Regulations Amending the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations: SOR/2025-72
Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 159, Number 7
Registration
SOR/2025-72 March 6, 2025
FISHERIES ACT
P.C. 2025-275 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
| Item | Column 1 Water or Place |
Column 2 Description |
|---|---|---|
| 84 | A portion of an unnamed tributary to Amikougami Creek | A portion of an unnamed tributary to Amikougami Creek, located approximately 4 km west of the town of Kirkland Lake, Ontario. More precisely, the portion of the tributary extending southwest and downstream for a distance of 540 m from the point located at 48°09’05.83" north latitude and 80°05’14.60" west longitude to the point located at 48°08’57.16" north latitude and 80°05’33.35" west longitude. |
| 85 | A portion of an unnamed tributary to Amikougami Creek | A portion of an unnamed tributary to Amikougami Creek, located approximately 4 km west of the town of Kirkland Lake, Ontario. More precisely, the portion of the tributary extending northwest and downstream for a distance of 220 m from the point located at 48°08’45.82" north latitude and 80°05’26.74" west longitude to the point located at 48°08’49.70" north latitude and 80°05’30.29" 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: Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (the Proponent) is proposing an expansion to the Macassa gold mine (the Project), located adjacent to the town of Kirkland Lake in northeastern Ontario, to extend the life of the mine. The Proponent projects that the existing tailings areas can accommodate five years of tailings production. The proposed expansion would allow an additional 15 years of production.
The Proponent will expand the existing north tailings storage facility (NTSF) to manage the waste generated by the mining operations, which will destroy two water bodies that are frequented by fish. The Fisheries 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.
Description: The Regulations Amending the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations (the Amendments) will list two water bodies to Schedule 2 of the MDMER, designating them as tailings impoundment areas (TIAs). These two water bodies will represent a loss of 0.46 hectare (ha) of fish habitat.
Rationale: The Proponent assessed several options to determine the preferred disposal method and site location to manage mine wastefootnote 2, taking into account environmental, technical, economic and socio-economic factors. The Proponent prepared an assessment of alternatives report (AA) in accordance with the Department of the Environment’s Guidelines for the assessment of alternatives for mine waste disposal. The selected site received the highest overall score through a multiple accounts analysis that included nine possible options for mine waste disposal.
The preferred option for mine waste disposal was selected on the basis of minimizing environmental impacts, including habitat destruction and watercourse crossings, and safeguarding the interests of Indigenous peoples and local communities with respect to the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes.
The MDMER requires that the Proponent develop and implement a fish habitat compensation plan (FHCP) to offset the loss of fish habitat resulting from the disposal of mine waste in waters frequented by fish. A letter of credit, or equivalent financial guarantee is required from the Proponent to cover the cost of implementation of the FHCP, which is estimated at 1.37 million dollarsfootnote 3 over a six-year period. The implementation of the FHCPfootnote 4 will result in the creation of 0.89footnote 5 ha of fish habitat, offsetting the loss associated with the destruction of the two water bodies to be listed on Schedule 2 of the MDMER.
Issue
The Proponent, Agnico Eagle Mines Limited, proposes to expand the Macassa mine by increasing the tailings capacity at the existing North Tailings Storage Facility (NTSF), which is anticipated to reach capacity in the fourth quarter of 2024. The disposal of mine waste generated by the mining operations will destroy two water bodies frequented by fish, for a total of 0.46 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 able to dispose of mine waste into waters frequented by fish, the water bodies must first be listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER.
Background
Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations
The MDMER, which came into force on June 1, 2018,footnote 6 prescribe the maximum authorized limits for deleterious substances in mine effluent (i.e., arsenic, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, zinc, radium-226, un-ionized ammonia and total suspended solids) in Schedule 4. The MDMER also specifies the allowable pH range of mine effluent and requires that mine effluent not be acutely lethal to fish and invertebratesfootnote 7. As such, effluent deposited from any final discharge point of a mine subject to the MDMER, including effluent from tailings impoundment areas (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.
The use of waters frequented by fish for mine waste disposal can only be authorized through an amendment to the MDMER by listing the waterbody in Schedule 2, designating it as a TIA. 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.
Section 27.1 of the MDMER requires the development and implementation of a fish habitat compensation plan (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 listed water bodies. The owner or operator of a mine is also required to submit 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.
