Regulations Amending the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations: SOR/2020-109

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 154, Number 12

Registration

SOR/2020-109 May 20, 2020

FISHERIES ACT

P.C. 2020-333 May 18, 2020

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, pursuant to subsection 36(5) of the Fisheries Act footnote a, makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations.

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

53

All waters located within the area described in column 2, located approximately 400 km southwest of Cambridge Bay, Nunavut

The waters located within an area located approximately 400 km southwest of Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. More precisely, the area bounded by 6 straight lines connecting 6 points starting at the point located at 65°31′34.856″ north latitude and 106°22′58.657″ west longitude to the point located 307 m southeast at 65°31′26.609″ north latitude and 106°22′45.370″ west longitude to the point located 954 m southwest at 65°31′1.982″ north latitude and 106°23′29.979″ west longitude to the point located 586 m southwest at 65°30′44.708″ north latitude and 106°23′48.582″ west longitude to the point located 1675 m northwest at 65°31′32.307″ north latitude and 106°24′50.478″ west longitude and ending at the point located 631 m northeast at 65°31′36.267″ north latitude and 106°24′2.267″ 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

Issues: Sabina Gold & Silver Corporation (the Proponent) is proposing to develop an open-pit and underground gold mine located approximately 400 km southwest of Cambridge Bay and 95 km southeast of the southern end of Bathurst Inlet, in Nunavut.

The Proponent will construct a tailings management facility (TMF) and four waste rock storage areas (WRSA) to manage the mine waste footnote 2 generated by the mining operations. 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 five water bodies within a prescribed geographical area (shown in Figure 2), to Schedule 2 of the MDMER, designating them as tailings impoundment areas (TIAs). This will result in the loss of 4.7 hectares (ha) of fish habitat.

Rationale: The Proponent assessed several options to determine the preferred disposal method and site location to manage mine waste, taking into account environmental, technical, economic and socio-economic factors. The Proponent prepared an assessment of alternatives report in accordance with the Department of the Environment’s Guidelines for the assessment of alternatives for mine waste disposal. Regulatory options include those options that would result in the deposit of mine waste into fish-frequented waters while non-regulatory options include those that do not impact waters frequented by fish (i.e. land-based options).

The site locations for the TMF and the WRSAs were selected on the basis of minimizing the environmental impacts of the Back River Mine Project (i.e. smaller disturbed footprint on land) and on the preferences and interests of Inuit communities. Technical aspects such as dam heights and lengths and precedents for similar construction in the North were also considered.

The MDMER require 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. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) determined that the FHCP proposed by the Proponent meets the guiding principles of their Policy for Applying Measures to Offset Adverse Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat Under the Fisheries Act.

The Department of the Environment consulted Indigenous groups, the general public and other interested parties that may be adversely impacted by the Project. Impacted Indigenous groups are supportive of the selected site for the TMF and the WRSAs and of measures proposed by the Proponent to offset the loss of fish habitat.

The Proponent will incur costs by implementing the FHCP that will offset the loss of 4.7 ha of fish habitat and 60.8 kg of fish biomass over a ten-year period as a result of the disposal of mine waste for the Back River Mine Project. The implementation of the FHCP is expected to result in a gain of 135.2 kg of fish biomass over a ten-year period at an estimated cost of $6,900. footnote 3

Issues

The Proponent, Sabina Gold & Silver Corporation, proposes the development of an open-pit and underground gold mine located approximately 400 km southwest of Cambridge Bay and 95 km southeast of the southern end of Bathurst Inlet, in Nunavut. The disposal of mine waste generated by the mining operations will impact five water bodies frequented by fish.

The Proponent intends to use five water bodies frequented by fish to dispose of mine waste that will be generated by the mining operations. 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), made pursuant to subsections 34(2), 36(5) and 38(9) of the Act, include provisions to allow for the disposal of mine waste in waters frequented by fish, under certain conditions.

