Environmental Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, Subsection 7(1)

This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Ministry Review was May 30, 2014. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Ministry Review documents the Ministry’s evaluation of the Environmental Assessment and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities into consideration.

Executive summary

Who

Goderich Port Management Corporation

What

Ministry Review of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking which includes: The construction, operation and maintenance of the Goderich harbour wharf expansion. The undertaking will include the construction of a twinslip dock in the northrn portion of the outer harbour, which will allow for two additional docking spaces, usable storage space of 6.3 hectares and added wave protection.

When

EA submitted: February 21, 2014

The Ministry Review comment period will commence on June 20, 2014 and conclude on July 25, 2014.

Where

The proposed undertaking will be located on the east shore of Lake Huron in the Town of Goderich. The expansion of the harbour will be located in the northrn portion of the outer harbour.

Why

The purpose of the undertaking is to address the need for additional loading/unloading space, the need for storage space for existing and future shipping operations and to better shelter the harbour from adverse lake conditions.

Conclusions

The Ministry Review concludes that the EA was prepared in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference and contains sufficient information to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.

Environmental assessment process

Environmental Assessment (EA) is a proponent driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-making by assessing the effects of an undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) sets out the general contents for the preparation of an EA, as well as the Ministry’s evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject to the EAA, approval under the EAA is required before the undertaking can proceed.

Proponents address a wide range of potential effects on the natural, social, cultural and economic environments to ensure the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. An EA determines, on the basis of the environmental effects, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how environmental effects can be managed.

EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including a Government Review Team (GRT), the public and affected Aboriginal communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and the EAA approval.

1.1 Terms of reference

Preparing an EA is a two-step application to the Minister of the Environment (Minister). The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the Ministry of the Environment (Ministry) for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

On February 10, 2011, the Minister approved the Goderich Port Management Corporation’s ToR. The ToR set out how the Goderich Port Management Corporation would assess alternatives, assess environmental effects and consult with the public during the preparation of the EA.

1.2 Environmental assessment

Once the ToR is approved by the Minister, the proponent can proceed to the second step of the EA process and carry out the EA. The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. Once the proponent has carried out the EA, including consultation, the EA is submitted to the Ministry for review and decision.

On February 21, 2014, the Goderich Port Management Corporation submitted the Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion Environmental Assessment to the Ministry for decision for the proposed expansion of the Goderich harbour wharf, which includes the construction of a twin-slip in the northrn portion of the outer harbour accommodating two additional docking spaces, usable storage space of 6.3 hectares and added wave protection. The EA comment period ended on April 11, 2014.

1.3 Ministry Review

The EA was circulated for review to a GRT. The GRT, including federal, provincial and local agencies, reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid, based on their agencies' mandates. The public and Aboriginal communities also had an opportunity to review the EA and submit their comments to the Ministry. All comments received by the Ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the EA undertaking.

The EAA requires the Ministry to prepare a review of the EA, known simply as the Ministry Review (Review). The Review is the Ministry’s evaluation of the EA. The purpose of the Review is to determine if the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and therefore meets the requirements of the EAA and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking.

The Review outlines whether the information contained in the EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. Ministry staff evaluated the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the proposed impact management measures. The Review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, agency and Aboriginal community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.

The Minister considers the conclusion of the Review when making a decision; the Review itself is not the EA decision-making mechanism. The Minister’s decision will be made following the end of the five-week Review comment period. The Minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The Review comment period allows the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed undertaking have been considered. During the Review comment period, anyone can submit comments on the EA, the undertaking and the Review. In addition, anyone can request that the Minister refer the EA, or any matter relating to the EA, to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that there are significant outstanding environmental effects that the EA has not addressed. Requests for a hearing can only be made during this comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.

A Notice of Completion of the Review was published in the Goderich Signal Star indicating that this Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period from June 20, 2014 to July 25, 2014. The Notice was also posted on the Ministry’s website. Copies of the Review have been placed in the same public record locations where the EA was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities. Those members of the public who submitted comments during the EA comment period have also received copies of the Review.

The proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking is the construction, operation and maintenance of the expansion of the Goderich Harbour located on the east shore of Lake Huron in the Town of Goderich (Figure 1). Specifically, the Goderich Port Management Corporation is seeking approval for:

  • The expansion of the wharf by 7.69 hectares in the northrn portion of the outer harbour
  • The twin-slip dock expansion will allow for two additional docking spaces along the expanded wharf and an increase in the usable storage space by 6.3 hectares
  • Wave protection features (i.e. rock berm) as Goderich harbour is located on the windward side of Lake Huron and the outer harbour requires better protection from wave action

Possible improvements to north Harbour Road, including the intersection at Highway 21 were also included as part of the undertaking in the approved ToR. However, during the EA, a traffic assessment was completed and determined that improvements to north Harbour Road were not required to accommodate the Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion.

Should approval under the EAA be granted, the Goderich Port Management Corporation intends to immediately finalize the detailed design for the proposed expansion. The final detailed design will be completed in discussions with the retained contractor, as well as based on the impact management measures, commitments and results of a future Public Information Centre (PIC) as indicated in the EA.

The proponent anticipates that if the EA is approved, construction will take 26 months once the necessary approvals and permits have been obtained. An Environmental Management Plan (EMP), which will include, but not be limited to environmental best management practices, EA commitments, EA conditions of approval, terms and conditions of authorizations, permits and approvals, compliance with legislative requirements and environmental risks associated with the project will be made available. In addition, a fish habitat management plan will be finalized prior to construction.

The proponent anticipates that the design life of the expanded wharf will be 100 years with routine maintenance. The EA assumes that after 100 years the needs of the port will likely be different from the current needs and at that time decisions will be made on what alterations need to be made to the port. The design features of the expanded wharf are expected to withstand a 100-year storm event, although some minor repairs may be required. Typical maintenance tasks that may be required over the 100-year operation period include re-paving, replacing lights and poles, maintenance dredging, repairing storm sewers and concrete, and restoring armour stone.

If EAA approval is granted, the Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the EA and any proposed conditions of approval, and it will include the details outlined above. In addition, Goderich Port Management Corporation must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.

