Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Nunavut Impact Review Board NLCA 12.8.2 Reconsideration of Condition 32 of the Meadowbank Gold Mine Project Certificate Public Hearing Introductory Presentation.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Nunavut Impact Review Board NLCA 12.8.2 Reconsideration of Condition 32 of the Meadowbank Gold Mine Project Certificate Public Hearing Introductory Presentation."— Presentation transcript:

1 Nunavut Impact Review Board NLCA Reconsideration of Condition 32 of the Meadowbank Gold Mine Project Certificate Public Hearing Introductory Presentation Baker Lake, April 27, 2009

2 The NIRB’s Mission Statement “To protect and promote the well-being of the Environment and Nunavummiut through the Impact Assessment Process” 2 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

3 The NIRB’s NLCA Review of the Meadowbank Project and AWPAR  The Meadowbank Project proposal was received by the NIRB in March 2003 & screened  NIRB recommended a Public Review (as per s (b) NLCA)  In December 2003, then-Minister of INAC (Robert Nault) concurred with NIRB’s recommendation, and referred the project to a Part 5 NLCA Review  During 2005 and 2006, the NIRB held a Pre-Hearing Conference (PHC) and Final Hearing on the Meadowbank Project  The NIRB issued PHC Decision in July 2005 and Final Hearing Report in August 2006  December 2006 the NIRB issued the Meadowbank Project Certificate (No. 004) with project-specific terms and conditions, allowing the Meadowbank Project to proceed  In 2007, Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd purchased the Meadowbank Gold Mine Project from Cumberland Resources Ltd 3 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

4 History of the All Weather Access Road (AWAR)  The AWAR was an additional component submitted by the Proponent to INAC in May of 2005 (not included as part of original Project Description)  The NIRB’s Pre-Hearing Conference was held in June of 2006  NIRB issued its Pre-Hearing Conference Decision concerning the Meadowbank Gold Project on July 14, 2005 which recommended that the NIRB’s Part 5 Review of the Meadowbank Project include the additional AWAR component  NIRB applied to then-Minister of INAC Andy Scott requesting that the AWAR be considered as part of the NIRB Part 5 Review of the Meadowbank Project in progress at that time (July 28, 2005) 4 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

5 History of the AWAR: NIRB’s Pre-Hearing Conference Decision (July 14, 2005)  Socio-economic impacts a major concern to the Board as they related to the AWAR  NIRB requested that the Proponent:  Provide more information to address public safety, including the Proponent’s plans for traffic control, and cooperation with the Hamlet of Baker Lake to plan for and resolve concerns  Explore regulatory aspects of the AWAR including consultation with Hamlet of Baker Lake, federal and territorial government to determine whether any may have a role in regulation of the road  Discuss long term options for the AWAR including the option to keep road open after mine closure and a description of possible maintenance plans, should the road remain open post closure 5 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

6 History of the AWAR – Minister’s Response  Then-Minister of INAC Andy Scott responded to the NIRB on September 7, 2005, stating: “...the change in scope of the project was made following my decision to refer the Project for a review under Part 5, Article 12 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement...the Board scoped the Project broadly enough to account for the possibility of an all-weather road and drafted the Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines accordingly. As a result, I am satisfied that including the all-weather road as part of the current Part 5 review will result in a thorough and comprehensive assessment of the entire Project.” 6 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

7 Cumberland’s FEIS submission(s)  November 2005 NIRB requested further information regarding potential future use and regulatory regime for all-weather access road  December 2005 Cumberland contacted all parties as directed (GN, INAC, KIA, Hamlet of Baker Lake) to inquire about potential interest/role in regulation and maintenance of the road  Responses from INAC and GN stating no interest in future use (INAC) or operation (GN) of road, and no jurisdiction for regulatory authority (INAC)  Response from Hamlet of Baker Lake indicating future of the road should be determined closer to the closing of the mine, too early to provide details on Hamlet’s possible involvement  Cumberland unable to provide information about the environmental effects of potential future road use or maintenance plans of other parties  Future options for the road a third party issue 7 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

8 Final Hearing and the AWAR (March 2006)  Cumberland stated: “The road will be built by Cumberland and managed by Cumberland, and the road will be defined, in our opinion, as a private road.” (Craig Goodings - FH Transcript, 28-Mar-06, 00255: 12-15) “...if someone else wants to operate [the road], it’s very conditional that that group then has to take on the responsibility of managing how that road is operated.” (Jeff Green - FH Transcript, 28-Mar-06, 00368: 20-23) “...in our own plans we are leaving the issue of the road closure open for discussion into about year five of the operations when people sort of get used to the idea, and maybe others come forward and become a proponent.” (Craig Goodings – FH Transcript, 28-Mar-06, 00338: 20-25) 8 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

