1. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᖢᓂ
ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᑦ – ᓴᕿᑦᑎᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᓴᕿᑕᒃᓴᑦᑎᐊᕙᓂᒃ
ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐸᖅᓯᐅᑦ ᑐᓴᔭᖅᑐᖅᕕᒥ ᓴᕿᑕᖓᑦ: ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒪᕈᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᕕᒃ ᐊᒡᓕᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖅᓴᖅ
ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᖢᓂ
Good morning.
My name is Peter Unger and I am Senior Environmental Assessment Officer with Natural Resources Canada.
ᑐᓂᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ:
ᐲᑕ ᐊᙳ
ᐃᓱᒪᑕᖅ ᐊᕙᑎᒥᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᔪᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ
ᐋᒋᓯ, 2019
ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᑦ

2. ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᑦ ᐱᔭᒃᓴᐅᑎᖓᑦ
ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᑦ (NRCan) ᐱᔭᒃᓴᖃᒪᑕ ᐱᐅᓯᒋᐊᖅᓗᒍ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᔪᖅ ᑲᒪᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᒪᑦ ᐊᑐᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᒥᑦ, ᐱᓕᕆᕕᓴᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ, ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒃᓴᑦᑎᐊᕙ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ, ᓄᓇᓗ ᓴᓗᒪᑎᑦᑎᐊᓗᒍ ᐊᒪ ᓄᓇᓕᑐᖃᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᓂᖅ. ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᖅᑎᖓᑦ, ᓇᑉᐸᓪᓗᐊᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔨᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᑎᐅᒪᑕ, ᑎᑎᕋᐅᔭᖅᓯᒪᔪᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᒪᔨᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓯᕐᒥᑦ ᑲᒪᔨᑦ.
Natural Resources Canada is a federal government department that works to improve the competitiveness of the natural resource sectors, and to grow their contribution to Canada’s economy. The department supports the sustainable development of Canada’s resources in a manner that advances Canada’s global standing as a leader on the environment.
NRCan applies its knowledge and expertise of Canada’s landmass to support the safety and security of citizens. In laboratories and offices from coast to coast to coast, NRCan leads science and technology in the fields of earth sciences, energy, forests, and minerals and metals.
NRCan develops policies and programs to enhance the contribution of the natural resources sector to the economy and improve the quality of life for all Canadians.
ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᑦ

3. ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᓂᖓᑦ ᐅᕙᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒥ
ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᓱᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ:
ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᖓ
ᐃᒪᖅ (ᓄᓇᒥᑦ ᐃᒪᖅ)
Specific to this project, NRCan’s role has been to provide expert advice in the field of permafrost and terrain stability and hydrogeology as it relates to the Whale Tail Expansion Project. This advice has been provided by experts from the Geological Survey of Canada.
ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᑦ

4. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕐᒥᑦ ᓇᓗᔭᐃᓂᖅ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖅ: ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᖓ
ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕐᒥᑦ ᓇᓗᔭᐃᓂᖅ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖅ: ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐊᔪᙱᓐᓂᖓ
ᐃᓕᓯᒪᓂᐊ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᖃᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᓂᖓ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᓱᕈᐃᓗᐊᖁᖏᖢᒍ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐊᕙᑕᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᒃᐱᓇᕐᓂᐊ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐊᕙᑕ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕕᐅᔪᒧᑦ.
ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ
ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᖅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓯᑯ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᓂᖓ
ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᖅ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐃᑉᔪᐊᓄᑦ
ᓯᐊᒻᒪᒃᓯᒪᓂᐊ ᑕᓕᒃ ᐊᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ
ᖃᓄᐃᖓᓂᖓᑕ ᖄᖑᔫᑉ ᐃᑉᔪᓂᖓ ᐊᒃᑕᑰᖅᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᑯᓄᑦ ᑐᖁᐃᓯᒪᕝᕕᒃᓴᖅ
Information on terrain and permafrost conditions is essential to adequately design project components to ensure that they perform as intended. In particular, knowledge of ground ice conditions is required to assess terrain stability and determine if thawing of permafrost due to project activities (surface disturbance, impoundment of water), will have an impact on ground stability and performance of structures such as those required for water management (e.g., dams and dikes).
ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᑦ

5. ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ ᓄᖑᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ ᖃᑯᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ
ᐃᓚᑯᖓᔪᑦ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ
ᑕᕆᐅᑉ ᓇᑎᐊᓂ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ
ᓯᕐᒥᑦ
Permafrost mapping
NRCan noted that terrain mapping has been done for the project area including the area surrounding the proposed expanded Whale Tail pit, IVR pit, and underground mining operations (Vol. 5, App. 5-A, Figs. C-18, C-19, C-21, C-22). However, there did not appear to be much detailed information on permafrost conditions including ground ice content beyond references to national scale maps (e.g.
Heginbottom et al. 1995; Brown et al. 1998) which are not appropriate for assessments of conditions at a local scale. The Proponent has indicated that a key uncertainty is the thickness of the active layer and the ground ice content (FEIS Addendum, Sec ) NRCan realized that detailed site investigations are usually done to support detailed engineering. However, NRCan requested clarification on field investigations on how the Proponent plans to address uncertainties with respect to permafrost such as active layer thickness and ground ice conditions.
The Proponent responded that field investigation programs were carried out to characterize the permafrost condition (ground ice content) of the project site. The site investigations included:
Establishing the temperature profile (or thermal regime) of the ground by installing thermistors;
Collecting soils samples for visual identification or visual observation of the ice lenses and classification of the frozen soils as either ice-rich till or ice-poor till; and
Laboratory testing to determine the moisture content of the soils.
Agnico Eagle further referred NRCan to Appendix A: 2018 Thermal Analysis in Support of Post-Closure Hydrogeological Predictions of the FEIS Addendum Volume 6, Appendix 6-B which presents a summary of the permafrost conditions based on the available thermistor data to October 2017, and thermal modelling results of predicted thermal conditions under the Whale Tail and IVR pit lakespost- closure. This appendix also provides a characterization of the active layer thickness which is assessed
through thermal modelling. Ice ground conditions are incorporated in the design through material characterization and detail engineering design and are presented as part of the Nunavut Water Board licencing process, in which NRCan is not participating.
ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᑦ

6. ᓄᓇ ᐊᐅᓚᔪᖅ ᓯᑯ ᓄᕝᕗᐊᕆᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ
Baseline soil conditions
The proponent recognizes that existing information on soil types, characteristics, and distribution in the region is limited, and consequently mapped an additional ha to incorporate the road the road corridors to Lake D1 and Lake D5, and the quarries along the haul road (FEIS Addendum, Sec ).
NRCan found that the properties of each surficial material crossed by the haul road are described in detail in The Terrain, Permafrost, and Soils Baseline Report (Vol. 5, App. 5-A) of the Approved Project FEIS submission, but it was not clear where maps are presented in the Addendum for the additional
132.3 ha mapped that covers the road corridors to Lake D1 and Lake D5 within the expanded LSA. As a result, NRCan submitted the following information request:
NRCan IR#3: Please provide any information on detailed soil mapping conducted that covers the road corridors to Lake D1 and Lake D5 within the expanded LSA.
The Proponent responded that terrain and soils mapping were completed for the road corridors to Lake D1 and Lake D5 within the expanded LSA. The Proponent directed NRCan to the specific sections of the FEIS Addendum containing relevant information and provided additional figures depicting the additional terrain mapping completed to cover the road corridors to Lake D5 and Lake D1, respectively. NRCan is satisfied with the response provided.
ᐊᔾᔨᓕᐅᕆᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ: ᐱᓐᔭᒥᓐ ᔪᓐᔅ, ᐊᒥᐊᕆᑲᒥᐅᑦ ᓄᓇᖑᐊᓕᕆᔨᖏᑦ. 

