Ministry review of the Hardrock project environmental assessment

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

This ministry review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. Amendments to the environmental assessment for the proposed Hardrock project were submitted to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks on August 17, 2018. The deadline for the completion of the review was September 21, 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

Greenstone Gold Mines

What

Ministry review of an Environmental Assessment for the Hardrock Project, which includes the construction, operation and decommissioning of a new open pit gold mine, ore processing facility and associated ancillary activities, collectively referred to as the Hardrock Gold Mine.

When

Environmental assessment submitted: July 18, 2017
Amendment submitted: August 17, 2018
Ministry review completed: September 14, 2018

It anticipated it will take approximately 29 months to construct the proposed undertaking, and that the undertaking will be in operation for a minimum of 15 years prior to the initiation of closure.

Where

The location of the proposed the undertaking is approximately five kilometres south of the Town of Geraldton, Ontario, at the intersection of Highway 11 and Michael Power Boulevard.

Why

In 2012 a resource estimate was carried out that assessed the potential Hardrock gold deposit to be roughly 4.12 million ounces in total, with an estimated value of $3.6 billion.

Conclusions

The ministry review has concluded that the environmental assessment for the Hardrock project was prepared in accordance with the amended approved terms of reference and the requirements set forth in the Environmental Assessment Act.

The information contained in the environmental assessment supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking for which approval under the Act is being sought.

The environmental effects of the proposed undertaking have been clearly identified. The commitments made as part of the environmental assessment process, proposed conditions of approval and the additional work that must be carried out in support of future approval or permitting applications adequately address how these effects will be avoided, reduced, managed or mitigated.

1. Introduction

The requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) set forth a proponent driven planning process that incorporates the consideration of the environment into project planning and decision making. This is referred to as the environmental assessment (EA) process. For proponents and undertakings that are subject to the requirements of the EAA, approval under the Act is required before an undertaking may proceed.

The EA process begins with the identification of a problem or opportunity. This represents the objective of carrying out the EA process. A reasonable number of alternative ways and approaches of addressing the problem or opportunity are then identified and compared. This involves the evaluation and comparison of the potential effects, both direct and indirect, of each alternative on the environment.

Under the EAA, the environment is broadly defined to include the natural, social, economic, cultural and built environments. Actions to avoid, reduce, manage or mitigate the potential environmental effects of each alternative are also identified and considered. The EA process must clearly demonstrate how the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, in terms of their impacts on the environment, have been measured and assessed.

The solution to the problem or opportunity that prompted the EA process is determined through a systematic evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives. The end result is the identification of an alternative that has a preferred balance of advantages and disadvantages, which is referred to as the recommended undertaking. The EA process determines, on the basis of environmental effects, an undertaking for which approval under the EAA will be sought, and how environmental effects of the undertaking can be managed.

During the EA process, a proponent will consult with interested stakeholders, including government agencies, potentially affected Indigenous communities and interested members of the public. The purpose of this is to ensure that their respective legislative mandates, rights and interest are identified and considered as part of the EA planning and decision-making process. The results of consultation are to be documented in a record of consultation.

If approved, a proponent must carry out the undertaking as described in the EA and in accordance with:

• the commitments made in the EA
• any conditions of approval
• all other applicable regulatory and legislative requirements, permits and approvals

2. Proponent

Greenstone Gold Mines (proponent) is a Canadian mining company. The company was established as a 50/50 joint venture partnership between Premier Gold Mines Limited and Centerra Gold Incorporated for the purposes of planning, constructing, operating and ultimately decommissioning the proposed Hardrock Gold Mine (undertaking). For additional information about the proponent, please refer to subsection 1.1 of the amended EA, entitled “The Proponent”.

3. Background

In December 2008, the proponent acquired ownership of the Hardrock mining claim. The claim includes the Hardrock Mine and the MacLeod-Mosher Mine, both historic gold mines. The mines operated from 1938 to 1970, and produced approximately two million ounces of gold. The mines closed as a result of adverse economic conditions, even though ore grade material was still known to be present.

In 2012, a resource estimate was carried out that concluded the remaining gold deposits to be roughly 4.12 million ounces in total. The proponent undertook and commissioned a number of economic, environmental and engineering studies related to the potential resources of the Hardrock mining claim. The conclusions of these studies supported a proposal to construct, operate and decommission a new open pit gold mine, ore processing facility and associated ancillary activities to extract the potential resources of the Hardrock mining claim. For additional information about the economic, environmental and engineering studies undertaken to assess the potential resources of the Hardrock mining claim, please refer to subsection 1.2 of the amended EA, entitled “Purpose of the Project”.

4. Voluntary agreement

On August 28, 2014, the former Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change—now referred to as the Ministry Environment, Conservation and Parks (ministry)—formally entered into a voluntary agreement with the proponent to make the undertaking subject to the requirements of the EAA. The proposed undertaking was not originally subject to the requirements of the Act. However, certain components of the undertaking were subject to the requirements of a number of Class EA documents. It was recognized by the proponent that the completion of an individual EA would ensure that the potential environmental impacts of the undertaking and its alternatives could be considered, and consultation carried out, through a single comprehensive planning and decision making process. For this reason, the proponent requested that the undertaking be made subject to the EAA. A copy of the voluntary agreement can be found in Appendix A of this review.

5. Environmental assessment process

The first step in the EA process is the preparation and submission of a terms of reference (ToR). An approved ToR serves as a framework for how a proponent will address the legislated requirements of the EAA when preparing an EA, and sets forth how an EA will be prepared, including:

• presenting the problem statement
• identifying the alternatives that will be evaluated
• the public, government agency and Indigenous consultation activities that will be carried out

Once a ToR is approved, a proponent may proceed with the preparation of an EA. An EA must be prepared in accordance with an approved ToR.

5.1 Terms of reference

On June 24, 2015, the amended ToR for the Hardrock project EA was approved by the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (Minister) with amendments. The Minister was satisfied that an EA prepared in accordance with the amended ToR would be in the public interest, and provide for the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. The Minister was also satisfied that the amendments that formed part of the decision would ensure the meaningful participation of Indigenous communities during the EA process. A copy of the notice of approval can be found in Appendix B of this review.

5.2 Environmental assessment

On July 18, 2017 the proponent formally submitted the EA for the Hardrock Project to the ministry for a decision. In accordance with the requirements of Ontario Regulation 616/98, the Deadlines Regulation, a seven (7) week formal review and comment period is initiated with the submission of an EA. Given the length and complexity of the EA documentation, and recognizing the resource and capacity needs of government agencies, Indigenous communities and members of the public to complete a thorough review of the EA documentation, the proponent and the ministry agreed to extend the review and comment period by an additional four (4) weeks. The extended period concluded on October 6, 2017.

During the review and comment period, all interested government agencies, Indigenous communities and members of the public were able to review the EA documentation and submit comments to the ministry for consideration when making a decision about the undertaking for which approval is being sought. At the conclusion of the review and comment period, the proponent worked to address and respond to the comments that were received. As part of this process, the proponent made additional commitments, carried out further studies and modelling, and provided additional clarification to address the issues and concerns that were raised. The ministry advised the proponent that in order for this additional information to be considered by the Minister when making a decision about the undertaking, the EA must be amended. On July 16, 2018 the Assistant Deputy Minister of the ministry’s Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch issued a letter to the proponent outlining the ministry’s expectations regarding the advised amendment. This included direction to incorporate the additional information into the EA by way of an amendment. A copy of the letter can be found in Appendix C of this review.

On August 17, 2018 the proponent submitted a supplemental information package that included the additional information that had been prepared to address and respond to the comments, issues and concerns that were submitted during the review and comment period that followed the submission of the EA. The supplemental information package also included updates to Sections 3, 4, 5, 10, 19, 24 and Appendix F13 of the EA documentation. A copy of the covering letter and Chapter Update Tracking Table can be found in Appendix D of this review.

The supplemental information submitted by the proponent has been accepted by the ministry as an amendment to the EA, and will be consider as part of the application on which the Minister will make a decision. A copy of the supplemental information that forms the amendment to the EA and an updated record of consultation can be found on the proponent’s project website and should be referred to in conjunction with this review.

6. The proposed undertaking

The proponent is seeking approval under the EAA for the construction, operation and subsequent decommissioning of a new open pit gold mine, ore processing facility and associated ancillary activities. The amended EA has described the proposed undertaking as consisting of:

• an open pit mine
• waste rock storage areas
• an ore stockpile
• a mill feed storage area and crushing plant
• an ore milling and processing plant
• a tailings management facility
• a mine water treatment facility
• a connection to the Geraldton municipal sewage treatment facility to treat sanitary wastewater
• a connection to the Greenstone municipal sewage treatment plant (STP) for the management of sewage waste from the temporary mining camp
• a water distribution system
• a fuel supply, conversion, storage and distribution system
• a power generation and distribution system
• an explosives manufacturing and storage facility
• a domestic and solid waste handling facility (landfill)
• buildings and yards
• internal access roads and pipelines
• a temporary construction camp

The proposed undertaking also includes relocation of:

• the current Longlac Transformer Station
• a Hydro One substation
• portions of a 115 kilovolt (kv) incoming transmission line and a 44 kv outgoing distribution line
• a portion of Highway 11
• a Ministry of Transportation patrol yard

A detailed description of the proposed undertaking for which approval is being sought and a description of all proposed components of the undertaking can be found in section 5 of the amended EA.

The proposed undertaking is located in northwestern Ontario, in the Municipality of Greenstone, approximately 275 kilometres (km) northeast of Thunder Bay. It is to be situated on approximately 5,000 hectares (ha) of land, located five km south of the Town Geraldton (Figure 1). The proposed undertaking is to be located adjacent to Kenogamisis Lake and will be situated within the Kenogamisis River watershed.

Water quality in the area has been found to be impacted by concentrations of Arsenic, Iron and Phosphorous that are above provincial water quality guidelines. This has resulted in the Lake being designated a Policy 2 receiver.

The surrounding environment includes upland vegetation and wetland vegetation communities typical of a boreal forest. Wildlife species at risk and species of conservation concern have been observed in the area, and include three bird species (Canada warbler, eastern whip-poor-will, eastern wood-pewee), two bat species (little brown myotis and northern myotis) and one butterfly species (taiga alpine butterfly). In addition, MacLeod Provincial Park is located across the central basin of Kenogamisis Lake and to the east of the location of proposed undertaking. The park is designated as a Recreational Class Park, offering opportunities for:

• camping
• hiking
• fishing
• swimming
• boating
• canoeing
• biking
• picnicking
• bird-watching

The proposed undertaking is considered to be a midsize mine. It is estimated that the foot print of the open pit will occupy an area of 112 hectares (ha) and have a depth of 460 metres (m), with a slope of no greater than 55 degrees (Figure 2). The area that is to be occupied by the foot print is the subject of a number patented claims, leases and licenses of occupation and staked claims held by the proponent. Approximately 60 percent of the area is Crown land.

