GODERICH HARBOUR WHARF EXPANSION

APPENDIX H Natural Heritage Report

NNAATTUURRAALL HHEERRIITTAAGGEE RREEPPOORRTT

GODERICH PORT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PROPOSED WHARF EXPANSION

prepared for:

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

prepared by:

FEBRUARY 2014

NNAATTUURRAALL HHEERRIITTAAGGEE RREEPPOORRTT

GODERICH PORT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PROPOSED WHARF EXPANSION

prepared by:

CONSTANCE J. AGNEW, B.Sc. rcji SENIOR PLANNING ECOLOGIST

JOSEPH CAVALLO, B.Sc SENIOR FISHERIES BIOLOGIST

NANCY M. FALKENBERG, M.Sc. BOTANIST

LYNETTE RENZETTI, B.Sc. AQUATIC ECOLOGIST

DAVID SMITH, Dipl. FISH AND WILDLIFE TECHNOLOGIST

reviewed by:

Grant N. Kauffman, M.E.S. VICE PRESIDENT, ONTARIO REGION

LGL Limited environmental research associates 22 Fisher Street, PO Box 280 King City, Ontario L7B 1A6 Tel: 905-833-1244 Fax: 905-833-1255 www.lgl.com

FEBRUARY 2014

TA8047

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 BACKGROUND AND STUDY AREA ...... 1

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 3 3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS ...... 3 3.2 SUBSURFACE AND BEDROCK GEOLOGY ...... 3 3.2.1 Subsurface Geology ...... 3 3.2.2 Bedrock Geology ...... 4 3.3 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS...... 4 3.3.1 Aquatic Habitat Communities ...... 5 3.3.1.1 Aquatic Habitat Surveys ...... 5 3.3.1.2 Fish Sampling Surveys ...... 6 3.3.1.3 Bathymetry ...... 6 3.3.1.4 Substrate ...... 6 3.3.1.5 Maitland River ...... 8 3.3.2 Fish Communities ...... 10 3.3.2.1 Species Richness ...... 16 3.3.2.2 Seasonal Utilization of the Harbour and the Maitland River Mouth ...... 17 3.3.3 Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species ...... 17 3.3.4 Benthic Invertebrates ...... 18 3.3.5 Sensitivity/Significance ...... 20 3.3.5.1 Fish Community ...... 20 3.3.5.2 Benthic Community ...... 21 3.4 VEGETATION AND VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ...... 21 3.4.1 Vegetation Communities ...... 21 3.4.1.1 Primary Study Area ...... 21 3.4.1.2 Secondary Study Area ...... 21 3.4.1.3 Community Summary ...... 23 3.4.2 Flora ...... 23 3.4.3 Species at Risk ...... 23 3.4.4 Sensitivity/Significance ...... 23 3.5 WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ...... 29 3.5.1 Wildlife Habitat ...... 30 3.5.2 Fauna ...... 31 3.5.2.1 Birds ...... 34 3.5.3 Species at Risk ...... 42 3.5.4 Migratory Birds ...... 43 3.5.5 Sensitivity/Significance ...... 44 3.5.5.1 Primary Study Area ...... 44 3.5.5.2 Secondary Study Area ...... 44 3.6 DESIGNATED NATURAL AREAS ...... 47

4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 47 4.1 PROJECT COMPONENTS ...... 47

5.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ...... 49 5.1 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS...... 49 5.1.1 Infill and Dock Wall ...... 49 5.1.2 Construction Activities - Infill ...... 56 5.1.3 Construction Activities - Sheet Pile Installation ...... 57 5.1.4 Benthic Invertebrates ...... 59

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page ii

5.1.5 Operation Impacts – Fisheries...... 59 5.1.6 General Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices...... 59 5.1.7 Monitoring Pre-, During and Post-Construction Construction Monitoring ...... 61 5.2 VEGETATION AND VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ...... 62 5.2.1 Footprint Impacts ...... 62 5.2.2 Construction Impacts ...... 62 5.2.3 Operation Impacts ...... 62 5.3 WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ...... 62 5.3.1 Footprint Impacts ...... 62 5.3.2 Construction Impacts ...... 63 5.3.3 Operation Impacts ...... 63 5.4 DESIGNATED NATURAL AREAS ...... 63 5.3.1 Footprint Impacts ...... 63 5.3.2 Construction Impacts ...... 63 5.3.3 Operation Impacts ...... 63 5.3.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 63

6.0 REFERENCES ...... 64

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Key Plan of the Study Area...... 2 Figure 2. Goderich Harbour Bathymetry Mapping...... 7 Figure 3. Goderich Harbour Substrates Map...... 9 Figure 4. LGL Sampling Stations...... 11 Figure 5. Station locations for benthic sampling...... 19 Figure 6. Vegetation and Wildlife Communities ...... 22 Figure 7. Twin-Slip Option...... 48 Figure 8. Risk Assessment Matrix...... 52

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. MNR Sampling Data (2003, 2005, 2008 and 2009) ...... 4 Table 2. LGL Electrofishing ...... 12 Table 3. LGL Gill Netting Sets ...... 13 Table 4. LGL Electrofishing and Gill Netting Sampling Results ...... 14 Table 5. Summary of Ecological Land Classification Vegetation Communities ...... 24 Table 6. Floristic Quality Assessment ...... 28 Table 7. Wildlife Documented in the Study Area by LGL - 2009 and 2010 ...... 32 Table 8. Point Counts and Breeding Bird Evidence Documented in the Study Area by LGL Limited ...... 36 Table 9. Sensitivity/Significance – Areas 1 to 11 ...... 45 Table 10. Scale of Negative Effects ...... 51 Table 11. Sensitivity of Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 51 Table 12. Fish Habitat Areas Based on HAAT Model Criteria ...... 53

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Bathymetry Data Appendix B. Photographic Record From Fisheries Field Investigations – November 2009 Appendix C. Vascular Plant Checklist Appendix D. Acronyms and Definitions Used in Species List

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Goderich Port Management Corporation (GPMC) has initiated a study under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act to investigate the potential expansion of wharf facilities in Goderich Harbour, including improvements to North Harbour Road. Since the 1820’s Goderich has had an active harbour associated with salt, lumber and agricultural produce (InterVISTAS 2009). Until November 1999 the port of Goderich was administered by Public Works and Government Services Canada/Transport Canada as it was a federal port designated under Section 8 of the Canada Marine Act (1998 c.10). In 1999 federal authorities transferred ownership rights of the port to the Town of Goderich, and the Goderich Port Management Corporation (GPMC), a not-for-profit organization was formed. While the Town of Goderich owns the port, it is Goderich Port Management Corporation that assumes management responsibilities of the port facilities.

Harbour works in general, and wharf expansion specifically, are not projects subject to the provisions of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process. As such this project will be undertaken as an Individual Environmental Assessment under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act and will also require a federal environmental assessment as per Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Regulations. The Terms of Reference for the Individual EA were approved on February 16, 2011 by the Ontario Minister of the Environment. GPMC is the proponent acting as Agent on behalf of the Town of Goderich. GPMC is proceeding with the Individual Environmental Assessment in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference.

LGL Limited is providing environmental planning and natural sciences services to the Goderich Port Management Corporation on behalf of B.M. Ross and Associates Limited.

This report documents the results of the natural heritage investigation including a description of existing conditions within the study area. The report summarizes readily available background information and detailed, multi-season field investigations conducted by LGL from 2009 to 2011.

2.0 BACKGROUND AND STUDY AREA The proposed wharf expansion is multi-purposed and includes:  provision of additional loading/unloading space for ships;  provision of additional storage space for salt as well as other commodities; and,  wave protection as Goderich Harbour is located on the windward side of Lake Huron, and the inner harbour requires protection from wave action.

The Town of Goderich is located on the eastern shore of Lake Huron at the mouth of the Maitland River. For the purposes of this undertaking the study area has been divided into primary and secondary study areas. The primary study area is restricted to the inner and outer harbour areas identified for expanded wharf facilities and North Harbour Road, and will be the focus of the EA study. The secondary study area includes the mouth of the Maitland River and the lower Maitland River valley areas adjacent to the harbour and is not expected to be directly impacted by the proposed wharf expansion. Figure 1 depicts the primary and secondary study areas.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 2

FIGURE 1. KEY PLAN OF THE STUDY AREA.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 3

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The following discussion outlines the existing environmental conditions within the primary and secondary study areas related to natural heritage, including physiography and soils, aquatic habitat and communities, vegetation and vegetation communities, wildlife and wildlife habitat and designated natural areas.

3.1 Physiography and Soils A secondary source investigation was undertaken to identify physiographic features and soils within the overall study area.

The Wisconsin Icesheet, a massive formation, covered most of Southern Ontario approximately eighteen thousand years ago. During the extended period when the Wisconsin Icesheet was in its retreat phase, the ice sheet broke into several lobes. The Huron Lobe occupied the present day Lake Huron Basin. Five thousand years later, the melting edge of the Huron Lobe resulted in the formation of the Wyoming Moraine, a ridge of land parallel to the eastern shoreline of Lake Huron. The moraine is still visible today, approximately seven kilometres inland from the current shoreline. The melt water from the Huron Lobe formed a well-defined spillway heading south along the eastern edge of the Wyoming Moraine, before entering Glacial Lake Whittlesey, at the location of the present day Hensall. The Maitland River runs in this ancient spillway in a south-westerly direction from Auburn to Holmesville. At Holmesville, the river flows through an opening in an outlying section of the Wyoming Moraine, and turns north towards Benmiller. At Benmiller, the Maitland River follows a deeply incised valley cutting through the main moraine, and flows west to its mouth on the shore of Lake Huron at Goderich (LMSG, 2006).

The Town of Goderich is located in the Physiographic Region known as the Huron Fringe. This is a narrow strip of land between the Wyoming Moraine and the eastern shoreline of Lake Huron. The Huron Fringe extends from Sarnia to Tobermory and is characterized by a number of dominant landforms including spillways, till plains, kame moraines, beach ridges, sand dunes and shore cliffs.

Soil materials in Huron County fall into several broad categories ranging from coarse open till plains to organic soils. Soil materials in the Goderich area are in the grouping known as outwash plains (Hoffman et al., 1952). Soil associations in the study area are classified as Burford loam (grey-brown podzolic) and Bottomland soils (alluvial).

Burford loam soil developed on gravelly material derived primarily from dolomitic limestone and is well drained. Bottomland soils are associated with the Maitland River and shoreline of Lake Huron and are comprised of layers of silt, sand and clay intermixed with layers of organic matter (Hoffman et al. 1952).

Sensitivity/Significance Within the overall study area soils are well drained. In addition, the presence of a sensitive receiving watercourse, the Maitland River, and Lake Huron will necessitate the implementation of an erosion and sedimentation control strategy during construction.

3.2 Subsurface and Bedrock Geology

3.2.1 Subsurface Geology Based on a review of secondary sources, including borehole core data, subsurface conditions are either recent deposits of very loose to compact sandy deposits or glacial till or till-like interbedded deposits. The sandy deposits vary in thickness from 1.5 m to 2. 5 m and overlie very dense or hard soils at the western edge of the proposed wharf in the outer harbour. Occasional deposits of compact sand and gravel

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 4 were also found in this area of the outer harbour. At the eastern edge of the proposed wharf expansion the composition of recent deposits changes to loose to dense upper sand and gravel layers approximately 1.5 m to 3.0 m thick and occasionally overlain by thin layers of loose sand. The glacial till or till-like interbedded deposits consist typically of clayey silt till or sandy silt till with interbeds of sand and gravel encountered underneath the recent deposits. Secondary sources have identified the glacial till at Goderich Harbour to be extremely dense or hard even compared to other tills of known high density or hardness.

3.2.2 Bedrock Geology Based on a review of secondary sources, including bedrock borehole core data, bedrock in Goderich Harbour can be characterized into two principal rock types: sandy dolomite; and a fine-grained limestone (Golder 1984, 1985a, 1985b, 1985c, 1987). Borehole data suggests that the strata comprise thin limestone bands interbedded within a more extensive sandy dolomite. The bedrock surface appears to be uneven with distinct ridges and hollows, likely related to glacial ice directions. A seam of calcareous clay was encountered near the top of a limestone layer in one borehole (Golder 2012).

3.3 Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems A review of secondary source information was completed to characterize fish and fish habitat in the harbour area and the Maitland River mouth. The majority of the data was gathered from the Upper Great Lakes Management Unit – Lake Huron (UGLMU-LH) Office of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) as well as from the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA). The data received from the MNR was catch data from the Lake Unit’s annual netting program and contained data gathered within the harbour. This data summarizes results from 2003, 2005, 2008 and 2009. The species captured during this period represent a typical assemblage of warmwater and coolwater species expected along the Lake Huron shoreline. The results of the MNR sampling are provided below in Table 1.

TABLE 1. MNR SAMPLING DATA (2003, 2005, 2008 AND 2009) MNR MNR MNR MNR Common Name Scientific Name 2009 2008 2005 2003 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio X Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides X Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius X X Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus X CARPS and MINNOWS Cyprinid spp. X White Sucker Catostomus commersonii X X X X Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis X White Perch Morone americana X X White Bass Morone chrysops X Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris X X X Yellow Perch Perca flavescens X X X X Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides X Round Goby Neogobius melanostomus X X X X Other/Mixed Species X

The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for Construction of Breakwater Berming (Goderich Harbour) Environmental Study Report (2008) also provided background information with regards to habitat, bathymetry and general fish community information.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 5

3.3.1 Aquatic Habitat Communities The aquatic habitat and associated fish community of the Goderich Harbour and the surrounding area were assessed by LGL fisheries staff on four separate visits during 2009 and 2010. Field investigations focused on the Goderich Harbour area (specifically the “outer” harbour), the mouth of the Maitland River (1 km upstream from the end of breakwall), and approximately 1 km north and south of the harbour along the Lake Huron shoreline. Surveys were completed on: October 19 – October 22, 2009; November 3 and November 4 of 2009; May 17 - May 19 of 2010; and August 11 - August 13 of 2010. The aquatic habitat assessment was completed during the October 2009 visit, while the other three visits consisted of fish sampling.

The intent of the habitat assessment was to gain an understanding of the aquatic habitat conditions of the harbour and surrounding areas since no detailed secondary source information for aquatic habitat was available. The main parameters investigated included water depth, substrate, habitat structures and presence of aquatic macrophytes. Underwater video of the area adjacent to the northern-most breakwall was completed and analyzed to observe the underwater conditions.

A three-season fish sampling protocol was completed to determine the fish community present during three distinct time periods. Fish are known to complete different phases (i.e. juvenile, spawning, feeding, overwintering, etc.) of their life cycle in different locations, therefore it was our intent to determine which fish species use the harbour and surrounding area and at what period. Some distinct differences in the fish community were expected based on the diverse fishery of Lake Huron, proximity of the Maitland River and our understanding of these species and their habits.

Details related to the methods and results of the habitat assessment and fisheries sampling are provided below.

3.3.1.1 Aquatic Habitat Surveys The Goderich Harbour (“Inner” and “Outer”) aquatic habitat survey was completed between October 19 and October 22, 2009 by LGL fisheries staff. Weather conditions ranged from partly sunny and windy to overcast and calm. Initially, the wind was out of the southwest with an average speed of approximately 30 km/h and the surface conditions in the harbour were rough (October 19). A wind shift occurred to the northwest on October 20 and winds calmed from 15 km/h in the morning to 6 km/h by late afternoon. On October 21 the sky was overcast and the winds were relatively calm (<10 km/h) from the south. The morning of October 22 was overcast with a south wind of approximately 20 km/h. Air temperatures reached maximums of 13.8o C on October 19, 13.3o C on October 20, 16.4o C on October 21 and 14.9o C on October 22. The survey was completed using a 17 ft. Nitro LX17 boat with a 90 HP outboard motor.

The aquatic habitat investigation was completed using a sampling grid with 50 m intervals. A total of 214 sampling points were used to record water depth using a sonar unit. All depths were recorded in feet (the default setting on the depth recorder) and converted to metres. Substrate was recorded using a 6 inch (15.2 cm) Wildco petite ponar dredge at irregular intervals ranging from 100 m to 200 m at various water depth sampling locations. The substrate was characterized by the dominant particle size captured within the dredge. If several ponar grabs at a particular sampling point produced no substrate, it was assumed that the substrate was comprised of coarse materials such as bedrock, boulder or rubble. In shallower, nearshore areas the substrate was visible and was described accordingly.

The bathymetry for the harbour was generated using the Vertical Mapper module of MapInfo. This module extrapolates on the inputted field data to generate contour lines at the specified intervals. A Garmin GPSMap76 CSx handheld unit was used to locate each sample point in the field and to find the sample coordinates. All coordinates were recorded using the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) coordinate system. These points were then overlaid on an

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 6 orthorectified aerial photograph. Underwater video of the area adjacent to the northern-most breakwall was completed during the May 2010 visit. The sunny weather conditions and clear water made the underwater video possible. An underwater Seaviewer lens was used to record to a hand held video recorder in conjunction with a hand held GPS unit. The results were interpreted and used to adjust the substrate results from the ponar dredge sampling.

An aquatic habitat assessment of the mouth of the Maitland River, from the end of the riverwall separating the harbour and the River, to approximately 2 km upstream was completed during the November 2009 field investigation. The assessment was completed visually, by boat (in deeper areas) and by wading, and consisted of mapping aquatic habitat onto an air photo.

3.3.1.2 Fish Sampling Surveys Fish sampling in the harbour and in the mouth of the Maitland River was conducted between November 3 and November 4 of 2009, May 17 - 19 of 2010 and August 11 - 13 of 2010. Sampling was completed using the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 18 ft. (5.5 m) Night Heron II electrofishing boat with a crew of TRCA staff, LGL staff and on one occasion, a staff member from the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA). The surveys consisted of electrofishing runs during various times of the day to capture fish that were at or near the water surface. The effort undertaken was recorded in electro-seconds, which represents the time that the electric current was active. Fish were identified, processed and enumerated using the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) field collection record data sheets. A Licence to Collect Fish for Scientific Purposes was obtained from the MNR Owen Sound District office for the fish collections.

Gill netting using 100 ft. (30.5 m) long nets with four panels ranging from 1” – 5” (2.5 – 12.7 cm) mesh size were used in various areas to collect fish at or near the bottom. The gill netting was completed using a combination of short duration (2 - 3 hour) and longer-duration (overnight) sets.

3.3.1.3 Bathymetry Bathymetry in the harbour has been described as having a “relatively uniform nearshore slope” (generally ranging between 1:60 and 1:100)” (B.M. Ross 2006). The Class EA completed by B.M. Ross (2008) also stated that water depths ranged from “about 5.5 m to 10.0 m (at average water level conditions). Deeper water conditions are experienced within the channel entrance”.

Water depths recorded during the October 2009 field surveys ranged from 1.9 m (measured in the northeast corner of the outer harbour) to 10.2 m (measured at three locations just outside the outer harbour entrance channel). The deeper portions of the harbour are located in the main channel from the harbour entrance into the narrow channel separating the outer harbour from the inner harbour. Additional deep (8.0 - 9.0 m) sections are found along the outer harbour wharf, and the docking and turning basin areas of the inner harbour (Figure 2). From the deep areas within the outer harbour, water depth decreases progressively away from the channel toward the rubble-mound breakwater to the north and the beach area to the southeast. In the inner harbour, water depths are fairly uniform with the exception of the northeast corner, where water depths decrease and the southern ship docking area, which was deeper.

3.3.1.4 Substrate Historic substrate surveys in Goderich Harbour for which information is available concentrated on the areas surrounding the north and south breakwaters (B.M. Ross 2006; 2008), the south pier extension area and the north gap (the small open area between the north end of the north breakwater and the rubblemound breakwater; B.M. Ross 2006). Around the breakwaters, substrates consist of generally coarse materials (sand, gravel, cobble, boulders and concrete rubble), with some silt (B.M. Ross 2006; 2008). Substrates are similar in the vicinity of the south pier extension and consist of sand only in the north gap (B.M. Ross 2006).

LGL Limited environmental research associates L E G E N D

Champlain BLVD Primary Study Area

Secondary Study Area

") Bathymetry Sample Point

8 Water Depth (m)

Homan Inlet Marina RD Water Depth Contours L A K E 10 m 9 m H U R O N 8 m 7 m 6 m 5 m 4 m 3 m ") 2 m 5 ") Maitland River 1 m 3 ") ") 3 ") 2 ") 5 4 4 ") 1 ") ") ") ") ") ") ") 3 ") ") ") ") 7 ")2 7 ") ") ") 6 4 5 ") ") 4 2 ") 5 ") 5 ") ") ") ") ") 3 ") ") 9 1 ") ") ") 7 ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") 8 ") ") ") 9 ") 10 ") ") ") ") ") ")6 North Harbour RD ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") 8 ") ") 10 ") ") ") ") ") 5 ") 6 ") ") 4 ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") Goderich 8 ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") Harbour") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")9 ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") 9 ") ") ") ") ") ") 8 ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") 7 ") ") ") ") ") ") ") 6 ") ") ") ") ") ") ") 7 7 ") ") 8 ") ") ") Harbour QUAY ") ") ") ") ") ") ") 3 Data Sources: LGL Limited field surveys. ") ") Harbour ST ") ") ") 9 ") 8 ") ") ") ") ") 8 7 4 ") ") ") ") 5 5 ") ") 100 50 0 100 Metres ") St. Patrick ST 8 ") ") ´ ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") GODERICH HARBOUR ") ") West ST ") WHARF EXPANSION ") 4 ")3 FALL, 2009 ") HARBOUR BATHYMETRY Cobourg ST Lighthouse ST

Wellesley ST Québec ST

Wellington ST

CoveRD Elgin AVE Project: TA8047 Figure: 2

Date: May 2012 Prepared By: MWF

EssexST Picton ST Scale: 1 : 5500 Checked By: CJA

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 8

During the October 2009 field surveys, 29 of the 214 bathymetry stations were sampled for substrates. From this survey, three general bottom types are identified: boulder/rubble/ concrete; gravel/sand; and sand (Figure 3). The outer harbour substrates consist mainly of sand, with small amounts of silt or detritus mixed in. Small patches of gravel or sand/gravel/ cobble mixes are located in a few areas. In the vicinities of the riverwall and the north and south breakwaters, boulders, large cobble or rubble are either found to exist or assumed to exist in these areas. The assumption of the presence of large substrate types is based on the fact that the ponar dredge triggered on the bottom, but came up empty after several attempts for grab samples. This assumption is also consistent with historic sampling discussed above. The inner harbour substrates consist mainly of silt or a silt/sand mix. In some samples scattered throughout the outer harbour, Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) shells were collected in the samples. One small boulder was brought up with live Zebra Mussels attached. Zebra Mussel shells, however, do not make up a significant portion of any samples.

3.3.1.5 Maitland River The aquatic habitat of the Maitland River within the study area is diverse ranging from wide, shallow riffles to deep runs and large, pond-like sloughs. The main channel from the eastern-most edge of the study area to approximately 150 m downstream of the old railway bridge is wide and generally shallow, exhibiting a typical morphology of shallow riffles and deeper runs with few small, deep pools. Water depths in these areas ranged from 10 cm to 20 cm in riffles and 20 cm to 125 cm in runs. Channel widths are fairly consistent and are approximately 25 m to 30 m. Substrates are almost exclusively coarse with boulder and cobble dominating. Lesser amounts of gravel and sand are present in riffles and runs, and thin layers of silt are present along channel margins and in eddies. In one riffle area, substrates are mainly exposed bedrock. Riparian vegetation is mainly old field grasses with some small shrubs and trees. Banks are generally stable. Instream cover is provided mainly by boulders.

In the sloughs, which are larger to the north of the main channel, water flow is slow or not existent. These areas likely only receive significant flows during high water events. Although substrates in these areas are coarse, they are overlain by a layer of silt up to several centimeters thick. The width of the sloughs range from 2 m to 20 m and depths from a few centimeters to over 100 cm. Riparian vegetation is generally similar to that of the main channel, with the exception of isolated areas containing emergent species. Algae growth is abundant in the sloughs. Instream cover is provided by boulders and large and small woody debris.

Approximately 150 m downstream of the old railway bridge to the river mouth, the river widens and deepens. Water depths range from less than 50 cm to greater than 350 cm. This entire reach consists of run habitat. Substrates are similar to that found upstream (boulders, cobble, gravel, sand, silt). The north shore of the river in this area is formed by steep slopes which become steeper and progressively less vegetated from the bridge to the mouth. The south shore has been altered by humans and is armoured with boulders, rubble and armourstone. In one area, a vertical wall of sheet piles makes up the southern bank. Portions of the channel are dredged for boat access to two marinas located off the river.

Submerged aquatic vegetation is present in some areas, but grows sparsely. Instream cover is provided by boulders, rubble and armourstone.

