Regulations Amending the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations: SOR/2020-110

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 154, Number 12

Registration

SOR/2020-110 May 20, 2020

FISHERIES ACT

P.C. 2020-334 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

54

A portion of Goldfield Creek, Ontario

A portion of Goldfield Creek that is a tributary to the Southwest Arm of Kenogamisis Lake, located approximately 6.5 km southwest of the town of Geraldton, Ontario. More precisely, the portion extending southwards for a distance of 4,250 m from a point located at 49°39′16.51″ north latitude and 87°0′48.57″ west longitude to a point located at 49°38′5.70″ north latitude and 86°59′54.66″ west longitude.

55

A portion of an unnamed watercourse that is a tributary to Kenogamisis Lake, Ontario

A portion of an unnamed watercourse that is a tributary to Kenogamisis Lake, located approximately 2 km south of the town of Geraldton, Ontario. More precisely, the portion extending northwards for a distance of 520 m from a point located at 49°41′25.74″ north latitude and 86°56′29.62″ west longitude to a point located at 49°41′9.76″ north latitude and 86°56′31.19″ west longitude.

56

A portion of an unnamed watercourse that is a tributary to Kenogamisis Lake, Ontario

A portion of an unnamed watercourse that is a tributary to Kenogamisis Lake located approximately 3 km southeast of the town of Geraldton, Ontario. More precisely, the portion extending northwards for a distance of 480 m from a point located at 49°41′8.93″ north latitude and 86°55′34.64″ west longitude to a point located at 49°40′58.24″ north latitude and 86°55′51.01″ west longitude.

57

A portion of the Southwest Arm tributary to Kenogamisis Lake, Ontario

A portion of the Southwest Arm that is tributary to Kenogamisis Lake located approximately 3 km southwest of the town of Geraldton, Ontario. More precisely, the portion extending southwards for a distance of 260 m from a point located at 49°40′26.86″ north latitude and 86°58′26.73″ west longitude to a point located at 49°40′19.55″ north latitude and 86°58′31.95″ west longitude.

58

A portion of an unnamed watercourse tributary to the Southwest Arm of Kenogamisis Lake, Ontario

A portion of an unnamed watercourse tributary to the Southwest Arm of Kenogamisis Lake, located approximately 5.5 km southwest of the town of Geraldton, Ontario. More precisely, the portion extending eastwards for a distance of 730 m from a point located at 49°39′8.51″ north latitude and 86°58′43.19″ west longitude to a point located at 49°39′8.28″ north latitude and 86°58′22.54″ west longitude.

59

An unnamed pond located approximately 2 km south of Geraldton, Ontario

The unnamed pond located approximately 2 km south of the town of Geraldton, Ontario. More precisely, the unnamed pond located at 49°41′6.55″ north latitude and 86°56′33.77″ west longitude, and covering an area of 3.14 ha.

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: Greenstone Gold Mines (the Proponent) is proposing the construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of an open-pit gold mine and on-site metal mill, approximately 275 km northeast of Thunder Bay, Ontario, in the ward of Geraldton.

The Proponent proposes to construct four waste rock storage areas (WRSAs) and a tailings management facility (TMF) 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 add six water bodies (shown in Figure 2) to Schedule 2 of the MDMER, designating them as tailings impoundment areas (TIAs). This will result in the loss of 5.40 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 preferred options for the TMF and the WRSAs were selected on the basis of minimizing environmental impacts, including habitat destruction and watercourse crossings, and in consideration of the interests of Indigenous groups and local communities related to the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes. Technical aspects such as topography for dam construction were also considered.

The MDMER require that the Proponent develop and implement a fish habitat compensation plan (FHCP) to offset the loss of fish and 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 and other interested parties that may be adversely impacted by the Hardrock Mine Project. Impacted Indigenous groups are supportive of the selected site for the TMF and of measures proposed by the Proponent to offset the loss of fish habitat.

