00469 NUNAVUT IMPACT REVIEW BOARD PREHEARING CONFERENCE FOR THE MEADOWBANK GOLD PROJECT JUNE 9, 2005 VOLUME 4 LOCATION: RANKIN INLET COMMUNITY CENTRE RANKIN INLET, NUNAVUT PANEL: Albert Ehaloak Chairperson Peter Paneak Pauloosie Paniloo Lucassie Arragutainaq Mary Avalak Peter Akkikungnaq BOARD STAFF: Bill Tilleman, Q.C. Legal Counsel Stephanie Briscoe Executive Director Stephen Lines Technical Advisor Karlette Tunaley Technical Advisor Carolanne Inglis Hearing Coordinator Gladys Joudrey Manager of Environmental Administration Mary Hunt Interpreter/Translator DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00470 Percy Tutannaq Interpreter/Translator Joe Otokiak Interpreter/Translator John Komak Interpreter/Translator Pat Braden Sound Technician Court Reporter: Tara Lutz DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00471 INDEX INTRODUCTORY PRESENTATION OF CUMBERLAND RESOURCES 483:7 PROPONENT PRESENTATION ON PERMAFROST BASELINE STUDIES 493:2 PROPONENT PRESENTATION ON GEOCHEMISTRY 499:3 NIRB STAFF QUESTIONS PROPONENT ON GEOCHEMISTRY 505:23 BOARD MEMBERS QUESTION PROPONENT ON GEOCHEMISTRY 508:23 PROPONENT PRESENTATION ON FISHERIES AND AQUATICS 510:17 NIRB STAFF QUESTIONS PROPONENT ON FISHERIES & AQUATICS 516:20 BOARD MEMBERS QUESTION PROPONENT ON FISHERIES & AQUATICS 517:24 PRESENTATION BY PROPONENT ON WILDLIFE & TERRESTRIAL 521:1 NIRB STAFF QUESTIONS PROPONENT ON WILDLIFE & TERRESTRIAL 527:1 BOARD MEMBERS QUESTION PROPONENT ON WILDLIFE & TERRESTRIAL 528:9 PRESENTATION BY KIA, NTI 533:25 NIRB STAFF QUESTIONS KIA AND NTI 539:2 BOARD MEMBERS QUESTION NTI AND KIA 541:13 CLOSING STATEMENT OF NTI AND KIA 543:9 PRESENTATION BY INAC 546:4 PROPONENT QUESTIONS INAC 554:12 KIA AND NTI COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS TO INAC 561:11 CLOSING STATEMENT OF INAC 565:2 DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00472 PRESENTATION BY DFO 572:21 PROPONENT QUESTIONS DFO 579:2 BOARD MEMBERS QUESTION DFO 580:12 CLOSING STATEMENT OF DFO 584:19 PRESENTATION BY NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA 590:26 PROPONENT QUESTIONS NRCAN 597:11 CLOSING STATEMENT BY NRCAN 599:23 CLOSING STATEMENTS OF THE PROPONENT 604:20 DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00473 1 (PREHEARING CONFERENCE COMMENCED AT 10:00 A.M., 2 JUNE 9, 2005) 3 CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, everybody. 4 We will start with an opening prayer. 5 PETER PANEAK: (Opening prayer) 6 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Peter. 7 Hello, and welcome to the prehearing conference for 8 the Meadowbank Gold Project. 9 My name is Albert Ehaloak, and I am the Acting 10 Chair of the Nunavut Impact Review Board. I was born 11 and raised in Cambridge Bay. 12 We are the Nunavut Impact Review Board, and we are 13 conducting a prehearing conference to address the nine 14 issues that we sent to the proponent and to all parties 15 on May 5th, 2005. I will refer to these issues in a 16 moment. 17 We should let you know that we are having a draw 18 for a door prize at the end of the meeting, and I will 19 announce the winners sometime before we leave the 20 building. 21 For a belief description of the application, the 22 Meadowbank Gold Project being proposed by Cumberland 23 Resources Limited is for an open-pit gold mine located 24 on Inuit-owned lands approximately 70 kilometres north 25 of the Hamlet of Baker Lake. 26 According to the proponent, Meadowbank is planned DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00474 1 to have a 12 to 14-year project life. The project will 2 have a two-year construction period, followed by eight 3 to ten years of mine operation and a two-year 4 postclosure period. 5 The project life and schedule has changed due to 6 feasibility study, and the three changes from the 7 feasibility are: 36 percent increase in production, 8 closed-loop production, winter road to all-weather 9 access road. Therefore, changes to the project schedule 10 are anticipated. The proponent will tell us more about 11 these changes in a few minutes. 12 I will introduce the Board members. In attendance 13 with us today are the following Board members -- please 14 note that Elizabeth Copeland has declared conflict in 15 participating in these hearings as she is the mayor of 16 Arviat. 17 To my right, we have Pauloosie Paniloo. 18 PAULOOSIE PANILOO: I am Pauloosie Paniloo from 19 KivIA, appointed by KivIA, and I have been a board 20 member since 1999. Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Peter Paneak? 22 PETER PANEAK: I am Peter Paneak. It has 23 been four years since I have been with the NIRB Board. 24 CHAIRPERSON: Lucassie? 25 LUCASSIE ARRAGUTAINAQ: Thank you. My name is 26 Lucassie Arragutainaq, and I have been with the Board DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00475 1 for a little over a year now, and I'm from Sanikluaq. 2 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mary Avalak? 3 MARY AVALAK: I'm Mary Avalak from 4 Cambridge Bay. It has been over a year since I have 5 been a Board member on the NIRB Board. 6 CHAIRPERSON: Peter Akkikungnaq? 7 PETER AKKIKUNGNAQ: My name is Peter 8 Akkikungnaq. 9 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. The NIRB staff 10 members are Stephanie Briscoe, Executive Director; 11 Karlette Tunaley, technical advisor; Stephen Lines, 12 technical advisor; Carolanne Inglis, hearing 13 coordinator; Bill Tilleman, legal advisor, legal 14 counsel, sorry; Gladys Joudrey, manage of environmental 15 administration; Mary Hunt, interpreter; Percy Tutannaq, 16 interpreter; Joe Otokiak, interpreter; John Komak, 17 interpreter; Tara Lutz is our stenographer; Pat Braden, 18 our sound technician. 19 Official transcripts of the prehearing will be 20 prepared and placed on NIRB's public registry and posted 21 on the FTP site, the new method of advertising. 22 The Nunavut Land Claim states that NIRB shall take 23 all necessary steps by way of notice, release of 24 information, scheduling and location of hearings to 25 provide and promote public awareness of and 26 participation at hearings. We have tried to do that in DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00476 1 the Meadowbank case by notifying all of you by writing 2 and by public advertisement of this prehearing meeting. 3 For your information, we have a copy of all 4 correspondence between NIRB, the proponent and the 5 parties in what we call a public registry. This 6 information is available at the back table, and also 7 available in our NIRB office in Cambridge Bay by 8 request. Please see Gladys Joudrey at the back. 9 Jurisdiction. We are here to conduct this meeting 10 under the authority of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement 11 Article 12 Part 5. 12 Briefly, NIRB's work is to assess and evaluate 13 impacts. Its primary objectives are to protect and 14 promote the existing and future well-being of the 15 residents and the communities of the Nunavut Settlement 16 Area and to protect the ecosystemic integrity of the 17 Nunavut Settlement Area. 18 The purpose of this prehearing meeting is to 19 clarify issues before the final hearing. 20 Specifics of NIRB's prehearing history. On 21 September 23rd, 2003, the Board advised the Minister 22 Robert Nault that the Meadowbank Gold Project required 23 review under either Part 5 or Part 6 of the Nunavut Land 24 Claims Agreement. 25 In reply on December 3rd, 2003, the Honourable 26 Minister Nault replied to us and the Ministers of DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00477 1 Fisheries and Oceans and Natural Resources Canada agreed 2 to refer the project to NIRB for a Part 5 review of the 3 Meadowbank Gold Project. 4 Since then, NIRB issued EIS guidelines, and a draft 5 EIS was received by NIRB on January 5th, 2005. More 6 recently, on April 8th, 2005, NIRB wrote to the 7 distribution list and set the prehearing conference for 8 this week, June 6th to 9th. We will, thus, be visiting 9 the communities of Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet and 10 Rankin Inlet. 11 Matters that NIRB wants the distribution list to 12 pay special attention to are: Please share all written 13 submissions with the other parties, this is not the 14 responsibility of NIRB. If NIRB makes information 15 requests of parties and, in particular, the proponent, 16 it will do so after this prehearing conference. Make 17 sure you provide all information that you can. 18 The nine issues to be addressed today. First, let 19 me stress that we are not here today to approve the 20 project, this is not the final hearing. This is only 21 the prehearing or advanced meeting to answer some 22 procedural questions, so the only reason why we are here 23 today is to address the nine issues. 24 Number 1 is the schedule for the prehearing 25 conference exchange of information. Number 2, 26 intervenor identification and registration. Number 3 is DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00478 1 the list of issues to be dealt with in the final public 2 hearing and clear statements of issues. Number 4 is the 3 technical reports and other documents needed for the 4 final public hearing. Number 5 is technical schedule to 5 be followed by the parties for completion of reports 6 prior to the final public hearing. Number 6 is the 7 schedule, times and places of the final public hearing. 8 Number 7, special procedure, if any, to be followed at 9 the final public hearing. Number 8, any motions that 10 may be needed before the Final EIS is filed or the final 11 public hearing commences. Number 9, any other matters 12 that may aid in the simplification of the hearing. 13 Example, the segregation of the hearing into different 14 segments, technical hearing versus non-technical 15 community meetings. 16 We will do a roll call with the applicants. 17 TOM MANNIK: I am Tom Mannik from Baker 18 Lake. 1997 I started working for the mining company, 19 and I am one of the managers for the environmental 20 studies in Baker Lake. Thank you. 21 HATTIE MANNIK: I'm Hattie Mannik from 22 Baker Lake. I started working collecting Inuit 23 Qaujimajatuqangit and Inuit traditional knowledge. 24 JACOB IKINLIK: I am Jacob Ikinlik. 25 I'm also one of the researchers on the environmental for 26 following using Inuit traditional knowledge. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00479 1 CRAIG GOODINGS: I'm Craig Goodings. I'm 2 the environmental coordinator for the Meadowbank Gold 3 Project and pleased to be in Rankin Inlet. 4 JOHN DONIHEE: My name is John Donihee. 5 I'm counsel to Cumberland Resources Limited. 6 VALERIE BERTRAND: My name is Valerie 7 Bertrand. I'm doing geochemistry for the project since 8 2000 working for Golder Associates for Cumberland. 9 Thank you. 10 CAMERON CLAYTON: My name is Cameron Clayton. 11 I'm an associate and senior geological engineer for 12 Golder Associates Mining Group, and I have been Golder's 13 team leader for geotechnical engineering and 14 geoenvironmental services to Cumberland Resources since 15 1995. 16 MARTIN GEBAUER: Hello, my name is Martin 17 Gebauer with Gebauer & Associates, and I have been 18 working on the wildlife issues of the project for the 19 last four years. 20 RANDY BAKER: I'm Randy Baker. I'm the 21 fish guy, and I have been working at Meadowbank since 22 1997 working on fisheries, obviously, and aquatic 23 issues. 24 RAJ ANAND: My name is Raj Anand. I am 25 with the Cumberland Resources as senior civil engineer 26 responsible for engineering and logistics-related DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00480 1 aspects. 2 BRAD THIELE: I'm Brad Thiele. I have 3 been involved in with the Cumberland project since July 4 of 2001. I was responsible for completion of the 5 feasibility study, overseeing it, and expect to be 6 responsible for construction and operations at 7 Meadowbank. Thank you. 8 JIM KOSKI: I'm Jim Koski, construction 9 manager for Cumberland Resources. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you. And our 11 intervenors? Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated? 12 JEANNIE EHALOAK: Hi, my name is Jeannie 13 Ehaloak, environmental coordinator with the Lands and 14 Resources Department for the Nunavut Tunngavik. 15 GEORGE HAKONGAK: Good morning, Mr. Chair. 16 George Hakongak, senior advisor for environment, water 17 and marine management, Department of Lands and Resources 18 for Nunavut Tunngavik in Cambridge Bay. 19 JOE KALUDJAK: Good morning. I'm Joe 20 Kaludjak, I'm vice-president of KIA. 21 LUIS MANZO: Luis Manzo, director of 22 lands, Department of Lands and Resources for Kivalliq 23 Inuit Association. 24 STEVE HARTMAN: Good morning, I'm Steve 25 Hartman with the Kivalliq Inuit Association. I'm the 26 environmental officer in the lands department. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00481 1 RALPH KUDLAK: Good morning, Ralph Kudlak, 2 DIO officer for KIA. 3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 4 I'm also a member of the CLARC committee, and I'm also 5 vice-president of the Kivalliq Wildlife Association, and 6 I'm also the chairperson of the HTO, and I will be 7 listening carefully to what is going to be said here. 8 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Department of 9 Environment, Government of Nunavut? Department of 10 Indian and Northern Affairs? 11 CARL McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My 12 name is Carl McLean, Acting Director of Operations, 13 Nunavut regional office. 14 ROBYN ABERNETHY-GILLIS: Good morning, I'm Robyn 15 Abernethy-Gillis. I work with Indian and Northern 16 Affairs in Iqaluit, Nunavut. Thank you. 17 HENRY KABLALIK: Good morning, Henry 18 Kablalik, resource management officer for DIAND. 19 CHARLES DROUIN: Bonjour, I'm Charles 20 Drouin, communications officer for Indian and Northern 21 Affairs Canada. 22 MIKE HINE: Mike Hine, resource 23 development officer for the economic and development 24 department, Indian and Northern Affairs. 25 NORM CAVANAGH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 26 Norm Cavanagh, Justice Canada providing advisory DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00482 1 services to DIAND. 2 MARK WATSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 3 Mark Watson, senior geotechnical engineer with EBA 4 Engineering working on behalf of INAC. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Department of 6 Fisheries and Oceans? 7 DERRICK MOGGY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 8 It is Derrick Moggy with the Department of Fisheries and 9 Oceans in Iqaluit. I'm a habitat management biologist. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Natural 11 Resources Canada? 12 ROB JOHNSTONE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, 13 Board. My name is Rob Johnstone, and I'm Deputy 14 Director of Environmental Assessment and regulatory 15 affairs for the minerals and metals sector of NRCan, and 16 I will also be representing our expert group of the 17 Geological Survey of Canada and mineral technology 18 branch. Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Hamlet of 20 Rankin Inlet? Local residents? 21 CHARLOTTE HICKS: Charlotte Hicks, Hamlet of 22 Rankin Inlet, economic development officer. 23 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Local 24 residents? 25 Now, for the procedure. The procedure for this 26 prehearing conference will be different from the actual DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00483 1 hearing. For today, NIRB would like the parties, as 2 listed above, to give a brief response to the nine 3 issues I listed. Please keep your comments to 30 4 minutes or less, though we will give more time to the 5 proponent. 6 And I will turn it over to Cumberland. 7 INTRODUCTORY PRESENTATION OF CUMBERLAND RESOURCES 8 CRAIG GOODINGS: Thank you. That has not 9 been turned on yet, so we will have to start it up. We 10 just have to wait a sec until it finds itself, I guess. 11 CHAIRPERSON: When we are doing the 12 intervenor presentations, at the end we will get them to 13 do your final closing statements, all intervenors. 14 CRAIG GOODINGS: All right. We are back 15 on. As I said before, I am glad to be in Rankin Inlet. 16 We have been coming to Rankin since '96, happy to be 17 back. 18 We are here today to talk about the Meadowbank Gold 19 Project, and I'm going to give you an overview of the 20 project and what we propose to do and the benefits that 21 we hope it will achieve. 22 First of all, Cumberland Resources, we are a 23 publicly listed company on the Toronto Stock Exchange. 24 We have a 100 percent ownership of the Meadowbank 25 project and 22 percent of the Meliadine West project, 26 which is, as you know, close to Rankin Inlet. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00484 1 Cumberland is well financed, and we are focussed on 2 building this gold mine. 3 The Meadowbank project is located about 70 4 kilometres north of Baker Lake. The other mines on this 5 map, Polaris, Nanisivik, Lupin, these are the other 6 mines that were in Nunavut. Now there are no mines in 7 Nunavut, they are all closed. 8 Cumberland is a good news story, it is a story of a 9 lot of hard work by a lot of people in Baker Lake, 10 Cumberland and the region generally. We have worked 11 hard at the project, and we have been able to take it 12 from a small deposit of 200,000 ounces up to one at 3.8 13 million ounces. That took place over ten years. 14 Cumberland Resources spent $39 million in 15 discovering this gold, of which a large proportion has 16 stayed in the Kivalliq region. 17 Meadowbank Gold Project is Canada's largest 18 undeveloped pure gold open-pit reserve. That's pretty 19 significant. 20 The good news, too, is it is put on KIA lands and 21 its mineral title is held by the NTI and federal 22 government, which means that the Inuit will benefit 23 directly from the development of the project if it goes 24 ahead. 25 As I mentioned, it is located 70 kilometres north 26 of Baker Lake. It will be an open-pit operation. We DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00485 1 are currently in the permitting phase, and I think 2 everybody is aware that it is a long process in 3 permitting. After the NIRB review, there is also lots 4 of licensing to take place. 5 The mine will be built in two years. I have an 6 expected operation of 8.3 years, and a closure of two to 7 three years after that. So the life of the mine is 8 approximately 14 years. We hope to produce 315 ounces 9 of gold a year. It will employ 350 employees. There 10 will be 250 at site at one time and 100 out on rotation, 11 and it will cost 300 million Canadian to build. 12 We will let the translator catch up. During 13 construction, we expect to create up to 75 local jobs, 14 but there will be other jobs created in spin-off, 15 financing, leasing, technical services, wholesale trade, 16 warehousing. 17 Statistics Canada estimates for every one direct 18 job we create, there will be two spin off jobs created 19 in Nunavut. 20 During operations, we expect to employ 70 local 21 people, expect to pay $30 million in wages over the 8.3 22 years and expend $200 million in the operation costs. 23 The average income of the worker at the mine of the 24 70 people will be 50,000 per year, and it represents a 25 fantastic opportunity for businesses in Baker and 26 Nunavut. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00486 1 Just quick on the mine itself, this is a -- if you 2 were to fly up to camp today, you would see -- you 3 wouldn't see the red lines on the ground, but you will 4 see that this is an actual photograph of the land as it 5 is today. And these red markings indicate where the ore 6 body is, and you can see that half of it is on the land 7 and some of it is in the water, which means to get all 8 the gold, we need to get the water out of the lake to 9 get to the gold. 10 In the first years of operation, all the operation 11 will be on the land itself. This will generate building 12 materials to build the various facilities and also 13 generate some cash flow. However, we will have to get 14 into the water, so we will be constructing dikes similar 15 to what you see here. Essentially these are dikes 16 designed to keep the water out, so the water will be 17 kept out over here, for instance, that is that little 18 blue area, and over here will be the pits where the 19 people are working. 20 These are very similar to the Diavik dikes. This 21 used to be a lake in the middle here, now it is dry. 22 The only difference is these dikes are in much deeper 23 water than our dikes. But the important fact here is 24 that we are not trying to do anything that hasn't been 25 done before. 26 To get into the water, we will construct the dikes. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00487 1 Before we drain the lakes, we will remove the fish. 2 There is two options to remove the fish. And then once 3 the dikes in are place and the water removed, we will 4 start mining under the lake. 5 You can see up here this is the tailings storage 6 area. And the unique thing about our current locale 7 here in Rankin Inlet, there is a tailings deposit just 8 up over the hill over here that you guys play baseball 9 on here in Rankin Inlet. 10 We will continue to put dikes into the water to 11 access the gold deposit out here. You can see like 12 that, and then on closure, the pits will be flooded, and 13 then once the water quality is suitable, they will be 14 breached to allow the environment to return back to its 15 natural, well, state. 16 So you can see on closure all the buildings are 17 gone. Essentially what is left is the gravel deposits. 18 You will also notice there is a waste rock pile here and 19 the tailings pond. 20 This is actually very similar to the layout you 21 have here in Rankin Inlet with your waste rock and your 22 tailings, but they have spread the waste overtop of the 23 tailings here. 24 We also have a deposit north of Vault. It is on 25 land and water as well, so we have to drain the lake to 26 access the pit, and here is where you see the waste rock DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00488 1 pile for the northern Vault deposit. And, again, on 2 closure, we will flood the area, and this is what it 3 will look like on closure. 4 The mill propose to get the gold out, trucks come 5 up from the pit with large boulders, drop them into a 6 series of crushers. There is a crusher on the hill up 7 here for those who want to take a look at one, what it 8 will look like. 9 So through a series of crushing, the rock goes from 10 huge boulders into a fine powder, and that's how we get 11 the gold out. There is also a cyanide circuit, this 12 does the final, dissolves the gold out of the remaining 13 rock, and then the cyanide is destroyed through a 14 cyanide destruction process, and then before discharge 15 to the tailings facility. 16 At the end of it, we hope to produce one of these 17 gold bars every day. That bar there is worth half a 18 million dollars. The gold bars will be produced on site 19 and flown to the Mint in Ottawa. 20 Some of the infrastructure for Baker Lake, we are 21 going to use barge access either from Churchill or 22 Montreal, and it will essentially -- this is a typical 23 Baker Lake barge in here, but we do have steel on this 24 barge right here. 25 So this will be three to five barges annually to 26 supply the mine. We are just going to use the normal DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00489 1 shipping season and normal barge operators. 2 We will just skip through that. Once the material 3 is in Baker Lake, we propose to -- we do propose to 4 take, use an all-land route to get to the mine access. 5 So this will be an all-weather road, 102 kilometres. 6 The materials will come into Baker and be brought up on 7 the road into camp. We will use semis just like you see 8 here, like they would use -- this is actually a 9 photograph of the Lupin ice road, a fuel truck going up 10 to one of the mines. 11 We do have five bridges on the project and several 12 culverts. As I said, it will be 102 kilometres long, 13 five bridges crossings. It costs about $20 million to 14 build. 15 It is important, the road is important for us 16 because it will reduce our costs through infrastructure 17 savings, transport savings, airstrip will be shorter. 18 Bottom line is, this road is a key component to the mine 19 and really integral to its success. 20 We have been -- while the geologists have been busy 21 trying to find the gold and the engineers busy designing 22 the mine, we have also been working at the same time 23 concurrently on the environmental program so we can make 24 sure the two work together, the environmental design and 25 the environmental design (sic). 26 We have been at it since 1996 studying wildlife, DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00490 1 water, archeology, traditional knowledge, all the main 2 areas of study, and you will hear more after I am 3 finished through the various specialists. 