LGL Limited environmental research associates L E G E N D

Champlain BLVD Primary Study Area

Secondary Study Area

") Substrate Sampling Location

Substrates

Homan Inlet Marina RD Boulder/Rubble/Concrete L A K E Gravel/Sand H U R O N Sand

silt, detritus, sand ") sand, some zebra mussel shells ") Maitland River sand ") sand, detritus ") sand ") sand, gravel ") mixed stone up to 15 cm ") sand, some zebra mussel shells ") sand ") sand, much detritus ") sand, boulder ") sand, detritus ") sand ") sand, detritus ") sand ") North Harbour RD sand, detritus, silt ") sand, detritus ") silt, sand ")

cobble ") small cobble, gravel, detritus ") sand, silt ") Goderich silt, some sand silt, some sand Harbour ") ")

unknown-likely boulder associated with breakwall ") sand ") sand Harbour QUAY ") Harbour ST Data Sources: LGL Limited field surveys.

sand, silt ")

100 50 0 100 Metres St. Patrick ST ´ unknown-likely boulder associated with breakwall ") sand, zebra mussel shells, silt, gravel ") GODERICH HARBOUR West ST WHARF EXPANSION FALL, 2009 HARBOUR SUBSTRATES Cobourg ST Lighthouse ST

Wellesley ST Québec ST

Wellington ST

CoveRD Elgin AVE Project: TA8047 Figure: 3

Date: May 2012 Prepared By: MWF

EssexST Picton ST Scale: 1 : 5500 Checked By: CJA Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 10

3.3.2 Fish Communities Fish sampling was completed by LGL staff on three occasions; November 3 - November 5, 2009; May 17 - May 19, 2010; and August 11 - August 13, 2010. Sampling was completed using a combination of methods including electrofishing and gill netting. See Figure 4 for LGL fish sampling locations. The date, location and duration of the electrofishing runs, and the gill netting activities are provided in Tables 2 and 3 respectively below. The results of the electrofishing and gill net sampling surveys are provided in Table 4 below.

In November 2009, sampling was completed by electrofishing and gill netting. Rough conditions at the time the TRCA electrofishing boat was contracted, prevented thorough electrofishing surveys in the harbour. However, four runs were completed in the mouth of the Maitland River due to more calm and sheltered conditions. A summary of the 2009 sampling is presented below:  Gill netting within the harbour and in areas of the mouth of the Maitland River were completed on November 3 and November 4. Seven short duration gill net sets were completed, two in the mouth of the Maitland River and five in the harbour;  Four electrofishing runs were completed mainly in the mouth of the Maitland River and resulted in the capture of several Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as well as one Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) which represent coldwater fish species; and,  Several species not previously recorded by the MNR were captured including three species of Redhorse (Moxostoma spp.), namely Black Redhorse. The remaining species consisted of typical warmwater and coolwater species.

In May 2010, fish sampling and underwater video was completed and consisted of:  Nine electrofishing runs, five in the mouth of the Maitland River and four in the harbour. Of the five electrofishing runs in the mouth of the Maitland River, one run was completed in the morning, three runs in the afternoon and one run in the evening. In the harbour, three runs were completed in the morning with one run in the evening;  Overnight and long duration gill netting took place at eight locations, with six of the sets within the harbour and two just outside of it; and,  Two underwater camera transects were completed along the riverwall between the harbour and the mouth of the Maitland River. Video of the harbour lakebed was taken to document the substrate and habitat conditions.

In August of 2010, the fish sampling program consisted of:  Four electrofishing runs all within the harbour and all completed in the morning; and,  Four overnight gill net sets completed within the harbour (one just outside the south breakwall).

LGL Limited environmental research associates L E G E N D

Champlain BLVD Primary Study Area

Secondary Study Area

Electrofishing Electrofishing Run Location

Homan Inlet Marina RD E1 Nov. 3 07:00 - 07:43 L A K E E2 Nov. 3 07:45 - 08:15 H U R O N E3 Nov. 3 09:45 - 10:12 E4 Nov. 3 17:30 - 18:00 Maitland River E3 Gill Netting Gill Net Location E4 G1 Nov. 3 11:45 - 14:15 G1 G2 Nov. 3 12:00 - 14:45 Nov. 4 10:05 - 12:30 G3 G3 Nov. 4 10:21 - 12:40 E1 G4 G2 G5 Nov. 4 11:00 - 13:20 Nov. 4 12:50 - 15:00 E2 G6 G7 Nov. 4 13:05 - 15:20 G4

North Harbour RD

Goderich Harbour

G6

Harbour QUAY G7 Harbour ST Data Sources: LGL Limited field surveys.

100 50 0 100 Metres G5 St. Patrick ST ´

GODERICH HARBOUR West ST WHARF EXPANSION FALL, 2009 SAMPLING LOCATIONS

Cobourg ST Vickers LANE Vickers Lighthouse ST

Québec ST

Wellesley ST

Wellington ST

CoveRD Elgin AVE Project: TA8047 Figure: 4

Date: May 2012 Prepared By: MWF

EssexST Picton ST Scale: 1 : 5500 Checked By: CJA Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 12

TABLE 2. LGL ELECTROFISHING

LGL Fish Sampling - Electrofishing Survey

Sampling Station # Date Seconds Start Time Approx. Location Easting Northing 1 3-Nov-09 2400 7:00 North shore of river mouth 441658 4844222 2 3-Nov-09 1650 7:45 South shore of river mouth 442042 4844200 3 4-Nov-09 1500 9:45 Throughout river mouth 442205 4844095 4 4-Nov-09 1600 17:30 Throughout river mouth 442210 4844372 1 19-May-10 1833 7:40AM East side of west breakwall 440623 4844000 2 19-May-10 777 8:32AM South side of north breakwall 441000 4844250 3 19-May-10 1584 9:00AM Outside of west and south breakwalls 441000 4844250 4 19-May-10 1089 9:42AM North side of north breakwall 441000 4844300 5 19-May-10 772 3:48PM North bank of Maitland R. mouth 441470 4844230 6 19-May-10 570 3:11PM South bank of Maitland R. mouth 441750 4844160 7 19-May-10 1559 4:23PM Mid-channel of Maitland R. mouth 441760 4844170 8 19-May-10 2485 8:54PM South side of north breakwall 440990 4844210 9 19-May-10 1152 9:50PM Lake Huron north of Maitland R. mouth 441080 4844500 1 12-Aug-10 2000 6:50AM Both sides of south breakwall 441020 4843590 2 12-Aug-10 1055 7:15AM East side of west breakwall 440620 4844000 3 12-Aug-10 1023 7:25AM West side of west breakwall 441000 4844250 4 12-Aug-10 3263 7:36AM South side of north breakwall 441000 4844250

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 13

TABLE 3. LGL GILL NETTING SETS LGL Fish Sampling - Netting Survey Station # Date Time Set Time Retrieved Easting Northing 1 3-Nov-09 11:45 14:15 441917 4844227 2 3-Nov-09 12:00 14:45 441753 4844145 3 4-Nov-09 10:05 12:30 441026 4844234 4 4-Nov-09 10:21 12:40 440840 4844089 5 4-Nov-09 11:00 13:20 441019 4843662 6 4-Nov-09 12:50 15:00 440817 4843839 7 4-Nov-09 13:05 15:20 441180 4843753 1 17-May-10 18:30 11:35 441055 4844169 2 17-May-10 18:40 10:10 440900 4844149 3 17-May-10 19:00 9:43 440718 4844020 4 17-May-10 19:15 9:35 441100 4844315 5 17-May-10 11:30 20:10 441121 4844138 6 17-May-10 11:45 20:00 440960 4843774 7 17-May-10 11:52 19:45 441008 4843562 8 17-May-10 12:00 19:30 440546 4844095 1 12-Aug-10 7:40 10:37 441280 4844130 2 12-Aug-10 7:50 11:07 440940 4844160 3 12-Aug-10 8:00 11:27 440690 4844000 4 12-Aug-10 8:15 11:44 440700 4843800

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 14

TABLE 4. LGL ELECTROFISHING AND GILL NETTING SAMPLING RESULTS Common Name Scientific Name LGL Nov. LGL Nov. LGL May LGL May LGL Aug. Status 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 Harbour Maitland Harbour Maitland Harbour Mouth Mouth Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum X Common Carp Cyprinus carpio X X X River Chub Nocomis micropogon X Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides X X X X Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius X X Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus X White Sucker Catostomus commersonii X X X X Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei X Regulated by ESA (COSEWIC - THR OMNR - THR) Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum X X X X Moxostoma X X X Shorthead Redhorse macrolepidotum Greater Redhorse Moxostoma valenciennesi X X X Redhorse Species Moxostoma spp. X Northern Pike Esox lucius X X X Rainbow Smelt Osmerus mordax X X Lake Whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis X Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss X X X Brook Silverside Labidesthes sicculus X Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus X Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus X White Perch Morone americana X X Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris X X X Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu X X X X Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides X Yellow Perch Perca flavescens X X X Walleye Sander vitreus X X

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 15

TABLE 4. LGL ELECTROFISHING AND GILL NETTING SAMPLING RESULTS Common Name Scientific Name LGL Nov. LGL Nov. LGL May LGL May LGL Aug. Status 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 Harbour Maitland Harbour Maitland Harbour Mouth Mouth Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens X Round Goby Neogobius melanostomus X X X COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada): END Endangered Endangered THR Threatened Threatened SC Special Concern Special Concern Provincial: S1 Extremely Rare Species at Risk Act – Schedules (1), (2), (3) S2 Very Rare Endangered Species Act S3 Rare to Uncommon Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act

S4 Common (P)

S5 Very Common (G)

SE Exotic (F) SU Unrankable, more data needed Species afforded habitat protection under S2? Ranking uncertain the Provincial Policy Statement of the Planning Act

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 16

3.3.2.1 Species Richness A total of 25 fish species were captured within the study area, 22 of which were sampled within the mouth of the Maitland River and 17 within the harbour area. This difference in species richness is to be expected, based on the diverse habitat conditions in the Maitland River mouth.

Of the 25 fish species captured, 14 were captured in both the harbour and the Maitland River mouth and are considered generalist species that are both prolific and widely dispersed within the Lake Huron basin. The 14 species are listed below:  Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio);  Emerald Shiner (Notropis atherinoides);  Spottail Shiner (Notropis hudsonius);  White Sucker (Catostomus commersonii);  Golden Redhorse (Moxostoma erythrurum);  Shorthead Redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum);  Greater Redhorse (Moxostoma valenciennesi);  Northern Pike (Esox lucius);  Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss);  Rock Bass (Ambloplites rupestris);  Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu);  Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens);  Walleye (Sander vitreus);and,  Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus).

Eight of the species were only captured within the Maitland River mouth during LGL sampling. Several of these species are typically found within riverine habitats or are attracted to the river mouth by several factors, including but not limited to: spawning areas at the mouth and further upstream; moderated thermal conditions; increased availability of forage; higher quality habitat; more abundant cover; and more diverse substrate and habitat availability. The species sampled at the mouth of the Maitland River include:  Quillback (Carpiodes cyprinus);  Black Redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei);  Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis);  Brook Silverside (Labidesthes sicculus);  Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus);  Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) ;  Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides); and,  Freshwater Drum (Aplodinotus grunniens).

Four of the 25 species were sampled only within the harbour area and are listed below. One of the species, River Chub, is typically not associated with lacustrine habitats and tends to be a riverine species. The other three species are typically found in both lacustrine and riverine habitats.  Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum);  River Chub (Nocomis micropogon);  Rainbow Smelt (Osmerus mordax); and,  White Perch (Morone americana).

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 17

The trends evident from this data indicate that the harbour supports less diversity than the Maitland River mouth and that the species found there are more indicative of the species found in Lake Huron throughout the year. This is opposed to the species diversity found in the Maitland River mouth which consists of resident and transient species, which exhibits a high degree of seasonality, therefore resulting in a greater number of species using that habitat. It can be concluded that the habitat of the harbour supports less species richness in comparison to the Maitland River mouth. This is most likely based on the homogenous habitat conditions in the harbour, whereas the river mouth contains more diversity in habitat and supports more seasonal fish species.

3.3.2.2 Seasonal Utilization of the Harbour and the Maitland River Mouth Five of the 25 species were sampled during all three seasons of sampling and include White Sucker, Golden Redhorse, Greater Redhorse, Smallmouth Bass and Round Goby. The Redhorse species are likely residents of the Maitland River mouth and likely complete the majority of their life cycle within a small area. The Round Goby is an abundant and aggressive non-native species originating from Eurasia which is typically found in all of the Great Lakes in great abundance. Smallmouth Bass are a common and abundant warmwater sportfish found in a wide variety of habitats with a particular affinity for mid-size to large riverine habitats with moderate flow velocities and rubble substrates.

Of the 25 species, 10 were sampled during two of the three season sampling, six of which were sampled in May and August (Common Carp, Shorthead Redhorse, Northern Pike, White Perch, Rock Bass and Walleye) and four sampled in November and May (Emerald Shiner, Rainbow Smelt, Rainbow Trout and Yellow Perch). No distinct trend is apparent with the fish sampled in May and August but there is a trend with the two of the fish species (Rainbow Smelt and Rainbow Trout) captured in November and May. These species are normally pelagic feeders in the summer that are attracted to river mouths in the spring for spawning purposes.

Seven of the species were sampled in November (Black Redhorse, Lake Whitefish, Brook Silverside, Pumpkinseed, Bluegill, Largemouth Bass and Spottail Shiner). Of these species, only Lake Whitefish was expected to be found only at this time as it uses nearshore and river mouth habitats to spawn in the fall. Three of the species (Quillback, Freshwater Drum and River Chub) were captured in May and one species (Gizzard Shad) was only captured in August. The time of capture of these species show no distinct trend.

3.3.3 Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species The Black Redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei) is a native sucker species which has been found at the mouth of the Maitland River as well as upstream, and is a federally and provincially Threatened species (COSEWIC/COSSARO) and is protected (species and habitat protection) by the Ontario Endangered Species Act, 2007.

This species has limited distribution in southwestern Ontario (only found in a few watersheds), which is the northern extent of its range in North America. Generally, the Black Redhorse inhabits pools and riffle areas of medium-sized streams with depths two metres or less. They prefer a moderate to fast current and a sandy/gravel bottom. Deeper pools are important as overwintering areas. The adults feed on crustaceans and aquatic insects, while the young feed on plankton. Spawning takes place in the spring at water temperatures between 15° and 21Ԩ, over a variety of substrates from fine gravel to large cobble in riffle areas of relatively fast water and. The eggs are non-adhesive. Adults mature at two and six years of age. This species spawning habitat requirements (fast velocities over gravel) make it vulnerable to decline.

Major risks identified by COSEWIC and MNR include habitat loss, and increases in sedimentation and turbidity in the rivers they inhabit. In Ontario, availability of suitable habitat, including breeding habitat, is the main limiting factor to the Black Redhorse. It requires clean, clear water and does not do well in rivers with high turbidity or pollution sources. Dams and other barriers that can limit fish movement are

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 18 also considered a threat. Dams also impact their populations by altering flows and creating barriers to upstream movement. Authorizations under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 are administered by the OMNR.

American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) has also been identified (Distribution of Fish Species at Risk – MVCA Map 1, May 2013) in the lower Maitland River and are listed federally (COSEWIC) as Special Concern, but American Eel is listed provincially (COSSARO) as Endangered, and as such is protected by the Endangered Species Act, 2007. American Eel is not native to Lake Huron or any of the Great Lakes upstream of Lake Ontario. American Eel is only present in Lake Huron due to the construction of the Welland Canal which allowed this species to migrate beyond Lake Ontario. As such, this species is not managed as a native species in this area and does not warrant consideration under the ESA (MNR).

3.3.4 Benthic Invertebrates LGL conducted field investigations to collect the baseline data required to characterize existing water and sediment quality, as well as the benthic invertebrate community within the study area. The baseline study was conducted in the harbour and nearshore area of Lake Huron in October 2011.

Investigations into water and sediment quality have been conducted historically in Goderich Harbour, the adjacent Maitland River and nearshore zones of Lake Huron for a variety of purposes, including: source water protection efforts; routine monitoring of surface water by provincial agencies; assessments by federal agencies regarding compliance of operators within the harbour; and, targeted investigations relating to harbour activities (such as periodic dredging). This background information was consulted to provide additional insight into existing conditions, and opportunity for comparison to water quality and sediment quality data collected in 2011 and provincial and federal objectives. The following reports and datasets were consulted for this purpose, the results of which are summarized below:  Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network data download website, Ministry of Environment (MOE), November 2011;  Water Quality on the Shores of Lake Huron Adjacent to the Saugeen, Maitland, and Bayfield River Mouths, Technical Memorandum, Ministry of Environment (MOE), November 2009;  Ausable Bayfield & Maitland Valley Source Protection Region – Watershed Characterization, Ausable Bayfield Maitland Valley Source Protection Committee, Luinstra et. al., January 2007;  Surface Water Vulnerability Analysis for Goderich Intake, Baird & Associates, August 2007; and,  Report on The Goderich Federal Harbour Environmental Audit Baseline Study, Phyper & Associates, June 1995.

A baseline field sampling program was conducted in late October 2011 within the primary study area of Goderich Harbour and at stations in Lake Huron within 1 km to the north and south of the harbour (Figure 5). Each of three stations within the inner harbour (IH-1 to IH-3), outer harbour (OH-1 to OH-3), nearshore to the north (NN-1 to NN-3) and nearshore to the south (NS-1 to NS-3) were sampled for benthic invertebrates, water and sediment.

Harbour benthos was targeted as the community for biological monitoring because organisms of this type are generally confined to their environment (in this case Goderich Harbour); and, are therefore continuously exposed to material flushed into the harbour, or produced within. At each of the 12 stations displayed in Figure 5, a petite Ponar dredge was deployed from a vessel to collect a grab sample of sediment for analysis of benthic macroinvertebrates. The dredge was emptied into a bucket with a 500µm mesh screen on the bottom, and sieved using lake water to remove fine materials from the sample. Samples were then washed into a labelled sample jar and fixed with 10% formalin.

LGL Limited environmental research associates NN-3 L E G E N D !( Primary Study Area

Secondary Study Area !( LGL Station

Iroquois LANE

Cherokee LANE Algonquin LANE Champlain BLVD

NN-2 Seminole LANE !(

Mill RD

NN-1 !(

Magnolia CRES

Bluewater HWY

L A K E Homan Inlet Marina RD

H U R O N Gloucester ST

Montcalm ST Maitland River

Napier ST North Harbour RDGloucester TERR Wolfe ST OH-1 !( Anglesea ST OH-2 !( Caledonia TERR Trafalgar ST Goderich IH-3 St. Vincent ST Harbour !( Bruce ST IH-1 IH-2

!( !( Albert ST Albert

North ST OH-3 Nelson ST

!( Cambria RD Harbour QUAY Colborne ST Data Sources: LGL Limited field surveys. Arthur ST Harbour ST Brock ST

St. Patrick ST Hamilton ST Newgate ST Victoria ST Victoria 200 100 0 200 Metres ´ West ST East ST

Cobourg ST St. David ST Lighthouse ST Kingston ST Vickers LANE Vickers GODERICH HARBOUR NS-1 !( Québec ST Park ST WHARF EXPANSION Montreal ST LGL STATION LOCATIONS FOR

SouthST

Elgin AVE Wellington ST Waterloo ST Waterloo WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES Toronto ST

CoveRD Picton ST Cambridge ST

Britannia RD Huron RD

EssexST Mary ST

WidderST Cameron ST Cameron Cayley ST NS-2 Raglan ST

!( ST Eldon Keays ST Keays

WilsonST

Hincks ST Hincks

Gibbons ST Gibbons

Warren ST Warren Bayfield RD Bayfield

McdonaldST Jones ST

PalmerstonST

Project: TA8047 Figure: 5 Elizabeth ST Elizabeth Strang CRT Strang Date: May 2012 Prepared By: MWF

NS-3 1 : 11,000 CJA !( Scale: Checked By:

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 20

Benthic samples were delivered to Zaranko Environmental Assessment Services (ZEAS) for picking and sorting. Sample organisms were identified by ZEAS to the lowest practical taxonomic level.

Although an attempt was made to collect benthic samples in the nearshore area of Lake Huron for comparison to the harbour community, benthic sediment was not available at most lake stations. Benthic data was collected from a total of six sample sites (NN-3, OH-1, OH-2, OH-3, IH-2, and IH-3).

Benthic community data was analysed to characterize the community in terms of species composition and to provide measures of biodiversity and evenness. A large number of immature worms were documented overall. Because these individuals cannot be identified beyond the family level, these organisms were included in total numbers documented, but only determined to be a ‘taxa’ when otherwise not represented in a sample. These individuals were not included in genus level metric calculations.

The benthos communities documented in samples collected from the inner and outer harbour in Goderich were dominated by tubificid worms (5 species, and a high proportion of immatures), and chironomids (7 species of Chiromominae and 1 species of Tanypodinae). One other taxa was collected in small numbers at one station (IH-2); namely Dubiraphia, a species of beetle larva.

Harbour stations contained between 5 and 7 genera, contained from 210 to 2,336 organisms per sample, and, with the exception of station IH-3, had similar measures of diversity.

3.3.5 Sensitivity/Significance

3.3.5.1 Fish Community Goderich Harbour supports a fish community that partially reflects a typical fish community found along the Lake Huron shoreline, as well as the fish community resident to, or seasonal to the Maitland River mouth. This is due mainly to the proximity of the Maitland River to the harbour and does not reflect any similarity in habitat or other factors, as the two areas are distinctly different. The habitat within the harbour is generally homogenous with a near featureless bottom, and substrates consisting mainly of sand. The river mouth supports high quality habitat based on the diversity of conditions and habitat found there. The Maitland River provides an important function to Lake Huron by providing spawning habitat for several species during different times of the year as well as supporting a high diversity of resident fish species. The fish species within the harbour reflect a warmwater/coolwater fish community that is abundant and typical of relatively shallow shorelines in Lake Huron. None of the species sampled by LGL are rare or at risk.

The Maitland River receives seasonal runs of migratory salmonids including Rainbow Trout/Steelhead (Oncorhyncus mykiss), Chinook Salmon (Oncorhyncus tshawytscha), Coho Salmon (Oncorhyncus kisutch), Pink Salmon (Oncorhyncus gorbuscha) and Brown Trout (Salmo trutta), as well as migratory Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieui). Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) may also stage at the mouth of the River and along the Lake Huron shoreline. With the exception of Smallmouth Bass and Lake Trout, all of the species listed above are non-native. Despite this the MNR classifies them as coldwater species that are considered highly sensitive to disturbance, and as such are afforded a high degree of protection.

Black Redhorse was captured in the Maitland River mouth during the November 2009 sampling, but was not sampled again in the subsequent two surveys. As such, we conclude that this species is found only within the Maitland River proper and that the Goderich Harbour does not support this species or its habitat. However, the presence of this species places a high degree of protection within the Maitland River within the study area.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 21

3.3.5.2 Benthic Community Goderich Harbour is a sheltered area, generally composed of depositional substrate providing habitat for burrowing species and more delicate surface dwellers suited to fine-grained sediments. In contrast, the nearshore zones of Lake Huron are exposed to high energy wave action and longshore currents that result in shifting sand substrates and exposed bedrock. These nearshore conditions provide limited habitat in the form of interstitial spaces within sandy substrate, typically occupied by oligochaetes and chironomids; and, hard substrates suited to a few tough species.

In general, the benthos collected in the harbour reflects that of a tolerant depositional community, typical of this type of environment. The species documented within the harbour are not indicative of a particularly sensitive community; and, as such, not expected to be greatly impacted by minor disturbances. Benthos community structure and chemical analysis of harbour sediments does not indicate a presence of impaired sediment quality that would raise concerns with regard to the entrainment of contaminants resulting from the disturbance of sediments during harbour works.

3.4 Vegetation and Vegetation Communities The geographical extent, composition, structure and function of vegetation communities were identified through air photo interpretation and field investigations. Air photos were interpreted to determine the limits and characteristics of vegetation communities. A field investigation of natural/semi-natural vegetation was conducted within the study area by LGL Limited on September 28 to October 2, 2009, May 18 to May 20 and July 19 to July 21, 2010 .

Vegetation communities were classified according to the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application (Lee et al. 1998). The community was sampled using a plotless method for the purpose of determining general composition and structure of the vegetation. Plant species status was reviewed for Ontario (Oldham 1999). Vascular plant nomenclature follows FOIBIS (Newmaster 2005).

3.4.1 Vegetation Communities The geographical extent, composition, structure and function of the vegetation communities were identified through air photo interpretation and field investigations. Air photos were interpreted to determine the limits and characteristics of the vegetation communities identified. Three separate field investigations were carried out to investigate the vegetation communities within the study area. These were conducted from September 28 to October 2, 2009, May 18 to May 20 and July 19 to July 21, 2010 to ground truth the boundaries of the vegetation communities and to conduct fall, spring and summer vegetation surveys.

