Regulations Amending the Metal and Diamond Effluent Mining Regulations: SOR/2025-139

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 159, Number 14

Registration
SOR/2025-139 June 13, 2025

FISHERIES ACT

P.C. 2025-508 June 13, 2025

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

Regulations Amending the Metal and Diamond Effluent Mining 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
91	A portion of an unnamed tributary to Balmer Lake, located approximately 10.5 km northeast of Red Lake, Ontario	A portion of an unnamed tributary to Balmer Lake, located approximately 10.5 km northeast of the town of Red Lake, Ontario. More precisely, the portion extending northwest for a distance of 1000 m from the point located at 51°03′35.43″ north latitude and 93°41′33.18″ west longitude to the point located at 51°04′01.48″ north latitude and 93°42′01.03″ west longitude.
92	All waters located within the area described in column 2, located approximately 10.9 km northeast of Red Lake, Ontario	The waters located within an area located approximately 10.9 km northeast of the town of Red Lake, Ontario. More precisely, the area bounded by six straight lines connecting six points starting at the point located at 51°03′30.07″ north latitude and 93°41′31.10″ west longitude to the point located 117 m northeast at 51°03′33.51″ north latitude and 93°41′28.57″ west longitude to the point located 975 m southeast at 51°03′25.06″ north latitude and 93°40′40.33″ west longitude to the point located 104 m south at 51°03′21.80″ north latitude and 93°40′41.65″ west longitude to the point located 727 m southwest at 51°03′16.46″ north latitude and 93°41′18.02″ west longitude to the point located 196 m west at 51°03′17.95″ north latitude and 93°41′27.83″ west longitude and ending at the point located 380 m north at 51°03′30.07″ north latitude and 93°41′31.10″ 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, Evolution Mining Gold Operations Ltd., proposes to consolidate tailings from its Campbell site and to support continued operations of the Red Lake mine by expanding the Red Lake site’s tailings management facility (TMF), which is anticipated to reach capacity by August 2025. The disposal of mine waste generated by the mining operations will destroy six water bodies frequented by fish, for a total of 2.39 ha of fish habitat.

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

Background

Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations

The MDMER prescribe the maximum authorized limits for deleterious substances in mine effluent (i.e. arsenic, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, zinc, radium-226, unionized ammonia and total suspended solids). The MDMER also specifies the allowable pH range of mine effluent and requires that mine effluent not be acutely lethal to fish and invertebrates^{footnote 6}. Therefore, effluent deposited from any final discharge point of a mine subject to the MDMER, including effluent from tailings impoundment areas (TIAs), must be in compliance with the authorized limits for the deleterious substances and meet the other conditions set out in the MDMER. The MDMER further require that mine owners and operators sample and monitor effluent to ensure compliance with the authorized limits and to determine any impact on fish, fish habitat and fishery resources. The Department of the Environment (the Department) publishes annual performance summaries for mines with respect to the prescribed limits and various requirements of the MDMER.

The use of waters frequented by fish for mine waste disposal can only be authorized through an amendment to the MDMER by listing the waterbody in Schedule 2, designating it as a TIA. Section 5 of the MDMER authorizes the deposit of mine waste in water bodies listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER subject to prescribed conditions. Section 27.1 of the MDMER requires the development and implementation of a fish habitat compensation plan (FHCP) to offset the loss of fish habitat that would occur as a result of the use of a fish-frequented water body for mine waste deposit. The FHCP must be approved by the Minister of the Environment before any mine waste is deposited into the listed water bodies. The owner or operator of a mine is also required to submit an irrevocable letter of credit, or an equivalent financial guarantee, to ensure that funds are in place, should the owner or operator fail to address all the elements of the FHCP. Deposits into water bodies listed in Schedule 2 are not authorized under section 5 of the MDMER until there is an approved FHCP under section 27.1.

