Meadowbank Gold Project Cumberland Resources Ltd. Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing Chesterfield Inlet, Nunavut March 30, 2006.

Meadowbank Gold ProjectCumberland Resources Ltd.

Nunavut Impact Review BoardPublic Hearing

Chesterfield Inlet, Nunavut March 30, 2006

Meadowbank Gold ProjectNIRB Final Hearing

Outline

1. DFO Mandate

2. Key Issues

3. Conclusion


MandateTo conserve and protect fish and marine mammals

and their habitat for all Canadians

Applicable Legislation• Fisheries Act• Species at Risk Act • Nunavut Land Claims Agreement


Regulatory Role • Fisheries Act:

s.35 – prohibits the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat unless authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or regulation

s.20 – requires safe fish passage

s.22 – requires sufficient flows

s.30 – requires intakes screens and fishguards

s.32 – prohibits destruction of fish by means other then fishing

s.36 – prohibits the deposit of a deleterious substance, unless authorized under regulations such as the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations

5

Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat• Guides DFO in the administration

of the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act

• Overall objective is the Net Gain of fish habitat

• Achieved through three goals: – Conservation, which includes the

No Net Loss Principle– Restoration– Development

• Supported by eight strategies


Intervention Comments1. Project Alternatives

2. Water Quality

3. Fish and Fish Habitat

4. Marine Environment

5. Cumulative Effects

6. Other Issues


Project Alternatives – Tailings Impoundment Area

• Preferred location is northwest arm of Second Portage Lake, a fish-frequented waterbody


Recommendation:• Cumberland provide a revised No Net Loss plan,

monitoring plan and construction details, prior to DFO recommending to EC Second Portage Lake be listed under Schedule 2 of MMER.

DFO’s Analysis and Assessment:• Alternatives Assessment consistent with DFO

Hierarchy of Preferences• Consideration of impacted fish habitat

Water Quality – Fish Habitat Compensation


• Implementation of re-flooded pits as fish habitat subject to suitable water quality

DFO’s Analysis and Assessment:• Re-flooded pits represent significant

portion of Cumberland’s No Net Loss plan

• Contingencies to ensure No Net Loss

Recommendation:• Cumberland provide contingencies to ensure No Net Loss of fish

habitat will be achieved

Fish – Fish Salvage


• Cumberland will sacrifice larger fish for baseline data and provision to community, and transplant smaller fish to project lakes

DFO’s Analysis and Assessment:• Satisfied with the approach presented by

Cumberland• Opportunity to improve knowledge of project

fish populations

Recommendation:• Cumberland develop, implement and report the results of the fish

salvage program, in consultation with DFO and other interested groups• Cumberland optimize program design to improve baseline data for No

Net Loss plan design and monitoring

Fish and fish habitat – Freshwater Intake


• Impacts to fish and fish habitat will be limited

DFO’s Analysis and Assessment:• DFO unable to verify impacts to fish habitat at

the shoreline• Conflicting statements regarding water volume

Recommendation:• Cumberland avoid infilling shoreline fish habitat and provide detailed

plans for pipe installation during regulatory phase• Cumberland seek a Fisheries Act s.30 approval for water intake

screen

Fish habitat – All-weather road water crossings


• Standard water crossing design and best management practices will limit impacts to fish habitat

DFO’s Analysis and Assessment:• Limited hydrology data at water crossings• No monitoring and maintenance plan

Recommendation:• Cumberland consider span bridges for fish streams• Cumberland provide hydrology data to verify fish

passage in stream crossing designs• Cumberland develop a monitoring, maintenance and

closure plan

Fish habitat – Easternmost channel


• Modifications to easternmost channel to address altered flow between Third Portage and Second Portage Lake and loss of fish habitatDFO’s Analysis and Assessment:

• Details on channel modifications not provided• Details on adaptive water flow management

not provided• Unable to verify benefits of proposed fish

habitat enhancements

Recommendation:• Cumberland to provide adaptive management framework for water flow

and detailed design of any channel modifications• Cumberland to monitor water levels in Third Portage Lake, if necessary

Fish habitat – No Net Loss Plan


• Proposed No Net Loss plan will mitigate impacts to fish habitat in the project lakes

Fish habitat – No Net Loss Plan


DFO’s Analysis and Assessment:• Temporal losses of fish habitat not

addressed• Contingency plan not provided• Development of additional habitat

enhancements (A & B list)

Recommendation:• Cumberland revise No Net Loss plan to include additional fish habitat

enhancement strategies and develop an adaptive management approach to implementation

Fish habitat – No Net Loss Plan Monitoring


• Limited monitoring plan to verify the success of the No Net Loss plan

DFO’s Analysis and Assessment:• Unable to verify whether the monitoring

plan will be successful in demonstrating NNL

• Confident that an acceptable plan will be achieved

Recommendation:• Cumberland develop a robust monitoring plan to demonstrate success

of No Net Loss plan• Cumberland augment fisheries baseline in support of monitoring plan

for the No Net Loss plan

Marine Environment – Barge Traffic


• Assessment of cumulative impacts on marine mammals due to barge traffic determined no significant impacts

DFO’s Analysis and Assessment:• Satisfied with the assessment, mitigation

measures and monitoring

Recommendation:• Cumberland considers the guidance in the Marine Environmental

Handbook• Cumberland considers an local on-board observer during barge

operations

Cumulative Effects – Fish and Fish Habitat


• Cumulative impacts to fish and fish habitat not significant

DFO’s Analysis and Assessment:• Assessment was appropriate and adequate• Re-consideration for reducing impacts to

fish and fish habitat at Meadowbank

Recommendation:• Cumberland periodically review future development plans in

Meadowbank claim block and consider potential cumulative impacts to fish and fish habitat

Other Issues – Accidents and Malfunctions


• Likelihood of accidents and malfunctions extremely low

DFO’s Analysis and Assessment:• Impact of accidents and malfunctions not

presented in the aquatic assessment • Unclear whether appropriate mitigation

measures incorporated into monitoring and management plans

Recommendation:• Cumberland provide summary of potential accidents and malfunctions

associated with fish and fish habitat, and identify how mitigation measures addressed in design, monitoring and management plans

Conclusion

• DFO would like to commend the cooperative working relationship Cumberland has demonstrated during the review

• DFO is confident our outstanding issues related to fish and fish habitat can be resolved prior to and during the regulatory phase.


Matna, Thank You

Questions?


Meadowbank Gold Project Cumberland Resources Ltd. Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing Chesterfield Inlet, Nunavut March 30, 2006.

Documents

fish habitat subject

net loss of fish habitat

destruction of fish

larger fish

smaller fish

net gain of fish habitat

fish streams cumberland

fish salvage program