9 Final Hearing and the AWAR (March 2006)  GN comments “...as a private road, we don’t see the Government of Nunavut having a role in it...within the next three to five years, the interested parties should sit down and discuss the future of the road with the information that they will have through the socioeconomic monitoring of its impact in that period.” (Ed McKenna, GN – PHC Transcripts 29-Mar-06, 00563: 14 – 00564: 5)  March 31, 2006 NIRB’s A/Chairperson (Elizabeth Copeland) requested that Cumberland provide more information prior to NIRB’s submitting a decision to the Minister 9 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

10 NIRB Letter to Cumberland – April 24, 2006  The Board requested further information regarding the road, prior to reaching a final decision  Study of effects to address impacts on community of Baker Lake including potential uses of the road by residents (accidents, impacts of increased usage to sensitive species)  Further information regarding possible future options for AWAR  Impacts of increased public road usage to hunting, and fishing 10 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

11 Cumberland Response to April 24, 2006 Letter  Cumberland committed to installing locked gates at bridges 1 and 4 along the road “Given the concern for impacts from public use, Cumberland will close the road to public use. “In light of Cumberland’s commitment to gate the road, NIRB can be confident that unauthorized uses will be prevented.” 11 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

12 The NIRB’s Decision  The Board noted that Cumberland had adequately assessed impacts of a private all-weather access road to the mine site, and relied upon Cumberland’s proposed steps to operate the road as such:  Monitor unauthorized non-project use of the road  Mitigate impacts of road  Fully decommission road, subject to a full environmental assessment of any post-project use of the road 12 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

13 The NIRB’s Decision  In making its determination on the matter of the road, the Board relied upon INAC’s commitment to reflect the limitations on the non-project use of the road in the land tenure instruments for the road: “During the operational phase of the road, INAC will tenure the private mine access road under the appropriate legislation (Federal Real Property and Immovables Act and/or Territorial Lands Act) with appropriate terms and conditions. INAC’s view is that non-project uses will be reflected within the land tenure instruments.” (INAC. July Indian and Northern Affairs Written Submission in Response to Cumberland Resources Ltd.’s Response to the NIRB’s April 24 th, 2006 Letter Regarding the Meadowbank Part 5 Review) 13 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

14 The NIRB’s Decision  The Board required Cumberland to:  Take steps to communicate the private nature of the road to residents of Baker Lake  Take measures including gates at two major bridge crossings, to prevent public use of the road  Monitor unauthorized non-project use of the road to evaluate the success of these measures and mitigate any unforeseen impacts 14 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

15 The NIRB’s Decision  The potential ecosystemic and socio-economic impacts, particularly with regard to public safety, of a public use road had not been adequately addressed through the Part 5 Review  Therefore the AWAR would be considered a private- use road (All-Weather Private Access Road, or AWPAR) 15 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

16 Minister’s Determination On November 7, 2006 then-Minister of INAC Jim Prentice acknowledged and accepted the NIRB’s Final Hearing Report and decision on the Meadowbank Project as submitted to his office August 30, Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

17 NIRB Project Certificate for the Meadowbank Gold Mine Project (No. 004)  Issued December 30, 2006  86 Terms and Conditions  Plus 113 Commitments  Conditions inclusive, deal with AWPAR  Other Terms and Conditions and Commitments are implicated by aspects of the AWPAR 17 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

18 Condition 32 “Cumberland shall operate the all-weather road as a private access road; and implement measures to limit public access to the road, including: a.The installation of locked gates at bridges 1 and 4; b.The posting of signs in English and Inuktitut at each gate, each major bridge crossing, and each 10 kilometres of road, stating that public use of the road is prohibited; c. The posting of signs in English and Inuktitut along the road route to identify when entering or leaving crown land; d.Prior to the opening of the road, advertise and hold at least one community meeting in the Hamlet of Baker Lake to explain to the community that the road is restricted to mine use only; e.Require all mine personnel using the road to monitor and report unauthorized non- mine use of the road, and collect and report this data to NIRB one (1) year after the road is opened and annually thereafter; and f.Report any information received, including accidents or other safety incidents on the road, including the locked gates, to the GN, KivIA, and the Hamlet immediately, and to NIRB annually. 18 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