4 All of this information has been put in the Draft 5 Environmental Impact Statement, which is the document in 6 front of the Board and the reason we are here. I hope 7 many in the room have read it. 8 Essentially there is about 39 reports that make up 9 the document, it is broken down into baseline reports 10 that tells you what the environment is like today. Then 11 we take the mine plan and overlay it on the baseline to 12 decide what the impacts are going to be, and then we 13 designed methods to eliminate those or mitigate those 14 impacts, and then we designed our management and 15 monitoring plans. These are very important documents 16 because they tell us how we should build the mine and 17 manage it. 18 Plus we set up monitoring plans, and these 19 monitoring plans ensure that what we have predicted to 20 happen will happen. And if the monitoring indicates 21 that what we have predicted isn't happening, we will 22 change the method that we are implementing, so this is a 23 very important document. 24 A little bit of what we have done at the baseline. 25 We have done archeology, we will have minimum impact on 26 archeology sites. Also traditional knowledge, Hattie DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00491 1 Mannik, who has done a fantastic job. I don't know if 2 those who know her, but she is also an author. That's 3 how I discovered her, by reading her first book. 4 She has been interviewing the Elders and hunters in 5 Baker Lake since '96, so we have a great idea of the 6 traditional knowledge of the area. 7 We have also studied the socio-ec. Again, like 8 social ec., important things are employment, traditional 9 lifestyle, well-being of the community and individuals, 10 social services, archeology and also training level 11 employment at a territorial level. The study area has 12 been Baker and Nunavut, and we have used existing 13 documents in consultation extensively. 14 The results, there is going to be employment and 15 business benefits. It is indicated there are positive 16 and negative effects of moving forward to a mixed 17 economy, and by that I mean a wage economy and 18 traditional economy. Overall though, we expect that 19 there will be positive effects both on the individual 20 and community. And also this last point, more policing. 21 Of course, when people have more jobs and more money, 22 people are more out and about, it just requires a little 23 bit more supervision. 24 So the mitigation, to make sure that the Inuit 25 benefit from the mine, we will make sure we have 26 preferential hiring and contracting. We will have DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00492 1 on-the-job training, education. We will have workforce 2 management of our southern workers, in addition to our 3 own, and we will make sure we have individual support 4 for communities. 5 On closure, that's a bit more difficult to 6 mitigate, because once we close the mine, so do the jobs 7 go. However, we hope to leave behind a legacy of 8 educated people that have stayed in school, now are 9 trades people, contractors. We just think the general 10 attitude we will leave behind will be a positive one. 11 Monitoring to make sure that what we are saying 12 about the social impacts are shown to be true. We will 13 keep track of the number of jobs that we are giving and 14 our subcontractors. We will also have health and safety 15 policies on-site, and we will have on site consultation. 16 We will work with the various agencies to help in 17 the training to make sure the people in Nunavut are 18 trained so they can take advantage of these jobs, and we 19 will develop an adaptive monitoring program in 20 coordination with KIA to ensure that we are monitoring 21 the community wellness, and all of this will be wrapped 22 up into our IIBA, which we are going to develop in 23 partnership with the KIA, as they are the landowners of 24 this project. And that's the end of my talk. Should we 25 take questions or go to the next speaker? 26 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for the overview. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00493 1 We will go on to the next presentation. 2 PROPONENT PRESENTATION ON PERMAFROST BASELINE STUDIES 3 CAMERON CLAYTON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, 4 members of the Board, respected guests and attendees. 5 Good morning. 6 As I have said earlier, I'm a senior geological 7 engineer with Golder Associates. I have been working on 8 this project since 1995, and carrying out geotechnical 9 investigations relating to mine, not only mine design 10 but also for baseline environmental or geoenvironmental 11 studies. And the technical work that we have carried 12 out since that time has been used to develop the mine 13 feasibility study for the project, and some of the 14 information has also been used in the development of the 15 Draft EIS for the project as well. 16 I am here today to briefly describe some of the 17 geoenvironmental and geotechnical studies that have been 18 undertaken for the project, particularly relating to 19 permafrost baseline studies and hydrogeological studies. 20 Many of the technical details, design issues and 21 engineering design studies that have been undertaken 22 were discussed in greater detail at the technical 23 sessions in Baker Lake last week, and those aren't 24 repeated here. Those are on the public record and can 25 be reviewed on the NIRB website. 26 Golder was initially asked by Cumberland in 1995 to DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00494 1 carry out a preliminary assessment, engineering 2 assessment for the project. And as a consequence of 3 that assessment, recommendations were made to Cumberland 4 to initiate immediately permafrost baseline data 5 collection studies. Cumberland's response to that was 6 to implement, in 1996, the insulation of two preliminary 7 thermistors or temperature monitoring probes at the 8 Meadowbank project. 9 This slide here shows the current extents of the 10 permafrost baseline studies at the project. There are 11 now 22 thermistors installed at the site, including the 12 Vault area, two in the Vault area. The remaining 20 in 13 the Third Portage Lake area, and this has been a 14 targeted program aimed at collecting data to 15 characterize permafrost in the area with respect to the 16 active layer or thaw depth and with respect to annual 17 temperature fluctuations and with respect to the actual 18 depth of the permafrost itself. 19 The site-specific data that was collected from 20 these studies has been used to carry out thermal 21 analyses for waste management options and also for 22 hydrogeological modeling and for predictions of taliks 23 that exist beneath the larger lakes in the area. 24 Specifically from a hydrogeological perspective, it is 25 important to recognize that the large lakes in the area 26 have through taliks which extend down to the deep water DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00495 1 regime. 2 In the regional context, the Meadowbank project is 3 located in the zone of continuous permafrost. There is 4 the project there, and this line down here indicates the 5 current boundary between continuous and discontinuous 6 permafrost in Northern Canada. 7 Due to the climate and the environment of the 8 projection location, the engineering design must 9 consider appropriate design methods for cold regions. 10 It is a matter of fact that many aspects of warm climate 11 engineering designs are simply not practically 12 implemented in the North, and for this reason, northern 13 engineering design methods need to be adopted. 14 In developing the feasibility level engineering 15 designs for the project, however, the precautionary 16 principle has been adopted and has been implemented so 17 that the project design can accommodate or at least 18 consider climate change or warming trends. 19 An example of this, again, this slide here which 20 shows climate change studies that have been undertaken 21 by others but which consider a warming trend in North 22 America over a period of about 100 years. And what this 23 slide shows is that even if a warming trend occurs, the 24 boundary between continuous and discontinuous 25 permafrost, which is currently here, shifts northward to 26 this boundary here, yet the Meadowbank project still DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00496 1 remains well within the zone of continuous permafrost. 2 A key aspect of the baseline studies for the 3 project has been the characterization of the deep 4 groundwater regime, flow regime. 5 This slide here shows a number of boreholes, 6 geotechnical boreholes that have been drilled at the 7 project area. And within these boreholes, Golder has 8 carried out hydraulic conductivity testing to determine 9 how permeable the bedrock is in the area. 10 To characterize the groundwater flow regime, these 11 tests have been carried out in the geotechnical 12 boreholes and three-dimensional models have been 13 developed to gain a better understanding of the 14 hydrogeological flow regime. 15 The testing of the boreholes in the Meadowbank area 16 indicate the rock to have a very low permeability. In 17 other words, water flows at a very low rate through the 18 rock itself. 19 The results of the baseline data have been used to 20 develop a model of the regional groundwater flow system, 21 and the modelling has shown that the deep groundwater 22 flow is affected by the water levels in the lakes that 23 have through taliks, and these are taliks that extend to 24 the deep groundwater system. 25 So water flows, essentially, from lakes at higher 26 elevations to lakes at lower elevations through the deep DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00497 1 groundwater system but only where taliks extend down to 2 this level. 3 Based on the site-specific data that has been 4 collected since 1995, this schematic cross section shows 5 the current understanding of the thermal and 6 hydrogeological regime at the site. And again this is a 7 schematic model, it is not intended to demonstrate scale 8 or magnitude or direction or magnitude of flow, but what 9 can be seen in this particular slide here is the general 10 conditions that currently exist at the site. 11 We have permafrost in gray, so large areas of 12 permafrost and substantially -- of substantial thickness 13 on the order of 470 to 530 metres, based on actual data 14 that has been collected at the site. 15 We have taliks forming under smaller lakes, and, 16 again, a talik is an area of unfrozen ground or thawed 17 ground within the permafrost itself. This is an 18 isolated talik in that water that is contained in this 19 area does not flow anywhere outside of that talik. 20 We have through taliks that form under larger lakes 21 such as Second Portage Lake or Wally Lake or Third 22 Portage Lake, and these taliks extend through the 23 permafrost and down to the regional groundwater flow 24 direction or regional groundwater. 25 The arrows shown on here indicate the regional 26 groundwater flow direction. So, again, what this shows DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00498 1 is that the flow is from areas of higher elevation, such 2 as Wally Lake, to areas of lower elevation, such as 3 Second Portage Lake. 4 In terms of time, it would take on the order of 5 thousands of years for water from Wally Lake to travel 6 this distance and come up at Second Portage Lake. 7 And that's my presentation, thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions 9 from KIA, NTI? 10 LUIS MANZO: No questions at this time. 11 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Indian and 12 Northern Affairs, any questions? 13 CARL McLEAN: No questions. 14 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Department of 15 Fisheries and Oceans, any questions? 16 DERRICK MOGGY: I have no questions, Mr. 17 Chairman. 18 CHAIRPERSON: Natural Resources Canada, 19 any questions? 20 ROB JOHNSTONE: No questions at this time, 21 Mr. Chairman. 22 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Hamlet of 23 Rankin Inlet, any questions? 24 CHARLENE HICKS: No questions at this time. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Local residents, any 26 questions? NIRB staff, any questions? Thank you. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00499 1 Board members, any questions? Thank you for your 2 presentation. We will move onto the next one. 3 PROPONENT PRESENTATION ON GEOCHEMISTRY 4 VALERIE BERTRAND: Good morning. My name is 5 Valerie Bertrand, as I said before. I am a senior 6 geochemistry specialist working for Cumberland from 7 Golder Associates. I have 14 years' experience in 8 contaminant transport, rock chemistry, soil chemistry 9 and water quality. 10 The reason why I am involved in this project is to 11 evaluate what the potential impacts would be or the 12 potential chemical effects of the waste that is 13 generated at the mine on water quality at the mine site. 14 The steps of the geochemical program are first to 15 know what the wastes are going to be and where they will 16 go. In this instance, the mine wastes are tailings and 17 waste rock, and the engineers tell us where those wastes 18 will go. I will show you a bit later. 19 The second step is to evaluate what the chemistry 20 is of those wastes, how they will weather, how they will 21 behave through time, if there is any chemicals or 22 constituents that are going to leach out of them. And 23 another part of that study is to combine those results 24 with the hydrology of the site, that is the evaluation 25 of where -- how much water will fall on the site as snow 26 and precipitation, rain, how it will be captured and DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00500 1 where it will go. 2 When you have all of these components, then you are 3 able to evaluate what the effects of the mine waste are 4 going to be on the receiving environment. 5 You have seen this before. The types of wastes are 6 the waste rock excavated from the pit in the Vault area 7 that is then deposited into the rock storage area. You 8 are left with walls of an open pit, a rock storage pile. 9 In the Portage area, you have three pits, Third, 10 North and Goose Island, so you are left with the 11 remaining walls. We need to evaluate what the chemistry 12 of these -- the effects on these walls on water quality 13 when you flood. Whatever is not ore is placed into the 14 rock storage pile. There is going to be an effect from 15 water and snow accumulating on this and thawing in the 16 spring, and there can be effects from tailings. In the 17 case of Meadowbank, the tailings are being placed in a 18 dried lake bed. 19 There is also effects that are measured that need 20 to be accounted for from the dikes onto the receiving 21 water. So my job was to evaluate what those effects 22 would be and chemical effects, and then give this 23 information to the fish guy for him to evaluate how the 24 fish are going to respond to this. 25 We will look through a cross section of this to 26 show you what kind of rock types. And it is important DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00501 1 to know what type of rocks are going to be excavated, 2 because the rocks that contain gold also contain a bit 3 of metals. And similar to your car, those metals can 4 rust and leach constituents or release constituents in 5 the water. 6 This is the Goose Pit, so the red area is the ore 7 zone, this will be removed. The gold is going to be 8 extracted, the remaining rock will report to the 9 tailings. 10 This rock type is iron formation rock. Also part 11 of the -- the other rock types or the other rocks here 12 outside of the ore zone will report to waste, that's the 13 rock that needs to be removed to access the gold-bearing 14 rocks. These rocks all contain a little bit of metals, 15 so we need to characterize them to evaluate what their 16 potential is to generate -- to rust and generate acid 17 and to leach metals in the receiving environment. 18 So there is intermediate volcanic rock, ultramafic 19 rock. Incidentally, this is the type of rock that is 20 often used for carving, quartzite and again intermediate 21 volcanic. So we need to characterize all of these rock 22 types to know what their effects are going to be in 23 time. 24 Why are we interested, or how do rocks weather? 25 Well, when rain or snow accumulates on the rock, the 26 water infiltrates the rock, dissolves a bit of those DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00502 1 metals, carries with them some fine portion of 2 sediments, and the metals in the sediments accumulate in 3 the water. We need to know what kind of quality of 4 water we are expecting to have at the site in order to 5 know, in order to be able to manage it appropriately. 6 So for your information, there is a lot more -- by 7 the way, there is a lot more details of this that were 8 discussed in the technical hearing which are not going 9 to be repeated here, but you can access them through the 10 NIRB website. 11 This is intermediate volcanic rock that contains 12 some metals. You can see that some of these metals have 13 rusted. This is ten-year-old core from an area that's 14 been explored in '92 and '93 that had been left in core 15 racks for ten years, over ten years. 16 This is iron formation, the type of rock that 17 contains the ore, the gold ore. So we selected samples, 18 those that would be representative of what kind of waste 19 we would put in the waste rock pile, and also 20 representative of rock that will be exposed in the pit 21 walls and that will contact water when we flood the 22 pits. 23 These samples were then subjected to accelerated 24 leaching. We can't evaluate -- that's the only way we 25 can evaluate how they will react to the environment is 26 by subjecting them to accelerated leaching in a DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00503 1 laboratory. Basically, we add a lot of water to them, 2 have water infiltrate to the columns of rock, this is 3 rock that is crushed, have water percolate through, 4 evaluate what the water quality is and do that over a 5 year, two years, in some cases, for the Meadowbank 6 samples and determine how they are likely to rust or 7 oxidize in the field, if they oxidize at all. We did 8 this at various scales to be able to evaluate how those 9 laboratory rates translate in the field, because 10 conditions in the laboratory are quite different from 11 what we expect in a cold and dry environment of 12 Meadowbank. 13 We also took some samples of the water. Randy here 14 took -- was responsible for the lake water quality, but 15 there was also water that runs on the land and 16 eventually makes its way to the lake, so we sampled this 17 water. We also sampled groundwater in the taliks that 18 Cameron told you about. We installed wells in the 19 unfrozen permafrost below lakes in various areas, 20 including below the tailings, to know what the water 21 quality is now and be able to measure any differences, 22 if any, at a later date once we operate the mine. 23 We also took samples in trenches that were dug in 24 the ore zone. This water quality tells us a bit of 25 information as to what we can expect from waters that 26 will accumulate in the pits when we operate. The DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00504 1 results of that investigation showed that the lakes and 2 the surface drainage contains hardly any metals, it is 3 very, very clean. 4 The groundwater contains some metals, that's 5 naturally occurring metals due to water flowing through 6 rock and dissolving a bit of the metals that are 7 present. 8 The water in the trenches contains moderately to 9 high levels of metals, and that tells us we will have to 10 manage the water in the pit in a way that prevents any 11 effects to the environment. 12 We take all of this information, the chemistry of 13 the rock, how it weathers, mine design and where water 14 goes and how much water there will be, put that all into 15 a model and evaluate step by step, month by month what 16 the water quality is going to be at various areas on the 17 mine site and what the effluent is likely to be. 18 The results show that on site, the rock that will 19 drain from the rock pile and the open pits will meet 20 drinking water standards. The tailings water will not 21 meet drinking water standards, but it will not be 22 discharged during operation because of a semi 23 closed-loop system or minimal -- basically the tailings 24 water will not be discharged during operation, and it 25 will be treated at closure when we need to drain the 26 tailings. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00505 1 And the overall effects on the area lakes, which is 2 Third Portage Lake and Wally Lake are such that the 3 waters in the lake, will also meet health standards for 4 drinking water. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions 6 from KIA and NTI? 7 LUIS MANZO: No questions, Mr. Chairman. 8 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions, 9 Indian and Northern Affairs? 10 CARL McLEAN: No questions. 11 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Department of 12 Fisheries and Oceans? 13 DERRICK MOGGY: We have no questions, Mr. 14 Chairman. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Natural 16 Resources Canada? 17 ROB JOHNSTONE: No questions, Mr. Chairman. 18 CHAIRPERSON: Hamlet of Rankin Inlet? 19 CHARLENE HICKS: No questions. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Local 21 residents, any questions? NIRB staff, any questions? 22 Karlette? 23 NIRB STAFF QUESTIONS PROPONENT ON GEOCHEMISTRY 24 Q KARLETTE TUNALEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 25 Is it possible to predict the efficiency of the cyanide 26 destruction process or the effectiveness of it on a DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00506 1 percentage scale? 2 A VALERIE BERTRAND: Normally that's not subject 3 to predictive work. It is laboratory work which has 4 been done at this site, actually, effectively putting 5 the ore into a cyanide destruction loop and carrying 6 that out, but normally it is based on real data because 7 it depends so much on the ore. 8 And in the case of Meadowbank, that's what 9 happened, the numbers for cyanide destruction were 10 evaluated in the laboratory. It is based on the 11 efficiency of the treatment plant, basically, and those 12 are also fairly standard. 13 What we are going to use at Meadowbank is a very 14 standard cyanide destruction plant. 15 Q KARLETTE TUNALEY: Are there any challenges 16 with the cyanide destruction in the North? 17 A VALERIE BERTRAND: No, because it is in a very 18 well controlled mill environment. It is not -- 19 basically, we have assumed, for example, in predicting 20 the effluent water quality, you've assumed that what you 21 get, what's released from the mill to the impoundment is 22 basically what is going to show up in the effluent. 23 That's right, cyanide destruction is within the 24 mill itself, within a controlled environment of the 25 mill. So whether you are north or south, it doesn't 26 really matter. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00507 1 Q KARLETTE TUNALEY: Also in the Draft EIS it 2 said that some cyanide destruction could occur, the 3 exposure to the environment. Are the rates of that 4 limited to being in the North? 5 A VALERIE BERTRAND: Yeah. Yes. Cyanide can be 6 reduced. But, for example, free cyanide is liberated, 7 it is fairly easily evaporated, and that's only through 8 the -- by photo degradation and volatilizations. 9 Otherwise, in the south we would expect there to be 10 probably pretty good degradation of cyanide. In the 11 north, it is not so good. And, consequently, in our 12 modelling we have assumed that anything that is not free 13 cyanide will not degrade. 14 CRAIG GOODINGS: I would like to add a 15 point to that, if I may. 16 Your question regarding the Artic, in Lupin's case, 17 which operated for 50 years, they used an outdoor 18 cyanide destruction process, and it -- our method is all 19 inside, but if we did go that option, that is possible 20 to do that cyanide destruction in an outdoor environment 21 in the Arctic, as Lupin has indicated very successfully. 22 Q KARLETTE TUNALEY: Thank you. I just have one 23 more question, please. 24 At closure, will -- I understand some waste rock 25 will be disposed in the pits. I am just wondering if 26 there will be anything else from the mine would be DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00508 1 disposed in the pits at closure? 2 A VALERIE BERTRAND: So in the pit it will only 3 be waste rock. Metals, solids would go into waste rock 4 dump. So in the pits, only waste rock. 5 KARLETTE TUNALEY: Thank you, that's all. 6 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 7 questions, NIRB staff? 8 Q STEPHEN LINES: Just to clarify the 9 question that Karlette asked, you said that I guess you 10 have the laboratory data that shows the effectiveness of 11 the cyanide breakdown, and is it 100 percent effective, 12 or what were the results from the laboratory tests? 13 A VALERIE BERTRAND: Yes, we have results from 14 laboratory decyanidation. And I don't have the number 15 in my head, but it is very effective, such that in the 16 effluent, the cyanide numbers are met for Metal Mine 17 Effluent Regulations. That data is available, I think 18 it is part of the commitments that we have to abide by, 19 and so those -- that information will be provided. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 21 questions? Thank you. Board members, any questions? 22 Pauloosie? 23 BOARD MEMBERS QUESTION PROPONENT ON GEOCHEMISTRY 24 Q PAULOOSIE PANILOO: I have two questions. The 25 two questions I have are when the mining company, I 26 understand that during the process, are you going to DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00509 1 leave any effluent that's going to be contaminating the 2 environment in Meadowbank area? 3 A VALERIE BERTRAND: As I said earlier, the bad 4 water, the tailing water is contained within the tailing 5 impoundment. And at end of mine life when we no longer 6 need the tailing impoundment, that water will be 7 drained, will be released into the water, but it will be 8 treated first before it is discharged into the water. 9 Once we have drained that tailing water, then the 10 resulting -- then that should be the end of any tailing 11 water, bad water associated with the tailings. 12 All the remaining drainage will report to the pits, 13 and the flooding pits or the fully flooded pits. 14 And the pit water will be monitored, and when it is 15 okay to -- when the quality is appropriate, the dikes 16 will be breached or opened for pit water to mix with 17 lake water. 18 Q PAULOOSIE PANILOO: Thank you. I have another 19 question. There is a few of us or some of us has worked 20 in the mills or in the mine, for the mining companies. 21 Once you leave the tailings behind, I'm talking 22 about the back home example, the tailings containment 23 was thick about down to the depth of where the tailings 24 pond is, it was about 50 feet, and it was supposed to be 25 frozen after. Is that going to be the same case? Is 26 the permafrost going to be -- so it going back to DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00510 1 normal? 2 A VALERIE BERTRAND: The tailing impoundment 3 that is designed for closure is such that the tailings 4 would freeze, indeed. 5 And at closure, there is always an active layer or 6 a layer that thaws every year, and part of the closure 7 plan is to put an unreactive cover on top of the 8 tailings. That cover will be sufficiently thick to host 9 the thaw and freezing and thawing such that the tailings 10 mass would remain frozen. 11 We will also have a monitoring system and plan to 12 make sure that the tailings, to make sure that we 13 document freezing of the tailings. 14 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other 15 questions? Thank you for your presentation. We will 16 move on to the next. 17 PROPONENT PRESENTATION ON FISHERIES AND AQUATICS 18 RANDY BAKER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman 19 and the rest of the Board. Let's talk about fish. 20 My name is Randy Baker. I'm a fisheries biologist 21 and aquatic ecologist with about 25 years of experience 22 working in the Arctic. 23 I have had the good fortune of working at the 24 Meadowbank project area lakes since 1997, and I have 25 been responsible for a number of studies, including 26 monitoring of surface water quality, the quality of the DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00511 1 sediments in the bottom of the lakes, looking at the 2 plankton, that's the small animals that live in the 3 water column and those that dwell in the sediment, and 4 of course the fish populations and the habitat that 5 supports them. 6 This graph just illustrates a very nice day up at 7 Meadowbank. You can see that there is not much in the 8 way of hills or landscape around. These are very clean 9 lakes, and we have employed a lot of local Inuit people, 10 such as Tom Mannik here, to assist with our water 11 collection activities. 12 We also collect mud from the bottom of the lake, 13 and this is very important, actually. We use a grab or 14 a clam shell sampler to capture this mud that comes up 15 from the bottom. Within this mud is old lake, old lake 16 sediment that has accumulated over perhaps hundreds of 17 years. You can see the surface layer here is quite 18 brown, and that's just the natural rusty colour from 19 oxidization of the sediment. 20 Within this sediment live the benthic animal s that 21 are important as food for fish. Monitoring of sediment 22 quality is very important because it gives us, I guess, 23 a signature of metals concentrations that occur 24 naturally within these sediments in these lakes. 25 If you were to sieve that bunch of mud through a 26 fine sieve here, you would eventually retain on that DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00512 1 sieve all of the little homes of the animals that live 2 there. And we use this information to understand how 3 productive each lake is, what lives in the lake and what 4 the food sources are for fish populations. 5 Also in the water column, if you were to filter 6 water, you would see here thousands of small little 7 animals called zooplankton, and these are also very 8 important as food for fish, especially small fish, as 9 well as adult Arctic char. 10 Speaking of char, there is a couple of char there. 11 These are land-locked char, so non-sea run, and a large 12 lake trout. And we do biological studies on the fish 13 populations looking at size and growth rates and diet, 14 as well as metals concentrations in the tissue of the 15 fish before any mining activity. 16 A very important component of our studies is 17 understanding fish habitat, this includes the lakes but 18 also these channels that connect the lakes. So that's 19 really the habitat that supports fish populations in the 20 long term and as what we are concerned in particular 21 with conserving during mine life and well beyond. 22 To briefly summarize some of our results, these are 23 headwater lakes connected by small seasonal channels, 24 and what I mean by that is that these lakes are located, 25 you know, in the upper part of the Quoich River water 26 system, just south of the water that drains north via DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00513 1 the Meadowbank and Back Rivers to the Arctic. 2 So that means that there are no rivers that flow 3 into these lakes. These lakes drain only very small 4 parts of the shoreline surrounding them. Partly because 5 of that, they lack nutrients or much food. So there is 6 no import of food into these lakes, so they are not very 7 productive. 8 There are no large rivers or channels or even 9 streams that really connect these other lakes. They are 10 very small rocky channels that flow pretty much only 11 during a few weeks in spring. 12 Ultimately, all of this water flows via the Quoich 13 River system, over an impassable falls into Chesterfield 14 Inlet. 15 This map shows you the locations of all of the 16 areas that we have sampled, these little dots here, 17 since 1996 for water, sediment, plankton and benthic 18 invertebrates. 19 This is Third Portage Lake, it drains into Second 20 Portage Lake here via these two small or three small 21 channels. The Goose pit is here, and the other Portage 22 pits are here that Cam showed you earlier. 23 The Vault pit is up here. All of this water flows 24 via this system to join water from Third Portage and 25 Second to discharge via the single channel into Tehek 26 Lake. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00514 1 Tehek is a very large lake, several hundred square 2 kilometres, and it drains into, as I said, the Quoich 3 River. 4 Zooming out a little bit, this map shows you Third 5 Portage and Second Portage Lakes, and these little 6 symbols with fish in them indicate all the areas in 7 these lakes that we have done fish surveys, including 8 lakes away from the Meadowbank project area. 9 This is Tehek Lake, and for your information, the 10 drainage area between the Arctic river drainage right 11 here and the Meadowbank or the Tehek River drainage 12 system runs right along here. So all the water flowing 13 north of the red pointer flows north to the Arctic, and 14 everything flows south, so these really are headwater 15 lakes. 16 Fish communities are dominated by lake trout, 17 lesser amounts of round Whitefish and landlocked Arctic 18 char. Burbot, sculpin, sticklebacks are very rare in 19 these lakes, and we do not have spring-spawning species 20 like suckers or grayling. 21 The fish habitat is dominated by boulders and 22 cobbles within at least the top four metres of depth, 23 that's because the lakes are ice scoured, and wind tends 24 to wash the rocks clean within these shallow depths. 25 Beneath about three or four metres there is a 26 gradual transition towards boulder cobble substrate with DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00515 1 some sand and silt, so gravel patches. Pretty much 2 uniformly below eight metres you get that mud that you 3 see in the bottom of the lakes and that is mostly clay 4 with some silt. 5 Shoals, platforms, other rocky areas are very 6 important for, in particular, for spawning by fish, and 7 there is nursery areas for their young, providing 8 shelter and feeding habitat. So these are really the 9 habitats we have focussed on to try and protect and to 10 enhance at the end of mine life. 11 To quickly summarize, the majority of our baseline 12 studies have been completed. There are a few 13 outstanding data gaps, in particular the all-weather 14 road that's being proposed. And this summer we will be 15 doing surveys of each of the major crossings to 16 determine what habitat exists there and whether there 17 are fish populations that might exist within or move 18 within those streams. 19 We feel that we can achieve development of this 20 project with no major residual impacts, so that means no 21 impacts that persist beyond mine life. To ensure that, 22 we work with other groups such as Department of 23 Fisheries and Oceans and perhaps KIA and certainly local 24 people from Baker to ensure that we have sustainable 25 habitat within these lakes that will be productive for 26 fish in the long term. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00516 1 Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions 3 from KIA, NTI? 4 LUIS MANZO: No questions, Mr. Chairman. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Indian and 6 Northern Affairs, any question? 7 CARL McLEAN: No questions. 8 CHAIRPERSON: Department of Fisheries and 9 Oceans? 10 DERRICK MOGGY: We have no questions at 11 this time, Mr. Chairman. 12 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Natural 13 Resources Canada? 14 ROB JOHNSTONE: No questions, Mr. Chairman. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Hamlet of 16 Ranking Inlet? 17 CHARLENE HICKS: No questions. 18 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Local 19 residents, questions? NIRB staff any questions? Steve? 20 NIRB STAFF QUESTIONS PROPONENT ON FISHERIES & AQUATICS 21 Q STEPHEN LINES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 22 am just wondering how much ground troughing was 23 undertaken at Vault Lake? 24 A RANDY BAKER: None. 25 Q STEPHEN LINES: And do you think some is 26 required, or is your impact prediction for the area of DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00517 1 habitat lost, as competent in it as you are, for Second 2 Portage Lake where you did do some ground troughing? 3 A RANDY BAKER: That's a good question, 4 Steve. Yes, we are. We ground troughed a considerable 5 amount of Second and Third Portage Lakes. And given the 6 similarity in habitat among all the project lakes, we 7 are fairly confident that what we can see in Vault, 8 which is much shallower, is pretty similar to what we 9 see in Second and Third Portage. 10 Q STEPHEN LINES: Thank you. I just have one 11 last one. Is there any map available of the watershed 12 boundaries that you referred to? 13 A RANDY BAKER: The watershed boundaries 14 are derived from 1 to 50,000 maps, and we have certainly 15 done it informally within the office and with the 16 hydrology people, but there is no sort of official map 17 that has the watershed boundaries demarked on them. 18 STEPHEN LINES: Thank you. 19 CRAIG GOODINGS: Chair, Steve. Yes, we do 20 have a map that shows the watershed boundaries. It is a 21 map that AMEC did back in 1999. 22 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 23 questions, staff? Thank you. Board members? Lucassie? 24 BOARD MEMBERS QUESTION PROPONENT ON FISHERIES & AQUATICS 25 Q LUCASSIE ARRAGUTAINAQ: Thank you. We have been 26 hearing that the fish will be either transferred from DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00518 1 one lake to another or the fish taken and maybe donated 2 to Baker Lake. How many actually fish are we talking 3 about? How many pounds are we talking about? 4 A RANDY BAKER: That's a very good question 5 and a very difficult one to answer. 6 We have used information from the scientific 7 literature to try to predict how much fish or how much 8 kilograms of fish there would be in a lake the size of 9 the lake that's being dewatered in Second Portage. And 10 my estimate, I think, is around -- I think it is in the 11 order of about 12,000 fish. If you can assume an 12 average weight of 3 kilograms or 4 kilograms per fish, 13 you might have, you know, 30,000, 40,000 pounds of fish 14 in all of the areas that are being dewatered. 15 Q LUCASSIE ARRAGUTAINAQ: Because I was kind of 16 thinking that if Baker Lake is capable of getting 12,000 17 fish, freezers and that kind of thing, I was just 18 thinking about that. 19 A RANDY BAKER: Not all the fish will be 20 harvested in the same year, because Goose Island, Vault 21 and North Portage or Second Portage will be harvested at 22 different times. There will be different opportunities 23 for harvesting fish, so not all will come at once. So 24 they will come hopefully -- and you can't catch all the 25 fish at once anyway. This process might take two months 26 in Second Portage in particular. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00519 1 So fish will be gradually provided to the 2 community, so allowing people to dry fish, freeze fish. 3 And fish such as Whitefish that people may not want to 4 eat can be frozen and used for dog food. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 6 questions? Pauloosie? 7 Q PAULOOSIE PANILOO: Thank you. The sediments 8 that we were looking at, it seems as if there is 9 contaminants. Maybe are the fish, is that the -- are 10 the fish eating that type of contaminated to keep 11 themselves alive? 12 A RANDY BAKER: The sediment is not 13 contaminated. All sediment has metals and minerals in 14 it, just like our own bodies do. We have, and we have a 15 need for copper and zinc and magnesium. These are 16 naturally occurring metals that occur in our bodies and 17 in the foods we eat, and there is naturally occurring 18 metals in the sediment as well. Some sediment has more, 19 some sediment has less, and it depends on the local 20 geology. Some areas have naturally occurring more 21 metals that are, for example, not far from Baker Lake. 22 The soils has more uranium, therefore the sediment will 23 probably also have more uranium. It depends on, you 24 know, where the sediment is located. 25 But it is important to note that these sediments 26 are not contaminated, and the fish are very healthy. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00520 1 And I have looked at the metal concentration in the 2 tissue of the fish, and it is similar to fish from 3 pristine or unaffected lakes from many other areas. 4 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 5 questions? Thank you for your presentation. Mary? 6 Q MARY AVALAK: The lake that's going to be 7 defished, how big are the Whitefish in that lake? 8 Because there are less Whitefish in that area, maybe 9 that lake will not -- maybe the people will not want to 10 take the water out of that area because of the less -- 11 the least population of fish being Whitefish. 12 A RANDY BAKER: The Whitefish in that area 13 are called round Whitefish, and they are, this big. No, 14 I'm kidding. They are fairly small, maybe half a pound 15 at most, so pretty small fish. And these Whitefish are 16 common in each of the lakes that we have studied up 17 there. 18 Does that answer your question, Mary? 19 MARY AVALAK: Thank you. I just wanted 20 to hear this information. Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON: Is there any other 22 questions? Thank you for your presentation. 23 We will take a five -minute break. 24 (BRIEF RECESS) 25 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Welcome back. 26 We will do our next presentation. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00521 1 PRESENTATION BY PROPONENT ON WILDLIFE & TERRESTRIAL 2 MARTIN GEBAUER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman 3 and members of the Board. My name is Martin Gebauer, 4 and I have been involved in conducting wildlife and 5 plant surveys up at the site. 6 Here is some photo on the bottom right of some of 7 the help that we have had up at the site. This is Jacob 8 Ikinlik on the left who is also sitting with us at the 9 table, and Tom Mannik. We usually don't get nice 10 weather up there, it is usually snowing when we do our 11 surveys. 12 We looked at a number of things that we called 13 terrestrial valued ecosystem components, which are 14 really just the things that are important to the people 15 of Baker Lake and some of the other important species up 16 there. So we looked at plants, basically wildlife 17 habitat, caribou, of course, some of the larger 18 predators such as grizzly bear, small mammals, raptors 19 such as peregrine falcon, geese, ducks and then the 20 smaller birds, which we call the other breeding birds, 21 such as longspurs which you see nesting around town 22 here. So I will briefly explain some of the results of 23 our surveys for a couple of these species groups. 24 We mapped plants and vegetation on the site using a 25 method called ecological land classification, and this 26 allows us to look at what plants and habitats might be DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00522 1 important to various species, such as caribou within the 2 mine local study area and our regional study area. 3 I am going to skip just some of these slides. This 4 is just showing the local study area with some of our 5 mapping that we had conducted there. 6 And our regional study area showing it is 100 by 7 100 kilometre squared area around the Meadowbank site. 8 Caribou, of course, are very important to the 9 people of people of Baker Lake and a large component of 10 their native food. 11 We are not in an area known to be used for calving. 12 This is the Meadowbank site here, and these are the 13 known calving areas of some of the herds in the area. 14 So this is the Beverly herd here, the Ahiak or Queen 15 Maud herd up to the northwest. Below, of course, is the 16 Qamanirjuaq herd, the Lorillard to the east, Wager Bay, 17 and then there is also smaller herds up in the Boothia 18 and Simpson Peninsulas. 19 Again, I should say that this represents calving 20 areas. There are caribou throughout this area in the 21 wintertime, and I will explain a little bit more about 22 that in a minute. 23 Let's just skip through that picture and skip 24 through that one. We have done, conducting eight aerial 25 surveys in that regional study area that I described, 26 and here is some of the results for caribou. The bottom DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00523 1 scale is hard to read, but it is basically from 2 February, March, April, May, through the summer, June, 3 July, and August and September. And our estimates of 4 the total number of caribou in February, on the February 5 survey was in the order of about 20,000. 6 Through the spring and into summer, we see fewer 7 animals, and then very few in June and July, which is 8 also -- I guess we would expect, given that we are not 9 in a calving area, and then increasing numbers through 10 the middle of August and then into September. 11 We haven't conducted aerial surveys in October, 12 November, December or January, but we have had ground 13 surveys conducted by people like Tom and Jacob that head 14 up there in the middle of winter on their snowmobiles 15 and survey caribou along the various access routes, I 16 should say the winter road and the new access road. And 17 so this confirms that there are reasonable numbers of 18 caribou through the winter. 19 So the large numbers of caribou or the larger 20 numbers of caribou in the winter probably come from 21 several different herds. This is the late summer range 22 of the Beverly herd, so you can see that the Meadowbank 23 camp is at the eastern end of that range. And so we 24 will be seeing those animals coming through in the 25 middle of August, through September. 26 Some radio-collaring data from the Wager Bay herd. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00524 1 The red is where the calving area is, and the blue is 2 more of the wintertime. So here you can see the 3 Meadowbank camp and some of the animals from the Wager 4 Bay herd coming over in this area to winter. 5 Similarly for the Lorillard herd calving area, over 6 here, Meadowbank camp and then some of the caribou do 7 come over for the wintertime. 8 And one other slide showing caribou that were 9 collared up in the Boothia Peninsula area, and one of 10 those animals has also shown up here, which indicates 11 that there may be some movement this way as well. 12 So we seem to have animals from a number of 13 different herds coming into the Meadowbank area in the 14 wintertime. 15 On aerial surveys, we looked at other animals such 16 as muskox, and just a figure showing the distribution in 17 our study area, primarily up in the northwestern 18 quadrant here with numbers of animals in the 30, seeing 19 more than 30 animals at a time sometimes in that area. 20 We also have similar data for grizzly bears, of 21 which we have seen very few, only two sightings, I 22 guess, in the last ten years, wolves, wolverine and 23 other animals, as well, that are encountered as well on 24 these surveys. 25 Another component of our wildlife surveys are 26 breeding bird surveys. You will recognize the rock DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00525 1 ptarmigan over here and perhaps the common red poll that 2 nests in the area. We conduct these surveys from 3 breeding bird, what we call breeding bird survey plots, 4 which are indicated here. We have also done surveys for 5 nesting raptors, such as peregrine falcon, but because 6 of the flat topography, we have no cliffs and have not 7 yet found any active nest sites of falcons or any hawk 8 for that matter. 9 We also have conducted waterfowl or water bird 10 nesting surveys, and, again, it seems that very few -- 11 that these animals nested very low densities in the 12 Meadowbank area, but we are continuing to do these 13 surveys on an annual basis to see where and how many are 14 nesting. 15 I'm not going to go through all of the impacts of 16 the project, but basically we take all of the baseline 17 information that we have and look at the effects of the 18 mine on the wildlife and vegetation that we see there. 19 So one of the potential impacts might be the 20 concern about caribou being hit on roads. So we have 21 taken a look at that impact, and we've developed a 22 mitigation strategy or management solution s to ensure 23 that that's prevented, so we have recommended reduced 24 speeds on the roads. We have a system where truckers 25 report any sightings of caribou and report that back to 26 other truckers using the routes, they know where and DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00526 1 when they might encounter animals. So that's just an 2 example of some of the mitigation that might use. And, 3 of course, there is many other kinds of aspects here, 4 which I will not detail now. 5 And finally we have a monitoring program just to 6 see how well our mitigation and management techniques 7 are working. And when we do see things that may not be 8 working as well as they should be, we can manage in an 9 adaptive way and implement other mitigation methods. 10 Thank you very much. 11 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions 12 from KIA, NTI? Thank you. Indian and Northern Affairs? 13 CARL McLEAN: No questions. 14 CHAIRPERSON: Department of Fisheries and 15 Oceans? 16 DERRICK MOGGY: We have no questions at 17 this time, Mr. Chairman. 18 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Natural 19 Resources Canada? 20 ROB JOHNSTONE: No questions, Mr. Chairman. 21 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Hamlet of 22 Rankin Inlet? 23 CHARLENE HICKS: We have no questions. 24 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Local 25 residents, any questions? NIRB staff, any questions? 26 Steve? DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00527 1 NIRB STAFF QUESTIONS PROPONENT ON WILDLIFE & TERRESTRIAL 2 Q STEPHEN LINES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 3 There is a map of the late summer ranges for some of the 4 caribou herds in the area, and I think it is based on 5 surveys that were conducted about 20 years ago, and I'm 6 wondering if that map still represents current 7 information as to where the caribou spend the summer? 