RECORD OF CONSULTATION
GODERICH HARBOUR WHARF EXPANSION
AUGUST
OF CONSULTATION
GODERICH HARBOUR WHARF EXPANSION
AUGUST 2010
RECORD OF CONSULTATION
GODERICH HARBOUR WHARF EXPANSION
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
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 2
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.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 3
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.
Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.
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
Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 4
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 Environment Canada
Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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.
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 5
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Transport 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.
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
Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 6
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
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.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 7
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
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.
Acceptance of final ToR pending.
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.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 8
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, Culture, and Tourism
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.
Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, Culture, and Tourism comments received June 24, 2010, via MOE, on ToR.
Acceptance of final ToR pending.
Ministry of Tourism and Recreation
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.
Ministry of Tourism and Culture comments received June 24, 2010, via MOE, on ToR.
Acceptance of final ToR pending.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 9
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
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
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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.
Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 10
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
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.
No issues or concerns identified.
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.
Updated contact list.
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.
Updated contact list.
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
Response form was received on May 21, 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.
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
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.
No issues or concerns identified.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 11
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Maitland Valley Conservation Authority
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.
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
Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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.
Updated contact list.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 12
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
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.
Acceptance of final ToR pending.
MacDonald Marine Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 13
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Goodison Fisheries Limited Initial Contact Letter sent May
11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
1523537 Ontario Inc. (formerly Pilon Fisheries)
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 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.
Updated contact list.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 14
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Purdy Fisheries Initial Contact Letter sent May
11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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.
Updated contact list.
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
Response form was received on May 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.
No issues or concerns identified.
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
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 15
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Lower Lakes Towing Ltd. Initial Contact Letter sent May
11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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.
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 16
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
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.
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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.
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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.
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 17
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
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.
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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.
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Six Nations of the Grand River Territory
Initial Contact Letter sent December 9, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Oneida Nation of the Thames Initial Contact Letter sent December 9, 2009 Contact letter and ToR sent on May 18, 2010.
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 18
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
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.
Acceptance of final ToR pending.
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.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 19
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Canadian Hydrographic Services 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 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
Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Gozzard Yachts Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Huron Community Stewardship Portal
Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Avon Maitland District School Board
Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 20
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Snug Harbour Municipal Marina Initial Contact Letter sent May
11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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
Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Goderich and District Chamber of Commerce
Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 21
LGL Limited BMROSS
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH EXTERNAL AGENCIES DURING PREPARATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
Agency Date Contacted Comments/Concerns Conclusions Downtown Goderich Business Improvement Area
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 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.
No issues or concerns identified.
Olthuis Kleer Townshend Barristers and Solicitors
Initial Contact Letter sent May 11, 2009 PIC Invitation sent May 29, 2009 ToR Public Filing Notification Letter sent May 18, 2010
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
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
No response to date. No issues or concerns identified.
Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation
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 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.
No issues or concerns identified.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 22
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
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 23
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.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 24
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
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 25
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 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
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 26
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 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
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 27
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.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation Page 28
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.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation A2
LGL Limited BMROSS
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation A3
LGL Limited BMROSS
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation
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
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
10 Wellington Street
Room 1310
Gatineau Quebec K1A 0H4 (819) 953-1940
(819) 997-9873
Mr. Franklin Roy Director, Litigation Management and Resolution Branch
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
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-
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation B2
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
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation B3
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
400 University Avenue, 4th Floor
Toronto Ontario M7A 2R9 (416)-212-4019
(416)-212-1802
Laura Hatcher Ministry of Tourism and Culture
Program and Services Branch/ Cultural Services Unit
400 University Avenue, 4th Floor
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-
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation B4
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
Ministry of Economic Development and Trade
900 Bay Street, 7th Floor
Hearst Block
Toronto Ontario M7A 2E1 (416) 325-6849
(416) 325-6885
Mr. Gregory Wootton Director (A) Investment Branch
Ministry of Economic Development and Trade
900 Bay Street, 7th Floor
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
Goderich Ontario N7A 3Y2 (519) 524-4409
(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
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation B5
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
Southampton Ontario N0H 2L0 (519) 797-2781
(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)
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation B6
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
Southampton Ontario N0H 2L0 (519) 483-4000
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.