It is anticipated it will take approximately 29 months to construct the proposed undertaking, and that the undertaking will be in operation for a minimum of 15 years. Mining is anticipated to occur at a rate of 24,000 tonnes per day (tpd) of ore production during the first two years of operation. In the third year, production will be increased to 30,000 tpd for the remainder of the mine life. During the last two years of operation mining will cease, and the mineralized material stockpile will be the only supply of ore used.

It is estimated that mining will yield an approximate total of 139 million tonnes of ore, with an average grade of 1 gram of gold per tonne. Total gold production over the anticipated life of the proposed undertaking is estimated to be up to 4.2 million ounces. The total cost for the construction of the proposed undertaking is estimated to be $767,891,846. Should the proposed undertaking be approved, it is anticipated that the undertaking could be constructed and operational by early 2021.

The amended EA identifies that the proposed undertaking will include the partial relocation of the historic tailings produced from the previous Hardrock and MacLeod mines. A portion of the historic deposition of tailings is situated overtop of the planned location of the open pit, and these tailings will be removed and relocated to a planned tailings management facility that forms part of the proposed undertaking. There are also other areas where historic tailings may be disturbed during construction. These historic tailings are also proposed to be relocated. It is estimated that up to 20 percent of the historic tailings with the EA study area may be relocated. The proponent anticipates that the relocation of these historic tailings will result in an overall net improvement to water quality, specifically a reduction of arsenic concentrations in Kenogamisis Lake.

If approval under the EAA is granted, the proposed undertaking must be completed in accordance with the terms, provisions and commitments outlined in the amended EA and any proposed conditions of approval. In addition, the proponent must still obtain all other provincial and federal legislative approvals that may be required for design, construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed undertaking.

Figure 1: Hardrock project location

This map shows the location of the Hardrock project in relation to nearby cities, towns, villages, highways, waterbodies, and district and municipal boundaries. The project is located on Highway 11, 5 km south of Geraldton in the Municipality of Greenstone.

View a larger version of this map (PNG)

Figure 2: Hardrock project site layout

This map shows the location of the Hardrock project in relation to the surrounding area. Locations shown on the map include:

• the open pit
• the tailings management facility
• the Highway 11 realignment
• pipelines and collection ditches
• roads
• power distribution lines
• tailings
• waterbodies and water crossings

The open pit is located near the northern side of the project area, south of the Highway 11 realignment.

View a larger version of this map (PDF)

7. Ministry review

The EAA requires that the ministry prepare and make public a summary of the ministry’s evaluation of an EA. This is referred to as a ministry review (review). The review presents the ministry’s opinion as to whether an EA has been prepared in accordance with an approved ToR, has met the requirements of the EAA, and includes sufficient information to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking for which approval under the Act is being sought.

The review also documents the conclusions of the ministry’s evaluation about whether the information contained in an EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of a preferred undertaking. This includes an evaluation of the technical merits of the undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and planned mitigation measures, and an overview and analysis of how the comments, issues and concerns submitted by government agencies, Indigenous communities and members of the public about the EA and the preferred undertaking have been considered and addressed.

Upon completion, the review is made available for a five (5) week public inspection period. The commencement of the inspection period is signaled by the ministry with the issuance of a notice of completion. During this time any interested government agencies, Indigenous communities and members of the public may submit comments on the review, the EA documentation and the undertaking for which approval is being sought.

All comments received will considered by the Minister when making a decision about the undertaking. In addition, anyone who is concerned that there are significant outstanding issues, concerns or environmental effects that the EA have not been adequately identified, considered or addressed may request that the Minister refer the EA, or any matter relating to the EA, to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing. Requests for a hearing can only be made during this inspection period. The Minister will consider all requests for a hearing when making a decision, and determine if a hearing is necessary.

It should be noted that the review itself is not a decision making mechanism. The Minister’s decision about an undertaking will be made after the conclusion of the inspection period that follows the publication of the review. The Minister’s decision is also subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

7.1 Results of the ministry review

The review of the amended EA for the Hardrock project summarizes the ministry’s analysis of the amended EA documentation and provides an opinion about whether the amended EA has been prepared in accordance with an approved amended ToR, has met the requirements of the EAA, and includes sufficient information to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking for which approval is being sought. The review is not intended to summarize the information presented in the amended EA. For information on the EA decision making process or the undertaking for which approval is being sought please refer to the amended EA documentation.

7.1.1 Conformance with the approved ToR

The proponent has prepared the amended EA in accordance with the planning framework set forth in the approved amended ToR. The amended EA includes sufficient information about how the commitments made in the approved amended ToR have been met. Please refer to Appendix E of this review for a summary of the ministry’s analysis regarding how the requirements and commitments set forth in the approved amended ToR have been addressed.

7.1.2 Conformance with the EAA

An EA must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the EAA. The following is the ministry’s analysis of the key requirements of the EAA and how they have been addressed.

Purpose for the undertaking

The opportunity which prompted the EA process has been identified as the potential economic benefits associated with the extraction, processing and sale of gold from the Hardrock mining claim. A preliminary economic assessment concluded that the mining claim contains an estimated 4.12 million ounces of gold, with a potential value of $3.6 billion. Economic, environmental and engineering studies related to the potential resources of the Hardrock mining claim were also undertaken. The conclusions of these studies supported a proposal to construct, operate and decommission a new open pit gold mine, ore processing facility and associated ancillary activities to extract the potential resources of the Hardrock mining claim. For additional information about the opportunity which prompted the initiation of the EA process please refer to subsection 1.2 of the amended EA, entitled “Purpose of the Project”.

Study area

A defined geographical area that was studied as part of the EA process has been identified. The study area has been defined by the geographic boundaries that represent the areas that are likely to be affected or that might reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the proposed undertaking and alternatives being considered during the EA process. The study area includes a portion of land approximately 2,620 hectares in size, located five km south of the Town Geraldton (Figure 1). For more information about the area that was studied as part of the EA process please refer to section 12 of the amended EA, entitled “Environmental Setting”.

Description of the environment

The EA provides a description of the existing conditions within the EA study area. The description includes sufficient detail about each of the component of the environment defined under the EAA, which include the natural, social, economic, cultural and built environments. For detailed description of the environmental that makes up the EA study area please refer to section 2.3 of the amended EA, entitled “Summary of Existing Conditions”.

Rationale for alternatives

In accordance with the approved amended ToR, the amended EA has been prepared in accordance with sections 6(2) (c) and 6.1(3) of the EAA and is “focused” on the consideration of only “Alternative Methods”. An open pit mine has been identified as the preferred “Alternative To”. Justification for limiting the examination of alternatives is based on the conclusions of a preliminary economic assessment, which determined that an open pit mine was the only reasonable approach for resource extraction. For more information about the rationale that supports the selection of the alternatives that were considered as part of the EA process please refer to Section 4.1 of the amended EA, entitled “Alternatives Assessment Methods”.

Assessment of alternatives

Having identified the preferred “Alternative To”, the assessment of alternatives was “focused” on the evaluation and comparison of a reasonable range of “Alternative Methods”. A reasonable number of “alternative methods” for each of the key components necessary to facilitate the implementation, operation and decommissioning of the proposed undertaking were identified, assessed and compared. A “Do Nothing” alternative was also considered and used as a bench mark against which the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives being considered as part of the EA process were assessed and compared.

An amendment to the EA was made to provide a more detailed explanation about the decision making process that was followed to arrive at the conclusions that support the selection of the preferred undertaking for which approval is being sought. This included the identification and description of the criteria and indicators that were used to assess and measure the potential effects, both positive and negative, of each alternative on each component of the environment defined under the EAA, and included an explanation to clarify the reasons for selecting each criterion and its supporting indicators. The amendment, however, did not include information about the weighting, score or measure of each of the indicators used as part of the initial evaluation and comparison of alternatives. This information would have provided a more transparent explanation about how each of the alternatives being considered as part of the EA process were assessed and compared. For more information about the alternatives that were considered as part of the EA process please refer to section 4.0 of the amended EA, entitled “Evaluation of Alternatives”.

Evaluation of environmental effects

The amended EA includes an explanation about the methods and studies used to identify, assess and evaluate the potential environmental effects, both positive and negative, from the undertaking and the alternatives being considered as part of the EA process. This includes a summary of the effects, both direct and indirect, that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be caused to each component of the environment defined under the EAA. The amended EA includes a description of the evaluation methodology that was followed to arrive at the conclusions that support the selection of the preferred undertaking. For additional information about the evaluation of environmental effects please refer to subsection 6.4 of the amended EA, entitled “Environmental Effects Assessment”.

Description and rationale for the undertaking

The amended EA has described the undertaking for which approval is being sought as the construction, operation and subsequent decommissioning of a new open pit gold mine, ore processing facility and associated ancillary activities. The description is at a conceptual level of detail and an explanation has been provided about how the design will be finalized in accordance with all applicable standards, legislative requirements and commitments made during the EA process.

An amendment to the EA was made which included the submission of additional information, studies and recommended approaches to support the selection of the components of undertaking for which approval is being sought. The amended description includes sufficient information about the entire life cycle of the proposed undertaking, including construction, operation and decommissioning, and contains adequate detail to understand the undertaking for which approval is being sought. For additional information about the on the description of the preferred undertaking please refer to subsection 5 of the amended EA, entitled “Project Description”.

Consultation

The amended EA includes a description and a summary of the results of the consultation and engagement activities that were carried out during the preparation of the EA with government agencies, Indigenous communities and interested members of the public. In accordance with the requirements under section 6(3) of the EAA, the consultation process carried out during the preparation of the EA has been documented in a public consultation record.

The record of consultation provides a summary of the issues and concerns raised during the EA process, and an explanation about how they have been considered and addressed. An updated record of consultation can be found on the proponent’s project website and should be referred to in conjunction with this review. For additional information about the consultation that was carried out during the preparation of the EA and the results of the consultation, please refer to subsection 3 of the amended EA, entitled “Community and Stakeholder”.

Conclusion

The amended EA has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the EAA and includes sufficient information about how the requirements of the Act have been met. The amended EA provides an adequate explanation of the decision making process that was followed to arrive at the conclusions that support the selection of the preferred undertaking for which approval is being sought.

7.1.3 Consulation

Consultation with interested persons is a cornerstone of the EA process, and is a legal requirement of the EAA. Section 5.1 of the Act requires that consultation with such persons as may be interested should take place during the preparation of an EA. It is the responsibility of the proponent to engage and consult with all relevant and potentially affected government agencies, Indigenous communities and members of the public during the preparation of an EA. This consultation must also be completed in accordance with the consultation plan set forth in an approved ToR.

Federal and provincial coordination

In addition to voluntarily agreeing to be designated subject to the requirements of the EAA, the proposed undertaking is also subject to the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. To address the provincial and federal EA requirements for the proposed undertaking, the proponent conducted a coordinate EA process. This was done in order to ensure that the potential environmental impacts of the proposed undertaking and its alternatives could be considered, and consultation carried out, through a single comprehensive planning and decision making process rather through two separate and distinct processes. At the conclusion of the coordinated EA process, a single document was prepared to demonstrate how the provincial and federal EA requirements had been addressed.

