Ministry Review of the Rainy River Gold Mine Environmental Assessment

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

This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Review was April 11, 2014 and was extended to September 8, 2014 to address comments received and support coordination with the federal EA process. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

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

Executive summary

Who

New Gold Inc. (formerly Rainy River Resources Ltd.)

What

The Rainy River Project involves the planning, design, construction, operation and closure of a combination open pit and underground gold mine in the Township of Chapple, Ontario. The open pit portion is expected to have a surface area of 200 hectares, depthe of 400 metres and production capacity of up to 21,000 tonnes per day. The underground portion is expected to have a depthe of 800 metres and production capacity of approximately 1,500 tonnes per day.

The major proposed project components include:

• Open pit and underground mine
• Ore processing plant
• Buildings and facilities, including maintenance shop, warehouse, administration complex, explosives manufacturing and storage facilities, and onsite access roads and pipelines, power infrastructure and fuel storage facilities
• Stockpiles (overburden, run of mine ore, low-grade ore and mine rock)
• Aggregate extraction
• Tailings management area (approximately 800 hectares surface area)
• Solid industrial waste management
• Domestic sewage management
• Water supply collection
• Water management and distribution
• Effluent treatment, including drainage works, ponds, watercourse diversions and a constructed wetland
• Re-alignment of 11 kilometres of existing Highway 600
• Power supply
• Offsite 16 kilometres 230 kilovolt transmission line
• Closure planning for:
  • The open pit
  • The underground mine
  • Mine rock stockpiles
  • The tailings management area

See Figure 4 for the mine site layout.

When

Environmental assessment (EA) timelines:
EA submitted: January 17, 2014
EA comment period (7 weeks): January 17–March 7, 2014

Ministry Review comment period (5 weeks):
September 19–October 24, 2014

Proposed project timelines:
Construction: projected to commence in 2015-2016
Operation: projected for 16 years from 2016/17 to approximately 2032
Closure and reclamation: active reclamation expected to take 2 years, with passive reclamation occurring for several decades thereafter

Where

The project is located in the Township of Chapple, District of Rainy River, in northwest Ontario, approximately 65 kilometres northwest of Fort Frances and 420 kilometres west of Thunder Bay. See Figures 1-3 for a location map and maps of the local and regional study areas.

Why

The purpose of the undertaking is to produce gold for sale and provide a return on investment to shareholders of New Gold by constructing and operating the mine. The underlying rationale for the project is strong global demand for gold and the local and regional need in northwest Ontario for economic development.

Conclusion

The Ministry Review concludes that the EA was prepared in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference and the Environmental Assessment Act, and contained sufficient information to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed undertaking. The Review itself is not the EA decision-making mechanism. The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change must decide whether or not to approve the EA.

Environmental assessment process

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

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

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

1.1 Terms of reference

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

On May 1, 2013, the Minister approved the Rainy River Project ToR. The ToR established the framework for the preparation of the EA, including how New Gold (formerly Rainy River Resources) would assess alternatives, evaluate potential environmental effects (both positive and negative) and consult with the public during the preparation of the EA. The ToR provided an initial project description, rationale for the undertaking and description of the environment, which were further elaborated in the EA. The ToR also established New Gold’s intention to develop a monitoring framework.

1.2 Environmental assessment

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

In addition to provincial EA requirements, the proposed Rainy River Project was also subject to the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. To fulfill the requirements of both provincial and federal EA requirements, New Gold prepared one EA report, which is known federally as an Environmental Impact Statement. The review of the EA was conducted in a coordinated manner among the federal and provincial governments. Approval from both the provincial Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and federal Minister of the Environment will be required for the undertaking to proceed.

On January 17, 2014, New Gold submitted the EA Report, titled the Rainy River Project Final Environmental Assessment Report (Environmental Impact Statement), to the Ministry for Minister’s approval for the proposed gold mine and associated facilities and infrastructure. The EA comment period ended on March 7, 2014.

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

1.3 Ministry review

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

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

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

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

A Notice of Completion of the Review was published in the Fort Frances Times, Fort Frances Daily Bulletin, Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal and Rainy River Westend Weekly indicating that this Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period from September 19–October 24, 2014. Copies of the Review were placed in the same public record locations where the EA was available, namely the Township of Chapple office (Barwick), Fort Frances Public Library, Rainy River Library, New Gold offices in Emo and Toronto, and Ministry offices in Thunder Bay and Toronto. Copies were distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities. Those members of the public who submitted comments during the EA comment period were also sent copies of the Review.

The proposed undertaking

Background

The project is located in the Township of Chapple, District of Rainy River, in northwestern Ontario, approximately 65 km northwest of Fort Frances and 420 km west of Thunder Bay (see Figure 1 for a location map and Figures 2-3 for the project study areas). The project site and surrounding lands are primarily owned by New Gold.

The closest local communities to the project site are: Emo (population 1,305; located 28 km to the southeast), Rainy River (population 909; located 45 km to the southwest) and Fort Frances (population 8,103; located 50 km to the east-southeast).

Mineral exploration of the property has been conducted since approximately the 1960s by various companies. Rainy River Resources (which was later acquired by New Gold in 2013) bought the property in 2005 and began an exploratory program that has led to mine development.

The area exhibits variable, gently undulating terrain, and is drained principally by the Pinewood River (to the immediate south of the site) and its associated minor tributaries. Groundwater in the immediate area flows towards the Pinewood River, and, at the watershed scale, to the west. The site land and surrounding areas are heavily impacted by historic and ongoing farming operations, as well as by forestry operations. Areas of regenerating abandoned farmland are evident throughout the site. The majority of the site is cleared, and where tree cover is present, it is dominated by mixed poplar forest, which is indicative of disturbed lands recovering from past forestry and farming activities, or regrowth following past fires.

There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest or Provincially Significant Wetlands within or proximate to the general site area. There are no Federal Parks near the site area. Two Provincial Nature Reserve Parks (Cranberry Lake and Spruce Islands) are located over 20 km to the west and one Conservation Area (Sifton Township) located approximately 13 km northwest of the area. All wells that have been identified as potentially impacted by the project are situated on lands currently held by New Gold. The area provides habitat for seven species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act, including the Little Brown and northrn Myotis bats, Grey Fox, American White Pelican, Eastern Whip-poor-will, Bobolink, and Barn Swallow.

Description of proposed undertaking

The purpose of the undertaking is to construct, operate, close and eventually reclaim a new open pit and underground gold mine to produce doré bars (gold with silver) for market.

The site layout proposes to place the required mine-related facilities in close proximity to the gold deposit, to the extent practicable, primarily on private, patented lands owned by New Gold. Open pit mining operation is planned to occur at a rate of approximately 21,000 tonnes per day (tpd), supported by a proposed 1,500 tpd adjunct underground mining operation averaged over the life of the mine. Overburden and mine rock stripped from the open pit would be stored in stockpiles near the open pit. Mining operations would be supported by development of an explosives manufacturing and storage facility.

For ore processing, New Gold proposes to use an ore processing plant that will use a conventional whole ore cyanidation process for gold recovery, followed by in-plant cyanide destruction using the SO2/Air treatment process. Waste from the ore processing, known as tailings, are to be stored in a constructed tailings management area (TMA). Process water for process plant operations would consist of recycled water from the mine rock pond, as well as from the TMA pond and the water management pond. Excess treated TMA water and minewater that cannot be reused in the process plant or for other onsite uses is proposed to be discharged to the Pinewood River once it meets relevant provincial and federal effluent discharge criteria. New Gold expects that the mine site will impact Pinewood River due to flow reductions and effluent discharge, but that Pinewood River will not be directly altered by any proposed mining works. The project would require diversion of the West and Clark Creeks, as they flow through the project site. West Creek would be diverted around the project site to connect with the Loslo Creek, which drains into the Pinewood River. Clark Creek, which flows westward into the project site, would be diverted south into the Pinewood River.

A truck shop, administration building and explosives factory would be developed on the site. Domestic sewage produced onsite is proposed to be treated using a package sewage treatment plant or equivalent. Nonhazardous solid wastes would be deposited at a suitable offsite landfill approved and able to accommodate the construction and operational phase wastes. Hazardous solid and liquid waste would be hauled off site by licensed contractors to licensed storage facilities. On-site accommodation is not proposed; rather, most mine employees will seek out housing within area municipalities.

Initial construction power would be provided by the existing distribution lines connected to the provincial electrical grid, supported by diesel power generators if required. Permanent power would be provided through dedicated connection to a proposed 16-kilometre 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line, which would connect the site with the existing Hydro One Networks between Fort Frances and Kenora, to the north-east of the project site. As part of the proposed development, the Ministry of Transportation will oversee the re-alignment of 11 kilometres of the gravel-surfaced, two-lane Highway 600.

