Mike Bernier
Information Management Supervisor
MNR Chapleau District Office
190 Cherry Street
Chapleau ON P0M 1K0
 

SENT BY FAX (705) 864-0681

Re. Proposed Boundary Amendment to theGroundhog River Provincial Park to permit a
Mine Effluent ditch from Falconbridge Ltd's Montcalm Mine to the Groundhog River
 

On April 25^th 2003 notice was posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights electronic registry of a consideration being given by the Ministry of Natural Resources to a proposal to amend the 1999 Land Use Strategy boundary of the recommended Groundhog River Provincial Park (P1569) in order to remove approximately 2 hectares from one location along the river. The disposition of this same 2 hectares is being sought be Falconbridge Limited in order to permit a drainage corridor, including a mine effluent ditch, needed to convey contaminated mine effluent from Falconbridge Limited's Montcalm Nickel Mine to the Groundhog River.

According to the EBR posting, the area removed will be re-designated to Crown Land and a disposition, in the form of an easement (under Environmental Assessment Act Exemption Order MNR 26-7)will be issued to Falconbridge Limited. The posting also indicates that approximately 22 hectares to the recommended provincial park, and notes that the proposed addition is currently being held by Falconbridge Limited as a Mining Claim and is classified as Forest Reserve under the Land Use Strategy. This parcel of land is located along the 'Six Mile Rapids' portion of the Groundhog River, which is considered ideal sturgeon spawning habitat. This option does not require an amendment to Ontario's Living Legacy Land Use Strategy, according to the posting.

Background

During the second quarter of 2001, Falconbridge purchased the Montcalm nickel-copper property near Timmins, Ontario, from Outokumpu for $14 million. Montcalm has the potential to produce a total of 5 million tonnes of ore at a rate of 750,000 tonnes annually. Should the project go ahead, Montcalm ore would be milled at the Kidd Metallurgical Division in Timmins and the concentrate would be processed at the Sudbury smelter. The project could contribute 8,000 tonnes annually to Falconbridge's Sudbury nickel output.⁽¹⁾ The property was previously operated by Outokumpu Mines Ltd.

Falconbridge Limited is in the process of seeking various permits related to their proposed nickel/copper mine in MontcalmTownship, approximately 70 km northwest of Timmins. Permit requests to date relate to approval of the construction and operation of a mine water treatment system to treat groundwater pumped for mine dewatering and surface runoff associated with potentially acid generating waste rock stockpiles. The treatment system is to comprise: a mine dewatering pipeline, a slimes settling basin, a run-off interceptor/collection ditch system, a diversion ditch system, lime treatment plant, pH monitoring station for lime feed control, metal-hydroxide sludge settling pond, discharge control structure (including overflow weir, facilities for pH and flow monitoring) a CO2 addition system for pH control, and a polishing pond.

According to a February 14, 2003 posting on the Environmental Bill of Rights electronic registry related to sewage works for the proposed mine, treated effluent will be discharged via a drainage-way to the Groundhog River, with contingency for a pumping system and buried pipeline. Falconbridge is now seeking disposition of 2 hectares of crown land within the Groundhog River Provincial Park in order to construct that drainage way.

Falconbridge had previously requested approval of the same mine water treatment system to treat the mine effluent. On July 26, 2002 notice of this application was posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights electronic registry for a 30 day comment period, ending August 25, 2002.⁽²⁾ On February 7, 2003, notice was posted on the EBR registry that the application had been withdrawn by Falconbridge. The posting stated that during the review of Falconbridge's application, the Technical Support Section of the MOE expressed concerns about the proposal and indicated that an extensive set of field trials would have to be conducted to demonstrate to MOE's satisfaction that the proposed discharge scenario would not have an unacceptable environmental impact and that "Project timelines cannot accommodate a test program of this duration, and so Falconbridge has decided to apply for an approval for a different discharge option."

Falconbridge has also filed a closure plan with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

Northwatch has commented to the Ministry of the Environment on the applications for approval of sewage works and to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines with respect to the closure plan. We have also met with Falconbridge staff on two occasions, and have made two site visits.

Proposed Disposition of Crown Land

The EBR posting seeks comments on the proposed Boundary Amendment to the Recommended Groundhog River Provincial Park to allow 2 hectares to be removed from the Park and granted in a disposition to Falconbridge Limited for the purpose of constructing a mine effluent ditch through what would be the remaining provincial Park.