Figure 1: Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion project location

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of this figure.

Results of the Ministry Review

The Review provides the analysis of the EA. The Review is not intended to summarize the EA, nor present the information found in the EA. For information on the decision making process, refer to the EA itself. The EA and supporting documentation outlines the EA planning process and demonstrates how the proponent has selected the preferred undertaking and made the final decision.

3.1 Conformance with the terms of reference and Environmental Assessment Act

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The Ministry’s analysis of the EA, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the ToR have been met. The Ministry considered the contents of the approved ToR and proponent’s EA, along with comments from the public, Aboriginal communities and the GRT, and has concluded that the Goderich Port Management Corporation has prepared the EA in accordance with the framework set out in the approved ToR, that the EA has sufficiently addressed the commitments made in the ToR, and that the EA clearly demonstrates how the requirements of the EAA have been met.

Appendix A summarizes this analysis and identifies how the ToR requirements have been addressed in the EA.

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is presubmission consultation completed during the preparation of the EA. This consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be undertaken prior to the submission of the EA and in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR.

During the preparation of the EA, the Goderich Port Management Corporation carried out a consultation process that allowed for multiple opportunities for the exchange and review of information pertaining to the proposed project by the GRT, public and Aboriginal communities.

In accordance with the consultation commitments that were outlined in the approved ToR, the Goderich Port Management Corporation carried out the following consultation methods during the preparation of the EA:

  • Establishing and maintaining a stakeholder contact list
  • Providing project related information and updates throughout the EA process by way of a project web site, the publication of newsletters, written correspondence, and holding two Public Information Centres with open house format
  • Advertisements in the local newspaper providing notice of formal project milestones and consultation events
  • Five meetings with interested Aboriginal communities were organized to present the project and status, identify lands of interest, discussion on traditional activities that may be affected, discuss impact management measures and the fish habitat compensation strategy
  • Other meetings in Aboriginal communities not included in the five meetings mentioned above regarding the status of the EA
  • Establishing the Regulatory Agency Advisory Group (RAAG) to obtain guidance on regulatory requirements and EA documents throughout the EA process
  • Maintaining a Record of Consultation documenting all issues or concerns that were raised during the preparation of the EA, and the responses to them
  • Government Agency meetings to discuss relevant issues and mandates
  • The circulation of draft supplemental technical documents to interested stakeholders, GRT and Aboriginal communities for review and comment
  • The circulation of a Draft EA to the Ministry of the Environment, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Transport Canada, Maitland Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) and Ministry of Natural Resources for review and comment

The objective of the Goderich Port Management Corporation’s consultation process was to ensure obligations under the Environmental Assessment Act were met, introduce the design of the undertaking and ensure that all affected agencies, Aboriginal communities, local stakeholders and the public were fully aware of and had the opportunity to be engaged in the consultation process and provide input, as well as ensure that the views and suggestions of all participants were given respectful consideration and due weight in refining plans for the design of the undertaking.

In accordance with the requirements under Section 6(3) of the EAA, the Goderich Port Management Corporation documented its consultation process in a Record of Consultation, which provides a summary of the issues and concerns raised during the consultation process on the EA. The Record of Consultation was provided as a stand-alone document to accompany the EA Report.

Once the EA is submitted to the Ministry, additional Ministry driven consultation occurs during the formal EA comment period. The GRT, the public and potentially affected Aboriginal communities were provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the Ministry on whether the requirements of the ToR had been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking. All comments received by the Ministry during the EA comment period were forwarded to Goderich Port Management Corporation for a response. Summaries of the all comments received along with the Goderich Port Management Corporation’s responses are included in Tables 1 to 3. Copies of the submissions are also available in Appendix B.

Government Review Team consultation

During the preparation of the EA, the Goderich Port Management Corporation engaged in consultation with members of the GRT. The purpose this consultation was to identify those regulatory and GRT that may have a potential interest or mandate in the proposed undertaking and to identify any potential concerns about the proposed undertaking. The Goderich Port Management Corporation sought input from the members of the GRT through a variety of means including telephone calls, written and electronic correspondence, formal meetings and presentations. A summary of the consultation process carried out during the preparation of the EA with members of the GRT, the comments received and the Goderich Port Management Corporation’s responses to them can be found in Section 2.0 of the EA and the Record of Consultation.

In addition to the GRT, the proponent established the RAAG as an advisory committee to review EA related documents and provide advice to the proponent during the EA process. The mandate of the RAAG was to:

  • Provide an inclusive discussion and forum for agencies to advise the Study Team
  • Serve as a means to share and exchange information, ideas and concerns related to the Goderich harbour wharf expansion
  • Review and provide comments on the following documents:
    • Environmental technical reports
    • Environmental Assessment Report
    • Public consultation materials including PIC displays

Four meetings were held with the RAAG; the first meeting being in person to discuss the ToR and provide a tour of Goderich harbour. The three subsequent meetings were held via teleconference and were used to discuss the status of the EA, upcoming PICs and the results of the PICs, agency concerns, consultation with Aboriginal communities and to solicit comments on the technical reports and the Draft EA Report.

Once the proponent finalized its EA, members of the GRT were also provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the EA during the seven week inspection period, which commenced with the formal submission of the EA on February 21, 2014. The inspection period was coordinated by the Ministry, and members of the GRT were asked to provide any comments directly to the Ministry for consideration. All comments received by the Ministry were forwarded to the Goderich Port Management Corporation for a response. A summary of the comments received and the Goderich Port management Corporation’s responses can be found in Table 1 of this Review.

The Ministry received comments from six government reviewers during the formal inspection period on the EA. Comments were received from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Aboriginal Affairs and northrn Development (AANDC), the County of Huron, MVCA and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS). The Ministry of the Environment’s technical reviewers also undertook their own analysis of the EA.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) requested that the proponent review the regulations to determine applicability to the proposed project including those associated with wildlife areas and migratory birds. In addition, The CEA Agency requested that the proponent review Section 24(c) Regulations Designating Physical Activities to determine if the proposed project is subject to a federal EA. The Goderich Port Management Corporation responded and confirmed that Section 24(c) does not apply to the proposed project and included previous correspondence from the CEA Agency indicating that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) does not apply to the proposed project.