Macassa Project
The Proponent is proposing to expand the Macassa mine, a gold mining and processing site located adjacent to the Town of Kirkland Lake, Ontario (see Figure 1). The Macassa mine is located within the traditional territories of Apitipi Anicinapek Nation and Matachewan First Nation. Other Indigenous communities in proximity to the mine are Beaverhouse First Nation, Temagami First Nation, and Timiskaming First Nation. The Métis Nation of Ontario has asserted harvesting rights in the area. The Project will comprise of a northern extension to the existing North Tailings Storage Facility (NTSF), which will include an extension of the existing facility dams 1, 2, 3, construction of new rockfill dams 5 and 6, and an engineered diversion of upstream catchment around the NTSF extension. The NTSF expansion will have a total storage capacity of at least 13.2 million tonnes of tailings and is expected to extend the mine’s operational time for an additional 15 years. Construction and deposition will occur at the same time until 2039, at which point active closure will begin.
Figure 1: Location of the Macassa mine
Figure 1: Location of the Macassa mine - Text version
The figure shows a map of Ontario with a scale of 1:10,000,000 in kilometres, indicating the general location of the Macassa Mine in the middle of the map with a red star. The project is located adjacent to the Town of Kirkland Lake, in northeastern Ontario. The map shows the location of the project in relation to major cities, which include Kirkland Lake to the east, Timmins to the northwest, Sudbury to the south and Sault Ste. Marie to the southwest.
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 site, place names, the province of Ontario and Ontario lakes.
Mine infrastructure to affect fish-frequented water bodies
The waste generated at the Macassa mine will be comprised of tailings. As such, the expansion of the existing North Tailings Storage Facility (NTSF) location is needed to continue the current operation and continue storing thickened tailings slurry. This expansion will impact two unnamed tributaries to Amikougami Creek and result in the loss of 0.46 ha of fish habitat.
Objective
The objective of the Amendments is to list two water bodies frequented by fish in Schedule 2 of the MDMER designating them as TIAs for the Macassa mine.
Description
The Amendments will list two 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 Macassa Mine NTSF at a scale of 1:8,000 metres. The waterbodies listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER are highlighted in orange and the footprint of the 20-year NTSF in relation to the waterbodies is shown in light grey.
The two individual waterbodies listed on Schedule 2 of the MDMER are labelled ACT1-North and ACT1-South. Waterbody ACT1-North extends from north of the centre of the 20-year NTSF footprint to the southwest. Waterbody ACT1-South is curved and extends from southwest of the centre of the 20-year NTSF footprint towards the west.
A legend at the bottom-left of the figure describes the symbols used to indicate features on the map, including flow direction, watercourses, the 20 yr NTSF Footprint, waterbodies experiencing no effect from the project, waterbodies requiring a Section 35 Fisheries Act Authorization and waterbodies requiring a Schedule 2 listing. Â
Regulatory development
Consultations
On May 29, 2023, the Department launched public consultations on the proposed Amendments to Schedule 2 for the Project in collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). A virtual public consultation period was open from May 29 to July 29, 2023. Details of the proposed Amendments and how to submit comments were published on a consultation website, which included links to the main documents on which the Department consulted, which are the Assessment of Alternatives Report (AA) and the fish habitat compensation plan (FHCP).
To promote the consultations on the Amendments, the Department advertised the opportunity to provide comments via a series of social media posts on the Department’s official Facebook, LinkedIn and X accounts.
During the 60-day comment period, nine comments from members of the general public were received, expressing overall concerns with impacts to the natural habitat. The Department acknowledged receipt of these comments and indicated that all comments received would be taken into consideration. However, no specific comments from the public related to the assessment of alternatives or the fish habitat compensation plan were received.
The Minister of the Environment may recommend 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 assessment of alternatives report and a fish habitat compensation plan, and Indigenous communities potentially impacted by the proposed amendments have been consulted. As these conditions have been satisfied, these regulatory amendments to Schedule 2 of the MDMER are exempt from pre-publication in the Canada Gazette, Part I.
Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations
An assessment of modern treaty implications conducted in accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation concluded that the Amendments will not impact modern treaty rights nor obligations.
The Amendments are consistent with the Government of Canada’s obligations under section 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDA) to consult and co-operate with Indigenous Peoples to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Indigenous communities have been engaged and consulted on the AA and FHCP, and concerns regarding the proposed offsets to habitat loss due to expansion of an existing Tailings Impoundment Area were addressed. The Department continues to engage, however, with Apitipi Anicinapek Nation on the FHCP and will work in collaboration with the Proponent and DFO in view of addressing any comments or concerns received from this Nation prior to the Minister’s approval of the FHCP, which occurs following the TIA listing.
The Department consulted with the Indigenous communities within or near the Project area that may be adversely impacted by the Amendments. In June 2023, the Department formally engaged with Indigenous communities in collaboration with DFO. Written communications were sent by email to the following Indigenous communities potentially impacted by the Project: Apitipi Anicinapek Nation, Beaverhouse First Nation, Matachewan First Nation, Métis Nation of Ontario, Temagami First Nation, and Timiskaming First Nation. All six Indigenous communities responded that they would like to participate in consultations.
Between June 2023 and March 2024, in collaboration with DFO and the Proponent, the Department of the Environment engaged and consulted with the above-mentioned Indigenous communities. The details on this engagement and consultation with each nation is provided below.
Consultation with Apitipi Anicinapek Nation
On September 26, 2023, the Department and DFO met virtually with Apitipi Anicinapek Nation to explain the regulatory process for an amendment to Schedule 2 of the MDMER and the Project details. During the meeting, Apitipi Anicinapek Nation expressed concerns with the proposed FHCP as, in their view, the FHCP does not compensate for the habitat that has been lost around Kirkland Lake due to a century of mining, as well as the loss of land that they otherwise would be using. They would like to contribute to the development of a more significant FHCP, as they believe the expansion of Kinross Pond does not provide sufficient compensation for the lost habitat. DFO responded that the FHCP is subject to change based on the outcome of consultations, and the Department requested that Apitipi Anicinapek Nation submit their specific concerns about the FHCP and suggestions for additional offsetting in writing to the Department. The Department, in collaboration with DFO and the Proponent, will continue engagement with Apitipi Anicinapek Nation if additional offsetting measures are proposed.
Apitipi Anicinapek Nation also expressed concern about the historic environmental hazard due to mining in the area and asked who would be responsible for cleaning it up. The Department responded that it understands their concern regarding historic damage and clarified that the Department’s responsibilities fall under section 36 of the Fisheries Act, and that the provincial government has jurisdiction over closure and remediation plans. The Department offered to facilitate a meeting for Apitipi Anicinapek Nation and the appropriate provincial officials to discuss this concern but did not receive a response.
Apitipi Anicinapek Nation formally requested capacity funding to support their review of the AA and FHCP on October 27, 2023, which the Department approved. A draft Contribution Agreement between Apitipi Anicinapek Nation and the Department was shared with Apitipi Anicinapek Nation for review on December 7, 2023, and was based on the project activities and updated budget provided by Apitipi Anicinapek Nation on December 4, 2023. Apitipi Anicinapek Nation acknowledged receipt of the draft Contribution Agreement and indicated that they wished to review it before finalizing the agreement. The Department reached out to Apitipi Anicinapek Nation multiple times with an offer to meet to discuss the draft Agreement and provided them with the Department’s “Recipient Guide to Contribution Agreements,” which explains in detail each section of the Contribution Agreement. Apitipi Anicinapek Nation did not respond to the Department’s attempts to resolve any questions or concerns on the contents of the Contribution Agreement. Apitipi Anicinapek Nation was advised by email on January 22, 2024, that the capacity funding that was offered to participate in consultations would only be available until the end of the fiscal year (end of March 2024), to which the Department did not receive a response.
In response to the notification sent by the Department on February 28, 2024, indicating that consultations related to the proposed Schedule 2 amendment for the Project would be concluding on March 13, 2024, Apitipi Anicinapek Nation submitted a letter addressed to the Department indicating that they will not consent to the proposed Schedule 2 amendment to the MDMER unless the concerns described below are addressed. The Department’s response to these concerns sent to Apitipi Anicinapek Nation on September 10, 2024, is also summarized below.
Apitipi Anicinapek Nation’s first concern is that environmental effects monitoring (EEM) detected increasing concentrations of metals in mine effluent in the Amikougami River system. Their second concern is that the current EEM study design and interpretation are inadequate and do not consider historic impacts to the environment from a century of mining at the Macassa mine site.
