Regulations Amending the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations: SOR/2025-71

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 159, Number 7

Registration
SOR/2025-71 March 6, 2025

FISHERIES ACT

P.C. 2025-274 March 5, 2025

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations under paragraph 36(5)(b) of the Fisheries Act ^{footnote a}.

Regulations Amending the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations

Amendment

1 Schedule 2 to the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations ^{footnote 1} is amended by adding the following in numerical order:

Item	Column 1 Water or Place	Column 2 Description
86	An unnamed lake located approximately 25 km north of the hamlet of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut	An unnamed lake, located at 63º00′42.127″ north latitude and 92º14′23.233″ west longitude, approximately 25 km north of the hamlet of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut.
87	All waters located within the area described in column 2, located approximately 25 km north of the hamlet of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut	The waters located within an area located approximately 25 km north of the hamlet of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. More precisely, the area bounded by four straight lines connecting four points starting at the point located at 63º02′34.324″ north latitude and 92º15′41.218″ west longitude to the point located 2307 m southeast at 63º01′43.637″ north latitude and 92º13′42.645″ west longitude to the point located 461 m southwest at 63º01′34.057″ north latitude and 92º14′09.194″ west longitude to the point located 2210 m northwest at 63º02′19.290″ north latitude and 92º16′10.778″ west longitude and ending at the point located 622 m northeast at 63º02′34.324″ north latitude and 92º15′41.218″ west longitude.
88	All waters located within the area described in column 2, located approximately 25 km north of the hamlet of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut	The waters located within an area located approximately 25 km north of the hamlet of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. More precisely, the area bounded by four straight lines connecting four points starting at the point located at 63º01′18.389″ north latitude and 92º11′10.194″ west longitude to the point located 848 m east at 63º01′16.650″ north latitude and 92º10′10.025″ west longitude to the point located 607 m southwest at 63º01′00.343″ north latitude and 92º10′33.950″ west longitude to the point located 716 m northwest at 63º01′15.110″ north latitude and 92º11′13.145″ west longitude and ending at the point located 109 m northeast at 63º01′18.389″ north latitude and 92º11′10.194″ west longitude.
89	All waters located within the area described in column 2, located approximately 25 km north of the hamlet of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut	The waters located within an area located approximately 25 km north of the hamlet of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. More precisely, the area bounded by four straight lines connecting four points starting at the point located at 63º00′06.358″ north latitude and 92º09′24.384″ west longitude to the point located 849 m southeast at 62º59′50.071″ north latitude and 92º08′35.801″ west longitude to the point located 440 m southwest at 62º59′42.377″ north latitude and 92º09′02.050″ west longitude to the point located 833 m northwest at 63º00′03.534″ north latitude and 92º09′38.575″ west longitude and ending at the point located 218 m northeast at 63º00′06.358″ north latitude and 92º09′24.384″ west longitude.

Coming into Force

2 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issue

The Proponent, Agnico Eagle Mines Limited, proposes to extend an existing tailings storage facility and waste rock storage facility, and construct new contact water collection and saline ponds as part of a multi-phase approach to develop the Meliadine Mine. This mine extension will destroy 15 water bodies frequented by fish for a total of 161.2 ha of fish habitat.

Subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act (the Act) prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish, unless authorized by regulation. The Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations (MDMER) include provisions to allow for the disposal of mine waste in waters frequented by fish, under certain conditions. For the Proponent to be authorized to dispose of mine waste into waters frequented by fish, pursuant to section 5 of the MDMER, the water bodies must be listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER and the Minister of the Environment must have approved the fish habitat compensation plan (FHCP).

Background

Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations

The MDMER, which came into force on June 1, 2018,^{footnote 4} prescribe the maximum authorized limits for deleterious substances in mine effluent in Schedule 4 (i.e., arsenic, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, zinc, radium-226, un-ionized ammonia and total suspended solids). The MDMER also specify the allowable pH range of mine effluent and require that mine effluent not be acutely lethal to fish and invertebrates^{footnote 5}. As such, effluent deposited from any final discharge point of a mine subject to the MDMER, including effluent from TIAs, must be in compliance with the authorized limits for the deleterious substances and meet the other conditions set out in the MDMER. The MDMER further require that mine owners and operators sample and monitor effluent to ensure compliance with the authorized limits and to determine any impact on fish, fish habitat and fishery resources. The Department of the Environment (the Department) publishes annual performance summaries for mines with respect to the prescribed limits and various requirements of the MDMER.

Section 5 of the MDMER authorizes the deposit of mine waste in water bodies listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER, subject to prescribed conditions. The use of waters frequented by fish for mine waste disposal can only be authorized through an amendment to the MDMER by listing the waterbodies in Schedule 2, designating them as tailings impoundment areas (TIAs).

Section 27.1 of the MDMER requires the development and implementation of a FHCP to offset the loss of fish habitat that would occur as a result of the use of a fish-frequented water body for mine waste deposit. The FHCP must be approved by the Minister of the Environment before any mine waste is deposited into the relevant water bodies. The Minister of the Environment may only approve the FHCP if the owner or operator of a mine has submitted an irrevocable letter of credit, or an equivalent financial guarantee, to ensure that funds are in place, should the owner or operator fail to address all the elements of the FHCP.

For any project where the proposed mine waste disposal (including effluent) would affect fish-frequented waters, mine owners or operators must consider options for mine waste disposal and demonstrate that the preferred option is the best option based on environmental, technical, economic and socio-economic criteria specified in the Department’s Guidelines for the assessment of alternatives for mine waste disposal.

Meliadine Mine Expansion Project

The Proponent is proposing to expand the Meliadine mine, located approximately 25 km north of Rankin Inlet, in Nunavut (see Figure 1). The Meliadine Mine includes two open pits and an underground mine located within the traditional territory of the Kivalliq Inuit, represented by the Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA). The Meliadine Expansion Project (the Project) will extend an existing tailings storage facility and a waste rock storage facility, as well as construct two new contact water collection ponds and a saline pond. The Project is expected to support mine operations until 2031.

