From the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to Treasury Metals Inc. re: Insufficiency of Response to First Round of Information Requests Related to the Environmental Impact Statement (see reference document # 25)

Document reference number: 26

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Ontario Regional Office
55 St. Clair Avenue East, Room 907
Toronto ON M4T 1M2

Agency canadienne évaluation environnementale
Bureau régional de l'Ontario
55, avenue St-Clair est, bureau 907
Toronto (Ontario) M4T 1M2

October 05, 2017

Sent by E-mail

Robert MacDonald
Vice President
Treasury Metals Inc.
130 King Street West, Suite 3680
Toronto, ON
M5X 1B1

Dear Mr. MacDonald,

SUBJECT: Outcome of completeness check of the responses provided by Treasury Metals Inc. to Information Request #1 on the Goliath Gold Project Environmental Impact Statement

Thank you for the response, dated September 06, 2017, to Information Request #1 (IR#1) on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Goliath Gold Project (the Project). The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) has conducted a completeness check, to form an opinion on whether the information requested has been provided to enable the Agency to proceed with the environmental assessment (EA), and has concluded that the response is incomplete.

For this Project, the Agency reviewed to the completeness of the response to IR#1 to determine whether the responses provided by Treasury Metals Inc. (Treasury) contained sufficient details and were consistent with the direction provided in IR#1 and companion sheet (Annex B). IR#1, including the companion sheet, itemized a number of technical questions. Responses to these questions are necessary for the Agency to draw conclusions to support advice to the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change on whether the Project, taking into account the implementation of any mitigation measures, is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, as described in Section 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). In addition to potential environmental effects, as described in CEAA 2012, with respect to Indigenous peoples, IR#1 also included questions to support the Agency's advice to the Minister on potential for the Project to impact Aboriginal and/or Treaty rights in accordance with the Constitution Act.

Upon review of the response to IR#1, the Agency has concluded that the response does not meet the requirements of IR#1, including Annex B. The primary deficiencies relate to three areas:

the format and content of the revised Environmental Impact Statement (EIS);
the requirement for engagement with potentially affected Indigenous groups on aspects of the EA has not been met, based on the information presented in the Aboriginal Engagement Report and the revised EIS, as well as in responses to specific information requests (IRs) related to this topic;
the requirements of Annex B (the companion sheet) have not been met; and
responses to 287 of the 859 questions in IR #1 (contained in Annexes A1 to A4 of IR#1), were found to be incomplete.

For the Agency to confirm that the responses are complete to proceed with the EA, all deficiencies in the response to IR#1, which are further detailed in the attached Annex 1 and Annex 2, must be corrected prior to resubmission. Based on the nature of the comments, the Agency has determined that Treasury must resubmit:

a fully revised EIS that includes insertions or changes made throughout the EIS main text, Addenda, and EIS Summary;
a revised Aboriginal Engagement Report; and
a revised IR#1 response package that addresses the original IR#1 by correcting all identified deficiencies.

The outcome of this completeness check, including this letter and Annexes, will be shared with federal authorities and Indigenous groups and will be posted on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry Internet Site. Upon your submission of a revised response to IR#1, the Agency may take up to a maximum of 30 days to complete another completeness check without the timeline for the EA resuming. The timeline will resume if the Agency has not come to a conclusion after 30 days.

Following the second completeness check, the Agency will notify you in writing about the outcomes and next steps. If the Agency determines that the revised response to IR#1 has addressed the deficiencies identified in Annex 1 and Annex 2, the Agency will begin a technical review of the response and will notify Indigenous groups of the outcome. If the deficiencies are not addressed, the Agency will notify you of the information required.

The Agency welcomes the opportunity to discuss the outcome of this completeness check with you and provide further advice on how to best address the information requirements identified. If you wish to schedule a meeting, or have questions about this completeness check, please contact me at 437-993-2243 or via email at Goliath@ceaa-acee.gc.ca.

Sincerely,

Marcelle Phaneuf
Project Manager

Attachments (1)

Annex 1: Outcome of completeness check of the responses provided by Treasury Metals Inc. to Information Request #1 on the Goliath Gold Project Environmental Impact Statement
Annex 2: Completeness check of the response to IR#1 for the Goliath Gold Project Environmental Impact Statement

cc: Mark wheeler – Director, Projects, Treasury Metals Inc.

Annex 1
Outcome of completeness check of the responses provided by Treasury Metals Inc. to Information Request #1 on the Goliath Gold Project Environmental Impact Statement

The Agency has determined that the response to IR#1 is not complete and does not sufficiently meet the requirements of IR#1 and Annex B. The primary deficiencies relate to three areas:

the format and general content of the revised EIS;
Aboriginal engagement; and
the responses to all Annex A1 to Annex A4 information requests.

A. Format and content of the revised EIS

The review of the revised Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) found the following deficiencies that will impede the technical review:

The assessment of changes to the environment on Aboriginal peoples, required under section 5 (1)(c) of CEAA 2012, is insufficient to allow a technical review. Information on potential impacts to Indigenous groups is not presented with adequate evidence and rationale. Information pertaining to and gathered from Indigenous groups to facilitate analysis of these effects is extremely minimal and the assessment provided is not done in a manner enabling the Agency to determine what mitigation measures apply to which Indigenous group.
There is little to no information provided in the EIS for each Indigenous group's Aboriginal and Treaty rights or an assessment of impacts to those rights. Rather, the Agency is directed to the assessment of changes to the environment on Aboriginal people. While information collected for the assessment of changes to the environment on Aboriginal peoples can overlap with information describing Aboriginal and Treaty rights, they are separate requirements and cannot be proxies for each other. Sections 9.2 and 10.2 of the EIS guidelines require Treasury to collect baseline information and conduct an assessment of impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty rights.
The assessment of effects of changes to the environment that are directly linked or necessarily incidental to federal decisions in Section 6.23 of the revised EIS, is insufficient to meet requirements of Section 5(2) of CEAA 2012. Please note that there may be potential impacts to other valued components (such as to non-Indigenous peoples or flora or fauna not explicitly identified in Section 5 of CEAA 2012).
The methodology of the cumulative effects assessment (Section 7) is flawed such that the conclusions of this assessment are scientifically unreliable. The section is not written as a stand-alone section, as required in the EIS Guidelines. No assessment criteria were defined for valued components (VCs) that may be affected by other past, present, or future activities within the determined spatial and temporal boundaries. Some activities are screened out although they are indicated as overlapping in temporal and spatial terms. Finally, consideration of traditional knowledge and information provided by Indigenous groups has not been adequately demonstrated or incorporated into the assessment of cumulative effects.
It is difficult to validate water models and effects predictions based on geochemical information due to confusion in supporting information. The geochemistry and geochemical modelling information used to support water modelling and effects predictions is spread out between various documents in both the original and the revised EIS (Appendix C of Appendix F in the original EIS; Appendix K, Appendix JJ, and geochemical effects assessment in the revised EIS). It is not clear how the data and information between documents is related, and whether it was all considered in the water modelling and effects predictions.
The water management plan (Appendix F) from the original EIS was re-written for the revised EIS. However, this resulted in a substantial reduction of information in this appendix, which may prevent the validation of models and effects predictions. It is unknown whether this information has been moved to other sections or appendices of the EIS, removed from the EIS altogether or superseded.
A summary of mitigation measures should provide a snapshot of how potential project effects will be mitigated. However, it is not possible to understand the link between the list of mitigation measures found in Table 6.22-1, the list of commitments found in Table 10.0-1, and the Project as a whole. The mitigation measures and commitments are presented without organizing them in accordance with clear links to the potential effects, including valued component, they are intended to mitigate, the project phase when they would be applied, the regulatory or legislative authority or the addressee of the commitment that would ensure its standard. The link between potential effects, application of mitigation measures for each specific effect, and the resultant residual effect should also be clear. Further, there is no distinction or differentiation made between mitigation measures and commitments, how they are described or how they are to be applied and followed. Without this information, the mitigation and commitment tables are of no use as a summary or a reference.
The conceptual closure plan is necessary at the EA stage to validate assumptions underlying changes to the environment, and understand potential effects, the feasibility of mitigation measure and the development of monitoring and follow-up programs. This EA is for the following phases of the Project: construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment. The conceptual closure plan previously in section 11 of the original EIS was modified and integrated as section 3.14 of the revised EIS and renamed as "Closure and Decommissioning". It is unclear if all the original information was retained, and whether additional information from the IRs related to this topic was incorporated into the revised plan.

B. Aboriginal engagement

The information presented in the Aboriginal Engagement Report and the revised EIS indicates that the requirement for engagement with potentially affected Indigenous groups on aspects of the EA has not been met. The purpose of Indigenous engagement is to obtain information on current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes and information on potential and established Aboriginal and Treaty rights, and demonstrate that effects of changes to the environment on Aboriginal peoples and the potential adverse impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty rights and related interests have been considered and validated. The Agency needs this information to arrive at an accurate, informed assessment of effects on Aboriginal peoples and impacts on Treaty rights, which the Minister also requires in order to come to a conclusion on the EA.

Treasury's approach to engagement was not well articulated. It is not possible to verify whether engagement activities took place to address aspects of the EA (e.g. baseline conditions, residual effects, development of mitigation measures) or comments on the EIS. Meetings seemed to be "show-and-tell" sessions centered on certain concerns, or Project updates. Engagement should take the form of a dialogue, rather than directed presentations, to allow Treasury to validate information and conclusions with Indigenous groups and to lead to the resolution of outstanding issues as well as identification of mitigation measures to address any impacts to those Indigenous groups. It should also help ensure that groups have the information they require to understand how the Project may impact them (as per the EIS Guidelines, section 11.2);
It is not possible to verify the nature of the documentation and materials shared with Indigenous groups during engagement sessions, such as plain language summaries, as this information was not provided in the final response;
It is not evident how/if feedback was incorporated into the revised EIS. A list of comments and concerns was provided, however the disposition thereof is limited to a response addressing the concern, a vague commitment to deal with concern, or no direct response;
The responses to specific IRs related to Aboriginal engagement should be reflected in the Aboriginal Engagement Report and the revised EIS, such that there is congruity between the Report and the IR; and,
Many IR responses contain a vague commitment to engage with Indigenous groups throughout the life of the Project, with no further details. This is not presented as a mitigation measure or official commitment measure. It must be noted that commitments to ongoing engagement throughout the life of the Project are not a substitute to conducting engagement during the EA in order to inform decisions under CEAA 2012 as well as the Crown's understanding of potential adverse impacts of the Project on Aboriginal or Treaty rights. Therefore, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response. The companion sheet to IR#1 (Annex B in 2015) as well as several IRs detailed specific requirements for additional engagement to be completed prior to submission of a response.

C. Responses to Annex A1 to Annex A4 information requests

Of the 859 responses to the information requests (IRs) in Annexes A1 to A4, 287 were found to be incomplete (see Annex 2). The main reasons for the determination of incompleteness were:

incomplete information provided (the question was not responded to in its entirety);
the response contained insufficient information to allow a technical review;
the response was too vague to allow a determination; and
a lack of incorporation of the information into the revised EIS.

Each information request must be answered directly and specifically. For information request with multiple parts, the response must address each part separately. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

When detailed design work is pending, conceptual information (including alternatives still being entertained) must be used to inform and complete the effects analysis with conclusions drawn for each alternative under consideration, where applicable. Deferral to later stage of the regulatory process to provide information such as conceptual or final designs, monitoring plans, or other requested information is not acceptable.

When information requests or comments were provided by a specific Indigenous group, effort should be made to not only refer back to documents in the EIS but also respond directly and respectfully to the group who initiated the comment.

With respect to Indigenous groups, as part of the EA a complete effects analysis including impacts assessment, mitigation measures and significance analysis must be completed for each individual group (rather than a single overreaching analysis). Commitments to ongoing engagement cannot be a proxy for completing these requirements.

Annex 2: Completeness check of the response to IR#1 for the Goliath Gold Project Environmental Impact Statement

ID:
1
IR-1 Reference #:
EA(1)-01
Complete:
A. No
B. No
C. No
D. No
Context and Rationale:
The response to Parts A and B contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Parts C and D were not addressed in the answer.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to each question contained in information request EA(1)-01. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
2
IR-1 Reference #:
EA(1)-02
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes

ID:
3
IR-1 Reference #:
EA(1)-03
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes
C. Yes
D. Yes
E. Yes
F. Yes
G. Yes
H. Yes

ID:
4
IR-1 Reference #:
EA(1)-04
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not address the question(s). The response does not refer to Section 8 of the revised EIS for the significance determination.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request EA(1)-04.

ID:
5
IR-1 Reference #:
EA(1)-05
Complete:
Yes

ID:
6
IR-1 Reference #:
EA(1)-06
Complete:
A. No
B. No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
While the response says that Section 13 of the revised EIS outlines the proposed follow-up monitoring programs, the information in Section 13 does not meet the requirements outlined in the question.
Monitoring is a data gathering exercise that can be scoped to meet many purposes. A follow-up program, on the other hand, determines the accuracy of the conclusions of the environmental assessment and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.
For further detail see the former Operational Policy Statement on follow-up programs: https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/news/2011/12/follow-programs-under-canadian-environmental-assessment-act.html
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request EA(1)-06 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue (create a follow-up program that is separate from monitoring). Include the information required as per the information request and the EIS Guidelines.

ID:
7
IR-1 Reference #:
EA(1)-07
Complete:
Yes

ID:
8
IR-1 Reference #:
EA(1)-08
Complete:
A No
B No
C No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not directly address the question.
The response contains a reference to the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find information relevant to the question. Such references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
The Agency is aware of subsection 6.23.3.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request EA(1)-08.

ID:
9
IR-1 Reference #:
EA(1)-09
Complete:
A. No
B. No
C. Yes
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review.
The response to Part A requested information that is not found in either Section 6 or Section 8.
The response to Part B is incomplete. There are two separate mitigation and commitment tables, however it is not clear how these are related to each other, to the potential/residual effects, or to whom the commitments are made.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request EA(1)-09.
Update Table 6.22-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures to include the information requested in Part A of EA(1)-09.
Update Table 10.0-1 Commitments for the Project to include the information requested in Part B of EA(1)-09.
Provide details on the link between these two tables and their contents.

ID:
10
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-01
Complete:
A. No
B. No
C. No
D. No
E. No
Context and Rationale:
None of the requests were addressed in the response. There were five (5) requests made by the Agency as part of AC(1)-01, and instead of responding to each one individually, one blanket response was provided. Despite making references to several sections of the revised EIS, the requested information has not been provided.
The Aboriginal Engagement Report does not meet Part A of the information request. While a summary of activities related to Indigenous engagement are listed, they are limited to sending letters and conducting presentations, with Q & A's. There also does not appear to be a sample of the kinds of materials used and distributed at Aboriginal engagement events. It is not clear how Indigenous groups were engaged on baseline conditions, alternatives assessments, project components and activities, or any of the other topics outlined in Part A of the information request.
The summary of concerns by valued component, required in Part B of the information request, was not completed properly in the Aboriginal Engagement Report. Table 5.1-1 of the Aboriginal Engagement Report reveals that the concerns were organized by an assortment of 28 different "concern topics", rather than the valued components. Also, many of the concerns remain "Open", without a response and/or mitigation measure provided. Many of the responses provided are also insufficient.
It has not been demonstrated for Part D that plain language summaries were made available to Indigenous groups, and meetings appear to be sparse and limited to a few groups. Presentations and site tours do not alone constitute meetings, or meaningful engagement.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to each Part of information request AC(1)-01. Ensure the information being requested is organized in a way that reflects what is being asked, to allow reviewers to verify the request has been met. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
11
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-02
Complete:
A. No
B. No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
The response to Part A (including the references to the EIS) does not describe the potential adverse impacts on potential or established Aboriginal and Treaty rights and related interests that have not been fully mitigated.
The response to Part B refers to Section 9.8 of the revised EIS, which does not exist and /or cannot be found in Section 9 "Public and Indigenous Engagement."
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
A. Review information request AC(1)-02 Part A and revise the response to provide a description of potential adverse impacts on potential or established Aboriginal and Treaty rights and related interests that have not been fully mitigated.
B. Review information request AC(1)-02 Part B and provide a correct reference to the EIS or revise response to provide a description of outstanding public concerns related to potential environmental effects as described in section 5 of CEAA 2012 that have not been resolved as a result of changes to the project, mitigation measures, or public participation activities.

ID:
12
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-03
Complete:
A. No
B. No
C. No
Context and Rationale:
None of the questions posed in this information request were addressed in the response.
Instead of addressing the request for additional engagement with groups on SAR in the area, TMI describes past engagement and makes vague commitments to ongoing engagement.
The response also contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-03 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue of verifying spatial boundaries for SAR with Indigenous groups. Keep in mind that an approach to dealing with this issue without meaningful engagement with the Indigenous group is insufficient.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (e.g. reference to a chapter or Aboriginal Engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
13
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-01
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
C. No
Context and Rationale:
B. The information provided does not answer the question directly or provide sufficient information.
C. The response to Part C should be partly linked to that of Part B. In addition, the response does not demonstrate how any new information was incorporated into the revised EIS.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request PC(1)-01 Part B and revise the response to more specifically address the question and provide a complete and detailed response.
Revise the response to Part C to provide additional information.

ID:
14
IR-1 Reference #:
PD(1)-01
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes
C. No
Context and Rationale:
The response provided for Part C is incomplete. Part C requested the names and a map of the location of the water bodies that may require a federal permit. This is required to determine potential 5(2) effects under CEAA 2012.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request PD(1)-01 Part C.

ID:
15
IR-1 Reference #:
PD(1)-02
Complete:
Yes

ID:
16
IR-1 Reference #:
PD(1)-03
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information request was for a map with all "water crossings and culvert replacements associated with the project". This is required to determine permits and any potential 5(2) effects under CEAA 2012.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request PD(1)-03.

ID:
17
IR-1 Reference #:
PD(1)-04
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
Context and Rationale:
The response to question B contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request PD(1)-04.The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
18
IR-1 Reference #:
PD(1)-05
Complete:
Yes

ID:
19
IR-1 Reference #:
PD(1)-06
Complete:
Yes

ID:
20
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-01
Complete:
Yes

ID:
21
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-02
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
Context and Rationale:
In the response to Part B, the updated section of the EIS does not demonstrate that input from Aboriginal groups has been incorporated in the weighting factor used in the quantitative analysis.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to Part B of information request AA(1)-02 and demonstrate attempts to obtain information from Aboriginal groups with respect to the weighting factor used in the quantitative analysis.

ID:
22
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-03
Complete:
Yes

ID:
23
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-04
Complete:
Yes

ID:
24
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-05
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes
C. Yes

ID:
25
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-06
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes
C. No
D. No
Context and Rationale:
The response to Part C does not demonstrate how/whether the ponds are cross referenced in the EIS, i.e. if the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS.
Part D was not addressed in the answer. Treasury indicates that ." a full description of each pond, along with their capacity and retention times will be developed closer to the permitting stage of the Project." However, this information is necessary at least at a conceptual level for assessment of water and contaminant movement and hence effects assessment.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
While the response to information request AA(1)-06 Part C may answer the information request, integration of this request into the revised EIS (and demonstration thereof) is required, including clarification that all related elements of the EIS were accordingly updated.
Provide a complete and detailed answer to Part D. If specific data is not available at this stage, conservative assumptions and conceptual concepts should be provided at a minimum.

ID:
26
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-07
Complete:
Yes

ID:
27
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-068
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
There are no figures within Appendix JJ (Section 2) with respect to the amount of water required during construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment phases in cubic metres/day for each water source, including the irrigation ponds (Thunder Lake Tributary 3) and any additional sources. Only the amount of water required during operations has been calculated (Table 4-12).
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AA(1)-08 and provide additional information.

ID:
28
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-09
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes
C. Yes

ID:
29
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-10
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes

ID:
30
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-11
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS.
The response includes an update of Tables 4.1 through 4.9 which are provided within TMI_34-AA(1)-15_Attachment_2. However, it is unclear what equivalent of these tables is, in the revised EIS. The response also refers to seven other IRs (TMI_32 to TMI_38). However, it is unclear whether the information in the responses to those IRs was incorporated into the update to the alternatives assessment in section 2, Appendix D or Appendix X of the revised EIS. As Appendix D and X have been rewritten, the new information from the responses should be incorporated so as to provide a reader or reviewer for the most concise source of information and avoid confusion or inconsistency of information.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
While the response may answer the information request, integration of the information contained in responses TMI_30 and TMI_32 to TMI_38 into the revised EIS (and demonstration thereof) is required, including clarification that all related elements of the EIS were accordingly updated.

ID:
31
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-12
Complete:
Yes

ID:
32
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-13
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
See the context and rationale and the specific information required for response # TMI_30

ID:
33
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-14
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
See the context and rationale and the specific information required for response # TMI_30

ID:
34
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-15
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
See the context and rationale and the specific information required for response # TMI_30

ID:
35
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-16
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
See the context and rationale and the specific information required for response # TMI_30

ID:
36
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-17
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
See the specific information required for response # TMI_30

ID:
37
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-18
Complete:
No.
Context and Rationale:
The response indicates that "An update to Table 4.1 to 4.9 of Appendix D is provided in TMI_34-AA(1)-15_Attachment_2. These tables have additionally been updated in Appendix D of the revised EIS." However, the tables in Appendix D do not appear to have been updated.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
While the response may answer the information request, integration of this response into the revised EIS is required. See also the context and rationale and the specific information required for response # TMI_3

ID:
38
IR-1 Reference #:
AA(1)-19
Complete:
Yes

ID:
39
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-01
Complete:
Yes

ID:
40
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-02
Complete:
Yes

ID:
41
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-03
Complete:
Yes

ID:
42
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-04
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
C. Yes
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
Part B "Provide maps that overlay the proposed mine waste options with the local water bodies and specify which water bodies are deemed to be fish frequented." was responded by TMI_42-MW(1)-04_Figure_1. However this figure does not show the individual mine waste options and only identifies a few major waterbodies. For example, the answer to Part C notes that the TSF will be placed over a waterbody but that is not demonstrated on this map. No information on fish-bearing waters is presented.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request MW(1)-04 Part B.

ID:
43
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-05
Complete:
Yes

ID:
44
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-06
Complete:
Yes

ID:
45
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-07
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
Information was provided on the low-grade ore stockpile, but not on any other project component. The response referred to section 3.16 of the revised EIS for additional information. However, such information was not found.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request MW(1)-07 to provide additional technical information.

ID:
46
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-08
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
C. No
D. No
E. Yes
Context and Rationale:
Part B was not addressed in the answer.
The information provided in Question C is incomplete. The EIS refers to separation of waste rock according to acid generation potential. Information about this separation will inform the waste management plan and the assessment of effects.
Part D was not addressed in the answer. This information is required to fully assess potential effects of the project.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request MW(1)-08 Parts B and C regarding the separation of PAG and NAG waste rock.
Provide a complete and detailed response to Part D, describing the potential effects associated with sourcing aggregate material offsite.

ID:
47
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-09
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly. Risks associated with ARD/ML are significant and details need to be provided at this phase of the project such that potential environmental impacts can be adequately assessed.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request MW(1)-09 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue.
Ideally, analyze and describe the chemical stability of the overburden material and any potential environmental effects associated with the overburden stockpile, including feasible mitigation methods and conceptual decommissioning (closure) options, as per the original IR. At a minimum, describe the geochemical work done to date with a discussion of the results, and outline the plan moving forward, including ongoing work and feasible ARD/ML contingency measures.

ID:
48
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-10
Complete:
A. No
B. No
C. Yes
D. Yes
Context and Rationale:
The information provided in the response to Part A is incomplete.
Part B was not addressed in the response.
The response refers to sections which provide little new or relevant information. The proponent does not provide a conceptual design as requested, but discusses the need for a final design at a later stage of the regulatory process. While it is not expected that the final cover design be provided at this time, the proponent must show the capacity to develop adequate cover onsite, from both a conceptual design and materials availability perspective. The conceptual design requested will allow the validation of the assumptions underlying the changes to the environment and resulting potential effects.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to Parts A and B of information request MW(1)-10.

ID:
49
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-11
Complete:
Yes

ID:
50
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-12
Complete:
Yes

ID:
51
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-13
Complete:
Yes

ID:
52
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-14
Complete:
Yes

ID:
53
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-15
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes
C. No
Context and Rationale:
The response to Part C is mainly constituted of a reference to section 5 of Appendix JJ of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. This reference should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response. Overall, the response does not provide a direct answer to the question.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request MW(1)-15 Part C. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
54
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-16
Complete:
A. No
B. No
Context and Rationale:
A: The information provided does not answer the question directly. The response discusses the choice of scaling factor rather than how this factor was arrived at.
B: The response to Part B contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request MW(1)-16 Part A: "Provide supporting information on how the expected weight percentage [.] was obtained."
Provide a complete and detailed response to Part B, including weight percentage used and justification thereof.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
55
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-17
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
It is unclear how the different documents referred to in this response relate to each other and to the effects assessment in the revised EIS as a whole. The Information request pertained to Appendix K. However, the response discusses geochemical calculations in Appendix C of Appendix F as well as in Appendix JJ. The response indicates that the information referred to in the question is "no longer part of the EIS" however the proponent did not supersede or otherwise revise Appendix K. It is unknown which of these calculations or documents are carried forward for use in effects determination and development of monitoring programs.
See also TMI_59 – MW(1)-21.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
As part of a complete response to information request MW(1)-17, explain the relation between the various geochemistry documents (Appendix C of Appendix F in the original EIS; Appendix K, Appendix JJ; geochemical effects assessment in the revised EIS). Clarify whether Appendix K should be superseded; if so, indicate why and where a similar level of detail is found.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
56
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-18
Complete:
Yes

ID:
57
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-19
Complete:
Yes

ID:
58
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-20
Complete:
Yes

ID:
59
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-21
Complete:
A. No
B. No
C. No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
It is unclear how the different calculations in different documents relate to each other (and to the information request) in Parts A and B. The information request pertained to Appendix K, which the proponent indicates is unchanged. However, the response in Part A discusses calculations in Appendix C of Appendix F and in another geochemistry evaluation in an unspecified location. The response to Part B suggests that the geochemical modelling in Appendix K is "outdated" however the proponent did not supersede or otherwise revise it. The response to Part B also refers to an assumption in Section 5 (assumed to be in Appendix JJ) that was not found. It is unknown which of these calculations or documents are carried forward for use in effects determination and development of monitoring programs.
The response to Part C contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS (Section 5 of Appendix JJ) which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
See also TMI 55.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to Parts A, B and C of information request MW(1)-21.
The geochemistry evaluation should be presented in a cohesive and integrated manner.
As part of a complete response, explain the relation between the various geochemistry documents:

Appendix C of Appendix F
Appendix K
Appendix JJ (section 5)
Geochemistry assessment in Section 6 of the revised EIS

Clarify whether Appendix K should be superseded; if so, indicate why and where a similar level of detail is found.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
60
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-22
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review. The confirmation requested was not provided, nor was the justification found.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request MW(1)-22 to provide additional technical information. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
61
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-23
Complete:
A. No
B. No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete. The response refers to a conceptual closure plan in section 3.14 of the revised EIS. However, this plan does not contain any information specific to Parts A and B.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request MW(1)-23 Parts A and B and revise the response to provide a more complete and detailed response.

ID:
62
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-24
Complete:
Yes

ID:
63
IR-1 Reference #:
MW(1)-25
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete. The proponent has not provided a description of feasible contingencies that will ensure adequate water cover is maintained until the dry cover is to be administered.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request MW(1)-25 to provide additional information on feasible contingencies that will ensure that adequate water cover is maintained until the dry cover is administered.

ID:
64
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-01
Complete:
Yes

ID:
65
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-02
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
Figure 13: .10.2-1 "Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Network" is missing in the revised EIS. In addition, the response does not address seepage volume or travel time.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request GW(1)-02 to provide additional technical information related to the justification of the location of groundwater monitoring wells.

ID:
66
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-03
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
The seepage water quality described in Appendix JJ, Section 6 is sufficient to allow a technical review. However, the IR also required the proponent to "Include conservative estimates of loadings to surface water, predicted effects to offsite groundwater and feasible mitigation measures." The response provided does not include this information.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request GW(1)-03 to provide additional information on seepage water quality and loadings to surface water features.

ID:
67
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-04
Complete:
Yes

ID:
68
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-05
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
C. No
Context and Rationale:
The response to Parts B and C contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS (in this case the entire section 5 of t appendix JJ) which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to Parts B and C of information request GW(1)-05. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
69
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-06
Complete:
Yes

ID:
70
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-07
Complete:
Yes

ID:
71
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-08
Complete:
Yes

ID:
72
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-09
Complete:
Yes

ID:
73
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-10
Complete:
Yes

ID:
74
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-11
Complete:
Yes

ID:
75
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-12
Complete:
Yes

ID:
76
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-13
Complete:
Yes

ID:
77
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-14
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information request was not addressed in the response. The proponent refers to the updated WRSA design and advancement of engineering for the project, but does not directly address the information request asking that they explain how vertical infiltration from the WSRA will be controlled. The proponent's response seems to have been cut off mid-sentence.
In addition, the response contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request GW(1)-14 to explain how vertical infiltration from the WSRA will be controlled. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
78
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-15
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
C. Yes
D. No
E. No
Context and Rationale:
The response provided for Parts B is not sufficiently specific regarding mitigation measures for wells affected by pit dewatering.
The response provided for parts D and E do not directly address the questions.
In addition, the response contains references to sections of the revised EIS which are too vague to allow one to find information relevant to the questions. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the responses to Parts B of information request GW(1)-15 to provide additional information.
Provide a complete and detailed response to Parts D and E of information request GW(1)-15.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
79
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-16
Complete:
Yes

ID:
80
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-17
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review.
The information request is to "provide a mitigation/contingency plan in the event of exceedances to prevent the spread of contaminants to receiving environments". However, the response refers to Table 6.22-1, which is a summary of all measures to mitigate the potential adverse effects of the project. This is not sufficiently specific to the question nor does it constitute a plan.
In addition, the response contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request GW(1)-17 to provide additional information regarding a mitigation and contingency plan. Be specific as to the mitigation measures and implementation thereof. Confirm whether there will be a commitment to employ techniques such as seepage collection wells in the event that contaminated groundwater is found to be seeping from the TMA and WRSA.
Note that Figure 13.10.2-1 "Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Network" is missing in the revised EIS.

ID:
81
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-18
Complete:
Yes

ID:
82
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-19
Complete:
Yes

ID:
83
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-20
Complete:
Yes

ID:
84
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-21
Complete:
Yes

ID:
85
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-22
Complete:
Yes

ID:
86
IR-1 Reference #:
GW(1)-23
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete. In discussing the source of groundwater, the response refers to both the original and the revised EIS, including sections of the original EIS that have been superseded. The response does not address effects and mitigation measures related to groundwater quality and quantity.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request GW(1)-23 to provide additional technical information.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
87
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-01
Complete:
Yes

ID:
88
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-02
Complete:
Yes

ID:
89
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-03
Complete:
Yes

ID:
90
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-04
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes
C Yes
9 1
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-05
Complete:
Yes

ID:
92
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-06
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response is incomplete the proponent did not assess the potential effect of seepage upon surface water quality through to the abandonment phase.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request SW(1)-06.

ID:
93
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-07
Complete:
Yes

ID:
94
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-08
Complete:
Yes

ID:
95
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-09
Complete:
Yes

ID:
96
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-10
Complete:
Yes

ID:
97
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-11
Complete:
Yes

ID:
98
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-12
Complete:
Yes

ID:
99
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-13
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes

ID:
100
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-14
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes

ID:
101
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-15
Complete:
Yes

ID:
102
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-16
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes
C. Yes
D. No
Context and Rationale:
The response to Part D is lacking some of the details originally requested. The applicable standards and action levels that may trigger mitigations were not described in the monitoring plan.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request SW(1)-16 and provide additional information.

ID:
103
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-17
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes

ID:
104
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-18
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes
C. Yes
D. Yes

ID:
105
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-19
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes
C. Yes
D. Yes
E. Yes

ID:
106
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-20
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The proponent has not provided a water quality monitoring framework. An understanding of the proposed monitoring is required at the EA stage.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request SW(1)-20.

ID:
107
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-21
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The proponent did not develop a plan to monitor and mitigate for increases in TSS, turbidity and erosion.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request SW(1)-21.

ID:
108
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-22
Complete:
Yes

ID:
109
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-23
Complete:
Yes

ID:
110
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-24
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes

ID:
111
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-25
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
C. Yes
Context and Rationale:
Part B required that the proponent "Quantify and assess potential impacts to surface water from the pit lake and TSF discharges. Provide a monitoring program and a contingency plan, and include trigger criteria and feasible mitigation and remediation measures."
The response provided does not answer the question directly.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request SW(1)-25 Part B and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue of monitoring program, contingency plan, trigger criteria and mitigation and remediation .

ID:
112
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-26
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes

ID:
113
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-27
Complete:
Yes

ID:
114
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-28
Complete:
Yes

ID:
115
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-29
Complete:
Yes

ID:
116
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-30
Complete:
Yes

ID:
117
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-31
Complete:
Yes

ID:
118
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-32
Complete:
Yes

ID:
119
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-33
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response directed the reader to look in an Appendix and does not answer the question of evaporative rates used in the analysis.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request SW(1)-33.

ID:
120
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-34
Complete:
Yes

ID:
121
IR-1 Reference #:
SW(1)-35
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response to information request SW(1)-35 contains a reference to Section 6 of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request SW(1)-35 to provide additional technical information. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand (flow and fish habitat), provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
122
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-01
Complete:
Yes

ID:
123
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-02
Complete:
A. No
B. No
C. No
D. Yes
E. Yes
Context and Rationale:
The response states that the project's laydown areas ."will not impact fish and fish habitat resources" but Appendix II page 12 table 2 identifies that there will be an impact to fish habitat from the laydown areas. This discrepancy must be resolved.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request FH(1)-02 to address the discrepancy. Revise the responses to Parts A, B and C if there is indeed an impact to fish habitat from the laydown areas.

ID:
124
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-03
Complete:
Yes

ID:
125
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-04
Complete:
A. No
B. Yes
C. No
D. Yes
Context and Rationale:
The response to Part A does not demonstrate the types of fish habitat that will be impacted by the proposed mine works. Additionally, it is unclear where the answer to the question is in the revised EIS due to a lack of proper reference.
The response to Part C contains a reference to a table (Table 1) that does not exist, and therefore leaves the question unanswered.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request FH(1)-04 Part A to provide additional technical information.
Provide a complete and detailed response to Part C.

ID:
126
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-05
Complete:
A: Yes
B: No
Context and Rationale:
The response to Part B does not directly address the question of monitoring of groundwater input to streams and potential impacts to fish and fish habitat.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request FH(1)-05 Part B and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue and provide additional technical information.

ID:
127
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-06
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
C. No
D. Yes
E. No
F. No
G. Yes
H. Yes
I. No
Context and Rationale:
The response is incomplete.
The response to Part B referenced tables that quantify impacts to fish habitat, but impacts were not identified according to mine component. As fish habitat compensation/offsetting was not quantified. As addressed in the response to Parts B, E, and F, no fish habitat compensation/offsetting plans have completed. Without a fish habitat compensation/offsetting plan, it is difficult to determine the overall impacts to fish and fish habitat.
The response to Part C references figure TMI_127-FH(1)-06_Figure_1. This figure was not found in the Annex 1 Figures document.
For Parts E and F, the information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review.
The response to Part G (found in Section 6 of the revised EIS) does not clarify the types of fish habitat that will be impacted by the proposed works.
The response to Part I states that no Environmental Monitoring Plan has been finalized for the proposed works. Without any plans in place, it is difficult to determine if monitoring practices are appropriate. In addition, the request is broader than the MMER and EEM and hence the information provided does not answer the question directly.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request FH(1)-06 Part B to provide additional information. Provide updated tables that identify the fish habitat effects by mine component, the amount of habitat created or restored to offset the loss of fish habitat, a summary breakdown of project components with consideration under Fisheries Act section 35(2) and the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations Schedule 2 amendment.
Revise the response to information request FH(1)-06 Part C to provide additional technical information.
Revise the response to information request FH(1)-06 Parts D, E, F to provide additional information regarding a fish compensation/offsetting plan.
Revise the response to information request FH(1)-06 Part G to provide additional information on the types of fish habitat that will be impacted by the proposed works, including maps.
Revise the response to information request FH(1)-06 Part I to provide additional information on monitoring practices.

ID:
128
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-07
Complete:
A. No
B. No
C. Yes
Context and Rationale:
The response to Part A does not provide detailed erosion and sediment control measures. Detailed erosion and sediment control measures are necessary to determine if the proposed measures will be effective is preventing the release of a deleterious substance into a waterbody.
The response to Part B indicates that no monitoring plans have been finalized. Without any plans in place, it is difficult to determine if monitoring practices are appropriate.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request FH(1)-07 Parts A and B to provide additional detail.
For Part A, provide details on specific erosion and sediment control measures that may be employed during the proposed works.
For Part B, provide detail on proposed monitoring plan, include duration (years), data collection methods (Sampling methods), and means of analyzing data which will be implemented to detect ongoing or potential adverse effects. Includes the proposed mitigation strategies or adaptive management strategies that will be used if adverse effects are detected.

ID:
129
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-08
Complete:
Yes

ID:
130
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-09
Complete:
A No
B No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided in response to Part A does not answer the question of water management plans for water diversions.
The information provided in response to Part B does not directly address the issue of identification of the mitigation.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request FH(1)-09 Parts A and B to provide additional technical information.

ID:
131
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-10
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question. Information request FH(1)-10 asked for ". a summary of fish and fish habitat information collected for the Project both within and outside of the Local Study Area". There is no reference to such a summary in the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to provide additional technical information.

ID:
132
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-11
Complete:
A. No
B. Yes
C. No
D. No
E. No
Context and Rationale:
For Part A, the information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review.
For Part C, the information provided is incomplete requested information was on the wetlands.
For Part D, the information provided does not answer the question directly.
For Part E, the request was broader than the MMER and EEM and Blackwater Creek (see FH(1)-07) and hence the information provided does not answer the question directly.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the responses to information request FH(1)-11 to more specifically address the main issue of the effects to wetlands and monitoring in general broader than MMER.

ID:
133
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-12
Complete:
Yes

ID:
134
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-13
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
C. No
Context and Rationale:
The response is incomplete.
The response to Part B indicates that the pit-lake will provide some fish habitat and further information is found in section 6. However, section 6 provides no predictions of the contaminant concentrations in fish that may have access to the pit-lake following decommissioning.
The response to Part C fails to predict contaminant concentrations in fish as a result of pit lake water entering Blackwater Creek and Wabigoon Lake following decommissioning of the mine. Section 6 provides no predictions of the contaminant concentrations in fish in the affected waterbodies.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request FH(1)-13 and revise the response to Parts B and C to provide additional information.

ID:
135
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-14
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete. The response does not provide information about the effect of change of water temperature on fish and fish habitat, other than offering a nonspecific reference to the entire revised EIS. This reference is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request FH(1)-14. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible.
Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
136
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-15
Complete:
Yes

ID:
137
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-16
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
It was noted that the only impact to fish assessed for significance in the revised EIS was associated with overprinting of Blackwater Creek tributaries and fish mortality. As a result, impacts to fish associated with changes in water quality due to a release of a deleterious substance was not assessed for significance. In addition, it was noted that the significance for timing on fish mortality was assessed as level III in section 8.14.2.3, but in table 8.14.2.7-1 timing on fish mortality was assessed as level I.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request FH(1)-16 to provide additional information.
Clarify why changes in water quality was not assessed for significance in regards to fish and fish habitat.
Clarify if timing on fish mortality was assessed as level I or level III for significance, and ensure that there is consistency between the document and table.

ID:
138
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-17
Complete:
Yes

ID:
139
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-18
Complete:
Yes

ID:
140
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-19
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly, as the fish salvage plan is not yet available.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide information on when the fish salvage plan will be ready.

ID:
141
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-20
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly. The relevant section of the revised EIS does not explain how the boundaries of the LSA and RSA take into account the spatial extent and scale of potential environmental effects on fish and fish habitat, community and Aboriginal traditional knowledge, current land and resource use by Aboriginal groups, or ecological, technical, social, and cultural considerations.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request FH(1)-20 and revise the response to more specifically address the question.

ID:
142
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-21
Complete:
A. No
B. No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not specifically answer Part A or Part B. Additionally, the response refers to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request FH(1)-21 and provide a complete and detailed response to Parts A and B.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.
Keep in mind that an approach to dealing with this issue without meaningful engagement with the Indigenous group is insufficient.

ID:
143
IR-1 Reference #:
FH(1)-22
Complete:
Yes

ID:
144
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-01
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review.
The response states that the "LSA was defined as lands and waters of the watershed in which the proposed development footprint is located." Defining study areas based on the project footprint is not a suitable method to capture appropriate habitat for wildlife species, including birds and SAR, to carry out life cycles processes. As indicated in IR WL(1)-01, the scale of the ecological matrix is different for many species because of their specific requirements (e.g. home range).
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request WL(1)-01 to provide additional technical information that justifies the use of a 5 km radius circle (buffer) centered on the existing portal to define the local study area and a small watershed (~145 Km²) to define the regional study area which is used to assess the project effects on wildlife.

ID:
145
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-02
Complete:
Yes

ID:
146
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-03
Complete:
Yes

ID:
147
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-04
Complete:
Yes

ID:
148
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-05
Complete:
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes
Context and Rationale:
A. The information provided is incomplete.
The IR response states that "the use of the TSF by birds, ungulates, species at risk and other wildlife will not present an immediate threat to their health and well-being." However, the response provides no description and analysis of the possibility of wildlife using the TSF for drinking water. Further, there is no indication in the response as to whether effects assessment was conducted which would allow the reviewer to draw links between the results of the ecological risk assessment evaluated in Appendix W and quality of drinking water assessment in the TSF.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request WL(1)-05. Provide a revised assessment of significant adverse effects on wildlife that includes a description and analysis for the use of TSF by wildlife and a link to the ecological risk assessment for accessing the TSF and using it for drinking.

ID:
149
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-06
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes

ID:
150
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-07
Complete:
A. No
B. Yes
Context and Rationale:
The information provided in response to Part A is insufficient to allow a technical review and the reference provided is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. The reference should be specific to the information requested such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request WL(1)-07 Part A to provide additional technical information. Describe the anticipated effects of water takings on the wetlands that are located within anticipated zone of influence (ZOI).
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
151
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-08
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review.
The information request required that data be collected for moose aquatic feeding areas (MAFAs), calving areas, mineral licks, and animal denning sites. MAFA data were collected in wetlands, but otherwise, data on the other features were still relying on existing databases (i.e. DFMC also uses MNRF data, and NHIC has not surveyed this area for those features) where information has not been collected in this area.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request WL(1)-08 to provide additional information. Collect data (using thorough ground search) on moose aquatic feeding areas, calving sites, mineral licks, and animal denning sites to determine if Significant Wildlife Habitat features occur in the local and regional study areas. Include a map showing the sites within the LSA and RSA that were searched and analyze results from the data collected on moose aquatic feeding areas, calving sites, mineral licks, and animal denning sites to identify potential impacts on the ability of Aboriginal peoples to exercise traditional land use practices.

ID:
152
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-09
Complete:
Yes

ID:
153
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-10
Complete:
Yes

ID:
154
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-11
Complete:
Yes

ID:
155
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-12
Complete:
Yes

ID:
156
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-13
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
C. No
Context and Rationale:
The response to Parts B and C contains an incorrect reference to a section of the revised EIS. The reference should be accurate to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a detailed and complete response to information request WL(1)-13 Parts B and C. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
157
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-14
Complete:
Yes

ID:
158
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-15
Complete:
Yes

ID:
159
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-16
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete to allow a technical review.
TMI indicates that an IGF and AAF have been submitted to the Dryden District of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) office. However, according to MNRF neither has been received as of September 12, 2017. In addition, the information requested in the information request should be included in the revised EIS. The reference provided in the response is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request WL(1)-16 and provide additional information.
For Part A, submit the IGF and AAF form to the Dryden District MNRF Office. Include the information from the IGF in the revised EIS and the revised response to this IR.
For Part B, confirm whether the effects assessment and follow-up program were amended. If so, provide additional information.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
160
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-17
Complete:
Yes

ID:
161
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-18
Complete:
Yes

ID:
162
IR-1 Reference #:
WL(1)-19
Complete:
Yes

ID:
163
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-01
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
Context and Rationale:
Part B was not addressed in the answer.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AE(1)-01 Part B.

ID:
164
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-02
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the information request directly.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AE(1)-02 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, "provide a comprehensive follow-up monitoring plan for air quality," as required for CEAA 2012 at the EA phase and during the regulatory phase.

ID:
165
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-03
Complete:
Yes

ID:
166
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-04
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided in the response is incomplete.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
As requested in information request AE(1)-04, provide sample calculations and methodology for determining air quality thresholds.

ID:
167
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-05
Complete:
Yes

ID:
168
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-06
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise information request AE(1)-06 to provide additional information. Clarify whether the predicted impacts of the mine at the property line already include the mitigation measures proposed. If so, additional mitigation measures are still recommended given that some contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) are above the threshold (or contribute a significant amount compared to the existing conditions for the non-threshold COPCs). Refer to Health Canada's 2017 Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: Air Quality (https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/guidance-evaluating-human-health-impacts-air-quality.html)
Also, see response TMI_172 on choice of most-impacted receptor.

ID:
169
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-07
Complete:
A. No
B. No
C. No
D. No
Context and Rationale:
For Parts A, B, C, and D the information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review. The response does not provide sufficient information to validate the assessment of health risks during the construction phase.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AE(1)-07 Parts A and B and revise the response to provide a complete and detailed response to the main issue, "model and assess potential air quality impacts during construction/site preparation and decommissioning/restoration phases of the project." This includes a dispersion modeling of short term air quality impacts from site preparation and construction activities.
Revise the response to Part C, and justify how higher concentrations on site would be offset by shorter exposure periods for the Aboriginal land users.
Revise the response to Part D to provide additional information. The response currently only covers emissions from equipment extracting aggregate and not from the overall operations of the aggregate pit.

ID:
170
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-08
Complete:
Yes

ID:
171
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-09
Complete:
Yes

ID:
172
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-10
Complete:
A: Yes
B: Yes
C: Yes
D: Yes
E: Yes

ID:
173
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-11
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AE(1)-11. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
174
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-12
Complete:
Yes

ID:
175
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-13
Complete:
Yes

ID:
176
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-14
Complete:
Yes

ID:
177
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-15
Complete:
Yes

ID:
178
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-16
Complete:
Yes

ID:
179
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-17
Complete:
Yes

ID:
180
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-18
Complete:
Yes

ID:
181
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-19
Complete:
Yes

ID:
182
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-20
Complete:
Yes

ID:
183
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-21
Complete:
A. No
B. Yes
Context and Rationale:
The information provided in response to Part A is incomplete.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise information request AE(1)-21 Part A to provide a definition of the LSA and RSA based on quantitative analysis.

ID:
184
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-22
Complete:
Yes

ID:
185
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-23
Complete:
Yes

ID:
186
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-24
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AE (1)-23 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, "include traffic to and from the project site in the noise modelling."

ID:
187
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-25
Complete:
Yes

ID:
188
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-26
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response implies that the lack of traditional land use studies prevents them from obtaining the necessary information. The requested information does not need to come from TLU studies.
The response does not demonstrate how TMI intends to fulfill the request. The comment is regarding lack of engagement with Indigenous groups in identifying noise sensitive receptor locations; however it appears TMI's engagement with Indigenous groups to-date has been inadequate.
The response contains a confusing remark: "As defined by MOECC, the current use of the lands and resources for traditional purposes would not be recognized as a sensitive receptor."
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a detailed response to information request AE(1)-26 explaining how TMI intends to address the concerns presented and incorporate the information into a revised EIS, keeping in mind previous engagement by TMI was inadequate.

ID:
189
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-27
Complete:
Yes

ID:
190
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-28
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AE(1)-28 to provide additional technical information, such as using proper guidance on noise as requested in information request AE(1)-28.

ID:
191
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-29
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
Context and Rationale:
Part B was not addressed in the response. The rationale provided does not address concerns regarding noise impacts to surrounding receptors.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AE(1)-29 Part B.

ID:
192
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-30
Complete:
Yes

ID:
193
IR-1 Reference #:
AE(1)-31
Complete:
A: Yes
B: No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer Part B directly. Information about a noise monitoring program is required as part of the effects analysis, to verify modeled sound levels during all phases of the project.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AE(1)-31 Part B to provide a noise monitoring program.

ID:
194
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-01
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes
C. No
D. Yes
E. Yes
F. Yes
G. No
Context and Rationale:
The Information provided with respect to Aboriginal Engagement activities regarding site-specific data is incomplete. The response to Part C has indicated that "Treasury Metals has made extensive efforts to engage and elicit input from Aboriginal peoples." However, no information can be found whether site-specific data was acquired or communicated during engagement activities as requested.
For Part G, the information provided is incomplete.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request HE(1)-01 to provide additional information.
For Part C, engage Aboriginal groups to obtain site-specific consumption data, including water resources, species, rates, and specific parts that are consumed for fish, wildlife, and plants. If this information cannot be obtained, provide a rationale why, and indicate any public sources of information that could be used as an alternative.
For Part G, identify which Aboriginal groups will be engaged in the Annual Monitoring Report.

ID:
195
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-02
Complete:
A. No
B. No
C. No
Context and Rationale:
A. The information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review.
Information request HE(1)-02 requires a justification for excluding any COPCs identified in waste rock and tailings for the operational phase of the project. However, the response only states the justification for carrying forward lead and mercury in the SLRA. No detailed rationale, such as a discussion of "relative toxicity and abundance" or the inclusion of screening criteria, has been provided for the COPCs that were not retained for further assessment. Several of these COPCs may pose health effects and are at concentrations above those identified for mercury and/or lead. For example, concentrations of zinc are approximately 4 times higher than lead within the waste rock and approximately 2 times higher than lead in soils. Arsenic and cadmium are also considered carcinogenic.
B. The information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review.
The response states that "the HQs were summed per Health Canada guidance" for lead and mercury. However, it appears that the total hazard quotients (HQs) for the sum of mercury and lead were only provided for country foods (Table U); individual HQs are provided for mercury and lead within Tables V to W. Therefore, Tables V to W should be revised to include the total HQs for mercury and lead.
C. The information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review.
The response does not provide an explanation, for the uncertainties surrounding the excluded COCs and the relevance of the exclusions to the conclusion of the HHRA.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request HE(1)-02 to provide additional information.
A. Provide a justification for excluding any COCs identified in waste rock and tailings for the operational phase of the project. Include details regarding the "relative toxicity and abundance" of the COPCs that were not retained for further assessment.
B. Revise Tables V to W to include the total HQs for mercury and lead.
C. In cases where COCs are screened out, explain the uncertainties and relevance of the exclusions to the conclusion of the HHRA.

ID:
196
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-03
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes
C. Yes

ID:
197
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-04
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
C. Yes
Context and Rationale:
The information provided in response to Part C is incomplete.
Section 13.10, Figure 13.10.2-1 is missing from the page.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request HE(1)-04, As part of the response, provide Figure 13.10.2-1 referenced in Section 13.10 of the Revised EIS.

ID:
198
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-05
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes

ID:
199
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-06
Complete:
Yes

ID:
200
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-07
Complete:
Yes

ID:
201
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-08
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided in the response is dependent on the answer to information request HE(1)-02.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to HE(1)-08 in light of the revised response to HE(1)-02. If additional COPCs are retained that are considered carcinogenic, specify the age group considered for the food ingestion rates provided in table J or provide justification for not using adults or multiple age groups.

ID:
202
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-09
Complete:
Yes

ID:
203
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-10
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
Context and Rationale:
Insufficient information provided in the response to Part B to allow a technical review.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review the response to information request HE(1)-10 Part B to provide additional information. Specify whether waste rock and tailings are the only sources of mercury expected at the site.

ID:
204
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-11
Complete:
Yes

ID:
205
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-12
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided in the response to Part B is dependent on the answer to information request HE(1)-02.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
B. Revise the response to HE(1)-08 in light of the revised response to HE(1)-02. Explain why metals other than lead and mercury are excluded and discuss the impacts of this in terms of human exposure and risk.

