NORONT RESOURCES LTD.
EAGLE’S NEST PROJECT
TERMS OF REFERENCE
NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE’S NEST PROJECT
TERMS OF REFERENCE (REF. NO. NB102-390/1-7)
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
SECTION 2.0 - IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPONENT ...... 2
SECTION 3.0 - APPROACH TO CONDUCTING THE EA ...... 3 3.1 INDICATION OF HOW THE EA WILL BE PREPARED ...... 3 3.2 REPORTING ...... 3
SECTION 4.0 - PURPOSE OF THE UNDERTAKING ...... 5 4.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...... 6 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS ...... 7 4.2.1 Starting the EA Process ...... 7 4.2.2 Provincial EA Requirements ...... 8 4.2.3 Federal EA Requirements and Process ...... 9 4.2.4 Process of a Coordinated EA ...... 11 4.3 FAR NORTH PLANNING ACT ...... 12
SECTION 5.0 - DESCRIPTION OF AND RATIONALE FOR THE PROJECT ...... 14 5.1 PROJECT LOCATION ...... 14 5.2 PROJECT RATIONALE ...... 14 5.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS ...... 15 5.4 PROJECT LIFE CYCLE ...... 15 5.4.1 Project Phases ...... 15 5.4.2 Construction Phase ...... 15 5.4.3 Operations Phase ...... 16 5.4.4 Closure and Post-Closure Phase ...... 17
SECTION 6.0 - DESCRIPTION OF AND RATIONALE FOR ALTERNATIVES ...... 18 6.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 18 6.2 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 18 6.3 ALTERNATIVES TO ...... 18 6.3.1 Do Nothing Alternative ...... 19 6.4 ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT ...... 19 6.4.1 Mine Development Alternatives ...... 19 6.4.2 Mine Design Alternatives ...... 20 6.4.3 Ore Processing Alternatives ...... 20 i of vi NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
6.4.4 Concentrate Handling and Storage Alternatives ...... 20 6.4.5 Project Construction Alternatives ...... 21 6.4.6 Explosives Handling and Storage Alternatives ...... 21 6.4.7 Power Supply Alternatives...... 21 6.4.8 Water Supply Alternatives ...... 21 6.4.9 Waste and Wastewater Management Alternatives ...... 22 6.4.10 Mine Site Access Alternatives ...... 24 6.4.11 Support Facility Alternatives ...... 25 6.4.12 Summary of Alternative Methods Being Considered in the EA ...... 25 6.5 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS ...... 26 6.5.1 Mining Methodology ...... 27 6.5.2 Power Source ...... 27 6.5.3 Concentrate Shipment ...... 28 6.5.4 Summary of Alternative Methods Not Being Considered in the EA ...... 28
SECTION 7.0 - DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ...... 29 7.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 29 7.2 IDENTIFICATION OF STUDY AREAS ...... 29 7.2.1 General Study Area ...... 29 7.2.2 Caribou Study Area ...... 30 7.3 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION ...... 30 7.4 PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND GEOCHEMISTRY ...... 31 7.5 CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY ...... 32 7.6 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE ...... 32 7.7 HYDROLOGY ...... 33 7.8 HYDROGEOLOGY ...... 33 7.9 WATER QUALITY ...... 34 7.10 BIOLOGY ...... 34 7.10.1 Terrestrial Environment ...... 34 7.10.2 Aquatic Environment ...... 35 7.11 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL ...... 36 7.11.1 Regional Land Use ...... 36 7.11.2 Aboriginal Communities ...... 36 7.11.3 Cultural Heritage Resources ...... 38 7.12 BASELINE STUDY PROGRAMS ...... 39 7.13 BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION TOOLS ...... 39 7.13.1 Surface Water Quality and Quantity ...... 40 7.13.2 Groundwater Quality and Quantity ...... 40 7.13.3 Terrestrial Baseline Studies...... 41 7.13.4 Aquatic Baseline Studies ...... 41 7.13.5 Physiography, Geology and Geochemistry ...... 42 7.13.6 Climate and Meteorology ...... 42 7.13.7 Air Quality and Noise ...... 42 7.13.8 Socio-economic Baselines Studies ...... 43 ii of vi NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
7.13.9 Cultural Heritage Resources ...... 43 7.14 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ...... 43 7.14.1 Mine Development and Operation ...... 43 7.14.2 Water Management Systems ...... 44 7.14.3 Power Generation ...... 44 7.14.4 Trans-load Facility Development and Operation ...... 44 7.14.5 Access Road Corridor Operation ...... 44 7.14.6 Waste Management Systems...... 45 7.14.7 Potential Socio-Economic Effects of Mine Operation ...... 45 7.15 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 46
SECTION 8.0 - ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ...... 47 8.1 EVALUATION METHODS ...... 47 8.1.1 Net Effect Analysis ...... 47 8.1.2 Comparative Evaluation - Reasoned Argument ...... 47 8.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 48 8.2.1 Natural Environment ...... 48 8.2.2 Socio-economic/Cultural Environment ...... 50 8.2.3 Impact Management ...... 53
SECTION 9.0 - COMMITMENTS AND MONITORING ...... 54 9.1 MONITORING PLANS ...... 54 9.1.1 Environmental Management Plan ...... 55 9.1.2 Social Management Plan...... 56
SECTION 10.0 - CONSULTATION PLAN AND CONSULTATION TO DATE ...... 57 10.1 CONSULTATION PLAN FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...... 57 10.1.1 Introduction ...... 57 10.1.2 Objectives ...... 57 10.2 CONSULTATION TO DATE ...... 58 10.3 PRE-EA CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES ...... 58 10.3.1 Public ...... 58 10.3.2 Municipal...... 59 10.3.3 Provincial and Federal Government ...... 59 10.3.4 Aboriginal Engagement ...... 59 10.3.5 Participation of Métis Communities ...... 59 10.3.6 Issues and Concerns ...... 60
SECTION 11.0 - FLEXIBILITY AND CONTINGENCY PLANS ...... 61 11.1 FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOMMODATE NEW CIRCUMSTANCES ...... 61 11.2 CONTINGENCY PLANS ...... 61
SECTION 12.0 - OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED ...... 62
SECTION 13.0 - REFERENCES ...... 63
iii of vi NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
SECTION 14.0 - CERTIFICATION ...... 64
TABLES
Table 8.1 Rev 1 Preliminary List of Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Potential Data Sources Table 10.1 Rev 1 Preliminary Issue Categories and Subjects Table 10.2 Rev 1 Summary of Aboriginal Engagement Meetings Table 10.3 Rev 1 Preliminary Summary of Issues and Concerns Table 12.1 Rev 1 Preliminary List of Permits, Licenses and Approvals Table 12.2 Rev 1 Preliminary List of Policies, Guidelines, Criteria and Standards
FIGURES
Figure 4.1 Rev 1 Provincial Individual EA Process Figure 4.2 Rev 1 CEA Agency Comprehensive Study Process Figure 4.3 Rev 1 Coordinated EA Process Figure 5.1 Rev 1 Project Location Map Figure 7.1 Rev 1 Local Setting - Eagle’s Nest Mine Site
APPENDICES
Appendix A Summary: Access Corridor Selection Appendix B Caribou Information and Analysis Requirements for the Eagle’s Nest Project Appendix C Consultation Plan
iv of vi NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
Include both alternatives to and alternative methods to a proposed Alternative undertaking Alternative methods of carrying out a proposed undertaking are different Alternative methods ways of doing the same activity Alternatives to the proposed undertaking are functionally different ways Alternatives to of approaching and dealing with a problem or opportunity that has been
identified ARD/ML Acid rock drainage/metal leaching ATK Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge CEAR Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry CEEA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CEA Agency Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CEPA Canadian Environmental Protection Act Ore concentrate is the product generated by the milling process which Concentrate removes the waste rock and concentrates the target metal component (i.e. nickel and copper) COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada An alternative that is typically included in the evaluation of alternatives Do Nothing Alternative that identifies the implications of doing nothing to address the problem or
opportunity EA Environmental assessment EC Environment Canada EIS Environmental impact statement EMPs Environmental management plans
EMS Environmental management system
ENGO Environmental Non-governmental Organization The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act defines environment to mean:
Air, land or water; Plant and animal life, including human life; The social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of Environment humans or a community; Any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans; Any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, or radiation resulting directly or indirectly from human activities; or, Any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them. EPA Ontario Environmental Protection Act HADD Harmful, alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat Km Kilometres kV Kilovolt MMER Metal Mining Effluent Regulations MNR Ministry of Natural Resources v of vi NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
MOE-EAB Ontario Ministry of Environment - Environmental Approvals Branch MNDM Ministry of Northern Development and Mines MPMO Major Projects Management Office NGO Non-governmental Organization NPAG Non-potentially acid-generating NWPA Navigable Waters Protection Act OEAA Ontario Environmental Assessment Act PAG Potentially acid-generating PM Particulate matter Project Eagle’s Nest Project Proponent Noront Resources Ltd. QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control SARA Species at Risk Act Documentation that is submitted to the Ministry of Environment, in addition to the terms of reference, which provides further information on issues discussed in the terms of reference. Information contained in the Supporting Documentation supporting documentation should support the proponent’s request that the terms of reference be approved by providing justification for the choices made and details of processes or methodologies to be used. TIA Tailings impoundment area ToR Terms of reference UTM Universal Transverse Mercator Undertaking An enterprise, activity or a proposal, plan, or program that a proponent initiates or proposes to initiate VEC Valued Ecosystem Component
vi of vi NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE’S NEST PROJECT
TERMS OF REFERENCE (REF. NO. NB102-390/1-7)
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to present the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Noront Eagle’s Nest Project environmental assessment, in compliance with provincial laws, regulations and guidelines applicable to the development of mining projects in Ontario. The ToR has been prepared to show how Noront intends to meet the requirements of Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act (OEAA) during the preparation of the Environmental Assessment (EA). The ToR is a work plan which becomes the framework for the preparation and review of the EA. It will be made available to the public and will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment for review and a decision on whether to allow the Project to proceed.
The Project is also subject to a federal EA and must meet the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. In order to meet these requirements, the EA must also meet the requirements of the federal EIS guidelines which were accepted in January 2012. Canada and Ontario entered into a cooperation agreement in 2004 to increase the efficiency of the EA process (Canada-Ontario Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2004). The federal and provincial governments have indicated a willingness to follow the coordinated EA process for this project. The federal EIS guidelines and the provincial ToR will be used in coordination to produce EA documentation that will meet the requirements of both levels of government.
1 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
SECTION 2.0 - IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPONENT
Noront Resources Ltd. (Noront) is a Canadian mining company focused on exploration and development in the Ring of Fire region of northern Ontario. Noront is a publicly traded company on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX Venture: NOT). The Company is the sole proponent of the Eagle’s Nest Project (Project) and holds a 100% interest in all of the underlying claims.
Noront’s corporate contact information is:
Noront Resources Ltd. 105 Adelaide Street West Suite 1100 Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 1P9 Telephone: 1-416-367-1444 Facsimile: 1-416-367-5444 Website: www.norontresources.com
The primary contacts for the Project are:
Mr. Paul Semple, P.Eng. Chief Operating Officer Noront Resources Ltd. [email protected]
Mr. Mark Baker, P.Eng. VP, Projects Noront Resources Ltd. [email protected]
2 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
SECTION 3.0 - APPROACH TO CONDUCTING THE EA
3.1 INDICATION OF HOW THE EA WILL BE PREPARED
The EA for the Project will be prepared in accordance with the ToR, as approved by the Minister of the Environment, and in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (OEAA), R.S.O. 1990, Chapter E. 18 and the federal EA guidelines. Planning for the Project has been underway for some time and potential alternatives are constrained by the nature of the Project. Noront will be preparing the EA in accordance with Sections 6(2)(a) and 6.1(2) of the OEAA. These requirements will be addressed through completion of:
(a) a description of the purpose of the undertaking; (b) a description of and a statement of the rationale for, (i) the undertaking, (ii) the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking, and (iii) the alternatives to the undertaking; (c) a description of, (i) the environment that will be affected or that might reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, (ii) the effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be caused to the environment, and (iii) the actions necessary or that may reasonably be expected to be necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the effects upon or the effects that might reasonably be expected upon the environment by the undertaking, the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking; (d) an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking, the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking; and (e) a description of any consultation about the undertaking by the proponent and the results of the consultation.
The objective of this ToR is to describe the approach and the methods that will be used to meet these requirements.
3.2 REPORTING
An EA report will be prepared to address all requirements outlined in the ToR, and will be consistent with the purpose of the OEAA and the public interest. The EA report will provide details regarding the rationale for the Project approaches selected and will be written to meet all provincial and federal requirements.
The EA report will also include the information requirements set out in the OEAA, as outlined in Section 3.1, and include the requirements outlined in the federal EIS Guidelines.
3 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
Detailed technical evaluation/studies of components of the environment will be appended to the EA as Technical Supporting Documents (TSDs). The TSDs may include, but not be limited to:
• Physiography and geology • Air quality and noise • Climate and meteorology • Hydrology • Hydrogeology • Groundwater and surface water quality and geochemistry • Terrestrial biology • Aquatic biology • Socio-economic • Cultural heritage resources
The TSDs will include detailed descriptions of the existing environment, as determined from the baseline studies, details of any modeling and data assessments undertaken, and the details on impact assessment methods, results, and conclusions.
4 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
SECTION 4.0 - PURPOSE OF THE UNDERTAKING
The purpose of the Project is to develop a multi-metal underground mine to produce and supply a concentrate containing nickel, copper, platinum and palladium minerals. The undertaking will involve the construction, operation and closure, including remediation, of an underground mining facility and associated infrastructure. An access corridor will be used to transport the concentrate to a trans-load facility, where the concentrate will be loaded onto rail cars for transport to a location for further processing. The high-grade nickel-copper-precious metals Eagle's Nest deposit contains approximately 11 million tonnes of resources, which will provide for an 11 year mine life at the planned extraction rate of 2,960 tonnes per day (t/d).
Several components may be developed in conjunction with the development and operation of the mine, including:
• Underground mine and ancillary facilities • Underground mill • Concentrate handling and transfer facilities • Surface infrastructure (accommodations building, services complex, access portals, etc.) • Power generation facilities • Power transmission lines • Fuel storage areas • Waste and water management facilities • Explosives handling and storage facilities • Site roads • Transportation corridor to link the Project to the existing provincial infrastructure
Noront plans to utilize a proposed airstrip to be located on the east side of the Muketei River. The airstrip will facilitate the movement of personnel and supplies to and from the mine site. The airstrip will be developed by a third party, Marten Falls Logistics, a partnership between Marten Falls First Nation and Wilderness North.
The waste management facility located at the mine site will consist of an incinerator and a handling and sorting area. All wastes not fit to be incinerated will be transported off site to a certified landfill. All waste management facilities will be fenced off to prevent animals including wolves and bears from accessing potential food sources.
Concentrate will be shipped to a trans-load facility where it will be off-loaded and transferred into rail cars. The concentrate will then be shipped via rail to an existing smelter for further processing.
5 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
4.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An environmental assessment (EA) is the primary means of assessing the potential environmental impacts the Project will have on the existing environment. The environment, as defined by the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (OEAA), encompasses:
• Air, land or water • Plant and animal life, including human life, the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community • Any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans • Any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, or radiation resulting directly or indirectly from human activities • Any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them
An EA ensures that Noront will present mitigation and management strategies, monitoring plans, and considers all options that may improve the Project’s design and reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts. This will allow Noront to assess potential environmental effects of the proposed undertaking before any decisions are made to proceed. This will be accomplished through a comparative evaluation of alternatives. An EA also allows for consultation with potentially affected communities, government agencies and the general public to identify issues and concerns that will be considered during the planning of the Project and in the preparation of the EA. The EA will also provide an objective evaluation of the proposed undertaking of the Project and the potential impacts, advantages and disadvantages so that the Ontario Minister of the Environment can make a decision on whether or not the Project should be allowed to proceed.
The EA process is governed by the OEAA and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The requirements and process of undertaking a provincial EA are administered by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). The federal EA process is discussed in Section 4.2.3.
The objectives of the EA are to:
• Describe the baseline environmental and socio-economic conditions, against which potential impacts will be assessed • Describe the Project activities and identify where these may interact with the environment • Develop assessment criteria and identify appropriate indicators of potential impacts • Describe the environmental and socio-economic and cultural effects that may be generated by the Project during the construction, operations, closure and post closure phases • Assess the advantages, disadvantages, and impacts of different alternatives to the Project • Assess the impacts of different alternative methods of carrying out the Project • Describe the criteria selection and decision making process in the selection of the preferred alternatives • Propose environmental and social impact management plans to describe impact avoidance, mitigation and/or reclamation such that impacts are mitigated and benefits are enhanced during each stage of the Project
6 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
• Include monitoring programs in the environmental and social management plans to verify that measures taken to manage impacts and benefits are achieving identified targets • Describe roles and responsibilities for managing and reporting on the Project’s environmental and social performance • Ensure the involvement of interested and affected parties in each of the above activities so that environmental and social management plans address and incorporate their issues and concerns • Ensure the involvement of government agencies in the EA process to help develop a project that can be approved and to ensure that the management plans address the requirements of the OEAA • Assess the preferred alternatives in detail to determine residual effects after impact management measures have been applied • Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the undertaking
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS
4.2.1 Starting the EA Process
Prior to the preparation of the ToR, Noront discussed the Eagle’s Nest Project with potentially affected First Nations, with provincial ministries (MOE, MNDM, MNR), and with federal departments (CEA Agency, MPMO), in order to develop a Project Description. As the EA process continues, Noront expects that other provincial and federal ministries will continue to supply comments and suggest improvements to the Project. Similarly, Noront looks forward to receiving further comments from First Nations, Métis, ENGOs and the general public.
The issuance of the ToR represents the first formal step in the provincial EA process. The ToR has been prepared in cooperation with Aboriginal groups, provincial and federal governments and the public. The ToR is being submitted to the MOE for review and, if deemed sufficient by the MOE, will be forwarded to the Minister for approval.
Noront has presented viable options in the ToR for various Project components; however, they do not necessarily represent the preferred final design or scope of the Project. Details of the Project may change based on the results of ongoing studies, stakeholder discussions, engagement activities and other external factors. A range of alternatives is presented in Section 6 and will be further evaluated in the EA. The EA will play a crucial part in the development of the Project, through the consideration and assessment of alternatives, as well as receiving and analysing input received from various stakeholders.
In July 2011, Noront submitted a Project Description to the federal government to initiate the EA process under the CEAA, and to the provincial government for information purposes. The Project Description meets the requirements of the federal Major Projects Management Office (MPMO) Guide to Preparing a Project Description for a Major Resource Project (December, 2008), and was designed to follow the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) Project Definition Template for Advanced Exploration and Mine Development Projects.
7 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
There are several EA and permitting authorizations which will be required to develop the mine site and related infrastructure. While there are no specific provincial EA requirements for a mining development in Ontario, many of the individual Project elements trigger EA requirements. As the Project components evolve, the EA and permitting triggers may also change. The federal EA requirements for mining development are dealt with under the CEAA.
The process of permitting a mine in Ontario’s Far North is also subject to the Far North Act, 2010. Under the Far North Act, subject to certain exceptions, development activities in the Far North may not take place until there is an approved community based Land Use Plan for the area. The proposed mine site falls within the Far North and, as such will be subject to the provisions of the Far North Act.
The Far North Act enables a community based land use planning process to be led by First Nations, working jointly with the provincial government. The result of the community based Land Use Plans is to identify areas to be set aside for protection, and areas suitable for sustainable economic development opportunities. The plans will also establish land use designations and permitted uses for planning areas identified by First Nations. Community based Land Use Plans require joint approval by First Nations and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. The Far North Act is discussed further in Section 4.3.
4.2.2 Provincial EA Requirements
In Ontario, environmental assessment is an important planning and decision making process which has its authority in the OEAA to provide for the protection, conservation, and wise management of Ontario’s environment. In Ontario, projects may be subject to an Individual EA, or to a Class EA. Class EAs are for projects that are carried out routinely, and have predictable and mitigatable environmental effects.
While there are no requirements in Ontario for a proposed mining project to undertake a provincial individual EA, there are components of the Project which may trigger either provincial Individual EAs or Class EAs, including:
• The potential construction of a 25 MW diesel-fuelled power generation plant • The Disposition of Rights to Crown Resources for Project development occurring on Crown Land • The potential construction of power transmission lines
A 25 MW diesel fuelled power generation facility would be subject to an Individual EA as required under O. Reg. 116/01. Any potential Class EAs could be elevated to an Individual EA by the Minister if unforeseen conditions or significant concerns are raised. In such a situation, the review process would need to be restarted.
Because of the provincial Class EAs required, and the need for an Individual EA for the potential of a power generation plant, Noront has voluntarily entered into a written agreement under Section 3.0.1 of the OEAA to have the OEAA apply to the whole Project. Noront also believes 8 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
that it will be more efficient to coordinate a single provincial EA, rather than of several Class EAs, with the parallel requirement of a federal comprehensive study for the Project. A number of Provincial approvals will also be required for the Project, which will require the participation of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM), the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Ministry of Labour (MOL).
The proposed ToR has been prepared following the Code of Practice: Preparing and Reviewing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario (2009). The Provincial individual EA process and timelines are outlined in Figure 4.1.
The ToR lays out a clear assessment process and work plan for the proposed undertaking, including the:
• Identification of the purpose of the study or undertaking • Description and rationale for the undertaking • Description and rationale for a range of alternatives to be assessed • Description of the environment and potential effects • Assessment and evaluation of the alternatives, including identification of criteria, indicators and an evaluation method • Plan for consultation with potentially affected communities, governments and the public during the preparation of the EA • Selection of a preferred alternative to the undertaking and alternative methods
The assessment of residual effects and the identification of potential mitigation measures will take place during the assessment of alternatives and once preferred alternatives have been selected.
While the EA process is underway, Noront may make submissions to the provincial government on required authorizations, approvals and licenses for the Project. However, this will be done with the understanding that any such authorizations, approvals and licenses would not be fully reviewed or granted until after the EA process has been completed.
4.2.3 Federal EA Requirements and Process
Concurrent with the provincial EA, there will be a federal EA process which is governed by the CEAA. The requirements and process of undertaking a federal EA are administered by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency). The process used by the CEA Agency is an environmental review that describes the natural and socio-economic environment that could be potentially affected by the Project. It also describes ways of protecting the environment.
Under Section 5 of the CEAA, an environmental assessment is required because Natural Resources Canada may take action in relation to paragraph 7(1)(a) of the Explosives Act, and/or Fisheries and Oceans Canada may take action in relation to subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act.
9 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
Health Canada, Environment Canada, and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada have indicated that they possess expert information that could be useful to the EA. The Major Projects Management Office is also engaged in this Project as it is considered a Major Resource Project under the Major Resource Project Regulatory Improvement Initiative.
The CEA Agency has determined that the Project is described by the following sections of the Comprehensive Study List Regulations under the Act:
• 10. The proposed construction, decommissioning or abandonment of a facility for the extraction of 200,000 m3/a or more of ground water or an expansion of such a facility that would result in an increase in production capacity of more than 35 percent; • 30. (c) The proposed construction or decommissioning of an all-season runway with a length of 1,500 m or more.
The principal steps in the CEAA process typically include:
1. Preparation of a Project Description for review by potentially involved federal authorities. 2. Pre-consultation with federal and provincial authorities, and also with members of the general public and First Nations that could potentially be affected by the Project. 3. Determination of the level of review by CEA Agency, whether Screening, Comprehensive Study Report, Mediation or Panel. 4. Development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines by the CEA Agency to define those aspects of the Project that should be included in the EA, the focus and boundaries of the EA, stakeholders in the CEAA process (affected and interested parties, including government agencies, First Nations, and members of the general public, possibly including non-governmental organizations - NGOs), consultation needs, and the extent of coordination with provincial regulatory requirements. 5. Consultation by Noront with provincial government agencies, affected First Nations, and potentially members of the general public and interest groups on the scope of the EA. 6. Preparation of a Comprehensive Study EA (CSEA), if this is the level of review determined by CEA Agency. 7. Review of the CSEA and related materials by federal and provincial regulators, local First Nations, and interested stakeholders. 8. Response by Noront to comments received from government agencies, First Nations and other stakeholders. 9. Preparation of a draft Comprehensive Study Report (CSR) taking into consideration comments on the CSEA from First Nations and other stakeholders. 10. Preparation of a final CSR. 11. Publication of the final CSR for the mandatory public review period. 12. Ministerial decision on the CSR and the adequacy of the proponent’s obligations under the CEAA process.
10 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
While the CEAA process is underway, Noront may make submissions to the federal government on required federal authorizations, approvals and licenses for the Project. This will be done with the understanding that any such authorizations, approvals and licenses would not be fully reviewed or granted until after the CEAA process has been completed.
The Project has been accepted for a federal Comprehensive Study. As required by the CEAA, the CEA Agency finalized the Guidelines for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in January 2012. The EIS Guidelines have been reviewed by the public and are posted on the CEA Agency`s Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry (CEAR) website.
Figure 4.2 outlines the steps and timelines in the Comprehensive Study Process.
4.2.4 Process of a Coordinated EA
The steps in an EA required by the MOE and by the CEA Agency are somewhat different. This requires a coordinated approach to meet the requirements of both federal and provincial legislation. Canada and Ontario entered into an agreement in 2004 (Canada-Ontario Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation (2004)). For this Project, the two levels of government have indicated a willingness to follow the coordinated EA process and produce one body of documentation. The single EA document will address the requirements of both the provincial ToR and the federal EIS Guidelines.
The coordinated EA process is summarized in the following five steps, and is illustrated on Figure 4.3:
1. Pre-EA Planning, including signing of the voluntary agreement, development of the ToR and the EIS Guidelines. 2. EA commencement. 3. Environmental baseline studies and preparation of the EIS/EA Report. 4. EA decision. 5. Monitoring and follow-up.
On August 3, 2011, the CEA Agency accepted the Project Description and initiated the 90-day pre-environmental planning period. Noront entered into a written agreement with the Ministry of the Environment under Section 3.0.1 of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (OEAA) on September 9, 2011 to make the Project subject to the requirements of the OEAA. Pre-EA activities have been discussed in multiple meetings with federal and provincial agencies and Noront.
The EA commencement phase includes the development and approval of the ToR and the EIS guidance document. The ToR defines the provincial requirements and explains how Noront will undertake baseline studies and evaluate alternatives, while the EIS Guidelines identify the federal government’s information requirements for the EA report. The EIS guidelines were finalized and posted on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry (CEAR) website in January 2012. 11 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
Baseline environmental studies will be completed and Noront will prepare and submit the EA report for federal, provincial and public review. Following the review period, the federal and provincial Ministers will provide a decision on the EA. Follow-up will confirm that significant adverse effects will not occur, or will be mitigated, and any potential effects are as predicted. Following the approval of the EA, the follow-up and monitoring programs will be finalized.
4.3 FAR NORTH PLANNING ACT
In addition to the federal and provincial environmental assessment acts, development in the Far North is governed by the Far North Act, 2010. The Project will be subject to the provisions of the Far North Act. The purpose of the Far North Act is to provide for community based land use planning in the Far North that:
• Sets out a joint planning process between the First Nations and Ontario • Supports the environmental, social, and economic objectives for land use planning for the peoples of Ontario • Is completed in a manner that is consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, including the duty to consult
Community based land use plans will establish land use designations and permitted uses for planning areas identified by the First Nations. Land use plans will require joint approval by First Nations and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
The Objectives of the Far North Act include:
• Ensuring a significant role for First Nations in planning • The protection of areas of cultural value, and the protection of ecological systems by including at least 225,000 km2 of the Far North in an interconnected network of protected areas designated in community based land use plans • The maintenance of biological diversity, ecological processes and ecological functions, including the storage and sequestration of carbon in the Far North • Enabling sustainable economic development that benefits the First Nations
Under Section 12 of the Far North Act, the following activities are prohibited where community based land use plans do not exist:
• Opening a mine in the prescribed circumstances • Commercial timber harvest • Oil and gas exploration and production • Constructing or expanding an electrical generation facility that uses wind or water as a source and any other infrastructure that is associated with it
12 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
• Constructing or expanding electrical transmission and distribution systems and electrical transmission and distribution lines in accordance with the definitions of “transmission system”, “transmit” and “distribute” in the Electricity Act, 1998, and any other infrastructure that is associated with them, including all weather transportation infrastructure • Construction or expanding any infrastructure that is prescribed • Any other land use or activity that is prescribed
Currently, there are no approved community based land use plans established within the area of proposed Project development. First Nations and the government of Ontario are currently participating in the early stages of the planning process.
13 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
SECTION 5.0 - DESCRIPTION OF AND RATIONALE FOR THE PROJECT
The project description provided in this ToR represents a “Base Case” or preliminary description of the Project that represents one set of viable options for given Project components. The project description is based on early scoping and pre-feasibility studies that have been completed by Noront. This description should not be interpreted as presenting the final or preferred options. Through the assessment of alternative methods, and alternatives to, as described in Section 6, and in consultation with interested persons, the project description will be refined. The final project description will be presented in the EA.
5.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is a proposed multi-metal mine located in northern Ontario within the James Bay Lowlands. The Project mine site is located approximately 300 km north of Nakina and 530 km northeast of Thunder Bay (Figure 5.1). The geographical coordinates are 52o 44’ 29” N and 86o 17’ 45” W.
In terms of land tenure requirements for mine development, temporary work permits and aggregate permits will be required for some elements of construction, but is expected that a portion or all of Noront's mining claims will be converted to lease. It is expected that a portion or all of any access road to site will become a public road owned by the province, but a spur road to the site may be required, and land tenure options for that will be explored with the MNR as required.
5.2 PROJECT RATIONALE
Noront has spent considerable time and effort to propose a Project which will as much as possible minimize environmental impact and maximize socio-economic benefits. Aside from the locational constraints of the mine, as determined by the nature of the deposit, Noront has incorporated input from local communities into the design of the Project. Using the input received during early engagement and consultation with interested persons, and the data gathered in previous assessments and investigations, some of the potential alternative methods have already been evaluated and discarded. The rationale for discarding certain alternatives are identified in Section 6.5 and will be discussed in detail in the EA. Noront has an interest in sustaining the production and supply of nickel, copper, platinum and palladium through the Project. Developing the Project would contribute to the production of these metals and to Noront’s strategic goals.
Mining also remains an integral part of the northern Ontario economy. As existing projects move through their life cycle, there is an ongoing need to locate and develop new ore bodies to maintain the economy. Mining activities generate considerable direct and indirect economic benefits through employment. Most estimates suggest that there are three indirect jobs created for every direct mining job. The Project will contribute many jobs both on and off-site during construction, throughout its 11 year mine life and during decommissioning. A significant portion of the labour force will be derived from communities in the region. Along with direct employment to the local First Nations, the Project will bring additional training benefits and business opportunities. The development of the Project will also provide financial benefit to local First Nations and will generate tax revenues for the Province and the federal government.
14 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
5.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The major project components may include all or some of the following elements:
• An underground mine, mill and processing plant for crushing, grinding and flotation of the ore, and dewatering of the resulting concentrate. The end product will be a multi-metal concentrate containing nickel, copper, platinum, palladium and gold mineralization. Other associated infrastructure will be developed (for example, on-site all-weather roads, explosives handling and storage facilities, as well as waste and water management facilities) to support the mine. Because of the challenging soil conditions in the wetland and in order to minimize environmental impacts, Noront plans to locate as many of the facilities as practical underground. • Transportation corridor to link the Project to the existing provincial infrastructure • A trans-load facility at the terminus of a transportation corridor, where concentrate would be transferred to rail cars for shipment to a site for further processing • A diesel-fuelled power generation station. An overhead transmission line may be required to deliver power from the station to the mine site, or alternatively, to deliver power to the mine site from the Ontario grid.
5.4 PROJECT LIFE CYCLE
The Project involves the construction, operation, closure and remediation of an underground mining facility. Mining of the high-grade nickel-copper-platinum-palladium Eagle’s Nest deposit will occur at a rate of 2,960 tonnes of ore per day (t/d) or approximately 1 million tonnes of ore per year. Based on this production rate and currently defined mineral resources, the mine is expected to operate for 11 years.
5.4.1 Project Phases
The Project will occur in three phases. The potential interactions with the natural and socio-economic environments and the potential occurrence of residual impacts are anticipated to be different in each phase. In order to focus the impact assessment, the project activities are divided into three main phases:
• Construction Phase: All of the activities associated with preparing the mine site and supporting infrastructure for operation of the mine will be carried out. • Operations Phase: All of the activities associated with mining, ore processing, extraction of the ore and concentrate transport will be carried out for the life of the mine. • Closure and Post-Closure Phases: All of the activities required to decommission, close and stabilize the mine and associated facilities will be carried out. In addition, the activities required to monitor the effectiveness of closure will be carried out and the potential for long-term effects will be considered.
5.4.2 Construction Phase
During the construction phase, all activities associated with developing the mine site and supporting infrastructure will be carried out. Facilities to support construction may be developed 15 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
at different project locations, including the mine site and trans-load facility. These facilities may include:
• Accommodations for construction personnel and associated water and waste treatment • Fuel storage with secondary containment • Laydown areas
During the construction phase, equipment will be transported and site preparation activities will be undertaken. Clearing, grubbing, and site levelling, will be undertaken where infrastructure is to be built. Site drainage will be managed to minimize impacts to the natural environment. Aggregate for construction at the mine site and at any supporting infrastructure location will be sourced from licensed and/or permitted aggregate sites or from mine development rock.
The site infrastructure, including water supply pipelines, storage and maintenance areas, and permanent support facilities will be constructed. Construction of facilities where potentially hazardous materials are stored or used will include mitigation measures, such as impermeable surfaces and spill containment and clean-up equipment, in order to minimize potential environmental impacts.
Domestic waste products produced during the construction phase, such as food scraps, packaging and recyclables, as well as special wastes/hazardous wastes will be shipped to a licensed waste disposal site. Domestic sewage will be treated by an appropriately sized septic system or a sewage treatment plant, such as a rotating biological contactor (RBC).
5.4.3 Operations Phase
During the operations phase, the process of removing ore will begin with the development of an underground mine. Noront plans to locate as many of the mine site facilities as possible underground in order to minimize potential environmental impacts and to eliminate some of the challenges associated with building in a wetland environment. Surface facilities will include living quarters, administration offices, an airstrip, the mine portal, the explosives handling and storage facilities, and staging areas for activities associated with surface access. Aggregate material will be sourced from underground for construction of the surface facilities.
A transportation corridor will be used to connect the Project to the existing provincial infrastructure. During peak production, it is anticipated that concentrate shipping could occur at a rate of 800 tonnes per day (approximately 20 truckloads). The corridor will also support the transportation of fuel and supplies to and from the mine site.
The operating phase also includes the operation of a number of facilities to support the mining activities. These may include First Aid facilities, accommodations, offices and laboratories. These may also include support facilities, such as sewage treatment facilities, waste disposal and potable water supply.
16 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
5.4.4 Closure and Post-Closure Phase
The closure phase includes a list of activities that are designed to ensure that the Project site is closed in a manner that reduces the potential impacts to the social and natural environment. In the closure phase, the mining activities are completed and the dismantling and closure of the site begins. This will include the closing of domestic waste management areas in an environmentally acceptable manner. Closure also involves the progressive rehabilitation of disturbed sites through the removal of infrastructure that will not be needed during future phases of the Project. Reclamation will be undertaken to enhance natural recovery of the disturbed areas and allow for future use by people and wildlife. Mine Closure plans will follow the guidelines established in the Mining Act by the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, and will take into account the needs and wishes of local communities for future use.
The following provides an example of the various components of the Project that may require remediation and closure:
• Underground Mine and ancillary facilities (securing mine openings) • Surface infrastructure (removal of surface infrastructure) • Aggregate stockpiles (if any) • Pipelines • Power generation facilities • Fuel storage areas • Waste and water management facilities • Explosives handling and storage facilities • Contaminated soils (if any) • Site roads • Power transmission lines
Closure activities defined in the closure plan also include monitoring (during closure and post closure) at the mine site and other sites requiring reclamation. Monitoring programs will need to address physical and chemical stability of any mine wastes, acid rock drainage and the metal leaching potential of wastes, surface water quality, groundwater quality and the physical stability of all mine related works. Biological monitoring programs may also be required post-closure. The duration of monitoring programs is typically a minimum of 5 years, post closure, but will be defined through consultations with the government, First Nation communities and additional stakeholders. Details of the activities to take place during the closure and post closure phases of the Project will be provided in the EA and presented in the Mine Closure Plan, as required under the Mining Act.
17 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
SECTION 6.0 - DESCRIPTION OF AND RATIONALE FOR ALTERNATIVES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The OEAA refers to two different types of alternatives: “alternatives to” a proposed undertaking and “alternative methods” to a proposed undertaking. As defined by the MOE, “alternatives to” are defined as “functionally different ways of approaching and dealing with a problem or opportunity”, while alternative methods are defined as “different ways of performing the same activity” (MOE, 2009). The assessment of a wide range of alternatives is essential to the EA planning process in Ontario. The following sections provide details about the various “alternatives to” and “alternative methods” that will be examined in the EA. As mentioned in Section 4, Noront will prepare the EA in accordance with Sections 6(2)(a) and 6.1(2) of the OEAA.
6.2 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
To determine the range of alternatives to be evaluated in the EA, the following aspects were considered, as outlined in The Code of Practice: Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario (MOE, 2009):
• Do they provide a viable solution to the problem or opportunity to be addressed? • Are they proven technologies? • Are they technically feasible? • Are they consistent with other relevant planning objectives, policies and decisions? • Are they consistent with provincial government priority initiatives? • Could they affect any sensitive environmental features? • Are they practical, financially realistic and economically viable? • Are they within Noront’s ability to implement? • Can they be implemented within the defined study area? • Are they appropriate to the Noront Project? • Are they able to meet the purpose of the Environmental Assessment Act?
In addition, alternatives were also selected based on input received during consultations with regulatory agencies, the public and Aboriginal groups.
6.3 ALTERNATIVES TO
The purpose of the Project is to develop a multi-metal underground mine to produce and supply a concentrate containing nickel, copper, platinum and palladium minerals. This purpose can only be achieved through the mining and processing of the deposit. As such, the only feasible alternative to the Project is the “do nothing alternative”.
18 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
6.3.1 Do Nothing Alternative
The EA will evaluate whether the anticipated benefits of the Project outweigh the predicted impacts. A comparison of the proposed project against the "do nothing alternative" will evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Project against the socio-economic benefits.
The “do nothing alternative” will be used as a reference for comparison of alternative methods and will help determine to what extent the alternatives address advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with the Project.
6.4 ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT
The EA will identify and describe technically and economically feasible alternative methods of carrying out the Project. The list of alternative methods presented in the ToR was determined through scoping and feasibility level studies and consultation with Project stakeholders (including government, public and aboriginal communities). The list may be refined during the EA process as the Project evolves.
In the following sections, several base cases are presented that represent the primary alternatives that will be considered in the EA. Noront is committed to undertaking a rigorous and iterative process during the EA to rationalize and select final preferred alternatives. The process of selection will integrate consultation with First Nations, the public and other stakeholders, as well as the evaluation of potential environmental impacts. Section 6.5 outlines alternative methods which were screened out during the preparation of the ToR and will not be considered further in the EA.
6.4.1 Mine Development Alternatives
The base case for mine operations uses underground mining techniques. This involves drilling, blasting and the movement of ore to a concentrator (mill). A ramp from surface will provide access to the mine workings. The ramp will be continued to a depth of approximately 1,200 m. It will be constructed adjacent to the ore body to connect the production levels and will be utilized to transport the ore to the mill. Ore will be processed underground resulting in two products, concentrate and backfill. All waste products from the milling circuit will be stored underground as paste or cemented paste backfill. Mine operations will also include the production of aggregate materials and the backfilling of stopes. The bulk concentrate produced in the mill will be transported to a trans-load facility where it will be transferred to rail for shipment to a site for further processing. Alternative methods for mine development could include an open pit mine. This alternative will not be considered in the EA as it has been excluded through pre-screening, as discussed in Section 6.5.
19 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
6.4.2 Mine Design Alternatives
The following parameters were used as the base case for the design of the Eagle’s Nest Project:
• An indicated resource of 11 Mt from 10 m below surface to 1,200 m below surface • Design production rate of 4300 tpd, which is comprised of: 2,960 tonnes/day of ore, 350 tonnes/day of aggregate rock and 1,000 tonnes/day of waste • Foot wall and hanging wall rocks and ore are generally competent • Surface overburden is from 5 m to 20 m deep and 100% saturated • Ore body sections developed in vertical blocks, varying in height from 100 m between sills to 150 m with 50 m sub-levels • A 75 m thick Crown pillar and 50 m sill pillars (separating individual mining blocks) that are to be mined at end of mine life • The specific gravity of the rock is 2.7, the bulk in situ ore is 3.0 and the tailings slurry is 1.57 at 50% density (solids by weight)
Production rate alternatives include:
• Less than 2960 t/d • Greater than 2960 t/d
6.4.3 Ore Processing Alternatives
An underground mill and processing plant will be constructed for the crushing, grinding, flotation and dewatering of the ore. The facility is currently expected to produce a single nickel, copper, platinum, palladium and gold concentrate, but may produce separate concentrates dependent on market conditions. The concentrate will be shipped off-site for further processing.
Alternative methods of ore processing could include:
• Off-site ore processing • Above ground milling and processing facility • Combination of above ground and underground milling and processing facilities
6.4.4 Concentrate Handling and Storage Alternatives
Concentrate will be transported from the mine site to a trans-load facility where it will be transferred to rail cars for shipment to a site for further processing.
Alternative methods of concentrate handling could include:
• Pipeline transport of concentrate slurry to an off-site dewatering facility and onward transportation by truck to a trans-load facility • Truck transport of dewatered concentrate from the mine site to a trans-load facility located either at Savant Lake (east-west road) or Aroland (north-south road) 20 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
6.4.5 Project Construction Alternatives
Various alternative methods of constructing the Project will be evaluated. This may include approaches for construction of any road, pipelines or other facilities.