The vegetation communities were classified according to the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application (Lee et al. 1998). A plant list and a description of the general structure of vegetation were obtained during the field survey. Vascular plant nomenclature follows FOIBIS (Newmaster (2005), with a few exceptions.

3.4.1.1 Primary Study Area The primary study area is comprised of the inner and outer harbours, a portion of Lake Huron, a portion of North Harbour Road and the Sifto Canada Corp mine site. Several vegetation communities were identified within the primary study site and these are presented in Figure 6.

3.4.1.2 Secondary Study Area The Maitland River bisects the central portion of the secondary study area from west to east. Natural features within the study area have been influenced by the presence of Maitland River and its valleylands.

LGL Limited environmental research associates L E G E N D

Primary Study Area

Secondary Study Area

Mill RD «[ Breeding Bird Point Count Survey Location «[22 Maitland River 1 - 22 Breeding Bird Point Count Survey Identifier 20 «[ 1 - 11 Wildlife Observation Area Identifier CUM1-1e/MAM2 CUM1-1b/MAM Vegetation Communities Magnolia CRES Vegetation Community Boundary L A K E 21 «[ BLS1 Mineral Shrub Bluff Ecosite H U R O N Champlain BLVD CUM1-1 (a-f) Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow Type CUT1 (a-c) Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite 10 CUW1 (a-e) Mineral Cultural Woodland Ecosite FOC4-1 Fresh-Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest Type CUT1c FOD5-3 (a,b) Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple-Oak Deciduous Forest Type Bluewater HWY FOD7-2 (a,f) Fresh-Moist Ash Lowland Deciduous Forest Type Fresh-Moist Black Walnut Lowland Deciduous Forest Type Homan Inlet Marina RD 19 FOD7-4 (a,b) FOD5-3a«[ M Manicured MAM Meadow Marsh CUW1e «[15 MAM2 Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite CUM1-1e/MAM2 CUT1c 9 FOD7-2e CUM1-1d/M 8 FOD5-3b 18 «[ «[ Gloucester ST CUT1a CUW1a M 16 CUW1c 17 FOC4-1 CUM1-1c/MAM2 CUW1e CUM1-1f/M«[ «[ BLS1 FOD7-2d CUW1a Montcalm ST M 1 M «[ «[7 M 5 8 Napier ST 6 FOD7-4b Wolfe ST 2 «[ M «[ M 5 M [ M CUW1a 6 « M Anglesea ST Goderich 3 «[ M North Harbour RD 4 Harbour M Caledonia TERR Trafalgar ST 4 CUT1b«[ St. Vincent ST

M Bruce ST 14 FOD7-2f «[ 7

North ST

Nelson ST Cambria RD 2 «[11 Data Sources: LGL Limited field surveys. Harbour QUAY 11 Colborne ST FOD7-4a 3 Harbour ST Brock ST

ChurchST M M Arthur ST 100 50 0 100 Metres 9 M 10 Hamilton ST ´ «[ St. Patrick ST «[ M Newgate ST M M 1 CUW1b M M M M M M M M West ST East ST M M FOD7-2c GODERICH HARBOUR M WHARF EXPANSION CUW1d M M M St. David ST FALL, 2009

Vickers LANE Vickers Lighthouse ST Kingston ST ELC COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE

FOD7-2b Wellington ST

Cobourg ST 13 12 «[ Québec ST Park ST

«[ CUM1-1a Montreal ST ST Victoria

Market ST

FOD7-2a Wellesley ST StanleyST Waterloo ST Waterloo Elgin AVE Toronto ST

CoveRD Picton ST

South ST

Britannia RD Project: TA8047 Figure: 6

EssexST

Date: May 2012 Prepared By: MWF Eldon ST Eldon

WilsonST Keays ST Keays

Widder ST

Warren ST Warren

Gibbons ST Gibbons Bayfield RD Bayfield Cameron ST Cameron

Mcdonald ST Mcdonald 1 : 8000 DTS Elizabeth ST Scale: Checked By: PalmerstonST

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 23

The Harbour and Marine Museum trail systems are located within the secondary study area and several of these paths bisect forested areas identified in the study area. As a result of anthropogenic activities like recreational fishing, several ad hoc paths were noted, as well, portions of meadow habitat within the floodplain are heavily trampled. Numerous vegetation communities are identified within the secondary study area, and are presented in Figure 6.

3.4.1.3 Community Summary Vegetation communities within the secondary study area consist of a mixture of forest and cultural communities. The forests in the study area are located in areas of floodplain, on the valley slopes associated with the Maitland River, and along the river’s edge. Most of the vegetation communities within the study area are of good quality.

A total of ten ELC communities have been identified by LGL Limited within the secondary study limits. These communities include: shrub bluff (BLS1); coniferous forest (FOC4-1); deciduous forest (FOD5-3, FOD5-4, FOD7-2, and FOD7-4); cultural meadow (CUM1-1); cultural meadow/meadow marsh (CUM1- 1/MAM2); cultural thicket (CUT1) and, cultural woodland (CUW1).

The cultural meadow/marsh meadow communities (CUM1-1/MAM2 b, c and e) all contain a wider variety of plant species that range in affinity from facultative wetland to facultative upland (plants that can tolerate periodic flooding and prolonged dry periods). The average coefficient of wetness for each of the three communities listed above is 0.87, 0.60 and -0.19, respectively. Though all of these plant communities have values of 0 or greater, indicative of more upland type plant communities, the location of these communities along the river’s edge where erosion and flooding regularly occur - creates more extreme conditions. Typically, plants that populate such areas are disturbance tolerant upland species that are somewhat tolerant of prolonged flooding.

All of the vegetation communities identified within the secondary study area are considered widespread and common in Ontario and secure globally. These communities are presented in Figure 6 above, and are described in Table 5.

3.4.2 Flora A total of 264 vascular plant taxa have been recorded within the secondary study area by LGL Limited. Fifteen of these plants could only be identified to genus and are not included in the following calculations. A total of 156 (60%) plant species identified are native to Ontario and 103 (40%) plant species are considered introduced and non-native to Ontario. A working vascular plant list is presented in Appendix C.

3.4.3 Species at Risk During LGL’s botanical investigation, Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis) and Butternut (Juglans cinerea) were identified. These two species are located beyond the zone of influence of the wharf expansion; therefore, impacts to these species are not anticipated.

3.4.4 Sensitivity/Significance The study area is dominated by forest communities that provide slope stability within the valleylands, along the mouth of the Maitland River. These forested areas provide habitat for a variety of plant species. There are also several cultural meadow/marsh meadow communities that help to stabilize the areas along the edges of the river where erosion and/or deposition of unconsolidated material occurs as a result of the scouring action from the Maitland River.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 24

TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ELC Code Vegetation Type Species Association Comments Terrestrial-Natural/Semi-natural BL Bluff BLS1 Mineral Shrub Bluff Canopy: includes eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), Active, steep exposures of unconsolidated mineral common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), and American elm material (BL). (Ulmus americana). Shrub (S). Understorey: none. Mineral substrate (1). Ground Cover: includes low sweet blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium), common juniper (Juniperus communis), brown Vegetation cover varies from patchy and barren to knapweed (Centaurea jacea), wild carrot (Daucus carota), continuous herbaceous or shrub cover. wild basil (Clinopodium vulgare), and riverbank grape (Vitis Tree invasion restricted by erosion-related riparia). disturbances. FOC CONIFEROUS FOREST FOC4-1 Fresh – Moist White Canopy: includes eastern white cedar. Tree cover > 60 % (FO). Cedar Coniferous Understorey: includes eastern white cedar, chokecherry Coniferous trees > 75 % of canopy cover (C). Forest (Prunus virginiana), and low sweet blueberry. White cedar dominates with other associate Ground Cover: includes riverbank grape, one-sided aster species (4). (Symphyotrichum lateriflorum var. lateriflorum), and sedge (Carex sp.). Dominated entirely by white cedar (-1). Moderately well to poorly drained soil on middle to lower slopes. FOD DECIDOUS FOREST FOD5-3 Dry – Fresh Sugar Canopy: includes sugar maple (Acer saccharum var. Tree cover > 60 % (FO). (a and b) Maple – Oak saccharum), red ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Norway maple Deciduous trees > 75 % of canopy cover (D). Deciduous Forest (Acer platanoides), basswood (Tilia americana), and eastern Sugar Maple a dominant component (5). white cedar. Understorey: includes sugar maple, red ash, American elm, Oak abundant (-3). Norway maple, basswood, ironwood (Ostrya virginiana), Shallow soils over bedrock, rock, sands and loams chokecherry, and alternate-leaved dogwood (Cornus (Dry – Fresh). alternifolia). Ground Cover: includes herb-robert (Geranium robertianum), violets (Viola sp.), periwinkle (Vinca minor), western poison ivy (Toxicodendron rydbergii), false Solomon’s seal (Maianthemum racemosum ssp. racemosum), and blue-stem goldenrod (Solidago caesia).

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 25

TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ELC Code Vegetation Type Species Association Comments FOD5-4 Dry – Fresh Sugar Canopy: includes sugar maple, red ash, basswood, yellow Tree cover > 60 % (FO). Maple – Ironwood birch (Betula alleghaniensis), ironwood, black walnut (Juglans Deciduous trees > 75 % of canopy cover (D). Deciduous Forest nigra) and silver birch (Populus alba). Sugar Maple a dominant component (5). Understorey: includes sugar maple, red ash, ironwood, common buckthorn, chokecherry, alternate-leaved dogwood Ironwood abundant (-4). and staghorn sumac (Rhus hirta). Shallow soils over bedrock, rock, sands and loams Ground Cover: includes red ash, American mountain-ash (Dry – Fresh). (Sorbus americana), chokecherry, blue-stem goldenrod, false Solomon’s seal, garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), and yellow avens (Geum aleppicum). FOD7-2 Moist Ash Lowland Canopy: includes red ash, black locust (Robinia pseudo- Tree cover > 60 % (FO). (a to f) Deciduous Forest acacia), black walnut, bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), Deciduous trees > 75 % of canopy cover (D). horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), Norway maple, Lowland deciduous forest (7). scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris), eastern white cedar and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides). Red ash dominates (-2). Understorey: includes red ash, scotch pine, black locust, Coarse and fine loams and occasionally sands and chokecherry, eastern white cedar, common buckthorn, clays; all sands have finer silt and clay American elm, Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii ), and components. Norway maple. Ground Cover: includes yellow avens, giant goldenrod (Solidago gigantea), alternate-leaved dogwood, riverbank grape, chokecherry, orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), one- sided aster, and variable crown-vetch (Coronilla varia). FOD7-4 Fresh – Moist Black Canopy: includes black walnut, pignut hickory, black locust, Tree cover > 60 % (FO). (a to d) Walnut Lowland Norway maple, red oak, red ash, and yellow birch. Deciduous trees > 75 % of canopy cover (D). Deciduous Forest Understorey: includes black walnut, pignut hickory, red ash, Lowland deciduous forest (7). Manitoba maple (Acer negundo), common buckthorn, alternate-leaved dogwood and trembling aspen. Black walnut dominates (-4). Ground Cover: includes herb-robert, yellow avens, creeping Coarse and fine loams and occasionally sands and Charlie (Glechoma hederacea), New England aster clays; all sands have finer silt and clay (Symphyotrichum novae-angliae), one-sided aster and tufted components. vetch (Vicia cracca).

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 26

TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ELC Code Vegetation Type Species Association Comments Terrestrial-Cultural/Wetland CUM/MAM CULTURAL MEADOW/MINERAL MEADOW MARSH CUM1-1/ Dry – Moist Old Field Canopy: includes trembling aspen, eastern white cedar, and Cultural communities (CU)/Marsh (MA). MAM2 Meadow/Mineral willows (Salix sp.), red raspberry (Rubus idaeus ssp. idaeus). Tree cover and shrub cover < 25 % (M)/Meadow (b, c and e) Meadow Marsh Understorey: none. Marsh (M). Ground Cover: includes reed canary grass (Phalaris Mineral Cultural Meadow (1)/Mineral Meadow arundinacea), glandular touch-me-not (Impatiens Marsh (2). glandulifera), spotted joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium maculatum var. maculatum), Pensylvania smartweed (Polygonum This community can occur on a wide range of soil pensylvanicum), European stinging nettle (Urtica dioica ssp. moisture regimes (Dry-Moist) (-1). dioica), goldenrods (Solidago sp.), asters (Symphyotrichum), Pioneer community resulting from, or maintained wild teasal (Dipsacus fullonum ssp. sylvestris), tufted vetch, by, anthropogenic-based influences. brown knapweed (Centaurea jacea) and wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa). Terrestrial-Cultural CUM CULTURAL MEADOW CUM1-1 Dry – Moist Old Field Canopy: includes Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), Cultural communities (CU). (a, d and f) Meadow eastern white cedar, and silver birch. Tree cover and shrub cover < 25 % (M). Understorey: none. Mineral Cultural Meadow (1). Ground Cover: includes reed canary grass, awnless brome (Bromus inermis ssp. inermis), glandular touch-me-not, This community can occur on a wide range of soil European stinging nettle, goldenrods, asters, wild teasal, tufted moisture regimes (Dry-Moist) (-1). vetch, brown knapweed and Timothy (Phleum pratense). Pioneer community resulting from, or maintained by, anthropogenic-based influences. CUT CULTURAL THICKET CUT1 Mineral Cultural Canopy: includes alternative-leaved dogwood, slippery elm Cultural community (CU). ( a to c) Thicket (Ulmus rubra), common buckthorn and trembling aspen. Tree cover <25 %; shrub cover >25% (T). Understory: includes alternate-leaved dogwood, black This community can occur on a wide range of soil walnut, common buckthorn, trembling aspen, tartarian moisture regimes (Dry-Moist) (-1). honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), eastern white cedar and sugar Pioneer community resulting from, or maintained maple. by, anthropogenic-based influences. Ground Cover: includes field horsetail (Equisetum arvense), yellow avens, riverbank grape, herb-robert, asters, wild carrot, garlic mustard and Kentucky bluegrass.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 27

TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ELC Code Vegetation Type Species Association Comments CUW CULTURAL WOODLAND CUW1 Mineral Cultural Canopy: includes eastern white cedar, Norway maple, large- Cultural community (CU). (a to e) Woodland tooth aspen (Populus grandidentata), red ash, black walnut and 35% < tree cover < 60% (W). black locust. Mineral Cultural Woodland (1). Understorey: includes common buckthorn, Manitoba maple, riverbank grape, American elm, sugar maple, tartarian This community can occur on a wide range of soil honeysuckle, common buckthorn and white mulberry (Morus moisture regimes (Dry-Moist) (-1). alba). Pioneer community resulting from, or maintained Ground Cover: includes reed canary grass, orchard grass, by, anthropogenic-based influences. awnless brome, goldenrods, asters, strawberry (Fragaria virginiana ssp. virginiana), and Timothy. OTHER* HEDGEROW Hedgerow (H) Hedgerow Areas where large expanses of grass/shrubs/trees are maintained and/or planted. Planted trees/shrubs: includes eastern white cedar. Manicured Manicured Areas where large expanses of grass/shrubs/trees are (M) grasses/shrubs/trees maintained and/or planted. Planted trees/shrubs: Norway maple, eastern white cedar, pine trees (Pinus sp.), and spruce trees (Picea sp.).

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion t Natural Heritage Report Page 28

In order to provide a quantitative evaluation of the plant communities within the study area, a Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) was generated. The floristic analysis was conducted on broad categories of plant communities based on their Ecosite classification (Lee et al. 1998). The Floristic Quality Index (FQI) and Native Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (Native Mean C) that make up the FQA, provide a comparison of vegetation quality of natural areas (Oldham et al. 1995). The FQI is derived, in part, from the assignment of a number between 1 and 10 for each native plant according to its habitat requirements (the Coefficient of Conservatism). Individual plants found in a diversity of habitats have low scores (1), and those plants found in only a few habitats or highly specialized habitats have high scores (10). The scores for all plants within a community are summed and averaged to obtain the Native Mean C and divided by the square root of the number of species to obtain the FQI. Therefore, natural areas with a high diversity of sensitive plant species will have higher FQI and Native Mean C values; this is an indication of habitat quality.

Table 6 shows the results of the FQI for the plant communities identified during LGL’s botanical survey. Vegetation communities with the highest FQI and Native Mean C are considered to be communities with moderate to high plant diversity or contain plants with moderate to high sensitivity. The vegetation communities with the highest values are indicated in bold type. The forested and woodland communities and one cultural meadow and thicket community have the highest FQI and Native Mean C values (FOD5- 3a, FOD7-2a, FOD7-2a to e, FOD7-4 a and b, CUW1 a to c, CUM1-1b/MAM2, CUT1b). These communities contain more specialized plant species that generally require decreased light levels and increased soil moisture conditions. Overall, these vegetation communities have experienced less disturbance levels. This is especially evident in the Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple Oak Deciduous Forest (FOD5-3) which contains a red oak (Quercus rubra) tree that is over 220 years old with a height of approximately 30 m and a diameter of approximately 3 m.

TABLE 6. FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT Native Plants Native Ecosite Mean %Native FQI Native Exotic Unknown Total C BLS1 14 4 1 19 13.36 3.57 86 CUM1-1a 10 17 - 27 10.75 3.40 37 CUM1-1b/MAM2 40 33 3 76 19.62 3.10 52 CUM1-1c/MAM2 22 22 - 44 12.37 2.64 50 CUM1-1d 17 15 1 33 10.43 2.53 52 CUM1-1e/MAM2 18 19 1 38 12.73 3.00 47 CUM1-1f/M 17 28 2 47 9.70 2.35 36 CUT1a 12 7 4 23 9.24 2.67 52 CUT1b 29 16 2 47 21.35 3.97 61 CUT1c 25 27 1 53 13.73 2.69 47 CUW1a 45 29 3 77 24.60 3.67 58 CUW1b 37 34 4 75 22.69 3.73 49 CUW1c 37 21 3 61 20.44 3.36 61 CUW1d 24 15 2 41 18.37 3.75 59 CUW1e 20 15 - 35 14.98 3.35 57 FOC4-1 6 1 1 8 7.76 3.17 75 FOD5-3a 48 23 3 74 29.33 4.23 65 FOD5-3b 11 6 1 18 13.27 4.00 61 FOD5-4 16 11 1 28 15.50 3.88 57

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion t Natural Heritage Report Page 29

TABLE 6. FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT Native Plants Native Ecosite Mean %Native FQI Native Exotic Unknown Total C FOD7-2a 43 21 5 69 26.23 4.00 62 FOD7-2b 38 19 - 57 25.47 4.13 67 FOD7-2c 46 32 5 83 24.77 3.65 55 FOD7-2d 43 30 5 78 24.40 3.70 55 FOD7-2e 27 8 2 37 22.71 4.37 73 FOD7-2f 20 9 3 32 19.50 4.35 63 FOD7-4a 47 36 1 84 23.00 3.31 56 FOD7-4b 50 42 3 95 24.10 3.41 53 FOD7-4c 23 10 2 35 15.85 3.30 66 FOD7-4d 18 11 1 30 16.03 3.78 60

3.5 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Data Collection The geographical extent, composition, structure and function of wildlife habitat and wildlife occupation in the study area was identified through air photo interpretation and field investigations. Existing information on wildlife species previously found within the study area came from various sources. The Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary Database (MNR 2011) and the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC 2011) provided amphibian and reptile records, locations and conservations status. The Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (Cadman et al. 2007) program provided up-to-date lists of birds breeding within the study area. The Conservation Priorities for the Birds of Southern Ontario (Couturier 1999) provided lists of migratory bird species in Huron County designated as species for conservation concern and also ranked bird species highly sensitive to disturbances of their breeding habitats. The Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario (Dobbyn 1994) provided occurrence data for species found in Huron County. More specific information about wildlife previously documented within the vicinity of the study area was found in a document prepared by the Lower Maitland Stewardship Group (LMSG 2000). Communications with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources provided information on species at risk in the vicinity of the study area.

Wildlife habitat was delineated on air photos and refined through ground-truthing. The Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system was used to describe wildlife habitat, where appropriate. The methods described in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNR 2000) were used to establish the significance of wildlife habitat.

Methods and seasonal timing of surveys used to collect in-field information were tailored to each vertebrate class (i.e., herpetofauna, birds and mammals). Data was largely collected by a single biologist, using aerial photo maps, a GPS unit, binoculars, camera, and field notebook. Field investigations were conducted on: September 20-October 2, 2009; October 20-22, 2009; June 17-18, 2010; July 5, 2010; and, July 8-9, 2010.

During LGL’s 2009 field investigations, eleven (11) locations were selected within the overall study area to observe wildlife presence (Figure 6, see page 22). Nine of the habitats studied were within the aquatic environment of the Maitland River and Goderich Harbour (Lake Huron), while the remaining two habitats were terrestrial sites. These particular locations were selected because they represented a variety of habitats. Each area was surveyed from late morning to late afternoon each day. Incidental observations

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion t Natural Heritage Report Page 30 were also made within the primary study area during site visits conducted by LGL field staff on October 20 to 22, and November 3 to 5, 2009. A general description of each of the areas is included in Section 2.5.1. As outlined in Figure 6, Areas 2 through 7 were associated with the primary study area, while Area 1 and Areas 8 through 11 were located within the secondary study area.

Herpetofaunal Surveys Herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians) were inventoried using the Visual Encounter Survey (VES) Method (Heyer et al. 1997). Data was collected by simply searching for animals in a likely habitat at a likely time. Reptile investigations started in late spring and early summer after egress from hibernation. Following the VES methodology, early morning searches for herpetofauna were conducted in suitable habitats. From mid to late morning, snakes were searched for by inspecting rocks, logs and asphalt pathways that may be used for thermoregulation areas. Turtles were searched for by investigating their potential habitats, such as the Maitland River and associated aquatic habitats, and observing them basking on logs during late mornings, swimming in search of food or crossing over roads and pathways.

Amphibian surveys were conducted in the spring and early summer season, using the VES method in suitable habitats. Daytime searches of aquatic habitat identified as potential amphibian breeding areas were also made. After the breeding season, wetlands were searched for amphibian egg masses and/or tadpoles to identify any frog or toad species found in these locations.

Bird Surveys In 2010, a breeding bird survey was conducted according to the Bird Studies Canada (BSC) protocol, within the breeding season of May to July. A total of 21 point count stations were surveyed within the study area on June 17th and 18th, and July 8th and 9th, beginning at dawn and ending within five hours of daybreak. According to the protocol, point count surveys involved documenting the bird species observed or heard within a five minute period at predetermined stations. Territorial songs, along with direct observations of breeding bird behaviour and presence of bird nests, were used to record breeding bird evidence (BBE) within the project limits.

Mammal Surveys Mammals were inventoried using a variety of methods, such as the identification of tracks, trails, sounds, scats, and individual species behavioral signs, such as browsing, nest sites, lodges, etc. As many habitats as possible were searched using the VES method. The investigator simply walked through an area searching for mammals using the variety of methods mentioned above.

Data collected (field notes, GPS coordinates and photographs) in the field from each of the vertebrate class investigations were downloaded into wildlife tables for future analysis. This data was analyzed and used to determine the locations of sensitive habitats in the study area. The results from field investigations and secondary source review are presented below.

