Ministry review of the Hammond Reef gold project environmental assessment

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

This review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The amended environmental assessment was submitted January 29, 2018 and the deadline for the completion of the Review was June 29, 2018. This paragraph and the giving of the notice of completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

The review documents the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ evaluation of the amended environmental assessment and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Indigenous communities into consideration.

Summary of our review

Who

Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd. (AEM)

What

Ministry review of an amended environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking, which is the construction, operation, closure and decommissioning of a new open pit gold mine. The undertaking includes the following key components:

• two open pits
• an ore processing facility and associated infrastructure
• a tailings management facility (TMF)
• waste rock and water management facilities
• an approximately 19 kilometre long 230 kilovolt transmission line to provide electrical power to the site
• an approximately 34 kilometre long access road to facilitate movement of people and supplies between the mine site and existing road network
• an on-site worker accommodation camp

When

EA submitted: January 17, 2014
EA comment period: January 17 to March 7, 2014
Amended EA submitted: January 29, 2018
Amended EA comment period: January 29 to March 1, 2018

Deadline for ministry review was extended due to time required for the proponent’s corporate structure changes and additional discussions needed to resolve outstanding issues.

Where

The proposed undertaking is located at Mitta Lake and is bordered to the west by Sawbill Bay and to the south by Lynxhead Bay, approximately 23 kilometres north of the Town of Atikokan and 170 kilometres west of Thunder Bay, Ontario.

Why

AEM intends to extract gold ore from the Hammond Reef gold deposit for processing at an ore processing facility and to produce gold for sale worldwide.

Conclusions

The ministry review has concluded that the amended EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved amended terms of reference and provides for sufficient information to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.

The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (ministry) is satisfied that the proposed mitigation methods and contingencies will ensure that any potential negative impacts will be minimized and managed. The proposed undertaking will benefit the local communities and contribute to economic development in northwestern Ontario.

1. Environmental assessment process

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

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

Environmental assessments may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and potentially affected Indigenous communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor and demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and guidelines of the EAA approval.

1.1 Voluntary agreement

Generally, mining projects carried out by private sector entities are not subject to the completion of an individual EA under the EAA. However, some components of the mining project may trigger requirements under a class EA or regulation made under the EAA, such as a transmission line or new access road.

Under section 3.0.1 of the EAA, a person may enter into a written agreement with the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (Minister) to voluntarily have the EAA apply to a proposed project. The person would then need to fulfill all relevant requirements under the EAA before proceeding with the project.

The private sector entity who first proposed the Hammond Reef project entered into a voluntary agreement with the Minister in 2011 to agree that the EAA applies to the project.

It should be noted here that the proponent for the Hammond Reef project has changed twice. The proponent was Osisko Mining Corporation at the points of time when the voluntary agreement was signed, the terms of reference (ToR) was approved and the 2014 EA was submitted. Following shortly after the 2014 EA submission, the proponent changed to Canadian Malartic Corporation (CMC), which was a 50-50 partnership of Yamana Gold Ltd. and Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd. (AEM, the proponent).

On March 28, 2018, AEM bought Yamana’s 50% stake to become 100% owner of the project, and thus proponency changed from the CMC to AEM. AEM has confirmed that all responsibilities and commitments made during the EA process by the Canadian Malartic Corporation have been transferred to AEM. The EA approval, if granted, will include a standard clause that the proponent to which the approval applies includes any agents, successors and assigns. For simplicity, this Ministry review will refer to the proponent as AEM.

1.2 Terms of reference

Completing the EA process involves two separate steps: the ToR and the EA. The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a ToR to the ministry for review and approval by the Minister. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

AEM formally submitted the ToR to the ministry on January 23, 2012 for a 30 day review and comment period, which ended on February 23, 2012. During this time all interested persons, a government review team (GRT) and Indigenous communities could review and provide comments about the ToR to the ministry for consideration. Substantial comments on the ToR were received by the ministry from:

• ministry reviewers
• Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
• Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS)
• Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF)
• Environment and Climate Change Canada
• Transport Canada
• Lac des Mille Lacs First Nation
• Naicatchewenin First Nation
• Mitaanjigamiing First Nation
• Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO)

As a result of the substantial comments received, AEM submitted an amended ToR on April 5, 2012, followed by an errata letter on April 26, 2012. These submissions were to address outstanding concerns regarding:

• lack of detail in the criteria and indicators
• requirement for more detail on the closure and decommissioning plan
• more clarity in the commitments made in the Indigenous consultation plan
• air, noise and water quality concerns
• lack of meaningful consultation

On July 4, 2012, the Minister approved the amended ToR with accompanying errata letter. The amended ToR sets out the process AEM would follow to:

• assess alternative methods for carrying out the proposed undertaking
• assess environmental effects and identify mitigation measures
• consult with the public, government agencies and Indigenous communities during the preparation of the EA

1.3 Environmental assessment

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

On January 17, 2014, the proponent submitted its EA titled the Hammond Reef gold project to the ministry for approval for the proposed construction, operation, closure and decommissioning of a new open pit gold mine. The EA comment period ended on March 7, 2014.

The EA was circulated for review to the GRT. The GRT, including federal, provincial and local agencies, reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid, based on their agencies’ mandates. The public and Indigenous communities also had an opportunity to review the EA and submit their comments to the ministry.

In June 2015, the proponent prepared and submitted an EA addendum. The addendum was used to provide in one package the responses to comments from the GRT, Indigenous communities and public stakeholders. The addendum was made available on the proponent’s website and distributed to the same members of the GRT, public and Indigenous communities that were circulated the 2014 EA.

Following the EA addendum, further technical questions and comments were submitted to AEM, which were discussed between AEM and the various provincial and federal reviewers and addressed through written responses between 2015 and 2017.

Once all concerns had been addressed at the technical level, the ministry requested that AEM prepare an amended EA in order to incorporate the technical responses, and to consolidate all of the additional information provided since the original EA was issued in January 2014. The 2015 addendum was also superseded and incorporated into the amended EA. The amended EA contains 4 sections:

• 00 Review Guidance (explains the format of the EA report)
• 01 EIS/EA Report (main chapters of the EA)
• 02 TSDs (technical supporting documents providing further technical detail for the main chapters)
• 03 Addendum (copies of GRT, Indigenous and public comments and AEM’s responses as well as additional supporting and technical documents that accompanied certain responses)

The ministry requested that the document be made available for public review for 30 days. The amended EA was made available on AEM’s website, with a link to it provided on the ministry website, for government, Indigenous and public review from January 29 to March 1, 2018. Notice was provided on these websites and to all stakeholders that were notified of the 2014 EA submission, as detailed in section 3.1.2 of this review.

The submission of an amended EA is consistent with the ministry’s Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing EAs in Ontario, 2014, which identifies amending the EA as a way to address issues that are too numerous or complex to resolve within the regulated timelines. The need for an amended EA, in this case, was due to the large volume of additional information and commitments that needed to be consolidated into one document and made available to interested persons for review. AEM has not made significant changes to the project itself since the 2014 EA submission.

The federal and provincial governments, through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and the ministry, provided comments on the amended EA in late February and early March 2018, respectively. The CEAA and the ministry requested that the comments be incorporated into a corrections document in order to outline relatively minor corrections and additions to the amended EA. Comments were received from one public stakeholder and an Indigenous group during the amended EA comment period; these are included in Appendix B of this review. Comments received since 2014 and the proponent’s responses to these comments are summarized in Section 3.2 of this review. The corrections document along with the amended EA are posted on AEM’s website.

All comments received by the ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made on the undertaking.

1.4 Ministry review

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

The review outlines whether the information contained in the amended EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. Ministry staff, with input from the GRT, evaluate the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the proposed mitigation measures. The review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, GRT and Indigenous community comments on the amended EA and the proposed undertaking.

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

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

A notice of completion of the review was published on the Ontario.ca website. This notifies the public that the review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period. Copies of the review have been placed in the same public record locations where the 2014 EA was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected Indigenous communities. Those members of the public who submitted comments during the EA comment period have also received copies of the review. AEM also notified their stakeholder list and posted a link to the Ontario.ca website.

2. The proposed undertaking

Project description

AEM is seeking approval for the construction, operation, closure and decommissioning of a new open pit gold mine and associated infrastructure. The gold deposit is located beneath Mitta Lake and is bordered to the west by Sawbill Bay and to the south by Lynxhead Bay, approximately 23 kilometres north of the Town of Atikokan and 170 kilometres west of Thunder Bay, Ontario. A map of the project location is shown in Figure 1.

The project will include:

• two open pits to access the ore
• an ore processing facility, including tailings treatment processes
• waste rock and overburden surface stockpiles
• a tailings management facility (material left over after the process of extracting mineral from ore)
• an approximately 9 kilometre tailings pipeline connecting the ore processing facility to the tailings management facility
• an approximately 26 kilometre upgraded access road and 8 kilometer new access road (34 kilometres in total) to facilitate movement of people and supplies between the mine site and existing road network
• an approximately 19 kilometre, 230 kilovolt transmission line to provide electrical power to the site
• water management systems including freshwater, seepage and runoff collection
• fuel, chemical and storage facilities
• on-site sewage treatment facility
• on-site temporary worker camp
• administration building

The mine study area is 2,326 hectares. This area includes the open pits, waste rock stockpiles, TMF, ore processing facility, worker camp, sewage treatment facility, other ancillary infrastructure, access road and transmission line. Figure 2 shows the mine site layout.

The project schedule includes four phases:

1. construction (2.5 years)
2. operations (11 years)
3. closure (2 years)
4. decommissioning/post-closure (10 years, with an additional approximately 218 years depending on the rate of the open pits being passively flooded to become a new lake)

During operations, the estimated throughput of rock and ore through the processing plant is 60,000 tonnes per day. Blasting will be used to progressively advance mine ramps throughout the operating life of the mine. As mine development progresses, the mine ramps will advance so that the equipment can access newly developed areas of the mine. Tailings slurry from the ore processing facility will be pumped to the TMF.

The construction workforce for the mine is expected to be approximately 1,200 people during this phase, and the operational workforce is expected to be approximately 550 people annually. It is not currently known when construction of the mine is expected to begin.

During the closure and post-closure phases, mining activities will be terminated and dismantling of the project site will begin. Activities will include active and passive flooding of open pit workings; dismantling warehouse, storage and maintenance areas; removing potentially hazardous materials; remediating contaminated soil; decommissioning waste disposal areas; and promoting vegetation growth.

More details about the project description and schedule of activities are found in Chapter 5, Project Description, of the amended EA.

Figure 1: Hammond Reef gold project location

This map displays the Hammond Reef gold mine project location. The location is 23 kilometres north of the Town of Atikokan, which is situated along Highway 11 approximately halfway between the Town of Fort Frances to the west and City of Thunder Bay to the east. The map also identifies features such as other nearby cities, First Nation communities, existing roads and waterbodies, and the United States border to the south.

View a larger version of this map (PNG)

Figure 2: Hammond Reef mine site layout

This figure illustrates the preferred alternative for the undertaking. The different shaded areas conceptually identify the main components of the mine, including two open pits, waste rock stockpiles, ore processing facility, tailings management facility, worker accommodation camp, administration buildings and on-site roads. Other features displayed include a number of waterbodies surrounding the mine site, including Upper Marmion Reservoir, Sawbill Bay and Lynxhead Bay. There is an insert map showing two lines that represent the routes of the transmission line and access road that will service the site from the provincial electricity and road networks.

View a larger version of this map (PNG)

Current environmental context

The mine site is in a rural setting within the boreal forest region of northwestern Ontario. There is an existing access road to the site from Highway 622. It is situated on a peninsula within Upper Marmion Reservoir, which is one of three reservoirs within the Seine River watershed and was created for waterpower purposes in the 1920s. The Seine River watershed is a highly managed system, with active waterpower production located downstream of the proposed mine site. Upper Marmion Reservoir ultimately drains into Seine River, which ends at Rainy Lake. The area also contains a number of smaller lakes, the largest of which is Mitta Lake.

The project is proposed in a seismically stable area in the Canadian Shield. The rock containing the ore body is considered to be non-acid-generating, as confirmed by geochemical sampling. Vegetation at the mine site includes succession forest with some mature tree stands, as well as wetlands and shrubs.

Wildlife in the local area include moose, black bear and other mammals, and species at risk including common nighthawk, Canada warbler, bald eagle, little brown myotis, northern myotis and snapping turtle.

Upper Marmion Reservoir is popular for anglers, particularly supporting walleye, northern pike and small mouth bass. The Atikokan Bass Classic is one of the town’s most important events. Hunting and trapping are also popular recreational pursuits in the area.

The nearby Town of Atikokan resides along Highway 622 near Highway 11, roughly halfway between Thunder Bay and Fort Frances. It has a population of 2,753 according to the 2016 census. Resource industries such as mining and forestry have traditionally supported the Town. The economy of Atikokan, as well as the broader region of northwestern Ontario, has declined over the past decade due in part to a decline of the forestry industry and reliance on single large employers. Currently Atikokan relies on mining, forestry, the Atikokan Generating Station, government and retail services, light manufacturing and tourism. In 1982, the Town adopted Canoeing Capital of Canada as its official theme.