19 AWPAR – August 2007 Looking South along the AWPAR, toward Baker Lake. Photo taken August Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

20 NLCA Section NIRB may on its own account or upon application by a DIO, the proponent, or other interests, reconsider the terms and conditions contained in the NIRB certificate if it is established that: (a)the terms and conditions are not achieving their purpose; (b)the circumstances relating to the project or the effect of the terms and conditions are significantly different from those anticipated at the time the certificate was issued; or (c)there are technological developments or new information which provide a more efficient method of accomplishing the purpose of the terms and conditions. 20 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

21 Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd Request  July 29, 2008 – Request modification to Condition 32 (item a): the installation of locked gates at bridges 1 and 4  Gate and manned gatehouse at Km 5 of the AWPAR currently installed and in use  Past the last private cabin along the road route from Baker Lake to Meadowbank  Gatehouse employee acts as a dispatch centre, keeping track of all vehicles on the road, required to stop and report in at gate prior to entering/exiting road  Equipped with radio and telephone to monitor all traffic on road and enable contact with mine security or emergency services 21 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

22 Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd Request Looking North towards the gatehouse and road to Meadowbank site. Photo taken July Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

23 Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd Request  Unmanned locked gate impractical method to control access – likely that gates would remain open  Increased risk of collision with moving vehicles and those stopped to un/lock the gates  Drivers would perceive gates as an inefficient system – leading to a constant battle between AEM and employees/contractors  Two-gate system does nothing to ensure safety along the AWPAR 23 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

24 Hamlet of Baker Lake Request  September 25, 2008 – Request to relocate road restrictions along the Meadowbank AWPAR  Locked gates too restrictive for hunters wishing access to traditional hunting grounds at Quarry 20  Request that the gate be moved to Exploration Camp  Open the road to hunters for use at own risk 24 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

25 12.8.2, Condition 32, and Impact Assessment  August 20 and October 1, 2008 – NIRB requested comments from Parties regarding the potential reconsideration of Condition 32  INAC: Change may cause environmental and socio-economic impacts and thus may raise public concern Recommendation: Consider an effects assessment of AEM’s proposed change  DFO: Changes to current mitigation measures could potentially increase adverse environmental effects on fisheries resources along the all-weather road Recommendation: NIRB take into account the increased potential for adverse environmental effects on fisheries resources 25 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

26 12.8.2, Condition 32, and Impact Assessment Comments Continued...  KivIA: After advising Cumberland during the route selection process, Baker Lake hunters are now restricted from freely using the AWPAR for their hunting purposes Recommendation: Support the Hamlet of Baker Lake’s request for amendment to Condition 32 of the Meadowbank Project Certificate (to relocate access restrictions)  GN: No comments received 26 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

27 12.8.2, Condition 32, and Impact Assessment  October 27, 2008 – NIRB sent correspondence to the Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of INAC recommending a Public Hearing to properly facilitate a reconsideration of Condition 32  November 26, 2008 – NPC correspondence indicated that the proposed change in access restriction did not warrant a re-evaluation of conformity to the Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan 27 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

28 12.8.2, Condition 32, and Impact Assessment January 26, 2009 – NIRB received correspondence from the Honourable Chuck Strahl regarding the Reconsideration of Condition 32 “...term and condition 32 was developed following an extensive Part 5 review of the Meadowbank Gold Project, which focused on the assessment of impacts resulting from the operation of a private access road. As such, a decision to amend a term and condition that would allow for increased public access to the road should not be made until a thorough assessment of the environmental and socio-economic effects resulting from increased road usage has been completed...I support the Board’s view that a public hearing in the Hamlet of Baker Lake is required to facilitate a thorough assessment of the proposed amendments to term and condition 32.” 28 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

29 12.8.2, Condition 32, and Impact Assessment  January 27, 2009 – NIRB announced a Public Hearing to be held April 28-30, 2009, and requested public comments regarding:  Socio-economic impacts which require further assessment as result of the reconsideration ;  Environmental impacts which require further assessment as a result of the reconsideration;  Whether the reconsideration of Condition 32 is likely to cause significant public concern; and  Any other matter deemed necessary 29 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