7. ᓄᓇ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᔭᕋᒃ ᖁᐊᖅᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᓯᑯᓗᒃ ᐃᑎᔪᖅ ᑕᓯᐊᓗᒃ ᐃᑎᔪᖅ ᐃᒪᖅᓱᖅ ᓄᓇ ᐊᐅᓚᔪᖅ
ᐊᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ ᒪᑐᐃᖓᔪᖅ
ᐊᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ ᐊᐅᒪᔪᖅ
10 ᒦᑕᒥ
ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ
50 ᒦᑕᒥ
ᐊᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ ᐊᕙᓗᓯᒪᔪᖅ
ᓄᖑᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ
400 ᒦᑕᒥ
ᓄᓇ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᔭᕋᒃ ᖁᐊᖅᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᑦ
Talik distribution
Permafrost can provide an impermeable barrier to groundwater flow and limit connections between surface and subsurface water. Unfrozen zones or taliks can exist beneath large water bodies that do not freeze to the bed in winter. If lakes are larger than a critical size, an open talik will exist providing a hydrologic connection between surface and groundwater.
The Proponent has indicated that after 11 years of closure, the base of the Whale Tail Pit Lake is predicted to be hydraulically connected to the deeper groundwater flow system, and after 50 years, the permafrost below the full pit footprint is predicted to have completely melted (FEIS Addendum, Sec.
; Vol. 6, App. 6-A, Sec. 3.3 ; Vol. 8, App. 8-A.1, Sec. 2.6). The Proponent also indicated that with flooding and formation of IVR Pit Lake during closure that permafrost is also predicted to fully melt the underlying permafrost below the IVR footprint, but that it will take approximately 1000 years (FEIS Addendum. Sec ; Vol. 6, App. 6-A, Sec. 3.3; Vol. 8, App. 8-A.1, Sec. 2.6) . IVR Pit and Whale Tail Pit have been treated separately in the analysis, but with flooding upon closure the pits will together form one lake (App. 8-A, 8-A.1, Fig A.8). It is important to know if lateral permafrost thaw will be induced earlier beneath IVR Pit by encroachment of the thaw zone from beneath Whale Tail Pit.
Encroachment of the thaw zone may effectively connect the thaw zone beneath IVR Pit to sub- permafrost groundwater much earlier than predicted.
The Proponent responded that the thermal analysis does include consideration of the lateral effects on the thawing beneath the IVR Pit due to the thawing of permafrost beneath the Whale Tail Pit. The analysis includes consideration of potential lateral effects due to the thaw of permafrost beneath Whale Tail Lake, which will occur earlier than the flooding. NRCan is satisfied with this response and has no further comments or questions.
ᐊᔾᔨᓕᐅᕆᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ: ᒪᐃᑯᓪ ᐱᑦᕗᓂ, ᐃᓕᓯᒪᑦᑐᖅᓴᕕ ᐳᕆᑎᔅ ᑲᓚᒻᐱᐊ
ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᑦ

8. WRSF Cover adjustments
The Proponent has indicated that they will take advantage of the cold conditions and have adopted freeze control and climate control strategies for the WRSF (App. 8-A, 8-A.1, Sec. 9). Frozen conditions will be utilized to immobilize pore fluids, control acid mine drainage reactions and prevent potential migration of contaminated pore water outside the storage facility. Part of this strategy involves a cover of non acid generating waste rock of sufficient thickness to provide insulation and prevent thawing of the potentially acid generating rock and therefore maintain frozen conditions over the long-term. The proposed design of the 4.7 m thick NPAG/NML waste rock placement as a final surface cover for Whale Tail and IVR WRSFs is similar to that of the Meadowbank Portage WRSF, and is based on results calibrated to the Meadowbank WRSF thermal data to date and climate change predictions (App. 8-A, 8- A.1, Sec. 9.1). The thermal response in the IVR WRSF is expected to be like the Whale Tail WRSF (App. 8- A, 8-A.3, Sec ).
NRCan recognized that there are currently no thermistors in the footprints of the Whale Tail and IVR WRSF footprints, but that they will be installed progressively in the thermal cap during construction to assess the effectiveness of the 4.7 m cover thickness on isolating the PAG waste rock from the active zone of seasonal freezing and thawing. The Proponent has indicated that they may consider supplemental modelling to evaluate the long-term performance of the rock cover on top of the WRSFs, and would use data from installed thermistor strings for model calibration (App. 8-A, 8-A.3, Sec ). NRCan requested clarification on the specific conditions or circumstances that would require the Proponent to consider supplemental thermal modelling to evaluate the long-term performance of the rock-cover on top of the WRSFs, and whether or not the results from any supplemental modelling would be applied to adjust the rock cover thickness on top of all of the WRSFs or just individual WRSFs on a case-by-case basis.
NRCan IR#6: Please clarify the specific conditions or circumstances that would require supplemental modelling to evaluate the long-term performance of the rock cover on top of the WRSFs.
NRCan IR#7: Please clarify if supplemental thermal modelling results derived for any WRSF would be used to adjust the rock cover thickness on top of each of the Meadowbank Portage, Whale Tail, and IVR WRSFs, or if the supplemental thermal modelling would be specific to an individual WRSF rock cover thickness and apply only to that particular WRSF.
The Proponent responded that thermal monitoring data will continue to be collected on a regular basis, reported annually, and these monitoring results will be used to validate the thermal model to ensure the trajectory of freeze-back is within design parameters. There will not be a specific threshold applied to initiate supplementary modeling, but instead, the annual updates will be applied to confirm or revise the model to provide the best possible understanding of cover performance. The Proponent stated that any deviations from predicted behavior of thermal covers would be investigated to understand the root cause of the deviation to ensure all covers were protective. However, the need to implement changes to covers would be evaluated on a facility by facility basis as not all WRSFs are the same and each require site-specific considerations, ranging from aspect, snow accumulation, to geochemical properties of the rock being covered. NRCan is satisfied with this response and has no further questions or comments.

9. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕐᒥᑦ ᓇᓗᔭᐃᓂᖅ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖅ: ᐃᒪᖅ
ᓄᓇᒦᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᒪᕐᒧᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᐅᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᑕᕆᐊᑉ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᖁᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᙳᕈᖕᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᒦᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᓐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᓯᔪᖕᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐃᒪᕐᒥᑦ.
ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ
ᐃᒃᐱᓇᕐᓂᐊ ᐅᒃᑐᕋᐅᑎᒃᓴᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᓯᐊᖑᖅᑕᐅᒐᖓᑦ
ᓱᑉᓗᓕᑦ
ᐃᓂᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐅᒃᑐᑎᒃᓴᖅ
ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᑉᓗᓂ/ᑯᕕᖅᑕᖅᕕ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᐃᒪᖃᕕᐅᔪᓂ
Going to gloss over model refinement and hydraulic conductivities here
Model refinement:
Because of the conservative nature of the EA Scenario there is a high level of confidence that the potential effects to groundwater quality and quantity have not been underestimated. The hydraulic conductivity values assigned in the EA Scenario were relatively high, and therefore revised values would be expected to decrease inflows, rather than increase them. Similarly, if another parameter, such as the hydraulic gradient in the sub-permafrost, is revised upwards for the post closure it would not increase the magnitude of the effect because groundwater discharge to lakes is negligible compared to the annual surface water exchange.
Hydraulic conductivities:
Hydraulic conductivities assigned in the EA Scenario are conservatively high. The Proponent stated that with the presence of impermeable permafrost, and, below this permafrost, hydraulic conductivities below the ability of the packer testing equipment to detect, it is their opinion that hydraulic conductivities assigned to deep bedrock are sufficiently high and conservative.
ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᑦ

10. ᐅᔭᕋᖅᑕᕆᐊᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᖅᑎᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᑲᓂ ᐅᒃᑯᐊᓯᒋᐊᕕᒥ Complete conceptual model
ᐊᒪᕈᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᕕᒃ ᐊᕙᓗᐊ
ᐃᓂᖓ IVR ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᕕᒃ
ᑲᓇᖕᓇᓂ
ᐅᐊᖕᓂᐅᑉ ᑭᕙᑕᓂ
ᐃᓂᖓ ᐊᒪᕈᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᕕᒃ
ᐊᒪᕈᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᕕᒃ ᑲᓇᖕᓇ ᑕᓯᐊ
ᐃᒪᑭᑦᑐᖅ ᑕᓯᕋᖅ
IVR ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᕕᒃ
ᓂᕈᑦᑐᐃᓂᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕕᐅᔪᒥ (~2 ᒦᑕᒥ)
ᐊᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ ᐅᒃᑯᐊᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐃᓚᖓᓂᑦ ᐊᒪᕈᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᕕᒃ (ᐅᐊᖕᓇᖓᓂᑦ)
ᐊᒪᕈᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᕕᒃ
ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ
ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ
ᐊᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ ᒪᑐᐃᖓᔪᖅ ᐃᒪᖅ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᖃᖓᓂ ᐃᖏᕋᓂᐊ
ᐊᑦᑎᓂᖓ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ ᐅᕙᖓᑦ 425 ᒦᑕᒥ ᐃᑯᖓ 495 ᒦᑕᒥ
ᐊᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ
ᐅᔭᕋᖅᑕᕆᐊᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᖅᑎᓗᒋᑦ
ᐅᐊᖕᓂᐅᑉ ᑭᕙᑕᓂ
ᐃᓂᖓ IVR ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᕕᒃ
ᑲᓇᖕᓇᓂ
ᐃᓂᖓ ᐊᒪᕈᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᕕᒃ
ᐊᒪᕈᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᕕᒃ ᑕᓯᐊ (153.5)
MR ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᕕᒃ
ᐊᒪᕈᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᕕᒃ
Complete conceptual model
A complete conceptual model would help to understand groundwater dynamics and their relation to permafrost and surface water. NRCan was unable to locate a figure showing a conceptual model that includes the IVR pit. Therefore, NRCan submitted the following information request:
NRCan IR#10: Please provide a complete conceptual model of the Whale Tail and IVR pits at their maximum depths.
The Proponent responded by providing three figures outlining the conceptual models including the IVR and Whale Tale Pits at the end of mining, at the end of closure, and 1000 years after closure, respectively. NRCan considers this to satisfy this information request and has no further comments.
ᐊᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ ᒪᑐᐃᖓᔪᖅ ᐃᒪᖅ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᖃᖓᓂ ᐃᖏᕋᓂᐊ
ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ
ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ
ᐊᑦᑎᓂᖓ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ ᐅᕙᖓᑦ 425 ᒦᑕᒥ ᐃᑯᖓ 495 ᒦᑕᒥ
ᐊᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ
ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᒪᖓ ᑯᕕᔪᖅ ᐃᑯᖓ ᑯᕕᔪᖅ ᐃᒪᐃᔭᖅᕕᒧᑦ (DS1)
ᐃᑲᓂ ᐅᒃᑯᐊᓯᒋᐊᕕᒥ
ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᑦ

11. Recharge/Discharge rates for water bodies
The hydrogeological model includes constant head boundary conditions. These boundary conditions induce flux going in or out of the model. Therefore, it is important to validate the magnitude and direction of these fluxes. In order to do this, NRCan submitted the following information request:
NRCan IR#11: Please provide equivalent recharge and discharge rates for each feature (lakes, rivers,…) with constant head boundary conditions in a table and on a map.
The Proponent responded by providing a figure and a table with the recharge and discharge rates included. NRCan is satisfied with this response and has no further comments on this subject.
ᐊᔾᔨ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ – ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᒥᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ11-1: ᑕᓯᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᑉᓗᓂ/ᑯᕕᖅᑕᖅᕕᐅᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᐊᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ ᒪᑐᐃᖓᔪᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᖅᕕᐅᔪᒥ
ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᑦ

12. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖃᖅᐱᑦ?
ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᑦ