ALTERNATIVES FOR MINE WASTE DISPOSAL

Transcription

1 APPENDIX B GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES FOR MINE WASTE DISPOSAL TM

2 March 2011 Guidelines for the Assessment of Alternatives for Mine Waste Disposal

3 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 1 Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada, Environment Canada, 2011 March 2011

4 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 2 Disclaimer For all purposes of interpreting and applying the law, users should consult: the Acts as passed by Parliament, which are published in the "Assented to" Acts service, Part III of the Canada Gazette and the annual Statutes of Canada, and the regulations, as registered by the Clerk of the Privy Council and published in Part II of the Canada Gazette. The above-mentioned publications are available in most public libraries. Official versions of the Statutes and regulations can also be found at the Department of Justice website at The law as stated in the above-mentioned publications will prevail should any inconsistencies be found in these guidelines. These guidelines are subject to amendments from time to time. Each version is dated, therefore users should ensure that they are always consulting the most recent version of these guidelines. Users can contact Environment Canada for this information. March 2011

5 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 3 Table of Contents 1 Guidance for Proponents on the Federal Process for Designating Metal Mine Tailings Impoundment Areas Context Purpose Environmental Assessment Overview Assessment of alternatives Fish habitat compensation plan Consultations EA decision Regulatory Process Timing Other Fisheries Act authorizations Getting started Requirements of Alternatives Assessment Alternatives Assessment Process Step 1: Identify Candidate Alternatives Step 2: Pre-Screening Assessment Step 3: Alternative Characterization Step 4: Multiple Accounts Ledger Sub-Accounts s Step 5: Value-Based Decision Process Scoring Weighting Quantitative Analysis Step 6: Sensitivity Analysis Step 7: Document Results References March 2011

6 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 4 List of Tables Table 1: Example of the Step 1 summary table to identify Table 2: Example of the pre-screening criteria summary table Table 3: Sampling of environmental characterization criteria Table 4: Sampling of technical characterization criteria Table 5: Sampling of project economic characterization criteria Table 6: Sampling of socio-economic characterization criteria Table 7: Example of the characterization criteria summary table Table 8: Example of the sub-account (evaluation criteria) summary table for a TMF Table 9: Beaufort scale (example of a qualitative value scale) Table 10: Example of the completed multiple accounts ledger Table 11: Example of qualitative value scale for the indicator Table 12: Example of qualitative value scale for an indicator which at first glance would appear to be measurable, such as capital cost Table 13: Example of the quantitative analysis for indicators Table 14: Example of the quantitative analysis for sub-accounts Table 15: Example of the quantitative analysis for accounts Table 16: Example of the results of a sensitivity analysis List of Figures Figure 1: Flow diagram of the process of assessing alternatives Figure 2: Fish habitat compensation requirements in typical TIA scenarios List of Annexes Annex 1: Steps in the EA and Regulatory Processes Annex 2: Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement Annex 3: Fish Habitat Compensation Plans under Section 27.1 of the MMER and Subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act March 2011

7 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 1 1 Guidance for Proponents on the Federal Process for Designating Metal Mine Tailings Impoundment Areas 1.1 Context It is expected that natural water bodies frequented by fish shall be avoided to the extent practicable for the long-term disposal of mine waste; and that mine waste shall be managed to ensure the long-term protection of Canada's terrestrial and aquatic environment. Using a natural water body frequented by fish for tailings disposal requires an amendment to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER), which is a federal legislative action. The MMER, enacted in 2002, were developed under subsections 34(2), 36(5) and 38(9) of the Fisheries Act to regulate the deposit of mine effluent, waste rock and tailings into natural waters frequented by fish. These regulations, administered by Environment Canada, apply to both new and existing metal mines. They are available at Schedule 2 of the MMER lists water bodies designated as tailings impoundment areas (TIAs). A water body is added to that Schedule through a regulatory amendment. 1.2 Purpose These guidelines describe the process that must be undertaken when a proponent is considering using a natural water body frequented by fish for waste disposal such that a regulatory amendment to the MMER would be required. In the context of these guidelines, the term tailings impoundment area (TIA) is an area that includes tailings, waste rock, and any effluent that contains any concentration of the specified deleterious substances, and is of any ph, including effluent treatment sludges, that would be disposed in a natural water body frequented by fish. Waste rock Waste rock is generally deleterious; hence disposing it in a water body would require that the water body first be listed on Schedule 2 of the MMER as a TIA. If the proponent can prove that the waste rock is not deleterious, then no Schedule 2 listing would be required. These guidelines pertain to metal mines where a TIA has been proposed in a natural water body frequented by fish. However, the requirements for the conduct of alternatives March 2011

8 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 2 assessments that are presented in Part 2 provide useful guidance for the assessment of all mine waste disposal areas including those developed on land. The overall objective of the alternatives assessment process is to minimize the environmental footprint of the disposal area. 1.3 Environmental Assessment A project which includes a proposal to use a natural, fish-frequented water body for the disposal of mine waste triggers a requirement for a federal environmental assessment (EA) under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), where applicable. Proposals may also be subject to additional provincial and land claim based EA obligations such as those outlined under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement for the Inuvialiut Settlement Region of the Northwest Territories. For projects in the Yukon ( Nunavut ( and the MacKenzie Valley portion of the Northwest Territories ( html) where CEAA does not apply, EA requirements are met through other federal and territorial regimes. Proposals may also be subject to provincial EA obligations. An Environment Canada policy, which was developed in conjunction with the repeal of the Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations when the MMER were registered in 2002, recommends against unconfined tailings disposal in the sea Overview A mining project that includes a proposal to use a natural water body frequented by fish as a TIA must undergo an EA and the project proponent must also: prepare an assessment of alternatives for mine waste disposal for consideration (see Part 2 of these Guidelines); prepare a fish habitat compensation plan for consideration as part of the EA; and participate in public and aboriginal consultations on the EA, including on possible amendments to the MMER. 1 Details of the EA process vary depending on the legislation or land claim under which the EA is conducted and the type of EA conducted. The project proponent needs to verify which EA regime applies (e.g., screening, comprehensive study or 1 If the proposed use of a natural water body as a TIA would impact navigable water, then an Order in Council approval is also required under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In such cases, Transport Canada is involved in the EA, and would be involved in the regulatory process for the proposed TIA, in the event that the regulatory process is undertaken. March 2011

9 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 3 review panel for EAs conducted under the CEAA). The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has resources to help guide proponents through the federal EA process under the CEAA; they are available at In preparing the documentation for the EA, the proponent should take into consideration the requirements of the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulations (CDSR), which are available at eng.asp. While the CDSR does not apply to proponents directly, it is a requirement of the regulatory process and it is strongly recommended that the proponent help lay the necessary groundwork to carry out a cost-benefit analysis in respect of the CDSR. More specifically, the necessary regulatory action should be demonstrated to maximize net benefits for society through an assessment of impacts as well as the distributional implications. The proponent should also take into consideration the recommendations in Environment Canada s Environmental Code of Practice for Metal Mines during the EA (available at The Code supports the MMER, but also covers a broad spectrum of environmental aspects that extend well beyond it Assessment of alternatives A project proponent seeking to use a natural water body as a TIA must conduct an assessment of alternatives for mine waste disposal. It is strongly recommended that this assessment be undertaken during the EA to streamline the overall regulatory review process and minimize the time required to proceed with the MMER amendment process. Generally speaking, at least one of these alternatives should not impact a natural water body that is frequented by fish. It is important to note that a decision by the proponent to conduct the alternatives assessment after the EA has been completed could more than double the target timeline that has been established for the processing of Schedule 2 amendments. This alternatives assessment must objectively and rigorously assess all feasible options for mine waste disposal. The project proponent must demonstrate through the EA and this assessment that the proposed use of the water body as a TIA is the most appropriate option for mine waste disposal from environmental, technical and socio-economic perspectives. It should also be demonstrated that the option offers the greatest overall benefit to current and future generations of Canadians, as per the CDSR. Part 2 describes the requirements of an assessment of alternatives. March 2011

10 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page Fish habitat compensation plan Section 27.1 of the MMER requires the project proponent to develop and implement a fish habitat compensation plan to offset the loss of fish habitat that would occur as a result of the proposed addition of a water body to Schedule 2. The proposed plan must be submitted during the EA for consideration as part of the EA. The plan must describe, among other things: 1. fish habitat that would be lost as a result of the proposed TIA; 2. compensation measures that would be implemented, if approval is given to use the water body as a TIA, to offset the loss of fish habitat that would result; 3. plans to monitor the implementation of the compensation plan; and 4. a breakdown of estimated costs for implementation and monitoring of the plan. A Practioner s Guide to Habitat Compensation is available at: If the Governor in Council approves the regulation adding the water body as a TIA in Schedule 2, then, as per Section 27.1 of the MMER, the proponent must submit to DFO an irrevocable letter of credit to cover the plan s implementation costs. The proponent must also develop and implement a fish habitat compensation plan under subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act to offset the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat as a result of the works needed for constructing the TIA. See Annex 3 for an explanation as to why two fish habitat compensation plans are needed Consultations During the EA, Environment Canada and DFO consult local and national stakeholders and representatives of Aboriginal peoples to ensure that all interested parties have access to information about the project and have the opportunity to provide input and comments. The project proponent participates in the consultations to directly communicate the results of their alternatives assessment and its conclusions to all engaged parties. Consultations on the proposed MMER amendment are conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Guidelines for Effective Regulatory Consultations, available at: DFO leads any additional Aboriginal consultations to ensure that all obligations that may exist in relation to rights protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 have been satisfied. Guidance on these consultations, which may be informed in March 2011

11 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 5 part by the consultations undertaken pursuant to the alternatives assessment, is available at EA decision The application for a TIA following the EA decision can only proceed to the regulatory stage if the decision taken pursuant to the environmental assessment is that the project can be carried out, in whole or in part, past the EA stage. If the government decision is that the project should not proceed, no further action is taken with respect to the possible MMER amendment. 1.4 Regulatory Process The decision to add a water body to Schedule 2 of the MMER is made by Treasury Board. Key elements needed for the regulatory process (assessment of alternatives, fish habitat compensation plan) take place during the EA phase, described above. The next steps in the regulatory process are: 1. Environment Canada prepares the regulatory amendment package to move forward with the TIA listing on Schedule 2 of the MMER. The package includes the text of the proposed regulatory amendment, which provides the name and geographical description of the water body being proposed as a TIA. The package also includes a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) which is a key document in justifying the proposed Schedule 2 amendment. It includes, among other things: o a description of the project; o the rationale for the proposed amendment; o a summary of the proposed fish habitat compensation plan; o a description of the options that are considered during the alternatives assessment evaluation; o a summary of the consultations; and o a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed amendment, which assesses potential impacts from a broad societal perspective (e.g., environment, businesses, consumers, and other sectors of society). A key element of the cost benefit analysis is the development of a baseline and regulatory scenario. Cost information related to the alternatives assessment as well as costs related to the fish habitat compensation plan are included in this analysis. For more information, see Annex 2 and also the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Guide to the Regulatory Process at 2. If approved by the Ministers of Environment and Fisheries and Oceans, the regulatory amendment package is sent to the Treasury Board for consideration. 3. If approved by the Treasury Board, the proposed amendment is published in Part I of the Canada Gazette for a 30-day public comment period day public comment period. March 2011

12 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 6 5. Review of comments received. 6. Environment Canada prepares the final regulatory package, with the final RIAS incorporating responses to the comments received. 7. Submission of the final regulatory package to the Ministers of Environment and Fisheries and Oceans for approval to submit the regulatory amendment to the Treasury Board. 8. If approved by the Treasury Board, the regulatory amendment becomes law and is registered. 9. The regulatory amendment and the RIAS are published in Part II of the Canada Gazette, approximately two weeks after being registered. These steps conform to the requirements of the CDSR. Annex 1 provides a flow chart of the key steps in the EA and regulatory processes Timing The regulatory amendment process typically takes 8-12 months after the end of the EA. However, if additional information is required (e.g., data gaps, missing cost information about the TIA or fish habitat compensation plan, etc) or if there is litigation, the process could be longer. For major resource projects, target timelines for the EA and regulatory processes are publicly tracked and monitored by the Major Projects Management Office ( Other Fisheries Act authorizations Where subsection 35(2) Fisheries Act authorizations (regarding the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat) associated with the construction of the TIA is granted, this generally occurs after the Schedule 2 amendments are completed, typically no later than three weeks following listing. However, subsection 35(2) authorizations that are not related to the construction of the TIAs could be issued prior to the Governor in Council decision on the Schedule 2 amendment. 1.5 Getting started Proponents of metal mines south of 60 o are encouraged to contact the Major Projects Management Office ( and, for mines north of 60 o, the Northern Projects Management Office ( The offices provide overarching project coordination, management, project tracking and guidance to proponents. March 2011

13 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 7 2 Requirements of Alternatives Assessment The MMER stipulates that for mine waste to be deposited in a natural, fish-bearing water body, the water body must be listed in Schedule 2 of the Regulations, designating it as a tailings impoundment area (TIA). In the context of these guidelines, a TIA includes tailings, waste rock, and any effluent that contains any concentration of the specified deleterious substances, and is of any ph, including effluent treatment sludges, that would be disposed in a natural water body frequented by fish. The alternatives assessment should objectively and rigorously consider all available options for mine waste disposal. It should assess all aspects of each mine waste disposal alternative throughout the project life cycle (i.e., from construction through operation, closure and ultimately long-term monitoring and maintenance). The alternatives assessment should also include all aspects of the project, direct or indirect, that may contribute to the predicted impacts associated with the each potential alternative. These may include the design of the mine and ore processing system to the extent that they would impact waste rock and tailings production, storage options, water management and water treatment. The assessment will consider the predicted quality and quantity of effluent that would be discharged from each alternative assessed, taking into account the effluent quality limits set in the MMER, and the predicted impacts (inclusive of mitigation measures) associated with the proposed TIA, if any, on surface and groundwater water quality and flow. The assessment should address environmental, technical and socio-economic aspects of all of the elements as described above for each alternative throughout the project life cycle. A comprehensive economic assessment of the alternatives is also required and should consider the full costs of each alternative throughout the project life cycle. This economic assessment should also consider all costs associated with any compensation agreements that are to be developed, including the habitat compensation plan associated with using the water body as a TIA. March 2011

14 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page Alternatives Assessment Process Selecting the most suitable mine waste disposal alternative from an environmental, technical and socio-economic perspective, and obtaining input and striving to achieve consensus on the decision from a broad stakeholder group is a complex undertaking. From a purely technical perspective, the breadth of concerns and issues involve individuals from many disciplines within engineering, economics, and natural and social sciences. On the other hand, this complicated scientific language needs to be openly communicated such that the broader stakeholder group can meaningfully participate in the decision making process, or, at least when objectively looking in from the outside have confidence that the decision process is unbiased and representative. This in itself introduces another level of complexity, in that decisions require judgement and cannot solely be based on technical merit. Two types of judgement are inherent in these decisions: technical judgements regarding the likely consequences inherent in the decision, and value judgements regarding the importance or seriousness of those consequences. To overcome these challenges tools have been developed to facilitate the decision making process and to make them as transparent and reproducible as practicable. The underlying principal is that a successful decision making tool will allow technical specialists to communicate essential technical considerations while allowing stakeholders to establish value judgements for the decision. The collective term for these decision making tools are multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). MCDA approaches can be classified in different ways, but one of the primary classifications distinguishes between multi-objective decision making (MODM) and multiattribute decision making (MADM). The primary distinction between these methods is the number of alternatives under evaluation. MADM is designed for selecting discrete alternatives such as mine waste disposal alternatives, while MODM methods are designed for multi-objective planning problems when a theoretically infinite number of interdependent alternatives are defined. Different categories of MCDA methods are found, but the most relevant in the context of assessment of alternatives for mine waste disposal are value measurement models. In these models numerical scores are constructed to represent the degree to which one decision option may be preferred over another. MCDA is a valuable tool to aid decision making, which is a process which seeks to integrate objective measurement with value judgement and make explicit and manage subjectivity which is inherent in all decision making. Within the general theory of MCDA there is a multitude of specific tools, each tailored for specific applications. Multiple Accounts Analysis (MAA) is one of the tools which have been March 2011

15 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 9 successfully used to conduct assessments of alternatives for mine waste disposal and other mining related decision processes. A notable example of the use of MAA in this context is that which was conducted as an element of the environmental assessment of the Meadowbank gold mine in Nunavut. The text of this document can be viewed at ftp://ftp.nirb.ca/02-reviews/completed%20reviews/03mn107- MEADOWBANK%20GOLD%20MINE/02-REVIEW/08-FINAL_EIS/174._ CRL-FEIS- MB-ITAE/SUPPORTING_DOCS/004project%20alternative/. MAA consists of the development of a multiple accounts ledger, which is an explicit list of accounts (and sub-accounts) of the impacts from various alternatives and for each account indicator, which gives a clear understandable measurable description of those impacts. This is followed by a value-based decision process whereby indicator values are scored and weighted in a systematic transparent manner such that the value basis for the effects impacting them is readily apparent. MAA is only part of a larger alternatives assessment process. This process, as it applies to proposed TIAs in the context of these guidelines, is illustrated graphically in Figure 1. Each of the seven steps of the process is described in greater detail in subsequent chapters of these guidelines. It should be noted that the MAA as presented in this guideline is slightly modified from the original method first described by Robertson and Shaw (1998, 1999). This modified approach makes the process more transparent and eliminates multiple levels of bias and subjectivity. March 2011

16 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 10 Figure 1: Flow diagram of the process of assessing alternatives for mine waste disposal March 2011

17 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page Step 1: Identify Candidate Alternatives The first step in the alternatives assessment process entails developing a list of all possible (i.e., reasonable, conceivable and realistic) candidate mine waste disposal alternatives for the site. This should include different mine waste disposal technologies, different disposal storage options, and different disposal locations. At this time it is imperative that no a priori judgements be made about any of the alternatives. It may be appropriate to establish a basic set of threshold criteria to establish the regional boundaries for selecting candidate alternatives. These threshold criteria should be as broad as possible and must be fully described and rationalized to ensure transparency. There is no master list of threshold criteria, but typical examples include: Exclusion based on distance: There is sufficient precedent to suggest that at some point the distance between the mill/mine complex and the TIA becomes too great to ensure a positive economic outcome to the project. For any given project this distance may be set. Exclusion based on presence of protected areas: There may be protected areas (e.g., nature reserves or sacred land) within the regional boundaries considered for candidate mine waste disposal alternatives. If it is known that a TIA in these areas would under no circumstances be allowed, these areas can justifiably be excluded from evaluation. Exclusion based on legal boundaries: Areas may be justifiably excluded from evaluation if legal boundaries would preclude mine waste disposal. These may include country borders or cadastral/land use/lease boundaries. Exclusion based on corporate policy: A project proponent may have specific corporate sustainability policies which would eliminate a candidate alternative from consideration. These may include a policy statement limiting consideration of alternatives that would require relocation of local inhabitants. Mine waste deposition technologies and storage options should not be separately evaluated from deposition sites as the impacts linked to an individual site could vary substantially based on the deposition technology or storage option selected. Therefore, if a candidate site justifiably lends itself to more than one mine waste deposition method; these should be considered as candidate alternatives in their own right. Due to the volume of waste rock associated with most mines, is not uncommon to have a number of different waste rock piles associated with any given project. This is typically not the case for tailings management facilities (TMFs). It is a generally understood fact that for any given project a single consolidated TMF is usually preferred over a series of smaller March 2011

18 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 12 TMFs. However, there are justifiable reasons why multiple TMFs may be considered for a project, such as: Separation of the tailings stream: In some cases separation of the float tailings (which typically represents the largest fraction of the tailings volume) from the leach residue tailings would result in the larger volume of float tailings being geochemically benign, which greatly reduces any potential impacts. This may justify more than one TMF for a site. Using tailings as mine backfill: Mine backfill is often required as part of the mine plan. It may be advantageous to consider tailings as a backfill material to achieve two goals. Firstly, it may offer a logical rationale to separate the leach and float tailings, and secondly, by reducing the volume of tailings that needs to go to the TMF, the potential impacts are reduced. Should more than one TIA facility be considered for a project, the alternatives assessment process described in these guidelines applies equally to each disposal alternative under consideration. It is recognized that the level of detail available about mine waste disposal alternatives during this stage of the process is highly conceptual. However, each candidate alternative should at least in principle be sufficiently thought through to allow an understanding of the concept. This is best done by developing a summary table which lists each alternative with a concise qualitative statement as to how the alternative would apply through each of the pertinent phases of the project (i.e., the project life cycle). Table 1 provides an example of the level of information that should be targeted during this step. The objective at this step in the process is to demonstrate to an external reviewer that all reasonable mine waste disposal alternatives have been brought forward. March 2011

19 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 13 Table 1: Example of the Step 1 summary table to identify candidate TMF alternatives Project Phase Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Construction approach Operational approach Closure approach Construction of two large dams to impound Lake ABC, and an engineered diversion of stream DEF Subaqueous deposition with discharge of effluent via treatment plant Draining of water cover and placing a dry cover Construction of a small dam to impound the stream XYZ valley Sub aerial deposition of thickened tailings with discharge of effluent via treatment plant Buttressing of dam and placement of dry cover Construction of a ring dike on a land saddle at the catchment divide Sub aerial deposition of unthickened slurry tailings with discharge of effluent via treatment plant Buttressing of ring dike and placement of dry cover The deliverable after completing this step of the alternatives assessment process would be a summary table of candidate alternatives complemented by maps or figures showing the locations of each of the alternatives. Furthermore, any threshold criteria must be properly documented, such that an external reviewer would consider the criteria reasonable. It should be noted that tailings separation goes against what is currently done at uranium mines where all tailings are placed in one single engineered pit. This is due to the fact that a review of historical practices for uranium mines indicated that tailings separation has caused more long term problems than benefits. Thus, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission expects that mine workings be used to the maximum extent possible for tailings disposal. 2.3 Step 2: Pre-Screening Assessment Generally, it is not too difficult to develop a substantial list of alternatives during Step 1 of the process. However, this list of alternatives should be screened during Step 2 to allow the decision process to be carried out on an appropriate and manageable set of sufficiently detailed alternatives. It is important to note that the objective of this step is not to make less work for the proponent, but rather to optimize the decision making process by not evaluating alternatives that have obvious deficiencies. The process of screening, called the pre-screening assessment in these guidelines, entails excluding those alternatives that are non-compliant in that they do not meet certain unique minimum specifications which have been developed for the project. This process is often referred to as a fatal-flaw analysis in the context of mine waste disposal alternatives assessments. A fatal flaw is defined as any site characteristic that is so unfavourable or severe that, if taken singly, it would eliminate that site as a candidate mine waste disposal alternative. In simple terms, these would be considered the show-stoppers. March 2011

20 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 14 There is not a master list that qualifies as pre-screening criteria. These criteria need to be uniquely developed for each project, and a thorough qualification and justification of the rationale must be provided. The selection of pre-screening criteria and its rationale needs to be carefully considered since the objective at this time is to provide a transparent process for potentially eliminating the majority of alternatives from detailed analysis and assessment. Therefore, it should be clear to external reviewers that the pre-screening criteria, when evaluated singly, are sufficiently important to eliminate an alternative from further consideration. The level of detail required to support that conclusion has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and it may have to be extensive to be sufficiently supportive. Pre-screening criteria should be formulated such that there is a simple YES or NO response to whether the alternative complies with the set criteria. Most importantly, it must be clear to the external reviewer that there would be no reasonable mitigation strategy that would convert a YES into a NO. Examples of pre-screening criteria and the possible associated rationale are presented below. It is important to note that these criteria are provided as examples and should not be considered as practices that would be acceptable in all circumstances. It is incumbent on the proponent to consider and examine criteria according to these guidelines in order to determine which would provide the best practicable manner to manage mine waste and provide for acceptable protection of the environment. Would the TIA preclude future exploration or mining of a potential resource? A TIA located over an area where there are proven indicators of mineralization, or a reasonable indication of possible mineralization based on regional trends, may be one possible reason to exclude it from further consideration. Under this scenario, it may not be reasonable to expect the proponent to conduct a lengthy exploration program to prove out whether an economically viable resource does exist in the area. Is any part of the mine waste disposal system unproven technology? If a specific disposal method relies on technology that has not been demonstrated to be effective in the context of the site under consideration, then it could justifiably be argued that the alternative should be excluded from further consideration. It would not be reasonable to expect the proponent to conduct lengthy fundamental or applied research to prove whether the technology may be successful. Will the TMF capacity be too small to store the proposed upper limit of tailings? Unless there is good rationale to have more than one TMF for any given project site (e.g., due to separation of tailings streams), it can justifiably be argued that if a site does not have sufficient capacity using reasonable technically viable containment strategies then it can be excluded from consideration. March 2011

21 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 15 Will the TIA result in negative life of project economics? It is justifiable to exclude TIAs from further consideration if they would result in negative life of project total (overall) economics. When using project economics as pre-screening criteria, the proponent needs to be careful to not evaluate the mine waste disposal economics in isolation of the total project economics. It is conceivable that a more expensive mine waste disposal alternative could result in improved project economics. Furthermore, it must be recognized that specific legal requirements may preclude the possibility of pursuing some potential alternatives. For example, the requirements of the Species at Risk Act could preclude the development of a TIA if the TIA was to be located in an area that would impact the habitat of specific endangered species. Results of the pre-screening assessment are best presented in the form of a summary table that lists each alternative against the pre-screening criteria (and associated rationale) set for the project. Table 2 provides an example of what this summary table would look like. This table, complete with all applicable supporting information, will be the deliverable for this step. Table 2: Example of the pre-screening criteria summary table Pre-Screening Criteria Would the TIA sterilize a potential resource? Is any part of the mine waste disposal system unproven technology? Rationale A TIA located over an area where there are proven indicators of mineralization, or a reasonable indication of possible mineralization based on regional trends may be excluded from further consideration. If a specific deposition method relies on unproven technology at the project site, then it could justifiably be argued that the alternative should be excluded from further consideration. Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C NO YES NO YES NO NO Should alternative be excluded from further assessment? YES YES NO 2.4 Step 3: Alternative Characterization At this stage in the alternatives assessment process, there should be a reduced number of alternatives remaining. However, there will have to have been sufficient justifiable prescreening undertaken to ensure that any of the remaining alternatives could prove to be the preferred alternative. There is no ideal number of alternatives that should be carried through at this stage, but a general rule-of-thumb is that there would be at least three or more alternatives remaining and determined to be worthy of detailed assessment. At least one of these alternatives should not impact a natural water body that is frequented by fish, unless it can be demonstrated that this possibility does not reasonably exist based on sitespecific circumstances. March 2011

22 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 16 These remaining alternatives need to be thoroughly characterized, and this serves two purposes: Firstly, complete characterization of each alternative ensures that every aspect and nuance of the alternative is properly considered, and; Secondly, the provision of a thorough characterization in a clear and concise format that directly compares alternatives, ensuring complete transparency of the alternatives assessment process. Site specific characterization criteria should be developed for each project. To facilitate smooth transition towards the next more rigorous steps of the evaluation process these criteria should be categorized into four broad categories, or accounts in the context of these guidelines, that consider the entire project life cycle. This means that both short and long term environmental, technical and socio-economic aspects associated with construction through operation, mine closure and ultimately post-closure maintenance and monitoring need to be considered. The accounts can be summarized as follows: Environmental characterization: This account focuses on characterizing the local and regional environment surrounding the proposed TIA. These include elements such as climate, geology, hydrology, hydrogeology, water quality and potential impacts on aquatic, terrestrial and bird life. Technical characterization: This focuses on characterization of the engineered elements of each alternative such as storage capacity, dam size and volume, diversion channel size and capacity, dumping techniques, haul distances, sedimentation and pollution control dam requirements, tailings discharge methods, pipeline grades and routes, closure design, discharge and/or water treatment infrastructure and supporting infrastructure such as access roads. Project economic characterization: The focus of this account is to characterize life of project economics. All aspects of the mine waste management plan need to be considered including investigation, design, construction (inclusive of borrow development and royalties where applicable), operation, closure, post closure care and maintenance, water management, associated infrastructure (including transport and deposition systems), compensation payments and land use or lease fees. Socio-economic characterization: This account focuses on how a proposed TIA may influence local and regional land users. Elements that are considered here include characterization and valuation of land use, cultural significance, presence of archaeological sites and employment and/or training opportunities. It is essential that the characterization remain factual, or where statements of judgement, risk or uncertainty are made, that they be explicitly defined and qualified. As previously stated, it should be clear to any external reviewer what the basis is for the characterization criteria stipulated for any alternative. In most cases there needs to be supporting March 2011

23 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 17 information for these criteria in the form of technical reports completed by appropriately qualified specialists. In populating the characterization criteria, care must be taken to not make a priori judgement about any criteria or alternative. It is also important to note that characterization of the alternatives in this step does not entail evaluating impacts. Impact evaluation is left to Step 4 of the assessment process when a thorough characterization of each alternative is readily available. The level of detail at which a project is characterized and subsequently documented should be evaluated based on project specific needs. Selecting and documenting characterization criteria should be done by a multidisciplinary team with representatives from all four accounts. In some cases multiple representatives may be required from a single account, for example a person familiar with the aquatic habitat in an area may not be familiar with the bird or terrestrial life. There is no prescribed way as to how these teams should be solicited to set and populate the characterization criteria for a project. However, clearly documenting the process that was followed throughout this step can greatly help to instill confidence of the external reviewer that all alternatives have been thoroughly characterized. Every project is unique, and as a result it is not appropriate to provide a standardized list of characterization criteria against which to document alternatives. The lists provided in Tables 3 through 6 offer a reasonable sampling of characterization criteria that are likely to be required for the majority of projects. Naturally, the selection of criteria would also depend to some extent on the type of mine waste under consideration, i.e., a TMF or waste rock pile. When deciding upon characterization criteria, it may be useful to pose the following question: What would be reasonable questions that a stakeholder, regulator or technical reviewer may ask about any of the proposed mine waste disposal alternatives? By anticipating the response to this question, a reasonable basis for setting characterization criteria can be established. During this step of populating the characterization criteria table, it is conceivable that elements are double-counted, i.e., the footprint size of the TIA may be listed under technical characterization criteria, with the goal of differentiating physical size, and again as an environmental characterization criteria, but with the goal of demonstrating loss of habitat. This apparent double-counting is not relevant at this time, as Step 4 is designed to address this issue. Notwithstanding, it does help the external reviewer if the logic behind the inclusion of all characterization criteria is immediately apparent though extensive documentation. March 2011

24 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 18 Table 3: Sampling of environmental characterization criteria Geochemical characterization of wastes (e.g., acid rock drainage and/or metal leaching, weatherability) Geochemical characterization of all construction materials and associated excavation waste (i.e., unsuitable soils stripped from foundations, quarries, or other borrow sources) Geographical boundaries (e.g., country/provincial/territorial/municipal boundaries, land claim/land use/cadastral/other re-defined boundaries) Topography (e.g., relief, complexity of topography) Geotechnical and seismic conditions (e.g., geological setting, depth of overburden and/or permafrost, fault/fracture zones) Hydrology (e.g., surface water features, size of streams/rivers/lakes/wetlands, catchment boundaries, flood lines) Hydrogeology (e.g., depth to groundwater, perched water tables, presence of springs/artesian wells) Climate (e.g., prevalent wind strength and direction, snow drifting, precipitation and/or temperature inversions) Climate change projections (e.g., predicted changes in precipitation patterns and extreme precipitation events, warming impacts in permafrost areas) Atmospheric issues (e.g., particulates, heavy metals) Overall affected land footprint size of impoundment (including secondary/polishing ponds), related infrastructure (e.g., dams, saddle dykes), and access road Water quality (e.g., surface water, groundwater, impacted waters) Water quantity and storage issues Special features (e.g., seismicity, avalanches, permafrost, radioactivity) Vegetation (e.g., types, rarity/uniqueness, coverage) Aquatic life and habitat (e.g., species variation/uniqueness, habitat suitability) Terrestrial life and habitat (e.g., species variation/uniqueness, habitat suitability) Bird life and habitat (e.g., species variation/uniqueness, habitat suitability) Table 4: Sampling of technical characterization criteria Physical characterization of wastes (e.g., grain size distribution, settlement rate, consolidation parameters) TIA design (e.g., overall affected land footprint size of impoundment (including secondary/polishing ponds), related infrastructure (e.g., dams, saddle dykes), access and haul roads) Containment structure design (e.g., size, hydraulic capacity, artificial materials, substrate, possible use of impermeable or geo-textile liner for impoundment) Diversion structure designs (e.g., size, hydraulic capacity, construction materials, substrate) Supporting infrastructure design (e.g., type, size, construction materials, substrate) Borrow source and quarry design (e.g., size, volumes extracted, development methods, water management, rehabilitation) Tailings delivery and deposition system design (e.g., type, capacity, location, containment) Water management system design (e.g., water balance, discharge strategy, water treatment strategy, recycle strategy) Closure design (e.g., approach, construction materials) Flexibility (e.g., ability to handle upset conditions (chemical/volumetric/physical), expansion capacity, variable discharge strategies) Precedent (e.g., new technologies, case studies should include thickened, paste or dry stacking alternatives) Design and construction of impermeable covers over wastes Technical risks and benefits (e.g., variable foundation conditions, water balance) Constructability (e.g., seasonality, access) March 2011

25 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 19 Table 5: Sampling of project economic characterization criteria Capital cost (e.g., investigations, design, borrow development, construction, supervision, commissioning) Operational cost (e.g., sustaining capital such as dam raises, deposition, monitoring, maintenance, water treatment) Closure cost (e.g., bonding, investigations, design, borrow development, construction, supervision, commissioning) Post-closure cost (e.g., monitoring, maintenance, inspections, water treatment) Fish habitat compensation (e.g., bonding, construction, monitoring) Land use cost (e.g., land use fees, lease rates, royalties on borrow materials) Economic risks and benefits (e.g., permitting timelines, construction seasonality, design certainty, postclosure timeline) Table 6: Sampling of socio-economic characterization criteria Archaeology (e.g., location, size, type, importance, risk of unidentified sites such as burial sites) Community/Aboriginal land/mineral use rights (e.g., formal/informal agreements, grandfathered agreements) Maintenance of traditional lifestyle (e.g., loss of hunting, fishing or natural food harvesting, loss of access) Ecological/cultural values (e.g., value of land, value of water, value of aquatic, bird or terrestrial species, value of lifestyle) Perception (e.g., apparent acceptance or distrust, nature of communication) Previous and existing land use (e.g., recreation/tourism, spiritual well being, mining, industry, hunting, fishing) Aesthetics (e.g., line of sight, landform engineering, re-vegetation) Employment (e.g., short and long-term opportunities, boom-and-bust cycles) Capacity building (e.g., training opportunities, contracting opportunities, community infrastructure) Economic benefits (e.g., partnerships, royalties, lease payments, compensation and benefit agreements) Community safety (e.g., construction methods, operational management of TIA, closure state of TIA) Overall perceived socio-economic consequences, benefits and relative preferences The deliverable for this step should ideally be a series of summary tables that list the selected characterization criteria for each account for each of the alternatives under consideration. The table should include a concise summary of the rationale behind each criterion. This format allows an external reviewer to easily compare the factual characteristics across alternatives. Table 7 provides an example of what this summary table may look like. March 2011

26 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 20 Table 7: Example of the characterization criteria summary table Characterization Criteria Dam size Dam foundation conditions Supporting infrastructure Account: Technical Characterization Rationale Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Larger dams are more complex, pose greater risk, require more construction materials, require a larger footprint Dams constructed on poor foundation conditions are more complex, pose greater seepage and stability risk More supporting infrastructure results in greater demand on construction material, occupy larger footprint One dam, 300 m long, 20 m total height, final dam footprint of 2 ha Shallow (3 m thick) glacio-fluvial soil overlying competent intact bedrock 5 km access road, and 4 km service road for discharge spigots Two dams; first is 150 m long, 30 m high with a footprint of 1 ha; second is 200 m long, 15 m high with a footprint of 2 ha Shallow (0.5 m thick) organic layer overlying 5-8 m thick bouldery till, overlying fractured bedrock 3 km access road and 8 km ring road to service discharge spigots Two dams; first is 400 m long, 30 m high with a footprint of 3 ha; second is 50 m long, 20 m high with a footprint of 0.5 ha Shallow (3 m thick) glacio-fluvial soil overlying competent intact bedrock 10 km access road and 7 km service road for discharge spigots 2.5 Step 4: Multiple Accounts Ledger Up to this point in the process, the emphasis has been on identifying and characterizing alternatives. In order to evaluate alternatives using the MAA decision making tool, it is necessary to develop a multiple accounts ledger. This ledger seeks to identify those elements that differentiate alternatives, and provides the basis for scoring and weighting as described in Step 5, which is necessary to complete the evaluation. The multiple accounts ledger consists of the following two elements: s, known as evaluation criteria, and; s, known as measurement criteria. Complete definitions and procedures for developing sub-accounts and indicators are described in the following sections Sub-Accounts s (evaluation criteria) are developed using the characterization criteria selected during Step 3. The fundamental difference between these sets of criteria is that characterization criteria are factual and have been developed with no a priori judgements being made regarding any of the alternatives being considered, while evaluation criteria consider only the material impact (i.e., benefit or loss) associated with any of the alternatives being evaluated. March 2011

27 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 21 The choice of sub-accounts must be carefully considered so that only those subaccounts that truly differentiate mine waste disposal alternatives are presented for evaluation. To facilitate this, sub-accounts should comply with the following guidelines: Impact driven: The evaluation criteria must, as far as practicable, be linked to an impact as opposed to merely being a factual element. For example, the size of an impacted lake in itself is not a relevant sub-account, but if the size of the lake is linked to its value or potential habitat loss, then the sub-account is appropriate. Differentiating: The sub-account must define an aspect which distinctly differentiates one alternative from another, and that difference is expected to have a material effect on the final selection of an alternative. For example, land ownership may be an important evaluation criterion, if different alternatives fall on ground with different ownership. Conversely, if all the mine waste disposal alternatives under consideration were on land belonging to a single owner, then there really is no need to consider this subaccount in the analysis. Value relevance: A sub-account must be relevant in the context of the alternatives being evaluated. For example, the size of dams in itself is not a relevant sub-account unless it is linked to a relevant context such as increased long-term risk of failure or increased maintenance and inspection requirements. Understandability: s must be unambiguously defined, such that two external reviewers cannot interpret the outcome differently. For example, distance between the TIA and the mill complex may be a sub-account with the understanding that greater distances pose greater technical and environmental risk. However, someone may assume that because there is a significant dust hazard associated with a proposed alternative, a greater distance could be advantageous due to reduced worker health and safety risks. Non-redundancy: There should not be more than one sub-account that measures the same evaluation criteria. If individual sub-accounts measure similar criteria, consideration should be given to combining those criteria. Judgemental independence: s should be judgementally independent, which means that preferences with respect to a single criteria, or trade-offs between criteria, cannot depend on the value of another. For example, assume traditional land use is one sub-account and another is landowner perception. It may be concluded that for one alternative hunting will be impacted which would result in a negative impact on March 2011

28 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 22 traditional land use. However, if landowner perception is influenced by a decrease in hunting then judgemental independence does not exist. As with all the other criteria mentioned throughout this alternatives assessment process, there is no master list of evaluation criteria applicable to all projects and there is no ideal number of evaluation criteria. These should be defined on a project specific basis by a multi-disciplinary team with input from stakeholders. This helps instill confidence in the process in the eyes of an external reviewer, and ensures transparency which is an integral part of the success of the alternatives evaluation process. The deliverable at this stage in the process will be a summary table which lists the subaccounts complete with the rationale behind each. Appropriate supporting documentation will likely have to be clearly referenced. Table 8 provides an example of what this summary table may consist of. March 2011

29 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 23 Table 8: Example of the sub-account (evaluation criteria) summary table for a TMF Account Rationale Environmental Distance from mill site A longer distance implies that the risk of an accidental spill of tailings along the pipeline is greater. Greater distance further implies more linear infrastructure which negatively affects Caribou migration. Technical Project economics Socioeconomic Value of aquatic life affected Post-closure land use Containment structure design Water management system Complete system flexibility Capital cost Operational (and sustaining capital) cost Closure and post closure cost Archaeology Society and Culture Traditional land use value Perception A lake with larger species diversity has been deemed to carry greater value from a traditional use perspective. Alternatives that would most closely return land use to premining conditions would be more palatable to the landowner. Larger or more complex containment structures are generally less desirable due to uncertainty associated with long term integrity particularly if the area is seismically active. Long term water treatment is not desirable due to long term risks associated with treatment sludge handling and storage. Waste characteristics are expected to change over the life of the project, affecting physical stability and water management strategies. Alternatives that are least susceptible to risks associated with these changes are preferred. Greater pre-production expenditure affects early cash flow and the ability to generate capital to execute the project. The project has a short lifespan and therefore benefits of delaying sustaining capital are not easily realized. Higher operational costs are less desirable as the ore grade reduces rapidly over the life of the mine. Due to the short life of mine, capital intensive closure costs directly affect the internal rate of return. The prevalence of archaeological sites in the region implies complete avoidance will be impossible. Sites which would minimize the impact would be more amenable. A regulatory proposal may have impacts or implications on people s way of life, culture, community and well being. Special consideration should be given to vulnerable social and economic groups such as Aboriginal peoples. It would be less desirable to impact areas which have direct use values (e.g., agriculture, recreation, tourism and functional ecosystem benefits) as well as passive values such as the existence value of the natural habitat and ecosystem. Tailings, irrespective of their geochemical composition, are generally perceived to be highly toxic by the local communities. Therefore, TMFs where animals and/or birds could have direct contact with tailings are less desirable s To allow qualitative or quantitative measurement of the impact (i.e., benefit or loss) associated with each alternative for any given sub-account, the sub-account needs to be measurable. s by nature are often not directly measurable, and need to be sufficiently decomposed to allow measurability. This decomposition March 2011

30 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 24 takes the form of sub-sub-accounts, which in the language of MAA are called indicators, or measurement criteria. The concept of indicators is best described by examples: Example 1: The sub-account traditional land use may have a list of indicators including effects on hunting, effects on fishing and effects on harvesting berries. Example 2: The sub-account water quality may have a list of indicators including ph, conductivity, TDS, etc. These indicators may be different for the different life-cycle stages of the project (i.e., construction, operation and closure) and, where appropriate, may be divided into separate time periods. When selecting indicators thought should be given to the parameter that will be used to define measurability. This measurability is required in order to continue to Step 5, which is the value-based decision process. Assigning measurability is relatively simple for sub-accounts that readily lend themselves to parametric terms such as water quality or capital costs. The challenge comes when measurability needs to be assigned to sub-accounts that do not readily lend themselves to parametric terms such as traditional land use which must be supplemented by indicators such as effects on hunting. This problem can be overcome by constructing qualitative value scales. Common examples of such qualitative value scales are the Apgar score used to quickly and summarily assess the health of newborn children immediately after birth (Apgar, 1953), and the Beaufort scale used by mariners to measure the strength of wind (Huler, 2004). For illustration, the Beaufort scale has been reproduced in Table 9. The Beaufort scale was developed because mariners could not actually measure the strength of wind, and they needed to communicate their sailing conditions in a fashion that could readily be understood by all. By taking factual information about how the sea state changes as the wind strength changes, a qualitative value scale was developed, and to this day it remains valid and is used in weather forecasts. Similar qualitative value scales can be developed for indicators where precise measurability is not immediately apparent. March 2011

31 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 25 Table 9: Beaufort scale (example of a qualitative value scale) Force Wind Speed (kts) Descriptor Calm Sea like a mirror Light air Light Breeze Gentle Breeze Moderate Breeze Fresh Breeze Strong Breeze Near Gale Gale Severe Gale Storm Violent Storm Hurricane Sea Condition Ripples with the appearance of scales are formed, but without foam crests. Small wavelets, still short, but more pronounced. Crests have a glassy appearance and do not break. Large wavelets. Crests begin to break. Foam of glassy appearance. Perhaps scattered white horses. Small waves, becoming larger; fairly frequent white horses. Moderate waves, taking a more pronounced long form; many white horses are formed. Chance of some spray. Large waves begin to form; the white foam crests are more extensive everywhere. Probably some spray. Sea heaps up and white foam from breaking waves begins to be blown in streaks along the direction of the wind. Moderately high waves of greater length; edges of crests begin to break into spindrift. The foam is blown in well-marked streaks along the direction of the wind. High waves. Dense streaks of foam along the direction of the wind. Crests of waves begin to topple, tumble and roll over. Spray may affect visibility. Very high waves with long over-hanging crests. The resulting foam, in great patches, is blown in dense white streaks along the direction of the wind. On the whole the surface of the sea takes on a white appearance. The 'tumbling' of the sea becomes heavy and shock-like. Visibility affected. Exceptionally high waves (small and medium-size ships might be for a time lost to view behind the waves). The sea is completely covered with long white patches of foam lying along the direction of the wind. Everywhere the edges of the wave crests are blown into froth. Visibility affected. The air is filled with foam and spray. Sea completely white with driving spray; visibility very seriously affected In order to develop a qualitative value scale it is necessary to define at least two points on the scale (usually the end points). The points on the scale are defined descriptively and draw on multiple concepts in the definition of the indicator. The number of points on the scale will be determined by the indicator definition, and in the context of MAA for mine waste disposal alternatives, a good rule of thumb would be to target a six-point scale. This provides for sufficient capacity to differentiate, without being overly onerous, and also by providing an even number scale, the tendency to select the middle-of-the road value is eliminated. Qualitative value scales should be developed to have the following characteristics: March 2011

32 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 26 Operational: The decision maker should be able to rate alternatives that were not specifically used to define the scale, i.e., should another TIA be added for evaluation at a later time, the scale developed previously should still be relevant. Reliable: Different external reviewers should be able to rate an alternative according to the value scale and assign the same score. Value relevant: The value scale must be directly relevant to the indicator being scored. Justifiable: Any external reviewer should reach the conclusion that the value scale is reasonable and representative. The deliverable for this part of the process will be the expansion of the sub-accounts summary table to include indicators. As previously stated, this collective information is also known as the multiple accounts ledger, and Table 10 provides an example of what this may look like. Within Table 10, the indicator fishing impact and ARD potential are examples where indicator parameters are based on a qualitative value scale. This qualitative value scale must be documented, and Table 11 provides an example of what this may look like. March 2011

33 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 27 Table 10: Example of the completed multiple accounts ledger Account Parameter Technical Project economics Environmental Socioeconomic Effect on traditional land use during construction Mine waste geochemistry Containment design Diversion design Life of mine cost Economic risk Landowner perception Archaeological sites Unit Quantity Hunting impact Time Yr 2 years Fishing impact Value # 3 Berry harvesting impact Area ha 400 ha ARD potential Value # 2 Metal leaching potential Value # 6 Dam height Height m 25 m Foundation conditions Value # 4 Channel length Length km 3.8 km Catchment size Area ha 134 ha Capital cost Cost $ 10 million Operational cost Cost $ 2 million/yr Closure cost Cost $ 3 million Capital Value # 2 Operational Value # 3 Closure Value # 5 Land owner perception Value # 4 Presence of immovable sites Quantity # 2 Presence of mitagable sites Quantity # 33 Score 6 (Best) No impact 5 Table 11: Example of qualitative value scale for the indicator fishing impact listed in Table 10 Descriptor Short term temporary loss of fishing. During construction fishing in the area will be prohibited for health and safety reasons 4 Loss of fishing for foraging species for at least 10 years 3 Loss of fishing for foraging species and 1 large bodies specie for at least 10 years 2 Loss of fishing for foraging species and 2 large bodies species for at least 10 years 1 (Worst) Complete and permanent loss of all fishing for the life of the project and into perpetuity 2.6 Step 5: Value-Based Decision Process At the conclusion of Step 4, the multiple accounts evaluation is complete and the valuebased decision process begins. This process entails taking the list of accounts, subaccounts and indicators and assessing the combined impacts for each of the alternatives under review. This entails scoring and weighting of all indicators, sub-accounts and March 2011