In our view, the issue of crown land disposition is not limited to the proposed removal of an area of the Groundhog River Provincial Park. Rather, the issue - ie. Falconbrdige's request - of land disposition is in place with either of Falconbridge's two "options".

The proposed drainage ditch has attached to it the issues associated with amending the boundary of a provincial park to allow a mining activity, the establishment of an easement for a mining activity through a provincial park, and the release of a mine effluent - in itself a mining activity - into the provincial park, ie into the Groundhog River. The proposal would also require related infrastructure, including access roads.

The proposed "alternative" of a 14 km pipeline similarly has a number of issues attached to it. While technically outside the boundaries of the provincial park, this option would still require a disposition of crown land. Given the inevitability of impacts on the Park and the Groundhog River more generally should Falconbridge proceed with their project as currently proposed (to the Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Northern Development and Mines) such a request for disposition of crown land would have to be carefully considered by the Ministry of Natural Resources and made subject to public consultation. This option would bring with it a high level of disturbance in the project area, and would require related infrastructure, including access roads. It also enable the release of large volumes of toxic mine effluent into the Groundhog River and into the provincial park.

The following is a brief summary of key concerns related to these "options":

• The proposed drainage ditch constitutes a mining activity, and as such is an unacceptable land use in the Groundhog River Waterway Park. Falconbridge had initially proposed to construct an 8 kilometre ditch from the mine site to the Groundhog River, including through the newly created waterway park, but they withdrew this option when the Ministry of Natural Resources objected on the basis of a mine effluent ditch being part of a mining activity, and so not permitted within a waterway park Falconbridge is now proposing, again, a mine effluent ditch through a waterway park; however, the Groundhog River Waterway Park is still a waterway park, the mine effluent ditch is still part of a mining activity, and mining activities are still not permitted in a park. Even if the Ministry were to grant Falconbridge a 2 hectare land disposition which would permit the construction of the mine effluent ditch, in our view such construction would still very much constitute a mining activity within a provincial park because a) the 2 hectare easement would not be sufficiently large enough to contain all of the impacts and effects of the mining activity, ie of the mine effluent ditch, and b) the mining activity, ie the mine effluent ditch, would by definition involve the dumping of mine effluent into the Groundhog River, and that releasing of mine effluent into the River would constitute a mining activity within the remaining area of the Park

• There are a number of design and function concerns related to the proposed ditch. Without prejudice to our position that an effluent discharge drainage way (ditch) through the Groundhog River Waterway Park is not an acceptable activity, we made the following comments on the proposal as presented in the 2003 Permitting Support Document which speak to points which are directly pertinent to the request being considered by the Ministry of Natural Resources:

 

- consideration should be given to lining the discharge drainage way as one means of preventing groundwater contamination

- the Permitting Support Document indicates that the channel will be "periodically widened to create settling ponds, or rock-check dams will be used at strategic locations to preserve hydraulic gradients";⁽³⁾ more detail should be provided, including a discussion of anticipated environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures related to the potential "widening" of the drainage way, and a description of the criteria by which the decision will be made to either "widen" the drainage way or install rock-check dams

- the Company's consultants proposed to use riprap to protect the banks of the Groundhog River from erosion at the terminal 500 m, but provide no explanation of how they arrived at 500 m as the appropriate length, or why they would not use riprap for the entire length of the drainage was as a possible response to the anticipated problems with the drainage way's banks slumping

• The "alternative" pipeline would also adversely affect the Park. Falconbridge has also but forward to option of building a 12 to 15 kilometre buried pipeline from the effluent pond to discharge directly into the Groundhog River, south of the original ditch location, taking advantage of a recently acquired mining claim to thwart the provincial park restrictions, will adversely impact on the Park; we are not confident that Falconbridge is sincere in putting this option forward, and have some sense that it is politically rather than practically motivated, in the interests of furthering their interest gaining approval of the drainage ditch, and in so doing thwarting provincial park policies.

 
• The proposed pipeline will adversely affect sturgeon spawning ground. The pipeline would enter the river immediately upstream of a sturgeon spawning ground. Lake Sturgeon is listed as globally vulnerable and provincially rare to uncommon, and the Groundhog River has been identified as an area of high conservation value because of occurrences of Lake Sturgeon.

• The Falconbridge proposal relies on use of the Groundhog River as a mixing zone. Regardless of which effluent discharge route (ditch or pipe) they eventually pursue, relies to a very large degree - and in a wholly unacceptable manner - on using the Groundhog River as mixing zone; in our view, this reliance on dilution (as the solution to pollution) is in contravention of Ontario and Canada's environmental policies and regulations, and should not be entertained - let alone approved - by the Ministry of the Environment; there are available treatment approaches and technologies which could be added to the effluent treatment system being proposed that would result in greatly improved effluent quality; Falconbridge should be directed to meet Provincial Water Quality Objectives before discharging from their treatment system; at minium, PWQO should be generally attained at the point of discharge from the treatment system (ie. discharge from the polishing pond) and consistently obtained prior to meeting the Groundhog River

 

As stated above, on April 25^th 2003 a notice was posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights electronic registry with the proposal title "Boundary Amendment to the Recommended Groundhog River Provincial Park". In addition to our comments with respect to the broader question of disposition of crown lands related to this project, we provide the following comments specific to the EBR posting:

• the posting did not follow the standard format of EBR postings, in that it did not include an identification of the location of the activity by district; failure to do so may have prevented some members of the public from receiving notice of the project, if they rely on a the quite reasonable practice of doing regular EBR searches using their district as a key word; a search using the key word of "Cochrane" does not include this posting in its results. We further note that other EBR postings related to the Montcalm Project, including postings for the closure plan and sewage works, did include appropriate geographic identifiers. For example, the postings for sewage works included both "County/District/Region: District of Cochrane" and "Other Activity Location Identifiers: Geographic Township of Montcalm, Territorial District of Cochrane"

• The EBR posting includes the following statement: "The proposed addition is currently being held by Falconbridge Limited as a Mining Claim and is classified as Forest Reserve under the Land Use Strategy". In our view, this statement creates an impression that Falconbridge enjoys a form of tenure beyond that which is the case. A mining claim provides only the rights to mineral exploration and to (potential) mineral development. A mining claim in not a form of ownership of any other rights including surface rights, and should not be construed or described as such, even by inference. Further, it should be noted that there some questions have arisen with respect to the claims held by Falconbridge in the "proposed addition", and whether or not they comprise what the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines refers to as "nuisance claims", in that they were staked for purposes other than mineral exploration.

 
• The EBR posting states that "the area removed will be re-designated to Crown Land and a disposition, in the form of an easement (under Environmental Assessment Act Exemption Order MNR 26-7)", but we note that the referred to Exemption Order MNR 26-7 is no longer in place, and has been replaced by the Class Environmental Assessment for MNR

Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects, effective March 31^st, 2003.
 
• The EBR posting states that "In support of MNR's Exemption Order (MNR 26/7), Falconbridge has placed newspaper advertisements and held public information sessions in September, 2002". We have reviewed the material presented by Falconbridge at the September 23, 2002 information sessions, and are very much of the view that the information presented at that time not only did not support the current park boundary adjustment and related disposition of crown lands, but in fact was of the opposite effect. Falconbridge presented an "original option" which included the "8 km drainage way from treatment pond to Groundhog River" and notes an "issue with access across proposed provincial park". However, the option presented by Falconbridge as their proposal at that time and the one which they intended to proceed to production with was to discharge with a 3 km drainage way from the treatment pond to a wetland which would then discharge to Montcalm Creek. Clearly, the public meetings of September 2002 did not constitute public notice of any intention to request disposition of crown lands for either of the two options now being considered by Falconbridge, or for the request to adjust the boundaries of the provincial park to accommodate one of those options.

 
• The EBR notice does not include links to any of the pertinent information, including information which is already available on-line, such as with respect to the Ground Hog River Provincial Park, Ontario's Living Legacy, or related EBR postings.

Related Concerns with the Montcalm Project

To provide some context for our response to the proposed disposition of crown lands for the purpose of a mine effluent ditch for the Montcalm Mine, we wish to summarize our concerns with the project in general. In summary, our concerns include but are not limited to the following points:

• there is significant potential for acid generation, and we are not confident that there has been sufficent analysis of the surrounding (host) rock. While Falconbridge and the Company's consultants agree that the ore will be acid generating, they are predicting that the rock surrounding the ore will not be acid generating. This waste rock will be brought to surface in large volumes, and while Falconbridge's consultants have concluded that the majority of the waste rock will consist of low-sulphide, non- acid generating material, any potential for it to "go acid" could have long term environmental impacts. Acid generation leaches metals and chemicals from the rock, and makes the mine effluent more polluting.

