· RECORD OF CONSULTATION GODERICH HARBOUR WHARF EXPANSION Submitted to: Ministry of the...

RECORD OF CONSULTATION

GODERICH HARBOUR WHARF EXPANSION

AUGUST

OF CONSULTATION


AUGUST 2010

RECORD OF CONSULTATION


Submitted to:

Ministry of the Environment Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch

2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5

Submitted by:

Constance J. Agnew, B.Sc. rcji

Senior Planning Ecologist Matthew J. Pearson, MCIP RPP

Senior Environmental Planner

On behalf of:

Goderich Port Management Corporation P.O. Box 415, 300 North Harbour Road W. Goderich, Ontario N7A 4C6

August 2010

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page i

LGL Limited BMROSS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Consultation .................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Consultation During Preparation of the Terms of Reference .......................................................................... 1

2.1 Formal Notices in Local Newspapers and Websites .................................................................................... 1 2.1.2 Notice of Study Commencement ......................................................................................................... 1 2.2.2 Notice of Public Information Centre ................................................................................................... 1 2.2.3 Notice of Submission of Terms of Reference ...................................................................................... 1

2.2 Consultation with External Agencies and Stakeholders ............................................................................... 2 2.2.1 First Nations and Métis Consultation .................................................................................................. 2

2.3 Public Information Centre #1 ..................................................................................................................... 22 3.0 Issues Identified for EA Study ...................................................................................................................... 27 4.0 Outstanding Concerns ................................................................................................................................... 27 5.0 References ..................................................................................................................................................... 28

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Contacts with External Agencies During Preparation of the Terms of Reference ..................... 3 Table 2. Summary of Issues Identified in PIC Comments .......................................................................................... 24

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Formal Published Newspaper Notices Appendix B. ToR Contact List Appendix C. Correspondence with Government Review Team, Local Stakeholders, and Harbour Users Appendix D. Agency and Stakeholder Meeting Minutes Appendix E. Public Information Centre Displays Appendix F. Public Information Centre Comments/Study Team Responses

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 1

LGL Limited BMROSS

1.0 CONSULTATION Consultation is an integral component of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process and essential to the successful completion of this study. The consultation proposed for this study is in accordance with Section 5.1 and Section 6(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, the Code of Practice – Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process (MOE 2007) and the Code of Practice – Preparing and Reviewing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario (2009). Consultation must be inclusive, timely and clear to be effective. At the same time stakeholders must be confident that their participation will result in more than tokenism. The purpose of this report is to meet the requirements of Section 6(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act requiring the proponent to describe the consultation undertaken during the Terms of Reference (ToR) phase of study and the results of that consultation.

2.0 CONSULTATION DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF

REFERENCE An external agency and public consultation program was conducted during the ToR phase of this study. The purpose of this program was to solicit input on the ToR, potential impacts to be considered during the EA phase of study, and approvals/authorizations/permits required for the project. Key components of the consultation program during the ToR phase included: formal notices in newspapers; correspondence/meetings with external agencies; one Public Information Centre (PIC); and, preparation and release of the ToR for public review.

2.1 Formal Notices in Local Newspapers and Websites A ‘Notice of Commencement of Terms of Reference’ and a ‘Notice of Public Information Centre’ were placed in the Goderich Signal-Star newspaper and on the Goderich Port Management Corporation and Town of Goderich Websites. A ‘Notice of Submission of Terms of Reference’ will be placed in the local newspaper and on the proponents’ websites concurrently with the completion of the ToR phase of the study.

2.1.2 Notice of Study Commencement The ‘Notice of Commencement of Terms of Reference’ for the project was placed in the Goderich Signal-Star on Wednesday, May 6, 2009 and Wednesday, May 13, 2009. The ads were also placed on the Town of Goderich and GPMC websites. The ‘Notice of Commencement of Terms of Reference’ introduced the project and described the ToR phase of the study. A copy of the notice is included in Appendix A.

2.2.2 Notice of Public Information Centre The ‘Notice of Public Information Centre’ was advertised in the Goderich Signal-Star on Wednesday May 27, 2009 and Wednesday June 10, 2009. The notice was also posted on the GPMC and Town of Goderich websites. The ‘Notice of Public Information Centre’ provided information about the study and the details of the PIC. A copy of the notice is included in Appendix A.

2.2.3 Notice of Submission of Terms of Reference The ‘Notice of Submission of Terms of Reference’ was advertised in the Goderich Signal-Star on Friday May 21, 2010. The notice was also posted on the Town of Goderich and GPMC websites. The ‘Notice of Submission of Terms of Reference’ provided details on the ToR, the EA phase of the study, identified locations where copies of the ToR were available for review, identified the closing date for submission of


LGL Limited BMROSS

comments, and listed persons to contact for further information. A copy of the notice is included in Appendix A.

2.2 Consultation with External Agencies and Stakeholders Consultation with external agencies including the government review team (as provided by MOE), local stakeholders, harbour users, First Nations and Métis has been on-going throughout the ToR phase of the project. Local stakeholders include members of the public who provided comments or participated in the consultation process during the preparation of the ToR. In addition, local businesses and community groups located within proximity of the study area, or users of the Harbour were identified as local stakeholders and were informed of the study during the preparation of the ToR. External Agencies, First Nations and Métis were identified in consultation with MOE. Appendix B presents the contact list for the ToR phase of the study. An Initial Contact Letter was sent to all government review team agencies, local stakeholders and harbour users on May 11, 2009. A PIC Invitation letter was sent to external agencies and stakeholders on May 29, 2009. A summary of correspondence with the government review team, local stakeholders and harbour users is presented in Table 1 and copies of the correspondence is presented in Appendix C. A meeting was held on July 8, 2010 between members of the study team and members of the public, the Saugeen Ojibway First Nations, Ministry of Natural Resources and Maitland Valley Conservation Authority during the preparation of the Terms of Reference to discuss dredging in the Maitland River mouth area. A copy of the meeting minutes is provided in Appendix D. A final contact letter was sent on Tuesday May 18, 2010 to the government review team, local stakeholders and harbour users to advise that the ToR would be available for public review on May 21, 2010. This letter identified locations where copies of the ToR were available for review and the closing date for submission of comments. Members of the government review team received hard copies of the ToR.

2.2.1 First Nations and Métis Consultation At the commencement of the ToR phase of study, three First Nations organizations were sent an initial contact letter on May 11, 2009, including: Chippewas of Nawash Unceded; Chippewas of Saugeen; and, Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point. An invitation letter to the Public Information Centre was sent to these First Nations organizations on May 29, 2009. In June, following the PIC another First Nation – Bkejwanong Territory from Walpole Island expressed a general interest in this project. They were sent an initial contact letter June 26, 2009. Attempts to contact all four First Nations by telephone were made in late June. Messages were left but have remained unreturned to date. The study team received direction from MOE in October and November 2009 requesting additional First Nations and Métis organizations be included on the project contact list. Project notices were sent to the Six Nations of the Grand River Territory, Oneida Nation of the Thames, Historic Saugeen Métis, and Georgian Bay Métis Council on December 9, 2009. A response was received from the Historic Saugeen Métis on January 13, 2010 asking that they be kept informed of the project’s progress and in particular of any archaeological finds associated with this EA (Appendix C). A letter and a copy of the ToR were sent on May 18, 2010 to First Nations and Métis on the contact list. Comments on the ToR were received from the Historic Saugeen Métis and Métis Nation of Ontario. These comments and the response letters provided to the Métis representatives are provided in Appendix C.


LGL Limited BMROSS

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE

Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Ontario Region Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.

CEAA Federal EA Coordinator assigned April 23, 2009. FEAC participated in June 10, 2009 meeting with MOE Project Officer and study team at project site.

Confirmed study may proceed as coordinated provincial/federal EA. CEAA Project Description will be submitted concurrent with submission of the ToR document.

Goderich-Exeter Railway Co. Ltd.


Response form was received on June 25, 2009 indicating that there are no concerns about the study at this time, but would like to remain informed about the study’s progress.

No issues or concerns identified.

Department of Indian and Northern Affairs

Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010. Email sent August 16, 2010 regarding response to comments made on the ToR and requesting an acknowledgement indicating acceptance of the proposed changes.

A letter was received on June 2, 2010 from the Litigation Team Leader, providing information about active litigation (cases) in the vicinity of the study area.

Acceptance of final ToR pending.

Office of the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and non-status Indians


No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.


LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Ontario Region Environment Canada



Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Southern Ontario District

Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Provided copies of Draft ToR and Draft CEAA Project Description December 10, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010. Email sent August 16, 2010 providing a response to DFO comments on the ToR and requesting an acknowledgement indicating acceptance of the proposed changes.

Response form was received on May 27, 2009 indicating that DFO will be commenting on the project by the specified date, and that they require information to determine impacts to Fish Habitat to see if an Authorization Under the Fisheries Act is needed. Contact also changed. Received comments on Draft ToR and Draft CEAA Project Description on January 13, 2010. Comments received June 24, 2010, via MOE, on ToR. Received a reply email from DFO on August 18, 2010 stating that the LGL response letter will be reviewed by the end of August and a response will follow accordingly.

Updated contact list. Further liaison/information will be provided as EA progresses. July 12, 2010 study team met with ToR commenting agencies and EAAB Project Officer to discuss comments on ToR. Received a reply email from DFO on August 19, 2010, acknowledging receipt of the response letter. It was noted that the changes to be made in the ToR will provide information and direction to adequately apply DFO policy and assess impacts to fish habitat.

Health Canada, Ontario Region Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.



LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Transport Canada - Ontario Region


Email was received June 11, 2009 reminding study team that an NWPA application will be needed if the project crosses or affects a navigable waterway. The Railway Safety Act may also be triggered. Contact also changed.

During the course of the study, an NWPA application will be sent to Transport Canada and, if needed, the Railway Safety Act will be adhered to. Updated contact list.

Aboriginal and Ministry Relationships Branch




LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Ministry of the Environment – Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch (EAAB)

Requested MOE EAAB assign Project Officer April 7, 2009 Study Area Field Review with MOE EAAB and CEAA June 10, 2009 Submitted draft ToR for EAAB Project Officer Review September 24, 2009 Submitted revised draft ToR to MOE for internal technical review March 18, 2010 Submitted Final ToR for MOE and Public Review May 18, 2010 Sent MOE Notice of Intent to Amend ToR to EAAB June 30, 2010 Amended ToR submitted to MOE EAAB August 24, 2010

EAAB Project Officer assigned April 9, 2009. April 15, 2009 EAAB Project Officer provided study team with copy of Government Review Team contact list, and resource list for identifying First Nations organizations. October 21, 2009 EAAB Project Officer provided additional First Nations contacts to be consulted during ToR. November 16, 2009 EAAB Project Officer provided revised First Nations and Métis contacts to be included on project contact list. December 16, 2009 received comments on draft ToR from EAAB Project Officer. April 21, 2010 received comments from MOE Technical Reviewers. June 24, 2010 received consolidated comments from MOE on ToR. Commenters included members of the GRT, MOE Technical Reviewers, Métis communities, and local stakeholders. July 2, 2010 MOE EAAB advised that eight week window to resolve issues and amend ToR would end August 24, 2010.

EAAB Project Officer attended PIC#1 June 10, 2009. November 2, 2009 Study Team asked for clarifications regarding additional First Nations contacts provided by EAAB. February 4, 2010 LGL met with EAAB Project Officer to discuss comments received on draft ToR. July 12, 2010 study team met with ToR commenting agencies and EAAB Project Officer to discuss comments on ToR.


LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Ministry of the Environment – Surface Water

Submitted revised draft ToR to MOE for internal technical review March 18, 2010 Email sent August 16, 2010 regarding response to comments made on the ToR and requesting an acknowledgement indicating acceptance of the proposed changes.

April 21, 2010 received comments from MOE Technical Reviewers. June 24, 2010 received consolidated comments from MOE on ToR. Commenters included members of the GRT, MOE Technical Reviewers, Métis communities, and local stakeholders.

Received a reply email from MOE (surface water) on August 17, 2010 stating that LGL’s response adequately addressed the comments made to the ToR.

Ministry of the Environment - Air

Submitted revised draft ToR to MOE for internal technical review March 18, 2010 Email sent August 24, 2010 regarding response to comments made on the ToR.

April 21, 2010 received comments from MOE Technical Reviewers. June 24, 2010 received consolidated comments from MOE on ToR. Commenters included members of the GRT, MOE Technical Reviewers, Métis communities, and local stakeholders.


Ministry of Culture Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010. Email sent August 16, 2010 regarding response to comments made on the ToR and requesting an acknowledgement indicating acceptance of the proposed changes.

Email received September 3, 2009 indicating MOC has an interest in the conservation of cultural heritage resources including: archaeological resources; built cultural resources; and, cultural heritage landscapes. Ministry of Culture comments received June 24, 2010, via MOE, on ToR. Received reply email August 17, 2010 providing new contact information, as the commenter is away on leave.

Reply email sent September 21, 2009 indicating at that a Stage I and II archaeological assessment and a built heritage and cultural landscape assessment would be undertaken during the EA study. Updated contact list with new contact information for Ministry of Culture contacts. Acceptance of final ToR pending.


LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, Culture, and Tourism


Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, Culture, and Tourism comments received June 24, 2010, via MOE, on ToR.


Ministry of Tourism and Recreation


Ministry of Tourism and Culture comments received June 24, 2010, via MOE, on ToR.



LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Ministry of Natural Resources Initial Contact Letter sent May

11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Initial Contact Letter and PIC package sent to Planner August 6, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010. Email sent August 16, 2010 regarding response to comments made on the ToR and requesting an acknowledgement indicating acceptance of the proposed changes.

Email was received on June 1, 2009 indicating that MNR would like to stay informed about the study’s progress. Ministry of Natural Resources comments received June 24, 2010, via MOE, on ToR.

July 12, 2010 study team met with ToR commenting agencies and EAAB Project Officer to discuss comments on ToR. Acceptance of final ToR pending. Received an email on August 17, 2010 stating that a response will be given by August 27, 2010.

Ministry of Transportation Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009


Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.

Letter received June 2, 2010 regarding change of contact information.

Updated contact list.

Huron County Planning & Development Dept.




LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Town of Goderich Initial Contact Letter sent May

11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010

Response form was received on May 27, 2009 indicating that there are no concerns about the study at this time, but would like to remain informed about the study’s progress.


Town of Goderich - Fire Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010

Response form was received on May 25, 2009 indicating that there are no concerns about the study at this time, but would like to remain informed about the study’s progress. Also, received the name of the current Fire Chief.


Huron Detachment - OPP Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010

Response form was received on June 15, 2009 indicating that there are no concerns about the study at this time, but would like to remain informed about the study’s progress. Contact also changed.


Emergency Medical Services Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010



Community Emergency Management Co-ordinator

Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010




LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Maitland Valley Conservation Authority


Response form was received on May 26, 2009 indicating that the MVCA will be commenting on the project and will provide information related to the project by the specified date. The MVCA also requires a permit, would like to attend the pre-consultation meeting, would like a copy of the ToR, and would like a copy of the EA Report. Contact also changed. Maitland Valley Conservation Authority comments received June 24, 2010, via MOE, on ToR. Received reply email August 16, 2010 stating a change of contact.

MVCA attended pre-consultation meeting. Further discussions will be held with MVCA during the EA study. The MVCA will be provided with a copy of the ToR and a copy of the EA Report. Updated contact list. July 12, 2010 study team met with ToR commenting agencies and EAAB Project Officer to discuss comments on ToR. Acceptance of final ToR pending. Updated the contact list and resent the response letter originally sent on August 16, 2010 to the new contact on August 17, 2010.

Ministry of Economic Development and Trade



Sifto Canada Corp. Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010

Response received September 11, 2009 indicating that there are no concerns about the study at this time, but would like to remain informed about the study’s progress.



LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Goderich Elevators Ltd. Initial Contact Letter sent May

11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010 Email sent August 16, 2010 regarding response to comments made on the ToR and requesting an acknowledgement indicating acceptance of the proposed changes.

Response form was received on June 2, 2009 indicating that comments will be made by the date specified. Goderich Elevators Ltd. comments received June 24, 2010, via MOE, on ToR.


MacDonald Marine Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010


Maitland Valley Marina Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010 Email sent August 16, 2010 regarding response to comments made on the ToR and requesting an acknowledgement indicating acceptance of the proposed changes.

Response form was received on May 19, 2009 indicating that they wish to remain informed about the study’s progress and that they are interested in receiving any pertinent information about the project. Maitland Valley Marina comments received June 24, 2010, via MOE, on ToR.

Will send Maitland Valley Marina any relative information.


LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Goodison Fisheries Limited Initial Contact Letter sent May



Inland Sea Products Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010


L&S Fisheries Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010


Liddlle Bros. Fisheries Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010


1523537 Ontario Inc. (formerly Pilon Fisheries)


Response form was received on May 30, 2009 indicating that there are no concerns about the study at this time, but would like to remain informed about the study’s progress. Contact also changed.



LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Purdy Fisheries Initial Contact Letter sent May



Da-Lee Dust Control Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010

Response form was received on June 10, 2009 indicating that there are no concerns about the study at this time, but would like to remain informed about the study’s progress. Contact also changed.


Seaway Marine Transport Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010

Response form was received on June 1, 2009 indicating that there are no concerns about the study at this time, but would like to remain informed about the study’s progress. Email received September 15, 2009 inquiring about the status of the EA project.

Reply email sent September 21, 2009 advising that Seaway Marine Transport would be notified when the ToR document was placed on the public record for a 30-day review.

Canada Steamship Lines Inc. Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010



Hannah Marine Corp. Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010



LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Lower Lakes Towing Ltd. Initial Contact Letter sent May



Sarnia Shipping Agency Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010

Response form was received on May 21, 2009 indicating that there are no concerns about the project and has been asked to be removed from the contact list.

Updated the contact list.

Canada Coast Guard Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010


Chippewas of Nawash Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Follow-up telephone call made June 24, 2009. Unable to leave message. Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.



LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Olthuis Kleer Townshend Barristers and Solicitors

Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Follow-up telephone call made June 24, 2009. Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.


Six Nation Confederacy Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Follow-up telephone call made June 24, 2009. Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.


Chippewas of Saugeen Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Follow-up telephone call made June 24, 2009 and voice message left for Chief and Council. Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.



LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point

Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Follow-up telephone call made June 24, 2009 and voice message left for Chief. Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.


Walpole Island First Nations – Bkejwanong Territory

Initial Contact Letter sent June 26, 2009 Follow-up telephone call made June 29, 2009 and voice message left for Chief. Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.


Six Nations of the Grand River Territory

Initial Contact Letter sent December 9, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.


Oneida Nation of the Thames Initial Contact Letter sent December 9, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.



LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Historic Saugeen Métis Initial Contact Letter sent

December 9, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010. Email sent August 16, 2010 regarding response to comments made on the ToR and requesting an acknowledgement indicating acceptance of the proposed changes.

Received reply letter January 1, 2010 indicating interest in the project and asking to be added to the project contact list. Requested notification of any archaeological finds during EA. Historic Saugeen Métis comments received June 24, 2010, via MOE, on ToR.

Historic Saugeen Métis will be notified of any archaeological finds made during the EA. A meeting with the Historic Saugeen Métis has been scheduled in late August to discuss the project. Acceptance of final ToR pending.

Georgian Bay Métis Council Initial Contact Letter sent December 9, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010. Email sent August 16, 2010 regarding comments received on the ToR and requested acknowledgement indicating acceptance of proposed changes.

Georgian Bay Métis Council comments received June 24, 2010, via Métis Nation of Ontario and MOE, on ToR.


Métis Nation of Ontario Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010. Email sent August 16, 2010 regarding comments received on the ToR and requested acknowledgement indicating acceptance of proposed changes.

Métis Nation of Ontario comments received June 24, 2010, via MOE, on ToR. Received reply email August 17, 2010 stating that review of the response letter will be done with the regional consultation committee before a letter of acceptance is submitted. Also, notification was provided with new contact information.

A response letter was sent to the Métis Nation of Ontario on August 16, 2010 addressing the comments on the ToR. The contact list will be updated. Acceptance of final ToR pending.


LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Canadian Hydrographic Services Initial Contact Letter sent May


Response form was received from the Hydrographic Data Centre on July 9, 2009 indicating that there are no concerns about the study at this time, but would like to remain informed about the study’s progress. They would also appreciate a copy of the plans when the study is complete so that they can update their Nautical Chart. Contact also changed.

Updated contact list with new information and will send the Hydrographic Data Centre a copy of the plans after study completion.

Goderich Power & Sail Squadron



Gozzard Yachts Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010


Huron Community Stewardship Portal



Avon Maitland District School Board




LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Snug Harbour Municipal Marina Initial Contact Letter sent May



Goderich Bait and Tackle Shop Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010


Maitland Trail Association Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010

Response form was received on May 27, 2009 indicating that there are no concerns about the project and has been asked to be removed from the contact list.

Updated the contact list.

Fly Fitters Fly Fishing Adventures Guide Service



Goderich and District Chamber of Commerce




LGL Limited BMROSS


Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Downtown Goderich Business Improvement Area


Response form was received on June 4, 2009 indicating that there are no concerns about the study at this time, but would like to remain informed about the study’s progress.


Olthuis Kleer Townshend Barristers and Solicitors



Goderich Yacht Club Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010


Maitland Country Club Initial Contact Letter sent May 25, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010


Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation


Response form was received May 25, 2009 indicating that there are no concerns about the study at this time, but would like to remain informed about the study’s progress.



LGL Limited BMROSS

The study team has had discussions with Maitland Valley Conservation Authority and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources officials regarding their recent consultations with local First Nations and Métis groups. The study team is committed to consulting with First Nations and Métis communities who may have an interest in this project and will continue to pursue consultation opportunities throughout the ToR and EA phases of this project.

2.3 Public Information Centre #1 The purpose of the Public Information Centre (PIC) was to introduce the proposed project, describe the process to be followed to complete the environmental assessment, to identify the requirements for preparation of a ToR, and to solicit input from stakeholders. The PIC was held at the Huron County Museum on Wednesday, June 10, 2009. The PIC was open to the public from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., with a brief presentation about the project at 7:00 p.m. A PIC invitation letter was prepared and mailed on May 29, 2009 to the government review team, harbour users, and local stakeholders (Appendix C). External agencies and stakeholders, including elected officials, municipal staff, and government agencies were invited by letter to attend the PIC from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The purpose of this pre-PIC meeting was to provide an opportunity for affected stakeholders to review the project prior to the public and to communicate any issues or concerns to the project team in a candid manner. During the PIC, various text displays were available describing the purpose of the PIC, the study area, project background, the purpose and components of a ToR, the EA process, statement of problem/opportunity, an evaluation of the “Alternatives to the Undertaking”, a summary of existing conditions, studies to be undertaken during the EA, Freedom of Information details, project timeline, next steps and an invitation to provide comments on the project, and a description of the EA Consultation Plan. A copy of the PIC display panels are presented in Appendix E. Representatives from the Goderich Port Management Corporation, B.M. Ross and Associates Limited and LGL Limited were in attendance at the PIC to present materials and answer questions. Grant Kauffman, LGL Limited and Matt Pearson, B.M. Ross, made a brief presentation about the project and answered questions from PIC attendees. A total of 29 people signed the attendance register, including nine representatives from external agencies and twenty local residents. Representatives from external agencies included one representative from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, two representatives from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, one representative from the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority, one representative from the Huron County Planning and Development Department, and four representatives from the Town of Goderich, including the CAO and two councillors. Comment sheets were available for participants to record their issues and concerns. Participants were invited to complete the comment sheets at the PIC and leave them with the project team, or mail the comment sheets in by July 3, 2009. Two comment sheets were completed at the PIC. Five comments were received following the PIC. Copies of the comments are presented in Appendix F. A summary of the comments received are presented in Table 2. The major issues raised at the PIC are summarized below. Specific responses to comment sheets received will be prepared and forwarded to the commenting party. Copies of comment sheets received and the study team response are presented in Appendix F. Written comments received during and following the PIC identified a number of concerns regarding the impact of the proposed project including: increased noise, light, air pollution and traffic, impacts to the


LGL Limited BMROSS

aesthetic environment and natural environment, impacts on the operation of the harbour/harbour users and impacts to archaeological features. A couple of stakeholders identified consultation with First Nations as an important issue for this study. One commenter requested the opportunity to review the ToR at a second PIC. Verbal comments during the PIC were made during the question period following the project presentation, and a summary of these comments are provided below. Concern was identified regarding the source of aggregate that would be shipped in and out of Goderich Harbour, and the increased traffic associated with the project on North Harbour Road. Impacts to North Harbour Road as a result of increased truck traffic will be considered during the EA. Another participant asked why CEAA was not being carried out. The study team explained the triggers for an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and explained that this project is being undertaken as a co-ordinated environmental assessment, addressing both provincial and federal requirements. A participant asked if there would be an opportunity to review the ToR before it is filed with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. The study team advised that they would consider holding a second PIC if it was warranted by public interest. The study team has since decided that the ToR document will not be presented to the public prior to formal submission to the MOE. A participant inquired about the increase in light pollution and related mitigation as a result of the proposed wharf expansion. Measures to mitigate potential light trespass, such as aiming lights downwards and shielding luminaires will be identified during the EA. A request was made to consider pedestrian access to various waterfront features for recreational activities including fishing, improving/providing access to the waterfront and Tiger Dunlop recreational trails as well as the Maitland Golf and Country Club. The study team will investigate these opportunities during the course of the EA. It was also asked if public funds had been acquired for this project. The study team is currently investigating funding opportunities through the Provincial and Federal governments. Several PIC attendees noted impacts from existing and proposed illumination as a concern. Impacts of illumination will be addressed through the implementation of mitigation measures prescribed in the EA Report, including Best Management Practices such as the strategic placement of luminaires and direction/shielding of luminaires to limit light trespass on neighbouring properties. Other outstanding issues, such as air quality, effects on heritage sites, effects on aesthetics, and effects on natural heritage, will be addressed during the EA phase, as detailed studies are carried out to assess impacts to these features. A participant commented on consultation of First Nations; First Nations and Métis will continue to be consulted during the EA phase. The overall tone of PIC was congenial and effective two-way communication was achieved. The PIC effectively served its purpose: to introduce the proposed project, describe the process to be followed to complete the environmental assessment, to identify the requirements for preparation of a ToR, and to solicit input from stakeholders.


