Miramar Hope Bay Ltd. Doris North Project

Water Licence Application

Presentation for Nunavut Water Board Public Hearing

Presented by Kitikmeot Inuit Association/Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.

August 13 to 15, 2007

Cambridge Bay, Nunavut

Presentation Outline

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI) Presentation

• Description of NTI’s specific concerns and recommendations regarding the Doris North Project Water Licence Application

Kitikmeot Inuit Association (KIA) Presentation

• Broad overview of KIA’s role and position with respect to the Doris North Project

• Description of KIA’s specific concerns and recommendations regarding the Doris North Water Licence Application and Mine Reclamation Plan

Conclusion and Questions

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. Presentation

Mr. George Hakongak, Senior Advisor, Environment, Water and Marine Management, Department of Lands and Resources

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. Presentation

• NTI is pleased to have this opportunity to present the views, issues and concerns of Nunavut Tunngavik

• NTI and KIA jointly engaged Rescan to review the Miramar Hope Bay Ltd. (MHBL) Water Licence Application for the Doris North Project

NTI’s Issues and Concerns

Two main categories of issues:

• Issues to be addressed prior to acceptance of the water licence application

– Terms of the water licence– Monitoring of stations

• Issues to be addressed and monitored throughout the duration of mine life

– Covers all stages of mine operation and life– Includes potential impacts on the ecosystem and socio-economic impacts

Recommendations

Regulators should:

• Define their requirements for effective monitoring, and include them in the terms and conditions of the water licence

• Encourage the proponent to hold to commitments made regarding project design, impacts monitoring and mitigation

• Encourage the proponent to practice good corporate citizenship and environmental stewardship

Conclusions

• NTI supports the proposed Water Licence Application

• NTI requests that the Nunavut Water Board (NWB) incorporates its issues into the terms and conditions of the water licence

• NTI encourages the proponent to undertake an environmental stewardship role in the spirit of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA)

Kitikmeot Inuit Association Presentation

Mr. Donald Havioyak, President

Introductions

• Mr. Donald HavioyakPresident, KIA

• Mr. Geoffrey Clark, M.Sc., MBADirector of Lands, Environment and Resources, KIA

• Mr. Stanley AnablakSenior Lands officer, KIA

• Mr. Kevin TweedleEnvironmental Technician, KIA

• Mr. John Donihee, M.E.S., LL.M.Counsel to KIA

• Dr. Michael McGurk, R.P. Bio.Senior Environmental Scientist, Rescan Environmental Services Limited

Outline of Presentation

• Overview of KIA’s role and position

– Mr. Donald Havioyak

• KIA issues that need to be considered by the NWB

– Mr. Geoff Clark

KIA’s Role in the Doris North Project

• KIA is the Regional Inuit Association (or RIA) for the Kitikmeot

• KIA represents the Inuit beneficiaries of the NLCA in the Kitikmeot

• Doris North Project is an important economic opportunity for the Kitikmeot and for Nunavut

• KIA has promoted appropriate mining development in the interest of all Inuit

• Mining development must balance economic development with social development and protection of the land, wildlife and Inuit lifestyles

KIA’s Role in the Doris North Project

• KIA owns the surface Inuit Owned Lands (IOL) in the Kitikmeot, including parcel BB-60 where Doris North will be built (except for the jetty)

• KIA is the Designated Inuit Organization for the purposes of Article 20 of the NLCA and is responsible for reclamation on IOL

• KIA issues licences and leases for surface land management on IOL

• MHBL still requires a land lease for parcel BB-60 before construction can begin; the lease will address security requirements and eventual reclamation

KIA’s Role in the Doris North Project

On September 6, 2006, MHBL and KIA signed an Inuit Impact and

Benefits Agreement (IIBA)

KIA’s Role in the Doris North Project

• This IIBA was reviewed and approved by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and is now in legal force

• The IIBA addresses socio-economic impacts of the Doris North Project and commits MHBL to actions to reduce the impacts and to ensure opportunities for Kitikmeot Inuit participation and benefits

KIA’s Role in the Doris North Project

• The KIA is also responsible for protection and management of water, in, on or flowing through IOL (under Article 20 of the NLCA)

• A Nunavut-wide water policy has been developed by the NTI, KIA and other RIAs to address Article 20 rights and responsibilities and to manage water on IOL

• A water compensation agreement (separate from the IIBA) has been reached between KIA and MHBL

• KIA is satisfied that compensation concerns related to Inuit water rights have been resolved

KIA’s Role in the Doris North Project

• Potential impacts of the Doris North Project on land and water of IOL parcel BB-60:

– Buildings, roads, quarries, landfills, tailings dams and other infrastructure

– Mine effluent and tailings will enter Tail Lake

– Water from Tail Lake will enter Doris Creek, Little Roberts Lake, Little Roberts Creek and then Roberts Bay

KIA’s Role in the Doris North Project

• If the quantity or quality of water is affected beyond what is predicted by MHBL’s Environmental Impact Statement and Water Licence, then additional water compensation will have to be paid to the KIA

• The area around the Doris North Project has been traditionally used by Inuit for hunting, fishing, camping and traveling