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 (e.g. arsenic, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, zinc, radium-226 and total suspended solids). The MDMER also specify the allowable acidity or alkalinity (pH range) of mine effluent and require that mine effluent not be acutely lethal to fish. footnote 5 The MDMER further require that mine owners and operators sample and monitor effluents to ensure compliance with the authorized limits and to determine any impact on fish, fish habitat and fishery resources. The Department of the Environment publishes annual performance summaries for metal mines with respect to selected standards prescribed by the MDMER. footnote 6

The use of waters frequented by fish for mine waste disposal can only be authorized through an amendment to the MDMER by listing the water body in Schedule 2, designating it as a TIA. As of January 2020, 48 water bodies were listed in Schedule 2.

The MDMER requires the development and implementation of an FHCP that meets all the requirements under section 27.1 of the Regulations 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 disposal.

Before depositing mine waste into water bodies that have been added to Schedule 2, owners and operators of mines must obtain the Minister’s approval of the FHCP. The owner or operator of a mine is also required to submit an irrevocable letter of credit 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 proposed mine waste disposal would impact fish-frequented waters, thus requiring an amendment to Schedule 2 of the MDMER, proponents must consider other alternatives for mine waste disposal. They must demonstrate that the preferred option is the best option based on environmental, technical, economic and socio-economic criteria specified in the Department of the Environment’s Guidelines for the assessment of alternatives for mine waste disposal. As part of these guidelines, proponents must also undertake preliminary consultations on how alternative mine waste disposal options were assessed and how the preferred option was determined.

The Back River Mine Project

The closest community areas to the Project area are Kingaok (Bathurst Inlet), located approximately 160 km north of the Goose Property and Omingmaktok (Bay Chimo), located approximately 250 km northeast of the Goose Property (see Figure 1). Both communities are only used seasonally by a small group of people.

The Project is comprised of two main areas, the Goose Property and the Marine Laydown Area, which are interconnected by a winter ice road. The Goose Property will be the hub of the Project with four open pits and underground mines, a TMF, four WRSAs established close to each pit, a process plant, an all-weather airstrip, a camp and roads. The TMF is located on Crown land while all other infrastructure is located on Inuit-Owned Land. The Project will be supported by year-round resupply by aircraft and seasonal marine resupply by open water shipping at the Marine Laydown Area.

Four deposits at Goose Property (Umwelt, Llama, Goose Main, and Echo) are planned to be mined using both open pit and underground mining methods. The mine plan at the Goose Property is expected to generate 19.8 million tonnes of tailings over a 10-year period, processed at a rate of 6 000 tonnes per day milling operation for an average annual production of 350 000 ounces of gold. The life of the Project, from mobilization and construction to post-closure is estimated at 27 years (four years for construction, ten years for operations, eight years for closure and five years for post-closure); however, the operation phase could be extended beyond ten years should additional mineral deposits become economical to be developed.

Figure 1: Location of the Back River Mine Project

Figure 1 is a 1:3,500,000 scale map showing the general location of the Back River Mine Project in Nunavut. – Description below

Image description

Figure 1 is a 1:3,500,000 scale map showing the general location of the Back River Mine Project. It shows the location of two main areas of the Project (the Goose Property Area and the Marine Laydown Area) within Nunavut and with respect to the Arctic Circle. The Goose Property Area is south of the Arctic Circle and the Marine Laydown Area is slightly north of the Arctic Circle. It also shows the location of communities and settlements with respect to the Project location; Bathurst Inlet and Bay Chimo both north of the Project location, Kuglugtuk northwest of the Project location, Cambridge Bay northeast of the Project location and Yellowknife southwest of the Project location.

The Proponent undertook an assessment of alternatives for the storage of tailings and mine rock based on the guidelines. The Proponent’s technical report (PDF) footnote 7 describes the steps it undertook to assess the options for the management of mine waste generated by the Project.

Management of mine waste at the Back River Mine Project

The mine plan consists of four deposits at the Goose Property (i.e. Umwelt, Llama, Goose Main and Echo) which will be mined using both open pit and underground mining methods. The open pit mining, in combination with the underground mining operations, will produce up to 64 million tonnes of mine waste (waste rock and overburden) and 19.8 million tonnes of tailings.

