because 1) they capture a significant portion of the phosphates without fouling, and (2) they have a substantial capacity to capture phosphates over a large treatment depth when constituted by 5% iron filings, and given an acceptable sand grain size. The principle behind including iron filings in a sand filter is that phosphates are strongly bound to iron, and that iron-bound phosphates are not bioavailable (Erickson et al., 2012). As a mechanism, this occurs because iron oxidizes to form rust, and phosphates bind to the iron oxides via surface adsorption (Erickson et al., 2012). Additionally, these iron-enhanced filters were shown to capture a variety of other pollutants, specifically metals, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead and zinc (Erickson et al., 2012). This would be extremely beneficial for the Inner Channel environment given the ability of the sand filters to counteract the effects of sewage and stormwater overflow events.

Iron filings were suggested over steel wool, which is also acceptable, by the Erickson et

al. (2012) study due to their size distribution being similar to sand, and the fact that they are less expensive than steel wool per unit weight. Iron filings are easy to manufacture, and readily available. Fig. (2) below shows the Erickson et al. (2012) study’s findings concerning the effectiveness of varying amounts of iron in the sand filters.


Page | 29

Figure 2: The effectiveness of increasing iron content in sand filters, and the relative amount of phosphate removal in each scenario. The higher the iron percentage, the more complete the phosphate removal (Erickson et al., 2012).

It is important to note that neither the addition of iron up to 5% by weight, nor the capture of phosphates and dissolved solids, has any effect on the hydraulic conductivity of the filter (Erickson et al., 2012), making this a viable method for contaminant removal in the Toronto Harbour.

Constructed Wetlands

Constructed wetland treatment systems have been successfully used for the treatment of wastewaters such as municipal water, sewage, landfill leachates and industrial wastewaters (Malaviya and Singh, 2012), and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has successfully implemented many such wetlands into the Toronto Harbour Area. Generally, constructed wetlands are used for the removal of nutrients, organic substances, pathogens, heavy metals, organic and inorganic matter, and trace organics from the water column (Malaviya and Singh, 2012). Constructed wetlands have been proven time and time again to be a sustainable approach to bettering sediment and water quality, and in terms of new technologies they are more economical and energy efficient than other practices (Malaviya and Singh, 2012). Wetlands are natural and can be designed to fit the given environment, and in terms of submerged aquatic vegetation they offer multiple advantages that are biologically and chemically beneficial (Malaviya and Singh, 2012):

They operate on ambient solar energy and require low external energy input They achieve high levels of treatment with little or no maintenance, so as to reduce

necessary infrastructure support


Page | 30

They are relatively tolerant to environmental shocks induced by hydraulic and pollutant loads

No specific design and life period is expected and as such they tend to have increased treatment capacity over time, resulting in self-repairing systems

Wastewater treatment in terms of the Inner Harbour would require submerged macrophyte species that could operate at significant depths so as not to interfere with the existing infrastructure. Generally, these types of plants in constructed systems have been found to increase water quality via its clarity, decreases in total suspended solids, a more neutral pH, decreases in total phosphorus and total nitrogen, and removing toxic constituents (Malaviya and Singh, 2012). Submerged systems such as these are able to use a significant area of the water column in which they both remove nutrients and other stormwater drainage constituents, and lessen the effect of hydraulic flow from industry on other aquatic species in the environment (Malaviya and Singh, 2012). Additionally, they provide an extra source of cover and habitat for aquatic species, primarily fish, and therefore create a positive feedback loop. For the purposes of creating a submerged system, basic principles of design, operation and maintenance in the temperate climates of the Northern Hemisphere have already been successfully implemented and are therefore readily available (Malaviya and Singh, 2012). Increased research and knowledge into the specific types of macrofauna that thrive in a healthy version of the Shipping Channel environment would be very beneficial to a plan of action for water quality remediation.

Vegetated (Green) Roofs

Another holistic environmental initiative is creating a green roof, which would help both with the air quality and the rain runoff quality of the PEC facility itself. Green roofs are known for their benefits which include (Berndtsson, 2010):

Reducing and attenuating stormwater runoff which lowers the risk of urban flooding Increasing the quality of runoff water Reduced cost of heating and air conditioning Noise reduction Air pollution reduction Providing wildlife habitat and biodiversity enhancement

Water from a green roof is either retained in the soil up to its field capacity and used by the plant species, evaporated, or leaves the surface as runoff; as opposed to a hard roof, the peak runoff from a green roof after a rainfall event is delayed or even eliminated, and the water is essentially filtered by the system (Berndtsson, 2010). Rainwater is generally considered non-polluted and can be acidic, and can also contain significant amount of nitrates, phosphates, heavy


Page | 31

metals, pesticides and other compounds, depending on the local climate and amount of pollution (Berndtsson, 2010). The filtering process of a green roof involves increasing the pH of acidic rainwater to an acceptable runoff pH between 7 and 8, and by the time the runoff reaches the natural water body, it is both neutral and of a higher quality (Berndtsson, 2010). Because green roofs are naturally-sustained holistic systems, they require very little maintenance and energy input, and could provide a huge relative benefit to both the environment and the economic cost of a facility the size of the PEC.

Don River Naturalization and Central Waterfront Project

While increasing water quality is a primary target for the Toronto Harbour, it is important to note that the City is in various stages of planning for multiple projects, one of which is the Don River and Central Waterfront Project. The Don River and Central Waterfront Class Environmental Assessment (and consequent rehabilitation project) was created to address both dry and wet-weather contamination issues in the areas affected by the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Don River outflow (Don River and Central Waterfront Project, 2012). A Wet Weather Flow Master Plan (WWFMP) was approved in 2003 to help improve both the water quality of the harbour, and the general environment, by upgrading the operation of the current combined sewer overflow system (Cleaning Up Our Waterways, 2012). The Ashbridges Bay plant has a primary treatment capacity of 2,532 million litres per day (MLD), and a secondary capacity of 818 MLD (Don River and Central Waterfront Project, 2012). On average, flows reach about 650 MLD, but wet weather flows can reach up to 3,300 MLD (Don River and Central Waterfront Project, 2012). As such, the primary source of contamination is through wet weather flows out of the combined sewer system, and although the effluent is treated with chlorine, some events reach output that is greater than the possible secondary treatment capacity of the system (Don River and Central Waterfront Project, 2012).