Consultation process

On July 8, 2015 the proponent issued a notice of commencement of an EA which announced the start of the EA process, and provided information to all relevant government agencies, Indigenous communities and interested members of the public about what is being proposed and how to become involved. A copy of the notice was also sent by mail to each government agency, Indigenous community and member of the public that was identified as having a potential interest in the proposed undertaking.

During the preparation of the EA, the proponent carried out an extensive consultation process. The purpose of which was to ensure that any issues or concerns from interested government agencies, Indigenous communities and members of the public were identified, considered and addressed as part of the EA process. In accordance with the consultation commitments that were outlined in the approved amended ToR, the proponent carried out the following key consultation activities during the preparation of the EA:

• establishing and maintaining a contact list of interested government agencies, potentially impacted Indigenous communities and members of the public that expressed an interest in participating during the EA process or that had a mandate that may be potentially affected by the proposed undertaking
• providing project related information and updates throughout the EA process by way of a project web site, the publication of newsletters, written correspondence and holding numerous public consultation centres with open house format
• advertisements in local newspapers providing notice of formal EA milestones and consultation events
• maintaining a record of consultation documenting all issues or concerns that were raised during the preparation of the EA and the responses to them
• government agency meetings to discuss relevant issues and mandates
• meetings with Indigenous communities to share project related information and updates throughout the EA
• the circulation of a draft EA for review and comment

The consultation process included multiple opportunities for the exchange and review of information about the proposed undertaking with interested government agencies, potentially impacted Indigenous communities and members of the public. The proponent made reasonable efforts to ensure that sufficient opportunities to engage and solicit feedback were provided to anyone that expressed an interest in the proposed undertaking or that participated in the EA process.

In accordance with section 6(3) of the EAA, the consultation process carried out during the preparation of the EA has been documented in a public consultation record. The record of consultation provides a summary of the engagement opportunities and consultation that took place during the EA process, and an overview about the issues and concerns that were raised and how they were addressed.

The record of consultation was updated to incorporate the consultation that took place after the submission of the EA and to document the additional commitments, studies, modelling and additional clarification that was prepared to address the issues and concerns raised during the review and comment period that followed the submission of the EA. A copy of the updated record of consultation can be found on the proponent’s project website and should be referred to in conjunction with this review.

The level of consultation undertaken with the government agencies, Indigenous communities and members of the public was done in accordance with:

• section 5.1 of the EAA
• the expectations set forth in the ministry’s Code of Practice: Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process
• the commitments made in the approved ToR

The amended EA adequately describes the consultation process and methods that that were undertaken during the EA process, and the outcomes of these activities.

Following the formal submission of the EA, interested government agencies, Indigenous communities and members of the public were provided with an opportunity to review the EA documentation, and to submit comments to the ministry on the EA and the proposed undertaking for which approval is being sought. The ministry received a total of 21 submissions during the formal comment period. All comments received by the ministry were forwarded to the proponent for a response. Copies of the comments received, along with the responses provided by the proponent, can be found in the updated record of consultation.

Government Review Team (GRT)

Prior to initiating the preparation of the EA, the proponent engaged all relevant government agencies that were determined to have an interest or mandate potentially affected by the proposed undertaking. The objective was to confirm the regulatory and legislative requirements that should be considered as part of the EA process, and to ensure the appropriate agency contacts were correctly identified. At the conclusion of this engagement process the following government agencies, who are collective referred to as the GRT, were identified:

• Hydro One
• Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Housing (MMAH)
• Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines (MENDM)
• Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF)
• Ministry of Transportation (MTO)
• Natural Resources Canada (NRC)
• Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS)
• Infrastructure Ontario
• Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)
• Transport Canada (TC)
• Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)
• Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

The proponent sought input from the GRT through a variety of means, including, telephone calls, written and electronic correspondence, formal meetings, and the circulation of a draft EA for review. A summary of the consultation carried out during the EA process with the GRT, the comments received, and the responses by the proponent can be found in section 3 of the amended EA.

Following the formal submission of the EA, the GRT was provided with an opportunity to review the final EA documentation and to submit comments to the ministry. The comment period was coordinated by the ministry. Members of the GRT were asked to submit comments directly to the ministry for consideration. A total of six (6) submissions were received from Hydro One, MMAH, MENDM, MNRF, MTCS and MTO.

In addition, the ministry’s Environmental Approvals & Permissions Branch, Northern Regional Office Technical Support Section, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch and the Environmental Sciences and Standards Division also submitted comments. All comments received from the GRT were forwarded to the proponent for a response.

Although a number of federal agencies did review and provide comments on the EA, the submission of these comments was coordinated by CEAA. Federal agencies were directed to submit any comments directly to the Agency for consideration. Comments were submitted by the DFO, TC, and ECCC. The comments were then consolidated by CEAA and submitted to the proponent for a response. Copies of the comments received from the GRT, along with the responses by the proponent, can be found in the updated record of consultation.

Public consultation

Members of the public, which includes the general public, organizations, communities, businesses, interest groups and property owners, were provided with several opportunities to participate and provide input during the EA process. The proponent carried out consultation with members of the public in a variety of ways, including:

• holding public information centres
• written correspondence
• newspaper notifications of EA milestones and consultation opportunities
• posting information and materials to a project website

The objective was to inform and seek input from interested members of the public on the EA process and the proposed undertaking. A summary of the consultation carried out during the EA process with members of the public, the comments received and the responses by the proponent can be found in section 3 of the amended EA.

Following the formal submission of the EA, members of the public were provided with an opportunity to review the EA documentation and to submit comments to the ministry. The comment period was coordinated by the ministry, and members of the public were asked to submit comments directly to the ministry for consideration. The ministry received six (6) letters of support from members of the public. Copies of all comments received from members of the public, along with the responses by the proponent, can be found in the public consultation record.

Indigenous community consultation

A fundamental requirement under the EAA is consultation with interested persons, including consultation with First Nation and Métis communities. Consultation with Indigenous communities provides an opportunity for communities to engage in the EA planning process, exchange information and provide opinions about how an undertaking may affect their rights or interests. Furthermore, in accordance with section 35 of Canada’s Constitution Act, the provincial Crown has a duty to consult with First Nation and Métis communities when it has knowledge of established or credibly asserted Aboriginal or treaty rights that could be adversely impacted by any decisions or actions made by the Crown.

Consultation with indigenous communities provides an opportunity to determine whether a specific Aboriginal or treaty right may be potentially affected by a proposed undertaking, and to determine—in consultation with potentially affected Indigenous communities—how an affected Aboriginal or treaty right should be considered and addressed. Although the Crown remains responsible for ensuring the adequacy of consultation with potentially affected communities, it may delegate the procedural aspects of this consultation process to proponents.

On November 7, 2014 the ministry, on behalf of the Crown, formally delegated the procedural aspects of rights-based consultation to the proponent. A copy of the letter of delegation can be found in Appendix F of this review.

Prior to the initiation of the EA process, and as part of the pre-consultation activities that took place during the preparation of the ToR, the proponent engaged the ministry, the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs, the MENDM, the MNRF and Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada for advice and guidance on identifying those Indigenous communities that may be potentially impacted by the proposed undertaking, and that should be consulted with as part the EA process. The following Indigenous communities were identified as having an interest in the undertaking or having an asserted or established treaty right that may be impacted by the proposed undertaking:

• Animbiigoo Zaagi'igan Anishinaabek (AZA)
• Aroland First Nation (AFN)
• Biigtigong Nishnaabeg
• Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek (BZA)
• Bingwi Neyaashi Anishinaabek (BNA)
• Constance Lake First Nation (CLFN)
• Eabametoong First Nation
• Métis Nation of Ontario Greenstone Métis Council (MNO)
• Ginoogaming First Nation (GFN)
• Long Lake #58 First Nation (LL#58)
• Marten Falls First Nation
• Pays Plat First Nation
• Pic Mobert First Nation
• Red Sky Métis Independent Nation (RSMN)

The Indigenous communities identified were initially engaged by the proponent to establish appropriate contacts; confirm if a community may have an interest in the proposed undertaking; identify any asserted or established Aboriginal or treaty rights that could be impacted by the proposed undertaking; and, to confirm a process for sharing information during the EA process.

In accordance with the approved amended ToR, Indigenous communities were engaged and consulted at the following key EA decision making milestones:

• development of a community specific Aboriginal consultation plan for the preparation of an EA
• development of the methodology, evaluation and results of baseline studies
• development of the evaluation methodology for the assessment of alternatives and the preferred undertaking
• conclusion of assessment and evaluation of alternatives (including the identification of potential effects and the development of appropriate mitigation and management measures)
• assessment and evaluation of the preferred undertaking (including the development of mitigation and monitoring measures to address any potential effects)
• conclusion of the assessment and evaluation of the preferred undertaking (including potential effects, and appropriate effects management measures)

Indigenous communities were engaged at the beginning of the EA process to determine how they would like to participate in the process, and to gain an understanding of their capacity and resource needs to support their involvement. This resulted in the development of community-specific consultation plans and the allocation of financial support to fund the participation of Indigenous communities in the EA process. The proponent entered into formal agreements with AZA, AFN, GFN, LL#58 and MNO to:

• allocate funding for third party technical consultants, professionals and legal advisors to support communities in their review of the EA
• complete Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Land and Resource Use studies
• provide opportunities for community appointed environmental monitors during field studies carried out as part of the EA process

During the EA process, Indigenous communities were formally invited by way of letter and mailed notices to attend each of the three public information centres that were held during the preparation of the EA. In addition, the proponent also held a number of community specific meetings to:

• provide opportunities for community members, leadership and their technical representatives
• receive project information
• provide input on the EA process

Issues and concerns identified by communities were considered, addressed and, where appropriate, incorporated into the EA process. At the end of the EA process, the proponent circulated a draft of the EA to each Indigenous community for review and comment.

A summary of the consultation process carried out during the EA process with Indigenous communities, the comments received, and the responses by the proponent can be found in section 3 of the amended EA.

Following the formal submission of the EA, Indigenous communities were provided with an opportunity to review the final EA documentation and to submit comments to the ministry. The comment period was coordinated by the ministry, and Indigenous communities were asked to submit comments directly to the ministry for consideration. The ministry received a total of seven (7) submissions from the AZA, AFN, BZA, BNA, GFN, CLFN and RSMN.

At the conclusion of the comment period, the ministry contacted each of the Indigenous communities that participated in the EA process to confirm that they received all relevant information and materials that was circulated as part of the EA consultation process, and to verify with communities that there were no outstanding issues or concerns that had not been brought to the attention of the ministry for consideration when making a decision about the proposed undertaking. In response, a number of communities identified that they had not yet completed their review of the EA documentation, and requested additional time to complete their review and submit comments.

As required under the Ontario Regulation 616/98 Deadlines Regulation, the ministry is required to complete a review of an EA five (5) weeks from the conclusion of the comment period that follows the submission of an EA. However, the Director of the ministry’s Environmental Approvals and Permissions Branch has the authority under section 7(3) of the EAA to extend the deadline for the completion of the review. This may be done, when appropriate, to provide additional time for a proponent to continue to work towards resolving an outstanding issue or to provide additional time for the submission of comments.

