Regulations Amending the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations: SOR/2025-138

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 159, Number 14

Registration
SOR/2025-138 June 13, 2025

FISHERIES ACT

P.C. 2025-507 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 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
90	All waters located within the area described in column 2, located approximately 4.5 km northeast of Goldboro, Nova Scotia	The waters located within an area located approximately 4.5 km northeast of Goldboro, Nova Scotia. More precisely, the area bounded by 13 straight lines connecting 13 points starting at the point located at 45°13′27.09″ north latitude and 61°37′35.59″ west longitude to the point located 57 m to the northeast at 45°13′27.66″ north latitude and 61°37′33.94″ west longitude to the point located 1210 m to the southeast at 45°13′03.48″ north latitude and 61°37′15.14″ west longitude to the point located 362 m to the southeast at 45°12′55.82″ north latitude and 61°37′10.83″ west longitude to the point located 115 m to the southwest at 45°12′53.93″ north latitude and 61°37′13.40″ west longitude to the point located 79 m to the southwest at 45°12′52.94″ north latitude and 61°37′15.57″ west longitude to the point located 205 m to the southwest at 45°12′52.85″ north latitude and 61°37′22.22″ west longitude to the point located 200 m to the northwest at 45°12′53.65″ north latitude and 61°37′28.60″ west longitude to the point located 30 m to the northwest at 45°12′54.20″ north latitude and 61°37′29.13″ west longitude to the point located 199 m to the northwest at 45°12′58.56″ north latitude and 61°37′30.72″ west longitude to the point located 360 m to the northwest at 45°12′59.23″ north latitude and 61°37′42.37″ west longitude to the point located 305 m to the northwest at 45°13′02.68″ north latitude and 61°37′51.03″ west longitude to the point located 315 m to the north at 45°13′09.73″ north latitude and 61°37′51.62″ west longitude and ending at the point located 909.4 m to the northeast at 45°13′27.09″ north latitude and 61°37′35.59″ 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, Goldboro Gold Mines Inc., proposes the development of an open-pit gold mine located near Goldboro, Guysborough County, Nova Scotia. The disposal of mine waste generated by the mining operations will destroy seven water bodies frequented by fish, for a total of 0.27 hectares (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 into 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.^{footnote 5} Therefore, effluent deposited from any final discharge point of a mine subject to the MDMER, including effluent from TIAs, must be in compliance with the authorized limits for deleterious substances and meet the other conditions set out in the MDMER. The MDMER further requires that mine owners and operators sample and monitor effluent to ensure compliance with the authorized limits and to determine any impacts 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 water body in Schedule 2, designating it as a TIA. 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 relevant 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 (including effluent) 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.

Goldboro Gold Project 

The Proponent is proposing to develop an open-pit gold mine that is located near Goldboro, Guysborough County, Nova Scotia (see Figures 1a and 1b). The Goldboro Gold Project (the Project) will include a conventional open-pit mining operation and a 4 000 tonnes per day concentrator / processing facility. Tailings produced from the processing circuit are proposed to be stored on the project site in an engineered, fully lined tailings management facility (TMF). The Project also includes three waste rock storage areas, till and organic material stockpiles, and associated infrastructure.

The scope of the Project includes activities associated with construction, operation, and closure. Construction is anticipated in February 2026, commissioning in 2027, operations until 2038, and initiation of closure in 2039. The majority of earthworks associated with the construction phase will occur in 2026. All permanent loss of fish habitat will occur during the earthworks phase of construction. The anticipated mine life is approximately nine years, while the mill may run for an additional one and a half years to continue processing the lower-grade ore that accumulated during the development of the extraction areas.

Figure 1a: Location of the Goldboro Gold Project in Nova Scotia

Figure 1a: Location of the Goldboro Gold Project in Nova Scotia - Text version

The figure shows a map of Nova Scotia with a scale of 1:1,000,000 with distances on the map measured in kilometres, indicating the general location of the Goldboro Gold Mine near the middle of the map, identified by a yellow star. The map shows the location of the project in relation to major cities, which include Halifax to the southwest, and Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island to the north. The Trans-Canada Highway 104 crosses from west to east through Nova Scotia and continues as Trans-Canada Highway 105 towards the northeast.