The goals of the WWFMP and Don River Naturalization processes aim to (Don River and Central Waterfront Project, 2012):

Reduce the inputs of combined sewer overflows, which contribute to erosion and flooding

Revitalize Toronto's waterfront Help to delist the City of Toronto from the polluted “Areas of Concern” list for the Great

Lakes Ensure the City meets provincial requirements for the control of combined sewer

overflows


Page | 32

A major aspect of the Don Mouth Naturalization is the movement of the mouth of the Don River further south of its current location (though still north of the shipping channel), whilst naturalizing and stabilizing the environment. Additionally, concerning the WWFMP, the City plans to use source control measures to manage stormwater at the point source as opposed to later on in the system (Stormwater Management: Wet Weather Flow Master Plan, 2014).

Figure 3: A 2014 conceptual model of the Don River and Central Waterfront Urban Development Plan.

Essentially, the plans for the Don River Naturalization and the updates to sewer infrastructure are attempting to remove enough stormwater from the system so that secondary treatment is possible for all overflow events. If a scenario warrants an untreated overflow at the plant end, it will be treated at the end-of-pipe outflow via various infrastructure developments (Stormwater Management: Wet Weather Flow Master Plan, 2014). So far, the City has planned to implement sanitary trunk sewer systems, a wet weather flow collection and storage area, and a


Page | 33

treatment system for the collected wet weather overflow (Cleaning Up Our Waterways, 2012). The Naturalization aspects of the Don River and Central Waterfront Project plan to tackle stream erosion that is affecting aquatic species. Increasing the water quality of the harbour is the first step in naturalization, while the overall goals include: restoring degraded stream sections, revegetating stream banks, removing barriers to native fish migration, and reforesting and creating wetland areas (Stormwater Management: Wet Weather Flow Master Plan, 2014).

Summary

It is one thing to consider local and government regulative standards in terms of effluent constituents, but these do not always concern the effects to aquatic life. Most pertain solely to human health and our ability to purify water for our use. Currently, and in response to the extremes most northern climates are now experiencing, municipalities and local governments are looking for cost-effective risk-management strategies that might provide incentives for creating “greener” infrastructure (Parikh et al., 2005). It is important to remember that the greening of an area must be considered in a holistic manner, and that in improving the water quality of a system, an interdisciplinary approach must be taken to address all relevant inputs to the water body. In consideration of the Don River Naturalization and Central Waterfront Project, tackling the issue of water quality concerns the primary contaminant inputs to a system, and for the PEC, that means cooperating to improve the Don River mouth and sewer overflow systems, as they are the most significant sources of water degradation. An interdisciplinary approach to increasing the quality of stormwater runoff at and around the PEC would therefore include combinations of both land and water-based solutions.


Page | 34

5.0 INTERVIEW SUMMARIES 5.1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Interview conducted February 25, 2014 with Rick Portiss (Manager, Restoration and

Environmental Monitoring, Restoration Services) & Danny Moro (Project Manager, Restoration

and Environmental Monitoring, Restoration Services)

The TRCA works together with municipal partners, other environmental organizations and community groups to work towards sustainable community development. They apply the principles of ecology to land use and development within Toronto and the surrounding regions, while also trying to educate the community about the importance of the environment. In the Portlands area, the TRCA is concerned with common carp. They have a number of constructed wetlands in the vicinity and have set up fences to restrict the carp from entering. The TRCA has reported a current positive for the area in that the native emerald shiner is pushing invasive alewife out of the alewife’s developed niche.

The TRCA supports the PEC’s concerns and welcomes the development of fish habitat in the Outer Harbour. Developing habitat in the Shipping Channel is limited by its use and layout, and creating shallow shoreline features isn't feasible in an area that ships frequent. Focusing efforts on the Outer Harbour by contributing to constructed wetlands and creating fish habitat features in near-shore environments would have the largest impact on the area, however benthic invertebrates, aquatic mammals and reptiles are also important considerations that shouldn’t be overlooked. The TRCA advises against the use of floating islands as constructed habitat features due to their maintenance needs and the fact that they represent a very short term, unsustainable solution. For the greatest results, all opportunities for naturalization should be considered. A holistic approach that integrates both aquatic and terrestrial solutions should be undertaken, and the connectivity of these factors is important in creating naturalization which requires limited management. The Don River Naturalization project will affect the sediment transport patterns in the area. Currently, sediment is deposited in the Keating Channel which is continually dredged, though it is not detrimental to fish. The changes proposed by the project will shift the sediment transport and deposition closer to the Portlands. It will be dredged and loaded into ships, though the effects on fish are not known as of yet.

Communication with the TRCA and the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy (TWAHRS) could aid the PEC’s efforts; with similar goals regarding the area, collaboration could benefit everyone.


Page | 35

5.2 Toronto Port Lands Company Interview conducted January 29, 2014 with Don Forbes (Senior Manager, Environmental

Services)

Being environmentally conscious is of critical importance to the Toronto Port Lands Company (TPLC). They are a crown corporation owned by the City of Toronto and public perception of the company is important. They are a leasing agency, catering to a broad spectrum of industry; storage, manufacturing, concrete plants etc. Most leases are short term, but long term leases are allocated when feasible. They want to ensure future control over the land in order to protect the city’s assets and manage land use. The company has recently been increasing its focus on public perception, as their land is a public asset. They operate numerous environmental monitoring initiatives in conjunction with the MOE and the City of Toronto to create a positive legacy. Their environmental focus is on maintenance and monitoring of the land, however they are trying to complete more remediation and risk assessments.

Around 80% of the TPLC’s land is considered brownfields, and these sites pose obstacles to development. Brownfields are defined as parcels of underutilized land, or areas which may be contaminated from historical and current industrial activity. The history of the area has greatly influenced the quality of the land. Infilling with construction debris in addition to heavy industrial use and poor storage of coal and petrochemicals has created a legacy of contamination in the Portlands. Don Forbes outlined that it is reasonable to assume some contamination from groundwater is entering the lake, however it hasn’t been a significant amount, and requires no immediate attention. The concrete dock wall around the Shipping Channel hinders the addition of petroleum hydrocarbons to the lake, which sit on top of groundwater. The legacy of contamination will be dealt with over time, as redevelopment takes place on a parcel by parcel basis.

Brownfields are regulated by a joint effort between the MOE and the TPLC. Standards are created by the MOE (maximum allowable concentrations of contaminants), but these are constantly updated and revised as new knowledge is driving input parameters. The level of protection is the same for all parcels but tailored for each specific site, with risk assessments using site specific data, models and characteristics. Projects are driven by economics, so input parameters are often conservative, and if considered too expensive, remediation will most likely not take place.

