2006 Cumulative Effects Assessment

2006 CEA Definition  Potential for residual project-specific effects associated with Meadowbank project in combination with residual effects of other projects and activities to affect valued components of the biophysical environment and the human environment

2006 CEA Scope Cumulative effects were only assessed if: 1.Residual project-specific effect on a Valued Environmental Component (VEC) or Valued Socioeconomic Component (VESC) will have a measurable effect or may occur 2.Residual project-specific effect on that component does, or is likely to, act in a cumulative fashion with the effects of other past, present or reasonably-foreseeable future projects and activities

2006 VECs and VSECs Assessed  Air Quality  Water Quality  Aquatic Ecosystems  Wildlife  caribou  grizzly bear  wolverine  beluga whale  Socio-economic Aspects

2006 VECs Not Assessed  Noise  Hydrogeology  Hydrology  Terrain and soils  Vegetation  Small mammals and avifauna Rationale:  considered to have negligible project effects  no overlap in zones of influence Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2002 and Courtesy of Natural Resources Canada, Geological Survey of Canada, photo # C.

2006 Study Area Boundaries Regional Study Area  Specific for each VEC & VSC Actions List  73 different projects and land use activities were identified  Included active and inactive mines, mine exploration, municipal areas, tourism venues, recreational activities and traditional use  Most point sources

2006 Cumulative Effects on Biophysical Components Could occur as a result of: Overlaps between the zones of influence for residual project-specific effects for the Meadowbank Project and the zones of influence for other projects or activities in the region; and/or Linking of non-overlapping zones of influence as the result of the movement of valued ecosystem components through the region (e.g., water, fish, caribou, grizzly bear, wolverine, marine mammals).

2006 Air Quality Issues  Emissions from the mine facility  Fugitive dust emissions  Greenhouse gases Conclusions  Given zone of influence of issues, cumulative effects on air quality and greenhouse gases are not significant

2006 Water Quality Issues  Re-flooding of the Goose Island Pit and effects on water quality in Third Portage Lake  Effects of vehicular traffic on the all-weather road on water quality  9 actions could overlap with project effects Conclusions  Heavy metals from mine operations – no overlap  Road runoff effects localized  No significant cumulative effects

2006 Aquatic Ecosystems Issues  Changes in habitat availability  Activities associated with construction and the use of the all- weather road  9 actions overlap with project effects Conclusions  No significant cumulative effects on Fish or Fish Habitat due to limited movements of fish within the drainage sub-basin  A monitoring program with emphasis on water quality will be undertaken

2006 Barren-ground Caribou Issues  Temporary loss of habitat  Alteration to movement patterns and energetics  Mortality risk  72 actions overlap with project effects (31 industrial, 25 tourism) Conclusions  Alternations to movement patterns and associated changes in energetics was of greatest concern  Given mitigation, cumulative effect and contribution by Project considered to be not significant  Regional monitoring recommended

2006 Grizzly Bear & Wolverine Issues  Changes in habitat availability  Habitat alienation and alterations to movements  Mortality risk  10 actions overlap with project effects (4 industry, 3 recreation) Conclusions  Mortality risks to grizzly bear and wolverine were considered significant as mortality of one or several animals could affect regional population  Cumberland will implement monitoring programs, with a focus on mortality risks  Regional monitoring program on mortality and potential population effects

2006 Marine Mammals Issues  Collisions with barges  Alteration of movement patterns and distributions due to disturbances by barges and ships  Increased potential for exposure to contaminants as a result of spills  Changes in abundances Conclusions  Given mitigation and monitoring, cumulative effects will be not significant

2006 Socio-economic Effects  Degree of effects depends on interactions among:  Meadowbank Project and other existing or foreseeable projects and activities in the region  Suite of mitigation measures that will be implemented by Cumberland Resources, as well as measures that have been or will be implemented by other projects and the territorial and Federal governments  Decisions made by individuals and communities with regard to the Meadowbank Project, as well as events and situations that are unrelated to the project.

2006 Socio-economic Effects  Net positive effects  employment &training  business opportunities  infrastructure  social services  Effects on traditional use and wellness will depends on:  how individuals communities respond to various projects and activities  types of choices that are made  If negative cumulative effects – predict low magnitude  Heritage sites -- unavoidable loss of some sites and artifacts

2006 Overall Conclusions  Most potential cumulative effects are not significant; can be managed at project level  Possible concern of cumulative effects on grizzly bear and wolverine mortality, depending on success of mitigation program