3.5.1 Wildlife Habitat During field investigations conducted by LGL Limited in 2009, eleven (11) locations were selected within the overall study area to observe wildlife presence, particularly staging colonial waterbirds (Figure 6). Areas 2 through 7 were associated with the primary study area, while Area 1 and Areas 8 through 11 were located within the secondary study area. The areas identified can be characterized as follows:

1. South Shoreline. This area extends from the south side of the inner shipping channel, southward along the shoreline for a distance of approximately 300 m. The majority of available habitat is sandy beach, bordered by manicured grassy areas and isolated willows.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion t Natural Heritage Report Page 31

2. Terminus of South Pier Extension. The habitat provided at this location consists of a rubblemound breakwater wall. There is no vegetation present. This area is primarily used as a staging/resting area for colonial waterbirds. 3. South Breakwater Wall. This location consists of a concrete breakwater wall (a rubblemound breakwater wall will be added later in 2012 as part of a separate project). There is no vegetation present. This area is primarily used as a staging/resting area for colonial waterbirds. 4. North Breakwater Wall. This location consists of a concrete breakwater wall (addition of a rubblemound breakwater wall began in 2013 and will be completed in 2014 as part of a separate project). There is no vegetation present. This area is primarily used as a staging/resting area for colonial waterbirds. 5. Rubblemound Breakwater Extension. This breakwater wall separates the outer harbour from the mouth of the Maitland River. Similar to the other breakwater structures, there is no vegetation present and it is primarily used as a staging/resting area for colonial waterbirds. 6. Outer Harbour. This area is defined as the enclosed portion of the harbor, bordered on three sides by concrete breakwalls and a rubble riverwall providing shelter during stormy weather for both colonial waterbirds and waterfowl. 7. Inner Harbour. This area provides shelter for colonial waterbirds and waterfowl in an enclosed, open water habitat. Vegetation is sparse, with a few scattered shrubs along the roadside edges. 8. Maitland River Mouth. The Maitland River is bordered on the south by industrial development and essentially provides little or no wildlife habitat. The north shore is also heavily influenced by human activity, although a narrow strip of cultural meadow (CUM1-1) habitat does extend along the lake shoreline. This habitat is of low structural diversity and would not support a high diversity of wildlife species. The open water component contains areas of submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation and functions as a suitable feeding and staging area for waterfowl. 9. North Shore – Maitland River. This area of observation extends from the river mouth to the Menesetung pedestrian trail bridge. A total of nine vegetation communities, representative of seven different ELC community types, provide a structurally diverse wildlife habitat along the entire length of the area. Meadows, thickets, coniferous woods and three types of mature deciduous forests account for this diversity of habitat. 10. Maitland River – Upstream of Menesetung Bridge. Wildlife habitat in this area consists of the river proper, several exposed gravel beach ridges, a number of open water depressions, and adjacent cultural meadow/mineral meadow marsh areas along the river edge. 11. Deciduous Woods – south of North Harbour Road. This observation area is represented by a narrow strip of disturbed, homogeneous deciduous woods (FOD7-4) extending along the ridge south of North Harbour Road to Highway 21 and southeast of the eastern limit of the inner harbour. Vegetation in the area has been influenced by past human disturbance, is relatively narrow and provides minimal wildlife habitat diversity.

3.5.2 Fauna Multi-season data collected during 2009 and 2010 resulted in the documentation of 67 wildlife species (1 herpetofauna, 58 birds and 8 mammals). Wildlife species observed during the 2009 and 2010 wildlife surveys are described in Table 7. In general, woodland and forest habitat provided by the Lower Maitland River Valley in the secondary study area supports a higher diversity of wildlife species relative

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 32

TABLE 7. WILDLIFE DOCUMENTED IN THE STUDY AREA BY LGL - 2009 AND 2010

Area Wildlife Scientific Name Common Name Local1 Legal Status2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Herpetofauna Necturus maculosus Mudpuppy X Birds Branta canadensis Canada Goose MBCA X X X X X Anas platyrhynchos Mallard MBCA X X X X Bucephala albeola Bufflehead MBCA X Mergus merganser Common Merganser MBCA X Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorant MBCA X X X X Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron MBCA X Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture BSC MBCA X X X Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk FWCA(P) X X Larus philadelphia Bonaparte’s Gull MBCA X Larus minutus Little gull MBCA X Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull MBCA X X X X X X Larus argentatus Herring Gull MBCA X X Columba livia Rock Pigeon X Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove MBCA X Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-bellied Sapsucker BSC MBCA X Picoides pubescens Downy Woodpecker MBCA X Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker MBCA X Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker MBCA X Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay FWCA(P) X X Corvus brachyhrynchos American Crow X X Poecile atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee BSC MBCA X X Certhia americana Brown Creeper BSC MBCA X Regulus satrapa Golden-crowned Kinglet MBCA X Turdus migratorius American Robin MBCA X X Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird BSC MBCA X Sturnus vulgaris European Starling X X Dendroica petechia Yellow Warbler MBCA X Dendroica pensylvanica Chestnut-sided Warbler BSC MBCA X

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 33

TABLE 7. WILDLIFE DOCUMENTED IN THE STUDY AREA BY LGL - 2009 AND 2010

Area Wildlife Scientific Name Common Name Local1 Legal Status2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Dendroica virens Black-throated Green Warbler BSC MBCA X Dendroica pinus Pine Warbler MBCA X Mniotilta varia Black and White Warbler MBCA X Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow MBCA X X Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow MBCA X X Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal MBCA X Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird X X Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle X X Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird X Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch BSC MBCA X X Mammals Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern Cottontail FWCA(G) X X Tamias striatus Eastern Chipmunk FWCA(P) X X Sciurus carolinensis Gray Squirrel FWCA(G) X X Vulpes vulpes Red Fox FWCA(F) X Procyon lotor Raccoon FWCA(F) X X Mustela vison American Mink FWCA(F) X Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk FWCA(F) X X Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed Deer FWCA(G) X 1BSC – Bird Studies Canada Species of Conservation Priority. 2A description of federal and provincial species ranks is provided in Appendix D.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 34 to other areas within the project area. The more common, and generally abundant mammalian species present in the area include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and coyote (Canus latrans). Aquatic habitat along the shoreline and at the river mouth of the Maitland River support common fur-bearing mammals including American beaver (Castor canadensis) and muskrat (Ondatra zibethica). A large number of bird species were also recorded within the Maitland River Valley. Most notable among these bird species were forest “interior” birds, such as Screech Owl (Otus asio), Red-bellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), Pileated Woodpecker (Drocopus pileatus), Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) and Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea). Past studies have documented more than 70 bird species using this area during the breeding season (LMSG, 2006). The Lake Huron shoreline and highly diverse habitats available within the Lower Maitland River Valley also attract many water bird species during both spring and fall migrations.

Although species diversity was relatively high in areas associated with the Lower Maitland River Valley, the same degree of species richness did not carry over to the harbour area (primary study area) or surrounding environs. The harbour area has been heavily influenced by human activity, including the creation of much of the harbour’s infrastructure; consequently, resident bird species were generally represented by opportunistic species only. The numbers of individual mammal species within the harbour area were also limited, with the exception of raccoon and gray squirrel.

A single herpetofauna species was documented within the primary and secondary study areas during 2010 field investigations. A single Mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus) was captured in Area 8 near the mouth of the Maitland River. While the Maitland River and associated valleylands provide habitat for a select number of herpetofauna species, Goderich Harbour provides very limited natural heritage features suitable to support herpetofauna species.

3.5.2.1 Birds Although the timing of wildlife studies conducted within the study area in the fall of 2009 did not allow for formal breeding bird surveys to be completed, incidental observations of birds in the area were documented at that time as potential breeders for the site. Bird species that were observed or identified by call within the eleven areas surveyed for wildlife in the fall of 2009 are listed in Table 7.

Waterbirds The mouth of the Maitland River and the shoreline of Lake Huron provide suitable habitat for a variety of migratory and resident waterbirds, in particular colonial waterbird species. Canada Geese (Branta canadensis), Common Merganser (Mergus merganser), Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) have been documented as frequent visitors to the river mouth and Lower Maitland wetland areas, while coastal waterbirds such as the Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia), Herring Gull, Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) and Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) have been frequently observed along the shoreline of the lake (LHCCC 2009). With the exception of the Caspian Tern and Black- crowned Night Heron, each of these species was documented by LGL in the fall of 2009 within the harbour area (Table 7).

Ring-billed Gulls were the most abundant waterbird observed, with individuals documented in all locations with the exception of two areas within terrestrial habitat (Areas 9 and 11). Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 were the most active, especially during the evening observation period. Although little variation in species was documented in Area 1, the greatest number of individuals was observed at that site, with between 50 and 200 birds observed at each visit. Ring-billed Gulls casually visited Areas 5, 6, 7, 8 as resting sites and Area 11 as a feeding location. Numbers of Ring-billed Gull were generally less than ten at any given time in those areas. Herring Gulls were observed at three locations (Areas 1, 2, and 3) and always occurred in association with the Ring-billed Gull population and never occurred as a distinct,

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 35 separate assemblage. Together with the Ring-billed Gull, they accounted for approximately 25% of the bird population within the three areas.

Double-crested Cormorants were also very common. A resident population of between 45 to 55 individuals was observed each day. Prevailing weather conditions influenced which location was utilized on any given day within the harbour. During calm weather, the birds were equally distributed along the south and north breakwater walls (avoiding Area 2, the south pier extension), making flights up and down the Maitland River in groups of three or four. Conversely, in stormy conditions, the Double-crested Cormorants congregated at the terminal end of the south pier extension and generally avoided flights along the river.

Canada Geese and Mallards were usually observed together and were most common in locations that provided shelter - Areas 6 and 7. Mallards generally outnumbered the geese, and concentrations were consistently higher during the evening observation periods. During the day, under calm weather conditions, both species avoided the inner and outer harbours, having moved to the sandbars and edge habitats along the Maitland River, upstream of the Menesetung Bridge (Area 10).

An additional four species were observed during LGL’s late October and early November field investigations. These included: Bufflehead, Common Merganser, Little Gull (Larus minutus), and Bonaparte’s Gull (Larus Philadelphia). Little Gull and Bonaparte’s Gull were documented in the outer harbour between Areas 2 and 3. The gulls were observed together in a small flock of 14 individuals, and were likely fall migrants. Buffleheads were only documented on one occasion, the morning of November 4, 2009, when eight birds stopped for a short rest period at the mouth of the river. The Common Merganser was also observed on only one occasion at the river mouth.

Terrestrial Birds It has been reported that more than 70 species use the Lower Maitland valley during the breeding season, while considerably more bird species use the area during spring and fall migration (LMSG, 2006). During 2009, two areas were surveyed for terrestrial bird species: the north shore of the Maitland River (Area 9) and the deciduous woods, south of the Southpier Terminals (Area 11). The two areas are vastly different with respect to the diversity of habitat available and, as expected, species diversity was likewise different between the two areas.

Results of the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) surveys conducted in 2009 along the north shore of the river (Area 9) by LGL Limited identified seven ELC community types, providing structurally diverse wildlife habitat of meadows, thickets, coniferous woods and three types of mature deciduous forests (Figure 6). A total of 22 bird species were recorded in the 2009 site visits to the area. Area 9 was ranked as the most diverse, with regard to bird species, of all 11 areas surveyed. Most noteworthy among these species were the late fall migratory warblers, including: Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia), Chestnut- sided Warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica), Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens), Black and White Warbler (Mniotilta varia), and Pine Warbler (Dendroica pinus). Other birds documented in the area were typical of a forested environment.

Area 11 is comprised of a narrow strip of homogeneous deciduous woods influenced by past human disturbance. It provides minimal wildlife habitat diversity and, consequently, was found to support a more limited variety of bird species. The thirteen species that were recorded using this area in the fall of 2009 were species known to be tolerant of human disturbance. Examples of the opportunistic, or habitat generalists, found in the area include: Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerine), Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia), American Crow (Corvus brachyhrynchos), Rock Pigeon (Columba livia), Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), and Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata).

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 36

A breeding bird survey was conducted on June 17th and 18th, and July 8th and 9th in 2010 at 22 stations distributed throughout the study area (Figure 6). The survey enumerated a total of 44 species, with breeding bird evidence (BBE) regarded as ‘confirmed’ in nine species and ‘probable’ or ‘possible’ in an additional 35 species. A summary of the breeding birds documented in the study area during the 2010 field investigations is presented in Table 8.

Although the number of birds documented within the study area during the breeding season in 2010 was higher than the number recorded in the fall season of 2009, 22 of the 44 species recorded in the breeding bird survey were the same as species documented in the fall of 2009. The distribution of birds throughout the available habitat appeared to be somewhat different between the two seasons.

TABLE 8. POINT COUNTS AND BREEDING BIRD EVIDENCE DOCUMENTED IN THE STUDY AREA BY LGL LIMITED

Point Count Legal Wildlife Scientific Name Common Name Local1 BBE3 Station Status2 Breeding 1 Gavia immer Common Loon BSC MBCA H Birds Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorant MBCA H Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper BSC MBCA T Larus argentatus Herring Gull MBCA H 2 Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper BSC MBCA H

Larus argentatus Herring Gull MBCA H Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow BSC MBCA/THR FY/CY Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow MBCA S Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle S 3 Branta canadensis Canada Goose MBCA H

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard MBCA T Larus argentatus Herring Gull MBCA T Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow BSC MBCA A, T Sturnus vulgaris European Starling T Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle S Passer domesticus House Sparrow T 4 Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture BSC FWCA(P) H Larus argentatus Herring Gull MBCA H Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow S Troglodytes aedon House Wren MBCA H Turdus migratorius American Robin MBCA S Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird BSC MBCA T Sturnus vulgaris European Starling S Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart BSC MBCA H Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow MBCA H Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal MBCA H Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch BSC MBCA S 5 Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher FWCA(P) A, T Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow BSC MBCA T Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow BSC MBCA/THR S Turdus migratorius American Robin MBCA S Sturnus vulgaris European Starling T

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 37

TABLE 8. POINT COUNTS AND BREEDING BIRD EVIDENCE DOCUMENTED IN THE STUDY AREA BY LGL LIMITED

Point Count Legal Wildlife Scientific Name Common Name Local1 BBE3 Station Status2 Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow MBCA T Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird T Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle H Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird S Passer domesticus House Sparrow H 6 Branta canadensis Canada Goose MBCA T Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture BSC FWCA(P) H Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher FWCA(P) H Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo MBCA S Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow BSC MBCA/THR H Troglodytes aedon House Wren MBCA CF Turdus migratorius American Robin MBCA T Sturnus vulgaris European Starling H Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing MBCA S Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat MBCA S Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow MBCA S Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow MBCA T Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird S, A Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle H Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird H Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole MBCA S Passer domesticus House Sparrow H 7 Branta canadensis Canada Goose MBCA H Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher FWCA(P) H Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo MBCA T Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo MBCA S Troglodytes aedon House Wren MBCA S Turdus migratorius American Robin MBCA H Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird BSC MBCA T Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing MBCA S Dendroica petechia Yellow Warbler MBCA T Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart BSC MBCA T Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat MBCA A Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow MBCA T Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal MBCA T Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak MBCA S Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting MBCA T Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird T, A Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird H Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole MBCA S Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch BSC MBCA S 8 Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo MBCA H Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow H

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 38

TABLE 8. POINT COUNTS AND BREEDING BIRD EVIDENCE DOCUMENTED IN THE STUDY AREA BY LGL LIMITED

Point Count Legal Wildlife Scientific Name Common Name Local1 BBE3 Station Status2 Parus atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee BSC MBCA S Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird BSC MBCA T Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing MBCA S Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal MBCA T Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak MBCA S Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch BSC MBCA H 9 Branta canadensis Canada Goose MBCA T Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull MBCA T Larus argentatus Herring Gull MBCA T Riparia riparia Bank Swallow BSC MBCA T Sturnus vulgaris European Starling H Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird T, A Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle S 10 Branta canadensis Canada Goose MBCA H Anas platyrhynchos Mallard MBCA H Larus argentatus Herring Gull MBCA S Columba livia Rock Dove H Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove MBCA S Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker MBCA S Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo MBCA S Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow T Riparia riparia Bank Swallow BSC MBCA H Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow BSC MBCA H Turdus migratorius American Robin MBCA H Sturnus vulgaris European Starling H Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow MBCA S Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird A Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle T Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird H 11 Larus argentatus Herring Gull MBCA H Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow H Sturnus vulgaris European Starling NE Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow MBCA T Passer domesticus House Sparrow H 12 Larus argentatus Herring Gull MBCA T Turdus migratorius American Robin MBCA S Sturnus vulgaris European Starling T Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle T 13 Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove MBCA T Chaetura pelagica Chimney Swift MBCA/THR H Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo MBCA S Troglodytes aedon House Wren MBCA T

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 39

TABLE 8. POINT COUNTS AND BREEDING BIRD EVIDENCE DOCUMENTED IN THE STUDY AREA BY LGL LIMITED

Point Count Legal Wildlife Scientific Name Common Name Local1 BBE3 Station Status2 Turdus migratorius American Robin MBCA T Sturnus vulgaris European Starling H Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow MBCA A Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle T 14 Branta canadensis Canada Goose MBCA T Anas platyrhynchos Mallard MBCA T Charadrius vociferus Killdeer MBCA FY Larus argentatus Herring Gull MBCA H Columba livia Rock Dove T Chaetura pelagica Chimney Swift MBCA/THR H Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow BSC MBCA T Sturnus vulgaris European Starling S Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow MBCA T Passer domesticus House Sparrow CF 15 Parus atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee BSC MBCA S Troglodytes aedon House Wren MBCA T Turdus migratorius American Robin MBCA CF Sturnus vulgaris European Starling H Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal MBCA T Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle S 16 Branta canadensis Canada Goose MBCA H Anas platyrhynchos Mallard MBCA T Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture BSC FWCA(P) H Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull MBCA T Larus argentatus Herring Gull MBCA H Columba livia Rock Dove H Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher FWCA(P) H Corvus brachyhrynchos American Crow H Poecile atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee BSC MBCA S Troglodytes aedon House Wren MBCA T Turdus migratorius American Robin MBCA T Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird BSC MBCA S Sturnus vulgaris European Starling S Dendroica petechia Yellow Warbler MBCA S Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart BSC MBCA S Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow MBCA T Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal MBCA H Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird H 17 Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture BSC FWCA(P) T Picoides pubescens Downy Woodpecker MBCA T Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker BSC MBCA S Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo MBCA S

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 40

TABLE 8. POINT COUNTS AND BREEDING BIRD EVIDENCE DOCUMENTED IN THE STUDY AREA BY LGL LIMITED

Point Count Legal Wildlife Scientific Name Common Name Local1 BBE3 Station Status2 Parus atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee BSC MBCA S Turdus migratorius American Robin MBCA S Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird BSC MBCA S Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart BSC MBCA FY Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow MBCA T Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal MBCA CF Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird T Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle T Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch BSC MBCA S 18 Contopus virens Eastern Wood-pewee MBCA S Myiarchus crinitus Great-crested Flycatcher MBCA S Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo MBCA T Parus atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee BSC MBCA T Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird BSC MBCA S Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart BSC MBCA T, CF Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow MBCA T Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal MBCA T Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak MBCA T, A Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle T Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole MBCA A 19 Branta canadensis Canada Goose MBCA S Anas platyrhynchos Mallard MBCA FY Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher FWCA(P) T Myiarchus crinitus Great-crested Flycatcher MBCA S Troglodytes aedon House Wren MBCA S Turdus migratorius American Robin MBCA S Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird BSC MBCA S Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart BSC MBCA S Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat MBCA H Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal MBCA T Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird A Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole MBCA T, A Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch BSC MBCA T 20 Anas platyrhynchos Mallard MBCA H Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher FWCA(P) H Contopus virens Eastern Wood-pewee MBCA S Myiarchus crinitus Great-crested Flycatcher MBCA S Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo MBCA T, A Troglodytes aedon House Wren MBCA T Turdus migratorius American Robin MBCA S Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird BSC MBCA T Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart BSC MBCA T

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 41

TABLE 8. POINT COUNTS AND BREEDING BIRD EVIDENCE DOCUMENTED IN THE STUDY AREA BY LGL LIMITED

Point Count Legal Wildlife Scientific Name Common Name Local1 BBE3 Station Status2 Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat MBCA T Piranga olivacea Scarlet Tanager BSC MBCA S Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow MBCA T,A Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting MBCA T Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird T,A Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird S Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch BSC MBCA T 21 Branta canadensis Canada Goose MBCA T Anas platyrhynchos Mallard MBCA H Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper BSC MBCA CF Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow BSC MBCA/THR T Dendroica petechia Yellow Warbler MBCA S Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat MBCA T Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow MBCA T Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird T 22 Branta canadensis Canada Goose MBCA H Anas platyrhynchos Mallard MBCA H Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper BSC MBCA T Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow MBCA A Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird T, A Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch BSC MBCA T 1BSC – Bird Studies Canada Species of Conservation Priority. 2A description of federal and provincial species ranks is provided in Appendix D . 3 Under the BSC survey methodology evidence of breeding success was categorized according to the following criteria: Species Observed: Species observed but suitable nesting habitat not available (X). Possible Breeding: Species observed in its breeding season in suitable nesting habitat (H). Single male present in its breeding season in suitable nesting habitat (S). Probable Breeding: Permanent territory presumed through registration of territorial song heard on at least 2 days, approximately one week apart, at the same place (T). Agitated behaviour or anxiety calls of an adult (A). Confirmed Breeding: Fledged young or downy young, including young incapable of flight (FY). Adult carrying food for young (CF).

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 42

Included in the list of confirmed breeders was Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), where fledged young were observed within the harbour lands at Station 14. Other fledged young of American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) and Mallard were documented along the north shore of the Maitland River at Stations 17 and 18. Several species of adult birds were observed carrying food to the nest in a wide variety of habitat ranging from highly disturbed areas, including residential neighbourhoods (Stations 6 and 15) and the shipping channel in Goderich Harbour (Station 14) to the more naturalized environs associated with the Maitland River (Stations 17, 18, and 21). The confirmed breeders included: House Wren (Tryglodytes aedon) and American Robin (Turdus migratorius) within the residential areas; House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) and Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) within the harbour; and, Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), and Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) along the forested edge and exposed gravel beaches associated with the Maitland River.

Additional BBE was observed for several species throughout the study area, including behavioural evidence for ‘probable’ breeders of agitated behaviour induced by human presence or auditory evidence of territorial songs heard on two separate occasions at least one week apart. Many other birds were documented in the overall study area as ‘possible’ breeders observed within nesting habitat suitable to their species. The greatest variety of bird species (19) was documented at Station 7, located in the narrow black walnut deciduous forest adjacent to the manicured fairways of the Maitland Golf and Country Club, just north of North Harbour Road. Station 7 is within the primary study area, as defined in Figure 6. Two other stations with similar diversity were located outside of the primary study area. These stations include: Station 16, located within the narrow strip of cultural meadow extending along the Lake Huron shoreline, where 18 bird species were documented; and, Station 6, located within a residential neighbourhood situated between the river and North Harbour Road, where 17 species were recorded. Two additional stations displayed similar diversity: Station 10, situated within a small manicured land parcel adjacent to a cultural woodland and mixed forest, just south of the inner harbour; and, Station 20 located along the north shore of the Maitland River within an area dominated by old field meadow and marsh vegetation adjacent to a sugar maple/oak deciduous forest. At both stations, 16 species were recorded. Other stations along the north shore of the river also displayed relatively high diversity with regard to birds, specifically Stations 17 and 19 where 13 species were recorded within the cultural woodland and sugar maple/oak deciduous forest.

In general, stations within the primary study area (Figure 6), where vegetation was generally lacking, contained a relatively low number of breeding bird species (< 10 species) compared to those stations associated with the secondary study area which is dominated by deciduous forest and cultural woodland. The exception to this pattern was Station 7, located within one of two forested regions within the primary study area, and where the highest diversity of bird species overall was documented.

3.5.3 Species at Risk Two of the wildlife species documented within the subject lands during 2009/2010 field surveys are regulated by the Ontario Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) and the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA). These two species are described below.

Effective January 14, 2012, Barn Swallow is regulated provincially and federally as “Threatened” under the ESA and SARA. Barn Swallows generally build mud nests on bridges, walls, ledges and barns (Cadman et al. 2007), and typically forages in open areas such as agricultural lands, meadows or over water. Decline in Barn Swallow numbers is not understood at this time; however, habitat destruction, decline in insect populations and scarcity of suitable nesting sites are all considered to be contributing factors. Breeding bird data recorded Barn Swallow occurrence at several stations (see Table 8), and breeding was confirmed at three tall stack structures associated with the Sifto Salt mine. Suitable foraging habitat for this species is largely associated with open aquatic settings. Assessment of BBE data

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 43 during the EA should place an emphasis on confirming potential impacts to Barn Swallow nesting and foraging habitat.

Chimney Swift is regulated as “Threatened” under the ESA and SARA. Chimney Swifts nest in hollow tree trunks, cave walls, or in urbanized environments they typically nest in house chimneys. The decline of Chimney Swift has been attributed to the reduction in accessible chimneys for nesting and breeding (COSEWIC 2007). Breeding bird data recorded Chimney Swift foraging at two stations (see Table 8). Suitable foraging habitat for this species is largely associated with open aquatic settings. Breeding was not confirmed within the study area. Assessment of BBE data during the EA should place an emphasis on confirming potential impacts to Chimney Swift nesting and foraging habitat.

The MNR Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) – Biodiversity Explorer was reviewed to screen for the presence of wildlife species at risk within or adjacent to the study area. The NHIC database indicates that, within the vicinity of the study area, there are historic occurrences of Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), Eastern Ribbonsnake (Thamnophis suritus) and Queen Snake (Regina septemvitatta). A species at risk site screening was undertaken on July 5, 2010. Lands within the Goderich Harbour and Maitland River valleylands were searched for these species at risk and to screen for suitable habitat. The legal status of each species at risk, their habitat requirements and the likelihood of being present within the study area are discussed below.