Figure 1: Location of the Meliadine Mine Expansion Project

Figure 1: Location of the Meliadine Mine Expansion Project - Text version

The bottom-right corner of the figure shows a smaller map of the Hudson Bay and the land surrounding it, including portions of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Nunavut. On this map, there is a yellow star pinpointing the location of the project.
The main figure shows an enlarged area at a 1:300 000 scale map shows the two general locations of the Meliadine Mine in Nunavut near the middle of the map, coloured in grey. The project is located approximately 25 km north of Rankin Inlet, in Nunavut. The map shows the location of the project in relation to surrounding major waterbodies, which include Tasirjuaq to the north, Amittukuluk to the east, Quamanaarjuk to the south, and Qamaniq killiq to the west. An all-weather access road crosses the centre of the map forming a “Y” shape and links the Hudson Bay, near Rankin Inlet, to both locations of the Meliadine Gold Mine.

The legend located at the bottom-left of the figure describes the symbols and colours used to indicate features on the map, including the project location, communities, and roads.

Mine infrastructure to impact fish-frequented bodies

The waste generated from the Project will be comprised of tailings, waste rock and effluent. As such, the proposed mine plan includes the development of the following facilities and infrastructure.

Saline Pond

The new saline pond is needed to collect and store underground saline water and contact water from the tailings storage facility and the waste rock storage facility. The saline pond will have an annual storage capacity of approximately 838 000 cubic metres (m³). One water body, Lake B7, will be impacted, resulting in the loss of 58.46 ha of fish habitat.

Contact Water Collection Ponds

The new contact water collection ponds, CP7 and CP8, will store contact water from several waste rock storage facilities and will manage the water pumped out of several pits. CP7 and CP8 will store 140 000 m³ and 2.3 million m³, respectively. The collection pond, CP7, will impact one water body, Pond A52, and its tributaries, and CP8 will impact one water body, Lake B4. Together, CP7 and CP8 will result in the loss of 93.74 ha of fish habitat.

Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) Extension

The existing tailings storage facility, TSF1, will be extended to the northwest to increase the capacity to store a total of approximately 51.6 million tonnes of filtered tailings. The TSF extension will impact four water bodies, B25, B26, B28 and B28a, and two watercourses, B26-B25 and B7-B28a-B28, resulting in the loss of 2.73 ha of fish habitat.

Waste Rock Storage Facility (WRSF) Extension

The existing waste rock storage facility Number 3, WRSF3, will be extended to the south to increase the capacity of the facility to store mine waste from mining activities. The WRSF3 extension will impact three water bodies, J2, J3 and J8, and the interconnecting watercourses, J3-J2-J8 and J8-J1, resulting in the loss of 6.27 ha of fish habitat.

The disposal of mine waste will destroy 15 water bodies or portions of water bodies that are frequented by fish, totalling approximately 161.2 ha of fish habitat.

Environmental assessment of the Meliadine Expansion Project

The Project was subject to an Environmental Assessment under the terms of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, 1993 (NLCA). Pursuant to article 12 of the NLCA, the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) is responsible for the assessment of potential impacts of proposed development in the Nunavut Settlement Area.

In April 2014, the Proponent submitted its final environmental impact statement (FEIS) to the NIRB. Under article 12 of the NLCA, the federal Minister of Northern Affairs must review the NIRB’s report and findings. The Project was approved by the Minister of Northern Affairs in January 2015. Following the completion of the NIRB review process, the Project certificate was issued on February 26, 2015, under certain conditions. On February 26, 2019, and January 31, 2022, the NIRB approved amending the Project Certificate to allow for additional impacts to the natural environment, such as discharging saline effluent to a marine environment through a waterline.

In addition, the Nunavut Water Board (NWB) has responsibilities and powers over the regulation, use and management of water in the Nunavut Settlement Area. The NWB’s primary function is licencing uses of water and deposits of waste, where appropriate. On May 19, 2016, the Minister of Northern Affairs approved the Type A Water Licence required to begin construction and operation at the Meliadine Mine. On June 23, 2021, and November 22, 2024, the Minister of Northern Affairs approved subsequent amendments to the Type A Water Licence to allow for additional construction at the mine site that align with the infrastructure required to deposit mine waste containing deleterious substances, and to increase the volume of water the Proponent is authorized to use for mining activities.

Objective

The objective of the Amendments is to list waters frequented by fish in Schedule 2 of the MDMER designating them as tailings impoundment areas for the Project.

Description

The Amendments will list 15 water bodies in Schedule 2 of the MDMER (see Figure 2), designating them as TIAs. The Amendments will authorize the disposal of mine waste into the listed TIAs, subject to prescribed conditions, once the Minister of the Environment has approved the FHCP under section 27.1 of the MDMER.

Figure 2: Location of water bodies to be listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER

Figure 2: Location of water bodies to be listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER - Text version

The figure shows a map of the Meliadine Mine Project site at a scale of 1:35,000. The waterbodies to be listed in Schedule 2 of the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations (MDMER) are outlined in yellow. The geographic areas to be listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER are outlined in pink. Mine infrastructure is shown in grey and dewatered lakes are shown in beige.

Three geographical areas being listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER are labelled B7, J3 and A52. Geographic area B7 is an irregular polygon with 4 straight lines connected by 4 waypoints labelled P1 to P4, the polygon is located in the top left of the map. Geographic area J3 is an irregular polygon with 4 straight lines connected by 4 waypoints labelled P1 to P4, the polygon is located in the middle right of the map. Geographic area A52 is an irregular polygon with 4 straight lines connected by 4 waypoints labelled P1 to P4, the polygon is located in the bottom right of the map.

One waterbody being listed in schedule 2 of the MDMER is labelled B4. The waterbody is located in the middle left of the map.

A legend at the bottom of the figure describes the colours used to indicate features on the map, including schedule 2 waterbodies, schedule 2 watercourses, schedule 2 polygons, mine infrastructures and dewatered lakes.