The interaction between surface and groundwater is taken into account in all cases. The most prevalent contaminants in the Portlands are petroleum hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from coal and petrochemical storage, metals from industry, and the infill


Page | 36

material. There are also pesticides, herbicides, inorganics, and volatile organic compounds throughout different sites.

The TPLC provided some suggestions and considerations regarding the PECs main aquatic concerns. Heavy urbanization and the subsequent pavement is increasing runoff into the lake, this connected with the combined sewer outflows creates poor quality runoff; a greater emphasis on separators retrofitted into the old sewage systems is suggested. The retrofitting of the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant is mentioned, and new technology may allow for a greater capacity and cleaner effluent being deposited into the lake. Concerns over invasive species affecting ecosystems were raised, mainly Asian carp, cormorants and zebra mussels. Engineering towards solutions for Asian carp was suggested, mentioning plans to erect a barrier to keep them from the great lakes. The work the TRCA is doing to create fish habitat was brought up, naming Tommy Thompson Park and the Leslie Street Spit as beneficial projects. Overall, the TPLC wants to maintain the Portlands in their current state and utilize new technology to create healthier land and water.

5.3 Toronto Port Authority Interview conducted March 5, 2014 with Mike Riehl (Harbour Master)

The Toronto Port Authority is a government business enterprise; they own and operate the Port of Toronto, the Outer Harbour Marina, and the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. They are funded by the federal government, and the funds they procure from transportation fees sustain the company. Extra funds can be reinvested into transportation infrastructure, environmental protection and community programs. They have a clean energy program using “Bullfrog Power”, a renewable energy provider. Also the port has a Green Marine certification, which entails a voluntary agreement to reduce/manage noise, water and dust pollution, and generally improve environmental performance.

The Toronto Port Authority supports the TRCA with many of their projects in the area. Previously they managed the entire Leslie Street Spit, but now only control the south half, while the TRCA manages the remainder. The Port Authority is not in favour of the addition of fish habitat to the Shipping Channel, as they believe it could disrupt industrial activities.

5.4 EcoMetrix Incorporated Interview conducted February 4, 2014 with Robert Eakins (Associate, Senior Fisheries

Ecologist)


Page | 37

EcoMetrix Incorporated is an environmental consulting company which has performed all of the environmental assessments for the PEC, as well as their E. coli, and impingement and entrainment monitoring. The MOE requires that the PEC has a control program, and they are responsible for the supervision of the E. coli control program. EcoMetrix will continue to collect and analyze data for the PEC within their implemented programs. Water is treated for E. coli two hours after a threshold rainfall event, and sampled accordingly. All reports of E. coli in the area are currently available online. EcoMetrix highlights that E. coli is not an issue the PEC is responsible for, and identifies water temperature as the biggest problem regarding the PEC and local aquatic health.

Considering the PECs main aquatic concerns EcoMetrix had some suggestions. They suggest that remediating the small, highly contaminated boat harbour nearby would be beneficial. The large bird population is the source of the E. coli in that area. They also suggest the continuing of E. coli monitoring; the data can be analyzed for long-term trends. They point out that the PEC has little influence on the E. coli reaching Cherry Beach because it is a surface bug, and it may not be affected by currents. It is mostly sourced from the Don River and the plan to naturalize the river would be valuable for decreasing the E. coli levels in the area. Focusing improved water quality on the Outer Harbour due to the current systems was also proposed. Other suggestions included supporting the work the TRCA is doing in the Toronto Harbour. The TRCA is extremely knowledgeable about the aquatic environment in the Outer Harbour, and are actively creating fish habitat. However, they warned that increasing the fish populations in the area will increase impingement and entrainment in the plant.

5.5 Aquatic Habitat Toronto Interview conducted March 2, 2014 with Bill Snodgrass (Senior Stream Restoration Engineer,

Stormwater Management, Toronto Water)

Aquatic Habitat Toronto is an organization resulting from the partnership of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto and Region Conservation, Environment Canada and the City of Toronto with the purpose of improving the aquatic habitat on the Toronto Waterfront. Specifically, Aquatic Habitat Toronto is responsible for implementing TWAHRS. Aquatic Habitat Toronto consults with the City of Toronto for the purpose of ensuring waterfront projects consider the aquatic habitat in their design. For example, changes to waterfront infrastructure are assessed for effects on aquatic habitat based on hydrodynamic modeling. Additionally, Aquatic Habitat Toronto provides strategies for waterfront projects to implement TWAHRS. Apart from consulting city projects, Aquatic Habitat Toronto also


Page | 38

introduces its own projects such as the Recreational Fisheries Plan, which is aimed at increasing recreational fishing opportunities on the Toronto Waterfront.

With respect to E. coli concentrations, Bill Snodgrass noted that PEC plant maximum output times coinciding with rainfall events could cause higher than expected E. coli

concentrations, and is something that should be monitored by the PEC. Bill Snodgrass described the Don and Central waterfront project and how it could change the Inner Harbour. Improvement of city storm sewer infrastructure will be beneficial for water quality. However, how the redirection of the mouth of the Don River (see Figure 3) and the construction of an urban community north of the Shipping Channel will affect hydrodynamics and E. coli plume distribution in the shipping channel, Turning Basin, and Outer Harbour is not currently known. It was noted by Bill Snodgrass that the Don and Central Waterfront Project implementation may be impeded by its large cost and incompatibility with the City of Toronto’s budget. Bill Snodgrass also brought to our attention the recent switch in water disinfection method at the nearby Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant to a sodium hypochlorite/ UV radiation method. It was stated that the PEC could communicate with Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant on the efficacy of this method.


Page | 39

6.0 PROPOSED ACTION PLAN FOR THE PEC* * Please see Appendix A for a quick-read, flow-chart version of the following Action Plan. 6.1 E.Coli

Short Term

It is recommended that the PEC continue monitoring E. coli concentrations and plume models in the Inner and Outer Harbours as carried out by EcoMetrix (2011), detailed in the 2011 E. coli Monitoring Report for the PEC. This action is important because through membrane filtration the E. coli concentrations in water can be determined, thus indicating which areas exceed the Ontario Provincial Water Quality Objective of 100 CFU/100ml. Through plume modeling, the sources (e.g. the Don River) of E. coli in the harbour can be isolated and areas of concern to human health can be identified. As described in the E. coli literature review (section 4.1), under current circumstances PEC operations do not influence E. coli concentrations at Cherry Beach. However with variations in E. coli runoff, rainfall events, water flow, and waterfront infrastructure, these circumstances are not static. For example, instances of extreme rainfall events such as the storm experienced on July 8th, 2013 in Toronto, are expected to increase as a result of climate change (IPCC, 2013). This is expected to result in increased E. coli

levels from runoff and combined sewer outflows. Conversely, if the Don and Central Waterfront Project is carried out as planned, a decrease in E. coli is expected due to an elimination of contamination by combined sewer outflows (Don River and Central Waterfront Project, 2012). Given the variability of factors influencing E. coli levels, monitoring is something that must be maintained. The PEC has been effective at monitoring E. coli levels thus far therefore this action can be accomplished yearly, and continued into the future.