34 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 28 accounts and quantitatively determining merit ratings for each alternative. These three processes are described in the following sections Scoring Traditionally, MAA scoring is done through a process of ranking and scaling. This process is not inherently transparent, and for this reason these guidelines present a modification to the process that improves transparency. Scoring is done by developing qualitative value scales for every indicator, including those which appear to be readily measurable. An example of such a qualitative value scale is presented in Table 12. The process of how these are developed has been described in Step 4. By following this procedure, it is abundantly obvious to the external reviewer why a particular indicator score has been assigned to an alternative, and since the qualitative value scale has been developed collaboratively, with input from stakeholders, there is built in confidence that the scoring is appropriate. Table 12: Example of qualitative value scale for an indicator which at first glance would appear to be measurable, such as capital cost Score 6 (Best) Less than $10M 5 Between $10 and $20M 4 Between $20 and $30M 3 Between $30 and $40M 2 Between $40 and $50M 1 (Worst) Greater than $50M Descriptor Weighting At this time the analyst, with input from stakeholders, needs to have the ability to introduce their value bias between individual indicators. This is done by applying a weighting factor to each indicator. Weighting factors allow the analyst to assign relative importance of one indicator as compared to another, and this weighting factor is most likely to reflect the analyst s bias or value basis. Essentially what this means is that an indicator with a weighting factor of 2 is twice as important as an indicator with a weighting factor of 1. It is important to bracket the weighting factor, and in the context of these guidelines, it is recommended that the weighting factors range from 1 through 6. This means that any one indicator can be considered to be up to 6 times more significant than another. If the multiple accounts evaluation has been rigorously carried out, then March 2011

35 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 29 this range of weighting factors should be sufficient to satisfy an external reviewer. Further consideration of weighting factors can be conducted during the sensitivity analysis (Step 6). Weighting factors should be constant for any given indicator, sub-account or account across all alternatives. This is best illustrated through the quantitative analysis procedure. Considering the inherent subjectivity of weighting, there is a natural tendency to want to standardize or prescribe weighting factors. This would result in a fixed value bias, which reflects the value bias of the imposing guidelines with no consideration of site specific conditions, rather than allowing the analyst with input from stakeholders, to set value bias relevant to their project. Notwithstanding this, within the framework of these guidelines, it is proposed that the Base Case of the alternatives assessment use the following weightings for accounts (refer to Table 15 of the quantitative analysis section): Environment 6 Technical 3 Project Economics 1.5 Socio-Economic 3 The analyst is still encouraged to assign other weightings to accounts and demonstrate their effect on the assessment outcome, as described in Step 6. Recognizing that for an external reviewer it may not be immediately apparent how the chosen weighting factors effects the outcome of the alternatives assessment, it is recommended that in all cases the analyst produce a sensitivity analysis run (see Step 6) where all weighting factors are assigned equal value (i.e., a weighting of 1) Quantitative Analysis The quantitative analysis is relatively simple, and given the potentially large amount of accounts, sub-accounts, and indicators this analysis is well suited to using a spreadsheet type approach. For each indicator, the indicator value (S) of each alternative is listed in one column. The weighting factor (W) is listed in another column and the combined indicator merit score (S x W) is calculated as the product of these values. An example of this analysis is presented in Table 13. merit scores can be directly compared across alternatives, and likewise sub-account merit scores (Σ{S x W}) can be directly compared across alternatives. However, to allow comparison of these values against values for other March 2011

36 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 30 sub-accounts, the scores must be normalized to the same six-point scale used to score each indicator value. This is achieved by dividing the sub-account merit score by the sum of the weightings (ΣW) to yield a sub-account merit rating (R s = (Σ{SxW}/ ΣW). This will again be a value between 1 and 6. This normalization is necessary to balance out different numbers of indicators and sub-accounts for each account. Without this normalization, the number of indicators associated with each sub-account, and the number of sub-accounts associated with each account, would have to be identical, otherwise the analysis will be skewed by accounts with more sub-accounts or indicators. Table 13: Example of the quantitative analysis for indicators Account: Socio-Economic Sub-Account: Effect on traditional land use during construction Weight (W) Value (S) Alternative A Merit Score (S x W) Value (S) Alternative B Merit Score (S x W) Hunting impact Fishing impact Berry harvesting impact merit score (Σ{S x W}) Subaccount merit rating (R s = Σ{SxW}/ ΣW) 4 3 The same procedure of weighting and normalization is followed to determine account merit scores (Σ{R s xw}), and account merit ratings (R a = Σ(R s xw)/ ΣW). This is illustrated in Table 14. This process is repeated one final time, and an alternative merit score (Σ{R a xw}), and an alternative merit rating (A = Σ(R a xw)/ ΣW), is determined for each of the alternatives, as illustrated in Table 15. March 2011

37 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 31 Table 14: Example of the quantitative analysis for sub-accounts Sub-Account Effect on traditional land use during construction Weight (W) Account: Socio-Economic Merit Rating (R s) Alternative A Sub- Account Merit Score (R s x W) Merit Rating (R s) Alternative B Sub- Account Merit Score (R s x W) Archaeology Aesthetics Account merit score (Σ{R s x W}) Account merit rating (R a = Σ{R sxw}/ ΣW) Account Table 15: Example of the quantitative analysis for accounts Weight (W) Account Merit Rating (R a) Alternative A Account Merit score (R a x W) Account Merit Rating (R a) Alternative B Account Merit score (R a x W) Socio-economic Technical Project economics Environment Alternative merit score (Σ{R a x W}) Alternative merit rating (A = Σ{R axw}/ ΣW) At this time it is possible to compare alternative merit ratings for all mine waste disposal alternatives evaluated and the preferred option will be the one which has the highest merit rating. The deliverable at this point in the process will be summary tables much like the examples presented in this section. It is, however, very important that justification is provided for all the weightings used along every step of the process. An external reviewer should be able to review the weightings, and conclude that they are reasonable, even though he may not agree with them. 2.7 Step 6: Sensitivity Analysis The alternatives assessment and subsequent value based decision making process described in these guidelines is specifically tailored to be transparent, and to the extent practicable eliminate bias and subjectivity. However, the reality is that any decision making process is subject to bias and subjectivity, and the goal is to manage that bias and subjectivity to the point where an external reviewer would agree that the decision is justifiable and reasonable, irrespective of their own value system. March 2011

38 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 32 MAA as described in these guidelines uses weighting factors to encourage stakeholders to scale the importance of indicators according to their own value system. If the assignment of weighting has been done collaboratively with the appropriate stakeholders, then it is probably reasonable to assume that those weightings suggest general consensus. However, it is to be expected that some indicators would expose diametrically opposing value systems, and as a result general agreement on individual weightings may not be reached. At this point, the entire decision making process can come apart, as considerable effort may be exerted on discussing one or more problem indicators, whereas, potentially, irrespective on what value is adopted, those problem indicators may not be the ultimate deciding indicators. The way to test the sensitivity of the value based decision making process is to assign different weightings to those indicators, sub-accounts and accounts according to a range of value systems representative of the perceived disparity. The level and type of sensitivity analysis that should be carried out is not set, and should not be prescriptive. It is entirely project specific and to a large extent will be based on feedback received from stakeholders throughout the alternatives assessment process. Table 16 presents an example of sensitivity analysis runs completed on the example dataset presented in Tables 13 through 15. The merit rating of each alternative is compared to the base case analysis to determine if the results of the sensitivity analysis are likely to lead to a different decision about which alternative may be the preferred option. In this example, all but the last case would have resulted in a different alternative having a higher merit rating. It is conceivable that specific stakeholders may have completely biased opinions about how weightings should be evaluated, which may unfairly skew the assessment results. Sensitivity analysis is not intended to resolve this disparity. It does, however, provide a platform for presenting these opinions in a transparent manner where any stakeholder or external reviewer can make their own value judgements about all interpretations of the case. March 2011

39 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 33 Table 16: Example of the results of a sensitivity analysis Analysis ID Scenario Description Alternative A Merit Rating Alternative B Base Base case as per Tables 13, 14 and #1 #2 #3 Change weighting of indicator "berry harvesting impact" in Table 13 from 1 to 5 Change weighting of sub-account "Aesthetics" in Table 14 from 3 to 1 Change weighting from account "Project economics" in Table 15 from 1.5 to #4 Apply all the changes from cases #1, #2 and #3 simultaneously #5 Change weighting of all indicators in Table 13 as follows; "hunting impact" from 2 to 0; "fishing impact from 5 to 6; and "berry harvesting impact from 1 to #6 Change all weighting factors to 1 in Tables 13, 14 and The deliverable for this step would be a well documented summary of the sensitivity analysis that was carried out. This may be presented in summary tables similar to those presented in Step 5 and Table Step 7: Document Results The final step in the alternatives assessment process entails thorough documentation of the results. This is best done through a comprehensive technical report, which systematically describes the outcome of each of the steps as recommended in these guidelines. The primary technical alternatives assessment report should be a concise summary of the findings of each step, using comparative summary tables and descriptive definitions which make the results immediately apparent to the external reviewer. Detailed supporting information related to elements such as cost estimate breakdowns, or geochemical assessment should be presented in appendices, or if stand-alone reports have been produced, these should be properly referenced and made available for review. March 2011

40 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 34 References Apgar, V A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant. Curr. Res. Anesth. Analg. Vol. 32, No. 4, pp Belton, V., Stewart, T.J Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts, USA, ISBN X, Second Printing. Caldwell, J.A., Robertson, A. MacG Selection of tailings impoundment sites. Die Siviele Ingenieur in Suid Afrika, pp October. Fisher, G., Makowski, M Multiple Criteria Land Use Analysis. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Working Paper, WP , 15 p. January. Gregory, R, Keeney, R.L Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values. Management Science, Vol. 40, No. 8, pp August. Gregory, R., Slovic, P A constructive approach to environmental evaluation. Ecological Economics, Vol. 21, pp Huler, S Defining the Wind: The Beaufort Scale, and How a 19th-Century Admiral Turned Science into Poetry. Crown, ISBN Mendoza, G.A., Martins, H Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modeling paradigms. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 230, pp Merkhofer, M.W., Conway, R, Anderson, R.G Multi-attribute Utility Analysis as a Framework for Public Participation: Siting a Hazardous Waste Facility. United States Department of Energy Report, Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000, 8 p. Robertson, A. MacG., Shepherd, T.A., Van Zyl, D.J.A Uranium tailings impoundment site selection. In: Proceedings of Third Symposium on Uranium Mill Tailings Management, Fort Collins, USA. Robertson A, MacG., Shaw, S.C Alternatives Analysis for Mine Development and Reclamation. In: Proceedings of the 22 nd Annual BC Mine Reclamation Symposium, Penticton, BC, Canada, pp Robertson, A. MacG., Shaw, S.C A multiple accounts analysis for tailings site selection. In: Sudbury 99 Conference Proceedings, Mining and Environment II, Vol. 3, pp Vick, S.G Planning, Design, and Analysis of Tailings Dams. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 369 p., ISBN March 2011

41 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 35 Annex 1: Steps in the EA and Regulatory Processes Metal mine project proposal with a TIA proposed in a natural water body frequented by fish EA 1 including an assessment of alternatives & concurrently: Stakeholder consultations Aboriginal consultation, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 Compilation of information for RIAS Preliminary Fish Habitat Compensation Plan (MMER, section 27.1) Federal EA Decision 2 No Yes Project proposal rejected TIA proposal supported MMER Amendment Process: - Regulatory Impact Assessment Statement - Fish Habitat Compensation Plan (MMER, section 27.1) Notes: 1 As determined by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and regulations or other EA regimes in the North. 2 The federal EA decision is based on the conclusion on significance of adverse environmental effects. No No Decision by Ministers and Treasury Board Yes: Canada Gazette I Decision by Ministers and Treasury Board Yes: Canada Gazette II and list on Schedule 2 of Metal Mining Effluent Regulations March 2011

42 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 36 Annex 2: Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) is a summary of the expected impact of a regulatory initiative that addresses each of the requirements of the federal government s regulatory policy as presented in the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation. 1 The use of regulatory impact analysis has long been recognized as an international best practice, and the RIAS has been used in Canada for over 20 years. A properly prepared RIAS provides a cogent, non-technical synthesis of information that allows the various RIAS audiences to understand the issues being regulated. It allows audiences to understand the reason the issue is being regulated, the government s objectives, and the costs and benefits of the regulation. It also addresses who will be affected, who was consulted in developing the regulation, and how the government will evaluate and measure the performance of the regulation against its stated objectives. The RIAS is, in effect, a public accounting of the need for each regulation. 2 The RIAS allows government decision-makers to do the following: synthesize information; improve their understanding of regulatory impacts; and better communicate the impacts of regulation to stakeholders Outside the government, the RIAS gives the public and affected parties information that can be used to do the following: Evaluate proposed regulations; Better understand the regulation and obligations it imposes; Generate questions and comments about the regulation. 1 On April 1, 2007, the CDSR ( came into force, bringing new requirements for departments and agencies on preparing new regulatory proposals. These include elements such as performance measurement and evaluation, service standards, enhanced international regulatory cooperation, and more robust cost-benefit analysis. 2 Privy Council Office (2001). Guide to Making Federal Acts and Regulations, 2 nd edition. Page 181. March 2011

43 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 37 Annex 3: Fish Habitat Compensation Plans under Section 27.1 of the MMER and Subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act If a water body is added to Schedule 2 of the MMER the project proponent must develop and implement a fish habitat compensation plan in accordance with section 27.1 of the Regulations. In the majority of cases, a second fish habitat compensation plan is required under subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. The key difference between these requirements is: Section 27.1 of the MMER requires fish habitat compensation to offset losses of fish habitat associated the deposit of a deleterious substance into the water body(ies) that are added to Schedule 2. Subsection 35(2) requires fish habitat compensation to compensate for the losses of fish habitat associated with the construction of the works themselves, such as a tailings dam. Figure 2 illustrates the rationale for the need for the two separate fish habitat compensation plans in the case where a tailings impoundment area is established in an stream valley. In this case, the losses of fish habitat in those portions of the stream into which mine waste would be deposited must be compensated under section Losses of fish habitat in those portions of the stream that would be under the footprint of a tailings dam or other containment structure must be compensated under subsection 35(2). March 2011

44 Mining and Processing Division Environment Canada Page 38 Figure 2: Fish habitat compensation requirements in typical TIA scenarios March 2011

45 APPENDIX C METAL MINING EFFLUENT REGULATIONS TM

46 CANADA CONSOLIDATION CODIFICATION Metal Mining Effluent Regulations Règlement sur les effluents des mines de métaux SOR/ DORS/ Current to January 24, 2012 À jour au 24 janvier 2012 Last amended on September 30, 2011 Dernière modification le 30 septembre 2011 Published by the Minister of Justice at the following address: Publié par le ministre de la Justice à l adresse suivante :

47 OFFICIAL STATUS OF CONSOLIDATIONS CARACTÈRE OFFICIEL DES CODIFICATIONS Published consolidation is evidence Subsections 31(1) and (3) of the Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act, in force on June 1, 2009, provide as follows: 31. (1) Every copy of a consolidated statute or consolidated regulation published by the Minister under this Act in either print or electronic form is evidence of that statute or regulation and of its contents and every copy purporting to be published by the Minister is deemed to be so published, unless the contrary is shown.... [...] Les paragraphes 31(1) et (3) de la Loi sur la révision et la codification des textes législatifs, en vigueur le 1 er juin 2009, prévoient ce qui suit : 31. (1) Tout exemplaire d'une loi codifiée ou d'un règlement codifié, publié par le ministre en vertu de la présente loi sur support papier ou sur support électronique, fait foi de cette loi ou de ce règlement et de son contenu. Tout exemplaire donné comme publié par le ministre est réputé avoir été ainsi publié, sauf preuve contraire. Codifications comme élément de preuve Inconsistencies in regulations (3) In the event of an inconsistency between a consolidated regulation published by the Minister under this Act and the original regulation or a subsequent amendment as registered by the Clerk of the Privy Council under the Statutory Instruments Act, the original regulation or amendment prevails to the extent of the inconsistency. (3) Les dispositions du règlement d'origine avec ses modifications subséquentes enregistrées par le greffier du Conseil privé en vertu de la Loi sur les textes réglementaires l'emportent sur les dispositions incompatibles du règlement codifié publié par le ministre en vertu de la présente loi. Incompatibilité règlements NOTE NOTE This consolidation is current to January 24, The last amendments came into force on September 30, Any amendments that were not in force as of January 24, 2012 are set out at the end of this document under the heading Amendments Not in Force. Cette codification est à jour au 24 janvier Les dernières modifications sont entrées en vigueur le 30 septembre Toutes modifications qui n'étaient pas en vigueur au 24 janvier 2012 sont énoncées à la fin de ce document sous le titre «Modifications non en vigueur».

48 TABLE OF PROVISIONS TABLE ANALYTIQUE Section Page Article Page Metal Mining Effluent Regulations Règlement sur les effluents des mines de métaux 1 PART 1 GENERAL 1 1 PARTIE I DISPOSITIONS GÉNÉRALES 1 1 INTERPRETATION 1 1 DÉFINITIONS ET INTERPRÉTATION 1 2 APPLICATION 5 2 CHAMP D APPLICATION 5 3 DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES 5 3 SUBSTANCES NOCIVES 5 4 AUTHORITY TO DEPOSIT 6 4 REJET AUTORISÉ 6 5 AUTHORITY TO DEPOSIT IN TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENT AREAS 6 6 PART 2 CONDITIONS GOVERNING AUTHORITY TO DEPOSIT 7 6 DIVISION 1 GENERAL 7 5 AUTORISATION DE REJETER DANS UN DÉPÔT DE RÉSIDUS MINIERS 6 6 PARTIE 2 CONDITIONS RÉGISSANT L AUTORISATION DE REJETER 7 6 SECTION 1 DISPOSITIONS GÉNÉRALES 7 6 Prohibition on Diluting Effluent 7 6 Interdiction de diluer 7 7 Environmental Effects Monitoring 7 7 Études de suivi des effets sur l environnement 7 8 Identifying Information 7 8 Renseignements d identification 7 9 Final Discharge Points 8 9 Points de rejet final 8 11 Monitoring Equipment Information 9 11 Renseignements sur l équipement de surveillance 9 12 DIVISION 2 EFFLUENT MONITORING CONDITIONS 9 12 Deleterious Substance and ph Testing 9 12 SECTION 2 CONDITIONS PORTANT SUR LE SUIVI DE L EFFLUENT 9 12 Essais concernant le ph et les substances nocives 9 14 Acute Lethality Testing Essai de détermination de la létalité aiguë Increased Frequency of Acute Lethality Testing Reduced Frequency of Acute Lethality Testing Fréquence accrue des essais de détermination de la létalité aiguë Fréquence réduite des essais de détermination de la létalité aiguë Daphnia magna Monitoring Tests Essai de suivi avec bioessais sur la Daphnia magna Obligation to Record All Test Results Enregistrement des renseignements Volume of Effluent Volume d effluent 13 3

49 SOR/ January 24, 2012 Section Page Article Page 19.1 Calculation of Monthly Mean Concentration and Loading Calcul de la concentration moyenne mensuelle et de la charge Reporting Monitoring Results Rapports sur les résultats de suivi Relief Dispense DIVISION 3 NOTICE, RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS SECTION 3 AVIS, REGISTRES ET AUTRES DOCUMENTS End of Commercial Operation Notice Avis de la fin de l exploitation commerciale Records, Books of Account or Other Documents DIVISION 4 TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENT AREAS Registres, livres comptables ou autres documents SECTION 4 DÉPÔTS DE RÉSIDUS MINIERS Compensation Plan Plan compensatoire Deposits from Tailings Impoundment Areas PART 3 DEPOSITS OUT OF THE NORMAL COURSE OF EVENTS Rejets à partir de dépôts de résidus miniers PARTIE 3 REJETS IRRÉGULIERS PRESCRIBED PERSONS AUTORITÉS DÉSIGNÉES EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN PLAN D INTERVENTION D URGENCE REPORTING RAPPORT PART 4 RECOGNIZED CLOSED MINES PARTIE 4 MINES FERMÉES RECONNUES REQUIREMENTS EXIGENCES IDENTIFYING INFORMATION RENSEIGNEMENTS D IDENTIFICATION PART 5 TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS APPLICATION FOR TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION PARTIE 5 AUTORISATIONS TRANSITOIRES DEMANDE D AUTORISATION TRANSITOIRE ISSUANCE OF TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OBLIGATIONS TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION REPORTING DÉLIVRANCE DES AUTORISATIONS TRANSITOIRES EXIGENCES RELATIVES AUX AUTORISATIONS TRANSITOIRES RAPPORT 28 4

50 DORS/ janvier 2012 Section Page Article Page 38 REVOCATION OF TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS RÉVOCATION D UNE AUTORISATION TRANSITOIRE EXPIRY OF TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS PART 6 REPEALS AND COMING INTO FORCE EXPIRATION DE L AUTORISATION TRANSITOIRE PARTIE 6 ABROGATIONS ET ENTRÉE EN VIGUEUR REPEALS ABROGATIONS COMING INTO FORCE ENTRÉE EN VIGUEUR 29 SCHEDULE 1 AUTHORIZATION OFFICERS 30 SCHEDULE 2 (TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENT AREAS) 31 SCHEDULE 3 ANALYTICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR METAL MINING EFFLUENT 34 SCHEDULE 4 AUTHORIZED LIMITS OF DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES 35 SCHEDULE 5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING STUDIES 36 SCHEDULE 6 ANNUAL REPORT SUMMARIZING EFFLUENT MONITORING RESULTS 47 SCHEDULE 6.1 PRESCRIBED PERSONS FOR REPORTING 50 SCHEDULE 7 SCHEDULE ANNEXE 1 AGENTS D AUTORISATION 30 ANNEXE 2 DÉPÔTS DE RÉSIDUS MINIERS 31 ANNEXE 3 EXIGENCES ANALYTIQUES POUR LES EFFLUENTS DES MINES DE MÉTAUX 34 ANNEXE 4 LIMITES PERMISES POUR CERTAINES SUBSTANCES NOCIVES 35 ANNEXE 5 ÉTUDES DE SUIVI DES EFFETS SUR L ENVIRONNEMENT 36 ANNEXE 6 RAPPORT ANNUEL RÉSUMANT LES RÉSULTATS DU SUIVI DE L EFFLUENT 47 ANNEXE 6.1 AUTORITÉS DÉSIGNÉES AUX FINS DE RAPPORT 50 ANNEXE 7 ANNEXE

51 Registration Enregistrement SOR/ June 6, 2002 DORS/ Le 6 juin 2002 FISHERIES ACT Metal Mining Effluent Regulations LOI SUR LES PÊCHES Règlement sur les effluents des mines de métaux P.C June 6, 2002 C.P Le 6 juin 2002 Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, pursuant to subsections 34(2), 36(5) and 38(9) of the Fisheries Act, hereby makes the annexed Metal Mining Effluent Regulations. Sur recommandation du ministre des Pêches et des Océans et en vertu des paragraphes 34(2), 36(5) et 38(9) de la Loi sur les pêches, Son Excellence la Gouverneure générale en conseil prend le Règlement sur les effluents des mines de métaux, ci-après.

52 METAL MINING EFFLUENT REGULATIONS PART 1 GENERAL INTERPRETATION 1. (1) The following definitions apply in these Regulations. Act means the Fisheries Act. (Loi) acute lethality test means the test to determine the acute lethality of effluent to rainbow trout as set out in Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13. (essai de détermination de la létalité aiguë) acutely lethal effluent means an effluent at 100% concentration that kills more than 50% of the rainbow trout subjected to it over a 96-hour period when tested in accordance with the acute lethality test. (effluent à létalité aiguë) authorization officer means the holder of the title that is set out in column 2 of Schedule 1 for a province that is set out in column 1 where a mine or recognized closed mine is located. (agent d autorisation) commercial operation, in respect of a mine, means an average rate of production equal to or greater than 10% of the design-rated capacity of the mine over a period of 90 consecutive days. (exploitation commerciale) composite sample means (a) a quantity of effluent consisting of not less than three equal volumes or three volumes proportionate to flow that have been collected at approximately equal time intervals over a sampling period of not less than seven hours and not more than 24 hours; or (b) a quantity of effluent collected continuously at a constant rate or at a rate proportionate to the rate of flow of the effluent over a sampling period of not less than seven hours and not more than 24 hours. (échantillon composite) Daphnia magna monitoring test means the test to determine the acute lethality of effluent to Daphnia magna RÈGLEMENT SUR LES EFFLUENTS DES MINES DE MÉTAUX PARTIE I DISPOSITIONS GÉNÉRALES DÉFINITIONS ET INTERPRÉTATION 1. (1) Les définitions qui suivent s appliquent au présent règlement. «agent d autorisation» Le titulaire du poste indiqué à la colonne 2 de l annexe 1, à l égard d une province mentionnée à la colonne 1 où est située une mine ou une mine fermée reconnue. (authorization officer) «autorisation transitoire» Autorisation provisoire délivrée par l agent d autorisation en application de l article 35. (transitional authorization) «chantier» Toutes les terres et tous les ouvrages qui sont ou ont été utilisés dans le cadre d activités d extraction ou de préparation du minerai ou d hydrométallurgie, notamment : a) les mines à ciel ouvert, les mines souterraines, les aires de lixiviation en tas, les aires d extraction par solution, les bâtiments, les aires de stockage du minerai et les tas de stériles; b) les dépôts de résidus miniers, les lagunes et les bassins de traitement; c) les zones déboisées ou perturbées adjacentes aux terres et ouvrages qui ne sont pas visées aux alinéas a) ou b). (operations area) «concentration moyenne mensuelle» La valeur moyenne des concentrations mesurées dans les échantillons composites ou instantanés prélevés de chaque point de rejet final chaque mois où il y a rejet de substances nocives. (monthly mean concentration) «dépôt de résidus miniers» [Abrogée, DORS/ , art. 1] «eau de drainage superficiel» Les eaux de ruissellement de surface contaminées par des substances nocives du fait qu elles coulent sur un chantier ou en proviennent. (surface drainage) 1

53 SOR/ January 24, 2012 as set out in Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14. (essai de suivi avec biœssais sur la Daphnia magna) deleterious substance means a substance prescribed under section 3 except as otherwise prescribed by these Regulations. (substance nocive) effluent means an effluent hydrometallurgical facility effluent, milling facility effluent, mine water effluent, tailings impoundment area effluent, treatment pond effluent, seepage and surface drainage, treatment facility effluent other than effluent from a sewage treatment facility that contains a deleterious substance. (effluent) final discharge point, in respect of an effluent, means an identifiable discharge point of a mine beyond which the operator of the mine no longer exercises control over the quality of the effluent. (point de rejet final) grab sample means a quantity of undiluted effluent collected at a time prescribed by these Regulations. (échantillon instantané) hydrometallurgical facility effluent means effluent from the acidic leaching, solution concentration and recovery of metals by means of aqueous chemical methods, tailings slurries, and all other effluents deposited from a hydrometallurgical facility. (effluent d installations d hydrométallurgie) hydrometallurgy means the production of a metal by means of aqueous chemical methods for acidic leaching, solution concentration and recovery of metals from metal-bearing minerals other than metal-bearing minerals that have been thermally pre-treated or blended with metal-bearing minerals that have been thermally pretreated. (hydrométallurgie) milling means any of the following activities for the purpose of producing a metal or metal concentrate: (a) crushing or grinding ore; or (b) processing uranium ore or uranium enriched solution. (préparation du minerai) milling facility effluent means tailing slurries, heap leaching effluent, solution mining effluent and all other «échantillon composite» a) Soit le volume d effluent composé d au moins trois parties égales ou de trois parties proportionnelles au débit, prélevées à intervalles sensiblement égaux, pendant une période d échantillonnage d au moins sept heures et d au plus vingt-quatre heures; b) soit le volume d effluent prélevé de façon continue à un débit constant ou à un débit proportionnel à celui de l effluent, pendant une période d échantillonnage d au moins sept heures et d au plus vingt-quatre heures. (composite sample) «échantillon instantané» Volume d effluent non dilué prélevé à un moment prévu par le présent règlement. (grab sample) «effluent» Effluent eaux d exfiltration, eaux de drainage superficiel, effluent de bassins de traitement, effluent d eau de mine, effluent de dépôts de résidus miniers, effluent d installations de préparation du minerai, effluent d installations d hydrométallurgie, effluent d installations de traitement à l exclusion de l effluent d installations de traitement d eaux résiduaires qui contient une substance nocive. (effluent) «effluent à létalité aiguë» Effluent en une concentration de 100 % qui, au cours de l essai de détermination de la létalité aiguë, tue plus de 50 % des truites arc-en-ciel qui y sont soumises durant une période de quatre-vingt-seize heures. (acutely lethal effluent) «effluent d eau de mine» Dans le cadre d activités minières, l eau pompée d ouvrages souterrains, de compartiments d extraction par solution ou de mines à ciel ouvert ou l eau s écoulant de ceux-ci. (mine water effluent) «effluent d installations de préparation du minerai» Boues de stériles, effluent des lixiviats de terrils, effluent de l extraction par solution et tout autre effluent rejeté à partir d une installation de préparation du minerai. (milling facility effluent) «effluent d installations d hydrométallurgie» Effluent rejeté à partir d une installation d hydrométallurgie, notamment effluent de lixiviation acide, de concentration de solution et de récupération de métal par procédés chi- 2

54 DORS/ janvier 2012 effluent deposited from a milling facility. (effluent d installations de préparation du minerai) mine means hydrometallurgical, milling, or mining facilities that are designed or used to produce a metal, a metal concentrate or an ore from which a metal or metal concentrate may be produced or any facilities, including smelters, pelletizing plants, sintering plants, refineries and acid plants, where any effluent from the facility is combined with the effluent from hydrometallurgy, milling or mining. (mine) mine under development means a mine where the construction of an open pit or underground mine has started. (mine en développement) mine water effluent means, in respect of mining activities, water that is pumped from or flows out of any underground works, solution chambers or open pits. (effluent d eau de mine) monthly mean concentration means the average value of the concentrations measured in all composite or grab samples collected from each final discharge point during each month when a deleterious substance is deposited. (concentration moyenne mensuelle) new mine means a mine that begins commercial operation on or after the date of registration of these Regulations. (nouvelle mine) operations area means all the land and works that are used or have been used in conjunction with a hydrometallurgical, milling or mining activity, including (a) open pits, underground mines, heap leaching areas, solution mines, buildings, ore storage areas and waste rock dumps; (b) tailings impoundment areas, lagoons and treatment ponds; and (c) cleared or disturbed areas that are adjacent to the land and works that are not included in paragraph (a) or (b). (chantier) operator means the person who operates, has control or custody of or is in charge of a mine or recognized closed mine. (exploitant) miques aqueux et boues de résidus miniers. (hydrometallurgical facility effluent) «essai de détermination de la létalité aiguë» L essai visant à déterminer la létalité aiguë d effluents chez la truite arc-en-ciel selon la méthode de référence SPE 1/ RM/13. (acute lethality test) «essai de suivi avec biœssais sur la Daphnia magna» L essai visant à déterminer la létalité aiguë d effluents chez la Daphnia magna selon la méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/14. (Daphnia magna monitoring test) «exploitant» Personne qui exploite une mine ou une mine fermée reconnue, qui en a le contrôle ou la garde, ou qui en est responsable. (operator) «exploitation commerciale» Le taux de production moyen d une mine qui, au cours d une période de quatre-vingt-dix jours consécutifs, est égal ou supérieur à 10 % de la capacité nominale de la mine. (commercial operation) «exploitation des placers» Exploitation minière où le minerai ou les métaux sont extraits de sédiments de cours d eau par gravité ou par séparation magnétique. (placer mining) «hydrométallurgie» La production d un métal par des procédés chimiques aqueux de lixiviation acide, concentration de solution et récupération de métal à partir de minéraux métallifères n ayant pas subi de prétraitement thermique ou n ayant pas été mélangés à des minéraux métallifères qui ont subi un prétraitement thermique. (hydrometallurgy) «Loi» La Loi sur les pêches. (Act) «méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/13» La publication intitulée Méthode d essai biologique : méthode de référence pour la détermination de la létalité aiguë d effluents chez la truite arc-en-ciel (Méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/13), publiée en juillet 1990 par le ministère de l Environnement, dans sa version modifiée en décembre 2000 et avec ses modifications successives. (Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13) 3

55 SOR/ January 24, 2012 placer mining means a mining operation that extracts minerals or metals from stream sediments by gravity or magnetic separation. (exploitation des placers) recognized closed mine means a mine referred to in section 32 for which the owner or operator has satisfied the requirements of subsection 32(1). (mine fermée reconnue) Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 means Biological Test Method: Reference Method for Determining Acute Lethality of Effluents to Rainbow Trout (Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13), July 1990, published by the Department of the Environment, as amended in December 2000, and as may be further amended from time to time. (méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/13) Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14 means Biological Test Method: Reference Method for Determining Acute Lethality of Effluents to Daphnia magna (Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14), July 1990, published by the Department of the Environment, as amended in December 2000, and as may be further amended from time to time. (méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/14) reopened mine means a mine that resumes commercial operation on or after the date of registration of these Regulations. (mine remise en exploitation) surface drainage means all surface run-off contaminated by a deleterious substance as a result of flowing over, through or out of an operations area. (eau de drainage superficiel) tailings impoundment area [Repealed, SOR/ , s. 1] total suspended solids means all solid matter that is retained on a 1.5 micron pore filter paper when the effluent is tested in compliance with the analytical requirements set out in Schedule 3. (total des solides en suspension) transitional authorization means a temporary authorization issued by an authorization officer in accordance with section 35. (autorisation transitoire) «méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/14» La publication intitulée Méthode d essai biologique : méthode de référence pour la détermination de la létalité aiguë d effluents chez Daphnia magna (Méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/14), publiée en juillet 1990 par le ministère de l Environnement, dans sa version modifiée en décembre 2000 et avec ses modifications successives. (Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14) «mine» Installations d extraction minière, installations de préparation du minerai ou installations d hydrométallurgie qui sont conçues ou utilisées pour produire un métal, un concentré de métal ou un minerai à partir duquel un métal ou un concentré de métal peut être produit, ou toute installation, telles les fonderies, usines de bouletage, usines de frittage, affineries et usines d acide, dont l effluent est combiné aux effluents provenant de l extraction minière ou de la préparation du minerai ou de l hydrométallurgie. (mine) «mine en développement» Mine où a débuté la construction d une mine à ciel ouvert ou d une mine souterraine. (mine under development) «mine fermée reconnue» Mine visée à l article 32 dont le propriétaire ou l exploitant a satisfait aux exigences du paragraphe 32(1). (recognized closed mine) «mine remise en exploitation» Mine dont l exploitation commerciale reprend à la date d enregistrement du présent règlement ou après celle-ci. (reopened mine) «nouvelle mine» Mine dont l exploitation commerciale commence à la date d enregistrement du présent règlement ou après celle-ci. (new mine) «point de rejet final» Le point de rejet de l effluent d une mine qui est repérable et au-delà duquel l exploitant de la mine n agit plus quant à la qualité de l effluent. (final discharge point) «préparation du minerai» Les activités ci-après effectuées en vue de la production d un métal ou d un concentré de métal : a) le concassage et le broyage d un minerai; 4

56 DORS/ janvier 2012 (2) Where the word mine is used in sections 2 to 39, it includes a mine, a mine under development, a new mine and a reopened mine but does not refer to a recognized closed mine. SOR/ , s. 1; SOR/ , s. 1. APPLICATION 2. (1) These Regulations apply in respect of mines and recognized closed mines that (a) at any time after these Regulations are registered, exceed an effluent flow rate of 50 m 3 per day, based on effluent deposited from all the final discharge points of the mine; and (b) deposit a deleterious substance in any water or place referred to in subsection 36(3) of the Act. (2) Despite subsection (1), these Regulations do not apply in respect of mines that stopped commercial operation before the registration of these Regulations, unless they are reopened after the registration of these Regulations, or in respect of placer mining operations. DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES 3. For the purpose of these Regulations, the substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4 and any acutely lethal effluent are prescribed as deleterious substances. b) le traitement du minerai d uranium et de solutions uranifères. (milling) «rejet» Est assimilée au rejet l immersion au sens du paragraphe 34(1) de la Loi. (French version only) «substance nocive» Toute substance désignée aux termes de l article 3, sauf disposition contraire du présent règlement. (deleterious substance) «total des solides en suspension» Toutes les matières solides retenues sur un papier filtre aux pores de 1,5 micron lorsque l effluent est soumis à un essai qui satisfait aux exigences analytiques prévues à l annexe 3. (total suspended solids) (2) Dans les articles 2 à 39, sont assimilés à une mine une mine en développement, une nouvelle mine et une mine remise en exploitation, mais non une mine fermée reconnue. DORS/ , art. 1; DORS/ , art. 1. CHAMP D APPLICATION 2. (1) Le présent règlement s applique aux mines et aux mines fermées reconnues qui présentent les caractéristiques suivantes : a) après l enregistrement du présent règlement, elles ont, à un moment quelconque, un débit d effluent supérieur à 50 m 3 par jour, déterminé d après les rejets d effluent à partir de tous leurs points de rejet final; b) elles rejettent une substance nocive dans les eaux ou les lieux visés au paragraphe 36(3) de la Loi. (2) Malgré le paragraphe (1), le présent règlement ne s applique ni aux exploitations des placers ni aux mines dont l exploitation commerciale a pris fin avant l enregistrement du présent règlement à moins qu elles ne soient remises en exploitation après cet enregistrement. SUBSTANCES NOCIVES 3. Pour l application du présent règlement, sont des substances nocives l effluent à létalité aiguë et toute substance mentionnée à la colonne 1 de l annexe 4. 5

57 SOR/ January 24, 2012 AUTHORITY TO DEPOSIT 4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the owner or operator of a mine may deposit, or permit the deposit of, an effluent that contains a deleterious substance in any water or place referred to in subsection 36(3) of the Act if a transitional authorization permits the deposit or if (a) the concentration of the deleterious substance in the effluent does not exceed the authorized limits set out in Schedule 4; (b) the ph of the effluent is equal to or greater than 6.0 but is not greater than 9.5; and (c) the deleterious substance is not an acutely lethal effluent. (2) The authority in subsection (1) is conditional (a) in the case of a transitional authorization that permits the deposit, on the owner or operator complying with section 36; and (b) in the other case, on the owner or operator complying with sections 6 to 27. AUTHORITY TO DEPOSIT IN TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENT AREAS 5. (1) Despite section 4, the owner or operator of a mine may deposit or permit the deposit of waste rock or an effluent that contains any concentration of a deleterious substance and that is of any ph into a tailings impoundment area that is either (a) a water or place set out in Schedule 2; or (b) a disposal area that is confined by anthropogenic or natural structures or by both, other than a disposal area that is, or is part of, a natural water body that is frequented by fish. (2) The authority in subsection (1) is conditional on the owner or operator complying with sections 7 to 28. SOR/ , s. 2. REJET AUTORISÉ 4. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine peut rejeter ou permettre que soit rejeté un effluent contenant des substances nocives dans les eaux ou les lieux visés au paragraphe 36(3) de la Loi si une autorisation transitoire le permet ou si les conditions suivantes sont réunies : a) la concentration des substances nocives dans l effluent ne dépasse pas les limites permises prévues à l annexe 4; b) le ph de l effluent est égal ou supérieur à 6,0 mais ne dépasse pas 9,5; c) la substance nocive n est pas un effluent à létalité aiguë. (2) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant ne peut se prévaloir du droit que lui confère le paragraphe (1) que s il satisfait aux exigences prévues : a) à l article 36, dans le cas où une autorisation transitoire permet le rejet; b) aux articles 6 à 27, dans l autre cas. AUTORISATION DE REJETER DANS UN DÉPÔT DE RÉSIDUS MINIERS 5. (1) Malgré l article 4, le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine peut rejeter ou permettre que soient rejetés des stériles ou un effluent, quel que soit le ph de l effluent ou sa concentration en substances nocives, dans l un ou l autre des dépôts de résidus miniers suivants : a) les eaux et lieux mentionnés à l annexe 2; b) toute aire de décharge circonscrite par une formation naturelle ou un ouvrage artificiel, ou les deux, à l exclusion d une aire de décharge qui est un plan d eau naturel où vivent des poissons ou qui en fait partie. (2) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant ne peut se prévaloir du droit que lui confère le paragraphe (1) que s il satisfait aux exigences prévues aux articles 7 à 28. DORS/ , art. 2. 6

58 DORS/ janvier 2012 PART 2 PARTIE 2 CONDITIONS GOVERNING AUTHORITY TO DEPOSIT CONDITIONS RÉGISSANT L AUTORISATION DE REJETER DIVISION 1 SECTION 1 GENERAL Prohibition on Diluting Effluent 6. The owner or operator of a mine shall not combine effluent with water or any other effluent for the purpose of diluting effluent before it is deposited. Environmental Effects Monitoring 7. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall conduct environmental effects monitoring studies of the potential effects of effluent on the fish population, on fish tissue and on the benthic invertebrate community in accordance with the requirements and within the periods set out in Schedule 5. (2) The owner or operator shall record the results of the studies and submit the reports and required information to the authorization officer as set out in Schedule 5. (3) The studies shall be performed using documented and validated methods, and their results interpreted and reported on in accordance with generally accepted standards of good scientific practice at the time that the studies are performed. SOR/ , s. 3. Identifying Information 8. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall submit in writing to the authorization officer the information referred to in subsection (2) not later than 60 days after the day on which one or both of the following occur: (a) the mine becomes subject to these Regulations; and (b) ownership of the mine is transferred. (2) The information that shall be submitted is the name and address of DISPOSITIONS GÉNÉRALES Interdiction de diluer 6. Il est interdit au propriétaire ou à l exploitant d une mine de combiner un effluent avec de l eau ou avec tout autre effluent dans le but de le diluer avant son rejet. Études de suivi des effets sur l environnement 7. (1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine mène des études de suivi des effets possibles des effluents sur la population de poissons, sur les tissus de poissons et sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques selon les exigences et dans les délais prévus à l annexe 5. (2) Il consigne dans un registre les résultats des études et présente les rapports et les renseignements exigés à l agent d autorisation selon les exigences prévues à l annexe 5. (3) Les études sont réalisées selon des méthodes éprouvées et validées et leurs résultats évalués et présentés conformément aux normes généralement reconnues régissant les bonnes pratiques scientifiques au moment de l étude. DORS/ , art. 3. Renseignements d identification 8. (1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine présente par écrit à l agent d autorisation les renseignements mentionnés au paragraphe (2) : a) dans les soixante jours suivant la date à laquelle la mine devient assujettie au présent règlement; b) dans les soixante jours suivant le transfert de la propriété de la mine. (2) Les renseignements à présenter sont : 7

59 SOR/ January 24, 2012 (a) both the owner and the operator of the mine; and (b) any parent company of the owner and the operator. (3) The owner or operator shall submit in writing to the authorization officer any change in the information not later than 60 days after the change occurs. Final Discharge Points 9. The owner or operator of a mine shall identify each final discharge point and submit in writing to the authorization officer, not later than 60 days after the day on which the mine becomes subject to these Regulations, the following information: (a) plans, specifications and a general description of each final discharge point together with its location by latitude and longitude, in degrees, minutes and seconds; (b) a description of how each final discharge point is designed and maintained in respect of the deposit of deleterious substances; and (c) the name of the receiving body of water, if there is a name. SOR/ , s (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall submit in writing to the authorization officer the information required by section 9, for (a) any final discharge point that is identified by an inspector, and that was not identified as required by section 9, within 30 days after the discharge point is identified; and (b) each new final discharge point, at least 60 days before depositing effluent from that new final discharge point. (2) The owner or operator shall submit in writing to the authorization officer the information on any proposed change to a final discharge point at least 60 days before the change is to be made. a) les nom et adresse du propriétaire et de l exploitant; b) les nom et adresse de toute société mère du propriétaire et de l exploitant. (3) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant présente par écrit à l agent d autorisation des précisions sur tout changement des renseignements dans les soixante jours suivant le changement. Points de rejet final 9. Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine détermine chaque point de rejet final et fournit par écrit à l agent d autorisation, dans les soixante jours suivant la date à laquelle la mine devient assujettie au présent règlement, les renseignements suivants : a) les plans, les spécifications et une description générale de chaque point de rejet final, ainsi que la latitude et la longitude de son emplacement, exprimées en degrés, minutes et secondes; b) la façon dont chacun des points de rejet final est conçu et entretenu en ce qui a trait au rejet de substances nocives; c) le nom du milieu aquatique récepteur, si ce nom existe. DORS/ , art (1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine présente par écrit à l agent d autorisation les renseignements visés à l article 9 relativement à : a) tous les points de rejet final que désigne l inspecteur et qui n ont pas été déterminés en application de l article 9, dans les trente jours suivant leur désignation; b) tout nouveau point de rejet final, au moins soixante jours avant qu un effluent en soit rejeté. (2) Il présente par écrit à l agent d autorisation des précisions sur toute modification proposée d un point de rejet final au moins soixante jours avant que la modification soit apportée. 8

60 DORS/ janvier 2012 Monitoring Equipment Information 11. The owner or operator of a mine shall keep records relating to effluent monitoring equipment that contain (a) a description of the equipment and, if applicable, the manufacturer s specifications and the year and model number of the equipment; and (b) the results of the calibration tests of the equipment. Renseignements sur l équipement de surveillance 11. Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine tient un registre concernant l équipement de surveillance des effluents et y consigne : a) la description de l équipement et, le cas échéant, les spécifications du fabricant ainsi que l année et le numéro du modèle de l équipement; b) les résultats des essais d étalonnage de l équipement. DIVISION 2 SECTION 2 EFFLUENT MONITORING CONDITIONS Deleterious Substance and ph Testing 12. (1) Subject to subsection (3), the owner or operator of a mine shall, not less than once per week and at least 24 hours apart, collect from each final discharge point a grab sample or composite sample of effluent and, without delay, record the ph and concentrations of the deleterious substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4. (2) Testing conducted under subsection (1) shall comply with the analytical requirements set out in Schedule 3 and shall be done in accordance with generally accepted standards of good scientific practice at the time of the sampling using documented and validated methods. (3) The owner or operator is not required to collect samples for the purpose of recording the concentrations of cyanide set out as item 3 of Schedule 4 if that substance is not used as a process reagent within the operations area. SOR/ , s (1) Despite section 12 and subject to subsection (3), the owner or operator of a mine may reduce the frequency of testing of effluent collected from a final discharge point for a deleterious substance that is set out in any of items 1 to 6, in column 1, of Schedule 4 to not CONDITIONS PORTANT SUR LE SUIVI DE L EFFLUENT Essais concernant le ph et les substances nocives 12. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (3), le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine prélève, au moins une fois par semaine et à au moins vingt-quatre heures d intervalle, à partir de chaque point de rejet final, un échantillon instantané ou un échantillon composite d effluent et enregistre sans délai le ph et les concentrations des substances nocives énumérées à la colonne 1 de l annexe 4. (2) Les essais effectués en application du paragraphe (1) doivent satisfaire aux exigences analytiques prévues à l annexe 3 et doivent être effectués conformément aux normes généralement reconnues régissant les bonnes pratiques scientifiques au moment de l échantillonnage et selon des méthodes éprouvées et validées. (3) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine n a pas à prélever d échantillon afin d enregistrer la concentration de cyanure figurant à l article 3 de l annexe 4, si cette substance n est pas utilisée comme réactif de procédé sur le chantier. DORS/ , art (1) Malgré l article 12 et sous réserve du paragraphe (3), le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine peut réduire la fréquence des essais de l effluent prélevé à partir d un point de rejet final, dans le cas d une substance nocive figurant à l un des articles 1 à 6 de l an- 9