• The land is now owned by Inuit

• For this reason, the terms of the Water Licence are important to Inuit

KIA’s Review of the Water Licence

• KIA has carefully reviewed the evidence submitted by MHBL and other parties to this hearing

• KIA sought technical advice from Rescan Environmental Services Ltd., and worked closely with Rescan to prepare the recommendations in our submission

• KIA has set out our detailed position on the Water Licence in our written submission to the Nunavut Water Board

• The key recommendation is that the water licence should be no longer than 5 years in length, to allow for construction, operation and initial closure before the licence is renewed for final closure

KIA’s Review of the Water Licence

• In this presentation, KIA highlights issues related to:– the duration of the water licence– water management– water monitoring– aquatic effects monitoring

• The KIA also provides recommendations to address these and other issues

KIA’s Reclamation Security Estimate

• The KIA also provides a Reclamation Security Estimate for the part of the Doris North Project that is on IOL

• The estimate is based on Inuit values, Inuit reclamation objectives and Inuit consultation

Concluding Comments

• We trust that our submission and presentation will be of assistance to the Nunavut Water Board

• I now turn the presentation over to Mr. Geoffrey Clark who will present the remaining issues and recommendations regarding the Doris North Water Licence Application

Kitikmeot Inuit Association Presentation

Mr. Geoffrey Clark, Director of Lands, Environment and Resources

Term of Water Licence

• MHBL applied for an 8-year licence

• KIA recommends a maximum term of 5 years

• This will provide the Board with an opportunity to review the monitoring data and the overall success of water and waste management at Doris North before the post-closure phase

• During licence renewal, MHBL will have to defend their history of environmental management and propose a post-closure plan

Water Management Strategy

• KIA accepts MHBL’s two-stage strategy:– MMER criteria for allowable discharge from Tail Lake into

Doris Creek above the waterfall– CCME water quality guidelines for protection of aquatic life

in Doris Creek below the waterfall

KIA’s Water Management Strategy Concerns

KIA is concerned that:

• the success of real-time monitoring of the quality of water discharged from Tail Lake has yet to be demonstrated

• the accuracy of the water quality model will not be confirmed until after the tailings storage facility is operational

• background water concentrations may reach CCME guidelines, which would prevent discharge of water from Tail Lake

• if water quality in Tail Lake is lower than expected during winter, it may delay discharge of water from Tail Lake during spring freshet flows

• pumps and equipment must be managed so that they do not cause re-suspension of Total Suspended Solids in Tail Lake

• if mine life is extended, then the entire water management strategy will have to be re-evaluated

Any Exceedance of CCME Guidelines Is Significant

• Based on these concerns, KIA recommends that the Board define any potential exceedence of CCME guidelines as “significant”

• Significant exceedances of CCME guidelines should require re-calibration of the water quality model and re-evaluation of the discharge strategy

On-Site Analytical Laboratory

• The on-site laboratory to measure real-time water quality will be critical to MHBL’s discharge strategy

• The Board should require as a condition of the Water Licence that MHBL provide proof of laboratory accreditation prior to discharge of water from Tail Lake into Doris Creek

• The precision and accuracy of the water quality results measured at the on-site laboratory should be independently verified by a third-party laboratory

Water Quality Model

• The water quality model should be regularly updated during the operational lifetime of the mine using field data

• Updated long-term model predictions and a comparison of predicted and observed concentrations should be provided in annual monitoring reports

NWB’s Scrutiny of Discharge Strategy

• The Board should scrutinize the discharge operation through the requirement of frequent reporting

• KIA suggests that additional samples should be taken during early freshet in each year and possibly for most of freshet in year one until confidence is achieved in the real-time water management system that will control releases from Tail Lake

• MHBL should be required to immediately stop discharge should the plan go awry

• In that event, the Board should require a satisfactory explanation for failure from MHBL, and a proposal for a methodology that will prevent failure in the future, before allowing discharge to resume

Discharge from Sedimentation Ponds

• MHBL also proposes to discharge water from sedimentation ponds at the camp and mill pad onto the tundra

• The Board should require MHBL to monitor the frequency, volume and duration of discharges from the sedimentation pond to ensure that these discharges are infrequent and do not affect the tundra ecosystem

• If MHBL cannot meet these criteria, then this water should be diverted to Tail Lake

Reporting Requirements

• MHBL proposes that water quality results will be presented in an annual report

• KIA suggests that short monthly reports be prepared during the first year of operations, to provide confidence that the water management plan is being applied successfully

• These reports should include all water quality data, flow measurements in Doris Creek, discharges from Tail Lake, Tail Lake water levels, and all data used in calculating the discharge rate from the pond

• KIA also supports the use of comprehensive sample collection protocols and testing details recommended by NIRB

Other Monitoring

• Due to the short mine life, monitoring plans may be incongruent with regulatory requirements

• For example, MMER require reporting of aquatic effects on a timeline which results in the report being submitted after the mine is in the closure phase

• If monitoring of vegetation shows significant uptake of metal during construction and operation, then KIA recommends that the Board require MHBL to sample the vegetation again within 5 years to determine if there are long term effects on the vegetation