In response to the request from Indigenous communities for additional time, and in recognition of the objective of reconciliation and the Crown’s Duty to Consult obligations, the deadline for the completion of the review was extended. At the conclusion of the extended review period, the ministry received submissions from AZA, AFN, GFN, EFN and MNO. The comments included concerns about:

• how the traditional knowledge that the communities had shared with the proponent was considered as part of the EA process
• the assessment of impacts to water quality
• the assessment of cumulative effects
• how potential impacts on Aboriginal or treaty rights have been addressed.

A letter of support was also received from LL#58, indicating that the community was satisfied with the conclusions of the EA process and the undertaking for which approval is being sought.

All comments received by the ministry were forwarded to the proponent for a response. Copies of the all comments received from Indigenous communities, along with the responses by the proponent, can be found in the update record of consultation submitted as part of the amended EA.

Conclusion

The proponent provided sufficient opportunities for government agencies, Indigenous communities and interested members of the public to participate during the EA process. Consultation was carried out in accordance with:

• section 5.1 of the EAA
• the direction and advice contained within the ministry’s Code of Practice: Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process
• the commitments made in the approved amended ToR.

An adequate description of the consultation process, methods used, and the issues raised and how they have been addressed was provided in the amended EA.

In response to the submissions received during the review and comment period that followed the submission of the EA, the proponent explained how, through subsequent permitting and approvals processes, additional opportunities would be provided to further discuss issues and concerns specific to these processes. The proponent also submitted additional information, studies, modelling and clarification to explain how the issues and concerns identified had been further considered and assessed.

In addition, the proponent made numerous commitments to explain and clarify how an issue or concern would be addressed or resolved following a decision on the EA. The additional work, clarification and commitments were submitted as an amendment to the EA. If a decision is made to approve the amended EA, the proponent will be required to design, construct, operate and decommission the proposed undertaking in accordance with the amended EA and any commitments that have been made.

Summaries of the all comments received from Indigenous communities, along with the responses by the proponent, can be found in the updated record of consultation submitted as part of the amended EA.

7.1.4 Summary of key issues

The following is the ministry’s analysis of the key issues to which the additional information, clarification or commitments made by the proponent do not adequately address or explain how an issue or concern can or will be resolved.

Policy 2

The Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) sets the objectives and legislative requirements governing water quality in Ontario. A number of Surface Water Management Policies have been made under the Act to ensure for the protection, conservation and wise management of water quality in the province. This includes the establishment of a set of Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQOs), which set forth the thresholds for a suite of contaminants that must not be exceeded in order to maintain acceptable water quality. When surface water quality does not meet the PWQOs, the water management policies under the OWRA prohibit a waterbody from any further degradation. This is commonly referred to as Policy 2 Designation. Where a new discharge is proposed into a designated Policy 2 receiver, no further degradation may occur, and all practical measures must be undertaken to improve water quality so that the PWQOs are met.

As part of the undertaking for which approval is being sought, the proponent is proposing to discharge effluent from the undertaking into the Southwest Arm of Kenogamisis Lake. Due to the impacts from historical mining activities, the ongoing discharges associated with the Geraldton sewage treatment plant and other land uses within the Kenogamisis Lake watershed, the Lake has been designated a Policy 2 Receiver due to exceedances of PWQOs for arsenic, iron and phosphorous.

In order to support seeking approval for the discharge of effluent into the Lake, the proponent has proposed a series of mitigation measures that are intended to improve the quality of water in the Lake. This includes the partial removal and relocation of portions of the historic tailings in order to reduce the volume of contaminants that are impacting water quality, and the application of effluent treatment technologies to ensure that discharges of effluent from the proposed undertaking are within PWQOs. To demonstrate that these mitigation measures will result in an improvement to the quality of water in Kenogamisis Lake, the proponent completed a series of predictive models that examined how the proposed mitigation measure could potentially improve water quality.

The conclusions of the initial modelling were reviewed by ministry technical staff to confirm the accuracy of the predictions. The review determined that the modelling did not incorporate sufficient statistical variability to allow for an adequate level of confidence in the predicted conclusions. This is because the model did not consider an adequate number of possible scenarios, from best case to worst case, in order to arrive at a range of reasonable predictions. Instead, a single scenario was predicted. By not establishing a reasonable range of potential outcomes, the conclusions of the model did not provide enough certainty to demonstrate that there is likely to be a net overall improvement to the quality of water in Kenogamisis Lake.

The ministry advised that an uncertainty analysis should be undertaken to ensure that key variables used in the modelling are assigned adequate statistical distributions, and that multiple simulations be performed with individual parameters being assigned values drawn from their statistical properties. It was suggested a Stochastic modelling approach be used to achieve this objective, such as a Monte Carlo model.

The proponent agreed to re-run the modelling, and incorporate the suggested uncertainty analysis through the use of the Monte Carlo model, to address the ministry’s concerns. The EA was amended to incorporate the additional information, studies and modelling that was carried out to demonstrate compliance with Policy 2.

The conclusions of the revised modelling were reviewed by ministry technical staff to assess the accuracy of the predictions. The review found that the additional modelling continued to have many limitations. In particular, the modelling incorporated several assumptions about the interaction of contaminants within the environment of the EA study area. The assumptions have introduced a level of uncertainty about the predicted concentrations of contaminants that are likely to be affected during the life of the proposed undertaking. Although the ministry remains concerned about the accuracy of the long range predictions of the modelling, the ministry has found that the modeling has demonstrated, in principle, that through the application of the proposed mitigation measures the undertaking is likely to meet the intent of Policy 2. A copy of the memorandum summarizing the ministry’s conclusions can be found in Appendix G of this review.

The additional modelling completed by the proponent was found by ministry technical reviewers to be sufficient for the EA process. However, reviewers have recommended that additional modeling, both numerical and physical, should be required to validate the assumptions that were incorporated into revised modeling. The purpose of which is to establish a more detailed and accurate assessment of the predictive interaction of contaminants within the environment of the EA study area. This information will be necessary to support any applications for permits or approvals under the OWRA. It is also recommended that comprehensive groundwater, surface water, and sediment monitoring programs be developed, and that the monitoring programs include ministry recommended trigger values for all relevant Policy 2 contaminants at specific locations within the EA study area to ensure that concentrations of contaminants are not exceeding the allowed thresholds.

Should the Minister decided to approve the undertaking, it is recommended that a condition of approval be considered that would require the proponent, in consultation with the ministry, to complete additional modelling of all relevant Policy 2 contaminants. The purpose of which is to address the limitations and uncertainty that were found in the modeling that was included in the amended EA. It is also recommended that the proponent be required to develop—in consultation with the ministry and any interested government agencies and Indigenous communities—a comprehensive monitoring program to ensure that the concentrations of arsenic, iron, phosphorous and any other relevant contaminants or concern related to Policy 2 within the EA study area environment do not exceed the permitted thresholds or prescribed trigger values. Should it be determined that a contaminant of concern is nearing or exceeding a regulated threshold or trigger value, the proponent should be required to carry out further investigations in order to determine the cause; and, to develop, in consultation with the ministry, mitigation measures to address the exceedance.

Mercury

Mercury has been identified as a potential contaminant of concern within the EA study area. The EA assessed mercury as part of the baseline studies that were completed to support the description of the EA study area environment. The assessment concluded that the mercury levels within the EA study area were very low. The EA also assessed whether the proposed undertaking would contribute to the potential increase of mercury concentrations in the EA study environment.

Based on the conclusions of these assessments, the EA concluded that there would not be any significant changes to the concentrations of mercury in the EA study environment as a result of the proposed undertaking. There was, however, a lack of clarification about whether the proposed undertaking would indirectly result in the release of mercury into the EA study environment. This information is necessary to understand the possible implications on human and ecological health that may result from disturbances of contaminated areas from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed undertaking. The proponent therefore retained the services of a qualified independent third party to review the assessment of mercury concentrations presented in the EA and the implications of these concentrations to human and ecological health.

The conclusions of the third party review found that the proponent’s approach to assessing the potential impacts of mercury from the proposed undertaking on groundwater and surface water were reasonable. However, there was a lack of clarity about the indirect contribution of mercury to surface water and how it was considered as part of the bioaccumulation-based mercury predictive modelling that was carried out. In particular, it was noted that discharges to the Goldfield Creek diversion channel may result in possible impacts to existing mercury because the overburden in the area may contain elevated levels of mercury concentrations.

Due to the potential elevated levels of mercury in the existing soil of the Goldfield Creek diversion channel, it is likely that the flooding of the area could likely result in the release of mercury and methylmercury. It was therefore recommended that monitoring programs be developed to assess the total mercury and methylmercury levels in order to detect and quantify any changes possibly related to the proposed undertaking. It was also recommended contingency plans and mitigations strategies be developed in order to address the possibility of higher than predicted mercury and methylmercury concentrations. The EA was amended to incorporate the additional information, studies and recommendations that were carried out to demonstrate that mercury has been adequately considered as part of the EA process.

Should the Minister decided to approve the undertaking, it is recommended that a condition of approval be considered that would require the proponent to develop—in consultation with the ministry and any interested government agencies and Indigenous communities—a comprehensive monitoring program to assess and detect any changes to the total mercury and methylmercury levels in surface water and sediment in Kenogamisis Lake, the Goldfield Creek diversion and Southwest Arm tributary reconstruction, and that adaptive management plans and mitigation measures be developed in order to address the possibility of higher than predicted mercury concentrations in surface water and sediment.

Phosphorous

Kenogamisis Lake has been identified as a designated as a Policy 2 Receiver due to exceedances of PWQOs for phosphorous. A concern has been raised about the consideration and assessment of phosphorous loadings to Kenogamisis Lake, as the EA did not provide sufficient information about the potential loadings and anticipated contribution of phosphorous to the current levels in the Lake. In particular, it was noted that the estimated phosphorus loadings from all sources of effluent discharges were not adequately identified and considered in the overall phosphorus loading budget for the Lake. Given that Kenogamisis Lake has been designated as a Policy 2 Receiver for phosphorous, this information is necessary to demonstrate that the existing levels of phosphorous in the Lake will not increase.

The proponent submitted additional information and studies to further demonstrate and explain how phosphorous was considered as part of the EA Process. The EA was amended to incorporate the additional information and studies that were completed in support of the assessment of phosphorous. The additional information and studies provided further information and clarification about how the proponent used a mass balance approach to assess the inputs of phosphorous from the undertaking.

Ministry technical reviewers have determined that through the application of the mass balance approach to annual total phosphorous loadings, on a lake wide basis, the proponent has demonstrated the proposed undertaking is likely to meet the intent of Policy 2 for phosphorous. Ministry technical reviewers, however, have identified that the approach to assessing phosphorous has not adequately considered the anticipated population increase to the Municipality of Geraldton that is likely to occur if the undertaking is to proceed. The approach also did not consider the potential diurnal or seasonal impacts to individual lake basins.