More details about the current environmental context for the project are found in Chapter 3 of the amended EA.

Federal-Provincial EA coordination

The project is subject to a federal environmental assessment. The federal EA started on July 28, 2011 when the CEAA determined that a comprehensive study was required for the project. This is because it involves a project listed on the Comprehensive Study List Regulations, which states that the proposed construction, decommissioning or abandonment of a gold mine with an ore production capacity of equal to or greater than 600 tonnes per day requires a comprehensive study. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 1992, applies to this project since the initiation of the project pre-dates the coming into force of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

The CEAA provided the final environmental impact statement guidelines to the proponent on October 21, 2011 to guide how the proponent will meet federal requirements in the EA.

The amended ToR identifies that the province and federal government will endeavour to work together in a coordinated way pursuant to the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, November 2004. The intent is to produce a single EA document to meet and address the information needs and regulatory EA requirements of both the provincial and federal governments. Consistent with this approach, AEM submitted a single EA document to address both regulatory requirements.

The CEAA coordinated comments on the EA from federal departments. While these comments form part of the provincial EA record, the CEAA is responsible for determining if federal comments and federally mandated interests have been adequately addressed through the federal EA process.

The CEAA’s EA process involves the preparation of a Comprehensive Study Report, which contains the federal departments’ review and findings of the amended EA. The CEAA makes the Comprehensive Study Report available on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry. AEM’s amended EA also contains a record of federal comments and the proponent’s responses in the Addendum—Table A-1 Federal IRs.

If approval under the EAA is granted, the Hammond Reef gold project will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the amended EA and any proposed conditions of approval. AEM must also receive a positive federal decision on the EA. In addition, AEM must still obtain all other legislative provincial, federal and other approvals it may require for the undertaking.

3. Results of the ministry review

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

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The ministry coordinated an analysis of the amended EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the amended ToR have been met.

The amended EA meets the requirements of the amended ToR and EAA, as summarized below and detailed in Appendix A of this review.

Table 7-4 in Chapter 7 of the amended EA outlines the amended ToR commitments and lists whether they have been completed or if they are ongoing.

Purpose and rationale for the undertaking

The purpose and rationale of the undertaking are described in Section 1.3 of the amended EA, which is to extract gold for processing and sale worldwide. The undertaking is described in Section 1.4 and Chapter 5 of the amended EA.

Study areas

Section 2.2.2.2 of the amended EA describes the study areas for the project for each environmental discipline. The study areas were created to encompass the environment that could reasonably be expected to be affected by the project, or which could be relevant to the assessment of cumulative effects. Consistent with Section 7.1 of the amended ToR, the amended EA defines the following study areas:

• mine study area (the project site containing all physical works and activities, including the mine, worker camp, ore processing and management facilities for tailings, waste rock and water)
• local study area (immediate vicinity of the project site)
• regional study area (area providing regional context and environmental setting for the effects assessment, for example socio-economic environment)

As appropriate to each discipline, the local and regional study areas vary according to the geographical area that may potentially be affected by the project, in keeping with the amended ToR. Deviating slightly from the amended ToR, the amended EA also includes a fourth study area: Linear Infrastructure Study Area, which specifically represents the combined access road and transmission line footprints.

Baseline description of the environment

Consistent with Section 7.2 of the amended ToR, Chapter 3 of the amended EA includes a detailed description of the environment to establish baseline conditions and evaluate potential environmental effects, including natural and human baseline environments, cultural heritage resources and Indigenous interests.

Assessment of alternatives

Alternatives to the undertaking are described and assessed at a high level in Section 4.1 of the amended EA. These are proceeding with the project and not proceeding with the project (i.e. the “do nothing” alternative). This satisfies the “alternatives to” requirement as specified in Section 7 of the approved amended ToR.

Consistent with Sections 4.3.3, 5.2 and 7.3 of the amended ToR, alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking, including construction, operation and closure phases, are assessed in Chapter 4 of the amended EA, with additional details in the Alternatives Assessment Technical Supporting Document. The proponent assessed alternatives for 12 project components, with each component having approximately 2 to 4 alternative methods. These include:

• ore processing method
• sewage treatment onsite locations
• sewage treatment technology
• water discharge location
• access road alignments
• transmission line alignments
• worker camp location (offsite vs. onsite)
• worker camp onsite locations
• tailings deposition method
• tailings management facility locations
• waste rock stockpile locations
• closure alternatives for:
  • open pit
  • tailings management facility
  • waste rock and low grade ore stockpiles
  • overburden stockpiles
  • site infrastructure
  • site water management

Each alternative method for these project components was screened using the list of criteria in the ministry Code of Practice: Preparing and Reviewing Terms of Reference for EAs, 2014. Then, each method that met the screening criteria was further evaluated on environmental, technical, economic and social criteria, with input from the public considered. The alternative methods are rated as preferred, acceptable or unacceptable based on performance indicators under each criterion to determine the most preferred method for that particular project component.

The amended ToR indicates that some project components only have a single feasible alternative and would thus be assessed for potential effects in the EA. These include mine development, ore processing location (offsite vs. onsite), organic and solid waste management, explosives storage, chemicals and fuels storage, hazardous waste management and office and support facilities.

Where the amended ToR indicated that alternatives would be assessed but it was determined at the EA phase that only a single alternative was feasible, the amended EA explains the rationale for doing so. This is the case for three project components:

• ore stockpile locations
• water sourcing and recycling
• tailings pipeline alignments

In the case of worker accommodation, whereas the amended ToR indicates only one alternative would be considered (offsite locations), it was determined through consultation that onsite is preferred and that multiple locations should be assessed. The proponent conducted an evaluation of alternative onsite worker camp locations and carried out additional consultation. The decision making process explains how AEM evaluated the alternative methods to determine the proposed undertaking. Environmental criteria are considered in the alternatives assessment.

During the EA review, the ministry and the MNRF raised concerns about the lack of sufficient detail in the assessment of alternatives. AEM addressed these concerns and prepared a supplemental report containing additional details and the new assessment of alternative worker camp locations, as mentioned above. AEM also carried out additional consultation regarding the alternatives assessment. The supplemental information is available in parts 2 and 4 of the Alternatives Assessment technical supporting document of the amended EA.

The amended EA satisfies the requirements for the evaluation of alternative methods.

The proposed undertaking, comprising the preferred alternative methods for the various project components, is described in Chapter 5 of the amended EA.

Evaluation of environmental effects

Consistent with Section 7 of the amended ToR and as described in Chapter 2 of the amended EA, potential environmental effects of the preferred undertaking as described in Chapter 5 are evaluated systematically in Chapter 6 of the amended EA. Input from Indigenous, public and agency consultation is also considered in the assessment of effects. Valued ecosystem components (VEC) and valued social components (VSC) are identified in Section 2.5 and used in the evaluation of effects for all project phases. Project-environment interactions are identified to determine which project activities may have an effect on the environment. These effects are then assessed considering regulatory standards and environmental guidelines as well as six categories of effect: direction, geographic extent, magnitude, duration, frequency and reversibility, which is in accordance with Section 7.4 of the amended ToR with the exception of reversibility, which was added as an additional category as the EA method was further developed.

For the identified potential effects, mitigation measures are described and applied in order to determine residual effects. Mitigation measures can be found throughout Chapter 6 of the amended EA and are summarized in section 12.2. In-design mitigation measures are also discussed in section 5.5 of the amended EA.

The significance of residual effects is assessed using the six effects categories to determine low, medium and high significance. For example, if geographic extent is medium and magnitude is low, the level of significance of the effect is moderate. The method to determine significance is explained in Section 2.6.5 of the amended EA.

Finally, in accordance with sections 8.1 to 8.3 of the amended ToR, the amended EA identifies environmental and social management plans to be implemented during the project in order to confirm predictions in the amended EA and manage effects for all project phases. The effects assessments, mitigation, residual effects and determination of significance can be found in tables 6-55 to 6-57 of the amended EA for construction, operation and closure.

In the 2014 version of the EA, the proponent assessed potential environmental effects using a “bounding scenario” approach, which limited the effects assessment to the worst case project phase (i.e. construction, operation or closure) for each environmental discipline rather than assessing all potential effects for all phases. The ministry raised concerns about this approach between 2014 and 2017, given that it was not consistent with the amended ToR methodology or the ministry’s expectations for preparing the EA. In response, the proponent made revisions in the EA to remove the bounding scenario approach and provide an assessment of all environmental components for each project phase in the amended EA.

Advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the preferred undertaking and alternative methods are evaluated for all project phases (construction, operation, closure) in Chapter 4 of the amended EA, with additional details in the Alternatives Assessment technical supporting document.

In general, AEM followed a logical and transparent decision making process that is outlined in the amended EA. Refer to Appendix A for the ministry’s analysis of how the amended EA meets the requirements of the EAA and the approved amended ToR.

3.1.2 Consultation

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

Once the EA was submitted to the ministry, additional ministry-driven consultation occurred during the EA comment period. The GRT, the public and potentially affected Indigenous communities were provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the ministry on whether the requirements of the amended ToR have been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking. All comments received by the ministry during the EA and amended EA comment periods were forwarded to AEM for a response. AEM may also continue consulting with stakeholders after submission of the amended EA in order to respond to any additional questions or issues.

A summary of comments received from the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities, along with AEM’s responses and supporting documents, are included in the addendum within the amended EA.

A summary of the consultation that was conducted during the EA process is provided in the remainder of this section below.

Government review team

During the preparation of the 2014 EA and 2018 amended EA, AEM sought input from members of the GRT. The intent of this outreach was to identify the regulatory and government agencies that may have a potential interest in or mandate related to the proposed undertaking, discuss any approvals or permit requirements administered under their respective jurisdictional authorities, and work to identify and address any potential concerns about the proposed undertaking.

Where possible, the federal and provincial review teams have been working together to provide a streamlined consultation process. To facilitate discussions with the GRT, AEM consulted through a variety of means including telephone calls, written and electronic correspondence and formal face to face meetings, which included presentations. A summary of the consultation process carried out during the preparation of the EA with members of the GRT, the comments received and AEM’s responses to them can be found in section 7.2 and Appendix 7.IV of the amended EA report.

On February 15, 2013, AEM circulated a draft EA to the provincial and federal review agencies for review and comment from February 15, 2013 to April 5, 2013.

Following this, in January 17, 2014, AEM submitted the final EA report. GRT members from various agencies were provided copies of the EA for their review during the seven‑week provincial comment period, which began January 17, 2014 and ended March 7, 2014. All comments received were forwarded by the ministry to AEM for a response. As well, comments received during the federal EA process were provided by the CEAA to AEM for a response.

Following the submission of the final EA report, AEM received additional comments and requests for information from the provincial and federal governments.

Based on a request from the ministry, AEM carried out additional consultation and notification for the preparation of an amended EA. The draft amended EA was provided for provincial and federal review, primarily to review and comment on the proposed format, navigability and clarity of the document. This was followed by pre-notification of submission of the amended EA on January 22, 2018 to the government agencies, public and Indigenous communities.

Following this, the amended EA was made available to the GRT, as well as Indigenous communities and the public for review during a 30-day comment period between January 29 and March 1, 2018, during which the provincial and federal governments submitted further comments. The amended EA was accompanied by a Notice of Submission and was made available in electronic format on the proponent’s website and via USB drives couriered to the government agencies, Indigenous communities and members of the public on the proponent’s distribution list.

To address the comments on the amended EA, the two governments requested that AEM produce a corrections document. This document corrects specific sections of the amended EA and forms part of the amended EA in conjunction with the rest of the report. The amended EA with the corrections document are posted to the proponent’s website.

See section 3.2 of this review for a summary of the key issues raised by government reviewers and how AEM addressed them.

Public consultation

AEM undertook an extensive public consultation program during the preparation and submission of the EA and amended EA. Public stakeholders were identified as residents of Atikokan, Fort Frances, Ignace and Thunder Bay. As well, non‑governmental organizations and private companies, such as waterpower producers and tourism and camping outfitters, were kept informed and provided opportunities to comment on the project throughout the EA process.

Section 9.3 of the amended ToR summarizes the public consultation plan for the EA, which is further detailed in Appendix B of the amended ToR.

Consistent with the amended ToR’s consultation plan, AEM used a variety of consultation methods in order to provide a range of means for people to be informed about the project and have the opportunity to provide input. The following public consultation activities were carried out during the preparation and submission of the EA:

• maintenance of a project website, including contact information
• notice of commencement of the EA published July 30, 2012 in local newspapers, emailed to stakeholders and posted on the project website
• notices of open houses in 2012 and 2014 published in local newspapers
• community news briefs about the project and EA published online and in the Atikokan Progress, Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal, Ignace Driftwood, Fort Frances Times and Wawatay Times since November 2010
• public open houses and meetings with stakeholders for the draft and final EA phases between 2012 and 2017
• additional consultation in 2015 with local municipalities and community open house about the change in location of the onsite worker camp
• notices of draft EA report published February 11, 2013, final EA report published January 7, 2014, and amended EA report published January 29, 2018 in local newspapers, emailed and mailed to stakeholders, provided to public viewing locations and posted on the project website

Additional consultation and notification upon submission of the amended EA:

• pre-notification of submission of the amended EA on January 22, 2018 to the GRT, public and Indigenous communities
• 30-day GRT, public and Indigenous comment period on the amended EA from January 29 to March 1, 2018 (electronic and USB submission accompanied by a notice of submission)
• newspaper publication of the notice of submission of the amended EA to the Fort Frances Times, Kenora Daily Miner, Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal, Atikokan Progress, Dryden Observer, Wawatay News and Westend Weekly
• consultation session to the city council of Atikokan on February 26, 2018

AEM’s engagement efforts are consistent with the Code of Practice: Consultation in Ontario’s EA Process, 2014. The code provides mandatory points of notification, including newspaper publications, giving notice to local municipalities and potentially affected Indigenous communities, and maintaining a project website. AEM’s level of effort involving meeting the notification requirements, establishing committees and forums with Indigenous communities about the project, and ongoing engagement and responsiveness to concerns raised, and documentation of the above, is appropriate for meeting the ministry’s consultation expectations.