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
Goderich Ontario N7A 3Y1 (519) 524-7474
519-440-0407
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation B7
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
Maitland Country Club
P.O. Box 64 North Harbour Road
Goderich Ontario N7A 3Y1 (519) 524-9641
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
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation
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.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation C2
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
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation C3
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
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation C4
LGL Limited BMROSS
KEY PLAN
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation C5
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
P.O. Box 280, 22 Fisher Street
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)"
To: "Constance Agnew" <[email protected]>
CC: "Brien,Meghan [CEAA]" <[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]>
From: "Constance Agnew" <[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
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]
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:38:22 -0500
To: "Fromme-Marcellin, Michelle (ENE)" <[email protected]>
From: "Constance Agnew" <[email protected]>
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)"
To: "Constance Agnew" <[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
To: "Fromme-Marcellin, Michelle (ENE)" <[email protected]>
From: "Constance Agnew" <[email protected]>
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
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]
Page 1
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 2
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
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 3
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
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 4
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
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 5
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
• 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 6
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
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 7
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
• 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 8
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
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 9
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
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 10
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
• 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 11
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
• 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 12
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
• 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 13
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
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 14
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
• 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
documented in the EA.
• 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
documented in the EA.
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 15
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
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 16
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
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 17
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
• 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 18
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
“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 19
Page Commenting
Agency
Section Comments Response
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.
Page 1
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
Page 2
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
Page 3
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.
7. Section 6.0 Page 11, General Comments:
• 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.
Page 4
10. Section 8.0 Page 17, General Comments:
• 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
Page 5
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]>
To: "Constance Agnew" <[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
From: "Brien,Meghan [CEAA]" <[email protected]>
To: "Constance Agnew" <[email protected]>
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
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
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:29:18 -0500
To: "Brien,Meghan [CEAA]" <[email protected]>
From: "Constance Agnew" <[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]>
From: "Constance Agnew" <[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
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]
Subject: RE: Sifto contact
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:19:41 -0500
From: "Brien,Meghan [CEAA]" <[email protected]>
To: "Constance Agnew" <[email protected]>
Thanks very much Connie!
I appreciate your efforts!
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
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
Ministry of the Environment
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
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
Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, Project Officer, Ministry of the Environment
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 16, 2010
Jack Colonnello
Surface Water Specialist – Technical Support Section
Ministry of the Environment
733 Exeter Road
London, Ontario
N6E 1L3
Dear Mr. Colonnello:
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 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
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
Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, Project Officer, Ministry of the Environment
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, 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:
Re: Town of Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion
Responses to Comments on the Terms of Reference for an Individual Environmental
Assessment
DFO File No. BU-09-4865
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 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
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
Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, Project Officer, Ministry of the Environment
Page 1 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
Page 2 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
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 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:
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 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.
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. Dr. Simon Spooner, Marine Heritage Advisor, Ministry of Tourism and Culture
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
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 16, 2010
April Nix
Planning Intern
Ministry of Natural Resources, Guelph District
1 Stone Road West
Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2
Dear Ms. Nix:
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
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
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
Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, Project Officer, Ministry of the Environment
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 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:
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 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.
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
Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, Project Officer, Ministry of the Environment
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 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:
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 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
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
Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, Project Officer, Ministry of the Environment
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
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 16, 2010
Geoff King
Environmental Planner
Maitland Valley Conservation Authority
1093 Marietta Street, Box 127
Wroxeter, Ontario
N0G 2X0
Dear Mr. King:
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 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.
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
Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, Project Officer, Ministry of the Environment
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 17, 2010
Brandi Walter
Environmental Planner/Regulations Officer
Maitland Valley Conservation Authority
1093 Marietta Street, Box 127
Wroxeter, Ontario
N0G 2X0
Dear Ms. Walter:
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 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.
