Section 15 Operating and Environmental Permit Requirements FINAL

BARRICK
BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION
BARRICK REPORTING GUIDELINES REFERENCE FOR

MINERAL RESERVES AND RESOURCES
SECTION 15
OPERATING/ENVIRONMENTAL
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
OPERATING/ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
BARRICK
CONTENTS
15.0 | OPERATING/ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS .................. 15-1

15.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................15-1
15.2 MINERAL RESERVES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ...............................................................................15-1
15.3 SUMMARY OF OPERATING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS ...................................................................15-3
15.3.1 REQUIRED PERMITS – UNITED STATES............................................................................... 15-3
15.3.2 REQUIRED PERMITS – CANADA .......................................................................................... 15-5
15.3.3 REQUIRED PERMITS – AUSTRALIA .................................................................................... 15-29
15.3.4 REQUIRED PERMITS – OTHER COUNTRIES ....................................................................... 15-29
15.4 WORLD BANK STANDARDS ...............................................................................................................15-29
15.4.1 WORLD BANK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: BORROWER REQUIREMENTS AND BANK
REVIEW PROCESS .......................................................................................................... 15-29
15.4.2 OPERATIONAL POLICY 4.01 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .............................................. 15-29
15.4.3 OPERATIONAL POLICY 4.04 NATURAL HABITATS .............................................................. 15-30
15.4.4 OPERATIONAL POLICY 4.10 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ........................................................... 15-31
15.4.5 OPERATIONAL POLICY 4.11 PHYSICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................... 15-31
15.4.6 OPERATIONAL POLICY 4.12 INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT ............................................... 15-31
15.4.7 OPERATIONAL POLICY 4.37 SAFETY OF DAMS .................................................................. 15-31
15.4.8 WORLD BANK REVIEW PROCESS ..................................................................................... 15-32
Barrick Reporting Guidelines Reference for TOC i 15.0 | Operating/Environmental Permit Requirements
Mineral Reserves and Resources
BARRICK
15.0 | OPERATING/ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT

REQUIREMENTS
15.1 INTRODUCTION
The role that Operating and Environmental permits play in determining what is or is not a Mineral
Reserve is vague and somewhat complex. Putting official definitions of a Mineral Reserve aside
(see Section 2.0) and taking a simplistic approach, it can be argued that if a project cannot obtain
the required operating and environmental permits to allow mining of a project to go forward, then
the deposit in effect contains no Mineral Reserves. For some projects, this has proven to be true,
such as the New World deposit on the northern boundary of Yellowstone National Park in the
United States. Here the deposit owner’s inability to obtain the required operating and
environmental permits rendered its technically mineable Mineral Reserve essentially worthless.
Other projects that initially had trouble obtaining required operating and environmental permits
ultimately were successful because of a willingness on the part of companies to either change
original plans or negotiate compromises with government agencies that allowed environmental
concerns to be mitigated.
Clearly, obtaining operating and environmental permits presents a significant hurdle for any
project attempting to move forward to development and production. This section discusses how
the various permits pertain to the issuing of a Statement of Mineral Reserves, and summarizes the
different types of operating and environmental permits required. Unfortunately, because Barrick
conducts operations in many different countries and jurisdictions, it is not practical to provide a
detailed explanation and complete checklist of all operating and environmental permits required
regardless of the mine or project location. However, the general summaries included should
provide a reasonable framework to work with for the person responsible for reporting Statements
of Mineral Reserves.
15.2 MINERAL RESERVES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
The definitions for proven and probable ore set forth in both Canada National Instrument 43-101
and the AusIMM JORC codes (see Section 3.0 Discussion on NI 43-101 and Corporate
Governance of this Procedures Manual) do not specifically state that all or even any
environmental and operating permits pertaining to the development and production stages of a
deposit must be in place for material within the deposit to be classified as Mineral Reserves. In its
definition of a Mineral Reserve, Canada NI 43-101 states:
“A Mineral Reserve is the economically mineable part of a Measured or Indicated Mineral

Resource demonstrated by at least a Preliminary Feasibility Study. This Study must include
Barrick Reporting Guidelines Reference for Page 15-1 15.0 | Operating/Environmental Permit Requirements
BARRICK
adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic, and other relevant factors
that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic extraction can be justified. A Mineral
Reserve includes diluting materials and allowances for losses that may occur when the material is
mined.”
Companion Policy 43-101CP to National Instrument 43-101 further states in its Appendix:
“Mineral Reserves are those parts of Mineral Resources which, after the application of all mining
factors, result in an estimated tonnage and grade which, in the opinion of the Qualified Person(s)
making the estimates, is the basis of an economically viable project after taking account of all
relevant processing, metallurgical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, socio-economic
and government factors. Mineral Reserves are inclusive of diluting material that will be mined in
conjunction with the Mineral Reserves and delivered to the treatment plant or equivalent facility.
The term ‘Mineral Reserve’ need not necessarily signify that extraction facilities are in place or
operative or that all governmental approvals have been received. It does signify that there are
reasonable expectations of such approvals.”
The text above highlights the portions of the definitions relevant to Operating and Environmental
permits.
The key words in the basic NI43-101 definition are “and other relevant factors”, a catch-all phrase
that arguably includes operations and environmental permitting in reference to the contents of a
Preliminary Feasibility Study (or more substantive Feasibility Study). Some clarification is
provided by the definition in the Appendix to Companion Policy 43-101CP, where it explicitly
states that the term “Mineral Reserve” need not necessarily signify that extraction facilities are in
place or operative or that all governmental approvals have been received. This statement, when
taken out of the context of the definitions, would appear to imply that a Statement of Mineral
Reserves does not require operating and environmental permits to be in place. However, when
placed back in context, it seems clear that while it may not be necessary to have all permits in
place, the operating and environmental permitting process must at least be in progress, and there
are “reasonable expectations“ of approvals.
Unfortunately, there is no guidance provided by either NI 43-101 or Companion Policy 43-101CP

with respect to what degree of progress is necessary (i.e., Do applications for all permits have to
be submitted? Do all baseline environmental studies have to be completed?). Ultimately (and in
some cases, regrettably), it is left to the opinion and discretion of the Qualified Person to
determine what level of completion or progress in obtaining operating and environmental permits
is acceptable for a Statement of Mineral Reserves.
BARRICK
15.3 SUMMARY OF OPERATING AND ENVIRONMENTAL

PERMITS
15.3.1 Required Permits – United States
15.3.1.1 U.S. Federal Permits
In the United States, a listing of Federal permits can be segregated by issuing agency. The five
main agencies most operations must deal with are the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Mine
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The following
is a summary of the major permits required by these agencies:
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Plan of Operation (POO) – Includes all aspects of
operation, environmental, and socioeconomic impacts and mitigation. Data must be submitted
relative to air quality, areas of critical environmental concern, cultural resources, floodplains,
wetlands and riparian zones, solid and hazardous waste, water quality, etc. For operations
located on Federal land, the BLM serves as the lead agency for coordination with other Federal
and State agencies.
Rights of Way – Where applicable, required for powerlines, road access, etc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) – While no specific permit is issued, the
operation or project must meet surface and groundwater quality standards for discharge and non-
discharging systems. Data required include characterization of baseline surface and groundwater
hydrological conditions.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) – Air Quality Permit – This permit is required if the
proposed operation is expected to exceed certain limits for point source and fugitive emissions
(including hazardous air pollutants, visible and particulate emissions, and sulfur admissions).
Requirements include collection of climatological and air quality data, identification and evaluation
of point and fugitive emissions sources, and modeling of projected emissions.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
hreatened and Endangered Species – Although no permit is issued, a biological opinion based on
the projected impacts to threatened and endangered species in the operation or project area is
required. The USFWS uses the EIS as the document that demonstrates project compliance.
U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
BARRICK
Safety Permit – An MSHA identification number is required for commencement of operations. The
operation or project must address operational safety issues and comply with Federal health and
safety regulations during construction, development, and production.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Permits – Dredge and Fill Activities in Watercourses – If applicable to the operation or
project site, this regulates disturbances in wetlands, including cutting and filling. Water quality and
other environmental data are required.
15.3.1.2 U.S. State Permits
Permits required by each state vary somewhat in name, as do the state agencies that administer
the permits. However, each state in which Barrick operates is likely to require all of the general
permits listed in the following summary. Since the requirements for each permit are likely to vary
from state to state, no description of the permits is provided in this Procedures Manual.
Nevada agencies and permits are provided as examples because of Barrick’s strong presence in
that state:
Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Air Quality
Surface Disturbance Permit (Air Quality)
Permit to Operate (Air Quality)
Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation
Water Pollution Control Permit
Reclamation Permit
Bureau of Solid Waste
Permit (Approval) Required to Operate Sanitary Landfill
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
General Discharge Permit
Division of Water Resources
BARRICK
Permit to Appropriate Water
Nevada Diviion of Wildlife
Industrial Artificial Pond Permits
State of Nevada
Fire Marshal Division
Hazardous Materials Storage Permit
15.3.1.3 U.S. Local Permits
Required local permits usually pertain to site-specific construction codes (building permits, etc.)
and health issues (septic system permits, sanitary disposal permits, etc.). Local permits generally
can be considered non-issues with respect to the Statement of Mineral Reserves. While local
permits must be obtained the same diligence and care that is taken with Federal and State
permits, it is unlikely that approval for production could be denied or suspended due to lack of
having a required local permit or because of a local permit violation.
15.3.2 Required Permits – Canada
15.3.2.1 Introduction
After World War II, the natural resource sector began to expand in Canada. At this time, little
consideration was given to the consequences of large-scale resource operations, thus resulting in
the degradation of wildlife and fish habitat as well as air and water pollution. Environmental
attention then was focused on fixing problems after-the-fact, rather than preventing environmental
damage as it is today (CEAA 2007).
During the 1960’s, public interest in the environment was increasing and the Canadian
government identified the study of environmental effects of projects as a high priority. In the
1970s and 1980s the provinces began working toward their own environmental legislation. The
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was first introduced as Bill C-78 in 1990. The Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act, as it is today, was introduced and passed in 1995 (CEAA 2007).
There are two main purposes of environmental assessment:
• minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects before they occur