61 SOR/ January 24, 2012 less than once in each calendar quarter if that substance s monthly mean concentration in the effluent collected from that final discharge point is less than 10% of the value set out in column 2 of that Schedule for the 12 months immediately preceding the most recent test. (2) Despite section 12 and subject to subsection (3), the owner or operator of a mine, other than an uranium mine, may reduce the frequency of testing for Radium 226 set out as item 8 of Schedule 4 to not less than once in each calendar quarter if that substance s concentration in the effluent is less than Bq/L in 10 consecutive tests conducted under section 12. (3) The owner or operator shall increase the frequency of testing to that prescribed in section 12 for a deleterious substance that is set out in any of items 1 to 6 or 8 of Schedule 4 if the substance s monthly mean concentration is equal to or greater than 10% of the value set out in column 2 of these items. (4) The owner or operator must notify the authorization officer, in writing, at least 30 days in advance, of a reduction in the frequency of testing. SOR/ , s. 6. Acute Lethality Testing 14. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1) and section 15, the owner or operator of a mine shall conduct an acute lethality test, in accordance with the requirements and procedures specified in Reference Method EPS 1/RM/ 13, (a) once a month, in accordance with the procedure set out in section 5 or 6 of that document, on a grab sample that was collected from each final discharge point; and (b) without delay, in accordance with the procedure set out in section 6 of that document, on a sample taken from the place where the deposit occurred if the deposit occurs out of the normal course of events. nexe 4, dans la colonne 1, à au moins une fois par trimestre civil, si la concentration moyenne mensuelle de la substance dans l effluent prélevé à ce point de rejet final est inférieure à 10 % de la valeur établie à la colonne 2 de cette annexe durant les douze mois précédant le dernier essai. (2) Malgré l article 12 et sous réserve du paragraphe (3), le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine, autre qu une mine d uranium, peut réduire la fréquence des essais, dans le cas du radium 226 figurant à l article 8 de l annexe 4, à au moins une fois par trimestre civil, si la concentration de la substance dans l effluent est inférieure à 0,037 Bq/L dans dix essais consécutifs effectués selon l article 12. (3) Il porte la fréquence des essais à celle prévue à l article 12 pour une substance nocive figurant à l un des articles 1 à 6 ou 8 de l annexe 4, dans la colonne 1, si la concentration de cette substance est égale ou supérieure à 10 % de la valeur établie à la colonne 2. (4) Il avise par écrit l agent d autorisation de la réduction de la fréquence des essais, au moins trente jours avant celle-ci. DORS/ , art. 6. Essai de détermination de la létalité aiguë 14. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (1.1) et de l article 15, le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine effectue un essai de détermination de la létalité aiguë conformément à la méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/13 : a) une fois par mois, selon les modes opératoires visés aux sections 5 ou 6 de ce document, sur un échantillon instantané prélevé à partir de chaque point de rejet final; b) si le rejet est irrégulier, sans délai, selon le mode opératoire visé à la section 6 de ce document sur un échantillon prélevé sur les lieux du rejet. 10

62 DORS/ janvier 2012 (1.1) The owner or operator who is required to conduct an acute lethality test under paragraph (1)(b) is not required to conduct that test if they notify an inspector, or a person referred to in section 29, that the deposit is an acutely lethal effluent. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), (a) the owner or operator shall select and record the sampling date not less than 30 days in advance of collecting the grab sample; (b) the operator shall collect the sample on the selected day except if, owing to unforeseen circumstances, the operator cannot sample on that day, in which case, they shall do so as soon as possible after that day; and (c) the operator shall collect the grab samples not less than 15 days apart. (3) When collecting a grab sample of effluent for the purpose of subsection (1), the owner or operator shall collect a sufficient volume of effluent to enable the owner or operator to comply with paragraph 15(1)(a). SOR/ , s. 7; SOR/ , s. 4. Increased Frequency of Acute Lethality Testing 15. (1) If a sample of effluent is determined to be acutely lethal when tested under paragraph 14(1)(a), the owner or operator of a mine shall (a) without delay, conduct the effluent characterization set out in subsection 4(1) of Schedule 5 on the aliquot of each grab sample collected under paragraph 14(1)(a) and record the concentrations of the deleterious substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4; (b) collect, from the final discharge point from which the sample was determined to be acutely lethal, a grab sample twice a month and, without delay, conduct an acute lethality test on each grab sample in accordance with the procedure set out in section 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 and, if the sample is determined to be acutely lethal, then conduct the effluent characterization set out in subsection 4(1) of Schedule (1.1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant qui est tenu d effectuer l essai de détermination de la létalité aiguë en application de l alinéa (1)b) n a pas à le faire s il avise sans délai l inspecteur ou l une des autorité désignées à l article 29 que le rejet est un effluent à létalité aiguë. (2) Pour l application de l alinéa (1)a) : a) le propriétaire ou l exploitant choisit et enregistre, au moins trente jours à l avance, la date de l échantillonnage; b) l exploitant prélève l échantillon ce jour-là ou, si des circonstances imprévues empêchent le prélèvement de l échantillon, le plus tôt possible après ce jour; c) l exploitant prélève les échantillons instantanés à au moins quinze jours d intervalle. (3) Lors du prélèvement des échantillons instantanés en application du paragraphe (1), il prélève un volume d effluent suffisant pour lui permettre de se conformer à l alinéa 15(1)a). DORS/ , art. 7; DORS/ , art. 4. Fréquence accrue des essais de détermination de la létalité aiguë 15. (1) S il est établi qu un échantillon d effluent présente une létalité aiguë selon l essai prévu à l alinéa 14(1)a), le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine : a) effectue sans délai la caractérisation de l effluent conformément au paragraphe 4(1) de l annexe 5 sur une portion aliquote de chaque échantillon instantané prélevé en application de l alinéa 14(1)a) et enregistre les concentrations des substances nocives énumérées à la colonne 1 de l annexe 4; b) deux fois par mois, prélève un échantillon instantané à partir du point de rejet final d où l échantillon d effluent qui présente une létalité aiguë a été prélevé, effectue sans délai sur chacun de ces échantillons un essai de détermination de la létalité aiguë selon le mode opératoire prévu à la section 6 de la méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/13 et, s il est établi que l échantillon présente une létalité aiguë selon cet essai, effec- 11

63 SOR/ January 24, and record the concentrations of the deleterious substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4; and (c) collect the grab samples not less than seven days apart. (2) The owner or operator may resume sampling and testing at the frequency prescribed in section 14 if the effluent is determined not to be acutely lethal in three consecutive tests conducted under paragraph (1)(b). SOR/ , s. 8. Reduced Frequency of Acute Lethality Testing 16. (1) The owner or operator of a mine may reduce the frequency of conducting acute lethality tests prescribed in paragraph 14(1)(a) to once in each calendar quarter if the effluent is determined not to be acutely lethal over a period of 12 consecutive months. (2) For the purpose of determining whether effluent is acutely lethal in the 12-month period referred to in subsection (1), the owner or operator shall use the results of the acute lethality tests conducted under paragraph 14(1)(a). (3) Despite subsection (2), for the purpose of determining whether effluent is acutely lethal in the 12-month period referred to in subsection (1), the owner or operator may also use acute lethality data collected during twelve consecutive months prior to the date of registration of these Regulations, if the owner or operator submits a report to the authorization officer that indicates that the data (a) meets the quality assurance requirements of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13; (b) relates to effluent generated after the start of commercial operation by the mine; and (c) was collected not more than 36 months before the registration of these Regulations. tue la caractérisation de l effluent conformément au paragraphe 4(1) de l annexe 5 et enregistre les concentrations des substances nocives énumérées à la colonne 1 de l annexe 4; c) prélève les échantillons instantanés à au moins sept jours d intervalle. (2) Il peut recommencer à effectuer l échantillonnage et les essais à la fréquence fixée à l article 14 si l effluent ne présente pas de létalité aiguë dans trois essais consécutifs effectués selon l alinéa (1)b). DORS/ , art. 8. Fréquence réduite des essais de détermination de la létalité aiguë 16. (1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine peut réduire à une fois par trimestre civil la fréquence des essais de détermination de la létalité aiguë prévue à l alinéa 14(1)a) s il est établi que l effluent ne présente pas de létalité aiguë pendant douze mois consécutifs. (2) Pour déterminer la létalité aiguë de l effluent pendant la période de douze mois prévue au paragraphe (1), le propriétaire ou l exploitant se fonde sur les résultats obtenus aux termes de l alinéa 14(1)a). (3) Malgré le paragraphe (2), pour déterminer la létalité aiguë de l effluent pendant la période de douze mois prévue au paragraphe (1), le propriétaire ou l exploitant peut utiliser les données d essai de détermination de la létalité aiguë recueillies pendant toute période de douze mois consécutifs précédant l enregistrement du présent règlement, s il présente un rapport à l agent d autorisation indiquant ce qui suit : a) les données satisfont aux exigences de qualité prévues par la méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/13; b) elles se rapportent à l effluent émanant de la mine après le début de son exploitation commerciale; c) elles ont été recueillies au cours des trente-six mois précédant l enregistrement du présent règlement. 12

64 DORS/ janvier 2012 (4) The owner or operator who reduces the frequency of conducting acute lethality testing under subsection (1) shall (a) select and record the sampling date not less than 30 days in advance of collecting the grab samples; and (b) collect the grab samples not less than 45 days apart. (5) If a grab sample is determined to be acutely lethal while the testing is proceeding in accordance with subsection (1), the owner or operator shall increase the frequency and conduct the testing as prescribed in section 15. Daphnia magna Monitoring Tests 17. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall conduct Daphnia magna monitoring tests in accordance with the procedure set out in section 5 or 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14 at the same time that the acute lethality tests are conducted under section 14, 15 or 16 of these Regulations. (2) The owner or operator shall conduct Daphnia magna monitoring tests on the aliquots of each effluent sample collected for the acute lethality tests. Obligation to Record All Test Results 18. The owner or operator of a mine shall record without delay the information specified by section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 and by section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14 for all acute lethality and Daphnia magna monitoring tests that are conducted to monitor deposits from final discharge points. Volume of Effluent 19. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall record, in cubic metres, the total monthly volume of effluent deposited from each final discharge point for each month during which there was a deposit. (4) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant qui réduit la fréquence des essais en application du paragraphe (1) prend les mesures suivantes : a) il choisit et enregistre, au moins trente jours à l avance, la date de l échantillonnage; b) il prélève les échantillons instantanés à au moins quarante-cinq jours d intervalle. (5) S il est établi qu un échantillon instantané d effluent présente une létalité aiguë pendant que les essais sont effectués conformément au paragraphe (1), le propriétaire ou l exploitant porte la fréquence des essais à celle prévue à l article 15 et effectue les essais conformément à cet article. Essai de suivi avec biœssais sur la Daphnia magna 17. (1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine qui fait des essais de détermination de la létalité aiguë en application des articles 14, 15 ou 16 effectue au même moment des essais de suivi avec biœssais sur la Daphnia magna selon les modes opératoires prévus aux sections 5 ou 6 de la méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/14. (2) Il effectue chaque essai de suivi sur des portions aliquotes de chaque échantillon d effluent prélevé pour les essais de détermination de la létalité aiguë. Enregistrement des renseignements 18. Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine enregistre sans délai les données visées au paragraphe 8.1 de la méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/13 et au paragraphe 8.1 de la méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/14 pour tous les essais de détermination de la létalité aiguë et tous les essais de suivi avec biœssais sur la Daphnia magna effectués dans le cadre du suivi des rejets provenant de points de rejet final. Volume d effluent 19. (1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine enregistre, en mètres cubes, le volume mensuel total d effluent rejeté à partir de chaque point de rejet final, pour chaque mois au cours duquel un effluent a été rejeté. 13

65 SOR/ January 24, 2012 (2) The total monthly volume of effluent deposited shall be either (a) determined on the basis of the average of the flow rates, expressed in cubic metres per day, measured and calculated as follows: (i) by measuring the flow rate at the same time as samples are collected under section 12, (ii) by calculating the average monthly flow rate by adding the flow rate measurements taken during the month and dividing the total by the number of times the flow rate was measured, and (iii) by multiplying the average monthly flow rate by the number of days during the month that effluent was deposited; or (b) determined by using a monitoring system that provides a continuous measure of the volume of effluent released. (3) The owner or operator shall (a) measure the flow rate or volume of effluent deposited by using a monitoring system that is accurate to within 15% of measured flow rate or volume; and (b) calibrate the monitoring system not less than once in each year and record the results. SOR/ , s. 9. Calculation of Monthly Mean Concentration and Loading 19.1 (1) With respect to deleterious substances contained in effluent deposited from each final discharge point, the owner or operator of a mine shall, for each month during which there was a deposit, record the monthly mean concentration (a) in mg/l for deleterious substances referred to in items 1 to 7, in column 1, of Schedule 4; or (b) in Bq/L for a deleterious substance referred to in item 8, in column 1, of that Schedule. (2) Le volume mensuel total d effluent rejeté est : a) soit fondé sur la moyenne des débits, exprimée en mètres cubes par jour, auquel cas il est déterminé de la façon suivante : (i) le débit est mesuré au moment où les échantillons sont prélevés en application de l article 12, (ii) la moyenne mensuelle des débits est calculée par la division du total des mesures de débit enregistrées au cours du mois par le nombre de mesures prises, (iii) la moyenne mensuelle des débits est multipliée par le nombre de jours où l effluent a été rejeté; b) soit déterminé à l aide d un système à mesure continue. (3) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant mesure le volume ou le débit d effluent rejeté en tenant compte des exigences suivantes : a) il utilise à cette fin un système de surveillance donnant des mesures exactes à 15 % près; b) il étalonne le système de surveillance au moins une fois par année et enregistre les résultats. DORS/ , art. 9. Calcul de la concentration moyenne mensuelle et de la charge 19.1 (1) À l égard des substances nocives se trouvant dans l effluent rejeté à partir de chaque point de rejet final, le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine enregistre, pour chaque mois au cours duquel un effluent a été rejeté : a) la concentration moyenne mensuelle en mg/l des substances nocives énumérées aux articles 1 à 7 de l annexe 4, dans la colonne 1; b) la concentration moyenne mensuelle en Bq/L de la substance figurant à l article 8 de la même annexe, dans la colonne 1. 14

66 DORS/ janvier 2012 (2) If the analytical result from any test conducted under section 12 or 13 is less than the method detection limit used for that test, the test result shall be considered to be equal to one half of the detection limit used for the purpose of calculating the monthly mean concentration. SOR/ , s (1) With respect to deleterious substances contained in effluent deposited from each final discharge point, the owner or operator of a mine shall, for each month and for each calendar quarter during which there was a deposit, record the loading (a) in kg for deleterious substances referred to in items 1 to 7, in column 1, of Schedule 4; or (b) in MBq for a deleterious substance referred to in item 8, in column 1, of that Schedule. (2) The owner or operator shall determine the loading for each month using the following formula: where ML = C V / 1,000 ML is the loading for a month; C is the monthly mean concentration of the deleterious substance, recorded under section 19.1; and V is the total monthly volume of effluent deposited from each final discharge point, recorded under section 19. (3) The owner or operator shall determine the loading for each calendar quarter using the following formula: where QL = C V / 1,000 QL is the loading for a calendar quarter; C is the mean of the monthly mean concentrations of the deleterious substance for that calendar quarter, recorded under section 19.1; and V is the total volume of effluent deposited from each final discharge point during that calendar quarter, based on the sum of the total monthly volumes of ef- (2) Si le résultat analytique de tout essai effectué en application des articles 12 ou 13 est inférieur à la limite de détection de la méthode utilisée pour l essai, il est considéré comme égal à la moitié de la limite de détection de la méthode utilisée pour le calcul de la concentration moyenne mensuelle. DORS/ , art (1) À l égard des substances nocives se trouvant dans l effluent rejeté à partir de chaque point de rejet final, le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine enregistre, pour chaque mois et pour chaque trimestre civil au cours duquel un effluent a été rejeté : a) la charge en kg des substances nocives énumérées aux articles 1 à 7 de l annexe 4, dans la colonne 1; b) la charge en MBq de la substance figurant à l article 8 de la même annexe, dans la colonne 1. (2) Il détermine la charge pour chaque mois civil selon la formule suivante : où : CM = C V / CM représente la charge pour un mois; C la concentration moyenne mensuelle de la substance nocive enregistrée en application de l article 19.1; V le volume total d effluent rejeté à partir de chaque point de rejet final au cours du mois et enregistré en application de l article 19. (3) Il détermine la charge pour le trimestre civil selon la formule suivante : où : CT = C V / CT représente la charge pour un trimestre; C la moyenne des concentrations moyennes mensuelles de la substance nocive enregistrées au cours du trimestre en application de l article 19.1; V le volume total d effluent rejeté à partir de chaque point de rejet final au cours du trimestre, fondé sur la somme des volumes mensuels d effluent rejeté à par- 15

67 SOR/ January 24, 2012 fluent deposited from each final discharge point, recorded under section 19. SOR/ , s. 9. Reporting Monitoring Results 21. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall submit to the authorization officer an effluent monitoring report for all tests and monitoring conducted during each calendar quarter not later than 45 days after the end of the quarter. (2) Subject to subsection (3), the effluent monitoring report shall include (a) the information specified by section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 and by section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14 as required by section 18; (b) the concentration and monthly mean concentration of each deleterious substance set out in column 1 of Schedule 4 that is contained in effluent samples collected under subsection 12(1) and the concentrations of such deleterious substances contained in effluent samples collected under subsection 13(1) or (2); (c) the ph of the effluent samples as required by subsection 12(1); (d) whether a composite or grab sample collection method was used for each effluent sample as required by subsection 12(1); (d.1) for each month of the calendar quarter, the number of days that effluent was deposited; (e) the total volume of effluent deposited during each month of the reporting quarter as recorded under section 19; (f) the mass loading of the deleterious substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4 as recorded under section 20; and (g) the results of the effluent characterization conducted under paragraph 15(1)(a). tir de chaque point de rejet final et enregistrés en application de l article 19. DORS/ , art. 9. Rapports sur les résultats de suivi 21. (1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine présente à l agent d autorisation un rapport sur le suivi de l effluent pour tout essai ou mesure de suivi effectué au cours de chaque trimestre civil, dans les quarante-cinq jours suivant la fin du trimestre. (2) Sous réserve du paragraphe (3), le rapport comporte ce qui suit : a) les données visées à la section 8.1 de la méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/13 et à la section 8.1 de la méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/14, qu exige l article 18; b) la concentration et la concentration moyenne mensuelle des substances nocives énumérées à la colonne 1 de l annexe 4 se trouvant dans les échantillons d effluent prélevés en application du paragraphe 12(1) de même que la concentration de ces substances nocives dans les échantillons d effluent prélevés en application des paragraphes 13(1) ou (2); c) le ph des échantillons, exigé par le paragraphe 12(1); d) pour chaque échantillon d effluent prélevé en application du paragraphe 12(1), s il s agit d un échantillon composite ou instantané; d.1) pour chaque mois du trimestre civil, le nombre de jours où il y a eu rejet d effluent; e) le volume total d effluent rejeté pour chaque mois du trimestre, enregistré en application de l article 19; f) la charge des substances nocives énumérées à la colonne 1 de l annexe 4 enregistrée en application de l article 20; g) les résultats des essais de caractérisation de l effluent effectués conformément à l alinéa 15(1)a). 16

68 DORS/ janvier 2012 (3) If no effluent is deposited in a calendar quarter, the report shall only include a statement to that effect. SOR/ , s The owner or operator of a mine shall submit to the authorization officer, not later than March 31 in each year, a report summarizing the effluent monitoring results for the previous calendar year including the information set out in Schedule 6 and in the form set out in that Schedule. SOR/ , s Each report referred to in sections 7, 21 and 22 shall be submitted electronically in the format provided by the federal Department of the Environment, but the report shall be submitted in writing if (a) no such format has been provided; or (b) it is, owing to circumstances beyond the control of either the owner or the operator, impracticable to submit the report electronically in the format provided. SOR/ , s (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall notify an inspector without delay if the results of the effluent monitoring tests conducted under section 12 or 13, paragraph 14(1)(a) or section 15 or 16 indicate that (a) the limits set out in Schedule 4 are being or have been exceeded; (b) the ph of the effluent is less than 6.0 or greater than 9.5; or (c) an effluent is acutely lethal. (2) The owner or operator shall provide a written report of the test results to the inspector within 30 days after the tests have been completed. (3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to the owner or operator of a mine with a valid transitional authorization. SOR/ , s. 12. (3) Si au cours d un trimestre civil aucun effluent n a été rejeté, le rapport ne comporte qu une mention à cet effet. DORS/ , art Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine présente à l agent d autorisation, au plus tard le 31 mars de chaque année, un rapport résumant les résultats du suivi de l effluent pour l année civile précédente et comportant les renseignements prévus à l annexe 6, en la forme qui y est prévue. DORS/ , art Les rapports visés aux articles 7, 21 et 22 sont présentés sous forme électronique selon le modèle fourni par le ministère de l Environnement du Canada. Ils sont toutefois présentés par écrit dans l un ou l autre des cas suivants : a) aucun modèle n est fourni; b) il est pratiquement impossible, pour des raisons indépendantes de la volonté du propriétaire ou de l exploitant, selon le cas, de les présenter sous forme électronique selon le modèle fourni. DORS/ , art (1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine avise sans délai l inspecteur si les résultats des essais de suivi de l effluent effectués en application des articles 12 ou 13, de l alinéa 14(1)a) ou des articles 15 ou 16 montrent que : a) les limites prévues à l annexe 4 sont ou ont été dépassées; b) le ph de l effluent est inférieur à 6,0 ou supérieur à 9,5; c) l effluent est un effluent à létalité aiguë. (2) Il présente à l inspecteur un rapport écrit des résultats des essais dans les trente jours suivant la fin de ceux-ci. (3) Les paragraphes (1) et (2) ne s appliquent pas au propriétaire ou à l exploitant d une mine ayant une autorisation transitoire valide. DORS/ , art

69 SOR/ January 24, 2012 Relief 25. (1) Any time period specified for collecting samples of effluent referred to in this Division may be extended if (a) unforeseen circumstances cause safety concerns or access problems and render the collection of samples of effluent impracticable; and (b) the owner or operator of a mine notifies an inspector, without delay, of the circumstances and indicates when they expect to be able to collect the samples. (2) The owner or operator shall collect the samples of effluent without delay when the circumstances permit. SOR/ , s. 13. Dispense 25. (1) Les délais prévus dans la présente section à l égard du prélèvement des échantillons d effluent peuvent être prorogés si les conditions suivantes sont réunies : a) des circonstances imprévues provoquent des problèmes de sécurité ou d accessibilité et rendent le prélèvement d échantillons d effluent pratiquement impossible; b) le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine a avisé l inspecteur sans délai des circonstances et lui a indiqué le moment où il croit pouvoir procéder au prélèvement des échantillons. (2) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant prélève les échantillons d effluent sans délai dès que les circonstances le permettent. DORS/ , art. 13. DIVISION 3 SECTION 3 NOTICE, RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS End of Commercial Operation Notice 26. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall notify the authorization officer in writing of the day on which the mine has stopped commercial operation not later than 90 days after the end of commercial operation. (2) The owner or operator shall notify the authorization officer in writing without delay if the mine returns to commercial operation. Records, Books of Account or Other Documents 27. Subject to subsection 32(4), the owner or operator of a mine shall keep all records, books of account or other documents required by these Regulations at the mine s location for a period of not less than five years, beginning on the day they are made. AVIS, REGISTRES ET AUTRES DOCUMENTS Avis de la fin de l exploitation commerciale 26. (1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine avise l agent d autorisation par écrit de la date où l exploitation commerciale de la mine a cessé, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la cessation. (2) Il avise l agent d autorisation, par écrit et sans délai, de la reprise de l exploitation commerciale. Registres, livres comptables ou autres documents 27. Sous réserve du paragraphe 32(4), le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine conserve tous les registres, livres comptables ou autres documents exigés par le présent règlement à l emplacement de la mine pendant au moins cinq ans à compter de leur établissement. 18

70 DORS/ janvier 2012 DIVISION 4 SECTION 4 TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENT AREAS Compensation Plan 27.1 (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall submit to the Minister for approval a compensation plan and obtain the Minister s approval of that plan before depositing a deleterious substance into a tailings impoundment area that is added to Schedule 2 after the coming into force of this section. (2) The purpose of the compensation plan is to offset for the loss of fish habitat resulting from the deposit of a deleterious substance into the tailings impoundment area. (3) The compensation plan shall contain the following elements: (a) a description of the location of the tailings impoundment area and the fish habitat affected by the deposit; (b) a quantitative impact assessment of the deposit on the fish habitat; (c) a description of the measures to be taken to offset the loss of fish habitat caused by the deposit; (d) a description of the measures to be taken during the planning and implementation of the compensation plan to mitigate any potential adverse effect on the fish habitat that could result from the plan s implementation; (e) a description of measures to be taken to monitor the plan s implementation; (f) a description of the measures to be taken to verify the extent to which the plan s purpose has been achieved; (g) a description of the time schedule for the plan s implementation, which time schedule shall provide for achievement of the plan s purpose within a reasonable time; and DÉPÔTS DE RÉSIDUS MINIERS Plan compensatoire 27.1 (1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine présente au ministre un plan compensatoire pour approbation et doit obtenir celle-ci avant de rejeter des substances nocives dans tout dépôt de résidus miniers qui est ajouté à l annexe 2 après l entrée en vigueur du présent article. (2) Le plan compensatoire a pour objectif de contrebalancer la perte d habitat du poisson consécutive au rejet de substances nocives dans le dépôt de résidus miniers. (3) Le plan compensatoire comporte des dispositions portant sur les éléments suivants : a) une description de l emplacement du dépôt de résidus miniers et de l habitat du poisson atteint par le rejet de substances nocives; b) l analyse quantitative de l incidence du rejet sur l habitat du poisson; c) les mesures visant à contrebalancer la perte d habitat du poisson; d) les mesures envisagées durant la planification et la mise en œuvre du plan pour atténuer les effets défavorables sur l habitat du poisson qui pourraient résulter de la mise en œuvre du plan; e) les mesures de surveillance de la mise en œuvre du plan; f) les mécanismes visant à établir dans quelle mesure les objectifs du plan ont été atteints; g) le délai pour la mise en œuvre du plan, lequel délai permet l atteinte des objectifs prévus dans un délai raisonnable; h) l estimation du coût de mise en œuvre de chacun des éléments du plan. 19

71 SOR/ January 24, 2012 (h) an estimate of the cost of implementing each element of the plan. (4) The owner or operator shall submit with the compensation plan an irrevocable letter of credit to cover the plan s implementation costs, which letter of credit shall be payable upon demand on the declining balance of the implementation costs. (5) The Minister shall approve the compensation plan if it meets the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) and the owner or operator has complied with subsection (4). (6) The owner or operator shall ensure that the compensation plan approved by the Minister is implemented. (7) If the measures referred to in paragraph (3)(f) reveal that the compensation plan s purpose is not being achieved, the owner or operator shall inform the Minister and, as soon as possible in the circumstances, identify and implement all necessary remedial measures. SOR/ , s. 14. Deposits from Tailings Impoundment Areas 28. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall deposit effluent from a tailings impoundment area only through a final discharge point that is monitored and reported on in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations. (2) The owner or operator of a mine shall comply with section 6 and the conditions prescribed in paragraphs 4(1)(a) to (c) for all effluent that exits a tailing impoundment area. (4) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant présente, avec le plan compensatoire, une lettre de crédit irrévocable couvrant les coûts de mise en œuvre du plan et payable sur demande à l égard du coût des éléments du plan qui n ont pas été mis en œuvre. (5) Le ministre approuve le plan compensatoire si les exigences des paragraphes (2) et (3) ont été remplies et si le propriétaire ou l exploitant s est conformé aux exigences du paragraphe (4). (6) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant veille à ce que le plan compensatoire soit mis en œuvre. (7) Si les mécanismes visés à l alinéa (3)f) révèlent que les objectifs n ont pas été atteints, le propriétaire ou l exploitant en informe le ministre et, le plus tôt possible dans les circonstances, détermine et prend les mesures correctives nécessaires à l atteinte des objectifs. DORS/ , art. 14. Rejets à partir de dépôts de résidus miniers 28. (1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine ne rejette l effluent provenant d un dépôt de résidus miniers qu à un point de rejet final faisant l objet d un suivi et de rapports conformément aux exigences du présent règlement. (2) Il remplit les conditions prévues aux alinéas 4(1)a) à c) et se conforme à l article 6 lorsqu il rejette un tel effluent. PART 3 PARTIE 3 DEPOSITS OUT OF THE NORMAL COURSE OF EVENTS REJETS IRRÉGULIERS PRESCRIBED PERSONS [SOR/ , s. 15(E)] 29. For the purpose of subsection 38(4) of the Act, the person occupying the position set out in column 2 of AUTORITÉS DÉSIGNÉES [DORS/ , art. 15(A)] 29. Pour l application du paragraphe 38(4) de la Loi, l autorité désignée est la personne qui occupe le poste mentionné à la colonne 2 de l annexe 6.1 en regard de la 20

72 DORS/ janvier 2012 Schedule 6.1 for the province, set out in column 1, where the mine is located is a prescribed person. SOR/ , s. 16; SOR/ , s. 5. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 30. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall prepare an emergency response plan that describes the measures to be taken in respect of a deleterious substance within the meaning of subsection 34(1) of the Act to prevent any deposit out of the normal course of events of such a substance or to mitigate the effects of such a deposit. (2) The emergency response plan shall include the following elements: (a) the identification of any deposit out of the normal course of events that can reasonably be expected to occur at the mine and that can reasonably be expected to result in damage or danger to fish habitat or fish or the use by man of fish, and the identification of the damage or danger; (b) a description of the measures to be used to prevent, prepare for and respond to a deposit identified under paragraph (a); (c) a list of the individuals who are to implement the plan in the event of a deposit out of the normal course of events, and a description of their roles and responsibilities; (d) the identification of the emergency response training required for each of the individuals listed under paragraph (c); (e) a list of the emergency response equipment included as part of the plan, and the equipment s location; and (f) alerting and notification procedures including the measures to be taken to notify members of the public who may be adversely affected by a deposit identified under paragraph (a). (3) The owner or operator shall complete the emergency response plan and have it available for inspection no later than 60 days after the mine becomes subject to this section. province, mentionnée à la colonne 1, où la mine est située. DORS/ , art. 16; DORS/ , art. 5. PLAN D INTERVENTION D URGENCE 30. (1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine dresse un plan d intervention d urgence qui énonce, à l égard d une substance nocive au sens du paragraphe 34(1) de la Loi, les mesures à prendre pour prévenir tout rejet irrégulier d une telle substance ou pour en atténuer les effets. (2) Le plan d intervention d urgence comporte en outre les éléments suivants : a) la mention de tout rejet irrégulier qui est susceptible de se produire à la mine et d entraîner des risques réels de dommage pour le poisson ou son habitat ou pour l utilisation par l homme du poisson, ainsi que le détail de ces risques ou dommages; b) le détail des mesures préventives, de préparation et d intervention à l égard du rejet irrégulier mentionné au titre de l alinéa a); c) la liste des personnes chargées de mettre à exécution le plan en cas de rejet irrégulier ainsi qu une description de leurs rôles et responsabilités; d) la mention de la formation en intervention d urgence exigée des personnes visées à l alinéa c); e) la liste de l équipement d intervention d urgence prévu dans le plan et l emplacement de cet équipement; f) les procédures d alerte et de notification, notamment les mesures prévues pour avertir les membres du public auxquels le rejet irrégulier mentionné au titre de l alinéa a) pourrait causer un préjudice. (3) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant termine le plan d intervention d urgence, lequel doit être disponible pour inspection, dans les soixante jours suivant la date à laquelle la mine devient assujettie au présent article. 21

73 SOR/ January 24, 2012 (4) The owner or operator shall update and test the emergency response plan at least once each year to ensure that the plan continues to meet the requirements of subsection (2). (5) If a mine has not been subject to the requirements of this section for more than one year, a new emergency response plan shall be prepared and completed no later than 60 days after the day on which the mine again becomes subject to this section. SOR/ , s. 16. REPORTING 31. (1) Any person required by subsection 38(4) of the Act to report the occurrence of a deposit of a deleterious substance out of the normal course of events shall, if a deposit has occurred, submit a written report to an inspector or the person referred to in section 29 as soon as possible in the circumstances, but at the latest 30 days after the day on which the deposit occurred. (2) The written report shall contain (a) the name, description and concentration of the deleterious substance deposited; (b) the estimated quantity of the deposit and how the estimate was achieved; (c) the quantity of any deleterious substance that was deposited at a place other than through a final discharge point and the identification of that place; (d) the quantity of any deleterious substance that was deposited through a final discharge point and the identification of that discharge point; (e) the name of the receiving body of water, if there is a name and, if not, the location by latitude and longitude, in degrees, minutes and seconds, where the deleterious substance entered the receiving body of water; (f) the results of the acute lethality test conducted under paragraph 14(1)(b); (g) a statement that an acute lethality test was not conducted but that notification was given under subsection 14(1.1), as the case may be; and (4) Il tient à jour et met à l essai le plan d intervention d urgence au moins une fois par année afin de veiller à ce que celui-ci satisfasse aux exigences du paragraphe (2). (5) Si la mine n a pas été assujettie au présent article pendant plus d un an, un nouveau plan d intervention d urgence est dressé et doit être terminé dans les soixante jours suivant la date à laquelle elle le redevient. DORS/ , art. 16. RAPPORT 31. (1) Toute personne tenue de faire rapport, en application du paragraphe 38(4) de la Loi, du rejet irrégulier effectif d une substance nocive présente le rapport par écrit à l inspecteur ou à l autorité visée à l article 29, le plus tôt possible dans les circonstances, mais au plus tard trente jours après la date du rejet. (2) Le rapport comporte : a) le nom, la description et la concentration de la substance nocive rejetée; b) la quantité estimative du rejet ainsi que la méthode d estimation utilisée; c) la quantité de toute substance nocive qui a été rejetée à partir d un lieu autre qu un point de rejet final, et la mention de ce lieu; d) la quantité de toute substance nocive qui a été rejetée à partir d un point de rejet final, et la mention de celui-ci; e) le nom du milieu aquatique récepteur, si ce nom existe et, si ce nom n existe pas, la latitude et la longitude, exprimées en degrés, minutes et secondes, du point de pénétration de la substance nocive dans le milieu aquatique; f) les résultats de l essai de détermination de la létalité aiguë effectué en application de l alinéa 14(1)b); g) une attestation que l essai de détermination de la létalité aiguë n a pas été effectué mais qu un avis a été 22

74 DORS/ janvier 2012 (h) the circumstances of the deposit, the measures that were taken to mitigate the effects of the deposit and, if the emergency response plan was implemented, details concerning its implementation. SOR/ , s. 17; SOR/ , s. 6. donné en application du paragraphe 14(1.1), le cas échéant; h) les circonstances du rejet, les mesures d atténuation prises et, si le plan d intervention d urgence a été mis en œuvre, le détail de son application. DORS/ , art. 17; DORS/ , art. 6. PART 4 PARTIE 4 RECOGNIZED CLOSED MINES REQUIREMENTS 32. (1) An owner or operator who intends to close a mine shall (a) provide written notice of that intention to the authorization officer; (b) maintain the mine s rate of production at less than 10% of its design rated capacity for a continuous period of three years starting on the day that the written notice is received by the authorization officer; and (c) conduct a biological monitoring study during the three-year period referred to in paragraph (b) in accordance with Division 3 of Part 2 of Schedule 5. (2) If the owner or operator has complied with all of the requirements set out in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c), the mine becomes a recognized closed mine after the expiry of the three-year period referred to in subsection (1). (3) The owner or operator shall notify the authorization officer in writing at least 60 days before reopening the recognized closed mine. (4) The owner or operator referred to in this section shall keep at any place in Canada all records, books of account or other documents required by these Regulations for a period of not less than five years beginning on the day they are made, and shall notify the authorization officer in writing of their location. SOR/ , s. 18. MINES FERMÉES RECONNUES EXIGENCES 32. (1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant qui souhaite fermer sa mine : a) en avise l agent d autorisation par écrit; b) maintient la mine, durant une période continue de trois ans commençant à la date de réception de l avis, à un taux de production inférieur à 10 % de sa capacité nominale; c) effectue, durant la période prévue à l alinéa b), une étude de suivi biologique conformément à la section 3 de la partie 2 de l annexe 5. (2) La mine devient une mine fermée reconnue à l expiration de la période de trois ans prévue au paragraphe (1) si le propriétaire ou l exploitant s est conformé aux exigences visées aux alinéas (1)a) à c). (3) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant avise par écrit l agent d autorisation de la réouverture de la mine fermée reconnue au moins soixante jours avant la réouverture. (4) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant visé par le présent article conserve n importe où au Canada tous les registres, livres comptables ou autres documents exigés par le présent règlement pendant au moins cinq ans à compter de leur établissement et avise l agent d autorisation par écrit du lieu où ils se trouvent. DORS/ , art

75 SOR/ January 24, 2012 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 33. (1) The owner or operator of a recognized closed mine shall submit in writing to the authorization officer the information referred to in subsection (2) not later than 60 days after the day on which (a) the recognized closed mine becomes subject to these Regulations; or (b) ownership of the recognized closed mine is transferred. (2) The information that shall be submitted is the name and address of (a) both the owner and the operator of the recognized closed mine; and (b) any parent company of the owner or the operator. (3) The owner or operator shall notify the authorization officer of any change in the information not later than 60 days after the change occurs. RENSEIGNEMENTS D IDENTIFICATION 33. (1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine fermée reconnue présente par écrit à l agent d autorisation les renseignements mentionnés au paragraphe (2) : a) dans les soixante jours suivant la date à laquelle la mine fermée reconnue devient assujettie au présent règlement; b) dans les soixante jours suivant le transfert de propriété de la mine fermée reconnue. (2) Les renseignements à présenter sont : a) les nom et adresse du propriétaire et de l exploitant; b) les nom et adresse de toute société mère du propriétaire ou de l exploitant. (3) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant avise l agent d autorisation de tout changement des renseignements dans les soixante jours suivant le changement. PART 5 PARTIE 5 TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS APPLICATION FOR TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION 34. (1) The owner or operator of a mine may apply to an authorization officer for a transitional authorization that permits the deposit of (a) an acutely lethal effluent, unless another law of the jurisdiction where the mine is located requires that the mine produce a non-acutely lethal effluent; (b) an effluent containing any concentration of a deleterious substance that is set out in any of items 1 to 8 of Schedule 4, unless another law of the jurisdiction where the mine is located requires that the mine produce an effluent containing the deleterious substance in a concentration that is equal to or less than the limits set out in Schedule 4; and (c) an effluent of any ph, unless another law of the jurisdiction where the mine is located requires that the AUTORISATIONS TRANSITOIRES DEMANDE D AUTORISATION TRANSITOIRE 34. (1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine peut présenter à l agent d autorisation une demande visant une autorisation transitoire permettant le rejet de l un ou l autre des effluents suivants : a) un effluent à létalité aiguë, sauf si une autre loi de l autorité législative du territoire où est située la mine exige que celle-ci produise un effluent à létalité non aiguë; b) un effluent contenant toute substance nocive figurant à l un des articles 1 à 8 de l annexe 4, quelle que soit sa concentration, sauf si une autre loi de l autorité législative du territoire où est située la mine exige que celle-ci produise un effluent contenant la substance en une concentration égale ou inférieure aux limites établies à l annexe 4; 24

76 DORS/ janvier 2012 mine produce an effluent with a ph equal to or greater than 6.0 but not greater than 9.5. (2) Despite paragraph (1)(a), the owner or operator may apply for a transitional authorization to deposit acutely lethal effluent only if the mine produced such an effluent at any time during the 12-month period preceding the application. (3) The owner or operator of a mine may apply to an authorization officer for a transitional authorization that permits only the deposit of an effluent containing any concentration of total suspended solids, but may not apply if another law of the jurisdiction where the mine is located requires that the mine produce an effluent containing total suspended solids in a concentration equal to or less than the limits set out in Schedule 4 or if, during the 12-month period preceding the application, the results of two consecutive effluent monitoring tests conducted under sections 12 to 16 indicate that (a) the concentration in the effluent of any of the deleterious substances referred to in any of items 1 to 6 or 8 of Schedule 4 exceeded the applicable authorized limits set out in that Schedule; (b) the ph of the effluent was less than 6.0 or greater than 9.5; or (c) the effluent was acutely lethal. (4) The owner or operator referred to in subsection (1) shall submit an application for a transitional authorization not later than three months after these Regulations are registered and shall submit with the application, (a) the information required by Part 1 of Schedule 7 including, for the 12-month period preceding the application (i) the monthly mean concentrations of the deleterious substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4 that are contained in the effluent, c) un effluent, quel que soit son ph, sauf si une autre loi de l autorité législative du territoire où est située la mine exige que celle-ci produise un effluent dont le ph est égal ou supérieur à 6,0 mais ne dépasse pas 9,5. (2) Malgré l alinéa (1)a), il ne peut présenter une demande visant une autorisation transitoire permettant le rejet d un effluent à létalité aiguë que si, à un moment quelconque au cours des douze mois précédant la demande, la mine a rejeté un tel effluent. (3) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine peut présenter à l agent d autorisation une demande visant une autorisation transitoire permettant le rejet d un effluent contenant toute concentration du total des solides en suspension. Il ne peut toutefois le faire si une autre loi de l autorité législative du territoire où est située la mine exige que celle-ci produise un effluent contenant le total des solides en suspension en une concentration égale ou inférieure aux limites établies à l annexe 4 ou si, au cours des douze mois précédant la demande, les résultats de deux essais consécutifs de suivi de l effluent effectués en application des articles 12 à 16 ont montré que : a) soit la concentration dans l effluent de toute substance nocive figurant à l un des articles 1 à 6 et 8 de l annexe 4 a dépassé les limites permises prévues à cette annexe; b) soit le ph de l effluent était inférieur à 6,0 ou supérieur à 9,5; c) soit l effluent était un effluent à létalité aiguë. (4) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant visé au paragraphe (1) présente la demande d autorisation transitoire dans les trois mois suivant l enregistrement du présent règlement et soumet avec sa demande : a) les renseignements prévus à la partie 1 de l annexe 7, notamment, à l égard des douze mois précédant la demande : (i) la concentration moyenne mensuelle des substances nocives énumérées à la colonne 1 de l annexe 4 se trouvant dans l effluent, 25

77 SOR/ January 24, 2012 (ii) whether the effluent is acutely lethal, and (iii) the ph of the effluent; (b) a description of the facilities and procedures that are necessary to deposit an effluent that complies with paragraphs 4(1)(a) to (c); (c) a proposed schedule for the construction of the facilities and implementation of the procedures; and (d) a signed statement of certification as set out in Part 2 of Schedule 7. (5) The owner or operator referred to in subsection (3) shall submit an application for a transitional authorization not earlier than 24 months and not later than 27 months after these Regulations are registered and shall submit with the application (a) the information required by Part 1 of Schedule 7 including, for the 12-month period preceding the application, (i) the monthly mean concentrations of the deleterious substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4 that are contained in the effluent, (ii) whether the effluent is acutely lethal, and (iii) the ph of the effluent; (b) a description of the facilities and procedures that are necessary to deposit an effluent that complies with the concentrations referred to in item 7 of Schedule 4; (c) a proposed schedule for the construction of the facilities and implementation of the procedures; (d) a signed statement of certification as set out in Part 2 of Schedule 7; and (e) a statement of certification signed by the owner, the operator or their duly authorized representative indicating that there is no feasible alternative to the transitional authorization, based on documented engineering evidence. SOR/ , s. 19(F). (ii) s il s agit ou non d un effluent à létalité aiguë, (iii) le ph de l effluent; b) la liste des installations et pratiques qui sont nécessaires pour que l effluent rejeté soit conforme aux conditions prévues aux alinéas 4(1)a) à c); c) un projet de calendrier de construction des installations et de mise en œuvre des pratiques; d) l attestation prévue à la partie 2 de l annexe 7. (5) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant visé au paragraphe (3) présente la demande d autorisation transitoire au plus tôt vingt-quatre mois après la date de l enregistrement du présent règlement mais au plus tard vingt-sept mois après cette date et soumet avec sa demande : a) les renseignements prévus à la partie 1 de l annexe 7, notamment, à l égard des douze mois précédant la demande : (i) la concentration moyenne mensuelle des substances nocives énumérées à la colonne 1 de l annexe 4 se trouvant dans l effluent, (ii) s il s agit ou non d un effluent à létalité aiguë, (iii) le ph de l effluent; b) la liste des installations et pratiques qui sont nécessaires pour que l effluent rejeté soit conforme aux limites permises prévues à l article 7 de l annexe 4; c) un projet de calendrier de construction des installations et de mise en œuvre des pratiques; d) l attestation prévue à la partie 2 de l annexe 7; e) une attestation signée par le propriétaire, l exploitant ou leur représentant dûment autorisé précisant qu il n existe aucune autre solution sur la base de preuves techniques. DORS/ , art. 19(F). 26

78 DORS/ janvier 2012 ISSUANCE OF TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION 35. (1) An authorization officer shall issue to the owner or operator of a mine a transitional authorization, if (a) the owner or operator is entitled to make the application under subsections 34(1) to (3) and has complied with subsection 34(4) or (5), as applicable; and (b) any construction of facilities and the implementation of the procedures described by the owner or operator under paragraph 34(4)(b) or (5)(b), as applicable will result in the deposit of an effluent that complies with the requirements prescribed in paragraphs 4(1)(a) to (c). (2) The authorization officer shall issue a transitional authorization in the form set out in Schedule 8 and provide in the authorization (a) for the deposit of acutely lethal effluent, the information required by Part 1 of Schedule 8; and (b) for the deposit of effluent that contains a deleterious substance set out in column 1 of Schedule 4, the information required by Part 2 of Schedule 8, including the maximum concentration of the deleterious substances and the ph range of the effluent the determination of which are specified in that Schedule. (3) Authorization officers shall maintain a public record of all transitional authorizations issued for mines located in the province where they perform their functions. TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OBLIGATIONS 36. An owner or operator of a mine who has been issued a transitional authorization (a) shall comply with sections 6 to 27 and, if the mine is depositing effluent into a tailings impoundment area, subsection 28(1); (b) shall start the construction of the facilities and implement the procedures referred to in paragraph 34(4)(b) or (5)(b), as applicable, in a timely manner; DÉLIVRANCE DES AUTORISATIONS TRANSITOIRES 35. (1) L agent d autorisation délivre une autorisation transitoire au propriétaire ou à l exploitant d une mine aux conditions suivantes : a) le propriétaire ou l exploitant a le droit de faire une telle demande aux termes des paragraphes 34(1), (2) et (3) et il s est conformé aux paragraphes 34(4) ou (5), selon le cas; b) les installations et les pratiques proposées par le propriétaire ou l exploitant aux termes des alinéas 34(4)b) ou (5)b) rendront le rejet de l effluent conforme aux conditions prévues aux alinéas 4(1)a) à c). (2) L agent d autorisation délivre l autorisation transitoire en la forme prévue à l annexe 8 et y inscrit : a) si elle vise le rejet d un effluent à létalité aiguë, les renseignements prévus à la partie 1 de l annexe 8; b) si elle vise le rejet d un effluent contenant des substances nocives énumérées à la colonne 1 de l annexe 4, les renseignements prévus à la partie 2 de l annexe 8, notamment la concentration maximale des substances nocives et la plage du ph de l effluent déterminées selon cette annexe. (3) L agent d autorisation tient un registre public de toutes les autorisations transitoires délivrées à l égard des mines situées dans la province où il exerce ses fonctions. EXIGENCES RELATIVES AUX AUTORISATIONS TRANSITOIRES 36. Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine à qui une autorisation transitoire a été délivrée doit satisfaire aux exigences suivantes : a) il doit se conformer aux articles 6 à 27 et, si la mine rejette ses effluents dans un dépôt de résidus miniers, au paragraphe 28(1); b) il commence la construction des installations et met en œuvre les pratiques visées aux alinéas 34(4)b) ou (5)b) dans les meilleurs délais; 27

