Regulations Amending the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations: SOR/2020-132

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 154, Number 14

Registration

SOR/2020-132 June 18, 2020

FISHERIES ACT

P.C. 2020-458 June 17, 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
61	East Beaver Pond, Ontario	East Beaver Pond, located at 47°32′19.24″ north latitude and 81°55′14.03″ west longitude, approximately 20 km from the community of Gogama, Ontario.
62	A tributary of an unnamed lake, located approximately 20 km from Gogama, Ontario	A tributary of an unnamed lake, located approximately 20 km from the community of Gogama, Ontario. More precisely, the portion of the tributary extending southeast from the point located at 47°31′31.54″ north latitude and 81°54′57.84″ west longitude extending downstream to the point located at 47°31′20.35″ north latitude and 81°54′43.63″ west longitude.
63	An unnamed creek from West Beaver Pond to Bagsverd Lake, Ontario	An unnamed creek from West Beaver Pond to Bagsverd Lake, located approximately 20 km from the community of Gogama, Ontario. More precisely, the portion of the creek extending northeast from the point located at 47°33′48.23″ north latitude and 81°57′18.64″ west longitude to the point located at 47°33′55.72″ north latitude and 81°56′49.69″ west longitude.
64	All waters located within the area described in column 2, located approximately 20 km from Gogama, Ontario	The waters located within an area located approximately 20 km southwest of the community of Gogama, Ontario. More precisely, the area bounded by ten straight lines connecting ten points starting at the point located at 47°33′32.74″ north latitude and 81°58′47.71″ west longitude to the point located 835 m to the southeast at 47°33′27.93″ north latitude and 81°58′08.34″ west longitude to the point located 310 m southeast at 47°33′26.15″ north latitude and 81°57′53.72″ west longitude to the point located 273 m northeast at 47°33′32.33″ north latitude and 81°57′44.38″ west longitude to the point located 164 m northwest at 47°33′35.43″ north latitude and 81°57′50.65″ west longitude to the point located 213 m northeast at 47°33′41.03″ north latitude and 81°57′44.71″ west longitude to the point located 134 m southeast at 47°33′38.74″ north latitude and 81°57′39.26″ west longitude to the point located 176 m northeast at 47°33′43.18″ north latitude and 81°57′33.94″ west longitude to the point located 574 m northwest at 47°33′43.36″ north latitude and 81°58′01.41″ west longitude to the point located 444 m northwest at 47°33′45.86″ north latitude and 81°58′22.35″ west longitude to the point located 667 m southwest at 47°33′32.74″ north latitude and 81°58′47.71″ 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

The Proponent, IAMGOLD Corporation, proposes the development of an open-pit gold mine located approximately 20 km southwest of the community of Gogama in northeastern Ontario. The Proponent will construct a WRSA and TMF to manage the waste rock and effluent generated by the mining operations. The disposal of mine waste will impact ten water bodies frequented by fish.

Subsection 36(3) of the Act prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish, unless authorized by regulation. The 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 prescribed 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.

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 of the Environment’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 the proposed mine waste disposal would impact fish-frequented waters thus requiring an amendment to Schedule 2 of the MDMER, proponents must consider options 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 Guidelines. As part of these guidelines, proponents must also undertake preliminary consultations on how mine waste disposal options were assessed and how the preferred option was determined.

The Côté Gold Mine Project

The Proponent is proposing the construction, operation and eventual rehabilitation of an open-pit gold mine located approximately 20 km southwest of the community of Gogama, 130 km southwest of the city of Timmins, and 200 km northwest of Sudbury in northeastern Ontario (Figure 1).

The design of the Côté Gold Mine Project (the Project) includes a WRSA for the ore extracted from the pit and a TMF for the tailings from ore processing. The Project will have an ore production capacity of 36,000 tonnes per day, with a life of approximately 17 years. The Project will generate 559 million tonnes (Mt) of mine rock from extraction of ore in the open pit over the life of the mine, and the processing of ore will generate approximately 200 Mt of tailings.

Figure 1: Location of the Côté Gold Mine Project Site

Image description

The top-left corner of the figure shows a simplified map of the province of Ontario with a square outlining the enlarged area that is shown on the map. The enlarged area at a 1:1,450,000 scale shows the general location of the Côté Gold Mine Project in Ontario. It shows the location of the project with respect to the regional communities: Timmins to the north of the project location and Sudbury to the south of the project location. The figure also contains the municipality boundaries for the districts of Northern Ontario: the District of Sudbury in which the project is located is at the centre of the map, the District of Cochrane is to the north of the project location, the District of Timiskaming is to the east of the project location, and the District of Algoma is to the southwest of the project location.

