re: additional information required from benga …the agency advises benga mining that the letters...

August 3, 2018

Mr. Mike Bartlett Senior Project Manager, Benga Mining Client Lead Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. Suite 325, 1925 – 18th Avenue NE Calgary, AB T2E 7T8 Re: Additional Information Required from Benga Mining Limited for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project Environmental Assessment Dear Mr. Bartlett: On April 30, 2018, Benga Mining submitted Addendum #6 to the Environmental Impact Statement for the Project, which incorporated responses to the information requirements provided to Benga Mining by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) on February 28, 2018. Also, on February 28, 2018, Benga Mining submitted Addendum #5 to the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Grassy Mountain Coal Project (the Project) in response to supplemental information requests issued by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). The Addenda have been posted on the Agency’s registry internet site, reference number 80101. Following a review of the information contained in Addenda #5 and #6 to the Environmental Impact Statement, the Agency has determined that the EIS, updated with Addenda 1 to 6, does not yet conform to the EIS Guidelines for the Project. Benga Mining must provide additional information in order to ensure that the Agency has information which adequately responds to the EIS Guidelines, in accordance with section 39 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Conformity Requests for Additional Information

In conformity with the requirements of the EIS Guidelines, the Agency requests additional information (Appendix A) with regards to the following topics:

• Use of Indigenous Traditional Knowledge; • Migratory Birds and Species At Risk; • Human Health; and, • Cumulative Effects Assessment.

Technical Requests for Additional Information The Federal Review Team, comprised of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Health Canada, and Natural Resources Canada, has reviewed the responses to the additional information requests contained in Addendum #6 to the Environmental Impact Statement. Additional technical information requests proposed by the Federal Review Team are included in Appendix B.

The Agency advises Benga Mining that the letters and comments from the Federal Review Team are posted on the Agency’s registry internet site, reference number 80101, as Doc #73, #74, #75 and #76. The Agency encourages Benga Mining to consult the letters from the Federal Review Team as context for the technical information requests outlined in Appendix B. Next Steps Please provide the additional information in response to this request in a comprehensive standalone package to allow our review of the additional information to occur in a timely manner. In doing so, please update all concordance tables accordingly, including references to Addendums 1 to 6, as well as the location of materials contained in any future Addendum. Please provide the Agency with an anticipated timeline for submission of Benga Mining’s response to the additional information requests included in Appendix A and B. Where Benga Mining elects not to respond to specific questions or to postpone a response, a clear rationale for doing so and a proposed timeline for the response should be provided. The Agency also strongly encourages Benga Mining to respond to requests for additional information that are of a more technical nature as early as practicable. Once all the requested information is submitted by Benga Mining, the Agency will post the responses on the Agency’s public registry and verify that the revised EIS, updated with the addenda previously submitted, meets the requirements set out in the EIS Guidelines. Please contact me at 613-816-1739 or at [email protected] if you have any questions about the proposed panel process or the additional information requirements. Sincerely,

Brett Maracle Panel Manager / Attachments (2)

• Appendix A. Conformity Review of the EIS for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project: Additional Information Requests from the Agency (Package 5)

• Appendix B. Technical Review of the EIS for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project: Additional Information Requests from the Federal Review Team (Round 2)

<Original signed by>

mailto:[email protected]?subject=CEAR%2C%20Information%20Request

APPENDIX A.

Conformity Review of the EIS for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project: Additional Information Requests from the Agency (Package 5)

USE OF INDIGENOUS TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE

1. Additional Work with Indigenous Groups

References: EIS Guidelines, Part 1, Section 4.2 and 4.3.2 (CEAR Doc#11); Alberta Energy Regulator Supplemental Information Request, December 20, 2017 – SIR #3 and #4 (CEAR Doc#56); Addendum #5 to the Environmental Impact Statement, February 28, 2018 – SIR #3 and #4 (CEAR Doc#69).

Preamble:

The EIS Guidelines require that Benga Mining incorporate the Indigenous traditional knowledge to which it has access or that is acquired through Aboriginal and public engagement activities into the Environmental Impact Statement. The EIS Guidelines also require that Benga Mining, in describing and assessing effects to the physical and biological environment, take an ecosystem approach that considers both scientific and traditional knowledge and perspectives regarding ecosystem health and integrity.

In its response to the Alberta Energy Regulator Supplemental Information Request #4, Benga Mining stated that additional work had been initiated with Stoney Nakoda Nation (including Wesley Band, Stoney Bearspaw Band, Stoney Chiniki Band); Tsuut’ina Nation; and Siksika Nation. Benga Mining also stated that these reports would be submitted by Benga Mining to the Alberta Energy Regulator and Aboriginal Consultation Office when they became available.

In addition, in its response to the Alberta Energy Regulator Supplemental Information Request #3, Benga Mining stated that while some traditional use studies were completed prior to filing the EA [sic], additional work with various Indigenous groups was on-going and that the information would be considered by Benga Mining as it became available. However, Benga Mining later stated that it did not consider that these additional studies would result in substantive changes to the proposed project.

Information Required:

Provide an update on the nature and status of the additional work being carried out by Benga Mining with Tsuut’ina Nation; Siksika Nation; and Stoney Nakoda Nation (Wesley Band, Stoney Bearspaw Band, Stoney Chiniki Band). Clarify if any additional work is being carried out by Benga Mining with Blood Tribe (Kainai Nation), Piikani Nation or any other Indigenous groups.

Indicate the current status of the additional work being carried out and provide a date in which Benga expects to receive the information. If the date is unknown, provide an estimated date.

Briefly describe the purpose of the additional work being carried out and how Benga Mining intends to incorporate the additional information received by the Indigenous groups into the environmental assessment of the Grassy Mountain Coal Project.

Clarify whether Benga Mining will be submitting the additional work, or a summary thereof to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and/or to the Joint Review Panel once it has been established.

MIGRATORY BIRDS AND SPECIES AT RISK

2. Clark’s Nutcracker

References: EIS Guidelines, Section 6.1.6, Section 6.3.3, Section 6.4 and Section 8 (CEAR Doc#11); Consultant Report #8, Section 4.2.6.3 (CEAR Doc#42); Alberta Energy Regulator Supplemental Information Request, December 20, 2017 – SIR #150 (CEAR Doc#56); Addendum #5 to the Environmental Impact Statement, February 28, 2018 – SIR #150 (CEAR Doc#69); Preamble:

The Guidelines require Benga Mining to provide a description of migratory and non-migratory birds based on existing information and surveys. The Guidelines also require Benga Mining to assess the direct and indirect effects of the Project on federally listed species at risk […] and their critical habitat […]. Furthermore, the Guidelines require that Benga Mining describe mitigation measures that are specific to each environmental effect identified and to present a preliminary follow-up program and a monitoring program.

The Alberta Energy Regulator submitted its Supplemental Information Request to Benga Mining on December 20, 2017. As part of SIR#150, the AER requested that Benga Mining provide information on the Clark’s nutcracker, including baseline information (species distribution, habitat, life history, use of habitat in the Wildlife Study Area and relationship with Limber/Whitebark Pine), an effects assessment on Clark’s nutcracker population and habitat (including but not limited to habitat availability, habitat effectiveness, abundance, distribution, species resilience and recovery population), and mitigation and monitoring measures.

However, Benga Mining did not provide all of the information requested by the AER. For example, in the Addendum #5 submission of February 28, 2018, Benga Mining did not provide information on the species distribution and life history of the Clark’s nutcracker, as requested in SIR#150. Furthermore, the effects assessment provided in response to part b) of SIR#150 only assessed effects in terms of habitat,

and not in terms of the other measures as requested by the AER. Although the Clark’s nutcracker is not federally listed under the Species at Risk Act, a description of the effects to Clark’s nutcracker is required to understand the indirect effects to Whitebark Pine, which does fall under the Species at Risk Act. Finally, when asked about the mitigation and follow-up measures for Clark’s nutcracker, Benga Mining referred to Section 4.2.6.3 of Consultant Report #8. However, the measures described in Section 4.2.6.3 of Consultant Report #8 pertain entirely to Whitebark Pine, and not to Clark’s nutcracker. While it is understood that Clark’s nutcracker relies on Whitebark Pine as a primary food source, mitigation and follow-up measures targeting one species cannot be substituted for that of another.


a. Provide a discussion of the species distribution and general life history of the Clark’s nutcracker. b. Provide an assessment of the effects of the Project on Clark’s nutcracker population and habitat;

including but not limited to habitat availability, habitat effectiveness, abundance, distribution, and species resilience.

c. Provide a list of mitigation measures and details of a follow-up and monitoring program for Clark’s nutcracker.

HUMAN HEALTH

3. Human Health Risk Assessment

References: EIS Guidelines, Section 6.3.4 (CEAR Doc#11); Consultant Report #12 Human Health Risk Assessment, Section 4.2 and 6.3 (CEAR Doc#42); Agency’s Request for Additional Information, February 28, 2018 – Health Canada AIR #5 (CEAR Doc#60). Preamble: On February 28, 2018, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency requested that Benga Mining respond to the additional questions raised by the Federal Review Team. Health Canada asked Benga Mining to provide a planned development case (PDC) in the human health risk assessment (HHRA) to quantitatively demonstrate the potential effects of increased highway and railway traffic emissions on human health.

The EIS assumes no increase in vehicle and railway traffic. This may lead to an underestimation of health risk considering the already predicted exceedance of NO2 and PM10. While Benga Mining provided a rationale justifying the suitability of the application case assessment presented in the EIS for the potential effects of increased highway traffic emissions on human health, no similar rationale or assessment was provided to describe the potential effects of increased railway traffic emissions on human health.


Provide a PDC in the HHRA to quantitatively demonstrate the potential effects of increased railway traffic emissions on human health.

4. Noise Impact Assessment

References: EIS Guidelines, Section 3.1, 6.3.4 (CEAR Doc#11); Consultant Report #2 Noise Impact Assessment, Section 3.2 (CEAR Doc#42); Agency’s Request for Additional Information, February 28, 2018 – Health Canada AIR #19 (CEAR Doc#60); Addendum #6 to the Environmental Impact Statement, April 30, 2018 – Health Canada AIR #19 (CEAR Doc#70). Preamble:

As outlined in Section 3.1 of the EIS Guidelines, the environmental assessment required under CEAA 2012 shall include construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of the following project components, including the coal handling and processing facility. The EIS guidelines also require Benga Mining to provide, with respect to Aboriginal peoples, a description and analysis of how changes to the environment caused by the project will affect human health and noise exposure.

In the response to Health Canada AIR#19 of Addendum #6 to the EIS, Benga Mining indicated that, with respect to the coal handling and processing plant, the overland conveyor, and the rail loadout, there is no accurate means of predicting the noise levels associated with the construction or decommissioning activity because the details of the construction and decommissioning activity are unknown at this time. Therefore, it is understood based on the response to Health Canada AIR#19 of Addendum #6 that the noise contribution of these project components was not included in the noise impact assessment. However, in Section 3.2 of Consultant Report #2, Benga Mining stated that the noise sources for the equipment associated with the mine, coal handling and processing plant, conveyors, and rail loadout are provided in Appendix I of that report. Consequently, it is unclear whether the noise contributions of the coal handling and processing plant, overland conveyor, and rail loadout were included in the noise impact assessment, or whether they were excluded.