The Henslow’s Sparrow is regulated “Endangered” under the ESA and the SARA. The Henslow’s Sparrow NHIC record within the vicinity of Goderich Harbour is dated from 1943. Data collected by the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas does not show any recent breeding records in the Goderich area (Cadman et al. 2007). In Ontario, the Henslow’s Sparrow breeds in large, open, generally flat fields (Cadman et al. 2007). The range of this species is very restricted in Ontario. Suitable habitat for this species is not found in proximity to Goderich Harbour.

The Eastern Ribbon Snake is listed “Special Concern” under the ESA and the SARA. The Eastern Ribbonsnake NHIC record within the vicinity of Goderich Harbour is dated from 1880. This species is associated with shallow wetlands and the edges of lakes and ponds (Harding 2000). Habitat suitable to support the Eastern Ribbonsnake is not found within the vicinity of the Goderich Harbour.

The Queen Snake is regulated “Endangered” under the ESA and “Threatened” under the SARA. The Queen Snake NHIC record is dated from 1993 and the record appears to be located 1 to 2 km upstream of Goderich Harbour. The Queen Snake is a habitat specialist and is often found in warm, shallow, rocky- bottom streams with an abundance of crayfish (Harding 2000). A report published by the Lower Maitland Stewardship Group identifies the Lower Maitland River as a strong-hold for this species in Ontario (LMSG, 2006). While it is probable that Queen Snake are present in the Maitland River, suitable habitat for this species is not found within or immediately adjacent to the Goderich Harbour. Habitat upstream of the Menesetung Bridge was more suitable for Queen Snake, where there is far less disturbance from anthropogenic influences. Once potential impacts to the Maitland River and/or valleylands associated with the river have been identified, further field investigations during the EA may be required in order to confirm presence/absence and potential impacts to Queen Snake.

3.5.4 Migratory Birds With the exception of one species, all birds documented within the project area in 2009 and 2010 are ranked provincially as S5 (indicative of species that are secure, common, widespread and abundant within the province), or S4 (a species as apparently secure; uncommon but not rare). The exception was Little Gull (Larus minutus), a colonial waterbird ranked provincially as S1B, indicating its status as a breeding migrant within Ontario and, therefore, also indicating its rarity within the province. Little Gull is known

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 44 to nest in large, open marshes; however no individuals of the species were documented within the study area during the breeding season of 2010. This species is also known to use open beaches during non- breeding periods (James, 1985), as was likely the case here. Little gull was documented in the fall of 2009 together with a small colony of Bonaparte’s Gull (Larus Philadelphia), all of which were likely fall migrants.

Bird Studies Canada identifies 10 of the species documented in the 2010 breeding bird survey as ‘priority species’ for conservation in Huron County (Table 8).

3.5.5 Sensitivity/Significance A summary of the sensitivity and significance for each of the wildlife areas surveyed with respect to habitat features and species presence is provided below in Table 9. A description of sensitivity and significance for the primary study area and secondary study area is found below.

3.5.5.1 Primary Study Area The primary study area encompasses the Goderich Harbour to the outer breakwater walls and North Harbour Road easterly to Highway 21. The outer harbour area and the breakwater extension at the mouth of the Maitland River provides good resting and staging habitat for colonial waterbirds and shelter during stormy weather conditions for colonial waterbirds and waterfowl. Barn Swallow and Chimney Swift were both observed in the primary study area during 2010 breeding bird surveys. Barn Swallow was identified as nesting/foraging within the primary study area, while Chimney Swift was only observed foraging. Terrestrial wildlife habitat within the primary study area is limited and highly disturbed in nature.

3.5.5.2 Secondary Study Area The secondary study area encompasses deciduous woods south of North Harbour Road, the Maitland River upstream of Menesetung Bridge, the Maitland River mouth and shoreline habitat north and south of the river mouth. Shoreline/forested habitat north of the river mouth and valley land habitat upstream of Menesetung Bridge provides excellent habitat for forest dependent species as well as migratory species and is very sensitive to disturbance. Queen Snake, if present in the vicinity of the study area, would be found upstream of Menesetung Bridge. Open water associated with the Maitland River mouth provides feeding and staging areas for waterfowl. Deciduous woods south of North Harbour Road provides forested habitat for wildlife tolerant of anthropogenic disturbance. Shoreline habitat south of the Maitland River is highly disturbed and classified as low sensitivity/significance. Barn Swallow and Chimney Swift were both observed in the secondary study area during 2010 breeding bird surveys. No nests of Barn Swallow or Chimney Swift were identified within the secondary study area, observations were limited to foraging behaviour.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 45

TABLE 9. SENSITIVITY/SIGNIFICANCE – AREAS 1 TO 11

Area Location* Sensitivity Significance Comments Common habitat along east shoreline. No 1.South Shoreline S Low Low disturbance to specific area is likely. Area provides good resting and staging 2. South Pier P Low Medium habitat for colonial waterbirds, however Extension disturbance to the specific area is unlikely. Area provides good resting and staging habitat for colonial waterbirds. Minor 3. South Breakwater disturbance during construction is possible, P Medium Medium Wall however long term impacts are not anticipated.

Area provides good resting and staging habitat for colonial waterbirds. Disturbance 4. North Breakwater P Medium Medium/High during construction is probable, however long Wall term impacts are not anticipated.

Area provides good resting and staging 5. Breakwater habitat for colonial waterbirds. Disturbance Extension-Mouth of P Medium Medium/High during construction is probable, however long Maitland River term impacts are not anticipated.

Area provides shelter during stormy weather conditions for colonial waterbirds and waterfowl. Disturbance during construction will occur and permanent loss of the shelter area will result. Avian species will be 6. Outer Harbour P High High permanently displaced. Two “Threatened” species, Barn Swallow and Chimney Swift, were observed in this area. Impacts to potential foraging/nesting habitat should be assessed during the EA phase.

Minor disturbance is possible during construction resulting from increased 7. Inner Harbour P High Low construction related traffic along North Harbour Road. Long term effects are not anticipated. The open water component does provide feeding and staging areas for waterfowl and disturbance to this activity is possible during construction. Waterfowl activity in this 8. Maitland River S High Low/Medium location was minimal during the fall period Mouth but could increase during the spring migratory period. Notwithstanding, long term impacts are not anticipated at this location.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 46

TABLE 9. SENSITIVITY/SIGNIFICANCE – AREAS 1 TO 11

Area Location* Sensitivity Significance Comments The area provides excellent habitat for forest dependent species as well as migratory species and is very sensitive to disturbance. This habitat is essentially outside of the area of influence for this project but is still 9. North Shore - S High High regarded to be of high significance as any Maitland River disturbance would have long term effects. A single “Threatened” species, the Barn Swallow, was observed in this area. Impacts to potential foraging/nesting habitat should be assessed during the EA phase. The area provides excellent habitat for nesting, feeding, resting and staging waterfowl species and is very sensitive to disturbance. This habitat is essentially outside of the area of influence for this project but is 10. Maitland River – still regarded to be of high significance as any Upstream of S High High disturbance would have long term effects. A Menesetung Bridge single “Threatened” species, the Barn Swallow, was observed in this area. Impacts to potential foraging/nesting habitat should be assessed during the EA phase. This area provides potential habitat for Queen Snake, a species at risk. This wooded area supports bird species that are commonly found in disturbed, humanly influenced habitat. Consequently, sensitivity of the area is considered to be low.

11. Deciduous Minor disturbance is possible during Woods – east of S Low Low construction resulting from increased North Harbour Road construction related traffic along North Harbour Road. Long term effects are not anticipated. A single “Threatened” species, the Chimney Swift, was observed in this area. Impacts to potential foraging/nesting habitat should be assessed during the EA phase. Location* P – Primary Study Area, S – Secondary Study Area.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 47

3.6 Designated Natural Areas Designated natural areas include areas identified for protection by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), Maitland Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) and the Town of Goderich (Official Plan 2009). A review in the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC 2008) indicates that there are no Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs), Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs), or Environmentally Significant/Sensitive Areas (ESAs) within the overall study area or within 120 m of the overall study area.

The Maitland River (Goderich Township) ANSI is a provincial Earth Science ANSI located over 0.5 km upstream (southeast) of the secondary study area. This ANSI exhibits Middle Devonian, Detroit River Formation (Lucas Member) dolostones and limestones which are unconformably overlain by the Dundee Formation conglomerate and limestone. This conglomerate contains pebbles from the underlying Lucas Member (NHIC 2010). A second ANSI, the Maitland River Valley ANSI, is a regional Life Science ANSI located almost 2 km upstream (southeast) of the secondary study areas. This ANSI covers an area of approximately 400 ha and represents a river valley system that exhibits good examples of "incised meanders with successions of terraces on long slip-off slopes" and a preserved oxbow channel. Vegetation communities include upland valley rim and slope communities (e.g., maple-beech, maple-ash- hemlock, cedar) and floodplain wetlands (e.g., marsh, lowland deciduous, mixed and coniferous swamp). Several disturbance activities have been noted within this ANSI, including land development, resource extraction, and logging (Klinkenberg 1984 cited in MNR 2010).

Schedule B “Land Use Plan” in the Town of Goderich Official Plan (2009) identifies a zone of “Natural Environment” located within a portion of the secondary study area. This designation includes the Maitland River, floodplain, steep slopes and forests. No new development is permitted on the lake bluff (defined from the top-of-bank to the toe-of-bank) except for accessory structures associated with walking trails, municipal parks, or flooding/erosion control (Section D, Natural Environment). Protection buffers are required for development on adjacent lands in order to protect natural areas from development encroachment, and to protect development from natural hazards. No development is expected within or on lands adjacent to the areas designated “Natural Environment” as a result of the proposed changes to Goderich Harbour.

4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION A number of “alternatives to” and “alternative methods” for the project were assessed and evaluated. Following the evaluation of alternatives, the twin-slip option was identified as the technically preferred design for the wharf expansion. The twin-slip option best addresses the problem/opportunity statement in addition to minimizing potential environmental impacts of the wharf expansion. There are no major improvements to North Harbour Road proposed.

4.1 Project Components The twin-slip option will create a new wharf that will increase available storage space and provide additional loading/unloading spaces for ships. Located in the northern portion of the outer harbour, the twin-slip option allows for two additional docking spaces along the new wharf and a usable storage space of 6.3 ha (Figure 7). The total lakebed footprint of the preferred design option is 7.9 ha. This design option maintains the existing Dock 7, with two additional docking spaces located along the southern extent of the new wharf. The elevation of the new dock and storage area will be approximately 3.5 m above the datum water level.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 48

FIGURE 7. TWIN-SLIP OPTION.

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 49

The new wharf will predominately be used to store salt and other bulk cargoes, but will also be able to handle other cargoes such as large machine parts. There will be no fixed structures (such as domes, silos or bins) or installed conveying systems located at the site. The absence of fixed structures and conveying systems allows for maximum flexibility in utilization of the additional storage space. The new wharf facility will consist of a paved apron and include a stormwater collection and management system.

5.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

5.1 Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems

5.1.1 Infill and Dock Wall The wharf expansion will result in an infilling of existing fish habitat within Goderich Harbour. The disturbance impact created by the proposed wharf expansion to fish habitat will be 7.69 ha, with a permanent loss of 6.86 ha of habitat. The new wharf will consist of a triangular area from ¾ of the length of the north breakwater to the base of the riverwall (separating the Harbour from the Maitland River). The proposed infill will eliminate the existing 30 m opening between the north breakwater and the riverwall. The infill will include a 280 m long, 0.828 ha rock slope proposed along the south-west portion of the new wharf. The remaining section of the new wharf from the east end of the rock slope to the base of the northern breakwater (approximately 330 m east and a jog south) will be a docking area consisting of continuous cells of steel sheet piles; sheet piles supported by deadman anchors; or concrete caissons forming the eastern portion of the new wharf and dockwall. A series of bollards at the edge of the new dockwall will allow ships to moor. The west end above the proposed rock slope revetment will feature steel sheet pile cells which will also serve as mooring dolphins and will be connected to the wharf by interconnecting foot bridges. The surface of the wharf will be paved with asphalt and will have a travel path around the perimeter of the wharf to permit movement of loaders and vehicles.

Discussions are underway with DFO to discuss the compensation for the disturbance impact to 7.69 ha and loss of 6.86 ha of fish habitat resulting from the wharf expansion. DFO’s former “No Net Loss Policy” under the federal Fisheries Act is actually a long-term policy objective to achieve overall net gain of productive capacity of fish habitat. The habitat programs of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, assisted by cooperative undertakings with other federal departments, provincial and territorial governments, private industry and non-government groups, is administered to achieve this policy objective for fisheries resources through various protection measures and resource planning initiatives. The Fisheries Act was established to manage and protect Canada's fisheries resources. It applies to all waters of Canada and is binding to federal, provincial and territorial governments.

Bill C-38, which was passed in June 2012 and implemented into policy in two stages (i.e., January 2013 and November 2013), amended the Fisheries Act by changing fish and habitat protection provisions. Changes were made primarily to: • focus the Act’s regulatory regime for managing threats to the sustainability and ongoing productivity of Canada’s commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries; • provide enhanced compliance and protection tools for these fisheries; • provide clarity, certainty and consistency of regulatory requirements through the use of tools such as standards and regulations; and • enable enhanced partnerships with agencies and organizations best-placed to provide fisheries protection services to Canadians. The amendments have streamlined the authorizations required for projects that may cause “serious harm” to a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery. In addition, there are new rules governing new

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 50 projects and what project activities may require a review under the Fisheries Act. Subsection 35(1) of the Act still prohibits what is now referred to as serious harm (formerly HADD) to fish habitat. However, if serious harm is unavoidable, authorization from DFO under Subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act may be issued.

DFO’s policies and guiding principles strive to avoid any net loss of productive capacity by requiring a proponent to avoid serious harm by either relocating the project, or redesigning to prevent or minimize harmful effects. If neither is possible, then the proponent is responsible for the compensation of fish habitat dependent on DFO’s authorization and acceptance of the activities causing serious harm to fish habitat. DFO follows a hierarchical decision making framework for the determination of appropriate compensation opportunities which is as follows: 1. The possibility of like-for-like (replacing natural habitat at or near the subject site) compensation opportunities should be explored; 2. The possibility of replacing natural habitat off-site but generally nearby or within the same watershed should be explored; 3. The possibility of replacing natural habitat off-site, outside the watershed should be explored; 4. In rare cases where it is not technically feasible to avoid potential damage to habitats, or to compensate for the habitat itself, DFO considers proposals to compensate in the form of artificial production; and 5. Monetary compensation has precedent in Canada, but is generally not acceptable by DFO.

The decision making hierarchy listed above, attempts to keep fisheries impacts and compensation localized in order to maintain natural ecosystem functions and conditions. As in many cases however, providing compensation within the local area (like-for-like) is not always feasible, and as such Options 2 and 3 are explored and implemented. As is the case with the proposed wharf expansion, compensation for the serious harm to 7.69 ha of Lake Huron shoreline habitat is not feasible on a like-for-like basis and options off-site are being explored.

DFO follows the Risk Management Framework for managing decisions with regards to activities affecting fish habitat. We understand that the Risk Management Framework is no longer used with the recent (November 2013) changes to the Fisheries Act, however we feel that this process still meets the intent on the new Act and have therefore left this assessment process in this report.

The Risk Management Framework is made up of three parts which include Aquatic Effects Assessment, Risk Assessment and Risk Management. These components can be represented as a series of steps which are part of an overall process to review development proposals. An overarching principle which applies to all components of the Risk Management Framework is risk communication. Effective communication allows proponents and reviewers to understand the potential risks development activities pose to fish and fish habitat and the methods to avoid or minimize the risk to acceptable levels. The Aquatic Effects Assessment is a means of reviewing the potential effects of individual development proposals, identification of appropriate mitigation measures, development of guidelines and best management practices and to assess the effects of alternative design options. This step is also used to determine the Scale of Negative Effects and the Sensitivity of Fish and Fish Habitat.

The Risk Assessment step involves the determination of the level of risk that residual effects pose to fish and fish habitat. The Risk Assessment Matrix incorporates the scale of negative effects and the sensitivity of fish and fish habitat in order to characterize the level of risk to the productive capacity of fish habitat. The scale of negative effects is determined by examining the extent, duration and intensity of the

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 51 proposed activities using low, medium and high classifications. The sensitivity of fish and fish habitat is typically provided by the MNR, but is generally based on the following parameters: species sensitivity, species dependence on the habitat, rarity and habitat resiliency. The rationale used to locate the residual effects on the matrix forms the basis for decision-making.

LGL has determined the scale of negative effects using the assessment procedure outlined by DFO - see Table 10 below. The extent of the proposed wharf infill, while large in area (6.86 ha) is small and localized in relation to the remainder of Lake Huron and its shoreline, and results in a low extent. The duration of the infill is permanent and the fish habitat will be lost in perpetuity, therefore resulting in a high duration. The intensity of the activities measures the amount of change from baseline conditions which will result to the habitat. As a result of the infilling and permanent loss of habitat, the intensity will be high. Therefore the scale of negative effects of the proposed wharf expansion resulting from low extent, high duration and high intensity will be high.

TABLE 10. SCALE OF NEGATIVE EFFECTS Proposed Scale/Magnitude of Extent Duration Intensity Activity Negative Effects Wharf Expansion Low High High High

The sensitivity of the fish and fish habitat is based on species sensitivity, species dependence on the habitat, rarity and habitat resiliency. The species sensitivity is moderate based on the presence of sportfish and the generally diverse array of the fish species sampled by LGL and identified by MNR in previous sampling surveys. The species dependence on the habitat is low due to the relatively homogenous nature of the habitat in the Harbour which does not encourage spawning, rearing, seasonal patterns or other specialized activities other than transient movements by fish. The rarity of fish is low based on the common nature of the fish species present and the fact that no rare species were captured, observed or previously sampled within the Harbour. The habitat resiliency is moderate due to the fact that the Lake Huron shoreline communities contain special conditions which support a diverse array of warmwater, coolwater and coldwater fish species which are able to recover from changes to the environment, but also displays sensitivities to changes such as water temperatures, habitat change, nutrient fluctuations and turbidity, as well as other factors. See Table 11 below for sensitivity rankings.

TABLE 11. SENSITIVITY OF FISH AND FISH HABITAT Sensitivity Location of Species Species Habitat of Fish Proposed Dependence Rarity Sensitivity Resiliency and Fish Activity on the Habitat Habitat Goderich Outer Low – Moderate Low Low Moderate Harbour Moderate

Having determined the scale of negative effects and the sensitivity of fish and fish habitat the Categorization of Project Risk can be plotted on the Risk Assessment Matrix. Based on the high scale of negative effects and the low-moderate sensitivity of fish and fish habitat, the categorization of risk places the proposed activities to fish and fish habitat in the medium – high risk category shown in Figure 8 below. This would indicate that with the risk in the medium – high zone, serious harm is likely, but also acceptable due to a level of risk that is within a threshold generally authorized by DFO.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 52

FIGURE 8. RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans formerly required the use of the Habitat Alteration and Assessment Tool (HAAT) Model for any projects impacting fish habitat along any Great Lakes shoreline. A new tool is being developed by DFO, but is not yet available for use, for this project. As such, DFO has indicated to LGL as DFO has a limited-use version of the HAAT Model they will run the HAAT model calculations.

The HAAT model is based on categorizing existing fish habitat into units of distinct substrate, depth and cover (Habitat Polygons). As such, LGL was able to complete a modelling exercise in 2012 when the HAAT Model was still available to proponents, for the existing habitat (compensation component to be determined by DFO) resulting in nine Habitat Polygons impacted by the infill. Each of these nine polygons represents a distinct area, substrate type and water depth. A summary of these polygons is provided in Table 12 below.

Habitat Polygons 1 – 7 consist of areas proposed for infilling for the wharf expansion, while Polygon 8 consists of the new rock revetment slope which is considered a direct modification of fish habitat. Polygon 9 consists of the sheltered area created by the new wharf and the existing wharf which will not result in a direct alteration of habitat but will result in an indirect effect of creating a sheltered area for fish.

The loss of habitat in Polygons 1 – 7 will result in a footprint impact of 7.69 ha and the elimination of 6.86 ha of fish habitat ranging from 1 – 10 m in depth and consisting of mixed substrate materials. The majority of the loss will be in Units 3 and 5 which consist of similar substrate types (sand for Polygon 3 and sand/detritus for Polygon 5), but different depths; 2 – 5 m and 5 – 10 m respectively. This type of aquatic habitat is generally not limiting along the Lake Huron shoreline. Polygon 8 will be modified directly as a result of the rock revetment slope fill along the south-west portion of the new wharf. This should provide a net improvement to fish habitat resulting from the creation of variable depths, provision of coarse substrate materials and vertical cover where none had been present. Polygon 9 will be modified

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 53

TABLE 12. FISH HABITAT AREAS BASED ON HAAT MODEL CRITERIA

Habitat Area (ha) Substrate Depth (m) Impact Based on Polygon HAAT Criteria 1 0.028 Gravel/Sand 1 – 2 Loss 2 0.017 Gravel/Boulder 1 – 2 Loss 3 3.049 Sand 2 – 5 Loss 4 0.079 Gravel/Boulder 2 – 5 Loss 5 2.723 Sand/Detritus 5 – 10 Loss 6 0.752 Gravel/Sand 5 – 10 Loss 7 0.214 Gravel/Sand 2 - 5 Loss Total 6.86 Loss Loss 8 0.828 Boulder/Rubble/Gravel 5 – 10 Modified Directly Total 7.69 Footprint 9 1.977 Sand/Silt 5 – 10 Modified Indirectly indirectly due to the wharf infill creating a sheltered area where none was existing and will provide a minor net benefit to fish habitat due to reduced wind and wave action in this area. The aquatic habitat found in Polygons 1 – 9 generally support fish species that are found throughout Lake Huron and do not require the Harbour for any specific life stages. The habitat can generally be described as having sand dominated substrate, featureless bottom and lack of cover, low variability in depth profiles, and face a high amount of shipping traffic and disturbance to the area from ship activities.

The output of the HAAT modelling for the twin-slip option of the wharf expansion resulted in the following: • 20582.9 habitat units (HU) of loss; • 1301.5 HU of directly modified habitat (i.e. rock revetment slope); and, • 1708.8 HU of indirectly modified habitat (i.e. the shelter area created by the new wharf).

We suggest that the impact to fish productivity will be minimal. The harbour is a high traffic, highly disturbed and altered area that is not hospitable to native fish species. The fish habitat is generally of poor quality consisting of mainly sand with little or no cover or diversity of habitat. Our detailed surveys (fish sampling, substrate sampling, underwater video, bathymetry, benthic collections) confirmed this. The harbour does not support any spawning, rearing, or juvenile habitat and as such, does not support any important or critical life stage function. LGL’s three season fish collections suggest that the area is used by transient coldwatert fish and dominated by warmwater and coolwater fish species consisting of various sportfish and pelagic forage fish species as well as by ubiquitous Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus). The fish species are all relatively common and fish were never present in high abundance, and on several occasions few or no fish were captured during the sampling efforts.

There will be no impact to Black Redhorse, a provincially Threatened species or its habitat based on: the lack of habitat for this species in the harbour; poor connectivity between the harbour and the Maitland River (where habitat does existing further upstream); and the lack of data supporting incidental transient movement into the harbour. In order to compensate for the loss of fish habitat as well as the direct and indirect modification to habitat noted above, the intent with the HAAT Model is to input compensation measures which will offset the losses. DFO is currently inputting some potential compensation measures into the HAAT Model that have

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 54 been generated through discussion with First Nations, MVCA and staff from DFO. This draft compensation strategy has been submitted to DFO and is discussed below.

In meeting the DFO hierarchical decision making process, the study team believes that the alternative selected provides the optimal balance between meeting the project objectives (to expand loading/off- loading and storage area and reduce exposure to wave/wind action) while minimizing the impacts to the environment, in particular, fish and fish habitat. Of the three design alternatives evaluated (no-slip, single-slip and twin-slip), the twin-slip option has the following benefits: • least impact to fish habitat (7.69 ha) in comparison to the no-slip and single-slip options, which would have caused 9.8 ha and 9.6 ha respectively; • the twin-slip option incorporates a 280 m long rock slope consisting of coarse rock material, which will provide 0.828 ha of viable fish habitat. This area was designed to incorporate a rock slope rather than extend the sheet pile vertical face from the remainder of the wharf; and • the wharf expansion was also located inside the Outer Harbour where the habitat is already impacted and where breakwall protection is already provided, as opposed to locating the wharf expansion outside of the Harbour and further into Lake Huron or impacting the mouth of the Maitland River and its sensitive fish community.

Following the DFO decision making hierarchy, it will not be possible to provide like-for-like habitat in the existing location of the harbour. Based on the calculated disturbance to 7.69 ha (and loss of 6.86 ha) of habitat, it will not be possible to re-create this amount of habitat within the existing harbour or within the nearby vicinity. As such, the majority of compensation options are being explored off-site and will include the following location hierarchy, in order of decreasing preference: • within the general vicinity of the harbour (i.e. Lake Huron shoreline or watershed projects within the Town of Goderich); • within the Maitland River watershed; and • anywhere within Lake Huron or along its shoreline.

With this selection criteria in mind, LGL along with B.M. Ross and GPMC arranged a meeting on August 29, 2012 with representatives from the Town of Goderich, MNR (Clinton and UGLMU-LH) and MVCA, with DFO participating via telephone. The intent of this meeting was to present the proposed activities and the preferred twin-slip option, and to present, obtain and brainstorm ideas for fisheries compensation resulting from the wharf infill. The result of this meeting was a list of specific opportunities identified by the Town and MVCA, as well as other brainstormed ideas from the reminder of the participants.

The list of 28 potential compensation measures was ranked using several parameters (location, enhancement priority, relevance to project, public relations value, costs/benefits, etc.), each of the parameters was scored from 1 to 5 (5 being highest), and a short list of opportunities was produced. The goal of the screening was to identify opportunities that: use the selection criteria above, are technically feasible, have a high likelihood of meeting DFO’s policy objectives and are appropriate to offset fish habitat loss in this area. As a result of the analysis, several opportunities were short-listed based on their rank. The feasibility of the projects in the shortlist was analysed and several projects were eliminated. Projects were also brought to our attention subsequent to the completion of the shortlist. Meetings with First Nations occurred subsequent to the completion of the shortlist in which the study team solicited at least one meaningful project from each of the First Nation groups. As a result, the compensation strategy includes one project from each active First Nation group (WIFN, Aamjiwnaang and SON) as well as one project with MVCA. During the initial First Nations/DFO meeting held in Goderich in August, 2012, the DFO staff (D. Thompson and D. Gibson) indicated that should a Fisheries Act authorization be granted for this project that the fisheries compensation plan would be required to include significant consideration of First Nation

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 55 concerns and potential fisheries projects. As such, the study team consulted with the First Nation groups in a meaningful and significant manner, to solicit fisheries compensation projects for inclusion into the fisheries compensation strategy. Consultation with the First Nation groups was generally completed as a collective (consisting of the three regularly participating First Nation groups: WIFN, Aamjiwnaang and SON) via five meetings, in which DFO was also a participant. Consultation was also conducted through individual correspondence and meetings with each group.

Although the DFO criteria for the location of the compensation measures were applied, it should be noted that the Walpole Island and the Fighting Island fisheries compensation projects are located outside of the Lake Huron basin. Although it would be preferable to have kept compensation opportunities within Lake Huron, the opportunities that presented themselves, and which were of high importance and priority by the First Nations, were located within the St. Clair/Detroit River Corridor where these First Nations groups are located. As discussed, based on our initial meeting with DFO where high importance was placed on First Nations concerns, these compensation projects are located where Walpole Island First Nation and Aamjiwnaang identified an opportunity. The on-site compensation is provided by the rock slope along the new wharf. In order to compensate for the loss of habitat, it will be necessary to implement several diverse compensation strategies to satisfy DFO’s policies and meet the HAAT Model criteria.

At present, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has determined that the wharf expansion will result in serious harm to fish habitat, and that an authorization under Section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act will be required. As a result, the Study Team has prepared a fish habitat compensation strategy to achieve a net gain in productive capacity of fish habitat and is presented below:

1. Creation of a 280 m long rock slope consisting of 4 – 6 inch rock dressed with 1 – 2 inch granular material along the southwest face of the new wharf. This will provide 0.828 ha of higher quality habitat than the existing habitat in the harbour. The new slope will provide spawning habitat for numerous fish species and provide variability in depths, as opposed to poor quality conditions of the existing habitat;

2. Wetland Restoration on the Walpole Island First Nation. The proposed area is identified as a priority site in the St. Clair – Detroit River AOC 1-A. This area will improve conditions for Grass Pickerel, a species of Special Concern, identified by WIFN as occurring within the wetland as well as a number of other native fish species. This wetland restoration will also address the cultural and traditional concern of WIFN;

3. Creation of a spawning reef near Fighting Island in the Detroit River with target species including Lake Sturgeon, Walleye, Lake Whitefish and Northern Madtom and provisions to exclude Sea Lamprey and Round Goby. This will restore critical spawning habitat for two listed and provincially regulated species (Sturgeon and Madtom) and addresses bi-national efforts to restore habitat in this area of AOC 1-A

4. Restoration of the Garvey/Glenn watershed in the headwater sub-basins. Restoration efforts will be focused on re-creation of brook trout habitat; and

5. A stable isotope analysis study completed on the fish community surrounding the new wharf as well as at a control site. The study would be completed by Neil Rooney, Assistant Professor at the University of Guelph on behalf of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation. The purpose of the study would be to determine the structure of the aquatic food web surrounding the new wharf as well as at a control site, for comparison. The study would likely be commenced in 2014 in order to record baseline conditions, as well as one year and two years beyond completion of the wharf. The purpose of the study is to gain an understanding and knowledge of the structure change in the

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 56

aquatic food web in relation to shoreline development within Lake Huron. To date, only two other similar projects have been completed in Lake Huron on behalf of SON.

The compensation strategy identified above will result in the creation of at least 6.0 ha of new and/or restored fish habitat. The rock slope proposal along the new wharf edge will create local habitat for fish residing in the harbour which was not previously available in that area, with the exception of the constructed breakwaters. The two projects identified on Walpole Island and at Fighting Island address bi- national efforts for AOC 1-A, First Nation priorities for habitat restoration of areas and species with cultural importance, and will result in habitat for listed and regulated species. The Garvey/Glenn restoration project is a showcase project administered by MVCA which is attempting to address the source of watershed degradation, by restoring the headwater areas, with the potential to restore habitat for Brook Trout. The stable isotope analysis study will provide a gain to the fishery in regards to the understanding of the aquatic food web in Lake Huron and the potential changes in structure from shoreline developments.

The fish habitat compensation strategy has been submitted to DFO for review and comment. A Fisheries Act authorization will be secured prior to construction.

5.1.2 Construction Activities - Infill The preferred construction methodology for the infill is to build a perimeter rock revetment using large diameter material mixed with smaller diameter material to effectively isolate the embayment created by the outer structure from Lake Huron. The rock perimeter will be constructed using a barge or in a progressive manner from shore. It is anticipated that the rock material will be pit-run stone and is generally clean and void of fine materials and can therefore be placed directly into the open water with minimal turbidity. Once the rock revetment has been secured, filling will occur within the embayment area. Fill materials will be imported from local sources by truck or ship, or dredged from within the harbour itself. The perimeter rock berms will be created of stones large enough to resist short-term erosion during construction. The outside of the berm will be covered in large armour stones to protect against long-term erosion. The interior slope will be covered in decreasing sizes of stone to serve as a filter for the infill material. Should the need arise for an alternative method of infilling, the methodology will be discussed in detail with the permitting agencies.

Mitigation measures will be implemented to prevent impacts to fish and fish habitat from the infilling operations. Impacts from this activity will generally result from equipment and fill causing direct mortality or injury directly to fish, or through excess turbidity. In order to prevent these impacts, the following measures are proposed: • The time period required (i.e. year-round) to infill the wharf area, precludes the ability to work within any specified fisheries timing window. As such, mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the fishery during this construction period will be implemented and are discussed in the sections below. The habitat within the Harbour does not support any critical spawning, rearing, or other critical life stage habitat based on the homogeneity of conditions (i.e. depths, substrate, lack of cover, etc.) and high amount of disturbance from shipping traffic. However, as feasible, timing of works to minimize impacts to fish and fish habitat will be implemented. • Scare tactics, which may include electrofishing or other capture techniques, noise, or other means (e.g. use of a temporary turbidity curtain) will be used to move fish away from the activity area to prevent injury or mortality of fish; • Fish isolated within the embayment behind the rock perimeter shall be salvaged using electrofishing, gill nets, seine nets or any other approved method to effectively remove the majority of native species in that area. A Licence to Collect Fish for Scientific Purposes will be

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 57

obtained from the MNR. Captured fish will be identified, enumerated and transferred to an appropriate area within the Harbour away from the work area. • Any species at risk that may be encountered will be handled minimally to prevent any chance for stress, injury or mortality and released immediately upon capture. All captured fish will be documented and reported to the MNR. In the event of a species at risk mortality, the biologist shall collect the carcass, contact the designated MNR representative, preserve the carcass in ice or a freezer and transport the carcass to the MNR Guelph District Office within 7 days of discovery. All carcasses must reach the MNR office within 7 days, unless otherwise advised by MNR. Information transferred to the MNR shall include the number of individuals captured, injured or killed, a status update of those individuals, how the injury occurred (if known), whether there is risk of additional injuries to other individuals and any other actions taken • Construction will be completed in a manner that will control sediment release. If a significant sediment plume is observed works shall cease until the plume clears or until controls to isolate the sediment plume are implemented; • Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act states that the deposit of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish is prohibited. Therefore, no contaminated or fine sediment-laden materials are to be used for infilling unless otherwise authorized; and, • The Fill Quality Guide and Good Management Practices for Shore Infilling in Ontario March, 2011 will be followed.

The use of a turbidity curtain or other sediment controls over a long-term period (i.e. weeks to months) in this location is not practical due to significant wave action, wind and current effects, and lake depth. As such, the use of turbidity curtains is not being proposed throughout the duration of the perimeter rock revetment construction, but may be used on a temporary basis if required.

5.1.3 Construction Activities - Sheet Pile Installation The easternmost section of the southern perimeter will be defined by a vertical dock with a conventional concrete dock edge and mooring bollards, suitable for ships. The main wharf bulkhead will likely involve the use of interlocking steel sheet piles which form circular structures (cofferdams) that are topped and fronted by cast-in-place concrete parapet walls. This will avoid the need to embed sheet piles into the glacial till material in this area. The lakebed consists of hardpan tills that will prevent the traditional installation of sheet piles by pile driving or vibration. However, it may be necessary to carry out minor trenching, blasting or excavation in order to at least partially embed sheet piles or other materials.

Mitigation measures employed during trenching, blasting and/or drilling activities will need to prevent impacts to fish and fish habitat. These proposed methods each have the potential to directly cause mortality or injury to fish through significantly intrusive activities. Trenching can cause excess turbidity and direct mortality to fish if they are unable to escape excavation equipment or fill falling into the water. Blasting causes concussion, noise and pressure effects which are shown to cause direct mortality and/or injury to fish, with some species being more sensitive than others. Drilling can have the same impacts as both trenching and blasting activities with turbidity, equipment and noise being the main sources of mortality or injury. In order to mitigate impacts from any of these proposed activities, the following general mitigation measures will be employed: • All attempts to prevent injury or mortality of fish will be implemented and may consist of removal of fish using electrofishing or other capture techniques, scare tactics, use of a bubble curtain or use of a temporary turbidity curtain. • Construction will be completed in a manner that will control sediment release. If a significant sediment plume is observed works shall cease until the plume clears or until controls to isolate the sediment plume are implemented.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 58

• The work area will be isolated from the rest of the Harbour area using bubble curtains or other means. Bubble curtains have been shown to reduce the concussion and noise effects from blasting operation and are effective at keeping fish and other animals away from the work area.

Any activities involving dredging will follow the measures listed below. For the purposes of relocating fish, the work area may be temporarily isolated from the rest of the Harbour area using bubble curtains, turbidity curtains or other means. Bubble curtains have been shown to reduce the concussion and noise effects from blasting operation and are effective at keeping fish and other animals away from the work area.

• Time routine maintenance dredging to prevent disruption to sensitive fish life stages by adhering to appropriate fisheries timing windows (see the Ontario In-Water Construction Timing Windows); • Install effective sediment control measures around the dredge to limit re-suspended sediment from spreading to adjacent areas; Inspect these measures regularly and make all necessary repairs if any damage occurs. Remove these control measures in a way that prevents the escape or re- suspension of sediments; • Dredge on calm days to minimize the suspension of fine sediment particles into the water column and ensure the sediment control measures are not disturbed by wave action; • Minimize the amount of dredged material removed by only dredging the area and depth required for navigation in order to maintain as much aquatic habitat as possible; • Contaminated dredged material should be disposed of according to Ontario Ministry of Environment guidelines. It is the proponent’s responsibility to determine if the dredged material is contaminated; • Operate machinery on land or on water (i.e., from a barge or vessel) in a manner that minimizes disturbance to the banks or bed of the water body; and • Machinery is to arrive on site in a clean condition and is to be maintained free of fluid leaks.

With specific regard to blasting, the following measures from DFO’s Guidelines for the Use of Explosives in or Near Canadian Fisheries Waters, 1998 should be implemented: • Once it is determined that blasting will be necessary, consultation with DFO is encouraged as early as possible in the planning process to identify possible alternatives to the use of explosives; • The use of confined or, in particular, unconfined is discouraged, and proponents are encouraged to utilize other potentially less destructive methods wherever possible; • No use of ammonium nitrate-fuel oil mixtures occurs in or near water due to the production of toxic by-products (ammonia); • After loading a charge in a hole, the hole is to be back-filled (stemmed) with angular gravel to the level of the substrate/water interface or the hole collapsed to confine the force of the explosion to the formation being fractured. The angular gravel is to have a particle size of approximately 1/12th the diameter of the borehole; • All “shock-tubes" and detonation wires are to be recovered and removed after each blast. • No explosive is to be detonated in or near fish habitat that produces, or is likely to produce, an instantaneous pressure change (i.e., overpressure) greater than 100 kPa (14.5 psi) in the swimbladder of a fish; and, • No explosive is to be detonated that produces, or is likely to produce, a peak particle velocity greater than 13 mm•s-1 in a spawning bed during the period of egg incubation.

The construction methods to be used to install the dock wall will be determined during detail design, or become the responsibility of the contractor. Specific mitigation measures for underwater excavation will

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 59 be identified at that time and incorporated into permits and approvals. All permits and approvals will be obtained from regulatory agencies prior to the commencement of in-water construction activities.

5.1.4 Benthic Invertebrates The diversity of benthos collected in the outer harbour in the area of the proposed wharf expansion (OH- 1, OH-2) was low, although organisms were collected in much higher density, the variety of taxa was limited.

In general, the benthos collected in the harbour reflects that of a tolerant depositional community, typical of this type of environment. The species documented within the harbour are not indicative of a particularly sensitive community, and as such, are not expected to be greatly impacted by the proposed wharf expansion.

Given the limited diversity of the benthic community structure, and the absence of any sensitive species, there is minimal risk to the benthic community as a result of disturbance to harbour sediments during construction activities. Typical mitigation measures used to control transport of suspended sediment are considered sufficient to protect the benthic community from elevated concentrations of suspended solids.

Once construction of the expanded wharf facility is complete and harbour substrates have settled and stabilized, the benthic community will re-establish itself in the open water areas of the outer harbour.

5.1.5 Operation Impacts – Fisheries Once construction of the expanded wharf facility is complete and harbour substrates have settled the fish community in the outer harbour is expected to re-establish itself. The proposed rock revetment wall has been designed to attract fish, providing cover and habitat diversity that is currently limited in this area of the outer harbour.

5.1.6 General Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices To mitigate for the serious harm to fish and benthic invertebrate habitat, the measures identified below will be implemented pre-, during and post-construction at the locations where work is proposed.

Timing/Working In-the-Dry The magnitude of effects to aquatic habitat and communities is related to the extent, timing and duration of the project. The following mitigation measures will be employed: 1. The contractor will be confined to the minimum area necessary to perform the work. 2. Construction will be staged to minimize the duration of work around the harbour.

Best Construction Practices Implementation of best construction practices during construction will reduce the potential for spills or other materials/equipment entering the water. The following measures will be employed: 1. All equipment maintenance, refueling and washing will be controlled to prevent the entry of petroleum, oil or lubricants (POL) to the watercourse or their release to the environment. Vehicular maintenance and refueling will be conducted at least 30 m distance from the wharf expansion area. 6. Construction material, excess material, construction debris, and empty containers will be stored as far as possible from the water to prevent their entry into Lake Huron.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 60

7. A “Spill Prevention and Response Contingency Plan” and the appropriate contingency materials to absorb or contain a spill will be on site at all. 8. Regulatory authorities will be identified in the contract package for the purpose of reporting spills. All spills that could potentially cause damage to the environment will be reported to the Spills Action Centre of the MOE.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Effective erosion and sedimentation control will be achieved throughout the project with careful planning and design, stringent construction supervision, monitoring of the site, and maintenance of control works throughout their operational life. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will include: 1. Minimizing the extent and duration of works which could cause sedimentation in the Harbour. 2. Installation of sediment control measures where/if applicable, to control the release of any substrates which could cause sedimentation in the Harbour. 3. Monitoring and maintaining erosion and sediment control measures installed. 4. Ensuring that, following construction, once disturbed areas have stabilized, all temporary erosion and sedimentation controls will be removed. 5. Construction will be completed in a manner that will control sediment release. If a significant sediment plume is observed works shall cease until the plume clears or until controls to isolate the sediment plume are implemented. 6. Turbidity levels in Lake Huron shall be kept within the specifications of the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (CWQO) at all times. If concentrations of substances exceed the CWQO guidelines, a project contingency plan will be implemented immediately.

Stormwater Management The stormwater collection system will be divided into two separate systems. The exterior collection system will be a series of catch basins and polymer storm sewers around the perimeter of the area, intended to catch rainwater off of the tarps. This water should have low salinity and will be discharged directly to the lake or harbour basin.

The interior collection system will be a line of catch basins and polymer storm sewer running down the center of the area. The asphalt paved surface will be graded towards the center line of catch basins. This collection system will be designed to catch storm water not diverted by the tarps, and assumed to be saline, if salt is in storage. This water flows through the sewer eastwards to an in-ground collection cistern. If it is saline it will be reused in mine processes or discharged at the approved dilution rate. In some cases, when other materials are stored on the site, the storage cistern will allow for treatment or analysis before discharge.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 61

5.1.7 Monitoring Pre-, During and Post-Construction Construction Monitoring Monitoring of the pre-, during and post-construction works associated with the wharf construction will ensure that compensation and mitigation measures meet the terms specified in the relevant approvals.

An Environmental Inspector will be on site periodically throughout the duration of the construction to ensure implementation of the terms and conditions of the environmental agency approvals/Letter of Authorization. Monitoring will be completed periodically during all phases of construction by a qualified biologist.

Responsibilities of the Environmental Inspector will include: 1. Ensure that the works are completed with minimal impacts to the aquatic community and in the shortest time possible; 2. Brief the Contractor and Contract Administrator of the terms and conditions of the relevant approvals and of any sensitivity associated with the proposed works. A copy of the granted approvals and permits will be provided to the Contractor and kept at the construction site for ready reference; 3. Respond to upsets/unforeseen circumstances and recommend corrective/preventative measures where appropriate. Minor adjustments to the plans might be necessary to expedite construction activities, to minimize impacts or to enhance the design based on site specific conditions. Agency staff at DFO and MVCA will be contacted before these “field-fit” decisions are made if possible, and site visits to review any changes will be arranged to ensure that compliance with the relevant permits is achieved; 4. Ensure that all materials required to complete the proposed work (including contingency supplies) are on hand prior to the commencement of work; 5. Ensure “due diligence” through adherence to all federal, provincial and local legislation and regulations; 6. Monitor the installation of all fish habitat compensation measures in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Letter of Authorization; and, 7. All works are to be completed during periods of reasonable weather. Weather forecasts should be consulted in order to predict large storm events which have the potential for severe wind and wave action, in which case measures will be implemented to minimize disturbance to areas beyond the wharf expansion construction. These measures could include the ceasing of construction activities, placement of bubble curtains and appropriately timing construction activities. The post-construction monitoring program will consist of the following components:

1. “As constructed” drawings will be submitted by the Contractor following construction to confirm that all proposed works were built as designed and will be available for review by DFO and MVCA; 2. Monitoring will be carried out for two (2) years following completion of construction to assess the success of the compensation, mitigation and restoration measures. The details of this monitoring program are subject to the Fisheries Act authorization but will likely include the following: effectiveness of fish habitat measures, assessment of any plantings health, assessment of stability/longevity of habitat measures, reporting of deficiencies, water quality testing, fish community sampling, photographs, etc. This monitoring will also need to be

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 62

coordinated with MVCA who will likely be monitoring in conjunction with our activities (i.e. Garvey/Glenn monitoring program): 3. At the conclusion of each monitoring year, a report will be prepared and submitted to DFO for review and comment. Contents of the Monitoring Report shall include but not be limited to the following for each site visit: date of each visit, including weather conditions water temperature, photographs taken, observations made regarding post construction stability of each in-water features, land vegetation element, and an assessment of the effectiveness of each compensation measure.

5.2 Vegetation and Vegetation Communities

5.2.1 Footprint Impacts The proposed wharf expansion is located within in an open water area of the outer harbour and as such will not impact any vegetation or vegetation communities.

Improvements to North Harbour Road will be minor in nature and will not require the removal of any vegetation either along the road corridor or at the intersection of North Harbour Road and Highway 21.

5.2.2 Construction Impacts Impacts to vegetation and vegetation communities are not anticipated during construction of the new wharf facility.

5.2.3 Operation Impacts Impacts to vegetation and vegetation communities are not anticipated during the operation and maintenance of the new wharf facility.

5.3 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

5.3.1 Footprint Impacts The proposed wharf expansion is located within in an open water area of the outer harbour, and currently provides staging areas for colonial waterbirds and waterfowl. A large portion of this staging area, southwest of the north breakwater, will be displaced by the proposed wharf facility. Based on the conditions at Goderich Harbour and the species observed, the loss of the staging habitat adjacent to the north breakwater in the area of the proposed wharf expansion is not considered significant. Although the location of the proposed wharf expansion is the preferred staging area, other staging opportunities exist in the inner harbour and adjacent to the south pier and south breakwater.

Numerous bird species located in the vicinity of the wharf expansion are listed under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA). The MBCA prohibits the killing, capturing, injuring, taking or disturbing of migratory birds (including eggs) or damaging, destroying, removing or disturbing of nests. Migratory insectivorous and non-game birds are protected year-round and migratory game birds are protected from March 10 to September 1. No permits are issued for the destruction of migratory birds or their nests incidental to some other undertaking or activity and project works or activities are not specifically prohibited under the Act.

No nesting migratory birds were recorded in the footprint area of the wharf expansion; however, there is a potential for nesting to occur in existing habitat (i.e. along the north breakwater and riverwall). If alteration of existing habitat (i.e. north breakwater and riverwall) is required during the active nesting season for most bird species (April 1 to July 31), a bird nest survey will be carried out by a qualified avian

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 63 biologist prior to construction activities. If active nests are found, a site-specific mitigation plan will be prepared in consultation with the Canadian Wildlife Service.

 No habitat alteration will occur from April 1 to July 31 unless a bird nest survey is carried out by a qualified avian biologist.  A mitigation plan will be prepared in the event that an active bird nest is discovered in an area of habitat alteration.

Improvements to North Harbour Road will be minor in nature and will not require the removal of any wildlife habitat either along the road corridor or at the intersection of North Harbour Road and Highway 21.

5.3.2 Construction Impacts Construction of the new wharf facility, specifically construction noise and vibrations will result in disturbance to colonial waterbird and waterfowl. Based on the footprint area of the proposed wharf and the species observed disturbance caused by construction noise and vibration is not considered significant.

5.3.3 Operation Impacts Once construction of the expanded wharf facility is complete it is expected that colonial waterbirds and waterfowl will continue to stage in the open water area that will remain in the outer harbour east of the north breakwater. Staging areas in the inner harbour, and along the south breakwater and south pier extension will not be impacted by the wharf expansion. Impacts to wildlife and wildlife communities are not anticipated during the operation and maintenance of the new wharf facility.

5.4 Designated Natural Areas

5.3.1 Footprint Impacts Impacts to Designated Natural Areas are not anticipated as a result of the expansion of the wharf facility.

5.3.2 Construction Impacts Impacts to Designated Natural Areas are not anticipated as a result of the expansion of the wharf facility.

5.3.3 Operation Impacts Impacts to Designated Natural Areas are not anticipated as a result of the expansion of the wharf facility.

5.3.4 Mitigation Measures As impacts to Designated Natural Areas are not anticipated as a result of the expansion of the wharf facility no specific mitigation measures are proposed. Standard environmental controls, including requirements for sediment and erosion control measures, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, and construction best management practices will be included in construction contract documents.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 64

6.0 REFERENCES B. M. Ross and Associates Limited. 2006. Harbour Rehabilitation Master Plan/Environmental Study Report (South Pier Extension). File No. 01041. Prepared for the Goderich Port Management Corporation. 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. Canada Department of Agriculture. 1960. Reference Map – Soil Associations of Southern Ontario Prepared by the Soil Research Institute, Ottawa.

Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.). 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii + 706 pp. Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario, 3rd Edition. Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2002. Species at Risk. Ottawa County of Huron. 2009. “Transportation”. Huron County Website. County of Huron. 2007. Huron County Online Interactive Mapping. County of Huron. 1998. Huron County Official Plan. Approved by Council on October 1, 1998. Couturier, A. 1999. Conservation Priorities for the Birds of Southern Ontario. Bird Studies Canada Dobbyn, J.S. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists. Toronto Farrar, J.L. 1995. Trees in Canada. Fitzhenry and Whiteside Limited and the Canadian Forest Service. Markham, Ontario. 502 pp. Golder Associates Ltd. 2012. Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report – Proposed North Wharf Expansion, Goderich, Ontario. Prepared for B.M.Ross and Associates Limited. Golder Associates Ltd. 1987. Phase I Dredging, Harbour Expansion, Goderich, Ontario, Project No. 620318, 816-3104. Golder Associates Ltd. 1985c. Review of Dredging Claim, Phase I, Goderich, Ontario, 851-3208-1. Golder Associates Ltd. 1985b. Additional Subsurface Investigation, Harbour Expansion, Goderich, Ontario, 831-3218-3. Golder Associates Ltd. 1985a. Supplementary Subsurface Investigation, South Pier, Harbour Expansion, Goderich, Ontario, 831-3218-2. Golder Associates Ltd. 1984. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Harbour Expansion, Goderich, Ontario, 831-3218-1. Harding, J. H. 1997. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Great Lakes Region. The University of Michigan Press, Michigan. 378pp Heyer, W.R., M.A. Donnelly, R.W. McDiarmid, L.C. Hayek and M.S. Foster.1994. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity. Standard Methods for Amphibians.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 65

Hoffman, D.W., N.R. Richards and F.F. Morwick. 1952. Soil survey of Huron County. Ontario Soil Survey Report #13. Department of Agriculture, Ottawa. James, R.D. 1985. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Habitat Management Guidelines for Birds of Ontario Wetlands. 53pp Lake Huron Binational Partnership (LHBP) 2008. 2008-2010 Action Plan. Section IV. Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation (LHCCC). 2009. Coastal Birds. www.lakehuron ca/index.php?page =coastal birds Lower Maitland Stewardship Group (LMSG). 2006. Lower Maitland Report lmsg.huronstewardship.on.ca/images/stories/maitland_report.pdf Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. North Bay, Ontario. 225 pp. Lower Maitland Stewardship Group (LMSG). 2006. Lower Maitland Report MNR. 2009. Fish collection records 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009. Owen Sound Area Office. Distribution of Fish Species at Risk – MVCA Map 1, November 2008. MNR. Ontario Species at Risk Homepage: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/index.html. Natural Heritage Information Centre. 1997. Southern Ontario Vegetation Communities List. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. Last revised January 1997. Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). 2008 and 2010. http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhic.cfm Natural Resources, Ministry of. Natural Heritage Information Centre website . Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. Newmaster, S. 2005. Flora Ontario - Integrated Botanical Information System (FOIBIS) 2006 species scientific names obtained March 2007 from the University of Guelph.

Nature Conservancy Canada, The. www.natureconservancy.ca. Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb’s Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company. Boston, Massachusetts. 490 pp. Newmaster, S.G. 2005. Flora Ontario - Integrated Botanical Information System (FOIBIS) 2006 species scientific names obtained March 2007 from the University of Guelph. Newmaster, S.G., A. Lehela, P.W.C. Uhlig, S. McMurray and M.J. Oldham. 1998. Ontario Plant List. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Forest Research Information Paper No. 123, 550 pp. + appendices. Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). 2011. http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhic.cfm Oldham, M.J., W.D. Bakowsky and D.A. Sutherland. 1995. Coefficient of wetness from Floristic Quality Assessment System for Southern Ontario. Oldham, M.J. 1999. Natural Heritage Resources of Ontario: Rare Vascular Plants. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 56 pp.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page 66

Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas. 2006. www.birdsontario.org/atlas/atlasmain.html Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Natural Heritage Information Centre website (http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.cfm). Peterborough, Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2007. Vulnerable, Threatened, Endangered, Extirpated or Extinct Species of Ontario. Species at Risk Project. Peterborough, Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide: Appendix G Riley, J. 1999. Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of Central Region, OMNR Resources. Soper, J.H. and M.L. Heimburger. 1982. Shrubs of Ontario. The Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto, Ontario. 495 pp. Statistics Canada. 2006. Goderich, Ontario (table). 2006 Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa. Released March 13, 2007. Town of Goderich. 2009a. “Goderich: Canada’s Prettiest Town”. Website, various pages. Town of Goderich. 2009b. Town of Goderich Official Plan. Approved by Council January 29, 2009. Town of Goderich. 2009c. Town of Goderich website. http://www.goderich.ca/ Town of Goderich BIA Board of Management. 2009d. Downtown Goderich Business Improvement Area website. http://www.goderich.ca/en/bia/index.html Town of Goderich. 1985. Consolidated Zoning By-law 38-1985, as amended.

LGL Limited environmental research associates

APPENDIX A BATHYMETRY DATA

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page A1

WATER ID TYPE EASTING NORTHING COMMENTS DEPTH_M 1 Bathymetry 440529.841256251 4844016.994351910 32.40 2 Bathymetry 440565.191190748 4843955.756816640 33.40 3 Bathymetry 440578.128920448 4844004.056985280 32.30 Ponar And 4 Bathymetry 440591.074895993 4844052.347155950 33.40 sand 5 Bathymetry 440600.549371089 4843894.519281360 33.40 6 Bathymetry 440613.487100790 4843942.819450000 33.20 7 Bathymetry 440626.433076334 4843991.109620670 29.70 8 Bathymetry 440639.370806035 4844039.409789310 26.80 9 Bathymetry 440652.308535735 4844087.699959990 29.60 10 Bathymetry 440635.907551431 4843833.281746080 31.00 11 Bathymetry 440648.845281131 4843881.581914720 33.00 Ponar And 12 Bathymetry 440661.791256676 4843929.872085400 33.00 cobble 13 Bathymetry 440674.728986376 4843978.172254040 31.80 Ponar And 14 Bathymetry 440687.666716077 4844026.462424710 29.90 sand 15 Bathymetry 440700.612691622 4844074.762593350 20.40 Ponar And 16 Bathymetry 440713.550421322 4844123.062761990 26.20 sand 17 Bathymetry 440684.195215628 4843820.344379440 30.50 18 Bathymetry 440697.141191173 4843868.634550120 33.00 19 Bathymetry 440710.078920874 4843916.934718760 32.60 20 Bathymetry 440723.016650574 4843965.234887400 30.50 21 Bathymetry 440735.962626119 4844013.525058080 31.00 22 Bathymetry 440748.900355819 4844061.825226720 26.60 23 Bathymetry 440761.846331364 4844110.115397390 0.00 24 Bathymetry 440774.784061065 4844158.415566030 24.50 25 Bathymetry 440719.553395970 4843759.106844170 30.50 Ponar And unknown‐likely boulder 26 Bathymetry 440732.499371514 4843807.397014840 30.50 associated with breakwall 27 Bathymetry 440745.437101215 4843855.697183480 29.00 28 Bathymetry 440758.374830915 4843903.997352120 30.10 29 Bathymetry 440771.320806460 4843952.287522800 31.70 Ponar And 30 Bathymetry 440784.258536161 4844000.587691440 29.30 sand, detritus, silt 31 Bathymetry 440797.204511706 4844048.877862120 27.50 Ponar And 32 Bathymetry 440810.142241406 4844097.178030760 23.10 sand, boulder 33 Bathymetry 440823.079971107 4844145.478199400 17.60

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page A2

WATER ID TYPE EASTING NORTHING COMMENTS DEPTH_M Ponar And 34 Bathymetry 440836.025946651 4844193.768370070 21.70 sand, detritus 35 Bathymetry 440767.857551856 4843746.159479570 25.00 36 Bathymetry 440780.795281556 4843794.459648210 26.50 37 Bathymetry 440793.733011257 4843842.759816850 32.00 38 Bathymetry 440806.678986802 4843891.049987520 29.80 39 Bathymetry 440819.616716502 4843939.350156160 31.80 40 Bathymetry 440832.562692047 4843987.640326840 27.80 41 Bathymetry 440845.500421747 4844035.940495480 27.40 42 Bathymetry 440858.438151448 4844084.240664120 20.60 43 Bathymetry 440871.384126993 4844132.530834790 17.50 44 Bathymetry 440884.321856693 4844180.831003440 16.10 45 Bathymetry 440897.267832238 4844229.121174110 20.60 46 Bathymetry 440816.145216054 4843733.222112930 21.50 Ponar And 47 Bathymetry 440829.082945754 4843781.522281570 26.90 sand 48 Bathymetry 440842.028921299 4843829.812452250 29.90 49 Bathymetry 440854.966650999 4843878.112620890 28.40 50 Bathymetry 440867.912626544 4843926.412789530 31.80 Ponar And 51 Bathymetry 440880.850356245 4843974.702960200 29.00 sand, detritus 52 Bathymetry 440893.788085945 4844023.003128840 28.60 Ponar And 53 Bathymetry 440906.734061490 4844071.293299520 25.10 sand, detritus 54 Bathymetry 440919.671791190 4844119.593468160 17.00 Ponar And 55 Bathymetry 440932.617766735 4844167.883638830 17.70 sand, gravel 56 Bathymetry 440945.555496436 4844216.183807470 0.00 Ponar And 57 Bathymetry 440958.493226136 4844264.483976110 18.90 silt, detritus, sand 58 Bathymetry 440851.503396395 4843671.984577650 24.70 59 Bathymetry 440864.441126096 4843720.284746290 22.60 60 Bathymetry 440877.387101640 4843768.574916970 27.50 61 Bathymetry 440890.324831341 4843816.875085610 29.50 62 Bathymetry 440903.270806886 4843865.165256290 27.30 63 Bathymetry 440916.208536586 4843913.465424930 32.30 64 Bathymetry 440929.146266287 4843961.765593570 30.10 65 Bathymetry 440942.092241831 4844010.055764240 30.20 66 Bathymetry 440955.029971532 4844058.355932880 27.40 67 Bathymetry 440967.975947077 4844106.646103560 20.90

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page A3

WATER ID TYPE EASTING NORTHING COMMENTS DEPTH_M 68 Bathymetry 440980.913676777 4844154.946272200 15.80 69 Bathymetry 440993.851406478 4844203.246440840 14.80 70 Bathymetry 441006.797382022 4844251.536611510 8.80 Ponar And unknown‐likely boulder 71 Bathymetry 440899.799306437 4843659.047211020 23.50 associated with breakwall 72 Bathymetry 440912.745281982 4843707.337381690 23.40 73 Bathymetry 440925.683011682 4843755.637550330 24.30 74 Bathymetry 440938.628987227 4843803.927721010 23.40 Ponar And 75 Bathymetry 440951.566716928 4843852.227889650 26.60 silt, some sand 76 Bathymetry 440964.504446628 4843900.528058290 31.50 77 Bathymetry 440977.450422173 4843948.818228960 31.00 78 Bathymetry 440990.388151873 4843997.118397600 30.40 Ponar And 79 Bathymetry 441003.334127418 4844045.408568280 28.30 sand, detritus 80 Bathymetry 441016.271857119 4844093.708736920 26.40 Ponar And sand, some zebra mussel 81 Bathymetry 441029.209586819 4844142.008905560 12.50 shells 82 Bathymetry 441042.155562364 4844190.299076240 14.00 Ponar And sand, some zebra mussel 83 Bathymetry 441055.093292064 4844238.599244880 12.80 shells 84 Bathymetry 440935.149240934 4843597.809675740 24.00 85 Bathymetry 440948.095216479 4843646.099846420 19.00 86 Bathymetry 440961.032946179 4843694.400015060 26.30 87 Bathymetry 440973.978921724 4843742.700183700 28.00 88 Bathymetry 440986.916651425 4843790.990354370 29.20 89 Bathymetry 440999.854381125 4843839.290523010 25.60 90 Bathymetry 441012.800356670 4843887.580693690 30.40 91 Bathymetry 441025.738086370 4843935.880862330 32.00 92 Bathymetry 441038.684061915 4843984.181030970 27.50 93 Bathymetry 441051.621791616 4844032.471201640 31.10 94 Bathymetry 441064.559521316 4844080.771370280 26.70 95 Bathymetry 441077.505496861 4844129.061540960 13.20 96 Bathymetry 441090.443226562 4844177.361709600 13.80 97 Bathymetry 441103.380956262 4844225.661878240 12.70 98 Bathymetry 440983.453396820 4843584.862311140 21.00 Ponar And sand, zebra mussel shells, 99 Bathymetry 440996.391126521 4843633.162479780 19.00 silt, gravel 100 Bathymetry 441009.337102066 4843681.462648420 16.60 101 Ponar And 441022.274831766 4843729.752819100 14.90 sand, silt

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page A4

WATER ID TYPE EASTING NORTHING COMMENTS DEPTH_M Bathymetry 102 Bathymetry 441035.212561467 4843778.052987730 24.50 103 Bathymetry 441048.158537011 4843826.343158410 24.90 104 Bathymetry 441061.096266712 4843874.643327050 31.10 Ponar And small cobble, gravel, 105 Bathymetry 441074.042242257 4843922.943495690 31.00 detritus 106 Bathymetry 441086.979971957 4843971.233666370 24.80 107 Bathymetry 441099.917701658 4844019.533835010 29.50 108 Bathymetry 441112.863677202 4844067.824005680 26.10 Ponar And 109 Bathymetry 441125.801406903 4844116.124174320 22.80 sand, much detritus 110 Bathymetry 441138.739136603 4844164.424342960 9.90 Ponar And 111 Bathymetry 441151.685112148 4844212.714513640 11.60 sand 112 Bathymetry 441031.749306862 4843571.924944500 17.00 113 Bathymetry 441044.695282407 4843620.225113140 14.50 114 Bathymetry 441057.633012108 4843668.515283820 20.30 115 Bathymetry 441070.570741808 4843716.815452460 23.50 116 Bathymetry 441083.516717353 4843765.105623130 19.50 117 Bathymetry 441096.454447053 4843813.405791770 23.90 118 Bathymetry 441109.400422598 4843861.705960410 29.00 119 Bathymetry 441122.338152299 4843909.996131090 30.90 120 Bathymetry 441135.275881999 4843958.296299730 28.50 121 Bathymetry 441161.159587244 4844054.886639050 26.90 122 Bathymetry 441174.097316945 4844103.186807690 24.80 123 Bathymetry 441187.043292490 4844151.476978360 12.80 124 Bathymetry 441199.981022190 4844199.777147000 9.40 125 Bathymetry 441080.045216904 4843558.987577870 17.60 126 Bathymetry 441092.982946605 4843607.277748540 14.80 127 Bathymetry 441105.920676305 4843655.577917180 13.10 128 Bathymetry 441118.866651850 4843703.878085820 12.40 129 Bathymetry 441131.804381550 4843752.168256500 11.40 Ponar And 130 Bathymetry 441144.750357095 4843800.468425140 14.10 sand 131 Bathymetry 441157.688086796 4843848.758595810 26.90 132 Bathymetry 441170.625816496 4843897.058764450 29.60 133 Bathymetry 441222.393226987 4844090.239443090 27.40 134 Bathymetry 441235.330956687 4844138.539611720 29.50 Ponar And 135 Bathymetry 441248.276932232 4844186.839780370 8.00 sand

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page A5

WATER ID TYPE EASTING NORTHING COMMENTS DEPTH_M 136 Bathymetry 441128.341126946 4843546.040213260 9.10 137 Bathymetry 441141.278856647 4843594.340381900 13.50 138 Bathymetry 441154.224832191 4843642.640550540 11.60 139 Bathymetry 441167.162561892 4843690.930721220 11.40 140 Bathymetry 441180.108537437 4843739.230889860 11.20 141 Bathymetry 441193.046267137 4843787.521060540 19.50 142 Bathymetry 441205.983996838 4843835.821229180 22.80 143 Bathymetry 441218.929972383 4843884.121397820 26.60 144 Bathymetry 441231.867702083 4843932.411568490 29.90 145 Bathymetry 441270.689137029 4844077.302076450 27.40 146 Bathymetry 441283.635112574 4844125.592247120 25.50 147 Bathymetry 441296.572842274 4844173.892415760 9.40 148 Bathymetry 441176.637036988 4843533.102846630 14.00 149 Bathymetry 441189.583012533 4843581.403015270 11.20 150 Bathymetry 441202.520742233 4843629.693185940 11.60 151 Bathymetry 441215.466717778 4843677.993354580 10.50 152 Bathymetry 441228.404447479 4843726.283525260 10.60 153 Bathymetry 441241.342177179 4843774.583693900 10.00 154 Bathymetry 441267.225882424 4843871.174033220 28.80 155 Bathymetry 441280.163612125 4843919.474201860 31.30 156 Bathymetry 441331.931022615 4844112.654880490 21.30 Ponar And 157 Bathymetry 441344.868752316 4844160.955049130 6.20 mixed stone up to 15 cm 158 Bathymetry 441328.459522167 4843906.526837260 30.00 159 Bathymetry 441376.755432209 4843893.589470620 26.70 160 Bathymetry 441425.059588095 4843880.652103980 26.60 161 Bathymetry 441473.347252293 4843867.704739380 26.60 162 Bathymetry 441521.643162335 4843854.767372750 26.60 163 Bathymetry 441569.947318221 4843841.830006110 27.10 164 Bathymetry 441618.234982419 4843828.882641510 27.50 165 Bathymetry 441631.180957963 4843877.182810150 23.80 166 Bathymetry 441666.539138305 4843815.945274870 25.10 167 Bathymetry 441679.476868005 4843864.235445550 26.30 168 Bathymetry 441692.414597706 4843912.535614190 17.40 Ponar And 169 Bathymetry 441705.360573251 4843960.835782830 17.80 silt, sand 170 Bathymetry 441718.298302951 4844009.125953500 17.60 171 Bathymetry 441727.772778047 4843851.298078910 28.90 172 Bathymetry 441740.718753592 4843899.598247550 24.50

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page A6

WATER ID TYPE EASTING NORTHING COMMENTS DEPTH_M 173 Bathymetry 441753.656483292 4843947.888418220 21.90 174 Bathymetry 441766.594212993 4843996.188586860 21.50 175 Bathymetry 441776.068688089 4843838.360712270 28.20 176 Bathymetry 441789.006417790 4843886.650882950 25.80 177 Bathymetry 441801.944147490 4843934.951051590 26.60 178 Bathymetry 441814.890123035 4843983.251220230 22.60 179 Bathymetry 441827.827852735 4844031.541390900 19.50 180 Bathymetry 441811.426868431 4843777.123177000 26.50 181 Bathymetry 441824.364598131 4843825.413347670 29.10 182 Bathymetry 441837.302327832 4843873.713516310 24.10 183 Bathymetry 441850.248303376 4843922.013684950 27.30 184 Bathymetry 441863.186033077 4843970.303855630 24.00 185 Bathymetry 441876.132008622 4844018.604024270 20.70 186 Bathymetry 441859.722778472 4843764.175812390 29.70 187 Bathymetry 441872.660508173 4843812.475981030 29.00 188 Bathymetry 441885.606483718 4843860.776149670 24.10 Ponar And 189 Bathymetry 441898.544213418 4843909.066320350 24.20 sand, silt 190 Bathymetry 441911.490188963 4843957.366488990 24.30 191 Bathymetry 441924.427918664 4844005.656659670 19.30 192 Bathymetry 441908.010442670 4843751.238445760 26.50 193 Bathymetry 441920.956418215 4843799.538614400 23.30 194 Bathymetry 441933.894147915 4843847.828785070 24.00 195 Bathymetry 441946.840123460 4843896.128953710 23.30 196 Bathymetry 441959.777853161 4843944.429122350 24.50 197 Bathymetry 441972.715582861 4843992.719293030 19.80 198 Bathymetry 441969.252328257 4843786.591249800 23.00 199 Bathymetry 441982.198303802 4843834.891418440 23.30 200 Bathymetry 441995.136033502 4843883.181589110 24.50 201 Bathymetry 442008.073763203 4843931.481757750 24.20 202 Bathymetry 442021.019738747 4843979.781926390 19.90 203 Bathymetry 442030.494213844 4843821.944053840 22.80 204 Bathymetry 442043.431943544 4843870.244222480 23.40 205 Bathymetry 442056.377919089 4843918.544391120 20.50 206 Bathymetry 442069.315648789 4843966.834561790 19.20 Ponar And 207 Bathymetry 442091.727853586 4843857.306855840 23.60 silt, some sand 208 Bathymetry 442104.665583287 4843905.597026520 22.50 209 Bathymetry 442117.611558831 4843953.897195160 20.80

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page A7

WATER ID TYPE EASTING NORTHING COMMENTS DEPTH_M 210 Bathymetry 442130.549288532 4844002.197363800 19.20 211 Bathymetry 442152.969739173 4843892.659659880 23.30 212 Bathymetry 442165.907468873 4843940.959828520 19.30 213 Bathymetry 442178.845198574 4843989.249999190 18.70 214 Bathymetry 442227.149354460 4843976.312632560 10.00

LGL Limited environmental research associates

APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD FROM FISHERIES FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

PROJECT #TA4793 November 2009 FISHERIES PHOTO APPENDIX

Looking west from the base of the rubble mound break wall Looking southwest from the base of the rubble mound (Oct. 20-09) break wall (Oct. 20-09)

Looking north from the base of the rubble mound break wall Looking east from the base of the rubble mound break wall (Oct. 20-09) (Oct. 20-09)

Looking west from 150 m west of the base of the rubble Looking west from 150 m west of the base of the rubble mound break wall (Oct. 20-09) mound break wall (Oct. 20-09)

APPENDIX C VASCULAR PLANT CHECKLIST

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page C2

APPENDIX C VASCULAR PLANT LIST

Common Name GRank SRank Scientific Name MNR BLS1 CUT1a CUT1c CUT1b CUW1a CUW1c CUW1e FOC4-1 CUW1b CUW1d FOD5-4 FOD7-2f FOD5-3a FOD7-2a FOD7-2c FOD7-2e FOD7-4a FOD7-4c FOD5-3b FOD7-2b FOD7-2d FOD7-4b FOD7-4d CUM1-1a CUM1-1d COSEWIC CUM1-1f/M CUM1-1e/MAM2 CUM1-1c/MAM2 CUM1-1b/MAM2

EQUISETACEAE HORSETAIL FAMILY Equisetum arvense field horsetail G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X PINACEAE PINE FAMILY * Picea abies Norway spruce G? SE3 X X Picea glauca white spruce G5 S5 X X X X X X * Picea pungens Colorado spruce G5 SE1 X X X Picea sp. spruce X * Pinus nigra Austrian pine G? SE2 X Pinus resinosa red pine G5 S5 X Pinus strobus eastern white pine G5 S5 X * Pinus sylvestris scotch pine G? SE5 X X X X X X CUPRESSACEAE CEDAR FAMILY Juniperus communis common juniper G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X Thuja occidentalis eastern white cedar G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TAXACEAE YEW FAMILY Taxus canadensis American yew G5 S5 X RANUNCULACEAE BUTTERCUP FAMILY Actaea sp. baneberry X Anemone virginiana var. virginiana thimbleweed G5T S5 X X Aquilegia canadensis wild columbine G5 S5 X Clematis virginiana virgin's-bower G5 S5 X Hydrastis canadensis goldenseal G4 S2 THR THR * Ranunculus acris tall buttercup G5 SE5 X X X X Thalictrum dioicum early meadow-rue G5 S5 X X X X X Thalictrum pubescens tall meadow-rue G5 S5 X BERBERIDACEAE BARBERRY FAMILY * Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry G? SE5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X * Berberis vulgaris common barberry G? SE5 X X X X Podophyllum peltatum may-apple G5 S5 X PAPAVERACEAE POPPY FAMILY * Chelidonium majus celandine G? SE5 X X X X ULMACEAE ELM FAMILY Ulmus americana white elm G5? S5 X X X X X X X X X * Ulmus pumila Siberian elm G? SE3 X Ulmus rubra slippery elm G5 S5 X X X X X X X X