Waste rock storage

Waste rock will be produced primarily from open pit operations, and to a much lesser extent, from underground operations. More than half the waste rock and most of the tailings are considered potentially acid generating (PAG). The WRSAs will vary in height from approximately 14 to 35 m; however, the WRSAs will be designed to provide additional storage capacity if needed. More details on the WRSAs are provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Waste rock storage area descriptions

Waste rock storage area

Location

Quantity of waste rock and overburden (million tonnes)

Expected source of waste rock and overburden

Umwelt WRSA

600 m east of the Umwelt open pit

20

Umwelt Pit

Llama WRSA

700 m southeast of Llama open pit

16

Llama Pit

TMF WRSA

located on the TMF and 2 km south of the Goose Main open pit

27

Goose Main Pit and Echo Pit

Echo WRSA

located about 300 m from the Echo open pit

1

Echo Pit

Total

 

64

 

Tailings management

The bulk of the tailings generated will be disposed in mined-out open pits; however, for the first two years of operation, tailings will require the construction of a TMF with a minimum storage capacity of just under 3.8 million tonnes.

During the first two years of production, tailings will be deposited in the TMF located about 2 km south of the Goose Main Pit. Over the next four years, tailings will be deposited into the mined-out Umwelt Pit. Finally, over the last four years of operation, tailings will be deposited into the mined-out Goose Main Pit. This schedule is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Tailings disposal schedule and locations

Location

Period

Tailings (million tonnes)

Tailings (million cubic metres)

TMF

Year 1 to Year 2

3.8

3.1

Umwelt Pit

Year 2 to Year 6

8.6

7.2

Goose Main Pit

Year 6 to Year 10

7.4

6.2

Total

Year 1 to Year 10

19.8

16.5

The disposal of tailings and waste rock will impact five water bodies or portions of water bodies that are frequented by fish, totalling approximately 4.7 hectares (ha) of fish habitat.

Environmental assessment

The Project was subject to an environmental assessment (EA) under the terms of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act (NLCAA). On November 23, 2015, the Proponent submitted its Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB), which is responsible for the assessment of potential impacts of proposed development in the Nunavut Settlement Area.

Under the provisions of the NLCAA, the federal minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs must review the NIRB’s report/findings. The Back River Project was approved by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs in 2017 and following the completion of the NIRB review process, the Project certificate was issued on December 19, 2017.

Objective

The objective of the amendments is to authorize the deposit of mine waste into prescribed fish-frequented water bodies. A requirement of this authorization is that the Proponent must offset the loss of fish and fish habitat resulting from the deposit of mine waste by developing and implementing an FHCP.

Description

The amendments will list five water bodies within a prescribed geographical area, to Schedule 2 of the MDMER, designating them as tailings impoundment areas (TIAs). The water bodies are small ponds in the headwaters of Goose Inflow South and Goose Inflow East and Ponds 7, 8 and 9 (see Figure 2). This will result in the loss of 4.7 ha of fish habitat.

Figure 2: Polygon and location of water bodies to be listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER the impacted water bodies

Figure 2 is a 1:10,000 scale map showing the location of the five water bodies to be listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER. – Description below

Image description

Figure 2 is a 1:10,000 scale map showing the location of the five water bodies to be listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER (i.e., small ponds in the headwaters of Goose Inflow South and Goose Inflow East and Ponds 7, 8 and 9). The five water bodies are grouped together in a geographical area, or polygon. The figure shows the specific coordinates of each point of the polygon of which there are six. Important geographical reference points with respect to the Project location are also shown that include Rascal Lake located west of the polygon and Cambridge Bay located northeast of the polygon.

Regulatory development

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (1993) [NLCA], a modern treaty signed in 1993, 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 Aboriginal communities as it relates to proposed mineral development projects.

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. Under the provisions of the NLCA, the federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs must review the NIRB’s report/findings.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment supported the NIRB throughout the review process. Following NIRB’s review process and the final decision taken by the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, the Department of the Environment engaged the Kitikmeot Inuit Association (KIA), the primary Inuit organization with rights and responsibilities in the Project area, regional Hunters and Trappers Organizations and local governments, on the Amendments.