The implementation of the FHCP will result in a direct gain of 20.67 ha of fish habitat and is estimated to cost $6.8 million dollars. footnote 3 The Project will also require a permit under section 35 of the Fisheries Act (the Act), which requires the implementation of offsetting measures for losses of fish and fish habitat resulting from mine development other than mine waste disposal (e.g. road construction). The Proponent will incur costs associated with the implementation of the FHCP including the total loss of 6.79 ha of fish habitat, 5.40 ha of which is attributable to the disposal of mine waste with the remaining 1.39 ha attributable to works resulting in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat under section 35 of the Act.

Issues

The Proponent, Greenstone Gold Mines, is proposing to develop an open-pit gold mine located in Ontario, approximately 275 km northeast of Thunder Bay, in the ward of Geraldton, at the intersection of Highway 11 (Trans-Canada Highway) and Michael Power Boulevard (see Figure 1).

The Proponent intends to use six 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 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 to the MDMER.

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 and demonstrate that the preferred option is the best option based on environmental, technical, economic and socio-economic criteria specified in the De 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 Hardrock Mine Project

The Proponent is proposing to develop an open-pit gold mine located in Ontario, approximately 275 km northeast of Thunder Bay, in the ward of Geraldton, at the intersection of Highway 11 (Trans-Canada Highway) and Michael Power Boulevard (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Location of the Hardrock Mine Project

Figure 1 is a 1:1,600,000 scale map showing the general location of the Hardrock Mine Project in Ontario. – Description below

Image description

Figure 1 is a 1:1,600,000 scale map showing the general location of the Hardrock Mine Project in Ontario. It shows the location of the project with respect to nearest towns and villages; Geraldton slightly north of the project location, Longlac east of the project location, Marathon southeast of the project location and Nipigon and Thunder Bay both southwest of the project location.

The Project area was previously mined underground between the 1930s and 1970s. The Project design includes four waste rock storage areas (WRSAs), a tailings management facility (TMF), as well as ore processing facilities, a natural gas-fuelled power plant and other associated buildings and processes. The Project will operate 365 days per year with a lifetime of approximately 15 years. The mill throughput will range from 24 000 tonnes of ore per day (tpd) during the first phase (i.e. approximately the first two years of operation), and will increase to 30 000 tpd over the second phase until decommissioning and closure. The Proponent is projecting an initial capital cost of $1.25 billion, which includes a process plant, power generation, construction of tailings and water management facilities, building supportive infrastructure (e.g. roads, warehouses and storage facilities), the relocation of existing facilities (e.g. Highway 11), future training, systems and procedures, and the mining of approximately 42 million tonnes of ore during the pre-production period. footnote 7The Proponent undertook an assessment of alternatives for the storage of tailings and waste rock based on the guidelines. The Proponent’s technical report (PDF) [this link differs from the one in the PDF] footnote 8 describes the steps undertaken to assess the alternatives for the management of waste generated by the Hardrock Mine Project.

Management of mine waste at the Hardrock Mine

The Proponent proposes to construct four WRSAs and a TMF, with conventional impoundment disposal and downstream dam construction, to manage the waste generated by the mining operations. The waste generated from the Hardrock Mine will include overburden, waste rock and tailings. Overburden and non-acid generating waste rock will be used to the extent practical during construction, otherwise it will be stored in stockpiles or on storage pads. It is estimated that 40 million tonnes of waste rock will be used for construction purposes.

Waste rock storage areas

Based on the open pit design, approximately 530.8 million tonnes of waste rock is expected to be generated during the life of the mine. Three WRSAs will be located within the immediate area of the open pit while the fourth WRSA will be located south of the Southwest Arm Tributary adjacent to the Southwest Arm of Kenogamisis Lake. These four WRSAs will occupy 421 hectares (ha) and range in height from 65 m to approximately 100 m.

Approximately 73.5 million tonnes of waste rock will be stored inside the east portion of the open pit, as an extension to one of the WRSAs.