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

Figure 1b: Project Area of the Goldboro Gold Project

Figure 1b: Project Area of the Goldboro Gold Project - Text version

The figure shows a map of the Goldboro Gold Project site at a scale of 1:50,000 with the project area outlined in red at the centre of the map and north of Goldboro, Nova Scotia. The Atlantic Ocean is located at the bottom of the map, Ocean Lake to the northeast of the project area, and Stewart Lake and Meadow Lake to the northwest of the project area. Historic tailings are highlighted in pink, both located south of the project area.

The legend is located at the right of the figure describes the colours used to indicate features on the map, including the project area, mapped watercourses and wetlands, the habitat study area and historic tailings.

Mine infrastructure to affect fish-frequented water bodies 

The mine plan includes two open pits (East Pit and West Pit). The mine will also include an ore processing facility, a TMF, three waste rock storage areas, overburden and organic stockpiles, support buildings, and associated infrastructure. All till and organic stockpiles, waste rock storage areas, employee accommodations, mill areas and water treatment ponds have been placed in a manner to avoid direct impacts to fish habitat.

Tailings management facility 

Tailings produced from the processing circuit are proposed to be stored on site in an engineered and lined TMF. Potentially acid generating tailings and waste rock will be managed through co-placement in separate locations within the TMF. This will maintain both the tailings and the waste rock below a water cover and in a saturated state to prevent the onset of acid rock drainage conditions and help reduce metal leaching from the potentially acid generating material. A series of small unnamed watercourses will be impacted by the preferred TMF plan and need to be designated as tailings impoundment areas (TIAs) in Schedule 2 of the MDMER.

Environmental assessment of the Goldboro Gold Project 

The Project was subject to a provincial environmental assessment (EA) in accordance with paragraph 13(1)b of the Environmental Assessment Regulations, pursuant to Part IV of the Nova Scotia Environment Act. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change of Nova Scotia approved the Project subject to conditions on August 2, 2022. The Proponent is currently working to meet the EA conditions, complete all necessary provincial and federal permitting, and move forward with the Project.

The Proponent is also seeking an authorization under paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act. This authorization, if issued, would allow the carrying on of a work, undertaking or activity that results in the death of fish by means other than fishing and the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat.

Objective

The objective of the amendments is to list waters frequented by fish in Schedule 2 of the MDMER designating them as TIAs.

Description

The amendments will list one geographical area (see Figure 2) encompassing seven water bodies to Schedule 2 of the MDMER designating them as TIAs. These seven water bodies represent a loss of 0.27 ha of fish habitat. The amendments will allow the deposit 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 Goldboro Gold Project site at a scale of 1:2,000. The water bodies to be listed in Schedule 2 of the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations (MDMER) are outlined in red. The geographic area to be listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER is shown in yellow and the footprint of the proposed tailings management facility footprint is shown in light grey.

A legend to the right of the figure describes the colours used to indicate features on the map, including schedule 2 waterbodies, schedule 2 watercourses, schedule 2 polygon, and mine infrastructure.

Regulatory development

Consultation

On May 27, 2024, the Department launched public consultations on the amendments in collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). A virtual public consultation period was open from May 27, 2024, to July 27, 2024. Details of the proposed amendments and instructions for submitting comments were published on a consultation website. This website included links to the FHCP, as well as links to additional documentation informing the amendments, such as the Assessment of Alternatives (AA) report and plain language summaries of both the FHCP and the AA report.

The Minister of the Environment may recommend exemption from prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, for regulatory amendments designating certain water bodies as TIAs to the Governor in Council, 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.

From May 27, 2024, to July 27, 2024, the Department advertised the opportunity to provide comments via a series of social media posts on the Department’s official Facebook, LinkedIn and X, formerly known as Twitter, accounts. The Department released bilingual messages on each platform dated May 27, June 27 and July 12 to request public input and a reminder of the timelines for public participation. The Department also collaborated with the Municipality of the District of Guysborough to publish a public consultation notice on its website. As a result of the Department’s public consultation outreach, a total of 208 comments were submitted during the public engagement period. The public comments were composed of general comments (97), letters as part of an environmental campaign (91), letters of support (16) and letters from environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs) [4]. A total of 50 comments referred to the destruction of water courses and habitat as the most common theme. The comments specifically expressed concerns about habitat loss, potentially affecting species at risk and highlighted the risk of pollution from tailings entering the watershed and surrounding fish habitats. Additionally, there was opposition to the permanent loss of fish habitat for short-term profits, with worries that such losses are irreversible. The comments emphasized a preference for environmental protection over habitat destruction for gold mining projects, which many commenters deemed unnecessary. There were very few comments specific to the FHCP proposed by the Proponent. The Department, with input from the Proponent and DFO, prepared a response to address every comment. The response outlined how the project design minimizes impacts on lake environments and avoids brook trout and American eel habitats. It highlighted the role of the MDMER in pollution prevention by specifying effluent discharge limits for harmful substances, ensuring that these limits do not pose acute threats to fish and invertebrates. Additionally, the response detailed the management of long-term mine waste disposal to protect Canada’s terrestrial and aquatic environments. This included a review of alternative disposal methods in case impacts on fish-populated waters cannot be avoided. The Department also invited ENGOs to virtual meetings resulting in one confirmation from the Ecology Action Centre (EAC).