It is anticipated that because of direct and indirect employment opportunities resulting from the undertaking, the population of the Municipality of Geraldton may increase by 1,050 persons. This population increase has the potential to place additional demands on the local Municipality of Greenstone’s STP, which is currently operating at capacity. The STP also has long standing operational issues, including frequent bypasses; and, at the present time, does not include phosphorous removal technology. The proponent’s assessment of phosphorus did not consider the additional loadings associated with the anticipated population increase. Therefore, the potential impacts of the additional phosphorus load associated with the population increase remains unclear.

If the contributions of phosphorous from the proposed undertaking are considered and assessed in isolation of the additional demands on the Greenstone STP that are likely to occur due to the anticipated population increase, the mass balance assessment indicates the intent of Policy 2 can be met for annual loading of total phosphorus. The fundamental issue is that the STP is currently operating at capacity and does not have phosphorus removal as part of its treatment stream. As a result, any increased pressure on the Plant may require a change to the STP’s approvals, and may conflict with the objectives of Policy 2 the proponent must meet in order to not further degrade the water quality of Kenogamisis Lake.

Should the Minister decide to approve the undertaking, it is recommended that a condition of approval be considered that would require the proponent to develop, in consultation with the ministry and any interested government agencies and Indigenous communities, a comprehensive monitoring program to assess and detect any changes to the total phosphorous levels in surface water of Kenogamisis Lake; and, that mitigation measures and adaptive management plans be developed in order to address the possibility of higher than predicted phosphorous concentrations in surface water. It is also recommended that the proponent be required to include phosphorous treatment for each of the proposed points of effluent discharge from the undertaking into Kenogamisis Lake; and, that total phosphorous loadings from the undertaking be managed during construction, operation and decommissioning in accordance with limits set by the ministry.

Monitoring and mitigation

The amended EA includes a description of the proposed actions that may be necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the potential effects to the environment that are likely to occur during construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed undertaking. This includes a number of monitoring and mitigation plans that set forth proposed measures that will be implemented to reduce the anticipated negative environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.

There is a concern that the monitoring and mitigation plans that have been proposed do not contain sufficient detail. This is because a majority of the monitoring and mitigation plans have been described at a conceptual level of detail, and although the objectives of these plans are understood, there is not enough information to determine whether the proposed plans are adequate.

The proponent has explained that the monitoring and mitigation plans referenced in the amended EA could only be developed to a conceptual level of detail because the information necessary to finalize them is subject to the completion of the detailed design of the proposed undertaking. Although it is understood that conceptual description of the proposed undertaking may prevent the monitoring and mitigation plans from being finalized as part of the EA process, there is lack of detail at a conceptual level to fully understand the proposed parameters that are to be monitored, the general locations within the EA study area where monitoring will occur, the frequencies and duration of monitoring and the offsetting that will be targeted as part of the proposed mitigation measures.

Should the Minister decided to approve the undertaking, it is recommended that a condition of approval be considered that would require the proponent, in consultation with the ministry and any interested government agencies and Indigenous communities, to finalize the proposed monitoring and mitigation plans that have been proposed to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the potential effects to the environment that are likely to occur during construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed undertaking.

Traditional knowledge

As part of the Minster’s decision to approve the amended ToR for the Hardrock project, an amendment was imposed to require that Indigenous communities be engaged at each key decision making milestone during the EA process for the purposes of sharing traditional knowledge, and that traditional knowledge be incorporated, where appropriate, into the EA decision making process. The purpose of which was to provide meaningful opportunities for Indigenous communities to be engaged at critical decision making points during the EA process, so that Indigenous communities could provide input on how the proposed undertaking and its alternatives may have an impact on their rights and interests through the sharing of traditional knowledge.

To facilitate the meaningful participation of Indigenous communities in the EA process, and to enable the collection and sharing of traditional knowledge, the proponent provided a number of Indigenous communities with funding for the completion of Traditional Knowledge Studies and Traditional Land and Resource Use studies. Although the proponent did provide opportunities for Indigenous communities to collect and share traditional knowledge, a majority of the traditional knowledge studies were completed at or near the end of the EA process. As a result, a number of communities have expressed a concern that the traditional knowledge that has been shared may not have been adequately considered or incorporated into the EA decision making process.

The Traditional Knowledge studies and Traditional Land and Resource Use studies received by the proponent were generally not made available to the ministry due to the confidentiality or sensitivity of the information. To understand how the proponent reviewed and assessed the traditional knowledge received against the conclusions reached as part of the EA process, the ministry notified the proponent by way of letter on July 16, 2018 that it must meet with those Indigenous communities that submitted Traditional Knowledge studies and Resource Use studies to provide them with an explanation and seek their feedback about how their traditional knowledge was incorporated into the EA decision making process.

On July 30, 2018 the proponent submitted written confirmation that this had been completed. The submission included a presentation that was shared with Indigenous communities that explained how their respective traditional knowledge was considered as part of the EA process. The EA was amended to incorporate the additional information that was shared with Indigenous communities to demonstrate how traditional knowledge was considered as part of the EA process.

The ministry also met with representatives from the MNO, AFN, AZA and GFN to discuss their concerns about the information presented in the Traditional Knowledge studies and Resource Use studies and how it was incorporated into the EA decision making process, and to discuss the additional information that was shared by the proponent. In addition, the ministry met with LL#58 to discuss the community’s support for the proposed undertaking, and the next steps in the EA process. These meetings and discussions provided the ministry with greater clarity about the opinions of the Indigenous communities participating in the EA process.

Should the Minister decided to approve the undertaking, it is recommended that a condition of approval be considered that would require the proponent to engage and consult with Indigenous communities for the purposes of sharing traditional knowledge as part of ongoing engagement and the application processes for any post EA permits and approvals that may be required before the proposed undertaking can implemented.

Air

To assess the baseline conditions for air quality in the EA study area, the proponent relied on data from monitoring stations that were located outside the EA study area. Data was collected from monitoring stations in Winnipeg. The assessment of air quality was therefore not based on site specific data. The use of non-site specific data has brought into question whether the assessment of air quality represents an appropriate characterization of the potential changes in air quality that may result from the undertaking. This is because the use of data from monitoring stations outside the study area may not provide an accurate representation of air quality within the EA study area. Should the Minister decided to approve the proposed undertaking it is recommended that a condition of approval be considered that would require the proponent to complete, at a minimum, an additional 12 months of onsite ambient air monitoring.

Particulate matter

A number of particulate matter emission sources from haul roads, storage areas and stockpiles were not included as part of the air quality assessment that has been incorporated into the amended EA. By not adequately considering these emission sources, there is a concern that the conclusions on the modelled air quality concentrations from the proposed undertaking may not be accurate. This is because as part of the EA process, it is a requirement that all emissions sources be included and considered as part of the assessment of air quality. Should the Minister decide to approve the proposed undertaking it is recommended that a condition of approval be considered that would require the proponent to reassess the potential air quality impacts of the proposed undertaking in consideration of the omitted emission source.

Waste

The amended EA seeks approval for an onsite waste management approach to address the disposal of the non-hazardous inert and non-putrescible waste generated by the proposed undertaking. The proposed waste management approach includes the establishment of a landfill within the proposed waste rock storage area. The proposed landfill is subject to the Landfill Sites regulation (Ontario Regulation 232/98). The information presented in the amended EA about the waste management approach is focused on the identification of the potential impacts that are anticipated form the operation of the proposed landfill. Although the amended EA includes a conceptual description of the site design and the potential environment impacts of the proposed landfill, the amended EA does not include sufficient technical information to demonstrate how the requirements of Ontario Regulation 232 will be met.

The implementation of the waste disposal approach described in the amended EA is subject to the approval of an application for an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) under Section 20.3 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). An ECA application for the proposed landfill must include sufficient administrative and technical information to demonstrate how the requirements of Ontario Regulation 232 will be met and to ensure that the environment and human health is protected in accordance with all legislative and regulatory requirements or standards. It should be noted that should the amended EA be approved, the approval does not mean that the approval of a subsequent ECA application is guaranteed.

Should the Minister decided to approve the proposed undertaking it is recommended that a condition of approval be considered that would require the proponent to arrange a pre-consultation meeting with the ministry’s Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch to discuss the information requirements that should be included as part of an ECA application package required under section 20.3 of the EPA, and the ministry’s expectations about the information requirements that will be required by the ministry in order to consider and technically assess the proposed new landfill site.

Sewage

The EA identified a need, and a proposed approach, to address the onsite generation of sewage waste. Two sources of sewage waste have been identified, and include the sewage generated by the temporary mining camp during construction and the sewage generated by the mine site during operation. To address the needs of the temporary mining camp, the EA proposes a connection to the local Municipality of Greenstone’s sewage treatment plant (STP).

The EA explained, that through discussions with the Municipality of Greenstone, the proponent confirmed there was sufficient capacity at the Greenstone STP to accommodate the sewage waste generated by the temporary mining camp. A review of the STP by the ministry determined that the facility does not have capacity to handle and effectively treat the waste from the camp. In response, the proponent acknowledged the ability of the STP to accommodate receiving and treating the sewage waste from the temporary mining camp is contingent on upgrades to the facility. These upgrades will require the completion of a separate environmental assessment process. It was acknowledged that the required upgrades may not be in place in time to accommodate the sewage waste needs of temporary mining camp. The proponent therefore proposed an interim management approach to address this issue.

The proposed interim approach for the management of sewage waste from the temporary mining camp involves trucking the sewage waste to the Nakina Sewage Treatment Facility, located on River Road in the Municipality of Greenstone. At such time as when the upgrades to the Municipal of Greenstone’s STP are completed, the temporary mining camp will be connected to the municipal sanitary sewer system. The approach also identifies that the upgrades to the STP are not considered as part of the proposed undertaking, and will be the responsibility of the Municipality of Greenstone to implement.

Based on a review of the proposed interim approach, the ministry determined that the Nakina Sewage Treatment Facility is an acceptable alternative. This is because the facility has been found to have sufficient capacity and adequate treatment to handle the sewage waste generated by the temporary mining camp. In order to seek approval for the proposed alternative approach, an amendment to the EA would be required to note the change to how sewage waste from the temporary mining camp is to be managed.

Although an amendment to the EA was made, the approach to address how the sewage waste needs of temporary mining camp will be managed remains unchanged. The amendment to the EA retained the connection to the Municipality of Greenstone’s STP as the preferred alternative. This approach is not available to the proponent because, at the present time, the STP does not have the capacity to accommodate the needs of the temporary mining camp. As upgrades to the capacity of the STP are required, and that these upgrades have been identified as outside the scope of the amended EA and the proponent’s ability to implement, this option is not presently available. By not incorporating the alternate approach that had been agreed upon with the ministry by way of the amendment, the proponent continues to seek approval for an approach to the management of the sewage waste generated by the temporary mining camp that is not available at this time.