8 A MARTIN GEBAUER: Yeah, my understanding is 9 that the Government of Nunavut has not conducted or has 10 not updated any of the surveys in that area, and but 11 these maps were pulled from information collected from 12 the Beverly Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board 13 information, and they put a CD together, I think it was 14 2003 or 2004, that had this information on it. So 15 despite it being based on older information, it is the 16 best we have from the government at this point. 17 Q STEPHEN LINES: And there was also one 18 other map about location of caribou grounds, and I'm not 19 sure the date of the information presented on that map. 20 There is no -- yeah, it was for the calving grounds. 21 A MARTIN GEBAUER: For the calving grounds? 22 Yeah, that's a compilation of various bits of 23 information. The Beverly and Qamanirjuaq calving ground 24 location, that's the most recent information that we 25 have from the Government of Nunavut. 26 The Lorillard and Wager Bay is from those other DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00528 1 slides that I showed you. I basically drew some circles 2 around what I thought would be the calving grounds, but 3 I'm in the process of talking to Mitch to see if he 4 could fine-tune those for me a little bit, so it is 5 based on a number of different things. 6 STEPHEN LINES: Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 8 questions? Board members, any questions? Peter? 9 BOARD MEMBERS QUESTION PROPONENT ON WILDLIFE & 10 TERRESTRIAL. 11 Q PETER PANEAK: Thank you very much. I 12 would like to ask regional Inuit, the area that is going 13 to be mined, if there is any -- you know, whenever they 14 have routes, they normally don't change their 15 migrations. Obviously somehow if there is any kind of 16 contaminations, obviously there is going to be some way 17 of, and whenever they have to go, they normally keep 18 their traditional migration routes. And so whatever is 19 there, you know, the only way they will go through is go 20 through it where they normally travel through. So if 21 there was anything that might be dangerous to the 22 caribou, and so that's a question I have. 23 A MARTIN GEBAUER: There is two, I guess, the 24 terrestrial environment and the aquatic environment 25 where caribou might be exposed. From what we have 26 looked at and through our impact assessment, we don't DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00529 1 anticipate any impact from the terrestrial environment, 2 and we don't expect any contaminants to be building up 3 in the vegetation, but in having said that, we are 4 looking at that in our monitoring program, our health 5 monitoring program to see if that is the case. 6 As far as the tailings pond is concerned, we have a 7 monitoring plan in place to use aversive techniques to 8 scare or move the caribou away from those areas so that 9 their exposure would be minimized or avoided. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Peter? 11 Q PETER PANEAK: Thank you. I think I was 12 well answered to this. But, you know, whenever they 13 have to, they normally don't change their pattern, 14 whether it is bad weather or not. 15 We Inuit and Qablunnaq, you know if it is bad 16 weather outside, we would not be outside. But we know 17 that caribou, you know, there has got to be a way of 18 mitigation as to the only way is to try and find some 19 way of -- we have got to know that, that's why I am 20 bringing it up, find some other way to trying to direct 21 them through other direction. 22 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 23 A MARTIN GEBAUER: Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON: Any other questions? 25 Lucassie? 26 Q LUCASSIE ARRAGUTAINAQ: Thank you. I do not know DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00530 1 anything about caribou, so the range shows the movement 2 of the caribou. If I were to -- I could see the graph 3 that you had on, that must be the movement of the 4 caribou. But the range, summer range and caribou 5 movement, if I were trying to interpret that into my 6 mind, which I don't know anything about caribou, like I 7 said, I would want to know the actual movement, the 8 arrows or the cycle, that kind of thing. Is there 9 anything like that in place anywhere, maybe from caribou 10 management? I don't know. 11 A MARTIN GEBAUER: Unfortunately there is not 12 a lot of very good information for this area. It is in 13 between the calving areas of some of the bigger herds, 14 so there hasn't been a lot of study on what the caribou 15 are doing in that area, but we have talked to local 16 people and traditional knowledge people such as Tom, 17 Jacob and many others in Baker Lake to ask them about 18 the movement patterns of caribou. 19 And, generally, we talk about these animals moving 20 into the area in the fall and animals coming in the 21 winter from the east, so from the Lorillard and Wager 22 Bay herds. And I was out with a hunter just a few days 23 ago asking about the movement of caribou right now, and 24 he indicated they were moving east, so perhaps back to 25 the Lorillard and Wager Bay herds. So we have that kind 26 of information, but not any information, really, from DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00531 1 the government surveys that have been conducted nearby. 2 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 3 questions? Thank you. Pauloosie? 4 Q PAULOOSIE PANILOO: As I am not too well 5 knowledgeable about caribou, but what I have seen what 6 you have documented. As I am from Baffin, and we travel 7 quite a distance to harvest caribou. And in Baffin, the 8 migration routes normally, that tourists, normally 9 knowing that they migrate during the fall and spring. 10 I would like to ask, I would like to know which 11 communities normally harvest these caribous whenever 12 they are migrating, where do they normally go? You 13 know, they are caribou do -- there are no caribou that 14 will stay in one area for any length of time. 15 A MARTIN GEBAUER: Perhaps I can ask Jacob or 16 Tom to answer that question about which of the 17 communities are hunting the caribou in the Meadowbank 18 area. 19 A JACOB IKINLIK: Whether it is spring or 20 summer, I have lived in the area way back when, you 21 know. In the fall, they used to travel west, but it is 22 different today. 23 There aren't always that many caribou, sometimes 24 they are small, high numbers, but especially in the 25 fall, you know, they used to travel south. I know that, 26 but back then. But as for today's, it seems that DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00532 1 caribou travel any which way, wherever they go. 2 I travel, I go hunting, I don't see too -- whether 3 in the spring I normally travel through there, I don't 4 see any clear direction as to where they are going 5 whenever I see them. 6 CHAIRPERSON: Did you have a question? 7 JOE KALUDJAK: Thank you. I am Joe 8 Kaludjak. 9 I'm a member of the Caribou Management Board from 10 Keewatin. If I can say a few words as to what they are 11 doing. We don't completely have all the answers, but 12 Qamanirjuaq herd in 1994 they were counted for to the 13 last time. And for the Beverly herd, '94 were also 14 checked to see for the numbers, population. 15 Because the Caribou Management Board have been 16 looking for further funds to do further surveys, but the 17 Qamanirjuaq herd and the Beverly herd may be -- we have 18 been trying. 19 The Qamanirjuaq normally are hunted by those in 20 northern provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and 21 although there are different herds -- and also, the 22 Natives, First Nations also, and they also don't want 23 neck monitors. And so we have been, you know, they have 24 different ideas, and so it makes it a little harder to 25 try and monitor everything, the Caribou Management 26 Board, as to where they are migrating. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00533 1 And in the winter, their migration routes are very 2 different from where it used -- especially for those 3 that have neck collars. That shows as to where the 4 caribou are. It is becoming more recent surveys is that 5 a lot of the caribou are in and around the northern 6 provinces and whenever they are -- and it has been a 7 long time since there has been a population survey, and 8 so I'm -- I just wanted to add a bit of the knowledge 9 that I have collected over the years since the last 10 surveys. 11 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 12 questions? Thank you for your presentation. 13 CRAIG GOODINGS: That's the end of our 14 presentation, thank you. We are going to talk about the 15 nine points at our closing. 16 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. The next 17 presentation is KIA, NTI. 18 While we are waiting for them to set up, we will go 19 through one more presentation and then we will go for 20 lunch. 21 So when you are done your presentations and 22 question period, we will get your nine points and then 23 we will do your closing statements after the question 24 period. Thank you. 25 PRESENTATION BY KIA, NTI 26 JOE KALUDJAK: I'm really glad at the fact DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00534 1 that I am here. First of all, I would like to say 2 please feel welcome in Kivalliq. My name is Joe 3 Kaludjak. I am the vice-president of KIA. 4 My colleagues will talk here after I have done 5 this, and it is in regards to inside of Nunavut. NTI 6 and KIA are nonprofit organizations that represent the 7 Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area in the Kivalliq 8 area. And the NTI as the Inuit party to the Nunavut 9 Land Claims Agreement and that the KIA is the Designated 10 Inuit Organization for the Kivalliq region. Our purpose 11 is to ensure Inuit rights and benefits are gained 12 through the Land Claims Agreement. 13 The Nunavut Land Claims states the primary purpose 14 of Inuit-owned lands, Luis Manzo will talk about this 15 part. 16 JEANNIE EHALOAK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 17 Members of the Board, ladies and gentlemen. 18 My name is Jeannie Ehaloak, I'm the environmental 19 coordinator with the Department of Lands and Resources 20 of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated in Cambridge Bay. 21 NTI and KIA made formal submissions on the Draft 22 Environmental Impact Statement on May 20th, 2005. 23 Cumberland Resources has provided and will continue to 24 provide information as the process continues. 25 Cumberland has agreed to address many of the concerns 26 outlined in the submission. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00535 1 The following presentation summarizes the concerns 2 which we hope that Cumberland Resources will address in 3 the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Production 4 increase from 5,500 to 7,500 tonnes a day are not 5 included in the Draft EIS. The all-weather road is not 6 included in the Draft EIS. Tailings may become 7 permafrost, waste rock piles may become acid draining. 8 Third Portage Lake make drain into Back River system. 9 The Draft EIS needs a marine impact assessment. 10 Under the Nunavut Land Claims Section 6.2.3, the 11 Government of Canada must specify a person to assume 12 liability for marine transportation. The applicability 13 of Section 6.2.3 of the Nunavut Land Claims agreement is 14 unknown and compensation cannot be considered until a 15 marine transportation plan is available. 16 I will now turn the mic over to Luis. 17 LUIS MANZO: Mr. Chairman, yesterday was 18 raised a question from the Board where the project is 19 located. The project of Meadowbank is located in the 20 Parcel BL-14, as you see there in red, in which KIA and 21 NTI have the rights of those minerals and surface 22 rights. 23 And along this map also is where actually the ship 24 is going to go to Baker Lake from Chesterfield Inlet, 25 and along that line we have several parcels and 26 subsurface and surface as well. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00536 1 The road, this information was gathered to 2 interpret potential impacts which haven't been presented 3 in the EIS. That information comes from the EIS with 4 just we reference the information presented in two 5 different maps and compare with the possible road as a 6 potential road is marked in green. This was done on two 7 topographic maps, the potential bridges are in red, the 8 potential quarries is in diamonds. The fishing areas, 9 as information collected from the proponent, and the 10 additional information in the EIS, the hunting areas 11 also should represent that information, and also the 12 caribou crossing. 13 This is the south half and to present also the 14 other two possible quarries and potential quarries in 15 the area. Information for the road hasn't fully been 16 completed, but they committed to do it. 17 There is the possible route of marine 18 transportation from the Inlet of Chesterfield to Baker 19 Lake. Could be a potential caribou crossings from 20 shipping. Effect on fish and marine mammal, no 21 information in the EIS with regard to this. 22 Other issues, soil slumping during the dewatered 23 may cause suspended solids and may not allow direct 24 pumping into Third Portage Lake for as much as 50 25 percent of the dewatering. 26 Fish salvage plan need to be formalized and DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00537 1 schedules. Pit dikes may leak too much through broken 2 bedrock. 3 Turn Lake crossing culvert, construction may not be 4 permafrost and could spread suspended solids into 5 Drilltrail Lake. Draft EIS needs ways for confirmation 6 with permafrost. 7 Turn Lake crossing culvert may become blocked by 8 snow or ice. Draft EIS needs more information along 9 those terms. 10 Possible leakage, hydraulic headwater leaks could 11 come from the pit dump down to the bedrock. This area 12 here is, I'm certain at this time, will require more 13 information already and is already in the list of 106 14 commitments from the company. 15 Then the layout of the project and also the 16 monitoring, mapping they are using at this time is in 17 white. At this time, the monitoring stations was used 18 to collect the information. 19 When the project goes ahead, this monitoring 20 station will be practically overrided by construction, 21 so we need also to ensure the monitoring and the 22 tailings will be addressed. 23 The waste rock, information on this particular now 24 is less, according to information from the proponent, 25 and they also need to present the new layouts of the 26 EIS. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00538 1 Other issues, the Vault attenuation pond may 2 release metals and nitrates into the environment during 3 reflooding. 4 Caribou may be attracted to tailings as a salt 5 lick. Draft EIS needs to determine a plan for that, for 6 that specific issue. That the EIS needs Nunavummiut 7 involvement plan through consultation with respected 8 committees. 9 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your 11 presentation. Any question to KIA, NTI, Cumberland? 12 CRAIG GOODINGS: No questions. 13 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Indian and 14 Northern Affairs, any questions? 15 CARL McLEAN: We have no questions. 16 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Department of 17 Fisheries and Oceans? 18 DERRICK MOGGY: We have no questions, Mr. 19 Chairman. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Natural Resources Canada? 21 ROB JOHNSTONE: No questions, Mr. Chairman. 22 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Hamlet of 23 Rankin Inlet? 24 CHARLENE HICKS: No questions. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Local 26 residents, any questions to KIA, NTI? Thank you. NIRB DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00539 1 staff, any questions? Carolanne? 2 NIRB STAFF QUESTIONS KIA AND NTI 3 Q CAROLANNE INGLIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 4 Luis, I was wondering if you could just speak to the map 5 which shows the shipping route, if you wouldn't mind 6 pulling that up on the screen? That one, thank you. 7 I was just wondering if the caribou crossing which 8 you are referring to is a caribou crossing during the 9 wintertime? 10 A LUIS MANZO: Yes, but there is no 11 reference in the EIS of any of this information at this 12 time. 13 CHAIRPERSON: All right. 14 CRAIG GOODINGS: I was just going to 15 comment that we are only shipping during the summer. 16 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 17 questions from the staff? Stephanie? 18 Q MS. BRISCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 19 We have heard over the course of the prehearings 20 from Cumberland that they will be entering into an IIBA 21 with the Kivalliq Inuit Association, and we have heard 22 that KivIA is responsible for negotiating an IIBA on 23 behalf of Inuit of the region. 24 We have also heard from specifically the economic 25 development officer in Baker Lake during our session 26 there that they also desire -- they wish to enter into DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00540 1 an agreement, as well, with the company to ensure that 2 the Hamlet's interests are addressed from a community 3 perspective as a whole, not just from the Inuit 4 perspective. 5 Does the Kivalliq Inuit Association have any 6 objections to Cumberland Resources entering into other 7 agreements to negotiate benefits and impacts which 8 aren't addressed necessarily through the Impact Benefit 9 Agreement? 10 A LUIS MANZO: Well, Kivalliq Inuit 11 Association at this time will exercise the rights under 12 Article 26, and the director will guide us through the 13 process in entering into a contract with Cumberland 14 Resources. 15 Q STEPHANIE BRISCOE: Would KIA, however, have 16 objections with the company entering into an agreement 17 say with the Hamlet to address those concerns that may 18 not be matters discussed through the IIBA? For example, 19 if they were to identify stresses on infrastructure, 20 sewage lagoon, water system as a result of possible 21 increase in population, issues surrounding the 22 recreation department or the wellness department for the 23 Hamlet specifically, addressing the full population. Is 24 there objection to that, or would you support those 25 discussions? 26 A LUIS MANZO: Like I say, we will address DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00541 1 that under Article 26. We have a process in place. 2 CLARCs has been consulted in the regard to that, and I 3 think that that will be the venue at this time, 4 according to our procedures. 5 And it is my understanding that the Hamlets, as a 6 whole, are organizations of public government. What we 7 are discussing here is the Inuit rights, which is 8 completely different of that particular frame. We will 9 listen to any entity who may have concerns, but we would 10 leave it under Article 26. 11 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions 12 from NIRB Board? Pauloosie? 13 BOARD MEMBERS QUESTION NTI AND KIA 14 Q PAULOOSIE PANILOO: Thank you. My question is 15 in regards to IIBA or either in the summer or in regards 16 to protecting caribou, I would like to know is there 17 going to be some programs set up through your agreement? 18 Like, you will be in support of this project as you are 19 in support of this project. Like, for example, me 20 coming from Baffin Island, I would look into the people 21 would be in -- I guess the people in this case I will 22 make an example, I would want to see like the programs 23 set up there so they can be followed, proper 24 regulations, whatnot, in my case. 25 A LUIS MANZO: Yes, that's the intent, 26 that's the intent of the Land Claims Agreement. And, as DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00542 1 well, we leave that under Article 26 and for further 2 discussions. 3 That's the intent of the claim. Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Joe? 5 JOE KALUDJAK: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I 6 would like to add what he just answered, Luis Manzo. 7 Through the agreement, NLCA, and like we have to protect 8 our land in our region in prior to the project is being 9 proceeded. We are protecting our region and Nunavut 10 through NTI, whether they are for the mining company or 11 not. And prior to project is being proceeded, we have 12 to make sure there is certain agreement through our Land 13 Claims Agreement and so the Inuit can be benefited as 14 well and they have to be represented to NTI and through 15 the Land Claims Agreement. 16 Like there is no question the fact that we will not 17 be -- we are not going to be avoiding anything that 18 is -- anything that is regulated through our Land Claims 19 Agreement. Like, if Hamlet of the community have some 20 special concerns, we will be representing them, 21 everything else is documented, how we are going to be 22 protecting our land. For example, we will be working 23 with Cumberland Resources, and we have to agree with 24 anything, we have to be very observant in every case. 25 What Pauloosie stated earlier in regards to his 26 question that he would have some concerns too, if this, DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00543 1 such projects were being taken place in his location, 2 and we are going to be following the regulations. Like, 3 we are mainly focussing on the bigger issues right now, 4 not totally in details of each cases. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 6 questions, NIRB Board members? 7 Your nine points and then your closing statement. 8 Thank you. 9 CLOSING STATEMENT OF NTI AND KIA 10 LUIS MANZO: Mr. Chairman, in regards to 11 the nine points, KIA do not have any concerns in regard 12 to it. 13 CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead, sorry. 14 LUIS MANZO: KIA doesn't have any 15 concerns right now to the nine points, once the 16 presentation continues. 17 JOE KALUDJAK: Can you please turn on the 18 lights? I feel like enclosed in a dark room. 19 Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to say during 20 our closure, I'm glad the fact that we had a chance to 21 say our concerns and some questions. 22 NTI and KIA, we would like to express our gratitude 23 to Nunavut Impact Review Board and all the communities 24 of Baker Lake , Chesterfield Inlet and Rankin Inlet. 25 This discussions for, we were focused mainly on the 26 Meadowbank project, thank you for being here. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00544 1 Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and KIA, I will say 2 them in English, GeoVector Management, SENES 3 Consultants, G.R. MacFarlane Associates, Cumberland 4 Resources, and this Draft EIS that we were able to 5 listen during their presentations. 6 And the KIA inside of Kivalliq region, and during 7 their presentations and us as a group here, we are 8 representing the Kivalliq, like I stated earlier in 9 prior to the hearing and also during the technical 10 hearings. If they should go ahead with a project, they 11 will be going through Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. 12 KIA is going to be, they are strongly in support of the 13 project, this is mostly on behalf of our Inuit. 14 We will be informing, updating our Inuit in our 15 region, and we will also be asking them for their 16 concerns and questions. 17 In regards to this nine concerns Nunavut Impact 18 Review Board asked us at this time, but right now we 19 don't have any questions or concerns right now. 20 As we stated earlier during our presentations, NTI 21 and KIA, as nonprofit organizations, we would like to 22 give a message to Cumberland Resources. As we stated 23 earlier, we are representing our Inuit here, and the KIA 24 is going to try their best to work with you with the 25 best ability. 26 Under the agreement, Inuit Impact Benefits DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00545 1 Agreement, we will be going through that agreement on 2 behalf of our Inuit fellowship. Through the economics, 3 through the job opportunities, these are the things we 4 want to see. And then lastly, and we would like to see 5 the whole project to proceed as best they could and go 6 by the rules that things that we like to see, like, in 7 positively to all behalf for the -- when the Meadowbank 8 project, when it goes ahead. There are nine concerns, 9 it is on behalf of our Inuit in Kivalliq. 10 This is all I have to say for now. Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will break 12 for lunch and be back in an hour, 1:45, 1:40. 13 (ADJOURNED AT 12:35 P.M.) 14 (RECONVENED AT 1:50 P.M.) 15 CHAIRPERSON: Welcome back, everybody. 16 Before we get started, Bill has a couple of exhibits to 17 file. 18 BILL TILLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 19 So following up on the Kivalliq Inuit Association, if we 20 could file as number 18 the KIA presentation for Rankin 21 Inlet, and as number 19, the KIA closing which we have 22 received in hard copy. 23 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 24 EXHIBIT 18: KIA AND NTI PRESENTATION - 25 RANKIN INLET 26 EXHIBIT 19: KIA AND NTI CLOSING DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00546 1 STATEMENT 2 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Next we had 3 INAC's presentation? 4 PRESENTATION BY INAC 5 CARL McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 6 Good afternoon, everybody. I want to thank the 7 Board for the opportunity to speak to you and the 8 community members here today. 9 My name is Carl McLean, and I'm speaking to you 10 today as Acting Director of Operations for the Nunavut 11 regional office of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 12 To my direct right today is Robyn Abernethy-Gillis, 13 environmental scientist. To the far right is Michael 14 Hine, resource development advisor for economic 15 development. Also on our team we have with us Charles 16 Drouin, communications officer, Alison Cormier, 17 administrative assistant, Henry Kablalik, resource 18 management officer for the Kivalliq region. His office 19 is based here in Rankin Inlet. 20 We have also brought some of our consultants who 21 assisted in preparing our intervention and comments to 22 the Board so we can do our best to answer your 23 questions. 24 I would like to introduce Mark Watson from EBA 25 Engineering Consulting Limited who is a specialist in 26 the field of geotechnical and permafrost practicing in DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00547 1 mine and quarry design. We also have Norm Cavanagh, our 2 legal counsel. 3 INAC derives its regulatory mandate, 4 responsibilities and obligations from several pieces of 5 legislation and policies, and they are shown up on the 6 screen there. 7 We have the DIAND Act, the Nunavut Land Claims 8 Agreement, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 9 Federal Real Property and Immovables Act, the Nunavut 10 Water and Surface Rights Tribunal Act, the Nunavut Mine 11 Site Reclamation Policy and the Territorial Lands Act 12 and Regulations. 13 Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has two roles in 14 the Meadowbank Gold Project: as an intervenor in the 15 environmental assessment process and in a regulatory 16 capacity once the project has been approved to proceed 17 based on the environmental assessment. 18 We want to be sure that NIRB has the best available 19 information from us to perform its role and 20 responsibilities as outlined in the Nunavut Land Claims 21 Agreement. 22 We are also here to answer questions the Board or 23 the proponent has from us, as well as answering 24 questions that other intervenors, and most importantly, 25 the community of Rankin Inlet may have, with the 26 permission of the Board. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00548 1 After the final hearings, NIRB presents its report 2 to the INAC Minister who has the task of reviewing the 3 report in conjunction with other ministers that have a 4 responsibility for authorizing the project to proceed. 5 If the project receives approval, INAC will 6 administer and enforce the terms and conditions of the 7 water license, as well as for the portion of the project 8 on land with surface rights held by the Crown. 9 The mine aspect of the proposed project is located 10 entirely on surface and subsurface Inuit-owned land 11 administered by the Kivalliq Inuit Association and 12 Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, NTI 13 Access to the site via all-weather or winter 14 haulage route lies partly on Crown land administered by 15 Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 16 Storage and laydown facilities for the mine site 17 are located on municipal lands of the community of Baker 18 Lake. 19 INAC will hold security deposits for the water 20 license and for the reclamation of those parts of the 21 project on Crown land. 22 This presentation will present a summary of Indian 23 and Northern Affairs Canada's adequacy review of the 24 information contained in Cumberland Resources' Draft 25 Environmental Impact Statement and supporting documents, 26 as was requested by the Nunavut Impact Review Board of DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00549 1 all intervenors. As such, Indian and Northern Affairs 2 Canada has analyzed the issues in the Draft 3 Environmental Impact Statement that are within its 4 mandate. 5 We are committed to provide the necessary staff and 6 resources for the review of this project so that it can 7 help resolve any technical concerns to all parties' 8 satisfaction and to enable the proponent to move forward 9 in the environmental assessment. 10 The next few slides are going to deal with some 11 deficiencies we see in the Draft Environmental Impact 12 Statement. In general, Indian and Northern Affairs 13 Canada has found that Cumberland Resources' Draft 14 Environmental Impact Statement addressed most technical 15 issues pertaining to engineering and physical sciences; 16 however, these design issues are conceptual and are 17 still in the project planning stages. 18 We found that Cumberland's Draft Environmental 19 Impact Statement minimally presents and references their 20 baseline data, making a traceable and reproducible 21 review of impacts against the baseline conditions 22 extremely difficult. This is followed by insufficient 23 analytical assessments to allow Indian and Northern 24 Affairs Canada, at this time, to share Cumberland's 25 confidence in their assessment results. 26 Some of these areas are data and analytical DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00550 1 assessments for key parts of the project are not 2 adequate. There is a lack of geotechnical data to share 3 the proponent's confidence in the stability of the 4 tailings impoundment dike. There is insufficient 5 geology and mineralogy data to assess acid-rock drainage 6 and metal leaching throughout the entire project site. 7 There is inadequate groundwater data and/or analysis to 8 support assumptions that seepage from tailings 9 impoundment is considered low and mitigation is 10 sufficient. Also, there is insufficient data based on 11 community consultation to share confidence in the 12 assessment of cumulative effects. 13 Our key concerns with the socio-economic assessment 14 and plan found in the Draft Environmental Impact 15 Statement are with the spatial scale, that being the 16 exclusive focus on Baker Lake, community consultation, 17 methodology and the planned primary mitigation and 18 monitoring tool used. 19 Insufficient baseline data and discussion to 20 support rationale why Baker Lake should be the exclusive 21 community of focus and benefit for the project to the 22 exclusion of the other Kivalliq communities. 23 The company has not demonstrated how the residents 24 of Baker Lake are more capable to gain and hold 25 employment over other Kivalliq communities. This 26 suggests that the selection of Baker Lake as a primary DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00551 1 community is a policy of the company, a rationale that 2 the company should discuss further. 3 INAC is also concerned that Cumberland has also not 4 demonstrated the full range of insight and interest from 5 communities, stakeholders and vulnerable groups from 6 their community consultation process. 7 At this time, it is INAC's recommendation that 8 Cumberland Resources provide the information acquired in 9 their community consultation work and demonstrate how 10 this information or concern has been addressed in the 11 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Specifically, the 12 company should provide all their detailed records from 13 the community involvement work. 14 Methodologies used to determine potential impacts 15 do not appear to take into account differing components 16 of the community, such as family status, age, gender, 17 previous wage employment, language capacity, et cetera. 18 These are significant variables that will reflect the 19 impact of the mine on the community, the residents and 20 the company's ability to mitigate those impacts, both 21 negative and positive. 22 INAC recommends the proponent review their 23 methodology and these factors' impacts upon valued 24 socio-economic components. 25 Cumberland Resources proposes to use the Inuit 26 Impact and Benefit Agreement as the primary mitigation DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00552 1 and monitoring tool. The public is not privy to this 2 confidential document, nor its negotiation. 3 Cumberland Resources should explore other 4 socio-economic mitigation and monitoring instruments. 5 In doing so, the company can then demonstrate that a 6 proper mitigation plan and follow-up monitoring program 7 for maximization of benefits and minimization of 8 negative effects has been completed for review and 9 approval through NIRB's procedures. 10 It is Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's opinion 11 that the technical session held June 2nd and 3rd has 12 been successful. But like the other intervenors, we 13 consider that a considerable amount of information 14 remains to be exchanged. 15 The value of the technical session has been the 16 face-to-face discussions regarding the present scope of 17 the project, introductory and deeper discussions 18 regarding the primary technical issues and the offer by 19 Cumberland Resources to provide the technical reports to 20 support the positions taken by themselves at the 21 technical meetings. 22 In effect, the technical meetings are viewed as the 23 first round of information requests. It is our opinion 24 that upon the technical review of the project 25 references, the intervenors can either share Cumberland 26 Resources' confidence or can, through information DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00553 1 exchanges, clearly and independently assess the residual 2 risks. 3 In conclusion, once the road application achieves 4 conformity, INAC concurs with NIRB that it is in the 5 best interest to include the all-weather road in the 6 assessment so the final hearings can address all 7 components of the project. 8 Where all information may have been collected, INAC 9 has observed that the information has not been provided 10 nor properly referenced, and as such, our review has 11 identified some significant areas of weakness in the 12 company's Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 13 It is our opinion that the proponent has not 14 provided sufficient baseline data and therefore has not 15 demonstrated an adequate assessment, mitigation, nor 16 management in some key areas. Therefore, Indian and 17 Northern Affairs Canada recommends to NIRB that the 18 required information from the proponent be provided to 19 all intervenors and the public before the project's 20 review proceeds into the final technical review. 21 Our submission to NIRB provides recommendations on 22 how the proponent can address deficiencies observed 23 during INAC's review of the Draft Environmental Impact 24 Statement and its supporting documents. 25 This submission focuses on the information that is 26 necessary in the following key project areas: baseline DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00554 1 data necessary for construction of the tailings 2 impoundment area and dikes, acid-rock drainage and metal 3 leaching, potential deep groundwater contamination, 4 cumulative effects and socio-economic areas. 5 In order to conduct a thorough assessment of this 6 project, the proponent should submit information from 7 its studies and consultation activities to support its 8 baseline data and assessment justifications. 9 Matna. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Cumberland, any 11 question to INAC? 12 PROPONENT QUESTIONS INAC 13 Q JOHN DONIHEE: I have a couple of 14 questions for DIAND related to their comments about the 15 Inuit Impact Benefits Agreement. 16 Mr. McLean, your slide indicated, and I believe 17 what you have said was that DIAND wasn't -- didn't have 18 confidence in the IIBA as the primary mitigation tool 19 for socio-economic impacts. And I would just like to 20 point out as, what I am sure you know, which is that the 21 IIBA, of course, based on Article 26 of the Land Claim 22 was negotiated by the Government of Canada and 23 represented by your department with Inuit in order to 24 provide benefits to Inuit from major development 25 projects in Nunavut. 26 And Article 12 of the Land Claim, Section 12.2.3 DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00555 1 specifically, and I'll read this to you says, "The 2 mandate of NIRB shall not include the establishment of 3 requirements for socio-economic benefits." So NIRB, 4 although it has jurisdiction to look at the 5 socio-economic impacts, is not in a position to actually 6 make recommendations about socio-economic benefits. And 7 it seems that the Land Claim intends that that be 8 handled through the IIBA. 9 And I guess the final point I would make before I 10 ask you the question is, you know, considering that the 11 population of Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet and Rankin 12 Inlet is primarily Inuit, what other mechanisms are you 13 looking for to address these impacts? Because if the 14 IIBA won't do it, there has to be something else. And 15 it seems from our perspective that the IIBA is going to 16 take care of the vast majority of the population of the 17 Kivalliq region. 18 A CARL McLEAN: Yeah, thank you, John, for 19 that question. 20 The presentation, what I believe I said was that 21 the IIBA should not be used as a primary mitigation and 22 monitoring tool. And the reason we are saying that is 23 that there are several organizations, agencies, groups 24 of all the Kivalliq communities that are not directly -- 25 that don't have any direct input into the IIBA 26 discussions and negotiations. For example, the RCMP, DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00556 1 Social Services, Hamlet councils, the Government of 2 Nunavut. So we feel there needs to be a way found to -- 3 so those groups, and there is probably others, are able 4 to both have input into the socio-economic effects and 5 also the mitigation of those socio-economic effects. 6 So we are not saying the IIBA is -- we understand 7 the IIBA has to be a part of this project, and that's 8 being negotiated with the Inuit under the Nunavut Land 9 Claim Agreement. We don't disagree with that. 10 We just feel there needs to be further discussions 11 with these other groups to make sure that their issues 12 are also dealt with. What type of agreement that might 13 be, I'm not too familiar. I will ask Mike to add in a 14 minute, but they could be socio-ec agreements with 15 Hamlet councils, with the Government of Nunavut, there 16 could be others. I'm not too familiar. 17 We think there needs to be the discussion held and 18 ways found to include those types of groups. 19 MIKE HINE: Yeah, we think the IIBA is 20 going to go a long way to providing benefits to Inuit. 21 But the other parties that are affected by the project, 22 such as Carl pointed out, the Hamlet councils or the 23 municipal corporation of the Hamlet of Baker Lake, which 24 as we talked the other day, yeah, it may be mainly 25 comprised of Inuit who will receive benefit of the IIBA, 26 but the Hamlet is outside of that IIBA. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00557 1 And we are not talking about providing benefits, we 2 are also talking about monitoring and mitigating the 3 negative side of this. 4 So the IIBA is an excellent vehicle to provide 5 benefits, but it may not be the optimum vehicle to 6 monitor and mitigate the negative sides, the negative 7 effects of the project. 8 Q JOHN DONIHEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 9 I do accept your point and agree, I guess, that 10 there is a difference between negotiating and directing 11 benefits to certain portions of the community and the 12 monitoring of the long-term effects of the project. 13 So, I actually would have asked you that as my next 14 question anyway. But I just want to come back to the 15 suggestion that I think -- let me ask it to you as a 16 question. I mean, do you see a difference between 17 ensuring that organizations with roles in managing or 18 attempting to ensure community wellness, do you see a 19 difference between giving those organizations the 20 opportunity to have some input to the II BA negotiations 21 and the suggestion that somehow or other those 22 organizations need to be parties to the IIBA? 23 I mean, speaking only for myself, it is hard to 24 imagine that the RCMP are impacted by the project, but 25 rather simply that, you know, the responsibilities that 26 they have in the community may be affected by changes, DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00558 1 and therefore they might have something useful to add to 2 what KivIA might do with their negotiations. So are we 3 of the same mind in that respect? 4 A CARL McLEAN: Thanks for that question. 5 In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement there 6 is very little, if any, information on how you are 7 including those groups. What we would like to see in 8 the Final EIS are for you to prove and show and 9 demonstrate how those groups have been consulted and 10 have been considered in the effects and mitigation of 11 socio-economic issues. 12 Q JOHN DONIHEE: Would you accept just 13 proof? 14 A CARL McLEAN: Say again? 15 Q JOHN DONIHEE: Never mind. You have heard 16 the answers to questions asked by NIRB staff to Kivalliq 17 Inuit Association this morning. I mean, I am not sure 18 that Cumberland is going to be in a position to prove, 19 show and demonstrate. I mean, KivIA is going to take 20 the lead on this, so are you going to be looking to see 21 this? 22 I'm not sure, I guess, what if it isn't in the FEIS 23 in that way ? I mean, what do you need to know about 24 the IIBA in order to satisfy yourselves? Do you need to 25 see it? Do you need a summary of it? You know, is 26 there -- there are confidentiality issues, but as you DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00559 1 know in the Doris North hearings with NIRB, a summary of 2 the IIBA was presented at the time of the final hearing. 3 Would something like that get us partway to 4 providing you with the comfort you need? 5 A CARL McLEAN: You know, we -- if you 6 provided us the draft or the IIBA to review, we would 7 certainly review it. But whether or not that would be 8 acceptable, I think in Final EIS, we want you to be able 9 to demonstrate how you have included these other groups 10 in determining whether or not there are any effects, for 11 one, and then determining how to mitigate those effects, 12 because we certainly feel that those other groups and 13 the communities have socio-economic issues that will 14 result from this project. 15 JOHN DONIHEE: Thank you very much. Those 16 are my questions, Mr. Chairman. 17 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 18 CRAIG GOODINGS: I know we have a difference 19 of opinion over some of the socio-economic stuff. 20 You know, Cumberland respects that this is Inuit 21 land, and this is their private land, this is KIA's 22 private land. And if they want to run the IIBA to cover 23 everything off, we support them on that. 24 I can't speak more to who they are going to 25 negotiate with, although I happen to know they wanted 26 this to be an inclusive process as well. So I think DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00560 1 that we are fully confident, Cumberland is fully 2 confident that KIA will be able to put together an IIBA 3 with us that will cover everybody's concerns. 4 We understand it is a private document, but 5 unfortunately the way the review process works, I don't 6 know why the IIBA was considered confidential, but it 7 is. So we are going to do -- but we do want to support 8 the Land Claim and the way it was structured. And in 9 our interpretation of it, the IIBA is the main way to 10 make sure the Inuit get the minimum benefits with the 11 minimum amount of negativity. And I hope that INAC can 12 see their way to have that IIBA work, because otherwise 13 how are we going to support the KIA to be who they are 14 supposed to try to be? So I hope we can work that out. 15 On the environmental issues, comment, concerns, as 16 you know, we are going to supply you with this 17 additional information. And once you review it, I'm 18 hoping you will agree with Golder. 19 And I would also like to say thank you. As I have 20 said this every time now, and this is maybe my sixth 21 time, maybe. I appreciate the time you guys have taken 22 and your consultant in EBA to go through the document, 23 and it just makes it better. 24 I just hope we can keep working together to keep 25 making it better. Thank you. 26 CARL McLEAN: Mr. Chair, if I could just DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00561 1 make one comment. INAC does not disagree that the Inuit 2 Impact and Benefits Agreement is not the main tool to 3 give benefits to Inuit, we agree with that. We just -- 4 to say it again, we need the other groups to find a way 5 to be included in the socio-economic impacts, to find 6 how they can be included in discussing the 7 socio-economic impacts, and hopefully your Final 8 Environmental Impact Statement will demonstrate that. 9 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. KIA, NTI, any 10 comments, questions to INAC? 11 KIA AND NTI COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS TO INAC 12 LUIS MANZO: Luis Manzo, Mr. Chairman. 13 There is a statement, I want to make it clear, the 14 role of -- the intent of the NLCA, Nunavut Land Claims 15 Agreement is to give Inuit the powers to exercise and 16 become self-sufficient, and that's why Article 26 is 17 being interpreted. 18 So KIA, at this time, will reserve the rights to 19 make any comments in that regard to Article 26. I don't 20 think Article 26 will belong to the rest. We have a 21 process, and our legal counsels will be sending a letter 22 of that particular process. 23 Nevertheless, KIA is making sure in this process, 24 as you know, in being responsible enough to present one 25 of the best reviews technically speaking in this 26 process. The questions came or comments came, I don't DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00562 1 know, KIA will deliver good monitoring programs and 2 going to make sure if those monitoring programs to the 3 environmental will be protected. I will make clear this 4 legislation is in place to do that and that's why this 5 process is very transparent. 6 And in terms of the benefit, we are going to make 7 sure to maximize the benefits and minimize the impacts. 8 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 9 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 10 NORM CAVANAGH: Mr. Chairman, if I might. 11 Norm Cavanagh, Justice Canada, counsel for INAC. 12 In the last comments, I understood there was a 13 suggestion that KIA would like to put a letter in from 14 their counsel, and I am wondering if what they are 15 suggesting is at the end of this process or at the end 16 of today this process remain open, pending that? I'm 17 not really sure what they were getting at. Maybe we 18 could get some clarification on that. 19 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. KIA? 20 LUIS MANZO: We just want to send a 21 letter, a statement of the statement that I made today, 22 but it will be from the legal counsel and stating that 23 statement clearly to the parties. Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 25 Q JOE KALUDJAK: Thank you, Joe Kaludjak, 26 vice-president of KIA. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00563 1 The first question is how much Crown land is going 2 to be affected with the road or the mine to Carl? 3 And to Mike, when we talk about our region, we talk 4 about the whole Kivalliq region. So when you talk about 5 the benefit for Baker Lake only, I'm kind of scared for 6 that statement because everybody in the Kivalliq region, 7 the seven communities will be affected if there is a 8 mine in our region. So I'm scared when you talk only 9 about Baker Lake. 10 Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Carl? 12 A CARL McLEAN: Yeah, thanks, Joe. With 13 regards to in our presentation, basically the only 14 jurisdiction on Crown land with regard to surface rights 15 is about half of the proposed route for the road between 16 Baker Lake and the mine site. 17 The whole mine site itself is on Inuit-owned land 18 administered by the Kitikmeot Inuit Association. With 19 regards to the subsurface rights -- sorry, the Kivalliq 20 Inuit Association. 21 The subsurface rights, we do administer some 22 grandfathered claims, even though it is Inuit-owned 23 subsurface rights on behalf of the Inuit, but they are 24 grandfathered claims, claims that were already in place 25 prior to the signing of the Land Claim. It is 26 Inuit-owned land, but we administer them on behalf of DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00564 1 the NTI for those grandfathered claims. 2 I will just make one point, and if Mike wants to 3 add anything with regards to your second question. In 4 our presentation, what we said was that the Draft 5 Environmental Impact Statement did not demonstrate how 6 you should only use Baker Lake for determining being the 7 exclusive community of focus, we wanted that expanded to 8 include the rest of the Kivalliq region. 