6.4.6 Explosives Handling and Storage Alternatives
The explosives for the mining operations will be manufactured off-site and supplied to the Project as a contractor provided service. The explosives will be shipped to site when required and stored underground in a permanent magazine. A temporary storage facility will be used during the construction phase. All storage facilities will be constructed to meet NRCan's requirements under the Explosives Act.
As an alternative, an emulsion explosives plant could be constructed on-site. Raw materials for explosives would be transported to the site and stored at a suitable separation distance from the facility. Sensitizer for the emulsion, which increases its ease of detonation, would only be mixed during loading operations at the underground blasting areas. Magazines for detonators, boosters and some emulsion explosive cartridges (stick powder) would be constructed at suitable separation distances from other mine facilities and the explosives plant.
6.4.7 Power Supply Alternatives
Electrical power will be required to support the mine site infrastructure. The estimated mine site power demand is less than 20 MW. The base case is to provide power with on-site diesel generators. However, alternative methods of supplying electrical power could include:
• Off-site diesel generators at a site (Webequie Junction) located south of Webequie approximately 90 km west of the Project site • Connection to provincial power grid
Additionally, consideration will be given to constructing transmission lines to the provincial power grid which would be shared with other users (e.g., communities, mines, etc.).
6.4.8 Water Supply Alternatives
Water for the mine, mill, and surface operations will be supplied from groundwater seepage into the underground workings and from groundwater wells. Potable water will be sourced from groundwater wells and supplied through a potable water treatment plant.
Water supply alternatives could include surface water sources.
21 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
6.4.9 Waste and Wastewater Management Alternatives
6.4.9.1 Mine Waste Rock Alternatives
Waste rock from the initial underground development will be trucked to the surface to be used as potential aggregate or other fill material for surface infrastructure. Aggregate crushing, screening and stock piles will be located on surface. Mine waste rock and material excavated from aggregate stopes would undergo comprehensive acid rock drainage/metal leaching (ARD/ML) testing prior to potential use as aggregate, fill, or in concrete for surface construction. The ARD/ML testing would incorporate appropriate static and kinetic testing methods, and geochemical testing would also include chromium speciation analyses. An alternative would be not to use the material for aggregate.
6.4.9.2 Tailings Management Alternatives
All of the tailings produced by the mill will be stored underground. Most will be turned into cemented paste backfill and stored in ore stopes. The remainder (estimated to be 20 to 30% of tailings produced) will be dewatered and stored in aggregate stopes excavated in the host granodiorite rock mass. Seepage water from backfill and aggregate stopes will be pumped back to the mill for treatment and re-use.
The aggregate stopes will be situated in the host rock between the 75 m level and 125 m level, away from the shaft, ramp and mill infrastructure. The stopes will be mined out by the same production practices as the ore stopes using a blast hole mining method. Additional cavities within the 125 m level to 175 m level horizon will be excavated to provide rock handling infrastructure (coarse rock pass, crusher/screen plant, crushed rock product passes and bins). The demand for aggregate will be predominantly during the construction phase of the project for use on surface as fill material and as the aggregate component of concrete. As such, the aggregate stopes will be available from the start of production for holding waste rock and tailings.
Tailings management alternatives could include:
• Cemented underground storage • Un-cemented underground storage • Lined above ground storage • Un-lined above ground storage
6.4.9.3 Mine and Mill Wastewater Management Alternatives
Water will be required for ore processing. The process plant water needs will be provided through the recycling of process water and mine water. Process wastewater will be lost to the tailings voids and through the paste backfill process. It is expected that the process plant will operate at a deficit and there will be no surplus process water discharged to the environment. A detailed water balance will be developed and included 22 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
in the EA report based on an assessment of alternative methods for elements in the wastewater process, including:
• Do not recycle water • Recycle as much water as possible • Use process water for tailings paste backfill • Do not use process water for tailings paste backfill
6.4.9.4 Organic and Solid Waste Alternatives
Waste products will include domestic waste, such as food scraps, packaging, and refuse. Inert waste such as glass, scrap metal and clean plastics will also be produced. Due to the location of the Project, a below grade landfill site is not possible for the disposal of non-hazardous materials. The most suitable way to dispose of non-hazardous waste on site is through incineration. An incinerator will be the primary means of disposing of domestic waste during the construction, operation and closure phases of the Project. Materials not suitable for incineration, such as recyclable plastic, tins, and glass, will be sorted, compacted and stored until they can be shipped off site. Similarly, scrap metal will be stored on-site with the recyclables until it can be shipped off site or reused. Wood packaging will be burned on site or transported off site as appropriate.
A proposed dual chamber manual incinerator with a minimum residence time of one second in the combustion zone, at a defined minimum combustion temperature, will be used. Waste passing through the primary chamber will burn and release volatile gases and soot that will travel to the secondary high temperature chamber for additional incineration. The end product is then sent to either a wet or dry scrubbing system. Details surrounding monitoring of the emissions will be determined through the provincial air emissions approval process. The on-site waste management facility will be fenced off to prevent animals, including wolves and bears, from accessing potential food sources.
Alternative organic and solid waste methods could include:
• Location of the incinerator on-site and off-site • On-site landfill • Shipment to an off-site licensed landfill
6.4.9.5 Hazardous Waste Alternatives
Hazardous waste may include, but not be limited to, biomedical waste, contaminated soils, used petroleum products and petroleum contaminated containers. These wastes will be handled and stored in sealed containers in lined and bermed areas or in secondary containment. These materials will be sent off-site to an appropriate licenced facility. Contaminated soils will be treated on-site in a bioremediation area.
23 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
Used glycol and lubricating oils will be stored in tanks and sent off-site to a licensed disposal facility. All contaminated liquids will be stored in clearly marked containers and sent to a licensed disposal facility. Empty fuel tanks will be stored within the fuel storage area and returned to the vendor. If the containers are not returnable, they will be cleaned, crushed and stored on-site until they can be shipped off-site.
No alternatives to hazardous waste management are apparent or have been suggested to date by stakeholders.
6.4.9.6 Sewage Treatment Alternatives
Domestic sewage will be treated by an appropriately sized septic system or a sewage treatment plant such as a rotating biological contactor (RBC). A RBC plant would be fed by a pair of alternating duty, constant feed submersible pumps, that are installed at the bottom of an in-ground concrete surge tank and pump chamber.
Alternative methods to sewage treatment may include the type of sewage system technology, receiving water and discharge location/method.
6.4.9.7 Storm water Management Alternatives
Collection and settling ponds will be constructed to manage runoff from surface infrastructure, including water potentially contaminated by contact with waste rock during the initial development of the mine. Any contaminated water will be treated as required.
Alternative methods to surface water management could include the location of ditches, ponds, treatment facilities and discharge locations.
6.4.10 Mine Site Access Alternatives
Access to the Project is currently limited to aircraft as there are no existing all-season or winter roads to the proposed mine site.
A transportation corridor will link the Project to the existing provincial infrastructure. The province has committed to the proposed development of a new all-season road to run south from the Ring of Fire. The provincial Minister of Northern Development and Mines has recently committed the province to support the Cliffs Natural Resources business plan for the nearby chromite deposit. Accordingly, Noront has adopted the use of a north-south route, constructed by another party, as the base case for access to the mine site. In this scenario, a site near Aroland First Nation would be used for a trans-load facility.
The transportation corridor alternatives may include an east-west transportation corridor to be constructed by Noront and others (all-season and/or winter road)
24 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
Noront favours the east-west corridor based on the evaluation of potential impacts to the environment, primarily caribou habitat, sensitive wetlands, consultation with First Nation communities and the results of an access route study outlined in Appendix A.
6.4.11 Support Facility Alternatives
A single, multiple use Services Building Complex will be developed. This building will include the administration and engineering office, warehouse, mine dry, nursing station, assay and environmental laboratory, surface maintenance shops, health & safety offices, and training rooms. An accommodation building will be developed with approximately 350 rooms (700 people with double occupancy in rooms). This building will be attached to the services building complex.
The location of support facilities are the only alternative method to be considered in the EA.
6.4.12 Summary of Alternative Methods Being Considered in the EA
The following list is a summary of the alternative methods for each project component that will be considered further in the EA.
• Mine development alternatives o Underground mining techniques • Mine design alternatives (production rate alternatives) o Less than 2960 t/d o Greater than 2960 t/d • Ore Processing Alternatives o Underground mill and processing facility o Above ground milling and processing facility o Combination of above ground and underground milling and processing facilities o Off-site ore processing • Concentrate handling and storage alternatives o Transport on access corridor by truck to trans-load facility for loading to rail cars o Location of trans-load facility either near Aroland or Savant Lake o Pipeline transport of slurry to off-site dewatering facility for truck to trans-load facility for loading onto rail cars • Project construction alternatives o Various alternative methods of constructing any road, pipeline or other facilities • Explosives handling and storage alternatives o Explosives manufactured off-site and supplied by contractor, to be stored underground in a permanent magazine o Construction of emulsion explosives plant on-site.
25 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
• Power supply alternatives o On-site diesel generators o Off-site diesel generators o Connection to provincial power grid • Water supply alternatives o Groundwater sources o Surface water sources • Mine waste rock alternatives o Used as aggregate or fill material on surface o Not used for aggregate or fill material on surface • Tailings management alternatives o Tailings stored underground as cemented paste backfill o Un-cemented underground storage o Lined above ground storage o Un-lined above ground storage • Mine and mill wastewater management alternatives o Do not recycle water o Recycle as much as possible o Use process water for tailings paste backfill o Do not use process water for tailings paste backfill • Organic and solid water alternatives o Incineration of waste on-site, shipment of non-incinerated waste off-site o Location of incinerator on-site or off-site o Shipment of all waste to an off-site licensed landfill • Hazardous waste alternatives o Stored in sealed containers and shipped off-site • Sewage treatment alternatives o Septic system or sewage treatment plant (such as a rotating biological contactor) o Type of technology used o Location of facility and location of discharge • Storm water management alternatives o Location of collection and settling ponds, treatment facilities and discharge • Mine site access alternatives o All season north-south transportation corridor o All season or winter east-west transportation corridor • Support facility alternatives o Location of support facilities
6.5 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS
Potential alternative methods of carrying out the Project are constrained by the nature of the Project and the baseline studies completed to date. There are several alternatives that were evaluated during the preparation of the ToR and will not be carried forward to the EA. For example, certain mining method alternatives (underground vs. open-pit), alternatives for power supply, and transportation options have
26 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
been excluded. Pre-screening of alternatives in the ToR is a result of scoping and feasibility level studies and consultation with communities and other groups. The goal of the pre-screening process was to optimize the Project and minimize potential environmental impacts through construction, operation, closure and post-closure phases. The rationale for the exclusion of certain alternative methods from the EA is discussed in the following sections.
6.5.1 Mining Methodology
The Eagle’s Nest deposit is a near-vertical pipe-like structure measuring (at surface) 200 m on strike by 60 m wide and extending down to a depth of 1,200 m. The deposit is open at depth with inferred resources down to 1,600 m depth. As such, this deposit structure can only be mined economically through underground mining techniques, due to the extremely large amount of material that would have to be excavated if an open pit methodology was utilized. Additionally, the wetland conditions and associated issues to contain a surface opening, including the possible requirement to apply refrigerated “freeze-wall” technology, make an open pit structure unsuitable for extracting the deposit. With the high rock competency exhibited in the deposit and the granite-type (granodiorite) rock around it, standard bulk stoping (blast hole) mining is possible. A traditional shaft is not planned since the headframe would have to be sunk through the peat bog. The twin ramp system that is currently envisioned can provide the requisite access, emergency egress routes, ventilation and materials handling.
6.5.2 Power Source
Hydroelectric, solar, natural gas and wind power alternatives were assessed during the preparation of the ToR. Solar and wind alternatives were determined not to be capable of providing a reliable power supply for the Project. Moreover, construction of a hydroelectric generating station is not seen to be practical or technically applicable. The construction of such a facility would also have unjustifiable adverse environmental effects compared to the other alternatives. Natural gas electricity generation was also considered unacceptable as a new pipeline and facility would need to be constructed. The construction of the pipeline and natural gas power plant would not be economically feasible.
Noront would prefer to obtain power from the Ontario power grid. Unfortunately plans for supplying grid power to the Ring of Fire region have not yet been made by the province. The document “Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan”, released by the province on November 23, 2010, does mention power transmission to the region through upgrading the lines to Pickle Lake. As such, this alternative will be considered in the EA. However, the provision of power to the Ring of Fire and local communities needs to be defined and no dates are noted in the Energy Plan.
Diesel generators were selected for the base case due to their proven capability to supply reliable power for a remote location. Alternative locations for the diesel generators will be considered in the EA.
27 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
6.5.3 Concentrate Shipment
Noront considered many alternate ways to access the site and ship concentrate to a trans-load facility. Several alternative methods will not be assessed in the EA:
• Hovercraft were considered to move materials, but the high costs to operate the required fleet of hovercraft makes this option less viable. There is also concern for the noise level created by the hovercraft, which could impact the movement patterns of local wildlife (caribou). • The flat terrain was evaluated for use of a canal and barges. Factors against this alternative include the cost to build and operate a canal system, the necessity to limit water flow along the canal to protect the peat bog from drainage, and the operational issue of trying to operate 100 km of canal in winter. • Airships have been suggested for accessing remote northern communities and mining operations. No large capacity, commercially viable and proven reliable airships are in service. There is talk of plans to develop ships with 20 or 50 tonne payloads, but even larger capacity airships would be required to meet the materials handling requirements: of 600 tpd over a distance of 330 km. Given the uncertainty of availability and unknown costs for operating a fleet of airships, this alternative is not being pursued.
6.5.4 Summary of Alternative Methods Not Being Considered in the EA
The following list is a summary of the alternative methods that have been considered during the preparation of the ToR and screened out. They will not be considered further in the EA.
• Mining methodology o Open pit mining • Power Source o Hydroelectricity o Wind o Solar • Concentrate Shipment o Hovercraft o Canal system o Airships
28 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
SECTION 7.0 - DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
7.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The EA will provide a final description of the Project components in order to identify the interactions of each component with the physical, biological and socio-economic environment. The description will be sufficiently detailed to enable identification and assessment of potential impacts during each of the phases in the Project life cycle (construction, operations, closure and post closure). The Project description will include information on the:
• Purpose and rationale of the Project • Regional and local geology, including an analysis of the mineralized body • Description of Project components, including: o The Project footprint o The materials to be used o Technologies, procedures and processes o The products, by products and waste generated o Hazardous materials, water and waste management systems • Workforce accommodation, management and training • Implementation plans, costs and schedules • Closure and post closure plans
The Project description will also provide details on the alternatives considered during the finalization of the Project and the rationale for choices made. Noront’s current scoping study methodology includes using trade off studies that investigate alternatives based on their cost effectiveness and their potential environmental and social impacts.
7.2 IDENTIFICATION OF STUDY AREAS
The following sections provide a description of the environmental components to be provided in the EA.
7.2.1 General Study Area
The significance of an environmental impact partially depends on the geographic extent. As such, impact assessments will be considered on the basis of specific study areas related to project development. More specifically, the potential impacts of the Project will be assessed on the basis of local and regional areas. The local study areas will include the physical footprint and extend beyond the immediate footprint to include the area around the site where impacts are likely to occur. For example, the mine site local study area would include the mine and ancillary infrastructure illustrated on Figure 7.1 and would extend beyond the immediate footprint to include the area around the site where impacts are likely to occur. Local study areas will be defined in the EA for the mine site and trans-load facility. The regional study area extends beyond the local study area to include the maximum geographical extent in which impacts from the Project are expected. For instance, Figure 5.1 illustrates the communities that are located 29 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
within the socio-economic regional study area. In this case the regional study area encompasses the local First Nation communities that may be negatively or positively impacted by the Project. Additional local and regional study areas will be required if infrastructure is developed beyond to the mine site to support the operation.
The EA will define specific study areas for each of the study components. Each component will be assessed within the context of local or regional study areas. The size and extent of each study area may differ for each environmental study component. For example, the study area for assessing terrestrial biological effects (e.g., caribou migration) will likely be more extensive than the hydrological study areas. Watershed boundaries will be utilized where applicable to ensure that potential impacts on an entire watershed are considered.
7.2.2 Caribou Study Area
The local and regional study areas will incorporate the potentially affected caribou range or ranges. Cumulative effects of this Project, as well as other developments in the Ring of Fire on caribou will be assessed as directed by the Ontario Caribou Conservation Policy under the ESA (2007). Noront is currently a member of a MNR working group that aims to develop resource selection modelling for caribou in the Ring-of-Fire region. One of the objectives of this work is to define caribou population ranges, which will assist in defining the study area necessary for the Project’s caribou component. This includes the mine site, potential transportation corridors, and the associated aggregate pits and service roads. Appendix B provides a summary of the Ontario Woodland Caribou Recovery Strategy and the Ontario Woodland Caribou Conservation Plan. The appendix also describes the anticipated information needs and analyses.
7.3 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
Current access to the Esker Camp exploration site is by helicopter or airplane equipped with floats in the summer and skis and/or wheels during the winter. Flights typically originate from Nakina, which is located 300 km to the south, from Pickle Lake, which is located 300 km west southwest, or from Webequie, which is located 80 km west northwest. Koper Lake, located 3 km to the east of the camp, serves as the main access point for float planes and is used as a winter ice strip. Nakina is accessed by all-season road and rail, while Pickle Lake is accessible by all-season road. Both centres have paved airstrips.
The deposit is located adjacent to the Muketei River near a series of esker deposits. The esker deposits are overlain by post-glacial lacustrine and marine silt and clay. The local area consists of large wetland areas with extensive organic soils and small water bodies.
Environmental baseline studies were initiated by Noront in 2009 and are ongoing. Preliminary results were discussed with provincial ministries in May, 2011 and April, 2012. Their comments were reviewed and applied to planning for 2012 baseline studies.
30 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
7.4 PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND GEOCHEMISTRY
The regional study area is underlain by Precambrian rocks of the north-western part of the Archean Superior Province. The Superior Province is a part of the central region of the Canadian Shield. A series of Meso-archean volcanic and plutonic belts, trending from west to east, formed as micro-continents and are separated by Neo-archean meta-sedimentary belts and crustal faults.
Eagle’s Nest is a magmatic massive sulphide deposit dated at 2,73 Ma that was intruded into a granodiorite dated at 2,77 Ma (Mungall et al, 2010). The deposit is located within a significant greenstone belt at the eastern exposure limit of the Oxford-Stull Domain where it disappears under the Paleozoic cover. The geology of the greenstone belt is not fully understood due to the lack of exposed supracrustal rocks in the region and interpretation is almost exclusively from airborne geophysical surveys and diamond drilling.
Surficial material in the region consists of un-stratified post glacial till interspersed with bedrock outcrops and stratified till. The surficial material at the mine site is predominantly silty clay loam, of marine and lacustrine origin, overlying coarser sands of an esker deposit. Soil development in the region varies depending on drainage. Low lying areas consist of organic soils, while better drained soils are regosolic.
Screening level environmental testing and chemical analyses were conducted on granodiorite and ultramafic intrusion diamond drill core samples. These tests were conducted to determine whether materials sourced from underground would be suitable for construction aggregate. The samples were subjected to standard extraction tests and chemical analyses used to estimate the short and long-term solute release produced by natural rock weathering. The analyses were done to determine:
• The ultimate potential of this material to generate acidic leachate (based on acid/base accounting (ABA) analyses) • The short term potential of this material to produce leachate that contains metals or other regulated solutes at concentrations above regulatory discharge standards (using synthetic precipitation leach procedure (SPLP) tests (modified to 1:4 rock:water ratio) • The ultimate potential for dissolution of metal and other regulated solute by long term oxidation (using the peroxide oxidation net acid-generating potential (NAG) test)
Test results show that the granodiorite and granodiorite with mafic intrusion samples were not acid generating. Test results show that the granodiorite and mafic intrusion had neutralization potentials of at least 3 times greater than their acid generating potentials. Test results also found that several solid phase metal concentrations were below detection limits, including arsenic, bismuth, antimony and selenium. Nickel was present in concentrations of 5.5 to 10 µg/g and copper concentrations ranged from 5.5 to 50 µg/g.
Primary elements of potential environmental concern are arsenic and vanadium within the deeper mafic dyke/granodiorite rock. Test results from these rocks suggest that both elements exceed the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) standards in both effluent from the meteoric-water leach test and the NAG-test leachate. Both of these elements can have moderate to high mobility in the environment. These rocks will not be utilized as aggregate sources. 31 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
Other elements that exceeded the PWQO standards include aluminium, copper, chromium, silver and hydronium ion (i.e., pH). These elements are unlikely to be a concern because they are highly reactive in natural environments. As such, little buffering would be required to reduce the pH to below PWQO standards (pH 8.5). These metals also tend to strongly adsorb to mineral surfaces and/or precipitate rapidly at near neutral pH. As a result, these constituents are likely to drop quickly out of solution when effluent from this rock encounters soil or aquifer materials.
In more sensitive areas, it may be possible to remove solutes from the leachate by simple treatment (e.g., flocculation in a settling pond) or through light amendment of the granodiorite with a chemical adsorbent. Additional geotechnical and chemical testing is ongoing. When available, the test results will be applied to the design of the Project.
7.5 CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY
The James Bay Lowlands region of northern Ontario has a humid continental climate with cool short summers and cold long winters. The area has a perihumid high boreal ecoclimate and does not experience a dry season. The local climate is affected by the proximity to Hudson Bay and James Bay. Fog is common in the early morning and may last all day during the summer months. There are usually one or two days of dense fog in the summer that restrict the use of aircraft. There are typically two or three days during the winter months when snow storms restrict activity in the region. The following weather statistics are based on data collected from the Environment Canada meteorological station at Lansdowne House (Neskantaga), approximately 130 km to the southwest, from 1971 to 2000:
• The average daily temperature is -1.3°C • Summer temperatures are generally between 10°C and 20°C with a mean July temperature of 12°C and a mean maximum summer temperature of 22°C. The extreme maximum summer temperature is 37°C. Winter temperatures are generally between -10°C and -30°C with a mean January temperature of -21°C and a mean minimum temperature of -27°C. The extreme winter minimum recorded has been -48°C; and an extreme wind chill of -58°C has been recorded. • The period from mid-June to mid-September is generally frost free • Lakes start to freeze in mid-October and start to thaw in mid-April • The average annual precipitation is 699.5 mm with approximately 241.6 mm falling as 2.416 m of snow. Measurable precipitation falls on an average of 169 days during the year with snow falling on 89 of those days. • The average snow depth is 65 cm in February • Winds average between 13-17 km/hour depending on the month, and blow from the west to northwest in the winter and from the west to southwest in the summer. In May, however, winds are predominantly from the northeast • Easterly winds commonly bring fog from James Bay and are associated with heavy precipitation
7.6 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE
The mine site area is in a remote setting, far away from concentrated human activity. The atmospheric environment is expected to be relatively free of contaminants. The existing air quality conditions will be
32 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
characterized using published literature and air quality data from established long-term monitoring stations in northern Ontario.
The background noise conditions are expected to be representative of a rural sound environment, characterized by sounds of nature. Current noise conditions are influenced by ongoing mineral exploration activity, such as helicopters, aircraft, and other equipment.
Potential effects of the Project’s air and noise emissions will be assessed, including those arising from Project-related traffic.
7.7 HYDROLOGY
Surface water includes water accumulating on the ground in wetlands, lakes and streams. The mine site is located within the Attawapiskat watershed. The Attawapiskat watershed is approximately 56,589 km2 in area and drains northeast into James Bay.
Streams in the study region are low gradient and have low velocity flow throughout most of the year. The stream banks are typical of low gradient streams and are well defined by earth, boulders, bedrock outcrops and natural levees. Beaver dams are common features on small to medium sized streams. Stream flow peaks in the spring as a result of snowmelt runoff and rainfall runoff from saturated soils. Flows recede through the summer and increase in the fall due to an increase in rainfall and decrease in evaporation. Flows are normally lowest in winter and some small streams freeze completely to the stream channel bed. Snowfall is an important component of the hydrologic cycle in the region as accumulated snow represents a significant stored water component.
7.8 HYDROGEOLOGY
The James Bay Lowlands are characterized by predominantly flat, poorly drained soils with slow rates of plant decay. As a result, the development of organic soils and peat is common throughout much of the area. The organic surface layer typically ranges from 3 to 5 metres in thickness. It is underlain by a clay/silt till layer of up to 2 m thick, and a Quaternary till layer of up to 5 m thick. Depth to bedrock ranges from 5 to 12 m below the surface. Two aquifers have been defined at the mine site; a shallow overburden aquifer and a deeper bedrock aquifer. The clay/silt till layer creates an aquitard, which restricts the movement of groundwater from one aquifer to the other.
Stream systems are cut minimally into the landscape, have low slope and slow flows. Due to low relief and low permeability soils, the streams are connected to the overburden aquifer and are not typically connected to deeper bedrock aquifers. The groundwater table in the overburden is typically at or near the surface due to the flat terrain and underlying low permeability silts and clays. Where the low permeability overburden material exists, the shallow overburden aquifer is isolated from groundwater in the deeper bedrock. The permeability of the bedrock is expected to decrease with depth so, in general, the most permeable bedrock aquifer will occur along the bedrock/overburden interface.
Glaciofluvial esker deposits are common in the Project area. Eskers are ridges that typically consist of a core of stratified sands and gravels. In esker deposits, the soils are much better drained, there is little 33 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
surface organic material and the groundwater table is further below the surface. Eskers are of particular interest for the caribou habitat values analysis at the sub-range and range scales. Being a small proportion of the landscape, eskers may have functions proportionally greater than their area alone might suggest. The well-drained terrestrial vegetation on top with full sized trees and forest cover (absent in the wetlands), and abundant ground lichens may play an important role in seasonal caribou habitat use.
Baseline groundwater studies are being conducted as part of the EA to characterize the existing groundwater regime and to support the definition of potential impacts, mitigation measures, monitoring and contingency planning as mine planning proceeds. This will include studies of shallow and deeper groundwater wells relevant to mining.
7.9 WATER QUALITY
Baseline surface water quality is being monitored at 11 sites around the proposed mine site. Groundwater quality is being monitored in seven shallow overburden wells and four deeper bedrock wells around the proposed mine site.
Preliminary surface water quality sampling shows that the water at the mine site generally falls within the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) for the protection of aquatic life and the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (CCME). However, iron, aluminum and to a lesser extent cadmium, copper and zinc exceeded PWQO and CCME guideline limits. In some cases, in situ pH levels do not meet the PWQO or CCME guidelines. Dissolved oxygen also exceeded PWQO guideline limits at some sites. Iron exceeded both PWQO and CCME guideline limits in most of the groundwater wells sampled. Aluminum exceeded both CCME and PWQO guideline limits at some locations while remaining below method detection limits (MDLs) at others. Additional metals that exceeded PWQO limits included cobalt, nickel, tungsten and zinc.
7.10 BIOLOGY
7.10.1 Terrestrial Environment
The Project is located within the Boreal Forest of Ontario. The proposed mine site is located in the James Bay Lowland Ecoregion that is characterized by cool, short summers and cold winters.
Most of the James Bay Lowlands are poorly drained with dominant vegetation consisting of sedges, mosses, and lichens with or without stunted Black Spruce and Tamarack. Wetlands cover up to 75% of the ecoregion in certain areas and are composed mainly of northern ribbed fens, northern plateau bogs, and palsa bogs. In the southern portion of the ecoregion and along rivers, the forests are composed of Balsam Fir, White and Black Spruce, Trembling Aspen, and White Birch.
Bird surveys conducted to date have documented the presence of 76 bird species. The ten most abundant breeding bird species include the following (in order of decreasing abundance) Swainson's Thrush, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, White-throated Sparrow, White-winged Crossbill, Hermit Thrush, Tennessee Warbler, Gray Jay, Winter Wren and Northern
34 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
Waterthrush. Shorebirds observed during field studies include the Solitary Sandpiper, Semipalmated Sandpiper, Spotted Sandpiper and Greater Yellowlegs. Raptors observed in the Project study area include Bald Eagle, Osprey, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Red-tailed Hawk and the Northern Harrier.
Known mammal and bird species at risk that have been observed during baseline investigations include Woodland Caribou (threatened), Bald Eagle (special concern), Canada Warbler (special concern), Common Nighthawk (special concern), Olive-sided Flycatcher (special concern), and Rusty Blackbird (special concern).
According to species atlas data for Ontario, the only reptile that is found in the regional study area is the Eastern Garter Snake. Also from atlas data, amphibians that likely occur in the Project study area include the American Toad, Boreal Chorus Frog, Gray Treefrog, Green Frog, Mink Frog, Northern Leopard Frog, Spotted Salamander, and the Spring Peeper.
However, due to its remote location and lack of development, the regional study area has not been surveyed systematically or rigorously. Data from recent work by the Far North Terrestrial Biodiversity Project (2010) and the Far North Caribou Project in the Ring of Fire (ongoing) has not necessarily been entered into OMNR’s Natural Resources and Values Information System (NRVIS) database. The absence of records in the NRVIS system should not be assumed to indicate absence of biodiversity and habitat features in the region. As more surveys are conducted in the region, more ecological data will become available.
7.10.2 Aquatic Environment
Bogs and fens are common throughout the James Bay Lowlands and perform numerous ecosystem functions. Wetlands provide habitat for many bird species, moose and other wildlife. A vast number of streams are present in the lowlands and connect the many shallow lakes and wetlands in the area. Water bodies in the study area support a variety of cool and cold water fish. Large rivers including the Ekwan, Muketei, Attawapiskat and Ogoki support populations of Walleye (Sander vitreus), Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and other fish species. A number of lower energy watercourses connected to these rivers provide habitat for Walleye and Northern Pike (Esox lucius). Typically, Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens), White Sucker (Catostomus commersonii) and other small foraging fish species are present with these larger bodied fish. Smaller streams and lakes in the area also support a variety of smaller-bodied fish including cyprinid species, Brook Stickleback (Culaea inconstans) and Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii).
A number of lakes, ponds and beaver impounded watercourses surround the proposed mine site. A comprehensive surface water quality monitoring program has been implemented as part of baseline studies. In addition, a focussed aquatic baseline assessment of surface water was conducted in 2011, and included surface water and aquatic sediment quality monitoring, as well as benthic macroinvertebrate, and fish community surveys.
35 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
7.11 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL
7.11.1 Regional Land Use
The Project is located in a region that has seen little to no development. The population within the James Bay Lowlands Ecoregion is approximately 7,100. The area includes the traditional lands of a number of First Nations which support traditional land uses including, but not limited to, hunting, trapping and fishing. Land uses in the area include hunting, trapping, fishing and recreational activities mainly consisting of tourist lodges, fly-in camps, and self-directed recreational activities which will be identified and mapped.
The nearest communities to the Project are Nakina (population 700), located 300 km south southeast and Pickle Lake (population 400), located approximately 300 km west southwest. Major service centres include Thunder Bay (population 109,000), located approximately 530 km south southwest, and Timmins (population 43,000) located approximately 575 km southeast.
7.11.2 Aboriginal Communities
The Project lies within the James Bay Treaty or, as it is commonly referred to, Treaty 9. The site of the project lies within a region that has overlapping traditional lands. Specifically Marten Falls, Webequie, and Neskantaga First Nations all state that they have used the area from time immemorial. Other communities also indicate that their traditional lands will be impacted to some degree by the proposed Project.
Other First Nations communities that may potentially be affected by the Project have been identified as Nibinamik, Eabametoong, Mishkeegogamang, the Ojibway Nation of Saugeen, Attawapiskat, and Aroland First Nations. Marten Falls, Webequie, Nibinamik, Neskantaga and Eabametoong First Nations are part of the Matawa Tribal Council. Attawapiskat First Nation is a member of the Mushkegowuk Tribal Council.
The following provides a brief description of the potentially impacted communities:
• Marten Falls First Nation is an Anishinaabe First Nation which occupies a community at Ogoki Post, approximately 130 km southwest of the Project at the junction of the Ogoki and Albany Rivers. As of February 2008, the First Nation had a total registered population of 600 people, of which their on-reserve population was 283 people. Year round access to the community is by air. A winter road is constructed each year. Noront understands that the Project is situated within the traditional lands of the Marten Falls First Nation since, according to a trap line registration regime developed by the government of Ontario, many community members from Marten Falls hold trap lines within the Project area.
• Webequie First Nation is an Ojibway First Nation located approximately 80 km to the northwest of the Project, on the northern peninsula of Eastwood Island on Winisk Lake, 540 km (336 mi) north of the city of Thunder Bay. Webequie is a fly-in community with no summer road access. The primary access to the community is by air to Webequie Airport or
36 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
winter road, which connects to the Northern Ontario Resource Trail. In 2006, Webequie was reported to have an on reserve population of 642 people and an off reserve population of 75. Noront understands that the proposed mine site is situated within the traditional lands of the Webequie First Nation.
• Nibinamik First Nation, also known as Summer Beaver Band, is a small Oji-Cree First Nation located on the Summer Beaver Settlement that is connected to the rest of the province by its airport, and a winter/ice road that leads to the Northern Ontario Resource Trail. In October 2009, Nibinamik First Nation had a registered population of 440 people. The community is located approximately 140 km west of the Project and is accessible by air year round and by winter road. The potential east-west all season access corridor falls within the traditional lands of Nibinamik First Nation.
• Eabametoong First Nation, also known as Fort Hope, is an Ojibway First Nation located on Eabamet Lake in the Albany River system, approximately 300 km northeast of Thunder Bay. It is accessible by airplane to Fort Hope Airport, by water, or by winter/ice roads, which connect the community to the Northern Ontario Resource Trail. It has the largest community population in the area with approximately 1,176 people living on reserve and 990 people living off reserve. Fort Hope is located approximately 170 km southwest of the Project. The potential east-west all season access corridor is located, in part, on the traditional lands of the Eabametoong First Nation.
• Neskantaga First Nation, also known as Lansdowne House, is an Oji-Cree First Nation located along the shores of Attawapiskat Lake, on the Attawapiskat River, approximately 130 km southwest of the Project. In 2006, Lansdowne House was reported to have an on reserve population of 274 people and an off reserve population of 99 people. The community is accessible by air year round and a winter road for a short period of time each year. Neskantaga First Nation states that the Project location falls on the traditional lands of their community. The proposed east-west all season access corridor is located, in part, on the traditional lands of the Neskantaga First Nation.
• Aroland First Nation is an Ojibway and Oji-Cree First Nation located approximately 20 km west of Nakina, and approximately 300 km south of the Project. It is reported to have an on reserve population of 328 people and an off reserve population of 246. Access to the community is by an all season road. The proposed trans-load facility for the north-south access corridor is located on the traditional lands of Aroland First Nation.
• Attawapiskat First Nation is a Cree First Nation located at the mouth of the Attawapiskat River at James Bay. The on reserve population reported in the Statistics Canada 2001 Census was 1,293. The community is approximately 260 km east from the Project. The proposed mine site is located in sub-watersheds of the Attawapiskat River; hence the community is downstream of the proposed project. Noront understands that Attawapiskat has indicated they have used the land located close to the project site to pursue their traditional activities. Travel to Attawapiskat is by air and by winter road. The airport operates year-round with a gravel runway. 37 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
• Mishkeegogamang First Nation is an Ojibway First Nation located on Highway 599, approximately 20 kilometres south of Pickle Lake. In September, 2007, its total registered population was 1,535, of which the on-reserve population was 866.
• Ojibway Nation of Saugeen is an Ojibway First Nation and is located approximately 20 kilometres northwest of Savant Lake. In December, 2007, its total registered population was 206, of which the on-reserve population was 72.
The Project lies well outside the traditional harvesting lands of the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO). However the MNO members have suggested that they could be impacted by the potential transportation of material to the mine site.
Traditional land and resource use (trapping, fishing, bait harvesting, hunting, etc.) is important to the identified Aboriginal communities for economic and subsistence purposes. Land and resources are also used for cultural or spiritual purposes. Construction and operations may potentially interfere with Aboriginal participation in current use of traditional lands and resources.
7.11.3 Cultural Heritage Resources
The Project is situated approximately 25 km from the Otoskwin-Attawapiskat River Provincial Park which runs the entire length of the river and includes a 200 m buffer on both sides of the river.
Preliminary archeological studies near the mine site are underway. A Stage 1 Assessment with field inspection will be conducted in 2012 to identify and confirm areas of high archeological potential. A report will be submitted for approval to the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. Once the report is approved, Stage 2 subsurface testing will be conducted. Archaeological research in the region suggests that the area was occupied by humans as early as 7,000 years before present. These early humans, known as the Shield Archaic Culture, tended to locate themselves near caribou river crossings. Previous archaeological research has also shown that ungulates and fish were exploited by Aboriginal peoples from circa 1000 A.D. to contact with Europeans.
Evidence also suggests that the region was intensively used during the historic fur trade. Previous research has indicated that the study area is located within a region that was explored by the mid-to-late 18th century. Additionally, there is a history of mining in the region spanning from the early 20th century until the present.
At present there are no registered archaeological sites in the immediate vicinity of the Project. This lack of archaeological sites can be attributed to several factors, not the least of which is the overall lack of development in the area, compared to Southern Ontario. However, there is archaeological potential in the Project area.
38 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
7.12 BASELINE STUDY PROGRAMS
Baseline studies will provide benchmark conditions for assessing potential impacts to the environment, and the baseline data will be used to inform the evaluation of alternatives in selecting a final undertaking. Baseline data collected will be of the quality, depth and relevance needed to meet the requirements of the EA, consistent with provincial and federal requirements. The baseline studies have been, and will continue to be, conducted using standard protocols and scientifically defensible methods. Where appropriate, these methods have been and will continue to be discussed with regulatory authorities. Preliminary discussions have been initiated with the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and the Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and Ministry of the Environment (MOE). The results and methods of the baselines studies will also be discussed with Aboriginal communities and the public. The EA will provide detailed information on the methods and approach of each baseline study.
The objectives of the baseline studies are to:
• Describe the physical, biological and socio-economic conditions and trends in areas potentially affected by the Project in order to understand potential impacts and develop appropriate mitigation and management measures • Describe the geochemical characteristics of the mineral resource extraction process and the mine wastes that will be generated by the Project in order to develop an understanding of the factors that could affect the environment • Inform the selection of alternatives to minimize environmental impacts of the Project • Establish benchmarks for monitoring programs that will be implemented during the construction, operation, closure and post closure phases of the Project, such that Project impacts can be properly addressed as necessary as the Project proceeds • Interact with potentially affected populations in the course of baseline data collection in order to exchange information on the Project and to provide people the opportunity to express their concerns and preferences with regard to the Project development
7.13 BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION TOOLS
Preliminary baseline studies have been conducted in support of a mining scoping study. Studies are ongoing to provide further detail for the feasibility study, and to support the development of an EA that meets federal and provincial requirements. To date, baseline studies have been conducted through the review of pre-existing documentation and extensive field studies. Baseline studies have included an assessment of:
• Surface water quality and quantity • Groundwater quality and quantity • Soils and sediment type and quality • Vegetation communities • Wildlife communities • Aquatic habitat and communities • Physiography, geology and geochemistry
39 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
• Climate and meteorology • Socio-economic conditions • Cultural resources
Environmental baseline studies are ongoing at the mine site, have been conducted along the proposed east-west access corridor, and are underway for the potential trans-load facility near Aroland. Details on the environmental baseline studies are provided in the following sections.
7.13.1 Surface Water Quality and Quantity
Surface water quality monitoring was initiated at the Project site in 2009. A total of 11 surface water quality sites were established and undergo seasonal sampling. In 2011, four surface water quality sites were established along the proposed east-west corridor south of Webequie. Parameters sampled include those outlined in the Mining Act along with methyl mercury and radium 226. Sampling at these sites will continue through 2012.
Water quality samples were obtained along the proposed east-west access corridor in 2011 in conjunction with the aquatic assessments. A total of 41 water quality samples were taken.
Hydrological studies began in 2010 within the Attawapiskat, Ekwan and Winisk watersheds. There are two hydrology stations located near the Project site which remain in operation. Six sites were located along the proposed east-west corridor during 2010 and 2011 baseline studies. Each station is equipped with a water level sensor and data logger for continuous stage monitoring. Seasonal water level and discharge measurements have been obtained. Stream flow monitoring at the mine site will continue in 2012.
7.13.2 Groundwater Quality and Quantity
Groundwater studies were initiated in 2010 with the installation of 11 bedrock and overburden groundwater monitoring wells near the mine site. Response testing was conducted on each well after installation and development. Each well is equipped with a water level sensor and data logger to continuously record groundwater elevation. Monitoring of these wells is ongoing and will continue in 2012. Additional overburden and shallow bedrock wells are being installed in 2012 at the mine site near proposed infrastructure. Deep bedrock wells are also being installed to assess potential groundwater conditions near proposed underground infrastructure.
Bedrock and overburden groundwater monitoring wells were installed in 2011 along the proposed east-west route at the proposed Webequie Junction site, and at the proposed east-west road trans-load facility near Savant Lake. Seven monitoring wells were installed at the proposed Savant Lake trans-load Facility and eight at the Webequie Junction site.
Groundwater quality samples have been obtained seasonally in conjunction with surface water sampling. Water quality parameters include those outlined in the Mining Act and include methyl mercury and additional specialized parameters depending on the location of the well.
40 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
7.13.3 Terrestrial Baseline Studies
Terrestrial baseline study programs were initiated in 2009 and have included:
• Breeding bird surveys • Winter mammal surveys • Wildlife inventories • Vegetation community surveys within forest and wetland habitats • Species at Risk Assessments with attention to caribou habitat and population studies
These studies have focused on defining the existing terrestrial environment in the local study area near the mine site, in the regional study area near Webequie Junction and along the proposed east-west access corridor. Terrestrial studies near the mine site are ongoing and will continue in 2012.
Additional data on range-scale caribou values and functions, which are currently being addressed by the Ontario Far North Caribou Working Group, will be considered in the examination of transportation and mine location alternatives. This will include determining and evaluating habitat loss, identifying barriers to caribou movement, assessing potential displacement due to Project impacts, and addressing increased caribou predation from top carnivores and humans. The cumulative effects of other proposed linear corridors and mining developments will also be considered. The Working Group is developing a Resource Selection Function (RSF) model that will be used to quantify potential impacts on caribou at various range levels. However, the cooperative RSF work being done is not the determinant of the caribou ranges but rather will support the caribou range delineation produced by MNR by identifying the primary habitat influences on caribou activity and characterizing these influences.