On July 25, 2024, the EAC emailed the Department to comment that the work outlined in the proposed FHCP should be completed, but it had concerns about the plan’s effectiveness to counterbalance permanent damage to fish habitat. The EAC also commented that the AA originally envisioned a portion of the mining to be done underground and asked why this was not evaluated in the AA. Additionally, the EAC commented that alternative placements for the TIA were not considerate of historic tailings areas.

The Department responded on September 24, 2024, and explained its responsibilities under the MDMER to objectively and rigorously assess all feasible options for mine waste disposal. To support this, the Department shared the Guidelines on the assessment of alternatives for mine waste disposal and the AA for the Project with specific reference to the sections outlining the different options for mine waste disposal. The Department also responded with information outlining DFO’s mandate and its regulatory process to assess proposed measures to protect key species, noting the FHCP will counterbalance impacts to fish and fish habitat in accordance with the Department’s Policy for Applying Measures to Offset Adverse Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat under the Fisheries Act. The Department indicated that active consultation with the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia included the Proponent and DFO in relation to the Goldboro Gold mine and concluded its letter by extending an offer to meet virtually to discuss the proposed federal authorizations under the Fisheries Act and the MDMER.

A virtual meeting was held on October 17, 2024, with representatives from the EAC, the Department, DFO and the Proponent. The EAC posed questions regarding the feasibility of underground mining, backfilling options and impacts to historic tailings. The Proponent explained that without the establishment of an underground mine, the project would require excavation and surface storage, which was deemed unfeasible due to the inefficiencies of double handling the materials. Additionally, the Proponent explained that underground storage workings and surgical mining techniques/directional drilling were evaluated, and that the technology would not be possible for this deposit. The Proponent indicated that historic tailings areas were included in the water quality evaluation, which determined that most of the historic tailings are located in highly wet areas, making them unsuitable for use as a TMF. A portion of the project will impact historic tailings that will end up in the lined TMF, otherwise historic tailings will not be impacted. The EAC also asked to know who takes responsibility to ensure FHCP projects are completed and monitored as scheduled. The Department explained that monitoring responsibility is a legal requirement under the MDMER, which is enforceable. The EAC asked DFO to clarify if the offsetting projects as part of the FHCP could result in the gain of fish habitat. DFO provided an overview of the proposed offsetting projects included in the FHCP, reviewed the adequacy of the FHCP and discussed DFO’s permitting process. Additionally, DFO outlined that the guiding principles of its Policy for applying measures to offset adverse effects on fish and fish habitat under the Fisheries Act include counterbalancing adverse effects on fish and fish habitat before recommending a FHCP to the Department for consultation. The EAC expressed satisfaction with the process of being consulted and did not raise any additional questions or concerns after the virtual meeting.

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 Government of Canada’s obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDA) to consult and cooperate with Indigenous Peoples to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Indigenous communities have been engaged and consulted on the AA report and FHCP, and their questions and concerns have been addressed. However, the Department is still awaiting technical comments on the FHCP from the Sipekne’katik First Nation.

Engagement and consultation with Indigenous communities began on March 7, 2024, and have concluded, except for the receipt of technical comments on the FHCP from the Sipekne’katik First Nation. The Department will collaborate with DFO and the Proponent to address any remaining comments or concerns submitted by the Sipekne’katik First Nation regarding the proposed FHCP.