The County of Huron and AANDC indicated that they had no comments on the Final EA.

The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) were provided the technical reports for review. The MNR Lakes Management Supervisor provided comments on the technical Reports. Comments were also received on the draft EA from the District Planner at the Guelph District MNR office, as well as from the MNR Lakes Management Supervisor. The comments and responses are provided in the Record of Consultation. The Ministry did not receive any comments on the Final EA from the MNR during the seven-week comment period.

The MVCA indicated that a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 164/06 will be required prior to commencing the work and that the testing and control of fill will be placed as a condition on the permit. They also noted that the stormwater collection system should be equipped with an oil and grit separator, and that stormwater runoff should be treated to the normal water quality standard. The Goderich Port Management Corporation acknowledged the need for a permit. The Goderich Port Management Corporation also responded that the stormwater collection system will be developed during detailed design and that MVCA will have the opportunity to review the proposed collection system design. In addition, the proponent confirmed that fill used in the construction of the expanded wharf facility will be sampled in accordance with the Guidance on Sampling and Analytical methods for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario (MOE 1996) and the Fill Quality Guide and Good Management Practices for Shore Infilling in Ontario (MOE 2011).

The MTCS requested that the proponent confirm that only a marine archaeological assessment was completed since it appeared that there is no land archaeological component to the proposed project. The MTCS also requested that the proponent confirm that an interpretive plaque be installed at the harbour. The Goderich Port Management Corporation confirmed that only a marine archaeological assessment was required. A land archaeological assessment was not completed because no improvements to north Harbour Road were required, and the Goderich Port Management Corporation confirmed that no lands would be disturbed by the proposed project. The proponent also confirmed that an interpretive plaque would be installed at the harbour.

The Ministry’s technical reviewers provided a number of comments regarding surface water, noise levels and air quality. The surface water specialist requested that the proponent follow the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) standards for monitoring turbidity and requested that a more rigorous monitoring program for turbidity be implemented. The Goderich Port Management Corporation revised the monitoring program for turbidity.

The noise engineer requested that the vacant lots adjacent to the site be modelled to determine noise levels and that further clarification on the noise source data, sound level calculations and transportation noise assessment be provided. The Goderich Port Management Corporation clarified that the vacant lot is actually a restaurant and is not a sensitive receptor requiring assessment.

The EA indicates that best management practices will be implemented to control dust and NOx emissions during construction, operation and maintenance. As such, the EA indicates that there will be no net effects to air quality during construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed undertaking. The air quality specialist has requested the monitoring and modelling data to verify the results and conclusions of the air quality assessment. The Ministry’s review of the modelling and monitoring will be completed before a decision is made on the EA.

Summaries of the all comments received from members of the GRT, along with the Goderich Port Management Corporation’s responses, can be found in Table 1 of this Review.

Public consultation

Members of the public, including harbour users, local residents, local businesses and other stakeholders, were provided with several opportunities to participate and provide input during the preparation of the EA. The Goderich Port Management Corporation carried out consultation during the preparation of the EA with members of the public in a variety of ways, including:

  • holding two Public Information Centres (PICs)
  • written correspondence
  • newspaper notifications of EA milestones and consultation opportunities
  • posting information and materials to a project website

The objective of public consultation was to inform and seek input from interested members of the public on the EA process and the proposed undertaking. A summary of the consultation process carried out during the preparation of the EA with members of the public, the comments received and the Goderich Port Management Corporation responses to them can be found in Section 2.0 of the EA and the Record of Consultation.

both PICs held were advertised in the Goderich Signal Star, which is the local newspaper. The purpose of the first PIC was to present the proposed project and discuss the EA process. A formal presentation and question and answer period was held during this PIC. The purpose of the second PIC was to present the refined project design, the evaluation process for alternative methods and the preferred method that was selected. Anticipated impact management measures and permits and approvals were also presented. A formal presentation and question and answer period was held during this PIC. Summaries of the PICs can be found in the Appendix G and H of the Record of Consultation. The proponent has committed to holding a final PIC during detailed design.

Members of the public were also provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the EA during the seven week inspection period that commenced with the formal submission of the EA on February 21, 2014. The inspection period was coordinated by the Ministry and members of the public were asked to provide any comments directly to the Ministry for consideration.

The Ministry received comments from Maitland Valley Marina Limited, as well as from three members of the public. The comments received included concerns regarding potential noise impacts related to the expansion of the wharf and access to the wharf for recreational activities. Summaries of the all comments received from the public, along with the Goderich Port Management Corporation’s responses, can be found in Table 2 of this Review.

The Maitland Valley Marina Limited, as well as two other members of the public provided comments regarding the noise assessment, including noise related to trucks. The Goderich Port Management Corporation responded by directing the commenter to the appropriate section of the report where their comment is addressed as well as referring to the applicable guidelines for the assessment. A member of the public also identified concerns related to recreational use of the harbour. The proponent responded that access to the harbour is maintained by the Town of Goderich. A plan is being developed by the Town of Goderich with interests groups to balance public access and public safety at the harbour. The proponent has committed to providing formal letter responses to the members of the public who provided comments on the Final EA.

Aboriginal community consultation

During the preparation of the EA, the Goderich Port Management Corporation contacted both the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs and northrn Development Canada. The purpose of which was to seek guidance in identifying those Aboriginal communities that may have an interest or be potentially impacted by the proposed undertaking, and should therefore be involved in the EA process. The following Aboriginal communities and organizations were identified as having a potential interest in the proposed undertaking:

  • Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians
  • Union of Ontario Indians
  • Chippewas of Nawash
  • Chippewas of Saugeen
  • Saugeen Ojibway Nation
  • Walpole Island First Nation
  • Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point
  • Aamjiwnaang First Nation
  • Oneida Nation of the Thames
  • Elected Six Nations of the Grand River Territory
  • Six Nations of the Grand River Territory—Haudenosaunee Development Institute
  • Historic Saugeen Métis
  • Georgian Bay Métis Council
  • Métis Nation of Ontario
  • Office of the Federal Interlocuter for Métis and Non-status Indians

Aboriginal communities were contacted at key milestones during the preparation of the EA, including the Notice of Commencement, Notification of Public Information Centres and the Notice of Completion. Much of the consultation with Aboriginal communities occurred over five meetings centralized meetings with interested Aboriginal communities. The Aboriginal communities that participated in the meetings regularly were Walpole Island First Nation, Aamjiwnaang First Nation and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (include Chippewas of Nawash and Chippewas of Saugeen). The Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point were invited to all five meetings and received the meeting notes, but only attended the first meeting. Individual correspondence in the form of emails, telephone calls, meetings and letters were made to the remaining Aboriginal communities listed above.