• incorporate environmental factors into decision making (CEAA 2007).
BARRICK
15.3.2.2 Federal EA Process
A federal environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment (CEA) Act is
normally conducted only if the CEA Act is triggered by one or more components of the project. A
federal CEA Act review may be triggered when a project involves Government of Canada
decision-making authority (e.g., as a proponent, as a land manager, as a source of funding, or as
a regulator). For example, if a project has the potential to affect a watercourse or waterbody, the
federal agency Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) would be triggered to
participate since waterways are under federal regulation (Fisheries Act) within Canada. Other
examples of federal regulatory triggers are the Navigable Waters Act and the Explosives Act. If a
project is potentially subject to the CEA Act, the proponent should be in contact with the federal
authority responsible for the project early in order to determine the extent of federal involvement.
If a project does not trigger federal involvement, it is still possible that the Minister of Environment
may invoke the Act so that the project will undergo federal environmental assessment. This may
happen if the Minister feels the project is of significant national public concern, has the potential to
cause significant adverse environmental effects across boundaries between non-federal and
federal lands or across provincial / international boundaries (CEAA 2007).
15.3.2.3 Federal Legislation
• Canadian Environmental Protection Act

• Canada Wildlife Act
• The Fisheries Act
• Metal Mining Effluent Regulations
• Species At Risk Act
• Canada National Parks Act
• Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
• Migratory Birds Convention Act
• Canada Water Act
• Navigable Waters Protection Act
15.3.2.4 Federal/Provincial Harmonization
In some cases, provincial and federal environmental assessment acts may apply. To avoid
duplication within these processes, the Minister of the Environment has entered into agreements
with the provincial and territorial governments to harmonize the environmental assessment
process (CEAA 2007). The Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization was signed in
1998 and, in conjunction; a Sub-agreement on Environmental Assessment was created. The
agreements provide guidelines for the roles and responsibilities for each government for projects
that invoke both Acts and are meant streamline the environmental assessment process, though
both governments retain their own decision making responsibilities and authority (CEAA 2007).
BARRICK
The following provincial agreements have been signed (original or interim agreement year in
brackets):
Canada – Alberta Agreement for Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2005
Canada – British Columbia Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2004 (1997)
Canada – Manitoba Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2007 (1994)
Canada – Newfoundland/Labrador Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2005

(Draft)
Canada – Ontario Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2004
Canada – Quebec Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2004
Canada – Alberta Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2005
Canada – Saskatchewan Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2005 (1999)
Canada – Yukon Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2004
15.3.2.5 Mine Closure
O ver view
Most jurisdictions within Canada now require that the proponent of a mining related environmental
assessment submit a plan for the closure of the development. The initial closure plan should
describe the methods and measures that will be used to close the mine as well as the associated
costs. Before any mine development work can be initiated the provincial and/or federal
government must approve the initial closure and reclamation plans. The development of a final
closure plan may take years of study and detailed engineering before being completed (PDAC et
al 2006).
A closure and reclamation plan for any mine is site-specific. It details how the mining company will
close the mine site and return the surrounding land, as closely as possible, to its pre-mining state.
Mine closure and reclamation activities include decisions on what to do with every component of
the mine that was planned and put in place at the development stage, including, but not limited to:
• Buildings and other structures;

• Roads and airstrips;
• Tailings disposal facilities;
• Waste rock management, quarries and open pits;
• Petroleum and chemical storage areas and facilities;
• Pipelines and electrical transmission lines;
BARRICK
• Sewage and waste disposal areas and facilities;

• Mine and site drainage systems;
• Mine workings;
• Mine shaft, adit (passage ways), and decline openings (PDAC et al 2006).
Liability
Responsibility for mine closure and reclamation rests on the mine owner. Federal or provincial
governments ensure that mining companies give adequate financial assurance to guarantee the
costs of reclamation (including shut-down, closure, and post-closure). The financial assurance
may be a few million dollars for a small mine or over $100 million for a large mine. The deposit
ensures that the government will not be left with the responsibility of paying for a mine closure
(PDAC et al 2006).
P u b l i c C o n sult a t i on
The public normally reviews initial plans for mine closure during the public consultation process
that usually occurs as part of a project’s environmental assessment. Mining companies make
great efforts to ensure that public views and concerns are heard and addressed during this
consultation process (PDAC et al 2006).
15.3.2.6 British Columbia
In order to develop a mine in BC, it is likely that an environmental assessment certificate will be
required. There are two stages to the BC Environmental Assessment (EA) process. The first
stage is called the ‘pre-application’ stage. During the pre-application stage, exploration and
baseline studies are initiated. The proponent of the application (EA) and the Environmental
Assessment Office (EAO) work closely together at this stage to scope known and potential project
related issues that require further analysis. ‘Issue scoping’ is also done in consultation with other
interested and potentially affected parties including federal and provincial agencies, local
governments, First Nations, and the public. The proponent’s next step in the pre-application stage
is to develop a draft terms of reference for the application. The draft terms of reference outline the
necessary components of the application – project description and scope, scope of assessment
and study areas, project setting and characteristics, assessment of project impacts, mitigation
requirements and residual effects, First Nations considerations, and environmental management
system (monitoring). The terms of reference document is sent out for public review and comment.
Once the EAO is satisfied that the terms of reference provide an adequate overview of the
necessary components for the application, the terms of reference are finalized (BC Environmental
Assessment Office 2006).
The second stage in the EA process is called the ‘application’ stage. The first step in this stage is
for the proponent to submit the application for screening by EAO and its working groups (often
First Nations and other government agencies). The intent of the screening is to ensure that the
information required by the terms of reference has been provided within the application document.
Incomplete applications are returned to the proponent to be revised and address deficiencies.
BARRICK
Complete applications are accepted, distributed to interested parties, and the legislated 180 day
review period begins (BC Environmental Assessment Office 2006).
Based on the feedback received regarding the application, and further discussions with the
proponent and interested parties with respect to any identified outstanding issues, the EAO
prepare an assessment report with their recommendations which is submitted to the Minister of
Environment and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The application review
stage concludes with certification from both Ministers (BC Environmental Assessment Office
2006).
Post EA permitting, monitoring and reporting activities are managed by the regional Mine
Development Review Committees (BC Environmental Assessment Office 2006).
P u b l i c an d F ir s t N a t i o n s C o n s u l ta t i on
The proponent is expected to initiate public and First Nations consultation early in the project.
Each project should entail consultation specific to the project as well as the needs and aspirations
of the communities it may affect (BC Environmental Assessment Office 2006).
P r o v in c i a l R eg u l a t io n s
• Mines Act, RSBC 1996, Chapter 293

