Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Information Meetings for the NIRB Review of the Meliadine Gold Mine Project October 15 – 22, 2013

Nunavut Impact Review Board

Public Information Meetingsfor the NIRB Review of the Meliadine Gold Mine Project

October 15 – 22, 2013

Nunavut Impact Review Board 2

Outline

• What is the NIRB?

• NIRB Review Process

• Meliadine Gold Mine Project (“Meliadine”) Components

Coffee break

• Environmental Assessment• Summary of Impact Assessment

• Next steps in the Review Process

• How to Contact the NIRB


What is the NIRB?

• The Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) is an institution of public government • Created under Article 12 of the NLCA in 1996• Responsible for environmental impact

assessment of proposed projects in Nunavut

• Up to 9 Board Members • Board members live in communities throughout

Canada

• 18 staff members • Office located in Cambridge Bay


What Does the NIRB Do?

NIRB’s Mission is:

• To protect and promote the well being of the Environment and Nunavummiut through the Impact Assessment process


Nirb Process Overview

Project Certificate

Part 7 Project Monitoring

Minister

ReportMinister

Part 5 NIRB Review

Part 6 Panel Review

Screening Decision

NIRB

NPC AA

Proponent

Part 4 Screening


What is Impact Assessment?

Ecosystemic

Socio-Economic

Cumulative

Transboundary


Ecosystemic Impacts

Vegetation

WildlifeGeology

Birds

Air quality

Ground stability

Freshwater biota

Marine biota

Water


Socio-Economic Impacts

Employment

Livelihood

Community infrastructureand public services

Food security

Education and training

Archaeology

Land and Resource Use


Other Items

• Cumulative Impacts

• Transboundary Impacts


Why are We Here?

To discuss:

• NIRB Review Process Overview

• Meliadine project components

• Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd.

• Predictions made on residual project effects

• Questions or concerns communities might have


When is a Review Required?

• When a proposed project may have significant impacts on environment and Inuit harvesting activities.

• When a proposed project may have negative effects on social and economic conditions on northerners.

• When there is significant public concern for the proposed project.

• When a proposed project involves new technology that has effects that we do not know enough about.


The NIRB Review Process for the Meliadine Gold Mine Project

Minister refers project for Part 5 Review

Issue Scoping and EIS Guideline Development

NIRB receives DEIS

Internal Conformity Review to EIS Guidelines

DEIS Technical Review

Technical Meeting

Pre-Hearing Conference& NIRB Decision

NIRB receives FEIS

Internal ConformityReview to PHC decision

FEIS Technical Review

Final Hearing

NIRB Reports to the Minister

Minister’s Decision

NIRB Project Certificate

NIRB Screening DecisionNLCA 12.4.4.(b)


Review Phase 1: Scoping and Guidelines

• Public scoping meetings held in the Kivalliq communities in November 2011

• Development of project scope for the Meliadine project based on comments and concerns received from members of the public

• Scoping led to the creation of the EIS Guidelines• Issued by the NIRB in February 2012


Review Phase 2: Draft EIS

• Proponent submitted Draft Environmental Impact Statement in January 2013

• February 2013 the NIRB determined that the Draft EIS submission did not conform the NIRB’s EIS Guidelines

• April 2013 the Proponent resubmitted the Draft EIS

• Technical review commenced May 2013 • Interested parties were asked to submit Information

Requests• AEM submission of a response in September 2013


Project Details


Meliadine Project Location


Proposed Project Schedule

• Construction: 3 years

• Operation: 13 years

• Decommissioning and Post-Closure: 3-4 years, plus 10 years for the open pits to refill naturally from Meliadine Lake


Tiriganiaq/main mine Site


Meliadine Site


Tiriganiaq/main mine Site

Activities:

• Accommodations and administrative buildings

• Open pit and underground mining

• Ore processing at a mill site• 8500 tonnes per day (approx. 3.1 million

tonnes/year)

• Tailings disposal

• Waste disposal and management


OTHER DEPOSITS

• Wesmeg

• F Zone

• Pump


OTHER DEPOSITS

• Discovery


Other Deposits

• Proposed open-pit and underground mining at additional deposits:• Wesmeg• F Zone• Pump• Discovery

• Processing is not planned for these deposits and therefore ore would be transported to the Tiriganiaq Site for processing at the mill