Tailings management facility

An engineered TMF will be constructed to store tailings from the process plant. The TMF is designed to satisfy the criteria for a capacity of 140 million tonnes of tailings, with an additional allowance of 5 million tonnes of historical tailings, for a total TMF design tonnage capacity of 145 million tonnes.

The surface area of the TMF will be 518 ha and will be designed in two cells, with the north cell having a surface area of 162 ha and the south cell having a surface area of 356 ha. The ultimate dam height will be approximately 35 m above surrounding ground level. The TMF would include an integrated seepage collection system to capture runoff and seepage, which would be pumped back to the TMF.

The WRSAs and the TMF will impact six water bodies, or portions of water bodies that are frequented by fish resulting in the loss of approximately 5.40 ha of fish habitat. Another 1.39 ha of fish habitat will be impacted by project activities that will result in harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat and will be authorized and offset under section 35 of the Fisheries Act. In total, 6.79 ha of fish habitat will be impacted by the Project (TIA and mining activities/operations).

Furthermore, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) determined that the construction of the WRSAs and TMF will result in direct and indirect fish habitat losses resulting in harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. The Proponent is required to obtain an authorization under paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act from DFO prior to proceeding with the site development. A condition of this authorization is to offset any death to fish and/or harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.

The Proponent proposed a combined compensation/offsetting plan to satisfy the requirements under both the MDMER and section 35 of the Fisheries Act.

Environmental assessment of the Hardrock Mine Project

The Project was subject to both a Provincial Class Environmental Assessment (EA) under Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act and a federal EA under the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. On December 13, 2018, the federal Minister of the Environment and Climate Change issued an Environmental Assessment Decision Statement indicating that the proposed Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects referred to in subsection 5(1) of the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. On March 11, 2019, the provincial EA was approved by the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks of Ontario and granted approval to the Proponent to proceed with the Project as described in the EA.

Objective

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

Description

Regulatory amendments

The Amendments will add six water bodies to Schedule 2 of the MDMER, designating them as TIAs. The water bodies that will be added to Schedule 2 are a portion of Goldfield Creek, Watercourses C, D, G and O, and Golf Course Pond 3 (see Figure 2). This will result in the loss of 5.40 ha of fish habitat.

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

Caption: Figure 2 is a 1:40,000 scale map showing the location of the six water bodies to be listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER. – Description below

Image description

Figure 2 is a 1:40,000 scale map showing the six water bodies, or portions of water bodies, to be listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER (i.e., a portion of Goldfield Creek, Watercourses C, D, G and O, and Golf Course Pond 3). Important geographical reference points with respect to the Project location are also shown that include the Trans-Canada Highway 11 which runs across the proposed site from east to west and over the open pit of the Project, Kenogamisis Lake immediately to the east of the Project location, Mosher Lake immediately to the west of the Project location and Barton Bay to the north of the Project location.

Regulatory development

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

An assessment of Modern Treaty Implications was not conducted because no modern treaties are in place in (i.e. modern treaty era began in 1973) or near the Project area.

The Project is located in the James Bay Treaty Number 9 (1905–1906) area, which affords hunting, trapping and fishing rights and protections to its signatories throughout the treaty area. The Project is also approximately 13 km from the boundary with the Robinson-Superior Treaty (1850) area, which affords protections that include hunting and fishing practices for Indigenous people. Indigenous groups within or near the Project that may be adversely impacted were identified and consulted during both the federal and provincial EA processes as well as during the regulatory development phase related to these Amendments.

Fourteen Indigenous groups were identified by the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (now referred to as the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada — the Agency) for consultation on the potential impacts of the Project, five of which are signatories to Treaty 9, seven of which are signatories to the Robinson Superior Treaty and two Métis groups. Members from Aroland First Nation and Ginoogaming First Nation (signatories to Treaty 9), Animbiigoo Zaagi’igan Anishinaabek and Long Lake #58 First Nation (signatories to the Robinson-Superior Treaty), and the Métis Nation of Ontario, would be most likely to be directly impacted due to proximity of the Project to their current and traditional land use and practice of rights.