9 MIKE HINE: Yeah, kind of the point 10 Carl is making is what I wanted to make. But the other 11 issue that we do have to recognize is that Baker Lake 12 will be the main focus of the activities. And if I did 13 refer too much to Baker Lake, I apologize. Definitely 14 Chesterfield Inlet and Rankin Inlet will be impacted, 15 however it is up to the proponent to decree how much and 16 to what degree the impact will be on them. 17 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, any other 18 questions, KIA? Thank you. Natural Resources Canada? 19 ROB JOHNSTONE: I have no comments, Mr. 20 Chairman. 21 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Hamlet of 22 Rankin Inlet? 23 CHARLENE HICKS: No questions at this time. 24 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Local 25 residents, any questions to Indian and Northern Affairs 26 Canada? NIRB staff, any questions? Board members, any DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00565 1 questions? Go ahead. Closing? 2 CLOSING STATEMENT OF INAC 3 CARL McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 4 During this process we were asked to address the 5 nine points, the nine presentation topics as part of the 6 prehearing, and we will address those and then we will 7 move right into our closing remarks, if that's okay. 8 Objective number 1 was the schedule for the 9 prehearing conference exchange of information. If there 10 is still to be a substantial exchange of information 11 between the intervenors, proponent and NIRB, one 12 suggestion is for a revised Draft EIS to be submitted, 13 complete with all required information or, 14 alternatively, a series of information exchanges with 15 prescribed time frames that allows for the review and 16 comment on the information that Cumberland Resources 17 agreed to provide at the technical meeting and on the 18 commitments list. 19 Topic number 2 was regarding intervenor 20 identification and registration, and I believe our slide 21 2 in our presentation addressed that. 22 Topic number 3 was the list of issues to be dealt 23 with at the final public hearing and clear statements of 24 the issues. At this time, without reviewing Cumberland 25 Resource's Final Environmental Impact Statement and 26 participation at the technical and prehearing DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00566 1 conference, we are unable to provide further comments on 2 the technical issues related to the environmental 3 assessment of the Meadowbank Gold Project. 4 INAC has submitted a technical adequacy review 5 assessment of Cumberland Resources' Draft Environmental 6 Impact Statement and supporting documents to the Nunavut 7 Impact Review Board. The department has also prepared 8 this presentation to provide an overview of the issues 9 requiring more information, based on its assessment 10 submission to NIRB. 11 Topic number 4, technical reports and other 12 documents needed for the final public hearing. There is 13 a substantial list of reports and information as 14 identified during the technical meetings and our 15 intervention that are needed prior to the final public 16 hearings. So basically it is that list of information, 17 along with the comments we sent in on that list and also 18 our written intervention that we submitted. 19 The schedule to be followed by the parties for 20 completion of reports needed prior to the final public 21 hearings, this is number 5. In view of the substantial 22 amount of information outstanding and the fact that some 23 information is in the process of being collected and 24 compiled, we are unable to provide comments at this 25 time. 26 With regards to number 6, the schedule dates, times DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00567 1 and places for the final public hearing. We request 2 that NIRB provide intervenors with a minimum of 90 days 3 to complete their technical review following receipt of 4 a complete Environmental Impact Statement from the 5 proponent. Should there be deficiencies in the 6 information submitted and an information request for 7 supplemental information be required, INAC suggests that 8 the 90-day review period not start until those 9 deficiencies have all been addressed. 10 We also suggest that NIRB set a final submission 11 cut-off date for all documents to be reviewed. INAC 12 requests that the final submission deadlines should be a 13 minimum of ten days before the final public hearing. 14 INAC recommends that the final hearings occur at 15 the following communities in the Kivalliq region: Baker 16 Lake, Rankin Inlet and Chesterfield Inlet. Technical 17 hearings should be undertaken in Baker Lake with 18 nontechnical hearings occurring in the other 19 communities. 20 In regards to topic number 7, special procedures, 21 if any, to be followed at the final public hearing. We 22 have no motions at this time. 23 With regards to any motions that may be needed 24 before the Final EIS is filed, and the EIS, is the 25 Environmental Impact Statement or the final public 26 hearing commences, we have no recommendations on that DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00568 1 topic. 2 Finally topic number 9, any other matters that may 3 aid in the simplification of the hearings. INAC 4 recommends that the final hearing be segregated into 5 topics rather than by intervenors so that the discussion 6 can be focussed. So that's basically our -- that's our 7 address to the nine points. And if I can move right 8 into the closing remarks. 9 Indian and Northern Affairs Canada was pleased to 10 participate in the June 2nd and 3rd, 2005 technical 11 sessions and the subsequent prehearings for the 12 Meadowbank Gold Project in Baker Lake, Chesterfield 13 Inlet and Rankin Inlet. 14 In the time available, INAC was able to communicate 15 our primary areas of interest on items concerning major 16 deficiencies as outlined in our May 20th, 2005 17 submission, based on our understanding of the project at 18 that time. 19 The technical session presentations and responses 20 by Cumberland Resources were prepared using information 21 assembled from internal company documents and reports 22 that were in addition to both the Draft Environmental 23 Impact Statement and supporting documentation provided 24 to the intervenors. 25 Through the course of the technical sessions, it 26 also became apparent that some of the source technical DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00569 1 reports that will be used in the Final EIS were still in 2 progress. 3 To summarize our position and to expedite the 4 usefulness of this review both to INAC and to 5 Cumberland, we are requesting the following: A response 6 to our list of deficiencies presented in our May 20th 7 letter, cross referenced to the prospective technical 8 documents. 9 For each response, we ask Cumberland to cite the 10 specific section in the reference technical document; a 11 full list of references for the technical meeting 12 presentations and Final EIS in a timely manner so that 13 technical reviewers are able to request copies of 14 pertinent technical reports and seek clarification on 15 key issues prior to the Final Environmental Impact 16 Statement. 17 Based on our impressions of the intervenors' 18 communications with Cumberland at the technical 19 meetings, it is expected that in order for Cumberland to 20 address the commitments list of June 5th, 2005, 21 Cumberland will extract most of the information from the 22 same reference technical documents they intend to make 23 available to the intervenors. Therefore, although the 24 list of commitments should assist all parties, 25 Cumberland's promise to allow intervenors access to the 26 technical documents is considered by INAC to be of DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00570 1 utmost importance to our review. 2 The all-weather road be included in the assessment 3 of the project. INAC concurs with NIRB and the 4 proponent that it is in the best interest of all parties 5 to include the all-weather road in the assessment in a 6 procedurally correct manner so that the final hearings 7 can address this significant component of the project. 8 A revision of the Environmental Impact Statement to 9 reflect the changes in the mine plan and increase 10 production rate. Significant changes to the mine design 11 and mine are expected to require additional information 12 for review in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 13 and the technical review prior to the Environmental 14 Impact Statement could expedite the review process. 15 A thorough analysis of the complete project with 16 regard to the socio-economic impacts must be undertaken 17 prior to the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 18 Projects such as Cumberland's Meadowbank project have 19 tremendous potential to generate significant and 20 long-lasting benefits to local communities. 21 INAC's role, in addition to other intervenors, is 22 to ensure that all impacts are examined, not only the 23 positive impacts, but also the negative impacts. 24 INAC suggests that Cumberland explore other methods 25 of monitoring socio-economic impacts that will ensure 26 other important agencies such as the GN, hamlets and DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00571 1 other stakeholders who are likely to be affected by this 2 project are included in the Final Environmental Impact 3 Statement. 4 Many of the technical issues that have been brought 5 forward during these hearings have impacts on the 6 socio-economic side. 7 INAC recommends to the Nunavut Impact Review Board 8 that the required information from the proponent be 9 provided to all intervenors and the public before the 10 project review proceeds to final technical review. 11 Upon a technical review of the project references, 12 the intervenors can either share Cumberland's confidence 13 or through information exchanges clearly and 14 independently assess the adequacy of the information to 15 ensure a complete and comprehensive Final Environmental 16 Impact Statement. 17 We look forward to working with the proponent, 18 Cumberland Resources, the other intervenors and NIRB to 19 address all the outstanding technical and socio-economic 20 issues, and thank you for the opportunity to present and 21 discuss our concerns. 22 I just want to thank the Board, the Board staff, 23 Cumberland and all their technical consultants and the 24 socio-ec consultants. It has been a long one and a half 25 weeks for a lot of us, but I think it was very 26 productive. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00572 1 I want to thank the residents of all three 2 communities we were in, Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet 3 and Rankin. Thank the other intervenors, and most 4 importantly I want to thank our team that spent a lot of 5 time putting our presentations and information together. 6 Thank you very much. 7 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will take a 8 quick five-minute break. 9 (BRIEF RECESS) 10 CHAIRPERSON: Welcome back, everybody. 11 The next presentation is the Department of Fisheries and 12 Oceans. Sorry, Bill, go ahead. 13 BILL TILLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 14 We will just find the exhibits. DIAND had changed one 15 slide, and also they had a closing, so we will mark 16 those as exhibits, 20 and 21, sir. 17 Thank you, that's all. 18 EXHIBIT 20: INAC PRESENTATION 19 EXHIBIT 21: INAC CLOSING STATEMENT 20 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 21 PRESENTATION BY DFO 22 DERRICK MOGGY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman 23 and members of the Board. 24 My name is Derrick Moggy. I am a habitat 25 management biologist with Fisheries and Oceans Canada in 26 Iqaluit. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00573 1 DFO's mandate is to protect and conserve fish and 2 fish habitat. The Fisheries Act provides the legal 3 basis for this responsibility. We also have 4 responsibilities under the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, 5 the Species at Risk Act, and the Canadian Environmental 6 Assessment Act. This accomplished through several DFO 7 programs, however, it is the habitat management program 8 that participates directly in the review of development 9 projects. 10 The habitat management program considers a range of 11 issues, which include ensuring safe fish passage, ensure 12 there is sufficient water flow for fish, ensuring water 13 intakes are designed properly, protecting fish from 14 being destroyed during dewatering activities and the use 15 of explosives, and of course protecting fish habitat 16 through an agreement with -- between Environment Canada 17 and DFO. Environment Canada reviews water quality to 18 ensure it protects fish. 19 The policy for the management of fish habitat is an 20 excellent example of sustainable development and is used 21 by DFO when reviewing development proposals. Its 22 overall objective is to achieve a net gain in fish 23 habitat. Under the conservation goal, DFO attempts to 24 maintain existing fish habitat by avoiding habitat loss 25 through relocation, redesign and mitigation. However, 26 where impacts cannot be avoided and a residual loss is DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00574 1 acceptable, DFO will consider authorizing the project. 2 This goal uses the no-net-loss principle to balance 3 unavoidable habitat losses with habitat replacement, 4 which provides flexibility in the search for solutions 5 by both DFO and proponents. 6 DFO has submitted our technical comments on the 7 Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the Nunavut 8 Impact Review Board and participated in technical 9 meetings last week and the prehearing conference this 10 week. 11 Although considerable process has been made through 12 commitments by Cumberland during the technical meetings 13 and prehearing conference, DFO would like to provide a 14 brief overview of the key items considered deficient in 15 the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 16 Cumberland used the decision matrix to assess the 17 alternatives for their tailings impoundment area. 18 However, the rationale for selecting the various 19 factors, subindicators and determining the relative 20 weightings and rankings was not provided or supported 21 with strong scientific arguments. This assessment needs 22 to be reevaluated so that any options using fish-bearing 23 lakes demonstrates strong justification for their 24 selection, as this will require designation under the 25 Metal Mining Effluent Regulations of the Fisheries Act. 26 Furthermore, an analysis of the stability of the DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00575 1 tailings dam was not provided. 2 The procedural issues regarding the all-weather 3 road need to be clarified, and a detailed description of 4 the proposed route needs to be provided. Furthermore, 5 detailed study on potentially impacted fish and fish 6 habitat was not provided. 7 Although Cumberland is proposing a no-fishing 8 policy for its employees while working on the job site, 9 the potential increase in fish populations or the 10 potential impact on fish populations along the route of 11 the all-weather road was not assessed. 12 Cumberland has not provided a detailed shipping 13 route proposed to be used to transport mine materials, 14 supplies and equipment which outlines any locations 15 along the route that may require alterations to water 16 body bed and banks to facility ship traffic, barge 17 traffic. This will provide the basis for determining 18 potential impacts to fresh water fish and marine mammals 19 along Chesterfield Inlet. 20 The cumulative impacts of increasing ship marine 21 transportation to and from Baker Lake was not 22 considered. Cumberland states that the alignment of 23 their dewatering dikes has been adjusted in light of 24 additional information. However, it was not clear what 25 rationale was used for selecting the location of the 26 westerly portion of the Goose Island pit dike and the DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00576 1 secondary east dike, and what alternatives were 2 considered to reduce impacts to fish habitat. 3 Cumberland states that fish will be removed from 4 the impoundment areas prior to dewatering. However, the 5 ultimate fate of the salvaged fish has not been 6 determined or presented yet. 7 The use of explosives during construction and 8 operation of the mine site may affect fish in nearby 9 water bodies. However, a blast design report was not 10 provided, nor was it certain whether ice conditions were 11 taken into consideration. 12 Because the East and Bay Zone dike will eliminate a 13 connecting channel between Second and Third Portage Lake 14 and a portion of Second Portage Lake will be dewatered, 15 there may be the need to deepen and widen one of the 16 remaining connecting channels to address the increased 17 water. However, it is not certain whether this will, in 18 fact, address the increased water in Third Portage Lake 19 without permanently lowering water levels in this lake. 20 Furthermore, it is not certain whether fish passage 21 will be maintained as a result. The potential slumping 22 of susceptible shorelines along Third Portage Lake 23 during dewatering activities could represent an 24 additional impact to fish and fish habitat, particularly 25 during wet years, a wet year. 26 Reflooding the pits will be achieved by a DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00577 1 combination of seepage, precipitation and some 2 redirection of annual freshet flows from Third Portage 3 Lake. However, fish access during spring was not 4 determined, was not clearly determined and, therefore, 5 it is not certain whether the use of freshet flows will 6 impact fish trying to access upstream lakes. 7 Cumberland states that once the Portage pit is 8 completely flooded, the south end of Goose Island dike 9 will be breached once water quality is acceptable. The 10 rationale for breaching additional areas of the 11 dewatering dikes has not been provided as a means of 12 creating additional fish habitat at closure. 13 Studies have not been conducted to identify various 14 life stage habitats, such as sensitive spawning areas 15 around the proposed dikes and dewatered areas, and there 16 was limited study on seasonal use of streams. 17 Fisheries surveys have not been completed in 18 several project-affected water bodies to determine 19 species presence and habitat function. The results of 20 previous aquatic sampling programs were not included in 21 the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to verify that 22 sampling effort was representative to determine species 23 presence and natural variability. 24 The fish habitat model developed for the project 25 did not account for the all species and life stages of 26 fish in the project-affected lakes, furthermore, DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00578 1 indicators of productivity such as catch-per-unit effort 2 were not used to support the model. 3 A comparison to models used at other northern 4 mining projects was not provided to determine the 5 relative advantages and disadvantages of each approach. 6 The no-net-loss plan provides a framework to 7 determine losses and gains to fish habitat due to the 8 project. Several deficiencies were identified, 9 including the exclusion of fish habitat losses 10 considered low in value, the lack of study to support 11 the assertion that dike surface will support spawning 12 habitat for fish species in the project lakes. Limited 13 study on fish passage in connecting channels and the 14 uncertainty in effects on existing fish populations by 15 improving access to fish-bearing lakes. 16 Furthermore, it was indicated that the dike 17 interior and exterior, sills and pit areas will be 18 designed to provide fit habitat for fish. However, it 19 is not certain whether water quality will be sufficient 20 to provide productive fish habitat during operation and 21 closure. 22 A contingency plan for fish habitat enhancements 23 needs to be developed in the event these fail or are 24 delayed. 25 That's the end of my presentation. 26 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions, DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00579 1 Cumberland? 2 PROPONENT QUESTIONS DFO 3 Q CRAIG GOODINGS: Yes, hi, Derrick. There 4 is a lot of shipping, a lot of barging in Nunavut. 5 Everybody gets barged up to Baker oil and dry goods. Do 6 other barge companies file a shipping plan with DFO? 7 A DERRICK MOGGY: To be honest with you, I 8 don't know in the Arctic what has been done in the past. 9 I can certainly check on that. 10 I think we heard a lot of comments there yesterday, 11 and I realize that there is regulations that do apply to 12 some of the activities that go on there. I think it 13 probably would be good for Cumberland to look at that, 14 see if there is any deficiencies that aren't being 15 covered and then potentially address those that way. 16 Q CRAIG GOODINGS: But nobody has filed a 17 shipping plan with DFO as far as you are aware? 18 A DERRICK MOGGY: To be honest with you, I 19 can't think of anything where we have been in -- any of 20 the projects that I have heard about, I haven't heard of 21 it being done yet, but that's not to say that it is not 22 something that should be done. 23 CRAIG GOODINGS: Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions, 25 KIA, NTI for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? 26 LUIS MANZO: No questions, Mr. Chairman. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00580 1 CHAIRPERSON: Indian and Northern Affairs 2 Canada? 3 CARL McLEAN: No questions. 4 CHAIRPERSON: Natural Resources Canada? 5 ROB JOHNSTONE: No questions, Mr. Chair. 6 CHAIRPERSON: Hamlet of Rankin Inlet? 7 CHARLENE HICKS: No questions. 8 CHAIRPERSON: Local resident, any 9 questions to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? 10 NIRB staff, any questions? Thank you. Board members, 11 any questions? Pauloosie? 12 BOARD MEMBERS QUESTION DFO 13 Q PAULOOSIE PANILOO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 14 Although it was a very informative presentation, and the 15 lake in Baker Lake and it is going to be the main route 16 for shipping, and the people fish there. Is there 17 concerns in regards to this impact to this Baker Lake 18 lake? 19 A DERRICK MOGGY: I think the largest 20 concerns are probably where the barges will be loaded 21 and going through Chesterfield Inlet. It can be fairly 22 narrow and shallow in certain portions there. Once you 23 get into Baker Lake, it is a little more wide open. So 24 I think that's probably primarily from the downstream 25 end of Baker Lake out to Chesterfield Inlet and the 26 unloading and loading area. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00581 1 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other 2 questions? Your closing statement. 3 DERRICK MOGGY: Did you want me to address 4 the nine points? 5 CHAIRPERSON: I have one more resident 6 here. 7 Q UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have a question in 8 regards to fish habitat and also mining projects. I 9 would like to know if you have ever seen the fish being 10 locked in that has no more access to get out of the 11 lake? Have you ever find out any fish being damaged, 12 not being able to move out of their natural location? 13 And perhaps some local people here has the knowledge of 14 this. Have you experienced anything like this before? 15 A DERRICK MOGGY: I just wanted to clarify 16 your question. I didn't have my thing on there quick 17 enough. You were wondering, I guess -- 18 Q UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I will shorten it. The 19 fish or fish habitats or any species, have you ever seen 20 anything species or fish being stuck in the lake or lack 21 of water and end up living in the stagnant water like no 22 good for the fish to survive and then eventually it is 23 not edible, the damaged fish? 24 A DERRICK MOGGY: We certainly try to work 25 with developers such as mining companies to ensure that 26 any works that are being done on site there won't result DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00582 1 in that. 2 For this example here, there is going to be a dike 3 that is going to be constructed, and the area behind the 4 dike would have fish in it. They are also expecting to 5 dewater that area, so we definitely want to take the 6 fish out of there just to avoid wasting of fish. We 7 still have to decide on how that's going to be done, but 8 I mean we typically would not -- that wouldn't be our 9 preferred approach to it by any means. 10 Q UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think we have 11 miscommunication here. My question is, have you ever 12 seen damaged fish, period, in any of the lakes? Have 13 you ever seen dead fish because of the -- from the 14 project, that has resulted from the project from any 15 kind of chemicals? 16 A DERRICK MOGGY: I'm sure it is possible 17 that it has happened. I haven't seen anything, and we 18 try to work with the companies or the developer to make 19 sure that we don't get to that stage. 