In response to the first two concerns, the Department explained the effluent quality standards set out in the MDMER that must be met before mine effluent can be discharged by metal and diamond mines, and that the Department enforces the Regulations in accordance with the Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions of the Fisheries Act. The Department also explained the requirements associated with EEM and that EEM reports are prepared by mines who are ultimately responsible for any information they contain. The Department encouraged Apitipi Anicinapek Nation and the Proponent to collaborate on any aspects of EEM of interest or concern to Apitipi Anicinapek Nation.
The third concern is that there are significant unaddressed pre-existing impacts to the aquatic and terrestrial environment in and around the Kirkland Lake gold camp. The Department explained that historical impacts to the aquatic and terrestrial environment are overseen by the Ministry of Mines of Ontario and offered to facilitate a connection within the Ministry to discuss this concern but did not receive a response to this offer.
The fourth concern Apitipi Anicinapek Nation expressed is that they are of the view that the Department’s capacity funding program is onerous and has inappropriate requirements. In response, the Department indicated, as summarized above, that Apitipi Anicinapek Nation was offered capacity funding to participate in consultations related to the proposed amendments through the Department’s grants and contributions fund, but Apitipi Anicinapek Nation did not sign the contribution agreement.
The fifth is that they have unaddressed concerns regarding the Amalgamated Kirkland project in Agnico Eagle Mines Limited’s most recent closure plan amendment. The Department explained that the closure plan falls under the jurisdiction of the province and offered to facilitate a connection within the Ministry of Mines of Ontario to discuss this concern. Apitipi Anicinapek Nation has not responded to this offer.
On November 14, 2024, Apitipi Anicinapek Nation sent a follow-up letter indicating that they are of the view that the Department did not substantively respond to their concerns and reiterated their request for capacity funding to participate in the consultations. In response, the Department offered to provide the capacity funding. The Department sent an updated Contribution Agreement to Apitipi Anicinapek Nation on December 18, 2024. Apitipi Anicinapek Nation signed the Contribution Agreement on January 18, 2025, and their comments on the FHCP are expected by March 31, 2025. The Department, in collaboration with DFO and the Proponent, will address comments received and continue engagement with Apitipi Anicinapek Nation if additional offsetting measures are proposed.
Consultation with Beaverhouse First Nation
On November 21, 2023, the Department and DFO met virtually with Beaverhouse First Nation to explain the regulatory process for an amendment to Schedule 2 of the MDMER and the Project details. At the meeting, Beaverhouse First Nation expressed interest in hearing more about the proposed expansion project, and subsequently the Department facilitated a meeting with the Proponent on December 13, 2023. Beaverhouse First Nation did not express any concerns with the proposed Project and asked for continued engagement related to Project activities as well as to be notified of any beavers found in the project area, to which the Proponent agreed. The Department sent a notification to Beaverhouse First Nation on February 28, 2024, that consultations related to the proposed Schedule 2 amendment for the Macassa mine expansion project would be concluding on March 13, 2024, and did not receive a response.
Consultation with Matachewan First Nation
On July 11, 2023, the Department, DFO and the Proponent attended an in-person meeting with Matachewan First Nation Chief and Council to explain the regulatory process for an amendment to Schedule 2 of the MDMER and the Project details. Community members inquired about how the use of fish-frequented waterbodies for mine waste disposal could be justified. The Department responded that the Proponent is required to develop and implement a FHCP to offset the loss of fish habitat resulting from the disposal of mine waste, which in this case would result in the creation of fish habitat. Other questions raised during the meeting related to potential environmental implications of mining activities, which the Proponent addressed. No specific concerns related to the AA report or the FHCP were raised. The Department sent a notification to Matachewan First Nation on February 28, 2024, that consultations related to the proposed Schedule 2 amendment for the Macassa mine expansion project would be concluding on March 13, 2024, and did not receive a response.