LGL Limited BMROSS

TABLE 2.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN PIC COMMENTS

Comment Number of Responses

Comment Sheet Cross Reference

Summary of Response ToR Section where comment

is addressed Concern about poor air quality in the Town of Goderich. 1 1

An air quality investigation will be undertaken during the EA phase of the project.

Section 6.3.8

Recommended consultation with First Nations during the Terms of Reference preparation and during the Environmental Assessment.

1 3,7

First Nations and Métis are included on the contact list and will continue to be consulted during the project.

Section 8.2.3

The Terms of Reference should include a study of post-construction lighting requirements and the impact on residences.

2 3,4

A review of illumination including prescribed mitigation measures to limit light trespass will be included in the EA.

Section 6.2

The Terms of Reference should address the environmental impacts of stockpiling and loading additional salt and the inclusion of aggregates at the Harbour.

1 3

These environmental impacts will be considered during the impact assessment for natural heritage features.

Section 6.0

A PIC should be held to review the draft Terms of Reference for the Environmental Assessment.

1 3

As there has not been significant public interest in a second PIC the study team as elected not to hold any additional PICs during the ToR phase of the study. The respondent will be notified by letter of the 30-day public review period for the ToR and they will have the opportunity to make further comments at that time. Several PICs are planned for the EA phase of the study.

Section 8.2

Concern regarding increased noise from additional truck and rail traffic. In the last winter, have noticed an increase in traffic and noise between midnight and 6 a.m.

1 4

A noise assessment will be undertaken during the EA phase of the study.

Section 6.4.1


LGL Limited BMROSS

TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN PIC COMMENTS




is addressed Concern about vibration and stability of the bank above the rail crossing on North Harbour Road.

1 4

Acknowledged comments have been received and will be taken into consideration during the preparation of the ToR.

Section 6.4.3

Concern about the impact of the project on the waterway, bird and animal habitat. 2 4,5

These environmental impacts will be considered during the documentation and impact assessment for natural environment investigations.

Section 6.0

Concern about the aesthetic impact of the proposed project (i.e., view across the harbour being obstructed).

1 4

A review of illumination, including prescribing mitigation measures to limit light trespass will be included in the EA. The proposed wharf facility is expected to be a flat structure, parallel with the lake’s surface and as such should not have a negative impact on the view of the lake from your property.

Section 6.2

Requested further information about the project details (i.e., increase useable off-loading and on-shore storage area).

1 5

A copy of the PIC display panels was provided.

Section 8.1.3

Concern about impact of the project on the restaurant, elevators, marina and the Maitland trailer park and walking trail.

1 5

Acknowledged comments have been received and will be taken into consideration during the preparation of the ToR. Impacts to be considered during the EA.

Section 6.4.2

Concern about the impacts to their property within the Harbour.

1 5

Acknowledged comments have been received and will be taken into consideration during the preparation of the ToR. Impacts to be considered during the EA.

Section 6.4.2

Advised of a Heritage Project for the Maitland River Watershed. Requesting a map of the mouth of

1 6 At a minimum an Archaeological investigation and Cultural/Built Heritage assessment will be

Section 6.5


LGL Limited BMROSS

TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN PIC COMMENTS




is addressed the Maitland River and adjacent Harbour.

undertaken during the course of the environmental assessment phase of this project. A map was provided to the commenting party.

Advised of a potential heritage site adjacent to North Harbour Road, west of Highway 21 (Head Pond and Flume of Platts Flour Mill).

1 6

At a minimum an Archaeological investigation and Cultural/Built Heritage assessment will be undertaken during the course of the environmental assessment phase of this project.

Section 6.5

Discussed the inclusion of the North Harbour Road in this study, and suggested a public meeting to address truck traffic; supported higher traffic volumes, as they are necessary to transport commodities.

1 7

As there has not been significant public interest in a second PIC the study team as elected not to hold any additional PICs during the ToR phase of the study. The respondent will be notified by letter of the 30-day public review period for the final ToR Document and they will have the opportunity to make further comments at that time. Several PICs are planned for the EA phase of the study.

Section 8.2


LGL Limited BMROSS

3.0 ISSUES IDENTIFIED FOR EA STUDY A number of concerns/issues associated with the proposed wharf expansion were identified during the Terms of Reference consultation program, and more specifically at the Public Information Centre held on June 10, 2009, including:

impacts to air quality;

light trespass;

noise impacts; and,

effects on local traffic and existing truck routes, in particular on North Harbour Road.

As a result of these issues being raised the study team proposes to study air quality, illumination, noise and traffic existing conditions and impacts/mitigation during the EA study. In accordance with Ontario Regulation 616/98, a period of eight weeks was requested from June 30, 2010 to August 24, 2010 to address the comments received and to resubmit the revised Terms of Reference. Copies of the comments received and response letters and e-mail responses are provided in Appendix C. An agency meeting was held on July 12, 2010 to address comments and concerns identified by external agencies. Representatives from LGL Limited, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Maitland Valley Conservation Authority were in attendance. Minutes from this meeting are included in Appendix D.

4.0 OUTSTANDING CONCERNS The study team has not been successful in having discussions with local First Nations and Métis communities during the ToR phase of the study. However, a meeting with the Historic Saugeen Métis has been scheduled for late August 2010. The study team is committed to consulting with First Nations and Métis communities who may have an interest in this project and will continue to pursue consultation opportunities throughout the ToR review period and EA phases of this project. The MOE Project Officer will be kept apprised of any First Nations and Métis consultation undertaken during the ToR review phase of the project.


LGL Limited BMROSS

5.0 REFERENCES B.M. Ross and Associates Limited. 2008. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for Construction of

Breakwater Berming (Goderich Harbour). Environmental Study Report. File No. 01041. Prepared for the Goderich Port Management Corporation.

Municipal Engineers Association. 2007. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 2007. Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Terms of

Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 2007. Code of Practice for Consultation in Ontario’s

Environmental Assessment Process. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2003. Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource

Stewardship and Facility Development Projects.

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation

LGL Limited BMROSS

APPENDIX A FORMAL PUBLISHED NEWSPAPER NOTICES

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation A1

LGL Limited BMROSS

NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TERMS OF REFERENCE

Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion Goderich Port Management Corporation

The Goderich Port Management Corporation (GPMC) and the Town of Goderich have initiated a study under the Environmental Assessment Act to expand wharf facilities in the Goderich Harbour in order to increase usable off-loading and on-shore storage area. This will involve the infilling of part of the Outer Harbour.

The Process This study will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The first step in the process is the preparation of a Terms of Reference. The Terms of Reference will set out the proponent’s framework and work plan for addressing the Environmental Assessment Act requirements when preparing the environmental assessment, including such things as the alternatives that will be considered and the public consultation activities that will be carried out. If approved by the Minister, the Terms of Reference will provide the framework and requirements for the preparation of the environmental assessment.

Consultation Members of the public, agencies and other interested persons are encouraged to actively participate in the planning process by attending consultation opportunities or contacting staff directly with comments or questions. Consultation opportunities are planned throughout the planning process and will be advertised in this newspaper and through direct mailings.

For further information on the proposed study please contact:

Ms. Constance J. Agnew, B.Sc., rcji Senior Planning Ecologist LGL Limited P.O. Box 280, 22 Fisher Street King City, Ontario, L7B 1A6 Tel: 905-833-1244 (collect) Fax: 905-833-1255 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Matthew J. Pearson, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner B.M. Ross and Associates Limited 62 North Street Goderich, Ontario, N7A 2T4 Tel: 519-524-2641 Fax: 519-524-4403 E-mail: [email protected]

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in a submission will become part of the public record files for this matter and will be released, if requested, to any person.


LGL Limited BMROSS


LGL Limited BMROSS

Kmitchell

Rectangle


LGL Limited BMROSS

APPENDIX B TOR CONTACT LIST

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation B1

LGL Limited BMROSS

Title FirstName LastName JobTitle Company Address1 Address2 City Province PostalCode Phone Fax Ms. Meghan Brien Assistant Project

Officer Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Ontario Region

55 St. Clair Avenue East

Suite 907 Toronto Ontario M4T 1M2 (416) 954-7334

(416) 952-1573

Mr. Jim Chan Senior Program Officer

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Ontario Region

55 St. Clair Avenue East

Suite 907 Toronto Ontario M4T 1M2 (416) 952-6063

(416) 952-1573

Mr. Doug MacKenzie General Manager Goderich-Exeter Railway Co. Ltd.

101 Shakespeare Street

2nd Floor Stratford Ontario N4A 3W5 (519) 271-4441

(519) 271-1337

Mr. Don Boswell Senior Claims Analysts Specific Claims Branch


10 Wellington Street

Room 1310

Gatineau Quebec K1A 0H4 (819) 953-1940

(819) 997-9873

Mr. Franklin Roy Director, Litigation Management and Resolution Branch


10 Wellington Street

25 Eddie 1430

Gatineau Quebec K1A 0H4 (613) 997-3582

(613) 997-1679

Mr. Gregg Dahl Senior Policy Analyst

Office of the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and non-status Indians

66 Slater Street

Room 1218

Ottawa Ontario K1A 0H4 (613) 992-3705

(613) 996-1737

Ms. Sheila Allan Head EA Section Ontario Region Environment Canada

P.O. Box 5050

867 Lakeshore Road

Burlington Ontario L7R 4A6 (905) 333-4948

(905) 336-8901

Mr. Dave Balint Senior Habitat Biologist

Fisheries and Oceans

73 Meg Drive

London Ontario N6E 2V2 (519) 668-2132

(905) 668-


LGL Limited BMROSS

Title FirstName LastName JobTitle Company Address1 Address2 City Province PostalCode Phone Fax Canada, Southern Ontario District

1772

Mr. Dana Boyter Fish Habitat Biologist

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Burlington District Office

P.O. Box 85060

3027 Harvester Road, Suite 304

Burlington Ontario L7R 4K3 (905) 639-0042

(905) 639-3549

Ms. Kitty Ma Regional Environmental Assessment Coordinator

Health Canada, Ontario Region

180 Queen Street West

Toronto Ontario M5V 3L7 (416) 954-2206

(416) 952-0102

Ms. Haya Finan Environmental Officer

Transport Canada - Ontario Region

4900 Yonge Street

North York Ontario M2N 6A5 (416) 952-0486

(416) 952-0514

Ms. Pam Wheaton Director Aboriginal and Ministry Relationships Branch

Ministruy of Aboriginal Affairs

720 Bay Street, 4th Floor

Toronto Ontario M5G 2K1 (416) 326-4053

(416) 326-4017

Mr. John MacDonald Heritage Planer/Archaeologist

Ministry of Culture

Heritage Operations Section, Heritage and Libraries Branch

900 Highbury Avenue

London Ontario N6A 1L3 519-

Ms. Karla Barboza Heritage Advisor Ministry of Culture

Culture Services Unit

400 University Avenue, 4th Floor

Toronto Ontario M7A 2R9 (416) 314-7120

(416) 314-7790

Mr. George Potter West Area Regional Manager

Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, Culture, and Tourism

30 Duke Street West

Suite 405 Kitchener Ontario N2H 3W5 519-571-6050

519-578-1632


LGL Limited BMROSS

Title FirstName LastName JobTitle Company Address1 Address2 City Province PostalCode Phone Fax Simon Spooner Ministry of

Tourism and Culture

Program and Services Branch/ Cultural Services Unit


Toronto Ontario M7A 2R9 (416)-212-4019

(416)-212-1802

Laura Hatcher Ministry of Tourism and Culture

Program and Services Branch/ Cultural Services Unit


Toronto Ontario M7A 2R9 (416)-212-4019

(416)-212-1802

Ms. Linda McCready Corporate Policy Unit

Ministry of Tourism and Recreation

Ferguson Block 9th Floor

77 Welsley Avenue W

Toronto Ontario M7A 1N3 (416) 325-6766

(416) 325-8568

Mr. Dave Marriott A/District Planner

Ministry of Natural Resources

Southern Region – Guelph District Office

1 Stone Road West

Guelph Ontario N1G 4Y2 (519) 826-4912

(519) 826-4929

Mr. Kevin Bentley Manager, Engineering Office

Ministry of Transportation

659 Exeter Road

London Ontario N6E 1L3 (519) 873-4373

(519) 873-4388

Mr. Scott Tousaw Director Huron County Planning & Development Dept.

57 Napier Street

Goderich Ontario N7A 1W2

Chief Steve Gardiner Fire Chief Town of Goderich

57 West Street

Goderich Ontario N7A 2K5 519-

Ms. Lynda Rotteau Community Emergency Management Co-ordinator

Town of Goderich

57 West Street

Goderich Ontario N7A 2K5 519-955-1799

Sgt. Arden Farrow Ontario Provincial Police

Huron Detachment

79437 Bluewater Highway

R.R. #2 P.O. Box 6

Goderich Ontario N7A 3Y5 519-524-8314

519-524-4434

Mr. David Lew County of Huron Emergency Medical Services

1 Courthouse Square

Goderich Ontario N7A 1M2 519-524-8394 x312

519-524-5147

Ms. Brandi Walter Environmental Planner/

Maitland Valley

1093 Marietta Street

Box 127 Wroxeter Ontario N0G 2X0 (519) 335-3557

(519) 335-


LGL Limited BMROSS

Title FirstName LastName JobTitle Company Address1 Address2 City Province PostalCode Phone Fax Regulations Officer

Conservation Authority

3516

Mr. Fernando Traficante Director Sector Competitiveness Branch



Hearst Block

Toronto Ontario M7A 2E1 (416) 325-6849

(416) 325-6885

Mr. Gregory Wootton Director (A) Investment Branch



Hearst Block

Toronto Ontario M7A 2E1 (416) 325-6758

(416) 325-6799

Mr Garry Sawkey Plant Superintendent

Sifto Canada Inc.

245 Regent St.

Goderich Ontario N7A 3Y5 (519) 524- 8338 ext.333

(519) 524-5200

Mr. Rowland Howe General Manager Sifto Salt Mine

P.O. Box 370

Goderich Ontario N7A 3Y9

Mr. Don Henry President Goderich Elevators Ltd.

230 Harbour St.

P.O. Box 126

Goderich Ontario N7A 3Y5 (519) 524-7367

(519) 524-7995

Mr. Ian McAdam MacDonald Marine

590 Pentland Ave.

R.R.2 Goderich Ontario N7A 3X8 (519) 524-9551

Mr. Dick Peever Maitland Valley Marina

100 North Harbour Rd. West

P.O. Box 175


(519) 524-2301

Mr. Doug Goodison Goodison Fisheries Limited

RR #3 Blenheim Ontario N0P 1A0

Inland Sea Products

288 Railway St.

P.O. Box 510

Southampton Ontario N0H 2L0 (519) 797-5422

(519) 797-2132

Liddlle Bros. Fisheries

20947 Erie St. P.O. Box 749

Wheatley Ontario N0P 2P0 (519) 825-4270

(519) 825-3905

c/o Richard Pilon

1523537 Ontario Inc.

Box 753 Southampton Ontario N0H 2L0

Mr. Mike Hopko Purdy Fisheries

724 Victoria Ave.

Point Edward Ontario N7T 8G4 (519) 344-3732

(519) 344-8132

Mr. Jack Rogers Da-Lee Dust Control

350 Jones Road

Stoney Creek Ontario L8E 5N2 (905) 643-1135


LGL Limited BMROSS

Title FirstName LastName JobTitle Company Address1 Address2 City Province PostalCode Phone Fax Ms. Mira Hube Director of

Environmental Services

Seaway Marine Transport

20 Corporate Park Dr.

Suite 300 St. Catharines Ontario L2S 3W2 (905) 988-4081

(905) 988-1588

Ms. Carolyn Denis Canada Steamship Lines Inc.

759 Square Victoria

Montreal Quebec H2Y 2K3 (514) 982-3890

(514) 982-3913

Mr. Bob Clark Traffic Manager, Dispatch

Hannah Marine Corporation

13155 Grant Road

Lemont IL 60439-7727 (630) 257-5457

(630) 257-9049

Capt. James Siddall V.P. of Operations

Lower Lakes Towing Ltd.

517 Main St. P.O. Box 1149

Port Dover Ontario N0A 1N0 (519) 583-0982

(519) 583-1946

Mr. Tom Wasson Commanding Officer

Canada Coast Guard

P.O. Box 279 Goderich Ontario N7A 3Z2 (519) 524-9336

(519) 524- 1935

Mr. Chris Armour Commanding Officer

Canada Coast Guard

P.O. Box 279 Goderich Ontario N7A 3Z2 (519) 524-9336

(519) 524- 1935

Chief Ralph Akiwenzie Chippewas of Nawash

R.R. # 5 Wiarton Ontario N0H 2T0 (519) 534-1689

(519) 534-2130

Chief Randall Kahgee Jr. Chippewas of Saugeen

R.R. # 1 Highway 21


(519) 797-2978

Chief Joseph Gilbert Walpole Island – Bkejwanong Territory

R.R. #3 Wallaceburg Ontario N8A 4K9 (519) 627-1481

(519)-627-0440

Chief Elizabeth J. Cloud Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point

53 Indian Lane

R.R. #2 Forest Ontario N0N 1J0 (519) 786-2125

(519) 786-2108

Mr. H.W. Roger

Townshend Olthuis Kleer Townshend Barristers and Solicitors

229 College Street

Suite 312 Toronto Ontario M5T 1R4 (416) 981-9330

(416) 981-9350

Chief Joel Abram Oneida Nation of the Thames

2212 Elm Avenue

Southwold Ontario N0L 2G0 (519) 652-3244

(519) 652-9287

Chief William K. Montour Elected Six P.O. Box 500 Oshweken Ontario N0A 1M0 (519) 445- (519)


LGL Limited BMROSS

Title FirstName LastName JobTitle Company Address1 Address2 City Province PostalCode Phone Fax Nations of the Grand River Territory

2201 445-4208

Chief Allan MacNaughton

Six Nation Confederacy

R.R. #2 Oshweken Ontario NoA 1M0 (519) 755-2769

President

Jason Indoe Historic Saugeen Métis

204 High Street

P.O. Box 1492


Jeff Wilson Interim president Great Lakes Métis Council

380 9th St. East

Owen Sound Ontario N4K 1P1 (519) 370-0435

(519) 370-0436

President

Alden Barty Georgian Bay Métis Council

355 Cranston Crescent

P.O. Box 4

Midland Ontario L4R 4K6 (705) 526-6335

(705) 526-7537

Hydrographic Data Centre

Canadian Hydrographic Services

867 Lakeshore Road

P.O. Box 5050

Burlington Ontario L7R 4A6 N/A

Mr. Chris Thatcher Squadron Commander

Goderich Power & Sail Squadron

100 Kingston St.

[email protected]

Goderich Ontario N7A 3K4 (519) 565-5902

Ms. Jan Gozzard Gozzard Yachts

197 Huckins St.

P.O. Box 373

Goderich Ontario N7A 4C6 (519) 524-6393

(519) 524-9180

Mr. Chris Lee Huron Community Stewardship Portal

Walton Rd. Brussels Ontario N0K 1Z0 (519) 887-6735

Mr. Dennis Harris Avon Maitland District School Board

62 Chalk St. N

Seaforth Ontario N0K 1W0 (519) 524-8306 ext.224

Mr. Warren Watt Goderich Bait and Tackle Shop

201 Huron Road

Goderich Ontario N7A 2Z8 (519) 524-7910

Mr. Mike Verhoef Fly Fitters Fly Fishing Adventures Guide Service

37213 Hills Road


519-440-0407


LGL Limited BMROSS

Title FirstName LastName JobTitle Company Address1 Address2 City Province PostalCode Phone Fax Ms. Laura Herman President Goderich and

District Chamber of Commerce

56 East Street Goderich Ontario N7A 1N3 (519) 440-0176

519-440-0305

Mrs. Susan Armstrong BIA Manager Downtown Goderich Business Improvement Area

c/o Town Hall 57 West Street

Goderich Ontario N7A 2K5 (519) 440-0871

519-524-1466

Commodore

Peter Hay Goderich Yacht Club

[email protected]

Maitland Country Club

P.O. Box 64 North Harbour Road


Mr. Geoff Peach Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation

Box 178 Blyth Ontario N0M 1H0

Dr. Nancy Cameron Medical Officer of Health

Huron County Health Unit

Health & Library Complex, RR#5

77722B London Road

Clinton Ontario N0M1L0


LGL Limited BMROSS

APPENDIX C CORRESPONDENCE WITH GOVERNMENT REVIEW TEAM,

LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS, AND HARBOUR USERS

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation C1

LGL Limited BMROSS

Initial Contact Letter – Commencement of ToR May 11, 2009 «Title» «FirstName» «LastName» «JobTitle» «Company» «Address1» «Address2» «City», «Province» «PostalCode» Dear «Title» «LastName»: Re: Town of Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion Preparation of the Terms of Reference for an Individual Environmental Assessment

The Goderich Port Management Corporation (GPMC) and the Town of Goderich have initiated a study under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act to investigate the potential expansion of wharf facilities in the Goderich Harbour. The proposed expansion is required to increase usable off-loading and on-shore storage areas. The study will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The first step in the process is the preparation of a Terms of Reference. The Terms of Reference will set out the proponent’s framework and work plan for addressing the Environmental Assessment Act requirements when preparing the environmental assessment, including such things as the alternatives that will be considered and the public consultation activities that will be carried out. If approved by the Minister, the Terms of Reference will provide the framework and requirements for the preparation of the environmental assessment. Members of the public, agencies and other interested persons are encouraged to actively participate in the planning process by attending consultation opportunities or contacting staff directly with comments or questions. Consultation opportunities are planned throughout the planning process and will be advertised in the local newspaper and through direct mailings like this. The purpose of this letter is to introduce the study, to request your participation, and to obtain available background information related to the study area. Information that would be of interest includes any description of existing conditions or sensitivities within the study area, issues or concerns that your organization may have and any approval requirements that may be necessary.


LGL Limited BMROSS

Please complete the attached form and return it to my attention. We respectfully request a response by May 29, 2009. Thank you for your co-operation.

Yours sincerely, LGL Limited environmental research associates Constance Agnew, B.Sc., rcji Senior Planning Ecologist c.c. Matt Pearson, Senior Planner, B.M. Ross and Associates Ltd Al Hamilton, President, Goderich Port Management Corporation

Joyce Wilson, Planner, County of Huron

Attach


LGL Limited BMROSS

GODERICH HARBOUR WHARF EXPANSION GODERICH PORT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

«Title» «FirstName» «LastName» «JobTitle» «Company» «Address1» «Address2» «City», «Province» «PostalCode» Please check the most appropriate statement. I have no concerns about the project at this time, but I wish to remain informed about the project’s progress.

I have no concerns about the project and I can be removed from your contact list.

I will be commenting on this project by the date specified.

I will be providing background information related to this project by the date specified.

I am interested in receiving the following additional information about the project:

Please return this completed form by May 29, 2009 to: Ms. Constance Agnew, B. Sc., rcji Senior Planning Ecologist LGL Limited P.O. Box 280, 22 Fisher Street King City, Ontario L7B 1A6 Tel: 905-833-1244 Fax: 905-833-1255 Email: [email protected]

Update contact information if necessary


LGL Limited BMROSS

KEY PLAN


LGL Limited BMROSS

PIC Invitation Letter May 29, 2009 «Title» «FirstName» «LastName» «JobTitle» «Company» «Address1» «Address2» «City», «Province» «PostalCode» Dear «Title» «LastName»: Re: Town of Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion Preparation of the Terms of Reference for an Individual Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre The Goderich Port Management Corporation (GPMC) and the Town of Goderich have initiated a study under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act to investigate the potential expansion of wharf facilities in the Goderich Harbour. The proposed expansion is required to increase stable off-loading and on-shore storage areas, and may involve the infilling of part of the Outer Harbour. The study will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The first step in the process is the preparation of a Terms of Reference. The Terms of Reference will set out the proponent’s framework and work plan for addressing the Environmental Assessment Act requirements when preparing the environmental assessment, including such things as the alternatives that will be considered and the public consultation activities that will be carried out. If approved by the Minister, the Terms of Reference will provide the framework and requirements for the preparation of the environmental assessment. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the Public Involvement Centre (PIC) associated with this study. Representatives from external agencies, municipal staff, and elected officials are cordially invited to attend an informal drop-in session prior to the PIC. The purpose of this informal drop-in is to brief you on the project details and solicit your comments. This session will be held at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at the Huron County Museum, 110 North Street, Goderich, Ontario. The PIC will be open to the public from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m, with a brief presentation at 7:00 p.m. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely, LGL Limited environmental research associates Constance J. Agnew, B.Sc., rcji Senior Planning Ecologist c.c. Matt Pearson, Senior Planner, B.M. Ross and Associates Ltd Al Hamilton, President, Goderich Port Management Corporation

Joyce Wilson, Planner, County of Huron

From: "Historic Saugeen Metis " <[email protected]>

To: <[email protected]>

Subject: Town of Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion, Preparation of the TOR for an Individual EA

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:39:28 -0500

Ms Agnew,

Attached is correspondence from President Jason Indoe,

Regards,

Tammy Schummelketel, Coordinator

Historic Saugeen Metis

LGL Limited, Constance Agnew, January 13, 2020.pdf

Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:40:37 -0500

To: "Historic Saugeen Metis " <[email protected]>

From: "Constance Agnew" <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Town of Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion, Preparation of the TOR for an

Individual EA

Ms. Schummelketel,

Thank you very much for your response. The Historic Saugeen Méis have been added to this

project's contact list and we will continue to notify you of project activities, including placing the

Terms of Reference on the public record, copies of project notices, public meetings etc.