79 SOR/ January 24, 2012 (c) shall report to the authorization officer, without delay, any change in the information provided under subsection 34(4) or (5); (d) shall not deposit effluent that contains a deleterious substance set out in column 1 of Schedule 4 that exceeds the maximum concentration that is specified in the transitional authorization or has a ph that is outside the ph range specified in the transitional authorization; and (e) shall not deposit effluent that is acutely lethal unless authorized to do so in the transitional authorization. TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION REPORTING 37. (1) The owner or operator of a mine with a valid transitional authorization shall notify an inspector without delay if (a) an effluent that contains a deleterious substance set out in column 1 of Schedule 4 exceeds the concentration or is outside the ph range that is specified in the transitional authorization; or (b) an acutely lethal effluent is being or has been deposited, unless the deposit of acutely lethal effluent is authorized in the transitional authorization. (2) The owner or operator shall provide to the inspector a written report of any test results which identified that the effluent contains a deleterious substance or is acutely lethal under subsection (1) within 30 days after the tests have been completed. REVOCATION OF TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS 38. An authorization officer may revoke a transitional authorization if (a) the information provided by the owner or operator of a mine to support the application for the transitional authorization is false or incomplete; or (b) the owner or operator has failed to comply with any requirement prescribed in sections 36 and 37. c) il signale à l agent d autorisation, sans délai, toute modification des renseignements soumis en application des paragraphes 34(4) ou (5); d) il ne rejette pas un effluent contenant des substances nocives énumérées à la colonne 1 de l annexe 4 en une concentration supérieure à celle indiquée dans l autorisation transitoire ou un effluent ayant un ph en dehors de la plage de ph indiquée dans l autorisation transitoire; e) il ne rejette un effluent à létalité aiguë que si l autorisation transitoire le permet. RAPPORT 37. (1) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine ayant une autorisation transitoire valide informe l inspecteur sans délai : a) que la concentration dans l effluent de toute substance nocive figurant à la colonne 1 de l annexe 4 est supérieure à celle indiquée dans l autorisation transitoire ou qu un effluent a un ph en dehors de la plage de ph indiquée dans l autorisation transitoire; b) qu un effluent à létalité aiguë non couvert par l autorisation transitoire a été ou est rejeté. (2) Il présente à l inspecteur un rapport écrit faisant état du résultat de tout essai ayant servi à détecter les substances nocives ou l effluent à létalité aiguë visés au paragraphe (1) dans les trente jours suivant la fin de l essai. RÉVOCATION D UNE AUTORISATION TRANSITOIRE 38. L agent d autorisation peut révoquer une autorisation transitoire si : a) soit les renseignements fournis par le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine à l appui de sa demande d autorisation transitoire sont faux ou incomplets; b) soit le propriétaire ou l exploitant n a pas satisfait à l une ou l autre des exigences prévues aux articles 36 et

80 DORS/ janvier 2012 EXPIRY OF TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS 39. (1) Subject to subsection (2), transitional authorizations expire 30 months after the day on which these Regulations are registered. (2) Transitional authorizations referred to in subsection 34(3) that expired on June 6, 2007 are deemed to be reissued as of the day on which this subsection comes into force and they shall expire on December 6, SOR/ , s. 1. EXPIRATION DE L AUTORISATION TRANSITOIRE 39. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), les autorisations transitoires expirent trente mois après la date d enregistrement du présent règlement. (2) Les autorisations transitoires visées au paragraphe 34(3) qui ont expiré le 6 juin 2007 sont réputées être délivrées de nouveau à la date d entrée en vigueur du présent paragraphe et elles expirent le 6 décembre DORS/ , art. 1. PART 6 PARTIE 6 REPEALS AND COMING INTO FORCE REPEALS 40. The Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations 1 are repealed. 41. The Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations 2 are repealed. COMING INTO FORCE 42. (1) Subject to subsection (2), these Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered. (2) Sections 3 to 33 and 36 to 39 and 41 come into force six months after the day on which these Regulations are registered. ABROGATIONS ET ENTRÉE EN VIGUEUR ABROGATIONS 40. Le Règlement sur les rejets de stériles dans le bras Alice 1 est abrogé. 41. Le Règlement sur les effluents liquides des mines de métaux 2 est abrogé. ENTRÉE EN VIGUEUR 42. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le présent règlement entre en vigueur à la date de son enregistrement. (2) Les articles 3 à 33 et 36 à 39 et 41 entrent en vigueur six mois après l enregistrement du présent règlement. 1 SOR/ C.R.C., c DORS/ C.R.C., ch

81 SOR/ January 24, 2012 SCHEDULE 1 (Subsection 1(1)) AUTHORIZATION OFFICERS ANNEXE 1 (paragraphe 1(1)) AGENTS D AUTORISATION Column 1 Column 2 Item Province Title 1. Ontario Director, Environmental Protection Operations Division Ontario Environment Canada 2. Quebec Director, Environmental Protection Operations Division Quebec Environment Canada 3. Nova Scotia Director, Environmental Protection Operations Division Atlantic Environment Canada 4. New Brunswick Director, Environmental Protection Operations Division Atlantic Environment Canada 5. Manitoba Director, Environmental Protection Operations Division Prairie and Northern Environment Canada 6. British Columbia Director, Environmental Protection Operations Division Pacific and Yukon Environment Canada 7. Prince Edward Island Director, Environmental Protection Operations Division Atlantic Environment Canada 8. Saskatchewan Director, Environmental Protection Operations Division Prairie and Northern Environment Canada 9. Alberta Director, Environmental Protection Operations Division Prairie and Northern Environment Canada 10. Newfoundland and Labrador Director, Environmental Protection Operations Division Atlantic Environment Canada 11. Yukon Territory Director, Environmental Protection Operations Division Pacific and Yukon Environment Canada 12. Northwest Territories Director, Environmental Protection Operations Division Prairie and Northern Environment Canada 13. Nunavut Director, Environmental Protection Operations Division Prairie and Northern Environment Canada Colonne 1 Colonne 2 Article Province Poste 1. Ontario Directeur, Division des activités de protection de l environnement Ontario Environnement Canada 2. Québec Directeur, Division des activités de protection de l environnement Québec Environnement Canada 3. Nouvelle-Écosse Directeur, Division des activités de protection de l environnement Atlantique Environnement Canada 4. Nouveau- Brunswick Directeur, Division des activités de protection de l environnement Atlantique Environnement Canada 5. Manitoba Directeur, Division des activités de protection de l environnement Prairies et Nord Environnement Canada 6. Colombie- Britannique 7. Île-du-Prince- Édouard Directeur, Division des activités de protection de l environnement Pacifique et Yukon Environnement Canada Directeur, Division des activités de protection de l environnement Atlantique Environnement Canada 8. Saskatchewan Directeur, Division des activités de protection de l environnement Prairies et Nord Environnement Canada 9. Alberta Directeur, Division des activités de protection de l environnement Prairies et Nord Environnement Canada 10. Terre-Neuve-et- Labrador Directeur, Division des activités de protection de l environnement Atlantique Environnement Canada 11. Yukon Directeur, Division des activités de protection de l environnement Pacifique et Yukon Environnement Canada 12. Territoires du Nord- Ouest SOR/ , s. 20. DORS/ , art. 20. Directeur, Division des activités de protection de l environnement Prairies et Nord Environnement Canada 13. Nunavut Directeur, Division des activités de protection de l environnement Prairies et Nord Environnement Canada 30

82 DORS/ janvier 2012 SCHEDULE 2 (Subsections 5(1) and 27.1(1)) (TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENT AREAS) Column 1 Column 2 Item Water or Place 1. Anderson Lake, Manitoba 2. Garrow Lake, Nunavut 3. South Kemess Creek, British Columbia 4. Albino Lake, British Columbia 5. Tom MacKay Lake, British Columbia 6. Trout Pond, Newfoundland and Labrador 7. The headwater pond of a tributary to Gill s Pond Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador Description Anderson Lake located at north latitude and west longitude near the town of Snow Lake, Manitoba. More precisely, the area bounded by (a) the contour of elevation around Anderson Lake at the 285-m level, and (b) the control dam built at the east end of Anderson Lake. Garrow Lake located at north latitude and west longitude near the south end of Little Cornwallis Island, Nunavut. That part of South Kemess Creek being within the watershed of that tributary of South Kemess Creek (a) extending eastwards and upstream from the centre of a tailings dam constructed at 57 1 north latitude and west longitude, and (b) below the crest of the dam at an elevation of 1515 m. Albino Lake located at north latitude and west longitude near the Eskay Creek Mine in British Columbia. More precisely, the area bounded by (a) the contour of elevation around Albino Lake at the 1040-m level, and (b) the outlet of Albino Lake. Tom MacKay Lake located at north latitude and west longitude near the Eskay Creek Mine in British Columbia. More precisely, the area bounded by (a) the contour of elevation around Tom MacKay Lake at the 1078-m level, and (b) the outlet of Tom MacKay Lake. Trout Pond located at north latitude and west longitude in west-central Newfoundland. More precisely, the area bounded by (a) the contour of elevation around Trout Pond at the 270 m level, and (b) the outlet of Trout Pond. The headwater pond of a tributary to Gill s Pond Brook, located at north latitude and west longitude in west-central Newfoundland. More precisely, the area bounded by (a) the contour of elevation around the pond at the 260 m level, and (b) the outlet of the pond. ANNEXE 2 (paragraphes 5(1) et 27.1(1)) DÉPÔTS DE RÉSIDUS MINIERS Colonne 1 Colonne 2 Article Eaux ou lieux Description 1. Lac Anderson, Manitoba 2. Lac Garrow, Nunavut 3. Ruisseau South Kemess, Colombie- Britannique 4. Lac Albino, Colombie- Britannique 5. Lac Tom MacKay, Colombie- Britannique 6. Trout Pond, Terre-Neuve-et- Labrador 7. L étang d amont d un tributaire du ruisseau Gill, Terre-Neuve-et- Labrador Le lac Anderson, situé par de latitude N. et de longitude O., près de la ville de Snow Lake, au Manitoba. Plus précisément, le lieu délimité par : a) la courbe de niveau à 285 m autour du lac Anderson; b) le barrage de régulation à l extrémité est du lac Anderson. Le lac Garrow, situé par de latitude N. et de longitude O., près de l extrémité sud de la petite île Cornwallis, au Nunavut. La partie du ruisseau South Kemess située dans le bassin hydrographique du tributaire du ruisseau South Kemess : a) qui s étend vers l est et en amont du centre d un barrage de retenue des stériles situé par 57 1 de latitude N. et de longitude O.; b) qui se trouve en dessous de la crête du barrage, à une altitude de 1515 m. Le lac Albino, situé par 56 39,4 de latitude N. et ,4 de longitude O., près de la mine Eskay Creek, en Colombie-Britannique. Plus précisément, la région délimitée par : a) la courbe de niveau à 1040 m autour du lac Albino; b) la décharge du lac Albino. Le lac Tom MacKay, situé par de latitude N. et de longitude O., près de la mine Eskay Creek, en Colombie- Britannique. Plus précisément, la région délimitée par : a) la courbe de niveau à 1078 m autour du lac Tom MacKay; b) la décharge du lac Tom Mackay. L étang Trout Pond, situé par , de latitude N. et , de longitude O., dans la partie centrale ouest de Terre-Neuve et, plus précisément, la région délimitée par : a) la courbe de niveau à 270 m autour de l étang Trout Pond; b) la décharge de l étang Trout Pond. L étang d amont d un tributaire du ruisseau Gill, situé par , de latitude N. et , de longitude O., dans la partie centrale ouest de Terre-Neuve et, plus précisément, la région délimitée par : a) la courbe de niveau à 260 m autour de l étang; 31

83 SOR/ January 24, 2012 Column 1 Column 2 Item Water or Place 8. The northwest arm of Second Portage Lake, Nunavut Description That portion of the northwest arm of Second Portage Lake, located at north latitude and west longitude, approximately 80 km north of the town of Baker Lake, Nunavut. More precisely, the area bounded by (a) the contour of elevation around the arm at the 146 m level, and (b) the dam built at the southeast end of the arm. 9. Tail Lake, Nunavut Tail Lake, located at north latitude and west longitude, approximately 125 km southwest of the town of Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. More precisely, the area bounded by 10. A portion of Wabush Lake, Newfoundland and Labrador 11. Flora Lake, Newfoundland and Labrador 12. A portion of an unnamed tributary stream to Flora Lake, Newfoundland and Labrador 13. A portion of an unnamed tributary stream to Flora Lake, Newfoundland and Labrador 14. A portion of an unnamed tributary stream to Flora Lake, Newfoundland and Labrador (a) the contour of elevation around Tail Lake at the 33.5 m level, and (b) the dams built at the south and north ends of the lake. That portion of Wabush Lake near the towns of Labrador City and Wabush in western Labrador. More precisely, the area bounded by (a) the southern limit, extending from 53 north latitude, west longitude to 53 north latitude, west longitude, and (b) the outlet of Wabush Lake, extending from north latitude, west longitude to north latitude, west longitude. Flora Lake located at north latitude, west longitude, near the towns of Labrador City and Wabush in western Labrador. A portion of an unnamed tributary stream to Flora Lake, Newfoundland and Labrador. More precisely, an area extending from the mouth of the stream ( north latitude, west longitude) for a distance of 75 m upstream from Flora Lake. A portion of an unnamed tributary stream to Flora Lake, Newfoundland and Labrador. More precisely, an area extending from the mouth of the stream ( north latitude, west longitude) for a distance of 580 m upstream from Flora Lake. A portion of an unnamed tributary stream to Flora Lake, Newfoundland and Labrador. More precisely, an area extending from the mouth of the stream ( north latitude, west longitude) for a distance of 256 m upstream from Flora Lake. Colonne 1 Colonne 2 Article Eaux ou lieux Description 8. Le nord-ouest du bras du lac Second Portage, Nunavut b) la décharge de l étang. La partie du nord-ouest du bras du lac Second Portage, située par ,29 de latitude N. et de longitude O., à environ 80 km au nord de la ville de Baker Lake, au Nunavut et, plus précisément, la région délimitée par : a) la courbe de niveau à 146 m autour du bras; b) la digue construite à l extrémité sud-est du bras. 9. Lac Tail, Nunavut Le lac Tail, situé par ,8 de latitude N. et ,2 de longitude O., à environ 125 km au sud-ouest de la ville de Cambridge Bay, au Nunavut et, plus précisément, la région délimitée par : 10. Une partie du lac Wabush, Terre- Neuve-et- Labrador 11. Lac Flora, Terre- Neuve-et- Labrador 12. Une partie d un ruisseau sans nom tributaire du lac Flora, Terre- Neuve-et- Labrador 13. Une partie d un ruisseau sans nom tributaire du lac Flora, Terre- Neuve-et- Labrador 14. Une partie d un ruisseau sans nom tributaire du lac Flora, Terre- Neuve-et- Labrador a) la courbe de niveau à 33,5 m autour du lac; b) les digues construites aux extrémités sud et nord du lac. La partie du lac Wabush, située près des villes de Labrador City et de Wabush dans la partie ouest du Labrador, et, plus précisément, la région délimitée par : a) la limite sud s étendant de 53 de latitude N. et de longitude O., à 53 de latitude N. et de longitude O.; b) la décharge du lac Wabush, s étendant de ,7 de latitude N. et ,5 de longitude O., à ,5 de latitude N. et ,9 de longitude O. Le lac Flora, situé par de latitude N. et de longitude O., près des villes de Labrador City et de Wabush dans la partie ouest du Labrador. La partie d un ruisseau sans nom tributaire du lac Flora, Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador, et, plus précisément, la région s étendant de l embouchure du ruisseau ( ,94 de latitude N., ,26 de longitude O.) sur une distance de 75 m en amont du lac Flora. La partie d un ruisseau sans nom tributaire du lac Flora, Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador, et, plus précisément, la région s étendant de l embouchure du ruisseau ( ,70 de latitude N., ,49 de longitude O.) sur une distance de 580 m en amont du lac Flora. La partie d un ruisseau sans nom tributaire du lac Flora, Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador, et, plus précisément, la région s étendant de l embouchure du ruisseau ( ,45 de latitude N., ,23 de longitude O.) sur une distance de 256 m en amont du lac Flora. 32

84 DORS/ janvier 2012 Column 1 Column 2 Item Water or Place 15. Sandy Pond, Newfoundland and Labrador Description Sandy Pond, located at north latitude and west longitude, on the Avalon Peninsula, approximately 3 km east southeast of the town of Long Harbour-Mount Arlington Heights, Newfoundland and Labrador. More precisely, the area bounded by (a) the contour of elevation around Sandy Pond at the 137 m level, and (b) the dams built at the north end of Sandy Pond. 16. A portion of King Richard Creek, British Columbia A portion of King Richard Creek, located approximately 60 km southwest of the town of Mackenzie, British Columbia. More precisely, a 3.3 km portion of the creek extending northwards and upstream from the centre of a dam constructed at north latitude and west longitude, to the centre of a dam constructed at north latitude and west longitude. 17. A portion of an unnamed tributary to Alpine Lake, British Columbia 18. A portion of an unnamed tributary to Alpine Lake, British Columbia 19. Mallard Lake, Saskatchewan A portion of an unnamed tributary to Alpine Lake, located approximately 60 km southwest of the town of Mackenzie, British Columbia. More precisely, a 900 m portion of the tributary extending southwards and upstream from the centre of a dam constructed at north latitude and west longitude, to the centre of a dam constructed at north latitude and west longitude. A portion of an unnamed tributary to Alpine Lake, located approximately 60 km southwest of the town of Mackenzie, British Columbia. More precisely, a 590 m portion of the tributary extending southwards and upstream from the centre of a dam constructed at north latitude and west longitude, to the centre of a dam constructed at north latitude and west longitude. Mallard Lake, located at north latitude and west longitude, approximately 120 km northeast of the town of La Ronge, Saskatchewan. More precisely, the area bounded by (a) the contour of elevation around Mallard Lake at the 490 m level, and (b) the dam built at the south end of Mallard Lake. SOR/ , ss. 21 to 23; SOR/ , s. 1; SOR/ , s. 1; SOR/ , s. 2; SOR/ , s. 1; SOR/ , s. 1. Colonne 1 Colonne 2 Article Eaux ou lieux Description 15. Sandy Pond, Terre-Neuve-et- Labrador 16. Une partie du ruisseau King Richard, Colombie- Britannique 17. Une partie d un affluent sans nom tributaire du lac Alpine, Colombie- Britannique 18. Une partie d un affluent sans nom tributaire du lac Alpine, Colombie- Britannique 19. Lac Mallard, Saskatchewan L étang Sandy Pond, situé par de latitude N. et de longitude O., dans la péninsule Avalon, à environ 3 km est-sud-est de la ville de Long Harbour-Mount Arlington Heights, Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador, et, plus précisément, la région délimitée par : a) la courbe de niveau à 137 m autour de l étang Sandy Pond; b) les digues construites à l extrémité nord de l étang Sandy Pond. La partie du ruisseau King Richard située à environ 60 km au sud-ouest de la ville de Mackenzie en Colombie-Britannique, et, plus précisément, la partie du ruisseau qui s étend sur 3,3 km vers le nord et en amont du centre du barrage situé par de latitude N. et de longitude O. jusqu au centre du barrage situé par de latitude N. et de longitude O. La partie d un affluent sans nom tributaire du lac Alpine située à environ 60 km au sud-ouest de la ville de Mackenzie en Colombie- Britannique, et, plus précisément, la partie de l affluent qui s étend sur 900 m vers le sud et en amont du centre du barrage situé par de latitude N. et de longitude O. jusqu au centre du barrage situé par de latitude N. et de longitude O. La partie d un affluent sans nom tributaire du lac Alpine située à environ 60 km au sud-ouest de la ville de Mackenzie en Colombie- Britannique, et, plus précisément, la partie de l affluent qui s étend sur 590 m vers le sud et en amont du centre du barrage situé par de latitude N. et de longitude O. jusqu au centre du barrage situé par de latitude N. et de longitude O. Le lac Mallard, situé par de latitude N. et de longitude O., à environ 120 km au nord-est de la ville de La Ronge en Saskatchewan et, plus précisément, la région délimitée par : a) la courbe de niveau à 490 m autour du lac Mallard; b) le barrage construit à l extrémité sud du lac Mallard. DORS/ , art. 21 à 23; DORS/ , art. 1; DORS/ , art. 1; DORS/ , art. 2; DORS/ , art. 1; DORS/ , art

85 SOR/ January 24, 2012 Item SCHEDULE 3 (Subsections 1(1), 12(2) and 20(5)) ANALYTICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR METAL MINING EFFLUENT Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Deleterious Method Detection Substance/pH Precision 1 Accuracy 2 Limit (MDL) 1. Arsenic 10% 100 ± 10% mg/l 2. Copper 10% 100 ± 10% mg/l 3. Cyanide 10% 100 ± 10% mg/l 4. Lead 10% 100 ± 10% mg/l 5. Nickel 10% 100 ± 10% mg/l 6. Zinc 10% 100 ± 10% mg/l 7. Total Suspended Solids 15% 100 ± 15% mg/l 8. Radium % 100 ± 10% 0.01 Bq/L 9. ph 0.1 ph unit 0.1 ph unit Not Applicable 1 Relative standard deviation at concentrations 10 times above the MDL. 2 Analyte recovery at concentrations above 10 times the MDL. ANNEXE 3 (paragraphes 1(1), 12(2) et 20(5)) EXIGENCES ANALYTIQUES POUR LES EFFLUENTS DES MINES DE MÉTAUX Article Colonne 1 Colonne 2 Colonne 3 Colonne 4 Substance nocive/ph Précision 1 Exactitude 2 Limite de détection de la méthode (LDM) 1. Arsenic 10 % 100 ± 10 % 0,010 mg/l 2. Cuivre 10 % 100 ± 10 % 0,010 mg/l 3. Cyanure 10 % 100 ± 10 % 0,010 mg/l 4. Plomb 10 % 100 ± 10 % 0,030 mg/l 5. Nickel 10 % 100 ± 10 % 0,020 mg/l 6. Zinc 10 % 100 ± 10 % 0,010 mg/l 7. Total des solides en suspension 15 % 100 ± 15 % 2,000 mg/l 8. Radium % 100 ± 10 % 0,01 Bq/L 9. ph 0,1 unité ph 0,1 unité ph Sans objet 1 Écart-type relatif à des concentrations dix fois supérieures à la LDM. 2 Récupération de l analyte à des concentrations de plus de dix fois la LDM. SOR/ , s. 24. DORS/ , art

86 DORS/ janvier 2012 SCHEDULE 4 (Section 3, paragraph 4(1)(a), subsections 12(1) and (3), section 13, subsections 15(1), 19.1(1) and 20(1), paragraphs 21(2)(b) and (f), 24(1)(a) and 34(1)(b), subsection 34(3), paragraphs 34(4)(a) and (5)(a) and (b), 35(2)(b), 36(d) and 37(1)(a) and Schedules 5 and 7) Item AUTHORIZED LIMITS OF DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Deleterious Substance Maximum Authorized Monthly Mean Concentration Maximum Authorized Concentration in a Composite Sample Maximum Authorized Concentration in a Grab Sample 1. Arsenic 0.50 mg/l 0.75 mg/l 1.00 mg/l 2. Copper 0.30 mg/l 0.45 mg/l 0.60 mg/l 3. Cyanide 1.00 mg/l 1.50 mg/l 2.00 mg/l 4. Lead 0.20 mg/l 0.30 mg/l 0.40 mg/l 5. Nickel 0.50 mg/l 0.75 mg/l 1.00 mg/l 6. Zinc 0.50 mg/l 0.75 mg/l 1.00 mg/l 7. Total Suspended Solids mg/l mg/l mg/l 8. Radium Bq/L 0.74 Bq/L 1.11 Bq/L NOTE: All concentrations are total values. SOR/ , s. 25. ANNEXE 4 (article 3, alinéa 4(1)a), paragraphes 12(1) et (3), article 13, paragraphes 15(1), 19.1(1) et 20(1), alinéas 21(2)b) et f), 24(1)a) et 34(1)b), paragraphe 34(3), alinéas 34(4)a) et (5)a) et b), 35(2)b), 36d) et 37(1)a) et annexes 5 et 7) Article LIMITES PERMISES POUR CERTAINES SUBSTANCES NOCIVES Colonne 1 Colonne 2 Colonne 3 Colonne 4 Substance nocive Concentration moyenne mensuelle maximale permise Concentration maximale permise dans un échantillon composite Concentration maximale permise dans un échantillon instantané 1. Arsenic 0,50 mg/l 0,75 mg/l 1,00 mg/l 2. Cuivre 0,30 mg/l 0,45 mg/l 0,60 mg/l 3. Cyanure 1,00 mg/l 1,50 mg/l 2,00 mg/l 4. Plomb 0,20 mg/l 0,30 mg/l 0,40 mg/l 5. Nickel 0,50 mg/l 0,75 mg/l 1,00 mg/l 6. Zinc 0,50 mg/l 0,75 mg/l 1,00 mg/l 7. Total des solides en suspension 15,00 mg/l 22,50 mg/l 30,00 mg/l 8. Radium 226 0,37 Bq/L 0,74 Bq/L 1,11 Bq/L NOTE : Toutes les concentrations sont des valeurs totales. DORS/ , art

87 SOR/ January 24, 2012 SCHEDULE 5 (Section 7, subsection 15(1) and paragraph 32(1)(c)) ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING STUDIES INTERPRETATION 1. The following definitions apply in this Schedule. effect on fish tissue means measurements of total mercury that exceed 0.45 µg/g wet weight in fish tissue taken in an exposure area and that are statistically different from the measurements of total mercury in fish tissue taken in a reference area. (effet sur les tissus de poissons) effect on the benthic invertebrate community means a statistical difference between data referred to in subparagraph 16(a)(iii) from a study respecting the benthic invertebrate community conducted in (a) an exposure area and a reference area; or (b) sampling areas within an exposure area where there are gradually decreasing effluent concentrations. (effet sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques) effect on the fish population means a statistical difference between data relating to the indicators referred to in subparagraph 16(a)(i) from a study respecting fish population conducted in (a) an exposure area and a reference area; or (b) sampling areas within an exposure area where there are gradually decreasing effluent concentrations. (effet sur la population de poissons) exposure area means all fish habitat and waters frequented by fish that are exposed to effluent. (zone exposée) fish means fish as defined in section 2 of the Fisheries Act but does not include parts of fish, parts of shellfish, parts of crustaceans or parts of marine animals. (poisson) reference area means water frequented by fish that is not exposed to effluent and that has fish habitat that, as far as practicable, is most similar to that of the exposure area. (zone de référence) sampling area means the area within a reference or exposure area where representative samples are collected. (zone d échantillonnage) 2. Environmental effects monitoring studies consist of the effluent and water quality monitoring studies set out in Part 1, and the biological monitoring studies set out in Part 2, of this Schedule. ANNEXE 5 (article 7, paragraphe 15(1) et alinéa 32(1)c)) ÉTUDES DE SUIVI DES EFFETS SUR L ENVIRONNEMENT DÉFINITIONS 1. Les définitions qui suivent s appliquent à la présente annexe. «effet sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques» Différence statistique entre les données visées au sous-alinéa 16a)(iii) d une étude sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques effectuée : a) soit dans la zone exposée et dans la zone de référence; b) soit dans les zones d échantillonnage de la zone exposée qui présentent un gradient décroissant de concentration d effluent. (effect on the benthic invertebrate community) «effet sur la population de poissons» Différence statistique entre les données portant sur les indicateurs visés au sous-alinéa 16a)(i) d une étude sur la population de poissons effectuée : a) soit dans la zone exposée et dans la zone de référence; b) soit dans les zones d échantillonnage de la zone exposée qui présentent un gradient décroissant de concentration d effluent. (effect on the fish population) «effet sur les tissus de poissons» Mesures de mercure total dans les tissus de poissons prises dans la zone exposée qui sont supérieures à 0,45 µg/g (poids humide) et qui présentent une différence statistique par rapport aux mesures de mercure total dans les tissus de poissons prises dans la zone de référence. (effect on fish tissue) «poisson» S entend au sens de l article 2 de la Loi sur les pêches, à l exclusion des parties de poissons, de mollusques, de crustacés et d animaux marins. (fish) «zone d échantillonnage» Partie de la zone de référence ou de la zone exposée où les échantillons représentatifs sont prélevés. (sampling area) «zone de référence» Les eaux où vivent des poissons et où se trouve un habitat du poisson, qui ne sont pas exposées à un effluent et qui présentent, dans la mesure du possible, les caractéristiques les plus semblables à celles de la zone exposée. (reference area) «zone exposée» Les eaux où vivent des poissons et l habitat du poisson qui sont exposés à un effluent. (exposure area) 2. Les études de suivi des effets sur l environnement se composent des études de suivi de l effluent et de la qualité de l eau prévues à la partie 1 et des études de suivi biologique prévues à la partie 2. PART 1 PARTIE 1 EFFLUENT AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING STUDIES REQUIRED STUDIES 3. Effluent and water quality monitoring studies consist of effluent characterization, sublethal toxicity testing and water quality monitoring. ÉTUDES DE SUIVI DE L EFFLUENT ET DE LA QUALITÉ DE L EAU COMPOSITION DES ÉTUDES 3. Les études de suivi de l effluent et de la qualité de l eau se composent de la caractérisation de l effluent, des essais de toxicité sublétale et du suivi de la qualité de l eau. 36

88 DORS/ janvier 2012 EFFLUENT CHARACTERIZATION 4. (1) Effluent characterization is conducted by analysing a sample of effluent and recording the hardness and alkalinity of the sample and the concentrations, in total values, of the following: (a) aluminum; (b) cadmium; (c) iron; (d) subject to subsection (3), mercury; (e) molybdenum; (f) ammonia; and (g) nitrate. (2) The effluent characterization shall be conducted four times per calendar year and not less than one month apart, on aliquots of effluent sample collected under sections 12 and 13 of these Regulations, with the first characterization to be conducted on an aliquot of effluent sample collected not later than six months after the day on which the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations. (3) The recording of the concentration of total mercury in effluent referred to in paragraph (1)(d) may be discontinued if that concentration is less than 0.10 µg/l in 12 consecutive samples collected under subsection (2). (4) Quality assurance and quality control measures shall be implemented that will ensure the accuracy of the effluent characterization data. SUBLETHAL TOXICITY TESTING 5. (1) Sublethal toxicity testing shall be conducted by following the applicable methods referred to in subsections (3) and (4) and recording the results for (a) a fish species, an invertebrate species, a plant species and an algal species, in the case of effluent deposited into fresh waters; and (b) a fish species, an invertebrate species and an algal species, in the case of effluent deposited into marine or estuarine waters. (2) The sublethal toxicity tests shall be conducted on the aliquots of effluent sample collected in accordance with subsection 4(2) from the mine s final discharge point that has potentially the most adverse environmental impact on the environment, taking into account the mass loadings of the deleterious substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4 as determined under subsection 20(2) of these Regulations and the manner in which the effluent mixes within the exposure area. (3) The sublethal toxicity tests under paragraph (1)(a) shall be conducted using the following test methodologies, as amended from time to time, as applicable to each species: (a) in the case of a fish species, (i) Biological Test Method: Test of Larval Growth and Survival Using Fathead Minnows (Report EPS 1/RM/22), February 1992, published by the Department of the Environment, or CARACTÉRISATION DE L EFFLUENT 4. (1) La caractérisation de l effluent s effectue par analyse d un échantillon d effluent et enregistrement de son alcalinité et de sa dureté et des concentrations, exprimées en valeurs totales, des substances suivantes : a) l aluminium; b) le cadmium; c) le fer; d) sous réserve du paragraphe (3), le mercure; e) le molybdène; f) l ammoniac; g) le nitrate. (2) La caractérisation de l effluent est effectuée quatre fois par année civile et à au moins un mois d intervalle, sur une portion aliquote de l échantillon d effluent prélevé en application des articles 12 et 13 du présent règlement, la première caractérisation se faisant sur une portion aliquote d un échantillon prélevé au plus tard six mois suivant la date à laquelle la mine devient assujettie à l article 7 du présent règlement. (3) La concentration en mercure total n a plus à être enregistrée aux termes de l alinéa (1)d) si la concentration de mercure total de douze échantillons consécutifs prélevés selon le paragraphe (2) est inférieure à 0,10 µg/l. (4) Des mesures d assurance de la qualité et de contrôle de la qualité sont prises pour garantir l exactitude des données visant la caractérisation de l effluent. ESSAIS DE TOXICITÉ SUBLÉTALE 5. (1) Les essais de toxicité sublétale sont effectués en conformité avec les méthodes applicables prévues aux paragraphes (3) et (4) et par enregistrement des résultats portant sur : a) une espèce de poissons, d invertébré, de plante et d algue, lorsque l effluent est rejeté dans l eau douce; b) une espèce de poissons, d invertébré et d algue, lorsque l effluent est rejeté dans l eau de mer ou l eau d estuaire. (2) Les essais de toxicité sublétale sont effectués sur une portion aliquote d un échantillon d effluent prélevé en application du paragraphe 4(2) au point de rejet final de la mine ayant le plus grand risque de répercussions néfastes sur l environnement, compte tenu de la charge des substances nocives visées à la colonne 1 de l annexe 4 déterminée conformément au paragraphe 20(2) du présent règlement et de la façon dont l effluent se mélange dans la zone exposée. (3) Les essais de toxicité sublétale visés à l alinéa (1)a) sont effectués conformément aux méthodes ci-après, avec leurs modifications successives, et selon les espèces en cause : a) dans le cas d une espèce de poissons : (i) soit la Méthode d essai biologique : essai de croissance et de survie sur des larves de tête-de-boule (Rapport SPE 1/RM/22), publiée en février 1992 par le ministère de l Environnement, 37

89 SOR/ January 24, 2012 (ii) Biological Test Method: Toxicity Tests Using Early Life Stages of Salmonid Fish (Rainbow Trout) (Reference Method EPS 1/RM/28), July 1998, published by the Department of the Environment; (b) in the case of an invertebrate species, Biological Test Method: Test of Reproduction and Survival Using the Cladoceran Ceriodaphnia dubia (Report EPS 1/RM/21), February 1992, published by the Department of the Environment; (c) in the case of a plant species, Biological Test Method: Test for Measuring the Inhibition of Growth Using the Freshwater Macrophyte, Lemna minor (Reference Method EPS 1/RM/37), March 1999, published by the Department of the Environment; and (d) in the case of an algal species, (i) Biological Test Method: Growth Inhibition Test Using Freshwater Alga Selenastrum capricornutum (Report EPS 1/ RM/25), November 1992, published by the Department of the Environment, or (ii) Détermination de l inhibition de la croissance chez l algue Selenastrum capricornutum (Reference Method MA 500- S.cap.2.0), September 1997, published by the Centre d expertise en analyse environnementale du Québec. (4) The sublethal toxicity tests under paragraph (1)(b) shall be conducted using the following test methodologies, as amended from time to time, as applicable to each species: (a) Biological Test Method: Fertilization Assay Using Echinoids (Sea Urchins and Sand Dollars) (Report EPS 1/RM/27), December 1992, published by the Department of the Environment; (b) Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms (Third Edition) (Reference Method EPA/821/R-02/014), October 2002, published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and (c) Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluent and Receiving Waters to West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms (First Edition) (Reference Method EPA/600/R ), August 1995, published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 6. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the sublethal toxicity tests under section 5 shall be conducted two times each calendar year for three years and once each year after the third year, with the first testing to occur on an effluent sample collected not later than six months after the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations. (2) Sublethal toxicity testing may be conducted once each calendar year, if the results of six sublethal toxicity tests conducted after December 31, 1997, on a fish species, an invertebrate species and either an aquatic plant species or an algal species are submitted to the authorization officer not later than six months after the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations. (ii) soit la Méthode d essai biologique : essais toxicologiques sur des salmonidés (truite arc-en-ciel) aux premiers stades de leur cycle biologique (Méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/28), publiée en juillet 1998 par le ministère de l Environnement; b) dans le cas d une espèce d invertébré, la Méthode d essai biologique : essai de reproduction et de survie sur le cladocère Ceriodaphnia dubia (Rapport SPE 1/RM/21), publiée en février 1992 par le ministère de l Environnement; c) dans le cas d une espèce de plante, la Méthode d essai biologique : essai de mesure de l inhibition de la croissance de la plante macroscopique dulcicole, Lemna minor (Méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/37), publiée en mars 1999 par le ministère de l Environnement; d) dans le cas d une espèce d algue : (i) soit la Méthode d essai biologique : essai d inhibition de la croissance de l algue d eau douce Selenastrum capricornutum (Rapport SPE 1/RM/25), publiée en novembre 1992 par le ministère de l Environnement, (ii) soit la méthode intitulée Détermination de la toxicité Inhibition de la croissance chez l algue Selenastrum capricornutum (Méthode de référence MA 500-S.cap.2.0), publiée en septembre 1997 par le Centre d expertise en analyse environnementale du Québec. (4) Les essais de toxicité sublétale visés à l alinéa (1)b) sont effectués conformément aux méthodes ci-après, avec leurs modifications successives, et selon les espèces en cause : a) la Méthode d essai biologique : essai sur la fécondation chez les échinides (oursins verts et oursins plats) (Rapport SPE/1/RM/ 27), publiée en décembre 1992 par le ministère de l Environnement; b) la méthode intitulée Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms (Third Edition) (Méthode de référence EPA/ 821/R-02/014), publiée en octobre 2002 par l Environmental Protection Agency des États-Unis; c) la méthode intitulée Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluent and Receiving Waters to West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms (First Edition) (Méthode de référence EPA/600/R ), publiée en août 1995 par l Environmental Protection Agency des États-Unis. 6. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), les essais de toxicité sublétale visés à l article 5 sont effectués deux fois par année civile pendant trois ans et, par la suite, une fois par année, le premier essai se faisant sur un échantillon d effluent prélevé au plus tard six mois suivant la date à laquelle la mine devient assujettie à l article 7 du présent règlement. (2) Les essais de toxicité sublétale peuvent être effectués une fois par année civile si les résultats de six essais de toxicité sublétale effectués après le 31 décembre 1997 sur une espèce de poisson et une espèce d invertébré et une espèce de plante aquatique ou d algue sont présentés à l agent d autorisation au plus tard six mois suivant la date à laquelle la mine devient assujettie à l article 7 du présent règlement. 38

90 DORS/ janvier 2012 WATER QUALITY MONITORING 7. (1) Water quality monitoring is conducted by (a) collecting samples of water from (i) the exposure area surrounding the point of entry of effluent into water from each final discharge point and from the related reference areas, and (ii) the sampling areas that are selected under paragraphs 12(b) and 13(a); (b) recording the temperature of the water and the dissolved oxygen concentration in the water in the exposure and reference areas where the samples are collected; (c) recording the concentration of the substances set out in paragraphs 4(1)(a) to (g) and, (i) in the case of effluent that is deposited into fresh water, recording the ph, hardness and alkalinity of the water samples, (ii) in the case of effluent that is deposited into estuarine waters, recording the ph, hardness, alkalinity and salinity of the water samples, and (iii) in the case of effluent that is deposited into marine waters, recording the salinity of the water samples; (d) recording the concentration of the deleterious substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4, but not recording the concentrations of cyanide, set out in item 3 of that Schedule, if that substance is not used as a process reagent within the operations area; and (e) implementing quality assurance and quality control measures that will ensure the accuracy of water quality monitoring data. (2) The water quality monitoring shall be conducted, starting not later than six months after the day on which the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations, (a) four times per calendar year and not less than one month apart on the samples of water collected, while the mine is depositing effluent, from the areas referred to in subparagraph (1)(a)(i); and (b) at the same time that the biological monitoring studies are conducted on samples of water collected in the areas referred to in subparagraph (1)(a)(ii). EFFLUENT AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING REPORT 8. A report on the effluent and water quality monitoring studies conducted during a calendar year under sections 4 to 7 shall be submitted to the authorization officer not later than March 31 of the following year, and shall include (a) the dates on which each sample was collected for effluent characterization, sublethal toxicity testing and water quality monitoring; (b) the locations of the final discharge points from which samples were collected for effluent characterization; SUIVI DE LA QUALITÉ DE L EAU 7. (1) Le suivi de la qualité de l eau s effectue : a) par prélèvement d échantillons d eau : (i) dans la zone exposée entourant l endroit où l effluent rejeté par chaque point de rejet final se mélange à l eau, et dans les zones de référence connexes, (ii) dans les zones d échantillonnage choisies aux termes des alinéas 12b) et 13a); b) par enregistrement de la température de l eau et de la concentration d oxygène dissous dans l eau des zones exposées et des zones de référence où les échantillons sont prélevés; c) par enregistrement de la concentration des substances énumérées aux alinéas 4(1)a) à g) et : (i) dans le cas où l effluent est rejeté dans l eau douce, par enregistrement du ph, de la dureté et de l alcalinité des échantillons d eau, (ii) dans le cas où il est rejeté dans l eau d estuaire, par enregistrement du ph, de la dureté, de l alcalinité et de la salinité des échantillons d eau, (iii) dans le cas où il est rejeté dans l eau de mer, par enregistrement de la salinité des échantillons d eau; d) par enregistrement de la concentration des substances nocives énumérées à la colonne 1 de l annexe 4, la concentration de cyanure n étant enregistrée que si cette substance, figurant à l article 3 de cette annexe, est utilisée comme réactif de procédé sur le chantier; e) par la prise des mesures d assurance de la qualité et de contrôle de la qualité pour garantir l exactitude des données visant le suivi de la qualité de l eau. (2) Le suivi de la qualité de l eau est effectué à la fréquence prévue aux alinéas a) et b), le premier se faisant au plus tard six mois suivant la date à laquelle la mine devient assujettie à l article 7 du présent règlement : a) quatre fois par année civile et à au moins un mois d intervalle sur les échantillons d eau prélevés lorsque la mine rejette l effluent dans les zones visées au sous-alinéa (1)a)(i); b) en même temps que les études de suivi biologique, sur les échantillons d eau prélevés dans les zones visées au sous-alinéa (1)a)(ii). RAPPORT DES ÉTUDES DE SUIVI DE L EFFLUENT ET DE LA QUALITÉ DE L EAU 8. Un rapport des études de suivi de l effluent et de la qualité de l eau effectuées au cours d une année civile en application des articles 4 à 7 est présenté à l agent d autorisation au plus tard le 31 mars de l année suivante et comporte les renseignements suivants : a) les dates de prélèvement des échantillons pour la caractérisation de l effluent, les essais de toxicité sublétale et le suivi de la qualité de l eau; b) l emplacement des points de rejet final où les échantillons ont été prélevés pour la caractérisation de l effluent; 39

91 SOR/ January 24, 2012 (c) the location of the final discharge point from which samples were collected for sublethal toxicity testing and the data on which the selection of the final discharge point was made in compliance with subsection 5(2); (d) the latitude and longitude of sampling areas for water quality monitoring, in degrees, minutes and seconds, and a description that is sufficient to identify the location of the sampling areas; (e) the results of effluent characterization, sublethal toxicity testing and water quality monitoring; (f) the methodologies used to conduct effluent characterization and water quality monitoring, and the related method detection limits; and (g) a description of quality assurance and quality control measures that were implemented and the data related to the implementation of those measures. c) l emplacement du point de rejet final où les échantillons ont été prélevés pour les essais de toxicité sublétale et les données qui ont servi à le sélectionner conformément au paragraphe 5(2); d) la latitude et la longitude des zones d échantillonnage utilisées pour le suivi de la qualité de l eau, exprimées en degrés, minutes et secondes, et une description qui permet de reconnaître l emplacement de ces zones; e) les résultats de la caractérisation de l effluent, des essais de toxicité sublétale et du suivi de la qualité de l eau; f) les méthodes utilisées pour la caractérisation de l effluent et le suivi de la qualité de l eau, ainsi que les limites de détection de celles-ci; g) les précisions voulues sur les mesures d assurance de la qualité et de contrôle de la qualité qui ont été prises ainsi que les données associées à leur mise en œuvre. PART 2 PARTIE 2 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING STUDIES REQUIRED STUDIES 9. Biological monitoring studies consist of (a) a site characterization; (b) a study respecting the fish population, if the concentration of effluent in the exposure area is greater than 1% in the area located within 250 m of a final discharge point; (c) a study respecting fish tissue, if during effluent characterization conducted under paragraph 4(1)(d) a concentration of total mercury in the effluent is identified that is equal to or greater than 0.10 µg/l; and (d) a study respecting benthic invertebrate community. ÉTUDES DE SUIVI BIOLOGIQUE COMPOSITION DES ÉTUDES 9. Les études de suivi biologique se composent : a) de la caractérisation du site; b) d une étude sur la population de poissons dans le cas où la concentration de l effluent dans la zone exposée est supérieure à 1 % en deçà de 250 m d un point de rejet final; c) d une étude sur les tissus de poissons si une concentration de mercure total égale ou supérieure à 0,10 µg/l a été relevée lors de la caractérisation de l effluent aux termes de l alinéa 4(1)d); d) d une étude sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques. DIVISION 1 SECTION 1 THE FIRST BIOLOGICAL MONITORING STUDIES First Study Design 10. Prior to the conduct of the biological monitoring studies, a study design shall be submitted in accordance with section 14 that contains (a) a site characterization that includes the information required by section 11; (b) a description of how the study respecting the fish population will be conducted, if such a study is required under paragraph 9(b), that includes (i) the information referred to in paragraphs 12(a) to (d), and (ii) how the study will provide the information necessary to determine if the effluent has an effect on the fish population; (c) a description of how the study respecting fish tissue will be conducted, if that study is required under paragraph 9(c), that includes (i) the information referred to in paragraphs 12(a) to (d), and PREMIÈRES ÉTUDES DE SUIVI BIOLOGIQUE Premier plan d étude 10. Avant que soient effectuées les études de suivi biologique, un plan d étude est présenté conformément à l article 14 et comporte les éléments suivants : a) la caractérisation du site comportant les renseignements prévus à l article 11; b) les précisions voulues sur le déroulement de l étude sur la population de poissons, si une telle étude est exigée en vertu de l alinéa 9b), notamment : (i) les renseignements prévus aux alinéas 12a) à d), (ii) la façon dont l étude fournira les renseignements permettant de déterminer si l effluent a un effet sur la population de poissons; c) les précisions voulues sur le déroulement de l étude sur les tissus de poissons, si une telle étude est exigée en vertu de l alinéa 9c), notamment : 40