The Proponent undertook an assessment of options for a TMF and WRSA based on the Guidelines. The Proponent’s technical report ^{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 Côté Gold Mine Project

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

The primary mineral waste streams that will arise from the Project include:

• WRSA: The 559 Mt of mine rock will be stockpiled in an area located to the southeast of the open pit. A beaver pond and a minor tributary will be lost because of the WRSA, totalling 0.8 ha of water bodies frequented by fish.
• TMF: The 200 Mt of treated tailings discharged from the ore processing plant will be pumped to the TMF for settling, retention, and permanent storage. The TMF will be located northwest of the open pit. Several small ponds and a portion of a creek will be lost to the TMF, totalling 3.2 ha of water bodies frequented by fish.

The disposal of mine waste will impact ten water bodies or portions of water bodies that are frequented by fish, with a loss of fish habitat totalling 4.0 ha.

Environmental assessment of the Côté Gold 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 February 25, 2019, the Minister of the Environment reissued an EA Decision Statement indicating that the proposed Project was not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as referred to in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. The project was approved to proceed by the Minister of the Environment in Ontario on December 22, 2016.

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 habitat resulting from the deposit of mine waste by developing and implementing an FHCP.

Description

The Amendments will list ten water bodies to Schedule 2 of the MDMER, designating them as TIAs. The water bodies are East Beaver Pond, a tributary of an unnamed lake, an unnamed creek from West Beaver Pond to Bagsverd Lake, portions of West Beaver Pond, Unnamed Water Bodies #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6. This will result in the loss of 4.0 ha of fish habitat (see Figures 2 and 3).

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

Image description

The top-right corner of the figure shows a map of the province of Ontario at the centre, the province of Manitoba to the left, the province of Quebec to the right and the United States at the bottom. It also identifies the location of the project site with respect to major communities in Ontario. The enlarged area at a scale of 1:18,000 shows the Waste Rock Storage Area (WRSA) and the location of two of the water bodies, or portions of water bodies, in the province of Ontario to be listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER (i.e. East Beaver Pond and a tributary of an unnamed lake). The figure shows East Beaver Pond at the north end of the WRSA, identified as Geographical Area 1 with a yellow point at the centre, and the tributary of the unnamed lake at the south end of the WRSA, identified as Geographical Area 2 with two green points at each end of the tributary. The figure also contains important geographical references such as Chester Lake located west of the WSRA with a realignment channel, WRC1, connecting the south of Clam Lake to the north of Chester Lake; and Lower Three Duck Lake located east of the WRSA.

Figure 3: Location of the TMF and water bodies to be listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER

Image description

The area at a scale of 1:19,000 shows the location of the Tailings Management Facility (TMF) and the location of eight of the water bodies, or portions of water bodies in the province of Ontario to be listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER (i.e. portions of West Beaver Pond, Unnamed Water Bodies #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and an unnamed creek from West Beaver Pond to Bagsverd Lake). The top-right portion of the figure shows the unnamed creek, identified as Geographical Area 3 with two green points at each end of the creek, situated between West Beaver Pond and Bagsverd Lake. Geographical Area 3 also has two dams at each end of the creek. The TMF is left of centre in the figure and contains seven of the water bodies grouped together in a geographical area, or polygon, identified as Geographical Area 4 with pink points forming the polygon. The figure shows the specific points of the polygon of which there are ten. The points are labelled A through J and start at the westernmost point next to Unnamed Water body #1, moving counter-clockwise. Points D to G of the polygon go around a dam to be constructed around West Beaver Pond. A portion of West Beaver Pond is included in the polygon and is located beside point E. Important geographical reference points with respect to the Project location are also shown that include Bagsverd Lake, located northeast of the TMF and directly east of Geographical Area 3; Clam Lake, located southeast of the TMF and south of Geographical Area 3; and Moore Lake, located west of the TMF. The figure also identifies key mining infrastructure to the east of the TMF and directly south of Bagsverd Lake, a reclaim pond between two dams at the same location as Geographical Area 3, and the open pit on site located at the bottom-right of the figure directly east of Clam Lake.