Local and traditional knowledge about the Project location was considered in the identification of potential environmental effects. During the EA process, Indigenous groups identified areas of traditional land use (e.g. hunting, trapping, fishing, plant gathering) and other cultural practices that could be potentially affected by the construction of the TMF and the WRSAs. Indigenous groups also identified cultural sites (including trails and travel ways), sacred areas, communal gathering areas and habitation sites located throughout the Project development area used as traditional gathering places for socializing, harvesting and ceremonial purposes.

Indigenous groups are generally supportive of the Project, while raising specific points about technical issues in written comments and in meetings with the Agency. All comments were considered in developing the Environmental Assessment Report for the Project.

The key issues raised by Indigenous groups during the EA include the following topics:

During the federal EA process, the Proponent undertook an assessment of potential impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights related to current traditional land use and practice of rights and considered all information provided by Indigenous groups in selecting the preferred site of the TMF and the WRSAs.

Taking into account key mitigation measures that address adverse environmental effects and follow-up program measures along with the Proponent’s commitments, the Agency is of the view that the Project’s potential impacts on Aboriginal or treaty rights have been adequately identified and appropriately mitigated or accommodated for the purpose of decision-making under the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

The Department of the Environment consulted with the following Indigenous groups within or near the Project area identified as potentially being adversely impacted by the Amendments:

Face-to-face consultation sessions with Aroland First Nation, Ginoogaming First Nation, Animbiigoo Zaagi’igan Anishinaabek First Nation, Long Lake #58 First Nation, and the Métis Nation of Ontario took place between May 2019 and August 2019. The Red Sky Independent Métis Nation was consulted via teleconference in April 2019.

The consultation sessions provided participants with information related to how options to manage mine waste were assessed; compensation for the loss of fish habitat; information on the regulatory process; and how the FHCP is assessed by DFO. Participants had the opportunity to ask questions, express any concerns and were invited to submit comments in writing following the meetings.

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 timelines for the approval of the TIA authorization.

No groups expressed opposition to the Amendments or the use of the Streamlining Policy. Furthermore, following the face-to-face meetings held with Indigenous groups, the Métis Nation of Ontario and Long Lake #58 First Nation sent letters to the Department of the Environment indicating their support for the Amendments and requested that ECCC conclude the regulatory process in a timely manner. Red Sky Independent Métis Nation sent a similar letter to the Proponent.

Furthermore, the Proponent has concluded Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) with Long Lake First Nation #58, Aroland, Ginoogaming and Animbiigoo Zaagi’igan Anishinaabek First Nations and with the Métis Nation of Ontario. These 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 Indigenous communities and ensure social and economic benefits for these communities.

During the environmental impact statement (EIS) review period, the Agency participated in public open houses with the Proponent and representatives from federal authorities and provincial ministries. These public open houses were held in Longlac and in Geraldton on September 13, 2017, and in Thunder Bay on September 16, 2017. These sessions provided opportunities for members of the public to learn and provide comments about the environmental assessment process, the Project and the Proponent’s EIS. The EIS included information about the alternatives assessment conducted for the TMF and WRSAs as well as information on the proposed FHCP.

The Proponent also engaged residents from the municipality of Greenstone (Geraldton, Longlac, Beardmore and Nakina) and the city of Thunder Bay. In addition, the Proponent consulted other potentially affected or interested stakeholders including local land users, business and community organizations and government agencies.

The Department of the Environment 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 August 2019. No public comments were received during this period.

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

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 waters frequented by fish.

The Proponent developed several options in its assessment to determine the best option for mine waste disposal. The report entitled Alternative Assessment Report: Hardrock Project – Waste Rock Storage Area and Tailings Management Facility (PDF) [this link differs from the one in the PDF] 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

Four sites (see Table 1) and four disposal methods (see Table 2) were considered in the assessment of the options for the WRSAs. All options involved three storage areas surrounding the open pit, and a fourth storage area located south of the open pit.