7.13.4 Aquatic Baseline Studies
Fisheries assessments were initiated in 2009 at the mine site and were focused on the Muketei River. Field investigations in 2010 were focused at identifying the fish communities and habitat within the lacustrine environments along the east-west access corridor. During 2011, comprehensive aquatic studies were completed at the mine site, near Webequie Junction, and at the potential Savant Lake trans-load Facility. The 2011 aquatic baseline program consisted of:
• Fish community and habitat surveys • Sediment quality assessments • Benthic macroinvertebrate community assessments • Water Quality Assessments
Additional aquatic baseline studies are planned for 2012 near the Project site, which include fish tissue sampling for both sport and forage species.
41 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
7.13.5 Physiography, Geology and Geochemistry
Geological surveys have been ongoing since the discovery of the deposit and physiographical investigations are also ongoing at the Project site.
With respects to geochemistry, further acid rock drainage (ARD) and metal leaching (ML) investigations will take place within mineralization, overburden, aggregate materials, waste rock and potential tailings at the mine site.
7.13.6 Climate and Meteorology
A meteorological station was installed near the Project site in 2009. Temperature, air pressure, wind speed and direction, rainfall, incoming shortwave radiation, and relative humidity are measured hourly by a HOBO U30 Logger. Long term climate data have been compiled from Environment Canada weather stations in the regional study area. Local and regional meteorological data collection is ongoing.
Potential climate variability will be evaluated to consider possible impacts on project components. For example, the feasibility of potential winter roads could be affected by seasonal climate variability.
7.13.7 Air Quality and Noise
Existing air quality conditions will be characterized using available literature and monitoring data from stations in northern Ontario. These data will be used to determine background concentrations of the indicator compounds for the project. Air predictions and ambient air quality will be compared to the Ministry of the Environment's Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQCs). Emissions of indicator compounds will be calculated for the various project components including, but not limited to, vehicle use, mine operations, waste incineration and aggregate production. Accepted dispersion models will be used to predict concentrations of each compound.
Noise conditions are expected to be representative of remote areas of the province and will be primarily based on literature search. Baseline noise monitoring has been completed at the mine site to supplement theoretical background conditions. Noise emission levels from the various elements of the Project will be developed. The assessment of noise effects will be done in accordance with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Noise Pollution Control (NPC) Guideline Publications. In addition, the assessment of noise will be consistent with the Health Canada National Guidelines for Environmental Assessment: Health Impacts of Noise (May, 2005), and the Health Canada Noise Impact Assessment Orientation Document for Projects Triggering CEAA (May 2005).
42 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
7.13.8 Socio-economic Baselines Studies
Noront has been collecting, and will continue to collect, data on the socio-economic environment through consultation with community members, the review of existing published and unpublished data, and government databases.
7.13.9 Cultural Heritage Resources
In 2010 Woodland Heritage Services Ltd. conducted a Stage 1 archaeological assessment along the proposed access corridors and at the Project site. Further assessments, including Stage 2 assessments, at sites of high archaeological potential identified during the stage 1 assessment are scheduled to occur once the proposed project footprint has been defined. In addition, the project areas will be reviewed to determine if there are known and potential built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.
7.14 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
A preliminary, non-inclusive list of potential environmental effects is outlined in the following sections. It is expected that a broader and more detailed range of potential effects will be identified when final alternatives are selected, as baseline studies are completed, and through consultation with the public, First Nation communities and government reviewers. Some of the potential effects may require more detailed investigation, for example impact of wildlife movement from the development of linear utility and infrastructure corridors, and the increased human access to remote areas.
7.14.1 Mine Development and Operation
• Loss or fragmentation of terrestrial habitat due to development of mine site facilities • Changes in air quality due to dust and fumes from the mining operation, storage and use of explosives, handling and transport of the concentrate, and aggregate crushing, screening, and stock-piling; change in noise levels and air quality from the operation of heavy machinery • Pumping of mine water to surface water courses which could affect local water quality if groundwater quality differs substantially from surface water quality; although all mine water is planned to be re-used by the underground mill, in the event that all mine water cannot be re-used, it will be treated and discharged into naturally filtering wetlands • Runoff from temporary waste rock piles during initial mine development; the piles will stored on pads so that runoff can be captured and treated, if necessary • Seepage to soils and groundwater and runoff to surface water from aggregate piles and settling ponds during mine development and operations • Fuel or chemical spills at the mine site • Concentrate or chemical spills at the mine site • Increased human interaction with wildlife
43 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
7.14.2 Water Management Systems
• Residues and suspended materials from on-site ditches, wash areas, and maintenance facilities could affect water quality in receiving waters, to be mitigated by stormwater management and treatment • Drawdown of groundwater through development of the mine and associated facilities; however, the deep bedrock has a low hydraulic conductivity, so the overburden and shallow groundwater aquifers will be isolated from mine operations • Potential impact to wetlands, peat and water movement due to the drawdown of groundwater
7.14.3 Power Generation
• Noise, air quality and lighting impacts from operation of diesel generators and the transfer and storage of fuel, and disruption of habitat during the construction of potential power line transmission corridors • Disruption, loss and fragmentation of habitat during the construction and maintenance of potential transmission lines • Fuel or chemical spills at the power generation site
7.14.4 Trans-load Facility Development and Operation
• Changes to noise levels and air quality from the operation of heavy equipment • Concentrate spills • Seepage to soils and groundwater and runoff to surface water from the sedimentation pond and concentrate stockpiles • Dust and fumes from handling of the concentrate
7.14.5 Access Road Corridor Operation
• Loss or fragmentation of terrestrial and aquatic habitat due to potential development of access and/or transportation corridors • Disturbance and/or fragmentation of wildlife habitat during potential construction of access corridors • Dust, fumes and lighting from the transport of the ore concentrate; fuel, chemical or concentrate spills from vehicle accidents • Seepage to soils, to groundwater and/or runoff to surface water from concentrate or fuel spills along access corridor • Potential increased erosion and sedimentation of waterbodies from road runoff, to be mitigated by stormwater management, including proper ditching • Improvement of fish habitat due to replacement of corduroy crossing with culverts along the proposed east-west corridor • Increased access to resources including fishing, hunting and aggregates
44 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
• Potential impacts related to the extraction of aggregate materials • Increased access to wilderness areas and provincial parks which could lead to: o Increased traffic and use of the parks (snowmobile/ATV) o Increased fishing pressure within the park o Effects on existing recreational features • Potential impacts to pre-existing traplines and traditional hunting areas • Potential impacts to stream morphology and flows
7.14.6 Waste Management Systems
• Potential effects on surface water quality from fuelling and servicing areas, mitigated by collection of water to storm water system and treatment of storm water • Domestic water, mitigated by sewage treatment prior to discharge • Seepage to soils and groundwater and runoff to surface water from solid waste storage areas • Changes to air quality from the operation of the incinerator located at the mine site • Changes to air quality from hazardous waste handling, storage and disposal, and domestic waste storage and domestic sewage treatment
7.14.7 Potential Socio-Economic Effects of Mine Operation
• Increased employment and procurement of goods and services • Potential for demographic changes in potentially affected First Nation communities that may be attributable to the Project • Potential benefits and adverse effects of increased infrastructure and services that may result from the Project • Potential for an increase in demand on existing infrastructure and public services that may result from the Project • Visual impact on the area of the mine site and associated infrastructure, expected to be minimal • Changes in the dynamics of tourism and recreational activities, including commercial recreational tenures and activities and areas important to recreational use by residents and visitors • Effects to potential navigation and current waterway uses • Effects on traditional land use activities by Aboriginal people, such as hunting, fishing, trapping and harvesting and other traditional uses of the land • Potential effects on cultural heritage resources • Potential effects of the Project on social structure and conditions in the LSA, including family cohesiveness, violence, potential for sexually transmitted infections and other communicable diseases, drug use, changes in mental health and gambling • Potential impact on community demographics, community resilience to changes associated with mining activity, and community governance • Potential human health effects of the Project arising from potential chemical releases to the environment from the Project, if applicable
45 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
• Potential economic benefits that may accrue to local communities, northwestern Ontario and the province • Potential socio-economic effects of mine closure
7.15 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Noront will identify and assess the cumulative environmental effects of the Project, including on site and off site components, in combination with other past, present or future projects that are “certain” or “reasonably foreseeable” projects and/or activities. If applicable, this may include: future mines, transportation alternatives (road vs. rail corridors), hydroelectric generation, power transmission and any other projects or activities.
Cumulative effects may result if:
• Implementation of the Project causes direct residual negative effects on the environmental components, taking into account the application of technically and economically feasible mitigation measures • The same environmental components are affected by other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects or activities
Therefore, environmental components that would not suffer an adverse effect from the Project can be omitted from the cumulative effects assessment.
The EA will describe the analysis of the total cumulative effect on each valued ecosystem component (VEC) over the life of the Project, including the incremental contribution of all current and proposed projects or additional activities. The EA will include different forms of effects (e.g., synergistic, additive, induced, spatial or temporal) and identify impact pathways and trends. The cumulative effects assessment will be prepared based on the guidance document entitled: Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA, 2007).
46 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
SECTION 8.0 - ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
In order to evaluate project alternatives, it will be necessary to establish criteria, indicators and evaluation methods. The criteria will be designed to assess the effects of the undertaking and alternatives and the undertaking on the environment. In addition, each criterion will have one or more indicators that will identify how the potential environmental effects will be measured. The proposed evaluation criteria and indicators that will be used for assessing the alternatives in the EA include but are not limited to those outlined in Table 8.1 along with the potential data sources.
8.1 EVALUATION METHODS
In order to ensure that the alternatives are evaluated in a clear, logical, and traceable fashion, the information generated through the following analyses will be summarized in a series of tables and elaborated on within the text of the EA.
8.1.1 Net Effect Analysis
The first evaluation method is a “net effects analysis” which will evaluate the alternatives to and the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking. The net effects analysis will be done in consultation with government agencies, Aboriginal groups and the public, and will consist of the following steps:
1. Development of evaluation criteria and indicators based on the proposed undertaking, existing environmental conditions, the range of alternatives to be considered and type and scale of potential environmental effects and their relative significance.
2. Application of evaluation criteria and indicators to each alternative to identify the potential effects on the environment.
3. Development of appropriate impact management measures.
4. Application of the avoidance, mitigation and/or compensation measures to identified potential effects in order to identify the net effects on the environment.
The evaluation criteria and indicators presented in Table 8.1 will be further refined during the EA process and documented in the final EA. The assessment of environmental effects will increase in detail as the preferred alternatives are identified.
8.1.2 Comparative Evaluation - Reasoned Argument
Following the completion of the net effects analysis, the alternatives will be compared through a reasoned argument method to identify the preferred alternative. The reasoned argument method highlights the relative advantage and disadvantage of each alternative based on its identified net effects. As a result, the relative differences and key impacts of each alternative, for each
47 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
factor/environmental component, will be understood and examined to provide a clear rationale for the selection of a preferred alternative.
8.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
8.2.1 Natural Environment
While the impact assessment will include predictions of changes to physical environmental components, the focus of determination of significance will be based on the biological receptors that are subject to those changes. Numerical guidelines are readily available for many physical parameters, such as water and air quality; however, the significance of any exceedance lies in determination of the effects on, or risks to, biological receptors.
Consequently, the environmental impact assessment will also address biological resources. Many of the pathways of effects relate to changes in the physical environmental components listed above. Potential impacts may also arise from direct project-related activities. For example, site clearing may physically displace or alter habitat, and project development may incur indirect socio-economic factors, such as increased human population density, and improved access which could result in increased exploitation of local biological resources. Biological components of the environment generally include:
• Aquatic habitat (e.g., creeks and rivers) • Aquatic biota (e.g., algae, plants, invertebrates and fish) • Terrestrial habitat (e.g., forests, grasslands, wetlands, riparian corridors) • Terrestrial biota (e.g., plants, and “wildlife” including amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) • Wolf-caribou and bear-caribou predator prey relationships, caribou behavioural responses, habitat losses and impacts, and caribou migration routes
Taken together, the physical and biological impact assessments include the natural environmental impact assessment, and are used to predict any changes to the quality and availability (quantity) of resources in the study area. The assessment process evaluates both the potential impacts of the Project, and the Project’s alternatives. The process of assessing and evaluating the positive and negative impacts of the Project, as outlined in the following sections, is based on the integration of a number of criteria and sources of information. The process includes 1) an evaluation of site-specific information, in the form of empirical data from the site, modelling studies, and consultation with Aboriginal groups, stakeholders and regulators; and 2) a review of the broader technical and scientific literature. The latter includes any published scientific literature, impact assessments and environmental effects studies at similar sites, published Best Management Practices and professional judgment and experience.
48 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
8.2.1.1 Determination of the Significance of an Impact
The determination of the significance of an impact is often assessed relative to existing criteria, for example regulatory guidelines. As a result, physical components, such as air quality, surface water and groundwater quality, and soils and sediment quality are assessed with respect to the environmental standards applicable to the undertaking. Environmental standards/criteria applicable to the Project will include provincial and federal criteria, standards, and/or guidelines for air, noise, water, soil, sediments and biota. The levels of significance of effects of these components will be one of the following:
• Low: Predicted concentrations are below applicable standards. • Moderate: Exceedance of standards, up to 10-times the standard (to account for safety factors that are usually built into these standards). • High: Predicted concentrations are more that 10-times the applicable standards.
Exceedance of a regulatory criterion is not necessarily a significant effect in itself, and it does not automatically provide a measure of significance to biological receptors. Each environmental change must be interpreted according to the degree of risk of impact to the biological communities. This evaluation will be based on specific attributes of pathway, exposure and receptor characteristics, as well as the likelihood of measurable effects on populations or communities. This approach recognizes that effects at the community or population level can have much longer lasting impacts than effects on individuals. Therefore, the levels of significance of effects on biological communities will be assessed on the basis of the following:
• Low: Effects are limited to a few individuals, usually in the immediate vicinity of the impact, and are not expected to result in population-level changes. • Moderate: Population-level changes may occur, but are not expected to be beyond the normal range of fluctuations of population size or density for those species. Populations are expected to possess compensatory responses sufficient to recover from these changes. • High: Population-level changes may occur that are expected to result in changes in population size or density beyond the normal range of fluctuations for those species. It is uncertain whether populations would possess compensatory responses sufficient to recover from these changes.
The determination of significance is based on the potential impacts on biological receptors, rather than the physical environment, since the effects on physical components, such as water quality, are determined with respect to their potential biological effects (e.g., water quality guidelines that have been developed with the purpose of protecting biological resources). Hence, the assessment of significance is considered within this context.
49 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
With respect to caribou, it is not necessary for the animals to be present or close by for there to be cumulative negative impacts. While the ultimate effects occur to individuals and will be measured as impacts to populations, the proximate effects and measures are often related directly to the physical environment as indicators of potential impacts. For example, the location and density of linear features are important indicators and will be assessed at the sub-range and range scales.
Where potentially significant impacts to the environment are identified, additional mitigation measures will be incorporated, where feasible, to minimize the residual impacts, which will then be re-evaluated to determine the final significance of the likely impact. However, avoidance or prevention of negative impacts will be the priority.
The assessment will be conducted with the use of tables that organize and summarize the process described above into comparable and intuitive presentations for each of the Project phases.
The significance of the predicted changes in the environment will be assessed relative to measurement criteria. The assessment of significance will be conducted in consideration of different assessment categories that are used to predict the magnitude and likelihood of an effect. The categories to be considered are:
• Direction: Whether a potential impact will be positive, neutral or negative. • Geographic Extent: The area over which an impact will be experienced. • Duration: The period of time over which an impact occurs. • Frequency: How often an impact occurs within a given time period. • Reversibility: The potential for recovery from an impact to a level similar to baseline conditions. • Magnitude: Describes the results of an impact in a measurable way by means of specific criteria (e.g., area of habitat lost, density or numbers of species affected), relative to the baseline condition and to relevant provincial or federal standards, guidelines, or criteria.
8.2.2 Socio-economic/Cultural Environment
Potential effects of the Project on the social, economic, and cultural environment, and to human health will be assessed. These will include the effects of improved transportation and the provision of employment opportunities on the local communities and First Nations. The social, economic, and cultural impact assessment will measure both the positive, negative, direct and indirect effects of the Project on individuals, organizations, communities and governments. Information on any predicted social, economic and/or cultural benefits of the Project will be considered through an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the Project. This information will be reviewed by the public, Aboriginal communities and government reviewers before a decision is made by the Minister of the Environment in assessing the justifiability of any significant adverse environmental effects.
50 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
The principles outlined regarding establishing baseline conditions will be applied to the assessment of potential effects on social, economic and cultural issues.
8.2.2.1 Determination of the significance of an Impact
Impact assessment methodology for the Socio-economic Impact Assessment (SIA) is described in this section. As with environmental impacts, socio-economic impacts will also take into consideration construction, operations, closure and post-closure stages of the Project. Social impact assessment takes into consideration the socio-economic components of the environment, including:
• Politics and governance • Economics • Demographics and people • Health • Social maladies • Education • Land tenure and use • Infrastructure • Cultural Heritage and archaeology • Indigenous peoples or ethnic minorities
The SIA will be focused on identifying potential impacts to First Nation communities with special consideration with respect to the potential impacts to sites of aboriginal cultural significance and traditional land use areas. The evaluation method, and the confirmation of what elements will be studied, will be confirmed through consultation with Aboriginal communities, the public and government reviewers.
Evaluation Methods
The key steps in developing the socio-economic elements impact assessment are described below:
• Socio-economic baseline: The basis of social analysis is the socio-economic baseline, complemented by consultation and discussion with those who may be affected by the Project. Information collected during the baseline study and through consultation is used to identify factors that may be influencing the human environment prior to Project implementation. • Review of Project activities: Project activities that may affect the social or economic characteristics of local communities are identified.
51 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
• Key Issue Identification: Key social and economic issues identified during the scoping phase of the EA are revised and considered with the final Project activity details. The purpose is to identify the essential issues for the Project within the overall social, political and cultural context described in the baseline. • Impact Categories: The key issues are used to develop a set of impact categories that form the basis of the impact assessment. Each impact category may have a set of sub-category topics that address issues raised during consultation. • Mitigation: Actions are developed to avoid or minimize negative impacts and maximize benefits. The interventions to minimize negative impacts and maximize positive impacts make up the social elements of the Environmental and Social Management Plan. • Residual Impacts: Residual impacts, also referred to as social significance, are the impacts predicted to occur after mitigation. The impact assessment is performed on residual impacts.
Evaluation Indicators
Determination of socio-economic impact follows a different methodology than the one used for physical and biological impacts. There are, however, some similarities in the definition of attributes. The four attributes applied to the determination of socio-economic impact significance are listed and defined below:
• Direction: Indicates whether the impact is positive, negative or neutral. Some impacts may have both positive and negative dimensions. • Magnitude: Indicates the degree of change in a socio-economic parameter and is generally a qualitative assessment. • Geographic extent: Indicates the geographic and administrative units that will be impacted. Some impacts may affect only individuals, whereas others may affect the Local Study Area (LSA), Regional Study Area (RSA) or the entire country. • Duration: Indicates the length of time over which an impact may occur. Duration is usually related to the description of the Project.
Unlike environmental impacts, social impacts will not be assessed on probability. Socio-economic impacts are part of an ongoing process of interdependent economic and social change. Although there are isolated exceptions, most socio-economic impacts are experienced continuously by people. Thus, probability is not often a useful attribute for significance assessment, and so social impacts will be assessed by consultation with potentially affected communities.
52 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
8.2.3 Impact Management
Impact management measures, such as mitigation, compensation, enhancement and adaptive management will be proposed where a Project activity may have an adverse effect on the environment. In many cases, the Project activities described already include impact management measures (e.g., mitigation by design), with the result that these activities typically do not result in adverse effects. Where additional impact management measures are warranted, these will be proposed. Where additional impact management measures are identified, a second assessment will be undertaken to determine the potential significance of the impact with the mitigation measures applied.
Technical and feasible measures investigated to manage the Project’s potential adverse environmental effects will be documented within the EA. These measures will be presented in a fashion that will give clarity and definition to the measures taken. Impact management will be carried out as needed.
53 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
SECTION 9.0 - COMMITMENTS AND MONITORING
During the EA, a monitoring framework will be developed for the post-EA phase, to address the pre-construction, construction, operation, closure and post-closure phases of the Project. It will include compliance and effects monitoring, and will include the schedule and frequency of the proposed monitoring plans and methods. Any follow-up programs will also be indicated.
The EA will include a list or table of commitments made by Noront during the ToR process, and where or how they have been addressed. The EA will also include a list or table of any commitments made by Noront during the preparation of the EA. These include commitments relating to additional studies, monitoring programs, public consultation and contingency planning, impact management measures (i.e., mitigation measures), as well as documentation and correspondence.
9.1 MONITORING PLANS
Based on the environmental and socio-economic impact assessment, the EA will outline two impact management plans; an Environmental Management Plan (EMP), and a Social Management Plan (SMP). Environmental and Social Monitoring Plans will be developed as part of the EA to address specific monitoring requirements. These will be focused on those components where there is potential for effects from Project activities. The Monitoring Plans will include compliance and effects monitoring, and will be used to verify the predictions of the impact assessment. Where required the plans will be used for the development of adaptive management strategies to address any unforeseen effects, especially unforeseen cumulative effects. These plans will:
• Provide a comprehensive list of commitments made by Noront during the ToR process, and detail where or how they have been dealt with in the EA • Provide a list of commitments made during the preparation of the EA • Reflect the results of consultations and be predicated on an ongoing program of consultations over the life of the Project • Include compliance and effects monitoring • Describe the mitigation and benefit enhancement measures that will be put in place to address significant residual Project impacts specific to each of the construction, operations, closure and post closure phases • Describe the monitoring of impact mitigation and benefit enhancement measures • Describe how the implementation of mitigation and benefit enhancement measures will be managed to ensure success. This will take into account institutional capability to participate in management of the Project`s environmental and social performance where such participation is deemed appropriate. • Present monitoring costs, schedules and frameworks, as developed during the preparation of the EA
54 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
9.1.1 Environmental Management Plan
The objective of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is to set out clearly the key components of environmental management for the Project and thereby ensure that the following concepts are realized throughout the construction, operation, closure and post-closure phases of the Project:
• Negative impacts on the physical and biological environments are mitigated if avoidance and prevention are not possible • Benefits that will arise from the development of the Project are enhanced • Compliance with existing legislation and consistency with provincial guidelines and best practice • Compliance with Project permits and approvals
The EMP will address:
• Management of physical environment • Management of biological environment • Emergency preparedness and response • Contingency planning • Health and safety • Closure and post closure • Management plan implementation
For each of the above referenced subject areas, the EMP will identify policies, practices and/or procedures, including monitoring, inspections and audits, which will contribute to the mitigation of any potential environmental impacts. Mitigation could involve selecting alternatives for particular Project components that reduce the potential for negative impacts and including techniques and procedures to reduce the overall impact significance.
In addressing emergency preparedness and response, the EMP will identify the principal environmental risks associated with the Project, evaluate each risk qualitatively and propose measures to minimize the potential for occurrence and, in the event of occurrence, to minimize the potential for negative effects.
In addressing closure and post closure, the EMP will set out objectives and propose measures, including contingency measures, for achieving those objectives. In addition, the EMP will address progressive rehabilitation, describe expected post closure conditions and propose post closure monitoring.
55 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
9.1.2 Social Management Plan
The Social Management Plan will address the avoidance of, minimization of, and/or compensation for, any negative socio-economic effects that could result from the Project. It will also address the enhancement of any positive benefits that could result. For example, mitigation and enhancement could involve:
• Selecting alternatives for particular Project components that reduce the potential for negative impacts and/or enhance the potential for benefit • Developing Project practices and procedures that reduce the potential for negative impacts and/or enhance the potential for benefit • Identifying social impacts and benefits that can be directly mitigated and/or enhanced, developing specific measures that address those impacts and benefits • Identifying other social impacts that are difficult to completely mitigate, such as changes resulting from in-migration or out-migration, and developing broad measures that contribute to the quality of life of the affected populations
The Social Management Plan will also set out the monitoring required to ensure that identified mitigation and benefit enhancement measures are implemented and that identified objectives are achieved. The monitoring will facilitate the adaptive management of socio-economic effects, many of which are inherently unpredictable. Indicators of the achievement of objectives will be identified and these will become the parameters to be monitored. In practice, the monitoring will be based both on ongoing data collection and consultations, and will also use any secondary data sources that might be available.
56 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
SECTION 10.0 - CONSULTATION PLAN AND CONSULTATION TO DATE
10.1 CONSULTATION PLAN FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
10.1.1 Introduction
Consultation is a central objective of the provincial EA process. Consultation planning was undertaken with consideration of the MOE Code of Practice on Preparing and Reviewing the Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario (2009) and Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process (2007). A detailed Consultation Plan is provided in Appendix C. This section provides a summary of the key elements and objectives of the Consultation Plan.
The following elements of a successful Consultation Plan, as suggested by the MOE, have been included in the Consultation Plan:
• Clear Objectives • Stakeholder Identification • Consultation Methods • Issue Identification • Integration of Input • Proponent Evaluation of Consultation
Aboriginal people may have constitutionally protected rights, and can offer a unique understanding of the environment based on their special relationship with the land. The duty to consult with Aboriginal people, where engaged, lies with the Crown and, although procedural aspects of the consultation process can be delegated to project proponents, the ultimate responsibility for meeting any duty to consult rests with the Crown.
10.1.2 Objectives
As outlined in the MOE Code of Practice: Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Process (2007), a consultation plan must:
• Indicate how potentially interested and affected persons, including Aboriginal peoples, will be identified, notified and consulted • Indicate how government agencies will be identified, notified and consulted • Identify the points in the environmental assessment process when interested persons will be consulted • Identify the decisions that interested persons can provide input to and what role they can play when the proponent makes choices • Acknowledge and attempt to address concerns raised during the environmental assessment process
57 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
In addition, as stated in the Code of Practice: Preparing and Reviewing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario (2009), the consultation plan should outline:
• The general consultation methods proposed • How input from interested persons will be obtained • A description of key decision-making milestones during the preparation of the environmental assessment when consultation will occur • Issue resolution strategy
Based on the above requirements the objectives of the consultation plan are to outline:
• Key stakeholders and the process by which they are identified • The consultation strategy including the consultation methods that will be used to involve stakeholders in the EA process, how Noront will provide access to information and how feedback on the Project will be provided • The consultation phases in the preparation and review of the EA and the key points in the EA process when consultation will occur • How Noront will document and address concerns that are raised during the EA process
10.2 CONSULTATION TO DATE
The initial consultation strategy for the Project was to proactively meet with government agencies, stakeholders and Aboriginal groups to share information and receive feedback about the Project. A summary of the pre-EA consultation phase activities is provided in the following sections. An overview of the preliminary list of issue categories and subjects is provided in Table 10.1. This pre-EA phase of consultation was followed by consultation related to the development of the ToR. Details of the consultations activities that occurred during the development of the ToR are provided in the Record of Consultation.
10.3 PRE-EA CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES
10.3.1 Public
Consultation activities with the public included written information sharing, videos, face-to-face meetings, community events and website updates. A website developed by Noront called Mikawaa (Discovery in Oji-Cree – www.mikawaa.com) allows interactive online discussion with community members. Noront has also created a Project website (www.eaglesnestmine.com) and periodically updates the company website (www.norontresources.com). A monthly radio program is transmitted through Wawatay Radio to discuss various aspects of the Project in Oji-Cree. Wawatay Radio reaches most communities by FM, Bell Express View and on the internet.
58 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
10.3.2 Municipal
Information meetings have been undertaken with municipal leaders and Open House sessions have been held in the communities of Pickle Lake, Ignace and the City of Thunder Bay. Less formal meetings have also taken place in Greenstone, Pickle Lake and Thunder Bay.
10.3.3 Provincial and Federal Government
An extensive and continuing series of meetings and presentations have taken place with Provincial and Federal government agencies, and Project reports and memos have been distributed for review and comment. Discussion with government agencies has focused on the EA permitting and approval process and schedule, tailings management, and baseline studies.
10.3.4 Aboriginal Engagement
Aboriginal Engagement on the Project was initiated in 2007. Engagement activities included letters, e-mails and telephone discussions. These engagement activities were held to introduce Noront and the Project to the communities and other stakeholders and to enable the building of a positive relationship with communities and stakeholders. Continued relationship building is taking place with frequent telephone calls and communication exchanges between First Nation Chiefs and Councils and Noront.
Engagement meetings were initiated in 2010 with Marten Falls and Webequie First Nations. The meetings were to build on existing relationships, actively sharing information and seeking feedback from Aboriginal communities. Completed activities related to issues scoping and the ToR include a series of presentations providing an overview of the Project, discussions with trap line holders in the Project area, hiring of First Nations field guides and sponsorship of community based programs to foster interest in mining for school aged children and adults. Communication and feedback have been initiated through phone calls, letters, and emails. Table 10.2 provides a summary of Aboriginal engagement meetings.
10.3.5 Participation of Métis Communities
Initial efforts were made in 2010 to contact the Northwest Métis Council. Other contacts had been made to the headquarters of the Métis Nation of Ontario to help Noront identify individuals for follow-up contact. In October 2010, the Métis expressed an interest to Noront regarding the Project. In June 2011, Noront met with the Métis Nation of Ontario lands and resources director. Phone meetings and a face-to-face meeting occurred during the summer of 2011 with plans to determine additional meetings with potentially affected MNO groups. After further discussions, the project location was considered outside the region where Métis Nation of Ontario members practice their traditional hunting activities.
59 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
10.3.6 Issues and Concerns
Previously identified issues and concerns include:
• Business, employment and training opportunities • Completion of Project Open Houses in the communities • Environmental concerns, including route and exploration activity • Social concerns in regards to demands on community infrastructure • Impact to traditional territory from Project development • Presentation of Project updates to community members to ensure meaningful engagements • ATK studies • All-season road development • Slurry pipeline
Table 10.3 provides a preliminary summary of the issues and concerns that have been raised during initial engagement with First Nation communities.
60 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
SECTION 11.0 - FLEXIBILITY AND CONTINGENCY PLANS
11.1 FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOMMODATE NEW CIRCUMSTANCES
It is recognized that circumstances may arise that could prevent the commitments made in the ToR from occurring. In addition, the project description presented in the ToR is preliminary and the proposed activities presented may change as additional studies are completed during the EA process. Flexibility has been incorporated into the ToR to accommodate new circumstances that may arise during the EA process. The content of the EA may be refined, where appropriate, to reflect the input gathered through studies and received through consultation and engagement.
As such, it is possible that minor variations to the ToR will occur without the need to re-start the EA process. However, any proposed modifications to the ToR will be discussed, and agreed, with the MOE prior to being implemented.
11.2 CONTINGENCY PLANS
Short term contingency plans will be developed by Noront to accommodate unforeseen situations which may arise. When required, these plans would outline a course of action to be followed if unforeseen situations arise that would prevent Noront from implementing or operating a component of the Project on a temporary basis.
61 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
SECTION 12.0 - OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED
The development of the Project, as indicated in Section 1, is subject to the OEAA and the CEAA as well as the Far North Act. The development of the Project will also require a variety of additional federal, provincial and municipal permits and approvals. A preliminary list of the anticipated licences, permits and approvals that may be required prior to mineral development and/or construction activities is provided in Table 12.1. Table 12.2 provides a preliminary list of guidelines, criteria, objectives and standards that may apply to the Project. This table will be updated during the EA.
62 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
SECTION 13.0 - REFERENCES
1. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 2004. Canada-Ontario Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation. 2. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2007. Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. 3. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2011. Comprehensive Study List Regulations. 4. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2010. Canadian Wildlife Species at Risk, October 2010. Available online from: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.cfm. 5. Environment Canada. Species at Risk Act. Available online from: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm Accessed November, 2010. 6. Major Projects Management Office. 2008. Guide to Preparing a Project Description for a Major Resource Project. 7. Ministry of Natural Resources, 2007. Endangered Species Act (ESA, 2007) Available online from: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm 8. Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 2011. Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects. Ontario, 2011. 9. Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), 2003. A Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects. Ontario, 2003. 10. Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 1995. Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 3 Areas (Rural). Publication NPC-232. October 1995. 11. Mungall et al. 20120. The Eagle’s Nest Komatiite-Hosted Ni-Cu-PGE Sulphide Deposit in the James Bay Lowlands, Ontario. 11th International Platinum Symposium. 12. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. The far North Planning Initiative. Available from: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/FarNorth/. Accessed March, 2011. 13. Ministry of the Environment. 2009a. Code of Practice: Preparing and Reviewing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario. 14. Price, W.A. 2009. Prediction Manula for Drainage Chemistry from Sulphuric Geologic Materials, MEND Report 1.20.1. CANMET – Mining and Mineral Sciences Laboratories. Smithers, British Columbia, December, 2009. 15. Stats Canada. 2006 Census. Available online from: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census recensement/index-eng.cfm Accessed October, 2010. 16. Ministry of the Environment. 2007. Code of Practice. Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process.
63 of 64 NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
TABLE 8.1
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE`S NEST PROJECT
TERMS OF REFERENCE PRELIMINARY LIST OF EVALUATION CRITERIA, INDICATORS AND POTENTIAL DATA SOURCES
Print Oct/01/12 15:19:01 Factor/Environment Proposed Criteria Indicators Potential Data Sources Baseline studies completed in the vicinity of the proposed undertaking including site surface water and drainage studies
Ongoing site monitoring reports
Surface water quality assessment Comparison with available objectives/guidelines/standards Government data sources including field studies, guidelines and published water quality Surface Water Quality Potential for change from baseline conditions information
Results of geochemistry studies (i.e. ARD and ML assessment)
Published and unpublished data sources including technical papers and reports
Proposed design of the undertaking
Baseline studies completed in the vicinity of the proposed undertaking including site surface water and drainage studies
Ongoing site monitoring reports
Topographic Maps
Government data sources including published groundwater quantity data and guidelines Surface Water Quantity Potential for change from baseline conditions Various GIS data sources including Land Information Ontario, satellite imagery and aerial photography
Published and unpublished data sources including topographic and other mapping, technical papers and reports
Proposed design of the undertaking
Baseline studies completed in the vicinity of the proposed undertaking including site geological and hydrogeological investigations
Ongoing site monitoring reports Potential to change from baseline conditions Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality assessments Comparison with available objectives/guidelines/standards Regional information on groundwater quality
Published and unpublished data sources including, technical papers and reports Proposed design of the undertaking
Potential for change from baseline conditions Baseline hydrogeological studies including the installation of surficial and bedrock monitoring wells Groundwater quantity Changes to groundwater functions in relation to recharge and discharge and aquatic/wetland habitat Geophysical investigations including ground penetrating radar surveys
utilization of models to developed water balances to determine flow calculations Direct loss of habitat functions Proposed design of the undertaking
Habitat fragmentation, disruption and destruction Baseline studies completed in the vicinity of the proposed undertaking (wildlife surveys, inventories, Land Classification) Indirect loss of wildlife habitat Natural Environment Published and unpublished data sources Impact on Species at Risk Government data sources and databases including field data and published and unpublished Effects on forest cover data through the data sharing agreement Terrestrial Environment Effects on biodiversity Various GIS data sources including Land Information Ontario, satellite imagery and aerial photography Effects on ecosystem integrity ATK studies Effects on ecological connectivity Consultation with aboriginal, public and government Loss of soils
Occurrence of wildlife-vehicle accidents Direct loss of aquatic habitat through the harmful alteration, disruption or Proposed design of the undertaking destruction of habitat Baseline studies completed in the vicinity of the proposed undertaking (wildlife surveys, Indirect loss of aquatic habitat and functions through sedimentation and inventories, Land Classification) dewatering Published and unpublished data sources Direct loss of aquatic species Government data sources and databases including standards, objectives and guidelines field Indirect loss of aquatic species data and published and unpublished data through the data sharing agreement Aquatic Environment Impact on Species at Risk Various GIS data sources including Land Information Ontario, satellite imagery and aerial photography Changes to surface water quality and quantity ATK studies Changes to sediment quality Consultation with aboriginal, public and government Direct and indirect loss of riparian habitat
Number of watercourses/water bodies in the study area
Baseline studies
Regional air quality data
Interpolation based on existing data
Onsite and local meteorological monitoring Potential to change from existing conditions Atmospheric Environment Proposed design of the undertaking and operation data Compliance with regulatory standards Government data sources and databases
Published and unpublished data sources
Emissions monitoring and air quality dispersion assessment
Noise monitoring in the vicinity of the undertaking Potential to change from existing conditions Interpolation based on available data Acoustic Environment Compliance with regulatory standards Acoustic assessment and modeling Proximity of receptors Proposed characteristics of the undertaking and operation data
Page 1 of 2 TABLE 8.1
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE`S NEST PROJECT
TERMS OF REFERENCE PRELIMINARY LIST OF EVALUATION CRITERIA, INDICATORS AND POTENTIAL DATA SOURCES
Print Oct/01/12 15:19:01 Factor/Environment Proposed Criteria Indicators Potential Data Sources Determination of archeological potential by conducting a Stage 1 archaeological assessment
Stage 2 archaeological assessment conducted in areas of high archaeological potential
Published and unpublished documentation Presence of known archaeological resources Archaeological Resources Government data sources including archaeological site data base Potential effects on areas on archaeological potential Consultation with Aboriginal groups and Stakeholders
Proposed design of the undertaking Cultural Environment Published and unpublished documentation Presence of built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes Consultation with Aboriginal groups and other stakeholders Presence of designated, commemorated, inventoried, and identified built Site analysis and survey of cultural heritage resources located within the proposed study area heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes in proximity to the Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources proposed undertaking. Relevant studies that have surveyed cultural resources in the area Potential effects on above ground cultural heritage resources. Effects can Government data sources include direct and indirect impacts. Proposed design of the undertaking
ATK studies Potential direct and indirect effects on past, current and planned tradition land and resource use Aboriginal Interest and Land and Resource Use Consultation with Aboriginal groups and government
Existing published and unpublished documentation Consultation with Aboriginal groups and government
Potential indirect and direct effects on outdoor recreation and tourism in Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Existing published and unpublished data sources the vicinity of the undertaking Baseline study reports Consultation with Aboriginal groups and government
Hunting, Trapping, Guiding, and Gathering for Potential indirect and direct effects on hunting, trapping, guiding and Existing published and unpublished data sources Subsistence gathering for subsistence Baseline study reports Consultation with Aboriginal groups and government Potential to effect the commercial, recreational and subsistence lake and Fishing Existing published and unpublished data sources stream fisheries Socio-economic Environment Baseline study reports Consultation with Aboriginal groups and government Potential to effect to the current traffic levels, air quality through Traffic Impacts Existing published and unpublished data sources emissions, and human, animal and plant life Baseline studies ATK studies
Potential to directly or indirectly effect the use of navigable waters Existing published and unpublished data sources
Navigable Waters Potential to change from baseline conditions Baseline studies conducted within the vicinity of the undertaking
Various GIS data sources including Land Information Ontario, satellite imagery and aerial photography
Potential to directly and indirectly effect human health Baseline studies
Human Health Potential to change from baseline conditions Government data sources and databases
Published and unpublished documentation
I:\1\02\00390\01\A\Report\Report 7 Rev 1 - Provincial ToR\Tables\[Table 8.1 Criteria and Indicators.xlsx]Table 8.1
1 05OCT'12 INCORPORATION OF REVIEWER COMMENTS JSP ALR SRA 0 27MAR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NB102-390/1-7 JSP ALR SRA REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
Page 2 of 2 TABLE 10.1
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT
TERMS OF REFERENCE PRELIMINARY ISSUE CATEGORIES AND SUBJECTS
Print Oct/01/12 15:23:21 Issue Category Issue Subject Project Construction Project Operations Project Phases Project Closure Project Post-Closure Mine site operations and facilities Project Details Siting / Location Proponent Project Schedule Regulatory / EA Process Project / EA Management Project Description Project Support Public Participation Aboriginal Consultation Surface Water Quality Surface Water Quantity Water Groundwater Quality Groundwater Quantity Atmosphere Air Quality Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat Biology Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota Site Geology Geology Geochemistry Employment Hunting and Fishing Community Infrastructure Traffic and Transportation Socio-Economic Population Demographics Education and Training Human Health and Safety Public Health Traditional Land Use Aboriginal Interests Traditional Knowledge I:\1\02\00390\01\A\Report\Report 7 Rev 1 - Provincial ToR\Tables\[Tables 10.1 10.2 and 10.3.xlsx]Table 10.1
1 05OCT'12 INCORPORATION OF REVIEWER COMMENTS JSP ALR SRA 0 27MAR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NB102-390/1-7 JSP ALR SRA REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
Page 1 of 1 TABLE 10.2
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT
TERMS OF REFERENCE SUMMARY OF ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS
Print Oct/01/12 15:24:27
Date Communication Summary Participants Webequie First Nation Meeting for purposes of providing a copy of the project March 29, 2010 description. Marten Falls First Nation
April 6, 2010 Meeting for purposes of addressing community issues. Marten Falls First Nation
April 9, 2010 Meeting for purposes of addressing community issues. Webequie First Nation
Meeting for the purposes of providing an update to the August 2 & 3, 2010 Webequie First Nation community capacity skills survey. Meeting to introduce the proposed ATK study and proposed September 2, 2010 Webequie First Nation project route corridor. Meeting to provide project information to community March 15, 2011 Webequie First Nation members and ATK study information.
April 11, 2011 Meeting to provide project information. Eabametoong First Nation
Meeting to provide a project update, to discuss the proposed April 20, 2011 Webequie First Nation business opportunities and to offer a project Open House.