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

Red Lake East Tailings Expansion Project

The Proponent is proposing to expand the existing tailings management facility to continue operations of the Red Lake Site, a gold mining and processing site located approximately six kilometres (km) east of Red Lake, Ontario (see Figure 1). The Red Lake Site is part of Red Lake Operations, which also includes several other sites, including the Campbell Site and Bateman Site. The expansion project will consist of two phases. First, TA1 will be increased by raising the existing Splitter Dyke 1 and East End Dam, and a temporary diversion ditch will be constructed around the north of the TMF. In the second phase, a new East Tailings Area will be developed to the east of the existing East End Dam through construction of a series of new dams and embankments, and a new permanent diversion pond and south diversion channel will be constructed to the south of the East Tailings Area. The expansion will provide an additional storage capacity of approximately 13.9 million cubic metres of tailings and is expected to extend the mine’s operational time to 2040.

Figure 1: Location of the Red Lake mine

Figure 1: Location of the Red Lake mine - Text version

The figure shows a map of Ontario with a scale of 1:5,400,000 with distances on the map measured in kilometres, indicating the general location of the Red Lake Mine in the middle of the map marked by a yellow star. The project is located approximately six kilometres (km) east of the town of Red Lake, Ontario. The map shows the location of the project in relation to major cities, which include Red Lake to the west, Kenora to the south, Winnipeg to the southwest and Thunder Bay to the southeast.

The legend located at the bottom-left of the figure shows the symbol used to indicate the project location.

Mine infrastructure to affect fish-frequented water bodies

The waste generated at the Red Lake mine is comprised of tailings. Therefore, the expansion of the existing TMF is needed to continue the current operation and continue storing slurry tailings. This expansion will impact six water bodies and result in the loss of 2.39 ha of fish habitat.

Objective

The objective of the amendments is to list six water bodies frequented by fish in Schedule 2 of the MDMER, designating them as TIAs for the Red Lake mine.

Description

The amendments will list one water body and one geographical area encompassing five water bodies in Schedule 2 of the MDMER (see Figure 2), designating them as TIAs. The amendments will allow the disposal of mine waste into the listed TIAs once the Minister of the Environment has approved the FHCP under section 27.1 of the MDMER.

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

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

The figure shows a map of the Red Lake Mine at a scale of 1:16,500, with distances on the map measured in kilometres. The water bodies listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER are highlighted in blue and the footprint of the proposed TMA expansion footprint shown in light grey. 

The water body and geographical area being listed on Schedule 2 of the MDMER are labelled as A and B. Water body A extends north and west across the north side of the TA1 Expansion Tailings Area, with the two ends of the watercourse labelled with waypoints 1 and 2. Geographic area B encompasses five water bodies bounded by an irregular polygon with six straight lines connected by six waypoints labelled 1 through 6 and is located in the centre of the East Tailings Area Expansion.

A legend at the bottom of the figure describes the colours and symbols used to indicate features on the map, including waypoint, the generalized Schedule 2 impact area, predicted fisheries impact – Schedule 2 listing, the proposed TMA expansion footprint, the Red Lake Operations surface patent boundary, the Wataynikaneyap transmission line, highways, local roads, resource/recreational roads, contours (2 metre interval), watercourses and waterbodies.

Regulatory development

Consultation

On February 8, 2024, the Department launched public consultations on the proposed amendments to Schedule 2 for the Project in collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). A virtual public consultation period was open from February 26, 2024, to April 10, 2024. Details of the proposed amendments and how to submit comments were published on a consultation website, which included links to the main document on which the Department consulted, the FHCP. An assessment of alternatives report was also available for information.

To promote the consultations on the amendments, the Department advertised the opportunity to provide comments via a series of social media posts on the Department’s official Facebook, LinkedIn and X accounts.

During the 60-day comment period, one comment from a member of the general public was received, expressing concerns about the Department’s use of lethal testing methods on fish and invertebrates as well as the management of nuisance animals on the mine site, such as beavers. The Department acknowledged receipt of this comment and indicated that all comments received would be taken into consideration. However, no specific comments from the public related to the assessment of alternatives or the FHCP were received.