Furthermore, in the response to Health Canada AIR#19 of Addendum #6, Benga Mining indicated that there was an error in the text within Consultant Report #2. Benga Mining explained that the error pertained to the original noise assessment associated with the previous mine plan and the text was not updated as per the current mine plan. However, it is unclear whether the information presented in Consultant Report #2 pertains entirely to the former mine plan, and would thus be obsolete, or whether it captures the noise effects of the current mine plan. Clarification in regards to the above is required to determine whether noise modelling was carried out for the appropriate project components and mine plan.


a. Clarify whether the noise impact assessment (Consultant Report #2) included the noise contributions of the coal handling and processing plant, the overland conveyor, and the rail loadout.

b. Based on the error described in the response to Health Canada AIR#19, clarify whether the noise impact assessment (Consultant Report #2) still accurately captures the noise effects of the current mine plan.

c. If the noise impact assessment is based on the former mine plan, present a revised noise impact assessment based on the project description for the current mine plan.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

5. Cumulative Effects Assessment

References: EIS Guidelines, Sections 3.3.2, 6.3.5, 6.6.3 (CEAR Doc#11); Agency’s Request for Additional Information, January 13, 2016 - AIR #16 (CEAR Doc#33); Agency’s Request for Additional Information, December 5, 2016 - AIR #26 (CEAR Doc#43); Agency’s Request for Additional Information, February 28, 2018 - AIR #2 (CEAR Doc#60); Addendum #1 to the EIS, Consultant Report #6 – Aquatic Ecology Effects Assessment (CEAR Doc#44); Addendum #6 to the Environmental Impact Statement, April 30, 2018 – Appendix A-2: Cumulative Effects Assessment, Appendix A-3: Summary of Effects (CEAR Doc#70); Natural Resources Canada’s Comments on Addendum 6 to the EIS (CEAR Doc#73); Operational Policy Statement “Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012”i Operational Policy Statement “Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012”ii; Technical Guidance “Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 – Interim Technical Guidance”iii; Technical Guidance “Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 – Interim Technical Guidance”iv; Technical Guidance “Assessing the Current Use of Lands and Resources under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012”v. Preamble: On January 13, 2016, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) requested additional information pertaining to the cumulative effects assessment included in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted on November 10, 2015 by Benga Mining for the proposed Grassy Mountain Coal Project (the Project). This request was also included as an outstanding information requirement in subsequent correspondence from the Agency to Benga Mining on December 5, 2016 and February 28, 2018. On April 30, 2018, Benga Mining provided Appendix A-2 of Addendum #6 to the EIS

in response to the request from the Agency for additional information on cumulative effects assessment.

Benga Mining states that Appendix A-2 consolidates the cumulative effects assessment information on the relevant topics provided in the updated EIS submitted on August 12, 2016, to better align with the process described in Agency’s Operational Policy Statement (OPS) “Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012”. Benga Mining made reference to the OPS and listed environmental effects under subsection 5(1) of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012).

Taking into consideration the Agency’s EIS Guidelines for the Project, as well as the OPS for cumulative effects assessment under CEAA 2012, the information provided in Appendix A-2 does not adequately address the requests from the Agency pertaining to cumulative effects. Benga Mining failed to:

• Organize the cumulative effects assessment information in a stand-alone section; • Differentiate between the baseline Project effects, and effects from past projects and activities

in the context of cumulative effects; • Use a consistent methodology for assessing effects significance and likelihood, so that effects

are not excluded from a cumulative effects assessment based on the assumption that they have a low potential of occurrence or are not significant.; and,

• Substantiate the approach used to conclude on significance for cumulative effects (e.g. information sources, benchmarks, thresholds, etc.).

Environmental effects under section 5(1) and 5(2) of CEAA 2012

The Project is not only subject to subsection 5(1) of CEAA 2012, but also to subsection 5(2) of CEAA 2012 (see EIS Guidelines, sections 3.3.2 and 6.3.5). The OPS and the Agency’s Technical Guidance, Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, define environmental effects by referring to both subsections 5(1) and 5(2) of CEAA 2012. Benga Mining identified in section A.5.2 of the EIS that federal decisions may be required under the Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act. Natural Resources Canada, in its comments on the review of Addendum 6 to the EIS, has also informed the Agency that it anticipates to make a decision for the Project under the Explosives Act. Therefore, the cumulative effects assessment from Benga Mining should consider any changes that may be caused to the environment that is directly linked or necessarily incidental to the above-mentioned federal decisions, beyond the effects identified in subsection 5(1), as well as the effects of any changes on health and socio-economic conditions, physical or cultural heritage or on any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural interest.

According to Appendix A-3 of Addendum #6 to the EIS, residual environmental effects are predicted for the following valued components:

• air quality, • noise,

• hydrogeology, • hydrology,

• surface water quality, • aquatic resources, • terrain & soils, • vegetation, • wildlife,

• land & resource use, • socio-economics, • human health, • historical resources and • Aboriginal Peoples.

While Benga Mining identified in Appendix A-3 that most of the effects above were carried forward to a cumulative effects assessment, most were omitted from Appendix A-2. Appendix A-3 identifies where the assessments of potential cumulative effects can be found throughout the EIS. However, as explained in the request from the Agency dated February 28, 2018, the manner in which the information was presented throughout the EIS does not allow the Agency to evaluate whether Benga Mining has adequately assessed the cumulative effects for all residual effects, as required by the EIS Guidelines. It is unclear why Benga Mining did not consolidate all available cumulative effects assessment in Appendix A-2, irrespective of which valued components were subject to section 5 of CEAA 2012.

Consideration of past projects and activities

The request from the Agency dated February 28, 2018 explained how the approach used by Benga Mining to integrate effects of past projects and activities into the baseline assessment resulted in inadequately examining these effects in the context of cumulative effects. The EIS Guidelines require an analysis of the potential cumulative effects on valued components over the life of the Project, including the incremental contribution of all current and proposed physical activities, in addition to that of the Project. The Agency’s policy and guidance set out the general requirements and approaches to consider cumulative environmental effects of designated projects and provides methodological options and considerations to support the implementation of CEAA 2012.

While existing conditions have been shaped by effects of past projects and activities, using only the current state of a valued component in combination with future effects to fulfill the requirement of a cumulative effects assessment does not provide a full understanding of the cumulative effects of successive projects from the past, present and future. If each successive project in an area uses a baseline into which past effects have been incorporated, the baseline is continually shifted and significant effects to valued components could be overlooked because of the absence of meaningful consideration of the effects of prior projects. This is particularly relevant in the context of cumulative effects for valued components related to Indigenous groups and for the assessment of effects on species at risk.

Methodology: Residual effects, Significance, and Likelihood

The Agency’s OPS and technical guidance for cumulative effects assessment under CEAA 2012 explains that cumulative effects should be considered for residual environmental effects (i.e. those that remain after mitigation) for identified for valued components, irrespective of whether those residual environmental effects are predicted to be significant. The consideration of likelihood under CEAA 2012

sequentially follows the assessment of significance. As a result, likelihood, or the probability of occurrence, should not be used to inform whether there could be a residual effects, or to conclude on its significance.

For example, Benga Mining characterized residual effects on Westslope Cutthroat Trout (WSCT) in terms of the pathways that were deemed to have “primary linkages” to the valued component. Pathways deemed to be “secondary linkages” were not discussed as residual on the basis that they would not contribute to significant effects. Also, the selected “measurement indicators” for WSCT were identified as: habitat quantity & suitability, survival & reproduction, and relative abundance and distribution. However, in Addendum #1 and Addendum #6 to the EIS, residual effects on WSCT are discussed only in terms of changes to habitat and hydrology (i.e. primary pathways) rather than as the potential effects on the WSCT survival, abundance, or distribution. Given that WSCT is listed as threatened under the Species at Risk Act, the cumulative effects assessment should include a consideration of the past, existing and future threats on benchmarks established for WSCT survival, abundance, or distribution. Benga Mining did not fully analyze and discuss potential residual effects, and cumulative effects, on WSCT survival, abundance, or distribution that may result from all relevant pathways, irrespective of whether those pathways would contribute to significant effects.

Similarly, for the section of Addendum #6 to the EIS pertaining to Indigenous groups, Benga Mining indicated that an assessment of the potential cumulative effects was not required for current use on activities such as, for example, fishing and hunting. This decision was based on the conclusion that residual effects for associated valued components, such as fish, vegetation and wildlife, were not likely or significant. However, as stated previously, Agency guidance indicates that cumulative effects assessment is carried out on all residual environmental effects, regardless of whether they are determined to be significant. Also, Appendix A-2 of Addendum 6 to the EIS quotes concerns heard from Indigenous groups with regards to cumulative effects. Some of those concerns pertain to the ability to practice current use activities and to maintain access to areas and resources essential for these activities. While there may be a relationship between the effects on the valued components and the effects on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, effects to current use are not always entirely captured through an independent assessment of associated valued components. For example, spatial and temporal boundaries used for effects to fish may differ from the spatial and temporal boundaries related to access by a specific Indigenous group to traditional fishing areas, and for key timing of those activities in relation to ceremonial and spiritual practices. Therefore, the cumulative effects assessment for effects on current use does not adequately reflect potential adverse residual effects from the Project, irrespective of significance and likelihood, and their interaction with past and future projects and activities as understood from an Indigenous perspective.


1) Revise Appendix A-2 – Cumulative Effects Assessment to include all valued components for which residual adverse environmental effects from the Project are predicted, following the Agency’s Operational Policy Statement “Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act, 2012” and Technical Guidance “Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 – Interim Technical Guidance”.

The assessment should include:

• a description of the residual effects that are be carried forward to the cumulative effects assessment;

• the spatial and temporal boundaries for the assessment; • the sources of potential cumulative effects from past and future projects and activities; • how the valued component has been affected by past projects and activities; • how the valued component would be further affected by the residual effects of the Project; • how other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities may also affect the valued

component; • the measures that are technically and economically feasible to mitigate the potential cumulative

effects; • the significance of any cumulative effects, including the specific thresholds, benchmarks or

other criteria used for assessment of significance, following Agency Technical Guidance for Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012; and,

• identification of any follow-up program activities required to verify the accuracy of the cumulative effects assessment and the effectiveness of proposed the mitigation measures for cumulative effects, if applicable.

In the case that Benga Mining chooses to report only on valued components for which it has predicted potential residual adverse environmental effects under subsection 5(1) and 5(2) of CEAA 2012, include a rationale to justify the exclusion of other valued components from the response, as applicable.

2) Revise the cumulative effects assessment of the valued components included in Appendix A-2 of Addendum #6 to the EIS to better align with the methodology outlined above, and to address the methodological issues described in the preamble, such as considering all residual effects irrespective of their significance and likelihood; assessing past activities in the context of cumulative effects rather than primarily as part of the baseline; and, identifying how relevant sources of information were used to assess significance for cumulative effects.