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
Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, Project Officer, Ministry of the Environment
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
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
Ms. Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, MOE, June 17, 2010, page 3
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.
Ms. Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, MOE, June 17, 2010, page 4
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
Yours very truly,
President Jason Indoe
Historic Saugeen Métis
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 16, 2010
Jason Indoe
President
Historic Saugeen Métis
204 High Street, Box 1492
Southhampton, Ontario
N0H 2L0
Dear Mr. Indoe:
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 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
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
Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, Project Officer, Ministry of the Environment
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 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:
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
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
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
Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, Project Officer, Ministry of the Environment
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 16, 2010
Pauline Saulnier
Region 7 Councillor
Métis Nation of Ontario
4 Richelieu Street
Penetanguishene, Ontario
L9M 1H8
Dear Ms. Saulnier:
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 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
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
Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, Project Officer, Ministry of the Environment
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
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation
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
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
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
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.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Carroll
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.
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
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;
Goderich Harbour Expansion Agency Meeting #1 Page 3
• 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;
Goderich Harbour Expansion Agency Meeting #1 Page 4
• 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,
Goderich Harbour Expansion Agency Meeting #1 Page 5
• 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
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation
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
Does not require infilling in Lake Huron.
Relatively low capital cost, high operating cost.
Size limitations for platform. Increased handling
requirements. Higher potential for a
ill/
Does not make a significant contribution towards realistically
addressing all of the problem/opportunity statements.
i d f dHARBOUR FOR STORAGE spill/upset. Unavailability of large
platforms.
Not carried forward.
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
Does not make a significant contribution towards realistically
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
Does not make a significant contribution towards realistically
addressing all of the problem/opportunity statements.
Not carried forward.
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
Does not make a significant contribution towards realistically
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 infilling in Lake Huron.
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
Does not make a significant contribution towards realistically
addressing all of the problem/opportunity statements.
Not carried forward.
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.
Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Record of Consultation
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
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
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
environmental research associates
Constance J. Agnew, B.Sc., rcji
Senior Planning Ecologist
c.c. Al Hamilton, President, Goderich Port Management Corporation
Denise Carnochan, Planner, County of Huron
Jennette Walker, Environmental Technologist, Town of Goderich
Matt Pearson, Senior Planner, B.M. Ross and Associates Ltd
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
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 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
environmental research associates
Constance J. Agnew, B.Sc., rcji
Senior Planning Ecologist
c.c. Al Hamilton, President, Goderich Port Management Corporation
Denise Carnochan, Planner, County of Huron
Jennette Walker, Environmental Technologist, Town of Goderich
Matt Pearson, Senior Planner, B.M. Ross and Associates Ltd
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
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 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.
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 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.
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
environmental research associates
Constance J. Agnew, B.Sc., rcji
Senior Planning Ecologist
c.c. Al Hamilton, President, Goderich Port Management Corporation
Denise Carnochan, Planner, County of Huron
Jennette Walker, Environmental Technologist, Town of Goderich
Matt Pearson, Senior Planner, B.M. Ross and Associates Ltd
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
September 21, 2009
Sent via e-mail
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 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
environmental research associates
Constance J. Agnew, B.Sc., rcji
Senior Planning Ecologist
c.c. Al Hamilton, President, Goderich Port Management Corporation
Denise Carnochan, Planner, County of Huron
Jennette Walker, Environmental Technologist, Town of Goderich
Matt Pearson, Senior Planner, B.M. Ross and Associates Ltd
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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
environmental research associates
Constance J. Agnew, B.Sc., rcji
Senior Planning Ecologist
c.c. Al Hamilton, President, Goderich Port Management Corporation
Denise Carnochan, Planner, County of Huron
Jennette Walker, Environmental Technologist, Town of Goderich
Matt Pearson, Senior Planner, B.M. Ross and Associates Ltd