Reclamation and Closure

• The Doris North Mine will be almost entirely on IOL, and KIA beneficiaries are the primary users of all the land around the Doris North project site

• Thus KIA has a strong interest in assuring that the entire site is reclaimed to Inuit standards and that KIA does not incur residual reclamation liability on IOL as a result of the project

• The KIA has developed the capacity to independently analyze and assess reclamation security by developing it’s own proprietary model for assessing security

• This model generates security estimates that are based on Inuit Values and specific reclamation objectives

• KIA staff and board members with the help of computer modeling and mine reclamation experts developed this model

Guiding Principles of KIA’s Reclamation Security Model

• Protect the environment

• Be sure the site is safe for future use by people and animals

• Restore the site for future use by people and animals

• No perpetual care

KIA’s Reclamation Security Process

• KIA showed MHBL how to use the KIA model

• MHBL then developed a reclamation security estimate after consulting with KIA staff

• KIA then consulted with Inuit from Bay Chimo, Bathurst Inlet and Cambridge Bay that were appointed to KIA’s Community Beneficiary Committee (CBC) for this area of the Kitikmeot

• The results of using KIA’s reclamation model and process are included in MHBL’s Water Licence Application

Advice on Reclamation from Inuit

• The jetty should be dismantled: it will not be required by Inuit after closure

• Consultation with Inuit must be part of the reclamation plan for post-closure monitoring and closure planning

• After decontamination, but prior to tear down, MHBL should offer the communities of Bathurst Inlet, Bay Chimo, and Cambridge Bay the first right of refusal on any infrastructure that is scheduled to be dismantled

Advice on Reclamation from Inuit

• If the mine closes unexpectedly while the temporary waste rock pile remains on surface, then waste rock should be transferred to Tail Lake for subaqueous disposal

• No contaminated waste should be buried on IOL

• Inert waste must not be buried on IOL unless KIA is compensated with tipping fees and the inert waste is disposed of in a landfill designed and approved by an engineer

KIA’S Assessment of MHBL’S Reclamation Plan and Security Estimate for Doris North

• MHBL’s Water Licence Application estimated the cost of reclamation at ~$11.7 million dollars (incorporates feedback from Inuit on several items of concern)

• There are outstanding matters related to reclamation of the temporary waste rock piles and burial of waste on IOL

• These matters can be worked out between KIA and MHBL as part of the land lease without drastically changing the security estimate

• An additional item related to proper design and cover of the engineered landfill will have to be addressed, but this can also be dealt with easily in the land lease

Security Estimate for Doris North

• KIA accepts MHBL’s security estimate of 11.7 million dollars for reclaiming land and water on IOL, subject to KIA’s required changes, which will be included in the Land Lease

• Because the jetty is on crown land, KIA will not be collecting security for this part of the mine infrastructure

• Although the RECLAIM model used by INAC and the KIA model used different approaches to estimate security, they resulted in similar estimates

Split of Land versus Water Security

• KIA’s three goals for setting security are (in order of priority):– all project generated liabilities are covered by security;– all risks or liabilities for Inuit and IOL are secured; and– no double payments which could act as a disincentive to mining

development should be required

• KIA has cooperated with INAC and MHBL to avoid double payments for water security, but we have been unsuccessful to date

• Because we have spent several years on this matter, we expect that if there is to be any resolution, then it will likely be an issue for the MHBL, Industry, INAC and possibly the Board to resolve

Conclusions (1)

• The KIA supports appropriate mining development in the Kitikmeot

• The KIA has important responsibilities to Kitikmeot Inuit to balance economic development with environmental protection, to protect the land, wildlife and Inuit lifestyles

• The KIA continues to support the development of MHBL’s proposed Doris North Gold Mine

Conclusions (2)

• MHBL and KIA have signed an Inuit Impact and Benefits Agreement (IIBA) for the Doris North project

• This IIBA was reviewed and approved by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and is now in legal force

• As part of the IIBA negotiation, KIA and Miramar addressed the impact of the project on Inuit water rights under Article 20 of the NLCA resulting in a water compensation agreement between KIA and Miramar

• KIA is satisfied that compensation concerns identified by Miramar that are related to water have been resolved

Conclusions (3)

• KIA is involved in surface land management, including licensing and leasing on its lands

• The Doris North Project is almost completely on IOL

• An important item that remains outstanding is the completion of a land lease that MHBL will require for infrastructure on IOL Parcel BB-60

Conclusions (4)

• In this presentation, KIA identifies issues and provides recommendation to the NWB related to duration of the water licence, water management, and monitoring, among others

• The KIA also provides a reclamation security estimate for the entire site of the Doris North Project based on a proprietary reclamation security estimation model based on Inuit values, Inuit reclamation objectives, and Inuit consultation

• KIA’s reclamation estimate for IOL is 11.7 million dollars for the entire site

• The reclamation security identified for IOL reclamation, subject to minor adjustments will have to be furnished as part of the land lease for IOL, which has yet to be completed

Concluding Remarks

• The KIA hopes that our input has been helpful to the NWB, the public and to other interveners

• This concludes our presentation; we are now available for questions

The End