The proponent attended two meetings with the Historic Saugeen Métis. The details of these meetings are described below. The Union of Ontario Indians and Georgian Bay Métis Council indicated that the project was outside of their traditional territory. The Elected Six Nations of the Grand River Territory indicated that they had no objections to the expansion of the harbour. A number of follow-up attempts were made with Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, Oneida Nation of the Thames, Six Nations of the Grand River Territory – Haudenosaunee Development, Métis Nation of Ontario and Office of the Federal Interlocuter for Métis and Non-status Indians as documented in the Record of Consultation; however, no comments were received.

The purpose of the five meetings with Aboriginal communities was to initiate discussions on the proposed undertaking and to provide status updates on the EA. These meetings were also used to discuss potential effects of the project on fish and fish habitat, water quality and introduction of invasive species. A representative from DFO attended the meetings to discuss the fish habitat compensation plan including recommendations for compensation projects. Permits and approvals, the EMP and the request for proposal from contractors were also discussed. The Goderich Port Management Corporation went through the comments on the technical reports from the Aboriginal communities and presented their responses. The proponent also met independently with specific Aboriginal communities as outlined in the sections below.

A description of the correspondence with interested Aboriginal communities and the issues raised by each Aboriginal community during the preparation of the EA is described in the subsequent sections.

Aamjiwnaang First Nation

As stated above, a representative from Aamjiwnaang First Nation attended all five meetings held with the Goderich Port Management Corporation. In addition, a presentation was made to the Chief and Council on November 8, 2012 and to the Environmental Committee on December 4, 2012. No comments were received at these meetings. The technical reports were provided for review and a joint review with Saugeen Ojibway Nation was completed. An Open House was held at Aamjiwnaang First Nation on June 13, 2013. No comments were received by the proponent at this Open House.

Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point

The Communication Relations Officer for Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point attended the first meeting. The Communications Relations Officer indicated at this meeting that a presentation by the proponent to the community would likely be required to present the project. However, the proponent followed up and no response was provided by Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point to hold a presentation. The Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point were invited to the subsequent centralized meetings with interested Aboriginal communities; however, they did not attend. The proponent provided the meeting minutes of all of the centralized meetings to Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point for their reference. The technical reports were also provided for review; however, no comments were provided.

Historic Saugeen Métis

The proponent met with the Historic Saugeen Métis on two occasions. During the initial meeting the Historic Saugeen Métis inquired if any building structures would be constructed and asked about the fill material to be used for the wharf expansion. The Goderich Port Management Corporation responded that the materials being stored on the expanded site did not require indoor storage facilities. With regard to the fill material, the Goderich Port Management Corporation indicated that fill materials would likely be shipped in and armour stone would be trucked to the site. In addition, all fill materials would be clean of any contaminants. The Historic Saugeen Métis also inquired about areas for recreational use. The proponent responded that the harbour is mainly for commercial use, but two marinas are located north of the harbour at the mouthe of the Maitland River. A subsequent meeting was held with Historic Saugeen Métis to review the EA technical reports. The Historic Saugeen Métis did not provide formal comments on the draft technical reports.

Saugeen Ojibway Nation

Prior to the five meetings mentioned above, the Saugeen Ojibway Nation submitted an email to the proponent indicating that the project is in an area that has Aboriginal Title claims and territory for the Chippewas of Nawash First Nation and Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation (collectively referred to as the Saugeen Ojibway Nation). The Territorial Resources Coordinator participated in all five centralize meetings. In the initial meeting, the Territorial Resources Coordinator stated that the proponent would need to demonstrate the Aboriginal communities were consulted in a meaningful way. In addition, a benefit to the local Aboriginal communities would also need to be documented. This benefit may be in the form of revenue sharing, employment opportunities or environmental monitoring. The Goderich Port Management Corporation entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to provide capacity funding to the Saugeen Ojibway Nation to facilitate the peer review of the technical reports. Further to this, the interested Aboriginal communities agreed to a coordinated review of the technical reports and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation would lead this review. In early 2014, a MOU was signed between Saugeen Ojibway Nation and the Goderich Port Management Corporation for the inclusion of a stable isotope analysis in the fish habitat compensation plan. The purpose of the stable isotope analysis is for determining the structure of the aquatic food web surrounding the wharf expansion. The proponent also attended Community Information Sessions at Saugeen Ojibway Nation on February 20, 2014, and at Chippewas of Nawash First Nation on February 21, 2014 at the Community Centre. Details of these meetings and presentation materials are provided in Appendix C.

Walpole Island First Nation

The Walpole Island First Nation attended all five centralized meetings between the proponent and the Aboriginal communities. During the initial centralized meeting with Aboriginal communities, the Walpole Island First Nation noted that the Lake Huron lakebed is not covered by any First Nation treaties; however, it is the local Aboriginal communities' position that they hold title to these lands. The Walpole Island First Nation Project Review Coordinator indicated there were a number of fisheries projects that could be recommended as part of the fish compensation strategy. Walpole Island First Nation agreed to a coordinated peer review of the technical reports with Aamjiwnaang First Nation, Saugeen Ojibway Nation and Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point. The Chief of Walpole Island First Nation expressed his support for the Swan Lake Marsh Enhancement Project and Fighting Island Reef Enhancement Project as part of the Goderich Wharf Expansion Fish Compensation Strategy. both projects have since been included in the draft fish habitat compensation strategy.

A summary of the consultation process carried out during the preparation of the EA with Aboriginal communities, the comments received and the Goderich Port Management Corporation’s responses to them can be found in Section 2.0 of the EA and Record of Consultation.