Should the Minister decided to approve the undertaking it is recommended that a condition of approval be considered that would give approval for the collection and trucking of sewage waste to the nearby Nakina STP as the approach for how sewage waste from the temporary mining camp will be managed, and that the proponent be required to further amend the EA to incorporate the recommended approved approach. The recommended amendment should also explain that when the Greenstone STP option becomes available the proponent will change the approach for how sewage waste from the temporary mining camp will be managed, and that the camp will be connected to the Municipality of Greenstone’s STP.

Goldfield Creek diversion and fish habitat offset plan

The amended EA explains that the planned location of the tailings management facility will require the diversion of Goldfield Creek, as the facility will overprint a significant portion of the creek. To accommodate the location of the tailings management facility it has been proposed that a portion of Goldfield be diverted. This is to be done through the creation of a new 2.7 km channel. In addition, a new pond—approximately 7.5 ha in area—will also be created where the existing Goldfield Creek and the new diversion channel will meet. The new pond and diversion channel will be designed to include habitat features for fish species common to the area. The purpose of which is to develop new fish habitat to offset the losses that are anticipated to result from the proposed undertaking. It is estimated that up to 7 ha of fish habitat is likely to be affected. Due to the potential for elevated levels of mercury in the existing soil of the Goldfield Creek diversion channel, it is likely that the flooding of the area could result in the release of mercury and methylmercury.

Given the potential for a possible release of mercury and methylmercury into the water of the proposed Goldfield Creek Diversion and new pond, there is a concern about whether it is appropriate to develop a new fish habitat as part of the realignment of Goldfield Creek. In response, the proponent has committed to developing and implementing a sampling and monitoring program to assess mercury and methylmercury levels in the proposed Goldfield Creek diversion and new pond. This is to include fish mercury sampling of large and small bodied fish to detect changes in mercury levels that may affect consumption limits. The proponent also committed to developing contingency and mitigations strategies to address the possibility of higher than predicted mercury and methylmercury concentrations. The ministry supports the commitment for additional monitoring and contingency planning. However, this commitment does fully not address the concerns raised about the about the adequacy of the establishment of a fish habitat offset plan as part of the Goldfield Creek diversion.

Should the Minister decided to approve the undertaking, it is recommended that a condition of approval be considered that would require the proponent, in consultation with the MNRF and any interested government agencies and Indigenous communities, to re-evaluate the proposed fish habitat offsetting plan in consultation; and, if required, to develop a new plan should it be determined that the proposed Goldfield Creek diversion is not a suitable location.

Vegetation and habitat restoration

As part of the proposed undertaking, a significant number of vegetative communities within the EA study area will be subject to removal or alteration. These communities provide habitat for a large number of species of plants, trees, birds and terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. To address the impacts to these vegetative and habitat communities, the proponent has proposed to develop and implement a number of vegetative and habitat restoration plans.

Although it is understood that the removal and alteration of vegetative communities and habitats will be addressed through the proposed restoration plans, there is a lack of information about the extent of the vegetation and habitat removal or alterations that are likely will take place. This is because the impacts to vegetative communities and habitat have only been described at a conceptual level of detail. As the extent of the potential removal and alteration of vegetative communities and habitat is not fully understood, there is a concern about whether the proposed restoration plans are adequate.

Should the Minister decided to approve the undertaking, it is recommended that a condition of approval be considered that would require the proponent, in consultation with the MNRF and any interested government agencies and Indigenous communities, to establish a complete inventory of all vegetative communities and habitats within the EA study area that will be subject to removal or alteration. It is also recommended that, based on the conclusions of the final inventory, the proponent be required to re-evaluate, update and finalize the proposed vegetative and habitat restoration plans.

Historic tailings

Historical mining activities within the EA study area have contributed to increased levels of contamination in the soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment within the EA study area. The concentrations of contaminants are a result of historic tailings in the EA study area. The amended EA explains that a portion of the historic tailings within the EA study area will be disturbed during the construction of the proposed undertaking. The historic tailings that will be disturbed are to be collected and placed within planned the tailings management facility.

Given that the tailings management facility will not be completed nor operational prior to the initial disturbance and removal of these historic tailings, there is a concern about how the historic tailings will be managed and stored. There is also a concern that the amount of tailings that will require removal and storage has not been adequately defined.

In response, the proponent developed a proposed soil management plan that sets forth, at a conceptual level, how the removal of historic tailings will be handled and stored, and how any impacts associated with the initial removing of the tailings will mitigated. Although it is understood that measures will be taken to ensure the proper management of historic tailings during excavation, there is a lack of information about the exact amount and location of the tailings that will be removed or disturbed. As the location and actual amount of tailings that will be removed or be disturbed is not fully understood, it is difficult to determine if the proposed soil management plan and approach to managing tailings prior to the construction of the tailings management facility are adequate.

Should the Minister decided to approve the undertaking, it is recommended that a condition of approval be considered that would require the proponent to establish a complete inventory of all the areas in which historic tailings may be removed and to confirm the amount of historic tailings that are present in these areas. It is also recommended that—based on the conclusions of the final inventory—the proponent, in consultation with the ministry and any other interested government agencies and Indigenous communities, re-evaluate, update and finalize the proposed soil management plans to address how the removal and disturbance of tailings will be handled and stored, and how any impacts associated with the initial removing of tailings will mitigated.

Consultation

As part of the EA process, the proponent carried out extensive consultation with government agencies, Indigenous communities and interested members of the public. To ensure effective and meaningful consultation, the proponent developed a broad EA consultation plan and specific individual Indigenous consultation plans that governed how consultation was carried out during the EA process. Several government agencies and Indigenous communities have expressed a concern that the level of engagement and consultation carried out during the preparation of the EA may not be continued as part of the post EA permitting and approval process that would take place should the amended EA be approved. Given that there are several permits and approvals that are required before the proposed undertaking can implemented, government agencies and indigenous communities have requested that the level of engagement and consultation carried out during the EA process continue should the a decision be made to approve the undertaking. The purpose of which is to allow government agencies and Indigenous communities further opportunities to provide advice, input and guidance on their respective mandates, rights and interest as part of any post EA permitting and approval process.

Should the Minister decided to approve the undertaking it is recommended that a condition of approval be considered that would require the proponent to continue to use the consultation plans developed as part of the EA process to guide the consultation that may take place post EA decision. It is also recommended that the proponent engage with government agencies and Indigenous community to review these consultation plans in order to determine if they require any updates, modifications or revisions to ensure that they provide effective and meaningful consultation during the post EA permits and approvals application process, detailed design, construction, operation and decommissioning.

Amendment to the environmental assessment

In response to the comments and concerns submitted during the review and comment period that followed the submission of the original EA, the proponent made amendments to the EA documentation. This involved the submission of a number of additional commitments, studies, reports, modelling and clarification that were used by the proponent to demonstrate how the issues and concerns raised have been or can be addressed.

The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that the additional information that was prepared would be considered by the Minister when making a decision about the proposed undertaking. Although this additional information was submitted as an amendment to the EA, a clear and reasonable explanation about how this information influenced the conclusions presented in the original EA was not provided. The amendments include an explanation that the proponent has concluded that the additional information does not change the conclusions presented in the original EA. However, the explanation does not adequately clarify or demonstrate how this conclusion was determined.

Should the Minister decided to approve the undertaking it is recommended that a condition of approval be considered that would require the proponent to further amend the EA documentation to accurately incorporate all additional commitments, studies, reports modelling and clarification into the EA decision making process presented in the amended EA. The purpose of which is to clearly demonstrate how this additional information influenced the conclusions of EA process.

7.1.5 Conclusion

The information contained in the amended Hardrock project EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking for which approval under the EAA is being sought. The environmental effects of the proposed undertaking have been clearly identified, and it has been demonstrated that these impacts can be managed through the commitments made in the EA, through conditions of EA approval and through additional work that must be carried out by the proponent in support of future approval or permitting applications.

8. Summary of the ministry review

On the basis of this review, the amended EA has been found to have been prepared in accordance with the planning framework set forth in the approved amended ToR; and, that the requirements of the EAA. The amended EA provides an adequate explanation of the decision making process that was followed to arrive at the conclusions that support the selection of the preferred undertaking for which approval under the EAA is being sought.

The amended EA includes a description of the potential effects, both direct and indirect, that may result from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed undertaking on each component of the environment as defined under the EAA, and has proposed reasonable actions that may be necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy them. Ongoing discussions to resolve technical matters during future approval and permitting applications, together with proposed conditions of approval and the commitments made by proponent during the EA process, should ensure for the protection, conservation and management of the environment.

The amended EA includes a description of the broad range of engagement opportunities and consultation activities that took place during the EA process. Opportunities were provided to government agencies, Indigenous communities and interested members of the public to participate during the EA process. A description of the consultation process, methods used, and outcomes of the various engagement activities have been provided in the amended EA. Should the proposed undertaking receive approval under the EAA, the proponent has committed to continue its consultation efforts with government Agencies, Indigenous communities and interested members of the public through the detailed design of the proposed undertaking, construction, operation and decommissioning.

The proposed undertaking described in amended EA sets forth a reasonable, viable and feasible approach to addressing the opportunity of extracting and processing the potential resources of the Hardrock mining claim. It is anticipated that the proposed undertaking will produce an estimated 4.12 million ounces of gold from the Hardrock mining claim, with a potential value of $3.6 billion.

The proposed undertaking is also anticipated to result in economic benefits to Indigenous communities, the local economy and the region as a whole. Initial estimates suggest that the undertaking will contribute:

• over $2 billion into the provincial economy through operating costs during the life of the undertaking, including creating more than 340 direct employment opportunities
• combined federal and provincial tax revenues of up to $250,000,000
• potential economic benefits to the regional and local economy through investments in Indigenous communities, social services, community infrastructure, business development and capacity building

In addition, the proposed undertaking has also been determined to be in line with provincial priorities that support growth in northern Ontario and promote the development of the province’s mining sector. The proposed undertaking supports the province of Ontario’s Growth Plan for Northern Ontario and the province’s priority of promoting Ontario’s mining sector by fostering the development of northern communities through the creation of employment opportunities, and through investments that will improve the competitiveness of Ontario’s mining businesses and industries.

As part of the proposed undertaking, the proponent has committed to removing a portion of the existing tailings produced from the historic Hardrock and MacLeod mines, and to disposing these materials within the planned tailings management facility. The amended EA predicts that the partial removal and of the historic tailings is likely to result in an improvement to water quality, specifically the reduction of arsenic in Kenogamisis Lake. Mitigation and monitoring commitments have also been made to demonstrate how the proponent will ensure that the water quality of Kenogamisis Lake will not be further degraded. It is anticipated that these commitments are likely to prevent any further degradation of lake water quality.

Should approval under the EAA be granted, the implementation and operation of the proposed undertaking will be completed in accordance with:

• the terms and provisions outlined in the amended EA
• all commitments made during the EA process
• any proposed conditions of approval
• additional work that must be carried out by the proponent in support of future approval and permitting applications

Please be advised that during the public inspection period on this review, and prior to making a recommendation to the Minister about this amended EA, additional conditions of approval to those referenced in this review may be proposed.