92 DORS/ janvier 2012 (ii) how the study will provide the information necessary to determine if the effluent has an effect on fish tissue; (d) a description of how the study respecting the benthic invertebrate community will be conducted that includes (i) the information referred to in paragraphs 13(a) to (d), and (ii) how the study will provide the information necessary to determine if the effluent has an effect on the benthic invertebrate community; (e) the dates and times that the samples will be collected for the biological monitoring; (f) a description of the quality assurance and quality control measures that will be implemented to ensure the validity of the data that is collected; and (g) a summary of the results of any biological monitoring studies that were submitted under subparagraph 14(b)(iii). 11. A site characterization shall include the following information: (a) a description of the manner in which the effluent mixes within the exposure area, including an estimate of the concentration of effluent in water at 250 m from each final discharge point; (b) a description of the reference and exposure areas where the biological monitoring studies will be conducted that includes information on the geological, hydrological, oceanographical, limnological, chemical and biological features of those areas; (c) the type of production process used by the mine, and the environmental protection practices in place at the mine; (d) a summary of any federal, provincial or other laws applicable to the mine in respect of effluent and environmental monitoring; (e) a description of any anthropogenic, natural or other factors that are not related to the effluent under study and that may reasonably be expected to contribute to any observed effect; and (f) any additional information relevant to the site characterization. 12. The information respecting the fish population and fish tissue studies shall include a description of and the scientific rationale for (a) the fish species selected, taking into account the abundance of the species most exposed to effluent; (b) the sampling areas selected; (c) the sample size selected; and (d) the field and laboratory methodologies selected. 13. The information respecting the benthic invertebrate community studies shall include a description of and the scientific rationale for (a) the sampling areas selected, taking into account the benthic invertebrate diversity and the area most exposed to effluent; (b) the sample size selected; (i) les renseignements prévus aux alinéas 12a) à d), (ii) la façon dont l étude fournira les renseignements permettant de déterminer si l effluent a un effet sur les tissus de poissons; d) les précisions voulues sur le déroulement de l étude sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques, notamment : (i) les renseignements prévus aux alinéas 13a) à d), (ii) la façon dont l étude fournira les renseignements permettant de déterminer si l effluent a un effet sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques; e) les date et heure de prélèvement de tous les échantillons; f) les précisions voulues sur les mesures d assurance de la qualité et de contrôle de la qualité qui seront prises pour garantir la validité des données recueillies; g) un sommaire des résultats de toutes études de suivi biologique présentés aux termes du sous-alinéa 14b)(iii). 11. La caractérisation du site comporte les renseignements suivants : a) une description de la façon dont l effluent se mélange dans la zone exposée, y compris une estimation de la concentration de l effluent à 250 m de chacun des points de rejet final; b) une description des zones de référence et des zones exposées où les études de suivi biologique seront effectuées, y compris les renseignements sur les caractéristiques géologiques, hydrologiques, océanographiques, limnologiques, chimiques et biologiques de ces zones; c) le type de procédé de production utilisé par la mine et les pratiques de protection de l environnement appliquées à la mine; d) un sommaire des exigences législatives fédérales, provinciales ou autres visant la mine et portant sur le suivi de l effluent et de l environnement; e) les facteurs anthropiques, naturels ou autres non liés à l effluent étudié, mais dont on peut raisonnablement s attendre à ce qu ils contribuent à tout effet observé; f) tout renseignement supplémentaire propre à la caractérisation du site. 12. Les renseignements concernant l étude sur la population de poissons et l étude sur les tissus de poissons comprennent, motifs scientifiques à l appui, les éléments suivants : a) les espèces de poissons choisies, compte tenu de l abondance des espèces les plus exposées à l effluent; b) les zones d échantillonnage choisies; c) la taille des échantillons choisie; d) les méthodes sur le terrain et en laboratoire qui ont été choisies. 13. Les renseignements concernant les études sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques comprennent, motifs scientifiques à l appui, les éléments suivants : a) les zones d échantillonnage choisies, compte tenu de la diversité des invertébrés benthiques et de la zone la plus exposée à l effluent; 41

93 SOR/ January 24, 2012 (c) the sampling season selected; and (d) the field and laboratory methodologies selected. Submission of the First Study Design 14. The first study design shall be submitted to the authorization officer not later than (a) 12 months after the day on which the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations; or (b) 24 months after the day on which the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations if (i) biological monitoring studies are completed before the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations, (ii) the biological monitoring studies referred to in subparagraph (i) determine whether the effluent was causing an effect on fish population, fish tissue or the benthic invertebrate community, and (iii) the results of the biological monitoring studies are submitted to the authorization officer along with a report that contains scientific data to support the results not later than 12 months after the day on which the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations. Conducting the First Biological Monitoring Studies 15. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the first biological monitoring studies shall start not sooner than six months after the day on which a study design is submitted under section 14, and shall be conducted in accordance with that study design. (2) If it is impossible to follow the study design because of unusual circumstances, the owner or operator may deviate from the study design but shall inform the authorization officer without delay of those circumstances and of how the study was or will be conducted. Assessment of Data Collected from Studies 16. The data collected during the biological monitoring studies shall be used (a) to calculate the mean, the median, the standard deviation, the standard error and the minimum and maximum values in the sampling areas for (i) in the case of a fish population survey, indicators of growth, reproduction, condition and survival that include, where practicable, the length, total body weight and age of the fish, the weight of its liver or hepatopancreas and, if the fish are sexually mature, the egg size, fecundity and gonad weight of the fish, (ii) in the case of the fish tissue analyses, the concentration of total mercury wet weight in the fish tissue, and (iii) in the case of a benthic invertebrate community survey, the total benthic invertebrate density, the evenness index, the taxa richness and the similarity index and, if the survey is conducted in an area where it is possible to sample sediment, the total organic carbon content of sediment and the particle size distribution of sediment; and b) la taille des échantillons choisie; c) la période d échantillonnage choisie; d) les méthodes sur le terrain et en laboratoire qui ont été choisies. Présentation du premier plan d étude 14. Le premier plan d étude est présenté à l agent d autorisation : a) soit au plus tard douze mois suivant la date à laquelle la mine devient assujettie à l article 7 du présent règlement; b) soit au plus tard vingt-quatre mois suivant la date à laquelle la mine devient assujettie à l article 7 du présent règlement si les conditions suivantes sont réunies : (i) les études de suivi biologique ont été faites avant cette date, (ii) les études indiquent si l effluent produit un effet sur les populations de poissons, sur les tissus de poissons ou sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques, (iii) les résultats des études sont présentés à l agent d autorisation au plus tard douze mois suivant cette date et sont accompagnés d un rapport comportant les données scientifiques justificatives. Délais pour effectuer les premières études de suivi biologique 15. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), les premières études de suivi biologique débutent au plus tôt six mois suivant la date à laquelle le plan d étude a été présenté en application de l article 14 et sont effectuées conformément à ce plan. (2) Le propriétaire ou l exploitant n a pas à suivre le plan d étude si des circonstances inhabituelles l en empêchent, auquel cas il en avise sans délai l agent d autorisation et l informe des modifications à apporter aux modalités du déroulement de l étude. Évaluation des données des études 16. Les données des études de suivi biologique doivent être utilisées : a) pour calculer la moyenne, la médiane, l écart-type, l erreur-type ainsi que les valeurs minimales et maximales dans la zone d échantillonnage quant aux éléments suivants : (i) dans le cas de l étude sur la population de poissons, les indicateurs de la croissance des poissons, de leur reproduction, de leur condition et de leur survie qui comprennent, dans la mesure du possible, la longueur, le poids corporel total, l âge, le poids du foie ou de l hépatopancréas et, si les poissons ont atteint la maturité sexuelle, la taille des œufs, le taux de fécondité et le poids des gonades, (ii) dans le cas de l étude sur les tissus de poissons, la concentration de mercure total (poids humide) dans les tissus, (iii) dans le cas de l étude sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques, la densité totale des invertébrés benthiques, l indice de régularité, la richesse des taxons et l indice de similitude et, si des sédiments peuvent être prélevés à l endroit où s effectue 42

94 DORS/ janvier 2012 (b) to identify the sex of the fish sampled and the presence of any lesions, tumours, parasites or other abnormalities; (c) to conduct an analysis of the results of the calculations under paragraph (a) and information identified under paragraph (b) to determine if there is a statistical difference between the sampling areas; and (d) to conduct a statistical analysis of the results of the calculations under paragraph (a) to estimate the probability of correctly detecting an effect of a pre-defined size and the degree of confidence that can be placed in the calculations. First Interpretative Report 17. The first biological monitoring studies conducted under section 15 shall be followed by an interpretative report that contains the following information: (a) a description of any deviation from the study design that occurred while the biological monitoring studies were being conducted and any impact that the deviation had on the studies; (b) the latitude and longitude of sampling areas in degrees, minutes and seconds and a description of the sampling areas sufficient to identify the location of the sampling areas; (c) the dates and times when samples were collected; (d) the sample sizes; (e) the results of the data assessment made under section 16 and any supporting raw data; (f) based on the results referred to in paragraph (e), the identification of any effect on (i) the fish population, (ii) fish tissue, and (iii) the benthic invertebrate community; (g) a comparison of the results referred to in paragraph (f) and the results of the sublethal toxicity testing reported under paragraph 8(e) to determine if there is a correlation; (h) the conclusions of the biological monitoring studies, taking into account (i) the results of any previous biological monitoring studies submitted under paragraph 14(b), (ii) the presence of anthropogenic, natural or other factors that are not related to the effluent under study and that may reasonably be expected to contribute to any observed effect, (iii) the results of the statistical analysis conducted under paragraphs 16(c) and (d), and (iv) a description of quality assurance or quality control measures that were implemented and the data related to the implementation of those measures; (i) a description of how the results will impact the study design for subsequent biological monitoring studies; and l étude, la teneur en carbone organique total des sédiments et la distribution granulométrique de ceux-ci; b) pour déterminer le sexe des poissons pris et la présence de lésions, de tumeurs, de parasites et autres anomalies; c) pour effectuer une analyse des résultats des calculs effectués en application de l alinéa a) et de l information déterminée au titre de l alinéa b) qui indique s il existe une différence statistique entre les zones d échantillonnage; d) pour effectuer une analyse statistique des résultats des calculs effectués en application de l alinéa a) qui indique la probabilité de détection correcte d un effet d une ampleur prédéterminée ainsi que le degré de confiance pouvant être accordé aux calculs. Premier rapport d interprétation 17. Les premières études de suivi biologique effectuées en application de l article 15 sont suivies d un rapport d interprétation qui comporte les éléments suivants : a) les écarts par rapport au plan d étude qui se sont produits durant les études et l incidence de ces écarts sur les études; b) la latitude et la longitude des zones d échantillonnage, exprimées en degrés, en minutes et en secondes, et une description qui permet de reconnaître l emplacement de ces zones; c) les dates et heures de prélèvement des échantillons; d) la taille des échantillons; e) les résultats de l évaluation des données effectuée en application de l article 16 et les données brutes justificatives; f) selon les résultats visés à l alinéa e), l indication : (i) de tout effet sur la population de poissons, (ii) de tout effet sur les tissus de poissons, (iii) de tout effet sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques; g) une comparaison des résultats visés à l alinéa f) et des résultats des essais de toxicité sublétale visés à l alinéa 8e) pour indiquer s il existe une corrélation; h) les conclusions des études de suivi biologique compte tenu des éléments suivants : (i) les résultats de toute étude de suivi biologique antérieure présentée en application de l alinéa 14b), (ii) la présence de facteurs anthropiques, naturels ou autres non liés à l effluent à l étude et dont on peut raisonnablement s attendre à ce qu ils contribuent à tout effet observé, (iii) les résultats de l analyse statistique effectuée au titre des alinéas 16c) et d), (iv) les précisions voulues sur les mesures d assurance de la qualité et de contrôle de la qualité qui ont été prises ainsi que les données associées à leur mise en œuvre; i) l incidence des résultats sur le plan d étude des études de suivi biologique subséquentes; j) la date de la prochaine étude de suivi biologique. 43

95 SOR/ January 24, 2012 (j) the date when the next biological monitoring study will be conducted. 18. The first interpretative report shall be submitted (a) not later than 30 months after the date the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations, if the study design was submitted under paragraph 14(a); or (b) not later than 42 months after the date the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations, if the study design was submitted under paragraph 14(b). 18. Le premier rapport d interprétation est présenté : a) soit au plus tard trente mois suivant la date à laquelle la mine devient assujettie à l article 7 du présent règlement, dans le cas où le plan d étude a été présenté en application de l alinéa 14a); b) soit au plus tard quarante-deux mois suivant la date à laquelle la mine devient assujettie à l article 7 du présent règlement, dans le cas où le plan d étude a été présenté en application de l alinéa 14b). DIVISION 2 SECTION 2 SUBSEQUENT BIOLOGICAL MONITORING STUDIES Subsequent Study Designs 19. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the study design for a second and any subsequent biological monitoring study shall be submitted to the authorization officer at least six months before a second or subsequent biological monitoring study is conducted, and shall include (a) a summary of the information referred to in paragraph 10(a) and, where applicable, a detailed description of any changes to that information since the submission of the most recent study design; (b) the information referred to in paragraphs 10(b) to (f); (c) a summary of the results of any previous biological monitoring studies that were conducted after the coming into force of section 7 of these Regulations respecting the fish population, fish tissue analyses and the benthic invertebrate community; and (d) if the results of the two previous biological monitoring studies indicate a similar type of effect on the fish population, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, a description of one or more additional sampling areas within the exposure area that shall be used to assess the magnitude and geographic extent of the effect. (2) If the results of the previous biological monitoring study indicate the magnitude and geographic extent of an effect on the fish population, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, the study design shall include the information required by paragraph (1)(c) and a detailed description of what field and laboratory studies will be used to determine the cause of the effect. Conduct of Subsequent Biological Monitoring Studies 20. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the second and any subsequent monitoring studies shall be conducted in accordance with the study design submitted under section 19. (2) If unusual circumstances make it impossible to follow the study design, the owner or operator must inform the authorization officer without delay. ÉTUDES DE SUIVI BIOLOGIQUE SUBSÉQUENTES Plans des études subséquents 19. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le plan de la deuxième étude de suivi biologique et de toute étude de suivi biologique subséquente est présenté à l agent d autorisation au moins six mois avant le début de l étude et comporte : a) un sommaire des renseignements prévus à l alinéa 10a) ainsi qu une description détaillée des modifications apportées depuis la soumission de la dernière étude de suivi biologique, le cas échéant; b) les renseignements prévus aux alinéas 10b) à f); c) un sommaire des résultats de toute étude de suivi biologique sur la population de poissons, sur les tissus de poissons et sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques qui a été effectuée après l entrée en vigueur de l article 7 du présent règlement; d) la description d une ou de plusieurs zones d échantillonnage supplémentaires dans la zone exposée qui doivent être ajoutées pour permettre la détermination de l ampleur et de la portée géographique de l effet, si les résultats des deux dernières études de suivi biologique indiquent un effet semblable sur la population de poissons, sur les tissus de poissons ou sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques. (2) Si les résultats de la dernière étude de suivi biologique indiquent l ampleur et la portée géographique de l effet sur la population de poissons, sur les tissus de poissons ou sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques, le plan d étude comporte les renseignements prévus à l alinéa (1)c) ainsi que les précisions voulues sur les études sur le terrain et les études en laboratoire qui seront effectuées pour déterminer la cause de l effet. Déroulement des études de suivi biologique subséquentes 20. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), la deuxième étude de suivi biologique et toute étude de suivi biologique subséquente sont effectuées conformément au plan d étude présenté en application de l article 19. (2) Si des circonstances inhabituelles font qu il est impossible de se conformer au plan d étude, le propriétaire ou l exploitant en informe sans délai l agent d autorisation. 44

96 DORS/ janvier 2012 Content of Subsequent Interpretative Reports 21. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the second and subsequent biological monitoring studies conducted under section 20 shall be followed by an interpretative report that contains (a) the information referred to in paragraphs 17(a) to (j); and (b) if the study design that was submitted under subsection 19(1) contains information referred to in paragraph 19(1)(d), the magnitude and geographic extent of the effect referred to in that paragraph. (2) If the study design was submitted under subsection 19(2), the interpretative report shall contain only the cause of the effect referred to in that subsection and, if the cause was not determined, an explanation of why and a description of any steps that must be taken in the next study to determine that cause. Submission of the Subsequent Interpretative Reports 22. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the interpretative report of the second and any subsequent biological monitoring studies shall be submitted to an authorization officer not later than 36 months after the day on which the interpretative report of the previous biological monitoring study was required to be submitted. (2) The interpretative report of the second and subsequently conducted biological monitoring studies shall be submitted (a) not later than 24 months after the day on which the interpretative report of the previous study was required to be submitted, if the results of the previous study indicate an effect on fish populations, on fish tissue and on the benthic invertebrate community; (b) not later than 72 months after the day on which the interpretative report of the previous study was required to be submitted, if the results of the previous two consecutive biological monitoring studies indicate no effect on fish populations, on fish tissue and on the benthic invertebrate community; or (c) not later than 24 months after the day on which the interpretative report of the previous study was required to be submitted, if the results of the previous two consecutive biological monitoring studies indicate an effect on fish populations, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, and if the magnitude or geographic extent of the effect or cause of the effect is not known. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), if an owner or operator of a mine is not required to conduct a study on the fish population or on fish tissue under paragraph 9(b) or (c), the effluent is considered to have no effect on the fish population or on fish tissue respectively. Rapports d interprétation subséquents 21. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), la deuxième étude de suivi biologique et toute étude de suivi biologique subséquente effectuées en application de l article 20 sont suivies d un rapport d interprétation qui comporte les éléments suivants : a) les renseignements visés aux alinéas 17a) à j); b) si le plan d étude présenté en application du paragraphe 19(1) comporte les renseignements visés à l alinéa 19(1)d), l ampleur et la portée géographique de l effet visé à cet alinéa. (2) Si le plan d étude est présenté en application du paragraphe 19(2), le rapport d interprétation ne comporte que la cause de l effet visé à ce paragraphe et, si la cause n a pas été déterminée, les raisons de l échec ainsi que les mesures à prendre pour déterminer cette cause lors de la prochaine étude. Fréquence de la présentation des rapports d interprétation 22. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le rapport d interprétation de la deuxième étude de suivi biologique et de toute étude de suivi biologique subséquente est présentée à l agent d autorisation au plus tard trente-six mois suivant la date limite de présentation du rapport d interprétation de la dernière étude de suivi biologique. (2) Le rapport d interprétation de la deuxième étude de suivi biologique et celui de toute étude subséquente sont présentés : a) soit au plus tard vingt-quatre mois suivant la date limite de présentation du rapport d interprétation de la dernière étude si les résultats de cette étude indiquent un effet sur la population de poissons, sur les tissus de poissons et sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques; b) soit au plus tard soixante-douze mois suivant la date limite de présentation du rapport d interprétation de la dernière étude si les résultats des deux dernières études consécutives n indiquent aucun effet sur la population de poissons, sur les tissus de poissons et sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques; c) soit au plus tard vingt-quatre mois suivant la date limite de présentation du rapport d interprétation de la dernière étude si les résultats des deux dernières études consécutives indiquent un effet sur la population de poissons, sur les tissus de poissons ou sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques et que l ampleur ou la portée géographique de l effet ou sa cause sont inconnus. (3) Pour l application du paragraphe (2), si une étude sur la population de poissons ou une étude sur les tissus de poissons n a pas à être faite en application des alinéas 9b) ou c), il est considéré que l effluent n a pas d effet sur cette population ou sur ces tissus. DIVISION 3 SECTION 3 FINAL BIOLOGICAL MONITORING STUDY PRIOR TO CLOSING MINE Final Study Design 23. (1) If an owner or operator of a mine has provided to the authorization officer a notice to close a mine under subsection 32(1) of these Regulations, a study design shall be submitted to the authoriza- ÉTUDE DE SUIVI BIOLOGIQUE FINALE AVANT LA FERMETURE D UNE MINE Plan de l étude finale 23. (1) Lorsque le propriétaire ou l exploitant d une mine a présenté à l agent d autorisation un avis de fermeture de sa mine en application du paragraphe 32(1) du présent règlement, le plan d étude 45

97 SOR/ January 24, 2012 tion officer, not later than six months after providing the notice, and shall include (a) if study design is submitted for the first time, the information referred to in paragraph 10(a) and, in all other cases, a summary of the information referred to in paragraph 10(a) and, where applicable, a detailed description of any changes to that information since the submission of the most recent study design; (b) the information referred to in paragraphs 10(b) to (f); (c) a summary of the results of any previous biological monitoring studies that were conducted after the date of registration of these Regulations respecting the fish population, fish tissue and the benthic invertebrate community; and (d) if the results of the two previous biological monitoring studies indicate that there is an effect on the fish population, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, a description of one or more additional sampling areas within the exposure area, which additional sampling areas shall be used to assess the magnitude and geographic extent of the effect. (2) If the results of the previous biological monitoring studies indicate the magnitude and geographic extent of an effect on fish population, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, the study design shall include the information required by paragraph (1)(c) and a detailed description of what field and laboratory studies will be used to determine the cause of the effect. Conduct of Final Biological Monitoring Studies 24. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the final monitoring studies shall be conducted in accordance with the study design submitted under section 23 not sooner than six months after the day on which the final study design has been submitted. (2) If unusual circumstances make it impossible to follow the study design, the owner or operator must inform the authorization officer without delay. Content of Final Interpretative Report 25. The final biological monitoring studies conducted under section 24 shall be followed by an interpretative report that contains (a) the information referred to in paragraphs 17(a) to (h); (b) if the study design that was submitted under subsection 23(1) contains the information referred to in paragraph 23(1)(d), the magnitude and geographic extent of the effect referred to in that paragraph; and (c) if the study design was submitted under subsection 23(2), the cause of the effect referred to in that subsection. Submission of the Final Interpretative Report 26. The final interpretative report shall be submitted to the authorization officer not later than 36 months after the day on which the notice to close the mine was provided under subsection 32(1) of these Regulations. SOR/ , ss. 26 to 33, 34(F). est présenté à l agent d autorisation au plus tard six mois suivant la date de présentation de l avis et comporte : a) s il s agit du premier plan d étude, les renseignements prévus à l alinéa 10a) et, dans les autres cas, un sommaire des renseignements prévus à l alinéa 10a) ainsi qu une description détaillée des modifications apportées depuis la soumission de la dernière étude de suivi biologique, le cas échéant; b) les renseignements prévus aux alinéas 10b) à f); c) un sommaire des résultats de toute étude de suivi biologique antérieure effectuée après la date d enregistrement du présent règlement et portant sur la population de poissons, les tissus de poissons et la communauté d invertébrés benthiques; d) la description d une ou plusieurs zones d échantillonnage supplémentaires dans la zone exposée qui doivent être ajoutées pour permettre la détermination de l ampleur et de la portée géographique de l effet, si les résultats des deux dernières études de suivi biologique indiquent un effet sur la population de poissons, sur les tissus de poissons ou sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques. (2) Si les résultats de la dernière étude de suivi biologique indiquent l ampleur et la portée géographique de l effet sur la population de poissons, sur les tissus de poissons ou sur la communauté d invertébrés benthiques, le plan d étude comporte les renseignements prévus à l alinéa (1)c) ainsi que les précisions voulues sur les études sur le terrain et sur les études en laboratoire qui seront effectuées pour déterminer la cause de l effet. Déroulement de l étude de suivi biologique finale 24. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), l étude de suivi biologique finale est effectuée conformément au plan d étude présenté en application de l article 23 au plus tôt six mois après la soumission du plan. (2) Si des circonstances inhabituelles font qu il est impossible de se conformer au plan d étude, le propriétaire ou l exploitant en informe sans délai l agent d autorisation. Rapport d interprétation final 25. L étude de suivi biologique finale effectuée en application de l article 24 est suivie par un rapport d interprétation qui comporte les éléments suivants : a) les renseignements visés aux alinéas 17a) à h); b) si le plan d étude a été présenté en application du paragraphe 23(1) et comporte les renseignements visés à l alinéa 23(1)d), l ampleur et la portée géographique de l effet visé à cet alinéa; c) si le plan d étude a été présenté en application du paragraphe 23(2), la cause de l effet visé à ce paragraphe. Présentation du rapport d interprétation final 26. Le rapport d interprétation final est présenté à l agent d autorisation au plus tard trente-six mois suivant la date de remise de l avis de fermeture de la mine en application du paragraphe 32(1) du présent règlement. DORS/ , art. 26 à 33, 34(F). 46

98 DORS/ janvier 2012 SCHEDULE 6 (Section 22) ANNEXE 6 (article 22) ANNUAL REPORT SUMMARIZING EFFLUENT MONITORING RESULTS RAPPORT ANNUEL RÉSUMANT LES RÉSULTATS DU SUIVI DE L EFFLUENT PART 1 PARTIE 1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 1. Name of the mine 1. Nom de la mine 2. Address of the mine 2. Adresse de la mine RENSEIGNEMENTS IDENTIFICATOIRES 3. Name of the operator of the mine 3. Nom de l exploitant de la mine 4. Operator s telephone number and address, if any 4. Numéro de téléphone de l exploitant et adresse électronique, le cas échéant 5. Reporting period 5. Période visée 6. Date of report 6. Date du rapport PART 2 PARTIE 2 TEST RESULTS RESPECTING EACH FINAL DISCHARGE POINT 1. Complete the following table with the monthly mean concentration for the deleterious substances set out in the table for each final discharge point and identify the location of the final discharge point. 2. Any measurement not taken because there was no deposit from the final discharge point shall be identified by the letters NDEP (No Deposit). 3. Any measurement not taken because no measurement was required in accordance with the conditions set out in section 12 or 13 of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations shall be identified by the letters NMR (No Measurement Required). RÉSULTATS DES ESSAIS À CHACUN DES POINTS DE REJET FINAL 1. Remplir le tableau suivant pour chaque point de rejet final, identifier son emplacement et indiquer la moyenne mensuelle de la concentration des substances nocives. 2. S il n y a pas eu de résultats parce qu il n y avait pas de rejet à partir du point de rejet final, inscrire «A.R.» (aucun rejet). 3. S il n y a pas eu de mesure parce que l article 12 ou 13 du Règlement sur le effluents des mines de métaux n en exigeait aucune, inscrire «A.M.E.» (aucune mesure exigée). Location of final discharge point: Month As (mg/l) Cu (mg/l) CN (mg/l) Pb (mg/l) Ni (mg/l) Zn (mg/l) TSS (mg/l) Ra 226 (Bq/L) Lowest ph Highest ph Effluent Volume (m 3 ) Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 47

99 SOR/ January 24, 2012 Emplacement du point de rejet final : Mois As (mg/l) Cu (mg/l) CN (mg/l) Pb (mg/l) Ni (mg/l) Zn (mg/l) TSS (mg/l) Ra 226 (Bq/L) ph le plus bas ph le plus haut Volume d effluent (m 3 ) Janv. Févr. Mars Avr. Mai Juin Juill. Août Sept. Oct. Nov. Déc. PART 3 PARTIE 3 RESULTS OF ACUTE LETHALITY TESTS AND DAPHNIA MAGNA MONITORING TESTS RÉSULTATS DES ESSAIS DE DÉTERMINATION DE LA LÉTALITÉ AIGUË ET DES ESSAIS DE SUIVI AVEC BIOESSAIS SUR LA DAPHNIA MAGNA Location of final discharge point: Date Sample Collected Results for Rainbow Trout Acute Lethality Tests (mean percentage mortality in 100% effluent test concentration) Results for Daphnia magna Monitoring Tests (mean percentage mortality in 100% effluent test concentration) Emplacement du point de rejet final : Date du prélèvement de l échantillon Résultats des essais de détermination de la létalité aiguë sur la truite arc-en-ciel (pourcentage moyen de mortalité dans l effluent non dilué) Résultats des essais de suivi avec bioessais sur la Daphnia magna (pourcentage moyen de mortalité dans l effluent non dilué) 48

100 DORS/ janvier 2012 PART 4 PARTIE 4 NON-COMPLIANCE INFORMATION 1. If the results of the effluent monitoring tests indicate that the limits set out in Schedule 4 were exceeded, indicate the cause(s) of that non-compliance and remedial measures planned or implemented. 2. Indicate remedial measures planned or implemented in response to the failure of rainbow trout acute lethality tests. SOR/ , s. 35. RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LA NON-CONFORMITÉ 1. Si les résultats des essais de suivi de l effluent montrent que les limites prévues à l annexe 4 ont été dépassées, en indiquer les causes ainsi que les mesures correctives projetées ou prises. 2. Indiquer les mesures correctives projetées ou prises en cas de résultats non conformes des essais de détermination de la létalité aiguë sur la truite arc-en-ciel. DORS/ , art

101 SOR/ January 24, 2012 SCHEDULE 6.1 (Section 29) PRESCRIBED PERSONS FOR REPORTING ANNEXE 6.1 (article 29) AUTORITÉS DÉSIGNÉES AUX FINS DE RAPPORT Column 1 Column 2 Item Province Position 1. Ontario Regional Director Environmental Enforcement Division Ontario Environment Canada 2. Quebec Regional Director Environmental Enforcement Division Quebec Environment Canada 3. Nova Scotia Regional Director Environmental Enforcement Division Atlantic Environment Canada 4. New Brunswick Regional Director Environmental Enforcement Division Atlantic Environment Canada 5. Manitoba Regional Director Environmental Enforcement Division Prairie and Northern Environment Canada 6. British Columbia Regional Director Environmental Enforcement Division Pacific and Yukon Environment Canada 7. Prince Edward Island Regional Director Environmental Enforcement Division Atlantic Environment Canada 8. Saskatchewan Executive Director Compliance and Field Services Branch Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment 9. Alberta Director Enforcement and Monitoring Division Alberta Ministry of Environment 10. Newfoundland and Labrador Regional Director Environmental Enforcement Division Atlantic Environment Canada 11. Yukon Regional Director Environmental Enforcement Division Pacific and Yukon Environment Canada 12. Northwest Territories Regional Director Environmental Enforcement Division Prairie and Northern Environment Canada 13. Nunavut Regional Director Environmental Enforcement Division Prairie and Northern Environment Canada Colonne 1 Colonne 2 Article Province Poste 1. Ontario Directeur régional Division de l application de la loi en environnement Ontario Environnement Canada 2. Québec Directeur régional Division de l application de la loi en environnement Québec Environnement Canada 3. Nouvelle-Écosse Directeur régional Division de l application de la loi en environnement Atlantique Environnement Canada 4. Nouveau-Brunswick Directeur régional Division de l application de la loi en environnement Atlantique Environnement Canada 5. Manitoba Directeur régional Division de l application de la loi en environnement Prairies et Nord Environnement Canada 6. Colombie- Britannique 7. Île-du-Prince- Édouard Directeur régional Division de l application de la loi en environnement Pacifique et Yukon Environnement Canada Directeur régional Division de l application de la loi en environnement Atlantique Environnement Canada 8. Saskatchewan Executive Director Compliance and Field Services Branch Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment 9. Alberta Director Enforcement and Monitoring Division Alberta Ministry of Environment 10. Terre-Neuve-et- Labrador Directeur régional Division de l application de la loi en environnement Atlantique Environnement Canada 11. Yukon Directeur régional Division de l application de la loi en environnement Pacifique et Yukon Environnement Canada 12. Territoires du Nord- Ouest Directeur régional Division de l application de la loi en environnement Prairies et Nord Environnement Canada 13. Nunavut Directeur régional Division de l application de la loi en environnement Prairies et Nord Environnement Canada SOR/ , s. 35; SOR/ , s. 7. DORS/ , art. 35; DORS/ , art

102 DORS/ janvier 2012 SCHEDULE 7 (Paragraphs 34(4)(a) and (d) and (5)(a) and (d)) ANNEXE 7 (alinéas 34(4)a) et d) et (5)a) et d)) PART 1 PARTIE 1 INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN AN APPLICATION FOR A TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION 1. The name, address and telephone number of the applicant. 2. The name, position title, telephone number, facsimile number and address of a contact person. 3. The name, mailing address and geographic location of the mine. 4. A general description of the mining operation with details of the parts of the operation for which the application is made. 5. A site plan showing the location of the main mining and milling facilities, the effluent treatment facilities and all the final discharge points. 6. All available ph data and data related to the monthly mean concentrations of the deleterious substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4 in the effluent for which the application is made for the one-year period immediately preceding the date of application. 7. The effluent flow rate at each final discharge point. 8. The available results of all acute lethality tests related to the effluent for which the application is made for the one-year period immediately preceding the date of application. 9. Plans, specifications and other information on the design and capability of the effluent treatment process in place at the mine on the date of application. 10. Based on the best available information at the time of application, a description of the facilities and procedures that are necessary to produce a non-acutely lethal effluent that complies with the authorized limits of the substances set out in column 1 of Schedule A proposed schedule for the construction of the facilities and implementation of the procedures. 12. The details of any effluent monitoring results related to fish, fish habitat or the human use of fish that are known to the operator. 13. A signed statement indicating whether there is a law in the jurisdiction where the mine is located, and the identification of that law, that requires the mine to produce (a) a non-acutely lethal effluent; (b) an effluent containing a deleterious substance in a concentration that is equal to or less than the limits set out in Schedule 4; or (c) an effluent with a ph equal to or greater than 6.0 but not greater than Any further information that is required to support the application. RENSEIGNEMENTS DEVANT FIGURER DANS LA DEMANDE D AUTORISATION TRANSITOIRE 1. Les nom, adresse et numéro de téléphone du demandeur. 2. Les nom, fonction, numéros de téléphone et de télécopieur et l adresse électronique d une personne-ressource. 3. Les nom, adresse postale et emplacement géographique de la mine. 4. Une description générale de l exploitation minière, avec des précisions sur les éléments de l exploitation qui sont visés par la demande. 5. Un plan du site indiquant l emplacement des principales installations d extraction et de préparation du minerai, des installations de traitement de l effluent et de tout point de rejet final. 6. Toutes les données disponibles sur le ph et celles portant sur les concentrations mensuelles moyennes des substances nocives énumérées à la colonne 1 de l annexe 4 dans l effluent visé par la demande pour la période d un an précédant la date de la demande. 7. Le débit de l effluent à chaque point de rejet final. 8. Les résultats disponibles de tous les essais de détermination de la létalité aiguë de l effluent visé par la demande pour la période d un an précédant la date de la demande. 9. Les plans, les spécifications et tous autres renseignements sur la conception et la capacité du procédé de traitement de l effluent en place à la mine à la date de la demande. 10. Selon les meilleures données connues au moment de la demande, une description des installations et des pratiques nécessaires pour produire un effluent à létalité non aiguë qui respecte les limites permises pour les substances énumérées à la colonne 1 de l annexe Un projet de calendrier de construction des installations et de mise en œuvre des pratiques. 12. Le détail de tous les résultats du suivi de l effluent se rapportant au poisson, à son habitat ou à l utilisation du poisson par l homme, qui sont connus de l exploitant. 13. Une déclaration signée qui fait mention de toute loi de l autorité législative du territoire où est située la mine exigeant la production par la mine d un effluent qui possède les caractéristiques suivantes : a) il présente une létalité non aiguë; b) toute substance nocive qu il contient a une concentration égale ou inférieure aux limites établies à l annexe 4; c) son ph est égal ou supérieur à 6,0 mais ne dépasse pas 9,5; 14. Tous les autres renseignements nécessaires à l appui de la demande. 51

103 SOR/ January 24, 2012 PART 2 PARTIE 2 STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION I certify that the information provided under Part 1 of Schedule 7 to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations was prepared by persons with sufficient knowledge to evaluate the information. I further certify, based on my reasonable inquiry of the persons responsible for making the determination, that the information submitted is true, accurate and complete. Date: Signature : (operator, owner or their authorized representative) ATTESTATION J atteste que les renseignements soumis en application de la partie 1 de l annexe 7 du Règlement sur les effluents de mines de métaux ont été établis par des personnes qui possèdent les connaissances suffisantes pour les évaluer. J atteste, en outre, à la lumière d une enquête raisonnable que j ai effectuée sur les personnes responsables de cette détermination, que les renseignements fournis sont véridiques, exacts et complets. Date : Signature : (propriétaire, exploitant ou leur représentant autorisé) SOR/ , s. 36(F). (Position title) DORS/ , art. 36(F). (fonction) 52

104 DORS/ janvier 2012 SCHEDULE 8 (Subsection 35(2)) ANNEXE 8 (paragraphe 35(2)) (PART 1) PARTIE 1 TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR ACUTELY LETHAL EFFLUENT (Name and address of the owner and operator of the mine) AUTORISATION TRANSITOIRE VISANT UN EFFLUENT À LÉTALITÉ AIGUË (Nom et adresse du propriétaire et de l exploitant de la mine) Owner: Operator: Propriétaire : Exploitant : (Name and address of the mine) (Nom et adresse de la mine) to de- for is (are) hereby authorized as of (date) posit acutely lethal effluent until (date) effluent from (identify final discharge point) est (sont) autorisé(s), à compter du (date), à rejeter un effluent à létalité aiguë jusqu au (date) en ce qui concerne l effluent provenant de (préciser le point de rejet final) IMPORTANT: Please refer to sections 6 to 27 and subsection 28(1) of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) for conditions governing the authority to deposit. In addition, please note that this authorization may be revoked under section 38 of those Regulations. IMPORTANT : Prière de consulter les articles 6 à 27 et le paragraphe 28(1) du Règlement sur les effluents des mines de métaux pour les conditions régissant l autorisation de rejeter. Veuillez également prendre note que l autorisation peut être révoquée en vertu de l article 38 de ce règlement. Authorization Officer: (Signature): (Name): (Position): (Date): Agent d autorisation (Signature) : (Nom) : (Fonction) : (Date) : PART 2 PARTIE 2 TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES (Name and address of the owner and operator of the mine) AUTORISATION TRANSITOIRE VISANT DES SUBSTANCES NOCIVES (Nom et adresse du propriétaire et de l exploitant de la mine) Owner: Operator: Propriétaire : Exploitant : (Name and address of the mine) (Nom et adresse de la mine) is (are) hereby authorized as of (date) to deposit the deleterious substances specified below until (date) for effluent from (identify final discharge point). est (sont) autorisé(s), à compter du (date), à rejeter les substances nocives ci-après jusqu au (date) en ce qui concerne l effluent provenant de (préciser le point de rejet final). 53

105 SOR/ January 24, 2012 Deleterious Substance Arsenic Copper Cyanide Lead Nickel Zinc Radium 226 Total Suspended Solids Maximum Authorized Monthly Mean Concentration 1 Maximum Authorized Concentration in a Composite Sample 2 Maximum Authorized Concentration in a Grab Sample 3 Substance nocive Arsenic Cuivre Cyanure Plomb Nickel Zinc Radium 226 Total des solides en suspension Concentration moyenne mensuelle maximale permise 1 Authorized Effluent ph Range 4 : Plage permise pour le ph 4 de l effluent : Concentration maximale permise dans un échantillon composite 2 Concentration maximale permise dans un échantillon instantané 3 IMPORTANT: Please refer to sections 6 to 27 and subsection 28(1) of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations for conditions governing the authority to deposit. In addition, please note that this authorization may be revoked under section 38 of those Regulations. Authorization Officer: (Signature): (Name): (Position): (Date): 1 The maximum monthly mean concentration of the deleterious substance in effluent is the greater of the maximum monthly mean concentration of the substance recorded during the 12-month period preceding the date of the application for the transitional authorization and the authorized monthly mean concentration set out in column 2 of Schedule 4. The maximum monthly mean concentration for a substance may not exceed the concentration required by the jurisdiction where the mine is located, if applicable. 2 The maximum authorized concentration of the deleterious substance in each composite sample collected is equal to 1.5 times the maximum authorized monthly mean concentration. 3 The maximum authorized concentration of the deleterious substance in each grab sample collected is equal to 2.0 times the maximum authorized monthly mean concentration. 4 The lower limit of the authorized ph range is equal to the lowest ph recorded during the 12-month period preceding the date of the application for the transitional authorization or 6.0, whichever is less. The upper limit of the authorized ph range is equal to the highest ph recorded during the 12-month period preceding the date of the application or 9.5, whichever is greater. IMPORTANT : Prière de consulter les articles 6 à 27 et le paragraphe 28(1) du Règlement sur les effluents des mines de métaux pour les conditions régissant l autorisation de rejeter. Veuillez également prendre note que l autorisation peut être révoquée en vertu de l article 38 de ce règlement. Agent d autorisation (Signature) : (Nom) : (Fonction) : (Date) : 1 La concentration moyenne mensuelle maximale d une substance nocive dans un effluent représente soit la concentration moyenne mensuelle maximale enregistrée au cours des douze mois précédant la date de la demande, soit la concentration moyenne mensuelle permise prévue à la colonne 2 de l annexe 4, selon la plus élevée de ces concentrations. Cependant, la concentration moyenne mensuelle maximale ne peut pas dépasser la concentration fixée par l autorité législative du territoire où est situé la mine, le cas échéant. 2 La concentration maximale permise d une substance nocive dans un échantillon composite est égale au produit de 1,5 par la concentration moyenne mensuelle maximale permise de la substance. 3 La concentration maximale permise d une substance nocive dans un échantillon instantané est égale au produit de 2,0 par la concentration moyenne mensuelle maximale permise de la substance. 4 Le niveau inférieur de la plage permise pour le ph est égal à soit le ph le plus bas enregistré au cours des douze mois précédant la date de la demande, soit une valeur de 6,0, selon la plus basse de ces valeurs. Le niveau supérieur de la plage permise pour le ph est égal à soit le ph le plus élevé enregistré au cours des douze mois précédant la date de la demande, soit une valeur de 9,5, selon la plus élevée de ces valeurs. 54

106 APPENDIX D SECTION 11 ORDER FOR KSM TM

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123 APPENDIX E SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM THE KSM PROJECT WORKING GROUP, NISGA A LISIMS GOVERNMENT, AND ENVIRONMENT CANADA TM

124 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada Table 1. Responses to Questions and Comments Made to Working Group Members No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder 1 Mark Cleveland, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Mar 29, 2012 Does alternative means include size? The approved KSM Project Application Information Requirements (January 30, 2011) require the EA Application to include an analysis of the alternative means of carrying out the Project that are technically and economically feasible. Alternative means may include access roads, mining methods, ore transport from the mine to process plant etc. EC Ultimately it is up to a proponent to define the size of the project to be assessed during the EA process. 2 Vera Asp, Tahltan THREAT Mar 29, Vera Asp, Tahltan THREAT Mar 29, Cliff Sampare, Gitxsan Mar 29, 2012 Where are the processes for dispute resolution? Do not agree that is acceptable to agree to disagree The consultation process is not well advertised by your staff, nor is how you are carrying this out. I think you may want to give your staff a 101 on our governance, values, culture, etc. We are concerned about process for reclamation after project is done. We are spending our own dollars now to participate in this process The TMF Report was prepared pursuant to Environment Canada guidelines, Guidelines for the Assessment of Alternatives for Mine Waste Disposal (March 2011; EC Guidelines). Mining companies must assess options or alternatives when they are considering using a natural fish-bearing water body for mine tailings disposal. EC s guidelines recommend that options or alternatives be assessed during the EA process to streamline the overall regulatory review process. EC Guidelines do not include a dispute resolution process. Project proponents are expected to engage Aboriginal groups, stakeholders and government agencies on the multiple accounts analysis. Comment noted. Comment noted. EC EC EC Page 1 of 34

125 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder 5 Mansell Griffin, Where is the line drawn between fatal flaw vs. A fatal flaw is black and white. Fatal flaws are identified when EC Nisga a Lisims Government Mar 29, 2012 technical analysis in MAA process? there is no feasible mitigation strategy. 6 Mansell Griffin, Nisga a Lisims Government Mar 29, 2012 We appreciate the potential to review materials and provide input early in the EA process Comment noted. EC 7 Craig Stewart, MOE Mar 29, Mark Cleveland, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Mar 29, Patrick Hudson Tahltan THREAT Mar 29, Mike Demarchi, LGL for NLG Mar 29, 2012 How is post-operational closure factored into assessment and do you have guidelines on the timeframes to use? From your experience do stakeholders work with proponent on Multiple Accounts Analysis (MAA)? Is there are a ranking used to calculate climate change? How have issues been weighted? The guidelines state that it is generally preferable that a single TMF be in place. Can you comment on why that might be preferable Post-closure requirements vary for different mines. Therefore there is no specific guideline related to timeframes. Post closure monitoring and maintenance costs were assessed in the TMF Report by examining the feasibility of construction, the costs of long-term operation of closure works and potential water management risks. The EA process provides for consultation with Aboriginal groups and stakeholders. This includes consultation on studies; such as the TMF Report that are undertaken during the EA process. Seabridge met with the KSM Project Working Group in September 2011 to discuss options for the TMF. Comments from this meeting were incorporated into the TMF alternatives analysis. For example, the direction of the discharge from the TMF is now towards Treaty Creek; the road access into the TMF area has changed so it is now along Treaty Creek, and a portion of the TMF will be lined to hold the cleaner (pyrite) tails. Seabridge will be considering written comments from the Working Group as it finalizes the TMF Report. Seabridge has also offered to meet with First Nations and the Nisga a to discuss their comments on the TMF Report. EC encourages proponents to consider climate change given the long life span of structures such as TMFs. EC has a code of practice which provides guidance on incorporating climate change effects. EC Guidelines indicate it may be acceptable to have more than one site when segregating tailing. EC, KCB EC Seabridge EC KCB Page 2 of 34

126 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder from an environmental perspective? There are greater environmental risks to having more than one TMF location. For example, during post closure, only one TMF site would need to be reclaimed and monitored. Also infrastructure is required with each TMF (roads, power, dams etc.) which would result in a greater footprint. What happens if laws change to Fisheries Act? Changes to the federal Fisheries Act are not expected to alter Seabridge Seabridge s approach to the TMF alternatives analysis. 11 Mark Cleveland, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Mar 29, Cliff Sampare, Gitxsan Mar 29, Mansell Griffin, Nisga a Lisims Government Mar 29, Mark Cleveland, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Mar 29, Chris Hamilton, EAO Mar 29, 2012 Don t agree that consultation responsibility lies with proponent. It also includes your department. Where does 2.5 come from for tailings storage? What is the estimate for error bars when we talk about capacity? What happens if price goes up and mine life is extended? Have you considered the cumulative effects of neighbouring mining developments that will require TMFs? Proponents are assigned certain responsibilities for undertaking procedural aspects of the Crown s duty to consult with potentially impacted First Nations. This includes gathering information about how First Nations use a project area and considering ways to avoid or mitigate potential impacts on these uses. Seabridge s responsibilities related to First Nations and the Nisga a are set out in the KSM Project Section 11 and 13 orders issued under the BC Environmental Assessment Act. The KSM project is expected to produce 2.5 B tonnes of tailing material based on the current size of the mine. Error on the calculation of the catchment area is very low, less than 5%, as these are measured directly from the maps. Error of achievable storage volumes is typically low, on the order of 5% to 10% (based on LiDar, TRIM and digital) given that the designs are conceptual-level. The mine design is based on an annual production of 130,000 tonnes over a 51.5 year mine life. This is the size of mine that will be presented in the EA Application. Cumulative effects of the Project will be considered in the EA Application. EC KCB KCB Seabridge Page 3 of 34

127 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder 16 Kyle Moselle, Did you look at historical and forward Historical data was considered. This would be an important KCB Alaska, Natural Resources Mar 29, 2012 projections for rain and snow estimates? design component for the final closure of the spillways, which would be retained in the long-term. 17 Tiffany Paul, Environment Canada Mar 29, 2012 Can you put a dam in to contain tailing in Bowser Lake? This option was considered as one of the 14 initially considered options, but was rejected as unfeasible during the fatal flaw analysis. Seabridge 18 Craig Stewart, MOE Mar 29, Kyle Moselle, Alaska, Natural Resources Mar 29, Mike Demarchi, LGL for NLG Mar 29, Patrick Hudson, Tahltan THREAT Mar 29, Mark Cleveland, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Mar 29, Dwayne Day, Tahltan THREAT Mar 29, 2012 Did you look at cost/benefit analysis? For example: Did you look at Option A and disposal in the Mitchell pit after underground mining? Have subsurface rights been negotiated? What is the status of the changing the discharge direction and access into Treaty Creek? Did you consider storing CIL tailing near the mine site and paste backfill after underground mining is finished? In terms of fisheries values, why is it a disadvantage for some and not others? How fast are glaciers receding? Are these rates incorporated into reports? There is a scheduling conflict with this approach. The mine schedule assumes the Mitchell pit would be mined first and then underground mining would start. The options considered in the report did not consider subsurface rights. The analysis is based on technical data. This question was addressed in a separate presentation given later on March 30, The presentation outlined the analyses that were performed considering differing discharge directions and TMF access routes. The results of the analyses were that discharging the TMF to Treaty Creek, and accessing the TMF plant site has fewer environmental and social concerns than the previous plans. Paste backfill underground is not feasible for block caving operations as the workings are collapsed, leaving no void for paste disposal. The 14 alternatives were assessed based on engineering considerations. At this stage of the assessment, the fisheries value of a site is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage for any of the 14 alternatives. Fisheries values of the 4 short-listed alternatives were assessed. Although studies have been done on Mitchell and McTagg glacier recession rates, these estimates were not incorporated into the technical analysis as recession rates are highly variable both by year and among different glaciers. KCB Seabridge Seabridge KCB Seabridge KCB Page 4 of 34