20 We use mitigation measures to avoid those types of 21 impacts, so and then we will follow that up with 22 monitoring to make sure it doesn't happen. 23 Q UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That was my question. 24 That's the answer. I'm not sure, though, maybe I'm not 25 clear enough with my question. If anybody has seen any 26 evidence, the fish being damaged? For example, when the DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00583 1 mining projects come up here during the prospecting or 2 to -- they are -- has there been any chemicals spread 3 onto the land or anything to do with the fish habitat? 4 Have you seen anything that is damaged land or that's 5 not useful anymore as a result from the mining projects? 6 A DERRICK MOGGY: I can't say for myself that 7 I have personally seen it, but, you know, in the past 8 there has been -- mining has occurred where there has 9 been -- it hasn't been reclaimed as well as maybe it 10 should have been, and we certainly made some progress 11 over this past years to make sure that that doesn't 12 happen it. 13 I can't say that I have seen it myself personally, 14 but I am sure it has happened though. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I think 16 Lucassie can clarify the question here. 17 LUCASSIE ARRAGUTAINAQ: He is trying to ask all of 18 us if any time known in the past if there has been 19 contamination towards wildlife, any kind of wildlife 20 from mining, simple? Anybody know? 21 RAJ ANAND: The only place that I know 22 is in Newfoundland in the Hope Brook mine because of the 23 cyanide usage, et cetera, and some spill occurred, and 24 that resulted in death of some fish. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I think George 26 had a question. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00584 1 GEORGE HAKONGAK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 2 Just to shed some light on the gentleman's question. 3 There is a place called Robert's Lake just south of 4 Cambridge Bay, I know Mary Avalak lived there, her 5 husband worked at the old Hope Bay silver mine. 6 Anyway, there was a lot of debris and all the mine 7 infrastructure left when the silver price went down. 8 And people from Cambridge Bay used to go, still go to 9 that area to fish, and I don't recall hearing any 10 stories of seeing fish that were contaminated. People 11 still fish there, even though there was a lot of debris 12 left and old infrastructure left there, but I don't 13 recall hearing any stories of fish being contaminated, 14 although there was a lot of garbage left around, but 15 maybe -- I don't know, I just wanted to share that 16 little story. 17 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. The nine points 18 and your closing statement. Thank you. 19 CLOSING STATEMENT OF DFO 20 DERRICK MOGGY: I'll just briefly go over 21 the nine points and then I'll go into my closing 22 statement, if that's okay with you, Mr. Chair. 23 As far as the nine points go, the first one was, I 24 think our closing statement, our closing comments, will 25 identify some of the issues that we would like to see in 26 the exchange of the information, and we will try and DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00585 1 put -- the ones that we want to address sooner than 2 later, we will identify those as well, and the rest of 3 them in our technical comments we would expect that 4 those would be identified or addressed in the Final EIS. 5 For number 2, DFO will obviously participate in the 6 final hearings as an intervenor, and we don't -- I think 7 we have a pretty good representation right now of the 8 key intervenors that need to be here as well. 9 For number 3, the list of issues to be addressed 10 are going to be developed from the technical comments 11 that were submitted by the intervenors and as a result 12 of the technical meetings that we had and the prehearing 13 conference. A timely and effective response to address 14 those recommendations will be used to develop a good 15 Final Environmental Impact Statement. However, until 16 the intervenors have had a chance to review the final 17 impact, Environmental Impact Statement, it might be a 18 bit premature to finalize a list. 19 As far as points number 4 and 5, our technical 20 comments made recommendations for some additional 21 reports. Our closing remarks will outline what we would 22 like to see as soon as possible. However, without 23 having seen the Final Environmental Impact Statement, we 24 are not certain whether additional reports will be 25 needed just yet. We will strive to identify this as 26 soon as possible, if needed. And that's why we would DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00586 1 like to see some of those reports sooner than later so 2 we can provide any direction that's needed to make sure 3 we get the information that we need. 4 Number 6 was upon receipt of the Final 5 Environmental Impact Statement, we recommend a 90-day 6 review, and if there isn't an opportunity to work with 7 Cumberland through the development of the Final EIS, it 8 might be necessary to look at the Final EIS and ensure 9 it conforms with the list of issues that we wanted 10 addressed or else there might be a need for maybe a 11 technical meeting at some point there too just to make 12 sure we hash out what we need to. 13 The final schedule, date and times can be probably 14 likely set at that time, and we would suggest that the 15 locations include Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet and 16 Rankin Inlet, obviously with greater focus on Baker Lake 17 because it is the community most affected. 18 We don't have any recommendations for number 7 and 19 number 8. And as far as number 9, we would recommend 20 that the final hearings be organized into specific 21 topics that we can address one at a time. 22 So those are my nine points covered, and I will do 23 my closing statement now, if that's okay. 24 Fisheries and Oceans Canada would like to thank the 25 Nunavut Impact Review Board for providing an opportunity 26 to participate in the technical meetings and prehearing DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00587 1 conference. As a result of these discussions, DFO feels 2 that the majority of our issues can be resolved through 3 commitments made by Cumberland during the technical 4 meetings and prehearing conference. 5 We feel the timely exchange of information that 6 addresses our recommendations and our technical 7 submissions will be valuable in ensuring a Final 8 Environmental Impact Statement that meets the needs of 9 NIRB and the intervenors. 10 DFO looks forward to working cooperatively with 11 Cumberland to address the deficiencies we outlined in 12 our comments. 13 DFO would like to emphasize the important of 14 several key items that need to be resolved in a timely 15 fashion. The first item relates to the assessment of 16 alternatives for the tailings impoundment area. As 17 stated in both our comments and Environment Canada's, 18 the use of a fish-bearing water body should be one of 19 last resort. 20 Cumberland has provided a decision matrix to 21 outline the options available; however, the description 22 of the various indicators, weightings and rankings need 23 to be explained and further supported with strong 24 scientific arguments. Should the preferred option 25 include the use of a fish-bearing water body, it will be 26 critical that strong justification be provided to DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00588 1 consider designation under the Metal Mining Effluent 2 Regulations of the Fisheries Act. 3 Designation will require an amendment to the 4 regulation, which has not been completed for any other 5 mine. Therefore, to ensure that this can be resolved as 6 early as possible in the planning process, we recommend 7 to the Board that this be provided as soon as possible 8 in advance of the Final EIS. 9 The second item relates to the all-weather road. 10 DFO understands that there is still some work to be done 11 to address the necessary procedural issues. We would 12 encourage that this project component be addressed in 13 this EIS and fully consider what effects this may have 14 on the original project design. The necessary baseline 15 studies need to be completed to allow a thorough review 16 in the impact assessment. Therefore, DFO recommends to 17 the Board that this be determined as soon as possible so 18 that it can be fully addressed in the Final EIS. 19 The third item relates to the aquatic baseline 20 reports. It is important to ensure there is sufficient 21 baseline data so that the project-related impacts can be 22 monitored during construction, operation and closure and 23 accurate conclusions can be drawn as a result. This 24 will ensure that unforeseen impacts are detected early 25 to allow adaptive management to be most effective. It 26 will also help to determine if the enhancements to fish DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00589 1 habitat are, in fact, working. 2 At this point, we are uncertain as to what specific 3 additional sampling needs to be done to provide adequate 4 baseline but would like the opportunity to review the 5 yearly baseline aquatic reports to determine what 6 further work needs to be done specifically for lower 7 trophic levels and fisheries. 8 DFO has provided comment on several areas which 9 Cumberland can move forward on with respect to 10 additional sampling. The opportunity to conduct 11 additional focus sampling should not be missed this year 12 and subsequent years. And as a result, the timely 13 submission of this information is necessary. Therefore 14 DFO recommends to the Board that this information be 15 provided as soon as possible in advance of the Final 16 Environmental Impact Statement. 17 The fourth item relates to the potential impacts on 18 the water levels in Third Portage Lake. Any proposed 19 alterations to the connecting channel between Second 20 Portage and Third Portage, as well as the long-term 21 stability of the east dike needs to verify that there 22 will be no risks to failure after closure which would 23 result in the permanent lowering of water levels in 24 Third Portage Lake that could affect a large area of 25 fish habitat. DFO recommends that this can be addressed 26 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00590 1 And finally we heard from the Hamlet of 2 Chesterfield Inlet yesterday who expressed concerns with 3 marine shipping near their community. The lack of 4 information on the operation of the barge and shipping 5 route along Chesterfield Inlet was expressed by several 6 intervenors as well. Further details on the shipping 7 route need to be provided, which includes how 8 regulations will address the concerns to the marine 9 environment and how any gaps can be addressed by 10 Cumberland. DFO recommends to the Board that this 11 information can be addressed in the Final Environmental 12 Impact Statement. 13 DFO is committed to working cooperatively with 14 Cumberland and any other appropriate stakeholders to 15 finalize the no-net-loss plan which addresses the policy 16 for the management of fish habitat, which can be 17 addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 18 In closing, we would like to thank the Nunavut 19 Impact Review Board and their staff for facilitating our 20 participation in the technical meetings and prehearing 21 conference and look forward to working with Cumberland 22 and NIRB. Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your closing 24 statement. 25 Our final presentation is Natural Resources Canada. 26 PRESENTATION BY NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00591 1 ROB JOHNSTONE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 2 Board. My name is Rob Johnstone, and I am the Deputy 3 Director of Environmental Assessment and Regulatory 4 Affairs with the minerals and metals sector of Natural 5 Resources Canada based in Ottawa. 6 I want to thank you for inviting us to the 7 technical session, as well as preliminary hearing. 8 And the presentation this morning is essentially 9 going to cover what NRCan's role is and the 10 responsibilities and how we participate in this process, 11 followed by a brief summary of some of the information 12 deficiencies that we observed in the Draft Environmental 13 Impact Statement. I won't cover those in great detail 14 in the interest of brevity, but I do want to raise 15 certain issues that came out of the technical hearing 16 and have been discussed at various times in the last few 17 meetings. 18 Natural Resources Canada administers the Explosives 19 Act in Canada that regulates the operations of 20 explosives factories and manufacturing explosives, as 21 well as the storage of explosives. 22 We are, therefore, a responsible minister under the 23 Nunavut Land Claim Agreement. We are also all brought 24 in through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in 25 Canada. And at this point NRCan is involved in a number 26 of mining projects across Canada triggered by the DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00592 1 Explosives Act. 2 We are also an expert department and our 3 specialties, when it comes to mining projects, comes 4 down to a number of topics. As an intervenor, we have 5 reviewed the Environmental Impact Statements and 6 supporting documents of this project, and we are also 7 consulted by the Minister of DIAND in the review of the 8 final hearing report, as well as project certificate and 9 as we move on to the regulatory phase. 10 Our expertise lies in a body of research scientists 11 that on one side belong to the Geological Survey of 12 Canada, and on the other side mineral technology branch, 13 Canmet. This expertise includes regional bedrock 14 geology. The GSC has done substantial work in this 15 region up through Baker Lake in regional geology, as 16 well as structural geology studies. They are also 17 responsible for surficial geology investigations. 18 We have expertise in permafrost and permafrost 19 processes, judgment of seismic risk, ore mineralogy, 20 hydrogeology and, of course, explosives and explosives 21 research. As well, in Canmet we have expertise in the 22 research of acid-mine drainage, acid-rock drainage, and 23 they also provide information on metallurgy and various 24 research in mine tailings treatment. 25 In our review of the Draft Environmental Impact 26 Statement, we focussed it primarily on our interests or DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00593 1 our specialties. We did not necessarily comment on 2 areas that we felt were well enough covered. But where 3 we did comment and found deficiencies was, and in brief 4 terms, in the area of groundwater flow regime. 5 And specifically as we move through this, and I'm 6 not going to cover this in detail, it was more a 7 question of documentation for modelling flow estimates, 8 and, as well, we did raise considerations on making 9 projections on chlorine concentrations in attenuation 10 ponds and post-closure ponds and pits. 11 You will see as I go through this list of 12 deficiencies that some of these have already been raised 13 by other consultants and other intervenors, but we did 14 bring out some more specific aspects. It covered some 15 deficiencies in sort of dealing with the situation with 16 geochemical state and postclosure pits and lakes. We 17 were looking also for more detailed geochemical 18 characterization or the detailed geochemistry of the 19 tails solid and leachate in the tailings. Also, we 20 wanted to see a bit more in the area just thermal 21 modelling for the postclosure freezedown of the tailings 22 impoundment. 23 The other things that we were seeking is a bit more 24 in the way of a greater understanding of the mineral 25 components with the overburden, it would be used for 26 road and dike construction, as well as geochemistry and DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00594 1 the texture of those materials. 2 Lake sediments, similar in the sense that we were 3 looking also for a bit more detail in heavy metal 4 populations. And specifically what the susceptibility 5 would be to the release of these in the water column 6 when you disturb lake sediments or lake overturns. 7 The area -- sort of the category of tailings 8 freezeback and reclamation and closure, we wanted to see 9 the documentation and more justification of the thermal 10 model used with specific considerations for heat 11 generation in the tailings due to sulphide oxidation and 12 the heat transfer from deep groundwater outflow. 13 In the same category, we were also noted that there 14 wasn't sufficient information about what would be the 15 predicted sulphide mineral content of the tailings, and 16 as well wanted to see the rest results or detailed test 17 results on the acid-producing potential and pore water 18 chemistry. 19 In the area of sort of predicting the flow of water 20 and the accumulation of snow water on the tailings 21 cover, we wanted to see more in the area of the design 22 of that cover for consideration that you may generate a 23 deeper active layer that can add to the flow of 24 contaminants. And with that, we were looking at, you 25 know, basic understanding of all of the processes that 26 might lead to some unanticipated flow of contaminants. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00595 1 As well, as you were looking at the use of various 2 rocks that would be exposed in mining or lake dewatering 3 or construction, it would be useful to have more 4 detailed mineralogy, geochemistry and testing of metal 5 leaching potential and potential acid generation for 6 each of the main lithologies that were found in the 7 projection area. 8 We noted some concern in the use of ultramafic 9 rocks in the capping for the dikes, tailings and waste 10 rock storage areas, recognizing that there may not be a 11 consistent composition in ultramafic rocks. It would be 12 useful to have a more detailed understanding of the 13 mineralogy and geochemistry changes through the rock. 14 In the area of explosives, keeping in mind that 15 this -- in providing this information at this point a 16 bit more on this, it actually helps us at the regulatory 17 stage as well, but the description of the explosives, 18 plant, which would include a wash facility, and as well 19 the more details about where the ammonium nitrate 20 storage , this is one of the components of explosives, 21 how that would be placed and managed. 22 As well, you would be looking at, which is always a 23 condition of explosives factory license and emergency 24 response plan and spills contingency plans. 25 Of course, in the area of the much-discussed 26 all-weather road, we could not comment without DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00596 1 sufficient information on that. But when that 2 documentation and studies, geotechnical studies have 3 been done, we would then be in a position to comment on 4 such things as permafrost processes and also the use of 5 materials and their acid-rock generation potential. 6 In conclusion, by and large we found that there was 7 in the area of certainly in physical features, the Draft 8 Environmental Impact Statement had covered much of the 9 ground. And largely our submissions, both in our 10 submission on May 20th and our interventions at the 11 technical session, really required more information that 12 we were assured in a lot of areas was in existing 13 documentation and that we wanted to be able to have the 14 opportunity to see that to confirm some of the responses 15 from the proponent. 16 So these would be more information analysis in the 17 areas of bedrock and surficial geology, more information 18 on modelling and dam design as we look at the possible 19 unanticipated migration of waters that may be high in 20 metals, and as well a description -- more of a 21 description of the explosives facilities. 22 Overall, our submission on the May 20th, I felt, 23 and certainly in the minds of our reviewers was quite 24 valuable. It certainly brought out a number of 25 deficiencies, largely deficiencies that we felt that 26 could be resolved, perhaps even with existing DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00597 1 documentation. But also because our reviewers are 2 currently involved in a number of mining projects, and 3 largely this is the nature of their own research, they 4 also wanted to use this particular submission as an 5 opportunity to give suggestions on where better 6 methodologies or just simply a bit more additional 7 analysis might arrive at the best approaches to managing 8 different impacts in a number of areas. 9 Now it is time for questions, I think. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any comments? 11 PROPONENT QUESTIONS NRCAN 12 Q CRAIG GOODINGS: Just a quick question 13 about the explosive information. We have to get an 14 explosive license from NRCan; is that correct? 15 A ROB JOHNSTON: That's correct. 16 Q CRAIG GOODINGS: That information that you 17 are requiring, is that not -- some of that, shouldn't 18 that be supplied to you at our licensing phase? 19 A ROB JOHNSTONE: Some of it is, certainly. 20 And, if fact, it is usually quite straightforward 21 because explosives factory licensing, you will be having 22 a contractor, and there is a small number in the country 23 and they know their work quite well. We usually have 24 great confidence in what is produced. 25 However, at this stage, what you need to -- for the 26 consideration, this is more in consideration in the DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00598 1 impact review largely for health and safety rather than 2 environmental reasons is the placement of ammonium 3 nitrate storage, where that might be in position to 4 other vulnerable areas. It can be simply how close it 5 is to fuel storage, and there are specific distances 6 that are required in the design of where these 7 facilities are on site, as well as knowledge of the 8 quantities of materials that you are going to be having 9 in storage. 10 Q CRAIG GOODINGS: That information, you know, 11 the offsets, that is a requirement. We would have to 12 have the proper offsets before you would give us a 13 license, that's correct? 14 A ROB JOHNSTONE: That's correct. 15 Q CRAIG GOODINGS: Cumberland is, of course, 16 is committed to get that license, so is that not 17 something that we could supply you at our license time 18 an assurance that we will make sure all the proper 19 offsets are met? 20 A ROB JOHNSTONE: The only consideration is 21 when you are designing your project, you may want to put 22 those in now and say this is where we are going to be 23 placing the facilities, because it may affect other 24 facilities. For instance, we have had situations where 25 a last-minute decision was made to put, say, the 26 explosives factory too close to an airstrip or that the DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00599 1 position of the ammonium nitrate relative to the 2 explosives factory was along the line of main traffic. 3 And you would want to have that up front before you get 4 into the regulatory phase, because it might affect other 5 planning in your project. 6 CRAIG GOODINGS: Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions, 8 KIA, NTI? 9 LUIS MANZO: No questions. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Indian and 11 Northern Affairs? 12 CARL McLEAN: No questions. 13 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Department of 14 Fisheries and Oceans? 15 DERRICK MOGGY: We have no questions, Mr. 16 Chair. 17 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Hamlet of 18 Rankin Inlet? 19 CHARLENE HICKS: No questions. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Local 21 residents, any questions to Natural Resources Canada? 22 NIRB staff? Board members, any questions? Thank you. 23 CLOSING STATEMENT BY NRCAN 24 ROB JOHNSTONE: I will just touch upon the 25 nine points, and then just flow right into closing 26 statements. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00600 1 Given that it is getting up to 4 o'clock this 2 afternoon, I am not going to cover the nine points in 3 detail. Only to say that what has largely been 4 presented by colleagues in DIAND and Fisheries and 5 Oceans are pretty much the thinking of the way we are 6 looking. And, specifically, what we see would be useful 7 in the timing of -- well certainly the locations for the 8 next session with the technical hearing. 9 We have found that the technical hearing was 10 extremely important at this point, and it will be as we 11 move into the final phase. A technical hearing or 12 session in Baker Lake, I think, would be warranted, and 13 then the final hearing in the three affected communities 14 of Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet and Rankin Inlet would 15 actually work quite well. 16 I wanted to, however, also suggest, and this has 17 also been recommended by other intervenors, that as soon 18 as information is available, some of the -- for 19 instance, the documents that were mentioned but not yet 20 available at the technical session, once these are made 21 available as soon as possible, an opportunity for our 22 expert reviewers to see those with specific linkages to 23 points that we have raised in our May 20th submission. 