Regulatory development

Consultations

From October 27, 2023, to December 22, 2023, the Department held public consultations on the proposed Amendments to Schedule 2 for the Project. A consultation webpage was published with the documents on which the Department consulted: the assessment of alternatives (AA) report and the FHCP. During the 57-day public comment period, six comments from members of the public were received, expressing general concerns on impacts to the natural habitat or on matters outside the scope of the Amendments. For example, one comment mentioned potential harm to the receiving environment and the individual was directed to the appropriate sections of the MDMER, such as those highlighting the strict criteria regarding the deposit of effluent. Another comment was about the provisions for acute lethality testing on rainbow trout and the individual was sent additional information. However, no specific comments from the public related to the AA or the FHCP were received.

The Minister of the Environment may recommend an exemption from pre-publication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, for regulatory amendments designating certain water bodies as TIAs to the Governor in Council (GIC), when specific conditions are met, including the completion of an AA report and a FHCP, and Indigenous communities potentially impacted by the proposed amendments have been consulted. If approved by the GIC, these regulatory amendments to Schedule 2 of the MDMER would be exempt from prepublication and be published as final in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultations

As required by the Cabinet Directive on Regulation, an assessment of modern treaty implications was conducted on the regulatory proposal. The assessment identified the following implications: impacts to fish and fish habitat. The Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA) is the Designated Inuit Organization representing the interest of the Inuit in the impacted area.

The NLCA is applicable to the Project area and sets out the requirements pertaining to public consultation and engagement and the Crown’s duty to consult with Indigenous communities as it relates to proposed mineral development projects. The Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI), formerly known as Tungavik Federation of Nunavut, are signatories to the NLCA with the Crown and they represent the Inuit who assert their title to the Nunavut Settlement Area based on their traditional and current use and occupation of the area.

The NIRB is an institution of public government created under the NLCA to assess the potential impacts of proposed development in the Nunavut Settlement Area prior to approval of the required project authorizations. The NIRB requires that mine proponents involved in the NIRB process consult all potentially affected communities and all comments from the public be summarized, documented and presented in the Environmental Impact Statement. The Department along with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) supported the NIRB throughout the review process.

On October 20, 2023, in collaboration with DFO, the Department engaged Indigenous Peoples. Written communications were sent by email to the Indigenous Peoples potentially impacted by the Project: KIA and NTI. The following groups were also kept informed of the Department’s consultations: Northlands Denesuline First Nation and Sayisi Dene First Nation (collectively, Ghotelnene K’odtįneh Dene) and Athabasca Denesųłiné Né Né Land Corporation.

The KIA expressed interest in consulting with the Department and met on November 10, 2023, along with DFO and the Proponent. Since the Proponent had made some changes to the layout of the mine site, the KIA requested clarity on which lakes would be impacted to ensure impacts are adequately addressed by the Water Compensation Agreement and that the proposed listing was consistent with the Type A Water Licence Amendment Application reviewed by the Nunavut Water Board. The Department reviewed the impacted water bodies in the AA and the FHCP and identified inconsistencies between the two reports related to the layout of some mine infrastructure and the water bodies that will be impacted by that infrastructure. On February 16, 2024, the Department requested that the Proponent address the inconsistencies and submit the updated information. On February 26, 2024, the Department informed the KIA of these discussions with the Proponent and asked if they had any questions or concerns. On May 8, 2024, the KIA communicated that they did not have concerns with the list of water bodies to be impacted by the disposal of mine waste, though they will continue to work with the Proponent on the offsetting measures. On June 27, 2024, the Proponent submitted to the Department the updated FHCP, reflecting the most up-to-date mine site layout and providing an updated list of impacted water bodies. On July 24, 2024, the Department shared with the KIA the updated list of water bodies to be impacted by the deposit of mine waste, confirming that the previously identified inconsistencies had been addressed. No further communication was received from KIA.

The NTI expressed an interest in meeting with the Department; however, the Department did not receive availabilities from NTI to organize a meeting and a date could not be set. On February 26, 2024, the Department informed the NTI, by email, of discussions with the Proponent related to inconsistencies with the list of impacted water bodies between the AA and the FHCP, and asked if they had any questions or concerns. On June 4, 2024, the NTI communicated that they did not have issues with the Amendments. On July 24, 2024, the Department shared with the NTI the updated list of water bodies to be impacted by the deposit of mine waste, confirming that previously identified inconsistencies had been addressed. No further communication was received from NTI.

The Athabasca Denesųłiné Né Né Land Corporation acknowledged receipt of the communication from the Department and said they would reach out with any questions or comments they may have, though none were submitted. Ghotelnene K’odtįneh Dene did not respond to the Department’s communication. Despite this, on February 26, 2024, the Department informed Athabasca Denesųłiné Né Né Land Corporation and Ghotelnene K’odtįneh Dene of discussions with the Proponent related to inconsistencies with the list of impacted water bodies between the AA and the FHCP for their information. No communication was received by either Indigenous nation.

Consultation undertaken by the Proponent

The Proponent acquired the Meliadine Mine in July 2010 and has engaged and consulted with local communities and stakeholders throughout the Kivalliq region and neighbouring areas. During the territorial environmental assessment, the Proponent took one of the community suggestions to improve the fish passage at Pistol Bay to increase the amount of Arctic Char as it is considered culturally and economically important to traditional users in Nunavut and this has been developed into the compensation measure proposed in the FHCP. In 2015, the Proponent and the KIA established the Meliadine Inuit Impact Benefit Agreement (IIBA) to provide benefits and address detrimental impacts on Inuit caused by the Meliadine Project. In 2021, the Proponent developed a Kivalliq Inuit Elders’ Advisory Committee comprised of 21 Elders from Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, Rankin Inlet, Whale Cove, Coral and Arviat to integrate Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ), Inuit Societal Values and community knowledge, into exploration, planning, workforce, wellness, and operational plans. The Kivalliq Inuit Elder’s Advisory Committee reviews and validates collective IQ and Traditional Knowledge shared with the Proponent through multiple engagement channels with Kivalliq individuals, communities, and community groups. In February 2022, the Proponent and the Kivalliq Inuit Association established a Fisheries Committee to support ongoing cooperation and communication amongst both parties regarding fish and fish habitat and potential effects from the Meliadine Mine.