If EAA approval is granted, the project will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the EA and any proposed conditions of approval, and will include the project components outlined above. In addition, New Gold must still obtain all other regulatory approvals it may require for the undertaking.

Figure 1: Rainy River project location

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

Figure 2: Rainy River project local and regional study areas: natural environment

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

Figure 3: Rainy River project local and regional study areas: human environment

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

Figure 4: Rainy River project site plan layout

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

Results of the ministry review

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

The Ministry coordinated an analysis of the Rainy River Project EA with the GRT which, in part, looked at whether the EA was prepared in accordance with the approved ToR. The EA analysis also assessed if the EA contained the basic information required by Section 6.1 of the EAA. In general the ToR and EAA include the following requirements:

• Statement of the purpose of the undertaking
• Description of and rationale for the undertaking, and alternatives to the undertaking
• Description of alternative methods for carrying out the undertaking
• Description of the environment that may be affected by the undertaking
• Evaluation of the potential effects of the undertaking, and development of appropriate measures to minimize, prevent or avoid negative impacts, or enhance positive impacts
• Evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking, and for alternatives to, and alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking
• Description of and results of consultation undertaken by the proponent

In addition, the EA analysis examined whether the proponent fulfilled other obligations required by the EAA, including the proponent’s obligation to consult (Section 5.1 of the EAA) and requirements to give public notice (Section 6.3 of the EAA).

Following this EA analysis, the Ministry has concluded that New Gold has prepared the EA in accordance with the framework set out in the approved ToR for the undertaking, that the EA has sufficiently addressed the commitments made in the ToR, and that the EA clearly demonstrates how the requirements of the EAA were met. Appendix A summarizes this analysis and identifies how the ToR and EAA requirements were addressed in the EA.

The Ministry’s review of the EA is summarized in the following three sections. Section 3.1 summarizes New Gold’s consultation process and its results. Section 3.2 summarizes the process through which New Gold undertook the EA. Lastly, Section 3.3 summarizes the key issues that were raised regarding the undertaking and its potential impacts.

3.1 Consultation

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

During the preparation of the EA, New Gold carried out an extensive consultation process, the purpose of which was to ensure that any issues or concerns on the undertaking or the environmental effects of the undertaking from interested members of the public, Aboriginal communities and GRT were identified and addressed in the EA. In accordance with the consultation commitments that were outlined in the approved ToR, New Gold carried out the following consultation methods during the preparation of the EA:

• Established and maintained a contact list of members of the public, Aboriginal communities and government agencies that expressed an interest to participate in the EA process or that had a mandate that may be potentially affected by the proposed undertaking
• Provided project related information and updates throughout the EA process by way of a project web site, project newsletters, direct written correspondence, site tours and two Public Consultation Centres with open house format
• Met with Aboriginal communities and retained a project specific liaison between the Aboriginal communities and New Gold
• Provided notice of formal project milestones and consultation events via local newspapers
• Maintained a Record of Consultation that documented all issues or concerns that were raised during the preparation of the EA, and the responses to them
• Met with government agencies to discuss relevant issues and mandates
• Circulated the draft EA for review and comment to government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities

The objective of New Gold’s consultation process was to engage a wide range of stakeholders and Aboriginal groups through various methods to educate them about the proposed undertaking and gather feedback on the proposed undertaking and the preliminary EA findings.

In accordance with the requirements under Section 6(3) of the EAA, New Gold documented its consultation process in a Record of Consultation, which provides a summary of the consultation activities undertaken, issues raised and responses provided during the consultation process on the EA. Section 3 of the EA provides a summary of the stakeholder consultation that occurred during the preparation of the EA and Appendices D-1 to D-11 of the EA provide the detailed Record of Consultation.

Once the EA was submitted to the Ministry, additional Ministry coordinated consultation occurred during the EA comment period. The GRT, the public and potentially affected Aboriginal communities were provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the Ministry on whether the requirements of the ToR had been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking. All comments received by the Ministry during the EA comment period were forwarded to New Gold for a response. All comments received along with New Gold’s responses and, where applicable, supplemental information are included in Appendix B. New Gold also provided Errata to the EA, containing changes made to the original report based on comments received, along with an updated Commitments Registry, which was originally found in section 14 of the EA and has been updated based on comments received. The Errata and Commitments Registry are found in Appendix C and are considered part of the EA. The Errata and Commitments Registry contain important commitments and changes related to project implementation that, should the EA be approved, New Gold will be required to fulfill; to emphasize this importance, the Ministry may include a condition of EA approval to ensure the proponent makes the changes contained in the Errata and fulfills and reports on the commitments in the Registry.

Government Review Team

New Gold sought input from members of the GRT including provincial ministries, federal departments, municipal agencies, public utilities and others. During the preparation of the EA, New Gold engaged members of the GRT to: identify those regulatory and government agencies that may have a potential interest in or mandate related to the proposed undertaking; any approvals or permit requirements administered under their respective jurisdictional authorities; and any potential concerns about the proposed undertaking.

New Gold consulted the GRT through a variety of means including telephone calls, written and electronic correspondence and formal meetings. Working groups related to fish habitat and species at risk were also formed with relevant agencies to discuss issues and related permits. A summary of the consultation process carried out during the preparation of the EA with members of the GRT, the comments received and New Gold’s responses to them can be found in Section 3 of the EA.

A draft version of the EA was made available to the GRT for review during a 45-day comment period between July 19, 2013 and September 2, 2013. Following formal submission of the EA to the Ministry, GRT members from various agencies were provided copies of the EA for their review during the seven-week comment period, which began January 17, 2014 and ended March 7, 2014. All comments received were forwarded by the Ministry to New Gold for a response. As well, comments received during the federal EA process were provided by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) to New Gold for a response. Comments from the GRT, public and Aboriginal communities and New Gold’s responses, along with supplemental information where applicable, can be found in Appendix B. A summary of key issues raised can also be found in sections 3.2.1 and 3.3.1 of this Review.

Public consultation

Members of the public, which includes the general public, communities, local organizations, interest groups and property owners, were provided with several opportunities to participate and provide input during the preparation of the Rainy River Project EA. New Gold also established and maintained a contact list and carried out consultation with members of the public in a variety of ways, including: holding two public open houses; direct written correspondence; newspaper notifications of EA milestones and consultation opportunities; hosting site tours; and posting information and materials to a project website. The objective of public consultation was to inform and seek input from interested members of the public on the EA process and the proposed undertaking. A detailed summary of the public consultation process carried out during the preparation of the EA, the comments received and New Gold’s responses to them can be found in Section 3 and Appendix D of the EA.

A draft version of the EA was made available to the public for review and comments during a 45-day comment period between July 19, 2013 and September 2, 2013. Members of the public were also provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the EA during the seven-week inspection period that commenced with the formal submission of the EA on January 17, 2014. The inspection period was coordinated by the Ministry and members of the public were asked to provide any comments directly to the Ministry for consideration.

During the formal comment period on the EA, comments from seven stakeholders or members of the public were received by the Ministry. Refer to Section 3.3.1 of this Review for the key issues raised. As with the comments received from the GRT, the Ministry forwarded all public comments to New Gold for a response. The public comments received and New Gold’s responses can be found in Appendix B.

New Gold has indicated that it will continue to work actively with local residents and agencies throughout the period of mine construction, operation and active closure to manage local effects, such as air and sound emissions and impacts to local services.

Aboriginal community consultation

In addition to public consultation, the EAA requires that Aboriginal communities within the surrounding area of the proposed undertaking be consulted with during the pre-submission period. Aboriginal communities have special land and treaty rights that need to be considered.

During preparation of the EA, New Gold sought advice from the federal and provincial governments to identify potentially affected Aboriginal communities. These communities were provided opportunities to participate throughout the EA process and were consulted and engaged to different degrees depending on the province’s preliminary assessment of the extent to which the project could potentially impact their Aboriginal or treaty rights.