24 This would greatly clarify the process for us, because 25 at the end of the day, as we move into the next 26 technical session, we would then be referring to our DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00601 1 original submission to see what was covered and what 2 wasn't. 3 Now, just in speaking on what has been the 4 experience, certainly recently, and the department does 5 tend to follow environmental assessments across the 6 country. In our experience, environmental assessments 7 or impact reviews can be very effective planning tools 8 for shaping project design, environmental management and 9 monitoring and finally the reclamation plans. 10 The information exchange and consultation at this 11 stage in the review is essential for ensuring that all 12 parties gain confidence that all the necessary studies 13 and analysis have been completed and that there will be 14 a sufficient understanding of project-predicted impacts, 15 that decisions can be made on the significance of the 16 impacts, and the best methods to reduce the risk of 17 environmental and other impacts to acceptable standards 18 are found. 19 This Board, the regulators, the proponent, the 20 Nunavummiut have an opportunity to use the collective 21 expertise of several consulting companies, many of them 22 with vast experience in a number of projects, the 23 territorial and federal departments, and for NRCan, a 24 group of dedicated research scientists that have 25 considerable knowledge, NTI and KIA, CLARCs, and the 26 people who know the land. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00602 1 The coordinated use of this expertise will 2 facilitate the review of the massive amount of 3 information contained in an Environmental Impact 4 Statement and the supporting documents. 5 The identification of key issues creating 6 uncertainty and the resolution of those issues will also 7 aid in the regulatory processes after the review. And 8 as we have found in a number of processes, the better 9 the review, the easier the regulatory processes occur 10 afterwards. 11 During this preliminary period, review, the 12 submission of technical reviews from many agencies and 13 the exchange and technical hearing was particularly 14 useful. This was particularly noted by our expert Dr. 15 Alex Desbarats, who was representing us at that time. 16 This process has certainly increased knowledge of 17 the project, project changes as well, resolved some of 18 the concerns of reviewers and given direction for 19 ongoing studies and planning. Although the technical 20 meeting was very productive, I want to emphasize the 21 importance of written submissions of the reviewers and 22 an organized response to the written submissions and 23 also to the recommendations that some of the reviewers 24 have made. 25 The meeting in Baker Lake could only bring together 26 a limited number of expert reviewers, all of ours are DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00603 1 based in Ottawa from a number of parts of the 2 department. They have all contributed to the May 20th 3 submissions. This creates a possibility that some 4 topics may not have received the full benefit of expert 5 exchange. Also, it was clear that many of the 6 reviewers' concerns could not be fully addressed until 7 some existing documentation could be made available for 8 review. 9 Therefore, NRCan would like to recommend that there 10 be exchanges of information between the proponent and 11 intervenors to allow the confirmation that information 12 deficiencies had been addressed in existing documents 13 and soon-to-be-completed investigations. 14 We certainly noticed that the -- those deficiencies 15 that sort of fall into our areas of expertise could 16 probably be resolved; however, an opportunity to view 17 and comment on the supplemental documentation with 18 specific references of our points, and as well those of 19 other intervenors, would substantially simplify our 20 review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, as 21 well aid in the preparation of the document. 22 It is therefore -- it is recognized that Cumberland 23 may not be in the position to provide supplemental 24 information and analysis until the completion of the 25 Final Environmental Impact Statement, but where 26 possible, we certainly would be willing to review DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00604 1 written responses by the proponent to deficiencies that 2 we have raised, as well as references from the 3 associated documents. 4 With this approach, the technical session in the 5 final hearing can focus on key issues and the risk of 6 information deficiencies that at that time would be 7 minimized. 8 We have the time now to build the impact review on 9 a firm foundation of quality information. I want to 10 thank the Board for inviting us here. Personally, I 11 found it extremely useful and, in particular, the 12 interventions of the public in each of these 13 communities. It has added a great depth and a much more 14 comprehensive understanding of the project and its 15 potential impacts. Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are there any 17 final comments from the local residents to the applicant 18 before I turn the mic over for their final closing 19 statement? Any final comments? We will turn it over. 20 CLOSING STATEMENTS OF THE PROPONENT 21 CRAIG GOODINGS: Thank you, yes, we have a 22 few closing comments. I am going to let John start with 23 some of the discussion of the nine points, and then I 24 will move to myself. Thank you. 25 JOHN DONIHEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 26 We certainly appreciate the time and effort taken DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00605 1 by the government departments in particular, as well as 2 NTI and KIA, to give consideration to sort of the more 3 procedural aspects of this Part 5 review. And I must 4 say that the nine points, the questions that were set 5 out in advance of the prehearing conference by NIRB 6 provided an extremely useful framework for us to 7 communicate. 8 I think it is important when the Board actually 9 sits down, it will be important when the Board sits down 10 to do its deliberation on the results of this last week 11 and a half's effort, to remember some important aspects 12 of the environmental assessment framework that you, 13 yourselves, have set in place. 14 First of all, there is clearly a burden, and your 15 rules make it clear, clearly a burden on Cumberland 16 Resources Limited to satisfy NIRB by the end of this 17 process that impacts that which may result from the 18 proposed development have been identified, that they 19 have been considered and analyzed and that, where 20 necessary, mitigation has been proposed to reduce those 21 impacts to a level where they are either no longer 22 significant or where they are eliminated. 23 The burden in this proceeding from the time 24 Cumberland filed an application for a water license and 25 a project description to kick it all off has been on 26 Cumberland. And that's a very important thing to DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00606 1 remember, because what we have had over the last week is 2 an effort, a very collaborative effort by all the 3 parties to identify the additional information, analysis 4 and efforts that are going to be necessary to try to get 5 everybody onto the same page and to try to move this 6 matter forward to a Final EIS. 7 Cumberland, when we did have the opportunity to 8 make a few closing comments in Baker Lake, as you will 9 remember, Mr. Chair, and at that time we hadn't had the 10 opportunity to go through the list of commitments in 11 great detail. They had only been handed in on Sunday 12 night, and we hadn't had an opportunity to get through 13 them. 14 We now have had the opportunity to sit with our 15 consultants and the other experts that were available to 16 us, and I would like, when we finish our closing 17 comments, to tender as our last exhibit in this 18 proceeding what I call the -- or what we are calling the 19 final Cumberland list, and that is we have gone through 20 all of the comments made by all of the parties, 21 including those that came from NRCan, and we have 22 identified the things to which Cumberland will commit. 23 So we will tender that list to your staff for the public 24 record of this proceeding when we are finished. 25 Now, no one should panic. There haven't been a lot 26 of changes made from what was put forward in the DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00607 1 technical session. In fact, I think we are up now to 2 107 items from 106, because some of the NRCan requests 3 that weren't actually provided to us during the 4 technical session had some impact, and we added some 5 extra things in here. 6 So there is a very, very long list of work to which 7 Cumberland has committed. Included in that is the 8 commitment to share what's available now or as soon as 9 the consultants get back to their offices with the other 10 agencies right away and to share any new work as it 11 becomes available, when it is available. 12 And I would say that it is our intention that when 13 we do that, there were some things that were asked for 14 by certain specific agencies, and of course we will 15 provide that to the folks who asked for it. But 16 everything that we provide in response to everything on 17 this list will also be filed with NIRB so that it is on 18 the public record and everybody can kind of check them 19 off as they come in so that we know when we get to the 20 final hearing, and NIRB will know as well, that all of 21 these things, all of the promises made have been kept, 22 the commitments have all been honoured. 23 With that said, there have been a number of 24 comments made in respect of the nine points that I think 25 I do want to say a thing or two about. And I do realize 26 in fairness to DIAND, I want to speak first to their DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00608 1 comments about objective number 1. And they did express 2 their answer to that in the alternative, they said you 3 could file a new DEIS or, alternatively, that there 4 could be a series of information exchanges. 5 Our view of the NIRB process is that you file one 6 DEIS and that if you have to fix some things, you do 7 that, and then you file an FEIS. And Cumberland, at 8 this point, is not planning a revised DEIS, we want to 9 move forward. Understanding always, as I said at the 10 outset, that it is our burden in this proceeding. 11 When it comes to the series of information 12 exchanges with prescribed time frames, I guess I could 13 express it this way, we think that what NIRB -- 14 respectfully suggest that what NIRB should do in its 15 prehearing conference decision is to identify what it 16 considers to be the necessary content for an FEIS, based 17 on what we have done over the last week or so. 18 We suggest, as we did in Baker Lake, that the list 19 of commitments is obviously going to be an important 20 part of what NIRB tells us to do. We are expecting that 21 you will tell us to do what we have already committed 22 to. We expect instructions, as well, to make sure that 23 the additional work, some of it not described in any 24 detail but nonetheless discussed very thoroughly over 25 the last few days, the additional work related to the 26 road is going to be part of what has to go into the FEIS DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00609 1 as well. 2 So we think that NIRB could help us most if it 3 identified the content of the FEIS, and we are 4 suggesting to you, with respect, that it is perhaps less 5 helpful to become really prescriptive in describing the 6 process going forward for a couple of reasons. 7 First of all, NIRB has the discretion to step in at 8 any time if things aren't progressing the way you want 9 it to, and secondly because we think that it would be 10 more efficient if you left Cumberland, the proponent, 11 which has the burden in any event, to work with and 12 satisfy the reviewers and the intervenors in whatever 13 way makes the most sense and is most effective without 14 specifying that in three weeks we have to file this or 15 in four weeks we have to have a meeting in so and so. 16 Once you get into prescribing the whole process in 17 this way, we think that we will run -- it is likely that 18 a lot of problems would emerge, availability of people 19 who are going to be in the field over the summer and 20 other things. 21 I simply suggest to the Board, with respect, that 22 you should leave those details to Cumberland to work out 23 in a collaborative way with the reviewers and the 24 regulators. And I think you can count on the fact that 25 if we are not satisfying them, you are going to hear 26 about it. I suggest that if you have to fix something DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00610 1 at that point, that's the time to intervene. 2 The other point that I wanted to comment about, and 3 it is just perhaps by way of further illustration of 4 what happens when we start to get prescriptive in this 5 way, relates to INAC's comments about objective number 6 6. And there they said they requested that NIRB provide 7 intervenors with a minimum of 90 days to complete their 8 technical review, this is following receipt of the FEIS, 9 and then they are suggesting that if the -- in that 10 90-day review period, there is any supplemental 11 information required, that somehow or other we would 12 start another 90-day review period. And we understand 13 that we have to satisfy the regulators and the 14 reviewers. But in the end, we all need to understand as 15 well that not everybody is totally satisfied at the end 16 of an environmental impact assessment process. You 17 can't chase every single issue right down to the nth 18 degree, to the final detail. You have to leave some 19 time for detailed engineering, which will only take 20 place after permitting happens. 21 And so our view is, again, 90 days is what the NIRB 22 rules provide for subsequent to the FEIS filing, and if 23 there are problems that arise with respect to the 24 contents at that point, we would prefer to continue to 25 collaborate and work with the other parties and to try 26 and resolve those problems before going into the final DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00611 1 hearing. That's something that should happen as a 2 matter of course, and I'm not sure that specifying a 3 rolling series of 90-day periods is really going to help 4 anybody. 5 Ultimately, Mr. Chairman , you have Cumberland's 6 commitments, you have a great deal of information which 7 no doubt the Board will review in order to identify what 8 the contents, the necessary content of an FEIS ought to 9 be. And Cumberland's commitments include commitments to 10 process, they include working with the other parties, 11 they include getting the information that's available 12 out right now. And I think the Board should just 13 assume, as it should, that Cumberland will deal with the 14 things that need to be done in a way that will see us 15 through to the filing of an FEIS and to final hearings 16 as quickly as possible. And why would we do that? 17 Because the economics of this situation are such that it 18 is in our best interest to do that. 19 There is a lot of cost drivers and other reason s 20 why Cumberland would want to do that, and we don't 21 really -- we may not benefit from a whole lot of process 22 being identified at this stage. 23 To close, what I have to say, Mr. Chairman, we made 24 comments in Baker Lake about the schedule, pardon me, 25 about the venues for the hearings. I don't think -- we 26 are in agreement with the others that there should be DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00612 1 technical sessions. I think we have said in Baker Lake, 2 and still feel, that it should be at least several days, 3 two or three at the minimum, set aside so that there can 4 be a thorough examination of the technical issues. We 5 are suggesting that that should be done in Baker Lake, 6 but also that there need to be sessions in both Rankin 7 Inlet and Chesterfield Inlet as well. 8 We suggest that the technical sessions be broken 9 down by topic so that we can schedule and all of the 10 parties can schedule the time to have their water 11 experts there for the right day so that we can get that 12 in front of the Board, and perhaps the next day we could 13 do wildlife. I'm not suggesting how it has to be laid 14 out, but we have to plan to bring the right people 15 forward to assist the Board, as will the others. And so 16 we suggest that you break those technical sessions down 17 into topic areas as well. 18 We don't see the need for any other motions between 19 now and the public hearing, the final hearings, but, of 20 course, if something arises, NIRB has the jurisdiction 21 to deal with it , and I guess we would let you know. 22 Other than that, I don't think we have any 23 suggestions that go beyond what we had to say to you 24 about the nine points in Baker Lake, Mr. Chairman. 25 So those are the things that I wanted to say to you 26 on behalf of Cumberland about the process, and Mr. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00613 1 Goodings has a closing for you. Thank you. 2 CRAIG GOODINGS: Yes, thank you. I would 3 first like to thank the NIRB Board, NIRB staff and the 4 intervenors and the translators and Tara for keeping up 5 with my words. I know I speak too quickly sometimes, so 6 I apologize for that. 7 I also would especially like to thank all the local 8 people in all the communities, Baker Lake, Chesterfield 9 and Rankin that asked such excellent questions, 10 especially Mike in Baker Lake who was definitely some 11 character. 12 You, as the NIRB Board, have a very important 13 responsibility to ensure that projects like the 14 Meadowbank project minimize the negative environmental 15 effects and maximize the positive effects for the Inuit. 16 We, at Cumberland and our team, share that 17 responsibility with you, and we are also committed to 18 making sure we build this mine so it has minimum 19 environmental effects and maximizes the benefits, 20 economic benefits, especially for the Inuit. 21 The final closing comments are not going to come 22 from me. I am going to turn the floor over to Jacob 23 Ikinlik. The KIA may have legal ownership of the land 24 in question; however, Jacob and his ancestors have 25 emotional ownership of the land. They are the ones that 26 lived on the land, so I am going to turn the floor over DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00614 1 to Jacob to have the final say at this meeting for us. 2 Thank you. 3 JACOB IKINLIK: I am Jacob Ikinlik. In the 4 last four days, I have been in the meetings with 5 Cumberland, and I also want to be -- I think once the 6 proponent starts construction, while they are trying to 7 discuss as to mitigate all of the negative stuff, and 8 also what KIA wants to -- as barges and ships will be 9 passing by, I also say that Rankin Inlet and 10 Chesterfield should also be considered. 11 And I will say for the last one thing that I 12 support as they are preparing for opening, they have 13 helped Inuit a lot. In the ten years that they are 14 open, when they are really -- they are going to have a 15 lot of support, they will benefit the Inuit for a number 16 of ten years. And as there are a lot of unemployed 17 Inuit, once they open, there will be a lot more people 18 that are working. 19 And, lastly, I would like to reiterate as the 20 proposed road has been discussed, and I have been also 21 doing research along the areas where the proposed road, 22 and I still think, as I have also helped with the 23 research on where the proposed road is there. And once 24 the road is in place, it will have -- it will have a big 25 benefit for the people of Baker Lake. 26 I have been trying to say if there was a road for DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00615 1 only for winter use and the stuff that they need and are 2 brought in by boat, by ships and, you know, they are 3 brought in in the summer. And they would be waiting in 4 the community for a number of months before they could 5 be used, and but if there was -- if the road was put in, 6 all-weather road -- and so the other thing that I would 7 like to say is if there is no real deficiencies in terms 8 of what the negative impacts might be, if they are 9 minimized, I would be very happy to see that. 10 CRAIG GOODINGS: That's our final comments. 11 BILL TILLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, thank you. 12 Just before we close, a couple of issues to tie loose 13 ends up. The first one is earlier today we heard about 14 the potential for letters between legal counsel to 15 discuss the issue of the KIA and the proponent and their 16 negotiations and how that might fit into, I guess, this 17 process, I would -- if that happens, then that, of 18 course, is between them and wish them all the best but 19 would suggest that this hearing will, of course, closed 20 once you suggest it be closed. 21 The second thing is that even though it is not 22 normally that an exhibit would come in after the closing 23 remarks, in this case it is a critical document, and I 24 would expect that we should mark that and file that at 25 this time. And we suggest that become number 24 and it 26 would be marked accordingly. DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00616 1 Related to that, we have received, the staff, that 2 is to say, received from Environment Canada and from 3 Acres closing comments of some kind, but once again they 4 are not here, and I suggest the best thing would be to 5 just place them as documents on the public registry. We 6 have copies here if anyone wishes, and it will be on the 7 registry. I just wanted to, out of respect for their 8 request, that it become part of this process in some 9 way. I think that might be the best way to deal with 10 it. 11 Now one last thing, and just by way of 12 clarification, I think I understood the one comment that 13 Mr. Donihee made about technical sessions, but I'm not 14 sure the staff and I understood same thing, so I think 15 it is an important point, sir, and I would like to give 16 him the mic back for one moment. 17 When he referred to technical sessions, and I think 18 he referred to in perhaps Baker Lake have two to three 19 days, and then in Chesterfield and/or Rankin have 20 another day or two, perhaps, in each venue for the final 21 hearing. If we could just ask him if he meant that 22 there would be automatically a new set of prehearing 23 technical meetings, or did he mean the technical portion 24 of the final hearing when he referred to those, and I 25 would just like to give him back the mic and let him 26 explain that, and these are my final comments. And I DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00617 1 have no others. Thank you. 2 JOHN DONIHEE: Thank you for the 3 opportunity to clarify that, Mr. Chairman. 4 I apologize. What I meant was the technical 5 portions of a final hearing should be held in Baker 6 Lake. I wasn't talking about another exercise like the 7 one that we had last week. 8 EXHIBIT 22: DFO PRESENTATION 9 EXHIBIT 23: DFO CLOSING STATEMENT 10 EXHIBIT 24: FINAL LIST OF CUMBERLAND 11 COMMITMENTS 12 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Clarified? 13 Thank you. 14 We will be writing a decision letter in the next 15 few weeks that will give final direction to the 16 proponent and the rest of you. This will include 17 answers to the nine proposed issues, the Final EIS 18 instructions, and a time line for the final hearing. 19 I want to thank the intervenors, the applicant, the 20 translators and the communities that we were at and all 21 the Elders. Thank you. 22 We will close with a closing prayer. Peter? 23 PETER PANEAK: (Closing prayer) 24 PREHEARING CONFERENCE ADJOURNED AT 4:20 P.M., JUNE 9, 25 2005 26 DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00618 1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT 2 3 I, TARA LUTZ, hereby certify that the 4 foregoing pages are a true and faithful transcript 5 of the proceedings taken down by me in shorthand and 6 transcribed from my shorthand notes to the best of my 7 skill and ability. 8 Dated at the City of Edmonton, Province of 9 Alberta, this 15th day of June, A.D. 2005. 10 11 12 13 Tara Lutz 14 Court Reporter 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590 00619 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 3 EXHIBIT 18: KIA AND NTI PRESENTATION 545:24 4 - RANKIN INLET 5 6 EXHIBIT 19: KIA AND NTI CLOSING 545:26 7 STATEMENT 8 9 EXHIBIT 20: INAC PRESENTATION 572:18 10 11 EXHIBIT 21: INAC CLOSING STATEMENT 572:19 12 13 EXHIBIT 22: DFO PRESENTATION 617:8 14 15 EXHIBIT 23: DFO CLOSING STATEMENT 617:9 16 17 EXHIBIT 24: FINAL LIST OF CUMBERLAND 617:10 18 COMMITMENTS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DICTA COURT REPORTING 403-531-0590