Instrument choice

Non-regulatory options would involve the disposal of tailings in a manner that would not impact fish-frequented water bodies, or land-based options. Regulatory options correspond to those that would result in the destruction of waters frequented by fish.

The Proponent developed several options in its AA report to determine the best option for mine waste disposal. The technical report takes into account the environmental, technical, economic and socio-economic factors and was conducted in accordance with the Department’s Guidelines for the assessment of alternatives for mine waste disposal.

Assessment of options for saline effluent and contact water management

The Proponent initially considered nine different locations for a saline pond (see Figure 3) and nine different locations for contact water collection ponds (see Figure 4). During the pre-screening analysis phase, six of the nine options for the saline pond and six of the nine options for the collection ponds were considered critically flawed and, therefore, screened out from further assessment, for meeting one or more of the following criteria:

• The water management pond will sterilize ore with potential mineralization.
• The location of the water management pond will overprint lands or water designated as having high environmental, cultural, and/or archaeological value.
• There is insufficient storage capacity to manage saline water on an annual basis.
• Construction, operation, or closure of the water management pond contradicts the mine plan for the Project.
• The design, construction, operation, or closure of the water management pond introduces material engineering and/or safety risks.

Figure 3: Locations of the saline pond alternative options

Figure 3: Locations of the saline pond alternative options - Text version

The figure shows a map of the Meliadine Mine site. The map shows 9 alternative locations for a saline pond in relation to the underground portal, open pits, mine infrastructure, water management and topographical features such as relief contours, bodies of water, and highways and secondary roads.

Alternative 1 is coloured dark purple, on waterbody B7 and located southwest of the project’s tailings storage facility.

Alternative 2 is coloured dark green, on no waterbody and located north of the project’s tailings storage facility.

Alternative 3 is coloured orange, on waterbody B6 and located southwest of alternative 1.

Alternative 4 is coloured pink, on waterbody G2 and located north of the project’s tailings storage facility.

Alternative 5 is coloured yellow, on waterbody B5 and located west of the project’s waste rock storage facility 1 extension (WRSF1_EXT).

Alternative 6 is coloured light green, on waterbody B4 and located west between the project’s waste rock storage facility 5 (WRSF5) and waste rock storage facility 6 (WRSF6).

Alternative 7 is split into two sections, both coloured light purple. The first is on waterbody A8 and located east of WRSF5 and between two sections of open-pit mine. The second section is not on any waterbody and located directly east of the first section.

Alternative 8 is coloured brown, on waterbody A5 and located northwest of the project’s waste rock storage facility 7 (WRSF7).

Alternative 9 is split into 3 sections and coloured teal. The first section is on TIR02 (open pit Tiriganiaq) located on a section of open-pit mine, southwest of the project’s waste rock storage facility 3 (WRSF3) and waste rock storage facility 3 extension (WRSF3_EXT). The second section is on WES04 (open pit Wesmeg) and located between WRSF3_EXT and the second section of alternative 7. The third section is on WES05 (open pit Wesmeg) and located directly east of alternative 9’s second section.

A legend at the bottom of the figure describes the symbols and colours used to indicate features on the map including known deposits, potential deposits, mineral resource area, NIRB approved project footprint, saline pond alternatives, underground portals, mine site roads, all-weather access roads, water management, exploration camps, open pits, mine infrastructure & facilities and water management.

Figure 4: Locations of the contact water collection pond alternative options

Figure 4: Locations of the contact water collection pond alternative options - Text version

The figure shows a map of the Meliadine Mine site. The map shows 10 alternative locations for a contact water collection pond in relation to the underground portals, open pits, mine infrastructure, water management and topographical features such as relief contours, bodies of water, and highways and secondary roads.

Alternative 1 is split into 2 sections, the first coloured dark purple and the second outlined in dark purple. The first section is on waterbody B4 and located west between the project’s waste rock storage facility 5 (WRSF5) and waste rock storage facility 6 (WRSF6). The second section is on waterbody A52 and located north of the project’s waste rock storage facility 7 (WRSF7).

Alternative 2 is coloured dark green, on no waterbody and located north of the second section of alternative 1.

Alternative 3 is split into two sections, both coloured orange. The first is on waterbody A8 and located east of WRSF5 and between two sections of open-pit mine. The second section is not on any waterbody and located directly east of the first section.

Alternative 4 is coloured pink, on waterbody A5 and located northwest of the project’s WRSF7.

Alternative 5 is split into two sections, both coloured yellow. The first section is on waterbody B5 and located west of the project’s waste rock storage facility 1 extension (WRSF1_EXT). The second section is on waterbody A52 and located north of the project’s WRSF7.

Alternative 6 is coloured light green, on waterbody G2 and located north of the project’s tailings storage facility.

Alternative 7 is coloured light purple, on waterbody B7 and located southwest of the project’s tailings storage facility.

Alternative 8 is coloured brown, on waterbody B6 and located southwest of alternative 1.

Alternative 9 is split into 3 sections and coloured teal. The first section is on TIR02 (open pit Tiriganiaq) and located on a section of open-pit mine, southwest of the project’s waste rock storage facility 3 (WRSF3) and waste rock storage facility 3 extension (WRSF3_EXT). The second section is on WES04 (open pit Wesmeg) and located between WRSF3_EXT and the second section of alternative 7. The third section is on WES05 (open pit Wesmeg) and located directly east of alternative 9’s second section.

Alternative 10 is split into 3 sections, all outlined in dark blue. The first section is the same area as alternative 3. The second section is the same area as alternative 4. The third section is the same area as alternative 5’s first section.

A legend at the bottom of the figure describes the symbols and colours used to indicate features on the map including known deposits, potential deposits, mineral resource area, NIRB approved project footprint, saline pond alternatives, underground portals, mine site roads, all-weather access roads, water management, exploration camps, open pits, mine infrastructure & facilities and water management.