128 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder 24 Tiffany Paul, What is the volume of the two types of tailing? The ratio between flotation and CIL tailing is approximately 90% KCB Environment Canada Mar 29, 2012 Are all tailings used for construction? to 10% (to be conservative, a 13% proportion of CIL was assumed in the design of the CIL facility to provide sufficient storage in the event of unexpected variations). Approximately 30% of the cyclone flotation tailing (i.e., sand) is used for dam construction. 25 Tiffany Paul Environment Canada March 29, 2012 If it weren t for the CIL residue, there would be no concern. Can you dry it? Can it be combined with the waste rock area? The concern with paste or dewatered tailing relate to how much water can be extracted from the tailing. The KSM project is located in steep, wet, and seismically active terrain. In this area, a dewatered tailing will require a containment dam, as it would liquefy in an earthquake. KCB 26 Chris Hamilton, EAO Mar 29, Tanmay Praharaj, EC via teleconference Mar 29, Tanmay Praharaj, EC via teleconference Mar 29, Mark Cleveland, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Mar 29, 2012 We are interested in understanding potential impacts on treaty rights and Aboriginal rights and title. What measures have you put in place to control seepage? What is your confidence in the dams to control seepage? The TMF site at Upper Teigen-Treaty has lower glaciers? When do social issues come into BC EAO and CEA process? (e.g., maybe the project is big enough at 65%... if they do only 65 % of the project then maybe they can use a smaller TMF). The option to dispose of tailing into the rock facility has been considered, but was ultimately rejected because only a small fraction of the tailing can be stored. Comment noted. The conceptual designs used in the TMF alternatives assessment consider the cost of measures to control seepage at each site. Some sites have fatal flaws where control of seepage is deemed not to be feasible. Sites with overburden depths and conditions within precedence of existing seepage control techniques were deemed to allow sufficient seepage control to be feasible. There are some glaciers within the catchment area of the Upper Teigen/Treaty TMF alternative, but this catchment area is largely unglaciated. There are no glaciers in the lower catchment area within this TMF alternative. The BC Environmental Assessment Act examines the potential environmental, economic, social, heritage and health and of major projects and ways to avoid or mitigate potential effects. It is up to the proponent to define the size of its project in the EA KCB KCB EC/EAO Page 5 of 34

129 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder Application which is assessed by the public, First Nations and government agencies. 30 Richard Erhardt Tahltan THREAT Mar 29, Mike Demarchi, LGL for NLG Mar 29, Mansell Griffin, Nisga a Lisims Government March 29, Mark Cleveland, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Mar 30, 2012 Where do questions about project scale get answered? What are the advantages of scaling back? How fatal is fatal? Is there a possibility in check to address issues? Were there no other combinations with West Teigen? The West Teigen/Unuk Valley alternative could be made to drain the other way. I don t like any of these. How did you determine fisheries values? I would dispute the numbers on slide 22. Can you expand on the access to spawning grounds? It is up to the proponent to define the size of the project to be presented in the EA Application. Fatal flaws were identified where there is no feasible mitigation strategy. All combinations of locations included West because West was considered to be the most technically feasible among the alternatives with insufficient capacity to store life-of-mine tailing but no other fatal flaws. The relative ratings were assigned based on relative productivity, specifically salmon productivity, of the watercourse. The Unuk River was ranked higher than Teigen Creek because of the amount of available salmon rearing habitat is higher in the Unuk. Chinook fry rear in the Unuk River mainstem up to the confluence of Storie Creek. The Unuk is a known producer of Chinook salmon. Based upon mark-recapture studies conducted for Unuk River Chinook salmon; the 9-year escapement mean for medium sized Chinook is 1,411 and large sized Chinook is 5,431 (Alaska Dept of Fish and Game 2009). In comparison the estimated escapement for all sizes of Chinook salmon for the entire Bell-Irving watershed is 4,831. Teigen Creek Chinook salmon comprise approximately 42% of Bell-Irving River Chinook salmon stocks based upon estimated escapement data from a Nisga a and LGL Chinook study (Koski et al Table 19). Regarding sockeye presence downstream of the Scott Creek TMF alternative, sockeye spawn in a groundwater fed side channel at the mouth of Scott Creek. Seabridge KCB Seabridge Seabridge Page 6 of 34

130 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder 34 Kevin Koch, Is that moose winter range? What are the The boundaries used in the multiple accounts analysis for moose Seabridge Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Mar 30, 2012 boundaries? habitat included the direct TMF footprint + a 100 m buffer. The multiple accounts analysis includes both early winter and late winter habitat. However, the only TMF location with any identified late winter habitat is the Unuk Valley TMF; the remaining TMF locations only have early winter habitat identified. 35 Tiffany Paul EC March 30, 2012 What about roads and infrastructure, did you consider these in MAA? The length of associated infrastructure, including roads, pipelines and tunnels were considered in the multiple accounts analysis. Seabridge 36 Chris Hamilton EAO March 30, Mark Cleveland, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Mar 30, George Warnock, Ministry of Energy & Mines Mar 30, Mansell Griffin, Nisga a Lisims Government March 30, Kevin Koch, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Mar 30, John Miller EC March 30, 2012 Can you clarify the traplines to give a sense of scale? Even though you reference guide outfitters as a factor in the screening, they may not be guiding in that area? What level of geotechnical investigation was completed for the options, and then the selected option going forward? On the Unuk there is a containment dam between the Unuk and West Teigen options; do you need the dam between them? Are the number of containment dams listed necessary on joint options? Is the catchment area a fatal flaw? Are these delineated in the reports? Did you look at geohazards and glaciers? 2% of trapline tenure TR621T003 would be impacted by the Unuk Valley West TMF. Less than 1% of trapline tenures TR617T015 and TR616T011 would be impacted by other TMF alternatives. Less than 0.5% of guide outfitter licences and would be affected by the TMF alternatives. Geotechical investigations were done for all sites. This included seismic, resistivity, drilling, onsite mapping of dam foundations, and geohazard assessments. These are detailed in KCB s technical report (Appendix A of the TMF Report). Yes, as combined facilities would be operated sequentially so all the dams are required. Yes, large catchment area effects are considered fatal flaws as they introduce potentially unmanageable risks. These are delineated in Section 4 and Appendix A of the report. Goehazards are considered in the multiple accounts analaysis. They are considered a fatal flaw (i.e., so severe that safe construction, operation, and/or closure are not feasible), and as a Seabridge Seabridge KCB KCB KCB Seabridge Page 7 of 34

131 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder consideration within the multiple accounts analysis (i.e., manageable, but with differing magnitudes of management concerns). Glaciers pose more water management concerns rather than geohazards, and the amount of glaciation within each TMF s catchment was considered in the multiple accounts analysis. 42 Craig Stewart BC MOE March 30, Mark Cleveland Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs March 30, Craig Stewart BC MOE March 30, Chris Hamilton, EAO March 30, Kyle Moselle, Alaska Dept of Natural Resources March 30, Craig Stewart BC MOE March 30, 2012 There are two options: Upper Teigen/Treaty Creek options A & B. Why wasn t this carried forward? Are the error bars the same across each alternative? Ground and surface water don t seem to be considered There appears to be a gap in the consideration of ground and surface water. Are all of the options assumed to operate exactly the same in terms of seepage? There is upwelling at Teigen/Treaty. Is there an understanding of groundwater at the other sites? What are the short and long term impacts on quantity of discharges? There are some assumptions that need to be clarified? Is the quality and quantity of the all seepages and discharges the same? Options A and B are not considered individually within the TMF alternatives assessment because they have identical footprints. The differences between options A and B are considered in Appendix H of the report: Alternatives for Drainage Options for the Teigen/Treaty Tailing Management Facility. For purposes of the alternatives assessment, key indicators such as catchment area and cost have the same error estimations. Surface water was considered as the undiverted catchment area (i.e., surplus water requiring treatment or discharge) was considered. Ground water (upwelling natural confinement and potential for seepage control) was considered as part of foundation conditions. The potential impacts to downstream surface and ground water quality and quantity have been incorporated into the TMF alternatives assessment. Each TMF option has site specific foundation conditions which could impact seepage. While it is assumed that no downstream effects would result from TMF discharge, given the high concern surrounding this issue, potential impacts to downstream surface and ground water quality and quantity have been incorporated in the TMF alternatives assessment. It is assumed that all discharge would meet water quality criteria before being released to the environment. Any TMF option that would not be able to achieve adequate seepage control was Seabridge KCB KCB Seabridge Page 8 of 34

132 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder screened out by the fatal flaw analysis. However, to respond to the concerns raised by the Working Group, surface and groundwater quality and quantity have been added to the Environment Account in the TMF Report. 48 Tiffany Paul EC March 30, Mansell Griffin, Nisga a Lisims Government March 30, Mark Cleveland, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Mar 30, Mansell Griffin, Nisga a Lisims Government March 30, 2012 What types of wetlands, fens, bogs, and alpine seeps in alternatives? What is the quality of habitat versus the number of fish? What about genetics/ isolated populations of fish? Not all TMF s overlap treaty interests to the same degree (i.e., West Teigen/Unuk) 52 Unknown What are the specific species impacted downstream? Predictive Ecosystem Mapping (PEM), Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM), and wetland inventory data have determined that the following wetland types are found in the area of the TMF alternatives: Fen: wetter herb fen Marsh: wetland marsh, shrub/herb marsh Swamp: wetland swamp, wetland forest swamp, shrub/herb swamp Shallow open water The higher quality habitat supports all life history stages of fish (i.e., fry, parr, adult) for spawning, rearing and overwintering. Generally higher quality habitat tends to support higher fish populations. The genetics of isolated fish populations were not scoped into the TMF alternatives assessment. This is because none of the fish populations in the TMF alternatives are entirely isolated. Partial isolation is present in South Teigen Creek due to a barrier to upstream fish movement. However, a 2009 genetics study determined that Dolly Varden in the South Teigen/North Treaty TMF Alternative is not genetically isolated nor genetically different than downstream fish populations. An indicator Nisga a Nation treaty territory overlapped has been added to the Aboriginal interests sub-account within the Socio-economic account to address this comment. For TMF alternatives, water quality was assumed to meet discharge criteria. Therefore, no species were determined to be impacted downstream. To respond to the concerns raised by the Working Group, potential impacts to downstream fisheries have been added to the Environment Account in the TMF Report. Seabridge Seabridge Seabridge Seabridge Page 9 of 34

133 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder 53 Kyle Moselle, Did you consider transboundary river treaty Transboundary river treaty issues were not considered within the Seabridge Alaska Dept of Natural Resources March 30, 2012 issues, such as discharges to Alaska? MAA. However, the drainages of each of the four short-listed alternatives were characterized. 54 Tiffany Paul Environment Canada March 30, 2012 When you are looking at combined alternatives, are you looking at these alternatives at their full capacity? Would the catchment area be changed? The combined options are operated in sequence: the West Teigen Lake TMF would first be filled to capacity and then the 2 nd TMF would be utilized until the total volume of tailing is 2.5Bt. However, the catchment areas remain the same for all of the Seabridge 55 Craig Stewart BC MOE March 30, Mark Cleveland, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Mar 30, 2012 Why is the Upper Teigen/Treaty TMF alternative rated higher on closure vs. the others? In terms of the economics +/- 15% or 20%. What are these ratings? What is the value of the data in the handout? How are ratings scored between two documents? The language is confusing and ambiguous. 57 Unknown Which options did you consider a smaller footprint? 58 Unknown Does quantity and quality of habitat transfer to different habitats? TMF alternatives whether it is filled to capacity or not. The Upper Teigen/Treaty TMF alternative has a smaller catchment and better foundations than the other alternatives, which results in lower overall risk on closure. The cost estimates presented in the TMF Report are conceptual. They are considered accurate to a degree of +/- ~25 to 30%. The direct TMF footprint of all options is listed in Table 5.3-3, and summarized below: Upper Teigen/Treaty: km 2 West /Scott Creek Valley: km 2 West /Unuk Valley: km 2 West /Upper Treaty Creek: km 2 This indicator was not carried forward into the multiple accounts analysis because it was determined that it was redundant compared to more specific measures of habitat value. The amount of high quality habitat for the following species is evaluated: Grizzly bear: high quality spring, summer and fall habitat Mountain goat: summer habitat area and winter habitat area Moose: early and late winter habitat area Marten: winter habitat area for Marmot: growing season habitat area KCB KCB Seabridge Seabridge Page 10 of 34

134 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder 59 Chris Hamilton, Is the cost of water treatment included in the Cost estimates are exclusive of water treatment. KCB EAO March 30, 2012 cost estimates? 60 Cassandra Hall, Brodie for NLG March 30, 2012 For each site there are varying degrees of excess water, but the quality will be the same assuming treatment for each option. So, all All alternatives would have a water treatment plant, if required. Seabridge 61 Tiffany Paul EC March 30, 2012 alternatives have a water treatment plant? What about plant sites, and the wetland losses as a result of infrastructure? Wetland loss as a result of supporting infrastructure was not specifically considered in the TMF Report as the placement of supporting infrastructure can be designed to minimize environmental impacts, such as wetland impacts. Seabridge 62 Cliff Sampare Gitxsan March 30, Mansell Griffin, Nisga a Lisims Government March 30, Kyle Moselle Alaska Department of Natural Concerned about road access on moose and hunting impacts. Does the way you have rated this imply a design bias to least productive habitat? And, thus a bias against the most productive habitat. Does this analysis balance bias? Wetland loss as a result of supporting infrastructure will be assessed within the EA Application/EIS. Seabridge has committed to minimizing impacts to wetlands during the construction of supporting infrastructure, and wetland compensation plans will be presented in the EA Application. Access roads will be controlled. The TMF access road alternatives assessment considers potential impacts to wildlife resulting from the road options. Potential impacts to moose were rated relatively high as compared with other wildlife metrics because of the concern over hunting impacts to moose. The multiple accounts analysis is configured so that the alternative that has the lowest impact on the highest valued components (indicators) is selected (or vice versa). Within the TMF alternatives analysis, the terrestrial habitat indicators that were weighted the highest were loss of rare and endangered ecosystems and presence of rare and endangered wildlife species. These endangered ecosystems and species tend to be located in valley bottoms; therefore, the multiple accounts analysis would preferentially select these habitats. Inherent in the multiple accounts analysis (EC 2011) process is the understanding that bias is unavoidable during the development of account, sub-account, and indicator weightings. Seabridge Seabridge Seabridge Page 11 of 34

135 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder Resources March 30, 2012 The sensitivity analysis presented in Section 8 of the TMF Report considers different weighting schemes to manage this 65 Tiffany Paul EC March 30, Tiffany Paul, EC Mark Cleveland, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs March 30, Chris Hamilton BC EAO March 30, Tiffany Paul EC March 30, 2012 How are aquatic habitat (lake vs. wetland) rated? In section 6 we want to see rationale for weighting Is aquatic habitat not fish bearing? We are interested in weighting on migratory birds. bias. Wetlands have been incorporated into the TMF Report via an indicator ecological quality index of affected wetlands. This indicator incorporates PEM mapping, which was improved using wetland inventory data. The index also includes wetland area (ha), percentage of wetland cover, wetland function, and listed wetland status. Lakes, rivers, and streams were characterized using TRIM data. Because no habitat quality metadata is included in TRIM, these indicators were weighted against the ecological quality index of affected wetlands indicator using conservative values. Rationales for weightings are included in Section 7: Value-Based Decision Process. For the purposes of the TMF alternatives assessment, aquatic habitat includes both fish bearing and non-fish bearings watercourses/waterbodies. Aquatic habitat relates to the primary and secondary productivity of a watercourse/waterbody. The quality of habitat in relation to migratory birds is characterized at a very high level for each of the alternatives. These data were not considered differentiating among alternatives and were not carried forward into the multiple accounts analysis. Additionally, any sightings of rare and endangered migratory birds were noted. These data were differentiating among alternatives and carried forward into the multiple accounts analysis. Seabridge Seabridge Seabridge Seabridge Page 12 of 34

136 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder 69 Tiffany Paul Did you do sensitivity analysis based on sub Yes, this sensitivity analysis is documented in Section 8.2. Seabridge EC March 30, 2012 account indicators? 70 Mike Demarchi, LGL for NLG March 30, 2012 Is the cost and practicality of wetland mitigation reflected in project costs? The cost of wetland compensation was not included in the analysis because compensation plans (including fisheries and wetlands) are still under development. However, compensation costs for the alternatives are expected to be in the order of $10s of million compared with the cost of building the TMF facilities ($2.2+ billion). Therefore, wetland compensation costs are not considered a contributing factor in the TMF alternatives Seabridge 71 Mike Demarchi, LGL for NLG March 30, Mike Demarchi, LGL for NLG March 30, Richard Erhardt, Tahltan THREAT March 30, Richard Erhardt, Tahltan THREAT March 30, 2012 In terms of the indicator scoring when referring to costs it would be helpful to use a greater or lesser than sign. Let s assume the proposed wildlife habitat area gets approved. I would like to see wildlife habitat areas considered further. Why are environmental impacts not part of the fatal flaw analysis? I am confused and disappointed. I like the presentation, and I understand. Why wasn t environmental impacts part of the screening process? At least one of these sites should not impact fish bearing waters. Why wasn t environment considered in the initial screening? Downstream fish habitat is not a fatal flaw. Why not? When and how does further consultation with First Nations occur? assessment process. Comment noted. The proposed wildlife habitat area has not been fully delineated for the TMF alternatives. As such, it was not included in the multiple accounts analysis because there is incomplete information available among the alternatives. If the proponent wants to identify an environmental impact as a fatal flaw they can do that. The TMF Report considered technical issues as fatal flaws. However, the technical fatal flaws are directly related the environmental safety of the TMF. The short-listed alternatives are sufficiently safe to construct, operate, and close such as to minimize any potential downstream risks and effects to fisheries. The potential TMF locations that do not contain fish-bearing waters were eliminated during the fatal flaw analysis based on technical criteria. Proponents are assigned certain responsibilities for undertaking procedural aspects of the Crown s duty to consult with potentially impacted First Nations and engaging with treaty First Nations. This includes responsibility to gathering information about how First Nations use the project area and considering Seabridge Seabridge EC KCB Seabridge EAO Page 13 of 34

137 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder ways to avoid or mitigate potential impacts on these uses. The proponent s responsibilities related to First Nations and Nisga a are set out in the KSM Project Sections 11 and 13 order issued under the BC Environmental Assessment Act. First Nations have been participating in the EA as members of the Working Group. They will have an opportunity to review and comment on the EA Application. 75 Mark Cleveland, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Mar 30, Cliff Sampare, Gitxsan Chiefs Office March 30, Tiffany Paul, EC March 30, Dwayne Day, Tahltan THREAT March 30, Mansell Griffin, Nisga a Lisims Government March 30, Vera Asp, Tahltan THREAT March 30, 2012 Would have appreciated more input on sub accounts. The selection model is good. The TMF will alleviate downstream fish impacts due to natural environmental metals that have been exposed from glaciers receding. How final is this document, is this a draft or final version? It would be interesting to have a comparison of recommendations from Working Group to see what are the ones you are not including in report. See preferred option, what is second option in MAA? What are the processes for dispute resolution in EA? Consultation is not enough because there is no means to resolve differences. Comment noted. Comment noted. Seabridge is seeking written comments on the TMF Report from Working Group members. These comments will be considered as Seabridge finalizes the report for inclusion in its Application for an EA certificate. The TMF Report explored a range of TMF options, including options proposed by the Working Group. For the base-case analysis, the final scoring was as follows: Upper Teigen/Treaty (4.5) Scott Creek Valley West (2.5) Unuk Valley West (2.4) Upper Treaty Creek West (2.2) The EAO noted this is government s responsibility. CEAA and EAO are working with the Tahltan on this issue. We recognize there are a number of projects in Tahltan territory. Dispute resolution is not the proponent s responsibility. Seabridge Seabridge Seabridge Seabridge EAO Page 14 of 34

138 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder 81 Kevin Koch Can you move into an EA with more than one The EA can assess two proposals. The proponent will need to EOA Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs March 30, 2012 TMF option? For example the New Transmission Line proposed two routes. collect baseline information and conduct an effects assessment for both options. 82 Mansell Griffin, Nisga a Lisims Government March 30, 2012 Regardless of the changes to the Fisheries Act, fish habitat will be kept as a criteria in the TMF multiple accounts analysis. If grizzly bear and moose are assigned the same weighting as mountain goats, the Upper Teigen/Treaty TMF remains the Seabridge selected alternative. 83 Mansell Griffin, Nisga a Lisims Government March 30, Mark Cleveland and Kevin Koch, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Dwayne Day, Tahltan THREAT Note: The EAO asked First Nations to review the list to confirm it identifies theire concerns related to the TMF How does terrestrial habitat model change if Grizzly Bear and Moose get same weighting as goat? In terms of Aboriginal values, one of the alternatives is not wholly within alternative. So if the Nass area is included how does it affect the weighting? With changes to Fisheries Act, if there is no HADD how does that affect the model? With respect to MAA tables and maps, it is critical to see West Teigen and Upper Unuk as one alternative with own map and with one TMF. Under this scenario the northwest containment dam on Teigen would be unnecessary. It would also better reflect catchment area. A. Downstream Fisheries Values a. Impacts from various TMFs proposed in area i. Chronic/or catastrophic ii. Related to water dilution factors B. Food/Social/Ceremonial a. Rights related to access to the resource C. Economic Interest a. Commercial fishery to fill allocations potentially impacted D. Water Quality and Quantity Impacts E. Productivity of Fisheries Values (not just If the TMF indicators are altered to indicate that the Unuk Valley West TMF is only partially within the Nass area, the Upper Teigen/Treaty TMF remains the selected alternative. The TMF alternatives assessment has been adjusted to reflect this latter change. The northwest containment dam is necessary to allow independent sequenced operation of the two combined sites. The EA Application will assess potential effects of the Project on Nisga a Treaty rights and interests and Aboriginal rights and interests. Based on comments received from the Nisga s Lisims Government and other First Nations, the TMF Report was modified to include analysis of potential downstream effects on fisheries, groundwater quality and quantity, and surface water hydrology. Additionally a new sensitivity analysis was undertaken to examine downstream fisheries considerations. The updated analysis is provided in Sections 5 through 8 of the TMF Report. KCB Seabridge Page 15 of 34

139 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder of # of species but # of fish impacted) F. No clear metric was used to explain productivity G. Road impacts not part of MAA matrix H. More consultation needed on weighting of indicators a. Wildlife weighting and others I. Likelihood of reclaiming sites post closure a. For example: Availability of overburden 85 Mark Cleveland, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Mar 30, Vera Asp, Tahltan THREAT Mar 30, Mike Demarchi, LGL for NLG March 30, Dwayne Day, Tahltan THREAT 89 Dwayne Day, Tahltan THREAT 90 Mike Demarchi, LGL for NLG Are you going to re-run the analysis with our suggested weighting, which could change things? We want to talk about the process, and dispute resolution mechanism. Consultation does not mean that we are heard. We need a mechanism to dispute. The Tahltan are not there and we are not comfortable being there. There is not a means to resolve differences. We don t think the way the proponent or others think. Consultation doesn t mean we have to agree. Is it lower moose habitat relative to other road alternatives? Only the archaeological sites you know about are listed as being impacted. What is the purpose of the roads? Is it time and cost? Why not start at Eskay? Why not chopper in supplies and equipment? What is quality of baseline for Treaty Creek in terms of fisheries values? The analysis will be re-run; however we are confident that the existing the data are robust. It is anticipated that when these additional weightings are considered, the Upper Teigen/Treaty option will remain the selected alternative. The EAO notes this is government s responsibility. CEAA and EAO are working with the Tahltan on this issue. We recognize there are a number of projects in Tahltan territory. Dispute resolution is not the proponent s responsibility. Values in the presentation are relative to the other road alternatives. A full archaeological impact assessment has been completed for the road alternatives. The archaeological sites identified are listed within the road report. Roads are required to access the mine site, TMF and plant area. A high-level investigation was conducted in the fall of Sites that were most likely to be fish bearing were selected for study. Additional fieldwork is planned in the spring/summer of Seabridge EAO Seabridge Seabridge Seabridge Seabridge Page 16 of 34

140 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder 91 Mansell Griffin, The presentation only shows percentages. These data are presented in Section 3.2 of the Assessment of Seabridge Nisga a Lisims Government March 30, 2012 How many meters of avalanche risks are there per road and how long are the roads? Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty Tailing Management Facility Access Road, which is Appendix G of the main report. 92 John Miller, EC Is Treaty Access Road controlled access? Seabridge plans to control access on the Treaty Creek Access Seabridge Road subject to provincial approvals. 93 Dwayne Day, How are you going to accommodate First This will be considered in the EA application. Seabridge Tahltan THREAT Nations road access? 94 Dwayne Day, What are the options you are considering to Predator control measures will be considered within the EA Seabridge Tahltan THREAT manage predator control? Application. 95 Richard Erhardt, Tahltan THREAT Where are fish habitat compensation plans mentioned in notes from September 2011 The September 2011 meeting notes are posted on the Phoenix site EAO meeting. 96 John Miller, EC Is it a simple lined rather than a leak detection system? 97 Mansell Griffin, Nisga a Lisims Government March 30, Mark Cleveland, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Mar 30, Mike Demarchi, LGL for NLG March 30, Cassandra Hall, Brodie for NLG March 30, Mark Cleveland, Gitanyow On closure does water run over liner? Is there contamination in the diversion channels? What do diversion ditches look like for habitat value integration? How high are internal dams? Do they get breached at closure? Is there more water in Treaty or Teigen naturally? The liner is an engineered single layer system with bedding layer. To mitigate potential uplift from artesian water pressure during construction, the design includes an under drain layer, dewatering wells and a surcharge fill. On closure the water will run in armoured channels constructed over the inert flotation tailing layer placed on top of the CIL tailing cell. Water will be routed through the flooded CIL pond which will have a submerged cover of flotation tailing on the bottom of the pond over the CIL tailing. Water in the diversion channels is from the natural environment so there is no contamination. Diversion ditches would not provide appropriate habitat for wildlife as they will need to be kept clear of debris. The internal dams are the same height as the external dams. The internal dams would be breached at closure. There is naturally more water in Treaty Creek. The estimated annual runoff for Treaty Creek is 2,097 mm and the estimated KCB KCB Seabridge Seabridge KCB Seabridge Page 17 of 34

141 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder Hereditary Chiefs Mar 30, 2012 mean annual discharge is 28m 3 /s. The estimated annual runoff for Teigen Creek is 1,184 mm and the estimated mean annual 102 Dwayne Day, Tahltan THREAT March 30, Dwayne Day, Tahltan THREAT March 30, 2012 How are you going to be controlling total suspended solids (TSS)? What type of materials? What type of mitigation? What about erosion that could occur with a 100-year event, have you considered that? Where are you getting materials for dams? Where are you storing materials? Could you incorporate settling ponds? Where are the borrow pits? Where are going to store it? discharge is 6 m 3 /s. During construction, a system of diversions and engineered settling ponds will control erosion, sediment transport and treat water to remove suspended solids. Settling ponds with floating decant pipes and automated flocculant addition plants have been designed. Perimeter diversions and seepage control dams would be constructed first. Temporary pipelines would be provided during construction to route water around construction zones and borrow areas. The maintenance flow pipeline from the east catchment has a substantial settling pond included at its outlet to improve water quality before discharge. The TMF would require several types of borrow materials in addition to sand cycloned out of the tailing which forms the majority of the dam fill. Identified borrow areas are primarily within the impoundment and will suffice for the North, Splitter and Saddle dam. Additional till sourced from outside the impoundment would either have to be stockpiled above the south cell starter impoundment, or borrowed from the toe area downstream of the SE starter dam. This is required as the south cell impoundment would cover till deposits in the impoundment valley as the south cell rises. Borrow investigation programs completed between 2008 and 2011 included drilling and geophysical surveys within the impoundment area and adjacent to the north and southeast dam toes. A program of overburden drilling is planned for summer 2012 to extend the current mapping and sampling of borrow resources in the TMF area in order to optimize locations of borrow areas. Starter dams are required to contain initial tailing until sufficient tailing are produced to start dam raising with cyclone KCB KCB Page 18 of 34

142 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder sand. Starter dams are built of random fill, meaning that any type of fill of sufficient strength can be used. Random fill can consist of tunnel muck produced from the driving of the Mitchell-Teigen tunnel. Additional random fill would come from leveling the plant site and from borrow pits developed in colluvial fan deposits found along the sides of the valley within the impoundment area. Cores for the starter dams are built with fine grained till material sourced from the valley bottom within the impoundment areas. For raising the cyclone dam this material can be stockpiled for core construction. Drain zones provided under the downstream areas of the dam toe areas would be built with coarse grained gravels and small cobbles sourced from alluvials found within the impoundment. Drain materials can also be produced by screen processing cobbles and boulders or by crushing quarried rock. Quarried rock for armouring the steeper sloped sections of diversions with rip-rap would be available from rock excavations for the diversion ditches and from leveling operations at the plant site. It is likely that an additional rock quarry would need to be developed on the plateau near the plant site for ongoing production of roadbed material and rip rap as required. At closure there would be a significant excavation in rock for the closure spillway adjacent to the southeast dam. This would produce sufficient rip-rap for covering the southeast dam face and closure channels in the impoundment with a protective layer of rock to prevent erosion. The north dam would be covered with rock quarried from the area of the plant site. Organic soils stripped during construction from the impoundment and the dam footprint areas would be stored in several areas. There will be soil and till stockpiles on the plateau near the plant site, one to the east of the north dam and there Page 19 of 34

143 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder would be a soil and till stockpile in the area to the southeast of the southeast dam toe. 104 Dwayne Day, Tahltan THREAT March 30, Mike Demarchi, LGL for NLG Mar 30, Chris Hamilton EAO Mar 30, Nisga a Lisims Government April 11, Nisga a Lisims Government April 11, 2012 We want copies of comments and questions separately because they are not incorporated into report. I want to get a sense of these diversion structures. Is there any potential to integrate habitat values into the ditches? With the new Treaty Access Road, will access along the Frank Mackie glacier still be required? Examine West /Unuk Valley TMF alternative as a single impoundment or increase the capacity of the Unuk Valley TMF Potential downstream effects of the Upper Treaty/Teigen TMF Alternative Reclamation would involve moving organic soils back onto the dams and tailing beaches from the soil stockpiles. Comment noted. These diversion ditches would not provide appropriate habitat for wildlife, as they would need to be kept clear of debris. Access will be required via the Frank Mackie glacier during the early years of construction. Seabridge has analyzed: a) combining West /Unuk Valley TMF into a single impoundment; and b) increasing the capacity of the Unuk Valley TMF. See below for June 25, 2012 letter from KCB which provides analysis of this option. The analyses of potential downstream effects in the TMF Report has been completed again by expanding the Environmental account to include the following sub-accounts and indicators: The downstream fisheries values sub-account includes the following indicators: distance from toe of containment dam(s) to first occurrence of downstream salmon; downstream chinook salmon values; downstream coho salmon values; and downstream sockeye salmon values. The groundwater quality and quantity sub-account includes the following indicators: changes to groundwater quality; and changes to groundwater quantity. Seabridge Seabridge Seabridge Seabridge Seabridge Page 20 of 34

144 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder The surface water hydrology sub-account includes the following indicators: potential impacts to downstream sediment transport; and potential runoff loss to salmon habitat. The surface water quality immediate receiving environment sub-account includes the following indicators: water quality (copper) in the immediate receiving environment; water quality (zinc) in the immediate receiving environment; and water quality (sulphate) in the immediate receiving environment. The sub-account surface water quality mid-field receiving environment was characterized for copper, zinc, and sulphate but was not differentiating among TMF alternatives. Additionally, a new sensitivity analyses was undertaken to examine downstream fisheries considerations. This sensitivity analysis placed relatively high weighting values to downstream fisheries and water quality/quantity sub-accounts. 109 Nisga a Lisims Government April 11, Nisga a Lisims Government What is the potential for dam failure? Potential impacts to migratory birds based on Nisga a Final Agreement This updated analysis is documented in Sections 5 through 8 of the TMF Alternatives Assessment. Based on the updated analyses, including all sensitivity analyses, the Upper Teigen/Treaty TMF remains the selected alternative. All containment dams considered within the TMF Report are designed to the Canadian Dam Association Dam Safety Guidelines. A dam break analysis for the Teigen/Treaty TMF is currently being performed and will be included in the EA Application/EIS as a requirement of the Accidents and Malfunctions section under CEA Act (1992). Chapter 9 of the Nisga a Final Agreement provides Nisga a citizens with the right to harvest migratory birds throughout the Seabridge Page 21 of 34

145 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder April 11, 2012 Nass Area for domestic purposes, except where measures are necessary for conservation, and for the purposes of public health and public safety. 111 Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, 2012 The Agency is encouraged to invite other environmental assessment working group members to review the Alternatives Assessment. In so doing, working group members may better appreciate the considerations involved and may be in a better position to offer focused expertise of assistance to the Proponent in strengthening the Alternatives Assessment and in preparing the EIS. As an overall comment on the information presented within the Environmental Account, Environment Canada notes that the selection Migratory birds were considered in the TMF Report by characterizing the quality of migratory bird habitat for each of the four TMF alternatives. The quality of migratory bird habitat data were not considered differentiating among alternatives and were not carried forward into the multiple accounts analysis. However, migratory bird diversity and presence, particularly those of waterfowl, are related to the amount of aquatic habitat within an area. As such, the relative weighting of the sub-account aquatic habitat has been increased within the Environmental Account. Additionally, any sightings of rare and endangered migratory birds during baseline studies were recorded. The identification of rare and endangered migratory birds for the TMF alternatives was differentiating among the alternatives and carried forward into the multiple accounts analysis. A full assessment of the potential impacts to migratory birds will be included in the EA Application/EIS for the KSM project. Seabridge has been working with Working Group members since entering the BC EA process in the Spring of An overview of the environmental assessment process, including a description of the Working Group, is provided review process is Section 2.1 of the TMF Report. The following sentence has been added to the beginning of Section 7.1 Weighting and Section 7.2 Sub-Account Weighting, Base Case: The weightings presented in this section Seabridge Seabridge Page 22 of 34

146 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder of indicators and their associated weighting is largely based on professional judgment. While this is appropriate in the context of the Alternatives Assessment, this could be stated more explicitly in this section of the document. are based on the professional judgment of the appropriate professionals listed in the List of Experts given in the Executive Summary of this report. 113 Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, 2012 Baseline data used to inform the Environmental Account, though collected over a two-year period, was not replicated with-in years and may underestimate certain biological values. Bias can be introduced into the analysis wherever data do not exist for a given Tailing Management Facility (TMF) alternative (e.g., for birds, rare plants, Western Toad). In these situations, the analysis should employ a conservative value, or alternatively, increase the indicator weighting. For the four TMF alternatives assessed in Section 6, in using this indicator, the Proponent should describe the full extent of impacts to all classes and sizes of wetlands that would result in each case (i.e., bogs, fens and shallow open water wetlands in addition to swamps and marshes). The determination of extent of wetland impacts should rely on the use of TEM/PEM mapping (not just TRIM) as prescribed in the approved Application Information Requirements for the KSM Project. If this information is not already available to inform the Alternatives Assessment (for example within the 2009 wetlands baseline report), then it should be presented as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Assessment Baseline data has been collected for the KSM project since An indicator presence of rare and endangered plant species has been added to the Environmental Account; where data is not available, the indicator was assigned a conservative value. Western toad habitat and breeding have been characterized for all TMF options except for Scott Creek Valley; this option has been reassigned a conservative value for the indicator presence of rare and endangered animal species. Bird habitat was considered indirectly via an increase to the weighting of aquatic habitat. The approach to assessing potential impacts to wetlands for the five TMF alternatives has been changed to using a wetland ecological quality index. This indicator incorporates PEM mapping, which was improved using wetland inventory data. It also includes wetland area (ha), percentage of wetland cover, wetland function, and listed wetland status. Lakes, rivers, and streams were characterized using TRIM data. Because no habitat quality metadata is included in TRIM, these indicators were weighted against the ecological quality index of affected wetlands indicator using conservative values (refer to section for a description of the index and wetland data sources considered or the five TMF sites). During wetland baseline studies, red- and blue-listed ecosystems were compiled for the BEC zone/subzone within the Forest District where the KSM project is located. Three potential communities were identified within the ICHvc subzone. None of Seabridge Seabridge Page 23 of 34

147 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder (EA) Application. The current estimated extent of wetland area affected (see Table Environmental Characterization Criteria Summary Table) may underestimate the actual extent of wetland impacts associated with each TMF alternative. Impacts to provincially redor blue-listed wetlands especially should be highlighted. In addition to direct impacts on wetlands, a related indicator should be added to address the loss of wetland function that would result for each TMF alternative these listed communities were found during wetland baseline studies or TEM field investigations. 115 Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, 2012 Given this uncertainty in the information presented, it may not be reasonable to assume that the true values are low and, on the basis of this assumption, assign a low weight to aquatic habitat loss. i.e. assign a higher weight to aquatic habitat sub-account Environment Canada recommends that the Proponent describe within the EIS/EA Application how the wetland mitigation hierarchy (avoidance, mitigation, compensation) will be applied in the overall design of the project. Efforts to avoid impacts to wetlands should be fully documented. Avoidance is the preferred and recommended approach to addressing potential impacts to wetlands. In the event any listed wetlands cannot be avoided, and after mitigation, a Wetland Compensation Plan should be developed to address residual effects to wetland habitat and supporting functions, including provision of habitat for migratory birds and species at risk. In the event any listed wetlands cannot be The weighting of the sub-account aquatic habitat loss has been increased to be equal to that of terrestrial habitat loss. The EA Application/EIS will describe how the wetland mitigation hierarchy will be applied. Seabridge Seabridge Page 24 of 34

148 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder avoided, and after mitigation, a Wetland Compensation Plan should be developed to address residual effects to wetland habitat and supporting functions, including provision of habitat for migratory birds and species at risk. 117 Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, Of the four indicators of aquatic habitat loss (see Table Multiple Accounts Ledger), none directly address the potential for impacts to hydrology or water quality. The following sub-accounts should be considered for inclusion in the Environmental Account: Potential for dust generation during operation and post-closure; Potential for acid rock drainage generation during operation and postclosure; Potential for seepage to surface water and groundwater during operation and postclosure; Potential for changes to streamflow or other hydrologic indicators; and Considerations related to climate change adaptation (e.g. changes in water management). Recommendations with respect to the selection and weighting of [fisheries] sub- A TMF alternative s potential for dust generation during operation and closure was characterized in Table of the TMF Report, under air quality. As the TMFs have large cyclone sand dams associated with them, this indicator was not considered differentiating and was not carried forward into the multiple accounts analysis. The tailing contained within each TMF alternative would be identical; thus, the potential for acid rock drainage generation during operation and post-closure would be the same for each alternative and not differentiating among TMF alternatives. The sub-account surface water hydrology was added to the Environmental Account to compare potential changes to streamflow and sediment transport. The sub-account groundwater quality and quantity was added to the Environmental Account to compare the worstcase scenario (no containment or mitigation) for potential groundwater changes among the TMF alternatives. Considerations related to climate change adaptation will largely surround the changes to glaciers within the KSM project area. The ultimate effect of climate change on these glaciers is difficult to predict, but may cause glaciers to either recede or advance. As such, the best indicator of TMF s capacity to adapt to climate change is the glacierized area in catchment, which is included as an indicator under the Technical sub-account water management. Seabridge has been consulting the Working Group since it entered the EA process in Spring An overview of the Seabridge Seabridge Page 25 of 34

149 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder June 15, 2012 accounts should be sought from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the province of British Columbia, Aboriginal groups and other members of the environmental assessment working group. environmental assessment process, including a description of the working group, is provided review process is Section 2.1 of the TMF Report. Seabridge has also met separately with agencies such as DFO and provincial ministries to seek their comments on aspects of the KSM project pertaining to their mandates. 119 Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, 2012 As part of the Environmental Account, the Proponent has identified six indicators of terrestrial habitat loss (see Table Multiple Accounts Ledger). Although one of these is the presence of rare and endangered wildlife species, this indicator does not specifically identify those species listed on Schedule 1 of SARA. Since the environmental assessment required under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires that impacts to SARA-listed species be assessed, the presence of SARA-listed species (including plant species) in each of the four TMF alternatives should be explicitly identified as an indicator under the terrestrial habitat loss sub-account. Information describing the survey design, sampling methods and timing used to identify SARA-listed species should be presented in the EIS/EA Application. Western Toad and Olive-sided Flycatcher are both identified as Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)- listed in Table Environmental Characterization Criteria Summary. These species are also listed on Schedule 1 of SARA as Special Concern and Threatened, respectively. Although Environment Canada is the SARA lead for these species, the province No SARA-listed plant species have been located in any of the TMF options. The Schedule 1 SARA-listed species western toad and olive-sided flycatcher were observed within TMF option footprints during baseline studies. The identity of these species as Schedule 1 SARA-listed species has been clarified within the indicator presence of rare and endangered wildlife species, and the rankings within that sub-account have been adjusted to reflect this updated information. The survey design, sampling methods, and timing used to identify SARA-listed species will be described within the EIS/EA Application for the KSM project. The BC Ministry of Environment is a member of the Working Group for the Project and has been provided with opportunities to review the TMF Report. Seabridge Seabridge Seabridge Page 26 of 34

150 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder of British Columbia is the lead management jurisdiction, and should be afforded the opportunity to review how they have been addressed as part of the Environmental Account. 122 Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, 2012 Similarly, recommendations with respect to the selection and weighting of other terrestrial habitat loss sub-accounts should be sought from the province of British Columbia, as the lead management jurisdiction for grizzly bear, mountain goat, moose and marten. Notwithstanding the need to include indicators for rare and endangered species, the Proponent may also wish to consider the inclusion of a more general indicator of avian biodiversity (waterfowl/waterbirds/songbirds/shorebirds) to the terrestrial habitat loss sub-account. Such an indicator might be more useful in distinguishing between alternatives, considering that the Project area has not, in a relative sense, experienced the same level of development and associated impacts as elsewhere in the province. Another approach would be to increase the weight assigned to aquatic habitats (aside from lakes) to capture breeding bird populations (e.g., waterfowl). Finally, in selecting the terrestrial habitat loss characterization criteria to advance as evaluation criteria (see Table Environmental Characterization Criteria Summary), the Proponent rejects the indicator of overlap of the TMF alternative with provincially-proposed Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) on the basis that all four alternatives See response provided in row above. The relative weighting of aquatic habitat has been increased to have the same weighting as terrestrial habitat within the Environmental Account. Seabridge has discussed the proposed WHA with provincial government officials. The overlap of the selected TMF with the proposed WHA will be considered in the EIS/EA Application for the KSM project. Seabridge Seabridge Seabridge Page 27 of 34

151 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder overlap the proposed WHA. Although this may be a reasonable approach for the purposes of the Alternatives Assessment, since inclusion of this indicator does not further distinguish between alternatives, the overlap of any TMF option with the proposed WHA is nonetheless an issue which should receive further consideration in the EIS/EA Application. 125 Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, 2012 To address relative risks of the four alternatives to groundwater and surface water quality, TMF seepage and control measures should be added as additional indicators under this account. The locations of the North and Southeast dams in the preferred Upper Teigen/Treaty TMF are underlain by tills and alluvial deposits up to depths of 40 m and 80 m respectively. In case of the North dam, the upper 20 m of the overburden is coarse grained with frequent boulders (see Section Foundation Conditions). This introduces the potential for seepage flow from the TMF through the surficial materials, in addition to seepage loss from the toe of the dam. Since any seepage flow from the TMF would be considered as effluent under the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER), Environment Canada recommends that the Proponent provide Seepage and control measures are described for each TMF option in Section 5.2 of the TMF Report: Detailed Description of TMF Alternatives. The sub-account foundation conditions within the Technical sub-account ranks the suitability of foundation conditions for TMF dam placement, which includes the suitability of the foundation conditions for seepage control. As well, the sub-account groundwater quality and quantity has been added to the Environmental Account to compare the worstcase scenario (no containment or mitigation) for potential groundwater changes among the TMF alternatives. The effectiveness of the two proposed seepage collection ponds, as well the potential for seepage loss through the toes of dams will be assessed within the EIS/EA Application for the KSM project. KCB Seabridge Page 28 of 34

152 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder additional details on the effectiveness of the two proposed seepage collection ponds in capturing all the seepage that would potentially be generated from the TMF. The potential for seepage loss through the toe of the dam should also be clarified. 127 Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, 2012 Furthermore, the dams associated with this alternative would be constructed at locations where the overburden thickness is the least. Environment Canada recommends that the Proponent clarify whether the dams would be keyed to the bedrock, which may help manage the seepage from the TMF, as well as provide additional details on the dams water retaining potential. Groundwater models should identify the potential for seepage into bedrock, and should not assume that such seepage is insignificant unless adequate data can be presented to support this conclusion. Characterizing the potential for groundwater seepage into bedrock is important to determining whether the TMF and associated seepage collection ponds comply with the MMER. Since the study area is surrounded by glacierized terrain with varying degrees of geohazard potential, geohazards risk/potential should also be added as a sub-account under the Technical Account. The Proponent has provided extensive information in the Alternatives Assessment on various geohazards in the study area, which should enable the inclusion of indicators such as: Potential for additional/increased tailings A description of the containment dams will be included in the EIS/EA application for the KSM project. Seabridge met with Working Group to discuss proposed groundwater modeling. A groundwater model will be included in the EIS/EA application for the KSM project. The potential for construction, operational, and closure risks are considered in the Technical account sub-account: construction, operating, and closure requirements. This sub-account considers the geohazard risks to construction, operating and closure requirements for the KSM Project. Seabridge Seabridge KCB Page 29 of 34

153 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder storage containment capacity; and Construction, operational, closure and post-closure risks. 130 Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, 2012 The TMFs capabilities to manage the risk of unpredictable glacial run-off and of extreme flood events should also be added as a subaccount under the Technical Account. Capital cost, operational cost, closure and post closure cost as well as fish habitat compensation cost should be added as indicators under this account. Tailings disposal technologies such as dry stacking, paste tailings and thickened tailings options have been discounted from further consideration after initial screening. Environment Canada recommends that additional rationale (e.g., cost information) be provided as to why these options were screened out from further consideration. Recommendations with respect to the selection, measurement and weighting of this category of indicators should be sought from Aboriginal groups and other members of the environmental assessment working group, including the Nisga a A TMF s capacity to manage the risk of unpredictable glacial run-off and extreme flood events is included in Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) management. These data are characterized in Table Technical Characterization Criteria Summary Table of the TMF Report, under Flood Control. All TMF alternatives are able to store or divert the PMF; thus, this potential indicator is not considered differentiating among alternatives and is not carried forward into the multiple accounts analysis. The estimated project costs have been summarized by capital, operational and closure costs. These costs have been included as indicators under the sub-account estimated costs. Fish habitat compensation costs would be directly proportional to the HADD created by a TMF alternative, which is included in the indicator extent of HADD to fish habitat within the subaccount direct loss fisheries. Therefore, the cost of fish habitat compensation is considered to be redundant and is not included within the TMF Report. Additional rationale for dry stacking, paste tailing, thickened tailing, and co-disposal with waste rock has been provided in Section 4 in the TMF Report. Seabridge has met separately with the Nisga a and other First Nations to seek their comments on the TMF Report and options. As a result of these meetings, the analysis in the TMF Report has been modified. The EA Application/EIS will incorporate information from traditional knowledge and traditional use KCB Seabridge KCB Seabridge Page 30 of 34