The Minister of the Environment may recommend to the Governor in Council (GIC) an exemption from prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, for regulatory amendments designating certain water bodies as TIAs when specific conditions are met, including the completion of an assessment of alternatives report and an FHCP, and Indigenous communities potentially impacted by the proposed amendments have been consulted. As these conditions have been satisfied, these regulatory amendments to Schedule 2 of the MDMER are exempt from prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Any comments or concerns received from Indigenous communities on the FHCP following the publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II, will be addressed prior to the Minister’s approval of the plan.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

An assessment of modern treaty implications conducted in accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation concluded that the amendments will not impact modern treaty rights nor obligations.

The amendments are intended to be consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, to consult and co-operate with Indigenous Peoples to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Red Lake mine is located within the traditional territories of Lac Seul First Nation and Wabauskang First Nation. Other Indigenous communities in proximity to the mine are Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek (Grassy Narrows First Nation), McDowell Lake First Nation, Pikangikum First Nation, and Wabaseemoong Independent Nations. The mine is located on land within the Treaty #3 territory. The Métis Nation of Ontario has asserted harvesting rights in the area.

Indigenous communities have been engaged and consulted on the assessment of alternatives report and FHCP, and concerns regarding the proposed offsets to habitat loss due to expansion of an existing tailings impoundment area are being addressed. The Department continues to engage with Grassy Narrows First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Métis Nation of Ontario, and Wabauskang First Nation on the FHCP and will work in collaboration with the Proponent and DFO to address any comments or concerns received prior to the Minister’s approval of the FHCP, which occurs following the TIA listing.

In February 2024, the Department formally engaged with Indigenous communities in collaboration with DFO. Written communications were sent by email to the following Indigenous communities potentially impacted by the Project: Grand Council Treaty #3, which is the traditional government of the Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3, as well as Grassy Narrows First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, McDowell Lake First Nation, Métis Nation of Ontario, Pikangikum First Nation, Wabauskang First Nation, and Wabaseemoong Independent Nations. Out of the eight Indigenous communities, six responded that they would like to participate in consultations. McDowell Lake First Nation and Pikangikum First Nation did not respond to the Department’s outreach efforts.

Between February 2024 and March 2025, in collaboration with DFO and the Proponent, the Department of the Environment engaged and consulted with the Indigenous communities mentioned above. The details on this engagement and consultation with each nation is provided below.

Consultation with Grand Council Treaty #3

On March 6, 2024, the Department and DFO met virtually with Grand Council Treaty #3 for an introductory meeting to explain the regulatory process for an amendment to Schedule 2 of the MDMER and the Project details. No concerns with the Project were raised during the meeting. On April 9, 2024, the Department of the Environment received a communication from Grand Council Treaty #3 stating the Council would not be applying for capacity support and would like to receive consultation notifications about the Project going forward.

Consultation with Grassy Narrows First Nation

Grassy Narrows First Nation sent a letter on May 9, 2024, citing concerns about the Project and stating they need the appropriate time, funds and information to participate in meaningful consultation. On July 18, 2024, the Department and DFO met virtually with Grassy Narrows First Nation Lands Protection Team. The Lands Protection Team raised concerns about mercury contamination from a chlor-alkali plant located in Dryden, Ontario, in the English and Wabigoon Rivers near Grassy Narrows First Nation, causing severe health impacts on the community. Grassy Narrows First Nation expressed the need to understand how, and whether, industrial effluent from the mine will contribute to the existing mercury problem. Grassy Narrows First Nation requested effluent and environmental effects monitoring (EEM) data from the Department and from the Proponent, in addition to any non-compliance and enforcement data for the mine site, regulatory requirements for mercury and sulphates and effluent treatment information. On September 17, 2024, the Department shared all the effluent quality data reported under the Regulations for the mine since 2002, as well as all regulatory compliance data. On October 30, 2024, the Department provided Grassy Narrows First Nation with information on effluent treatment at the mine site, generated by the Proponent and requested by the First Nation. Furthermore, on October 22, 2024, the Proponent shared and provided access to a data room with all the data related to EEM reported under the MDMER and a recent effluent characterization study. Through this data room, the Proponent also shared information regarding current permits and permit applications as requested by Grassy Narrows First Nation. On December 20, 2024, Grassy Narrows First Nation submitted a funding application to support their review of the FHCP. A draft Contribution Agreement between the Department and Grassy Narrows First Nation was shared in February 2025, and finalized on March 13, 2025. As of May 7, 2025, the Department has not received any comments on the FHCP from Grassy Narrows First Nation. Any comments or concerns received by the Department related to the FHCP will be addressed prior to the Minister’s approval of the plan.