The Department, in collaboration with DFO, consulted with Indigenous communities within or near the project that may be adversely impacted by the amendments to discuss the regulatory and permitting phase for the Project. Written communications were sent by email to the Indigenous communities potentially impacted by the Project, including the Kwilmu’kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office (KMKNO), Acadia First Nation, Annapolis Valley First Nation, Bear River First Nation, Eskasoni First Nation, Glooscap First Nation, Paqtnkek Mi’kmaw Nation, Pictou Landing First Nation, Potlotek First Nation, Wagmatcook First Nation, We’koqma’q First Nation, Sipekne’katik First Nation, Millbrook First Nation and Membertou First Nation.

The KMKNO, which represents 10 of the 13 Mi’kmaq communities (Acadia First Nation, Annapolis Valley First Nation, Bear River First Nation, Eskasoni First Nation, Glooscap First Nation, Paqtnkek Mi’kmaw Nation, Pictou Landing First Nation, Potlotek First Nation, Wagmatcook First Nation, and We’koqma’q First Nation), along with the Sipekne’katik First Nation, actively participated in the consultation process. They provided feedback as needed and engaged through various platforms, including emails, regulatory consultation web pages and multiple meetings. Numerous attempts were made to contact Millbrook First Nation and Membertou First Nation, who are not represented by the KMKNO, but no responses were received.

Between March 2024 and March 2025, the Department and DFO consulted with the KMKNO and the Sipekne’katik First Nation to establish a path forward regarding regulatory consultations. They requested a technical review of the FHCP and engaged in discussions to address issues and comments. Details of this engagement and consultation with each nation are provided below.

Consultation with Kwilmu’kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office

On April 17, 2024, in response to the communication sent on March 7, 2024, by the Department, the KMKNO indicated that they would like to proceed with consultation on the FHCP. On May 1, 2024, the Department and DFO met virtually with the KMKNO for an introductory meeting to explain the regulatory process for a Schedule 2 amendment. The KMKNO raised concern regarding proposed offsetting ratios in the FHCP and indicated a larger offsetting ratio was preferred. On June 11, 2024, the Proponent, and DFO organized a site visit with members of the KMKNO to further explain and discuss concerns related to offsetting ratios. On July 31, 2024, the Department sent a letter to the KMKNO to offer further explanation regarding offsetting ratios proposed in the FHCP. The Department also sent a summary of the public consultation data for the Project on October 9, 2024, as requested by the KMKNO. On November 6, 2024, the KMKNO indicated by email to the Department that it had no further comments on the amendments.

Consultation with the Sipekne’katik First Nation

On April 30, 2024, the Department and DFO met virtually with the Sipekne’katik First Nation for an introductory meeting to explain the regulatory process for a Schedule 2 amendment. The Sipekne’katik First Nation provided information on the Sipekne’katik Governance Initiative Protocol (SGI) outlining how the community members want to be consulted regarding matters impacting rights and titles. On June 11, 2024, a site visit to the Goldboro Gold Interpretive Centre was organized to discuss the proposed projects for the FHCP and included a visit to see one stream system that is a proposed offset project, and a second stream system in the area where this type of restoration has already been completed. The participants included one member of the SGI, two members of the KMKNO, DFO, the Department and the Proponent. The Proponent gave a presentation on the proposed fish habitat offsetting projects, offset ratios and described in stream restoration techniques during the site visit where there is an opportunity for local employment related to remediation work.

On November 13, 2024, the Department met virtually with members of the SGI team and DFO to discuss updates on the Project and its review under the SGI protocol. The SGI team indicated that its review of the FHCP was ongoing, and that once completed, SGI comments would be sent to Chief and Council for a decision. DFO presented an overview of the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction and explained the proposed offsetting ratios with examples of intended project impacts. DFO asked the SGI team if there were any concerns regarding the regulatory process. The SGI team responded that the Sipekne’katik First Nation had no questions regarding the regulatory process and that it would proceed to review the FHCP and consult with the community. The SGI team indicated to the Department on December 6, 2024, that an official response from Chief and Council with respect to the amendments will be submitted to the Department.