Aboriginal communities were also provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the EA during the seven week inspection period that commenced with the formal submission of the EA on February 21, 2014. The inspection period was coordinated by the Ministry, and Aboriginal communities were asked to provide any comments directly to the Ministry for consideration. All comments received by the Ministry were forwarded to the Goderich Port Management Corporation for a response. A summary of the comments received and the Goderich Port Management Corporation’s responses can be found in Table 3 of this Review.

The Ministry received one comment from the Historic Saugeen Métis during the formal inspection period. Comments indicated that they had no issues with the EA Report and Sediment Transport Impact Analysis. The Historic Saugeen Métis requested that they be kept informed during project detailed design and while acquiring the necessary approvals and permits, as well as requested that they are able to review the Stormwater Management Report, drawings and are consulted on the proposed construction methods.

At the conclusion of the the seven-week inspection period on the EA, the Ministry contacted each of the Aboriginal communities that indicated they had potential interest in the proposed undertaking one final time. The purpose of which was to confirm that each community received the project information that was circulated as part of the Goderich Port Management Corporation’s consultation process, and to verify that those communities had any outstanding issues or concerns. A letter of support of the project from Chief Burton Kewayosh from Walpole Island First Nation was provided along with a covering letter acknowledging that they were pleased with the consultation process on the project to date. The Ministry received a phone call from Aamjiwnaang First Nation on April 30, 2014 indicating that they had no comments or concerns with the EA and that a formal letter would be provided following their committee meeting on May 14, 2014.

The Saugeen Ojibway Nation provided a letter on May 22, 2014. The letter indicates the Saugeen Ojibway Nation’s concern with potential effects to Aboriginal rights and land claims, specifically to commercial fishing in the area. The letter noted the agreement that was entered into between Saugeen Ojibway Nation and the proponent in May 2013 that guaranteed that the Saugeen Ojibway Nation’s technical advisors would have the opportunity to review the technical reports. Subsequently, another agreement was made for the inclusion of the stable isotope analysis in the fish habitat compensation plan. The Saugeen Ojibway Nation’s technical advisors noted that restoration efforts indicated in the EA are suitable mitigation measures for the project. In addition, the letter states that there are small details requiring resolution; however, these can be addressed during the monitoring process for the project. The Goderich Port Management Corporation acknowledged the letter and committed to ongoing consultation with Saugeen Ojibway Nation.

A summary of the comments received from Aboriginal communities, along with the Goderich Port Management Corporation’s responses, can be found in Table 3 of this Review.

Ministry Conclusions on the Consultation Program

Overall, the Ministry is satisfied that the Goderich Port Management Corporation has provided sufficient opportunities for interested members of the public, GRT and Aboriginal communities to be consulted during the preparation of the EA. The EA clearly documents the consultation methods utilized by the Goderich Port Management Corporation to engage these groups during the EA process, and clearly sets out the issues and concerns raised and how they have been addressed. The Goderich Port Management Corporation has provided additional responses to comments made on the Final EA to clarify how outstanding issues have been or will be addressed, with the exception of additional information pertaining to the air quality assessment, which is forthecoming. Should the EA be approved, the Goderich Port Management Corporation has committed to continue its consultation efforts with interested members of the public, GRT and Aboriginal communities during the detail design, monitoring and implementation of the proposed undertaking.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The Ministry is satisfied that consultation on the EA has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the ToR and demonstrates how the required components of the EAA for consultation have been met.

3.2 EA process

EA is a planning process that requires a proponent to identify an existing problem or opportunity; consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity; evaluate the environmental effects of a reasonable range of alternatives; and, select a preferred alternative that will become the undertaking for which approval under the EAA will be sought.

The ToR was approved on February 10, 2011. The EA process was initiated by the Goderich Port Management Corporation on November 9, 2011, with the publication of a Notice of Commencement of an EA. The purpose of undertaking the EA process was to complete an evaluation of the alternative wharf sites and subsequently an evaluation of the alternative wharf designs for the expansion of the wharf. Following the selection of the preferred wharf site and design, the potential effects of the preferred undertaking and impact management measures intended to minimize or avoid any potential negative effects of the preferred undertaking were identified and described.

The proposed undertaking is a continuation of efforts by the Goderich Port Management Corporation to identify problems encountered in the harbour regarding sediment deposition and exposure to wind and wave action. The Goderich Port Management Corporation – Harbour Rehabilitation Master Plan published in 2006, identifies several projects that are required to alleviate wave action in the harbour and reduce sedimentation. In addition to these issues, Sifto Canada Corporation, a major salt producer located in Goderich harbour, completed an expansion to its operations in 2012. Sifto’s increase in production was not contingent on the expansion of the wharf facilities; however, the Goderich Port Management Corporation would like to increase the use of the port by providing additional loading/unloading space for ships and storage for salt and other commodities. Therefore, the Goderich Port Management Corporation is proposing the expansion of the wharf to provide for additional stable off-loading and on-shore storage, as well as increase protection from wave action.

In accordance with the approved ToR, the Goderich Port Management Corporation prepared an EA pursuant to subsection 6.1(3) of the EAA, which states that an EA may consist of information other than the generic requirements as outlined in subsection 6.1(2). This approach was designed for proponents who are more advanced in their decision making; such as proponents who have already identified a specific undertaking for which the consideration of “Alternatives To” is not appropriate or who have completed a separate planning process that resulted in the identification of a preferred “Alternative To”. Proponents preparing an EA in accordance with subsection 6.1(3) of the EAA may focus the EA process on the assessment of “Alternative methods”. The EA provides a justification for focusing the EA based on the assessment of “Alternatives To” carried out by the Goderich Port Management Corporation in the approved ToR.

The preparation of the EA was focused on the selection and evaluation of a reasonable range of “Alternative methods” or potential wharf sites and subsequently wharf designs for the expansion of the Goderich harbour wharf within a defined Study Area. In accordance with the approved ToR, the Study Area for the EA process was divided into primary and secondary study areas. The primary study area was restricted to the inner and outer harbour identified for the expanded wharf facilities. The secondary study area includes the mouthe of the Maitland River and lower Maitland River valley areas adjacent to the harbour (Figure 1 in this Review). The Goderich harbour is located at the mouthe of the Maitland River, in the northwest quadrant of the Town of Goderich municipal limits, on the east shore of Lake Huron.