Consultation with Métis Nation of Ontario
On August 9, 2023, the Department, DFO and the Proponent met virtually with the Métis Nation of Ontario Region 3 Consultation Committee (R3CC) and Métis Nation of Ontario technical staff for an introductory meeting to explain the regulatory process for an amendment to Schedule 2 of the MDMER and the project details. No specific concerns on the AA report or the FHCP were shared with the Department during the meeting. After the meeting, Métis Nation of Ontario technical staff sent an email to the Department indicating that they were pleased with the presentation by the Proponent and information sharing during the meeting. On August 24, 2023, Métis Nation of Ontario sent an email to the Department indicating that after reviewing the presentations from the meeting as well as the Proponent’s response to their written comments on the FHCP, which were submitted prior to the beginning of the Departments consultations efforts, their questions and concerns were resolved. On February 28, 2024, the Métis Nation of Ontario was notified via email that consultations related to the proposed Schedule 2 amendment for the Macassa mine expansion project would be concluding on March 13, 2024. The Métis Nation of Ontario responded that they have no further concerns as the questions and concerns raised by the R3CC and Métis Nation of Ontario technical staff have been answered.
Consultation with Temagami First Nation
On July 25, 2023, the Department and DFO met virtually with representatives from Temagami First Nation for an introductory meeting to explain the regulatory process for an amendment to Schedule 2 of the MDMER. During the meeting, Temagami First Nation inquired what impacts the mine expansion would have on the environment and on fish and fish habitat, and what other species, such as frogs or plants would be affected. Following the meeting, the Department and DFO responded to these questions via email and provided a summary response as well as links to the FHCP where more detailed information could be found. The Department offered to facilitate a meeting with Temagami First Nation and the Proponent so that any remaining questions on the FHCP could be resolved but did not receive a response. A notification email was sent to Temagami First Nation on February 28, 2024, indicating that consultations related to the proposed Amendments would be closing on March 13, 2024. The Department did not receive a response.
Consultation with Timiskaming First Nation
On July 4, 2023, in response to the communication sent by the Department, Timiskaming First Nation indicated that they would like to accept an engagement meeting. Timiskaming First Nation did not respond to various communications from the Department following up on their request for a meeting. On February 28, 2024, Timiskaming First Nation was notified via email that consultations related to the proposed Schedule 2 Amendment for the Macassa mine expansion project would be concluding on March 13, 2024. The Department did not receive a response.
Consultation undertaken by the Proponent
Furthermore, the Proponent has concluded an Impacts and Benefits Agreement (IBA) with Beaverhouse First Nation and a joint IBA with Apitipi Anicinapek Nation and Matachewan First Nation. IBAs are privately negotiated agreements that establish the commitment and responsibilities of the impacted Indigenous communities and the mine proponent. Generally, IBAs seek to address the potentially adverse effects of development activities on the rights of Indigenous communities and ensure social and economic benefits for these communities.
Instrument choice
Non-regulatory options would involve the disposal of mine waste 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 assessment of alternatives for mine waste disposal to determine the best option for mine waste disposal, taking into account environmental, technical, economic and socio-economic factors. This assessment was conducted in accordance with the Department’s Guidelines for the assessment of alternatives for mine waste disposal.
Various basic criteria were defined to produce a list of possible options for the disposal of mine waste:
- meeting the minimum storage capacity
- avoiding being located upstream of a population located in the dam breach inundation zone
- avoiding potential hazard to underground workers health and safety (e.g., mud rush of tailings into underground workings)
- avoiding unreasonable volume of construction material that is technically impractical and creates unaccepted environmental impact.
Options for tailings and waste rock storage were dismissed using these criteria. Of the eight potential tailings storage locations considered, three were retained for further analysis. The Proponent developed a multiple account analysis to further characterize the three remaining locations (Expansion of the existing NTSF, Far North of existing NTSF, and Former Kirkland Minerals TSF), see Figure 3. Three different tailings technologies (conventional thickened slurry, high density thickened thin lift, and filtered tailings) were considered for each location, resulting in nine unique alternative options as described in Table 1.
Figure 3: Locations of the options for mine waste disposal
Figure 3: Locations of the options for mine waste disposal - Text version
The figure shows a map of the Macassa mine site at a scale of 1:20,000 metres, with the three potential TSF locations in relation to other mine infrastructure, waterbodies, communities and roads.
The alternative labelled “Expansion of Existing Facility” is located southwest of the Macassa Mill and overprints the existing NTSF.
The alternative labelled “Former Kirkland Minerals TSF” is located north of the Macassa Mill and northeast of the existing NTSF.
The alternative labelled “Far-North of Existing Facility” is located northwest of the Macassa Mill and north of the existing NTSF.