Regulatory development

Consultation

On August 27, 2019, the Department of the Environment held a public consultation session in the town of Gogama, Ontario, with few members of the community being in attendance. Following the public session, the Department sent an email to all interested parties providing a link to the Department’s consultation web page containing all the relevant documents used for the consultation process, including summaries of the Assessment of Alternatives Report and FHCP. Printed copies were also submitted to the public library in Gogama. Furthermore, a summary of the public consultation session was made available on the Department’s consultation web page for this Project.

During the public consultation period, which took place between August and November 2019, the Department of the Environment responded to two written comments from non-government organizations related to a request for additional clarity concerning the streamlining policy and as well as the general conservation of the environment, respectively. No other concerns or questions were raised.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

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

Six Indigenous groups were identified by the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) [now referred to as the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada – the Agency] for consultation on the potential impacts of the Project. Members of the Mattagami, Flying Post, Brunswick House and Matachewan First Nations, the Métis Nation of Ontario Region 3, and the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council are most likely to be directly impacted due to proximity of the Project to their current and traditional land use and practice of rights.

The Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council did not identify traditional land uses in the project area and did not provide any comments on the Project throughout the environmental assessment. It is not anticipated that effects from the Project will extend to impact the exercise of Aboriginal or treaty rights of the members of the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council.

Indigenous groups raised specific technical points in written comments and during meetings held with the Agency. All comments were considered by the Agency in developing the environmental assessment report for the Project.

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 WRSA and the TMF.

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 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

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

• the Mattagami First Nation;
• the Flying Post First Nation;
• the Brunswick House First Nation;
• the Matachewan First Nation; and
• the Métis Nation of Ontario – Region 3.

The Department of the Environment also consulted on the possibility of applying 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, and proceeding straight to final publication in Part II of the Canada Gazette. The Amendments were deemed to meet the criteria set out in the policy, which indicates that an exemption from prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, is warranted.

The Mattagami, Flying Post, Matachewan and the Brunswick House First Nations, did not require a face-to-face meeting, and sent letters to the Department of the Environment indicating their support for the Amendments and the streamlining of the regulatory process.

On August 29, 2019, a face-to-face consultation session on the Assessment of Alternatives Report and the FHCP took place with the Métis Nation of Ontario. 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 subsequently received technical comments on the Assessment of Alternatives Report and the FHCP on September 27, 2019.

The Métis Nation of Ontario also commented on the rationale provided by the Proponent to justify the candidate locations for the TMF, as well as the type of tailings selected for the different candidate locations. They provided a set of recommendations to consider and suggested that some indicators, such as moose hunting and catchment areas, be further elaborated on in the Assessment of Alternatives Report. On December 19, 2019, officials from the Department of the Environment provided a response developed with the Proponent and the DFO to these comments. Following this response, the Métis Nation of Ontario provided a second round of comments relating to additional monitoring measures, additional clarity and justification on the method of assessing TMF locations. A response was provided in April 2020 by officials from the Department of Environment, who are of the view that all comments have been responded to and addressed.

Furthermore, the Proponent has concluded Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) with Mattagami and Flying Post First Nations and are negotiating an agreement 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.

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 technical report takes into account the environmental, technical, economic and socio-economic factors and was conducted in accordance with the Department of the Environment’s Guidelines.

Waste rock storage area

Three storage methods and 12 WRSA locations were identified in the assessment of the options for the WRSA. Table 1 provides a description of each storage method and their pre-screening results.

Table 1: Methods of storage for the WRSA

Storage method	Description	Pre-screening
Disposal in former mine workings	Chester 1 Mine is a partially backfilled underground mine located within four kilometres of the Project open pit and has existing roads between the two sites.	Storage of mine rock in mine workings at this site would not be sufficient to accommodate a significant portion of the mine rock.
Disposal in open pit at closure	Mine rock would be deposited on the surface in a temporary WRSA, and would be placed in the open pit following operations.	The transfer of mine rock from a temporary stockpile to the open pit at the closure phase is technically feasible but prohibitively expensive and is not supported by the Project economics. This option would require the use of temporary mine rock stockpile during operations and many of the benefits of avoiding the construction of a large surface stockpile would be lost.
Surface stockpile (preferred option)	Stockpiling mine rock on the surface is standard at mine sites in Ontario and allows for one-time handling of mine rock.	Surface stockpiles for mine rock generated by mines are the standard industry approach to material management in Ontario.

The Proponent identified 12 surface storage sites at the preliminary stage. These locations were generally located around the open pit. The Proponent developed the following pre-screening criteria to identify viable options for the WRSA:

• Capacity for a significant percentage of mine rock;
• Cost supported by the Project;
• Location provides any significant advantages over other options closer to the open pit;
• Location avoids overprinting key mine infrastructure; and
• Location has sufficient distance from the open pit to ensure stable geotechnical and safe working conditions.