Consultation with Lac Seul First Nation and Wabauskang First Nation

On February 16, 2024, in response to the communication sent by the Department, Lac Seul First Nation and Wabauskang First Nation indicated that they would like to participate in joint discussions on the FHCP. On February 21, 2024, the Department and DFO met virtually with consultants from Lac Seul First Nation and Wabauskang First Nation for an introductory meeting to explain the regulatory process for an amendment to Schedule 2 of the MDMER and the Project details. A second meeting was held on May 3, 2024, with the Proponent present to answer questions on the FHCP. Capacity funding was provided by DFO to Lac Seul First Nation and Wabauskang First Nation to review the proposed FHCP in July and December 2024, respectively.

On April 29, 2025, the Department, DFO, and the Proponent met virtually with Lac Seul First Nation and Wabauskang First Nation to discuss the outstanding concerns of the two Nations. Lac Seul First Nation and Wabauskang First Nation raised concern with historical mining in the area, specifically the impacts of current mine operations upstream of Balmer Lake, which was historically used for tailings deposition. They asked that the Proponent consider additional compensation measures to improve the health of Balmer Lake. While not specifically related to the proposed amendment to Schedule 2, the Nations indicated that before consenting to allow Red Lake Operations to expand the mine, which is located on their traditional territory, they needed to ensure that the tailings in Balmer Lake do not continue to contaminate the watershed after the mine has shut down. The Proponent indicated that they are open to conducting a complementary measure study for Balmer Lake, and DFO has committed to including this as a condition in the Fisheries Act authorization. Secondly, the communities requested additional information on the assessment of alternatives for mine waste disposal, specifically why Alternatives A and C were not selected. The Proponent has committed to preparing a memorandum for the communities responding to this request.

Consultation with McDowell Lake First Nation:

McDowell Lake First Nation did not respond to the Department’s outreach efforts.

Consultation with the Métis Nation of Ontario

On April 30, 2024, the Department and DFO met virtually with the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) technical staff for an introductory meeting to explain the regulatory process for an amendment to Schedule 2 of the MDMER and the FHCP. Capacity funding was provided by DFO to the MNO to support their participation in consultations and to review the FHCP. On September 9, 2024, the Department and DFO met with the MNO technical staff and the MNO Region 1 Consultation Committee, which represents the Northwestern Ontario Métis Community (NWOMC). During the meeting, the NWOMC conveyed their disappointment that the Proponent had not consulted with them on any aspect of the expansion project.

The NWOMC submitted comments on the FHCP on November 19, 2024. Two key concerns were highlighted in the document in addition to a number of technical comments on the FHCP. The first concern is that the NWOMC is of the view that they had not been consulted in the development of the expansion project and had not had the opportunity to review the FHCP prior to September 2024. The second concern is that the proposed compensation projects are within the mine site and therefore the NWOMC community members do not have access and cannot exercise their rights. The MNO is of the view that historical mining at the Red Lake Operations, including construction and operation of the mine, caused displacement of Métis peoples from the area, which resulted in limited exercise of rights in the Project area today. Therefore, the MNO has requested that the Proponent evaluate like-for-like compensation measures that will be supportive of the exercise of rights of the Métis people. In response, the Department and DFO indicated that proponents are encouraged to engage early and often with Indigenous communities, and that the FHCP was shared with the NWOMC in the initial invitation to consult in February 2024. Additionally, the current habitat ratio set out in the FHCP is 2.15:1 (gain:loss ratio), which represents an overall net gain and is therefore sufficient to address the proposed impacts. The Proponent prepared a response to the technical comments.