On March 18, 2025, the Department received a letter from the Sipekne’katik First Nation requesting further information, such as effluent management and regulations concerning dilution of effluent. Additionally, the Sipekne’katik First Nation wrote that it considers the proposed FHCP to be insufficient and that further comments will be forthcoming. On March 28, 2025, the Department sent a response letter to the Sipekne’katik First Nation providing information on the MDMER and requirements related to mine waste as well as minimum requirements on the quality of the effluent that can be discharged and mentioned that the MDMER explicitly prohibits the dilution of effluent prior to deposit. Finally, the Department offered to arrange another site visit and meeting with DFO to better understand concerns related to the FHCP. The Department will continue to work in collaboration with DFO and the Proponent to address any remaining comments or concerns submitted by the Sipekne’katik First Nation on the proposed FHCP.

Consultation undertaken by the Proponent

In 2017, the Proponent began engaging with the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia to discuss the impacts on fish and fish habitat, identify potential offsetting projects and explore opportunities for partnership and collaboration. The Proponent contacted individual community members familiar with the local landscape to identify any degraded fish habitats near the Project that require restoration or enhancements.

The Proponent subsequently engaged Indigenous communities in the development of fish habitat offsetting measures. This engagement included staff from the KMKNO, Paqtnkek First Nation (Chief and Council and community meeting), the Unama’ki Institute of Natural Resources (UINR) and Mi’kmaw Conservation Group (MCG). Engagement efforts continued until May 2023 with these nations. Additionally, the Proponent assisted the Department during consultations on the amendments by providing responses to questions or concerns related to the Project, its impacts on fish and fish habitat, and the AA for mine waste disposal.

Since early 2017, the Proponent also led public engagement activities in support of the provincial Environmental Assessment (EA) process for the Project. This includes community and virtual open houses, ongoing two-way information sharing with the Community Liaison Committee (CLC), and meetings with interested stakeholders. In the fall of 2022, the Proponent initiated engagement with the Municipality of the District of Guysborough (MODG) and the Guysborough County Inland Fisheries Association (GCIFA) about potential offsetting projects in the region. Through this engagement, the restoration/creation of coastal eel grass habitat was identified as a potential fishery offsetting opportunity but was not brought forward into the final plan based on the advice and recommendations provided by DFO. DFO determined that it was not the most appropriate option, considering the relevance of the species targeted, the project’s location and its likelihood of long-term success.

Furthermore, the Proponent has concluded a Community Benefits Agreement with the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs (ANSMC). The Benefits Agreement will cover all phases of the Project and outlines the economic, environmental, cultural, employment and other benefits to be provided to the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia. It reflects the commitment of the Mi’kmaq to protect and enhance the land and resource-based economy within its traditional territory and the collective desire of each party to pursue mutually beneficial social and economic opportunities, while respecting the principles of environmental stewardship.

On January 31, 2025, the Paqtnkek Mi’kmaw Nation, the nearest Mi’kmaw community to the Goldboro mine, sent a letter to the Minister. In the letter, they expressed their appreciation for the Proponent’s collaboration with their community on the proposed FHCP and emphasized the value of their partnership with the Proponent. Additionally, the Nation recommended expediting the Schedule 2 amendments and the Fisheries Act authorization to prevent further delays in financing and construction, which could hinder economic and collaborative opportunities associated with the Project.

Instrument choice

Non-regulatory options would involve the disposal of tailings 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 several options in its assessment of alternatives for TIAs 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 initial step in the assessment process identified 13 candidate options for a TMF. Nine candidate options that did not meet the pre-screening criteria during the fatal flaw review were not carried forward. Four TMF options were carried forward for further assessment. While all other project components related to mine waste deposition were planned to avoid waters frequented by fish (i.e. waste rock storage areas, ditches and settling ponds, and other stockpiles for organics, till, overburden and low-grade ore), the four TMF options described below were assessed to avoid other sensitive constraints, and would impact waters frequented by fish (i.e. regulatory options). There were no viable non-regulatory options (i.e. land-based options) for the disposal of mine waste that would not have impacted fish-frequented water bodies.

Assessment of options for the Tailings Management Facility

The prescreening assessment evaluated thirteen potential TMF options, and excluded alternatives based on the following fatal flaws:

• Overprinting potential ore;
• Overprinting other infrastructure (other infrastructure has been placed to avoid fish and other environmental impacts);
• Not providing enough capacity for the chosen storage method;
• Impacting the natural gas pipeline; and
• Impacting a mapped watercourse connected to confirmed Atlantic salmon habitat.

The prescreening assessment identified four options (i.e. options 4, 5, 6 and 8) as suitable candidates for the TMF. These four alternatives were assessed through the characterization and Multiple Accounts Analysis (MAA). Table 1 below shows a high-level comparison of the alternatives.