AEM provided responses to comments throughout the EA process, which can be viewed in Chapter 7, the public consultation log in Appendix 7.III and the Addendum—C: Aboriginal and Public Comments within the amended EA.

A summary of comments received from the public are in Section 3.2 of this ministry review.

Letters of support

Between 2013 and 2018, the ministry received letters of support for the project from the following municipalities and local organizations:

• Town of Atikokan
• Atikokan Economic Development Corporation
• City of Thunder Bay
• Township of Ignace
• Township of O’Connor
• Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association

Indigenous community consultation

In addition to public consultation, proponents are required to consult with Indigenous communities that have established or asserted Aboriginal and/or treaty rights that may be negatively affected by the project. Indigenous peoples include First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

The ministry worked with the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the MNRF to identify a list of potentially affected Indigenous communities that AEM must consult during the EA process. The Indigenous communities identified by the province were:

• Couchiching First Nation
• Lac des Mille Lacs First Nation
• Lac La Croix First Nation
• Métis, as represented by the MNO Region 1 Consultation Committee
• Mitaanjigamiing First Nation
• Naicatchewenin First Nation
• Nigigoonsiminikaaning (Rainy Lake) First Nation
• Rainy River First Nation
• Seine River First Nation
• Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation

Initially in the EA process, the proponent consulted directly with:

• Northwest Métis Nation Council, Kenora Métis Council
• Sunset Country Métis Council
• Atikokan and Surrounding Area Métis Council

Subsequently, consultation with the Métis community councils occurred through the MNO Region 1 Consultation Committee.

As described in Section 7.3.3.1 of the amended EA, the provincial and federal governments delegated procedural aspects of consultation to AEM, to be carried out throughout the EA process. These included providing information about the project to Indigenous communities, gathering information about potential impacts of the project on Aboriginal and treaty rights, responding to questions and concerns, and documenting these efforts. The ultimate responsibility for ensuring the duty to consult with potentially affected Indigenous communities is met lies with the Crown.

The amended ToR sets out an Aboriginal engagement plan for the EA as summarized in section 9.4 and detailed in Appendix C of the amended ToR. As stated in the plan, AEM would seek traditional land use information and incorporate this input into the EA, document how comments were responded to, and mitigate adverse effects to Aboriginal or treaty rights. Methods for engagement would include newspaper publications, meetings with Chief & Council, community open houses, elder forums, site tours, First Nations and Métis monitors, or other methods, as required.

In accordance with the amended ToR, AEM notified Indigenous communities about the project and EA process in a variety of ways. In addition to the methods listed above for public consultation, Indigenous-specific consultation included:

• community open houses
• meetings with Chief and Council and elders
• teleconferences
• correspondence (letters and emails)
• the signing of a resource sharing agreement (RSA) in 2010 between AEM and eight of the nine First Nation communities:
  • Lac des Mille Lacs
  • Lac La Croix
  • Seine River
  • Rainy River
  • Naicatchewenin
  • Nigigoonsiminikaaning
  • Mitaanjigamiing
  • Couchiching
• Regular meetings of three committees provided for by the RSA:
  • Environmental Committee
  • Training, Employment and Economic Development Committee
  • Social and Cultural Committee
• the signing of a memorandum of agreement in 2012 and a shared interests agreement in 2015 between AEM and the MNO, with regular meetings
• incorporation and consideration of traditional use information provided by Indigenous communities
• spring and fall ceremonies with First Nation and MNO members
• full-time Indigenous relations manager within the project team
• additional consultation in 2015 with Indigenous communities about the change in location of the onsite worker camp
• consultation sessions to the MNO on February 20, 2018 and the Chiefs and representatives of the nine First Nations on February 26, 2018
• additional consultation and notification upon submission of the amended EA as listed under the “Public consultation” section above

Regarding the RSA, the ministry understands that the eight RSA signatory First Nations agreed that Seine River, Lac La Croix and Lac des Mille Lacs would act as representatives for the RSA First Nations as they were deemed by these signatory First Nations to be the most directly affected communities by the Hammond Reef project. The ministry also understands that all information pertaining to the EA and the project were transferred to the RSA signatory First Nations through committees as per the RSA. The ministry received confirmation of this approach from Lac des Mille Lacs and Nigigoonsiminikaaning First Nations.

Crown-led consultation activities also occurred during the EA process. Following submission of the EA in 2014, the ministry participated in meetings with the Indigenous communities and the CEAA in February 2014 to share the results of the EA report and hear any feedback. Additional meetings with communities and the provincial and federal governments occurred between 2015 and 2017 to discuss updates on the EA processes, Indigenous consultation activities, review of comments received, monitoring for the project and listen to feedback. In 2018, the ministry participated in meetings with the CEAA and communities, during which the CEAA provided an overview of its draft Comprehensive Study Report and listen to any additional feedback from communities. Between 2014 and 2018, letters and emails were sent by the ministry and the CEAA in order to provide updates on the EA process and to invite comments on the EA and related documents. All ten communities participated in Crown consultation opportunities between 2014 and 2018.

Key comments raised by Indigenous communities during the review of the 2014 EA and 2018 amended EA are summarized below in Section 3.2. More details about the consultation that was carried out, Indigenous communities’ comments and AEM’s responses are found in Chapter 7, the Aboriginal consultation log in Appendix 7.V and the Addendum—C: Aboriginal and Public Comments within the amended EA.

Letters of support

Between 2014 and 2018, the ministry received letters of support for the project from the following Indigenous communities:

• Lac La Croix First Nation
• Lac des Mille Lacs First Nation
• Métis Nation of Ontario
• Naicatchewenin First Nation
• Nigigoonsiminikaaning First Nation
• Rainy River First Nation
• Seine River First Nation

Mitaanjigamiing First Nation sent a letter of non-support; however, the letter indicates confidence in the proponent’s engagement activities. Couchiching and Wabigoon First Nations sent neither a letter of support nor a letter of non-support. These communities participated in the EA process as noted above. The ministry did not receive any written comments from any of the ten Indigenous communities during the 30-day comment period on the amended EA.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The ministry is satisfied that the level of consultation undertaken by AEM with the public, Indigenous communities and government agencies meets the requirements of section 5.1 of the EAA, is in accordance with the approved amended ToR, and was done in accordance with the directions and advice contained in the ministry Code of Practice: Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process, 2014.

The amended EA documents the consultation methods that were undertaken by AEM to engage government reviewers, Indigenous communities and members of the public during the development of the EA. The amended EA discusses the concerns raised and how they were addressed or will be addressed if the amended EA is approved.

Should the amended EA be approved, AEM has committed to continued consultation with interested members of the public, government agencies and Indigenous groups.

3.2 Key issues: EA process and proposed undertaking

Comments regarding the EA process and EA report completed by AEM for the proposed Hammond Reef gold project were gathered during the pre-submission consultation, the EA review comment period in 2014 and the amended EA review comment period in 2018. A number of issues were raised by the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities. A summary of the key issues raised during the EA process and how they were addressed are found below. Copies of comments received from the provincial and federal governments, the public and Indigenous communities, along with AEM’s responses and supporting documents, are included in the addendum within the amended EA. Comments that were submitted to the ministry during the amended EA comment period in 2018, and AEM’s responses, are included as Appendix B to this review.

EA approval expiry

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry commented that the provincial EA process does not have a clear description of the “life span” of an approved EA. These comments are in relation to concerns regarding AEM’s indication that the project will not be going forward in the immediate future, should EAA approval be granted. The MNRF requested there to be a condition placed on the amended EA that allows a reassessment of the project once a considerable amount of time has lapsed from the date of approval to the first day of construction.

In response, AEM noted that the intent remains to complete the permitting and approvals process. The amended EA indicates that the project schedule is dependent on economic considerations, such as the price of gold, operating costs and currency exchange rates. See the Addendum, Part B—Provincial IRs (response to EAB8-NEW) within the amended EA.

Potential condition of approval

As there is uncertainty around the timing for AEM moving forward with developing the Hammond Reef project, the ministry proposes to include a condition of approval that will set a time limit for the approval and will require the proponent to notify relevant agencies and Indigenous communities before construction is set to begin.

Water taking from Marmion Reservoir (surface water quantity)

The MNRF, the ministry and two waterpower producers that have operations downstream of the mine site—H2O Power and Brookfield Renewable Power—raised concerns about the potential impact from AEM’s water taking on downstream water uses, particularly the waterpower operations. AEM requires fresh water from Marmion Reservoir for the processing plant, reagent mixing, dust control and potable water at the worker camp.

The primary concerns related to impacting the waterpower producers’ ability to maintain their operations and remain in compliance with the Seine River Water Management Plan (SRWMP), which legally binds H2O Power and Brookfield Renewable Power to maintain minimum water flow and levels. This plan is overseen by the MNRF under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. The ministry also noted that there may be relevant considerations pursuant to Permit to Take Water requirements for the mine water taking. Conditions of low water flows and low water levels (i.e. droughts) were a focus of the comments in order to ensure that AEM would not be impacting downstream uses and mitigation measures were in place during such hydrological conditions. The comments also requested an outline of mitigation measures in the event the mine would have to cease water taking temporarily.

AEM proposed a contingency plan that establishes thresholds at which AEM would not take water from Marmion Reservoir under low water flow and level conditions. The goal of the contingency plan would be to prevent instances where the downstream waterpower producers would become out of compliance with the SRWMP. Another goal of the contingency plan is to allow for a reasonable amount of continued operations for AEM’s mine under such conditions.

AEM also provided mitigation measures in the event that it needs to cease water taking temporarily, including additional discharge of treated water to Marmion Reservoir and surplus capacity of onsite water storage that can be collected during high water periods and used in periods of low water flow or level. More information can be found in the Addendum to the amended EA:

• Part B—Provincial Information Response EAB-10
• Part D—Supplemental Information, #10 Contingency Measures to Eliminate Water Taking from Marmion

The ministry and the MNRF are satisfied with the proposed contingency plan at the EA stage, and have agreed to continue these discussions into the permitting phase.

AEM, Brookfield and H2O Power have been working toward a Memorandum of Understanding, and it is the ministry’s understanding that the technical terms of the agreement (i.e. the low flow and water level thresholds) have been agreed upon by these parties. The ministry expects that the technical content of the agreement will be consistent with any conditions contained in future Permits to Take Water for the project and that AEM will not impair the ability of the waterpower producers from meeting their requirements of the SRWMP.

Potential condition of approval

The ministry proposes a condition of approval that requires AEM to consult with the ministry, the MNRF, Brookfield Renewable and H2O Power about the contingency plan regarding mine water taking, provide documentation of this consultation, and provide the contingency plan measures to ensure ongoing compliance with the SRWMP with the Permit to Take Water application.

Sulphates and mercury methylation (surface water quality)

As a result of atmospheric deposition, mercury is naturally present in the waters of Marmion Reservoir and surrounding lakes. Mercury can be transformed by bacteria to create methylmercury through a process called methylation. Methylmercury can bioaccumulate in fish and, if consumed in humans, may cause health impacts. Methylmercury could also potentially impact wild rice growth, which some Indigenous communities harvest some distance (beyond Raft Lake Dam) downstream of the mine site. While AEM will not be using mercury in mineral processing, sulphate will be used. Increased sulphate concentrations, if present in the minewater discharge, could stimulate mercury methylation in the receiving waterbodies and downstream under certain conditions.

The ministry, the MNRF and the CEAA requested additional information about potential sulphate concentrations and modelling of the mixing zone for sulphate in Marmion Reservoir. This zone is where sulphate concentrations mix with the fresh water to dilute concentrations of sulphate. The ministry also requested the potential for mercury uptake by fish.

To address the concerns, AEM carried out additional analysis of the potential for the mine to release sulphate and the resulting potential impacts, and produced a supplemental report. The supplemental report can be found in the Addendum to the amended EA Part D—Supplemental Information, #14 Sulphate, Methylmercury and Wild Rice. At baseline condition, fish in Marmion Reservoir already have elevated levels of mercury, due to its natural occurrence in the waterbody. As noted in the Eating Ontario Fish 2017-18 guide, there are fish consumption advisories in place for several species of fish in Marmion Reservoir, including:

• Lake Whitefish
• Northern Pike
• Smallmouth Bass
• Walleye
• White Sucker

AEM’s studies predicted that the mine is not expected to significantly increase sulphate concentrations. Therefore, it is predicted that the mine will have minimal, if any, influence on overall methylmercury concentrations in the Marmion Reservoir and on the fish consumption guidelines. If it is found that there are impacts to fish mercury levels during project implementation, AEM has committed to work with regulators to provide data with which to update the safe consumption guidelines.