New Gold focused its consultation efforts on those communities with the highest potential to be adversely affected. They included:

• Naicatchewenin First Nation
• Rainy River First Nations
• Mishkosiminiziibiing (Big Grassy River) First Nation
• Naotkamegwanning (Whitefish Bay) First Nation
• Anishinaabeg of Naongashiing (Big Island) First Nation
• Ojibways of Onigaming First Nation
• Buffalo Point First Nation
• Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) – Rainy River Lake of the Wood Regional Consultation Committee Region #1 and Sunset Country Métis Council

Other communities were identified as having a lower potential for adverse impacts and, at a minimum, were notified of key milestones in the EA process. They included:

• Mitaanjigamiing (Stanjikoming) First Nation
• Couchiching First Nation
• northwest Angle #33 First Nation
• northwest Angle #37 First Nation
• Anishinabe of Wauzhushk Onigum (Rat Portage) First Nation
• Lac La Croix First Nation
• Seine River First Nation
• Nigigoonsiminikaaning (Nicickousemenecaning) First Nation

These Aboriginal communities were consulted throughout the preparation of the EA, beginning at ToR preparation, through a number of different methods. Consultation began during the expository stages before the commencement of the EA process through informal meetings and discussions, site tours, distribution of newsletters, and retaining a person to act as a liaison between Aboriginal communities and New Gold. The proponent’s discussions with Aboriginal groups included topics such as: the incorporation of traditional land use and traditional knowledge into the EA; employment and training opportunities; fish and wildlife effects; environmental management; and possible impacts to water resources. Between 2011 and prior to the submission of the final EA, New Gold conducted roughly 90 consultative activities with Aboriginal groups. Such activities included meetings, open houses, site visits, and conference calls. A summary of the Aboriginal consultation process can be found in Section 3 of the EA.

New Gold also offered and provided financial resources toward an independent review of the draft EA on behalf of various Aboriginal communities. A number of Aboriginal communities accepted the opportunity to be part of this draft review, including: Big Grassy River First Nation, Couchiching First Nation, Lac La Croix First Nation, Mitaanjigamiing First Nation, Naicatchewenin First Nation, Rainy River First Nations and Seine River First Nation. Dillon Consulting Ltd. was retained by these communities to conduct an independent review of the draft EA prior to its release to the GRT and public.

In response to comments raised in the review, the draft EA was amended prior to the submission of the final EA.

During the seven-week inspection period on the final EA, Big Grassy River First Nation and the Métis Nation of Ontario independently provided comments on the proposed undertaking, and conducted traditional knowledge/traditional land use studies in advance of making comments. Naotkamegwanning (Whitefish Bay) First Nation conducted an independent review of the EA and then submitted comments. All Aboriginal comments received by the Ministry were sent to New Gold for a response. These comments and New Gold’s responses can be found in Appendix B.

3.1.1 Conclusion

The Ministry is satisfied that the level of New Gold’s consultation undertaken with the public, Aboriginal communities and government agencies was done in accordance with Section 5.1 of the EAA; the directions and advice contained within the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s “Code of Practice: Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process,” and the consultation commitments made in the approved Rainy River Project ToR. The Ministry is also satisfied that the EA adequately describes the consultation process and methods that were undertaken during the proponent’s preparation of the EA. The EA report clearly documents the consultation methods utilized by New Gold during the EA process, and clearly documents the issues and concerns raised on the undertaking and its potential environmental effects, and how these were or will be addressed. Should the EA be approved, New Gold has committed to continued consultation with interested members of the public, government agencies and Aboriginal groups.

3.2 EA process

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

The EA process was initiated by New Gold on May 29, 2013 with the publication of a Notice of Commencement of an EA for a proposed open pit and underground gold mine with related processing facilities and infrastructure in the Township of Chapple. Pursuant to the ToR, the purpose of the EA process was to complete a comparative analysis of ‘alternatives to’ the project itself as well as ‘alternative methods’ of carrying out the project. The EA process also involved identifying the potential environmental effects, both positive and negative, and their projected level of significance after applying mitigation measures.

Alternatives assessment

In accordance with the Rainy River Project ToR and as found in Section 6 and Appendix O of the EA, New Gold assessed both alternatives to and alternative methods. New Gold conducted a high level comparison of three alternatives to the undertaking, including constructing the project in the near term, delaying the project until circumstances are more favourable, and abandoning the project. The alternatives were screened using a number of criteria related to the natural environment; land use and resource management; social, cultural and economic considerations; and Aboriginal uses. The conclusion of New Gold’s analysis was that constructing the project in the near term is the preferred alternative since it would best meet the intended project purpose and since there is essentially no difference in negative environmental effects between implementing the project now or later. both delaying and abandoning the project were argued to produce fewer positive effects, particularly economic effects, compared to proceeding with the project in the near term.

Following the selection of the preferred alternative to, New Gold compared alternative methods for developing various components of the project, with typically three to four alternative methods assessed per component. The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative method were assessed using a methodology of performance objectives, criteria and indicators. The following six performance criteria were used: cost-effectiveness, technical applicability and/or system integrity and reliability, ability to service the site effectively, effects to the natural environment, effects to the human environment (including Aboriginal and treaty rights, cultural heritage resources and traditional land use), and amenability to reclamation.

New Gold developed criteria for each of the six performance objectives. For example, the effects to the natural environment objective contained criteria such as effects on air quality and climate and effects on fish and aquatic habitat, among others. Each criterion then had one or more indicators. For instance, the air quality criteria included maintenance of air quality standards and emission rates of greenhouse gases. For each indicator, advantages and disadvantages were presented. This methodology resulted in the use of six performance objectives, 29 criteria and 58 indicators in order to assess the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative method and select the preferred alternative methods for each mining component.

The alternatives assessment identified the preferred methods and locations for the site infrastructure, processing plant, explosives facility, tailings management area and water management ponds; preferred realignment of Highway 600; preferred transmission line corridor; preferred waste management strategy; and other project components that were assessed.

Evaluation of environmental effects

The evaluation of potential environmental effects that the project may cause, assuming the project is implemented, were assessed in Section 7 of the EA. In accordance with the ToR, the methodology for the effects evaluation involved using a number of important environmental components to be studied, referred to in the EA as Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) and Valued Socio-Economic Components (VSECs). The EA then provided predictions of potential impacts to those valued components, identified mitigation measures to minimize or avoid those impacts, and concluded an evaluation of the significance of the residual impacts post-mitigation.

The VECs and VSECs were identified based on their particular ecological, scientific, resource, socio-economic, cultural, health, aesthetic or spiritual importance, and their potential to be adversely affected by the project. They captured the full breadthe of the environment and included representative components of: air, noise, surface water and groundwater, vegetation and rare plants, wildlife (including ungulates, birds, amphibians and fish), species at risk, species of concern, socio-economic activities (including forestry, hunting and trapping, fishing, recreation and agriculture), transportation, human health, demographics, and cultural heritage resources.

For each VEC and VSEC, the EA identified potential effects the project may cause and whether the effect was negative or positive. Possible mitigation or enhancement measures were proposed for each VEC and VSEC. The residual (post-mitigation) negative effect was then identified in terms of how the effect was expected to be minimized or avoided. In the case of positive effects, the EA identified how effects could be enhanced.

Residual effects were described according to five Attributes: 1. Value of component in a socio-economic context, 2. Value in a natural environment context, 3. Magnitude/geographic extent, 4. Duration, and 5. Frequency. A qualitative rating from level I to level III was assigned to each Attribute for each VEC and VSEC. A level I rating refers to a negligible or limited potential to contribute to an overall significant effect. A level III rating is indicative of a high potential to contribute to an overall significant environmental effect, post-mitigation. Level II represents an intermediate condition. An effect was considered significant overall if a level II or III rating was achieved for Attributes 1 or 2 and for all of Attributes 3, 4 and 5. An effect was considered not significant if a level I rating was achieved for both Attributes 1 and 2 or for at least one of Attributes 3, 4 or 5.

Overall, the EA found that the project will not result in overall significant negative effects after the application of mitigation measures, such as emissions controls, treatment systems, compensations for impacts, equipment selection, facility design and other measures.

3.2.1 Key issues

Many comments were received during the EA review comment period from the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities. Key issues about the EA process are summarized below. Comments and proponent responses, along with supplemental information where applicable to support the proponent’s responses, are found in Appendix B.

Comments about the project itself and technical components are provided in section 3.3.1.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) commented on the adequacy of information provided to support the alternatives assessment, particularly pertaining to the assessment of routing alternatives for the proposed transmission line as well as the consistency in the application of the assessment methodology. MNRF requested additional information to justify the rationale for the preferred transmission line route (referred to as ‘Alternative A’ in the EA), and public consultation on any additional information provided. In response, New Gold prepared a supplemental assessment report that provided additional technical details and supporting figures in support of the preferred Alternative A (see Appendix B). New Gold also conducted additional public consultation with local residents and Aboriginal communities on the supplemental report. MNRF indicated they are satisfied with the supplemental information provided.

MNRF also commented on New Gold’s determination of significance of certain environmental effects such as on species at risk, indicating that the methodology seemed to be biased toward reaching a conclusion of non-significance. New Gold responded that they used the methodology in the approved ToR and that the conclusions of non-significance of effects were reached after the application of mitigation measures, which are intended to lower the level of significance to an acceptable level. While MNRF still questions aspects of this methodology, the Ministry is satisfied that the approach followed the approved ToR methodology.