Table 1: High-level summary of the TMF options carried over for a multiple accounts analysis

Alternative	Advantages	Disadvantages
TMF Option 4 (preferred option)	Located within the drainage of the approved mine site watercourses or water bodies Smallest footprint Likely to be the least expensive, due to smaller embankment volumes, proximity to the open pits, and ease of tailings transport. Discharges into a historical contaminated receiving water body, rather than a pristine aquatic system	Overprints field confirmed fish habitat
TMF Option 5	Uses the highest proportion of already disturbed land (clear-cut) Avoids ATV trails Relatively low embankments	Different secondary watershed from project infrastructure Salmon habitat as a downstream receptor Highest impact to predicted high suitable moose habitat Upstream from and closest to cabin owners on Ocean Lake Highest pumping requirements
TMF Option 6	N/A	Different secondary watershed from project infrastructure Salmon habitat as a downstream receptor Upstream of community of Goldboro The TMF is constrained by waterways on the North and East embankments and by a pipeline easement on the west, there is little room for expansion without realignment of the streams and pipeline
TMF Option 8	No downstream receptors Closest to open pits requiring the shortest haulage distance Furthest from protected areas	Overprints suspected ore reserve Impacts private land Highest wetland impact Highest impact to potential rare epiphytic lichen habitat

The preferred TMF Option 4 keeps discharge within the same watershed as the rest of the project infrastructure and limits impacts to environmentally sensitive features. It has the smallest footprint area of the alternatives, is closest to the plant site, and is considered to possess good foundation conditions along the embankment alignments based on geotechnical investigations. This alternative is likely to be the least expensive, due to smaller embankment volumes, proximity to the open pits, and ease of tailings transport.

Figure 3: Project infrastructure showing preferred alternative TMF Option 4

Figure 3: Project infrastructure showing preferred alternative TMF Option 4 - Text version

The figure shows the project area of the Goldboro mine outlined in red. The tailings management facility is located in the northeast part of the project area. The east and west pits are located in the bottom-half of the map with four waste rock storage areas surrounding the pits. At the centre of the project area is Gold Brook Lake.

A legend in the bottom of the figure describes the colours used to indicate features on the map including the project area, the tailings management facility, the waste rock storage area and the proposed site road.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

Analytical framework

The analysis below examines the incremental impacts of the amendments on the environment, Indigenous peoples, businesses (the Proponent) and the Government. While costs to 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 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 enhance fish production, improving fish habitat, and creating productive and sustainable fish habitats in areas where none previously existed. The cost and environmental impacts of the amendments could change if the FHCP is subsequently amended to further accommodate Indigenous interests.

Environmental impacts

The deposition of mine waste from the placement of the TMF (Figure 4) will destroy seven fish-frequented water bodies. The TMF will overprint an area of 0.27 ha of fish habitat across seven watercourses (WC15, WC43, WC45, WC47, WC49, WC57, WC99). The fish collection and habitat characterization studies showed that brook trout and American eel are found in these watercourses. Despite no connection to fish bearing streams and no fish capture in WC57 and WC99, these two watercourses were included as fish habitat in the effects assessment of the offsetting plan.

FHCP East Pomquet River offsetting project

To compensate for the loss of fish habitat, the Proponent developed a proposed FHCP as required under section 27.1 of the MDMER. This proposed plan identifies five offsetting measures involving the instream restoration and enhancement of degraded waterways in the Salmon River, Country Harbour River, Guysborough River, and Pomquet River watersheds. The loss of fish habitat in the watercourses due to mine waste disposal in the TMF is proposed to be compensated specifically through the East Pomquet River offset project (Figure 4). Stream restoration and enhancement is proposed along 3 300 m of East Pomquet River in two sections where degraded habitat has been identified and will result in the gain of 0.54 ha of fish habitat.