Downstream wild rice harvesting areas are not expected to be impacted by the project. As there is no provincial guideline for sulphate concentrations for the protection of wild rice, AEM used a Minnesota guideline, which provides a sulphate standard of 12.0 mg/L as an upper concentration that does not adversely affect wild rice growth. AEM predicted that the project may increase sulphate concentration to 1.8 mg/L at the Raft Lake Dam, which is well below the Minnesota guideline.

AEM consulted with and made presentations to the Indigenous communities to discuss the concerns related to sulphates and any impacts to wild rice.

The ministry requested that AEM commit to develop mitigation measures and a comprehensive monitoring program to address potential impacts related to contaminants of concern in Marmion Lake, such as sulphate, in consultation with the ministry and in support of future permitting applications.

AEM agreed to make this commitment. AEM has also committed to monitoring plans for fish and fish habitat, including conducting fish tissue sampling regularly during the project and reporting the results, which will be made available to Indigenous communities and regulatory agencies to provide data to update safe consumption guidelines, as noted above. AEM will also conduct monitoring of discharge water quality and basin water quality in accordance with any Environmental Compliance Approval requirements.

The ministry and the MNRF are satisfied with the commitments made by AEM in relation to contaminants of concern. The ministry will review the application for an Environmental Compliance Approval to ensure effluent discharge and mixing are appropriately designed and that required monitoring plans are in place.

Potential condition of approval

The ministry proposes a condition of approval to require AEM to develop a comprehensive monitoring program and mitigation measures for surface water quality should effects be greater than predicted in the amended EA. It is proposed that the condition also require AEM to work with relevant government agencies and Indigenous communities. This would be required as supporting documentation for the Environmental Compliance Approval.

Sulphates and seepage (groundwater quality)

This issue is related to the surface water quality issue described above, but specific to groundwater quality. The ministry and the CEAA raised concerns about the groundwater modelling presented in the EA in terms of the potential for seepage from the TMF to enter Marmion Reservoir, Long Hike Lake and Lizard Lake, which are the receiving waterbodies for seepage or runoff. In particular, concerns centred on the potential release of sulphate and other contaminants, and resulting impacts such as mercury methylation. The reviewers requested additional hydrogeological and geotechnical assessment and modelling to more clearly demonstrate the expected seepage rate and identify mitigation measures.

AEM conducted the additional assessment, including modelling seepage releases of contaminants from the mine site to these waterbodies. Baseline information for Lizard Lake was used to represent Long Hike Lake. The assessment predicts a high rate (94%) of seepage capture in the collection system and no impacts to water quality. AEM proposed contingency measures for controlling seepage, such as process adjustments to destroy more cyanide, deepening the ditches, installing pumping wells, installing cut-off walls, and monitoring wells to confirm predictions.

The ministry reviewed the additional information and is satisfied with the information at the conceptual stage. To address any uncertainties, the ministry requested that AEM make a number of commitments in support of future permitting:

• complete baseline work for Long Hike Lake to characterize water quality, fish tissue contaminants and other variables
• re-run the models for predicting seepage water quality at Long Hike Lake
• further explore options to reduce sulphate concentrations in seepage and the resultant potential for mercury methylation
• monitor groundwater between the seepage collection system and receiving lakes in accordance with ministry requirements.

AEM made these additional commitments, found in Chapter 9, table 9-2 of the amended EA. These will be factored into the industrial sewage Environmental Compliance Approval application.

The ministry is satisfied with the response and commitments made related to controlling seepage.

Ambient air monitoring (air quality)

The ministry technical reviewers requested more details about background air quality concentrations, including baseline total particulate matter (PM), PM_2.5 and PM₁₀ for the study area. Reviewers also requested additional information about emissions from project activities and mitigation measures to avoid air quality impacts, such as managing road dust. The ministry also asked for further details about air quality concentrations in the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment technical supporting document.

In response, AEM provided additional details about the background concentrations and emission predictions in an updated dispersion modelling. AEM also added details regarding mitigation and monitoring to the Best Management Practices Plan for the Control of Fugitive Dust, such as road dust and dust emissions from the TMF. AEM clarified that the results in the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment show the predicted concentrations for chemicals of potential concern were lower than health-based air quality standards.

The ministry noted that it is expected that air emissions will occur from each phase of the project, with modelling results indicating exceedances at selected receptors for some air pollutants during the operations phase. The ministry recommended that ambient air quality trigger and action levels be considered in the air quality monitoring program, particularly for the compounds that may have potential exceedances of Ontario’s Ambient Air Quality Criteria, such as PM, PM_2.5, PM₁₀, total suspended particulates, dustfall and nitrogen oxides.

AEM has made a commitment to implement ambient air quality monitoring for the construction and operation phases, and to submit a detailed air quality monitoring program to the province prior to the start of construction, as documented in the amended EA and responses to comments. AEM has said that the program will consider the ministry’s Operations Manual for Air Quality Monitoring in Ontario and that they will work with regulators to determine reasonable parameters and frequency of sampling for construction and operation.

Potential condition of approval

To reinforce AEM’s commitment to conduct ambient air quality monitoring, the ministry is considering a condition of approval to require the development of an ambient air quality monitoring plan for submission by AEM.

Draining of Mitta Lake

Several Indigenous communities raised concerns about the need to drain Mitta Lake, including:

• MNO
• Seine River First Nation
• Lac des Mille Lacs First Nation
• Lac La Croix First Nation
• Rainy River First Nation
• Mitaanjigamiing First Nation

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport also raised a concern.

Draining this lake is required in order to access the ore body, which is directly under the lake. Mitta Lake is an arrowhead‑shaped fish-bearing lake populated by baitfish (for example, minnows). Some concerns raised included disrupting ecological balance due to relocating water and fish to other waterbodies, lake characterization, potential increase of suspended solids, and potential for submerged archaeological or cultural resources to be encountered.

In response, AEM conducted additional consultation with Indigenous communities and government agencies about the Mitta Lake draining plans. AEM explained that a detailed plan for the draining of Mitta Lake will be developed during the permitting phase.

AEM has committed to consulting Indigenous communities and incorporating traditional knowledge and cultural protocols during the development of the plan for draining the lake, as well as the fish relocation plan for Mitta Lake. The fish relocation plan will be subject to permitting requirements from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the MNRF. AEM will also discuss interest with local baitfishers to harvest some of the baitfish from the lake. Some mortality of fish is expected, for which a disposal plan will be developed. Once the fish are relocated, AEM will conduct follow-up monitoring in the relocation waterbody.

Some of the water from the lake may be used for mine operations, with the rest to be released to the natural environment (Marmion Reservoir). Any discharge of water from Mitta Lake to the environment will be stored in mine site ponds for treating for suspended solids, if necessary, prior to release and subject to any provincial Environmental Compliance Approval requirements from the ministry. AEM has also indicated that, while the archaeological potential under the lake is unlikely, they have committed to archaeological monitoring during the draining of Mitta Lake.

More details can be found in the amended EA Addendum: Part A—Federal IRs (response T-62) and Part B—Provincial IRs (responses MNR-9 and MNRF 9B). See Appendix 7.V for records of communication between AEM and Indigenous communities about Mitta Lake. Commitments 30, 100, 107 and 161 in Chapter 9 speak to Mitta Lake commitments.

The ministry is satisfied that AEM has committed to ongoing consultation with Indigenous communities and acquiring relevant permits from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the MNRF prior to draining Mitta Lake.

Ongoing Indigenous consultation

As noted above, the ministry has received letters of support from the MNO and six First Nation communities.

AEM has made a number of commitments to continue consulting with Indigenous communities during project implementation through the construction, operation and closure phases. These include:

• consulting on the plan to drain Mitta Lake
• permitting
• community benefit and training opportunities
• the results of environmental studies
• environmental monitoring programs (for example, aquatics/fish and air quality)
• appropriate ceremonies
• cultural awareness
• country food monitoring
• selection of plant species for revegetation at closure
• ongoing responsiveness to questions and concerns

AEM has also committed to developing a communications plan and risk management plan in consultation with Indigenous communities.

Potential condition of approval

To affirm the commitments for ongoing consultation with Indigenous communities, and more broadly the public, the ministry is considering a condition of approval to require AEM to develop a public and Indigenous consultation plan for ongoing notification and communication throughout all project phases.

The ministry will also consider a condition requiring the proponent to include Indigenous communities in environmental monitoring programs and to make reports available for viewing by Indigenous communities.

Comments from the public—amended EA

Rainy Lake Conservancy

During the 2018 comment period for the amended EA, Rainy Lake Conservancy and Voyagers National Park Association submitted a joint comments letter. These related to protecting water quality, cyanide destruction, testing for acid rock drainage, cumulative effects with the Steep Rock Mine, emergency response planning, financial sureties for reclamation, and providing information about job opportunities.

See Appendix B for AEM’s detailed responses to the comments from Rainy Lake Conservancy.

The ministry is satisfied that AEM has adequately responded to comments and concerns from members of the public.

Comments from Indigenous groups—amended EA

During the 2018 comment period for the amended EA, the Territorial Planning Unit of Grand Council Treaty 3 submitted comments about several aspects of the EA. These included potential impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights (for example, hunting, fishing and ceremonial purposes) from habitat removal, air emissions and water quality impacts. Other comments indicated draining Mitta Lake should consider fish habitat and First Nation use of the watershed, consideration of First Nation participation in employment and environmental monitoring, and social infrastructure support for the mine workforce.

AEM responded that the amended EA assessed impacts of habitat removal, air emissions and changes to water quality to hunting, fishing and ceremonial purposes, and also included a Traditional Use Study completed in consultation with potentially affected Indigenous communities. The amended EA concludes that minimal impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights are expected, after implementation of mitigation measures.

AEM has committed to providing targeted employment and environmental monitoring opportunities to Indigenous communities. As well, the detailed planning for draining Mitta Lake will be developed in consultation with Indigenous communities. AEM is committed to maintaining a safe environment for the mine workforce.

See Appendix B for AEM’s detailed responses to the comments from Grand Council Treaty 3. No further comments were submitted by Indigenous communities or groups during the 2018 comment period on the amended EA. Comments that have been raised by Indigenous communities in 2014 and 2018 are also addressed above and in the amended EA.

The ministry is satisfied that AEM has adequately responded to comments and concerns from Indigenous communities. As noted above, the ministry proposes a condition of approval that will require AEM to develop an Indigenous consultation plan.

3.2.1—Conclusion

AEM has provided responses to all comments received, including those not detailed above. All comments and AEM’s responses are located in the amended EA report, specifically Appendices 7.III-7.V and the addendum, found on AEM’s website, as well as Appendix B of this review.

The ministry staff are satisfied that AEM has met the requirements of the amended ToR and EAA for the components of the amended EA raised in the comments.

As a result of comments received during both the 2014 EA review and 2018 amended EA review, AEM has made a number of commitments, including those that address provincial and federal technical concerns, Indigenous concerns, any future comments that may arise, or through future approval applications to address any outstanding concerns with the proposed undertaking. AEM’s Commitments Registry can be found as chapter 9 of the amended EA along with associated revisions to commitments found in the corrections document.

During the final review period and prior to forwarding a recommendation to the Minister about this amended EA, conditions specific to the undertaking may be proposed to ensure the environment remains protected. Aside from standard conditions of approval, below is a preliminary list of potential conditions that may be recommended to further support the commitments made in the amended EA.

Project-specific conditions:

• post final amended EA with an accompanying corrections document on AEM’s website for the life of the project
• meet all commitments contained in the amended EA and the Commitments Registry
• as part of AEM’s Permit to Take Water application, provide evidence that the MNRF, Brookfield Renewables and H2O Power were consulted on the contingency plan regarding mine water taking
• develop a comprehensive monitoring program and mitigation measures for surface water quality, through consultation with relevant government agencies and Indigenous communities, in support of future permitting applications
• develop an ambient air quality monitoring plan for the ministry’s review
• develop a public and Indigenous communications plan for ongoing notification and communication throughout all project phases; provide opportunities for Indigenous communities to be involved in environmental monitoring
• notify the ministry prior to project implementation and document changes, if any, that have occurred and that could affect how the project is described in the amended EA (the notification would help to determine if additional EA work may be required prior to project implementation)
• an expiration date for the EA approval to ensure that the project is built within a reasonable timeframe and with notification to relevant agencies and Indigenous communities before construction is to begin

4. Summary of the ministry review

The review has explained the ministry’s analysis for AEM’s proposed construction, operation, closure and decommissioning of a new open pit gold mine and associated infrastructure.

This review concludes that the amended EA complies with the requirements of the approved amended ToR and has been prepared in accordance with the EAA. AEM has provided adequate information in the amended EA, together with additional supporting documentation, that assesses potential environmental effects of the proposed undertaking. Ongoing discussions to resolve technical matters during permitting, together with proposed conditions of approval and proponent commitments, should ensure that the environment remains protected.

