Nottawasaga contaminants issues, Eulogy for the Pike Infested Swamp

Hi All,
I haven't posted for a while because I have been very busy with work but told my friend I would post this for him.

It's a message that some (many) board members may be interested in and something that I had posted a little bit about in the past (and based on information from him). It's from a friend of mine that has been fighting with the gov't for years to put up the information on PFAS/PFOS issues and warnings. He use to fish a ton in parts of the river for pike (and ate alot of them too so he was pretty upset that he has lost a good fishing spot and he was one of the victims of eating lots of fish from the system because the gov't did not post this information and he trusted that information. Well, the gov't has finally updated the warnings in the eating guide about eating the fish from this body of water and it's not good..actually it's absolutely horrendous.

Again this is not from me but if you use the eating guide and fish this body of water, you may have also have discovered the large changes in the warnings.

It's very sad to see that this happened in our life time. What's worse is that lack of desire to get these warnings out to people so they do not eat the fish without having the information at hand to make an informed decision.


*****************************************
FOR Nottawasaga River (44°28'57"N, 79°59'56"W)

In the 2022 edition of the Guide to Eating Ontario Fish, there are 13 species of fish listed from the Pike Infested Swamp. Pike are one, obviously. In 2022, children and women of childbearing age were “advised” that it was “OK” for them to eat up to 8 meals per month of pike less than 22 inches long or 4 meals per month of pike less than 30” long. Children and women of childbearing age were advised that they could eat some of the smaller fish from 11 of the species. Only two species (chinook salmon and pumpkinseed) were highly contaminated “do not eat” fish.

In the current (2024) edition of the Guide to Eating Ontario Fish, the same 13 species were tested. Children and women of childbearing age are advised to eat ZERO meals per month of pike of any size. All pike are now highly contaminated “do not eat” fish. The same is true for all of the other species except one (brown bullhead). Currently, children and women of childbearing age are advised to eat ZERO meals per month of walleye, yellow perch, rainbow trout, smallmouth bass, black crappie, northern pike, rock bass, pumpkinseed, redhorse sucker, white sucker, common carp, and chinook salmon because all sizes of all 12 of these species are highly contaminated “do not eat” fish.


Why has this changed?

The most likely explanation is that the level of contamination in these fish has not changed significantly, but Ontario’s assessment of the amount of contamination that should be of concern has changed significantly.

In 2022, only 2 of the 13 species were highly contaminated “do not eat” fish, and neither was due to PFAS. Currently, 12 of the 13 species are highly contaminated “do not eat” fish. Two of these species are the same two as in 2022 (chinook salmon and pumpkinseed). Of the 10 newly designated highly contaminated “do not eat” fish species, all list PFAS as a contributing factor. For half (5) of the newly designated highly contaminated “do not eat” fish species, PFAS is the sole factor listed in the designation.

The source of this PFAS is the fire school at CFB Borden, more than 46 kilometres upstream. Millions of dollars have been spent in an attempted cleanup at the source of the contamination, but information about the degree to which the cleanup has reduced the flow of PFAS out of CFB Borden is not being disclosed to the public.

Even in the unlikely event that the cleanup completely stopped the flow of PFAS into Bear Creek, the entire 46 kilometers downstream is already badly contaminated.

Excellent submission Flukes, thanks very much. I can attest from years ago working there, going past the FF training area, there was "stuff" oozing out of the ground directly west downhill of there into Bear Creek. Nasty looking for sure. I'm sure if our version of the EPA did a study there and around the south end dump site, people would not be happy. and then there's the ammo burn site at the north end of the Ammo dump, supposedly lead infested. Far as I understand the aquifer runs from southeast to northwest, wondering how much ground water is infested.

All good infromation, I would question the listing of chinook salmon and to some extent rainbow trout in the restricted column...Fishing for salmon in the lower Nott only occurs in late summer early fall , these fish come right out of the bay and make their way upstream to spawn ,,they dont take long ..so their only in the lower Nott for say 2-3 days at most, how much would they accumulate in that time ?..Same but perhaps to a lesser extent ...our rainbows ....

I can see species that spend their lives in the river could accumulate substances that are harmful to human health...

Yea I,ll still enjoy a meal of silver salmon and same for the bows...


Dave

Yes but the salmon are born in the dirty water until they migrate downstream out to the bay which can take up up to several months. Some take longer.