The Proponent developed a multiple account analysis to further characterize the three remaining options for the saline pond: Alternatives 1, 2 and 4, and the remaining options for the collection ponds: Alternatives 1, 2 and 10 (see Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1: Alternative options for the saline pond

Alternative Option	Description
Alternative 1 (Preferred Option)	Lake B7 would be dewatered prior to construction. Containment would create approximately 838,000 m3 of saline water storage.
Alternative 2 (Land based)	The pond would be constructed with the excavation of an estimated 2.77 million m3 overburden and waste rock. Waste from the excavation of the pond would be managed on site. Containment would create 1.14 million m3 of saline water storage.
Alternative 4	Lake G2 would be dewatered prior to construction. Containment would create 1.1 million m3 of saline water storage.

Table 2: Alternative options for the contact water collection ponds

Alternative Option	Description
Alternative 1 (Preferred Option)	Lake B4 would be dewatered prior to construction. Pond A52 and associated shallow streams flowing into Pond A52 from the southeast would be dewatered prior to construction. Containment would create 2.3 million m3 of contact water storage in B4 and 140,000 m3 of contact water storage in A52.
Alternative 2 (Land based)	The pond would be constructed with the excavation of an estimated 5.6 million m3 overburden and waste rock. Waste from the excavation of the pond would be managed on site. Containment would create 3.0 million m3 of contact water storage.
Alternative 10	Lake A6, Lake A8 (both west and east portions) and the northern portion of Lake B5. Containment would create 1.7 million m3, 0.32 million m3 and 0.3 million m3, respectively, of contact water storage.

The multiple account analysis found that Option 1 for both the saline pond and collection ponds had the best overall scores from the technical, environmental, economic and socio-economic criteria. The preferred location for the saline pond will impact 58.46 ha of fish habitat but will facilitate effective management of surface water quality impacts at the mine site as natural drainage conditions support the collection of contact water from the tailings storage facility and the waste rock storage facility. The preferred location for the contact water collection ponds will impact 93.7 ha of fish habitat but will have reduced complexity over the life of the ponds, lower complexity in containment infrastructure and no requirement to build roads for access.

Assessment of options for the tailings storage facility

The Proponent initially considered nine different locations for the TSF using two different technologies: filtered deposits, and slurry or thickened deposits (see Figures 5 and 6). All the options using the slurry and thickened deposit technology and eight of the nine options using the filtered deposit technology were considered critically flawed and, therefore, screened out from further assessment, for meeting one or more of the following criteria:

• The location of the TSF restricts operation of open pits or sterilize mineral resources or areas of high mineral potential.
• The location of the TSF overprints lands or water designated as having high environmental, cultural, and/or archaeological value.
• The deposition of tailings in the TSF would be physically and chemically unstable resulting in risks to worker safety or risks to downstream waterbodies through operations and closure.
• The deposition of tailings in the TSF prevents the management of runoff and seepage through operations and closure.
• The deposition requires a tailings pond for management of tailings supernatant within the TSF.

Figure 5: Locations of the tailings storage facility alternative options 1 to 5

Figure 5: Locations of the tailings storage facility alternative options 1 to 5 - Text version

The figure shows five smaller maps of the Meliadine mine site with each individual map presenting a different configuration for the tailings storage facility in relation to the open pits and nearby topographical features such as relief contours, bodies of water, and mine infrastructure. The figure has two rows with three maps in the top row and two in the bottom row, labelled Alternatives 1 through 5.

Alternative 1 (upper left): This option shows the proposed expansion of the current tailings storage facility, outlined in black. In the bottom left corner of this image, there is a zoomed-in shot of the southwest corner of the expansion. This zoomed in image shows that waterbodies B28 and B28A are not within the scope of this alternative.  

Alternative 2 (upper middle): This option shows the proposed expansion of the current tailings storage facility, outlined in red. This option is broken down into two areas, one with filtered tailings, outlined by a dotted red line and one with slurry or thickened tailings, outlined by the solid red line. In the bottom left corner of this image, there is a zoomed-in shot of the southwest corner of the expansion. This zoomed in image shows that waterbodies B28 and B28A are within the scope of this alternative. 

Alternative 3 (upper right): This option shows the proposed expansion of the current tailings storage facility, outlined in green. In the bottom left corner of this image, there is a zoomed-in shot of the southwest corner of the expansion. This zoomed in image shows that waterbody B28A is not within the scope of this alternative but half of B28 is. 

Alternative 4 (lower left): This option shows the proposed expansion of the current tailings storage facility, outlined in orange. In the bottom left corner of this image, there is a zoomed-in shot of the southwest corner of the expansion. This zoomed in image shows that waterbodies B28 and B28A are not within the scope of this alternative. 

Alternative 5 (lower right): This option shows the proposed new waste rock storage facility outlined in blue. Located on waterbody B4, south of the current tailings storage facility,

A legend in the bottom right of the figure describes the colours used to indicate features on the map including the NIRB approved project footprint, existing infrastructure, the constructed tailings management facility, open pits, water management, mine infrastructure and facilities, and waterbodies.

Figure 6: Locations of the tailings storage facility alternative options 6 to 9

Figure 6: Locations of the tailings storage facility alternative options 6 to 9 - Text version

The figure shows four smaller maps of the Meliadine mine site with each individual map presenting a different configuration for the tailings storage facility in relation to the open pits and nearby topographical features such as relief contours, bodies of water, and mine infrastructure. The figure has two rows with two maps in each row, labelled Alternatives 6 through 9.

Alternative 6 (upper left): This option shows the proposed new tailings storage facility outlined in black. Located on waterbody D7 and D8, southwest of the current tailings storage facility.

Alternative 7 (upper right): This option shows the proposed new tailings storage facility outlined in red. Located on waterbody B44, B45, B46, B47 and B64, south of the current tailings storage facility.

Alternative 8 (lower left): This option shows the proposed new tailings storage facility outlined in green. Located on waterbody A6, A30 and A45, southeast of the current tailings storage facility.