• Mineral Tenure Act, RSBC 1996, Chapter 292
• Ministry of Environment Act, RSBC 1996, Chapter 299
• Environment and Land Use Act, RSBC 1996, Chapter 117
• Environmental Assessment Act, RSBC 2002, Chapter 43
• Fish Protection Act, RSBC 1997, Chapter 21
• Waste Management Act, RSBC 1996, Chapter 483
• Water Act, RSBC 1996, Chapter 483
- BC Dam Safety Regulation
- Water Regulation
• Wildlife Act, RSBC 1996, Chapter 488
15.3.2.7 Alberta
The Environmental Assessment process is governed in Alberta by the Environmental Protection

and Enhancement Act, which is an umbrella document for many other associated regulations and
guidelines. The environmental assessment process starts when the Director (Regional
Environmental Manager, Alberta Environment) is of the opinion that the potential environmental or
social impacts of a proposed project are significant enough to warrant further consideration. In
making this decision the director considers the following information which is provided by the
proponent (Alberta Environment 1992):
• The location, size and nature of the proposed activity;
BARRICK
• The complexity of the proposed activity and the technology to be employed in it;
• Any concerns in respect of the proposed activity that have been expressed by the public of
which the Director is aware
• The presence of other similar activities in the same general area;
• Any other criteria established in the regulations; and,
• Any other factors the Director considers to be relevant.
If an environmental impact assessment report is required, the Director will notify the proponent in
writing and prepare a screening report regarding the need for the preparation of an environmental
impact assessment (EIA) report. At this time, the Director is to provide notice that an impact
assessment is going to take place. The first step is for the proponent to draft the terms of
reference for the EIA, based upon requirements specified by the Director. Once the draft terms of
reference have been prepared, the document is submitted to the Director and the proponent gives
notice (in a publication that is commonly circulated in the area in which the project is to take place,
and is approved by the Director) that the document is available for public review and comment.
After reviewing the document and the comments received, the Director finalizes the terms of
reference (Alberta Environment 1992).
The EIA must be prepared in accordance with the terms of reference. The EIA should include, but
is not limited to, the following information:
(a) A project description and analysis of the need for the activity;
(b) An analysis of the site selection procedure for the proposed activity, including a statement of
the reasons why the proposed site was chosen and a consideration of alternative sites;
(c) An identification of existing baseline environmental conditions and areas of major concern that
should be considered;
(d) A description of potential positive and negative environmental, social, economic and cultural
impacts of the proposed activity, including cumulative, regional, temporal, and spatial
considerations;
(e) An analysis of the significance of the potential impacts identified under clause (d)
(f) the plans that have been or will be developed to mitigate the potential negative impacts
identified under clause (d);
(g) An identification of issues related to human health that should be considered;
(h) A consideration of the alternatives to the proposed activity, including the alternative of not
proceeding with the proposed activity;
(i) The plans that have been or will be developed to monitor environmental impacts that are
predicted to occur and the plans that have been or will be developed to monitor proposed
mitigation measures;
BARRICK
(j) The contingency plans that have been or will be developed in order to respond to unpredicted
negative impacts;
(k) The plans that have been or will be developed for waste minimization and recycling;
(l) The manner in which the proponent intends to implement a program of public consultation in
respect of the undertaking of the project and to present the results of that program;
(m) The plans that have been or will be developed to minimize the production or the release into
the environment of substances that may have an adverse effect;
(n) The final terms of reference issued by the Director; and,
(o) Any other information that the Director considers necessary to assess the proposed activity.
Once the EIA is submitted to the Director and it is deemed complete, the proponent will be
required to publish the report and provide notice (within ten days) that it is available for review by
interested parties. The Director submits the EIA along with any associated comments or
recommendations to the Minister of Environment for final approval (Alberta Environment 1992).
• Mines and Minerals Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-17

• Fisheries (Alberta) Act R.S.A. 2000, c. F-16
- Fisheries (Ministerial) Regulation, Alta. Reg. 220/1997
• Fisheries (Alberta) Amendment Act, 2002, S.A. 2002, c. 14
• Fisheries (Alberta) Amendment Act, 2001 (Unproclaimed Sections Only), S.A. 2001, c. 8
• Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act, R.S.A.
2000, c. W-9
• Wildlife Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-10
- Wildlife Regulation, Alta. Reg. 143/1997
• Wildlife amendment Act 2003 (Unproclaimed Sections Only), S.A. 2003, c. 49
• Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, R.S.A 2000, c. E-12
- Environmental Assessment (Mandatory and Exempted Activities) Regulation, Alta. Reg.
111/1993
- Environmental Assessment Regulation, Alta. Reg. 112/1993
- Waste Control Regulation, Atla. Reg. 192/1996
• Forests Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. F-22
• Forest and Prairie Protection Act
• Historical Resources Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-9
• Water Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-3
- Water (Ministerial) Regulation, Alta. Reg. 205.1998
BARRICK
• Public Lands Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-40

- Exploration Dispute Resolution Regulation, Alta, Reg. 227/2003
- Exploration Regulation, Alta. Reg. 284/2006
- Metallic and Industrial Exploration Regulation, Alta. Reg. 213/1998
• Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act, R.S.A.
2001, c. W-9
15.3.2.8 Saskatchewan
If a proposed project is likely to have a significant effect on the biophysical environment or related
socio-economic structure, the project is considered a ‘development’ and the proponent of the
development must conduct an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and draft an environmental
impact statement (EIS) (Saskatchewan Environment 2007).
The kinds of effects considered significant in Saskatchewan are described in Section 2(d) of The
Environmental Assessment Act (1980):
(i) have an effect on any unique, rare or endangered feature of the environment;
(ii) substantially utilize any provincial resource and in so doing pre-empt the use, or potential use,
of that resource for any other purpose;
(iii) cause the emission of any pollutants or create by-products, residual or waste products which
require handling and disposal in a manner that is not regulated by any other Act or regulation;
(iv) cause widespread public concern because of potential environmental changes;
(v) involve a new technology that is concerned with resource utilization and that may induce
significant environmental change; or
(vi) have a significant impact on the environment or necessitate a further development which is
likely to have a significant impact on the development."
It is expected that, due to the need for tailings management, a mine would fall under the category
of a development, thus requiring an EIA and EIS.
T e c hn i c a l R ev i e w P a n e l
The Saskatchewan Environmental Assessment Branch is the department of the provincial

government that coordinates the approval of environmental assessments. The coordination of the
approvals begins with the establishment of an interdepartmental review panel (called the
Saskatchewan Environmental Assessment Review Panel or SEARP). Each representative of
SEARP is normally a member of a provincial department or agency with environmental or socio-
economic responsibilities, although other parties including federal authorities and local
governments may be consulted when necessary. SEARP provides the review panel with the
BARRICK
multidisciplinary expertise necessary to adequately assess the potential impact(s) that a project
may have (Saskatchewan Environment 2007).
The environmental assessment process in Saskatchewan can be summarized into a series of

stages (Saskatchewan Environment 2007).
Stage 1: Development of a Project Description
The project description should provide any known information about the project including:
• Contact information for the proponent and key personnel