Five locations (Locations #1, #2, #6, #7 and #9) were carried forward for further analysis as four distinct options (see Table 2). Each of these options has the capacity to accommodate more than the expected 559 Mt of mine rock to be produced during the lifespan of the Project.

Table 2: Options considered for the location of the WRSA

Option	Description
A (preferred option)	Location #1 would be southeast of the open pit, allows for a short haul distance to a single stockpile, and reduce effects to the Mesomikenda Lake area. It would impact water frequented by fish.
B	Location #2 would be southwest of the open pit to allow for a short haul distance. It would impact a small water body and two watercourses frequented by fish.
C (non-regulatory option)	Location #6 and Location #7 do not use water bodies frequented by fish. It would include two separate stockpiles located on high ground east of the open pit in close proximity to Mesomikenda Lake.
D	Location #9 would be distant to the north of the open pit relative to the other options. It would impact a small isolated pond on the southern point of the WRSA which has not been assessed through baseline studies, but is assumed to not be fish bearing.

The preferred option for the mine rock storage uses the same general location as the mine rock area stockpile assessed through the approved Federal and Provincial EA processes. The preferred option would impact 0.8 ha of water bodies that are frequented by fish.

Tailings management facility

The Proponent identified 18 options for the location of the TMF, along with three tailings storage methods (conventional slurry tailings, thickened tailings and filtered tailings). All of the options for the TMF location, except for one, provide sufficient capacity to contain all the tailings to be produced during the lifespan of the Project. To limit the effects to the biophysical and human environment as well as control Project cost, the Proponent included the seven options located within a 10 km radius from the open pit (see Table 3) for further analysis.

Table 3: Locations considered for the TMF

Location	Description
1	Located north of the Project site within a natural topographic valley. It would utilize conventional slurry tailings due to the location and shape of this facility.
3	Located west of the Project site at the intersection of 4 watersheds. It would utilize conventional slurry tailings due to the location and shape of the facility.
4	Located southwest of the Project site and straddles the Great Lakes and Hudson’s Bay watershed divide. The narrow shape of the facility would avoid major water bodies and will utilize filtered tailings.
5 (non-regulatory option)	Located to avoid waters frequented by fish. The location extends partially outside the 10 km radius of the open pit and straddles the Great Lakes and Hudson’s Bay watershed divide. The shape and location of the facility and large area it covers was designed for conventional slurry tailings deposition.
15	Located west of the Project site and allow for a compact site footprint. The shape and size of the facility is best suited for partially thickened tailings.
16 (preferred option)	Located west of the Project site and allow for a compact site footprint. The shape and size of the facility is best suited for thickened tailings.
17 (non-regulatory option)	Located north of the site. It would avoid water bodies frequented by fish and has a size and shape that is best suited for filtered tailings deposition.

Following the pre-screening assessment, four options (Locations #1, #15, #16 and #17) [disposal method and location] were carried forward for further analysis. A more thorough description of these four options and their overall merit rating following the analysis of environmental, technical, socio-economic and economic sub-accounts are presented below.

Location #1:

This option would be contained by both surface impoundment dams and natural topography. This option would utilize conventional slurry tailing deposition technology with the TMF located north of the open pit. It would be located over Bagsverd Creek and would require a large channel realignment to the west of the TMF.

Location #15:

Following the Proponent’s acquisition of this land, the Proponent prepared a preliminary economic assessment where a four cell TMF was designed using partially thickened tailings that allows for progressive reclamation of the TMF during operations, and greatly decreases the distance of the TMF to the open pit. This option would use partially thickened tailings deposition technology (solids content of 50% to 60%) to reduce the overall footprint of the TMF. This option would allow for progressive reclamation of completed cells. It would also impact a number of tributaries and ponds reporting to Bagsverd Lake and Moore Lake.

Location #16 (preferred option):

This option would employ tailings thickened to a greater solids content (60% to 65%) and taller dams in a single cell structure, to allow for a more compact TMF. It also is designed with a nearby reclaim pond such that a large tailings pond situated over the tailings is not required. It would impact a tributary and pond reporting to Bagsverd Lake.

Location #17 (non-regulatory option):

This option would utilize filtered stack tailings deposition technology and does not require large impoundment dams. It would not impact water bodies frequented by fish.