In accordance with the approved ToR, the Goderich Port Management Corporation carried out studies and research to compile an inventory of the existing natural, socio-economic and cultural environments of the Study Area. The inventory was used to establish the baseline conditions for which the potential effects of the proposed undertaking would be assessed during the preparation of the EA. A description of the existing environment and the components of the environment that could be potentially affected by each of the alternatives being considered can be found in Section 3.0 of the EA.

The preliminary screening of “Alternatives To” was completed in the approved ToR; therefore, no evaluation of “Alternatives To” was required for the EA. The EA identified and evaluated a reasonable number of wharf sites and designs within the EA Study Area (“Alternative methods”). A summary of the evaluation method used to identify and evaluate potential locations and designs for the Goderich harbour wharf expansion is provided in Section 4.0 of the EA.

A total of four (4) alternative wharf sites were identified as viable locations for the proposed undertaking and screened against the following criteria:

  • Provide sufficient number of docks and dock area for loading/unloading
  • Provide sufficient wharf area for materials storage
  • Provide protection from wind and wave action
  • Provide sufficient seaway depthe
  • Optimize efficiency/effectiveness of harbour operations
  • Minimize adverse effects on the natural environment
  • Minimize adverse effects on the socio-economic environment
  • Maximize cost effectiveness

As a result of the screening process, two (2) of the potential sites were eliminated as nonviable alternatives and two (2) sites where presented at PIC#2 as possible sites for the expansion of the wharf.

Following the qualitative evaluation of the alternative wharf sites to select a preferred wharf site, an evaluation of three (3) alternative wharf designs was completed; no slip, single slip and twin-slip options. The alternative wharf designs were evaluated against a range of criteria and indicators related to the natural, socioeconomic, cultural and physical environments, and a range of technical engineering considerations. The criteria and indicators were weighted based on the relative importance to each component of the Study Area environment, and were then given a quantitative result. The wharf design with the highest score was forwarded on as the preferred alternative for the assessment of potential effects. The evaluation was built upon baseline data and the existing conditions in the Study Area. A summary of the evaluation of alternative wharf can be found in Section 4.0 of the EA. The advantages and disadvantages for the alternative wharf designs were not evaluated in the EA, but this information was provided by the proponent following the EA comment period, and is provided in Appendix C of this Review.

Based on the results of the evaluation of alternative wharf designs, the Goderich Port Management Corporation identified the preferred site and twin-slip design for the expansion of the wharf as a 7.69 hectare area allowing 6.3 hectares of usable storage space located in the northrn portion of the outer harbour (Figure 1). A detailed description of the preferred alternative can be found in Section 5.0 of the EA.

In accordance with the approved ToR, the Goderich Port Management Corporation completed an assessment of the proposed undertaking, including the identification of potential effects, and impact management measures to address the potential effects of the proposed preferred undertaking on the natural, social, cultural and built environments. A summary of the potential effects, proposed impact management measures and resulting net effects of the preferred undertaking can be found in Section 6.0 and in Tables 6-5 and 6-6 of the EA.

As part of the description of the preferred undertaking, the Goderich Port Management Corporation also developed a draft monitoring and contingency plan, which will be finalized during project detailed design if the EA is approved. The objectives of the monitoring and contingency plan are to:

  • Augment existing information and databases, where required
  • Determine the accuracy of impact predictions and the effectiveness of environmental protection measures
  • Ensure compliance with federal, provincial and local legislation and regulations
  • Ensure the EA commitments are carried out as planned

The plan applies to all phases of the undertaking including: pre-construction, construction and operations and maintenance. In some cases, monitoring reports will be provided to the appropriate agency for review. A summary of the draft monitoring and contingency plan can be found in Table 6-7 of the EA.

The Goderich Port Management Corporation followed a logical and transparent decision making process that was clearly outlined in the EA. The EA provides an evaluation of a reasonable range of alternative wharf sites and wharf designs that would be a viable option with respect to the purpose of the undertaking. The analysis and evaluation of alternatives assessed the potential environmental effects for the alternative sites and designs. An assessment of the potential effects, net effects, advantages and disadvantages of the preferred undertaking was completed and impact management measures were developed to address the potential negative environmental effects.

3.2.1 Key issues

A detailed summary of the comments received during the preparation of the EA, and how the issues raised were addressed, can be found in Section 2.0 of the EA. The comments received, and the Goderich Port Management Corporation’s responses to them, are also documented in a Record of Consultation provided with the EA.

Key issues regarding the EA process completed by the Goderich Port Management Corporation for the Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA review comment period. A number of issues requiring clarification by the proponent were brought up by the Ministry. These submissions can be found in Appendix B of this Review. Key issues are discussed below, and all comments, including Goderich Port Management Corporation’s responses and MOE's level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1 to 3 of this Review.

The Ministry identified that the proponent’s approved ToR indicated that a marine archaeological assessment and a Stage 1 archaeological assessment would be completed, and subsequently a Stage 2 archaeological assessment, if required. However, only a marine archaeological assessment was submitted with the Final EA. The proponent was requested to provide justification to explain why a Stage 1 archaeological assessment was not warranted. The Ministry requested this justification from the proponent following the review of the Final EA. The proponent responded that a Stage 1 archaeological assessment was not completed as it was determined through a traffic assessment that no improvements to north Harbour Road are required as a result of the expansion and no laydown or storage areas were to be constructed; therefore, no new land disturbance as a result of the proposed project is expected.

The Ministry requested clarity regarding the method used to evaluate “Alternative methods” for the undertaking. The Final EA presents the criteria and indicators used to evaluate the alternative methods, but it was not clear how the scoring was assigned to determine the preferred method. In addition, the proponent did not provide the relative advantages and disadvantages of the alternative methods. The proponent provided the process for inputting the data into the software (visa software) used to complete the evaluation of alternative methods and sensitivity analysis. In addition, the proponent provided a supplemental table outlining the relative advantages and disadvantages of the alternative methods, which is provided in Appendix C of this Review.