154 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder Nation. Environment Canada recommends any studies. subsequent drafts of the Alternatives Assessment incorporate the results of traditional knowledge and traditional use studies, as well as the results of consultation with relevant Aboriginal groups and the Nisga a Nation. This information and its analysis in the context of the Alternatives Assessment will be important to satisfying the consultation obligations of both the environmental assessment and any amendment to Schedule 2 of the MMER. the overlap of any TMF option with the Nass Potential effects on Nisga a rights and interests as defined in the Seabridge Area is nonetheless an issue which should Nisga a Final Agreement will be assessed as part of the EIA/EA receive further consideration in the EIS/EA Application for the KSM project. Application as well as within the assessment required as part of the requirements of the Nisga a Final Agreement 134 Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, 2012 Environment Canada recommends that a conceptual groundwater model for the preferred TMF alternative be presented as part of the EIS/EA Application. For comparative purposes, it would be beneficial to show the baseline groundwater conditions in each area considered and to demonstrate in each case how the groundwater regime will be affected by the tailings deposition. Additional groundwater well monitoring data should be presented as part of the EIS/EA Application to characterize the site hydrostratigraphy and to provide confidence in the predicted ability of artesian aquifers to protect from TMF seepage. In most alpine valley settings, underlying bedrock aquifer(s) may be artesian in some areas of the reach, but The sub-account groundwater quality and quantity has been added to the Environmental Account to compare the worst-case scenario (no containment or mitigation) for potential groundwater changes among the TMF alternatives. As stated previously a groundwater model will be included in the EA Application/EIA. Information regarding groundwater will be presented as part of the EA Application/EIS for the KSM project. Seabridge Seabridge Page 31 of 34

155 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder not all, especially in shallow glacifluvial soils. Additional analysis should be presented to assess whether the artesian conditions in the groundwater within the footprint of the TMF would be sustained with the associated pressure head from the deposition of tailings. When tailings are deposited into the impoundment, the water table will rise and reestablish an equilibrium condition over time within the tailings. This is due to the finegrained nature of most mine tailings and the amount of precipitation. It can be reasonably expected that the water table will be within a few metres of surface once completion of tailings deposition is completed. 137 Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, 2012 The Alternatives Assessment should consider how different TMF alternatives would address the potential for acid rock drainage/metal leaching as well as segregation options for potentially acid generating tailings. The Proponent plans to segregate acid generating tailings and place them in a separate lined area within the proposed TMF. However, this option was only proposed for the West Teigen Creek/North Treaty Creek option. Approaches for segregation of acid generating tailings should be described for the other TMF options as well. No information was presented to suggest that the tailings are also non-metal leaching under neutral or alkaline conditions. More detailed information with respect to tailings geochemistry should be presented as part of the EIS/EA Application Although the segregation of the acid-generating tailing has been described for the selected TMF alternative in Appendix H of the TMF Report, the selection of the Upper Teigen/Treaty TMF as the preferred TMF alternative was done without considering segregation of these tailing for any alternative. The inclusion of the lined facility was done as an accommodation measure to address the concerns that we, as the proponent had heard regarding the location of the proposed TMF. Thus, the consideration of these TMF alternatives was done as a worst-case scenario. Information regarding tailing geochemistry will be presented as part of the EIS/EA application for the KSM project. Seabridge Seabridge Page 32 of 34

156 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada No. Commenter / Date Received Comment Seabridge Response Responder 139 Environment Canada, June 15, 2012 The resulting four combined TMF alternatives, as presented, could contain substantially more tailings than required based on the current proposed mine size and predicted mine life. The Alternatives Assessment should clarify whether this means the overall footprint of these combined TMF alternatives could therefore be reduced. The combined alternatives do represent a reduced TMF footprint from the individual alternatives proposed, for the Unuk Valley and Upper Treaty Creek TMF options. This point has clarified within Section Combined Alternatives of the TMF Report. Seabridge 140 Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, Environment Canada, June 15, 2012 Earlier comments with respect to the relative environmental, technical, economic and social considerations of different TMF alternatives also apply to the assessment of the access road. In particular, since road construction has the potential to result in acid rock drainage, this Appendix should address the relative opportunities for avoiding or mitigating water quality impacts in locating and building the access road. There appear to be some calculation errors or omissions in Appendix F-5 - Accounts Summary. Specifically, under the Technical Accounts category, the sub-account merit score fields are blank for the different TMF alternatives. The heights of the three dams are reported on page 4-12 to be 250 m, 236 m and 190 m. However in Section on page 5-4, this is reported to be different (i.e., 250 m, 215 m and 165 m for southeast, north and saddle dams respectively). Table and Fig indicate that the capacity of the segmented Bowser Lake is 1.4 bt. However, in Fig , it is reported to be 1.14 bt. The assessment of TMF alternatives did not consider potential access requirements. The assessment of the access road was performed solely as a selection tool for the proponent, and is not part of any regulatory requirement. An ARD evaluation of any proposed road routes will also be included in the ES/EIA application. The proposed access route for the selected TMF location is within an area of low ARD potential based on the bedrock geology The calculation errors have been corrected. The inconsistency has been corrected. The correct height for the dams are 240 m, 215 m and 165 m. The inconsistency has been corrected. The correct capacity for the segmented Bowser Lake TMF is 1.14 Bt. Seabridge Seabridge Seabridge Seabridge Page 33 of 34

157 Assessment of Alternatives for Tailing Management Facility for the KSM Project Summary of responses to questions and comments raised by the KSM Project Working Group, Nisga a Lisims Government, and Environment Canada References: Alaska Department of Fish and Game Estimation of the Escapement of Chinook Salmon in the Unuk River in Fisheries Data Series Environment Canada (EC) Guidelines for the Assessment of Alternatives for Mine Waste Disposal Koski, W.R., R.F. Alexander, and K.K. English Distribution, timing, fate and numbers of chinook salmon returning to the Nass River Watershed in Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Rescan KSM Project: 2009 Fish and Fish Habitat Baseline Report. Vancouver; BC. Prepared for Seabridge Gold Inc. by Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. Attachment: Response: Klohn Crippen Berger Page 34 of 34

158 June 25, 2012 Seabridge Gold Inc. 106 Front Street East, Suite 400 Toronto, ON M5A 1E1 Mr. Brent Murphy VP, Environmental Affairs Dear Mr. Murphy: KSM Project Combined Unuk West Alternatives 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this letter is to address a suggestion raised by Mr. Mansell Griffin of the Nisga a Nation to combine Unuk and West tailing management facilities (TMF) options, with the potential objectives as follows: a. Combining the two alternatives could reduce the watershed of the Unuk alternative and, therefore, decrease the risk of high floods due to the large catchment area of the Unuk ; and, b. Constructing a dam at the west side of West Teigen to keep all of the drainage in the Unuk watershed. 2 ORIGINAL UNUK AND TEIGEN LAKE TMF OPTIONS The KCB February 2012 KSM TMF Alternatives Report identified Unuk and West TMF options. The characteristics of these are listed in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Unuk and West TMF Options Catchment Areas and Tailings Storage TMF Option Tailings Elev. (m) Catchment Area (km 2 ) Glaciated Catchment Area (km 2 ) Tailings Storage (Bt) Unuk West 1, L Unuk TMF Review.docx M09480A Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd Virtual Way Vancouver BC V5M 4X6 CANADA t f

159 Seabridge Gold Inc KSM Project Combined Unuk West Alternatives 3 ASSESSED OPTIONS Two options were assessed in response to the suggestions from Mr. Griffin, which included: 1. Unuk TMF combined with a lower tailings elevation within West TMF to store up to 2.5 Bt. 2. Unuk TMF combined with a new dam and TMF upstream of the Unuk TMF and a lower tailings elevation within West TMF to store up to 2.5 Bt. Option 1 The Unuk TMF stores approximately 1.52 Bt of tailings. To store the remaining 0.92 Bt, the West Facility could be reduced in elevation from 1,160 masl to approximately 1,110 masl. A plan of the combined facility is shown in Figure 1 and TMF details are summarized in Table 3.1. The main observations include: The catchment area reduction is negligible, and catchment areas are still very significant. Significant water management risks from the large total catchment of km 2 with glaciated catchment of 47.7 km 2 are still present. The West TMF is required and, therefore, the TMF s would be affecting both the Unuk and Teigen Creek watersheds. Table 3.1 Summary of Dam Elevations, Catchment Areas and Storage as Shown in Figure 1 TMF Containment Dam Base Elevation Dam Crest Catchment Area Glaciated Catchment Tailings (masl) Elevation (masl) (km 2 ) Area (km 2 ) Storage (Bt) Primary Unuk Western West * * Common Catchment Area * The West TMF has been reduced in elevation and the storage capacity reduced to store a combined total of up to 2.5 Bt of tailings. Option 2 To maximize the storage in the Unuk watershed another dam (East Unuk) could be constructed upstream of the Unuk TMF, which would store additional tailings at a new, higher level TMF (Unuk Teigen TMF) between the Unuk and Teigen. The additional higher level central TMF would also require a higher West Teigen Dam for the West TMF, as shown in Figure 2. Details of the dams are summarized in Table 3.2. The West TMF would then also be partially filled to store tailings and could then be reduced to approximately elevation 1,060 masl. The main observations include: L Unuk TMF Review.docx Page 2 M09480A June 2012

160 Seabridge Gold Inc KSM Project Combined Unuk West Alternatives The total catchment area reduction is negligible, and catchment areas are still very significant. The length of perimeter diversions required becomes extreme due to the long, narrow shape of the combined Unuk, Unuk Teigen, West Teigen TMF impoundment. These long diversions are vulnerable to interruption by geohazards at many points along their length. The rough terrain in the area would make operation of diversions very difficult. The significant water management risks from the large total catchment of km 2 with glaciated catchment of 47.7 km 2 that resulted in a fatal flaw for the original Unuk TMF are still present in this option. Risks are additionally increased due to the presence of four dams instead of three, as well as three ponds instead of two. The West TMF is required and, therefore, there is a potential effect in the Teigen Creek watershed. Table 3.2 Summary of Dam Elevations, Catchment Areas and Storage as Shown in Figure 2 TMF AREA TMF Containment Dam Base Elevation (masl) Dam Crest Elevation (masl) Dam Ht. (m) Catchment Area (km 2 ) Glaciated Catchment Area (km 2 ) Tailings Storage (Bt) 1.52 Unuk Primary Unuk Dam Unuk Teigen East Unuk Dam West Teigen West Teigen Dam * 160 (partial) East Teigen Dam * * Common Catchment Area (overlaps) * The West TMF has been reduced in elevation and the storage capacity reduced to store a total of up to 2.5 Bt of tailings. 4 SUMMARY This memo summarizes our assessment of potential variations to the Unuk and West TMF alternatives, with an objective of reducing watershed areas and of keeping the main effects within the Unuk watershed. The main conclusions of the assessment are: 1. There is not enough storage capacity available in the Unuk watershed in either Option 1 or Option 2 to keep all life of mine tailing within the Unuk watershed. 2. Option 2 involves construction of a 160 m high West Teigen dam at the Unuk West Teigen Lake watershed divide to the West of West, along with a 260 m high East Unuk dam at the upstream extent of the Unuk TMF. This option could potentially provide storage for approximately 2 Bt of tailings within the Unuk watershed. The main disadvantages of this alternative include: L Unuk TMF Review.docx Page 3 M09480A June 2012

161 Seabridge Gold Inc KSM Project Combined Unuk West Alternatives a. The 160 m high West Teigen dam would drain towards the West Teigen Creek watershed. The East Teigen Dam would drain towards the Teigen Creek watershed. b. The option includes three TMF s with a corresponding increase in risks associated with dams, water and flood management. Operation of the very long diversions required for Option 2 would be difficult and increase risks as they are vulnerable to geohazards such as debris flows and avalanches at multiple locations along long and winding routes. c. The third TMF (the elevated area of tailings in the central Unuk Teigen TMF as part of Option 2) is needed to reach the required design storage criteria of 2.5 Bt. To provide the required storage, the West TMF would still need to be constructed to a elevation of approximately 1,060 masl (lower than the standalone option elevation of 1,100 m). This partial filling would result in the East Teigen Dam of the West TMF being approximately 170 m high. 3. The combining of the West and Unuk alternatives could potentially reduce the catchment area of the combined Unuk Teigen TMF by 13%, which is not a significant improvement in risk management associated with the large catchment area associated with the Unuk alternatives. The fatal flaw associated with the high risk of water management from such a large catchment remains with this combined option. An increased risk from the additional dam and impoundment area is also present with this option. 4. All of the potential storage variations assessed herein would affect both the Unuk and Teigen Creek watersheds. Yours truly, KLOHN CRIPPEN BERGER LTD. Graham Parkinson, P.Geo., P.Geoph. Project Manager Harvey McLeod, P.Eng., P.Geo. Project Reviewer HM/GP:dl cc. Attach: Lisa DeSandoli, Rescan Environmental Services Figure 1 Option 1 Combined: Unuk TMF and West TMF Figure 2 Option 2 Combined: Unuk TMF, Unuk Teigen TMF and West TMF L Unuk TMF Review.docx Page 4 M09480A June 2012

162 , , , , , , , , , ,000 6,280,000 6,285,000 6,270,000 6,275, ,500 m Projection: UTM Zone 9N, NAD83 Contours: 100m from BC TRIM Other topographic data: GeoGratis UNUK CATCHMENT WEST TEIGEN CATCHMENT UNUK CATCHMENT TOTAL CATCHMENT km² GLACIATED CATCHMENT km² TMF POND km² WEST TEIGEN CATCHMENT TOTAL CATCHMENT km² GLACIATED CATCHMENT km² TMF POND km² COMBINED UNUK AND WEST TEIGEN CATCHMENTS TOTAL CATCHMENT km² GLACIATED CATCHMENT km² TMF PONDS km² UNUK AND WEST TEIGEN CATCHMENT OVERLAP TOTAL CATCHMENT OVERLAP km² GLACIATED CATCHMENT km² TMF PONDS km² 420, , , , , ,000 Unuk Catchment West Teigen Catchment Catchment Overlap Glaciated Catchment Dam Tailing AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO OUR CLIENT, THE PUBLIC AND OURSELVES, ALL REPORTS AND DRAWINGS ARE SUBMITTED FOR THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF OUR CLIENT FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT AND AUTHORIZATION FOR USE AND PUBLICATION OF DATA, STATEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS OR ABSTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS AND DRAWINGS IS RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL. CLIENT PROJECT KSM PROJECT TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE TAILING SITES TITLE OPTION 1 COMBINED UNUK TMF AND WEST TEIGEN LAKE TMF DATE PROJECT No. FIGURE No. REV. JUNE 2012 M09480A ,285,000 6,280,000 6,275,000 6,270,000 afischer Z:\M\VCR\M09480A04 - KSM 2012 PFS\400 Drawings\GIS\mxd\TMF_options\presentation_figur\fig1_unuk&wteigen_catchment_12jul12.mxd

163 , , , , , , , , , ,000 6,280,000 6,285,000 6,270,000 6,275, ,500 m Projection: UTM Zone 9N, NAD83 Contours: 100m from BC TRIM Other topographic data: GeoGratis UNUK CATCHMENT COMBINED UNUK-TEIGEN CATCHMENT WEST TEIGEN CATCHMENT UNUK CATCHMENT TOTAL CATCHMENT km² GLACIATED CATCHMENT km² TMF POND km² WEST TEIGEN CATCHMENT TOTAL CATCHMENT km² GLACIATED CATCHMENT km² TMF POND km² COMBINED UNUK AND WEST TEIGEN CATCHMENTS TOTAL CATCHMENT km² GLACIATED CATCHMENT km² TMF PONDS km² UNUK AND WEST TEIGEN CATCHMENT OVERLAP TOTAL CATCHMENT OVERLAP km² GLACIATED CATCHMENT km² TMF PONDS km² 420, , , , , ,000 Unuk Catchment West Teigen Catchment Catchment Overlap Glaciated Catchment Dam Tailing AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO OUR CLIENT, THE PUBLIC AND OURSELVES, ALL REPORTS AND DRAWINGS ARE SUBMITTED FOR THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF OUR CLIENT FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT AND AUTHORIZATION FOR USE AND PUBLICATION OF DATA, STATEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS OR ABSTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS AND DRAWINGS IS RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL. CLIENT PROJECT KSM PROJECT TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE TAILING SITES TITLE OPTION 2 COMBINED: UNUK TMF, UNUK-TEIGEN TMF AND WEST TEIGEN LAKE TMF DATE PROJECT No. FIGURE No. REV. JUNE 2012 M09480A ,285,000 6,280,000 6,275,000 6,270,000 afischer Z:\M\VCR\M09480A04 - KSM 2012 PFS\400 Drawings\GIS\mxd\TMF_options\presentation_figur\fig2_unuk&wteigen_catchment_10jul12.mxd

164 APPENDIX F SOURCE DOCUMENTATION o o o o o o o o o o o o o o KSM Project: 2008 Site Investigation Report KSM Project: 2009 Site Investigation Report KSM Project: 2010 Site Investigation Report KSM Project Scoping Study - Tailings & Waste Rock Management Status Update (Revision#1) Noranda KS Study Presentation: Tailings & Waste Rock Management Conceptual Scoping Study 2010 Technical Report and Preliminary Assessment of the Brucejack Project KSM Project: 2009 Vegetation and Ecosystem Mapping Baseline Report KSM Project: 2008 Fisheries Baseline Study Report KSM Project: 2009 Fisheries Baseline Study Report KSM Project: 2008 and 2009 Grizzly Bear DNA Study Baseline Report KSM Project: 2009 Wildlife Characterization Baseline Report KSM Project: 2009 Wildlife Habitat Suitability Baseline Report Northwest Transmission Line Project: Skii Km Lax Ha Traditional Knowledge and Use Study KSM Project: 2009 Wetlands Baseline Report The reports above are available in the folder Appendix F. TM

165 APPENDIX G CALCULATION TABLES TM

166 Appendix G-1 Environmental Account Aquatic Habitat Loss TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Ecological quality index of affected wetlands Lakes surface area directly affected Stream length directly affected River length directly affected merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Direct Loss Fisheries Value TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Number of fish species directly affected Extent of harmful alteration disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat Merit Merit Merit Merit Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Score (I 4 x W) merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Downstream Fisheries Values TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Distance from toe of containment dam to first occurrence of salmon Downstream chinook salmon values Downstream sockeye salmon values Downstream coho salmon values merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Terrestrial Habitat Loss TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Presence of rare and endangered ecosystems Presence of rare and endangered plant species Presence of high value grizzly bear habitat Presence of high value mountain ungulate habitat Presence of high value moose habitat Presence of high value marten habitat Presence of other rare and endangered wildlife species merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 1 of 7

167 Appendix G-1 Environmental Account Groundwater Quality and Quantity TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Changes to groundwater quantity Changes to groundwater quality merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Surface Water Hydrology TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Potential impacts to downstream sediment transport Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Potential runoff loss using watershed area (to salmon habitat) merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Surface Water Chemistry Immediate Receiving Environment TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Water quality (copper) in the immediate receiving environment Water quality (Zn) in the immediate receiving environment Water quality (SO 4 ) in the immediate receiving environment merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 2 of 7

168 Appendix G-2 Technical Account Water Management TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Catchment size Undiverted catchment size Glacierized area in catchment Number of diversion dams required Diversion of main channel required Feasibility of diversion construction merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Containment Infrastructure Design TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Number of containment dams Total dam volume Number of facilities merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) General foundation conditions Earthquake foundation conditions Foundation Conditions TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Merit Merit Score Merit Score Score Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) (I 4 x W) merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Construction, Operating and Closure Requirements TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Ease of construction Ease of operation Closure requirements merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 3 of 7

169 Appendix G-3 Socio-economic and Archaeological Account Aboriginal Interests TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Cultural and/or spiritual significance Importance for traditional use activities Importance as Aboriginal access route First Nation traditional territories overlapped Nisga a Nation treaty territory overlapped Commercial Land Uses TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Number of traplines overlapped Number of guide outfitting tenures overlapped Number of commercial recreation tenures overlapped Employment Weight (W) TMF1 Value (I 1 ) Upper Teigen / Treaty Merit Score (I 1 x W) TMF2 Value (I 2 ) Scott Creek Valley - West Merit Score (I 2 x W) TMF3 Value (I 3 ) Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake Merit Score (I 3 x W) TMF4 Value (I 4) Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Score (I 4 x W) Estimated employment opportunities resulting directly from containment dams n/a merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Archaeology TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake Merit Score (I 3 x W) TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Score (I 4 x W) Merit Merit Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Value (I 4) Archaeological importance n/a Page 4 of 7

170 Appendix G-4 Project Economics Account Estimated Costs Scott Creek Valley - West Teigen Lake Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake Upper Treaty Creek - West TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 TMF3 TMF4 Merit Score Merit Merit Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Capital costs Operating costs Merit Score (I 4 x W) Closure costs merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 5 of 7

171 Appendix G-5 Accounts Summary Account Sub-Account Environmental weight (W) TMF1 Subaccount value (S 1 ) Upper Teigen / Treaty merit score (S 1 x W) TMF2 Subaccount value (S 2 ) Scott Creek Valley - West merit score (S 2 x W) TMF3 Subaccount value (S 3 ) Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake merit score (S 3 x W) TMF4 Subaccount value (S 4 ) Upper Treaty Creek - West merit score (S 4 x W) Aquatic habitat loss Fisheries value Downstream fisheries value Terrestrial habitat loss Groundwater quality and quantity Surface water hydrology Surface water chemistry immediate receiving environment Account merit score (Σ{S n x W}) Account merit rating ({S n xw}/ ΣW) Account Technical TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Water management Containment infrastructure design Foundation conditions Construction, operating and closure requirements Account merit score (Σ{S n x W}) Account merit rating (Σ{S n xw}/ ΣW) Account Socio-economic TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Aboriginal interests Commercial land uses Employment Archaeology merit score (Σ{S n x W}) merit rating (Σ{S n xw}/ ΣW) Account Project Economics TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Estimated costs n/a Account merit score (Σ{S n x W}) Account merit rating (Σ{S n xw}/ ΣW) Page 6 of 7

172 Appendix G-6 Base Case and Account Sensitivity Account Base Case Account Weight (W) TMF1 Account value (A 1 ) Upper Teigen / Treaty Account merit score (A 1 x W) TMF2 Account value (A 2 ) Scott Creek Valley - West Account merit score (A 2 x W) TMF3 Account value (A 3 ) Unuk Valley - West Account merit score (A 3 x W) TMF4 Account value (A 4 ) Upper Treaty Creek - West Account merit score (A 4 x W) Environmental Technical Socio-economic Economic TMF merit score (Σ{A n x W}) TMF merit rating (Σ{A n xw}/ ΣW) Account Equal Weighting Account Weight (W) TMF1 Account value (A 1 ) Upper Teigen / Treaty Account merit score (A 1 x W) TMF2 Account value (A 2 ) Scott Creek Valley - West Account merit score (A 2 x W) TMF3 Account value (A 3 ) Unuk Valley - West Account merit score (A 3 x W) TMF4 Account value (A 4 ) Upper Treaty Creek - West Account merit score (A 4 x W) Environmental Technical Socio-economic Economic TMF merit score (Σ{A n x W}) TMF merit rating (Σ{A n xw}/ ΣW) Account Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Only Account Weight (W) TMF1 Account value (A 1 ) Upper Teigen / Treaty Account merit score (A 1 x W) TMF2 Account value (A 2 ) Scott Creek Valley - West Account merit score (A 2 x W) TMF3 Account value (A 3 ) Unuk Valley - West Account merit score (A 3 x W) TMF4 Account value (A 4 ) Upper Treaty Creek - West Account merit score (A 4 x W) Environmental Technical Socio-economic Economic TMF merit score (Σ{A n x W}) TMF merit rating (Σ{A n xw}/ ΣW) Page 7 of 7

173 Appendix G.A1-1 Environmental Account Aquatic Habitat Loss TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Ecological quality index of affected wetlands Lakes surface area directly affected Stream length directly affected River length directly affected merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Direct Loss Fisheries Value TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Number of fish species directly affected Extent of harmful alteration disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Downstream Fisheries Values TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Distance from toe of containment dam to first occurrence of salmon Downstream chinook salmon values Downstream sockeye salmon values Downstream coho salmon values merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Terrestrial Habitat Loss TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Presence of rare and endangered ecosystems Presence of rare and endangered plant species Presence of high value grizzly bear habitat Presence of high value mountain ungulate habitat Presence of high value moose habitat Presence of high value marten habitat Presence of other rare and endangered wildlife species merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 1 of 7

174 Appendix G.A1-1 Environmental Account Surface Water Hydrology TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Potential impacts to downstream sediment transport Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Potential runoff loss using watershed area (to salmon habitat) merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Groundwater Quality and Quantity TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Changes to groundwater quantity Changes to groundwater quality merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Surface Water Chemistry Immediate Receiving Environment TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Water quality (copper) in the immediate receiving environment Water quality (Zn) in the immediate receiving environment Water quality (SO 4 ) in the immediate receiving environment merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 2 of 7

175 Appendix G.A1-2 Technical Account Water Management TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Catchment size Undiverted catchment size Glacierized area in catchment Number of diversion dams required Diversion of main channel required Feasibility of diversion construction merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Containment Infrastructure Design TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Number of containment dams Total dam volume Number of facilities merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) General foundation conditions Earthquake foundation conditions Foundation Conditions TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Merit Merit Score Merit Score Score Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) (I 4 x W) merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Construction, Operating and Closure Requirements TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Ease of construction Ease of operation Closure requirements merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 3 of 7

176 Appendix G.A1-3 Socio-economic and Archaeological Account Aboriginal Interests TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Cultural and/or spiritual significance Importance for traditional use activities Importance as Aboriginal access route First Nation traditional territories overlapped Nisga a Nation treaty territory overlapped Commercial Land Uses TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Number of traplines overlapped Number of guide outfitting tenures overlapped Number of commercial recreation tenures overlapped Employment Weight (W) TMF1 Value (I 1 ) Upper Teigen / Treaty Merit Score (I 1 x W) TMF2 Value (I 2 ) Scott Creek Valley - West Merit Score (I 2 x W) TMF3 Value (I 3 ) Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake Merit Score (I 3 x W) TMF4 Value (I 4) Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Score (I 4 x W) Estimated employment opportunities resulting directly from containment dams n/a merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Archaeology TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake Merit Score (I 3 x W) TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Score (I 4 x W) Merit Merit Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Value (I 4) Archaeological importance n/a Page 4 of 7

177 Appendix G.A1-4 Project Economics Account Estimated Costs Scott Creek Valley - West Teigen Lake Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake Upper Treaty Creek - West TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 TMF3 TMF4 Merit Score Merit Merit Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Capital costs Operating costs Merit Score (I 4 x W) Closure costs merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 5 of 7

178 Appendix G.A1-5 Accounts Summary Account Sub-Account Environmental weight (W) TMF1 Subaccount value (S 1 ) Upper Teigen / Treaty merit score (S 1 x W) TMF2 Subaccount value (S 2 ) Scott Creek Valley - West merit score (S 2 x W) TMF3 Subaccount value (S 3 ) Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake merit score (S 3 x W) TMF4 Subaccount value (S 4 ) Upper Treaty Creek - West merit score (S 4 x W) Aquatic habitat loss Fisheries value Downstream fisheries value Terrestrial habitat loss Groundwater quality and quantity Surface water hydrology Surface water chemistry immediate receiving environment Account merit score (Σ{S n x W}) Account merit rating ({S n xw}/ ΣW) Account Technical TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Water management Containment infrastructure design Foundation conditions Construction, operating and closure Requirements Account merit score (Σ{S n x W}) Account merit rating (Σ{S n xw}/ ΣW) Account Socio-economic TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Aboriginal interests Commercial land uses Employment Archaeology merit score (Σ{S n x W}) merit rating (Σ{S n xw}/ ΣW) Account Project Economics TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Estimated costs Account merit score (Σ{S n x W}) Account merit rating (Σ{S n xw}/ ΣW) Page 6 of 7

179 Appendix G.A1-6 Account Sensitivity Account Equal Weighting Account Weight (W) TMF1 Account value (A 1 ) Upper Teigen / Treaty Account merit score (A 1 x W) TMF2 Account value (A 2 ) Scott Creek Valley - West Account merit score (A 2 x W) TMF3 Account value (A 3 ) Unuk Valley - West Account merit score (A 3 x W) TMF4 Account value (A 4 ) Upper Treaty Creek - West Account merit score (A 4 x W) Environmental Technical Socio-economic Economic TMF merit score (Σ{A n x W}) TMF merit rating (Σ{A n xw}/ ΣW) Page 7 of 7

180 Appendix G.A2-1 Environmental Account Aquatic Habitat Loss TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Ecological quality index of affected wetlands Lakes surface area directly affected Stream length directly affected River length directly affected merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Direct Loss Fisheries Value TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Number of fish species directly affected Extent of harmful alteration disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Downstream Fisheries Values TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Distance from toe of containment dam to first occurrence of salmon Downstream chinook salmon values Downstream sockeye salmon values Downstream coho salmon values merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Terrestrial Habitat Loss TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Presence of rare and endangered ecosystems Presence of rare and endangered plant species Presence of high value grizzly bear habitat Presence of high value mountain ungulate habitat Presence of high value moose habitat Presence of high value marten habitat Presence of other rare and endangered wildlife species merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 1 of 7

181 Appendix G.A2-1 Environmental Account Groundwater Quality and Quantity TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Changes to groundwater quantity Changes to groundwater quality merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Surface Water Hydrology TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Potential impacts to downstream sediment transport Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Potential runoff loss using watershed area (to salmon habitat) merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Surface Water Chemistry Immediate Receiving Environment TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Water quality (copper) in the immediate receiving environment Water quality (Zn) in the immediate receiving environment Water quality (SO 4 ) in the immediate receiving environment merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 2 of 7

182 Appendix G.A2-2 Technical Account Water Management TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Catchment size Undiverted catchment size Glacierized area in catchment Number of diversion dams required Diversion of main channel required Feasibility of diversion construction merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Containment Infrastructure Design TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Number of containment dams Total dam volume Number of facilities merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) General foundation conditions Earthquake foundation conditions Foundation Conditions TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Merit Merit Score Merit Score Score Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) (I 4 x W) merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Construction, Operating and Closure Requirements TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Ease of construction Ease of operation Closure requirements merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 3 of 7

183 Appendix G.A2-3 Socio-economic and Archaeological Account Aboriginal Interests TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Cultural and/or spiritual significance Importance for traditional use activities Importance as Aboriginal access route First Nation traditional territories overlapped Nisga a Nation treaty territory overlapped Commercial Land Uses TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Number of traplines overlapped Number of guide outfitting tenures overlapped Number of commercial recreation tenures overlapped Employment Weight (W) TMF1 Value (I 1 ) Upper Teigen / Treaty Merit Score (I 1 x W) TMF2 Value (I 2 ) Scott Creek Valley - West Merit Score (I 2 x W) TMF3 Value (I 3 ) Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake Merit Score (I 3 x W) TMF4 Value (I 4) Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Score (I 4 x W) Estimated employment opportunities resulting directly from containment dams n/a merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Archaeology TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake Merit Score (I 3 x W) TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Score (I 4 x W) Merit Merit Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Value (I 4) Archaeological importance n/a Page 4 of 7

184 Appendix G.A2-4 Project Economics Account Estimated Costs Weight (W) TMF1 Value (I 1 ) Upper Teigen / Treaty Merit Score (I 1 x W) TMF2 Value (I 2 ) Scott Creek Valley - West Teigen Lake Merit Score (I 2 x W) TMF3 Value (I 3 ) Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake Merit Score (I 3 x W) TMF4 Value (I 4) Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Score (I 4 x W) Capital costs Operating costs Closure costs merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 5 of 7

185 Appendix G.A2-5 Accounts Summary Account Sub-Account Environmental weight (W) TMF1 Subaccount value (S 1 ) Upper Teigen / Treaty merit score (S 1 x W) TMF2 Subaccount value (S 2 ) Scott Creek Valley - West merit score (S 2 x W) TMF3 Subaccount value (S 3 ) Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake merit score (S 3 x W) TMF4 Subaccount value (S 4 ) Upper Treaty Creek - West merit score (S 4 x W) Aquatic habitat loss Fisheries value Downstream fisheries value Terrestrial habitat loss Groundwater quality and quantity Surface water hydrology Surface water chemistry immediate receiving environment Account merit score (Σ{S n x W}) Account merit rating ({S n xw}/ ΣW) Account Technical TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Water management Containment infrastructure design Foundation conditions Construction, operating and closure requirements Account merit score (Σ{S n x W}) Account merit rating (Σ{S n xw}/ ΣW) Account Socio-economic TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Aboriginal interests Commercial land uses Employment Archaeology merit score (Σ{S n x W}) merit rating (Σ{S n xw}/ ΣW) Account Project Economics TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Estimated costs Account merit score (Σ{S n x W}) Account merit rating (Σ{S n xw}/ ΣW) Page 6 of 7

186 Appendix G.A2-6 Account Sensitivity Account Equal Weighting Account Weight (W) TMF1 Account value (A 1 ) Upper Teigen / Treaty Account merit score (A 1 x W) TMF2 Account value (A 2 ) Scott Creek Valley - West Account merit score (A 2 x W) TMF3 Account value (A 3 ) Unuk Valley - West Account merit score (A 3 x W) TMF4 Account value (A 4 ) Upper Treaty Creek - West Account merit score (A 4 x W) Environmental Technical Socio-economic Economic TMF merit score (Σ{A n x W}) TMF merit rating (Σ{A n xw}/ ΣW) Page 7 of 7

187 Appendix G.B1-1 Environmental Account Aquatic Habitat Loss TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Ecological quality index of affected wetlands Lakes surface area directly affected Stream length directly affected River length directly affected merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Direct Loss Fisheries Value TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Number of fish species directly affected Extent of harmful alteration disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Downstream Fisheries Values TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Distance from toe of containment dam to first occurrence of salmon Downstream chinook salmon values Downstream sockeye salmon values Downstream coho salmon values merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Terrestrial Habitat Loss TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Presence of rare and endangered ecosystems Presence of rare and endangered plant species Presence of high value grizzly bear habitat Presence of high value mountain ungulate habitat Presence of high value moose habitat Presence of high value marten habitat Presence of other rare and endangered wildlife species merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 1 of 7

188 Appendix G.B1-1 Environmental Account Groundwater Quality and Quantity TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Changes to groundwater quantity Changes to groundwater quality merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Surface Water Hydrology TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Potential impacts to downstream sediment transport Potential runoff loss using watershed area (to salmon habitat) merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Surface Water Chemistry Immediate Receiving Environment TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Water quality (copper) in the immediate receiving environment Water quality (Zn) in the immediate receiving environment Water quality (SO 4 ) in the immediate receiving environment merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 2 of 7

189 Appendix G.B1-2 Technical Account Water Management TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Catchment size Undiverted catchment size Glacierized area in catchment Number of diversion dams required Diversion of main channel required Feasibility of diversion construction merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Containment Infrastructure Design TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Number of containment dams Total dam volume Number of facilities merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) General foundation conditions Earthquake foundation conditions Foundation Conditions TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Merit Merit Score Merit Score Score Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) (I 4 x W) merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Construction, Operating and Closure Requirements Scott Creek Valley - West Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Score (I 4 x W) TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Merit Merit Score Merit Score Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Ease of construction Ease of operation Closure requirements merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 3 of 7

190 Appendix G.B1-3 Socio-economic and Archaeological Account Aboriginal Interests TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Cultural and/or spiritual significance Importance for traditional use activities Importance as Aboriginal access route First Nation traditional territories overlapped Nisga a Nation treaty territory overlapped Commercial Land Uses TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Number of traplines overlapped Number of guide outfitting tenures overlapped Number of commercial recreation tenures overlapped Employment Weight (W) TMF1 Value (I 1 ) Upper Teigen / Treaty Merit Score (I 1 x W) TMF2 Value (I 2 ) Scott Creek Valley - West Merit Score (I 2 x W) TMF3 Value (I 3 ) Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake Merit Score (I 3 x W) TMF4 Value (I 4) Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Score (I 4 x W) Estimated employment opportunities resulting directly from containment dams n/a merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Archaeology TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake Merit Score (I 3 x W) TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Score (I 4 x W) Merit Merit Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Value (I 4) Archaeological importance n/a Page 4 of 7

191 Appendix G.B-4 Project Economics Account Estimated Costs Scott Creek Valley - West Teigen Lake Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake Upper Treaty Creek - West TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 TMF3 TMF4 Merit Score Merit Merit Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Capital costs Operating costs Closure costs merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Page 5 of 7

192 Appendix G.B1-5 Accounts Summary Account merit score (Σ{S n x W}) Account merit rating ({S n xw}/ ΣW) Account Environmental TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Aquatic habitat loss Fisheries value Downstream fisheries value Terrestrial habitat loss Groundwater quality and quantity Surface water hydrology Surface water chemistry immediate receiving environment Account Technical TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Water management Containment infrastructure design Foundation conditions Construction, operating and closure requirements Account merit score (Σ{S n x W}) Account merit rating (Σ{S n xw}/ ΣW) merit score (Σ{S n x W}) merit rating (Σ{S n xw}/ ΣW) Account Socio-economic TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Aboriginal interests Commercial land uses Employment Archaeology Account Project Economics TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Estimated costs Account merit score (Σ{S n x W}) Account merit rating (Σ{S n xw}/ ΣW) Page 6 of 7

193 Appendix G.B1-6 Base Case and Account Sensitivity Base Case Account Weight (W) TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Account Account merit Account Account merit Account Account merit Account Account value (A 1 ) score (A 1 x W) value (A 2 ) score (A 2 x W) value (A 3 ) score (A 3 x W) value (A 4 ) Environmental Technical Socio-economic Economic TMF merit score (Σ{A n x W}) TMF merit rating (Σ{A n xw}/ ΣW) Account merit score (A 4 x W) Equal Weighting Account Weight (W) TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Account Account merit Account Account merit Account Account merit Account Account value (A 1 ) score (A 1 x W) value (A 2 ) score (A 2 x W) value (A 3 ) score (A 3 x W) value (A 4 ) Environmental Technical Socio-economic Economic TMF merit score (Σ{A n x W}) TMF merit rating (Σ{A n xw}/ ΣW) Account merit score (A 4 x W) Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Only Account Weight (W) TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Account Account merit Account Account merit Account Account merit Account Account value (A 1 ) score (A 1 x W) value (A 2 ) score (A 2 x W) value (A 3 ) score (A 3 x W) value (A 4 ) Environmental Technical Socio-economic Economic TMF merit score (Σ{A n x W}) TMF merit rating (Σ{A n xw}/ ΣW) Account merit score (A 4 x W) Page 7 of 7

194 Appendix G.B2-1 Environmental Account Aquatic Habitat Loss TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Ecological quality index of affected wetlands Lakes surface area directly affected Stream length directly affected River length directly affected merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Direct Loss Fisheries Value TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Number of fish species directly affected Extent of harmful alteration disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Downstream Fisheries Values TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Distance from toe of containment dam to first occurrence of salmon Downstream chinook salmon values Downstream sockeye salmon values Downstream coho salmon values merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Terrestrial Habitat Loss TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Presence of rare and endangered ecosystems Presence of rare and endangered plant species Presence of high value grizzly bear habitat Presence of high value mountain ungulate habitat Presence of high value moose habitat Presence of high value marten habitat Presence of rare and endangered wildlife species merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 1 of 7

195 Appendix G.B2-1 Environmental Account Groundwater Quality and Quantity TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Changes to groundwater quantity Changes to groundwater quality merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Surface Water Hydrology TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Potential impacts to downstream sediment transport Potential runoff loss using watershed area (to salmon habitat) merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Surface Water Chemistry Immediate Receiving Environment TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Water quality (copper) in the immediate receiving environment Water quality (Zn) in the immediate receiving environment Water quality (SO 4 ) in the immediate receiving environment merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 2 of 7

196 Appendix G.B2-2 Technical Account Water Management TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Catchment size Undiverted catchment size Glacierized area in catchment Number of diversion dams required Diversion of main channel required Feasibility of diversion construction merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Containment Infrastructure Design TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Number of containment dams Total dam volume Number of facilities merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) General foundation conditions Earthquake foundation conditions Foundation Conditions TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Merit Merit Score Merit Score Score Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) (I 4 x W) merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Construction, Operating and Closure Requirements Scott Creek Valley - West Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Score (I 4 x W) TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Merit Merit Score Merit Score Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Ease of construction Ease of operation Closure requirements merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Page 3 of 7

197 Appendix G.B2-3 Socio-economic and Archaeological Account Aboriginal Interests TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Cultural and/or spiritual significance Importance for traditional use activities Importance as Aboriginal access route First Nation traditional territories overlapped Nisga a Nation treaty territory overlapped Commercial Land Uses TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) Merit Score (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Merit Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Merit Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Number of traplines overlapped Number of guide outfitting tenures overlapped Number of commercial recreation tenures overlapped merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Employment Weight (W) TMF1 Value (I 1 ) Upper Teigen / Treaty Merit Score (I 1 x W) TMF2 Value (I 2 ) Scott Creek Valley - West Merit Score (I 2 x W) TMF3 Value (I 3 ) Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake Merit Score (I 3 x W) TMF4 Value (I 4) Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Score (I 4 x W) Estimated employment opportunities resulting directly from containment dams n/a Archaeology Weight (W) TMF1 Value (I 1 ) Upper Teigen / Treaty Merit Score (I 1 x W) TMF2 Value (I 2 ) Scott Creek Valley - West Merit Score (I 2 x W) TMF3 Value (I 3 ) Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake Merit Score (I 3 x W) TMF4 Value (I 4) Upper Treaty Creek - West Merit Score (I 4 x W) Archaeological importance n/a Page 4 of 7

198 Appendix G.B2-4 Project Economics Account Estimated Costs Scott Creek Valley - West Teigen Lake Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake Upper Treaty Creek - West TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 TMF3 TMF4 Merit Score Merit Merit Weight (W) Value (I 1 ) (I 1 x W) Value (I 2 ) Score (I 2 x W) Value (I 3 ) Score (I 3 x W) Value (I 4) Capital costs Operating costs Closure costs merit score (Σ{I n x W}) merit rating (Σ{I n xw}/ ΣW) Merit Score (I 4 x W) Page 5 of 7

199 Appendix G.B2-5 Accounts Summary Account merit score (Σ{S n x W}) Account merit rating ({S n xw}/ ΣW) Account Environmental TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Aquatic habitat loss Fisheries value Downstream fisheries value Terrestrial habitat loss Groundwater quality and quantity Surface water hydrology Surface water chemistry immediate receiving environment Account Technical TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Water management Containment infrastructure design Foundation conditions Construction, operating and closure requirements Account merit score (Σ{S n x W}) Account merit rating (Σ{S n xw}/ ΣW) merit score (Σ{S n x W}) merit rating (Σ{S n xw}/ ΣW) Account Socio-economic TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Aboriginal interests Commercial land uses Employment Archaeology Account Economic TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West Teigen Lake TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Sub-Account weight (W) Subaccount value (S 1 ) merit score (S 1 x W) Subaccount value (S 2 ) merit score (S 2 x W) Subaccount value (S 3 ) merit score (S 3 x W) Subaccount value (S 4 ) merit score (S 4 x W) Estimated costs Account merit score (Σ{S n x W}) Account merit rating (Σ{S n xw}/ ΣW) Page 6 of 7

200 Appendix G.B2-6 Base Case and Account Sensitivity Base Case Account Weight (W) TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Account Account merit Account Account merit Account Account merit Account Account value (A 1 ) score (A 1 x W) value (A 2 ) score (A 2 x W) value (A 3 ) score (A 3 x W) value (A 4 ) Environmental Technical Socio-economic Economic TMF merit score (Σ{A n x W}) TMF merit rating (Σ{A n xw}/ ΣW) Account merit score (A 4 x W) Equal Weighting Account Weight (W) TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Account Account merit Account Account merit Account Account merit Account Account value (A 1 ) score (A 1 x W) value (A 2 ) score (A 2 x W) value (A 3 ) score (A 3 x W) value (A 4 ) Environmental Technical Socio-economic Economic TMF merit score (Σ{A n x W}) TMF merit rating (Σ{A n xw}/ ΣW) Account merit score (A 4 x W) Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Only Account Weight (W) TMF1 Upper Teigen / Treaty TMF2 Scott Creek Valley - West TMF3 Unuk Valley - West TMF4 Upper Treaty Creek - West Account Account merit Account Account merit Account Account merit Account Account value (A 1 ) score (A 1 x W) value (A 2 ) score (A 2 x W) value (A 3 ) score (A 3 x W) value (A 4 ) Environmental Technical Socio-economic Economic TMF merit score (Σ{A n x W}) TMF merit rating (Σ{A n xw}/ ΣW) Account merit score (A 4 x W) Page 7 of 7

201 APPENDIX H ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT FOR ACCESS ROAD TO TEIGEN/TREATY TAILING MANAGEMENT FACILITY TM

202 Seabridge Gold Inc. KSM PROJECT Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty Tailing Management Facility Access Road SEABRIDGE GOLD Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. Rescan Building, Sixth Floor West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC Canada V6E 2J3 Tel: (604) Fax: (604) February 2012

203 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty Tailing Management Facility Access Road TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents... i List of Appendices... iv List of Figures... iv List of Tables... iv Executive Summary... ix KSM Project Introduction... ix Context of the TMF Access Road Alternatives Assessment... ix RMF Access Road Alternatives Assessment Process... x Results of the KSM Project TMF Access Road Alternatives Assessment... xii Acknowledgements... xvi Glossary and Abbreviations...xvii 1. Introduction Project Proponent KSM Project Location KSM Project Description Environmental Setting Introduction Geology and Topography Climate Hydrology Aquatic Habitat and Life Terrestrial Ecology and Wildlife Social, Cultural, Archaeological and Economic Setting Geohazard Setting Access Road Design Criteria Regulatory Process KSM Environmental Assessment KSM Permitting Update Road Alternatives Assessment February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - i - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

204 Table of Contents 3. Alternative Characterization Data Sources for Alternatives Characterization Geohazard and Risk Assessment of Landslides and Snow Avalanches Aboriginal Community Information Detailed Description of TMF Access Road Alternatives Teigen Access Road (TMF Access Road Alternative 1) Terrestrial Wildlife Terrestrial Ecosystems Fisheries Archaeology Road Coast Terrain Stability and Geohazard Risk Road Length Road Grade Road Elevation Soil and Bedrock Geochemistry Bridge and Major Culvert Crossings Earthworks Volumes Nisga a Interests in the Teigen Access Road Area Aboriginal Interests in the Teigen Access Road Area Commercial Land Use Interests in the Teigen Creek Access Road Area Treaty Access Road (TMF Access Road Alternative 2) Terrestrial Wildlife Terrestrial Ecosystems Fisheries Archaeology Road Cost Terrain Stability and Geohazards Road Length Road Grade Road Elevation Soil and Bedrock Geochemistry Bridge and Major Culvert Crossings Earthworks Volumes Nisga a Nation Interests in the Treaty Access Road Area Aboriginal Interests in the Treaty Access Road Area Commercial Land Use in the Road Alternative Area Teigen South/Treaty West Access Road (TMF Access Road Alternative 3) Terrestrial Wildlife Terrestrial Ecosystems Fisheries Archaeology Road Cost Terrain Stability and Geohazards Road Length Road Grade Road Elevation February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - ii - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

205 Table of Contents Soil and Bedrock Geochemistry Bridge and Major Culvert Crossings Earthworks Volumes Aboriginal Interests near Teigen South/Treaty West Access Road Commercial Interests near Teigen South/Treaty West Access Road Characterization Criteria Summary Table Accounts and Characterization Criteria Multiple Accounts Ledger Evaluation Criteria (s) Measurement Criteria (s) Environmental Quantitative Value Scales Rare and Endangered Ecosystems and Species Terrestrial Habitat Fisheries Value Socio-economic and Archaeological Quantitative Value Scales Archaeology Aboriginal Interests Commercial Land Use Stakeholders Technical Quantitative Value Scales Road Operation ML/ARD Potential Excavation and Fill Volumes Geohazards Associated Structures Project Economic Quantitative Value Scales Value-based Decision Process Weighting Environmental s Technical s Socio-economic and Archaeology s Project Economics s Weighting Base Case Account Weighting Quantitative Analysis Conclusion References... R 1 February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - iii - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