June 20, 2011 Meeting to discuss the Airstrip and business development. Marten Falls First Nation
June 30, 2011 Meeting to discuss project update. Long Lake First Nation #58 Meeting to discuss corridor to Webequie First Nation junction September 13, 2011 Webequie First Nation and the ongoing work at the site. Meeting to discuss the Wilderness North having access to October 6, 2011 Marten Falls First Nation the land adjacent to the airstrip. October 11, 2011 Meeting to discuss business opportunities. Métis Nation of Ontario
October 13, 2011 Meeting to discuss road development. Mishkeegogamang First Nation
October 14, 2011 Meeting to discuss recent letter from community. Eabametoong First Nation Meeting to discuss communities interested in the East- West October 20, 2011 Eabametoong First Nation Corridor.
Nimbinik First Nation, Ginoogamang First Nation, Webequie First Nation, Aroland October 20, 2011 Meeting to discuss the environmental assessment processes. First Nation, Marten Falls First Nation, Long Lake First Nation # 58, Eabametoong First Nation
I:\1\02\00390\01\A\Report\Report 7 Rev 1 - Provincial ToR\Tables\[Tables 10.1 10.2 and 10.3.xlsx]Table 10.2
1 05OCT'12 INCORPORATION OF REVIEWER COMMENTS JSP ALR SRA 0 27MAR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NB102-390/1-7 JSP ALR SRA REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
Page 1 of 1 TABLE 10.3
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT
TERMS OF REFERENCE PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Print Oct/01/12 15:24:27
Issue Subject Summary of Discussion
Issues raised relating to business opportunities, employment and training. Employment and Training Opportunities to bring community members into the industry. Discussion about the potential increasing demands on community Social Concerns infrastructure. Concerns about the increased use of illegal substances with more money in the community through employment. Concerns raised about Aboriginal and treaty rights relating to hunting Treaty Rights and trapping.
Concerns expressed about the lack of information sharing between Information Sharing Noront and the community.
Concerns raised about the development and permitting of the airstrip. Facilities, Permitting Discussion of potential pros and cons to development of all-season road.
Concerns raised about sharing information with Noront and issues of Traditional Knowledge Studies trust concerning the use of the information.
Concerns raised about previous environmental problems in the region Environmental Concerns being repeated.
I:\1\02\00390\01\A\Report\Report 7 Rev 1 - Provincial ToR\Tables\[Tables 10.1 10.2 and 10.3.xlsx]Table 10.3
1 05OCT'12 INCORPORATION OF REVIEWER COMMENTS JSP ALR SRA 0 27MAR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NB102-390/1-7 JSP ALR SRA REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
Page 1 of 1 TABLE 12.1
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT
TERMS OF REFERENCE PRELIMINARY LIST OF PERMITS, LICENCES AND APPROVALS
Print Oct/03/12 8:58:33
Permit/Approval Agency Act Regulations Trigger/Activity
Provincial Permits
O.Reg. 975/90 Work Permits - road or building construction on public lands. O.Reg. 453/96 Work Permit - Any work on water crossings. (culvert installations, Work Permit MNR Public Lands Act Construction - for construction of construction of a bridge, seasonal ice bridges) road facility to enable crossing of a water body
O.Reg. 975/90 Work Permits - for Any work that involves upgrading of existing roads or Work Permit MNR Public Lands Act road or building construction on building new roads or trails on Crown Land Public Land (Crown Land)
Timber Cutting Licence MNR Crown Forest Sustainability Act N/A Tree removal on Crown Land
Approval MNR Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act N/A Water Retaining Structures
Public Lands Act O.Reg. 973/90 When land tenure is required to use Crown land for Land Use Permit MNR Public Lands Act land use permits building
O.Reg. 453/96 - Work Permit - Construction of buildings on public land (road construction Work Permit MNR Public Lands Act Construction - for construction of camps) buildings on public land
Burning permit MNR Forest Fire Prevention Act O.Reg. 207/96 Outdoor Fires Burning of removed vegetation
Ontario Aggregate Resources Act Removal of aggregate from pit or quarry (road Aggregate Permit/Licence MNR O.Reg. 244/97 (ARA) construction)
O.Reg. 419/05 Air pollution - Local Air Quality O.Reg. 337 - Ambient Discharge of an airborne contaminant into the natural Environmental Compliance Air Quality Criteria. Guideline A-7 environment, including noise (milling, ventilation, MOE EPA Approval - Air and Noise Air Pollution Control, Design and generators, incinerator, aggregate crushing, screening and Operation Guidelines for Municipal stockpiling) Waste Thermal Treatment Facilities
O.Reg. 347/90 part 5. General Generator Registration Report MOE EPA Storage and transportation of hazardous wastes Waste management
O. Reg 102/95 - Waste Audits and Requirement for waste audit and waste reduction plan for Waste Audit and Reduction Plan MOE EPA Waste Reduction Work Plans construction projects
Environmental Compliance Discharge of industrial wastewaters to surface water as a MOE EPA N/A Approval result of industrial process
Environmental Compliance Construction and operation of a waste disposal site (waste MOE EPA N/A Approval processing and transfer)
O.Reg. 560/94 Effluent Monitoring Industrial Sewage Works Environmental Compliance and Effluent Limits - metal mining Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) requirement for discharge of mine MOE Ontario Water Resources Act sector. O.Reg 561/94 Effluent Approval wastewater and/or domestic sewage to ground/surface monitoring and Effluent Limits water Industrial minerals Sector
Well drilling for water supply or groundwater monitoring, in Water Well Installation MOE Ontario Water Resources Act O.Reg. 903 Wells accordance with O. Reg. 903 Ontario Water Resources Act
Permit to Take Water MOE Ontario Water Resources Act O.Reg. 387/04 Water Taking Taking more than 50,000 L per day (>50,000 L)
Ministry of Public Transportation and Highway Building/Land Use Permit N/A Building near highways Transportation Improvement Act
Ministry of Public Transportation and Highway Requirement for a new or upgraded road entrance onto a Entrance Permit N/A Transportation Improvement Act provincial highway
Page 1 of 2 TABLE 12.1
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT
TERMS OF REFERENCE PRELIMINARY LIST OF PERMITS, LICENCES AND APPROVALS
Print Oct/03/12 8:58:33
Permit/Approval Agency Act Regulations Trigger/Activity
Ministry of Public Transportation and Highway Activities within 45 m of the highway may be controlled for Encroachment Permit N/A Transportation Improvement Act safety considerations
Verification of Closure Plan O.Reg 240/00 Mine development MNDMF Mining Act Completion of closure plan Completion and Closure Plan
Notice of Project Status MNDMF Mining Act O.Reg 240/00 Public Notification
Occupational Health and Safety Occupational Health and Requires safety and procedures review of project prior to Pre-development review process MOL O.Reg 854/90 Mines and Mining Safety Act development Plants
Federal Permits
Permit NRcan Explosives Act Section 7 N/A Explosives Use
Required for constructing or maintaining an explosives Licence for explosives Magazine NRcan Explosives Act Section 7 N/A magazine
Fishery (General) Work on water crossings or work near water that is fish Fish Habitat Authorization DFO Fisheries Act Reg (SOR/93-53) habitat
Navigable Waters Works Any work for crossing a navigable water body that may Approval TC Navigable Waters Protection Act Regulations interfere substantially with navigation
Provincial EA Process
Ontario Environmental Assessment Individual EA approval MOE N/A Voluntary Agreement Act
Federal EA Process
Canadian Environmental Assessment Federal involvement in the Project. Federal issued Permits, Approval CEAA N/A Act Licences and Approvals.
I:\1\02\00390\01\A\Report\Report 7 Rev 1 - Provincial ToR\Tables\[Table 12.1.xlsx]Table 12.1
NOTES: 1. MNDMF - ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT, MINES AND FORESTRY. 2. MOE - ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT. 3. MNR - ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES. 4. MOL- ONTARIO MINISTRY OF LABOUR. 5. DFO - DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS. 6. TC - TRANSPORT CANADA. 7. CEAA - CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY. 8. NRCAN - NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA. 9. EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT.
1 05OCT'12 INCORPORATION OF REVIEWER COMMENTS JSP ALR SRA 0 27MAR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NB102-390/1-7 JSP ALR SRA REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
Page 2 of 2 TABLE 12.2
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT
TERMS OF REFERENCE PRELIMINARY LIST OF POLICIES, GUIDELINES, CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
Print Oct/01/12 15:22:19 Agency Topic Documentation Determination of Contaminant Limits and Attenuation Zones, Procedure B-7-1 (formerly referenced by 15-08), Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Water Management Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives of Surface Water the Ministry of Environment and Energy, July 1994 (reprinted February 1999)
MOE 1993 – Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario Incorporation of the Reasonable Use Concept into MOEE Groundwater Management Activities, Guideline B-7 (formerly 15-08), Ontario Water Resources Act, April 1994
Technical Guidance Document For Hydrogeological Studies In Support of Category 3 Applications for Permit to Take Water, Ministry of the Environment, Operations Division, April 2008 Groundwater Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards, Ontario Regulation 169/03, Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002
Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines, June 2003 (revised June 2006), Ontario Ministry of the Environment Landfill Standards: A Guideline on the Regulatory and Approval Requirements Waste Management for New and Expanding Landfilling Sites, Ontario Regulation 232/98, Environmental Protection Act, May 1998 (revised June 2010) Noise Limits: shall comply with the MOE noise limits in: - Publication NPC-205, “Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 1 & 2 Areas (Urban)”, October, 1995 as amended; or - Publication NPC-232, “Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 3 Areas MOE (Rural)”, October, 1995 as amended; as applicable
Noise Screening: shall be prepared in accordance with: - General noise screening process for S.9 Applications - Primary noise screening process for S.9 Applications
Supplement to application for approval: - Secondary noise screening process for S.9 applications
Noise Reports: shall be prepared in accordance with: - Publication NPC-233, "Information to be Submitted for Approval of Stationary Sources of Sound", October, 1995 as amended - Guide for the Preparation of an Abbreviated Acoustic Assessment Report (A – AAR) Atmospheric and Noise - Supporting Information for the Preparation of an Acoustic Assessment Report
Vibration Limits: shall comply with the MOE vibration limits in: - draft technical publication “Impulse Vibration in Residential Buildings”, November 1983, supplementing the Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law, Final Report, August 1978 - Publication NPC-119, “Blasting”, Model Municipal Noise Control By-Law, Final Report, August 1978
Vibration Reports: shall be prepared in accordance with: - Publication NPC-233, "Information to be Submitted for Approval of Stationary Sources of Sound", October, 1995 as amended - Supporting Information for the Preparation of a Vibration Assessment Report
Air Quality Documents: - Ontario Regulation 419: Air Pollution - Local Air Quality and Ontario's Ambient Air Quality Criteria
I:\1\02\00390\01\A\Report\Report 7 Rev 1 - Provincial ToR\Tables\[Table 12.2 - Guidelines, Policies and Standards.xlsx]Table 12.2
1 05OCT'12 INCORPORATION OF REVIEWER COMMENTS JSP ALR SRA 0 27MAR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NB102-390/1-7 JSP ALR SRA REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
Page 1 of 1 I:\1\02\00390\01\A\Report\Report 7 Rev 1 - Provincial ToR\Figures\[Figure 4.1 AND 4.2.xlsx.xls]FIGURE 4.1 Print 01/10/2012 3:25 PM
NOTES: 1. SOURCE: MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT. NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT
PROVINCIAL INDIVIDUAL EA PROCESS
P/A NO. REF. NO. 1 05OCT'12 INCORPORATION OF REVIEWER COMMENTS JSP ALR SRA NB102-390/1 7
0 27MAR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NB102-390/1-7 JSP ALR SRA REV REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D FIGURE 4.1 1 I:\1\02\00390\01\A\Report\Report 7 Rev 1 - Provincial ToR\Figures\[Figure 4.1 AND 4.2.xlsx.xls]FIGURE 4.2 Print 01/10/2012 3:26 PM
NOTES: 1. SOURCE: CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY.
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT
CEA AGENCY COMPREHENSIVE STUDY PROCESS
P/A NO. REF. NO. 1 05OCT'12 INCORPORATION OF REVIEWER COMMENTS JSP ALR SRA NB102-390/1 7
0 27MAR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NB102-390/1-7 JSP ALR SRA REV REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D FIGURE 4.2 1 I:\1\02\00390\01\A\Report\Report 7 Rev 1 - Provincial ToR\Figures\[Figure 4.3.xls.xls]FIG 4.3 Print 01/10/2012 3:26 PM
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE`S NEST PROJECT
COORDINATED EA PROCESS
P/A NO. REF. NO. NB102-390/1 7 1 05OCT'12 INCORPORATION OF REVIEWER COMMENTS JSP ALR SRA 0 27MAR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NB102-390/1-7 JSP ALR SRA REV 1 REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D FIGURE 4.3 600,000 750,000 900,000 1,050,000 150,000 BEARSKIN LAKE FIRST300,000 NATION 450,000 KITCHENUHMAYKOOSIB FIRST NATION MANITOBA
> )"KASABONIKA FIRST NATION "N MUSKRAT DAM FIRST NATION WAWAKAPEWIN FIRST NATION *# EAGLE'S NEST ò MINE SITE
QUEBEC
KEY-WAY-WIN FIRST NATION ONTARIO KINGFISHER FIRST NATION WEAGAMOW LAKE FIRST NATION )" )"ATTAWAPISKAT FIRST NATION )"WEBEQUIE FIRST NATION )"WUNNUMIN LAKE FIRST NATION
5,850,000 NIBINAMIK )"FIRST NATION *# EAGLE'S NEST MINE SITE
PROPOSED EAST-WEST TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR KASHECHEWAN FIRST NATION FORT ALBANY FIRST NATION
NESKANTAGA (LANSDOWNE )"HOUSE) FIRST NATION
PROPOSED NORTH-SOUTH LEGEND: TRANSPORTATION *# EAGLE'S NEST MINE SITE CORRIDOR BY OTHERS CAT LAKE FIRST NATION [_ SAVANT LAKE AND NAKINA TRANS-LOAD FACILITY COMMUNITY )"OGOKI POST (MARTEN FALLS) FIRST NATION )" COMMUNITY LOCATED WITHIN SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT STUDY AREA )"EABAMETOONG (FORT HOPE) PICKLE LAKE FIRST NATION FIRST NATION Moosonee ROAD 5,700,000 RAILWAY PROPOSED NORTH-SOUTH ROUTE BY OTHERS MISHKEEGOGAMANG FIRST NATION SLATE FALLS FIRST NATION )" PROPOSED EAST-WEST ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR WATER PAR K ONTARIO FIRST NATIONS RESERVE
ONTARIO NORTHLAND RAILWAY
CANADIAN NATIONAL ENGLISH RIVER FIRST NATION )"SAUGEEN FIRST NATION (SAVANT LAKE) RAILWAY LAC SEUL FIRST NATION Savant Lake Sioux Lookout [_ AROLAND FIRST NATION PROPOSED [_ TRANS-LOAD Nakina 5,550,000 PROPOSED TRANS-LOAD FA CILITY
GULL RIVER FIRST NATION Longlac CONSTANCE LAKE FIRST NATION Geraldton Hearst CANADIAN GINOOGAMING FIRST NATION PAC IFIC LAKE NIPEGON FIRST NATION CANADIAN RAILWAY NATIONAL RAILWAY Kapuskasing Smooth Rock Falls
Cochrane NOTES:
1. BASE MAP: © HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHTS OF CANADA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (2009.) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
2. CO-ORDINATE GRID IS IN METRES. CANADIAN DATUM: NAD83 NATIONAL PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 16 RAILWAY 5,400,000 3. ROUTE OPTIONS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY SNC (MARCH 24, 2011). THE NORTH SOUTH ROUTE IS ONLY APPROXIMATE. White River Timmins
Thunder Bay
FORT WILLIAM FIRST NATION
CANADIAN Wawa PAC IFIC 50 25 0 50 100 150 km RAILWAY SCALE Elk Lake NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT
PROJECT LOCATION MAP 5,250,000
P/A NO. REF NO. 105OCT'12INCORPORATION OF REVIEWER COMMENTS ALRASM JSP SRA NB102-390/1 7 0 27MAR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT ALRASM ALR SRA REV REV DATE DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHK'D APP'D FIGURE 5.1 1 SAVED: I:\1\02\00390\01\A\GIS\Figs\B149_r1.mxd; Oct 02, 2012 4:49 PM; asimpson PM; 4:49 2012 02, Oct I:\1\02\00390\01\A\GIS\Figs\B149_r1.mxd; SAVED: 542,500 545,000 547,500 550,000
5 162. 1 6 1 0 65 >
0 N 6 .5 " 1 .5 52 ò 162 1
5 7. 16 155
5 .
5 7 5 5 1 1
5 7. 16
162.5 .5 7 6 1 5 .
5 7 . 6 7 1 1 5 7 1 0 1 0 72 6 .5 5,847,500 1
1 6 [_ 7 .5 POTENTIAL AIRSTRIP LOCATION TO BE BUILT BY OTHERS 5 5 7 6 5 1 1 1 . 7 7 5 1 . 5 2 6 . 7 . 1 2 7 5 5 5 7 6 . 5 1 1 2 1
7 7 7 2. 1 1 175 5 1 175 0 70 7 7 1 5 1 1 75
1 7 1 5 7 5 1 1 7 5 7 . 1 5 5 7 7 5 5 1
5
. 7 1 5 5 7 1 7 6 7 1 1 175 5
75 1 5
7
R 1 1 E 7 5 V 5 7. I 5 0 7 R 7 7 1 1 1 1 I 5 7 E 7 5 .5 T 1 2 E 7 K 1 1 U 7 5 M 1 1 1 5 7 7 7 5,845,000 . 5 5 1 5 5 2 7 7 7 1 5 1 1 POTENTIAL ROAD 17 75 1 5 7 5 TO AIRSTRIP 1 7 1 5 7 1 2 0 7 . 5 5 7 0 7 1 1 1 7 5 1
7
5 .5 1 1 0 2 7 7 7 7 1 5 5 7 1 7 . 1 5 5
7 1 1 7 7 . 5 0
7 5 5 1 ACCOMMODATIONS. 17 2 7 ESKER CAMP 1 ![
1
7 2 70 . 1 5
1 ROAD TO PORTAL 7 7
.
5
0
7
1 PORTAL 1 7 7 5 . 7 1 5 1 6 5 1 1 5 77 6 6 .5 0 1 1 7 1 5,842,5002 77 . 5 .5
1 7 7 5 . . 5
5 . 7
1 7 6 7 1 7 1 2 7 1 7 . . 5 5 KOPER LAKE .5 7 7 WATER LANDING 1 0 5 18 8 7 0 AND DOCK 1 1
K O 5 P 8 E 1 R
.5 L 7 A 7 K 1 5 1 . E 7 2
2 1 8
. 9 1 5
0
1 7 2 . 5 5 1 . 8 7 0 7 1
5 1 7. 7 17 5 5 7
1
5,840,000 1
9
0
5
8
1 5 . 7 7 .5 1 1 2 .5 87 8 7 . 1 7 0 5 1
8
1
1 5 7 7 0 1 1 1 7 7 0 7 0 .5 17
1 7 5 500250 0 500 1,000 1,5007 2,000 2,5007 m 1 . 7 5 5 1 1 0 . 7 7 5 7 SCALE 1
LEGEND: NOTES: NORONT RESOURCES LTD. MINOR CONTOUR 1. BASE MAP PROVIDED BY SNC LAVALIN INC., 2010. MAJOR CONTOUR 2. CO-ORDINATE GRID IS IN METRES. EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE DATUM: NAD83 PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 16 STREAM LOCAL SETTING SWAMP 3. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 1.5 METRES. EAGLE'S NEST MINE SITE WATER 4. INFRASTRUCTURE IS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY TETRA TECH (APRIL 19, 2012) AND MODIFIED BY KPL SEPT 2012). P/A NO. REF NO. NB102-390/1 7 1 05OCT'12 INCORPORATION OF REVIEWER COMMENTS ALR ASM JSP SRA REV 0 27MAR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT ALR ASM ALR SRA 1 REV DATE DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHK'D APP'D FIGURE 7.1 SAVED: I:\1\02\00390\01\A\GIS\Figs\A43_r1.mxd; Oct 02, 2012 10:27AM; asimpson
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY: ACCESS CORRIDOR SELECTION
(Pages A-1 to A-117)
NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
Noront Resources Limited Eagle’s Nest Mine
Summary: Access Corridor Selection
Prepared by: Mark Baker, P.Eng., McFaulds Lake Project Manager
Date: March 13, 2012
1
A-1 of 117
Contents Introduction ...... 3 July 23 Route Selection ...... 3 Selecting the East‐West Corridor ...... 4 Appendix 1: Meeting Note from July 23, 2010 ...... 5 Appendix 2: SNC‐Lavalin Report on Access Option, March 30, 2010 ...... 6
2
A-2 of 117
Introduction Noront Resources Ltd contracted SNC‐Lavalin Inc to study options for access corridors to the McFaulds Lake area. Their findings were reported in March 2010. Further investigations of the route options were performed through July 2010 as part of the Eagle’s Nest Mine Scoping Study, culminating in a meeting with Noront and the other project consultants on July 23. At that meeting, the access corridor from the Pickle Lake area was selected for continued study, see the meeting note in Appendix 1. This document provides additional detail to the meeting note.
The selected corridor would incorporate a road, winter road, power line and communications. The section from south of Webequie to site was specified as winter road due to the lack of construction aggregate along this route which poses significant constructability risks. Since the source of aggregate and construction techniques had not been technically addressed, Noront chose to utilize a winter road to connect the two sites. The use of winter road resulted in seasonal revenue streams due to a limited season for shipment of product, and extreme peaks in truck loads for a short period of the winter road operation. To mitigate these effects Noront planned a pipeline to provide a continuous flow of product from the site. Although the design provides for diesel fueled generators south of Webequie connected to the site by an above‐ground power line, the option to apply grid power from Ontario is being sought.
July 23 Route Selection On July 23, 2010, two routes were identified as prime alternatives:
1) East from the existing highway northeast of Pickle Lake, converting an existing winter road to and all‐season road to just south of Webequie First Nation, and adding new winter road from the end of the all‐season road to the mine, plus a power line and buried pipeline across the wetland. 2) North from the Nakina area, developing a new all‐season road to the Marten Falls area, then providing a winter road, power line and pipeline north to the site.
The east‐west corridor makes use of an existing winter road route that was prepared with the intention of converting it to an all‐season road, although some of the route travels over lakes that would have to be bypassed. For the 10 year life of the Eagle’s Nest mine, this route provided a lower cost option with fewer risks for development since it:
‐ Had only one river crossing and no provincial parks. ‐ Had higher likelihood of avoiding areas of special interest to aboriginal groups since the route had been developed with their involvement. ‐ Provided the greatest benefit to First Nations communities, since they would be able to develop shorter roads to connect to the new road.
3
A-3 of 117
‐ Met the operational needs of the 10 year mine life.
The winter road section of the east‐west route can be converted to all‐season if the life of mine is extended or the technical challenges initially identified are addressed.
The north‐south corridor requires a new route to Marten Falls since the existing winter road crosses wetlands. Following riverbanks provides the most likely high ground, although these are the most treed areas in the region as well. Bridges would be required at several smaller river crossings, but also at three major river crossing that are also in Provincial parks. The route north of Marten Falls would follow eskers as much as possible, although this option still has over 130 kilometres of wetland to cross, which raises the risk to successful development and operation of a winter road.
The alternative north‐south alignment running further west of Marten Falls was promoted by the consultants since less wetland is expected. This will be investigated further.
Selecting the East‐West Corridor The attached March 30, 2010 report from SNC Lavalin Inc, appendix 2, covers the initial options that were reviewed. After receiving this report, the option of utilizing a winter road for seasonal access and developing a pipeline from south of Webequie to site was considered. This option was adopted since it reduced the construction risks initially identified with the lack of aggregate for construction of an all season road across challenging terrain. By utilizing a winter road the construction risk was reduced and the east‐west corridor was deemed to be the favoured approach.
This option also can be upgraded to an all‐season road if the construction risks, previously identified, can be mitigated.
Subsequent to the July 2010 meeting, other factors were found which supported the East‐West corridor, including:
‐ MNR information on caribou use of the high ground areas running south from the proposed mine site, whereas evidence shows far less caribou activity from Pickle Lake to site. ‐ The “eskers” running north from the Greenstone region are home to a significant portion of the wildlife in the region due to a lack of high ground. They have been used for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years for activities of indigenous peoples and are likely to have archaeological sites and areas of significance to local First Nations. ‐ Revised route from the south still encountered significantly more wetland crossings than the route from Pickle Lake. ‐ Routes from the south continue to have limited sources for aggregate rock.
4
A-4 of 117
Appendix 1: Meeting Note from July 23, 2010
5
A-5 of 117 MMMEEEMMMOOORRRAAANNNDDDUUUMMM
To: Paul Semple
From: Mark Baker
CC: Richard Gowans, Tony Wachmann, Ken Embree
Subject: Transportation Route Selection
Date: July 23, 2010
Paul,
Below, please find a review of the points considered during the selection of transportation options. The two options selected for further investigation do not preclude future study of one or more of the other options considered, or new options.
Considerations: Life of mine for the Eagle’s Nest project: 10 years, starting in 2016, and closure afterwards. Protection of the wetlands. Access to First Nation communities. Meeting the needs of the operations for consumable supply and shipping concentrate. Estimated costs for each route option, including costs and permitting to cross rivers (at parks). Time to develop the route. Working capital for the routing options.
Based on these factors, two preferred routes were selected: 1. Pickle Lake – South of Webequie – Esker Camp 2. Hwy 643 – Marten Falls – Esker Camp
The Webequie route assumes the existing winter road from Pickle Crow to Webequie, across the Canadian Shield, can be realigned to an all-season road. It applies a winter road to connect from the Webequie area to Esker Camp. Buried pipelines or duct bank may be used for supplying electricity (and perhaps fuel) to site, and delivering slurry out of the Lowlands. A power plant would be built south of Webequie to supply the site and, perhaps, the community. A concentrate thickener, drying and load-out facility would be located south of Webequie, too.
The Marten Falls route assumes a realignment of the existing winter road to an all- season road, however this route is not in the Canadian Shield. A winter road would access Esker Camp from Marten Falls. This route includes three major river crossings in park lands. Marten Falls may also provide a local hub for resupplying the site by air.
1
A-6 of 117
Appendix 2: SNC‐Lavalin Report on Access Option, March 30, 2010
6
A-7 of 117 A-8 of 117 A-9 of 117 McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 2 334564-0000-30RA-0001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 5 1.1 MODE OF TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS ...... 5 1.2 CONCENTRATE HAULING ...... 6 2.0 TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS...... 6 2.1 ANNUAL CONCENTRATE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMABLES...... 6 3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS ...... 6 3.1 INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES BY LOCATION/MODE ...... 6 4.0 ROUTE SELECTION ...... 8 Option 1; Nakina to McFaulds Lake ...... 11 Option 2; Pickle Lake to McFaulds Lake...... 11 Option 3; Nakina to Martin Falls to McFaulds Lake ...... 11 Option 4; Pickle Lake to Webequie to McFaulds Lake...... 11 4.1.1 General Conditions...... 12 4.1.2 All Season Option 1...... 12 4.1.3 All Season Option 2...... 13 4.1.4 All Season Option 3...... 13 4.1.5 All Season Option 4...... 14 5.0 CONCENTRATE TRANSPORT OPTIONS ...... 14 5.1 OPTION 1 TRUCK ...... 14 5.2 OPTION 2 CONCENTRATE PIPELINE...... 15 5.3 OPTION 3 SKY LINER/SKY HOOK...... 16 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS...... 16 6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS...... 16 6.2 SOCIAL IMPACTS ...... 18 7.0 COSTS...... 18 7.1 CAPITAL COSTS ...... 18 7.1.1 Source of Information ...... 19 7.2 OPERATING COSTS ...... 19 7.2.1 Source of Information ...... 20 8.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ...... 22 8.1 NET PRESENT COST (NPC)...... 22 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS/ CONCLUSIONS ...... 23
10.0 OPPORTUNITIES...... 24
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-10 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 3 334564-0000-30RA-0001
APPENDIX A Drawings
APPENDIX B Basis of Estimate
APPEMDIX C Estimates
APPENDIX D 2010 Field Investigation Program
APPENDIX E Air Photo Mapping for Route Location and Terrain Assessment by J D Mollard
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-11 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 4 334564-0000-30RA-0001
Notice to Readers
This document contains the expression of the professional opinion of SNC-Lavalin as to them matters set out herein, using its professional judgement and reasonable care. It is to be read in the context of the agreement dated 16 October 2009 (the “Agreement”) between SNC- Lavalin Inc. and Noront Resources Ltd., and the methodology, procedures and techniques used, SNC-Lavalin’s assumptions, and the circumstances and constraints under which its mandate was performed. This document is written solely for the purpose stated in the Agreement, and for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Client, whose remedies are limited to those set out in the Agreement. This document is meant to be read as a whole, and sections or parts thereof should thus not be read or relied upon out of context.
SNC-Lavalin has, in preparing the cost estimates, followed methodology and procedures, and exercised due care consistent with the intended level of accuracy, using its professional judgement and reasonable care, and is thus of the opinion that there is a high probability that actual costs will fall within the specified error margin. However, no warranty should be implied as to the accuracy of estimates. Unless expressly stated otherwise, assumptions, data and information supplied by, or gathered from other sources (including the Client, other consultants, testing laboratories and equipment suppliers, etc.) upon which SNC-Lavalin’s opinion as set out herein is based has not been verified by SNC-Lavalin, SNC-Lavalin makes no representation as to its accuracy and disclaims all liability with respect thereto.
SNC-Lavalin disclaims any liability to the Client and to third parties in respect of the publication, reference, quoting, or distribution of this report or any of its contents to and reliance thereon by any third party.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-12 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 THE PROJECT Noront Resources Ltd. is in the initial phases of developing its McFaulds Lake high grade nickel – copper – platinum palladium, chromites, gold and vanadium discoveries in an area known as the "Ring of Fire", an emerging multi-metal district located in the James Bay Low Lands in the Province of Ontario, Canada.
The initial phase is the development of a logistics plan that includes a transportation and infrastructure scoping study for the McFaulds Lake Project under the direction of SNC Lavalin. This scoping study reviewed the potential route options, construction costs, road maintenance costs as well as several modes of concentrate and operating supplies transportation. The McFaulds Lake project site is only accessible by aircraft.
Although the Ontario government and Noront have acknowledged that a well- developed road system could lay the foundation for significant mining and secondary development in the region, limited studies have been conducted to determine the feasibility of an all season's road to the McFaulds Lake project site.
The primary focus of this scoping study is the development of transportation infrastructure consisting of: • An all–seasons road from McFaulds Lake to a major high way or rail link • Infrastructure facilities required for concentrate handling at Nakina and Pickle Lake
Refer to Figure 1.1-1 for the overall project plan.
Airstrip
A-13 of 117
2
The proposed transportation concept is to transport mine operating supplies (primarily fuel, reagents, grinding media, AN, explosives etc.) from either Pickle Lake or Nakina, Ontario to McFaulds Lake by an all season road and transport concentrate out either by truck or by pipeline. The winter road option is not being considered because of the limited and unreliable operating time as well as the high capital and operating costs. Also, the possible construction of a railway spur line has been ruled out at this time due to capital costs, schedule, logistics of personal movement, re-supply, environmental impact and risk.
A dependable, cost-effective transportation system would offer economic benefits to all near by communities through employment, training, business opportunities and services.
Four road route options were considered in this scoping study. Based on the scoping study findings, two route options have been short listed and it is recommended that further geotechnical work be scheduled and executed before final route selection. These routes are Option 3 Nakina to Martin Falls to McFaulds Lake or Option 2 Pickle Lake to Mc Faulds Lake. Option 2 starts at Pickle Lake, continues northeast to the Attawapiskat River crossing and continues north to McFaulds Lake. Option 3 Nakina to Martin Fall crosses the Albany River, continues north to the Attawapiskat crossing then north to the McFaulds Lake mine site.
In addition, a fifth route option should be considered during the feasibility study phase. This all season’s route could not only access the Martin Falls Reserve but also Ft Hope reserve which would mutually benefit all stake holders.
Based on a mine life of 25 years and the transportation requirements for concentrate and consumable re-supply of 1,000,000 tonnes and 100,000 tonnes per year respectively the preferred mode for transportation was tractor and trailer.
A-14 of 117
3
1.2.1 ROUTE SELECTION
Potential transportation route options identified, investigated and reviewed for the hauling of concentrate by truck from McFaulds Lake to a CNR rail line or major highway were:
• Option 1 - Nakina to McFaulds Lake 277 km
• Option 2 - Pickle Lake to McFaulds Lake 320 km
• Option 3 - Nakina to Martin Fall to McFaulds Lake 348 km
• Option 4 - Pickle Lake to Webequie to McFaulds Lake 314 km
The following table summarizes criteria used to evaluate the route options.
Table 1.2.1
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Nakina to Pickle Lake to Nakina to Marten Pickle lake to McFaulds Lake McFaulds Lake Falls to Webequie to McFaulds Lake McFaulds Lake Access Length km 277 320 348 314 Major River 3 Crossings 1 Crossing 3 Crossings 1 Crossings Crossings150 m+ Ogoki, Albany Attawapiskat Albany, and Attawapiskat Attawapiskat and Ruby Creek Protected Park 15 21 115 Encroachment km Bridges10m to 3 1 3 3 100m Culverts 45 66 40 50 Swamp/Bog km 77 55 62 110 Rock Drill & Blast No Drill & Blast No Drill & Blast No Drill & Blast Drill & Blast Req'd Borrow source Eskers and R/W Eskers and R/W Borrow on R/W Rock Quarries and Esker Native Land Claims I Band to settle 5 Bands to I Band to settle 5 Bands to settle claims with settle claims claims with claims with with Construction Proven technology Proven Proven technology. Rock excavation & basic borrow to technology basic Basic borrow from Swamp from embankment, no borrow to pit to embankment, Webequie to rock excavation embankment, no no rock excavation. McFaulds lake. estimated average rock excavation Will require Bog/swamp Pickle
A-15 of 117
4
haul 2-3 km north estimated geotechnical Lake to Webequie of Albany River. average haul 2-3 expertise for bog Possible long haul South of Albany km crossings. for embankment up River average haul Estimated average to 20 km. 20 km haul 5-10 km Socio-Economic Local communities Local Potential for Potential for (negative) are not provided communities are increased drug and increased drug and with access to the not provided with alcohol abuse. alcohol abuse. mine site or access to the Substance abuse Substance abuse southern Ontario. mine site or counselling will be counselling will be This option does southern Ontario. required required not provide This option does employment or not provide economic employment or development economic opportunities to development Martin Falls or opportunities to Webequie. Martin Falls or Webequie. Socio-Economic Less potential for Less potential for Martin Fall Webequie (positive) increased drug and increased drug community will community will alcohol use/ abuse and alcohol use/ have all season have all season abuse access to access to McFaulds Lake McFaulds Lake mine site and and southern southern Ontario. Ontario. Employment, Employment, training and training and economic economic development development opportunities will opportunities will be created for be created for the Martin Falls community of community. Webequie Existing Rail Road, Air Strip Health Service, Air Strip at Ogoki Air strip and Hotel Infrastructure and Highway at hotel and Air medical center at accommodations Nakina service at Pickle Martin Falls. Rail available at Lake Road, Air Strip and Webequie. Air strip Highway at Nakina at Webequie will provide transport for freight, equipment and personnel during construction and operations.
A-16 of 117
5
Use of existing R/W Al new road All new road Existing winter road Use existing winter or road construction construction from Nakina to road from Pickle Martin Falls. All Lake to Webequie. new road New road construction from construction from martin Falls to Webequie to Mc McFaulds Lake. Faulds Lake. Risk Harsh winters, Land claim Harsh winters, Land claim permitting problems settlement, harsh permitting access settlements. Delays through protected winters. through protected to schedule due to area. Permitting land. Delays to extensive problems through schedule due to bog/swamp area protected areas. extensive and lack of suitable bog/swamp area borrow. At present, and lack of suitable no terrain analysis borrow and long or aerial haul for reconnaissance embankment. study done. Opportunities Possible to Possible to Possible to construct a spur construct a spur construct a spur road to Webequie. road to road to Webequie. This would provide Webequie. This This would provide residence of would provide residence of Webequie all residence of Webequie all season access to Webequie all season access to the mine site and season access to the mine site and southern Ontario as the mine site and southern Ontario as well as providing southern Ontario well as providing Mc Faulds Lake as well as Mc Faulds Lake access to providing Mc access to Webequie Faulds Lake Webequie infrastructure access to infrastructure Webequie infrastructure Environmental Crossing protected Crossing Crossing protected No Protected provincial parks in protected provincial parks in provincial parks to three areas. Total provincial parks in areas. Up to 115 cross. 15 km of access one area. Total 21 km of park land through park land. km of access along river. through park land.
A-17 of 117
6
1.3 PROJECT COSTS Project costs were estimated using Q4 - 2009 C$. (See Table 1.3-1 below)
Table 1.3-1 Capital Cost Estimate Summary (2009 Dollars)
ALL SEASONS ACCESS ROAD
SUMMARY Description Unit Option 1 Option 2 Option3 Option4 Nakina – Pickle Lake- Nakina- Pickle Lake – McFaulds McFaulds Martin Falls- Webequie- Lake Lake McFaulds McFaulds Lake Lake Length Km 277 320 348 314 Major ea 3 1 3 3 Bridges Culverts ea 45 66 40 50
Construction Direct Costs C$ 92,325,253 101,971,012 116,769,358 108,418,655 Indirect Cost C$ 72,002,201 78,046,833 90,297,834 69,795,792 Total Cost C$ 164,327454 180,017,845 207,067,192 178,214,448 Cost/km C$ 594,020 563,884 595,852 566,207
Maintenance Direct Cost C$ 5,702,441 6,287,530 7,053,352 7,208,108 Cost/km C$ 20,613 19,694 20,297 22,900
Option 1 ( Nakina to McFaulds Lake) This option is estimated to be the lowest cost and the shortest distance however, this route does not address the mandate to provide an access to the mine site and southern Ontario for local residence of Martin Falls. A spur road could be constructed to Martin Falls but the added costs of construction and maintenance may far exceed those of option 3 and the risk of increased construction costs for the spur road are
A-18 of 117
7 high because of the unknown amount of swamp. Option 1 encroaches on provincial park land and has more swamp/bog and stream crossings than option 3.
Option 2 (Pickle Lake to McFaulds Lake)
This option does not provide all an season road to the local community of Webequie, is slightly longer than option 4 and is estimated to cost more than option 4. Encroaches on protected provincial park lands and has the most stream crossings that may impact the construction schedule as working in streams is not permitted if streams are fish bearing.
From the terrain analysis option 2 will have the lowest maintenance/operating cost road and allow winter and summer construction.
Option 3 ( Nakina to Martin Falls to McFaulds Lake)
This option is not the lowest cost option or the shortest distance however, this route not only addresses the mandate to provide access for the residence of Martin Falls to the mine site and Nakina but also provides an opportunity for the local community to participate in the project. Long term benefits to the local businesses and residence include opportunities for employment, training, access to secondary education facilities and better access to medical facilities. In addition, the provincial government will possibly be a stake holder and may provide financial assistance or incentives that will reduce Norton’s capital cost for the project. Option 3 has 3 major crossings and encroaches on much more park land then the other options.
Option 4 (Pickle Lake – Webequie- McFaulds Lake)
This option is estimated at a slightly lower cost to construct and is shorter in distance than option 2 however; the risk for increased construction and maintenance costs is high because terrain features are unknown.
A-19 of 117
8
The socio-economic aspects rating would be high as the option does address the mandate of providing benefits to the local community of Webequie. Economic benefits include the opportunity for the community to participate in the project, employment and training for local residence.
1.4 Conclusions The options are evaluated based on several considerations with a larger weight placed on socio-economic effects to the local community. The evaluation is shown bellow in Table 1.4-1. In Table 1.4-1 the options are ranked for each consideration from 1 to 4, 1 being most favourable and 4 being least favourable.
Table 1.4 -1 Evaluation of Options Considerations Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Capital Cost 1 3 4 2 Operating and Maintenance Cost 1 2 3 3 Environmental 2 2 4 1 Existing Infrastructure 4 4 2 1 Construction Difficulty 2 1 2 4 *Socio-Economic Effects 4 4 1 2
Overall Ranking 3 4 1 2 * Socio-Economic Effects are weighted higher then other considerations
Option 3 Ranking 1 • Most beneficial to Martin Falls community by providing employment and economic opportunities to residents and businesses. • Possibly 2 stake holders, Noront and provincial Government of Ontario • A spur road could be constructed to Webequie • Martin Falls Band and the Webequie band would have the opportunity to participate in the project. • Increased certainty of supplies to local communities and lower costs for supplies.
A-20 of 117
9
Option 4 Ranking 2 • Economic benefits to Webequie community by providing employment and economic opportunities to residents and businesses. • Infrastructure at Webequie available during construction and operations • Possibly 2 stake holders, Noront and provincial Government of Ontario. • Webequie band would have the opportunity to participate in the project. • Increased certainty of supplies to local communities and lower costs for supplies. Option 1 Ranking 3
• Least cost to construct • No benefit to local communities • Will not increase the certainty of supplies to local communities and lower costs for supplies. Option 2 Ranking 4
• No benefit to local communities • Will not increase the certainty of supplies to local communities and lower costs for supplies.
1.5 CONCENTRATE TRANSPORT OPTIONS
The commercial transport of concentrate by truck and slurry pipe line has been reviewed. Both options have been successful in the past and, based on a 25 year mine life and discounted at 5%, the costs are similar.
Both options require the construction of an all season road. The truck option would provide more opportunities for the local people. In addition, the haul trucks could be designed to not only haul concentrate but also back haul fuel. The truck option is therefore the preferred option at this time. However; the final analysis will require further study.
A-21 of 117
10
1.6 PROJECT EXECUTION It is anticipated that from the time a decision is made to proceed, the project design, mobilization, construction, and demobilization is estimated to take 2 years.
Construction personnel will be housed in two portable road construction camps (60 man) located along the road right of way. The construction camps will be used ultimately for construction of the mine facility.
It is anticipated that the majority of the construction personnel will reside in Northern Ontario and commute from their homes to the construction camps on a 2 week in 2 week out rotation.