On January 30, 2025, the Department, DFO and the Proponent met virtually with the NWOMC and the MNO technical staff to discuss the Proponent’s and the Department’s responses to the technical comments. NWOMC’s consultant did not attend the meeting, which hindered the Department’s and the Proponent’s ability to address these comments adequately. The NWOMC raised concerns regarding the impacts of the TMF expansion on the land, which extend beyond the federal authorities under the Fisheries Act. It questioned how the preferred location for the TMF was selected without adequate consultation with the Métis. The Department encouraged representatives from the NWOMC to share any comments or concerns they may have on the assessment of alternatives report. As of May 7, 2025, the Department has not received any specific comments on the assessment of alternatives report from the NWOMC. Furthermore, representatives from the NWOMC asked if they could participate in fish removal activities. The Proponent responded that they would be open to having NWOMC representatives participate and would cover their expenses for attendance. The Proponent also reiterated its invitation for NWOMC representatives to visit the mine to better understand the impacts and proposed compensation measures. During the meeting, the MNO expressed that the funding provided by DFO for the review of the FHCP would not be sufficient for future engagement and expressed interest in developing a funding agreement with the Proponent. The Proponent indicated its willingness to pursue such an agreement and requested details from the MNO regarding their requirements. As of May 7, 2025, the Department has not been informed of a response from the MNO to this request from the Proponent.

On January 31, 2025, the Department followed up by email with the MNO to offer additional capacity funding through a Grants and Contributions Agreement for future engagement on the FHCP. As of May 7, 2025, the MNO has not responded to this offer.

On February 25, 2025, the NWOMC sent a follow-up letter reiterating their concerns that they had not been consulted on the assessment of alternatives or the FHCP and that therefore there was no Métis input in those documents, and that the NWOMC community members are not able to exercise their rights because the location of the proposed compensation measures is within the mine site. In its response, the Department reminded the NWOMC that consultations for the proposed Red Lake expansion project began in January 2024, and that thus far, the NWOMC had not provided any comments on the assessment of alternatives. The Department also responded that the compensation measures are sufficient to address the proposed impacts to fish habitat. On March 25, Evolution Mining sent a letter to the NWOMC offering to work with the NWOMC towards developing an agreement that would guide engagement for future changes at Red Lake Operations. As of May 7, 2025, the NWOMC has not responded to this letter.

Consultation with Pikangikum First Nation (PFN)

After initially indicating interest in engaging in consultations for this initiative, Pikangikum First Nation did not respond to the Department’s outreach efforts to organize a meeting to discuss the proposed amendment and the FHCP.

Consultation with Wabaseemoong Independent Nations

On April 18, 2024, the Department and DFO met virtually with Wabaseemoong Independent Nations. During the meeting, Wabaseemoong Independent Nations indicated that they had concerns about water quality and cumulative effects downstream of the mine from industrial impacts and pollution. Wabaseemoong Independent Nations also had concerns about dam safety, which is provincial jurisdiction. On May 15, 2024, the Department received a letter from Wabaseemoong Independent Nations stating that they have no concerns with the Project as currently proposed and requested to be apprised of any project updates.

Consultation undertaken by the Proponent

The Proponent concluded a joint Impact and Benefit Agreement (IBA) with Lac Seul First Nation and Wabauskang First Nation in 2014, which is currently undergoing renegotiation. IBAs are privately negotiated agreements that establish the commitment and responsibilities of the impacted Indigenous communities and the mine proponent. Generally, IBAs seek to address the potentially adverse effects of development activities on the rights of Indigenous communities and ensure social and economic benefits for these communities.

