Canadian Environmental Agence canadienne Assessment Agency d’évaluation environnementale KSM (Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell) Project Comprehensive Study Report July 2014 Cover photo credited to Seabridge Gold Inc. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (2014). This publication may be reproduced for personal use without permission, provided the source is fully acknowledged. However, multiple copy reproduction of this publication in whole or in part for purposes of distribution requires the prior written permission of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. To request permission, contact [email protected]. Catalogue No.: En106-130/2014E-PDF ISBN: 978-1-100-24606-2 This document has been issued in French under the title: Projet KSM (Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell) : rapport d'étude approfondie Alternative formats may be requested by contacting [email protected] Executive Summary Seabridge Gold Inc., (the proponent) proposes to the environmental effects on the Nisga’a Nation develop a gold, copper, silver, and molybdenum and the effects of the project on the existing and mine (the Project), spanning the Unuk and Bell- future economic, social, and cultural well-being Irving watersheds approximately 65 km northwest of Nisga’a citizens, as set out in the Nisga’a Final of Stewart, British Columbia (BC). The Project Agreement (NFA), were assessed as part of the is expected to have an average ore extraction rate Environmental Assessment (EA). of approximately 130 000 tonnes per day over an anticipated 52-year mine life. Ore would be mined The potential environmental effects of greatest by a combination of open pit and underground concern identified during the environmental mining methods from four mineral deposits: the assessment include: Mitchell, Sulphurets, Kerr, and Iron Cap deposits. • Potential water quality degradation (through increased concentrations of selenium) in the Unuk The Proponent may require authorizations from watershed; Fisheries and Oceans Canada under the Fisheries • Potential changes to ground and surface water Act, Environment Canada under the International quantity in the Unuk and Bell-Irving watersheds; Rivers Improvement Act and the Metal Mine Effluent • Potential reductions in Dolly Varden habitat Regulations, and Natural Resources Canada under within the Teigen Creek and Treaty Creek the Explosives Act. watersheds; The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency • Potential effects on wildlife habitat including (the Agency) prepared this Comprehensive Study moose, grizzly bears, mountain goats, wetland Report (CSR) in consultation with Fisheries and birds and western toads; Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, Natural • Potential mortality of moose from vehicle related Resources Canada, Transport Canada, and Health collisions primarily on Highway 37/37A; Canada following a technical review of the • Potential effects on human health from changes in proponent’s Environmental Impact Statement and the quality of water and country foods; • Potential loss of extent and function of wetlands an evaluation of the environmental effects of within the Teigen Creek and Treaty Creek the Project. watersheds; and The proponent, working with federal, provincial, • Potential effects on current use of lands and and Nisga’a Lisims governments and impacted resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal Aboriginal groups, identified valued components persons including hunting and fishing. (VCs), which are notable features of the natural, human or social environment, that are likely to Residents of the United States, including tribal be affected by the Project. The Environmental groups, raised concerns over the Project’s Impact Statement (EIS) contains the proponent’s potential transboundary impacts on fish, assessment of the Project’s effects on these VCs, recreational and commercial fisheries, and human including ground and surface water quality and health from degraded water quality and changes in quantity, fish and fish habitat, wildlife, wetlands, water quantity in the Unuk River. The Agency is and human health. satisfied that identified mitigation measures for the Project would address potential impacts in Alaska The Agency evaluated the Project’s potential to on fish; recreational and commercial fisheries and cause significant adverse environmental effects human health from changes to water quality and based on a review of the proposed project and its quantity in the Unuk River. predicted effects on the VCs. In addition, Comprehensive Study Report: KSM (Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell) Project III The following potential effects on the economic, • The implementation of several management plans social and cultural well-being of Nisga’a citizens including the metal-leaching/acid rock drainage were also identified: management plan, water management plan, selenium management plan, wildlife management • Potential changes in employment and business plan, fish and aquatic habitat management plan, opportunities for Nisga’a citizens; noise management plan, vegetation clearing • Potential changes in demand for services, due management plan, and access management plan. to increased in-migration to Nisga’a villages, primarily in the areas of housing, education and The Agency concludes that the project is not recreation services; likely to cause significant adverse environmental • Potential changes in expenditures by the Nisga’a effects, taking into account the implementation Lisims Government in response to changes in of mitigation measures described in this demand for services; comprehensive study report. • Potential changes to social well-being in response to changes in income; and With respect to potential effects on residents of • Potential changes in time spent speaking the Nisga’a lands, or Nisga’a interests, the Agency Nisga’a language, participating in cultural identified potential adverse, but not significant practices and activities (e.g. subsistence environmental effects on Nisga’a Nation treaty harvesting, traditional ceremonies) in response to interests in relation to fisheries, wildlife and changes in employment status. migratory birds. The Agency concludes that the Project is likely to result in overall positive effects Measures to reduce, eliminate or compensate for on social and cultural well-being and a net overall the Project’s potential adverse environmental increase in economic well-being of Nisga’a effects were identified and included: citizens taking into consideration the proponent’s plans to minimize potential adverse effects on • The storage and treatment of contact water prior to discharge into the Unuk watershed; economic, social and cultural well-being. • The treatment and containment of mine tailings Following public consultation on this report, the using a geo-membrane lined tailings management Minister of the Environment will decide whether, facility; taking into account the implementation of • The use of grout curtains and collection ponds to mitigation measures, the Project is likely to cause reduce seepage of degraded groundwater; significant adverse environmental effects. At the • The development of fish habitat compensation same time, the Minister will issue an NFA Project plans for lost fish habitat; Recommendation in accordance with Chapter • The capture and relocation of Dolly Varden from 10 of the NFA. The Project will then be referred the proposed tailings management area; back to the Responsible Authorities for the • The implementation of traffic management appropriate course of action in accordance with measures such as reducing speeds, and GPS section 37 of the former Act and the NFA tracking to reduce incidents of Project Recommendation. wildlife collisions; • The installation of gates and other access measures at key access points to the project area to reduce increased access to hunting and fishing at pre-project levels; and IV Comprehensive Study Report: KSM (Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell) Project Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................III List of Tables ....................................................................................................................VII List of Figures .................................................................................................................VIII List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................VIII 1. Introduction .........................................................................................1 1.1 Environmental Assessment Process .........................................................................3 2. Project Description – Scope of Project ..................................................5 2.1 Project Components ....................................................................................................5 2.2 Project Activities and Schedule .................................................................................7 3. Scope of Environmental Assessment ....................................................9 3.1 Factors to Be Considered ...........................................................................................9 3.2 Scope of the Factors and Associated Spatial and Temporal Boundaries .............. 9 3.3 Purpose of and Need for the Project ....................................................................... 11 4. Project Alternatives ...........................................................................12