1.7 ECONOMIC BENEFITS The project is expected to provide significant economic benefits at the regional level. During construction an estimated 300,000 man hours will be expended over a two year period. The construction payroll over a 1 ½ year period is estimated at 18 million dollars.
The project will significantly increase training, employment and business opportunities for the workers and business in Northern Ontario. The overall increase in business in Northern Ontario will contribute increased tax revenue to the provincial and Federal Governments.
Another economic benefit is the increased certainty of supplies into the local communities and the lower costs of these supplies.
A-22 of 117
11
1.8 RECOMMENDATIONS
• Geotechnical investigation to accurately evaluate the ground conditions along route Options 2 and 3
• Preliminary engineering for off-site infrastructure sites such as the truck/rail transfer, temporary concentrate storage and support infrastructure
• Additional investigations into the fifth alterative route through both Martin Falls and Ft Hope, as well as other potential routes that could be developed.
• Preparation of a Feasibility Study which will include, detailed topographic mapping, geotechnical investigations and major river crossings and borrow areal environment assessment of the preferred route option.
A-23 of 117 McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 5 334564-0000-30RA-0001
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Noront Resources Ltd. is in the initial phase of developing its McFaulds Lake high- grade nickel-copper-platinum palladium, chromites, gold and vanadium discoveries in an area known as the "Ring of Fire”, an emerging multi-metals district located in the James Bay Lowlands, Latitude 52° 45’ N, Longitu de 86° 17’ W in the Province of Ontario, Canada.
This initial phase is the development of a logistics plan that includes a transport and infrastructure scoping study. The study will review the options to deliver supplies to site and the transport of concentrate out.
Four all season options are discussed below. Each option includes one or more major river crossings; bridge, ferry and tunnel have all been considered.
The options for the transportation of concentrate include pipeline, truck and airship. The route options are:
Option 1 All Season: This route is west of option 3, starts at Nakina continues north to McFaulds Lake site and also crosses the Albany and Attawapiskat rivers
Option 2 All Season: This route starts at Pickle Lake continues northeast to the Attawapiskat River crossing the Attawapiskat River and then continues north to McFaulds Lake along the same corridor as option 1
Option 3 All Season: Nakina north to Marten Falls cross the Albany River, continue north cross the Attawapiskat river and continue north McFaulds Lake site. This route follows the Ogoki River.
Option 4 All Season: This route starts at Pickle Lake follows an existing winter road north east to Webequie then due west to McFaulds Lake site.
1.1 Mode of Transportation Options
Three modes of concentrate transportation from McFaulds Lake to a major Highway or rail link have been evaluated:
• Shipping concentrate by truck and trailer.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-24 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 6 334564-0000-30RA-0001
• Shipping concentrate by slurry pipe line to a dewatering plant
• Shipping concentrate by 200 tonne sky liner.
1.2 Concentrate Hauling
Routes options for hauling the concentrate from McFaulds Lake to a major highway or rail link were developed based on the MFL report and J Mollard & Associates recommendations. The selected method of concentrate shipping from McFaulds Lake is based on cost estimate, proven technology and environmental concerns.
2.0 TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Annual Concentrate Production and Consumables
Based upon information from Noront and other projects the annual concentrate production will be 1,000,000 tonnes of concentrate per year and 100,000 tonnes of consumables.
3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Infrastructure Facilities by Location/Mode
The following table summarizes what facilities are required at Nakina and Pickle Lake for the four all season options and what facilities are required for trucking, slurry pipe line and a 200 tonne Sky Liner. Option 2 was selected for the slurry pipe line and trucking mode. Option 1 was selected for the sky liner mode as this is a more direct north/south route.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-25 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 7 334564-0000-30RA-0001
Option 4 Infrastructure Facilities by Route Location Option 2 Option 3 Pickle Option 1 Pickle Nakina to Lake to Nakina to Lake to McFaulds Webequie McFaulds McFaulds Lake to Lake Lake Located by McFaulds (277km) (320) MFL Lake km) ( 348 km) (314 km) McFaulds Lake Mine Site Concentrate storage and truck loading X X X X
Major Highway/Rail Link Concentrate storage X X X X Loading equipment X X X X Maintenance shop/warehouse X X X X Lube Oil Storage X X X X Administration building X X X X Emergency response facility X X X X Power distribution X X X X Diesel Fuel Storage Loading/ Dispensing X X X X Fire Protection X X X X Sewage collection and treatment X X X X Incinerator and solid waste storage X X X X Security and truck scale X X X X Temporary Camp X X X X
200tonne Sky Infrastructure facilities by Mode Pipe Line Liner Truck Mine Site Concentrate pump station X Concentrate dewatering X Emergency Concentrate dewatering and dump pond X Concentrate storage X X X Concentrate Loading Facility X X Camp X X X
Major Highway / Rail Link Concentrate pipeline and dump pond X Concentrate dewatering building X Concentrate storage X X X Filtrate water treatment plant X Holding Pond X Maintenance shop/Warehouse X X X
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-26 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 8 334564-0000-30RA-0001
Lube Oil Storage X X X Administration building X X X Emergency response facility X X X Loading / unloading Equipment X Power distribution Sub Station X X X Diesel Fuel Storage Loading/ Dispensing X X X Fire Protection X X X Potable water distribution X X X Sewage collection and treatment X X X Incinerator and solid waste storage X X X Security and truck scale X X X Camp X X X
4.0 ROUTE SELECTION
Potential transportation routes identified, investigated and reviewed for the hauling of concentrate by truck from McFaulds Lake to a Rail Link or major highway were:
• Nakina to McFaulds Lake 277 km
• Pickle Lake to McFaulds Lake 320 km
• Nakina to Martin Fall to McFaulds Lake 348 km
• Pickle Lake to Webequie to McFaulds Lake 314 km
The following table summarizes criteria used to evaluate the route options.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-27 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 9 334564-0000-30RA-0001
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Nakina to Pickle Lake to Nakina to Marten Pickle lake to McFaulds Lake McFaulds Lake Falls to McFaulds Webequie to Lake McFaulds Lake Access Length km 277 320 348 314 Major River 3 Crossings Ogoki, 1 Crossing 3 Crossings 1 Crossings Crossings150 m+ Albany and Attawapiskat Albany, Attawapiskat Attawapiskat and Ruby Creek Protected Park 15 21 115 Bridges10m to 100m 3 1 3 3 Culverts 45 66 40 50 Swamp/Bog km 77 55 62 110 Rock Drill & Blast No Drill & Blast No Drill & Blast No Drill & Blast Drill & Blast Req'd Borrow source Eskers and R/W Eskers and R/W Borrow on R/W Rock Quarries and Esker Native Land Claims I Band to settle 5 Bands to I Band to settle 5 Band to settle claims with settle claims claims with claims with with Construction Proven technology Proven Proven technology. Rock excavation & basic borrow to technology Basic borrow from Swamp from embankment, no basic borrow to pit to embankment, Webequie to rock excavation embankment, no rock excavation. McFaulds lake. estimated average no rock Will require Bog/swamp Pickle haul 2-3 km north excavation geotechnical Lake to Webequie of Albany River. estimated expertise for bog Possible long haul South of Albany average haul 2- crossings. for embankment up River average haul 3 km Estimated average to 20 km. 20 km haul 5-10 km Socio-Economic Local communities Local Potential for Potential for (negative) are not provided communities are increased drug and increased drug and with access to the not provided alcohol abuse. alcohol abuse. mine site or with access to Substance abuse Substance abuse southern Ontario. the mine site or counselling will be counselling will be This option does southern required required not provide Ontario. This employment or option does not economic provide development employment or opportunities to economic Martin Falls or development Webequie. opportunities to Martin Falls or Webequie. Socio-Economic Less potential for Less potential Martin Fall Webequie (positive) increased drug and for increased community will community will alcohol use/ abuse drug and alcohol have all season have all season use/ abuse access to McFaulds access to McFaulds Lake mine site and Lake and southern
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-28 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 10 334564-0000-30RA-0001
southern Ontario. Ontario. Employment, Employment, training and training and economic economic development development opportunities will be opportunities will be created for Martin created for the Falls community. community of Webequie Existing Infrastructure Rail Road , Air Strip Health Service, Air Strip at Ogoki Air strip and Hotel and Highway at hotel and Air medical center at accommodations Nakina service at Pickle Martin Falls. Rail available at Lake Road , Air Strip Webequie. Air strip and Highway at at Webequie will Nakina provide transport for freight, equipment and personnel during construction and operations. Use of existing R/W or Al new road All new road Existing winter road Use existing winter road construction construction from Nakina to road from Pickle Martin Falls. All Lake to Webequie. new road New road construction from construction from martin Falls to Webequie to Mc McFaulds Lake. Faulds Lake. Risk Harsh winters, Land claim Harsh winters, Land claim permitting settlement, permitting access settlements. Delays problems through harsh winters. through protected to schedule due to protected area. Permitting land. Delays to extensive problems schedule due to bog/swamp area through extensive and lack of suitable protected areas. bog/swamp area borrow. At present, and lack of suitable no terrain analysis borrow and long or aerial haul for reconnaissance embankment. study. Opportunities Possible to Possible to Possible to construct a spur construct a spur construct a spur road to Webequie. road to road to Webequie. This would provide Webequie. This This would provide residence of would provide residence of Webequie all residence of Webequie all season access to Webequie all season access to the mine site and season access the mine site and southern Ontario as to the mine site southern Ontario as well as providing and southern well as providing Mc Faulds Lake Ontario as well Mc Faulds Lake access to as providing Mc access to Webequie Faulds Lake Webequie infrastructure access to infrastructure
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-29 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 11 334564-0000-30RA-0001
Webequie infrastructure Environmental Crossing protected Crossing Crossing protected No Protected provincial parks in protected provincial parks in provincial parks to three areas. Total 5 provincial parks areas. Up to 100 cross. km of access in one areas. km of park land through park land. Total 20 km of along river. access through park land.
Option 1; Nakina to McFaulds Lake
The truck haul option is based on a 372 km long all season road From McFaulds Lake to Nakina. This route follows some discontinuous eskers and requires three major river crossings the Ogoki, Albany and the Attawapiskat Rivers. Three options for these crossing were reviewed and included bridges, tunnel and ferry.
Option 2; Pickle Lake to McFaulds Lake
The truck haul option is based on a 380 km long all season road From McFaulds Lake to Pickle Lake. This route follows some discontinuous eskers and requires one major river crossings the Attawapiskat Rivers. Three options for this crossing were reviewed and included bridges, tunnel and ferry.
Option 3; Nakina to Martin Falls to McFaulds Lake
The truck haul option is based on a 443 km long all season road From McFaulds Lake to Marten Falls to Nakina. This route south section follows the upland ground close to Ogoki River to Marten Falls, whiles the north section avoiding the wetland, bog and swamp which are plenty north of Marten falls, and both sections fall within area of extensive peatlands and requires three major river crossings the Albany, the Attawapiskat Rivers and the Ruby Creek. Three options for these crossing were reviewed and included bridges, tunnel and ferry.
Option 4; Pickle Lake to Webequie to McFaulds Lake
The truck haul option is based on a 372 km long all season road From McFaulds Lake to Pickle Lake. This route follows the existing winter road to Webequie and from there some discontinuous eskers to McFaulds Lake and no major river crossing is required.
Major River Crossings
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-30 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 12 334564-0000-30RA-0001
• Bridge • Tunnel • Hoverbarge/ Ferry
The tunnel and hoverbarge options have been eliminated because of the high costs. However, further investigation will be required to confirm the viability of these options.
4.1.1 General Conditions
This report has been issued with the intent to reduce the number of options for the all season road. Preliminary road route information has been used in this report.
A constructability matrix has been created to allocate possibly constructability of routes for ease. The matrix is as follows:
Rating Construction Difficulty 1 Low 2 Low Moderate 3 Moderate 4 Moderate High 5 High
The construction difficulty rating is based upon many different terrain types encountered during our route investigation. The amount of swamp and bog, major/minor crossings and granular material available are the main aspects the rating is based on. The soils for each option are the driving force for all decisions as they play a large role in the construction of a roadway. Other aspects investigated include rock structures, slopes and first nation implications.
Mobilization seems to be constant across all routes with no significant issues for individual routes.
4.1.2 All Season Option 1
Segment Section Rating Reasons 0+000 to 33+000 km 4 Extensive peat and long borrow haul distance 33+000 to 97+600 km 4 Extensive peat and long borrow haul distance 97+600 to 183+800 km 3 Good borrow sources and shorter haul distances 193+800 to 273+640 km 3 Good borrow sources and shorter haul distances
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-31 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 13 334564-0000-30RA-0001
Construction Points
• Relatively easy construction • Granular fill available along route • No long hauls • Shorter distance to construct • Can terminate at highway or rail road • South third extensive swamp and bog • Provincial park, protected land • Three major stream crossings
4.1.3 All Season Option 2
Segment Section Rating Reasons 0+000 to 60+000 km 2 Very good granular borrow source with shorter haul distance and not in provincial park lands 60+000 to 160+000 km 2 Very good granular borrow source with shorter haul distance and not in provincial park lands 160+000 to 226+500 km 3 Little borrow source and has some peat 226+500 to 319+270 km 3 Good borrow source but has some peat
Construction Points
• Only one major marine crossing • Granular fill available along route • No long hauls • Longer construction distance • Only highway at end point • Possibly more first nations and therefore more land settlements • More streams, small crossings
4.1.4 All Season Option 3
Segment Section Rating Reasons 0+000 to 157+000 km 4 Extensive till, swamp and bog 157+000 to 220+200 4 Extensive till, swamp and bog km 220+200 to 274+200 4 Extensive till, swamp and bog km 274+200 to 347+510 3 Extensive peat and long borrow haul km distance
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-32 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 14 334564-0000-30RA-0001
Construction Points
• Provincial park, protected land • Extensive swamp and bog along route • Difficult burrows requiring long hauls • Overall construction seems very difficult • No known granular sources • Three major crossings
4.1.5 All Season Option 4
Segment Section Rating Reasons 0+000 to 86+600 km 2 Very good borrow source with smaller distance hauls and not in provincial park lands 86+000 to 150+000 km 5 Extensive swamp and bog with numerous streams and wetlands 150+000 to 300+200 4 Hard rock, difficult to obtain burrows, km possible crusher needed 300+200 to 314+750 4 Hard rock, difficult to obtain burrows, km possible crusher needed
Construction Points
• Possible good support from first nations • Existing winter road but not never proven for industrial use • Good rock borrow within north east portion of route • Extensive swamp and bog within south west portion of route • No major streams or river crossings but many small stream crossings
5.0 CONCENTRATE TRANSPORT OPTIONS
5.1 Option A Truck
The report discusses the commercial transport of concentrate by truck on the selected route and contains details about route distances, road conditions and alignment. The selected haul units will be nine axel tractor and trailer vehicle capable of transporting an 80 ton pay load.
The following will be required to efficiently operate a truck fleet;
• Driver accommodation
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-33 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 15 334564-0000-30RA-0001
• Repair, fuel and maintenance facility
• Communication support equipment
• Loading/ offloading equipment including truck scales
• Administrative facilities
• Concentrate storage facilities
5.2 Option B Concentrate Pipeline The commercial transportation of mineral concentrate slurries in long – distance pipe lines has been successful (technically and economically) for more than 40 years. Since the 1960's numerous long distance mineral concentrate pipe lines have been built and are still in operation. Lifetime project costs and ease of operation have rendered the technology to be far superior to most alternatives such as trucking.
Table 1 Long Distance Concentrate pipe lines around the world
Project/Location Type of Material Length Pipe Capacity Years Dia. km MTA Operating In.
Savage River Iron Concentrate 70 9 2.3 40 Tasmania, Australia
SAMARCO, Brazil Iron Concentrate 396 20 16.5 30
La Perla, Mexico Iron Concentrate 380 8/14 2/5 23
Collahuasi, Chile Copper 203 7 1 9 Concentrate
Century Zinc, Australia Lead-Zinc 300 12 2.6 7 Concentrate
Antamina, Peru Copper-Zinc 303 10/9/8 1.8 5
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-34 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 16 334564-0000-30RA-0001
Concentrate
Essar, India Iron Concentrate 250 16/14 8 1
The successful operation of existing pipelines has proven that remarkable reliability can be achieved with qualified personnel and adherence to operating procedures.
This option has proven to be the most cost effective mode for the transport of concentrate on other projects, however further study is required to determine if this technology is feasible for the McFaulds Lake Project.
5.3 Option B Sky Liner/Sky Hook
At this time this technology is unproven, and will not be considered for the transport of concentrate and mine re-supply. There are no operations in North America utilizing this technology but there has been some studies done for comparison between the Sky Cat 200 airship and conventional trucking. These studies indicated that conventional trucking was more economical however; the environmental impact of the Sky Cat may be less. This may be a viable alternative in the future.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
It should be noted that the impacts reported in this section considered only environmental and social criteria and is not a comprehensive analysis of alternatives.
6.1 Environmental Impacts
Air Quality
Trucking will cause more air pollution than a pipeline. The greater the trucking haul distance, particularly through population settlements, the more significant the air quality impacts.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-35 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 17 334564-0000-30RA-0001
Noise
Similarly, noise impacts will be more significant the greater the trucking distance, particularly through population centers.
Water supply
A slurry pipeline will consume more water than trucking; the longer the pipeline, the greater the amount of water needed.
Aquatic habitat and fisheries
All of the options would have equal effects on aquatic habitat and fisheries, as they involve the same concentrate traffic through the same facilities.
Groundwater quality
A pipeline poses a greater risk to groundwater than trucking due to the larger size of potential spills and seepage from pipeline dewatering.
Terrestrial Habitat and Wildlife
Trucking would generally be expected to cause greater anthropogenic disturbance than a pipeline, however this is offset by the improved road access that trucking would provide, which would promote improved natural resource management by government and increased enforcement of natural resource protection laws.
Natural heritage features
No significant natural heritage features are expected to be threatened by any of the options under consideration.
Greenhouse gasses
More trucking would lead to more greenhouse gas production and therefore the pipeline option is seen as having the lowest potential to contribute to greenhouse gasses.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-36 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 18 334564-0000-30RA-0001
6.2 Social Impacts
Economy
Economic growth would be more significant for the trucking options as more people would be employed and there would be more secondary economic opportunities along the transportation corridor.
Employment
As above, trucking will employ significantly more people than a pipeline.
Infrastructure
Trucking will promote road maintenance, improving the infrastructure for all users.
Traditions and Culture
Traditions and culture of the first nation’s people are not expected to be impacted or threatened by any of the options under consideration.
Health and Safety
Trucking will result in a potential for more accidents than a pipeline.
Heritage and Cultural resources
No significant cultural heritage features are expected to be threatened by any of the options under consideration.
7.0 COSTS
7.1 Capital Costs (Q4 2009 $CDN)
The estimated undiscounted capital costs involved with each option is outline in the table below. The capital costs cover the transportation route, concentrate hauling equipment, and off-site infrastructure required for each option.
The air ship has a much lower capital than both the pipeline and all season routes.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-37 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 19 334564-0000-30RA-0001
The pipeline has a large material and construction cost as well as an additional cost of a road to haul consumables into site. Off-site infrastructure also carries a larger capital due to the cost of a dewatering plant opposed to a truck dumping system required for the haul options.
The all season routes and the air ship have a lesser capital then the pipeline option however carry the majority of their costs during operations.
0% Discount Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Road Road Road Road Pipeline Air Ship All Season (Site - All Season (Site - All Season Road All Season Road Pipeline (Site - Air Ship (Site - Marten Falls- Wibequie - Pickle (Site - Nakina) (Site - Pickle Lake) Nakina) Nakina) Nakina) Lake) Haul Distance (km) 372 380 443 374 360 310
Capital Cost ($) Road - Upgrade/ New $164,327,454 $180,017,845 $207,067,192 $174,214,448 $100,000,000 N/A Trucks $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,500,000 $13,500,000 $14,000,000 N/A Truck Dump/ Concentrate Storage $40,000,000 $40,000,000 $40,000,000 $40,000,000 N/A N/A Concentrate Pipeline N/A N/A N/A N/A $286,789,440 N/A De-Watering/ Concentrate Storage N/A N/A N/A N/A $50,000,000 N/A Air Ship N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $110,000,000 Air Port Fees/ Concentrate Storage N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $35,000,000
Total Capital Cost ($) $218,327,454 $234,017,845 $261,567,192 $227,714,448 $450,789,440 $145,000,000
7.1.1 Source of Information
For estimate details see Appendix B for basis of estimate and Appendix C for estimate breakdowns.
• Road Development– SLI estimate by road sections • Trucks – Haul Max D3900 80tonne truck quote • Truck dump/ Concentrate dewatering/ Air ship unloading – SLI estimate • Concentrate Pipeline – SLI estimate • Air Ship – Estimate developed by SkyLiner 200 model
7.2 Operating Costs
Operating costs have a large impact on which mode of transportation is most economical. This impact also grows as the life of the mine or reserves increase. It has been assumed that mine will operate for 25 years, producing approximately 1,000,000 tonnes of concentrate and requiring 100,000 tonnes of consumables each year.
Based on the table below Option 6, the air ship has the largest operating cost. At approximately $100/tonne of concentrate the air ship carries a lot of associated cost, largely due to fuel, in order to operate.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-38 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 20 334564-0000-30RA-0001
Option 5, the concentrate pipeline, provides the lowest operating cost, approximately a third lower than that of the air ship and 30% below that of hauling concentrate along an all season road.
0% Discount Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Road Road Road Road Pipeline Air Ship All Season (Site - All Season (Site - All Season Road All Season Road Pipeline (Site - Air Ship (Site - Marten Falls- Wibequie - Pickle (Site - Nakina) (Site - Pickle Lake) Nakina) Nakina) Nakina) Lake) Haul Distance (km) 372 380 443 374 360 310
Operating Cost ($) Road Maintenace $191,705,578 $187,101,835 $224,784,734 $214,123,976 $191,705,550 N/A Road Concentrate & Consumable Haul $757,075,000 $762,850,000 $778,525,000 $733,425,000 N/A N/A Truck Dump Site $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 N/A N/A Concentrate Pipeline N/A N/A N/A N/A $369,500,000 N/A De-Watering Site N/A N/A N/A N/A $100,000,000 N/A Air Ship (Concentrate & Consumables) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2,501,500,000 Air Port Site N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $50,000,000 Consumables Backhaul N/A N/A N/A N/A $87,516,000 N/A Total Operating Cost ($) $998,780,578 $999,951,835 $1,053,309,734 $997,548,976 $748,721,550 $2,551,500,000 7.2.1 Source of Information
For estimate details see Appendix C for estimate breakdowns.
• Road maintenance all season road – SLI estimate, cost per year • Truck dump/ Concentrate dewatering/ Air ship unloading – SLI estimate • Concentrate pipeline – SLI estimate • Air Ship – Estimate developed by SkyLiner 200 model
Cost Summary
As seen in the graph below Option 5, the pipeline option is the most economical mode of transportation. Despite the high capital cost, over 25 years of operation the pipeline will be more cost effective. This will be even more evident if the length of the mine increases. At a discounted rate of 5% the all season road options also become more feasible and even comparable to the pipeline. Options 1 from Nakina to site is the most direct route with both a lower capital and operating cost as a result of the shorter length.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-39 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 21 334564-0000-30RA-0001
Capital and Operating Net Present Cost Comparison Discounted 0%
Millions $2,800
$2,600
$2,400
$2,200
$2,000
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400 Operating Capital $1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0 All Season Road (Site All Season Road (Site All Season (Site - All Season (Site - Pipeline (Site - Nakina) Air Ship (Site - Nakina) - Nakina) - Pickle Lake) Marten Falls- Nakina) Wibequie - Pickle Lake)
Capital and Operating Net Present Cost Comparison Discounted 5%
Millions $1,800
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000 Operating $800 Capital
$600
$400
$200
$0 All Season Road (Site All Season Road (Site All Season (Site - All Season (Site - Pipeline (Site - Nakina) Air Ship (Site - Nakina) - Nakina) - Pickle Lake) Marten Falls- Nakina) Wibequie - Pickle Lake)
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-40 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 22 334564-0000-30RA-0001
Capital and Operating Net Present Cost Comparison Discounted 0%
Millions
$1,350
$1,200
$1,050
$900
$750 Operating Capital $600
$450
$300
$150
$0 All Season Road (Site - Nakina) All Season Road (Site - Pickle All Season (Site - Marten Falls- All Season (Site - Wibequie - Lake) Nakina) Pickle Lake)
8.0 Economic Analysis
8.1 Net Present Cost (NPC)
The Net Present Cost (NPC) for the six options are shown in the table below at an undiscounted and 5% discount rate. The total Net Present Cost over the estimated 25 year mine life is then divided by the total concentrate produced to provide a cost per tonne concentrate for each option.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-41 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 23 334564-0000-30RA-0001
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Road Road Road Road Pipeline Air Ship All Season (Site - All Season (Site - All Season Road All Season Road Pipeline (Site - Air Ship (Site - Marten Falls- Wibequie - Pickle (Site - Nakina) (Site - Pickle Lake) Nakina) Nakina) Nakina) Lake)
Undiscounted Total Net Present Cost ($) $1,217,108,032 $1,233,969,680 $1,314,876,926 $1,225,263,424 $1,199,510,990 $2,696,500,000 Total Net Present Cost/Tonne Concentrate($/t) $48.68 $49.36 $52.60 $49.01 $47.98 $107.86
Discounted at 5% Total Net Present Cost ($) $752,013,477 $768,332,730 $824,506,773 $752,467,092 $832,033,936 $1,508,026,650 Total Net Present Cost/Tonne Concentrate($/t) $30.08 $30.73 $32.98 $30.10 $33.28 $60.32
9.0 Recommendations/Conclusions
The options are evaluated based on several considerations with a larger weight placed on socio-economic effects to the local community. The evaluation is shown bellow in Table 2.4-1. In Table 2.4-1 the options are ranked for each consideration from 1 to 4, 1 being most favourable and 4 being least favourable.
Table 2.4 -1 Evaluation of Options Considerations Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Capital Cost 1 3 4 2 Operating and Maintenance 1 2 3 3 Cost Environmental 2 2 4 1 Existing Infrastructure 4 4 2 1 Construction Difficulty 2 1 2 4 *Socio-Economic Effects 4 4 1 2
Overall Ranking 3 4 1 2 * Socio-Economic Effects are weighted higher then other considerations Based on the NPV over the proposed mine life, Option 5, Pipeline to Nakina, is estimated to be approximately 15% less than either of the undiscounted trucking options and roughly half that of the air ship or winter road options. Option 5 with a road from site to Nakina is the most attractive option. This option will also grown in strength as the life of the mine increase.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-42 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: 00 2010-03-30 24 334564-0000-30RA-0001
10.0 Opportunities
• Truck design and capacity, multi function trucks for back hauling fuel and consumables
• Infrastructure layouts, preliminary layout and sizing for each option
• Geotechnical work, ground conditions
• Concentrate shipping destination
• Rail transportation option to site
• Environmental issues regarding dumping waste water from dewatering plant
DOCUMENT END
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds LakeA-43 Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc
APPENDIX A
Drawings
A-44 of 117
APPENDIX B
Basis of Estimate
A-45 of 117 McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: APP 00 2010-03-30 334564-0000-30RA-0001 B
1. INTRODUCTION
Information for the cost estimates has been obtained from the following:
1. Drawings, sketches and equipment lists included in this study. 2. SNC s' experience in the Northern Canada. 3. Earthwork quantity take-offs are to neat line with an allowance for swell, waste and over build. All other quantities are to neat lines. 4. Granular materials will be available, on average, within 7 km of the required placing area. 5. Concrete aggregates will be available for a portable concrete batch plant. 6. Construction costs have been calculated assuming that one general contractor will be responsible for the project.
2. CAPITAL COSTS
Basis of Estimate
Cost Basis
The capital cost estimate covers the scope of work shown on the drawings, sketches and descriptions contained within this report.
It has been assumed that qualified tradesmen employed by independent general contractors will perform the construction work. All equipment and materials have been considered to be purchased new, unless stated otherwise. The cost of temporary equipment and trailers for the construction camps is based on the supply of refurbished used units.
The access road construction camp costs are based on two mobile camps (60 man camp each one). The mobile camps would ultimately be used as emergency refuge stations along the road routes.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds Lake A-46Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: APP 00 2010-03-30 334564-0000-30RA-0001 B
Estimate Area, Facility and Location Descriptions
The capital cost estimate was divided into four logically categorized cost sections. These are subsequently divided to represent individual facility costs and then further broken down into locations for a more detailed summary representation.
The following costs have been separated out of the estimate to assist with identifying and clarifying indirect costs associated with the direct costs of contract packages:
• Owners costs • EPCM costs • Construction Indirect Costs • Mob and Demo • Construction Camp Costs • Site Supervision • Temporary Facilities • Small Tools and Consumables • Freights (bulks, personnel, helicopter) • Camp catering • Contractor O/P • Contingency
The estimate details have been compiled utilizing a unit price database tied by the following work breakdown structure (WBS) description:
Areas
0000 General 1000 All Season access road 2000 Winter season road 3000 Other modes of Transport 900 Indirect
Taxes and Duty
The applicable Provincial or Federal taxes are not included in the initial capital cost estimate.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds Lake A-47Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: APP 00 2010-03-30 334564-0000-30RA-0001 B
Contingency
Contingency Factor by Commodity Type
Commodity Type Contingency %
Owners Costs 10 Engineering, Procurement, Construction Management 15 Constructor Indirects (of total construction indirect) 30
Construction Indirects
Construction indirect costs have been estimated based upon the work being performed by contractors in Northern Canada. Mobilization and demobilization include one mobilization and one demobilization. The construction indirect costs cover the following items:
Mobilization and Demobilization:
Calculated and based on the total freight cost of materials and equipment to be brought up to the project site and generally includes; • Temporary building erection and dismantling, • Construction equipment erection and dismantling, • Loading, unloading and yard handling, • Job site receiving, • Freight on construction equipment, • Freight on construction material, supplies and consumables.
Site Supervision and Administration:
• Project Manager • Assistant Project Manager • Project Superintendent • Assistant Project Superintendent • General Superintendent • Trade Superintendent • Non-working General Foreman’s • Project Administrator • Office Manager • Accountant • Paymaster
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds Lake A-48Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: APP 00 2010-03-30 334564-0000-30RA-0001 B
• Buyers and Receivers • Administrative Clerks or Assistants • Receptionists • Schedulers • Estimators • Industrial and Native Relations • Office equipment and supplies • Computer costs • Safety and Security • First Aid • Medical Attendant • Medical supplies
Temporary Facilities:
Calculated and based on the total cost of temporary facilities estimated to be required for the project and generally includes:
• Site offices (main and field) • Engineering office(s) • Trade shacks • First Aid trailer • Equipment warehousing • Maintenance warehousing • Tool cribs
Camp Catering:
Catering costs per person-day are based on $8.00/man-hour, seven days a week calculated from total on-site man-hours for direct and indirect labour (allowance of 300,000 indirect and direct man-hours) and generally includes:
• Cost of food, house keeping and maintenance to the camps.
No allowances for Owner's personnel or vendor's representatives have been made.
Helicopter Costs:
• Miscellaneous helicopter flights to service construction and engineering crews, • Helicopter fuel, landing fees etc.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds Lake A-49Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: APP 00 2010-03-30 334564-0000-30RA-0001 B
Contractors Overhead and Profit:
• Home overhead costs • Home administration • Profit.
Construction Management
Construction management as well as start-up assistance have been included. The costs are based on a 12% of the direct costs and are not based on a detailed man-hour, fees and expenses estimate.
Owner's Costs
Owner’s costs is an allowance which is approximately equal to 1.5% of Direct Costs plus an aggregate royalty of $1.25/m3 on all quarried materials (rockfill and crushed aggregate) and includes:
• legal, consulting, accounting and broker fees; • course of construction insurance; • working capital; • Owner’s construction personnel and expenses; • gravel borrow material royalties; • employee recruitment and training; • Owner’s travel and accommodation during construction; and • Owner’s operating personnel cost and expenses during commissioning.
Exclusions
The following are not included in the capital cost estimate and will be provided by the Owner or Others, if required:
• cost of land acquisition, leases, easements, rights-of-way and water rights; • cost of federal and provincial government development bonds and permits; • cost of reclamation bonds; • costs incurred to date for feasibility studies, testwork, investigations, consultants, including cost of this study; • environmental impact studies or additional costs resulting from such studies; • property taxes to date; • facilities for future expansion; • cost of financing and interest during construction; • cost of environmental permits and on-site inspections.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds Lake A-50Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: APP 00 2010-03-30 334564-0000-30RA-0001 B
Construction Labour
Capital Cost Estimate Details
3. ROAD MAINTENANCE COSTS
Basis of Estimate
The road maintenance cost estimate is based on the material handling, shipping and seasonal maintenance schedule. The project life will be 25 years.
All costs provided are exclusive of taxes, duties, levies or other government-imposed costs. Operating costs are stated in constant fourth quarter 2009 Canadian dollars without any allowance for escalation or inflation.
The estimate of costs was prepared using the following information:
• manpower levels for supervision, operations and maintenance were determined by SNC based on experience with similar operations; • salaries, labour rates and payroll burdens based on operations in the area; • operating supplies and consumable quantities based on SNC in-house data and experience on other projects; and • electrical power costs developed from the power consumption estimated by SNC and equipment generating costs.
Inclusions
The following items have been included in the estimate of the operating costs:
• payroll burdens on labour rates; • overtime allowances; • operating supplies including freight costs; • water treatment costs; • maintenance of all mobile equipment and vehicles; • equipment and vehicle operation; • maintenance of material handling equipment; • fuel supplies;
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds Lake A-51Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: APP 00 2010-03-30 334564-0000-30RA-0001 B
• electrical power generation for the camp sites; • communications; • insurance; • auditing and legal fees; • employee training; • employee accommodation costs; and • general and administrative costs.
Exclusions
The specific exclusions from the operating cost estimate are:
• Goods and Services Tax; • property and net profit taxes; • land payments; • inflation; • contingency is not included because all personnel and supplies are defined and would only change if the maintenance philosophy changed;
• reclamation is addressed in the sustaining capital costs;
Organization and Manpower
The manpower requirement for the maintenance is estimated to average approximately 30
The Noront McFaulds Lake Access Road will operate whole year. Office and administrative personnel will work a regular 8-hour shift, 5 days a week.
Labour Rate
Salary levels and basic wage rates were based on industrial operations in the Northern Ontario Territories. A payroll burden of approximately 35% was applied to all labour rates.
Holidays and vacation pay are included in the base salaries. An annual allowance has been included in the General and Administrative Costs for employee training. An allowance has also been applied against the annual labour costs for employee absenteeism/sickness (2%) and overtime (10%).
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds Lake A-52Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc McFaulds Lake Revision Transportation Study # Date Page Report No.: APP 00 2010-03-30 334564-0000-30RA-0001 B
General and Administration Direct Costs
General
The general and administration costs are based on experience from similar operations. The costs include the staff required to administer the total project
The costs include: senior management, accounting, purchasing and secretarial personnel; legal and audit fees, environmental consultants, senior staff personnel vehicles, camp catering, office supplies, telephone and fax charges, employee training, travel, temporary company housing for relocating employees, insurance, offices at site. Recruitment and site relocation costs are included.
Operating Cost Summary
General
The summary of operating, maintenance, general and administrative annual average costs is shown on the following "Annual Operating Cost Summary",
4. SUSTAINING CAPITAL COSTS
General
Sustaining capital costs are stated in constant fourth quarter 2009 Canadian dollars without any allowance for escalation or inflation. Sustaining capital costs include capitalized expenditures after project start-up as follows:
• transportation and erection costs for replacement of leased road maintenance and power generation equipment;
• reclamation of disturbed areas to restore them to their original state generally at the end of the project life. Reclamation also includes a research program and annual reporting costs; and
• salvage value of equipment, buildings and structures to offset estimated reclamation costs.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\Scoping Study Report\McFaulds Lake A-53Transportation of 117 Study Rev PA 2010-02-16 CK FINAL.doc
APPENDIX C
Estimates
A-54 of 117 A-55 of 117 A-56 of 117 A-57 of 117 A-58 of 117 A-59 of 117 A-60 of 117 A-61 of 117 A-62 of 117 A-63 of 117 A-64 of 117 A-65 of 117 A-66 of 117 A-67 of 117 A-68 of 117 A-69 of 117 A-70 of 117 A-71 of 117 A-72 of 117 A-73 of 117 A-74 of 117 A-75 of 117 Concentrate Hauling Rate 1,000,000 tpy All Season Road Hourly Owning and Operating Concentrate Haul Cost Estimate
Owning Cost Operating Cost Haul Cost Estimate
Truck Capacity 80 t
Estimate Period (years) 10 1 Fuel Consumption 30 l/h Description Unit Qty Estimated Usage (Hours/year) 7700 Fuel Price 1.00 $/lLoad Size tonne 80 Ownership Usage (Total Hours) 77000 Fuel Cost per Unit 30.00 $/h Length Of Haul km 379 1.a Delivered Price 1,500,000.00 2 Lube Oil and Grease - Price $5.50 $/l Concentrate hauled t/y 1,000,000 b Less Tire Replacement Cost 28,800.00 Lube and Oil Consumption 2.57 l/h Days hauled day/y 350 c Delivered Price Less Tires 1,471,200.00 Lube Cost per Unit $14.14 $/h Concentrate Hauled t/d 2,857 2.a Less Residual Value at Replacement 294,240.00 3 Filters 0.47 $/h Hours worked / day h/d 22 3.a. Value to be Recovered through Work 1,176,960.00 4 Tires $800 Speed loaded km/h 40 b Cost per Hour Tires per truck 36.00 # Speed return km/h 50 Value/Hour 15.29 $/h Tire life hrs 2500.00 h Haul Speed loaded m/min 667 4 Interest Costs @ 5% 11.52 $/h Haul speed return m/min 833 N+1 x delivered Price x Simple Int % 5.36 $/h 5 Estimated depreciation period 25,000.00 hrs Load / haul Cycle 2N Repair reserve % of purchase price less tires 30% Spot truck min 1 Maintenance Hours/Year Total repair reserve $441,360 Load time min 4 5 Insurance @ 1.5% Repair cost per hour $17.65 Haul Loaded min 569 9.475 h N+1 x Delivered Price x Ins % Rate 1.61 $/h Extended use factor 1.4 Dump Load min 10 2N Repair Reserve $24.72 $/h Return empty min 455 7.58 Hours / Year Hourly Operating Cost 80.84 $/h Cycle Time min 1,038 Trips per hr/truck 0.06 Hourly Owning Cost 22.25 $/h Total Owning and Operating Cost 103.09 $/h Trips per/truck tonne 1.3 Trips per/truck/day Tonne per day/truck tonne 102 Operating Fleet Capital Cost $42,138,799 Trucks required 28 Provision for road up Operating Cost Cost/ Hr Hr/day Cost/day Operating Fleet # 28 $103 22 $63,714 Labour 28 $56 22 $34,610 Total Cost /day $98,324
Cost per tonne $34.41
Cost per tonne km $0.09
Haul cost estimate All Season Road.xls Summary
A-76 of 117 Concentrate Hauling Rate 1,000,000 tpy Winter Road Hourly Owning and Operating Concentrate Haul Cost Estimate
Owning Cost Operating Cost Haul Cost Estimate
Truck Capacity 80 t
Estimate Period (years) 10 1 Fuel Consumption 30 l/h Description Unit Qty Estimated Usage (Hours/year) 7700 Fuel Price 1.00 $/lLoad Size tonne 80 Ownership Usage (Total Hours) 77000 Fuel Cost per Unit 30.00 $/h Length Of Haul km 367 1.a Delivered Price 1,500,000.00 2 Lube Oil and Grease - Price $5.50 $/l Concentrate hauled t/y 1,000,000 b Less Tire Replacement Cost 28,800.00 Lube and Oil Consumption 2.57 l/h Days hauled day/y 60 c Delivered Price Less Tires 1,471,200.00 Lube Cost per Unit $14.14 $/h Concentrate Hauled t/d 16,667 2.a Less Residual Value at Replacement 294,240.00 3 Filters 0.47 $/h Hours worked / day h/d 22 3.a. Value to be Recovered through Work 1,176,960.00 4 Tires $800 Speed loaded km/h 20 b Cost per Hour Tires per truck 36.00 # Speed return km/h 25 Value/Hour 15.29 $/h Tire life hrs 2500.00 h Haul Speed loaded m/min 333 4 Interest Costs @ 5% 11.52 $/h Haul speed return m/min 417 N+1 x delivered Price x Simple Int % 5.36 $/h 5 Estimated depreciation period 25,000.00 hrs Load / haul Cycle 2N Repair reserve % of purchase price less tires 30% Spot truck min 1 Maintenance Hours/Year Total repair reserve $441,360 Load time min 4 5 Insurance @ 1.5% Repair cost per hour $17.65 Haul Loaded min 1,101 18.35 h N+1 x Delivered Price x Ins % Rate 1.61 $/h Extended use factor 1.4 Dump Load min 10 2N Repair Reserve $24.72 $/h Return empty min 881 14.68 Hours / Year Hourly Operating Cost 80.84 $/h Cycle Time min 1,997 Trips per hr/truck 0.03 Hourly Owning Cost 22.25 $/h Total Owning and Operating Cost 103.09 $/h Trips per/truck tonne 0.7 Trips per/truck/day Tonne per day/truck tonne 53 Operating Fleet Capital Cost $472,727,273 Trucks required 315 Provision for road up Operating Cost Cost/ Hr Hr/day Cost/day Operating Fleet # 315 $103 22 $714,762 Labour 315 $56 22 $388,267 Total Cost /day $1,103,028
Cost per tonne $66.18
Cost per tonne km $0.18
Haul cost estimate Winter Road.xls Summary
A-77 of 117 2009-12-18 11:22 Only change the blue text SkyLiner 200 Commercial Cargo Configuration - max utilisation
BASIC UTILISATION INFO Cruise Speed Knots per hour 80 Un-refuelled range Nautical Miles 1,200 Available payload tons 200 Payload on outbound leg tons 200 Payload on return leg tons 0 Mission range Nautical Miles 208 Mission range Km 385 Flight Time Hours 2.60 Turn-Round Time (unload and reload) Hours 0.5 Refuel time en route Hours 1.5 Flight Crew Utilization Hours per month 135 Number of return flights per annum 5,000 Total hours in the air Hours 26,000 Total hours on en-route refueling Hours 0 Total hours loading / unloading Hours 5,000 Total hours being used (flight, refuel, load/unload) Hours 31,000 Total hours in a year Hours 8,760 Annual Flight Time - Based on utilisation above Hours 26,000 No of Crews Required per Aircraft - Based on Maximum Utilization 17.00
DIRECT COSTS - PER FLIGHT HOUR Maintenance - Labor (Cost per Flight Hour) - 50% accrued for yearly service 71 71 Maintenance - Parts (Airframe and Avionics ONLY) - 50% accrued for big items / yearly service 185 185 Engine Restoration - Per Engine (Utilize Complete JSSI Program) 52 Total 4 engines 208 Propeller Overhaul - Per Propeller 10 Total 4 Propellers 40 ACLS System 63 63 Lubricants Gallons per Hour 3 Price per Gallon 8 Total Cost per Hour 24 Parking or Ramp Fees - Based on 10000 per Month - 0 Crew costs per flight hour per annum Captains 200,000 PS estimate 4,420,000 170 1st Officers 120,000 PS estimate 2,652,000 102 Load master 80,000 PS estimate 1,768,000 68 General hand 52,000 PS estimate 1,149,200 44
Crew Expenses Accom. & Transport based on 2 days per return leg (4 crew and $200 each/day) 0 Cabin Supplies and In-Flight Catering (approx 2.5 days per leg - food for 4 people - say $200) 10 Total Direct Cost per Flight Hour (Maintenance and Crew) $985 Ground staff costs Annual Salary $ Operations Manager Ops manager 100,000 1 130000 5 Groundcrew Crew Chief 65,000 1 84500 3 Ground Handlers consist of all Asst. C/C 50,000 2 130000 5 service personnel; Baggage Mechanics 50,000 4 260000 10 Grd Handler 30,000 4 156000 6 Administration Supervisor 31,000 1 40300 2 Admin 20,000 3 78000 3 Ground team salary (inc. 30% factor for benefits package) 15 $748,800 Benefits - Cost of ALL fringe benefits associated with salaries shown; Typical is 20% of wages 30.00% Total Direct Cost per Flight Hour (Ground support) $34 Aircraft Value 110,000,000 Insurance Aircraft Hull Value Rate % of Hull Value 4.00% 4,400,000 169 Recurrent Training Per Flight Crew Member 5,000 340,000 13 Aircraft Modernization + Uninsured Damage % of Hull Value 0.50% 550,000 21 Navigation Chart Service Annual Subscription 5,000 5,000 0.2 Computerized Maintenance Management System Annual Subscription 5,000 5,000 0.2 Weather Service Annual Subscription 10,000 10,000 0.4 Amortisation of capital cost over 10 years % of Hull Value 10.00% 11,000,000 423 Total Direct Cost per Flight Hour (Insurance, depreciation and misc) $627 Contingency / Miscellaneous Overhead % of Total Fixed Cost 3.00% 1284120 $49 Total ACMI Cost for this mission $1,696
Fuel Cost KG/hour 2,760 Price per ton inflated price by 20% for Northern Canada 780.00 Total Cost per Hour 2,153 Total Direct Cost per Flight Hour (Fuel) $2,153
Total Cost per Flight Hour $3,848
Total Cost per nautical mile $48.11
Total Cost per km $25.98
Total Cost per ton * km $0.130
Total Cost per ton (Both ways) $100.061
The 200 tons carried over 385 km ties the aircraft up for 8.5 flying hours (4.25 hrs each way) 32,712$
A-78 of 117
APPENDIX D
2010 Field Investigation Program
A-79 of 117
MCFAULDS' LAKE PROJECT PROPOSED 2010 WINTER FIELD INVESTIGATION PROGRAM
To provide information for the design of the McFaulds' Lake access it is proposed to execute the following field program during the winter of 2010:
• Identify bog and swamp areas. • Geotechnical drilling on the abutments of the four major bridge crossings. • Test pitting at bog and swamp sites • Test pitting at selected esker deposits to obtain samples for grain size distribution, concrete suitability and road borrow. • Survey bridge abutments and water crossings.