For the characterization of residual effects to consider for a cumulative effects assessment on current use, Benga Mining is encouraged to consult and refer to the Agency’s “Technical Guidance for Assessing the Current Use of Lands and Resources under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012” in its response.

i Operational Policy Statement Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Available here: https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/news/media-room/media-room-

https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/news/media-room/media-room-2015/determining-whether-designated-project-is-likely-cause-significant-adverse-environmental-effects-under-ceaa-2012.html

2015/determining-whether-designated-project-is-likely-cause-significant-adverse-environmental-effects-under-ceaa-2012.html ii Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Available here: https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/news/media-room/media-room-2015/assessing-cumulative-environmental-effects-under-canadian-environmental-assessment-act-2012.html iii Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 – Interim Technical Guidance. Available here: https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/services/policy-guidance/assessing-cumulative-environmental-effects-ceaa2012.html iv Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 – Interim Technical Guidance. Available here: https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/services/policy-guidance/determining-project-cause-significant-environmental-effects-ceaa2012.html v Technical Guidance for Assessing the Current Use of Lands and Resources under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Available here: https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/services/policy-guidance/technical-guidance-assessing-current-use-lands-resources-traditional-purposes-under-ceaa-2012.html



https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/news/media-room/media-room-2015/assessing-cumulative-environmental-effects-under-canadian-environmental-assessment-act-2012.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/news/media-room/media-room-2015/assessing-cumulative-environmental-effects-under-canadian-environmental-assessment-act-2012.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/services/policy-guidance/assessing-cumulative-environmental-effects-ceaa2012.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/services/policy-guidance/assessing-cumulative-environmental-effects-ceaa2012.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/services/policy-guidance/determining-project-cause-significant-environmental-effects-ceaa2012.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/services/policy-guidance/determining-project-cause-significant-environmental-effects-ceaa2012.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/services/policy-guidance/technical-guidance-assessing-current-use-lands-resources-traditional-purposes-under-ceaa-2012.html



APPENDIX B.

Technical Review of the EIS for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project:

Additional Information Requests from the Federal Review Team (Round 2)i

SIR number Information Sources Rationale Information Being Request Is additional field work required?

DFO-R2-1

Fish and Fish Habitat

Fisheries offset

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section C, DFO, IR#6-1, page 74

DFO requested that Benga: [s]elect a fisheries offset or offsets, and prepare an offset plan in a detailed report identifying how the offset will: meet Fisheries and Oceans Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy; and, the objectives in the Recovery Strategy for Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi), Alberta Populations in Canada. This plan must be detailed enough to be considered for project effects in the context of a joint federal-provincial environmental assessment.

As per the Proponents response to IR#6-1, DFO understands that a detailed Habitat Offsetting Plan is currently under development.

1. Prepare a detailed offset plan that fulfills the original information request.

Select a fisheries offset or offsets, and prepare an offset plan in a detailed report identifying how the offset will: meet the DFO’s Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy; and, the objectives in the Recovery Strategy for Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia lewisi), Alberta Populations in Canada. This plan must be detailed enough to be considered for project effects in the context of a joint federal-provincial environmental assessment.

2. Clearly identify why the offset(s) was selected and how it will maintain or improve fisheries productivity and meet the objectives in the Recovery Strategy for Westslope Cutthroat Trout in the context of uncertainty of project effects and the uncertainty of the success of the offset as proposed.

Additional field work may be required to fill information gaps associated with the development of a suitable offset.

DFO-R2-2


Fisheries offset monitoring

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section C, DFO, IR#7-1, page 74-76

In the context of offset monitoring, DFO requested that Benga: …prepare a detailed monitoring plan, or include as an appendix in the offsetting plan a document that outlines the monitoring associated with the offset.

Prepare a detailed monitoring plan that fulfills the original information request and:

1. clearly identifies the goals of monitoring;

2. describes the quantitative targets and why these targets have been selected as a measure of the success of the offsetting plan;

3. describes the frequency of monitoring, contingencies in the event that monitoring cannot be achieved as proposed based on site specific issues and identify why the frequency and

Unlikely


duration of monitoring has been selected;

4. clearly identifies the monitoring metrics as it relates to baseline data and how this will be used to measure the progress of the fisheries offset;

5. describes the monitoring design in detail;

6. describes the duration of monitoring, milestones and identify why the duration has been selected as a measure of the success of the fisheries offset; and,

7. describes the reporting format and target dates for the submission of monitoring reports. If target dates are based on milestones, elaborate and discuss.

DFO-R2-3


Fluvial geomorphology


SIR partially addressed. Handheld inclinometers are known to only provide resolution to approximately 1%. Shear stress is directly proportional to slope, thus possible resolution differences in slope will translate to estimated shear stress. Sediment transport is known to have a highly nonlinear relationship with shear stress (e.g. a slight increase in applied shear stress may result in greater increases in particle mobility and transport). This is particularly important in the shallower reaches where the resolution of the measurement device is a larger proportion of the overall slope.

Discuss how this was accounted for with these field measurements.

Potentially

DFO-R2-4




There is no characterization of spawning sediment in the field, or how the measured D50 and D90 relates to these select spawning sizes (i.e. what percentile within the grain size distribution are spawning gravels).

Indicate this for each monitoring reach. Repeat the mobility analysis for spawning gravel sizes.

Likely

DFO-R2-5

Fish and Fish

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to

Comment partially addressed. We would have liked to have seen a sediment transport assessment of critical spawning habitat units. Specifically identifying in

Provide a detailed methodology for geomorphologic monitoring. No


Habitat


the EIS, Section C, DFO, IR#10-3, page 89

the field spawning habitat, characterizing the grain size distribution, establishing an assessment cross section and then modelling the mobility of the critical habitat (the entire grain size distribution) throughout the life of the mine. The results of this assessment (i.e. any changes in grain size distribution) should then be used in the AWS (Area Weighted Suitability) analysis. It is important to understand how changes in flow may impact critical spawning habitat either through increasing or decreasing coarseness of the spawning bed substrates.

We agree that geomorphological monitoring will be important. Monitoring should consist of monumented cross-sections, detailed grain-size estimates (e.g. pebble counts with N>100 particles), and visual/photo assessment records.

DFO-R2-6




SIR partially addressed. We appreciate the added discussion and clarification. However, concerns still exist that the changes in flow regime may impact bed material smaller than the median particle size that is important for critical spawning habitat. The mean monthly estimates do not quantify how the reductions in peak flow are redistributed within the flow regime. Moreover, since no mobility estimates or erosion thresholds were quantified for spawning gravels or bank sediments (both of which are assumed to have a lower erosion threshold than the median particle size on the bed), the expected impacts to these features cannot be quantified. The schematic below illustrates the simplified flow regimes for pre and post conditions. It is still uncertain if the product of magnitude and duration of the new flow regime will be greater for spawning gravel and bank erosion thresholds.

Provide added analysis demonstrating that the new flow regime will not cause additional erosion or sedimentation to both the bed (entire grain size distribution) and the banks.

Unknown


DFO-R2-7




Comment partially addressed. The protocol outlined by British Columbia Ministry of Forestry only pertains to estimating the largest particle size on the bed (omitting possible erratics or larger particles transported during a former hydrologic regime). In this regard, the visual method for identifying larger particles is more suitable than for identifying median particle sizes but may still introduce operator bias due to the low number of particles actually measured (N=5). Commonly, median sizes are identified from samples with a much larger sample size, for example a Wolman pebble count with N>100, or volumetric samples of the surface material. While trends in the threshold values are not influenced by the field estimates, the overall impact and interpretation of how the thresholds relate to the existing and future condition of channels do. These methods may be acceptable for high-level screening and characterization exercises; however for the determination of sediment transport characteristics, a more representative estimate of bed sediment is required. Additionally, any geomorphological monitoring should include bed material sampling protocols that assess the entire grain size distribution of the channel.

Provide corresponding grain-size distributions for all sections used in the mobility assessment, and clearly discuss the implications of mobility and changes in hydrologic regime to spawning gravel sizes, in addition to median and largest particles.

Likely

DFO-R2-8


Fluvial

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, DFO, IR#14-1, page 96

Comment partially addressed. In armoured gravel-bed systems, the potential for bank erosion may be increased as beds become more armoured through reduced flow competency. Moreover, bank material may be much less resilient to erosion than the more coarse bed material, and varies with material composition and proximal vegetation.

Provide supporting data and modelling for the response (i.e. bank characterization and erosion thresholds).

Potentially

Qc(D90)

Qc(D50)

Qc(SpawnGrav)Qc(Banks)?

QPost

QPre

Time

Q


geomorphology

DFO-R2-9


Hydrogeology


Comment partially addressed. It is encouraging to find that Benga developed a 3D geological model for the study area, which was then used to distribute anisotropy tensors across model layers for parameterizing the hydraulic conductivities.

During our review of the hydrogeology consulting report (CR#3, Appendix C), we were unable to find any documentation pertaining to the Leapfrog model.

Was this modelling work documented elsewhere in the application package? It would be useful if Benga could provide additional information on the 3D geological model used for the groundwater modelling study. Specifically, the extents of the model, the data density (collars) used to populate it, and a list of lithologies (if any) used to generate the Leapfrog model volumes.

No

DFO-R2-10


Hydrogeology


Comment partially addressed. The new Figure 22-1 was very helpful for reviewing possible influences of constant head nodes that might be over-constraining the groundwater model (and simulated drawdowns). It is reassuring to see that constant head nodes along the main reaches of Blairmore and Gold creeks are consistently gaining water from the groundwater system, indicating the model does not predict major stems of these rivers to switch from sinks to sources to the groundwater system.

We do note in Figure 22-1 that the surge ponds (represented in the End Of Mine Scenario as fixed head nodes) act as sources of flux into the groundwater system. In the event that the surge ponds are to be lined, they should not be represented as fixed head nodes in the model. Of concern here is that by simulating the surge ponds as fixed nodes, groundwater levels in the model are being “propped-up” around these features, which in turn is supporting the fluxes into the adjacent river nodes (baseflow).

1. Are these surge ponds intended to provide temporary storage for selenium contaminated site-waters? Discuss.

2. If so, will these ponds be lined to prevent contamination of the nearby creeks? And if they are lined, is it reasonable to use fixed head nodes to represent them in this model considering this type of boundary condition will allow fluxes from these nodes into the groundwater system?

No

DFO-R2-11


Hydrogeology

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section C, DFO, IR#23-1a, page 104-105

Based on your response, it stands to reason that this trend represents a numerical artifact as opposed to a reliable model prediction. For instance, it is noted in Volume 4, CR# 3, Hydrogeology, Appendix C, Page 59 that “these [transient] models assume that the groundwater system is in equilibrium at time = 0 ...”.

1. If the model is still adjusting, then this assumption would seem to be invalid. Were these periods of model “adjustment” in the transient model simulations used as the basis for any of your analysis? Discuss.

2. If so, does Benga believe these periods of numerical adjustment have had any significant impacts on their predictions? Discuss

No


DFO-R2-12


Hydrogeology

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section C, DFO, IR#24, page 105-106

To clarify, our reference to the drawdown cone “intersecting” the fixed head nodes is meant to describe a case where the limits of the drawdown cone are directly constrained by the fixed head nodes. Since the potentiometric surface at the fixed head nodes along the rivers are set to a consistent elevation across the different scenarios, the differences in heads (drawdowns) at the nodes would be expected to be zero and therefore never intersected by the 5m drawdown cone. Our outstanding concerns regarding the influence of fixed head nodes on the model predictions were presented above in SIR # 22, round one.