Table 1: Options considered for location of WRSAs

Option

Description

1

WRSA-1: This option consisted of three storage areas surrounding the open pit and one area located south of the open pit, along the southern side of the Southwest Arm Tributary.

2

WRSA-2: This option consisted of three storage areas surrounding the open pit, one area located south of the open pit over the Southwest Arm Tributary, and one area located on the peninsula to the southeast of the open pit.

3

WRSA-3: This option consisted of three storage areas surrounding the open pit and one area located south of the open pit over the Southwest Arm Tributary.

4

WRSA-4: This option consisted of three storage areas surrounding the open pit and one area located south of the open pit, along the southern side of the Southwest Arm Tributary.

Table 2: Waste disposal methods considered for the WRSAs

Option

Disposal method

1

In-pit storage of non-segregated waste rock: consists of backfilling the entire open pit with non-segregated waste rock

2

Combined above ground and in-pit storage of non-segregated waste rock: consists of storing a portion of the waste rock in the open pit while maintaining the potential for future expansion and underground development and storing the remaining portion of the waste rock above ground

3

Co-disposal of waste rock and tailings: consists of combining both the waste rock and tailings streams into one disposal area

4

Segregation of waste rock due to acid rock drainage/metal leaching potential

Following pre-screening, three locations (i.e. WRSA-1, WRSA-3 and WRSA-4) and the disposal method “above ground and in-pit bulk storage of non-segregated waste rock” (i.e. Option 2 in Table 2) passed the pre-screening and were analyzed in greater detail.

With respect to the pre-screening of the disposal methods, three were removed from further consideration either because of insufficient space for storage, lack of economic feasibility or because the method presented a higher risk to the environment (e.g. risk of acid rock drainage). The blending of non-acid-generating (NAG) waste rock and potentially acid-generating (PAG) waste rock used in the preferred disposal method is a favoured approach due to the neutralization capacity of the NAG waste rock.

In the final analysis, the preferred storage location was determined to be WRSA-4; three areas surrounding the open pit and one area located south of the open pit along the southern side of the Southwest Arm Tributary. The determination of the preferred location was largely due to the fact that it avoids the destruction of the Southwest Arm Tributary and had slightly shorter haul distances than other options and thus lower operation costs. Further, the preferred location will destroy a relatively small extent of forested land, less area used for traditional land and resource purposes, shorter lengths of water bodies, the least extent of wetlands, and would not require a stream diversion.

Tailings management facility

The Proponent identified six locations (see Table 3), seven disposal methods (see Table 4) and three dam construction method alternatives in its assessment of options for the TMF. Two sites (TMF-1 and TMF-9) would not directly impact fish-frequented water bodies and as such are considered as non-regulatory options.

Table 3: Options considered for site locations for the tailings management facility

Option

Description

1
(Non-regulatory option)

TMF-1: Located approximately 5 km southwest of the open pit on a relative topographical high overlooking Goldfield Lake

2

TMF-2: Located approximately 13 km west of the open pit to the southeast of Wildgoose Lake

3

TMF-3A: Located approximately 2 km southwest of the open pit over the southwest portion of WRSA-4D to the northwest of the Southwest Arm of Kenogamisis Lake

4

TMF-4: Located approximately 12 km south-southwest of the open pit, to the south of the Southwest Arm of Kenogamisis Lake and immediately south of Finlayson Lake overlying a portion of a claim held by others

5

TMF-8: Located approximately 4 km southwest of the open pit and to the northwest of the Southwest Arm of Kenogamisis Lake

6
(Non-regulatory option)

TMF-9: Located approximately 10 km southwest of the open pit and to the southwest of the Southwest Arm of Kenogamisis Lake in an area surrounded by waterbodies and watercourses