During the EA a licensed archaeologist will be included on the project team and their findings

will be published in the Environmental Assessment report.

We appreciate your participation in this project.

Yours sincerely,

Constance J. Agnew, B.Sc., rcji

Assistant Manager, Sr. Planning Ecologist

LGL Limited environmental research associates

P.O. Box 280, 22 Fisher Street

King City, Ontario, Canada L7B 1A6

tel: 905-833-1244

fax: 905-833-1255

email: [email protected]

HISTORIC SAUGEEN MÉTIS 204 High Street, Box 1492

Southampton, Ontario N0H 2L0

At the mouth of the Saugeen River

Since the early 1800s

By Email: [email protected] and regular mail.

January 13, 2010

Ms. Constance Agnew

Senior Planning Ecologist

LGL Limited


King City, Ontario L7B 1A6

Dear Ms Agnew

Re: Town of Goderich Harbour Whart Expansion

Preparation of the Terms of Reference for an Individual Enviromental Assessment

Thank you for forwarding notice of above.

Please be advised that the Historic Saugeen Métis have no concerns about the project at this

time, but wish to remain informed about the project’s progress. Particularly we would appreciate

updates on public meetings and specific major concerns should any arise.

Of particular interest are archaeological finds of any nature discovered during this project that

might or might not give evidence of Métis activities in the area. Or our community requests

contact should any unforeseen eventually occur that has the potential to cause minor or

catastrophic impact on the environment, within the traditional harvesting territory used by the

Historic Saugeen Métis

Please be advised that no other aboriginal group has the right to assume any responsibility for

our Historic community on environmental or archaeological matters, and any notifications

should continue to be directed solely to the Historic Saugeen Métis.

As our Métis community has no capacity funding to participate in municipal hearing processes at

this date, this decision is without prejudice to our asserted communal Métis rights in the

traditional Saugeen territory.

In the spirit of cooperation and respect for the environment that we all share,

Yours very truly,

President Jason Indoe, Historic Saugeen Metis

Subject: MOE review of draft Goderich Harbour Expansion ToR

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:26:26 -0500

From: "Fromme-Marcellin, Michelle (ENE)"

<[email protected]>

To: "Constance Agnew" <[email protected]>

CC: "Brien,Meghan [CEAA]" <[email protected]>,

<[email protected]>

Hi Connie, Please find attached EAPC review of the draft Goderich ToR, as well as those comments provided by CEAA on the draft ToR. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, M.A.Sc. Project Officer Environmental Assessment Project Coordination Section

Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch

Ministry of the Environment 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 14

Toronto, ON M4V 1L5

Tel: 416-314-7225 (New!) Fax: 416-314-8452

E-mail: [email protected]

Letter to MOE re Goderich ToR from CEAA.pdf

CEAA comments table on Goderich Draft ToR.pdf

EAPC comments on draft Goderich ToR December 2009.pdf

Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:09:41 -0500

To: "Fromme-Marcellin, Michelle (ENE)" <[email protected]>


Subject: Re: MOE review of draft Goderich Harbour Expansion ToR

Hi Michelle,

Thanks very much for the comments you provided on the draft Goderich ToR. Grant and I have had a chance to

review them and have discussed them briefly with GPMC and BM Ross staff.

We have prepared a comment/response matrix and I was hoping you could send me a Word version of your

comments as it would make it easier to incorporate them into the table....saves re-typing. An unsigned version is

fine. Once the table is complete I will send it to you for your information. We have used this method of

comment/response matrices with CEAA reviewers in the past and have found it to be an effective way to track and

resolve agency comments on reports.

LGL would like to set up a meeting with you to discuss your comments and next steps for the ToR phase of this

project. Are you available Jan 12, 14 (a.m. only) or 15? You are welcome to come to LGL's King City office or

Grant and I can meet you at 2 St. Clair W - whichever is convenient for you.

Thanks in advance

Connie






tel: 905-833-1244

fax: 905-833-1255


Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:38:22 -0500



Subject: RE: RE: MOE review of draft Goderich Harbour Expansion ToR

Hi Michelle

Here is the completed comment/response concordance matrix for your review.

Grant and I are available any time Friday (Jan 22) after lunch if that is convenient for you?

Thanks

Connie

Subject: Feb 4 Meeting Minutes

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:30:35 -0500

From: "Fromme-Marcellin, Michelle (ENE)"

<[email protected]>


Hi Connie, Attached are the draft Meeting Minutes from our February 4

th, meeting. Thanks for making the effort to

come down to the office here. Please let me know if you have any changes. Once I finalize with you these minutes I will forward them to Meghan at CEAA for her information. Can you provide me with an update on the project timing, and if you will be able to send me a hard copy of the Master Plan?

Thanks, Michelle

Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, M.A.Sc. Project Officer Environmental Assessment Project Coordination Section

Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch

Ministry of the Environment

2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 14

Toronto, ON M4V 1L5

Tel: 416-314-7225

Fax: 416-314-8452

E-mail: [email protected]

Draft Meeting Minutes Feb 4 2010.doc

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:27:28 -0500



Subject: Re: Feb 4 Meeting Minutes

Hi Michelle

The minutes look fine to me....I have no errors or omissions to note.

The CD I sent you in April 2009 contained a digital copy of the Municipal Class EA for Construction of Breakwater

Berming in Goderich Harbour - Environmental Study Report.....the Harbour Rehabilitation Master Plan comprises

Appendix A of the Breakwater ESR. Do you still require a separate hard copy? Or can you print what you need

from the CD? Please confirm.

Thanks

Connie






tel: 905-833-1244

fax: 905-833-1255


RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT GODERICH TERMS OF REFERENCE

Page Commenting

Agency

Section Comments Response

General Comments on CEAA Report

Ministry of the

Environment

(MOE)

General

comments

• Consider including an Executive Summary. An

Executive Summary will be required for the

Environmental Assessment (EA).

• The ToR is a document that is meant to outline the

method of preparing the EA for the proposed

undertaking. In my comments below, there are several

references to “commit to…in the EA.” These

comments are meant to increase the level of detail and

clarity of what will be included the EA.

• Agreed. An Executive Summary will be

included in the EA. An Executive Summary

will not be included in the ToR.

• The purpose of the ToR is to document a work

plan for what is going to be studied in the EA.

Wording will be strengthened to demonstrate

commitment to perform the work identified in

the ToR.

Supplementary Information

MOE General

Comments • In order to support the rationale for a focused EA, it is

necessary to provide background information

regarding previous studies and information on

alternatives. For example, provide a copy of the

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Harbour

Rehabilitation Master Plan.

• Large documents may be summarized, or provided in

excerpt as applicable, but need to be properly

referenced.

• For some studies/documents it is sufficient to provide

a reference in the document. The reader must be able

to clearly see where additional information is

available should he/she be interested.

• The ToR must reference all the supporting

documentation that will be provided.

• Other supporting documentation could include:

o A more detailed description of the

problem or opportunity that prompted

the proposed study;

o Information about studies or events that

• Agreed. A copy of the Goderich Port

Management Corporation – Harbour

Rehabilitation Master Plan will be submitted

with the final ToR.

• In a July/09 phone conversation between CJA

& MFM, CJA advised that GPMC had

prepared a business case as part of the Build

Canada Fund application. Information

contained in this document is proprietary and

of a confidential nature. GPMC may provide

this document to the MOE with this

understanding.

• Agreed. The ToR will reference all supporting

documentation.

Page Commenting

Agency


triggered the proponent’s involvement

with the proposed study;

o Background information supporting the

selection of alternatives for further

study;

o Business profiles.

Section 1.0 Introduction

1-2 MOE 1.2 • The description for why the project requires an EA

under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) is

longer than necessary. Simplify this section so that

the explanation focuses on the fact that the project is

caught under section 5(2)(a) of the Ontario

Regulation 334 as the project will cost more than $3.5

million.

• Include the following: The EA will be prepared in

accordance with the requirements set out in the

approved ToR. After the preparation and public

review of the EA, [fill in name of proponent] will

submit the EA for review and approval by the

Minister of the Environment. The EA will contain the

following (note: excluding reference to ‘alternatives

to’ should the ToR continue to proceed with a focused

EA):

o Purpose of the undertaking;

o Description of the undertaking;

o Rationale for the undertaking;

o Description of the environment

potentially affected directly or

indirectly;

o Description and statement of rationale

and assessment of “alternatives to” and

“alternative methods”;

o Effects that will be caused or might

reasonably be expected to be caused to

the environment by the undertaking, the

alternative methods of carrying out the

undertaking and the alternatives to the

• Agreed. Description of why project requires

EA will be simplified to reflect Section 5(2)a

of O.Reg.334, i.e. project costs >$35M.

• Agreed. List of EA components to be

undertaken will be included in ToR.

Page Commenting

Agency


undertaking;

o Description of mitigation;

o Advantages and disadvantages of the

undertaking, the alternative methods of

carrying out the undertaking and the

alternatives to the undertaking;

o Consultation during the EA;

o A monitoring plan; and

o Any maps or documents as required

under the EA Act. 5 CEAA 1.3 • Create a separate sub-section for the identification of

funding applications, and address both specifics of

federal and other funding pursuits.

• Clearly identify what the potential federal

authorizations and approvals are i.e. bullet out those

referenced rather than embedding them in the text.

• As this is a provincial document, remove the section

which addresses Comprehensive Study requirements

under the CEA Act. This relates to the scope and

track of the federal EA which will be determined by

the Responsible Authorities after a Project

Description is submitted to the Agency.

• Agreed. Sub-section detailing funding

applications will be included.

• Agreed. Federal Authorizations/Approvals

will be bulleted.

• Agreed. Section addressing CEAA

Comprehensive Study will be removed from

ToR.

6 MOE Section 1.4 • The sentence stating that the Town of Goderich is the

proponent should be stated more clearly. Option:

“The Goderich Port Management Corporation

(GPMC) is acting as Agent on behalf of the Town of

Goderich, the proponent, for this Environmental

Assessment Terms of Reference for the Goderich

harbour Wharf Expansion.”

• Agreed. Will clarify GPMC vs Town of

Goderich as proponent.

Section 2.0 Indication of How the EA Will Be Undertaken

6 MOE General

Comments • Change reference from Section 6(2)(a) and 6.1(2) to

6(2)(c) and 6.1(3). Assuming this will remain a

focused EA.

• Agreed. Section references will be updated.

7 MOE Section 2.1 • Update Table 1. • Agreed. Table 1. Estimated Study Schedule

will be updated.

Page Commenting

Agency


7 CEAA Table 1 • Update table and separate the provincial and federal

documentation referenced.

• Agreed. See above comment.

7 MOE Section 2.3 • Note that there will be a separate submission made of

a Project Description to meet the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)

requirements.

• A CEAA Project Description was submitted

December 10, 2009 to the CEA Agency, and

December 18, 2009 to Fisheries and Oceans

Canada.

Section 3.0 Explanation of the Purpose of the Proposed Undertaking

7-8 MOE General

Comments • Add more details on the need for storage. Justify

need, provide numbers, and reference supplementary

information (to be attached).

• Details on storage, including need and

justification, quantitative data etc. will be

provided in EA.

8 MOE Section 3.3 • Commit to elaborating on the description of the

rationale and further define the problem and

opportunities of the undertaking in the EA. All

aspects of the project (storage, road, wave action)

need to be described in detail so the reader can

understand how each impact the final decision for the

preferred alternative.

• What other commodities might use the storage space?

Provide more information in the ToR, or commit to

providing more information in the EA.

• Additional information is required to back up these

statements on loading and unloading space. Refer to

studies/analysis done to demonstrate this, as well as

providing reference to supplementary data.

• There seems to be two contradictory statements

regarding the number of trucks on North Harbour

Road. The second paragraph states that “This may

reduce the number of trucks ...” And the third

paragraph states that upgrades will be required with

respect to changes. Please explain the relationship to

changes in storage and truck traffic more clearly.

• P. 8, change the words “ingress and egress” to plain

language.

• There is an extra space on the last line of this section.

• Agreed. Further details on the

problem/opportunity and rationale for the

undertaking will be documented in the EA, this

will be committed to in the ToR.

• Agreed. A list of potential commodities that

might use additional storage space will be

provided in ToR.

• Agreed. Details on size/volume of current

loading space and future loading space will be

provided in ToR; supplementary data will be

referenced if required.

• Agreed. Truck volumes on North Harbour

Road will be clarified in ToR.

• Ingress/egress is standard terminology used in

land use planning/engineering.

• Agreed. Formatting issues will be addressed.

• An in-depth discussion on impacts of wave

action on existing harbour infrastructure will

be documented in the EA.

Page Commenting

Agency


• Provide more data on the downsides/impacts to lack

of wave action protection. Explain the

problem/opportunity for protecting the inner harbour

from wave action.

8 CEAA Section 3.3 • The relationship between the Sifto Salt Mine and

proposed project should be clarified. It is assumed

that if storage can be provided to Sifto by the

proponent as a result of the proposed project, that

there will be correspondence, agreement etc.

regarding this issue. The process for this, and any

connection should be clearly indicated.

• Agreed. Relationship between Sifto Salt Mine

and proposed project will be clarified in the

ToR.

Section 4.0 Description of and Rationale For the Alternatives

MOE General

Comments • Commit to providing a more detailed rationale for the

alternatives in the EA.

• Remove analysis of options from the ToR. This

information should be included in an attached

supplementary document. In addition to comments

below, this document should explain more about the

rationale behind why certain alternatives were chosen

for further consideration and other possible

alternatives were eliminated from consideration.

• The ToR should reference this supplementary

document and summarize in words.

• Evaluation of “Alternatives to” was undertaken

during the ToR phase in order to screen a

preferred option and focus on “Alternative

methods” during the EA. Given the proponent

of the project and the limited range of realistic

“Alternatives to,” we believe that the analysis

documented in the ToR is reasonable. If

comments received during public review of the

TOR indicate that the analysis of “alternatives

to” was deficient, this analysis will be re-

visited during conduct of the EA.

9 MOE Section 4.1 • The two criteria for evaluation for “Alternatives to”

are very similar. Elaborate on differences, and include

environmental considerations.

• Explain what “realistically address” means.

• Given the proponent of the project and the

limited range of realistic “alternatives to,” we

believe that the analysis documented in the

ToR is reasonable. If comments received

during public review of the TOR indicate that

the analysis of “alternatives to” was deficient,

this analysis will be re-visited during conduct

of the EA. “Realistically address” refers to

practical steps that can be taken to achieve a

solution to the problem or address the

opportunity identified.

Page Commenting

Agency


9 MOE Section 4.2 • Explain in detail what the different ways of carrying

out the selected alternative are. Where does infilling

fit in to these?

• The “alternative methods” to be investigated

will be developed during conduct of the EA.

Alternative methods will differ according to

location, size, materials, configuration and

construction methods as identified in Section

4.2. A statement will be added to Section 4.2

to indicate that “alternative methods” will be

generated and evaluated during the EA phase.

• The data sources and considerations for

evaluating “alternative methods” are presented

for each discipline in Section 6.0. A summary

table of data sources, criteria, indicators, etc.

and an approach to the multi-criteria evaluation

of “alternative methods” will be added to

Section 4.2.

10-12 MOE Table 2 (to be

supplementar

y document?)

• Create a separate document to address the

justification for the selection of the preferred

alternative.

• As noted in comments on Section 4.0 above, this

document must contain an evaluation methodology

for selecting the preferred criteria needs to be present.

Including how criteria are weighted.

• Consideration of environmental impacts will need to

be made in this section.

• Identify more clearly all advantages and

disadvantages, and link them to the selection of the

preferred alternative.

• Use the table as a summary of the analysis and

selection of the preferred alternative.

• Most of the questions posed below can be addressed

in the text, leaving the table as a summary.

• Many of the claims made in the table require

supplementary information or references to how it

was determined.

• Provide enough quantitative information for the

reader to be able to rank the options based on cost.

Estimates are sufficient.

• Given the proponent of the project and the

limited range of realistic “alternatives to,” we

believe that the analysis documented in the

ToR is reasonable. If comments received

during public review of the ToR indicate that

the analysis of “alternatives to” was deficient,

this analysis will be re-visited during conduct

of the EA.

Page Commenting

Agency


• Is the storage capacity usage expected to be seasonal?

Would that impact the viability of floating docks in

regards to ongoing operational costs?

• Many of the options have “Does not require infilling

in Lake Huron” as an advantage. Explain why this is

an advantage, and summarize negative impacts of

infilling.

• Consider the other aspects of the project – wave

action, and road expansion in this table.

• Below are comments that relate to particular options.

Option 2:

• Explain how handling requirements are reduced.

• Estimate the economic benefit to the Town of

Goderich both direct and indirect.

• “Reduced energy consumption, emissions, accidents,

spills and noise levels compared to road and rail

haul.” Explain how this is known, and quantify.

• “Relatively high capital costs, low operating costs.”

Quantify this, and compare against the other options.

Option 3:

• Outline what the options are. How many are there?

• “Availability of land at the harbour is extremely

limited” Quantify, and provide more information.

Compare the lands available with the option carried

forward. How do they differ?

Option 4:

• How many floating docks have been considered and

why that number? What are the size/design

restrictions? Need more information on this option.

• “Relatively low capital cost, high operating cost.”

Quantify this, estimation is sufficient.

• What are the size limitations? Quantify the increase

handling requirements. Why is there a higher

potential for a spill/upset? Why are large platforms

Page Commenting

Agency


unavailable?

Option 5:

• “Requires double handling” Explain double handling,

and what are the implications economically and

environmentally.

• “May be incompatible with surrounding land use.”

Have any sites been identified? Describe the

characteristics of the site(s) – how many are there,

how large, distance, capacity etc. Should be

determined if they are incompatible.

• “Relatively high capital costs, high operation costs”

Quantify costs and compare with other options.

• “Reduces efficiency and increases operating costs if

storage is remote from the area of the mine and the

existing harbour, rail and road.” Give estimations if

possible. More information is needed.

Option 6:

• Option needs more detail – should be known whether

it will or will not require infilling.

• “No active or inactive commercial port is located

nearby” What is the nearest? Distance? Explain why

infeasible, quantitatively and qualitatively as

appropriate.

• “Seasonal limitations due to winter ice conditions”

Explain.

• “Requires double handling” Explain implications.

• “Relatively high cost to reactivate, operate, and

maintain another port facility.” Estimate costs,

explain if it would be duplicating services and force

two ports to be operational, or not possible because

outside of the jurisdiction of the proponent.

Option 7:

• Need supplementary information. Explain how

Page Commenting

Agency


numbers were determined in disadvantages.

• “Inability to handle large loads” What are the

implications of this financially, environmentally.

• “Relatively low capital costs, high operating costs

associated with shipping. Inhibits the operation of the

salt facility in the winter as trucking cannot keep up

with production.” How was this determined?

Option 8: • “Inefficient mode of transportation to markets. Rail

network is short haul with a connection to CN/CP in

Stratford.” More information required: distances,

impact, implications, quantification.

• “Relatively low capital costs, high operating costs

associated with shipping.” Estimate quantitatively,

compare with other options, using ranking system.

• Provide separate table(s) ranking options based on

different criteria. That way the reader can understand

which is the most expensive, and explain

ranking/criteria and why chosen.

Section 5.0 Description of the Study Area, Existing Environment and Potential Effects of the Undertaking

MOE General

Comments • This section will need to be restructured to address

comments, and more detail provided.

• For all environmental components, a discussion of the

potential environmental effects (direct and indirect)

must be included, as well as a commitment that the

EA will assess effects and the existing environment in

greater detail.

• The ToR must provide a list and brief explanation of

the tools (for example, studies, tests, surveys,

mapping) that will be used to provide a more detailed

description of the environment in the EA.

• The ToR must commit to including in the EA the

actual determination of direct and indirect

environmental effects, and actions necessary to

manage any effects.

• Potential environmental effects, both direct and

indirect, will be documented in the EA.

Generally only a basic secondary source

review has been undertaken to this point in the

project, the extent of environmental effects

cannot reasonably be documented in the ToR

phase of the project.

• Refer to Section 6 for the various studies, tests,

surveys, maps etc. to be used during the

undertaking of the EA.

• As a matter of course the ToR commits to

determining direct and indirect environmental

effects during the EA.

• Subsections currently reference supplementary

or secondary information reviewed to present

Page Commenting

Agency


• Subsections require reference to supplementary

documentation, and outline studies undertaken to

acquire information presented.

• A map of the study area must be included (8.5x11

inches).

• The North Harbour Road does not seem to be

included in the primary study area in the map, but is

included in the description.

• Provide more information on the study area. For

example: What is in the study area, who uses it,

seasonal information, proximity to parks, town with

what population, etc.

• Omit “a massive formation” from the first sentence in

this section.

• State when vegetation study was done, and by whom.

Provide a reference or append a supplementary

document.

existing conditions information in Section 5.2,

also refer to Section 11 References.

• An opening statement will be included in

Section 5.2 indicating that the following

information presented is based on a secondary

source data review.

• Agreed. A map of the study area is presented

in Figure 3, in the revise ToR this will be

increased in size to 8.5”x11”.

• Agreed. North Harbour Road is included in the

Primary Study area, this will be indicated on

the revised Key Plan.

• Further details on what is in the study area will

be documented in the ToR, additional details

on seasonal use, proximity to parks etc will be

documented in the EA as this information will

be gathered during the EA phase of the project

as described in Section 6.2.4 Land Use

Assessment, information on the Town of

Goderich’s population is provided in Section

5.3.

• The secondary source cited (Lower Maitland

Stewardship Group 2006) for this information

describes a massive ice sheet covering

Southern Ontario.

• A reference is provided for secondary source

vegetation information (NHIC – Natural Areas

Report) and floral affinities information

(LMSG 2006) however, the NHIC citation was

omitted from Section 11 References, this will

be included in the revised ToR.

13-17 MOE Section 5.2 • Provide a summary table for section 5.2, and a

separate table of species at risk and their status.

• Section 5.2.3.3, explain what the terms “threatened”,

“endangered” and “at risk” mean. Commit to

providing more information on Species at Risk in the

EA.

• Details on SAR will be verified and updated as

necessary during the EA and documented in

EA report.

• Agreed. Species at Risk terminology will be

defined in ToR.

• Agreed. Additional information on lake bed

Page Commenting

Agency


• Provide more information of fish habitat, especially

lake bed that could be lost by infilling. Commit to

providing more information on impacts to fish and

fish habitat in the EA.

fish habitat, based on a review of secondary

sources, will be documented in ToR.

• Assessment of impact of wharf expansion on

fish habitat to be undertaken during EA is

documented in Section 6.1.2 Fish and Aquatic

Habitat Investigations.

17 MOE Section 5.3 • Reference is made to the County of Huron Official

plan – provide more information regarding this plan,

and what the implications are to any plans in the

harbour.

• Provide more information on nearby land uses.

• The study team has undertaken a cursory

review of the County of Huron Official plan

for the purposes of providing a brief summary

of the document for inclusion in the ToR, a

detailed review of the OP will be undertaken

with respect to the proposed project during the

EA.

• Further information on nearby land uses will be

documented in the EA as per Section 6.2.4

Land Use Assessment.

Section 6.0 Assessment and Evaluation

MOE General

Comments • The ToR must commit to providing detailed reasons

for the selection of criteria, indicators and methods

for assessment and evaluation in the EA. While

detailed reasons do not need to be included in the

ToR, sufficient information about them, or how they

will be developed should be given in the ToR to

ensure that they can be understood by interested

persons who are then able to provide informed

comments.

• In the draft ToR, while some components have

criteria and indicators, others do not. The

criteria/indicators that are present in the draft ToR are

not done so in a clear or structured way. Restructure

the section so it is clear which components have

identified criteria/indicators (providing

justification/rationale) and which do not. For those

that do not, explain how they will be developed.

• When restructuring this section, refer to the Code of

Practice.

• The data sources, criteria and indicators will be

summarized in a new table in Section 4.2.

• Data sources, criteria and indicators for each

discipline will be provided in Section 6.0

where possible.

• Air Quality will be relocated to Section 6.1

Natural Environment.

• LGL will revise the statement “Once a

preferred alternative method is selected, the

study team will review the potential impacts of

construction and infilling”.

• Agreed. The ToR will clearly outline what will

be assessed in the EA with respect to project

stages: construction, operation, etc.

• Agreed. The ToR will indicate that each

environmental component will be assessed

during the EA for each aspects of the proposed

undertaking, not just wharf construction.

Page Commenting

Agency


• One option for restructuring would be to provide

criteria, indicators and methods overview that will be

used to determine the preferred alternative. A more

detailed discussion of specific criteria, indicators as

related to individual environmental components can

be placed within the appropriate subsections.

Structure each environmental component subsection

the same way for clarity. Data sources can also be

summarized generally, and described in detail in the

subsections.

• Summarize the chosen criteria/indicators as in the

table found in the Code of Practice, page 22.

• The ToR must identify methods for selecting the

preferred alternative method with justification, or

outline how methods for identification of preferred

alternative methods will be developed. The methods

provided in this section of the draft ToR are methods

for undertaking studies to provide data, not methods

for determining the final alternative method and

undertaking of the project once information has been

obtained.

• Outline data sources for each environmental

component.

• Provide a general statement committing to providing

additional information in the EA.

• Air Quality should be under Natural Environment.

• Analysis of alternatives will have to consider all

aspects that are outlined in the Code of Practice,

including: potential effects (direct and indirect),

impact management, net effects, and

advantages/disadvantages. Ensure that all of these are

discussed in the ToR.

• Some of the environmental components have

statements such as (page 22 of the draft ToR) “Once a

preferred alternative method is selected, the study

team will review the potential impacts of construction

and infilling.” Analysis must happen prior to the

Page Commenting

Agency


selection of the preferred alternative in order to

inform that choice. Remove all such references.

• The ToR must clearly outline what will be assessed in

regards to project stages: construction, operation, etc.

Both construction and operation will need to be

assessed if approval is being sought for both.

• Each environmental component will need to assess

each aspects of the proposed undertaking, not just

wharf construction.

18-19 MOE Section 6.1.1 • “Using existing lake bottom sediments to dredge for

use” What are the implications of this? Explain in

more detail and commit to providing additional

information in the EA.

• “Consideration may be given for water quality

monitoring, both during and post-construction, to

document the effectiveness of suggested mitigation

measures.” State how/what additional information

will be provided and how this choice will be made.

• The implications of using existing lake bottom

sediments to dredge for use will be

documented in the geo-technical assessment

undertaken during the EA.

• Details on water quality monitoring will be

documented in the EA. These details are not

known at this time.

19-21 MOE Section 6.1.2 • Describe what data sources and studies will take place

in more detail. For example what seasonal data will

be collected? How will this information be used.

• Discuss how methods for data collection were

established? Were they based on the norms of the

field?

• Bathymetric Survey: how will this data/information

be used?

• Consider fill material – where might fill be obtained

from, what will the properties of that fill be?

• What are examples of possibilities for habitat

compensation? How will it be determined what will

be necessary?

• Provide reference to approvals section were

appropriate.

• Section 6.1.2 documents the methodology

proposed including undertaking a habitat

assessment, fish community sampling,

substrate sampling, and bathymetric sampling.

• Details on the season in which each of these

surveys is to be undertaken will be specified.

• Agreed. Specifics on how bathymetric data

will be used will be included in the revised

ToR.

• Consideration of fill material including

properties and source location will be included

in the EA.

• It is too early in the study process to suggest

type/size of compensation. This will be

considered during the EA once fisheries

investigations have commenced.

Compensation issues including all discussions

with regulatory agencies will be fully

documented in the EA.

Page Commenting

Agency


• Agreed. A reference to approvals section will

be included.

22 MOE Section 6.1.3 • “The type and sensitivity of the habitat, together with

the nature, timing and extent of construction, direct

and indirect impacts, and offsite impacts will be

determined in relation to provincial, regional and

local municipal policies.” How will this information

be used? Elaborate on this aspect of the methodology.

• Agreed. Details on Evaluation of Impact

Analysis will be clarified.

22-24 MOE Section 6.1.4 • Explain in more detail what plant associations are.

• Describe how mitigation measures will be developed.

Provide statements regarding what will be elaborated

on in the EA.

• The specifics of plant associations will be


• Specifics of mitigation measures are outlined

on page 23 ‘Environmental Protection

Measures’.

24 MOE Section 6.1.5 • Provide more information, and how this section

relates to the preferred alternative. Provide

background information and commit to elaborating on

this section in the EA.

• The ToR must describe the impacts of wave action.

Does wave action impact fish and fish habitat?

• What are the environmental considerations for this

environmental component?

• “Consideration may be given for wave condition

monitoring, both during and post-construction, to

document the effectiveness of suggested mitigation

measures.” How will whether this is done be

determined? This needs to be addressed in general

with respect to monitoring for each environmental

component.

• Scope indicates that wave analysis study will

assess impacts of proposed modifications i.e.

preferred alternative to mooring facilities and

on wave conditions in the outer harbour.

• Impacts of wave action on natural and built

environment will be documented in EA.

• Environmental consideration for this

component is shoreline protection.

• The outcome of the shoreline dynamic

investigations will determine whether

monitoring will be proposed. These

recommendations and their rationale will be


24-25 MOE Section 6.1.6 • “Previous studies, undertaken as part of the federal

transfer of the harbour to the Town of Goderich, will

be reviewed.” When was this done? What studies

were undertaken? Describe these studies and how

they will be used in the EA in more detail.

• “Based on the results of the contamination overview

study and preliminary site screening further Phase II

Environmental Site Assessment investigations may be

warranted.” What will determine if further study is

• As per Page 1 harbour ownership was

transferred in 1999. As part of the EA a

secondary source review of any studies done

during/for ownership transfer will be

undertaken.

• The results of the contamination overview

study and site screening will determine if a

Phase II ESA is required i.e. extent, type, depth

of contamination based on the preferred

Page Commenting

Agency


warranted?

• Environmental Protection Measures – commit to this

being elaborated on in the EA, and include all aspects

outlined in the Code of Practice.

alternative to be selected during the EA.

• Agreed. Environmental Protection Measures

will be elaborated on in the EA.

25-27 MOE Section 6.2.1 • Air quality should be in Section 6.1 not 6.2.

• Include discussion of local receptors including

sensitive receptors.

• The scope of the Air Quality assessment should

include a comparison of alternative methods and net

effects.

• “The increase in emissions can be related to societal

values, particularly the monetary value, using data

from secondary source literature.” Explain this

sentence, and how it relates to the project.

• Will ships be assessed as well as trucks? How will

type of infill, particulate matter and possible

contaminants be assessed?

• Agreed. Air quality will be relocated to Section

6.1.

• Agreed. Discussion on local and sensitive

receptors will be included in the revised ToR.

• Agreed. Air Quality assessment in EA will

include a comparison of alternative methods

and net effects.

• Agreed. “The increase in emissions….” will

be clarified in the revised ToR.

• Agreed. Specifics on marine traffic assessment

will be included. Details on assessment of

infill type, particulate matter and possible

contaminates will be addressed.

27-28 MOE Section 6.2.2 • Commit to providing greater detail on surrounding

land uses in the EA under Scope.

• Will this section consider

construction/trucks/shipping and net effects?

• When will it be determined if the construction period

will constitute a stationary source? Commit to

providing more information in the EA.

• Land uses specified provide an accurate

account of existing conditions in the vicinity of

the harbour.

• Evaluation/Impact Analysis section outlines

factors to be considered. Ships will be

specified.

• Construction period as a stationary source will

be determined during the EA once details of

schedule, duration, type of construction have

been determined.

28 MOE 6.2.3 • Follow the structure outlined for the others. Provide

more information about background studies, data

sources etc. Commit to including a section on this in

the existing environment section of the EA.

• This section is brief as an illumination study is

not proposed to be undertaken during the EA.

A statement will be added to clarify this.

28-29 MOE 6.2.4 • What is fabric mapping? Explain what this is, what

data will be obtained by using it, and how this will

inform the selection of the preferred alternative.

• The word ‘fabric’ will be removed from the

sentence to clarify.

• Property mapping will be used to record land

uses during field work as indicated.

• Details on how property mapping will be used

to inform selection of preferred alternative are

Page Commenting

Agency


outlined in Evaluation and Impact Analysis

discussion.

29 MOE 6.2.5 • This section describes what has already been done,

rather than what will be done. Move the information

to Section 5. Create a new subsection in Section 6 that

follows the same structure and outlines what will be

undertaken in the EA.

• The report noted was not submitted as part of the

ToR. Include it in subsequent submissions.

• Agreed. Section will be relocated to Section 5.

• No further economic assessment is proposed

for the EA.

• See previous response regarding proprietary

nature of Business Case.

29-30 MOE 6.2.6 • “These would add to the existing traffic along the

North Harbour road access.” However, on page 8 it

says “this may reduce the number of trucks required

to move products out of the port.” Change the ToR so

that it is consistent.

• State the scope more clearly. Will it include looking

at the number of ships? Explain why or why not.

• What will the scope of evaluation for impacts be?

• Traffic volumes on North Harbour Road will

be clarified as per previous response.

• Agreed. Will clarify scope of traffic

assessment and evaluation of impacts.

31 MOE 6.3.1 • P. 31, the last line in the paragraph before the bullet

points has a spelling mistake.

• Methodology has bullet points regarding components.

Include a more detailed description of data sources,

and commit to outlining further details in the EA.

• Agreed. Spelling error will be corrected.

• Agreed. Details on data sources will be

provided.

Section 7.0 Commitments and Monitoring Strategy

33 MOE General

Comments • The ToR must include a statement that the EA will

include a comprehensive list of commitments made

by the proponent during the ToR process, and where

or how they have been dealt with in the EA.

• The discussion of commitments and monitoring need

to include all aspects outlined in the Code of Practice.

• A commitment must be made in the ToR to include in

the EA a comprehensive list of commitments made by

the proponent during the preparation of the EA. These

include:

• Impact management measures

• Additional works and studies to be carried out

• Section 7 makes general commitment that

project will adhere to relevant environmental

legislation, regulations and policies.

• Until the extent of impacts are known

(determined during EA) a comprehensive list

of commitments cannot yet be determined.

• Agreed. The ToR will commit to including in

the EA a comprehensive list of commitments

made by the proponent during the preparation

of the EA; and,

• Agreed. Discussion on monitoring framework

will be revised to consider….planning, detailed

Page Commenting

Agency


• Monitoring

• Public consultation and contingency planning

• Documentation and correspondence

• The monitoring framework for the ToR must consider

all phases of the proposed undertaking (planning,

detailed design, tendering, construction, operation,

closure and decommissioning).

design, tendering, construction, operation,

closure and decommissioning.

Section 8.0 Consultation

33 MOE General

Comments • This section includes milestones where consultation

will occur. Instead of imbedding this information in

the section, have a subsection that outlines the project

milestone that will have consultation in bullet form

for clarity.

• As stipulated in the Code of Practice, include an

issues resolution strategy.

• Summarize outstanding issues or concerns, and how

they will be addressed in the EA stage.

• Provide a reference in the document to refer to the

separate Record of Consultation document, and

summarize what is included in the Record of

Consultation.

• Sections 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 all seem to relate to

consultation on the ToR. As Section 8.5 deals with

consultation that will take place during the EA, for

clarity consider moving 8.2 – 8.4 to become

subsections of 8.1.

• We prefer to present the consultation plan

according to consultation activity vs.

milestones.

• Agreed. An issues resolution strategy will be

included in the ToR.

• Agreed. A summary of outstanding

issues/concerns will be documented in the

ToR, including how they will be addressed in

the EA.

• Agreed. A reference and description of the

Record of Consultation will be provided.

• Agreed. Section 8 will be renumbered as per

comment.

47-51 MOE Section 8.5 • P. 47: “preparation and distribution of an initial

contact letter, PIC invitations, and final contact letters

to government review team/local stakeholders and

harbour users” are First Nations and local public

included in “local stakeholders” if so, include these

groups explicitly.

• It is recommended that the ToR commit to providing

a draft EA for review.

• In general, be sure that this section is as explicit as

possible so that terms like “local stakeholders”

• Agreed. Pg 47 First Nations and local public

will be included explicitly.

• Agreed. Section 8.5.6 will include a statement

indicating that that a draft EA will be provided

to MOE for review.

• Agreed. The terms local stakeholders and

external agencies will be clarified.

• The draft ToR was submitted to MOE on

September 23, 2009, additional information

regarding First Nations consultation was

Page Commenting

Agency


“external agencies” are clear.

• Include updated information received from the MOE

(and any other agency) regarding First Nations

consultation.

• P. 49: “Aboriginal communities will be notified of

key study milestones, if required.” It is not clear what

constitutes a ‘key study milestone’ and how it will be

determined if it is ‘required’. Clarify these points.

• A description of how interested persons (all) were

identified, must be included in the consultation

section.

• A summary table (like table 3 in the draft ToR), needs

to be included to address how comments to public

comments were addressed.

received from MOE on October 21, 2009 and

November 16, 2009, as such this information

was not included in the draft ToR but will be

documented in the final ToR.

• pg 49 “key study milestones” refers to EA

commencement, Public Information Centre(s),

placing of EA on public record for 30 day

review etc. This will be clarified.

• Agreed. A description of how all interested

persons were identified will be included in

Section 8.0 Consultation.

• Agreed. Table 4 will be modified to include

how public comments were addressed.

Section 9.0 Providing Flexibility in the ToR to Accommodate New Circumstances

51 MOE General

Comments • Remove the last sentence in this section: “A major

deviation from the Terms of Reference will be subject

to further consultation with project stakeholders.”

There can be no major deviation from the ToR.

• In the last paragraph, add “if required” before “…the

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.”

• Agreed. Last sentence referring to “major

deviation” will be removed.

• Agreed, “if required” will be added before

‘CEAA Agency’.

Section 10.0 Other Environmental Approvals Required

51 MOE General

Comments • Specify what Provincial Certificates of Approvals are

anticipated to be required for this project.

• Commit to updating the EA in regards to further

approvals.

• “Environmental Protection Act Certificates of

Approval” will be added to the list of potential

permits/approvals/authorizations required

• Agreed. A commitment will be made to update

the EA with regards to further approvals.

Appendix B: ToR Contact List

CEAA Appendix B • Replace Louise Knox with Project Officer

information as follows: Jim Chan, Senior Program

Officer, Canadian Environmental Assessment

Agency, Ontario Region

55 St Clair Avenue East, Suite 907, Toronto, Ontario

M4T 1M2 Telephone (416) 952-6063, Fax (416) 952-

• Agreed. CEAA Contact will be updated to

reflect M. Brien’s contact information.

Page Commenting

Agency


1573, [email protected]

• LGL received a follow up request from CEAA to

replace Jim Chan with the following contact: Meghan

Brien, Assistant Project Officer, Canadian

Environmental Assessment Agency, Ontario Region,

55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907, Toronto, Ontario

M4T 1M2, Telephone (416) 954-7334, Fax (416)

952-1573

Record of Consultation

MOE General

Comments • Copies of the correspondence received from other

ministries/agencies etc. must be included in the record

of consultation. This includes emails if that was how

comments were received.

• Include any meeting minutes for meetings that took

place with interested persons.

• Agreed. Will include copies of correspondence

received from other ministries/agencies,

including emails and minutes.

Minutes of Meeting Goderich Port Management Corporation Terms of Reference Date/Time February 4, 2010, 10am to 11am File no. EA 03/10

Location MOE office, 2 St. Clair Ave W Toronto, ON Written by Stacey O’Sullivan

Subject Addressing Concerns about Draft Terms of Reference

Signature

Present Michelle Fromme-Marcellin MOE

Connie Agnew LGL Grant Kauffman LGL Stacey O’Sullivan MOE

Items Action

1. Meeting Format • Meeting to discuss MOE comments on the

first draft of the ToR.

2. Supplementary Information Page 2, General Comments:

• Michelle would like to see the Master Plan and the Business Case included as supplementary information.

• In order to proceed with a focused ToR, a good rationale is needed. It would help if the Master Plan was included. Page 20 of the Code of Practice: Preparing and Reviewing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario, October 2009 states that previous planning exercises may be used as a rationale for proceeding with a focused ToR. The Master Plan may be used as a rationale for conducting a focused ToR if it meets the five criteria laid out in the Code of Practice. If this is the case, a paragraph is needed within the ToR to state what work has been done through the Master Plan and to explain how it is a sufficient rationale for the focused ToR.

• LGL’s concern is that information within the Business Case is proprietary and the client wishes that it is not released to the public. They will consider sending the case to the

LGL stated that they will review the Master Plan, and if it should fall short on 1 or 2 criteria from the Code of Practice then this will be addressed, and a better rationale will be given.

It is possible to summarize the Business Case, taking out any proprietary information, or blotting out

MOE for their reference.

• A hard copy of the Master Plan was requested.

monetary values. Michelle will follow-up with legal if necessary. LGL will confirm with the proponent which option is preferable. LGL agreed to send a hard copy to Michelle.

3. Section 4.0 Page 6, Table 2:

• Table 2 needs to be put into an appendix with explanatory text and background information. If the Master Plan will not be used to justify a focused ToR, then Table 2 will need to be elaborated on.

• Michelle suggested that more information be provided as to why the options for alternatives are limited (i.e who the proponent is and what they are capable of implementing).

• LGL noted that no public objections to Table 2 were received during any public information centres held thus far.

LGL agreed that Table 2 will be appendixed. LGL agreed to provide more information.

4. Section 3.0 Page 4, General Comments:

• The commitment to provide more details on storage in the EA needs to be explicitly stated. It needs to be stated explicity in the ToR whenever more information will be provided during the EA stage.

• There was concern that a lot of detail was being asked for that was just not known yet.

LGL agreed that explicit statements about commitments to be carried out in the EA stage would be included in the ToR. Michelle clarified that all of the answers are not needed now, as long as it is explicitly stated in the ToR what will be done during in the EA stage.

5. Section 4.0 Page 5, Section 4.1:

• “Realistically address” needs to explained in the ToR.

LGL agreed to explain this in the ToR.

6. Section 4.0 Page 6, Section 4.2:

• Additional information available for alternative

Since more specific

methods was discussed. information is not known yet, it is sufficient to make a commitment in the ToR to determine the alternative methods in greater detail in the EA stage.


• LGL agreed to make a new table for data sources, indicators, and criteria in order to make explicit.

• A methodology for decision making once results are obtained is needed. It needs to be stated how a decision will be reached.

• The second bullet that contains “where possible” in regards to the provision of data sources, criteria and indicators needs to be clarified.

LGL agreed that a methodology for decision making will be laid out. Options will be kept open as to the methods of decision making, because it is not known what option will be preferred. Since every discipline does not have a data source, LGL agreed that generalizations will be made in the added summary table about whatever information is available.

8. Section 6.0 Page 15, Section 6.2.3:

• Section 6.2.3 does not have a specific scope.

LGL agreed that this section will be moved to the consultation section, as mitigation measures to be proposed are the result of public consultation.

9. Section 6.0 Page 16, Section 6.2.5:

• Cost will be used as evaluation criteria in the EA, but further economic assessment will not be carried out.

• Michelle requires that the wording be changed to make it clear that no further assessment will be done. Clarification as to how information from previous studies will be used is also required.

LGL clarified that the economic criteria will be used to evaluate the alternative methods, but an additional economic assessment will not be done. This will be made clear in the ToR.


• Michelle raised the issue of how to address the structure of the consultation section.

A schedule to summarize consultation will be provided in a new table. This will address the concern of formatting and will make the activities to be carried out easier to see.

11. First Nations Consultation:

• LGL provided an update on First Nation consultation. The only reply received from a First Nations group is from the Historic Saugeen Métis, who would like to be kept on the contact list.

• Updated information received from the MOE should be included.

• Michelle confirms that consultation is required and must be continued throughout the process.

Historic Saugeen Métis will be kept on the contact list. The ToR will be updated with the information provided by the MOE regarding First Nations consultation on October 21, 2009 and November 16, 2009. LGL agreed that consultation efforts will continue, with notices sent to all First Nations contacts and follow-up phone calls made, with the offer of meeting to discuss the ToR and any concerns.

12. Record of Consultation Page 19, General Comments:

• LGL confirms that internal meeting minutes will not be included within the Record of Consultation.

Michelle agrees that this is okay, as long as all external consultation and correspondence of any form is included.

13. Initial Investigations

• Initial investigations have already begun, so should these be included in the ToR?

Connie suggested that it will be best to just commit to completing all studies in the EA stage. Initial investigations have not

been completed for all studies, so their inclusion would only create gaps in the ToR. Michelle agrees that a commitment is sufficient.

14. Next Steps • All revisions agreed upon will be made in the

ToR.

• The CEAA project description will be updated.

• The updated draft ToR will be created and sent to Michelle, likely within the month. LGL will give Michelle a week’s notice before submitting.

• The updated draft will be circulated to the MOE technical reviewers.

• After the next draft is completed, discussion concerning the final submission can begin.

Subject: CEAA Comments on Proposed Goderich Harbour Expansion Project Description (PD)

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:16:39 -0500

From: "Brien,Meghan [CEAA]" <[email protected]>


Hi Connie,

Please find CEA Agency comments on the above-named project description in the table attached. I have also attached the letter provided by Dana Boyter at DFO, in response to his review of the federal PD and provincial ToR. I have sent a hard copy of both of these documents to LGL, which you should receive next week.

Also, we realize that you are in the conceptual stage of the EA and project, so please provide any additional information, as noted by comments in the table, wherever posssible. When we receive a revised and complete PD, we will begin Federal Coordination to determine federal interests and responsibilitties.

The Ministry of the Environment will also be commenting on the PD. I will provide these comments to you shortly.

If you have any questions etc., please feel free to contact me.

Thanks very much, Meghan

Meghan Brien, B.A.H, B.Ed., M.E.S Assistant Program Officer | Agent Assistant des Programmes Ontario Regional Office | Bureau régional de l'Ontario Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency | Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907, Toronto ON M4T 1M2 | 55, avenue St-Clair Est, pièce 907, Toronto ON M4T 1M2 [email protected]

Telephone | Téléphone 416-954-7345 Facsimile | Télécopieur 416-952-1573 Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada

<<Project Description Comment Table Jan 21.doc>> <<DFO comments draft ToR & PD.pdf>>

Project Description Comment Table Jan 21.doc

DFO comments draft ToR & PD.pdf

Subject: Sifto Contacts

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:18:26 -0500



Hi Connie,

I trust that you received my email containing comments on the PD.

I am following up on the email I sent to you a few weeks ago, requesting the email info for your contacts at Sifto. I tried to call Garry Sawkey today, using the phone number and extension provided in Appendix A of the PD, but the extension is not valid.

Can you please forward me the email contact for Mr. Sawkey and the correct phone number?

Thanks very much in advance, Meghan



Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:29:18 -0500

To: "Brien,Meghan [CEAA]" <[email protected]>


Subject: Re: Sifto Contacts

Cc: "Al Hamilton" <[email protected]>

Hi Meghan

The only contact info I have for Garry Sawkey is what's in the PD. I suggest you contact Al Hamilton.....while Al is

the GPMC president, he is also a senior Sifto employee and can likely help you track down Garry's contact info, or

answer any questions you may have.

Al can be reached at the above email address or alternately by phone (519) 524-9867.

Connie

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:37:01 -0500

To: "Brien,Meghan [CEAA]" <[email protected]>


Subject: Sifto contact

Hi Meghan

I've just talked to Al.....he suggests you call Rowland Howe, he's the GM at the main Sifto Plant. Rowland's number

is 519-524-8351....you'll need to press 0 and then ask for him as they don't have direct lines at the plant.

You're still welcome to contact Al with any questions......and yes I got your PD comments - Thank You.

We are moving forward with our ToR revisions and then will get on to the PD.

Thanks

Connie






tel: 905-833-1244

fax: 905-833-1255


Subject: RE: Sifto contact

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:19:41 -0500



Thanks very much Connie!

I appreciate your efforts!

Meghan



CEAA January 6th

, 2010

Meghan Brien

Jim Chan

- 1 -

Proposed Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion Draft Project Description Comments

Comment#

Section Page# Comment Lead Commenter

1 General

The Project Description would benefit from a review of the guidance on submitting an adequate project description. http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=68562A84-1

JC, CEAA

2 General

The Agency understands the project is at a conceptual level, but where available, it would be the expectation that more details of the project, project components, project activities (construction, operation, decommissioning, etc) be included in Section 3 and Section 7.1.

JC

3 General

Please refer to the December 16, 2009 comments from the Ontario Ministry of Environment on the draft ToR submission. Where practical and appropriate, please update the project description with the comments as required in the ToR so that both documents are consistent and at the appropriate level of project detail.

JC

4 1.1 1

The sentence stating that the Town of Goderich is the proponent should be defined more clearly.

MB, CEAA

5 1.1 1 Please provide more detail for the planned “improvements to North Harbour road”

MB

6 1.1 1 The connection to the Sifto Canada Corporation, the storage of their product, and mine expansion needs to be clarified to assist identification of federal interests and responsibilities.

MB

7 1.1 2 There is an inconsistency in statements regarding increase or decrease of truck traffic as a result of the project- please clarify.

MB

8 1.1 2 “The availability of government funding projects provides an opportunity for economic development”- This comment seems vague; is there specific economic opportunities as a result of the project outside of the harbour itself? Please clarify and give context or update.

MB

9 1.1 3 Please insert Draft into statement regarding provincial Terms of Reference in 2

nd sentence, and final in front of

ToR in the last sentence.

MB

10 1.2 3 “acting on an agent on behalf…” Unclear- please reword; see comment #4.

MB

11 1.3 3 Insert (Agency) after first reference to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

MB

12 1.3 3 Please change the wording of the CEAA triggers to be consistent with the “Determine Need for an Environmental Assessment” section of the PD guidance document found at http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/013/0002/ops_ppd_e.htm

MB

CEAA January 6th

, 2010

Meghan Brien

Jim Chan

- 2 -

13 1.3 4 Please clarify other funding that is being pursued. MB

14 1.3 4 Consider removing the paragraph addressing potential federal authorizations and permits as it is restated in a more straightforward manner in section 1.7, or direct reader to section 1.7.

MB

15 1.3 4 Please change “a screening will be required” to reflect that the scope and track of the EA will be determined by the Responsible Authorities’- see comment #16.