 
• the Company proposes to use the Groundhog River as a "mixing zone", relying on the large volume of water in the Groundhog to mix with the mine effluent in order to meet the provincial water quality objectives. While Falconbridge has proposed a number of different options for getting their mine effluent to the Groundhog River, but they all have the same goal in mind: get the polluted mine water to the Groundhog River, where the large volume of water in the river will "mix" with the mine effluent, so that the level of pollution is not as measurable. In our view, this reliance on dilution as the solution to pollution is not acceptable.

• a primary area of concern with this site is with respect to the anticipated high level of acid generation and related mobilization of metals, and their subsequent adverse effects, particularly on the aquatic environment, fish and fish habitat.

 
• the environmental performance to date at the Montcalm Project has been poor, as has the performance at the Kidd Metallurgical Plant; the Permitting Support Document fails to address these past and continuing concerns, and instead seeks an approval based on presumed expectations future environmental performance in the future

 
• the selection of only copper and nickel as contaminants of concern is not adequately supported; the only rationale provided for this limited selection is that other metals have not been found to be of concern in mining operations in the Sudbury area⁽⁴⁾; given that there are environmental concerns and water quality impacts associated with the Sudbury operations and given that this is a very different site, and one in some proximity to the abandoned and highly contaminating Kam Kotia mine which is well known to local and regional residents for its significant environmental concerns, the full range of potential contaminants should be discussed in detail, and their proposed treatment well documented
• we are not confident of the consultants' conclusions that the majority of the waste rock will consist of low-sulphide, non-acid generating material⁽⁵⁾, and urge the MOE to require a fuller explanation and better support of this very central supposition
• while we generally support the practice of consolidating mineral processing activities into fewer sites within a limited geographic area, we have certain concerns with Falconbridge's Metallurgical Plant in Timmins, and the several environmental problems associated with the site. In our view, some consideration must be given to the effect of increased production at the Mett Site, and whether that would have adverse affects on the ability of Falconbridge Ltd. to institute measures to improve their environmental performance at the Kidd Metallurgical Plant.
• we are not confident of the Company's estimate that runoff water quality will comply with the requirements of discharge without treatment after a transitional period of only "a year or two"⁽⁶⁾; the Company should a) provide some discussion of how they arrived at this estimate of "a year or two", and b) outline a contingency plan for continued treatment for an extended period after operations cease

As we expressed in our previous comments to other Ministries, we are concerned that approvals are being sought - and possible given - in a piecemeal fashion, rather than within the context of an overall review process which is done in a coordinated fashion, with all of the various permit applications and requests for approval available for review prior to any single approvals being granted. In our view, the review of requests for the various approvals required under the Environmental Protection Act, the Mining Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Public Lands Act, the federal Fisheries Act, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act should be done in a coordinated fashion, with the information needed to support each application taken into consideration in the review of the other applications. This would require the proponent to provide the information in a reasonable, timely and comprehensive manner, and to assist the various agencies in accomplishing a coordinated review by providing all of the relevant information and full supporting documentation for all of the necessary permits prior to the proponent's pursuit of any single approval. In the absence of such an approach being adopted by the proponent, we have urged other Ministries to simply defer consideration of any single application until such time as all applications and their supporting documentation are available.
 

With respect to the proposed disposition of crown lands for the purpose of allowing direct discharge of mine effluent into the Groundhog River, with respect to the related proposal to amend the boundaries of the Groundhog River Provincial Park, we are strongly of the view that these proposals should be rejected, for a number of reasons, including the following:

• the Groundhog River should not be used as a mixing zone for mine effluent; the mine effluent should be treated to sufficient quality as to meeting Provincial Water Quality Objectives
• the proposed park boundary amendment and any subsequent construction of a mine effluent ditch through the remaining park would still constitute a mining activity in a provincial park
• either of the proposed option - ditch or buried pipeline - will have unacceptable adverse impacts on the Groundhog River Provincial Park and the values it was established to protect

[original signed]

Brennain Lloyd
Northwatch
 

cc. Mr. Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
    Mr. Rob Galloway, Northeastern Ontario Regional Director, Ministry of Natural Resources
    Ms. Adair Ireland-Smith, Managing Director, Ontario Parks
    Hon. Jerry Ouellette, Minister of Natural Resources
 
 
 

Endnotes

1. Falconbridge Limited Restated Management's Discussion & Analysis for the quarter ending June 30, 2001

2. EBR Registry Posting Number IA02E0854

3. 2003 Permitting Support Document, Page 45, Section 4.12

4. 2003 Permitting Support Document, Page 71, paragaph 1

5. 2003 Permitting Support Document, Page 11, paragraph 3

6. 2003 Permitting Support Document, Page 41, paragraph 1