9. What happens now

The review will be made available for a five-week public inspection period. During this time, all interested government agencies, Indigenous communities and interested members of the public may submit comments to the ministry about the proposed undertaking, the amended EA and the review. In addition, during the inspection period, anyone may 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 inspection period, ministry staff will make a recommendation to the Minister about whether the proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the approved amended ToR, the amended EA, the review, the comments submitted during the EA and the review comment and inspection 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.

9.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, the implementation, operation and decommissioning of the proposed undertaking will also be subject to other legislative approvals and permits. Section 1 of the amended EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Authorization for Works Affecting Fish Habitat under the federal Fisheries Act
• An amendment to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations under the federal Fisheries Act for the use of fish bearing waters to deposit mine effluent, waste rock and tailings
• Approval of Works in Navigable Waters under the federal Navigation Protection Act
• permits under the federal Explosives Act for the use and storage of explosives
• permits for the transportation of dangerous goods under the federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act
• a closure plan under the provincial Mining Act
• Environmental Compliance Approvals under the provincial Environmental Protection Act for air, noise, a waste disposal site and a waste management site
• Environmental Compliance Approvals under the provincial Ontario Water Resources Act for an industrial sewage works
• a work permit under the provincial Public Lands Act for water crossings and road construction on Crown Land
• an Aggregate Permit under the provincial Aggregate Resources Act
• permits and licenses under the provincial Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act for fish and wildlife relocation and the destruction of beaver dams, furbearer and bear dens, and the nests and eggs of birds
• Location Approval, and Plans and Specifications Approval under the provincial Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act for tailings management dams, water way diversions and channelizations
• Endangered Species Act Permit under the provincial Endangered Species Act for activities with potential to contravene sections 9, Species Protection, or section 10, Habitat Protection, under the Act
• Release of Reservation under the provincial Crown Forest Sustainability Act for the release of reservation required for Crown timber on private or patented land
• Encroachment Permits under the provincial Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act for work within, over or under a provincial highway right-of-way
• Entrance Permits under the provincial Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act for the change in use of an existing entrance, construction of a new entrance or temporary entrance
• Sign Permits under the provincial Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act for new signs for a provincial highway right-of-way
• Building and Land Use Permits under the provincial Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act for the construction of buildings or facilities occurring within 45 m of the right-of-way limit, within 395 m of a controlled access highway and an intersecting side road, and to erect or alter any power line, pole line, or other transmission line within 400 m of the limit of a controlled access highway
• Order-in-Council under the provincial Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act for the transfer of ownership of new highway bypass to the province and transfer of the existing section to private ownership from the province
• Letter of Compliance for Archaeology under the Ontario Heritage Act for the mitigation through conservation in place or excavation of archaeological site(s)
• an Official Plan Amendment under the provincial Planning Act for a change to existing land use designation(s) in the Municipality of Greenstone and within the Thunder Bay North District Unorganized Territory
• a Zoning By-Law Amendment under the Planning Act
• Building Permits under the Building Code Act
• a Demolition Permit under the Building Code Act

It should be noted that in accordance with section 12.2(2) of the EAA, these approvals cannot be issued until approval under the Act is granted.

9.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

Any change to the proposed undertaking described in the amended EA will have to be considered in the context of the EAA, and any legislative requirements under the Act, before any change to the undertaking can be implemented. In order to ensure that any changes to the proposed undertaking are appropriately addressed or accommodated, should approval be granted, the ministry will recommend that the Minister consider imposing a condition of approval that will require the proponent to discuss any proposed changes to the undertaking with the ministry, and to require that any major changes are themselves deemed to be undertakings for which EAA approval will be required.

Public record locations

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

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
• 416-314-8452

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

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks

Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1^st Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5

Northern Region Office
435 James Street South, 3^rd Floor Suite 331
Thunder Bay, Ontario
P7E 6S7

Thunder Bay District Office
331-435 James Street South
Thunder Bay, Ontario

Trans-Canada Property General Partnership (TCP GP)

1100 Russell Street, Suite 200
Thunder Bay, Ontario

404 Main Street, Suite D
Geraldton, Ontario

Municipality of Greenstone

1800 Main Street
Geraldton, Ontario

Nakina Ward Office
200 Centre Avenue
Nakina, Ontario

Longlac Ward Office
105 Hamel Avenue
Longlac, Ontario

Greenstone Public Library

Geraldton Branch
405 Second Street West
Geraldton, Ontario

Longlac Branch
110 Kenogami Street
Longlac, Ontario

Nakina Branch
216 North Street
Nakina, Ontario

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending on November 26, 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: Ministry review of the Hardrock project environmental assessment

Attention: Mr. Gavin Battarino, 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.

Appendices

Appendix A: Voluntary agreement and letter

Read the voluntary agreement.

You can review the letter in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.

Appendix B: Amended terms of reference notice of approval

Read the notice of approval.

Appendix C: Assistant Deputy Minister letter

You can review the letter in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.

Appendix D: Covering letter and chapter update table

You can review the letter and table in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.

Appendix E: 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

Subsection 1.7 of the amended EA, entitled “Final EIS/EA Organization and Content”, explains how the amended EA document has been organized, and outlines the information and components of the EA process that are discussed in each of the sections of the document.

The amended EA was found to be arranged and presented in manner that may not accurately represent the order in which the EA decision making process was followed. The amended EA cites numerous supporting information, detailed studies and research to provide additional detail, clarification and support about how certain decisions have been made during EA process, which have not been summarized in the main body of the document.

As a result, it may be difficult for government agencies, Aboriginal communities and members of the public to follow the EA process and to understand how the preferred undertaking identified in the amended EA was determined; and, that it may be difficult for those government agencies, Aboriginal communities and members of the public that are Participating the review of the EA and amended EA documentation to do so in a timely manner.

List of proponent-led studies

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

Analysis of the amended EA

Subsection 2.2.1, entitled “Data Sources for the Environmental Impact Statement/EA”, explains that a number of studies and reports were used to determine the description of the existing environmental conditions within a defined geographic area that will be studied as part of the EA process.

It is understood that a number of resources were relied upon as part of the EA planning and decision making process; however, the amended EA does not include a consolidated list of the studies and reports that were used to determine the environment that may be potentially affected by the undertaking and alternatives being considered as part of the EA process. Instead, subsection 2.2.1 directs readers to Appendix E, which contains numerous technical reports. Although each of the individual reports does make reference to the studies and reports that were relied upon, the amended EA does not include a consolidate list that references each of the studies and reports used as part of the EA process.

Although each technical report that has been included in Appendix E does make reference to the studies and reports that were relied upon, the amended EA does not contain a consolidated list of studies and reports which are under the control of the proponent and which were done in connection with the undertaking or matters related to the undertaking.

List of additional studies

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

Analysis of the amended EA

Subsection 2.2.2.5, of the amended EA, entitled “Historical Traditional Land and Resource Use”, explains that a number of studies and reports were used to determine the potential impacts to the rights and interests of Indigenous communities as part of the EA process.

It is understood that a number of resources were relied upon as part of the EA planning and decision making process; however, the amended EA does not include a consolidated list of the studies that were used to determine the potential impacts to the rights and interests of Indigenous communities as part of the EA process. Instead, subsection 2.2.2.5 directs readers to Appendix J, which contains numerous specific Indigenous reports. Although each of the individual reports does make reference to the studies that were relied upon, the amended EA does not include a consolidate list that references each of the studies used as part of the EA process.

Although each report in Appendix J does make reference to the studies that were relied upon, the amended EA does not contain a consolidated list of studies which are under the control of the proponent and which were done in connection with the undertaking or matters related to the undertaking.

Maps

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

Analysis of the amended EA

The amended EA included a number of reproducible maps showing the location of the undertaking and the area to be affected by it. Although the maps were not submitted unbound and were not the required size, an electronic version of the amended EA document was submitted that included a copy of each map that could be reproduced.

Identify an existing problem or opportunity

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

Analysis of the amended EA

Subsection 1.2 of the amended EA, entitled “Purpose of the Project”, explains that the opportunity which prompted the EA process is the potential economic benefits associated with the extraction, processing and sale of gold from the Hardrock mining claim. A Preliminary Economic Assessment was completed prior to the initiation of the EA process, which concluded that the mining claim contains an estimated 4.12 million ounces of gold, with a value of $3.6 billion.

Greenstone Gold Mines (proponent) is seeking approval under the Environmental Assessment Act for the construction, operation and subsequent decommissioning of a new open pit gold mine, ore processing facility and associated ancillary activities; collectively referred to as the Hardrock Project. The proposed undertaking is to be situated on approximately 5,000 hectares of land, located five kilometres south of the Town of Geraldton, Ontario.

The undertaking, as described in Section 1.3 of the amended EA, entitled “Project Overview” is described as consisting of the following key components:

• an open pit mine
• waste rock storage areas to facilitate the storage of waste rock and overburden that will be generated over the life of mine
• an ore stockpile for the storage of mineralized material
• a mill feed storage area and crushing plant
• an ore milling and processing plant consisting of ore crushing, ball milling, carbon-in-leach, cyanide destruction, carbon stripping, electrowinning, and refining
• a tailings management facility
• a mine water treatment facility for mine contact water onsite, ore pad runoff, waste rock pile runoff, and any excess from the tailings management facility discharge
• a connection to the Geraldton Municipal Sewage Treatment Facility to treat sanitary wastewater
• an interim sewage disposal plan that includes the collection of sewage waste from the temporary mining camp that will be trucked for disposal at the Nakina Sewage Treatment Facility
• a water distribution system to provide water for onsite use and fire management needs
• a fuel supply, conversion, storage and distribution System for operational needs
• a power generation and distribution system
• an explosives manufacturing and storage facility
• a domestic and solid waste handling facility (landfill)
• buildings and yards
• internal access roads and pipelines
• a temporary construction camp
• relocation of the current Longlac Transformer Station, a Hydro One Substation, portions of an incoming 115 kilovolt transmission line and a 44 kilovolt outgoing distribution line; a portion of Highway 11, and a Ministry of Transportation patrol yard

In addition, Section 5.0 of the amended EA, entitled “Project Description”, includes a detailed overview and assessment of each project component for which approval under the EAA is being sought.

The amended EA contains a brief explanation of the opportunity that prompted the EA process.

Description and statement of the rationale for the alternatives to

Environmental Assessment Act, Alternative to: section 6.1(2)(b)(iii)

Analysis of the amended EA

Preliminary Economic Assessment that was used to establish the terms of the Voluntary Agreement that made the undertaking subject to the requirements of the EAA. As per the terms of the Voluntary Agreement, an open pit mine is the only alternative approach for the extraction of resources that is to be considered in the amended EA.

Section 4.1 of the amended EA, entitled “Alternatives Assessment Method”, explains that the “Do Nothing” alternative was considered as part of the assessment and evaluation of alternatives, The “Do Nothing” alternative was used as a bench mark against which the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives being considered as part of the EA process were measured and compared.