MB

16 1.3.1 4 Error noted in the first sentence, please kindly correct/ delete. The CEA Act states that the Responsible Authorities (and not the CEA Agency) determines the applicability of the Act. Pursuant to the legislation, the CEA Agency’s role is to act as the federal EA coordinator. Consider use this wording, “…the Comprehensive Study List Regulation under the CEAA prescribes certain projects or class of projects for which a comprehensive study is required.” Then, use additional wording to describe the type of EA: Comprehensive Study by referring to the following link: http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=B053F859-1#comp

JC

17 1.3.1 5 Reference to the Part V Minerals processing section implies a link between the wharf, which is the proposed project, and the Sifto salt mine expansion. The project description could use some clarity, perhaps in another section, on the linkage between these two “projects” and other associated projects in the vicinity and whether in the proponent’s view, the mineral processing section applies. Consider adding a section on associated or recently completed projects such as the breakwater project.

JC

18 1.3.1 5 Reference made to the Official Plan. Please provide more details on the Goderich Official Plan to assist in providing context.

MB

19 1.3.1 5 See comment #15&16 on the requirement of a Comprehensive Study.

MB

20 1.4 6 Please explain the “existing deficiencies” on North Harbour road.

MB

21 1.6 6 “It is recognized by both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (on behalf of the federal authorities),” - remove reference to the CEA Agency. Please use text from the “EA coordination document at the ToR stage“.

JC

22 1.7 6 What are the anticipated Species at Risk (federal) and Rail Safety permits (federal)?

JC

23 2.0 7 Suggest replacing “more than tokenism” with meaningful consultation or participation.

MB

24 2.0 7 Please reference the requirements of the federal CEA Registry. The current text describes the consultation

JC

CEAA January 6th

, 2010

Meghan Brien

Jim Chan

- 3 -

requirements under the Ontario EA Act. Consider mentioning a coordinated EA process where consultation aims to satisfy both federal and provincial processes.

25 2.2 8 Please include the Agency in the correspondence and meeting reference.

MB

26 2.2 8 Consider including a reference to how public consultation would be conducted if a comprehensive study is required.

MB

27 3.0 9 Please provide more data on the impacts of wave action protection. Explain the rationale for protecting the inner harbour from wave action.

MB

28 3.0 9 Section 3 requires more detail for project information, if known. See the link below. A clear, thorough project description providing engineering data such as estimated potential size of the wharf, amount of proposed in-fill, etc., would assist federal authorities in determining whether there is a decision-making responsibility that triggers the need for a federal environmental assessment of a project. A complete project description also reduces the likelihood that federal authorities will require further information from the proponent before making this determination. Any detail as per above to the extent known should be included. http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=68562A84-1

JC

29 3.0 9 Clarify what is meant by a “municipal undertaking”. MB

30 3.1 9/Table 1 Please identify how a “Major Project Milestone” is defined; this title should be reworded to exclude “major project” to avoid confusion with the Major Projects Management Office initiatives.

MB

31 3.1 9 Would the federal scoping report be included? Does the proponent aim to have federal authorities’ requirements met in the final EA screening report?

JC

32 3.1 9/Table 1 Update table 1 and separate the provincial and federal requirements listed within the table.

MB

33 4.1 10 What is the rationale for “not expecting” the secondary study area to be impacted by the proposed wharf expansion?

MB

34 4.2.2.1 11 Please spell out NHIC in full- be sure to consistently use an associated date and the full name of any reference, agency, department etc. ie. InterVISTAS 2009? Consider including a list of acronyms or definitions

JC/MB

35 4.2.3.2 12 “the same degree of richness does not carry over to the primary study area”. What is the evidence for this? Will this be confirmed by analysis undertaken during the EA?

MB

36 4.3 13 Please add more details on the need for storage. MB

37 4.3 14 Please clarify what “unidentified legacy contamination” refers to, and its relation to the proposed project.

JC/MB

38 5.0 14 If possible, please clarify how construction traffic going through the town site will impact project effects in the traffic assessment. The defined study area does not

JC

CEAA January 6th

, 2010

Meghan Brien

Jim Chan

- 4 -

seem to include the town site.

39 15 Need more details of what is proposed for the evaluation to potentially use lake bottom sediment dredge as fill.

JC

40 5.1.1 15 The description of methodology for geo-technical investigations is not clear. Please provide more detail.

MB

41 5.1.2 16 Suggest using consistent formatting for each part of section 5.0 ie. bullet out methodology

MB

42 5.1.2 17 Please use all departments etc., spelled out in full upon first reference, that the acronym is identified in brackets beside the first reference, and that the acronym is used consistently throughout the document after first reference.

MB

43 5.1.3 19 Table 1 seems inconsistent with the definition of a “multi-seasonal” field observation program ie. how can a Summer season be observed if data collection ends in June?

MB

44 5.1.5 21 “Proposed modification to mooring facilities in Goderich Harbour”- Is this part of the proposed project? Please clarify/give detail

MB

45 5.1.5 21 The third sentence is unclear. What are critical offshore wave conditions? Existing and proposed wave conditions? Clarify/give detail.

MB

46 5.1.5 21 Please give detail of the definition of ‘numerical wave modelling” and “hind cast information”

MB

47 5.1.5 21 The last sentence in the paragraph is vague. Please give detail/explain.

MB

48 5.2.1 22 Consider moving Air quality to the natural environment section as it is project-related, direct environmental effect.

JC

49 5.2.2 214 What is the existing condition of the railway? Is it sufficient for its intended uses related to the project?

MB

50 5.2.6 27 Please give context for “the facility” referenced in the last paragraph (the connection between roads?)

MB

51 5.2.6 27 ‘Enhance the transportation system”- what is this referring to? How? Why?

MB

52 5.3.2 29 A stage III assessment is mentioned here- should this be referenced in the section title? Please clarify.

MB

53 7.0 31 Fisheries impacts-If available, more details on information requirements related to fish and fish habitat There appears to be limited pre-project planning discussions with DFO. Please comments provided by Dana Boyter.

JC/MB

54 7.1 31 A multi-season aquatic habitat assessment- see comment #43

MB

55 7.1 31 Change the beginning of the second sentence to reference the “Project Description stage of the project”; “At this,…” is awkward.

MB

56 General Consider moving project schedule (3.1) to another section to make it more visible.

JC

57 General Identification of land and harbour ownership, Discussion on type of EA, Coordination are sufficient and appropriately discussed.

JC

CEAA January 6th

, 2010

Meghan Brien

Jim Chan

- 5 -

58 Appendix A A1/ 1st

and 7th

row

Change Louise Knox to Meghan Brien, Assistant Program Officer, Phone (416) 954-7345 Email [email protected] cc Jim Chan, Senior Program Officer, (416) 952-6063, Email [email protected] Change Dave Balint to Dana Boyter, Fish Habitat Biologist, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Southern Ontario District, Burlington Office 3027 Harvester Road Unit 304, Burlington, Ontario L7R 4K3, Canada, Phone 905-639-0042, Fax 905-639-3549, Email [email protected]

MB

59 Appendix B B4 Update timelines depicted in Appendix B MB

LGL Limited 22 Fisher Street, P.O. Box 280

King City, Ontario CANADA L7B 1A6 Tel: (905) 833-1244 Fax: (905) 833-1255

Email: [email protected] web: www.lgl.com

August 23, 2010

Trevor Robak

APEP Supervisor


733 Exeter Road

London, Ontario

N6E 1L3

Dear Mr. Robak:

Re: Town of Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion

Responses to Comments on the Terms of Reference for an Individual Environmental

Assessment

The Goderich Port Management Corporation (GPMC) and the Town of Goderich have initiated a study

under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act to investigate the potential expansion of wharf facilities

in Goderich Harbour. The purpose of this letter is to respond to the comments on the Terms of Reference

(ToR) received June 14, 2010 from the Ministry of the Environment dated May 2010.

In your letter, it was noted that the ToR does not include a comprehensive source list for the study area or

a commitment to providing a list as previously recommended in your memo of April 9, 2010. The final

ToR commits to a comprehensive source list (including emissions from ships, heating emissions, fuel

transfer and other sources expected to accompany a shipping port) being prepared and submitted to the

Ministry of Environment during the early stages of the EA to identify any additional sources that could be

included in the air quality assessment source list.

Your letter also raises concerns regarding the use of air quality information from the Grand Bend

Monitoring Station as a baseline for conditions in Goderich Harbour. The final ToR provides a

commitment that should the data obtained from the Grand Bend monitoring station not be considered

representative of conditions in Goderich, the GPMC will consider setting up an air quality monitoring

station in the vicinity of the Harbour.

I trust that these revisions will address your comments made on the ToR for this project. If you have any

questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Trevor Robak Ministry of the Environment – APEP Page 2

Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited

environmental research associates



c.c. Matt Pearson, Senior Planner, B.M. Ross and Associates Ltd

Al Hamilton, President, Goderich Port Management Corporation

Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, Project Officer, Ministry of the Environment




August 16, 2010

Jack Colonnello

Surface Water Specialist – Technical Support Section


733 Exeter Road

London, Ontario

N6E 1L3

Dear Mr. Colonnello:



Assessment




(ToR) received from the Ministry of the Environment dated May 2010.

In your letter, it was noted that approval under the Public Lands Act may be required for this project. The

study team has confirmed with the Ministry of Natural Resources that an approval will be required under

this Act. The final Terms of Reference will be updated to reflect this requirement.

Some questions were raised in your letter regarding salt storage and the guideline referenced in the ToR,

“Salt Institute of North America’s Salt Institute Voluntary Salt Storage Guidelines for Distribution

Stockpiles (2010)”. This guideline is available at the following link: http://www.saltinstitute.org

/Education-Center/Salt-industry-guidelines/Stockpile-management-guidelines. The guideline has not

been approved by the Ontario government. While the guideline is voluntary, the study team will

implement all the recommendations and best management practices of this guideline, not just a portion of

the guideline. To be consistent with this guideline, salt will be stored on a low permeable surface, with a

cover (e.g. canvas, polyethelene film, synthetic fibre or a combination) that is sized appropriately for the

size and shape of the stockpile and sealed to prevent entry of precipitation. The final ToR will commit to

identifying during the EA site controls and containment to mitigate stormwater issues that may lead to

water quality impacts to Lake Huron.

You recommended that the study team review the MOE Fill Quality Guidelines for Lakefilling in Ontario

(2003) for infilling work associated with new or enhanced breakwalls. The revised ToR will include

reference to this document, and the guideline will be used during the evaluation of infilling alternatives

during the EA.

Jack Colonnello Ministry of the Environment – Surface Water Page 2

I trust that these revisions will address your comments made on the ToR for this project. If you have any

questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited










August, 16, 2010

Dana Boyter

Fish Habitat Biologist

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Burlington District Office

Ontario Great Lakes Area

P.O. Box 85060

3027 Harvester Road, Suite 304

Burlington, Ontario L7R 4K3

Dear Mr. Boyter:



Assessment

DFO File No. BU-09-4865




(ToR) received from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) dated June 21, 2010 and discussed at

an agency meeting on July 12, 2010.

A description of the proposed undertaking (preferred alternative) with details regarding approximate size

and extent of the infill into Lake Huron and the Goderich Harbour was requested. The final ToR will

include a brief description of the in-fill size and potential location, including a map illustrating the

potential location.

A separate section in the ToR was requested outlining DFO’s policy and the application of the Fisheries

Act. The final ToR will include a description of DFO’s policy framework, with reference to descriptions

of existing conditions and impact/mitigation in later sections of the final ToR.

Comments were made regarding DFO policies and how they are applied to determine impacts to fish

habitat. It was requested that the final ToR and EA include information on DFO’s habitat policy

objectives that are used to evaluate the impacts to fish habitat, and to outline how these policies were

applied and used in the decision making process. Based on discussions with DFO at the agency meeting,

it was agreed that the final ToR will include clear recognition that the proposed project will result in a

HADD, and to include habitat model references that might be considered for analysis during the EA.

Section 6.3.3 of the draft ToR will be revised to address DFO’s No Net Loss Policy, HADD policy, and

HAAT model (Great Lakes Near Shore Habitat).

Dana Boyter Department of Fisheries and Oceans Page 2

I trust that these revisions will address your comments made on the Terms of Reference for this project.

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited







of 2

Ministry of Tourism and Culture

Culture Services Unit Programs and Services Branch 400 University Avenue, 4

th floor

Toronto ON M7A 2R9 Tel. 416 314-7144 Fax: 416 212-1802

Ministère du Tourisme et de la Culture

Unité des services culturels Direction des programmes et des services 4

e étage, 400 avenue University

Toronto ON M7A 2R9 Tél. : 416 314-7144 Téléc. : 416 212-1802

June 23, 2010 Constance Agnew, Senior Planning Ecologist LGL Limited 22 Fisher Street, P.O. Box 280 King City, ON L7B 1A6 Subject/Project: Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion, Submission of Terms of Reference for an Individual Environmental Assessment Dear Ms Agnew, Thank you for contacting the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) regarding the Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion EA. MTC’s interest in this proposed wharf expansion relates to our mandate of conserving, protecting and preserving Ontario’s heritage including archaeological sites, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. We have reviewed your submission and have the following comments: The research presented in the initial cultural heritage section would benefit from some additional steps. In section 5.3.3 Cultural Environment, on p. 17, the second paragraph in this section indicates that there are two potentially significant heritage sites located within the Harbour, according to the Huron County’s online interactive mapping you reference. However, it is not clear if you have consulted with the Goderich Municipal Heritage Committee or reviewed the heritage information contained on the Goderich website. The Goderich website indicates at least one property is designated within the area outlined as the Study area in Figure 3, and this is not included in your document. The municipality has current information on heritage properties and therefore the Ontario Heritage Properties database is not the most up-to-date source to rely on for this information. In addition, no reference has been made in the document to registered archaeological sites or potential marine heritage in the study area. This information should be included in this section 5.0 Existing Environment – Socio-economic and Cultural Features. In addition, some of the terminology used in your document should to be updated to be aligned with the Ontario Heritage Act 2005. Section 6.5 Cultural Environment on p. 34, contains subsection 6.5.1 which details the cultural resource assessment. In the first subsection titled Scope , the second sentence states “For the purpose of the ToR and the EA, the term “cultural heritage resource” describes both cultural landscapes and built heritage features.” We would suggest modifying this statement and inserting built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes terms which are used later within the ToR document and which are consistent with OHA 2005 terminology. In the subsection titled Environmental Protection Measures, we would

of 2

suggest adding Mitigation measures will be discussed with, and draft documentation of culture heritage resources will be submitted to, the municipality and the Ministry of Tourism and Culture prior to final document submission. Marine and land archaeology are fundamentally different activities and should be dealt with separately in your document. In the Section 6.5.2 on pg. 36 outlining the Methodology, Evaluation and Impact Analysis and Environmental Protection Measures for archaeology, for example, land and marine archaeological assessment activities are described together. This approach may lead to confusion around the respective field requirements of each kind of archaeology which differ greatly. A description of the ‘land’ archaeological assessment work, following the staged process is needed and should be outlined separately from the marine archaeology work. As noted in your document, the archaeologist must hold a marine and a land archaeology licence; the two archaeological licencing and methodologies must be dealt with as separate issues and outlined as such in this document. While land archaeological ‘Professional’ licences are granted for a period of three years and Project Information Forms are completed for individual projects, a marine archaeological license is granted to a marine archaeologist for a specific site, expires at the end of each calendar year, and sets out the conditions and obligations the applicant is expected to follow. As each marine project is unique and may require special considerations, the applicant should contact the Ministry’s Marine Heritage Advisor for consultation and site-specific advice at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, the project may need to have two archaeologists, a marine and a land archaeologist to conduct all necessary assessment work. Table 2 Summary of Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources for the Evaluation of “Alternative Methods” outlines archaeology work to be conducted – again, the ‘land’ and marine archaeology responsibilities need to be outlined separately, drawing upon the edited section 6.5.2. The above are comments from the Ministry of Tourism and Culture on the submitted report and a revised document is needed. We trust that this is of assistance; please let this office know if you have any questions or if you wish to discuss this further. Regards,

Simon Q Spooner

Penny Young Dr. Simon Spooner Heritage Planner Marine Heritage Advisor Culture Services Unit Culture Services Unit t. 416-212-4019 t. 416-314-7145 f. 416-212-1802 f. 416-212-1802 [email protected] [email protected] cc: Chris Schiller, Manager, Culture Services Unit, Ministry of Tourism and Culture Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, Ministry of Environment




August 16, 2010

Penny Young

Heritage Planner

Ministry of Tourism and Culture

Culture Services Unit

Programs and Services Branch

400 University Avenue, 4th floor

Toronto, Ontario

M7A 2R9

Dear Ms. Young:



Assessment




(ToR) received from the Ministry of Tourism and Culture dated June 23, 2010.

In your letter, you made comments on the description of the cultural environment in the ToR. During the

preparation of the ToR, information available from the Goderich Municipal Heritage Committee was

reviewed to identify any sites within the primary study area. There are two potential significant sites

located within the primary study area, which are described in the ToR. The purpose of this description

was to provide a general description of the study area for context and background purposes. The cultural

landscape and built heritage assessment and archaeological assessment will be undertaken during the EA.

The final ToR will include identification of any designated heritage sites within the secondary study area.

Registered archaeological sites or potential marine heritage sites will be identified and documented during

the EA.

To ensure that the terminology of the ToR is consistent with the Ontario Heritage Act, 2005, the term

“cultural heritage resource” will be replaced with cultural landscapes and built heritage features. In the

final ToR, text will be added to state that draft documentation for cultural heritage resources will be

submitted to the municipality and Ministry of Tourism and Culture prior to final document submission.

In response to your comments regarding land archaeology and marine archaeology, these activities will be

dealt with separately in the final ToR. During the early stages of the EA, the archaeologist undertaking

the marine archaeology work will contact the Ministry Marine Heritage Advisor for consultation

purposes.

Penny Young Ministry of Tourism and Culture Page 2

I trust that these revisions will address your comments made on the Terms of Reference for this project.


Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited




c.c. Dr. Simon Spooner, Marine Heritage Advisor, Ministry of Tourism and Culture

Matt Pearson, Senior Planner, B.M. Ross and Associates Ltd






August 16, 2010

April Nix

Planning Intern

Ministry of Natural Resources, Guelph District

1 Stone Road West

Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2

Dear Ms. Nix:



Assessment




received from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) dated June 21, 2010 and discussed at an

agency meeting on July 12, 2010. A summary of the responses to the comments in your letter, and the

decisions made at the agency meeting are provided below.

In the comment letter, you requested that a map illustrating the area for potential infilling within the outer

harbour area be included in the final Terms of Reference (ToR). A map will be prepared and included in

the final ToR to present the approximate size and location of infill proposed as part of the Goderich

Harbour Wharf expansion.

You also commented that existing environmental conditions or potential impacts were not included in the

analysis in Section 4.0 of the ToR. This project is proceeding as a scoped EA and as such the study team

evaluated a number of solutions to demonstrate the options being considered. The disadvantage

associated with the harbour in-fill was considered a “catch-all” encompassing impacts to fish and aquatic

habitat, littoral drift, etc.

MNR requested that a description of the history of environmental and resource management within the

harbour be included in the final ToR. It was also noted in your comments, that the scope for the EA

should include the development and identification of remediation opportunities to improve existing

conditions both within the harbour and the surrounding waters in the study area. It was further noted that

these variables should be considered in the development of a preferred alternative. During the July 12,

2010 agency meeting these comments were discussed and it was clarified that the purpose of the EA is

not to correct situations that have arisen from past development and/or management. However, the final

ToR will commit to including a description of the historical management of the harbour and what has

influenced baseline harbour conditions in the EA Report.

At the July 12, 2010 agency meeting, you commented on the extent of the study area, and requested that it

be expanded further north and south. During the EA the study team’s coastal engineer will include an

examination of the Lake Huron shoreline north and south of the study area and as such the study area for

April Nix Ministry of Natural Resources Page 2

the ToR does not need to be expanded. To clarify this, the final ToR will include additional information

regarding the area of investigation for the shoreline investigation to address littoral drift issues.

At the agency meeting in July 2010, land title issues were discussed and it was concluded that the revised

ToR will commit to including in the EA specific details regarding land titles and ownership of the harbour

including Town of Goderich limits, MNR Crown Land and Sifto lease. The revised ToR will also

acknowledge that there are interests beyond the water’s edge that will be impacted.

A comment was made in the MNR letter dated June 21, 2010, noting that NHIC data was referenced in

the ToR, while more recent data is often available at the MNR District Offices. You recommended that

the study team request data from the MNR Guelph District Office and Upper Great Lakes Management –

Lake Huron Unit. Correspondence between the MNR and the study team regarding the collection of

secondary source data was discussed at the agency meeting. Requests for this information have

previously been submitted to the MNR. It was agreed at the meeting, that you would provide to the study

team all the data for the study area that is on file at the MNR Guelph District Office.

Table 2 of the ToR includes a summary of criteria, indicators and data sources. You requested that under

the “fish and fish habitat” row, the MNR be identified as a potential data source for baseline data. The

MNR will be identified as a data source for fish and fish habitat on Table 2 of the final ToR.

Concern was identified in your letter dated June 21, 2010 regarding the identification of Wood Turtle

(Endangered) within the Lower Maitland River, as the location of species at risk is considered highly

sensitive information. It was agreed at the agency meeting that the final ToR will note the presence of

Wood Turtle within the greater Huron County area, instead of the Lower Maitland River.

During sampling of the fish community within the study area in 2009, Black Redhorse (Threatened) was

captured. In the comment letter, it was noted that if species at risk are caught during an inventory, the

sampling should cease until the appropriate permit is obtained and the District MNR Office is notified. A

permit under Section 17(2)(b) of the Ontario Endangered Species Act, and a Scientific Collector’s Permit

under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act are required for additional aquatic surveys within the

Maitland River. At the agency meeting, MNR was provided with a copy of a letter prepared by LGL

Limited, dated June 17, 2010, summarizing the capture and reporting of an aquatic species at risk (Black

Redhorse) to MNR, and correspondence between LGL and MNR Upper Great Lakes Fisheries Unit

(UGLFU) and MNR Peterborough Office regarding the requirement for a permit under the Ontario

Endangered Species Act. As a follow-up to the July 12, 2010 agency meeting, MNR Clinton confirmed

via email on July 30, 2010 that LGL would not require an ESA 17(2)(b) permit for late summer sampling

in Goderich’s Inner Harbour. At the agency meeting, the study team agreed that botanical field

investigations would include a survey for Butternut within the secondary study area.

It was noted in your comment letter that MNR has concerns regarding potential impacts to Lake Huron

regarding fish habitat, lake bed loss and the development of impact assessment criteria, mitigation

measures and potential compensation measures. You recommended that the study team engage the MNR

early in the process to discuss and provide input on impact assessment, development of mitigation

measures and compensation measures during the EA. The study team will invite the MNR to discuss

these items during the EA through ongoing correspondence and meetings with the study team, including

the fisheries specialist.

Concern was noted regarding the timing of MNR’s involvement in the ToR process, particularly that they

would have appreciated an opportunity to review the draft ToR prior to the final submission to MOE and

placement on the public record. At the agency meeting, it was clarified that MNR was provided with a

April Nix Ministry of Natural Resources Page 3

copy of the draft ToR at the same time as other agencies on the Government Review Team, as directed by

MOE. It was offered by the study team that an advisory committee could be established during the EA to

include MNR; however, MNR advised that staff resources are limited and that more regular meetings

would be appropriate. It was requested that the MNR receive a copy of the draft EA Report prior to

formal submission to MOE. The study team agreed that this could be built into the EA schedule.

It was confirmed that permits and approvals would be required under the Public Lands Act. It was

recommended that the study team engage MNR early in the process to obtain these permits/approvals. At

the agency meeting, it was confirmed that MNR would be responsible for issuing the Work Permit under

the Public Lands Act.

At the agency meeting, MNR requested information regarding consultation with First Nations and Métis

communities. A copy of correspondence with First Nations and Métis communities is provided in the

Record of Consultation. A copy of comments received following circulation of the draft ToR is appended

to this letter for your information.

I trust that the above revisions will address your comments made on the ToR for this project. If you have

any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited










August 16, 2010

Laura Lee Dam

Regional Coordinator – West Region

Ontario Ministries of Citizenship & Immigration, Culture & Tourism and Health Promotion

30 Duke Street West, Suite 405

Kitchener, Ontario

N2H 3W5

Dear Ms. Dam:


Responses to Comments on the Terms of Reference for an Individual Environmental Assessment

The Goderich Port Management Corporation (GPMC) and the Town of Goderich have initiated a study under the

Ontario Environmental Assessment Act to investigate the potential expansion of wharf facilities in Goderich

Harbour. The purpose of this letter is to respond to the comments on the Terms of Reference (ToR) received from

the Ministries of Citizenship and Immigration, Culture and Tourism and Health Promotion dated June 23, 2010.

In your e-mail, you noted that the ToR satisfies the Ministry of Culture’s mandate. A comment was made regarding

recreation, as part of the Ministry of Health Promotion’s mandate. It was requested that the extent of the impact on

recreational use patterns would be addressed during the study. The ToR commits to undertaking a land use

assessment, including an assessment of the impacts of the project on recreational land uses and features within the

study area. This assessment will be undertaken during the EA.

The study team will ensure that you and the other two advisors are on the contact list for the project, and are

included on future correspondence and opportunities to review documents associated with this project.


Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited










August 16, 2010

Josée Beauregard

Ontario/Nunavut Team

Indian and Northern Affairs

Litigation Management And Resoulution Branch

25 Eddy Street

Gatineau, Quebec

K1A 0H4

Dear Ms. Beauregard:


Responses to Comments on the Terms of Reference for an Individual Environmental Assessment

The Goderich Port Management Corporation (GPMC) and the Town of Goderich have initiated a study under the

Ontario Environmental Assessment Act to investigate the potential expansion of wharf facilities in Goderich

Harbour. The purpose of this letter is to respond to the comments on the Terms of Reference (ToR) received from

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada dated May 31, 2010.

Thank you for providing information regarding active litigation (cases) in the vicinity of the study area for this

project. We have already provided information regarding this project through letters to First Nation and Métis

communities including the Chippewas of Kettle and Stoney Point and the Walpole Island First Nation. The active

litigation (cases) will be further investigated during the EA, and we will ensure that First Nations and Métis

communities continue to be involved in consultation activities during the EA.

I trust that this information will address your comments made on the ToR for this project. If you have any questions

or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited







Ministry of the Environment Environmental Assesment and Approvals Branch 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5 Attn: Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, Project Officer Subject: Draft Terms of Reference for the Proposed Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion (EA File No: EA 02-08-10) Dear Ms. Fromme-Marcellin, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion. The Maitland Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) has reviewed the proposed Draft ToR and offers the following comments. Comments: 6.2 Impact Assessment of Alternative Methods: • It is the Conservation Authorities opinion that the proposed primary and secondary study

areas may not be adequately defined to address the full scope of shoreline dynamics investigations. The Conservation Authority would recommend that a coastal expert be retained to review the study area to ensure that the littoral (North/South) drift is able to be adequately detailed.

6.3.3 Fish and Aquatic Habitat Investigations • The MVCA currently has a Level II agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans

(DFO). It is anticipated that this project may result in a HADD therefore the MVCA would defer review of any impacts to Fish or Fish Habitat to DFO.

6.3.6 Shoreline Dynamics Investigations • Currently the section reviews and details only the impacts that wave action may have on the

proposed fill and the assistance the proposed fill may have in buffering impacts on the current shoreline. Review of this section should be expanded to include impacts of the proposed fill on the Littoral Drift along the greater Lake Huron coast line. It is the MVCA’s opinion that the Coastal Expert be retained to review the Primary and Secondary scope of the study area specifically concerning the movement of sediment. A future studies and subsequent reporting should demonstrate that the proposed infilling will have no negative impacts to the North-South littoral drift process.

General Comments • Currently Lake Huron’s water levels are relatively low in comparison to the high water

experienced in 1985-1986. These elevations are highly variable with elevations differences of the extreme highs (177.5 masl) to the extreme lows (175.6 masl). With these types of variable water elevations Lake Shore littoral drift may experience variations to the sediment transport process. The MVCA will require that any review of potential impacts to coastal process be determined under both high lake levels and low lake levels to ensure that sediment transport is not impacted.

• In review of the new infilling proposed and the need to have a Coastal Expert review and address the potential impacts to Coastal Processes. The proponent may wish to address the current Harbour breakwaters which result in the accretion on the north side of the harbour of approximately 26,000 cubic meters/yr. (Reindeer’s 1990, 69); and undertake a management plan to help alleviate current sediment transport barriers. Reindeer’s (1990) highlighted the need to review the feasibility of a bypass study looking at the transport of sediment from the North side to the South side of Goderich Harbour.

MVCA Permit • The proposed works will result in a permit being required from the MVCA under Ontario

Regulation 164/06 “REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES”. Currently the MVCA does not have policies regarding the infilling of Lake Huron. Therefore staff must direct any permit application to the MVCA Board of Directors for their review and authorization. Should the applicants wish to contact the MVCA regarding any additional details please contact the undersigned below.

Yours Sincerely, MAITLAND VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Nathan Garland Environmental Planner




August 16, 2010

Geoff King

Environmental Planner

Maitland Valley Conservation Authority

1093 Marietta Street, Box 127

Wroxeter, Ontario

N0G 2X0

Dear Mr. King:



Assessment




(ToR) received from the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) and discussed at an agency

meeting on July 12, 2010.

In your comment letter, it was indicated that MVCA considers the primary and secondary study areas

inadequate to address the full scope of shoreline dynamic investigations. The study team has retained a

coastal expert for this study, and the final ToR will provide a further defined scope of work for shoreline

dynamics, including an investigation of the shoreline north and south of the harbour outside of the

proposed study area.

Further comments were made on the work plan for Shoreline Dynamics, which includes details of

assessing impacts that wave action may have on the proposed fill and the assistance the fill may have in

buffering impacts on the current shoreline. You recommended that Section 6.3.6 of the ToR include

impacts of the proposed in-fill on the littoral drift along the greater Lake Huron coastline. It was

recommended that the coastal expert should review the movement of sediment within the primary and

secondary study areas and studies conducted during the EA should demonstrate that the proposed in-

filling will have no net impacts to the north-south littoral drift process. The study team has retained a

coastal expert for this study, and the final ToR will address the impacts of the proposed in-fill within the

harbour on littoral drift north and south of the harbour. During the EA, consideration will be given to

achieving no net impact to the north-south littoral drift process.

Geoff King Maitland Valley Conservation Authority Page 2

It was noted that the current water level of Lake Huron is low, and that water elevations can be highly

variable over time. The MVCA requires that assessments of impacts to coastal processes consider high

and low lake levels to ensure that the transport of sediment is not impacted. The lake levels will be

documented at the time of field investigations; however, consideration will be given to lake level

variability over time during the assessment of impacts to coastal processes. To assist us in documenting

the high and low lake levels, we request any data you have collected for lake levels at Goderich Harbour

and the surrounding area. The information received from MVCA will be incorporated into the EA.

The comment letter indicated that the proponent may need to address current Harbour breakwaters and

undertake a management plan to alleviate the current sediment transport barriers. At the agency meeting,

a copy of a background report (Reindeer 1990) was requested by LGL. Sediment deposition and littoral

drift will be considered during the EA in the fisheries compensation package/design as improvements to

coastal processes in the immediate proximity to the harbour.

Since the MVCA has a Level II agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), all

correspondence regarding the determination of a HADD and approvals under the Fisheries Act will be

sent directly to DFO, with copies sent to the MVCA.

A permit under O. Reg. 164/06 will be required for this project; however, the MVCA will need to send

the permit application to the Board of Directors for their review and authorization, as there are no policies

regarding the infilling of Lake Huron. A preferred alternative will be selected during the EA, and the

need to acquire a permit under O. Reg. 164/06 will be identified. To obtain approvals-in-principle for the

preferred alternative, the MVCA will be involved early in the EAto solicit input on the design in order to

meet the requirements of the Conservation Authority.


Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited










August 17, 2010

Brandi Walter

Environmental Planner/Regulations Officer

Maitland Valley Conservation Authority

1093 Marietta Street, Box 127

Wroxeter, Ontario

N0G 2X0

Dear Ms. Walter:



Assessment




(ToR) received from the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) and discussed at an agency

meeting on July 12, 2010. Meeting minutes are appended to this letter for your information.

In your comment letter, it was indicated that MVCA considers the primary and secondary study areas

inadequate to address the full scope of shoreline dynamic investigations. The study team has retained a

coastal expert for this study, and the final ToR will provide a further defined scope of work for shoreline

dynamics, including an investigation of the shoreline north and south of the harbour outside of the

proposed study area.

Further comments were made on the work plan for Shoreline Dynamics, which includes details of

assessing impacts that wave action may have on the proposed fill and the assistance the fill may have in

buffering impacts on the current shoreline. You recommended that Section 6.3.6 of the ToR include

impacts of the proposed in-fill on the littoral drift along the greater Lake Huron coastline. It was

recommended that the coastal expert should review the movement of sediment within the primary and

secondary study areas and studies conducted during the EA should demonstrate that the proposed in-

filling will have no net impacts to the north-south littoral drift process. The study team has retained a

coastal expert for this study, and the final ToR will address the impacts of the proposed in-fill within the

harbour on littoral drift north and south of the harbour. During the EA, consideration will be given to

achieving no net impact to the north-south littoral drift process.

Brandi Walter Maitland Valley Conservation Authority Page 2

It was noted that the current water level of Lake Huron is low, and that water elevations can be highly

variable over time. The MVCA requires that assessments of impacts to coastal processes consider high

and low lake levels to ensure that the transport of sediment is not impacted. The lake levels will be

documented at the time of field investigations; however, consideration will be given to lake level

variability over time during the assessment of impacts to coastal processes. To assist us in documenting

the high and low lake levels, we request any data you have collected for lake levels at Goderich Harbour

and the surrounding area. The information received from MVCA will be incorporated into the EA.

The comment letter indicated that the proponent may need to address current Harbour breakwaters and

undertake a management plan to alleviate the current sediment transport barriers. At the agency meeting,

a copy of a background report (Reindeer 1990) was requested by LGL. Sediment deposition and littoral

drift will be considered during the EA in the fisheries compensation package/design as improvements to

coastal processes in the immediate proximity to the harbour.

Since the MVCA has a Level II agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), all

correspondence regarding the determination of a HADD and approvals under the Fisheries Act will be

sent directly to DFO, with copies sent to the MVCA.

A permit under O. Reg. 164/06 will be required for this project; however, the MVCA will need to send

the permit application to the Board of Directors for their review and authorization, as there are no policies

regarding the infilling of Lake Huron. A preferred alternative will be selected during the EA, and the

need to acquire a permit under O. Reg. 164/06 will be identified. To obtain approvals-in-principle for the

preferred alternative, the MVCA will be involved early in the EAto solicit input on the design in order to

meet the requirements of the Conservation Authority.


Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited







Phil Beard, General Manager, Maitland Valley Conservation Authority

HISTORIC SAUGEEN MÉTIS

204 High Street, Box 1492

Southampton Ontario N0H 2L0

At the mouth of the Saugeen River

Since the early 1800s

Email: [email protected]

June 17, 2010

Ms. Michelle Fromme-Marcellin

Project Officer

Ministry of the Environments

Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch

2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A

Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5

Dear Ms. Fromme-Marcellin:

Re: Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion

Submission of Comments Re the Terms of Reference for an Individual

Environmental Assessment

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Terms of Reference for an Individual

Environmental Assessment for the above project.

HSM has reviewed the ToR and offer the following comments for your consideration as you

move towards finalizing the document:

Section 5: Description of the Study Area, Existing Environment and

Potential Effects of the Undertaking (Page 11)

5.1 Description of the Study Area.

Comment: Does the secondary area involve archaeological assessment? The mouth of the

Maitland River and the lower Maitland River valley areas adjacent to the harbour are areas of

high relevance to the local Métis as a Métis presence is recorded in the area from the early

1820s.

5.2.4.2 Lake Huron

mailto:[email protected]

Ms. Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, MOE, June 17, 2010, page 2

Comment: Final Paragraph, page 16, please add the words in red text or similar language:

... Due to the anthropogenic nature of the harbour and use as a shipping corridor, the lake bed is

general void of any significant habitat features which would serve as quality Fish habitat,

although the lake bed is potentially rich for discovery of archaeological artefacts relating to the

early fur trade activity in the vicinity. Further assessment of impacts to fish and fish habitat as

well as marine archaeology associated with the project will be undertaken during the EA.

Section 6.2 Impact Assessment of Alternative Methods

Cultural Environment

Comment: The cultural resource assessment should be sensitive to the early Goderich harbour

history that has not yet been documented fully. The fur trade was evident in the Goderich

harbour area since the early 1800s and an effort should be made to reach out to the local Historic

Saugeen Métis, descendants of those fur traders at Goderich, when considering the cultural

resource assessment.

Section 6.3 Natural Environment Investigations

6.3.1 Geotechnical Investigations

Evaluation and Impact Analysis

Comment: Related to last sentence – “An assessment of the implications for using lake bottom

sediments to dredge for use in the fill area will be undertaken and documented during the EA” -

There should be some consideration given to monitoring the sediment when moved to preclude

that fur trade artefacts have not been scooped up and deposited elsewhere, escaping recovery.

Section 6.5 Cultural Environment

6.5.2 Archaeological Assessment

Methodology

Stage 1 Assessment

Comment; Stage 1 Assessment should accumulate data also from existing reports of fur trade

and Métis activity in the area prior to settlement in 1827. The early history of the Lake Huron

shoreline is not yet fully documented. Research should be conducted in the fur trade that is

recorded in the Goderich harbour, and that research should involve the input of the descendant

Métis community, the Historic Saugeen Métis, with continuity along the Lake Huron shoreline


since that time. The Stage 1 Assessment at the very least must make reference to the potential of

archaeological artefact discovery, related to this early period.

Stage II Assessment

Comment: The Stage II field assessment (in-water) should include a cursory visual

inspection by a qualified diver for identification of artefacts of the fur trade and marine era pre-

and post-Goderich settlement in 1827. Elsewhere in Ontario, such visual inspections in known

areas of travel and use by the fur trade, yield important artefacts. Historic Saugeen Métis, an

independent rights-bearing community in the area since the early 1800s, requests this inclusion.

Evaluation and Impact Analysis

Comment: Due to the lack of historical record of the fur trade period along the shoreline of

Lake Huron, and, particularly, lack of academic interest in creating a record prior to this date,

there should be a concerted effort to fully assess underwater areas for archaeological potential of

artefact recovery. Historic Saugeen Métis request this consideration. Table 2, page 39 should

be amended to include reference to this.

Section 7.0 Commitments and Monitoring Strategy

Comment: All references to `FIRST NATIONS` should read: First Nations and Métis.

Section 8.0 Consultation

Comment: All references to `FIRST NATIONS`` should read: .First Nations and Métis

8.1.2.1 First Nations Consultation

Comment: All references, including the above heading, to `FIRST NATIONS`` should read:

First Nations and Métis.

8.2 Consultation Plan for the Environment Assessment

Comment: All references to `FIRST NATIONS`` should read: First Nations and Métis.

Including : Page 58 – second paragraph – the reference to “First

Nations/Aboriginal communities” should also read: First Nations and Métis.

8.2.2 External Agency Consultation and Negotiations

Comment: All references to `FIRST NATIONS`` should read: First Nations and Métis.

Including: Page 60 – All references to “Aboriginal Communities”, and “First

Nations/Aboriginal communities” should read: First Nations and Métis.


Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Terms of Reference. If you have any further

questions, please contact the HSM office at 519-483-4000 or by email at

[email protected]

Yours very truly,

President Jason Indoe


mailto:[email protected]




August 16, 2010

Jason Indoe

President


204 High Street, Box 1492

Southhampton, Ontario

N0H 2L0

Dear Mr. Indoe:



Assessment



in Goderich Harbour. The purpose of this letter is to respond to your comments on the Terms of

Reference dated June 17, 2010.

In response to your question regarding Section 5.1, an archaeological assessment will be undertaken

within the secondary study area during the EA. We agree with the suggested changes to Section 5.2.4.2

of the ToR. These changes will be reflected in the final ToR.

Thank you for providing information regarding the fur trade in Goderich Harbour related to Section 6.2.

This information will be documented in the EA. In response to your comments on Section 6.3.1, it is

agreed that there should be some consideration given to monitoring the sediment so as to recover any fur

trade artefacts, this will be committed to in the final ToR. Regarding your comments on Section 6.5.2; it

is agreed that the Stage 1 Assessment should accumulate data also from existing reports of fur trade and

Métis activity in the area prior to settlement in 1827 and this will be committed to in the final ToR.

Additionally, it is agreed that the Stage II field assessment (in-water) should include a cursory visual

inspection by a qualified diver for identification of artefacts of the fur trade and marine era pre- and post-

Goderich settlement in 1827 and this will also be comitted to in the final ToR. A concerted effort will be

made to fully assess underwater areas for archaeological potential of artefact recovery and Table 2, page

39 will be amended to include reference to this.

As requested, editing will occur in Sections 7.0, 8.0, 8.1.2.1, 8.2 and 8.2.2 and references to ‘First

Nations’ will be revised to “First Nations and Métis”. On page 58 the reference to “First

Nations/Aboriginal communities” will be revised to “First Nations and Métis”. Lastly, on page 60,

references to “Aboriginal Communities” and “First Nations/Aboriginal communities” will be revised to

“First Nations and Métis”.

Jason Indoe Historic Saugeen Métis Page 2

I trust that these revisions will address your comments made on the ToR for this project. Your comments

on the ToR are appreciated. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited










August 16, 2010

James W. Wagar

Consultation Assessment Coordinator

Lands, Resources and Consultation

Métis Nation of Ontario

75 Sherbourne St., Suite 222

Toronto, Ontario

M5A 2P9

Dear Mr. Wagar:



Assessment




received from the Métis Nation of Ontario dated June 16, 2010.

In response to your request, it is agreed that the study team will pay close attention to the specific water

quality, wildlife and aboriginal interests mentioned in your letter as important Métis interests. As part of

the EA consultation process, the study team would like to meet with the Métis, and receive any input or

additional traditional and technical knowledge of the study or surrounding area from the community.

Regarding your comment on the study area, it will be confirmed during the EA whether any crown land

exists within the study area. Pollution during construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment

will also be addressed during the EA.

Thank you for the correction to the Great Lakes Métis Council address. A hard copy of the project’s

Terms of Reference will be provided to the Métis Nation of Ontario. The Métis Nation of Ontario will be

kept on the mailing list for this project and informed of any new developments and EA benchmarks.

Thank you for the information regarding the steps to ensure that Métis rights are being observed by the

proponent and the regional Consultation Committee. The study team will review and incorporate the

information regarding the Métis Way of Life, the Duty to Consult, and the Métis Nation of Ontario’s

regional Consultation Protocols into the consultation process during the EA.

I trust that this addresses your comments made on the Terms of Reference for this project. Your

comments on the ToR are appreciated. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to

contact me.

James W. Wagar Métis Nation of Ontario Page 2

Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited










August 16, 2010

Pauline Saulnier

Region 7 Councillor

Métis Nation of Ontario

4 Richelieu Street

Penetanguishene, Ontario

L9M 1H8

Dear Ms. Saulnier:



Assessment



in Goderich Harbour. The purpose of this letter is to respond to your comments on the Terms of

Reference dated June 16, 2010.

In response to your request, it is agreed that the study team will pay close attention to the specific water

quality, wildlife and aboriginal interests mentioned in your letter as important Métis interests. As part of

the EA consultation process, the study team would like to meet with the Métis, and receive any input or

additional traditional and technical knowledge of the study or surrounding area from the community.

Regarding your comment on the study area, it will be confirmed during the EA whether any crown land

exists within the study area. Pollution during construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment

will also be addressed during the EA.

A hard copy of the project’s Terms of Reference will be provided to the Métis Nation of Ontario. The

Métis Nation of Ontario will be kept on the mailing list for this project and informed of any new

developments and EA benchmarks.

Thank you for the information regarding the steps to ensure that Métis rights are being observed by the

proponent and the regional Consultation Committee. The study team will review and incorporate the

information regarding the Métis Way of Life, the Duty to Consult, and the Métis Nation of Ontario’s

regional Consultation Protocols into the consultation process during the EA.

I trust that this addresses your comments made on the ToR for this project. Your comments on the ToR

are appreciated. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Pauline Saulnier Region 7 Councillor, Métis Nation of Ontario Page 2

Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited







THE CHANGING SHORELINE &

MOUTH OF THE MAITLAND RIVER

UPDATES: 2007

Prepared by Paul Carroll Historical Researcher

September 2007

THE CHANGING SHORELINE & MOUTH OF THE MAITLAND RIVER UPDATES: 2007

Prepared by Paul Carroll Historical Researcher

September 2007 Introduction The shoreline at the mouth of the Maitland River is in a state of dramatic change. The changes are observable and can be measured. They are visible through the examination of aerial photographs, and their extent can be ascertained with sonar equipment designed to examine the bottom features of the lake. The mouth of the Maitland River continues to be an extremely busy location for human activity. There are two privately operated marinas for vessels with drafts ranging from .5 m to just over 2 m in depth. Two public launching ramps provide access points for countless vessels used for fishing by anglers and for pleasure purposes. Sports fishing is a major activity. Transient pleasure boat visitors also use the channel for access to overnight space at the marinas. The 100’-wide, public access channel runs from the loading ramps to the lake entrance. It is part of the Goderich Harbour managed by the local municipality through its Port Management Authority, but is maintained and dredged by the marina operators. The Maitland River also serves as a significant fish habitat for several species of ‘game’ fish. It is also a migration route for certain species of fish during the annual spawning seasons. The upriver portion of the mouth, to the former CPR train bridge, and to the Hwy. 21N bridge is a significant fish habitat used by many anglers. Within the area, there is also a public walking trail that hosts hundreds of hikers each weekend, all year round. Annual Deposition Quantities Deposition quantities on the shoreline, at the river mouth, according to the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority, as provided to the Shoreline Working Group for the Townships of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh, including the Town of Goderich, 2007, are as follows: Area: Wright’s Point to Goderich (Maitland River) 6.6 km

Description:

Nearshore: Some deeper water associated with erodible till with some

bedrock or stony till causing beach development (i.e. Sunset Beach)

Shoreline: Narrow beaches of nearshore depths. Wide beach at south end

of reach as a result of Goderich harbour structure. Bluff: Some eroding bluffs where there is no persistent beach or

bedrock outcrop; recession rates 0 - 0.3 m per year. Sources of Sand: Bluff: 5 890 cubic metres/year Lake Bottom: 440 cubic metres/year Creeks & Rivers: 740 cubic metres/year (Maitland River) Gullies: 970 cubic metres/year Sand Losses: Minor sand loss to backshore where persistent beach occurs,

particularly at mouth of Maitland River. Sand Transport: North to south, 18 730 cubic metres/year transported into

beach. Goderich Harbour breakwaters (Ed. Note: including new harbour riprap wall) are a complete barrier to sand transport resulting in accretion on the north side of the harbour of 26 770 cubic metres/yr.

Source of Data: Final Report -

LAKE HURON SHORELINE PROCESSES STUDY For Ausable-Bayfield CA, Maitland Valley CA, St. Clair Region

CA, Saugeen Valley CA By Reinders & Associates, Canada, December 1989 Considered current; used for 2007 studies. It is difficult to visualize this mass of sand and gravel material.

The Mass of Material Deposited Spread out, the annual quantity of deposition would cover almost a hectare of land (2.4 Acres or just under 10 000 square metres) to a depth of one metre. It is clearly a large mass of material. The Scale of Granulation Most of the deposits are small, in the form of sand and gravel. The single exception seems to be large boulders, up to .75 metres in diameter or more. These larger stones and boulders are carried from upriver locations in the annual spring freshets, most often captured within masses of ice and ice flows that are carried down river and deposited at the mouth or in the outer channels used by the marina boat owners. They become dangerous obstructions to safe passage because they are often not found until struck by a vessel in the early part of the season. Current Observable Changes 1. The Shoreline & Beaches The shoreline of the lake and the north shore of the river mouth are subject to accretion. This pattern was first recorded as early as 1836 in the original mouth of the river and was noted on early records of shoreline changes. This feature occurs on the ‘dynamic beach area’ and continues the pattern of accretion throughout the history of the Harbour and river mouth. Shoreline changes can be documented from 1828 to the present day. There are notable occasions throughout our history where human activity has precipitated major change. The earliest registered change occurred in the early days of the Canada Company, between 1828 and 1835 when piers and wharves were first constructed to stabilize the river mouth in the first attempts to use it as a commercial harbour. At that time, the water depths of the nearshore areas were shallow, subject to constant shoaling, with ‘deep and navigable water’ not found to be within 500 yards of the shore. The first dredging occurred at that time. It was constant. As a matter of fact, deposition from shoreline drift and other factors led to a complete blockage of the river mouth in 1835 - the first recorded blockage; the most recent recorded in the artificial river mouth being in the mid 1950s. The establishment of the Canada Company piers and wharves had two effects: Beach areas along the lakeshore to the north began to accrete; likewise changes occurred to the north shore of the river mouth and inside the river estuary. An early map has been appended to illustrate the recorded changes in the period from 1828 through to the late 1860s at the time of the map.

(Source: Archives of Canada. Other information from Crown Patents & Leases describing the boundaries of Goderich Harbour) 2. The Nearshore of Lake Huron In order to maintain a harbour at Goderich, it was necessary for the Canada Company to begin annual dredging in the river estuary and in the nearshore areas. It became so expensive to do so, that the Company abandoned its interests in maintaining a harbour in the 1850s. Likewise the Buffalo &Lake Huron Railway - that assumed the harbour ownership next - struggled with the same problems. Eventually, after a devastating spring freshet in the mid-1860s when the harbour was virtually destroyed and the shipping channels were blocked, the Dominion Government declared Goderich to be a Harbour of Refuge and assumed the challenge (and costs) of creating a safe, navigable harbour. At that time, in the early 1870s, a new, artificial opening was created for the mouth of the Maitland River and a breakwater (the River Wall) was constructed to permit the commercial harbour to become an isolated, self-contained basin with its own entrance to the lake. It is noteworthy, through an examination of the financial records of Public Works Canada that significant & regular expenditures continued for nearshore dredging until the construction of the ‘new’ riprap wall, as an extension of the 1870 River Wall. The entire deposition of drift is now contained almost entirely, as reported above, in the amount of 26 770 cubic metres/annum. Siltation Changes In periods of weather where winds are from the southerly sectors, or during calm weather, the nearshore movement of sand and silt from the river has become a ‘clockwise’ rotation of current. An aerial photograph is provided as an appendix, that shows the spiral of siltation as far north as the Point Farms Provincial Park. Deposits of silt and shallowing of depths have been recorded in 2007 as far north as the diving marker (placed by Save Ontario Shipwrecks) over the ‘Labour Day Wreck’, a northerly progression of silt - formerly deposited adjacent to the breakwall and within the outer basin of the commercial harbour - of about 300 metres since 2002. These changes have been observed by the author during sonar survey work conducted by the Marine Heritage Committee for the Town of Goderich under licence by the Ontario Ministry of Culture. The negative impact on fish habitat, of this dramatic change, perhaps, should be examined.