Medium Term

Unfortunately, water disinfection by the PEC will kill microorganisms regardless of the method used, and it is an inevitable requirement of plant operations. As described by Korajkic et

al. (2013), E. coli can take advantage of waters with low microbial diversity. The increase of microbial diversity in the Inner and Outer Harbour offers a proactive measure to control rapid influxes of E. coli to the water. E. coli survival is lowered by predation and competitive exclusion. Killing of microorganisms by disinfection cannot be avoided, however, conditions that propagate the growth of diverse microbial communities can be created. Implementing artificial beaches, gravel surcharges and vegetation zones in order to create a habitat with organic matter, refuge, and low hydraulic flow will help to create a more diverse microorganism community. The effectiveness of this strategy will be limited by water disinfection, but it should be noted these actions will also be beneficial to local fish populations. Therefore multiple goals


Page | 40

can be achieved by implementing strategies such as these, exemplifying a holistic approach to aquatic environment restoration.

Long Term

Given that sodium hypochlorite is known to have negative effects on aquatic biodiversity, and can cause inaccurate detection of E. coli, alternative disinfection methods ought to be considered (Abdel-Wahab et al. 2010; Watson et al. 2012; Arana et al. 1999). Ozone and UV radiation are the two other potential disinfection methods the PEC can employ. Ozone remains the least feasible option under current circumstances. Ozonation requires more energy and costs more than sodium hypochlorite and UV radiation. It can also result in the formation of toxic compounds such as bromate and aldehydes (AECOM, 2010). Bromide is a chemical commonly present in water that when subject to ozonation can form bromate, a known carcinogen (Gottschalk et al. 2010). Therefore, this method should be avoided until the toxic by-products can be efficiently mitigated.

UV radiation is a promising technology for improving aquatic environment. It mimics natural processes and does not create disinfection by-products (AECOM, 2010). UV has many of the same advantages as ozone, such as reduced total dissolved solids, shorter contact times, on site production and the omission of de-chlorination (AECOM, 2010). The biggest obstacle of UV radiation is energy cost. Also, it has been found that turbid waters with many suspended solids can reduce UV radiations ability to kill pathogens (AECOM, 2010). However, this risk can be controlled by using sodium hypochlorite in combination with UV radiation (AECOM, 2010). In 2010, the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant and AECOM (2010) conducted an environmental assessment comparing effluent disinfection methods for its operations. Sodium hypochlorite was determined to be the best option taking cost, energy use, and environmental impact into consideration. However, the Toronto City Council decided to implement another option for effluent disinfection at Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant; sodium hypochlorite combined with UV radiation. This decision was reached in light of a new low pressure UV lamp technology that drastically reduces the energy requirement (Present Disinfection Practices and Solution for the Future: Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant, 2014). It is recommended that the PEC communicate with the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant on the efficacy, cost, and energy usage of its UV disinfection operation to assess whether this technology could be incorporated into PEC disinfection operations.

Therefore, current practice of sodium hypochlorite disinfection is the most feasible. However, advances in ozone and UV technologies should be monitored for potential improvements in safety and energy consumption.


Page | 41

6.2 Zebra Mussels

Quick-Win

The only type of treatment possible for immediate results is the manual and mechanical removal of zebra mussels. This is best suited for the removal of zebra mussels within the plant, since it will take less organization and the only permit required (if at all) will be for the proper disposal of zebra mussels. There are several requirements for executing the treatment:

Hired help, or volunteer employees from within the plant to accomplish the task. Depending on the depth of the water within the plant, scuba certification will be required by those conducting the task.

Hand-held tools (i.e., paint scrapers, screwdrivers, chisels and/or dull knives) for the manual removal of the mussels from all surfaces.

Collection bags to place the removed mussels in for discarding, or a suction pump with a collection bag attached. The collection of the removed mussels is required since mussels can re-attach themselves and continue to reproduce, inhibiting removal efforts.

Permit for proper disposal of the zebra mussels, if needed

The main benefit of this method is that it produces no environmental impacts. One possible disadvantage of this method is the requirement that the plant be shut down. However, because this plant only runs in peak times, this method should prove to be sustainable.

Short Term

There are several types of treatment options for this time frame; manual and mechanical removal, oxygen deprivation, and chemical applications. For manual and mechanical removal, the requirements would be the same as the quick-win scenario above. The only difference is that the short term will be completed on a larger scale outside the plant. This will take more organization, manpower, and permits for closing off certain portions of the channel and/or lake. For oxygen deprivation, there are several required steps to be taken:

Depending on the depth of the desired plots, divers may need to be hired to apply the “tarps” along the lake bed.

“Tarps” (bottom/benthic mats or barriers) will be needed, along with some sort of weights to keep the tarps in place and tightly bound to the ground to make sure no oxygen gets into the plots

For faster results a biocide may be applied to the plot. Any biocide can be applied as long as a valid permit is obtained.


Page | 42

Closures of the areas where the plots are may need to occur, as mentioned in the literature review, fast moving boats can cause the traps to shift. Which would result in the plot failing.

Monitoring will need to occur throughout the treatment process to make sure it is working, and to determine when to remove the plots.

It is recommended that the traps stay in place for at least one month.

For chemical applications, Zequanox would be the optimal suggestion. It is the most environmentally safe product, having no measurable effect on aquatic species or ecosystems. Additionally, Zequanox has received a restricted use authorization by the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) for use in hydroelectric facilities (OMNR 2014). Zequanox has shown remarkable results in previous studies, making it an ideal candidate, especially since it specifically targets zebra and quagga mussels. Michele Nicholson (M.Sc. Queen’s University) will be conducting studies on the product this summer using replicated, self-contained environments to simulate natural ecosystems, while complying with PMRA and MOE restrictions on permitted uses of Zequanox (OMNR 2014).

