Metis Nation of Ontario Comments

We here at the Metis Nation of Ontario (MNO) have been advised by IAAC to provide our comments regarding the Project by October 4, 2021. Please note that this list is by no means exhaustive, and is in addition to, the impacts and effects already determined by Agnico Eagle.

Potential Effects to Surface Water and Fish/Fish Habitat

·      The Proponent has stated that habitat disturbance will be limited to the project footprint but have not provided any information stating that they will be installing monitoring stations both up and downstream from any impacted waterways for baseline studies. Without baseline information, it is difficult to comment about what will and will not be disturbed or where the project disturbance will be limited to.

·      While habitat compensation will be mitigated through requirements from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), there is no conversation based around wetland habitats that support listed Species at Risk within the province. Without multi-year baseline studies of what wildlife is using the area, a clear compensation plan cannot be built.

o   Within their mitigation measures, they list that there is the potential to reconnect the flooded open pit to the Misema River upon closure of the mine. We would request that more information is provided about this step, as you could be creating an ecosystem that does not support the endemic species and instead would allow for a proliferation of cold-water fish that could decimate the smaller species within the river.

o   There was mention that there were no provincially significant wetlands within the project area. We are interested to see if there are any provincially protected/recognized species at risk that are associated with wetlands in the area (including both flora and fauna).

Potential Effects to Species at Risk and their Habitat

·      The Proponent has stated that no species at risk have been discovered at the project site, but did not provide information about who they contracted the surveying out to and did not express whether or not there was a buffer zone allotted for the project. Additionally, many areas can be used seasonally by migrating birds, brumating reptiles, and as calving areas for larger game. Without a detailed document outlining the surveys that have already been done, it is our feeling that the surveys for species at risk in the area have not been adequately completed.

o   Information was provided about not implementing tree clearing when nesting season was taking place, but there is no information provided about the potential for ground nesting birds to exist on site nor is there information about surveys being completed for myotis.

·      Care should be taken to survey for all species at risk, including listed salamander and native pollinator species that may be found seasonally on site.

·      There has been no mention of how invasive or noxious species would be kept from becoming established within the project area or along access points. Are there plans to develop/implement a noxious/invasive weed management plan?

Other Potential Changes to the Environment

·      Within the mitigation measures, it states that water will be used to control dust emissions. Where is this water coming from and does the Proponent plan on applying for a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) or will water be recycled from site so fresh water is not used?

·      Ambient lighting can cause issues with bird migration and can also impact the ability of myotis to persist in an area due to their sensitivity to light. Have there been considerations made for dimming lights during peak migration windows?

·      Will there be speed limits in place during nesting season and/or throughout spring to prevent the death of native reptiles/amphibians, birds, and young mammals on roadways near the project or at access points?

·      There is mention that the disturbance of mine rock and tailings that was historically placed in York Lake. Is there currently arsenic leaching from the rocks? Has there been any monitoring of the water quality or heavy metals contamination? What is AE’s plan for future leaching issues from mine rock? How do they plan to safely disturb York Lake without causing the arsenic to be suspended into the water column?

·      It has been stated that aggregate extraction will only occur on Crown land. Crown land is the primary means of land for traditional activities (hunting, gathering, trapping, etc.) and the development of an aggregate pit/extraction will only further impact the flora and fauna, and mammalian species in that area and beyond. For migrating animals, their routes may be impacted. For species living in those area, their habitat and food will be impacted/destroyed.

·      The Proponent intends to ensure that mining activities do not noticeably change Beaverhouse Lake water levels. Instead, the Proponent should not be changing water levels at all, as this can impact amphibious species and emergent plants.  

·      The Proponent has stated that there are no significant nearby anthropogenic sources of air emissions or noise, and that there are no continuous emissions currently from the site, although there may be periodic emissions associated with exploration and advanced exploration once approved. How can the Proponent make these statements when they are no taking measurements to monitor changes? Regardless of there being any nearby anthropogenic sources of air emissions and noise, this statement has been made prior to the Project development and is not an actual representation of the emissions that will be released or present during construction, operation, and closure. IAAC needs to realize that the claims they (the Proponent) are making are not about the impacts that the mine will create, but about the current conditions at the site which have little to no meaning. We need to know, accurately, the amounts and types of emissions that will be produced as a result of mine development.  