• Project schedule and duration
• Project location
• Project benefits (including employment potential)
• Construction, operation, and decommissioning details (if available)
• Project size, layout, capacity, production rates, and process information (if available)
• All inputs such as water, electricity, process chemicals and hazardous substances (if
available)
• Associated ancillary projects, such as pipelines, borrow pits, roads, and treatment plants (if
available)
• Amount and type of by-products and wastes that will be generated by the project (if available)
The EA Branch notifies the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) that an EIA will
be undertaken as per Canada-Saskatchewan Agreement on EA Cooperation.
Stage 2: Development of Project Specific Guidelines
The project description is submitted to the EA Branch for review and, in turn, the EA Branch
engages SEARP. SEARP and the proponent work together to draft a list of Project Specific
Guidelines (PSGs). The PSGs are essentially terms of reference which will provide the proponent
with guidance with regard to the scope of the impact assessment that will be undertaken. Once
the list of PSGs is drafted, it is released to the public for review (30 days). At the end of the 30
day period, the EA Branch considers any comments received and develops the final list of PSGs.
This list is then provided to the proponent who can then begin work on the EIA.
Stage 3: Environmental Baseline Study
The Environmental Baseline Study (EBS) is carried out by the proponent in order to provide pre-
development environmental and socio-economic data. Normally, the baseline study would
examine collected field data pertaining to environmental components such as vegetation and soils,
wildlife and birds, fish and fish habitat, hydrogeology, climate, air quality, and geology. Information
regarding the social structure of communities that may potentially be impacted by the development
is also collected.
BARRICK
Stage 4: Environmental Impact Assessment
The environmental impact assessment takes into account information gathered in the EBS and
analyzes the potential impacts that the development may have. Positive and negative impacts are
discussed, as well as preventative and mitigative measures that will be employed to lessen those
impacts that are negative.
Stage 5: Environmental Impact Statement
The environmental impact statement contains the environmental baseline study report and the
environmental impact assessment. Information is provided with regard to project activities, some
of which was likely drafted for the initial project description (see Stage 1). The EIS also includes
information pertaining to comments received through public / aboriginal consultation, which is
normally conducted by the proponent as the EIA is being developed and throughout EA process.
Stage 6: Technical and Public Review
Once the EIS is submitted to the EA Branch, a technical review is carried out, which is normally
completed within 60 days. If there are any deficiencies in the EIS, a Deficiency Statement will be
issued to the proponent. The proponent must then submit the requested additional information for
review by the EA Branch. Once the EA Branch is satisfied with the content of the EIS, technical
review comments are drafted and both the comments and EIS document are released for public
review (minimum 30 days).
Stage 7: EIS Approval
Once the public review has ended, the EA Branch submits the EIS, technical review comments,
public comments, and recommendations to the Minister. If the Minister approves the
development, the proponent may then proceed with acquiring the permits, leases or licenses
necessary for project implementation.
Public Pa rticipation
Public participation is an important and required component of the EA process. The proponent of
the development is expected to engage public involvement at an early stage in the impact
assessment. This allows for open two-way communication between the local communities and
the proponent, and may form the basis of positive and long-term relationships between the two
parties. Effective public involvement enables the proponent to identify issues early in the process,
assess their significance, and for plan mitigation/enhancement measures (Saskatchewan
Environment 2007).
The public consultation process may involve any interested parties, including Aboriginal and Metis
peoples; however, it is not unusual for Aboriginal and Metis people to request consultation
separate from the general public. If this is the case, Saskatchewan Environment recommends
that they are notified, as there are a number of government agencies that have substantial
experience working with Aboriginal and Metis peoples and may be of assistance to the proponent
BARRICK
in gathering background information suitable to consultation of this type. In May 2007,

Saskatchewan Environment published a Best Management Practices document called First Nation
and Metis Community Engagement (BMP-014). This document may provide for an initial plan as
to starting the consultation process (Saskatchewan Environment 2007).
It is recommended for any type of consultation that any communication is documented and
records of the communication are provided in the EIS.
T i me l i n e f or E A A pp r o v a l
In a best case scenario, the process for an EIS to be drafted, reviewed, and approved would take
approximately one year (Saskatchewan Environment 2007).
• Environmental Assessment Act, S.S. 1979-80, c. E-10.1

• Environmental Management and Protection Act, 2002, S.S. 2002, c. E-10.21
- Environmental Spill Control Regulations, R.R.S. c. D-14 Reg.1
- Hazardous Substances and Waste Dangerous Goods Regulations, R.R.S. c. E-10.2,
Reg.3
- Mineral Industry Environmental Protection Regulations, 1996, R.R.S. c. E-10.2 Reg.7
- Water Regulations, 2002, R.R.S. c. E-10.21 Reg. 1
• The Clean Air Act, S.S. 1986-87-88, c. C-12.1
- Clean Air Regulations, R.R.S. c. C-12.1 Reg. 1
• Air Pollution Control (Repealed), R.S.S. 1978, c. A-17
- Potash Refining Air Emissions Regulations, R.R.S. c. A-17 Reg. 1
• The Wildlife Act, 1998, c. W-13.12
- Wildlife Regulations, 1981, R.R.S. c. W-13.1
• Wildlife Habitat Protection Act, S.S. 1983-84, c. W-13.2
- Wildlife Habitat Lands Disposition and Alteration Regulations, R.R.S. c. W-13.2 Reg.1
• Natural Resources Act, S.S. 1993, c. N-3.1
• The Fisheries Act (Saskatchewan), 1994, S.S. 1994, c. F-16.1
- Fisheries Regulations, R.R.S. c. f-16.1 Reg. 1
• Forest Resources Management Act, S.S. 1996, c. F-19.1
- Forest Resources Management Regulations, R.R.S. c. F-19.1 Reg. 1
• Heritage Property Act, S.S. 1979-80, c. H-2.2
- Heritage Property Regulations, Sask. Reg. 279/80
15.3.2.9 Manitoba
Under the Manitoba Environment Act, a person/company wanting to develop a mine must file an
Environment Act License Proposal with the Environmental Assessment Branch of Manitoba
BARRICK
Conservation. Prior to filing the proposal it is necessary to determine which Class the project will
fall under. Metal and mineral mines, including mine facilities such as smelters and refineries, are
considered to be Class II developments in Manitoba and potash mines and their associated milling
facilities are considered to be Class III (Government of Manitoba 1988).
Class II Assessment
A Class II License application fee is $5000 (MB Conservation 1997). The proponent of a Class II
EALP may be required by the Director to submit an environmental assessment report including
existing environmental (baseline) data collection and analysis, alternatives to the proposed
development processes and locations, and mitigation measures to deal with adverse
environmental or social impacts. The proponent may also be expected to carry out public
consultation pertaining to the project. After reviewing the assessment, the Director may request
that the Minister direct the chairperson of the Clean Environment Commission (CEC) to hold a
public meeting (Government of Manitoba 1987).
Class III Asse ssment
A Class III License application fee for an energy or mine project is $100,000 (MB Conservation
1997). The proponent of a Class III EALP may be required by the Minister to submit an
environmental assessment report including existing environmental (baseline) data collection and
analysis, alternatives to the proposed development processes and locations, and mitigation
measures to deal with adverse environmental or social impacts. The proponent may also be
expected to carry out public consultation pertaining to the project. After reviewing the
assessment, the Minister may cause a public hearing of the CEC to be held (Government of
Manitoba 1987).
Timeline
The timeline for an environment act license to be issued depends greatly upon the Class (i.e.
complexity) of the project. Manitoba Conservation strives to make the process as efficient as
possible. The proponent is encouraged to work closely with Manitoba Conservation throughout
the assessment process so that efficiencies can be maintained and delays avoided as mush as
possible.
• Environment Act, C.C.S.M. c. E125

- Waste Disposal Grounds Regulation, Man. Reg. 150/91
- Onsite Wastewater Systems Regulation, Man. Reg, 83/2003
• Contaminated Sites Remediation Act, C.C.S.M. c. C205
• Sustainable Development Act, C.C.S.M. c. S270
• Endangered Species Act, C.C.S.M. c. E111
- Threatened, Endangered and Extirpated Species Regulation, Man. Reg. 25/98
• Ground Water and Water Well Act, C.C.S.M. c. G110
BARRICK
- Well Drilling Regulation, Man. Reg. 228/88R