Medium Term

The application of biocides, specifically Zequanox, on a large scale beyond the Shipping Channel and potentially past the Portland’s water boundary would be a project requiring a medium-term timeframe. Defining the boundary of the application and the amount of Zequanox permitted will require the collaboration of several other parties. An application of this scale will affect more than just the Portlands, which is the reasoning behind the collaboration with other parties such as the TRCA and Toronto Port Authority. Waiting for the study by Michele Nicholson to be completed and published would benefit mitigation efforts. The study will allow for more information on the biocides effects on Lake Ontario specifically.

Another consideration is the use of a binary mixture, as suggested by the study completed by Costa et al. (2011). Further studies are required on its potential effects on other species, but previous studies and examples of single biocide applications have been successful. This is a good backup option if Zequanox cannot be applied on this scale.

Long Term

Monitoring of the zebra mussel population after an application of one or multiple recommended treatments is ideal. Usually only one treatment is needed to remove present pests, but in some cases it only helps to control the situation. In either case, long term monitoring is required to ensure the zebra mussels do not return or regenerate. That way a treatment method


Page | 43

can be applied as soon as possible to halt or eradicate the new or returning spread before it gets too large for a single treatment.

6.3 Fish and Habitat Diversity

Accounting for Foley et al. (2010) three interrelated principles, native species diversity, habitat diversity and heterogeneity and connectivity in short, medium and long term goals will ensure that the main components of fish diversity are addressed.

Quick-Win

A collection of target fish species will be provided to the PEC (see Appendix B), which can act as a baseline for making informed management decisions. Recognizing the biological linkages between fish and their environments will make management outcomes more accurate and predictable. In addition to what is provided, the PEC should focus on collecting and promoting the sharing of information between the City of Toronto, the Federal government, the TRCA and Aquatic Habitat Toronto. These organizations have implemented studies on the movement and populations of fish species within the Toronto Harbor (Murphy et al., 2012, Aquatic Habitat Toronto, TRCA). Collaboration will ensure that all parties are up to date on native fish populations and ecosystem dynamics. This is not only an inexpensive quick win it can be implemented throughout the life of the PEC.

Short Term

The sinking of non-disruptive deadwood tangles should be the next priority of the PEC to attract fish populations. Sinking anchored logs into rock pilings away from shipping activity will stabilize a vertical and horizontal fish habitat (Aquatic Habitat Toronto, 2012). This can be part of the sheltered embayments or the Outer Harbour. It would increase structure of near-shore habitats, improve cold water species habitat, increase forage and provide connectivity among embayments (Aquatic Habitat Toronto, 2012). For example, as discussed in the above section (4.3), yellow perch and walleye species benefit from woody cover. Maintaining the functionality of the shipping lane is of utmost importance and log tangles should be place in strategic areas away from shipping activity and monitored regularly. This is a high feasibility option for the PEC to consider, as sinking log tangles are inexpensive and it is very effective for attracting and maintaining the fish species native to the area.


Page | 44

Medium Term

Improving the shoreline profile should be an intermediate concern of the PEC. This can be accomplished by infilling along shore with graded dredge material (Aquatic Habitat Toronto, 2012). Additionally, this would include planting vegetation along the shoreline, as well as the creation of species dependant reproductive zones, nurseries, as well as juvenile, resting and overwintering areas (Tommy Thompson Park, 2006). This process allows for emergent vegetation to establish, creates primary and secondary drop offs and also preserves deep water zones (Aquatic Habitat Toronto, 2012). In turn this would create pathways between deep and near shore areas. The increase in riparian vegetation will increase forage and add important structural components to the current break wall shoreline (Aquatic Habitat Toronto, 2012). For example the literature review (section 4.3) discusses the importance of pond weed for the habitat of northern pike. Vegetation cover is also a preferred habitat for many species such as Lake Trout (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2013). In terms of feasibility, costs associated with this project would be much higher and would require regular monitoring, but environmental benefits would be expected to outweigh the costs.

Long Term

As a long term goal the PEC should consider open coast restoration. This involves the addition of boulders and gravel within the wave zone. This material would be reworked into shoals, naturally altering underwater current, which in turn provides habitat diversity (Aquatic Habitat Toronto, 2012). The smaller material would also compliment shoreline improvement as it would be deposited near shore. The reworked substrate would create offshore shoals and bars which would enhance the habitat function of the open coast (Aquatic Habitat Toronto, 2012). It would also increase thermal suitability, diversity and connectivity between embayments (Murphy et al., 2011). Again this would be a long term consideration, the current and predicted areas of deposition would need to be established to ensure that the Shipping Channel is not interrupted.

Adaptive Management

Many of these processes, once commenced, could move outside of the control of the PEC, thus all proposed actions warrant careful consideration. If commenced, intensive monitoring must occur until an action can be considered stable. Many of these suggestions tie into an adaptive management framework, where decisions should be re-evaluated every five years and changed to account for any new developments. Improving communication and information sharing as well as monitoring fish populations and actions employed to maintain those populations, will be paramount to the success of restorative actions taken by the PEC.


Page | 45

6.4 Water Quality

Given the current ownership of the Shipping Channel, and the ability of the PEC to contribute to certain types of projects, the following actions will either give direct or indirect results. In terms of increasing the water quality of an inherently public domain, any actions taken by the PEC must take into account actions from all other invested parties.

Quick-Win

As discussed in the above review of water quality (section 4.4), there are numerous projects currently underway with both the City of Toronto and the TRCA that will directly aid in the delisting of the Toronto Harbour from its current “Area of Concern” status, appointed in 1987 (Don River and Central Waterfront Project, 2012). Given the relatively long time frame for the infrastructure advancements and naturalization projects being planned, it may benefit the PEC to share any available data with the City of Toronto that is negatively affecting the PEC’s immediate aquatic environment. A lack of communication is stressed as the greatest shortcoming of the City’s current plans. A push from not only the PEC, but other local facilities may help to fast-track the advancement of current projects.

Short Term

Two major problems in the Inner Harbour are the amount of phosphorus loading, and the low dissolved oxygen content in stratified surface waters. As Kramer (1987) ascertains, eutrophication of the lakes reduces dissolved oxygen levels, and even if the amount of eutrophication is not lethal, it has a significantly detrimental impact on the activity of aquatic species. Subsequently, we may concur that the phosphate and dissolved solids present in the current expulsion of combined sewage overflow are responsible for decreases in dissolved oxygen in the area. We suggest, therefore, that the PEC should increase its amount of water sampling in the outflow section of its plant. Where phosphorus, dissolved solids or other constituent concentrations are substantial enough to decrease dissolved oxygen below 4 mg/L, the PEC could oxygenate the plant outflow so that water quality is improved in addition to the disinfection method.