Instrument choice

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

The Proponent developed eight options in its assessment of alternatives for mine waste disposal (PDF) to determine the best option for mine waste disposal, taking into account environmental, technical, economic and socio-economic factors. This assessment was conducted in accordance with the Department’s Guidelines for the assessment of alternatives for mine waste disposal.

The Proponent considered alternative tailings technologies, including slurry tailings, thickened tailings, high-density thickened tailings, paste tailings, and filtered tailings, but determined that slurry tailings is the best technology as it is compatible with the existing processing facilities.

The Proponent identified eight options for the location of the TMF expansion at the Red Lake Operations. Six locations were considered at the Red Lake Site, a historical tailings management area at the Campbell Complex, and the tailings management facility at the Bateman Site.

The following pre-screening criteria were used to refine the list of possible options for the disposal of mine waste:

1. The alternative avoids interference with the Wataynikaneyap powerline alignment, which must remain accessible to allow for maintenance and repairs.
2. The alternative avoids areas where the TMF dams overprint known poor foundation conditions, which would increase the potential for dam failure.
3. The alternative avoids the potential for a high likelihood of unacceptable environmental effects in the event of a dam failure, specifically to Balmer Lake or Red Lake.

Of the eight potential tailings storage locations considered, three were retained for further analysis (Alternative B: East Tailings Area and TA2 Water Pond, Alternative C: Southwest Tailings Area, and Alternative D: East Tailings Area and North Water Pond), see figures 3, 4 and 5. The three remaining alternative options are described in Table 1.

Figure 3: Alternative B, East Tailings Area and TA2 Water Pond

Figure 3: Alternative B, East Tailings Area and TA2 Water Pond - Text version

The figure shows a map of the Red Lake mine site at a scale of 1:16,800, presenting the Alternative B configuration of the tailing management facility expansion.

The image shows the proposed tailings management facility in relation to the existing mine infrastructure, waterbodies and watercourses.

A legend at the bottom of the figure describes the symbols used to indicate features on the map, including the existing Red Lake Operations tailings management facility footprint, the Red Lake Operations Surface Patent Boundary, the Wataynikaneyap transmission line, resource/recreational roads, contours (5 m interval), wetlands, watercourses, waterbodies, diversion ponds, dam buttresses, tailings extension, engineered wetland, flow direction through dam filter, new dams, existing dams to be raised, existing dam to be raised (weak foundation), construction diversion channel, and a diversion channel through natural channel.

Figure 4: Alternative C, Southwest Tailings Area

Figure 4: Alternative C, Southwest Tailings Area - Text version

The figure shows a map of the Red Lake mine site at a scale of 1:16,800, presenting the Alternative C configuration of the tailing management facility expansion.

The image shows the proposed tailings management facility in relation to the existing mine infrastructure, waterbodies and watercourses.

L legend at the bottom of the figure describes the symbols used to indicate features on the map, including the existing Red Lake Operations tailings management facility footprint, the Red Lake Operations Surface Patent Boundary, the Wataynikaneyap transmission line, resource/recreational roads, contours (5 m interval), wetlands, watercourses, waterbodies, diversion ponds, dam buttresses, tailings extension, engineered wetland, flow direction through dam filter, new dams, existing dams to be raised, existing dam to be raised (weak foundation), construction diversion channel, and a diversion channel through natural channel.

Figure 5: Alternative D, East Tailings Area and North Water Pond

Figure 5: Alternative D, East Tailings Area and North Water Pond - Text version

The figure shows a map of the Red Lake mine site at a scale of 1:16,800, presenting the Alternative D configuration of the tailing management facility expansion.

The image shows the proposed tailings management facility in relation to the existing mine infrastructure, waterbodies and watercourses.