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

The Ministry’s Senior Waste Engineer commented that the proponent intends to ship construction and operation waste to an approved landfill offsite, and to develop an onsite landfill to accommodate the demolition and decommissioning waste at the end of mine life (approximately early 2030s). The reviewer indicated that the EA did not include the necessary studies and details to satisfy any environmental assessment work that may be necessary either for an onsite operational waste landfill (in the event that the proponent cannot ship this waste offsite) or for a future demolition landfill. Further, the EA did not include any financial assurance estimates for the closure of the future demolition waste landfill.

New Gold has indicated that it does not intend to develop a landfill for construction or operation waste. Rather, this waste is proposed to be trucked to an offsite landfill that is approved to accept commercial/industrial waste and has sufficient capacity, such as the Township of Chapple Shenston landfill. However, if New Gold determines that it does need a landfill for construction or operation waste, it acknowledged that it must follow a separate EA process as required by Ontario Regulation 101/07 (Waste Management Project) made under the EAA. New Gold acknowledged the comment that the Ministry will require financial assurance estimates to be provided before the demolition landfill can be constructed, along with any other approvals that may be required. While the Ministry is satisfied that the proponent responded to and acknowledged these comments, if the EA is approved, the Ministry may consider a condition(s) clearly stating the requirement for New Gold to fulfill any additional EA requirements under Ontario Regulation 101/07 and to provide appropriate financial assurance to the government for any onsite landfill (operation or demolition).

The Ministry’s Senior Air Engineer commented that the assessment identified that air quality impacts during the construction phase would be significantly lower than operating phases, however it was noted that this determination was a qualitative assessment made by comparing the level of activities during operation and construction phases of the project. The Ministry recommended that a worst-case scenario assessment for the construction phase be completed. In response, New Gold provided an assessment of the impacts of the construction phase activities compared with the operations phase. This additional assessment can be found in Appendix B of this Review. The Ministry is satisfied with the additional information provided.

The Ministry’s Project Officer commented that due to ongoing traditional knowledge studies and comments that may be submitted by Aboriginal communities, there may be additional information that has not been accounted for in the EA. Any new information provided by communities must be incorporated into the EA as appropriate, and any comments received must be responded to. New Gold responded that any new information provided by Aboriginal communities will be incorporated and responded to, as appropriate. Subsequent to this response, traditional knowledge information was provided by some Aboriginal communities, and in response New Gold provided written responses and made commitments to help address the concerns, such as ongoing involvement of Aboriginal communities in the project and development of measures to mitigate potential impacts to Aboriginal uses in the area of the mine site. The Ministry is satisfied with the response.

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) requested additional detail on New Gold’s Cultural Heritage Assessment Report regarding the evaluation of mitigation measures for items of cultural heritage value or interest, built heritage resources, and cultural heritage landscapes (specifically for two sites that would be demolished/removed). While the EA indicated that this would receive further attention during the design phase, MTCS requested that they be included in the EA phase. Additionally, MTCS noted that in order to be consistent with provincial and federal policies/guidelines, the EA should consider a range of alternative mitigation approaches. New Gold offered to provide supplementary details of mitigation measures that had been proposed, and agreed that a range of conservation approaches would be considered for the two sites in question. MTCS is currently following up with the proponent to receive this information and will review it once received. The Ministry is satisfied with the continuing dialogue between MTCS and New Gold.

3.2.2 Conclusion

Overall, the Ministry, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with the proponent’s decision making process. The Ministry believes that New Gold has conducted the EA in a logical and transparent manner, and has made a clear effort to consult and involve interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities in the EA process.

The EA explains the rationale behind the project and the need for the EA process. New Gold has presented a reasonable range of alternative methods to the undertaking and has evaluated them in a defined study area that took into consideration the EAA’s broad definition of the environment.

The EA provides a description of the potentially affected environment in the study area and identifies potential effects that may result from the undertaking that may impact the environment. The EA discusses the likelihood and significance of these impacts as well as possible mitigation measures to accordingly reduce or increase their effect, depending on whether the effect is negative or positive.

The Ministry is satisfied that the EA was completed in accordance with the approved ToR and meets the requirements of the EAA.

3.3 Proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking is described in section 4 of the EA (see also section 2 of this Review) and was evaluated based on the anticipated net impacts of each alternative and the advantages and disadvantages to the environment. A broad definition of the environment was used to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed undertaking.

3.3.1 Key issues

Key issues regarding the EA report and the proposed undertaking were gathered during consultation and the EA review comment period. Key comments submitted by provincial and federal agencies, Aboriginal communities and the public are summarized below. The comments and New Gold’s responses, including additional information the proponent provided to support responses, can be found in Appendix B.

In response to the comments received during the review of the EA, New Gold has provided an Errata and Commitments Registry to, in part, address concerns that have been raised. The Errata and Commitments Registry are included in Appendix C of this report.

Comments of support

During the review period for the final EA, four organizations and two members of the public (residents close to the proposed site) expressed support for the Rainy River Project; these organizations included the Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure; the Rainy River Future Development Corporation; Resolute Forest Products; and the United Native Friendship Centre. Supportive comments expressed that the mine site is in a good location and commenters were encouraged by the economic benefits, employment and social development that they believe the project will bring to the Rainy River District, Aboriginal people and broader provincial economy.

Comments from provincial ministries

Ministry of northrn Development and Mines

The Ministry of northrn Development and Mines (MNDM) asked for clarifications regarding a number of aspects of the project, and noted a number of issues, mostly with New Gold’s plans for closing the mine site. MNDM informed New Gold that additional detail would be required for the Closure Plan, required under the Mining Act. MNDM posed questions regarding closure related to the stability of the covering of the TMA post-closure, whether the water cover would be of adequate depthe/volume to withstand dry periods and extreme weather events, if the proposed landscaping around the TMA would provide a stable cover and ensure no oxidization of the tailings occurred, and noted that a more detailed water management plan would be required. Potential long term impacts to groundwater and surface water were noted, and included permanent lowering of the Pinewood River’s discharge, and water quality in the pit lake.

New Gold provided clarifications through responses where appropriate, acknowledged the comments regarding closure and noted that more details would be presented in the official Closure Plan. New Gold later released a Draft Closure Plan in March 2014 that provided more information. MNDM is satisfied with the response and will be reviewing additional details in the Closure Plan.

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change provided comments on a number of different aspects of the project, including wastewater, waste, air, noise, groundwater and surface water, and Aboriginal consultation.

Wastewater

The Ministry’s Senior Wastewater Engineer found that the proposed effluent treatment process, that being in-plant SO2/Air treatment followed by natural degradation (as a polishing step) for cyanide destruction, was acceptable because it is widely used technology. The reviewer also determined that the proposed domestic sewage management and tailings management alternative were also acceptable as proposed. The reviewer noted that the Wastewater Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for the proposed mine wastewater treatment system will need to include more detailed design prior to final approval of wastewater treatment.

Waste

As was previously mentioned in Section 3.2.1, should New Gold need to modify the project to dispose of operational waste on-site, the EA did not sufficiently address this alternative, nor did the EA include sufficient studies or financial assurance for a demolition landfill. New Gold acknowledged the comments and that they would seek EA/Environmental Protection Act approval for on-site waste disposal should disposal at the Township of Chapple’s landfill not be a long-term viable option. While the Ministry was satisfied that the proponent acknowledged these requirements, the Ministry may consider a condition(s) to clearly require the fulfillment of necessary environmental studies and provision of financial assurance.

Air

The Ministry’s Senior Air Engineer, Air Quality Analyst, Air Compliance Engineer and Senior Leader in the Air Modelling and Emissions Unit requested additional information regarding which data were used for calculations (such as manufacturer’s specifications). It was also requested that the proponent provide an assessment of potential changes to concentrations of particulate matter of a size of 10 micrometres or less (PM10) that may result from the project. Clarification was requested on how background levels of contaminants were determined, as well as more information on how mobile sources of emissions, such as vehicles, would impact air quality. It was noted that more information regarding potential impacts to air and proposed mitigation measures would be required for the Air and Noise ECA application.

New Gold provided a supplementary report to the EA where appropriate, such as an assessment of PM10 and revisions to include the effects from mobile sources. This report is found with the comment and response tables in Appendix B. New Gold acknowledged that more detail would be required for ECA approval. The Ministry is satisfied with this response and will be reviewing further details in the ECA application, should the EA be approved.

Noise

The Ministry’s Senior Noise Engineer requested a supplementary report on noise impacts regarding confirmation of identification of potential noise receptors, additional technical information on noise emitters and receptors, revised calculations of potential noise impacts, and explanations of assumptions made regarding data.

New Gold provided a supplemental report to address the Ministry’s specific technical comments relating to noise sources and receptors. This report is found with the comment and response tables in Appendix B. The Ministry is satisfied with this response and will review further details in the ECA application.

