Terms of Reference were approved for the Rainy River Gold project May 11, 2013

The EA was submitted Jan 17, 2014

The Gov't of Canada approved the EA January 12, 2015

The Province of Ontario Approved the EA Jan 28, 2015

Noront will need EA approval from Ontario and the Gov't of Canada

===========================================

The EA is scientific in nature.

As an example, Moonias has claimed that a bridge over the Attawapiskat river(north south road) will create a problem for him. But he has to come up with specific issues why  he feels a bridge 277km from his reserve will create a problem.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please see below some of the highlights with native consultation and note the multiple objections followed by "no correspondence received from the community."

and in the case of Northwest Angle 37 First Nation Northwest, note the attempted cash grab of $75,000 from the province.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.downloads.ene.gov.on.ca/files/eaab/rainy_river_review.pdf

Métis Nation of Ontario

The Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) conducted a TK/TLU study to identify potential impacts to their resource uses and provided the results to the proponent in March 2014. The MNO requested that New Gold review the study and confirm mitigation measures for a number of potential impacts, including those on the Pinewood River in the event of spills or accidents, fish and waterfowl, nearby wells owned by Métis citizens, and loss of Rainy River Project Environmental Assessment Review September 19, 2014 33 access to lands used for hunting and gathering or of cultural significance. Many of the comments focused on the impacts that could potentially arise with the realignment of Highway 600 and the construction of the transmission line ROW. The MNO noted that the construction of the ROW had the potential to impact trails and travel routes, harvesting area access routes, the quality of hunting and gathering due to habitat degradation and the use of herbicides for vegetation management. Concerns regarding the technical design of the project were also raised, such as whether the open pit separation berm would be of adequate height given potential future changes to the climate. In response to these comments, New Gold noted that the MNO report had suggested potential mitigation measures for identified impacts, many of which New Gold had already committed to adopt in the EA. New Gold noted that it had already committed to develop an environmental management system which would include management of spills and accidents to limit their environmental impacts. Based on the current data available, New Gold does not believe that any wells owned by Métis citizens would be impacted. In response to the potential loss of access to significant lands, New Gold offered to grant improved access to lands which had been reserved for habitat compensation. With regards to the realignment of Highway 600 and the transmission ROW, New Gold noted that based on the TK/TLU data, the impacts of their construction would not be significant and could be mitigated. New Gold does not believe that the ROW would impact hunting or gathering activities, and made a commitment not to use herbicides to control vegetation in the ROW. Technical details of the open pit berm were shared with the MNO, as well as a justification of its height. New Gold committed to continued consultation with the MNO, and to providing assistance to the MNO for the review of future project design stages such as environmental approvals and closure plans. On April 4, 2014, Ministry and CEAA staff met with members of the MNO to hear the results of their TK/TLU study, and to hear their comments and concerns related to the project. They provided updates on their discussions with New Gold, and indicated they were continuing to work with the proponent.

=============================================================

Anishinaabeg of Naongashiing (Big Island) First Nation and Ojibways of Onigaming First Nation

Anishinaabeg of Naongashiing (Big Island) First Nation and Ojibways of Onigaming First Nation each sent an email on March 14, 2014 to the Ministry and CEAA indicating in general terms that they have concerns with the project and believe that the project could have impacts on their Aboriginal and treaty rights.

They indicated that their review of the EA is ongoing and asked for additional time to determine how the project will affect their rights. They stated their objection to the EA process proceeding until they had fully completed their review. The Ministry responded on May 1, 2014 requesting detail on each community’s specific concerns about the potential for the project to adversely impact their Aboriginal or treaty rights and proposed a teleconference to further discuss the community’s concerns and offered that the meeting could be joint with CEAA.

The Ministry followed up by phone and email on May 9, 2014 with Big Island First Nation and Ojibways of Onigaming First Nation to reiterate the offer of a teleconference. No further correspondence was received from Big Island First Nation.

On May 30, 2014, Onigaming First Nation responded to say Rainy River Project Environmental Assessment Review September 19, 2014 34 they were interested in a teleconference and would contact the Ministry about scheduling. No further correspondence was received from the community.

=============================================================

Naotkamegwanning (Whitefish Bay) First Nation Naotkamegwanning First Nation (NFN) provided a letter to the Ministry and CEAA in March 2014 indicating in general terms that the community had concerns about the potential negative impacts the project could have on their traditional and reserve lands, water, people and resources.

The community asked for an extension of the comment period to obtain the relevant expertise to aid in reviewing the technical aspects of the project. The Ministry responded to say it understood the community was working toward acquiring expertise, that the Ministry and MNDM have provided assistance when requested in this regard and that the Ministry remains open to providing further assistance.

The response also said the Ministry was interested to hear more information about the community’s specific concerns about the potential for the project to adversely impact their Aboriginal or treaty rights, and proposed a teleconference to hear the community’s concerns or discuss any questions.

The community replied indicating that they had retained a consultant to review the EA and asked for a specific extension to provide comments by June 30, 2014; the Ministry replied and granted the extension. The review Rainy River Project Environmental Assessment Review September 19, 2014 35 included information regarding human health and ecological risks, in particular in section 7 of the EA, reiterating the assessments done related to health impacts from air emissions, water runoff and discharge, and heavy metals in fish and country foods. The EA concluded the potential risk of impacts to human health from harvesting and use of country or locally farmed foods was low, therefore not warranting a more formalized health risk assessment. The response indicated information related to increased health risks would be provided, as suggested in the NFN report. The Ministry is satisfied that the proponent has responded to the concerns.

Naicatchewenin First Nation and Rainy River First Nation Naicatchewenin First Nation and Rainy River First Nations sent a joint letter to Premier Kathleen Wynne and Prime Minister Stephen Harper on March 4, 2014 indicating the communities’ lack of support for the project. They stated that they do not feel that the potential benefits of the project outweigh the potential impacts, and that New Gold has not engaged in meaningful consultation or accommodated their concerns.

The Premier responded on April 7, 2014, indicating that it is unfortunate to learn there is no longer support for the project and that MNDM will continue to work with all Aboriginal communities to seek a path forward.

New Gold has indicated that it continues to work closely with both communities to continue discussions about the project in an effort to resolve issues and build partnerships.

The Ministry later followed up on July 16, 2014 to the communities’ March 4, 2014, letter and the Premier’s April response to ask about the status of each community’s current level of satisfaction with the proposed EA and whether there were any comments or concerns at this time. No response was received.

========================================================

Northwest Angle 37 First Nation Northwest

Angle 37 First Nation provided a letter on March 13, 2014 to the Minister and the federal Minister of the Environment indicating general concerns about potential impacts to their Aboriginal or treaty rights and that they disagree with the level and nature of consultation that has been conducted with their community.

In response, the Ministry indicated that, based on the ministry’s records, the provincial and federal governments and the proponent had engaged the community about the EA process and proposed project on several occasions between August 2012 and July 2014.

The Ministry also requested more information about how the community feels the project might adversely impact their Aboriginal or treaty rights.

Northwest Angle 37 First Nation responded in May 12, 2014 claiming that the concerns in their original letter had not been addressed and that the level of consultation was still unsatisfactory.

The letter requested that the province provide $75,000 to the First Nation so that a consultant can be retained to assist in the community’s review of the EA. 

In response on July 18, 2014, the Ministry reiterated its request for more specific information about how the community may be impacted and offered a meeting with MNDM and Ministry staff to discuss specific concerns.

The Ministry also extended New Rainy River Project Environmental Assessment Review September 19, 2014 36 Gold’s offer to meet with the community and include them in ongoing discussions about the project. No further response was received.