To address the second part of SIR #24, provide figures that present the change in flux to the boundary condition nodes (fixed head and seepage nodes) for the two future scenarios relative to the baseline. In other words, a figure that shows the change in flux between Figure 24-1 (a - Baseline) and Figure 24-1 (b - End of Mine), and another for the change in flux between Figure 24-1 (a - Baseline) and Figure 24-1 (c - Long Term Closure). This need only be conducted for nodes representing natural watercourses. The purpose of such figures is to present the spatial extents of the predicted changes in groundwater discharge to streams. Similar figures should also be prepared showing the flux change as a percentage of Baseline (i.e., [baseline flux - future flux] / [baseline flux]).

No

DFO-R2-13


Hydrology

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section C, DFO, IR#29-2a, page 110-113

SIR partially addressed. Given the annual runoff coefficients have been extended into this monthly method, some attempt should be made to demonstrate that this assumption is appropriate. If the assumption cannot be validated, the practical usefulness of the model to make conclusions at the sub-annual timestep is called into question. The regional Water Survey of Canada stream gauges and ECCC climate stations should provide a suitable dataset to test this assumption.

Test the assumption. Discuss. No

DFO-R2-14


Hydrology


SIR partially addressed. We understand from Section 4.2 (Volume 3, Appendix 10B, Water and Load Balance Model Report, Section 4.2, Seepage Minimization and Capture, Page 19) that this correction is only applied to leakage out of the pit lake and saturated zones.

Are there additional inputs to the water balance model to represent cross-boundary or deep groundwater flows at other stream nodes within the model? If so, discuss.

No

DFO-R2-15


Hydrology


SIR partially addressed. The last sentence is unclear. Were the changes to baseflow calculated by the water balance model then compared to the groundwater model, or, were the leakage rates predicted by the groundwater model applied to the water balance model? If the former is true, provide this comparison.

No


DFO-R2-16


Hydrology


SIR partially addressed. Both models fundamentally conserve mass, either as groundwater flux between boundaries within the groundwater model or as inflows vs. outflows in the water balance model. Both models produce outputs relevant to the low flow or baseflow component of streamflow. Groundwater flow is included within the yield coefficient as well as within the detailed 3D groundwater model.

What is your conceptual understanding of how groundwater moves through the site represented within each approach? Discuss.

No

DFO-R2-17


Hydrology

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section C, DFO, IR#30-3a, page 115

SIR partially addressed. The yield coefficient “includes interflow and groundwater discharge upstream of the flow measurement location” (see the response to SIR #30 above).

1. If future leakages predicted in the groundwater model are applied to reaches where future streamflow has been estimated with the yield coefficient method, would these effects be double counted?

2. How is mass conserved when results from both methods are applied within GOLDSIM?

No

DFO-R2-18


Hydrology

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section C, DFO, IR#30-3b, page 115

“Yield estimates contain no information about groundwater flow...” seems to contradict with “the yield coefficient … explicitly includes interflow and groundwater discharge upstream of the flow measurement location” (see the response to SIR #30 above).

More clarification is needed on exactly how the results of the groundwater model were used to inform the water (quantity) budget analysis. We understood that baseflows were only adjusted around the pit, have other adjustments been applied across the model? Contributing groundwater flow is included in the yield coefficient within the water balance model; conversely, baseflow (low flow) contributions are also captured within the groundwater model. It is reasonable to build multiple models to assess different domains; however, each model is constructed with a different set of assumptions. Results from the groundwater model have been combined with the changes to streamflow derived from the yield coefficient. More discussion is required to explain why it is appropriate to combine these methods within GOLDSIM that both account for the groundwater system in different ways.

No

DFO-R2-19

Fish and Fish

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section C,

SIR partially addressed. Hydrologic components of the water balance can be compared on a relative basis across the modelling platforms. We agree that the water balance model does not predict recharge, but there should be some

1. What is the total volume of recharge applied to the groundwater model in mm/year?

No


Habitat

Hydrology

DFO, IR#30-3c, page 116

consistency between the models which can be used to demonstrate that a consistent set of assumptions were applied between the various models.

2. How does this calibrated recharge value compare to the MAP? Discuss.

3. How does recharge compare to summer or fall streamflow values (i.e. baseflow values) predicted by the water balance model for the major creeks? Discuss.

4. Are the changes in baseflow predicted by the groundwater model bounded by the change in streamflow predicted by the yield coefficient? Discuss.

DFO-R2-20


Ecology

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section C, DFO, IR#41, page 132-133

It is acknowledged that the various reports integrated information from each other and overall the aquatic ecology component does a good job drawing from other disciplines in its assessment. The area weighted suitability (AWS) analysis was well done and does a good job assessing habitat change throughout the life of the project. For clarification the comment was suggesting better integration assessing impacts of specific habitat types, in particular, limiting critical habitat for westslope cutthroat trout, such as spawning gravels.

The AWS appears to assume no change in habitat structure (i.e. static cross sections within the model over the life of the project). While it is important to complete the analysis with static habitat cross-sections throughout the project life span to understand the impacts of flow change on habitat availability, it is also important to understand how structural habitat changes will impact habitat availability. Further analysis and discussion regarding the impact flow change (less water in Gold Creek and more in Blairmore Creek) will have on limiting critical habitat (i.e. spawning and overwintering) is requested.

It is understood that the sediment mobility assessment essentially predicted lower mobility of d50 and d90 particles due to a reduction in peak flows, this analysis did not take into account spawning gravel mobility. See comments on the sediment mobility assessment (DFO SIR #12 round one information request). We are concerned that the resolution of the current analysis does not sufficiently addressing potential impacts to spawning gravels within Gold and Blairmore Creeks. Flow changes are predicted in both creeks with a reduction in Gold and an increase of flow in Blairmore. Increased flows may result in the loss of spawning

1. Provide specific cross sections through identified overwintering habitat (i.e. deep pools) and an AWS analysis on those specific habitats to clearly demonstrate the impact on overwintering habitat. Currently the AWS shows a reach average and does not appear to target specific field identified critical habitat cross-sections. The same holds true for spawning habitats.

2. How do identified critical habitats spatially align with groundwater inputs, both field identified and modelled? Discuss.

3. Provide a figure showing groundwater discharge locations and habitat features both under baseline conditions and future development stages.

Potentially


substrates through increase mobility and reduced flows may result in an increase in fine sediment deposition and reduced egg survivability. This additional level of analysis is what is being requested (again refer the comments on the sediment mobility, as mobility based on peak flow is insufficient to address impacts to spawning habitat). Known spawning habitats should be specifically characterized, particularly for sediment size distribution and then assessed for sediment mobility, and the corresponding changes in sediment size distribution assessed within the AWS.

The report would benefit from a figure showing groundwater discharge locations and habitat features both under baseline conditions and future development stages. This is the specific type of integration that is being asked for. A detailed assessment of the impacts to critical habitat. Under the current AWS assessment it is difficult to pinpoint impacts on critical habitat as the assessment is a both a reach and bioperiod average result. Limiting critical habitat should involve a more targeted assessment to demonstrate the mine’s potential influence on WSCT.

ECCC-R2-1

Climate Change Projections

EIS Guideline, Section 6.6.2 – Effects of the Environment on the Project, Page 35

Revised EIS, Volume 1, Section C,10.2.1 - Sensitivity to Climate Change, Page 176

Benga Mining, Addendum Four to the EIS, Attachment 2, Section 25 - Extreme Weather Events and Climate

ECCC is putting forward the following SIR because the Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines (EIS guidelines) require Benga Mining to address how local conditions and natural hazards, such as severe and/or extreme weather conditions and external events (e.g. flooding, drought, ice jams, landslides, avalanches, erosion, subsidence, fire, outflow conditions, and seismic events) could adversely affect the Project, and how this in turn could result in impacts to the environment. Increases in localized precipitation due to climate change may result in potential effects to water quality from surface runoff or breaching of water management structures.

Atmospheric moisture content is expected to increase as the atmosphere warms. This in turn is expected to result in an increase in extreme precipitation in the future, though it is difficult to obtain precise projections for future changes in extreme precipitation at the regional and local scales (IPCC, 2012, 2013; Kharin et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2017).

Probable Maximum Precipitation is projected to increase in the future with continued anthropogenic warming (Kunkel et al, 2013). Design values (e.g. 1:100

ECCC has identified the following SIR for the Agency’s consideration for response by Benga Mining:

- From a regional perspective, and using the best methods available, provide additional information of possible future changes in heavy precipitation extremes for the project area to end of century (2100) and their possible implications for the Project.

- Describe associated potential effects to the environment from the mine in heavy precipitation episodes and whether the mitigation measures and design of the project are appropriate for these potential effects.

No


Change, Page 2-96 to 2-114; Appendix 25A - Projection Data, Page 25A-1 to 25A-12

ECCC, Technical SIR, Round 1, Table 1, SIR 5, Page 3; Table 2, Comments 1 and 2, Page 11

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to EIS, Section A, CEAA, SIR 4, Page 5; Section B, ECCC SIR 5, ; Appendix A-4 – Project Schedule – updated April 2018, Page A4-1

year flood, Probable Maximum Flood) that are estimated based on historical records, do not account for ongoing climate change. Climate-sensitive aspects of longer-term projects that are based on fixed design values obtained from historical climate observation of a particular period are unlikely to have equal resilience to weather and climate extremes of a particular magnitude (e.g., a 50 year flood) over their entire lifetime if no adaptation measures are in place. Therefore, during the first round of technical SIRs (table 2, comment 1) ECCC notes “… precipitation-related design values should take into consideration future warming”.

Information about heavy precipitation extremes for the project area is needed to assess potential environmental effects on water quality. During the first round of technical SIRs, ECCC proposed an information request on how hydrological extremes were considered in the design and management of the sediment, surge and raw water ponds (ECCC SIR 5).

In response to ECCC SIR 5, Benga Mining provided precipitation-related design values used for the surge, sediment and raw water ponds. The updated Project Schedule in Appendix D indicated that the water management infrastructure related to the surge ponds would be active “from 2046-20XX” representing an indeterminate time in the future that contaminant (i.e. selenium) attenuation would no longer require active management of the infrastructure. The department is asking the proponent to use the best methods available to provide information on heavy precipitation extremes for the project area till end of century.

In response to CEAA SIR 4, projected precipitation extremes for two individual grid points were provided to the 2050s. Benga Mining also noted potential future changes in 20-year return periods for precipitation extremes, based on scaling of grid point temperature projections to the 2050s (Appendix 25A, Table 25A-5 and Table 25A-6).

As previously stated in comment 2, table 2 of the first round of technical SIRs, climate model grid points represent a larger area (GCM grids are typically 100-200km) and, in the case of precipitation and extreme short duration heavy precipitation, cannot be extrapolated to local scale effects specific to the project


area (global and regional models don’t take into account local (or small scale) precipitation events). Information about heavy precipitation extremes for the project area is needed to assess potential environmental effects on water quality.

The department is also asking for the associated potential effects to the environment from the mine in heavy precipitation episodes (considering future climate change). We are also asking for the proponent to provide information on whether the mitigation measures and design of the project are appropriate for these potential effects

IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 582 pp.

IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.

Kharin.V.V., Zwiers, F.W., Zhang, X. and Wehner, M. 2013. Changes in temperature and precipitation extremes in the CMIP5 ensemble. Climatic Change, 119, pp. 345-357.

Kunkel, K. E., T. R. Karl, D. R. Easterling, K. Redmond, J. Young, X. Yin, and P. Hennon , 2013. Probable maximum precipitation and climate change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 1402–1408, doi:10.1002/grl.50334.

Zhang, X., F. W. Zwiers, G. Li, H. Wan, A. J. Cannon, 2017: Complexity in estimating past and future extreme short-duration rainfall. Nature Geoscience, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2911.

ECCC-R2-2

Gaps in Streamflow Data

EIS Guideline, Section 6.1.4 – Project Setting and Baseline Conditions, Ground Water and Surface Water,

Revised EIS,

ECCC is putting forward the following SIR because the EIS guidelines require Benga Mining to include a description of the characterization of the hydrogeology at the local and regional scales in the EIS. Addressing identified gaps in streamflow data will allow for better prediction of Project effects including changes in water quality to downstream environments, sediment transport and erosion processes, along with extreme flow events on water management structures.

Benga Mining states that, “Hydrological analysis for the Project, such as runoff, baseflow and low flow within


- Provide regression graphs relating sporadically-measured local station flows to regional flows that are archived by Water Survey of Canada for the Crowsnest River and Gold Creek near Frank, including respective correlation coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.

- In addition provide information on the potential effects

No


Consultant Report #4, Section 3.2 - Local Data, Page

the mine project area were assessed using flows from the local gauging stations coupled with long-term regional records. Analysis of the relationship between the short-term datasets collected on site and the long term Crowsnest River at Frank station was used to validate the correlation between stream flow on the Project Site and regional stream flow.”

Benga Mining provides a summary of local streamflow data for the eight local gauging stations along the Crowsnest River, Blairmore Creek, Gold Creek, and two unnamed creeks (Table 8). The records of these stations are very short (started in 2013 or 2014). Regional streamflow data is available from Water Survey of Canada (WSC) records for eight stations in the area. Missing data was patched using available data from the closest stations and this data was incorporated into the analysis. Table 10 (page 19) lists the regional gauge stations.

During the first round of technical SIRs, ECCC requested that Benga Mining present regression graphs relating sporadically-measured local station flows to regional flows that are archived by WSC for the Crowsnest River and Gold Creek near Frank. ECCC also requested that Benga Mining include respective correlation coefficients and 95% confidence intervals as part of their analysis (ECCC SIR 7).

Benga provided information on monthly water flows; however, they did not provide information on sporadically-measured flows, such as those that might occur during heavy precipitation events. Specifically, in their response to ECCC SIR 7, Benga Mining did not address ECCC’s request. Benga Mining provided Figures 7-2 and 7-3, which pertain to graphs of monthly unit flows rather than graphs depicting sporadically-measured flows as was requested. The Pearson Correlation Matrix presented in Figure 7-1 does not respond to the original request.

To summarize, the proponent has patched in existing data using the monthly averages from a number of hydrometric stations to determine streamflow. However, they did not provide information on sporadically-measured flows, such as those that might occur during heavy precipitation events. Sporadically measured flows gives data on short-term events (lows and extremes) for creek flow, whereas the regional (monthly) unit flows provide an average and, as a data set, does not demonstrate what the extremes will look like. ECCC is seeking how

of the Project accounting for variability of the measured flow, from sporadic events to averages.


these monthly averages differ from short-term events (sporadically- measured).

ECCC-R2-3

Uncertainty Associated with Flow Estimates

EIS Guideline, Section 6.2.2 – Predicted Changes to Ground Water and Surface Water, Page 28

Revised EIS, Consultant Report #4, Sections 3.6-Base Flow, Page 22; Section 3.7 - Low Flows Analysis, Page 23; Section 3.8 - Peak Flow Analysis, Pages 23; Section 5.2 - Streamflow Changes, Page 26

ECCC, Technical SIR, Round 1, Table 1, SIR 8, Page 5

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section B, ECCC SIR 8, Page 26

ECCC is putting forward the following SIR because the EIS guidelines require Benga Mining to include a consideration of the predicted changes to ground water and surface water. Obtaining the uncertainty associated with flow estimates will allow for better prediction of Project effects on the environment including water quality effects to downstream environments, sediment transport and erosion processes, along with extreme flow events on water management infrastructure.

Benga Mining provided an analysis of the base, low and peak flows along Gold and Blairmore creeks that have been based on a number of assumptions.

During the first round of technical SIRs, ECCC requested that Benga Mining discuss and quantify the uncertainty associated with estimates of base, low, and peak flows described in sections 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8, respectively (for example, estimates of flow may differ within a factor of x (i.e. 2, 5, 10, etc.) when accounting for uncertainty) (SIR ECCC -8). The information provided was based on a number of assumptions and involved considerable uncertainty. It is important for this uncertainty to be taken into account when assessing project related impacts on groundwater and surface water. Determining low and peak flow events allow the evaluation of potential impacts to water quality (i.e. water quality effects to downstream environments, nutrient availability, sediment transport, erosion processes). As well (in extreme peak flows) this information allows us to predict potential impacts for water management infrastructure (i.e. breaching / surface run-off, etc.). Specifically, in their response to ECCC SIR 8, Benga Mining did not address ECCC’s request. The low and peak-flow uncertainty that is introduced by the flow regression was not provided nor taken into account. With respect to base flows, Benga Mining indicated that uncertainty is not known.

Therefore, the department is requesting that the proponent clarify the level of uncertainty associated with flow estimates. This means a mathematical (statistical) representation of the level of uncertainty associated with the flow estimates (i.e. uncertainty of flow estimates may vary by a factor of x).


- Provide the uncertainty associated with estimates of base, low, and peak flows described in sections 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8, respectively.

No

ECCC-R2-4 EIS Guideline, ECCC is putting forward the following SIR because the EIS guidelines require Benga ECCC is unable to provide further advice regarding project Yes


Little Brown Myotis

Section 6.1.7 – Species at Risk,

Revised EIS, Consultant Report #9a, Section 2.3.4 – Bat Survey Page 44; Section 7.0 – Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring, Page 382

Benga Mining, Addendum One to the EIS – Little Brown Bat, Appendix 1-A Bat Hibernacula Report, Pages 29-30, 33

FRT, Conformity SIR, Round 3, SIR 38, Page 7 - 12

Benga Mining, Addendum Four to the EIS Attachment 3 Section 5 – Little Brown Myotis, Page 3-12

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Appendix A-1 – Bat Hibernacula

Mining to include a description of the abundance and distribution of species at risk including habitat requirements, key habitat areas, identified critical habitat and/or recovery habitat, and the general life history of species at risk that will occur in the Project area or be affected by the Project.

The Little Brown Myotis (M. lucifugus) is emergency listed since 2014 under the Species At Risk Act as endangered, because their survival is imminently threatened by a deadly and highly contagious disease, white-nose syndrome. Hibernacula are used by Little Brown Myotis to survive when ambient temperatures decline and insects are unavailable as a food source. Hibernacula typically include caves, abandoned mines, hand-dug wells, cellars, or tunnels where light and noise levels are low. The Recovery Strategy for Little Brown Myotis (2015) identifies all hibernacula (found and not found) as critical habitat as they are necessary for the survival and recovery of the species. The loss of a hibernaculum could have regional population effects on Little Brown Myotis.

In order to assess potential effects of the Project on Little Brown Myotis (including the potential for destruction of critical habitat) and effectiveness of mitigation measures, confirmatory hibernacula and swarming surveys that would be indicative of hibernacula (including inspection of old mine shafts) should be conducted during the course of the environmental assessment.

During the third round of conformity SIRs (SIR 38), ECCC requested that Benga Mining:

a) Provide the number and locations of bat hibernacula (with surveys) in the Project Development Area (footprint plus disturbance buffer), and provide information on whether Little Brown Myotis are using these hibernacula.

b) Using information obtained through the above-mentioned survey (in item 1) estimate the number of Little Brown Myotis that will be affected for each hibernacula disturbed/destroyed due to the Project.

c) With surveys, identify hibernacula near, but unaffected by, the Project to which Project-impacted little brown bats could relocate.

d) Based on the information obtained through a-c above, identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts on the potential destruction of little brown bat hibernacula.

effects, mitigation and monitoring on Little Brown Myotis because it is not clear if, and at which sites, hibernacula are present in the development area (footprint plus disturbance buffer) based on the proponent’s response. ECCC has identified the following SIRs for the Agency’s consideration:

a) Confirm the presence or absence of hibernacula in the study region.

b) Identify the methods used to confirm the hibernacula sites;

c) Assess project effects to Little Brown Myotis and their hibernacula; and

d) Identify mitigation measures to avoid or lessen effects on the Little Brown Myotis including the potential destruction of their hibernacula.


Report, Page 1-34 In their response to ECCC conformity SIR 38, Benga Mining states the following:

“Based on the intensive swarming survey completed in 2017, there is no conclusive evidence either to support or refute the possibility of M. lucifugus swarming events in the Grassy Mountain Mine Permit Boundary (MPB). Small and very small swarming events may have occurred at sites M1, M2-2 and M2-3, M2-4, M3, R1-3, R1-7, R5a-3, and R5a-5; swarming was very unlikely at sites M2-1 and R4-2.”

“At the sites with possible swarming events, it is not possible to discern:

- whether swarming did occur; - the number of individuals associated with each potential swarming event

(other than to say that the groups would have likely been no more than up to 10 or 15 individuals); and

- whether potential or actual hibernacula are located at or near any of the locations where possible swarming events did occur.”

“Despite the lack of confident swarming evidence, site M1 is clearly important to the M. lucifugus population in the Grassy Mountain project area during late July to early September.”

“There is no conclusive evidence about the presence of swarming by migrating M. lucifugus or potential hibernacula, despite an extensive swarming survey. Therefore, without confirmation of suspected or known hibernacula in the Grassy Mountain area, no site-specific mitigations can be planned. Also, without the presence of underground caverns, caves, and large abandoned mine shafts, site-specific mitigations for these types of features, which are the most likely features for housing large hibernacula, cannot be planned.”

“Specifically Benga will: continue monitoring the M. lucifugus population, ensuring intensive swarming surveys occur in areas with features that have high potential for hibernacula. This includes, at a minimum, all sites from this study that showed possible swarming events. This intensive monitoring will be phased, in sync with the phased mine development plan, ensuring that each site is monitored at least one full year prior to development, with sufficient time to conduct all necessary


surveys, analyse all acoustic data, and develop any required site-specific or feature-specific mitigation plans. Should Benga observe any suspected fall swarming activity during operations, they will develop a site-specific mitigation plan in consultation with ECCC;”

Although the proponent did conduct field work in response to the conformity review request, Benga Mining did not have conclusive evidence to support whether or not hibernacula are present and it remains unclear which sites are hibernacula. The indicated monitoring put forward by the proponent during construction does not represent appropriate mitigation measures, because the mitigation measures will not be developed and implemented in time to avoid or lessen effects to the species. Therefore, the department is recommending that the proponent, through additional field work or other means (for example requesting additional analysis be completed by the consultant or acquiring additional data from other field studies in the region, if available), confirm the presence or absence of hibernacula in the study region. If confirmed we ask the proponent to identify the methods used to confirm hibernacula sites, provide detail on which sites are hibernacula, and to assess project effects on the Little Brown Myotis, and identify mitigation measures to avoid or lessen effects on this species.