A legend at the bottom of the figure describes the symbols used to indicate features on the map, including the existing Red Lake Operations tailings management facility footprint, the Red Lake Operations Surface Patent Boundary, the Wataynikaneyap transmission line, resource/recreational roads, contours (5 m interval), wetlands, watercourses, waterbodies, diversion ponds, dam buttresses, tailings extension, engineered wetland, flow direction through dam filter, new dams, existing dams to be raised, existing dam to be raised (weak foundation), construction diversion channel, and a diversion channel through natural channel.

Table 1: Alternative options for mine waste disposal

Alternative option	Description	Waterbody loss (area in ha)	Watercourse loss (length in km)	Proponent cost table 2 note * (in millions of dollars)
Alternative B (preferred option) East Tailings Area and Tailings Area 2 Water Pond	Construction will include additional dams to the existing Tailings Area 1 to allow for expansion of that area, plus new dams for the new East Tailings Area. The water management strategy for Alternative B will include construction of a clean water diversion around the south of the new East Tailings Area to Balmer Creek. New site roads and pipelines would be required for tailings deposition to access the extended footprint for deposition of tailings, inspections and maintenance. During operations, tailings will be deposited via a pipeline. The new East Tailings Area will include a water pond in its northwest corner, from which water will be allowed to filter through an engineered wetland in Tailings Area 1, before being directed to the Tailings Area 2 Water Pond.	2.6	3.1	48.2
Alternative C Southwest Tailings Area	Existing Tailings Area 1 dams will be raised and a new Southwest Tailings Area will be constructed to create additional tailings storage capacity. Tailings Area 2 will be transitioned into a water management pond. New site roads and pipelines would be required for tailings deposition and to access the extended footprint for inspections and maintenance. The Alternative C TMF expansion will include a freshwater diversion located north of the current TMF and conversion of Tailings Area 2 to a water management pond. During operations, tailings will be deposited via a pipeline. Beaver Pond will be allowed to naturally expand and the existing freshwater diversion will be relocated, diverting water collected in Beaver Pond, along the northern edge of the TMF.	0.7	2.7	68.6
Alternative D East Tailings Area and North Water Pond	The existing Tailings Area 1 cell would be extended to the north and include construction of new East Tailings Area. Tailings Area 2 would be converted to a water management pond and a new North Water Pond would be developed north of Tailings Area 2. Extensions to site roads and pipelines would be required for tailings deposition and to access the extended footprint of the TMF expansion for tailings deposition, inspections and maintenance. The water management strategy for Alternative D will include construction of a clean water diversion around the south of the new East Tailings Area to Balmer Creek, conversion of Tailings Area 2 to a water management pond and construction of the new North Water Pond. During operations, tailings will be deposited via a pipeline. Freshwater will be collected east of the TMF expansion, diverted from the TMF and draining southwest towards the Red Lake catchment.	2.64	4.5	62.1
Table 2 note(s) Table 2 note * Includes initial capital cost and recurring capital, operating, closure and post-closure costs. Return to table 2 note * referrer

The Proponent developed a multiple accounts analysis to further characterize the three remaining locations. The environmental account, which considered water, fishing and terrestrial resources, as well as species at risk and atmospheric emissions, was assigned with the highest weighting in the analysis. Alternative C received the best overall score for the environmental and economic accounts and Alternative B had the best overall score for the technical and socio-economic accounts. However Alternative B received the best overall merit rating. Therefore, Alternative B is the preferred option.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

Analytical framework

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

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

Environmental impacts

The expansion of the existing TMF will destroy six water bodies that are frequented by fish and totalling 2.39 ha of fish habitat. The impacted water bodies are a portion of an unnamed watercourse that is a tributary to Balmer Lake, three beaver ponds, a portion of an unnamed creek and a tributary of the unnamed creek. The fish species present in these waterbodies are Brook stickleback, Common Shiner, Blackchin shiner, Fathead minnow, Finescale dace, Northern Pearl Dace, Northern redbelly dace, minnows, Northern pike and White sucker.