206 Table of Contents LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A MAA Summary Calculations LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1. Environment Canada Guidelines for the Assessment of Alternatives for Mine Waste Disposal Flow Chart... xi Figure KSM Project Location Map Figure KSM Project Mine Infrastructure and General Setting Figure Detailed View of Teigen Access Road, Road Alignment Alternative Figure Detailed View of Treaty Access Road, Road Alignment Alternative Figure Detailed View of Teigen South/Treaty West Access Road, Road Alignment Alternative LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 1. TMF Access Road Alternatives Analysis Multiple Accounts Ledger... xv Table 2. TMF Access Road Multiple Accounts Analysis Results... xv Table Geohazard Scenarios Table Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Affected by the Teigen Access Road Table Archaeological Sites in Known Conflict by Teigen Access Road Table Cost Breakdown of Teigen Access Road Table Geohazard and Snow Avalanche Risk for Teigen Access Road Table Road Grade Breakdown of Teigen Access Road Table Nisga a Nation Interests in the Teigen Access Road Area Table First Nations Interests in Teigen Access Road Area Table Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Affected by Treaty Access Road February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - iv - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

207 Table of Contents Table Archaeological Sites in Known Conflict by Treaty Access Road Table Cost Breakdown of Treaty Access Road Table Landslide and Snow Avalanche Risk for Treaty Access Road Table Road Grade Breakdown of Treaty Access Road Table Nisga a Nation Interests in the Treaty Access Road Area Table First Nations Interests in the Treaty Access Road Area Table Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Affected by Teigen South/Treaty West Access Road Table Archaeological Sites in Known Conflict by Teigen South/Treaty West Access Road Table Cost Breakdown of Teigen South/Treaty West Access Road Table Geohazard Risk for Teigen South/Treaty West Access Road Table Road Grade Breakdown of Teigen South/Treaty West Access Road Table Environmental Characterization Criteria Summary Table Table Socio-economic and Archaeological Characterization Criteria Summary Table Table Technical Characterization Criteria Summary Table Table Economic Characterization Criteria Summary Table Table s and Supporting Rationale for their Selection Table Multiple Accounts Ledger Table Quantitative Value Scale for Presence of Rare and Endangered Terrestrial Ecosystems Table Quantitative Value Scale for Presence of Rare and Endangered Wildlife Species Table Quantitative Value Scale for Presence of Rare and Endangered Fish Species Table Quantitative Value Scale for High Quality Mountain Goat Habitat Affected within Buffer Zone February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - v - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

208 Table of Contents Table Quantitative Value Scale for High Quality Moose Habitat Affected within Buffer Zone Table Quantitative Value Scale for Western Toad Breeding Ponds Affected within Buffer Zone Table Quantitative Value Scale for Number of Road Crossings Affecting Fishbearing Streams Table Quantitative Value Scale for Number of Fish Species Potentially Affected Table Quantitative Scale for Number of Archaeological Sites Table Quantitative Scale for Diversity of Archaeological Sites Table Quantitative Scale for Number of Traplines Table Quantitative Value Scale for Total Road Length Table Quantitative Value Scale for Road Grade between 6% and 10% Table Quantitative Value Scale for Road Grade over 10% Table Quantitative Value Scale for High ML/ARD Potential Table Quantitative Value Scale for Possible ML/ARD Potential Table Quantitative Value Scale for Soil Excavation Table Quantitative Value Scale for Rock Excavation Table Quantitative Value Scale for Fill Table Quantitative Value Scale for Terrain Stability Table Quantitative Value Scale for Landslides Table Quantitative Value Scale for Snow Avalanches Table Quantitative Value Scale for Bridge Structures Table Quantitative Value Scale for Major Culverts Table Quantitative Value Scale for Total Road Cost Table Rare and Endangered Ecosystems and Species Table Terrestrial Habitat Loss Weighting Table Fisheries Value Weighting February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - vi - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

209 Table of Contents Table Road Operation Table ML/ARD Potential Table Excavation and Fill Volumes Table Geohazards Table Associated Structures Table Archaeology Table Environmental Weighting Table Technical Weighting Table Socio-economic and Archaeology Weighting Table Account Weighting for Base-Case Value Scenarios Table Multiple Accounts Analysis Results February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - vii - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

210 Executive Summary KSM Project Introduction The purpose of this document is to report on the tailing management facility (TMF) access road alternatives assessment process undertaken for the KSM Project (the Project) proposed by Seabridge Gold Inc. (Seabridge). The Project, situated in the high sub-alpine/alpine zones of the northern Coast Mountains of British Columbia (BC), includes four major mineralized zones, identified as the Kerr, Sulphurets, Mitchell and Iron Cap deposits, which contain significant deposits of gold, copper, silver and molybdenum. The measured and indicated resources of the combined Kerr, Sulphurets and Mitchell deposits are approximately 45.3 million ounces of gold and 11.8 billion pounds of copper. The proposed Project will consist of two main sites, the Mining Area and the Tailing Management Area. The Mining Area is located approximately 940 km northwest of Vancouver, BC and approximately 65 km north of Stewart, BC. (see Figure 1.2-1). The Tailing Management Area will consist of a Tailing Management Facility (TMF) that will contain tailing produced by a nearby Process Plant. Most of the terrain surrounding the Project is remote, highly mountainous, and glacierized. These geographic barriers significantly restrict the number of sites feasible to locate the infrastructure required for TMF construction, operation and closure over the mine life of about years. Context of the TMF Access Road Alternatives Assessment While natural bodies of water containing fish are normally avoided when considering TMF alternative candidate locations, the challenges of identifying feasible sites in the vicinity of the Project Mining Area means that fish-bearing bodies are considered for TMF placement. In Canada, under the Fisheries Act, the capacity to utilize a natural water body frequented by fish as a TMF is only possible through obtaining a regulatory amendment to have the proposed water body designated as a tailing impoundment area (TIA) and listed under Schedule 2 of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER). Under the MMER, when considering TMF options that would trigger a Schedule 2 amendment, in order to demonstrate that a mining project will maximize net benefits to society while minimizing its environmental footprint, the project proponent must perform all of the following steps: 1. undergo an environmental assessment (EA); 2. prepare a TMF alternatives assessment; 3. prepare a fish habitat compensation plan for consideration as part of the EA; and, 4. participate in public and Aboriginal consultations on the EA, including on the possible amendment to the MMER. This report is meant to support step 2 of this process: preparing a TMF alternatives assessment. To assess TMF alternatives, Seabridge has followed the transparent and standardized process February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - ix - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

211 Executive Summary described in the Guidelines for the Assessment of Alternatives for Mine Waste Disposal (the Guidelines) published by Environment Canada (2011). These Guidelines delineate the alternatives assessment process required to identify, assess, evaluate, rank, and select the best overall TMF from the original options identified. This process has identified a preferred TMF location, however there are multiple access alternatives for that TMF location. Seabridge has followed a modified process outlined in the Guidelines to assess these TMF access road alternatives. RMF Access Road Alternatives Assessment Process As described in the Guidelines, an alternatives assessment process involves seven steps to select a TMF site by a process of systematic analysis and elimination (Figure 1). This report does not incorporate Step 1 (Identify Candidate Alternatives), Step 2 (Pre-screening Assessment), and Step 6 (Sensitivity Analysis). These steps are not included here because there were few appropriate choices for road alignment placement. Step 3: Alternative Characterization Step 3 produces a thorough characterization of the candidate TMF access roads. The goal of Step 3 is to identify parameters on which to base further evaluation of the remaining candidates. Step 3 involves the following activities: Develop a list of thorough descriptive parameters (characterization criteria) for the alternatives based on the following four broad categories (accounts): Environmental criteria Technical criteria Project Economic criteria Socio-economic criteria; Thoroughly characterize alternatives based on characterization criteria; and Delivery of summary tables listing the descriptive characterization criteria for each account. Step 4: Multiple Accounts Ledger Step 4 involves systematic evaluation of the characterization criteria developed in Step 3, and is based on a valuation system that has been developed from professional judgment of relevant experts, as well as consultations between stakeholder groups and Seabridge. Step 4 involves of the following activities: Develop evaluation criteria (sub-accounts) to help differentiate among the characterization criteria identified in Step 3; To allow qualitative/quantitative measurement of the benefit or loss associated (impact) with the sub-accounts for each remaining alternative, develop indicators (also called measurement criteria or sub-sub-accounts); February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - x - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

212 PROJECT # ILLUSTRATION # a34952w January 25, 2012 Environment Canada Guidelines for the Assessment of Alternatives for Mine Waste Disposal Flowchart Figure 1

213 Executive Summary Conduct a multiple accounts evaluation by developing and applying qualitative value scales to analyze the evaluation and measurement criteria; and Deliver summary tables: table of sub-accounts with rationale behind each and an expansion of sub-accounts table that includes indicators. A Multiple Accounts Analysis (MAA) is the recommended decision-making tool under the Guidelines, and consists of developing a multiple accounts ledger to facilitate evaluation. A multiple accounts ledger is an explicit list of all the potential effects associated with each TMF access road alternative, which generates a clear and measurable description of those effects. Step 5: Value-based Decision Process Step 5 involves a final values-based evaluation to identify the preferred TMF access road alternative. This is done by scoring and weighting the indicators developed in Step 4, and applying a quantitative analysis to develop weighted merit ratings for each TMF candidate. Step 5 involves of the following activities: Scoring: develop a qualitative values-based weighting scale for every indicator; Weighting: apply a values-based weighting factor to every indicator and develop a base case from weightings; Conduct a quantitative analysis to generate weighted merit ratings (multiple accounts analysis); Deliver a summary table listing the final candidate values-based weighting, which identifies the best potential TMF access road candidate. Step 7: Document Process (Entire Document) Step 7 involves transparently reporting on the TMF access road alternatives analysis process conducted via the preceding steps, and consists of the following: Write report documenting all steps undertaken, and their results; and Deliver report to present to stakeholders for consideration of final TMF access road selection. Results of the KSM Project TMF Access Road Alternatives Assessment For the KSM Project, Seabridge followed the Guidelines as outlined in Steps 3, 4, 5, and 7. The three TMF access road alternatives considered herein are: Teigen Access Road: A new road parallel to Teigen Creek that will connect the Process Plant to Highway 37 about 14 km to the northeast, and a second road, the Tunnel Spur Access Road, between the Plant and the intermediate portals of the Mitchell-Teigen Tunnel paralleling West Teigen Creek; February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - xii - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

214 Executive Summary Treaty Access Road: A new road parallel to Treaty Creek that will connect the intermediate portals of the Mitchell-Teigen Tunnel to Highway 37, and a second road parallel to the North Tributary of Treaty Creek to the Process Plant and TMF; and Teigen South/Treaty West: A new road parallel to Teigen Creek that will connect the Process Plant to Highway 37 about 14 km to the northeast, and a second road between the Plant and the intermediate portals of the Mitchell-Teigen Tunnel paralleling first South Teigen Creek, then North Treaty Creek and finally Treaty Creek. The results of this process are as follows: Step 3: Alternative Characterization The thorough characterization of each TMF access road alternative was necessary to ensure that every potential material effect relating to each alternative would be incorporated for further analysis, and to ensure transparency. Step 3 expands the scope and detail of the characterization of each candidate alternative using project-specific characterization criteria as recommended in the Guidelines. These factual criteria were developed with no assumed a priori judgements placed upon them, and categorized under four accounts as follows: Environmental characterization Terrestrial Wildlife Terrestrial Ecosystems Fisheries Fish Crossings Technical characterization Terrain Stability and Geohazards Road Length Road Grade Road Elevation Soil and Bedrock Geochemistry Bridge and Major Culvert Crossings Earthwork Volumes Project economic characterization Road Cost Socio-economic and archeological characterization Nisga a Interests Aboriginal Interests February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - xiii - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

215 Executive Summary Commercial Land Use Interests Archaeology The Summary Tables delivered for this step present the characterization criteria for each access road alternative, the rationale for the selection of each criterion, the descriptions corresponding to each criterion for each candidate alternative, and information whether or not a characterization criterion is carried forward to the next step, the multiple accounts ledger, as an evaluation criterion. Step 4: Multiple Accounts Ledger The TMF access road multiple accounts analysis (MAA) considered factors (accounts) in four primary categories: 1) environmental, 2) technical, 3) social, and 4) economic. A multidisciplinary team of technical experts selected evaluation criteria (sub-accounts) and measurement criteria (indicators) under each of the four primary categories (Table 1). Step 5: Value-based Decision Process The value-based decision process involves the creation of scoring and weighting scales for all relevant criteria (account, sub-account and indicators). This value-based ranking methodology was done in concordance with the Guidelines in order to reasonably differentiate the benefit or loss associated with each site. The results of the MAA for the KSM TMF access road alternatives assessment is shown in Table 2. The result of the value-based MAA decision process was that the Treaty Access Road is the most appropriate TMF access road alternative (i.e., resulting in the highest value from the MAA process). Treaty Access Road follows Treaty Creek to access both the TMF and the tunnel portal, but also has a spur road that follows the western edge of the TMF that accesses the Process Plant. February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - xiv - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

216 Executive Summary Table 1. TMF Access Road Alternatives Analysis Multiple Accounts Ledger Account Sub-Account Environmental Socio-Economic and Archaeological Rare and Endangered Ecosystems and Species Terrestrial Habitat Fisheries Value Archaeology Aboriginal Interests Commercial Land Use Stakeholders Presence of Rare and Endangered Terrestrial Ecosystems Presence of Rare and Endangered Wildlife Species; excluding grizzly bear, mountain ungulates, moose, and marten Presence of Rare and Endangered Fish Species Mountain goat habitat Moose habitat Western toad habitat Number of road crossings affecting fishbearing streams Number of fish species potentially affected Number of Archaeological Sites Importance of Archaeological Sites Nisga'a Nation Stated Preference Tahltan Stated Preference Skii Km Lax Ha Stated Preference Gitanyow Stated Preference Number of Traplines Affected Technical Road Operation Total Road Length Road Length with 6-10% Grade Road Length with >10% Grade Road Elevation ML/ARD Potential Excavation and Fill Volumes Geohazards Associated Structures High ML/ARD Potential Possible ML/ARD Potential Soil Excavation Volumes Rock Excavation Volumes Fill Volume Terrain Stability Landslides Snow Avalanches Bridge Structure Major Culverts Economic Total Road Cost Total Road Cost Table 2. TMF Access Road Multiple Accounts Analysis Results Teigen Access Road Treaty Access Road Teigen South/Treaty West Access Road MAA Value February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - xv - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

217 Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Lisa DeSandoli (B.A.Sc., B.SCN.). Review was completed by Greg McKillop (P. Geo), Sean Cullen (M.Sc., R.P. Bio.) and Justine Greenwood (B.Sc.). Technical expertise in the following disciplines was provided by the following scientists and engineers: Engineering and Geoscience - Christopher Carr (P. Eng.); Graham Parkinson (KCBL, P. Geo., P. Geoph); Howard Plewes (KCBL, P.Eng.); Harvey McLeod (KCBL, P.Eng., P.Geo.) Fisheries - Chris Burns (R.P. Bio); Kristen Seymour (M.Sc., R.P. Bio); Kyla Warren (M.Sc.) Wildlife - Katie Kuker (M.Sc.); Shawn Freeman (R.P. Bio.); Christine Kent (B.Ed, B.A.); and Kate Fremlin (B.Sc.) Ecosystems & Vegetation Natasha Bush (B.Sc., P. Ag); and Kate Fremlin (B.Sc.) Socio-economics Andrew Robinson (M.Sc.) and Sarah Weber (M.Sc.) Land Use Andrew Robinson (M.Sc.) and Sarah Weber (M.Sc.) Aboriginal Values and Traditional Land Use - Andrew Robinson (M.Sc.) and Sarah Weber (M.Sc.); Archaeology - Lisa Seip (M.A., RPCA); and Sean McKnight (B.A., RPCA) GIS analyses were completed by Michael Stead (B.Sc.) and Tobin Pope (B.Sc.), and report preparation and production was done by Jackie van der Eerden, Lloyd Majeau and Robert Tarbuck. February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - xvi - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

218 Glossary and Abbreviations Terminology used in this document is defined where it is first used. The following list will assist readers who may choose to review only portions of the document. AA Account Alluvium AIA Alternatives characterization Archaeological site significance ARD BC BCEOA BGC Biogeoclimatic Ecosystems Classification (BEC) Blue-list(ed) Alternatives Assessment one of 4 broad categories: environmental, technical, socio-economic, and economic Sediment deposited by flowing water Archaeological Impact Assessment The thorough characterization of the short-listed road candidate alternatives. Site-specific characterization criteria should be developed for each project, but should be developed within four Accounts: Environmental, Technical, Economic, and Socio-Economic. Characterization criteria should be designed to provide a factual, objective basis for comparison among the remaining alternatives. The significance of sites is determined using the checklist of criteria for site evaluation in the British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines (Archaeology Branch 1998). The scientific, public, ethnic, economic, and (if applicable) historic significance of each site is assessed, and then an overall rating of significance is determined. Site significance is described as being low, moderate or high. Acid-rock drainage British Columbia British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office BGC Engineering Inc. A classification system which groups BC s ecosystems at three levels of integration: regional, local, and chronological. Incorporates vegetation, soils, topography to classify ecosystems in a hierarchical manner. The Project is located within the Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICH), Boreal Altai Fescue Alpine (BAFA), and Engelmann Spruce - Subalpine Fir (ESSF) BEC zones. A provincial conservation status ranking for BC species and ecosystems. The blue list includes any ecological community, and indigenous species and subspecies considered to be of special concern (formerly vulnerable) in British Columbia. February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - xvii - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

219 Glossary and Abbreviations Catchment Characterization Criteria Characterization Criteria Summary Table Climate Colluvium CMT Debris flow DEM Ecosystem EC Environmental Characterization Evaluation criteria Feasible Fish Fish habitat An extent or area of land where surface water from rain and melting snow or ice converges to a single point Criteria used to describe and compare short-listed road alternatives. These criteria are Project-dependent, and when selecting them it may be useful to pose the following question: What would be reasonable questions that a stakeholder, regulator or technical reviewer may ask about any of the proposed road alternatives? A deliverable according to the Environment Canada guidelines (2011), which should ideally be a series of summary tables that list the selected characterization criteria for each account for each of the alternatives under consideration. Long-term statistical trends of temperature, precipitation, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, atmospheric particle count, etc. Material that has been mobilized downslope chiefly by gravity Culturally Modified Tree Torrent of sediment, woody material, and mud mobilized by water Digital elevation model A community of organisms, interacting with one another, plus the environment in which they live and with which they interact. Environment Canada This account describes the local and regional environment surrounding each proposed road alignment. Elements such as climate, geology, hydrology, hydrogeology, water quality and potential effects on fish and wildlife are considered see sub-account Constructible and operable within precedents of existing designs and prudent engineering practice guidelines, considering technical, risk, and economic factors. includes parts of fish, shellfish, crustaceans, marine animals and any parts of shellfish, crustaceans or marine animals, and the eggs, sperm, spawn, larvae, spat and juvenile stages of fish, shellfish, crustaceans and marine animals." (Fisheries Act, sec. 2). Spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes (Fisheries Act, sec 34(1)) February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - xviii - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

220 Glossary and Abbreviations Fisheries Act Fluvial FSZ Geohazard Glacierized In Canada, the Fisheries Act applies to any development project with potential impacts to a natural body of water frequented by fish, and prohibits the deposit of any deleterious substance into natural fishbearing bodies of water. Sediment deposited by river in an alluvial setting Fisheries-sensitive zone Hazardous effect of setting on a project avalanche, landslides, floods The covering of a land area by glacier ice. ha hectare; or 10,000m 2 Habitat quality for wildlife In BC, habitat quality for wildlife is rated according to a provincial benchmark. The benchmark is the highest capability habitat for the species in the province all other habitats in the province are rated against the benchmark. The benchmark is an actual location in the province that has been identified as providing the best quality food/shelter/cover/etc., for the species there are different benchmarks for different seasons, even for the same species. The highest quality winter habitat for moose is not in the same location as the highest quality summer habitat. The benchmark takes into consideration what the species particular needs are for the season denning, growing, hibernation, predator escape, etc. (RIC 1999). High quality habitat a value assigned to habitat that, in its current condition, provides the best attributes and conditions (e.g., vegetation types, terrain, climate, forest age) for the species for a particular season and life requisite. This value is rated against a provincial benchmark. Medium quality habitat a value assigned to habitat that, in its current condition, provides most of the attributes and conditions (e.g., vegetation types, terrain, climate, forest age) needed by a species in a particular season to meet its life requisites. This value is rated against a provincial benchmark Life requisites specific activities of an animal that are critical for sustaining and perpetuating the species and that depend on particular habitat attributes or conditions. Life requisites include feeding, cover, breeding, migration, hibernation, etc. February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - xix - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

221 Glossary and Abbreviations Habitat suitability mapping HADD Hydrology km KSM Lacustrine LFH LiDar Lithic Littoral LRMP Habitat suitability mapping is based on provincial standards for TEM, which is determined through desk-based mapping and field surveys, and complies with Resource Inventory Standards Committee (RISC) standards. Rescan performed habitat suitability mapping for all the following wildlife species: mountain goat, moose, grizzly bear, American marten, and hoary marmot. Harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. Section 35 of the Federal Fisheries Act, prohibits the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat and provides the Minister with the power to authorize terms and conditions which would allow projects to proceed in compliance with the Act. The movement, distribution, and quality of water To allow qualitative or quantitative measurement of the impact (i.e., benefit or loss) associated with each alternative for any given subaccount, the sub-account needs to be measurable. s by nature are often not directly measurable, and need to be sufficiently decomposed to allow measurability. This decomposition takes the form of sub-sub-accounts, which in the language of MAA are called indicator, or measurement criteria kilometre Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell Soft, weak, silty to clayey sediments deposited in lakes Last Frontier Heliskiing Light Detection And Ranging, an optical remote sensing technology Stone That part of a waterbody that is close to the shore Land and Resource Management Plan provincially approved plans that provide broad direction for the sustainable use of Crown land and resources in British Columbia. February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - xx - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

222 Glossary and Abbreviations MAA m masl Mass wasting MAL Measurement criteria ML Mm 3 Moraine NFA NCD NTL Orographic effect PAG Permeability Multiple Accounts Analysis - one of the tools which have been successfully used to conduct assessments of alternatives for mine waste disposal and other mining related decision processes. MAA consists of the development of a multiple accounts ledger, which is an explicit list of accounts (and sub-accounts) of the impacts from various alternatives and for each account indicator, which gives a clear understandable measurable description of those impacts. This is followed by a valuebased decision process whereby indicator values are scored and weighted in a systematic transparent manner such that the value basis for the effects impacting them is readily apparent metres metres above sea level Erosion by loss of material from a slope by rock fall or sediment loss Multiple Accounts Ledger a decision-making tool that seeks to identify those elements that differentiate alternatives, and provides the basis for scoring and weighting the road alignment alternatives. The multiple accounts ledger consists of sub-accounts and their corresponding indicators see Metals leaching million cubic metres A glacial deposit of loose sand and gravel Nisga a Final Agreement Non-classified drainage Northwest Transmission Line Occurs when an air mass approaches a mountain range and is rapidly forced upward, causing any moisture to cool and create precipitation in the form of rain or snow. Potentially Acid Generating A measure of hydraulic conductivity of soil or rock. High permeability allows movement of groundwater, low permeability prevents movement. February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - xxi - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

223 Glossary and Abbreviations PEM PGA Project economic characterization Red-list(ed) Return period Riparian habitat ROW Seabridge Socio-economic and archaeological characterization Scoring Predictive Ecosystem Mapping - Ecosystem mapping is the stratification of a landscape into map units, according to a combination of ecological features, primarily climate, physiography, surficial material, bedrock geology, soil, and vegetation. PEM is a modeled approach to ecosystem mapping, whereby existing knowledge of ecosystem attributes and relationships are used to predict ecosystem representation in the landscape and is used for small scale projects. Peak ground acceleration The account describes the life of project economics. All aspects of the mine waste management plan are considered including investigation, design, construction (inclusive of borrow development and royalties where applicable), operation, closure, post closure care and maintenance, water management, associated infrastructure (including transport and deposition systems), compensation payments and land use or lease fees A provincial conservation status ranking for BC species and ecosystems. The red list includes any ecological community, and indigenous species and subspecies that is extirpated, endangered, or threatened in British Columbia Time for an event of a given magnitude to statistically re-occur. For example, a 1 in 200 year flood occurs on average at 200 year intervals but may occur at any time. Habitat occurring along margins of waterbodies. These are characterized by water-adapted vegetation and are often areas of high biodiversity value. Right-of-way Seabridge Gold Inc. This account describes how each proposed TMF may influence local and regional land users. Elements considered include characterization and valuation of land use, cultural significance, presence of archaeological sites and employment and/or training opportunities In a Multiple Accounts Analysis, scoring is done by developing qualitative value scales for every indicator, including those which appear to be readily measurable Characterization criteria under a Multiple Accounts Analysis; evaluation criteria February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - xxii - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

224 Glossary and Abbreviations SUP Section 11 Order Till Technical Characterization Tenure TEM The Project TMF Special Use Permit An order that is issued by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO) in accordance with Section 11 of the BC Environmental Assessment Act. For most proposed projects, the BCEAO project lead will establish the scope, procedures, and methods of the environmental assessment by issuing a procedural order under Section 11 of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Section 11 order forms the direction to the proponent on the scope of the project, what parts of their proposed project will be assessed, what effects will be considered in the assessment and what actions and activities the proponent is responsible for in the assessment. It also sets out required consultation activities and time frames. Created using the characterization criteria developed for each account. The characterization criteria are factual and have been developed with no a priori judgements being made regarding any of the alternatives being considered, while sub-accounts consider only the material impact (i.e., benefit or loss) associated with any of the alternatives being evaluated. Also: evaluation criteria Sediments deposited by glaciers, typically chaotically mixed clay, sand, silt and gravel. This account describes the engineered elements of each alternative such as storage capacity, dam size and volume, diversion channel size and capacity, dumping techniques, haul distances, seepage dam requirements, tailing discharge methods, pipeline grades and routes, closure design, discharge and/or water treatment infrastructure and supporting infrastructure such as access roads Any interest in Crown land that is granted or otherwise established under a prescribed instrument; or a prescribed designation or other status that, under an enactment, is given to, conferred on, or made or otherwise established in relation to Crown land (BC Land Act) Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping - Ecosystem mapping is the stratification of a landscape into map units, according to a combination of ecological features, primarily climate, physiography, surficial material, bedrock geology, soil, and vegetation. Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping is a methodology which requires direct air photo interpretation of ecosystem attributes by a mapper(s). This approach is typically used at larger scales where more detailed information is required. The KSM Project Tailing Management Facility February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - xxiii - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

225 Glossary and Abbreviations TK/TU Value-based decision process UWR Weighting WHA Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Use; also TKTU This process entails taking the list of accounts, sub-accounts and indicators and assessing the combined impacts for each of the alternatives under review. This entails scoring and weighting of all indicators, sub-accounts and accounts and quantitatively determining merit ratings for each alternative. Ungulate Winter Range; defined as an area that contains habitat that is necessary to meet the winter habitat requirements of an ungulate species. Formal legal establishment of UWR and associated objectives began under the Forest Practices Code and continue under the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA). Involves comparing indicators, sub-accounts and accounts among access road alternatives by introducing value bias by applying a weighting factor to each indicator, sub-account, or account. Weighting factors allow the analyst to assign relative importance from one criterion as compared to another. The Environment Canada guidelines (EC 2011) recommend using a weighting range from 1 to 6. Wildlife Habitat Area; mapped areas that are necessary to meet the habitat requirements of a wildlife species. WHAs designate critical habitats in which activities are managed to limit their impact on the wildlife species for which the area was established. The purpose of WHAs is to conserve those habitats considered most limiting to a given wildlife species. February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix - xxiv - Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

226 1. Introduction This report is intended to supplement an assessment of alternative Tailing Management Facility (TMF) locations for the proposed KSM Project that identifies the South Teigen / North Treaty alternative as being preferred. This report advances the assessment of alternatives by assessing alternative access road alignments for the construction, operation and closure of the preferred TMF. 1.1 Project Proponent The proponent for the KSM Project is Seabridge Gold Inc. (Seabridge), a publicly traded junior gold company with common shares trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange in Canada and on the American Stock Exchange in the United States. 1.2 KSM Project Location The KSM Project (the Project) is a gold/copper mining project located in the mountainous terrain of northwestern British Columbia, approximately 950 km northwest of Vancouver, British Columbia, and approximately 65 km north of Stewart, British Columbia. The proposed Project lies approximately 20 km southwest of Barrick Gold s recently-closed Eskay Creek Mine and 30 km northeast of the Alaska border (Figure 1.2-1). The proposed Process Plant and Tailing Management Facility (TMF) will be located about 15 km southwest of Bell II on Highway KSM Project Description The proposed Project as defined for the purposes of this assessment study will be comprised of two distinct and geographically separate areas (the Mining Area, Process Plant and TMF; Figure 1.3-1). The proposed Mining Area is located in the drainage basin of Sulphurets Creek, a major tributary of the Unuk River. It will be accessed by a new road, the Coulter Creek Access Road, to be constructed from the current Eskay Creek Mine road. Four deposits will be mined, the Kerr, Sulphurets, Mitchell and Iron Cap. Ore will be crushed and then transported through one of two parallel 23 km long tunnels to the Process Plant. Non-ore mined (waste) rock will be stored in engineered facilities to be located in the vicinity of the pits. Surface water that contacts disturbed areas will be collected and treated at a Water Treatment Plant. The Process Plant and TMF will be located in the tributaries of Teigen and Treaty Creeks, which flow to the Bell-Irving River. The Process Plant will process up to 120,000 tonnes per day of ore to produce an average of 1,200 tonnes per day of concentrate that will be transported to the port of Stewart by truck. The tailing will be pumped to the TMF, to be located in the southern tributary of Teigen Creek and a northern tributary of Treaty Creek. Road access will be required to construct, operate and close the Process Plant and TMF. This report examines three alternatives for access to those facilities and the intermediate portals for the Mitchell-Teigen Tunnel. The alternatives include: February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix 1 1 Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

227 PROJECT # GIS # KSM February ±!( Bob Quinn Lake Yukon N.W.T.!. Dease Lake KSM Project [ Alberta!. Stewart Smithers!.!. Terrace!. Prince George Eskay Creek Mine!X(!( Bell II tu 37 Pacific Ocean British Columbia Vancouver!. U.S.A. British Columbia, CANADA Alaska, USA KSM Project [ Bowser Lake Burroughs Bay tu 37A!( Stewart!( Hyder Meziadin Lake!( Meziadin Junction!( Settlement [ Project Location Highway Eskay Road 1:1,000, Kilometres GIS #: KSM Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 9N Figure KSM Project Location Map Figure 1.2-1

228 PROJECT # GIS No. KSM _T February 13, 2012 Mine Infrastructure and General Setting Figure 1.3-1

229 Introduction Teigen Access Road: A new road parallel to Teigen Creek that will connect the Process Plant to Highway 37 about 14 km to the northeast, and a second road, the Tunnel Spur Access Road, between the Plant and the intermediate portals of the Mitchell-Teigen Tunnel paralleling West Teigen Creek (see Figure 3.2-1); Treaty Access Road: new road parallel to Treaty Creek that will connect to the Mitchell- Teigen Tunnel Saddle (MTT Saddle) to Highway 37, and a second road parallel to the North Tributary of Treaty Creek to the Process Plant and TMF (see Figure 3.2-2); and Teigen South/Treaty West Access Road: A new road parallel to Teigen Creek that will connect the Process Plant to Highway 37 about 14 km to the northeast, and a second road between the Plant and the intermediate portals of the Mitchell-Teigen Tunnel paralleling first South Teigen Creek, then North Treaty Creek and finally Treaty Creek (see Figure 3.2-3). The purpose of this document is to assess these alternatives. 1.4 Environmental Setting Introduction The preferred KSM TMF is located in the upper reaches of Teigen and Treaty Creeks, which in turn are tributaries of the Bell-Irving River which feeds into the Nass River. The TMF access road will also provide access to the MTT Saddle of the proposed Mitchell Teigen Tunnel which will connect the mines to the Process Plant. These portals will be located in the upper reaches of Treaty Creek near the divide between Treaty Creek and the Unuk River drainages. The Unuk River drains into the Pacific Ocean through Alaskan waters. Both the Nass and Unuk rivers contain salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.) and other fish species, as do many of the smaller creeks and streams in the region. Wildlife such as grizzly bears, moose, and mountain goats inhabit the region as well. During the past several decades, glaciers in the region have been observed to be significantly receding, resulting in meltwater flows above those expected from precipitation alone. High seasonal water flows are typical in the region, and climate change may also impact the future water regimes in the region over the project life Geology and Topography Landforms and topography in the region of the Project have been significantly influenced by glacial activity since the last glacial maximum around 20,000 years ago. The Project area is characterized by steep topography with loose talus resulting from rockslides and slumps. Landscapes in the region are often characterized by rugged exposed rock and glaciers or ice fields at higher elevations, with significant areas of glacial deposits such as lateral and terminal moraines containing both ablation and basal till, and glacial outwash. Frequent mass wasting events result in the accumulation of colluvial deposits on and at the base of slopes. Fluvial deposits are fairly limited, being confined to the active channels and isolated floodplains of formerly active channels. February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix 1 5 Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

230 Introduction The Project is located in an area of low to moderate seismic activity with no active faults within 285 km of the Project (KCB 2012). The results of a site-specific seismic hazard assessment indicate a range of peak ground acceleration (PGA) for various return periods. The assessment shows that the 10,000-year return period PGA of 0.14 g could be associated either with a randomly located local earthquake of magnitude 7.0 at 40 km distance or magnitude 6.0 earthquake at 20 km distance. The largest earthquake which occurred within 200 km radius from the site within the last 100 years is magnitude 4.5 quake at 185 km from the site Climate The Project lies in a transition zone between the very wet Pacific coastal region and the drier interior of BC. The regional hydro climate of northwestern BC is dominated by weather systems generated by the Pacific Ocean. Mean annual precipitation typically decreases with distance from the BC coast, and the orographic effect caused by local mountains can also lead to higher rainfall at higher elevations in some areas. These interactions between incoming weather systems and local topography produce a degree of spatial variability in snowfall and rainfall. The average annual rainfall across the Project area is high, ranging from 1,390 mm at the Teigen Weather Station to 1,650 mm at the Sulphurets Station (Rescan 2011b). Most precipitation in the region falls between September and February, with the driest months being June and July. In the winter, much of the precipitation falls as snow. For example, the Unuk River Eskay Creek Station typically has its highest precipitation in December, with 99% of it falling as snow. Seasonal temperature can vary widely in the Project area, ranging from about +30 C to -30 C. Mean monthly temperatures in 2011 ranged from lows of -11.0ºC (January) to highs of 19.8 ºC (July) at Stewart Airport station (EC-MSC 2011). During winter the air is generally unstable and there is a strong temperature gradient in the valleys. Moderate to strong winds occur in all seasons at high elevations Hydrology Hydrological factors such as catchment size, precipitation, runoff and groundwater affect the flows in streams crossed by the road alignments under consideration, affecting water quality and flood risks. There are four main flow periods for watersheds in the Project area: winter, spring/freshet, summer, and fall. Winter (November to April) is characterized by low-tonegligible stream flow. The spring/freshet period (April to May/July) typically has high flow rates due to snowmelt and often contains the peak annual flow. Summer (July to August/mid- September) is often characterized by steadily decreasing high-to-moderate flows, augmented by precipitation and snowmelt. In glaciated catchments (such as at Treaty Creek) flows can continue to rise throughout summer. In the fall (mid-september to November), watersheds typically experience moderate-to-low, with occasional storm events with correspondingly high flows (Wardrop 2011). Groundwater in the vicinity of the KSM Mine Area deposits ranges from acidic to alkaline (tested ph of 2.2 to 8.5) indicating that metal leaching and acid rock drainage (ML/ARD) are naturally occurring phenomena in the area. Surface water downstream of the deposits also tends to have naturally high concentration of metals, reflecting the mineralization of the area. February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix 1 6 Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

231 Introduction Aquatic Habitat and Life Activities associated with TMF access road construction, operation and closure can alter water chemistry and quality with consequent effects on aquatic biota and habitat. These effects on natural aquatic systems are key parameters for consideration in the TMF access road alternatives assessment. Fresh water systems in the vicinity of the Project contain habitat such as riparian zones, wetlands and stream channels that support aquatic life, including several species of fish. Generally, the majority of streams within the Project area are non-fish bearing due to habitat limiting conditions, such as high channel gradient (>30%), natural barriers, and unsuitable streambed substrates. Many streams, particularly those contained within the Teigen and West Teigen valleys, are subject to frequent avalanches and landslides. As a result, channel formation and fish habitat is subject to repeated natural disturbance factors. In addition, aquatic biological activity is limited due to naturally occurring metal leaching and acid rock drainage (ML/ARD) in the vicinity of the mineral deposits and in other rugged areas with rock exposure. The catchment area of the KSM Mine Area drains into the Unuk River system. The Unuk River provides spawning routes for Pacific salmon and steelhead trout (anadromous Oncorhynchus mykiss), as well as habitat for cutthroat trout (O. clarkii), rainbow trout (O. mykiss), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Dolly Varden (S. malma), and mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni). The route to the MTT Saddle Area, proposed for the Teigen Access Road Alternative also drains, in part, to the Unuk watershed. The other two candidate access road alternatives (Treaty Access Road and Teigen South/Treaty West Access Road) that would provide access to the Process Plant and Tailing Management Area drain to the Bell-Irving River system, which provides habitat for chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), coho salmon (O. kisutch), sockey salmon (O. nerka), steelhead trout, rainbow trout, bull trout, Dolly Varden, and mountain whitefish. Dolly Varden is the most widely distributed fish species within fish-bearing reaches of the Bell Irving and Unuk watersheds. In the Bell-Irving watershed, Dolly Varden and bull trout coexist in Teigen and Snowbank creeks. Steelhead/rainbow trout are found throughout all of Treaty Creek and Teigen Creek, and in tributaries to these creeks, although they are of low abundance in Treaty Creek upstream of the Todedada Creek confluence. Treaty and Teigen creeks support summer run populations of steelhead. Pacific salmon species, such as coho and chinook, are present in the entire mainstem of Teigen Creek and Snowbank Creek. In Treaty Creek, bull trout, coho salmon and chinook salmon are only found downstream of the mouth of Todedada Creek, and not in the upper reaches of Treaty Creek or in North Treaty Creek. Sockeye salmon are present in Teigen Creek, Treaty Creek as far upstream as the mouth of Todedada Creek, and in the Unuk River. A waterfall forms a fish barrier on South Teigen Creek, above which only Dolly Varden are present. Dolly Varden have been caught in West Teigen and Hodkin lakes. Bull trout and mountain whitefish have been caught in. Bull trout and Dolly Varden are provincially blue-listed (i.e., of special concern) and bull trout are ranked as globally vulnerable (BC Conservation Data Centre 2011) Terrestrial Ecology and Wildlife Terrestrial ecology and wildlife are also characterized and considered in the TMF access road alternatives assessment process. In particular, the loss of rare and endangered ecosystems and the February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix 1 7 Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

232 Introduction presence of rare and endangered wildlife are significant factors that are considered in the TMF access road candidate alternative selection process. The Project is located in the very wet cold Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICHvc), wet very cold Engelmann Spruce - Subalpine Fir (ESSFwv), and Boreal Altai Fescue Alpine, undifferentiated and parkland (BAFAunp) biogeoclimatic subzones. The ICHvc occupies valley bottoms, while the ESSFwv occupies the mid-elevations between the ICHvc and the BAFAunp. All areas are characterized by long, snowy and cold winters with short, wet summers. Soils are thin due to erosion events, and often display limited pedogenesis. Just below the Mining Area is a late seral forest dominated by subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) and hybrid white spruce (Picea glauca x engellmanni). Mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) can dominate on drier sites. Open shrub patches are also found in the area. Fen wetlands occupy many of the low-gradient areas adjacent to streams, as well as high elevation areas where soils are kept saturated by continual snowmelt during the growing season. The region encompassing the KSM Project is occupied by many terrestrial wildlife species including grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis), mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus), moose (Alces alces), waterfowl, raptors, migratory songbirds, western toad (Bufo boreas), and a variety of small and medium-sized mammals. Large wildlife such as deer (Odocoileus spp.), moose and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) are rare in the vicinity of the Project due to the rugged topography; however bear and mountain goats are more common. Species with conservation status that occur in the general area include grizzly bear, fisher (Martes pennanti), wolverine (Gulo gulo), and western toad (BC Conservation Data Centre 2011). 1.5 Social, Cultural, Archaeological and Economic Setting The Project is located on Crown land. Despite its remote setting, the area has been and is used by several groups for various socioeconomic and cultural activities. The KSM Project lies in an area historically used or claimed by several Aboriginal peoples. The Tahltan Nation has indicated that the Project is located within its traditional territory, while the Gitanyow wilp Wiiltsx-Txawokw and the wilps of the Gitxsan First Nation including, but not limited to, wilp Skii Km Lax Ha, have indicated that components of the Project are in the vicinity of their respective traditional territories. In addition, the Project is in the Nass Area, as defined in the Nisga a Final Agreement (Order Under Section 11, Government of BC 2009). Discussions are ongoing with these Aboriginal groups regarding potential effects on their rights and relevant mitigation options. The nearby Bell II Lodge on Highway 37 has a heli-ski operation that covers a very broad area, including several runs within the area of the Project. Guide-outfitter territories, trap-lines, and commercial recreational and fishing guide tenures also exist within the Project area. The relative remoteness of the site suggests that recreational hunting and fishing is fairly limited within the Project area. Commercial timber harvesting has occurred near Highway 37 about 10 km to the east of the Project site. Further timber harvesting in the Project area is possible, subject to market conditions and ecological sustainability. February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix 1 8 Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

233 Introduction Archaeological assessments have been conducted in the region since the 1970s, and the Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) of the KSM Project has been ongoing since To date these studies have identified 34 archaeological sites during surveys for the KSM Project. The sites include evidence of prehistoric occupation, including scatters of lithic (stone) tools and debitage, culturally modified trees, and historic occupation, including trap lines, telegraph line cabins and an Aboriginal peace treaty site. The nearest communities to the Project along Highways 37 and 37a have populations as follows: Bob Quinn Lake (population 91) at a distance of 51 km from the Mining Area, Meziadin Junction (together with Bell II, population 46) which is 76 km from the site, and Stewart (population 496) which is 67 km from the site (Statistics Canada 2007). 1.6 Geohazard Setting Landslide hazards are abundant in the Project area. This fact can be attributed to three factors: the wet climate, underlying geology of the Project area; and the recent glaciation of the Project area. A wet climate is a contributing factor for a relatively high level of landslide activity in the KSM project area, relative to drier parts of western Canada. The area has been repeatedly glaciated during the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs of the Quaternary Period. Glacial processes can result in increased landslide activity from the oversteepening of valley slopes by glacial scour (sometimes resulting in the exposure of unfavourable discontinuities), loss of slope buttress support following ice melting, and the deposition of surficial materials in steep locations prone to instability (Holm et al. 2004). This process is particularly prevalent in those areas that have been glaciated as little as 150 years ago during a period known as the Little Ice Age. Similarly, snow avalanche hazards are abundant within the Project area. Avalanche season typically begins in early October at the higher elevations, and often extends until late June or early July. At valley bottom elevations, avalanches can be expected from early November to late May though can occur earlier or later in extreme years. 1.7 Access Road Design Criteria Light Detection and Ranging (LiDar) survey data and a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) were used to select appropriate access routes to the preferred Process Plant and TMF. Following preliminary centreline flagging of the routes a field reconnaissance was completed to develop preliminary road design plans, preliminary road design profiles and conceptual bridge designs. Additional geotechnical and environmental assessments were conducted for the Teigen Access Road in the summer of The road design, profiles and bridge designs for this route alternative were revised following additional field work in The KSM Project TMF access roads are classified as resource development roads. Cut and fill angles will be subject to confirmation by a geotechnical engineer or may be modified and require site-specific prescription following an assessment of the field conditions by a qualified registered professional. For example, poor quality bedrock conditions exposed in cutslope excavations may February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix 1 9 Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

234 Introduction require rock scaling and rock bolting or other suitable stabilization measures to control potential rock fall. The roads are designed for all weather use with 100% gross combined vehicle weight year round. The roads will however be subject to periodic closures due to weather, avalanche hazard and maintenance. Traffic on the main access roads leading to and from the Process Plant site will consist of construction traffic, production support vehicles and production ore concentrate trucks. The maximum design speed for road vehicles is expected to be 50 to 60 km/hr with some segments of the road engineered with design speeds less than 50 km/hr. The road and bridge structure design will be based on the maximum anticipated size of transport vehicles and wheel loads associated with movement of heavy loads to the site during the construction period. Structures will be designed to meet the BC Forest Service L-100 off-highway logging truck requirements. Specific design criteria are required where the mine access roads approach Highway 37 and will result in intersection improvements. Double lane access roads are designed with a finished road surface width of 8 m. Single lane access roads are designed with a finished road surface width of 6 m, reducing to 5 m where roads are constructed as partial bench in rock with fill or full bench in rock. Additional road width, with an allowance of 4 m, may be required on double lane roads for pullouts. The right-of-way (ROW) will be of variable width to accommodate the road prism and maintenance requirements such as snow removal. The ROW design will also consider space required for construction needs such as borrow pits, debris storage, waste rock storage, logging landings and utility corridor requirements. The cleared ROW may be reduced in areas identified for environmental reasons such as riparian zones or archaeological non-incursion zones. The minimum Special Use Permit (SUP) ROW width is 30 metres. The access roads will be designed based on a stopping site distance of 65 m. The minimum radius for curves will be 35 m. Curves with a radius of less than 100 m will require additional widening for lowbed vehicles or other specialized vehicle tracking. No switchbacks are anticipated along the main access road. Site specific engineering will be required for switchbacks with a radius less than 35 m or with grades above 8%. Design road grades are based on the BC Ministry of Forests standards. For short pitches the uphill grade for loaded trucks should not exceed 10% unless difficult terrain is encountered and the downhill grade for loaded trucks should not exceed 12%. A nominal 8% maximum grade is recommended for loaded trucks on sustained grades. Major culverts are designed to convey the 1 in 100 year event, minor culverts are designed to convey approximately the 1 in 10 year event; culverts are located at each stream or creek crossing (approximately 4 every km). Open bottom arches will be located where fish have been identified or inferred. Bridges are located at major stream or river crossings and are designed to convey the Q100 flow. Riprap will be placed and designed for erosion protection at the toe of fill slopes, at major culverts and at bridge abutments. February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix 1 10 Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )

235 2. Regulatory Process 2.1 KSM Environmental Assessment The proposed development of this large gold-copper mining project has triggered the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act (Government of BC 2002) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (Government of Canada 1992). Seabridge has completed environmental and socio-economic baseline studies to guide the design of the Project and to support preparation of an environmental assessment. The current schedule proposes submission of an Environmental Assessment Certificate Application in the 3 rd quarter of KSM Permitting Update The KSM Project is undergoing a Joint Provincial Application/Federal Comprehensive Study Review, which provides for a coordinated environmental assessment by provincial and federal authorities concurrently. The advantage of the Joint Application/Comprehensive Study Review process is that it allows for a more collaborative effort among all interested parties in which issues can be reconciled as they are identified. 2.3 Road Alternatives Assessment This report is intended to supplement an assessment of alternative Tailing Management Facility (TMF) locations for the proposed KSM Project. That assessment identifies the South Teigen / North Treaty alternative as being the preferred TMF alternatives. This report advances the assessment of alternatives by assessing alternative access road alignments for the construction, operation and closure of the preferred TMF. The assessment of TMF access road alternatives is not a mandated inclusion to the TMF alternatives assessment, as per the Environment Canada Guidelines (2011). Seabridge has chosen to perform a formal assessment of the TMF access road alternatives in order to be open and transparent to all stakeholders. February 2012 Assessment of Alternatives for Teigen/Treaty TMF Access Road Seabridge Gold Inc. Appendix 2 1 Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (Proj )