In February and March 2019, officials from the Department of the Environment reached out to key stakeholders identified through NIRB’s EA process by email to engage them on the Amendments for the proposed Project and inform them on the regulatory process. The Department of the Environment also consulted on plans to apply the policy on Streamlining the Approvals Process for Metal Mines with Tailings Impoundment Areas for the purpose of streamlining, or expediting, the approval timelines for the TIA authorization, and publishing directly in Part II of the Canada Gazette. Officials followed up with telephone calls and additional emails following little to no response.

On July 16, 2019, the KIA sent the Department of the Environment a letter indicating they have no concerns regarding the listing of the impacted waterbodies to Schedule 2 of the MDMER. The KIA expressed their satisfaction with the level of consultation and opportunities for comment related to the TMF and the associated FHCP. Finally, the KIA indicated their support for the application of the Streamlining the Approvals Process for Metal Mines with Tailings Impoundment Areas to the proposed Amendments for the Back River Project. No concerns were raised by either the KIA or the regional Hunters and Trappers Organizations when the Department of the Environment reached out to them on the Amendments. These organizations have been thoroughly engaged and consulted by the Proponent and throughout the NIRB review process as described below.

The Department of the Environment also sought comments from the public on the Amendments through the consultation web page for the Project, which can also be found through the Consulting with Canadians web page. The public consultation period ran from May 2019 to July 2019. No public comments were received during this period.

The Amendments were determined to meet the criteria set out in the policy Streamlining the Approvals Process for Metal Mines with Tailings Impoundment Areas, which indicates that an exemption from prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, is warranted.

Consultations undertaken by the Proponent

The Proponent conducted community engagement and consultation activities in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories for the Project beginning in 2012. Since that time, over 250 meetings have taken place on the proposed Project with the public, the Proponent’s two community advisory groups in Cambridge Bay and Kugluktuk, local hamlets, Hunters and Trappers Organizations (HTOs), youth, and other stakeholder groups. In particular, the KIA, as the primary Inuit organization with rights and responsibilities in the Project area and representative of the landowner, was engaged in discussions and consulted on the options for the location of the proposed TMF and WRSAs. The Proponent documented this information in meeting minutes and a comprehensive community engagement database. These results can be found in Volume 3 of their Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

The KIA and Kitikmeot Region communities were the key focus of the Proponent’s public consultation and engagement activities. These communities were categorized based on their proximity to the Project, their potential to be affected by Project-related socio-economic and eco-systemic effects and linkages to other aspects of the Project to determine the level of consultation and engagement employed by the Proponent in each location.

The Proponent’s consultation and engagement activities included public meetings, meetings with key stakeholders and stakeholder groups, meetings with community advisory groups in Cambridge Bay and Kugluktuk, Project site visits, a Project newsletter, use of social media, as well as the establishment of a Cambridge Bay office and use of local employees and contractors including a Cambridge Bay-based Community Liaison Officer. The Proponent undertook a traditional knowledge study in partnership with the KIA and Kugluktuk Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organization, undertook various socio-economic/environmental studies, other forms of community engagement (e.g. radio shows, trade show participation, cross-cultural training, and community advertisements) and successfully negotiated an Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement (IBA) with the KIA.

Instrument choice

Non-regulatory options would involve the deposit of mine waste in a manner that would not impact fish-frequented water bodies (i.e. land-based options), while regulatory options correspond to those that would impact fish-frequented waters.

The Proponent developed several options in its assessment to determine the best option for mine waste disposal. The technical report entitled Updated Integrated Mine Waste Disposal Alternatives Assessment, Back River Gold Project, Nunavut, Canada, August 2018 takes into account the environmental, technical, economic and socio-economic factors and was conducted in accordance with the Department of the Environment’s Guidelines for the assessment of alternatives for mine waste disposal.

Waste rock storage areas

There were no substantive differences between alternative locations for WRSAs when considered against technical and operational, environmental and socio-economic criteria. As such, only economic factors were considered, specifically the cost associated with the haul distance from either the open pit or the underground mine portal. This resulted in the WRSA locations being selected based on proximity to the open pits and conditional on not impacting fish bearing water bodies and not requiring diversion of surface water drainage. It was concluded that the only viable waste rock management strategy for the Project would be to develop surface WRSAs. Further, the co-disposal of the tailings with the waste rock offers the added benefit of largely eliminating the metal leaching concerns because over time tailings will freeze and prevent acidic drainage from the tailings. Waste rock and overburden would be deposited in a series of WRSAs located adjacent to the open pits.