It would be preferable to know if hibernacula are present prior to the start of project construction so that appropriate mitigation measures can be identified. Therefore without further investigation ECCC is unable to determine project effects on M. lucifugus and their hibernacula.

ECCC-R2-5

Particulate Matter

EIS Guideline, Section 6.2.1 – Predicted Changes to the Atmospheric Environment, ; Section 6.4 – Mitigation, Page 32

Revised EIS, Consultant Report

ECCC is putting forward the following SIR because the EIS guidelines require Benga Mining to include a consideration of the predicted changes to air quality as a result of the Project being carried out.

During the first round of technical SIRs, ECCC requested that Benga Mining:

- Compare predicted ambient SO2 and PM2.5 concentrations with the appropriate Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) (ECCC SIR 11);

- Provide an analysis of the potential for the CAAQS to be exceeded if 80% dust mitigation is not achieved (ECCC SIR 12 b);

- Provide an assessment of the potential for coal dust deposited on the outside

ECCC has identified the following SIR for the Agency’s consideration for response by Benga Mining to assess the final particulate and fugitive dust predictions:

- Provide total particulate predictions, spatially for the entire Regional Study Area, for the base case and application case PM2.5 as compared to the CAAQS and total TSP deposition that incorporates all new results: 50% control efficiency, new emissions at the train load out and the updated regional rail and project locomotive emissions.

No


#1a, Section 2.4.1 - Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines, Page 9; Section 4.7 – Estimates of Future Emissions, Page 49; Section 5.7 – TSP Deposition, Page 74; Table A4-3 – Maximum Hourly and Daily Fugitive Dust Emissions from Project Activities, Page A-17

Revised EIS, Consultant Report #1b, Section 6.0 – Dispersion Model Prediction, Page 6

Revised EIS, Consultant Report #2, Section 2.1 - Location, Page 1

FRT, Conformity SIR, Round 2, SIR 10 – Changes to the Atmospheric Environment, Page 4

Benga Mining, Addendum Four to the EIS, Attachment

of the train during loadout operations to act as a source of fugitive particulate matter to the region (ECCC SIR 13 b);

- Provide an assessment of the increase in rail traffic and associated air emissions as a result of the Project (ECCC SIR 14 b);

Responses to the first round of IRs provided four different particulate predictions with the data presented and assessed in the form of different air quality standards, not just the CAAQS. Each of the four IR responses presented separate increases in particulate concentrations above the EIS predictions. Additionally, the IR responses only provided the particulate predictions for six locations in the study area.

Specifically, Benga Mining’s response to ECCC SIR 11 compared the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 to the CAAQS as requested. The PM2.5 predictions that were compared to the CAAQS in the response to ECCC SIR 11 did not include the new results that were later presented in ECCC SIR 12, 13, and 14. Responses to ECCC SIR 12, 13, and 14 provide new emission estimates and new predictions for PM2.5 and fugitive dust. ECCC SIR 12 provides new results for fugitive dust at 50% control efficiency for road dust, ECCC SIR 13 provides new fugitive dust results from the rail load out, and ECCC SIR 14 provides new results for regional rail and project locomotive sources. In addition, the predictions in ECCC SIR 11, 12, 13, and 14 were presented in the table format for six sensitive receptors however, predictions have not been provided for the remaining sensitive receptors or as isopleth maps as was done in the EIS (Section 5, Figure 5.1-1 to Figure 5.9-2). In response to ECCC SIR 12, Benga Mining provided predictions of 24-hour and annual PM2.5 compared to the CAAQS however, they were not presented for all sensitive receptors and the results did not include the new predictions from ECCC SIR 13 and 14. The response to ECCC SIR 13 did not provide predictions in the form of the CAAQS, and did not include predictions from ECCC SIR 12 and 14. The response to ECCC SIR 14 provided predictions compared to the CAAQS however, they were not presented for all sensitive receptors and they did not include the new results from ECCC SIR 12 and 13.

The proponent’s rationale for only providing the above mentioned locations was an inaccurate interpretation that the CAAQS were not applicable at locations

- If the CAAQS are exceeded for these new total results, what additional mitigation measures would be employed in order to reduce ambient PM2.5 concentrations.


2, Section 3 - Atmospheric Environment, Page 2-6

ECCC, Technical SIR, Round 1, Table 1, SIR 11, Page 6; SIR 12 Page 6; SIR 13 Page 7; SIR 14, Page 7

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section B, ECCC SIR 11, Page 31; ECCC SIR 12, Page 34; ECCC SIR 13, Page 37; ECCC SIR 14, Page 41

where there are no human populations. The CAAQS are intended to be the drivers for air quality improvements across the country in order to protect human health and the environment. They are supported by air quality management levels, which call for progressively more rigorous actions by jurisdictions as air quality approaches or exceeds the CAAQS, thereby ensuring that the CAAQS are not treated as “pollute-up-to” levels. See comment table 2 regarding the applicability of the CAAQS for this project.

Spatial distribution of predictions, as well as the extent of any exceedances in relation to project boundaries, sensitive receptors, and nearby communities will allow the spatial extent of any PM2.5 CAAQS exceedances and the relationship between the baseline and application cases to be determined, as was provided in the EIS.

To summarize, the department is asking the proponent to input all four particulate predictions as well as any new predictions in order to model a final total particulate prediction that cover the entire regional study area.

ECCC-R2-6

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

EIS Guideline, Section 6.2.1 – Predicted Changes to the Atmospheric Environment, Page 28

Revised EIS, Consultant Report #1a, Section 2.4.1 - Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines, page 9; Section 4.7 –

ECCC is putting forward the following SIR because the EIS guidelines require Benga Mining to include a consideration of the predicted changes to air quality as a result of the Project being carried out.

During the first round of technical SIRs ECCC requested NO2 concentrations be compared to the CAAQS, along with an analysis of locations and frequency of exceedances. Specifically, that Benga Mining:

- Assess the potential for the Project to contribute to ambient concentrations of NO2 that exceed the 1-hour and annual CAAQS (ECCC SIR 10 a);

- Provide a comparison of modelled ambient concentrations of NO2 in the local and regional study areas, assessing the locations and frequency of exceedance (ECCC SIR 10 b);

- If the annual or 1-hour CAAQS were exceeded, what additional mitigation measures would be employed in order to reduce ambient NO2

ECCC has identified the following SIR for the Agency’s consideration for response by Benga Mining to assess predictions of NO2:

- Provide total NO2 predictions, spatially for the entire Regional Study Area, for 24-hour and annual NO2 predictions for the baseline and application cases as compared to the NO2 CAAQS, which include the NO2 estimates provided in ECCC SIR 14.

- If the annual or 1-hour CAAQS are exceeded for these new total results, what additional mitigation measures would be employed in order to reduce ambient NO2 concentrations.

No


Estimates of Future Emissions, Page 49; Section 5 – Air Quality Predictions, Page 50

Revised EIS, Consultant Report #1b, Section 6.0 – Dispersion Model Prediction, Page 6

Revised EIS, Consultant Report #2, Section 2.1 - Location, Page 1 ECCC, Technical SIR, Round 1, Table 1, SIR 10, SIR 14, Page 5

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section B, ECCC SIR 10, Page 28; ECCC SIR 14, Page 41

concentrations. (ECCC SIR 10 c)

The information was provided in two separate responses to information requests but was not presented as a total prediction. Therefore, the overall NO2 predictions were not compared to the CAAQS. The department is requesting that the two predictions be inputted by the proponent in order to model the final total NO2 predictions to determine exceedances above the CAAQS. The department is asking for the total emissions and predictions resulting from responses to round 1 SIRs, and this can only be provided by the proponent using the results from the first round of SIRs in its model.

The previous IR responses only provided the NO2 predictions for six locations in the study area. As stated above in IR-5 the proponent’s rationale for only providing these locations was an inaccurate interpretation that the CAAQS were not applicable at locations where there are no human populations. Specifically, Benga Mining’s response to ECCC SIR 10 compared 24-hour and annual NO2 to the CAAQS as requested. However, the NO2 predictions that were compared to the CAAQS in the response to ECCC SIR 10 did not include the new results that were presented in ECCC SIR 14. The predictions in ECCC SIR 10 were in table format for six sensitive receptors but the predictions were not provided for the remaining sensitive receptors or as isopleth maps, as was done in the EIS (Section 5, Figure 5.1-1 to Figure 5.9-2). Response to ECCC SIR 14 provided new NO2 predictions for regional rail and project locomotive sources. The department is asking for NO2 predictions to be compared to the CAAQS and presented over the entire regional study area. We need the totals to assess emissions above the CAAQS. If exceedances are noted we are looking for mitigation measures from the proponent and this is noted in the IR request.

To summarize, the department is asking the proponent to input both NO2 predictions as well as any new predictions in order to model a final total NO2 prediction assessed over the entire study area. Spatial distribution of predictions, as well as the extent of any exceedances in relation to project boundaries, sensitive receptors, and nearby communities will allow the spatial extent of any NO2 CAAQS exceedances and the relationship between the baseline and application cases to be determined, as was provided in the EIS.


The CAAQS are intended to be the drivers for air quality improvements across the country in order to protect human health and the environment. They are supported by air quality management levels, which call for progressively more rigorous actions by jurisdictions as air quality approaches or exceeds the CAAQS, thereby ensuring that the CAAQS are not treated as “pollute-up-to” levels. See comment table 2 regarding the applicability of the CAAQS for this project.

ECCC-R2-ERRATA & COMMENT

Canadian Ambient Air Quality Objectives (CAAQS)

Revised EIS, Consultant Report #1b, Section 6.0 – Dispersion Model Prediction

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section B, ECCC SIR 11, Page 31; ECCC SIR 12, Page 34; ECCC SIR 13, Page 37; ECCC SIR 14, Page 41

Commenter Air ES (Katelyn Wells)

Federal, provincial and territorial governments are working collaboratively to improve air quality through the implementation of the Air Quality Management System (AQMS). The Canadian Ambient Air Quality Objectives (CAAQS) are intended to be the drivers for air quality improvements across the country in order to protect human health and the environment. They are supported by air quality management levels, which call for progressively more rigorous actions by jurisdictions as air quality levels within designated air zones approach or exceed the CAAQS, thereby ensuring that the CAAQS are not treated as “pollute-up-to” levels.

While the monitors used to report on CAAQS achievement are usually located in population centres, air zones are designed to cover all geographic areas within a jurisdiction and the resulting management levels and actions may be applied across an air zone, even in remote areas. Since the CAAQS are also designed to protect the environment, the lack of a nearby human population is not a reason to discount the use of the CAAQS during an environmental assessment. In addition, air pollutants can travel long distances and affect communities far from the initial source.