ID:
206
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-13
Complete:
A. Yes

ID:
207
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-14
Complete:
A. No
B. Yes
C. No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided in the response to Part A is insufficient to allow for a technical review as no details regarding biological monitoring was provided. Furthermore, the response directs the reader to Section 12.4.2 of the original EIS for the overview of the biological monitoring plan. This reference does not work for the revised Section 12. This is important information for determining whether baseline data collection has been adequate.
The response To Part C contradicts the new information incorporated into the revised EIS.
Section 13.14.2.2 of the revised EIS specifically states that monitoring of mercury in fish is not expected to be required in several water bodies. However, the response to Part C notes that "Treasury Metals is aware of concerns regarding mercury levels in the region, and have proposed a monitoring program aimed at addressing these specific concerns."
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request HE(1)-14 Part A to provide details on the monitoring plan, including objectives and questions to be answered.
Revise the response to information request HE(1)-14 Part C to provide additional information. Section 13.14.2.2 should be revised to include the proposed monitoring program. In addition, justify the plan to only measure mercury (i.e. no other contaminants) in fish tissue.

ID:
208
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-15
Complete:
A. No
B. No
Context and Rationale:
The response to Parts A and B does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
While the response to HE(1)-15 may answer the information request, integration of this response into the revised EIS (and demonstration thereof) is required, including clarification that all related elements of the EIS were accordingly updated.

ID:
209
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-16
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes

ID:
210
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-17
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response provided is insufficient to allow a technical review.
The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Table 2 Site condition Standards (SCS) for both residential and agricultural soils for antimony are based on ingestion and dermal contact for human health receptors. An additional rationale should be provided to determine whether antimony should be retained as a contaminant of concern in tailings to ensure potential health risk is not underestimated.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request HE(1)-17 and provide additional information related to the health risk of antimony.

ID:
211
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-18
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly.
The response provides the waste rock concentrations used within the DQRA spreadsheet. However, it is unclear why mercury concentrations in dust were not calculated and/or provided in the same manner as those for lead.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request HE(1)-18 to more specifically address the main issue and provide additional technical information.

ID:
212
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-19
Complete:
Yes

ID:
213
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-20
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review.
The response states that the "inclusion of background concentrations does not result in any other parameters exceeding their respective Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) POI limits and therefore does not alter the conclusions of the HHRA." There is no technical information provided to support this claim.
Additionally, The response provides the waste rock concentrations used within the DQRA spreadsheet. However, it is unclear why mercury concentrations in dust were not calculated and/or provided in the same manner as those for lead.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request HE(1)-20. Revise the assessment to screen the total air concentrations (i.e. maximum incremental POI concentrations + background), where possible, against health-based air quality standards and guidelines (e.g. AAQC or CAAQS).

ID:
214
IR-1 Reference #:
HE (1)-21
Complete:
Yes

ID:
215
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-22
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
Context and Rationale:
Part B was not addressed in the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to Part B of information request HE(1)-22.

ID:
216
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-23
Complete:
Yes

ID:
217
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-24
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response provided is insufficient to allow a technical review.
The response provided a rationale for not evaluating total exposures, while at the same time granting that "it is understood that health risk is dependent on total exposure". The response also relies on mitigation rather than addressing the question.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request HE(1)-24 to provide additional technical information. The SLRA should be revised to use total concentrations of mercury and lead to calculate hazard quotients, so potential health risks are not underestimated.

ID:
218
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-25
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response provided is insufficient to allow a technical review.
The response only provides a worked example for the consumption of plant tissue. Worked examples for the remaining exposure pathways should also be provided, as per Health Canada's preliminary quantitative risk assessment guidance (Health Canada 2012b).
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request HE(1)-25 to provide additional technical information.

ID:
219
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-26
Complete:
Yes

ID:
220
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-27
Complete:
Yes

ID:
221
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-28
Complete:
Yes

ID:
222
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-29
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly.
Treasury Metals was requested to revise the assessment for the screening level human health risk assessment to ensure parameters and calculations performed om the DQRA are in accordance with current guidance on preliminary quantitative risk assessment and DQRA for chemicals (Health Canada 2010c; 2012b). However, the response does not provide what is requested.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request HE(1)-29 and revise the response to more specifically address the question.

ID:
223
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-30
Complete:
Yes

ID:
224
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-31
Complete:
Yes

ID:
225
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-32
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided contains errors which make it insufficient to allow for a technical review.
If Scenario 3 does not include dust inhalation (only country food ingestion), a hazard quotient for inhalation would not be provided. It appears that inhalation of fugitive dust was selected as 'Yes' for the country foods modeling scenario (Scenario 3).
Additionally, there appears to be a discrepancy between the country food concentrations provided in-text tables (Tables P and T) and the values entered within the country food DQRA models, including the following:
• Concentration inorganic mercury in fish in the operational model; and
• Concentration of inorganic mercury in fish and wild game for the post-closure model.
As such, the calculations should be reviewed and revised accordingly.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request HE(1)-32 and provide additional technical information.
Provide a rationale for why an inhalation of fugitive dust was selected as ‘yes' for the country foods modelling scenario (Scenario 3). Additionally, address the discrepancies between the country food concentrations provided in tables P and T and the values entered within the country food DQRA models.

ID:
226
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-33
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
C. No
D. No
Context and Rationale:
Parts B, C, and D were not addressed in the answer.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request HE(1)-33 Parts B, C and D. The data must be provided.

ID:
227
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-34
Complete:
Yes

ID:
228
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-34
Complete:
A. No
B. No
C. No
D. No
Context and Rationale:
The response to HE (1)-34 Part A contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Parts C and D were not addressed in the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request HE (1)-34. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
229
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-36
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes
C. No
Context and Rationale:
The response to Part C is incomplete. The response does not demonstrate how mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to Aboriginal peoples.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request HE(1)-36 Part C to provide additional information.

ID:
230
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-37
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request HE (1)-37. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
231
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-38
Complete:
A. No
B. No
C. No
D. No
Context and Rationale:
A. The reviewer was unable to find the response referred to in the EIS.
B. The response does not demonstrate how existing information with respect to Aboriginal groups was integrated into the description or baseline conditions and effects assessment sections.
C. The response does not demonstrate that baseline information was collected related to potential impacts to Aboriginal peoples by the Project.
D. No input from Aboriginal groups has been collected or documented or evidence that engagement attempts have been undertaken.
The response overall is too vague and does not provide information about Aboriginal groups' land use, which therefore would not be integrated into the effects assessments.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review the response to information request HE(1)-38 and revise response to demonstrate the engagement with Aboriginal groups to collect baseline information about land use and Aboriginal and Treaty rights and where that baseline information is provided incorporate it into the effects and impacts assessments.

ID:
232
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-39
Complete:
Yes

ID:
233
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-40
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
While the response to information request HE(1)-40 may answer the information request, integration of this response into the revised EIS (and demonstration thereof) is required, including clarification that all related elements of the EIS were accordingly updated.

ID:
234
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-41
Complete:
A. No
B. No
Context and Rationale:
The response to Part A contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. In addition, a cursory review of the sections of the EIS that are referred to in the response does not reveal the information requested. For example, the response states "The Aboriginal Engagement report provides a listing of the disaggregate comments from Aboriginal peoples, and how those were addressed in the Project design and EIS." The listing being referred to contains comments from Indigenous groups, however the Agency requested information about Indigenous land and resource use activities that could be affected by the project.
The response to Part B does not directly address the request.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request HE(1)-41 Part A to provide additional technical information. If the information requested is contained in the revised EIS, provide references to specific sections where it can be found (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient). Otherwise, provide the requested information in the response, and provide rationales for missing information.
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request HE(1)-41 Part B.

ID:
235
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-42
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly. The response contains links to sections of the EIS that either do not answer the question, or refers the reader to yet another section of the EIS.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request HE(1)-42 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been addressed. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
236
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-43
Complete:
A. No
B. No
C. No
D. No
Context and Rationale:
The response to Parts A and B contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Parts C and D were not addressed in the answer, and if the information is included in the revised EIS, it is unclear where it can be found.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Address each Part of information request HE(1)-43 individually (i.e. A, B, C, and D), with a clear reference(s) to the EIS, if applicable The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
237
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-44
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly, and the response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS. A description of potential effects resulting from a specific action, applicable mitigation measures and resulting significance was required; a discussion of general engagement to date is not a sufficient response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request HE(1)-44 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue
Integration of this response into the revised EIS (and demonstration thereof) is also required, including clarification that all related elements of the EIS were accordingly updated.

ID:
238
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-45
Complete:
A. No
B. No
Context and Rationale:
The response to Parts A and B contains a reference to a section(s) of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request HE(1)-45 Parts A and B to provide a complete and detailed technical response The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
239
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-46
Complete:
Yes

ID:
240
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-47
Complete:
A. No
B. Yes
C. No
D. Yes
E. Yes
Context and Rationale:
A. The response does not demonstrate how TMI intends to fulfill the request. While the comment is regarding lack of engagement with Aboriginal groups on potential cultural heritage resources, the response provides only a vague commitment to future engagement with Aboriginal peoples.
C. The information provided is incomplete. The map of the LSA is unclear and difficult to relate to the Project site; no information is provided about the RSA.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request HE(1)-47 Part A; revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been addressed.
Revise the response to Part C to provide additional technical information.

ID:
241
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-48
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response contains a general reference to the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request HE(1)-48. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
242
IR-1 Reference #:
HE(1)-49
Complete:
Yes

ID:
243
IR-1 Reference #:
AM(1)-01
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes
C. No
Context and Rationale:
For Part C, the information provided does not answer the question directly.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AM(1)-01 Part C, to describe contingency and emergency response procedures if spills and releases, and cyanide-related accidents and malfunctions occur.

ID:
244
IR-1 Reference #:
AM(1)-02
Complete:
A. Yes
B. No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
The response to Part B includes a definition of the terms "moderate environmental impact, medium term environmental impact and severe long term environmental impact" however does not include a definition for "major regulatory violations versus severe breach of regulations with operation suspended".
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AM(1)-02 Part B to provide additional technical information. Define the term "major regulatory violations versus severe breach of regulations with operation suspended".

ID:
245
IR-1 Reference #:
AM(1)-03
Complete:
A. No
B. No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
The response states the likelihood that there would be a potential slope failure of the open pit, waste rock and low-grade ore stockpiles and failures of the seepage collection system, the tailings or effluent pipeline, and then provides an overview of design features. However the response does not provide a description of the potential environmental effects if the identified accidents and/or malfunctions were to occur, or a description of the contingency and emergency response procedures that would be implemented in such an event.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AM(1)-03.
A. Describe the potential environmental effects from potential slope failures of the open pit, waste rock and low-grade ore stockpiles and failures of the seepage collection system, the tailings or effluent pipeline on fish and fish habitat, migratory birds, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, Aboriginal health and socio-economic conditions, Aboriginal physical and cultural heritage, and any structure, site, or thing of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance to Aboriginal groups.
B. Describe contingency and emergency response procedures for the potential effects noted above if accidents and/or malfunctions occur.

ID:
246
IR-1 Reference #:
AM(1)-04
Complete:
A. No
B. No
C. No
Context and Rationale:
A. The information provided is insufficient to validate the conclusions.
As stated in the rationale of AM(1)-04, "there is a risk high water levels and velocities such as spring freshet would remobilize the settled particles and affected the water quality in Wabigoon Lake and acid generation condition may also begin."
B. The information provided is insufficient.
Part B requires a description of the effects, and their duration, if particulate materials remobilize with heavy rainfall or spring freshet prior to mitigation measures being implemented.
C. The information provided is insufficient.
Although "the quality of water released into Blackwater Creek will meet the water quality authorized limits in the federal Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER), with the exception of lead", these are only authorized under controlled conditions and not meant for during an unlikely event of a TSF failure. Furthermore, the response states that "none of the tailings present within the TSF were predicted to reach Wabigoon Lake during the modelled failure event." However, heavy rainfalls during the failure event may cause the tailings to reach Wabigoon Lake.
Nevertheless, Part C is a follow-up to Parts A and B. Since the responses to A and B are insufficient, Part C will need to be addressed again.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AM(1)-04 Part A to provide additional information. Provide an analysis of what the contaminant levels would be within the sediment and within the aquatic food web following a tailings storage facility failure, with a focus on contaminants that persist in the environment, bioaccumulate in fish or are toxic to fish, migratory birds or Aboriginal people.
Revise the response to Part B to provide additional information. Describe the effects and their duration if particulate materials remobilize with every heavy rainfall or spring freshet.
Revise the response to Part C to provide additional information. Describe detailed contingency and emergency response procedures, for a tailings storage facility failure to address effects to fish and fish habitat, migratory birds, and effects to Aboriginal peoples including, but not be limited to, country foods, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, and health and socio-economic conditions.

ID:
247
IR-1 Reference #:
AM(1)-05
Complete:
Yes

ID:
248
IR-1 Reference #:
AM(1)-06
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes

ID:
249
IR-1 Reference #:
AM(1)-07
Complete:
A. No
B. No
C. No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete. The proponent has not responded directly to the information request outlining the risk of large landslides in clay units.
The response states that ".further geotechnical studies."will be done, and that "...Treasury Metals will complete an Engineered design for all components of the Project including the waste rock storage area (WRSA) and Overburden storage area." The information requested in AM(1)-07 was not provided.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AM(1)-07.
A. Document the physical and mechanical properties of the glaciolacustrine clays (e.g. liquidity index to assess the capacity of these soils to flow once mobilized by a failure; piezocone tests to obtain a more detailed stratigraphy and more representative strength parameters).
B. Provide information of the possibility that down-hill progressive landslides (e.g. Bernander, 2008) could be induced by the weight of the two storage areas (Waste Rock Storage Area and the Overburden Storage Area, e.g. Fig. 3.01 (EIS).
C. Provide results of slope stability analyses and mitigation measures if required in (Appendix HH)

ID:
250
IR-1 Reference #:
AM(1)-08
Complete:
Yes

ID:
251
IR-1 Reference #:
CE(1)-01
Complete:
A. No
B. Yes
C. No
D. Yes
Context and Rationale:
A. The information provided is insufficient to allow for a technical review.
C. The map provided in Section 7 does not define the spatial boundaries that encompass the potential environmental effects on the selected valued components of the Project in combination with other physical activities that have been or will be carried out, including the additional projects listed in TMI_252 - CE(1)-02. Additionally, Section 7.2.2 makes numerous references to figures found in other sections of the EIS.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request CE(1)-01 Part A to provide additional technical information regarding the effects rating criteria and the method by which criteria were combined and weighted.
Revise the response to Part C to provide additional technical information.

ID:
252
IR-1 Reference #:
CE(1)-02
Complete:
A: Yes
B: Yes
C: No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
Although a map has been provided in Section 7.2.5, Figure 7.2.5-1, not all of the information requested in comment C was provided. The map does not show all of the locations of past, existing, certain and reasonably foreseeable physical activities.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request CE(1)-02 Part C to provide additional technical information.

ID:
253
IR-1 Reference #:
CE(1)-03
Complete:
Yes

ID:
254
IR-1 Reference #:
CE(1)-04
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided in Section 7 of the Revised EIS is insufficient to allow a technical review.
The response indicates that the "revised EIS is organized in a manner that corresponds with the requirements described in the EIS Guidelines, and specifically addresses issues identified in the IR Round 1 relating to the evaluation of cumulative effects". However, the information provided appears to be limited in quantitative data, qualitative rationale, and analysis to substantiate the conclusions of the assessment of cumulative effects in combination with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities in the study areas.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request CE(1)-04 to provide additional information. Provide quantitative data and analysis to substantiate the conclusions of the assessment of cumulative effects in combination with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities in the study areas. If no quantitative data is available provide a rationale clearly explaining the reasons why the data is not readily available and, provide a qualitative assessment to substantiate the conclusions.

ID:
255
IR-1 Reference #:
CE(1)-05
Complete:
Yes

ID:
256
IR-1 Reference #:
CE(1)-06
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
The response indicates that for "accidents and malfunctions that are likely to occur (13 failure modes), and for which residual effects are predicted, have been included in an updated cumulative effects assessment presented as part of the revised EIS." No information regarding accidents and malfunctions can be found in the Cumulative Effects Assessment (Section 7).
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request CE(1)-06 to provide additional information and analysis related to how effects from accidents and malfunction scenarios may interact in a cumulative manner with the residual effects from the project The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
257
IR-1 Reference #:
CE(1)-07
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
The details requested in information request CE(1)-07 were not provided in the answer. Furthermore, the required information cannot be found in the referenced sections (Section 6.21 and 7 of the Revised EIS) provided in the answer.
According to table 7.3.2-1 several future activities appear to have an overlap in their spatial extents and temporal boundaries when considering Aboriginal Peoples as valued components. However, no details are provided as to what type of assessment was taken into account when concluding that the activities considered are too minor to have measurable cumulative effects.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
As required in information request CE(1)-07, provide additional technical detail to describe the potential cumulative effects of water quality and health effects, gathering of country foods, and hunting and trapping, and fishing pertaining to Indigenous groups. Include future activities that overlap spatially and temporally, or provide a rationale for their exclusion.

ID:
258
IR-1 Reference #:
EE(1)-01
Complete:
Yes

ID:
259
IR-1 Reference #:
EE(1)-02
Complete:
Yes

ID:
260
IR-1 Reference #:
EE(1)-03
Complete:
Yes

ID:
261
IR-1 Reference #:
EE(1)-04
Complete
Yes

ID:
262
IR-1 Reference #:
EE(1)-05
Complete:
Yes

ID:
263
IR-1 Reference #:
EE(1)-06
Complete:
Yes

ID:
264
IR-1 Reference #:
EE(1)-07
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request EE (1)-07 to provide details on how beavers and beaver dams will be monitored and managed, including the perspective on Aboriginal peoples. Requires more technical information.

