From the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to Howse Mineral Limited re: Information Request CEAA 106 (see reference document # 27)

• Transmittal email
• Howse Property Iron Mine Project: Information Request (CEAA106)
• Attachments
  • Howse IRs Groundwater - Part 1 (June 3 2016) Proponent response 16-20 NRCanReview (PDF – 7.75 MB)
  • GH-0817 Water Monitoring Plan 170414 (PDF – 803 KB)

Transmittal email

(PDF – 42 KB)

From: Vigder,Joseph [CEAA]
Sent: June-16-17 4:40 PM
To: Mariana Trindade <mtrindade@hemis.ca> (mtrindade@hemis.ca)
Cc: loic.didillon@tatasteelcanada.com; Mackenzie, Armand (armand.mackenzie@tatasteelcanada.com); Christian Corbeil (ccorbeil@hemis.ca); Ponsford,Catherine [CEAA]
Subject: FW: NRCan Comments on Howse Minerals Ltd Response to CEAA IRs 16-20
Importance: High

Hello Mariana,

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency), with input from NRCan, has conducted a technical review of the proponent's responses to Information Requests (IRs) CEAA 16 to 20 (Round 1, Part 1). Please see the attached document, Howse_IR 106_June 2017.docx, which includes an additional information request, primarily to clarify the information in the SNC May 2017 report and to correct errors. Once revised, the report will be posted on the Agency's registry internet site.

The legislated environmental assessment timeline will remain paused until adequate responses to all outstanding information requests are submitted. Upon receipt of a response from the proponent, the Agency will determine whether the response provides the information requested, and if so, will review the information.

Please call if you have any questions or wish to discuss.

Regards,

Joe Vigder, MREM

Project Manager, Atlantic Region
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency / Government of Canada
joseph.vigder@ceaa-acee.gc.ca / Tel: 902-426-4951

Gestionnaire de projets, région atlantique
Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale / Gouvernement du Canada
joseph.vigder@ceaa-acee.gc.ca / Tél: 902-426-4951

Howse Property Iron Mine Project: Information Request (CEAA106)

(PDF – 14.3 KB)

Context and Rationale: The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency), with input from NRCan, has conducted a technical review of the proponent's responses to Information Requests (IRs) CEAA 16 to 20 (Round 1, Part 1). NRCan has noted some errors and issues in SNC's Report titled Hydrogeology Numerical Modeling for the Howse Deposit Project, dated May 16, 2017 (SNC May 2017). The Agency's internal review has identified two further issues that must be addressed before the Agency can accept the response as adequate.

For additional context and rationale, please refer to the original IRs CEAA 16 to 20 (Round 1, Part 1).

Specific Question or Request:

1. Comments from NRCan are embedded in the SNC May 2017 report (see attachment), and include:

• Many of the cardinal points referred to in the SNC May 2017 report appear to be incorrect, which could be attributed to the fact that figures in the model were rotated (see comments embedded in the attached document). Verify the cardinal points and make corrections as appropriate.
• The SNC May 2017 report uses the term "permanent state" which is an incorrect translation from French. The appropriate term is "steady state" (see comments embedded in the attached document).

Address the comments embedded by NRCan in the SNC May 2017 report, as appropriate, and re-submit the document.

2. In the May 30, 2017 memo submitted to the Agency, the proponent describes monitoring and follow-up measures at Triangle Lake, Morley Lake, and Goodream Creek. Based on Figure 1: Water Monitoring Plan (submitted to the Agency on April 26, 2017 - see attachment), the SNC May 2017 report, and the EIS, the Agency understands the proponent would also monitor surface water and groundwater quality and/or quantity at various other points around the Project, including Pinette Lake, Burnetta Lake, local wetlands, and at other locations.

Update Figure 1: Water Monitoring Plan as appropriate, and provide an overview of the water quality and quantity parameters that would be monitored at all water monitoring stations which would be part of the Project's follow-up program.

3. In conjunction with the request above, provide a description of the thresholds that monitoring results would be compared to or the other factors that would trigger the implementation of adaptive management actions or mitigation measures for affected waterbodies and wetlands.

Attachments:

1) Howse IRs Groundwater – Part 1 (June 3 2016) Proponent response 16-20 NRCanReview.pdf

2) GH-0817 WaterMonitoringPlan 170414.pdf