The amended EA has identified and provided a reasonable explanation about the opportunity that prompted the initiation of the EA process.

The amended EA provides justification for the selection of an open pit mine as the preferred “Alternative To”, and for “focusing” the EA process on the consideration of “Alternative Methods”. This includes the consideration of the “Do Nothing” alternative as a bench mark against which the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives being considered as part of the EA process will be measured and compared.

Description and statement of the rationale for the alternative methods

Environmental Assessment Act, Alternative Methods: section 6.1(2)(b)(ii)

Analysis of the amended EA

Subsection 4.1 of the EA, entitled “Alternative Assessment Method”, explains that, in accordance with the approved amended ToR, the EA sets forth a planning and decision making process that will “focus” on the identification and evaluation of a reasonable range of “Alternative Methods” for each of the key components necessary to facilitate the implementation and operation of the undertaking.

The EA was amended to provide a more detailed and clear explanation about the initial screening of alternatives to support the selection of alternatives that were carried forward for further consideration as part of the EA process. Additional information was incorporated into the EA document to demonstrate, in a clear and transparent manner, how the potential effects, both positive and negative, of each alternative being considered were identified and compared. The amendment, however, did not include information about the weighting, score or measure of each indicators used as part of the initial evaluation and comparison of alternatives. This information would have provided a more transparent explanation about how each of the alternatives being considered as part of the EA process were assessed and compared. As a result, it may be difficult for government agencies, Aboriginal communities and members of the public to follow the EA process and to understand how the preferred undertaking identified in the amended EA was determined.

The amended EA includes the identification of a reasonable range of “Alternative Methods” and an explanation about the process used to evaluate and compare the potential impacts and benefits of each “Alternative Method” that considered as part of the EA process.

Description of the environment

Environmental Assessment Act, section 6.1(2)(c)(i)

Analysis of the amended EA

Section 2.0 of the amended EA, entitled “Environmental Setting”, includes the identification of a defined geographic area that was studied as part of the EA process. The study area represents the geographic boundaries that would likely be affected or that might reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the undertaking and alternatives being considered during the EA process. The study area has been defined as a portion of land approximately 2,620 hectares in size, located 275 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay, in the Municipality of Greenstone.

Subsection 2.3 of the amended EA, entitled “Summary of Existing Conditions”, provides a description of the existing conditions within the study area. The description includes sufficient detail about each of the components of the environment as defined under the EAA, which include: the natural environment; social environment; economic environment; cultural environment; and, built environment.

The amended EA has identified a study area that represents the geographical boundaries in which the environment that will be affected or that might reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, by an undertaking and alternatives being considered during the EA process are likely to occur. The amended EA also includes a description of the current conditions of the study area for each of the components of the environment as defined under the EAA, which include:

• natural environment
• social environment
• economic environment
• cultural environment
• built environment

Description of potential environmental effects

Environmental Assessment Act, section 6.1(2)(c)(ii)

Analysis of the amended EA

Subsection 6.4 of the amended EA, entitled “Environmental Effects Assessment”, includes an explanation about the methods and studies used to identify, assess and evaluate thepotential environmental effects, both positive and negative, from the undertaking and the alternatives being considered as part of the EA process.

The amended EA includes a description of the effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be caused to the environment by the alternatives being considered as part of the EA process. This includes a description of the potential effects, both direct and indirect, that may result from the construction, operation and decommissioning of each alternative being considered as part of the EA process on each of the components of the environment, as defined under the EAA.

The amended EA also provides an explanation about the EA decision making process that was followed to arrive at the conclusions that support the selection of the preferred undertaking for which approval under the EAA is being sought.

The amended EA includes a description of the effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be caused to the environment by the alternatives being considered as part of the EA process. The amended EA includes an explanation of the EA decision making process that was followed to arrive at the conclusions that support the selection of the preferred undertaking for which approval under the EAA is being sought.

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

Environmental Assessment Act, section 6.1(2)(c)(iii)

Analysis of the amended EA

Subsection 4.1.1 of the amended EA, entitled “Overview of Approach” explains that the initial assessment of alternatives involved a process that assumed the application of standard mitigation measures. No mitigation measures were specifically identified or proposed to address the anticipated effects associated with each of the long list of “Alternative Methods” being considered for each of the key components necessary to facilitate the implementation and operation of the undertaking. Instead, it was assumed that any potential effects could be mitigated to achieve compliance with all regulatory standards.

Sections 7 through 19 of the amended EA provides a summary the potential effects, both direct and indirect, that may result from the construction, operation and decommissioning of each alternative being considered as part of the EA process on each of the components of the environment, as defined under the EAA. This includes the identification of standard mitigation measures that would be applied to each alternative in order to avoid, minimize or manage the identified potential effects.

The amended EA includes a description of the actions necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy environmental effects for each alternative for the ultimate purpose of comparing them.

Evaluation of advantages and disadvantages to the environment

Environmental Assessment Act, section 6.1(2)(d)

Analysis of the amended EA

Section 4.0 of the amended EA, entitled “Evaluation of Alternatives”, describes the evaluation methodology that was used to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives that were considered as part of the EA process in order to determine which alternative is most preferred. The EA was amended to provide a more detailed explanation about the decision making process that was followed to arrive at the conclusions that support the selection of the preferred undertaking for which approval under the EAA is being sought. This included the identification and description of the criteria and indicators that were used to adequately identify and measure the potential effects, both positive and negative, of each alternative on each component of the environment defined under the EAA, and providing an explanation to clarify the reasons for selecting each criterion and its supporting indicators.

Through the evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives that were considered as part of the EA process the preferred alternative for each project component that makes up the undertaking for which approval under the EAA is being sought were identified.

The amended EA explains how the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives that were considered as part of the EA process were evaluated in order to determine which preferred.

Description of consultation with interested stakeholders

Environmental Assessment Act, section 6.1(2)(e)

Analysis of the amended EA

Section 3.0 of the amended EA, entitled “Community And Stakeholder Consultation”, provides a description of the engagement opportunities and consultation activities that took place during the EA process. The description also includes the identification of government agencies, Indigenous communities and interested members of the public that engaged and consulted with.

Subsection 3.3 of the amended EA, entitled “Consultation Methods”, describes the broad range of engagement opportunities that took place during the EA process. The description identifies the various methods that were used to engage government agencies, Indigenous communities and interested members of the public in order to provide notification of consultation opportunities, to share project information, to receive comments, and to seek direction on how to become involved in the EA process.

Subsection 3.1.3 of the amended EA, entitled “Key EA Consultation Milestones”, list the key EA decision making milestones during which engagement opportunities and consultation activities took place. It is also explained that opportunities for engagement and consultation also took place outside of these key milestones, and in accordance the needs, resources and capacity of government agencies, Indigenous communities and interested members of the public.

Subsection 3.6 of the amended EA, entitled “Aboriginal Consultation”, describes the Indigenous engagement and consultation methods that were used to identify Indigenous communities potentially interested in the proposed undertaking. This includes a list of the communities that were identified as having a potential interest.

Subsection 3.6.3 of the amended EA, entitled “Approach to Aboriginal Consultation”, provides a description of the engagement opportunities and consultation activities that took place with Indigenous communities during the EA process. This includes the identification of a broad range of engagement opportunities that took place at key milestones during the EA process. The description identifies the various methods that were used to engage Indigenous communities in order to provide notification of consultation opportunities, to share project information, to receive comments, and to seek direction on how to become involved in the EA process.

Subsection 3.1.2 of the amended EA, entitled “Issue Resolution Approach”, describes the techniques used to resolve outstanding issues with government agencies, Indigenous communities and interested members of the public. It is explained that the approach to issues resolution includes a commitment to accommodate changes and deadlines for submission of comments and the review of responses to issues raised, and to facilitate meetings to discuss comments received and the responses to them.

Subsection 3.7 of the amended EA, entitled “Summary of the Influence of Consultation”, provides an overview of how engagement and consultation with government agencies, Indigenous communities and interested members of the public influenced the EA decision making process.

The amended EA does not include a summary or list of the outstanding issues identified as part of the engagement opportunities and consultation activities that took place during the EA process. It is, however, noted that the engagement opportunities and consultation activities that took place during the EA process have been documented in a Public Consultation Record, which includes the submissions from government agencies, Indigenous communities and members of the public received during the EA process and the responses provided by the proponent.

The amended EA explains the broad range of engagement opportunities that took place during the EA process. This includes the identification the various methods that were used to engage government agencies, Indigenous communities and interested members of the public in order to provide notification of consultation opportunities, to share project information, to receive comments, and to seek direction on how to become involved in the EA process. The amended EA, however, does not include an adequate summary or list of the outstanding issues identified as part of the engagement opportunities and consultation activities that took place during the EA process.

Proposed undertaking

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

Analysis of the amended EA

Subsection 1.2 of the amended EA, entitled “Purpose of the Project”, provides an explanation about the rationale for the proposed undertaking and its intended purposes. It is explained that the rationale to support seeking approval for the proposed undertaking under the EAA is the economic benefits associated with the extraction, processing and sale of gold from the Hardrock mining claim. A Preliminary Economic Assessment was completed prior to the initiation of the EA process, which concluded that the mining claim contains an estimated 4.12 million ounces of gold, with a value of $3.6 billion.

Section 5.0 of the amended EA, entitled “Project Description”, provides a conceptual description of each of the components of the undertaking for which approval under the EAA is being sought. This includes a general summary of the operational attributes of each component, their intended purpose and a description of where each component will be located. The description of the proposed undertaking at conceptual level, and it is explained that description will be finalized as part of the detailed design and engineering that will support post EA approvals and permits.

The amended EA includes an explanation about the rationale that supports seeking approval under the EAA for the proposed undertaking. The amended EA also includes a sufficient level detail about the undertaking for which approval is being sought.

Additional ToR commitments

Analysis of the amended EA

Subsection 24.2 of the amended EA, entitled “Commitments” provides a list of the commitments made during the preparation of EA that will be met and addressed as part of the detailed design and implementation of proposed undertaking for which approval under the EAA. The list was amended to include the commitments made by the proponent in response to the comments received during the comment and review period that followed the formal submission of the EA.

Appendix B of the amended EA includes a consolidate list, in the form of a table, of the commitments made during the preparation of the amended ToR and where in the EA they have been addressed.

Additional approvals

Analysis of the amended EA

Subsection 1.4.4 of the amended EA, entitled “Other Approvals and Authorizations”, provides a list of the federal and provincial permits and approvals that, in addition to the requirements of the EAA, will be required in order to construct, operate and decommission the undertaking for which approval under the EAA is being sought. The list identifies the approval or permit required, the activities associated with the proposed undertaking that are subject to the permit or approval, and the consultation requirements associated with each permit or approval.

The amended EA includes a list and summary of the federal and provincial permits and approvals that, in addition to the requirements of the EAA, will be required in order to construct, operate and decommission the undertaking for which approval under the EAA is being sought.

Appendix F: Duty to Consult delegation letter

You can review the letter in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.

Appendix G: Policy 2 memorandum

You can review the memorandum in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.