Modelling data may be used to compare predicted concentrations to ambient standards, including national standards such as the CAAQS, in order to estimate the contribution of the project to local air quality. In order to assess the impact of a proposed project on ambient air quality levels, it is recommended that modelled predictions be compared to the most stringent federal, provincial or territorial air quality standards applicable to the given area. In many cases, the CAAQS will be the most stringent levels for key air pollutants, especially for longer term projects with emissions after 2025.

The location of the project in the province of Alberta raises the potential for air quality impacts to the South Saskatchewan air zone (covering southern Alberta). The south Saskatchewan reported an orange management level for PM2.5 in 2013-2015, indicating that actions should be taken to prevent future exceedances of the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Objectives (CAAQS).

Given that the project will be operating into the foreseeable future, it is recommended that modelling results be compared to the most stringent CAAQS limits currently available (i.e. 2020 for PM2.5 and 2025 for NO2).

Table 3: Values Used to Compare the CAAQS to Modelled Concentrations for Ambient Air Quality (based on most stringent standards currently available)

Pollutant

Averaging Time

Numerical Limit

Statistical Form for Comparison with Model Predictions

Fine particulate matter

24-hour 27 ug/m3

The 3-year average of the annual 98th

percentile of the daily 24-hour average concentrations

n/a


Provinces and territories use the CAAQS to guide air zone management actions. While not intended to be used as standards to be achieved at the project perimeter, the CAAQS may be used in conjunction with results from air quality modelling to predict the impact of a project on downwind locations, including communities and other sensitive receptors. Modelling may also be used to estimate the potential for project emissions to influence air quality in neighbouring air zones or adjacent jurisdictions. Under the AQMS, the federal government is responsible for coordinating actions to address inter-provincial air pollution through a system of regional airsheds.

Annual

8.8 ug/m3

The 3-year average of the annual average of all 1-hour concentrations

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

1-hour

42 ppb

The 3-year average of the annual 98th

percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations

Annual 12 ppb The average over a single calendar year of all 1-hour average concentrations

HC-R2-1 Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section D, Health Canada, Question #1, Pages 134-137

Consultant Report #12 Human Health Risk Assessment, Section 5.1.1, Page 13, Table 5.1.1-1

Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is typically fine to ultra-fine in particle size and is therefore considered a highly respirable toxic air contaminant associated with cancer and adverse health problems such as respiratory illnesses and increased risk of heart disease. In 2013, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that exposure to outdoor air pollution and to PM in outdoor air, which includes DPM, is carcinogenic to humans (IARC, Group1).

While an assessment of DPM was estimated for acute (two hour maximum) and chronic (annual average) at all receptor locations in the HHRA, the carcinogenicity of diesel exhaust has not been assessed. Health Canada recommends that the incremental cancer risk associated with DPM be quantified using the unit risk and inhalation slope factor available from the California Office of Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA 2015).

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2015. Findings of the Scientific Review Panel On The Report on Diesel Exhaust. Available online at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/de-fnds.htm

Provide a quantitative assessment of incremental cancer risk associated with DPM using the unit risk and inhalation slope factor available from the California Office of Health Hazard Assessment, CalEPA.

No


International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC). 2013. IARC: Outdoor air pollution a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths. Press Release No. 221, dated October 17. Available online at: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2013/pdfs/pr221_E.pdf

HC-R2-2 Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section D, Health Canada, Question #3, 138- 142

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section B, ECCC, Questions #10 and #14, Pages 28-33 and 41-48

Health Canada disagrees with the Proponent’s assertion that there will be no adverse human health effects due to Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) exposure from the Project. Scientific studies have found no evidence of a threshold for population-level effects associated with NO2 exposure and guideline values should not be construed as limits to which ‘polluting-up-to’ is allowed. It should be acknowledged by the Proponent that health risks exist below the guidelines and that there is already degradation of air quality in the area including where people live, constituting an air quality issue with NO2 that the Project cannot help but contribute to.

In the Proponent’s response to Environment and Climate Change Canada’s information request #14, updated air quality model predictions for NO2 at the Mine Permit Boundary and special receptors were provided to account for the increase in rail traffic and associated current locomotive emissions. The results indicate that inclusion of rail traffic will lead to additional exceedances of the 2025 NO2 CAAQS at certain receptors.

a) Provide an updated table of risk quotients for all receptors listed in the HHRA based on the updated air quality model predictions for NO2. This should include all receptors identified in the HHRA (R1-R14), and not limited to just special receptors.

b) Outline mitigation measures that will be implemented throughout the different stages of the project to reduce NO2 exposure.

c) Provide details on how NO2 will be monitored, considering the expected exceedances of the CAAQS. If monitoring is not being considered, provide adequate justification as to why it is not necessary.

No

HC-R2-3 Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section B, ECCC, Questions #11, 12, 13 and 14, Pages 31-48

The Proponent’s responses to Environment and Climate Change’s information requests #11, 12, 13 and 14 contain new predictions for PM2.5. However, an overall assessment considering each prediction is needed to fully understand the final particulate matter predictions for the Project and any potential impacts to human health. Health Canada notes that expectations of 80% efficiency in dust suppression may not be realistic and suggests the Proponent refer to the WRAP Fugitive Dust handbook (Countess Environmental 2006) and the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality’s Guidelines for emission factors for paved and unpaved haul roads (State of Utah 2015).

The new CAAQS for PM recognize that there is no population health threshold for human health effects; therefore, any increase in exposure will result in an incremental population risk (Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada 2012; CCME 2000).

a) Provide an updated table of risk quotients for all receptors listed in the HHRA based on the updated air quality model predictions for PM2.5, assuming a more realistic control efficiency, new emissions at the train loadout and updated regional rail and project locomotive emissions. This should include all receptors identified in the HHRA (R1-R14), and not limited to just special receptors.

b) Provide details on how PM2.5 will be monitored, considering there are expected exceedances beyond the CAAQS. If monitoring will not be completed, provide a strong rationale as to why it is not necessary.

No


Environment Canada and Health Canada. 2012. Canadian Smog Science Assessment: Highlights and Key Messages. Available online at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.asp?lang=En&xml=AD024B6BA18B- 408D-ACA2-59B1B4E04863

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2000. Canada-wide Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone. Available online at: http://www.ccme.ca/en/resources/air/pm_ozone.html

State of Utah. 2015. Guidelines for emission factors for paved and unpaved haul roads. Available online at: https://documents.deq.utah.gov/airquality/ permitting/operating-permits/DAQ-2017-006548.pdf

WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook. 2006. Prepared by Countess Environmental. Available online at: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/dejf/fdh/content/FDHandbook_Rev_06.pdf

HC-R2-4 Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section D, Health Canada, Question #5, Page 144-147

Consultant Report #12 Human Health Risk Assessment, Sections 6.1 and 6.2, Pages 39-48

There are predicted exceedances of PM10 for the Project. Both PM10 and PM2.5 are considered to be non-threshold substances meaning that health effects may occur at any level of exposure. The human health risk assessment states that due to the marginal nature of the HQ exceedances for PM10, lack of HQ exceedances for PM2.5 and conservative assumption built into the TRV, acute exposure to PM10 is not expected to cause adverse human health effects. However, the lack of exceedances of PM2.5 should not be used as a rationale for dismissing exceedances of PM10. Furthermore, baseline concentrations of PM10 point to a situation of degraded air quality at the receptor locations which the project cannot help but contribute to. Thus, it is important to reduce PM emissions to the greatest extent possible.

Outline mitigation measures that will be implemented throughout the different stages of the project to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 exposure given that an increase in exposure at any level can increase health risks since particulate matter is a non-threshold substance.

No


Consultant Report #12 Human Health Risk Assessment, Section 5.2, Pages

It is not clear why average predicted deposition rates in the modelling of above-ground plant concentrations were used, as no rationale was provided. The use of mean values may not always be adequately protective or representative of exposure point concentrations. Health Canada recommends that appropriate rationale be provided when using predicted or measured exposure point concentrations in the human health risk assessment (HHRA).

When average predicted deposition rates are used in modelling exposure point concentrations, rationale should be provided indicating that people are equally likely to collect plants from the entire area. If one area is expected to receive higher concentrations and certain plants are expected to be harvested from that

a) Provide rationale as to why average predicted deposition rates were used at the applicable discrete locations in the modelling of above-ground plant concentrations.

b) Indicate if there is physical and temporal variation in deposition rates (e.g. seasonal or annual).

No


23-24 area alone, it is less appropriate to use an average concentration over the whole area. Furthermore, there may be temporal variation in deposition rates (e.g., seasonal or annual), thus consideration of shorter-term exposures may be required.


An assessment of the potential health risk from methylmercury exposure through fish consumption was provided. Based on the Alberta First Nations Food, Nutrition & Environment Study (FNFNES) for Alberta in 2013, a fish consumption rate of 54 g/day was chosen to represent an Indigenous adult in Alberta. This adult consumption rate was then scaled to derive fish ingestion rates for other age groups. There is uncertainty as to how the ingestion rates for these other age groups were scaled. Other sources may be useful for reference to ensure that consumption rates by these other age/gender groups are not under or overestimated (i.e. Richardson 2013).

Richardson M. 2013. Canadian Exposure Factors Handbook. Available online at: https://www.usask.ca/toxicology/docs/cef

Provide information as to how the fish ingestion rates for other age groups were scaled from the rate assumed for adults (e.g. relative body weights, relative portion sizes, other).

No


Consultant Report #12 Human Health Risk Assessment, Section 5.1.3.2, Page 19

The HHRA uses ingestion rates based on data presented in Wein et al. (1991). However, Health Canada notes that this information is very dated and suggests that more current information be considered, such as the 2013 Alberta results from the First Nations Food, Nutrition & Environment Study (FNFNES) (Chan et al. 2016).

Chan, L., O. Receveur, M. Batal., W. David, H. Schwartz, A. Ing, K. Fediuk, and C. Tikhonov. 2016. First National Food, Nutrition and Environment Study: Results from Alberta 2013. University of Ottawa.

Wein., E., Sabry, J. and F. Evers. 1991. Food Consumption Patterns and Use of Country Foods by Native Canadians near Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada. Vol. 44, No.3. P. 196- 205.

Provide a rationale for choosing ingestion rates from Wein et al. (1991) and not the more current rates provided in the FNFNES Alberta 2013 study or other more recent sources, or update the analysis to incorporate the most up to date literature.

No

HC-R2-8 Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section D, Health Canada,

The response provides justification for use of toxicological reference values (TRVs) from the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) since an uncertainty factor of 10 was applied. However, Health Canada does not recommend the use of ACGIH values even with uncertainty factors applied, given

Revise the HHRA using TRVs which are applicable to the general public, including sensitive receptors or provide rationale as to how the selected TRVs provide an adequate level of health protection for the general public including sensitive receptors.

No


Question #10, Pages 158-159

Consultant Report #12 Human Health Risk Assessment, Section 5.3.1, Pages 26-32

Appendix B Toxicological Profiles

that occupational TRVs are developed using very specific assumptions regarding the exposed population and the exposure scenario which are not applicable to exposure to the general public. Health Canada recommends that other regulatory jurisdictions be consulted where Health Canada has no published TRVs, and that an appropriate rationale for the alternate TRV selected be provided.