Groundwater

A number of comments were received from the Ministry’s Regional Hydrogeologist (in-training). The Ministry noted that the proponent’s use of the Ministry’s well records database to identify potentially affected wells did not ensure that all wells were identified, as the database may not contain all wells in the area. The reviewer also expressed concern that, post-closure, the resulting hydraulic gradient that forms once the open pit is flooded could result in groundwater contaminated with heavy metals moving from the open pit lake entering the Pinewood River.

The Ministry raised questions regarding the long term hydrological impacts to the Pinewood River, such as how it would be affected by changes to its water quality and quantity due to proposed diversions and changes to groundwater flow by the project. Other concerns about water were raised about the use of potentially acid generating rock in the TMA dams and for road construction. The Ministry shared similar concerns with MNDM whether the depthe/volume of water cover of the TMA post closure would be sufficient. A number of other comments informed the proponent that additional information would be required during the application for ECA, such as a proposed groundwater monitoring plan. The Ministry also asked for clarity on the model used to determine what material is PAG versus Non-Potentially Acid Generating (NPAG) rock, and how potential errors were eliminated; this model is important for proper segregation and use of PAG and NPAG rock during operations.

New Gold provided additional information through responses. In addition to using the Ministry’s well database, the proponent had also undertaken door to door surveys to identify wells that could be potentially affected by the project. New Gold also demonstrated that its exploratory activities had not affected the groundwater baseline studies.

New Gold explained that once the pit lake is established, the site will be controlled to direct groundwater into the pit lake and there should be no groundwater flowing out of the lake. A monitoring program will be in place to monitor pit lake water quality, runoff and seepage. It was clarified that potentially acid generating rock (PAG) would only be used as dam construction material on upstream portions of the TMA dams where tailings can be maintained in a saturated state to mitigate acid rock drainage (ARD) and metal leaching (ML). As well, site runoff and seepage will be collected and treated to government requirements.

Regarding the TMA water cover, New Gold provided further explanation about how the tailings will be maintained in a saturated state to prevent ARD.

New Gold also clarified that PAG rock would not be used for road construction. Further clarifications to closure planning were provided, including indication that further details will be in the draft Closure Plan.

The Ministry was satisfied with most of these responses and will be reviewing additional details in the related ECA application. As follow-up, the Ministry requested further clarification on New Gold’s plan for modelling PAG versus NPAG material, including details on how the accuracy of the model will be verified during operations, including a summary of the sampling and analysis that will be used. In response, New Gold provided additional information about the intended model to classify mine rock into PAG, NPAG, ore and low-grade ore and how the waste rock will be sampled and analyzed. The Ministry is satisfied with the response.

Surface water

The Ministry’s Surface Water Specialist raised a number of concerns regarding the potential impact of the project on the Pinewood River. Due to the river’s typical low flow (which can be zero at times), concern was raised regarding the quality of effluent that was proposed to be discharged from the mine site into the Pinewood River. For the same reason, concern was also raised by New Gold’s proposed water taking from the Pinewood River. The Ministry requested additional information about how very stringent effluent criteria will be met at the discharge points to Pinewood River, including information about the retention time of the effluent prior to release to the Pinewood River and acceptable mixing within the river. The reviewer requested further information about potential impacts of water taking on the surface water sources. More information was also required regarding water quality of the pit lake discharge at closure, indicating that the discharge will have to meet very stringent discharge criteria at the point of discharge. The reviewer also stated concerns about the proposed water cover over the TMA, including exposure of pit walls, diversions from Pinewood River to maintain the cover and impacts in the event a cover cannot be maintained. The reviewer provided information about further details that will be required in future ECA applications.

New Gold responded to these comments by providing additional rationale for the proposed effluent criteria and why the receiving water would be protected, as well as additional technical details on the proposed retention time of the effluent. Further details were provided on the proposed flow reductions in Pinewood River as a result of water takings, such as additional rationale for the unsuitability of other water sources and the short-term nature of the proposed water taking. The proponent explained that the EA provided an assessment of discharging pit lake water to Pinewood River and that the discharge will be protective of aquatic life, with further details about optimizing water quality in the draft Closure Plan. Further explanation about the TMA water cover was provided, including options to enhance flooding of the pit and minimize wall exposure and scenarios where diverting from the Pinewood River would not be necessary.

Following its review of these responses, the Ministry had continuing concerns about the proposed effluent criteria and the lack of response regarding a mixing zone for effluent discharge and receiving water. The Ministry also remained concerned about proposed water taking from a low flow river such as Pinewood. As a result of these concerns and the Ministry’s requests for additional information, several meetings and exchanges were held between New Gold and Ministry staff to discuss water quality standards and water taking theresholds.

New Gold provided additional details and commitments, and modified its proposals for effluent criteria and water taking theresholds. The Ministry has accepted components of the revised proposal under several conditions and commitments (see Appendix B), and subject to further discussions with the Ministry during the permitting phase. The revised proposals included discussions on stringent discharge criteria, and a proposed mixing ratio whereby the discharge effluent would mix with an equal quantity of Pinewood River water in order to ensure the discharge was appropriately diluted to ensure the protection of water quality. The revised proposal also included a minimum water taking thereshold for the Pinewood River, subject to approval from the Ministry.

The Ministry is satisfied with these responses and may consider a condition of EA approval to further ensure that the proponent will adhere to these commitments in further discussion with Ministry staff during post-EA permitting phases.

Aboriginal consultation

It was noted by the Project Officer that the gathering of information on Aboriginal traditional land use and knowledge was ongoing by several Aboriginal communities, and any information or comments should be incorporated into the EA once they are received.

New Gold explained that it was continuing to consult with potentially affected Aboriginal communities and would incorporate into the EA, where appropriate, information gathered through this process as additional information was received. As a result of this process, New Gold has included necessary changes to the EA report in the Errata, and has updated its Commitment Registry. The Ministry is satisfied with the response.

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) provided comments from both cultural heritage and tourism perspectives. As mentioned in section 3.2.1 above, from a cultural heritage perspective, MTCS stated that analyses of the archeological surveys done as a result of the project were incomplete, and further work may be required. MTCS sought additional clarifications and details regarding potentially impacted heritage resources on New Gold’s property.

New Gold responded and met with MTCS to discuss these concerns. New Gold provided additional details regarding the heritage resources, committed to providing MTCS with a memo to provide more information on the identification of built heritage resources and mitigation measures, and committed to follow up with MTCS on ongoing work for the archaeological assessments. MTCS is currently following up with the proponent to receive this information and will review it once received. The Ministry is satisfied that any outstanding issues will be resolved through continuing dialogue between MTCS and New Gold.

From a tourism perspective, MTCS asked New Gold to consider the timing of the construction of the proposed transmission line, as this had the potential to impact tourism activities in the area. The potential impacts to local goods and service providers were noted, and New Gold was encouraged to clarify potential impacts and to engage with local providers.

New Gold agreed to work with local stakeholders to notify of project activities and mitigate potential impacts where practical, and to continue to engage local goods and service providers.

MTCS is satisfied with the responses from a tourism perspective.

Ministry of Transportation

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) clarified that while the proponent and MTO are engaging in technical discussions related to the preferred Highway 600 realignment alternative during the EA process (in an effort to assist the proponent with its timeline), the final location of the Highway 600 realignment is still to be determined by the EA process. MTO did not identify any outstanding issues with the project.

New Gold acknowledged MTO’s comments. MTO continues to work with New Gold on the Highway 600 realignment proposal.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

MNRF made a number of comments which included concerns with potential impacts to wildlife, the transmission line corridor assessment, project closure planning, and fire hazards.

A number of comments concerned potential impacts to wildlife, such as whether the data collected on migratory birds were representative of the entire project footprint, and whether additional wildlife baseline studies would be required to support follow-up and monitoring programs. Also questioned was New Gold’s assertion that wildlife displaced by the project would easily colonize adjacent lands, and that New Gold should take additional steps to mitigate potential impacts to amphibious wildlife. MNRF also asked that New Gold make stronger commitments to mitigate impacts to fish, and noted that while baseline studies of the Pinewood River determined there would be no impacts on Lake Sturgeon (a Species at Risk), there was uncertainty over their range. MNRF questioned New Gold’s wildlife corridor assessment, as aquatic corridors were identified but terrestrial ones were not. MNRF asked for additional information on impacts and mitigation measures for rare plants (identified by both the provincial Endangered Species Act and the federal Species at Risk Act) in the transmission line Right of Way (ROW). Numerous issues were raised regarding New Gold’s closure plans, especially concerning the final reclamation and re-vegetation of the mine site. Also included were questions about water quality and treatment of the pit lake. It was noted that more information should be provided regarding response to wildfires, and that local authorities may not have the capacity to respond to New Gold’s needs should a wildfire pose a thereat to the mine site.