Table 4: Methods considered for tailings disposal

Option

Tailings disposal method

1

Cyclone separation with sand embankment and slimes impoundment storage

2

Co-disposal of waste rock and tailings

3

Dry stacking of filtered tailings

4

Surface disposal of paste tailings

5

Surface disposal of thickened tailings

6

Impoundment disposal of conventional tailings

7

Impoundment disposal of thickened tailings

The three dam construction methods that were identified and considered were:

Following the pre-screening assessment, four site locations (i.e. TMF-1, TMF-2, TMF-8, and TMF-9), two disposal methods; impoundment disposal of conventional tailings and impoundment disposal of thickened tailings (i.e. Options 6 and 7 in Table 4) and one dam construction method (downstream construction) were carried forward for further consideration.

The use of the cyclone separation method for embankment construction requires that sufficient quantities of sand be obtained from the tailings stream to construct the retention embankment. As it is anticipated that the tailings produced by the Project will be relatively fine grained with a limited percentage of sand and the topography at the site generally requires the construction of dams around much of the perimeter of the facility, this method was removed from consideration as not being a feasible option.

Co-disposal of waste rock and tailings is used to mitigate acid rock drainage or metal leaching from waste rock by surrounding potentially acid generating waste rock with the tailings material. However, as only a small fraction of the waste rock will be potentially acid generating, adoption of co-disposal would result in additional design complexity without any significant geochemistry-related benefits and as such was removed from consideration.

Both surface disposal of paste tailings and surface disposal of thickened tailings were removed due to their limited advantages and the high cost associated with the use of those methods.

Dry stacking of filtered tailings is a method where tailings are “stacked” in lifts of selected thickness and often compacted to a specified density. As there is no precedent for successful dry stacking of non-coarse tailings at the production rate planned at the Project, this method was considered unproven technology for the Project and removed from consideration.

In the final analysis, the preferred location and method were determined to be the TMF-8 using the disposal method “impoundment disposal of conventional tailings,” a method where tailings are stored on the surface and deposited within purpose built impoundment areas. The impoundments are formed by the construction of embankments and the use of natural topography to retain the tailings slurry. In terms of the dam construction methods, both the upstream and centerline methods were rejected because the stability of these dam construction methods can be compromised by the properties of the impounded tailings or by water and tailings management practices.

The determination of the preferred option is largely due to the relatively advantageous topography for dam construction at this location and the benefit of a reduced overall Project footprint compared to other alternatives that were located further away from the Project site, thus requiring significantly more road construction, watercourse crossings, habitat fragmentation, and extensive tailings pipelines and pumping requirements.

The final analysis applied environmental indicators such as the potential for loss of watercourses, wetlands and forested areas, potential effects on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions among others. Technical indicators applied included the length of required stream diversion and maximum pile heights of the storage areas. The economic indicators applied costs related to the life of the project and the implementation of the FHCP while socio-economic indicators included loss of hunting, fishing watercourses, trapline areas and plant harvesting areas by First Nations and local communities.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

Analytical framework

The Amendments will list six water bodies that are fish-frequented in Schedule 2 of the MDMER, thereby authorizing the Proponent to use them for the disposal of mine waste.

The Proponent developed an FHCP meeting 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 (i.e. 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 described impacts. The cost and environmental impacts of the amendments could change if the scope of the FHCP was to be subsequently amended.

Environmental impacts

The Project will result in the total loss of 6.79 ha of fish habitat; 5.40 ha of which is attributable to the disposal of mine waste; and 1.39 ha attributable to works resulting in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat under section 35 of the Act. Losses include a portion of Goldfield Creek, Watercourses C, D, G and O, and Golf Course Pond 3 (see Figure 2).

Almost half of the total impacts attributable to mine waste disposal correspond to the loss of the Golf Course Pond where fisheries productivity was assessed as low by DFO compared to the habitat that will be recreated as part of the proposed measures in the FHCP. Impacts under section 35 either come from direct habitat loss (infilling or excavation) of water features, or from the permanent alteration from a reduction in base flows.