For example, with regards to the acute inhalation exposure limit chosen for naphthalene in Appendix B, there is no sufficient scientific rationale provided to identify whether use of the adjusted ACGIH short-term occupational exposure limit (STEL) would be protective of the general public (which includes potentially sensitive subpopulations).

HC-R2-9 Consultant Report #12 Human Health Risk Assessment, Section 6.0, Pages 34-57

The human health risk assessment (HHRA) does not present the incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) as a numerical value. Instead, ratios of the calculated ILCR and the selected “acceptable” or “essentially negligible” incremental increase of 1 case in 100,000 people were provided to create “ILCR quotients”. However, it is Health Canada’s opinion that the ILCR numerical estimate and “ILCR quotient” should not be used interchangeably as the ratio implies that there is no measurable effect below the 1 x 10-5 risk level and masks the “incremental” nature of the ILCR.

a) Revise all “ILCR quotient” values to ILCR numerical values for each potential carcinogen for the most sensitive receptor and receptor location(s) in the human health risk assessment.

b) Provide proposed mitigation measures that will be implemented to address any incremental lifetime cancer risk due to the Project.

No

HC-R2-10 Response to AER, Question #171, Pages 236-238

Predicted additive hazard quotient (HQ) and incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) quotients were provided for inhalation, multimedia and combined exposures via similar critical effect pathways. It is Health Canada’s opinion that the ILCR numerical estimate should be provided, rather than an ILCR quotient. There is also uncertainty as to why some of the application HQs are less than the HQs for the project and baseline combined. Health Canada also recommends that sample calculations should be provided, including how all exposure and risk estimates were derived, including those cases where exposure and risk estimates were combined for chemicals producing similar effects or, where route-specific exposure estimates were derived, for chemicals producing similar toxic effects from more than one exposure route.

a) Provide sample calculations for the values provided in Table SIR 171-1.

b) Revise all “ILCR quotient” values to ILCR values in Table SIR 171-1.

c) Provide an explanation as to why some of the applications HQs are less than the HQs for the project and baseline.

d) Provide proposed mitigation measures that will be implemented to address the incremental lifetime cancer risk for lung tumors due to the Project.

No



Consultant Report #12 Human Health Risk Assessment, Section 6.0, Pages 34-52

When a target HQ of 1 is used, a valid rationale should be provided with sufficient supporting data. The lack of concentration and exposure data for a given chemical in a given medium is not sufficient rationale to remove that exposure medium; the likelihood that exposure may occur through that pathway should be addressed, even if actual exposure is not known.

To support the HQ of 1, the HHRA should account for exposure to chemicals that occur off-site and chemicals brought with the visitor onto the site (i.e., a visitor bringing their own food and ingesting on site). Many contaminants that are found on the project site may also be found offsite and exposure to these chemicals from all media should be accounted for in the HHRA when a target HQ of 1 is used (Health Canada 2010).

Pre-project/baseline exposure estimates should include all potential exposure media for both on- and off-site exposure, including air, water, soil, consumer products and foods (including market foods, country foods gathered on- and off-site, and/or home garden produce, if applicable).

For HHRAs, a target HQ of 1 should only be applied to a particular chemical if the risk assessor can demonstrate that all potential on-site and background exposure media and pathways for that chemical have been considered in both the baseline and baseline-plus project exposure estimates.

Health Canada. 2010. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part V: Guidance on Human Health Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment for Chemicals (DQRACHEM).

a) Provide sufficient supporting data for each chemical to justify the use of a target HQ of 1. Alternatively, use a more conservative target HQ (i.e., HQ of 0.2).

b) When a chemical and/or a chemical pathway is excluded from the assessment, provide sufficient supporting rationale for the exclusion (the lack of concentration and exposure data for a given chemical in a given medium is not sufficient rationale for exclusion of a chemical or pathway).

No


The Proponent states that no sources of drinking water within the local study area (LSA) or regional study area (RSA) were identified by Indigenous groups. However, within the LSA, there are two creeks, Gold Creek and Blairmore Creek, that “could practically be used for drinking water and this would occur infrequently”.

a) Indicate if Gold Creek and Blairmore Creek lead to a current or potential future source water body for drinking water downstream.

b) If there is a potential for future use of Gold Creek and Blairmore Creek as a drinking water source, indicate how regulatory authorities or any users of these sources of drinking water would be notified of any impacts on these two creeks.

No


HC-R2-13 Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section D, Health Canada, Questions #18 and 20, Pages 172 – 173 and 175- 177

Noise Impact Assessment, Section 5.0, Pages 13-27

Noise Impact Assessment Summary – rail alignment and loadout, Section 4.2, Page 10, Table 3

A determination of percent highly annoyed (%HA) was provided. However, it is unclear how the adjustments were made. With regards to the Michalsky Trapper’s Cabin receptor in response to question #18, a +10 dB night and day adjustment was applied, but the rated day-night sound level (LDN) does not include any adjustments (see ISO 1996-1; 2016 Table A.1 for applicable adjustments).

In Table 3 from the Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) Summary – Rail Alignment and Loadout, receptors R-001 and R-002 are associated with similar sound levels. However, in Table HC20-1 in the response to Health Canada, the sound levels for receptor R- 001 are 10 dB higher than at receptor R-002. Thus, it appears that receptor R-001 was adjusted, but R-002 was not. It also appears that there are other cases where no adjustments were applied.

As indicated in Appendix E of Health Canada’s Noise Guidance (2017), adjustments should be applied for impulsive and/or tonal noise. A number of receptors in the NIA are listed as possibly tonal (NIA Tables 5.1 to 5.3). Furthermore, railyard shunting is a highly impulsive source which also requires a larger adjustment.

International Standards Organization (ISO). ISO 1996-1. 2016. Acoustics – Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise – Part 1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures. Switzerland: ISO.

Health Canada. 2017. Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: Noise. Ottawa, ON.

a) For the Michalsky Trapper cabin, provide rationale for why the rated LDN does not include any adjustments.

b) Provide clarification as to how all adjustments were made in the estimation of change in %HA for each receptor.

c) Indicate if any of the receptors listed as not having a +10 dB adjustment may also have an expectation of peace and quiet.

d) Indicate if adjustments were made for railyard shunting or provide a rationale for its exclusion.

No


Noise from blasting is commonly modelled in other environmental assessments (Hammond Reef Gold Project in Ontario, Star-Orion South Diamond Mine in Saskatchewan, Kudz Ze Kayah Project in Yukon) to determine the potential for adverse health effects from noise. Since intermittent blasting will be occurring for more than 1 year, blasting should be assessed as operational noise. Appendix F of Health Canada’s Noise Guidance (2017) presents the methodology in the calculation of percent highly annoyed.

Health Canada. 2017. Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: Noise. Ottawa, ON.

a) Model blasting noise using reasonable worst-case scenarios

b) Reassess the blasting noise using the recommendations listed in ISO 1996- 1:2016 or provide rationale why this is not needed.

c) Revise the determination of percent highly annoyed, which includes contributions to project noise from blasting and the appropriate adjustments as per ISO 1996-1(2016).

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2016. ISO 1996-1:2016 Acoustics – Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise – Part 1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures.

No


HC-R2-15 Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section D, Health Canada, Question #22, Pages 179-180.

Noise Impact Assessment Summary – rail alignment and loadout, Section 5.0

Health Canada guidance for low frequency noise (LFN) is based on 16, 32 and 63 Hz octave bands. In residential areas, should this information not be available, Broner (2010) recommends a maximum of 65 dBC at night and a desirable level of 60 dBC. In daytime, or if the LFN lasts less than 2 hours, these limits can be 5 dB higher.

In the Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) Summary – Rail Loadout, there are a number of residences where the predicted levels exceed Broner’s criteria by up to 1.9 dB. For example, daytime and night-time levels at receptor R-043 are 66.9 dBC. At this receptor, the dBC-dBA difference is 22.3 dB, indicating that it is an area where LFN complaints are likely. As per AER Directive 038, noise complaints that are confirmed to have a potential for LFN, a 5dBA penalty should be added to the comprehensive sound level (CSL) and then compared to the permissible sound level (PSL). Thus, Health Canada recommends that the PSL should be reduced by 5dB at this receptor and all other receptors with a potential for low frequency noise impacts. It is also recommended that any potentially impacted residents should be provided with information on the complaint investigation process (i.e. AER Directive 038, Section 4).

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). 2007. Directive 038: Noise Control. Available online at: http://www.aer.ca/documents/directives/Directive038.pdf

Broner, N. 2010. A Simple Criterion for Low Frequency Noise Emission Assessment. Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control. 29(1): 1-13.

a) Revise the permissible sound levels (PSLs) for all receptors with a potential for low frequency noise and reassess the potential human health impacts from noise.

b) Indicate how Indigenous communities and residents will be made aware of noise complaint mechanisms.

No


Project noise at receptors Res 301 and Res 302 will increase the cumulative exposure up to and potentially above an Ln of 40dBA (WHO 2009) even after accounting for uncertainty. Health Canada does not support equating a change in percent highly annoyed less than 6.5% with no potential impacts to sleep.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2009. Night Noise Guidelines for Europe. Hurtley, C. (Ed). Available online at: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-andhealth/noise/publications/2009/night-noiseguidelines-for-europe

Indicate what mitigation measures will be taken to ensure that cumulative noise levels at Res 301 and Res 302 will stay below 40dBA.

No

HC-R2-17 Consultant Report #2, Noise Impact Assessment – rail

The NIA Rail and Loadout states that “it is common and generally accepted practice to set +5.0 dBA as a maximum tolerable increase in noise levels for residential receptors”. However, it is not clear where this is presented in the

Health Canada suggests that statements relating to perceptibility or whether changes in noise are noticeable based solely on decibel levels be avoided, as these statements may be

No


alignment and loadout, Section 4.2, Page 9

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) Directive 038. In most cases, project noise is perceptible and for this reason, noticeability is not used as a criterion in environmental assessment. It is important to consider that people respond to sound characteristics that do not necessarily appreciably increase the sound level.

misleading.

HC-R2-18 Consultant Report #2, Noise Impact Assessment, Section 5.4, Pages 28-29

Periodic monitoring of sound levels at representative receptor locations can be used to verify predictions and is particularly important when predicted noise levels approach the level where adverse human health effects are considered likely and mitigation measures become necessary. Considering there are predicted adverse noise impacts as well as the potential for low frequency noise and uncertainty related to predicted levels, monitoring should be considered.

Provide details about what noise monitoring will be undertaken for this Project or provide a rationale explaining why monitoring is not considered necessary.

No

NRCan-R2-01

Seismicity – faulting

Benga Mining, Addendum Six to the EIS, Section E, NRCan, Question #2, Page 188

NRCan recognizes that there are no known instances of postglacial faulting in the region, however, would appreciate confirmation from the Proponent that no postglacial faulting was observed at the site of the proposed Grassy Mountain Coal Project.

Provide confirmation that no postglacial faulting was observed at the site of the proposed Grassy Mountain Coal Project.

Unknown

i The requests in this Appendix were extracted from letters submitted by the Federal Review Team to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The complete letters and comments regarding the EIS and the addenda to the EIS received as of April 30, 2017 can be consulted on the Agency’s registry internet site, reference number 80101, documents #73, #74, #75 and #76.

re: additional information required from benga …the agency advises benga mining that the letters...

Documents