A more detailed description of the field program is given below.
Drilling and Surveys at Bridge Abutments
It is proposed to drill boreholes at each of the major bridge crossings along the route. The holes will be drilled 5m into bedrock or to a maximum depth of 30 metres. The holes will be continuously logged and selective samples obtained for strength tests.
At each crossing topographic surveys will be carried out using GPS and Total Station survey instruments. It is assumed that coordinates and elevations will be obtained on a 5m grid to produce contour maps with a half-metre contour interval in the vicinity of the proposed crossings.
Test Pitting at Identified Swamps and Bogs
It is proposed to dig test pits at 200 metre maximum spacing along the bog and swamp areas, offset as appropriate on the proposed route. The test pits will be logged and representative samples taken for laboratory testing.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\2010 Field Program.doc
A-80 of 117
Test Pitting at Selected Esker Deposits
It is proposed to dig one test pit at a maximum distance of 5 kilometres following esker deposits. The road alignment runs through or close to these deposits and they could provide an excellent source of concrete aggregate and road material. Bulk samples will be obtained for grain size analyses and concrete aggregate acceptability tests.
Exploration Team
To carry out the program outlined above, the exploration team will comprise of the following personnel:
Exploration Manager 1 Drill Technicians 1 Drillers (1 rig) 2 Excavator Crew (1 machine) 1 Surveyors 2 Labourers 2 Total 9
Schedule
It is anticipated that the drilling, surveys and test pitting programs are expected to last one month. Provided all exploration permits are obtained in time, the program can be completed from early February 2010 to early April 2010.
J:\334564 - Noront McFaulds Lake\30 - Project Management and Controls\30R - Reports\RA - Discipline Miscellaneous Repors and Forms\2010 Field Program.doc
A-81 of 117
APPENDIX E
Air Photo Mapping for Route Location and Terrain Assessment by JD Mollard
A-82 of 117 McFaulds Lake Project, Northern Ontario Airphoto Mapping for Route Location and Terrain Assessment Scoping/Prefeasibility-Level Study Alternative Road Route Locations
February 2010 DRAFT Report
Submitted to SNC?Lavalin Inc. Mining & Metallurgy Vancouver, BC
12 February 2010
A-83 of 117 McFaulds Lake Project, Northern Ontario Airphoto Mapping for Route Location and Terrain Assessment Scoping/Prefeasibility-Level Study Alternative Road Route Locations February 2010 DRAFT Report
Submitted to SNC?Lavalin Inc. Mining & Metallurgy Vancouver, BC.
12 February 2010
Prepared For:
R.T. Turner Tony Wachmann, V.P. Operations, Mining & Metallurgy
SNC?Lavalin, Inc. Mining & Metallurgy 1800, 1075 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V6E 3C9
Prepared By:
D.G. Mollard, B.E., P.Eng. with J.D. Mollard, O.C., Ph.D., P.Eng., P.Geo. J.A. O’Donnell, B.Sc. D.J.D. Boschman, B.Sc. J.A. Patterson, GIS & Resource Mgmt Dpl.
J.D. Mollard and Associates (2010) Limited 810 Avord Tower, 2002 Victoria Avenue Regina, SK S4P 0R7
Ph: (306) 352-8811 Fx: (306) 352-8820 Email: [email protected]
A-84 of 117 A-85 of 117 Table of Contents
1.0 Terms of reference and purpose of scoping study 2.0 Airphotos and maps used in study 3.0 Individual segments of route alternatives studied 3.1 From the tie to the existing road north of Pickle Lake east and north to McFaulds Lake (Route 1) 3.2 From Highway #643 northwest of Nakina to McFaulds Lake (Route 2) 3.3 From James Bay near the settlement of Attawapiskat to McFaulds Lake (Route 3) 3.4 From existing Highway #643 northwest of Nakina thence to Ogoki and north- westerly to a bridge site over the Attawapiskat River and north to McFaulds Lake (Route 4); plus a Route 4 Alternative as shown on maps 3.5 Via Keezhik Lake (a more northerly Route 1 Alternative called Route 5) is an alternative routing along Route 1 going to McFaulds Lake 4.0 Discussions of probable peat thicknesses along individual route alternatives 3.1 to 3.5 above 5.0 Terrain legend for McFaulds Lake Project 6.0 Terrain summaries for five route alternatives to access McFaulds Lake 7.0 Bridge sites 8.0 Topography along competing routes 9.0 JDMA route segment relative terrain unit costs of routes on a per km basis (to be used by JDMA only for internal JDMA construction cost comparison among the six alternative routes) 10.0 Route 4 Alternative: an alternative segment of Route 4 – Ogoki to McFaulds Lake 11.0 Route 6 – a new route alternative to access McFaulds Lake 12.0 Risk-level of construction cost escalation on the Ogoki route
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Legend for airphoto terrain mapping of alternative access road routes to McFaulds Lake area
TABLES
Table 1: Detail of terrain summaries for alternative access routes from the “outside” to the McFaulds Lake camp area
Table 2: Summary of estimated relative construction costs for road access alternatives
FIGURES
Figure 1A: Key map showing alternative access routes
Figures 1 to 14: Road route alternatives shown on satellite imagery
A-86 of 117
McFAULDS LAKE PROJECT (Scoping report only)
1.0 Terms of Reference and Purpose of Study
This study was classified as a SCOPING study. As we understand, a scoping study is one level below prefeasibility. The intent of this study level is to locate alternative competing access road route options, including a scoping appreciation of the relative viability and roughly estimated construction costs of these route options from their length and provisional terrain difficulty aspects.
2.0 Airphoto and Maps Used in Scoping Study
Data on the following maps and airphotos have been interpreted for the McFaulds Lake study:
• 1:250,000 NTS maps
• Surficial geology of Northern Ontario: map #2518 by Ontario Geological
Society, scale 1:1,200,000
• Quaternary Geology of Ontario; West central sheet: map #2554, scale
1:1,000,000, by Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.
• Quaternary Geology of Ontario: East Central Sheet, scale 1:1,000,000, by
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines; map #2555; scale
1:1,000,000, by Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.
• Quaternary Geology of Ontario: East Central Sheet, scale 1:1,000,000, by
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines; map #2553, scale
1:1,000,000, by Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.
2
A-87 of 117 • Surficial Materials of Canada: scale 1:5,000,000, by R.J. Fulton (1995),
Geological Survey of Canada, map #1880A.
• Satellite imagery of study area produced by JDMA, scale 1inch = 15km,
Landsat 7, band 7,4,2, World Geodetic System (1984).
• Ontario Highways Map
• Geological Surveys of Canada: map #5, Red Lake- Landsdowne House
area, Parts 42, 43, 52, 53 (1963), geology by V.K. Prest (1960-61), scale
1: 506,880.
• Permafrost map of Canada; Geological Survey of Canada: map #1246A
first edition, scale 1:7,603,200, by RJE Brown, NRC.
• Glacial Map of North America, scale approx. 1 inch = 72 miles,
Geological Society of America, 1st edition, (1945), revised 1949.
• Retreat of the Wisconsin and Recent Ice in North America: Geological
Survey of Canada, map 1257A, V.K. Prest (1969), scale 1:5,000,000.
3.0 Comments on the Individual Scoping Route Alternatives Studied
3.1 Route 1: An east-west alternative from McFaulds Lake south to the
Attawapiskat River bridge site, then west to a junction tie-in to an existing road
north of Pickle Lake
This alternative has a large percentage of route length in granular material (see
terrain summary for Route 1, Table 1)
Topography along Route 1 is level to undulating over most of this route length
with few rolling, locally bumpy or steep sections. The short steep segments of
3
A-88 of 117 route that do occur are located almost entirely where routing has to cross the crest
of eskers.
Peat sections along this routing are scarce, and in general do not appear to be
thick. Most peat sections are mapped “S” (swamp), and are expected to be
commonly less than two meters thick. Alignment is very good on nearly all of
this route. Deviations along Route 1, from an essentially direct route from
McFaulds Lake south to the proposed Attawapiskat bridge site, then to the
western terminal of this route, only add a few kilometers of length to the shortest,
most direct connection. The risk of encountering any locally bad construction
conditions, which would elevate cost along Route 1 appears minimal.
Our maps show two alternative routes west of the bridge site and two north of the same Attawapiskat River bridge site, to near McFaulds Lake camp on either side of Fishtrap Lake. West of the Attawapiskat bridge site these alternatives are shown as Routes 1 and 5). Lengths and terrain units for each of these alternatives are shown in the terrain summary tables. Segments of route north of the bridge site, up to McFaulds Lake, that do not have a granular-material foundation for the road are comprised mainly of till that tends to have a sandy matrix. Accordingly, construction conditions are fair to good on both route options between the Attawapiskat bridge site and the McFaulds Lake camp, as well as from the bridge site west to the Pickle Lake junction.
A few sections of peat occur intermittently along both N-S alternatives.
But these peat sections are rarely thick, and tend to be swamp (S) opposed to bogland. Indications of permafrost and relict permafrost (collapse depressions
4
A-89 of 117 after ground ice has melted) exist along both of these north-south route alternative
segments up to McFaulds Lake.
Topography along both route alternatives to McFaulds Lake are
acceptable, with most of the route length topography being either L (level) or U
(undulating). Few, if any, rolling (R) segments occur. Both alternative route segments from the bridge site on the Attawipiskat River to McFaulds Lake Camp are shown in maps as 2(W), west side of Fishtrap Lake, and 2(E), east side of
Fishtrap Lake.
3.2 Route 2: From Highway 643 northwest of Nakina to McFaulds Lake
The route segment between the Albany River and McFaulds Lake has long sections of granular material, which are good as foundation material and grade fill-borrow.
Topography on the section of route from the Albany River north to
McFaulds Lake camp doesn’t appear to present significant topographic construction problems, as the terrain is relatively level to undulating. Grades are expected between 0 and 3%, with few locations of route exceeding that percentage. However granular material is scarce from the Albany River south to the Highway #643 tie location.
North of the Albany River, borrow material needed for grade fill is believed to exist either on the ROW or at borrow sources near the ROW.
There are a few sections of peat along this route. Even so, peat does not appear to be a major construction problem. Most peat areas are classified as
5
A-90 of 117 swamp, expected to be less than 2 meters thick on average and consist of organic
and mineral soil mixture.
Alignment is good with only a few major deviations from a fairly direct
route between McFaulds Lake and the Albany River crossing site and continuing
on south to Highway 643.
South of the Albany River, this route is less attractive from a terrain
standpoint. Accordingly, JDMA has shown two alternative routes between the
Albany River bridge site and the tie-in junction with existing Highway #643 highway.
The more westerly option for this N-S route segment is located close to
longitude 87º 00’ whereas a second route option follows an alignment that is
roughly parallel to longitude 86º 45’not far east of the 87º00’ route.
Terrain along the more easterly option appears to be drier and to have a
better opportunity to obtain drier borrow for grade fill. At the present scoping
level of comparative route assessment, there appears to be more till on the east
alternative with a limited number of discontinuous granular borrow areas
scattered along the route. Field investigation might confirm some more speculated
granular sites. A section of intermittent Precambrian bedrock occurs along the
southern ends of both route segments with more rock on the west option. The
length of bedrock on both route option segments is shown in terrain summary
tables.
It will be seen that peat sections are more common on the western (87º00’)
alternative segment when comparing terrain conditions along each of the two
6
A-91 of 117 route options (check the terrain summaries for more detail on these two
alternative segments).
Contractors may wish to use bedrock as grade fill on parts of the southern
ends of these two route segment alternatives.
At this scoping level of terrain analysis, we expect the east alternative will
provide more opportunity for shorter haul on grade-fill borrow than on the west
alternative. Thus, at a scoping level the east alternative is favored for the route
segment between the Albany River crossing and Highway 643.
3.3 Route 3: James Bay near the settlement of Attawapiskat to McFaulds Lake
Along this access route alternative there is significant peatland drainage into the Attawapiskat River, both on the south and north sides of that river.
Because of this, many small creeks drain into the Attawapiskat River. All have to
be crossed on the north and south sides of the Attawapiskat between James Bay
and McFaulds Lake Camp. However, there are few larger channel crossings along
both sides and only one or two of them might be called “major” – that is, whether
one follows the north or south sides routes. As a result, most creek crossings may
only require small diameter culvert installations. A few creek crossings may
require arch-type culverts of relatively large diameter, while most crossings will
require small-diameter culverts. One or two crossings each side of the
Attawapiskat River might qualify for an ACROW-type bridge (ie. 30 to 50m
water width). It’s questionable whether any creek will require a standard-type
southern style bridge except across the Attawapiskat River itself east of Camp.
7
A-92 of 117 Hydrologic data and accurate water widths are required to confirm this
assumption.
The number of stream crossings ranges between 13 and 16, no matter which side of the Attawapiskat River is followed between James Bay and
McFaulds Lake. Only the south side option will require a major bridge (standard southern style) at the crossing of the Attawapiskat River east of McFaulds Lake to access the McFaulds Lake Camp area.
The main terrain factor in assessing a northside versus a southside preferred routing is peatland length: bog, fen and swamp peatland lengths are
shown in terrain summary tables.
Length of the two options to reach McFaulds Lake from James Bay are
similar (see the km posts on satellite imagery).
Airphotos reveal very narrow corridors along each side of the
Attawapiskat River that are well enough drained to have acceptable foundation
conditions for a road. These corridors commonly support some tree growth,
suggesting they may have good enough drainage so that a ROW may be
accommodated. There is, however, an extensive segment of this access route
option (both sides) where bogland encroaches to the edge of the river and where
no ROW is available and where no borrow is available (see terrain summary).
We understand that the Province of Ontario regulation does not permit
infrastructure construction closer than 150 meters from the Attawapiskat River shoreline. This legislation further restricts routing options and moves a selected
8
A-93 of 117 road centerline into peatland along many reaches on both sides of the
Attawapiskat River.
Both south and north road route options along the Attawapiskat River are expected to be in wet construction for grade-fill requirements. Borrow is very scarce and there is a considerable length of bog (B) on both sides of the river
where there no borrow sources exist.
There is almost no gravel on either side of the Attawapiskat for grade fill
requirements. The exception is one large gravel area along the northside option,
about halfway between James Bay and McFaulds Lake. We expect that “G” areas,
marked during the terrain mapping along the two route alternatives, are high in
silt and sand sizes. “G” terrain segments may have borrow available but these
areas are limited in extent.
For more detail on the Attawapiskat River route options see the terrain
summaries in this report.
3.4 Route 4: From existing Highway 643 northwest of Nakina north-easterly to
the Ogoki settlement at Marten Falls IR and then northwest to a bridge site on the
Attawapiskat River a few kilometers east of the bridge site selected for Routes 1,2
and 5
We understand this option has been dropped as an alternative route from
Highway 643 to McFaulds Lake Camp. The terrain summary for this route
confirms that soil and drainage conditions along this routing are not favorable
compared to other route options. That is because the route crosses extensive bogs,
9
A-94 of 117 fens and swamps, this especially between Ogoki and the bridge site selected on
the Attawapiskat River.
Between Ogoki settlement and Highway 643, on the southern section,
there is a considerable length of relatively better drained terrain immediately east
of the Ogoki River whereas the northern segment between Ogoki and the
Attawapiskat bridge site is expected to rule out this option from the construction and maintenance cost aspects.
One might require documentation of terrain conditions on this route for political or other reasons in the future. Therefore we have shown the terrain summary for this option in our terrain tables.
3.5 Route 5: An alternative segment of the McFaulds Lake to Pickle Lake route takes off from the more southerly E-W route west of the proposed
Attawapiskat bridge site and follows a more northerly routing to about Keezhik
Lake (see Route 5 in satellite image). (Note that this alternative route needs to be compared to the more southerly routing (Route 1) as an option segment between the proposed Attawapiskat bridge site and the Pickle Lake junction).
As one approaches the junction of Route 1 and 5 near Keezhik Lake, on the Route 5 alternative, there is a good section of granular terrain heading southwesterly on Route 5. The remainder of Route 5 is mainly till with some glaciolacustrine, silt, clay and peat in lower lying sections.
10
A-95 of 117 For as assessment of Route 1 versus Route 5, see the terrain summaries
and route lengths along these route options. Also, note that these alternatives have
several segments that are common to both routes.
4.0 Peat thickness along route alternatives 3.1 to 3.5
Peat segments have been mapped as S, P, F and B (see the terrain legend).
We have assumed these terrain units could have the following organic
thicknesses:
S – 1-2 meters
P – 2-3 meters (used north of Attawapiskat Rive bridge only where
some permafrost may exist.
F – 2-3 meters
B – 4-5 meters
5.0 Terrain legend for McFaulds Lake project
The terrain legend constructed for this project is shown under Appendix 1
6.0 Terrain Summaries
All terrain summaries occur in tables at the back of this report.
7.0 Bridge Sites
Two bridge sites are shown in the satellite image (Figure 1). The most
westerly crossing of the Attawapiskat River would connect Routes 1, 2, and 5 to
11
A-96 of 117 the McFaulds Lake Camp site. The most easterly bridge site shown in Figure 1
crosses the Attawapiskat just east of the Route 1, 2 and 5 bridge site and would be
required only if the Ogoki route were considered.
8.0 Topography
Nearly all segments of all route options are located along mainly level or
undulating topography. Rolling, bumpy and steep segments are uncommon.
9.0 JDMA relative terrain unit costs per km
JDMA relative cost analysis numbers are shown along with the terrain
summary sheets. These JDMA “relative” cost numbers are used only as a guide
for comparing different route options and are not meant to be the more refined per
km cost estimates supplied by others.
12
A-97 of 117 10.0 Route 4 alternative segment (after further examination of Route 4)
In the event that at some point in the future Route 4 from Ogoki to McFaulds Lake has to be revisited as a preferred alternative route segment (this because the Norant minesite is on Marten Falls IR) we have re- examined the airphotos for Ogoki to McFaulds Lake: an alternative segment of Route 4.
Segment shown as “ALTERNATIVE 4E (ALT)” (on the Route 4 maps) is a shorter, more direct route that traverses somewhat better terrain than the original JDMA Route 4 routing in this area. Accordingly, if one used the “ALTERNATIVE 4E (ALT)” segment to access McFaulds Lake there is a new bridge site shown on the Attawapiskat River.
Figure 13 shows this new “ALTERNATIVE 4E (ALT)” routing and a new terrain summary using the “ALTERNATIVE 4E (ALT)” routing along with the original segment between Ogoki and Highway #643.
11.0 Route 6 (Figure 14): A new route alternative to access McFaulds Lake
Route 6 as shown in Figure 14 is a “late-comer” to the selection of JDMA route alternatives; this route looks very interesting to us for the following reasons:
11.1 Route 6 trunk route for transport of products from McFaulds Lake to an “outside” road connection may in fact be slightly shorter than competing trunk for Routes 1 and 2. With the Ogoki and Ft. Hope access road connections Route 6 would entail longer total constructions lengths overall but in much superior terrain compared to the Route 4 trunk haul route. 11.2 The Ogoki (Marten Falls) and Ft. Hope IR connections could be of a lower grade standard (less construction expense/km) than the main trunk road. 11.3 The Route 6 system provides access to the outside for two IR communities rather than only one IR along Route 4. 11.4 Ft. Hope IR has approximately 1200 people whereas Marten Falls IR has approximately 200 people. Thus this system provides access to the “outside” for six times as many people as the original McFaulds Lake/Ogoki/Highway #643 route. 11.5 Using Route 6, there would likely be three (3) stakeholders to participate in construction costs vs., possibly, only one (1) if one built from Highway #643 to Ogoki thence to McFaulds Lake. These stakeholders would be Federal Indian Affairs (DIAND), Ontario Provincial Highways, and Norant mines. 11.6 Using Route 6, Norant mines (construction and operations) would have a more secure labour pool having access to Fort Hope IR and its 1200 in habitants.
13
A-98 of 117
12.0 Risk-level of construction cost escalation on route alternatives
A commonly forgotten factor in the selection of an access route is the risk- level of construction costs escalation when comparing routes. Sufficient to say, at the scoping/prefeasibility study level, that Route 4 through Ogoki has a high level of risk with respect to unexpected construction cost escalation; this because of the long segments of peat on this routing (i.e. swamp(S) and bogland(B)) This elevated construction cost risk-level has not been factored into the estimated cost/km or total cost of Route 4 shown in Table 1 and Table 2 (note that our construction cost estimates, shown on Table 1 and Table 2, are only for our own route comparison purposes and are not intended to necessarily match those being determined by SNC-Lavalin)
14
A-99 of 117 Appendix 1 TERRAIN LEGEND FOR ALTERNATIVE ROAD ROUTES: MCFAULDS LAKE PROJECT (From 1:60,0000 stereoscopic airphoto interpretation) MATERIAL G Granular material: sand and gravel, minor silt and boulders; mostly beaded eskers and associated deltas and fans T Till: mainly silty clay fluted basal till north of latitude 51°00’ and sandy fluted basal till south of latitude 51°00’ (basal tills tend to be dense and strong) L Lacustrine clay and silt: linear ice-keel furrows M Marine clay, silt and fine sand: ice-keel furrows absent D Discontinuous, thin mixed clay, silt and fine sand waterlaid sediment (includes lacustrine, marine and alluvial floodplain) over clayey and sandy basal tills B Bog: raised bog with narrow radiating darkish watertrack fens; light grey to whitish tones on bogs and probably caused by lichens and Sphagnum moss. Common depth: 4 to 5 m. Possible significant bog settlements under heavy loads, dependent on the bog layering structure; mainly south of Attawapiskat River, south to Ogoki P Permafrost ground-ice in peat plateau bogs with thaw-collapse scars: mainly north of latitude 51°00’, and especially north of the Attawapiskat River bridge. Common depth: 4 to 5 m F Fen: wide, smoothly sweeping sheets of overland and groundwater flow patterns on the Ogoki route alternative; watertable is at or near the surface. Common depth: 2 to 3 m S Swamp: mixed organic-mineral soil; includes treed and thicket swamps, scrubby wooded wetland occupying channel depressions and basins, seasonal standing water and high watertable. Organic-mineral layer common depth: 1 to 2m R Exposed bedrock: includes bedrock-controlled relief with till or waterlaid silty clay capping, hard Precambrian rock including mainly granitic, gneissic, and granitic gneiss types; typically isolated and spotty occurrences
A-100 of 117 TOPOGRAPHY L Level: includes short undulating sections U Undulating: includes occasional level selection R Rolling: higher relief than undulating B Bumpy: includes bedrock-controlled topography segments where bumpy bedrock is covered by till or silt and clay S Steep: mainly occurring along lower sides of eskers, in ketteled granular deposits, and on valley sides at creek and river crossings
COMPLEXES OF TWO OR MORE MATERIALS Complex terrain units as in T+D, B+S, R+B; for “relative” costing purposes the first mentioned unit is dominant (2/3 weighting, 66%); the second unit is subdominant (1/3 weighting, 33%) Similarly: T+S+R; weighting is 50-25-25%
Comments: 1. D/U: signifies D material over U topography 2. Going from trees to shrubs to sedges is an expected sequence from low watertable (drier) to high watertable (wetter; and, generally, from thinner to thicker peat types) 3. Large ice jams occur on the Albany River, creating significant damage to adjoining trees and structures. Ice dams tend to generally form at rapids. 4. Dr. Paul Glaser, University of Minnesota, is e-mailing copies of his papers on peatland studies of Terrell Sea organic terrain 5. Peat thickness increases from the James Bay west to the edge of the Terrell Sea sediment (shoreline) near longitude 87°00’ 6. Several material and topographic units are commonly found together e.g. L/L (Lacustrine/Level); R/R (Bedrock/Rolling) or R/B (Bedrock/Bumpy); T/U (Till/Undulating)
A-101 of 117 Figure1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Route Option 2E and 2Ew Route Option 2W and 2We Route Option 2E and 2Ee Route Option 2W and 2Ww Route Option 1 and 1W Route Option 1 and 1E Route Option 5 and 5W Terrain Length (Kms) Cost ($M) Terrain Length (Kms) Cost ($M) Terrain Length (Kms) Cost ($M) Terrain Length (Kms) Cost ($M) Terrain Length (Kms) Cost ($M) Terrain Length (Kms) Cost ($M) Terrain Length (Kms) Cost ($M) B/L 10.43 20.87$ B/L 13.21 26.42$ B/L 16.94 33.88$ B/L 6.70 13.40$ B/L 6.70 13.40$ B/L 13.21 26.42$ B/L 6.70 13.40$ D/L 14.33 18.63$ D/L 15.71 17.28$ D/L 14.33 18.63$ D/L 15.71 20.42$ D/L 45.14 58.68$ D/L 45.14 58.68$ D/L 41.80 54.34$ D/R 2.20 3.02$ D/U 3.88 4.27$ D/R 2.20 3.02$ D/U 3.88 5.04$ D/U 13.52 17.58$ D/U 13.52 17.58$ D/U 5.88 7.65$ G/L 74.24 74.24$ D/R 2.20 2.41$ G/L 65.18 65.18$ D/R 2.20 3.02$ G/L 82.25 82.25$ G/L 73.20 73.20$ G/L 69.97 69.97$ G/U 19.33 19.33$ G/L 58.86 58.86$ G/U 27.85 27.85$ G/L 67.92 67.92$ G/U 33.74 33.74$ G/U 42.27 42.27$ G/U 34.36 34.36$ G/S 0.45 0.49$ G/U 23.30 23.30$ G/S 0.45 0.49$ G/U 14.78 14.78$ G/S 5.35 5.88$ G/S 5.35 5.88$ G/S 4.41 4.85$ G/R 1.39 1.53$ G/S 0.45 0.49$ G/R 1.39 1.53$ G/S 0.45 0.49$ G/R 2.45 2.70$ G/R 2.454 2.70$ G/R 2.45 2.70$ G/R 1.39 1.53$ G/B 2.08 2.50$ G/R 1.39 1.53$ G/B 0.66 0.80$ G/B 12.31 14.77$ G/B 10.896 13.08$ G/B 12.91 15.49$ G/B 2.08 2.50$ S/L 84.28 113.78$ G/B 0.66 0.73$ S/L 84.98 114.72$ S/L 77.35 104.42$ S/L 78.28 105.68$ S/L 89.99 121.49$ S/U 4.76 6.42$ S/L 81.58 110.13$ S/U 4.20 5.67$ S/L 81.09 97.30$ S/U 4.76 6.42$ S/U 12.75 17.21$ S/U 12.75 17.21$ L/L 3.58 3.58$ S/U 7.12 9.61$ L/L 4.89 5.62$ S/U 7.12 8.54$ L/L 3.76 4.32$ L/L 5.60 6.44$ L/L 4.36 5.01$ T/L 14.37 16.52$ L/L 4.29 4.93$ T/L 4.59 5.74$ T/L 7.86 9.82$ L/L 4.47 5.14$ T/L 14.37 17.96$ T/L 4.59 5.74$ T/U 20.49 25.62$ L/U 1.21 1.39$ T/U 13.53 16.92$ T/U 13.63 17.04$ L/U 1.21 1.39$ T/U 20.49 25.62$ T/U 13.53 16.92$ T/R 6.31 8.68$ T/L 18.09 22.62$ M/L 1.81 2.89$ T/R 1.99 2.73$ T/L 9.85 12.32$ T/R 6.31 8.68$ M/L 0.42 0.66$ R/L 0.46 0.91$ T/U 17.54 21.93$ Total 317.11 382.64$ R/L 4.34 8.67$ T/U 25.78 32.23$ R/L 0.46 0.91$ Total 319.96 391.02$ R/U 6.95 13.89$ T/R 1.83 2.52$ R/U 6.95 13.89$ T/R 1.83 2.52$ R/U 6.25 12.51$ R/L 0.98 1.96$ R/R 1.89 4.16$ R/L 0.98 1.96$ R/R 1.89 4.16$ Estimated Cost/Km ($M) 1.21 R/S 0.72 1.58$ R/U 17.32 34.64$ Estimated Cost/Km ($M) 1.22 R/B 2.02 4.86$ R/U 17.32 34.64$ R/B 2.02 4.86$ R/R 0.40 0.87$ R/R 6.63 13.26$ M/L 5.69 9.10$ R/R 6.63 14.59$ M/L 4.30 6.88$ M/L 3.40 5.44$ R/B 3.57 8.56$ Total 275.23 348.11$ R/B 3.57 8.56$ Total 279.27 359.78$ F/L 0.36 0.53$ P/L 0.23 0.34$ P/L 0.23 0.56$ Total 316.50 394.72$ M/L 1.81 2.08$ Estimated Cost/Km ($M) 1.26 M/L 0.42 0.66$ Estimated Cost/Km ($M) 1.29 Total 277.304 363.08$ Total 280.16 355.72$ Estimated Cost/Km ($M) 1.25
Estimated Cost/Km ($M) 1.31 Estimated Cost/Km ($M) 1.27
Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14
Route Option 5 and 5E Route Option 4 and 4W Route Option 4 - 4E Alt - 4E Route Option 4 and 4E Route Option 6 Route Option 3S Route Option 3N Terrain Length (Kms) Cost ($M) Terrain Length (Kms) Cost ($M) Terrain Length (Kms) Cost ($M) Terrain Length (Kms) Cost ($M) Terrain Length (Kms) Cost ($M) Terrain Length (Kms) Cost ($M) Terrain Length (Kms) Cost ($M) B/L 13.21 26.42$ B/L 26.90 53.80$ B/L 33.44 66.89$ B/L 33.41 66.81$ B/L 13.21 26.42$ B/L 73.14 146.28$ B/L 88.37 176.73$ D/L 41.80 54.34$ B/U 8.27 16.54$ B/U 8.27 16.54$ B/U 8.27 16.54$ D/L 1.8 2.34$ B/U 9.89 19.79$ B/U 5.84 11.67$ D/U 5.88 7.65$ D/L 4.19 5.44$ D/L 4.19 5.44$ D/L 4.19 5.44$ G/L 101.43 101.43$ G/L 20.18 20.18$ G/L 9.33 9.33$ G/L 60.91 60.91$ G/L 38.16 38.16$ G/L 21.50 21.50$ G/L 29.10 29.10$ G/U 21.97 21.97$ G/U 62.22 62.22$ G/U 52.90 52.90$ G/U 42.88 42.88$ G/U 3.60 3.60$ G/U 10.44 10.44$ G/U 12.12 12.12$ G/S 0.45 0.50$ S/L 52.37 70.70$ G/S 0.44 0.49$ G/S 4.41 4.85$ G/S 0.45 0.49$ G/S 0.45 0.49$ G/S 0.45 0.49$ G/R 1.39 1.53$ S/U 6.13 8.28$ S/L 56.49 76.27$ G/R 2.45 2.70$ G/R 5.11 5.62$ G/R 3.71 4.08$ G/R 5.11 5.62$ S/L 80.62 108.84$ M/L 65.76 105.21$ S/U 6.98 9.43$ G/B 11.49 13.79$ G/B 1.42 1.70$ S/L 55.91 75.48$ S/L 69.19 93.41$ S/U 2.71 3.66$ M/U 20.89 33.43$ L/L 3.41 3.92$ L/L 3.76 4.32$ S/L 89.50 120.82$ S/L 69.18 93.39$ S/U 3.39 4.58$ S/U 3.39 4.58$ M/B 1.34 2.14$ L/U 5.48 6.30$ T/L 86.63 108.29$ S/U 4.20 5.67$ S/U 3.39 4.58$ L/L 67.92 78.11$ L/L 63.14 63.14$ Total 311.92 468.22$ M/L 57.35 91.76$ T/L 1.74 2.18$ T/U 4.6 5.75$ S/R 0.40 0.59$ L/L 62.95 62.95$ T/L 0.54 0.67$ M/U 22.10 35.36$ T/U 13.02 16.28$ R/L 1.37 2.74$ L/L 5.07 5.83$ T/L 0.54 0.67$ T/U 13.02 16.28$ Estimated Cost/Km ($M) 1.50 Total 308.69 474.15$ T/R 11.70 16.09$ R/U 1.72 3.44$ T/L 7.86 9.82$ T/U 13.02 16.28$ T/R 11.70 16.09$ T/B 3.43 5.14$ M/L 39.31 62.90$ T/U 13.63 17.04$ T/R 11.70 16.09$ T/B 3.43 5.14$ R/L 1.71 3.41$ Total 360.97 454.12$ Estimated Cost/Km ($M) 1.54 T/R 1.99 2.73$ T/B 3.43 5.14$ R/U 9.52 19.04$ R/L 4.34 8.67$ R/U 7.82 15.65$ R/L 2.21 3.31$ R/R 1.89 4.16$ R/R 1.89 4.16$ R/U 6.25 12.51$ Estimated Cost/Km ($M) 1.26 MCFAULDS LAKE ROAD ROUTE TERRAIN R/U 7.82 15.65$ R/B 2.76 6.63$ R/B 2.76 6.63$ Project: R/S 0.72 1.58$ AND COST SUMMARIES R/R 1.89 4.16$ M/L 1.24 1.99$ F/L 40.14 58.20$ M/L 3.40 5.44$ Title: R/B 2.76 6.63$ F/L 46.19 66.97$ F/U 5.25 7.61$ ROUTE ALTERNATIVES TO ACCESS F/L 0.36 0.53$ F/L 40.14 58.20$ F/U 5.25 7.61$ Total 316.60 431.06$ MCFAULDS LAKE Total 320.75 404.76$ F/U 5.25 7.61$ Total 305.971 429.65$ Table 1 January 2010 Total 312.35 419.99$ Estimated Cost/Km ($M) 1.36 Estimated Cost/Km ($M) 1.26 Estimated Cost/Km ($M) 1.40 Estimated Cost/Km ($M) 1.35 A-102 of 117 Table 2
SUMMARY OF ROUTE LENGTHS, ESTIMATED RELATIVE OVERALL CONSTUCTION COSTS AND RELATIVE UNIT CONSTRUCTION COSTS/KM (CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR ROUTE COMPARISON PURPOSES ONLY)
Summary General Route Number Length Relative Relative Unit Construction Construction Corridor (Shown on (kms) Costs ($M) 1)($M/km) Maps) 2 1 2Ew 275 $348 $1.26 2 2We 380 $356 $1.27 3 2Ee 279 $360 $1.29 4 2Ww 277 $363 $1.31 1 5 1W 317 $383 $1.21 6 1E 320 $391 $1.22 5 7 5W 317 $395 $1.25 8 5E 321 $405 $1.26 4 9 4W 312 $420 $1.35 10 4E e (Alt) 306 $430 $1.40 11 4E 317 $431 $1.36 6 12 6 361 $454 $1.26 3 13 3S 312 $468 $1.50 14 3N 309 $474 $1.53
1) No bridge or culvert costs included in per km construction costs.