The approved ToR indicated that an evaluation of construction methods would be included in the EA. The Final EA did not include an evaluation of the construction methods, but indicated that the preferred construction method would be determined during the detailed design phase of the project. The proponent was requested to provide appropriate justification to explain why an evaluation of the construction methods was not warranted. The proponent responded indicating that the construction method described in the EA is typical for the expansion of the harbour; however, contractors may propose alternative construction methods in their bid for the project. The proponent committed to accepting proposals from contractors that are in line with environmental requirements including legislation, permits/approvals, EA commitments and EA conditions of approval if the proposed undertaking is approved. In addition, the proponent will hold a PIC during detailed design to present the preferred construction method, which will allow the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities to provide comments on the proposed construction method.

A number of commitments were made throughout the EA that would be implemented during detailed design. The Ministry requested that a list of these commitments be provided so that they were consolidated into one list. The proponent provided a consolidated list of the commitments to be implemented during the detailed design phase. These are provided in Appendix C of this Review.

The Ministry identified a number of inconsistencies in the monitoring plan described in Section 6.0 and in Table 6-7 of the EA Report. The surface water evaluator also requested that the proponent increase the frequency of turbidity monitoring during construction. The Goderich Port Management Corporation acknowledged and corrected the inconsistencies, as well as revised the monitoring plan for turbidity. The proponent also indicated that a final monitoring plan would be included in the Environmental Management Plan, which will be completed during detailed design.

The Ministry, as well as a member of the public brought up concerns regarding the methods used for the assessment of noise. The proponent originally stated in the EA that there are no vacant lots capable of development as some of these vacant lots are owned by Compass Minerals. The noise engineer noted that some of the vacant lots are also owned by the Town of Goderich. The noise engineer requested letters from Compass Minerals and the Town of Goderich committing to no development of sensitive noise receptors on the vacant lots. If this could not be completed, a zoning examination should be completed to determine if sensitive noise receptors are permitted on these vacant lots. The Goderich Port Management Corporation responded that the aerials used in the EA Report are outdated (2010) and that a restaurant is now located on these lots; therefore, no assessment of these lots is required.

As stated in Section 3.1.2, the EA indicates that best management practices will be implemented to control dust and NOx emissions during construction, operation and maintenance. As such, the EA indicates that there will be no net effects to air quality during construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed undertaking. The Ministry’s air quality analyst requested further clarification on some of the calculations and concluding statements in the air quality assessment report. The Goderich Port Management Corporation has provided responses to the Ministry’s request for clarification; however, the Ministry has also requested the modeling and monitoring data to verify the conclusions in the air quality assessment. This information is pending from the proponent and will be reviewed prior to making a decision on the EA.

3.2.2 Conclusion

Overall, the Ministry, in consultation with the GRT, public and Aboriginal communities, is satisfied that the proponent’s decision making process meets the requirements of the approved ToR and EAA. The Ministry is satisfied with the responses provided by the proponent to comments raised by the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities, pending receiving information to clarify the air quality assessment from the proponent.

The EA contains a brief explanation of the opportunity that prompted the EA process, and presented an evaluation of a reasonable range of “alternative methods” of addressing the opportunity for the Goderich harbour wharf expansion in the Study Area. A qualitative evaluation of alternative wharf sites was completed, and subsequently the evaluation of alternative wharf designs using criteria and indicators that considered the broad definition of the environment was completed.

The EA includes a thorough description of the potentially affected environment in the EA Study Area, and identifies the elements of the environment that may be affected by the alternatives being evaluated as part of the EA planning process. The advantages and disadvantages for the alternative wharf designs were not provided in the EA and were requested from the proponent during the sevenweek review period. Supplemental information provided by the proponent describing the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative wharf designs is provided in Appendix C.

The Ministry is therefore satisfied that the EA demonstrates, through a logical and transparent process, why the preferred alternative was selected; and that the EA was completed in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. The Ministry is also satisfied that the Goderich Port Management Corporation has provided adequate responses and supplemental information to address the EA process concerns raised by the members of the public, GRT and Aboriginal communities during the preparation of the EA and the EA comment period.

3.3 Proposed undertaking

As summarized in Section 2 of this Review, the proposed undertaking is the construction, operation and maintenance of the Goderich harbour wharf expansion in the Town of Goderich (Figure 1 of this Review). A detailed description of the proposed undertaking can be found in Section 5.0 of the EA.

The twin-slip alternative selected in the assessment of alternative methods will create an expanded wharf that will increase available storage space and provide additional loading/unloading spaces for ships. Located in the northrn portion of the outer harbour, the twin-slip option allows for two additional docking spaces along the expanded wharf and a usable storage space of 6.3 hectares. The total lakebed footprint of the preferred design alternative is 7.69 hectares.

The proposed undertaking is clearly described in the Goderich Port Management Corporation’s EA documentation, and the undertaking was selected based on an evaluation of alternative wharf sites and designs, including a comparison of advantages and disadvantages (provided in Appendix C of this Review), and subsequently an assessment of potential effects on the environment due to the preferred undertaking. A broad definition of the environment was used in order to evaluate all potential effects.

3.3.1 Key issues

A detailed summary of the comments received during the preparation of the EA, and how the issues raised were addressed, can be found in Section 2.0 of the EA. The comments received, and the Goderich Port Management Corporation’s responses to them, are also documented in a Record of Consultation provided with the EA.

Key issues regarding the EA process completed by Goderich Port Management Corporation for the Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA review comment period. A summary of the key issues raised during the seven-week comment period are described below, as well as the responses provided by the proponent. Comment submissions can be found in Appendix B. All comments, including Goderich Port Management Corporation’s responses and MOE's level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1 -3.