RANKIN INLET


Rankin inlet

• Itivia Dock

• Fuel storage/tankfarm and laydown area

• Rankin Inlet airport


Site Access ROads

Bypass Road Alignment

Site Access roads

Drag picture to placeholder or click icon to add

• Main road from Rankin Inlet to Meliadine 24 km

• As proposed would allow public access

• Three gates along the road (2 manned, 1 unmanned)

• 1 Emergency Shelter• Includes a spur road to

the Discovery deposit

Nunavut Impact Review Board


Employment

• Approximately 1000 personnel for construction and 700 for operations• 350 personnel on site at any given time

• On-the-job training opportunities

• Preferential hiring from the communities of Rankin Inlet, Chesterfield Inlet, Whale Cove, Baker Lake and Arviat


Environmental Assessment


Environmental Assessment

• What is an environmental assessment?• Detailed investigation of how a project might impact the

environment around it, finding ways to lessen or mitigate impacts

• AEM required to develop an Environmental Impact Statement to explain how the project may impact the environment and how it plans to reduce impacts• AEM submitted Draft EIS in January 2013 and a

resubmission in April 2013

• NIRB sharing information presented by AEM in its Draft EIS


What is Baseline Data?

Wildlife

Freshwater Habitat Fish Habitat Telemetry

Traditional Knowledge

Sediment Quality

Lower Trophic Communities


Summary of Impact Assessment

Ecosystemic Environment



Valued Ecosystemic Component

Potential Issues and Effects

Examples of Potential Mitigation

Residual Project Effects

Climate

Air Quality

Release of greenhouse gases

Dust from construction, blasting, drilling, ore transfer, road maintenance, etc.

Increase of air contaminants of concerns

Use of energy efficient equipment

Use of exhaust emissions controls

Speed limits on roads

Use of dust suppressant

Install air pollution controls

Annual GHG emissions would increase compared to baseline GHG emissions

Assessed as not significant – effects not expected to extend beyond the local area