• Oil and Gas Act, C.C.S.M. c. O34
- Drilling and Production Regulation, Man. Reg. 111/94
- Geophysical Regulation, Man. Reg. 110/94
• Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act, C.C.S.M. c. H15
• Public Health Act, C.C.S.M. c. P210
- Sanitary Areas Regulation, Man. Reg. 328/88 R
- Protection of Water Sources Regulation, Man. REg. 326/88R
• Manitoba Habitat Heritage Act, C.C.S.M. c. H3
• Mines and Minerals Act, C.C.S.M. c. M162
• Drinking Water Safety Act, C.C.S.M. c.D101
- Drinking Water Quality Standards Regulation, Man. Reg. 41/2007
- Drinking Water Safety Regulation, Man. Reg. 40/2007
• Water Resources Conservation Act, C.C.S.M. c. W72
• The Water Rights Act C.C.S.M. c. W80
- Water Rights Regulation, Man. Reg. 126/87
• Wildlife Act, C.C.S.M. c. W130
• Fisheries Act, C.C.S.M. c. F090
• Provincial Parks Act, C.C.S.M. c. P20
• Forest Act, C.C.S.M. c. F150
- Forest Use and Management Regulation, Man. Reg. 227/88R
• Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act, C.C.S.M. c. D12
- Environmental Accident Reporting Regulation, Man. Reg. 439/87
15.3.2.10 Ontario
The first step in Ontario’s environmental assessment (EA) process is the submission of a Terms of
Reference (ToR) document. The ToR are drafted by the proponent after public and
federal/provincial agency consultation has taken place, and are meant to provide a framework or
work plan for what is going to be studied in the EA. Once the draft ToR has been prepared, it is
submitted to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and sent to the Minister of
Environment for review and approval. At this time the proponent is also required to submit to the
Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, a terms of reference summary form. The form
is posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights website for a public review period of 30 days
(minimum). The regulated timeline that the Minister must adhere to with respect to approval of the
terms of reference is 12 weeks from the date of submission to the Ministry (Ontario Ministry of the
Environment 2002).
BARRICK
Once the terms of reference are approved, the next step is to compile information for the draft
environmental assessment and prepare the report. The report must be consistent with the
approved terms of reference and should include information regarding potential negative and
positive affects of the proposed project as well as mitigation measures for those that may be
harmful to human or environmental health. The proponent is expected to consult with interested
parties on the preparation of the EA and document the results of that consultation. Once the report
is ready to be submitted to the Ministry, the proponent is required to give public notice of the
submission (Ontario Ministry of the Environment 2002).
Once public notice has been given, the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
coordinates a review of the document soliciting comments from various potentially affected
parties. The regulated timelines provide for a seven week (from date of submission) comment
period for written submission to be made to the Ministry. During this time, the proponent may
revise the EA at anytime. The Ministry review will identify any deficiencies in the document and
prepare a Ministry Review Document, which is put out for public review for five weeks. During this
time anyone, including the proponent, has the opportunity to make a written request to the Minister
suggesting outstanding issues, how they may be resolved, or whether a hearing should be held by
the Environmental Review Tribunal. After the review period, the Minister decides whether to
approve the assessment, refer it to the Environmental Review Tribunal, refer it to mediation, or
refuse approval. If a hearing is not required, the Minister is regulated to make a decision within 30
weeks (from date of submission of EA to the Ministry) (Ontario Ministry of the Environment 2002).
• Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.18

• Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19
- Airborne Contaminant Discharge Monitoring and Reporting, O. Reg. 127/01
- Ambient Air Quality Criteria, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 337
- Effluent Monitoring and Effluent Limits-Metal Mining Sector, O. Reg. 537/94
• Endangered Species Act, R.S.O, 1990, c. E.15
Endangered Species, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 328
• Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 41
Wildlife Schedules, O. Reg. 669/98
• Clean Water Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c.22
• Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.32
• Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.40
• Wilderness Areas Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. W.8
• Forestry Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.F.26
• Mining Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.14
• Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c.12
BARRICK
• Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18

Archaeological Sites, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 875
Historic Sites, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 880
Marine Archaeological Sites, O. Reg. 11/06
15.3.2.11 QUEBEC
S o u th er n Q ue b e c
The first step is for the proponent to submit a written proposal to the Minister of Environment. The
Minister then sends out project specific guidelines for the impact assessment statement including
project justification, project options, biophysical and human settings, impacts, mitigation
measures, emergency response measures, and monitoring programs. The second step is the
preparation and submission of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) statement. Specialists
from the Ministry of Environment (Ministere de l’Environment) along with other departments and
agencies verify that all the elements required in the guidelines have been addressed in the report.
Following this verification, the Minister can address questions and comments to the proponent
prior to the EIA statement is made public (Ministère du Développement durable, de
l’Environnement et des Parcs 2002a).
The third step is a 45 day public review and comment period conducted by the Bureau
d’audiences publiques sur l’environment (BAPE). At this time a public hearing request may be
made to the Minister of Environment. If a hearing is not requested, BAPE prepares a report of its
observations which is forwarded to the Minister. There is a limit of four months for the BAPE to
submit its report. Within 60 days of its reception by the Minister, the BAPE report is made public
(Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs 2002a).
Step four involves the Ministry of Environment, in consultation with other government departments
and agencies, analysing the EIA statement in order to advise the Minister with respect to the
environmental acceptability of the project. Based on the report generated from the review in step
four along with the report generated by BAPE, the Minister of Environment makes his
recommendations on the project to the government. The government then approves or rejects the
project. Prior to project implementation the proponent is expected to submit plans and
specifications to the Ministry of Environment in order to obtain a certificate of authorization
(Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs 2002a).
N or th er n Q ue b e c
Due to the active participation of the Cree, Inuit and Naskapi communities and in accordance with
the James Bay and Northern Quebec / Northeasten Quebec Agreements, the environmental
procedures for the northern regions of Quebec stand apart from those of the south. As well, the
procedure may be further differentiated based on whether or not it is north or south of the 55th
parallel. This last differentiation based on the projects location with respect to the 55th parallel will
determine the type of commission/committee that reviews and approved the project; however
each type follows the same 5 step process (Ministère du Développement durable, de
l’Environnement et des Parcs 2002b).
BARRICK
Mining projects are included in the list of developments which require the full assessment and
review process, outlined here. The process begins with the proponent submitting a notice of intent
to the Administrator along with preliminary information on the project. This information should
include the objectives, nature and scope of the project, as well as the various sites being
considered of the various possible development alternatives. The preliminary information is sent
to the committee responsible for defining the nature and extent of the impact study. The review
committees are as follows:
• the Evaluating Committee (COMEV) is a tripartite Québec/Canada/Cree agency responsible

for assessing and drawing up guidelines for the impact study of projects located south of the
55th parallel;
• the Review Committee (COMEX) is a bipartite Québec/Cree agency responsible for reviewing
projects located south of the 55th parallel;
• the Kativik Environmental Quality Commission (KEQC), composed of Québec and Inuit
representatives, is responsible for assessing and reviewing projects located north of the 55th
parallel (Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs 2002b).
If the project is subject to the environmental assessment process, the committee formulates
project specific guidelines which outline the extent of the impact study. The guidelines are passed
along to the proponent who can then begin to prepare the impact study. The components of the
impact study may vary according to project; however they must comply with the Regulation
respecting the environmental and social impact assessment and review procedure applicable to
the territory of James Bay and Northern Quebec (Q-2, r.11). The proponent submits the impact
assessment report to the Administrator who then sends it to the appropriate review committee,
who may hold public hearings or any other type of consultation. The committee then recommends
whether to accept or reject the project development. The Administrator takes into account the
committee’s recommendations and makes a final decision. The EA process has established time
limits that would result in project approval within 6-18 months; however the Administrator has the
authority to extend deadlines if he feels it is necessary (Ministère du Développement durable, de
l’Environnement et des Parcs 2002b).
• Environment Quality Act, R.S.Q. c. Q-2

Regulation Respecting the Environmental Impact Assessment and Review, R.Q.c.Q-2,
r.9
Groundwater Catchment Regulation, R.Q. c.Q-2, r.13
Regulation Respecting Pits and Quarries, R.Q. c. Q-2, r.2
Regulation Respecting the Burial of Contaminated Soils, c. Q-2, r.6.01
• Water Resources Preservation Act, R.S.Q. c. P-18.1
• An Act Respecting the Conservation and Development of wildlife, R.S.Q, c. C-61.1
BARRICK
Regulation Respecting Wildlife Habitats, R.Q.c.C-61.1, r.18

• An Act Respecting Threatened or Vulnerable Species, R.S.Q. c. E-12.01
Regulation Respecting Threatened or Vulnerable Plant Species and Their Habitats,
R.Q. c. E-12.01, r.04
• Watercourses Act, R.S.Q. c. R-13
• Natural Heritage Conservation Act, R.S.Q.c.C-61.01
• Cultural Property Act, R.S.Q.c.B-4
15.3.2.12 PEI
If a person or company wants to initiate an undertaking, a written proposal must be submitted to

PEI Environment and Land. The Minister will then make a decision regarding the need for
additional information or the requirement for an environmental impact assessment and
environmental impact statement (EIS). The Minister must also allow for public review and
comment of the proposal prior to making his decision. If it is required, the Minister will direct the
proponent as to the content and format of the EIS. The Department of Environment and Land,
along with any other affected government agency, review the document and provides their
recommendation(s) to the Minister. The Minister makes a final decision on whether or not the
project can move forward (PEI Environment and Land 2007).
• Environment Protection Act R.S.P.E.I. 1988m c.E-9

Air Quality Regulations, P.E.I. Reg. EC377/92
Excavation Pits Regulations, P.E.I. Reg. EC753/90
• Fisheries Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. F-13.01
General Regulations, P.E.I. Reg. EC873/95
• Wildlife Conservation Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. W-4.1
• Fish and Game Protection Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. F-12
• Forest Management Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. F-14
• Heritage Places Protection Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. H-3.1
15.3.2.13 NEWFOUNDLAND/LABRADOR
The proponent must submit 40 copies of a registration document to the Minister. The contents of
the registration document are a project description, potential impacts of the project to environment
BARRICK
or socio-economic structure, as well as mitigative measures to avoid or minimize adverse effects.

Within 7 days of receiving a registration application, the Minister must publish a notice to alert the
public. Copies of the document are made available to the public and a 35 day public review and
comment period begins. The EA Division of Newfoundland Environment coordinates the
government (technical) and public reviews. Within 45 days of receiving the registration document,
the Minister will advise the proponent of his decision and will provide public notice of said decision.
There are four options that the Minister has for a decision: approval, additional information
required, environmental impact statement required, or rejection (Newfoundland and Labrador
Department of Environment and Conservation 2007)
When an EIS is required, the Minister will establish an Assessment Committee. The committee is
comprised of technical experts from affected federal and provincial government agencies and is
chaired by a staff person from the EA Division. The committee is responsible for preparing the
project guidelines which will guide the proponent in compiling the EIS. Guidelines must be
provided to the proponent within 120 days of the EIS decision and are subject to a 40 day review
period prior to approval by the Minister (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment
and Conservation 2007).
During preparation of the EIS, the proponent is required to implement a public information
program for the area potentially affected by the project. The concerns raised by the public are to
be recorded by the proponent and addressed in the EIS. Once the EIS is submitted the Minister
provides notification for the public that there is a public review and comment period, the EA
committee reviews the document and makes a recommendation to the Minister, the Minister
makes a recommendation to the Cabinet and the Cabinet decides whether to approve or reject the
project (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation 2007).
• Environmental Protection Act, S.N.L. 2002, c. E-14.2

Air Pollution Control Regulations, 2004, N.L.R. 39/04
Environmental Assessment Regulations, 2003, N.L.R. 54/03
• Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, S.N.L. 2004, c. L-3.1
Mineral Exploration Standards Regulations, N.L.R. 39/07
• Endangered Species Act, S.N.L. 2001, c. E-10.1
Species Status Advisory Committee Regulations, N.L.R. 94/01
• Water Resources Act, S.N.L. 2002, c. W-4.01
• Fisheries Act, S.N.L. 1995, c. F-12.1
• Wildlife Act, R.S.N.L. 1990, c. W-8
• Lands Act, S.N.L. 1991, c.36
BARRICK
15.3.2.14 Nova Scotia
Nova Scotia categorizes projects into two classes. Class 1 are normally considered smaller
undertakings that may or may not cause significant environmental impacts or concern to the public
(mining is classified as Class 1, unless a smelter is planned to be constructed). Class 2 projects
normally have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts or social concern (i.e.
petrochemical facilities). The following is a summary of the process to approve a Class 1 project
(Nova Scotia Environment and Labour 2003).
The first step is for the proponent to register the project. The registration is basically a project
description and must include the information specified in Section 9(1) of the Environmental
Assessment Regulations as well as any sector-specific information that may be required. It is up
to the proponent if any other information is included in the registration document. Additional
information may be presented with regard to the existing environment, predicted impacts and
mitigation and monitoring measures that the proponent will take. Socio economic information
about the area that the project is located within may be given as well as potential effects that the
project may have on the socio economic structure, mitigation measures to avoid those that are
negative and ways to maximize the positive ones. The decommissioning phase of the project may
also be discussed. It is up to the proponent whether or not they want to involve the public while
the registration document is being prepared; however it is encouraged that public input is sought
so as to ensure that concerns can be addressed early. Any contact that the proponent might have
with the public should be documented and included with the registration (Nova Scotia Environment
and Labour 2003).
Once the registration document is submitted to the Environmental Assessment Branch (EAB) the
environmental assessment starts. The registration is published on the EAB website and the
proponent is required to establish two public viewing locations within a reasonable distance to the
project site where interested parties can view a hardcopy of the document. The proponent must
publish a notice, within 7 days of registration submission, that the registration document is
available for viewing in two newspapers, one local to the project site and one with province-wide
circulation. An electronic copy of the notices is to be published on the EAB website. The Minister
must make a decision to approve or reject the registration application or the Minister may request
additional information in the form of a focus report or environmental assessment report (Nova
Scotia Environment and Labour 2003).
If an environmental assessment report is required, likely it is because the Minister feels there are
unresolved aspects of the proposed project and those aspects may cause significant adverse
effects. At this time, the EAB will prepare a draft terms of reference document (within 12 days of
Minister’s decision) and put it out for public review (40 days). Within 5 days of the end of the
review period, the proponent will be advised of any comments received. The proponent then has
21 days to respond to the comments. Following their response, the proponent should receive the
final terms of reference within 14 days. The proponent then has up to two years to prepare and
submit the environmental assessment report (Nova Scotia Environment and Labour 2003).
BARRICK
Once the EA report is submitted, the EAB does an initial review to ensure that the terms of
reference requirements have been met. If they have and a referral to the EA Board is not
required, the report will be released for a 48 day public review. After the review period, the EAB
has 25 days to submit the report with their recommendations to the Minister. The Minister then
has 21 days to approve or reject the assessment (Nova Scotia Environment and Labour 2003).
P r o v in c i a l R eg u l a t io n s :
• Environment Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c.1

Air Quality Regulations, N.S. Reg. 28/2005
Environmental Assessment Regulations, N.S. Reg. 26/95
Emergency Spill Regulations, N.S. Reg. 59/95
Dangerous Goods Management Regulations, N.S. Reg. 56/95
• Water Resources Protection Act, S.N.S. 2000, c.10
• Wildlife Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 504
General Wildlife Regulations, N.S. Reg. 205/87
• Forest Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.179
• Wildlife Habitat and Watercourses Protection Regulations, N.S. Reg. 138/2001
• Conservation Easements Act, S.N.S. 2001, c. 28
Archaeological Sites Regulations, N.S. Reg. 64/2007
• Endangered Species Act, S.N.S. 1998, c.11
15.3.2.15 NEW BRUNSWICK
Proponent must register the project with the Department of the Environment (all commercial
extraction or processing of a mineral as defined in the Mining Act must register). The registration
document must include full and accurate descriptions of the project location, proposed activities,
the existing environment, potential impacts, and proposed mitigation measures. Once complete,
the registration document for the project undergoes a Determination Review. The review is
coordinated by the Project Assessment Branch (PAB) of the Department of the Environment and
is completed with the assistance of a Technical Review Committee (TRC). The purpose of this
review is to determine whether or not a Comprehensive Review is required. The PAB makes
every effort to complete the determination review within 120 days of the date they receive the
registration document. In accordance with Section 6(3) of the EIA Regulation, once the Minister
has received sufficient information about the project to make a decision, he should do so within 30
days. If the project can be approved based solely on the determination review, a Certificate of
Determination will be issued. If a comprehensive review is deemed necessary, the proponent will
receive written notification (New Brunswick Department of the Environment and Local
Government. 2005).
BARRICK
The comprehensive review is carried out by the proponent, the technical review committee, the
project assessment branch, the Department of the Environment and the local government,
although responsibility rests ultimately on the proponent. The first step in the comprehensive
review process is to draft guidelines that identify the important environmental issues that must be
considered in assessing the impacts of a particular development. They also specify a general
approach that the proponent should follow in conducting the comprehensive environmental impact
assessment report. The Minister is responsible for issuing the draft guidelines for public comment
within 60 days of announcing that a comprehensive review is required. Any interested party then
has 30 days to submit written comments to the Minister. After the 30 day public review, the
Minister has 30 days to finalize the guidelines and provide them to the proponent. Following the
receipt of the final guidelines, the proponent is required to prepare the terms of reference which
will describe in detail the approach that will be used by the proponent’s study team (New
Brunswick Department of the Environment and Local Government. 2005).
Public consultation is required by the proponent during EIA preparation as specified in the
guidelines for the project. Once the report is drafted, the proponent is to submit it to the Minister.
The Minister then hands the report over to the TRC for an initial review to ensure that the
requirements of the project guidelines and terms of reference have been met. If the TRC
recommends to the Minister that the report is sufficient, the proponent is required to submit 30
copies of the final report, written in both official languages. The Department of Environment
prepares a summary of the final report and the TRC prepares a General Review Statement. All of
the information, including the final EIA report, the EIA report summary and the general review
statement, is then made public for a minimum of 30 days. The proponent is also required to hold
at least one public meeting, in the area where the proposed project is to take place, to discuss the
information presented in the EIA report. The proponent must submit to the Minister transcripts of
the public meeting(s), and any additional comments received during the fifteen day comment
period following this final meeting. The summary is released publication and copies are sent to
every person who identified himself during the public meeting(s). At the same time, a package
including the EIA report and summary of public consultation is provided to the Minister for final
consideration (New Brunswick Department of the Environment and Local Government. 2005).
The Minister considers the final package of information received and provides his
recommendation(s) to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council is
then responsible to approve or reject the project (New Brunswick Department of the Environment
and Local Government. 2005).
• Clean Environment Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. C-6