Tailings management facility

The technical report describes the steps undertaken to assess the options for location of the TMF. A total of 45 tailings management options were identified and assessed against the following pre-screening criteria developed by the Proponent to identify viable options for further consideration for the TMF:

Following the pre-screening process, nine options remained for further assessment (see Table 3). Two of these options were non-regulatory options, meaning they would not require an amendment to Schedule 2 of the MDMER.

Table 3: Options considered for location of the TMF
 

Option

Description

1

Option 28

(non-regulatory option)

Covers a natural valley north of Goose process plant and east of Llama open pit; would require three rockfill dams for tailings containment, with a combined length of 4.8 km and a maximum height of 17 m; does not overprint any major lakes but would destroy six small ponds with areas ranging from 0.2 and 4.8 ha (absence of fish in all 6 ponds was confirmed through environmental baselines studies).

2

Option 29

Occupies a flat area directly south of the Goose process plant and west of Goose Main open pit; containment dam would surround the west, north and east sides of the facility with a total combined length of 5.7 km and a maximum height of 25 m; requires a diversion channel to divert the outflow from Fox Lake (fish presence confirmed in Fox Lake and its outflow stream) and destroys eight ponds with areas ranging from 0.1 to 10.5 ha.

3

Option 30

Located southeast of the Goose process plant and directly south of the Goose Main open pit; requires one large dam for tailings containment for a length of 4.4 km and a maximum height of 24 m; would destroy 15 ponds ranging in areas from 0.1 to 2.7 ha (fish presence either assumed or confirmed in ponds).

4

Option 32

Occupies most of the west extension of Goose Lake and the natural valley upstream; requires two dams for tailings containment for a length of 2.3 km and a maximum height of 26 m; occupies 20% of Goose lake and four small ponds with areas ranging from 0.1 to 2.5 ha (fish presence confirmed in Goose Lake through baseline studies).

5

Option 35

Occupies the footprint of Giraffe Lake; requires a rockfill dam for tailings containment for a length of 0.8 km and a maximum height of 9 m; requires a second dam and diversion channel to divert the stream entering Giraffe Lake from the north; destroys Giraffe Lake (64.1 ha) and two small ponds with areas of 0.2 and 4.4 ha (fish presence confirmed in Giraffe Lake but not in ponds).

6

Option 36

Occupies footprint of both Giraffe and Leaf Lakes; requires rockfill dam that is 0.8 km long and 8 m high at the southeast edge of the facility and a small dike to dam up the water divide and prevent additional water entering the facility; destroys Giraffe and Leaf Lakes (total of 80 ha) and 5 ponds with areas ranging from 0.1 to 4.4 ha (fish presence confirmed in Giraffe Lake but not in ponds or Leaf Lake).

7

Option 37

Deposits tailings in the east side of Goose Lake; requires a 9.4 km ring dyke around the Lake at a maximum height of 3 m; sub-aqueous deposit of tailings below the natural lake level; destroys 80% of Goose Lake and requires a diversion channel to divert the inflows from Giraffe Lake and from west of Goose Lake (fish presence confirmed in Goose Lake).

8

Option 40

(preferred option)

Occupies the shallow valley 2 km south of Goose Main open pit; requires a 14 m tall and 1.7 km long rockfill dam and a small saddle dam to retain tailings within the drainage catchment of the valley; destroys four ponds with areas ranging from 0.2 to 2.7 ha (fish presence either assumed or confirmed in ponds).

9

Option 41

(non-regulatory option)

Occupies a "dogleg" shaped shallow valley north of the Goose process plant and east of the Llama open pit; located directly upstream of Giraffe Lake, requires two rockfill dams for tailings containment and two dams of a total length of 2 km; destroys three small ponds with areas ranging from 0.3 to 1.1 ha but does not affect any major lakes (absence of fish in ponds confirmed through environmental baselines studies).