30 March 30, 2009 Comments  Comments were received on or before March 30, 2009 from the following Parties:  AEM: Potential solution: While maintaining the status of a private road, in conjunction with Hamlet of Baker Lake request, AEM would maintain the gatehouse in place of locked gates, maintain operation of a private AWAR, excepting residents of Baker Lake having obtained passes from the Baker Lake HTO for road use in support of traditional pursuits (ATV’s only). AEM operates as private access road. AEM operate manned gatehouse at Km 5. Road closed to cars and trucks owned by public. Residents wishing to access road for traditional pursuits to obtain pass from HTO (ATVs only). ATVs using road required to report to gatehouse and present pass / receive briefing. 30 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

31 March 30, 2009 Comments AEM Comments continued… AEM with Hamlet and HTO to develop safety rules and procedures. AEM make buggy whips available for borrow to ATVs using road. AEM to establish a second barrier at the mine site end of road to restrict traffic passage into active mine zone. AEM to establish a no shooting zone along road route. AEM reserves right to refuse future access to road by individuals who do not respect rules on safety, speed, and no shooting zone. 31 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

32 March 30, 2009 Comments  INAC: Request further information on proposal to permit adequate discussion of potential environmental and socio- economic impacts of any proposed change Request that NIRB consider postponing Public Hearing scheduled to occur in April.  EC: No comments or concerns with respect to proposed change in Condition 32  DFO: The relocation of access restrictions along the AWPAR has the potential to increase pressure on local fisheries resources and result in an over harvesting of fish The reconsideration of Condition 32 may have implications on other Conditions of the Project Certificate (31, 35) as well as decommissioning and restoration plans. Alterations to the AWPAR to accommodate public access may require DFO review and approval in accordance with the Fisheries Act. 32 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

33 March 30, 2009 Comments  KIA: Supports the Hamlet of Baker Lake’s request to utilize the AWPAR for traditional purposes Suggested a limited open access system be established to both control and monitor road travel for safety purposes and to allow access for traditional activities. Risks associated with public access, maintenance, and decommission remain solely with AEM. KIA not willing to assume responsibility for public road.  GN: No comments received 33 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

34 Section NLCA Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, The Inuit Owned Lands described in an item of Schedule are subject to the easement described in that item except that the more precise location of the easement and the terms and conditions of its exercise may be determined by: (a)agreement between Government and the DIO; or (b)an arbitration panel, pursuant to Article 38, at the request of Government or the DIO.

35 Schedule (NLCA)  Additional correspondence sent March 20, 2009 to Parties regarding Public Easement on IOL BL- 14/56D,E,66A,H  No substantive comments received from Parties on or before March 30, 2009 DFO: Future ownership regime may change plans for decommissioning and restoration, subject to review and subsequent approval per the Fisheries Act KIA: Not clear whether existing AWPAR has been built in same location as route described in the NLCA. 35 Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

36 April 6, 2009 – Amended Hamlet Request Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27,  Hamlet of Baker Lake requests an amendment to original September 12, 2008 submission AEM continue to operate private access road to Meadowbank AEM continue to operate manned gatehouse at Km 5 Road closed to cars and trucks owned by public Residents of Baker Lake wishing to access road for traditional pursuits to obtain pass from HTO (ATVs only) All ATVs using road required to report to gatehouse – present a pass to employee at gatehouse – proceed onto road

37 April 6, 2009 – Amended Hamlet Request Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, Continued… AEM to develop safety rules and procedures for all ATVs using road, also to jointly educate residents on safety procedures AEM borrow buggy whips for temporary installation on any ATV using the road – returned to gatehouse or AEM office AEM to establish second barrier at mine site end of road to prevent vehicles traveling into active mine zone No shooting zone to be established along road Future access to road by individuals who consistently do not respect rules on safety, speed, and no shooting zone would be refused by AEM when warranted

38 The NIRB’s Procedure  January 27, 2009 NIRB issued correspondence to Parties providing notification that a Public Hearing would be held on the matter of the reconsideration of Condition 32 of the Meadowbank Project Certificate  Baker Lake, April 28-30, 2009  Public Information Session held in Baker Lake March 12, 2009  Written submission deadline March 30, 2009  Regulator’s Information Session April 3, 2009  Pre-Hearing Meetings in Baker Lake April 25 & 26, 2009  Public Hearing in Baker Lake April 28-30, Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing - April 27, 2009

39


Download ppt "Nunavut Impact Review Board NLCA 12.8.2 Reconsideration of Condition 32 of the Meadowbank Gold Mine Project Certificate Public Hearing Introductory Presentation."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google