The review concludes that the amended EA has assessed and evaluated alternative methods to arrive at the preferred undertaking, assessed the potential environmental effects of the alternative methods and the proposed undertaking, and provides a description of mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.

The ministry is satisfied that AEM provided sufficient opportunities for the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities to comment during the development of the EA. Concerns raised by the GRT, Indigenous communities and the public have been addressed by AEM, or a commitment has been made to continue to address concerns through commitments and future permitting and approval processes.

To ensure the environment remains protected, during the final review period and prior to forwarding a recommendation to the Minister about this amended EA, the ministry may consider conditions of approval specific to compliance monitoring, consultation, commitments during project design, or other technical matters. A preliminary list can be found in section 3.2.1 of this review.

5. What happens now

The review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, GRT and Indigenous communities can submit comments to the ministry about the proposed undertaking, the amended EA and/or the ministry review. At this time, anyone can make a written request that the Minister refer either all or part of the amended EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if their environmental concerns have not been considered.

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

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

• give approval to proceed with the undertaking
• give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions
• refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking

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

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

5.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, AEM will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Chapter 10 of the amended EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

• Permits to Take Water (under the Ontario Water Resources Act) for taking of water greater than 50,000 litres per day and for draining Mitta Lake
• Environmental Compliance Approvals (under the Environmental Protection Act) for treatment facilities and any releases to the environment (for example, wastewater, air, noise)
• various work permits for construction on Crown land, construction of tailings dams and installation of water crossings (under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act/Public Lands Act)
• Forest Resource Licence (Cutting Permit) (under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act) for clearing of Crown merchantable timber
• Aggregate Permit (under the Aggregate Resource Act)
• Land Use Permit (under the Public Lands Act)
• Endangered Species Permit (under the Endangered Species Act) for management of activities related to SAR
• Leave to Construct (under the Ontario Energy Board Act) for the construction of a transmission line
• Clearance Letter (under the Heritage Act) to confirm that appropriate archaeological studies and mitigation, if required, have been completed for the project
• Highway Encroachment (under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act) for the construction of a transmission line or access road within provincial highway right of way
• Closure Plan (under the Mining Act) for mine construction/production and eventual decommissioning at mine closure, including financial assurance

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

The project may also require federal approvals including:

• approval from Environment and Climate Change Canada with support from Fisheries and Oceans Canada under regulatory amendment to Schedule 2 of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, related to the placement of deleterious waste rock or tailings in fish frequented water bodies
• approval by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (under the Fisheries Act) for undertaking an activity that results in serious harm to fish, such as the draining of Mitta Lake
• approval by Environment and Climate Change Canada (under the Endangered Species Act) for activities that harm endangered species or its habitat
• license for an explosives factory (under the Explosives Act) to operate an on-site facility for the purpose of supplying explosives for use in open pit operations

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

The EA Code of Practice identifies a process to address minor and major changes to the undertaking if approval is granted. Any proposed change to the undertaking would have to be considered in the context of the EAA and any environmental assessment requirements met before any change to the undertaking can be implemented.

Public record locations

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

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1^st Floor
Toronto, Ontario

• Tel: 416-314-8001
• Toll-free: 1-800-461-6290
• Fax: 416-314-8452

The review and notice of completion are also available at the following locations:

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Thunder Bay District Office
435 James Street South, 3^rd Floor, Suite 331B
Thunder Bay, Ontario
P7E 6S7
Tel: 807-475-1205

Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd.
10 200, route de Preissac
Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec
J0Y 1C0
Tel: 819-759-3700

Atikokan Town Hall
120 Marks Street
Atikokan, Ontario
P0T 1C0
Tel: 807-597-1234

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending November 30, 2018 will follow publication of this review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the environmental assessment or this review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:

Director
Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1^st Floor
Toronto, Ontario

M4V 1P5
Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Hammond Reef Gold project environmental assessment

Attention: Sasha McLeod, Special Project Officer

All personal information included in a submission—such as name, address, telephone number and property location of requester—is collected, maintained and disclosed by the ministry for the purpose of transparency and consultation. The information is collected under the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act or is collected and maintained for the purpose of creating a record that is available to the general public as described in section 37 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Personal information that is submitted will become part of a public record that is available to the general public unless a request is made that personal information remain confidential. For more information, the ministry’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinator can be contacted at 416-327-1434.

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

Summary of the EA

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

Analysis of the amended EA

Report contains an Executive Summary in Chapter 00, which includes an introduction, an overview of the EA methods, the existing conditions, assessment of alternatives, project description, effects assessment, public consultation and Indigenous engagement, environmental and social management planning, commitments, other approvals and benefits of the project.

List of proponent-led studies

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

Analysis of the amended EA

Chapters 2 to 6—EA Methods, Existing Conditions, Alternatives and Effects Assessments—describe the studies that the proponent completed to describe the environment and support the findings of the effects assessment, such as water and air quality sampling and modelling, geochemical testing, human health and ecological risk assessment, traditional land use studies, archaeological investigation and others.

List of additional studies

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

Analysis of the amended EA

Chapter 13—References lists the reports and studies that the proponent used as secondary data to support the development of the amended EA.

Maps

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

Analysis of the amended EA

Chapter 1—Introduction contains maps of the project location and mine site and Chapter 2—EA Methods contains maps of the study areas for each environmental discipline. Other supporting maps for assessing effects are found throughout the amended EA.

Identify an existing problem or opportunity

Environmental Assessment Act, Purpose of the Undertaking: section 6.1(2)(a)
Terms of reference, section 3.0

Analysis of the amended EA

Purpose

Section 1.3—Need for and Purpose of the Project of Chapter 1—Introduction states that the purpose of the project is to extract gold ore for processing and to produce gold for sale worldwide.

Description of the undertaking

Section 1.4—Project Overview of Chapter 1—Introduction identifies the project components. The undertaking is the construction, operation, closure and decommissioning of a new open pit gold mine and associated components, including two open pits, ore processing facility, tailings management facility, waste rock and water management facility, transmission line, access road and on-site worker camp.

Description and statement of the rationale for the alternatives to

Environmental Assessment Act, Alternative to: section 6.1(2)(b)(iii)
Terms of reference: section 5.0

Analysis of the amended EA

Alternatives to

Section 4.1—Alternatives to the Project in Chapter 4—Alternatives Assessment includes a description and rationale for two alternatives to: proceeding with the project and not proceeding with the project (i.e. do nothing).

The preferred alternative to is to proceed with the project as stated in Section 4.1.3—Selection of Preferred Alternative.

Description and statement of the rationale for the alternative methods

Environmental Assessment Act, Alternative Methods: section 6.1(2)(b)(ii)
Terms of reference, section 5.2

Analysis of the amended EA

Alternative methods

Chapter 4—Alternatives Assessment and the accompanying Alternatives Assessment Technical Supporting Document identify and assess the alternative methods for project components consistent with the ToR. Minor variations from the ToR are explained with sufficient rationale in the amended EA.

Section 4.2.2—Assessment Criteria explains that the alternatives were screened and assessed using the ministry’s Code of Practice: Preparing and Reviewing ToRs for EAs in Ontario, 2009 as well as the criteria and indicators developed for this EA process.

Environmental criteria were considered in the alternatives assessment.

Description of the environment

Environmental Assessment Act, section 6.1(2)(c)(i)
Terms of reference, section 6

Analysis of the amended EA

Study area

Section 2.2.2—Scope of the Factors within Chapter 2—EA Methods describes the study areas for the project, as well as the temporal and spatial boundaries.

As stated in Section 2.2.2.2—Spatial Boundaries, the study areas were created to encompass the environment that could reasonably be expected to be affected by the project, or which could be relevant to the assessment of cumulative effects.

Chapter 2 also contains maps of the study areas for each environmental discipline, including natural, biophysical, social, economic, built and cultural environments. Other supporting maps for assessing effects are found throughout the amended EA.

Existing environment

Chapter 3—Existing Conditions includes a detailed description of the environment to establish baseline conditions for the evaluation of potential environmental effects.

Agnico Eagle Mines considered a broad definition of the environment including the physical and biological environments, the relevant socio-economic environment, cultural heritage resources and Indigenous interests.

Description of potential environmental effects

Environmental Assessment Act, section 6.1(2)(c)(ii)
Terms of reference, section 6.0 and 7.0

Analysis of the amended EA

Environmental effects

Potential environmental effects of the undertaking and alternatives are evaluated throughout the amended EA, particularly in Chapter 4—Alternatives Assessment and Chapter 6—Effects Assessment.

These effects were evaluated in a clear and traceable manner using the methodology outlined in Chapter 2—EA Methods and further explained in the relevant environmental discipline sections, using valued ecosystem components, valued social components and categories of effect (direction, geographic extent, magnitude, duration, frequency and reversibility) to determine significance, as explained in Section 2.6.2 of the amended EA.

Section 12.1—Conclusions: Effects Assessment contains a summary of the potential effects of the project.

Description of the action necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the environmental effects

Environmental Assessment Act, section 6.1(2)(c)(iii)
Terms of reference, section 8.0

Analysis of the amended EA

Mitigation measures

Mitigation measures for the preferred undertaking have been considered throughout the evaluation and can be found in Chapter 6—Effects Assessment.

Section 5.5—In-design Mitigation Measures within Chapter 5—Project Description lists how the project design has incorporated mitigation where possible.

Section 12.2—Conclusions: Mitigation and Compensation Measures summarizes the mitigation measures, compensation measures and management plans that were identified in the amended EA.

Monitoring

Chapter 8—Environmental and Social Management Planning identifies the management plans to be carried out during project implementation (for example, air and water quality monitoring, terrestrial and aquatic monitoring, emergency preparedness, social management and follow up commitments), as well as the roles of various parties in monitoring.

Section 12.3—Conclusions: Environmental and Social Management Planning contains a summary of the management plans to be carried out during project implementation.

Evaluation of advantages and disadvantages to the environment

Environmental Assessment Act, section 6.1(2)(d)
Terms of reference, section 5.0

Analysis of the amended EA

Advantages and disadvantages

Advantages and disadvantages of the preferred undertaking and alternative methods to the environment are evaluated throughout the amended EA.

Section 4.1.1.1—Advantages of the Project highlights advantages such as the collection of valuable environmental data on the project site and the surrounding area, increased understanding of the local environment, social benefits such as local infrastructure development and economic advantages such as business opportunities and tax revenue.

Section 4.1.1.2—Disadvantages of the Project highlights disadvantages such as loss of fish-frequented habitat, loss of bat habitat, changes in water quality, increased noise and vibration, permanent landscape alteration, soil erosion and loss of vegetation, wetlands and streams.

Preferred undertaking

Chapter 5—Project Description identifies the preferred undertaking.

Description of consultation with interested stakeholders

Environmental Assessment Act, section 6.1(2)(e)
Terms of reference, section 9.0

Analysis of the amended EA

Chapter 7—Consultation provides a summary of consultation carried out for the amended EA, including government, public and Indigenous consultation activities. Copies of materials are provided in Appendices 7.I–7.II—Notifications and Community News Briefs.

Sections 7.1—Public Consultation, 7.2—Government Consultation and 7.3—Aboriginal Consultation detail the methods used, including notifications, meetings, site tours, community news briefs and community open house events, and the specific activities carried out with stakeholders and communities.

Tables and Figures provided in Chapter 7 provide more details about topics discussed during consultation with the public, government and Indigenous communities.

Outcomes of consultation—the comments raised and how they were addressed—are summarized in Chapter 7 with details in Appendices 7.III–7.V—Records of Communications with the Public, Government and Aboriginal Communities, as well as in the Addendum C—Aboriginal and Public Comments.

Proposed undertaking

Environmental Assessment Act, Description and Statement of the Rationale for the Undertaking: section 6.1(2)(b)(i)
Terms of reference, section 4.0

Analysis of the amended EA

Preferred undertaking

AEM provided a detailed description of the undertaking they are seeking EAA approval for in Chapter 5—Project Description. The undertaking is to construct, operate, and decommission an open pit gold mine and to rehabilitate the area upon closure. The operational rate is approximately 60,000 tonnes of ore processed per day for a period of 11 years.

Rationale

Section 1.3—Need for and Purpose of the Project of Chapter 1—Introduction states that the purpose of the project is to extract gold ore for processing and to produce gold for sale worldwide. The rationale includes providing positive returns for shareholders and bringing economic development to northwestern Ontario, a region that has experienced economic downturn.

Project schedule

Section 1.5 outlines the project schedule in four phases: construction, operations, closure and decommissioning, which will take 2.5 years, 11 years, 2 years and 10 years, respectively.

Conditions of approval

The Ministry Review identifies potential conditions of approval for the project, which are based on the results of the amended EA and consultation during the EA process.

Additional ToR commitments

Terms of reference, section 8.0

Analysis of the amended EA

Table 7-4—Commitments from the ToR in Section 7—Consultation outlines the ToR commitments and lists whether they have been completed or are ongoing.

Chapter 9—Commitments Registry includes a table of a number of commitments made during the EA process that AEM will be required to meet during project implementation. Five of these commitments have been modified in the Corrections Document, which makes up part of the amended EA.