ID:
265
IR-1 Reference #:
PB(1)-1
Complete:
Yes

ID:
266
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-01
Complete:
Yes

ID:
267
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-02
Complete:
Yes
Context and Rationale:
DFO notes that the response to Part A stated that no Fish Compensation/Offsetting Plans have been completed. Without any plans in place, it is difficult to determine if offsetting measures are appropriate. DFO expects these plans in the future.
ECCC notes that the fish habitat compensation plan has not been developed and costs have not been estimated as requested. To streamline the approvals process this information should be provided to regulators during the EA.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:

ID:
268
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-03
Complete:
Yes
Context and Rationale:
The response to Part A stated that no Fish Compensation/Offsetting Plans have been completed. Without any plans in place, it is difficult to determine if offsetting measures are appropriate. This has been noted by DFO, and plans are anticipated in the future.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:

ID:
269
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-04
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response refers the reader to two appendices and one section of the revised EIS as sources of information to fulfill the information request. These references are too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. References should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request RG(1)-04. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
270
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-05
Complete:
Yes

ID:
271
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-06
Complete:
Yes

ID:
272
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-07
Complete:
Yes

ID:
273
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-08
Complete:
Yes

ID:
274
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-09
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete. In addition, the response refers to an appendix of the revised EIS (Appendix D-2) which is too broad to allow one to find the information relevant to the question.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request RG(1)-09 and revise the response to more specifically address the specific information requests.

ID:
275
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-10
Complete:
Yes

ID:
276
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-11
Complete:
Yes

ID:
277
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-12
Complete:
Yes

ID:
278
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-13
Complete:
Yes

ID:
279
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-14
Complete:
Yes

ID:
280
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-15
Complete:
Yes

ID:
281
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-16
Complete:
Yes

ID:
282
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-17
Complete:
Yes

ID:
283
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-18
Complete:
Yes

ID:
284
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-19
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete to allow a technical review.
TMI indicates that an IGF and AAF has been submitted to the Dryden District of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) office. However, according to MNRF neither has been received as of September 12, 2017.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Submit the IGF and AAF form to the Dryden District MNRF Office. Also provide information relevant to the information request in a self-contained response.

ID:
285
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-20
Complete:
Yes

ID:
286
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-21
Complete:
Yes

ID:
287
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-22
Complete:
Yes

ID:
288
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-23
Complete:
Yes

ID:
289
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-24
Complete:
Yes

ID:
290
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-25
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete. The references included in the responses were not found.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request RG(1)-25 and provide the appropriate technical information.

ID:
291
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-26
Complete:
Yes

ID:
292
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-27
Complete:
Yes

ID:
293
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-28
Complete:
Yes

ID:
294
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-29
Complete:
Yes

ID:
295
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-30
Complete:
Yes

ID:
296
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-31
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request RG(1)-31 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue.

ID:
297
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-32
Complete:
Yes

ID:
298
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-33
Complete:
Yes
Context and Rationale:
MOECC would like to remind Treasury Metals that meeting MMER discharge limits for cyanide will likely not be adequate to meet provincial permitting requirements.

ID:
299
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-34
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate whether the information was incorporated into the revised EIS.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
While the response to information request RG(1)-34 may acknowledge the information request, integration of this into the revised EIS (and demonstration thereof) is required.

ID:
300
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-35
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate whether the information was incorporated into the revised EIS.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
While the response to information request RG(1)-35 may acknowledge the information request, integration of this into the revised EIS (and demonstration thereof) is required.

ID:
301
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-36
Complete:
Yes
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:

ID:
302
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-37
Complete:
Yes

ID:
303
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-38
Complete:
Yes

ID:
304
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-39
Complete:
Yes

ID:
305
IR-1 Reference #:
RG(1)-40
Complete:
Yes

ID:
306
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-01
Complete:
Yes

ID:
307
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-02
Complete:
Yes

ID:
308
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-03
Complete:
Yes

ID:
309
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-04
Complete:
Yes

ID:
310
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-05
Complete:
Yes

ID:
311
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-06
Complete:
Yes

ID:
312
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-07
Complete:
Yes (duplicate to SD(1)-06)

ID:
313
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-08
Complete:
Yes

ID:
314
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-09
Complete:
Yes

ID:
315
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-10
Complete:
Yes

ID:
316
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-11
Complete:
Yes

ID:
317
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-12
Complete:
Yes

ID:
318
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-13
Complete:
Yes

ID:
319
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-14
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
Figure 4: – Site Plan (Appendix E Traffic Study) has not been updated to reflect the same boundaries and infrastructure placement as Figure 3.0-1A (Section 3 – Project Description). Both figures represent the same information; therefore these Figures need to be comparable.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
While the response to information request SD(1)-14 may answer the information request, integration of the information into the revised EIS in a consistent manner must be demonstrated. Revise figures containing boundaries and infrastructure placement where this information is relevant so that the information is consistent across the EIS.

ID:
320
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-15
Complete:
Yes

ID:
321
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-16
Complete:
Yes

ID:
322
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-17
Complete:
Yes

ID:
323
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-18
Complete:
Yes

ID:
324
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-19
Complete:
Yes

ID:
325
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-20
Complete:
Yes

ID:
326
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-21
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response provided is insufficient to allow a technical review.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request SD(1)-21. Additional justification for the exclusion of analytes without screening criteria should be provided.

ID:
327
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-22
Complete:
Yes

ID:
328
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-23
Complete:
Yes

ID:
329
IR-1 Reference #:
SD(1)-24
Complete:
Yes

ID:
330
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-04
Complete:
Yes

ID:
331
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-05
Complete:
Yes

ID:
332
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-06
Complete:
Yes

ID:
333
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-07
Complete:
Yes

ID:
334
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-08
Complete:
Yes

ID:
335
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-09
Complete:
Yes

ID:
336
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-10
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
Unclear if the information about baseline migratory bird and bird habitat conditions was incorporated into the revised EIS.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AC(1)-10.

ID:
337
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-11
Complete:
Yes

ID:
338
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-12
Complete:
Yes

ID:
339
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-13
Complete:
Yes

ID:
340
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-14
Complete:
Yes

ID:
341
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-15
Complete:
Yes

ID:
342
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-16
Complete:
Yes

ID:
343
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-17
Complete:
Yes

ID:
344
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-18
Complete:
Yes

ID:
345
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-19
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete. The response did not address the concern about overflow potential.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-19 to provide information about "overflow potential and containment of potential acid generating material" and potential for contamination should overflow occur.

ID:
346
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-20
Complete:
Yes

ID:
347
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-21
Complete:
Yes

ID:
348
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-22
Complete:
Yes

ID:
349
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-23
Complete:
Yes

ID:
350
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-24
Complete:
Yes

ID:
351
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-25
Complete:
Yes

ID:
352
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-26
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS. While the response claims that the effects assessment includes effects to Indigenous people on and off reserve, it does not explain how, or if, this information is presented more clearly in the revised EIS.
The response also contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a detailed response to information request AC(1)-26 explaining how TMI intends to address the concerns presented and incorporate the information into a revised EIS, keeping in mind previous engagement by TMI was inadequate. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
353
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-27
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
There is no specific evidence or rationale provided indicating Naotkamegwanning First Nation was contacted and their respective information provided in the comment relating to sacred aspects of the environment was incorporated into the updated EIS.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-27 and provide a revised response that demonstrates engagement with Naotkamegwanning First Nation and consideration of the information related to sacred aspect of the environment provided in the comment in the EIS.

ID:
354
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-28
Complete:
Yes

ID:
355
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-29
Complete:
Yes

ID:
356
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-30
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does answer the request to remove text related to the interpretation of Treaty 3.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review the response to information request AC(1)-30 to provide additional information. Confirm removal of the text relating to the interpretation of Treaty or provide a rationale for the continued inclusion.

ID:
357
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-31
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not describe mitigation measures or refer to sections of the EIS that present the mitigation measures.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-31 and provide a revised response that describes or refers to proposed mitigation measures for the Project in the revised EIS.

ID:
358
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-32
Complete:
Yes

ID:
359
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-33
Complete:
Yes

ID:
360
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-34
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how the information provided in the comment was considered and incorporated in the assessment.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-34 and provide a revised response that demonstrates how the information provided in Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation's comment was considered and incorporated in the EIS.

ID:
361
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-35
Complete:
Yes

ID:
362
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-36
Complete:
Yes

ID:
363
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-37
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate that follow-up engagement was done with Wabauskang First Nation to understand their concerns with the gaps in the understanding of current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-37 and provide a revised response that: 1) demonstrates engagement with Wabauskang First Nation to understand their concerns with gaps in the understanding of current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes; and 2) incorporates any comments received into the assessment for current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes.

ID:
364
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-38
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response provided does not answer the request. The EIS should include a complete impact analysis of Treaty rights.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-38 and revise the response to demonstrate that an analysis was taken to assess impacts (including infringement) on Aboriginal and Treaty rights. See also TMI_540.

ID:
365
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-39
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response provided does not answer the request.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-39 and revise the response to demonstrate engagement with Aboriginal groups regarding potential Project impacts and mitigation measures. In addition, demonstrate that any feedback on potential impacts and mitigation measures for Aboriginal and Treaty rights has been considered in the assessment

ID:
366
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-40
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not directly address the issue properly. The commitments to "ongoing engagement with Aboriginal people throughout the life of the Project" are not a substitute to conducting full and meaningful consultation during the EA, as directed by this Agency. Engagement with Indigenous groups is done, in part, so they have meaningful input into the design and development of mitigation measures and follow up programs for those project effects that might impact them and that will be included as part of the impacts assessment. The response only makes a vague commitment to engage with Grassy Narrows First Nation "for the life of the Project".
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a detailed response to information request AC(1)-40 explaining what actions TMI has taken to address the concerns of Grassy Narrows First Nations, and how TMI has incorporated the information into a revised EIS. As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
367
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-41
Complete:
Yes

ID:
368
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-42
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not indicate that the updated EIS has included the Dryden Area referred to by Naotkamegwanning First Nation as part of the related assessments for impacts on traditional hunting or attempts to acquire related traditional knowledge from Naotkamegwanning First Nation.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-42 and provide a revised response that demonstrates the updated EIS considers the Dryden Area as part of the related assessments for impacts on traditional hunting. In addition demonstrate attempts to acquire related traditional knowledge from Naotkamegwanning First Nation.

ID:
369
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-43
Complete:
Yes

ID:
370
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-44
Complete:
Yes

ID:
371
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-45
Complete:
Yes

ID:
372
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-46
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
The response references compliance with the International Cyanide Code, but does not describes safeguards and response plans.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AC(1)-46. Describe the safeguards and the response plans in the event of water contamination during the transport and handling of cyanide.

ID:
373
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-47
Complete:
Yes

ID:
374
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-48
Complete:
Yes

ID:
375
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-49
Complete:
Yes

ID:
376
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-50
Complete:
Yes

ID:
377
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-51
Complete:
Yes

ID:
378
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-52
Complete:
Yes

ID:
379
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-53
Complete:
Yes

ID:
380
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-54
Complete:
Yes

ID:
381
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-55
Complete:
Yes

ID:
382
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-56
Complete:
Yes

ID:
383
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-57
Complete:
Yes

ID:
384
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-58
Complete:
Yes

ID:
385
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-60
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly. This is a request from Eagle Lake First Nation to tour the project site, however the response does not explain if, when, or how TMI will fulfill this request, and does not mention ELFN.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a detailed response to information request AC(1)-60 explaining how TMI intends to address the concerns presented and incorporate the information into a revised EIS.

ID:
386
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-61
Complete:
Yes

ID:
387
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-62
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response to the information request contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Additionally, a cursory review of the EIS sections referenced in the response shows that some of the concerns raised in this IR request remain outstanding. For example, Section 6.0 of the Aboriginal Engagement Report reveals that concerns about Indigenous engagement on baseline studies, traditional knowledge and traditional land use, and potential environmental effects remains outstanding.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AC(1)-62. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).
Please note: commitments to "ongoing engagement with Aboriginal people throughout the life of the Project" are not a substitute to conducting full and meaningful consultation during the EA, as directed by the Agency. Such commitments, while welcome, are not relevant to this IR. See comments on the Aboriginal Engagement Report, Annex 1 for further guidance on how to address this Information Requirement.

ID:
388
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-63
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response to the information request contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
The IR request presents a number of issues raised concerning Indigenous consultation, and almost all of these issues were not directly addressed in the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AC(1)-63. Ensure that each issue raised in the IR request is addressed in the response, individually. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
389
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-64
Complete:
Yes

ID:
390
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-65
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
While the response addresses the issue of TK/TLU studies, it does not address the issue of capacity for technical review of the EIS.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-65 and revise the response to more specifically address each issue/request raised.

ID:
391
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-66
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not directly address the information request in full, and does not explain in detail how TMI intends to fulfill the request.
Additionally, the response to the question contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a detailed response to information request AC(1)-66 explaining how TMI intends to address the concerns presented. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
392
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-67
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS. The response also does not directly address the issue raised, only providing a vague, generalized response.
The response also contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a detailed response to information request AC(1)-67 explaining how TMI intends to address the concerns presented and incorporate the information into a revised EIS. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).
Review the information request and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been addressed.

ID:
393
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-68
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS. The response also does not directly address the issue raised, only providing a vague, generalized response. While the issue raised was concerning the lack of responses to questions, the response by TMI does not address this at all, and raises an irrelevant point about trying to gather land use information from Indigenous groups.
The response also contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-68 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been addressed. Provide a detailed response explaining how the issue has been addressed and/or incorporated into a revised EIS. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
394
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-69
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate the engagement requested in the information request and in "Annex B – Goliath Gold Project IR-1 Companion Sheet".
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-69 and revise the response in accordance with "Annex B – Goliath Gold Project IR-1 Companion Sheet".

ID:
395
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-70
Complete:
Yes

ID:
396
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-71
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response provided does not answer the request.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-71 and revise the response including information provided in the EIS to demonstrate that the Engagement and Accommodation Protocol has been considered. Provide a response that contains an analysis of impacts of the Project on Wabauskang First Nation's Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

ID:
397
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-72
Complete:
Yes

ID:
398
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-73
Complete:
Yes

ID:
399
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-74
Complete:
Yes

ID:
400
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-75
Complete:
Yes

ID:
401
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-76
Complete:
Yes

ID:
402
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-77
Complete:
Yes

ID:
403
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-78
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
The response states that ".Treasury Metals will be undertaking more detailed studies to evaluate the economic potential of the Project." but does not respond to how the project would cover a disaster.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AC(1)-78 - How would the Project cover a disaster?

ID:
404
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-79
Complete:
Yes

ID:
405
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-80
Complete:
Yes

ID:
406
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-81
Complete:
Yes

ID:
407
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-82
Complete:
Yes

ID:
408
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-83
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly. The question asked about the level of engagement; however the response does not answer this at all.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-83 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been addressed.

ID:
409
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-84
Complete:
Yes

ID:
410
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-85
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the information request directly.
The request states that "the executive summary does not contain enough information on the removal of the dams as currently written." The response does not contain the information that was requested.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-85 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue.

ID:
411
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-86
Complete:
Yes

ID:
412
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-87
Complete:
Yes

ID:
413
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-88
Complete:
Yes

ID:
414
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-89
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response provides vague details regarding efforts to obtain input on in-design mitigation measures. For example, the response states "No Project-specific traditional knowledge and traditional land use studies were prepared for, or shared with, Treasury Metals; limited information was obtained about concerns regarding the in-design mitigation."
The response to the question contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response. Additionally, Table 5.1-1. of the Aboriginal Engagement Report (Issues and Concerns raised by Aboriginal Groups) does not list in-design mitigation measures as a concern, so it is unclear how TMI intends to address the issue if it is not recorded as a concern.
Finally, commitments to ongoing engagement throughout the life of the project are not a substitute to conducting full and meaningful consultation during the EA, as directed by the Agency.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a detailed response to information request AC(1)-89 explaining how TMI intends to address the concerns presented. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
415
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-90
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The references to sections of the EIS in the response provided do not answer the question asked by Métis Nation of Ontario.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-90 and provide a revised response that provides specific details on the assessment and subsequent process for identification of mitigation related to the use of private land and mitigating traditional lands.

ID:
416
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-91
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not directly address the issue raised, providing only a vague, generalized response about efforts to engage Indigenous peoples.
Additionally, commitments to ongoing engagement throughout the life of the project are not a substitute to conducting full and meaningful consultation during the EA, as directed by the Agency.
The response also contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-91 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been addressed. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
417
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-92
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not directly address the issue raised, only providing a vague, generalized response about efforts to engage Indigenous peoples.
Additionally, commitments to ongoing engagement throughout the life of the project are not a substitute to conducting full and meaningful consultation during the EA, as directed by the Agency.
The response also contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-92 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been addressed. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
418
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-93
Complete:
Yes

ID:
419
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-94
Complete:
Yes

ID:
420
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-95
Complete:
Yes

ID:
421
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-96
Complete:
Yes

ID:
422
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-97
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the required information was incorporated into the revised EIS. Additionally, the response to the question contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
The response also does not address the issue directly. The issue is regarding the need for a traditional land use study with MNO to determine receptors for vibration levels. Vibration levels were not discussed in the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-97 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
423
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-98
Complete:
Yes

ID:
424
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-99
Complete:
Yes

ID:
425
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-100
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly. While the IR was related to lack of TK/TLU study AND engagement related to vegetation, the response does not address the comment regarding lack of engagement on this topic.
Additionally, commitments to ongoing engagement throughout the life of the project are not a substitute to conducting full and meaningful consultation during the EA, as directed by the Agency.
The response also contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Furthermore, when an issue such as species in the LSA is the comment from an Indigenous group, the approach to engagement could involve meeting with the group and explain the work of Treasury to examine how the Project may impact species, the mitigation proposed and the conclusion proposed for inclusion in the EIS. This type of engagement validates the work Treasury has completed and would inform the response submitted to the Agency.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-100 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been addressed.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
426
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-101
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly. While the IR was related to lack of TK/TLU study AND engagement related to wildlife, the response does not address the comment regarding lack of engagement on this topic.
Additionally, commitments to ongoing engagement throughout the life of the project are not a substitute to conducting full and meaningful consultation during the EA, as directed by the Agency.
The response also contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-101and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been addressed. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
427
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-102
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly. While the IR was related to lack of TK/TLU study AND engagement related to aquatic biology, the response does not address the comment regarding lack of engagement on this topic.
Additionally, commitments to ongoing engagement throughout the life of the project are not a substitute to conducting full and meaningful consultation during the EA, as directed by the Agency.
The response also contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-102 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been addressed. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
428
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-103
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS. The response also does not directly address the issue raised, only re-stating the lack of TK/TLU study with MNO.
The response also contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Additionally, commitments to ongoing engagement throughout the life of the project are not a substitute to conducting full and meaningful consultation during the EA, as directed by the Agency.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-103 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been addressed. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
429
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-104
Complete:
Yes

ID:
430
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-105
Complete:
Yes

ID:
431
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-106
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
While the content of the response appears to address the issue, it is not explained how/if this information is incorporated into the revised EIS. This is important, considering the issue is regarding the Proponent's wording in the EIS.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-106. Explain in detail how the request/information is incorporated into a revised EIS.