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page C3

APPENDIX C VASCULAR PLANT LIST

Common Name GRank SRank Scientific Name MNR BLS1 CUT1a CUT1c CUT1b CUW1a CUW1c CUW1e FOC4-1 CUW1b CUW1d FOD5-4 FOD7-2f FOD5-3a FOD7-2a FOD7-2c FOD7-2e FOD7-4a FOD7-4c FOD5-3b FOD7-2b FOD7-2d FOD7-4b FOD7-4d CUM1-1a CUM1-1d COSEWIC CUM1-1f/M CUM1-1e/MAM2 CUM1-1c/MAM2 CUM1-1b/MAM2

MORACEAE MULBERRY FAMILY * Morus alba white mulberry G? SE5 X X X X X X URTICACEAE NETTLE FAMILY * Urtica dioica ssp. dioica European stinging nettle G5T? SE2 X X X X Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis American stinging nettle G5T? S5 X JUGLANDACEAE WALNUT FAMILY Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory G5 S5 X X X X X X X Juglans cinerea butternut G3G4 S3? END END Juglans nigra black walnut G5 S4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FAGACEAE BEECH FAMILY * Quercus robur English oak G? SE1 X Quercus rubra red oak G5 S5 X X X X X X BETULACEAE BIRCH FAMILY Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X Betula papyrifera white birch G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X Ostrya virginiana ironwood G5 S5 X X X X CARYOPHYLLACEAE PINK FAMILY * Saponaria officinalis bouncing-bet G? SE5 X X X X X X POLYGONACEAE SMARTWEED FAMILY * Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed G? SE4 X X X X X X X Polygonum pensylvanicum Pennsylvania smartweed G5 S5 X X * Polygonum persicaria lady's-thumb G? SE5 X Polygonum virginianum Virginia knotweed G5 S4 X * Rumex crispus curly-leaf dock G? SE5 X X X X X X X TILIACEAE LINDEN FAMILY Tilia americana basswood G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X * Tilia cordata small leaf linden G? SE1 X MALVACEAE MALLOW FAMILY * Malva neglecta cheeses G? SE5 X X X VIOLACEAE VIOLET FAMILY Viola palmata var. palmate early blue violet G5T? S2 X Viola pubescens downy yellow violet G5 S5 X X X Viola sororia woolly blue violet G5 S5 X X X X Viola sp. violet X X X CUCURBITACEAE GOURD FAMILY

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page C4

APPENDIX C VASCULAR PLANT LIST

Common Name GRank SRank Scientific Name MNR BLS1 CUT1a CUT1c CUT1b CUW1a CUW1c CUW1e FOC4-1 CUW1b CUW1d FOD5-4 FOD7-2f FOD5-3a FOD7-2a FOD7-2c FOD7-2e FOD7-4a FOD7-4c FOD5-3b FOD7-2b FOD7-2d FOD7-4b FOD7-4d CUM1-1a CUM1-1d COSEWIC CUM1-1f/M CUM1-1e/MAM2 CUM1-1c/MAM2 CUM1-1b/MAM2

Echinocystis lobata prickly cucumber G5 S5 X SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY * Populus alba silver poplar G5 SE5 X X X X X X X X X X Populus balsamifera ssp. balsamifera balsam poplar G5T? S5 X Populus deltoides ssp. deltoides eastern cottonwood G5T? SU X X X X Populus grandidentata large-tooth aspen G5 S5 X X X X X Populus sp. poplar ? X Populus tremuloides trembling aspen G5 S5 X X X X X X X X * Salix alba white willow G5 SE4 X X X X X X X X X Salix bebbiana long-beaked willow G5 S5 X Salix discolor pussy willow G5 S5 X X X X Salix eriocephala Missouri willow G5 S5 X X Salix exigua sandbar willow G5 S5 X X * Salix fragilis crack willow G? SE5 X X X X X Salix petiolaris slender willow G4 S5 X X X * Salix purpurea basket willow G5 SE4 X X Salix sp. willow ? X X X X X * Salix X rubens reddish willow HYB SE4 X BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY * Alliaria petiolata garlic mustard G5 SE5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X * Barbarea vulgaris yellow rocket G? SE5 X X X * Erysimum cheiranthoides ssp. cheiranthoides wormseed mustard SE5 X * Hesperis matronalis dame's rocket G4G5 SE5 X X X X X X X * Lepidium campestre field cress G? SE5 X * Lepidium densiflorum common pepper-grass G5 SE5 X ERICACEAE HEATH FAMILY Ledum groenlandicum Labrador-tea G5 S5 X Vaccinium angustifolium low sweet blueberry G5 S5 X X WINTERGREEN PYROLACEAE FAMILY Pyrola americana round-leaved pyrola G5 S4? X PRIMULACEAE PRIMROSE FAMILY * Anagallis arvensis scarlet pimpernel G? SE4 X GROSSULARIACEAE GOOSEBERRY FAMILY Ribes cynosbati prickly gooseberry G5 S5 X X X X

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page C5

APPENDIX C VASCULAR PLANT LIST

Common Name GRank SRank Scientific Name MNR BLS1 CUT1a CUT1c CUT1b CUW1a CUW1c CUW1e FOC4-1 CUW1b CUW1d FOD5-4 FOD7-2f FOD5-3a FOD7-2a FOD7-2c FOD7-2e FOD7-4a FOD7-4c FOD5-3b FOD7-2b FOD7-2d FOD7-4b FOD7-4d CUM1-1a CUM1-1d COSEWIC CUM1-1f/M CUM1-1e/MAM2 CUM1-1c/MAM2 CUM1-1b/MAM2

Ribes hirtellum smooth gooseberry G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X Ribes triste wild red currant G5 S5 X ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY Amelanchier arborea downy juneberry G5 S5 X X X X Argentia anserina silverweed S5 X X X X Crataegus mollis downy thorn G5 S5 X X X X * Crataegus monogyna English hawthorn G5 SE5 X X Crataegus sp. hawthorn X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Fragaria virginiana ssp. virginiana scarlet strawberry G5T? SU X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Geum aleppicum yellow avens G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Geum macrophyllum large-leaved avens G5 S5 X X X X X X * Malus baccata Siberian crabapple G? SE1 X X * Malus pumila common apple G5 SE5 X X X X Malus sp. apple X Physocarpus opulifolius ninebark G5 S5 X X X X X X Potentilla canadensis common cinquefoil G5 SU X X Potentilla simplex old-field cinquefoil G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X Prunus americana american plum G5 S4 X Prunus pensylvanica pin cherry G5 S5 X X Prunus serotina black cherry G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X Prunus virginiana var. virginiana choke cherry G5T? S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X * Pyrus communis common pear G5 SE4 X X * Rosa multiflora multiflora rose G? SE4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Rubus allegheniensis alleghany blackberry G5 S5 X X X X X X * Rubus idaeus ssp. idaeus red raspberry G5T5 SE1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Rubus occidentalis thimble-berry G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X Sorbus americana American mountain-ash G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X Sorbus decora showy mountain-ash G4G5 S5 X X X X X FABACEAE PEA FAMILY * Coronilla varia variable crown-vetch G? SE5 X X X X X X X X X X X Lathyrus palustris marsh vetchling G5 S5 X * Lotus corniculatus bird's-foot trefoil G? SE5 X X X X * Melilotus alba white sweet-clover G? SE5 X X X X X X X X X * Melilotus officinalis yellow sweet-clover G? SE5 X * Robinia pseudo-acacia black locust G5 SE5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page C6

APPENDIX C VASCULAR PLANT LIST

Common Name GRank SRank Scientific Name MNR BLS1 CUT1a CUT1c CUT1b CUW1a CUW1c CUW1e FOC4-1 CUW1b CUW1d FOD5-4 FOD7-2f FOD5-3a FOD7-2a FOD7-2c FOD7-2e FOD7-4a FOD7-4c FOD5-3b FOD7-2b FOD7-2d FOD7-4b FOD7-4d CUM1-1a CUM1-1d COSEWIC CUM1-1f/M CUM1-1e/MAM2 CUM1-1c/MAM2 CUM1-1b/MAM2

* Trifolium pratense red clover G? SE5 X X X X * Vicia cracca tufted vetch G? SE5 X X X X X X X X X ELAEAGNACEAE OLEASTER FAMILY * Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive G? SE3 X LYTHRACEAE LOOSESTRIFE FAMILY * Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife G5 SE5 X X EVENING-PRIMROSE ONAGRACEAE FAMILY yellowish enchanter's Circaea lutetiana ssp. canadensis G5T5 S5 X X X X X X nightshade Epilobium coloratum purple-veined willow-herb G5 S5 X * Epilobium hirsutum great hairy willow-herb G? SE5 X X X X Epilobium sp. willow-herb X Oenothera biennis common evening-primrose G5 S5 X X X X X X X X CORNACEAE DOGWOOD FAMILY Cornus alternifolia alternate-leaved dogwood G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Cornus amomum silky dogwood G5T? S5 X Cornus racemosa red panicled dogwood G5? S5 X X X X X Cornus sericea ssp. sericea red-osier dogwood G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X RHAMNACEAE BUCKTHORN FAMILY * Frangula alnus glossy buckthorn G? SE5 X X * Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn G? SE5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X VITACEAE GRAPE FAMILY Parthenocissus quinquefolia five-leaved Virginia-creeper G5 S4? X X X X X X X X X Parthenocissus vitacea inserted Virginia-creeper G5 S5 X X X X Vitis riparia riverbank grape G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X HIPPOCASTANACEAE BUCKEYE FAMILY * Aesculus hippocastanum horse chestnut G? SE2 X X X X X X X ACERACEAE MAPLE FAMILY Acer negundo manitoba maple G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X * Acer platanoides norway maple G? SE5 X X X X X X X X X X X X Acer rubrum red maple G5 S5 X X X X X X X Acer saccharinum silver maple G5 S5 X X Acer saccharum var. saccharum sugar maple G5T? S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Acer X freemanii freeman's maple X ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC FAMILY

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page C7

APPENDIX C VASCULAR PLANT LIST

Common Name GRank SRank Scientific Name MNR BLS1 CUT1a CUT1c CUT1b CUW1a CUW1c CUW1e FOC4-1 CUW1b CUW1d FOD5-4 FOD7-2f FOD5-3a FOD7-2a FOD7-2c FOD7-2e FOD7-4a FOD7-4c FOD5-3b FOD7-2b FOD7-2d FOD7-4b FOD7-4d CUM1-1a CUM1-1d COSEWIC CUM1-1f/M CUM1-1e/MAM2 CUM1-1c/MAM2 CUM1-1b/MAM2

Rhus hirta staghorn sumac G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Toxicodendron rydbergii western poison-ivy G5T S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X WOOD SORREL OXALIDACEAE FAMILY Oxalis stricta upright yellow wood-sorrel G5 S5 X X GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY Geranium maculatum spotted crane's-bill G5 S5 X * Geranium robertianum herb-robert G5 SE5 X X X X X X X X X TOUCH-ME-NOT BALSAMINACEAE FAMILY Impatiens capensis spotted touch-me-not G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X * Impatiens glandulifera glandular touch-me-not G? SE4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Impatiens pallida pale touch-me-not G5 S5 X APIACEAE PARSLEY FAMILY Angelica atropurpurea dark-purple alexanders G5 S5 X X X * Angelica sylvestris angelica G SE1 X Cryptotaenia canadensis honewort G5 S5 X X * Daucus carota wild carrot G? SE5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X * Heracleum mantegazzianum giant hogweed G? SE2 X Heracleum maximum cow-parsnip G5 S5 X * Pastinaca sativa wild parsnip G? SE5 X X X Sanicula odorata clustered snakeroot G? S5 X X X Zizia aurea golden alexanders G5 S5 X X X APOCYNACEAE DOGBANE FAMILY * Vinca minor periwinkle G? SE5 X X ASCLEPIADACEAE MILKWEED FAMILY Asclepias syriaca common milkweed G5 S5 X X X X SOLANACEAE POTATO FAMILY * Solanum dulcamara bitter nightshade G? SE5 X X X X X X X X X X X MORNING-GLORY CONVOLVULACEAE FAMILY Calystegia sepium ssp. americana hedge bindweed G4G5T? SU X X * Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed G? SE5 X X X X X X X X X HYDROPHYLLACEAE Hydrophyllum virginianum Virginia water-leaf G5 S5 X BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page C8

APPENDIX C VASCULAR PLANT LIST

Common Name GRank SRank Scientific Name MNR BLS1 CUT1a CUT1c CUT1b CUW1a CUW1c CUW1e FOC4-1 CUW1b CUW1d FOD5-4 FOD7-2f FOD5-3a FOD7-2a FOD7-2c FOD7-2e FOD7-4a FOD7-4c FOD5-3b FOD7-2b FOD7-2d FOD7-4b FOD7-4d CUM1-1a CUM1-1d COSEWIC CUM1-1f/M CUM1-1e/MAM2 CUM1-1c/MAM2 CUM1-1b/MAM2

* Echium vulgare blueweed G? SE5 X X PHRYMACEAE LOPSEED FAMILY Phryma leptostachya lopseed G5 S4S5 X X VERBENACEAE VERVAIN FAMILY Verbena hastata blue vervain G5 S5 X X X LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY Clinopodium vulgare wild basil G? S5 X X X X X X X X X * Glechoma hederacea creeping Charlie G? SE5 X X X X X X X X X * Leonurus cardiaca ssp. cardiaca common motherwort G?T? SE5 X X X X Lycopus americanus cut-leaved water-horehound G5 S5 X Mentha arvensis American wild mint G5T5 S5 X X X X X X X X X * Mentha X piperita pepper mint HYB SE4 X X X X X X Monarda fistulosa wild bergamot G5 S5 X X X X * Nepeta cataria catnip G? SE5 X X Prunella vulgaris ssp. lanceolata heal-all G5T? S5 X X X X * Prunella vulgaris ssp. vulgaris common heal-all G5T? SE3 X X X X X PLANTAGINACEAE PLANTAIN FAMILY * Plantago lanceolata ribgrass G5 SE5 X X X X X X * Plantago major common plantain G5 SE5 X OLEACEAE OLIVE FAMILY Fraxinus americana white ash G5 S5 X X X X X X X Fraxinus nigra black ash G5 S5 X X X X X X X X Fraxinus pennsylvanica red ash G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Syringa sp. lilac X X X X X X * Syringa vulgaris common lilac G? SE5 X X X X X SCROPHULARIACEAE FIGWORT FAMILY * Linaria vulgaris butter-and-eggs G? SE5 X X X X X X X * Verbascum thapsus common mullein G? SE5 X X X X X X X OROBANCHACEAE BROOM-RAPE FAMILY Orobanche uniflora one-flowered broom-rape G5 S4 X X CAMPANULACEAE BLUEBELL FAMILY * Campanula rapunculoides creeping bellflower G? SE5 X X X X RUBIACEAE MADDER FAMILY Galium aparine cleavers G5 S5 X X * Galium mollugo white bedstraw G? SE5 X X X X X X

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page C9

APPENDIX C VASCULAR PLANT LIST

Common Name GRank SRank Scientific Name MNR BLS1 CUT1a CUT1c CUT1b CUW1a CUW1c CUW1e FOC4-1 CUW1b CUW1d FOD5-4 FOD7-2f FOD5-3a FOD7-2a FOD7-2c FOD7-2e FOD7-4a FOD7-4c FOD5-3b FOD7-2b FOD7-2d FOD7-4b FOD7-4d CUM1-1a CUM1-1d COSEWIC CUM1-1f/M CUM1-1e/MAM2 CUM1-1c/MAM2 CUM1-1b/MAM2 HONEYSUCKLE CAPRIFOLIACEAE FAMILY Lonicera canadensis american fly honeysuckle G5 S5 X X X X X X X * Lonicera sempervirens trumpet honeysuckle G5 SE1 X * Lonicera tatarica tartarian honeysuckle G? SE5 X X X X X X X X X X X X Symphoricarpos albus snowberry G5 S5 X Triosteum aurantiacum wild coffee G5 S5 X Viburnum acerifolium maple-leaved viburnum G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Viburnum lentago nannyberry G5 S5 X X Viburnum opulus var. americanum high bush cranberry G5T5 S5 X X X X X X Viburnum sp. viburnum X DIPSACACEAE TEASEL FAMILY * Dipsacus fullonum ssp. sylvestris wild teasel G?T? SE5 X X X X X X X X X X ASTERACEAE ASTER FAMILY * Achillea millefolium var. millefolium common yarrow G5T? SE? X X X X X X Ageratina altissima var. altissima white snakeroot G5 S5 X Ambrosia trifida giant ragweed G5 S5 X X * Arctium lappa great burdock G? SE5 X * Arctium minus common burdock G?T? SE5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Aster laevis var. laevis smooth blue aster G5T? S5 X X X X Aster lateriflorus var. lateriflorus calico aster G5T5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Aster pilosus var. pilosus hairy aster G5T? S5 X Aster sp. aster X X X X X * Carduus nutans ssp. leiophyllus musk thistle G?T? SE5 X * Carduus nutans ssp. nutans musk thistle G?T? SE? X * Centaurea biebersteinii spotted knapweed G? SE5 X * Centaurea jacea brown knapweed G? SE5 X X X X X X X X * Centaurea macrocephala bighead knapweed G? SE1 X X X * Centaurea nigra black knapweed G? SE? X X X X X X * Cichorium intybus chicory G? SE5 X X X X X X X X * Cirsium arvense Canada thistle G? SE5 X X X X * Cirsium vulgare bull thistle G5 SE5 X X X X X X X X Conyza canadensis horseweed G5 S5 X Erigeron annuus daisy fleabane G5 S5 X X Eupatorium altissimum tall joe-pyeweed G5 S1 X X

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page C10

APPENDIX C VASCULAR PLANT LIST

Common Name GRank SRank Scientific Name MNR BLS1 CUT1a CUT1c CUT1b CUW1a CUW1c CUW1e FOC4-1 CUW1b CUW1d FOD5-4 FOD7-2f FOD5-3a FOD7-2a FOD7-2c FOD7-2e FOD7-4a FOD7-4c FOD5-3b FOD7-2b FOD7-2d FOD7-4b FOD7-4d CUM1-1a CUM1-1d COSEWIC CUM1-1f/M CUM1-1e/MAM2 CUM1-1c/MAM2 CUM1-1b/MAM2

Eupatorium maculatum var. maculatum spotted joe-pye-weed G5T5 S5 X X X X Eupatorium perfoliatum perfoliate thoroughwort G5 S5 X Eurybia macrophylla large-leaved aster G5 S5 X X X X X X X X Euthamia graminifolia flat-topped bushy goldenrod G5 S5 X X X X X X X Helenium autumnale common sneezeweed G5 S5 X * Helianthus annuus common sunflower G5T SE? X Helianthus divaricatus rough woodland sunflower G5 S5 X X * Helianthus tuberosus Jerusalem artichoke G5 SE5 X X * Leucanthemum vulgare ox-eye daisy G? SE5 X X Rudbeckia hirta black-eyed Susan G5 S5 X X Solidago caesia blue-stem goldenrod G5 S5 X X X X X X X Solidago canadensis canada goldenrod G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X Solidago canadensis var. scabra tall goldenrod S5 X X X X X Solidago flexicaulis zig-zag goldenrod G5 S5 X X Solidago gigantea giant goldenrod G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Solidago nemoralis var. nemoralis gray goldenrod G5T? S5 X X X X X X Solidago sp. goldenrod X X X X X X X X X X X X X Solidago hispida var. hispida hairy goldenrod G5T? S5 X X * Sonchus arvensis ssp. arvensis field sow-thistle G?T? SE5 X X * Sonchus oleraceus common sow-thistle G? SE5 X X X Symphyotrichum lateriflorum var. angustifolium calico aster G5T? S4? X Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England aster G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X Symphyotrichum puniceum var. puniceum shining aster G5T?Q SU X * Taraxacum officinale common dandelion G5 SE5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X * Tussilago farfara coltsfoot G? SE5 X X X X X ARACEAE ARUM FAMILY Arisaema triphyllum ssp. triphyllum small jack-in-the-pulpit G5T5 S5 X X X X X X Symplocarpus foetidus skunk-cabbage G5 S5 X CYPERACEAE SEDGE FAMILY Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania sedge G5 S5 X Carex plantaginea plantain-leaved sedge G5 S5 X Carex sp. sedge X X X X X X POACEAE GRASS FAMILY * Agrostis gigantea red-top G4G5 SE5 X Agrostis sp. grass X

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page C11

APPENDIX C VASCULAR PLANT LIST

Common Name GRank SRank Scientific Name MNR BLS1 CUT1a CUT1c CUT1b CUW1a CUW1c CUW1e FOC4-1 CUW1b CUW1d FOD5-4 FOD7-2f FOD5-3a FOD7-2a FOD7-2c FOD7-2e FOD7-4a FOD7-4c FOD5-3b FOD7-2b FOD7-2d FOD7-4b FOD7-4d CUM1-1a CUM1-1d COSEWIC CUM1-1f/M CUM1-1e/MAM2 CUM1-1c/MAM2 CUM1-1b/MAM2

* Agrostis stolonifera redtop G5 S5 X X Ammophila breviligulata short-liguled beach grass G5 S3 X * Bromus inermis ssp. inermis awnless brome G4G5T? SE5 X X X X X * Dactylis glomerata orchard grass G? SE5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Elymus canadensis nodding wild rye G5 S4S5 X * Elymus repens quack grass G? SE5 X X X X X X X X Panicum capillare witch grass G5 S5 X Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass G5 S5 X X X X X X X X X X X * Phleum pratense timothy G? SE5 X X Phragmites australis common reed G5 S5 X Poa compressa Canada blue grass G? S5 X Poa palustris fowl meadow grass G5 S5 X X X X X Poa pratensis ssp. pratensis Kentucky bluegrass G5T S5 X X X X X X X X X TYPHACEAE CATTAIL FAMILY Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cattail G5 S5 X X X Typha latifolia broad-leaved cattail G5 S5 X LILIACEAE LILY FAMILY * Asparagus officinalis garden asparagus G5? SE5 X * Convallaria majalis lily-of-the-valley G5 SE5 X X X X X X X X Erythronium americanum ssp. americanum yellow dog's-tooth violet G5T5 S5 X * Hemerocallis fulva orange day-lily G? SE5 X Maianthemum racemosum ssp. racemosum false Solomon’s seal G5T S5 X X star-flowered Solomon’s Maianthemum stellatum G5 S5 X seal Trillium grandiflorum white trillium G5 S5 X X IRIDACEAE IRIS FAMILY Iris sp. X Iris versicolor multi-coloured blue-flag G5 S5 X *- Introduced Species/ X= presence

LGL Limited environmental research associates

APPENDIX D ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN SPECIES LISTS

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page D1

ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN SPECIES LISTS

Species Status

SRANK Provincial Rank Provincial (or Sub-national) ranks are used by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) to set protection priorities for rare species and natural communities. These ranks are not legal designations. Provincial ranks are assigned in a manner similar to that described for global ranks, but consider only those factors within the political boundaries of Ontario. By comparing the global and provincial ranks, the status, rarity, and the urgency of conservation needs can be ascertained. The NHIC evaluates provincial ranks on a continual basis and produces updated lists at least annually. S1 Critically Imperiled in Ontario because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation. S2 Imperiled in Ontario because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer occurrences) steep declines or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation. S3 Vulnerable in Ontario due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4 Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S5 Secure—Common, widespread, and abundant in Ontario. SX Presumed Extirpated – Species or community is believed to be extirpated from Ontario. SH Possibly Extirpated – Species or community occurred historically in Ontario and there is some possibility that it may be rediscovered. SNR Unranked—Conservation status in Ontario not yet assessed SU Unrankable—Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. SNA Not Applicable —A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities. S#S# Range Rank —A numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g., SU is used rather than S1S4).

Regulated Species

SARA Species at Risk Act The Canada Species at Risk Act provides a framework for actions across Canada to ensure the survival of wildlife species and the protection of our natural heritage. It sets out how to decide which species are a priority for action and what to do to protect a species. It identifies ways

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Goderich Port Management Corporation – Proposed Wharf Expansion Natural Heritage Report Page D2

governments, organizations and individuals can work together, and it establishes penalties for a failure to obey the law. Regulated species are listed in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the Act. Schedule 1 SARA Species that are currently covered under the Act. (1) Schedule 2 SARA Species that are endangered or threatened that have not been re-assessed by (2) COSEWIC for inclusion on Schedule 1. Schedule 3 SARA Species that are of special concern that have not yet been re-assessed by (3) COSEWIC for inclusion on Schedule 1.

Regulated Species (continued)

ESA Endangered Species Act The Ontario Endangered Species Act provides for the conservation, protection, restoration and propagation of species of fauna and flora of the Province of Ontario that are threatened with extinction. Regulated species are listed in Ontario Regulation 338. Schedule 1 ESA The species of fauna listed in Schedule 1 are declared to be threatened with (1) extinction. Schedule 2 ESA The species of flora listed in Schedule 2 are declared to be threatened with (2) extinction.

LGL Limited environmental research associates