Post on 26-Dec-2015
Freshwater Aquatic Organisms and Habitat (2004-2007)
Rick Palmer
Senior Fisheries Biologist
Sharleen Hamm
Aquatic Ecologist
Outline
1. Purpose of Program – EA vs. Operational
2. Biological Setting
3. Impact Statements
4. Common Issues
1. Non-Fish Bearing Status
2. Water Withdrawal
• water supply
• winter road
3. Reference Lakes
4. Compensation
Purpose of Program
• Collect sufficient information to:– characterize the existing environment
– describe the baseline conditions
– answer EA questions
– assist the engineers in focussing the design of the mine plan to areas of minimal impact, and
– inform development of the AEMP during the licensing stage
• Commit to developing a conceptual AEMP to support the EA process
• Develop AEMP based on the final approved mine plan and EA conclusions
Biological Setting
• Project area drains to the north
• Numerous lakes drain into the Kennarctic R., which drains to Grays Bay
• Lakes contain lake trout and/or Arctic char
• Kennarctic R. contains lake trout, Arctic char (resident and anadromous) and forage species
• Approximately 50% of the lakes studied in the High Lake and Granite Lake drainage areas do not contain fish
Biological Setting
• Barriers for fish between the Kennarctic R. and High Lake and Granite Lakes drainage areas
• No barriers for fish migration in the Kennarctic R. mainstem
• Streams are typically either wide with boulders or narrow with fines
• Kennarctic R. comprises a series of wide, deep pools linked together by shallow, fast moving reaches
Biological Setting
• Lakes are:
• well oxygenated
• very soft
• low in nutrients
• little buffering capacity (highly sensitive to acidic input), and
• have detectable trace metal concentrations
• High Lake itself has elevated levels of metals (copper, cadmium and zinc) and is acutely toxic to fish
• 2 VECs– Arctic char and lake trout
• 2 Impact Statements:– FF1: construction, operation, closure and post closure
activities affecting surface water quality may have an effect on freshwater fish health and populations
• 3 pathways– FF2: construction, operation, closure and post closure
activities affecting surface water quality may have an effect on freshwater fish habitat
• 4 pathways
Impact Statements
Impact Statements (cont)
• FF1: Health and Populations
– Pathway 1: Discharge from Tailings Impoundment (L16)
• All parameters meet threshold values for the protection of aquatic life, except selenium and copper
Impact Statements (cont)
– Copper (CCME Guideline = 0.002 mg/L)
• Increases to 0.0033 mg/L immediately downstream of discharge point (June – Sept, Years 4, 5, 6, 10, 11)
• short term, temporary, low magnitude
• Background concentrations of up to 0.0058 mg/L
• No significant adverse effect
Impact Statements (cont)
– Selenium (CCME Guideline = 0.001 mg/L)
• Increases to 0.0011 – 0.0019 mg/L immediately downstream of discharge point (June – Sept, Years 6, 10, 11)
• short term, temporary, low magnitude
• Other jurisdictions acknowledge unpredictable effects with wide range of guidelines. Body burden in fish more useful than water concentration
• No significant adverse effect
• Will monitor body burden in fish
Impact Statements (cont)
• FF1: Health and Populations (cont)
– Pathway 2 : Sedimentation from site runoff and road crossings
• Levels are predicted to remain below indicator thresholds
• No significant adverse affect
Impact Statements (cont)
• FF1: Health and Populations (cont)
– Pathway 3: Explosive Detonation
• Follow “Guidelines for the Use of Explosives in or Near Canadian Waters” (Wright and Hopky, 1998)
• No significant adverse affect
Impact Statements (cont)
• FF2: Fish Habitat
– Pathway 1: Sedimentation
• Mitigation, using best management practices and established thresholds (CCME)
• Monitoring during construction phase
• No significant adverse affect
Impact Statements (cont)
• FF2: Fish Habitat (cont)– Pathway 2: Water Withdrawal from
lakes L4 and L5
• Summer: negligible impacts
• Winter: lake volumes (L4 and L5) will be reduced by 5-6%; water depth reduced by 0.3-0.6m
• Applied DFO protocol for winter water withdrawal
• No significant adverse affect
Impact Statements (cont)
• FF2: Fish Habitat (cont)
– Pathway 3: Channel Diversions
• Channels do not contain fish habitat or flow in/out of fish bearing lakes
• No significant adverse affect
Impact Statements (cont)
• FF2: Fish Habitat (cont)
– Pathway 4: Stream and Lake Infilling
• Impacts expected at four stream crossings and one lake crossing along the all-season road
• Draft No-Net-Loss Plan has been developed in consultation with DFO
Common Concerns
1. Non Fish-Bearing Status
• High Lake: Not Fish-Bearing Extensive sampling (2004-2006)
Fish capture methods and effort:
gill nets: 20 sets; all depths; 1,170 hrs
angling: 4 hrs
trotline: 4 sets: 73 hrs
minnow trapping 28 sets; 49 hrs
Water quality program
failed toxicity test at 2 locations
concentration of copper, cadmium and zinc exceed CCME Guidelines by 50 to 100 times
Common Issues (cont)
1. Non Fish-Bearing Status
• Other Lakes Fishing Effort:
Extensive sampling was conducted (2004-2006) with a minimum of 2 methods/lake
Gill nets, angling, minnow traps and/or electrofishing
14 lakes fished within mine footprint
No fish captured
Common Issues (cont)
2. Water Withdrawal – water supply
• Issue – DFO protocol is not appropriate for establishing thresholds for water supply
• Discussion why is the protocol acceptable in the NWT, but not
Nunavut?
what is an acceptable threshold?
should we expand project footprint to accommodate a different supply lake (i.e., L718)?
winter water supply vs. winter road construction - how do they differ?
Water Supply Model
INPUT
% Lake30 L4
70 L5
0 L718
OUTPUT
Variable Lake
L4 L5 L718
Total amount of water withdrawal (m³) 102,060 238,140 -
Days of water withdrawal 243 243 243
Water withdrawal (%) 30 70 0
Total loss of lake volume (%) 5.7 5.4 0.0
Loss of water depth (m) 0.30 0.60 0.00
* lake volume +/- 0.2%* loss of water depth is rounded up to the nearest .05m
Percentage of total water supply
Common Issues (cont)
2. Water Withdrawal - winter road
• Issue – Rating curve is not appropriate for determining lake volumes along the winter road
• Discussion approach was discussed in consultation with DFO
road will only be operational for 2 years
model indicates less than 2% loss of total lake volume
Surface Area-Volume Relationship #1
y = 12798x1.4044
R2 = 0.959
0.00E+00
5.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.50E+07
2.00E+07
2.50E+07
3.00E+07
3.50E+07
0 50 100 150 200 250
Surface Area (ha)
Vo
lum
e (
m3
)
2004 - 2005 Lakes
Power (2004 - 2005 Lakes)
n=48
Surface Area-Volume Relationship #2
Common Issues (cont)
3. Reference Lakes
• Issue - Reference lakes are within the mine footprint
• Discussion We have looked at 3 reference lakes, but they
don’t fit the requirements
Zinifex is committed to finding a suitable reference lake for the project
Common Issues (cont)
4. Habitat Compensation
• Issue - Proposed habitat compensation may not be appropriate.
• Discussion Currently proposing artificial reef
construction in L800 already impacted
Considering fish habitat enhancement opportunities near Kugluktuk (discussions with HTO and DFO)