North Nort h Sla Slave e Mt tis s Inte terve rventio tion - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nort North h Sla Slave e Mét étis s

Inte terve rventio tion BHP B Billi lliton ton Ek Ekati D Dia iamond M Mine ine Wat ater L r Licence Re Renewa wal

Wek’eezhii Land and Water Board Public Hearings February 12-13th, 2013.

OPENING REMARKS

• Introduction of President, other hearing participants.
• Process Issues = Capacity Issues

– Lack of intervener funding (especially compared to other First Nations) – Too many environmental assessments and regulatory reviews at once…

• 1. Agnico Eagle Mines Meliadine Gold Project – Rankin to
• 2. Areva Kiggavik Project – Uranium Mine near Baker Lake,
• 3. Avalon Thor Lake Project – todays’ topic
• 4. Bathurst Inlet Port and Road Project –
• 5. De Beers Gahcho Kue Project – Diamond Mine near Fort Reliance
• 6. Fortune Minerals Nico Project – near Idaa trail
• 7. Giant Yellowknife Mine Remediation Project – Yellowknife
• 8. Jerico Tahera Diamond Mine Project – near Contwoyto Lake
• 9. Miramar Doris North Gold – near Bathurst Inlet
• 10. Phase 2 Hope Bay Belt Project – several mines, roads, and port.
• 11. Sabina Back River Project – near Contwoyto Lake.
• 12. Tyhee Yellowknife Gold Project – Yellowknife River

NOT COUNTING PRELIMINARY SCREEENINGS AND OTHER REGULATORY APPROVALS

OPENING REMARKS

The North Slave Métis Community – history and identity.

OPENING REMARKS

Mandate

• 1. Unite the indigenous Métis of the North Slave Region.
• 2. Promote pride in Métis culture and heritage.
• 3. Exercise Métis responsibility to protect the environment
• 4. Promote and enhance Métis education and, economic, social and cultural development.
• 5. Promote recognition and entrenchment of Métis Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.
• 6. Negotiate, ratify, and implement a comprehensive self-government agreement.

History

1975-1990 Dene-Métis Comprehensive Claim = Métis Nation of the Northwest Territories

(note : MNNWT is not NWTMN)

1996 Regional Claims = North Slave Métis Alliance registered as non-profit society

Reason for participation in hearings assert, protect, implement Aboriginal Rights

• f Indigenous North Slave Métis

OVERVI EW

W L Application Scope Security Baseline Data Traditional Know ledge Monitoring Mitigation Closure Cum ulative Effects Consultation

W L APPLI CATI ON

Section 9 The North Slave Métis Alliance represents hundreds of indigenous Aboriginal Rights bearing Métis who are directly and significantly affected by this undertaking. Section 11 The NSMA would like to see the names of contractors and subcontractors, as well as the contracts they are responsible for, past and present, and the dollar values.

SCOPE

NOT the “closure” license

The North Slave Métis have not been adequately consulted regarding and have not endorsed or consented to AANDC’s interim draft Minesite Reclamation Guidelines

• r

BHP’s Interim Closure and Reclamation Plan. The North Slave Métis have an Aboriginal Right to Free, Prior, and Fully Informed Consent before the approval of the ICRP, And the final Closure Plan must comply with Part 5 of MVRMA.

DEFI NI TI ONS

Action levels – should be explicitly linked to the response framework Reclamation – the alternative to restoration that is demonstrably acceptable to Aboriginal Peoples Receiving Environment – any and all environmental components (not just areas) – ecological or sociological - that may be impacted by the appurtenant undertaking being

• licensed. Impacts can be result from any kind of energy or

matter discharged at unacceptable rates. Significance Threshold - circular definition provides no clarity. Aboriginal Peoples have a Right to be Consulted

• n value-laden interpretations

“valued” “affected” “thresholds” “significant” “acceptable” “practicable”

SECURI TY

It would be premature to refund any

• f the water license or other security

currently on deposit before the NSMA provides its Free Prior and Fully Informed Consent

• f the Final Closure Plan.

The ICRP is incomplete, has not obtained FPIC, And aspects of the current ICRP have not yet complied with Part 5, MVRMA.

BASELI NE DATA

Where is it? Who is responsible for custody? What w ill w e use for development of site specific WQO’s, closure planning and compensation calculations if it can’t be retrieved?

TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Missing from baseline. Missing from AEMP and SNP design, im plem entation, interpretation, and evaluation. Missing from I CRP Sociological and biological.

MONI TORI NG

Lim its of acceptable change approach CCME guidelines interim only SSW QO’s need to Consult NSMA, and incorporate TK to define “effects” and “substantial” Diavik, Seabridge, Peregrine and others now in sam e w atershed requires Cum ulative effects m onitoring re-design

MI TI GATI ON

• 1. Combine data for Diavik and Ekati
• 2. Expand SNP downstream to LDG
• 3. Include TK in data analysis, response

triggers, actions.

• 4. TK definitions “threshold” “substantial”
• 5. Limits of ACCEPTABLE change
• 6. TK defn of “no change from baseline”
• 7. CCME not a “pollute-up-to-limit”.
• 8. CCME provisional, SSWQO’s better.

CLOSURE

CLOSURE = RESTORATION

OR

CLOSURE = RECLAMATION WITH COMPENSATION

COMPENSATION = FPIC CONSENT

(FPIC = FULLY INFORMED, FREELY GIVEN and PRIOR)

The NSMA has not consented to the ICRP it is missing social, economic, and cultural components as w ell as traditional know ledge among other things. It w ould be irresponsible of the Board to refund security w ithout know ing w hat closure w ill cost.

CUMULATI VE EFFECTS

Diavik, and exploration projects now im pacting sam e area… Needs assessm ent.

CONSULTATI ON

Needed for: I CRP MONI TORI NG MI TI GATI ON

CAPACI TY I SSUES