The Proponent’s analysis determined the preferred location for the TMF was Option 40. The final analysis applied environmental indicators such as the footprint size of impoundment area, the need for access roads, the size and volume of impacted water bodies, water quality and loss of Inuit food sources and other habitat that are important to Inuit culture, practices and identity. Technical indicators applied included criteria such as the number of dams required and their length and maximum height and other design considerations such as distance that tailings had to be transported, risks and uncertainties related to certain technologies and alternatives that would allow the land to return to pre-mining use following closure. The economic indicators applied factors such as the costs related to the operation of the mine, the implementation of the FHCP, and closure and post-closure costs.

Tailings deposition technologies

Table 4 lists the six options for tailings disposal technologies identified by the Proponent for consideration.

Table 4: Tailings disposal technologies considered

Option

Tailings disposal method

1

Low solids content slurry method

2

Thickened tailings slurry method

3

Paste tailings method

4

Filtered tailings method

5

Co-disposal of tailings method

6

Co-mixing of tailings method

Although thickening tailings slurry (Option 2) improves the storage efficiency by increasing the settled density and reducing water loss, this method requires additional capital and operating cost. Further, the main advantage of this method is water recovery and is typically used in environments that experience high evaporative losses, which is not the case in the Project area. As such, this method was not further considered for the Project.

Paste tailings (Option 3) require the use of positive displacement pumps which are a substantial capital cost (positive displacement pumps typically cost ten times the cost of more common centrifugal pumps). In addition, paste tailings require dedicated water management structures, including external ponds, which are operationally challenging to operate in the winter months due to freezing and in the summer months due to accumulation of salts. As such, for the purpose of this Project, paste tailings was removed from further consideration.

Filtered tailings (Option 4) was rejected because it is the most operationally complex and most costly of the disposal options with the highest capital cost, highest cost per tonne of tailings and highest power consumption. Co-mixing (Option 6) was rejected because it is still in the experimental stage of development and no case studies exist yet to prove its adoptability.

The Proponent’s final analysis determined that Options 1 and 5 (i.e. low solids content slurry and co-disposal of tailings) were the preferred disposal technologies. Initially, the tailings would be deposited in a conventional slurry impoundment temporarily retained by a rockfill embankment dam. At the end of deposition, the facility would be drained of the excess water, then waste rock from the Goose open pit would be placed in and around the TMF. This method would make the release of any tailings almost impossible in the long term and would meet best available technology requirements.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

Analytical framework

The Amendments will list five specific fish-frequented water bodies within a prescribed geographical area to Schedule 2 of the MDMER, thereby authorizing the Proponent to use them for the disposal of mine waste.

The Proponent developed an FHCP that meets DFO’s Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy: A Proponent’s Guide to Offsetting, which means that the offsetting measures

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 costbenefit analysis reflects monetized costs and qualitatively described impacts. The cost and environmental impacts of the Amendments could change if the scope of the FHCP is to be subsequently amended.

Environmental impacts

The disposal of mine waste will impact five water bodies that are frequented by fish and totalling 4.7 ha of fish habitat. Losses include small ponds in the headwaters of Goose Inflow South and Goose Inflow East and Ponds 7, 8 and 9 (see Figure 2).

Loss of fish habitat was calculated in terms of fisheries production (i.e. total biomass of fish in kilograms) as the impacted water bodies are linked to supporting critical life stages of certain fish (e.g. foraging, rearing and spawning habitats). Over a ten-year period, the Proponent estimated that the total cumulative losses will amount to 30.4 kg of fish biomass (10.6 kg due to the construction of infrastructure and 2.2 kg in potential annual lost of production over nine years). To account for uncertainty, the Proponent estimated a target production level to offset the loss of fish habitat at 60.8 kg. footnote 8 The loss of fish biomass attributable to the Amendments represents only 1.7% of total fish biomass losses associated with the Project as most of the losses result from the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat under section 35 of the Fisheries Act and are therefore out of scope of this analysis.