Wow thank you Flukes for all that information. Shame on the government for no action to warn the people but I am also not surprised. I have no faith in this government for anything. I still remember Walkerton too. Makes you wonder where else are there waters that are highly contaminated.

Arnie

The far upper reaches of the Nott,pine,mad ,boyne and their feeder creeks are where the salmon and bows spawn and grow to a size to return to the bay....all info ive seen gives these streams a clean bill of health...yea dont eat your pike from the swamp...

Well I have to argue a point here, a number of years ago we were advised not to eat the fish due to contamination, c&r only from the area downstream of the base.

I have removed some of the materials I had posted earlier...I had mistakenly posted too much of the article that may work itself into an article somewhere so I have gone back and edited so parts out and kept some of the parts that will help others to know what had happened with the contaminants.

As for the salmon discussions mentioned. These data that the gov't makes public are based on samples from fish that were collected from the specific locations stated in the guide. So, however anyone wants to use those data, is up to them but the fish came from these locations and were tested for the chemicals stated. This why I stated that the data should be made available for people to make their own informed decisions on what they may want or not want to eat. These are all recommendations (not prohibitions, etc.) for eating different species/size of fish from various bodies of water...in the end, it's up to you but it would be damn nice if we all had the information to make those decisions before we eat those fish because we generally all just assume the fish in our waters are all clean (unless told otherwise..it's the otherwise that was the problem here because the gov't had the information and did not want to disclose for whatever reason). Sure, there can be some data mix up, etc., etc. but these are done fairly regularly so the chances of data mix ups every year, etc., etc. is probably quite low. And anyone actually catching fish from this (or any body) of water wants to know how contaminated the fish they are eating from the specific body of water, can submit samples to be tested (but you need to follow the procedures outlined in the guide and they have an address to where to send the samples). And I think if you submit enough samples, they may even send you a gift of some sort like a baseball cap or...??

All I would add is that the place we are talking about is listed in the 2024 Guide to Eating Ontario Fish (available only online) as: Nottawasaga River (44°28'57"N, 79°59'56"W).

Please just go and see for yourselves.

Thanks. I had accidentally deleted the location, which is needed to see the new data for fish in the guide. I have put the location back in the re-edited post.

There were at least two previous discussions about this topic and I had posted two quite long posts expressing my opinion on the matter.
https://www.lakesimcoeoutdoors.com/forums/i...85&#entry453585
As for this specific situation described here it appears to me that in the previous years this specific location just was not tested at all for PFAS and this is an explanation about such dramatic differences.
But I do agree that there is a total mess with all this approach to the fish testing and the way the Guide to Eating Ontario Fish is published.
One example is that there is a huge discrepancy between Canadian guidelines and those from the US for the same waters. While americans look much more tougher they don't make much sense to me either.
Another example is that you could notice that in the previous years most of the Great Lakes were divided by several zones in the Guide. But now there are only two zones for Ontario and no divisions for Erie, Huron and GB. I would agree that it may be acceptable for cruising fish like salmon but it is obviously wrong for a more local fish, like pike, crappy etc.
As it was pointed out here by steelheader, it does not make any sense that salmon in Nottawassaga listed any differently than in GB. As long as I don’t find any meaningful information with this regard I would consider this to be a sort of lab mistake, external contamination etc.
As far as I understand, for fat soluble contaminants, PCBs and PFAS, it is very difficult to distinguish them from actual, “good” fats in the fish tissues. I once came across such a mistake, when one lab produced a very different result from another for the same fish/waterbody. They caught it and adjusted the lab procedure.
So, again, in my opinion there is a huge mess in theoretical and practical approach here.
But this area (testing for PCBs and PFASs) is the very edge of modern science, and the government, regardless of how much we like or hate them, is probably trying to do the best that they can. I wouldn't be very hard on them in this case even though I definitely want to know tons more about procedures, protocols, labs etc for these testing.
Also keep in mind that for all other food we eat there is no similar testing at all. Basically, we don’t know what we are eating…. And maybe for the best as we still need to eat anyway.
So whatever the crap we've already eaten without realizing it, we either flushed down the toilets or, alas, stored in our bodies. But as we get more data, we can use it without losing common sense.

The common sense approach: follow the recommendations in the Guide to Eating Ontario Sportfish (available online).