Medium Term

Green Roofs are low-maintenance, high-reward solutions for both emissions reduction and urban runoff quality increase. Green roofs are an easily-implementable solution for increasing the quality and decreasing the quantity of stormwater runoff, decreasing the cost of heating and air conditioning for large facilities, decreasing both noise and air pollution, and providing a local habitat for biodiversity (Berndtsson, 2010). Green roofs on industrial buildings


Page | 46

along Unwin Avenue and the Portlands, especially the PEC itself, would require very little maintenance and active energy inputs. We suggest that the PEC should investigate the possibility of a green roof on their own facility, and communicate this idea with neighbours along Unwin Avenue and throughout the Portlands.

Sand filters are used in many industries and environments to limit the flow of water, and especially dissolved contaminants. Iron-enhanced sand filters were found to be an excellent method for removing both phosphates and other dissolved contaminants from drainage (Erickson et al., 2012). Metallic iron oxidizes to form iron-oxides (such as rust) in a hydrous environment. In the case of metallic iron mixed in with sand, water is forced through the porous space in the sand, where phosphates strongly bind to available iron-oxides, thus rendering them bio-unavailable (Erickson et al., 2012). It is important to note that this process also occurs with many other similar contaminants. In the short to medium-term, iron-enhanced sand filters could be placed within the sewage and stormwater overflow exits to the Turning Basin, to further limit contamination to the aquatic system. Iron shavings and sand are cheap and readily available, and when saturated will be removed and replaced. The PEC would need to consult with the City of Toronto regarding this action. Additionally, these types of filters would also be very effective if used in the PEC plant outflow.

Our third suggested action would be construction of near-bank submerged wetlands using native macrophytes. Currently, supportive macrophyte growth along the Toronto waterfront is poor, and non-existent in the Shipping Channel (Supporting Document 3, 2003). Constructed wetlands offer a permanent, effective and nearly maintenance-free solution to decrease phosphorus and contaminant loading in the harbour water. Near-shore submerged channel wetlands could be constructed either under PEC direction alone, or by contributing to the extensive wetland-development efforts of the TRCA. It would be difficult to implement a submerged wetland within the Shipping Channel, but due to the current and circulation of the Inner Harbour, establishing submerged wetlands at acceptable depths throughout the harbour area would in turn support remediation around the PEC. We suggest completing additional research on native benthic macrophytes present in the water columns along healthy or successfully remediated shorelines of Lake Ontario, so as to match the native environment. The current Don River and Central Waterfront Project will have a strongly positive impact on water quality in the Toronto Harbour, and this will fuel a feedback loop making it possible for aquatic macrophytes to flourish and further filter the water column.

Long Term

Halfon (2001) concluded that transportation and circulation are the most important factors controlling contaminant remediation in this area of Lake Ontario, based on the setup of the


Page | 47

harbour and the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant outflow. Local point sources may only be one part of the problem, though circulation of the Shipping Channel through to the Inner and Outer Harbours would be an excellent start to decreasing local contamination (Halfon, 2001). Any future advancement of PEC infrastructure or energy demand should factor in increased water circulation.


Page | 48

7.0 CONCLUSION

The PEC’s Ecological Sustainability Strategy aims to continuously improve sustainability

and increase understanding of what it means to enhance and improve its ecological footprint; this includes aquatic, terrestrial and atmospheric initiatives. The legacy of contamination in the Portlands from infilling and heavy industrial use has created a substandard aquatic environment in the waters surrounding the PEC. Concerns over E. coli contamination, invasive zebra mussels, poor aquatic habitat and diversity, and poor water quality from sewage and stormwater inputs have been identified by the PEC as aquatic characteristics that require improvement. Through an intensive literature review and a series of interviews with stakeholders in the area, an action plan was developed. E. coli represents a risk to human health, and because there are recreational waters in the area, its control is important. The PEC’s current chlorination system was reviewed for effectiveness, and deemed sufficient. However, ozonation and UV radiation technologies are improving, and should be considered as alternatives in the future. Increases in microorganism biodiversity will also contribute to E. coli control, and continued monitoring is advised. Zebra mussels are an invasive species that directly affects PEC operations and are ecologically detrimental. A number of physical, chemical and biological controls were evaluated as potential remediative actions. Considering fish habitat, clear objectives and remediation actions were outlined for improved habitat diversity and heterogeneity, connectivity, and increasing native fish species populations. Monitoring to ensure the effects of any actions is suggested to ensure positive effects on the ecosystem, and to allow for adapting management strategies. Lastly, sewage and stormwater inputs into the area were analyzed. The City of Toronto is responsible for drainage infrastructure in the area, and current improvements should increase the runoff quality, though only to a certain extent. The PEC can contribute to improved water quality through the implementation of a green roof, and by contributing to constructed wetlands in the area. Along with the literature review and action plan, a summary of some important aquatic species for remediation are attached (see Appendix B). These provide information on a number of fish species that should represent an integral part of the aquatic ecosystem in the area. The information and actions in this report can be implemented by the PEC, and would contribute towards rehabilitating the aquatic ecosystem, while maintaining the industrial use of the area.


Page | 49

REFERENCES

2011 E.Coli Monitoring at the Portlands Energy Centre. 2012. Mississauga (ON): EcoMetrix

Incorporated. All pages.

Abdel-Wahab A., Khodary, A. and N. Bensalah. 2010. Formation of trihalomethanes during seawater chlorination. Journal of Environmental Protection, 1(4):456-65.

Adams, D.C. and D.J. Lee. 2012. Technology adoption and mitigation of invasive species damage and risk: application to zebra mussels. Journal of Bioeconomics, 14(1): 21-40.

Aquatic Habitat Toronto [Internet]. Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration; [cited 2013 Dec 2]. Available from: http://www.aquatichabitat.ca/pdf/TWAHRS_STRATEGY.pdf

Aquatic Enhancement Plan [Internet]. 2006. Tommy Thompson Park; [cited 2014 April 1]. Available from: http://tommythompsonpark.ca/global/pdfs/TTPAquaticHabitatEnhancementPlan.pdf

Aquatic Environment at Portlands Energy Centre [Internet]. Toronto; [cited 2013 Dec 2]. Available from: http://www.portlandsenergycentre.com/our_community/pdf/fact-sheet_Aquatic.pdf

Arana, I., Santorum, P., Muela, A. and I. Barcina. 1999. Chlorination and ozonation of wastewater: Comparative analysis of efficacy through the effect on Escherichia coli

membranes. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 86(5):883.

Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant Effluent Disinfection Class EA Study Report. 2010. Markham (ON): AECOM. All pages.

Berndtsson, J.C. 2010. Green roof performance towards management of runoff water quantity and quality: A review. Ecological Engineering, 36(4): 351-360.

Britton, D., Brown, E., Heimowitz, P., Morse, J., Norton, D. et al. 2010. Quagga-Zebra Mussel Action Plan for Western U.S. Waters[Internet]. Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. cited 2010 February . Available from: www.anstaskforce.gov/Q AP/Q AP F INAL Feb2010.pdf

Casselman, J.M. and C.A. Lewis. 1996. Habitat requirements of northern pike (Esox

lucius). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53(1): 161-174.

Chapman, M.G. and A.J. Underwood. 2011. Evaluation of ecological engineering of “armored”

http://tommythompsonpark.ca/global/pdfs/TTPAquaticHabitatEnhancementPlan.pdf

http://www.portlandsenergycentre.com/our_community/pdf/fact-sheet_Aquatic.pdf

http://www.portlandsenergycentre.com/our_community/pdf/fact-sheet_Aquatic.pdf


Page | 50

shorelines to improve their value as habitat. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 400: 302-313.

Costa, R., Elliott, P., Aldridge, D.C. and G.D. Moggridge. 2011. Enhanced mortality of the biofouling zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, through the application of combined control agents. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 37: 272-278.

Cleaning Up Our Waterways: The Don River and Central Waterfront Project, Municipal Class Environmental Assessment – Notice of Study Completion [Internet]. 2012. City of Toronto; [cited 2014 March 27]. Available from: http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/toronto_water/files/pdf/notice_of_completion.pdf

Culver, C., Lahr, H., Johnson, l. and J. Cassell [Internet]. 2013. Quagga and Zebra Mussel Eradication and Control Tactics. UC San Diego: California Sea Grant College Program. [cited 2014 February 20]. Available from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4sx8s02v

Desfor, G. 1988. Planning Urban Waterfront Industrial Districts: Toronto's Ashbridges Bay, 1889-1910. Urban History Review, 17(2): 77-91.

Dietrich, J.P., Hennyey, A.M., Portiss, R., MacPherson, G., Montgomery, K., and B.J. Morrison. 2008. The fish communities of the Toronto waterfront: summary and assessment 1989–2005. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. All pages.

Don River and Central Waterfront Project: Municipal Class EA Environmental Study Report [Internet]. 2012. MMM Group; [cited 2014 March 27]. Available from: http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/toronto_water/files/pdf/drncw-esr-executive-summary.pdf

Erickson, A.J., J.S. Gulliver and P.T. Weiss. 2012. Capturing phosphates with iron enhanced sand filtration. Water Research, 46(9): 3032-3042.

Foley, M. M., Halpern, B. S., Micheli, F., Armsby, M. H., Caldwell, M. R., Crain, C. M., and R.S. Steneck. 2010. Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 34(5): 955-966.

Geist, J. 2011. Integrative freshwater ecology and biodiversity conservation. Ecological Indicators, 11(6): 1507-1516.

Gottschalk, C., Saupe, A. and J.A. Libra. 2010. Ozonation of water and waste water a practical guide to understanding ozone and its application. Weinheim; Chichester : Wiley-VCH.

Halfon, E. 2001. Impact on the Fate of Toxic Contaminants in the Toronto Waterfront - Should

http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/toronto_water/files/pdf/notice_of_completion.pdf

http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/toronto_water/files/pdf/notice_of_completion.pdf

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4sx8s02v

http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/toronto_water/files/pdf/drncw-esr-executive-summary.pdf




Page | 51

the Toronto Main Sewage Treatment Plant Outfall Be Moved Farther Offshore? Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, 36(1): 21-42.

Hall S.R., Pauliukonis N.K., Mills E.L., Rudstam L.G., Schneider C.P., Lary S.J., and F. Arrhenius. 2003. A comparison of total phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and zooplankton in embayment, nearshore, and offshore habitats in Lake Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 29(1):54–69.

Hansen, D.L., Ishii, S., Sadowsky, M.J. and R.E. Hicks. 2011. Waterfowl Abundance does not predict the Dominant Avian Source of Beach Escherichia Coli. Journal of Environmental Quality, 40(6): 1924-31.

Impingement and Entrainment Monitoring at the Portlands Energy Centre. 2011. Mississauga (ON): EcoMetrix Incorporated. All pages.

International Joint Commission [Internet]. 2012. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. [Cited 2014 March 23]. Available from: http://www.ijc.org/files/tinymce/uploaded/Great%20Lakes%20Water%20Quality%20Agreement%20-%202012.pdf

IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to AR5. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, NY. All pages.

Jude, D. J. and S.F. DeBoe. 1996. Possible impact of gobies and other introduced species on habitat restoration efforts. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53(S1): 136-141.

Korajkic, A., Wanjugi, P. and V.J. Harwood. 2013. Indigenous microbiota and habitat influence Escherichia coli survival more than sunlight in simulated aquatic environments. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 79(17):5329-37.

Kramer, D.L. 1987. Dissolved oxygen and fish behaviour. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 18(2): 81-92.

Krueger, C. C. and P.E. Ihssen. 1995. Review of genetics of lake trout in the Great Lakes: history, molecular genetics, physiology, strain comparisons, and restoration management. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 21: 348-363.

Krueger, C. C., Perkins, D. L., Mills, E. L. and J.E Marsden. 1995. Predation by alewives on lake trout fry in Lake Ontario: role of an exotic species in preventing restoration of a native species. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 21: 458-469.

http://www.ijc.org/files/tinymce/uploaded/Great%20Lakes%20Water%20Quality%20Agreement%20-%202012.pdf

http://www.ijc.org/files/tinymce/uploaded/Great%20Lakes%20Water%20Quality%20Agreement%20-%202012.pdf


Page | 52

Lake Ontario Fish Communities and Fisheries: 2013 Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit. 2014. Picton (ON): Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All pages.

Lake Trout [Internet]. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; [cited 2014 March 28] Available from: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LetsFish/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_ 165837.html

Malaviya, P. and A. Singh. 2012. Constructed Wetlands for Management of Urban Stormwater Runoff. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 42(20): 2153–2214.