New Gold provided justification and additional information for its assessment of potential impacts to wildlife, and agreed to work collaboratively with MNRF and Environment Canada in the creation of follow-up and monitoring programs, which will report on the efficacy of mitigation measures. In many instances, New Gold noted that additional surveys would be completed (for example, for rare plants and birds in the transmission line ROW in the summer of 2014, with results provided to MNRF. New Gold noted that the project would be subject to federal Fisheries and Oceans Canada regulations regarding the mitigation of potential impacts to aquatic habitats, and that the overall impact to the Pinewood River was predicted to be within the range of natural variation. A supplemental report was provided to address concerns with the transmission line corridor assessment; this report is available in Appendix B. Further clarifications to closure plans were given, and, where appropriate, acknowledgement that such details would be included in the Closure Plan. New Gold agreed to continue to engage local authorities and discuss options for fire response plans, and made a commitment that a detailed response plan would be developed and shared with MNRF.

Following receipt of New Gold’s responses, MNRF raised several outstanding concerns. Some concerns sought clarification of commitments made regarding wildlife monitoring, secondary containment structures for water and TMA pipelines and strategies for habitat rehabilitation and use of the proposed east access road. Other concerns related to additional text requested in the EA, such as clarification of how terminology is defined, inclusion of additional bird and plant surveys conducted in support of the transmission line alternatives assessment, and clarification that area lakes are not being considered as a water supply source. MNRF requested further effects assessment for Lake Sturgeon (an SAR) and rare plants to be prepared and included as part of the EA.

New Gold responded to the outstanding concerns by clarifying that the draft wildlife monitoring plan will be issued to MNRF and Environment Canada prior to construction and that bird surveys will be provided to MNRF once completed. The response indicated that further details of a habitat rehabilitation strategy are provided in the draft Closure Plan. The response clarified that secondary containment structures will be in place for tailings and contact water pipelines, and that area lakes are not considered for mine water supply. New Gold provided a revised glossary with additional terms defined. New Gold provided additional effects assessments for Lake Sturgeon and rare plants to supplement section 7 in the EA. An additional commitment was made to prepare a road use strategy for the east access road in consultation with MNRF and area residents prior to construction. New Gold updated the Commitments Registry and Errata, where appropriate, to incorporate these responses. MNRF is currently reviewing these responses to determine if their outstanding comments have been addressed. The Ministry expects that any outstanding issues will be resolved through continuing dialogue between MNRF and New Gold, through additional commitments or through possible conditions of approval, if necessary.

The full comments received from the provincial ministries and New Gold’s responses and, where applicable, supplemental information can be found in Appendix B.

Comments from Federal authorities

The following section summarizes the comments New Gold received from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). On behalf of all federal agencies, including Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and health Canada, CEAA sent seven sets of comments known as Information Requests over the course of their review of the EA.

Information Request 1

Information Request 1 covered a range of issues, including impacts to air and water quality, fish habitat, wildlife, human health, and closure plans. Specifically, CEAA asked for clarification on a number of different technical aspects of the assessment of potential air pollutants, such as how background levels of heavy metals in the air were calculated, why PM10 (particulate matter of up to 10 micrometres in diameter) had not been assessed and where monitoring stations would be located. As well, further assessment on pollutant concentrations taking into account mobile sources, and for the project’s construction phase were requested. Further clarification was sought about effluent and receiver water quality predictions based on geochemical testing; project design and measures to prevent contact water and seepage from entering the creeks; and characterization of overburden materials for acid rock drainage and metal leaching potential. Comments were also raised about the assessment of the flow changes expected on the Pinewood River and how it may impact fish habitat, and about mitigation measures for protecting snapping turtles and amphibians. The information request also contained comments relating to human health, and whether the tailings management area water cover would provide sufficient protection in the post closure phase. Lastly, CEAA noted some errors found in the body of the report.

New Gold responded where appropriate, providing justification for their calculations/modeling, and providing supplementary information on aspects such as PM10, air quality during construction, mobile sources of air pollutants, and project designs and measures to reduce effects on water quality. More information on the assessment of flow levels in the Pinewood River was provided, as well as a discussion of mitigation measures to protect amphibious species from entering the project site. Other issues noted by CEAA were addressed in the Errata.

Information Request 2

Information Request 2 contained issues not fully addressed in Information Request 1 and covered similar topics as those listed above. More information was requested on a number of water related issues and their impacts on fish and fish habitat. These included technical questions on the discharge and treatment of effluent, the potential changes to water quality in surrounding rivers, and water issues surrounding the TMA. Federal reviewers noted that the no net loss plan for the loss of fish habitat did not take into account the effects on fish habitat from changes in water quantity in the Pinewood River. Concern was expressed over the potential water taking of the Pinewood River to accelerate the filling of the pit for closure. Recommendations for air quality monitoring parameters were suggested. Because baseline conditions were used as a reflection of ambient and past activities, additional assessment of the cumulative impacts to birds and proposed mitigation measures was requested. Questions regarding the sufficiency of the tailings management area water cover post-closure were also raised.

New Gold provided additional information and technical details where needed through responses to comments. Details were given relating to how water flows were assessed and impacts predicted, including those on fish. More details on effluent treatment and technical details of the construction, operation, and closure of the TMA were provided. New Gold committed to developing an adaptive management plan that will define monitoring criteria and ecological targets to ensure that the Pinewood River continues to support fish. New Gold responded to comments regarding water taking from the Pinewood River, and noted that air quality monitoring would be subject to the provincial ECA process. Referring to the Closure Plan, New Gold noted that use of the Pinewood River to fill the pit post closure was not anticipated, but was included as an option at the Ministry’s request. The details of air quality monitoring were noted to be part of the provincial ECA stage. New Gold noted that the cumulative impact the project would have on birds would be offset by local declines in forestry and agriculture.

Information Request 3

Information Request 3 focused on hydrological and wildlife impacts. Further concern was expressed regarding the potential drying of the tailings in the tailings management area post closure. Additional details were requested relating to the effectiveness of mitigation efforts to offset the loss of habitat for migratory birds (e.g. whip-poor-will and bobolink). Clarification on the commitments New Gold made to Environment Canada was also requested.

In their response to this information request, New Gold noted that the issues surrounding closure of the TMA would be studied more in depthe as part of the provincial closure plan process. Further clarifications pertaining to habitat offset and other commitments New Gold made were provided.

Information Request 4

Information Request 4 pertained mostly to the assessment of impacts to migratory birds. Further clarification was requested regarding the designation and assessment of different migratory bird habitats (surrounding the term ‘wetland’), and the methodology used to assess impacts to migratory birds.

New Gold provided clarification in its response to the comments of its definition and designation of different habitats, as well as more information concerning the method employed to assess impacts on different bird species.

Information Request 5

Information Request 5 requested a small number of clarifications and amendments to the Commitments Registry found in the EA. These included confirmation on commitments regarding the use of non-potentially acid generating and potentially acid generating rock for construction, as well as a request to add supplemental information to the table showing, where appropriate, which governmental agency would oversee each commitment.

New Gold provided clarifications and agreed to amend the table where appropriate.

Information Request 6

Information Request 6 requested that the EA be amended to include an assessment of the residual effects on the Eastern Wood-pewee, a migratory bird that is also a species of special concern, as had been done with other such species. Additional information was requested on the risk assessment of the potential failure of a creek diversion. Further refinements to the section of the Commitments Registry that indicated agency oversight were requested as well.

New Gold provided the information on the Eastern Wood-pewee, and risk assessment and included the changes in the Errata. The Commitments Registry was also updated.

Information Request 7

Information Request 7 asked for clarification of potential impacts to local trappers and hunters due to the overprinting of trapping and bear hunting areas by the proposed mine. CEAA also asked for a list of environmental management plans that the proponent has developed or plans to develop for implementation of the project.

In response, New Gold reiterated conclusions stated in the EA that the expected effects on trappers and hunters will be negligible. New Gold stated that for safety, security and liability reasons, it is necessary that the project limit trapping and hunting on proponent-owned property, and also that they are committed to restoring access to land for trapping and hunting at decommissioning when it is safe to do so. New Gold also provided a list of environmental management plans and expected timing for completion of each plan.

The Ministry is satisfied that the proponent has provided adequate information to address the federal comments, and CEAA has indicated that it is satisfied with the responses to federal comments.

The full comments received from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and New Gold’s responses and, where applicable, supplemental information can be found in Appendix B.