Additional approvals

Terms of reference, section 11.0

Analysis of the amended EA

Chapter 10—Other Approvals lists provincial, federal and other permits and approvals that will be required for the project to proceed. This is not a comprehensive list and AEM will have to consult with federal, provincial and municipal agencies on permitting requirements as the project design further develops.

Appendix B: Public and indigenous comment summary table

Submissions are available in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.

AEM accepts responsibility of all commitments made in the Hammond Reef gold project EIS/EA by the preceding project proponent, Canadian Malartic Corporation. The responses provided herein are reflective of this commitment.

Submitter: Grand Council of Treaty #3 Territorial Planning Unit

General

The Anishinaabe Nation of Treaty #3 have a sacred connection to the land and water, having an inherent responsibility as stewards of the land to protect and preserve the environment for future generations. Although the executive summary notes that adjustments were made to infrastructure layouts to avoid two sites of cultural significance, a clearer engagement, showing explicitly the consideration of traditional territory for each impacted community and associated accommodations that were made is necessary.

The removal of habitat may impact Aboriginal and Treaty rights by decreasing access to wildlife and land for hunting, fishing and ceremonial purposes. The EA must ensure that these impacted rights are being upheld and access to land and water of the territory remains through all project phases.

Proponent’s response

AEM appreciates the Grand Council’s interest in the Hammond Reef Gold Project. Aboriginal engagement and consultation has been an important component of the EIS/EA process. A summary of Aboriginal engagement activities is provided in Section 7.3. The EIS/EA included a Traditional Use Study to inform the Project design. The result of engagement with Aboriginal communities in the early stages of the Project included the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding leading to a resource sharing agreement (RSA) with the Fort Frances Chiefs Secretariat First Nations (seven member communities) and the Lac des Mille Lacs First Nation in December 2010. The agreement includes the formation of an environmental committee, a training, employment and economic development committee and a social and cultural committee, and is focussed on coordinating benefits to First Nations with key milestones in Project development. AEM plans continued discussions with Aboriginal communities and ongoing communications regarding identified concerns to date.

Responses to specific comments related to impacts to wildlife and land are provided herein.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that AEM has appropriately considered potential effects to Aboriginal and treaty rights and has consulted with and considered input from Indigenous communities in the amended EA.

The ministry is considering a condition of approval that will require AEM to develop a public and Indigenous communications plan for ongoing notification and communication throughout all project phases.

The ministry is also considering an additional condition of approval that will require AEM to include Indigenous communities in environmental monitoring programs and to make reports available for viewing by Indigenous communities.

Air quality

Hammond Reef gold project (HRGP) is not planning to conduct field studies on current air quality in the local study area (LSA) and regional study area (RSA) (ES-10). To properly study the air quality effects that the HRGP will have on Treaty #3 territory, field studies should be done to develop a baseline of air quality data prior to mine construction.

Air emissions and dust deposits can cause changes to chemical and physical properties of surface water, soil, and vegetation (ES-28) resulting in impacts to wildlife in the LSA and RSA and therefore, aboriginal and treaty rights.

Proponent’s response

The existing air quality levels used in the EIS/EA were derived from several government operated monitoring stations across northern Canada and are considered representative of the conditions at the Project site (see Section 3.2.5.2 of the EIS/EA). The Project is located in an area of northern Canada not immediately near any large industrial sources. The air quality monitoring stations used when describing existing air quality include a series of stations across northern Canada running from the west (Fort Liard) through to the east (Senneterre), consistent with the general air flow from the west to the east. In some cases, the effect of local activities can be seen to be present in the available data (e.g., PM10 levels in La Loche and Brandon). However, the data from most of the stations show a consistent pattern across the country (e.g. PM_2.5 in Fort Liard: 6.77 μg/m³; PM_2.5 in Fort Chipewyan: 4.93 μg/m³; PM_2.5 in La Loche: 8.66 μg/m³; PM_2.5 in Thunder Bay: 8.50 μg/m³; PM_2.5 in Senneterre: 8.21 μg/m³). The similarity in these reading suggest there is a consistent “background” level across these northern Canadian sites that is appropriate for use at the project.

A multi-media assessment was completed to evaluate substances potentially emitted from the project (e.g. dust) that may generate a health outcome following a long-term or chronic exposure to potentially impacted environmental media (see Section 4.7 of the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment). In this assessment, the predicted maximum deposition rates were conservatively assumed for all project phases (i.e. construction, operations and post-closure). The assessment concluded that:

• the incremental change in water quality concentrations as a result of aerial deposition was predicted to be negligible
• no adverse health effects are expected as a result of changes in soil and water concentrations

The potential effects of dust deposition on plants consumed as food was completed and predicted a negligible change in concentrations within vegetation (see response to HC-4 in Part B of the HHERA TSD).

Status

The ministry is satisfied that air quality has been adequately assessed in the amended EA. To reinforce AEM’s commitment to conduct ambient air quality monitoring, the ministry is considering a condition of approval that will require the development of an ambient air quality monitoring plan for submission by AEM.

AEM will be required to obtain an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) to set protective limits for any air emissions from the project.

The ministry is satisfied that impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights were adequately assessed and that input from Indigenous communities was considered during the EA process.

Soil quality

Soils are at risk of contamination in the LSA due to the tailing ponds associated with HRGP. Seepage and/or leaching processes will facilitate the contamination of soils if proper tailings management is not done. Soil contamination can broadly impact ecosystems, reducing water quality, hampering wildlife and limiting vegetation. These changes negatively impact the Anishinaabe’s right to hunt, fish and gather in the Territory.

Soils will be degraded in the LSA for mine construction purposes, negatively impacting timber resources, vegetation, and wildlife. Topsoil in this region typically not abundant and therefore should be protected. The most important soils that will be affected are those found in wetlands (organic soils). Organic soils found in wetlands take hundreds or thousands of years to develop due to their anaerobic properties; these soils play a critical role in the Boreal Forest ecosystem. Wetlands are riparian zones for freshwater lakes and rivers, filtering and storing water. Contaminating or degrading wetlands would have direct effects on water quality in the LSA/RSA.

Proponent’s response

Prior to construction, soils will be stripped, stockpiled and protected against erosion. Topsoil will be separated from overburden where possible. (see Section 9.0; Commitment 2). AEM will use the stockpiled topsoil and overburden onsite for progressive restoration of habitat and to achieve the overall objectives of Part 9 of the Mine Rehabilitation Code. A sediment and erosion protection plan will be developed and implemented where there is reasonable potential for construction related sediments to enter watercourses (see Section 9.0; Commitment 173(a)).

The potential risk to wildlife of TMF water quality during operations was assessed and the results are presented in Section 5.2.1.1.2 and Appendix 4.I, Table 5 of the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment TSD. This assessment was based on the predicted steady state water quality in the TMF Reclaim Pond during operations and no COPCs were identified.

An assessment of the potential effects on downstream water quality due to seepage release from the Tailings Management Facility (TMF) has been completed and concluded that downstream water quality will meet water quality guidelines/objectives (i.e. PWQO, CCME or SSWQO, where applicable); see response to comment T(3)-08 in Part A of the Addendum to the EIS/EA. AEM has committed to implementing mitigation in the form seepage collection ditches to protect the downstream environment (see Section 9.0; Commitments 14 and 91).

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the proponent’s response, noting that AEM has assessed potential soil contamination and made commitments to retaining topsoil where possible.

Water quality

Chemicals and heavy metals from tailing ponds have the potential to make their way into the watershed and contaminate adjacent water bodies. Although the rock types present in the LSA are said to not leach mercury, there are other ways that mercury can make its way into adjacent water bodies (ie. spills and floods). During testing of the water bodies in the mine study area (MSA), it was found that there is some level of heavy metal/other contaminants present in the local water bodies already; occasional exceedances of mercury were noted in some water bodies (ES-12). This raises concern about the small possibility of further contaminating the water bodies and what impact that will have on the local and regional aquatic biota within the watershed. The Anishinaabe Nation of Treaty #3 have sacred connection with water, being the lifeblood that supports all living things. Access to clean, uncontaminated water is important for daily use and ceremonial purposes.

Proponent’s response

An assessment of potential impacts to water quality in the downstream receiving waterbodies has been completed (see Lake Water Quality TSD and response to comment T(3)-08 in Part A of the Addendum to the EIS/EA). The “worst-case” water quality is predicted to meet water quality guidelines/objectives (i.e. PWQO, CCME or SSWQO, where applicable). Further, AEM has committed to implement mitigation measures and appropriate contingency measures, if required, to protect aquatic life (see Section 9.0; Commitment 128).

The project is not predicted to result in the direct release of mercury to downstream waterbodies due to the low mercury concentrations in the rock samples, negligible leaching of mercury in the geochemical testing and no use of mercury within the production circuits. In addition, due to the relatively small concentration of sulphate in the mine effluent, the potential for increased methylmercury generation is limited. An evaluation of the potential for sulphate discharge to influence methylmercury generation is provided in Part D of the Addendum to the EIS/EA.

AEM recognizes and appreciates concerns with respect to sulphate release and its potential influence on methylmercury generation. Should the project proceed, AEM is committed to work with the regulating authorities and Indigenous groups on this important issue. Should fish tissue mercury levels rise relative to the already impacted fish tissue concentrations, AEM is committed to working with the regulators to provide data with which to update safe consumption guidelines for fish such that the public and Indigenous communities can safely enjoy this resource.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that AEM has adequately assessed impacts to water quality and aquatic life, including mercury concentrations.

The ministry is recommending a condition of approval to require AEM to develop a comprehensive monitoring program as well as mitigation measures for surface water quality should effects be greater than predicted in the amended EA. This condition will also require AEM to work with relevant government agencies and Indigenous communities.

AEM has committed to monitoring plans for fish and fish habitat, including conducting fish tissue sampling, reporting results, and assessing the frequency of monitoring if sulphate concentrations are higher than predicted. The commitment includes consulting with Indigenous communities and regulatory agencies and involving communities in environmental monitoring.

An ECA will be required for any discharge to ensure protection of the environment, aquatic life and downstream users, including any monitoring requirements.

Hydrology

The gold deposit that HRGP will be mining is located directly below Lake Mitta, a small, 17.1 ha lake that supports several different juvenile and adult fish species (ES-14). The HRGP requires the drainage of this lake in order to commence their mining activities. This may be in violation of Section 35 of the Fisheries Act since Lake Mitta drains into Upper Marmion Reservoir via a small stream. Marmion Reservoir is identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) as an important Walleye sports fishery (ES-13). Therefore, since Mitta Lake and Marmion Reservoir are interconnected, the fish species within Mitta Lake, although not categorized as “sport fish”, could be considered “fish that support” an Aboriginal fishery. Section 35 of the Fisheries Act prohibits any serious harm to fish, which includes “any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat”. In addition to the destruction of fish habitat, draining Lake Mitta will also lead to a water level rise with the potential to affect local First Nations communities located along waterways and access to traditional plants along the shoreline. Flow reductions may also result from the lake elimination, consequently affecting other areas outside of the LSA including First Nations communities.

Proponent’s response

The design for the draining of Mitta Lake will be developed with consideration of input from Indigenous groups and project stakeholders. The draining of Mitta Lake will take place early in the construction phase and will be carried out to meet federal and provincial requirements as related to the Fisheries Act and MOECC water discharge permits (see Section 9.0; Commitment 107).

Water levels in Upper Marmion Reservoir are managed by the Raft Lake Dam for the production of hydropower. This results in annual fluctuation in water levels of up to 2.5 m. The volume of water within Mitta Lake, estimated to be about 1.4 million m³, represents only about 0.1% of the total annual outflow at from the Raft Lake Dam. The detailed plan for draining the lake has not been developed, however, for demonstration purposes only, if the entire volume of the lake were to be drained in one-day, the resulting temporary water level increase would be a maximum of 0.025 m (assuming no increase in outflow from the dam), equal to 1% of the normal annual fluctuation. In reality, the rate at which the lake is drained will be limited to the capacity of the pump(s) used and the duration is expected to be much longer. In summary, impacts to water levels in Upper Marmion Reservoir resulting from the draining of Mitta Lake will be negligible.

An evaluation of impacts to water levels resulting from the project, including the loss of the Mitta Lake drainage area is provided in the Hydrology TSD. AEM has committed to implementing contingency measure to mitigate project-related impacts to Upper Marmion Reservoir water levels and outflows during periods when water levels and outflows are below the minimum levels as defined in the Seine River Water Management Plan (See Section 9; Commitment 165).

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the amended EA assessed impacts to fish and hydrology resulting from the draining of Mitta Lake, as well as any potential impacts to Indigenous fisheries, such as for Walleye.

AEM has committed to a Fish Salvage and Relocation Plan, which will be developed and implemented for Mitta Lake in cooperation with Indigenous partners. AEM plans to use traditional knowledge provided by Indigenous communities to inform the development of the plan to drain Mitta Lake, as well as the fish relocation plan.

AEM has committed to sharing the design for the draining of Mitta Lake with Indigenous groups and project stakeholders.

AEM has committed to remote archeological monitoring that will be conducted during the draining of Mitta Lake. This monitoring is to consist of reviewing photo documentation taken by staff on-site to determine if closer examination is required.