Ongoing monitoring programs

Atmospheric Environment







Noise and Vibration

Potential for human health effects from increase in noise and vibration

On-going equipment maintenance

Use of intake and exhaust silencers

Schedule of high noise potential activities

Effects predicted to be below threshold

Assessed as not significant

Atmospheric Environment







Surface Hydrology

Change in stream-flow rates and water levels

Use of large water bodies for water withdrawal and discharge locations

Recycle water where possible

Follow DFO procedures for water withdrawal

Best management practices

Use of mitigation measures to minimize impacts


Ongoing outflow discharge and water level monitoring

Aquatic Environment







Surface Water

Sediment

Decrease in water and sediment quality from project activities

Water treated to meet regulations prior to discharge

Implement dust control measures

Water collection and diversion structures

Minimize and recycle water where possible

Changes to water quality to occur during operations only

Use of mitigation measures to minimize impacts

No significant adverse effects predicted


Aquatic Environment







Aquatic Organism and Fish Habitat

Freshwater Fish

Changes to aquatic organisms

Decrease in fish habitat

Decrease in fish health or abundance

Water treated to meet regulations prior to discharge

Limiting disturbance to fish habitat when constructing stream crossings

AEM staff and contractors will not be permitted to fish while on site

Compensation under DFO’s no-net-loss Policy

No significant adverse effects


Aquatic Environment







Landforms and Permafrost

Change to permafrost conditions from construction and operation activities

Effects on abundance and distribution of landforms

Design project to minimize footprint area

Avoid permafrost sensitive and uncommon landforms areas

Effects confined to Project footprint


Ongoing monitoring of thaw depth

Terrestrial Environment







Soils

Vegetation

Change in soil quality

Loss of vegetation from project activities

Structures to control erosion

Soil salvage and storage

Use of dust suppressants

Minimize project footprint

Use of low sulphur diesel fuel

Changes predicted to be below the guidelines

No significant residual effects predicted









Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat

Raptors and Habitat

Migratory Birds

Wildlife mortality risk

Changes to caribou movement and distribution

Loss of habitat from project footprint and human activity

Reduced nest productivity

Road shutdowns when caribou migrating

Minimize site footprint

Minimize road activity

Minimize mining activity near nests

Decrease in available habitat

Exposure to contaminants not expected to change from baseline


Ongoing monitoring programs for caribou and muskox








Marine Fish

Change in behaviour from underwater noise

Change in fish habitat

Erosion and sedimentation control

Diversion channels allowing passage of marine fish

Blasting follow DFO guidelines

Noise from vessels are short-term and no long term effects predicted


Marine Environment







Marine Mammals

Potential vessel-mammal strikes

Change in behaviour from underwater noise

Displacement of marine mammals

Implementation of best management practices and safety standards

Speed and acceleration restrictions in Melvin Bay

Mitigation measures to reduce vessel strikes

Noise levels generated not expected to cause long-term changes to marine wildlife, and low in magnitude


Marine Environment







Marine Water Quality

Potential hydrocarbon, hazardous materials spills

Implementation of known and effective spill prevention and response measures

Implementation of best management practices and safety standards

Assessed as not significant and negligible and/or reversible over time

Marine Environment



Human Health and Socio-Economics



Issue and Concern

Potential Project Effects



Exposure to Hazardous Substances and COPC’s from change air quality

Exposure to hazardous substances through inhalation

Implementation of standard work practices

Considered to be of low magnitude and infrequent

Human Health



Issue and Concern

Potential Project Effects



Members of the Public

Potential risks related to AWAR and road traffic

Environmental effects on caribou and water

Application of best health and safety practice

Emergency response planning

Regular inspection and maintenance of site vehicles

Setting speed limits and firearms restrictions on the AWAR

No residual effects on human health identified

Human Health



Valued Socio-Ecosystemic Component




Community Economics

Job creation and business opportunities

In-migration to Rankin Inlet

Maximize employment from Kivalliq communities and local businesses

Points of hire in all Kivalliq communities with funded transportation

Significant positive effects

Traditional Culture

Less practice of traditional culture

Potential for more time and resources available for harvesting activities

Ongoing government support for traditional culture

Moderate negative effect to traditional activity

Moderate positive effect to resource availability

Socio-Economic Environment







Wellbeing Change to well-being

Implementation of the Socio-Economic Management Plan

Significant positive effect

Public Infrastructure and Services

Increased demand for services

Implementation of the Socio-Economic Management Plan

Negative effect due to the increased demand on existing housing, schools, health and financial services








Heritage Resources

Disturbance to archaeological sites

Implement a Cultural and Heritage Resource Protection Plan

Any disturbances are permanent and irreversible




Effects Assessment

Cumulative Effects

No potential interaction with environmental effects from other human activities

Transboundary Effects

Absence of significant Project and cumulative effects remove the potential for significant transboundary effects


Next Steps in the NIRB Review Process

FEIS Technical Review

Minister refers project To NIRB for Review

Issue Scoping and EIS Guideline Development

NIRB receives DEIS

Internal Conformity Review to EIS Guidelines

DEIS Technical Review

Technical Meeting

Pre-Hearing Conference& NIRB Decision

NIRB receives FEIS

Internal ConformityReview to PHC decision

Final Hearing

NIRB Reports to the Minister

Minister’s Decision

NIRB Project Certificate

NIRB Screening DecisionNLCA 12.4.4.(b)


Next Steps in the NIRB Review Process

• Summary Report from Community Meetings

• Technical Review of the Draft EIS

• Technical Meeting

• Pre-Hearing Conference• Community roundtable session

• Then on to Phase 3 in NIRB Review – more participation steps to come


How to stay informed?

• Request to be placed on NIRB’s email distribution list

• You will receive regular updates during the Review

• Phone NIRB toll-free and ask to speak to staff about the Project

• Visit the NIRB’s public registry and access information related to the review (http://ftp.nirb.ca)

http://ftp.nirb.ca/


The NIRB wants to hear from You!

• What do you think about the Project?

• Comments, questions or concerns

• What environmental components are important to you?

• What potential effects do YOU think this Project might have on the land, animals and people?


How to contact the NIRB?

• Phone (toll-free): 1-866-233-3033

• Fax: (867) 983-2594

• Email: [email protected]

• Regular post:Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB)PO Box 1360Cambridge Bay, NUX0B 0C0

mailto:[email protected]


Questions?

Documents

Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Information Meetings for the NIRB Review of the Meliadine Gold Mine Project October 15 – 22, 2013