ID:
432
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-107
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
Appendix II indicates that engagement on the fish habitat offset plan will be with First Nations only while the response indicates that Treasury will engage more broadly with Aboriginal people. Since this this comment came from the MNO, there should be clarification within Appendix II about engagement with Metis nations.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-107 to provide additional technical information. Integration of this response into the revised EIS (and demonstration thereof) is required.

ID:
433
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-108
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS. The response also does not directly address the issue raised.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-108; revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been addressed.

ID:
434
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-109
Complete:
Yes

ID:
435
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-110
Complete:
Yes

ID:
436
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-111
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not fully address the comment from MNO. It does not address the issue that the determination of berry picking locations was made "without sufficient credible information from the MNO", and does not address the apparent lack of supporting information to make this determination.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-111; revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been addressed. Provide supporting information for determinations made, and explain how input from MNO has been sought and/or incorporated.

ID:
437
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-112
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS. Blueberries remain the only example of berries picked by Indigenous groups in the EIS Summary, so it remains unclear how TMI concludes that "the Project is not expected to adversely impact the gathering of plants or berries within the general area."
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-112. Explain in detail how the request/information is incorporated into a revised EIS.

ID:
438
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-113
Complete:
Yes

ID:
439
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-114
Complete:
Yes

ID:
440
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-115
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response provided does not answer the request and does not provide a rationale for the characterization of and scope used to assess impacts to Métis Nation of Ontario's Aboriginal rights.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-115 and provide a revised response that includes a rationale for the scope used to assess impacts to Métis Nation of Ontario's Aboriginal rights and demonstrates engagement with Aboriginal groups on the characterization and assessment of those Métis Nation of Ontario's Aboriginal rights.

ID:
441
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-116
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS. Specifically, the request to "make provisions for the potential information" in the revised EIS was not addressed.
The response also does not directly address the issue raised, which was related to trails and travelways.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-116 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into the revised EIS.

ID:
442
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-117
Complete:
Yes

ID:
443
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-117b
Complete:
Yes

ID:
444
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-118
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete. The response refers the reader to the response to another information request (IR), which only discusses the waste rock stockpile. However, this IR requests additional information on visual aesthetics in general (which may not be limited to the waste rock stockpile).
The information provided also does not address the issue directly. This IR requests additional information on Indigenous concerns regarding visual aesthetics and potential impacts. The response does not contribute further to this understanding.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-118 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS. Include concerns from Indigenous groups related to visual aesthetics in your response, and how those concerns have been addressed.

ID:
445
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-119
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not address the issue directly. While the issue is concerning lack of engagement on identifying species of importance to MNO, the response instead vaguely describes efforts to engage Indigenous groups and commitments to ongoing engagement.
The response also states that the MNO "have not identified, in this information request, any species of importance to them." No supporting information is provided, such as efforts to engage MNO on this information request.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-119 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS. Since the issue is related to lack of engagement with MNO on this topic, explain in detail how this has been addressed.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
446
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-120
Complete:
Yes

ID:
447
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-121
Complete:
Yes

ID:
448
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-122
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response, including the references does not demonstrate that it considered Aboriginal and Treaty rights.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-122 and revise response to incorporate consideration of Aboriginal and Treaty rights into the alternative assessment.

ID:
449
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-123
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response refers the reader to two appendices and one section of the revised EIS as sources of information to fulfill the information request, as well as responses to 6 other IRs. These references are too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. References should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AC(1)-123.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
450
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-124
Complete:
Yes

ID:
451
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-125
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete. The response refers to Figure 13.8.2-1 to identify surface water monitoring locations. However, this figure is missing in the revised EIS. In addition, no information is provided about frequency of monitoring. It is therefore not possible to evaluate the appropriateness of the monitoring plan.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-125 to provide additional information. Provide a map of the surface water monitoring locations as well as proposed frequency of monitoring.

ID:
452
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-126
Complete:
Yes

ID:
453
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-127
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review. The information request was for an alternatives assessment, but the response only restated the conclusions thereof, as was already found in the EIS.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to AC(1)-127, including but not limited to which site alternatives were considered, the criteria for inclusion/exclusion, and an assessment of potential effects of the alternatives in question.

ID:
454
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-128
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly. The information request pertained to information related to First Nation Reserves and Communities or Traditional Land Use within the alternative assessment of hazardous solid waste management, domestic sewage management, and the explosives storage facility. While the response discussed the alternatives assessment of these project components, it did not address First Nation related information.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-128 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue.

ID:
455
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-129
Complete:
Yes

ID:
456
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-130
Complete:
Yes

ID:
457
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-131
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response refers the reader to two appendices and one section of the revised EIS as sources of information to fulfill the information request (IR), as well as responses to 6 other IRs. These references are too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. References should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AC(1)-123.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
458
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-132
Complete:
Yes

ID:
459
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-133
Complete:
Yes

ID:
460
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-134
Complete:
Yes

ID:
461
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-135
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response refers the reader to seven other responses to information requests (IRs) as sources of information to fulfill the IR, without indicating which one(s) correspond to any of the five specific topics in the IR. In addition, the response does not address the question directly, which is the amendment of a table listing the project elements for which an alternatives assessment was performed.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AC(1)-123.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
462
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-136
Complete:
Yes

ID:
463
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-137
Complete:
Yes

ID:
464
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-138
Complete:
Yes

ID:
465
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-139
Complete:
Yes

ID:
466
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-140
Complete:
Yes

ID:
467
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-141
Complete:
Yes

ID:
468
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-142
Complete:
Yes

ID:
469
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-143
Complete:
Yes

ID:
470
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-144
Complete:
Yes

ID:
471
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-145
Complete:
Yes

ID:
472
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-146
Complete:
Yes

ID:
473
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-147
Complete:
Yes

ID:
474
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-148
Complete:
Yes

ID:
475
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-149
Complete:
Yes

ID:
476
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-150
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
Although the response has addressed part of the information request, it has not demonstrated whether traditional knowledge of the MNO or current land and resource use by MNO was incorporated.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-150 to demonstrate how traditional knowledge of the MNO and current land and resource use by MNO was integrated into the baseline section for vegetation in the revised EIS.

ID:
477
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-151
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information request was not addressed in the answer.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AC(1)-151.

ID:
478
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-152
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
Although the response has addressed part of the information request, it has not demonstrated whether traditional knowledge of the MNO or current land and resource use by MNO was incorporated.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response information request AC(1)-152 to demonstrate how traditional knowledge of the MNO and current land and resource use by MNO was integrated into the baseline section for wetlands in the revised EIS.

ID:
479
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-153
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
Although the response has addressed part of the information request, it has not demonstrated whether traditional knowledge of the MNO or current land and resource use by MNO was incorporated.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-153 to demonstrate how traditional knowledge of the MNO and current land and resource use by MNO was integrated into the baseline section for mammals in the revised EIS.

ID:
480
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-154
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
Although the response has addressed part of the information request, it has not demonstrated whether traditional knowledge of the MNO or current land and resource use by MNO was incorporated.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-154 to demonstrate how traditional knowledge of the MNO and current land and resource use by MNO was integrated into the baseline section for birds in the revised EIS.

ID:
481
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-155
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
Although the response has addressed part of the information request, it has not demonstrated whether traditional knowledge of the MNO or current land and resource use by MNO was incorporated.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-155 to demonstrate how traditional knowledge of the MNO and current land and resource use by MNO was integrated into the baseline section for significant wildlife habitat in the revised EIS.

ID:
482
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-156
Complete:
Yes

ID:
483
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-157
Complete:
Yes

ID:
484
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-158
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
Although the response has addressed part of the information request, it has not demonstrated whether traditional knowledge of the MNO or current land and resource use by MNO was incorporated.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-158 to demonstrate how traditional knowledge of the MNO and current land and resource use by MNO was integrated into the baseline section for Species at Risk in the revised EIS.

ID:
485
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-159
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not address the issue directly, and is incomplete. The request to disaggregate the information to reveal which Indigenous groups use wild rice, for example, was not addressed. The request for additional information on traditional food sources for Indigenous groups was also not addressed. There is an absence of information on what TMI has done to specifically address this IR. Instead, the response contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-159 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.

ID:
486
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-160
Complete:
Yes

ID:
487
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-161
Complete:
Yes

ID:
488
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-162
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how the new information received with respect to Aboriginal traditional knowledge was incorporated into the revised EIS.
The response indicates that Treasury Metals received the Aboriginal traditional knowledge following the submission of the original EIS. However, a rationale has not been provided for why the information received from MNO was not taken into account when developing the spatial boundaries for the human environment in the revised EIS.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-162 to provide additional information. Determine whether Aboriginal traditional knowledge or current land and resource use by MNO was taken into account during the development of spatial boundaries for human environment. If not, provide a rationale for why the information was not incorporated.

ID:
489
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-163
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete. The response commits to providing the information requested in the future, however at this time the request remains incomplete.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Directly address information request AC(1)-163, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
490
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-164
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
It is acknowledged that TMI will update the baseline socio-economic data with information from the 2016 Census. The response should be updated to include the information when it becomes available.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-164 and provide additional technical information.

ID:
491
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-165
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
It is acknowledged that TMI will update the baseline socio-economic data with information from the 2016 Census. The response should be updated to include the information when it becomes available.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-165 and provide additional technical information.

ID:
492
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-166
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
It is acknowledged that TMI will update the baseline socio-economic data with information from the 2016 Census. The response should be updated to include the information when it becomes available.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-166 and provide additional technical information. If this information regarding crime and justice are not added to this section, provide a rationale why.

ID:
493
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-167
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
It is acknowledged that TMI will update the baseline socio-economic data with information from the 2016 Census. The response should be updated to include the information when it becomes available.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-167 and provide additional technical information. If information regarding poverty or social issues is not added to this section, provide a rationale why.

ID:
494
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-168
Complete:
Yes

ID:
495
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-169
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not respond to the question from Métis Nation of Ontario.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-169 and provide a response that includes an explanation of the use of the title of section 5.11.5 of the original EIS or if possible how the updated EIS has changed to in response to this comment.

ID:
496
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-170
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response only provides disaggregated information with respect to engagement not the description of Aboriginal and Treaty rights and potential impacts.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-170 and provide a revised response that provides desegregated information for Aboriginal and Treaty rights and potential impacts. The effects analysis should be done regarding individual groups with applicable mitigation measures identified.

ID:
497
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-171
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not provide sufficient information to make a determination that this issue was addressed. Specifically, the response states "MNO did not share any Project-specific information or knowledge with Treasury Metals before the original EIS was filed and has not provided any additional information in this IR." However, there is no supporting information on TMI's attempts to engage with MNO to gather the information for this IR.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to more specifically address information request AC(1)-171, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
498
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-172
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not address the issue directly. Instead, the response provides vague details about previous engagement efforts, and does not include information regarding efforts to engage MNO on this specific IR.
The response also contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-172; revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
499
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-173
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not address the issue directly. The response addresses blueberry picking sites and effects to existing blueberry picking sites, however the main concern regarding mischaracterization of blueberry crops as transient was unaddressed.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-173; revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
500
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-174
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not address the issue. The issue is related to the variety of species of plants gathered by the MNO, but the response only goes on to explain past efforts and future commitments to engage Indigenous groups. It also appears the offer by MNO to "provide Treasury with an amended listing of vegetation species preferred by the MNO to update this section of the EIS" was not seized upon.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-174; revise the response to specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
501
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-175
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not address the issue at all. The issue is related to the lack of cultural foods and interests of the MNO being represented in the EIS, but the response only goes on to explain past efforts and future commitments to engage Indigenous groups.
The response also contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-175; revise the response to specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
502
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-176
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not address the issue directly. Specifically, the issue relates to engagement on identifying game species, yet the response does not sufficiently address this. Instead, the response discusses previous efforts and future commitments to engage Indigenous groups generally.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review the information request and revise the response to specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
503
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-177
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete. The response discusses previous efforts and future commitments to engage Indigenous groups generally, and includes the statement "MNO did not share any Project-specific information or knowledge with Treasury Metals before the original EIS was filed and not provided any information about active Metis hunters in this information request." However, there is no supporting information on TMI's attempts to engage with MNO to gather the information for this IR.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to more specifically address information request AC(1)-177, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
504
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-178
Complete:
Yes

ID:
505
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-179
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not address the issue directly. The response discusses previous efforts to engage MNO, and does not go on to demonstrate how/whether the requested information was incorporated into the revised EIS.
The response also contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to more specifically address information request AC(1)-179, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
506
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-180
Complete:
Yes

ID:
507
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-181
Complete:
Yes

ID:
508
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-182
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not address the issue directly. There is no clarification of whether Indigenous engagement was considered as an undertaking for the assessment, and no indication of whether clarification was provided in the EIS. The response only goes on to explain past efforts and future commitments to engage Indigenous groups.
The response also contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to more specifically address information request AC(1)-182, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
509
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-183
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
Not all of the issues raised in this IR were addressed in the response. For example, MNO states "this section mischaracterizes the lack of TK information. Treasury has not offered MNO sufficient capacity to complete a TK study." The response does not address how/if this apparent mischaracterization was addressed in the revised EIS.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to more specifically address information request AC(1)-183, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.

ID:
510
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-184
Complete:
Yes

ID:
511
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-185
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not respond to the question from Métis Nation of Ontario.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-185 and provide a response that demonstrates the methodology used in assessment of impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights and how Métis Nation of Ontario's comment for a holistic ecosystems approach was incorporated. If it was not, provide a rationale.

ID:
512
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-186
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not address the issue directly. Instead, the response discusses previous efforts and future commitments to engage Indigenous groups generally.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-186; revise the response to specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
513
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-187
Complete:
Yes

ID:
514
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-188
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question of the development process of avoidance, minimization and mitigation (a procedural question).
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-188 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue.

ID:
515
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-189
Complete:
Yes

ID:
516
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-190
Complete:
Yes

ID:
517
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-191
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS. Specifically, if/how knowledge from MNO was used in determining effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat was not addressed. The response vaguely describes previous efforts and future commitments to Indigenous engagement, however no information is provided on efforts to engage with MNO on this particular IR.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-191; revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
518
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-192
Complete:
Yes

ID:
519
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-193
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS. Specifically, if/how knowledge from MNO was used in determining effects on fish and fish habitat was not addressed. The response vaguely describes previous efforts and future commitments to Indigenous engagement, however no information is provided on efforts to engage with MNO on this particular IR.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-193; revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
520
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-194
Complete:
Yes

ID:
521
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-195
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not address the issue directly. Specifically, the issue relates to engagement on effects to wetlands and vegetation and how it informs the analysis, yet the response does not address this. Instead, the response discusses previous efforts and future commitments to engage Indigenous groups generally.
The response also contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-195 and revise the response to specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
522
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-196
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not address the issue directly, and does not demonstrate how/whether the requested information was incorporated into the revised EIS. Instead, the response discusses previous efforts and future commitments to engage Indigenous groups generally.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-196 and revise the response to specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.
As engagement with Indigenous groups is required during the EA, commitments to future engagement after the EA are not a suitable response.

ID:
523
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-197
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response provided does not answer the request. The response and reference to sections of the revised EIS do not provide conclusions specific to impacts of the Project on Métis Nation of Ontario, incorporate baseline information (including publically available information) or demonstrate that Métis Nation of Ontario's views have been sought or incorporated.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-197 and provide a revised response that includes an assessment and conclusions for Métis Nation of Ontario, contains baseline information (including publically available information) and the views of Métis Nation of Ontario.

ID:
524
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-198
Complete:
Yes

ID:
525
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-199
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The reference to "description of project effects and linkages" cannot be found.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-199 and provide a complete and detailed response.

ID:
526
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-200
Complete:
Yes

ID:
527
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-201
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information presented does not directly address any of the issues presented. Specifically, the issues are concerning lack of linkage between Indigenous rights and interests and several VC assessments. The response does not demonstrate how/whether the requested information was incorporated into the revised EIS, and also contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-201 and revise the response to specifically address each issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
528
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-202
Complete:
Yes

ID:
529
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-203
Complete:
Yes

ID:
530
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-204
Complete:
Yes

ID:
531
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-205
Complete:
Yes

ID:
532
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-206
Complete:
Yes

ID:
533
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-207
Complete:
Yes

ID:
534
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-208
Complete:
Yes

ID:
535
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-209
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not address the issue at all. Specifically, the IR states "the VC must represent a vulnerable component under Land and Resource Use instead of just repeating the section title." Instead of explaining or correcting this approach, the response just states "Treasury Metals acknowledges that there are a number of questions from the Agency and other reviewers related to the approach used in the EIS for organizing and presenting information regarding the potential effects of the Project." It then goes on to refer the reader to the revised EIS without explaining how it has addressed the issue, if at all.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-209; revise the response to specifically address each issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.