The legend located at the bottom of the figure describes the symbols used to indicate features on the map, including potential TSF locations, the mill, watercourses/waterbodies, potential TSF footprints, the Amikougami Creek catchment, battery limits (3 km radius from Mill), communities and roads, archaeological buffer 50 m offset, snowmobile trails 15 m from centre, utilities offset 30 m from centre, rail offset 15 m from centre, Amikougami Creek offset 122 m from centre, glory hole areas, mine tailings and water management, and mine infrastructure and waste rock.
| Alternative option | Description | Impact on watershed and displaced habitat | Surface area disturbed from new Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) and associated infrastructure (ha) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alternative A (Preferred option) | Expansion of existing 5-year NTSF with thickened slurry (Conventional). This alternative utilizes the same tailings deposition strategy as the current operating facility and is a northern extension to the existing TSF. | Minimal effect on surface water (some small tributaries of Amikougami Creek would be affected). Located within approximately 1 km2 catchment area. Potential TSF occupies a large portion of a 1 km2 catchment that drains to Amikougami Creek. | Approximately 50 ha of new disturbance. TSF footprint: approximately 100 ha. No additional new major infrastructure. Footprint has previously been affected by forest fire. |
| Alternative B | Expansion of existing NTSF with high density thickened thin lift. Similar to Alternative A, however a lower moisture content tailing is utilized and is deposited using thinner lifts resulting in a reduced supernatant water within the facility. | Same as Alternative A. | Same as Alternative A. |
| Alternative C | Expansion of existing NTSF with filtered tailings. This alternative involves filtering tailings to >85% solids content and trucking or conveying material to cells on the existing facility or to an area immediately north of the existing facility. This alternative requires a downstream compacted zone shell and additional surface water management infrastructure to collect surface runoff from the filter stack. There is a greater range of construction challenges with this alternative due to freeze/thaw issues with compacting filtered tailings within the structural zones. | Same as Alternatives A/B, however causes slightly less surface disturbance. | Least amount of new disturbance from deposition (approximately 35 ha), however additional footprint is required for surface water management ponds, filter plant/storage, expanded haul roads/conveyor easement |
| Alternative D | Former Kirkland Minerals TSF with Conventional Slurry. This alternative utilizes the same technology as alternative A; however, the location would be within the Former Kirkland Minerals TSF and is located within a larger headwater than the existing NTSF | Moderate effect on surface water associated with Eastmaque Basin and Amikougami Lake headwater. Located within an approximately 61 km2 catchment area. Potential TSF is located at the headwater of a large catchment that includes Amikougami Lake, Goodfish Lake, Eastmaque Lake, and eventually drains to the north portion of Amikougami Creek. | Approximately 70 ha (required for additional foundation conditions improvements and new tailings distribution line compared with alternates A and B). The footprint has previously been affected by tailings disposal activities. |
| Alternative E | Former Kirkland Minerals TSF with high density thickened thin lift. This alternative utilizes the same technology as alternative B; however, the location would be within the Former Kirkland Minerals TSF located within a larger headwater than the existing NTSF | Same as Alternative D. | Approximately 120 ha of additional surface disturbance (requires foundation improvements as the footprint has previously been affected by tailings disposal activities). |
| Alternative F | Former Kirkland Minerals TSF with filtered tailings. This alternative utilizes the same technology as alternative C; however, the location would be within the Former Kirkland Minerals TSF located within a larger headwater than the existing NTSF. | Same as Alternative D. | Approximately 60 ha, however additional footprint is required for surface water management ponds, filter plant/storage, expanded haul roads/conveyor easement. Requires foundation improvements as the footprint has previously been affected by tailings disposal activities. Moderate effect on surface water associated with Eastmaque Basin and Amikougami Lake headwater. |
| Alternative G | Far-North of Existing Facility with Thickened Slurry (Conventional). This alternative utilizes the same technology as Alternative A, however, the site would be located north of the existing tailings facility within an undisturbed area. | Effect on surface water associated with Eastmaque Basin and Amikougami Lake headwater. Tailings alternatives would be located in an undisturbed area at the headwater of a large catchment that includes Amikougami Lake, Goodfish Lake, Eastmaque Lake, and eventually drains to the north portion of Amikougami Creek. | Approximately 60 ha (additional footprint for additional dams compared to Alternative A) |
| Alternative H | Far-North of Existing Facility with high density thickened thin lift. This alternative utilizes the same technology as Alternative B, however, the site would be located north of the existing tailings facility within an undisturbed area | Same as Alternative G. | Approximately 60 ha (additional footprint for additional dams compared to Alternative A). |
| Alternative I | Far-North of Existing Facility with filtered tailings. This alternative utilizes the same technology as Alternative C, however, the site would be located north of the existing tailings facility within an undisturbed area | Larger impacted catchment than Alternatives A-C | Approximately 65 ha (35 ha and 30 ha for new water management dams) |
Dam safety and minimal impacts to surface water are key components for the preferred option for mine waste disposal. Expanding the existing NTSF location met these criteria. Although all three locations impact water bodies, the multiple account analysis found that Alternative A had the best overall score for technical and economical criteria. Therefore, Alternative A is the preferred option.