Precipitating Events for Major Shoreline Changes A list to highlight some - but not all - of the events that precipitated major shoreline changes in the Goderich Harbour, Maitland River mouth areas is provided below:

• Construction of Canada Company piers & wharves: 1828-1835

• Construction of River Breakwater and creation of artificial channel for Maitland River (ca. early 1870s)

• Creation of existing north and south piers (ca. early 1870s) It is interesting to note that the Maitland River has sought its earlier course on at least 3 recorded occasions since the diversion of the 1870s, the most recent major devastation to the Goderich Harbour being 1948.)

• Removal of lands (sand and gravel) from the beaches between the north pier and the river mouth, ca. 1923-26 by the Goderich Elevator Company

• Creation of the ‘land base’ for the Sifto Salt Mining operation in the mid-to-late 1950s

• Construction of the riprap harbour wall as an extension to the River Breakwater Wall in the late 1980s

The Current Challenge There is a long history of variance between succeeding owners of the marina operations in the Maitland River estuary and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) since the late ca. 1979 period regarding the need to dredge channels suitable for the passage of pleasure boats owned by customers of the marina(s). There continues to be a need to manage & police the requirements of the natural resources and fish habitat in the Maitland River. Sports fishery continues to play a major role in the human activity along the shorelines, from the bed of the river and in small boats in these same river and nearshore areas. There is a need to establish a better understanding about current shoreline processes to enable a pre-planned approach to meet the needs of all parties noted. Such an understanding will require an accommodation on the part of all groups involved. It would be useful to examine the question of ‘dredging’, for example, in terms of its potential for ‘positive’ as well as ‘negative’ outcomes. It seems clear that the annual removal of depositions has ameliorated the potential for upstream flooding due to almost certain river mouth blockage and the interruption of fish migration patterns. One might even argue that the creation of deeper, silt-free passages is positive for fish habitat and more protective

for migration patterns as a protection from the omni-present predators, the beloved cormorant. An ultimate goal will be the reduction of variance and an increase in the level of agreement and satisfaction by all parties. Recommendations - General

1. That dynamic beach accretion be accepted as a reality in the context of the experience of 179 years of recorded history of the Goderich Harbour and Maitland River mouth areas.

2. That the current pattern of shoreline deposition and the effects of the ‘riprap’ wall be

accepted as fixed & permanent features that cannot be changed. It is acknowledged that the placement of the ‘riprap’ wall was a Federal decision, but it has created management issues within the purview of the OMNR.

3. That a long term view be taken as to the creation & maintenance of a safe channel for

use by the boaters in both marinas.

4. That such an approach take into consideration the realities of natural resource management including the ‘positive’ & ‘negative’ ramifications of dredging as noted above.

5. That any resolution of the question of ‘annual dredging’ requirements take into

consideration the fact that most of the maintenance activity takes place on lands owned by the Town of Goderich, and only a small portion on private property.

Recommendations - Specific

1. That fish migration needs be acknowledged. The extent of angler traffic angler using access to the river provided by the Maitland Valley Marina has been known to exceed 200 persons at any one time, especially on an ‘opening’ weekend. The marina has consented to extending occupation & use of portions of the river bank in addition to the requirements of simple access as required in their agreement with the Town.

2. That the annual dredging application process for the Maitland River be expedited in a

manner similar to those for Kincardine, Bayfield and Grand Bend, each of which is governed by a Conservation Authority.

3. That the period defined as a ‘window’ for the Maitland River and for the Bayfield

River be analyzed & discrepancies be rationalized.

4. That Spring window dredging be conducted in an anticipatory manner through an

examination of the immediate upriver areas that will be normally moved lakeward to block the main entrance/egress channels for both marinas. The ‘boulders’ should be removed whenever they are found.

5. That a ‘safe’ channel depth be calculated to consider the range of draft of vessels

using the marinas, the necessary clearance levels in calm weather, and the requirements to avoid being thrown on the bottom in the troughs of swells in moderate MAFOR Code 1 wind force speeds - 11-16 knots.

6. That the Canadian Coast Guard and the Bridge for the Goderich Yacht Club be

consulted in any determinations regarding ‘safety’, safe passage, and ‘safe’ channel depths before final depth decisions are made.

7. That a definition & expectations be clarified for what constitutes ‘lake dredging’. 8. That a protective wall be extended on the north side of the river, over time, to

stabilize the river mouth in the identical fashion as the commercial harbour bottom has been stabilized since the construction of the riprap wall. Such a wall will also create safe passage for recreational boaters of all sizes to deeper water to avoid the dangers of swells and cresting in the existing channel. It is anticipated that the Goderich Yacht club may be approaching the Town and OMNR about this topic and related matters.

9. That consideration be given to the need to ‘stabilize’ the north bank of the river at

the outer entrance (as earlier discussed). 10. That additional dialogue be conducted with Town of Goderich officials & the Port

Management Authority in respect of their own involvement and commitment to address safety issues, economic development, and business viability issues, along with tourism promotion on behalf of the entire waterfront small business community

Conclusion Although this report has been commissioned by R. H. (Dick) Peever to facilitate a resolution to dredging issues at the Maitland Valley Marinas, the author wishes to make it clear that he has endeavoured to take an objective viewpoint. I have looked at the broad issues from an historical perspective; in consideration of the new realities of the geography and the extremes of weather phenomena, which accentuate shoreline changes; from the perspective of a recreational boater with almost 40 years of Goderich Harbour and Maitland River experience; and in consideration of the sports fishery. I have also incorporated a respect for the natural environment and the fish habitat issues - my association with fishing going back to age nine when I was a regular helper on the Larry John, a turtle back tug operated by Leonard Fisheries. In respect of my knowledge of the Goderich waterfront, I am the third generation of a ‘waterfront’ family whose lives have been influenced by work and by recreation along these shores. Unfortunately, I have also experienced the calamity of rescuing a small child, one of three, along with their mother, at the moment their 25’ sailboat sunk after being smashed against the ‘riprap’ rubble wall identified in this document when shallow depths in the entrance channel precipitated steep breaking waves and cross-currents on a day where such should not have happened. Respectfully submitted,

Paul Carroll Appendices: 1870 Map - Archives Canada; 1920s CNR map; CHS Navigation Chart Aerial Photo(s) - MVCA & MVM; Riggs Sounding Data. (Not all visuals have been appended to the e-mail distribution.) e-copies to:

Geoff King, MVCA David Balint, DFO Renee Pelletier, Olthuis Kleer Townshend Ken Hunter, Public Works Administrator, Town of Goderich Larry McCabe, CAO, Town of Goderich Peter Hay, Vice-Commodore, Goderich Yacht Club Canadian Coast Guard - Goderich

Kmitchell

Rectangle

Archives Map - 1968/70

Shoreline 2006 spring

CNR Map

Historical Changes - Overlays:

Boulders Upriver: Hwy 21 Bridge -


LGL Limited BMROSS

APPENDIX D AGENCY AND STAKEHOLDER MEETING MINUTES

NOTES FROM:

ROUND TABLE REVIEW OF MATTERS RELATED TO MAITLAND RIVER DREDGING

Date: July 08, 2010 – 2pm – 3:45pm

Location: Maitland Valley Marina, North Harbour Road, Goderich

Present:

MVCA: Nathan Garland, Chris Van Esbroeck

OMNR: George Booth, April Nix, Tara Lessard

Owners: Dick Peever, Jim Peever

Port Mgt Corporation: Al Hamilton

Saugeen Ojibway First Nations, by teleconference: Neil Rooney, University of Guelph; for Jake

Linklater et al

Town of Goderich: Larry McCabe, Jennette Walker

Invited but not attending:

DFO

Transport Canada

Monitoring for MOE: Scott Abernethy (has discussed meeting materials; requested notes)

Recording/Facilitating: Paul Carroll

PURPOSE OF THE MEETING: to discuss all-party interests affecting dredging in the Maitland River

mouth area in an effort:

a. To continue a coordinated approach,

b. To clarify expectations for the development of a long term strategy, as requested by MVCA.

Participants introduced themselves. Neil Rooney joined the meeting by telephone link.

Comments by Owners: Review of the existing situation: (Dick Peever)

Dick offered thanks to those in attendance and summarized his main concerns:

Coordinating dates and windows for work required in Bayfield and Goderich

Creating a clear understanding of the impacts of offshore placement of dredged materials as

requested by MVCA –

• Timing

• Weather windows required

• Location for placement of materials

• Benefit as related to scale of materials removed

Kmitchell

Rectangle

Kmitchell

Rectangle

Kmitchell

Rectangle

Kmitchell

Rectangle

Initial Comments from MVCA-

Nathan clarified the need for MVCA review based on recently developed shoreline policies

• Restrictions against deposit of materials in the ‘near shore’ area generally called ‘hardening’

• Advised that agencies felt a management plan was necessary

• Acknowledged that policy exemptions were possible following study of specific issues and

concerns

General Discussion:

Dick Peever confirmed that annual removal of materials in dredging would run from 1 200 to 2 000

cubic metres per season. He suggested that this quantity was nominal compared to the annual

depositions of material estimated to be up to 70 000 cubic metres annually.

There was general discussion about the quantities of material deposited annually and the history of

quantities removed historically. Data was provided in exhibits circulated with the agenda. Questions

were also raised about what material actually moves in the littoral drift patterns.

A number of unknowns made it difficult for anyone to specify the impact of offshore placement of

various sizes of material, whether it should be placed near shore or beyond, specific locations for

placement seemed to have been quite arbitrary in the past for materials removed from the commercial

harbour.

It was generally agreed that there was a knowledge gap that prevented many questions from being

answered. It was questioned whether even a 5 000 cubic metre quantity could have an impact on the

southern shorelines described as being deprived of sand and sediment transport.

It was noted that nominal dredging has occurred at Kincardine, frequency was unknown for

Southampton, but similar quantities to what is dredged annually from the Maitland river mouth are

removed from Bayfield.

Al Hamilton reviewed recent commercial dredging for the main harbour, suggesting about 38 000 cubic

yards had been removed in 2004 for placement approximately 5 kilometres offshore, away from

shipping lanes, and a similar amount was probably removed in 1996. An exhibit was provided to

summarize dredging operations for the period from 1950 through 1975.

Larry McCabe noted that suction dredging had been used at times, notably to build the southern

(Goderich) beaches and the Rotary Cove spit in the area of the former International Salt Company pier

structures dating from the beginning of the previous century. Jennette Walker offered some historical

perspectives related to beach building within the Town of Goderich with the use of groynes.

Dick Peever indicated his desire to cooperate with whatever is best, but felt that all parties needed to

have a better understanding of what was actually the best practice to follow and the overall benefit with

respect to any additional costs and time involved. He indicated that much longer time windows would be

Kmitchell

Rectangle

Kmitchell

Rectangle

necessary in permits if offshore placement were to be required. He indicated that his equipment could

carry only 20-22 cubic metres of material per trip.

Nathan questioned how much bottom material could continue to be placed on shoreline locations

without a negative impact.

Dick Peever identified that materials removed had been placed only in designated and approved areas at

least 100 feet from the water.

Neil Rooney queried the rationale for offshore placement of dredged materials as earlier identified and

wondered what data was available to support such action. It was generally agreed that the science was

unclear and that recent data did not seem to be readily available. Various parties suggested that some

good data could be gathered but an effort would need to be undertaken to coordinate information from

various existing sources to identify just what extent of ‘new’ study might be required.

George Booth raised several questions related to economy of scale, suggesting offshore placement may

be good but that the science is unclear. He suggested the two big questions were placement location for

maximum impact and how much material would be required to make any difference. He suggested that

OMNR does not have this information, and, that while DFO has tried to examine the issues, more

research is needed.

April Nix identified a study in the Lambton/St. Clair area where the proponent had taken the lead role.

It was generally agreed that such studies were normally proponent driven.

There was considerable discussion about which ‘proponent’ could/should take a lead role given the

nature of the problem and its wide geographic extent, which apparently covers the lakeshore in the

jurisdiction of at least two conservation authorities. There seemed to be agreement that none of the three

minor groups present: the marina operator, the Port Corporation or the Town of Goderich could

coordinate a major study.

Nathan agreed that there was a lack of good information but also expressed a concern about how a

proponent driven study might proceed. Reference was made to the ‘Solaris’ project as an example of a

proponent –driven study, but recognized the differences in this question (sand starvation) and the large

shoreline area involved.

There was considerable discussion about the impact of the stone breakwater built in the late 1980s and

its impact as a barrier for littoral drift and other matters related to river mouth stability, annual dredging

requirements as well as wave actions that impeded safe navigation to and from the marinas at times.

Although various opinions were offered, it was again recognized that hard data was absent from the

discussion. Dick Peever reminded the group about his long-standing proposal for a spit on the north side

of the river as a means of solving a number of problems. The reality is that the wall exists. It was also

acknowledged that a better understanding of the various ‘cells’ along the lakeshore and the impact of

various natural and man-made features was required.

Dick reiterated his position that he would like to see studies before changing the current status and

verified his support for any common sense and realistic approach. He reminded participants that the

Kmitchell

Rectangle

Kmitchell

Rectangle

Kmitchell

Rectangle

main channel is actually on public land and serves a large population of anglers using the public launch

ramp adjacent to the Maitland Valley Marina.

Discussion returned to the nature of the permits currently approved, timing & length of windows,

coordination with Bayfield needs, interference with holiday traffic for the Canada Day week-end, fish

migration patterns and the interest in protecting both endangered and native (endemic) fish populations.

A wide-ranging discussion followed to explore the potential impacts of the harbour expansion plan, for

which the terms of reference for the upcoming environmental assessment are currently under review.

There was some suggestion that a coastal engineering study might be devised to build on existing data

and coordinated with the work already being done or required to be completed for the proposed

commercial harbour expansion.

A question was raised whether, if the harbour infilling does actually go ahead, the dredged materials

from the shallower areas building up north of the river wall could or should be used in that project.

General Conclusions:

After considerable dialogue, it was agreed that a holistic approach - to look at the whole shoreline

problem, using input from a coastal engineer – would be the best course to follow. To address the

viability questions of the shoreline and its beaches, the marinas, and the commercial harbour, such a

broad approach would be helpful.

Nathan attempted to summarize a consensus that suggested that a shoreline management plan was

needed/desirable and postulated that costs would need to be forthcoming from the various beneficiaries.

He agreed that it would be appropriate to ask the Conservation Authority(ies) to consider how a global

approach might be undertaken.

Participants seemed to agree that it seemed that the best agency(ies) to take a lead role in a ‘big picture’

approach would be the Conservation Authority(ies), recognizing that they are funded by the

municipalities, including the Town of Goderich, where shoreline benefits would ultimately accrue.

Commitments for Action:

Nathan agreed to take the matter of a global study back to the MVCA for discussion, to consider the

various points raised about the proposed placement of dredged materials and to report back.

Adjournment:

Dick thanked the attendees for their constructive participation and offered refreshments.

Notes will be summarized and distributed.

The meeting adjourned about 3:45pm.

Kmitchell

Rectangle

Respectfully submitted,

Paul Carroll

[email protected]

Enclosures:

1. Reinders Deposition amounts, 1989

2. Historical Dredging amounts removed, DPW Harbours ‘History Book’, 2006

3. Reinders Groyne reference, 1984.

4. 2006 Maitland River Mouth photo

1. ANNUAL DEPOSITION QUANTITIES

Deposition quantities on the shoreline, at the river mouth, according to the Maitland Valley

Conservation Authority, as provided to the Shoreline Working Group for the Townships of Ashfield-

Colborne-Wawanosh, including the Town of Goderich, 2007, are as follows:

Area: Wright’s Point to Goderich (Maitland River) 6.6 km

Description:

Nearshore: Some deeper water associated with erodible till with some

bedrock or stony till causing beach development (i.e. Sunset

Beach)

Shoreline: Narrow beaches of nearshore depths. Wide beach at south end

of reach as a result of Goderich harbour structure.

Bluff: Some eroding bluffs where there is no persistent beach or

bedrock outcrop; recession rates 0 - 0.3 m per year.

Sources of Sand:

Bluff: 5 890 cubic metres/year

Lake Bottom: 440 cubic metres/year

Creeks & Rivers: 740 cubic metres/year (Maitland River)

Gullies: 970 cubic metres/year

Sand Losses: Minor sand loss to backshore where persistent beach occurs,

particularly at mouth of Maitland River.

Kmitchell

Rectangle

Sand Transport: North to south, 18 730 cubic metres/year transported into

beach. Goderich Harbour breakwaters are a complete barrier to sand transport

resulting in accretion on the north side of the harbour of 26 770

cubic metres/yr.

Source of Data:

Final Report -

LAKE HURON SHORELINE PROCESSES STUDY

For Ausable-Bayfield CA, Maitland Valley CA, St. Clair Region

CA, Saugeen Valley CA

By Reinders & Associates, Canada, December 1989

2. Dredging History 1950 – 1975 – Funded by PW Canada

1949-50 McNamara Dredging Co. – 75,010 cubic yards

1952-53 Bermingham Construction Ltd. – 3,000 cubic yards; channel through bar at river

1953-53 Sandy Construction Ltd. – no quantity provided; bar at river mouth

1955-56 B.H. Goldthorpe - no quantity provided; bar at river mouth

1956-57 Bert MacDonald – removal of obstructions; main channel

1958-59 Ontario Marine & Dredging – removal of 89,262 cubic yards

1959-60 Ontario Marine & Dredging – removal of 69.956 cubic yards

1960-61 Harry Adams – emergency removal of 225 cubic yards by Sifto pier

1961-62 Sandy Constrcution – emergency dredging – not specified

1962-63 Ontario Marine & Dredging – major contract for dredging; quantities not listed

1963-64 As above – completion of contract; total contract $587,884.56; must have been 300-400 000

cubic yards over 2 years ?

1964-65 Harbour Development Ltd. – 70,590 cubic yards

1965-66 Harry Adams – emergency dredging; minor – not specified

1969-70 Harry Adams – dredging of river mouth; bar

1973-74 G. Radford – emergency dredging – not specified

Major dredging required mid-1970s; no detail

Cumulative records cease….

3. Reinders Reference to Groyne, 1984

Planning Unit 5.6 provides for channelization work at the mouth of the Maitland River.

Works include the construction of a smooth curving shoreline protected against the possible ice

scour. The shoreline works would terminate in a jetty extending into the lake. The works should

be designed to provide a gradually turning flow line of ample width to reduce the potential for

ice jamming. The jetty will also assist, at least on the short term to trap littoral drift that would

otherwise end up in the river mouth

- Excerpt from p. 57 FJ Reinders & Assoc., October 1984: Coastal/Hazard Lands

Engineering Study for MVCA

Photo 2006:

Minutes of Meeting With the Agencies

22 Fisher Street, King City, Ontario L7B 1A6 Telephone: 905-833-1244 ~ Fax: 905-833-1255 ~ www.lgl.com

Meeting No.: #1

Meeting Date: Monday, July 12, 2010, 1:00 p.m.

Meeting Place: Ministry of Natural Resources – Guelph District Office

Project Name:

Project

Number:

Goderich Wharf Expansion – Terms of Reference TA4793

Present: Name

Nathan Garland

George Booth

David Reid

Lisa Courtney

Matt Pearson

Grant Kauffman

Joseph Cavallo

Connie Agnew

April Nix

Michelle Fromme-Marcellin

Dana Boyter

Company

MVCA

MNR

MNR

BMROSS

BMROSS

LGL Limited

LGL Limited

LGL Limited

MNR

MOE – EAPC

DFO

Email

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Distribution: All Attendees

1. Introductions

The meeting commenced at approximately 1:15 p.m. with a round of attendee introductions.

2. Purpose of Meeting

Grant Kauffman (GNK) gave a brief overview of project, including provincial and federal EA processes.

• the first step in the provincial EA process for this project is the preparation of a Terms of Reference

(ToR);

• ToR has been on the public record for 30 days (May 21, 2010 – June 21, 2010); and,

• during the review period study team received approximately 17 comments from agencies, local

stakeholders and members of the public.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the comments/concerns received from DFO, MNR, MVCA

and come to collective agreement on how to resolve these issues.

3. Discussion of Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Comments

Description of the Undertaking

Generally DFO’s comments relate to lack of detail regarding specifics of the project, i.e. details of the

proposed in-fill, size of infill.

Goderich Harbour Expansion Agency Meeting #1 Page 2

April Nix (ANIX) raised a concern that the business case has presented size of in-fill but this detail is not

included in the ToR.

The reason that this information was not in the Draft ToR is that the size and location of the in-fill has not

been determined.

GNK responded that the revised ToR will include a brief description of in-fill size and potential location

subject to revision during the EA.

Regulatory Framework

• GNK advised that ToR didn’t include detailed section on DFO Policy Framework as then other

regulatory agencies may want their various policies quoted in the ToR, this level of detail could be

excessive for a ToR;

• GNK suggested including reference to policy in Section 6.3.3;

• Dana Boyter (DBOYTER) reiterated DFO’s position to include the framework of DFO’s regulations

in/following Section 1.3 as per details on CEAA’s policy framework;

• harbour in-fill is main component of project and DFO policies should be included earlier in the ToR;

• DBOYTER suggested including references to baseline data and assessment model to be used during

EA;

• include in this revised text refer to later sections of ToR describing existing conditions and

impact/mitigation;

• MNR and MVCA agreed that their agencies regulatory framework did not need to appear within the

body of the ToR and that references to their respective policies was sufficient for the purposes of the

ToR; and,

• ToR will be revised to present DFO Regulatory Framework in Section 1.3.

Fish and Aquatic Habitat

• Section 6.3.3 be will be expanded to address DFO’s No Net Loss Policy, HADD policy and HAAT

model (Great Lakes Near Shore Habitat);

• ToR will be revised to include clear recognition that based on proposed project, project will result in a

HADD;

• revised ToR will include habitat model references that might be considered for analysis during EA;

and,

• DBOYTER offered that DFO can provide access to their website for using HAAT model.

4. Discussion of Ministry of Natural Resources Comments

Description of Undertaking

• as per comments from DFO, revised ToR will describe in-fill, including approximate size proposed;

Evaluation of Alternatives

• ANIX reiterated MNR’s concern that ToR did not consider environmental issues in description of and

rationale for alternatives, or in the selection of the preferred alternative, and that clarifying the scope

of the project would resolve this concern;


• GNK advised that this project is scoped and as such the study team did a preliminary evaluation of

solutions to demonstrate options being considered; and,

• the disadvantage associated with in-filling was considered a “catch-all” that encompasses impacts to

fish habitat, littoral drift, etc.

Historical Management of Harbour

• MNR would like the ToR to document on-going issues related to the historical management of the

harbour particularly related to sediment, as well as how the harbour functions and the mouth of the

Maitland River functions based on historical operations within the harbour;

• operations have influenced management issues in harbour and MNR’s position is that proposed

expansion of harbour facilities can’t make situation worse;

• Matt Pearson (MP) and GNK both indicated that the purpose of the EA for expansion of harbour

facilities is not to correct situations that have arisen from past development/management;

• the study team committed to presenting historical management and what has influenced baseline

harbour conditions in the EA with an acknowledgement in the ToR;

• MNR wants consideration for impacts resulting from river breakwall, existing breakwall impacts

littoral drift along Lake Huron shoreline, impacting operation of marinas at mouth of the Maitland

River, can solution(s) to this problem be incorporated in EA?;

• MNR suggested considering removal or notching of river breakwall;

• MNR feels problem statement needs to acknowledge issues with breakwall as this structure will

become a permanent part of the wharf;

• MNR wants study area expanded further north and again south to southern town limits;

• MNR manages bed of lake so they are also adjacent land owner;

• DFO suggested considering addressing sediment deposition and littoral drift in compensation package

as improvements to coastal processes in immediate proximity to harbour;

• MP advised that the coastal engineer sub-consultant will examine the Lake Huron north and south of

study area so the study area as documented in the ToR doesn’t need to be expanded; and,

• Michelle Fromme-Marcellin (MFM) recommended that the revised ToR provide “area of

investigation” details in shoreline investigation section to further address littoral drift issues,

specifically that the scope will include investigations along shoreline north and south of the harbour;

Land Title/Ownership Issues

• revised ToR will commit to including in the EA specific details on land titles and ownership of the

Harbour including Town of Goderich limits, MNR Crown Land and Sifto lease; and,

• the revised ToR will acknowledge interests beyond water’s edge that will be impacted.

Existing Conditions/Secondary Source Data

• on May 11,2009 LGL circulated to various government agencies, including MNR (Mike Stone,

District Planner), an initial contact letter advising of the project and requesting any data the agency

felt would be relevant to the study;

• on June 1, 2009 LGL received an email from Dave Marriott, A/District Planner, acknowledging

receipt of the initial contact letter and advising that MNR would appreciate being circulated on new

information as it becomes available through the EA process;


• BMROSS received a phone call from ANIX in early August 2009 requesting information on the

project, LGL provided ANIX by email on August 6, 2009, a copy of the initial contact letter including

data request form and a copy of the display panels from the June 10, 2009 Public Information Centre;

• to date LGL has received data from MNR’s Upper Great Lakes Fisheries Unit and Clinton Area

Office; and,

• ANIX agreed to provide data on file at MNR’s Guelph District Office.