Please, please, please: Everyone who eats fish from the Nottawasaga River (44°28'57"N, 79°59'56"W) please go and read the Guide.

The Guide says children and women of childbearing age should eat ZERO meals per month of walleye, yellow perch, rainbow trout, smallmouth bass, black crappie, northern pike, rock bass, pumpkinseed, redhorse sucker, white sucker, common carp, and chinook salmon because they are highly contaminated “do not eat” fish.

The only fish that the Guide “advises” children and women of childbearing age to eat from this location are brown bullhead less than 14” long, and no more than 8 meals per month.

There are factual inaccuracies in your post that I may come back to later, but I do not want to dilute the important message:

Children and women of childbearing age should eat ZERO meals per month of walleye, yellow perch, rainbow trout, smallmouth bass, black crappie, northern pike, rock bass, pumpkinseed, redhorse sucker, white sucker, common carp, and chinook salmon from the Nottawasaga River (44°28'57"N, 79°59'56"W) because they are highly contaminated.

This post has been edited by ilikepike on Jun 23, 2025 - 09:06 am

I would like to see them disclose why they did not disclose the information. My guess would be some monetary liabilities.

Arnie

So what’s the real question we should be asking?

Over how wide of an area around “Nottawasaga River (44°28'57"N, 79°59'56"W)” should children and women of childbearing age NOT eat walleye, yellow perch, rainbow trout, smallmouth bass, black crappie, northern pike, rock bass, pumpkinseed, redhorse sucker, white sucker, common carp, and chinook salmon?

Again, please go look at the Guide to Eating Ontario Sportfish (available online).

Now things get more complicated. To make the best use of the valuable data in the Guide, it helps to consider the location (a flowing river), the species’ life histories (e.g., do they stay in river year round?), the contaminants (e.g., PFAS, mercury, PCBs) and what is known about their sources (where are they coming from?).

For pumpkinseed the contaminant triggering the advisories is mercury, for chinook salmon the contaminants are mercury and PCBs, for brown bullhead the contaminants are mercury and PFAS.

Chinook salmon spend most of their lives out in Georgian Bay and put on over 99% of their body mass there. That is probably where they accumulate most of their contaminants. I do not know why, in the Guide, chinook salmon are reported as less contaminated when tested from Georgian Bay than from the Nottawasaga River. It might have something to do with the major physiological changes the salmon undergo while migrating and spawning, or differences in habitat use. More likely, it’s just variability in sampling year or sample size.

The important point is that of the 13 species of fish tested for the Guide, chinook salmon spend the least amount of time in the Nottawasaga River, so their contaminant profile is the least reflective of the pollution in the river.

All of the other species of fish (12) listed in the Guide from “Nottawasaga River (44°28'57"N, 79°59'56"W)” spend all or a significant part of their lives in the river, and all 12 had significant PFAS contamination. Ten of the 12 species are so highly contaminated that children and women of childbearing age are advised to not eat them (not even little ones). For five out of those 10 species, PFAS is the only contaminant triggering the advisories.

The source of this PFAS is the fire school at CFB Borden. PFAS from the fire school flows into Bear Creek. The PFAS travels 2.6 km down Bear Creek and then flows into the Pine River. The PFAS then flows 11.1 km down the Pine River and then flows into the Nottawasaga River. The PFAS then flows 32.9 km down the Nottawasaga River to the location 44°28'57"N, 79°59'56"W (near Jacks Lake).

This entire 46.6 km pathway (CFB Borden fire school to Bear Creek to Pine River to Nottawasaga River to Jacks Lake and some unknown distance further downstream) is highly contaminated with PFAS and the advice in the Guide should apply to fish caught anywhere along this pathway.

In the Guide, there are two stations upstream that fall on this 46.6 km pathway:

At Pine River (44°19'11"N 79°53'05"W) in Angus, children and women of childbearing age should eat ZERO meals per month of either burbot(ling) or white suckers because they are highly contaminated with PFAS.

At Bear Creek (44°15'31"N 79°56'03"W), children and women of childbearing age should eat ZERO meals per month of brook trout because they are highly contaminated with PFAS.

If you catch fish anywhere along this 46.6 km pathway, please take a moment to check the Guide and consider the implications—for yourself, your family, and for anyone else you might feed the fish to.

About the only fish I'd eat from that watershed area knowing the above is a Filet-O-Fish from McD's and that's not happening either.