Regulatory Analysis
Benefits and costs
Analytical framework
The analysis below examines the incremental impacts of the Amendments on the environment, Indigenous communities, businesses (the Proponent) and the Government. While costs for the Proponent are known and monetized, it is not feasible to quantify and monetize environmental impacts 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 expansion of the existing NTSF will destroy two water bodies that are frequented by fish and totaling 0.46 ha of fish habitat. The water bodies affected are two unnamed tributaries to Amikougami Creek. The fish species present in the Amikougami Creek tributaries are Blacknose shiner, Brassy minnow, Brook stickleback, Creek chub, Fathead minnow, Finescale dace, Mottled sculpin, Northern pike, Northern redbelly dace, and White sucker.
The loss of fish habitat 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 the creation of 0.89 ha of fish habitat of equivalent or superior quality compared to the fish habitat to be destroyed by the proposed expansion of the NTSF.
The FHCP prepared by the Proponent outlines targeted measures to offset impacts to fish and fish habitat and enhance aquatic ecosystems. The existing floodplain within the Kinross Pond Extension footprint does not provide fish habitat. The proposed compensation measure is to extend the existing Kinross Pond, located immediately west of the Town of Kirkland Lake, by establishing a new second pond downstream of the existing pond (Kinross Pond Extension) to create new habitat. The habitat created by the Kinross Pond Extension is expected to be suitable year-round to the forage fish species in the area, including Brook stickleback, Finescale dace, Golden shiner and Redbelly dace. The new habitat is expected to be comparable in nature to the habitat characteristic of the water bodies that will be affected by the proposed expansion of the NTSF.
Cost to business
The implementation of the FHCP associated with the Amendments is estimated to cost $1.37 millionfootnote 8 for Agnico Eagle Mines Limited. Table 2 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.
| Description | Undiscounted amount in 2022 Canadian dollars | Amount discounted at a rate table 3 note a of 3% | Proposed schedule |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction (main steps) | $1,357,074 | $1,279,172 | 2026 |
| Monitoring plan | $98,600 | $86,701 | 2026-2031 |
| Total | $1,455,674 | $1,365,874 | 2026-2031 |
Table 3 note(s)
|
|||
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 costs incurred by DFO with site visits, monitoring, and review of the FHCP to ensure compliance with the Fisheries Act and the MDMER. These monitoring activities will only occur intermittently during the implementation of the FHCP and will not continue throughout the life of the TIAs. Therefore, the total incremental costs to the Government associated with the proposed FHCP will be low.
Table 3: Cost-benefit statement
| Impact | Total (present value) | Annualized average (6 years) |
|---|---|---|
| Costs | 1.37 | 0.252 |
| Impact | Description |
|---|---|
| Positive impacts | The implementation of a fish habitat compensation plan, which will result in a direct gain of 0.89 ha of fish habitat. |
| Negative impacts | The loss of fish habitat associated with the disposal of tailings amounts to 0.46 ha. |
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 or 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 is prepared as a matter of routine or administrative procedure with a low likelihood of important environmental or economic effects.
Gender-based analysis plus
A gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) 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 expansion of the NTSF.
Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards
The Amendments come into force on the day on which they are registered. The Amendments will allow the use of certain water bodies that are frequented by fish for the disposal of tailings generated at the Macassa Mine. Before the Proponent can begin tailings disposal into the listed TIAs, all the conditions under section 27.1 of the MDMER need to be met for the Minister of the Environment to approve the FHCP.
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 proposed Amendments. An enforcement officer may conduct an investigation when there are 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