Comments from Aboriginal Communities

Big Grassy River First Nation

Big Grassy River First Nation (BGRFN) provided a number of comments on the EA relating to the environment and the potential impact to their traditional land use practices. Many of the comments stemmed from data that were gathered as part of a traditional knowledge/traditional land use (TK/TLU) study commissioned by BGRFN, which was provided to the proponent in March 2014 after the submission of the EA.

BGRFN asked for clarification and review of a number of aspects and impacts of the project identified in the EA, as the initial assessment had not taken into account this TK/TLU data. BGRFN asked for a review of impacts to water resources (especially the Pinewood River) through water takings and by potential pollutants such as heavy metals, aquatic species, ungulates and other wildlife, the gathering of wild rice and other plants for food or medicinal purposes, and impacts and continued access to lands of traditional and spiritual significance. The importance of the latter was stressed for the continuation of teachings from one generation to the next. Questions pertaining to closure and rehabilitation of the mine site were also raised, such as whether traditional land use practices would be considered in the Closure Plan.

New Gold noted that in many ways the BGRFN TK/TLU study supported and supplemented the existing information in the EA. However, the study identified a number of land uses not previously identified in the EA. In response to these concerns, New Gold proposed to continue consulting with BGRFN to identify appropriate mitigation and accommodation measures throughout the post-EA phases of project development and closure. New Gold also committed to jointly monitoring water resources with BGRFN, providing access to certain areas for resource gathering or cultural and ceremonial purposes, monitoring fish and deer tissue for heavy metals, and funding an independent review of the draft closure plan and closure objectives. New Gold also provided responses to comments regarding technical aspects of the project, such as those relating to water pollution and treatment.

In a letter sent to both the Ministry and CEAA dated June 20, 2014, BGRFN stated they had outstanding concerns regarding the project, mostly surrounding potential impacts to water resources. The letter requested a meeting with government representatives to discuss their outstanding questions about water quality and closure aspects of the project.

In response to this letter, the Ministry, CEAA and BGRFN arranged a meeting in the BGRFN community on August 27, 2014. The meeting was attended by BGRFN council representatives, the community’s legal counsel and technical consultant, and provincial and federal government representatives from the Ministry, MNDM, MNRF, CEAA, Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Part of the meeting was also attended by about 10-20 members of the community. During the discussion, government representatives answered specific questions and provided technical information primarily about water quality and closure aspects of the project, including the governments’ assessment of these aspects in the EA. The Ministry also highlighted that the next step in the EA process is a comment period on the Ministry Review. Follow up actions included providing certain meeting materials and draft minutes to BGRFN, which were provided.

Métis Nation of Ontario

The Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) conducted a TK/TLU study to identify potential impacts to their resource uses and provided the results to the proponent in March 2014. The MNO requested that New Gold review the study and confirm mitigation measures for a number of potential impacts, including those on the Pinewood River in the event of spills or accidents, fish and waterfowl, nearby wells owned by Métis citizens, and loss of access to lands used for hunting and gathering or of cultural significance. Many of the comments focused on the impacts that could potentially arise with the realignment of Highway 600 and the construction of the transmission line ROW. The MNO noted that the construction of the ROW had the potential to impact trails and travel routes, harvesting area access routes, the quality of hunting and gathering due to habitat degradation and the use of herbicides for vegetation management. Concerns regarding the technical design of the project were also raised, such as whether the open pit separation berm would be of adequate height given potential future changes to the climate.

In response to these comments, New Gold noted that the MNO report had suggested potential mitigation measures for identified impacts, many of which New Gold had already committed to adopt in the EA. New Gold noted that it had already committed to develop an environmental management system which would include management of spills and accidents to limit their environmental impacts. Based on the current data available, New Gold does not believe that any wells owned by Métis citizens would be impacted. In response to the potential loss of access to significant lands, New Gold offered to grant improved access to lands which had been reserved for habitat compensation. With regards to the realignment of Highway 600 and the transmission ROW, New Gold noted that based on the TK/TLU data, the impacts of their construction would not be significant and could be mitigated. New Gold does not believe that the ROW would impact hunting or gathering activities, and made a commitment not to use herbicides to control vegetation in the ROW. Technical details of the open pit berm were shared with the MNO, as well as a justification of its height. New Gold committed to continued consultation with the MNO, and to providing assistance to the MNO for the review of future project design stages such as environmental approvals and closure plans. On April 4, 2014, Ministry and CEAA staff met with members of the MNO to hear the results of their TK/TLU study, and to hear their comments and concerns related to the project. They provided updates on their discussions with New Gold, and indicated they were continuing to work with the proponent.

Anishinaabeg of Naongashiing (Big Island) First Nation and Ojibways of Onigaming First Nation

Anishinaabeg of Naongashiing (Big Island) First Nation and Ojibways of Onigaming First Nation each sent an email on March 14, 2014 to the Ministry and CEAA indicating in general terms that they have concerns with the project and believe that the project could have impacts on their Aboriginal and treaty rights. They indicated that their review of the EA is ongoing and asked for additional time to determine how the project will affect their rights. They stated their objection to the EA process proceeding until they had fully completed their review.

The Ministry responded on May 1, 2014 requesting detail on each community’s specific concerns about the potential for the project to adversely impact their Aboriginal or treaty rights and proposed a teleconference to further discuss the community’s concerns and offered that the meeting could be joint with CEAA. The Ministry followed up by phone and email on May 9, 2014 with Big Island First Nation and Ojibways of Onigaming First Nation to reiterate the offer of a teleconference. No further correspondence was received from Big Island First Nation. On May 30, 2014, Onigaming First Nation responded to say they were interested in a teleconference and would contact the Ministry about scheduling. No further correspondence was received from the community.

Naotkamegwanning (Whitefish Bay) First Nation

Naotkamegwanning First Nation (NFN) provided a letter to the Ministry and CEAA in March 2014 indicating in general terms that the community had concerns about the potential negative impacts the project could have on their traditional and reserve lands, water, people and resources. The community asked for an extension of the comment period to obtain the relevant expertise to aid in reviewing the technical aspects of the project.

The Ministry responded to say it understood the community was working toward acquiring expertise, that the Ministry and MNDM have provided assistance when requested in this regard and that the Ministry remains open to providing further assistance. The response also said the Ministry was interested to hear more information about the community’s specific concerns about the potential for the project to adversely impact their Aboriginal or treaty rights, and proposed a teleconference to hear the community’s concerns or discuss any questions.

The community replied indicating that they had retained a consultant to review the EA and asked for a specific extension to provide comments by June 30, 2014; the Ministry replied and granted the extension.

The review of and comments on the EA were received from the community on August 6, 2014, contained in a report prepared by Dillon Consulting Ltd. The report identified a number of key issues of concern held by NFN. Access to the site for spiritual ceremonies was requested as early on in the development of the mine as possible. Additional information was requested on how the NFN could benefit from direct and indirect economic advantages that may arise as a result of the project. A request was made for more information on noise impacts to wildlife and potential mitigation measures. A request was also made to specifically address the interests of NFN when designing mitigation measures to protect the terrestrial environment and reduce disturbances to species. With regards to expressed concerns relating to impacts to human health through the consumption of fish that may become contaminated, Dillon suggested that New Gold develop a comprehensive fish tissue monitoring program. Lastly, Dillon stating that the EA should contain a screening-level Human health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHREA), noting that information for which is likely already contained in the EA report and a screening exercise would likely confirm this information.

New Gold provided responses to all comments to NFN. In response, New Gold acknowledged that additional ceremonies may be required on the project site, and agreed to coordinate with local communities as it had done in the past. New Gold sent a personnel listing to NFN detailing what types of job opportunities were available at the project site. New Gold provided additional information on potential noise impacts of the project through explanations, as well as identifying where the information could be found in the EA. New Gold provided a synopsis of the sections of the EA that described the fish tissue monitoring program, and indicated that the program would address the concerns expressed by NFN. Regarding a HHREA, New Gold noted that the EA had included information regarding human health and ecological risks, in particular in section 7 of the EA, reiterating the assessments done related to health impacts from air emissions, water runoff and discharge, and heavy metals in fish and country foods. The EA concluded the potential risk of impacts to human health from harvesting and use of country or locally farmed foods was low, therefore not warranting a more formalized health risk assessment. The response indicated information related to increased health risks would be provided, as suggested in the NFN report. The Ministry is satisfied that the proponent has responded to the concerns.

Naicatchewenin First Nation and Rainy River First Nation

Naicatchewenin First Nation and Rainy River First Nations sent a joint letter to Premier Katheleen Wynne and Prime Minister Stephen Harper on March 4, 2014 indicating the communities’ lack of support for the project. They stated that they do not feel that the potential benefits of the project outweigh the potential impacts, and that New Gold has not engaged in meaningful consultation or accommodated their concerns.