The East Pomquet River is a trout and salmon river that has been highly impacted by channelization and straightening activities for farmland drainage from the 1800s until the 1980s. The lower extent of the river was previously restored by the Antigonish Rivers Association through bank stabilization projects, riparian buffer establishment, and the installation of digger logs. The upper portion of the river remains oversimplified and lacks pools, hindering upstream migration of salmon to spawning areas. To promote the recovery of in-stream habitats, 63 restoration structures would be installed (e.g. digger logs, deflectors, rock sills) by hand. The objective of the project is to mimic the natural components of a healthy aquatic ecosystem and restore the components of habitat complexity. These measures are designed to improve accessibility to key habitat components and increase instream habitat connectivity for target species, such as Atlantic salmon and brook trout. To support and restore the various life stages of salmonids, enhancements to spawning habitat would be made. These restoration techniques are well proven and are widely used throughout Nova Scotia for freshwater fish habitat restoration. The Pomquet River is also in proximity to Paqtnkek Mi’kmaw First Nation and is noted as an important river system for the community with potential collaboration opportunities.

Figure 4: East Pomquet River offsetting project

Figure 4: East Pomquet River offsetting project - Text version

The bottom-right corner of the figure shows a smaller map of Nova Scotia coast with the location of the Goldboro mine circled in red at the bottom and a yellow square highlighting the enlarged area.

The main figure shows an enlarged area at a 1:50,000 scale map shows the Pomquet River watershed outlined in pink located near Beauly, Nova Scotia. At the centre of the figure, two sections of East Pomquet River are highlighted: the top half is Section 1 highlighted in purple, and the bottom half is Section 2 highlighted in green.

The legend located at the right of the figure describes the colours used to indicate features on the map, including the natural watercourses, sections of the East Pomquet River and the boundary of the Pomquet River Secondary Watershed.

Cost to business

The implementation of the proposed FHCP associated with the amendments to compensate for the destruction of 0.27 ha of fish habitat is estimated to cost $0.064 million.^{footnote 6} The Proponent must submit an irrevocable letter of credit, or equivalent financial guarantee, covering implementation costs of the plan. Table 3 describes the estimated costs associated with the implementation of the proposed FHCP. The associated construction activities involve narrowing the East Pomquet River channel, restoring and enhancing spawning and pool habitats, improving river flow and channel for fish passage through the site, and developing a consistent meandering channel throughout to provide a variety of habitats within the river (i.e. pool-riffle-run sequences). Post-construction monitoring activities involve site surveys and reports on both constructed habitat and impacts on fish. For example, monitoring activities to document the stability, condition, and function of structures will be done each year and summarized in an annual report. In 2027, 2029 and 2031, habitat suitability index surveys, and a combination of salmon spawning nest surveys and electrofishing surveys will be conducted to assess impacts on spawning and species presence, abundance and age structures.

Table 2: Cost estimate of the fish habitat compensation plan (FHCP) over 6 years

Description	Undiscounted amount in 2024 Canadian dollars	Amount discounted at a rate table 3 note a of 3%	Proposed schedule
Construction	$38,981	$37,845	(2026)
Monitoring	$25,142	$22,362	(2026–2031)
Total	$64,123	$60,207	(2026–2031)
Table 3 note(s) Table 3 note a The discount rate of 3% applied to different years based on the schedule of the activity. Construction and monitoring cost categories are inclusive of contingency. 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 associated with site visits, monitoring and review of the FHCP to ensure compliance with the Fisheries Act and the MDMER. These incremental costs will be low, given that monitoring activities and associated costs will occur intermittently during the implementation of the FHCP. Therefore, the total incremental costs to the Government of Canada associated with the proposed FHCP will be low.

Cost-benefit statement

Table 3A: Quantified impacts to Goldboro Gold Mines Inc. (2024 price level in constant dollars [$ millions[)

Impact	Total (present value)	Annualized average (6 years)
Costs	0.060	0.011

Table 3B: Quantified (non-monetized) impacts to Indigenous peoples and the general public

Impacts	Description
Positive impacts	The implementation of a proposed FHCP, which will result in a direct gain of 0.54 ha of fish habitat.
Negative impacts	The loss of fish habitat associated with the disposal of tailings and waste rock amounts to 0.27 ha.

Small business lens

There are no impacts on small businesses 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 businesses.

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 (SEEA).

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 (GBA+) 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 disposal of mine waste.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

The amendments come into force on the day on which they are registered. The amendments will designate the use of certain water bodies that are frequented by fish for the disposal of tailings generated from the activities of the Goldboro Gold Project. The Proponent can only begin to deposit mine waste in the TIAs listed in Schedule 2 of the MDMER once the Minister has approved the FHCP and all the conditions under section 27.1 of the MDMER have been met.

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 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, review of FHCPs 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

Matthew 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