Water Quality Regulation, NB. Reg. 82-126
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation, N.B. Reg. 96-11
• Clean Water Act, S.N.B.
Watercourse and Wetland Alteration Regulation, N.B. Reg. 90-80
BARRICK
Potable Water Regulation, N.B. Reg. 93-203

• Fish and Wildlife Act, S.N.B. 1980, c. F-14.1
• Endangered Species Act, S.N.B. 1996, c.E-9.101
Endangered Species Regulation, N.B. Reg. 96-26
• Parks Act, S.N.B. 1982, c. P-2.1
• Municipal Heritage Preservation Act, S.N.B. 1978, c. M-21.1
• Clean Air Act, S.N.B. 1997, c. C-5.2
Air Quality Regulation, N.B. Reg. 97-133
15.3.2.16 NWT
The Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board is the main organization established to
carry out environmental assessment and environmental impact review in the Mackenzie Valley,
Northwest Territories. The Review Board is responsible for conducting quality environmental
impact assessments in a timely manner, which protect the environment and enhance the social,
economic and cultural well-being of Mackenzie Valley residents and of all Canadians. The Review
Board has jurisdiction over the entire Mackenzie Valley (MVEIRB 2005).
• Environmental Protection Act, RSNWT 1998, c E-17

Spill Contingency Planning and Reporting Procedures
• Forest Management Act, RSNWT 1988, c F-9
• Wildlife Act, RSNWT 1988, c W-4
Critical Wildlife Areas Regulations
• Water Resources Agreement Act, RSNWT 1988, c 17
• Territorial Parks Act, RSNWT 1988, c T-4
• Forest Protection Act, RRNWT 1990, c P-2
• Mine Health and Safety Act, SNWT 1994, c 25
15.3.2.17 NUNAVUT
The Nunavut Impact Review Board (NRIB) is responsible for the provincial review of proposed
undertakings in the settled area of Nunavut, however the proponent is responsible for contacting
all authorizing agencies in order to proceed with a project. In Nunavut, these agencies may be the
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Nunavut Water Board or the Nunavut department
of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth. Although NIRB recommends an appropriate course of
action, it is the Minister responsible for the project that makes the final decision. This will involve
consultation with his/her colleagues that may also have decision making responsibilities. In most
BARRICK
cases it is the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). In cases where the Board
determines, and the Minister agrees that a public review is necessary, the Minister has the
authority to send project proposals either to NIRB for a Review under Part 5, or to a Federal
Environmental Assessment Panel for a Review under Part 6 of the NLCA. Section 12.4.7 directs
the Minister to take into account any relevant law, as well as the national and regional interests
when making this decision (NRIB 2007a).
The first step in the NRIB review process is proposal screening. The proponent is required to
provide a proposal, which includes any known details about the project, to NRIB. NRIB then
decides whether or not the information provided is sufficient and complete. If it is, NRIB
distributes the proposal to interested parties for review and comment. After a period of 45 days
(or longer if the Minister grants an extension) NRIB is required to make a recommendation to the
Minister and the Minister then makes a decision regarding whether the project:
• does not require further review and can be approved (project is not likely to have significant
environmental or social impacts)
• requires further review (project is likely to have significant environmental or social impacts)
• proposal requires additional information to be screened, or
• cannot be approved (NRIB 2007a).
If a review is required it will normally be in the form of an environmental impact assessment. The
first step in this process is for NRIB to scope the project in consultation with the proponent or any
other affected federal or territorial government agencies. From this, NRIB drafts a guidance
document the proponent is required to use in the preparation of the EIS. Once the EIS is drafted
and submitted to NRIB, NRIB will perform an initial review to ensure that it meets the requirements
set out in the guidance document. A technical review will take place and comments will be
provided to the proponent. The proponent then revises the draft EIS based on the comments and
submits a final version of the report. The Minister decides, based on the recommendation of the
technical review of the final submission, if the project can proceed (NRIB 2007b).
P u b l i c C o n sult a t i on
NIRB involves different interested Parties in the review process on a project-by-project basis, by
means of information centers and/or public hearings in potentially affected communities (NRIB
2006).
Nunavut is governed by many of the same acts and regulations as the Northwest Territories. The
exception is the Wildlife Act (S.Nu. 2003, C-26) that is unique to Nunavut.
15.3.2.18 YUKON
Mineral activities are assessed under the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment
Act (YESAA). Assessments are conducted by the arms-length Yukon Environmental and Socio-
economic Assessment Board (YESAB) or one of its six Designated Offices located throughout the
BARRICK
Yukon. The Yukon government is decision maker and responsible for regulating and enforcing
permits and licenses (Yukon Department of Energy, Mines and Resources 2006).
• Environmental Assessment Act, S.Y. 2003. c.2

• Environment Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c.76
• Coordination of Environmental Assessment Procedures and Requirements Regulation,
Y.O.I.C. 2003/69
Air Emissions Regulations, Y.O.I.C. 1998/207
Contaminated Sites Regulation, Y.O.I.C. 2002/171
Spills Regulations, Y.O.I.C. 1996/193
• Quartz Mining Act, S.Y. 2003, c.14
Quartz Mining Land Use Regulation, Y.O.I.C. 2003/64
• Placer Mining Act, S.Y. 2003, c.13
Placer Mining Land Use Regulation, Y.O.I.C. 2003/59
• Wildlife Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c.229
Wildlife Regulations, Y.O.I.C. 1982/089
• Waters Act, S.Y. 2003, c.19
Water Regulation, Y.O.I.C. 2003/58
• Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act, S.Y. 2003, c.17
Coal Regulation, Y.O.I.C. 2003/54
• Historic Resources Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c.109
Archaeological Sites Regulation, Y.O.I.C. 2003/73
BARRICK
15.3.3 Required Permits – Australia
15.3.3.1 Australian Federal Permits
15.3.3.2 Australian State Permits
15.3.3.3 Australian Local Permits
15.3.4 Required Permits – Other Countries
15.3.4.1 Federal Permits
15.3.4.2 State, Province or Region Permits
15.3.4.3 Local Permits
15.4 WORLD BANK STANDARDS
15.4.1 World Bank Environmental Assessment: Borrower Requirements and

Bank Review Process
The purpose of the World Bank environmental assessment (EA) process is to ensure that all
projects funded by the World Bank are environmentally sound and sustainable. Should
Barrick Gold wish to request funding through the World Bank, there are a number of policies
that may be applicable to a proposed mining project. The following information provides an
outline of the World Bank policies that may apply to a mining project.
15.4.2 Operational Policy 4.01 Environmental Assessment
An environmental assessment is required by the World Bank to identify potential risks and impacts
associated with a World Bank funded project, prior to project start up. The environmental
assessment takes into account potential impacts of the project on the natural environment, human
health and safety, and socio-economic structure; as well as how widespread these effects will be.
The environmental assessment needs to be initiated as early as possible in the borrowing