The Premier responded on April 7, 2014, indicating that it is unfortunate to learn there is no longer support for the project and that MNDM will continue to work with all Aboriginal communities to seek a pathe forward.

New Gold has indicated that it continues to work closely with both communities to continue discussions about the project in an effort to resolve issues and build partnerships. The Ministry later followed up on July 16, 2014 to the communities’ March 4, 2014, letter and the Premier’s April response to ask about the status of each community’s current level of satisfaction with the proposed EA and whether there were any comments or concerns at this time. No response was received.

northwest Angle 37 First Nation

northwest Angle 37 First Nation provided a letter on March 13, 2014 to the Minister and the federal Minister of the Environment indicating general concerns about potential impacts to their Aboriginal or treaty rights and that they disagree with the level and nature of consultation that has been conducted with their community.

In response, the Ministry indicated that, based on the ministry’s records, the provincial and federal governments and the proponent had engaged the community about the EA process and proposed project on several occasions between August 2012 and July 2014. The Ministry also requested more information about how the community feels the project might adversely impact their Aboriginal or treaty rights.

northwest Angle 37 First Nation responded in May 12, 2014 claiming that the concerns in their original letter had not been addressed and that the level of consultation was still unsatisfactory. The letter requested that the province provide $75,000 to the First Nation so that a consultant can be retained to assist in the community’s review of the EA.

In response on July 18, 2014, the Ministry reiterated its request for more specific information about how the community may be impacted and offered a meeting with MNDM and Ministry staff to discuss specific concerns. The Ministry also extended New Gold’s offer to meet with the community and include them in ongoing discussions about the project. No further response was received.

The full comments received from Aboriginal communities and New Gold’s responses can be found in Appendix B.

New Gold commitments to Aboriginal communities

As a result of its Aboriginal consultation process, New Gold has included a number of commitments to all Aboriginal communities in its Commitments Registry. These include but are not limited to:

• Collecting and considering TK/TLU data as it becomes available during construction, operation, and closure of the project
• Inviting Aboriginal communities to participate in future baseline studies and monitoring programs where appropriate (including ungulates, fish, birds), and sharing results
• Incorporating TK/TLU data into baseline studies and project implementation (construction, operation and closure)
• Having Aboriginal communities play an active role in the development of the Closure Plan, and incorporating TK/TLU data where appropriate
• Involving Aboriginal communities in environmental monitoring and follow up throughout the project
• Providing access to project lands for resource gathering, and ceremonial and cultural gatherings
• Providing opportunities for employment

Comments from the public and local organizations

During the formal comment period on the EA, comments were received from three local organizations and four members of the public.

Four members of the public provided comments on the EA, asking questions related to specific potential impacts from the mine to their nearby residences. Commenters asked questions about impacts to groundwater and drinking water quality, air quality, noise, soil contamination, long term health effects and local road access. Other comments asked about impacts to a local honey bee business, wildlife corridor disruption, and light emission.

New Gold provided answers to the specific questions raised by members of the public regarding air, water and soil quality. New Gold provided technical details and highlighted certain mitigation measures and commitments including air emissions controls, water treatment proposals and monitoring commitments, operational restrictions to lower sound impacts according to regulatory guidelines, and maintenance of local transportation access. New Gold also noted requirements for monitoring programs for components such as air, groundwater and surface water as part of Ministry-issued Environmental Compliance Approvals, soil testing at mine closure, and working with local residents if further mitigation is required.

The Ministry is satisfied with the responses. The full comments received from the public and local organizations and New Gold’s responses can be found in Appendix B.

3.3.2 Conclusion

The Ministry is satisfied that New Gold has met the requirements of the ToR and EAA for the components of the EA raised in Section 3.3.1 above. New Gold has provided responses to all comments received, including those not detailed above and including supplemental information where applicable (located in Appendix B of this Review). As a result of the comments received, New Gold has made a number of commitments, including committing to respond to any future comments that may arise resulting from further studies, or through future approval applications to address any outstanding concerns with the proposed undertaking. New Gold’s updated Commitments Registry and Errata to the EA can be found in Appendix C of this report.

The Ministry is also satisfied that the proponent has made commitments to ensure that the proposed mine will be designed and operated to comply with Ministry standards and that the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking can be managed through the commitments made in the EA, through conditions of approval, or through future approvals.

If the EA is approved but the proponent does not begin constructing the project for some time, it is possible that the environmental conditions surrounding the project could change, and hence it is possible that the EA did not account for these changes. Such changes could include new environmental effects (e.g. new habitat developed), new alternatives that need to be considered (e.g. preferred corridors could have been impeded and new ones must be identified), or new consultation requirements (e.g. newly developed subdivision in proximity). Therefore, the Ministry may consider a condition of approval to require New Gold to notify the Ministry prior to project implementation and document changes, if any, that have occurred and that could affect the selection of alternatives. The notification would help determine if additional work may be required prior to constructing the project.

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

Project-specific conditions

1. Post final EA incorporating changes cited in the Errata on New Gold’s website
2. Meet all commitments contained in New Gold’s updated Commitments Registry
3. Prior to construction of the demolition landfill, provide appropriate financial assurance to the Ministry’s satisfaction unless already accounted for and provided to MNDM as part of Closure Plan requirements under the Mining Act
4. Meet requirements and commitments related to effluent criteria, mixing zone and water taking as agreed upon by the Ministry and New Gold during the EA review

Summary of the Ministry Review

The purpose of this Ministry Review is to determine if New Gold has prepared its EA for the proposed Rainy River Project in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements under the EAA. This Review also determines whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking. On the basis of this Review, the Ministry has concluded that:

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

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

To ensure the environment remains protected, during the final review period and prior to forwarding a recommendation to the Minister about this EA, the Ministry may consider conditions of approval specific to consultation, commitments during project design, completion of the environmental management plan, or finalization of the monitoring and contingency planning for the proposed undertaking.

What happens now

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

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

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

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

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

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

5.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, New Gold will require other regulatory approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 15 of the EA outlines additional provincial and federal approvals that may be required. These provincial approvals may include:

• Permits to Take Water (under the Ontario Water Resources Act) for taking of water greater than 50,000 litres per day
• Environmental Compliance Approvals (under the Environmental Protection Act) for the construction and operation of treatment facilities and associated releases to the environment
• Environmental Screening or Individual EA (under the Environmental Assessment Act) for the demolition landfill later in mine life
• Work Permit/Approval (under the Public Lands Act and Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act) for various work/construction on Crown land relating to watercourses
• Forest Resource Licence (Cutting Permit) (under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act) for clearing of Crown merchantable timber
• Land Use Permit (under the Public Lands Act)
• Species at Risk Permit (under the Endangered Species Act) for management of activities related to SAR
• Leave to Construct (under the Ontario Energy Board Act) for the construction of a transmission line
• Work Permit/Various Approvals (under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act and Highway Traffic Act) for the planning, design, and construction of the realignment for a portion of Highway 600
• Closure Plan (under the Mining Act) for mine construction/production and eventual decommissioning at mine closure

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

The project may also require the following federal approvals:

• Approval by Fisheries and Oceans Canada under subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act for undertaking an activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fisher, or to fish that support such fishery
• Approval from Environment Canada, with support from Fisheries and Oceans Canada under regulatory amendment to Schedule 2 of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, related to the placement of deleterious waste rock or tailings in fish-frequented water bodies
• Permit for manufacturing, storage and transportation of explosives (under the Explosives Act) for use of explosives

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

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

Public record locations

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

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

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

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

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Thunder Bay District Office
435 James Street south, Suite 331B
Thunder Bay, Ontario
P7E 6S7

• Tel: 807-475-1205

Township of Chapple Barwick
54 Barwick Road
Barwick, Ontario
P0W 1A0

• Tel: 807-487-2354

Fort Frances Public Library
601 Reid Avenue
Fort Frances, Ontario
P9A 0A2

• Tel: 807-274-9879

Rainy River Library
334, 4^th Street
Rainy River, Ontario
P0W 1L0

• Tel: 807-852-3375

New Gold Inc.
Toronto office, Royal Bank Plaza, south Tower
200 Bay Street, Suite 3120
Toronto, Ontario
M5J 2J4

• Toll-free: 1-888-315-9715

New Gold Inc.
Emo Office, P.O. Box 5, 5967 Highway 11/71
Emo, Ontario
P0W 1E0

• Tel: 807-482-2501

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending October 24, 2014 will follow publication of this review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the environmental assessment or this Review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:

Agathea Garcia-Wright, Director
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Environmental Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5

• Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Rainy River Project Environmental Assessment
Attention: Ms. Sasha McLeod, Project Officer

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in all submissions become part of the public record files for this matter and can be released if requested.

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

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

Appendix B: Comments during intial comment period, proponent responses and supplemental information

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