AEM will require authorization from DFO under the Fisheries Act for the alteration or destruction of fish habitat. AEM will also require authorizations from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) for works that may alter or disturb fish habitat, such as dams and watercrossings.

Aquatic biota

The elimination of Lake Mitta could be detrimental to fish species located in both Lake Mitta and Marmion Reservoir. The fish found in Lake Mitta will be permanently displaced into the Marmion Reservoir and their habitat will be destroyed. The water level rise resulting from the drainage will most likely negatively affect fish residing in the Marmion Reservoir.

If chemicals from mining activities, such as tailing ponds, were to seep, leach, or spill into the water bodies surrounding the mine, the result would be severe. Since this area is located within a large watershed, the affects would not be limited to aquatic life in the LSA; it would have potential to affect aquatic biota over a much larger area. This larger potential area of influence demands a wide scope of consultation, considering all First Nations that are within the watershed, or have traditional territory that covers a part of the watershed.

Proponent’s response

The elimination of Mitta Lake is unavoidable. The design for the draining of Mitta Lake will be developed with consideration of input from Indigenous groups and project stakeholders. The draining of Mitta Lake will take place early in the construction phase and will be carried out to meet federal and provincial requirements as related to the Fisheries Act and MOECC water discharge permits (see Section 9.0; Commitment 107). Water from the lake will be treated to reduce suspended solids, as required to meet discharge permit conditions and transferred into the Upper Marmion Reservoir (see Section 9.0; Commitment 100). Baseline water quality data (Lake Water Quality TSD) show that water quality in Mitta Lake is similar to water quality in Sawbill Bay, and transfer of water will not result in adverse effects on Sawbill Bay water quality. The pump intake will be a floating intake located in the middle of Mitta Lake and will be appropriately screened to minimize impingement or entrainment of fish. As water levels in the lake are reduced, a fish salvage protocol will be implemented to minimize fish mortality. Live-captured fish will be transferred as they become stranded in isolated pools and basins and released into Sawbill Bay or other suitable waterbody, based on discussions with DFO and the MNRF. The detailed fish salvage and relocation plan would be developed with input from Indigenous groups (see Section 9.0; Commitment 30).

Impacts to water levels in Upper Marmion Reservoir resulting from the draining of Mitta Lake will be negligible (see above ‘Hydrology’ response); therefore, fish habitat in Upper Marmion Reservoir will not be affected.

An assessment of potential impacts to water quality in the downstream receiving waterbodies has been completed (see Lake Water Quality TSD and response to comment T(3)-08 in Part A of the Addendum to the EIS/EA). The “worst-case” water quality is predicted to meet water quality guidelines/objectives (i.e., PWQO, CCME or SSWQO, where applicable). Further, AEM has committed to implement mitigation measures and appropriate contingency measures, as required, if it is determined through monitoring that water quality in Upper Marmion Reservoir, Lizard Lake or Long Hike Lake is projected to consistently exceed appropriate guidelines/objectives for the protection of aquatic life as a result of seepage from the TMF (see Section 9.0; Commitment 128).

Status

The ministry is satisfied that AEM has adequately assessed impacts to aquatic biota resulting from the draining of Mitta Lake. Refer to above status on “Hydrology” for additional details.

Habitat loss and change

Noted is that there is a direct loss of 5% of the WMU (ES-33), but this evaluation seems to be considered solely on the quantity of habitat lost, with no information provided on the quality of this habitat. If this 5% is considered premiere hunting or fishing land, then the percentage lost should be considered significant. At minimum some weighting should be provided to quality. The loss or impairment of these lands affects the treaty rights to hunt and fish.

Further issues exist in that the WMU has not been properly considered as a whole, particularly in regard to cumulative effects; where the limited scope does not provide an assessment of the overall habitat that may be lost in the WMU. This may underscore the overall loss of habitat, subsequently the negative impacts to local hunters, trappers, and fishers could experience.

Proponent’s response

Forested communities was selected as a valued ecosystem component (VEC) and effects to this VEC were measured not only by using quantitative measures (i.e. aerial extent of forested communities to be effected) but also qualitative measures (i.e. composition and diversity of forest plant community; and suitability of the community in supporting wildlife populations). The traditional and non-traditional land use assessment considered effects on hunters, trappers, and fishers. Traditional and non-traditional land use assessment incorporated the results of the qualitative and quantitative assessment of forested communities and translated that into the effects on these types of land users.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the amended EA addressed habitat loss relative to the local and regional study areas as well as impacts to Indigenous hunting, trapping and fishing.

The ministry notes letters of support that have been provided by Indigenous communities.

AEM will be required to revegetate the mine site during the closure phase and meet any rehabilitation requirements in the Closure Plan to be submitted to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM). AEM has committed to consulting with Indigenous communities for their input on selection of plant species for revegetation at the closure phase.

Socio-economic: tourism funding and support

Although admirable, and maintaining a key economic driver for the local economy is important, the concern around this stems from the current level of involvement of First Nation’s people in the industry. Will this focus on revitalizing hunting and fishing tourism contribute to a decline in their availability for both commercial, and personal consumption fish and wildlife for local community members? Will equal funding being provided encourage existing First Nations outfitters to continue their involvement, or to enter into the industry?

Proponent’s response

AEM will prohibit recreational fishing and hunting at the project site for public and employee safety. Recreational fishing tackle and poles and firearms, ammunition and knives will be prohibited items at the project site (including parking areas and the accommodation camp); see Section 9.0; Commitments 33 and 102. All visitors and employees will be subject to security screening for prohibited items when entering or leaving the project site.

An assessment of the potential effects to hunting and fishing was completed (see Part D of the Addendum to the EIS/EA). The assessment concluded that a temporary workforce of up to 1,200 full-time employees for the project is predicted to not significantly alter fishing or hunting pressure and opportunities. Fishing and hunting pressure is predicted to be within the range of values that have occurred during recent history, based on historical population statistics in the study area.

AEM has committed to implementing a bi-annual fishing effort survey of all site employees as part of an approved project monitoring program to evaluate effect predictions. The design of the survey will be reviewed with MNRF following project approval (see Section 9.0; Commitment 153).

The Resource Sharing Agreement with the First Nations provide for an environmental committee which meets on a quarterly basis. Regular information sessions are also held with the Métis Nation of Ontario. Any request regarding funding for Indigenous tourism operators will be discussed with the appropriate Indigenous communities (First Nations and Métis) during future meetings.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that AEM has adequately considered potential impacts to recreational and commercial hunting and fishing, and is satisfied that commitments have been made by AEM to support local industry and involve First Nations in the project, including employment opportunities, as well as address any concerns that may be raised by local community members.

Socio-economic: employment targets

There is no information provided on potential First Nation employment targets. Alongside a general percentage target, there should be the inclusion of First Nation employment targets across different levels of occupational skill, encouraging the development and inclusion of skilled First Nations managers and technical staff.

Proponent’s response

AEM is committed to providing economic benefits to Aboriginal communities (see Section 9.0; Commitment 69). Initiatives to maximize the benefits the project will have on Aboriginal communities include:

• scholarships
• partnerships with local academic institutions
• on the job training
• a hire local priority policy
• targeted employment, training and business opportunities

Status

The ministry is satisfied with AEM’s response and commitments to invite participation from local First Nations in the project.

Socio-economic: environmental monitoring

A strong environmental monitoring plan is provided, and would serve to protect the local environment. However, no opportunity is provided in terms of employment or capacity building. The development of a robust environmental monitoring program could be executed in conjunction with projects being worked on in First Nations and at Grand Council Treaty #3 that are centered around effective community based monitoring.

Proponent’s response

AEM has committed to a comprehensive Environmental Effects Monitoring program, which will include regular water quality testing of effluent and at selected locations within the reservoir. In addition, at the request of the MNRF, AEM will test water within the reclaim water pond within the Tailings Management Facility. All results will be shared with the applicable regulatory agencies and will be available to Indigenous groups and the public.

Furthermore, the Resource Sharing Agreement with the First Nations provide for an environmental committee which meets on a quarterly basis. Regular information sessions are also held with the Métis Nation of Ontario. Any request regarding sampling and water quality will be discussed with the appropriate Indigenous communities (First Nations and Métis) during future meetings.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response and notes AEM’s commitment to share environmental studies and provide information about environmental monitoring programs and results to Indigenous communities throughout the project. The ministry also notes AEM’s commitment to address input from Indigenous communities regarding involvement in environmental monitoring.

The ministry is considering a condition of approval requiring the proponent to include Indigenous communities in environmental monitoring programs and to share results.

Socio-economic: transient workforce

There is information provided that there will be an influx of temporary workers into the region. Concerns about housing and supporting facilities for these workers were brought up and dealt with, but the potential risk they pose to vulnerable groups has not been adequately addressed. The ongoing crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and the risk that an influx of outside workers poses needs to be intently considered, with appropriate measures taken to ensure the safety of Indigenous women and girls.

Proponent’s response

AEM values the safety of the community and is committed to maintaining a safe working environment, and a safe community setting. Governments and law enforcement have an important role to play in ensuring the day-to-day safety of the communities we live in. AEM will work with local law enforcement to protect the community to the extent that is within our power. Also, as stated in commitment #46: “Provide cultural sensitivity training to all members of the project workforce”, AEM will elaborate, in collaboration with the committee established in the Share Resources agreement, a training that will enhance consciousness about cultural aspects and security of all employees including indigenous or non-indigenous people.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the amended EA considered socio-economic effects.

AEM has committed to developing and implementing a communications plan and risk management plan, which will be developed in consultation with the local community and Indigenous communities.

AEM has committed to maintaining a safe work site, such as by controlling access to the mine site and implementing security protocols. AEM has also committed to providing cultural sensitivity training in collaboration with Indigenous communities.

Socio-economic: contracts bundling and priority

No comment is provided around the potential priority of contracts being given to local First Nations. Further no comment is provided around the potential unbundling of larger contractors to ensure local contractors; particularly from First Nations have the capacity to undertake them.

Proponent’s response

AEM is committed to providing economic benefits to Aboriginal communities (see Section 9.0; Commitment 69). Initiatives to maximize the benefits the project will have on Aboriginal communities include:

• scholarships
• partnerships with local academic institutions
• on the job training
• a hire local priority policy
• targeted employment, training and business opportunities

The Resource Sharing Agreement with the First Nations provide for an environmental committee which meets on a quarterly basis. Regular information sessions are also held with the Métis Nation of Ontario. These meetings will provide a forum for discussion on local and Indigenous business engagement.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with AEM’s response. The ministry notes that AEM has made commitments to encourage Indigenous participation in the project.

Cumulative impacts assessment

Although a number of existing and proposed projects are identified for the purposes of cumulative effects assessment, there appear to be additional projects that one could reasonably foresee as being constructed which were not included in the assessment. The impact of increased levels of development can impact the availability of land for traditional activities, impairing established treaty rights for future generations. Planning and consideration for seven generations should be considered in relation to foreseeable development into the future. An explanation of why projects such as, but not limited to those listed below were not included in the assessment could be beneficial.

• future forestry expectations in the local Forest Management Unit
• potential Deep Geological Repository project

Further issues exist with the scope selected for the assessment of cumulative effects. The scope was determined to be confined to the mine footprint and immediately adjacent areas of the LSA (ES-35). The decision for such a limited scope reflects the strong potential to ignore, or undervalue broader changes that this project, in conjunction with other existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable projects can have across broader domains. Areas of concern include previously mentioned changes and loss to habitat, degradation of the water quality with the watershed, and socio-economic changes.

Proponent’s response

The cumulative effects of the project have been assessed within the context of the predicted effects of the project. The assessment considers the geographic extent of the predicted effects from the project to assess whether there is a potential for environmental or socio-economic interaction of the project with other past, existing and proposed activities in this region of the province. Since the predicted effects are being managed and mitigated such that only local changes will occur that will have no predicted significant impact on the environmental components, the cumulative effects assessment was conducted as a limited scope assessment. The lack of physical or biological effects from the project beyond the immediate area of the mine development precludes far-reaching environmental effects that could interact with other projects. The assessment included all known, reasonably foreseeable projects that could potentially interact with the project within the area of predicted project affect. The assessment did not, and could not have, included projects that are speculative and poorly defined.

Within the area of impact, the changes in the environmental components are minor and none of these are predicted to adversely affect local plant or animal populations, nor adversely affect surface or groundwater quality.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the amended EA has adequately assessed cumulative effects as appropriate for the project scope.

Submitter: Rainy Lake Conservancy and Voyagers National Park Association

Ground and surface waters

The mine will discharge contaminated waters to natural water bodies and in doing so is using natural waterbodies as mixing zones to dilute mine effluent. Doing this will allow the mine to meet water quality criteria at the end of the mixing zone instead of at the end of the mine discharge pipe. It would be far more protective of the human health and the environment for the mine to be required to treat its effluent to meet water quality criteria before the mine discharges it.

Further, the effectiveness of this discharge predicates on seasonal and other variations in flow and in mine discharge (quantity of discharge and the discharge’s constituents of concern and their concentration levels). This use of the area’s rivers and/or lakes as dilution “treatments” underscores the need for ongoing monitoring that is representative of actual water quality (ensuring that monitoring, for example, occurs at times and in places that will actually capture and represent contamination).