ID:
536
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-210
Complete:
Yes

ID:
537
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-211
Complete:
Yes

ID:
538
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-212
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response refers to Section 6.0 for information. However, this section is blank.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-199 and provide a complete and detailed response. Include an interaction matrix of project activities by project phase and VC.

ID:
539
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-213
Complete:
Yes

ID:
540
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-214
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the information request directly. The issue raised in the IR is the lack of linkage between the results of the effects assessment and Aboriginal interests and/or rights. However, the response states that the revised EIS links changes to the environment to "effects on Aboriginal peoples", which is not the same as effects on rights and interests.
Additionally, the response contains references to Sections 6.21 and 6.23.4 of the revised EIS. These sections do not link biophysical effects to impacts on Aboriginal rights or interests. It simply lists the biophysical effects that could impact Aboriginal peoples in the area, without consideration of rights.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-214 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue. In this case, there should be assessment of the Aboriginal and treaty rights that exist and how they are exercised, with direct links to potential effects of the Project and where they intersect with these rights. This assessment should be as specific as possible to the groups potentially impacted, and not generalized to "Aboriginal groups".
See also TMI_364.

ID:
541
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-215
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
The response provides an overview of the design features for the TSF, but does not provide a description of the effects, potential mitigation measures, characterization of residual effects, determination of significance or information related to the proponent's confidence and risk.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AC(1)-215, that includes additional information on the potential effect including a more comprehensive description of the effects including specific data related to the potential scenarios, information about potential mitigation measures, characterization of residual effects, determination of significance and information related to Treasury's confidence and risk.

ID:
542
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-216
Complete:
Yes

ID:
543
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-217
Complete:
Yes

ID:
544
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-218
Complete:
Yes

ID:
545
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-219
Complete:
Yes

ID:
546
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-220
Complete:
Yes

ID:
547
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-221
Complete:
Yes

ID:
548
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-222
Complete:
Yes

ID:
549
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-223
Complete:
Yes

ID:
550
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-224
Complete:
Yes

ID:
551
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-225
Complete:
Yes

ID:
552
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-226
Complete:
Yes

ID:
553
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-227
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided in insufficient to allow a technical review.
The information request requires a fulsome assessment of a catastrophic failure of the TSF. The response provides references to sections of the Revised EIS, however, based on the response in TMI_246-AM(1)-04, the analysis for TSF is incomplete. A fulsome assessment must be conducted in the event of a catastrophic failure of the TSF which addresses effects fish and fish habitat, migratory birds, and effects to Aboriginal peoples including, but not be limited to, country foods, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, and health and socio-economic conditions.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-227 to provide additional information. The information request requires a fulsome assessment of a catastrophic failure of the TSF.

ID:
554
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-228
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not address the issue at all. Specifically, the IR states that there is no linkage between Aboriginal rights and interests and land use in the Land Use section of the EIS. The response, however, states "The revised EIS clear linkages that have been considered between physical and biological effects of the Project, the effects on land use, and ultimately the effects on Aboriginal peoples in Sections 6.16 and 6.21." Linkages to "Aboriginal peoples" are not the same as linkages to rights held by Aboriginal peoples.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-228 and revise the response to specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.

ID:
555
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-229
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS. Specifically, clarification is needed to ensure the comment "This section does not even characterize effects and instead jumps directly to "potential direct residual effects"" has been addressed in the relevant section of the EIS.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
While the response may answer information request AC(1)-229, integration of this response into the revised EIS (and demonstration thereof) is required, including clarification that all related elements of the EIS were accordingly updated.

ID:
556
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-230
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS. Specifically, it is not demonstrated that the "lack of detail" regarding exceedances of deleterious substances has been addressed in the revised EIS.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
While the response may answer information request AC(1)-230, integration of this response into the revised EIS (and demonstration thereof) is required, including clarification that all related elements of the EIS were accordingly updated.

ID:
557
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-231
Complete:
Yes

ID:
558
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-232
Complete:
Yes

ID:
559
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-233
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question of impacts to the water level of Wabigoon Lake or Thunder Lake.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-233 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue.

ID:
560
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-234
Complete:
Yes

ID:
561
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-235
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response to the information request contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
The information provided does not answer the question directly. While the comment was regarding the gathering of plants and berries, there is no mention of this in the response.
Additionally, Table 5.1-1 in the Aboriginal Engagement Report (Issues and Concerns raised by Aboriginal Groups) does not list "Traditional Plant and Berry Gathering" as a concern topic/valued component. As the comment was specifically about this valued component, the revised EIS does not address this concern.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-235 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal Engagement Report is not sufficient). If the required information cannot be provided, provide a rationale.

ID:
562
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-236
Complete:
Yes

ID:
563
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-237
Complete:
Yes

ID:
564
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-238
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response to the information request contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
The response does not demonstrate how the specific concern/request was incorporated into the revised EIS. Furthermore, the response contains the comment "Based on the guidance from the Agency, and knowledge from past assessments in the region, potential impacts on hunting trapping and fishing was relatively obvious issue to identify as being important to consider in the assessment". This does not address the comment raised, which was regarding the disaggregation of comments related to potential impacts on hunting, trapping, and fishing.
Additionally, Table 5.1-1 in the Aboriginal Engagement Report (Issues and Concerns raised by Aboriginal Groups) does not list Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing as a Valued Component. As the comment was specifically about this valued component, the revised EIS does not address this concern.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-238 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal Engagement Report is not sufficient). If the requested information cannot be provided, provide a rationale.

ID:
565
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-239
Complete:
Yes

ID:
566
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-240
Complete:
Yes

ID:
567
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-241
Complete:
Yes

ID:
568
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-242
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
The map provided in Section 7 does not define the spatial boundaries that encompass the potential environmental effects of the selected valued components of the Project in combination with other physical activities that have been or will be carried out, including the additional projects listed in IR CE(1) – 02. Additionally, Section 7.2.2 makes numerous references to figures found in other sections of the EIS. As indicated by the EIS Guidelines, Cumulative Effects should be treated as a stand-alone section which includes all associated figures and referenced information within the section.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-242 to provide additional information. Provide a map that clearly defines the spatial boundaries that encompass the potential environmental effects on the selected valued components of the Project in combination with other physical activities that have been or will be carried out, including the additional projects listed in information request CE(1)-02.

ID:
569
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-243
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not answer the question and state whether or not the information Métis Nation of Ontario provided is included in the updated EIS.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-243 and provide a response that indicates if the information referred to by Métis Nation of Ontario has been considered in the updated EIS and provide references. If the information has not been incorporated provide a rationale as to why it has not.

ID:
570
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-244
Complete:
Yes

ID:
571
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-245
Complete:
Yes

ID:
572
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-246
Complete:
Yes

ID:
573
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-247
Complete:
Yes

ID:
574
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-248
Complete:
Yes

ID:
575
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-249
Complete:
Yes

ID:
576
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-250
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS. Specifically, the question asks which baseline studies relate to which concerns, and which measures address which concerns. The response refers the reader to the Aboriginal Engagement Report, without being specific about where these questions are answered, if at all.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-250 and revise the response to specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
577
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-251
Complete:
Yes

ID:
578
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-252
Complete:
Yes

ID:
579
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-253
Complete:
Yes

ID:
580
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-254
Complete:
Yes

ID:
581
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-255
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not answer the question of where in the EIS are there conclusions specifically on impacts to Métis Nation of Ontario's Aboriginal rights. It only refers to potential effects of the project on Aboriginal peoples through health, country foods, and hunting, trapping and fishing and does not break it down by Aboriginal group.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-255 and provide a response that includes an assessment of potential impacts of the Project on Métis Nation of Ontario's Aboriginal rights.

ID:
582
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-256
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not answer the question of where in the EIS are there conclusions specifically on impacts to Métis Nation of Ontario's Aboriginal rights within a Regional Study Area and information on how much previously unoccupied Crown land will be taken up by the Proposed project. It only refers to potential effects of the project on Aboriginal peoples through health, country foods, and hunting, trapping and fishing and does not break it down by Aboriginal group.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-256 and provide a response that includes an assessment of potential impacts of the Project on Métis Nation of Ontario's Aboriginal rights within a Regional Study Area and information on how much previously unoccupied Crown land will be taken up by the Proposed project.

ID:
583
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-257
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly. The question asks "What assessment was undertaken to reach this conclusion? What information from MNO was used in the determination?" Instead of answering this, the response points the reader to a section of the original EIS, which only summarizes predicted effects.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-257 and revise the response to specifically address the question(s), and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.

ID:
584
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-258
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response provided does not answer the request to demonstrate impacts to Métis Nation of Ontario's Aboriginal rights or engagement efforts as the information provided in the referenced sections of the updated EIS are too vague and not Aboriginal group specific.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-258 and provide a revised response that answers the question specifically.

ID:
585
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-259
Complete:
Yes

ID:
586
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-260
Complete:
Yes

ID:
587
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-261
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not provide a specific reference of where the updated EIS specifically looks at access or if the conclusion in the original EIS is still correct.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-261 and provide a response that clarifies if the conclusion in the original EIS is still accurate and that includes a specific reference in the updated EIS where access effects are assessed for Métis Nation of Ontario.

ID:
588
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-262
Complete:
Yes

ID:
589
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-263
Complete:
Yes

ID:
590
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-262
Complete:
Yes

ID:
591
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-265
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not address the issue directly, and does not demonstrate how/whether the requested information was incorporated into the revised EIS. The response has almost nothing to do with the comment, only referring to the creation of a revised EIS and referring the reader to various sections of the revised EIS.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-265; revise the response to specifically address each issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).
Ensure the response responds directly to the question.

ID:
592
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-266
Complete:
Yes

ID:
593
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-267
Complete:
Yes
Context and Rationale:
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:

ID:
594
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-268
Complete:
Yes

ID:
595
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-269
Complete:
Yes

ID:
596
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-270
Complete:
Yes

ID:
597
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-271
Complete:
Yes

ID:
598
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-263b
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response which is a reference to the updated EIS does not answer the question of the impacts to the exercise of Métis Nation of Ontario Aboriginal rights.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-263b and provide a response that includes an assessment of impacts to the exercise of Métis Nation of Ontario Aboriginal rights.

ID:
599
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-272
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not answer the question of where in the EIS is there a rationale for the claim that there are fewer impacts on Métis Nation of Ontario as the Project is located mostly on private lands or information on how much previously unoccupied Crown land will be taken up by the Proposed project.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-272 and provide a response that includes a rationale of why there are less impacts from Project on Métis Nation of Ontario's Aboriginal rights and information on how much previously unoccupied Crown land will be taken up by the Proposed project.

ID:
600
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-273
Complete:
Yes

ID:
601
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-274
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
While the response may answer information request AC(1)-274, integration of this response into the revised EIS (and demonstration thereof) is required, including clarification that all related elements of the EIS were accordingly updated.

ID:
602
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-275
Complete:
Yes

ID:
603
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-276
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate how/whether the new information was incorporated into the revised EIS. Specifically, it does not answer how TKLUS will be used to identify potential impacts on MNO citizens now that the EIS is already filed without this information.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
While the response may answer information request AC(1)-276, integration of this response into the revised EIS (and demonstration thereof) is required, including clarification that all related elements of the EIS were accordingly updated.

ID:
604
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-277
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is insufficient to verify the question has been answered. Specifically, there are no details on how TMI will implement the "next steps" with MNO, other than to encourage "open communication with the Company".
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-277 to provide additional details.

ID:
605
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-278
Complete:
Yes

ID:
606
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-279
Complete:
Yes

ID:
607
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-280
Complete:
Yes

ID:
608
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-281
Complete:
Yes

ID:
609
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-282
Complete:
Yes

ID:
610
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-283
Complete:
Yes

ID:
611
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-284
Complete:
Yes

ID:
612
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-285
Complete:
Yes

ID:
613
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-286
Complete:
Yes

ID:
614
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-287
Complete:
Yes

ID:
615
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-288
Complete:
Yes

ID:
616
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-289
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
Although the comment does not require technical information, the response provided does not address the comment. The comment lists values and beliefs central to ELFN and by not acknowledging these, the response is incomplete. References back to the Engagement Report and future engagement are inappropriate.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-289 to respectfully address the comment by demonstrating how TMI has acknowledged and took in to consideration the comment . Keep in mind that showing respect for traditional values and belief systems, and a willingness to understand how these can be incorporated into the EA, is an invaluable step towards meaningful engagement.

ID:
617
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-290
Complete:
Yes

ID:
618
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-291
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not address the issues directly. There are several specific concerns, such as wild rice, archaeological sites, and Lola Nature Reserve, which were not addressed in the response.
The response contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-291; revise the response to specifically address each issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
619
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-292
Complete:
Yes

ID:
620
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-293
Complete:
Yes

ID:
621
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-294
Complete:
Yes

ID:
622
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-295
Complete:
Yes

ID:
623
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-296
Complete:
A. Yes
B. Yes
C. Yes
D. No
Context and Rationale:
The response to information request AC(1)-296 contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
For Part D, the response refers to Section 2 of the EIS, Appendix X and IR responses, however does not provide a summary response to the specific question.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AC(1)-296 Part D, which includes whether Best Available Technology has been considered in the alternatives assessment, and whether economic factors were considered.

ID:
624
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-297
Complete:
Yes

ID:
625
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-298
Complete:
Yes

ID:
626
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-299
Complete:
Yes

ID:
627
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-300
Complete:
Yes

ID:
628
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-301
Complete:
Yes

ID:
629
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-302
Complete:
Yes

ID:
630
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-303
Complete:
Yes

ID:
631
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-304
Complete:
Yes

ID:
632
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-305
Complete:
Yes

ID:
633
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-306
Complete:
Yes

ID:
634
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-307
Complete:
Yes

ID:
635
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-308
Complete:
Yes

ID:
636
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-309
Complete:
Yes

ID:
637
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-310
Complete:
Yes

ID:
638
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-311
Complete:
Yes

ID:
639
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-312
Complete:
Yes

ID:
640
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-313
Complete:
Yes

ID:
641
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-314
Complete:
Yes

ID:
642
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-315
Complete:
Yes

ID:
643
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-316
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response provided did not answer the request or demonstrate how the EIS has addressed the concerns raised by Naotkamegwanning First Nation.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-316 and provide a revised response that demonstrates how the EIS has addressed concerns raised by Naotkamegwanning First Nation.

ID:
644
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-317
Complete:
Yes

ID:
645
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-318
Complete:
Yes

ID:
646
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-319
Complete:
Yes

ID:
647
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-320
Complete:
Yes

ID:
648
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-321
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information request was not addressed in the response
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-321 and provide a complete and detailed response.

ID:
649
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-322
Complete:
Yes

ID:
650
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-323
Complete:
Yes

ID:
651
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-324
Complete:
Yes
Context and Rationale:

ID:
652
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-325
Complete:
Yes

ID:
653
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-326
Complete:
Yes

ID:
654
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-327
Complete:
Yes

ID:
655
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-328
Complete:
Yes

ID:
656
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-329
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
The response also does not demonstrate how TMI intends to fulfill the request. While the comment is regarding lack of engagement with Naotkamegwanning First Nation (NFN) on the development of fundamental components of the EA, the response provides a vague commitment to future engagement with NFN "throughout the life of the project".
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-329 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been addressed. See comments on the Aboriginal Engagement Report, Annex 1 for further guidance on how to address this Information requirement.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal Engagement Report is not sufficient). If the requested information cannot be provided, provide a rationale.

ID:
657
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-330
Complete:
Yes

ID:
658
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-331
Complete:
Yes

ID:
659
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-332
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not answer the question of addressing the lack of baseline information for Naotkamegwanning First Nation's current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes and related Treaty rights.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-332 and provide a response that answers whether baseline information for Naotkamegwanning First Nation's current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes and related Treaty rights has been considered in the assessment and demonstrate where it has been considered.

ID:
660
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-333
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
The response also does not address the issue directly. While the issue is about the lack of non-aggregated baseline studies to address section 5(1)c effects, the response only touches on socio-economic baseline studies. Additionally, the approach proposed by TMI is not collaborative and does not commit to developing baseline data with the Indigenous group, but implies that any baseline studies will be conducted solely by TMI. For example, the response states "Any updating of the socio-economic baseline should be delayed until the results of the 2016 Census are released by Statistics Canada, which are scheduled to be released between February and November 2017." The update will include primary research (i.e., in-community interviews) for the purposes of validating secondary information and developing a comprehensive profile of the socio-economic conditions within the community at that point in time." The response refers to an update including primary data, without indicating whether this information was obtained or, if it was, how it was incorporated into the revised EIS.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-333 and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been addressed. Keep in mind that an approach to dealing with this issue without meaningful engagement with the Indigenous group is insufficient.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response. (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal Engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
661
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-334
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not address the issue directly. Specifically, the issue is regarding lack of mitigation and follow-up measures from NFN, however the response makes no mention of NFN or explain why input, if any, from NFN on these measures was not included.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-334 and revise the response to specifically address each issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
662
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-335
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not address the issue directly. The response makes no mention of NFN and does not address the issues they raised.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-335 and revise the response to specifically address each issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
663
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-336
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
Not all of the issues raised in this IR were addressed in the response. Specifically, one of the comments states "The report sections related to First Nations are entirely desktop exercises that do not provide an adequate basis for assessing CEAA 2012 s. 5 (1)(c) effects." This statement was not addressed in the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-336 and revise the response to specifically address each issue, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS.

ID:
664
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-337
Complete:
Yes

ID:
665
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-338
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response provided including reference to Appendix DD does not respond to the request of engagement with Aboriginal on the selection of Valued Components.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-338 and provide a revised response that is in accordance with the "Annex B – Goliath Gold Project IR-1 Companion Sheet."