Alternative 9 (lower right): This option shows the proposed new tailings storage facility outlined in blue. This option is split into 3 locations all southeast of the current tailings storage facility and all on existing open pits. The first section is on TIR02 (open pit Tiriganiaq). The second section is on WES04 (open pit Wesmeg). The third section is on WES05 (open pit Wesmeg).

A legend in the bottom left of the figure describes the colours used to indicate features on the map including the NIRB approved project footprint, existing infrastructure, the constructed tailings management facility, open pits, water management, mine infrastructure and facilities, and waterbodies.

Table 3: Alternatives for the tailings storage facility

Alternative Option	Description
Alternative 1 – Filtered Or Slurry or Thickened	A TSF will be constructed northwest of the existing dry stack (filtered) TSF. The facility will be on land and extend into the G sub-watershed (total design capacity = 65 Mt).
Alternative 2 – Filtered (Preferred Option)	Extend the constructed TSF northwest on land and into Pond B25 (within sub-watershed B), Pond B26, Pond B28, Pond B28a, and interconnecting watercourses, B25-B26, B7-B28a-B28, and overprint CP3 (total design capacity = 51.6 Mt).
Alternative 2 – Slurry or Thickened	A TSF will be constructed northwest of the existing dry stack (filtered) TSF. The facility will extend into Lake B7, Pond B25 within sub-watershed B), Pond B28, Pond B28a, and interconnecting watercourse B7-B28a-B28, and overprint CP3 (total design capacity = 51.6 Mt).
Alternative 3 – Filtered Or Slurry or Thickened	A TSF will be constructed northwest of the existing dry stack (filtered) TSF. The facility will be on land and overprint CP3 (total design capacity = 51.6 Mt). Will require a staged construction of perimeter containment dikes with discharge of the tailings into the facility. The remaining tailings will be backfilled to an underground mine. Pond B25, Pond B28 and Pond B28a would be dewatered to construct access roads, embankments and/or cut-off walls would result in a loss of connectivity in streams B26-B25 and B7-B28a-B28.
Alternative 4 – Filtered	Extension of the constructed TSF within the sub-watershed B into Lake B7, Pond B28 and overprint CP3 (total design capacity = 51.6 Mt). The remaining tailings will be backfilled to the underground mine. Lake B7 will be partially dewatered and a dike will be constructed to allow placement of the dry stack (filtered) tailings. Pond B28 will be dewatered resulting in the loss of connectivity with B28a and watercourse B7-B28a-B28.
Alternative 4 – Slurry or Thickened	A TSF will be constructed southwest of the existing dry stack (filtered) TSF. The facility will extend into Lake B7, Pond B28 and overprint CP3 (total design capacity = 51.6 Mt). Will require staged construction of perimeter containment dikes within Lake B7 with discharge of the tailings into the facility. Lake B7 will be dewatered to allow placement of the tailings. Pond B28 will be dewatered that will result in the loss of connectivity with B28a and watercourse B7-B28a-B28.
Alternative 5 – Filtered	Construction of a new TSF located to the south of Wesmeg and Normeg deposits will overprint Lake B4 as well as streams B4-B5 and B4-B45 (total design capacity = 65 Mt). Lake B4 will be dewatered prior to construction of the facility.
Alternative 5 – Slurry or Thickened	Construction of a TSF located to the south of Wesmeg and Normeg deposits will involve staged construction of perimeter containment dikes around Lake B4 with discharge of tailings into the natural basin of Lake B4.
Alternative 6 – Filtered	Construction of a new TSF located to the northwest of the Tiriganiaq deposit and will overprint Lake D7 and Lake D8 (total design capacity = 65 Mt).
Alternative 6 – Slurry or Thickened	Construction of a new TSF located to the south of Wesmeg and Normeg deposits will involve staged construction of perimeter containment dikes around Lake D7 and Lake D8 (total design capacity = 65 Mt).
Alternative 7 – Filtered	Construction of a new TSF located to the northwest of the Tiriganiaq deposit and will overprint Lake B45 and Lake B46 (total design capacity = 65 Mt). Lakes B44, B45, B46 and B64 will be dewatered prior to placement of tailings. The construction of a diversion channel south of the TSF would be required to allow flow of water into the northern section of the B sub-watershed.
Alternative 7 – Slurry or Thickened	Construction of a new TSF located to the south of Wesmeg and Normeg deposits will involve staged construction of perimeter containment dikes around Lake B45 and B46 (total design capacity = 65 Mt). Lakes B44, B45, B46 and B64 will be dewatered prior to construction of dikes and placement of tailings. The construction of a diversion channel south of the TSF would be required to allow flow of water into the northern section of the B sub-watershed.
Alternative 8 – Filtered	Construction of a new TSF located southwest of the F-Zone deposit and overprinting Lake A6 (total design capacity = 51.6 Mt).
Alternative 8 – Slurry or Thickened	Construction of a new TSF located southwest of the F-Zone deposit will involve staged construction of perimeter containment dikes around Lake A6 (total design capacity = 51.6 Mt).
Alternative 9 – (use of mined out pits and underground)	All tailings will be stored in the underground or a mined-out pit. Sequential mining would be required.

Since only one option met all the pre-screening criteria, there were insufficient options to perform a multiple account analysis. Therefore, Option 2 using filtered technology (see Table 3) was determined to be the preferred option for the TSF. The preferred option involves minimal construction of access roads, minimal impacts to the aquatic environment with low diversity of fish species, does not affect local fishing or hunting cabins, and has lower costs to extend an existing facility compared to constructing a new one.

Assessment of options for the waste rock storage facility

The Proponent initially considered five different locations for the storage of mine waste (see Figure 7). During the pre-screening analysis phase, four of the five options were considered critically flawed and, therefore, screened out from further assessment, for meeting one or more of the following criteria:

• the location of the WRSF will restrict operation of open pits or sterilize mineral resources or areas of high mineral potential.
• the location of the WRSF will overprint lands or water designated as having high environmental, cultural, and/or archaeological value.
• the haul distance from the open pit to the associated WRSF renders the project economically infeasible.
• the location prevents effective management of runoff and seepage from the WRSF to reduce the potential for unacceptable or adverse significant ecological effects to downstream water bodies in operations, closure, or post-closure.
• seepage and runoff from the WRSF affect multiple sub-watersheds.
• the location prevents the construction of a geotechnically stable WRSF to reduce the potential for unacceptable or adverse significant ecological effects to downstream waterbodies or safety risks in operations, closure, or post-closure.