The preferred option (location #16) scored the highest for the environmental, technical, economic and socio-economic indicators. This option also has the smallest footprint and will impact 3.2 ha of water bodies that are frequented by fish.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

Analytical framework

The Amendments will list ten water bodies to Schedule 2 of the MDMER, thereby authorizing the Proponent to use them for the disposal of mine waste. Three water bodies will be listed individually on Schedule 2, while seven water bodies will be listed in a prescribed geographical area. The Proponent developed an FHCP that meets the DFO’s Policy for Applying Measures to Offset Adverse Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat Under the Fisheries Act, which means that the offsetting measures 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 analysis below examines the incremental impacts of the Amendments on the environment, businesses (the Proponent), and the Government. While costs for the Proponent are known and monetized, it is not feasible to quantify and monetize benefits due to data limitations. As a result, the cost-benefit analysis reflects monetized costs and qualitatively described impacts. The cost and environmental impacts of the Amendments could change if the scope of the FHCP were to be subsequently amended.

Environmental impacts

The disposal of mine waste will result in the loss of ten water bodies, or portions of water bodies that are frequented by fish and totalling 4.0 ha of fish habitat. These fish-frequented water bodies serve predominantly as habitat to non-commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fish species, but also to northern pike, yellow perch, walleye and smallmouth bass.

In order to offset the loss of fish habitat, the Proponent will implement a fish salvage and relocation program to reduce the number of fish harmed by the Project. The Proponent will dewater the water bodies to be listed on Schedule 2 of the MDMER and relocate the fish they contain to other nearby fish frequented water bodies.

The Proponent also planned water course realignments designed to maintain and promote connectivity within the watershed and between habitats, and to create functional and durable channels based on natural design. Specifically, the Proponent will proceed with the development of the following:

• the realignment of Clam Creek to maintain the connection between Clam Lake and Chester Lake;
• the connection of Weeduck Lake to Upper Three Duck Lake;
• the connection of Little Clam Lake to East Clam Lake; and
• the connection of East Clam Lake to Clam Lake.

Through this approach, the habitat offsetting measures will provide sustainable and functional habitat (lake and stream) to fish species such as northern pike, yellow perch, walleye and smallmouth bass, making for greater connectivity between habitats, and allowing fish access to habitat created for various life stages that are currently limited in the system. These measures will create a total of 0.9 ha of newly constructed, higher quality and more productive fish habitat compared to the habitat being lost.

Cost to businesses

The implementation of the FHCP associated with the Amendments in order to compensate for the loss of fish habitat is estimated to cost $2.40 million ^{footnote 8} for IAMGOLD Corporation over a thirteen-year period. Table 4 describes the estimated costs associated with the implementation of the FHCP.

Table 4: Cost estimate of the fish habitat compensation plan in $2020 CDN at a 3% discount rate over 13 years

Description	Undiscounted amount in 2020 Canadian dollars	Amount discounted at a rate of 3% table 5 note *	Proposed schedule (2020 to 2032)
Construction (water realignment channel, connecting channels)	$ 1,386,049	$1,382,169	2020, 2021
Dewatering and fish salvage	$696,000	$675,728	2021
Planting and biological transplant	$30,000	$28,843	2021, 2022
Monitoring plan	$355,000	$317,839	2020 to 2025, 2027, 2032
Total	$2,467,049	$2,404,580
Table 5 note(s) Table 5 note * The discount rate of 3% applies to the base year 2020. The discount amount is reflective of the year in which activities are planned (see proposed schedule). Costs are not evenly distributed. Return to table 5 note * referrer

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.

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 5: Cost-benefit statement

		Total (present value)	Annualized average (10 years)
A. Quantified impacts (2020 price level in constant dollars [$ million])
Costs	By IAMGOLD Corporation	2.40	0.28
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 and will result in the creation of 0.9 ha of higher quality and more productive 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 4.0 ha.

Small business lens

There are no impacts on small business associated with the Amendments. IAMGOLD 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.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The Amendments do not have a regulatory cooperation component.

Strategic environmental assessment

A strategic environmental assessment for the MDMER 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.

Gender-based analysis plus

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. No gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) impacts have been identified.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

The Amendments will authorize IAMGOLD Corporation to use certain fish-frequented water bodies for the disposal of tailings and waste rock generated from the activities of the Côté Gold 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 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:

• the nature of the alleged violation;
• effectiveness in achieving the desired result with the alleged violator; and
• consistency in enforcement.

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

• warnings;
• directions;
• orders by the Minister;
• injunctions; and
• prosecutions.

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