ID:
666
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-339
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review. Specifically, the section of the revised EIS the response points to does not provide an answer to the question of which Indigenous groups were engaged on VCs, and how the information was used, if at all.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-339 to provide additional technical information. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
667
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-340
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not answer the question of if or where baseline information provided by Naotkamegwanning First Nation is included in the updated EIS. Additionally, it is not clear if the ‘go elsewhere' approach is still being used in the methodology in the updated EIS or if there is a rationale for the methodology used in the updated EIS for effects to Aboriginal peoples.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-340 and provide a response that answers whether baseline information provided by Naotkamegwanning First Nation is included in the updated EIS and if the ‘go elsewhere approach' is being used in the methodology in the updated EIS for effects to Aboriginal peoples.

ID:
668
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-341
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response contains a reference to the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find information relevant to answer the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AC(1)-341.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
669
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-342
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete and the reviewer cannot determine if commercial fishing has been incorporated into the EIS in the Baseline or in the Effects Assessment.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AC(1)-342.

ID:
670
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-343
Complete:
Yes

ID:
671
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-344
Complete:
Yes

ID:
672
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-344b
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
The response also does not address the issue directly. The issue is regarding the lack of traditional land use studies conducted with Indigenous groups. The response is vague and states that more information about potential effects on Indigenous groups is provided in the revised EIS, which is not what is being requested here. For example, the response states "An expanded evaluation of the potential effects of the Project on Aboriginal peoples is provided in Section 6.21".
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-344b and revise the response to more specifically address the main issue, and explain in detail how it has been addressed. Keep in mind that an approach to dealing with this issue without meaningful engagement with the Indigenous group is insufficient.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal Engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
673
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-345
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
The response also does not provide concrete steps outlining how/if TMI has incorporated the information into the revised EIS.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a detailed response to information request AC(1)-345 explaining how TMI intends to address the concerns presented. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient). If the requested information cannot be provided, provide a rationale.

ID:
674
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-346
Complete:
Yes

ID:
675
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-347
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not answer if the proponent is considering a Traditional Knowledge or Traditional Use Study with Naotkamegwanning First Nation or how the proponent will attempt to get information with respect to Naotkamegwanning First Nation's Aboriginal and Treaty rights or uses in the Project-affected area.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-347 and revise response to answer if the proponent is considering a Traditional Knowledge or Traditional Use Study with Naotkamegwanning First Nation and how the proponent will attempt to get information with respect to Naotkamegwanning First Nation's Aboriginal and Treaty rights or uses in the Project-affected area.

ID:
676
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-348
Complete:
Yes

ID:
677
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-349
Complete:
Yes

ID:
678
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-350
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
The response describes the potential environmental effects of the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) but does not identify or address any potential adverse effects of a TSF breach on the treaty rights, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes and the socio-economic conditions of NFN (and other Treaty 3 Nations).
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AC(1)-350.

ID:
679
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-351
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided in Section 7 of the revised EIS is insufficient as it currently stands to allow a technical review. Revisions are required to address comments made in the completeness check to allow for the commencement of technical review of responses provided in Round 1 of IRs regarding the cumulative effects assessment.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Address the comments and information requested in related IRs for Cumulative Effects to address the current information request AC(1)-351:
TMI_251 – CE(1)-01
TMI_252 – CE(1)-02
TMI_254 – CE(1)-04
TMI_256 – CE(1)-06
TMI_257 – CE(1)-07
TMI_568 – AC(1)-242

ID:
680
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-352
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-352. Provide an assessment on how the conclusion that "the Project will provide an economic net benefit to the local, Aboriginal, regional, and provincial economies and will not result in adverse impact to Aboriginal and Treaty Rights or related interests," was made in relation to the Naotkamegwanning First Nation.

ID:
681
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-353
Complete:
Yes

ID:
682
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-354
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is incomplete.
The response describes the potential environmental effects of the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) but does not identify or address any potential adverse effects of a TSF breach on the treaty rights of NFN.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AC(1)-354.

ID:
683
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-355
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not answer the question as it is not apparent in the revised EIS where Naotkamegwanning First Nation's baseline information is described and incorporated into the assessments on human VCs and treaty rights.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-355 and provide a response that demonstrates Naotkamegwanning First Nation's baseline information is described and incorporated into the assessments on human VCs and treaty rights.

ID:
684
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-356
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not answer the question as the reference used is the Aboriginal Engagement Report, Appendix DD and the question states to undertake an assessment for:
a. socio-economic conditions;
b. health conditions;
c. current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes;
d. cultural heritage resources.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-356 and provide a response that demonstrates an assessment for effects to Naotkamegwanning First Nation's:
a. socio-economic conditions;
b. health conditions;
c. current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes; and
d. cultural heritage resources;
is undertaken.

ID:
685
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-357
Complete:
Yes

ID:
686
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-358
Complete:
Yes

ID:
687
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-02
Complete:
Yes

ID:
688
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-03
Complete:
Yes

ID:
689
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-04
Complete:
Yes

ID:
690
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-05
Complete:
Yes

ID:
691
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-06
Complete:
Yes

ID:
692
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-07
Complete:
Yes
C

ID:
693
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-08
Complete:
Yes

ID:
694
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-09
Complete:
Yes

ID:
695
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-10
Complete:
Yes

ID:
696
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-11
Complete:
Yes

ID:
697
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-12
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request PC(1)-12.

ID:
698
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-13
Complete:
Yes

ID:
699
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-14
Complete:
Yes

ID:
700
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-15
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The question about faults and draining of Thunder Lake was not addressed in the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request PC(1)-15.

ID:
701
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-16
Complete:
Yes

ID:
702
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-17
Complete:
Yes

ID:
703
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-18
Complete:
Yes

ID:
704
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-19
Complete:
Yes

ID:
705
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-20
Complete:
Yes

ID:
706
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-21
Complete:
Yes

ID:
707
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-22
Complete:
Yes

ID:
708
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-23
Complete:
Yes

ID:
709
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-25
Complete:
Yes

ID:
710
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-25
Complete:
Yes

ID:
711
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-26
Complete:
Yes

ID:
712
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-27
Complete:
Yes

ID:
713
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-28
Complete:
Yes

ID:
714
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-29
Complete:
Yes

ID:
715
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-30
Complete:
Yes

ID:
716
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-31
Complete:
Yes

ID:
717
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-32
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not address all the questions in information request PC(1)-32.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request PC(1)-32 and provide additional information to respond to questions related to monitoring results, compensation, and delayed effects.

ID:
718
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-33
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not address the questions related to sampling in private wells.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request PC(1)-33 and provide additional information to respond to the questions related to sampling in private wells.

ID:
719
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-34
Complete:
Yes

ID:
720
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-35
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The question about the potential interaction of cyanide destructions and the availability of mercury was not addressed in the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request PC(1)-35.

ID:
721
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-36
Complete:
Yes

ID:
722
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-37
Complete:
Yes

ID:
723
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-38
Complete:
Yes

ID:
724
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-39
Complete:
Yes

ID:
725
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-40
Complete:
Yes

ID:
726
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-41
Complete:
Yes

ID:
727
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-42
Complete:
Yes

ID:
728
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-43
Complete:
Yes

ID:
729
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-44
Complete:
Yes

ID:
730
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-45
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided on impacts to water quality and country foods is incomplete.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request PC(1)-45.

ID:
731
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-46
Complete:
Yes

ID:
732
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-47
Complete:
Yes

ID:
733
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-48
Complete:
Yes

ID:
734
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-49
Complete:
Yes

ID:
735
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-50
Complete:
Yes

ID:
736
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-51
Complete:
Yes

ID:
737
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-52
Complete:
Yes

ID:
738
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-53
Complete:
Yes

ID:
739
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-54
Complete:
Yes

ID:
740
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-55
Complete:
Yes

ID:
741
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-56
Complete:
Yes

ID:
742
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-57
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information request was not addressed in the response.
The information request states that "nothing is included to address whether there are potential impacts to historical travel routes to Mavis Lake and if so how those will be addressed." However, the response is generic and does not address the comment made.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request PC(1)-57.

ID:
743
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-58
Complete:
Yes

ID:
744
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-59
Complete:
Yes

ID:
745
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-60
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly.
The comment required Treasury Metals to address potential effects in the historical area called "Blueberry Camp" where people harvested blueberries for food and income and where medicinal plants grow. Although the response indicates that "specific information regarding the ‘blueberry camp', and its location relative to the project has been shared with Treasury Metals", it does not directly address the potential effects in the area known as "blueberry camp" but instead references blueberry harvesting areas in a general sense. It is unclear whether the 17 ha of "blueberry harvesting areas presented in appendix EE" includes the "Blueberry Camp".
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request PC(1)-745 and revise the response to specifically address the area of concern known as the "Blueberry Camp" used for medicinal plants, food and income.

ID:
746
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-61
Complete:
Yes

ID:
747
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-62
Complete:
Yes

ID:
748
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-63
Complete:
Yes

ID:
749
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-64
Complete:
Yes

ID:
750
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-65
Complete:
Yes

ID:
751
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-66
Complete:
Yes

ID:
752
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-67
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response refers to the entire alternatives assessment for mine waste disposal alternatives as well as seven additional IRs. This is too vague to allow one to find the direct response to the question. References should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request PC(1)-67.
The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response.

ID:
753
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-68
Complete:
Yes

ID:
754
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-69
Complete:
Yes

ID:
755
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-70
Complete:
Yes

ID:
756
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-71
Complete:
Yes

ID:
757
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-72
Complete:
Yes

ID:
758
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-73
Complete:
Yes

ID:
759
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-74
Complete:
Yes

ID:
760
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-75
Complete:
Yes

ID:
761
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-76
Complete:
Yes

ID:
762
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-77
Complete:
Yes

ID:
763
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-78
Complete:
Yes

ID:
764
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-79
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided does not answer the question directly. The question asks if concerns from Aboriginal communities were used to determine effects for VCs outlined in Section 12.2 Table 6.4.1-6. The response gives a vague response, and contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request PC(1)-79; revise the response to specifically address the question, and explain in detail how it has been incorporated into a revised EIS. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
765
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-80
Complete:
Yes

ID:
766
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-81
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is insufficient to allow a technical review. Specifically, the response vaguely states the section in questions provides information "related to Aboriginal rights and claims that could be relevant to the Project", without explaining why this information may be relevant to the Project. Additionally, the response contains a reference to a section of the revised EIS which is too vague to allow one to find the information relevant to the question. These references should be specific to the question at hand such that the reviewer can immediately find a direct link to expanded technical details supporting the response.
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request PC(1)-81 to provide a specific answer. The response should be self-contained to the extent possible. Where references to the revised EIS are used in the response, they should be focused to the issue at hand, provide only additional information to support the response, and be summarized within the response (reference to a chapter or Aboriginal engagement Report is not sufficient).

ID:
767
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-82
Complete:
Yes

ID:
768
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-83
Complete:
Yes

ID:
769
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-84
Complete:
Yes

ID:
770
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-85
Complete:
Yes

ID:
771
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-86
Complete:
Yes

ID:
772
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-87
Complete:
Yes

ID:
773
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-88
Complete:
Yes

ID:
774
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-89
Complete:
Yes

ID:
775
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-90
Complete:
Yes

ID:
776
IR-1 Reference #:
PC(1)-91
Complete:
Yes

ID:
777
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-359
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not answer how or where an assessment of impacts to Wabauskang First Nation's Aboriginal and Treaty rights has been conducted.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-359 and provide a response that demonstrates an assessment of impacts to Wabauskang First Nation's Aboriginal and Treaty rights was conducted.

ID:
778
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-360
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
Specific Information Required to Meet Completeness Check Requirements:

ID:
779
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-361
Complete:
Yes

ID:
780
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-362
Complete:
Yes
Context and Rationale:
Note there is a misnumbering issue, the reference in the table is 781 which is a duplicate.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:

ID:
781
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-363
Complete:
Yes

ID:
782
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-364
Complete:
Yes

ID:
783
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-364b
Complete:
Yes

ID:
784
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-365
Complete:
Yes

ID:
785
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-366
Complete:
Yes

ID:
786
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-367
Complete:
Yes

ID:
787
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-368
Complete:
Yes

ID:
788
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-369
Complete:
Yes

ID:
789
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-370
Complete:
Yes

ID:
790
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-371
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not answer how or where an assessment of impacts to Wabauskang First Nation's Aboriginal and Treaty rights or uses, and how the gaps in information that Wabauskang First Nation noted have been addressed.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-371 and provide a response that demonstrates an assessment of impacts to Wabauskang First Nation's Aboriginal and Treaty rights was conducted and where possible information gaps were addressed. If unable, provide a rationale as to why the information was unable to be gathered.

ID:
791
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-372
Complete:
Yes

ID:
792
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-373
Complete:
Yes

ID:
793
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-374
Complete:
Yes

ID:
794
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-375
Complete:
Yes

ID:
795
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-376
Complete:
Yes

ID:
796
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-377
Complete:
Yes

ID:
797
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-378
Complete:
Yes

ID:
798
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-379
Complete:
Yes

ID:
799
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-380
Complete:
Yes

ID:
800
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-381
Complete:
Yes

ID:
801
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-382
Complete:
Yes

ID:
802
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-383
Complete:
Yes

ID:
803
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-384
Complete:
Yes

ID:
804
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-385
Complete:
Yes

ID:
805
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-386
Complete:
Yes

ID:
806
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-387
Complete:
Yes

ID:
807
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-388
Complete:
Yes

ID:
808
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-389
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The question about the Seepage Management Plan and effects to Thunder Lake was not addressed in the answer.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Provide a complete and detailed response to information request AC(1)-389.

ID:
809
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-390
Complete:
Yes

ID:
810
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-391
Complete:
Yes

ID:
811
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-392
Complete:
Yes

ID:
812
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-393
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is insufficient for a technical review. The references provided in the response do not lead to technical information answering the question.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to provide additional technical information.

ID:
813
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-394
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The information provided is insufficient for a technical review. The references provided in the response do not lead to technical information answering the question.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Revise the response to information request AC(1)-394 to provide additional technical information.

ID:
814
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-395
Complete:
Yes

ID:
815
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-396
Complete:
Yes

ID:
816
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-397
Complete:
Yes

ID:
817
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-398
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
Responses # TMI_817, 818, 832, and 836 may contradict each other.
Response # TMI_817 and # TMI_832 indicate that: "Rather than develop phase specific plans, Treasury Metals intends to develop a comprehensive list of management plans that will be implemented through all phases of the development of the Goliath Gold Project." However Response 818 says that there will be a plan for each phase of the project.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review responses # TMI_817, 818, 832 and 836 and revise the responses to ensure consistency.

ID:
818
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-399
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
See the Context and Rationale for response # TMI_817
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
See the Specific Information Required for response # TMI_817

ID:
819
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-400
Complete:
Yes

ID:
820
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-401
Complete:
Yes

ID:
821
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-402
Complete:
Yes

ID:
822
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-403
Complete:
Yes

ID:
823
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-404
Complete:
Yes

ID:
824
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-405
Complete:
Yes

ID:
825
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-406
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
The response does not demonstrate that baseline information has been collected or incorporated into the assessment of impacts to Wabauskang First Nations' Aboriginal and Treaty rights. The Agency does not require proponents to undertake Traditional Use and Knowledge Studies; however there are other methods and opportunities to collect baseline information for example, engagement with Indigenous groups and publically available sources.
The response should document efforts to collect the data including engagement with Wabauskang First Nation. This should be documented in relation to all potentially impacted groups.
Additionally, commitments to ongoing engagement throughout the life of the project are not a substitute to conducting full and meaningful consultation during the EA, as directed by the Agency.
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
Review information request AC(1)-406 and revise the response to demonstrate attempts to collect and incorporate baseline information and impacts to Wabauskang First Nations' Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

ID:
826
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-407
Complete:
Yes

ID:
827
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-408
Complete:
Yes

ID:
828
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-409
Complete:
Yes

ID:
829
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-410
Complete:
Yes

ID:
830
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-411
Complete:
Yes

ID:
831
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-412
Complete:
Yes

ID:
832
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-413
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
See the Context and Rationale for response # TMI_817
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
See the Specific Information Required for response # TMI_817

ID:
833
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-414
Complete:
Yes

ID:
834
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-415
Complete:
Yes

ID:
835
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-416
Complete:
Yes

ID:
836
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-417
Complete:
No
Context and Rationale:
See the Context and Rationale for response # TMI_817
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
See the Specific Information Required for response # TMI_817

ID:
837
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-418
Complete:
Yes

ID:
838
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-419
Complete:
Yes

ID:
839
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-420
Complete:
Yes

ID:
840
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-421
Complete:
Yes

ID:
841
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-422
Complete:
Yes

ID:
842
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-423
Complete:
Yes

ID:
843
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-424
Complete:
Yes

ID:
844
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-425
Complete:
Yes

ID:
845
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-426
Complete:
Yes

ID:
846
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-427
Complete:
Yes

ID:
847
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-428
Complete:
Yes

ID:
848
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-429
Complete:
Yes

ID:
849
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-430
Complete:
Yes

ID:
850
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-431
Complete:
Yes

ID:
851
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-432
Complete:
Yes
Context and Rationale:
Specific Information Required to meet Completeness Check Requirements:
See the Specific Information Required for response # TMI_817

ID:
852
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-433
Complete:
Yes

ID:
853
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-434
Complete:
Yes

ID:
854
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-435
Complete:
Yes

ID:
855
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-436
Complete:
Yes

ID:
856
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-437
Complete:
Yes

ID:
857
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-438
Complete:
Yes

ID:
858
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-439
Complete:
Yes

ID:
859
IR-1 Reference #:
AC(1)-440
Complete:
Yes

Report a problem on this page

Date modified:: 2019-03-01

Goliath Gold Project