During the preparation of the EA, DFO determined that the Goderich harbour wharf expansion will result in harm to fish habitat, and an authorization under Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act will be required. As a result, the proponent has prepared a fish habitat compensation plan in consultation with the DFO, MVCA and interested Aboriginal communities as described in Section 3.1.2 of this Review. One of the main discussion points in the five meetings held with interested Aboriginal communities described in Section 3.1.2 of this Review was the fish habitat compensation plan. The interested Aboriginal communities were able to recommend projects for the creation and/or restoration of fish habitat. The fish habitat compensation plan contains the following projects:

  • Wetland restoration on the Walpole Island First Nation
  • Creation of a spawning reef near Fighting Island in the Detroit River
  • Restoration of the Garvey/Glenn watershed
  • A stable isotope analysis to determine the structure of the aquatic food web surrounding the new wharf

During detailed design, the proponent has committed to finalizing the fish habitat compensation plan in consultation with the DFO, MVCA, Walpole Island First Nation, Aamjiwnaang First Nation and Saugeen Ojibway Nation. No outstanding concerns were identified during the seven-week comment period on the Final EA.

During the seven-week public comment period of the Final EA, a member of the public identified concerns related to public access at the harbour and potential impacts to recreational use of the harbour. The proponent responded that public access to the harbour is managed by the Town of Goderich. A plan is being developed by the Town of Goderich that allows public access to this industrial area, while maintaining public safety. The Goderich Port Management Corporation is preparing a formal response letter to the commenter based on the response provide in Table 2 of this Review.

3.3.2 Conclusion

The Ministry is satisfied that the information contained in the Goderich Port Management Corporation’s EA, as well as the responses to comments on the final EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. The Ministry is also satisfied that environmental effects of the proposed undertaking have been clearly identified, and that these effects can be managed through the commitments made in the EA, through conditions of EA approval, or through additional work that must be carried out by the Goderich Port Management Corporation in support of future approval or permitting applications.

Summary of the Ministry Review

The purpose of this Ministry Review is to determine if the Goderich Port Management Corporation has prepared its EA for the Proposed Goderich Harbour Wharf Expansion in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements under the EAA. This Review also concludes whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking. On the basis of this Review, the Ministry has concluded that:

  • The EA has been prepared in accordance with the Goderich Port Management Corporation’s approved ToR and the requirements under subsection 6.1(3) of the EAA.
  • The EA has identified and evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to arrive at a preferred undertaking.
  • The EA and supplemental information requested has identified and evaluated the potential environmental effects for the alternative methods to the undertaking and completed an assessment of the potential environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.
  • The EA and supplemental information has provided a description of the proposed impact management measures and monitoring and contingency plan to address the potential negative environmental effects of the preferred undertaking.
  • The EA contains sufficient impact management measures and monitoring and contingency measures to ensure that the potential negative environmental effects of the undertaking will be minimized.
  • The Goderich Port Management Corporation has provided sufficient time and opportunities for interested members of the public, GRT and Aboriginal communities to participate and comment on the preparation of the EA and the undertaking for which approval is being sought.
  • The EA clearly documents the consultation methods utilized to engage for interested members of the public, GRT and Aboriginal communities throughout the EA process.
  • The consultation methods used during the EA process were carried out in accordance with commitments in the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA.
  • The EA identifies and clearly explains the issues and concerns that were raised during the preparation of the EA, and how they have been addressed.
  • The EA contains sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about the application to proceed with the undertaking.

The Ministry is satisfied that the proposed undertaking, as described in the Goderich Port Management Corporation’s EA, will address the need for additional loading and unloading, an increase in storage capacity and will provide protection from wave action.

The Ministry is also satisfied, that should approval under the EAA be granted, the implementation and operation of the proposed undertaking will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the EA; any proposed conditions of approval; and, through additional work that must be carried out by the Goderich Port management Corporation in support of future approval and permitting applications.

During the final review period and prior to forwarding a recommendation to the Minister about this EA, conditions specific to consultation, commitments during project design, completion of the environmental management plan, finalization of the monitoring and contingency plan and finalization of the fish habitat compensation plan for the proposed undertaking may be proposed to ensure the environment remains protected.

What happens now

The Review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities can submit comments to the Ministry about the proposed undertaking, the EA or the Ministry Review. At this time, anyone can request that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that their concerns have not been addressed.

At the end of the Review comment period, Ministry staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the EA has been prepared in accordance with the ToR and the requirements of the EAA and whether the proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the ToR, the EA, the Review, the comments submitted during the EA and the Review comment periods and any other matters the Minister may consider relevant.

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

  • Give approval to proceed with the undertaking
  • Give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions
  • Refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking

Prior to making that decision, the Minister may also refer either part of or the entire EA to mediation or refer either part of or the entire EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a decision.

If the Minister approves, approves with conditions or refuses to give approval to the undertaking, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must concur with the decision.

5.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, the Goderich Port Management Corporation will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 7.0 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

  • Goderich, Central Huron and Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Official Plan amendments
  • Zoning by-law amendments
  • Noise by-law exemption
  • Fisheries Act
  • Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation (Ontario Regulation 164/06)
  • Environmental Compliance Approval
  • Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act
  • Navigable Waters Protection Act
  • Scientific License Collection Permit
  • Site Plan Approval

These approvals cannot be issued until approval under the EAA is granted.

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

If the proponent needs to address changes to the undertaking if approval is granted, it should be noted that any major changes are themselves deemed to be undertakings for which EA approval will be required.

Public record locations

The public record for this environmental assessment can be reviewed during normal business hours at the following ministry office:

Director
Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario

  • Fax: 416-314-8452

The Review and Notice of Completion are also available at the following locations:

Ministry of the Environment
Owen Sound District Office
101 17th Street East
Owen Sound, Ontario
M4V 1L5

Huron County Public Library, Goderich Branch
52 Montreal Street
Goderich, Ontario
N7A 2G4

Town of Goderich Municipal Office
57 West Street
Goderich, Ontario
N7A 2K5

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending July 25, 2014 will follow publication of this Review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the environmental assessment or this Review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:

Director
Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5

  • Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Goderich Port Management Corporation Proposed Harbour Wharf Expansion Environmental Assessment Report
Attention: Andrew Evers, Project Officer
andrew.evers@ontario.ca

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 all submissions become part of the public record files for this matter and can be released if requested.

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act and terms of reference requirements of the environmental assessment

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of Appendix A.

Appendix B: Submissions received during initial comment period

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of Appendix B.