Minns, C. K., Kelso, J. R. and R.G. Randall. 1996. Detecting the response of fish to habitat alterations in freshwater ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53(S1): 403-414.

Molloy, D.P., Mayer, D.A., Gaylo, M.J., Morse, J.T., Presti, K.T., Sawyko, P.M., Kartayev, A.Y., Burlakova, L.E., Laruelle, F., Nishikwa, K.C., and H.E. Griffin. 2013. Pseudomonas fluorescens strain CL145A - A biopesticide for the control of zebra and mussels (Bivalvia: Dreissenidae). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 113: 104-114.

Murphy, S., Collins, N. C., Doka, S. E. and B.J. Fryer. 2012. Evidence of yellow perch, largemouth bass and pumpkinseed metapopulations in coastal embayments of Lake Ontario. Environmental biology of fishes, 95(2): 213-226.

Murphy, S. C., Collins, N. C. and S.E. Doka. 2011. Thermal habitat characteristics for warm water fishes in coastal embayments of Lake Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 37(1): 111-123.

Olden J.D. and D.A. Jackson. 2001. Fish–Habitat Relationships in Lakes: Gaining Predictive and Explanatory Insight by Using Artificial Neural Networks. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 130(5): 878-897.

Ontario’s Fish Stocking Program [Internet]. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; [cited 2014 March 12] Available from: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/fr/Business/LetsFish/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_165904.html

Pander, J. and J. Geist. 2010. Seasonal and spatial bank habitat use by fish in highly altered rivers - a comparison of four different restoration measures. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 19: 127-138.

Parikh, P., M.A. Taylor, T. Hoagland, H. Thurston and W. Shuster. 2005. Application of market

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LetsFish/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_%20165837.html

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LetsFish/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_%20165837.html

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/fr/Business/LetsFish/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_165904.html


Page | 53

mechanisms and incentives to reduce stormwater runoff: An integrated hydrologic, economic and legal approach. Environmental Science & Policy, 8(2): 133–144.

Pennington, H. 2010. Escherichia coli O157. The Lancet, 376(9750): 1428-35.

Phillips, S., Darland, T., and M. Sytsma. 2005. Potential Economic Impacts of Zebra Mussels on the Hydropower Facilities in the Columbia River Basin. The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission [Internet]. Portland, (OR): The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission; [cited 2014 March 28]. Available from: http://aquaticnuisance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/Potential Zebra Mussel Impacts Hydro CRB.pdf

Peichel, B. 2001. Evolution of Great Lakes coastal restoration. Restoration and Reclamation Review, 7: 1-10.

Present Disinfection Practices and Solution for the Future: Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant [Internet]. AECOM; [cited 2014 March 30] Available from: http://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/Policy,%20Planning,%20Finance%20&%20Administration/Public%20Consultation%20Unit/Advisory%20Groups/ABTP%20ICMC/ICMC%20Steering%20Meeting%208%20-%20Presentation%20Updated.pdf

Rogers, G.K., Vogt, J., Lang, H., Cairns, V., Simser, L., Painter, S., Murphy, T. and D. Boyd. 1992. Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton Harbour; Goals, Options and Recommendations. Print. Vol 2. Hamilton (ON): Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 327 p.

Royal Commission of the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. Regeneration: Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City, Final Report. Toronto: Queens Printer of Ontario, 1992. Print.

Stormwater Management: Wet Weather Flow Master Plan – 25-year plan [Internet]. City of Toronto; [cited 2014 March 27]. Available from: https://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=d4e249983587f310VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=972bab501d8ce310VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

Supporting Document 3: Aquatic Environment for the Proposed Portlands Energy Centre. 2003. Brampton (ON): Stantec Consulting Ltd. 314 p.

Taylor C.M. 2008. Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli and Shigella dysenteriae type 1-induced haemolytic uraemic syndrome. Pediatric Nephrology, 23: 1425–1431.

http://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/Policy,%20Planning,%20Finance%20&%20Administration/Public%20Consultation%20Unit/Advisory%20Groups/ABTP%20ICMC/ICMC%20Steering%20Meeting%208%20-%20Presentation%20Updated.pdf



https://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=d4e249983587f310VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=972bab501d8ce310VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD





Page | 54

Toft, J.D., Ogston, A.S., Heerhartz, S.M., Cordell, J.R., and E.E. Flemer. 2013. Ecological response and physical stability of habitat enhancements along an urban armored shoreline. Ecological Engineering, 57: 97-108.

Toronto Beaches Water Quality: G - Cherry Beach [Internet]. 2011. Toronto Public Health; [cited 2013 Dec 2]. Available from: http://app.toronto.ca/tpha/beach/7.html

Van Elsas, J.D., Semenov, A.V., Costa, R. and J.T. Trevors. 2011. Survival of Escherichia coli in the environment: fundamental and public health aspects. ISME, 5(2): 173-183.

Vital, M., Hammes, F. and T. Egli. 2008. Escherichia coli O157 can grow in natural freshwater at low carbon concentrations. Environmental Microbiology, 10(9):2387-96.

Watson, K., Shaw, G., Leusch, F.D.L. and N.L. Knight. 2012. Chlorine disinfection by-products in wastewater effluent: Bioassay-based assessment of toxicological impact. Water Research, 46(18):6069-83.

Weber, M., and D. Roberts. 2012. Assessment of the Efficacy and Environmental Impact of Zequanox for Zebra Mussel Control Programs in Lakes and Reservoirs [Internet]. Marrone Bio Innovations; [cited 2014 March 20]. Available from: http://www.aquaticnuisance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/Zequanox-2012-Deep-Quarry-Treatment-Report_FINAL-2012.pdf

Wilber, C.G. 1969. The Biological Aspects of Water Pollution. 1st ed. Fort Lauderdale (FL): Charles C Thomas·Publisher. 296 p.

Zarull, M. A. 1992. Towards defining aquatic ecosystem health for the Great Lakes. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health, 1(2):97-107.

http://www.aquaticnuisance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/Zequanox-2012-Deep-Quarry-Treatment-Report_FINAL-2012.pdf




Page | 55

APPENDIX A - Quick-read flow-chart of the Aquatic Action Plan for reference.


Page | 56

APPENDIX B – Target Fish Species for Rehabilitation.


Page | 57


Page | 58


Page | 59


Page | 60

aquatic environment literature review and action plan, april 2014

Documents