A-103 of 117 James Bay
Webequie Attawapiskat Attawapiskat River
McFaulds Lake 2Ew
2Ew
Lansdowne House Attawapiskat River
Attawapiskat River
2E Marten Falls IR Route Option 2E and 2Ew Ogoki Terrain Length Length (Kms)(Km) Cost Cost ($M) Pickle Crow Road FortFort HopeHope IR B/L 10.43 20.87$ D/L 14.33 18.63$ Albany River D/R 2.20 3.02$ G/L 74.24 74.24$ G/U 19.33 19.33$ G/S 0.45 0.49$ McFaulds Lake Camp G/R 1.39 1.53$ G/B 2.08 2.50$ Provincial Parks/Protected Area S/L 84.28 113.78$ I.R. Land S/U 4.76 6.42$ L/L 3.58 3.58$ Route Option with Terrain Summary T/L 14.37 16.52$ Other Route Options 2E T/U 20.49 25.62$ Existing Roads T/R 6.31 8.68$ BridgeMajor Bridge Sites Sites R/L 0.46 0.91$ R/U 6.95 13.89$ Project: MCFAULDS LAKE ROAD ROUTE 2E AND 2EW R/R 1.89 4.16$ Title: R/B 2.02 4.86$ ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCESS M/L 5.69 9.10$ MCFAULDS LAKE N Total 275.23 348.11$ Figure 1 January 2010
0 20 40 60 80 100 Km Cost/KmEstimated Cost/Km$ ($M) 1.26 1.26 Hwy #643
A-104 of 117 James Bay
Webequie Attawapiskat Attawapiskat River
McFaulds Lake
2We
2We
Lansdowne House Attawapiskat River
Attawapiskat River
Route Option 2W and 2We Terrain Length Length (Kms)(Km) Cost Cost ($M) 2W B/L 13.21 26.42$ Marten Falls IR D/L 15.71 17.28$ D/U 3.88 4.27$ Ogoki D/R 2.20 2.41$ Pickle Crow Road FortFort Hope Hope IR G/L 58.86 58.86$ G/U 23.30 23.30$ Albany River G/S 0.45 0.49$ G/R 1.39 1.53$ G/B 0.66 0.73$ S/L 81.09 97.30$ McFaulds Lake Camp S/U 7.12 8.54$ Provincial Parks/Protected Area L/L 4.47 5.14$ L/U 1.21 1.39$ I.R. Land T/L 9.85 12.32$ Route Option with Terrain Summary T/U 25.78 32.23$ Other Route Options 2W T/R 1.83 2.52$ R/L 0.98 1.96$ Existing Roads R/U 17.32 34.64$ BridgeMajor Bridge Sites Sites R/R 6.63 14.59$ R/B 3.57 8.56$ Project: MCFAULDS LAKE ROAD ROUTE 2W AND 2WE P/L 0.23 0.56$ Title: M/L 0.42 0.66$ ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCESS Total 280.16 355.72$ MCFAULDS LAKE N Figure 2 January 2010 Cost/KmEstimated Cost/Km$ ($M) 1.27 1.27 0 20 40 60 80 100 Km Hwy #643
A-105 of 117 James Bay
Webequie Attawapiskat River Attawapiskat
McFaulds Lake
2Ee
2Ee
Lansdowne House Attawapiskat River
Attawapiskat River
2E Marten Falls IR Route Option 2E and 2Ee Ogoki TerrainTerrain Length Length (Km)(Kms) Cost Cost ($M) Pickle Crow Road Fort Hope IR B/L 16.94 33.88$ D/L 14.33 18.63$ Albany River D/R 2.20 3.02$ G/L 65.18 65.18$ G/U 27.85 27.85$ G/S 0.45 0.49$ McFaulds Lake Camp G/R 1.39 1.53$ G/B 0.66 0.80$ Provincial Parks/Protected Area S/L 84.98 114.72$ I.R. Land S/U 4.76 6.42$ L/L 3.76 4.32$ Route Option with Terrain Summary T/L 14.37 17.96$ Other Route Options 2E T/U 20.49 25.62$ Existing Roads T/R 6.31 8.68$ BridgeMajor Bridge Sites Sites R/L 0.46 0.91$ R/U 6.95 13.89$ Project: MCFAULDS LAKE ROAD ROUTE 2E AND 2EE R/R 1.89 4.16$ Title: R/B 2.02 4.86$ ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCESS M/L 4.30 6.88$ MCFAULDS LAKE N Total 279.27 359.78$ Figure 3 January 2010
0 20 40 60 80 100 Km EstimatedCost/Km Cost/Km$ ($M) 1.29 1.29 Hwy #643
A-106 of 117 James Bay
Webequie Attawapiskat Attawapiskat River
McFaulds Lake
2Ww
2Ww
Lansdowne House Attawapiskat River
Attawapiskat River
Route Option 2W and 2Ww Terrain Length Length (Kms)(Km) Cost Cost ($M) B/L 6.70 13.40$ Marten Falls IR D/L 15.71 20.42$ OgokiOgoki D/U 3.88 5.04$ 2W D/R 2.20 3.02$ Pickle Crow Road FortFort HopeHope IR G/L 67.92 67.92$ G/U 14.78 14.78$ Albany River G/S 0.45 0.49$ G/R 1.39 1.53$ G/B 2.08 2.50$ S/L 81.58 110.13$ McFaulds Lake Camp S/U 7.12 9.61$ Provincial Parks/Protected Area L/L 4.29 4.93$ L/U 1.21 1.39$ I.R. Land T/L 18.09 22.62$ Route Option with Terrain Summary T/U 17.54 21.93$ Other Route Options T/R 1.83 2.52$ 2W R/L 0.98 1.96$ Existing Roads R/U 17.32 34.64$ BridgeMajor Bridge Sites Sites R/R 6.63 13.26$ R/B 3.57 8.56$ Project: MCFAULDS LAKE ROAD ROUTE 2W AND 2WW P/L 0.23 0.34$ Title: M/L 1.81 2.08$ ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCESS Total 277.304 363.08$ MCFAULDS LAKE N Figure 4 January 2010 EstimatedCost/Km Cost/Km$ ($M) 1.31 1.31 0 20 40 60 80 100 Km Hwy #643
A-107 of 117 James Bay
Webequie Attawapiskat River Attawapiskat
McFaulds Lake
1W
1W
Lansdowne House Attawapiskat River
Attawapiskat River 1
1 Marten Falls IR 1 Ogoki Pickle Crow Road Fort Hope IR Albany River Route Option 1 and 1W Terrain Length Length (Kms) Cost Cost ($M) B/L 6.70 13.40$ McFauldsMcFaulds LakeLake CampCamp D/L 45.14 58.68$ ProvincialProvincial Parks/ProtectedParks/Protected AreaArea D/U 13.52 17.58$ G/L 82.25 82.25$ I.R.I.R. LandLand G/U 33.74 33.74$ RouteRoute OptionOption with Terrain Summary G/S 5.35 5.88$ OtherOther RouteRoute OptionsOptions G/R 2.45 2.70$ ExistingExisting RoadsRoads G/B 12.31 14.77$ MajorBridge Bridge Sites Sites S/L 77.35 104.42$ S/U 12.75 17.21$ Project: C AULDS AKE OAD OUTE AND L/L 5.60 6.44$ M F L R R 1 1W
T/L 4.59 5.74$ Title: T/U 13.53 16.92$ ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCESS M/L 1.81 2.89$ MCFAULDS LAKE N Total 317.11 382.64$ Figure 5 January 2010 Cost/KmEstimated Cost/Km$ ($M) 1.21 1.21 0 20 40 60 80 100 Km Hwy #643
A-108 of 117 James Bay
Webequie Attawapiskat Attawapiskat River
McFaulds Lake
1E
1E
Attawapiskat River Lansdowne House
Attawapiskat River 1 1 Marten Falls IR 1 Ogoki Pickle Crow Road Fort Hope IR
Albany River Route Option 11 andand 1E1E Terrain Length Length (Kms)(Km) Cost Cost ($M) B/L 13.2113.21 26.42$ 26.42$ D/L 45.1445.14 58.68$ 58.68$ McFaulds Lake Camp D/U 13.5213.52 17.58$ 17.58$ G/L 73.2073.20 73.20$ 73.20$ Provincial Parks/Protected Area G/U 42.2742.27 42.27$ 42.27$ I.R. Land G/S 5.355.35 5.88$ 5.88$ Route Option with Terrain Summary G/R 2.4542.454 2.70$ 2.70$ G/B 10.896 10.896 13.08$ 13.08$ Other Route Options S/LS/L 78.2878.28 105.68$ 105.68$ Existing Roads S/US/U 12.7512.75 17.21$ 17.21$ Major Bridge Sites L/LL/L 4.364.36 5.01$ 5.01$ T/L 4.594.59 5.74$ 5.74$ Project: MCFAULDS LAKE ROAD ROUTE 1 AND 1E
T/U 13.5313.53 16.92$ 16.92$ Title: M/L 0.420.42 0.66$ 0.66$ ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCESS Total 319.96319.96 391.02$ 391.02$ MCFAULDS LAKE Figure 6 January 2010 N Cost/KmEstimated Cost/Km$ ($M) 1.22 1.22
0 20 40 60 80 100 Km Hwy #643
A-109 of 117 James Bay
Webequie Attawapiskat River Attawapiskat
McFaulds Lake
5W
5W
Lansdowne House Attawapiskat River
Attawapiskat River 5 5 5 Marten Falls IR Route Option 5 and 5W Terrain Length Length (Kms) (Km) Cost Cost ($M) Ogoki B/L 6.70 13.40$ Pickle Crow Road FortFort HopeHope IR D/L 41.80 54.34$ D/U 5.88 7.65$ Albany River G/L 69.97 69.97$ G/U 34.36 34.36$ G/S 4.41 4.85$ G/R 2.45 2.70$ McFaulds Lake Camp G/B 12.91 15.49$ Provincial Parks/Protected Area S/L 89.99 121.49$ S/U 4.20 5.67$ I.R. Land L/L 4.89 5.62$ Route Option with Terrain Summary T/L 7.86 9.82$ 1.96$ Other Route Options T/U 13.63 17.04$ T/R 1.99 2.73$ Existing Roads R/L 4.34 8.67$ BridgeMajor Bridge Sites Sites R/U 6.25 12.51$ R/S 0.72 1.58$ Project: MCFAULDS LAKE ROAD ROUTE 5W R/R 0.40 0.87$ Title: M/L 3.40 5.44$ ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCESS F/L 0.36 0.53$ MCFAULDS LAKE N Total 316.50 394.72$ 386.87$ Figure 7 January 2010
0 20 40 60 80 100 Km EstimatedCost/Km Cost/Km$ ($M) 1.22 1.25 Hwy #643
A-110 of 117 James Bay
Webequie Attawapiskat Attawapiskat River
McFaulds Lake
5E
5E
Lansdowne House Attawapiskat River 5 Attawapiskat River 5 Route Option 5 and 5E Terrain Length Length (Kms)(Km) Cost Cost ($M) B/L 13.21 26.42$ 5 D/L 41.80 54.34$ Marten Falls IR D/U 5.88 7.65$ Ogoki G/L 60.91 60.91$ Pickle Crow Road FortFort Hope Hope IR G/U 42.88 42.88$ G/S 4.41 4.85$ Albany River G/R 2.45 2.70$ G/B 11.49 13.79$ S/L 89.50 120.82$ S/U 4.20 5.67$ McFaulds Lake Camp S/R 0.40 0.59$ L/L 5.07 5.83$ Provincial Parks/Protected Area T/L 7.86 9.82$ I.R. Land T/U 13.63 17.04$ T/R 1.99 2.73$ Route Option with Terrain Summary R/L 4.34 8.67$ Other Route Options R/U 6.25 12.51$ Existing Roads R/S 0.72 1.58$ BridgeMajor Bridge Sites Sites M/L 3.40 5.44$ F/L 0.36 0.53$ Project: MCFAULDS LAKE ROAD ROUTE 5E Total 320.75 404.76$
Title: ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCESS EstimatedCost/Km Cost/Km$ ($M) 1.26 1.26 MCFAULDS LAKE N Figure 8 January 2010
0 20 40 60 80 100 Km Hwy #643
A-111 of 117 James Bay
Webequie Attawapiskat Attawapiskat River
McFaulds Lake
4W
4W
Lansdowne House Attawapiskat River
Attawapiskat River
4 Route Option 4 and 4W Marten Falls IR Terrain Length Length (Kms) (Km) Cost Cost ($M) B/L 26.90 53.80$ Ogoki B/U 8.27 16.54$ Pickle Crow Road FortFort Hope Hope IR D/L 4.19 5.44$ G/L 38.16 38.16$ Albany River G/U 3.60 3.60$ G/S 0.45 0.49$ G/R 5.11 5.62$ G/B 1.42 1.70$ McFaulds Lake Camp S/L 69.18 93.39$ S/U 3.39 4.58$ Provincial Parks/Protected Area L/L 62.95 62.95$ I.R. Land T/L 0.54 0.67$ Route Option with Terrain Summary T/U 13.02 16.28$ T/R 11.70 16.09$ Other Route Options T/B 3.43 5.14$ Existing Roads R/L 2.21 3.31$ BridgeMajor Bridge Sites Sites 4 R/U 7.82 15.65$ R/R 1.89 4.16$ Project: MCFAULDS LAKE ROAD ROUTE 4W R/B 2.76 6.63$ Title: F/L 40.14 58.20$ ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCESS F/U 5.25 7.61$ MCFAULDS LAKE N Total 312.35 419.99$ Figure 9 January 2010
0 20 40 60 80 100 Km EstimatedCost/Km Cost/Km$ ($M) 1.345 1.35 Hwy #643
A-112 of 117 89O 88O 87O 86O 85 O 84O 83 O
James Bay
53 O WebequieWebequie 53 O Attawapiskat Attawapiskat River
McFaulds Lake
4E
LansdowneLansdowne HouseHouse Attawapiskat River 4E Alt Attawapiskat River 52O 52O
Route Option 4 - 4E Alt - 4E Marten Falls IR Terrain Length (Kms) Cost ($M) Ogoki B/L 33.44 66.89$ Pickle Crow Road Fort Hope IR B/U 8.27 16.54$ D/L 4.19 5.44$
Albany River G/L 21.50 21.50$ G/U 10.44 10.44$ 4 G/S 0.45 0.49$ G/R 3.71 4.08$ McFaulds Lake Camp S/L 55.91 75.48$ Provincial Parks/Protected Area S/U 3.39 4.58$ L/L 67.92 78.11$ I.R. Land T/L 1.74 2.18$ Route Option with Terrain Summary T/U 13.02 16.28$ Other Route Options T/R 11.70 16.09$ T/B 3.43 5.14$ Existing Roads 51O R/L 1.71 3.41$ BridgeMajor Bridge Sites Sites 51O R/U 7.82 15.65$ R/R 1.89 4.16$ Project: MCFAULDS LAKE ROAD ROUTE 4, 4E R/B 2.76 6.63$ ALTERNATIVE, AND 4E Title: 4 M/L 1.24 1.99$ ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCESS F/L 46.19 66.97$ MCFAULDS LAKE N F/U 5.25 7.61$ Figure 10 January 2010 Total 305.971 429.65$ 0 20 40 60 80 100 Km Estimated Cost/Km ($M) 1.40 Hwy #643
89O 88O 87O 86O 85 O 84O 83 O A-113 of 117 James Bay
Webequie Attawapiskat Attawapiskat River
McFaulds Lake
4E
4E
Lansdowne House Attawapiskat River
Attawapiskat River
4 Route Option 4 and 4E Terrain Length Length (Kms)(Km) Cost Cost ($M) Marten Falls IR B/L 33.41 66.81$ Ogoki B/U 8.27 16.54$ Pickle Crow Road FortFort Hope Hope IR D/L 4.19 5.44$ G/L 29.10 29.10$ Albany River G/U 12.12 12.12$ G/S 0.45 0.49$ G/R 5.11 5.62$ S/L 69.19 93.41$ McFaulds Lake Camp S/U 3.39 4.58$ Provincial Parks/Protected Area L/L 63.14 63.14$ T/L 0.54 0.67$ I.R. Land T/U 13.02 16.28$ Route Option with Terrain Summary T/R 11.70 16.09$ Other Route Options T/B 3.43 5.14$ Existing Roads R/U 9.52 19.04$ BridgeMajor Bridge Sites Sites R/R 1.89 4.16$ 4 R/B 2.76 6.63$ Project: F/L 40.14 58.20$ MCFAULDS LAKE ROAD ROUTE 4E
F/U 5.25 7.61$ Title: Total 316.60 431.06$ ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCESS MCFAULDS LAKE N EstimatedCost/Km Cost/Km$ ($M) 1.36 1.36 Figure 11 January 2010 0 20 40 60 80 100 Km Hwy #643
A-114 of 117 89O 88O 87O 86O 85 O 84O 83 O
James Bay Webequie Attawapiskat 53 O Attawapiskat River
McFaulds Lake
6
LansdowneLansdowne House Attawapiskat River
O Attawapiskat River O 52 6 52
Marten Falls IR 6 OgokiOgoki Pickle Crow Road Fort Hope IR 6 Route Option 6 Terrain Length Length (Kms)(Km) Cost Cost ($M) Albany River B/L 13.21 26.42$ D/L 1.8 2.34$ McFauldsMcFaulds Lake Lake Camp Camp G/L 101.43 101.43$ G/U 21.97 21.97$ ProvincialProvincial Parks/Protected Parks/Protected Area Area G/S 0.45 0.50$ I.R.I.R. Land Land G/R 1.39 1.53$ 6 S/L 80.62 108.84$ RouteRoute Option Option with Terrain Summary S/U 2.71 3.66$ OtherOther Route Route Options Options L/L 3.76 4.32$ ExistingExisting Roads Roads T/L 86.63 108.29$ MajorBridge Bridge Sites Sites 51O T/U 4.6 5.75$ 51O R/L 1.37 2.74$ R/L 1.37 2.74$ Project: MCFAULDS LAKE ROAD ROUTE 6 R/U 1.72 3.44$ M/L 39.31 62.90$ Title: ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCESS Total 360.97 454.12$ MCFAULDS LAKE Figure 12 January 2010 N EstimatedCost/Km Cost/Km$ ($M) 1.26 1.26
0 20 40 60 80 100 Km Hwy #643
53 O A-115 of 117 89O 88O 87O 86O 85 O 84O 83 O James Bay
Webequie 3S Attawapiskat River Attawapiskat
McFaulds Lake 3S
Lansdowne House Attawapiskat River
Attawapiskat River
Marten Falls IR Ogoki Pickle Crow Road FortFort Hope Hope IR
Albany River
McFaulds Lake Camp
Provincial Parks/Protected Area Route Option 3S Terrain Length Length (Kms) (Km) Cost Cost ($M) I.R. Land B/L 73.14 146.28$ Route Option with Terrain Summary B/U 9.89 19.79$ Other Route Options G/L 20.18 20.18$ Existing Roads G/U 62.22 62.22$ BridgeMajor Bridge Sites Sites S/L 52.37 70.70$ S/U 6.13 8.28$ Project: C AULDS AKE OAD OUTE M/L 65.76 105.21$ M F L R R 3S
M/U 20.89 33.43$ Title: M/B 1.34 2.14$ ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCESS Total 311.92 468.22$ MCFAULDS LAKE N Figure 13 January 2010 EstimatedCost/Km Cost/Km$ ($M) 1.50 1.50 0 20 40 60 80 100 Km Hwy #643
A-116 of 117 3N James Bay 3N Webequie Attawapiskat Attawapiskat River
McFaulds Lake
Lansdowne House Attawapiskat River
Attawapiskat River
Marten Falls IR Ogoki Pickle Crow Road FortFort HopeHope IR
Albany River
Route Option 3N McFaulds Lake Camp TerrainTerrain Length Length (Kms)(Km) Cost Cost ($M) Provincial Parks/Protected Area B/L 88.37 176.73$ I.R. Land B/U 5.84 11.67$ G/L 9.33 9.33$ Route Option with Terrain Summary G/U 52.90 52.90$ Other Route Options G/S 0.44 0.49$ Existing Roads S/L 56.49 76.27$ BridgeMajor Bridge Sites Sites S/US/U 6.98 9.43$ L/L 3.41 3.92$ L/L 3.41 3.92$ Project: MCFAULDS LAKE ROAD ROUTE 3N L/UL/U 5.48 6.30$ Title: M/L 57.35 91.76$ ROUTE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCESS M/U 22.10 35.36$ MCFAULDS LAKE N TotalTotal 308.69 474.15$ Figure 14 January 2010
0 20 40 60 80 100 Km Cost/KmEstimated Cost/Km$ ($M) 1.543 1.54 Hwy #643
A-117 of 117
APPENDIX B
CARIBOU INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EAGLE’S NEST PROJECT
(Pages B-1 to B-8)
NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012 APPENDIX B
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE’S NEST PROJECT
CARIBOU INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EAGLE’S NEST PROJECT
SECTION 1.0 - SUMMARY OF THE CARIBOU RECOVERY STRATEGY AND CONSERVATION PLAN
The following is based on a review of the Ontario Caribou Conservation Plan and the Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) (Forest-Dwelling, Boreal Population) in Ontario.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This summary highlights the key components of the Ontario Woodland Caribou Recovery Strategy (OWCRT 2008, 93 pp.) and the Ontario’s Woodland Caribou Conservation Plan (OMNR 2010, 24 pp.) in order to identify aspects of Caribou ecology and conservation that should be considered for the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA). As emphasized in both of these documents, the degree to which each component can be addressed is based on the availability of information. In addition, the relatively intact Caribou habitat in the proposed Eagle’s Nest Project area (Ring of Fire region) relative to other portions of Ontario with more highly fragmented Caribou habitat will also influence the nature of the Caribou assessment and impact studies carried out for this project. Following this summary, a preliminary discussion of information needs and analyses is presented. All information presented in this summary was obtained directly from the Recovery Strategy and Conservation Plan documents.
Based on expert opinions of OMNR staff from aerial surveys, ground surveys, and other accumulated knowledge, Ontario’s Woodland Caribou population is currently estimated at approximately 21,000 animals with roughly 5,000 animals located in the Hudson Bay Lowland region and about 2,000 animals located in the northern Boreal Forest region (north of commercial forest operations). The proposed Eagle’s Nest Project is located within both of these regions.
Since the late 1800’s, Caribou range has decreased from 40-50 % with a comparable decrease in Caribou populations over this time period. Research across Canada where the Caribou population rate of increase (r) has been measured indicates negative rates of population growth. The only direct measure for Caribou population growth in Ontario comes from a recent study south of James Bay where r was determined to be -0.11. If historic rates of range recession (~35,000 km2 per decade) and current population declines continue, it has been estimated that Woodland Caribou will be extirpated from Ontario before the end of this century. Thus, the Woodland Caribou in Ontario has been designated as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (2007).
Ontario’s Woodland Caribou can be found in two general distribution patterns: a zone of continuous distribution, and isolated local populations (mainland or insular). The Eagle’s Nest Project is located well within the zone of continuous distribution, which is comprised primarily of the proposed
B-1 of 8 Northwest Recovery Zone, the majority of the Northeast Recovery Zone, and portions of the Lake Nipigon Recovery Zone.
1.2 HABITAT
Woodland Caribou satisfy their life requirements at different scales. Generally, habitat to reduce predation (primarily from Wolves) is provided at coarser scales (e.g. adequate supply of large tracts of suitable habitat), and habitat for forage or calving is provided at finer scales (e.g. forest patches or stands that produce lichens and other forage). However, the Boreal Forest is a dynamic or ever-changing landscape. Caribou habitat can be degraded by both natural factors and human disturbances, but it can also recover naturally, given sufficient time for vegetation growth and succession, or by active management for habitat renewal or reclamation. Hence the spatial configuration of habitat components within a range will change over time, although the overall habitat requirements of each local population generally remain relatively constant.
The value of habitats to Woodland Caribou can be compromised by human developments (e.g., roads, utility corridors, human activities, etc.), even if actual forest stands remain largely intact. Various studies have demonstrated that Woodland Caribou avoid the vicinity of industrial and other human developments, even when forest habitat conditions adjacent to these developments are otherwise suitable, resulting in functional habitat loss. Industrial developments can also directly increase the probability of Caribou mortality as the associated linear features allow access for harvesters, poachers or predators.
1.3 RESEARCH
A recent survey of provincial Caribou experts indicated that the most important Caribou habitat research areas are:
Effects of forest management regimes (disturbance and techniques) Implications of land use planning/policy and management Impacts of road and other corridors
In addition, the impacts of mining on Caribou populations should be investigated. The survey results indicated that the highest priority research questions related to Woodland Caribou conservation and management are:
Evaluation of the effects of landscape disturbances created by commercial forest operations on Caribou populations and ecology Determining the mechanisms driving Caribou population dynamics in modified landscapes Evaluating the thresholds of disturbance at which Caribou abandon previously occupied habitat
Due to a current lack of information on Caribou ecology in Ontario’s Far North, the delineation of Caribou ranges and Caribou habitat requirements in the Ring of Fire region is currently being addressed by the Ring of Fire Caribou Working Group. This study is evaluating many decades of Caribou field data, GIS, and multivariate statistical analyses. The Working Group is composed of representatives from MNR,
B-2 of 8 and the two main proponents (and consultants) with advanced exploration projects in the region: Noront Resources Inc./Knight Piésold (KP), and Cliffs Natural Resources/Golder Associates. The results generated by this working group will be the primary source of information used for the Caribou assessment and impact analysis portion of the Eagle’s Nest EA.
1.4 PRINCIPLES OF WOODLAND CARIBOU CONSERVATION
The following provides a summary of the principles for Woodland Caribou Conservation:
Maintain self-sustaining, genetically-connected local populations of Caribou (forest-dwelling boreal population) where they currently exist Maintain a healthy boreal forest Consider social, economic, and environmental concerns Incorporate Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge in decision-making where available Range management - Caribou ranges should be the units of analysis or basis for identifying and evaluating habitat, assessing population trends, and assessing cumulative impacts Identify thresholds of human disturbance and mitigation measures required to maintain Caribou persistence Assess cumulative impacts Resource development decisions should consider Caribou population health and habitat condition Use adaptive, ecosystem-based management recognizing existing knowledge and its limitations Incomplete information should not delay conservation action (precautionary principle)
1.5 RECOVERY STRATEGY OBJECTIVES
The following provides a summary of the Recovery Strategy Objectives:
Protect Caribou ranges and sub-ranges in support of local Caribou survival and recovery Reduce known threats associated with range recession and local population decline of woodland Caribou through immediate action on ranges within the Lake Nipigon, Central Highlands, and Lake Superior Coast recovery zones Reduce known threats associated with provincial range recession and local population decline in the area of continuous woodland Caribou range, specifically in the Northwest and Northeast recovery zones Delineate and establish range management plans for all Caribou ranges, including specific objectives for range components Develop policies and legislation to promote the protection and recovery of woodland Caribou Establish benchmarks for range occupancy and population health of woodland Caribou across Ontario in order to track changes and monitor recovery Establish and maintain a woodland Caribou range occupancy database and related map to track changes in occurrence and connectivity of populations to monitor recovery Define metapopulations and identify recovery priorities by investigating genetic relationships among local woodland Caribou populations in Ontario
B-3 of 8 Better understand populations, metapopulations, habitat, threats, genetics, and other knowledge gaps by conducting and supporting scientific research to support recovery Generate support and partnerships for recovery implementation by promoting education and awareness of woodland Caribou and boreal forest ecosystems Evaluate the effects of human developments and natural disturbances and manage at appropriate temporal and spatial scales for each range component Human developments and natural disturbances can act cumulatively to reduce the quantity and quality of ranges or their components and hence should be jointly and concurrently managed Measures must be identified and put in place to maintain, and where required improve, the integrity of ranges and range components at appropriate spatial scales Assessment and management of the cumulative effects of disturbances to Caribou habitat and populations will generally be required In areas of sympatric range, management objectives for all cervids should be integrated within an ecological framework
1.6 NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CARIBOU RANGES (PROJECT LOCATION)
Goal: Maintain self-sustaining genetically connected forest-dwelling woodland Caribou populations where they currently exist.
Objectives:
Apply a broad landscape approach and develop strategies to sustain Caribou in healthy, functioning forest ecosystems Maintain a sustainable supply of year-round habitat using landscape management, anchored by a system of protected areas Conservation strategies should address the distinct ecoregional expression of old forest, landscape pattern, disturbance regimes, and Caribou behaviour patterns Establish ecoregional benchmarks (i.e. forest cover, forest composition, forest pattern) to support sustainable landscape management Plan and manage roads in a strategic manner to reduce potential impacts on Caribou by developing guidance related to road density, primary access corridor location, road management, and decommissioning plans
B-4 of 8 SECTION 2.0 - CARIBOU ASSESSMENT AND IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE EA
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
All forms of existing information will be utilized to obtain as much information as possible that applies to Caribou assessment and impact analysis within the Eagle’s Nest Project area including both population health and habitat aspects. This includes published and unpublished research papers, books, data and other information available from the OMNR, information obtained from expert interviews, and aboriginal traditional knowledge.
2.2 RANGE IDENTIFICATION AND RESOURCE SELECTION FUNCTION ANALYSES
As stated above, Noront Resources/KP is participating as a member of the Far North Caribou Working Group in order to contribute to the studies required to identify Caribou ranges in the Ring of Fire region, to identify the primary habitat influences on Caribou activity, and to characterize these influences. The immediate applications of this work will be to support the EA studies (baseline characterization and impact analysis) required of the mining proponents with interests in the Ring of Fire area through the production of resource selection function (RSF) models that can be applied by each proponent. The study area for this work is roughly 24 million ha.
2.3 HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX (HSI) ANALYSIS
We will also identify and characterize Caribou-habitat relationships within an area that is about a third the size of the area used for the RSF modelling. This smaller area will be roughly 8.6 million ha and will be defined by an 80 km distance centered on the Project access route. In contrast to the RSF modelling, this work will utilize Caribou habitat ratings based on OMNR’s work on Caribou in northwestern Ontario (Racey et al. 1999), other literature, and field studies carried out by Noront Resources/KP. GIS and statistical analyses will be used to create a Caribou GIS-based habitat suitability map that will be used for both the Caribou baseline characterization and the Caribou impact analysis.
2.4 CARIBOU BASELINE CONDITIONS
Through a data-sharing agreement, a portion of Caribou data from two provincial data sets has been obtained. One is the “Caribou Collar Movements in Ontario’s Far North” data set and the other is the “Caribou Winter Distribution in Ontario’s Far North” data set. These data, the literature, and field studies will be used to characterize baseline conditions for the Caribou populations and the Caribou habitat in the Project study area. In addition, the OMNR’s Far North Land Cover data will be used to characterize baseline conditions for Caribou habitat.
2.5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS
2.5.1 Introduction
Assessment of Project effects on Caribou will be based on four measureable parameters including habitat, movement, mortality, and health. Habitat and movement effects will be
B-5 of 8 predicted using quantitative methods and mortality and health effects will be assessed qualitatively. The magnitudes of the effects will be determined at three scales:
The Local Study Area (LSA), which will be determined based on Caribou field data and literature that addresses the industrial zone of influence The Regional Study Area (RSA; ~8.6 million ha) The ranges of the individuals or groups that utilize portions of the RSA (these ranges have not yet been identified, but they will likely extend beyond the boundaries of the RSA and will be identified within an area of roughly 24 million ha centered on the Ring of Fire area)
2.5.2 Habitat
To assess potential effects (direct and indirect) of the Project on Caribou habitat (winter and growing season), three approaches will be used:
Scientific studies that have identified and quantified the effects of industrial activities on the use of habitat by Caribou will be reviewed and information relevant to the Project will be extracted and used in the resource selection function (RSF) (Far North Caribou Working Group task) and habitat suitability index (HIS) modelling The RSF model (GIS-based) developed by the Far North Caribou Working Group will be used to quantify potential impacts on Caribou at the range level, the RSA level, and the LSA level The HSI model will be also used to quantify potential impacts on Caribou at the RSA and LSA levels
Direct habitat effects will be quantified by assuming that the habitat within the Project footprint will become unsuitable for use by Caribou, which assumes the worst case scenario. Indirect habitat effects will be more difficult to predict because the zone of influence from the Project infrastructure and activities is often specific to the type of activity (e.g., oil and gas compared to mining) and location of the activity (e.g., forest compared to tundra). Assessment of indirect habitat effects using the RSF habitat model will be quantified by reducing the probability of observing Caribou within each of the affected pixels. For the HSI model, indirect effects will be assessed by reducing the suitability category for each of the affected pixels. To determine the magnitude of effect, summed RSF values (using the RSF model) and summed HSI values (using the HSI model) within the LSA, RSA, and ranges for pre-disturbance and post-disturbance conditions will be compared.
2.5.3 Movement
The effect of the Project infrastructure on Caribou movement will be qualitatively assessed through information from a literature search and professional opinion. Movement will be quantitatively assessed using the RSF modelling at the LSA, RSA, and range levels. In particular, we will focus on the potential for the Project infrastructure and related activities to create barriers to Caribou movement at all three scales.
B-6 of 8 2.5.4 Mortality
Project effects on Caribou mortality will be assessed as the probability of increased risk of activities killing Caribou, primarily collisions with Caribou on the mine access road. Construction of a new winter road along the pipeline may also increase the probability of use by wolves, which will likely increase predation on Caribou. Due to the loss of traditionally used habitat, Caribou mortality may increase as they are forced to use non-traditional travel routes, which may increase contact with predators. In addition, upgrading the winter road to an all-season road in the Project area will result in increased harvesting (legal and illegal), which also must be addressed.
2.5.5 Health
The influence of the Project on Caribou health will be considered as it relates to potential contamination of forage resulting from dust generated from the use of the all-season access road. The potential effect of sensory disturbances on Caribou health such as noise and light will be accommodated within the assessment of habitat effectiveness. For example, Caribou will likely avoid suitable habitat due to increased noise and light.
B-7 of 8 SECTION 3.0 - REFERENCES
1. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2010. Ontario’s Woodland Caribou Conservation Plan. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario.24 pp.
2. Ontario Woodland Caribou Recovery Team (OWCRT). 2008. Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) (Forest-dwelling, Boreal Population) in Ontario. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, and Ontario.93 pp.
3. Racey, G., A. Harris, L. Gerrish, E. Armstrong, J. McNicol and J. Baker. 1999. Forest Management Guidelines for the Conservation of Woodland Caribou: a Landscape Approach. MS draft, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Thunder Bay, Ontario. 69 pp.
B-8 of 8
APPENDIX C
CONSULTATION PLAN
(Pages C-1 to C-36)
NB102-390/1-7 Rev 1 October 5, 2012
NORONT RESOURCES LTD.
EAGLE’S NEST PROJECT
CONSULTATION PLAN
NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012 C-1 of 36 C-2 of 36
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE’S NEST PROJECT
CONSULTATION PLAN (REF. NO. NB102-390/1-9)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
SECTION 2.0 - BACKGROUND ...... 2
SECTION 3.0 - OBJECTIVES...... 4
SECTION 4.0 - STAKEHOLDER AND ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY IDENTIFICATION ...... 6 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 6 4.2 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES ...... 6 4.2.1 Initial Identification by Noront ...... 6 4.2.2 Preliminary Screening by Noront ...... 6 4.2.3 Summary of Screening ...... 7 4.2.4 Provision of a List by Government Agencies ...... 7 4.2.5 Aboriginal Groups Identified ...... 8 R1 4.3 PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ...... 9 4.4 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ...... 10 4.5 GENERAL PUBLIC INCLUDING COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL INTEREST ...... 10 4.6 NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ...... 10
SECTION 5.0 - CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT METHODS ...... 11 5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 11 5.2 CONSULTATION STRATEGY ...... 11 5.2.1 Phase 1: Pre-Consultation ...... 11 5.2.2 Phase 2: Consultation on and during the Preparation of the Terms of Reference .... 12 5.2.3 Phase 3: Consultation during Preparation of the EA ...... 12 5.2.4 Phase 4: Post EA/Ongoing Engagement ...... 12 5.3 ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT ...... 12 5.3.1 Information Sessions ...... 13 5.3.2 First Nations Field Guides ...... 14 5.3.3 Community Engagement ...... 14 5.3.4 Community Meetings ...... 15 5.4 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ...... 16 5.5 GOVERNMENT REVIEW ...... 17
i of ii NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-3 of 36
SECTION 6.0 - KEY MILESTONES FOR CONSULTATION ...... 18 6.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 18 6.2 NOTICES ...... 18 6.3 REPORT PUBLICATION ...... 19 6.4 COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE EVENTS ...... 20 6.5 WEB PORTAL ...... 21 6.6 ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION TOOLS ...... 21
SECTION 7.0 - TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE PLAN ...... 22 7.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 22 7.2 INFORMATION REQUIRED ...... 22 7.3 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION ...... 23 7.4 INCORPORATION OF ATK ...... 23
SECTION 8.0 - ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING ...... 24
SECTION 9.0 - CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS ...... 25 9.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 25 9.2 ISSUE RESOLUTION ...... 25
SECTION 10.0 - ONGOING CONSULTATION PLANNING ...... 26
SECTION 11.0 - CERTIFICATION ...... 27
TABLES
Table 4.1 Rev 1 Stakeholder Engagement List - Stakeholders, Aboriginal Groups and R1 Government Review Team Table 5.1 Rev 0 Consultation Phases, Activities and Materials
FIGURES
Figure 4.1 Rev 0 Aboriginal Regional Study Area Figure 4.2 Rev 0 Aboriginal Local Study Area Figure 4.3 Rev 0 Historical Settlements and Archeological Complexes
ii of ii NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-4 of 36
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE’S NEST PROJECT
CONSULTATION PLAN (REF. NO. NB102-390/1-9)
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Noront Resources Ltd. (Noront) is proposing to develop the Eagle’s Nest Project (Project), a multi-metal underground mine to produce and supply nickel, copper, platinum and palladium. The Project mine site is located approximately 300 km north of Nakina and 530 km northeast of Thunder Bay. Access to the mine site is proposed to consist of an all-season segment and a winter road segment. The proposed all-season road would run from Highway 808, roughly 60 km north by northeast of Pickle Lake, to Webequie Junction. This section would require the realignment and upgrading of the existing winter road into an all-season road. The second section would consist of the construction of a winter road between a transfer facility at Webequie Junction and the proposed mine site.
Exploration and preliminary activities have been underway for several years and the Project is now moving to the Environmental Assessment stage. Consultation with stakeholders and Aboriginal communities has been integral to the Project since before the EA process began.
Noront’s approach to consultation to meet the needs of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act will follow the guidelines outlined in the Ministry of Environment’s Code of Practice for Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process (2007). Where possible, consultation on the federal Canadian Environmental Agency (CEA Agency) process and the provincial Environmental Approvals Branch (EAB) process will be linked and coordinated. Noront will attempt to meet the requirements of both agencies by combining consultation events so as to maximize stakeholder interaction and feedback.
The Consultation Plan outlined in this report shows how Noront will consult and engage with stakeholders and Aboriginal communities. Moreover, the plan is structured to meet the following Ministry of the Environment (MOE) requirements:
• Proposed consultation methods (Section 5) • How input will be obtained (Section 5 and 8) • Key decision-making milestones (Section 6 ) • Issues resolution strategy (Section 9)
This Consultation Plan outlines the minimum requirements for the activities that Noront will undertake as part of the EA process. The specific details are flexible and can be finalized based on ongoing feedback from Aboriginal communities, the public and government reviewers. In particular, Aboriginal communities will be engaged in a discussion regarding how they wish to be consulted, before any plans are finalized. Communities will have an opportunity to provide input on potential consultation plans before they are carried out.
1 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-5 of 36
SECTION 2.0 - BACKGROUND
Engagement with Aboriginal communities by Noront began shortly after the discovery of the Eagle's Nest deposit in 2007. It has continues as Noront has moved into project planning and development. Early engagement activities commenced in March 2010 and consisted of information sharing, early identification and scoping of community interests and concerns, completing an Aboriginal skills survey with the Marten Falls and Webequie First Nations, and providing updates as to preparations for requisite and applicable environmental assessment review processes. Since March 2010, much of the engagement and early consultation initiatives and efforts have been guided by the interest and priorities expressed by Aboriginal communities. The consultation program and engagement activities have been and will continue to be guided by Noront's Aboriginal Policy.
Aboriginal communities have each expressed differing views, interests and concerns in relation to the Project. Concerns have been expressed about the technical aspects of the Project design, the impact mitigation and effects monitoring, and how a First Nation could work with Noront to address socio-economic and socio-cultural priorities. Most Aboriginal communities within close proximity to the Project have expressed an interest in working with Noront and government agencies to develop an informed view of the Project. Communities are generally receptive and have requested additional information to better understand the Project plans. Open houses have now been held in most of the communities likely to be impacted by the Project, and input from these has been incorporated into the draft Terms of Reference (ToR).
Four communities (Webequie, Nibinamik, Eabametoong and Neskataga) have signed an agreement to work together to plan, construct and maintain the proposed all-season road corridor should it be approved. Marten Falls First Nation is working with Noront to own and manage the Esker camp. They are also interested in owning, constructing and managing the proposed all-season airstrip. Discussions are ongoing for other business opportunities related to Project development.
Noront has made considerable efforts to include and utilize businesses and organizations in local communities. Furthermore, there has been discussion on how to include communities in the future. Noront has been employing Cyr Drilling which is owned in part by Webequie First Nation. There has been discussion with Webequie on the use of local businesses, motel accommodations, rental of office space in the community and the use of the community employment office for short term workers. Noront has hired a local Community Liaison officer. In Marten Falls, Noront has had discussions focused on developing opportunities to supply food to the camp. There have also been discussions on the ownership of exploration facilities and how to transition ownership of the seasonal ice airstrip.
In 2009, the number of First Nation employees involved in the Project, both direct and indirect, was less than 10% of the total workforce. Presently, two First Nation individuals are in middle and senior management positions and First Nation workers account for over one third of the total workforce at the exploration camp. Noront encourages the hiring of local workers for all Project activities. Direct employment opportunities are offered to the local communities whenever Project work becomes available. Moreover, Noront encourages contractors to hire local workers from potentially affected communities. As a result, First Nation employment numbers continue to increase.
2 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-6 of 36
Aboriginal communities have expressed a range of interests, issues, concerns and values that they wish to have addressed during the environmental assessment process. In general, communities want to have a considerable stake in the Project.
In addition to the engagement with Aboriginal communities, Noront has carried out extensive discussions with government agencies and ministries during the preparation of the ToR and the EIS Guidelines. Specifically, meetings and discussions have been held with the provincial MOE, MNR, MNDM and Ring of Fire Secretariat, and with the federal CEA Agency and with MPMO.
These discussions will continue throughout the EA process and beyond, to ensure that the requirements of the various ministries and agencies are properly met. Noront has benefited greatly from the meetings and discussions held to date, as these have helped to focus the Company’s efforts on the critical issues that it will face as it moves the Eagle’s Nest Project though the EA process.
The draft ToR, the EIS Guidelines and the Project Description have all been made available for public comment through the Noront and Eagle’s Nest websites. Noront attended an information meeting in the community of Greenstone in 2011, and held an open house in Thunder Bay in January, 2012. Comments from both these meetings have been incorporated into the ToR.
3 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-7 of 36
SECTION 3.0 - OBJECTIVES
Consultation is a central objective of the provincial EA process. Noront has reviewed the MOE Code of Practice on Preparing and Reviewing the Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario (2009) and Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process (2007) while developing the following Draft Consultation Plan. The following are elements of a successful Consultation Plan, as suggested by MOE, and have been included in this Draft Eagle’s Nest Consultation Plan:
• Clear Objectives • Stakeholder identification • Consultation Methods • Issue Identification • Integration of Input • Proponent Evaluation of Consultation
Meaningful consultation requires that Noront address concerns of all identified stakeholders regarding the anticipated or potential environmental effects of the Project. In carrying out the EA, Noront will consult residents and organizations in affected communities, other interested organizations, and relevant government agencies. Noront will provide in the EA report a detailed record of this consultation, including the methods used, the results, and the ways in which the proponent intends to address the concerns identified, including a summary of issues raised by stakeholders.