Identification of Species at Risk

• MNR raised concerns regarding poaching of SAR, in particular turtles;

• revised ToR will note the presence of Wood Turtle within the greater Huron County area, rather than

describing the lower Maitland River Valley;

• ANIX was provided with a copy of a letter prepared by LGL summarizing the capture and reporting

of an aquatic SAR (black redhorse) to MNR, and correspondence between LGL and MNR UGLFU

and MNR Peterborough regarding the requirement for an ESA 17 (2)(b) Permit; and,

• MNR recommended that LGL check for Butternut in the (secondary) study area.

MNR Involvement in Study Process

• MNR raised concerns about their late involvement in the ToR process, they would have appreciated

reviewing the draft ToR prior to final submission to MOE and placement on the public record;

• LGL clarified that MNR was provided with a copy of the ToR at the same time as other agencies on

the Government Review Team as per direction provided by MOE;

• LGL suggested striking an advisory committee for the EA phase of the project, committee members

could include staff from MNR, DFO, MVCA;

• George Booth (GBOOTH) suggested that MNR might not have staff resources to participate in an

advisory committee but that regular routine project meetings would suffice;

• ANIX requested that MNR be circulated on the draft EA Report prior to formal submission to MOE;

and,

• GNK agreed that this review could be built into the EA schedule.

Permits and Approvals

• MNR confirmed that a permit under Public Lands Act would be required (rather than approval under

Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act).

First Nations/Métis Consultation

• ANIX recommended confirming if the Huron-Ouendat First Nation has an interest in this project;

and,

• GBOOTH asked that the study team provide MNR with copy of First Nations/Métis consultation

correspondence.

5. Discussion of Maitland Valley Conservation Authority Comments

Shoreline Dynamics

• N. Garland (NGARLAND) indicated that the ToR seems to focus impacts of littoral drift on proposed

project;

• MVCA would like ToR to also address impacts of project on littoral drift; and,


• BMROSS to direct coastal engineer to review and better define scope of work described in the ToR,

including extent along shoreline north and south of the harbour to be investigated.

Permits and Approvals

• revised ToR to include reference to MVCA O.Reg. 164/06 Regulation of Development, Interference

with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses in Section 6.3.3; and,

• NGARLAND advised that given MVCA’s Level II agreement with DFO and the understanding that

this project will result in a HADD, the Letter of Intent should be sent directly to DFO with copy to

Geoff King at MVCA.

6. Compensation Opportunities

• Joe Cavallo (JC) described existing habitat conditions within the inner and outer harbour;

• during discussions JC had with Dave Balin, DFO London, Dave suggested that impacts to the local

First Nations whitefish fishery may be a concern;

• DBOYTER did not provide any compensation recommendations at this point but suggested using

DFO’s HAAT model; and,

• DBOYTER also suggested that this project provides an opportunity to address breakwater issues and

to reduce the need for dredging thereby reintroducing sediment into littoral drift to keep materials in

the natural system.

7. Next Steps

• currently MOE’s review of the ToR is on a “time out”;

• the study team and MOE are meeting with agencies to discuss comments;

• LGL to draft formal responses in line with comments discussed during July 12, 2010 meeting;

• ToR will be revised/amended to address comments received;

• ToR will be resubmitted to MOE by August 24, 2010, then MOE undertakes another seven weeks of

review.

These minutes are considered to be an accurate recording of all items discussed. Written notice of discrepancies,

errors or omissions must be given within seven (7) days, otherwise the minutes will be accepted as written.

Minutes prepared by: C. Agnew, LGL Limited


LGL Limited BMROSS

APPENDIX E PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE DISPLAYS

Terms of Reference StudyP bli I f ti C t #Public Information Centre #1

Huron County MuseumJune 10, 2009

Public Information Centre #1Welcome to the first Public Information Centre (PIC) for the Goderich HarbourWharf Expansion.

The Goderich Port Management Corporation (GPMC) and the Town of Goderich have initiated a study under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act to investigate the

i l i f h f f ili i i h G d i hpotential expansion of wharf facilities in the GoderichHarbour.

The purpose of this PIC is to introduce the proposed project, describe the process to be followed to complete the environmental assessment, to identify the requirements for preparation of a Terms of Reference and to solicit input preparation of a Terms of Reference, and to solicit input from stakeholders.

Project Background The Goderich Harbour Rehabilitation Master Plan was adopted by Town Council in March 2006.Th G d i h P M C i i i i d The Goderich Port Management Corporation initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) in April 2008 to evaluate potential impacts of April 2008 to evaluate potential impacts of constructing stone berms along sections of the existing breakwaters at the Goderich Harbour.

The Breakwater EA received Environmental Clearance in January 2009, and may now proceed to constructionconstruction.

Terms of Reference for anTerms of Reference for an Environmental Assessment

An environmental assessment is a study which assesses the potential environmental effects (positive or negative) of a proposal. Under the Ontario negative) of a proposal. Under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, the first step in the application for approval to proceed with a proposal is the submission and approval of a Terms of Reference the submission and approval of a Terms of Reference (ToR).

The ToR sets out the framework for the planning and decision‐making process to be followed by the proponent during the preparation of the proponent during the preparation of the environmental assessment.

Terms of Reference for anTerms of Reference for an Environmental Assessment cont’dThe ToR typically includes the following elements: identification of the proponent; indication of how the environmental assessment will be prepared;indication of how the environmental assessment will be prepared; purpose of the study or undertaking; description of and rationale for the undertaking; d i ti f d ti l f th lt ti description of and rationale for the alternatives; description of the existing environment and potential effects of the

undertaking; assessment and evaluation; commitments and monitoring; consultation plan for the environmental assessment;p flexibility to accommodate new circumstances; and, other approvals required.

Terms of Reference for anTerms of Reference for an Environmental Assessment cont’d

Once prepared, the ToR is submitted to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) for a 12 week review period. Following review the Minister will decide to approve Following review, the Minister will decide to approve the ToR or reject the ToR. If the ToR is approved, the proponent can proceed with the environmental p p passessment in accordance with the approved ToR. If rejected, the proponent can revise the ToR and re‐

b it it t th MOE b d th i t l submit it to the MOE or abandon the environmental assessment.

EA Process Ti li

Proponent Consults During Terms of Reference (ToR) Preparation

Prescribed Deadlines (Ontario

Regulation 6 6/ 8)Timelines ( ) p

Proponent Submits ToR

Government and Public Review of ToR

Resubmit ToR

12 weeks

616/98)

Minister’s Decision on

ToR

Proponent Decision

ToR Rejected

Proponent Consults During ( )

ToR Approved

Abandon

12 weeks

* The Director may issue a Deficiency Statement. If the deficiencies are not remedied the Minister may reject the

Environmental Assessment (EA) Preparation

Proponent Submits EA

Government and Public Review of EA * 7 weeks

deficiencies are not remedied, the Minister may reject the environmental assessment.

(1) The Minister has three options: 1) refer to all or part of application to the Tribunal; 2) make a decision; or, 3) refer to mediation.

(2) If referred to the Tribunal, the Minister has 28 days in which he or she may review the Tribunal decision. The Tribunal has

Notice of Completion of Ministry Review of EA

Public Inspection of Ministry Review (Final)

5 weeks

5 weeks

he or she may review the Tribunal decision. The Tribunal has the same decision options as the Minister (approve, approve with conditions, or refuse).

(3) If referred to mediation, the Minister shall consider the mediator’s report when making a decision.

Note: Self‐directed Mediation may occur at any time. The Minister may refer an environmental assessment application to

(1) Minister’s Options

Minister Makes

Refer to Environmental Review Tribunal (Hearing)

(2)

Refer to Mediation

(3)13 weeks

Minister may refer an environmental assessment application to mediation (Referred Mediation) any time during the environmental assessment process (60 days maximum).

Approve with Conditions RefuseApprove

Decision

Approve RefuseApprove with Conditions

(Hearing)

Mediator Submits Report to Minister

EA Process ScheduleGoderich Harbour Wharf Expansion Individual

Environmental Assessment

Refine and Assess Preferred Design•Refine Preferred

Submission of EA Report

•Document Findings in Report

Terms of Reference

•Prepare Terms of Reference•Public Notice for Need Identification

Selection of Preferred Solution

•Confirm Alternative

Selection of Preferred Design

•Identify Alternative Means•Identify Alternative

CEAA Environmental

Screening•CEAA Environmental Screening ReportDesign

•Prepare Functional Plan•Staging and Mitigation•Assessment of Effects

p•Submission and Notification of Study Completion•Prepare/Circulate Federal Project Description•Public/Agency Review•Finalize EA Decision

•Public Notice for Terms of Reference•Submit Terms of Reference to Ministry•30 Day Review Period•Ministry Approval

Need Identification•Document Project Need•Identify Possible Solutions

Solutions•Inventory Existing Conditions•Evaluate Alternatives•Select Preferred Solution(s)•Review EA Requirements

yCorridors•Identify Alternative Design Concepts•Update of Existing Conditions•Evaluate Alternative Design Concepts•Select Preferred Design

Screening Report•Federal Agency Review and Approval•Design, Contract Drawings•Construction, Operation, Monitoring

Submit CEAA Submit CEAA Project

Description

Statement of Problem/OpportunityStatement of Problem/OpportunityGoderich Harbour is the only deep water commercial port located along Lake Huron.

The port is currently constrained by loading/unloading space. Storage space is also

considered deficient for existing and future shipping operations. Sifto Canada

Corporation, a major salt producer located in Goderich Harbour, has announced an

expansion to its operations that will increase annual production capacity from 7 25 expansion to its operations that will increase annual production capacity from 7.25

million tons to 9.0 million tons by 2012. Salt produced at the Goderich mine is shipped

by freighter to approximately 35 ports along the Great Lakes from the Lakehead to

Quebec City. The Goderich Port Management Corporation would like to increase use of

the port by providing additional loading/unloading space for ships and storage space for

salt, as well as other commodities. Goderich Harbour is also exposed at times to adverse

lake conditions as it is located on the windward side of Lake Huron. The opportunity

exists as part of this project to provide better protection to the inner harbour from wave

action The availability of government funding for infrastructure projects provides an action. The availability of government funding for infrastructure projects provides an

opportunity for economic development in the Town of Goderich, which has had several

major industries close or move recently, including the Volvo Road Grader division.

EVALUATION OF “ALTERNATIVES TO THE UNDERTAKING”

PLANNING ALTERNATIVES ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES RECOMMENDATIONPLANNING ALTERNATIVES ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES RECOMMENDATION

DO NOTHINGMaintain the status quo

Relatively low cost. Does not require infilling in

Lake Huron

Does not meet the demand for additional space for loading, unloading and storage in Goderich Harbour.

Does not provide additional protection for the harbour.

Not carried forward.Maintain the status quo. Lake Huron. protection for the harbour.

Does not promote economic development in the Town of Goderich.

Makes use of investment in existing infrastructure in harbour.

Reduces handling R l ti l hi h it l t M k i ifi t t ib ti EXPAND WHARF FACILITIES LOCATED AT GODERICH HARBOUR FOR SHIPPING

OPERATIONS AND STORAGE

grequirements.

Provides major economic benefit to Town of Goderich.

Reduced energy consumption, emissions, accidents, spills and noise levels than road and rail haul.

Relatively high capital costs, low operating costs.

Requires infilling in Lake Huron.

Makes a significant contribution towards realistically addressing all of the problem/opportunity statements.

Carried forward.

USE OTHER LANDS LOCATED AT GODERICH HARBOUR FOR

STORAGE

Relatively low capital cost, low operating cost.

Does not require infilling in Lake Huron.

Availability of land at the harbour is extremely limited.

Moves industrial activity closer to non‐compatible land uses.

Does not make a significant contribution towards realistically

addressing all of the problem/opportunity statements.

Not carried forward.

EVALUATION OF “ALTERNATIVES TO THE UNDERTAKING”

PLANNING ALTERNATIVES ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES RECOMMENDATIONDISADVANTAGES

USE FLOATING PLATFORMS LOCATED AT GODERICH HARBOUR FOR STORAGE


Relatively low capital cost, high operating cost.

Size limitations for platform. Increased handling

requirements. Higher potential for a

ill/



i d f dHARBOUR FOR STORAGE spill/upset. Unavailability of large

platforms.


USE OFF‐SITE STORAGE FACILITY Does not require infilling in

Lake Huron.

Availability of industrial land beyond harbour is limited.

Requires double handling. May be incompatible with

di l d


addressing all of the bl / t it t t tsurrounding land use.

Relatively high capital costs, high operating cost.

problem/opportunity statements.Not carried forward.

No active or inactive commercial port is located nearby.

Seasonal limitations due to winter ice conditions

USE OTHER ACTIVE OR INACTIVE COMMERCIAL PORTS FOR

SHIPPING OPERATIONS AND STORAGE

May or may not require infilling/dredging in Lake Huron.

winter ice conditions. Requires double handling. Relatively high cost to

reactivate, operate and maintain another port facility.

Does not take advantage of existing infrastructure in harbour




harbour. Does not benefit the Goderich

economy.

EVALUATION OF “ALTERNATIVES TO THE UNDERTAKING”“ALTERNATIVES TO THE UNDERTAKING”

PLANNING ALTERNATIVES ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES RECOMMENDATION

Does not require infilling in Lake Huron.D i d bl

9.7 times more energy consumption than ship.

7.6 times more emissions than ship.

74.7 times more accidents than ship.

37.5 times more spills than hi


ROAD HAUL Does not require double

handling. Harbour is serviced by existing

road network.

ship. 1.3 times noise levels than ship. Inability to handle large loads. Does not make use of

investment in existing infrastructure in harbour.

Relatively low capital costs, high operating costs associated

contribution towards realistically addressing all of the

problem/opportunity statements.Not carried forward.

high operating costs associated with shipping.

2.2 times more energy consumption than ship.

1.4 times more emissions than ship.

13.7 times more accidents than ship

RAIL HAUL


Does not require double handling.

Harbour is serviced by existing rail network.

ship. 10 times more spills than ship. 1.4 times noise levels than ship. Does not make use of

investment in existing infrastructure in harbour.

Rail network is short haul with a connection to CN/CP in




a connection to CN/CP in Stratford.

Relatively low capital costs, high operating costs associated with shipping.

Existing ConditionsgSocio‐Economic Conditions Natural Heritage Conditions•located 70 km northwest of Stratford, on the east shore of Lake Huron at the mouth of the Maitland River• one of the largest lower tier municipalities in the County of

•located within the Huron Fringe, a narrow strip of land along the Lake Huron shoreline extending from Sarnia to Tobermory•dominant landforms include spillways, till plains, kame moraines, g p y

Huron, with a population of 7,563p y p

beach ridges, sand dunes and shore cliffs

• Goderich Harbour receives approximately 250 large lake/ocean freighters each year shipping commodities including: salt, grain, and calcium chloride• the harbour has capacity for storage of 5 million bushels (120 000 t) of grains and 70 000 t of salt

•Lower Maitland River Valley, a 400 hectare Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) most notable natural heritage feature in the area, supports regionally and provincially rare plants, reptiles and fish•14 rare plants including Butternut Green Dragon Oswego tea(120,000 t) of grains, and 70,000 t of salt •14 rare plants including Butternut, Green Dragon, Oswego tea•two listed reptiles: Wood Turtle and Queen Snake•one listed fish species: the Black Redhorse

• range of transportation infrastructure serving the region including Goderich Harbour, two provincial highways (8 and 21), Goderich‐Exeter Railway and a municipal airport

•Goderich shoreline, including the harbour and mouth of Maitland River, support a number of migratory and colonial waterbirds•most common are Double‐crested Cormorant, Caspian Tern, Herring Gull, Ring‐billed Gull and Black‐Crowned Night Heron

• Goderich is a centre for industrial business, including: salt mining, fabrication; and, grain storage and handling;

•Maitland River is classified as warm‐water fish community with localized areas of cold‐water habitat supporting over 30 fish species•angling activity directed toward Smallmouth Bass, and migratory Chinook Salmon and Steelhead

• recreational and cultural activities include three public beaches, three marinas, hiking, golf, fishing, concerts and theatres

•Lake Huron fish community represented by Round Whitefish, Lake Whitefish, Lake Trout, Deepwater Sculpin, migratory Chinook and Steelhead

• Town of Goderich Official Plan designates Goderich Harbour as “Harbour Industrial,” north of the harbour is a “Waterfront Commercial District”

•degraded fish community within harbour•species present include Carp, Smallmouth bass, cyprinids and invasive fish – Round GobyCommercial District invasive fish – Round Goby

•NHIC data base did not indicate the presence of any significant wildlife or plant species in the immediate vicinity of the proposed harbour project

EA StudiesEA StudiesThe ToR will identify the type, location and level of detail for studies that may be required during the environmental assessment including: Geo‐technical investigations Fish, wildlife and vegetation investigations Shoreline dynamics investigationsShoreline dynamics investigations Air quality assessment Noise assessment

L d d i i Land use and socio‐economic assessment Cultural resource assessment Stage I and II archaeological assessment Phase I and II environmental site assessment (property waste and

contamination) Traffic assessment (only if improvements are required for North ( y p q

Harbour Road)

Freedom Of Information andFreedom Of Information and Protection Of Privacy

Information will be collected in accordance with the municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSO 1990, c.M.56.y 99 5Comments and information regarding this study are being collected to assist the study team in meeting the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act This requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. This material will be maintained on file for use during the project and may be included in project documentation. With the exception of personal information all comments With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.You are encouraged to contact the study team if you have questions or concerns regarding this detail design studyquestions or concerns regarding this detail design study.

Project TimelineTask/Milestone Schedule/Milestone Date

Notice of Study Commencement Placed in the Goderich Signal‐Star on May 6 and May 13, 2009.

PIC Wednesday, June 10, 2009Huron County Museum4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Final ToR available for public review and posted to MOE’s environmental assessment website.

September 2009

Next StepsNext StepsInput received at this PIC will be reviewed and incorporated into the ToRDocument and Consultation Record where appropriate The ToR will beDocument and Consultation Record, where appropriate. The ToR will beprepared and made available for a 30‐day public review period. The reviewlocations for the ToR will be published in the Goderich Signal‐Star.Your input is important. We invite you to complete the comment formp p y pprovided and return it to us by July 3, 2009. If you wish to be added to ourmailing list, require further information, or to provide input to this project,please contact either of the two project team members listed below:

Ms. Constance J. Agnew, B.Sc., rcjiSenior Planning EcologistLGL Limited

Mr. Matthew J. Pearson, MCIP, RPPSenior PlannerB M Ross and Associates LimitedLGL Limited

22 Fisher Street, P.O. Box 280King City, Ontario, L7B 1A6Tel: 905‐833‐1244 (collect)Fax: 905‐833‐1255E il l l

B.M. Ross and Associates Limited62 North StreetGoderich, Ontario N7A 2T4Tel: 519‐524‐2641Fax: 519‐524‐4403E il bE‐mail: [email protected] E‐mail: [email protected]

EA Consultation PlanEA Consultation PlanThe consultation plan identifies the proposed methods, frequency and timing of consultation activities with frequency and timing of consultation activities with stakeholders. The purpose of consultation is to provide an opportunity for public involvement during the EA. In accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act and the

d f l ’ lCode of Practice: Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process consultation activities may include:Newspaper noticesDirect mailingsPublic information centresProject websiteProject websiteReview of project documentation

The ToR will include a consultation plan to be implemented The ToR will include a consultation plan to be implemented during the environmental assessment.


LGL Limited BMROSS

APPENDIX F PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE COMMENTS/

STUDY TEAM RESPONSE LETTERS

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:53:09 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: To: <[email protected]> Cc: "Chamber" <[email protected]> Subject: Goderich Harbour Wharf expansion

Mr. Constance Agnew,

Please be advised that the __________ would like full disclosure of any proposed or

recommended changes to the Goderich Harbour as we own a business at the Harbour and the

proposal will affect us directly.

I would like an explanation in greater detail or to be directed to the pertinent information as to

exactly what "increase usable off-loading and on-shore storage area" involves.

It is my understanding that the Corporation is planning on creating 15 acres at the Harbour. How

does this affect the waterway, the restaurant, the elevators, the marina, and the Maitland trailer

park and walking trail?

I am assuming that "infilling" means that the waterway at the Harbour will disappear.

What are the plans for the restaurant that sits in the study area? I find it strange that no contact

other than a phone call from Mr. Larry McCabe has been made asking if I would be willing to

sell the restaurant.

Please direct me to all information regarding maps and proposals regarding this project.

Response requested with thanks.

Owner




September 21, 2009

Dear ,

RE: Town of Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion

Preparation of the Terms of Reference for an Individual Environmental Assessment

Public Information Centre

Thank you for participating in the Public Information Centre, held on June 10, 2009, and submitting a

comment form to the Study Team regarding the Terms of Reference for an Individual Environmental

Assessment for the Town of Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion.

On your comment form, you conveyed concern regarding air quality in the Town of Goderich and the

associated health concerns with poor air quality.

The purpose of the Public Information Centre was to introduce the proposed project, describe the process

to be followed to complete the Environmental assessment, to identify the requirements for preparation of

a Terms of Reference, and to solicit input from stakeholders. Your comments have been received and

will be taken into consideration during the preparation of the Terms of Reference. An air quality

investigation will be undertaken during the course of the environmental assessment phase of this project.

Thank you for your participation in this study. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any

further questions or comments.

Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited




c.c. Al Hamilton, President, Goderich Port Management Corporation

Denise Carnochan, Planner, County of Huron

Jennette Walker, Environmental Technologist, Town of Goderich





September 21, 2009

Dear ,




Thank you for participating in the Public Information Centre, held on June 10, 2009, and submitting a comment

form to the Study Team regarding the Terms of Reference for an Individual Environmental Assessment for the

Town of Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion.

On your comment form, you identified concern regarding First Nation consultation, security and site lighting, post-

construction/operation environmental issues, and additional public information centres (PIC).

The purpose of the Public Information Centre was to introduce the proposed project, describe the process to be

followed to complete the Environmental Assessment, to identify the requirements for preparation of a Terms of

Reference, and to solicit input from stakeholders. Your comments have been received and will be taken into

consideration during the preparation of the Terms of Reference.

The study team has included a number of First Nations groups and organizations on the project’s stakeholder contact

list. First Nations will continue to be consulted throughout the course of this project. A review of illumination,

including prescribing mitigation measures to limit light trespass will be included in the Environmental Assessment.

The study team has reviewed your request for a second PIC to present the draft Terms of Reference Document to the

public. As there has not been significant public interest in a second PIC the study team as elected not to hold any

additional PICs during the Terms of Reference phase of study. You will be notified by letter of the 30-day public

review period for the final ToR Document and you will have the opportunity to make further comments at that time.

Several PICs are planned for the EA phase of study.

Thank you for your participation in this study. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions

or comments.

Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited











September 21, 2009

Dear ,




Thank you for participating in the Public Information Centre held on June 10, 2009, and submitting a comment form

to the Study Team regarding the Terms of Reference for an Individual Environmental Assessment for the Town of

Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion.

On your comment form, you conveyed concern regarding increased truck traffic on North Harbour Road, impacts to

the environment, increased noise, light and views of the lake as a result of the project.


followed to complete the Environmental Assessment, to identify the requirements for preparation of a Terms of



An air quality study will be undertaken during the Environmental Assessment (EA) phase of this project. A review

of illumination, including prescribing mitigation measures to limit light trespass will be included in the

Environmental Assessment. Natural heritage features within the harbour and in the adjacent Maitland River valley

will also be assessed as part of the EA study. The proposed wharf facility is expected to be a flat structure, parallel

with the lake’s surface and as such should not have a negative impact on the view of the lake from your property.


or comments.

Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited











September 21, 2009

Sent via e-mail

Dear ,




Thank you for participating in the Public Information Centre, held on June 10, 2009, and providing your

comments to the Study Team regarding the Terms of Reference for an Individual Environmental

Assessment for the Town of Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion.

You identified concern regarding the impacts of the project on businesses in the Harbour. Particularly, the

impact of creating 15 acres at the Harbour and its impacts to the waterway, restaurant, elevators, marina

and the Maitland trailer park and walking trail.

The purpose of the Public Information Centre was to introduce the proposed project, describe the process

to be followed to complete the environmental assessment, to identify the requirements for preparation of a

Terms of Reference, and to solicit input from stakeholders. Your comments have been received and will

be taken into consideration during the preparation of the Terms of Reference. I have included a copy of

the Public Information Centre displays for your information and have added your name to the project

contact list.

Thank you for your participation in this study. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any

further questions or comments.

Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited











September 21, 2009

Dear ,




Thank you for participating in the Public Information Centre, held on June 10, 2009, and providing your comments

to the Study Team regarding the Terms of Reference for an Individual Environmental Assessment for the Town of

Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion.

In your letter, you agreed with the inclusion of the North Harbour Road in this study, and suggested a public

meeting to address truck traffic. You also made recommendations regarding First Nations consultation during the

study. You also advised the Study Team of the heritage project being undertaken in the Maitland River Watershed,

and potential archaeology sites.


followed to complete the environmental assessment, to identify the requirements for preparation of a Terms of



At a minimum a Stage I and II Archaeological investigation and Cultural/Built Heritage assessment will be

undertaken during the course of the environmental assessment phase of this project. The study team has included a

number of First Nations groups and organizations on the project’s stakeholder contact list. First Nations will

continue to be consulted throughout the course of this project. We have conveyed your request for mapping to B.M.

Ross.


or comments.

Yours sincerely,

LGL Limited








· RECORD OF CONSULTATION GODERICH HARBOUR WHARF EXPANSION Submitted to: Ministry of the...

Documents

Transcript of · RECORD OF CONSULTATION GODERICH HARBOUR WHARF EXPANSION Submitted to: Ministry of the...