Figure 7: Locations of alternative options for the waste rock storage facility Number 3

Figure 7: Locations of alternative options for the waste rock storage facility Number 3 - Text version

The figure shows five smaller maps of the Meliadine mine site with each individual map presenting a different configuration for the waste rock storage facility in relation to the open pits and nearby topographical features such as relief contours, bodies of water, and mine infrastructure. The figure has two rows with three maps in the top row and two in the bottom row, labelled Alternatives 1 through 5.

Alternative 1 (upper left): This option shows the proposed expansion of waste rock storage facility 3 (WRSF3), outlined in black and labelled WRSF3_EXT (waste rock storage facility 3 extension).

Alternative 2 (upper middle): This option shows the proposed expansion of waste rock storage facility 3 (WRSF3), outlined in red and labelled WRSF3_EXT (waste rock storage facility 3 extension).

Alternative 3 (upper right): This option shows the proposed expansion of waste rock storage facility 3 (WRSF3), outlined in green and labelled WRSF3_EXT (waste rock storage facility 3 extension).

Alternative 4 (lower left): This option shows the proposed new waste rock storage facility outlined in orange and labelled WRSF3B (waste rock storage facility 3 B).

Alternative 5 (lower right): This option shows the proposed new waste rock storage facility outlined in blue. This option is split into 3 locations all south of WRSF3 and all on existing open pits. The first section is on TIR02 (open pit Tiriganiaq). The second section is on WES04 (open pit Wesmeg). The third section is on WES05 (open pit Wesmeg).

A legend in the lower right of the figure describes the colours used to indicate features on the map including existing infrastructure, the constructed WRSF3, open pits, water management, mine infrastructure and facilities, catchment boundary and waterbodies.

Table 4: Alternatives for the waste rock storage facility 3

Alternative option	Description
Alternative 1 (WRSF3_Ext south) (Preferred Option)	The facility will be constructed as an extension of the existing WRSF3 to overprint Pond J2, Pond J3, and Pond J8 and the interconnecting streams J3-J2-J8. The ponds and streams will be dewatered prior to construction of the facility.
Alternative 2 (land based WRSF3_Ext south and north)	The land-based facility will be constructed as an extension south and north of the existing WRSF3. The extension will overprint CP2 and CP6.
Alternative 3 (WRSF3_Ext north)	Alternative 3 will be constructed as an extension to the existing WRSF3 extended north over H chain waterbodies (Pond H5, Pond H4, Pond H3, and Pond H2) and the interconnecting streams H5-H4, H4-H3 and H3-H2. The overprinted waterbodies would be dewatered prior to construction of the facility. The extension will also overprint CP6.
Alternative 4 (WRSF3B)	A new facility will be constructed east of Lake A8 (south of the Wesmeg deposit) and overprint Ponds A28, A27, A26, A23 and A20. The overprinted waterbodies would be dewatered prior to construction of the facility.
Alternative 5 (open pits)	Storage of waste rock in mined out open pits will require sequential mining (with potential modifications to the current plan).

Since only one option met all the pre-screening criteria, there were insufficient options to perform a multiple account analysis. Therefore, Option 1 (see Table 4) was determined to be the preferred option for the WRSF3 extension. The preferred option utilizes existing haul roads, impacts low fish diversity habitat, avoids locations in close proximity to any archeological sites, and has lower costs to extend an existing facility compared to constructing a new one.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

Analytical framework

The analysis below examines the incremental impacts of the Amendments on the environment, businesses (the Proponent) and the Government. While costs for the Proponent are known and monetized, it is not feasible to quantify and monetize benefits due to data limitations. As a result, the cost-benefit analysis reflects monetized costs and qualitatively describes environmental impacts.

DFO determined that the FHCP proposed by the Proponent is appropriate and meets the principles of DFO’s Policy for Applying Measures to Offset Adverse Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat Under the Fisheries Act. These principles include, but are not limited to, restoring degraded fish habitat to improve conditions for the production of fish, enhancing fish habitat to improve conditions for the production of fish, and creating productive and sustainable fish habitat where none existed before. The cost and environmental impacts of the Amendments could change if the FHCP is subsequently amended to further accommodate Indigenous interests.

Environmental impacts

The disposal of mine waste will destroy 15 water bodies that are frequented by fish and totalling 161.2 ha of fish habitat and a loss of fish productivity of 491.5 kilograms/year (kg/yr). The water bodies impacted are Lake B4, Lake B7, Ponds A52, B25, B26, B28, B28a, J2, J3, and J8, and watercourses A52, B7-B28a-B28, B25-26, J3-J2-J8 and J8-J1. The main fish species present are Ninespine stickleback, Threespine stickleback, and Arctic Grayling. Additionally, Arctic char, Burbot and Slimy sculpin were also identified in lesser numbers during field studies.

The loss of fish productivity will be offset by the implementation of the FHCP, as required under Section 27.1 of the MDMER. The implementation of the compensatory measures will result in an improved fish productivity of 815.9 kg/yr compared to the loss of fish production of 491.5 kg/yr affected by the disposal of mine waste.

The FHCP prepared by the Proponent outlines measures to offset impacts to fish and fish habitat and enhance aquatic ecosystems. The Pistol Bay is located 50 km southwest of the hamlet of Rankin Inlet and is a network of lakes connected by streams and shallow ponds (see Figure 8). The Pistol Bay Falls is the main point of entry into Pistol Bay from the Hudson Bay. A baseline study determined that successful fish passage at Pistol Bay Falls is approximately 30% and is limited during periods of low tide or low flow. The proposed measure will alter the existing natural barrier to fish passage at Pistol Bay Falls to allow a higher rate of Arctic Char to pass through the Falls for overwintering and spawning. The success criteria will include monitoring the spawning periods to aim for a projected increase in productivity between 70% and 90% over a 4-year timeline.