The loss of fish habitat would be offset by the implementation of the proposed FHCP, as required under section 27.1 of the MDMER. Approval of the proposed FHCP must be obtained before the Proponent begins depositing deleterious substances into the TIAs. The FHCP will result in the creation of 8.45 ha total of fish habitat, of which 60.63% will be used to compensate for the loss of fish habitat caused by the TIA. Therefore, the implementation of the compensatory measures would result in the creation of 5.12 ha of fish habitat of equivalent or superior quality compared to the fish habitat to be destroyed by the proposed expansion of the TMF.

The proposed FHCP plan prepared by the Proponent outlines targeted measures to offset impacts to fish and fish habitat and enhance aquatic ecosystems. The proposed fish habitat offset and compensation strategy for the estimated 2.39 ha of impacted waterbodies is focused on developing a new diversion pond upstream of the East Tailings Area, and a south diversion channel to connect the diversion pond to Balmer Creek downstream of Balmer Lake. The objectives of the proposed measure are to

• maintain connectivity between the remaining upstream Beaver Creek and downstream fish communities;
• provide replacement high quality pond and channel habitats in roughly the same proportions as the habitat being lost; and
• provide an overall net gain in fish habitat.

There will be a temporal lag between the initial impacts to the lower portion of Beaver Creek and the diversion ditch and the provision of the new diversion channel. The larger quantity and high-quality habitat of the proposed diversion pond is intended to offset that time lag.

Cost to business

The implementation of the FHCP associated with the amendments in order to compensate for the destruction of 2.39 ha of fish habitat is estimated to cost the Proponent $6.35 million.^{footnote 7} Table 2 describes the estimated costs associated with the implementation of the proposed FHCP. These estimated costs could change if the scope of the FHCP were to be revised.

Table 2: Cost estimate of the proposed fish habitat compensation plan in $2023 CDN at 3% discount rate over 10 years

Description	Undiscounted amount in 2023 Canadian dollars	Amount discounted at a rate of 3% table 3 note a	Proposed schedule
Construction (main steps)	$5,983,757	$5,896,615	2025–2026
Monitoring plan table 3 note *	$363,752	$327,149	2025–2034
Total	$6,347,509	$6,223,764	2025–2034
Table 3 note(s) Table 3 note * The monitoring plan includes assessments conducted in years 1, 3, 5, and 10. Under the plan, the Proponent will survey and report on the construction, functionality and stability of the offsetting measures in relation to the approved plan. Additionally, it will monitor fish species presence, including species richness, life cycle usage and abundance. Return to table 3 note * referrer Table 3 note a The discount rate of 3% applied to different years based on the activity. Construction and monitoring cost categories are inclusive of contingency and inflation protection costs ("escalation"). The costs are discounted to a base year of 2025. Return to table 3 note a referrer

Cost to Government

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

Cost-benefit statement

Table 3A: Quantified impacts to Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (2023 price level in constant dollars [$ millions])

Impact	Total (present value)	Annualized average (10 years)
Costs	6.22	0.708

Table 3B: Quantified impacts (non-monetized) to Indigenous peoples and the general public (e.g. from a risk assessment)

Impacts	Description
Positive impacts	The proposed FHCP will result in a direct gain of 5.12 ha of fish habitat.
Negative impacts	The loss of fish habitat associated with the disposal of tailings amounts to 2.39 ha.

Small business lens

There are no impacts on small business associated with the amendments. The Proponent 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

Regulatory cooperation and alignment opportunities were not explored as the amendments do not introduce a new regulatory framework.

Effects on the environment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, these amendments have been exempted from the requirement to complete a strategic environmental and economic assessment.

These amendments are exempt, as they are prepared as a matter of routine or administrative procedure with a low likelihood of important environmental or economic effects.

Gender-based analysis plus

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

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

The amendments come into force on the day upon which they are registered. The amendments will allow the use of certain water bodies that are frequented by fish for the disposal of tailings generated at the Red Lake Mine. Before the Proponent can begin tailings disposal into the listed TIAs, all the conditions under section 27.1 of the MDMER need to be met for the Minister of the Environment to approve the FHCP.

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

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

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

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

Contacts

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

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