·      “No provincially significant wetlands or threatened or endangered plant species have been identified nearby (Azimuth 2013)” (p. 40, Initial Project Description). To determine if there are provincially significant wetlands, the Proponent needs to undertake a study as recent as possible as environments are constantly in oscillation, in which the study is almost a decade old.

Potential Effects to Indigenous Peoples & Impact to Exercise of Rights

·      Historic and contemporary cultural sites may be present in the area. The MNO would like to request that the Proponent provides more information about what was found in their initial archaeological studies. Is there a buffer zone that is being established around the mine site to see if there will be any further impacts from potential future expansion?

·     This initial comment period will not capture the entirety of the contemporary Metis experience. This means that the perspectives of all potentially impacted Metis citizens may not be heard. In the future, there may be more information about contemporary use of the affected area that could be completed through a Traditional Knowledge and Land Use Study (TKLUS) funded by AE with the MNO. Without a holistic review of contemporary use and meaningful engagement, it is impossible for the MNO to fully comment on the impacts that this site may have to the Metis way of life.

·      There is a compounded affect due to the numerous mines and camps in and around the project for over 100 years, affecting Metis communities.

·      All Indigenous people (First Nation, Metis, Inuit [FNMI]) in the Abitibi-Temiskaming Inland and James Bay lowlands are protected and have rights under Section 35, Canadian Constitution Act of 1982. This needs to be made clear on page 47 of the Initial Project Description.

Potential Effects to Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes

·      Draining York Lake has the potential to affect the buried waste and tailings. This type of activity has the potential for enormous negative impacts on the environment by the draining of the lake. MNO must have the ability to conduct an independent review of the proponents planned activities surrounding this disturbance.

·      The proponent has not committed to studying the projects effect on the regional Metis population. Loss of access Loss of harvesting opportunities are some of the concerns of MNO

·      Moose are major game for Metis citizens, where the Project proposes to impact moose habitat, moose aquatic feeding area, and moose calving sites.

Potential Effects to Structures, Sites or Things of Archaeological, Paleontological or Architectural Significance

·      There may be cultural heritage landscape and built heritage resources at the Project site related to the site’s mining heritage that need to be protected.

Potential Effects to Economic & Social Conditions

·      The ground stability (including sink holes) due to mining in the region has affected homes, businesses, and architecture as a result of 100+ years of mining, poor engineering planning, and affects individuals and businesses.

·      The Proponent has not discussed the projects effect on housing costs in the area. The project has the potential to increase housing costs, putting low income Metis citizens at a disadvantage

·      The proponent has yet to identify how the project will benefit MNO citizens in employment and business opportunities.

·      Accommodations are not proposed to be developed due to the close proximity of local communities. However, the Proponent has not stated that they will focus on local and Indigenous employment.

·      Regarding closure, does the Proponent have the funds to provide the upfront closure costs (financial assurance) to ensure closure takes place appropriately, and monitoring takes place in perpetuity? Closure impacts can be just as impactful as construction of the mine.

Additional Considerations

• The City of Timmins had to declare a State of Emergency during the third wave of COVID-19. The outbreaks were affected by mining projects and severely affected the limited medical capacity for the entire region.
• We have received information from the proponent, however the MNO does not yet have a consultation agreement with the proponent as of yet, however we require funding to undertake environmental and TKLUS studies to know the affects of the project on Metis rights.

·       Will there be scrubbers on any on site processing equipment to clean the air before it is released (i.e. from smelting process, etc.)?

·       There are a copious amount of unknowns for the Project (i.e. dry stacked tailings are subject to further engineering, permanent facilities may either be in the existing advanced exploration facilities, the discharge location has not yet been determined, other potential sources of aggregate for the project are under investigation, or…). Such unknowns should have been determined/finalized prior to the IAAC process OR should automatically require an Impact Assessment.

• The MNO feels that further meetings are needed to discuss to the history and Metis ties to the land in the project area.

The MNO considers this submission as the beginning stage of consultation.