Figure 8: Location of Pistol Bay in the FHCP

Figure 8: Location of Pistol Bay in the FHCP - Text version

The top-right corner of the figure shows a smaller map of the Hudson Bay coast with Pistol Bay circled in yellow and Rankin Inlet marked by a black dot.

Pistol Bay is located approximately 50 km southwest of Rankin Inlet, in Nunavut. The main figure shows an enlarged area at a 1:57,000 scale map shows the waterbodies of Pistol Bay in Nunavut, coloured in blue and circled in yellow. Pistol Bay Falls is located at the bottom right corner of the map and identified by a dot coloured in cyan.

The legend located at the bottom of the figure describes the colours used to indicate features on the map, including the watercourses, waterbodies and falls.

Cost to business

The implementation of the FHCP associated with the Amendments to compensate for the destruction of 161.2 ha of fish habitat is estimated to cost $2.57 million^{footnote 6} for Agnico Eagle Mines Limited. Table 5 describes the estimated costs associated with the implementation of the FHCP. These estimated costs could change if the scope of the FHCP were to be revised.

Table 5: Cost estimate of the FHCP in $2024 CDN at 3% discount rate over 11 years

Description	Undiscounted Amount in 2024 Canadian Dollars	Amount Discounted at a Rate of 3%footnote 6	Proposed Schedule
Construction (main steps)	$2,264,362	$2,179,219	(2026)
Monitoring plan	$451,388	$386,252	(2026-2036)
Total	$2,715,750	$2,565,470	2026-2036

Cost to government

Government of Canada enforcement activities include inspections to monitor the implementation of the FHCP, which may have associated incremental costs. Specifically, there may be site visits, monitoring and review costs incurred by DFO. These activities and associated costs will only occur intermittently during the implementation of the FHCP and will not continue throughout the life of the mine waste disposal areas. Therefore, the total incremental costs to the Government associated with the proposed FHCP will be low.

Table 6A and 6B: Cost-Benefit Statement
A. Quantified impacts to Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (2024 price level in constant dollars [$ million])

Impact	Total (present value)	Annualized average (11 years)
Costs	2.57	0.277

B. Quantified impacts in non-$ to Indigenous Peoples and the general public (e.g. from a risk assessment)

Impact	Description
Positive impacts	The loss of fish productivity associated with the disposal of tailings, waste rock and effluent will be offset by the implementation of a compensation plan that will result in a gain of 815.9 kg/yr of fish productivity.
Negative impacts	The loss of fish productivity associated with the disposal of tailings, waste rock and effluent amounts to 491.5 kg/yr of fish productivity.

Small business lens

There are no impacts on small business associated with the Amendments. Agnico Eagle Mines Limited, the owner and operator of the mine, does not meet the definition of small business as set out in the Policy on Limiting Regulatory Burden on Business.

One-for-one rule

The One-for-One rule does not apply as there is no incremental change in administrative burden on business.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The proposal is not related to a work plan or commitment under a formal regulatory cooperation forum and therefore does not need to align nor cooperate with external regulatory frameworks.

Effects on the environment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, this proposal has been exempted from the requirement to complete a Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment (SEEA).

This proposal is exempt as it was subject to territorial environmental assessment legislation under the terms of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, 1993.

Gender-based analysis plus (GBA+)

A gender-based analysis plus indicated that there may be disproportionate impacts on Indigenous Peoples, given the geographic location of the Project. However, environmental impacts will be avoided, mitigated and, when required, offset through provincial and federal processes including the implementation of the FHCP to offset any residual impacts on fish habitat resulting from the disposal of mine waste.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

The Amendments come into force on the day on which they are registered. The amendments will designate water bodies that are frequented by fish for disposal of tailings and mine rock generated from the activities of the Meliadine Expansion Project. The Proponent can only begin to deposit mine waste in the TIAs listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER once the Minister has approved the FHCP and all the conditions under section 27.1 of the MDMER have been met.

Given that the MDMER are made pursuant to the Fisheries Act, enforcement personnel will, when verifying compliance with the MDMER, act in accordance with the Compliance and enforcement policy for habitat and pollution provisions of the Fisheries Act (hereinafter, the Policy). Verification of compliance with the MDMER and the Fisheries Act will include, among other inspection activities, site visits, sample analysis and related reports associated with the Amendments. A fishery officer or inspector may conduct an investigation when he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence is being or has been committed.

As set out in the Policy, if there were evidence of an alleged offence, enforcement officers would determine an appropriate enforcement action, in accordance with the following criteria:

• The nature of the alleged violation: Factors to be considered include the seriousness of the damage or potential damage to fish habitat, the fishery resource, or the risks associated with the human use of fish, the intent of the alleged violator, whether it is a repeated occurrence, and whether there were attempts to conceal information or otherwise circumvent the objectives and requirements of the Act and its regulations.
• Effectiveness in achieving the desired result with the alleged violator: The desired result is compliance with the Act in the shortest possible time and with no further occurrence of violations, and factors to be considered include the history of compliance with the Fisheries Act, willingness to cooperate with enforcement personnel, evidence and extent of corrective action already taken, and the existence of enforcement actions by other federal or provincial/territorial authorities.
• Consistency in enforcement: Enforcement officers will consider how similar situations are being or have been handled in determining the measure to take.

The Policy sets out the range of possible responses to alleged violations, including issuance of warnings, directions, and ministerial orders, and/or court actions, such as injunctions, prosecution, court orders upon conviction and civil suits for recovery of costs.

Contacts

Nicole Folliet
Executive Director
Mining and Processing Division
Industrial Sectors and Chemicals Directorate
Environment and Climate Change Canada
351 Saint-Joseph Boulevard
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Email: MDMER-REMMMD@ec.gc.ca

Matt Watkinson
Executive Director
Regulatory Analysis and Valuation Division
Economic Analysis Directorate
Environment and Climate Change Canada
351 Saint-Joseph Boulevard
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Email: ravd.darv@ec.gc.ca