process. The borrower is responsible for preparing the EA, however the Bank advises the
borrower on the EA component requirements particular to the proposed project. The component
requirements for the EA are determined by the category assigned to the project by the Bank. The
Bank classification (category) is a result of the type, location, sensitivity, and scale of the project
and the nature and magnitude of its potential environmental impacts. The four World Bank
categories for environmental assessment type are outlined below.
BARRICK
Category A: Any project involving significant excavations, demolition, movement of earth, flooding,
or other environmental changes that is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts
that are sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented. Typically a Category A EA requirements include an
Environmental Impact Assessment, regional or sectoral EA, environmental audit, hazard or risk
assessment, and / or an environmental management plan. Whether or not all, some, or none of
these components are required for the EA is dependent on the Bank’s assessment of the
proposed project’s potential impact.
Category A requires independent environmental consultants, who are unaffiliated with the project,
to be retained by the borrower to carry out the EA. Timely public consultation with project-affected
communities and local NGO’s is also required at least twice as the EA progresses.
Category B: Environmental impacts are less significant and more localized than in Category A.
Impacts can normally be mitigated and are reversible. Category B requires public consultation
with project-affected communities and local NGO’s.
Category C: The proposed project is likely to have minimal or no adverse environmental impacts.
Category FI: The proposed project involves investment of Bank funds through a financial
intermediary and may result in adverse environmental impacts.
Both the biophysical environment and social-economic structure of the project and surrounding
area are to be closely examined in the EA document, beginning with the collection and
assessment of baseline data. Through this assessment potential impacts are identified and
recorded, as well as ways of preventing, minimizing, mitigating or compensating for adverse
impacts and enhancing positive impacts. Whenever possible, the bank favours preventative
measures over mitigatory or compensatory measures.
Policy 4.01 also requires the analysis of alternatives for various components of the project. The
alternatives pertaining to mining projects should extend to: (a) method of mining and processing
options, (b) options for conveying ore and tailings (conveyors, railroad, roads, etc), (c) tailings
disposal options, and (d) locations of tailings management area(s), waste rock site(s), work camp,
mill site, power supply, and access routes.
Furthermore, the EA must take into account the national and/or regional legislation related to
where the project is taking place. If the national and regional legislation cannot be adhered to, the
World Bank will not approve funding for the project.
15.4.3 Operational Policy 4.04 Natural Habitats
This policy supports the protection, maintenance, and rehabilitation of natural habitats and their
functions and expects that borrowers apply a precautionary approach to natural resource
management in order to ensure environmental sustainability. When possible, the Bank
encourages that projects are sited on lands which have already been converted. In the case of
mining, this may be possible with the re-opening of a mine site where minerals have previously
BARRICK
been extracted. However, due to the localized nature of mineral deposits new sites often must be
explored and considered. If the proposed project has the potential to significantly convert or
degrade a natural habitat(s), the EA must include mitigation and, if necessary, compensation
measures. Such measures may include strategic habitat retention, post-development restoration
or the establishment and maintenance of an ecologically similar protected area.
15.4.4 Operational Policy 4.10 Indigenous Peoples
Early in the EA process, the Bank will undertake a screening process to determine whether or not
Indigenous Peoples are currently present in or have a collective attachment to the project area. If
a situation exists where Indigenous Peoples are involved, the borrower is responsible for carrying
out a Social Assessment in which the project alternatives’ potential positive and adverse effects on
the Indigenous Peoples are examined. Consultation between the affected Indigenous Peoples is
expected to take place at each stage of the EA process. At the end of the consultation process an
Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) is prepared. The IPP sets out the measures through which the
borrower will ensure that (a) Indigenous Peoples affected by the project receive culturally
appropriate social and economic benefits; and (b) when potential adverse effects on Indigenous
Peoples are identified, those adverse effects are avoided, minimized, mitigated, or compensated
for. The complexity of the social assessment, consultation, and IPP depends on the degree to
which Indigenous Peoples may adversely affected by the project.
15.4.5 Operational Policy 4.11 Physical Cultural Resources
Physical cultural resources are defined as movable or immovable objects, sites, structures, groups
of structures, and natural features and landscapes that have archaeological, paleontological,
historical, architectural, religious, aesthetic, or other cultural significance. During preparation of
the terms of reference for a proposed project it is determined whether or not physical cultural
resources may be an adversely affected by the project. If physical cultural resources are present,
a plan must be developed to ensure that avoidance or mitigation measures are taken by the
borrower to protect the resource from being lost.
15.4.6 Operational Policy 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement
The Bank’s policy on involuntary resettlement is that it should be avoided or minimized where
feasible. Where it is not feasible to avoid resettlement, resettlement activities must be handled
with the utmost care so as to avoid long-term hardship, impoverishment, and environmental
damage.
15.4.7 Operational Policy 4.37 Safety of Dams
If a dam is required to be built as a part of a Bank funded project, Policy 4.37 must be adhered to.
This policy states that dams being constructed to a height of 15 meters or more (or those that are
expected to be expanded to greater than 15 meters during project implementation) be reviewed by
an independent panel of experts. It is also necessary for a large dam to have an implementation
BARRICK
plan which details the plan for construction supervision and quality assurance, an implementation
plan, an operation and maintenance plan, and an emergency preparedness plan.
Other World Bank policies and/or guidelines exist that may pertain to specific components of
various mining projects. The World Bank should always be consulted for guidelines pertaining to
individual projects.
15.4.8 World Bank Review Process
A task team is established by the appropriate Region of the World Bank. The test team reviews
the EA document in conjunction with the Regional Environment Sector Unit (RESU) and, when
necessary, the Environment Department. The task team prepares the project concept document
(PCD) and the project information document (PID). These documents include information
regarding key environmental issues (including resettlement, Indigenous Peoples, and physical
resource concerns), project category and type of EA documents required, proposed consultation
plan with project affected groups and local NGO’s, and a preliminary EA schedule.
If a component of a project changes during the EA process (i.e. the location of the tailings
management area), the task team decides if the project category (A, B, C, FI) should be
reclassified. Changes are recorded by the task team in the PCD/PID.
The task team assists the borrower in drafting the EA terms of reference and EA report. For a
category A project, the report must be submitted in English, French or Spanish, with an English
executive summary.
For a category A or B project, the draft report is submitted for review. The task team ensures that
one copy is kept in the project file. The English executive summary is then circulated to the Board
Operations Division and the Corporate Secretariat. The task team and RESU review the EA in its
entirety and ensure that the results of the EA are consistent with the terms of reference. If not
satisfied, RESU may recommend to the Region that (a) the appraisal (loan approval) be
postponed (b) the current appraisal be a pre-appraisal or (c) certain issues be examined during
the appraisal process.
Once satisfied, RESU sends a copy of the report to the Environment Department. The EA is
published in the World Bank InfoShop 60 days (for Category A) prior to loan approval or 30 days
prior (for Category B).

Section 15 Operating and Environmental Permit Requirements FINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 15 Operating and Environmental Permit Requirements FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BARRICK

BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION

BARRICK REPORTING GUIDELINES REFERENCE FOR

15.0 | OPERATING/ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS .................. 15-1

15.0 | OPERATING/ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT

15.2 MINERAL RESERVES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

“A Mineral Reserve is the economically mineable part of a Measured or Indicated Mineral

Unfortunately, there is no guidance provided by either NI 43-101 or Companion Policy 43-101CP

15.3 SUMMARY OF OPERATING AND ENVIRONMENTAL

15.3.1 Required Permits – United States

15.3.1.1 U.S. Federal Permits

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

15.3.1.2 U.S. State Permits

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Division of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Air Quality

Surface Disturbance Permit (Air Quality)

Permit to Operate (Air Quality)

Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation

Water Pollution Control Permit

Bureau of Solid Waste

Permit (Approval) Required to Operate Sanitary Landfill

Bureau of Water Pollution Control

General Discharge Permit

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Division of Water Resources

Permit to Appropriate Water

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Nevada Diviion of Wildlife

Industrial Artificial Pond Permits

Fire Marshal Division

Hazardous Materials Storage Permit

15.3.1.3 U.S. Local Permits

15.3.2 Required Permits – Canada

There are two main purposes of environmental assessment:

• minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects before they occur

15.3.2.2 Federal EA Process

15.3.2.3 Federal Legislation

• Canadian Environmental Protection Act

15.3.2.4 Federal/Provincial Harmonization

Canada – Alberta Agreement for Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2005

Canada – British Columbia Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2004 (1997)

Canada – Manitoba Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2007 (1994)

Canada – Newfoundland/Labrador Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2005

Canada – Ontario Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2004

Canada – Quebec Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2004

Canada – Alberta Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2005

Canada – Saskatchewan Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2005 (1999)

Canada – Yukon Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation, 2004

15.3.2.5 Mine Closure

• Buildings and other structures;

• Sewage and waste disposal areas and facilities;

15.3.2.6 British Columbia

• Mines Act, RSBC 1996, Chapter 293

The Environmental Assessment process is governed in Alberta by the Environmental Protection

• The location, size and nature of the proposed activity;

• Mines and Minerals Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-17

• Public Lands Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-40

The Saskatchewan Environmental Assessment Branch is the department of the provincial