Monitoring results (current, historical and water quality criteria) by the Proponent and the Province should be readily available to the public, preferably on a public web site.

Proponent’s response

Mitigation measures such as water treatment and cyanide destruction have been incorporated into the project design to improve effluent water quality prior to discharge. The project will be subject to an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) with discharge concentration limits defined by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). AEM is required to and has committed to adhering to the conditions of the ECA for discharge (see Section 9.0; Commitment #136).

An assessment of potential impacts to mixed water quality in Marmion Reservoir has been completed (see Lake Water Quality TSD) and concluded that mixed water quality will be protective of aquatic life. AEM has also committed to a comprehensive environmental effects monitoring program (EEM), including submission of results to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and MOECC in accordance with federal and provincial requirements (see Section 9.0; Commitments #77 and #168).

Status

The ministry is satisfied that AEM has adequately assessed impacts to water quality.

The ministry is recommending a condition of approval to require AEM to develop a comprehensive monitoring program as well as mitigation measures for surface water quality should effects be greater than predicted in the amended EA.

An ECA will be required for any discharge to ensure protection of the environment, including any requirements for mixing zones, effluent quality and monitoring requirements as necessary.

Cyanide

Any mine employing cyanide should comply with the International Cyanide Code. The EIS/EA describes cyanide reduction and the release of residual cyanide into the tailings impoundment and/or discharged into natural waterbodies. The mine’s presumption is that released cyanide will naturally break down and therefore pose no threat to human health or the environment. This is a flawed assumption and should not be allowed. Cyanide destruction should be used for all post-mill discharges, including discharges to holding ponds, waste storage facilities, and discharges to the environment. The cost of complete cyanide destruction is minimal compared to the threat posed by cyanide that does not break down, such as because it is too deep to break down, complexes with other materials, or causes injuries/impacts before it has had a chance to break down.

Proponent’s response

As indicated in Section 5.2.4 cyanide detoxification is included in the project description and will reduce cyanide levels in all post mill discharges to levels that will not be acutely toxic. Additional cyanide degradation will take place naturally within the tailings impoundment, and along groundwater flow paths to further reduce these low concentrations. Resulting cyanide levels have been included in the overall human health and ecological assessment.

An assessment of potential impacts to water quality has been completed (see Lake Water Quality TSD) and concluded that water quality will be protective of human health and aquatic life. AEM has also committed to a comprehensive environmental effects monitoring program (EEM), including submission of results to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and MOECC in accordance with federal and provincial requirements (see Section 9.0; Commitments #77 and #168).

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the potential impacts of cyanide have been assessed and notes that the amended EA included a human health & ecological risk assessment.

An ECA will be required to set limits on any effluent discharges.

The ministry is satisfied that AEM will adequately monitor water quality, including cyanide levels, in accordance with requirements.

Acid mine drainage

Acid mine drainage (AMD) is a significant cause of water contamination from mining. The EIS concludes that AMD will be non-acid-generating. Testing for acid potential was not at the same level of sampling used for defining valuable minerals. Further, the project’s geology includes pyrite and accessory sulfides. Therefore, there could be potential AMD formed and the mine should test for potential acid producing materials during the mine’s life. Further, it is not sufficient for the mine to detect acid production and simply conclude that net neutralizing potential will neutralize acidity. This is flawed in both theory and practice. To be effective the net neutralizing generation would have to happen in the same location and at the same time as the acid formation and be of sufficient amount to neutralize the acidity. If AMD generation is started it is essentially impossible to stop and expensive to contain/control.

During operations, the mine should be required to conduct mine sampling and analysis for acid-producing minerals, based on accepted practices and appropriately documented, site-specific professional judgment.

Proponent’s response

Geochemical testing of waste materials followed commonly accepted guidance documents available at the time of preparation of the EA (Price 1997 and MEND 2009), and are consistent with more recent guidance documents (e.g. INAP 2017). Details on methodology and representativeness of samples are provided in the Geochemistry, Geology and Soils TSD of the EA, particularly in Part B.

It is considered that selection and representativeness of the ore, tailings and waste rock samples are consistent with the intent and guidance as provided in MEND (2009) available at the time of EA preparation and more recent guidance documents (INAP 2017). The samples are expected to provide a reasonable representation of what may be encountered and produced during the project. The test program and test methods follow the MEND (2009) guidelines, including appropriate consideration and provision of descriptions of lithology, colour, texture, spatial representation, and static and kinetic geochemical evaluation (as described in the Geochemistry, Geology and Soils TSD). As recommended in the guidelines, the programs were tailored to the project stage, project type and rock types expected to be encountered and the results were evaluated within the overall context of the project to develop appropriate water quality estimates as provided in the Site Water Quality TSD and the Lake Water Quality TSD.

References:

INAP (International Network for Acid Prevention). 2017. Global Acid Rock Drainage Guide. Available at http://www.gardguide.com

MEND (Mine Environment Neutral Drainage). 2009. Prediction Manual for Drainage Chemistry from Sulphidic Geologic Materials. MEND Report 1.20.1. Mining Environment Neutral Drainage Program, Natural Resources Canada. December 2009.

Price, W.A., 1997. Draft Guidelines and Recommended Methods for the Prediction of Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage at Minesites in British Columbia. Ministry of Energy and Mines. 159 pp.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with AEM’s response and that the amended EA has assessed the potential for AMD/acid rock drainage.

AEM will be required to develop a Closure Plan for submission to MNDM and as part of this work has committed to include appropriate trigger levels and contingency planning for potential geochemical results outside the range of contingencies.

Cumulative impacts

Mining projects can contribute to cumulative effects when their effects overlap with those of other activities in space, or time, or both. A series of mining and hydropower projects on the Seine River can have a significant effect on the quantity and flow of water downstream potentially contributing to increased risk of flooding, erosion and sedimentation, and loss of fish and wild rice habitat.

At the Steep Rock Mine, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) has had to spend over $12 million to date to deal with the site. These dollars/efforts have not come close to fixing that mine’s profound impacts—many which will likely persist in perpetuity. Impacts such as these should be fully incorporated into the mine planning—including reclamation plan, monitoring plans, and developing a financial surety.

Further, the Hammond Reef project will further impact some of the same water resources (notably the Seine River, but also possibly Steep Rock Lake). Such cumulative impacts will be downstream and should be especially scrutinized because the Steep Rock’s impacts may never be fully reclaimed.

The permit process consequently should ensure that cumulative impacts are fully measured and that the Hammond Reef project not be allowed to degrade already degraded land or water resources. Before permitting proceeds, the Proponent and/or the Province should conduct a cumulative impact study of both Steep Rock and Hammond Reef on the Seine River and Rainy Lake. The study should include an analysis of potential accidents and incidents due to maximum precipitation events and interactions between the projects.

Proponent’s response

The cumulative effects of the project have been assessed within the context of the predicted effects of the project (see Section 6.7). The assessment considers the geographic extent of the predicted effects from the project to assess whether there is a potential for environmental or socio-economic interaction of the project with other past, existing and proposed activities in this region of the province. With respect to impacts to downstream water levels and flows, AEM has committed to implementing contingency measures to mitigate project related impacts to Marmion Reservoir outflows and water levels during low outflow and water level conditions as defined by the Seine River Water Management Plan. Therefore, the project is only expected to have an impact on water levels and outflows during normal conditions when the reservoir is operating under its normal, planned and approved fluctuation. Since the predicted effects are being managed and mitigated such that project related changes will not result in Marmion Reservoir being operated outside of its normal range, impacts are limited to Marmion Reservoir.

With respect to the references to Steep Rock Mine, the geology of the project site is very different than that of the Steep Rock Mine, as described in the Geochemistry, Geology and Soils TSD, the waste rock and ore within the project site have low sulphide content, compared to the Steep Rock Mine, and acid mine drainage is not predicted to occur at the project site. The cumulative effects assessment included the Steep Rock Mine and other mining projects. Because potential impacts are limited to the hydrology and water quality local study areas, there is no potential for significant overlapping effects with projects located outside of these study areas.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the amended EA has adequately assessed cumulative effects as for the project scope.

The ministry is satisfied that the amended EA has considered potential effects to downstream water users.

The ministry is proposing a condition of approval that requires AEM to consult with the ministry, the MNRF and downstream waterpower producers regarding management of water flows and levels. AEM will also be required to meet any requirements for water takings and discharges stipulated in the Permit to Take Water and ECA approvals.

A Closure Plan is required to be submitted to MNDM and to include requirements for reclamation, monitoring and financial assurance.

Emergency response

The emergency response analysis is not sufficient to ensure that human health and the environment are fully protected in the event of a significant emergency (whether mine-caused or otherwise). While many mine site and transportation emergency elements are mentioned the analysis fails to consider significant potential mine site and transportation corridor spills or leaks of dangerous, hazardous, and toxic materials. The mine will employ significant volumes and types of potentially hazardous materials (such as for heap leach and floatation processes). It is essential for the review to consider access, response time, training, personnel, and availability of appropriate emergency response resources. It is then essential to consider the health impacts of spills both onsite and off-site, including worst case scenarios and response resources (training, personnel, infrastructure and availability).

Without a more adequately developed Emergency Response Plan it is not possible for the communities that might be potentially impacted by incidents and accidents at the mine, or in the transportation of hazardous materials to the mine, to evaluate whether they will be informed and involved in a timely and responsible manner.

An emergency response plan should be developed using the guidelines of United Nations Environmental Program’s (UNEP) Awareness and Preparedness for Emergencies at a Local Level (APELL) for Mining. (APELL for Mining, United Nations Environment Programme, Technical Report number 41, ISBN 92-807-2035, 2001).

Proponent’s response

Prior to construction, AEM has committed to developing and implement a Communications Plan and Risk Management Plan. These plans will be developed in consultation with the local community and Indigenous groups, and will include the following (see Section 9.0, Commitment #131):

• identification of the potential accidents, malfunctions and emergency situations that would require communication to the public and Indigenous groups
• identification of communication protocols for notifying the public and Indigenous groups, including identification of who will be notified
• AEM contact information
• emergency response strategies, including opportunities for the public and Indigenous groups to assist in the response (where practical and with consideration of safety)

In addition, as per the requirements of the Environmental Emergencies Regulations of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, AEM will develop an Environmental Emergency Plan for any substances stored on site at the appropriate volumes (see Section 9.0, Commitment #81). The Hammond Reef project will not use heap leaching to process ore.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the amended EA has adequately assessed emergency response and committed to further developing their emergency response planning prior to construction.

Reclamation planning

The EIS/EA describes significant reclamation components but is not sufficiently robust to ensure that reclamation will be successful or that financial sureties/bonds maintained during mine life will be sufficient to actually reclaim the site if the mine goes bankrupt or otherwise abandons the property.

Prior to permit issuance the mining company should be required to submit a complete reclamation plan that sufficiently details the reclamation activities necessary to close the mine and restore the impacted land to a productive post-mine land use.

Proponent’s response

The Conceptual Closure and Rehabilitation Plan presented in the EIS/EA is conceptual in nature and is provided as a brief summary with all information required to support an assessment of potential impacts. As is standard practice in Ontario, a certified Closure Plan that complies in all respects with the Mining Act and O. Reg. 240/00 will be submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) with appropriate financial assurance prior to construction.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the amended EA has adequately considered reclamation of the mine site.

AEM will be required to submit a Closure Plan to MNDM outlining more detailed mine closure and rehabilitation plans and to provide financial assurance prior to construction.

Employment/jobs

The current economy demands jobs. The EIS/EA concluded that the project would provide substantial socioeconomic benefits to aboriginal peoples, the local community, and the region. Mining companies often tout high-paying jobs to entice regulators with promises of economic revival. But high paying jobs do not always materialize to aboriginal, local, and regional people and instead jobs that do appear may be low-level or low-pay. Therefore, job information should not be limited to just simple numbers and concepts.

Proponent’s response

AEM has been forthcoming in its economic assessment as well as the types of jobs available as indicated in the Socio-economic Environment TSD. Preference will be given to local community and aboriginal peoples who meet the technical skill sets required for construction and operation of a mine. In addition, AEM is committed to providing training opportunities as well as economic benefits to Aboriginal and local communities (see Section 9.0; Commitment 69). Initiatives to maximize the benefits the project will have on Aboriginal and local communities include:

• scholarships
• partnerships with local academic institutions
• on the job training
• a hire local priority policy
• targeted employment, training and business opportunities

AEM has also committed to the following:

• work with the Town of Atikokan and the Atikokan Economic Development Corporation to identify opportunities for local businesses to develop or expand (see Section 9.0; Commitment #35)
• work with local academic institutions such as school boards to develop specialized labour skills in the workforce. On-site and on the job training will be a focus as well as upgrading of workforce skills (see Section 9.0; Commitment #84)
• continue to share anticipated workforce and equipment requirements information with Aboriginal communities and local economic development corporations (see Section 9.0; Commitment #85)
• implement a hire local priority policy, and seek out business opportunities within the local community (see Section 9.0; Commitment #86)

Status

The ministry is satisfied with AEM’s response.

The ministry notes that AEM has made commitments to encourage Indigenous participation in the project.