The Goose Inflow East and Goose Inflow South can be generally classified into two habitat types based on seasonal connectivity: sections lower in the watershed that maintain good connectivity to Goose Lake throughout the summer and provide habitat for Arctic Grayling and forage fish; and sections higher in the watershed with only ephemeral connectivity to Goose Lake during the spring freshet and provide habitat only for forage fish. In sections of Goose Inflow South and Goose Inflow East lower in the watershed, the habitat is rated as high quality, providing good spawning and rearing habitat for Arctic Grayling and forage fish from Goose Lake and direct connection to overwintering habitat in Goose Lake. The lower section of Goose Inflow South also provides part of the corridor that Arctic Grayling use to migrate between Goose and Rascal lakes. The impacted ponds (i.e. Ponds 7, 8 and 9) may support ninespine stickleback during the open-water season depending on the connectivity to downstream habitats.

The key offsetting measure proposed by the Proponent is an Inuit-directed habitat enhancement project with the goal of improving fish production for anadromous Arctic Char at Bernard Harbour, Nunavut. Other complementary measures include the Rascal Stream Diversion that will redirect flows from low quality habitats to higher quality habitats so they can be used by spawning Arctic Grayling and habitat enhancements in Nulahugyuk Creek to improve fish passage conditions for upstream migrations to increase adult survival.

The loss of fish habitat will be offset by the implementation of the FHCP, developed in accordance with the requirements of section 27.1 of the MDMER. The estimated fish biomass loss from the operation of the TMF will be over-compensated by the estimated gains from the Bernard Harbour offsetting measure. Over a ten-year period, the offsetting measure may generate a cumulative gain of 7,951 kg of Arctic Char, of which 135.2 kg (1.7%) is associated with the Amendments.

Cost to business

The implementation of the offset/compensation plan is estimated at $403,000 footnote 9 for Sabina Gold & Silver Corporation, footnote 10 of which 1.7% of the total cost ($6,900) is associated with the Amendments in order to compensate for the loss of 4.7 ha of fish habitat. The remainder of the cost of the offset/compensation plan ($396,100) will offset the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat resulting from work permitted under paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act.

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 the DFO. These incremental costs will be low, given that monitoring 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 and will diminish significantly following the publication of the amendments in the Canada Gazette.

Incremental compliance promotion costs, if incurred, will also be low given that compliance promotion activities occurred throughout the federal environmental assessment process.

The total incremental costs to the Government associated with the proposed FHCP will also be low.

Small business lens

There are no impacts on small business associated with the Amendments. The Sabina Gold & Silver Corporation, 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.

Gender-based analysis plus (GBA+)

Provided the FHCP is implemented, the Department of the Environment has determined that the Amendments are not expected to disproportionately affect Indigenous peoples or any other socio-demographic group.

Strategic environmental assessment

A strategic environmental assessment concluded that authorizing the disposal of tailings in a TIA will have adverse environmental effects, namely, the loss of fish habitat. However, the adverse environmental effects will be offset by the implementation of an FHCP that will result in no net loss of fish habitat. The Proponent must also submit an irrevocable letter of credit covering the implementation costs of the plan, including the costs of any corrective measures necessary if the objective of the plan is not achieved.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

The Amendments will authorize Sabina Gold & Silver Corporation to use certain fish-frequented water bodies for the disposal of tailings and waste rock generated from the activities of the Back River Mine.

Given that the MDMER are made pursuant to the Fisheries Act, enforcement personnel would, when verifying compliance with the MDMER, act in accordance with the Compliance and enforcement policy for habitat and pollution provisions of Fisheries Act. Verification of compliance with the MDMER and the Fisheries Act would include, among other inspection activities, site visits, sample analysis, review of FHCPs and related reports associated with the Amendments.

If there is evidence of an alleged offence of the fisheries protection and pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act and/or related regulations, enforcement personnel would determine an appropriate enforcement action, in accordance with the following criteria, as set out in the Compliance and enforcement policy for habitat and pollution provisions of Fisheries Act:

Given the circumstances and subject to the exercise of enforcement and prosecutorial discretion, the following instruments are available to respond to alleged violations:

Contacts

Aimee Zweig
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: ec.mmer-remm.ec@canada.ca

Matthew Watkinson
Director
Regulatory Analysis and Valuation Division
Economic Analysis Directorate
Environment and Climate Change Canada
200 Sacré-Cœur Boulevard
Gatineau, Quebec
J8X 4C6
Email: ec.darv-ravd.ec@canada.ca