Detailed fisheries and fish habitat studies were undertaken at the Project site and included multiple years and multiple seasons of investigation. Fish communities, where present, were typically represented by low species richness and low abundance, often by a single small-bodied species. The fish community in Goldfield Creek is represented by small-bodied species, larger species are present in small numbers including sport fish such as Northern Pike, Walleye, Burbot and Yellow Perch. In the Southwest Arm Tributary, a total of 15 species of fish were captured that were mainly represented by small-bodied cyprinids and forage species, with less representation by species such as Northern Pike, Walleye, Burbot and Yellow Perch. A single adult brook trout was captured in the spring of 2016, and is considered an incidental migrant and not a resident species. The Golf Course Pond is an artificial pond constructed for irrigation and aesthetics for the Kenogamisis Golf Club. The pond is populated by small-bodied forage species and is poorly connected to one impacted water body and ultimately to Kenogamisis Lake.

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 FHCP will result in the development of approximately 19.17 ha of new pond habitat and 1.5 ha of new channel habitat for a total of 20.67 ha of newly constructed fish habitat.

The Proponent has proposed four compensatory measures aimed at maintaining the existing, primarily small-bodied fish communities in the new offset habitats, rather than targeting the production of large game fish species in the tributary. The objective of the measures will be mainly to contribute to local baitfish production with potential enhancements to the existing use by Walleye and Pike (particularly in the diversion pond), which are highly valued recreational and sustenance species in the region.

Cost to business

The implementation of the offset/compensation plan is estimated at $9.50 million for Greenstone Gold Mines GP Inc. footnote 9 Three quarters of the total cost ($7.56 million) is associated with the Amendments in order to compensate for the loss of 5.40 ha of fish habitat. The remainder of the cost of the offset/compensation plan ($1.95 million) will offset the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat resulting from work permitted under paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act.

Table 4 footnote 10 describes the estimated costs associated with the implementation of the FHCP. These estimated costs could change if the scope of the FHCP was to be revised. The proposed schedule assumes a construction start date during summer 2020 and completion within a 24-month timeframe. It also assumes that most of the contingency costs are incurred within 12 months following the completion of the construction schedule.

Table 5: Cost estimate of the fish habitat compensation plan (FHCP) in $2019 CDN at 3% discount rate over 10 years

Description

Undiscounted Amount in 2019 Canadian Dollars

Amount Discounted at a Rate of 3% footnote 11

Proposed Schedule

Construction (GFC diversion dyke, pond, channel and Southwest Arm Tributary grade control structure)

$6,991,299

$6,639,034

2020–2021

Monitoring plan footnote 12

$135,000

$116,006

2020–2029

Total

$7,126,299

$6,755,040

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.

Therefore, the total incremental costs to the Government associated with the proposed FHCP will be low.

Table 6: Cost-benefit statement
 

Total (Present Value)

Annualized Average (10 Years)

A. Quantified impacts (2019 price level in constant dollars ($ million)

Costs

By Greenstone Gold Mines GP Inc.

6.8

0.79

Net benefits

B. Quantified impacts in non-$ (e.g. from a risk assessment)

Positive impacts

Indigenous peoples, the general public

The loss of fish habitat associated with the disposal of tailings and waste rock will be offset by the implementation of a compensation plan will result in a direct gain of 20.67 ha of fish habitat.

Negative impacts

Indigenous peoples, the general public

The loss of fish habitat associated with the disposal of tailings and waste rock amounts to 5.40 ha.

Small business lens

The Amendments do not trigger the small business lens, as Greenstone Gold Mines, the owner and operator of the mine, is not considered a small business.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply, as there is no incremental change in administrative burden for businesses.

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 Greenstone Gold Mines to use certain water bodies that are fish-frequented for the disposal of mine waste generated from the operations and activities at the Hardrock Mine Project.

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 proposed 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