As outlined in The Code of Practice: Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Process (2007), a consultation plan must:
• Indicate how potentially interested and affected persons, including Aboriginal peoples, will be identified, notified and consulted • Indicate how government agencies will be identified, notified and consulted • Identify the points in the environmental assessment process when interested persons will be consulted • Identify the decisions that interested persons can provide input and what role they can play when the proponent makes choices • Acknowledge and attempt to address concerns raised during the environmental assessment process
In addition, as stated in The Code of Practice: Preparing and Reviewing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments in Ontario (2009), the consultation plan should outline:
• The general consultation methods proposed • How input from interested persons will be obtained • A description of key decision-making milestones during the preparation of the environmental assessment when consultation will occur • Issue resolution strategy
4 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-8 of 36
Based on the above requirements, the objectives of Noront’s Eagle’s Nest Consultation Plan are to:
• Implement consultation with Aboriginal communities and the public early in the process and continue consultation through the regulatory process, as well as through the construction and operations phases should the Project receive approval • Provide Aboriginal communities and organizations and the public with Project information in a timely, ongoing and sensitive manner so they can consider such information in determining their interests, if any, in the Project • Improve community and stakeholder understanding of technical issues and reports • Increase knowledge of the potential environmental effects of the Project by Aboriginal communities and the public • Provide opportunities for Aboriginal communities and organizations and the public to identify issues, interests and potential Project impacts • Facilitate dialogue between Noront and communities/stakeholders • Respond to all issues and concerns raised by Aboriginal communities and the public • Provide a range of opportunities for comments and concerns to be heard • Gather ongoing feedback from Aboriginal communities, the public and government reviewers regarding the proposed approach to consultation, and adjust the consultation plan to meet their needs • Indicate how information and concerns of Aboriginal communities and the public have been considered and taken into account in the design and planning of the Project • Avoid, reduce or mitigate, as appropriate, potential effects of the Project on Aboriginal interests and support Crown efforts and plans to accommodate Aboriginal interests when required • Disseminate the results of the environmental assessment process • Provide opportunities for discussion and seek joint issue resolution, where reasonably possible • Engage relevant government agencies to review the Consultation Plan and ensure that it satisfies their consultation requirements • Engage relevant government agencies in the consultation process and provide information related to Noront consultation activities and any specific interests and concerns brought forth by Aboriginal communities. Assess the capacity of each First Nation and Métis group to participate meaningfully in the consultation process, including the need for financial aid, training and professional support. • Identify and explore means for offsetting potential adverse socio-economic effects with opportunities for participation by Aboriginal people in the Project by way of education, employment and business opportunities
5 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-9 of 36
SECTION 4.0 - STAKEHOLDER AND ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY IDENTIFICATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Stakeholders in the Project include those that have a direct interest in the Project or have the potential to be affected by the Project. Stakeholders have been grouped into the following categories: Government (Municipal, provincial, federal), Aboriginal communities, non-governmental organizations, and the general public. Table 4.1 provides an overview of the interested peoples engaged to date.
Initial stakeholder identification was based on experience, background research, advice from regulators and local knowledge. It is anticipated that the stakeholder table will be refined and expanded as consultation on the Project moves forward.
Stakeholders have been identified and will be identified using the following criteria:
• Have the potential to be affected by the potential environmental effects of the Project • Possess an interest in the Project • Live in proximity to the Project; resident in or have jurisdiction over the proposed development area
4.2 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES
Identification of Aboriginal communities was completed in consultation with government agencies and through a desktop screening exercise.
4.2.1 Initial Identification by Noront
Preliminary contact was undertaken by Noront with communities after the discovery of the high grade nickel/copper massive sulphide deposit in 2007. A formal engagement process was undertaken with Webequie and Marten Falls First Nations in 2010. Noront has also held discussions with additional communities identified as having potential impacts related from the planned development at Eagle’s Nest.
4.2.2 Preliminary Screening by Noront
A desktop review of publicly available information concerning Aboriginal interests was conducted by Noront as a due diligence exercise. This information was largely found on Canadian and Aboriginal government websites and verified by local sources. A series of seven questions were developed as a transparent and repeatable method for preliminary determination of which Aboriginal communities may have an interest in the Project. A Regional Study Area (RSA) and Local Study Area (LSA) were preliminarily defined for the purposes of the screening. The RSA is defined as the Treaty 9 area, and the LSA is defined by the communities closest to the Project facilities (Figures 4.1 and 4.2).
6 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-10 of 36
The following seven questions were asked to complete the screening:
• Is an Indian Reserve or First Nation identified in the RSA by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada? • Are there licensed traplines identified in the RSA? • Is a current settlement or community identified in the RSA by the Métis Nation of Ontario? • Is a traditional harvesting area identified in the RSA by the Métis Nation of Ontario? • Is a historic community or archaeological complex identified in the RSA by Natural Resources Canada (Figure 4.3)? • Is a treaty area identified in the RSA and are there any applicable treaty rights? • Are active land claims in the RSA identified by AANDC?
4.2.3 Summary of Screening
The follow points summarize the results of the screening:
• The RSA is home to 36 First Nation Communities • The closest First Nation community to the proposed project is Webequie First Nation • There are three communities that claim direct impact to project site in an overlapping claim territory (Webequie, Marten Falls and Neskantaga First Nations) • The closest identified Métis group is more than 300 kms to the south west • The RSA covers parts of two treaty areas, Treaty #3 and Treaty #9 • The Reserves in the RSA and LSA have their origins in a pre-contact existence (historical settlements) where the Ojibway, Oji-Cree and Cree practised traditional activities • After contact with Europeans, Treaty 9 and the Adhesion to Treaty 9 were signed guaranteeing the Ojibway, Oji-Cree and Cree Tribes the right to hunt and fish • The RSA includes one possible Métis Harvesting Areas where Métis rights are exercised and managed through local Métis Councils and Captains of the Hunt • Lands within the RSA are the subject of ongoing legal actions with the Crown, mostly the result of breach of treaty obligations under Treaty #9 and #3 between the governments of Canada and Ontario
4.2.4 Provision of a List by Government Agencies
Noront formally requested from CEA Agency a list of Aboriginal communities who should be consulted as part of the Project. CEA Agency has provided a list which included the First Nations listed below and the following additional organizations and communities:
• Métis Nation of Ontario - Geraldton
Discussions with the provincial government ensured that all potentially affected communities were identified. Noront has contacted all of the above listed organizations and communities and will continue to engage with them throughout the EA process.
7 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-11 of 36
4.2.5 Aboriginal Groups Identified R1 Potentially affected Aboriginal groups have been separated into two categories based on their proximity to the Project and its related effects. The first category consists of Aboriginal groups that are located in relatively close proximity to the proposed Project infrastructure and are likely to be most affected by the Project. The second category consists of the Aboriginal groups that are located further away from the Project but have interests that may be affected by the Project.
The first category is most likely to be affected by aspects of the Project and includes the following:
• Webequie First Nation • Marten Falls First Nation • Nibinamik First Nation • Eabametoong First Nation • Neskantaga First Nation • Aroland First Nation • Attawapiskat First Nation • Ojibway Nation of Saugeen • Mishkeegogamang First Nation
The second category includes Aboriginal groups that may be affected by the Project but are further removed from the potential impacts include the following Aboriginal groups:
• Bearskin Lake First Nation • Constance Lake First Nation • Fort Albany First Nation • Ginoogaming First Nation • Kashechewan First Nation • Kasibonika First Nation • King Fisher Lake First Nation • Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninwug • Long Lake #58 First Nation • Muskrat Dam First Nation • North Caribou Lake First Nation • Sachigo Lake First Nation • Wapekeka First Nation • Wawakapewin First Nation • Weenusk (Peawunuk) First Nation • Windigo First Nation • Wunnumin Lake First Nation • Independent First Nation Alliance • Matawa Tribal Council • Mushkegowuk Tribal Council
8 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-12 of 36
• Shibogama First Nation Council • Thunder Bay Métis Council • Métis Nation of Ontario
The categories and groups outlined above may evolve throughout the EA process. The first categories of communities, most likely to be affected by the Project, will be engaged as per Section 5.3. The second category of Aboriginal groups will receive plain language summaries of key documents; however, these groups will not be engaged to the full extent outlined in Section 5.3. Noront will engage any of the Aboriginal groups within the second category beyond the dissemination of documents upon request from the community or group.
Further detailed information and updated community profiles will be developed through ongoing engagement and consultation with Aboriginal communities. Noront places a high priority on communities providing and verifying their own community information for inclusion into the environmental assessment and supporting documents.
4.3 PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
To date, provincial and federal government agencies have been working together to provide a coordinated consultation process. Key contacts for the environmental assessment from provincial and federal governments have been identified as:
• Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (including Ring of Fire Secretariat) • Ministry of Environment Environmental Approvals Branch • Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Other ministries and government offices that have been involved in consultation, including review of preliminary baseline studies and Noront’s environmental assessment, include:
Provincial Government
• Ministry of Labour • Ministry of Natural Resources • Ministry of Transportation • Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Federal Government
• Major Projects Management Office (NRCan) • Department of Fisheries and Oceans • Environment Canada • Transport Canada • Natural Resources Canada • Health Canada • Industry Canada 9 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-13 of 36
4.4 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
The role of Municipal governments in the Eagle’s Nest Project is indirect due to the remote location of the specific site and to the considerable distances from the site to any municipal location. The Mayor and Council of the Town of Pickle Lake have been identified as a municipal contact based on the town being located along the proposed transportation corridor. The municipality of Greenstone, Unorganized Municipality of Savant Lake, Township of Ignace, and the City of Thunder Bay are also included on the municipal stakeholder list.
4.5 GENERAL PUBLIC INCLUDING COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL INTEREST
• DeBeers Canada (Victor Mine) • Goldcorp (Musselwhite Mine) • Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. • KWG Resources • Commercial tourism operators
4.6 NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
To date, meetings have been held with Wildlands League, a chapter of CPAWS, to explain the Project and discuss potential impacts. Additional NGO`s involved in the Project include Mining Watch, Ecojustice, Environment North and the Wildlife Conservation Society.
10 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-14 of 36
SECTION 5.0 - CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT METHODS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
A variety of methods will be employed to gather information from stakeholders and disseminate information about the Project. Consultation, participation and negotiation techniques will also be part of consultation activities as the planning process progresses, since consultation must meet the needs of Aboriginal communities. Plain language information sharing is the top priority in all communications with the public and Aboriginal communities. Technical terms will be avoided wherever possible and a glossary of terms will be developed for circulation at community events.
Noront recognizes that support may need to be provided to interested stakeholders to participate in the consultation process. Noront will provide funding as necessary to ensure that stakeholders are able to participate and provide meaningful input into the EA process.
5.2 CONSULTATION STRATEGY
A multiple phase consultation strategy is being implemented to ensure that the various consultation needs and regulatory requirements are met. There are four phases to the consultation strategy:
• Phase 1: Pre-Consultation which involves public announcement of the Project and stakeholder relationship building • Phase 2: Consultation on and during the preparation of the TOR • Phase 3: Consultation during preparation of the EA • Phase 4: Post EA/ongoing engagement
Within each phase there are consultation requirements that must take place. A list of mandatory notices that will be required during each phase of the EA and the preparation of the TOR and EA documents are provided for each phase. The Eagle’s Nest Project is also subject to a federal EA process, under CEAA. The requirements listed below for each phase are based on the provincial individual EA requirements but also satisfy the requirements of the Federal EA process.
5.2.1 Phase 1: Pre-Consultation
This phase of consultation was focused on building positive working relationships with the various stakeholders. During this phase, Noront met with various government agencies, community groups, and Aboriginal groups to introduce the Project, discuss the various Project components, and gather feedback from key stakeholders.
Noront was also consulting with various stakeholders on the development of the Project Description, a requirement under the federal EA process, and consulted with federal and provincial agencies to investigate the possible EA routes. Input from discussion with local First Nations also informed the development of the Project Description.
No mandatory notices are required during this phase of consultation.
11 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-15 of 36
5.2.2 Phase 2: Consultation on and during the Preparation of the Terms of Reference
The purpose of this phase is to gather feedback from stakeholders on the proposed ToR for the coordinated EA. Feedback provided during the preparation of the draft ToR has been used to create the ToR and will guide the development of the EA. This phase is important in determining the key issues and concerns with regards to the proposed Project. Comments that were received during the preparation of the ToR have shaped the Consultation Plan and will be utilised to develop the EA work plan.
Mandatory notices required during this of phase include:
• Notice of Commencement of ToR • Notice of Submission of ToR
5.2.3 Phase 3: Consultation during Preparation of the EA
The purpose of this phase is to engage stakeholders in the review of the EA findings as they are being developed. The objectives of this phase are to involve the various stakeholders in a review of the EA document as it is being put together, respond to any issues and concerns, and discuss the findings of the EA.
Mandatory notices required during this phase include:
• Notice of Commencement of EA • Notices of Public Open Houses • Notice of Submission of EA
5.2.4 Phase 4: Post EA/Ongoing Engagement
In order to maintain the relationships developed during the consultation process, and to ensure that stakeholders continue to be a part of the Project, it is recognized that consultations will continue beyond the EA process, if approvals are obtained. The form of consultation and level of consultation will vary depending on the level of Project activity. No mandatory notices are required during this phase of consultation.
Table 5.1 illustrates proposed engagement activities and methods during each phase of consultation.
5.3 ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT
Aboriginal engagement activities will mirror consultation undertaken with public and government stakeholders. Noront understands that Aboriginal people have constitutionally protected rights, a unique understanding of the environment, and a special relationship with the land. The Duty to Consult with Aboriginal people lies with the Crown, and although some procedural aspects can be delegated to project proponents, Noront understands that consultation and the Crown’s fiduciary duty towards Aboriginal people cannot be delegated. 12 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-16 of 36
Noront will engage with Aboriginal Groups who may be potentially affected by the Project and will actively pursue information about Traditional Land Use and Traditional Ecological Knowledge through the First Nations committees, open houses, the planned Elder’s forum, one-on-one interviews, field trips where the Project schedule allows, and as the willingness of First Nations and Métis community members is determined.
Noront recognizes that the Eagle’s Nest Project is a significant development in a hitherto remote and undisturbed area. In acknowledgment of these facts, and expressed community and public concern, the Company will also commit to:
• Maintaining ongoing dialogue with the Aboriginal communities about the proposed consultation approach and any adjustments that could better suit their needs • Providing forums for comments to be heard beyond standard open house formats and written comments (such as receiving oral comments through a hearing format) • Exploring a broader range of options and committing to pursue alternatives that will best meet the needs of communities and stakeholders around methods for explaining or disseminating technical information and providing opportunities for dialogue and input before decisions are made
Aboriginal communities will be included on all information mailings, emails and notices, and invited to open house events. Community radio and the Wataway television station will also be used for informing the Aboriginal communities about upcoming engagement and consultation events. A strong foundation has been laid over the past several years which will allow for a relationship to grow built on trust and transparency.
Noront established a historic First Nations Advisory Council in October 2009. This Council guides the company in establishing exemplary relationships with the local First Nations Communities in the Ring of Fire, where the company’s primary assets, including the Eagle’s Nest and the Blackbird Deposits, are located.
5.3.1 Information Sessions
Information sessions will be organized as open house events wherever possible. Information sessions will be held in communities or a preferred location identified by the Aboriginal group. Information sessions with Aboriginal communities can present more of a logistical and scheduling challenge than public events. For this reason, it is difficult to determine precise meeting times or topics of discussion. Translators are present at the sessions to translate into Ojibwa and Oji-Cree. It is anticipated that the Aboriginal communities will have some ownership of the engagement and consultation process in that they will set the dates and agendas for these meetings. Noront will work with Aboriginal communities to ensure effective and meaningful engagement takes place, and ensure that comments and input received from the communities are responded to and included in the EA.
13 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-17 of 36
5.3.2 First Nations Field Guides
During baseline studies, Noront has retained several members of local First Nations to assist with fieldwork activities. The presence of First Nations field guides offers a tangible benefit to the communities through employment and training, and allows Noront the benefit of direct access to their local knowledge so that it can be incorporated in the EA. The field monitors have participated, and will continue to participate, in the following field programs:
• Aquatic and terrestrial biology • Surface and groundwater quality sampling • Hydrometric data collection
5.3.3 Community Engagement
Noront has been working at developing strong relationships with the communities in and around the proposed Project. Noront has visited Marten Falls First Nation and Webequie First Nation on a number of occasions, participated in youth gatherings, supported community initiatives and held Project related meetings. The following is a summary of Noront’s community engagement activities and initiatives, most of which will continue throughout the EA process and Project development and operation. The results of these activities will inform the preparation of the EA, and will form part of the socio-economic baseline data.
Skills Survey
In an effort to understand existing community capacity and to assist communities in the maximization of Project opportunities relating to employment and training, Noront conducted a skills survey initiative with Marten Falls and Webequie First Nations members. Information collected during the skills survey will be used to develop a plan to train those community members who are interested in developing new skills and seeking work in the mining industry.
Noront is working on developing a greater awareness of the mining industry in all of the community members. Noront will continue to work collectively with Marten Falls and Webequie First Nations to develop skills training.
Mining Matters
Noront has worked with the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) Mining Matters organization to bring a session to Marten Falls and Webequie First Nations. Noront personnel accompanied the Mining Matters staff and assisted in the community sessions. The purpose of the sessions was to increase knowledge about the mining industry for youths in the communities. Over 100 youth from both Marten Falls and Webequie participated in the Mining Matters sessions.
14 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-18 of 36
Community Liaison Officers
Noront has a Manager of Community Relations. This person is well known to all the communities, has a very important role to play when communicating the plans and the activities of the company with regards to the Project, and throughout the EA process. He is a direct contact for the company to the local communities, being able to address concerns and answer questions directly from community residents.
Business Development and Support
Working closely with Marten Falls and Webequie, Noront is building business development capacity in the communities. Noront has already contracted local businesses for the delivery of fuel and equipment, the use of a local diamond drill company, and an ice airstrip construction and maintenance partnership during the exploration phase of the Project. Noront has also supported meetings with food wholesale companies and communities with the idea of a partnership to supply food to the exploration camp.
Business opportunities for the communities in the construction and operation of the Project and its supporting infrastructure will form part of the potential benefits to the communities that will be outlined in the EA. It is expected that training and support for such opportunities will be provided by Noront throughout the EA, and during the life of the Project if approved.
5.3.4 Community Meetings
Noront has held several meetings to introduce the Project to First Nations and Aboriginal communities and to keep them apprised of Project development. Noront is committed to meeting formats that contribute and encourage a two-way flow of information and issue resolution. These could include, but would not be limited to:
• Community Meetings and Presentations • Community Open Houses • Meetings with Chief and Council • Meetings with First Nations Staff • Meetings with interested constituent groups within communities such as elders, trappers, hunters, youth, men’s and women’s groups • Technical Workshops • Participation in Tri - Lateral Meetings with Government or government led meetings • Site Visits and Field Assessments
These community meetings will continue throughout the preparation of the EA and the life of the Project if approved. Noront has supported, and will continue to support, the coordination and conduct of such meetings and assist in defraying some of the costs associated with such meetings.
15 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-19 of 36
5.4 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Similar to the Aboriginal Engagement activities listed above, Noront will employ a variety of consultation methods and materials to collect and distribute information from public stakeholders. Planned methods for consultation with the Public include:
• Open Houses • Website Updates • Community Events • One-on-one meetings • Mailings and email updates
Open Houses
Open house events are planned to occur in Pickle Lake, Geraldton, Savant Lake and Thunder Bay. In order to attract a broad audience, advertisements will be placed in local media to inform the public of the open house events. Various materials, such as, display boards, project brochures and draft documents will be utilized during the open houses to present Project information. Stakeholders attending the open house sessions will be encouraged to fill out comment/feedback forms.
Website Updates
A dedicated website has been established by Noront for the Eagle’s Nest Project and can be accessed through Noront’s corporate website. The website content will be reviewed and revised regularly to include current Project information. The website content includes; contact details, upcoming consultation events, and reports.
Community Events
Noront plans on attending community events to display information to public stakeholders. Noront will utilize display boards and project brochures to distribute information about the Project. Feedback forms will be available for ongoing comment collection.
One-on-one Meetings
One-on-one meetings will be held with key stakeholders to listen, understand, and address concerns and issues. A key objective of these meetings is to ensure that stakeholders are fully informed about the Project and have the opportunity to discuss any concerns with Noront advisors and consultants.
Mailings and Email Updates
To ensure that every opportunity is made available to those who might wish to comment on, or seek additional information about, the Project Noront will issue periodic mailings and email messaging to stakeholders and communities to advise them of updates concerning the Project.
16 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-20 of 36
5.5 GOVERNMENT REVIEW
Methods for consultation with government representatives will include ongoing dialogue through emails, letters and phone calls. Regular information exchange through draft report publications, meetings and presentations is also planned. Open communication with government agencies and locally elected representatives to ensure a clear understanding of the Project plans, and to receive input throughout the EA process, will be fostered.
Provincial, federal and municipal agencies and elected representatives will be included on all information mailings and notices, and invited to open house events. Agency representatives will be consulted on Noront’s approach to their respective expertise. For example, consultations are currently underway with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), and with the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), with regards to the baseline studies.
17 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-21 of 36
SECTION 6.0 - KEY MILESTONES FOR CONSULTATION
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The five key consultation milestones in the provincial EA process are:
Commencement of the Terms of Reference: A requirement of the provincial EA process is that a ToR is developed with participation from stakeholders, Aboriginal communities and the government. A ToR outlines the framework for a project, provides an overview of baseline conditions, and describes how the EA will be carried out.
Submission of the Terms of Reference: Once the ToR has been completed, the document will be submitted to the Ministry of Environment for review. The formal submission of the ToR to the MOE initiates a formal 30 day public review period that is administered by the MOE. Noront will continue consultation during this time to gather community support and ensure stakeholders understand how their comments on the Draft ToR were considered and incorporated into the Final ToR.
Commencement of the EA Phase: Official commencement of the EA phase will occur if and when the Minister of the Environment decides that an EA prepared in accordance with the proposed ToR will be consistent with the purpose of the EA Act and the public interest.
Preparation of the EA Report: Key EA process steps where consultation is planned will include:
• Reviewing the results of baseline studies or other investigations • Confirming the range of alternatives and evaluation methodology • Reviewing the results of the evaluation and the selection of a preferred undertaking • Identifying potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures
Submission of the EA Report: Once substantial consultation has taken place and scientific studies have been completed, the EA Report will be submitted to the Ministry of Environment for review. After submission, there is a seven (7) week public comment period, following which a ministry review is prepared and published and is followed by a further five (5) week public comment period.
Each of these milestones requires formal notification and substantial consultation. In addition to regular on-going consultation activities, Noront plans to have a least one major consultation event (i.e., open house) prior to each milestone. The following sections outline Noront’s planned consultation activities with Project stakeholders.
6.2 NOTICES
Each of the five key milestones and MNDM requirements will require formal notification. Notices will be developed by Noront, and placed on the Project website and as an advertisement in local newspapers and radio stations including the Thunder Bay Chronicle, the Wawatay News and the Geraldton-Long Lac Times-Star. Where possible, notices will include an invitation to attend a community event where further information can be obtained and comments can be provided to Noront team members in written or oral form. Open houses will be arranged where possible to offer the opportunity for comment and input to be 18 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-22 of 36
received directly. Contact information, including a street address, email address and toll-free phone number, will be provided to enable stakeholder communication with Noront outside of scheduled events.
6.3 REPORT PUBLICATION
Draft and Final Reports will be available online at: www.norontresources.com, and in hard copy at the following locations:
Ministry of the Environment Environmental Approvals Branch 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12 A Toronto, ON M4V 1L5 1-416-314-8001 / 1-800-461-6290
Ministry of the Environment Thunder Bay Regional Office Suite 331 - 435 James St. S., 3rd Floor Thunder Bay ON P7E 6S7
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines Suite B002 - 435 James St. S. Thunder Bay, ON P7E 6S7 1-807-475-1331
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines Ring of Fire Secretariat, Thunder Bay Office 435 James St. S. 3rd Floor Thunder Bay ON P7E 6S7
Noront Resources Ltd. 105 Adelaide Street West, Suite 1100 Toronto, ON M5H 1P9 1-416-367-1444
Noront Resources Ltd. 886 Alloy Place, Thunder Bay, ON P7B 6E6
19 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-23 of 36
Greenstone Public Library – Geraldton Branch 405 Second Street W. P.O. Box 40 Geraldton, ON POT 2H0
Greenstone Public Library - Nakina Branch 216 North Street, P.O. Box 300 Nakina ON P0T 2H0
Pickle Lake Clerk’s Office 2 Anne Street, P.O. Box 340 Pickle Lake, ON P0V 3A0
The reports will also be available at the First Nation band offices of potentially affected communities. Communities include:
• Webequie First Nation • Marten Falls First Nation • Nibinamik First Nation • Neskantaga First Nation • Eabametoong First Nation • Aroland First Nation • Long Lake #58 First Nation • Ginoogaming First Nation • Constance Lake First Nation • Mishkegogamang First Nation • Savant Lake First Nation • Weenusk First Nation • Attawapiskat First Nation • Métis Nation of Ontario
The notices will indicate that all comments and any questions about the Project should be directed to: [email protected] Noront Resources Ltd. 105 Adelaide Street West, Suite 1100 Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 1P9 1-416-367-1444
6.4 COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE EVENTS
A community open house is planned for each of the key milestones outlined above. Open house events provide community members with a face to face opportunity to comment on draft reports and ask questions of the Project team. Where final reports have been published, the open house will allow attendees to better understand how their comments were considered and incorporated. Information about 20 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-24 of 36
the concurrent federal CEAA process, for example the Environmental Impact Study Guidelines, will be included in open house information materials as appropriate to minimize duplicated consultation efforts. Each open house will have information panels with plain language information, fact sheets for attendees to take home and comment forms to collect feedback.
As mentioned earlier (Section 5.3) Noront will provide forums for comments to be heard beyond standard open house formats and written comments (such as receiving oral comments through a hearing format). The Company will also explore a broader range of options and commit to pursue alternatives that will best meet the needs of communities and stakeholders around methods for explaining or disseminating technical information and providing opportunities for dialogue and input before decisions are made.
6.5 WEB PORTAL
Noront launched the web portal Mikawaa (www.mikawaa.com) in October 2010, an interactive Consultation Portal developed for engagement of First Nation communities. The goal of this portal is to open a respectful, responsible, and knowledgeable dialogue with the communities surrounding the Project. The objective is to understand the communities' concerns, issues, and goals. While learning from the surrounding communities, Noront also wants to share information on our activities and plans. Noront believes that through open dialogue, effective communication and mutual understanding, we will take the first steps to maintaining our relationships in good faith and together reaping the benefits of our work. In August, 2011 the site was expanded to include information on the Eagle’s Nest Project. As Project development continues, the website will be expanded to include aboriginal procurement and a jobs database program.
6.6 ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION TOOLS
Noront is open to ideas and proposals from First Nations and Aboriginal Communities on how information can be shared with the community as a whole. Noront has produced Project updates and a Project brochure, and will continue to do so as the EA process continues. Noront is supportive of getting Project information to all key constituent groups within potentially affected communities.
21 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-25 of 36
SECTION 7.0 - TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE PLAN
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Both the provincial ToR and the federal EIS Guidelines for the Project set out what topics should be covered in the EA/EIS. These include several references to Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK). ATK can contribute to:
• The description of the existing environment • Project siting and design • Identification of issues • Evaluation of potential effects • Effectiveness of mitigation measures • Follow-up monitoring programs
Furthermore, the EA process shall:
• Promote and facilitate the contribution of traditional knowledge to the review process • Describe efforts taken to obtain traditional knowledge where it is not available or not provided in a timely manner • Describe where and how traditional knowledge is incorporated into the assessment, including in effects prediction, and determining mitigation measures
The Traditional Knowledge Plan is anticipated to change as the Project progresses. The following plan outlines the specific ATK information Noront currently plans to collect, the methods that will be used to collect this ATK, and the approach that will be used to incorporate ATK into the EA and ongoing environmental planning for the Project. The ATK Plan is focused on the communities in the regional study areas, and recognizes that ATK information is the property of the community and must be treated accordingly.
7.2 INFORMATION REQUIRED
The collection of ATK is an important component of the provincial EA process. Noront is collecting ATK to complement the other baseline studies being completed for the EA. ATK is required for the socio-economic and cultural resources studies and to complement the hydrology, aquatic and terrestrial biology studies. The following information requirements have been identified in the EIS Guidelines and will be fulfilled through literature reviews and ATK studies:
• Identification of the lands, waters and resources of specific value to Aboriginal people • Identification of asserted and established Aboriginal and treaty rights • Identification of traditional territories • Identification of traditional activities currently carried out by Aboriginal groups • Identification of current and historic usage of all waterways and water bodies affected by the Project • Description of traditional dietary habits and dependence on country foods • Identification of fish species of importance to Aboriginal groups • Description of harvesting of plants for medicinal purposes 22 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-26 of 36
• Identification of spiritual sites • Evaluation of the ability of future generations of Aboriginal people to pursue traditional activities
7.3 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION
The two methods for information collection will be a literature review and group interviews. Additional interviews with historians engaged by First Nations bands may also be included if possible.
A literature review will be conducted to identify existing ATK information that may be available. The review will focus on information about the Ojibway and Oji-Cree people and published ATK reports for planned or existing mining projects within northern Ontario.
A series of group interviews will be conducted to cover various topics, including:
• Trapping and Hunting • Fishing and Water Use • Plant Harvesting • Sacred and Spiritual Sites
The methods and approach will be further refined as the Project progresses and through discussion with the Aboriginal communities involved.
7.4 INCORPORATION OF ATK
Noront recognizes that there may be some sensitivity around the release of ATK information. In some instances, this information may inform the evaluation of alternatives or impact assessment, but not be specifically published (e.g., information regarding calving grounds, sensitive or rare species, etc., may not be released without the specific permission of the Aboriginal communities).
Information received during interviews and literature review will be incorporated into the environmental assessment. A concordance table will be developed which will detail how the information has been incorporated and considered in each component of the environmental assessment. A secondary goal will be to identify Valued Ecosystem Components (VEC) through the collection of ATK.
23 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-27 of 36
SECTION 8.0 - ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING
Noront is maintaining a record of consultation activities for the Project prior to and during the preparation of the EA. The consultation record keeps track of who was consulted, when, where and by what method. The consultation record also includes key issues and concerns that were identified by each stakeholder and Noront’s response. As Noront moves towards completion of the EA process, it will provide a Draft Consultation Report to First Nations and Aboriginal Communities, summarizing key issues, concerns and interests raised and providing an opportunity to give input to the report and revise the issues or results as appropriate. Where broader issues are raised or issues raised in relation to government policy matters, Noront will document those so that government agencies are made aware of such issues and are better positioned to respond to such matters.
Following formal community meetings, Noront will make available to First Nations and Aboriginal communities a summary of each meeting to ensure a shared understanding of issues and concerns.
A preliminary issues list has been developed to help categorize communications with stakeholders and to better understand which topics are most important to stakeholders. The issues list has been organized into the following categories.
• Project Phases • Project Details • Project / EA Management • Water • Biology • Geology • Socio-Economic • Aboriginal Interests
Each stakeholder communication will be added to the database within two weeks of receipt by Noront. The communication will be linked to the appropriate issue from the existing issues list. The issues list will be modified as needed to reflect comments and feedback received throughout the consultation process.
Stakeholders that have voiced a concern over an issue will receive a response from Noront that will contain information to help resolve or clarify the issue. All issues and concerns received will be logged in the record of consultation. Furthermore, Noront will document any comments/concerns that have been brought forward in the EA and note whether they have been addressed if any actions have been taken or if any actions are pending.
24 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-28 of 36
SECTION 9.0 - CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Comments and concerns will be integrated into the EA report and will be used to inform the Project planning on an ongoing basis. The key consultation milestones provide a helpful framework for incorporation of comments by soliciting comments on draft documents before the final document is issued. Where comments cannot be incorporated, an explanation will be provided to the stakeholder, and added in the stakeholder database, for inclusion in the final Consultation Report.
Noront will actively pursue information about Traditional Land Use and Traditional Ecological Knowledge throughout the consultation.
Noront will also work towards the goal of responding to stakeholder comments and concerns within three weeks of receiving them. Comments will be addressed on an individual basis; however they will also be grouped into categories for efficiency and to allow the Noront team to identify trends. Addressing and responding to comments will depend on the nature of the comments and the manner in which they were received. It is anticipated that a variety of responses will be required, including but not limited to correcting typographical errors, providing detailed technical responses, clarifying technical jargon, modifying field programs, running additional modelling scenarios, modifying management plans, expanding stakeholder lists, and holding additional meetings.
A comment-response table will be included in the final Consultation Report. The final comment-response table will reference specific sections in the EA report where the stakeholder comment was addressed, or where the answer to their questions can be found. The comment-response table will group comments by issue category for efficiency; however, comments and questions will be responded to and considered on an individual basis.
9.2 ISSUE RESOLUTION
In some cases, comments may not be addressed to a stakeholder’s satisfaction. An issue may come up where Noront and a group or individual cannot come to agreement on how to resolve a particular concern. In this case, Noront will work with the stakeholder to resolve the issue through a third party if needed, but will first attempt to resolve any issues through other means, such as focus meetings or working groups.
25 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-29 of 36
SECTION 10.0 - ONGOING CONSULTATION PLANNING
The Consultation Plan will continue to be revised as the Project planning process continues. The Project is currently in the early stages of the EA and it is expected that plans will be modified, issues lists will be refined, and stakeholder lists will be further developed. Noront is committed to continual improvement and will take stakeholder comments into consideration throughout the EA process and beyond. Noront believes that stakeholder input will improve the EA process and the Project on the whole and is committed to meeting all consultation regulatory requirements for both the provincial and federal EA processes.
26 of 27 NB102-390/1-9 Rev 1 August 3, 2012
C-30 of 36 C-31 of 36 TABLE 4.1
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT
CONSULTATION PLAN STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT LIST - STAKEHOLDER, ABORIGINAL GROUPS AND GOVERNMENT REVIEW TEAM
Print Aug/02/12 14:19:05 Type Government Review Team Member/Stakeholder Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Fisheries and Oceans Canada Transport Canada Environment Canada Federal Government Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Health Canada Industry Canada (FedNor) Major Projects Management Office (MPMO) Ministry of the Environment Ministry of Natural Resources Ministry of Labour Provincial Government Ministry of Transportation Ministry of Northern Development and Mines Infrastructure Ontario Town of Pickle Lake Town of Ignace Municipality of Greenstone Municipal Government City of Thunder Bay Township of Ignace Unorganized Municipality of Savant Lake Aroland First Nation Attawapiskat First Nation Bearskin Lake First Nation Constance Lake First Nation Fort Albany First Nation Ginoogaming First Nation Kashechewan First Nation Kasibonika First Nation King Fisher Lake First Nation Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug Eabametoong First Nation Independent First Nation Alliance Long Lake #58 First Nation Marten Falls First Nation Matawa Tribal Council Aboriginal Groups Métis Nation of Ontario Mishkeegogamang First Nation Mushkegowuk Tribal Council Muskrat Dam First Nation Nibinamik First Nation North Caribou Lake First Nation Objibway Nation of Saugeen Sachigo Lake First Nation Shibogama First Nation Council Thunder Bay Metis Council Wapekeka First Nation Wawakapewin First Nation Weenusk First Nation Neskantaga First Nation Windigo First Nation Webequie First Nation Wildlands League (a chapter of CPAWS) Mining Watch Non-Governmental Organization Ecojustice Wildlife Conservation Society I:\1\02\00390\01\A\Report\Report 9, Rev 1 - ToR Consultation Plan\Tables\[Table 4.1.xlsx]Table 4.1
1 03AUG'12 INCORPORATION OF REVIEWER COMMENTS JSP ALR SRA 0 26MAR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NB102-390/1-9 JSP ALR SRA REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
Page 1 of 1
C-32 of 36 TABLE 5.1
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT
CONSULTATION PLAN CONSULTATION PHASES, ACTIVITIES AND MATERIALS
Print Aug/02/12 14:14:00
Consultation Phase Communication Methods Consultation Materials and Tools
Stakeholder Briefings One-on-one Meetings Project Description E-mail and Letters Project Brochures Phase 1 - Phone Calls Project Presentations Pre-Consultation Meetings with Chief and Council Community Meetings and Presentations
Stakeholder Briefings Community Meetings and Presentations Draft TOR E-mail and Letters Press Advertising Phone Calls Website Updates Phase 2 - Consultation on Community Open Houses Feedback Forms and during the preparation Meetings with Chief and Council Display Boards of the TOR and EA Technical Workshops Project Brochures Participation in Tri - Lateral Meetings with Government or government led meetings Site Visits and Field Assessments
Stakeholder Briefings Stakeholder Information Sessions Open Houses Press Advertising One-on-one meetings Phase 3 - Consultation Website Updates Meetings with Chief and Council and review of the findings Feedback Forms Participation in Tri - Lateral Meetings with presented in the EA Display Boards Government or government led meetings Project Brochures Project Website Phone Calls E-mail and Letters
Stakeholder Briefings Press Advertising Phase 4 - Post Project Website Website Updates Approval/Ongoing E-mail and Letters Project Brochures Engagement Phone Calls
I:\1\02\00390\01\A\Report\Report 9, Rev 1 - ToR Consultation Plan\Tables\[Table 5.1.xlsx]Table 5.1
0 26MAR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NB102-390/1-9 JSP ALR SRA REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
Page 1 of 1
C-33 of 36 450,000 600,000 750,000 900,000 0 150,000 300,000 LEGEND: ROAD 6,300,000 WINTER/SERVICE/RECREATION ROAD RAILWAY > "N PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD ò PROPOSED WINTER ROAD 20 KM BUFFER
ABORIGINAL REGIONAL STUDY AREA (TREATY 9)
FIRST NATIONS RESERVE
PROVINCIAL PARK Fort Severn WATER
ABORIGINAL REGIONAL STUDY AREA
6,150,000
Peawanuk
6,000,000 Treaty 9 Adhesions 1929-1930
Kasabonika
Kingfisher Lake Attawapiskat Webequie Wunnumin Lake 5,850,000 WEBEQUIE JUNCTION EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT Nibinamik ![ ![
Kashechewan Fort Albany NOTES: Neskantaga 1. BASE MAP: © HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHTS OF CANADA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO (LIO), (2009). ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
2. COORDINATE GRID IS IN METRES. COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 16N.
3. HISTORICAL INDIAN TREATIES OBTAINED FROM NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA, THE ATLAS OF CANADA (2011).
Marten Falls / Ogoki Post Fort Hope / Eabametoong Pickle Lake 5,700,000 Mishkeegogamang Red Lake 2512.5 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 km SCALE
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. Treaty 9 Treaty 3 (1873) EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT
ABORIGINAL REGIONAL STUDY AREA
Savant Lake P/A NO. REF NO. ![ NB102-390/1 9 0 26MAR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORTSioux Lookout ALRASM JSP SRA SAVANT LAKE CONCENTRATE TRANSFER FACILITY Nakina REV REV DATE DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHK'D APP'D SAVED: I:\1\02\00390\01\A\GIS\Figs\B191_r0.mxd; Mar 26, 2012 4:02 PM; skozmick FIGURE 4.1 0 C-34 of 36 450,000 600,000 750,000 900,000 0 150,000 300,000 LEGEND: ROAD 6,300,000 WINTER/SERVICE/RECREATION ROAD RAILWAY > "N PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD ò PROPOSED WINTER ROAD 20 KM BUFFER
ABORIGINAL LOCAL STUDY AREA
FIRST NATIONS RESERVE
PROVINCIAL PARK Fort Severn WATER
6,150,000
Peawanuk
6,000,000
Kasabonika
ABORIGINAL LOCAL STUDY AREA Kingfisher Lake Attawapiskat Wunnumin Lake Webequie
5,850,000 WEBEQUIE JUNCTION EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT Nibinamik ![ ![
Kashechewan Fort Albany Neskantaga NOTES:
1. BASE MAP: © HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHTS OF CANADA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO (LIO), (2009). ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
2. COORDINATE GRID IS IN METRES. COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 16N.
Marten Falls / Ogoki Post Pickle Lake Fort Hope / Eabametoong 5,700,000
Red Lake Mishkeegogamang 2512.5 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 km SCALE
NORONT RESOURCES LTD. EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT
ABORIGINAL LOCAL STUDY AREA
SAVANT LAKE CONCENTRATE TRANSFER FACILITY Savant Lake P/A NO. REF NO. ![ Aroland NB102-390/1 9 SRA 0 26MAR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORTSioux ALR LookoutASM JSP Nakina REV REV DATE DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHK'D APP'D SAVED: I:\1\02\00390\01\A\GIS\Figs\B192_r0.mxd; Mar 27, 2012 12:56 PM; skozmick FIGURE 4.2 0 C-35 of 36 450,000 600,000 750,000 900,000 0 150,000 300,000 LEGEND: ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMPLEXES (1630) 6,300,000 # ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMPLEXES - CIRCA 1630
MAJOR LINGUISTIC FAMILIES > !( " ALGONQUIAN (1630) N !( ò ALGONQUIAN (1740) !( ALGONQUIAN 1823)
!( ATHAPAS(1823)
!( METIS (1823)
!( SIOUAN (1823) Fort Severn ROAD
WINTER/SERVICE/RECREATION ROAD RAILWAY
ABORIGINAL PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD REGIONAL STUDY AREA PROPOSED WINTER ROAD
6,150,000 20 KM BUFFER
ABORIGINAL REGIONAL STUDY AREA (TREATY 9)
FIRST NATIONS RESERVE # PROVINCIAL PARK WATER Peawanuk # # #
6,000,000 Treaty 9 Adhesions 1929-1930
Kasabonika
#
Kingfisher Lake Attawapiskat Webequie Wunnumin Lake 5,850,000 WEBEQUIE JUNCTION EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT Nibinamik ![ ![
NOTES: Kashechewan 1. BASE MAP: © HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHTS OF CANADA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO (LIO), (2009). ALL RIGHTS # Fort Albany RESERVED. # Neskantaga # 2. COORDINATE GRID IS IN METRES. COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 16N.
# 3. HISTORICAL INDIAN TREATIES OBTAINED FROM NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA, # THE ATLAS OF CANADA (2011).
# 4. HISTORICAL SETTLEMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMPLEXES OBTAINED FROM NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA, THE ATLAS OF CANADA (2011).
# Marten Falls / Ogoki Post # # # Fort Hope / Eabametoong Pickle Lake 5,700,000 # # # Mishkeegogamang # # Red Lake # # # 2512.5 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 km # SCALE NORONT RESOURCES LTD. # Treaty 9 Treaty 3 (1873) EAGLE'S NEST PROJECT
HISTORICAL SETTLEMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMPLEXES Savant Lake P/A NO. REF NO. ![ # NB102-390/1 9 0 26MAR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORTSioux Lookout ALRASM JSP SRA SAVANT LAKE# CONCENTRATE TRANSFER FACILITY Nakina REV REV DATE DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHK'D APP'D SAVED: I:\1\02\00390\01\A\GIS\Figs\B193_r0.mxd; Mar 26, 2012 4:11 PM; skozmick PM; 4:11 2012 26, Mar I:\1\02\00390\01\A\GIS\Figs\B193_r0.mxd; SAVED: # # FIGURE 4.3 0 C-36 of 36